Appendix 10

Traditional Land Use

Following is a Traditional Land Use Assessment (TLU) from Onion Lake Cree Nation, Kehewin Cree

Nation and Saddle Lake Cree Nation. Pengrowth, out of respect for the First Nations communities, has

included this TLU in its entirety, unedited.

There are a number of statements and positions in this TLU that are beyond the scope of the Terms of

Reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment and as well are constitutional and beyond the

authority and ability of Pengrowth to address.

PENGROWTH ENERGY CORPORATION’S PROPOSED LINDBERGH SAGD

EXPANSION PROJECTSummer 2013 Traditional Land Use Assessment

External Report Prepared on behalf of:Onion Lake Cree Nation

Kehewin Cree NationSaddle Lake Cree Nation

By Janelle Marie Baker

Summer 2013 TLU! 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pengrowth Proposed Expansion Summary! 3

Duty to Consult! 4

Results! 11

Table 1: GPS locations of TLU sites! 12

Conclusion and Concerns! 15

Recommendations! 17

Bibliography! 19

Summer 2013 TLU! 2

Pengrowth Proposed Expansion SummaryPengrowth Energy Corporation (Pengrowth) is a publicly traded Canadian oil and gas explo-ration and production company based in Calgary, Alberta. Pengrowth operates numerous oil and gas properties that span the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, with production of approximately 86,000 barrels of oil equiva-lent per day. Pengrowth owns a 100% working interest in the 11,190 ha of oilsands mineral leases in the Lindbergh and Muriel fields.

The proposed Lindbergh SAGD Expansion Project (the Project) will be an expansion of the Approved Lindbergh SAGD Project, which will produce a maximum annualized bitumen rate of 1,987 m3 in the County of St. Paul. The plant site will expand on the plant site that is to be constructed as part of the initial phase of the Lindbergh SAGD Project and will be located approximately 24 km southeast of Bonnyville. The Project will increase the bitumen production from an initial 1,987 m3/day (12,500 bpd) with the Lindbergh SAGD Project to 4,770 m3The Project will be comprised of well pads, observation wells, water disposal wells, a Central Processing Facility (CPF), a storm water pond, administration and maintenance buildings, a camp, and a parking area. The existing water source will be used for the expan-sion. The CPF will be located on the east side of the lease in the west half of Section 25, Township 58,Range 5, West of the 4th Meridian, on the same footprint as the CPF for the approved Lindbergh SAGD Project.

Natural gas will be used for steam generation. A third-party supplier will provide power. Ac-cess to the Project will be via the existing access road that enters the facility from Range Road 50. Initial production will be transported by truck, and thereafter by pipeline or rail. Subject to regulatory approval, construction of the Project is expected to commence in 2015 with an anticipated operational start date in 2017. When fully constructed, there will be an anticipated 305 well pairs drilled from approximately 41 well pads. The Project is expected to produce approximately 275 million barrels during its projected 25 year operation.

Summer 2013 TLU! 3

Duty to Consult

Below is a summary of Federal, Provincial, and International laws and agreements that in-form the duty to consult Aboriginal people regarding impact to their traditional territories and ways of life in Alberta.

Indian Act

Section 91(24) of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1867 (originally called the “British North America Act”) assigns exclusive legislative jurisdiction over “Indians and Indian lands re-served for the Indians” to the federal Parliament (Isaac 2001). Canadian Parliament intro-duced the Indian Act in 1876 under the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Isaac 2001). The purpose of this statute is to govern all aspects of First Nations life on and off reserve (it defines who are “Status Indians” and does not include Inuit or Métis people). The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development administers the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who are responsible for the act.

Section 35 of Constitution Act 1982

The Constitution Act, 1982 is the reworking of the British North America Act 1867 to become part of the Canadian Constitution in the patriation of Canada. These Amendments to the Constitution (proposed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau), allow Canada to amend its Constitution (without Great Britain) and protect individual and collective rights with Canadian Law (Isaac 2001). The amendments did not originally mention Aboriginal people in Canada, but Aboriginal leaders lobbied to have changes made to Section 35 of the Constitution Act and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which were made in 1983.

