Appendix K Traditional Land Use...become affected by deformities (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a). Primrose...

Appendix K

Traditional Land Use

Appendix K1

Integration Table

Imperial Oil Resources Limited Cold Lake Expansion Project Volume 3 – EIA Appendices March 2016

Appendix K1 – Page 1

Cold Lake Expansion Integration Table

Discipline Aboriginal Input Location Details Explanation of Integration

Air

TK/TLU Information: Increase in greenhouse gas emissions, decrease in air quality and increase in foul smelling odors (WLFN 2013).

Not applicable Increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered in Volume 2, Sections 4.7 and 4.10.3. Air quality, including odourous emissions, are considered in Volume 2, Section 4.6.

TK/TLU Information: All new and expanding industrial operations should utilize Best Available Technology. Economically Achievable (BATEA) standards to establish emissions control (CLFN 2009).

Not applicable

Imperial’s approach for continuous improvement in air emissions management is founded on its basic operating principles of disciplined and documented management systems and on scientific, economic and technical analysis. These principles and systems apply from design through to construction and operations. Energy efficiency has a large effect on combustion emissions. Energy efficiency measures have been incorporated into the project design and Imperial will continue to reduce GHG emissions through improving energy efficiency in its operations (see Volume 1, Section 3.7.6.2).

TK/TLU Information: Pollution haze regularly observed around Cold Lake (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).

Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

Cold Lake is included in the air quality regional study area and haze is considered in Volume 2, Section 4.6.11.

Concern: SO2 emission rates should meet Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives; provide report that details most cost effective method to reduce SO2 emission levels so that all predicted 24 hour ambient levels would be within these requirements (CLFN in Imperial 2010).

Not applicable

All of the sulphur dioxide (SO2) predictions for the Project Alone Case are below the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO). Baseline predictions exceed the AAAQO for the 24-hour averaging period, however, the project's contribution to the maxima is minimal. The question requests a report that would be well beyond the scope of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and would presumably be directed at non-project sources, since it is these sources that are causing the predicted exceedance.

Mitigation Recommendation: Identify measures to assess or mitigate cumulative effects of oil and gas development in the CLAWR (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a; CLFN 2015).

CLAWR (Township (Twp) 67 to 73, Range (Rge) 1 to 9)

Regional monitoring will be managed as per the Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Program Regulation. Imperial will continue to support the regional monitoring program for the Cold Lake area, and will participate in the monitoring program in accordance with the Regulation.

Biodiversity

Concern: Fragmentation of muskeg and boreal forest environments from excessive seismic activity and development (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided The Cold Lake Expansion Project (the project) does not include seismic activity, but does plan to build corridors, which will have fragmentation effects as discussed in Volume 2, Section 13.7.1.

Effects of habitat fragmentation on soil (Kikino Métis in CNRL 2012).

Not provided The fragmentation of soils has not been identified as a risk and, therefore, is not discussed.




Conservation and

Reclamation

Mitigation Recommendation: At decommissioning, contaminated soil areas should be cleaned to meet criteria for any future land use, otherwise risk-based approach should be used (CLFN in Imperial 2010).

Not applicable Considered in Volume 1, Sections 6.8.3, 6.9.7 and 6.9.8.

Concern: Introduction of non-native plants through reclamation practices into the CLAWR (MNA2 CNRL 2006).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) Considered in Volume 1, Sections 6.8.4.

Concern: Include details of seed mixture used in reclamation (CLFN in Imperial 2010).

Not applicable

The recommended seed mixes are outlined in the existing Cold Lake Operations (CLO) revegetation plan and may be subject to adjustments to the application rate of individual species or substitution for alternative or available species. The revegetation plan is discussed in Volume 1, Section 6.9.7.3.

Fisheries

Concern: Development of rights-of-way provide greater access and an increased number of anglers, creating pressure or possible exploitation of fish stocks (WLFN 2013).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Section 9.6.2.

TLU/TK Information: Winefred and Christina lakes are sites known to be fish spawning habitat (General in CNRL 2012).

Winefred Lake (UTM Zone 12: 529245 Easting, 6149673 Northing), Christina Lake (UTM Zone 12: 506008 Easting, 6164053 Northing)

Winefred Lake and Christina Lake are located outside of the aquatic regional study area/aquatic local study area (ARSA/ALSA).

TLU/TK Information: Contamination of water from military weapons and/or resource development is negatively affecting health of fish stocks, particularly in Primrose Lake and Cold lake (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

Considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.4.5.

TLU/TK Information: Corner Lake has unusual form of jackfish, with little body and big head (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Corner Lake Corner Lake is located outside of the ARSA/ALSA.

TLU/TK Information: Fish from Primrose Lake have become affected by deformities (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).

Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing)

The ARSA depicted in Volume 2, Figure 9.2-2 also includes Primrose Lake and Martineau River watersheds, which are only discussed in Volume 2, Section 7.0. The geographic area where aquatic ecology effects from the proposed project may contribute to cumulative effects of other projects or other human activities are not expected to occur in the Martineau River and Primrose Lake watersheds.




Fisheries (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Jackfish from Moose Lake have mushy transparent green flesh and from Bourque Lake, they have warts (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Moose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 505260 Easting, 6011227 Northing), Bourque Lake (UTM Zone 12: 529446 Easting, 6058483 Northing)

Moose Lake is located outside the ARSA. Bourque Lake in considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.4.5.

TLU/TK Information: Moore (Crane) Lake contains unhealthy fish (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Moore (Crane) Lake Moore (Crane) Lake is considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.4.5.

TLU/TK Information: Reports that quality of fish in Cold Lake, Bourque Lake and others has declined in the past 30 to 40 years due to increased industrial use of lake, including marina; flesh of fish found in these lakes is reported to be wormy and soft (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), Bourque Lake (UTM Zone 12: 529446 Easting, 6058483 Northing)

Bourque Lake and Cold Lake are considered in Volume 2, Sections 9.5.4.5 and 9.5.5.1, respectively.

Concern: Effects on fish and fish habitat from increased emissions (WLFN 2010).


TLU/TK Information: Fish populations in Marie Lake, May Lake, Cold Lake, and Martineau River have dropped (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Decrease in fish stocks (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Marie Lake (UTM Zone 12: 545101 Easting, 6053727 Northing), May Lake (UTM Zone 12: 539173 Easting, 6063447 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), Martineau River

Marie Lake and May Lake are considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.4. Cold Lake and Martineau River are considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.5.1.

TLU/TK Information: In 2002, it was reported that walleye population in May Lake had collapsed (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

May Lake (UTM Zone 12: 539173 Easting, 6063447 Northing)

May Lake is considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.4.

TLU/TK Information: Leming Lake, Muriel Lake, Margaret Lake, Margaret Creek and creek south of Wolf Lake have all dried up, resulting in a loss of fish (General in CNRL 2006).

Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049728 Northing), Muriel Lake (UTM Zone 12: 521055 Easting, 5999686 Northing), Margaret Lake

Muriel Lake, Marguerite Lake, Marguerite Creek, and the creek south of Wolf Lake are located outside of the regional study area. Leming Lake is considered in Volume 2, Section 9.5.1: Leming Lake.

TLU/TK Information: Water levels have dropped within past 50 years at Marie Creek, Leming Lake and Cold Lake, which has direct implications for fish populations (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049728 Northing), Marie Creek, Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)


Concern: Effect of in situ injection process on fish stocks (CLFN in Imperial 2002).





Historical resources

Concern: Effects on historical, heritage and sensitive sites (FLFN 2015).

Not provided

Baseline historical resources data have been collected, but the project has not received Historical Resources Act approval. Imperial is committed to applying for approval prior to the start of construction and will address any additional requirements issued by the regulator, Alberta Culture & Tourism, relating to the management and mitigation of effects to historical resources and lands with the potential to contain historical resources (see Volume 2, Section 16.3.1).

Human health

Concern: Threat of exposure to chemicals and contaminants involved in project activity creates potential human health risk (WLFN in CNRL 2014).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Section 17.0.

Concern: Human health risks to Aboriginal people who rely on traditional food and medicines in areas affected by project (WLFN 2013).


Concern: Rural First Nations populations are more likely than populations in established urban areas to consume contaminants (CLFN 2013).


Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding movement of metals (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).


TLU/TK Information: Moose meat is filled with ‘white sores’ and moose livers have been observed as ‘full of pus’ (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


Hydrogeology

Concern: Are adequate tools available to ensure that any oil or salt leaks into overburden/aquifers are contained? Are responses mandatory? (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided

Groundwater monitoring for impacts and the response to spills to the subsurface are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.8. The groundwater monitoring program for the project will be designed to monitor for effects of the project on groundwater levels and quality and to meet the terms. The plans for the groundwater monitoring program will be prepared and submitted to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) as per the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act approval conditions.

TLU/TK Information: Well water on CLFN reserves has become contaminated by bacteria and chemicals (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Effect on drinking water (CLFN in Imperial 2002; CLFN 2015).

Not provided Regional effects on groundwater quality are covered in Volume 2, Sections 6.7 and 6.8.




Hydrogeology (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Water quality has deteriorated; wells in area are contaminated (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided Regional effects on groundwater quality are covered in Volume 2, Sections 6.7 and 6.8.

