Blueberry River First Nations
Knowledge and Use Study Report
The proposed North Montney Pipeline Project
Prepared by Rachel Olson, Ph.D., Tabitha Steager, Ph.D., and the Firelight Research Group Cooperative with Blueberry River First Nations
FINAL REPORT January 22, 2014 Prepared and lead authorship by: Rachel Olson, Ph.D.,Tabitha Steager, Ph.D., and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative
On behlaf of: Blueberry River First Nations
Submitted to: Cici Sterritt, Band Manager, Blueberry River First Nations
Thanks and acknowledgements go to the Blueberry River First Nations elders, knowledge holders, land users, leadership and staff who contributed. This report could not have been completed without their support and expert knowledge.
Blueberry River First Nations PO Box 3009 Buick Creek, B.C. V0C 2R0 t: (250) 630-2584
The Firelight Group Suite 201 – 560 Johnson St. Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C6 t: (250) 590-9017 e: [email protected] www.thefirelightgroup.com
2 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Contents
Tables and Figures...... 5
Acronyms and Abbreviations...... 6
Executive Summary...... 7
Section 1 Introduction...... 12
1.1 Overview ...... 12
1.2 Scope of Work...... 13
1.3 Report Limitations...... 13
1.4 Proposed Project...... 14
1.4.1 Compressor Station...... 15
1.4.2 Construction Camps...... 15
1.4.3 Ancillary Facilities...... 16
Section 2 Blueberry River First Nations Background...... 18
2.1.1 Traditional Land Use and Economy...... 19
2.1.2 The Weight of Recent History on BRFN’s Lands, Resources and Treaty Rights Practices...... 20
Section 3 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis...... 25
3.1 Valued Components...... 25
3.2 Community Scoping Meeting...... 26
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 3 3.3 Helicopter Overflights...... 26
3.4 Mapping Interviews...... 26
3.4.1 Site-Specific (mapped) Data Collection and Analysis...... 27
3.4.2 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis...... 28
Section 4 Findings...... 32
4.1 Summary of Baseline Site-Specific aluesV ...... 33
4.1.1 Total Site-Specific Values Reported...... 35
4.2 Sites of Especially Intensive Use and Value to BRFN...... 38
4.2.1 Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake...... 38
4.2.2 The Pink Mountain Area...... 41
4.2.3 The Dancing Grounds and Surrounding Area...... 44
4.3 Valued Component Baselines and Project Interactions...... 47
4.3.1 Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features...... 47
4.3.2 BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters...... 66
4.3.3 Cultural Heritage and Continuity...... 72
Section 5 Cumulative Impacts...... 81
5.1 Cumulative Impacts and Cumulative Impacts Assessment...... 82
5.2 BRFN Cumulative Impacts Baseline...... 82
5.2.1 Existing Cumulative Impacts to Land and Environment...... 83
5.2.2 BRFN Experience with Cumulative Impacts...... 86
5.3 Potential Future Cumulative Impacts...... 91
Section 6 Conclusion...... 93
6.1 Summary of Baseline and Project Interactions...... 93
6.2 Closure...... 97
Works Cited...... 98
Interviews Cited...... 102
Appendix 1: Consent Forms...... 105
Appendix 2: Interview Guide...... 107
4 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Reported BRFN Use Values by Activity Class for the Study...... 2
Table 2: Reported BRFN Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features Use Values...... 34
Table 3: Reported BRFN Use Values for Moose in the Study Area...... 37
Table 4: Reported BRFN Use Values for the Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters VC...... 52
Table 5: Reported BRFN Use Values for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC...... 57
Figures
Figure 1: Proposed North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project – ROW Routing Only...... 17
Figure 2: Project footprint, LSA, and RSA for the Study...... 30
Figure 3: BRFN territory in relation to the proposed Project...... 31
Figure 4: Map of Reported BRFN Use Values within the Project Study Area...... 34
Figure 5: Map of BRFN Reported Use Values within the Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake Area...... 40
Figure 6: Map of BRFN Reported Use Values for Pink Mountain Area...... 43
Figure 7: The Dancing Grounds in relationship to the proposed Project footprint, LSA, and RSA...... 46
Figure 8: Map of Reported Subsistence and Environmental Features Use Values...... 49
Figure 9: BRFN registered traplines within vicinty of the Project area...... 57
Figure 10: Reported use values for Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters VC...... 68
Figure 11: Map of Reported Use Values for Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC...... 74
Figure 12: Cumulative Changes in the Peace Region (Lee and Hanneman 2012)...... 84
Figure 13: Cumulative changes in the Peace Region (Lee and Hanneman 2012)...... 85
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations
BRFN Blueberry River First Nations CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CV Curriculum vitae EA Environmental Assessment Firelight Group or Firelight Firelight Group Research Cooperative GIS Geographic Information System I.R. Indian Reserve km Kilometre(s) KML Keyhole Markup Language LSA Local Study Area m Metre n.d. no date NEB National Energy Board Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy RSA Regional Study Area the Project or NMML NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project the Proponent or NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. TUS Traditional Use Study or Studies VC(s) Valued Component(s) ZOI Zone of Influence
6 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Executive Summary
The Firelight Group has been retained by Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) to conduct a traditional knowledge and use study (the Study) in relation to NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.’s North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project (the Project).
Mapped and qualitative data were collected for this Study during interviews with 87 BRFN members, between October 28 and November 19, 2014.
Analysis of site-specific (mapped) data was based on the proposed Project footprint within 250 m of the proposed Project, a local study area (LSA) within five km of the proposed Project, and a regional study area (RSA) within 25 km of the proposed Project.
The data clearly show that BRFN members intensively use the proposed Project’s footprint for hunting, fishing, trapping, plant collecting, habitation, group gatherings, travelling, and other cultural practices that are integral to BRFN Aboriginal and treaty rights. Efforts to teach cultural heritage to future BRFN generations are focused on a variety of sites within the proposed Project footprint, LSA, and RSA. As such, the Project area is of extremely high cultural importance and use value to BRFN members.
During the mapping interviews, BRFN members reported 150 site-specific use values within the proposed Project footprint, a total of 601 site-specific use values within the proposed Project LSA (including the Project footprint), and 2235 site-specific use values within the proposed Project RSA (including the Project footprint and LSA). This represents an extremely high density of values (high number of use values with high number of reporters), and is strongly indicative of an extraordinary level of high use and reliance on subsistence resources within the proposed Project area.
The entire proposed Project area crosses through BRFN territory and transects several
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 7 particularly high-value areas, including but not limited to the Mile 156 Road/Lifeline Lake/Lily Lake area, the Pink Mountain area, and the culturally essential Dancing Grounds. Ecosystems such as those within the Mile 156 Road/Lifeline Lake/Lily Lake and Pink Mountain areas are of great importance to BRFN because they are some of the few remaining areas within BRFN territory that are not dramatically impacted by development activities. Therefore, it is of critical importance that these areas be protected and preserved for future BRFN use and practice of treaty rights.
Three primary Valued Components (VCs) were identified by the Study. These VCs are aspects of BRFN knowledge and use and associated critical resources that would be impacted by the proposed Project. They are:
• Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including:
o Hunting for moose and other animals
o Trapping
o Gathering plants for food and medicines
o Water
• BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• Cultural Heritage and Cultural Continuity
This report provides non-confidential baseline information and potential Project interactions for these VCs based on current and available BRFN knowledge and use data collected by BRFN in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Potential Project interactions with Study VCs include:
Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Values
Hunting and trapping
• Disturbance of animals during Project construction, causing them to move away from the area;
• Habitat fragmentation, limiting animal movement and reducing the size of available habitat areas;
• Loss of valuable habitat features such as mineral licks, wintering grounds, and calving areas;
• Decreased numbers of healthy animals due to loss of grazing areas;
• Construction work on the pipeline bringing increasing numbers of people into the area, adding hunting pressure to wildlife populations during construction
8 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study and beyond the life of the Project;
• Decreased wildlife population due to road kill from increased vehicle traffic in the area;
• Reduced trapping access and success due to vandalization of and theft from BRFN traps; and
• Need for BRFN members to travel further to practice subsistence harvesting.
Gathering plants for food and medicine
• Direct removal of plants during the creation of the Project ROW;
• Replacement of native species with non-native species during construction, operations and reclamation;
• Permanent loss of plant and/or plant harvesting habitat even after reclamation efforts, as some native plants do not return within a harvester’s lifetime, thereby effectively causing the permanent loss of knowledge of that harvesting habitat;
• Contamination or perceived contamination of berries, plants, and medicines, causing BRFN members to cease harvesting essential subsistence plant foods and medicinal plants in the Study area, by:
o contamination along the pipeline ROW during Project construction;
o spraying of pesticides and herbicides on the pipeline ROW or along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction and maintenance; and
o road traffic (dust and exhaust) along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction or maintenance.
Water
• Reduction in water quantity and the loss of small creeks and watercourses;
• Deforestation for the creation of the pipeline ROW adding to water run-off effects and potential flooding in key watersheds;
• Contamination and perceived contamination in the Project footprint and LSA, and downstream in the RSA, of:
o rivers and watercourses, particularly at pipeline crossing points;
o fish
o animals that live in and drink the water;
o plants growing in and around watercourses.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 9 BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• The destruction of, lack of access to, and/or reduced value of specific important sites for harvesting resources or cultural activities due to the creation of the pipeline;
• Reduced access to and/or use of general areas due to:
o increased traffic and noise changing the character and safety of an area;
o the presence of increasing numbers of people, particularly more non-Aboriginal hunters;
o the depletion of resources in those areas;
o due to contamination and perception of contamination of resources in the area; and
o garbage pollution on the land.
Cultural Continuity and Cultural Heritage
• The direct disturbance of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced access to or use of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced use of specific cultural sites, including ceremonial places and gathering places, due to changes in the surrounding landscape, including increasing numbers of people, garbage, noise and traffic;
• Destruction of unknown and unmarked gravesites by Project construction;
• Destruction and fragmentation of land within the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA, leading to a reduction of areas of key importance for teaching, learning, and practicing other cultural activities;
• Changes in the character and feel of the landscape due to landscape disturbance, including but not limited to aesthetic change, and increased pressure from traffic and non-Aboriginal hunters, which leads to a reduction in the connection BRFN members feel towards the land; and
• Reduced opportunities for teaching resource use and associated cultural protocols due to reduced wildlife populations or contamination or perceived contamination or resources.
10 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Cumulative impacts
The Project could also exacerbate existing cumulative impacts in the Project area. It is important to note that the proposed Project is only one of many likely foreseeable future developments within the BRFN referral area. The pace of development, especially in key areas located in and around the North Montney shale area, is expected to accelerate. The proposed Project represents an enabling feature that, if approved, will result in significant associated development and further displacement of BRFN’s traditional use of the area. BRFN Study participants reported that practicing their treaty rights within easy distance from their homes is currently very difficult. Healthy ecosystems with resources capable of supporting BRFN treaty rights practices are increasingly difficult to find, making it more and more expensive to practice necessary subsistence harvesting activities, and in turn making traditional harvesting less accessible to the community. The Project would further compound these challenges.
Based on available information, and considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments, the likely total effects load of the Project on BRFN rights and interests will be significant. The Project as proposed would likely result in significant impacts on the current use of lands and resources by BRFN members as well as unique BRFN cultural and spiritual values.
This report may be updated or revised by BRFN as additional work is completed and new information arises. This report may contribute to, but is not a replacement for, other studies, such as assessments based on socio-economic and cultural impacts, diet and harvesting rates, community health and wellbeing, governance, planning and policy, or a full cumulative effects assessment.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 11 Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Overview
The Firelight Group Research Cooperative (Firelight) is pleased to provide this final traditional knowledge and use report to the Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN).
This report provides non-confidential baseline information and consideration of potential Project interactions based on data collected on current and available BRFN knowledge and use within the vicinity of the proposed Project.
The report is organized into five sections:
• Section 1 provides a brief overview of the scope of work, limitations of this report; information on the proposed Project and maps of the Project location and Study area;
• Section 2 provides background information regarding BRFN;
• Section 3 gives information on the methodology for the Study;
• Section 4 presents the findings, including maps of site-specific values recorded during interviews, site-specific and qualitative baseline data and potential Project interactions for the Study’s Valued Components;
• Section 5 evaluates cumulative impacts of the Project in context with other industrial development in the BRFN territory; and
• Section 6 summarizes the preliminary findings and conclusions of the Study, including potential impacts of the proposed Project.
12 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 1.2 Scope of Work
BRFN retained Firelight to work with BRFN to coordinate and report on a knowledge and use Study (the Study) in relation to the proposed North Montney Mainline (NMML) Project.
Firelight was retained by BRFN to:
• Conduct knowledge and use mapping interviews on the proposed Project with elders, land users and other knowledge holders and transcribe the interviews; and
• Analyze the data, prepare a report, and present the findings to BRFN.
1.3 Report Limitations
Limitations of this report include the following:
This report is based on a set of interviews involving a sample of BRFN members (87 members or 18% of the BRFN population of approximately 4701). While efforts were made to include key families and knowledge holders active within the Study area, some key knowledge holders were not able to participate (see Section 3 for methods).
It is important to note that at the time of interviews, and as of the writing of this report, shape files containing the locations and details of ancillary sites such as work camps, laydown and other staging sites, access roads, and other facilities for the Project had not been provided by the Proponent. Given these information gaps, potential Project interactions with BRFN values with as yet unidentified ancillary feature locations proposed for the Project cannot be estimated. This is a critical gap in the ability to assess the effects of the proposed Project on BRFN rights and interests. Further study once proposed locations for ancillary features are identified is recommended.
Given the extent of use reported by BRFN participants in the area, it was impossible to fully document the knowledge and use of all those interviewed. Interviews lasted approximately one to two and a half hours, and data collected for each participant were limited to what the participant was able and willing to report in that time. In many cases, interviews ended not due to lack of additional use and knowledge, but due to time constraints. The interview team placed priority on documenting values within the LSA and in close proximity to the Project. Values further from the Project, within and beyond the RSA, were documented where time and opportunity allowed (see Section 3 for methods).
1 BRFN registered population according to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada as of November 2014 (AANDC 2014).
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 13 Site-specific (mapped) values, such as cabins or kill sites, reflect specific instances of use that anchor the wider practices of livelihood, cultural uses and other treaty and Aboriginal rights within a particular landscape. For example, a particular moose kill site may be mapped with a precise point, but that value is correctly interpreted as an anchor or focal point for a wide spectrum of other related practices and values. Therefore, the area covered by recorded site-specific use values should be understood to be a small portion of the area actually required for the meaningful practice of BRFN way of life (see Section 3 for methods).
Given these limitations, despite the high use recorded in this study, this information is still only a reflection of the location of some BRFN current use near the Project footprint and Study areas. However, as it represents only a sampling – a small portion - of total BRFN use and knowledge in the Project footprint, LSA and RSA, it is important to note that the report does not reflect all BRFN current use in those areas, and absence of data does not suggest absence of use or value.
This report provides baseline information and preliminary identification of potential project interactions based on the interviews conducted. It does not provide an assessment of residual Project effects on BRFN knowledge, use or rights.
This report was not informed by a Project-specific socio-economic baseline and impact study. A full socio-economic study would describe the baseline social and economic conditions (both traditional economy and cash economy) and the impacts that the Project could have – positive and negative – on that baseline.
This report is based on the understandings of the authors and is not intended as a complete depiction of the dynamic way of life and living system of use and knowledge maintained by BRFN elders and members.
Nothing in this report should be construed as to waive, reduce, or otherwise constrain BRFN rights within, or outside of, regulatory processes. It should not be relied upon to inform other projects or initiatives without written consent of the BRFN.
1.4 Proposed Project2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada Ltd., is proposing to construct, own and operate an extension to the existing Groundbirch Mainline sweet liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline. The proposed North Montney Mainline Project (NMML or “the Project”) would deliver LNG to the existing NGTL System.
The proposed Project would be located in Treaty 8 territory, comprised of approximately 301 km of pipeline starting about 180 km northwest of Fort St. John and continuing southwest to a point approximately 35 km southwest of Fort St. John. The Project would also be located entirely within BRFN territory.
2 Information according to the NGTL North Montney Mainline Project Description as submitted to the National Energy Board, August 6, 2013.
14 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study The proposed Project would be composed of two sections, Kahta and Aitken Creek. The Kahta section would be approximately 119 km of 42-inch diameter pipeline. The Aitken Creek section would be approximately 182 km of 42-inch diameter pipeline.
The Kahta section would begin at a point about 180 km northwest of Fort St. John, crossing the Buckinghorse River and the Sikanni Chief River, passing approximately 15 km east of Pink Mountain. It would continue in a southern direction and cross the Beatton River until it connects to the northern end of the Aitken Creek section. The northern end of the Aitken Creek section would begin about 100 km northwest of Fort St. John and continue southeast, crossing the Blueberry, Cameron, Halfway, Peace, Moberly, and Pine Rivers. The pipeline route would pass within 7 km of one of BRFN’s most important ceremonial and cultural sites, the Dancing Grounds. The proposed pipeline would connect with the northern end of the existing Groundbirch Mainline (Saturn Section) pipeline, which is located about 35 km southwest of Fort St. John.
Permanent access roads would also be needed for pipeline operations, particularly for access to compressor stations. New electrical power lines and facilities would likely also be required to operate the new metering facilities, compressor stations and valve sites. These power lines and facilities would be constructed, owned, and operated by third-party power providers.
The full route of the proposed Project runs through the heart of the Blueberry River First Nations territory. Specifically:
• 100 per cent of the proposed Project footprint/ROW is within BRFN territory;
• Approximately 98 per cent of the proposed LSA is within BRFN territory; and
• Approximately 95 per cent of the proposed RSA is within BRFN territory (MacDonald and Candler 2014).
1.4.1 Compressor Stations
The proposed Project would require two compressor stations with footprints of approximately 18 hectares each with two 30 MW rated natural gas fired turbo- compressor packages. These stations would include discharge gas coolers for each unit and other auxiliary equipment, including high-pressure yard piping, isolation valves, electrical, control and gas systems, storage facilities, offices, and, if necessary, temporary living quarters. The Aitken Creek compressor station would be located approximately 10 km northwest of Wonowon and 20 km north of the pipeline crossing at the Halfway River. The Saturn compressor station would be located just south of Hudson’s Hope.
1.4.2 Construction Camps
Three temporary construction camps are currently included in the Project proposal in order to accommodate the Project’s construction workers. Each camp would have a capacity of 500-700 people involved in the early stages such as clearing, grading,
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 15 constructing camps and building access roads. Two camps would be located on the Aitken Creek section and one on Kahta. All three of these camps would be required for construction of the Aitken Creek section, since the northern portion of the Aitken Creek section would best be accessed through the Kahta camp. The three camps would have footprints of up to approximately 18 hectares. Locations of these camps had not been provided as of the start of the Study.
1.4.3 Ancillary Facilities
The Project would also require ancillary facilities, including up to 15 metering facilities with a size of approximately 0.6 hectares. Temporary infrastructure, such as access roads, stockpile sites, and contractor yards would also be required during construction.
Pending regulatory approvals, the Proponent seeks to begin temporary infrastructure construction and early ROW preparation in early 2015, and to start pipeline construction in the summer of 2015.
The Proponent seeks to have the proposed Project completed and in service in 2019.
Figure 1 provides a map of the proposed Project ROW location as received in shape files provided by the Proponent. This map shows the proposed ROW only and does not include direct and ancillary facilities such as compressor stations, access roads, or new hydroelectric lines.
16 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Figure 1: Proposed North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project – ROW Routing Only
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 17 Section 24 Findings: BlueberryBaseline River Firstand ProjectNations BackgroundInteractions
BRFN traditional territory is located in northeast British Columbia. The primary BRFN Indian Reserve (I.R. No. 205) is located at Blueberry River, approximately 80 km northwest of Fort St. John, BC. A second BRFN Indian Reserve is located at the southern half of Beaton River (I.R. No. 204). BRFN has more than 450 registered members (AANDC 2013), including both Dane-zaa (Beaver) and Cree speakers.
BRFN is one of four Dane-zaa (or Beaver) communities of the Peace River area (Virtual Museum Canada 2007). Dane-zaa communities speak Dane-zaa Záágéʔ (also known as the Beaver Language), an Athapaskan language. Dane-zaa means the “Real People” in Dane-zaa Záágéʔ (Ridington 1988).
Formerly, BFRN was part of Fort St. John Band, however in 1977 the band was split into the Blueberry River and Doig River First Nations (Ridington and Ridington 2013). Traditionally, Dane-zaa followed the teachings of their ‘dreamers’, who were individuals who had the power to gain knowledge and insight into the future through dreaming. Stories of these dreams and visions remain an important facet of the Dane- zaa culture, and these stories continue to inform the Dane-zaa on ways to maintain balance with one another, as well as with the animals and the land that they depend on (Ridington and Ridington 2013).
Much has changed in BRFN territory over the past century. The amount of land available for BRFN use and occupancy has been reduced to a small fraction of what was previously used, due to modern industrial activities (Lee and Hanneman 2012; Salmo Consulting et al 2003; MSES 2012; Macdonald and Candler 2014). These activities include the use of lands for farming and other private holdings, and disturbance to the landscape and ecology of the area by increasing oil and gas development, mining, hydro development and forestry. Nonetheless, hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and other related traditional activities are still actively pursued by BRFN members. The land remains an important resource for subsistence purposes, as well as the foundation of their way of life, culture, and identity (MacDonald and Candler 2014).
18 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 2.1.1 Traditional Land Use and Economy
Dane-zaa have been living in the northeast of BC and northwest of Alberta for millennia. Dane-zaa oral history describes events and people in the area long before the arrival of white explorers. Archaeological evidence from the Charlie Lake caves shows that people occupied the area from at least 10,500 years ago, hunting bison and other game (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 67). The area was rich in wildlife due to the diversity of habitats available. Bison were abundant on the prairie along the Peace River, the muskeg to the north and east supported caribou, moose, elk, deer, beaver and other fur-bearers, and the mountains to the west provided habitat for caribou, sheep, goats, and marmots (whistlers) (MacDonald and Candler 2014). Fish were also abundant in the rivers and lakes (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 68). As a result, habitation of the area has been continuous since this time, as ancestors of the Dane-zaa took advantage of these resources, particularly the vast herds of bison. Dane-zaa ancestors also actively managed the landscape, performing controlled burning around the Peace River to maintain the prairie habitat for the bison herds (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 70).
Dane-zaa ancestors travelled seasonally around the Peace River country from the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta plains (Virtual Museum Canada 2007). This pattern of land use continued until relatively recently – well into the 20th century (Ridington 1980).
From early contact in the late 1800s to 1942 when the Alaska Highway opened, BRFN continued to subsist mainly on hunting and trapping, though during the 19th century there was increasing trade for food products such as flour, sugar, tea, rice, and potatoes (Ridington 1990:206). Bison was a key staple for the Dane-zaa prior to the 1900s, with fur traders noting in their journals and correspondence a sharp decrease in the numbers of bison (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011:36)3. As bison effectively became regionally extirpated, the Dane-zaa were forced to replace bison with moose and woodland caribou, where available, as staples in diet and culture (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011).
Today BRFN members also extensively hunt and consume a broad range of other animals, including moose, elk, deer, sheep, among others. As noted, caribou were previously important for BRFN use, but populations of this Species at Risk are currently at critically low numbers in the area and subject to a self-imposed BRFN harvesting moratorium. Other culturally important game species also exist in the area (e.g. black and grizzly bear), and smaller game (e.g. grouse, rabbit, goose, beaver) is relied upon as a supplementary resource. Recent TUS studies indicate that this high reliance on country food continues (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011; Gibson and the Firelight Group 2014; Olson and DeRoy 2013).
3 “Prior to the mid-1800s, the most important food resource for the Dane-zaa, and for their eastern Athapaskan neighbours, was the wood bison.” (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011:36)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 19 2.1.2 The Weight of Recent History on BRFN’s Lands, Resources and Treaty Rights Practices
2.1.2.1 The Fur Trading Era
Colonial impacts began to be felt by the Dane-zaa long before Europeans first arrived in their area, as the Cree, pushed west by European expansion in the prairies to the east, began to encroach on Dane-zaa lands in the 18th century. The Cree already had firearms, and also became middlemen for fur-traders to the east before outposts were established in Dane-zaa territory. The Dane-zaa in turn were pushed west, and began to encroach on Sekani territory. This led to tension between the three peoples (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 75, 77).
