From JFK Law Corporation on Behalf of Káínai First Nation to the Joint

Comments on the sufficiency and technical merit of the Grassy Mountain Coal Mine Environmental Impact Assessment - January 21, 2019

Participant: Káínai First Nation (Blood Tribe)

EIA Reference Comments/Questions EIA Generally Volume 2, The EIA states: “TK/TU is considered on par with scientific knowledge; and Aboriginal groups are key Section H, contributors to the assessment of potential effects of the Project on to the environment”. p.H-9 While the Proponent claims that it incorporates Aboriginal TK/TU into its assessment, on par with scientific knowledge, it appears that in the execution of the EIA and in the details of each section, TU/TK was not consistently or systematically considered in the selection of valued components, the choice of spatial and temporal boundaries, and in the selection of mitigation measures; rather these were chosen based on industry best-practices and not necessarily drawn from TK.

Káínai requests that the EIA be revised to ensure that TU/TK is incorporated into the assessment on par with scientific knowledge, and include an explanation of how TU/TK was incorporated, including in: • The selection of valued components • Choice of spatial temporal • selection of mitigation measures

Volume 2, The Proponent states that “[Although] Benga appreciates and respects the traditional value of many Section H, wildlife species to Aboriginal Groups, not all species with traditional value identified in the available p.H-10 TU/TK reports or from Aboriginal Consultation sessions could be individually assessed.” The Proponent further states “TK/TU information has been considered throughout the report, however, the majority of the information that we received is most directly related to Wildlife and Vegetation”.

It is quite reasonable to expect that much of the TK information would relate to wildlife and vegetation, but even within those sections of the EIA, the Proponent did not seriously consider TK: “(t)he proposed 2

mitigation measures described throughout this assessment are based on industry standards and best practices. Mitigation measures proposed to specifically address potential effects to Aboriginal groups are the Aboriginal Access Management Plan and the Cultural Site Contingency Plan (Appendix 7d) which will be informed by TK/TU and developed in consultation with Aboriginal groups”(ibid).

In other words, at the time of submission of its EIA, the Proponent had yet to identify potential mitigation measures to address potential effects to Aboriginal groups.

Volume 2, Beginning in February 2014, the Proponent and Káínai began planning for a Traditional Use and Section H, p. Traditional Knowledge Study of the Grassy Mountain Project that was intended to document traditional H-26. knowledge and use, identify potential effects of the Project, and encourage KÁÍNAI to provide input on mitigation of potential effects. The information collected during the study “is the intellectual property of Káínai Nation and is confidential. The Káínai Nation TK/TU study is a summary of outcomes of the fieldwork and information related to the Project that is approved by Káínai Nation for use in the EA process”(Volume 2, Section H, p. H-26).

The report of the Káínai TK/TU study, while provided to Káínai for review, was actually prepared by consultants hired directly by the Proponent. Káínai has since commissioned another TLU Study, which has been shared with the proponent and will be provided to the JRP in relation to this assessment. Hunting Volume 2, The Project activities and components would impact biophysical components of the Project area that Section H, could “change identified hunted species and habitat, use or access to identified hunting locations, and p.H-38; preferred harvesting method”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-38). This Project-related environmental change Volume 1, to wildlife species and habitat therefore could have a potential effect on Káínai’s hunting success in the Section E.9.3 Project area. The Proponent recognizes that these effects would require mitigation and states: “Input provided by Káínai Nation during consultation is considered in the identification of potential effects and proposed mitigation measures”(ibid).

However, the reader is then directed to Section E.9.3 which describes the generic Project effects for moose, elk and bear, including “potential direct effects to wildlife from land clearing, surface mining and construction of infrastructure and roads” as well as “wildlife habitat loss” and “habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-38; see also Volume1, Section E.9.3). While potential 3

effects to hunting stem from Project impacts on wildlife, direct effects to wildlife are not the only factors that would affect Káínai hunting. Other factors such as access through and around the site, preference for a particular species, purpose of the hunt (subsistence vs ceremony), may also be affected by the Project in direct and indirect ways (see comments in this regard at pages 22-23 of the Blood Tribe/Káínai Traditional Knowledge and Use Assessment – Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 2018.” Volume 2, To identify the potential effects to Káínai hunting, the Proponent directs the reader to its generic Section H, identification of potential effects to “land use activities related to hunting and recreational uses” which are p.H-38; see also Volume 1, in Section E.10.3 (Volume 2, Section H, p.H-38; see also Volume 1, Section E.10.3). The Proponent, in Section E.10.3 the section intended to identify potential Project effects to Káínai equates Káínai’s use of the area with access for recreational use. This position ignores the protected status of Káínai hunting as an Aboriginal and Treaty right. Volume 2, The mitigation measures that the Proponent proposes to address potential Project effects to Káínai Section H, hunting are the generic mitigation measures it proposes in its assessment of wildlife (Volume 1, Section p.H-38 E.9.5) and socioeconomic impacts (Volume 1, Section E.11.5). These mitigation measures are therefore generic to all Aboriginal groups and wildlife components and are therefore not specific to Káínai. Fishing Volume 2, The proponent discusses the potential Project effects and mitigation measures for Káínai fishing. “Káínai Section Nation advised they have a fishing interest in the Project area and identified species including westslope H.3.4.1.2 cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, bull trout, suckers, squaw fish, pike, whitefish, and walleye”( Káínai, 2016 cited in Volume 2, Section H, p.H-39). As with hunting, the Proponent’s assessment of Project effects on Káínai fishing then reiterates its generic effects assessment for aquatic resources and land use and management. The Proponent’s proposed “mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to the availability of fishing areas to the Káínai Nation include: The development and implementation of an Aboriginal Access Management Plan (Appendix 7di) for the construction and operation phases of the Project. This AAMP would include notification of access restrictions during construction as required for safety purposes to allow for planning alternate fishing locations; Consultation will include sharing information about construction timing”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-39). 4

Once again, as with hunting, access to portions of the Mine Permit Area provide the key to mitigation of potential Project effects to Káínai fishing. While access is important, the Proponent’s assessment ignores potential psychological effects of the mine’s presence on the desirability of fishing or consuming fish from the creeks in proximity to the open pit mine.

Plant Gathering Volume 2, The Proponent indicates that the assessment for vegetation (Consultant Report #8, Section 3.6 and 4.6 Section and Section E.8.3) and its discussion of land and resource use (Section E.10.3) “are relevant to the H.3.4.1.3 assessment on plant gathering. Section E.8.3 addresses potential effects on key vegetation species and habitat including the species identified by Káínai Nation”(in Volume 2, Section H, p. H-40).

The potential effect of the Project on Káínai plant gathering is depicted primarily as a result of the biophysical effects of the Project on vegetation. “Potential effects of the Project on vegetation resources are predominantly related to clearing of vegetation and physical alteration of the landscape for the Project’s mine pit and associated waste rock disposal areas and infrastructure”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-40). Volume 2, For effects to plant gathering, the Proponent does present some input from Káínai in regards to Section H, p. mitigation measures. “Input provided by Káínai Nation during consultation is considered in the H-40 identification of potential effects and proposed mitigation measures”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-40). One of the mitigation measures Káínai suggested for effects to plant gathering was “Timely harvest of medicinal and ceremonial plants prior to effect by the Project” (Káínai Nation 2015c in Volume 2, Section H, p.H-40). In response to Káínai’s mitigation measure, the Proponent states: “Benga will provide lodge pole pine that is cleared for the Project to Káínai Nation, Piikani Nation and Tsuu T’ina Nation. Benga will continue to work with Káínai Nation to identify other species of importance for harvesting in advance of construction activities in the Aboriginal Access Management Plan” (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-40). This mitigation measure is more appropriately to be considered as a measure to mitigate on a ‘one-time’ basis for the loss of plant resources in the first season of construction. However, it does not address or reduce the ongoing Project effects to vegetation resources in the mine area, nor does it address the Project’s contributions to the future loss of vegetation resources and the future decline of Káínai plant harvesting in the Project areas due to mining activities. 5

Volume 2, The Proponent presents ‘generic’ mitigation measures for vegetation and land and resource use to Section H, address potential Project effects to Káínai plant gathering. These are found in the EIA sections on p.H-41 Vegetation, in the Consultant Reports, and in the Consultation and Reclamation Plan (CR #8 Section 4.6.4; Section E.8.5 Vegetation and Section E.10.5 Land and Resource Use; Consultation & Reclamation plan (Section F.1.9) (see Volume 2, Section H, p.H-41). Among the proposed mitigation measures, the Proponent highlights mitigation for potential effects to Káínai plant gathering, specifically: • on-going consultation with Aboriginal Groups in designing mitigation measures for sustainable management of valued vegetation; • the implementation of a re-vegetation program which will aim at the re-establishment of vegetation communities, such as closed conifer forests, mature mixed forests, native upland herbaceous grasslands and treed swamps, common to the pre-disturbed landscape that will support valued vegetation; (p.H-41). • the implementation of a re-vegetation program that utilizes native vegetation species and does not include agronomic invasive species; • on Benga private land, lodgepole pine and other culturally important plants will be harvested and, will be made available to Aboriginal groups potentially affected by the Project; and • where practicable, utilize locally collected seed to preserve the legacy of species and of place (Volume 2, Section H, p.H-41). What is not clear in this mitigation measure is who will do the harvesting of the lodgepole pine and other culturally important plants, and whether the Proponent will invite Káínai harvesters to gather plants in the mine area prior to construction or whether it will provide lodge pole pine timber and other resources to Káínai. Volume 2, Additional mitigation measures that the Proponent suggests to minimize potential effects to Káínai from Section H, p. changes in the availability of plant gathering areas are: to “develop and implement an Aboriginal Access H-42 Management Plan (Appendix 7di) for construction and operation phases of the Project that includes notification of access restrictions during construction as required for safety purposes to allow for planning alternate plant gathering locations; Consultation will include sharing information about construction timing”(Volume 2, Section H, p. H-42). There is no mention of promoting or inviting Káínai members to participate in ongoing vegetation and reclamation monitoring programs for the life of the mine project. 6

Cultural Heritage Volume 2, The Proponent recognizes that “[t]he Project will intersect or be in proximity to sacred, gathering, and Section H, p. habitation sites identified by Káínai Nation. The Grassy Mountain area is used for ceremonies and there H-44-45 are three sacred sites identified by Káínai Nation as fully or partially overlapping the Project LSA”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-44). To identify the potential effects to Káínai ‘physical and cultural heritage’ the Proponent references its EIA sections that deal with land and resource use (Section E.10) and historical resources (Section E.13). While the Proponent does not provide input on Káínai’s preferred mitigation measures for sacred sites within the Project LSA, it does list its ‘generic’ mitigation measures from Section E.10.5 and Section E.13, including “if avoidance of any unnamed pre-contact period sites is not possible based on size, location, and complexity, a mitigation excavation will be conducted in advance of Project development” (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-44) and “if avoidance of any TK/TU features is not possible, Benga will work with Alberta Culture and Tourism and/or Aboriginal groups depending on the circumstances to develop and plan for mitigation of the site”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-45). It would appear then that avoidance would be the preferred mitigation measure but the Proponent does not clarify what particular measures it would consider to be feasible or possible to mitigate sacred sites within the mine site that may be disturbed or destroyed by mine activities. Instead, it indicates that it will conduct consultation and provide information to Káínai about construction timing, implement a “Cultural Site Discovery Contingency Plan,” and develop and implement an Aboriginal Access Management Plan (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-45).

Residual Effects Characterization Volume 1, Volume 1, Section D outlines the Proponent’s chosen criteria for the evaluation of significance of residual Section D effects, in other words, its analytical framework for assessing the impact. For each potential effect to the identified valued components (whether to wildlife, fisheries, vegetation or to related Aboriginal valued components/activities including hunting, fishing and plant gathering, for example), the Proponent is expected to assess the Project’s effect based on the following criteria (from Volume1, Section D, pp. D- 15 and D-16): 7

• magnitude • geographic extent • duration • frequency • reversibility • project contribution • confidence rating • probability of occurrence • significance What is missing from the overall framework is the criteria of direction of the effect: does the effect indicate a positive change (an increase in the quantity or quality of the valued component compared to baseline) or a negative change (a decrease in the status of the valued component compared to baseline). The direction of the effect could be stated as positive, negative or neutral. This is a key shortcoming of the EIA and its assessment methodology. Volume 2, In Section H Aboriginal Consultation, the Proponent describes how it adapted its overall analytical Section H, framework to characterize the Project’s residual effects (post-mitigation) on Aboriginal Valued p.H-14 Components (Volume 2, Section H, p.H-14). It is in the Aboriginal Assessment that the weakness of the Proponent’s analytical framework and evaluation of significance is most evident. While the Proponent does not include direction of effect (positive, neutral, negative) as a category in its criteria, it nevertheless states that it uses a judgment about whether a residual effect is ‘adverse’ as the basis for determining its significance. “The determination of significance includes considering whether the predicted environmental effects are adverse, significant and likely”(Volume 2, Section H, p. H-15). Put another way, the Proponent’s criteria for determining the significance of an effect only take into account the Proponent’s judgment about whether a residual effect after mitigation is expected to have adverse effects or not. Further, the basis for judging whether an effect is adverse or not is made based on whether the expected changes are reversible or not. While the Proponent’s analytical framework to characterize residual effects, that is, to describe the effects remaining after mitigation, includes magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency and reversibility; it makes its conclusion about the significance of these effects on the basis of 8

reversibility only. “Significant effects of the Project are predicted to cause irreversible changes to the sustainability or integrity of a population or resource (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-15). Volume 2, The Proponent states that: “The determination of significant effects to Aboriginal VCs considers the Section H, following factors: potential environmental effects of the Project and determination of significance p.H-15 and H- described in the assessment of environmental effects; the potential effect of the Project on the ability to 16 continue to exercise Aboriginal interests including treaty rights; and the extent to which mitigation measures can reasonably address potential effects. Where residual adverse effects are identified as significant, a description of probability is included to describe how likely the effect is to occur and the degree of uncertainty related to data and methods used. Likelihood is influenced by existing conditions, activities and physical works, project effects and the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. This information is used to determine qualitatively whether there is a low, moderate, or high likelihood of there being a residual effect” (Volume 2, Section H, p.H-16).

In its characterization of the significance of residual effects to Aboriginal Valued Components, the Proponent confounds significance with reversibility while ignoring the other criteria it claims to consider (magnitude, duration, frequency of effect, etc.). This means that the Proponent will only consider Project effects to be significant if they cannot be reversed. The timeline for this reversal is of course post-mine reclamation. This methodological decision therefore minimizes or ignores all active Project effects to valued components including hunting, fishing, gathering during the Project’s lifetime, that is, during the operational phase of the mine. Furthermore, this ignores the significance of lost sites of archaeological, cultural, historical or ceremonial importance that would be destroyed and could not be replaced or reclaimed post-mining. The Proponent’s assessment therefore assumes that all mitigation measures will be implemented, that they will succeed in addressing Project effects, and that there will be no residual effects after reclamation, two decades from the present.

Residual effects to Káínai Volume 2, In Volume 2, Section H.3.5 the Proponent provides its characterization of residual effects to Káínai with Section H, p. reference to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. “The assessment of residual H-45 effects of the Project on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes focuses on the 9

potential effects remaining after mitigation measures are implemented”(Volume 2, Section H, p. H-45). However reference to “current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes” does not fully capture the extent of Káínai’s Treaty rights, and an assessment of residual impacts based solely on this will fail to capture the full range of impacts on Káínai’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

Volume 2, In regards to hunting, the Proponent does not expect there to be significant residual effects. “The Section H, majority of the land to be developed is privately owned and the lands will be reclaimed to an equivalent p.H-45 capability. It is predicted that the potential effects of the Project on access to hunting areas can be mitigated through access management; therefore, effects will be not significant”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-45). This conclusion fails to consider the extent to which Káínai may rely on private lands for hunting; it also fails to consider the impacts of the removal of this land for multiple generations on the passing down of treaty rights. It also assumes that the generic mitigation measures for wildlife would be relevant and successful to mitigate Project effects to Káínai hunting. Finally, this assessment does not consider how the proposed development will affect Káínai’s assessment of this area as a preferred area for hunting – the presence of the Project activities, including through construction and operation, may deter Káínai hunters from access the Project area and adjacent areas due to the increase in noise, pressure from other hunters and removal of contiguous areas used to conduct harvesting. Káínai requests that the proponent conduct additional work with Káínai land users to identify conditions that deter the use of areas for harvesting and update the effects assessment accordingly. Volume 2, The Proponent does not expect residual effects to Káínai fishing to be significant. “It is predicted that the Section H, p. potential effects of the Project on access to fishing areas can be mitigated through access management; H-46 therefore, effects will be not significant. The Project is not expected to have measurable effects on the long term abundance, distribution, and sustainability of species potentially fished by Káínai Nation. With the implementation of mitigation measures including access management planning and ongoing consultation, the Project is not expected to affect current access patterns”(Volume 2, Section H, p. H-46). Project effects to fishing were assessed to be low in magnitude, local in geographic extent, short to long in duration and continuous. The effects were expected to be reversible, although the aquatic resources 10

upon which the assessment relied were considered to be sensitive (and not resilient). Nevertheless, the effects were rated as not significant. (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-50). Káínai requests that information provided in the “Blood Tribe/Káínai Traditional Knowledge and Use Assessment – Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 2018” be incorporated into the EIA and that the proponent reconsider its assessment of potential residual effects based on this information. Volume 2, For plant gathering, the Proponent recognizes that “Removal of ecosite phases and ecological land Section H, classifications (ELCs) that are important for valued vegetation species in the Project LSA will have a p.H-47 local effect”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-47). It adds the caveat that “these habitats are expected to remain intact within the remainder of the LSA and in the RSA. Therefore the overall availability of habitat is not anticipated to be substantially affected by the Project”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-47). The Proponent argues that it can compensate for changes to plant habitat and loss of areas to gather plants through mitigation. “It is predicted that the potential effects of the Project on access to plant gathering areas can be mitigated through access management; therefore, effects will be not significant and can be mitigated. The Project is not expected to have measurable effects on the long term abundance, distribution, and sustainability of species used for plant gathering by Káínai Nation. With the implementation of mitigation measures including access management planning and ongoing consultation, the Project is not expected to affect current access patterns”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-47). The Proponent therefore concludes that: “residual effects to plant gathering are characterized as: moderate magnitude; local geographic extent; long-term duration; continuous frequency; reversible; resilient in ecological and social context; and not significant (Volume 2, Section H, p.H-47). The Proponent’s assessment suggested that the Project effects to Káínai plant gathering would be moderate in magnitude, local in geographic extent, long-term in duration and continuous. However, like hunting, the Proponent’s assessment assumed that Project effects on Káínai plant gathering would be reversible (upon reclamation) and resilient. The Proponent concluded that the Project effects to Káínai plant gathering would not be significant (after mitigation) (Volume 2, Section H, p. H-50). Káínai requests that information provided in the “Blood Tribe/Káínai Traditional Knowledge and Use Assessment – Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 2018” be incorporated into the EIA and that the proponent reconsider its assessment of potential residual effects based on this information. Volume 2, With regard to Káínai Physical and Cultural Heritage, the Proponent concludes that there will be no 11

Section H, significant residual effects, despite its anticipation of open pit mining involving surface disruption on both p.H-48 known and potentially un-known archaeological sites and other sites of importance to Káínai. “The characterization of residual effects to sacred, gathering and habitation sites includes consideration of residual effects described in Section E.10.3, and input provided by Káínai Nation”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-48). The Proponent states: “The Project could result in measurable effects on sacred, gathering, and habitation sites used by Káínai Nation. With the implementation of mitigation measures including access management planning and ongoing consultation, the Project would still affect current use if sites are directly disturbed or removed”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-48). In this quote, the Proponent acknowledges that mitigation measures are unlikely to remove the effect to sacred sites. It therefore concludes: “As a result, residual effects to sacred, gathering, and habitation sites are characterized as: moderate magnitude; local in geographic extent; long term duration; regular frequency; not reversible; sensitive in ecological and social context; and not significant”(Volume 2, Section H, p.H-48). Despite the fact that the Proponent indicates that effects will not be reversible and that they refer to sensitive ecological and social contexts, it nevertheless deems them as not significant. This is a direct contradiction of the only functional criteria in its analytical framework – that significance would be defined by reversibility and if the effect was potentially adverse. Proposed Káínai submits that additional mitigation measures be considered by the proponent in its EIA and adopts Mitigation the mitigation measures summarized at pages 131 – 133 of the “Blood Tribe/Káínai Traditional measures Knowledge and Use Assessment – Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 2018.” It is requested that the proponent comment on the feasibility and appropriateness of the mitigation measures in revisions to the EIA. Information Requests on the Sufficiency and Technical Merit of the Environmental Impact Assessment – January 21, 2019

Participant: Káínai First Nation

Contents

1.1 Topic: Impacts to Rights ...... 2

1.2 Topic: Cultural Experience – Experiential Values ...... 4

1.3 Topic: Regional Context for Traditional Use and Exercise of Rights ...... 6

1.4 Topic: Indigenous and Community Knowledge ...... 7

1.5 Topic: Effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 9

1.6 Topic: Hunting ...... 10

1.7 Topic: Trapping ...... 12

1.8 Topic: Plant Harvesting ...... 13

1.9 Topic: Indigenous Health and Country Foods ...... 15

1.10 Topic: Socio Economic Conditions ...... 16

Annex A: Methodology for Assessing Potential Impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ……………………18 2

1.1 Topic: Impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 2, Section 5 • EIA Section H.3

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require that, for each group identified in section 5.1, the EIS presents information on: aboriginal and Treaty rights; potential adverse impacts on rights of each project component and project physical activities; mitigation measures or accommodation to potential impacts; and potential impacts that have not been fully mitigated. The EIS Guidelines provide direction on proponent engagement with Indigenous groups and require that criteria for evaluating impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights consider input sought by the proponent and/or provided by Indigenous groups.

Assessing impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights is not limited to assessing environmental effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes or on discrete biophysical components such as wildlife. An assessment of impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights includes consideration of experience, culture, governance, knowledge and other factors. The EIA restricts the analysis of potential impacts to rights to the consideration of residual effects on traditional harvesting or physical activities associated with traditional use and does not assess effects to intangible components such as consideration of experience, culture, governance, knowledge and other factors. The assessment of intangible components is possible and also necessary to understanding potential impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights.

Moreover, The EIS does not present information on Káínai’s views of its rights or how it was engaged in developing or applying the proposed methodology.

