[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-\u002Fblog\u002Ftreaty-boundaries-why-we-shipped-them":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"author":6,"body":7,"category":227,"cover":228,"date":229,"description":230,"extension":231,"meta":232,"navigation":233,"path":234,"seo":235,"stem":236,"tags":237,"__hash__":242},"blog\u002Fblog\u002Ftreaty-boundaries-why-we-shipped-them.md","Why We Shipped Treaty Boundaries on the DLS Grid","Township Canada",{"type":8,"value":9,"toc":216},"minimark",[10,14,19,22,57,70,74,77,80,83,90,94,97,112,115,119,122,125,129,137,157,160,164,167,187,191],[11,12,13],"p",{},"A few weeks ago we shipped the Treaty Boundaries layer as part of the Energy Bundle — five polygons covering Treaties 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 rendered on the DLS grid alongside wells, pipelines, and parcels. This post is about why we shipped it, what we're careful to say (and not say) about what the layer means, and the broader Indigenous consultation overlay that's spec'd as a follow-up.",[15,16,18],"h2",{"id":17},"what-the-layer-is","What the layer is",[11,20,21],{},"Five polygons from the federal Government of Canada open data — published by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) via the ArcGIS REST service. The five Numbered Treaties cover most of the Prairie agricultural belt and adjacent industrial corridors:",[23,24,25,33,39,45,51],"ul",{},[26,27,28,32],"li",{},[29,30,31],"strong",{},"Treaty 4"," (1874) — southern Saskatchewan + parts of MB and AB",[26,34,35,38],{},[29,36,37],{},"Treaty 6"," (1876) — central Alberta and central Saskatchewan",[26,40,41,44],{},[29,42,43],{},"Treaty 7"," (1877) — southern Alberta",[26,46,47,50],{},[29,48,49],{},"Treaty 8"," (1899) — northern Alberta, northeastern BC, southern NWT, part of northern SK",[26,52,53,56],{},[29,54,55],{},"Treaty 10"," (1906) — northeastern SK plus part of MB",[11,58,59,60,69],{},"We render the polygons at zoom 0 (visible at continental scale, where most early-stage siting decisions get made) and surface the treaty name as a flag on every parcel report at ",[61,62,64,65],"a",{"href":63},"\u002Fparcel\u002FNE-14-32-21-W3","\u002Fparcel\u002F",[66,67,68],"span",{},"lld",".",[15,71,73],{"id":72},"what-the-layer-is-not","What the layer is NOT",[11,75,76],{},"This is the part we obsessed over. A treaty boundary on a map can be read two very different ways:",[11,78,79],{},"The naive read: \"Here's where consultation applies.\" Wrong. The duty to consult arises from constitutional jurisprudence and the specific characteristics of each Nation's claim — including modern land claims, reserve geography, traditional territory assertions, and active negotiations. Treaty geography is one input.",[11,81,82],{},"The right read: \"Here's a first-pass flag during early-stage project siting.\" Project siting teams use the layer to understand which Numbered Treaty applies to a candidate location and route to the appropriate consultation team before further work.",[11,84,85,86],{},"The layer copy reflects this. The parcel report card is labeled \"Indigenous consultation hazard\" — not \"Indigenous consultation status.\" The detail copy reads: ",[87,88,89],"em",{},"Reference only — verify duty-to-consult directly with the affected Nation before any activity.",[15,91,93],{"id":92},"why-we-shipped-it-for-everyone-not-just-paid-customers","Why we shipped it for everyone, not just paid customers",[11,95,96],{},"The flag on the parcel report is available at every tier — not gated behind the Energy Bundle. Two reasons:",[98,99,100,106],"ol",{},[26,101,102,105],{},[29,103,104],{},"Treaty geography is public information."," Federal open data. Putting a usability layer in front of public data shouldn't require a paid subscription.",[26,107,108,111],{},[29,109,110],{},"Surfacing the flag early matters more than gating it."," A farmer pulling a free parcel report on a candidate lease should see the treaty flag. A surveyor scoping a new project should see it. A junior analyst at a CCS developer who's pre-screening sites before the senior team gets involved should see it. The downside of a missed consultation step is much larger than the marginal revenue from gating the flag.",[11,113,114],{},"The Energy Bundle adds the map overlay (toggle Treaty Boundaries on\u002Foff across the entire map view), which is the