In 1794, the Northwest Company established Rocky Mountain Fort on BRFN’s traditional territories, heralding a marked increase in colonial impacts for the Dane-zaa. The fort was located where the Moberly River enters the Peace River (BC Hydro 2012). Dane-zaa trappers became active in the fur trade, providing the trading post with furs from the abundant beaver and other fur-bearing animals of the area, and meat and grease from the bison herds on the Peace (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 210).
Unfortunately, the intensive use of the area’s resources encouraged by the trading post proved unsustainable, and Rocky Mountain Fort closed after just 12 years due to declines in both furbearers and bison. The increasing presence of white hunters and trappers in the region also put further pressure on game and furbearers (Brody 1981). The bison, a staple for the Dane-zaa, were particularly affected and their numbers were brought to near extinction in the area (Ridington and Ridington 2013). This dramatic reduction in the bison population led the Dane-zaa to turn increasingly to moose as a primary food source (Ridington and Ridington 2013). Over the following decades several other trading posts opened and closed in the area. The closures caused periods of hardship for the Dane-zaa, as their subsistence resources had been depleted and the European goods that they had come to rely on became scarce with the closures (Ridington and Ridington 2013: 112).
2.1.2.2 Treaty 8
Treaty 8 was proposed by Privy Council in 1898 (AADNC 2010). During the following 15 years, many First Nations from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Northwest Territories adhered to the Treaty. The Fort St. John Indian Band, which BRFN was then part of, adhered in 1900, making it one of the early signers of Treaty 8, along with other Beaver, Cree, Chipewyan, and Slavey First Nations (Brody 1981). The Fort St. John Indian Band signed the treaty with the aim of preserving their lands and natural resources from outside interests (Virtual Museum Canada 2007).
In the face of apprehension that their traditional way of life would be lost, the Treaty commissioners from Canada made BRFN signatories a solemn promise that the Treaty
20 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life. BRFN understands their relationship with the Crown in terms of that agreement, that they were promised the ability to practice their traditional mode of life as if they had never entered Treaty.
The Fort St. John Indian Band selected Gat Tah Kwą̂ (Montney), one of the Dane-Zaa traditional gathering places located about 15 miles north of what is now the city of Fort St. John, as the site of its reserve. This was approved in 1914 as I.R. 172. The land selected by the Band for I.R. 172 was within an area known as the Peace River Block, which was part of a series of land conveyances between Canada and BC.
2.1.2.3 Early to Mid-1900s
Around 1872 the Peace Region was proclaimed by George Simpson, governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, as having huge potential for mining and agriculture. The government came to view the region as prime agricultural land, placing a great value on the Peace River Block – up to $17.5 million – and opened up the area to homesteaders between 1907 and 1912 (BC Hydro 2012). The first onset of agricultural settlement in the Peace occurred in the early 1900s.
The increased pressure on natural resources in the region due to an influx of non- aboriginal trappers led to the establishment of a Provincial trapline registration system in 1912 and in 1926, trapline boundaries were surveyed (UBCIC 2005). This registration system also had negative impacts on Dane-zaa subsistence and trade economies by limiting the areas that they could use for trapping (BC Hydro 2012). While traplines were registered to non-native trappers in BRFN territory, the Crown largely failed to register traplines to BRFN members. It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the registered trapline system, and the influx of non-native trappers on First Nations, including BRFN. Traditionally, BRFN did not have specific traplines, but instead had traditional areas that they used and shared amongst the families. BRFN members exercised their traditional mode of life in these areas. This involved trapping, but also hunting and harvesting berries, medicinal plants, and other resources – an entire economic system based on seasonal rounds of harvesting on and from the land. Imposing trapline registration led to regular conflict between First Nations and non-Aboriginals in the 1930s around traplines and cabins, with outsiders burning down First Nations cabins and taking over areas that had been traditionally used and shared among families living in the area. Interviews with Treaty 8 members in 2012 indicate that traplines were traded at a huge disadvantage for members, who sold them for a pittance, often in desperation or with a lack of knowledge of their true value (Firelight Group and Treaty 8 FNCAT 2012).
In the 1920s, exploration also began for oil and natural gas in the area, but these resources were not commercially developed until the area was made more accessible by the construction of roads, such as the Alaska Highway in 1942 and the John Hart Highway in 1952 (Littlefield, Dorricott and Cullon 2007).
In 1930, BC stated that the land on which Indian reserves were located were subject to the government’s right to “resume any part of the said lands which it may be
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 21 deemed necessary to resume for making roads, canals, bridges, towing paths or other works of public utility or convenience” (ICC 2006). As a result, in 1934 Canada granted permission for the construction of a road through I.R. 172, concluding that “the benefit of having the road constructed [was] sufficient compensation for the land required” (ICC 2006) for the Fort St. John Indian Band.
Later, two major territory surrenders by the Fort St. John Indian Band occurred. The first surrender took place in 1940, when the Fort St. John Indian Band surrendered the mineral lease rights of I.R. 172 for petroleum, natural gas, and mining. The second surrender was accepted by Order in Council in 1945, whereby the Fort St. John Indian Band surrendered I.R. 172 in its entirety for sale or lease (ICC 2006). Canada then began to make arrangements to sell the land, and in 1948 the surrendered I.R. 172 was sold for $70,000 to the Director of the Veterans’ Land Act (DVLA) and developed as farmland. Consequently, the Fort St. John Indian Band lost access to one of their most important gathering places. A portion of the revenue from the sale was used to purchase new reserve land further north for the Fort St. John Indian Band (ICC 2006; Ridington and Ridington 2013: 282-283).
In the 1940s, transportation links opened up BRFN territory, particularly with the completion of the Alaska Highway. This brought more non-Aboriginal settlers into the area, increased land conversion to agriculture, centralized First Nations people into smaller and smaller areas, and alienated First Nations land through the privatization of Crown lands. Industrial development in the form of provincially funded megaprojects – including transportation and utility infrastructure and the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam – also occurred in this post World War II era.
In 1947–48, the Department of Indian (DIA) Affairs transferred the Montney Reserve to the Director of the Veterans Land Act for use as farmland for returning war veterans. Three small replacement reserves were established in 1950 (I.R. 204, I.R. 205, and I.R. 206), although Canada failed to reserve the mineral rights on these reserves for the Fort St. John Indian Band’s use and benefit. The Beaver and Cree of Fort St. John Indian Band split and moved to two of the reserves (Blueberry River Reserve and the Doig River Reserve) (Treaty 8 FNCAT 2012).
Despite these changes, prior to the mid-1950s many Dane-zaa continued to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle in which they hunted, gathered, and socialized with other Dane-zaa, much as their ancestors had done for millennia. Subsistence resources were at times severely diminished in the region, but Dane-zaa continued to hunt both large and small game animals including moose, deer, grizzly bear, black bear, caribou, elk, sheep, and goat, as well as grouse and waterfowl. They also continued to trap, fish, and pick berries (Brody 1981).
2.1.2.4 1950s to 1970s
In the mid-1950s, forestry activities were established in the Peace Region, extending the development and disturbance of the region that had been started by agricultural settlement. With the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway (now known as
22 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study the British Columbia Railway) between the 1950s and 1970s, forestry became a major industry. The rail development also further stimulated the extraction of other resources, and mining and smelting industries continued to develop at the regional and provincial level, all of which demanded large amounts of energy. In 1968, the Peace River Canyon was dammed by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, creating Williston Reservoir (BC Hydro 2012). With energy provided by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and advances in mining and shale gas extraction technology, northeastern B.C. became a center for coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro-electricity production. Concurrent to this energy development, the forestry industry expanded further: large sections of forest were harvested to produce pulp and lumber.
2.1.2.5 1970s to present
The 1970s brought a burgeoning oil and gas industry to BRFN traditional territory, and in 1976, oil and gas was discovered on the former Montney Reserve. This industrial expansion spurred Fort St. John’s population increase from 3,619 people in 1961 to 13,891 in 1981.
In 1976 a sour gas well was built just outside of the reserve boundary on the only road accessing the reserve, which resulted in numerous adverse impacts to the reserve and BRFN. BRFN members began to complain of headaches and a general lack of wellbeing. The reserve residents could often smell the gas. The Band took complaints to the Department of Indian Affairs, the Medical Services Administration, and the Pollution Control Board but jurisdictional issues and other bureaucratic challenges impeded action.
On July 16, 1979 the well developed a major leak, resulting in a cloud of poison gas rolling into the village. Every house was successfully evacuated, although some members experienced adverse effects from acute exposure to the gas during their escape. The company took about a week to shut down the well so that members could return home.
The Band petitioned Canada for an injunction against the resumption of operations until a solution was found. The company accepted this as temporary but in 1980 the company successfully petitioned the court to lift the injunction. The community requested that their community be relocated, prompting the second move for BRFN (the move from Montney being the first).
In 1978 the Fort St. John Indian Band filed an action against Canada for having breached its fiduciary duty, as well as claiming damages over the transfer of the mineral rights in Fort St. John Indian Band territory (ICC 2006). After twenty years of persistent legal action, and following a successful Supreme Court of Canada decision on liability for breach of fiduciary duty, in 1998 the Federal government settled the damages with BRFN and Doig River First Nation for $147 million for lost oil and gas revenues from the I.R. 172 land.
After the rapid expansion through the 1970s and early 1980s, the region experienced a
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 23 temporary slow growth period in the late 1980s. More recent growth in the oil and gas industry, from the mid-2000s onwards, has been driven by new unconventional shale deposits in the Montney Play Trend. B.C. describes the area around Fort St. John, including parts of BRFN’s territory, as the hub of oil and gas activity and production for the province (B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2006:1).
Brody (1981) mapped current BRFN members land use during the autumn and winter of 1978-79, with members reporting that they hunted, fished, trapped, picked berries, and camped. By this time, however, BRFN land use had already been impacted by changes to the landscape and increased encroachment and regulation by government, agriculture and industry. This mapped land use should not therefore be taken as indicative of BRFN’s traditional land use patterns, which were far more extensive.
24 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Section 3
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
3.1 Valued Components
Data collection and analysis for this Study were organized around three Valued Components (VCs). A VC is defined as an important aspect of the environment that a project has the potential to affect (Hegmann et al. 1999). VCs include tangible or biophysical resources (e.g. particular places or species) as well as social; economic; cultural; health, and knowledge-based values (e.g. place names, indigenous language, or traditional knowledge in relation to a specific area).
For the purpose of this Study, VCs were designed to represent the critical conditions or elements that must be present for the continued practice of BRFN culture and livelihood that may be impacted by the Project. As such, VCs range from the direct presence of traditionally hunted animals and gathered plants on the land, to continued habitation, travel and cultural activities on the land. VCs are also designed to include cultural resources, such as the transmission of knowledge across generations. VCs for the Study are:
• Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including:
o Hunting for moose and other animals
o Trapping
o Gathering plants for food and medicines
o Water
• BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• Cultural Heritage and Cultural Continuity
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 25 These VCs were determined during the community scoping meeting (see Section 3.2), and were further refined during data collection and analysis (see Sections 3.3 and 3.4).
3.2 Community Scoping Meeting
A community scoping meeting was conducted in the BRFN band office to launch the Study, on October 27, 2014. Approximately 20 BRFN members attended the meeting, which was facilitated by BRFN lands staff and the Firelight Group. During the morning session a representative from the Proponent was on hand to explain the Project and answer questions. A closed community meeting facilitated by a Firelight researcher took place in the afternoon. Participants identified key issues and concerns that were later used to form the VCs for the Study. Methods and timelines for the Study were also discussed and adjusted accordingly.
3.3 Helicopter Overflights
Two helicopter flights over the proposed pipeline route were conducted on November 10, 2014. Due to time restrictions and the length of the pipeline, only the northernmost point of the proposed route at the Buckinghorse River crossing moving south to Beryl Prairie was covered during the flights. Six BRFN members, a representative from the Proponent, and a Firelight researcher were on the overflights.
3.4 Mapping Interviews
Interview and mapped data were collected for this Study during interviews with 87 BRFN members, between October 28 and November 19, 2014.
Participants were identified by BRFN. Participant identification codes in the form B## were allocated for each participant.
Most participants were interviewed individually, although seven interviews included two people and one was completed with four female elders. Interviews took place at the BRFN band office, at participants’ residences in Fort St. John, and at meeting rooms in the Pomeroy and Northern Grand Hotels in Fort St. John. Multiple locations allowed people who could not attend interviews in the BRFN band office to take part in the Study.
Interview and mapping protocols were based on standard techniques for direct- to-digital traditional use and occupancy mapping (Tobias 2010; DeRoy 2012). All mapping interviews included documentation of prior informed consent (see the form in Appendix 1) and followed a standardized semi-structured interview guide designed to meet the needs of the Study and to provide a consistent yet flexible framework (see Appendix 2).
26 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Interviews averaged approximately one hour although several lasted over two and half hours. For some participants, there was not adequate time to address their use and occupancy in relation to the entire Study area. Where this was the case, data collection focused on the Project LSA, but extended into the RSA and beyond as necessary. All interviews but one were conducted in English, with one interview in English with Cree translation when required by the participant. All interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder.
3.4.1 Site-Specific (mapped) Data Collection and Analysis
For the purpose of this report, site-specific data are BRFN values that are reported as specific and spatially distinct, and may be mapped, although exact locations may be considered confidential for the purposes of map displays.
Site-specific data were mapped and managed using a direct-to-digital process, which involved projecting Google Earth imagery onto a wall or screen. Data were mapped using points, lines, or polygons geo-referenced at a scale of 1:50,000 or finer. Data collection focused on the proposed Project’s footprint (within 250 m of the Project and related physical works, access routes and activities)4, local study area (LSA; within 5 km of the proposed Project)5 and regional study area (RSA; within 25 km of the proposed Project)6, in declining order of prioritization. See Figure 2 for a map of the proposed Project and Study area. Figure 3 shows the Study area in relationship to the BRFN consultation area.
Site-specific data in this report include use values reported by a total of 115 BRFN members, 87 members who participated in Study interviews and an additional 28
4 For designating the Project footprint, a 250 m zone of influence (ZOI) around the furthest extent of the industrial footprint (directly disturbed area) is used to document Project impacts, based on evidence that this distance is a reasonable approximation of a zone within which the abundance of wildlife and land use by humans may be altered (MSES 2010): • moose presence near roads is reduced within 200 m (Rolley and Keith,1980) to 500 m (Laurian et al. 2008); • moose suffer higher mortality from wolf predation near trails (median distance of kills was 209 m, compared to random sites at 470 m (Kunkel and Pletscher 2000); • caribou avoid industrial features within about 250 m (Dyer et al. 2001); • the viability of caribou populations could be compromised when more than 61% of the landscape is within 250 m of industrial features (Sorensen et al. 2008); • other mammals avoid industrial features within about this distance (Forman et al. 2003); • birds in woodlands avoid roads, power lines and seismic lines by up to about 300 m, depending on species and ecological context (Kroodsma 1982; Bayne et al. 2008; Machtans 2006); and • comprehensive reviews of edge responses show that “abiotic and plant responses are generally reported to extend up to 50 m into patches, invertebrate responses up to 100 m, and bird responses 50–200 m” (Ries et al. 2004, p. 510). 5 The approximate distance easily travelled in a day trip from a point of origin, like a cabin, camp, or other location by foot through bush and back to the point of origin, as when hunting, is approximately 5 km (Candler et al. 2010). It is used as a reasonable approximation of the area of regularly relied-upon resource use surrounding a given transportation or habitation value. Along with cumulative effects, Project effects within this area may be expected to interact with BRFN values. 6 The RSA is a broad area within which direct or indirect effects of the proposed Project may be anticipated, examples of which are dust, odours, access management activities, traffic, effects on water, and other forms of disturbance experienced. Along with cumulative effects, these Project effects may be expected to interact with BRFN values.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 27 members who participated in previous BRFN TUS studies for the TransCanada Coastal Gaslink (CGL) and TransCanada Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) Pipeline projects.
Mapping categories
Maps of site-specific values presented in this report were generated from the data mapped during the interviews. For the purposes of map displays, points were randomized, and a 1 km buffer was generated around each point, line, and polygon in order to protect confidential information. In contrast, the data tables presented in this report contain un-buffered site-specific values, meaning that there is no randomization and buffering of locations – when the sites are listed as within the Project Footprint in a table, that is where the value was mapped by the respondent.
Site-specific data collected and mapped in this Study were organized using five categories that were designed to explore all aspects of the Study’s VCs:
• Habitation values (including temporary or occasional and permanent or seasonal camps and cabins);
• Cultural/spiritual values (including burial sites, village sites, ceremonial areas, and community gathering areas);
• Subsistence values (including harvesting and kill sites, plant collection areas, and trapping areas);
• Environmental feature values (including specific highly valued habitat for moose, caribou, and deer); and
• Transportation values (including trails, water routes, and navigation sites).
The temporal boundaries for all data collection and analysis included current and past BRFN knowledge and use. For the purpose of this Study:
• A past value refers to an account of knowledge and use prior to living memory of the respondent;
• A current value refers to an account of knowledge and use within living memory of the respondent; and
• A planned future value refers to anticipated or intended knowledge or use patterns of the respondent.
3.4.2 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative data were also collected during the mapping interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using the VCs for the Study as categories. Quotes used in this report were also taken from the interview transcripts and coded during this process.
28 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study The resulting qualitative data were then considered alongside the site-specific data collected to give qualitative baseline profiling data and the identification of potential Project interactions for each VC, cross referenced with site-specific data about locations of particular importance for each VC. These data are presented in Section 4.3.
Qualitative data presented in this report give essential context to the VCs. These data explain why the VCs have community importance, the current state of those values (baseline) within the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA, and how those values may be impacted by the Project (project interactions).
Qualitative data are also essential to understand site-specific data and explain why the mapped values have importance for the BRFN community. The current state of that value (baseline) and how that value may be impacted by the Project (project interactions) is also better understood through qualitative data. For example, a community member may map a habitation value for their family trapping cabin (the site-specific value) and then discuss the importance of that cabin as a place where they teach their children how to make dry meat and listen to oral histories (the qualitative baseline value) and then go on to explain how the Project may impact their ability to use that cabin (the potential Project interactions).
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 29 Figure 2: Project footprint, LSA, and RSA for the Study
30 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Figure 3: BRFN territory in relation to the proposed Project
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 31 Section 4
Findings
Money don’t last. Land lasts. Animals last. That’s what I need. My treaty rights, that’s my right. Without those two things [land and animals], I have nothing. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
[on whether the pipeline will affect treaty rights] Yes, and my children’s, and my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren – seven generations ahead, yes, because under our Treaty, it’s as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, and the grass grows. That means forever. So, yes, it will [affect my treaty rights], and yes, it does. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
Study site-specific data clearly indicate an exceptionally high level of BRFN use and cultural practice within the Project area, including high numbers of sites recorded as well as high numbers of reporters. Qualitative data gathered during mapping interviews also support this finding and is outlined in this section.
This section provides both baseline information regarding BRFN knowledge and use in the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA. Baseline information is organized based on the Study’s VCs:
• Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including:
o Hunting for moose and other animals
o Trapping
o Gathering plants for food and medicines
o Water
• BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• Cultural Heritage and Cultural Continuity
32 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.1 Summary of Baseline Site-Specific Values
The site-specific data clearly show that there is an exceptionally high level of use within living memory of BRFN interview participants in the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA. Use is reported from the 1800s to the present day (2014), although the use of gathering places and ceremonial sites such as the Dancing Grounds are recounted in BRFN oral histories from time immemorial.
Figure 3 provides a graphical depiction of the relative intensity of reported BRFN site- specific use values within the proposed Project footprint, LSA, and RSA.
Reported use and qualitative values documented in the Study are particularly intensive in the following areas, from north to south on the proposed pipeline route, in the following areas (detailed in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3):
• Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake;
• Pink Mountain; and
• The Dancing Grounds.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 33 Figure 4: Map of Reported BRFN Use Values within the Project Study Area
34 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.1.1 Total Site-Specific Values Reported
A total of 2235 site-specific use values were reported in the Study area for the Project (the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA combined). Reported use in the Project footprint ranges from the 1920s to the present (2014); the LSA from the 1920s to the present (2014); and the RSA from the 1800s to the present (2014).
Many values mapped, including subsistence, habitation, cultural, and spiritual values represent a series of use instances over many years and even generations. BRFN members report returning to the same camp sites, hunting areas, berry picking spots, fishing sites, ceremonial sites, and gathering places time and again. Mapped values should therefore be understood in this context, in that they often represent not only a single use value but also repeated use, sometimes over many years or even generations. For example, a single habitation value for a camp site may also represent camping at that site many times over a person’s lifetime, as the BRFN member reporting the value has been returning to the area for many years.
As noted in Section 3.4.1, site-specific data in this report includes use values reported by 115 BRFN members. The data should be interpreted as indicative of a wider web of BRFN use values within the Project area, not comprehensive.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the different classification of sites reported in the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA by Study participants. As noted in Section 3.3.1, these are un-buffered values, meaning the mapped location has not been adjusted as to its spatial location for the purposes of protecting confidentiality.
Table 1: Reported BRFN Use Values by Activity Class for the Study Total Number of Reported Use Values BY ACTIVITY CLASS within 250M, LSA & RSA Within 250m of the Within 5km of the Within 25km of the Proposed TCPL NMML Proposed TCPL NMML Proposed TCPL NMML Pipeline (project footprint) Pipeline (project footprint) Pipeline (project footprint) Activity Class % of % of % of # of values reported # of values reported # of values reported values values values Cultural 19 13% 119 20% 461 21% Environmental 31 21% 109 18% 352 16% Habitation 10 7% 63 10% 342 15% Subsistence 28 19% 205 34% 898 40% Transportation 62 41% 105 17% 182 8% TOTAL 150 100% 601 100% 2235 100%
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 35 Beginning in the north at the Buckinghorse River and running south along the proposed NMML route, the Project footprint and LSA include many important areas of use by BRFN members as well as valuable cultural sites such as the Dancing Grounds and environmental features, including (from north to south), but not limited to:
North of Buckinghorse River: caribou wintering grounds; moose calving grounds; moose and grouse kill sites; and returned to camping grounds and trails used for hunting.
Between Buckinghorse River and Mile 171 Road: Moose, caribou, elk and wolf habitat; caribou and wolf sightings; multiple moose kill sites and processing sites; elk kill site; caribou processing site; fish catch sites; berry picking areas (blueberries and huckleberries); teaching area (learning to set fish traps); day camping sites; historical cabin and teepee sites; multiple trails used for hunting moose, elk and porcupine and accessing camping areas; and a water collection site.
Between Mile 171 Road and Mile 168 Road: Mineral licks; moose kill sites; deer kill site; camp site; multiple trails used for hunting; and heritage resources (flakes found).
Along the Sikanni Chief River: sheep and goat habitat; mineral lick; sightings of animal tracks (caribou, moose, wolf, elk, and bear); sighting of lynx and goats; goat kills sites and a goat processing site; caribou kill and processing site; and trails used for hunting, fishing and skidooing;
Along the Mile 156 Road: intensively used trails for hunting moose, accessing camping and berry picking areas; mineral licks; lynx and wolverine sightings; many moose kill sites and processing sites; berry picking areas (huckleberries, blueberries and cranberries); multiple camping areas near Lifeline Lake; a single place name reported multiple times; fish habitat (for jackfish, rainbow trout and spickleback); and former water collection sites which can no longer be used due to contamination.
Around Lily Lake: Lily Lake is reported as an important body of water and feeds the Beatton River and all surrounding habitat; high value habitat and calving grounds for moose, elk, and caribou; bear, marten and lynx habitat; moose sighting; moose kill site; fish catch site and fish processing site; berry picking area (huckleberries); medicinal plant picking areas; camping areas; a burial site; heritage resources (arrowheads found); fish habitat (bull trout which are often referred to as Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, lake trout, grayling and suckers); and a trail used to access Lily Lake by ATV.
North of Atick Creek road and along the road running north: intensive use of trails for hunting moose; multiple moose kill sites and a processing site; mineral lick; game trails; grizzly bear sighting; and scraper and flakes of rare metal found.
South of the Atick Creek Road and along Pink Mountain Road: Moose, caribou and elk habitat; moose kill sites and a processing sites; trapping areas; berry picking area (raspberries); rotten wood (used to tan hides) collection site; camping areas; a teaching area (learning to process animals); trails intensively used for hunting and to access Pink Mountain (an important camping, hunting, teaching and gathering place); trapping and dog team trail; and a birth place.
