TASR Engagement Record (Updated June 20, 2016) 1. Emailed letter from M. Conway to NSMA, dated May 26, 2016 2. Email from L. Baran to M. Conway re: Whati lnteragency Committee meeting summary package, dated May 25, 2016 (includes attachments) 3. DOT-TG presentation from 3'd Whati lnteragency Committee meeting (includes TASR newsletters as handouts), May 4, 2016 4. TASR discussions in the Media (various) 5. 3'd TASR newsletter Katie Rozestraten Subject: FW: DOT Response to NSMA -TASR Attachments: TASR DOT Response to NSMA.May 26 2016.pdf From: Michael Conway sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:33 AM To: Bill Enge ([email protected]) Cc: Laura Duncan ([email protected]); Russell Neudorf ([email protected]) Subject: DOT Response to NSMA -TASR Good Morning Mr. Enge: Please find attached a letter written in response to your letter of March 24th 2016 with respect to the Tlicho All Season Road project. The original has been sent by mail. Thanks, Michael... Michael Conway Regional Superintendent Department of Transportation Yellowknife, Northwest Territories 867-767-9089 Ext 31194 l Government of Gouvernement des Northwest Territories Territoires du Nord·Ouest May 26, 2016 North Slave Metis Alliance Bill Enge 32 Melville Drive PO BOX 2301 YELLOWKNIFE NT XlA 2P7 Dear Mr. Enge: TJicb9 All-season Road Thank you for your letter of March 24, 2016 and the review the NSMA undertook of the Tl1chQ All·Season Road Project Description Report (PDR), prior to it being submitted to the Wek'eezhh Land and Water Board (WLWB) for consideration on March 31, 2016. The GNWT also looks forward to continuing meaningful consultation with accommodation, if appropriate. GENERAL MATTERS Your letter addresses consultation procedure in some detail so we thought it might be useful to set out the GNWT's approach. The GNWT acknowledges the constitutionally protected rights of Aboriginal peoples and is committed to ensuring that the GNWT respects Aboriginal and Treaty rights where a government action may adversely impact those rights. The GNWT has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal peoples regarding their constitutionally protected rights. This duty to consult focuses on the potential adverse impacts of GNWT government actions on asserted or established Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights, and is carried out by the GNWT to ensure the legal soundness of its decision-making, the maintenance of the "Honour of the Crown", and the promotion of "Reconciliation" between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples, and between Aboriginal interests and general public interests. ... /2 -2- The GNWT takes its section 35 duty to consult very seriously and has publically stated its' approach to consultation with Aboriginal Governments and organizations (AGO) in "The Government of the Northwest Territories' approach to consultation with Aboriginal Governments and organizations11 as follows. http://www.daair.gov.nt.ca/ live/documents/content/ Aboriginal Consultation Approach.pdf As stated in this document, the GNWT follows a consultation process that consists of four basic stages. The first stage is the pre-consultation assessment stage, which addresses the following questions: • Does the duty to consult arise from the requirement contained in a land claim, self-government or interim measures agreement, section 35 or requirement oflegislation or policy? • What are the potential adverse impacts of the proposed GNWT's action on the asserted or established Aboriginal rights? • Who should the GNWT be consulting with? • What level of consultation is required? Based on this assessment, the GNWT designs a tailor-made consultation process appropriate to the specific circumstance. The depth of consultation with each potentially adversely affected AGO may be quite different based on the pre­ consultation assessment and may also be revised based on information received in­ person or writing during the consultation process. Although our engagement record on this matter was commenced quite some time ago as outlined in the PDR Appendix D: Engagement Plan and Log and Appendix E: Engagement Record Summaries, we are still at the stage where we are seeking the concerns of the NSMA about how the proposed project might adversely affect the right outlined in the Enge case, or indeed your wider asserted Aboriginal rights. We have received some of those concerns in your letter. We are expecting that you may have additional ones or some clarification of ones provided perhaps as a result of points raised in our letter. This would be ideal to receive at this still-early stage of the project. ... /3 -3- We have received some of those concerns in your letter. We are expecting that you may have additional ones or some clarification of ones provided perhaps