TLU) Studies, Or Studies of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION, TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE

Prepared for:

Coal Valley Resources Inc. Bag Service 5000 Edson, Alberta T7E 1W1

Prepared by:

Daniel Meyer, Jason Roe, and Mary Attia Lifeways of Canada Limited 105, 809 Manning Rd. NE Calgary, AB T2E 7L4

March 1, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents details of Aboriginal consultation efforts and traditional use studies to date for the Robb Trend Project (Project). As Aboriginal consultation efforts are expected to continue during Project application review and during future development activities, this report must be seen as interim in nature, representing the status of these activities at the time of filing.

Coal Valley Resources Inc.’s (CVRI's) Project represents a continuation of consultation efforts initiated in 2006 when Aboriginal groups were first informed of the Project and subsequently undertook traditional use studies where necessary (in conjunction with the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower extension projects). As of 2011, changes to the Project area, specifically the additional permit area to the west of the Project (Robb Trend West) and the three road corridors, have led to continuing field study efforts. CVRI has been engaged in consultation and traditional use studies with potentially affected Aboriginal groups for approximately five and a half years regarding the Project. These consultation efforts became “official” on February 14, 2011 when the Aboriginal Consultation Plan and associated Plain Language Description were approved and finalized after discussions with Alberta Environment (AENV). The proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Project were produced and shared with Aboriginal groups in April, 2011, and finalized in August, 2011. CVRI updated AENV and then the SREM Aboriginal Affairs Branch (SAAB) bi-monthly in April 2011, June 2011, August 2011, October 2011, December 2011, and scheduled for February 2012 regarding the status of Aboriginal consultation and traditional use studies of the proposed Project.

Consultations and traditional studies were initiated with several Treaty 6 First Nations, including the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, Paul First Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Sunchild First Nation. The Mountain Cree Camp, officially members of the Ermineskin Cree Tribe, and the Métis Nation of Alberta Zone IV have also been consulted. In addition, several societies representing non-treaty Aboriginal groups in the area are being consulted, including the Foothills Ojibway Society, Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (AWN).

To date, substantial contact regarding CVRI’s Project has been made with all identified potentially affected Aboriginal groups. The precise course of the discussions has differed significantly with each group depending on the development of their own consultation and traditional use programs, and level of interest in the area. Communications have involved various mailouts, meetings, tours, and traditional field studies. AWN has indicated no concern with the proposed Project and to date traditional use studies have been completed for the Alexis First Nation, Mountain Cree Camp, Nakcowinewak Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Sunchild First Nation regarding the Project and Project footprint additions. The Foothills Ojibway Society and Paul First Nation have still not completed all field studies in regards to the additions in the Project footprint, but prior work has been completed on the original footprint. All groups that have undertaken field studies, with the exception of the Mountain Cree Camp, have done so exclusively using their own traditional use programs or outside consultants. They will communicate or share the sensitive data as they feel appropriate with CVRI, SAAB, or Alberta Culture and Community Services (ACCS). Discussions regarding First Nations concerns with the development and possible mitigation strategies are on-going, and will be finalized on a group-by-group basis after the Project application submission date.

Many Aboriginal Elders, environmental monitors, assistants, and interpreters have inspected the Project area and identified resources used by their people. Table 11 provides a list of plant and fungi species or classes observed by Aboriginal groups in the Project area that are used by them for a variety of medicinal or mundane purposes. A total of 85 species or classes of plant/fungi have been identified in the Project area that are important to Aboriginal groups. As a generic statement, all Aboriginal groups consulted are concerned that CVRI take steps to ensure that native plant species are included in reclamation plans rather than solely agronomic species as have been often utilized in the past.

Most Aboriginal groups focused their traditional studies on the presence of important plants in the area. Discussion of concerns regarding animal species tended to occur in generic terms, and typically revolved around hunting and trapping practices. Table 12 presents a list of animals noted to date during consultations that Aboriginal groups have concern for in this region.

In addition to specific concerns addressed in the attached reports, during discussions, open houses, and fieldwork with Aboriginal groups, several items of concern relating to the proposed Project and development in general have been raised. Many of these concerns mirror general concerns of environmental impact from other stakeholders and the general public.

Water Quality - Perhaps the most commonly raised issue for Aboriginal people regarding the Project is the issue of water quality. Many raised concerns about how the Coal Valley Mine (CVM) would keep the water clean, and many expressed scepticism that they could. These concerns include surface and groundwater. As water is often seen as one of the four major elements of life, it is critical to the well-being of all animal and plant life in the region.

Moose Licks/Salt Licks/Springs – Directly related to the above is the issue of moose or salt licks. These are important to the wildlife in the region of course, and they are also important places for hunters looking for game. Clearly some of these will be removed during the Project development. Once mining begins, how will groundwater flow affect others on the margins of the area?

Displacement of Wildlife – Many Aboriginal people use or have used this area for hunting, particularly moose, deer, and elk. Many mentioned that parts of the Project area are great moose habitat. Moose are culturally important and clearly among the most preferred game. In addition, although no Aboriginal person cited ownership of a trapline to be directly affected, furbearers commonly trapped are of general concern. What will be the impact on game populations, particularly moose? What will the overall wildlife displacement impact be?

Bears – A number of Aboriginal people also mentioned the importance of bears; some know bears as four-legged men. Although not frequently hunted, bears are powerful and an important animal. Where are all the bears, what will be the impact on bears? How will bear dens and bear habitat be protected, particularly grizzly bears?

Health of Wild Game – Aboriginal people have noted that with increased development in areas, particularly oil and gas, comes an increase in visibly diseased game animals, sometimes inedible

once killed and skinned, as if tainted or poisoned. They attribute the poor health of these animals to nearby developments and their effects on the environment. Has or will tissue sampling occur in the area to help study animal health?

Avoidance of Important Locales – Aboriginal groups have, or will have, identified to CVRI the locations of known burials, ceremonial sites, and camping locations in the proposed Project areas and region. Discussions are underway on appropriate avoidance or mitigation strategies on a case-by-case basis.

Impact to Medicinal and Food Plants – One of the most common concerns among Aboriginal elders was the impact to medicinal and food plants in the Project area. Some of these plants are noted as “rare” or “rare elsewhere,” whereas others are more common. Often these plants cannot simply be transplanted due to specific conditions required. Also, transplanting may impact the potency or efficacy of the medicines in some cases. CVRI is urged to use traditional knowledge and native plant species in the reclamation process.

Future Extension – One individual expressed concern about the potential further extension of the Project to the southeast, the opposite side of the Pembina River. There are active traplines to the east. One individual expressed concern that because of the coal seams, the mine could potentially expand all the way to the Genessee area.

Exporting Coal/Transporting Coal – Some concern was expressed on behalf of a few individuals that the coal was being exported to foreign lands. At one open house, one individual asked about coal trains and exposure to coal dust along rail lines.

Clear-Cutting and Noise Pollution - It was noted that the forested area, wildlife, and medicinal plants would be impacted by the clear-cutting in the area and mining operations. Further, concern was expressed over the displacement of animals by the noise pollution created.

Reclamation- As already noted, the use of native species and traditional knowledge during reclamation is important. Questions were also raised regarding the anticipated length of time required for the regrowth of mushrooms, tree fungus, trees, and plants. Further, questions of how the landscape would look like after reclamation and if prior reclamation studies had been completed. In addition, some note that animals are attracted to reclaimed areas, and have concerns about the effect of this on game populations, and hunting rights.

Employment Opportunities – Many people expressed interest in job opportunities for Aboriginal peoples. Concerns have been expressed about past discrimination, and the need for a high school diploma in order to obtain employment with some industries. Some Elders thought the need for a diploma would encourage youth to finish school, but frequently this was viewed as a barrier to older Aboriginal individuals. The need for further training or certificates for certain positions was also brought up. Desire for the incorporation of Aboriginal youth into positions such as environmental monitors or to assist in reclamation was expressed.

Contracting Opportunities – Several Aboriginal groups enquired about contracting opportunities for Aboriginally-owned companies or affiliated corporations.

iii

Agreements – A number of consulted Aboriginal groups have expressed interest in solidifying their relationship to or agreements with CVRI in long-term memoranda of understanding or similar written agreements.

Many of the concerns highlighted above reflect general public concerns regarding all development projects and their impact on the environment. These concerns must necessarily be addressed by those consultants retained by CVRI to provide studies of these subject areas as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. CVRI is confident that is has studied these issues in detail, and has met or will meet those concerns through appropriate planning, development procedures, proposed mitigations, or agreements with specific Aboriginal groups. Specific address of these concerns is discussed in the appropriate sections of the EA report, and CVRI will continue to update SAAB on the progress of consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

The avoidance of ceremonial areas, specific plant species, graves, and other areas during construction and operation of the proposed Project area has been negotiated, or will be negotiated, on a case-by-case basis with individual Aboriginal groups. CVRI has already agreed to avoid some areas of particular importance within or adjacent to the Project area, and has entered into agreements with some groups for longer-term monitoring of impact to medicinal and other plants, or for monitoring of general environmental impacts. Further discussions with Aboriginal groups on specific impacts and mitigation measures will proceed following the submission of additional final reports on traditional use studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I LIST OF FIGURES ...... VII LIST OF TABLES ...... VIII

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups and Aboriginal Consultation Plan ...... 4 1.2 Study Area ...... 5 1.3 Status of Traditional Use Studies and Aboriginal Consultations ...... 5

2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABORIGINAL USE OF THE COAL VALLEY REGION...... 7 2.1 The Early Precontact Period (ca. 10,500 – 7,750 radiocarbon years ago) ...... 7 2.2 The Middle Precontact Period (ca. 7,750 – 1,600 radiocarbon years ago) ...... 7 2.3 The Late Precontact Period (ca. 1,600 – 200 years ago) ...... 8 2.4 The Historic Period and the Impacts of the Fur Trade (ca. 300 years ago to present) ...... 8

3. SUMMARY OF TRADITIONAL USE STUDIES AND CONSULTATION TO DATE ...... 17 3.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation ...... 17 3.1.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 17 3.1.2 Results of the Alexis Traditional Use Studies ...... 21 3.1.3 Concerns as a Result of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Traditional Use Studies...... 22 3.1.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 22 3.2 Aseniwuche Winewak Nation ...... 23 3.2.1 Major Meetings and Issued Discussed ...... 23 3.2.2 AWN Traditional Use of the Coal Valley Area ...... 23 3.2.3 Concerns as a Result of AWN Traditional Use Studies ...... 25 3.2.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 25 3.3 Foothills Ojibway Society ...... 25 3.3.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 26 3.3.2 Results of Foothills Ojibway Society Traditional Use Studies ...... 26 3.3.3 Concerns as a Result of Foothills Ojibway Society Traditional Use Studies ...... 29 3.3.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 29 3.4 Métis ...... 30 3.4.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 31 3.4.2 Results of the MNA Mailout ...... 33 3.4.3 Concerns as a Result of the Métis Consultations ...... 33 3.4.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 34 3.5 Mountain Cree Camp ...... 34 3.5.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 34 3.5.2 Results of the Mountain Cree Camp Traditional Use Studies ...... 37 3.5.3 Concerns as a Result of Mountain Cree Camp Traditional Use Studies ...... 38 3.5.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 38 3.6 Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada ...... 38 3.6.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 39 3.6.2 Results of the Nakcowinewak Traditional Use Studies ...... 39 3.6.3 Concerns as a Result of Nakcowinewak Traditional Use Studies ...... 41 3.6.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 41 3.7 O’Chiese First Nation ...... 41 3.7.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 42

3.7.2 Results of the O’Chiese Traditional Use Studies ...... 42 3.7.3 Concerns as a Result of O’Chiese Traditional Use Studies...... 42 3.7.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 45 3.8 Paul First Nation ...... 45 3.8.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 45 3.8.2 Results of the Paul First Nation Traditional Use Studies ...... 46 3.8.3 Concerns as a Result of the Paul First Nation Traditional Use Studies ...... 48 3.8.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 48 3.9 Sunchild First Nation ...... 48 3.9.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed ...... 49 3.9.2 Results of the Sunchild First Nation Traditional Use Studies ...... 49 3.9.3 Concerns as a Result of the Sunchild Traditional Use Studies ...... 51 3.9.4 On‐Going Consultation ...... 51

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 52 4.1 Important Plant and Fungi Species Identified in Project Area ...... 52 4.2 Important Animals of the Project Area ...... 55 4.3 General First Nations Concerns ...... 55 4.4 Mitigations Proposed as a Result of Traditional Use Studies and First Nations Concerns ...... 58 4.5 Conclusions ...... 58

REFERENCES ...... 60 APPENDIX A: ROBB TREND PROJECT ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION PLAN AND PLAIN LANGUAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 78 APPENDIX B: LETTERS FROM ASENIWUCHE WINEWAK NATION REGARDING PROPOSED CVM PROJECTS ...... 79 APPENDIX C: O’CHIESE FIRST NATION AND NAKCOWINEWAK NATION CORRESPONDENCE ...... 80

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map Showing Locations of Consulted Aboriginal Groups...... 65 Figure 2: Culture History of West‐Central Alberta...... 66 Figure 3: Indian Council of Cree and Assisniboine in what was then the North‐West Territories circa 1878‐1879, later Alberta or Saskatchewan (Glenbow Archives NA‐5501‐1)...... 67 Figure 4: The Hudson’s Bay Company fort at Rocky Mountain House, illustrated in 1873 (Glenbow Archives NA‐577‐4)...... 67 Figure 5: Fur traders with snowshoes at Jasper House, Alberta in 1871 (Glenbow Archives NA‐1408‐18)...... 68 Figure 6: View of the chimneys marking the abandoned location of the HBC fort at Rocky Mountain House, sometime before 1900 (Glenbow Archives NA 1094‐5)...... 68 Figure 7: View of old cabin remains at an abandoned logging camp in the Coal Valley area...... 69 Figure 8: An Assiniboine man on the Alexis Reserve in 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA1463‐29)...... 69 Figure 9: Rolfe Timm from the Coal Valley Mine making a presentation to Elders at the Alexis First Nation campout in 2006. .. 70 Figure 10: Members of the Alexis traditional use team that inspected the Robb Trend area in 2011...... 70 Figure 11: View of the Foothills Ojibway Society traditional campout in the vicinity of Mercoal Creek in 2007...... 71 Figure 12: Jim O’Chiese inspecting a cabin site in the vicinity of the Robb Trend...... 71 Figure 13: Chief Wayne Roan inspects a plant during traditional studies...... 72 Figure 14: Members of the Mountain Cree Camp traditional use team investigate plant resources in the Robb Trend area...... 72

Figure 15: The signing of the last adhesion of Treaty 6 by Ojibway (Saulteaux) and Cree at Rocky Mountain House in May, 1950 (Glenbow Archives PA‐3710‐19)...... 73 Figure 16: Early morning at the O’Chiese First Nation traditional campout in May 2007...... 73 Figure 17: The O’Chiese/Nakcowinewak traditional campout in August 2007...... 74 Figure 18: Prison inmates share their stories with the O’Chiese and Nakcowinewak communities during the traditional campout in August 2007...... 74 Figure 19: Food being prepared for distribution during the closing ceremonial feast at the August 2007 traditional campout. . 75 Figure 20: Assiniboine women on the Wabamun reserve, 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA 1463‐27)...... 75 Figure 21: Assiniboine tipi and wagon on the Wabamun reserve, 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA 1463‐30)...... 76 Figure 22: Elders from the Paul First Nation inspecting reclaimed areas in the CVM permit area during a field trip...... 76 Figure 23: The signing of an adhesion to Treaty 6 by Cree and Ojibwa (Saulteaux) in Rocky Mountain House in 1947 (Glenbow Archives PA 3710‐17)...... 77

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups ...... 5 Table 2: Important Meetings/Events with the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation...... 18‐20

Table 3: Important Meetings/Events with the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation...... 24 Table 4: Important Meetings/Events with the Foothills Ojibway Society...... 27‐28

Table 5: Important Meetings/Events with the Métis...... 32 Table 6: Important Meetings/Events with the Mountain Cree Camp...... 35‐36

Table 7: Important Meetings/Events with the Nakcowinewak Nation...... 40 Table 8: Important Meetings/Events with the O’Chiese First Nation...... 43‐44

Table 9: Important Meetings/Events with the Paul First Nation...... 47 Table 10: Important Meetings/Events with the Sunchild First Nation...... 50 Table 11: Plants and Fungi in the Robb Trend Area Important to Aboriginal People...... 53‐54

Table 12: Animals in the Robb Trend Area Important to Aboriginal People...... 56

viii

1. INTRODUCTION

The Coal Valley Mine (CVM), owned by Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI), is located 100 km south of Edson and has operated since 1978. The company, subject to meeting Alberta’s regulatory requirements, intends to proceed with mining in the Robb Trend Project (Project) area adjacent to the existing CVM operations. This area is within Categories 3 and 4 lands in the eastern portions of the Eastern Slopes Region that are suitable for coal exploration and development. This report presents details of Aboriginal consultation efforts and traditional use studies to date for the Project. As Aboriginal consultation efforts are expected to continue during Project application review and during future development activities, this report must be seen as interim in nature, representing the status of these activities at the time of filing.

The term Aboriginal rather than First Nation will be used primarily throughout this report to refer to peoples, groups, or persons with whole or partial ancestry to peoples, groups, persons, or cultures that occupied the region prior to and after the arrival of persons of dominant European ancestry. For some individuals, terminology can be a thorny issue in this matter. Aboriginal persons or groups variously self-identify as First Nations, Indian, Métis, Aboriginal, or other terms (often in their own languages) depending upon the individual or context. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples including Indians, Métis, and Inuit. United Nations documents sometimes use the term Indigenous People. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada indicates that First Nation applies to all Status (registered under the Indian Act), non-Status, and Treaty (those that belong to a First Nation that has signed a treaty with the crown) persons (INAC 2002). Although the term First Nations is often used as a blanket term for people who used to be called Indians, or sometimes only to those who have signed a Treaty (such as in the discussions below), legally in fact there is no definition of First Nation (DOJC 2011) despite its common usage particularly when discussing reserves, Treaty rights, or Aboriginal rights as referred to in the Constitution. Some legislation has avoided this issue by defining First Nations to mean a band within the meaning of the Indian Act. Given the common usage of the term First Nation in both the public and in government policy documents not only to refer to bands but also persons, the term will be used where appropriate following. However, Aboriginal will be used in order to be as inclusive as possible in most general discussions in the context of this report, as not all of the persons discussed either self-identify or are otherwise identified as First Nations.