Section 35 recognizes and affirms the existing treaty rights in Canada and recognises Abo-riginal people as First Nations, Inuit and Métis people (Government of Canada 2013). Sec-tion 35.1 stipulates that for any changes to be made to the constitution a conference with the Prime Minister, the first ministers of the provinces, and Aboriginal representatives must be held (Government of Canada 2013).

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Charter of Right and Freedoms is a bill of rights that forms the first part of the Constitution Act 1982. The Charter outlines the rights Canadians have and protection from government infringement of those rights (Issac 2001). The Charter states that it cannot “abrogate or derogate” from existing Aboriginal and treaty rights (Government of Canada 2013). “Section 25 does not create rights but rather protects Aboriginal rights from being infringed or im-paired by Charter” (Isaac 2001:44).

Summer 2013 TLU! 4

Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult

In response to Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, the 2004 Haida and Taku River deci-sions, and the 2005 Mikisew Cree decision (discussed later in this chapter), the Canadian Government released the “Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guide-lines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult” (Government of Canada 2011). In the aforementioned decisions, “the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown has the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate when the Crown contemplates con-duct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights”. The guidelines provide federal departments and agencies with information on determining when the duty to consult has arisen and how to fulfil the duty to consult. “The courts have gener-ally left to government the detailed exercise of implementing process that seek to fulfil the duty to consult” (2011). Consultation often occurs in the context of environmental assess-ments and regulatory processes. The document makes it clear that the Government of Can-ada expects Aboriginal people to reciprocate in the consultation process (2011).

The majority of activities that trigger the need for consultation are third-party industrial development proponents. These guidelines state that third parties do not have a legal obli-gation to consult Aboriginal groups, but the Crown can delegate aspects of the consultation process (such as inquiring about potential project impacts) (2011). However, “the ultimate responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown as the Honour of the Crown cannot be delegated” (2011). Accommodation means, “to avoid, eliminate, or minimize the adverse impacts on potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights” (2011). If this is not possible, Aboriginal communities are to be compensated for adverse impacts or in some cases, the proponent will not be allowed to proceed with proposed developments. The Crown is able to rely on the third party’s activities to fulfill the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate (2011). These guidelines provide a step-by-step process for its depart-ments and agencies to follow for consulting and accommodation.

Province of Alberta and the Duty to ConsultDevelopment of oil and gas resources in Alberta (first discovered in 1913 and the largest oil and gas producing province in Canada) has long been a subject of some controversy, for local residents, environmental groups and for First Nations and Métis peoples. There are 45 First Nations (Blackfoot, Stoney Nakoda, Cree, Saulteux, Dene, and Dane-zaa) in Alberta with 140 reserves under Treaties 6,7 and 8 (signed beginning in 1876 with modifications continu-ing until the 1950s) along with 8 Métis settlements. In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Mikisew Cree who argued that the Federal government had failed to adequately consult with the Mikisew Cree Nation regarding the use of land to construct a winter road in the Wood Buffalo National Park. This case established the obligation for the Crown (provincial and federal) to ensure Aboriginal consultation regarding potential impacts from industrial development to Crown lands. Alberta assumes a managerial role in the con-sultation process through the preparation of consultation guidelines, deciding which First Nations should be consulted, and deeming the consultation complete, but delegates project-specific activities to project proponents (Government of Alberta 2007).