36 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Along Mile 135 Road: Mineral licks; trapping areas (for lynx, wolf, coyote, fox and marten); moose kill site; berry picking site (cranberries); camping areas including a cabin site; teaching area; heritage resource (site of old family cabin, dry meat rack, and horse corral); burial site; sacred area; intensive use of trails for hunting, trapping and accessing cabins and berry picking areas.
Between Mile 132 Road and Mile 126 Road: Mineral lick; caribou migration route; moose kill sites and processing sites; rabbit processing site; meat drying rack sites; trapping area; water collection sites; firewood collection sites; camping areas; and trails used to hunt (moose and grouse) and access cabin and camping sites.
Between Mile 126 Road and Gundy Road: Moose habitat and wintering grounds; moose, lynx and rabbit sightings; moose kill sites and processing sites; caribou kill site; camping area; burial; spiritual area; heritage resources (old cabin site, meat processing site and grave site); hunting trails; and loss of use of hunting area due to oil and gas development.
South of Gundy Road around Tommy Lakes Road and the Blueberry River: Valuable habitat for moose, caribou, deer, bear, wolf and furbearers; mineral licks; wolf sighting; moose and rabbit kill sites; trapping areas; former moose habitat disturbed by industrial development; trails used for hunting (moose and caribou) and trapping; camping areas including cabin sites; and a ceremony place.
West of the Alaska Highway around Miles 109 and 113: sightings of moose, rabbit and lynx; a trapping area used to trap lynx, beaver and marten; moose, elk and deer kill sites; moose processing site; trails used for hunting moose and looking for rotten wood; and loss of use due to increased traffic.
South of the Cameron River: grizzly bear and moose sightings; moose habitat; a moose kill site; processing sites and meat drying rack site; berry picking areas (blueberries and cranberries); a camping place; a water collection site; a teaching area; a medicine plant picking area; and heritage resource (tools found).
Along the Halfway River: fishing areas and fish catch sites (bull trout which are often referred to as Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, grayling and white fish); teaching area; intensive use of trails to hunt and access camping; water route taken by canoe; and berry picking sites.
Between Ground Birch Creek and Farrell Creek: Habitat for moose, elk, deer, caribou, bear, birds, sheep, goat, furbearers and other animals; mineral lick; multiple moose kill and processing sites; deer kill site; camping areas; large beaver dam; and loss of use reports due to oil and gas development and increased traffic.
East of Butler Ridge: Habitat for moose, elk, deer, caribou, bear, birds, sheep, goat, and furbearers (including lynx, marten and fisher); trails for saddle horses and lake access; multiple moose and elk kill sites and processing sites; a camp site; and medicine plant picking areas.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 37 Around the Peace River: elk habitat; grizzly bear sighting; deer kill sites; fish catch sites (bull trout which are often referred to as Dolly Varden; rainbow trout; kokanee); historical gathering place; water routes taken by boat and kayak; camping area; gathering place; ceremony place (drumming); teaching area (fishing); and a camping area that is no longer used due to increased traffic.
The Moberly River and Monias Lake area: moose and deer habitat; elk sightings; moose, elk and deer kill sites; moose and elk processing sites; rabbit kill site; and camping areas.
Between the Moberly and Pine Rivers: moose and elk kill sites; moose and elk processing sites; and a camping area.
Around Stewart Lake and south of the Pine: moose and elk kill sites; beaver kill sites; black bear kill site; fish catch sites (jackfish and rainbow trout); concentration of camping areas; drying meat racks; place name; teaching area; and medicinal plant collecting areas.
4.2 Sites of Especially Intensive Use and Value to BRFN
As described in the previous section, the Study clearly shows an extremely high intensity of BRFN use throughout the Project area. However, the site-specific and qualitative data highlight three areas of particular importance. These are:
• Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake;
• Pink Mountain; and
• The Dancing Grounds and Surrounding Area.
Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3 outline the use and importance highlighted by BRFN members who participated in the Study. Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide un-buffered site- specific values by activity class for each of these regions. Figures 4, 5, and 6 provide close-up maps of site-specific use values for each area.
4.2.1 Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake
The area surrounding the Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake is of particular concern to BRFN as the pipeline footprint runs within less than 1 km of this high-value wildlife habitat and subsistence harvesting area. An especially large number of reported use values fall within the LSA, raising a high level of concern about the impacts of the Project on habitat fragmentation and increased access to the area. Figure 5 provides a close-up map of use values in this area.
As reported by BRFN members, Lily Lake is currently somewhat difficult to access, making it a prime area because of its generally undisturbed nature.
38 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Lily Lake -- Lily Lake, you can walk in there -- that’s the good thing about it, like it’s too wet, so people can’t just drive up there with a quad. Like you have to really walk in there, and that’s about a good five/six clicks, you know, to walk in there, and it’s all muskeg, so that’s the good part about it. (B55 Nov. 12, 2014)
Lily Lake…This whole area around it is good calving grounds because of the muskeg. It’s all muskeg area and bull moose -- they live in here, too, all summer… good moose cabin grounds and bull moose live there, too. Moose live there all summer as they feed off the lake and off all the muskeg around the lake... That whole valley there -- that most important part is that lake... All year-round, moose stay there. (B05 Oct. 28, 2014)
All they [non-Native hunters] need is an access, and that’s what’s going through right there. There are a lot of places that are going to be -- like, you go to Lily Lake. That’s going to be wide open once they open up by -- ... Everything is being left alone there right now, but once you open that up, you’re not going to see that anymore...I see people everywhere now. (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
Many BRFN members noted that the area is an especially rich habitat for wildlife - particularly moose - providing calving grounds, muskeg, willows, mineral licks, and waterfowl habitat. BRFN knowledge holders also note that Lily Lake serves as the headwaters for the Beatton River, making it an important source for water flow that comes from the lake and moves through the Beatton River watershed.
Potential Project interactions for this important subsistence region and wildlife habitat include:
• Disturbance of animals during Project construction, causing them to move away from the area;
• Loss of valuable habitat features such as mineral licks, wintering grounds, and calving areas;
• Decreased numbers of healthy animals due to loss of grazing areas; and
• Construction work on the pipeline bringing increasing numbers of people into the area, adding hunting pressure to wildlife populations during construction and beyond the life of the Project.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 39 Figure 5: Map of BRFN Reported Use Values within the Mile 156 Road, Lifeline Lake, and Lily Lake Area
40 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.2.2 The Pink Mountain Area
Pink Mountain and the surrounding area, including that referenced in 4.2.1 above, is of great importance to BRFN for subsistence harvesting and other cultural, ceremonial, and spiritual practices. Many BRFN members noted that the Pink Mountain area is one of the few remaining areas that is relatively undisturbed. This area provides a rich habitat for healthy game where BRFN members feel they can safely drink the water and eat the fish they catch. Many BRFN members visit Pink Mountain on a regular basis to hunt, camp, and fish. It is also an essential area for gathering with other BRFN members to share cultural activities and teach younger BRFN members cultural practices. Figure 6 provides a close-up map of use values in the Pink Mountain Area.
Pink Mountain is considered a clean area not only environmentally but also spiritually, making it an essential resource area for traditional medicines that must be picked from clean undisturbed sites.
...we go to clean areas to pick all of our medicines and all of our teas, and that’s why the Pink Mountain is so important because, at the top, it’s clean, meaning that there are no flare pits, there are no pipelines, there are no people living there. It has to be clean. So, that’s where those medicines are picked ... So, it’s not something you can grow and then pick. It has to be picked in those kinds of areas for medicine. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
The area around Pink Mountain is of heightened importance to BRFN due to industrial development elsewhere in BRFN territory. For example, one member reported that the only good fishing that remains in the territory is around Pink Mountain at the Halfway river and north to the mountains.
Up in the mountains, that’s the only place [safe to eat the fish]. Up in Pink Mountain, you go up there, up the Halfway River, you can fish down there... Go to the Inga Lake, too... Yeah. You know, there’s some good fishing right -- right there [Two-Bit Creek]... You can get rainbow, Dolly, whitefish... they seem to catch all kinds, Dolly, rainbow-- there’s good fishing all the way up the river. (B81 Oct. 28, 2014)
Despite the heightened importance of the area around Pink Mountain, it is being increasingly impacted by development. As one member reported, her son wasn’t able to harvest a single moose while camping at Pink Mountain Ranch this year. This experience is one many BRFN members in the Study echoed and concerns them greatly.
This year he [my son] never even got a moose. He went out, but he never got a moose. That’s what I mean. It’s hard to get a moose, and they’ve been camping up at like Pink Mountain Ranch, and they go out and he come back with nothing. […] Now they won’t have nothing for this winter. So I don’t know, something’s happened with these moose. (B67 Nov. 18, 2104)
Potential Project interactions for the Pink Mountain area include:
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 41 • Disturbance of animals during Project construction, causing them to move further away from the area and deeper into the mountains where they are less accessible to BRFN members;
• Loss of valuable habitat features such as mineral licks, wintering grounds, and calving areas;
• Construction work on the pipeline will bring increasing numbers of people into the area, adding hunting pressure to wildlife populations during construction and beyond the life of the Project;
• Reduction in water quantity and the loss of small creeks and watercourses;
• Contamination or perceived contamination downstream of the LSA and RSA, particularly downstream of the pipeline crossing at the Beatton River;
• Contamination or perceived contamination of animals that live in and drink from creeks and watercourses downstream of the Beatton River crossing;
• Contamination or perceived contamination of plants growing in and around watercourses impacted by the Project; and
• Contamination or perceived contamination of fish in the LSA.
42 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Figure 6: Map of BRFN Reported Use Values for Pink Mountain Area
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 43 4.2.3 The Dancing Grounds and Surrounding Area
The Dancing Grounds, located along the Blueberry River within 7 km of the proposed Project footprint, is one of BRFN’s most important cultural and spiritual sites. The Dancing Grounds are where BRFN Dreamers gathered to dance, drum, and sing and it was also a site used as the base for going out on seasonal hunting and gathering rounds. As described in Section 2, the oral histories of past Dreamers’ visions and teachings remain a highly important facet of BRFN culture. These Dreamers’ stories and visions continue to inform BRFN understandings of how to maintain balance with other people, the animals and the land they depend upon. BRFN members still gather at the Dancing Grounds today for important spiritual and cultural ceremonies and activities. Figure 7 provides a map of use values in the Dancing Grounds area.
A permanent cabin that is used on a regular basis is located at the Dancing Grounds currently. Study participants reported that they not only going to the site for spiritual sustenance, but also for gathering with family and friends to camp and go out hunting. The cultural and spiritual importance of the Dancing Grounds to BRFN cannot be overstated.
That place spiritually and culturally to my family, to me personally, means the world to me … That’s why it’s called the Dancing Grounds. There’s a huge mound on the ground that is two-three feet deep from people dancing. … that place is spiritually is my go-to place. I’ll fight to the end to keep that place protected. Among all places, to me this place is my safe haven. That’s absolutely no-go for industry to me is what it’s supposed to mean for my kids and my family. That’s why it’s again -- I don’t expect you guys to understand, but culturally and spiritually, to my family and to the Beaver people, it’s done wonders. I go to it four times a year, all seasons, spring, summer, fall, winter, because again, like I said, spiritually I’m connected to that place. (B101 Nov. 17, 2014)
The proposed Project route is of great concern to BRFN as it comes so close to this very important site. Many members expressed their concern and noted that in no uncertain terms, they are opposed to any development within close proximity of the Dancing Grounds.
No, I won’t let them. No. No pipeline. That place [the Dancing Grounds] is special for us. Yeah, it’s special place, so they not going to put anything there -- no gas, no logging, no pipeline -- no. … It’s whatever old people -- they’ve been dancing there forever. It’s special place for us. Like really special. Yeah, so we don’t want anything go near there like logging, drilling, pipeline -- nothing. I don’t want nothing to be on there. So, the only place we safe -- safe place. So, it don’t matter. Come in; they want to drill that place, close that place. I’m going to fight with them. Yeah, that special place from our old timer. Forever, I guess, eh? They dance -- that’s why it’s that deep. (B76 Nov. 18, 2014)
Potential Project interactions for the Dancing Grounds include:
• Loss of use of key cultural sites due to increased traffic in the area;
44 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study • Actual and perceived contamination of water downstream of pipeline crossing;
• Actual and perceived contamination of important medicinal and cultural plants next to the Dancing Grounds, downstream of Blueberry River pipeline crossing; and
• Spiritual contamination of an essential BRFN cultural heritage site from increased traffic to the area during and after pipeline construction.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 45 Figure 7: The Dancing Grounds in relationship to the proposed Project footprint, LSA, and RSA
46 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.3 Valued Component Baselines and Project Interactions
This section discusses site-specific and qualitative baseline data as well as potential Project interactions for the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA for the Study VCs:
• Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including:
o Hunting for moose and other animals
o Trapping
o Gathering plants for food and medicines
o Water
• BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• Cultural Heritage and Cultural Continuity
It is important to note that BRFN expressions of all of the VCs listed are increasingly constrained due to a severely impacted baseline from the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, forestry, agricultural development, mining, gravel operations, and other changes to the landscape within BRFN territory. Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.6 address baseline information and potential Project interactions specific to each VC. It is important to note, however, that these VCs are interconnected and potential impacts to one will impact other VCs. The site-specific values detailed in these sections should also be considered within an already-impacted baseline and therefore currently constrain in the practice of BRFN treaty rights. Section 5.2 provides a detailed examination of the cumulatively impacted baseline and section 5.3 examines potential Project interactions that could further exacerbate these cumulative impacts.
4.3.1 Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features
4.3.1.1 Site-specific (mapped) values
As shown in Table 2, a total of 1250 site-specific values were reported for the Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features Valued Component (898 values in the subsistence activity class and 352 values in the environmental feature activity class) in the Study area for the Project (the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA combined). Figure 7 provides a map of these reported site-specific values.
Reports of use for the Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features VC range from 1955 to present (2014) and suggest a long history of ongoing BRFN use in the area. BRFN members report knowledge of continuous use by BRFN rights holders for generations and beyond living memory.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 47 Table 2: Reported BRFN Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features Use Values Total Number of Reported Values for the Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Feature VC within the Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA Within 25km of the North Within 5km of the North Within 250m of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Montney Mainline Pipeline Activity Class Montney Mainline Pipeline (Project RSA), including (Project LSA), including (Project footprint) the LSA and Project the Project footprint footprint # of values # of values # of values Subsistence Harvesting 28 205 898 Environmental Features 31 109 352 Total 59 314 1250
48 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Figure 8: Map of Reported Subsistence and Environmental Features Use Values
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 49 In the Project footprint, a total of 59 values were recorded for the VC for Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features including:
• important wildlife habitat areas (environmental feature);
• important ungulate calving areas (environmental feature);
• mineral lick locations (environmental feature);
• firewood collecting sites (subsistence);
• a safe drinking water location (subsistence);
• berry picking areas (subsistence); and
• wild game kill sites for elk, moose, deer, and chicken (subsistence).
In the Project LSA, 314 values were recorded for the VC for Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including those reported in the footprint. These site-specific values include:
• important wildlife habitat (environmental feature);
• mineral licks (environmental feature);
• important fishing locations (environmental feature);
• important areas for ungulate calving (environmental feature);
• animal crossings and game trails (environmental feature);
• berry picking locations (subsistence);
• safe drinking water sources (subsistence);
• a firewood collecting site (subsistence);
• wild game kill sites for beaver; black bear, caribou, elk, goat, grouse, moose, deer, rabbit (subsistence); and
• fish catch sites for Dolly Varden, grayling, jackfish, kokanee, rainbow trout, and whitefish (subsistence).
In the Project RSA, 1250 values were recorded for the VC for Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features, including those reported in the LSA and Project footprint. These site-specific values include:
• important animal habitat (environmental feature);
• mineral licks (environmental feature);
• fishing sites (environmental feature);
• berry picking areas (subsistence);
• an important poplar tree area (environmental feature);
50 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study • plant habitat areas (environmental feature);
• important plant collecting sites (subsistence);
• safe drinking water sources (subsistence);
• firewood collecting sites (subsistence);
• wild game kill sites for beaver, bison, black bear, caribou, chicken, deer, elk, fisher, goose, goat, grizzly bear, grouse, lynx, marten, moose, deer, porcupine, ptarmigan, rabbit, sheep, squirrel, whistler, wolf, and wolverine (subsistence); and
• fish catch sites for bull trout, Dolly Varden, grayling, jackfish, kokanee, salmon, ling cod, pickerel, rainbow trout, sucker, and whitefish (subsistence).
4.3.1.2 Baseline
4.3.1.2.1 Overview
Subsistence harvesting is at the very foundation of BRFN livelihood, culture, and daily life. Relying on the lands and waters in what is now the BRFN traditional territory has been part of BRFN life for centuries and for time immemorial for the ancestors of the BRFN. BRFN members underscored the essentiality of subsistence harvesting for their way of life and as guaranteed under their treaty rights. As one member described it,
Government, corporation. They see my treaty rights as a document that they read. It’s not something—for me, my treaty rights is something I do. I don’t sit back and read it. It does me no [good] -- I’ll starve! My family will starve if I’m not out actively exercising my treaty rights. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
4.3.1.2.2 Hunting for moose and other animals
Subsistence hunting of moose and other wildlife remains highly important to BRFN members. BRFN participants report relying on a range of species for subsistence hunting, particularly moose. Table 3 shows the total number of moose-related values (kill sites, moose habitat, and mineral licks) reported by Study participants. Mapped values ranged in date from 1965 to 2014.
Table 3: Reported BRFN Use Values for Moose in the Study Area Total Number of Reported Moose-Related Values (subsistence values and environmental feature values combined) within the Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA LSA, within 5km of RSA, within 25km of Mapped Values Project Footprint Project (including Project Project (including LSA footprint) and Project footprint) Moose kill sites (subsistence values), habitat, and mineral licks 35 181 427 (environmental feature values)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 51 In addition to its subsistence value, BRFN participants report that hunting for moose and other animals is also important for a wide range of cultural practices, requirements, and beliefs.
I eat mostly moose - and stuff like that. Buffalo once in a while, and deer. Deer’s good for drums and stuff like that. They’re the best for drums. And moose is good for moccasins, and mukluks, and - stuff like that. … Well, I eat moose every third day, every second day right now. (B99 Nov. 14, 2014)
But we sometime, us, we just share [moose] with the elders. Give the elders a piece. They say it brings a person luck, so, it does. That’s what they say. (B96 Nov. 12, 2014)
Well, you know what, we -- like in summertime, we like to prepare for wintertime. Like, you know, because you have to give the animals chance to -- that’s, that’s about the time they, they, they fatten up, and you want to get a moose that’s healthy. And then, we prepare for wintertime. Like, we put meat away -- like, dry meat and stuff like that, and cutting up meat. And, and, if we’re short of meat in wintertime, sure, we’ll go get a moose, but we can’t make dry meat in wintertime. It’s too cold. So, it’s just that we go get it when we need it. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
BRFN members also view hunting moose and other animals as not only a source for nutrition but also as both a physical and psychological medicine.
See -- our food is our medicine. So, when we were mapping those areas for food, to us that’s a medicine; like, that’s what -- our food is part of the healing process. It not only sustains us, but it is actually our medicine on the land. That’s that relationship with the land. So, we don’t view food as -- you know how you go to restaurants and different things like that? We don’t view that food that way. That food that we get out on the land -- there’s a healing part of it. So, when my mom is feeling quite sick, she’ll go out into camp, and she’ll start eating moose and making it and all that stuff is what heals her. That’s the best way to describe it, I guess, in English. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
It [moose] is very important for us because, at least once a month, we need fresh meat. We try to get at least two moose a month because just to feed everybody with fresh meat because meat is getting too expensive at Fort St. John, and plus, whatever they inject in them is not good because my mother is a cancer survivor, so we try to keep her -- we’re trying to feed her moose meat all the time. (B84 Nov. 6, 2014)
BRFN knowledge holders underscored the importance of harvesting animals from areas they know are safe and uncontaminated from industrial development. However, these areas are becoming increasingly difficult to find.You know what? It makes a big difference. It makes a big difference if you don’t have no well site or anything in that [your hunting] area. It makes a big difference … And the moose is really fresh -- it smells good. It tastes good and everything. (B90 Nov. 4, 2014)
52 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study A large number of BRFN Study participants expressed concern about declines in animal populations, particularly moose, in what were once rich hunting areas. They noted that the decrease in moose has become more marked in recent years.
Since 2006, there’s hardly any moose in this country. Nobody listens. Not just me been saying that. Our current chief been saying that. His brothers been saying that. Deaf ears. Government hears what they want to hear. It’s getting harder and harder. You know, there’s -- my brother and I will travel great extents go and get a moose. We have to. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
The last couple years have really stood out. And last summer and this summer you really notice it [decline in moose]. And where we usually always see moose, that’s how we don’t see them anymore. You usually see a lot of tracks a lot of signs. You don’t hardly see that anymore – they’re being over- hunted. (B51 Nov. 14, 2014)
A lot of people are not coming back this fall with success [hunting moose], or last fall, and they’re almost talking to some of them, saying they should stop the hunting and whatever, for a couple of years or whatever, and just -- because it’s just -- it’s not a good sign. (B82 Oct. 29, 2014)
BRFN knowledge holders dispute reports that moose populations are not declining, as their regular, sometimes daily, trips out on the land indicate that there is a drastic decline in moose. As one highly active BRFN land user recounted,
I said, “I’m an outdoorsman. I’m out there all the time, year-round. Where’s the studies and that? Where’s this moose? ‘Cause I don’t see ‘em.” So, I mean, it’s frustrating when I hear people say, “Oh, there’s plenty of game!” There isn’t. It’s being wiped out. … And I’m here to doubt them ... And, to put them in their place and let them know that ain’t true. My elders don’t lie. My hunters and trappers don’t lie -- ‘cause I’m one of them. (B101 Nov. 19, 2014)
Many BRFN knowledge holders expressed concern about their food security when unable to harvest enough moose and other animals for their families’ needs.
[on not successfully hunting moose in summer/fall 2014] I told [my son], “You know, my grandchildren are going to have to do without dried meat this winter.” Because that’s what I do for them. I make dried meat for them, and they bag it all in baggies and put it in the deep freeze for them, and they ration that for the winter. And they love dried meat. They live in Fort St. John. Now they won’t have nothing for this winter. So I don’t know, something’s happened with these moose. (B67 Nov. 18, 2104)
Yeah, it [moose] is very important, because you know, right now, you never know, maybe the moose might be gone one day. How are people going to survive? (B96 Nov. 12, 2014)
BRFN members observe that increasing traffic, hunters, and numbers of prey species (especially wolves) are also affecting populations of moose and other wildlife.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 53 But now, I don’t know because all the activity and everything, right? Even this summer, we noticed that the moose were, like, weren’t as plentiful, or harder to get. I don’t know if it was because of the wolves and the activity. So, like, there was -- we noticed that right off the bat. Usually, […] we’d be getting moose like crazy. It took three weeks or whatever before somebody got one moose. (B53 Nov. 18, 2014)
Well, back then there was a lot of moose back there, but right now it’s not that way anymore…because, like I said, there’s too many hunters – way too many hunters – way too many tags being given out. And that’s the big thing – they’re not giving the moose a chance. There’s too many hunters, and a lot of predators these last couple years. It’s the hardest hunting I’ve seen in the last few years here. Last year and this year was very hard hunting. Way too many – yeah – there’s too many hunters. There’s hunters everywhere and they’re bringing a lot of people here. (B51 Nov. 14, 2014)
BRFN members note that the numbers of moose and other animals are decreasing due to habitat fragmentation and loss, and due to increasing hunting pressures from non-Native hunters. The vehicle traffic in the Project area is also negatively impacting the moose populations.
When there’s lots of activity but you don’t see no moose. But, they get run over. …Yeah, the Alaska Highway, you go through there. You get lucky to never see no carcass on the side of the road. They always get run over. (B07 Nov. 4, 2014)
With all the logging trucks and all these people who work out there and, you know, they all … they run over moose and you always see dead moose on the road and I just can’t stand that any more. (B89 Nov. 4, 2014)
Key animal species, particularly moose, are the staple food for many BRFN members. They hold not only important subsistence value but also cultural values. BRFN members teach their children BRFN cultural values, oral histories, and practices through the hunting, processing, and eating of moose and other animals. The value of moose, and access to vibrant, healthy animal populations within easy distances by BRFN, cannot be overstated.