Technical advisors have warned First Nations that groundwater contamination with oil or salts is appearing without definitive cause (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided

Potential effects of the project on groundwater quality are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.6. Groundwater monitoring for impacts and the response to spills to the subsurface are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.8.

TLU/TK Information: There is an underground stream that connects Marie Lake and May Lake (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Marie Lake (UTM Zone 12: 545101 Easting, 6053727 Northing), May Lake (UTM Zone 12: 539173 Easting, 6063447 Northing)

Subsurface connections between surface waterbodies exist at the project. Groundwater-surface water interaction is discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.5.3.5.

Concern: During life of project, groundwater extraction could cause pressure in overlying aquifers to decline over time; this may alter surface flows (WLFN 2013).

Not provided Potential effects of the project on groundwater quantity are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.6.

Concern: Effect of the in situ injection process on water quality (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Potential effects of the project on groundwater quality and interaction with surface water are discussed in Volume 2, Sections 6.6 and 6.5.3.5, respectively.

Concern: First Nations have a lack of confidence in the knowledge held concerning aquifers, directions of underground water flow, recharge rates, impacts of drawdowns, or pre-operations water quality, regarding the effects of development (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided The baseline hydrogeological conditions are presented in Volume 2, Section 6.5.

Concern: Potential long-term unknown effects; removal of underground petroleum resources has currently unseen repercussions for future, including contamination and depletion of ground and surface water sources (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Potential effects of the project on groundwater quality and quantity are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.6.

Concern: Provide evidence of advantages and disadvantages of installing water/chemical injection wells to assist contaminated groundwater flow to trench or pumping well (CLFN in Imperial 2010).

Not provided The response to spills to the subsurface are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.8.

Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding water use (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided Potential effects due to groundwater withdrawal are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.6.1.

TLU/TK Information: Water quality has deteriorated; wells in area are contaminated (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided

Effects of the project on groundwater quality are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.6. Groundwater monitoring for impacts and the response to spills to the subsurface are discussed in Volume 2, Section 6.8.




Hydrogeology (cont’d)

Concern: Concern about lake and groundwater contamination, and chemicals entering surface water with rain run-off (MNA Region 2 2015).

Not provided

Solvent injected into the oil sands layer will not affect water quality as this zone is isolated from aquifers. A surface spill of solvent is unlikely to affect groundwater as the aquifers are isolated from the surface by low permeable till (Volume 2, Section 6.6). Well pads will have berms built around them to prevent surface spills from reaching surface waterbodies (Volume 1, Section 3.4). Imperial is committed to ensuring that its operations do not impact the health and safety of local residents and will take necessary actions to mitigate any impacts that are attributable to its operations at Cold Lake. CLO is currently undertaking water quality monitoring of the site. CLO will continue conducting this monitoring into the future (Volume 1, Section 3.7).

Hydrology

TLU/TK Information: Cold Lake area watershed runs east to west; Primrose Lake and Cold Lake are in part fed by water running from western bogs and fens; as a result, travelling north or south will yield bumpy path through muskeg and travelling east or west will yield smooth path (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

The information provided in the comment is only partly verified by the available topographic info and by the observed stream network (Volume 2, Section 7.5). The part of Cold Lake drainage area located southeast of Primrose Lake shows a predominant runoff direction from east to west (this area is not directly affected by any works as part of the project). In other areas of the Cold Lake watershed runoff appears to move predominantly in a north to south direction.

TLU/TK Information: Leming Lake, located in existing Cold Lake operations area, has nearly dried up; members observe that withdrawals for industrial use are the cause; Cold Lake area watershed is impacted by clear cutting and vegetation removal for development purposes (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049782 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

Long-term changes in lake levels within the project area have been discussed in Volume 2, Section 7.5.2.4.Leming Lake is not monitored, so it is not considered.

TLU/TK Information: Quantity of surface water in CLAWR has diminished (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) No additional surface water withdrawal license is required as part of this project as Imperial will optimize use of the existing water license from Cold Lake (see Volume 2, Section 7.6.6).

TK/TLU Information: Water levels in Cold Lake are declining (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).


Long-term changes in lake levels within the project area have been discussed in in Volume 2, Section 7.5.2.4.




Hydrology (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Water levels in Marie Creek, Leming Lake and Cold Lake have dropped six feet in past 50 years (CLFN in Imperial 2002; MNA2 CNRL 2006). Concern: Lowered water levels in Marie Creek, Leming Lake and Cold Lake (CLFN in Imperial 2002; MNA2 CNRL 2006).

Marie Creek, Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049782 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

Long-term changes in streamflow and lake levels within the project area have been discussed in Volume 2, Section 7.5.2.

Concern: Increased cumulative effects of Cold Lake water usage (CLFN in Imperial 2010).


No new surface water withdrawal is planned for this project as Imperial will optimize use of the existing water license from Cold Lake (see Volume 2, Section 7.6.6).

TLU/TK Information: Leming Lake, Muriel Lake, Margaret Lake, Margaret Creek, and creek south of Wolf Lake have all dried up, resulting in a loss of fish (CNRL 2006).

Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049728 Northing), Muriel Lake (UTM Zone 12: 521055 Easting, 5999686 Northing), Margaret Lake

Long-term changes in lake levels within the project area have been discussed in Volume 2, Section 7.5.2.3. Leming Lake is not monitored, as it falls outside the project area.

Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding water use (Local 193 in CNRL 2012; BLCN 2015; FLFN 2015).

Not provided No additional surface water withdrawal license is required as part of the project, therefore, no impact on existing and future surface water use is anticipated (Volume 2, Section 7.6.6).

Land and resource use

Concern: Developments of rights-of-way provide greater access and an increased number of anglers, creating pressure or possible exploitation of fish stocks (WLFN 2013)

Not provided Considered in a discussion of project effects on fishing in Volume 2, Section 14.6.8.

Concern: Use of construction camps to house workers increases recreational use of land in project area, creating difficulties for First Nation harvesters (WLFN in CNRL 2014).

Not provided No construction camps are proposed for the project (see Volume 2, Section 18.0).

Project

Concern: Are adequate tools available to ensure that any oil or salt leaks into overburden/aquifers are contained? Are responses mandatory? (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided

Adequate tools are available to ensure that any oil or salt releases into the environment are contained. Release/spill prevention and leak detection are required under AER Directive 055: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry. Under that directive, any spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately and reported, if required. Corrective action must be initiated as required. Abnormal circumstances and corrective actions must be documented. Imperial’s emergency response plan (ERP) is discussed in Volume 1, Section 3.7.2. Spill prevention and response is discussed in Volume 1, Section 3.7.3.




Project (cont’d)

Concern: First Nations are concerned about role, or lack of role, in project emergency response plans and reclamation that follows emergency events (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).

Not applicable

The ERP includes procedures for public notification, safety and reporting (Volume 1, Section 3.7.2). Imperial is a member in good standing with Western Canadian Spill Services Ltd., and area engagement information will be incorporated into the ERP as necessary (Volume 1, Section 3.7.3).

Concern: Monitoring subsurface issues is inadequate for early warning of subsurface problems; steam/oil escapes from the oil sands chamber or fracturing caprock (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided

Tests and models are run prior to project application to assess the safety/integrity of the formations. Monitoring is conducted on multiple parameters for wellbore and caprock integrity. Imperial has a long history of production at CLO. Wellbore integrity is discussed in Volume 1, Section 3.1.5. Caprock integrity is discussed in Volume 1, Section 2.5.The results from the pressure tests indicate that induced hydraulic fractures in the caprock propagate in a horizontal direction, further supporting the competency of the caprock.

Concern: Unproven technologies risk environment in ways not addressed in EIAs because we may not even understand issues exist or are unable to measure risk (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not applicable

Volume 1, Section 3.0 describes the technology proposed for the project. Technologies must go through rigorous research and development before being approved and used for a commercial scheme.

Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding solvents use (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not applicable

Solvent will be managed onsite as described through Volume 1, Section 3.0. Water management, waste management, air emissions management, and environmental management are discussed in Volume 1, Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, respectively.

Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding caprock integrity (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not applicable

Caprock integrity is discussed in Volume 1, Section 2.5. In situ stresses and maximum operating pressure are tested prior to project application. Used a compilation of stress test results for the Cold Lake area. The results from the pressure tests indicate that induced hydraulic fractures in the caprock propagate in a horizontal direction, further supporting the competency of the caprock

Concern: EIA must include proposed sources for temporary surface water withdrawals (WLFN in CNRL 2014).

Not provided

Water used during construction and drilling will be drawn from the existing CLO non-saline water system or from sources under a temporary diversion licence (Volume 1, Section 3.4) (e.g., from borrow sites and existing lease areas) – water licences will be acquired, as necessary, following the required regulatory process.




Project (cont’d)

Concern: Proponent should disclose exactly where water will be drawn from prior to application (WLFN 2013).

