Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
a PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
“We’re Completely Surrounded”: Preliminary Report on the Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components from the the Aitken Section of the Proposed North Montney Pipeline Project
Report Prepared By West Moberly First Nations P.O. Box 90, Moberly Lake, BC V0C 1X0
September 2014
i WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1: Anthropogenic Activities in the TLUS spatial units
Table 2: Traditional land uses in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network and the PMT Cultural Network
ii SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xvii 1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Context 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1 1.3 Structure of the Report 1
2.0 ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND METHOD 2
2.1 Introduction 2 2.2 Research Design and Methods 2 2.2.1 Qualitative Methods 2 2.2.1.1 Secondary Data 2 2.2.1.2 Primary Data 2 2.2.2 Quantitative Methods 3 2.2.2.1 Spatial Annotations of Traditional Land Use Data 3 2.2.2.2 Spatial Data 4 2.3 Effects Assessment 4 2.3.1 Valued Components 4 2.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 5 2.3.2.1 Spatial Boundaries 5 2.3.2.2 Temporary Boundaries 5 2.3.3 Pathway Analysis 6 2.3.4 Conflict Analysis 6 2.3.5 Determination of Significance 8 2.4 Ethics, Verification, and Constraints 9 2.4.1 Research Ethics 9 2.4.2 Verification Process 10 2.4.3 Data and Analysis Constraints 11
iii WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
3.0 Proposed North Montney Pipeline Project 12
3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Background 12 3.3 Development Stages 13 3.3.1 Description of the Construction Stage 13 3.3.2 Description of the Operation Stage 16 3.4 Potential Alternative Routes 16 3.4.1 Alternative No. 1: Chetwynd Route 17 3.4.2 Alternative No. 2: Cypress Option 17 3.4.3 Alternative No. 3: East Option 17 3.4.4 Alternative No. 4: Taylor Route 18 4.0 bASEline Conditions 19
4.1 Introduction 19 4.2 Treaty No. 8 19 4.2.1 In the Spirit of Peace and Friendship 19 4.2.2 Lesser Slave Lake, 1899 23 4.2.3 Report of the Commissioners 30 4.2.4 Text of the Treaty 32 4.2.5 Adhesions of the 1900s 35 4.2.6 Hudson’s Hope Adhesion/Admittance 37 4.2.7 Earliest Documented Elder Accounts of the Negotiations 42 4.3 Observations of Early Europeans in Dunne-za hananè 45 4.4 Traditional Seasonal Round 53 5.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 62
5.1 Introduction 62 5.2 Early Concerns about Changes to the Seasonal Round 62 5.3 Overview Spatial Data 63 5.3.1 Farrell Creek Cultural Network 63 5.3.1.1 Hunting Values 64 5.3.1.2 Fishing Values 65
iv SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
5.3.1.3 Trapping Values 66 5.3.1.4 Gathering Values 66 5.3.1.5 Additional Cultural Values 67 5.3.2 Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 68 5.3.2.1 Hunting Values 68 5.3.2.2 Fishing Values 70 5.3.2.3 Trapping Values 71 5.3.2.4 Gathering Values 71 5.3.2.5 Additional Cultural Values 73 5.4 Hunting Practices 74 5.4.1 Life on the Land 75 5.4.2 Cultural Selectiveness 80 5.4.3 Cultural Networks and Rotations 82 5.4.4 First Kill, Community Hunter, and Distribution of Resources 85 5.4.5 Non-Aboriginal Land Use and Hunting Practices 87 5.4.6 Loss and Decrease in Species Distribution and Population 91 5.4.7 Industrial Land Uses 94 5.5 Fishing Practices 97 5.5.1 Non-aboriginal Land Uses: Impacts on Fishing 98 5.5.2 Influences from Industrial Activity 99 5.6 Trapping Practices 100 5.6.1 Background: BC’s Registered Trapline System 100 5.6.2 Species of Concern 110 5.6.3 Trapping Areas, Sites, and Rotations 112 5.6.4 Traditional Roles, Values, and the Future of the Trapline 116 5.7 Gathering Practices 119 5.7.1 Medicine Gathering 121 5.7.2 Teaching on the Land 122 5.7.3 Movement Pattern for Berry Gathering 123 5.7.4 Use and Distribution of Berries in the Community 125 5.7.5 Non-Aboriginal Land Uses: Impacts on Berry Gathering 126
v WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
5.7.6 Influences of Industry on Gathering Practices 126 5.8 Culture Camps 128 5.8.1 History and Background on Camps 128 5.8.2 Placement, Timing, and Participants 130 5.8.2.1 Placement of Culture Camps 130 5.8.2.2 Timing of Culture Camps 135 5.8.2.3 Participation in Culture Camps 136 5.8.3 Cultural Activities 137 5.8.4 Cultural Revitalization, Health and Modern-Day Importance 149 5.8.5 Threats and Impacts to Culture Camps 154 5.8.6 Spirituality and Cultural Heritage 158 5.8.6.1 Cultural Connection and Connectivity 158 5.8.6.2 Cultural Associations 159 5.8.6.3 Link of Spiritual Health to Physical and Mental Health 162 5.8.6.4 Archeological Resources (Cultural Heritage) 164 5.8.6.5 Changes to the Landscape 165 5.8.6.6 Types of Ceremonies at Camps 166 5.8.6.6.1 Background on Sweat Lodge 166 5.8.6.6.2 Sweat Lodge and West Moberly 166
6.0 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 169
6.1 Introduction 169 6.2 Conflict Analysis 169 6.2.1 Potential Conflicts in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 169 6.2.1.1 Hunting Values 170 6.2.1.2 Trapping Values 171 6.2.1.3 Fishing Values 171 6.2.1.4 Gathering Values 172 6.2.2 Potential Conflicts in the Peace-Moberly Cultural Network 173 6.2.2.1 Hunting Values 173 6.2.2.2 Trapping Values 174
vi SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
6.2.2.3 Fishing Values 175 6.2.2.4 Gathering Values 176 6.3 Analysis of Spatial Data 176 6.4 Assessment 178 6.4.1 Hunting Values 178 6.4.1.1 Effects Analysis 178 6.4.1.2 Evaluation of Significance 197 6.4.2 Fishing – Traditional Seasonal Round 199 6.4.2.1 Effects Analysis 199 6.4.2.2 Evaluation of Significance 200 6.4.3 Trapping – Traditional Seasonal Round 201 6.4.3.1 Effects Analysis 201 6.4.3.2 Evaluation of Significance 204 6.4.4 Gathering – Traditional Seasonal Round 205 6.4.4.1 Effects Analysis 205 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 208
REFERENCES 210
APPENDIX A 215
APPENDIX B 278
APPENDIX C 289
APPENDIX D 298
APPENDIX E 308
APPENDIX F 321
APPENDIX G 331
APPENDIX H 345
APPENDIX I 352
APPENDIX J 360
APPENDIX k 368
APPENDIX L 385
vii WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
LIST OF Figures
Figure 4–1: Cave used for approximately 10,500 years by the Dunne-za 19
Figure 4–2: Historic map of Treaty No.8 20
Figure 4–3: Cabin used by West Moberly for trapping, hunting, and other cultural activities 40
Figure 4–4: Historic Dunne-za camp site 46
Figure 4–5: Blueberries of Dunne-za hananè 49
Figure 4–6: West Moberly members harvesting bison near Pink Mountain, B.C. 50
Figure 4–7: An Elder drying meat from the fall hunt 54
Figure 4–8: Lynx trapped by a West Moberly member 57
Figure 4–9: Lynx and other trapped species in the process of being stretched and dried 57
Figure 4–10: Bull trout caught by a West Moberly member near Pink Mountain, B.C. 59
Figure 4–11: Historic Dunne-za camp site on the shores of what is now referred to as Moberly Lake, B.C. 61
Figure 4–12: Molly Desjarlais, an Elder from West Moberly, teaching at camp how to stretch, flesh, and remove the hair from a hide 61
Figure 6–1: Traditional land uses in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network and the PMT Cultural Network 182
Figure 6–2: Low elevation caribou habitat and the potential routes of the proposed NMP project 191
Figure A–1: Treaty No. 8 in Canada 216
Figure A–2: Treaty No. 8 in British Columbia 217
Figure A–3: Review Area for the TLUS 218
Figure A–4: Overview of NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project in the Review Area of TLUS 219
Figure A–5: NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 220
Figure A–6: Alternative No. 1 -- Chetwynd Option for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP Project 221
viii SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Figure A–7: Alternative No. 2 -- Cypress Option for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP Project 222
Figure A–8: Alternative No. 3 -- East Option for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP Project 223
Figure A–9: Alternative No. 4 -- Taylor Option for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP Project 224
Figure A–10: Study Area for the TLUS 225
Figure A–11: Overview of the Cultural Networks with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project and TLUS areas 226
Figure A–12: Farrell Creek Cultural Network 227
Figure A–13: Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 228
Figure A–14: Overview of the Review Area, Study Area, and the NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 229
Figure A–15: Coal Licenses in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 230
Figure A–16: Oil and Gas Well Sites in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 231
Figure A–17: Oil and Gas Pipelines in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 232
Figure A–18: Oil and Gas Facilities in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 233
Figure A–19: Forestry Clear-Cuts in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 234
Figure A–20: Private Land (Fee Simple) in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 235
Figure A–21: Wind Energy Tenures in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 236
Figure A–22: Roads in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 237
ix WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Figure A–23: Power Lines in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 238
Figure A–24: Aggregate Industrial Land Uses in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 239
Figure A–25: Overview of Case Study unit in the Review Area and Study Area of the TLUS with NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 240
Figure A–26: Boundary of the Case Study for Cumulative Effects 241
Figure A–27: Coal Licences in the boundary of the Case Study 242
Figure A–28: Oil and Gas Well Sites in the boundary of the Case Study 243
Figure A–29: Oil and Gas Pipelines in the boundary of the Case Study 244
Figure A–30: Oil and Gas Facilities in the boundary of the Case Study 245
Figure A–31: Forestry Clear-Cuts in the boundary of the Case Study 246
Figure A–32: Private Land in the boundary of the Case Study 247
Figure A–33: Wind Energy Tenures in the boundary of the Case Study 248
Figure A–34: Roads in the boundary of the Case Study 249
Figure A–35: Power Lines in the boundary of the Case Study 250
Figure A–36: Aggregate Industrial Land Uses in the boundary of the Case Study 251
Figure A–37: Overview of the Farrell Creek Network and the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network with a portion of the Aitken Section of NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 252
Figure A–38: Farrell Creek Network with a portion of the Aitken Section of NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 253
Figure A–39: Coal Licences in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 254
Figure A–40: Oil and Gas Well Sites in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 255
Figure A–41: Oil and Gas Pipelines in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 256
Figure A–42: Oil and Gas Facilities in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 257
Figure A–43: Forestry Clear-Cuts in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 258
Figure A–44: Private Land in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 259
x SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Figure A–45: Wind Energy Tenures in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 260
Figure A–46: Roads in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 261
Figure A–47: Power Lines in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 262
Figure A–48: Aggregate Industrial Land Uses in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 263
Figure A–49: Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network with a portion of the Aitken Section of NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project 264
Figure A–50: Coal Licences in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 265
Figure A–51: Oil and Gas Well Sites in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 266
Figure A–52: Oil and Gas Pipelines in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 267
Figure A–53: Oil and Gas Facilities in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 268
Figure A–54: Forestry Clear-Cuts in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 269
Figure A–55: Private Land in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 270
Figure A–56: Wind Energy Tenures in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 271
Figure A–57: Roads in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 272
Figure A–58: Power Lines in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 273
Figure A–59: Aggregate Industrial Land Uses in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 274
Figure A–60: Aggregate TLU Data in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 275
Figure A–61: Aggregate TLU Data in the Peace Moberly Track Network 276
Figure A–62: Future Large-Scale Proposed Industrial Land Uses in the Review Area 277
Figure B–1: Caribou Low Elevation Habitat in West Moberly’s Study Area 279
Figure B–2: NGTL’s Preferred Route for the proposed NMP Project and Potential Alternative Routes 280
Figure B–3: NGTL’s Preferred Route and Potential Alternative Routes for the proposed NMP Project with the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 281
Figure B–4: Caribou Low Elevation Habitat with NGTL’s Preferred Route and Potential Alternative Routes for the proposed NMP Project with the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 282
xi WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Figure B–5: Forestry Clear Cuts in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 283
Figure B–6: Private Land in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 284
Figure B–7: Oil and Gas Well Sites, Pipeline, and Facilities in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 285
Figure B–8: Roads in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 286
Figure B–9: Power Lines in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 287
Figure B–10: Aggregate Industrial Land Uses in the Critical Habitat (Low Elevation Habitat) of the Klinse-Za Caribou Herd 288
Figure C–1: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms within 2 km of industrial facility 290
Figure C–2: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms within 2 km of industrial facility 291