Káínai First Nation, requests that the Methodology for Assessing Potential Impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine (Mikisew Cree First Nation and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) (Annex 1) be considered in responding to the items below. In this regard, we note that CEAA has issued information requests in other CEAA lead environmental assessments, given that such information is relevant to the nature and scope of impacts to Treaty rights, which must be gathered pursuant to the EIS Guidelines extant in this Project and other reviews, and that such information is required if CEAA intends to rely on the regulatory process to discharge its duty to consult with Indigenous groups.1

1 See, for example, information requests delivered by CEAA in the Springbank dame environmental assessment in August 2018 (https://www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/124679?culture=en-CA#toc002) 3

Information Requests:

a) Identify the conditions that support Káínai’s exercise of its rights, including understanding how historic, existing, and approved activities have affected these conditions.

b) Identify the importance of the Project’s location in relation to the exercise of Káínai’s rights.

c) Identify the pathways for potential impacts of the Project (positive and negative) on the exercise of rights, accounting for the nature of rights, regional/historic/cumulative impacts, community thresholds, cultural landscape, preferred expression of rights, distribution of benefits/impact equity, and present and future generations.

d) Define the criteria used for assessing the severity of impacts to rights. The criteria may be different from the criteria used to assess the significance of environmental effects and may vary between Indigenous groups.

e) Considering each of the pathways identified and the criteria developed, provide analysis, discussion, and conclusions on whether the Project will have a low, medium, or high level of impact on Káínai’s exercise of rights.

f) Describe mitigation measures that specifically address potential impacts to rights and accommodation measures that have been identified through engagement with Indigenous groups. Include any commitments made to mitigation and accommodation. 4

1.2 Topic: Cultural Experience – Experiential Values

Source:

• EIS Guidelines, part 1 section 3.3.2, 4.2 • EIS Guidelines, part 2, section 5, 6.1.8, 6.3.4 • EIA Section H.2.2 • Blood Tribe/ Káínai Traditional Knowledge & Use Assessment (“Káínai TLU Report”) pg. 18 and 27

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines direct the proponent to assess changes to the environment that affect cultural value or importance associated with traditional uses or areas affected by the Project as well as any change to, or loss or destruction of, cultural value and heritage. The EIS Guidelines require the proponent to assess the effects of changes to the environment on physical and cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples, and to integrate input from Indigenous engagement and Indigenous knowledge into this assessment (methodology and analysis).

Effective engagement with Indigenous groups as required by the EIS Guidelines is not limited to what can be characterized from a Western science perspective; it should facilitate the evaluation of effects and mitigation measures by the Indigenous groups (individuals and communities) experiencing values in their cultural context, and the subsequent description of these evaluations in the EIS.

Understanding Project changes to the environment that affect cultural value or importance associated with traditional uses or areas and on Indigenous peoples is integral to understanding the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project as per CEAA 2012 section 5(1)(c), the potential impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights, and opportunities to mitigate or accommodate those impacts.

The EIS focuses on the potential effects to aboriginal Physical and Cultural Heritage including “disturbance to physical and cultural heritage; change in access to physical and cultural heritage; change to cultural value or importance associated with physical and cultural heritage” (p.H-13). The related EIA Valued Components are Historical Resources and Land and Resource Use (Section H, pp.H-12 to H-13).

However, Káínai’s concerns include, but are not limited to: quality of use experience and associated changes in cultural practices; changes to spiritual and cultural connections with the affected environment; effects resulting from land disturbance and treatment of non-human species; the effects of the Project on individual and community identity resulting from changes to the environment, culture, land use, and intergenerational transfer of knowledge. 5

Information Requests: a) Present an assessment of potential changes of the Project to cultural experience/ experiential values, including:

• A description of cultural experience/experiential values identified by Káínai and potential changes to the environment that interact with these.

• Mitigation measures identified by Káínai, and any commitment made to these mitigation measures.

• A clear explanation of the methodology for integrating Indigenous knowledge into this assessment. b) Describe potential mitigation measures for the above noted impacts, and describe the economic and technical viability of these mitigation measures.

1.3 Topic: Regional Context for Traditional Use and Exercise of Rights

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 2 Section 5; 6.1.8; 6.3.4

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require the proponent to assess the effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples, to consider the regional context for traditional use, and to include the views expressed by Indigenous groups on suggested mitigation measures and their effectiveness.

The EIS considers the biophysical context within the RSA for each VC but does not consider Project effects or mitigation interacting with land use management or planning that also affect traditional use.

Land use documents, guidelines, and policies exist in Alberta for various areas. In the project area, the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) is a provincial government plan that recognizes the significance of the South Saskatchewan Region to Indigenous peoples and identifies objectives that serve to protect current use, physical and cultural heritage, sites of importance, and the continued exercise of aboriginal and Treaty rights.

Additional information regarding the Project relative to the direction and outcomes of the SSRP and/or other land use plans and guidelines is necessary to contribute to understanding Project effects and mitigation.

Information Requests:

a) Describe how the Project will align with the existing land use plans, guidelines or policies, including the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan.

b) Describe how the existing land use plans, guidelines or policies were integrated into the planning of the Project, assessment of effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples, impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights, and mitigation measures committed to by the proponent.

1.4 Topic: Indigenous and Community Knowledge

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 1, Sections 3.3.3, 4.3.2 • EIA Section H • Káínai TLU Report pg. 17

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require the proponent to assess effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples, including on current use of lands for traditional purposes, and to provide information to support the assessment of impacts to rights. The EIS Guidelines direct the proponent to take into account community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge, including integrating knowledge into all aspects of the assessment, including methodology and analysis, and establishing spatial and temporal boundaries. The EIS Guidelines also require the proponent to engage with Indigenous groups to obtain their views, including their views on the effects of changes to the environment on aboriginal peoples and potential effects of the Project on aboriginal and Treaty rights.

While the Proponent claims that it incorporates aboriginal TK/TU into its assessment, on par with scientific knowledge, it appears that in the execution of the EIA and in the details of each section, TU/TK was not consistently or systematically considered in the selection of valued components, the choice of spatial and temporal boundaries, and in the selection of mitigation measures; rather these were chosen based on industry best practices and not necessarily drawn from TK.

Information Requests:

a) Describe the methodology for considering, including and integrating Indigenous and community knowledge, and how the issues raised by Káínai, including concerns raised regarding environmental effects and impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights, have been and/or will continue to be used in Project planning and design, assessment of effects and impacts, selection of mitigation measures, and determining appropriate accommodations. The description should:

• Demonstrate how Káínai’s Indigenous knowledge, including but not limited to traditional land and resource use, was considered in the selection of VCs, establishing spatial and temporal boundaries, collection of baseline information for each VC, development of proposed mitigation measures, and assessment of environmental effects. In particular, discuss how cultural values, cultural transmission, and intergenerational knowledge transfer were considered in the selection of temporal boundaries. 8

• Described how Káínai’s Indigenous knowledge was integrated into the Project's design and development, technical components of the EIA, the Conservation and Reclamation Plan, monitoring and mitigation plans.

• Include a description of any differences between Indigenous knowledge, community knowledge, and Western knowledge and provide an explanation of how different knowledge or perspectives were taken into account.

1.5 Topic: Effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 2, Sections 5, 6.1.8, 6.3.4 • EIA Section H

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require the proponent to assess effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples, including on current use of lands for traditional purposes, and provide information to support the assessment of impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights. The EIS Guidelines require that baseline information characterize the regional context of each of the paragraph CEAA 2012 5(1)(c) elements and be sufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of each VC.

The proponent has not provided the baseline information needed to support and assessment of effects on current use of lands for traditional purposes, or on the assessment of impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights.

Information Requests: a) Provide an updated assessment of effects to traditional land and resources that:

• Describes the presence and distribution of traditional resources and traditional land and resource use areas within the LSA and RSA and identify the relative importance of these resources and access to and preference for use areas.

• Describes the pathways of effects to traditional resources and land use identified by Indigenous groups in the LSA and RSA and the associated mitigation, monitoring, and follow-up measures. Pathways of effects may include project interactions with or effects on resources, access, and experience.

• Provides a robust rationale for any conclusions drawn that demonstrably takes into account the views of Indigenous groups.

1.6 Topic: Hunting

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines part 2, section 6.1.8, 6.3.4 • EIA, Section E • EIA, Section H • Káínai TLU Report pg. 74-79, 94-96, 105-110, 124

Context and Rationale:

The potential Project-related impacts to wildlife include:

• a reduction in habitat supply,

• habitat fragmentation and reduced habitat connectivity,

• increased mortality risk, and

• reduced abundance.

These potential impacts were assessed for all VCs and were evaluated at a high level for the additional special status species.

The Project has the potential to alter or disrupt movement patterns of a number of wildlife species thereby reducing their access to seasonally important habitats. An inability to access high-quality habitats might result in wildlife species having to use lower quality habitats with sub-optimal forage and shelter potentially causing reduced health and lower reproduction rates.

The Project has the potential to increase mortality risk for wildlife species directly through vegetation or habitat removal and direct mortality of species with limited mobility and through wildlife-vehicle collisions, or indirectly through improved access for predators and human hunters.

Wildlife abundance in the WLSA is expected to decline due to changes in habitat availability, habitat fragmentation and movement, and wildlife health and mortality rates.

However, the Wildlife Assessment provides little information on Project effects on Káínai Nation land users and harvesters, other than as general statements provided during discussion on effects on recreational hunters and licensed trappers. To identify the potential effects to Káínai hunting, the Proponent directs the reader to its generic identification of potential effects to “land use activities related to hunting and recreational uses” which are in section E.10.3 (section H, p.H-38; see also section E.10.3). The Proponent, in the section intended to identify potential Project effects to Káínai equates Káínai’s use of the area with access for recreational use. This position ignores the protected status of Káínai hunting as an aboriginal and Treaty right. 11

The mitigation measures that the Proponent proposes to address potential Project effects to Káínai hunting are the generic mitigation measures it proposes in its assessment of wildlife (volume 1, section E.9.5) and socioeconomic impacts (volume 1, section E.11.5).

Information Requests:

a) describe quantitatively the loss and deterioration of habitat, wildlife-vehicle collisions, and increased non‐aboriginal hunting pressure on the wildlife populations of species of cultural importance to the Káínai Nation.

b) provide information specific to Káínai on the impact of the Project on Káínai’s ability to hunt.

c) Provide information specific to Káínai on mitigation measures that will be implemented to address impacts of the Project on Káínai’s ability to hunt.

1.7 Topic: Trapping

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines, part 2, section 5, 6.1.8, 6.3.4 • EIA Section H • Káínai TLU Report, pg. 21, 88, 98, 105-110, 127,

Context and Rationale:

The Proponent did not include trapping as a valued component of Káínai’s use of the Project area because it equated trapping with commercial operation of a Registered Fur Management Area and not with Indigenous snaring, catching or trapping activities associated with subsistence or ceremonial use.

Information Requests:

a) Please provide:

a. Baseline information about traditional trapping activities that take place in and around the project area;

b. Information on the impacts of the Project on those traditional trapping activities;

c. How those impacts will impact Káínai’s Treaty protected rights; and

d. Mitigation and accommodation measures that will be used to address the impacts of the Project on Káínai’s harvesting rights

1.8 Topic: Plant Harvesting

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 2 Section 5, 6.1.8, 6.3.4 • EIA Section H • Káínai TLU Report, pg. 25, 79-88, 96, 110-113

Context and Rationale:

Assessing impact to aboriginal and Treaty rights is not limited to assessing environmental effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes or on discrete biophysical components such as vegetation. An assessment of impacts to aboriginal and Treaty rights includes consideration of experience, culture, governance, knowledge and other factors.

With respect to mitigation measures, the Application states that: “Benga will provide lodge pole pine that is cleared for the Project to Káínai Nation, Piikani Nation and Tsuu T’ina Nation. Benga will continue to work with Káínai Nation to identify other species of importance for harvesting in advance of construction activities in the Aboriginal Access Management Plan” (volume 2, section H, p. H-40). This mitigation measure is more appropriately considered as a mitigation measure on a ‘one-time’ basis for the loss of plant resources in the first season of construction. However, it does not address or reduce the ongoing Project effects to vegetation resources in the mine area, nor does it address the Project’s contributions to the future loss of vegetation resources and the future decline of Káínai plant harvesting in the Project areas due to mining activities.

Information Requests:

a) Provide information specific to Káínai on the impact of the Project on Káínai’s ability to harvest and gather plants including consideration of experience, culture, governance, knowledge and other factors.

b) Provide information specific to Káínai on mitigation measures that will be implemented to address impacts of the Project on Káínai’s ability to harvest and 14

gather plants, and specifically, mitigation measure that will address the ongoing Project effect to vegetation resources in the mine area, and the Project’s contributions to the future loss of vegetation resources and the future decline of Káínai plant harvesting in the Project areas due to Project activity. 15

1.9 Topic: Indigenous Health and Country Foods

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines Part 2, Section 6.1.8; 6.3.4 • EIA Section H • EIA CR # 12

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require the proponent assess the effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples, including on current use, health and socio- economic conditions, and physical and cultural heritage, both of which include the consideration of the harvesting and consumption of country foods.

The EIA, section H.3.4.2 states that “in order for aboriginal health receptors to be exposed to emissions from the Project, they must come into contact with chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)” and that “The results of the human health risk assessment indicate risk quotients within the Mine Permit Boundary which will be inaccessible during construction and operation”. The EIA concludes that there will be no effects of the Project on aboriginal health.

The EIA section on health however, fails to consider the link between health and access to, availability of, and contamination of country foods or other resource upon which the practice of Káínai’s Treaty rights depends, and fails to offer a robust discussion of the role of country foods and other resources in physical, mental, and spiritual health of Indigenous people.

Information Requests: a) Provide information on the availability of and access to country foods of importance, and other resources of importance to Káínai, within the RSA and the LSA, a description of the pathways of effects to these resources, project specific mitigation measures, and a revised effects assessment. Include consideration of:

• the role of country foods from a holistic health perspective that accounts for physical, mental, and spiritual health of individuals and communities, and

• the role of country foods in Indigenous food sovereignty as it relates to health, wellbeing, governance, and rights. b) Describe how findings on country foods affect the assessment of effects of changes to the environment on Indigenous peoples’ current use, health and socio-economic conditions, and physical and cultural heritage. Provide updated effects assessments as necessary. 16

1.10 Topic: Socio Economic Conditions

Sources:

• EIS Guidelines section 5, 6.1.8 and 6.1.10 • EIA section H.3.4.3 • EIA CR # 11 - Socio-Economic Impacts Assessment

Context and Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require the proponent to assess, with respect to aboriginal peoples, an effect of any change cause to the environment on health and socio-economic conditions. The Guidelines also require the proponent to engage with Káínai to obtain their views on effects of changes to the environment, including on aboriginal peoples health and socio-economic issues. The guidelines require the EIS contain baseline information on the health and socio-economic conditions encompassing a broad range of matters that affect communities in the study area in way that recognizes interrelationships, system functions and vulnerabilities.

The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (CR # 11) identifies a number of project effect pathways (9.1) on traditional land use and aboriginal culture, however it also notes that the type of effect experienced by a particular aboriginal community depends on several factors including: the size and pace of development; the proximity of development to traditional and reserve lands; engagement strategies taken by industry and government; mitigation enacted by industry (eg. support for capacity building initiatives, establishment of inclusive decision-making institutions); and the ability of individuals and communities to cope with external disturbances. However, the Socio-Economic Assessment fails to assess the project effect pathways for Káínai specifically. It simply goes on to state that Project-related effects on population are predicted to be not significant.

The assessment of potential effects on Káínai’s Socio-Economic Conditions contained in section H (Aboriginal Consultation) of the EIA is limited to the impacts of the project on businesses located in the vicinity of the Project. The EIA concludes that because those businesses are located outside of the Project LSA, no direct effects on the Project are anticipated to Káínai Nation’s socio-economic conditions. It further concludes that the Project and associated project activities are not expected to have an adverse effect on Káínai Nation commercial activity, forestry and logging operations, and recreation use.

However, socio-economic issues associated with Project development are much broader than the impact on business. Resource development projects are often associated with increases in alcohol and drug use, increased crime, violence against women and increasing marginalization of already marginalized communities. 17

Information Requests:

a) Please provide a socio-economic assessment, using the Project Effect Pathways identified in CR # 11, table 9.1, that is specific to Káínai.

b) Please also provide information on:

• The number of aboriginal people that will be employed by this Project,

• The Proponent’s specific plans for maximizing employment, business and training for Káínai members and businesses, and

• the extent and management of social dysfunction issues like drugs, alcohol, crime and prostitution, and socio-economic monitoring plans for the Project.

Methodology for Assessing Potential Impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

I. Introduction This document presents a methodology for assessing impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the context of the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project). This methodology is a collaborative product developed by the Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (on behalf of the federal government) for use during the environmental assessment (EA) of the Project.

This methodology can be used by the Joint Review Panel to review and consider the effects of the Project on the exercise of the rights of the MCFN pursuant to the Panel Agreement and Terms of Reference. This methodology will be used by the MCFN and the Federal Government when considering Project impacts on the exercise of the rights of the MCFN, and in considering whether consultation on the Project was adequate. Use of this methodology by any other party or for any other purpose should be undertaken in manner consistent with the note at the end of this document.

II. The Context for this Methodology for Assessing Impacts to the Exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Since 1982, when Aboriginal and treaty rights were enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Aboriginal and treaty rights), Canadian courts have highlighted that a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is reconciliation. Words used by the courts in cases involving those rights, such as “cultural security”, “continuity”, “way of life”, “continued existence”, and “Aboriginal perspective” serve to demonstrate that the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights has great importance for the Indigenous communities that possess those rights and for advancing reconciliation.

Despite the frequent affirmation of the importance of Aboriginal and treaty rights, consideration of impacts on those rights has rarely been at the forefront of EA and regulatory processes. Where there have been attempts to consider those rights in EAs, the focus has largely been on environmental effects, with the consideration of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights undertaken through the lens of biophysical proxies. Such

19 approaches risk overlooking that the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights depends on a broader range of factors, and that methodologies for assessing physical or biophysical environmental effects are not well suited to fully consider the impacts of a project on Aboriginal and treaty rights. This latter point was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Clyde River decision1.

The consideration of potential adverse impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights through a principled methodology helps improve decision-making and advance reconciliation objectives. Methods that are co-designed by Indigenous peoples and governments can improve the understanding of the potential effects of a project on Aboriginal and treaty rights and can, from the outset of their application, take into account the traditional knowledge and cultural values of an Indigenous community as well as Indigenous laws and traditions.

To date, few tools and guidance exist to assist practitioners in effectively integrating consideration of Aboriginal and treaty rights into an EA process. This document is intended to be a methodology that is rooted in jurisprudence, academic research and practical assessment experiences that can be used to assess impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The collaborative approach leading to this jointly developed methodology is in keeping with the mandate letter of November 12, 2015 sent by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. In this letter, the Prime Minister states that Government “made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration” and that the Government’s work would be informed by “performance measurement, evidence, and feedback from Canadians.” It is also consistent with Canada’s Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples, which include a stated commitment to:

…look for opportunities to build processes and approaches aimed at securing consent, as well as creative and innovative mechanisms that will help build deeper collaboration, consensus, and new ways of working together. It will ensure that Indigenous peoples and their governments have a role in public decision-making as part of Canada’s constitutional framework and ensure that Indigenous rights, interests, and aspirations are recognized in decision- making.2

Finally, there is no such thing as a “one size fits all” approach; the unique characteristics of every community of rights-holders must be acknowledged at the outset through

1 Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, para 45. 2 Department of Justice Canada, Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous Peoples. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html

20 community participation and efforts to understand their historical and contemporary context.

III. Overview of the Methodology for Assessing Impacts to the Exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights from the Frontier Project Assessing impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights requires an understanding of the Aboriginal and treaty rights of an Indigenous community that may be affected by a project. Treaty rights are understood to include the ability to maintain a community’s culture and traditional way of life. As such, the term “rights” is used in this methodology to include the culture and traditional way of life of the community possessing those rights. For example, rights under Treaty 8 include a range of components that inform when, how, where and why harvesting activities take place, many of which are informed by cultural considerations and Indigenous laws.

The impact to rights assessment methodology for the Project consists of three steps:

 Step 1: Determining the context in which potential impacts on rights will occur  Step 2: Evaluating potential project impacts to rights  Step 3: Follow-up and validation

Steps 1 and 2 have sub-components that have been developed to assist the assessor in taking a logical and orderly approach to the analysis. The subcomponents have been ordered purposefully and should not be re-ordered as that would undermine the ability of the assessor to deliver a defensible impact assessment.

The subcomponents of step 1 are:

a) Identifying the conditions that support the community’s exercise of their rights; b) Understanding how historic, existing and approved activities have affected the conditions that support the community’s exercise of rights; and c) Identifying the importance of the Project’s location in relation to the exercise of a community’s rights.

The subcomponents of step 2 are:

a) Identifying the pathways for potential impacts of the Project (positive and negative) on the exercise of rights; b) Determining, based on step 1 and the seven guiding questions identified in step 2 (b) of this document, whether the Project will have a low, medium or high level of impact on the exercise of rights.

A table setting out collaboratively developed guidance for the determination of the severity of impacts from the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights is included as part of this methodology (see Table 1). The table outlines the criteria that

21 should be used to support the assessment of the Project’s impacts on the exercise of a community’s Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Recognizing that the experience of most assessors is likely to be predominantly with assessment methodologies developed for environmental or broader socio-economic effects, there is a potential for assessors to rely on such approaches when undertaking the steps in this framework3. Relying on environmental or broader socio-economic effects methodologies would likely miss the mark, and could result in a deficient assessment of impacts on rights. For that reason, the impact assessment principles set out in the following sections are an integral component of the methodology for the assessment the potential impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights. Adherence with these principles, co-developed by MCFN and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, should be considered fundamental to a robust assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights arising from the Project.

IV. Principles for Assessing of Impacts to the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights In applying the principles noted below, it is important to create the space necessary for an assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights that is aligned with Indigenous perspectives and best practices. Properly applied, these principles will enable an evaluation of potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights that advances reconciliation and provides a robust basis for decision-making.

Principle 1: The assessor must consider the nature and scope of rights, as those rights are asserted, and how the rights might be impacted.

The consideration of the potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights requires the assessor take a broad and generous interpretation of what constitutes an Aboriginal or treaty right, including incidental rights. Due consideration must be given to the Aboriginal and treaty rights as they are asserted by the rights-bearing community in order to successfully apply a rights-based approach.

For example, understanding the MCFN’s Treaty 8 rights requires an understanding of the range of customs, practices, values and traditions that are connected to and support hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering, in the MCFN’s traditional way. It is not simply the presence (or absence) of the animals that are harvested that constitute rights; it is the ability of MCFN members to continue patterns of activities in accordance with Indigenous laws and stewardship norms. Rights are intrinsically tied to the quality of

3 Miller, Bruce Granville. 2011. Oral History on Trial: Recognizing Aboriginal Narratives in the Courts. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

22 experience, such as spending time in important places while enjoying peace and quiet, and the ability to transfer knowledge and culture on the land, and access these places without difficulty or extreme cost4.