Not provided

The Cold Lake Expansion development will interconnect with the existing CLO and will have access to the same water sources as the existing CLO, as well as produced water from the project. As with the interconnection between the existing CLO plants, this integration will aid in minimizing surface water and groundwater withdrawals. The existing CLO sources saline water from the McMurray Formation and non-saline water primarily from surface water drawn from Cold Lake (License 0079923-01-00) and groundwater from the Empress Formation Unit 1 aquifer, as a contingency if Cold Lake levels are low (Licence 00148301-01-00) (Volume 1, Section 3.4).

Concern: overall effects of adding another plant in the Cold Lake lease.

Not provided The project will continue to participate and collaborate with Aboriginal communities and stakeholders in the oil sands region to monitor and manage cumulative environmental effects.

Regulatory

Woodland caribou are listed federally as a threatened species and provincially as a species at risk. There is no protection plan in place to stabilize caribou populations in Alberta (WLFN 2013).

Not applicable Following project approval, Imperial will be required to complete a caribou protection plan.

Lower Athabasca Regional Plan does not address land use within the CLAWR, nor does it protect the continued ability of First Nations to engage in traditional land use; it is not a useful supporting document in an EIA (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) This is a statement directed at the regulator.

Socio-economics

Concern: Long-term employment opportunities in oil sands/energy industry have not been realized in Aboriginal communities; Syncrude began operations in northern Alberta during 1960s, yet no member of First Nation has been trained or mentored into management/senior management position in any operating company (with exception of Aboriginal affairs departments) (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not applicable

Volume 2, Section 18.6.3: Aboriginal Benefits Assessment discusses the developer's initiatives to maximize Aboriginal benefits from the project. That includes policies and programs to enhance and maximize Aboriginal participation in employment and business opportunities.

Concern: Potential effects on livelihood and children (MNA Region 2 2015).

Not applicable

Potential project effects are discussed in Volume 2, Section 18.6. Imperial is committed to ensuring that its operations do not impact the health and safety of local residents and will take necessary actions to mitigate any impacts that are attributable to its operations at Cold Lake.




Soils and terrain

TK/TLU Information: Soils in Cold Lake area are sensitive to acid deposition; oil sands production increases levels of acid deposition (CLFN 2009).


Considered in Volume 2, Sections 10.6.10.

Concern: Erosion of roadside areas (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 10.4.5, 10.4.6, 10.5.3 and 10.6.6.

Concern: Effects of habitat fragmentation on soil (Kikino Métis in CNRL 2012).

Not provided The fragmentation of soils has not been identified as a risk and, therefore, is not discussed.

TLU/TK Information: SAGD operations may cause thermal expansion of formations below surface (WLFN 2013). Concern: Alteration of terrain and soils, including ground surface deformation (WLFN 2013).

Not provided Volume 2, Section 10.6 discusses effects on soils and terrain; Section 10.6.3 is specific to ground heaving/subsidence. Volume 1, Section 3.7.6.5 also discusses ground heave.

Traditional land use

Concern: Loss of access to traditional territory (General in Connacher 2010).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Section 15.6.2.3.

Concern: Increases in noise (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a, 2013b); effects of noise on humans (Kikino Métis in CNRL 2012).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 15.6.1.4 and 15.6.2.4.

TLU/TK Information: Sinclair Lake is spiritual place for Denesoun’line (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Sinclair Lake (UTM Zone 12: 522096 Easting, 6064344 Northing)

Considered in Volume 2, Section 15.4.6

TLU/TK Information: Presence of multiple projects has had cumulative effect of fragmenting traditional use areas and adversely impacting all traditional land uses (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).


Concern: Use of construction camps to house workers increases recreational use of land in project area, creating difficulties for First Nation harvesters (WLFN in CNRL 2014).

CNRL Kirby South project area (Twp 73 to 75, Rge 7 to 9, W4M; 10 km south of Conklin)

Construction camps are considered in Volume 2, Section 18.0.

Concern: Project would reduce ability of First Nations to exercise constitutionally protected Treaty harvesting rights in and around lease area and on traditional lands (WLFN in CNRL 2014; WLFN 2010; CLFN 2015; FLFN 2015, KMS 2015).

CNRL Kirby South project area (Twp 73 to 75, Rge 7 to 9, W 4M; 10 km south of Conklin); Jackfish 3 project area (Twp 75, Rge 6 to 8, WM4)


Concern: Use of construction camps to house workers increases recreational use of the land in project area, creating difficulties for First Nation harvesters (WLFN in CNRL 2014).

CNRL Kirby South project area (Twp 73 to 75, Rge 7 to 9, W4M; 10 km south of Conklin)

Construction camps are considered in Volume 2, Section 18.0.




Traditional land use (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Moose, grizzly bear, beaver, woodland caribou, and lynx, are identified as culturally significant species (WLFN in CNRL 2014).


TLU/TK Information: Presence of multiple projects has had cumulative effect of fragmenting traditional use areas and adversely impacting all traditional land uses (CLFN in Cenovus 2013).


TLU/TK Information: Wildlife will avoid project area altogether as a result of increased noise during construction and operations, which may affect success of First Nations harvesters in area (BLCN 2013).


TLU/TK Information: Aboveground pipelines and roads act as fences that stretch for miles; ungulates have difficulty passing over or under pipes, especially during rut or in spring (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Large animal movements have changed over time due to fragmentation of landscape caused by access rights-of-ways, pipelines, facility development, forestry operations, noise and increased traffic (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


Concern: Presence of well pads, pipelines, fencing, and limitations on access create effective hunting ban in project areas (CLFN 2013).

CNRL Kirby South project area (Twp 73 to 75, Rge 7 to 9, W4M)


TLU/TK Information: Changes in Cold Lake area hydrology from industrial withdrawals have resulted in drying out and loss of rat root patches; there was a population of rat root in French Beach that has been lost (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), French Beach


TLU/TK Information: Harvesting opportunities have been negatively affected by over-grazing cattle, fences, gates, road, pipelines and facilities (MNA2 CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Heavy grazing has prevented berries from producing (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).






TLU/TK Information: Many medicinal plant locales have been destroyed by previous development projects (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Pitcher plant colonies are significant medicinal plant used by First Nation members. These plants are sensitive to disturbance and cannot be restored easily (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).


TLU/TK Information: Several important, historic populations of Seneca root have disappeared (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Some members understand medicinal plants found at Cold Lake or Primrose Lake are more potent than those found elsewhere in the traditional territory (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing)


TLU/TK Information: The effects of development activities on plant health negates medicinal effectiveness of plants (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Valuable populations of rat root have been lost at French Beach, Bear Creek and Rat Root Creek (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

French Beach, Bear Creek, Rat Root Creek


Concern: Report total area containing traditionally used plants that will be lost to construction and operations phases (CLFN 2013).


Concern: It is a deterrent to require First Nations require a pass to access traditional use areas (CLFN in Cenovus 2013b).


TLU/TK Information: Effect on drinking water; well water on CLFN reserves has become contaminated by bacteria and chemicals (CLFN in Imperial 2002; CLFN 2015).


Concern: Loss of access to traditional territory (General in Connacher 2010).






Concern: Threat of exposure to chemicals and contaminants involved in project activity creates potential human health risk, which further reduces ability of First Nations to exercise traditional harvesting activities (WLFN in CNRL 2014).


Concern: Project will permanently reduce suitability of the area for traditional activities (WLFN in CNRL 2014).


Concern: Effects on non-traditional activities such as cattle grazing, forestry activities, oil & natural gas projects (including pipelines) on Crown land adjacent to communities (FLFN 2015).

Not provided

The project will conduct ongoing consultation and notification about project schedules and locations with all disposition, forestry, oil sand lease, and Petroleum and natural gas holders/stakeholders on Crown lands. Specific mitigations are discussed in Volume 2, Section 14.6.

Concern: Project and cumulative effects on reserve lands (CLFN 2015).

Not provided

No reserve lands were identified within the project site and terrestrial local study area (TLSA). Regarding cumulative effects on reserve lands, please see Volume 2, Section 15.7, including the Planned Development Case effects on harvesting areas and TLU sites.

Concern: Project and cumulative effects on CLFN’s social structure, economy and culture (CLFN 2015).

Not provided The traditional land use (TLU) section (Volume 2, Sections 15.6 and 15.7 address potential effects and cumulative effects on TLU, including harvesting areas and TLU sites.

Vegetation and wetlands

TLU/TK Information: Vegetation in Cold Lake area are sensitive to acid deposition; oil sands production increases levels of acid deposition (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


Acid deposition is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 10.4.9, 10.5.6, 10.5.7, 10.6.10, 11.3.1, 11.4.5 and 11.5.1.

TLU/TK Information: Increasing development is removing large amounts of muskeg, which is important for absorption and filtration of water (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided Distribution of wetlands, including bogs and fens (muskeg), is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6.

TLU/TK Information: Loss of and changes to vegetation in Cold Lake area, which has been altered during years of increased industrial activity; fewer mushrooms and medicinal plants are observed (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


Distribution of vegetation types is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6.

TLU/TK Information: Pipeline and transmission line developments replace trees and shrubs with grasses (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided Distribution of vegetation types is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6. Revegetation is discussed in Volume 1, Sections 6.7 and 6.9.




Vegetation and wetlands

(cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Roads, airfields, industrial facilities, and urban developments have removed valued wetlands (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided Distribution of wetlands is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6.