4.3.1.2.3 Trapping
The BRFN traplines hold great historic, ongoing and desired future use value for BRFN members. BRFN members stress the importance of traplines for the ongoing practice of their traditional mode of life. Spatial analysis shows that BRFN traplines fall within the Project footprint, LSA and RSA of the proposed NMML Project, particularly over the southern half of the proposed Kahta pipeline (see Figure 9). These traplines are held by the Davis, Apsassin and Yahey families.
BRFN members describe the importance of traplines in the Beatton, Aitken, Buckinghorse, Montney, and Pink Mountain areas of their territory:
[My family] Trapped in that area…. My other grandparents, trapped in the
54 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Beatton River Road. The Beatton, all in back, in that area. So, that’s where we grew up, and stuff. In cabins. Trap line. (B26 Nov. 4, 2014)
[Aitken Creek] In this area, I know it as a place where my family lived, trapped, hunted. We did all out -- and our culture uses. We pick a whole bunch of stuff for that. Trap, hunt --what else -- berry picking, plant picking. Pretty much it is our whole life. (B27 Oct. 29, 2014)
South of Buckinghorse… probably to Montney and from Pink Mountain to… the Beatton is my area - hunting, trapping, fishing. That’s the main and if I’m out on other places then… if we’re trapping or hunting or fishing, then we do that. That is the main area and then all of the other areas usually I don’t carry my gun past that area. (B28 Nov. 13, 2014)
We used to camp where the Nig Creek and the Beatton River -- right -- not in the -- the Beatton River Road and the Nig Creek cross, there’s a little -- we’d camp around in there. We had a cabin just about seven clicks from the Nig Creek River. We’d camp there and trap. We did a lot of hunting and that for years. Still go hunting back that way. But even then, too, it’s hard to see stuff. We’ve got a cabin up the Beatton River at Kilometer 85 or 83 that we use and go -- just to go picnic there in the summer, basically, now, right? (B53, Nov. 18, 2014)
BRFN members reported that trapping was an integral part of their seasonal round. Large areas of their territory are required for successful trapping, and the movement from one area to another throughout the seasons was an important part of BRFN traditional mode of life.
Well, we, we, we trap -- we trap in areas, but we don’t trap the whole trap in one season. Like, we use that -- we use our trap line in four season. Our land is four season. Like, in the springtime, it will be we’re hunting; summertime, we go camping; fall time, we, we go get it ready for the winter -- a bunch of time we’ve trapped. And in summertime, when we camp, we camp in different areas, and we don’t just go to just particularly one area. It’s seen with beaver hunting. We go out in the creek where we think -- where we think -- where -- because beaver moves around. Wherever we think there’s a lot of beaver, that’s where we go. And wintertime, we trap, depending on what you trap, like with martin or lynx, like, you know, you go around fall time. That’s why you prepare like in fall time where we leave the trap for lynx, where we leave the trap for martin. So, in those areas, you trap for the fur, and then, you know, next year, you trap in different areas. But now a days, there’s so much -- there’s so much traffic out there, it doesn’t matter where you go. Like, the animals, they constantly move around. So, you, you have to trap just about everywhere, you know, because they move around so much. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
Yeah. It was late ’70s probably, toward the late more, ’75, ’76, and then on, right. Because we didn’t have a lot of vehicles then. There was only very few people got vehicles, so transportation was to get up there from where we were
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 55 living. Before me, my father and my grandfathers, they traveled with a dog team and horses, right, and they hunted, they utilized the whole area… They never overhunted one area or over chopped one area… But they maneuvered all over. They all trapped together. They all hunted together. Everybody, right. So they never over harvested in one area. They maneuvered around, right. And it only makes sense. Why would you hunt out all the game in one area? They were conservationists on their own then, right. Today you’ll notice the -- well, you guys won’t notice, but today our people, the Dane-zaa people, are doing the same thing. Like myself, I’m teaching my kids. The Dane-zaa people are the hunters of the community, constantly trapping. That’s something they were taught from way back, and it’s a generational thing, right. (B101 Nov. 14, 2014)
Trapping continues to play an important role for BRFN members. As one member explains:
Good hunting and good trapping. You can’t just build cabins anywhere. Yeah, I want to build a cabin. No -- you want to do it for wintertime, for hunting and trapping. You want to go hunting. There’s nothing in there, because it’s not their habitat, where they live...Right there, everything. I trap everything in there -- lynx, marten. In summertime, too, good hunting - grouse. So, I could use that cabin all year-round; wintertime, summertime. In other words, this other cabin - the first one I built in ’99 - that is just for winter trapping. There’s a creek in there, but it’s not always running. Mostly, I use that for winter trapping...Wolverine, fisher, squirrels, wolves -- a lot of wolves. (B05 Nov. 14, 2014)
56 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Figure 9: BRFN registered traplines within vicinty of the Project area
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 57 4.3.1.2.4 Gathering plants for food and medicines
Knowledge of, collection and proper use of medicinal plants remain an important and active part of keeping healthy and treating illness for many BRFN members.
It’s like Indian medicine, but it’s like things like Labrador leaves. When we have like a really bad cold and stuff you pick those from the roots, pull them out of the ground try not to wreck the root, and you boil that with in winter and you just boil it for an hour and a half and it’s supposed to help you, like, get rid of your cold, flu and stuff and I tried it and it does work, yeah. ...And like fungus and stuff like that we use that for smudge … It’s like holy water, just like that. And yeah, just like bless our homes and stuff like that. Rat root we -- my dad uses that for like toothaches and stuff like that. Yeah. And ear infections and stuff like that. My son had an ear infection last spring and my dad made him drink -- made a juice jug full of rat root tea and he drank that and it helped. (B103 Nov. 18, 2014)
BRFN members also noted that plants are safer to eat when harvested from a healthy ecosystem, without the risks of pesticides and other chemicals that can be found in commercial foods. However, they also note that those healthy, undisturbed ecosystems are increasingly difficult to find and that their berry picking sites that were once abundant are no longer available for BRFN subsistence.
[on the importance of wild berries] Very important, because, you know what? If you buy berries in town, like, they’re grown on farmland and they all seem to get sprayed with chemicals. But when they’re out here -- like out in the bush -- they don’t get sprayed with chemicals, you know? It’s just natural. It’s natural herbs, natural plants, natural food you get from Mother Earth. (B71 Nov. 12, 2014)
There’s too much activity going on. And where we used to pick berries at 156, that’s destroyed. That’s where it’s going to go across -- the pipeline. On across and it’s going down the other way. And it’s going toward -- one is on this side of the lake -- Lily Lake and it’s not going to be very far from it. And it’s going across the Sikanni and that way. We used to camp there all the time -- all over. (B01 Nov. 3, 2014)
I try to take my girls and teach them about berry picking and where to look for them and where do we go, and, you know, as we drive I let them know where I used to pick berries with my grandmother, and to see those places where I used to go and pick berries with my grandmother impacted so that I can’t even show my girls, “This is where we went,” and they can’t even pick from the same place, that’s disheartening. That saddens me, because it hasn’t been more than 20 years that we’ve gone, and it’s already impacted. So I guess my concern is we’re having to look at different places to go and access berries and plants and to go hunting—by the time they’re my age, are they going to be able to access that, or are they going to be searching again as well? (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
58 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.3.1.2.5 Water
BRFN participants reported the importance of clean drinking water. They reported that finding clean water is increasingly difficult in the region due to industrial development.
We take our own water [when going out on the land]. We never used to. We used to get it from a creek -- any creek. Now we can’t drink it. But what we do is we buy bottles of water -- the jugs and then what do we do is we use those creeks for washing dishes. Wash our face. Like that. Many, many years ago we used to just drink anywhere. Good water. Now we can’t. There’s too many well sites. We can’t trust the well sites. (B01 Nov. 3, 2014)
BRFN participants also reported that the quantity of water in creeks and streams is decreasing in the region due to industrial activity.
And all the water – like in Sikanni right now - it used to be a river, now it looks like a creek. It’s pathetic. … Because all the fracking. They’re taking all that water. It used to be an actual river, but now it looks like a creek and, I don’t know. I don’t think it’s fair to the animals - at all. (B99 Nov. 14, 2014)
4.3.1.3 Project Interactions: Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features
4.3.1.3.1 Overview
BRFN knowledge holders highlighted that the proposed Project route, which runs through multiple important habitat areas known to BRFN members, will exacerbate existing impacts from industrial development on subsistence resources. Many BRFN members in the Study said that their subsistence harvesting activities stand to be highly impacted by the proposed Project.
It [the pipeline] is totally going to affect everything. There’s going to be more traffic -- definitely more traffic, more damages to land -- to our water -- everything -- berries. ... It’s very -- land is very important. Our water is very important. (B19 Nov. 5, 2014)
4.3.1.3.2 Hunting for moose and other wildlife
As described above in Section 4.3.1.2.2, BRFN members underscored the continued importance of subsistence hunting for their livelihoods, health and cultural practices. The majority of Study participants expressed a high level of concern about additional impacts to moose and other animals in the Project area, because they have observed a decrease in the availability of healthy moose and other animals in recent years. This is a concern that was underscored time and again in the larger context of the amount of lands and waters needed to support all BRFN subsistence harvesting activities.
So if you think about it, just that section [between the Buckinghorse and the Sikanni Chief Rivers], all the wells that’s got to feed that one line, how
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 59 much of that hunting you going to take away from me, my kids, my family, and the other nations, right? That’s a huge impact. If you have that for 50 years, there’s nothing left. As it is right now, we’re having a hard time. All the game is disappearing, without even these lines being put in place. (B101 Nov. 17, 2104)
BRFN participants also reported that noise and disruption during Project construction would scare animals away from the Project area.
[on impacts of the pipeline] Well, like all the noise, of course, all the noise and stuff. Because I think all the game is going to push back. (B99 Nov. 14, 2014)
Well, if they’re going to have road accesses to the pipeline area, then, yeah, it’ll chase away a lot of game. (B113 Nov. 19, 2014)
BRFN members noted that the Project would bring increased numbers of people into the area, adding to hunting pressure on existing wildlife populations. Increased roads results in increased access to hunting areas. As workers on the Project get to know the area they will undoubtedly bring other hunters to the area.
There’s people everywhere. And a lot of these pipelines that they’re doing – all these big projects. You have all these people working in all these areas they all come back in hunting season. And they bring a lot of people with them. So, the moose are being hit all season – like all year round from all directions. (B51 Nov. 14, 2014)
There are way too many [people and roads] out there. You go around here now. It’s just crazy -- the roads that are here. The trap lines and that -- it’s all wide open. You can drive around here. Back then, you got a lot of game. Now, there are so many roads. During hunting season, you go around a little bend and there’s somebody camping. They don’t give anything a chance to stabilize the population. But, the animals that -- the predators are hitting the moose the same way, from one side and the hunters from one side. How are they going to have a chance? The next thing, it’s going to be like urban areas around there. There’s going to be nothing. (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
There’s going to be a lot of access being opened up, you know, and a lot of virgin ground being opened up. What’s going to really bother me is the access -- people getting access into some of these places that weren’t accessible before... These last couple years, the hunting was very hard. I’ve never hunted that hard before, and that’s because this access is so easy and over-hunting. There are too many hunters now. So, that’s going to affect a lot, and this is going to open up a lot of country to a lot of people. All of them have everything they need. You know, they can jump on their bikes and their side-by-sides, their 4x4s. They’ve got all the gas they need. ... It’s because of the guys that worked there, that went through there. They’re bringing people back. They’re telling all their friends and all. They’re letting their friends and all. Next thing, some of these places are just hunted out. That’s what’s happened here all over this area. (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
60 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study BRFN members noted that they already have difficulty finding moose and other animals within easy distance from their homes, making it more and more expensive and thus less accessible to practice their necessary subsistence harvesting activities. They predict that the Project would further compound these challenges.
That hunting is going to be a big thing. It’s really -- I’ve never seen it so hard, and that is -- it’s a big thing. It’s very hard to get a moose, and you spend a lot of money and time just to get one. You know, it’s going to get to the point where you’re going -- where it’s going to cost you 300 bucks to go get a moose. That’s only fuel, and we used to always do it just like nothing. It’s not that way anymore. (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
I do think by doing any sort of impact to the land, it will always push the animals farther away, and, within the past few years, we’ve had many, many members noticing when they’re going out hunting that where we originally would hunt, near here, you can’t anymore—you’re just not seeing them, they’re not around as much. So, a lot of our hunters and people that go out are going farther into the bush and farther north to be able to access and get moose and game. (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
BRFN knowledge holders note that it is not only increased access and hunting pressure that will affect wildlife populations. BRFN members also identified impacts from the loss of important habitat features, including important ungulate wintering and calving grounds, mineral licks, and grazing areas.
These mineral licks, these mineral licks been there for thousands and thousands of years, been used by animals. Used by Dane-zaa people, thousands of years. For that development to come through and take that away from our future, I don’t know.... It isn’t going to benefit me. I’m not associated with that pipeline, I’m not a contractor. I don’t have any economic interest. My interest is in being able to harvest, or to harvest off the land. Exercising my treaty rights, that’s my interest. ... It hurts me. It harms me. It harms my health, my potential health. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
They [moose] are disappearing. They’re going -- they’re moving somewhere or they’re being destroyed. There’s too much access. They’re being, you know, harvested by public. … So they got their lack of space, it’s disappearing. There’s no protection for them. Animals can’t speak. So they’re being slaughtered out there, not only by the public, but their wintering grounds, their calving, is being taken away from them. And our way of life is taken away from us right in front of us. (B101 Nov. 17, 2104)
It was around this time of year, when they’re [moose] usually fat, but it wasn’t because there’s, again, you take away all the food the source by opening up all these roads and well sites. You take the prime wintering grounds from them -- yeah, they have nothing to live on. So, they start browsing on twigs and the food they can live off of, but wouldn’t, you know, all the nutrition. It’s not good for them, but they can live off it. So, that’s where they lose all their body fat. So, again, it ain’t great. (B101 Nov. 19, 2014)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 61 Harvest data collected during a previous harvest study (Gibson and the Firelight Group 2014) also documents a dramatic difference between preferred, minimum, and current harvest levels and that BRFN harvesters are well below minimum harvest levels, especially for moose. Reductions were reported in both the quantity and quality (weight, contaminated meat, and illness) of key species in preferred harvesting areas. Reductions in access to and use of key areas were also reported due to overcrowding by other hunters and garbage deterring BRFN use. As a result BRFN members report that there are fewer places to go to harvest animals, they must travel further to find animals to harvest, and that hunts are consequently less successful and more expensive. The study also reports multiple social impacts on the community from this, including food security, income security, cultural continuity and health issues.
4.3.1.3.3 Trapping
BRFN members expressed concerns about the cumulative impacts on BRFN trapping in their territory, as well as the potential negative impacts on trapping from the proposed Project.
This northwest area [of the Beatton watershed], we own a trap line, my family own a trap line. The log industry, they built a lot on our land, so is the oil, oil companies. That’s why now I’m trying to fight with them, to compensate us, and get us another trap line, because that trap line is ruined. (B60 Oct. 28, 2014)
But that pipeline will like big, big affect Blueberry First Nations because we’re -- we camp where we hunt our moose. It’s -- the, the pipeline, it’s, it’s too -- it’s too wide open, and the wild game hunters, and also, they push the wildlife, you know, further into the North, like into a higher country. It’s -- in, in, in that area, there’s several trap hunting areas too, like one of them is Apsassin trap line. And, and that’s where my parents raised 20 children in […] in the trap line. And, and that’s, that’s, that’s how they raised and survived their kids; with, with the trap line. But with a pipeline like this, there’s no way they would’ve survived in that trap line -- if it go through the trap line. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
We, we, we had -- like I said, my parents, they, they raised 20 kids in the trap line, and that trap line is not the same today. And that goes for all the other trap, trap line families; that it’s not the same because government is -- industries, they’re going in there, and, and clearing all the land, taking the livelihood away from First Nation people. It’s sad to say. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
I’ll tell you, up in my trap line, you go up there right now, you don’t see no tracks, no nothing. It’s not like it used to be. You used to go out there just like you go in a restaurant and go get whatever you want to eat. But not even a rabbit, nothing out there. No -- you can’t trap squirrels, it’s all clear cut. (B30 Oct. 30, 2014)
BRFN members also reported that the increasing numbers of people out on the land often leave discarded food behind. This food attracts predators and small furbearers.
62 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study The availability of garbage as an easy food source reduces the success of BRFN trappers as the traps they set are less attractive to furbearers which feed off of garbage left in the area. BRFN members also reported that their traps are vandalized when traffic to an area increases, sometimes including the theft of animals in the traps.
4.3.1.3.4 Gathering plants for food and medicines
BRFN members also reported that potential use of pesticides and herbicides on the pipeline ROW would make berries, food plants, and medicine plants unsafe to eat. Pesticides and herbicides would also affect the animals that rely on those plants for food.
They sprayed on pesticides in the grass to quit growing. Which kinds of pesticides are they putting in? …They kill all these leaves. What are they putting in there? Which kind of chemical is that? It must be powerful enough to kill them and the way animals live off them, fresh, growing new shoots. It’s what they eat -- lots. If they kill it, this year or next year, it might grow back, but it will have that chemical when they grow up -- those leaves -- the grass and willows... Not good. I eat them, too, so -- I eat moose. (B05 Oct. 28, 2014)
Study participants also reported that the increased road traffic would result in dust and exhaust that would contaminate berries and plants, making them physically and spiritually unclean and contaminated.
So, the more you see roads, the more you see the flaring and all those types of resource extractions happening, and the more people come in 4x4ing and hunting and camping themselves, it opens up that land base. It actually destroys the ability for us to pick our medicines because it has to be in a clean place. So, it’s unlikely that we would go off the side of the road to just pick stuff like that because it has to be clean. … If [Pink Mountain] did not have a reserve on it, like a protection on it at Pink Mountain, you wouldn’t go back there. You just would not go back there because you can’t use that. It’s contaminated; not just physically but spiritually. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
Many BRFN participants also reported that areas once rich with berries are no longer good harvesting areas. They attribute these losses to the environmental impacts and the scale of industrial development in the area, thereby affecting overall plant health and productivity.
All my ancestors, and they use most of those lands [around the Project area]. Now you can’t even pick berries...I don’t know. Two years ago, me and my mother-in-law and my wife and my stepdaughter, we went out, and half a day, we pick up ten gallons of berries... And this year we went out again, we can’t even find none... Blueberries. Low bush blueberries... I think it’s because of these -- it’s all them gas, right here... You can see the plants there, the blueberry bushes there, but there’s nothing growing on it. I don’t know why it happened, but...It’s getting worse every year. The more oil well they drill, the more pipeline they build, it’s destroying this whole land. (B81 Oct. 28, 2014)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 63 BRFN members reported that even with reclamation efforts, ecosystems do not return to the way they were prior to industrial disturbance, resulting in a permanent loss of berry picking areas and important food sources for wildlife.
When they spray herbicide, they eradicate all species of the previous ecosystem. The grasses will come back, but the shrubs, the shrubs -- you’ll see rose come back. But in terms of the shrubs, any kind of shrubs, low-lying shrubs, they never come back. If you go back into any of those old blocks that were done 20 years ago, fine, the spruce trees are growing. But you look underneath, on the forest floor, and it’s grass. ...And you don’t have the cranberries, you don’t have the -- you don’t even have the willow. These species are erased forever. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
4.3.1.3.5 Water
BRFN participants expressed concern about the potential for the contamination of waterways, particularly where the pipeline would cross rivers and creeks, at crossings and further downstream. BRFN knowledge holders also noted that the Project would cross through some of the few remaining areas with clean water. They also described these potential impacts within an interconnected web of impacts and highlighted the importance of recognizing that one impact can in turn cause or affect another impact.
From my perspective as a First Nation Indian person under the Treaty, that Project is going through a lot of creeks, rivers. It’s going into territories that have clean areas that are left, and there are very few and far between for hunting. So, it’s not just impacting us in the moment, but it impacts us for the time period it would take for reclamation. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
And the creek crosses, whatever, that does an impact on the wildlife living in the creeks, whether it’s directly or indirectly -- a long period of time -- it could do a lot more detriment than, you know -- they say it’s not going to hurt, but sure enough, how do they know? (B53 Nov. 18, 2014)
And then there’s always the worry that one of the pipes are going to break, if they do cross a river and cross a creek. And everything downstream will be affected. (B113 Nov. 19, 2014)
My greatest concerns are the crossings of the pipeline on each of the rivers? ...Those are my greatest concerns—those are water bodies. As most of us are aware, our fresh water supply is, I guess, being threatened, it seems, every day... Within those streams, there’s fishing there. Even though mainly our food that we gather is moose and elk—and, some people, deer—small game like rabbits—you do have a lot of members who access the rivers all along here for fishing. All the animals that we hunt, as well, access the waters, so, through all the rivers, you will always have animals that stay close to the water. Birthing season, animals will make sure that they’re close a water body. So, I do have concerns with the pipeline crossing the rivers. (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
64 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.3.1.4 Summary
In summary, potential Project interactions on the BRFN VC for Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features include, but are not limited to:
Hunting and trapping
• Disturbance of animals during Project construction, causing them to move away from the area;
• Habitat fragmentation, limiting animal movement and reducing the size of available habitat areas;
• Loss of valuable habitat features such as mineral licks, wintering grounds, and calving areas;
• Decreased numbers of healthy animals due to loss of grazing areas;
• Construction work on the pipeline bringing increasing numbers of people into the area, adding hunting pressure to wildlife populations during construction and beyond the life of the Project;
• Decreased wildlife population due to road kill from increased vehicle traffic in the area;
• Reduced trapping access and success due to vandalization of and theft from BRFN traps; and
• Need for BRFN members to travel further to practice subsistence harvesting.
Gathering plants for food and medicine
• Direct removal of plants during the creation of the Project ROW;
• Replacement of native species with non-native species during construction, operations and reclamation;
• Permanent loss of plant and/or plant harvesting habitat even after reclamation efforts as some native plants do not return within a harvester’s lifetime, thereby effectively causing the permanent loss of knowledge of that harvesting habitat;
• Contamination or perceived contamination of berries, plants, and medicines, causing BRFN members to cease harvesting essential subsistence plant foods and medicinal plants in the Study area, by:
o contamination along the pipeline ROW during Project construction;
o spraying of pesticides and herbicides on the pipeline ROW or along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction and maintenance; and
o road traffic (dust and exhaust) along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction or maintenance.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 65 Water
• Reduction in water quantity and the loss of small creeks and watercourses;
• Deforestation for the creation of the pipeline ROW adding to water run-off effects and potential flooding in key watersheds;
• Contamination and perceived contamination in the Project footprint and LSA, and downstream in the RSA, of:
o rivers and watercourses, particularly at pipeline crossing points;
o fish
o animals that live in and drink the water;
o plants growing in and around watercourses.
The potential Project interactions identified here are an initial assessment only and as such, merit further assessment and consultation with BRFN. Based on these initial potential Project interactions, the proposed Project may have important and potentially significant impacts on BRFN members’ ability to practice subsistence harvesting activities that have not been adequately characterized to date in this EA. This would particularly be the case in the Project footprint. Without further research and a proper reconsideration of impact characterization in light of this new evidence brought forward by BRFN in this Study, the Proponent’s estimate of insignificant adverse effects on wildlife harvesting by the Project, alone and in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future developments, cannot be held in high confidence.
4.3.2 BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
4.3.2.1 Site-specific (mapped) values
As shown in Table 7, a total of 524 site-specific values for the BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters Valued Component (342 in the habitation activity class and 182 in the transportation activity class) were reported in the Study area for the Project (the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA combined). Figure 8 provides a map of reported site-specific values for the BRFN VC for Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
Use values mapped range from the 1930s to present (2014), although it should be noted that qualitative data describe use for generations, highlighting a long history of ongoing BRFN use in the area. BRFN members report that BRFN rights holders have been camping and travelling in the Project area for generations and beyond living memory.