People of Aboriginal heritage and their ancestors have also made use of this Foothills area of Alberta for the last 10,000 years (see Section 2 for a review). Under Treaty with the Crown and the Government of Canada, the First Nations’ uses were enshrined as the right to collect, hunt, fish, and trap for food on Crown land, as well as other traditional uses such as ceremonies and burials. Based on recent Supreme Court decisions, before certain developments may proceed in Alberta, proponents must ensure that consultation is undertaken with First Nations groups on lands where existing Treaty or constitutional rights may be infringed by development activities (see Haida Nation v. British Columbia 2004, and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada 2005). First Nations groups view the treaties as inviolable, and take the rights described therein very

seriously (Taylor 1985). The government and developers are expected to fairly and reasonably treat the concerns raised by First Nations during the consultation process.

Commitments made during earlier CVRI consultation programs to ensure potentially affected Aboriginal community representatives were kept up-to-date on mine development activities have been honoured through tours of current mine operations and of potential extension areas. This has usually included the Alexis First Nation, Jim O’Chiese and the Foothills Ojibway Society (FOS), and the Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada (NNC). During the most recent formal consultation program for the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower extensions efforts have also included the Paul, Sunchild, and O’Chiese First Nations, the Mountain Cree (Smallboy) Camp, the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (AWN), and the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) starting in 2006.

As part of the current Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the proposed Project, communities have been and will be encouraged to undertake Traditional Use Studies (TUS) of the Project area to help gauge the effect of the development on members of the community. The consultation and studies for the Project were first entered into in accordance with the Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development released in September 2006. The guidelines that support the policy, now known as The Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development, are a recognition that the Province of Alberta must consult with First Nations where land development activities may adversely affect First Nations rights and traditional uses of Crown lands (Government of Alberta November 2007). Alberta has delegated portions of this consultation process to industry, including notification to band councils or designates of developments and their potential adverse effects, meetings to discuss ideas, comments, and concerns of the potentially affected First Nations, and the development of strategies to avoid or mitigate adverse effects. The Project consultation program has also incorporated directives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) or other Federal government agencies on Aboriginal consultation when and where required.

TUS are an important part of the consultation process. These are often also referred to as Traditional Land Use (TLU) studies, or studies of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). These studies seek to gauge the extent of past and present use of the land for traditional pursuits important to First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, collection of plants including berries and herbal medicines, and ceremonial pursuits (see Freeman 1992, Honda-McNeil and Parsons 2003, McKillop 2002, and Parker and King 1990 for various definitions of TUS, their methodologies, complexities, and implications). The collection of this data is typically through informant interview of Elders or other community members, and field visits to areas where specific information from oral sources is recorded. These studies not only provide information relevant to gauge the use of the area, but also help to preserve the cultural patrimony of potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and help the young learn from the collective knowledge of the community. TUS with First Nations have occurred in Alberta for many years, but in late 2006 the process became more formalized with the official release of the new policy and guidelines.

The guidelines have altered the form of consultations and TUS in the Province as most Aboriginal groups develop their own TUS programs. Aboriginal consultation and TUS are inherently tied, as all parties require traditional use information to effectively judge potential impact to Aboriginal communities and their Treaty or other rights. Aboriginal groups also use traditional studies in the guise of studies of traditional ecological knowledge to perform their own environmental assessment of proposed developments. This knowledge can be used to help developers avoid impact to the most sensitive areas, and in the formulation of project components such as reclamation plans. All of this information becomes interwoven into the Aboriginal consultation process.

In some cases the Province has provided capacity funding for the development of traditional use programs at First Nations or other Aboriginal organizations, and in other cases industry or non- governmental organizations have provided the capacity funding. Because traditional use information is often sensitive and important to Aboriginal groups or even particular families or individuals only, many Aboriginal groups have or will do the necessary field studies and reporting on their own. They have provided and will provide CVRI and the Government of Alberta with only that information necessary to ensure that very important areas or locations are not affected by development. This allows the groups to maintain control over their own cultural knowledge and heritage. Some groups used to have their data maintained by the Foothills Research Institute (the Aboriginal involvement program at the FRI has recently dissolved and the FRI is encouraging Aboriginal groups to repatriate their information), others have data sharing agreements with Alberta Culture and Community Services (ACCS), and others maintain their own data internally. The government foresees a time when they will maintain a comprehensive database of traditional use across the Province, however, at this point there is neither the capacity nor the will among the Aboriginal stakeholders to see this in place.

CVRI's Project represents a continuation of consultation efforts initiated in 2006 when Aboriginal groups were first informed of the Project and subsequently undertook TUS where necessary (in conjunction with the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower extension projects). As of 2011, changes to the Project area, specifically the additional permit area to the west of the Project (Robb Trend West) and the three road corridors, have led to continuing field study efforts. CVRI has been engaged in consultation and TUS with potentially affected Aboriginal groups (Section 1.1) for approximately five and a half years regarding the Project. These consultation efforts became “official” on February 14, 2011 when the Aboriginal Consultation Plan and associated Plain Language Description were approved and finalized after discussions with Alberta Environment (AENV) (see Appendix A). The proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Project were produced and shared with Aboriginal groups in April, 2011, and finalized in August, 2011. CVRI updated AENV and then the SREM Aboriginal Affairs Branch (SAAB) bi- monthly in April, 2011, June 2011, August 2011, October 2011, December 2011, and February 2012 regarding the status of Aboriginal consultation and traditional use studies of the proposed Project.

Traditional use field studies have been largely completed for the Project areas, although some field studies and reporting remain to be completed by some participating Aboriginal groups. Given the relatively small geographic scale of the work, these studies must ultimately be viewed

as collections of “base-line” data regarding traditional use of the specific Project development areas. Further in-depth studies that are historical and geographically extensive, and therefore go beyond the scope of this work, must be initiated by the Aboriginal groups for a holistic understanding of their traditional ecological knowledge of the region and what they consider to be their traditional “territory.” The studies presented add to the databases of their knowledge and help to address Project-specific impacts on their traditional use of the area. Discussions regarding specific potential impacts of the Project with individual Aboriginal groups are on- going.

A number of the requirements identified in the ToR for Aboriginal consultation and traditional use are addressed directly in this summary report or in consultation updates previously supplied to SAAB, or in reports prepared by consulted Aboriginal groups. Other reports prepared as part of the EA address items of specific concern raised by these studies, and should be consulted where appropriate.

1.1 Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups and Aboriginal Consultation Plan

Interestingly, Jenness notes in his classic study, The Indians of Canada, that all of Canada was claimed by one tribe or another, with the exception of “…a tract of a few hundred square miles in the foothills of the Rocky mountains between the headwaters of the Saskatchewan and Athabaska rivers” (Jenness 1932: 1-2). This viewpoint is clearly affected by gaps in our historic knowledge of the region, and the cultural impacts to the area by the fur trade (see Section 2.4). However, it does bespeak the use of the region not by one group, but by a diverse set of Aboriginal peoples representing several different language and cultural groups.

A number of Aboriginal communities have used the Coal Valley area historically and traditionally, continuing to this day. Many of these groups have strong social and blood ties with one another. The potentially affected Aboriginal groups included in this process were established using the previous consultation efforts as the precedent. The Project is located in the Treaty 6 area. Consultations are not limited to Treaty First Nations groups, as the area has also been used considerably by several non-Treaty Aboriginal groups in the region. CVRI has been responsible for providing capacity funding to those Aboriginal groups with rights and traditional uses in the area in order for effective consultation and TUS to occur. Consultation and TUS were actually initiated for the Project in late July 2006 when information about three proposed mine extensions (Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, and the Project), was sent to each potentially affected group. This process was re-initiated in February 2011 specifically for the Project, along with more recent changes and additions to the Project area. On February 23, 2011, Margaret Fairbairn, Acting Regional Director of the CEAA, mailed early notification letters to potentially affected First Nations and Métis groups, noting that the Project was subject to a Provincial EA, consideration of an EA under CEAA, and participation by the Major Project Management Office (MPMO). Bi-monthly updates on the progress of the consultation program regarding the Project were provided in April, June, August, October, and December 2011, and February 2012 and include some of the information compiled and included in this report.

Consultations and traditional studies were initiated with several Treaty 6 First Nations (Figure 1), including the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, Paul First Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Sunchild First Nation. The Mountain Cree (Smallboy) Camp, officially members of the Ermineskin Cree Tribe, is also being consulted. In addition, several societies representing non- treaty Aboriginal groups in the area are being consulted, including the Foothills Ojibway Society, Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation. Primary contacts for the communities are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Orlando Alexis Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Marc Levasseur Foothills Ojibway Society Jim O'Chiese Mountain Cree Camp Wayne Roan, Reinhart Roan Métis Cecil Bellrose, Melanie Omeniho Nakcowinewak Nation Jean Whitehorse, Bill Whitehorse Darren Bradshaw, Brenda O'Chiese First Nation Yellowface, Les Yellowface Paul First Nation Dennis Paul Sunchild First Nation Byron Daychief, Doreen Daychief

1.2 Study Area

The study area employed by Aboriginal groups during traditional studies mirrored those for other studies of the Project. Although the focus of efforts was directed at the Project area, the groups were encouraged to view the boundaries as a guide, but not as a strict zone of study. Thus, participating groups recorded important traditional use locales within the development zones themselves, but also sometimes in the region in general. These efforts ensured the recording of important traditional use sites within the development zones, and helped to place the cultural information into a broader regional context where available.

1.3 Status of Traditional Use Studies and Aboriginal Consultations

To date, all of the Aboriginal groups named above have been contacted regarding the Project (initial mailing to representatives of each group in February 2006, and again in February 2011 in regards to the Project), discussions have been held with Chiefs and Councils or other representatives of the communities, and open houses or tours of the area have been undertaken with Aboriginal groups. Representatives from the CVM have included Les LaFleur (CVRI Project Manager), Dr. Dan Meyer, Jason Roe, and Mary Attia (Lifeways of Canada), Dave Rutland (CVM General Manager), Jim Gendron (LTG Consulting), and others during the long history of the consultations.

All of the Aboriginal groups indicated that in general they are not opposed to Project, but wished to have their traditional uses of the area identified and recorded, and any concerns addressed, including those surrounding the short and long-term environmental impacts of the Project. The groups were supplied with detailed air photo maps of the proposed lease areas, and field studies to identify particular traditional use locations have been largely completed, but some fieldwork is still required. Reports on the results of traditional studies are in preparation or have been finalized by the majority of the groups. Those currently completed, and permitted by those Aboriginal groups to be reproduced, appear as Appendices. Subsequent steps will include further discussion to consider avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring. Section 2 provides a brief general culture history of west-central Alberta and the Coal Valley region. In Section 3, a summary of contact, consultation efforts, and traditional studies to date are provided on a group- by-group basis. Section 4 provides a summary of consultation efforts and results.

2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABORIGINAL USE OF THE COAL VALLEY REGION

The culture history of the Eastern Slopes of west-central Alberta dates to the end of the last Ice Age, more than 10,000 years ago (see Meyer et al. 2007 and Meyer and Roe 2007 for a thorough review of the information provided below). It is generally divided into three periods termed the Early, Middle, and Late Precontact Periods (Figure 2). This division is based on technological changes in projectile point types reflecting weapon systems used in hunting and warfare. Throughout the sequence, the people relied on hunting and gathering to maintain their communities. It should be noted that the narrative below is based on archaeological and historical research in the region, but is not meant to replace the traditions and stories told by the Aboriginal Elders. Those stories have a purpose, meaning, and importance that should not be seen as at odds with the following review.

2.1 The Early Precontact Period (ca. 10,500 – 7,750 radiocarbon years ago)

Prior to about 12,000 years ago, glacial ice would have covered most of this region, making occupation by humans impossible. The glaciers in this area reached their maximum extent about 20,000 years ago, forming an ice barrier along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountain Foothills all the way south into modern Montana. After the glaciers retreated, people could have begun to occupy these areas. Data indicate that by 11,000 - 10,000 radiocarbon years ago plants had recolonized the valley floors and alpine areas creating a generally hospitable environment for the occupation of the region by Early Period peoples. The Early Period is characterized by archaeological complexes containing stone projectile points of triangular, fluted, lanceolate, or stemmed forms presumably used with throwing and stabbing spears. At least five Early Period cultural complexes occur along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta including Clovis and its derivatives, Windust, Cascade, Cody, and Plains-Mountain. The earliest tend to be the rarest and relatively poorly understood, whereas others such as the Cody Complex are reasonably well represented in the archaeological record. As elsewhere in North America, Early Period groups appear to have been primarily big game hunters, often moving over vast areas in their annual rounds. These early peoples had preferred sources of toolstone, and tools made of these materials can be found great distances from their sources. The Coal Valley area has substantial evidence of occupation during this Early Precontact period, including finds at the Lovetteville Townsite itself.

2.2 The Middle Precontact Period (ca. 7,750 – 1,600 radiocarbon years ago)

The Middle Period begins with the appearance of side and corner-notched dart points. These points were used to tip spears used with a throwing stick, or atlatl. The Middle Period encompasses both the warm, dry Mid-Holocene climatic interval and the initial return to cool- wet conditions of the Late Holocene that resulted in the extension and closing of forests, the development of extensive tracts of muskeg on former meadowland, and the lowering of tree lines. These areas housed a lower and less diverse wildlife population than those that existed in the previous open parkland communities. A number of archaeological complexes and phases are present in Alberta including the Mummy Cave Complex and a derivative complex known as Oxbow. Mummy Cave is very well represented in the Northern Rockies, and recent research is demonstrating this to be one of the most important occupations in the Coal Valley area (see 7

Meyer and Roe 2007). Also present is the McKean Complex. The early Middle Period groups used much local toolstone indicating that they were mapping onto local areas and making more intensive use of local resources, including communal hunting of bison and sheep herds where present. Overall, the toolkit indicates a greater degree of utilization of medium-sized mammals, plants, and the processing/cooking of these resources using stone boiling and hot rock roasting techniques, particularly towards the end of the period.

Following the early Middle complexes, the cultural sequence generally diverges between more northerly and more southerly areas. These cultural changes correlate with the development of modern Boreal Forest environments in the north. Late Middle Period Complexes include the Pelican Lake Phase, Besant Phase, Shuswap Horizon, and the Taltheilei Tradition. These late Middle Period groups show intensification of some of the trends indicated for the earlier groups in terms of resource use.

2.3 The Late Precontact Period (ca. 1,600 – 200 years ago)

The Late Period along the Eastern Slopes is characterized by the appearance of the bow and arrow. This new technology is represented in the archaeological record by small notched arrow points. Pottery also appears in some of the later archaeological complexes of the Plains/Parkland and forests. Archaeological phases identified across the Eastern Slopes include the Avonlea, Old Women’s, Tobacco Plains, Mortlach, Kamloops, and Taltheilei phases, complexes, or cultures. These appear to represent Assiniboine, Cree, Dene, Blackfoot, K’tunaxa, and Salish speaking groups, and demonstrate diversity in settlement patterns and resource use. In the south, many groups focused on the Plains in the summer and spent the winter along the Foothills, whereas to the north areas with good fishing lakes became increasingly important.

2.4 The Historic Period and the Impacts of the Fur Trade (ca. 300 years ago to present)

About 300 years ago we begin to see the impact of the Fur Trade on groups along the Eastern Slopes. This resulted in major changes to resource harvesting and occupancy. If one were traveling north along and through the Eastern Slope valleys of the Rocky Mountains and foothills three hundred years ago, depending on the place and season, one might have met various Aboriginal groups along well-worn foot trails and camping spots. In the lands of the Red Deer and the North Saskatchewan Rivers, the occasional family of Assiniboine or Stoney (Nakota) might have been seen, while further north on the Athabasca one might have encountered a family of Dene speaking peoples (Beaver or Tsuu T’ina). If one turned west following the trails up the Athabasca, one may have seen small groups of Shuswap (Secwepemc) or Thompson (Nlaka'pamux) Indians (Salish speakers) hunting in the montane grasslands of today’s Jasper National Park, or perhaps a band of “Snaring” or “Snake Indians” said to have once lived in that region (Coues 1897). They were most likely an extended family band of Mountain Dene related to the Sekani who frequented the Rockies of the upper Peace River at the time.

Depending on the season, one might not have encountered anyone along the way or seen very little sign of human presence, particularly if one ventured into alpine meadows. Population in the forested areas was quite sparse relative to the prairies (Dempsey 2006). In many places one would have found relatively little evidence of human presence. One would have seen an 8

abundance of bighorn sheep, mountain buffalo, deer, and elk. One might conclude that the northern Rocky Mountains were primeval wilderness, largely untouched by human hands (Anderson and Nabhan 1991), but this is not at all correct.

The 10,000-year record of human occupation speaks to the contrary. It points to a long and intimate association with the lands. For the last 5,000 years there is evidence that there was knowledge and consistent application of fire in montane valleys of the Saskatchewan, Missouri, Kootenay, and Columbia Rivers. These fires were used to sustain productive habitats for grazers and for human communities who depended upon them. Cultures of the Alberta Rockies and their subsequent histories were greatly impacted by environmental changes that occurred at the end of the mid-Holocene. These climatic changes had a major impact on Aboriginal resource harvesting and occupancy. In the Athabasca drainage, the result was the marginalization of many areas that were distant and peripheral to the preferred settlement areas in the main valleys. It is in these main valleys that productive montane habitats were maintained through cultural firing.

As the smallpox epidemics of the 1730s and 1780s swept through their lands, Aboriginal occupancy patterns changed. As with the horse, the ultimate origin for the smallpox epidemic of the 1780s appears to have been New Mexico (Binnema 2006), carried north on the spine of the continent by mobile trading aboriginal groups. Entire Aboriginal bands in Alberta were essentially wiped out. Estimates conclude that at least half and perhaps as many as two-thirds of the people in Alberta died at the time (Binnema 2006). Along the Eastern Slopes this is suggested by relatively sudden changes in the patterns of cultural firing. Parks Canada fire return studies record a progressive southward abandonment of cultural firing in the Canadian Rockies (R. Heitzmann personal communication). In the Athabasca the fire cycle changes from an average of 50-60 years to greater than 90-150 years in the early 1700s. This coincides to the time the first epidemic struck the mountain peoples. Similar events happened southward along the Rockies with the “Ravens Nest” band of the K’tunaxa being destroyed in the 1730s epidemic. These epidemics had strong social implications for the groups that survived them, affecting group size and membership, demographic profiles, leadership and relations with others, distributions of linguistic groups geographically, and possibly traditional knowledge (Binnema 2006).

Gainer (1981) discusses the evidence for the location of Aboriginal groups in the Jasper area at the time of contact based on Lydia Skeels (1968) research into early records of explorers and fur traders. The evidence suggests that at the time Europeans first entered the region at the turn of the nineteenth century, the Tsuu T’ina dominated the Jasper area east of the mountains; the headwaters of the Athabasca and North Saskatchewan (Jenness 1938). At this time, they were also referred to as the Woody Country Indians (Jenness 1938). Further north but also on the east side were the Beaver. The Kainaawa (Blood) and Siksiká (Blackfoot) occupied the area south of the Tsuu T’ina. The K’tunaxa (Kootenai) lived west of the mountains, Carrier (Athapaskan speakers) north of them, and Salish to the south of them (Gainer 1981: 12-13). Groups such as the Sekani, Shuswap, K’tunaxa, Salish, Assiniboine, and Cree are believed by some to have seasonally hunted in the area, but to have lived primarily in the areas such as the southern foothills and Peace Country (Great Plains Research Consultants 1985 in Murphy et al. 2007). De

Caen (1997) and others suggest that at times this area may have served as a sort of buffer-zone between neighbouring groups.