Concern: Effects of habitat fragmentation on vegetation (Kikino Métis in CNRL 2012).

Not provided Distribution of vegetation types is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6. Fragmentation is discussed in Volume 2, Section 13.0.

Concern: Concern regarding introduction of non-native plants through reclamation practices in CLAWR (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) Weeds and non-native plants are discussed in the following sections of Volume 2, Sections 11.5.3.3, 11.5.3.4, 11.6.1.5, 11.6.4.3, 11.8, and 13.6.

TLU/TK Information: Cold Lake area watershed is impacted by clear cutting and vegetation removal for development purposes (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Leming Lake (UTM Zone 12: 532233 Easting, 6049782 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing)

Distribution of vegetation types is discussed in Volume 2, Sections 11.5 and 11.6.

Water quality

TLU/TK Information: Increase in algae on lakes, resulting in foul smelling water (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Not provided An increase of algae in lakes could result from the loading of sediments and nutrients into the water. This is considered in Volume 2, Section 8.6.3.

Concern: Concern about project effects on water quality (BLCN 2015).

Not provided The project will continue to implement water quality monitoring programs for surface waterbodies and streams (Volume 2, Section 8.8).

TLU/TK Information: Observed decline in water quality in Cold Lake; mussels now grow on marina dock and new weeds/thistles are present; water quality in Cold Lake is observed to be contaminated by military, marina, municipal and industrial activity; pollutants from Primrose Lake flow into Cold Lake through underground stream (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing)

Project development will not occur within the Primrose Lake watershed. Cold Lake is within the ARSA. Project effects are expected to be localized, with the exception of subsurface operations (Volume 2, Section 8.6.7) and acidifying air emissions (Volume 2, Section 8.6.9). Questions regarding the current water quality and state of health for Cold Lake would be best answered with a study specific to Cold Lake itself.

TLU/TK Information: Persons swimming in Cold Lake now consistently develop swimmer’s itch (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Health safety risks of entering water at Cold Lake (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


Cold Lake is within the ARSA. Project effects are expected to be localized, with the exception of subsurface operations (Volume 2, Section 8.6.7) and acidifying air emissions (Volume 2, Section 8.6.9). Questions regarding the current water quality and state of health for Cold Lake would be best answered with a study specific to Cold Lake itself.




Water quality (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Scum or powder has been observed on surface of Wolf Lake water after it was been boiled (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Wolf Lake (UTM Zone 12: 502580 Easting, 6060706 Northing)

Wolf Lake is within the ARSA. Project effects are expected to be localized, with the exception of subsurface operations (Volume 2, Section 8.6.7) and acidifying air emissions (Volume 2, Section 8.6.9). Questions regarding the current water quality and state of health for Wolf Lake would be best answered with a study specific to Wolf Lake itself.

Concern: Concern regarding pollutants from CLAWR migrating into Wolf Lake (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Wolf Lake (UTM Zone 12: 502580 Easting, 6060706 Northing)

The project addresses effects from the project on the environment. Effects from the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR) are not within the scope of this assessment.

Concern: Increased water turbidity in Cold Lake (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


Effects that would cause an increase in turbidity will be localized. The surface water monitoring program will include Medley Creek, which is the major tributary that crosses the project area and discharges into Cold Lake. Details on monitoring programs can be found in Volume 2, Section 8.8.

Wildlife

TLU/TK Information: Fragmentation of muskeg and boreal forest environments from excessive seismic activity and development has destroyed valued animal habitat (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Seismic effects and fragmentation are considered in Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.5.

Concern: Long-term impacts and effects regarding linear disturbances affecting wildlife (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 12.6.2.5 and 12.6.2.6.

TLU/TK Information: Beavers are affected by water withdrawals in winter, which can cause ice to collapse in creeks and ponds, draining beaver lodges (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Caribou and bear depend on high ground for their primary food source, caribou for their forage of green feed or lichen and bears for blueberries and low bush cranberries. Caribou will use the same trails for generations, leaving deep indentations along ridges. Bear stay on high ground most of the time and use low ground only when they have to get somewhere else or to fish. Many participants expressed concern about the disturbance to high ground caused by using these areas as borrow sources or for wellpad development (CNRL 2006).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 12.6.3.11 (caribou) and 12.6.3.17 (bear).




Wildlife (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Decreasing amount of undisturbed caribou habitat within the CLAWR (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a, 2013b).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.7.1.

TLU/TK Information: Cattle grazing results in a loss of underbrush and ground cover with a subsequent loss of small animals and ground nesting birds (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided There are no cattle grazing within the TLSA.

TLU/TK Information: Roads, airfields, industrial facilities and urban developments have removed upland wildlife habitat (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


Concern: Direct moose, woodland caribou, black bear, lynx and fisher habitat loss/fragmentation (WLFN 2010).


Concern: Provide total habitat footprint describing life of project (Local 193 in CNRL 2012).


TLU/TK Information: If moose is hunted in disturbed regions of traditional territory, it tends to be unhealthy animal (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

CLFN Traditional Territory Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.1.

Concern: Concern regarding health of ungulates due to herbicides (MNA2 CNRL 2006).


Concern: Released substances harm and kill wildlife; First Nations understand that bitumen emulsions contain chemicals that are carcinogens and mutagens (CLFN 2013).


TLU/TK Information: Cold Lake woodland caribou herd is facing extirpation as a result of cumulative effects on the environment from oil and gas project developments (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a).


Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.7.

TLU/TK Information: Decline in number of caribou south of CLAWR (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9) Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.5.4.1.

TLU/TK Information: Decline in number of smaller birds such as robins, goldfinches, orioles, nighthawks, partridges and ducks; shells of birds eggs, such as falcons, eagles and sand hill cranes, have been observed to be thinner (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided

Baseline abundance information is compared regionally in each of these sections: Volume 2, Sections 12.5.3.1: Waterfowl; Section 12.5.3.2: Upland Game Birds; Section 12.5.3.5: Nightjars; Section 12.5.3.7: Songbirds.




Wildlife (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Cattle grazing leases adversely affect waterfowl habitat, as heavy grazing eliminates tall grasses and forbs that shelter the nests (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Not provided There is no cattle grazing within the TLSA.

TLU/TK Information: Noticeable decline in several bird species, such as bluebirds and canaries (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Not provided

Bluebirds and canaries are not known to exist in this area. In reference to canaries, the reference may be to warblers (some of which are yellow) or goldfinches. Songbird baseline abundance are presented in Volume 2, Section 12.5.3.7; mountain bluebirds are infrequently detected in the Cold Lake region (eBird 2015), and have not been reported in the terrestrial regional study area (TRSA) (Maile 2015; ESRD 2014).

TLU/TK Information: Pipeline and transmission line developments replace trees and shrubs with grasses, attracting deer, bear, and wolves; this results in a marked decrease in the numbers of moose, deer, caribou, birds, small animals, insects, frogs, and toads (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 12.7.2.

TLU/TK Information: Since regaining access to CLAWR, observed decline in moose population around Primrose Lake from historic levels (CNRL 2006).

CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9), Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing)


TLU/TK Information: Small size of caribou herds attributed to increased human presence and disturbance caused by oil and gas wells, aboveground pipelines, roads and cutlines (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Squirrel are important for local diversity as they are prey for marten, fisher, lynx, and weasel (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: The loss of squirrel populations (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Baseline squirrel and other small mammal abundance data is presented in Volume 2, Section 12.5.4.5.

TLU/TK Information: The road between Cold Lake South (Grande Centre) and Cold Lake North is a common site of wildlife fatalities resulting from vehicle collisions (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Risk to wildlife from traffic (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Road between Cold Lake South (Grande Centre) and Cold Lake North

Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.7.2.




Wildlife (cont’d)

Concern: Extirpation of the woodland caribou herd as a result of increased human presence and oil and gas disturbances including aboveground pipelines, roads, and cutlines (CLFN 2013).


Concern: Boreal caribou populations are particularly susceptible to predation by wolves and black bears, which will likely increase due to development. Since industrial development will likely force predators such as wolves and black bears to migrate to caribou habitats, increased predation is a factor which will adversely affect the scarce caribou population (WLFN 2010).


Concern: Risk to beaver populations from seismic blasting during exploration (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


TLU/TK Information: Aboveground pipelines and roads act as fences that stretch for miles; ungulates have difficulty passing over or under pipes, especially during rut or in spring (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Caribou travel around Sinclair Lake and on east side of Wolf Lake in summer and fall; caribou move south to Wolf Lake, across to Cold Lake and then back north into CLAWR or east to Saskatchewan (MNA2 in CNRL 2006).

Sinclair Lake (UTM Zone 12: 522096 Easting, 6064344 Northing), Wolf Lake (UTM Zone 12: 502580 Easting, 6060706 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), CLAWR (Twp 67 to 73, Rge 1 to 9), Saskatchewan


TLU/TK Information: Effect of linear features on how predators hunt and increase in their effectiveness by controlling species movement patterns; female animals are reluctant to cross pipelines and roads while accompanying young; rights-of-way encourage movement of bears, deer and wolves into unbroken boreal forest, which impacts moose and caribou habitat (KCNP 2012, CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Considered in Volume 2, Sections 12.6.2.5 and 12.6.2.6; species specific considered in Volume 2, Section 12.6.3.