Summer 2013 TLU! 5

In this stakeholder management approach (Passelac-Ross and Potes 2007), consultation typically takes the form of the project proponent informing First Nations of the proposed project and then the proponent hiring an environmental consulting firm to undertake a tra-ditional land use assessment as a part of the environmental impact assessment process. As a part of the consultation process, First Nations and companies also often sign benefit-sharing agreements with companies providing money for training and community development pro-jects in exchange for First Nations agreeing not to oppose project development. In order to respond to hundreds of requests in a year for consultation, most First Nations have created departments within their band offices. These consultation offices meet with company con-sultants, review Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and participate in traditional land use assessments (Westman 2006). Traditional land use assessments detail the First Na-tion’s concerns about the project’s potential impacts on their traditional territory, however companies rarely address the concerns that First Nations raise regarding impact to their way of life and cumulative impacts (Nadasdy 2005). Instead, consultants pressure the First Na-tions to identify specific sites or locations that they are concerned about. The company then decides if it is willing to avoid each location, but often they will claim that particular areas are insignificant if there are areas with similar harvesting potential that will remain intact in the First Nation’s territory (without realising that there are familial-based harvesting re-gimes and that entire families lose access to the land through this process) (Westman 2006; Nadasdy 2005). Employees of environmental consulting firms often are not adequately trained or knowledgeable about First Nations histories and worldviews to be speaking for them (Westman 2006). Recognising that project proponents typically pay consultants di-rectly, it is justified to ask if this is sufficient to ensure effective consultation or if it reports are aimed simply at obtaining approval (Westman 2006). First Nations often left with the impression that their concerns have not been adequately addressed and that only minimal efforts will be made to avoid damage or to restore sites. The lack of adequate consultation can lead to First Nations choosing to contest natural resource projects in the courts or through land claim negotiations, although they have a low-success rate in the courts (Red-dekopp 2013).

There are several problems with the Alberta First Nations Consultation process (Redde-kopp 2013; Passelac-Ross and Portes). The Alberta government and the Crown are the final arbitrators of the adequacy of their own consultation activities (rather than the judiciary), the Province treats Aboriginal Constitutional rights as though they are they same as “stake-holders” and general societal interests, Alberta relies too much on industry to uphold its constitutional duties, and Aboriginal people are not involved in the early decision-making about natural resource development and related policies - and for this reason they immedi-ately and continue to reject the Alberta Consultation Policy (Passelac-Ross and Potes 2007).

Summer 2013 TLU! 6

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989

The International Labour Organization (ILO) (an agency of the United Nations) released the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (also known as ILO-convention 160) as the major binding international convention regarding indigenous peoples and is a precursor to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 15, sections 1 and 2 of the convention relate to the development of natural resources on Aboriginal peoples’ tradi-tional lands (International Labour Organization 1989):

Article 151. The rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources.2. In cases in which the State retains the ownership of mineral or sub-surface resources or

rights to other resources pertaining to lands, governments shall establish or maintain pro-cedures through which they shall consult these peoples, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what degree their interests would be prejudiced, before undertaking or permitting any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of such resources pertain-ing to their lands. The peoples concerned shall wherever possible participate in the bene-fits of such activities, and shall receive fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of such activities.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

During its 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations (UN) adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2008). The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also "emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own in-stitutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations" (United Nations 2008). It "prohibits discrimination against in-digenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development" (2008). The following articles relate are relevant to the discussion of oil and gas development in New Brunswick (United Nations 2008):

Article 281. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and in-formed consent.

Article 322. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed

Summer 2013 TLU! 7

consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other re-sources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of min-eral, water or other resources.

Canada endorsed the Declaration in 2010, but place its concerns on record about free, prior and informed consent (FRIC) when interpreted as a veto (AANDC website). Also, “noted in Canada’s Statement of Support, the Declaration is a non-legally binding document that does not change Canadian laws. Therefore, it does not alter the legal duty to consult” (AANDC website). The UN-REDD Programme has recently released a document entitled, “Guide-lines of Free, Prior and Informed Consent” that outlines a normative, policy and operational framework for seeking FPIC. In this document, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food explains, “no people’s land, including in particular indigenous peoples, can have its use changed without prior consultation” (UN-REDD Programme 2013). He recommends that any changes in land use takes place “with free, prior and informed consent” and this “is par-ticularly important for indigenous communities, in view of the discrimination and mar-ginalization they have been historically subjected to” (UN-REDD Programme 2013).