The horse was introduced at approximately the same time as smallpox. The horse played a major role in increasing mobility and changing seasonal resource harvesting and occupancy patterns. This was the case, not only in the grasslands of the plains and parklands, but also in the mountains. Acquisition of horses by Stoney bands north of the Bow River greatly facilitated their movements along the Eastern Slopes. As a result, during the early 1800s, Stoney bands were able to expand their traditional summer hunting territory northwards to the Athabasca as well as southward to Waterton-Glacier. Horses were not practical for most Dene of the northern forests. They relied on canoes and foot trails in summer and snowshoes in winter to move throughout their traditional territories. Horses require forage. During the late 1700s and 1800s feeding horses through the deep snows and long cold winters of the Little Ice Age was problematic.

In the early to mid-1700s, at the same time as smallpox epidemics swept the country and horses changed the societies, European trade goods began to filter west from the French traders/posts at the Mississippi headwaters and from the southern tributaries of Lake Winnipeg, as well as from the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) posts on Hudson Bay. These goods, particularly metal knives, arrow and spear points, awls, needles, and scrapers quickly replaced the Native stone and bone tools and their associated technologies. Later brass and copper trade kettles replaced pottery and skin bags for cooking.

In the late 1700s inland posts were established along the Saskatchewan River by the Hudson Bay Company and the Canadian traders from Montreal (who later amalgamated as the North West Company [NWC]). The flow of trade goods and trade alcohol to Aboriginal bands increased at this time and as a consequence change in their cultures was greatly accelerated.

Cree groups also moved westward up the Saskatchewan during or before the turn of the 18th century, followed later by the Assiniboine (Jenness 1938). Often camping with the Piikáni (Peigan) they ranged southward as far as Waterton-Glacier. The K’tunaxa recalled that they first met the Cree when they came over for their winter buffalo hunt shortly before they acquired the horse. The traditional range of these Mountain Cree was probably similar to that of the Stoney and Assiniboine of the Saskatchewan, centering on the forested foothills and parklands of today’s west-central Alberta. Cree and Assiniboine (Figure 3) often wintered with the Piikáni and other Blackfoot speakers in the mid to late 1700s.

Dempsey (2010) offers one of the more comprehensive views of what he calls the Rocky Mountain Cree in his biographical account of one of their leaders, Maskepetoon. He notes that the descendants of these people were eventually settled on the four Cree reserves at Hobbema, but descendants were also likely incorporated into other reserves as well. Dempsey (2010: 11) indicates that by the time Maskepetoon was born around 1807, these Cree had lived in the foothills for two or three generations, having come west with the “great Cree migration” associated with the fur trade. He notes that their “territory” ran from the North Saskatchewan River south to the Bow River, and from the edge of the mountains to the edge of the plains.

When they arrived in this area in the eighteenth century, initially there was conflict with the K’tunaxa who lived in the area until that group withdrew to the mountains (Dempsey 2010: 14- 15). They appear to have been a parklands-centered group, apparently not often going far out onto the plains. Demspey notes that the area around Rocky Mountain House was in the heart of their hunting and trapping grounds, which lay east of the Rockies. They followed a pattern of trapping in the winter, then hunting of the edge of the plains in the summer. Some of the places noted in Demspey’s account as favoured camping locales, hunting areas, or trading places were the mouth of Wabamun Creek, Pigeon Lake, Gull Lake, Fort Edmonton, and Lake Minewanka and the Banff area. Rocky Mountain House would have been a preferred trading post, but the presence of the Blackfoot there was an apparent impediment. In some places, such as areas along the North Saskatchewan, Red Deer, and Bow Rivers, the Kootenai Plains, and the mountain passes, areas were shared with their Stoney allies. By about 1850, they were coming to be known by several other names, including Strong Woods Cree, Bush Cree, and even Woodland Cree as they spent less time near the foothills and mountains, and portions were even known as Pigeon Lake Cree (Dempsey 2010). The term Woodland Cree or Western Woods Cree is widely used to refer to more northerly Cree groups (north of the North Saskatchewan) more strictly associated with the boreal forests (see Mandelbaum 1979, Smith 1981, Dempsey 2010). Dempsey (2010: 51) indicates that at this time the Piikáni occupied areas south of Medicine Hat, the Kainaawa north of them to the Bow, the Siksiká on the Red Deer and Battle Rivers, the North Piikáni in the foothills south of the Bow, and by this time the Tsuu T’ina were in the Buffalo Lake area. These “territories” of course also shifted over time during the fur trade and later eras.

Anderson (1970) presents a history of the most northerly penetration of Siouan speaking groups into this region of forested foothills, represented today by descendants settled primarily on the Alexis and Paul First Nations. They likely occupied the area between the North Saskatchewan and Pembina Rivers to the west of Edmonton as early as the late eighteenth century, and were not plains-adapted like other groups. He notes that although they likely first entered the region as middle-men in the fur trade, they likely became “producers” after the displacement of the Tsuu T’ina, K’tunaxa, Beaver, and Carrier from the foothills, and based on Stoney informants and historical documents, those reserves today lie in the east-central part of their pre-treaty “territory” (Anderson 1970: 50). It should be noted at this point that although both the terms Assiniboine and Stoney are used in this report, primarily because they are often used interchangeably in the historical record for several reasons, groups speaking Stoney today (primarily Alberta) have a mutually unintelligible dialect from those who speak Assiniboine (Montana and Saskatchewan) (Parks and DeMallie 1992). Although undoubtedly linguistically related (Parks and DeMallie 1992), and likely geographically related in the not-too-distant historical past, these northern Stoney groups appear to have arrived at a different time and using a different adaptation than the Stoney groups in southern Alberta (Anderson 1970). However, much more work on historical records, linguistics, and particularly archaeology is needed to clarify this particular issue. It may be quite complicated. These northern Stoney are likely the Grande River Assiniboine described by Alexander Henry in 1775 as occupying the area between the North Saskatchewan and Pembina Rivers, rather than the Strong Wood Assiniboine (later Sharphead’s Band) of further south (Anderson 1970: 52). They may be David Thompson’s Swampy Grounds Assiniboine. In 1845, Father Pierre de Smet described Stoney groups that he felt were not plains-adapted, who travelled in the foothills and mountains along the Athabasca

drainage, primarily on foot. Citing historical records, Anderson (1970) indicates that they may have been west of Edmonton as early as 1650, but agrees that on the whole, this is likely too early given other historical information. As discussed elsewhere in this section, other sources indicate a later arrival. Interestingly, the influence of Cree on the Stoney language is one of the factors distinguishing it from Assiniboine dialects (Parks and DeMallie 1992).

During the nineteenth century, as the Cree from the east tried to expand fur trade from the western tribes (due to the establishment of trading posts further and further west), and European traders began actively working in the Rocky Mountain areas, other eastern aboriginal groups began to migrate into the area, such as the Iroquois, Ojibway, and the “Algonquin” (Nipissing). These include people not directly employed by the fur trading companies. Apparently many settled north and west of Fort Edmonton (Gainer 1981: 14). Peers (1994: 52) discusses an early report of two small Ojibway parties arriving around Edmonton in 1795-96. Otherwise, historical references to Ojibway (and associated Ottawa) in the region are scarce, likely reflecting the lack of a formal engagements with the NWC, as opposed to the Iroquois. In 1800, David Thompson apparently proposed to the Piikáni that he be allowed to bring Ojibway and Iroquois to hunt furs in the foothills (Peers 1994: 15-16). Peers (1994: 19-21) suggests that the smallpox epidemics of the 1780s may have had a strong influence on the westward movement of Ojibway groups at this time and later. Apparently by the time George Simpson arrived in the Athabasca region in about 1820, the boreal forest Cree, or Nehiyawak, commonly occupied areas north of the North Saskatchewan River, as far west as the Peace River country (Devine 2006).

By the turn of the nineteenth century, the competing companies had substantial establishments at today’s Edmonton and Rocky Mountain House (Figure 4). These, along with small wintering posts, attracted traders from the resident foothills and mountain bands. These fur trade times were a period of conflict, not only between the NWC and HBC brigades, but among Aboriginal groups vying for control of and benefits derived from the trade (Ens 2006). Further changes swept through Aboriginal societies of the Canadian Rockies as competition increased. Competition grew between Aboriginal societies and between these and the Iroquois and Canadien mixed-blood freeman over the depleting supply of fur bearing animals in the Saskatchewan and Athabasca drainages. Inter- and intra-tribal strife and warfare grew throughout the 70 short years of the fur trade on the Upper North Saskatchewan. The Tsuu T’ina apparently ultimately moved south and east onto the Plains as the Cree and Stoney encroached on their “territory” after acquiring guns from the traders (Gainer 1981: 13).

The K’tunaxa did not come often to trade at Rocky Mountain House. In 1800, David Thompson was sent by the NWC westward up the Saskatchewan and over Howse Pass to establish posts in K’tunaxa and Salish Territory. For the first decade of the nineteenth century, the Howse Pass route was used by traders for their penetration into and movement of furs out of the Columbia valley. This direct trade of goods and firearms to the K’tunaxa and Salish compromised the Piikáni’s dominance over trade to western tribes. As a result, in 1810 the Piikáni closed the Howse Pass route to traders. The Plains Cree and Assiniboine were also unhappy with the trade of firearms and other goods to their enemies, and reportedly were planning to “clear out” the North Saskatchewan River (Ens 2006).

Another more northerly route to the Columbia Valley was required. In the winter of 1810-11, Thompson travelled overland from Boggy Hall, a small NWC house at the junction of the Brazeau and North Saskatchewan Rivers, to the Athabasca. He then ascended the Athabasca, built Henry House near today’s town of Jasper, and crossed over to the Columbia via Athabasca Pass to the Big Bend of the Columbia. Thompson’s guide across the Athabasca Pass was an Iroquois named Thomas, and he apparently encountered other Iroquois and Nipissing on the journey (Gainer 1981). Thompson established what would become, for the next 50 or so years, the overland route from Fort Edmonton via Fort Assiniboine to and from the Columbia. This provided a route along the Athabasca for NWC and HBC fur brigades. In 1813, Jasper House opened downstream. After amalgamation of the two companies in 1821, the route continued to grow and prosper. Later an overland trail was established over the Yellowhead Pass.

When David Thompson and the other traders arrived in the early 1800s and established posts at Jasper, the only resident aboriginal groups they encountered were Iroquois freemen. These Iroquois freemen had come west a few years earlier as servants to the NWC at forts of the Upper North Saskatchewan. They left the trade after their contracts ended, and having no reason to return east, established their own independent freeman band. Shuswap and Assiniboine hunting parties also traded at Jasper House (Figure 5), as mentioned by Paul Kane in 1846 (Shuswap) and HBC employee Michael Klyne (Assiniboine) around 1830 (Gainer 1981). James Teit indicated that the Shuswap primarily occupied an area from the head of the Fraser east to Jasper House, and at the time of his work, 1897-1902, there was a concentration around Jasper (Teit 1909). He noted their apparent assimilation into the mixed-blood community there. The Shuswap groups that came to Jasper House were apparently typically quite small, and it seems they more likely lived in the Tete Jaune Cache area and crossed in small groups to trade (Gainer 1981). Thompson also met the Assiniboine. The now Snake Indian River was earlier called the Stone Indian River on Thompson’s 1814 map, and also later called the Assiniboine Creek by people at Jasper House (Taylor 2009). Klyne turned away groups of Assiniboine wanting to trade around 1827, as his goods were reserved for the Iroquois, but he apparently did trade to a small degree with Assiniboine (Gainer 1981). Klyne describes a period of starvation and hardship for the Shuswap and Assiniboine who were trading at Jasper House from 1828-31. Taylor (2009: 17) suggests that the Shuswap groups had access to fur, but were lacking access to game as it was sparse in the forested regions to the west. Quoting Alexander Henry’s journals (Coues 1897) Dempsey (2010) also notes that “Snare” territory was relatively devoid of good game. In contrast, the Iroquois and Assiniboine likely acted as middle-men, trading food to the Shuswap for furs, and maintaining control through greater numbers and the threat of violence. In 1830, Klyne noted that there was some tension between groups and the Shuswap and Assiniboine attempted to make peace with one another. After 1835, there were apparently relatively few Assiniboine in the area as compared to the mixed-blood Iroquois (Gainer 1981: 42).

Henry John Moberly (Moberly and Cameron 1929) makes reference to the last of the Snake Indians, who were at war for decades with the “Wood Assiniboines.” Moberly came across a Shuswap band in the Jasper region and met the woman who was the only survivor of the Snake who recollected her story from twenty years past, sometime likely in the 1840s according to his account. Other accounts place the event up to 30 years earlier (Taylor 2009: 17). The Snake

Indians, who consisted of twenty families or so, were situated west of Jasper House, and the Assiniboine at Brule Lake. According to Moberly, the Assiniboine invited the Snake Indian men to meet at the head of the lake where the group was killed. The Assiniboine proceeded to the Snake Indian village where only three women survived and eventually escaped and headed down the Athabasca River. At the junction of the Baptiste River (Berland River [Murphy et al. 2007: 33]), two women continued and were never heard of again, while one woman headed down the Baptiste/Berland, and was later discovered by an Iroquois hunter, according to Murphy et al. (2007: 34) in the area between Pinto Creek and the Berland River, with whom she lived for two years. She worked as a servant for an officer of Jasper House for two years, and then later married a Shuswap. She was known as the only survivor of the tribe (Moberly & Cameron 1929: 111-115). Dempsey (2010) also reports on raids on these people carried out by the Cree in 1811, and by a group of mixed background that had gathered at the mouth of Wabamun Creek in 1812. This latter raid was apparently quite successful.

Moberly also mentions that Jasper House was home to Iroqouis from the East who had married Cree women, and a small group of Shuswap near the Fraser River. Some historical and genetic evidence (from the Paul First Nation) also indicates some intermarriage between the Iroquois and Assiniboine (Gainer 1981: 22). Moberly mentions the war between the “Blackfeet” and Plains Cree, but also the conflict between the “Woods Stonies” and the Plains Cree and “Blackfeet” (Moberly and Cameron 1929:32). For the fur trade expansion into the Athabasca and Yellowhead Pass regions, the Métis, Iroquois, and Cree played a predominant role for the NWC and HBC and many served as guides, hunters, and horsekeepers in the Jasper Valley. Some of the mixed families associated with the Jasper and Hinton area include the Breland, Cardinal, Joachim, Moberly, and Wanyande families (Gainer 1981). The name Callihoo, or similar variants, also derives from one of the early Iroquois men in the area, Louis Kwarakwante, whose birth can be traced back to Caughnawaga in 1782 (Gainer 1981: 22-23).

The overland route to the Yellowhead was abandoned in 1855. In 1859, James Hector of the Palliser expedition describes a group of Iroquois Métis living near Jasper House and originally working for the North West Company that had stayed in the area, had now adopted Cree, and had even attempted to grow turnips, potatoes, and barley (Gainer 1981:19). Hector also notes that the area was traditionally occupied by the Beaver and Sekani. Jasper House closed in the 1870s. Some Iroquois and Canadien freemen, as well as former English employees of the Hudson Bay Company who had taken country wives, settled down in the Athabasca/Grande Cache area building cabins in the valley and hunting and trapping through the mountains and forested foothills. These settlements became increasingly isolated after the Athabasca fur trade route was abandoned. Evidence suggests that by the mid-nineteenth century, the main Aboriginal occupants of the upper Athabasca valley were the Iroquois and their descendants, but Cree became the predominant language in the area by the early 1900s (Gainer 1981: 21). Cree, along with French, was the language of business associated with the fur trade (Devine 2006).

In 1870, Rocky Mountain House, which had a sporadic history of openings and closures, finally closed (Figure 6). By then a substantial local community composed of mixed-blood Canadien (Métis), as well as a number of English mixed-blood families and mixed-blood Aboriginal families, was established at Rocky Mountain House also.

Fort Edmonton, which had been the principle inland administrative and provisioning post for the Saskatchewan and Athabasca trade since the 1820s after closure of the overland route, continued to serve until the 1870s as both a trading and provisioning post for the dwindling fur trade in the Upper Saskatchewan and Athabasca Districts. By then mixed-blood populations of the region had grown substantially. The bison were hunted to extinction.

Treaty 6 was signed in 1876 and 1877 by the Assiniboine, Chipewyan, Cree, and Saulteaux of what is now central Alberta. Like the other numbered treaties, the treaty served to cede land from the First Nations to the Crown, but it also offered some “assistance” to the First Nations as the former settlement and subsistence patterns became untenable due to the consequences of European settlement (Taylor 1985). Starvation was a considerable threat.

More momentous changes followed the signing of Treaty 6. Many native peoples were forcibly confined to their reserves. There were no more bison. Game populations were depleted through disease and over hunting along the Eastern Slopes. Some early accounts suggest that massive natural fires in some areas during the 1880s and 1890s led to at least temporary “abandonments” of some areas in the early Historic period (Snyder 1898). Later removals of lands and reserves and massive depopulation due to diseases (such as tuberculosis, scarlet fever, smallpox, and influenza) resulted in the abandonment of the old traditional Aboriginal patterns of seasonal resource harvesting and occupancy along Alberta’s Eastern Slopes. Cache Percotte, located at what would become the Town of Hinton, originally got its name due to such a smallpox tragedy. In 1870 another smallpox epidemic had spread from the prairies to the Jasper area and resulted in numerous deaths to the aboriginal populations (Murphy et al. 2007, Hart 1980). A small group of Iroquois families living near Jasper House attempted to reach the mission at Lac St. Anne to get help. Unfortunately, these families did not make it to the mission and perished, with only one survivor. The group had camped in the forested area near Hinton, which was named Cache Percotte, or “Smallpox Camp,” in 1870 after the event (Hart 1980). Some claim the name is a bastardization of Cree, others French, it is most likely some combination of the two.

Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many areas of the Foothills began to see considerable settlement and development by people of European descent, which also clearly helped to modify patterns of Aboriginal use of the region. In 1907 Jasper National Park was created, displacing a number of Aboriginal inhabitants. In many cases, the early European settlements were associated with the extraction of resources, particularly coal. The foothills of west-central Alberta experienced the same phenomenon, with the construction of the railroad and development of mines through Edson and into Jasper, the development of the Coal Branch between Robb and Mountain Park, and of course the development of the Brazeau Collieries at Nordegg. A number of villages, construction camps, or rail stations including Bliss, Brule, Dalehurst, Drinnan, Entrance, Pedley, Pocahontas, and Prairie Creek had been established at various places in the Hinton area in the early 20th century (Hart 1980) prior to the incorporation of the Town of Hinton in 1956.