As another example, MCFN has a long history of hunting of bison, in particular the Ronald Lake Bison herd, and those hunting practices provide for an intergenerational continuity of practice, and sense of place that reinforces MCFN members’ connection to lands and identity, especially for MCFN families connected to the area. MCFN asserts that Treaty 8 includes a right to hunt bison.

A list of guiding topics later in this document (under Principle 9) describes traditional and cultural values relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Principle 2: Assessing impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights requires more than assessing environmental effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes or on physical and cultural heritage.

There are two components to this principle. The first is the recognition that Aboriginal and treaty rights are not the same as the statutory requirements in section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The important questions that should always guide the analysis of impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights are:

 How will the meaningful exercise of rights be impacted?  How will the community’s ability to practice culture in a way that reflects who they are as a people be impacted?

The second component of this principle is recognition that an adequate assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights requires consideration of more than environmental (i.e. biophysical) effects. An assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights must recognize that changes to a community, effects on cultural continuity and alterations to the cultural landscape can occur irrespective of the level of potential physical change to the environment. It is possible that impacts to the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights can occur even where it is determined that a proposed project will likely not result in residual environmental effects.

4Gibson, G. Culture and Rights Impact Assessment: A Survey of the Field, May 2017, p. 69.

Examples of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights (that may or may not have a confirmed biophysical component) can include the diminishment of:

 the perceived quality or quantity of lands or resources needed to exercise the rights;  the value of a place in the hearts and minds of an Indigenous culture;  the ability to know and teach about a place or resources and the associated social and cultural values embodied therein;  the experience of exercising rights in a family area;  access to treaty lands or traditional territories to practice rights;  traditional patterns of economic and cultural activities;  preferred means or locations for exercising the rights; and  opportunities to uphold stewardship and other societal norms.

Multi-generational limits on access to certain areas and resources will constitute an adverse impact to rights even where reclamation activities are proposed as a way to restore some level of environmental functions.

Principle 3: Assessing impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights requires understanding the context of historical and contemporary cumulative effects in which rights are exercised. This context needs to be evaluated before looking at Project effects on those rights. The assessor must recognize that existing environmental conditions do not tell the full story about historical and current cumulative impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights.

This principle underscores the need to start an assessment of impacts of the Project from an understanding of the cumulative effects from past and current projects and other activities that have diminished the ability of a community to exercise its Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Project should be considered in the context of the historical and contemporary cumulative effects that have a bearing on a community’s existing ability to exercise their Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as the extent to which the exercise has already been diminished.

Efforts to understand the relevant historic and current context must be thoroughly informed by an Indigenous perspective, including consideration of how past and present social and environmental conditions, and the changes to those conditions over time, may have created constraints on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights and affected culture. This context should include historical or current interferences with traditional practices, such as lands that have been previously taken up for projects or

24 activities (legally or in effect5), impacts of government regulation on traditional practices, and other historical legacies that have impacted the way of life and knowledge within the community, such as the lasting impacts from residential schools.6

Example: The graphic below shows how the ability of MCFN members to harvest moose and bison has dropped below desired quantities in recent decades

Figure 1: Ability of MCFN members to harvest moose and bison

Principle 4: The assessment should not be limited to site-specific effects, but must consider all impacts on the exercise of rights.

The impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights should be assessed in a broad sense, inclusive of any type of Project effect on conditions needed to support continuity of rights and way of life. It should be clearly understood that a distinction between “site-specific” and “non-site-specific” impacts is not made in section

5 Refers to unusable lands that are not limited to those identified for industrial use within Public Lands Act authorizations. This can include lands that are, in effect, deemed unusable or inaccessible by rights holders given fear of contamination or other concerns. 6 The Prosperity Panel Report and New Prosperity Panel Report provide examples of where a federal Panel have included a historical context as part of their report. For New Prosperity Panel Report see section 12.1 “Historical Context” under “Aboriginal Matters” in: https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63928/95631E.pdf

35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and thus an assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights should avoid this compartmentalization.

An assessment should take into consideration factors associated with the practice of Aboriginal and treaty rights such as access, land conditions, air and water quality and quantity, location of resources, travel routes, and places to be on the land and pass down their teachings.

Examples of a broader understanding of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights include:

 potential for disruption to preferred ways of continuing customs, traditions and practices;  loss of trust in downstream resources and other downstream effects;  changes to the wildlife population size, health, or accessibility of a traditional resource or a change to the spiritual or cultural connection with that resource; and  cumulative environmental effects on lands, waters and other resources that support a community’s way of life.

Principle 5: Utilizing an Indigenous perspective and Indigenous knowledge is an imperative.

The assessment should make every effort to understand a community’s perspective and their members’ views on what constitutes an impact. When considering the potential impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the approach needs to be community focused, give weight to Indigenous perspectives, and treat the rights holders as experts to add value to the quality of the impact assessment7.

The Indigenous perspective is a necessary input in an assessment of impact on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, and without this perspective, the assessment will lack credibility and rigour, particularly from a sustainability viewpoint.

While it is a standard approach in EAs to attempt to consider Indigenous knowledge, that knowledge has been treated narrowly, compartmentalized or applied outside of its cultural and spiritual context. Indigenous knowledge must be understood broadly to include:  local empirical knowledge of animals, plants, soils and landscape;

7 O'Faircheallaigh, C. 2017. "Shaping projects, shaping impacts: Community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements." Third World Quarterly. 38 (Issue 5): Pages 1181-1197

 resource management systems (including practices, tools, and techniques);  traditional systems of management and their social institutions, rules, norms, and codes that apply to social relationships; and  worldview.

Further, the assessor should recognize that Indigenous knowledge will be relevant to many aspects of an assessment, including scoping decisions, determination of context and evaluation of impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

Description of strong integration of Indigenous views and knowledge

The assessment incorporates Indigenous views of the land and the meaning of what occurs out on the land, with both qualitative and quantitative treatments, at all relevant stages of analysis. Evaluations clearly describe community values and perspectives in a way that brings forward the cultural meaning of places and the stewardship principles that a community has in relation to those places.

Principle 6: The assessor must consider Indigenous values, norms and laws, where provided by a community.

Determining the scale and scope of an assessment of impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights should include consideration of Indigenous knowledge, spiritual practices, cultural beliefs and community laws and norms.

For the purpose of an assessment of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the assessor does not need to determine whether Indigenous laws are enforceable at law; rather, the assessor should prioritize Indigenous perspectives and seek the Nation’s views on whether the Project would be inconsistent with Indigenous laws and norms as an additional lens for evaluating the impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Indigenous values, norms and laws respecting a particular type of traditional resource or activity are relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of a Project effect on Aboriginal and treaty rights. For example, what might appear to be a minor Project effect to a traditional resource may result in a serious impact to the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights if the affected resource is of high importance to the Indigenous community or if impacting that resource would be contrary to Indigenous stewardship norms for that resource.

Similarly, Indigenous values, norms and laws respecting a particular landscape within which an adverse impact may occur is also relevant for understanding Project effects on

Aboriginal and treaty rights. Generally, the more important the area or landscape is to Indigenous land users, the higher the degree of seriousness of the impact. This connection to the land can take into consideration “cultural heritage, travel routes and spaces between them (Ehlrich, 2012), the relationships between sites, and the spiritual and cultural associations that people hold with the land, often over a much larger area”.8

Cultural associations can also exist between Indigenous peoples and keystone species. These are culturally important species that are connected to identity and spiritual practice and therefore having bearing on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights. For example, bison are a keystone species for the MCFN, and are hunted not only for subsistence but are also used in cultural and spiritual practices.

Example: The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board made clear in the Screech Lake Uranium Exploration Project and New Shoshoni Diamond Exploration, that “although the proposed development is physically small, the potential cultural impacts are not”9. In the New Shoshoni EA decision, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board also distinguished clearly between physical heritage impacts and other cultural impacts and also recognized that while it may not always be possible to quantify cultural “footprint impacts” in the same way as it is for physical resources, this does not lessen their importance10. In those two assessments, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board identified impact pathways and potential ultimate outcomes of impacts on culture as:

 reduction of the value of a place in the hearts and minds of the culture group;  reduced ability to know and teach about a place between generations;  reduced connection to the cultural landscape reducing cultural continuity overall;  loss of a place of refuge from the “modern” world; an area where what is today (but was not generally in 2005) called “quiet enjoyment of the land”, is still possible;  disrespect of ancestors, as a valid impact pathway, and an abrogation of responsibility by the culture holders as well as the Crown; and  increased access to a critical cultural area contributing to culture holder alienation.11

8 Survey of a Field, supra, note 4, at p. 19, citing Ehrlich, Alan, “Dealing with Culturally Sensitive Areas in Industrial Project Design.” The International Indigenous Policy Journal 3 (2), 2012. 9 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. “Report of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision on UR Energy Inc. Screech Lake Uranium Exploration Project (EA 0607-003)”, 2007. 10 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. “Report of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision on the New Shoshoni Ventures Preliminary Diamond Exploration in Drybones Bay”, 2004. 11 Ibid., pp 40-62.

Principle 7: An assessor must engage the rights-bearing community during an assessment. The selection of methods and indicators for assessing impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights is to be community driven, where a community has elected to participate.

Culture and Aboriginal and treaty rights pertain to a “way of life, the system of knowledge, values, beliefs, behaviour, all of which is passed down between generations.”12 Given the unique and context specific nature of culture, it is imperative that the design and application of an assessment incorporate input from potentially affected rights-bearing communities.

Best EA practice similarly points to the need for community-defined and community- driven processes for matters like assessments of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights and culture.13 Community control and input in evaluating impacts ensures that there is engagement of the affected community in the design of the scale and scope of the assessment. Evidence suggests that studies designed and controlled by communities tend to ensure there is engagement of the knowledgeable people, and that these knowledgeable people are able to draw on past knowledge to identify areas of interest.14 Further, these same people will also offer an understanding of the meaning and context of the impacts that is not available to external assessors. In other words, it is not reasonable to expect to understand a life lived on the land from either a helicopter or a map without also hearing from a community in their preferred way and in their chosen places.

Examples of what goes wrong if the assessment of impact on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights are not adequately community driven

Assessments that fail to involve culture holders open themselves up to three sources of uncertainty. First, they rarely have enough information about the place itself, and simply miss important cultural markers. The second source of uncertainty is the absence of context. Without the right people to assist in interpretation, or point the right way, the values, the stories, and the cultural heritage have no cultural context, resulting in incomplete assessments. Finally, assessors that evaluate impacts on the exercise of rights without active engagement and direction from communities often miss important information, are prone to ignoring Indigenous knowledge and perspectives and may misinterpret necessary community information.

Where cultural impacts are identified, it is the culture holders – the experts

12 Survey of a Field, supra, note 4, at p. 8. 13 Ibid., pp 44-46. 14 Ibid., p. 35.

themselves – whose expertise should be most heavily weighted. Community knowledge holders are the people most qualified to identify the extent, depth and duration of impacts to what matters most with respect to culture and rights.

Principle 8: Thresholds and measures to understand the potential effects of a project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights and culture are to be utilized where they have been defined by the community.

The assessment of the impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights should not be limited to biophysical proxies or quantitative thresholds that do not reflect a community’s views or way of life. To understand the potential effects of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights and culture/way of life, thresholds and measures should be included where they have been qualitatively or quantitatively defined by the community. For example, a community may choose to define what impacts they are willing to absorb (a socially derived threshold of acceptable change with a more holistic perspective on the effects of the Project as a whole in the cumulative context of change to date) rather than defining a quantitative threshold for the viability of a particular species.

Examples: MCFN has identified qualitative and quantitative thresholds that link environmental effects to impacts on the exercise of their treaty rights. These thresholds include:

 thresholds related to environmental conditions: i.e. Aboriginal base flow and Aboriginal Extreme Flow;  thresholds related to sufficiency of resources: i.e. herd size to support a traditional hunt; and  thresholds related to environmental and sensory changes: i.e. avoidance zones, water quality, fish and wildlife deformities, reduced insects.

Principle 9: Assessments of impact to the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights should consider a project’s contribution to reconciliation.

An important contextual consideration in the assessment of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, that is consistent with the federal government’s recognition of Indigenous rights, is whether the Project is acceptable to a community from its perspective. Put differently, recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights in an assessment process includes reflecting Indigenous voices and perspectives, and acknowledging that a community’s desired future as a people and as rights-holders is deserving of

30 consideration. A community’s readiness to deal with a project and other aspects of a community’s “reality” (e.g. social reality, educational reality, health reality) are pertinent to how that development is viewed.

V. Steps in the Methodology This section describes the steps that are required to undertake an assessment of impact on the exercise of rights. For all steps, organization of traditional and cultural values related to rights are described in terms of three guiding topics: resources, access, and experience (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Assessment of impact on the exercise of rights diagram

Step 1: Determining the Context in which Potential Impacts of the Project on the Exercise of Rights Will Occur Unlike traditional EA approaches that tend to look at cumulative effects at the end of an evaluation, the first step in assessing impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the contextual factors relevant to the rights-bearing community. Broadly speaking, this entails reviewing information about the conditions necessary to allow a community to exercise its rights and how historical and current cumulative effects may already impact those conditions. It then requires an evaluation of the how the Project area and the resources in and around it relate to the exercise of a community’s Aboriginal and treaty rights.

a. Identifying the conditions that support the community’s exercise of their Aboriginal and treaty rights The first step in this methodology is for the assessor to develop an understanding of the conditions and context required to support the meaningful practice of culture and rights. It is vital that there be Indigenous engagement and direction in setting the frame for the conditions that are required for practice of rights and culture.

Types of conditions that the assessor should consider include:  a large, intact, and biodiverse land base;  ancestral connection, a feeling of historical or spiritual connection to the area;  confidence in and sufficiency of resources (including higher weighting for preferred places, resources and times to access them);  data on wildlife and vegetation baseline (abundance, distribution, population health) data;  sense of place (e.g., sense of solitude and ability to peacefully enjoy territory in preferred manner);  customs for transfer of knowledge to future generations;  access and patterns of occupation and cultural practice (including community constraints);  stewardship norms and laws;  social value of the area to practice culturally significant activities;  cultural landscape and keystone cultural place delineation; and  community health indicators using a social determinants of health approach.15

15 Community health indicators are often reflective of non-physical definitions of health, allowing intangibles to be included in the impact analysis. Examples of such indicators include: learning traditional stories in culturally appropriate settings, paying respect to the lands and animals, learning through observations “on the land”, speaking one’s native language of origin, maintaining sharing networks, community cohesion, upholding harvesting customs and rituals, and supporting ceremonial practices.

Example of MCFN conditions required for the harvesting of bison

 Quality or health of bison: Animals must be perceived to be healthy, with MCFN members able to eat them with confidence. For bison, healthy means free from disease, free from real or perceived contamination and having “natural” qualities.   Quantity or abundance of bison: Population size is sufficient to make harvest effort worthwhile and sufficient habitat to support that population. Full practice of MCFN right would require at least 1 accessible bison / MCFN member / year within MCFN traditional territory.   Present and accessible in preferred hunting locations: Bison need to be available and accessible in known and preferred locations where MCFN members know the trails, terrain and behaviour of animals and where MCFN members have confidence in the quality of the water and vegetation the bison are consuming. Bison also need to be in locations where hunting can take place legally (i.e., outside WBNP).   Preferred means of harvest, including timing and seasonality: Bison must be harvestable and according to preferred means (in winter, by dog sled team, or snow machine).   Sense of place: MCFN members are unlikely to hunt bison near industrial disturbances, especially mine operations, because of increased risk of contamination through water, air or other vectors.   Stewardship values: MCFN members are unlikely to hunt bison where populations are low, where success in hunting is unlikely, or where there is concern about sustainability of the population. Conditions allow for spiritual relationships and ceremonial practices involving bison to be maintained.   Knowledge transfer: MCFN members need to be able to hunt bison in contexts where there is continuity of practice between generations. Traditional knowledge is able to be passed down.

While mapping studies are highly prevalent in EAs, it is important to recognize that dots on a map alone do not provide the types of information needed to understand the conditions required for the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

b. Understanding how historic, existing and approved activities have affected the conditions that support the community’s current exercise of rights Once the assessor understands the types of environmental, cultural, social and economic conditions needed to support the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the next step is to evaluate how current conditions (social, environmental, legal) and

changes over time may be creating constraints on a community’s ability to exercise those rights.

Determining current conditions and changes to those conditions over time will establish the state of the particular indicator, the relationship of the indicators, and the historical context of change. Establishing the context for existing cumulative impacts must be completed before the consideration of project-specific impacts occurs.

A preferred approach to evaluating this context is to obtain an understanding of a community’s view of when there were good conditions for the exercise of rights (and what that looked like), and then compare current conditions for the exercise of rights with those conditions and any community defined thresholds. Community-defined thresholds can be based on social perception scales, constructed scales, existing socially defined thresholds such as land use plans or articulations of desired futures or through thresholds established through a jointly defined approach.

As outlined in Principle 8, it is essential to focus not only on what impacts rights and culture can absorb (a technically estimated threshold of manageable change), but also on what the culture holders are willing to take/endure (a socially derived threshold of acceptable change).

Examples of current trends relevant to MCFN’s rights

 Bird hunting: MCFN members have observed negative trends (Figure 3) in the quantity of migratory birds and the availability of quality migratory bird habitat. Additional observed trends include a declining number of eggs per nest and declining condition of migratory birds during harvest. Indigenous knowledge holders report observed changes to flight paths, including fewer birds travelling the Athabasca River corridor and more bypassing preferred harvesting areas, to avoid impacts from oil sands development. The absence of migratory birds and the decline of preferred species affects the important spring and fall harvest periods as well as MCFN member’s sense of place and their ability to teach younger generations on the land.

 Use of water: MCFN knowledge holders indicate there has been a negative trend in the quality of the water in harvesting areas, attributed primarily to upstream pollution from oil sands on the Athabasca River, and flow regulation on the Peace River, resulting in less frequent recharge and flushing of wetlands. MCFN land users have observed an increase in scums and films in waterbodies, decreased quality and taste or texture of fish, changes in taste and smell of water, changes in fish and animal health, including deformities, and changes in aquatic invertebrate presence. Taken together, these changes have led to an overall perception of risk and loss of confidence in the use of water and wildlife, resulting in serious impact to the way of life for many MCFN families.

Figure 3: Visual depiction of trends and stressor relating to MCFN bird harvesting

c. Identifying the importance of Project location in relation to the exercise of a community’s rights Once the cumulative effects context is understood, the assessor must evaluate the importance to the Indigenous community of the areas where the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights may be impacted by the Project.

Key indicators to guide the assessor in identifying important cultural landscapes and species include:

 connection of the Project area to preferred areas (keystone places);  relationship of the Project to changing or diminishing access to preferred areas;  preferred species in and around the Project area,  the relationship of affected habitat to the wellbeing of a particular herd (keystone species);  relation of an affected area to community stewardship vision;  depth of concern by the culture holder; and  representation of Indigenous people that value the place for the range of activities and values.

The following signals may help the assessor identify the importance of a particular area to Indigenous community:

 the occurrence of many place names within the Project area;  the intensity and frequency of traditional and cultural uses in the area;  the diversity of traditional and cultural uses and experiences in the area;  the uniqueness of the particular area to the culture holder;  the role that the location holds in trade and cultural exchange; and  the role the place holds in cultural protocol.

Example of cultural keystone species to MCFN16 Bison is a keystone cultural species to the MCFN, with the skulls used in sweat lodges, as altars, and in ceremonies in many households. The Cree language has many words and phrases that refer to the animal as whole, the meaning the animal holds, and the bush way of life that the MCFN continue. The Ronald Lake herd itself is the only herd accessible to the MCFN, and Mikisew themselves have reduced the frequency of harvest in effort to preserve the herd.

16 Garibaldi, Ann and Nancy Turner. 2004. “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration.” Ecology and Society 9 (3): 1 [online].

Example of keystone place to MCFN17 The Peace-Athabasca Delta, including the watersheds that flow into it, is a keystone place for the MCFN. MCFN people explain that the Peace-Athabasca Delta, or Ayapaskaw in Cree, is “found in every collective breath of the Mikisew people. Ayapaskaw is where we are born. Ayapaskaw is our home. Ayapaskaw is our grocery store. Ayapaskaw is our classroom. Ayapaskaw is our church. Ayapaskaw is our highway. Ayapaskaw is our photo album. Ayapaskaw informs our thinking. How we think and how we see the world – that comes from Ayapaskaw. As Mikisew people, Ayapaskaw is the place where our happiest memories live. For us, Ayapaskaw is everything. Our way of life is grounded in a generations-old relationship between Mikisew people and the superlative network of wetlands, reed banks, lakes, and waterways that form Ayapaskaw. ”18

Step 2: Evaluating Impacts on the exercise of Rights Once step 1 has been completed and a culturally appropriate context has been developed, the task of understanding the Project effects can be undertaken.

The objective of the evaluation step in this assessment of impact on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights is twofold: to describe the pathways by which the Project may affect the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, as asserted; and, to evaluate the severity of those impacts.

a. Listing the pathways for potential impacts the Project may have (positive and negative) on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights The assessor should consider the major impact pathways identified for the Project. This should include an initial description of changes to the environment as a result of the Project and a description of changes to the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The use of visual tools to illustrate pathways is helpful in describing and contextualizing both effects to the environment and identified impacts to the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights (e.g. Appendix B). For example, MCFN presented an impact pathway describing the potential impacts of the Project on bison, moose, and caribou19 (Figure 4).

17 Ibid 18 MCFN and Firelight Report, “Water is Everything: An indigenous understanding of the Outstanding Universal Value of Wood Buffalo National Park”, 2016, p. 4. 19 Candler et. al., “Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project”, 2015, p. 92.

Figure 4: MCFN impact pathway for right to harvest moose, bison and caribou

When developing impact pathways, it is very important to consider both tangible values (e.g., wildlife species or traditional plants) and intangible values (e.g., quiet enjoyment of the landscape or sites used for teaching). Intangible values are often linked with spiritual, artistic, aesthetic and educational elements that are often associated with the identity of Indigenous communities.

b. Determine whether the Project will have a low, medium or high level of impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights At this stage, the task of the assessor is to consider the severity of the potential impacts of the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights within the context established through step 1 of this methodology.

The consideration of severity must be undertaken with clear consideration of the principles set out above and should provide answers, reflective of Indigenous perspectives, to the following questions:

 Nature of Impacts: Based on step 1 and the community’s perspective on impacts, what is the spatial extent, likelihood, certainty, duration/frequency and reversibility of Project impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights?

 Regional/Historic/Cumulative Impacts: Is there an impact from past, existing, and future projects or activities on the Indigenous community’s history and connection to the landscape?

 Community Thresholds: Are there applicable community thresholds, laws or norms that have already been crossed or that will be breached by the Project?

 Cultural Landscape: Will the Project have an impact on the community’s planning, management or stewardship of traditional lands and resources?