Methods

Project Public Terms of Reference Below is the section of the terms of reference that Pengrowth submitted for this expansion project; as they pertain to traditional land use (TLU) consultation:

TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE

[A] Provide:a) a map and description of traditional land use areas including fishing, hunting,b) a map of cabin sites, spiritual sites, cultural sites, graves and other traditional usec) a discussion of:trapping and nutritional, medicinal or cultural plant harvesting by affected Aboriginal peo-ples (if the Aboriginal community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed);sites considered historic resources under the Historical Resources Act (if the Aboriginal community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed), as well as traditional trails and resource activity patterns; andi) the availability of vegetation, fish and wildlife species for food, traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes in the identified traditional land use areas considering all Project related impacts,ii) access to traditional lands in the Project Area during all stages of the Project, andiii) Aboriginal views on land reclamation.

Summer 2013 TLU! 8

[B] Describe how Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use information was incorporated into the Project, EIA development, the conservation and reclamation plan, monitoring and mitigation.

[C] Determine the impacts of the Project on traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes and identify possible mitigation strategies.

Summer 2013 Traditional Land Use Study Methods

Pengrowth approached First Nations whose traditional territories lie within the proposed expansion project area (as determined by the Government of Alberta). Three of the ap-proached First Nations (Kehewin Cree Nation, Onion Lake Cree Nation, and Saddle Lake Cree Nation) expressed interest in a collaborative traditional land use assessment of the proposed project area, and this report is a result of this assessment that occurred during the summer of 2013. A fluctuating team averaging fifteen people worked on this assessment for a total of thirteen field days. TLU consultant and PhD student in environmental anthropol-ogy, Janelle Marie Baker, assisted the research team with logistics, recording and writing.

Summer 2013 TLU! 9

Anthropologists and others have often pointed out the remarkable preoccupation among hunting peoples with literal truth. Precision and accuracy in all )a spects o f land use have obviously been integral to survival. It is not surprising, therefore, that among the Inuit, Beaver, and many other hunting peoples, there is a great hostility towards any unreliability about resource-harvesting activities. It is striking that in some hunting peoples' languages there is no very clear distinction between making an error in judgement and telling a lie. In a society where information about the land and its animals can make the difference between life and death, there cannot be much tolerance for errors of of judgement. This simple and anthropological fact helps one to have confidence in the methods devised for land-use and occupancy re-search. (Brody 2004)

The summer 2013 TLU research methods included:

1. First Nations researchers performed internal and private interviews with knowledge holders to prepare for the fieldwork (to know the best areas to assess and to provide an historical overview of the area).

2. First Nations researchers continued informal interviews and information gathering as the research unfolded. This means that when they went home they spoke with relatives and friends to learn more about the area and community concerns.

3. The research team performed land-based assessments. The team traveled to traditional land use areas and surveyed them for indicators for harvesting, historical use, and other cultural significance. During these assessments research team members and knowledge holders shared information about the cultural significance of the areas. People expressed concerns about the area and informed the team about their history and relationship with the landscape.

4. The research team took photos, recorded stories, traditional land use information, and GPS co-ordinates of important sites. The team also recorded flora and fauna that they observed that is of cultural significance.

5. The research team carried out ceremonies and spiritual offerings as necessary.

6. There was a collaborative co-production of knowledge, meaning that the research team from different ages, communities, and backgrounds worked together to produce the re-sults in this report.

7. The research team held a verification meeting on October 31, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to share and review the field notes, photos, and report drafts for consensus on the production of final reports. The research group decided that there would be both an internal detailed report and an external report to submit to Pengrowth for their ap-plication. The external report does not contain any site locations or specific traditional land use information in order to protect the First Nation’s intellectual property and their privacy regarding sensitive spiritual issues.

8. The research team meet again on December 4, 2013 to review and edit the two reports. Each participating First Nation will take the reports to their respective Chief and Coun-cils for approval.