workflow for active project planning at scale.",[15,116,118],{"id":117},"why-on-the-dls-grid-specifically","Why on the DLS grid specifically",[11,120,121],{},"Every legal land description in Western Canada references the DLS grid. Every well, every facility, every CCS tenure block, every parcel. Putting treaty geography on the same coordinate system isn't a decorative choice — it means that when an operator looks at a list of candidate wellsites or candidate CCS injection points, the treaty overlap is on the same map, not in a separate portal.",[11,123,124],{},"The cross-portal workflow (AER GeoView for tenure, federal GIS for treaty, internal mapping for wells) is the workflow we built the Energy Bundle to replace.",[15,126,128],{"id":127},"the-broader-overlay-thats-roadmapped","The broader overlay that's roadmapped",[11,130,131,132,136],{},"The Treaty Boundaries layer is the v1 of a broader Indigenous consultation overlay. The spec is in ",[61,133,135],{"href":134},"\u002Fdocs\u002Fdata-layers\u002Findigenous-consultation","docs\u002Fdata-layers\u002Findigenous-consultation.md",". The full layer would add:",[23,138,139,145,151],{},[26,140,141,144],{},[29,142,143],{},"Reserve and modern settlement lands"," — federal reserve boundaries plus modern treaty \u002F land claim areas (CIRNAC sources)",[26,146,147,150],{},[29,148,149],{},"Provincial consultation databases"," — AB Aboriginal Consultation Office, BC Consultative Areas Database",[26,152,153,156],{},[29,154,155],{},"Per-source disclaimer copy"," — explicitly labeling which polygons come from which authority and what they do (and don't) represent",[11,158,159],{},"The reason we shipped the Treaty Boundaries first and the broader overlay later: source selection requires legal sign-off on disclaimer copy that we don't want to rush. Treaty geography is well-defined (five polygons, CIRNAC-published, decades of legal precedent on what they mean). Provincial consultation databases are more contested in their interpretation — getting the disclaimer right is the gating factor.",[15,161,163],{"id":162},"what-this-does-not-replace","What this does not replace",[11,165,166],{},"To be explicit about the boundary:",[23,168,169,175,181],{},[26,170,171,174],{},[29,172,173],{},"Direct outreach to affected Nations."," The duty to consult is owed to specific Nations, not to a map polygon. Every project siting decision that triggers the duty also triggers an outreach process; the layer doesn't substitute for that.",[26,176,177,180],{},[29,178,179],{},"Modern land claim analysis."," Modern treaties (Métis settlements, comprehensive claims, etc.) aren't fully captured by the five Numbered Treaty polygons. The broader overlay covers more of this; the spec is in the docs.",[26,182,183,186],{},[29,184,185],{},"Legal advice."," This is published data on a map. Legal counsel on consultation obligations is the right input when the duty triggers.",[15,188,190],{"id":189},"related","Related",[23,192,193,199,204,210],{},[26,194,195],{},[61,196,198],{"href":197},"\u002Flearn\u002Fhow-to\u002Ftreaty-boundaries-on-dls-grid","Treaty Boundaries on the DLS Grid — how to read the layer",[26,200,201],{},[61,202,203],{"href":134},"Indigenous Consultation Overlay spec",[26,205,206],{},[61,207,209],{"href":208},"\u002Ffor\u002Fccs-developers","Township Canada for CCS Developers",[26,211,212],{},[61,213,215],{"href":214},"\u002Ffor\u002Foil-and-gas","Township Canada for Oil and Gas Operators",{"title":217,"searchDepth":218,"depth":218,"links":219},"",2,[220,221,222,223,224,225,226],{"id":17,"depth":218,"text":18},{"id":72,"depth":218,"text":73},{"id":92,"depth":218,"text":93},{"id":117,"depth":218,"text":118},{"id":127,"depth":218,"text":128},{"id":162,"depth":218,"text":163},{"id":189,"depth":218,"text":190},"industry",null,"2026-05-24","Treaty 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 boundaries are public data published by CIRNAC. Putting them on the same map as wells, parcels, and CCS tenure isn't a substitute for consultation — it's the first map a project siting team should consult.","md",{},true,"\u002Fblog\u002Ftreaty-boundaries-why-we-shipped-them",{"title":5,"description":230},"blog\u002Ftreaty-boundaries-why-we-shipped-them",[238,239,240,241],"Treaty Boundaries","Indigenous Consultation","Energy Bundle","Product Decisions","CXCIhPdCq1TOiAYIxkVGNHWToXFbhpRZSDuu4TvdABc"]