as a result of points raised in our letter. This would be ideal to receive at this still-early stage of the project. SPECIFIC MATTERS 1) Provision of Documents We understand that the NSMA has been provided with the entire PDR package that is mentioned on page 4 of your letter and appreciate the thorough review the NSMA undertook. As you are aware, the Deparbnent of Transportation submitted the final PDR with land use permit and water licence application to the WLWB on March 31, 2016. On page 5, you request a "thorough review" of cumulative effects, however, we believe that the PDR is the thorough review. Perhaps you would clarify what you mean by this. The PDR, (p. 9-1) states that DOT conducted a preliminary cumulative effects assessment to aid the preliminary screening process with the WLWB; to provide regulatory decision-makers and land and resources managers with a suitable amount of detail to assess whether the construction of the proposed TlichQ All-Season Road will contribute to cumulative effects in the Wek'eezhlt area and whether any additional mitigations are required. Therefore, the cumulative effects assessment was preliminary at this stage in the process because a full assessment is only really applicable if the project is being screened at a higher level (MVEIRB). Also on page 5 and on page 8, you request "more information" about the migrating herds. As members of the Bathurst Caribou Range Plan Working Group, you would also have had access to the very latest studies and findings on that topic. Please notify us if that is not the case. Concerning the Archaeology Impact Assessment (AIA), it is important to note that your concerns set out on page 7 regarding heritage are, in our opinion, in the context of asserted rights. These were not the subject matter of the Enge case and we regard the context you set out in your letter as being reflective and complementary to your current litigation. We would suggest that we do not necessarily have to be in agreement with the legal framing of your concerns to hear and consider them seriously in the context of consultation. ... /4 -4- The AIA for the proposed TllChQ All-Season Road was completed by Stantec at the request of the Department of Transportation. The AJA was conducted under Northwest Territories Class 2 Archaeologist Permit 14-009, issued by the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre (PWNHC). It is our understanding that NSMA (Matt Hover, Environment and Resource Manager, NSMA) was consulted on the permit prior to it being issued on May 29th, 2014. As per the permit conditions, the NSMA would have been sent the final report, without redactions, in March 2015 to the attention of Matt Hover. If this is not the case, please let us know. The AIA is designed to deal with artifact identification and potential protection. It is not about attribution. In fact, we are told by the PWNHC that, in the vast majority of cases, it is impossible to attribute an artifact to one Aboriginal group or another. With that in mind, we regard the AJA as a general study not focused on one group but instead focused on one area of the NWT. As you indicated in your letter, the AJA posted on the WLWB Registry (Appendix U) includes two instances on maps on page 29 and 54 where the exact locations of the archaeology sites are redacted. It is PWNHC standard practice and permit conditions to not include exact locations, when conducting AIA in order to protect the culturally important sites; although as stated above, NSMA should have received a copy, without redactions, as part of the permit conditions. If the NSMA has any additional knowledge of archaeological sites of significance to the NSMA, the GNWT would welcome this information. 2) Strength of Claim Assessment For more information on this matter, please contact Clayton Balsillie, Director of Aboriginal Consultation and Aboriginal Relations at Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, at [email protected]. Once again thank you for outlining your concerns for our consideration and evaluation. Please send any others you may have on the potential adverse impacts of the project on caribou or other matters. .. ./5 -5- Sincerely, Micht nz Regional Superintendent North Slave Region c. Mr. Russell Neudorf, Deputy Minister Department of Transportation Ms. Laura Duncan, Tl1chQ Executive Officer Tl1chQ Government Katie Rozestraten From: Michael Conway Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:14 AM To: Rhonda Batchelor; Stu Niven; Katie Rozestraten; Lee Stroman; Kevin Mcleod Cc: Jayleen Robertson; Russell Neudorf Subject: FW: May 4, 2016 - Whati Special Inter-Agency Meeting Summary Package - Part 1 Attachments: 2016-05-04 Special Inter-Agency Meeting -Agenda.pdf; 2016-05-04 Chief Alfonz Nitsiza's Opening-Closing Comments.pdf; 2016-05-04