TLU/TK Information: Female animals are reluctant to cross pipelines and roads while accompanying young (KCNP 2012).





Wildlife (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Large animal movements have changed over time due to fragmentation of landscape caused by access rights-of-ways, pipelines, facility development, forestry operations, noise and increased traffic (CLFN in CNRL 2006).


TLU/TK Information: Member noted that moose tracks seen at northeast end of Bourque Lake are no longer indicative of feeding, rather that moose are simply passing through (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Bourque Lake (UTM Zone 12: 529446 Easting, 6058483 Northing)


TLU/TK Information: Rights-of-way encourage movement of bears, deer, and wolves into unbroken boreal forest, which impacts moose and caribou populations (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


TLU/TK Information: Traditional land users observe that moose are moving out of TURSA due to industrial disturbance; moose are believed to be moving east, into Saskatchewan (Cenovus 2013b).

Christina Lake Expansion Project (Twp 75 and 76, Rge 4 to 6, W4M)

Described movement of moose is too far outside the TLSA to be considered.

TLU/TK Information: Pads should be situated to avoid existing game trails. Animals such as coyotes, moose, and caribou use game trails. These trails are safety trails; once they are cleared, the routine is broken and the animals must find new grazing sites and break new trails (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


TLU/TK Information: When industrial construction blocks or destroys these paths, wildlife must find new access to grazing sites (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Blocking or loss of wildlife crossings and game trails, which are important for wildlife safety (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


Mitigation Recommendations: Provide evidence on effectiveness of various pipeline crossing approaches including under pipeline crossings (CLFN in Imperial 2010).

Not provided Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.6 deals with pipeline effects on wildlife. Volume 2, Section 12.6.1 discusses mitigations.




Wildlife (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Effects on animal movement and feeding; animals will often leave affected areas and will not return for several years (CLFN in Imperial 2002). Concern: Risk to animals from noise from development, including pads and roads (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.2 deals with effects of noise on wildlife. Volume 2, Section 12.6.1 discusses mitigations.

TLU/TK Information: Wildlife will avoid project area altogether as result of increased noise during construction and operations (BLCN 2013).

Not provided Volume 2, Section 12.6.2.2 deals with effects of noise on wildlife. Volume 2, Section 12.6.1 discusses mitigations.

TLU/TK Information: Area between Bourque Lake and Wolf Lake is identified as calving ground; moose use to calve in hills west of Highway 892, which are now clearcut (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Area between Bourque Lake (UTM Zone 12: 529446 Easting, 6058483 Northing), Wolf Lake (UTM Zone 12: 502580 Easting, 6060706 Northing); hills west of Highway 892


TLU/TK Information: Bull moose do not eat while rutting and best time to hunt them is before mating season begins (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided

Data on the foraging requirements of moose are not collected as part of the requirements set out in the Terms of Reference for the project. Detailed baseline and application information focuses on species presence, habitat use, and the impacts of the project on specific species, or species groups (i.e., habitat availability, disruption of movement patterns, mortality).

TLU/TK Information: Christina Lake is known to be preferred habitat by Caribou (General in CNRL 2012).

Christina Lake (UTM Zone 12: 506008 Easting, 6164053 Northing)

Christina Lake is not located within the TRSA.

TLU/TK Information: Loons in traditional territory prefer deep lakes, such as Primrose Lake. Loons raise their young on Stouffers Lake, near south end of Primrose Lake (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing), Stouffers Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557276 Easting, 6070284 Northing)

Cold Lake and Primrose Lake are considered in Volume 2, Section 12.5.3.1: Waterfowl and Shorebirds.

TLU/TK Information: Members have commented on availability of moose in traditional territory, stating that moose are now rare and considered delicacy (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

CLFN Traditional Territory Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.5.4.1.

TLU/TK Information: Members have reported recent increases in deer population in traditional territory, which members attribute to increased amount of cut lines locally (CLFN in Imperial 2002).





Wildlife (cont’d)

TLU/TK Information: Members report high quality meat is obtained from barren cows, which can be identified by their buckskin colour (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Not provided

Data on the quality of country foods, including moose, is not collected. Detailed baseline and application information focuses on species presence, habitat use, and the impacts of the project on specific species, or species groups (i.e., habitat availability, disruption of movement patterns, mortality).

TLU/TK Information: Moose are often associated with lakes, rivers and deep water (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


TLU/TK Information: Moose prefer to calve in areas with low undergrowth, so that predators are easily spotted (CLFN in Imperial 2002).


TLU/TK Information: Primrose Lake, Stouffers Lake, Cold Lake, and Sardine Lake are known for their waterfowl populations (CLFN in Imperial 2002).

Primrose Lake (UTM Zone 12: 562681 Easting, 6072163 Northing), Stouffers Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557276 Easting, 6070284 Northing), Cold Lake (UTM Zone 12: 557921 Easting, 6044453 Northing), Sardine Lake (location not provided)

Cold Lake and Primrose Lake are considered in Volume 2, Section 12.5.3.1: Waterfowl and Shorebirds.

TLU/TK Information: Sinclair Lake is an important wildlife area, probably because of mineral lick in area (CLFN in Imperial 2002); Sinclair Lake is an important animal gathering area (salt lick) (CLFN in CNRL 2006).

Sinclair Lake (UTM Zone 12: 522096 Easting, 6064344 Northing)

Sinclair Lake is located outside of the TLSA.

Concern: Cumulative Effects Management Agency have identified moose as priority for conservation (WLFN 2013).

Not provided Moose are considered in Volume 2, Sections 12.3.3, 12.5.4.1 and 12.6.3.12.

Concern: Grouse, lynx, and fisher are provincially listed as sensitive species (WLFN 2013).

Not provided

Grouse, in general, are not listed as Sensitive. One species, the sharp-tailed grouse, is listed as Sensitive. Considered in Volume 2, Section 12.5.3.2: Game Birds. Lynx are considered in Section 12.5.4.2. Fisher are considered in Section 12.5.4.3.

Concern: Effect on wildlife, particularly wildlife defects. Would like to see independent studies on wildlife (MNA Region 2 2015).

Not provided The results of an ecological risk assessment are provided in Volume 2, Section 12.6.2. The project is not contributing to increased risk in the wildlife receptors, and thus wildlife in general.



References:

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD).2014. Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS). Detailed data request, October 2014.

Beaver Lake Cree Nation (BLCN). 2015. Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups during Project Engagement. Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Cold Lake Expansion SA-SAGD Project. Volume 2, Section 4.0 Aboriginal and Public Engagement.

Beaver Lake Cree Nation (BLCN). 2013. BLCN Statement of Concern regarding the CNRL Kirby South Expansion Project.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). 2006. Primrose East Expansion: Section 6: Social Aspects.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). 2012. Grouse In-situ Oil Sands Project. Section 16: Traditional Land Use.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). 2014. Response to WLFN Letter of Objection and Statement of Concern. WLFN in CNRL 2014

Cenovus FCCL Ltd. (Cenovus). 2013a. CLFN Statement of Concern regarding the Cenovus Foster Creek Thermal Project Phase J Expansion.

Cenovus FCCL Ltd. (Cenovus). 2013b. Christina Lake Thermal Project, Phase H and Eastern Expansion. Appendix 6-I: Traditional Land Use Baseline Report.

Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN). 2009. CLFN Statement of Concern regarding the Imperial Oil Nabiye Project.

Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN). 2013. CLFN Statement of Concern regarding the CNRL Kirby South Expansion Project.

Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN). 2015. Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups during Project Engagement. Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Cold Lake Expansion Project. Volume 1, Section 4.0 Aboriginal and Public Engagement.

Connacher. 2010. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use (TEK-TLU), Appendix 7. Great Divide SAGD Expansion Project.

eBird. 2015. An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: March 2015).

Imperial Oil Resources (Imperial). 2002. Nabiye and Mahihkan North Expansion Project. Volume 3, Part 2, Section 13: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use.

Imperial Oil Resources (Imperial). 2010. Response to CLFN Statement of Concern regarding the Imperial Oil Nabiye Project. CLFN in Imperial 2010.



Frog Lake First Nation (FLFN). Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups during Project Engagement. Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Cold Lake Expansion Project. Volume 1, Section 4.0 Aboriginal and Public Engagement.

Kikino Métis Settlement (KMS). 2015. Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups during Project Engagement. Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Cold Lake Expansion Project. Volume 1, Section 4.0 Aboriginal and Public Engagement.

Kehewin Cree Nation Peacekeepers (KCNP). 2012. Traditional Practices, Historical and Current Occupancy, and Kehewin Cree Nation Treaty Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

Maile, B. 2013. Personal Communication. Senior Wildlife Biologist, Lower Athabasca Region. Alberta Environment and Parks, Bonnyville, AB.

Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) Region 2. 2015. Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups during Project Engagement. Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Cold Lake Expansion Project. Volume 1, Section 4.0 Aboriginal and Public Engagement.

Whitefish Lake First Nation (WLFN). 2010. WLFN Statement of Concern Regarding the Devon Jackfish 3 Project.