66 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Table 4: Reported BRFN Use Values for the Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters VC Total Number of Reported CONTINUED ACCESS AND USE Values within 250M, LSA, and RSA Within 25km of the North Within 5km of the North Within 250m of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Montney Mainline Pipeline Mapped Activity Class Montney Mainline Pipeline (Project RSA), including (LSA), including the (Project footprint) the LSA and Project Project footprint footprint # of values # of values # of values Habitation 10 63 342 Transportation 62 105 182 Total 59 314 1250
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 67 Figure 10: Reported use values for Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters VC
68 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study In the Project footprint, 72 values were recorded for the BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters VC, including:
• frequently returned-to camping areas (habitation);
• important trails for hunting, trapping, berry picking, accessing important fishing sites, dog team trails, accessing camping areas, and cabins (transportation); and
• water transportation routes used by boat, canoe and kayak (transportation).
In the Project LSA, 96 additional values were recorded for the BRFN Continued Access, Habitation, and Use of Lands and Waters VC, in addition to those reported in the footprint, including:
• important and regularly returned-to camping locations (habitation);
• permanent cabin locations (habitation); and
• important trails for hunting, accessing camps, and collecting firewood (transportation).
In the Project RSA, 356 additional values were recorded for the BRFN Continued Access, Habitation, and Use of Lands and Waters VC, in addition to those reported in the footprint and LSA, including:
• important and regularly returned-to camping locations and permanent cabins (habitation);
• important trails for hunting, accessing camps, accessing fishing locations (habitation);
• horse trails (transportation); and
• water transportation routes for canoeing, kayaking, and boating (transportation).
4.3.2.2 Baseline
The ability to continue to access, live in, and use lands and waters are of critical value and importance to BRFN culture, way of life, and livelihood. Many BRFN participants recalled being out on the land learning BRFN values and practices from the time they were small children. They highlighted the importance of younger generations having those same opportunities. Unimpaired access to a healthy and intact ecosystem that supports the community’s ability to hunt, trap, camp, fish, and be out on the land is essential for the continued existence of BRFN as a people. Study participants underscored the importance of being out on the land and highlighted it as an essential part of being a BRFN member.
My nephew, he’s 10. He wants to -- it’s within him to want to go and do these things. It’s, I don’t know, natural, or whatever. But it’s his desire. Not just him, you know? It’s probably in every 10-year-old kid in Blueberry’s heart to have
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 69 that desire, go out and be able to hunt, be able to go to these places. And if we don’t have these key areas left, you know, … we don’t have -- we won’t have anything. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
[When I was a child] There was lots of lake, and moose, and deer, caribou and we picked berries and uh, my gramma would pick lots of blueberries and cranberries and she would dry them in the sun and sometimes she’d put them for us to eat for supper. (B88 Nov. 4, 2014)
Many BRFN members highlighted the importance of being out on the land, not only for subsistence harvesting but also for deeply spiritual reasons. The land not only feeds BRFN members physically but also spiritually, and access to an undisturbed landscape is essential for this.
That’s [getting out on the land] my cure, or whatever, I don’t know what you call it. You know, people go to Mexico or whatever they do. Me, I go to the bush. I need to do that. If I don’t do that, I’m not well. You know, spiritually, I’m not well. And when you’re not well spiritually, it’s no good. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
However, areas of healthy and intact ecosystems available for BRFN members to practice their treaty rights are more and more and more difficult to find. BRFN participants expressed grief at the loss of existing lands and access and the potential for even greater loss in the future. This impacted baseline is more fully detailed in Section 5.2 on BRFN Cumulative Impacts Baseline.
Like, you really enjoy the, the, the land, the fresh air out there, and you know. Waking up in the morning, you know, not thinking about... You’re free. It’s like you’re free. Your mind is cleared, and you’re cleansed out, and, and there’s no load on if you just enjoy it out there. And that’s why First Nation people, when they live off the land, like they live for a long time -- a long time. I really don’t know what to say, you know, anymore because our, our livelihood is pretty well destroyed. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
Decreased access to country foods and traditional lifestyle is correlated in studies with reduced physical activity and an increase in the consumption of high-cost, store- bought foods, including processed meats and other products with less-than-ideal nutritional value (Lawn and Harvey 2006; Damman et al. 2008; Kuhnlein and Turner 1991). Accordingly, health effects such as increases in obesity rates, high blood pressure and diabetes have been linked to this shift away from traditional livelihoods in Canadian Aboriginal peoples.
70 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 4.3.2.3 Project Interactions
BRFN knowledge holders reported that the Project would open up further access to the area and likely bring additional hunters who increase pressure on wildlife populations and would also pollute the land by leaving garbage behind. This would reduce BRFN members’ desire to use the area for camping, hunting or other activities.
So if this one pipeline -- it actually is going to open up that area for additional roads, so there is a cumulative impact, which is adverse. Those roads open, and then you have forestry come in. Forestry comes in and there are cut blocks coming in. They come in, and then, all of a sudden, you’ve got hunting coming in. The hunters come in. They bring all their four-wheelers, and they bring all their garbage. So, really, by opening it up and saying it’s just one little pipeline and that there aren’t other factors that are part of that huge impact to our way of life is very narrow and with blinders. It just doesn’t make sense to me. When we view the land, we don’t view the land as a thing. It is a life force, and we have a relationship with that land because we’re connected to it because it sustains our life force. So, you cannot take it apart and look at it in one little piece or one part. It is as one. (B98 Nov. 14, 2014)
BRFN members expressed concern that during construction of the Project, workers would gain access and knowledge of the area. Their presence would also increase traffic on existing and new roads. In addition, BRFN knowledge holders reported that Project construction staff would return with additional friends and family to the area to hunt after Project construction is completed. This additional noise and activity on the land would also deter BRFN members from using or visiting the area for camping or other traditional activities.
There’s going to be a lot of activity. There are going to be a lot of people in there. … right now, on Sunday, they [camp workers] don’t work. That means three days you have two, two days free, and those two days -- these guys in the camp -- what are they going to do? They’re going to go drive around -- go drive around all the roads. (B05 Oct. 28, 2014)
BRFN members also note that they are less likely to visit or use an area where subsistence resources, including moose and other wildlife, fish and berries, have been depleted or are thought to be contaminated.
4.3.2.4 Summary
Potential Project interactions on BRFN’s continued access and use of lands and waters, identified in this Study, include:
• The destruction of, lack of access to, and/or reduced value of specific important sites for harvesting resources or cultural activities due to the creation of the pipeline;
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 71 • Reduced access to and/or use of general areas due to:
o increased traffic and noise changing the character and safety of an area;
o the presence of increasing numbers of people, particularly more non-Aboriginal hunters;
o the depletion of resources in those areas;
o due to contamination and perception of contamination of resources in the area; and
o garbage pollution on the land.
The potential Project interactions identified here are only an initial assessment and merit further assessment and consultation with BRFN. Based on these initial Project interactions, the proposed Project may have important and significant impacts on BRFN members’ ability to access and use the Project area for living, camping, gathering, and practicing subsistence harvesting activities on the land that have not been adequately characterized to date in this EA. This would particularly be the case in the Project footprint, with impacts on other forms of use and values in the LSA, and RSA. Without further research and a proper reconsideration of impact characterization in light of this new evidence brought forward by BRFN in this Study, the Proponent’s estimate of insignificant adverse effects on wildlife harvesting by the Project, alone and in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future developments, cannot be held in high confidence.
4.3.3 Cultural Heritage and Continuity
4.3.3.1 Site-specific (mapped) values
As shown in Table 5, a total of 461 site-specific values for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity Valued Component were reported in the Study area for the Project (the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA combined). Figure 9 provides a map of reported site-specific values for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC.
Reports of use range from the 1800s to present (2014), suggesting the ongoing importance of the Project area for BRFN cultural practices. BRFN members highlighted the importance of the Project area for cultural continuity and noted that it has been at the center of Dane-zaa culture for generations and beyond living memory.
72 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Table 5: Reported BRFN Use Values for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC Total Number of Reported Cultural Heritage & Continuity Values within 250 m, LSA, and RSA of the Project Within 25km of the North Within 5km of the North Within 250m of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Montney Mainline Pipeline Mapped Values Montney Mainline Pipeline (Project RSA, including (Project LSA, including (Project footprint) the Project footprint and the Project footprint) LSA) # of values # of values # of values Cultural Heritage & Continuity 19 119 461
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 73 Figure 11: Map of Reported Use Values for Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC
74 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study In the Project footprint, 19 values were recorded for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC including:
• avoidance areas due to increase in roads and accessibility, oil, and gas development, and pollution;
• important trapping areas;
• a dry meat rack location;
• archaeological and heritage resource collecting sites;
• a place name;
• a medicinal plant growth area; and
• meat processing sites.
In the Project LSA, 119 values were recorded for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC including those reported in the footprint. Reported values include:
• reports of avoidance areas due to increased industrial activity, traffic, and contamination;
• birth places;
• burial sites;
• ceremony locations;
• dry meat rack locations;
• gathering places;
• archaeological and heritage resource collecting sites;
• medicinal plant growth locations;
• place names;
• meat processing sites;
• spiritual locations; and
• teaching areas (how to fish, hunt, skin animals, track animals, trap, and the history of area).
In the Project RSA, 461 values were recorded for the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC including those reported in the LSA. Reported values include:
• avoidance areas due to logging, water contamination, land privatization, increased roads, and poor animal health;
• a birth place;
• burial sites;
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 75 • ceremonial sites;
• dry meat rack locations;
• fossil and heritage resource sites;
• gathering places;
• medicinal plants and tea growth locations;
• a pine cone collecting site;
• place names;
• meat processing locations;
• a shed/antler collecting site;
• spiritual locations; and
• teaching areas (how to fish, hunt, make dry meat, processing hides, ceremonies, camping, sharing stories/oral histories, traditional medicines, and building a teepee).
4.3.3.2 Baseline
The Cultural Heritage and Cultural Continuity VC is inextricably connected to and built on a foundation of the two previous VCs in this report: Subsistence Harvesting and BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters. BRFN culture and identity is rooted in a close connection to the land and animals. Without access to healthy lands and waters to practice subsistence harvesting, BRFN cultural continuity is greatly impaired. The ability to teach younger generations is of great importance to BRFN members and essential to the survival of BRFN culture and livelihood. Indeed, BRFN youth express a strong desire to learn BRFN cultural practices so they can pass them on to their own children and grandchildren.
The transmission of language, knowledge, stories, traditional values, and cultural practices (e.g. the making of dry meat and preparing hides) is essential for BRFN cultural continuity. For this to occur younger generations must have the opportunity to learn about the land and animals, hunting and trapping, fishing, gathering plants, and appropriate cultural protocols. This learning usually takes place out on the land through traditional activities. Teaching locations mapped during the mapping interviews indicate that the Study area is actively used by BRFN members for passing on BRFN culture, knowledge, and skills.
You know, in my mind, everything I fight for today is so that kids her age, when they’re my age, they can go and still get a life off the land. You know? It’s important. … You know, to be able to do that, carry those on to my baby, and, you know, these things that I argue for today with companies and soon to be the government, it’s to conserve that opportunity, preserve that right.
76 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study ...Because to me, it’s at my core, and it’s going to be in my daughter’s core. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
BRFN knowledge holders highlighted the immense importance subsistence harvesting and continued access hold for their cultural continuity. Members reported that learning what it means to a BRFN member comes in part through by being on the land – hunting, camping, gathering berries, processing animals, observing and listening to Elders. Language is often taught to younger generations while members are out on the land.
I guess when I think about teaching, I don’t necessarily think of in a class or in a specific organized group. A lot of our teachings come from just sitting with an elder and them talking, and then they’ll start talking to you, showing you, just educating you on things that they have done and how they’ve done it. You know, you can go out berry picking and be with an elder, and they’ll start talking and just telling you, “This is what we use.” If they come across a plant and they see it, they will show you—that is how our teachings get done. (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
It means a lot to me -- this. I learned a lot from hunting around in those areas. It’s just like places where you’ve grown up. I’ve grown up, coming in and out of these places. So, it does mean a lot to me. I’ve learned a lot. There are a lot of things I’ve done for the first time or on my own in all these areas... Not only that -- you’re passing on knowledge to the next generation in these same areas, the way it was done with us, so it just carries on. (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
Oh, look at the elders, you know, you just -- when the elders get together, you sit there, you talk, they tell stories, you sit there and listen to them... And you learn quite a bit from them. They show you how to hunt, how to process meat, and how to look after all the wildlife, make sure you don’t waste anything. Take everything, all of what you can eat or use. (B81 Oct. 28, 2014)
And you really got to track moose. Like, if you go on foot, you really got to track moose. And you got to be pretty good at it, you know, to, to be out there, and which way the wind blows, and you kinda have to track moose. And it helps if, if you’re upwind so it doesn’t smell you. And we got those teachings from long time ago, like with our parents. Like, now, we’re teaching our kids, you know, to do that. You know, what’s -- what fresh tracks look like, what the old tracks look like, and what kind; is it a boar, is it a cow, like, you know, deer tracks, stuff like that, and then they know from there. (B63 Oct. 29, 2014)
The BRFN worldview is deeply connected to the land. Many members describe being on the land as a spiritual practice and experience, one that is essential to their well being.
And talk about spirituality, you know? People go to church, they get their spirituality. Me? I go to the mountains, I go to the bush. That’s where my soul gets -- that’s where my medicine is. I can’t get it from a Catholic church, or whatever kind of church. I wasn’t brought up that way. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 77 Teaching and learning important cultural practices, such as sharing with family members and the rest of the BRFN community, is part of being on the land and is essential to BRFN cultural continuity.
In our traditional values, you are supposed to [share]. Because, especially if my son was to shoot his first moose, it’s my responsibility to go and feed it to the elders, so that way he’ll get more luck when he’s older, eh. And it’s very important for us to be sharing amongst one another because when you are in need of hunt, they’ll help you out. (B71 Nov. 12, 2014)
[on the importance of being on the land as a child] Learning the traditional values of our culture life. That’s what I really, really enjoyed because it taught be how, like, make dry meat, how to...prepare a food, how to make moose hides, how -- just the way of life, you know? It taught me a lot of traditional values. How to -- what is good for us. Like, it taught me how to teach my kids and teach my grandkids if I ever have any. (B71 Nov. 12, 2014)
In addition to a connection to the land in general, certain specific sites are also highly important to BRFN culture. These include ceremonial sites where BRFN members actively renew ties to community, the land and animals, spiritual sites with particularly powerful cultural significance, and burial sites out on the land, which connect BRFN members to the land and their ancestors. In relation to burial sites, BRFN participants noted that burials exist throughout the landscape, but often at unknown and unmarked locations.
4.3.3.3 Project Interactions
As BRFN cultural continuity is intimately tied to activities out on the land, Project interactions listed above for the VCs on ‘Subsistence Harvesting and Related Environmental Features’ (Section 4.3.2.3) and ‘Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters’ (Section 4.3.3.3) have direct consequences for cultural continuity.
Any Project interaction that limits BRFN use of subsistence resources or access to and use of the land will impact the daily practice of BRFN culture. Opportunities for teaching traditional knowledge and skills to younger generations also decline as opportunities for traditional subsistence activities and accessing and using the land decline.
I want to teach him [my grandson]. That’s very important. I don’t want them to lose their culture -- way of living, especially those two -- my two grandson. … I want them to learn our culture, way of living. I don’t want them lose their culture. (B90 Nov. 4, 2014)
BRFN member’s feelings of cultural connection to the land can also decline as the land changes from a quiet, pristine environment to a place of noise, machinery, traffic, clear cuts, and increasing numbers of people.
As discussed above, some specific sites have particular cultural significance, and
78 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study have particular sets of knowledge and experience tied to them. Loss of these places, either permanently or over a long period of time, frequently results in a gap in the transmission of place-based knowledge. Further, it eliminates the site as a cultural resource for remembering, teaching, and learning the knowledge and cultural practices with which it is associated. Ceremonial sites and community gathering places are particularly important examples of such sites. These can be found in the LSA and RSA of the Project. While they may not be threatened with direct destruction, their attractiveness as cultural sites may decline due to changes in the surrounding area due to the Project, including increasing numbers of people, garbage, noise, and traffic. Use of these cultural sites may decline as a result.
Destruction of burial sites is also a concern for BRFN members. While no burial sites were reported in the Project footprint, BRFN members highlighted that many graves are unknown and unmarked as BRFN ancestors were often buried where they died rather than transported to community gravesites. The destruction of burial sites by this Project is therefore a concern for BRFN members.
The importance of the connection between BRFN culture and the land cannot be overstated. The link between cultural loss and social dysfunction for the Dane-zaa people has long been known (e.g., Brody 1981). The adverse outcomes of loss of cultural continuity have been researched both qualitatively and quantitatively (e.g., Alfred 2009; Chandler and Lalonde 2007; Kirmayer and Valaskakis 2004). The academic literature illustrates that low cultural continuity and self-determination are linked to mental health, resiliency and risk of addictions and suicide (e.g., Chandler and Lalonde 2007; Kirmayer et al. 2007; Loppie-Reading and Wien 2009; and McCormick 1994, 1997, 2000). This is combined with the obvious physical health impacts of changes to the land including both lower physical activity and the risk of contaminants.
4.3.3.4 Summary
Likely Project interactions that are linked with potential adverse effects on the Cultural Heritage and Continuity VC include:
• The direct disturbance of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced access to or use of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced use of specific cultural sites, including ceremonial places and gathering places, due to changes in the surrounding landscape, including increasing numbers of people, garbage, noise and traffic;
• Destruction of unknown and unmarked gravesites by Project construction;
• Destruction and fragmentation of land within the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA, leading to a reduction of areas of key importance for teaching, learning, and practicing other cultural activities;
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 79 • Changes in the character and feel of the landscape due to landscape disturbance, including but not limited to aesthetic change, and increased pressure from traffic and non-Aboriginal hunters, which leads to a reduction in the connection BRFN members feel towards the land; and
• Reduced opportunities for teaching resource use and associated cultural protocols due to reduced wildlife populations or contamination or perceived contamination or resources.
The potential Project interactions identified here are an initial assessment only and merit further assessment and consultation with BRFN. Based on these initial potential Project interactions, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that the Project will greatly impact how BRFN members carry out their cultural activities, practice their treaty rights, experience the land, and pass on their knowledge to younger generations – all with negative consequences for Cultural Heritage and Continuity. These activities have not been adequately characterized to date in the EA for the Project. This would particularly be the case in the Project footprint, with impacts on other forms of use and values in the LSA, and RSA. Without further research and a proper reconsideration of impact characterization in light of this new evidence brought forward by BRFN in this Study, the Proponent’s estimate of insignificant adverse effects on wildlife harvesting by the Project, alone and in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future developments, cannot be held in high confidence.
80 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Section 5
Cumulative Impacts
Over the past several decades, the region that encompasses BRFN’s territory has been subject to unprecedented levels of industrial and agricultural activities. The speed and scale of industrial development, especially hydrocarbon development, has affected BRFN’s traditional mode of life, including its ability to maintain the sustainability of its traditional lands to sufficiently ground a cultural connection to their territory.
Today, ongoing cumulative effects in BRFN territory can be characterized as “death by a thousand cuts” or the “tyranny of small decisions.” Cumulative effects occur when discrete decisions are made that together, often unintentionally, result in undesirable conditions (Noble 2014). As the BC Forest Practices Board (2011:4) has noted, “A series of individually insignificant effects can accumulate to result in a significant overall effect.”
Today, BRFN experiences ongoing cumulative effects that are the result of the accumulation of multiple industrial and other Crown-approved activities that have critically reduced the amount and accessibility of lands that are capable of supporting BRFN’s traditional livelihood, threatening BRFN’s cultural security and continuity. As a result of extensive oil and gas development, forestry, agricultural development, mining, gravel operations and other development, there have been adverse cumulative effects on BRFN language, culture, inter-generational knowledge transfer, traditional livelihoods, inter- and intra-community social cohesion, rights-based harvesting, health, and other essential elements of BRFN’s traditional mode of life.
This section provides an overview of existing cumulative impacts for the proposed Project in relation to BRFN lands, treaty rights and interests. It is highly likely that Project interactions would exacerbate existing cumulative impacts on BRFN’s ability to support and maintain their traditional way of life.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 81 5.1 Cumulative Impacts and Cumulative Impacts Assessment
Cumulative impacts encompass the combined direct and indirect impacts of an action, project, or activity when added to other existing, planned, and/or reasonably foreseeable future ones (Hegmann et al. 1999; IFC 2013). Cumulative impacts must be comprehended as contextual and encompass a broad spectrum of impacts at different spatial and temporal scales. In this sense, a given impact can potentially be generated at a specific site or moment in time, but consequences may occur in a different geographical area (e.g. downstream) or manifest during a later period (e.g. bioaccumulation).
Cumulative impacts also describe the gradual disturbance, fragmentation, and loss of land and habitat. Such incremental effects have and can continue to occur through various activities and projects, such as forestry, transportation infrastructure, seismic lines, transmission lines, wellheads, and pipelines. Such impacts transcend the “direct area of influence” approach, underscoring the necessity of cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as well as the requirement to expand geographical boundaries of impact assessments and time frame used for environmental assessment (IFC 2013).
An effective and appropriately scaled CEA should not only focus on the characterization of current impacts and risks, but should also include spatial and temporal trends so the prediction of future impacts can be analyzed under different industrial development scenarios in combination with project-related impacts (Greig and Duinker 2007). It is also important to note that induced cumulative impacts – direct and spin-off impacts caused by an action, project, or activity – should also be included within an appropriately scaled CEA. For example, CEA of a pipeline project such as the proposed Project would include not only the direct impacts of the pipeline construction itself but also the impacts of the additional liquid natural gas extraction activities required to supply the pipeline once in operation.
5.2 BRFN Cumulative Impacts Baseline
The cumulative effects of oil and gas development, forestry, agricultural development, mining, gravel operations, and other development have greatly impacted BRFN’s territory and how BRFN members have experienced in their traditional lands over time. The impacts of development have resulted in the steady, and now accelerated, erosion of BRFN’s treaty rights. In some core areas, such as the Beatton River watershed, what BRFN members have termed “dark zones” exist where BRFN members can no longer meaningfully practice their treaty rights. Other critical areas have also already been intensively impacted or destroyed by a combination of industrial activities.
This section of the Study is not meant to provide a comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts to date in BRFN territory; it provides only a contextual introduction to the extent of development to date.
82 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 5.2.1 Existing Cumulative Impacts to Land and Environment
The extent of existing impacts from development in BRFN territory includes, but is not limited to:
• Extent of Cleared Areas: As of 2010, Lee and Hanneman (2012; 68) estimated that 15.3% of the Upper Peace-Halfway watershed, and 22.5% of the Beatton watershed, had been subject to non-overlapping industrial or other anthropogenic clearing (see Figure 11);
• Wide Distribution of Disturbance: As of 2011, 66% of the land cover in the northeast part of the Peace Region study area was considered disturbed7 as a result of the high density of linear industrial features and land clearing, according to MSES (2012). Similar findings were made by Lee and Hanneman (2012) using 2010 data for disturbance in the Upper Halfway-Peace (61.1%) and Beatton watersheds (90.8%) through which much of the NMML is proposed (see Figure 12);
• Density of Linear Disturbance: The linear disturbance density in the northeast part Peace Region study area was 1.58 km/km2 in 2011. Given these levels of land disturbance and linear density, populations of traditional wildlife species could exist at low levels or may have ceased to be viable (MSES 2012:5); and
• Disturbance to Caribou: 3 of the 10 caribou herd ranges that are all or partly within the Peace Region study area are more than 50% disturbed by a combination of roads, mines, settlements, pipelines, well sites and other industrial and infrastructure activities (Lee and Hanneman 2012:77).
It is notable that the amounts of surface disturbances noted above are already higher than that estimated by the Proponent for current and future physical impacts in the North Montney. The Proponent suggests that a future scenario for 2035 is an increase to 196,785 ha of hydrocarbon sector landscape disturbance, or 6.59 per cent of the Montney Play, but by adding the direct surface clearing area plus a zone of influence, the scenario climbs to 671,037 ha, or 22.47 of the Montney Play. When including all effects, the area physically cleared to date is between 11.8% and approximately 20% (whether considering the Proponent’s estimates or Lee and Hanneman).