 Preferred Expression of Rights: Will the Project impact the ecosystem or cultural values that support a community’s way of life and cultural health, including its practices, customs, and traditions? Is the Project consistent with, and does it support, the preferred expression of a community’s Aboriginal and treaty rights?

 Distribution of Benefits/Impact Equity: Does the Project provide an acceptable level of mitigation and benefits from the community’s perspective to justify the impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights? Are the impacts disproportionately experienced by parts of a population, such as women, elders, youth or a particular family group, or do the benefits only go to a few individuals or segment of the community?

 Present and Future Generations: Do the Project-specific mitigation measures and benefits further reconciliation and preserve the ability of future generations to benefit from their rights?

MCFN and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have developed the criteria table below (Table 1) to guide the assessor in answering these questions and assessing the severity of impacts from the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The criteria should be applied by working through each of the above guiding topics and questions and considering, for each category, whether the severity is ranked as low, moderate, or high.

When considering the severity of Project’s potential impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights at this step, the assessor may take into consideration any proposed and culturally appropriate measures that may address the impacts identified. In doing so, any measures considered in application of this methodology should take into account the views of Indigenous peoples with respect to the measures that are proposed, and their appropriateness and effectiveness. This step should consider that there is the potential for a scenario whereby no measures are available to reduce or avoid the impact on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Table 1: Criteria table for assessing the severity of impacts from the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights

Duration/Frequency/ Way of Life (values, Regional/Historic/ Stewardship/Nationhood & Impact Inequity (including Spatial Extent Likelihood Reversibility practices, traditions) Cumulative context Community Thresholds future generations) Definition: Spatial area over Definition: Prospect of an Definition: How often Definition: Impacts to Definition: Impacts of past, Definition: Planning and Definition: Impacts could be which the impact on the impact on rights occurring disruptions to the practice of ecosystem and cultural existing and future projects management or stewardship disproportionately exercise of rights and that is based on information rights may occur. values that support a or activities. Cumulative of traditional lands and experienced by parts of a culture/way of life is from technical and Length of time that an impact community’s way of life and impacts may have a regional resources. Indigenous population, such as women, predicted to occur. Can community based experts, to a right is experienced, cultural health, including its or historic context and may governance and decision- elders, youth, key harvesters include quantitative and including those most likely to from the community practices, customs and extend to aspects of rights making authority may be or a particular family group qualitative scales for be impacted. The full life- perspective. For example, traditions. Prospect of related to socio-economics, expressed through a specific and benefits may only go to a characterizing geographic cycle of a project’s impacts, reclamation does not disruption to preferred ways health, culture/way of life, laws, norms, power, and few individuals or segment of extent of impact. including its various stages mitigate impacts to rights of continuing customs, heritage, and other matter language. a community. Particular and lifespan (meaning, at a during operation and impacts traditions and practices. Way tied to an Indigenous consideration to be given to minimum, through to the that occur at only certain of life may be linked to community’s history and future generations projected end of the times of year may be culturally important connection to the landscape. reclamation process), should experienced as ongoing landscapes, species and be considered in determining impacts if they take place on determinants of community the likelihood of occurrence a weekly, monthly or annual health identified by the of an effect. Likelihood refers basis. impacted community. to more than just the probability of environmental *Note: Reversibility does not effects, and also includes the include the potential to move prospect of diminishment of practice of rights to another sense of place, confidence in jurisdiction or area. the quality and quantity of resources, and experience of rights. Low. The impact on the Low. A potential impact on Low. The impact lasts < 5 Low. No or little indication Low. There is little Low. There is a high level of Low. Vulnerable sub-groups exercise of rights could occur the exercise of rights is years (i.e., approximate that there would be any development in the cooperation between the (such as elders, children, over a small spatial area. unlikely but could occur. duration of construction impact to practice of rights, community’s territory that proponent and impacted youth, women, specific phase). The impact would be traditional resources or has created restraints on the group. The community has families and/or households) confined to one discrete ecosystem and cultural exercise of rights and the formally indicated to the are unlikely to experience period during the life of the services of the impacted Project or activity would be Crown that risks from the impacts from the Project and Project. The impact may be group. Little to no reduction in an area with few existing Project are acceptable or are likely to maintain the reversed in the short term. in value of culturally impacts. In addition, the have been accommodated or exercise of rights. The

Duration/Frequency/ Way of Life (values, Regional/Historic/ Stewardship/Nationhood & Impact Inequity (including Spatial Extent Likelihood Reversibility practices, traditions) Cumulative context Community Thresholds future generations) (noise, visual quality, etc.) group of the population. High. The impact on the High. An impact on the High. The impact on the High. Impacts are likely to High. There are multiple High. The Project would likely High. One or more exercise of rights could occur exercise of rights is highly exercise of rights is unlikely cause an interference with other land uses, including prevent or restrict use of vulnerable sub-groups will be over a large spatial extent likely or certain to occur. to be reversed, either in the meaningful exercise proposed or existing projects, areas identified as high disproportionately impacted whole or in part, because the rights in the preferred which impact the stewardship and nationhood by the Project, and impact is likely to persist manner, including limited use community’s practice of priorities. Project may cause mitigations and benefits beyond one generation. The of, or access to, preferred rights. The Project may interference in traditional unlikely to preserve the impact would occur quality and quantity of interact with the exercise of land management regime ability of sub-groups to constantly during, and resources and or limitations rights in an area highly and values. The community benefit from their rights. potentially beyond, the on scarce or high community valued given cumulative has indicated that the Project Intergenerational transfer of economic life of the Project. value areas. Multiple impacts context. The rights which is not compatible with its knowledge would be “Constantly” can mean either could occur to one area of may be impacted by the land use plans or application interrupted for an extended that a project activity high importance. The Project Project are not currently of traditional laws. time period and may not be interacts with rights on an may cause effects on a practiced in the preferred reversed either in whole or uninterrupted basis or on a species that is culturally manner because of part. sporadic but repeated basis important, that has limited conservation issues, lack of that may coincide with rights availability or high sensitivity access or government activities that take place at to change or that is also a policy/programs. certain intervals or seasons. federally or provincially listed species at risk. Access to practice cultural activities would likely be disrupted or limited. The disturbance may be of a spiritual, cultural, social, physical or sensory nature (noise, visual quality, etc.)

Step 3: Follow-up and Validation A best practice for upholding Principle 7 of this methodology is, prior to making a final evaluation, to ensure that Indigenous communities have an opportunity to comment on the assessor’s understanding of Indigenous knowledge, values, and thresholds, and the application of steps 1 and 2.

Note Regarding Use of this Methodology by Third Parties or for Purposes Other than the Evaluation of the Frontier Project

It is important to recognize that this document was co-developed between MCFN and CEAA and is the product of extensive engagement between MCFN and CEAA. MCFN and CEAA reserve the ability to review this framework and jointly update or clarify it as needed.

Consistent with the collaborative approach that led to this methodology and the principles contained herein, MCFN and CEAA strongly recommend that this methodology not be used in other contexts without prior engagement with potentially affected indigenous groups.

This methodology was prepared for the specific context of the Frontier Project and is not intended to limit any approach to or criteria for evaluating impacts of any other project, plan or policy on Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Finally, use of any content in this document that references MCFN’s history, culture, preferred conditions for the exercise of rights, or otherwise relates specifically to MCFN’s way of life should not be undertaken without the prior authorization of MCFN.

Appendices

Appendix A

MCFN-CEAA criteria for assessing the severity of potential impacts from the Project on the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights

Interpretive Notes:  Table 1 provides the criteria jointly developed by MCFN and the Agency to support an assessment of the severity of potential impacts to the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights in the context of the Project.

 “Rights” are understood to include the right to maintain a community’s culture and traditional way of life. Wherever the term “rights” is used in this table, it should be understood to include the culture and traditional way of life of the community possessing those rights.

 “Impacts on the exercise of rights” is construed broadly in a manner that is not limited to biophysical effects or residual environmental effects, and should always be informed by Indigenous perspectives and knowledge.

 Further context on the legal, academic and or practitioner principles that support the application of these criteria can be found in the MCFN document “A Survey of the Field”.

 The criteria outlined in Table 1 are to be applied after consideration of context specific factors identified by the impacted Indigenous community, including consideration of any past impacts on the exercise of rights that should be factored into the assessment.

Appendix B

Examples of Potential Impacts on the exercise of MCFN’s Treaty rights as identified by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

 Potential for impacts on the unique cultural and ecological richness of the land as asserted by MCFN and on the MCFN’s way of life and sense of place;

 Potential cumulative effects from the Project and from current and historical intensive oil sands development;

 Potential for interference with continuity of knowledge, relationships and intergenerational transmission of information and learning;

 Potential impacts on harvesting practices and culturally important resources as a result of effects on the quality and quantity of resources, in the vicinity of preferred and culturally known harvesting areas;

 Potential impacts on MCFN confidence in the utilization of traditional resources;

 Potential impacts on the culturally significant Ronald Lake bison herd. MCFN members rely on bison, both culturally and for sustenance purposes;

 Potential impacts on the ability to fish within the MCFN traditional lands that extend around Lake Athabasca over the Peace-Athabasca Delta, and south to, and including Fort McMurray;

 Potential impacts on gathering plants for cultural or medicinal purposes, and concerns regarding the quality and quantity of plants and other things gathered as result of project effects such as removal of lands and air quality (i.e. dust deposition);

 Potential impacts to wetlands, forests, muskegs, medicinal plants, and waterbodies that support the Athabasca River watershed and or have been minimally affected to date from previous development (e.g. Ronald Lake, Diana Lake, Lake Claire);

 Potential impacts on the ability of MCFN’s leaders and elders to govern and be stewards of the land, provide this intergenerational knowledge and preserve these practices; and

 Potential impacts on the ability to use one of the remaining areas of relatively pristine landscape unaffected by existing oil development for reliable practice of rights through reduced access or sensory impacts (e.g. noise and light).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation

PREPARED FOR Kainai First Nation and JFK Law

PREPARED BY M. Carlson, K. Berg, T. Dyck, B. Stelfox & J. Straker, Integral Ecology Group and ALCES Group

November 9, 2018 Project No. JFKBBS-18

Distribution Kainai First Nation—e-copy JFK Law—e-copy Integral Ecology Group, Ltd.—e-copy ALCES Group, Ltd.—e-copy

November 9, 2018 File: JFKBBS-18

JFK Law Vancouver, BC

ATTENTION: Jeff Langlois REFERENCE: Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation

Dear Jeff:

Please find below Integral Ecology Group’s final report for an initial assessment of cumulative effects of land development on ecological indicators of cultural importance to the Kainai First Nation. We trust this information meets your requirements at this time. Thank you for Integral Ecology Group’s involvement in this important work. Should you have any questions or comments about this document, please do not hesitate to contact me at the e‐ mail address or phone number listed below.

Yours sincerely,

Matt Carlson Ecologist ALCES Group Ltd. & Integral Ecology Group Ltd.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018

SUGGESTED CITATION Carlson M, Berg K, Dyck T, Stelfox B, Straker J. 2018. Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation. Prepared for Kainai First Nation, Standoff, AB, and JFK Law, Vancouver, BC. Prepared by Integral Ecology Group, Ltd., Duncan, BC, and the ALCES Group, Calgary, AB.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Kainai First Nation community members and staff who shared their time and expertise during the meetings for this project. We greatly appreciate the traditional knowledge and observations that were shared to inform this project. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of staff at JFK Law staff, including Jeff Langlois and Clayton Leonard.

LIMITATIONS The interpretations and conclusions in the report reflect the understanding of the authors, but do not necessarily provide a comprehensive portrayal of the perspectives of all collaborating community members.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an initial assessment of cumulative effects of land development on ecological indicators of cultural importance to Kainai First Nation (Blood Tribe) in Alberta. This work employed the ALCES model to examine three issues of cumulative effects:

1. industrial and regulatory activities (including construction of development footprint and land-use zoning such as protected areas) that potentially restrict or exclude land uses by Blood Tribe members;

2. the loss of remaining relatively intact ecosystems within the Blood Tribe traditional territory; and,

3. the effects of current development activities on fish and wildlife on which Blood Tribe traditional land uses depend.

The study was conducted at two scales:

1. the regional study area, to assess impacts near the Blood Tribe reserve; and,

2. the focal study area, which involved a focussed analysis of effects in an area around the proposed Benga Grassy Mountain mine development.

Prior to European settlement, the regional study area’s intact ecosystems would have supported abundant fish and wildlife populations of importance to Blood Tribe members. The prairies in the central and eastern portion of the region would have supported species associated with grassland such as elk and mule deer, whereas species associated with forest such as moose would have been more abundant to the west. Since European settlement, almost half of the regional landscape surrounding the Blood Tribe reserve has been converted to farmland and other anthropogenic footprints and larger patches of intact natural land cover are now largely restricted to protected areas. The loss of natural land cover has detrimentally affected fish and wildlife habitat and facilitated increased angling and hunting pressure. Habitat indices that incorporate the consequences of both habitat loss and risk of mortality are estimated to be substantially below natural levels. Elk and mule deer habitat is less than half of pre-industrial levels. These reductions in habitat imply high risk to wildlife and associated traditional land use. The fish index has also declined below its natural condition, mainly due to fragmentation of habitat and increased access for anglers by roads and other footprints, resulting in moderate risk.

Opportunities to fish and hunt are further restricted by inability to access the land for traditional land use due to private ownership, other land tenure (i.e., protected areas), and proximity to non-traditional land use activities. About 80% of the regional study area is estimated to be inaccessible for traditional land use. As a result, opportunity for traditional

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 ii

land uses (e.g., hunting mule deer and elk) is less than half what would be suggested by habitat alone. These declines in habitat and low accessibility have resulted in reduced fishing and hunting opportunities, and increased the importance for traditional land use of comparatively intact landscapes to the west such as the focal study area.

In the focal study, loss of natural land cover has been lower than in the regional study area but is still substantial with 18% converted to anthropogenic footprint. Much of the eastern portion has been converted to farmland, and elsewhere natural land cover is fragmented by energy sector footprints (pipelines, seismic lines, well sites) and roads that provide access for hunting and angling. As a result, habitat is substantially below natural conditions, placing mule deer and elk, and associated traditional land use at moderate risk. The fish community is also impacted by fragmentation and access to anglers, resulting in moderate risk.

Projected growth in footprint over the next 50 years in the study area is relatively minor, and wildlife risk remained moderate whereas risk to the fish community increased to high in response to climate change (warming). The greatest contributor to footprint expansion during the 50-year simulation was mining, primarily from development of the Grassy Mountain mine. As such, the proposed mining development is projected to contribute to ongoing loss of habitat and associated opportunities for traditional land use, and impacts may be greater if potential impacts of water contamination (e.g., selenium, calcite) were to be considered. As was the case with the regional study area, accessibility of the land for traditional activities is also of concern with an estimated 40% being inaccessible. When inaccessibility is combined with habitat effectiveness, opportunity for hunting elk and mule deer declines to about one quarter of natural, resulting in an assessment of high risk to traditional land use.

Our analysis suggests that Blood Tribe members have experienced a substantial decline in hunting and fishing opportunities in areas close to their reserve, and thus have had these traditional-land-use activities displaced to more remote areas, including to the western focal study area. However, habitat values in this western area are also negatively impacted by land use and are lower overall due to natural conditions (high elevations, lower abundance of grassland) that are less favourable for ungulates. In addition to reduced habitat, accessibility for traditional land use is of concern due to the prevalence of private land and other impediments to traditional land use activities. When accessibility and habitat are both considered, risk to traditional land use is high in both the regional and focal study areas.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Objectives and study areas ...... 1 3. Methods ...... 2 3.1. Timeframes for analysis ...... 3 3.2. Selection of indicators ...... 3 4. Results ...... 6 4.1. Regional study area – summary ...... 6 4.2. Focal study area ...... 11 4.2.1. Protected areas and land use footprints...... 11 4.2.2. Remaining intact ecosystems ...... 19 4.2.3. Effects to wildlife and fish ...... 21 4.2.4. Effects to traditional land use ...... 31 5. Summary ...... 38 6. References ...... 39

. . .

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 iv

FIGURES Figure 1 Study areas and reserves...... 2 Figure 2 Current total anthropogenic footprint in the regional study area...... 8 Figure 3 Mule deer TLU opportunity in the regional study area...... 9 Figure 4 Elk TLU opportunity in the regional study area...... 10 Figure 5 Locations in the focal study area of restrictive tenure types that may limit hunting opportunities for Blood Tribe members...... 12 Figure 6 Current and simulated future footprint in the focal study area...... 13 Figure 7 Current and simulated future development footprint in the focal study area...... 14 Figure 8 Current and simulated future footprint by land use in the focal study area...... 15 Figure 9 Current agricultural footprint in the focal study area...... 15 Figure 10 Current and simulated future mining footprint in the focal study area...... 16 Figure 11 Current energy footprint in the focal study area...... 17 Figure 12 Current transportation footprint in the focal study area...... 17 Figure 13 Current settlement and rural residential footprint in the focal study area...... 18 Figure 14 Other current footprints in the focal study area, including cemeteries, industrial undifferentiated, lagoons, landfills, power generation, powerlines, recreation, and sumps...... 18 Figure 15 Current and simulated future coverage of the focal study area by intact patches at least 0.04 km2 in size...... 19 Figure 16 Current and simulated future size of intact patches of natural land cover in the focal study area...... 20 Figure 18 Current and simulated future moose habitat in the focal study area (blue line)...... 22 Figure 19 Natural, current, and simulated future moose habitat in the focal study area...... 23 Figure 20 Current and simulated future elk habitat index in the focal study area (blue line). 24 Figure 21 Natural, current, and simulated future elk habitat in the focal study area...... 25 Figure 22 Current and simulated future mule deer habitat index in the focal study area (blue line)...... 26 Figure 23 Natural, current, and simulated future mule deer habitat in the focal study area. .. 27 Figure 24 Current and simulated future index of native fish community integrity in the focal study area...... 28 Figure 25 The effect of stressors on INFI in the focal study area...... 29 Figure 26 Current and simulated future index of native fish community integrity (INFI) in the focal study area...... 30 Figure 27 Percent of the focal study area that is accessible for traditional land use...... 32 Figure 28 Current and simulated future accessibility for traditional land use in the focal study area...... 33 Figure 29 Current and simulated future mule deer traditional land use opportunity in the focal study area...... 34 Figure 30 Current and simulated future mule deer TLU opportunity in the focal study area...... 35 Figure 31 Current and simulated future elk traditional land use opportunity in the focal study area...... 36 Figure 32 Current and simulated future elk TLU opportunity in the focal study area...... 37

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 v

. . . TABLES Table 1. Modelled indicator performance and risk assessment for the regional study area...... 7 Table 2. Modelled indicator performance and risk assessment for the focal study area...... 21

. . .

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 vi

APPENDICES Appendix A Technical methods Appendix B Detailed regional results Appendix C Wildlife habitat analysis

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 vii

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents an initial assessment of cumulative effects of land development on ecological indicators of cultural importance to the Kainai First Nation (Blood Tribe) in Alberta. The report addresses three issues:

2. the loss of remaining relatively intact ecosystems within the Blood Tribe traditional territory; and,

3. the effects of current development activities on ecosystems and species on which Blood Tribe traditional land uses depend.

2. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY AREAS The objectives of this project were to examine cumulative effects at two scales (Figure 1):

1. the focal study area:

We completed a focussed analysis of effects in an area near the proposed Benga Grassy Mountain mine development, using the Upper Oldman Crowsnest Pass watershed as the study area. The watershed covers almost 6,000 km2 and is one of 132 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds in Alberta.1

2. the regional study area:

We completed a broad analysis of effects in a large study area that covers approximately 62,904 km2 and is made up of 14 HUC 6 watersheds. This study area was used to demonstrate regional impacts near the Blood Tribe reserves and a broader region identified by community members as being historically important for traditional land use. Much of the regional study area has been converted to agriculture and other land uses, and exploring

1 HUC 6 watersheds are part of a hierarchically structured watershed classification system that ranges from HUC 2 (at the coarsest scale) to HUC 10 (as the finest scale). Watersheds are beneficial units for conservation planning (Schindler and Lee 2010) due to their organizing effect on ecosystems, as a result of hydrological connectivity and biophysical boundaries such as the Continental Divide which forms the western boundary of the watershed. Higher order (i.e., larger) watersheds typically support more biodiversity because they contain a wider range of habitats, whereas smaller watersheds are more sensitive to local disturbance. The Upper Oldman Crowsnest Pass watershed was selected to balance these considerations (i.e., diversity and sensitivity). The watershed contains the proposed mine, but also other land uses that are active in the region including forestry (in the C5 forest management unit), agriculture (in the eastern portion of the basin around Pincher Creek), and some oil and gas development.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 1

cumulative effects at this scale provides the perspective to assess the importance of the relatively less-impacted focal study area. Results for the regional study area are summarized in the main body of the report and described in greater detail in an appendix.

Figure 1 Study areas and reserves. The focal study area is shown in red within the regional study area, which has a black outline. Blood tribe reserves are shown in green and grey.

3. METHODS This project applied the ALCES Online landscape simulation model (A Landscape Cumulative Effects Simulator [www.alces.ca]) to explore the effects of current and future land-use patterns on landscape, wildlife/fish, and TLU indicators in the study areas. ALCES Online is a landscape simulation tool for comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of multiple land uses and natural disturbances to ecosystems. ALCES Online has been used by government, First Nations, academic, industrial sectors and non-government organizations to inform land-use planning in multiple Canadian jurisdictions (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan) and in India and Australia. The model operates by subjecting a cell-based representation of today’s landscape to user-defined scenarios of past and future natural disturbance regimes and human land uses. Methods are summarized here; see Appendix A for more detailed description of the

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 2

underlying assumptions of the model.

3.1. TIMEFRAMES FOR ANALYSIS The timeframes used in our analysis differ by study area:

1. The focal study area – we analyzed current conditions for selected indicators, and contrasted these against two other time periods:

a. Pre-industrial, or range of natural variation (RNV) – we removed development footprints from the landscape and simulated the fire regime in the absence of suppression to estimate the natural range of variation in forest age and wildlife indicators. These simulations provide reference conditions against which to compare current indicator performance. Greater departure from the simulated RNV entails greater risk to the indicator and associated traditional uses.

b. Future forecast – we constructed a 50-year simulation of future landscape changes. The Benga Grassy Mountain mine footprint is relatively large in the focal study area, but there are also impacts from forestry, oil and gas, settlements, and recreation. We forecasted growth in these sectors to assess plausible future cumulative effects. The simulated rate of development was based on information obtained from coal mine environmental assessments, forestry management plans, energy development projections from the Alberta Energy Regulator and National Energy Board, and population projections from the Government of Alberta.

2. The regional study area – for the broader study area, we focussed on the contrast between pre-industrial RNV conditions and current conditions. A forecast simulation was not constructed for this broader study area.