Whitefish Lake First Nation (WLFN). 2013. WLFN Statement of Concern Regarding the CNRL Grouse Project.

Appendix K2

Species Lists



Wildlife Harvested

Species Location (Harvesting, Habitat, Other)

Use – Food, Medicine, Cultural/Spiritual, Domestic, Other

Reference Common Name Scientific Name

Bear (black) Ursus americanus Region (Harvesting)

Not identified CNRL 2012

West of Bourque Lake CLFN in Imperial 2002

Woodland caribou

Rangifer tarandus

Region (Harvesting)

Not identified

CNRL 2012

Between Sinclair Lake and May Lake CLFN in Imperial 2002

Throughout CLAWR CLFN in Imperial 2002

At Sinclair Lake mineral lick CLFN in Imperial 2002

Areas between Heart Lake, Winefred Lake and Christina Lake HLFN in KNOC 2009

Areas of Little Smokey River, Simonette River and Latorelle rivers are seasonal habitat for regional caribou

KCFN in KCPN 2012

Deer Odocoileus spp.

Region (Harvesting)

Not identified

CNRL 2012


Along Wiau River, Wiau Lake and Clyde Lake HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Deer (mule) Odocoileus hemionus Region (Harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Deer (whitetail) Odocoileus virginianus Region (Harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Moose Alces alces

Region (Harvesting)

Not identified

CNRL 2012

Between Cold Lake and Wolf Lake CLFN in Imperial 2002

At May Lake and Bourque Lake CLFN in Imperial 2002

At Sinclair Lake mineral lick CLFN in Imperial 2002


Along Wiau River, Wiau Lake and Clyde Lake HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Wildlife generally

Areas between Heart Lake, Winefred Lake and Christina Lake

Not identified

HLFN in KNOC 2009

North of CLAWR HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Hunting corridor connecting Wiau Lake to Christina Lake HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Note: CLAWR = Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.



Birds Harvested




Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Curlew (general)1 Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Duck (general) Anas spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Canada goose Branta canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Grouse (general)

Region (harvesting)

Not identified

Cenovus 2013


HLFN in KNOC 2009

Loon Gavia immer Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Primrose Lake and Stouffers Laker Not identified CLFN in Imperial 2002

Mudhens/American coot Fulica americana Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Owl Strigiformes Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Partridge Perdix spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Ptarmigan Lagopus spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Pelican Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Seagull Laridae spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Snipes (Wilson snipe) Gallinago delicata Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013

Wiau Lake, Clyde Lake (Harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Note: 1 Scientific studies have not confirmed the presence of curlews occur in this area.



Furbearers Harvested




Badger Taxidea taxus Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Beaver Castor canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Coyote Canis latrans Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Fisher Martes pennanti Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Red fox Vulpes vulpes Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Lynx Lynx canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Marten Martes americana Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Mink Mustela vison Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Otter Lutra canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Rabbit Lepus spp. Region (harvesting)

Not identified CNRL 2012


HLFN in KNOC 2009

Skunk Mephitis mephitis Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Short-tailed weasel Mustela ermine Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Wolf Canis lupus Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Wolverine Gulo gulo Region (harvesting) Not identified CNRL 2012

Furbearers generally

Areas surrounding Bourque Lake, May Lake and Marie Lake

Not identified CLFN in Imperial 2002

Vicinity of and within CLAWR CLFN in Cenovus 2013; HLFN in Cenovus 2013


Not identified HLFN in KNOC 2009

Around Ipiatik Lake and Christina Lake Not identified HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Note: CLAWR = Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.



Fish Harvested




Arctic grayling1 Thymallus arcticus Region (habitat, harvesting) Food CNRL 2012

Bull trout1 Salvelinus confluentus Region (harvesting) Food Cenovus 2013

Christina Lake and its surrounding rivers/creeks HLFN in KNOC 2009

Burbot/maria/mariah/ catfish/lingcod

Lota lota Region (habitat) Food CNRL 2012

Cisco (Tulaby, Tullibee) Coregonus artedi Region (harvesting) Food Cenovus 2013

Goldeye1 Hiodon alosoides Region (harvesting) Food CNRL 2012

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Region (habitat) Food Cenovus 2013

Northern pike/jackfish Esox lucius Region (habitat, harvesting)

Food CNRL 2009 in CNRL 2012


Perch Region (harvesting)

Food CNRL 2012

Found in Bourque Lake CLFN in Imperial 2002

Sucker Catostomus spp. Region (habitat, harvesting) Food CNRL 2009 in CNRL 2012

Walleye/pickerel Sander vitreus Region (habitat, harvesting)

Food CNRL 2009 in CNRL 2012


Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Region (harvesting)

Food Cenovus 2013


Fish generally

Upland areas surrounding Bourque Lake, May Lake and Marie Lake

Not identified

CLFN in Imperial 2002

Martineau River CLFN in Imperial 2002

Along Wiau River to Clyde Lake HLFN in Cenovus 2013

In the vicinity of Ipiatik Lake and Big Muskeg Lake HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Christina Lake and its surrounding rivers/creeks HLFN in KNOC 2009; WLFN in CNRL 2012

Grist Lake, Kirby Lake and Winefred Lake WLFN in CNRL 2012

Note: 1 Alberta historical fish capture information on the Fish and Wildlife Internet Mapping tool indicate that arctic grayling, bull trout and goldeye do not occur in the project area.



Vegetation Harvested

Species Location (Harvesting,

Habitat, Other)



Trees/Shrubs

Acorns1 Quercus macrocarpa Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Aspen poplar Populus tremuloides Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Balsam fir Abies balsamea Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Black poplar (Balsam poplar)

Populus balsamifera Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Black spruce Picea mariana Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Jack pine Pinus banksiana Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Mountain ash2 Sorbus scopulina Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Pine Pinus banksiana Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Red Osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Red birch (bog birch) Betula pumila/Betula glandulosa

Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

White birch/Alaska white birch

Betula papyrifera/ Betula neolaskana


White spruce Picea glauca Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Willow Salix spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Fungus Not identified

Puff balls Lycoperdon spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Honey mushrooms Armillariella mellea Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Morel mushrooms Morchella elata Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Oyster mushrooms Pleurotus spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Pine mushrooms Tricholoma magnivelare Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Milkcap mushrooms Lactarius deliciosus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Willow fungus (diamond willow fungus)

Trametes suaveolens Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010




Habitat, Other)



Berries

Blackberry3 Rubus fruticosus Region (harvesting) Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Black currant Ribes lacustre, R. americanum


Blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides


High ground west of Big Muskeg Lake Not identified HLFN in CNRL 2012

Areas surrounding Christina Lake Not identified HLFN in KNOC 2009

Bog cranberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea



Areas surrounding Christina Lake Not identified HLFN in KNOC 2009

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Chokecherry Prunus virginiania Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Dewberry Rubus pubescens Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Dwarf raspberry Rubus arcticus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoid es hirtellum


Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

High bush cranberry Viburnum opulus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Kinnikinnick (bearberry) Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Logan berries4 Rubus loganobaccus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Low bush cranberries Viburnum edule Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Miniature bog cranberry Ocycoccus microcarpus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Red currant Ribes triste Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Red osier dogwood (mooseberry)

Cornus stolonifera Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Raspberry Rubus idaeus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Rosehip Rosa acicularis, Rosa woodsii





Habitat, Other)



Saskatoon berry Amelanchier alnifolia Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010


Strawberry Fragaria virginiana/Fragaria vesca



Other Plants

Arrow-leaved coltsfoot (moose ears)

Petasites frigidus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Chamomile5 Matricaria recutita Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Common cattail Typha latifolia Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Common pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Sow thistle Sonchus asper, S. arvensis, S. uliginosum, and S oleraceous


Red- seeded dandelion6 T. ceratophorum Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Fiddleheads (ostrich fern) Matteuccia struthiopteris Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Frog box Sarracenia purpure Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Harebell (bluebell) Campanula rotundifolia Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Horsetail Equisetum spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Labrador tea (muskeg tea)

Ledum groenlandicum Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Lichen (caribou lichen) Cladonaa spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Lily pad Nuphar lutea Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Mint Mentha arvensis Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Pitcher plants Sarracenia purpurea Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Raspberry root Rubus idaeus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Rat root (sweet flag) Acorus americanus Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Reindeer lichen Cladonia spp. Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010




Habitat, Other)



Showy aster Eurybia conspicuous Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Sweetgrass Hierochloe hirta ssp arctica Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Valerian Valeriana dioica Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

White wintergreen P. chlorantha/ P. minor Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

White yarrow (white flower, whitestern flower)

Achillea millefolioum Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Wild onion Allium schoenoprasum Region (harvesting) Not identified Cenovus 2013; CNRL 2012; Connacher 2010

Plants generally

Upland areas surrounding Bourque Lake, May Lake and Marie Lake

Not identified CLFN in Imperial 2002

Hunting corridor between Wiau Lake and Christina Lake

Not identified HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Areas surrounding Big Muskeg Lake and Christina Lake

Not identified HLFN in Cenovus 2013

High ground west of Big Muskeg Lake Not identified HLFN in Cenovus 2013

Notes: 1 Do not grow in this area except when planted. 2 Uncommon in this area. 3 Horticultural species typically found in gardens. 4 Scientific studies have not confirmed the presence of this species in Alberta. 5, 6 Non-native weed species.