Figure C–3: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms and no trespassing near industrial facility 292
Figure C–4: Application of the safety zone for industrial facilities in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 293
Figure C–5: Application of the safety zone for industrial facilities in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 294
Figure C–6: Application of the safety zone for industrial facilities in the Study Area of the TLUS 295
Figure C–7: Application of the safety zone for industrial facilities in the Review Area of the TLUS 296
Figure C–8: Application of the safety zone for industrial facilities in the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 297
Figure D–1: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms near the industrial camp 300
Figure D–2: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms near industrial camp due to human residences 301
xii SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Figure D–3: Industry sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms within 2 km of industrial facility used to reflect the land use characteristics of industrial camps 301
Figure D–4: Application of the safety zone for industrial camps in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 303
Figure D–5: Application of the safety zone for industrial camps in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 304
Figure D–6: Application of the safety zone for industrial camps in the Study Area of the TLUS 305
Figure D–7: Application of the safety zone for industrial camps in the Review Area of the TLUS 306
Figure D–8: Application of the safety zone for industrial camps in the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 307
Figure E–1: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land and that doing so would likely constitute trespassing 310
Figure E–2: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land 311
Figure E–3: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land and that doing so would likely constitute trespassing 311
Figure E–4: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land and that doing so would likely constitute trespassing 312
Figure E–5: Sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms or hunt near a human settlement 312
Figure E–6: BC government sign directing hunters not to discharge firearms or hunt near a human settlement 313
Figure E–7: Sign directing hunters to not hunt within 300 m of human settlement 313
Figure E–8: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land 314
Figure E–9: Sign directing hunters to not hunt on the private land and that doing so would likely constitute trespassing 314
Figure E–10: BC government sign directing hunters not to hunt near the land use 315
Figure E–11: Application of the safety zone for private land in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 316
Figure E–12: Application of the safety zone for private land in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 317
xiii WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Figure E–13: Application of the safety zone for private land in the Study Area of the TLUS 318
Figure E–14: Application of the safety zone for private land in the Review Area of the TLUS 319
Figure E–15: Application of the safety zone for private land in the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 320
Figure F–1: BC government sign notifying hunters that an area is used for grazing livestock 323
Figure F–2: Sign directing hunters not to hunt in an area because it has grazing livestock 324
Figure F–3: Sign directing hunters not to hunt in an area because it has grazing livestock 324
Figure F–4: Application of the safety zone for land tenured for grazing in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 326
Figure F–5: Application of the safety zone for land tenured for grazing in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 327
Figure F–6: Application of the safety zone for land tenured for grazing in the Study Area of the TLUS 328
Figure F–7: Application of the safety zone for land tenured for grazing in the Review Area of the TLUS 329
Figure F–8: Application of the safety zone for land tenured for grazing in the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 330
Figure G–1: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area where humans are working on infrastructure 333
Figure G–2: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of mining activities 334
Figure G–3: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of wind energy activities 334
Figure G–4: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area where humans are working on infrastructure 335
Figure G–5: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of mining activities 335
Figure G–6: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area where humans are working on infrastructure 336
Figure G–7: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of mining activities 336
Figure G–8: Industry sign directing hunters not to access tenure area of oil and gas activities 337
xiv SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Figure G–9: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area 337
Figure G–10: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of mining activities 338
Figure G–11: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area where humans are working on infrastructure 338
Figure G–12: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area where humans are working on infrastructure 339
Figure G–13: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of wind energy activities 339
Figure G–14: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in road area and doing so would likely constitute trespassing 340
Figure G–15: Sign directing hunters not hunt in an area with access and doing so would likely constitute trespassing 340
Figure G–16: Industry sign directing hunters not to hunt in the tenure area of mining activities 341
Figure G–17: Industry sign directing hunters not to access tenure area of oil and gas activities 341
Figure G–18: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 343
Figure G–19: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 344
Figure G–20: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure in the Study Area of the TLUS 345
Figure G–21: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure in the Review Area of the TLUS 346
Figure G–22: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure in the Regional Assessment Area of the ESA 347
Figure H–1: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure to evaluate the proposed NMP Project in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 349
Figure H–2: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure to evaluate the proposed NMP Project in the Peace-Moberly Track Cultural Network 350
Figure H–3: Application of the safety zone for additional infrastructure to evaluate the proposed NMP Project in the Study Area of the TLUS 350
xv WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Figure I–1: Logging truck driving past a culture camp 355
Figure I–2: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 356
Figure I–3: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 357
Figure I–4: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 358
Figure I–5: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 359
Figure J–1: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 362
Figure J–2: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 363
Figure J–3: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 364
Figure J–4: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 365
Figure J–5: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 366
Figure J–6: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 367
Figure J–7: Elder showing his grandson and great-grandson how to skin and prepare a moose 361
Figure L–1: Logging truck driving past a culture camp 387
Figure L–2: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 393
Figure L–3: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 395
Figure L–4: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 397
Figure L–5: Coal haul truck in the Sukunka valley 399
xvi SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
List Of Tables
Table 2–1: Valued Cultural Components 4
Table 2–2: Summary of Potential Components and Activities with Likely Effects Pathways 6
Table 3–1: Proposed Infrastructure Component 13
Table 3–2: Overview of the potential physical activities and actions of the construction stage for the proposed NMP Project 15
Table 3–3: NGTL’s preferred construction schedule for the proposed NMP Project (NGTL ????: 2.5) 15
Table 4–1: Seasonality of Traditional Use 55
Table 6–1: Traditional Land Uses 177
Table C–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Industrial Facilities 292
Table D–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Industrial Camps 302
Table E–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Private Land 315
Table F–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Private Land 325
Table G–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Additional Infrastructure 342
Table H–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section and the alternative routes for the proposed NMP project 351
Table I–1: Calculations of the Safety Zone for Aggregated Land Uses 354
Table K–1: Overview of Seasonality of Use 369
Table K–2: Aitken 2015 - Impact Identification - Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule 370
Table K–3: Aitekn 2015 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 371
Table K–4: Aitken 2015 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the PMT Cultural Network 372
Table K–5: Aitken 2016 - Impact Identification - Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule 373
Table K–6: Aitekn 2016 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 374
xvii WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Table K–7: Aitken 2016 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the PMT Cultural Network 375
Table K–8: Aitken 2017 - Impact Identification - Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule 376
Table K–9: Aitekn 2017 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 377
Table K–10: Aitken 2017 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the PMT Cultural Network 378
Table K–11: Aitken 2018 - Impact Identification - Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule 379
Table K–12: Aitekn 2018 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 380
Table K–13: Aitken 2018 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the PMT Cultural Network 381
Table K–14: Aitken 2019 - Impact Identification - Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule 382
Table K–15: Aitekn 2019 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the Farrell Creek Cultural Network 383
Table K–16: Aitken 2019 - Conflict Analysis between Seasonal Use and Construction Schedule in the PMT Cultural Network 384
xviii SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Context
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (“NGTL”) is a “wholly-owned subsidiary of TransCanada Pipelines Limited (“TransCanada”) (NGTL 2013a). TransCanada operates NGTL “pursuant to an operating agreement”, which includes, among other things, the application of “corporate policies in its operations” of NGTL that are also relied on with regard to its “other federally-regulated pipelines” (NGTL 2013a). NGTL has proposed to construct and operate the North Montney Pipeline project (the “proposed NMP project).
NGTL submitted an application to the National Energy Board (“NEB”) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) in November 2013 for the proposed NMP project (NGTL 2013a). The proposed NMP Project is located within areas of Treaty No. 8 that are used by West Moberly First Nations (“West Moberly”) for cultural purposes. NGTL has provided capacity funding to West Moberly to conduct a study of the potential adverse impacts to West Moberly’s cultural traditions, customs, and practices that could be caused by the construction, operation, and decommissioning / abandonment of the proposed NMP Project if it were issued a CPCN by the NEB (the “TLUS”).
1.2 Purpose and Scope
West Moberly and NGTL entered into an agreement on July 2014 to conduct a TLUS. The purpose of the TLUS was to enable West Moberly to examine its cultural values in relation to the land and natural resources in and around the proposed NMP project, and to provide the information, as appropriate to NGTL. The objectives of the TLUS were: (1) review existing qualitative and quantitative data; (2) conduct workshops with “community members” regarding the “planning and design” of the Study; (3) collect and document information relating to “the cultural traditions, customs, land use patterns, environmental practices, and traditional ecological knowledge through community interviews”; (4) “map and digitize spatial information and transcribe qualitative data that are collected”; (5) “produce and disseminate a draft report that includes the relevant information collected” for community review; (6) “present the report to TransCanada and discuss” (Willson 2013:1-2).
1.3 Structure of the Report
The first section of this report provides the context, purpose and scope of the TLUS. Section 2 summaries the approach and methods that were used to conducted the TLUS. Section 3 provides an overview of the proposed NMP project, including a general description of the background of the proposed NMP Project, its development stages if granted a CPCN, and the alternative means identified by NGTL. Section 4 provides data on the baseline conditions in relation to Dunne-za hananè (“land of the Beaver people”).
1 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Section 5 provides the current conditions of Dunne-za hananè. Section 6 provides an assessment and evaluation of the potential adverse effects of the proposed NMP project. Section 7 provides a conclusion to the TLUS.
2.0 ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND METHOD
2.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the research approach and methodologies used to collect and analyze primary and secondary qualitative data. This section describes the approach used to assess the potential adverse effects from the construction and operation stages of the proposed NMP Project on traditional land uses and values. The ethical standards, verification process, and constraints relating to data, analysis, and reporting with regard to the TLUS are provided in this section as well.