3.2. SELECTION OF INDICATORS We selected the following groups of indicators for assessment:

1. Development footprint and protected areas – direct disturbance of land by industrial/residential development, plus any clear indirect effects of land tenure such as parks with restricted uses.

2. Area of intact landscape/habitat – measuring intact ecosystems provides a way to characterize the proportion of a landscape that is undisturbed and not affected by edge of an anthropogenic (human-caused) feature. Many animal species prefer “core” (non-fragmented) habitat and respond negatively to anthropogenic edge due to

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 3

indirect sensory effects (e.g., noise, odours, etc.) or increased mortality. Indigenous land users are also affected by edge effects and will often avoid areas of the landscape that are not intact when practicing certain traditional land uses. For this assessment, ecosystem intactness was calculated with the following two indicators: intact core area, calculated as the total extent of 200 m cells that do not contain footprint or farmland; and intact patch size, calculated as the size of each patch of cells that does not contain footprint or farmland.

3. Wildlife – the treaties and law in Canada recognize and affirm the rights of indigenous people to hunt, fish, and practice their culture. We selected three wildlife species (moose, elk, mule deer) to assess species of hunting importance to Blood Tribe members. For each species, a habitat index was calculated that ranged from 0 (no habitat) to 1 (habitat capable of supporting maximum wildlife density). The status of habitat was interpreted by comparing current habitat to values from RNV simulations. Departure from RNV was interpreted using hazard categories from MacPherson et al. (2014): low risk if index is >=70% of the natural value; moderate risk if index is 50%-70% of the natural value; high risk if index is 20%-50% of the natural value; and very high risk if index is <20% of the natural value. Although we did not model the response of wildlife populations directly, these hazard categories are used to infer risk of decline in wildlife and associated hunting opportunities.

Calculation of habitat indices integrated the effects of habitat quality, based on land cover and terrain, with the risk of mortality associated with linear footprint density. We refer to the availability of suitable land cover and terrain as potential habitat. Wildlife density may still be low despite the presence of high potential habitat if mortality is high. We use the term effective habitat to refer to habitat that also considers the effect of mortality, especially human-caused mortality. Human-caused mortality is an important driver of wildlife populations that are targeted by hunting; as such, effective habitat can be substantially lower than potential habitat. The wildlife habitat results presented in this report are for effective habitat. To explore the relative magnitude of potential and effective habitat in the analysis, the reader is referred to Appendix C.

The density of linear footprints was used as an indirect measure of the risk of mortality. Linear footprints, including roads, seismic lines, pipelines, and transmission lines, are typically correlated with mortality because they facilitate access by hunters and other predators, as well as collisions with vehicles. For example, although cutblocks and burns in northwestern Ontario were found to be similar with respect to the quality of habitat they provide, moose density was 58% lower in the cutblocks (Rempel et al. 1997). The difference was attributed to hunter

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 4

access which was low in the burns due to low road density. The effect of hunting is also illustrated by Elk Island National Park, where elk pellets were found to be more than six time more abundant inside the park than outside the park (Hood and Bayley 2008). Although the stark difference is likely influenced by other factors such as habitat quality and the presence of large carnivores, hunting is also likely to play a role. In general, survival rates of elk tend to be low in areas with high road density due to hunting pressure (Rowland et al. 2004). Linear features such as seismic lines have also been found to increase the risk of predation by other species such as wolves (e.g., McKenzie et al. 2012).

The relationship applied to incorporate the effect of linear footprint density on wildlife is based on professional opinion and assumes that adequate strategies are not in place to address the cumulative effect of multiple sources of mortality including regulated hunting, indigenous hunting, poaching, and collisions with vehicles. Although there is uncertainty with respect to the specifics of the relationship, evidence exists that each of the ungulate species can be negatively affected by human access (see Appendix C for further discussion). Managing this risk requires, in particular, management of hunting pressure. This study does not consider the efficacy of hunting regulations, other than assuming that hunting does not occur within national and provincial parks and ecological reserves. Nor does this study consider whether different types of linear features (e.g., roads versus conventional seismic lines) facilitate different levels of hunter access, but rather treats all types of linear features equally, with the exception that newer seismic lines are assumed to not facilitate hunting. These assumptions imply that the assessment of wildlife habitat represents a worst case associated with the landscape’s composition. More detailed analysis that simulates the response of populations (as opposed to just habitat) is needed to explore the efficacy of strategies to manage human-caused mortality (e.g., hunting regulations).

4. Fish – for rationale similar to #3 above, we selected a fish-community index where effects of stressors (climate, linear footprint, stream fragmentation) are analyzed and averaged to yield an index ranging from 0 to 1. Index values correspond to risk levels as follows: >0.9 is low risk; >0.6 to 0.9 is moderate risk; >0.3 to 0.6 is high risk; and <=0.3 is very high risk. It is important to note that the fish indicator did not assess potential water contamination because the available relationship did not incorporate potential impacts from mining (e.g., selenium, calcite) and implications for human consumption of fish.

5. Traditional land use (TLU) – TLU refers to resource harvest activities (e.g., hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering, travelling, etc.) as well as to the particular

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 5

connections and uses of the lands and resources related to ceremonies, customs, cultural practices, traditional governance, trade and stories. In collaboration with Blood Tribe members, we developed a TLU accessibility indicator demonstrating the accessibility of the land for traditional land use. Accessiblity was based on land ownership, protected areas, proximity to development activities and community member avoidance due to concerns about contamination, safety, and overall negative experience on the land. The TLU accessibility indicator was integrated with two wildlife indicators (mule deer, elk) to assess TLU opportunity relative to natural conditions. The TLU opportunity metric is based on the rationale that capacity to practice TLU in the landscape is affected by the status of wildlife habitat and the ability of community members to access the landscape for the purpose of practicing TLU. The TLU opportunity metric ranges from 0 to 1, with a 1 indicating maximum habitat effectiveness and accessibility for TLU, and a 0 representing no habitat and/or accessibility for TLU.

4. RESULTS A summary of results for the regional study area is presented to show pressures felt by Blood Tribe community members around their reserves and to provide context for why the community is increasingly concerned about relatively less-impacted areas such as the focal study area. More detailed results for the focal study area are then presented. Detailed regional results are presented in Appendix B.

4.1. REGIONAL STUDY AREA – SUMMARY Prior to European settlement, the grassland natural region that makes up a majority of the study area would have supported grassland-associated species such as elk and mule deer, and forest-dwelling species such as moose would have been limited to forested landscapes such as mountain valleys to the west. Natural wildlife and fish populations would have supported traditional land use throughout the region. Since European settlement, however, a substantial transformation has occurred, with almost half of the regional landscape surrounding the Blood Tribe reserve converted to anthropogenic cover types (Figure 2). The largest footprint is farmland, which accounts for 45% (2,848,386 ha) of the study area and 92% of total footprint. The loss of natural land cover and increased hunting and angling pressure has detrimentally affected fish and wildlife habitat,2 resulting in high risk to elk and mule deer, and moderate risk to the fish community. Relative to pre-industrial conditions, elk and

2 The habitat metric presented for the three wildlife indicators is defined as “effective habitat,” which refers to the availability of suitable land cover and terrain (i.e., potential habitat) combined with mortality risk facilitated by access via linear footprints (roads, seismic lines, pipelines, transmission lines).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 6

mule deer habitat has declined by 63% and 54%, respectively, whereas conditions for fish have declined by 23% (Table 1). Moose habitat has increased relative to natural conditions due to conversion of grassland to cropland, but the increase is minor and the study area is still largely unsuitable for moose.

Overall, the declines in elk, mule deer and fish have resulted in reduced opportunities to fish and to hunt on the regional landscape, an issue compounded by limited accessibility for TLU due to private land ownership, non-traditional land use activities, and community member avoidance due to concerns about contamination, safety, and overall negative experiences on the land. It is estimated that 80% of the regional study area is inaccessible for traditional land use due to presence of private land, protected areas, and non-traditional land use activities.3 When accessibility for TLU is considered, the opportunity for mule deer and elk hunting has declined from natural conditions by 87% and 88%, respectively (Figures 3 and 4). The low opportunity for TLU across much of the regional study area makes the comparatively intact landscapes along the foothills to the west critical for Blood Tribe members to be able to practice TLU activities.

Table 1. Modelled indicator performance and risk assessment for the regional study area. See section 3.2 or Appendix A for risk categories.

Current decline Indicator Min. RNV (or 1) Current estimate (%) from min. Risk level RNV Moose habitat* 0.02 0.07 - - Elk habitat* 0.84 0.31 63 High Mule deer habitat* 0.84 0.39 54 High Prairie INFI (fish) 1.00** 0.77 23 Moderate *Habitat refers to effective habitat, which accounts for availability of suitable land cover and terrain combined with mortality risk associated with linear footprints. ** For INFI, any decline from a value of 1 signifies degrading conditions for the indicator. As a result, the output for this indicator is compared to 1 rather than to mean RNV.

3 The regional modeling results likely overestimate TLU accessibility because traditional land use depends on numerous factors that have not been numerically considered here. For example, members explained that often gates and restrictions prohibit them from accessing lands that are relatively intact. Further, as regulations increase for recreational activities on surrounding land (e.g., Castle Provincial Park) less regulated but intact crown lands become increasingly busy increasing the completion for resources (e.g., hunting, fishing, and camping spots).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 7

Figure 2 Current total anthropogenic footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 8

Figure 3 Mule deer TLU opportunity in the regional study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicates greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 9

Figure 4 Elk TLU opportunity in the regional study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicates greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 10

4.2. FOCAL STUDY AREA With the degradation of natural ecosystems surrounding their reserve, the Blood Tribe community relies on the more intact landscapes to the west, such as areas in the focal study area, to support traditional land use. There too, however, opportunities for traditional land use are impacted by the cumulative effects of land use and other drivers such as climate change. In this section we focus on a 6,000 km2 landscape to evaluate the current landscape and its fish and wildlife habitat relative to natural conditions, and the potential consequences of land use and climate change over the next 50 years as simulated using ALCES Online.4

4.2.1. Protected areas and land use footprints This section presents the various protected areas and anthropogenic footprints that may affect traditional land use in the study area either by restricting access to the land or by altering the capacity of the land to support wildlife. Community members discussed the effect of protected areas and footprints on TLU at a workshop. The discussion informed TLU accessibility and opportunity indicators that are presented later in this section and described in greater detail in the methods appendix (Appendix A).

Restrictive protected areas Provincial parks and ecological reserves amount to nearly 5.4% (32,249 ha) (Figure 5). 5 These areas have hunting restrictions that could prevent Blood Tribe members from practicing TLU within portions of their traditional territory. We did not include wildland provincial parks and other natural areas in the study area because it is our understanding that these areas do not have restrictions on hunting.6

4 The methods used to simulate land use, fire, and climate are described in Appendix A. 5 Provincial parks in the study area include Beauvais Lake and Castle. Ecological reserves include Plateau Mountain and Westcastle Wetlands. 6 This research was done with reference to provincial hunting information provided at: https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/visit-our-parks/activities/hunting/#na

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 11

Figure 5 Locations in the focal study area of restrictive tenure types (i.e., provincial parks and ecological reserves) that may limit hunting opportunities for Blood Tribe members. Red indicates restrictive tenure.

Footprint types Land use footprints account for 18% (105,087 ha) of the study area and are projected to increase by around 2,700 ha by the end of the 50-year forecast (Figures 6 and 7). The main contributor to this footprint is agriculture, which currently accounts for 15% (89,568 ha) of the study area and 85% of the total footprint in the study area (Figure 8). Agriculture footprint is projected to remain relatively stable during the 50-year forecast, falling slightly by 246 ha to 83% due to conversion to other land uses such as settlement (Figure 9). The greatest contributor to footprint expansion during the simulation period was from mining, which increased by 1,892 ha primarily from development of the Grassy Mountain mine (Figure 10). Figures 11 through 14 present more minor contributions to footprint from energy,

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 12

transportation, settlement, and “other footprints,”7 respectively.8

Figure 6 Current and simulated future footprint in the focal study area. Cutblocks are not included.

7 Includes cemeteries, industrial undifferentiated, lagoons, landfills, power generation, powerlines, recreation, and sumps. 8 Current and forecast maps are only presented for total footprint (Figure 7) and mining (Figure 10) whereas the other indicators (Figures 11-14) are only represented by a “current” map because their changes through the forecast are minor.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 13

Figure 7 Current and simulated future development footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the proportion of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 14

Figure 8 Current and simulated future footprint by land use in the focal study area.

Figure 9 Current agricultural footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 15

Figure 10 Current and simulated future mining footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the proportion of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 16

Figure 11 Current energy footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint.

Figure 12 Current transportation footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 17

Figure 13 Current settlement and rural residential footprint in the focal study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint.

Figure 14 Other current footprints in the focal study area, including cemeteries, industrial undifferentiated, lagoons, landfills, power generation, powerlines, recreation, and sumps.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 18

4.2.2. Remaining intact ecosystems Effects of land disturbance to ecosystems were examined by analyzing impacts to (i) intact core area, and (ii) intact patch size.

Intact core area The total extent of 200 m cells that do not contain footprint or farmland (intact core area) is currently around 55% (329,342 ha) of the focal study area. Intact core area declines slightly to 54% (324,372 ha) by the end of the 50-year forecast (Figure 15). Note that there are about 3,926 ha of waterbodies in the study area, which reduces intact core area by about 1% if only the terrestrial land base is considered.

Figure 15 Current and simulated future coverage of the focal study area by intact patches at least 0.04 km2 in size.

Intact patch size For the focal study area, results show that average intact patch size across the terrestrial land base (i.e., not including lakes) is currently around 9,131 ha and it is projected to increase negligibly over the 50-year forecast to 9,143 ha (Figures 16). The insensitivity of intact patch size is due to the location of simulated new footprints being concentrated in the eastern portion of the study area where patch size is already low.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 19

Figure 16 Current and simulated future size of intact patches of natural land cover in the focal study area.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 20

4.2.3. Effects to wildlife and fish Current and simulated future wildlife and fish habitat in the focal study area relative to natural conditions is summarized in Table 2 and discussed below.9

Table 2. Modelled indicator performance and risk assessment for the focal study area. See section 3.2 or Appendix A for risk categories. % change from min. Min. RNV Model estimates Indicator RNV (or 1) Risk level (or 1) Current 50 years Current 50 years Moose habitat 0.05 0.05 0.05 - - - Elk habitat 0.42 0.22 0.21 -48 -51 Moderate Mule deer habitat 0.42 0.25 0.25 -40 -41 Moderate Foothills/Montane INFI Moderate/ 1.00* 0.66 0.52 -34 -48 (fish) High * For INFI, any decline from a value of 1 signifies degrading conditions for the indicator. As a result, the output for this indicator is compared to 1 rather than to mean RNV.

Moose Moose habitat has likely always been low in the study area due to the grassland to the east and high elevation to the west, and habitat remains low today. At the scale of the study area, moose habitat has declined marginally to the lower edge of the RNV. The negative impacts of habitat loss and elevated mortality risk due to access are partially offset by minor increases in habitat in the eastern portion of the study area where grassland has been converted to cropland which provides better forage. However, the best habitat remains lower elevation forests in the parkland and mountain valleys to the west.

9 The habitat metric presented for the three wildlife indicators is defined as “effective habitat,” which refers to the availability of suitable land cover and terrain (i.e., potential habitat) combined with mortality risk facilitated by access via linear footprints (roads, seismic lines, pipelines, transmission lines).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 21

Figure 17 Current and simulated future moose habitat in the focal study area (blue line). The red dashed lines identify the estimated range of natural variation as a baseline for comparison.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 22

Figure 18 Natural, current, and simulated future moose habitat in the focal study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 23

Elk habitat Elk habitat has declined by 48% in the focal study area relative to natural conditions (Table 2, Figure 20). This decline corresponds to an assessment of moderate risk to elk and associated hunting opportunities. Elk habitat was likely highest in the grasslands in the eastern portion of the focal study area prior to European settlement (Figure 21), but habitat in this area has since declined due to conversion to agriculture and mortality risk associated with linear footprints. Remaining elk habitat is now focused in remaining grassland with lower linear footprint density. In the forecast, elk habitat dropped slightly to below 50% of natural at the end of the 50-year forecast.

Figure 19 Current and simulated future elk habitat index in the focal study area (blue line). The red dashed lines identify the estimated range of natural variation as a baseline for comparison.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 24

Figure 20 Natural, current, and simulated future elk habitat in the focal study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 25

Mule deer habitat Mule deer habitat has declined by 40% relative to natural conditions in the focal study area (Table 2, Figure 22). This decline corresponds to an assessment of moderate risk to mule deer and associated hunting opportunities. Under natural conditions, suitable mule deer habitat was focused in the eastern portion of the study area but this area has since undergone a decline in habitat due to conversion to farmland and linear footprints that facilitate human access (Figure 23). Remaining elk habitat is now focused in remaining grassland as well as pasture with lower linear footprint density. In the forecast, mule deer habitat decreased only slightly over time to 41% of natural at the end of the 50-year forecast.

Figure 21 Current and simulated future mule deer habitat index in the focal study area (blue line). The red dashed line identifies the estimated range of natural variation as a baseline for comparison.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 26

Figure 22 Natural, current, and simulated future mule deer habitat in the focal study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 27

Index of Native Fish Integrity (INFI) The fish community index (INFI) is projected to fall from a current value of 0.66 (a 34% decline from RNV) to 0.52 (a 48% decline from RNV) (Table 2, Figure 24), suggesting a shift from moderate to high risk over the next five decades. INFI was calculated as the average value across three effects: linear edge, stream fragmentation, and climate. Currently, linear edge and stream fragmentation levels are consistent with high risk, whereas climate is consistent with low risk (Figure 25). During the simulation, however, rising temperature causes the climate effect to elevate to moderate and overall risk to increase to high. Current and simulated future INFI values for watersheds are illustrated in Figure 26. Lower risk watersheds are concentrated in the prairie portion of the watershed, where fishing pressure is likely limited by private land and fish habitat is dominated by rivers that are less susceptible to fragmentation by culverts, and in the southern portion of the watershed where footprint is lower due to protection.

Figure 23 Current and simulated future index of native fish community integrity in the focal study area.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 28

Figure 24 The effect of stressors on INFI in the focal study area. Lower values indicate greater impact.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 29

Figure 25 Current and simulated future index of native fish community integrity (INFI) in the focal study area. Higher values (i.e., greener colours) indicate lower risk.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 30

4.2.4. Effects to traditional land use Effects to traditional land use were examined by analyzing impacts to three indicators:

1. accessibility for traditional land use;

2. mule deer TLU opportunity; and,

3. elk TLU opportunity.

Results by indicator are discussed below.

Note that the results presented are likely an overestimation (i.e., optimistic view) of actual conditions for TLU accessibility and opportunity. For instance, from a land use standpoint, harvesting activities do not necessarily occur where there is accessible and suitable habitat, but rather depend on numerous logistical and cultural factors that have not been numerically considered here. Some of the factors that have not been integrated in the modeling include distance from home, ease of access, gates and restrictions that prohibit access,10 familiarity and knowledge of location, cultural history in the area, competition for resources (e.g., hunting, fishing, and camping sites), among others. As an example, there may be locations that have suitable habitat but are not valuable for hunting because they are too far from home and in unfamiliar locations. Hunting in remote locations requires commitment of increased time and resources that some members cannot afford, and success in unfamiliar locations is not guaranteed. The result of the combination of these factors is that not all of the habitat that is modeled as suitable/accessible in this study necessarily presents a good TLU opportunity for community members.

10 Community members described two specific access points (the Shell plant and Birdseye Ranch) that have been gated in recent years, cutting off access to a large land use zone and associated network of roads.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 31

Accessibility for traditional land use

The amount of land that is currently accessible for traditional land use is estimated to equal 60% (359,998 ha) of the focal study area (Figure 27). This area declines slightly to 58% (345,453 ha) by the end of the 50-year forecast. Current and simulated future values are illustrated in Figure 28. Throughout the simulation, much of the accessible land for TLU occurs in the western foothills and mountains.

Figure 26 Percent of the focal study area that is accessible for traditional land use. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 32

Figure 27 Current and simulated future accessibility for traditional land use in the focal study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicate greater accessibility.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 33

Mule deer TLU opportunity Current mule deer TLU opportunity (0.13) in the focal study area is about 48% lower than current mule deer effective habitat (0.25) presented in section 4.2.3 (see Figure 22). By the end of the forecast, mule deer TLU opportunity is projected to decline by about 7% due to expansion of development activities (Figures 29 and 30).

Figure 28 Current and simulated future mule deer traditional land use opportunity in the focal study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 34

Figure 29 Current and simulated future mule deer TLU opportunity in the focal study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicate greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 35

Elk TLU opportunity Current elk TLU opportunity (0.13) in the focal study area is about 41% lower than current elk effective habitat (0.22) presented in section 4.2.3 (see Figure 20). By the end of the forecast, elk TLU opportunity is projected to decline by around 10% due to expansion of development activities (Figures 31 and 32).

Figure 30 Current and simulated future elk traditional land use opportunity in the focal study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 36

Figure 31 Current and simulated future elk TLU opportunity in the focal study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicate greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 37

5. SUMMARY The majority of the regional landscape surrounding the Kainai First Nation reserve has been converted to anthropogenic cover types, primarily farmland. The loss of natural land cover and high linear footprint densities have detrimentally affected fish and wildlife, resulting in moderate risk to the fish community and high risk to elk and mule deer. Accessibility of the land for traditional activities is also of concern, with only 20% of the land estimated to be accessible. These impacts have resulted in substantially reduced opportunities for Blood Tribe members to fish and to hunt in the region, which has made the comparatively intact landscapes to the west important for traditional land use.

In the focal study area, loss of natural land cover has been lower but is still substantial, and much of the remaining natural land cover is fragmented by energy sector footprints and roads that provide access for hunting and angling. As a result, habitat is substantially below natural conditions, placing mule deer and elk, and associated traditional land use at moderate risk. The fish community is also impacted by fragmentation and access to anglers, resulting in moderate risk which increased to high over the next 50 years in response to warming. The analysis identifies risk to wildlife of not addressing the cumulative effect of habitat quality, climate change, and multiple sources of mortality including regulated hunting, indigenous hunting, poaching, and vehicle collisions. The extent to which wildlife populations are actually at risk requires more detailed analysis to assess the response of wildlife populations to multiple sources of mortality under current and alternative wildlife management strategies.

Although simulated footprint growth for the next five decades is relatively minor at the scale of the focal study area, the Grassy Mountain mine accounts for the majority of projected footprint growth in the watershed. The mine would contribute to ongoing loss of habitat and associated opportunities for traditional land use, and impacts may be greater if consequences of water contamination (e.g., selenium, calcite) were to be considered. Any further decline in opportunities for traditional land use may be of concern given that risk to traditional land use is already assessed as high.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 38

6. REFERENCES Hood, G.A., and S.E. Bayley. 2008. The effects of high ungulate densities on foraging choices by beaver (Castor Canadensis) in the mixed-wood boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:484-496.