Summer 2013 TLU! 10

ResultsBelow is a list of quotes from the research team members and participants that summarize the main topics and knowledge that people shared. Each of the First Nations who partici-pated in the study have the detailed fieldnotes to refer to for more specific information on these topics. All of the participants were provided with tables of the flora and fauna they they identified, observed and discussed, but the groups requested that the tables not be in-cluded in the external report to protect their intellectual property. The participants were also provided with tables of all of the GPS locations of sites that they identified during the summer 2013 TLU assessments. Again, the participants requested that details about these sites not be made public, so summary tables are provided here instead.

• Louis: “You pick it in the springtime - anyone just can’t do it - you have to know the protocols and where and when to harvest it. Books don’t tell you that.”

• Francis: “If the trappers from before me saw this place how it is now they would roll in their graves.”

• Walter: “ I killed a moose right where we were by the muskeg - also killed two right there at the cutline. People also come here to snare rabbits and hunt deer. In the past people would set up a hunting camp here. That’s the way of living long time ago to feed families - share with those who didn’t have any. Not like today. They would teach younger children how to hunt, snare and camp here. Was a good outing for youngsters to learn from Elders. Learned how to hunt, skin, preserve and dry meat. Women would come there to dry meat.”

• Wally: “Everywhere you look gives life - trees are medicine, black poplar, willow - clean air, are medicine.”

• Mary: “You can’t harvest plants that you don’t know how to use or that you don’t need.”

• Kenneth: “On top of the hill where we were yesterday, people used to hay - they would travel through from Onion Lake and just bury people wherever they died. They would bury people just a few feet down (unless they had contagious diseases) and put rocks on top. This is why the grave sites look sunken.”

• Mary: “I remember going on the wagon trail when I was 8 or 9. The wagon had big metal wheels and there were a lot of rocks on the road - it was rough. They also went on it in the winter with a sleigh. One time we were going to Kehewin in the winter and had to stop and light a fire to change my baby brother’s moss bag and my Dad fed the horses for 15-20mins.”

Summer 2013 TLU! 11

T A B L E 1 : G P S L O C A T I O N S O F T L U S I T E S

Date Description GPS

Aug. 8/13

Aug. 8/13

Aug. 9/13

Aug. 13/13

Aug. 13/13

Aug. 13/13

Aug. 13/13

Aug. 19/13

TLU sites N 54˚ 05.657’ W 110˚ 37.462’

TLU sites N 54˚ 05.974‘ W 110˚ 37.673’

TLU sites N 54˚ 03.872’W 110˚ 37.527’

TLU sites N 54˚ 04.216’W 110˚ 39.277’

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 03.855’W 110˚ 40.42’

TLU sites N 54˚ 03.856’W 110˚ 37.814’

TLU sites N 54˚ 03.855’W 110˚ 40.42’

TLU sites N 54˚ 06.777’W 110˚ 37.080’

Summer 2013 TLU! 12

Date Description GPSAug. 20/13

Aug. 20/13

Aug. 21/13

Aug. 21/13

Aug. 21/13

Aug. 21/13

Aug. 21/13

Aug. 22/12

Sep. 9/13

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 03.533’W 110˚ 35.182’

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 03.350’W 110˚ 35.241’

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 02.024’W 110˚ 34.862’

TLU sites N 54˚ 02.818’W 110˚ 35.377’

TLU sites N 54˚ 02.723’W 110˚ 35.351’

TLU sites N 54˚ 02. 573’W 110 ˚ 35.315’

Francis’ trap cabin N 54˚ 04.391’W 110˚ 36.407’

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 02.413’W 110˚ 35.156’

Sensitive - requests for avoidance N 54˚ 00.48’W 110˚ 34.593’

Summer 2013 TLU! 13

Date Description GPSSep. 11/13

Sep. 11/13

Sep. 11/13

Sep. 12/13

Pipeline too close to Garnier Lake N 54˚ 02.0681’W 110˚ 35.370’

Pipeline over creek N 54˚ 02.670’W 110˚ 35.218’