2.2 Research Design and Methods
The TLUS used a community-based approach with regard to conducting social scientific research with Aboriginal groups. TLUS objectives were derived from issues, concerns, and values of West Moberly. Research activities were led by a Project Team selected by the Aboriginal group that consisted of the following positions: Project Manager, Principle Researcher, Senior Researcher, Research Coordinator, Research Assistants, and Transcriptionists. Methods used to collect qualitative and quantitative data for the TLUS were modified, when necessary and appropriate, based on the cultural values articulated by the First Nation.
2.2.1 Qualitative Methods
2.2.1.1 Secondary Data
Existing and available qualitative data were reviewed based on their relevance to the TLUS. Both the Chief and Council and Land Use Department of West Moberly provided guidance for this review. Secondary data sources included relevant information that was in the possession of West Moberly, the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, and repositories such as libraries and institutions. Online searches for data were minimally used. Information compiled during the review of secondary data was used to inform the TLUS and were, when appropriate, incorporated into the TLUS.
2.2.1.2 Primary Data
Guided interviews were conducted with community members identified as knowledge holders and/or traditional land users active within the Review Area in general, and the Study Area in particular. Interview methods included one-on-one interviews and small focus groups, as directed by each of the family units. Participation was voluntary, and
2 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
participants were provided with an honorarium. Data provided by participants remained anonymous and each was assigned a unique number (e.g., P199) to ensure confidentiality.
Interview questions were semi-structured and standardized. Taking into account the unique way knowledge is held and disseminated in Aboriginal cultures, responses varied depending on the participant, as certain questions were appropriate for select participants to answer whereas some questions were not. As one participant explained, for example, “it’s not my station to speak about” traditions, customs, practices, or ecological knowledge (e.g., medicinal properties of traditional plants) that is held and taught by others within the community (P095 Transcript 2013). When a participant was of the view that another individual within the community would potentially be a more appropriate interviewee on a particular subject matter, and in situations where such an individual had not been previously identified as a prospective participant, the individual was asked if they would like to participate in the TLUS. Requests for interviews were always accepted, although some were not possible due to varying circumstances (e.g., timing of the year, personal work schedules).
Interviews were audio-recorded with an iPod and transcribed with the permission of the research participant. Transcripts and audio recordings were provided to each participant when requested. Video recordings of the interviews not considered appropriate by any of the families for a number of substantive reasons, and as such, was not used as method to record data. A content analysis was used to analyze qualitative interviews and data was coded according to concepts and themes (Babbie and Benaquisto 2010). When data from interviews were used, identifying markers were removed or modified as appropriate to ensure the protection of the research participant.
2.2.2 Quantitative Methods
Two primary quantitative methods were used to collect and analyze data in order to assess the effects from the proposed NMP Project on West Moberly’s identified VCs. The first method involved the collection and digitizing of spatial data from community members. The second method was the collection of spatial data from databases maintained by the BC government and other sources, as appropriate.
2.2.2.1 Spatial Annotations of Traditional Land Use Data
Spatial data was collected from West Moberly community members who participated in the TLUS. Maps were created using acceptable standards for traditional use mapping. Mylar sheets were placed over a map with a scale of 1:50,000 to record the data of each session with individual participants. Participants were asked to identify sites, locations, and areas on the map related to their traditional land use activities (e.g., moose hunting) and other culture uses (e.g., spiritual site). These places were recorded on the maps as points, lines,
3 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
and polygons, depending on site-type and activity. Qualitative data relating to each of the mapped sites, locations, and areas were collected simultaneously. These data included more in-depth information regarding, for example, what species was hunted, when was it hunted, what was used for hunting and cleaning the animal, what was the animal used for in the community, and how did the participant know such information. Mylar sheets were scanned and digitized as GIS maps in a custom-built spatial database. Interview survey forms and qualitative interview data were also scanned and used to populate an aspatial database that was then linked to the spatial database with the community-created maps. Together, these two TLUS databases provide well-documented, rigorous information about West Moberly’s traditional land use activities for the purposes of the TLUS.
2.2.2.2 Spatial Data
The BC government maintains several spatial databases that are semi-open to the general public. Data related to mining, oil and gas, wind, forestry, roads, and private land were collected and used in the effects analysis. The majority of this data appeared to be valid, although data relating to private land appeared to contained errors (e.g., double counting) and were addressed during the analysis to the extent possible.
2.3 Effects Assessment
2.3.1 Valued Components
An issues-driven approach forms the basis of the TLUS. This approach focuses on the cultural values deemed important by members of West Moberly that participated in the TLUS. For the purpose of this report, the term valued component (“VC”) encompasses Aboriginal values associated with West Moberly’s mode of life and includes, for example, customs, traditions and practices relating to cultural uses and values. Workshops, interviews, and mapping exercises were held in the community to scope the VCs for the TLUS. Issues and concerns related to the proposed NMP Project have been documented in various meetings, workshops, and interviews, which have been included as appropriate. Through these activities, participants identified a number of VCs that reflect and support West Moberly’s cultural land use values. Table 2-1 includes the VCs may be adversely impacted by the construction activities and operations associated with the proposed NMP project.
Table 2–1: Valued Cultural Components
Valued Cultural Components
• Hunting • Fishing • Trapping • Gathering
4 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Scoping of additional issues and concerns continued throughout the TLUS process. Data collected during the interview and mapping exercises of the TLUS were used to identify the potential conflicts and adverse effects of the proposed NMP project on West Moberly’s cultural land use values.
2.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
2.3.2.1 Spatial Boundaries
Spatial boundaries established for the TLUS were based on data collected during the scoping exercise with Elders, land users, and leaders of West Moberly. Figure A-10 (Appendix A) illustrates a spatial unit (the “Study Area”) designed to reflect the composite spatial characteristics of each of the identified VCs. The Study Area was used to characterize the baseline conditions and current conditions to determine the potential adverse effects to the VCs from the proposed NMP project. Figure A-3 (Appendix A) illustrates a spatial unit (the “Review Area”) designed to depict baseline conditions and current conditions of VCs at a sufficient scale to assess the potential cumulative adverse effects to VCs from the proposed NMP project.
Changes to the traditional land use patterns and values that occur within cultural networks located in the boundaries of the Study Area may cause adverse effects to cultural networks situated elsewhere in the Review Area, and vice versa. Based on the scoping exercise with West Moberly, the TLUS focused on the collection of TLU data in the Study Area and the effects assessment was scoped to include two cultural networks, specifically the Farrell Creek Cultural Network and the Peace-Moberly Cultural Network (the “PMT Cultural Network”).
2.3.2.2 Temporary Boundaries
Temporary boundaries were also established to define baseline conditions (i.e. historical reference point) against which changes to VCs over time may be determined. Baseline conditions of VCs, that is, the historic characteristics of Dunne-za hananè within which the traditions, customs, and practices of the Mountain Dunne-za mode of life existed preindustrial disturbance, uses an approximate timeframe of the early 1800s to the mid- 1900s as a composite boundary. The timeframe used to establish the current conditions of VCs is based on the influences of anthropogenic activities in Dunne-za hananè and, as noted by members from West Moberly, begins approximately in the 1950s and continues until the present-day. A current conditions point of reference was included due to substantive differences from the baseline conditions for some VCs. The timeframe established to determine the future conditions of VCs was based on the development stages associated with the proposed NMP project, as well as the point at which baseline condition of VCs may possibly be restored.
5 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
2.3.3 Pathway Analysis
Pathway analysis was used in the TLUS to establish the potential linkages between the causes and the effects (Hegmann et al. 1999). Components and activities of the proposed NMP project are considered the “causes” and the potential changes to the VCs are considered the “effects” for the purpose of the TLUS. The analysis determined which connections between the components and/or activities could potentially result in substantial change(s) to the VC(s), with the intention of focusing the effects analysis.
Table 2–2: Summary of Potential Components and Activities with Likely Effects Pathways
Valued Cultural Components
• Construction and use of industrial camps • Industrial traffic increase • Access (control) around construction area • Temporary infrastructure improvements and infrastructure • Permanent infrastructure improvements • Construction of Metering Stations • Construction of Compressor Stations • Construction of Pipeline, including clearing of land, trenching, and laying the pipe • Reclaming construction area • Influx of direct and indirect temporary workers • Existing pipeline RoW • Operations and maintenance programs
Pathways were identified for the construction and the operational stages (Table 2-2) of the proposed NMP project. Further scoping activities occurred during the data collection phase and engagement opportunities with Elders, land users, and leadership to determine whether addition pathways are presence or previously identified pathways are not substantial. Based on available and relevant data, when a components and/or activity of the proposed NMP project was not likely to cause an observable change in the VC, the component and/or activity was considered to have no significant pathway.
2.3.4 Conflict Analysis
Potential conflicts are likely in situations where there are spatial and temporal intersections between the cultural land uses and values of an Aboriginal group and the actions and activities of an industrial development project. Cross-referencing the land uses of an Aboriginal group with those of an industrial development project provided the basis from which potential conflicts were scoped and assessed in the TLUS.
6 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Matrices were used to determine potential conflicts, as the method is highly effective at identifying the impacts (Canter 1996) and establishing the cause and effect relationship for direct impacts (Noble 2011). These identified the potential adverse interactions between the components (Table 3-1) and activities (Table 3-1) of the proposed NMP project on the VCs scoped by West Moberly. Listed on the y-axis (i.e., the left-vertical of the matrix) are the species of West Moberly’s traditional seasonal round that have been included. The x-axis (i.e., top-horizon of the matrix) includes the month(s) when a specific component, activities, or a combination, are to occur based on the Construction Schedule (Table 3-3) of the proposed NMP project. Cells in the matrices summarize the link(s) between the components and/or activities and the VCs with a symbol. Matrices were developed for each year of the Construction Stage and in other instances, when appropriate.
The conflict analysis provides the causal connection between the physical actions and activities that are likely to occur during NGTL’s preferred Construction Schedule and route of the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP project with the physical actions and activities of West Moberly’s traditional seasonal round regarding hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering. Not included in the scope of the conflict analysis are the potential conflicts between actions and activities of the proposed NMP project on the meaningfulness of traditions, customs, and practices inherent to the exercising of hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering activities. The extent to which the interactions between cultural and industrial activities may adversely impact the VCs identified by West Moberly are not part of the conflict analysis. Section 6.3 and 6.4 discusses the extent to which the potential conflicts from NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP project on the cultural values of West Moberly may result in adverse effects to the identified VCs.
VCs of West Moberly included in the matrices were characterized based on the traditional seasonal round as generally practiced (i.e., baseline conditions) and the TLU data collected from participants as part of the TLUS process (i.e., current conditions). Ecological capabilities were also considered. These factors were used to account for data shortcomings from participatory limitations and/or reservations, the cultural practice of rotating from one cultural network to another, increasing level of population, progressive exercise of developing and/or augmenting TEK, correlation of ecological knowledge and species as criteria for VCs, and past adverse effects of colonialism. These additional factors are considered to increase the confidence level of predicting potential adverse effects to cultural values in the future.