McKenzie, H.W., E.H. Merrill, R.J. Spiteri, and M.A. Lewis. 2012. How linear features alter predator movement and the functional response. Interface Focus 2(2): 205-216.

Rempel, R.S., P.C. Elkie, A.R. Rodgers, and M.J. Gluck. 1997. Timber-management and natural-disturbance effects on moose habitat: landscape evaluation. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2).

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 491-508.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 39

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL METHODS

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 1

APPENDIX A: KAINAI FIRST NATION CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL METHODS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Study areas ...... 3 3. Current and preindustrial landscape composition ...... 3 4. Focal study area forecast simulation ...... 5 4.1. Hydrocarbon sector forecast assumptions ...... 6 4.2. Coal forecast assumptions ...... 7 4.3. Forestry forecast assumptions ...... 8 4.4. Urban and rural residential forecast assumptions ...... 8 4.5. Aggregate forecast assumptions ...... 9 4.6. Agriculture forecast assumptions ...... 9 4.7. Fire forecast assumptions ...... 9 5. Range of Natural Variability (RNV) simulations ...... 9 6. Indicators ...... 11 6.1. Development footprint ...... 11 6.2. Intact landscapes ...... 11 6.3. Wildlife habitat ...... 11 6.3.1. Moose ...... 12 6.3.2. Elk ...... 15 6.3.3. Mule Deer ...... 17 6.3.4. Index of native fish integrity ...... 18 6.4. Traditional Land Use ...... 20 7. References ...... 22

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 2

1. INTRODUCTION ALCES Online is a web-based simulator for exploring the consequences of past and potential future land use and natural disturbance trajectories to a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic indicators. The document describes assumptions used to prepare simulations that assess cumulative effects for the focal and regional study areas. Two types of simulations were completed: RNV simulations approximate landscape composition and forest age dynamics in the absence of resource development and post-European settlements. The forecast simulation explores potential future changes over the next 50 years in the presence of continued resource development in the focal study area.

Application of the ALCES Online toolkit required: a) estimation of preindustrial and current landscape composition; b) simulation of a plausible future land use scenario that incorporates the suite of land uses operating in the region; c) simulation of natural fire dynamics in the absence of land use; and d) application of indicator relationships to simulated landscape dynamics to assess and potential future consequences to environmental indicators relative to natural conditions. Each of these components of the analysis is now described in turn.

2. STUDY AREAS The analysis explored the cumulative effect of land use on ecological indicators of cultural importance. Cumulative effects were assessed at two spatial scales: 1) the Regional Study Area, which refers to a 62,904 km2 landscape in southern Alberta within which the Blood reserves are located as well as regional landscapes that are important for traditional use; and 2) the Focal Study Area, which refers to Upper Oldman River – Crowsnest Pass watershed covering 5,966 km2, within which the Grassy Mountain coal mining project is located. Assessing cumulative effects at the scale of the Regional Study Area explores land-use pressures that have affected opportunities to practice traditional land uses near the reserves and that have increased the importance of relatively less impacted areas such as the focal study area. Assessing cumulative effects at the scale of the Focal Study Area provides a more focussed analysis of effects near the mine.

Forecast and RNV simulations were completed for the Focal Study Area to compare current and potential future response of ecological indicators to natural condition. For the Regional Study Area, RNV simulations were completed to compare current indicator status to natural condition.

3. CURRENT AND PREINDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION Forecast and RNV simulations tracked land use and landscape composition at the scale of 200

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 3

m and 1000 m cells,11 respectively. Each cell’s composition is multivariate, tracking the proportion of the cell belonging to a range of natural and anthropogenic cover types.

The current composition of the study area, including natural and anthropogenic cover types (Table A-1), was based on the integration of multiple land cover products including the ABMI Wall-to-Wall Land Cover Inventory and Human Footprint Data12, Grassland Vegetation Inventory13, Combined Wetlands Inventory, AltaLis Hydrography, and numerous additional footprint inventories from Open Street Map, AltaLIS, CanVec, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Environment and Parks, National Rail Network, ESRI Basemap, Trans Canada Trail, QuadSquad, HikeAlberta, and municipalities (e.g., City of Edmonton, City of Calgary, City of Grande Prairie). An additional land cover dataset was prepared from which all anthropogenic features were removed to estimate preindustrial landscape composition. The removal of anthropogenic features resulted in some areas for which natural land cover was undefined. These areas were classified using a pre-settlement base layer developed by the Alberta Tomorrow Foundation. The pre-settlement base layer classifies the province into three pre-settlement types (forest, wetland, and grassland14) based on landcover and soils data. Preindustrial wetland extent was estimated using the combined wetlands inventory.

Table A-1. Natural and anthropogenic cover types used to define Alberta’s landscape composition. Name Type Forest Coniferous Terrestrial Landscape Forest Deciduous Terrestrial Landscape Forest Mixed Terrestrial Landscape Grassland Terrestrial Landscape Shrubland Terrestrial Landscape Exposed Land Terrestrial Landscape Rock Rubble Terrestrial Landscape Snow Ice Terrestrial Landscape Wetland Total Terrestrial Landscape Water Lentic Aquatic Landscape Water Lotic Aquatic Landscape Agriculture Crops Agricultural Landscape Agriculture Pasture Agricultural Landscape Airport Footprint

11 Larger cells were used for the RNV simulations to reduce the computational load required to complete multiple simulations each of which span 400 years. Increasing the cell size to 1000 m was deemed acceptable because the simulated fires tend to exceed 1 km2 in size. Smaller cells (i.e., 200 m) were used for the land use forecast because land use footprint tend to be smaller in size than fires. 12 http://www.abmi.ca/home/data-analytics/da-top/da-product-overview/GIS-Human-Footprint-Land-Cover- Data/Land-Cover.html 13 http://www.albertapcf.org/native-prairie-inventories/gvi 14 Forest and wetland classes from the pre-settlement base layer were reclassified into the more detailed ABMI forest (deciduous, coniferous, mixed) and wetland (treed, shrub, herbaceous) classes based on the dominant forest and wetland class within each ALUF planning region.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 4

Name Type Cemetaries Footprint Feedlots Footprint Industrial Footprint Lagoons Footprint Landfill Footprint Major Road Footprint Mine Coal Footprint Mine Oilsands Footprint Mine Peat Footprint Mine Pits Footprint Minor Road Footprint CBM Well Footprint Gas Well Footprint Oil Well Footprint Other Well Footprint Water Well Footprint Pipelines Footprint Rail Footprint Recreation Footprint Rural Settlement Footprint Seismic Lines Footprint Sump Footprint Urban Footprint Towers Footprint Trails Footprint Trail/Winter Road Footprint Water Anthropogenic Footprint

The current age (i.e., time since disturbance) of forested landscapes was derived from a Canadian forest age dataset (Pan et al. 2011), corrected to incorporate more detailed age information from ABMI cutblock, Government of Alberta wildfire data, and the Grassland Vegetation Inventory. The cutblock and fire datasets superseded the Canadian forest age dataset due to their higher resolution (disturbance polygons of various sizes as opposed to the Canadian forest age dataset’s 1 km2 resolution). Age of cutblock or fire polygons was based on the year of disturbance .

4. FOCAL STUDY AREA FORECAST SIMULATION Simulation of future land use in the focal study area required derivation of development trajectories for each influential land use in the study area, including energy, forestry, human settlements, mining, and transportation, as well as fire. In addition to the rate of development, assumptions were required regarding the intensity and spatial distribution of associated footprints. Assumptions governing the simulation of future land use and natural

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 5

disturbance are now described.

4.1. HYDROCARBON SECTOR FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS The rate of oil and gas15 well completions during the first decade of the simulation was based on projections developed by AER for 2018 to 2027 (AER 2018). After 2027, completion rates are assumed to continue at the 2027 rate from the AER projection because longer term projections for Alberta suggest that the rate of hydrocarbon development over the period is expected to remain relatively stable. Under the NEB16’s (2017) reference case, gas well completions (across types) is projected to increase from 935 in 2027 to 1061 in 2040 (13% increase) and conventional light oil production is projected to increase from 341.97 thousand barrels per day to 421.23 thousand barrels per day (23% increase).

The conventional oil and conventional gas well completion projections from AER are by Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) region. PSAC regions AB1 and AB2 overlap with the study area. Projections for these regions were adjusted (i.e., reduced) based on the proportion of each PSAC region’s oil and gas wells that occur within the study area.17 The location of new oil and gas wells was based on the location of existing oil and gas wells, respectively.18

Exploration wells and seismic line footprint was created based on the relative abundance of these features and wells on the current landscape. Exploratory wells were created at a rate of 0.14 exploratory wells per development well (i.e., productive oil and gas wells), which is the ratio between exploratory and development wells drilled in western Canada over the past decade (CAPP Statistical Handbook). Seismic line footprint area was created at a rate 1.22 times that of well footprint area, based on the relative abundance of seismic and well footprint in Alberta.19 Pipelines were created as needed to link development wells to the existing pipeline network. Roads were created as needed to link all wells to the existing road network.

For all well types, completions were assumed to occur within 5 km of existing wells of that type, with higher likelihood of completions in closer proximity to the wells. Each well pad is

15 Shale gas wells were not included in the simulation because the study area accounts for a negligible portion of the provincial shale deposit. 16 AER (2018) was used instead of NEB (2017) as the source for the projected rate of well completions because it provides greater spatial detail (by PSAC region instead of provincial) and greater detail on well type. 17 The study area accounts for 0.84% and 0.08% of the Petrowell Oil Unityb footprint in PSAC AB1 and AB2, respectively; and 9.36% and 0.00% of the Petrowell Gas Unityb footprint in PSAC AB1 and AB2, respectively. 18 The location of existing wells was used instead of a hydrocarbon deposit layer (Mossop and Shetsen 1994) to inform the location of future wells because existing wells in the study are do not tend to occur within hydrocarbon deposit polygons. 19 The ratio between seismic and well footprint in the study area is much higher (6.90) than it is in Alberta (1.22). The ratio for Alberta was used to avoid possible exaggeration of future seismic line development.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 6

assumed to house one well cover 1 ha. Seismic footprint was simulated to occur within 10 km of new well completions, with higher likelihood of completions in closer proximity to new wells. The intensity of seismic footprint (i.e., simulated footprint per cell) was based on current seismic footprint pattern in the study area (average and maximum seismic footprint coverage per cell of 2% and 12%, respectively).

With the exception of recent seismic lines, energy sector footprints were considered permanent in the context of a 50 year simulation. Seismic lines built within the past decade were assumed to be low impact and had a lifespan of 20 years. Older seismic lines were assumed to be permanent, based on a retrospective study of 35 year old seismic lines in northern Alberta that found over 90% of the disturbance to remain in a disturbed state (Lee and Boutin 2006). Seismic lines did not persist in farmland and grassland, and pipeline right of ways did not persist in farmland.

4.2. COAL FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS New footprint at the Grassy Mountain mine included pits, rock disposal areas, topsoil storage areas, ponds, ditches, coal handling and processing plan infrastructure, a covered conveyor/access road/powerline right of way, a railway loop, and a proposed golf course area identified in the environmental assessment for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project (Riversdale Resources 2016). The proposed project is to be developed over the next 23 years. Development of the handling and processing plant infrastructure, ponds and ditches, railway loop, right of way, and topsoil storage occurred in the first decade of the simulation. Development of pits and rock disposal areas was spread across the next 23 years, with growth occurring outwards towards the perimeter of the pit and disposal area polygons.

Reclamation of coal footprint was not simulated. This is a conservative approach that likely exaggerates the impact of mining on wildlife, because reclamation is likely to improve wildlife habitat. Reclamation was not included because realistic reclamation of coal footprint was beyond the scope of the analysis, especially reclamation of coal mine footprint existing at the start of the simulation. To explore the sensitivity of wildlife indicators to coal mine reclamation, a simulation was completed that reclaimed new (i.e., simulated) coal mine footprint 20 years after the coal footprint was created. Coal mine footprint was reclaimed to shrubland, given that reclaimed mine footprint is likely to remain at an early successional stage by the end of the 50-year simulation. Reclamation had only a minor effect on wildlife habitat at the scale of the focal study area; elk and mule deer habitat increased by 0.37% and 0.04%, respectively, compared to a simulation that did not incorporate reclamation of simulated mining footprint.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 7

4.3. FORESTRY FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS Forest harvest area was based on planned harvest area for each forest management unit (FMU) occurring in the study area (C5(176), C5(179), and C5(181)). Planned coniferous harvest was simulated, and any deciduous and mixedwood harvest was assumed to be incidental. Planned harvest area for the first four decades was as projected under the preferred forest management scenario (The Forest Corp. 2006). The preferred forest management scenario from the timber supply analysis calls for harvest at 120% of coniferous AAC the first 2 decades to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle, and then a reduction to 90% of coniferous AAC thereafter. Harvest in the first 2 decades is focused on FMU’s C5 (176) and C5 (179) where pine is more abundant. Timber harvest in the fifth decade equaled the average of the third and fourth decades (i.e., following the reduction to 90% AAC). Planned harvest area was adjusted (i.e., reduced) based on the proportion of the FMU’s total coniferous forest occurring within the study area. The spatial distribution of harvest was proportional to each FMU’s planned harvest intensity (i.e., planned harvest area per total forest area) and was also influenced by forest age (oldest first). To be eligible for harvest, forest was required to be older than the minimum harvest age for coniferous forest (90 years) (Forestry Corp 2006). The size of harvest patches was based on the size of forest patches harvested in the study area between 2000 and 2009 according to harvest data from ABMI. Forest recovered to the pre-harvest forest type, with no regeneration lag. Roads were developed as required to link harvest patches to the road network. Inblock roads were assumed to regenerate with cutblocks, and were therefore not simulated.

4.4. URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS Settlement footprint was simulated to grow at the rate of population growth according to the medium population growth projection from Alberta Government for the period of 2016 to 2041.20 The population projection was extended out to 2065 by assuming constant population growth after 2041.21 Population projections were available by census division (CD). The rate of population growth used in the simulation was the mean population growth rate across CD’s occurring in the study area, weighted based on the current area of settlement footprint in each CD. Simulated rural settlement footprint took the form of acreages22 located within 1 km of existing rural settlement development. Simulated urban footprint occurred at the periphery of existing settlements. For both rural and urban settlement footprint, the relative likelihood of development was proportional to the patch size of existing developments (i.e.,

20 http://finance.alberta.ca/aboutalberta/population-projections/index.html 21 Constant as opposed to exponential population growth was assumed because the population projection for the period of 2016 to 2041 exhibited linear growth. 22 The size of individual rural residential footprints equaled the current average size of rural residential footprint per cell (7692 m2).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 8

higher likelihood of development adjacent to larger existing developments). Roads were developed as needed to link acreages to the road network. Settlement footprint was excluded from protected areas.

4.5. AGGREGATE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS It was assumed that the primary reason for aggregate mining in the study area is road building. As such, the development of new aggregate pits was tied to the rate at which road footprint was created during the simulation. Aggregate pit footprint was created at a rate 33% that of new road footprint, based on the ratio between aggregate pit and road footprint in the study area today. The size of each new pit equaled the average size of pits existing in the study area today. Pits were located in aggregate deposits (Alberta Geological Survey 2009) located adjacent to new road footprint.

4.6. AGRICULTURE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS Agricultural land did not expand during the forecast. Census divisions that overlap with the study area have exhibited a decline in farmland in recent years.

4.7. FIRE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS The simulated fire rate was 0.06% x 2.5= 0.15% for the first 2 decades and 0.06% x 2.76=0.17% for the last 3 decades of the simulation. The historical rate for the Southern Cordillera homogenous fire regime zone (within which the study area is located) is 0.06%/year (Boulanger et al. 2014). The predicted increases in fire rate relative to historical for the 2011- 2040 and 2041-2070 periods is 2.5 and 2.7, respectively, under climate scenario RCP2.6 (Boulanger pers. comm.). Fire was assumed to burn forest and shrub cover types. Fire location was stochastic but influenced by relative burn probabilities as per fire selection ratios by forest cover and age class (Bernier et al. 2016). Fire selection ratios were only available for forest types (deciduous, coniferous , mixedwood); shrubland was assumed to have the same relative burn probability as young deciduous forest, the forest category exhibiting the lowest fire selection ratio. Burns were distributed across size classes based on the size class distribution of fires according to Alberta’s historical wildfire data.

5. RANGE OF NATURAL VARIABILITY (RNV) SIMULATIONS RNV simulations were prepared for both the focal and regional study areas. For each study area, five simulations of the stochastic fire regime were completed, each spanning 400 years. Fire was assumed to burn forest and shrub cover types.

Pre-suppression fire rate and size class distribution was based on research completed for the C5 FMU, which covers much of the forested portion of the study areas (Rogeau 2005). The

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 9

average natural fire return interval, by natural subregion, was estimated to be 116 years for the Subalpine and 92 years for the Montane natural subregions. The relatively small area of the Alpine natural subregion located in the study areas is assumed to have the same return intervals as the Subalpine.

The natural fire rate was simulated as a stochastic process in order to approximate the effect of a variable fire regime on forest age and related indicators. The stochastic fire regime was simulated as random draws from a lognormal distribution, a distribution well suited for characterizing variable fire regimes (Armstrong 1999). The standard deviation in burn area was derived from the coefficient of variation in natural burn area estimated for northeastern Alberta (2.843; Armstrong 1999). Mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithm of annual burn area was then derived from the mean and standard deviation of burn area, and applied to generate random draws from the lognormal distribution. The maximum burn rate was truncated at 50% when drawing from the lognormal distribution, based on an assumption that it is unlikely that more than half of the region’s forest would burn in any year.

Fire location was stochastic but influenced by relative burn probabilities as per fire selection ratios by forest cover and age class (Bernier et al. 2016). Fire selection ratios were only available for forest types (deciduous, coniferous , mixedwood); shrubland was assumed to have the same relative burn probability as young deciduous forest, the forest category exhibiting the lowest fire selection ratio. The fire size class distribution was based on an estimate of natural fire sizes in the C5 FMU (Rogeau 2005).

Forest age was initialized at 106 years across all cells, the average forest age expected in the Upper Oldman Crowsnest Pass in the presence of assumed overall average burn rate. The first 300 years of a 400 year simulation was used to initialize the spatial distribution in forest age to a pattern consistent with the assumed natural fire regime. The last 100 years of a 400 year simulation were used to estimate the range of natural variability in forest age and related indicators. Forest age was reported at 10-year intervals, creating 9 maps of forest age for each preindustrial simulation.

Fire was not simulated in the Parkland and Grassland portion of the study area. Presettlement fire behaviour in Parkland ecosystems is poorly understood, but it is thought that the Parkland was dominated by grassland due to grazing by Bison and frequent burning (Stockdale 2011). Bailey and Anderson (1980) estimate that brush cover was less than 10% in the Parkland region in the early 20th century. The location of what little forest did exist was likely stable, confined to wetter and cooler areas such as riparian areas and slopes with northerly and easterly aspects (Stockdale 2011). Given that grassland likely dominated the Parkland region prior to settlement, the presettlement landscape was estimated by assuming

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 10

that forest was limited to within 200 m cells that either contain permanent water (river, stream, or lake) or have aspects between 70 and 90%. This results in forest coverage of 8.2% in the Parkland portion of the regional study area. Fire is not simulated within forests located in the Parkland because the forest is assumed to have been at low risk of fire because of its wet and relatively fragmented location.

6. INDICATORS The following indicators were assessed to explore the cumulative effect of land use on opportunity to practice traditional land use:

1. Development footprint – the taking up of land by development was assessed as direct disturbance of land by industrial, settlement, and agricultural footprint and associated infrastructure.

2. Intact landscapes – natural land undisturbed by development. Cells (200 m) without any type of development or settlement footprint were considered intact.

3. Wildlife – moose, elk, and mule deer habitat indices were assessed to explore the response of species that are important for hunting.

4. Fish – a fish habitat index was assessed to explore cumulative effects to the fish community.

5. Traditional Land Use – accessibility for traditional land use was calculated and combined with wildlife indicators to assess TLU opportunity.

6.1. DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT Total development footprint included the full set of anthropogenic features tracked in the simulations: energy sector footprints (wells, seismic lines, pipelines); settlement footprints (residential); mining footprints (coal mines and gravel pits); agricultural footprints (pasture and cropland); and other footprints (cemeteries, undifferentiated industrial, lagoons, landfills, power generation stations, powerlines, recreational footprint, and sumps).

6.2. INTACT LANDSCAPES Intact core area was calculated as the total extent of cells that do not contain footprint or farmland. Intact patch size was calculated as the size of each patch of cells that does not contain footprint or farmland.

6.3. WILDLIFE HABITAT Wildlife habitat indices (moose, elk, mule deer) were calculated for the current landscape, the

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 11

simulated future landscape, and the simulated natural landscape. Risk to wildlife was assessed based on change in habitat relative to natural conditions. Risk levels were based on hazard categories from MacPherson et al. (2014): low risk if index is >=70% of the natural value; moderate risk if index is 50%-70% of the natural value; high risk if index is 20%-50% of the natural value; and very high risk if index is <20% of the natural value.

The habitat indices incorporate both potential and effective habitat. Potential habitat refers to the availability (and quality) of suitable land cover and terrain, and is calculated by applying coefficients (0.00 to 1.00 where 0 reflects no habitat value and 1.00 reflects maximum value) to maps of natural and anthropogenic cover types, elevation, and slope. Effective habitat modifies potential habitat to incorporate the negative impact of linear features through elevated hunting, predation, road-kill, and noise displacement, etc. These mortality risks are incorporated through a relationships with linear footprint density outside of protected areas, due to the importance of linear footprints for providing access for hunting. Linear footprints that are included in the analysis are roads, truck trails, pipelines, powerlines, rail, and conventional seismic lines. Conventional seismic lines are older cutlines that, due to their width, persist through time and are used for vehicular access. Conventional seismic lines are assumed to be those created at least 10 years ago. New seismic lines are assumed to be created using low impact methods that are intended to avoid the creation of cutlines that can be used for vehicular access.

The underlying methodology deployed when calculating habitat was developed by a joint ALCES Group and Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (AFWD) discussion about how to best define potential and effective habitat for wildlife species. Coefficients were developed by Dr. Brad Stelfox and Shawn Wasel (ALCES Group) and discussed with AFWD wildlife biologists.23 The coefficients reflect a suite of input data sources that include: literature review (both published and unpublished); comparison to historical wildlife populations from aerial surveys at the scale of WMUs; comparison to historical wildlife harvest data at the scale of WMUs; discussions with government, academic and industrial biologists; qualitative ranking of habitat and footprint types based on a general delphi approach within ALCES Group; and where possible, input from hunters of First Nation communities.

Coefficients for each species are now described.