Mound - survey marker N 54˚ 04.734’W 110˚ 34.827’

TLU sites N 54˚ 08.095’w 110˚ 28.078’

Summer 2013 TLU! 14

Conclusion and ConcernsThe area that the TLU research team assessed is clearly an area of importance to the First Nations participating in the project. They have a long history of traveling through the re-gion, which means that they camped, hunted, trapped, gathered foods and medicines, had ceremonies, produced hay, and buried their loved ones there. This connection to the land continues today. People still hunt, trap, gather, and have ceremonies in the area. Some of the land is already affected by industrial development and grazing, but this does not mean that people are removed from their ancestral landscape. Rather, they practice a system of allow-ing the land to regenerate or rest (or be left fallow) when overused (Brody 2004), which is often mistaken for cultural assimilation or detachment from the land by outsiders. However, this TLU assessment shows that First Nations people from the region of the proposed Pen-growth expansion continue to have a relationship with their traditional territory that ema-nates through all parts of their identity and way of life.

General Concerns:

• Cumulative Impact - There are several projects and developments that are impacting the landscape in the study region and are therefore impacting First Nations’ ability to con-tinue traditional pursuits. While this particular project might be relatively small, it needs to be considered within the context of all development in the region.

• Water - Access to safe and clean water and respect for water was a concern for all partici-pants in the TLU assessment. In particular, participants are concerned about the impact of the project on freshwater and the lakes in the study area. Muriel Lake has already been impacted significantly by industrial development in the region (it is polluted, there has been a major loss of water, and there are hardly any fish there anymore). This lake is of great TLU significance and the loss of use of the lake is unacceptable. Garnier Lake and Reita Lake are also of great TLU importance to TLU in the region.

• Flora - Herbs and medicines need to be protected - people are having to travel farther and farther away from their communities in order to find what they need due to cumulative impacts from development in the region. This includes trees, shrubs, plants, lichens, moss and fungi.

• Fauna - Hunting, fishing and trapping continue to be a way of life for the First Nations who participated in this TLU assessment. They are concerned about the cumulative and direct impacts of industrial development (including linear developments such as roads and pipelines and related construction noise) on animals (including insects, birds, fish, mam-mals, reptiles and amphibians.

Summer 2013 TLU! 15

• Landscape and Ecology - Landscape features have names and stories associated with them that hold important cultural ways of learning and knowing for First Nations (Basso 1996). The interaction of ecological systems and landscapes are acknowledged by First Nations to be respected and cared for. Participants in this TLU assessment expressed their concerns for landscapes and ecological system health.

Specific Locations of Concern (to be avoided/protected):

The following points describe sensitive sites listed in Table1 1. The First Nations prefer that the specific nature of each site not be linked to its location, since this report will become part of a public document. It is important to the First Nations participants that the sensi-tive sites be protected and their locations and descriptions not be shared publicly so they are not disturbed.

• Hunting Camp - There is a major hunting camp (and medicine gathering area) within the project study area that needs to be avoided.

• Wagon trail - There is an historical wagon trail that transects the project study area. As is expected, there are many sites of importance along the trail (such as camp sites, trapping and hunting areas, and gathering areas). Trails are central to semi-nomadic peoples’ ways of life and the maintenance and stories about them can insure people’s survival when on the land (Johnson 2010). When trails are disturbed, it is a great loss to a community.

• Graves - There is a mass grave site (likely from the Spanish flu of 1918) in the project area. The First Nations involved in this TLU assessment are extremely concerned about the care and protection of this site. They would like to continue to collaborate in researching the site and working to protect it (through the use of a buffer zone for example).

Specific Concerns:

• Heritage Sites - The First Nations involved in this TLU assessment are aware that there are existing recorded heritage sites in the study project area. They are working on acquir-ing access to more information on the sites.

• Grazing - The research team observed that much of the project study area is overgrazed.

• Timber - The First Nations participants would like access to timber that is cleared for the project developments (for firewood, etc.).