The “fires of spring” were no more. A new, less complex, ecosystem with new dominant grazers (elk) had begun to evolve in areas of the Eastern Slopes, particularly after forced wildfire

suppression began in the mid-1900s. This ecosystem had not existed before. Climate change, both natural and human-induced, may accelerate these changes in the decades to come.

Despite these changes, local Aboriginal groups have continued to use the Coal Valley region for a diverse suite of activities, including trapping, hunting, plant collecting, and ceremonies. In many cases, communities of Aboriginal peoples worked and resided in logging camps in the bush, supplying props to early coal mines (Figure 7) of the Coal Branch. Despite the fact that the area could not support the same heavy populations as adjacent Plains areas to the southeast (Aboriginal people warned the early traders at Rocky Mountain house that food was not plentiful in the region [Dempsey 1973]), the region has been steadily used by Aboriginal peoples for the last 10,000 years.

3. SUMMARY OF TRADITIONAL USE STUDIES AND CONSULTATION TO DATE

3.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation

The Alexis Nakota Sioux are speakers of the Stoney language, and are related to similar groups to the south at Morley and Kootenay Plains, and ultimately to Sioux groups much further to the southeast. They are sometimes also known as Assiniboine (from assinipwat, or Stone People, referring to their use of hot rock boiling techniques). The Alexis ultimately derive from people that Alexander Henry the Younger called the “Swampy Grounds” Assiniboine, who lived along the Pembina River and traded along the North Saskatchewan River (Dempsey 1986). In the late 1800s, the Stoney groups north of the North Saskatchewan, living in the woodlands northwest of Edmonton, were divided into two groups, one led by Chief Alexis, and one led by Chief Paul (Dempsey 1986). Although they have maintained their Nakota nature, they are also closely related to nearby Cree groups through intermarriage and interaction (Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation 2007). The group is named for its Chief, Alexis, or Aranaji (Stands on the Hill), who signed Treaty 6 on August 9, 1877. Their main reserve is located north of Lac St. Anne (Figure 8) in their traditional hunting area (Dempsey 1986) about 155 km northeast of the Project area, with three smaller reserves near Whitecourt (130 km north of the Project area), Elk River (5 km south), and the Cardinal River (30 km southwest). When Rocky Mountain House went through one of its periodic closures in 1861, the Assiniboine who traded there were asked to trade at Lac St. Anne and Fort Assiniboine (Dempsey 1973). The Alexis First Nation registered population as of October 2011, is 1,746 individuals living both on and off-reserve (INAC 2011). The sitting chief of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation is Cameron Alexis.

3.1.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years numerous important meetings have been held between representatives of CVRI and Alexis leadership and other community members to discuss the Project (among other consultation efforts). Table 2 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

Consultations with Alexis regarding the Project began in August 2006, with a presentation by Rolfe Timm, then CVM general manager, to Elders (Figure 9), other members of the community, and to council members at a campout in the Grave Flats area. This presentation discussed current mine operations, plans for all extensions (including the Project, Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower), and efforts to address environmental impacts. This presentation was followed by a bus tour of the existing CVM operations. After the release of the consultation guidelines in September of that year, Alexis required some time to develop their own consultation program, but then further consultations proceeded. A meeting with Chief and Council on January 15, 2007 discussed important topics such as environmental reclamation, a memorandum of understanding or similar agreement, and contracting opportunities. Two other meetings were held in March and May 2007 between representatives of CVRI and Alexis, including Nelson Alexis, Lands Manager, and Shakir Alwarid, a consultant for Alexis. Topics

Table 2: Important Meetings/Events with the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation.

discussed have been economic, contracting, and employment opportunities, a draft memorandum of understanding, and TUS.

Field studies originally commenced on July 3, 2007 with an environmental assessment based on traditional knowledge for the Project, Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, Pit 29, and a haul road. As a results of these earlier consultation efforts, CVRI and the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation entered into an Memorandum of Understanding or Protocol Agreement (MOU) on October 29, 2009 to address Alexis concerns about the proposed extensions, and which anticipated the development of the Project.

Consultations with Alexis were re-initiated in February 2011 for the Project specifically, with Darwin Alexis (Councillor, Consultation), Orlando Alexis (Lands Consultation Manager), and Rhonda Alexis (CVRI Liaison). This included continual discussions and a meeting in April in regards to the Project description, Aboriginal Consultation Plan, and proposed ToR. In June and August, 2011, meetings with Orlando Alexis discussed the scheduling and scope of field studies for the additional Project areas. Several meetings occurred in October, 2011 regarding scheduling of field studies, on-going consultation, environmental concerns, employment opportunities, and an impact development agreement. On October 31, 2011, a formal meeting between Alexis Chief and Council and CVRI leadership occurred, topics of discussion included the encroachment of industry on traditional land, environmental concerns, long-term communication and consultation, employment opportunities, and community engagement and involvement.

From October 13-19, 2011, representatives of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Lands Consultation department completed the fieldwork for traditional studies and environmental monitoring of the additional Project areas with some visits to portions of the previously investigated Project areas. CVRI provided capacity funding for the fieldwork program. Personnel from Lifeways of Canada (Lifeways) provided some assistance in terms of showing best access or other logistics, but the Alexis Lands Consultation office was solely responsible for data collection, management, assessment, and presentation. The monitoring program included the collection of detailed information on traditional use sites and available resources by both Elders and environmental monitors. Alexis has supplied CVRI with a report on these studies indicating their success. Numerous types of sites were found during the studies of the Project area, most commonly medicinal plants sites, trees, berry patches, and wildlife.

3.1.2 Results of the Alexis Traditional Use Studies

The full reports presenting the results of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation traditional studies as prepared by the Alexis Lands Consultation office can be supplied to SAAB at its request and with the approval of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. This section presents a summary of their results.

Nelson Alexis initiated field studies for the program in early July, 2007 with the assistance of personnel from Lifeways. These efforts focused on Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project. Site visits to the Project area were made over the course of six days in July and August

2007. Personnel undertaking the studies included eight Elders (or traditional monitors) and four elder interpreters. Access was gained through truck, quad, and on foot. In addition to providing a physical description of the Project areas, the Alexis traditional use team noted a number of different plants important to them for medicinal and ceremonial purposes, including alder, aspen, blueberries, dock, raspberries, rat root, red willow, and sage (wort). Elders indicated that many such plants observed do not grow around the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation community along Lac St. Anne, and that information on their presence in the Project area would be shared with members of the community. At that time the Alexis noted that they would like to undertake studies of nearby areas outside of the proposed Project in order to add to the medicinal plant knowledge base of Alexis. Other items of note observed included trails and markers, traplines, camps, cabins, and other meeting places.

Additional site visits to the Project area were made in October 2011 (Figure 10) under the direction of Orlando Alexis’s Lands Consultation Office. Personnel undertaking the studies consisted of sixteen band members, including three Elders and thirteen interpreters and environmental monitors. Access was gained through truck, quad, and on foot. In addition to providing a physical description of the Project areas, the Alexis traditional use team noted a number of different plants important to them for medicinal and ceremonial purposes, including juniper, huckleberries, yarrow, raspberries, cranberries, cow parsnip, princess pine, mountain ash, rat root, tree fungus, and balsam fir.

They did not note any traditional gathering places present in the Project area. Overall, the Alexis elders felt the monitoring program was successful.

3.1.3 Concerns as a Result of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Traditional Use Studies

The report on the Alexis environmental monitoring program based on traditional ecological knowledge produced a few stated concerns about the impact of the Project. It was noted that the protection of groundwater sources in the area including lakes, swamps, small streams, and creeks was important, as these are crucial to both wildlife and important medicinal plants. It was also noted that the abundant wildlife in the area would be displaced by the development of the Project area, and that environmental changes may affect the health of the wildlife. Another concern noted was that the forest, wildlife, and medicinal plants would be impacted by clear-cutting in the area and mining operations. Further, noise pollution created might cause displacement of the animals in the area. Another concern was raised in regards to reclamation efforts, specifically, the length of time required for the reclamation of mushrooms, tree fungus, trees, and plants. This also included concern of how the landscape would look after reclamation and if prior reclamation studies had been completed. Interest in business and job opportunities associated with the Project were also raised by participating band members.

3.1.4 On-Going Consultation

Further discussion with Alexis regarding the conclusions of the traditional use reports, the potential impacts of the Project, and any recommended mitigation is forthcoming. These discussions will be structured by the agreement in place between Alexis and CVRI.

3.2 Aseniwuche Winewak Nation

The Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (AWN) is a non-Treaty Aboriginal group centered in the Grande Cache area, representing the interests of person of a diverse background including Cree, Beaver (Dene), Saulteaux, Stoney, Iroquois, Sekani, and Métis (AWN 2007). Historically, these persons were involved in fur-trade activities in the Jasper region. They settled in the area in the 1800s, and were displaced from that area in 1909 during the creation of the National Park (AWN 2007). The AWN represents the people who signed the 1973 and 1975 land agreements with the Province of Alberta. The relationship between the AWN and the Provincial and Federal governments is unique in Alberta. They are currently living in six settlements (parcels, enterprises, or co-operatives) covering about 1,680 hectares: Muskeg Seepee Cooperative, Susa Creek Cooperative, Kamisak Enterprise, Victor Lake Cooperative, Joachim Enterprise, and Wanyandie Flats Cooperative. A 2002 demographic study indicated that there were 268 people living in the settlements in the Grande Cache area (McVey 2002). Grande Cache is located about 150 km northwest of the proposed Project area.

3.2.1 Major Meetings and Issued Discussed

Only a single major meeting has been held between representatives of CVRI and AWN regarding the Project. Table 3 provides a list of the important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

The AWN was first informed of the Project development as with other groups, by letter in July 2006 (in conjunction with Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower). In October 2006, representatives of CVRI had a meeting in Grande Cache with Tom McDonald, industry liaison for AWN. Topics discussed included the history of AWN and its people, the background for the development Project, and AWN’s Project review and consultation processes. AWN requested further maps of the area, which were supplied in late October 2006. On November 30, 2006, Tom met with Elders in his community, and it was determined that the proposed Project areas lay outside of what they consider to be their traditional territory, and that they had no further concerns with the development. In a letter dated January 16, 2007, this was officially communicated. In a telephone conversation of June 6, 2007, Tom McDonald indicated that this decision still held.

The AWN was officially re-informed of the Project development as with other groups, by letter in February 2011. New maps noting the additions to the area were supplied. On March 8, 2011 Shirley Delorme, industry liaison for AWN, notified CVRI that the Project area still lay outside of what they consider to be their traditional territory.

3.2.2 AWN Traditional Use of the Coal Valley Area

During the 2006 review, AWN asked to be informed should CVM developments extend further to the west, potentially into AWN traditional territory. In late February 2011, Shirley Delorme received copies of the Consultation Plan and Project Description for review to determine if the Project area was still outside of the AWN traditional area based on previous Project review. After Elder review, on March 8, 2011 it was determined that the proposed Project area lay

Table 3: Important Meetings/Events with the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation.

outside of what they consider to be their traditional territory, and that they had no further concerns with the development (Appendix B). No traditional use studies on behalf of the AWN have been undertaken on the proposed Project area.

3.2.3 Concerns as a Result of AWN Traditional Use Studies

AWN has indicated that they did not traditionally use the Project area, and no concerns regarding AWN traditional use of the Project area have been communicated to CVRI.

3.2.4 On-Going Consultation

AWN receives regular Project updates from CVRI as do the other potential stakeholders. Any concerns that may be raised by AWN in the future will be addressed.

3.3 Foothills Ojibway Society

The Foothills Ojibway Society (FOS) is a large and diverse non-Treaty group, representing in part Saulteaux (an Algonkian language) speaking people of Aboriginal heritage living in the Hinton area (also known as Anishnaabe, the first people, Chippewa, Ojibwa, Soto, Bungee, or Bungi people). Persons of alternate lineage living in the region, such as Cree, are also represented by the FOS. Apparently there are approximately 250 members living in and around the Hinton area, which is located approximately 35 km northwest of the Project area. Lifeways understand that FOS is currently in the process of submitting official land claims, may eventually be recognized as a First Nation, and could become signatory to Treaty 6, Treaty 8, or another treaty.

Ultimately, many of the ancestors of these people came to this area with the fur trade from areas closer to the western end of the Great Lakes in the late eighteenth century (Peers 1994). These folks may belong to the Tatwasin (or Breaking Through the Ice) group that migrated from Buffalo Lake to the Rocky Mountain House region in 1887 after the “Riel Rebellion” (Dempsey 1986). Many members of the FOS are descendants of individuals or families who refused to sign Treaty Six in the early to mid-twentieth century, and moved northwest from the Rocky Mountain House area in order to maintain a more traditional lifestyle. One of their fears was that their children would be sent to boarding schools (Dempsey 1986). According to their January 2008 traditional use report the original Foothills Ojibway began moving west from Ontario in the early 1500s at the time of initial contact with Europeans. Over 200 years they continually moved west because of the invasion of their traditional lands. Many of these people eventually arrived in the Rocky Mountain House area, in the early 1900s living near the confluence of the Pembina and Brazeau Rivers. Some of these people eventually signed Treaty 6 and were settled on the O’Chiese and Sunchild reserves (there are blood relations within this groups extending back to those currently associated with the Sunchild and O’Chiese First Nations). Five “Key Families” under the leadership of John O’Chiese refused to sign treaty and moved to the north and west to occupy the foothills and find work. They lived in the Pembina River, “Robb River,” and Lovett River area. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Indian agent Henry Stelfox kept track of these non-status people. John O’Chiese, son of Jim O’Chiese (the brother of Tatwasin) and the uncle of the current president of the society (son of Peter O’Chiese), was

one of those that refused to sign the Treaty and moved his family to the northwest in 1951. Before ultimately settling in the Hinton area, many of these families lived in the Coal Valley region, in some cases in small cabin communities or logging camps. Many members of the FOS are quite familiar with the Coal Valley area, and maintain a number of traditional use sites in the region.

3.3.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years numerous important meetings have been held between representatives of CVRI and FOS leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 4 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

CVRI, and in particular Les Lafleur, have been engaged in consultation with Jim O’Chiese, Chief (President) of the Foothills Ojibway Society, for several years regarding their on-going operations and previous extensions. The FOS was officially informed of the then newly proposed extensions in July 2006 (Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, and the Project), and undertook traditional field studies in 2007. Capacity funding for these traditional studies was provided by CVRI. An interim community agreement was entered into between FOS and CVRI on October 2, 2010 that anticipated the Project.

In January 2011, Jim O’Chiese and the FOS were notified of the changes to the Project area and were provided maps of the Project area to review with his community and access any needs for any additional traditional field work. Few meetings and telephone conversations with Jim O’Chiese and other representatives were held between February 2011 and November 2011. Topics of conversation included the plans for the Project, assessment of need for additional traditional field work, finalization of the community agreement, long term employment opportunities, community liaison, and an agreement for the protection of Foothills Ojibway historic and cultural sites, burials, and continuing uses of the area.

3.3.2 Results of Foothills Ojibway Society Traditional Use Studies

After discussions with the Elders in the community, in 2007 traditional use studies on behalf of the FOS was undertaken with a selection of Elders most familiar with the region, and several assistants to record information and provide logistical support (Figure 11). These studies occurred primarily over a ten-day period using capacity funding provided by CVRI. Subsequent site visits were made. These studies recorded a number of ceremonial sites, burials, cabins, salt- licks, traditional hunting areas, and medicinal plant collecting locations spread across the area (Figure 12). The locations and importance of these sites were provided to the Foothills Model Forest Aboriginal Involvement Program for continued curation. However, recently the Foothills Research Institute (formerly FMF) has asked the FOS to maintain its own database. The data produced as a result of the studies of the Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project area indicate substantial historic and contemporary use of the area by members of the Society. The results of the TUS have not yet been fully reported on, but a summary of results and concerns has been provided (available to SAAB upon request and with the approval of the Foothills

Table 4: Important Meetings/Events with the Foothills Ojibway Society.

Ojibway Society), and FOS has recently provided one map of recorded traditional use sites to CVRI.

3.3.3 Concerns as a Result of Foothills Ojibway Society Traditional Use Studies

Full reporting on existing traditional field studies and mapping information has never been presented to CVRI. However, in January 2008 FOS provided a summary of the results of the fieldwork, and concerns that the elders have about CVM mining in the area based on that and a review of the environmental assessment report filed in support of the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower applications. The concerns detailed in that report are clearly identified as applying to the Project area.

There are numerous ceremonial locations known in the area (apparently over 100 in the Coal Valley region, not the Project area specifically) that are still actively used by members of the FOS today. These include burials located in the vicinity of the Project that the community demands be protected from development activities.

Water quality was a major concern noted in the FOS report. The FOS members would like to see unobstructed, un-polluted, natural flow maintained in streams and rivers, with no harm to aquatic organisms, no sediment, and maintenance of natural pH levels. They note that the streams should be monitored for selenium leaching, and the natural clays in the water are important and help in purification, and should also not be disturbed. FOS requests that water quality monitoring reports be sent to the community.

Concerns about the impact of the Project on wildlife were also noted. FOS requests that wildlife corridors be maintained, especially for the important large ungulates such as elk, moose, deer, bighorn sheep, and caribou. Mineral and salt licks needs to be identified and protected, as do all calving areas. FOS recommends the regular monitoring of carnivores including bears, wolves, coyotes, and wolverines. In addition, important wildlife habitat such as bear dens, squirrel trees, and bird habitat need to be identified and protected.

Concerns with impact to vegetation specifically noted were the protection of healing mosses growing in marshes and muskeg, and the effect on air quality from the destruction (i.e. harvesting) of trees. The re-introduction of local medicinal plants during reclamation activities, as opposed to non-native species, has of course been noted on several occasions by FOS.

3.3.4 On-Going Consultation

CVRI and FOS are currently negotiating a final community agreement as discussed previously that will address a number of the above concerns and other issues in the long-term. In-depth discussion of this was initiated in earnest in the autumn of 2011. Further, field studies for the additional Project areas (Robb Trend West and the three road corridors) have not yet commenced, but are expected in the coming field season.

3.4 Métis

Consultation efforts regarding the Project have occurred between CVRI and members of the Hinton Local (Local) and Métis Nation of Alberta Zone IV. Historically the term Métis was used for the children of Cree women and French fur traders on the prairies, but now is used to apply to persons of mixed Aboriginal and European ancestry who identify themselves as such and distinct from other Aboriginal groups (INAC 2002).

In 1870, Louis Riel aided in the entry of Manitoba into the Canadian confederation where the Métis were originally promised 1.4 million acres of exclusive land by the federal government. This promise was not fulfilled as the government started to issue land outside the Province of Manitoba to Métis people and not collectively to the Métis in Manitoba. In1885, Louis Riel led a resistance in Batoche, Saskatchewan in response to the frustration of the Métis on the infringement of their rights and their lack of recognition as a people. This resistance was suppressed by the Canadian army. It was not until 1936 that the Alberta government granted 1,280,000 acres of land for Métis Settlements (MNA 2007) under the Métis Settlements Act. The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld a lower court decision in the Cunningham v. Alberta case that excludes Status individuals from the Métis Settlements.

The Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA), first officially named “L’Asssociation des Métis d’Alberta et les Territoires du Nord-Quest,” was created in 1932 to represent the voice of the Métis and address their concerns towards government policy, decision making, education, health, land claims, building of a community, and other important rights (MNA 2007). The abolishment of the term “half-breed” was one of the first important actions that undertaken by the MNA, which was replaced by the term “Métis.” Today the Métis define themselves as descendants of French fur traders and First Nations women, dating back to the 1811 Red River Colony in Manitoba where the Métis formed a large majority of the population. The term Métis means a number of different things to different people. The current official definition of Métis as passed at the Annual General Assembly in Edmonton on August 2003 is: “Métis means a person who self- identifies as a Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the Métis Nation” (MNA 2007).

The MNA currently has over 35,000 members across the Province of Alberta. They provide programs and services and participate in government policy and policy-making processes. The official language spoken by the Métis is the Michif language which is a mix of French nouns and Cree verbs. Michif is spoken by Métis in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., Ontario, and in the South Slave region of the Northwest Territories (MNA 2007)

The issue of Métis rights and consultation in Alberta is a contentious issue (see review in Campbell, Dinn, and Conacher 2009). Many Métis often cite the protection of Aboriginal rights under the Constitution Act and the Supreme Court decision in the R. v. Powley case (2003) as critical to the discussion. Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Policy and Guidelines require consultation with potentially affected First Nations, and do not apply to Métis or other Aboriginal communities. The Government of Alberta acknowledges that a developer may include Métis groups in consultation efforts and practice a “good neighbour” approach, but does

not have information that would support a requirement for consultation with Métis communities. Court cases and other on-going challenges clearly illustrate that this issue is far from resolution.

Currently the MNA has an Industry Relations Unit as part of the Provincial office which aims at ensuring the Métis community as represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta is properly informed of resource development projects and are included in industry consultation plans. In July 2009, the MNA distributed a draft of Policy Guidelines Regarding the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Métis Aboriginal Rights and Interests in Alberta at the 2009 Annual General Assembly. The purpose of the policy was to address the process for consulting with the Métis on any Crown actions which could impact their rights and/or interests in Alberta. Further, the policy created a framework for industry to engage with the Alberta Métis community in situations where the duty to consult and accommodate may be invoked (MNA 2007).

3.4.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last three years numerous important meetings have been held between representatives of CVRI and Métis leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 5 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

Early in the consultation process, members of the Métis community potentially affected by the proposed CVM extensions (Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project) were only indirectly contacted through public notifications, open houses, and meetings and discussions with the local trappers’ associations. These Métis contacts continue informally to this day, as individuals self-identify to CVRI personnel through the public engagement process.

The formal process of consultation with potentially affected members of the Métis community was initiated in July 2008 upon receipt of a Statement of Concern (SoC) filed by the MNA for the CVRI Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower projects. After discussion and with the assistance of staff of AENV, an initial meeting was scheduled with representatives of Métis Hinton Local #474 of Métis Regional Council – Zone IV of the Métis Nation of Alberta. At this meeting the President of the Local was provided with the history of consultations, the desire to enter into consultations with potentially affected Métis, and a background of the proposed CVM extensions (including the Project area). At this meeting, it was asserted that the Local was the proper group to consult with for Métis in the area.

A second meeting including Métis Hinton Local general membership occurred on October 23, 2008. At this meeting, Les Lafleur of CVRI presented the plans for the proposed extensions to the membership, and fielded questions surrounding the return of certified lands for public use, the protocols when burials or historic resources are encountered, native versus non-native plants in reclamation activities, excessive animal population growth and disease during regeneration stages, hunting access, contracting or employment with Métis or other Aboriginal groups, environmental monitoring, and Métis/First Nations hiring commitments or apprenticeship opportunities. Maps of the Project area and other information were provided for distribution to members not present at the meeting. As of July 2009, no further concerns from local Métis had

Table 5: Important Meetings/Events with the Métis.

been presented to Collette Walker or CVRI. In the interim, we understand that the Hinton Local is no longer in operation.

On October 1, 2009 representatives from CVRI and the Métis Nation of Alberta Zone IV met to discuss the proposed extensions including the Project, studies of Métis traditional pursuits in the region, and on-going consultation. CVRI committed to maintaining a dialogue with the Métis Nation of Alberta Zone IV supported by a written agreement, and to funding studies of Métis traditional uses of the areas to be impacted by the projects. Additional discussions, exchanges of draft documentation and budgets, and meetings included one on November 10, 2009 that continued dialogue regarding a long-term agreement and studies of Métis traditional uses of the region. As a result of those discussions, both CVRI and the Métis Nation of Alberta Zone IV remain committed to ongoing consultation activities.

On February 23, 2011 Les LaFleur and Dan Meyer met with the leadership of MNA Zone IV to discuss the additions to the Project. The possibility of traditional studies was discussed, as was disseminating information and gathering input regarding concerns from the local Métis community through a mailout and possible open house. A similar meeting was held in October to discuss the preliminary results of the mailout, and the leadership of Zone IV attended open houses later that month in Robb and Edson.

3.4.2 Results of the MNA Mailout

Full results of the input gathered as a result of the MNA-led mailout process have not been shared with CVRI at this time. CVRI was informed in October, 2011 that out of a total of approximately 500 addresses to which the MNA had sent information, 10 responses had been received with comments.

3.4.3 Concerns as a Result of the Métis Consultations

A number of concerns have been expressed to CVRI by Métis individuals and MNA leadership over the course of consultations to date. Métis and the MNA have expressed interest in employment opportunities, apprenticeships and training, contracting opportunities, and specifically the training of youth as environmental monitors or to be involved in the reclamation process. As with other Aboriginal groups, the Métis have expressed concerns regarding the reclamation process and the incorporation of traditional knowledge into that regarding the use of native versus non-native species. The reclamation and land certification process have also been noted. Métis are concerned about the effects of reclamation on ungulate population densities, and believe reclaimed areas (such as those already present) need to be returned to traditional activities such as hunting more quickly and efficiently. The effects of this Project and other industrial development on trapping and individual trappers have also been discussed, as has the potential effects of the Project on local Métis members, those living closest to the Project and likely most heavily impacted.

MNA leadership have expressed interest in studies of Métis history and genealogy in the region, TUS, and interest has been expressed in the protection of cemeteries and burials, historical resources such as cabins and townsites, and the HRIA process. And finally, MNA leadership has 33

expressed interest in direct community support from CVRI, and the encapsulation or mitigation of many of the concerns noted above in a formal MOU or similar agreement.

3.4.4 On-Going Consultation

The results of Métis input from the MNA mailout process represent a critical step in further discussions with the MNA and consultation of Métis regarding potential Project impacts. Once these are delivered, CVRI will engage in further consultation with the MNA regarding specific concerns above not addressed in the environmental assessment. If traditional use field studies are required, these would occur in 2012.

3.5 Mountain Cree Camp

The members of the Mountain Cree Camp, or Smallboy Camp as originally known, are officially members of the Ermineskin Cree Tribe, whose reserve is in Hobbema 195 km east of the Project area. The Mountain Cree represent the group that lives closest to the Project area, the Camp located about 23 km to the southeast. The term Cree derives from a French bastardization of a Cree word, kristineaux, that one Cree group used to refer to itself (Jenness 1932). The Mountain Cree Camp was formed in 1968, when Apitchitchiw (or Bob Smallboy, or Bobtail, the former Chief of Ermineskin, and whose great uncle was Big Bear) and Lazarus Roan moved their families and others to the area (totalling 140 persons) to escape the poor social conditions on the reserve, including overpopulation, alcoholism, disease, loss of cultural identity, and suicide (Botting 2005). Lazarus Roan first had the vision to bring the people out in the 1950s (Reinhart Roan, personal communication). The Camp would allow those families to maintain a more traditional lifestyle, language, customs, and religion than otherwise possible on reserve. The Camp was first established on the Kootenay Plains, then later moved to the current location between the Cardinal and Brazeau rivers.

The Chief of the Mountain Cree Camp is Wayne Roan (Figure 13), and the population of the camp is currently about 100 people. Its new provincially funded school re-opened in 2007. The concept of “natural law” is very important to the community, and forms the basis for teaching in the new school.

3.5.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years several important meetings or other events have been held between representatives of CVRI and the Mountain Cree Camp leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 6 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

Information regarding the proposed developments was sent in July 2006 to Ermineskin, and from subsequent conversations it is clear that the information sent was seen by Chief Wayne Roan at that time. AENV had asked that all correspondence regarding the proposed CVM extensions (Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project) be copied to the Ermineskin Cree Tribe. In September 2007, Chief Wayne Roan indicated that given recent community recognition by the

Table 6: Important Meetings/Events with the Mountain Cree Camp.

Province, communication should be directly with the Mountain Cree themselves. Dan Meyer, Wayne Roan, and Reinhart Roan met in late August 2007 at the Camp to discuss the proposed extension projects, their use of the area, and potential impacts on the community. The departure at that time of Carol Wildcat, previously responsible for traditional studies, from the Ermineskin administration was a set-back to this process, but it was agreed that traditional studies in advance on the proposed CVRI extensions would help establish a traditional studies program within the community itself. Traditional studies were to be undertaken as soon as possible, and that a report on those activities would be prepared by Dan Meyer of Lifeways for approval by the Mountain Cree board, which included the Ermineskin Chief.

In July, 2008 the Mountain Cree, accompanied by Jason Roe (Lifeways), participated in field studies of the Project area (original footprint, this did not include the recent additions). In May, 2011 the Mountain Cree undertook additional field studies of the areas subsequently added to the Project with the assistance of Dan Meyer (Lifeways).

On April 27, 2011 Dan Meyer met with Reinhart Roan and provided the Proposed Terms of Reference (PTOR), official consultation plan, and Project Description for the Project. Topics of discussion included the process of commenting on the PTOR, offering of as many documents as required by the community, explanation of the Project moving towards application and the differences between the original footprint and latest. The need for additional traditional studies was also discussed.

In May 2011, Dan Meyer visited Reinhart Roan twice again at the camp. At one meeting Dan provided copies of large-scale maps of Project areas for review, and there was a discussion of the scope and scale of additional traditional field studies. The second meeting confirmed dates of the field studies. Between, May 28- May 31 field studies were done with the assistance of Dan Meyer in the additional Project areas. In August 2011 Dan Meyer met with Carol Wildcat, now again consultation coordinator for the Ermineskin Cree Tribe, who requested that all consultation with the Mountain Cree Camp occur through her office. During subsequent meetings with Mountain Cree Camp leadership, they asserted their position that they felt consultation should be directly with them. At the time of writing, this issue has not seen full resolution, but CVRI will consult appropriately regarding Mountain Cree Camp and Ermineskin Cree Tribe concerns with the Project.

3.5.2 Results of the Mountain Cree Camp Traditional Use Studies

Over the course of nine days in July, 2008, four knowledge holders from the Camp undertook studies of the proposed Project, along with staff from Lifeways. Later in May, 2011 additional field studies commenced in regards to the recent addition to the Project (Figure 14). Capacity funding for this work was provided by CVRI. A report on these studies of traditional ecological knowledge has been provided to CVRI (available to SAAB upon request and with the approval of the Mountain Cree Camp). The Mountain Cree Camp representatives indicated that they do not actively use all of these areas given the distance from their home and the existing CVM operations in the area, but appreciate the opportunity to collect data in the areas and to assess impact to their potential use of natural resources. Information was collected on a variety of

plants available in the area, as well as spring locations, salt-licks, and rock deposits. This information was written up by Lifeways, and will contribute to a database of TEK for the community that can be used in the Kisiko Awasis school and by community members.

3.5.3 Concerns as a Result of Mountain Cree Camp Traditional Use Studies

The community knowledge holders of the Mountain Cree Camp identified many of the plants and other resources in the proposed Project area that they commonly use. Although they do not use the proposed Project area as actively as the area around Camp, particularly because of nearby CVM operations, they recognize the importance of the natural resources in the area, and that the Project will impact those plants, animals, and other resources. The Mountain Cree Camp members do not wish to stop development, but they urge CVRI to protect those resources as much as possible during the development of the proposed Project. The water, plants, and animals must be preserved for future generations and the benefit of all people. The Mountain Cree Camp members are particularly concerned about any developments in the vicinity of Camp, particularly those that affect water quality. In addition, the Mountain Cree Camp are interested in employment opportunities afforded with Project development, and are interested in the reclamation process particularly of the native species, and youth involvement in this process.

The results of the traditional studies have been recently reported to CVRI, and they and members of the Camp will enter into discussions on the mitigation of any potential impacts.

3.5.4 On-Going Consultation

The results of the previous consultation efforts resulted in an agreement between CVRI and the Mountain Cree regarding potential impacts of the Project (and Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower) and community support. CVRI and the Mountain Cree have developed a strong relationship and will continue to consult on CVRI developments and the Project specifically as outlined in agreements between the parties. The consultations will continue in the future as the Project proceeds.

3.6 Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada

The Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada is a non-Treaty group, representing primarily Saulteaux- speaking people of Aboriginal heritage living in the Hinton area. Hinton is located approximately 35 km from the Project area. The term nahka wiyiniwak is both a Saulteaux and Cree term referring to the “plains Ojibwa (Mandelbaum 1979; a similar term, nakawininiok, meaning “those who speak differently,” may have been used by the Chippewa of Turtle Mountain, see references in Peers 1994; sources at the Nation indicate it is a Cree word meaning “the Saulteaux people”). The history of persons belonging to this association is similar to that of the Foothills Ojibway Society. Many members originally came from the east and travelled extensively throughout the United States and Canada, and many are descendants of the Whitehorse, Strawberry, Chippaway, Big John, and Little John families. Bill Whitehorse, the President of the organization moved to the Coal Valley area in 1951 with his father and family after they refused to sign Treaty 6, as did Sara Whitehorse after her father, Sam Chippaway, also refused to sign. These families originally lived closer to Rocky Mountain House, moving there

in 1937 as a result of pressure from the RCMP to sign the treaty, and as a result, the members of the Nakcowinewak have strong familial ties to current members of the O’Chiese First Nation. According to information supplied by the Nation, some of their members also represent the descendants of those people moved out of Jasper National Park when it was formed in 1907. Today a majority of Nakcowinewak community members live in Hinton, Edmonton, and Calgary, although they are unsure of the exact number of members to date.

3.6.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years several important meetings have been held between representatives of CVRI and Nakcowinewak leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. A number of these have been in conjunction with the O’Chiese First Nation. Table 7 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

The Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada was first informed of the extension areas (including the Project) as with other groups, by letter in July 2006. In October 2006, Dan Meyer met with Bill Whitehorse (President), Jean Whitehorse (traditional use coordinator), Daryl McLeod (industry liaison), and Byron Whitehorse (traditional use assistant) to explain the extension plans (Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project) and discuss consultation and traditional use work. It was clear that the group originally had direct interest in the Project area, and it was agreed a work program would be developed once large-scale maps were produced. The Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, in joint venture with the O’Chiese First Nation, first participated in field studies of the Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, and the Project areas in 2007. Subsequent meetings with the Nakcowinewak community culminated in an agreement between CVRI and Nakcowinewak in the autumn of 2007 that indicated that Nakcowinewak concerns with the developments had been addressed. This agreement included the Project area as then proposed.

Nakcowinewak were first informed of the additions to the Project development as with other groups, by letter in February, 2011. In March, 2011, Dan Meyer met with Bill Whitehorse, Jean Whitehorse, Daryl McLeod, and Sarah Whitehorse to discuss the changes to the Project area. It was determined by the members that field visits would likely be required and large scale maps would need to be provided for Elder review. In June and August, 2011 Dan Meyer provided tours of the additional Project areas, where the Elders inspected the areas for traditional use sites and medicinal plants. CVRI provided capacity funding for these field inspections. The Nakcowinewak Elders identified no new specific concerns as a result of these additional field visits and inspections.

3.6.2 Results of the Nakcowinewak Traditional Use Studies

During the 2007 field program, numerous sites including burials and plant collecting locales were recorded by Nakcowinewak and O’Chiese First Nation participants, some of these sites were included in the Project area. Although previous burials were identified during the 2007 field program, during the 2011 field visits, the Elders indicated that no burials were known

Table 7: Important Meetings/Events with the Nakcowinewak Nation.

in the additional Project areas, but many medicinal plants used by the community were identified. Given the joint nature of the 2007 program, reporting of the results was prepared by the O’Chiese First Nation and their consultant, Emil Owlchild Consulting and the Human Environment Group (this report and related documents available to SAAB upon request and with the approval of the Nakcowinewak).

3.6.3 Concerns as a Result of Nakcowinewak Traditional Use Studies

As detailed most cogently in the report by Nakcowinewak and the O’Chiese First Nation for the Project, Nakcowinewak Elders are most concerned about long-term preservation of important medicinal/ceremonial/food plants and the avoidance of two marked graves and associated hunting area near the Project.

CVRI has agreed in writing to avoid impact to an area around the two graves and hunting area on the southern edge of the Project. The issue of mitigation for important plant species identified required the development of a long-term plan. This plan will see CVRI provide the communities with maps on an annual basis detailing development plans for the year. These plans will be reviewed versus data collected during the traditional studies, and it will be determined if plant collecting locales are threatened. After an assessment of plant rarity and presence of other acceptable sources, plants may be transplanted following Aboriginal protocol.

3.6.4 On-Going Consultation

The agreements in place between CVRI and Nakcowinewak have established certain protocols for continuing consultation between the parties regarding the Project. Further discussions regarding potential impact to Nakcowinewak traditional uses and other concerns will occur in the coming months.

3.7 O’Chiese First Nation

The O’Chiese First Nation represents peoples who were relatively late signatories to Treaty 6. As discussed in Section 3.3, these primarily Saulteaux speakers originally came to the region from the east with the fur trade. The original group of 15 Saulteaux (or Chippewa) speaking families under the leadership of Andrew Strawberry (Dempsey 1986) signed the Treaty on May 12, 1950 at Rocky Mountain House (Figure 15), and settled on the reserve to the northwest. John O’Chiese and his followers refused to sign the Treaty, moved to the northwest, and ultimately gave rise to the members of the Nakcowinewak and Foothills Ojibway Society. Given their historic regional links, there are familial ties between members of the O’Chiese First Nation, those in the Nakcowinewak Nation, in the neighboring Sunchild First Nation, and among the Foothills Ojibway Society. The current chief of the O’Chiese First Nation is Darren Whitford, and the registered population in 2011 was 1,146 persons. The O’Chiese reserve is located 70 km to the east of the Project area.

3.7.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years several important meetings or other events have been held between representatives of CVRI and the O’Chiese First Nation leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 8 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

The O’Chiese First Nation was first informed of the Project by letter in July 2006 originally along with the Yellowhead Tower and Mercoal West extension areas. In May 2007, the O’Chiese First Nation, in conjunction with the Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, commenced field studies of the Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, and Project areas. A field program during August of the same year more formally focussed on the Project area specifically. This work program culminated in an agreement between CVRI, the O’Chiese First Nation, and Nakcowinewak regarding the development areas, including the Project.

Formal discussions of the Project and its additions since original consultation efforts began in March 2011, with a meeting between Dan Meyer, Darren Bradshaw, and Cheyenne Yellowface, where copies of the consultation plan and Project description were provided. A discussion followed of previous traditional studies done by O'Chiese and the relationship to the revised Project area, as well as the need for any additional traditional studies. Further in March 2011, a meeting with representatives of CVRI and Chief Darren Whitford, Darren Bradshaw, and Beatrice Carpenter (Band Manager) occurred, where the Project scope and plan for field studies was discussed. A subsequent meeting took place at the beginning of May where a detailed plan for the fieldwork and budget was discussed. O’Chiese undertook those additional traditional field studies in May, 2011, and provided a report of the results in June.

3.7.2 Results of the O’Chiese Traditional Use Studies

During the traditional studies field program in 2007 (Figures 16-19), numerous sites including burials and plant collecting locales were recorded by O’Chiese First Nation participants. Reporting of results was prepared by the O’Chiese First Nation and their consultants, Emil Owlchild Consulting and the Human Environment Group, and mirror the information contained in Section 3.6. In May, 2011 the O’Chiese First Nation began implementing their field program focused on the additions to the Project since the original field programs. This work was undertaken with capacity funding from CVRI and with the assistance of Dan Meyer (Lifeways). The results of these studies mirror the results of the earlier 2007 field programs (available to SAAB upon request and with the approval of the O’Chiese First Nation). No ceremonial or burial locations were observed or otherwise noted, but a series of plants important for medicinal and food purposes were recorded.

3.7.3 Concerns as a Result of O’Chiese Traditional Use Studies

As detailed most cogently in the report by the O’Chiese First Nation and Nakcowinewak for the field studies involving the Project in 2007, O’Chiese elders are most concerned about long-term preservation of important medicinal/ceremonial/food plants, and the avoidance of two marked graves and associated hunting area near the Project.

Table 8: Important Meetings/Events with the O’Chiese First Nation.

CVRI has agreed in writing to avoid impact to an area around the two graves and hunting area on the southern edge of the Project. The issue of mitigation for important plant species identified required the development of a long-term plan. This plan will see CVRI provide the First Nations communities with maps on an annual basis detailing development plans for the year. These plans will be reviewed versus data collected during the traditional studies, and it will be determined if plant collecting locales are threatened. After an assessment of plant rarity and presence of other acceptable sources, plants may be transplanted following Aboriginal protocol. This plan was reaffirmed at a meeting on January 14, 2008. Letters of approval of the CVM extensions from those groups participating in the O’Chiese campouts are included in Appendix C.

Written communication of results of the 2011 traditional field program indicated that no specific concerns (other than previous discussed environmental stewardship issues) had been noted. The O’Chiese First Nation has issued a letter of authorization indicating that it has no further concerns with the development of the Project.

3.7.4 On-Going Consultation

CVRI and the O’Chiese First Nation have developed a strong relationship and will continue to consult on CVRI developments and the Project specifically as outlined in agreements between the parties.

3.8 Paul First Nation

The Paul First Nation, representing a mixture of Stoney and Cree (an Algonkian language) speaking people, is located along Wabamun Lake, 150 km to the northeast of the Project area. The Paul First Nation has a second reserve in the Buck Lake area about 120 km east of the Project area. As already noted in Section 3.1, the Paul First Nation is named after Chief Paul, a Chief of the group in the late 1800s when Treaty 6 was signed. The mixture of people of Stoney and Cree (both Woodland and Plains) heritage at the Paul First Nation is testimony to the close historical relationship of these peoples in the region. As of 2011, there were 1,918 registered members of the nation, the majority living on-reserve (INAC 2011). This reserve was created for the Paul First Nation in 1892 (Paul First Nation 2007) following their signing of Treaty 6 in 1878 (Figures 20 and 21). It is located in traditional hunting territory of the band (Dempsey 1986). The current chief of the Paul First Nation is Casey Bird.

3.8.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years several important meetings or other events have been held between representatives of CVRI and Paul First Nation leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 9 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

The Paul First Nation was first informed of the development by letter in July 2006, including the Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West and the Project extensions. Formal discussions began in September 2006 with a meeting between representatives of CVRI and the Paul First Nation,

including Dennis Paul (Consultation and Policy Special Advisor for the Nation). An Elders’ tour of the development areas occurred in October (Figure 22). On November 8, 2006 an open house and a feast for all members of the community was held at the Paul First Nation. In June 2007, field studies were done for the developments including the Project area, with capacity funding provided by CVRI. These field studies culminated in a ceremony attended by representatives of Paul FN and CVRI on July 6, 2007 near the Pembina Forks. The purpose of the ceremony was to ask the Creator’s forgiveness for the impacts of the proposed developments. In early November, 2009, the Paul First Nation and CVRI successfully reached an agreement regarding the proposed developments and potential impact to Paul First Nation interests in the area. Based on this result, the Paul First Nation officially provided a letter of endorsement for the Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and the Project extensions on November 18, 2009.

Formal discussions were re-initiated in April 2011 during a meeting with Dennis Paul (Consultation and Policy Special Advisor for the Nation) and Keith Rain where the consultation plan, Project description, additional Project areas, and the need to re-engage in consultation were discussed. Specific items or issues discussed included additional traditional field studies, funding for youth programs, funding for a film, and contracting and job opportunities. Other highlights of the consultation program include a brief meeting in May 2011 with Chief Casey Bird and Council members, where there was a review of CVRI extension history, and copies of the PTOR and large-scale Project maps for field studies were provided. Another formal meeting with Chief and Council occurred on September 30, 2011 where copies of the final TOR and Federal Project agreement were provided. Les LaFleur, Dan Meyer, and Dennis Paul described some of the background of the CVRI-Paul relationship and consultation on the Project. Chief and Council indicated the need to send Elders and environmental monitors out in the area again to record salt licks and hunting areas in the vicinity. Potential items for an MOU/community agreement were discussed, as were employment, a cultural awareness camp, and a round dance.

3.8.2 Results of the Paul First Nation Traditional Use Studies

Traditional field studies of the originally proposed Project areas were undertaken and completed by Dennis Paul and members of the Paul First Nation in late June 2007. Field visits were made and interviews were conducted with Dennis Paul and 26 elders, hunters, trappers, and other custodians of knowledge who have engaged in traditional use pursuits in the Coal Valley area. Many areas were visited and recorded, but only certain locations were provided to CVRI in the report (available to SAAB upon request and with the approval of the Paul First Nation). Paul members identified a large hunting territory encompassing all of the proposed Project mine permit areas, a sun dance and ceremonial area, plant collecting locales, a trapper’s cabin, and two modern camping areas. Members of the Paul First Nation stress that their interest in the region extends beyond the points identified in the report, and the traditional use areas inspected are not restricted to the proposed Project mine permit areas only.

Additional capacity funding was provided to the Paul First Nation in 2011 to undertake further discussions with Elders regarding the additional Project areas and field visits/studies as necessary to assess the areas. Results of these visits have not been supplied to CVRI.

Table 9: Important Meetings/Events with the Paul First Nation.

3.8.3 Concerns as a Result of the Paul First Nation Traditional Use Studies

The participants in the Paul TUS stressed that it is their responsibility to safeguard the environment and ensure that sustainable practices are used in this and other development projects. They noted that although development has provided easier access to the land, other development activities have had a heavy impact on the land. Among particular concerns noted is the potential impact to water sources. They noted that there is a sacred purpose to all of the rivers and hills, and that development will remove sacred medicines and forests, affecting the balance of nature. The Paul First Nation recommended that First Nations knowledge be used in conjunction with western scientific studies to better understand future impacts, contribute to mitigation efforts, and increase the potential of the plants and animals to return after reclamation. Although camping and ceremonial locations are present in the region, none were identified in the specific proposed CVM mine permit areas. The First Nation has also expressed interest in business and employment opportunities involved with the development, or in helping to train Aboriginal youth.

The Paul First Nation has not reported any additional concerns regarding the Project on the basis of the 2011 field visits. Chief Casey Bird has noted that he would like additional visits to assess known salt lick and hunting locations in the vicinity of the Project.

3.8.4 On-Going Consultation

CVRI and the Paul First Nation are currently discussing the terms of an MOU-type agreement to guide long-term consultation efforts and the relationship between the parties. These discussions will proceed in the next several months. The additional field visits requested by the Chief will likely not occur until next spring.

3.9 Sunchild First Nation

Like the O’Chiese First Nation, the Cree-speaking Sunchild First Nation represents peoples who were relatively late signatories to Treaty 6. Chief Sun Child had brought the Cree to the Rocky Mountain House area from the Cypress Hills at about same time that the Saulteaux came to the area from Buffalo Lake in the late 1880s (Dempsey 1986). The two groups lived for years together in the area. It should be noted that these groups, although in the region originally due to the fur trade, did not come to Rocky Mountain House to trade at the forts. The forts at Rocky Mountain House had been built primarily for the Peigan (Pikaani) and hopes for trade from across the mountains, but never lived up to expectations and were permanently abandoned in 1874 (Dempsey 1973). Of the groups in the area to ultimately sign Treaty 6, the Sunchild Cree were the first, signing the Treaty and agreeing to settle on their assigned reserve on May 25, 1944 (Figure 23). Their 5,200 hectare reserve lies northwest of Rocky Mountain House, adjacent to the O’Chiese First Nation, about 80 km southeast of the Project area. Their registered population in 2011 was 1,260 individuals (INAC 2011), and their current chief is Stanley Lagrelle.

3.9.1 Major Meetings and Issues Discussed

Over the course of the last five and a half years several important meetings or other events have been held between representatives of CVRI and the Sunchild First Nation leadership and other community members to discuss the Project. Table 10 provides a list of those important meetings and the issues raised by the leadership or community members.

The Sunchild First Nation was first informed of the development by letter in July 2006 (including the Yellowhead Tower, Mercoal West, and the Project). Formal discussions began in October 2006 with an impromptu meeting between representatives of CVRI and Melvin Goodrunning (Councillor responsible for consultation and TUS) and Kevin McGregor (Band Administrator). Large-scale maps of the proposed development areas were sent to Melvin Goodrunning in late October 2006. A referral through the Foothills Model Forest also produced a “hit” with Sunchild traditional use information, triggering additional notification to the Sunchild First Nation. In January 2007 contact occurred with Byron Daychief of the traditional use program at Sunchild. Sunchild indicated concerns with the development area, particularly the Project. Subsequently Byron obtained the information and maps supplied previously to Melvin Goodrunning, and developed a scope and budget for a traditional studies program of the proposed extension areas. CVRI approved this budget in June 2007, and supplied capacity funding for the fieldwork to be undertaken.

Sunchild traditional studies of the development areas were undertaken in 2007. A final report on the findings of those studies was never supplied to CVRI. In early November, 2009 CVRI was informed that the Sunchild First Nation had retained new legal counsel and other advisors who indicated that no proponents were to speak directly with the Sunchild First Nation regarding permitted projects. As a result of the request from Sunchild First Nation legal counsel, CVRI counsel advised the First Nations consultation team to cease direct contact with the Sunchild First Nation at that time.

Consultation for the Project was re-initiated on May 25, 2011 at a meeting with Dan Meyer, Doreen Daychief, Byron Daychief, traditional use staff and seven Elders. Byron confirmed receiving a package of the Consultation Plan, Project Description, and PTOR and Maps. Dan indicated the desire of CVRI to re-engage Sunchild First Nation regarding the Project. The history of past consultation was reviewed as well as discussion on the estimates and scope for new traditional field studies and for information to be incorporated into previous studies. Sunchild undertook additional traditional field studies of the Project area in the summer of 2011.

3.9.2 Results of the Sunchild First Nation Traditional Use Studies

Byron Daychief, helpers, and Elders undertook the first stage of traditional field studies in the Project area in late August and early September 2007. They identified a number of traditional use sites in the area, including mineral licks and other site types. The final report on these activities has not been supplied to CVRI. Traditional studies of the additional Project areas were undertaken by staff of the Sunchild First Nation in the summer of 2011. A report on these activities is also outstanding.

Table 10: Important Meetings/Events with the Sunchild First Nation.

3.9.3 Concerns as a Result of the Sunchild Traditional Use Studies

Once reports on the traditional studies of 2007 and 2011 have been completed and Sunchild communicates the results of this program, discussions will proceed regarding Sunchild First Nation concerns with the Project and mitigation strategies.

At meetings previously held with Sunchild representatives, a number of concerns have been noted similar to those expressed by other Aboriginal groups. At a meeting on April 21, 2009 with Chief and Council and traditional use staff, several general concerns were brought forward. These include industry impact on salt-licks, affecting their right to hunt, protection of bear dens, herbs, medicines, and ceremonial sites, impact to streams, impact on fish and large game, pollution, and reclamation. Water testing and animal tissue testing were also noted.

3.9.4 On-Going Consultation

The results of TUS will be required prior to a full discussion of the protection of sites, Project impacts, and mitigation. CVRI will be scheduling additional meetings in the future with the Sunchild First Nation to continue consultation efforts.

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

To date, substantial contact regarding CVRI’s Project has been made with all identified potentially affected Aboriginal groups. The precise course of the discussions has differed significantly with each group depending on the development of their own consultation and traditional use programs, and level of interest in the Project area. Communications have involved various mailouts, meetings, tours, and traditional field studies. AWN has indicated no concern with the proposed Project and to date TUS have been completed for the Alexis First Nation, Mountain Cree Camp, Nakcowinewak Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Sunchild First Nation regarding the Project and Project footprint additions. The Foothills Ojibway Society and Paul First Nation have still not completed all field studies in regards to the additions in the Project footprint, but prior work has been completed on the original footprint. All groups that have undertaken field studies, with the exception of the Mountain Cree Camp, have done so exclusively using their own traditional use programs or outside consultants. They will communicate or share the sensitive data as they feel appropriate with CVRI, SAAB, or ACCS. Discussions regarding First Nations concerns with the development and possible mitigation strategies are on-going, and will be finalized on a group-by-group basis after the Project application submission date.

4.1 Important Plant and Fungi Species Identified in Project Area

Many Aboriginal Elders, environmental monitors, assistants, and interpreters have inspected the Project area and identified resources used by their people. Table 11 provides a list of plant and fungi species or classes (term not used in the Linnaean sense) observed by Aboriginal groups in the Project area that are used by them for a variety of medicinal or mundane purposes. This table includes plants identified by Elders, environmental monitors, scientifically trained plant specialists, and other knowledge holders. Plants are identified by common name and Latin name, and represent a comprehensive list to the best of our knowledge at the time of writing. Given the range of both traditional and scientific knowledge of participants in all of the various studies (not to mention issues of scientific classification or hybridization), it is possible that “misidentifications” are present.

A total of 85 species or classes of plant/fungi have been identified in the Project that are important to Aboriginal groups. As a generic statement, all Aboriginal groups consulted are concerned that CVRI take steps to ensure that native plant species (some in Table 11 are in fact not native) are included in reclamation plans rather than solely agronomic species as have been often utilized in the past.

Table 11: Plants and Fungi in the Robb Trend Area Important to Aboriginal People.

4.2 Important Animals of the Project Area

Most Aboriginal groups focused their traditional studies on the presence of important plants in the Project area. Discussion of concerns regarding animal species tended to occur in generic terms, and typically revolved around hunting and trapping practices. Table 12 presents a list of animals noted to date during consultations that Aboriginal groups have concern for in this region. Although in part based on field observations, this list is not compiled necessarily from direct or indirect (i.e. scat, tracks, trails) field observations of animals present, or from in-depth interviews with trappers/hunters. It represents those animals or classes thereof specifically noted by Aboriginal groups as either present, possibly present, or important to them in undertaking traditional pursuits in the region.

4.3 General First Nations Concerns

Water Quality - Perhaps the most commonly raised issue for Aboriginal people regarding the Project is the issue of water quality. Many raised concerns about how CVM would keep the water clean, and many expressed scepticism that they could. These concerns include surface and groundwater. As water is often seen as one of the four major elements of life, it is critical to the well-being of all animal and plant life in the region.

Moose Licks/Salt Licks/Springs – Directly related to the above is the issue of moose or salt licks. These are important to the wildlife in the region of course, and they are also important places for hunters looking for game. Clearly some of these will be removed during the Project. Once mining begins, how will groundwater flow affect others on the margins of the area?

Table 12: Animals in the Robb Trend Area Important to Aboriginal People.

Health of Wild Game – Aboriginal people have noted that with increased development in areas, particularly oil and gas, comes an increase in visibly diseased game animals, sometimes inedible once killed and skinned, as if tainted or poisoned. They attribute the poor health of these animals to nearby developments and their effects on the environment. Has or will tissue sampling occur in the area to help study animal health?

positions was also brought up. Desire for the incorporation of Aboriginal youth into positions such as environmental monitors or to assist in reclamation was expressed.

Contracting Opportunities – Several Aboriginal groups enquired about contracting opportunities for Aboriginally-owned companies or affiliated corporations.

4.4 Mitigations Proposed as a Result of Traditional Use Studies and First Nations Concerns

Many of the concerns highlighted above reflect general public concerns regarding all development projects and their impact on the environment. These concerns must necessarily be addressed by those consultants retained by CVRI to provide studies of these subject areas as part of the EA process. CVRI is confident that is has studied these issues in detail, and has met or will meet those concerns through appropriate planning, development procedures, proposed mitigations, or agreements with specific Aboriginal groups. Specific address of these concerns is discussed in the appropriate sections of the EA report, and CVRI will continue to update SAAB on the progress of consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

4.5 Conclusions

CVRI has provided capacity funding and other support to the numerous Aboriginal groups that have used the Coal Valley area in the past and continue to use it today. The capacity funding was used to undertake studies of traditional use and ecological knowledge of the proposed Project area. Ancestral Aboriginal use of the region began over 10,000 years ago. The results of some of the TUS indicate that although the patterns and intensity of use have been changing over time, Aboriginals in the area continue to use the region for hunting, the collection of medicinal and food plants, camping, and ceremonial pursuits. Some of the Aboriginal groups have indicated that the Project will impact some of the areas they use, but that through appropriate measures, the impact to resources and areas important to them can be mitigated or avoided where need be. The TUS undertaken for the Project have collected and safeguarded important cultural information for several Aboriginal groups. These studies not only provide information important to the assessment of environmental impacts, but help to ensure the transmission of cultural knowledge from the elders to the young people. It has also resulted in an important positive 58

extension of CVRI’s relationship with these peoples, and their inclusion in the process of approvals for development in the region. Field studies for some of the Aboriginal groups are still awaiting completion and further discussion. Consultations with the Aboriginal groups will continue in the future as information is brought forward regarding specific impacts to traditional use areas.