6.3.1. Moose Coefficients are applied to cover types (Table A-2), forest age (Table A-3), and terrain

23 AFWD is in the process of building a set of AFWD endorsed coefficients for each wildlife species and this process is likely to take a few years to complete.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 12

variables (Tables A-4 and A-5) to calculate a moose potential habitat index ranging from 0 (no habitat) to 1 (habitat capable of supporting maximum wildlife density). Moose effective habitat is calculated by multiplying potential habitat by a modifier that is based on the length of linear footprint (Table A-6).

Table A-2. Coefficients for various landscape and footprint types associated with the moose habitat index. Landscape and footprint type Habitat value Coniferous forest 0.80 Deciduous forest 1.00 Mixedwood forest 1.00 Shrubland 0.70 Grassland 0.00 Rock, Ice, Exposed 0.00 Wetland 1.00 Lentic riparian 0.50 Lotic 0.45 Cropland 0.15 Pasture 0.00 Tracks 1.00 Recreation features 0.60 Wellsites 0.20 Pipelines 0.40 Transmission lines 0.20 Other footprints 0.00

Table A-3. Habitat modifiers for forest ages associated with the moose habitat index.

Forest Age Habitat modifier 0-20 1.00 21-40 0.90 41-60 0.70 61-80 0.50 81-100 0.30 101-120 0.50 121-140 0.50 141-160 0.50 161-180 0.65 >180 0.80

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 13

Table A-4. Slope habitat modifiers for the moose habitat index. Slope Habitat modifier 0.0 1.00 2.5 0.95 5.0 0.90 7.5 0.85 10.0 0.80 12.5 0.40 15.0 0.00 17.5 0.00 20.0 0.00 22.5 0.00 25.0 0.00

Table A-5. Elevation habitat modifiers for the moose habitat index. Elevation Habitat modifier 1300 1.00 1470 0.97 1640 0.92 1810 0.90 1980 0.80 2150 0.55 2320 0.30 2490 0.00 2660 0.00 2830 0.00 3000 0.00

Table A-6. Linear footprint length modifiers for the moose habitat index. Linear footprint (km/km2) Habitat modifier With hunting Without hunting24 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.4 0.96 1.00 0.8 0.92 1.00 1.2 0.87 1.00 1.6 0.69 1.00 2.0 0.46 1.00 2.4 0.30 1.00 2.8 0.15 1.00 3.2 0.09 1.00 3.6 0.05 1.00 4.0 0.00 1.00

24 Hunting is assumed to not occur in national and provincial parks and ecological reserves.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 14

6.3.2. Elk Coefficients are applied to cover types (Table A-7), forest age (Table A-8), and terrain variables (Tables A-9 and A-10) to calculate an potential habitat index ranging from 0 (no habitat) to 1 (habitat capable of supporting maximum wildlife density). Elk effective habitat is calculated by multiplying potential habitat by a modifier that is based on the length of linear footprint (Table A-11).

Table A-7. Coefficients for various landscape and footprint types associated with the elk habitat index. Landscape and footprint type Habitat value Coniferous forest 0.35 Deciduous forest 0.90 Mixedwood forest 1.00 Shrubland 0.35 Grassland 1.00 Rock, Ice, Exposed 0.00 Wetland 0.02 Lentic riparian 0.00 Lotic 0.65 Cropland 0.075 Pasture 0.20 Tracks 1.00 Recreation features 0.20 Wellsites 0.20 Pipelines 0.20 Other footprints 0.00 Coniferous forest 0.35

Table A-8. Habitat modifiers for forest ages associated with the elk habitat index. Forest Age Habitat modifier 0-20 1.00 21-40 0.90 41-60 0.70 61-80 0.50 81-100 0.40 101-120 0.40 121-140 0.40 141-160 0.50 161-180 0.60 >180 0.70

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 15

Table A-9. Slope habitat modifiers for the elk habitat index. Slope Habitat modifier 0.0 1.00 2.5 1.00 5.0 1.00 7.5 1.00 10.0 1.00 12.5 0.85 15.0 0.57 17.5 0.33 20.0 0.00 22.5 0.00 25.0 0.00

Table A-10. Elevation habitat modifiers for the elk habitat index. Elevation Habitat modifier 1300 1.00 1470 1.00 1640 1.00 1810 1.00 1980 1.00 2150 1.00 2320 0.85 2490 0.64 2660 0.34 2830 0.12 3000 0.00

Table A-11. Linear footprint length modifiers for the elk habitat index. Linear footprint (km/km2) Habitat modifier With hunting Without hunting25 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.4 0.96 1.00 0.8 0.92 1.00 1.2 0.87 1.00 1.6 0.69 1.00 2.0 0.46 1.00 2.4 0.30 1.00 2.8 0.15 1.00 3.2 0.09 1.00 3.6 0.05 1.00 4.0 0.00 1.00

25 Hunting is assumed to not occur in national and provincial parks and ecological reserves.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 16

6.3.3. Mule Deer Coefficients are applied to cover types (Table A-12) and terrain variables (Tables A-13 and A- 14) to calculate a mule deer potential habitat index ranging from 0 (no habitat) to 1 (habitat capable of supporting maximum wildlife density). Mule deer effective habitat is calculated by multiplying potential habitat by a modifier that is based on the length of linear footprint (Table A-15). Table A-12. Coefficients for various landscape and footprint types associated with the mule deer habitat index.

Landscape and footprint type Habitat value Coniferous forest 0.15 Deciduous forest 1.00 Mixedwood forest 0.90 Shrubland 0.20 Grassland 1.00 Rock 0.00 Ice, Exposed 0.00 Wetland 0.00 Lentic riparian 0.10 Lotic Water 0.50 Cropland 0.175 Pasture 0.85 Powerlines 0.20 Urban 0.05 Tracks 1.00 Recreation features 0.20 Wellsites 0.10 Pipelines 0.20 Other Footprints 0.00

Table A-13. Slope habitat modifiers for the mule deer habitat index. Slope Habitat modifier 0.0 1.00 2.5 1.00 5.0 1.00 7.5 1.00 10.0 1.00 12.5 0.85 15.0 0.57 17.5 0.33 20.0 0.00 22.5 0.00 25.0 0.00

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 17

Table A-14. Elevation habitat modifiers for the mule deer habitat index.

Elevation Habitat modifier 1300 1.00 1470 1.00 1640 1.00 1810 0.85 1980 0.80 2150 0.72 2320 0.62 2490 0.42 2660 0.35 2830 0.00 3000 0.00

Table A-15. Linear footprint length modifiers for the mule deer habitat index. Linear footprint (km/km2) Habitat modifier With hunting Without hunting26 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.4 0.96 1.00 0.8 0.92 1.00 1.2 0.87 1.00 1.6 0.69 1.00 2.0 0.46 1.00 2.4 0.30 1.00 2.8 0.15 1.00 3.2 0.09 1.00 3.6 0.05 1.00 4.0 0.00 1.00

6.3.4. Index of native fish integrity The index of native fish integrity (INFI) conveys changes in abundance and composition of fish species with a value ranging from 0 (highly disturbed community) to 1 (undisturbed community). An INFI value greater than 0.9 indicates low (acceptable) disturbance, between 0.6 and 0.9 indicates moderate (unacceptable) disturbance, between 0.3 and 0.6 indicates high (serious) disturbance, and below 0.3 indicates very high risk (severe disturbance) (Sullivan 2009). INFI response to simulated landscapes is estimated using relationships with access density27, watershed discontinuity, and climate developed for the Foothills/Montane and Prairie natural regions from expert opinion (Sullivan 2009). The various INFI relationships

26 Hunting is assumed to not occur in national and provincial parks and ecological reserves. 27 Two versions of the relationship between access density (i.e., roads, seismic lines, trails) and INFI are provided by Sullivan (2009): restricted access and unrestricted access. Restricted access was applied to the following zones based on the assumption that motorized access is more limited: national and provincial parks, wildland areas, natural areas, and public land use zones. The relationship that assumes unrestricted access was applied elsewhere.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 18

used are presented in Tables A-12, A-13, and A-14. Although an INFI relationship with water quality was also available (Table A-15), it was not included because it did not incorporate potential contaminants from industrial development such as mining. INFI performance was tracked at the scale of hydat watersheds. INFI relationships developed for the foothills and montane (Sullivan 2009) were applied in the montane portion of the study area, whereas INFI relationships developed for the prairies (Sullivan 2009) were applied to the grassland and parkland portion of the study area.

Table A-12 Relationship between INFI and stream fragementation. INFI Stream Fragmentation (%) Foothills Prairie 1 0 0 0.95 1 20 0.75 20 30 0.45 30 100 0.15 50 na 0 100 na

Table A-13 Relationship between INFI and temperature. INFI Change in temperature (C)28 Foothills Prairie 1 0 0 0.95 2.5 0.75 4 1 0.45 5 5 0.15 6 8

Table A-14 Relationship between INFI and linear edge density (assuming restricted access). INFI Linear edge (km/km2) with unrestricted access Foothills Prairie 1 0 0 0.95 1 1 0.75 2 5 0.45 3 na 0.15 5 na

Table A-15 Relationship between INFI and the water quality index (WQI). INFI WQI

28 Change in annual average temperature was relative to the average temperature during the first half of the 20th century. The climate forecast applied the RCP 4.5 emission scenario.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 19

Foothills Prairie 1 1 1 0.95 0.33 0.5 0.75 0.2 0.33 0.45 0.125 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.125

To permit calculations of INFI watershed discontinuity was also calculated, as described below.

Stream crossings and watershed discontinuity Stream crossings with the potential to impede fish movement were assumed to occur at the intersection of roads and permanent and indefinite streams29 because culverts are likely to be utilized. In contrast, bridges instead of culverts were assumed to be used where roads intersect with rivers, and recurring streams were assumed to be non-fish bearing. Stream crossing density was assessed for each HUC8 level watershed as the number of road crossings per km of permanent/indefinite stream. Stream crossings increased during simulations in response to expansion of the road network, in proportion with the existing density of crossings per km of road in a watershed.

Culverts can become impassable by fish over time due to effects such as blockage and scouring. Fifty percent of culverts were assumed to be hanging based on the findings of a study of culverts in northeastern Alberta (Park et al. 2008). By blocking fish movement, an impassable (i.e., hanging) culvert renders upstream habitat inaccessible. Stream fragmentation due to impassable culverts was assessed using a relationship between the density of impassable culverts (#/stream km) and the percent of stream habitat lost, as derived from actual and simulated stream crossings for the Christina, Calling, Swan, and Notikiwin watersheds in northern Alberta (Michael Sullivan, pers. comm.). The data from the northern watersheds were summarized using the equation y = 1.6445x0.7381 (R2=0.939), where y is the proportion of stream habitat lost and x is the number of impassable culverts per km of stream.

6.4. TRADITIONAL LAND USE We used participatory principles for developing and examining the TLU accessibility and potential indicators for the Blood Tribe. We worked with ten community knowledge holders (e.g., elders and hunters) with a specific interest and experience using the land to practice

29 Indefinite refers to a perennial or intermittent stream whose channel cannot be clearly distinguished due to vegetation or high water. Because such streams may be permanent (i.e., perennial), they may be fish bearing and culverts may be used at crossings.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 20

activities such as hunting (e.g., deer, moose, elk), fishing, and other TLU activities (e.g., harvesting medicinal plants, picking berries, conducting ceremonies). We engaged knoweldge holders for guidance to broadly identify: (i) how members use the land; and, (ii) what are the challenges that members face when accessing and using the land. This approach helped us to understand “lived experience” from the perspective of community members and to ensure that our interpretations were relevant, useful and meaningful to Blood Tribe members. The following points of community input provided the basis for developing the TLU indicators.

 Community members expressed that the conversion of TLU suitable crown lands to private property and other restricted land uses (e.g., parks, ecological reserves) is the primary driver of decreased access to TLU suitable lands. We were unable to obtain a land ownership data layer and instead used cropland and cultivated pasture to indicate the presence of private land. This likely underestimates the extent of private land.

 Community members conveyed that they do not hunt or fish in national parks, provincial parks, and ecological reserves, so these areas were deemed inaccessible for traditional land use.

 Community members conveyed that they do not hunt or fish in close proximity (~500 m) to well sites. Based on this input, land cover within 500 m30 of well sites and other industrial sites (coal mines, industrial features, power generation sites) were excluded from traditional land use. It was also assumed that hunting and fishing does not occur within 500 m of settlements, rural residence, and other features (major highways, recreational features like golf courses, cemeteries, landfills, airports) that are used frequently by humans for non-TLU activities.

 Agricultural land within the Blood reserves was accessible for TLU, but land in proximity to footprints was excluded following the rules described above.

Drawing from community input, a TLU accessibility indicator was developed to reflect the cumulative effects of land development on their access to TLU suitable lands. Overall, TLU accessiblity was based on land ownership, protection, proximity to non-traditional land use activities and community member avoidance due to concerns about contamination, safety, and overall negative experience on the land.

30 To approximate a 500 m buffer, 1000 m cells with any of the listed footprint types were assumed to be inaccessible. The rationale is that a footprint within a 1000 m cell will be, on average, 500 m from the edge of the cell. This assumption was required because 1000 m cells were used for the calculation of wildlife habitat. Community members also conveyed that they do not hunt adjacent (~100 m) to all roads. This buffer was not implemented because it is small relative to the cell size used during wildlife modeling (1000 m).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 21

TLU accessibility was applied to wildlife effective habitat to assess TLU opportunity. The TLU opportunity metric is based on the rationale that capacity to practice TLU in the landscape is affected by the availability of wildlife habitat and the ability of community members to access the landscape for the purpose of practicing TLU. The TLU opportunity metric ranges from 0 to 1, with a 1 indicating maximum habitat effectiveness and accessibility for TLU, and a 0 representing no habitat and/or accessibility for TLU.

7. REFERENCES AER (Alberta Energy Regulator). 2015. Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2014 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2015-2024. ST98-2015. Alberta Energy Regulator.

AER (Alberta Energy Regulator). 2018. ST98: Alberta’s Energy Reserves and Supply/Demand Outlook. Available online: https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/data-and- reports/statistical-reports/st98.

Alberta Geological Survey. 2009. Alberta Sand and Gravel Deposits with Aggregate Potential. Available online: http://ags.aer.ca/publications/DIG_2004_0034.html.

Armstrong, G.W. 1999. A stochastic characterisation of the natural disturbance regime of the boreal mixedwood forest with implications for sustainable forest management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 424–433.

Bailey, A.W., and M.L. Anderson. 1980. Fire temperature in grass, shrub, and aspen forest communities of Central Alberta. Journal of Range Management 33(1):37-40.

Bernier, P. Y. et al. 2016. Mapping local effects of forest properties on fire risk across Canada. Forests 7, 157.

Boulanger, Y., S. Gauthier, and P.J. Burton. 2014. A refinement of models projecting future Canadian fire regimes using homogeneous fire regime zones. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44:1-12.

CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). 2017. CAPP Statistical Handbook. Available online: https://www.capp.ca/publications-and-statistics/statistics/statistical- handbook.

ERCB. 2012. Summary of Alberta’s Shale- and Siltstone-Hosted Hydrocarbon Resource Potential. ERCB/AGS Open File Report 2012-06.

Global Forest Watch Canada. 2013. Coal Concessions. Available online: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/node/201.

Lee, P. and S. Boutin. 2006. Persistence and development transition of wide seismic lines in the western Boreal Plains of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 78:240-250.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 22

MacPherson, L., M. Coombs, J. Reilly, M.G. Sullivan, and D.J. Park. 2014. A Generic Rule Set for Applying the Alberta Fish Sustainability Index, Second Edition. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Mossop, G., and I. Shetsen. 1994. Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Available online: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/atlas.html.

NEB (National Energy Board). 2017. Canada’s Energy Future 2017: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040. Available online: http://www.neb- one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/ftr/2017/index-eng.html.

Nishi, J.S., S. Berryman, J.B. Stelfox, A. Garibaldi, and J. Straker. 2013. Fort McKay Cumulative Effects Project: Technical Report of Scenario Modeling Analyses with ALCES. ALCES Landscape and Land Use Ltd., Calgary, AB, and Integral Ecology Group, Victoria, BC. Prepared for the Fort McKay Sustainability Department, Fort McMurray, AB.

Pan, Y., J.M. Chen, R. Birdsey, K. McCullough, L. He, and F. Deng. 2011. Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences 8:715-732.

Park, D., M. Sullivan, E. Bayne, and G. Scrimgeour. 2008. Landscape-level stream fragmentation caused by hanging culverts along roads in Alberta’s boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38:566-675.

Riversdale Resources. 2016. Section A: Project Introduction. Benga Mining Limited. Grassy Mountain Coal Project.

Rogeau, M-P. 2005. Fire Regime Study C5 FMU. Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Forest Protection Branch, Edmonton, AB.

Stockdale, C. 2011. Disturbance Regimes of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan Area. Foothills Research Institute.

Sullivan, M.G. 2009. Assessing Potential Cumulative Effects of Development on Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems in Southern Alberta: Fisheries Indicators, Coefficients and Thresholds. Prepared for Alberta’s Land-use Framework, South Saskatchewan Regional Plan.

The Forestry Crop. 2006. FMU C5 Forest Management Plan: Development of the Preferred Forest Management Scenario.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 23

APPENDIX B: DETAILED REGIONAL RESULTS

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 1

APPENDIX B: DETAILED REGIONAL RESULTS The results presented below are the detailed version associated with the summary of results for the regional study area presented in section 4.1 above. For ease of referencing, we have repeated Figure 1 and Table 1 below as Figure B-1 and Table B-1.

1. PROTECTED AREAS AND LAND USE FOOTPRINTS This section presents the various protected areas and land uses that may affect traditional land use in the regional study area either by restricting access to the land or by altering the capacity of the land to support wildlife. Community members discussed the effect of protected areas and footprints on TLU at a workshop. The discussion informed TLU accessibility and opportunity indicators that are presented later in this section and described in greater detail in the methods appendix (Appendix A).

Restrictive protective areas Restrictions on land use in the regional study area are related to national parks, provincial parks, and ecological reserves, amounting to 3% (91,826 ha) of the regional study area (Figure B-1).31 These areas have various harvesting restrictions that prevent Blood Tribe members from practicing TLU within portions of their traditional territory. We did not include wildland provincial parks and other natural areas in the study area because it is our understanding that these areas do not have restrictions on hunting.32

31 National parks in the study area include: Waterton Lakes. Provincial parks in the study area include: Castle, Police Outpost, Beauvais Lake, Woolford, Park Lake, Chain Lakes, Willow Creek, Little Bow, Wyndham-Carseland, Fish Creek, Tillebrook Trans-Canada Campsite, Kinbrook Island, Dinosaur, Writing on Stone, Castle. Ecological reserves include Plateau Mountain, West Castle Wetland, Kennedy Coulee. There are no wilderness areas in the regional study area as defined by Alberta Parks: https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/land-reference- manual/parks-by-class/?id=Wilderness%20Area. 32 This research was done with reference to provincial hunting information provided at: https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/visit-our-parks/activities/hunting/#na

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 2

Figure B-1 Locations in the regional study area of the restrictive tenure types (i.e., national parks, provincial parks, ecological reserves) that may limit hunting opportunities for Blood Tribe members. Red indicates restrictive tenure.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 3

Footprint types Total footprint in the regional study area involves a variety of non-natural (anthropogenic) activities33 and amounts to 49% (3,087,672 ha) of the study area (Figure B-2). The relative contributions of six land use types are displayed in Figure B-3. The main contributor to total footprint is farmland, which occurs throughout the study area and accounts for 45% (2,848,386 ha) of the study area and 92% of total footprint in the study area (Figure B-4). Figures B-5 through B-9 present the more minor contributions to non-natural footprint for energy, mining, transportation, settlement, and “other footprints,”34 respectively.

Figure B-2 Current total anthropogenic footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the proportion of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

33 Direct footprint construction activities include: agricultural crops and pasture, airports, cemeteries, feedlots, industrial features, lagoons and other water features, landfills, major and minor roads, mining, oil and gas wells, pipelines, power-generation facilities, powerlines, rail lines, recreational features, urban and rural settlements, seismic lines, and trails and winter roads. The dataset is based on disturbance layers from the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute and 2015 AltaLIS data. 34 Includes cemeteries, industrial undifferentiated, lagoons, landfills, power generation, powerlines, recreation, and sumps.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 4

Figure B-3 Current development footprint by land use type in the regional study area.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 5

Figure B-4 Current agricultural footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 6

Figure B-5 Current energy footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 7

Figure B-6 Current mining footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 8

Figure B-7 Current settlement and rural residential footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 9

Figure B-8 Current transportation footprint in the regional study area. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 10

Figure B-9 Other current footprints in the regional study area, including cemeteries, industrial undifferentiated, lagoons, landfills, power generation, powerlines, recreation, and sumps. Red indicates high intensity footprint while green indicates low intensity footprint. The legend shows the percent of each pixel occupied by footprint features.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 11

2. REMAINING INTACT ECOSYSTEMS Effects of land disturbance to ecosystems were examined by analyzing impacts to (i) forest age, (ii) intact core area, and (iii) intact patch size.

Forest age For the regional study area, the current average forest age in the Rocky Mountain portion of the study area (where most forest occurs) is 80 years, which is slightly lower than the mean across RNV simulations (83 years). The current distribution of forest age across the study area is shown in Figure B-10.

Figure B-10 Current forest age in the regional study area. The oldest age category (120-140) includes forest older than 140 years. Transparent cells indicate the absence of forest.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 12

Intact core area There is currently only about 28.7% (1,803,202 ha) of the study area that is intact (i.e., 200 m cells that do not contain footprint or farmland). Of this area, a portion (134,881 ha) is comprised of waterbodies, leaving only about 27% of the study area intact if only the terrestrial land base is considered. Much of the intact area occurs in the western portion of the study area, which is characterized by foothills and mountains and includes a large protected area (i.e., Waterton Lakes National Park).

Intact patch size Average intact patch size across the terrestrial land base of the regional study area (i.e., not including lakes) is about 9,224 ha (Figure B-11). Larger patches of intact land cover are generally limited to mountainous and protected areas to the west as well as several large registered natural areas to the south.35

Figure B-11 Current intact patches of natural land cover in the regional study area. Green indicates large intact patch sizes, red indicates small sizes, and clear indicates the absence of intact patches.

35 Natural areas in the southern portion of the study include Ross Lake, Twin River Heritage Rangeland, Milk River, and Onefour Heritage Rangeland

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 13

3. EFFECTS TO WILDLIFE AND FISH Cumulative effects to wildlife and fish were examined by analyzing impacts to four animal indicators (i.e., animal species or groups of animals) that are culturally important to the Blood Tribe people:

1. moose; 2. elk; 3. mule deer; and, 4. fish.

Results of the analyses and a risk assessment are summarized in Table B-1. Results by indicator are discussed below.

Table B-1. Modelled indicator performance and risk assessment. See section 3.2 or Appendix A for risk categories.