• Access - With the increase of industrial activities in the area the research team expressed concerns about being able to access their traditional land use areas.

Summer 2013 TLU! 16

• Pipelines - There are several existing pipelines in the project study area and more under construction. The research team is concerned about cumulative impacts and potential for spills. They were also concerned about the close proximity of the Enbridge and Inter Pipe-line construction to Garnier Lake and other wetlands (including the diversion of a creek that feeds into Muriel Lake and runs through Francis’ trapline).

• Trappers - The team is concerned of the impact of the developments in the area on trap-pers. They need to be considered in project developments such as this one.

• There is an historical trail south of the Pengrowth lease that is currently under request for protection and a land claim regarding historical hay meadows near the Pengrowth lease.

Recommendations

• This particular TLU assessment and report cannot be used in place of future assessments, studies, or consultation. It is a living document and only represents the particular assess-ment and research that the team carried out during the summer of 2013 - it is not a finite or absolute assessment of First Nations’ TLU in the region, since TLU as a form of knowledge and way of life is always adapting to current environmental conditions.

• First Nations’ Treaty rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, and the UN Guidelines of Free, Informed, and Prior Consent be acknowledged, honoured, and upheld by the Province of Alberta, the Canadian Government, and by Pengrowth specifi-cally on this project (as the third party according to Alberta’s consultation guidelines (Government of Alberta 2007)).

• Pengrowth provide information on their plans for sustainable development and cumulative impacts of industrial development in the region. There has been too much development that has occurred in the region under too short of a time frame. The First Nations ask that Pengrowth take this recent history into consideration.

• Pengrowth be aware that there is a land claim underway near their lease and historical trails in the process of becoming protected.

• The First Nations participants would like to be given the opportunity to continue to monitor the study area for impacts to TLU, including environmental impacts. They would also like to monitor construction activities, especially those near areas of concern.

• The First Nations participants request to see results of water, air, soil and vegetation monitoring for contaminants in the project study area.

Summer 2013 TLU! 17

• Pengrowth continues to consult and communicate with First Nations who have TLU in-terests in the region of Pengrowth leases and developments in a timely and respectful manner.

• Pengrowth work with First Nations to address their concerns about the impacts that de-velopments will have to traditional land use access and rights.

• Pengrowth work with First Nations involved in this TLU assessment to protect and care for specific sites of concern. This includes:

• Working with the First Nations to establish buffer zones and protection plans for the sites.

• Contacting the First Nations when construction is near these sites so that they can monitor and protect them.

• Pengrowth responds to the First Nations involved in this TLU assessment’s specific con-cerns listed in this report.

• Pengrowth continues to consult and communicate with trappers about project activities and impacts in a timely and respectful manner.

• The First Nations participants request to be involved in the planning and execution of rec-lamation activities. It is imperative that TLU knowledge be used in reclamation planning.

• The lakes and streams within the project study area be protected. The First Nations par-ticipants be consulted regarding establishing protection plans and buffer zones around wa-terways. First Nations be involved and informed about regular environmental monitoring and testing for contaminations of the lakes and streams in the project study area.

Summer 2013 TLU! 18

Bibliography

Basso, Keith H

) 1996) Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Brody, Hugh

) 2004) Maps and Dreams. Vancouver; Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre.

Canada, Supreme Court of

) 2005) Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage). In SCC 69.

Government of Alberta

) 2007) Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development.

Government of Canada

) 1985) Indian Oil and Gas Act. In R.S.C., 1985, c1-7. G.o. Canada, ed.

—

) 1995) Indian Oil and Gas Regulations. M.o. Justice, ed.

—

) 2011a) Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Fed-eral Officials to Fulfull the Duty to Consult. M.o.t.D.o.A.A.a.N.D. Canada, ed.

—

) 2011b ) Aboriginal Consultation and Accomodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult. A.A.a.N. Development, ed.

—

) 2013) A Consolidation of The Constitution Acts 1967 to 1982. Justice Canada, ed.