REFERENCES

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation 2007 The Alexis Nakota History and Culture Program. Document available at http://www.alexisnakotasioux.com, last accessed September 26, 2007.

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada 2007 The People: Our Ancestral History. Information available at http://www.aseniwuche.com/, last accessed November 27, 2007

Anderson, Kat and Gary Paul Nabhan 1991 Gardeners in Eden. Wilderness, Fall 1991.

Anderson, Raoul 1970 Alberta Stoney (Assiniboin) Origins and Adaptations: A Case for Reappraisal. Ethnohistory 17(1/2): 49-61.

Binnema, Ted 2006 “With Tears, Shrieks, and Howlings of Despair”: The Smallpox Epidemic of 1781-1782. In Alberta Formed Alberta Transformed, ed. by Michael Payne, Donald Wetherell, and Catherine Cavanaugh, pp. 111-132. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.

Botting, Gary 2005 Chief Smallboy: In Pursuit of Freedom. Fifth House Ltd. Calgary.

Campbell, Tracy, Adena Dinn, and Germaine Conacher 2009 Métis Consultation in Alberta: Reality Check. Paper prepared by Calliou Group for Métis Nation of Ontario.

Coues, Elliot (ed) 1897 New Light on the Early History of the Greater Northwest: The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry and David Thompson (Three Volumes). Ross & Haines reprint 1965. Minneapolis.

Dempsey, Hugh 1973 A History of Rocky Mountain House. Canadian National Historic Sites Service, Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 6.

1986 Indian Tribes of Alberta. Revised, Expanded, and Updated. Glenbow Museum. Calgary.

2006 1870: A Year of Violence and Change. In Alberta Formed Alberta Transformed, ed. by Michael Payne, Donald Wetherell, and Catherine Cavanaugh, pp. 208-234. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.

2010 Maskepetoon: Leader, Warrior, Peacemaker. Heritage House Publishing Company Ltd., Victoria.

Devine, Heather 2006 “OEconomy Must Now Be the Order of the Day”: George Simpson and the Reorganization of the Fur Trade to 1826. In Alberta Formed Alberta Transformed, ed. by Michael Payne, Donald Wetherell, and Catherine Cavanaugh, pp. 161-180. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.

DOJC (Department of Justice Canada) 2011 First Nation(s) – Aboriginal. Information available at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept- min/pub/legis/n14.html, last accessed December 8, 2011

Ens, Gerhard J. 2006 Fatal Quarrels and Fur Trade Rivalries: A Year of Living Dangerously on the North Saskathewan 1806-1807. In Alberta Formed Alberta Transformed, ed. by Michael Payne, Donald Wetherell, and Catherine Cavanaugh, pp. 133-160. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.

Freeman, Milton M. R. 1992 The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Northern Perspectives 20 (1).

Gainer, Brenda 1981 The Human History of Jasper National Park, Alberta. Parks Canada Manuscript Report No. 441.

Government of Alberta 2006 The Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development. Document available at http://www.aand.gov.ab.ca/AANDFlash/Files/Albertas_Consultation_Guidelines.pdf, last accessed September 26, 2007.

Great Plains Research Consultants 1985 Jasper National Park: A Social and Economic History. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73

Hart, Hazel 1980 History of Hinton. Friesen & Sons Ltd., Edmonton.

Honda-McNeil, Jaime and Denise Parsons (editors) 2003 Best Practices Handbook for Traditional Use Studies. Government of Alberta, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Edmonton.

INAC 2011 Information available at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs website at http://sdiprod2.inac.gc.ca/fnprofiles/, last accessed November 15, 2011.

2002 Words First: An Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Communication Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Document available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071114213423/http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/wf/index_e.html, last accessed December 8, 2011.

Jenness, Diamond 1932 The Indians of Canada. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 65, Anthropological Series No. 15.

1938 The Sarcee Indians of Alberta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 90, Anthropological Series No. 23.

Mandelbaum, David G. 1979 The Plains Cree. Canadian Plains Studies 9. Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina.

McKillop, Jennifer 2002 Towards Culturally Appropriate Consultation: An Approach for Fort MacKay First Nation. Unpublished Master of Environmental Design project, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.

McVey, Wayne H. 2002 Demographic Profile of the Cooperatives and Enterprises of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada. Final Report Prepared for Alberta Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, available at http://www.aseniwuche.com/pages/demo.pdf

Meyer, Daniel A., and Jason Roe 2007 Archaeology along the Canadian Rocky Mountain Front Ranges: Excavations at the Upper Lovett Campsite. Expedition 49 (2): 28-35.

Meyer, Daniel A., Jason Roe, and Amanda Dow 2007 Historical Resources Impact Assessment, Hinton Wood Products, A Division of West Fraser Mills Ltd., Hinton Wood Products FMA 2006 Developments, Final Report (Permit 2006-264). Consultant’s report on file, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005 3 S.C.R. 388, 2005 SCC 69

MNA (Métis Nation of Alberta) 2007 Information available at The Metis Nation of Alberta website http://www.albertametis.com/MNAHome/Home.aspx, last accessed December 7, 2011.

Moberly, Henry John, and William Bleasdell Cameron 1929 When Fur was King. University of Michigan, Dutton.

Murphy, Peter J., Robert W. Udell, Robert E. Stevenson, and Thomas W. Peterson 2007 A Hard Road to Travel: Land, Forests and People in the Upper Athabasca Region. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton.

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King 1998 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education.

Parks, Douglas R., and Raymond J. DeMallie 1992 Sioux, Assiniboine, and Stoney Dialects: A Classification. Anthropological Linguistics 34(1/4): 233-255.

Paul First Nation 2007 Information available at http://www.paulfirstnation.com/default.aspx?ID=0-0, last accessed on November 28, 2007.

Peers, Laura 1994 The Ojibwa of Western Canada, 1780 to 1870. The University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.

R. v. Powley 2003 [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207, 2003 SCC 43

Skeels, Lydia 1968 Location of the Indian Tribes at First White Contact in Alberta. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.

Smith, James G.E. 1981 Western Woods Cree. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, Subartctic, edited by June Helm, pp. 256-270. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Snyder, Inspector A.E. 1898 North-West Mounted Police Patrol Edmonton to Jasper House Athabasca District 1897. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa.

Taylor, C.J. 2009 Jasper: A History of the Place and Its People. Fifth House Ltd., Markham.

Taylor, John L. 1985 Treaty Research Report, Treaty Six (1876). Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Manuscript available from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Teit, James 1909 The Shushwap. In Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 2: 448-594.

Figure 1: Map Showing Locations of Consulted Aboriginal Groups.

Figure 2: Culture History of West-Central Alberta.

Figure 3: Indian Council of Cree and Assisniboine in what was then the North-West Territories circa 1878-1879, later Alberta or Saskatchewan (Glenbow Archives NA-5501-1).

Figure 4: The Hudson’s Bay Company fort at Rocky Mountain House, illustrated in 1873 (Glenbow Archives NA-577-4).

Figure 5: Fur traders with snowshoes at Jasper House, Alberta in 1871 (Glenbow Archives NA- 1408-18).

Figure 6: View of the chimneys marking the abandoned location of the HBC fort at Rocky Mountain House, sometime before 1900 (Glenbow Archives NA 1094-5).

Figure 7: View of old cabin remains at an abandoned logging camp in the Coal Valley area.

Figure 8: An Assiniboine man on the Alexis Reserve in 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA1463-29).

Figure 9: Rolfe Timm from the Coal Valley Mine making a presentation to Elders at the Alexis First Nation campout in 2006.

Figure 10: Members of the Alexis traditional use team that inspected the Robb Trend area in 2011.

Figure 11: View of the Foothills Ojibway Society traditional campout in the vicinity of Mercoal Creek in 2007.

Figure 12: Jim O’Chiese inspecting a cabin site in the vicinity of the Robb Trend.

Figure 13: Chief Wayne Roan inspects a plant during traditional studies.

Figure 14: Members of the Mountain Cree Camp traditional use team investigate plant resources in the Robb Trend area. 72

Figure 15: The signing of the last adhesion of Treaty 6 by Ojibway (Saulteaux) and Cree at Rocky Mountain House in May, 1950 (Glenbow Archives PA-3710-19).

Figure 16: Early morning at the O’Chiese First Nation traditional campout in May 2007.

Figure 17: The O’Chiese/Nakcowinewak traditional campout in August 2007.

Figure 18: Prison inmates share their stories with the O’Chiese and Nakcowinewak communities during the traditional campout in August 2007.

Figure 19: Food being prepared for distribution during the closing ceremonial feast at the August 2007 traditional campout.

Figure 20: Assiniboine women on the Wabamun reserve, 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA 1463- 27).

Figure 21: Assiniboine tipi and wagon on the Wabamun reserve, 1926 (Glenbow Archives NA 1463-30).

Figure 22: Elders from the Paul First Nation inspecting reclaimed areas in the CVM permit area during a field trip.

Figure 23: The signing of an adhesion to Treaty 6 by Cree and Ojibwa (Saulteaux) in Rocky Mountain House in 1947 (Glenbow Archives PA 3710-17).

APPENDIX A: ROBB TREND PROJECT ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION PLAN AND PLAIN LANGUAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Coal Valley Resources Inc. Robb Trend Project ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION PLAN February 11, 2011

Submitted to: Prepared on Behalf of: Alberta Environment Coal Valley Resources Inc. 4999 ‐ 98 Avenue Coal Valley Mine Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Bag Service 5000 Edson, AB T7E 1W1

Contact: Les LaFleur Project Manager, Robb Trend Project Sherritt Coal, Mountain Operations Bag Service 4000, Hinton, AB T7V 1V8 Phone 780.865.8607 Fax 780.865.8630 Email [email protected]

Alternate Contact for Aboriginal Consultation: Dan Meyer Lifeways of Canada Limited 105, 809 Manning Road NE Calgary, AB T2E 7M9 Phone 403.807.7981 Fax 403.730.5192 Email [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION

The Coal Valley Mine (CVM), owned by Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI), is located 90 km south of Edson and has operated since 1978. The company, subject to meeting Alberta’s regulatory requirements, intends to proceed with an application for mining in the Robb Trend Project, adjacent to the existing CVM operations (Figure 1). The area is within Categories 3 and 4 lands in the eastern portions of the Eastern Slopes Region that are suitable for coal exploration and development. Given the proximity of the Robb Trend Project to two other extension areas, Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower, CVRI has employed a coordinated approach to consultation and traditional use studies of all three. All work done to date has been under a coordinated consultation plan submitted previously and approved for the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower projects. Approval for the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower projects has been granted. The Robb Trend Project application is in development and is scheduled for submission in 2011. Robb Trend Project aboriginal consultation is on‐going, and will require some additional traditional use studies given recent modifications to the proposed lease area.

First Nations people, or those of aboriginal heritage, and their ancestors have made use of this Foothills area of Alberta for the last 10,000 years. Under Treaty with the Crown and the Government of Canada, these First Nations’ uses were enshrined as the right to collect, hunt, fish, and trap for food on Crown land, as well as other traditional uses such as ceremonies and burials. Based on recent Supreme Court decisions, before certain developments may proceed in Alberta, proponents must ensure that consultation is undertaken with First Nations groups on lands where existing Treaty or constitutional rights may be infringed by development activities. First Nations groups view the treaties as inviolable, and take the rights described therein very seriously. The government and developers are expected to fairly and reasonably treat the concerns raised by First Nations during the consultation process.

Commitments made during earlier CVRI consultation programs to ensure potentially affected aboriginal community representatives were kept up‐to‐date on mine development activities have been honoured through tours of current mine operations and of potential extension areas. This has usually included the Alexis First Nation, Jimmy O’Chiese and the Foothills Ojibway Society (FOS), and the Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada (NNC). During the most recent consultation program for the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower extensions efforts have also included the Paul, Sunchild, and O’Chiese First Nations, the Mountain Cree (Smallboy) Camp, the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (AWN), and the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA).

As part of the current Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the proposed Robb Trend Project, communities have been and will be encouraged to undertake Traditional Use Studies (TUS) of the extension area to help gauge the effect of the development on members of the community. The consultation and studies for the Robb Trend Project were first entered into in accordance with the Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development released in September 2006. The guidelines that support the policy, now known as The Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development, are a recognition that the Province of Alberta must consult with First Nations where land development activities may adversely affect First Nations rights and traditional uses of Crown lands (Government of Alberta November 2007). Alberta has delegated portions of this consultation process to industry, including notification to band councils or designates of developments and their potential adverse effects, meetings to discuss ideas, comments, and concerns of the potentially affected First Nations, and the development of strategies to avoid or mitigate adverse effects. The Robb Trend Project

Figure 1: Robb Trend Project Location

3 consultation program will also incorporate directives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency or other Federal government agencies on aboriginal consultation when and where required.

1.1 Aboriginal Consultation and Traditional Use Studies

Traditional Use Studies (TUS) are an important part of the consultation process. These are often also referred to as Traditional Land Use (TLU) studies, or studies of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). These studies seek to gauge the extent of past and present use of the land for traditional pursuits important to First Nations and other aboriginal peoples including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, collection of plants including berries and herbal medicines, and ceremonial pursuits1. The collection of this data is typically through informant interview of Elders or other community members, and field visits to areas where specific information from oral sources is recorded. These studies not only provide information relevant to gauge the use of the area, but also help to preserve the cultural patrimony of potentially affected aboriginal groups, and help the young learn from the collective knowledge of the community. Traditional Use Studies with First Nations have occurred in Alberta for many years, but in late 2006 the process became more formalized with the official release of the new policy and guidelines.

The guidelines have altered the form of consultations and TUS studies in the Province, as most First Nations develop their own traditional use studies programs. In some cases the Province has provided capacity funding for the development of TUS programs at First Nations, and in other cases industry or non‐governmental organizations have provided the capacity funding. Because traditional use information is often sensitive and important to the First Nation or even particular families or individuals only, many First Nations groups have or will do the necessary field studies and reporting on their own. They will provide CVRI and the Government of Alberta with only that information necessary to ensure that very important areas or locations are not affected by development. This allows the groups to maintain control over their own cultural knowledge and heritage. Some groups have their data maintained by the Foothills Research Institute, others have data sharing agreements with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS), and others will maintain their own data. The government foresees a time when they will maintain a comprehensive database of traditional use across the Province, however, at this point there is neither the capacity nor the will among stakeholders to see this in place.

1.2 Robb Trend Project Aboriginal Consultation to Date

CVRI has been engaged in consultation and traditional use studies of the Robb Trend Project area with potentially affected First Nations groups for approximately four years. The First Nations Consultation Plan for the proposed CVM extensions (including Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and Robb Trend Projects) was first proposed on June 5, 2006, and was finalized after a meeting and discussion with Alberta Environment on August 17, 2006. The Terms of Reference for the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower projects were finalized on May 29, 2007. CVRI has updated Alberta Environment bi‐monthly since July, 2007 regarding the status of First Nations consultation and traditional use studies of the proposed extension areas, including the proposed Robb Trend Project. This consultation plan will supplement and supersede that earlier program, but will continue in the same spirit of consultation.

1 Freeman 1992; Honda‐McNeil and Parsons 2003; McKillop 2002; and Parker and King 1990 ‐ definitions of TUS studies, their methodologies, complexities, and implications

4 Traditional Use Studies have largely been undertaken for the Robb Trend Project area, although some work and reporting remain to be completed by participating First Nations groups. Recent modifications to the proposed lease area may require additional TUS on behalf of some potentially affected groups. Given the relatively small geographic scale of the work, these studies must ultimately be viewed as collections of “base‐line” data regarding First Nations traditional use of the specific development areas.

2. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL GROUPS AND CONSULTATION PLAN

A number of First Nations have used the Coal Valley area historically and traditionally, continuing to this day. Many of these groups have strong social and blood ties with one another. In order to identify potentially affected First Nations groups, a draft version of the CVRI “Aboriginal Consultation Program” for Mercoal West, Yellowhead Tower, and Robb Trend extensions was produced on June 6, 2006 and forwarded to the staff of Alberta Environment for review and discussion. At a June 19, 2006 meeting between representatives of CVRI and Cindy Elliot, Manager, Aboriginal Relations, Central Region for Alberta Environment (AENV), the CVRI First Nations consultation program was discussed and a list of eight potentially affected aboriginal groups was established. CVRI consultations with aboriginal groups have extended above and beyond the five First Nations groups required by Alberta Environment at that time to include three non‐Treaty groups. Consultations were not to be limited to Treaty First Nations groups, as the area has also been used considerably by several non‐Treaty aboriginal groups in the region. It was agreed that CVRI would be responsible for providing capacity funding to those First Nations with rights and traditional uses in the area in order for effective consultation and traditional use studies to occur, and that CVRI would update AENV on a bi‐monthly basis regarding the progress of the consultation program. Based on this program, consultation and TUS studies were initiated in late July 2006 when information about the proposed mine extensions was sent to each potentially affected group.

Consultations and TUS studies were initiated with several Treaty 6 First Nations, including the Alexis First Nation, Paul First Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Sunchild First Nation. In addition, several societies representing non‐treaty First Nations in the area have been consulted, including the Foothills Ojibway Society, Nakcowinewak Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada, and the Mountain Cree (Smallboy) Camp (officially members of the Ermineskin Cree First Nation). The formal process of consultation with potentially affected members of the Métis community was initiated in July 2008 and is on‐going.

Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Policy and Guidelines require consultation with potentially affected First Nations, and do not apply to Métis or other aboriginal communities. Alberta Environment understands that a Proponent may include Métis and other Aboriginal groups in an effort to be inclusive in consultation efforts and practice a “good neighbour” approach. At this time, Alberta does not have information that would support a requirement for consultation with Métis communities.

CVRI will be engaging Métis groups, the Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, and the Foothills Ojibway Society as part of its good neighbour practices. CVRI has been advised to notify Alberta Environment of any assertions or concerns raised by Métis groups, the Nakcowinewak, or Foothills Ojibway during engagement and throughout the regulatory process. Alberta Environment may require CVRI to

5 undertake further consultation based on the receipt of new or additional information at any time during the regulatory approval process.