Min. Current Current decline (%) from Indicator RNV Risk level estimate min. RNV (or 1) Moose habitat* 0.02 0.07 - - Elk habitat* 0.84 0.31 63 High Mule deer habitat* 0.84 0.39 54 High INFI (fish) 1.00** 0.77 23 Moderate INFI linear edge effect with 1.00** 0.71 29 Moderate harvest restrictions INFI stream frag effect 1.00** 0.70 30 Moderate INFI climate effect 1.00** 0.91 9 Low * Habitat refers to effective habitat, which accounts for availability of suitable land cover and terrain combined with mortality risk associated with linear footprints. ** For INFI, any decline from a value of 1 signifies degrading conditions for the indicator. As a result, the output for this indicator is compared to 1 rather than to mean RNV.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 14

Moose Prior to industrial development, the majority of the regional study area was grassland and thus unsuitable for moose, with the exception of relatively small pockets of forest, such as mountain valleys in the western portion of the study area (Figure B-12). In subsequent decades, moose habitat in the study area has increased relative to natural conditions (Table B- 1), largely driven by the conversion of grassland to cropland, which has a slightly higher value to moose. The value of cropland is still low relative to the preferred forest habitat, however, and linear access is high in the agricultural portion of the landscape. Therefore, although moose habitat is higher than the estimated natural level in the agricultural area, moose habitat is still very low. The best moose habitat likely remains the forested mountain valleys to the west, where habitat has declined relative to natural due to habitat loss and mortality risk associated with access. Overall, effective moose habitat in study area is low.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 15

Figure B-12 Natural and current moose habitat in the regional study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 16

Elk habitat Elk habitat has declined by an estimated 63% relative to natural conditions in the regional study area (Table B-1). Elk habitat was likely highest in grasslands occurring in the central and eastern (i.e., Prairie) portion of the regional study area prior to industrial development (Figure B-13). Elk habitat has since declined substantially due to agricultural conversion and high linear footprint densities and associated access for hunting. This decline corresponds to an assessment of high risk to elk and to associated hunting opportunities. Remaining elk habitat occurs primarily in protected areas where linear footprint density and hunter access are low.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 17

Figure B-13 Natural and current elk habitat in the regional study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 18

Mule deer habitat Mule deer habitat has declined by 54% relative to natural conditions in the regional study area (Table B-1). Under natural conditions, suitable mule deer habitat was highest in the central and eastern (i.e., Prairie) portion of the regional study area due to the availability of grassland. Habitat has since undergone significant declines due agricultural conversion and high linear footprint densities that facilitate hunter access (Figure B-14). This decline corresponds to an assessment of high risk to mule deer and to associated hunting opportunities. Remaining habitat occurs primarily in protected areas and other pockets where linear footprint density are low.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 19

Figure B-14 Natural and current mule deer habitat in the regional study area. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 20

Index of Native Fish Integrity (INFI) The average current value of INFI in the regional study area is approximately 0.77, which is a 23% decline in the index from pre-contact conditions (Table B-1) and suggests moderate risk to the fish community. INFI was calculated as the average value across three effects: linear edge, stream fragmentation, and climate. The levels of linear edge and stream fragmentation effects are consistent with moderate risk whereas the level of climate effects suggests low risk (Table B-1). Current INFI values for watersheds are illustrated in Figure B-15. Risk is higher to the west due to higher sensitivity in montane areas to fishing pressure (due to more crown land and therefore greater fishing access) and stream fragmentation (due to greater abundance of streams where culverts are used for crossings, as opposed to rivers where bridges are typically used).

Figure B-15 Current Index of Native Fish Integrity (INFI) values by watershed for the regional study area. Higher values (i.e., greener colours) indicate lower risk.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 21

4. EFFECTS TO TRADITIONAL LAND USE Effects to traditional land use were examined by analyzing impacts to three indicators: 4. accessibility for traditional land use; 5. mule deer TLU opportunity; and, 6. elk TLU opportunity.

Results by indicator are discussed below.

Note that the results presented are likely an overestimation (i.e., optimistic view) of actual conditions for TLU accessibility and opportunity. For instance, from a land use standpoint, harvesting activities do not necessarily occur where there is accessible and suitable habitat, but rather depend on numerous logistical and cultural factors that have not been numerically considered here. Some of the factors that have not been integrated in the modeling include distance from home, ease of access, gates and restrictions that prohibit access,36 familiarity and knowledge of location, cultural history in the area, competition for resources (e.g., hunting, fishing, and camping sites), among others. As an example, there may be locations that have suitable habitat but are not valuable for hunting because they are too far from home and in unfamiliar locations. Hunting in remote locations requires commitment of increased time and resources that some members cannot afford, and success in unfamiliar locations is not guaranteed. The result of the combination of these factors is that not all of the habitat that is modeled as suitable/accessible in this study necessarily presents a good TLU opportunity for community members.

36 Community members described two specific access points (the Shell plant and Birdseye Ranch) that have been gated in recent years, cutting off access to a large land use zone and associated network of roads.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 22

Accessibility for traditional land use

There is currently about 20% (1,285,848 ha) of the study area that is accessible for traditional land use (Figure B-16). Of this area, a large portion (134,881 ha) is comprised of waterbodies, leaving only about 18% of the study area available for land use if only the terrestrial land base is considered. Much of the accessible area occurs in the western foothills and mountains as well as in the Blood Tribe reserve.

Figure B-16 Accessibility for traditional land use in the regional study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicates greater accessibility.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 23

Mule deer TLU opportunity Current average mule deer TLU opportunity (0.11) in the regional study area is around 87% lower than natural conditions (i.e., min. RNV) and 72% lower than current effective habitat (0.39) presented for mule deer in section 3 of this appendix (see Table B-1). This indicates that there is limited opportunity for mule deer hunting in the regional study area due to land ownership, protected areas, and proximity to non-traditional land use activities. Mule deer TLU opportunity is highest in the foothills to the west and in the Blood Tribe reserve (Figure B-17).

Figure B-17 Mule deer TLU opportunity in the regional study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicates greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 24

Elk TLU opportunity Current average elk TLU opportunity (0.10) in the regional study area is around 88% lower than natural conditions (i.e., min. RNV) and 68% lower than current average effective habitat (0.31) presented for elk in section 3 of this appendix (see Table B-1). This indicates that there is limited elk hunting opportunity in the regional study area due to land ownership, protected areas, and proximity to non-traditional land use activities. Elk TLU opportunity is highest in the foothills to the west and in the Blood Tribe reserve (Figure B-18).

Figure B-18 Elk TLU opportunity in the regional study area. Based on assumptions that were developed with input from community members. Higher values indicates greater opportunity.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 25

APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 1

APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVE AND POTENTIAL HABITAT The wildlife habitat metrics analysed in this project integrated the consequence of habitat quality, based on land cover and terrain, with the risk of mortality associated with linear footprint density. We refer to the availability of suitable land cover and terrain as potential habitat. Wildlife density may still be low despite the presence of high potential habitat if sources of mortality are high. We use the term effective habitat to refer to habitat that also considers the effect of mortality, especially human-caused mortality. Human-caused mortality is an important driver of wildlife populations that are targeted by hunting; as such, effective habitat can be substantially lower than potential habitat. The wildlife habitat results presented in the main body of the report reflect effective habitat. In this appendix, we present potential as well as effective habitat to demonstrate their relative magnitude in the assessment. Results for the focal study area are presented first, followed by results for the regional study area.

1. FOCAL STUDY AREA Due to conversion of land to agriculture, potential elk habitat is assessed to be below natural conditions, and high linear disturbance density causes still lower levels for effective habitat. The same is true for mule deer habitat, although the departure of potential habitat from natural condition is less severe because tame pasture is a preferred habitat for that species. Potential habitat is above natural for moose because conversion of grassland to crops has provided improved forage; potential habitat is still low, however, due to the scarcity of preferred habitat (forest) and effective habitat is lower due to high linear disturbance density. Results for each wildlife indicator (moose, elk, mule deer) are presented below.

Table C-1. Comparison of current estimates for potential and effective habitat for three wildlife indicators in the focal study area. Model estimates % change from min RNV (current, future) (current, future) Indicator Min RNV Effective Potential Effective Potential habitat habitat habitat habitat Moose habitat 0.05 0.05, 0.05 0.08, 0.07 -5, -14 +56, +41 Elk habitat 0.42 0.22, 0.21 0.29, 0.28 -48, -51 -30, -33 Mule deer habitat 0.42 0.25, 0.25 0.35, 0.35 -40, -41 -17, -17

1.1. MOOSE Potential moose habitat has increased relative to natural conditions due to conversion of

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 2

grassland to cropland, which has a slightly higher value to moose than grassland (Table C-1, Figure C-1). This increase, however, is minor and the study area is still has low suitability for moose. Effective habitat is less than potential habitat due to high linear disturbance density.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 3

Figure C-1 Natural moose habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the focal study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 4

Figure C-2 Current and simulated future moose effective habitat in the focal study area (blue line). As a baseline for comparison, the red dashed lines identify the estimated range of natural variation. The orange line identifies potential habitat based on suitable land cover and terrain, but not incorporating the impact of linear features. The difference between the orange and blue line represents the negative effects (e.g., hunting, predators, vehicular collisions) facilitated by access via linear footprints.

1.2. ELK Elk effective habitat has currently declined by 48% relative to natural conditions, whereas elk potential habitat has declined by 30% relative to natural conditions (Table C-1, Figure C-3). In the forecast, elk potential and effective habitat both decreased slightly due to increased footprint. Elk effective habitat dropped below 50% of natural at the end of the 50-year forecast.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 5

Figure C-3 Natural elk habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the focal study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 6

Figure C-4 Current and simulated future elk effective habitat in the focal study area (blue line). As a baseline for comparison, the red dashed lines identify the estimated range of natural variation. The orange line identifies potential habitat based on suitable land cover and terrain, but not incorporating the impact of linear features. The difference between the orange and blue line represents the negative effects (e.g., hunting, predators, vehicular collisions) facilitated by access via linear footprints.

1.3. MULE DEER Mule deer effective habitat has currently declined by 40% relative to natural conditions, whereas mule deer potential habitat declined by 17% relative to natural conditions (Table C- 1, Figure C-5). During the forecast, mule deer potential and effective habitat declined only slightly by the end of the 50-year forecast (Figure C-6).

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 7

Figure C-5 Natural mule deer habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the focal study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 8

Figure C-6 Current and simulated future mule deer effective habitat in the focal study area (blue line). As a baseline for comparison, the red dashed line identifies the estimated range of natural variation. The orange line identifies potential habitat based on suitable land cover and terrain, but not incorporating the impact of linear features. The difference between the orange and blue line represents the negative effects (e.g., hunting, predators, vehicular collisions) facilitated by access via linear footprints.

2. REGIONAL STUDY AREA In the regional study area, where conversion to farmland is substantially higher than in the focal study area, potential habitat is assessed to be below natural conditions (except for moose), and high linear disturbance density causes still lower levels for effective habitat. Results for each wildlife indicator (moose, elk, mule deer) are presented below.

Table C-2. Comparison of current estimates for potential and effective habitat for three wildlife indicators. Model estimates % change from min RNV (current) (current) Indicator Min RNV Effective Potential Effective Potential habitat habitat habitat habitat Moose habitat 0.02 0.07 0.10 - - Elk habitat 0.84 0.31 0.43 -63 -49 Mule deer habitat 0.84 0.39 0.55 -54 -35

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 9

2.1. MOOSE Potential moose habitat has increased relative to natural conditions due to conversion of grassland to cropland, which has a slightly higher value to moose than grassland (Table C-2, Figure C-7). This increase, however, is minor and the study area is still largely unsuitable for moose. Effective moose habitat is lower than potential habitat due to high density of linear footprint.

Figure C-7 Natural moose habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the regional study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 10

2.2. ELK Potential elk habitat has declined by an estimated 49% relative to natural conditions largely due to conversion of grassland to agriculture. Effective elk habitat is lower than potential due to high density of linear footprint (Table C-2, Figure C-8).

Figure C-8 Natural elk habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the regional study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 11

2.3. MULE DEER Effective mule deer habitat has declined by 54% relative to natural conditions, whereas mule deer potential habitat has remained at natural conditions (Table C-2, Figure C-9).

Figure C-9 Natural mule deer habitat (top) compared to current potential habitat (bottom left) and effective habitat (bottom right) in the regional study area. Potential habitat accounts for availability of preferred land cover and terrain, whereas effective habitat also incorporates that impact of access. A value of 1 identifies maximum effectiveness.

3. DISCUSSION The large difference between effective and potential habitat identifies linear features to be an important risk to ungulates due to human-caused mortality that they facilitate. More detailed analysis that simulates the response of populations (as opposed to just habitat) is needed to explore the effectiveness of strategies to manage human-caused mortality. Another area for further investigation is the relative contribution of various types of linear features to risk of

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 12

wildlife mortality. However, as discussed below, identification of access as an important risk factor is consistent with evidence from elsewhere.

A key concern of biologists managing sustainable populations of wildlife relates to the concept of “access” and how increased access can directly or indirectly increase mortality of wildlife species or reduce the amount and/or quality of habitat available to wildlife. In a most general sense, access refers to those linear and curvilinear man-made (anthropogenic) features that increase the ability of humans or predators to gain “access” to or travel through areas proximal to wildlife populations or their habitat.

Examples of linear features that can provide increased access include:

1. Access roads and in-block roads associated with the forest sector

2. Access roads to wellsites (energy sector)

3. Seismic lines, pipelines, and transmission lines of the energy sector

4. Municipal or private roads that provide access to rural residences

5. Recreation trail network intended for hiking, biking, horseback riding.

Examples of access that can have negative effects on wildlife populations include:

1. Direct mortality of wildlife populations from vehicular collisions

2. Direct mortality of wildlife populations from hunters who gain easy access to wildlife populations by using linear features (roads, seismic lines, transmission lines, pipelines,) with various modes of transportation (walking, driving, OHVs, horses, snowmobiles)

3. Direct mortality of wildlife populations from natural predators that benefit from improved travel efficiency and prey capture rates by using linear features

4. Loss of wildlife habitat quality or use because of displacement caused by excessive noise, smell or sight associated with human and industrial activities along linear features

It should be noted that the edges of linear features can also convey habitat benefits to wildlife species where man-made features improve thermal, concealment and forage conditions. These improved habitat conditions are negated, however, if the associated linear features contribute to elevated mortality rates that prevent populations from achieving the densities that can be supported by the improved habitat.

Because many hunters prefer to hunt along and in habitat adjacent to linear features (access), and these regions often experience elevated mortality rates to wildlife, there can emerge a view that wildlife populations have experienced a regional collapse. While this may be the

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 13

case, it is also possible that wildlife populations can exhibit two distinctly different density patterns, with densities high in low access regions and densities low in high access regions. Habitat with high levels of linear features (access) can operate as mortality sinks for regional wildlife populations due to high levels of hunting and vehicular mortality. Conversely, areas of good habitat distant from linear features can act as source populations that replenish those depleted from mortality sinks. However, as the density of linear features increases, habitat distant from linear features declines, with the implication that regional population decline can occur as source populations become insufficient to replenish animals depleted from mortality sinks.

Examples of mitigation strategies that are available to address adverse effects of access to wildlife populations include:

1. Establishment of a network of provincial, national parks and sanctuaries where hunting is prohibited. These areas provide refugia for wildlife and act as source areas for repopulating adjacent areas where mortality rates may be higher.

2. In a sense, Alberta’s hunting “constraint” regulations (number of available tags, when and where one can harvest) reflect the basic understanding that hunters with extensive “access” to the regional landscape of a wildlife species can, if unregulated, create a combined mortality rate that is excessive relative to population objectives. The greater the extent to which the hunting community can access wildlife habitat with vehicles (including OHVs), the greater the need for regulatory constraints.

3. Road sanctuary buffers on selected roads. These buffers are generally applied to roads where hunting is prohibited within 365 m of the road right of way.

4. Prohibition of some forms of transportation (such as OHVs) along selected linear features (roads, seismic lines) during defined times of the day or week.

5. Integrated landscape management strategies that seek to reduce the quantity of linear footprint that is needed to extract natural resources.

Alberta biologists (Ministry of Environment and Parks) regularly prepare provincial and regional wildlife plans to assist in the sustainable management of hunted species. A review of the management plans related to deer (white-tailed, mule), elk, moose, caribou and bighorn sheep include historic examples where increased density of linear features (and hence access by motorists and hunters) have presumably caused elevated mortality rates that have in turn lead to reductions in wildlife populations. A few examples below highlight the complex relationship between access features, hunting opportunities, and responses of wildlife populations.

Wildlife and Linear Edge in Alberta

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 14

Numerous studies in Alberta have suggested that motorized use of linear features (roads, seismic lines, pipelines) can have negative effects on wildlife species (e.g., Frair et al. 2008, Quinn and Chernoff 2010, Ciuti et al. 2012, Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008, Muhly et al. 2013, Gaines et al. 2003, Farr et al. 2017). The nature of the relationship between road density and wildlife is altered by whether the population is being harvested by hunters, and by the dynamics of the predator community.

A study by Frair et al (2008) showed that elk mortality increased with increasing road densities and reduced availability of refugia (habitat >1 km from roads). Whereas a road density threshold of 1.6 km/km2 generally reflected a level of landscape fragmentation that precluded refugia, significant adverse effects to elk were detected at road densities as low as 0.5 km/km2. In this study ~90% of cow elk home ranges occurred in habitat with road densities less than 0.5 km/km2.

Elk Island National Park (EINP)

Linear edge may not adversely affect wildlife as shown in landscapes where hunting is low or absent. For example, EINP (no hunting but moderate densities of roads) generally supports relatively high densities of elk and moose compared to adjacent Blackfoot Grazing Reserve where road use is prohibited but hunting is allowed. Areas adjacent to EINP and BGR with similar habitat but with roads and hunting generally have no or lower populations of elk and moose.

Reduced moose populations in the logged boreal landscape

Although logging can improve the quality of habitat for both moose and elk (through increases in browse and herbaceous forage), it is common to observe (through aerial surveys) populations declining following the construction of new access roads into areas where active logging is occurring. The hunting community is keenly aware of newly constructed roads and opportunistically use these new access routes to hunt areas that were previously difficult to access.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 15

4. REFERENCES Ciuti, S., Northrup, J.M., Muhly, T.B., Simi, S., Musiani, M., Pitt, J.A, Boyce, M. 2012. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7(11):e50611.

Farr, D., Braid, A., Janz, A., Sarchuk, B., Slater, S., Sztaba, A., Barrett, D., Stenhouse, G., Morehouse, A., Wheatley, M. 2017. Ecological response to human activities in southwestern Alberta: Scientific assessment and synthesis. Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta. ISBN No. 978-1- 4601-3540-2.

Frair, J., Merrill, E., Beyer, H., Morales, J. 2008. Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1504- 1513.

Gaines, W.L., Singleton, P.H., Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. US Department of Agriculture: Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Government.

Hebblewhite, M., Merrill, E. 2008. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:834-844.

Muhly, T.B., Hebblewhite, M., Paton, D., Pitt, J.A., Boyce, M.S., Musiani, M. 2013. Humans strengthen bottom-up effects and weaken trophic cascades in a terrestrial food web. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64311.

Quinn, M., Chernoff, G. 2010. Mountain biking: a review of the ecological effects. A literature review for Parks Canada Visitor Experience Branch, National Office. Prepared by the Miistakis Institute, Calgary, AB.

Cumulative effects assessment for Kainai First Nation—November 2018 16

340-1122 Mainland Street JFK Vancouver BC V6B 5L 1 LAW CORPORATION T 604 687 0549 F 604 687 2696 www.jfklaw.ca

Jeff Langlois January 21, 2019 File No. 1187-005

Delivered Via Email [email protected]

Grassy Mountain Coal Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Place Bell Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Kainai First Nation Request for Confidentiality- Grassy Mountain Coal Project

Pursuant to s. 49(2) of the AER's rules of practice, Kainai is requesting that the Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Mine Project grant a confidentiality order for the following documents, and that these documents not be placed on the public registry:

• Blood Tribe/Kainai Traditional Knowledge & Use Assessment, Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 2018 (the "TLU Report").

Section 49(2) of the AER's rules of practice empowers the Regulator to grant a request for confidentiality on any terms it considers appropriate:

(a) if

(i) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal personal information that has consistently been treated as confidential by the person the information is about, and

(ii) the Regulator considers that the person's interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information on the public record of the proceeding,

or 2

(b) if the information is commercial, financial, scientific or technical in nature and the Regulator is of the opinion that disclosure of the information on the public record of the proceeding could reasonably be expected

(i) to cause significant harm to the competitive position of a party, or

(ii) to result in undue financial loss or gain to any person or organization.

Nature of the Confidential Information

The TLU report provides information on Kainai's traditional and current land use within the Project Area, including site-specific information of traditional use and occupancy sites within their territories. More specifically, the reports contain both maps and coordinates of Kainai archaeological sites, hunting sites, fishing sites, trapping areas, camp sites, harvesting sites and ceremonial sites. This information was collected through interviews with Kainai members and Elders, as well as archival and literature research.

Disclosure could reveal personal information

Disclosure of this information would result in the disclosure of information provided by individual Kainai members regarding their hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping activities in certain lands located within Alberta. This information has always been treated as confidential by Kainai and its members.

The disclosure of this information outweighs the public's interest in having the proceedings of the hearing disclosed publicly. This is owing to the highly sensitive and confidential nature of the information relating to where certain Kainai members hunt, fish, gather, trap and perform their ceremonies within Kainai's traditional territory. Kainai is concerned that dissemination of the information contained in the reports could lead to a material loss for Kainai by way of increased competition in harvesting and hunting areas. Moreover, the disclosure of the locations of historically, culturally, and spiritually significant sites could lead to their damage and desecration. The dissemination of this information could therefore prejudice Kainai members' ability to practice their treaty rights.

Moreover, Kainai members need to feel confident that the information they are providing and disclosing to the Nation and its consultants for the purposes of assessment of impacts to rights remains confidential; otherwise, Kainai's ability to understand the potential impacts of a project on land users, and its future participation in review processes such as this, could be compromised.

The information is scientific and technical in nature

The information contained in the TLU Report is also scientific and technical in nature, in that the information discloses specific information about where Kainai members hunt, 3

fish, trap and gather, and also discloses the types of species, and locations of wildlife, fish and plants that are harvested by Kainai members within their traditional territory.

Disclosing this information could significantly reduce the competitive position of Kainai members as compared to their non-aboriginal counterparts, by disclosing areas for hunting, trapping, fishing, and harvesting and thus increasing competition for resources within those areas. This could in turn result in economic or cultural harm as well as prejudice to Kainai's Treaty rights.

Finally, for reasons similar to those outlined above, it is common for administrative tribunals, including Joint Review Panels, to issue confidentiality orders for evidence that contains similar information to that contained in the TLU Report.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Kainai submits that it has established that the information disclosed in the TLU Report, justifies Kainai being granted a confidentiality Order with respect to the TLU Report.

Sincerely,

CC: Martin Ignasiak