International Labour Organization

) 1989) C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Conventon United Nations.

Isaac, Thomas

) 2001 ) Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and Beyond. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing Ltd. .

Summer 2013 TLU! 19

Johnson, Leslie Main and Eugene Hunn, ed.) 2010) Landscape Ethnoecology: Con-cepts of Biotic and Physical Space. New York: Berghahn Books.

Nadasdy, Paul

) 1999) The Politics of Tek: Power and the "Integration" of Knowledge. Arctic An-thropology 36(1/2):1-18.

Passelac-Ross, M.M., and V. Potes

) 2007) Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region: Is it Meeting the Crown’s Legal Obligations? Resources 98:1-8.

Rae, D.

) 2009) Bill C-5, a Trojan Horse?: To Oil and Gas Producing First Nations. R.a. Com-pany, ed.

Reddekopp, N

) 2013) Theory and Practice in the Government of Alberta’s Consultation Policy. Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 22(1):47-62.

UN-REDD Programme

) 2013) Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

United Nations

) 2008) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Westman, Clint

) 2006) Assessing the Impacts of Oilsands Development on Indigenous Peoples in Alberta. Indigenous Affairs 2(3):30-39.

Summer 2013 TLU! 20

#0

#0

#0

#0

_̂ #0#0

#0

_̂

_̂

_̂

#0#0#0

×

_̂

_̂

GF

G

#0MurielLake

ReitaLake

MichelLake

DionLake

GarnierLake

BluetLake

CushingLake

��657

Holyoke

R5 R4 R4 R3 W4M

T59

T58

T58

T57

36353433323136353433 31

5

8

23

16 32

9

41

7

3 1

8

2

9

6 4

7

2 1

7

6

1111

1111

1713

24

13

25

12

10

20

10

14

12

16

33

1518

27

14

22

25

3436 31 32

10

32

23

36

29

35

33

2630

21

363534

19

28

36

21 2422

16

23

25

15 14

28 26

35

10

27

22

2927

20

12

1713

26

23

15

24

25

12

14 13

31

30

1 6 5 4 3

4

2

9

1

7

6

31

19

18

16

21

2830

19

18

Puskiakiwenin I.R. 122

6

7

5

14

15

17

16

9

8

12

D38

11

13D08

10

D55D54

D32

D04

D13D12

D14

D10

D18

D20

D22

D07

D26

D24

D16

D25

D19

D30

D23

D45

D15

D46

D28

D17

D06

D21

D09

18

D34

D33

D37

D49

D47

D29

D53

D44

D42

D43

D31

D50 D52

D41

D48

D51

D35

D40

D39

D11

D36

D27

I

0 1.5 30.75

Kilometres

Legend

Development Footprint

Initial Development

Access/Utility Corridor

Well Pad

Soil Storage

Borrow Pit

Future Development

Access/Utility Corridor

Well Pad

Soil Storage

Borrow Pit

Existing and Approved Development

First Nations

Railway

Secondary Highway

Permanent Stream

Ephemeral Stream

Drainages without Defined Channels

Lakes and Ponds

Beaver Ponds

× Francis trap cabin

Mound - survey marker

G Pipeline over creek

GFPipeline too close toGarnier Lake

_̂Sensitive - requestsfor avoidance

#0 TLU sites

Do

cu

me

nt

Pa

th:

K:\

Active

Clie

nt\

Pe

ng

row

th L

ind

be

rgh

\Fin

al D

ocs\1

1-0

33

\La

nd

Use

\Fig

1 P

rop

ose

d D

istu

rba

nce

Fo

otp

rin

t_T

LU

Site

s.m

xd

REF: Drifter Projects Ltd., EIA Footprint REV 3.dwg; NHC hydrology Oct 2013.

1

SL

KK

Dec 17/13

11-033

Lindbergh SAGD Expansion Project

PROJECT:

DATE:

CHECKED:

DRAWN: FIGURE:TITLE:

Proposed Development Footprintwith TLU Sites

PROJECT: