NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
APPENDIX 6A
FORT NELSON FIRST NATION FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
Page 6A-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
TERA would like to acknowledge the participation of the following members of Fort Nelson First Nation for their time and assistance:
TLU Field Work: • Isaiah Behn, Community Member • Rupert Behn, Community Member • Wilfred Behn, Community Member • Elizabeth Burke, Elder • Kenny Burke, Community Member • Larry Burke, Elder • Ignace Burke, Elder • Aldophus Capot Blanc, Elder • John Capot Blanc, Elder • Delbert Deitieh, Community Member • Tom Lowe, Elder • Norm McCarthy, Community Member • Eva Needlay, Community Member and Interpreter • Ray Needlay, Community Member • Helen Wildeman, Elder • Tony Whitehead, Community Member • William Whitehead, Elder
Biophysical Studies: • Curtis Dickie and Jeremy Miller - Aquatics (Cabin) March 2009 • Curtis Dickie and William Needlay- Aquatics (Cabin) May/June 2009 • William Needlay - Wildlife (Cabin and Komie) June 2009 • Gavin Dickie and Isaiah Behn - Rare Plant (entire route) July 2009 • Gavin Dickie - Wetland (entire line) July 2009 • Katherine Needlay and Alan Capot Blanc - AIA September 2009 • Gavin Dickie - Aquatics (Komie) July 2009 • Bradley Burke - Archaeological Impact Assessment (Komie) November 2009
Page 6A-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
APPENDIX 6B
PROPHET RIVER FIRST NATION FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
Page 6B-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
TERA would like to acknowledge the participation of the following members of Prophet River First Nation for their time and assistance:
Overflight: • Alec Chipesia, Elder • Peter Chipesia, Elder • Thomas Chipesia , Elder • Laurette Kaiser, Council Member • Corey Tsakoza, Council Member • Kenny Tsakoza , Community Member • Chief Lynette Tsakoza
Biophysical Studies: • Gabriel Wolf - Wildlife (Cabin and Komie) June 2009 • James Wolf and Kenny Tsakoza - Rare Plant (entire route) July 2009 • Gabriel Wolf - Wetland (entire line) July 2009 • James Wolf - AIA September 2009 • Gabriel Wolf - Aquatics (Komie) July 2009 • Kenny Tsakoza - Archaeological Impact Assessment (Komie) November 2009
Page 6B-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
APPENDIX 6C
DENE THA’ FIRST NATION FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
Page 6C-1
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
TERA would like to acknowledge the participation of the following members of Dene Tha' First Nation for their time and assistance:
TLU Field Work: • Thomas Ahkimnachie, Lands Office • Charlie Chissakay, Elder, • James Danis, Elder • Alfred Denechoan, Elder • Harvey Denechoan Sr., Community Member • Thomas Denechoan, Elder • Jean - Baptiste Didzena, Elder • Pious Didzena, Lands Office Assistant • Thomas Didzena Sr., Elder • Steven Lefou, Community Member • Robert Metchooyeah, Community Member and Interpreter • Ricky Pastion, Lands Office Assistant • Albert Seniantha, Elder • Roger Sutha, Community Member • Abraham Talley, Community Member • Andrew Talley, Elder • Curtis Talley, Community Member • Jean - Baptiste Talley, Elder • Thomas Talley, Council Member • Victor Talley, Elder • Kenneth Techomba, Elder • Charlie Tsonchoke, Elder • Howard Tsonchoke, Community Member • Robert Tsonchoke, Community Member • Steven Tsonchoke, Elder, Community Member • David Wasp-Colin, Community Member • Rocky Yatchotay, Community Member
Biophysical Studies: • Robert Metchooyeah, Charlie Chissakay and Ernest Chonkolay - Aquatics - Cabin) March 2009 • Robert Metchooyeah - Aquatics (Cabin) May/June 2009 • Ernest Chonkolay - Wildlife (Cabin and Komie) June 2009 • Charlie Chissakay - Rare Plant (entire route) July 2009 • Rocky Yatchotay - Wetland (entire route) July 2009 • Ernest Chonkolay - AIA September 2009 • Ricky Pastion - Aquatics (Komie) July 2009 • Robert Tsonchoke - AIA (Komie) November 2009
Page 6C-2
NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391
APPENDIX 6D
PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT ON FORT NELSON FIRST NATION TRADITIONAL USE STUDY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSCANADA HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT (CABIN SECTION)
Page 6D-1
CONFIDENTIAL
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON
FORT NELSON FIRST NATION
TRADITIONAL USE STUDY AND ASSESSMENT
OF THE PROPOSED TRANSCANADA HORN
RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT (CABIN SECTION)
FORT NELSON, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Submitted to:
TERA Environmental Suite 1100, 815-8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Canada
DISTRIBUTION:
1 Copy - TERA Environmental 1 Copy - TransCanada PipeLines Limited. 5 Copies - Fort Nelson First Nation 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.
January 18, 2010 (v. 2.1) 09-1477-5008
January 18, 2010 09-1477-5008
Confidentiality and Terms of Use
This confidential report was prepared by the Fort Nelson First Nation and Golder Associates Ltd. All intellectual property rights to traditional knowledge presented in this report are held by the Fort Nelson First Nation. This report is specific to the Cabin Section of the Proposed TransCanada Horn River Pipeline development, as described herein. The results and recommendations in this report are intended for use by TERA Environmental and TransCanada PipeLines Limited in the National Energy Board filing for the Cabin Section of the Pipeline development. This confidential report is not to be used by any other parties or for any other purposes. Research contained herein is specific to the Cabin Section of the Pipeline and is not to be used in assessment of any other sections of this project or in the assessment of any other existing or future developments in Fort Nelson First Nation territory. Any use, reliance, or decisions made by third parties on the basis of this report are not condoned by the report authors and are the sole responsibility of such third parties. This report was written without prejudice to issues of aboriginal rights and/or title. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 i - 09-1477-5008
CREDITS
Fort Nelson First Nation
Project Director / Report Author Lana Lowe, M.A.
Project Manager: Curtis Dickie
Community TUS Researchers: Isaiah Behn Eva Needlay
Geospatial Data Management / Cartography Roberto Concepcion
Administrative Coordinator / Support Brandy Mayes Kim Kotchea
Golder Associates Ltd.
Project Director D’Arcy Green, M.A.
Project Manager Towagh Behr, M.A.
Research Advisors: Towagh Behr, M.A. Peter Evans, M.Phil
Report Authors: Towagh Behr, M.A. Peter Evans, M.Phil. Beth Keats, B.A.
Technical Review D’Arcy Green, M.A.
Word Processing Katherine Rankin, B.A.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 ii - 09-1477-5008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TCPL: The Proponent), proposes to extend its Alberta transport system into the Horn River shale gas field in northeast British Columbia. The project, if and when completed, will link natural gas produced at EnCana’s proposed Cabin Gas Plant, planned for a site roughly 60 kilometres northeast of Fort Nelson, with TCPL’s existing infrastructure in northwest Alberta via a 72-kilometre natural gas pipeline, the Horn River Mainline Project (Cabin Section). The Cabin Section represents the Pipeline Project for the current study. However, it does not address the Proponent’s plan to build a 16.5-hectare construction camp, or an 11-kilometre temporary hydrostatic pipeline.
The main objectives of this traditional use study (TUS) are to document site-specific and non-site-specific traditional use values, to map site-specific locations, to document potential Pipeline Project-related impacts, to recommend appropriate mitigation measures, and to assess potential Project-related residual effects.
This report is based on interviews with 21 community members, two trips with a total of 19 site visits for field verification, and a community-based assessment workshop conducted with a focus group of Elders and knowledgeable community members. A review of existing and publicly available land-use information relevant to the Study Area has also been completed to supplement the information reported by community members. The objectives of this TUS are to:
Identify past, present, and prospective traditional use values in the Study Area to enable FNFN to meaningfully and effectively assess the proposed Pipeline Project. This includes collection of information relating to potential impacts and mitigation of the development on FNFN land-use values and interests in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project;
Build capacity within the FNFN community to conduct TUS and maintain a FNFN land use inventory; and,
Assess the potential Pipeline Project effects on FNFN rights and interests;
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 iii - 09-1477-5008
Results from the community interviews indicate numerous past, present and/or prospective traditional use values associated with the Study Area. Eighty traditional use sites are noted within the Study Area, drawn from interviews conducted by FNFN researchers as part of the Pipeline Project specific community interviews, ground-truthing fieldwork, and relevant prior TUS research. Most of these sites or areas were grouped together within a series of specific values to indicate their use:
Eight (8) Habitation Values;
Four (4) Indigenous Landscape Values;
Eighteen (18) Subsistence Values;
Eighteen (18) Transportation Values;
Nine (9) Trapping/Commercial Values;
One (1) Cultural/Spiritual Value; and,
Twenty-two (22) Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values.
Non-site-specific values were also documented for the Study Area and the watersheds in close proximity to the Pipeline Project.
Although cumulative effects were beyond the scope of this study, Fort Nelson First Nation members expressed concern that development of the Horn River Basin was occurring without foresight, planning, or adequate consideration of long-term outcomes on the environment and/or interests of residents.
At this time, available evidence suggests that, in the absence of successful implementation of mitigation measures, regional development planning, Fort Nelson First Nation monitoring of the Pipeline Project, and the provision of a satisfactory impact benefit agreement, Fort Nelson First Nation may consider the residual Pipeline Project-related effects on the interests, use, and rights of Fort Nelson First Nation to be significant. This determination of significance will require re-examination when the Proponent commits to mitigation measures, monitoring and an impact benefit agreement.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 iv - 09-1477-5008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Fort Nelson First Nation ...... 4 1.2 Treaty 8 and FNFN ...... 5 1.3 Northeast BC Archaeological Record ...... 6 1.4 Previously Documented Information Review ...... 7 1.5 Environmental Setting ...... 10 1.6 Seasonal Round ...... 12 1.7 Recent History ...... 14 1.8 The Horn River Basin ...... 17 2.0 OBJECTIVES ...... 22 3.0 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 23 3.1 Study Area and Reporting Area ...... 23 3.2 Interview Protocols ...... 25 3.2.1 Information Sharing and Informed Consent ...... 26 3.3 Data Management and Verification ...... 27 4.0 TUS RESULTS ...... 30 4.1 Community Interview Results: Summary of Site-Specific TUS Values . 30 4.2 Site-Specific Traditional Use Values ...... 34 4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results: Summary of Non-Site-Specific TUS Values ...... 36 4.3.1 Non-site-specific Traditional Use Values ...... 38 4.4 TUS Workshop Results ...... 42 4.5 Effects Assessment Methods ...... 45 4.5.1 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance ...... 48 5.0 TUS ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATIONS ...... 49 5.1 Pipeline Project Effects and Mitigations ...... 50 5.1.1 Pipeline Effects on Traditional Use Values ...... 50 5.1.2 Other Key Concerns ...... 53 5.2 Impact Mitigation Measures ...... 54 5.3 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 59 5.3.1 Residual Effects Monitoring ...... 61 5.4 Summary ...... 62 5.4.1 Limitations of the Study ...... 62 6.0 CLOSURE ...... 63 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 64 Websites: ...... 66 Archives and Documents: ...... 66
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 v - 09-1477-5008
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I TUS Site Interview Guide Appendix II Site Assessment Form Appendix III Consent form Appendix IV Draft Information Sharing Protocol
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Pipeline Project Overview Map………………………………………………………..….3 Figure 2 – Existing Oil and Gas Development in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Project and the FNFN community………………………………………………………………...19 Figure 3 – Horn River Basin Map...... 21 Figure 4 – Study Area and Reporting Area...... 24 Figure 5 – FNFN Traditional Use Values Map...... 30
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 2010 1 - 09-1477-5008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TCPL: The Proponent), proposes to transport shale gas extracted in northeast BC’s Horn River Basin into Alberta through a mixture of new and existing infrastructure. The project, if and when completed, will link natural gas produced at EnCana’s proposed Cabin Gas Plant (planned for a site roughly 60 kilometres northeast of Fort Nelson) with TCPL’s existing infrastructure in northwest Alberta. The proposed Horn River Mainline Project consists of two phases, involving (1) the acquisition of access to the existing National Energy Board-regulated EnCana Ekwan Pipeline; and (2) the construction of a new mainline connecting the Ekwan section to EnCana’s proposed gas plant in the Horn River Basin. This pipeline, referred to as the Cabin Section, is proposed as a 30 inch (roughly 76 centimetre) diameter pipeline running approximately 72 kilometres from a proposed meter station on the EnCana Ekwan Pipeline north to the EnCana Cabin Gas Plant. The Proponent estimates that approximately 28 kilometres of the Cabin Section pipeline will require “non-contiguous Rights-of-Way (ROW), planned at 32 metres wide, while the remaining 44 kilometres will fall alongside or contiguous with existing pipeline, railway, and public access ROW. The Mainline Project also includes a 2.2 kilometre-long secondary tie-in pipeline to link the Cabin Mainline with the proposed Komie Meter Station adjacent to the proposed Spectra Energy Inc. Fort Nelson North Processing Facility. The project will require four new metering facilities that will include communication and control systems, piping and valves (Figure 1).
This traditional use study (TUS) concerns only the Cabin Section of TCPL’s Horn River Mainline Project, including the 2.2-kilometre Komie East Extension. In this report these associated works are referred to as the Pipeline Project.
TCPL also proposes to construct a temporary 11-kimetre pipeline between the Komie East Meter Station and Cabin Lake, from which it will draw water for hydrostatic testing, as well as a temporary construction camp along the Sierra YoYo Desan Access Road, requiring 16.5 hectares of new bush removal. Neither of these features were included in the project description at the time traditional use interviews were conducted, and further interviews regarding the area may be required.
The Proponent requires various approvals from the National Energy Board, both to acquire the EnCana Ekwan Pipeline as well as to construct the Horn River Mainline. An environmental screening of the Pipeline Project is being conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)
The Pipeline Project Overview map (Figure 1) illustrates the location of the Pipeline Project (including the hydrostatic testing pipeline) in northeast BC in relation to the community of Fort Nelson.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates
CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 2 - 09-1477-5008
The purpose of a TUS is to identify potential past, present, and future traditional use values that could be affected by the Pipeline Project. Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN) retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), Victoria, to provide technical support in TUS research methods, and ongoing support, where necessary, through the collection, analysis, and reporting phases of the research program surrounding the proposed Pipeline Project. This final report was prepared by FNFN with assistance from Golder. This TUS report provides a description of the Study Area, reviews relevant previously documented information, summarizes the TUS objectives and research methodology, discusses the research findings, Pipeline Project-related effects, proposed mitigation measures, and completes an assessment of residual Project effects.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 3 - 09-1477-5008
Figure 1 – Pipeline Project Overview Map
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 4 - 09-1477-5008
1.1 Fort Nelson First Nation
The Pipeline Project is located within the core traditional territory of Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN).
Fort Nelson First Nation is a community of Dene and Cree people comprising a registered population of 799 men, women, and children (December 2009, First Nation Profiles, INAC). Fort Nelson First Nation is composed of 14 major families, from six main villages within the territory: Tthek’eneh Kúe (Old Fort), Fontas, Kahntah, Nádudhi Deezé (Snake River), Tlídli (Nelson Forks), and Tli Gohtché (François). Today, the main community, Fort Nelson Indian Reserve #2, sits approximately 6 kilometres southeast of the community of Fort Nelson, at Mile 293-295 along the Alaska Highway (approximately 70 kilometres west of the proposed Sierra Meter Station). In addition to IR #2, the band holds several other reserves totalling some 9,752.6 hectares, governed by a Chief and five Councillors elected to two-year terms under the electoral system of the Indian Act. Kathi Dickie is currently Chief Councillor.
Roughly half of the First Nation’s adult population live within the community (214 men; 184 women), although a sizeable number live off-reserve (171 men; 209 women), or on other First Nation reserves (12 men; 8 women). Although current census data is not available, it is recognized that Fort Nelson First Nation follows the trend of other Canadian Aboriginal communities in experiencing a high birth rate and hosting a large segment of young people (Fort Nelson First Nation 2002: 12; cf. Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada, 2009. “First Nation Profile for Fort Nelson Band”)
The primary aboriginal languages of Fort Nelson First Nation are Dene K’e (Slavey), an Athapaskan language, and Cree, an Algonquian language. Historically, some families also spoke Dane-zaa (Beaver). In recent decades, English has become the dominant language of education and business in the community, with the percentage of people with fluency in Dene K’e and Cree in decline. In 2006, the latest data available, 45 FNFN members were reported as fluent speakers of Dene K’e (the number of Cree speakers was not reported), while 8 members were reported as semi-fluent, and 72 members were reportedly learning the language (First Peoples Language Map of British Columbia 2009. Web Source: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/dene_ke).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 5 - 09-1477-5008
1.2 Treaty 8 and FNFN
Fort Nelson First Nation is a signatory to Treaty 8, one of 11 numbered treaties concluded in Canada between 1871 and 1921 covering the former Rupert’s Land, but the only numbered treaty in existence in what is today British Columbia (Ray 1999, quoted in Harris 2002). Treaty 8 was originally signed on June 21,, 1899 on the shores of Lesser Slave Lake in present-day Alberta. Through later adhesions, its territory expanded from the Athabasca region into adjoining regions in what are now northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Saskatchewan, and southern Northwest Territories, covering some 840,000 kilometres and encompassing 39 present-day First Nations. Fort Nelson Chief Jimmie Badine and Headman Tommy Whitehead signed one such adhesion to Treaty 8 in August, 1910.
Other BC signatories to Treaty 8 include Doig River (Dane-zaa), Halfway River (Dane-zaa), Saulteau (Saulteau, Dane-zaa, Cree), West Moberly (Dane-zaa, Cree), Blueberry River (Dane- zaa, Cree), and McLeod Lake (Tse’khene) who adhered in 2000. The present total membership of all Treaty 8 First Nations in BC is roughly 3,286 (Source: Registered Population as of January 2004, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). The eight BC signatory nations include Dene, Dane- zaa (Beaver), Saulteau, Cree, and Tse’khene (Sekani) ethnolinguistic groups.
The area in BC covered by Treaty 8 is defined by the watershed of the Mackenzie River, including the areas drained by the Peace River in the south and the Fort Nelson River in the north, and includes areas both east and west of the Rocky Mountains.
During the negotiation of Treaty 8, the creation of reserves was considered unnecessary and unadvisable by treaty commissioners. In response to notices sent in 1899 regarding the pending treaty, Indian Affairs official J.A. McKenna stated
[a]s the country is not one that will be settled extensively for agricultural purposes, it is questionable whether it would be good policy to even suggest grouping them in the future. The reserve idea is inconsistent with the life of a hunter. (Leonard 2000: 18)
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 6 - 09-1477-5008
This opinion was officiated in the Report of Commissioners for Treaty No.8:
There is no immediate necessity for the general laying out of reserves or the allotting of land. It will be quite time enough to do this as advancing settlement makes necessary the surveying of the land. 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. (Report of Commissioners for Treaty No.8: 1899)
It was with this sentiment, along with the logistical challenge of meeting with individuals during their seasonal rounds, that the allocation of reserves was delayed long after the signing of Treaty 8. As Wilson Duff recounted in 1964
[t]he Slaves continued to receive treaty payments, but no provision was made to give them Indian reserves. In 1916, the Reserve Commission acknowledged its responsibility to ensure that they should receive the reserves to which the treaty entitled them, but were not able to visit the band. It passed a resolution saying that when the Indian Department found itself able to make a census and recommend suitable lands, these should be conveyed to Canada by the Province (71).
Duff indicates that in 1956 the “Slave Band” claimed the reserve entitlement of 24,448 acres, and reserve lands to this amount were transferred to the Dominion in 1961 (Order in Council 2995). This was the final settlement of Indian lands in the area covered by Treaty No. 8 (71).
The reserves allotted to Fort Nelson First Nation following their adhesion to Treaty 8 represent only a small piece of their traditional territory. Fort Nelson First Nation maintains treaty rights throughout the Treaty 8 territory, and its members continue to practise traditional activities throughout their traditional territory (Fort Nelson First Nation 2002).
1.3 Northeast BC Archaeological Record
Archaeological sites are physical manifestations of past land-use, and many of the factors that may indicate archaeological site locations also influence the nature and locations of traditional land-use activities, such as hunting, trapping, plant collecting, and transportation routes. Few archaeological studies have been previously conducted in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area. TERA Environmental has completed separate archaeological research for the Pipeline Project.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 7 - 09-1477-5008
1.4 Previously Documented Information Review
Although previously documented information specific to the Study Area is limited, a number of traditional use information sources were identified:
Cabin Gas Traditional Use Study
This Traditional Use Study was prepared jointly by Golder Associates and Fort Nelson First Nation as recently as September 2009 in conjunction with a BC environmental assessment of EnCana’s proposed Cabin Gas plant. The study’s purpose was to inventory and map traditional use values potentially impacted by the proposed gas plant. The final report, which included suggested mitigations, was based on a series of interviews, site visits, community workshops, and archival research. Some of the traditional use information gathered for the Cabin Gas study was applicable to the present study of the TCPL pipeline, and is referenced as such.
Treaty 8 Cumulative Impact Assessment in Northeast British Columbia
This assessment was undertaken between 2003 and 2005, with the objective of developing a useful tool to assist all Treaty 8 First Nations in determining the impacts of industrial development on their rights and interests. Fort Nelson First Nation interview notes associated with this study are extensive; however, timelines associated with the current environmental assessment did not allow adequate time for the research team to review raw data.
FNFN Oral History Project
The FNFN Oral History Project was a community-based research project conducted between 2004 and 2005, and made up of interviews with approximately 12 Elders. A final report from this project was never published, and the status of all the interviews originally conducted is uncertain. However, a number of extant transcripts housed at the FNFN Lands Department were examined. It is possible that further research might yield additional oral history information of pertinence to the Pipeline Project.
TLU Consultation Report Re: Paramount Pipeline and Gas Plant
This study summarizes traditional use research conducted in August 1999 in association with a proposed pipeline between the existing Spectra Gas Plant and a proposed Maxhamish Gas Plant, as well as a second proposed pipeline proposed to connect to the Gas Plant. The research identified 15 traditional habitation sites; however, as the Paramount Project Area was to the west of the Study Area, this information is not directly applicable to the current study.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 8 - 09-1477-5008
FNIB Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study
Fort Nelson Indian Band Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study was conducted by FNFN researchers and the Arctic Institute from 1996-1997 (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd). This mapping project saw the integration of GIS and Geographic Positioning System (GPS) technologies into land-use mapping, with a view to developing a land-use co-management regime in the Treaty 8 region. Spatial data from the study was never completed, and a final report was never issued. However, FNFN Lands Department possess a draft report on the ethnohistory interviews, which was available as background for the use of researchers in the present project.
Northeast BC Ethno-Historical Sources
Primary ethnographic studies related to Fort Nelson First Nation, in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project, are limited. The principle source is John Honigmann’s extensive ethnographic field study (1946). In addition, shorter works by Asch (1981), Jenness (1932), and others provide valuable overviews of the culture of Fort Nelson First Nation.
Existing studies of traditional use and occupancy by Fort Nelson First Nation include Fort Nelson Indian Band’s Traditional Land Use Study (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd). Some site-specific data from this report was reviewed and, where relevant, verified in the current TUS. In addition to the study, which was initiated in 1997 but not completed, valuable ethnographic and ethnohistoric information on Fort Nelson First Nation can be gleaned from several other sources, notably baseline information collected for the Fort Nelson First Nation Oral History Project (2005). Other valuable source material includes Liz Burke and Judith Desjarlais’ Fort Nelson Aboriginal Project (Web source: http://rla.sd81.bc.ca/~fnap/fnaptoc.html), an Aboriginal history project conducted with pupils from School District 81; Gerri Young’s Fort Nelson Story (Web source: http://rla.sd81.bc.ca/~fns/fnstoc.html), web excerpts with photos from the author’s 1981 book of the same title; and “Who We Are” (2002), a publication of the Fort Nelson First Nation’s Reaching For Our Vision project, which began in 2000.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 9 - 09-1477-5008
Principle sources on Subarctic Dene culture include Honigmann (1946), Helm (1961), and Asch (1972). MacNeish (1955) and Williamson (1955-56) contain information on Dene myths. Keren Rice has written extensively on Dene language, including the Fort Nelson dialect (1983). Other linguistic contributions come from Howard (1963; 1977), among others. There are a number of ethnographic and ethnohistoric works addressing other Dene groups, including Goulet (1998) and Abel (1993). Works concerning other Athapaskan and Algonquian peoples of northeast BC’s Treaty 8 territory include Goddard’s study of the Dane-zaa in the Peace and Hay rivers region (1917), and Jenness’ ethnography of the Tse’khene (1937). Robin Ridington (1981) has written extensively on the oral traditions of the Dane-zaa of northeastern BC, particularly in the vicinity of Fort St. John. Hugh Brody (1982) conducted a landmark land-use and occupancy study in northeastern BC in the late 1970s. Some information on the historical environment and mechanics of signing Treaty 8 can be found in Fumoleau (1975) Ray (1999) Miller (2009) and Leonard (2000).
Ethnographers have referred to the Fort Nelson Dene as “Slave” or “Slavey” people. Asch (1981) notes that “Slavey” has been used to identify the Athapaskan-speaking people living in the northern boreal region in the drainage of the Slave River and the western end of Great Slave Lake, down the Mackenzie River (Petitot 1891; Osgood 1936) or farther north, according to Jenness (1932) near Fort Norman. Asch’s map shows the “Slavey” territory circa 1850 as an elongated tear-drop running from Fort Norman in the north to the headwaters of the Fort Nelson River, and bounded by the territories of neighbouring Kaska, Dane-zaa, and Dogrib.
Geographically, their region encompasses the lands along the west end of Great Slave Lake, an area south and west of the lake bounded by the Hay River to the east and the Liard drainage to the west, and the Mackenzie River valley north to Great Bear River. It includes people living in or near the settlements of Fort Norman, Wrigley, Fort Simpson, Fort Providence, Hay River, and Fort Liard in the Northwest Territories; Fort Nelson in British Columbia; and the Hay Lakes region of the upper Hay River (near Fort Vermillion) in Alberta. In 1974 the Prophet River First Nation was administratively divided from the Fort Nelson First Nation; these Indians [are] variously described as Sekanis or Beavers. (Asch 1981: 338)
Honigmann (1946) contains a more detailed description of Fort Nelson Dene territory, including the communities of Fontas, Nádudhi Deezé, and Tthek’eneh Kúe, from where his informants came.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 10 - 09-1477-5008
Most ethnographic sources argue that the Dene did not share a strong “tribal” identity, but rather identified as members of small, mobile groups organized around kinship, place, and variations in dialect and habits (Honigmann 1946). Asch says, “[T]here is no evidence to support the notion that the Athapaskans of the Slavey region constituted a single entity in any political, cultural, or linguistic sense either in late aboriginal times or in the period since European contact.” (Asch 1981: 338) “Slavey” itself is likely a phrase applied to them by the Cree (Honigmann 1946). There is no corresponding phrase in their dialects, yet many people subsequently adopted “Slavey” as a useful term to differentiate themselves from other Athapaskan groups including Dogrib, Hare, and Chipewyan, as well as Algonquian-speaking Crees.
1.5 Environmental Setting
The Fort Nelson environment is within the larger northern boreal region, characterized by “small lakes, rivers, and waterways cutting through low-lying plains” (Asch 1981). Honigman (1946) lists among its flora predominantly coniferous spruce intermixed with birch, balsam, poplar and willow.
Berries include saskatoons, blackberries, raspberries, chokeberries, strawberries, cranberries, gooseberries, and others. Fort Nelson First Nation members report collecting at least 13 varieties of berry (Fort Nelson First Nation 2002: 3). In her memoir of Old Fort Nelson, Mary-Rose Loe describes the annual sequence of berry-picking:
The strawberry that grows on the ground in clear places is first and next is the frog berries, sometimes called Dew berries that grow in wet places. After the strawberries, quite a lot of them, there will be the raspberries starting to ripen. The raspberries are ready in August and grow where there was an old burn, a forest fire. Next are the blueberries and muskeg berries that grow in the same place; muskeg. They are very tasty. If you find some, pick every one of them and share them with your friends. The Saskatoons will be ready in July, they grow on the trees looking like high bush cranberries. Then lowbush cranberries and huckle berries ripen and they grow in muskeg places. The low bush cranberries will be ready later on in September (Annette Gairdner-Loe 2007: 39).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 11 - 09-1477-5008
Other harvested plants include wild onions, wild rhubarb, and wild carrot, reported by Honigman to have been abundant on the banks of Deer River north of the community of Tthek’eneh Kúe (Old Fort). Poplar sap was a delicacy during June and July, and teas were made from Labrador tea and wild rose. “The best water for making tea is in the bush,” said Edward Needlay. “You make a hole in the moss [muskeg], and wait until the dirt settles, and then scoop out the water” (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 23).
Honigman (1946) thought furbearers were in decline at the time of his fieldwork in 1943, yet remained plentiful. Among the most important he listed beaver, wolverine, fox, mink, and marten. “The country also retains stocks of moose, wolf, lynx, cougar, black bear, grizzly bear, and brown bear. Wood buffalo …seem to have extended close to this area in aboriginal times...” (22). Although Honigman notes that his informants could not verify the presence of caribou in the vicinity of the communities where he conducted fieldwork, Petitot said a few caribou were to be found near Bestchonhi (Bestu) Lake, 120 miles north of Fort Nelson (1891: 353). Elsewhere he calls caribou one of the “staple foods of this region,” indicating its importance as a subsistence resource. He also notes, “People who tasted caribou pronounced it good” (Honigman 1946: 38).
Men pursued large animals, especially moose, bear, and beaver, but also elk, wood buffalo, and smaller mammals. Dene were adept at snaring, and snared large and small game, including moose and bear. Dene also hunted with bows and arrows, clubs, and spears (Fort Nelson First Nation 2002; Asch 1981). Fort Nelson members today remain proud of their tradition as trackers. Moose was “the most important game animal,” and waterways were important habitat and hunting grounds. According to one Fort Nelson hunter, “moose, they always go to the water; for protection from the wolves when they are calving; protection from flies in the summer” (Harry Dickie interview. FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 19).
Waterways were seasonally rich in fish species including trout, loche (ling cod), whitefish, pike, and inconnu (Asch 1981) Honigman (1946) also identified “bluefish, dory (pickerel), jackfish (pike), suckers, gold-eye, and loche.” Fort Nelson members were intimately familiar with the coordination of fish runs with other environmental cues. As Willey Whitehead noted, “fishing for jackfish is good in March, when there are lots of bugs” (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 38). Ice- fishing was of considerable importance to the Dene winter diet (FNFN 2002: 2), and fishing methods included gill nets and weirs. Jackfish, bluefish, and whitefish were reported to be rare in the Fort Nelson area (Honigman 1946), although jackfish (pike) could be harvested at a lake 75 miles east of Fort Nelson.
Small game included hare, porcupine, and less frequently, squirrel, muskrat, and groundhog, while birds included loon, owl, ptarmigan, spruce hen, mallard, tell duck, eider duck, goose, and crane. Hay Lake offered a good supply of duck eggs (Honigman 1946).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 12 - 09-1477-5008
1.6 Seasonal Round
All Algonquian and Athapaskan peoples in the sub-Arctic boreal were organized around “nomadic hunting, fishing, and gathering” economies (Miller 1989: 137). Dene lived semi-sedentary lifestyles and followed seasonal rounds based on a close connection to the land. “People used to move around all the time. Even in the winter, we moved all the time. We would follow the wood supply, and camp in different places,” reported Adeline Dickie. “We would always be near water. In the winter you could live anywhere because you could use snow water” (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 10). These seasonal rounds would see families and communities returning to specific territories year after year in order to pursue subsistence through hunting, fishing and plant collecting, and later, commercial hunting and trapping. As Fort Nelson First Nation Elder Johnny Capot Blanc reminisced: “I was trapping as soon as I could walk. I would walk behind my grandfather; he made me small snowshoes” (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 17).
Honigman (1946) thought mobility was one of the highest values of Dene culture, a notion that was reflected in the Dene seasonal round, the pride they took in their skill as trackers, the artistry of their canoes, toboggans, snowshoes, and other instruments of travel, and the high value they placed on individual autonomy in economic pursuits.
The Dene calendar is based upon the movement of the sun and its relation to yearly ecological change (Honigman 1946; Asch 1981), while the Cree tradition within the FNFN community describes a yearly calendar based on lunar phases (FNFN 2002). Both provide insight into the relationships between FNFN and the environment through the yearly harvesting cycle. Honigman’s (1946) informants gave a number of different names for the stages of the sun cycle, among them Fish Sun (January); Sun when birds from the south start to return (April), and Sun when wild game moults (July).
The core social structure beyond the level of the family was the local hunting group (Honigman 1946; see also Asch 1981). Although sparsely distributed throughout their territory during the harvesting year (an effective strategy for sustainable hunting), hunting groups frequently met one another in the country—an occasion which was always welcome. In the summer, gatherings of dozens of hunting groups would take place at special places in shared territories. Asch (1981) states that these gatherings might include 200 or 250 people. These gatherings were an opportunity for information exchange, courtship, dancing, feasting, or resolution of disputes through contests.
Fort Nelson First Nation Elder Adeline Dickie explained the FNFN seasonal round as follows:
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 13 - 09-1477-5008
Living in the bush is really Dene. In the fall time you start hunting moose for winter; winter comes, you start trapping again, then you just travel around and visit and trap; only come into town to get some supplies then go back to the bush. In the spring stay in the bush and hunt beaver, keep on moving, cut wood. When it rains we just stay inside. When the rain stops, we move camp again. In the summer, time we stay in camp. We stay close to the river. We tan the hides, make dry meat. We do all our work in the summer and fall; can't do no work in the wintertime. We always tell stories, stories about what to do, and stories about long time ago…
(Pers. Comm. Dickie 2008 to Lana Lowe)
The geography of the southwestern Mackenzie drainage system, Honigman (1946) notes, is a system of interconnected waterways and sloping riversides leading to table lands. The rivers are a natural communication system for Dene in winter and summer, while the land is good for walking (1946). According to one Fort Nelson First Nation member “The trails were crooked, so it was easier to follow the creeks. To paddle down to Fort Nelson from Kahntah took 2 ½ days” (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 35).
In summer, hunting parties travelled overland by foot, packing their goods in backpacks slung across their foreheads. In water they used small spruce bark canoes. Travel over winter trails and frozen waterways was by foot, using snowshoes, and pulling gear-laden toboggans (Asch 1981; Honigman 1946). Geographical orientation was expressed in terms of the movement of the sun (rise and set) and the flow of rivers (upstream or downstream) (49).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 14 - 09-1477-5008
1.7 Recent History
Key historical forces of social, cultural, and environmental change in Fort Nelson territory include the coming of the fur trade in the 19th century; the signing of Treaty 8 in 1910; the development of the Alaska Highway during the Second World War; and the opening up of the region for oil and gas development.
The coming of traders, missionaries, and government agents is a well-known pattern across the Canadian north. The fur trade grew slowly in the FNFN traditional territory during the 19th century. An initial trade fort was established at Fort Nelson between 1804 and 1812, but it was closed after the factor and family were killed following a dispute with some Dene. Another store was re-opened in 1865. By that time, posts were established throughout the Dene region, and both Anglican and Catholic missionaries had arrived to begin working on potential converts.
Tension arose between First Nations and mineral prospectors who began to arrive in the late 19th century, believing they had government permission to use the resources aboriginal people had traditionally relied on and managed by their own protocols covering land-use, traps and domestic animals. One particular dispute occurred near Fort St. John in 1897. Two prospectors with mining licences from the provincial government killed two stallions belonging to the local chief, Montaignee. Montaignee then threatened to shoot the prospectors in retaliation, as well as their horses (Miller 2009: 205). The threat of an increase and escalation of confrontations such as this one from the expected influx of Klondike-bound prospectors motivated the federal government to arrive in the form of the treaty commission at the turn of the 20th century.
The treaty commission overestimated the feasibility of meeting with numerous different First Nations in a vast region during a relatively short travel season (Miller 2009). As a result, the treaty commissioners failed to meet with any Fort Nelson Dene during their initial tour through the region in 1899. Dene at Fort Resolution and Vermillion took treaty first, in 1900, followed by the Fort Nelson band in 1910.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 15 - 09-1477-5008
During treaty negotiations, Crown commissioners repeatedly met with northern chiefs who were suspicious that the proposed treaty would interfere with, rather than protect, their seasonal rounds. In the 1899 Report of Commissioners for Treaty 8, commissioners David Laird, J.H. Ross and J.A.J. McKenna recalled:
[O]ur chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed. . . 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.
Fort Nelson Chief Jimmie Badine and Headman Tommy Whitehead signed an adhesion to Treaty 8 in August, 1910, along with representatives of the Prophet River band to the south. According to Duff (1965; this edition 1977), 126 individuals—“mostly Slaves with a few Sicanees” (Indian Affairs Annual Reports, 1911: 191; 1912: 191; in Duff 71)—accepted treaty payments in August 1910, followed the next year by “131 Slaves and 98 Sekani.” (ibid) Part of the text of the treaty reads as follows:
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...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. (Treaty No. 8: 1899)
The treaty led to subtle changes in settlement patterns. After 1910, some families began centring their seasonal movement and harvesting around occasional residence in emerging settlements such as Old Fort Nelson, Kantah, and Fontas. These were, by and large, small adjustments to the traditional round (FNIB/AINA unpublished/nd: 13). Asch notes that the relative isolation of the region meant that Dene accommodated the new influences and new harvesting opportunities with the fewest possible modifications of their traditional lives (1981: 346). Attendance at church-run residential schools became mandatory for children. Some trade goods began to replace traditional implements, and the trade store became a focus of annual social life, but other major aspects of Dene life “remained fundamentally unaltered or changed only slowly” (1981: 347). This period of Dene autonomy lasted until the First World War, when a rapid increase in fur prices caused many more natives to take up fur harvesting. The boom, however, was short lived.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 16 - 09-1477-5008
The influence of Euro-Canadians upon Dene culture and environment escalated dramatically in the years surrounding World War II. In 1947 the fur economy went into a slump from which it would not recover. As Asch (1981) and Coates and Morrison (1992) note, this created the context for Canadian governments to become more involved in native lives through liberal welfare state programs, including baby bonuses, housing programs, compulsory education, and employment schemes. These programs “struck at the core of aboriginal life and forced fundamental, painful changes in the nature of Native society in the region” (Coates and Morrison 1992: 326). People began to move onto the current community site of Fort Nelson First Nation in the 1950s, after the Federal Government created the present reserve (FNFN 2002: 6).
Dene people cite the impacts of large-scale construction of the Alaska Highway, which began in 1942, related personnel camps, and army bases, as sources of environmental and social impacts (FNFN 2002: 7-8; cf. Coates and Morrison 1992, Asch 1981). The highway and other defense projects are regarded today as key components of an era of change.
With non-First Nations came social and health problems never seen before by members of the Fort Nelson First Nation. Virtually unknown to older generations, alcohol abuse, violence, and property crimes began to take place. Changes in diet and physical activity has also led to declining health among all First Nations people in Canada. The introduction of a foreign diet, rich in sugars and processed foods, began to have an effect on the health of members of the Fort Nelson First Nation by the 1940s (FNFN 2002: 6).
More importantly, the highway is regarded as linked to the arrival of oil and gas interests into the region—beginning with the discovery of oil near Fort St. John in 1951 and expanding rapidly thereafter—which Fort Nelson First Nation members view as having seriously impacted the natural and human ecology of their traditional territory. Concerns regarding contamination of traditional food sources, disturbances to wildlife populations, damage to fish-bearing streams, and impacts on the appearance of the land, are frequently voiced by Fort Nelson First Nation members. Further, members blame increases in trespassing, theft, and bush fires are on the increase of non-First Nations workers in the area: “In the end, economic development for the Canadian government meant social dislocation for our Nation’s people” (FNFN 2002: 7). As Asch notes, objections to these and other impacts of the oil and gas industry, as well as other pressures from Euro-Canadian agencies, spurred the emergence of new forms of native politics and organizing in the 1960s and 1970s (1981: 347).
Fort Nelson First Nation has, for some decades, attempted to craft a balance between the cultural, political, and economic needs of its members, and the realities of the modern mixed economy. Oral histories of Fort Nelson often note that many members, especially Elders, speak longingly of a time before the environment and the bush life it supported were impacted by the arrival of the oil and gas industry. “There was the sentiment that the bush had been irreparably
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 17 - 09-1477-5008 changed by industrial development, such as oil and gas development and forestry,” the authors of Fort Nelson’s traditional land use report (draft unpublished) noted in 1996. “However, regardless of the changes in the bush, the Fort Nelson people are still actively involved with the bush economy, and hope to continue to be for generations” (FNIB 1996: 11). This desire for the traditional way of life is held alongside an acceptance of the oil and gas industry as the source of many household economies, and a cornerstone of future prosperity. “Many band members currently work in both these industries, and their livelihood depends on a healthy resource development economy,” the same report observes. “Therefore, the balance between the protection of hunting and trapping and the continued success of natural resource development must be sought.”
1.8 The Horn River Basin
The Horn River Basin refers to a geological shale formation that lies approximately from the Fort Nelson region north toward Fort Liard, just beyond the NWT border [See figure 2]. It takes its name from the Horn River, a tributary of the MacKenzie, and the Horn Plateau. The shale of the Horn basin is infused with natural gas, which can be released through a hyrdaulic fracturing process called fracing. The gas-bearing shales of the Horn River Basin are currently the subject of a major gas play and associated developments. Estimates suggest the size of the gas field may be between 1,000,000 and 1,280,000 acres.
Interest in the area has driven land lease activity in the area since 2000, but has increased dramatically in the last four years. Between 2006 and 2008, BC’s Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum netted more than 1.5 billion dollars. 2009 brought bonuses of an additional $300 million (“Summary of Shale Gas Activoty in Northeast British Columbia 2008-2009,” Petroleum Geology Open File 2009-1, Government of BC 2009).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 18 - 09-1477-5008
To rationalize development of the Horn River shale discovery, several major companies holding leases in the basin formed the Horn River Producers Group in 2008, among them EnCana, Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil, Quicksilver, Apache, Nexen, Devon, EOG, and Stone Mountain. EnCana soon announced plans to construct a processing plant, the proposed Cabin Gas Plant. In addition to TCPL’s proposed Pipeline Project, other proponents are already discussing related major works with regulatory agencies. According to the Producers Group (Horn River Basin FAQ The Producers Group 2008), 125 wells were planned for 2009. If and when it becomes productive, the Horn River Basin will be the only large-scale shale gas formation in Canada under production.
All of Fort Nelson First Nation’s reserves and the core of its traditional territory are within the area that makes up the Horn River Basin. Because of its geographic remoteness and the relative inaccessibility of the shale gasses up to this time, however, the area has largely escaped the environmental impacts that resource industries have caused elsewhere in BC’s northeast. Figure 2 represents the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development in the vicinity of the Horn River Basin.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 19 - 09-1477-5008
Figure 2 – Existing Oil and Gas Development in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Project and the FNFN Community
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 20 - 09-1477-5008
According to Fort Nelson First Nation’s members, the major drilling area of the Horn River gas play is important to the maintenance of their traditions and identity. Indeed, many Fort Nelson members indicate that the region—especially the Snake-Sahtaneh-Kotcho watershed—is the primary theatre and refuge in which they still maintain and practise their traditional acitivites. Members indicate that they regard development projects such as the Cabin Gas Plant and the Pipeline Project not as unconnected individuated projects, but as part of a concerted process that will open up the region for extensive development.
Figure 3 shows the area covered by new gas tenures in the Horn River Basin.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 21 - 09-1477-5008
Figure 3 – The Horn River Basin
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 22 - 09-1477-5008
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this TUS are to:
Identify past, present, and prospective land-use values in the Study Area to enable FNFN to meaningfully and effectively assess the proposed Pipeline Project. This includes collection of information relating to potential impacts and mitigation of the development on FNFN traditional use values and interests in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project;
Build capacity within the FNFN community to conduct TUS and maintain a FNFN land use inventory; and,
Assess the potential Pipeline Project effects on FNFN treaty rights and interests;
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 23 - 09-1477-5008
3.0 RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Study Area and Reporting Area
The Study Area comprised all traplines bisected by the proposed Cabin Section pipeline. For the purposes of interviewing, using trapline boundaries was a sensible approach to enframing interviews with community members and for investigating the effects of a linear feature such as a pipeline. Often, the focus of family land use centred on traplines, and members understood their importance as spatial units. For reporting purposes, however, a two kilometre area surrounding all Pipeline Project features was described. This more focused Reporting Area is based upon community members’ understanding of the area of potential Pipeline Project effects. While the larger Study Area of traplines was a logical geographic boundary in community interviews, the more focused Reporting Area is considered appropriate for an assessment of potential project effects.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 24 - 09-1477-5008
Figure 4 – Study Area and Reporting Area
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 25 - 09-1477-5008
3.2 Interview Protocols
The FNFN Research Team, with support from Golder, planned, coordinated, and conducted interviews with 21 Elders or knowledge-holders between July 24th and September 9 2009. Six (6) group and six (6) individual interviews were conducted. Mapping was carried out on transparencies underlain by project-specific basemaps created by the FNFN using information provided by TERA. Several different scales were used, but the majority were mapped on 1:50,000 scale projections. Audio files (in MP3 format) were recorded during each interview, with the participants’ permission. Interviews followed a semi-formal format, following interview question and mapping conventions documented in a TUS Interview Guide (see Appendix I). Memory aids used during the interviews included maps and satellite photos of the Study Area.
Interviewees were identified on the basis of thier knowledge about the Study Area, notably trapline holders, current and former, and anyone else identified. Efforts were made to represent the actual community composition, in terms of gender and family backgrounds, within the group of interview participants. Researchers consulted with the FNFN Community Advisory Group1 to identify the most knowledgeable community members. Allowances in interview structure were made to encourage equitable participation of all participants in each group interview. This was accomplished primarily through the use of prompts and follow-up questions, and through establishing that silence to a question indicated an absence of known values.
Themes covered during the group interviews included past (from start of living memory to 10 years prior to the present), present (within the preceding 10 years), and future (planned future use) traditional use values in seven broad categories. These broad categories are represented as ‘traditional use values’. In this context, a 'value' refers to a specific place, resource, or interest reported by FNFN, and considered important to the ongoing practice of FNFN interests and use, including treaty rights, in the region. A site-specific value is one that is associated with a unique location mapped through interviews or other means. A non-site-specific value is one that, while important, was not, or could not be described spatially through mapping. The seven traditional use values categories are defined as:
Subsistence Values
Past, Present and Prospective Subsistence values (e.g., procurement of moose, deer, elk, other game, fur bearers, fish, birds and eggs, berries, food plants, medicinal and sacred
1 The FNFN Community Advisory Group consists of an open community forum attended by Elders and community members who typically meet every two weeks to provide advice and direction on projects and issues concerning the Fort Nelson First Nation.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 26 - 09-1477-5008
plants, water sources, and locations where specific tasks related to processing these resources took place).
Trapping/Commercial Values
Past, Present and Prospective Commercial values (trapping, guiding/outfitting, tourism, timber, ranges, etc.).
Habitation Values
Past, Present and Prospective Habitation values (cabins, camps, village sites, etc.).
Cultural/Spiritual Values
Past, Present and Prospective Cultural/Spiritual values (gathering places, burial places, ceremonial areas, story places, teaching areas, etc.).
Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values
Past, Present and Prospective Wildlife/Ecological values (mineral licks, special habitats, calving areas, spawning areas, etc.).
Transportation Values
Past, Present and Prospective Transportation values (trails, water transport corridors, historical migration routes, etc.).
Indigenous Landscape Values
Place names and Indigenous Landscape values (place names, boundary markers, orientation points, mnemonic values, etc.).
3.2.1 Information Sharing and Informed Consent
The specific methods for mapping, documentation, and intellectual property rights regarding the information gathered in the study were reviewed by the FNFN research team prior to collection of the information. A draft information sharing agreement between FNFN and Golder was provided prior to commencement of the collaborative research. Samples of these documents are attached as Appendices I through IV. Participation in the focus groups was contingent upon a documented indication of free and informed consent.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 27 - 09-1477-5008
Information developed through these group mapping interviews remains the property of FNFN. In order to meet the requirements of the information sharing agreement and safeguard potentially sensitive interview data, all FNFN land-use data have been generalized into the seven categories listed above (subsistence, habitation, etc.). In addition to the generalization of interview data into broad categories, all points have been buffered with a polygon of approximately one kilometre to reflect a potential margin of error, and to protect potentially sensitive site-specific knowledge. While all aboriginal land-use data in this report has been generalized (except place names, which are not considered confidential), the provenience and site-specific information has been maintained in the original documentation of all interviews, along with the identity of the Elder who provided the information.
3.3 Data Management and Verification
Transparent overlays were used during the interviews to map traditional use values as points, wherever possible and appropriate, and as polygons where necessary. Lines were used to indicate trails and transportation corridors. Hand-written field notes and audio recordings were kept, and the protocol was designed to maintain data integrity so that data could be traced to an individual. All information mapped was based on first-hand accounts. All recorded land-use information was confirmed with interview participants during the interview process. Each mapped location or value was associated with a letter code (or codes), followed by a site sequence number and a TUS identification code indicating the source participant.
Upon the completion of each interview, information that was recorded on the transparencies and in the hand-written interview notes was transferred into a digital format. The spatial data from the transparencies was digitized on-screen using ArcGIS 9.2 and a basemap with a grid system superimposed. Metadata recorded in the margin of each transparency and interview-specific feature codes were entered into a geo-referenced data table, and used to create a link to the more detailed interview notes. Interview notes were typed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and imported into ArcGIS.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 28 - 09-1477-5008
The 21 interviews were followed by two ground-truthing site visits conducted between September 25 and October 5, 2009, and October 23 and October 26, 2009. Ideally, ground-truthing allows Elders to visit and confirm the traditional use sites identified through interviews in close proximity to the Pipeline Project footprint, as well as to see and better visualize the Pipeline Project area in order to record any additional traditional knowledge of the site. In the first ground-truthing trip, two Fort Nelson researchers and one consultant working for the Proponent accompanied 14 Elders and knowledge-holders on a ten-day ground-truthing trip to view the route of the proposed pipeline. However, considerable time was spent viewing segments of the proposed pipeline by helicopter, rather than on the ground, confirming interview-based findings. In the second ground- truthing phase, two Fort Nelson researchers accompanied two Elders into the field for 4 days. In total, 19 sites were confirmed through ground-truthing.
Photo 1: FNFN Researcher Curtis Dickie Ground-truthing
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 29 - 09-1477-5008
Photo 2: FNFN Researcher Curtis Dickie with Elder Adolphus Capot Blanc Ground-truthing
The site visits and TUS Mitigations Workshop (described below) provided opportunities for the Elders and other community members to verify the interview data. The research team carefully reviewed the raw interview notes and the Traditional Use Assessment Forms, and compared these to the spreadsheet based on the interview notes and to a single hardcopy map plotted with all the features digitized from the transparencies. This was an effort to reduce potential data redundancy and possible transcription/recording discrepancies. The resulting data has been summarized in Section 4.0 Results.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 30 - 09-1477-5008
4.0 TUS RESULTS
4.1 Community Interview Results: Summary of Site-Specific TUS Values
The Pipeline Project footprint, Reporting Area, and the Study Area lie within the traditional territory of the FNFN, and within the boundary of Treaty 8. As such, the entirety of the area is currently available for the practice of Fort Nelson’s treaty rights. Site-specific traditional use values are those values reported to be associated with specific locations that interview participants are able to map within the interview setting and/or recorded during ground-truthing. While documentation of site-specific values provides a framework for understanding the distribution of past, present and likely future activities on the land, the absence of reported or documented use does not indicate an absence of interest. Figure 5 shows non-confidential site- specific traditional use values reported by community interview participants in relation to the study area. Specific sites have been generalized to preserve the confidential nature of the information.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 31 - 09-1477-5008
Figure 5 – FNFN Traditional Use Values Map
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 32 - 09-1477-5008
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 33 - 09-1477-5008
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 34 - 09-1477-5008
4.2 Site-Specific Traditional Use Values
Subsistence Values
Interview participants were asked to indicate all locales associated with subsistence in the Study Area (e.g., hunting or gathering moose, deer, elk, other game, fur bearers, fish, birds and eggs, berries, food plants, medicinal and sacred plants, water sources, processing areas, etc.). Through the TUS interviews, 18 sites and polygons associated with past or present subsistence activities were noted in the Reporting Area (see Figure 5, Polygons). Site-specific subsistence values associated with the Study Area were reported to include small and large game hunting sites and other food-gathering sites. Some additional subsistence sites in and around the Study Area that Elders had difficulty mapping with precision are included as non-site specific subsistence values (Section 4.2.1).
Trapping and Commercial Values
Interview participants were asked to indicate all locales associated with trapping or other commercial values in the Study Area. Nine sites associated with past or present trapping were identified as either lines or polygons that indicate the locations of these values. Historic traplines were reported throughout the Study and Reporting areas and these are discussed as non site- specific concerns (Section 4.4.1). Members of FNFN indicated that traplines, both in and around the Study and Reporting areas and within the Pipeline Project footprint, were held by relatives. Several interview participants indicated use of these traplines in recent years. Because of time constraints, not all local FNFN expert land users actively trapping in the Study and Reporting areas were interviewed prior to completion of this report. An area bisected by the southeast portion of the pipeline is covered by a trapline whose long-time former owner declined to be interviewed.
Habitation Values
Interview participants were asked to indicate all locales associated with habitation (cabins, camps, etc.) in the Study Area. Eight past and present Habitation Values were reported in the Reporting Area, including cabin sites and camp sites. Some of the cabins reported are currently used regularly by FNFN members while conducting a variety of traditional use practices. Several habitation values were noted adjacent to the Pipeline Project footprint.
Cultural/Spiritual Values
Interview participants were asked to indicate all cultural or spiritual value areas associated with the Study Area including burials, ceremonial areas, gathering places, etc. One specific past, present, or prospective value of this nature was reported within the Reporting Area. This site was
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 35 - 09-1477-5008 noted as a hill of particular importance for a variety of cultural/spiritual values. Presently, the pipeline routing bisects this area, and may be of particular concern to FNFN members.
Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values
Interview participants were asked to indicate all locales associated with wildlife and ecological values (e.g., mineral licks, elk rubs, calving areas, etc.) within the Study Area. As discussed under non-site-specific values, Elders and community members indicated that the whole Study Area is valued wildlife habitat. Twenty-two (22) specific sites of critical importance to wildlife were identified in interviews, during the ground-truthing visit to the Reporting Area, and from previous TUS studies. Reported Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values in the Reporting Area included moose licks, bear dens, a hawk nesting area, caribou beds, and beaver dams.
Transportation Values
Interview participants identified eighteen (18) site-specific transportation values in the Reporting Area, including trapping trails, horse trails, and other travel routes. Many of the smaller trails in the Study and Reporting areas were used for accessing trapping and hunting areas in the region prior to the construction of access roads through this area. In addition to these smaller trails that tend to follow the height of land above creek banks, the Study and Reporting areas contain a major transportation corridor: the Komie Road follows the natural ridge of a traditional travel route known as GOH MEE EH -EH TEH NEH. While much of the area is covered by creeks and muskeg, this relatively dry, elevated ridge was noted by FNFN Elders as an important travel corridor that has already been impacted by the building of Komie Road. A section of the proposed Pipeline Project will follow the Komie Road.
Indigenous Landscape
Indigenous landscape values refer to local place names or knowledge about geographic or spatial features. Interview participants identified four (4) indigenous landscape values associated with the Reporting Area. All are non-confidential Dene K’e place name sites, and have been provided as labels on the map rather than the buffered points, lines, or polygons used to indicate other TU values. One of these, GOH MEE EH -EH TEH NEH, is the name of the historic trail now covered by the Komie access road. Interview participants noted that all major geographic features in the Study Area had indigenous names. Only some of these place names were able to be recorded given the limited time available for study.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 36 - 09-1477-5008
4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results: Summary of Non-Site-Specific TUS Values
Non-site specific traditional use values are those values associated with traditional activities that were reported in relation to the Pipeline Project, but were not associated with easily demarcated locations, or that interview participants were not able to map within the interview setting. The absence of reported or documented values does not necessarily indicate an absence of interest. Information provided is subject to verification, update, and elaboration by the FNFN.
A summary of plant species of cultural significance identified during the TUS for the proposed Cabin Gas plant but relevant to the Pipeline Project footprint is provided in Table 4-1. FNFN Elders and research team saw a lynx in the Reporting Area and also identified tracks, feces, and bark scrapes indicating the presence of bears, moose, and caribou. TEK summaries of wildlife considered by community experts to be seasonally present or resident in the Pipeline Project footprint and/or Study Area are provided in Table 4-1.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 37 - 09-1477-5008
Table 4-1: Non-site Specific Traditional Use Values Species Dene Name Uses High Bush Cranberry Mah-thee-loo Nutritional value Low Bush Cranberry Neh-tleh Nutritional value Rose Bush Berry Ee-choo Nutritional and medicinal value Grey Jay Berry Ooh-kah jee-eh Nutritional value Frog Feet Berry (Logan Stah leh-keh Nutritional value Berry) Goose Berry Dah deh-woo tsah Nutritional value Raspberry Dah-kah leh Nutritional value Strawberry Ee-zee ah Nutritional value Medicinal value. Berries also provide nutrition for Mountain Ash Golo jee-eh moose. Poplar Tree Tee eh-twoo zeh Medicinal and technological value Eh kah lah-tah Diamond Willow Fungus Medicinal and technological value theh Birch Tree K’i Technological and commercial value Soap Berry Tsoh deh deh lee Nutritional value Spruce Tree Ts’u Technological value Spruce Roots Kah Technological and commercial value White Moss Oh-juh Technological value. Also caribou graze Old Man’s Beard on Spruce" Goh-tsi dah gah Technological value. Also caribou graze. Wildrose Bush Eh choh Nutritional and medicinal value Dogwood berries Neh deneh Nutritional value Yellow Flower Deh cheh kleh Medicinal value Muskeg Tea Gots’ago Nutritional and medicinal value Nutritional, technological, spiritual and commercial Moose Golo value Grouse Eh tseh sueneh Nutritional value Caribou Medzih zaza Nutritional, technological and commercial value Nutritional, technological, spiritual and commercial Deer Yah tonah value Rabbit Gah Nutritional, technological and commercial value Duck Chi Nutritional and technological value Geese Hah Nutritional and technological value Nutritional, technological, spiritual and commercial Beaver Tsá value Marten Nozee Technological and commercial value
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 38 - 09-1477-5008
Species Dene Name Uses Lynx Nódah Nutritional, technological and commercial value Fisher Nozee cho Technological and commercial value Squirrel Dlóo Nutritional and technological value Nutritional, medicinal, technological and commercial Bear Sah value Wolf Dígahi Technological and commercial value Fox Nogetthe Technological and commercial value Wolverine Nógah Technological and commercial value Weasel Nemmaa Technological and commercial value Muskrat Tehk’áa Nutritional, technological and commercial value Coyote Dígaha Technological and commercial value Otter Tah nah tli Technological and commercial value
4.3.1 Non-site-specific Traditional Use Values
Non-site-specific Subsistence Values
All interview participants indicated the importance of ongoing subsistence activities for food, ceremonial, and cultural purposes. The Study Area was reported to be of value for subsistence, particularly with regard to moose and game hunting and harvesting of food and medicinal plants. Concerns for the well being of wildlife, particularly moose, and wildlife habitat, were commonly expressed. Concerns were also expressed about the growing effects of industrial development (e.g., air and water pollution, road development, loss of habitat) in the area on traditional use practices, including hunting and harvesting:
Maintenance of high quality moose habitat, and concerns regarding loss of moose habitat, and wildlife habitat more generally, due to increasing industrial development in the Study Area.
Maintenance of high quality habitat for collection of plants of nutritional, spiritual, and medicinal significance, and concerns regarding loss of habitat for, and access to, plants such as muskeg tea, diamond willow fungus, and other medicinal plants associated with wet areas and muskeg.
Maintenance of access to berries and other plants of nutritional, spiritual, and medicinal significance.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 39 - 09-1477-5008
Concern was expressed regarding the great number of roads providing back country access in the Study Area and perceived increases in wildlife mortality due to increased high-speed traffic and poaching. In 2007, prior to construction, FNFN requested that the Komie Road be gated to discourage poaching.
Non-site-specific Trapping/Commercial Values
During interviews, participants indicated the importance of ongoing traditional activities for commercial purposes. Historic traplines were reported in the Pipeline Project footprint, Reporting Area, and Study Area. The Study Area was also reported to be of value for other commercial activities, particularly with regard to moose and game hunting and harvesting of commercially useful plants. Participants indicated an interest in the following:
Provision of proper consultation and compensation to trappers and concern that payment for loss of value of furs is inadequate and does not recognize the loss of cultural opportunities associated with trapping and traplines.
Provision of proper consultation and compensation to craftspeople, including compensation for loss of access to hides, furs, quills, bark, and plants used in preparation of materials required to produce commercially viable traditional goods (birch bark baskets, moccasins, moose/caribou tufting etc.).
Non-site-specific Habitation Values
Interview participants noted the importance of shifting habitation in the Study Area. Elders noted that throughout the Study Area, many used and abandoned sites have slipped from memory because of the shifting nature of habitation in FNFN territory. The Elders explained that historically, cabins and campsites were located in areas abundant in resources. After using a particular creek or trapping area for a number of years, they would let it “rest” for 10-15 years. This traditional land and resource management regime allowed for the continued maintenance of healthy and abundant wildlife populations. It also resulted in the building and abandonment of numerous habitation sites throughout FNFN territory. Therefore, the TUS map (Figure 5) under represents historic habitation values due to the historic long term cycle of shifting habitation sites.
Non-site-specific Cultural and Spiritual Values
Interview participants indicated the importance of non-site-specific cultural and spiritual values related to the Study Area, particularly with regard to:
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 40 - 09-1477-5008
Maintenance of cultural opportunities, and concerns that economic changes in the region are resulting in the loss of access to land for traditional activities and loss of traditional knowledge and languages. As a result, there is a perception that younger generations do not have the opportunity to learn traditional languages, skills and values. Interviewees voiced their interest in seeing support for Elder/youth culture camps and language education.
Maintenance of the area in a pristine state that allows for collection of traditional medicines and foods. Interview participants expressed concern that more development in the area will result in less availability of traditional foods, medicines, and materials. This in turn will impact culture, traditional roles, social well-being, and health in the community.
Maintenance of the spiritual values of the Study and Reporting areas, and concerns that the proposed Pipeline Project will degrade these values due to industrial noise and the visible presence of industrial activity.
Non-site-specific Wildlife/Ecological Values
Interviewees identified several concerns related to wildlife and ecology values. Specifically, these values included:
Concern for the loss of plant and wildlife habitat and specifically the loss of caribou and moose habitat.
Maintenance of a clean environment, and concerns regarding garbage left in the bush as a result of the greater number of roads providing access.
Maintenance of good water quality, particularly in the Sahtenneh River and Kotcho Lake watersheds, which is highly valued by FNFN for fishing purposes. Concerns were expressed regarding widespread water quality degradation from industrial spills into the muskeg. Participants expressed an interest in seeing development avoid wetlands and creeks, since all water in the area flows into the Sahtenneh River and Kotcho Lake watershed.
Non-site-specific Transportation Values
Non-site-specific indigenous transportation values reported for the Study and Reporting areas include the interconnection of all site-specific transportation values with a wider system of transportation routes that extend to village and cabin sites to the west. Elders explained that the
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 41 - 09-1477-5008
Study Area was part of a circular transportation route that connected with other important subsistence areas, and stressed that waterways were intrinsic components of this transportation system. Elders and community members also expressed concern over the loss of control over their traditional transportation corridors. The checkpoint at Komie Road was raised as an example of the loss of access and control of their traditional use areas throughout the Study Area.
Non-site-specific Indigenous Landscape Values
Non-site-specific indigenous landscape values reported throughout the Study Area included the systemic importance and interconnected nature of traditional land use, and concerns that additional industrial development in the region will have negative effects on indigenous knowledge, use of indigenous place names, and opportunities to practice future traditional land uses. Elders and community members expressed concern over the fragmentation of habitat due to the cumulative impacts of industrial development in the Horn River Basin region. The Elders stated that effects of gas plants and high grade access roads can be felt kilometres from their footprints. These wider effects, combined with the more localized impacts of cut lines, well heads, and smaller access roads, have resulted in the effective “taking up” of much of their traditional territory. They indicated that this was particularly so for areas both to the east and west of the Horn River Basin.
Figure 2 “Existing Oil and Gas Development in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Project and the FNFN Community” depicts cumulative effects of oil and gas development surrounding the Horn River Basin. The FNFN expressed concern that the Pipeline Project will enable increased development of the Horn River Basin, which includes three of the closest and best watersheds for the current and future practice of traditional use activities.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 42 - 09-1477-5008
4.4 TUS Workshop Results
TUS Data Verification & Mitigations Workshop
A community workshop was held on November 18th, 2009, from 4:30 to 9:00 pm at the Fort Nelson First Nation Band Hall for the purposes of reviewing the TUS maps and discussing project impacts and possible mitigations measures. All FNFN Elders and expert land users who had been interviewed were asked to attend. Notice of the Workshop was also advertised in the community and it was open to all FNFN members. Twenty-one community members and Elders attended, as well as the entire FNFN research team, and most of the FNFN Lands Department staff. Goals of the workshop included:
Review maps showing site-specific traditional use data;
Discuss impacts on traditional sites from the proposed Pipeline Project; and
Consider ways to reduce impacts with a focus on traditional solutions (mitigations).
The first half of the workshop, which focused on reviewing TUS results and discussing possible effects and mitigations, was facilitated by Towagh Behr and Peter Evans, while consultants from TERA Environmental led the second half of the evening, focusing strictly on impacts and mitigations. An interim summary of potential project effects and mitigation measures proposed by FNFN was available for distribution and discussion. Fort Nelson First Nation researchers made recordings of the evening’s discussion and the impacts/mitigations that arose. A large format map of buffered TUS sites was available for review, along with a confidential map showing more precise traditional use site locations.
Following introductions of the project team, the first part of the evening shifted to a discussion of data verification, potential Pipeline Project impacts, and mitigation measures. A definition of impacts was presented, with emphasis on various stages of the project lifecycle (e.g. construction, operation, decommissioning) as well as ways to qualify impacts (e.g. duration, direction, magnitude, geographical extent, etc.). Previous experience has taught that many community members would resist the adoption of a sliding scale to quantify impacts, so in this case none was suggested. A definition of mitigations was given, with encouragement to consider both traditional and non-traditional ways to minimize project effects. Plain language was used where possible to more fully communicate technical terms. For example, the words “lessen” and “minimize” were used instead of “mitigate.”
A wide-ranging discussion then took place concerning the project, its likely effects and possible mitigations, the future of the Horn River Basin, and the environmental impact of the oil and gas
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 43 - 09-1477-5008 industry more generally. Numerous insightful comments and suggestions were made concerning the project, Horn River Basin development, and the relationship between the oil and gas industry and FNFN rights and interests.
One Elder suggested that the review process for projects lags behind their development. “I think we’re a little late about this pipeline,” he said.
The same Elder suggested that the project-specific approach to traditional use studies was limiting FNFN’s ability to articulate the entirety of its relationship with their traditional territory. “With all this mapping, a report here and a report there, it’s like putting a jigsaw together.”
One community member suggested that urban areas likely receive better treatment from environmental assessment processes than do rural and First Nation communities and the environment. “How big would a buffer [for a project] be in a civilization? Would it be 4 kilometres in a big city? What would the reaction of the town be?”
Several members expressed the opinion that neither government nor industry treats the Fort Nelson First Nation’s treaty rights with the respect they deserve. “The treaty is just sitting down there with the BC government with a pile of paper on it,” one community member said.
Community members expressed frustration with the disparity between rhetoric and reality regarding employment, both for First Nations and non-First Nations from nearby Fort Nelson: “They talk of jobs but when it comes down to it, there aren’t any. Fort Nelson workers get left out too.”
The latter half of the workshop, led by TERA Environmental staff, focused on traditional values, impacts, effects, receptors and mitigations strategies. Fort Nelson First Nation staff distributed an interim summary of potential project effects and mitigation measures, but others arose during the remainder of the evening’s discussion related to possible effects of the Pipeline Project on wildlife, environment, cultural and spiritual values, subsistence activities, and other Fort Nelson interests and rights. The essential elements of the discussion of effects and impacts is captured in table 5-1 “Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigations” (see below). Community members expressed numerous specific concerns about the project, including some of the following:
Community members expressed concerns centred around the opening up of the country by linear developments such as access roads, cutlines, and pipelines, including increased vehicular traffic resulting in more trash, more people, more roadkill, and increased access for poachers and non-
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 44 - 09-1477-5008
First Nations hunters. “What kind of development will this pipeline bring in? We’re concerned about increased traffic and wildlife,” one member said.
Fort Nelson members discussed increased roadkill, poaching, and increased sport and non-First Nations subsistence hunting by outsiders (including workers from other parts of Canada where fall moose hunts are an important traditional activity) in the context of treaty rights. They cite the opening up of their territory and the effects on their hunting rights as an area where the meaning of Treaty 8 is not comprehended by external agencies. “When the roads are in you get every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there. It used to be just the trapper’s family,” one man said. An Elder suggested that moose numbers are in decline, and Fort Nelson members’ traditional diet is suffering. “I would say this year the moose is down 60%. There are lots of empty drying racks in the community here. Within a month, there were 6 moose roadkill. There’ll be more with the pipeline. It’ll bring in the poachers...our beaver ponds are dried up now.”
Another series of concerns centred around contamination of the land, ground water, and wildlife from construction, spills, leaks, and fears about the possible use of herbicides to keep the pipeline footprint clear. Community members suggested that a reported increase in sick and unhealthy animals, and moose with abscesses, is related to contamination from industry. Community members asked several questions about the safety measures proposed to avoid and respond to contamination emergencies.
Another group of concerns focused on the amount of land required or “taken up” by the project, and whether it would still be possible or desirable for Fort Nelson members to continue to use the area. Some members suggested that a two kilometre buffer area around the pipeline (which has a project ROW measuring 32 metres) will become an area of avoidance to people pursuing traditional activities on the land for fears over contamination, safety, and the perception that the area is disturbed. Several questions were asked about the project’s visibility within the surrounding geography (i.e. its sight lines).
Community members asked a number of questions about how the pipeline would affect the regeneration of plant communities in the disturbed ground. A number of members asked about the depth of the pipeline, and whether there was any safety or environmental risks associated with hunting near it. Members questioned how the loss of a 4.032-kilometre-wide, 72-kilometre long section of territory (approximately 290 square kilometres), and the spiralling losses to subsistence hunting, cultural, and recreational values would be addressed.
One community member articulated how the loss of natural gas that exists within Fort Nelson’s territory to distant markets and communities has an impact upon the rights and interests of Fort Nelson First Nation:
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 45 - 09-1477-5008
“We talked about our loss of territory. We haven’t talked about loss of cultural values. And we haven’t talked about the cumulative effects of this pipeline. It exists to bring gas from the core of our territory to the US markets. And it opens our territory to further development. And we need to talk about that.”
This remark led, in turn, to a discussion on employment and economic opportunities. Community members desire to see the Proponent engage with the business and entrepreneurial elements of the Fort Nelson First Nation; support employment and training initiatives that will target present and future workers; and support the growth of new businesses. “I’ve seen people do it ass- backwards,” one community member remarked. “They need to reverse it by identifying needs and then building capacity.” Community members expressed concern that the Proponent’s interest in engaging the community in dialogue will decline after the project is constructed, that it will be “wham, bam, thank you ma’am.”
The workshop ended with an Elder’s reiteration to proponents and governments to take Treaty 8 seriously. “We are treaty. That has to form the basis of anything that we enter into.”
4.5 Effects Assessment Methods
This assessment of potential Pipeline Project effects on FNFN traditional use values, rights and interests is based on an evaluation of potential Pipeline Project-related effects as identified through community interviews, field verification, and a community-based assessment workshop. The following sections provide the assessment methodology and an assessment of potential Pipeline Project effects.
The assessment of effects on traditional use draws on several sources:
The assessment of Pipeline Project effects on traditional use sites is based on the evaluation of site importance and mitigation measures recommended by community researchers and study participants from FNFN. The importance of traditional use sites is evaluated within the context of traditional ecological knowledge and FNFN history, and considered according to the potential planned and unplanned Pipeline Project-related impacts. Planned Project- related impacts would occur from the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed Horn River Pipeline Project. Unplanned Pipeline Project-related impacts would include inadvertent, accidental, or secondary disturbances, and may include natural or human caused disasters, operational accidents and spills, and vehicular impacts within or outside the Pipeline Project footprint, among others.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 46 - 09-1477-5008
Assessment of Pipeline Project and cumulative effects on non-site-specific traditional use values draws on the assessment of Pipeline Project and cumulative effects on fish, wildlife, and other biophysical components as they relate to traditional use activities.
The assessment of impact significance broadly follows the methodology used for environmental impact assessments. The four primary attributes for traditional use impact significance assessment are listed and defined below:
Direction – indicates whether an effect is considered positive (a benefit), negative or neutral. Some effects may have both positive and negative dimensions;
Geographic Extent – the geographic area within which an environmental effect of a defined magnitude occurs (site-specific, local, regional);
Duration – refers to the length of time over which an impact occurs. In this case, short refers to the construction phase of the Pipeline Project (2.5 years), medium refers to the full period of construction, operation and closure, and long refers to the period beyond the life of the Pipeline Project. It is noted that many traditional use impacts are long-term, as an effect is likely to permanently change the use and cultural knowledge of the area over one generation (20 years); and,
Magnitude – refers to the degree of change that an effect has the potential to produce. Magnitude may be low, medium or high, and is generally qualitatively assigned based on the value of the affected use and the availability of alternate use locations.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 47 - 09-1477-5008
Table 4-2 presents an overview of the criteria used in the assessment process.
TABLE 4-2: Criteria for the Assessment of Traditional Use Baseline Conditions
Attributes Definition Magnitude High Major change from local baseline conditions Medium Moderate change from local baseline conditions Low Minor change from local baseline conditions Geographic Extent Regional Throughout the Sahtenneh and Kotcho watershed Local In the vicinity of the Pipeline Project footprint Duration Effect continues throughout the life of the Pipeline Project (50 years) or longer; for Long-term/Permanent cultural knowledge and practices any duration longer than a generation (20 years) can be considered permanent. Medium-term Effect continue for less than a generation (under 20 years) Short-term Effect continues during construction only Direction Positive Effect is considered to be beneficial Negative Effect is considered to be adverse Neutral Effect is neither beneficial nor adverse Effects Rating Effects are clearly distinguishable and likely to result in strong concern among Significant stakeholders or substantial changes in the overall use of populations/communities Effects are clearly distinguishable and may result in elevated awareness or Moderate concern among stakeholders or materially affect the overall use of populations/communities Minor Low-level effects are distinguishable Unknown Lack of information to enable rating of adverse effect; requires further study
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 48 - 09-1477-5008
4.5.1 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance
Significance ratings for residual effects on the FNFN interests and traditional use values are as follows:
Significant - Effects are clearly distinguishable, likely to result in strong concern in the community, and substantial changes in the overall use of lands or resources.
Not Significant - Causes no effect, effects are not clearly distinguishable, are unlikely to result in strong concern, or will not result in substantial changes in the overall use of lands or resources.
Consideration of significance is based on the criteria outlined in Table 4-2. Significance is also considered qualitatively through consultation with the FNFN, and based on historical experience within similar contexts.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 49 - 09-1477-5008
5.0 TUS ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATIONS
The main objective of this traditional use study is to document site-specific and non-site-specific traditional use values; to map site-specific locations; to document potential Pipeline Project- related impacts; to recommend appropriate mitigation measures, and; to assess potential Project related residual effects.
Eighty traditional use sites were recorded by FNFN researchers within the Reporting Area as part of the community interviews, ground-truthing fieldwork, and relevant prior TUS research.
Most of these sites or areas were grouped together within a series of specific values to indicate their use:
Eight (8) Habitation Values;
Four (4) Indigenous Landscape Values;
Eighteen (18) Subsistence Values;
Eighteen (18) Transportation Values;
Nine (9) Trapping/Commercial Values;
One (1) Cultural/Spiritual Value; and,
Twenty-two (22) Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values.
Non-site-specific values were also documented throughout the Study and Reporting areas and the watersheds in close proximity to the Pipeline Project.
The purpose of the following assessment is to present impacts to past, present, and prospective traditional use values in the Study and Reporting areas according to members of FNFN. A summary of the potential Pipeline Project effects on traditional land use values is provided below. This is followed by a list of proposed mitigation strategies.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 50 - 09-1477-5008
5.1 Pipeline Project Effects and Mitigations
If built, the TransCanada Horn River Pipeline Project will affect both site-specific and non-site- specific traditional use values held by the FNFN community members in the Study and Reporting areas. The potential Project effects, which are drawn from discussions with community members, researchers and other FNFN members, are also summarized in Table 5-1.
5.1.1 Pipeline Effects on Traditional Use Values
Fort Nelson Elders and expert land users currently hold important site-specific values in the Reporting Area, particularly surrounding highly valued hunting, trapping, plant gathering, and other subsistence activities. These activities are strongly connected not only to consumption of traditional foods, but also to cultural identity and spiritual practice.
The proposed Pipeline Project has the potential to affect FNFN traditional use values and interests in the Study and Reporting areas. FNFN members hold that the Reporting Area is a unique and highly valued habitat for plants and wildlife; as well as an important travel corridor integral to their traditional land and resource management regimes. Fort Nelson First Nations members are concerned that the Pipeline Project will negatively affect subsistence resources to which they attach a high level of value. Concerns regarding the Pipeline Project’s effects on traditional use values include the following:
Fort Nelson First Nation members assert that the Pipeline Project is located within a highly valued area of unique habitat that will be permanently (for more than one generation) removed from their use. They are concerned that the Project will take up land, disrupting their hunting, trapping, travelling, and other harvesting activities.
Fort Nelson members identify the Sahtenneh and Kotcho watersheds as a critical and unique area for a variety of subsistence and habitation uses. Streams in the Study and Reporting areas are highly valued traditional use areas with FNFN members using them for transportation, trapping, hunting, and fishing. FNFN members are concerned about adverse impacts where the Pipeline Project crosses streams.
Community members expressed concerns about the fate of old-growth trees in the vicinity of water-crossing sites, and in the pathway of the pipeline more generally.
Fort Nelson members are concerned that the Pipeline Project will affect water quality, which in turn will negatively affect fish, wildlife, and human health.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 51 - 09-1477-5008
They expressed concerns that possible leaks or spills from the Pipeline Project will contaminate the Sahtenneh and/or Kotcho watershed.
Travellers on the land rely on small streams for personal and household water consumption. Community members expressed concern about the effects of pollution from this and related projects on water.
Fort Nelson members continue to use habitation sites (i.e., cabins and seasonal camps) and traditional transportation corridors within the Pipeline Project footprint, Reporting and Study areas because of the diversity of subsistence resources historically and currently available there.
Fort Nelson members are concerned that the combined effects of air (including noise), terrestrial (including aesthetic concerns and landscape alteration), and water-borne pollution will create an area of avoidance around the Pipeline Project—both for animals and people.
Elders and community experts indicated that as a result of the Pipeline Project, habitation sites will have to be relocated 2 kilometres from the Pipeline Project, and beyond of any line of view.
Any limitations to access of the areas surrounding the Pipeline Project will negatively affect subsistence values.
Fort Nelson members expressed concerns that Pipeline Project-related noise pollution during construction will scare moose and caribou away from their forest habitat.
Community members fear that residual effects on vegetation, and the animals that depend upon them, will remain despite the Proponent’s post-construction reclamation plans. Loss of browse may impact ungulates.
Community members expressed concerns that the construction and operation of the Pipeline Project will affect a suite of plant resources, notably ecosystems for berries, food plants, and non-timber forest products within the project footprint, Reporting and study areas.
Elders are concerned that the possible use of herbicides and introduction of invasive plant species will affect the ecological integrity and use of the surrounding areas.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 52 - 09-1477-5008
Elders and community land-use experts, pointing to their experience with other oil and gas-related effects, anticipate that the Pipeline Project’s noise and emissions during construction will affect wildlife movements during the construction phase, and alter predator-prey dynamics thereafter.
Air pollution, noise pollution, and limitations to access primarily affect subsistence and wildlife/ecological values, but also impact cultural/spiritual values and habitation sites in the Reporting and Study areas.
Community members fear increased traffic on the roads will also impact wildlife. Pipeline Project-related increases to traffic and an influx of “outsiders” may increase hunting as well as poaching access and garbage in the bush. Trapline holders are particularly concerned about the effects of increased hunting access upon their tenures.
Elders report a recent increase in the number of moose killed on community roads and fear that these numbers will increase alongside the number of new roads and road users.
Trappers, in particular, are of the opinion that the loss of cultural opportunities associated with trapping and traplines cannot be addressed by consultation and compensation.
Other FNFN members express similar doubts about consultation and compensation, including craftspeople, who fear the loss of cultural and economic opportunities that will result from diminished access to hides, furs, quills, bark, and plants required for traditional crafting.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 53 - 09-1477-5008
5.1.2 Other Key Concerns
FNFN members identified the cumulative effects of other oil and gas activities ongoing in the region as a significant concern. Given the number of other activities, participants worried it would be challenging to isolate effects from this proposed Pipeline Project alone.
Elders were concerned that the Pipeline Project is part of a larger, singular process to provide the infrastructure and precedence to invite more and greater development in the area (especially the Horn River Basin), and that the cumulative effects of such development will affect Fort Nelson culture and economy in ways yet to be seen.
Fort Nelson members frequently observed that despite an overwhelming assortment of bureaucratic initiatives, there seemed to be no oversight or coordination of development in their territory. Roads criss-cross their territory seemingly without reason.
Elders expressed concern that more development in the area will result in less availability of traditional foods, medicines and materials, with resulting impacts on culture, traditional roles, social well-being, and health in the community. As a result, there is a perception that younger generations will not have the opportunity to learn traditional languages, skills and values.
Elders felt that companies do not think of future generations in the same way as First Nations. One Elder summed up this concern as follows: “right now the land supports wildlife, why would we want to change that?” While companies think in terms of 50 years, First Nations think of generations beyond. People do not want to diminish the capacity of future generations to live off the land.
FNFN members expressed frustrations about the effects on their economy from loss of opportunities associated with the removal of resources from their territory.
FNFN noted the negative impacts accruing on individual and community esteem arising from their difficulty defending their territory and rights, and seeing its benefits flowing to others.
A number of Pipeline Project-related effects expressed by the FNFN are best classified as socio- economic impacts. Community-based assessment workshop participants of all ages voiced the following concerns:
Jobs offered to First Nations are of low status, poor quality and hard physical labour, referred to as “shovel jobs.” Accreditation requirements are too onerous and expensive
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 54 - 09-1477-5008
to be realistic for First Nations to achieve, reducing the number of local hires while increasing the influx of outsiders.
Work schedule offered conflicts with a traditional / healthy way of life. Relationships and families suffer as a result.
5.2 Impact Mitigation Measures
Fort Nelson First Nation developed the following mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce potential negative effects of the Pipeline Project on their rights and interests: many arose through the mitigations workshop held November 19, 2009, at the Fort Nelson First Nation Band Hall. The commitment of the Proponent to the implementation of these mitigation measures will work to lessen Pipeline Project-related effects and, thus, reduce the likelihood of a determination of significant Pipeline Project-related effects.
Where mitigation measures are not implemented, or where no mitigation measures are possible, the FNFN expects the Proponent to accommodate their rights and interests through development of an impact benefits agreement (IBA). Fort Nelson First Nation expects the Crown to accommodate their rights and interests, in part, by engaging with FNFN in a regional planning process, which will include the protection of specific areas, including the Sahtenneh and Kotcho watershed, from industrial development.
The FNFN has developed the following mitigation measures to reduce or offset potential adverse impacts of the Pipeline Project on traditional land use values, rights and interests. It calls on the Proponent to undertake the following actions:
1. The Proponent should follow best practices to minimize noise during construction.
2. In order to mitigate possible effects of increased traffic during construction and throughout the Pipeline Project life, the Proponent should minimize the number of required access roads; support education of workforce and enforcement of traffic regulations; and establish a program to train and hire FNFN road monitors.
3. To mitigate possible effects on wildlife of increased access by non-FNFN members to their traditional hunting areas, the Proponent should minimize, as possible, the number of required access roads; support education of workforce on best environmental practices, hunting regulations, and FN treaty rights; support communication and enforcement of hunting and dumping regulations; establish a program to train and hire FNFN road monitors; and establish a program to monitor effects of roads on animals.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 55 - 09-1477-5008
4. The Proponent should follow best practices to avoid air, terrestrial, and water contamination during construction, and establish a monitoring program to run throughout the Pipeline Project life.
5. The Proponent should undertake all possible precautions to minimize the visual impact effects of the Pipeline Project on FNFN territory.
6. The Proponent should compensate trapline cabin owners and their relatives who wish to relocate their dwelling sites out of the Pipeline Project area.
7. The Proponent should, in discussion with FNFN, adopt Dene K’e names for locations related to Pipeline Project operations, and engage the Fort Nelson First Nation Lands Department to produce such maps.
8. The Proponent should develop a preferred hiring strategy, with training for H&S and trades certification, for FNFN members.
9. The Proponent should avoid old-growth trees during pipeline construction, especially at water crossings.
10. The Proponent should adopt best practices with regards to spills during construction, and establish a program to monitor water throughout the life of the Pipeline Project.
11. The Proponent should clear as little land as possible during construction.
12. The Proponent should limit introduction of invasive plant species by cleaning all equipment, including, but not limited to, machinery, trucks, pipe, etc, prior to their introduction into the area for development and when re-seeding disturbed areas, use genetically native species only or do not seed at all.
13. The Proponent should adopt best practices for remediating disturbed areas atop the pipeline, and establish a long term systematic study to monitor effects on plant communities.
14. In Project reclamation, re-vegetate with only genetically native species and/or ecologically and sustainably transplanted species from within the region.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 56 - 09-1477-5008
15. The Proponent should fund or provide traditional craft materials for FNFN craftspeople and traditional crafting education programs;
16. The Proponent should support cultural transmission and protection of FNFN culture by contributing to an annual Elder/youth camp and community language and traditional skills classes.
17. The Proponent should support FNFN in a regional planning initiative.
18. The Proponent should fund and participate in annual meetings with FNFN to review environmental management and successful implementation of Pipeline Project-related mitigation measures.
TABLE 5-1: Pipeline Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures in the Pipeline Project Area
FNFN Interests or Values Anticipated Pipeline Project Mitigations Affected Effects / Community Concerns
Project Footprint located in an area of unique habitat value to be permanently removed from use. Not mitigable. Accommodation is the only likely Taking up of lands. Due to concern option if Pipeline Project proceeds. re: contaminants, aesthetics, and safety, area of avoidance created in an area of unique habitat and subsistence value.
Noise (disturbance to wildlife Follow best practices to minimize noise during and land users). construction.
Minimize, as possible, number of required access roads. Subsistence Values Traffic (disturbance to wildlife Support education of workforce and enforcement including site-specific and land users). of traffic regulations. and non-site-specific. Establish program to train and hire FNFN road monitors. Perceived air and water contamination concerns regarding human and animal Follow best practices during construction phase. health; creation of an area of Monitor throughout. avoidance in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 57 - 09-1477-5008
FNFN Interests or Values Anticipated Pipeline Project Mitigations Affected Effects / Community Concerns Minimize, as possible, number of required access roads. Support education of workforce on regulations, Poaching (increased access to and FN Treaty rights. sensitive areas). Support enforcement of hunting and dumping Increased people in bush; regulations. increased garbage. Establish program to train and hire FNFN road monitors. Monitor effects of roads on animals. Undertake best precautions to minimize visual Visual Impacts (particularly landscape effects. related to cultural/spiritual sites). In discussion with FNFN, adopt Dene K’e names for locations related to Pipeline Project operations. Cultural/Spiritual Perceived air and water Support cultural transmission and protection of including site-specific contamination, as well as noise and non-site-specific. FNFN culture by contributing to an annual and traffic will likely create an Elder/youth camp and community language and area of avoidance in the vicinity traditional skills classes. of the Pipeline Project, resulting in effects on knowledge and Fund or provide traditional craft materials for language transmission. FNFN craftspeople and traditional crafting education programs.
Perceived air and water contamination, as well as noise Trapping/Commercial and traffic (concern regarding Values including site- Develop a preferred hiring strategy, including human and animal health; likely specific and non-site- training, for FNFN members. creation of an area of avoidance specific. in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 58 - 09-1477-5008
FNFN Interests or Values Anticipated Pipeline Project Mitigations Affected Effects / Community Concerns
Damage to stream crossings Adopt best practices in constructing stream during construction. crossings, with follow-up monitoring. Damage to old-growth trees Avoid old-growth trees. during construction and Adopt best practices with regards to spills during operation. construction. Monitor water throughout Effects on watersheds and operations phase. drinking water from construction Clear minimally for construction, if possible. and operation-phase Adopt best practices for remediating disturbed petrochemical and other spills. area under pipeline. Monitor effects on plant Concerns regarding clearing Wildlife/Ecological communities. during construction, and Values including site- Limit introduction of invasive plant species by maintenance of, Pipeline Project specific and non-site- cleaning all equipment prior to introduction into area. specific. the area Concerns regarding invasive Use genetically native species when re-seeding plants. disturbed areas. Concerns regarding residual Follow best practices to minimize noise effects on vegetation. especially during construction, but continuing Effects of construction through operation. Monitor. disturbances on large ungulates. Minimize, as possible, number of required Loss of browse for animals. access roads. Effects on wildlife movements. Monitor effects of roads on animals.
Perceived air and water Compensate trapline cabin owners and their contamination, as well as noise, relatives who wish to relocate out of Study Area. Habitation Values traffic, and aesthetic concerns, including site-specific Fund and participate in annual meetings with may create an area of and non-site-specific. FNFN to review environmental management and avoidance in the vicinity of the successful implementation of Pipeline Project Pipeline Project. mitigation measures.
Support FNFN in regional planning initiative. Monitoring as described below. Train, equip, and fund a FNFN monitoring position through the FNFN Lands Many small oil and gas Department to support the review and Cumulative effects of oil developments built without application of best practices during the and gas development. FNFN input result in many small construction, operation and effects decommissioning phases of the Pipeline Project.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 59 - 09-1477-5008
5.3 Residual Effects Assessment
Residual effects are the Pipeline Project-related effects that remain if appropriate mitigation measures are followed during the various phases of the Pipeline Project (e.g., construction, operation and de-commissioning). The following assessment is based on the assumption that the Proponent will work with the FNFN to implement and fund all mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.2. Should any of these mitigation measures be left unfulfilled by the Proponent, the determination of significance provided in this report would require re-examination and the significance rating of Pipeline Project related effects would become higher.
Residual Pipeline Project-related effects are concluded from consideration of seven major FNFN values and interests summarized in Table 5-2. The degree to which the Pipeline Project effects may be ameliorated or reduced is taken into consideration in determining residual Pipeline Project effects. The assessment of residual effects is considered according to the four primary attributes for traditional use impact significance assessment as described below:
Direction – all identified Pipeline Project-related effects on FNFN interests/values are considered to be negative.
Geographic Extent – the geographic area within which Pipeline Project-related effects on FNFN interest/values vary according to the effect. Local effects are considered to occur within close proximity to the 32 metre X 72 kilometre Project footprint and regional effects occur within the larger Sahtenneh River and Kotcho Lake watersheds. Due to FNFN concerns over contamination, the taking up of lands by the Pipeline Project will be regional. Although impacts to subsistence values and cultural/spiritual values will be lessened by mitigation measures, some residual effects will remain at both the local and regional levels. Residual effects on trapping/commercial values, wildlife/ecological values, and habitation values will occur at both the local and regional levels. Cumulative effects of oil and gas development will occur at the regional level and beyond.
Duration – In certain cases, Pipeline Project-related effects are expected to be of greater magnitude for the short-term (during construction). Increased traffic on Komie Rd (and related wildlife mortality) and influx of “outside” workers will be highest during Pipeline Project construction, but will continue at a lower magnitude through Pipeline Project operation. Air and noise pollution will be greatest during Pipeline Project construction. The majority of residual Pipeline Project effects on FNFN traditional use values will have duration of long- term (throughout the Pipeline Project lifespan). Some of the cultural and spiritual values of the FNFN relate to cultural knowledge. Although mitigation measures will lessen the Pipeline Project effects on these values, some residual effects will be permanent (occuring for longer than one generation).
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 60 - 09-1477-5008
Magnitude – refers to the degree of change that an effect has the potential to produce. The magnitude of residual Pipeline Project effects occurring within the Pipeline Project footprint are considered to be high. For the life of the Pipeline Project, and for some years beyond, this area will be unusable as FNFN traditional use practices and all culturally important species will have been removed from the area. The magnitude of residual Project effects occurring within view of the Pipeline, or within the two kilometres of what we have defined as the Reporting Area, is expected to be moderate. These residual Pipeline Project effects, outside of the view of the Pipeline Project but within the watersheds, are considered to range from low to medium magnitude following the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring (as outlined in Section 4.3). The magnitude of residual effects for this area will depend on the results of the FNFN monitoring program and individual FNFN member’s perceptions of contamination from the Pipeline Project.
The determination of the significance of Pipeline Project-related residual effects has been conducted according to the criteria detailed in Section 4.6.1. These criteria state that residual Pipeline Project effects are considered significant if they meet three criteria: (1) are clearly distinguishable; (2) result in substantial changes in the overall use of lands or resources; and, (3) likely to result in strong concern in the community. At this time, available evidence suggests that, on average the residual Pipeline Project-related effects identified in this study are negative, regional, long-term, and moderate. Significance of these effects is considered according to these criteria as follows:
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 61 - 09-1477-5008
1. After implementation of all 18 mitigation measures, Pipeline Project effects will continue to be clearly distinguishable;
2. While Project-related changes to FNFN overall use of lands or resources may not be considered “substantial” for the whole community, they will be substantially changed for the families who have been accessing traditional use sites within the Study Area; furthermore, the cumulative effects of many gas developments that the Project enables will likely effect substantial change on FNFN use of lands and resources.
3. The degree to which the FNFN community is concerned about the residual effects of the Pipeline Project will relate to the successful implementation of mitigation measures, FNFN monitoring, and the provision of a satisfactory impact benefit agreement.
With the successful implementation of mitigation measures, FNFN monitoring, and the provision of a satisfactory impact benefit agreement, the residual Pipeline Project-related effects on the interests, use and recognized treaty rights of Fort Nelson First Nation may not be significant. If any of the implementation of mitigation measures, FNFN monitoring, or a satisfactory impact benefit agreement is left unfulfilled by the Proponent, this determination of significance would require re-examination, and the rating of Pipeline Project-related effects would be of greater significance.
5.3.1 Residual Effects Monitoring
Fort Nelson First Nation has indicated that they are interested in conducting ongoing monitoring of the Pipeline Project. Such monitoring will be essential during the construction phase of the project in order to protect any undocumented heritage or other sensitive sites from destruction. Given the sensitivity of the environment and the impact of industrial development on the Study Area and FNFN traditional use values, FNFN wishes to implement monitoring processes that include the use of FNFN’s own science or Traditional Knowledge-based monitoring. This does not replace, and may complement, western science-based monitoring. The focus of such monitoring is two-fold: to provide an early warning system for imminent impacts on traditional use in the Study Area; to record the cumulative longer term impacts of the Pipeline Project on FNFN traditional use values.
It is recommended that the Proponent train, equip, and fund a FNFN monitoring position through the FNFN Lands Department for the duration of the Pipeline Project. The monitor (or monitors) would support the review and application of best practices during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Pipeline Project. Ongoing monitoring of wildlife, hunting regulation enforcement, and water quality in the vicinity of the Pipeline Project would be
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 62 - 09-1477-5008 conducted through a FNFN community-based monitoring program with funding from the Proponent.
5.4 Summary
The main objective of this traditional use study is to document site-specific and non-site-specific traditional use sites, to map site-specific locations, to document and assess potential Pipeline Project-related impacts, and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
Eighty traditional use sites were recorded by FNFN researchers within the Study Area as part of the community interviews, ground-truthing fieldwork, and relevant prior TUS research. These include 1 Cultural/Spiritual Value, 8 Habitation Values, 4 Indigenous Landscape Values, 18 Subsistence Values, 18 Transportation Values, 9 Trapping/Commercial Values, and 22 Critical Wildlife/Ecological Values. Non-site-specific values were also documented for the Pipeline Project Area and the watersheds in close proximity to the Pipeline Project.
At this time, available evidence suggests that, in the absence of successful implementation of mitigation measures, regional development planning, Fort Nelson First Nation monitoring of the Pipeline Project, and the provision of a satisfactory impact benefit agreement, Fort Nelson First Nation may consider the residual Pipeline Project-related effects on the interests, use, and rights of Fort Nelson First Nation to be significant. This determination of significance will require re- examination when the Proponent commits to mitigation measures, monitoring and an impact benefit agreement.
Although cumulative effects were beyond the scope of this study, Fort Nelson members expressed concern that the Pipeline Project will lead to increased development within the Horn River Basin, which will have presently unforeseeable cumulative effects on FNFN rights and interests. Fort Nelson First Nation expects the Crown to accommodate their rights and interests, in part, by engaging with FNFN in a regional planning process, which will include the protection of specific areas, including the Sahtenneh watershed, from industrial development.
5.4.1 Limitations of the Study
This study was completed within a limited time period of approximately three months and according to a set budget amount. A consequence of these constraints was that some key FNFN Elders or knowledge holders were not available to participate in interviews related to the Pipeline Project. Even without these constraints, no TUS is able to document the full breadth and depth of a community's knowledge regarding a Project location. This study was designed to provide a reasonable account of FNFN traditional use interests in the area of the proposed Pipeline Project given the constraints of available funding and time.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 63 - 09-1477-5008
6.0 CLOSURE
This report was prepared by the Fort Nelson First Nation and Golder Associates Ltd. This report is specific to the proposed development, as described herein and the report results and recommendations are specific to that project. It concerns only the Cabin Section of TCPL’s Horn River Mainline Project, including the 2.2-kilometre Komie East Extension. At present, it does not address the Proponent’s plan to build a 16.5-hectare construction camp, as well as an 11km temporary hydrostatic pipeline between the Komie East Meter Station and Cabin Lake. Any use, reliance, or decisions made by third parties on the basis of this report are the sole responsibility of such third parties. This report was written without prejudice to issues of aboriginal rights and/or title.
Fort Nelson First Nation
Lana Lowe, M.A. Fort Nelson First Nation Lands Department
Golder Associates Ltd.
Towagh Behr, M.A. Traditional Studies Specialist
D’Arcy Green, B.Ed., M.A. Senior Archaeologist, Associate
LL/TB/PE/DG/rem/kar
Z:\FINAL\2009\1477\09-1477-5008 FNFN TCPL Horn River FN\01-18-10 Preliminary Draft Report v. 2.1\rpt 01-18-10 Horn River Pipeline TUS - v. 2.1.docx
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 64 - 09-1477-5008
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Abel, Kerry Margaret. 1993. Drum Songs: Glimpses of Dene History. McGill University Press, Montreal and Kingston.
Annette Gairdner-Loe. 2007. Northeastern BC History and Memoirs from Mary-Rose Loe: Volume 1 – Old Fort Nelson. Annette Gairdner-Loe, Fort Nelson
Asch, Michael. 1972. A Social Behavioural Approach to Music Analysis. The Case of the Slavey Drum Dance. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Columbia University, New York.
Asch, Michael. 1981. “Slavey,” in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6, Arctic. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Brody, Hugh. 1982. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the BC Frontier. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver.
Campbell, Tracy. 1996. Fort Nelson First Nation Traditional Use and Occupancy Study. Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary. (Incomplete: initiated 1996)
Coates, Kenneth, and Morrison, William R. 1992. The Alaska Highway in WWII: The US Army of Occupation in Canada’s Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press.
Duff, Wilson. 1964. The Indian History of British Columbia, vol.1: The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No.5. Provincial Museum of British Columbia, Victoria.
Fort Nelson First Nation. 2002. Who We Are: Reaching for Our Vision. Fort Nelson First Nation, BC.
Fumoleau, Rene. 1975. As Long as This Land Shall Last. McLelland and Stewart, Toronto.
Goddard, Pliny Earle. 1917. "Beaver Texts," Anthropological Papers of the American Musuem of Natural History 10.5. 295-397.
Goulet, Jean-Guy A. 1998. Ways of Knowing: Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Dene The. University of Nebraska Press.
Harris, Cole. 2002. Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 65 - 09-1477-5008
Helm, June. 1961. The Lynx Point People: The Dynamics of a Northern Athapaskan Band. Anthropological Series 53, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 176. Ottawa, Canada.
Honigman, John J. 1946. Ethnography and Acculturation of the Fort Nelson Slave. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 33, New Haven, Connecticut.
Howard, Philip. 1963. "A Preliminary Presentation of Slavey Phonemes," University of California Publications in Linguistics 29: 42-47.
Howard, Philip. 1977. A Dictionary of the Verbs of the Slave Language. Ottawa: Northern Social Research Division, Department of Northern and Indian Affairs.
Jenness, Diamond. 1932. The Indians of Canada. Anthropological Series 15, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 65. Ottawa, Canada.
Jenness, Diamond. 1937. The Sekani Indians of British Columbia. Patenaude, Ottawa.
Leonard, David W. 2000. Delayed Frontier: The Peace River Country to 1909. Detselig Enterprises, Ltd., Calgary.
MacNeish, June Helm. 1955. “Folktales of the Slave Indians.” Anthropologica 1: 37-44. Ottawa, Canada.
Miller, JR. 2009. Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal Treaty-Making in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Miller, JR. 1989. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Osgood, Cornelius. 1936. “The Distribution of the Northern Athapaskan Indians.” Yale University Publications in Anthropology 7: 3-36. New Haven, Connecticut.
Petitot, Emile.1891. Autour du Grand Lac des Esclaves. A. Savine, Paris.
Ray, Arthur J. 1999. “Treaty 8: A British Columbian Anomaly.” BC Studies 123, Pp 5-58.
Rice, Keren. 1983. Fort Nelson Dene Topical Dictionary. Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia.
Ridington, Robin. 1981. Beaver, in Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6, edited by June Helm, Smithsonian Institution: Washington. Pp 350-360.
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 66 - 09-1477-5008
Williamson, Robert G. 1955-56. “Slave Indian Legends.” Anthropologica 1: 119-143, 2: 61-92. Ottawa, Canada
Websites:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2009. “Shale Plays Make B.C. Feel Cozy.” Map. Source: http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/01jan/bc.cfm
Burke, Liz; Desjarlais, Judith, et al. nd. “Fort Nelson Aboriginal Project.” Website. Source: http://rla.sd81.bc.ca/~fnap/fnaptoc.html
Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada, 2009. “First Nation Profile for Fort Nelson Band.” Source: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=543&lang=eng
Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada, 2009. “Treaty No.8 made June 21 1899 and Adhesions, Reports, Etc.” Website. Source: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/pubs/t8/trty8-eng.asp
Province of British Columbia, 2009. “First Peoples Language Map of British Columbia.” Website. Source: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/dene_tha
Young, Gerri. 1981. “Fort Nelson Story.” E-book. Source: http://rla.sd81.bc.ca/~fns/fnstoc.html
Archives and Documents:
Arcas, July 2009 a. “Archaeological Field Assessment for the Proposed 300x500 m Campsite and Storage Area.” In EnCana, Appendix D, Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate, July 2009.
Unknown. 1934. Trapline Sketches of Central and Northern British Columbia. Map 44A: “Wapiti, Murray & head of Parsnip Rivers” [BC Archives: CM CM/S2 -E117 sh.81]
Fort Nelson First Nation, 2005. Fort Nelson First Nation Oral History Project.
Federal Department of Indian Affairs, RG 10 Volume 6735, File 420-3 Part 5, (BCA Reel B1861) “Traplines, 1936 – 1938”
Federal Department of Indian Affairs, RG 10 Volume 8595, File 1/1-15-5-1, (BCA Reel B5967) “Treaty 8 Ft. Nelson Adhesion, 1909-1972”
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd. CONFIDENTIAL January 18, 2010 67 - 09-1477-5008
Federal Department of Indian Affairs, RG 10 Volume 8861, File 1/18-11-3 Part 2, (BCA Reel B5812) “BC Game Laws, 1953-1964”
BC Provincial Game Warden, 1905-1922, GR 0446, Box 71, File 14, “Chief Parsons, Constable at Fort St. John Annual Report, Peace River”
BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, 1926-1961, 1970-1980, GR 1013.
BC Fish and Wilflife Branch, 1920-1977, GR 1027, Box 137, File 11, “Management, Wildlife Reserve, and Peace River” Northern BC Fish and Wildlife Records, 1922-1972, GR 1085.
BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Trapline Maps of Central and Northern British Columbia, CM E/117, Sheet 130 Fort Nelson dated February 5, 1945
BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Trapline Maps of Central and Northern British Columbia, CM E/117, Sheet 136 1/2 and 2/2 dated 194?
Fort Nelson First Nation & Golder Associates Ltd.