References:

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). 2012. Grouse In-situ Oil Sands Project. Section 16: Traditional Land Use.

Cenovus FCCL Ltd. (Cenovus). 2013. Christina Lake Thermal Project, Phase H and Eastern Expansion. Appendix 6-I: Traditional Land Use Baseline Report.

Connacher. 2010. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use (TEK-TLU), Appendix 7. Great Divide SAGD Expansion Project.

Imperial Oil Resources (IOR). 2002. Nabiye and Mahihkan North Expansion Project. Volume 3, Part 2, section 13: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use.

Kehewin Cree Nation Peacekeepers (KCNP). 2012. Traditional Practices, Historical and Current Occupancy, and Kehewin Cree Nation Treaty Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC). 2009. Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Section 16.0. Application for Approval of the BlackGold Expansion Project. Volume 2 – Environmental Effect Assessment.

Appendix K3

Potential Traditional Use Species Occurrence



Traditional Plant Use

Plant species present in the terrestrial local study area (TLSA) that may be used for ritual, domestic, food, or medicinal purposes include: common Labrador tea, common bearberry, common blueberry, pin cherry, black spruce, white birch, and Table K3-1. Plant gathering and berry picking may occur from spring through fall as the different species become available.

Detailed vegetation survey (83 plots) data (Volume 2, Section 11.4) collected for the TLSA were used to rank Ecological Land Classes (ELC) for their potential to support known species of traditional use (TU) plants and berries. Supplemental data from an additional 101 detailed vegetation survey sites was also used to increase the rigour and accuracy of the analyses.

Traditional Use Plant Potential

The number of TU plant species occurring within each ELC in the TLSA were assessed and ranked on a low to high scale. Only ELC sampled during the detailed vegetation survey were ranked for the assessment. Other ELC were either very small in size, low in occurrence and/or not easily accessible in the TLSA. In this analysis, each TU species was regarded as equal in importance, therefore, the analysis does not rank any TU species higher than other species. Ranks were then used to map baseline TU plant conditions and quantitatively assess potential effects to TU plant species as a result of project development.

Traditional Plant Use Capability

Two measurements of plant species richness were used to assess capability of each ELC to support TU plant species. These are:

mean TU plant species richness: mean richness is the mean number of TU plant species that occurred within each sample plots; and

total TU plant species richness: total richness provides a count of all TU plant species that occurred in each ELC, among all plots sampled.

Mean TU plant species richness provides the expected number of TU plant species that should be found at any particular site. These two measurements were combined to assess the capability for each ELC to support potential TU plant species. Table K3-1 shows the number of occurrences of each TU plant species for each ELC.



Table K3-1: Potential Traditional Use Species Occurrence by Ecological Land Class

Type Scientific Name Common Name Ecological Land Classes1 Total ELC

Occurrencesa1 b1 b3 b4 c1 d1 d2 d3 e1 e2 e4 f4 g1 h1 h2 h3 i1 j1 j2 k1 k2 k3 l1 n1 RS

Tree Abies balsamea Balsam fir – – 1 – – – 2 1 – – – – 1 – – – – – – – 1 – – – – 6

Tree Betula papyrifera White birch – 3 1 4 – 4 5 1 1 2 1 1 – 2 1 1 – – 1 – – – – – 1 29

Tree Picea glauca White spruce 4 7 6 10 2 5 11 6 2 4 1 1 3 7 3 6 – – – – 1 – – – 2 81

Tree Picea mariana Black spruce – 4 1 4 8 – – – – – 1 2 13 11 2 6 2 8 5 3 3 1 – – 1 75

Tree Pinus banksiana Jack pine 7 7 2 12 11 – 1 1 – – – – 7 1 1 – – – – – – – – – 2 52

Tree Populus balsamifera Balsam poplar – 1 2 1 2 5 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 – – – – – 1 – – – 1 31

Tree Populus tremuloides Aspen 1 8 7 7 6 8 9 4 2 4 1 – 5 2 2 – – – – – – – – 1 1 68

Shrub Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon 2 – – 3 – 3 3 2 1 – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – 1 16

Shrub Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Common bearberry 5 2 1 6 3 1 1 – 1 – – – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – 1 22

Shrub Betula glandulosa Bog birch – – – – – – - – – – – 2 – – – 1 – 2 3 2 2 1 – – 2 15

Shrub Betula pumila Dwarf birch – – – 1 – – - – - 1 – – – – 1 1 – 2 3 4 6 2 – – 1 22

Shrub Cornus stolonifera Red-osier dogwood – – – – – 1 1 – 2 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 7

Shrub Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1

Shrub Ledum groenlandicum Common Labrador tea 4 8 4 6 10 – 2 2 1 2 1 – 11 10 3 7 2 8 5 4 1 – – – 1 92

Shrub Oxycoccus microcarpus Small bog cranberry – – 1 1 – 1 – 1 – – – – 2 4 – 3 2 6 2 1 2 – – – – 26

Shrub Prunus pensylvanica Pin cherry 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1

Shrub Ribes americanum Wild black currant – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1

Shrub Ribes hirtellum Wild gooseberry – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 1

Shrub Ribes hudsonianum Northern black currant – – 1 – – – – – – 1 – – – 1 – 1 – 1 – – 1 – – – – 6

Shrub Ribes lacustre Bristly black currant – – 1 1 – – 1 1 – 1 1 – 1 – 1 – – – – 1 – – – – 1 10

Shrub Ribes oxyacanthoides Northern gooseberry – – 2 1 – 2 – 1 – 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 – 1 – – – – – – 1 20

Shrub Ribes triste Wild red currant – – 1 2 – 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – – – – – 1 19

Shrub Rosa acicularis Prickly rose 4 7 6 9 8 9 11 7 2 4 2 – 5 7 3 1 – – – – – – – – 2 87

Shrub Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry – – – – – – – 1 – – – 1 – 2 – 2 2 4 1 1 – – – – – 14

Shrub Rubus idaeus Wild red raspberry – – 1 1 – 2 4 2 2 1 1 – – – 1 2 – – – – – – 1 – – 18

Shrub Rubus pubescens Dewberry – 3 2 1 – 7 9 6 2 3 1 – 1 1 2 3 – 1 – 1 1 – – – 1 45

Shrub Salix spp. Willow 2 5 3 3 4 7 4 3 2 3 2 6 6 6 4 5 – 6 4 5 14 4 2 – 3 103

Shrub Vaccinium myrtilloides Common blueberry 6 9 7 11 11 2 2 1 – 1 1 – 5 2 2 – – 1 – 1 – – – – 1 63

Shrub Vaccinium vitis-idaea Bog cranberry 5 11 5 11 9 4 7 4 – 2 1 1 7 9 2 5 2 7 3 2 2 – – – 1 100

Shrub Viburnum edule High-bush cranberry – 4 4 5 2 8 10 4 2 3 – – 2 3 1 – – – – – – – – – 48

Forb Achillea millefolium Common yarrow – – 3 1 – 2 1 1 – 3 2 – – – 1 – – – – – – – 1 – 1 16

Forb Campanula rotundifolia Harebell 3 1 1 2 3 1 – – – – – – 2 – – – – – – – – – – – 1 14

Forb Cornus canadensis Bunchberry 3 12 6 8 10 9 12 7 2 2 – – 9 5 3 2 – – – 2 – – – – 1 93

Forb Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed 1 8 3 4 6 7 8 4 1 3 2 – 3 3 2 4 – 2 – 2 1 – 1 – 1 66

Forb Eurybia conspicua Showy aster – 2 2 – – 2 6 2 1 – 1 – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – 1 18

Forb Fragaria sp. Strawberry – 4 4 4 2 8 7 6 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 – – – – 3 – – – 1 53

Forb Petasites sp. Coltsfoot – 5 4 4 2 7 10 3 1 4 1 2 4 6 1 3 – 2 1 1 2 – – – 2 65

Forb Pyrola asarifolia Common pink wintergreen – 2 2 2 – 4 7 3 2 2 1 – 1 – 1 – – 1 – – 1 – – – 1 30



Type Scientific Name Common Name Ecological Land Classes1 Total ELC

Occurrencesa1 b1 b3 b4 c1 d1 d2 d3 e1 e2 e4 f4 g1 h1 h2 h3 i1 j1 j2 k1 k2 k3 l1 n1 RS

Forb Sarracenia purpurea Pitcher-plant – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 – – – – 1

Forb Taraxacum officinale. Common dandelion – – 1 1 – – – – – 1 – – – – 2 1 – – – – – – 1 – 1 8

Forb Urtica dioica Common nettle – – 1 1 – – – – – 1 – 1 – – 1 – – – – – – – 2 1 – 8

Forb Equisetum spp. Horsetail 2 2 1 4 4 2 3 – 2 3 3 2 4 14 3 7 – 9 3 3 8 4 – – 1 84

Graminoid Typha latifolia Common cattail – – – – – – – – – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – 2 1 1 5

Lichen Cladina spp. Reindeer lichen 6 1 3 5 12 1 1 – – – – – 8 10 – 6 1 9 4 – 2 – – – – 69

Count of Species 16 24 34 32 19 27 28 27 21 27 23 15 25 25 27 22 6 17 12 15 19 5 7 3 32

Total Observations 56 117 125 136 115 115 145 78 33 62 30 24 106 115 50 70 11 70 35 33 53 12 10 3 39

Notes: 1 Classification follows Beckingham and Archibald (1996). – = Not applicable.