Matrices that combined the TLU and ecological/cultural capabilities data with the actions and activities of the Construction Schedule include the coding of interactions with different colours, as appropriate. The salmon hue indicates a potential conflict between cultural activities and construction activities based on current conditions is likely. The cantaloupe hue indicates potential conflict between cultural activities and construction activities based
7 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
on baseline conditions. The turquoise hue indicates that a species is extirpated at the local level or is considered endangered based on the TEK of West Moberly. From a cultural perspective, the terms “locally extirpated” or “endangered” is typically applies by West Moberly in circumstances where a species is no longer harvested, caught, gathered, or otherwise used for cultural purposes in accordance with the traditional seasonal round within a cultural network (P090 Interview 2013). The gray hue indicates a potential conflict between cultural activities and construction activities based on baseline conditions and current conditions is unlikely.
2.3.5 Determination of Significance
Criteria used to evaluate the significance of the predicted potential effects of the proposed NMP project on West Moberly’s VCs were adopted from the extant literature relating to impact assessment science and best practices relating to assessing impacts to Aboriginal cultures. These include: direction, geographic extent, duration, frequency, magnitude, reversibility, and likelihood. Definitions of the criteria are as follows:
• Direction considers whether a change to a VC in reference to the baseline condition and/or current condition is positive (i.e., causes a beneficial change), neutral (i.e., no observable and/or known change), or negative (i.e., causes an adverse change). • Geographic Extent refers to the affected spatial unit(s), including the site, local, regional, and territory. • Duration refers to the interval between when a change to a VC occurs and the point in time when the condition of the VC returns to its baseline condition and/or current condition. Intervals used to classify a change are the following: short-term (i.e., <1 year); medium-term (i.e., 1-10 years); and, long-term (i.e., >10 years). • Frequency refers to whether a change to a VC during the construction and/or operational stages materializes on one occasion (i.e., occurs only once), periodically (i.e., occurs “rarely and at irregular intervals” during), or continuously (i.e., “occurs on a regular basis and regular intervals”). • Magnitude refers to the degree of change to a VC, and is classified as low, medium, or high (i.e., a change is “large enough to seriously impair quality” or sustainability of the VC). • Reversibility refers to whether an effect to a VC may be reversed or if the change to the VC is irreversible. Negative changes to a socioeconomic and/or cultural VC are not likely to be reversible in most instances, whereas positive changes caused by a project may continue or elapse subsequent to the closure of an industrial development project. • Likelihood of an effect is qualitatively assessed based on primary data and, when appropriate, secondary data, and is classified as low, medium, or high.
8 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Using the criteria of direction, geographic extent, duration, frequency, magnitude, and likelihood, the significance of a predicted potential effect on a VC is then classified as insignificant, significant, or unknown. Definitions of these categories are as follows:
• Insignificant refers to an effect (individual or collective) that is detectable from the baseline and/or current conditions at the individual, family, and/or community level, but not likely to result in substantial changes to a VC. • Significant refers to an effect (individual or collective) that is detectable from the baseline and/or current conditions at the individual, family, and/or community level, and results in substantial changes to a VC. • Unknown refers to an effect (individual or collective) that is detectable, but due to insufficient data and/or inability to characterize the effect, a determination of significance is impractical at that point in time. Given the dynamic nature of biophysical and human systems, in addition to data limitations, the predictions of potential effects as well as the determination of significance contain an inherent level of uncertainty. Professional judgment was used when appropriate in the TLUS. Uncertainty in the TLUS was managed through the implementation of conservative methods and analysis. The conservative approach also took into account the synergistic changes to the VCs when drawing conclusions, that is, an effect was assumed to be “more rather than less adverse” (Hegmann et al. 1999:48).
2.4 Ethics, Verification, and Constraints
2.4.1 Research Ethics
Qualitative and quantitative cultural data used in the TLUS report were scoped, collected, analyzed, and reported on through a community-based research design. Members that participated in the TLUS provided these data. These members volunteered as research participants with the understanding that the methods with regard to the research protocols would be followed. Research ethics of the TLUS remain in effect for the foreseeable future. Anonymity and confidentiality of each research participant, therefore, must be maintained.
Social science research is ethically obligated to be concerned with ensuring the safety of members from Aboriginal groups that volunteer to be research participants, particularly the protection of their right to privacy and confidentiality. Methods are developed and implemented so as to ensure the anonymity of research participants’ is reasonably protected during the research process and subsequent to its completion. Under this approach the researchers obtained free and prior informed consent from potential participants. This involved the assurance that personal information, including names and other information that could make them identifiable, would not included in research materials that are released to a broader audience and/or the general public to the extent possible. Using
9 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
pseudonyms or assigned numbers in research materials and reports was thus considered a necessary method to establish and maintain participants’ safety, protection of their rights, and minimize any risks they may be vulnerable to as a result of their participation in TLUS.
The TLUS adheres to standard and best practices in North Americans social science. Canada’s three federal research agencies, representing medical, scientific and social science and humanities research agencies, adopted the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (“TCPS”) in 1988. The TCPS is a broad document that provides guidelines for researchers that work in a variety of fields with human participants. In practice, as noted in the TCPS, “[w]hen researchers obtain information with a promise of confidentiality, they assume an ethical duty that is central to respect for participants and the integrity of the research project. Breaches of confidentiality may harm the participant, the trust relationship between the researcher and the participant, other individuals or groups, and/or the reputation of the research community” (CIHR-NSERCC- SSHRC 2010:58). Application of the TCPS is considered the standard for ethical research practices in Canada, and as such, was used in the TLUS.
2.4.2 Verification Process
Integral to community-based research with is the verification of data, results, analysis, and conclusions with the Aboriginal group that participated (Kovack 2009). The goal of a TLUS verification process at West Moberly is to engage its membership at the individual, family, and community levels. This include three steps:
• Draft TLUS reports are made available to participants, leadership, and the staff to review. When requested, the draft TLUS report is discussed within a family unit with the assistance of members from Project Team as needed and appropriate; • Input received is collected, reviewed, and discussed with members of Chief and Council and the Land Use Department. Modification to a draft TLUS are made as directed; • Presentation of a final draft TLUS occurs at a workshop attended by community members, where members and families discuss the contents with regard to the communication of traditions, customs, and practices upon which their mode of life is based. Addition revisions are made when required prior to finalization. TLUS reports are disseminated as appropriate subsequent to finalization approval from Chief and Council. Broad distribution is not a general practice. Written approval from Chief and Council is required for an individual, group, representative and/or agent of the Crown, an employee of a company, or any other third party, to distribute a TLUS in part or whole.
10 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
2.4.3 Data and Analysis Constraints
Based on the nature of the report and the availability of data, time, scope, and resources, there are number of limiting factors. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• A comprehensive study and/or critique of all aspects of construction and operational stages of the proposed NMP project is not included; • The full and complete understanding of West Moberly with regard to all aspects of Treaty No. 8 and its section 35(1) rights and interests are not included; • A complete and/or comprehensive traditional use study or traditional ecological knowledge study is not included; • A cumulative effects assessment of the environment and/or section 35(1) rights and interests is not included; • There are data limitations, insufficiencies, and/or information gaps relating to the specifics of the construction, operational, and decommissioning phases of the proposed NMP Project; • Many members of West Moberly are actively working, and as such, were unable to participate in the TLUS, but have and continue to exercise their cultural traditions, customs, and practices whenever possible; • Analysis was limited to the VCs identified by participants and data provided by participants and the Proponent. Additional VCs and effects could be present and might be adversely effected; and, • Spatial data for this report was gathered from BC government sources. Any limitations and/or errors in the spatial data used for analysis, with the exception of the mapped TLU data, remains with the BC government. The analysis and conclusions contained in this report represent the professional judgement of Certes and are based on observations and measurements using qualitative and GIS methods. Due to the nature of socio-scientific studies, and the background data available at the time of writing, Certes cannot warrant against undiscovered features and/ or components that may impact cultural land uses, or variations in conditions between the time of writing and activities on the land. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertinent to the proposed CGLP Project, as described in this report, are based on the information obtained during the studies conducted by West Moberly and Certes, and are not applicable to any other project proposal.
Given the dynamic nature of biophysical/human systems and the various data limitations, the prediction of impacts contains an inherent level of uncertainty. Professional judgement was used when appropriate in the TLUS and impact assessment. Uncertainty was managed through a conservative approach (Hegmann et al. 1999).
11 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
3.0 Proposed North Montney Pipeline Project
3.1 Introduction
This section provides a general description of the potential components, actions, and activities in relation to the construction and operation stages of the proposed NMP project, including the alternative routes identified and described by NGTL. Information provided in this section does not replace or interpret the particulars of the proposed NMP project as described in the ESA by NGTL.
3.2 Background
Industry proponents have been in the process of exploring and extracting the oil and gas resources in the Peace region of Treaty No. 8 for many years. Activities relating to the oil and gas industry include, but are not limited to, exploration in the form of seismic lines, and the construction and operation of well sites, pipelines, processing facilities and other types of building-infrastructure, roads, transmission lines, offices, camps for workers, et cetera (Oil and Gas Commission 2014).
In and around 2003, several industry-proponents began discussing the desire for a pipeline to connect the northern areas of the Montney Basin to the NGTL system (TransCanada 2013a:1). NGTL has stated that its “anchor customer” is “Progress Energy Canada Ltd” (“Progress Energy”), as the company confirmed its financial interests in extracting natural gas from the south and northern areas of the Montney Basin (TransCanada 2013a:1). As such, NGTL identified the Aitken Section and Kahta Section as the basis for the proposed NMP Project, a decision that was made during the second and third quarters of 2013 (TransCanada 2013a:1).
The proposed NMP project is 306 km in length. It begins in the Groundbirch area, which is east of Dawson Creek, B.C., and extends north “to a point 187 km northwest of Fort St. John and 141 km south of Fort Nelson”, B.C (TransCanada 2013:1-1). The Aitken Section is approximately 181 km and the Kahta Section is approximately 125 km (TransCanada 2013:1-1). Based on the requests from industry-proponents that would like to develop natural gas reverses within the Montney Basin, particularly Progress Energy, NGTL has stated that the purpose and need of the proposed NMP Project is designed to:
“…transport natural gas from the North Montney area of BC to the NOVA Inventory Transfer (NIT) market hub and through the NGTL system and interconnected pipelines, to growing gas markets in North America and overseas through liquefied natural gas (LNG).
It is also needed to connect gas supply from the NGTL system and NIT to the largest existing gas storage facility in BC, Aitken Creek Gas Storage, and to the
12 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline (PRGT). PRGT has been proposed by TransCanada to transport NGTL-sourced gas to the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd. gas liquefaction, storage and export facility at Lelu Island, BC.
By connecting the NGTL system to the North Montney supply basin, Aitken Creek Gas Storage and potential global LNG markets… [the NMP] Project will stimulate growth of existing and new production areas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), provide access to new longer term markets for WCSB gas, enhance operational flexibility for producers, and increase liquidity within BC and other North American markets. It will also provide NGTL customers with increased market choice, economic flexibility and optionality” (TransCanada 2013b:51).
The need and purpose of the proposed NMP project has been applied by NGTL as the basis for a number of components included in the ESA (TransCanada 2013b:68).
3.3 Development Stages
Development of the proposed NMP project includes a lifecycle “in excess of 30 years” (TransCanada 2013a:17) that consist of activities and actions that would occur over the course of the construction and operation stages. These stages are generally described based on the information provided in the ESA. Incomplete and inadequate information relating to decommissioning, reclamation, and ecological restoration of the RoW and other disturbances precludes the inclusion of that state of development in the TLUS.
