The George Gordon First Nation is presenting this written evidence to ensure that their unique voice and perspective is
noted on the record for the Line 3 Replacement Project. GGFN has a right and responsibility to promote stewardship
in their reserve, TLE, and freehold lands, as well as their traditional territory.
George Gordon First
Nation Written
Evidence Submission
to the National Energy
Board
Enbridge Line 3 Replacement
Project
Dr. Scott Barnes, Ph.D. P.A.g. Wichetowak Limnos Consulting Services Ltd.
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]1
Ms. Sheri Young
Secretary of the Board National Energy Board 517 Tenth Ave. SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8
July 31, 2015
Dear Ms. Young:
Re: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. – Line 3 Replacement Program NEB Hearing Order: OH-002-2015
NEB File No. OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2014-11 02 George Gordon First Nation Written Evidence
1.0Introduction and outline of written evidence
George Gordon First Nation (GGFN) has reviewed Enbridge Pipeline Inc.’s (Enbridge) submission the NEB, and has prepared written evidence presented in this document.
1.1Purpose of this document
George Gordon First Nation (GGFN) is presenting this written evidence to ensure that their unique voice and perspective is noted on the record for the L3RP project. GGFN has a right and responsibility to promote stewardship in their reserve, TLE, and freehold lands, as well as their traditional territory.
1.2Authorship
This document has been authored by jointly by Limnos Environmental Ltd. (Limnos) and George Gordon Developments Ltd (GGDL) under the partnership of Wicehtowak Limnos Consulting Services Ltd. (WLCS). The document was edited by Kathi Wilson, Ph.D., Department Chair of Geography, University of Toronto Mississauga.
2.0Methodology
2.1Data sources and analysis
The data presented within this document have been derived from a number of sources, including: Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Program (L3RP) documents served to the National Energy
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]2 Traditional Knowledge collected and analyzed by WLCS regarding this project and other
similar large projects
Community knowledge and opinion regarding this project and other similar large projects Available third party data
Regulatory documents
This document adopts a reference style that lists the relevant document as hosted on the NEB website to facilitate ease of access for all stakeholders.
2.2Geographic and contextual scope of the project
GGFN asserts stewardship over different types of territory. These include reserve lands held individually or jointly with other bands, TLE and freehold lands acquired by GGFN, and traditional territory which encompasses the area governed by Treaty Four. As such, it is the right and responsibility of GGFN to assess and comment on developments that could impact any of the territories over which GGFN asserts stewardship.
The impacts of L3RP are assessed geographically with a number of nodes of focus. L3RP documents recognize footprint, local, regional, provincial, national and international spatial boundaries, many of which vary in dimensions depending on the parameter of investigation (B5-01, pages 1-5 and 1-6). This type of spatial segregation is warranted for development and impacts assessment, but does not necessarily provide an appropriate framework for assessment within the context of the goals of GGFN, as more complex spatial and temporal linkages are not necessarily accounted for. Whenever possible in this document, spatial rubric from L3RP will be adopted to facilitate integration of knowledge into the review process.
2.3Report limitations
At this time, GGFN has not completed a Traditional Knowledge study specific to this project, although negotiations with Enbridge for support for this work are positive and ongoing. It is anticipated that this work will take place in Q3 2016, and be completed prior to oral hearings. This data will allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact to traditional lifeways and the accrued cumulative effects of this and other major developments.
3.0George Gordon First Nation: social, cultural and historical context
GGFN is located within the boundaries set out by Treaty Four, and is a member of the Touchwood Agency Tribal Council (INAC, 2007). Treaty Four was established between Queen Victoria and a number of Cree and Salteaux First Nations. This treaty was negotiated in 1874, and on September 15 of the same year Kaneonuskatew (named George Gordon in English) was one of the first signatories. Figure 1 shows the distribution of treaties and reserves in Saskatchewan.
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]3 The reserve lands of GGFN are approximately 110 km north of Regina, and are accessed from secondary grid roads from Highway 6, or from Highways 6, 15, and 640 from the north through Punnichy. Figure 2 shows GGFN and the surrounding region.
The reserve consists of ~145 km2, and other land holdings are held with other First Nations: Kinookimaw Lands (Last Mountain Lake Reserve; managed with First Nations of Day Star, Kawacatoose, Muscowpetung, Pasqua, and Piapot): 508.2 ha
Treaty Four Grounds Reserve at Fort Qu’Appelle (Managed with other 32 Treaty Four First Nations): 37.1 ha
Due to improper enumeration during the settlement of Treaty Four land claims, GGFN was not given sufficient land based on the formulas in the treaty. This fact was recognized by all stakeholders, and a negotiated settlement was initiated in March 2004 between the federal government and GGFN. Within the provisions of the final agreement, GGFN is entitled to purchase and convert up to 46826 ha of land and may apply to have it set aside for reserve (AANDC, 2010).
GGFN has acquired six parcels of land through the TLE process, and they are listed below: Lindeburgh Parcel: 786.99 acres
Sich Parcel: 159.22 acres Nordin Parcel: 634.52 acres Haus Parcel : 304 acres Sebestien Parcel: 160 acres
Whitewood parcel: 640 acres (GGFN, 2013)
As of 2011, GGGFN has a population of 2774 people, of which 1060 live on reserve and 1714 live off reserve (Statistics Canada, 2012). The relatively large number of off reserve members has led to the need to be able to provide urban services, especially in Regina.