7 Calculated by the proportion of the total area within 500 m of a linear disturbance.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 83 Figure 12: Cumulative Changes in the Peace Region (Lee and Hanneman 2012)
Map 35. Cumulative changes within the Peace region of BC (three major categories of disturbances)
71 84 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study
Figure 13: Cumulative changes in the Peace Region (Lee and Hanneman 2012)
Map 36. Cumulative changes within the Peace region of BC (all combined disturbances)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 72 85
5.2.2 BRFN Experience with Cumulative Impacts
BRFN knowledge holders confirm the findings of the studies noted above regarding the extent of development throughout their territory. This is particularly noticeable in the Beatton River watershed and other “dark zones,” where cumulative impacts mean that there are many areas where BRFN treaty rights can no longer effectively be exercised because the land and waters have been so heavily disturbed. BRFN members experience cumulative impacts from development throughout their territory in a number of ways, including:
• disturbances to the land from increased traffic;
• decreased availability of areas for successful subsistence harvesting; and
• dramatic physical changes to the landscape.
Existing cumulative impacts also mean that the few remaining areas of relatively undisturbed lands and waters within the Project area are of increasing importance to BRFN for the continued practice of their way of life.
Participants expressed anxiety about the survival of future generations as they are unsure how, or if, today’s children will be able to live off the land or remain connected to their culture. BRFN members expressed great concern that the Project would compound existing impacts, contributing to the end of the BRFN way of life.
As a result of the pace and extent of development, BRFN members reported that areas that would be impacted by the proposed Project are some of the last places they are able to practice aspects of their traditional mode of life. As a result, BRFN members are determined to maintain their cultural practices even in the face of the many changes they have seen in recent decades. Passing on their way of life to future generations is of the utmost importance.
I have great concern. You know, we grew up preserving our food, so, you know, my dad hunted—moose, mostly—we hunt elk. We’ve eaten rabbits and small game like that, and deer. I grew up picking berries with my grandmother and my mom and being taught which are teas and which plants that we can use and how to pick them and when to pick them, so I’ve been fortunate enough to grow up in that environment in our traditional ways. And I like to follow that with my kids, and I guess my greatest concern for me and my kids and their kids, I guess, is by the time—you know, even by the time my kids are adults, I feel like they’re going to have nothing. They’re going to have nothing left to go—you know, we used to be able to drink out of fresh water bodies, and now you don’t even try, or you question it. (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
[on the pipeline] I mean, our way of life is demolishing right in front of our eyes. My right to hunt and fish and trap is being taken away by industrial greed, right. So how do you replace that? Nobody has the answer. … So this is huge. This is life changing. (B101 Nov. 17, 2104)
86 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 5.2.2.1 Land Disturbance
Land disturbance within BRFN territory takes many forms, including a dramatic increase in human traffic as non-Native hunters take advantage of easier access with the increase in access roads. This increased level of human activity also brings more garbage into the area as visitors leave their refuse behind when they leave.
BRFN knowledge holders reported that the land is becoming increasingly busy – more and more traffic is in the areas that they visit on a regular basis. They further noted that the noise and crowded feeling of the land makes it unpleasant to be on the land. More seriously, they report that this traffic is driving the animals away. Many members expressed concern that they will have to find new harvesting areas for wildlife and plants; some members have had to look for new areas.
Because there is so much noise, like people, there are just people there all summer long. Everywhere, remember when I was telling you we went to look for berries - we were driving along this road and there’s just like people all over the place, cutting and cutting. You know, they’re making their lines. And of course, after those Elders went camping, nothing, no moose at all. Just really sad. … Maybe, we’ll have to hunt somewhere else. (B89 Nov. 4, 2014)
BRFN members reported that the landscape is increasingly disturbed, with increased access leading to more garbage left out on the land, which pollutes the landscape and the environment. These disturbances and pollution take an emotional toll on BRFN members, causing a palpable sense of heartbreak and grief at seeing a landscape that they are so deeply connected with be so fundamentally altered.
Every year, the more I feel -- and everybody will tell you this -- is that the more opening out there, the more access, it seems like there’s more garbage coming in, and there’s more -- just everything is bad. It’s not clean. The way it was ten years ago; it’s dirty now. It seems like it’s getting worse. (B101 Nov. 19, 2014)
We went back there a couple of years in a row, and each time we took a moose home. And so, 2012, we went back there, and people had driven up and down, drove right through with those UTVs, they drove -- wrecked that mineral lick. ...Yeah. So, they were, like, peeling around in it, spinning out, they thought it was, like, a mud hole. They had no idea it’s a mineral lick. And it was ruined. ...And that area where we camped, somebody had gone in there and camped, and they had garbage all over! ...And I was just so mad! I was pretty upset. And so I thought, OK, that’s it’s, we’re going to go to Tommy Lakes. There’s no activity up there, nothing going on up there. I thought, this is where we can go, it’s clean and it’s quiet, and there’s going to be a lot of game. Boy, was I wrong! ... Yeah. I imagine, you know, the animals still use it, but I don’t know, I haven’t been back there, since. ... So I have no desire to go back there, it kind of -- you know, it’s heartbreaking. Because you know. Before that, you know, before that seismic line was ever even there, that lick was there. You know, hundreds of years. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 87 BRFN knowledge holders reported that changes to the landscape as the result of industrial development have created a landscape they no longer recognize. They worry that further development will only compound the fragmentation of the landscape, leaving less and less habitat for wildlife.
And this country has changed since -- you know, I was a kid when we hunted, my dad and mum, we used to go camp, just the whole country changed. I left for about 15 years, 17 years, I left that area. I came back, and just the roads and the pipelines, the clear-cuts, I was completely lost out there! My brother and I went hunting, right? He’s, like, “Let’s go hunt,” I’m, like, “Sure.” So, we went, and he’s like, “Are you lost?” I’m, like, “Yeah, I think I am, because I don’t know what these roads are anymore!” All clear cuts, and new clear cuts and new roads. And some of these little old roads that we used to go on, I mean, they’re big roads now! You know? So, it took me quite a while to re-orient myself, and relearn the country again. And even now, driving out there, it’s, like, oh, there’s a new road! Or, holy, last year, this was timber, now it’s a clear cut....And it happens so fast, and you know, where I shot that moose this summer, this fall, when I go back the next year, it’s going to be clear cut. It’s going to be gone, and that’s prime winter moose habitat in there. They need that for winter cover, eh? And it’s going to be level. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
5.2.2.2 Accessing Areas for Successful Subsistence Harvesting
When asked about the potential impacts of the proposed Project, BRFN members expressed particular concern about the Project’s impacts on their treaty rights to access and use the land. BRFN members underscored that existing cumulative impacts from industry have all contributed to barriers to BRFN access and use of lands and waters. They noted that the proposed Project would exacerbate these impacts and contribute to a scale of development that will leave little left for future generations.
I look at these developments, and I just think, every time there’s a new clearing, a new ground disturbance, that’s just another area where I can’t go. And, you know, it’s taken away from me. And they say, oh, one’s here, one’s here, I mean, there’s no connectivity -- but there is. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
[on access to the land for future generations] Well, they’re not going to even have nothing, really. … Well, I know they’re not going to have anything, actually. Like, how are they going to go to the land when it’s all roads everywhere, and the game can’t go places to hide or get anyway from other game like bears and wolves and stuff like that? And what are we going to eat? Store-bought food, with all the chemicals and all that crap in it. (B99 Nov. 14, 2014)
Many Study participants report that they have to go farther out to have a better chance of a successful hunt and to find berries and plants. BRFN members reported that as recently as 10-20 years ago, this was not the case and that there was still sufficient wildlife nearby. Many members expressed concern about the cost of going further
88 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study out to hunt, noting that fuel and vehicle upkeep costs are prohibitive. This cost is further compounded when they cannot be sure of having a successful hunt even in areas farther away from where they once used to hunt regularly and successfully.
You’re going to see where I all went to hunt, and it’s far. It’s not -- we don’t just go in our backyard, anymore, which we should have been able to, you know? My uncle and grandpa used to, from the old Reserve, used to just go across the river here, towards -- did you guys go through Beatton River Road, yet? ... Yeah. So, there’s an area, Mile 5, but that area back there, that used to be the grocery store. They used to just ride horses across, and go get a moose and come home. And not anymore. And then same with, you know, a couple of families. They used to just go kind of back in that country where I was, this summer. And that was their -- it was, like, their grocery store. You know? And it wasn’t that long ago. You know, even 10 years ago. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014)
You have to go further to hunt and stuff and which -- I mean, a lot of times, if you’re low on funds, it’s not easy to do that, so we have to spend the money on gas, and sometimes with no success because you have to go the distance and things, and still no success. (B82 Oct. 29, 2014)
You’ve got to spend a lot of money now just to get a moose. It never used to be that way; too easy access and too many people coming back. So, to nip that in the bud, hunting regulations have got to change, like the management... the regulation -- not the regulation, but the management of it. You’ve got to start managing this game. Shut it down for a while... (B51 Oct. 28, 2014)
5.2.2.3 Changes to the Landscape
BRFN members, from all generations interviewed, expressed detailed knowledge and great concern about the changes to the land, waters, and the Dane-zaa way of life in the Project area.
Well, the places they [elders] used to know, what they used to recognize, is non-recognizable no more. I get lost in the roads up there, you know. There used to be one certain road you’d take and you’d use landmarks and whatever, right? Now, you don’t recognize nothing ‘cause there’s so much activity. If it isn’t the logging it’s the knocking everything down, it’s the pipelines and, you know, the roads and everything in there. You hardly recognize anything. Pretty much maze back in there now with everything accumulated together. Every time I got do a monitoring report, I say, “No more activity.” Like, I don’t want it. (B53 Nov. 18, 2014)
I go back to my teenage years [approximately 30 years ago], to my early years, and my brothers and my family, of these areas that we trapped. Not only industry but forestry, all the big timber, the old growth, is all gone, because they’ve taken -- they’ve wiped out the marten, the marten habitat,
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 89 the lynx. Not only are they doing it, harvesting to feed our families, but they’re taking our way of life away, too, by harvesting, taking all the timber. Can you imagine all the logs, all the path that they’re going to clear? It’s not only the fur-bearing, the ungulates. It’s the fish, the birds, the waterfowl, all of that is taken. You’re draining those rivers. They’re drying up. The Blueberry River is drying up. Because I was out there. There’s barely a trickle this fall. (B101 Nov. 17, 2104)
Younger BRFN members also reported the dramatic changes they have seen on the landscape in their lifetimes. They, like their elders, are concerned that they will lose the ability to not only live their cultural practices and traditions but also pass them along to younger generations if the land is further fragmented and their access further curtailed.
You know, there’s a lot of—I’m 28, so I’m not very old—but, from me being a child to my adulthood now, seeing the impacts on our land in that short period of time is heartbreaking. You see what initially is yours and belong to your nations, and you hope that it’s there for you use, being taken away from you. So, when we used to go and travel to our cabin when I was younger—you know, we had forest. There were trees, there was, you know, game trails—now when you go to that same cabin, it looks like a bunch of open fields from all the cutblocks and everything that is being done. (B24 Nov. 5, 2014)
5.2.2.4 Project Impacts on Areas of Critical Importance to BRFN
The proposed Project transects areas of heightened importance to BRFN members for the practice of their traditional mode of life, as evidenced by the extremely high density of use values in the areas highlighted in Section 4.2 in particular. These areas, which have always been important for the practice of the BRFN traditional mode of life, are now of increased and critical importance to BRFN members. Repeated reports of land alienation and an inability of members to exercise their traditional mode of life in other parts of the territory contribute to the increasing importance of these key areas to the practice of BRFN treaty rights.
Many BRFN members reported that the pipeline route travels through some of the few remaining undisturbed wildlife habitats in the region. Participants highlighted that the Project would fragment and remove access and use of the areas they currently have left to freely practice their treaty rights.
You know, I look in this country, the amount of pipelines in this country, it’s terrible. This is -- this whole area, you follow that Halfway Valley down, yeah, all those tributaries, those are key wildlife areas, you know? It’s our last place we have left to go. Because you look in our backyard, you know, go up the Beatton Road -- I mean, it’s clear cut. Thousands and thousands of hectares, clear cut and sprayed. Pipeline, sprayed. Leases, gas wells, structures, everything, you name it. It’s there. These old timbers, areas, are gone. And those areas are very, very key to wildlife. You know, if there’s no wildlife habitat, there’s no wildlife, I don’t have any treaty rights. (B34 Nov. 18, 2014) 90 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Based on BRFN knowledge holder experience and existing industrial impacts, cumulative impacts to date in BRFN territory include but are not limited to:
• Displacement of BRFN members from preferred subsistence and cultural areas;
• Decrease in access to clean water and healthy plants and animals;
• Limited access to lands and waters for the practice of Aboriginal rights;
• Displacement of wildlife;
• Increase in traffic;
• Over-hunting of key subsistence species;
• Changes in landscape creating unfamiliar territory;
• Contamination of plants and animals by industrial activity;
• Contamination of water and fish from industrial activity; and
• Permanent loss of native plant habitat.
5.3 Potential Future Cumulative Impacts
In order to consider the impact of the proposed Project on BRFN treaty rights and interests, the full extent of development of BRFN’s territory must be considered, in combination with future reasonably foreseeable development. Furthermore, the heightened importance of the Project area to BRFN’s traditional mode of life must also be considered because of the extensive development elsewhere, particularly in the Beatton watershed.
It is important to note that the proposed Project is only one facet of foreseeable future developments within the BRFN referral area. The pace of development, especially in key areas located in and around the North Montney shale area, is expected to accelerate. The proposed Project represents an enabling feature that, if approved, will result in significant associated development and further displacement of BRFN’s traditional use of the area. The Project alone is expected to increase the number of wells from 1633 to date to close to 8000 by 2035. Those wells are to fill the Project alone, not other ongoing pipeline developments. Progress Energy Ltd. plans to extract 19,181,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas from the North Montney play between 2014 and 2043, requiring the construction of 7,760 new wells (280 wells per year for the next 5 years and 265 wells per year thereafter) and associated infrastructure including, but not limited to, roads, gas plants, compressor stations, water storage sites, borrow pits, linear development including seismic lines, feed pipelines, camps and water intakes.8
8 NEB North Montney hearing, Progress Energy Responses to Information Requests of BRFN, at IR 1.01(d)(e); IR 1.02, pg, 6.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 91 The provincial LNG Strategy will also induce further development and increase the scope of impacts on BRFN Treaty rights. Three major LNG pipelines that cross directly through BRFN territory have been approved, and another three are in, or will soon be, in environmental review processes. These include:
• North Montney Mainline Project;
• Merrick Mainline Pipeline Project;
• Towerbirch Expansion Project (application expected Q1 2015);
• Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project (approved);
• Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project (approved); and
• Coastal GasLink pipeline Project (approved).
Moreover, countless additional projects and oil and gas activities are proposed and envisioned within BRFN territory. Examples of major projects also include, but are not limited to the recently approved Site C dam. Ongoing forestry activities and oil and gas activities throughout the region are also contributing to extensive cumulative effects within BRFN territory.
It is likely the proposed Project will have significant adverse impact on BRFN treaty rights. This statement is made even in the absence of a full CEA on BRFN treaty rights, which is beyond the scope of this Study. These significant adverse impacts of the Project on BRFN treaty rights are due to:
• the heightened importance of areas in the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA to the practice of BRFN treaty rights;
• the extent of development elsewhere in the territory; and
• the likely impacts of the Project on BRFN knowledge and use values as outlined in this report,
In light of this conclusion, avoidance, mitigation and accommodation measures must be targeted and developed in direct consultation with BRFN. Mitigation and accommodation measures must also address the cumulative impacts of development on BRFN treaty rights, for example, ensuring portions of BRFN territory are protected and remain capable of supporting BRFN Treaty rights for generations to come.
92 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Section 6
Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Baseline and Project Interactions
Based on the information gathered for this Study, it is possible to state with a high degree of confidence that the proposed NMML Project area is of critical importance to BRFN knowledge, use and occupancy and the continued ability to meaningfully practice treaty rights. BRFN members intensively and extensively use the proposed Project’s footprint for habitation, gathering, travelling, hunting, fishing, trapping, plant collecting, and other cultural practices that are integral to their meaningful practice of Treaty 8 rights. Efforts to teach cultural heritage to future BRFN generations will likely focus on sites within the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA – particularly given the scale of cumulative impacts that have reduced the amount of land available to BRFN members to practice their Treaty 8 rights. As such the proposed Project area is of extremely high cultural importance to BRFN members.
The entire proposed Project area crosses through BRFN territory and within close proximity to several particularly high-value areas, including but not limited to: the Mile 156 Road/Lifeline Lake/Lily Lake area; the Pink Mountain area; and the culturally essential Dancing Grounds and surrounding area. Ecosystems such as those within the Mile 156 Road/Lifeline Lake/Lily Lake and Pink Mountain areas are of particular importance to BRFN because they are some of the few remaining areas within BRFN territory that are not dramatically impacted by development activities. Therefore, it is of critical importance that these areas are protected and preserved for future BRFN use and practice of treaty rights.
Use values and qualitative data presented in this report indicate an extraordinarily high level of ongoing subsistence activities as well as cultural use and practices by BRFN in the proposed Project area. Site-specific data and qualitative data collected indicate that continued and increasing BRFN use of the area for traditional purposes
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 93 would be impacted adversely in a number of ways as a direct result of the proposed Project. These potential Project interactions with Study VCs include:
Hunting and trapping
• Disturbance of animals during Project construction, causing them to move away from the area;
• Habitat fragmentation, limiting animal movement and reducing the size of available habitat areas;
• Loss of valuable habitat features such as mineral licks, wintering grounds, and calving areas;
• Decreased numbers of healthy animals due to loss of grazing areas;
• Construction work on the pipeline bringing increasing numbers of people into the area, adding hunting pressure to wildlife populations during construction and beyond the life of the Project;
• Decreased wildlife population due to road kill from increased vehicle traffic in the area;
• Reduced trapping access and success due to vandalization of and theft from BRFN traps; and
• Need for BRFN members to travel further to practice subsistence harvesting.
Gathering plants for food and medicine
• Direct removal of plants during the creation of the Project ROW;
• Replacement of native species with non-native species during construction, operations and reclamation;
• Permanent loss of plant and/or plant harvesting habitat even after reclamation efforts as some native plants do not return within a harvester’s lifetime, thereby effectively causing the permanent loss of knowledge of that harvesting habitat;
• Contamination or perceived contamination of berries, plants, and medicines, causing BRFN members to cease harvesting essential subsistence plant foods and medicinal plants in the Study area, by:
o contamination along the pipeline ROW during Project construction;
o spraying of pesticides and herbicides on the pipeline ROW or along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction and maintenance; and
o road traffic (dust and exhaust) along roads and access routes used for pipeline construction or maintenance.
94 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Water
• Reduction in water quantity and the loss of small creeks and watercourses;
• Deforestation for the creation of the pipeline ROW adding to water run-off effects and potential flooding in key watersheds;
• Contamination and perceived contamination in the Project footprint and LSA, and downstream in the RSA, of:
o rivers and watercourses, particularly at pipeline crossing points;
o fish
o animals that live in and drink the water;
o plants growing in and around watercourses.
BRFN Continued Access and Use of Lands and Waters
• The destruction of, lack of access to, and/or reduced value of specific important sites for harvesting resources or cultural activities due to the creation of the pipeline;
• Reduced access to and/or use of general areas due to:
o increased traffic and noise changing the character and safety of an area;
o the presence of increasing numbers of people, particularly more non-Aboriginal hunters;
o the depletion of resources in those areas;
o due to contamination and perception of contamination of resources in the area; and
o garbage pollution on the land.
Cultural Continuity and Cultural Heritage
• The direct disturbance of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced access to or use of large areas of land that are used for cultural activities or teaching areas;
• Reduced use of specific cultural sites, including ceremonial places and gathering places, due to changes in the surrounding landscape, including increasing numbers of people, garbage, noise and traffic;
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 95 • Destruction of unknown and unmarked gravesites by Project construction;
• Destruction and fragmentation of land within the Project footprint, LSA, and RSA, leading to a reduction of areas of key importance for teaching, learning, and practicing other cultural activities;
• Changes in the character and feel of the landscape due to landscape disturbance, including but not limited to aesthetic change, and increased pressure from traffic and non-Aboriginal hunters, which leads to a reduction in the connection BRFN members feel towards the land; and
• Reduced opportunities for teaching resource use and associated cultural protocols due to reduced wildlife populations or contamination or perceived contamination or resources.
All of the above Project interactions would constrain BRFN knowledge and use in the Project’s footprint, LSA, and RSA for multiple generations, and impact the intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge.
The Project could also exacerbate existing cumulative impacts in the Study area. It is important to note that the proposed Project is only one facet of the likely foreseeable future developments within the BRFN referral area. The pace of development, especially in key areas located in and around the North Montney shale area, is expected to accelerate. The proposed Project represents an enabling feature that, if approved, will result in significant associated development and further displacement of BRFN’s traditional use of the area. BRFN Study participants reported that practicing their treaty rights within easy distance from their homes is currently very difficult as access to healthy and abundant ecosystems are becoming more difficult to find, making it more and more expensive and thus less accessible to practice their necessary subsistence harvesting activities. The Project would further compound these challenges.
Based on available information, and considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments, the likely total effects load of the Project on BRFN rights and interests will be significant. The Project as proposed would likely result in significant impacts on the current use of lands and resources by BRFN members as well as unique BRFN cultural and spiritual values.
The proposed Project has a high potential for significant adverse impact on BRFN treaty rights due to:
• the heightened importance of the proposed Project area to the practice of BRFN treaty rights;
• the extent of cumulative impacts in BRFN territory; and
• the likely interactions between the Project and BRFN knowledge and use values as outlined in this report.
All of the likely interactions above have yet to be adequately characterized, and must be reconsidered in light of the new evidence brought forward in this Study.
96 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Avoidance, mitigation and accommodation measures that address the likely Project impacts and the cumulative impacts of other development on BRFN treaty rights should be developed in direct consultation with BRFN.
6.2 Closure
Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this report, please do not hesitate to contact BRFN directly.
Sincerely,
Rachel Olson, PhD
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Tabitha Steager, PhD
ORIGINAL SIGNED
______
The Firelight Group
Suite 253, 500 Johnson, Victoria, BC, V6W 3C6
T: +1 (250) 590-9017
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 97 Works Cited
AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada). 2014. First Nation Detail: Blueberry River First Nations. http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/ Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx? BAND_NUMBER=547&lang=eng, accessed January 2015.
ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resources Development). 2009a. Terrestrial ecosystem management framework for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (TEMF). Website accessed July 2010. Last updated February 2009. http://www. cemaonline.ca/index.php/cemarecommendations/terrestrial-ecosystem.
Bayne, E.M., L. Habib and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology, 22: 1186–1193.
B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. 2006. Conventional Natural Gas Play Atlas, Northeast British Columbia. Petroleum Geology Publication, 2006:1.
Bouchard and Kennedy Research Consultants. 2011. BRFN traditional land use study. Site-C Clean Energy Project.
Brody, Hugh. 1981. Maps and Dreams. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd.
Candler, C., R. Olson, & S. DeRoy. (2010). As Long as the Rivers Flow: Athabasca River Knowledge, Use and Change. Edmonton: Parkland Institute, University of Alberta.
Chandler, M. J. and C.E. Lalonde. 2007. “Cultural continuity as a moderator of suicide risk among Canada’s First Nations.” In Kirmayer, L. and Valaskakis, G. (Eds). The Mental Health of Canadian Aboriginal Peoples: Transformations, Identity and Community. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Damman, S., W.B. Eide and H.V. Kuhnlein. 2008. “Indigenous peoples’ nutrition transition in a right to food perspective.” Food Policy 33: 135–155.
DeRoy, Steven. 2012. Using geospatial and network analysis to assess accessibility to core homeland areas of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) in the context of increasing oil sands development. Dissertation for Masters of Geographic Information Science. University College London.
Dyer, S.J., J.P. O’Neill, S.M. Wasel and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. J. Wildl. Manage., 65: 531-542.
Forest Practices Board. 2011. Cumulative Effects: From Assessment Towards Management. Report. Accessed July 26, 2014 at http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/ SR39_Cumulative_Effects_From_Assessment_Towards_Management.pdf
98 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Forman, R.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Gibson, D. and the Firelight Group. 2014. Blueberry River First Nations. Harvest Baseline and Socioeconomic Effects Study For TransCanada PipeLines Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project.
Greig, L. and P. Duinker. 2007. Scenarios of Future Developments in Cumulative Effects Assessment: Approaches for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Prepared for Mackenzie Gas Project – Joint Review Panel.
Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling, and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Hull, Quebec: CEAA.
Indian Claims Commission (ICC). 2006. Blueberry River First Nation, Doig River First Nation Highway Right of Way IR 172 Inquiry. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/ Collection/RC31-33-2006E.pdf, accessed March 2014.
Indigenous Bar Association. 1995. Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344.
Kirmayer L., G. Brass, T. Holton, K. Paul, C. Simpson and C. Tait. 2007. Suicide among Aboriginal people in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Kroodsma, R.L. 1982. Edge effect on breeding forest birds along a power-line corridor. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 19: 361-370.
Kuhnlein, H.V. and N.J. Turner. 1991. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany, and use. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Kunkel, K.E. and D.H. Pletscher. 2000. Habitat factors affecting vulnerability of moose to predation by wolves in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78: 150-157.
Laurian, C., C. Dussault, J.P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, M. Poulin, and L. Breton. 2008. Behaviour of moose relative to a road network. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 1550-1557.
Lawn, J. and D. Harvey. 2006. Northern river basins food consumption survey (NRBFCS): final nutrition report. March 2006.
Lee and Hanneman. 2012. Atlas of land cover, industrial land uses and industrial- caused land change in the Peace Region of British Columbia. Global Forest Watch Canada report #4 International Year of Sustainable Energy for All. Available: http:// www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2012/ Peace_region_20120812_ HR-optimized.pdf, accessed November 2014.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 99 Littlefield, L., Linda Dorricott, L., and D. Cullon. 2007. “Tse Keh Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake)”. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_3394/hearings/SM01. pdf, accessed: March 2014.
Loppie-Reading, C. and F. Wien. 2009. “Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal people’s health.” Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. http://cahr.uvic.ca/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/NCCAH- report-LoppieWein-download11.pdf.
Macdonald, A. and C. Candler. 2014. The Proposed North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project: Initial Consideration of Impacts on Blueberry River First Nations’ Use of Lands, Resources and Treaty 8 Rights.
Machtans, C.S. 2006. Songbird response to seismic lines in the western boreal forest: A manipulative experiment. Canadian Journal of Zoolog., 84: 1421-1430.
McCormick, R. M. 1997. “Healing through interdependence: The role of connecting in first nations healing practices.” Canadian Journal of Counseling, 31(3), 172–184.
McCormick, R.M. 2000. “Aboriginal traditions in the treatment of substance abuse.” Canadian Journal of Counseling, 34(1), 25–32.
MSES (Management and Solutions in Environmental Science). 2010. Effects on Traditional Resources of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation: The Joslyn Creek Project Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands Region. Prepared for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
MSES (Management and Solutions in Environmental Science). 2012 Effects of Industrial Disturbance on the Traditional Resources of the Blueberry River First Nations. https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fet ch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/ 1060220/2452372/2477477/2486560/ C7-8-5_MSES_2012_Effects_of_Industrial_Distrubance_ on_Traditional_ Resources_ of_BRFN_ (00925221)_-_A3Z1D5.pdf?nodeid=2486217&vernum=-2, accessed December 2014.
Noble, Bram. 2014. Review of the Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment in Spectra Energy’s Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project. Report for the Blueberry River First Nation. May 31.
NOVA Gas Tramission Ltd. 2013. North Montney Project: Project Description. https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fet ch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/983097/981724/A3J8S7_-_ North_Montney_Project_-_Project_Description.pdf?nodeid=981635&vernum=-2, accessed October 2014.
Olson, Rachel and Steven DeRoy. 2013. Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study for the proposed TransCanada Coastal Gaslink Pipeline Project.
100 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Ries, L., R.J. Fletcher, J. Battin and T.D. Sisk. 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35: 491-522.
Ridington, R. (1980). Beaver Indians. In Helm, J. (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6, pp. 350-360. Washigton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Ridington, Robin. 1988. Trail to Heaven: Knowledge and Narrative in a Northern Native Community. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Ridington, Robin. 1990. Little Bit Know Something: Stories in a Language of Anthropology. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Ridington Robin and Jillian Ridington, in collaboration with Elders of the Dane-zaa First Nations. 2013. Where Happiness Dwells: A History of the Dane-zaa First Nations. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Rolley, R.E. and L.B. Keith. 1980. Moose population dynamics and winter habitat use at Rochester, Alberta, 1965-1979. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 94: 9-18.
Salmo Consulting Inc., Diversified Environmental Services, Gaia Consultants Inc., & Forem Technologies Ltd., Bragg Creek. (2003). Cumulative effect assessment and management framework for northeast british columbia. Volume 2: Cumulative Effects Indicators, Thresholds, and Cast Studies; Appendix 2 Blueberry Cumulative Effects Case Study.
Sorensen, T., P.D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2008. Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou. J.Wildl.Manage., 72: 900-905.
Thiessen, C. 2009. Peace Region; Boreal Caribou Monitoring: Annual Report 2008-09. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Section, Peace Region Technical Report.
Union of BC Indian Chiefs. 1998. Stolen Lands and Broken Promises. http://www.ubcic. bc.ca/Resources/rilq.htm#axzz31uYmDGKU, accessed: May 2014.
Virtual Museum of Canada. 2007. Doig River First Nation, About the Project. http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/sgc-cms/expositions-exhibitions/ danewajich/english/project/drfn.php, accessed: March 2014.
Tobias, Terry. 2010. Living Proof: The Essential Data-Collection Guide for Indigenous Use-and-Occupancy Map Surveys. Vancouver: Ecotrust Canada and the Union of British Columbia India Chiefs.
Treaty 8 Environmental Assessment Team. (2012). Telling a story of change the Dane- zaa way: a baseline community profile of four Treaty 8 First Nations. Prepared for the Treaty 8 Tribal Association.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 101 Interviews Cited
B01. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B05. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B05. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B07. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B19. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B24. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B26. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B27. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B28. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B30. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B34. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
102 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study B51. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B53. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B55. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B60. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B63. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B67. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B71. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B76. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B81. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B82. 2014. Transcript of October, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B84. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B88. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B89. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 103 B90. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B96. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B98. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B99. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B101. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B103. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
B113. 2014. Transcript of November, 2014. Interview from the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study for the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. The Firelight Research Cooperative for the Blueberry River First Nations.
104 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Appendix 1
Consent Form
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 105 BRFN Knowledge and Use Study of the TransCanada Pipeline North Montney Mainline Project Declaration of Informed Consent and Permission to Use Information
I (name) , on this day (complete date) , give permission for to interview me for the BRFN Knowledge and Use Study of the proposed TransCanada Pipeline North Montney Mainline Project.
I understand that the study is being conducted by Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN). The purpose of this study is to document the rights and interests of BRFN in the area of the proposed TransCanada Pipeline North Montney Mainline Project.
By signing below, I indicate my understanding that:
(a) I consent to have my words and responses recorded on maps, in notes, and using audio and video recording equipment.
(b) I am free to not respond to questions that may be asked and I am free to end the interview at any time I wish.
(c) The BRFN will maintain intellectual property rights over information and recordings collected through my participation and may use the information and recordings, including audio, video, or pictures, in pursuit of its claims, and for defending and communicating the rights, interests, and titles of its members. This includes, but is not limited to, sharing information for the purposes of negotiation or participation in regulatory or court proceedings.
(d) The BRFN will ask permission from me or my descendents, before using my information for purposes not indicated above.
For more information, please contact Georgina Yahey at Blueberry River First Nations Lands Office: (250) 630-2819.
I would like my name included in reports: yes no
I would like my quotes included in reports: yes no
Signature of participant Witness
______
PIN #:
The Firelight Group
106 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Appendix 2
Interview Guide
Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 107 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE & BRFN KNOWLEDGE AND USE UDY ST OF THE TRANSCANADA PIPELINE NORTH MONTNEY MAINLINE 2 Activities in and knowledge of the Project area PROJECT
PERSONAL INFORMATION THIS GUIDE INCLUDES • Full name • Questions • Place of birth • Interview checklist • Age and year of birth • Interview overview • Where you were raised • Mapping notes • Membership in Blueberry River First Nations • Mapping codes • Parents and grandparents
Please read the guide completely before beginning interviews GENERAL USE QUESTIONS Have you ever used the area around the proposed Project, or areas nearby? For hunting / trapping / fishing / camping plant gathering / passing on traditional knowledge or INTRODUCTION language o If yes 1 §. When? §. What do you do there?
§. Who with? Complete the interview checklist, then read with AUDIO & VIDEO RECORDERS ON at the start of each §. How did you learn about this area? session. o If no §. Why not? Today is [DATE]. We are interviewing [NAME] for the Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Have your family or community members ever used the area around the proposed , Project or areas Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. Thank you for coming. nearby? o If yes My name is [NAME] and my co-‐researcher(s) is/are [NAME(S)]. We’re at the [BUILDING] in §. What activities did they do there? If no [COMMUNITY/TOWN]. [NAME] has read and signed the consent forms, and we have assigned him/her o §. Why not? participant ID [#] . We have explained the purpose of the study, mapping process, and interview plan. • Is the Project area important your to you / family / your community? Why?
Primary Goal: BRFN is working to document community knowledge and use by BRFN members in the RELEVANT INFORMATION TO INCLUDE area of the proposed North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. We’d like to know how you have used • How they learned about the Project area these areas, as well as what you may know about how BRFN members have used them in the past. • First hand experience • Second hand knowledge (map with *) The study area follows a route starting approximately 35km southwest of Fort St. John and continuing • No use northwest to a point about 180km northwest of Fort St. John, BC, but if you feel there are other places • Trapline number(s) of individual / family members or things further away that the Project may impact, please let us know. • Other named family members • Remember to spell out all proper names
108 The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and Use1 Study of 17 The Firelight Group Page 2 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE & BRFN KNOWLEDGE AND USE UDY ST OF THE TRANSCANADA PIPELINE NORTH MONTNEY MAINLINE 2 Activities in and knowledge of the Project area PROJECT
PERSONAL INFORMATION THIS GUIDE INCLUDES • Full name • Questions • Place of birth • Interview checklist • Age and year of birth • Interview overview • Where you were raised • Mapping notes • Membership in Blueberry River First Nations • Mapping codes • Parents and grandparents
Please read the guide completely before beginning interviews GENERAL USE QUESTIONS Have you ever used the area around the proposed Project, or areas nearby? For hunting / trapping / fishing / camping plant gathering / passing on traditional knowledge or INTRODUCTION language o If yes 1 §. When? §. What do you do there?
§. Who with? Complete the interview checklist, then read with AUDIO & VIDEO RECORDERS ON at the start of each §. How did you learn about this area? session. o If no §. Why not? Today is [DATE]. We are interviewing [NAME] for the Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Have your family or community members ever used the area around the proposed , Project or areas Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. Thank you for coming. nearby? o If yes My name is [NAME] and my co-‐researcher(s) is/are [NAME(S)]. We’re at the [BUILDING] in §. What activities did they do there? If no [COMMUNITY/TOWN]. [NAME] has read and signed the consent forms, and we have assigned him/her o §. Why not? participant ID [#] . We have explained the purpose of the study, mapping process, and interview plan. • Is the Project area important your to you / family / your community? Why?
Primary Goal: BRFN is working to document community knowledge and use by BRFN members in the RELEVANT INFORMATION TO INCLUDE area of the proposed North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project. We’d like to know how you have used • How they learned about the Project area these areas, as well as what you may know about how BRFN members have used them in the past. • First hand experience • Second hand knowledge (map with *) The study area follows a route starting approximately 35km southwest of Fort St. John and continuing • No use northwest to a point about 180km northwest of Fort St. John, BC, but if you feel there are other places • Trapline number(s) of individual / family members or things further away that the Project may impact, please let us know. • Other named family members • Remember to spell out all proper names
The Firelight Group Page 1 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River First Nations Group Knowledge and Use Study Page 2 of 17 109 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS HABITATION 4 Routes used for hunting / fishing / habitation / other rights based practices 3 Places camped or stayed overnight
TRAIL (TR) PERMANENT HABITATION (PX) & TEMPORARY HABITATION (TX) Can you show routes us you have travelled by road or by foot, quad or snowmobile? Can you show us places you have stayed overnight? For personal use (hunting, fishing, camping, other rights based activities) Examples: a cabin you built / use(d), a tent, campsite, other temporary or permanent structures Can you show us old trails have that been used by BRFN members? (map with *) How many times have you stayed there? Once shorterm= TX WATER ROUTE (WR) More than once or longterm= PX Can you show us routes you have travelled along creeks, lakes or rivers by ? boat For personal use (hunting, fishing, camping, other rights based activities) OTHER HABITATION (PX OR TX AND *) Can you show us old routes that BRFN used to be by members? (map with *) Can you show us places you have heard stories about your family or other BRFN members staying overnight, but you haven’t stayed ? at yourself MAPPING How many times have they stayed there? Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box: Once shortterm= TX* • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) More than once or longterm= PX* • Frequency of use
• Names and numbers of members who use this route MAPPING Transportation routes and all linear features should be controlled • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Each site is labeled with a code that includes: site use, site #, modifiers, participant ID • Follow the actual route and natural features (not a straight line from A to B) • Teaching code = TA • Include relevant modifiers (after the site code) • Keep list of place names • Secondhand knowledge = * • Spell out all proper names • Commercial use = $ • Approximate spatial information = ? Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE • Frequency of use • Names and numbers of members who stayed there • Why do you travel this route? • How did you learn about this route? • What do you when do you are travelling along here? SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE • Is this the only route to get from point A to B, or is there an alternative? • Describe the location / the conditions • Was this a new route, or a well-‐travelled, well-‐recognized route? • Why do you go there? • Is this route important to you / your family / community? Why? • How did you find out about this place? / Who showed it to you? • Is this route important to sustaining your culture / way of life? • What do you like about the place? • What is the farthest point that you have travelled? • What activities do you do when staying there?
• What does this place mean to you? TIME CHECK! Need a break? • Is this place mportant i to you / your family / community? Why? • Is this place important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? • How would you explain the importance of this place to the government / industry?
110 The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and Use3 Study of 17 The Firelight Group Page 4 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS HABITATION 4 Routes used for hunting / fishing / habitation / other rights based practices 3 Places camped or stayed overnight
TRAIL (TR) PERMANENT HABITATION (PX) & TEMPORARY HABITATION (TX) Can you show routes us you have travelled by road or by foot, quad or snowmobile? Can you show us places you have stayed overnight? For personal use (hunting, fishing, camping, other rights based activities) Examples: a cabin you built / use(d), a tent, campsite, other temporary or permanent structures Can you show us old trails have that been used by BRFN members? (map with *) How many times have you stayed there? Once shorterm= TX WATER ROUTE (WR) More than once or longterm= PX Can you show us routes you have travelled along creeks, lakes or rivers by ? boat For personal use (hunting, fishing, camping, other rights based activities) OTHER HABITATION (PX OR TX AND *) Can you show us old routes that BRFN used to be by members? (map with *) Can you show us places you have heard stories about your family or other BRFN members staying overnight, but you haven’t stayed ? at yourself MAPPING How many times have they stayed there? Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box: Once shortterm= TX* • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) More than once or longterm= PX* • Frequency of use
• Names and numbers of members who use this route MAPPING Transportation routes and all linear features should be controlled • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Each site is labeled with a code that includes: site use, site #, modifiers, participant ID • Follow the actual route and natural features (not a straight line from A to B) • Teaching code = TA • Include relevant modifiers (after the site code) • Keep list of place names • Secondhand knowledge = * • Spell out all proper names • Commercial use = $ • Approximate spatial information = ? Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE • Frequency of use • Names and numbers of members who stayed there • Why do you travel this route? • How did you learn about this route? • What do you when do you are travelling along here? SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE • Is this the only route to get from point A to B, or is there an alternative? • Describe the location / the conditions • Was this a new route, or a well-‐travelled, well-‐recognized route? • Why do you go there? • Is this route important to you / your family / community? Why? • How did you find out about this place? / Who showed it to you? • Is this route important to sustaining your culture / way of life? • What do you like about the place? • What is the farthest point that you have travelled? • What activities do you do when staying there? • What does this place mean to you? • Is this place mportant i to you / your family / community? Why? TIME CHECK! Need a break? • Is this place important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? • How would you explain the importance of this place to the government / industry?
The Firelight Group Page 3 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River First Nations Group Knowledge and Use Study Page 4 of 17 111 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
SUBSISTENCE SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE
5 Hunting, fishing, and collecting medicines, plants and resources for food or • Why do you hunt / trap / fish? cultural purposes; special habitats / places that these rely on • Who taught you how to hunt / trap / fish? Where? • Have you taught anyone how to hunt / trap / fish? Who? Where? • How important are these animals / birds daily / fish to your life? KILLED OR TRAPPED ANIMALS / BIRDS / FISH (…) • How many people can an animal feed? For how long? (individual / family community) Can you show us places where you have killed or trapped animals or birds? • What does it mean to you to be able to hunt / trap fish? • Are these animals / birds / fish important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? Can you show us places where you have caught fish? • How would you explain the importance of these animals / birds / fish to the government / industry? Personal use – to feed you / your family / your community, or to use for cultural purposes • Are any of these animals / birds / fish hard to find? Which ones? (Use codes on next page to prompt)
Can you show us places where members of your family or community have killed or trapped animals or birds? (map with *)
Can you show us places where members of your family or community have have caught fish? (map with *)
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE (EF) Can you show us the locations of special habitats or environmental features that are important to animals / fish / birds / plants? Examples: calving or mating mineral areas, licks, spawning areas
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE CORRIDOR (EC) What routes animals do use to move between environmental features?
Mapping Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • What they did with the meat / fur • Who they were with
EF and MC
• Use controlled polygons (map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less)
• Include relevant information (e.g. salt lick) in the description field • Pay close attention to where animals cross the Project area • Include the species in the Google Earth description field (if applicable)
112 The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and Use5 Study of 17 The Firelight Group Page 6 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project
SUBSISTENCE SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE
5 Hunting, fishing, and collecting medicines, plants and resources for food or • Why do you hunt / trap / fish? cultural purposes; special habitats / places that these rely on • Who taught you how to hunt / trap / fish? Where? • Have you taught anyone how to hunt / trap / fish? Who? Where? • How important are these animals / birds daily / fish to your life? KILLED OR TRAPPED ANIMALS / BIRDS / FISH (…) • How many people can an animal feed? For how long? (individual / family community) Can you show us places where you have killed or trapped animals or birds? • What does it mean to you to be able to hunt / trap fish? • Are these animals / birds / fish important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? Can you show us places where you have caught fish? • How would you explain the importance of these animals / birds / fish to the government / industry? Personal use – to feed you / your family / your community, or to use for cultural purposes • Are any of these animals / birds / fish hard to find? Which ones? (Use codes on next page to prompt)
Can you show us places where members of your family or community have killed or trapped animals or birds? (map with *)
Can you show us places where members of your family or community have have caught fish? (map with *)
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE (EF) Can you show us the locations of special habitats or environmental features that are important to animals / fish / birds / plants? Examples: calving or mating mineral areas, licks, spawning areas
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE CORRIDOR (EC) What routes animals do use to move between environmental features?
Mapping Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • What they did with the meat / fur • Who they were with
EF and MC
• Use controlled polygons (map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less)
• Include relevant information (e.g. salt lick) in the description field • Pay close attention to where animals cross the Project area • Include the species in the Google Earth description field (if applicable)
The Firelight Group Page 5 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River First Nations Group Knowledge and Use Study Page 6 of 17 113 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
SUBSISTENCE CONTINUED
5 Codes: hunting / trapping / fishing SUBSISTENCE CONTINUED
5 Codes: medicines / plants / other resources ANIMAL KILL SITES BB = Black Bear MM = Whistler / Marmot BI = Bison / Buffalo MO = Moose BERRIES / PLANTS / OTHER RESOURCES (…) CA = Caribou OG = Other Game Can you show us places where berries you’ve collected / plants / water / other resources? CH = Chicken PO = Porcupine Personal use – collect berries / plants / resources for you / your family / your community EK = Elk RB = Rabbit (Prompt with codes below) GB = Grizzly Bear RC = c Rac oon GR = Grouse SH = Sheep Can you show us places where members of your / family community have collected berries / plants / MD = Mule Deer WD = White-‐tailed Deer water … ? (map with *) AB = Aspen Bark JU = Juniper FURBEARING KILL SITES BA = Barks (crafts, construction, etc.) FD = Fireweed BR = Beaver LX = Lynx BE = Berries / Wild Fruit LP = Lily Pad CO = Coyote MK = Mink BL = Balsam MS = Mosses / Mushrooms ER = Ermine MT = Marten CB = Cambium ON = Wild Onion FI = Fisher MU = Muskrat CT = Cat Tail OP = Other Plant FO = Other Fur Bearer OT = Otter CW = Cottonwood PA = Parsnip FX = Fox SQ = Squirrel DL = Dandelion PC = Pine Cones GT = Goat TP = General Trapping Area DP = Dye Plant PP = Poplar WO = Wolf EG = Eggs RH = Wild Rhubarb WV = Wolverine EM = Earth Material (rocks, clays, etc.) RS = Rose Bush FE Feathers = RW = Rotten Wood BIRD KILL SITES FP = Food Plants (roots, bulbs, cambium) SG = Spruce Gum CH = Chicken HA = Hawk FW = Firewood WA = Water (drinking water sources) DU = Duck/Mallard OB = Other Bird EA = Eagle OW = Owl MEDICINE PLANTS (MP) FL = Falcon PT = Ptarmigan CC = Choke Cherry Bark PM = Peppermint GE = Geese SW = Swan CI = Chi RD = Red Willow GR = Grouse DC = Devils Club RE = Red Willow Bark FR = Flowers RR = Rat Root FISH CATCH SITES FU = Fungus SA = Sage BT = Bull Trout LT = Lake Trout LB = Labrador Tea SE = Sweet Grass CF = Coarse Fish MR = Maria / Burbot MA = Mountain Ash TM = Tamarack CR = Char OF = Other Fish MI = Mint Tea WI = Willow Fungus DV = Dolly Varden PK = Pickerel / Walleye NB = Northern Bed Straw YS = Yellow Slippers GD = Goldeye RT = Rainbow Trout GY = Grayling SM = Salmon JF = Jackfish / Pike SU = Sucker KO = Kokanee WF = Whitefish Can you show us places where you’ve collected medicine plants?
114 The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and Use7 Study of 17 The Firelight Group Page 8 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Montney Mainline Pipeline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
SUBSISTENCE CONTINUED
5 Codes: hunting / trapping / fishing SUBSISTENCE CONTINUED
5 Codes: medicines / plants / other resources ANIMAL KILL SITES BB = Black Bear MM = Whistler / Marmot BI = Bison / Buffalo MO = Moose BERRIES / PLANTS / OTHER RESOURCES (…) CA = Caribou OG = Other Game Can you show us places where berries you’ve collected / plants / water / other resources? CH = Chicken PO = Porcupine Personal use – collect berries / plants / resources for you / your family / your community EK = Elk RB = Rabbit (Prompt with codes below) GB = Grizzly Bear RC = c Rac oon GR = Grouse SH = Sheep Can you show us places where members of your / family community have collected berries / plants / MD = Mule Deer WD = White-‐tailed Deer water … ? (map with *) AB = Aspen Bark JU = Juniper FURBEARING KILL SITES BA = Barks (crafts, construction, etc.) FD = Fireweed BR = Beaver LX = Lynx BE = Berries / Wild Fruit LP = Lily Pad CO = Coyote MK = Mink BL = Balsam MS = Mosses / Mushrooms ER = Ermine MT = Marten CB = Cambium ON = Wild Onion FI = Fisher MU = Muskrat CT = Cat Tail OP = Other Plant FO = Other Fur Bearer OT = Otter CW = Cottonwood PA = Parsnip FX = Fox SQ = Squirrel DL = Dandelion PC = Pine Cones GT = Goat TP = General Trapping Area DP = Dye Plant PP = Poplar WO = Wolf EG = Eggs RH = Wild Rhubarb WV = Wolverine EM = Earth Material (rocks, clays, etc.) RS = Rose Bush FE Feathers = RW = Rotten Wood BIRD KILL SITES FP = Food Plants (roots, bulbs, cambium) SG = Spruce Gum CH = Chicken HA = Hawk FW = Firewood WA = Water (drinking water sources) DU = Duck/Mallard OB = Other Bird EA = Eagle OW = Owl MEDICINE PLANTS (MP) FL = Falcon PT = Ptarmigan CC = Choke Cherry Bark PM = Peppermint GE = Geese SW = Swan CI = Chi RD = Red Willow GR = Grouse DC = Devils Club RE = Red Willow Bark FR = Flowers RR = Rat Root FISH CATCH SITES FU = Fungus SA = Sage BT = Bull Trout LT = Lake Trout LB = Labrador Tea SE = Sweet Grass CF = Coarse Fish MR = Maria / Burbot MA = Mountain Ash TM = Tamarack CR = Char OF = Other Fish MI = Mint Tea WI = Willow Fungus DV = Dolly Varden PK = Pickerel / Walleye NB = Northern Bed Straw YS = Yellow Slippers GD = Goldeye RT = Rainbow Trout GY = Grayling SM = Salmon JF = Jackfish / Pike SU = Sucker KO = Kokanee WF = Whitefish Can you show us places where you’ve collected medicine plants?