3.3.1 Description of the Construction Stage
NGLT has designed the construction of the 306 km proposed NMP project to include two primary sections, specifically, the Aitken Section and the Kahta Section (collectively, the “NMP Sections”) (TransCanada 2013b:30).
Potential components are included in Table 3-1 (ESA 2013:51-52). NGTL has noted that the locations of the components that support the pipeline are preliminary, as the “[f]inal locations” for the temporary and permanent infrastructure “have not yet been identified” (TransCanada 2013b:30)
Table 3–1: Proposed Infrastructure Component
Proposed Infrastructure Components
• 42 inch pipe • 306 km pipeline • 15 meter stations, including: • Kahta North Receipt
13 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Proposed Infrastructure Components
• Kahta Creek Receipt • Buckinghorse River Receipt • Mason Creek Receipt • Beatton River Receipt • Lily Receipt • Halfway River Receipt • Blair Creek Receipt • Aitken Creek West Receipt • Aitken Creek East Receipt • Aitken Creek Interconnect • Gundy Receipt • Kobes Receipt • Altares Receipt • Mackie Creek Sales • 3 compressor stations • Saturn (Unit 1 and Unit 2) • Aitken Creek • Groundbirch • Launcher and receiver facility • Multiple mainline block values • Multiple cathodic protection facilities • Construction camps • Construction Facilities and areas
Potential activities that are likely to by undertaken during the construction stage are included in Table 3-2. There is a degree of uncertainty with regard to spatial and temporal context of the potential activities because NGTL has not determined the precise locations of the temporary and permanent components (TransCanada 2013b:30).
Temporary infrastructure is required for the construction stage. These include, for example, “access roads, stockpile sites, laydown areas, borrow pits/dugouts, contractor yards, and construction camps” (TransCanada 2013b:8). Potential locations of industrial camps for workers (“Construction Camps”) along the preferred pipeline route are geographically situated in proximity to Pink Mountain, the Halfway River, and, east of the lower Moberly River (TransCanada 2013b:53). Each of the three Construction Camps will likely hold approximately “500-700” workers (TransCanada 2013a:8). The Pink Mountain location will facilitate the construction of not only the Kahta Section, but also the northern portions of the Aitken Section (TransCanada 2013a:8). Temporary infrastructure is expected to be required support the placement and operations of Construction Camps, which include a physical footprint of “approximately 18 ha” for each location (TransCanada 2013a:9).
14 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Table 3–2: Overview of the potential physical activities and actions of the construction stage for the proposed NMP Project
Proposed Construction Activities and Actions
• Clearing of right-of-way • Surveying and engineering • Draining • Soil conservation and grading • Trenching • Directional drilling / tunnelling • Lowering-in of pipe • Backfilling • Testing • Clean-up and construction site reclamation
NGLT designed the construction to be portioned into the Aitken Section and Kahta Section (the “Construction Schedule”). Table 3-3 includes an overview of the Construction Schedule for the components in the relevant sections (TransCanada 2013b:54). Instances occur where the schedules regarding a number of components and activities intersect with one another. This includes overlaps within and between the NMP Sections.
Table 3–3: NGTL’s preferred construction schedule for the proposed NMP Project (NGTL ????: 2.5)
Considering that the ESA includes information that is limited to some degree, there is a possibility that the Construction Schedule, components, and/or actions and activities could likely be refined and/or modified to varying extents. Any such changes could result in lesser or greater adverse interactions between the proposed NMP project and the VCs and/or additional cultural valued components.
15 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
3.3.2 Description of the Operation Stage
Operational activities of the proposed NMP project would be based on the CPCN issued by the NEB and other applicable “governing regulatory requirements” (TransCanada 2013a:10-1). The “routine and non-routine” operations of the proposed NMP project will adhere to the operating procedures of TransCanada (TransCanada 2013a:10-2) and the performance of operating pipelines and facilities piping is managed by NGTL’s Integrity Management Program” and includes among other things, the “Pipeline Maintenance Plan” (TransCanada 2013a:10-3), all of which guide NGTL during the operation stage (collectively, “NGTL Operational Practices”).
NGTL’s Operational Practices would apply to the lifecycle of the proposed NMP project, which is estimated to be “in excess of 30 years” (TransCanada 2013a:17). Related actions and activities that are likely to occur during the operation stage include, for example, monitoring of the RoW and the functioning of the pipeline for the “presence of threats” (TransCanada 2013a:10-3). NGTL Operational Practices will also include “security management” (TransCanada 2013a:1-13).
The construction of additional components for the proposed NMP project during the Operation Stage is not planned at this time. There is, however, a possibility that supplemental infrastructure could be planned, proposed, and if approved via additional authorizations, be constructed as part of the operational activities of the proposed NMP project. Any such changes could result in lesser or greater adverse interactions between the proposed NMP project and the VCs and/or additional cultural valued components.
3.4 Potential Alternative Routes
NGLT considered the alternative means with regard to the route of the proposed NMP project, specifically, the location of the right of way (“RoW”) in Treaty No. 8. Alternatives to NGTL’s preferred route (see Figure B-2, Appendix B) were “developed” by “[r]epresentatives from NGTL” and based on whether a route would accomplish the “purpose and need” of the proposed NMP project (TransCanada 2013b:68). NGTL identified five primary alternative routes with regard to the RoW for the Aitken Section of the proposed NMP project. The Owl Option, as identified and described in the ESA, was not considered in the TLUS because NGTL did not provide funding to collect TLU data to the extent required to adequately characterize the VCs. The Chetwynd Alternate Option, as identified and described in the ESA, was not considered for the reason that its proposed RoW is an insignificant alternation to the proposed NMP project, and therefore, is unlikely to measurably reduce any of the potential adverse effects to the VCs. Alternatives considered in the TLUS include the Chetwynd Option, Cypress Option, East Option, and the Taylor Option. These are summarized below based on the information contained in the ESA.
16 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
3.4.1 Alternative No. 1: Chetwynd Route
The estimated length of the RoW for Alternative No. 1 is 242 km, approximately 167 km of which is likely to result in new disturbances located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, pipelines, and seismic lines) whereas approximately 75 km is likely to result in new disturbances that are not located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (TransCanada 2013b:69). Evaluation of the potential location of the RoW for Alternative No. 1 regarding whether it is adjacent to and/or traverses other anthropogenic land use disturbances (e.g., industrial forestry operations, private land, and agriculture) was not included (i.e., in Table 4-2 of the ESA) in the comparative analysis (TransCanada 2013b:69). However, the ESA does note that NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section is preferred because “it crosses fewer land owners” (TransCanada 2013b: 74).
Approximately 1.3 km of the route traverses the PMT. The route, as noted by NGTL, was not considered “a preferred route at any time during the planning process” because it is “longer than the alternatives… technically challenging”, and in that way “costlier to construct” (TransCanada 2013b:73).
3.4.2 Alternative No. 2: Cypress Option
The estimated length of RoW for Alternative No. 2 is 212 km, approximately 159 km of which is likely to result in new disturbances located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, pipelines, and seismic lines) whereas approximately 53 km is likely to result in new disturbances that are not located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (TransCanada 2013b:69). Evaluation of the potential location of the RoW for Alternative No. 2 regarding whether it is adjacent to and/or traverses other anthropogenic land use disturbances (e.g., industrial forestry operations, private land, and agriculture) was not included (i.e., in Table 4-2 of the ESA) in the comparative analysis (TransCanada 2013b:69). However, the ESA does note that NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section is preferred because “it crosses fewer land owners” (TransCanada 2013b: 74).
Alternative No. 2 is located adjacent to “multiple transmission lines and existing pipeline RoW”, which reduced the “amount of new RoW required” (TransCanada 2013b:73). Although the option had suitable subsurface characteristics for a “HDD crossing of the Peace River”, it traversed “through the centre of the PMT” and, therefore, was not considered further (TransCanada 2013b:73).
3.4.3 Alternative No. 3: East Option
The estimated length of the RoW for Alternative No. 1 is 193 km, approximately 99 km of which is likely to result in new disturbances located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, pipelines, and seismic lines) whereas approximately 94 km is likely to result in
17 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
new disturbances that are not located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (TransCanada 2013b:69). Evaluation of the potential location of the RoW for Alternative No. 3 regarding whether it is adjacent to and/or traverses other anthropogenic land use disturbances (e.g., industrial forestry operations, private land, and agriculture) was not included (i.e., in Table 4-2 of the ESA) in the comparative analysis (TransCanada 2013b:69). However, the ESA does note that NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section is favoured because “it crosses fewer land owners” (TransCanada 2013b: 74).
Alternative No. 3 “avoids the PMT entirely” and horizontal directional drilling of the Peace River and the Peace River-Boudreau Protected Area was examined in order to avoid surface disturbance in sensitive areas (TransCanada 2013b:72). A geotechnical assessment of the location where the Aitken Section would cross the Peace River concluded that the site was not feasible from a technical perspective and had a “low likelihood of success”. Based on the technical assessment included in the ESA, the option “was dropped from consideration” during the second quarter of 2013 (TransCanada 2013b:73).
3.4.4 Alternative No. 4: Taylor Route
The estimated length of RoW for Alternative No. 4 is 355 km, approximately y 264 km of which is likely to result in new disturbances located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, pipelines, and seismic lines) whereas approximately 91 km is likely to result in new disturbances that are not located adjacent to existing linear disturbances (TransCanada 2013b:69). Evaluation of the potential location of the RoW for Alternative No. 4 regarding whether it is adjacent to and/or traverses other anthropogenic land use disturbances (e.g., industrial forestry operations, private land, and agriculture) was not included (i.e., in Table 4-2 of the ESA) in the comparative analysis (TransCanada 2013b:69). However, the ESA does note that NGTL’s preferred route for the Aitken Section is favoured because “it crosses fewer land owners” (TransCanada 2013b: 74). There is no discussion how the crossing of additional sites, locations, and areas where Aboriginal groups exercise cultural traditions, customs, and practices, and the predictable increase in adverse effects that could correspond to the maximization of using such lands, would be less than the issues that may arise from crossing land privately. Private land not only is less likely to contribute to ecological integrity in comparison to non-private land, but also less likely to contribute to the cultural integrity of Aboriginal groups for many of the same reasons.
Alternative No. 4 “follows the Alliance pipeline RoW from the Aitken Creek area to NGTL’s Gordondale pipeline” (TransCanada 2013b:73). However, since the alternative was “considerably longer than the other route options” and would likely require “an additional southern leg…to access additional producers and the PRGT interconnect”, NGTL did not consider the alternative “a preferred route at any time during the planning process” (TransCanada 2013b:73).
18 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
4.0 Baseline Conditions
4.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the baseline conditions prior to measurable European influence on Dunne-za hananè in relation to the TLUS. The following subsections provide background information about the cultural value of the land in and around the proposed NMP project, as well as a brief overview of the history of Treaty No. 8, and a description of the ecological setting and the traditional seasonal round.
Figure 4–1: Cave used for approximately 10,500 years by the Dunne-za
4.2 Treaty No. 8
4.2.1 In the Spirit of Peace and Friendship
From the Canadian government’s perspective, Treaty No. 8 is one of the numbered treaties in Canada that the First Nations and the Crown signed that has, at its core, the Eurocentric tradition of compensation in return for the surrender of title and other aboriginal rights to land and resources. In West Moberly’s view, the historic evidence does not support this interpretation of the Treaty, and West Moberly maintains that it has never ceded or surrendered its aboriginal rights or title to the Crown.
19 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Figure 4–2: Historic map of Treaty No.8
In order to understand Treaty No. 8 in its specific context, it is necessary to examine the historic, cultural, and political climate at the time it was negotiated. From the Crown’s perspective, Treaty No. 8 was intended to address issues respecting increased western settlement and land use by European newcomers. This, of course, impacted First Nations, whose land and natural resources were impacted by the overland routes used as a result of the Klondike gold rush. As MacGregor wrote:
[With the Klondike gold rush] Before long the Beaver Indians, who were normally quite friendly with all strangers who trespassed on their lands (which they had not yet yielded to the white man by way of any treaty), began to resent the Klondikers’ intrusion. Without even the courtesy of asking the Beavers’ permission, the Klondikers began pasturing their horses with the natives’ herd and were not above stealing a horse or two that took their fancy. A large number of the prospectors were American. . . and their attitude added fuel to the Beavers’ resentment. With no respect for the Indians’ rights they abused the natives, killed their game, let
20 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
campfires get out of control to start forest fires, and generally made themselves unwelcome. [A party of Klondikers were reported for shooting three of the Beaver Indians horses and a dog.]
After spending time in Fort St. John, Barney Maurice reported the following:
In Fort St. John there was an Indian scare. The Beaver and Dog Rib tribes did not want the white man to come and stay in the country which they said was theirs. Some miners stole caches of food, snowshoes, etc. which were hidden in trees. On top of the hill at Fort St. John there were about seventy-five buggies, wagons and Red River carts left by the miners. The Indians put the whole works down the hill and I could see afterwards broken wagons and equipment for about six hundred feet down.
All of the white men, with the exception of the doctor, myself and our partner left at night. But the Indians didn’t do any harm to us (MacGregor 1970:2001-2002).
Such incidents were not uncommon at the time. Godsell (1963) offers a more detailed description of the incident:
Wolf and Bellyful, the Sikinni Chief, had attacked a camp of Klondykers on top of the thousand foot hill behind the fort. After days and days of grueling toil the goldseekers had at last assembled their heavy wagons upon the brink of the precipitous slope. Unfortunately for them some young man, connected with a different party, has shot an Indian horse a few days before, under the impression, no doubt, that the animal was merely running wild. Like devils incarnate the Wolf and his friend had their followers upon the camp of the unsuspecting white men and sent the wagons and supplies, along with the teams of horses, crashing down into the yawning gulf below while they yelled and howled with savage glee (Godsell 1963:283-284).
The Ottawa Citizen reported that 500 Beaver Indians refused to let travellers pass through their territory unless a treaty was signed with them (Ottawa Citizen June 30, 1898). In response, the Government of Canada passed an Order in Council setting up a commission for Treaty No. 8 (p.c. no. 2749.) The following excerpt from the Order in Council indicates why the government desired a treaty in the region:
“On a report dated 30th November, 1898, from the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, …that in that report it was set forth that the Commissioner of the North West Mounted Police had pointed out the desirability of steps being taken for the making of a treaty… that he had intimated that these Indians, as well as the Beaver Indians of the Peace and Nelson Rivers, and the Sicamas and Nihames
21 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Indians, were inclined to be turbulent and were liable to give trouble to isolated parties of miners or traders who might be regarded by the Indians as interfering with what they considered their vested rights; and that he had stated that the situation was made more difficult by the presence of the numerous travellers who had come into the country and were scattered at various points between Lesser Slave Lake and Peace River.
The Minister further states that the view of the Commissioner of the North West Mounted Police as to the desirability of making a treaty with these Indians… and the Minister being convinced that in the public interest it was necessary to take at the earliest possible date the suggested step, it was recommended that Commissioners be appointed with full power to negotiate a treaty… and the preliminary arrangements are now being made.
… An arrangement was come to in 1876 under which the British Columbia Government agreed to the setting aside [of land] by a Commission subject to the approval of that Government… As the Indians to the west of the Mountains are quite distinct from those whose habitat is on the eastern side thereof… The Minister submits that it will neither be politic nor practicable to exclude from the treaty Indians whose habitat is in the territory lying between the height of land and the eastern boundary of British Columbia, as they know nothing of the artificial boundary, and, being allied to the Indians of Athabasca, will look for the same treatment as is given to the Indians whose habitat is in that district.
…the Minister after careful consideration does not think it desirable that any demand should be made upon the Province of British Columbia for any money payment in connection with the proposed treaty… [if necessary reserves for Indians in BC] may properly be set aside under the agreement of 1876 already referred to.
As it is in the interest of the Province of British Columbia, as well as in that of the Dominion, that the country to be treated for should be thrown open to development and the lives and property of those who may enter therein safeguarded by the making of provision which will remove all hostile feeling from the minds of the Indians and lead them to peacefully acquiesce in the changing conditions, the Minister [suggests that BC] be apprised of the intention to negotiate the proposed treaty; and as it is of the utmost importance that the Commissioners should have full power to give such guarantees as may be found necessary in regard to the setting apart of land for reserves the Minister [further recommends that BC be asked to acquiesce in the action and that it be ready to confirm reserves set apart or allotted]. (Order in Council p.c. no. 2749).
22 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
During the late 1890s, it was reported that the First Nations would not sign into a treaty with the Crown. David Laird responded by sending a letter for circulation:
“…misleading reports are being circulated [among] the Indians and Halfbreeds… with respect to the Treaty which the government proposes to make with them next summer. You may want to explain to them that the Queen or Great Mother while promising by her Commissioners to give them Reserves, which they can call their own, …yet the Indians will be allowed to hunt and fish all over the country as they do now, subject to such laws as may be made for the protection of game and fish in the breeding season; and also so long as the Indians do not molest [or] interfere with settlers, miner or travelers. These restrictions [an]d laws however are not particular to Treaty Indians; White men, [half] breeds and Indians who do not take Treaty, will not be allowed [by t]he Great Mother to disturb or hurt any of her children whatever… It should likewise be remembered that laws for [prev]enting game from being destroyed in the breeding season are [more?] for the benefit of Indians than of white men, as [they] live more on farm [animals] than on game” (Irwin 1999:23).
Later on, it was decided, the treaty would be signed first at Lesser Slave and adhesions be taken at Peace River Landing, Vermillion, Dunvegan, Fort Chipewyan, Smith’s Landing, Fond Du Lac, Fort McMurray and Wabiscow.
4.2.2 Lesser Slave Lake, 1899
The meeting between the First Nations and representatives of the Crown did not go unnoticed. It was recorded in regional newspapers. In The Edmonton Bulletin, for instance, it was reported that:
“The Indian and half-breed commissioners arrived in on the 19th of June, eleven days overdue, owing to some hitch in the transportation arrangements. Commissioner Ross came in over the government road and arrived 13 days ahead. His presence here assured the natives who had gathered at this point that the notice to meet here was all right, so they waited patiently, with a patience not known to white men” (Edmonton Bulletin, July 10, 1899).
At that meeting, Laird made an opening speech that was recorded by Mair (1908):
“Red Brothers! we have come here to-day, sent by the Great Mother to treat with you, and this is the paper she has given to us, and is her Commission to us signed with her Seal, to show we have authority to treaty with you… I have to say, on behalf of the Queen and the Government of Canada, that we have come to make you an offer… As white people are coming into your country, we have thought it
23 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
well to tell you what is required of you. The Queen wants all the whites, half-breeds and Indians to be at peace with one another, and to shake hands when they meet. The Queen’s laws must be obeyed all over the country, both by the whites and the Indians. It is not alone that we wish to prevent Indians from molesting the whites, it is also to prevent the whites from molesting or doing harm to the Indians. The Queens’s soldiers are just as much for the protection of the Indians as for the white man…” (1908:56)
“We understand stories have been told you, that if you made a treaty with us you would become servants and slaves; but we wish you to understand that such is not the case, but that you will be just as free after signing a treaty as you are now. The treaty is a free offer; take it or not, just as you please. If you refuse it there is no harm done; we will not be bad friends on that account. One thing Indians must understand, that if they do not make a treaty they must obey the laws of the land… (1908:56-57)
“…Then, as the white men are coming in and settling in the country, and as the Queen wishes the Indians to have lands of their own… These reserves are holdings you can select when you please, subject to the approval of the Government, for you might select lands which might interfere with the rights or lands of settlers. The Government must be sure that the land which you select is in the right place. Then, again, as some of you may want to sow grain or potatoes, the Government will give you ploughs or harrows, hoes, etc., to enable you to do so, and every spring will furnish you with provisions to enable you to work and put in your crop. Again, if you do not wish to grow grain, but want to raise cattle, the Government will furnish you with ammunition for your hunt, and with twine to catch fish… Indians have been told that if they make a treaty they will not be allowed to hunt and fish as they do now. This is not true. Indians who take treaty will be just as free to hunt and fish all over as they now are” (1908:57-58)
“In return for this the Government expects that the Indians will not interfere with or molest any miner, traveller or settler. We expect you to be good friends with everyone, and shake hands with all you meet. If any whites molest you in any way, shoot your dogs or horses, or do you any harm, you have only to report the matter to the police, and they will see that justice is done to you. There may be some things we have not mentioned, but these can be mentioned later on” (1908:58-59).
“These are the principle points in the offer we have to make to you. The Queen owns the country, but is willing to acknowledge the Indians’ claims, and offers them terms as an offset to all of them. We shall be glad to answer any questions, and make clear any points not understood. We shall meet you again to-morrow, after
24 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
you have considered our offer, say about two o’clock, or later if you wish” (1908:59).
In addition to recording the speech of the Crown, Mair (1908) also recorded a response by First Nation representatives, named Keenooshayo and Moostoos:
Keenooshayo (the Fish): … “I can only understand that Indians will benefit in a very small degree from your offer. You have told us you come in the Queen’s name. We surely have also a right to say a little as far as that goes. I do not understand what you say about every third year.”
Mr. McKenna: “The third year was only mentioned in connection with clothing.”
Keenooshayo: “Do you not allow the Indians to make their own conditions, so that they may benefit as much as possible? Why I say this is that we to-day make arrangements that are to last as long as the sun shines and the water runs. Up to the present I have earned my own living and worked in my own way for the Queen. It is good. The Indian loves his way of living and his free life. When I understand you thoroughly I will know better what I shall do. Up to the present I have never seen the time when I could not work for the Queen, and also make my own living. I will consider carefully what you have said” (1908:59-60).