TU plant species richness ranking categories are summarized in Table K3-2. Overall potential TU plant species capability ranking is shown in Table K3-3.

Table K3-2: Ranges for Traditional Use Plant Species Richness Values Used to Rank Traditional Use Capability

Category (Weight)1

Mean TU Plant Species Range

Total TU Plant Species Range

Overall TU Plant Species Range

High (7) ≥12.78 ≥27 ≥10

Moderate (3) <12.78 to >5.78 <27 to >16.25 <10 to >2

Low (1) 5.78 to 0 16.25 to 0 ≥2

Note: 1 Weight = value applied to each rank to determine the overall score.

Table K3-3: Traditional Use Plant Species Richness Results

ELC1 Number of

Plots Mean

Richness Mean

Ranking Total

Richness Total

Ranking Overall Score

Overall Ranking

a1 11 5.09 Low 16 Low 2 Low

b1 12 9.75 Moderate 24 Moderate 6 Moderate

b3 7 17.86 High 34 High 14 High

b4 14 9.71 Moderate 32 High 10 High

c1 13 8.85 Moderate 19 Moderate 6 Moderate

d1 9 12.78 Moderate 27 High 10 High



e1 2 16.50 High 21 Moderate 10 High

e2 4 15.50 High 27 High 14 High

e4 2 15.00 High 23 Moderate 10 High

f4 5 4.80 Low 15 Low 2 Low

g1 14 7.57 Moderate 25 Moderate 6 Moderate

h1 13 8.85 Moderate 25 Moderate 6 Moderate

h2 4 12.50 Moderate 27 High 10 High

h3 8 8.75 Moderate 22 Moderate 6 Moderate

i1 2 5.50 Low 6 Low 2 Low

j1 9 7.78 Moderate 17 Low 6 Moderate

j2 7 5.00 Low 12 Low 2 Low

k1 6 5.50 Low 15 Low 2 Low

k2 8 6.63 Moderate 19 Moderate 6 Moderate

k3 5 2.40 Low 5 Low 2 Low

l1 2 5.00 Low 7 Low 2 Low

n1 1 3.00 Low 3 Low 2 Low

RS 3 13.00 High 32 High 14 High

Note: 1 Classification follows Beckingham and Archibald (1996).



Five ELC had a high mean ranking (b3, e1, e2, e4, and RS) indicating these sites were most likely to contain the highest number of TU species on average. ELC with a high total ranking (b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e4, h2, and RS) indicate the highest number of TU species could be found in these sites. The majority of ELC have a low overall TU plant species capability rank (8 out of 25 ELC). The remaining ELC received a medium overall TU plant species capability rank.

Baseline Analysis

Ranked ELC were mapped to determine their distribution in the TLSA (Volume 2, Figure 15.6-1). The baseline area and percent distribution of the ELC by overall potential TU plant species capability rank was determined for the TLSA.

Availability of Berry Producing Species

In this analysis, the following 30 species were assessed as potential berry harvest species (Table K3-4). Each species is regarded as equal in importance (i.e., the analysis does not rank any berry species higher than any other species).

Detailed vegetation data collected in the TLSA were used to rank ELC for their potential to produce edible berry species. Only ELC sampled during the detailed vegetation survey were ranked for the assessment. The species listed in Table K3-5 were recorded during the field surveys. The method used to rank the ELC (Table K3-5) were based on the relative cover of edible berry producing species. Berry cover was summed by ELC and ranked from high to low cover classes:

High: ≥16.8%.

Moderate: 16.8 to >3; and

Low: 3 to 0.

The majority of the ELC have a moderate overall potential berry cover rank (10 out of 22 ELC). Five ELC (b3, b4, d1, e2, and e4) received a high overall rank. Three ELC (b3, b4 and e4) received a high overall rank. Bog cranberry, wild strawberry and low-bush cranberry are commonly observed in the TLSA.

Baseline Analysis

Ranked ELC were mapped to determine their distribution in the TLSA (Volume 2, Figure 15.6-2). The baseline area and percent distribution of the ELC by overall potential berry cover capability rank was determined for the TLSA.



Table K3-4: Berry Harvest Species

Scientific Name Common Name

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon

Fragaria vesca Woodland strawberry

Fragaria virginiana Wild strawberry

Oxycoccus microcarpus Small bog cranberry

Prunus pensylvanica Pin cherry

Prunus virginiana Choke cherry

Ribes americanum Wild black currant

Ribes aureum Golden currant

Ribes glandulosum Skunk currant

Ribes hirtellum Wild gooseberry

Ribes hudsonianum Northern black currant

Ribes inerme Mountain gooseberry

Ribes lacustre Bristly black currant

Ribes laxiflorum Mountain currant

Ribes oxyacanthoides Northern gooseberry

Ribes triste Wild red currant

Ribes viscosissimum Sticky currant

Rubus arcticus Dwarf raspberry

Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry

Rubus idaeus Wild red raspberry

Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry

Rubus pedatus Dwarf bramble

Rubus pubescens Dewberry

Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf bilberry

Vaccinium membranaceum Tall bilberry

Vaccinium myrtilloides Common blueberry

Vaccinium ovalifolium Oval-leaved blueberry

Vaccinium uliginosum Bog bilberry

Vaccinium vitis-idaea Bog cranberry

Viburnum edule Low-bush cranberry



Table K3-5: Berry Percent Cover by Ecological Land Classes

ELC1 a1 b1 b3 b4 c1 d1 d2 d3 e1 e2 e4 f4 g1 h1 h2 h3 i1 j1 j2 k1 k2 l1 No. of Plots 7 12 5 12 13 9 13 7 1 3 2 5 14 13 3 8 2 9 7 6 8 2

Scientific Name

Common Name

Amelanchier alnifolia

Saskatoon 0.3 – – 0.5 – 1.2 0.1 0.7 – – – – <0.1 – – – – – – – – –

Fragaria virginiana

Wild strawberry

– 0.3 0.2 <0.1 0.1 2.3 0.3 1.7 – 0.5 12.8 – – <0.1 1.1 0.1 – – – – 0.1 –

Oxycoccus microcarpus

Small bog cranberry

– – 0.7 <0.1 – 0.7 – 2.3 – – – – <0.1 1.1 – 0.3 0.2 0.9 <0.1 0.1 0.1 –

Prunus pensylvanica

Pin cherry 0.2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Ribes americanum

Wild black currant

– 2.9 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Ribes hudsonianum

Northern black currant

– – – – – – – – – 1.7 – – – 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1 – – – –

Ribes lacustre Bristly black currant

– – – – – – <0.1 – – – 0.8 – <0.1 – – – – – – – – –

Ribes oxyacanthoides

Northern gooseberry

– – 0.1 – – 0.1 – 0.1 – 1.7 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 <0.1 – 0.1 – – – –

Ribes triste Wild red currant

– – – 0.3 – 0.2 0.2 0.2 – – 0.4 – – 0.1 – – – – – – – –

Rubus arcticus Dwarf raspberry

– – – – – – – – – – – 0.2 – 0.1 – 0.2 – – – 0.7 0.2 –

Rubus chamaemorus

Cloudberry – – – – – – – 0.5 – – – – – 0.3 – 1.0 0.5 0.7 2.3 <0.1 – –

Rubus idaeus Wild red raspberry

– – – – – 0.1 0.8 0.6 5.0 8.7 20.0 – – – 1.4 1.1 – – – – – 0.2

Rubus pubescens

Dewberry – 0.3 – – – 0.8 0.8 0.9 3.0 1.1 0.5 – <0.1 <0.1 1.1 0.3 – <0.1 – – – –

Vaccinium caespitosum

Dwarf bilberry

– <0.1 <0.1 – <0.1 <0.1 – – – – – – <0.1 – – – – – – – – –

Vaccinium myrtilloides

Common blueberry

6.1 3.0 10.1 9.4 4.2 1.3 – 0.2 – – 0.1 – 0.2 <0.1 – – – <0.1 - - - –

Vaccinium vitis-idaea

Bog cranberry

4.5 8.5 9.6 15.4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.8 – 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 13.3 – 3.1 1.9 7.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 –

Viburnum edule Low-bush cranberry

– 0.2 0.6 1.3 <0.1 12.5 7.9 3.7 3.0 2.3 – – 0.1 0.1 0.1 – – – – – – –

Total 11.1 15.3 21.2 26.9 5.5 22.2 11.0 11.8 11.0 17.2 34.7 0.4 0.9 15.1 4.1 6.1 2.6 9.6 2.4 0.9 0.8 0.2 Rank Mod Mod High High Mod High Mod Mod Mod High High Low Low Mod Mod Mod Low Mod Low Low Low Low

Notes: 1 Classification follows Beckingham and Archibald (1996). – = Not applicable. Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values.

Date post:	24-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Appendix K Traditional Land Use...become affected by deformities (CLFN in Cenovus 2013a). Primrose...

Documents