The Firelight Group Page 7 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River First Group Nations Knowledge and Use Study Page 8 of 17 115 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
Personal use – collected medicine for you / your family / your community CULTURAL USE Can you show us places where members of your family / community have collected medicine plants? Gatherings / ceremonies / teaching areas / burials / spiritual places (map with *) 6 place names
Include for each mapped site in descrition Google Earth field of the dialogue box First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) GATHERING PLACE (GP) MAPPING Can you show mportant us i places where people ? gather • PN sites: include in Google MAPPING Examples: pow wows, rodeos, treaty celebrations Earth description field the place Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • Use by you / your family members / your community name and translation • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) Current or past • Include relevant modifiers • Why do you collect medicine / plants / resources? • What do you do with the medicine / plants / resources? (after the site code) CEREMONIAL PLACE (CP) Secondhand knowledge = * Can you show us places that are used for ? ceremonies o o Commercial use = $ Examples: cultural dances, sweat lodges o Approximate spatial SUGGESTED Prompts for detailed knowledge and use • Use by you / your family members / your community information = ? • Why do you collect medicine / plants / resources? Current or past • Prompt for detailed knowledge • What are these medicines / plants / resources used for? and use as relevant • How important are these medicines / plants / resources to your daily life? TEACHING AREA (TA) • Who taught you about collecting and using medicine / plants resources? Where? Can you show us any places that have special knowledge or stories associated with them? • Have you taught anyone about collecting and using medicine / plants / resources? Who? Where? Examples: creation stories, dreamier stories, histories • Are these medicines / plants / resources important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? • Who told you? • How would you explain the importance of these medicines / plants resources to the government / industry? Can you show us that places are used for teaching knowledge to ? children or others • Are any of these medicines / plants / resources hard to find outside of the project area and • Current or past nearby areas? (Who were they with? Species, if applicable?) • Use by you / your family members / your community
BURIAL (BU) Can you show us places where members BRFN of are buried or where their remains are (e.g. cremation)? • Know firsthand or heard from / family community members
SPIRIT (SP) Can you show us places where spirit beings live or there are special rules about how you act or respect the place? • Know firsthand or heard from / family community members
PLACE NAME (PN) Can you show us any places that have ? special place names
MAPPING Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • Who they were with / who they heard about it from
116The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and9 of Use17 Study The Firelight Group Page 10 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
Personal use – collected medicine for you / your family / your community CULTURAL USE Can you show us places where members of your family / community have collected medicine plants? Gatherings / ceremonies / teaching areas / burials / spiritual places (map with *) 6 place names
Include for each mapped site in descrition Google Earth field of the dialogue box First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) GATHERING PLACE (GP) MAPPING Can you show mportant us i places where people ? gather • PN sites: include in Google MAPPING Examples: pow wows, rodeos, treaty celebrations Earth description field the place Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • Use by you / your family members / your community name and translation • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) Current or past • Include relevant modifiers • Why do you collect medicine / plants / resources? • What do you do with the medicine / plants / resources? (after the site code) CEREMONIAL PLACE (CP) Secondhand knowledge = * Can you show us places that are used for ? ceremonies o o Commercial use = $ Examples: cultural dances, sweat lodges o Approximate spatial SUGGESTED Prompts for detailed knowledge and use • Use by you / your family members / your community information = ? • Why do you collect medicine / plants / resources? Current or past • Prompt for detailed knowledge • What are these medicines / plants / resources used for? and use as relevant • How important are these medicines / plants / resources to your daily life? TEACHING AREA (TA) • Who taught you about collecting and using medicine / plants resources? Where? Can you show us any places that have special knowledge or stories associated with them? • Have you taught anyone about collecting and using medicine / plants / resources? Who? Where? Examples: creation stories, dreamier stories, histories • Are these medicines / plants / resources important to sustaining your culture / way of life? How? • Who told you? • How would you explain the importance of these medicines / plants resources to the government / industry? Can you show us that places are used for teaching knowledge to ? children or others • Are any of these medicines / plants / resources hard to find outside of the project area and • Current or past nearby areas? (Who were they with? Species, if applicable?) • Use by you / your family members / your community
BURIAL (BU) Can you show us places where members BRFN of are buried or where their remains are (e.g. cremation)? • Know firsthand or heard from / family community members
SPIRIT (SP) Can you show us places where spirit beings live or there are special rules about how you act or respect the place? • Know firsthand or heard from / family community members
PLACE NAME (PN) Can you show us any places that have ? special place names
MAPPING Include for each mapped site in Google Earth description field of the dialogue box • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • Who they were with / who they heard about it from
The Firelight Group Page 9 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River Group First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Page 10 of 17 117 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
FINAL QUESTIONS & CONCLUSION IMPAIRED USE 8
7 Specific and general impaired use due to impacts from industry and other s reasons REVIEW VISUAL IMPACT MODEL Turn on industry data and participant’s mapped sites GENERAL IMPAIRED USE (GL) Can you show us any general areas where you used to hunt / gather / fish / camp/ practice other rights, but • Based on your understanding of the Project, do pipeline you think the proposed will affect your ability to do not go anymore because of impacts from industry ? or other reasons enjoy your treaty rights or way of life? If so, how so? o o What about your children’s or grandchildren’s ability to enjoy their treaty rights or way of life? SPECIFIC IMPAIRED E US (SL) Can you show us any specific places where you used to hunt / gather / fish / camp / practice other rights, • What do you think the most important things are for BRFN to focus on in relation d to the propose but where you do do not those activities anymore because of impacts from industry or ? other reasons Project?
MAPPING • Are there any other important places or issues related to the Project that you think we should be documenting today? • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Transportation routes and linear features should be controlled (follow natural features, do not draw a • Are there other BRFN members that we should talk to? straight line from A to B)
Include for each mapped site in description Google Earth field of the dialogue box CONCLUSION • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) Read with audio & video recorders on after every session • Reason for avoidance Today is [DATE]. We have just finished interviewing [NAME] for the Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study of the proposed TransCanada Pipeline North Montney Mainline Project. Thank you for SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE coming. • Why can you no longer go to this area? • What activities did you used to do in this area? My name is _____ and I’m here at the _____ building in _____ with _____. We’ve given _____ participant ID • How often did you go to or use this area? #_____. We’ve mapped a total of _____ sites in Google Earth at 1:50,000 or better, and recorded a total of • Can you do those activities somewhere else? _____ tracks on the digital recorder. Notes are recorded in/on _____. This interview has taken approximately • How does it make you feel that you can no longer go to or use this area? _____ hours _____ minutes. • How has the loss of use impacted you / your family / your community? • Has the loss of use impacted your culture / way of life? How? MAPPING • How would you explain the importance of this area to the government / industry? • Save audio and video files to computer and portable hard drive • How would you explain the impact that not being able to use the area has had on you to the government / Example: X08_ParticipantName_ 21June2013_01.mp3 industry? • Save KMZ files • Complete interview tables and notes • Upload all files to Alfresco
118The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and11 Use of 17 Study The Firelight Group Page 12 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
FINAL QUESTIONS & CONCLUSION IMPAIRED USE 8
7 Specific and general impaired use due to impacts from industry and other s reasons REVIEW VISUAL IMPACT MODEL Turn on industry data and participant’s mapped sites GENERAL IMPAIRED USE (GL) Can you show us any general areas where you used to hunt / gather / fish / camp/ practice other rights, but • Based on your understanding of the Project, do pipeline you think the proposed will affect your ability to do not go anymore because of impacts from industry ? or other reasons enjoy your treaty rights or way of life? If so, how so? o o What about your children’s or grandchildren’s ability to enjoy their treaty rights or way of life? SPECIFIC IMPAIRED E US (SL) Can you show us any specific places where you used to hunt / gather / fish / camp / practice other rights, • What do you think the most important things are for BRFN to focus on in relation d to the propose but where you do do not those activities anymore because of impacts from industry or ? other reasons Project?
MAPPING • Are there any other important places or issues related to the Project that you think we should be documenting today? • Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) • Transportation routes and linear features should be controlled (follow natural features, do not draw a • Are there other BRFN members that we should talk to? straight line from A to B)
Include for each mapped site in description Google Earth field of the dialogue box CONCLUSION • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) Read with audio & video recorders on after every session • Reason for avoidance Today is [DATE]. We have just finished interviewing [NAME] for the Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study of the proposed TransCanada Pipeline North Montney Mainline Project. Thank you for SUGGESTED PROMPTS FOR DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND USE coming. • Why can you no longer go to this area? • What activities did you used to do in this area? My name is _____ and I’m here at the _____ building in _____ with _____. We’ve given _____ participant ID • How often did you go to or use this area? #_____. We’ve mapped a total of _____ sites in Google Earth at 1:50,000 or better, and recorded a total of • Can you do those activities somewhere else? _____ tracks on the digital recorder. Notes are recorded in/on _____. This interview has taken approximately • How does it make you feel that you can no longer go to or use this area? _____ hours _____ minutes. • How has the loss of use impacted you / your family / your community? • Has the loss of use impacted your culture / way of life? How? MAPPING • How would you explain the importance of this area to the government / industry? • Save audio and video files to computer and portable hard drive • How would you explain the impact that not being able to use the area has had on you to the government / Example: X08_ParticipantName_ 21June2013_01.mp3 industry? • Save KMZ files • Complete interview tables and notes • Upload all files to Alfresco
The Firelight Group Page 11 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River Group First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Page 12 of 17 119 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
INTERVIEW CHECK LIST INTERVIEW OVERVIEW
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE INTRODUCTIONS • Laptop with mouse, microphone, projector, video camera, and other equipment • Primary interviewer – name and role • Batteries (AA, AAA, , 9V) memory cards, laser pointer, extension cord • Secondary interviewer – name and role • Consent orms, f notebooks, pens, and other supplies • Gifts and/or honoraria for participants MAPPING
• Google Earth imagery projected on the wall SET UP GOOGLE EARTH Where applicable: existing TUS data already collected through previous projects may be projected • Make sure project area with place name layers are projected on the o • Eye height of approximately 10km or 1:50,000 less ( or better) screen • Set up file structure (see example) • Digital mapping using points, line and polygons • Enter site codes and other data o If interviewing more than , one person make sure each participant has a separate folder o Organize data into industry, base data, past studies, or TUS sub-‐ INTERVIEW folders • The interview will take about 2 to 3 hours to complete
o Break about half way through CHECK YOUR EQUIPMENT o Can stop the interview at any time • Make sure audio settings are set to on record 3 MP (not WAV) • Three main sections or types of questions • Always test your recorders and microphones by playing back audio First: background and experience in project area and video recorders o Second: specific places or resources, especially within 5km of the Project area o §. Includes: camps, trails, hunting and fishing areas, berry tion or plant collec areas, important habitat, INFORM THE PARTICIPANT AND MAKE THEM COMFORTABLE • Get them tea / coffee / water cultural or spiritual places, and other places you consider important • Explain the interviews and why we are doing them o Third: how you think the Project, if it goes forward, will affect you, your family, and Blueberry River • Let them know that we will be reporting back to them and the community First Nations? • Explain the interview plan (see “Overview and Introduction”) • Questions o Some questions are oad, very br and others very detailed BEFORE STARTING THE INTERVIEW o Some questions may sound obvious, but it is important we get things in your own words • Record the details of the interview (participant id, interview date, location, recording info, etc.) in database o The reason for these questions is so that BRFN can be in a better position to defend information, if • Read the consent form to the participant and ask them to sign it needed, in court or elsewhere • Start your recorders o If there are things we don’t ask about, but you think we should BRFN raise in our reports regarding use
and Treaty 8 rights in the Project area, please let us know. REMINDERS DURING THE INTERVIEW
• Keep list of place names STORAGE OF RESULTS • Spell out all proper names, including those of individuals • Digital video and voice recordings, and notes • Ask relevant questions (see prompts) to get more detailed information about knowledge and use • Maps and all computer files will be saved to the hard drive and on a portable storage device o Note: Prompts are intended as suggestions only. You do not need to ask every question about every mapped site . Use your judgment. • All files will belong to the BRFN and will be stored and managed O by the Lands ffice. • Note when there are good quotes and record site time code or mapped
120The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and13 Use of 17 Study The Firelight Group Page 14 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
INTERVIEW CHECK LIST INTERVIEW OVERVIEW
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE INTRODUCTIONS • Laptop with mouse, microphone, projector, video camera, and other equipment • Primary interviewer – name and role • Batteries (AA, AAA, , 9V) memory cards, laser pointer, extension cord • Secondary interviewer – name and role • Consent orms, f notebooks, pens, and other supplies • Gifts and/or honoraria for participants MAPPING
• Google Earth imagery projected on the wall SET UP GOOGLE EARTH Where applicable: existing TUS data already collected through previous projects may be projected • Make sure project area with place name layers are projected on the o • Eye height of approximately 10km or 1:50,000 less ( or better) screen • Set up file structure (see example) • Digital mapping using points, line and polygons • Enter site codes and other data o If interviewing more than , one person make sure each participant has a separate folder o Organize data into industry, base data, past studies, or TUS sub-‐ INTERVIEW folders • The interview will take about 2 to 3 hours to complete
o Break about half way through CHECK YOUR EQUIPMENT o Can stop the interview at any time • Make sure audio settings are set to on record 3 MP (not WAV) • Three main sections or types of questions • Always test your recorders and microphones by playing back audio First: background and experience in project area and video recorders o Second: specific places or resources, especially within 5km of the Project area o §. Includes: camps, trails, hunting and fishing areas, berry tion or plant collec areas, important habitat, INFORM THE PARTICIPANT AND MAKE THEM COMFORTABLE • Get them tea / coffee / water cultural or spiritual places, and other places you consider important • Explain the interviews and why we are doing them o Third: how you think the Project, if it goes forward, will affect you, your family, and Blueberry River • Let them know that we will be reporting back to them and the community First Nations? • Explain the interview plan (see “Overview and Introduction”) • Questions o Some questions are oad, very br and others very detailed BEFORE STARTING THE INTERVIEW o Some questions may sound obvious, but it is important we get things in your own words • Record the details of the interview (participant id, interview date, location, recording info, etc.) in database o The reason for these questions is so that BRFN can be in a better position to defend information, if • Read the consent form to the participant and ask them to sign it needed, in court or elsewhere • Start your recorders o If there are things we don’t ask about, but you think we should BRFN raise in our reports regarding use
and Treaty 8 rights in the Project area, please let us know. REMINDERS DURING THE INTERVIEW
• Keep list of place names STORAGE OF RESULTS • Spell out all proper names, including those of individuals • Digital video and voice recordings, and notes • Ask relevant questions (see prompts) to get more detailed information about knowledge and use • Maps and all computer files will be saved to the hard drive and on a portable storage device o Note: Prompts are intended as suggestions only. You do not need to ask every question about every mapped site . Use your judgment. • All files will belong to the BRFN and will be stored and managed O by the Lands ffice. • Note when there are good quotes and record site time code or mapped
The Firelight Group Page 13 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River Group First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Page 14 of 17 121 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
MAPPING NOTES MAPPING CODES – PAGE 1/2 HABITATION & TRANSPORTATION PX = Permanent Habitation TX = Temporary Habitation Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) TR = Trail WR = Water Route
Label each site consistently in the NAME FIELD of the site properties dialogue box (see ex.) IMPORTANT PLACES & HABITAT • Each code in should indicate EC = Environmental Feature idor Corr EF = Environmental Feature o Site use o Site number KILL SITES o Modifiers (if relevant) BB = Black Bear MM = Whistler / Marmot Source (participant ID) o BI = Bison / Buffalo MO = Moose • Modifiers (after the site number) CA = Caribou OG = Other Game o Firsthand knowledge has no modifier §. Example: TX01-‐X08 (member with ID# X08 CH = Chicken PO = Porcupine reports first mapped temporary shelter place EK = Elk RB = Rabbit where she has camped) GB = Grizzly Bear RC = c Rac oon o Secondhand knowledge is mapped with a * GR = Grouse SH = Sheep §. Example: TX01*-‐X08 MD = Mule Deer WD = White-‐tailed Deer Approximate spatial information is mapped with a ? o §. Example: TX01?-‐X08 FURBEARING KILL SITES o Commercial use (including guiding/outfitting) is mapped with a $ BR Beaver = MK = Mink §. Example: TX01$-‐X08 CO = Coyote MT = Marten o If all modifiers are used, this is what it would look ER = Ermine MU = Muskrat like: TX01*?$-‐X08 FI = Fisher OT = Otter All other information goes in the DESCRIPTION FIELD of FO = Other Fur Bearer SQ = Squirrel the dialogue box (see example) FX = Fox TP = General Trapping Area GT = Goat WO = Wolf Transportation routes and all linear features should be controlled LX = Lynx WV = Wolverine • Zoomed in to less than 10km eye height • Follow the actual route and natural features (not a straight line from A to B) BIRD KILL SITES
DU = Duck HA = Hawk Include for each mapped site in Google Earth DESCRIPTION FIELD of the dialogue box EA = Eagle OB = Other Bird • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • Frequency of use FL = Falcon OW = Owl • Species (if relevant) GE = Geese PT = Ptarmigan • Number and names of who members were present GR = Grouse SW = Swan
Other FISH CATCH SITES • Keep list of place names BT = Bull Trout JF = Jackfish / Pike RT = Rainbow Trout • Spell out proper names where possible for the recording CR = Char KO = Kokanee SM = Salmon • Use prompts to gain detailed access and use information CF = Coarse Fish LT = Lake Trout SU = Sucker DV = Dolly Varden MR = Maria / Burbot WF = Whitefish GD = Goldeye OF = Other Fish GY = Grayling PK = Pickerel / Walleye
122The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and15 Use of 17 Study The Firelight Group Page 16 of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
MAPPING NOTES MAPPING CODES – PAGE 1/2 HABITATION & TRANSPORTATION PX = Permanent Habitation TX = Temporary Habitation Map at an eye height of approximately 10km or less (1:50,000 or better) TR = Trail WR = Water Route
Label each site consistently in the NAME FIELD of the site properties dialogue box (see ex.) IMPORTANT PLACES & HABITAT • Each code in should indicate EC = Environmental Feature idor Corr EF = Environmental Feature o Site use o Site number KILL SITES o Modifiers (if relevant) BB = Black Bear MM = Whistler / Marmot Source (participant ID) o BI = Bison / Buffalo MO = Moose • Modifiers (after the site number) CA = Caribou OG = Other Game o Firsthand knowledge has no modifier §. Example: TX01-‐X08 (member with ID# X08 CH = Chicken PO = Porcupine reports first mapped temporary shelter place EK = Elk RB = Rabbit where she has camped) GB = Grizzly Bear RC = c Rac oon o Secondhand knowledge is mapped with a * GR = Grouse SH = Sheep §. Example: TX01*-‐X08 MD = Mule Deer WD = White-‐tailed Deer Approximate spatial information is mapped with a ? o §. Example: TX01?-‐X08 FURBEARING KILL SITES o Commercial use (including guiding/outfitting) is mapped with a $ BR Beaver = MK = Mink §. Example: TX01$-‐X08 CO = Coyote MT = Marten o If all modifiers are used, this is what it would look ER = Ermine MU = Muskrat like: TX01*?$-‐X08 FI = Fisher OT = Otter All other information goes in the DESCRIPTION FIELD of FO = Other Fur Bearer SQ = Squirrel the dialogue box (see example) FX = Fox TP = General Trapping Area GT = Goat WO = Wolf Transportation routes and all linear features should be controlled LX = Lynx WV = Wolverine • Zoomed in to less than 10km eye height • Follow the actual route and natural features (not a straight line from A to B) BIRD KILL SITES
DU = Duck HA = Hawk Include for each mapped site in Google Earth DESCRIPTION FIELD of the dialogue box EA = Eagle OB = Other Bird • First and last use (day / month / season AND year / decade) • Frequency of use FL = Falcon OW = Owl • Species (if relevant) GE = Geese PT = Ptarmigan • Number and names of who members were present GR = Grouse SW = Swan
Other FISH CATCH SITES • Keep list of place names BT = Bull Trout JF = Jackfish / Pike RT = Rainbow Trout • Spell out proper names where possible for the recording CR = Char KO = Kokanee SM = Salmon • Use prompts to gain detailed access and use information CF = Coarse Fish LT = Lake Trout SU = Sucker DV = Dolly Varden MR = Maria / Burbot WF = Whitefish GD = Goldeye OF = Other Fish GY = Grayling PK = Pickerel / Walleye
The Firelight Group Page 15 of 17 The Blueberry Firelight River Group First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Page 16 of 17 123 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
MAPPING CODES – PAGE 2/2
MEDICINES, PLANTS & OTHER RESOURCES AB = Aspen Bark MI = Mint Tea BA = Barks (Crafts, construction, etc.) MS = Mosses/Mushrooms BE = Berries/Wild Fruit NB = Northern Bed Straw BL = Balsam ON = Wild Onion CB = Cambium OP = Other Plant CC = Choke Cherry Bark PA = Parsnip CI = Chi PC = Pine Cones CT = Cat Tail PM = Peppermint CW = Cottonwood PP = Poplar DC = Devil’s Club RD = Red Willow DL = Dandelion RE = Red Willow Bark DP = Dye Plant RH = Wild Rhubarb EG = Eggs RR = Rat Root EM = Earth Material (rocks, clays, etc.) RS = Rose Bush FD = Fireweed RW = Rotten Wood FE = Feathers SA = Sage FP = Food Plant (roots, bulbs, cambium) SE = Sweet Grass FR = Flowers SG = Spruce Gum FU = Fungus TM = Tamarack FW = Firewood VI = Violet JU = Juniper WA = Water LB = Labrador Tea WI = Willow Fungus LP = Lily Pad YS = Yellow Slippers MA = Mountain Ash
CULTURAL USE BU = Burial PN = Place Name CP = Ceremonial Place SP = Spirit DR = Drying Rack TA= Teaching Area GP = Gathering Place
IMPAIRED USE GL = General Loss SL = Specific Loss
124 The Firelight Group Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge Page and Use17 Study of 17 Interview Guide for BRFN the Knowledge and Use Study of the North Pipeline Montney Mainline Project
MAPPING CODES – PAGE 2/2
MEDICINES, PLANTS & OTHER RESOURCES AB = Aspen Bark MI = Mint Tea BA = Barks (Crafts, construction, etc.) MS = Mosses/Mushrooms BE = Berries/Wild Fruit NB = Northern Bed Straw BL = Balsam ON = Wild Onion CB = Cambium OP = Other Plant CC = Choke Cherry Bark PA = Parsnip CI = Chi PC = Pine Cones CT = Cat Tail PM = Peppermint CW = Cottonwood PP = Poplar DC = Devil’s Club RD = Red Willow DL = Dandelion RE = Red Willow Bark DP = Dye Plant RH = Wild Rhubarb EG = Eggs RR = Rat Root EM = Earth Material (rocks, clays, etc.) RS = Rose Bush FD = Fireweed RW = Rotten Wood FE = Feathers SA = Sage FP = Food Plant (roots, bulbs, cambium) SE = Sweet Grass FR = Flowers SG = Spruce Gum FU = Fungus TM = Tamarack FW = Firewood VI = Violet JU = Juniper WA = Water LB = Labrador Tea WI = Willow Fungus LP = Lily Pad YS = Yellow Slippers MA = Mountain Ash
CULTURAL USE BU = Burial PN = Place Name CP = Ceremonial Place SP = Spirit DR = Drying Rack TA= Teaching Area GP = Gathering Place
IMPAIRED USE GL = General Loss SL = Specific Loss
The Firelight Group Page 17 of 17 Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study 125