Moostoos (The Bull): …Our country is getting broken up. I see the white man coming in, and I want to be friends. I see what he does, but it is best that we should be friends. I will not speak any more. There are many people here who may wish to speak.” (1908:60)
Both the Edmonton Bulletin (1899) and Mair (1908) reported a response by Commissioner Ross:
Mr. Ross …pointed out the advantages derived by the Indians when the country became opened up; spoke of the cheapening of goods by the government road as it made it possible to trade both winter and summer, and explained to them that competition made fur worth more to the hunter, and with the advantages spoken of and assistance every year from the government, their future was very bright indeed, and as long as they kept their word, and as long as the sun shone and the river ran just as sure the government would keep theirs. (Edmonton Bulletin, July 10, 1899)
Mair’s (1908) version:
Mr. Ross: “I will just answer a few questions that have been put. Keenooshayo has said that he cannot see how it will benefit you to take treaty. As all the rights you now have will not be interfered with, therefore anything you get in addition must
25 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
be a clear gain. The white man is bound to come in and open up the country, and we come before him to explain the relations that must exist between you, and thus prevent any trouble. You say you have heard what the commissioners have said, and how you wish to live. We believe that men who have lived without help heretofore can do it better when the country is opened up. Any fur they catch is worth more. That comes about from competition. You will notice that it takes more boats to bring in goods to buy your furs than it did formerly. We think that as the rivers and lakes of this country will be the principal highways, good boatmen, like yourselves, cannot fail to make a good living, and profit from the increase in traffic… You say that you consider that you have a right to say something about the terms we offer you. We offer you certain terms, but you are not forced to take them. You ask if Indians are not allowed to make a bargain. You must understand there are always two to a bargain. We are glad you understand the treaty is forever. If the Indians do as they are asked we shall certainly keep all our promises. We are glad to know that you have got on without any one’s help, but you must know times are hard, and furs scarcer than they used to be. Indians are fond of a free life, and we do not wish to interfere with it. When reserves are offered you there is no intention to make you live on them if you do not want to, but, in years to come, you may change your minds, and want these lands to live on.” (1908:61-62).
Keenooshayo: “Are the terms good forever? As long as the sun shines on us? Because there are orphans we must consider, so that there will be nothing to be thrown up to us by our people afterwards. We want a written treaty, one copy to be given to us, so we shall know what we sign for. Are you willing to give means to instruct children as long as the sun shines and water runs, so that our children will grow up ever increasing in knowledge?” (1908:62).
Mr. Laird: “The Government will choose teachers according to the religion of the band. Treaties last forever, as signed, unless the Indians wish to make a change. I understand you all agree to the terms of the Treaty. Am I right? If so, I will have the Treaty drawn up, and to-morrow we will sign it. Speak, all those who do not agree!” (1908:62-63).
Moostoos: “I agree.”
Keenooshayo: “My children, all who agree, stand up!” (1908:63).
The proceedings of the first meeting ended with a speech by Father Lacombe, urging the First Nations to accept treaty. The Edmonton Bulletin printed an account of the second day’s proceedings:
The second day opened with a short speech by Commissioner Laird. After thanking
26 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
the people for being so prompt in coming to decision on the previous day and also for the very orderly and friendly manner in which the people had listened to the terms offered, he would trouble them once more, in order that they may thoroughly understand the bargain. It had been written out and he would read it to them. He started in at this point and read word for word the terms of the treaty. It was a lengthy article, but did not differ very much from the terms offered to other tribes in the south. There was a lot of “Great-Mother” talk and that kind of thing sandwiched in here and there, which is the pure thing for landing the Indians with, as they don’t differ from their white brothers in respect to vanity and conceit.
However, after they had heard the terms read and were asked if they had anything to say, a hundred and one kicks were registered in as many minutes… (Edmonton Bulletin, July 10, 1899)
Mair (1908) also wrote of something going very wrong after the treaty was read:
At three p.m. on Wednesday, the 21st, the discussion was resumed by Mr. Laird, who, after a few preliminary remarks, read the Treaty, which had been drafted by the Commissioners the previous evening. Chief Keenooshayo arose and made a speech, followed by Moostoos, both assenting to the terms, when suddenly, and to the surprise of all, the chief, who had again begun to address the Indians, perceiving gestures of dissent from his people, suddenly stopped and sat down. This looked critical… (Mair 1908:64).
Unfortunately, Mair (1908) did not provide an account of the “critical” negotiations that occurred on the second day. He merely noted:
“…but, after a somewhat lengthy discussion, everything was smoothed over, and the chief and head men entered the tent and signed the Treaty after the Commissioners, thus confirming, for this portion of the country, the great Treaty which is intended to cover the whole northern region up to the sixtieth parallel of north latitude” (1908:64)
Bishop Breyant, in 1937, took affidavits from those that were witnesses to Treaties 8 and 11. An affidavit was sworn by James Cornwall, a local witness to the proceedings at Lesser Slave Lake that may shed light on the substance of the negotiations. His affidavit reads as follows:
“I was present when Treaty 8 was made at Lesser Slave Lake and Peace River Crossing. The treaty, as presented by the Commissioners to the Indians for their approval and signatures, was apparently prepared elsewhere, as it did not contain many things that they held to be of vital importance to their future existence as
27 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
hunters and trappers and fishermen, free from the competition of white man. They refused to sign the Treaty as read to them by the Chief Commissioner.
Long discussions took place between the Commissioners and the Indian Chiefs and headmen, with many prominent men of the various bands taking part. The discussion went on for days, the Commissioners had unfavourably impressed the Indians, due to their lack of knowledge of the bush Indians’ mode of life, by quoting Indian conditions on the Prairie.
Chief Moostoos (the Buffalo) disposed of the argument by telling the Chief Commissioner that “a Plains Indian turned loose in the bush would get lost and starve to death”.
As the Commissioner’s instructions from Ottawa required the Treaty to be signed first at Lesser Slave Lake before proceeding North, and as the white population living in Indian Territory had been requested by the Government, prior to the coming of the Commission, to be prepared to deal with them as such, the whites had done everything in their power to assist the Commissioners, by using every honourable influence that was possible.
The Commissioners finally decided, after going into the whole matter, that what the Indians suggested was only fair and right but that they had no authority to write it into the Treaty. They felt sure the Government on behalf of the Crown and the Great White Mother would include their request [in the Treaty] and they made the following promises to the Indians:
a – Nothing would be allowed to interfere with their way of making a living, as they were accustomed to and as their forefathers had done.
b – The old and destitute would always be taken care of, their future existence would be carefully studied and provided for, and every effort would be made to improve their living conditions.
c – They were guaranteed protection in their way of living as hunters and trappers, from white competition; they would not be prevented from hunting and fishing as they had always done, so as to enable them to earn their living and maintain their existence.
Much stress was laid on one point by the Indians, as follows: They would not sign under any circumstances, unless their right to hunt, trap and fish was guaranteed and it must be understood that these rights they would never surrender.
It was only after the Royal Commission had recognized that the demands of the
28 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Indians were legitimate, and had solemnly promised that such demands would be granted by the Crown, also, after the Hudson’s Bay Company Officials and Free Traders, and the Missionaries, with their Bishops, who had the full confidence of the Indians, had given their word that they could rely fully in the promises made in the name of Queen Victoria, that the Indians accepted and signed the Treaty, which was to last as long as the grass grew, the river ran, and the sun shone - to an Indian this means FOREVER” (Fumoleau 1975:74-75).
The Bulletin summarized the close of the day as follows:
Commissioner Laird spoke and asked the chief and his councilmen if they were satisfied to come forward and sign. They hesitated a little, but finally came forward and touched the pen. Harrison Young, the secretary, wrote their names. All the clergy in this section were present... The second day’s proceedings were closed by the “Fish” having a silver medal about the size of a tea saucer fastened around his neck and a flag with the “great mother’s” picture on it, presented to him. The picture was good and looks at its best now (Edmonton Bulletin, July 10, 1899).
The Edmonton Bulletin reported on the June 22nd meeting as follows:
Today, June 22nd, the meeting opened at 11 a.m. and 270 heads received their treaty pay. The amount paid was $3,200. This concludes the treaty as far as the Indians are concerned here for the present, but quite a number are expected to swell the band at some future time… (Edmonton Bulletin, July 6, 1899).
It also reports that the terms of the treaty were not meant for publication:
The terms of the treaty here with the Indians is not for publication until the general report of the commissioners has been made and everything laid before the government at Ottawa… (Edmonton Bulletin, July 6, 1899).
Mair (1908) also pointed out that he was unable to report on all the events that happened at Lesser Slave Lake, Alberta, until the Commissioners’ report was made. In order to facilitate the adhesions to the Treaty, the commission divided:
Mr. Ross and Mr. McKenna accordingly set out for Fort St. John on the 22nd of June. The date appointed for meeting the Indians there was the 21st. When the decision to divide was come to, a special messenger was dispatched to the Fort with a message to the Indians explaining the delay, advising them that Commissioners were travelling to meet them, and requesting them to wait at the Fort. Unfortunately the Indians had dispersed and gone to their hunting grounds before the messenger arrived and weeks before the date originally fixed for the meeting, and when the Commissioners get within some miles of St. John the messenger met them with
29 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
a letter from the Hudson’s Bay Company’s officer there advising them that the Indians after consuming all their provisions set off on the 1st June in four different bands and in as many different directions for the regular hunt; that there was not a man at St. John who knew the country and could carry word of the Commissioners’ coming, and even if there were it would take three weeks or a month to get the Indians in. Of course there was nothing to do but return. It may be stated, however, that what happened was not altogether unforeseen. We had grave doubts of being able to get to St. John in time to meet the Indians, but as they were reported to be rather disturbed and ill-disposed on account of the actions of miners passing through their country, it was thought that it would be well to show them that the Commissioners were prepared to go into their country, and that they had put forth every possible effort to keep the engagements made by the Government (Treaty No. 8 Made June 21, 1899 and Adhesions, Reports, Etc., Land Publication No. QS-0576-000-EE-A-16).
Fewer observations are made about the adhesions and admittance of these First Nations into Treaty No. 8. Noteworthy for the purposes of hunting, fishing and livelihood issues is what occurred at Fort Chipewyan, where Breyant reported that Cree and Chipewyan peoples refused to be confined to reserves, and wanted to retain complete “freedom to fish, hunt and trap”, which was acknowledged by the Commissioner as reasonable (Fumoleau 1975:77).
4.2.3 Report of the Commissioners
In 1899, the Treaty No. 8 Commissioners reported to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Clifford Sifton:
“SIR, We have the honour to transmit herewith the treaty which, under the Commission issued to us on the 5th day of April last, we have made with the Indians of the provisional district of Athabasca and parts of the country adjacent thereto, as described in the treaty and shown on the map attached. The date fixed for meeting the Indians at Lesser Slave Lake was the 8th of June 1899. Owing, however, to unfavourable weather and lack of boatmen, we did not reach the point until the 19th. But one of the Commissioners – Mr. Ross – who went overland from Edmonton to the Lake, was fortunately present when the Indians first gathered. He was thus able to counteract the consequences of the delay and to expedite the work of the Commission by preliminary explanations of its objects.
We met the Indians on the 20th, and on the 21st the treaty was signed. As the discussions at the different points followed on much the same lines, we shall confine ourselves to a general statement of their import.
30 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
There was a marked absence of the old Indian style of oratory. Only among the Wood Crees were any formal speeches made, and these were brief. The Beaver Indians are taciturn. The Chipewyans confined themselves to asking questions and making brief arguments. They appeared to be more adept at cross-examination than at speech-making, and the Chief at Fort Chipewyan displayed considerable keenness of intellect… They all wanted as liberal, if not more liberal terms, than were granted to the Indians of the plains. Some expected to be fed by the Government after the making of treaty, and all asked for assistance in seasons of distress and urged that the old and indigent who were no longer able to hunt and trap and were consequently often in distress should be cared for by the Government. They requested that medicines be furnished. At Vermilion, Chipewyan and Smith’s Landing, an earnest appeal was made for the services of a medical man.