GGFN peoples are considered Plains Cree, although historical documents indicate that members of GGFN came from a diverse range of First Nations and other backgrounds. The first mention of Cree in the Touchwood Hills area is by Henry Kelsey in 1691, who noted in his log: “There is a group of Cree Indians known as Nayhaythaway (Cree) in the Touchwood Hills. Prior to the signing of Treaty Four, members of GGFN had commenced farming, and by 1884, half of GGFN was engaged in this activity. From that point in time to the 1970’s farming formed a large portion of the traditional land use in spite of less than favourable conditions brought about by being forced to conduct commerce through the farm instructor, who essentially had control of all on-reserve farming activities and commerce. It is beyond the scope of this work to fully describe the pass and permit system, and the role of the Indian Agent and Farm Instructor on First Nations Farming, but the overall effect was to hobble the capability of First Nations members to effectively conduct
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]4 agriculture. Other activities that were important for generating revenue for GGFN and individuals included farm work off reserve, ranching on and off reserve, small scale logging for posts and beams, and small commercial activity such as operation of stores.
In contrast to many other First Nations, it is difficult to define a traditional lifestyle that would be indicative of pre-contact subsistence. As previously documented, farming and other subsistence activities consistent with early homestead settlement evolved before or concurrent with the arrival of European homesteaders. Within the context of this sort of subsistence and commercial activities, more traditional activities related to the collective GGFN culture persisted. Although outside the scope of this work, it must be noted that presence of the residential school, operational from 1892 to 1996, worked within the community to discourage the following of traditional practices and lifestyles.
4.0George Gordon First Nation perceptions and goals regarding pipeline development
No work has been specifically completed regarding GGFN perceptions of L3RP, but work has taken place with regards to other similar projects in the past. From previous work, some generalizations can be made:
Pipelines represent a safe way to transport hydrocarbons: There is general consensus that pipelines offer better safety performance than rail or road options. This consensus does not mean that pipelines are viewed as risk free, and it is felt that in general pipeline proponents could do a better job of providing data regarding failure rates, and follow up activities to correct these failures. L3RP does provide some data regarding pipeline inspection and integrity management, but the data is not often complete. For example in Table 4-6 document B1-08, page 4-18, it is stated that “Since 2008 we’ve inspected 100 per cent of the pipelines on our Liquids Pipelines system that can be inspected using inline inspection tools.” It is not clear what percentage of the pipeline network this represents, nor does it state what percentage of pipeline that must be inspected without the use of inline tools has been addressed.
Resource development often engages First Nations at the beginning of projects in order to obtain approval, but this engagement and commitment lapse quickly after approval and project completion: As often happens with projects requiring significant social and regulatory license, best efforts are made by proponents to ensure support is garnered, but once approval is received the level of engagement from the proponent drops off. With respect to this project, there is no indication that the proponent will follow this pattern, but agreements between GGFN and the proponent should clearly define not only present responsibilities and opportunities, but should take into account engagement over the life of the project, and account for changes in project operation over this time.
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]5 New development does not take into account dealing with problems that have
occurred in the past: There is a perception that proponents are eager to promote and pursue new projects, often at the cost of dealing with liabilities previous projects may have introduced. For example, the proponent in document B5-03, pages 5-30 and 5-31 list 32 known areas of contamination along the pipeline ROW, ranging in age from 1964 to 2007. Some details regarding selected sites is available, however site specific release and remedial reports for each known occurrence is not available. There is concern within the community that the proponent is more concerned with the pursuit of new opportunities when stewardship commitments from the pipeline as it presently is configured have not been addressed.
Access to traditional lands and resources may be affected: The ROW for L3RP largely falls into privately held lands, but not entirely. Table 5.1.14-2 (B08, pages 207 to 5-210) lists crown lands and access, presumably with no access meaning that there is no public road to the area. First Nations are often able to negotiate access to crown lands by traversing through privately held land, negating the need for public road access. At this time GGFN is not aware of accessing traditional lands and resources along the L3RP, but will address this in the Traditional Knowledge study.
5.0Perceived concerns
Based on the available information, the following concerns are noted:
1. Lack of an integrated waste management plan: Waste generated during construction, decommissioning and operation are listed as elements of other environmental concerns. GGFN is of the view that waste management may represent the greatest source of environmental liability arising from this project. Significant volumes of drilling waste will be generated, and there is a high probability that contaminated soils, PCBs, asbestos and other potentially hazardous wastes may be generated or discovered.
2. Lack of a commitment to assess and remediate pre-existing contamination along the ROW: GGFN feels that it is important for the proponent to develop and implement a clear plan to address and remediate known issues along the existing ROW. It is understood that not all areas can be actively remediated due to site conditions or existing infrastructure, but decommissioning of the existing pipeline offers a unique opportunity to address these areas in a safe manner without compromising project schedules or pipeline operation.
3. Further clarity regarding developing and instituting best in class pipeline integrity management protocols for L3RP: GGFN does not disagree with the proponent’s
GGFN – ENBRIGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMISSION TO NEB [07-31-15]6 assertion that they are committed to safe operation of L3RP. In this vein, it is suggested that the proponent develops a pipeline integrity management protocol for L3RP that exceeds regulatory requirements and integrates the newest and best technologies to allow for instantaneous reporting and reaction to incidents.
6.0Closure
GGFN would like to thank the NEB for the opportunity to participate in these hearings, and looks forward to working with the proponent in a respectful and constructive manner.
Contact: Dr. Scott Barnes
Wicehtowak Limnos Consulting Services, Ltd. Email: limnosenviro@gmail.com
Direct: 403.990.0465 Solomon Cyr
George Gordon Developments Ltd. Email: solomoncyr@ggdevelopments.com
Direct: 306.949.4246
George Gordon First Nation P.O. Box 248