There was expressed at every point the fear that the making of the treaty would be followed by the curtailment of the hunting and fishing privileges, and many were impressed with the notion that the treaty would lead to taxation and enforced military service. They seemed desirous of securing educational advantages for children, but stipulated that in the matter of schools there should be no interference with their religious beliefs. We pointed out that the Government could not undertake to maintain Indians in idleness; that the same means of earning a livelihood would continue after the treaty as existed before it, and that the Indians would be expected to make use of them. We told them that the Government was always ready to give relief in cases of actual destitution, and that in seasons of distress they would without any special stipulation in the treaty receive such assistance as it was usual to give in order to prevent starvation among Indians in any part of Canada; …Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed. The provision in the treaty under which ammunition and twine is to be furnished went far in the direction of quieting the fears of the Indians, for they admitted that it would be unreasonable to furnish the means of hunting and fishing if laws were to be enacted which would make hunting and fishing so restricted as to render it impossible to make a livelihood by such pursuits.
But over and above the provision, we had to solemnly assure them that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur-bearing animals would be made, and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.
We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life, that it did not open the way to the imposition of any tax, and that there was no fear of enforced military service. We showed them that, whether
31 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
treaty was made or not, they were subject to the law, bound to obey it, and liable to punishment for any infringements of it. We pointed out that the law was designed for the protection of all, and must be respected by all the inhabitants of the country, irrespective of colour or origin; and that, in requiring them to live at peace with white men who came into the country, and not to molest them in person or in property, it only required them to do what white men were required to do as to the Indians…
When we conferred, after the first meeting with the Indians at Lesser Slave Lake, we came to the conclusion that it would be best to make one treaty covering the whole of the territory ceded, and to take adhesions thereto from the Indians to be met at the other points rather than to make several separate treaties… The only Indians of the territory ceded who are likely to take to cattle-raising are those about Lesser Slave Lake and along the Peace River… it is not probable that the Indians will, while present conditions obtain, engage in farming… In the main the demand will be for ammunition and twine, as the great majority of the Indians will continue to hunt and fish for a livelihood. It does not appear likely that the conditions of the country on either side of the Athabasca and Slave Rivers or about Athabasca Lake will be so changed as to affect hunting or trapping, and it is safe to say that so long as the fur-bearing animals remain, the great bulk of the Indians will continue to hunt and to trap…
The Indians are given the option of taking reserves or land in severalty. As the extent of the country treated for made it impossible to define reserves or holdings, and as the Indians were not prepared to make selections, we confined ourselves to an undertaking to have reserves and holdings set apart in the future, and the Indians were satisfied with the promise that this would be done when required. … Indeed, the Indians were generally averse to being placed on reserves. It would have been impossible to have made a treaty if we had not assured them that there was no intention of confining them to reserves. We had to very clearly explain to them that the provision for reserves and allotments of land were made for their protection, and to secure to them in perpetuity a fair portion of the land ceded, in the event of settlement advancing…” (Treaty No. 8 Made June 21, 1899 and Adhesions, Reports, Etc., Land Publication No. QS-0576-000-EE-A-16).
4.2.4 Text of the Treaty
“ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, between Her most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners the Honourable David Laird, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Indian Commissioner for the said Province and the Northwest Territories; James Andrew Joseph McKenna, of Ottawa, Ontario, Esquire, and the Honourable James
32 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
Hamilton Ross, of Regina, in the Northwest Territories, of the one part; and the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described, By their Chiefs and Headmen, hereunto subscribed, of the other part:
WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the territory hereinafter defined have, …been convened to meet a Commission representing Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said territory in this present year 1899, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other.
AND WHEREAS, the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commission that it is Her desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering, and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as herein- after mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty, and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty’s other subjects, and that Her Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
AND WHEREAS, the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council at the respective points named hereunder, and being requested by Her Majesty’s Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the several Chiefs and Headmen who have subscribed hereto.
AND WHEREAS, the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, [area is described] AND ALSO the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada.
33 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever. And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.
And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside [reserves and land in severalty] …
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above indicated as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of whatsoever …due compensation being made to the Indians…
And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past claims, She hereby, through Her Commissioners, agrees to make each Chief a present of thirty-two dollars in cash, to each Headman twenty-two dollars, and to every other Indian of whatever age, of the families represented at the time and place of payment, twelve dollars.
Her Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually afterwards for ever, She will cause to be paid …to each Chief twenty-five dollars, each Headman, …and to every other Indian, of whatever age, five dollars , …the same, unless there be some exceptional reason, to be paid only to heads of families for those belonging thereto.
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Chief, after signing the treaty, shall receive a silver medal and a suitable flag, and next year, and every third year thereafter, each Chief and Headman shall receive a suitable suit of clothing.
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salaries of such teachers …as to Her Majesty’s Government of Canada may seem advisable.
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to supply each Chief of a Band that selects a reserve, for the use of that Band, ten axes, five hand-saws, five augers, one grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones.
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Band that elects to take a reserve and cultivate the soil, shall, as soon as convenient after such reserve is set aside and
34 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
settled upon, and the Band has signified its choice and is prepared to break up the soil, [list of framing equipment and seeds and animals]; …to be given one for all for the encouragement of agriculture and stock raising; and for such Bands as prefer to continue hunting and fishing, as much ammunition and twine for making nets annually as will amount in value to one dollar per head of the families so engaged in hunting and fishing.
And the undersigned Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indian Chiefs and Headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY PROMISE and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. THEY PROMISE AND ENGAGE that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between each other, and between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, this year in- habiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded territory; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this Treaty or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the Cree Chief and Headmen of Lesser Slave Lake and the adjacent territory, HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS at Lesser Slave Lake on the twenty-first day of June, in the year herein first above written. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses… (in Treaty No. 8 Made June 21, 1899 and Adhesions, Reports, Etc., Land Publication No. QS-0576-000-EE-A-16)
4.2.5 Adhesions of the 1900s
Leonard (1995) provides an overview and summary of the 1900 adhesions to Treaty No. 8, which were taken by Commissioner James Ansdell MacRae at Sturgeon Lake, Fort St. Johns, Upper Hay River Great Slave Lake, and the lesser known adhesions in the Hudson’s Hope area (Fumoleau 1975):
“For the Beaver Indians of British Columbia, the Treaty signing was undertaken at Fort St. John on 30 May 1900 with Commissioner J.A. MacRae. About one- third of the native population from that area was estimated to be on hand, having apparently been convinced by Henry Robinson and others that the adhesion was in their best interest. John Shaw served as Interpreter and W.J. O’Donnell as Witness.
35 WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS
Signing for those Beaver present were Mackithay, Aginaa, Dislisici, Tachea, Appan, Attachie, Allalie and Yatoose” (1995:79).
The only written record of the substance of the 1900 adhesions is MacRae’s Commissioner’s Report, which notes a preference on the part of the signatories to maintain a hunting and fishing way of life. MacRae (1900) writes:
“SIR, I beg to report having, in pursuance of the commissions entrusted to me by you, visited the territory covered by Treaty No. 8, and all the posts from Fort St. John, on the Upper Peace River in the west, to Fort Resolution on Great Slave lake in the north. During that visit, …formal adhesions to treaty were taken from certain Indian inhabitants of the ceded territory belonging to eight bands who were not treated with last year, annuities were paid to all treaty Indians, …As was reported by your commissioners last year, there is little disposition on the part of most of the northern Indians to settle down upon land or to ask to have reserves set apart… It appears that this disinclination to adopt agriculture as a means of livelihood is not unwisely entertained, for the more congenial occupations of hunting and fishing are still open, and agriculture is not only arduous to those untrained to it, but in many districts it as yet remains untried. A consequence of this preference of old pursuits is that the government will not be called upon for years to make those expenditures which are entailed by the treaty when the Indians take to the soil for subsistence”.
MacRae (1900), seemingly confident as a Commissioner, noted current conditions and health matters in addition to pointing out that the adhesion to the 1899 agreement was not a separate negotiation:
“At nearly all the important points the chiefs and more intelligent men who were present at the making of treaty last year, asked for extended explanations of its terms, in order that those of their bands who had failed to grasp its true meaning might be enlightened, and that those who were coming into treaty for the first time might fully understand what they were doing. In the course of the councils held for this purpose, it was possible to eradicate any little misunderstanding that had arisen in the minds of the more intelligent, and great pains were taken to give such explanations as seemed most likely to prevent any possibility of misunderstandings in future”.
“The health of the Indians in the district seems to vary with the times. When game is plentiful it is good; when scarce, it is bad. The want of rabbits along the Peace and Hay rivers caused suffering to the Beavers and Slaves in part of the western portion of the territory last winter; but, in the eastern portion, the Chipewyans were unusually well off, cariboo being plentiful… Dr. Edwards, who accompanied me, gave advice and dispensed medicine to a large number of Indians and vaccinated many…”
36 SEPTEMBER 2014 Potential Adverse Impacts to Cultural Valued Components
“The Beaver Indians of the Upper Peace River and the country thereabouts, having met at Fort St. John, on this thirtieth day of May, in this present year 1900, Her Majesty’s Commissioner, James Ansdell Macrae, Esquire, and having had explained to them the terms of the treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their hands on the twenty- first day of June, in the year 1899, do join in the cession made by the said treaty, and agree to adhere to the terms thereof, in consideration of the undertakings made therein. In witness whereof, Her Majesty’s said Commissioner, and the following of the said Beaver Indians, have hereunto set their hands, at Fort St. John, on this the thirtieth day of May, in the year herein first above written”.
In 1901, the Report of the Commissioner was submitted to the Crown and the 1900 adhesions to Treaty No. 8 were approved. In 1909, Inspector Conroy described the Beaver Indians living near Fort St. John as “purely hunting Indians” with very few permanent buildings:
“They have been in contact with whites- miners from across the mountains for a great many years, but have never taken to the labour of white man… They have a few cayuses and travel on both sides of the Peace River, and generally do their hunting in the foothills of the Rockies” (Leonard 1995:79).
4.2.6 Hudson’s Hope Adhesion/Admittance
While adhesions to Treaty No. 8 were formally signed by the Beaver Indians of Fort St. John, it seems that other groups, such as the Hudson’s Hope Indian Band1, were merely admitted to Treaty No. 8. Information related to these adhesions is absent from Crown records. Thus the oral history of Halfway River First Nation and West Moberly First Nations remains the only record (Booth and Muir 2011). A March 6, 1936 letter to the Secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa from Dr. H.A.W. Brown, who was the Indian Agent at Fort St. John, establishes that the Crown did not retain a written record:
“In my copy of Treaty # 8 I cannot find any mention of the inclusion of the Hudson’s Hope Beavers… or the names of the Indian signatories. I am given to understand that Mr. Laird negotiated this section of the Treaty at Hudson’s Hope but have no record of the date not[ing] those signing. I would be very glad to have this information if it would be available” (Parc 1/1 11-5 1933-65).
On April 23, 1936, A.F. Mackenzie, the Secretary Department of Indian Affairs, replied to Dr. Brown, where he stated:
“Your letter of the 6th ultimo requesting the names of the signatories to the adhesions to Treaty 8 by the Hudson’s Hope Beavers of Moberly Lake East and Saulteaux of Moberly Lake has been received. 1 The descendants of the Hudson Hope Indian Band are Halfway River First Nation and West Moberly First Nations.
37