CVRI will continue to consult with this same set of aboriginal groups for the proposed Robb Trend Project. Information related to the proposed consultation program with Métis, Nakcowinewak, and Foothills Ojibway is found in Appendix A: Métis, Nakcowinewak, and Foothills Ojibway Engagement Plan. Primary contacts for the First Nations communities are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Potentially Affected Aboriginal Communities

Aboriginal Group Primary Contacts Contact Information Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Orlando Alexis Box 7 Rhonda Alexis (official CVRI Liason) Glenvis, AB T0E 0X0 phone 780-967-3573 fax 780-967-5484

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Marc Levasseur Box 1808 Shirley Delorme 10020 99th St. Grande Cache, AB T0E 0Y0 phone 780-827-5510 fax 780-827-4788

O'Chiese First Nation Frida Chippeway P.O. Box 1570 Cheyenne Yellowface Rocky Mountain House, AB T4T 1B2 Lester Yellowface phone 403-989-2297 fax 403-989-3795

Paul First Nation Dennis Paul P.O. Box 89 Duffield, AB T0E 0N0 phone 780-892-2691 fax 780-892-3402

Mountain Cree (Smallboy) Wayne Roan P.O. Box 762 Camp Reinhart Roan Hobbema, AB T0C 1N0 phone 780-312-3099

Sunchild First Nation Edwin Frencheater P.O. Box 747 Rocky Mountain House, AB T4T 1A5 phone 403-989-3740 fax 403-989-2533

The aboriginal consultation program for the Robb Trend Project had been undertaken in conjunction with the Mine extension program launched in 2006. With the exception of the Sunchild First Nation, those studies are substantially complete. Consultation and TUS work, as outlined in agreements between CVRI and specific aboriginal groups, is ongoing. The minor adjustment to the area encompassed by the Robb Trend Project application has resulted in the necessity of new aboriginal TUS

6 work and support documents to completely satisfy the aboriginal consultation obligation for the Robb Trend Project application.

A new notification package will be produced to advise those groups of the additions to the Robb Trend Project area. Bi‐monthly reporting to Alberta Environment will continue as previously. CVRI assumes this bi‐monthly reporting will continue for eight months after the project application in December 2011. Given that past consultation activities and current agreements and relationships vary considerably from group to group, a “one size fits all” approach will not be feasible. Instead, the CVRI consultation team will reference past activities and agreements to create an approach that will most effectively and suitably complete traditional use studies and consultation activities in a suitable manner.

The history of consultation with each group on the Robb Trend Project and current status of the relationship between CVRI and the group is briefly outlined below.

ALEXIS FIRST NATION

CVRI and the Alexis First Nation have entered into a long‐term agreement as a result of the previous consultation efforts. Among other things, the agreement has established a liaison between the parties that should facilitate consultation activities and traditional use studies considerably for the Robb Trend Project. The Alexis First Nation undertook traditional use studies of the proposed extensions including the Robb Trend Project, and will likely wish to supplement some of the information acquired during the first set of work in the new areas.

ASENIWUCHE WINEWAK (AWN)

During previous Coal Valley Mine extension consultation, AWN indicated that these areas are considered just outside of their traditional territory, and would not affect their traditional uses. They indicated that further extensions to the northwest may enter this territory, and have requested to be consulted in that case. AWN will be consulted, but we anticipate their findings will be the same as for the previous extension areas. If they find this area is inside their territory, we anticipate traditional use studies will be required.

7 MOUNTAIN CREE (SMALLBOY)

Mountain Cree traditional use studies of the three earlier extension areas (including the Robb Trend Project) were undertaken with the assistance of Lifeways of Canada. Currently an agreement is in place between CVRI and the Mountain Cree regarding the extensions. CVRI still has to conduct an open house in the community to discuss, among other issues, employment opportunities at CVM. The current relationship between CVRI and the Mountain Cree is good, and the existing ties will facilitate consultation regarding the additional areas of the Robb Trend Project. The Mountain Cree may wish to undertake traditional use studies of the new area.

O’CHIESE FIRST NATION

O’Chiese First Nation traditional use studies and consultation efforts for the extension projects (including the Robb Trend Project) were done in tandem with the Nakcowinewak. Currently CVRI has an agreement with these groups that has avoided traditional use areas within the Robb Trend extension deemed most significant, and provides for long‐term consultation and remediation activities using aboriginal knowledge pertaining to medicinal plants in the area. CVRI has a good relationship with the consultation and traditional use groups at O’Chiese. The current relationship should greatly facilitate consultation work for the additional areas. We expect that the O’Chiese First Nation will wish to undertake traditional use studies of the added areas within Robb Trend Project.

PAUL FIRST NATION

CVRI has a good relationship with the Paul First Nation stemming from the earlier consultation activities and traditional uses studies of the extensions including the Robb Trend Project. This will facilitate future consultation efforts. Paul undertook traditional use studies of the three previous extension areas. As with the earlier program, Paul will likely undertake additional traditional use studies of the new areas as part of the greater consultation for the Robb Trend Project.

SUNCHILD FIRST NATION

Sunchild First Nation undertook traditional use studies of the three earlier extension areas including the Robb Trend Project, but failed to provide reports to CVRI. CVRI will continue to consult with the

8 Sunchild First Nation and engage the Nation in any additional traditional use studies or other consultation efforts required for the new areas within the Robb Trend Project.

3. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE

CVRI representatives will directly and actively notify the First Nations communities identified with detail on the nature of the project proposed Robb Trend extension with sufficient detail that the communities can understand the extent and scope, and any changes relative to the project area as previously consulted on. Anticipated forms of communication may include face‐to‐face meetings between CVRI representatives and aboriginal community leaders, open houses in communities to introduce or re‐ introduce the Robb Trend Project and gather community feedback, regular mailed updates on project development and scheduling, tours of current mining operations and the proposed Robb Trend Project area, and community traditional use studies and resultant reports providing information on potential effects. Other forms of communication and information sharing will be developed and engaged where appropriate.

 CVRI representatives will continue to engage the aboriginal communities on all extension plans as outlined in agreements previously concluded with those groups.  CVRI representatives will make contact with the eight Aboriginal community representatives and arrange meetings during December 2010 and January 2011 and following to formally introduce them to the modifications to the Robb Trend Project footprint.  From the initial meeting, the preferred methods of involvement, contact and information sharing will be determined, and a schedule for regular project updates and comments from community representatives will be set.  CVRI project leaders will ensure that methods are used to inform the membership of each of the communities of the project and their opportunity to be part of the consultation process; in part current community familiarity with the projects will help ensure that notification goes beyond Chief and Council. The Plain Language notification that will form part of the notification process is attached as Appendix B.  Once approved, CVRI will share this aboriginal consultation plan with the potentially affected groups.  As with past consultation efforts for the Robb Trend Project the company will assist the various aboriginal communities who identify a direct traditional use interest in the area that may be affected by mining development in building capacity to be part of the consultation process.  CVRI will provide on‐going project summary information through direct mail of a newsletter to introduce the expansion project, requirements, public involvement initiatives, company contact information as well as an issues response form as part of the overall project information and public involvement program.  CVRI will share bi‐monthly update reports to Alberta Environment on the status of consultation efforts with the potentially affected aboriginal groups.

3.1 EIA Terms of Reference

Other activities and reporting efforts associated with aboriginal consultation for the Robb Trend Project will conform to the requirements of the EIA Terms of Reference for the project. The EIA Terms of

9 Reference specific to the Robb Trend Project have not been finalized, but are expected to reflect previous Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment Program for coal mines and the Proposed Terms of Reference for the Robb Trend Project. Sections of the Proposed Terms of Reference for the Project most directly relevant to aboriginal consultation include:

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

 Document the public engagement program implemented for the Project including:

 a list of all meetings and the specific comments or issues raised at the meetings;  description and documentation of concerns and issues expressed by the public, the Proponent’s analysis of those concerns and issues, and the actions taken to address those concerns and issues; and  how public input was incorporated into the Project development, impact mitigation and monitoring.

 Document the aboriginal consultation program implemented for the Project including:

 a list of all meetings and the specific comments or issues raised at the meetings;  description and documentation of concerns and issues expressed by aboriginal communities and groups, the Proponent’s analysis of those concerns and issues, and the actions taken to address those concerns and issues;  how aboriginal input was incorporated into the Project development, impact mitigation and monitoring; and  consultation undertaken with aboriginal communities and groups with respect to traditional ecological knowledge and traditional use of land.

 Describe plans to maintain the public engagement and aboriginal consultation process following completion of the EIA report to ensure that the public and aboriginal peoples will have an appropriate forum for expressing their views on the ongoing development, operation and reclamation of the Project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Development

Relationship to the Existing Coal Valley Mine

 Describe, for each EA discipline, the lessons learned from the public engagement and Aboriginal consultation process and the approvals process for the Coal Valley Mine.

Regional and Cooperative Initiatives

 Discuss the Proponent’s regional monitoring activities including:  monitoring performed in conjunction with other stakeholders, aboriginal communities and groups; and

10 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Land Use and Management

Impact Assessment

 Identify the potential impact of the Project on land uses, including:  impacts of the Project on public access, regional recreational activities, Aboriginal land use and other land uses during and after development activities. TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE

 Provide:  a map of traditional land use areas (if the Aboriginal community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed);  a map of cabin sites, spiritual sites, graves and other traditional use sites considered historic resources under the Historical Resources Act (if the Aboriginal community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed), as well as traditional trails and resource activity patterns;  a description of the extent of traditional use of land and biological resources in the Project Area, including fishing, hunting, trapping, nutritional or medicinal plant harvesting, and cultural use by affected Aboriginal peoples; and  a discussion of:

. access to traditional lands in the Project Area during all stages of the Project, . the vegetation and wildlife used for traditional, food, ceremonial, medicinal and other purposes, and . Aboriginal views on land reclamation.

 Determine the impact of the Project on traditional uses and culture and identify possible mitigation strategies. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT

 Describe any features or characteristics of the Project that may have implications for public health or the delivery of regional health services that are different from the existing Coal Valley Mine. Determine whether there may be implications for public health arising from the Project that are different from the existing Coal Valley Mine. Specifically:  document any health concerns identified by aboriginal communities or groups resulting from impacts of existing development and of the Project specifically on their traditional lifestyle and include an aboriginal receptor type in the assessment;

SOCIO‐ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Impact Assessment

11  Describe the socio‐economic impacts of construction and operation of the Project, including:  impacts related to:

. effects on First Nations and Métis (e.g., traditional land use and social and cultural implications);

 Discuss options for mitigating impacts including:  plans to work with First Nations and Métis communities and groups and other local residents and businesses regarding employment, training needs, and other economic development opportunities arising from the Project;

MONITORING

 Discuss CVRI’s regional monitoring activities including:  monitoring performed in conjunction with other stakeholders, including Aboriginal communities and groups; and

 Discuss:  how monitoring data will be disseminated to the public, Aboriginal communities or other interested parties; and

Other Sections of the Environmental Assessment will incorporate information derived from consultation and traditional use studies as specified in the Terms of Reference and where appropriate.

Through the above program, CVRI is confident that effective and meaningful consultation with aboriginal groups will continue and be concluded regarding Coal Valley Mine’s Robb Trend Project.

Appendix A

Métis, Nakcowinewak, and Foothills Ojibway Engagement Plan

The proposed CVRI Robb Trend project consultation plan, activities, schedule, and reporting for the Métis, Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada, and Foothills Ojibway Society will not differ structurally or substantially than for that described for the First Nations communities. The reader should refer to relevant portions of Sections 1, 2, and 3 for a description of these activities. Table A.1 below provides a list of primary contacts for these groups, with a description of the current status of consultation for the Robb Trend with each group below.

Table A.1 Potentially Affected Aboriginal Communities

Aboriginal Group Primary Contacts Contact Information Foothills Ojibway Society Jimmy O'Chiese Box 6395 Hinton, AB T7V 1X7 phone 780-865-1865

Metis Nation of Alberta Cecil Bellrose 11724 95th St. Zone IV Melanie Omeniho Edmonton, AB T5G 1L9 Kris Gladue phone 780-944-9288 fax 780-455-5546

Nakcowinewak Nation of Bill Whitehorse Box 6116 Canada Jean Whitehorse Hinton, AB T7V 1X5 Darryl McLeod phone 403-780-865-4600 fax 780-865-5900

FOOTHILLS OJIBWAY SOCIETY (FOS)

FOS was consulted on and undertook traditional use studies for the Robb Trend, Mercoal West, and Yellowhead Tower mine extension proposals. CVRI and FOS have entered into a preliminary agreement as a result of the previous consultation efforts. This agreement will facilitate continuing consultation efforts with CVRI and continuing traditional use studies in the area. This relationship should facilitate the additional consultation efforts and traditional use studies required for the areas that might be added as part of the Robb Trend Project. FOS will likely undertake additional field studies of the expanded Robb Trend Project area.

MÉTIS NATION OF ALBERTA (MNA)

CVRI entered into discussions with the MNA (Métis Hinton Local #474 of Métis Regional Council – Zone IV of the Métis Nation of Alberta) at a relatively late planning date for the previous mine extensions. CVRI is currently in the midst of on‐going consultation regarding a MNA‐led study of Métis history and traditional uses of the region. Given their lower level of previous involvement, Métis consultation and traditional use studies may be more intensive for the Robb Trend Project than the other aboriginal groups.

NAKCOWINEWAK NATION OF CANADA

Nakcowinewak traditional use studies and consultation efforts for the extension projects (including Robb Trend Project) were done in tandem with the O’Chiese First Nation. Currently CVRI has an agreement with these groups that has resulted in avoidance of traditional use areas within the Robb Trend mine extension deemed most significant, and provides for long‐term consultation and remediation activities using aboriginal knowledge pertaining to medicinal plants in the area. The existing relationship between Nakcowinewak and CVRI is solid, and should help facilitate consultation for the additional areas. We expect that the Nakcowinewak will wish to undertake traditional use studies of the additional areas that might be included in the Robb Trend Project.

Appendix B Plain Language Project Description

COAL VALLEY RESOURCES INC.

ROBB TREND PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

Part of the Aboriginal Consultation Program Revised February 2011

General Manager’s Message

Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI) has been mining coal in Yellowhead County since 1978. Nearly 500 people are employed at the Coal Valley Mine. To date CVRI has supplied 60 million tonnes of coal to the market place. CVRI is an important industry in the local and provincial economy.

CVRI wants to continue mining in Yellowhead County well into the future. This involves developing available coal reserves close to existing mining operations. In 2006, CVRI announced plans to extend mine operations into the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower lease areas. Approvals have been granted and production has started in these two areas.

At current rates of coal production, CVRI will require additional mining areas by the middle of 2014. CVRI hopes to begin work on the Robb Trend Project in 2014 because of this. The Robb Trend Project is close to existing mining operations. CVRI announced plans to mine in the Robb Trend in 2006 with the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower areas. Development of Robb Trend will allow the Coal Valley Mine plant to operate until 2030.

Aboriginal consultation is an integral part of early planning for the Robb Trend Project. CVRI wants to ensure that all potentially affected aboriginal groups are kept aware of mining plans. This Project Description provides you with information about the Robb Trend Project. This includes information about the company, the area to be mined, how the coal is mined, environmental studies, economic benefits, and a schedule for the project.

CVRI prides itself on being a good neighbour. We will strive to keep you informed and provide many opportunities for you to give input. We welcome and appreciate your continued participation in the Robb Trend Project. It is important that your interests and concerns are identified, understood, respected, and addressed.

Yours truly,

Dave Rutland General Manager Coal Valley Resources Inc.

Contents

GENERAL MANAGER’S MESSAGE ...... I

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION ...... 2

COMPANY BACKGROUND ...... 2

MINING EXTENSION DESCRIPTION ...... 3 History ...... 3 Location and Size of Robb Trend Project ...... 3 Mining Methods ...... 4 Coal Processing Plant ...... 7 Environmental Protection and Assessment ...... 7 Access to the Mine Areas ...... 7

ECONOMIC BENEFITS ...... 9

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 9

REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS ...... 10

ROBB TREND PROJECT SCHEDULE ...... 12

Introduction Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI) wants to expand mining operations in Yellowhead County. The proposed new mine is called the “Robb Trend Project.” It is located about 100 km south of Edson in the Coal Branch area (Figure 1). With a mining history dating back to the early 20th century, this area of the province is rich in coal resources. Coal mining in this region has been happening for well over 100 years.

Figure 1 – Robb Trend Project Location

CVRI announced their plan to develop the Robb Trend Project in 2006 along with the Mercoal West and the Yellowhead Tower projects. Mining is underway in Mercoal West and expected to begin in Yellowhead Tower in 2011. CVRI is now preparing for the next mine development phase, the Robb Trend Project. Other parts of CVRI’s Coal Valley Mine and related activities in the area are also shown on Figure 1.

As part of their planning for the new mine area, CVRI is consulting with both public and aboriginal groups. This Project Description has been written for aboriginal people who may be affected by the Robb Trend project. It includes information about:

 company background  location and size of the Robb Trend Project  proposed mine development  regulatory review process  project schedule

Aboriginal Consultation Meaningful consultation with aboriginal groups is an important part of the Robb Trend Project. CVRI has been working with aboriginal groups on consultation and traditional use studies for its extension areas. The company has had information meetings, tours, and traditional use studies for the Robb Trend Project since 2006. CVRI has talked with aboriginal members and leaders about their environmental concerns. The company has worked to address these concerns. Since those early discussions, the size of the Robb Trend Project has changed. Additional consultation and studies may be needed. CVRI is committed to:

 Have ongoing, open, and cooperative dialogue with aboriginal groups affected by the Robb Trend Project. CVRI will try where possible to address concerns in the early stages of the Robb Trend Project;

 Make it a priority to meet with aboriginal people who reside near, use, or have a specific interest in the Robb Trend Project area or adjacent areas;

 Involve aboriginal groups in decision making for the Robb Trend Project. They will be invited to view, question, and understand company plans and work. Aboriginal input will help the company choose the best possible development options.

 Where possible, seek “win – win” options to deal with aboriginal community concerns.

 Provide ongoing aboriginal consultation for the life of the Robb Trend Project.

Company Background The head office for Coal Valley Resources Inc. (CVRI) is in Edmonton. It is one of Canada’s largest producers of coal. CVRI is the 100% owner of the Coal Valley Mine. The company also operates the Obed Mountain Mine, and the reclaimed Gregg River Mine.

Over its history in Alberta, CVRI has established a track record of success in managing safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible mining operations. The company has been recognized locally and nationally for its safety and environmental achievements.

Mining Extension Description History The Coal Branch area has a mining history dating back to the early 20th century. Many old mining towns are found in the area. At first, coal mining was done using typical underground mining methods. Surface mining was started during the 1930s. The Coal Valley Mine has been in operation since 1978. It uses both truck & backhoe and dragline mining methods. Coal is mined from three different seams at the Coal Valley Mine. These seams are up to 270 metres below ground. The major seam ranges in thickness from 7.9 to 10.7 metres. The other seams range in thickness from 2.4 to 6.7 metres.

In 2005, CVRI expanded facilities at the Coal Valley Mine to process 4 million tonnes of thermal coal per year. Thermal coal is the type used to generate electricity. This $125 million project doubled the coal wash plant capacity, and added additional mining equipment. At least 150 new permanent jobs were created.

In 2006 CVRI proposed the Mercoal West and Yellowhead Tower mining projects (see Figure 1). At the same time, the company had stated their plans to develop the Robb Trend Project. Mining is now underway in Mercoal West. Approvals have been given and mining is expected to start in Yellowhead Tower in 2011.

CVRI has begun the regulatory approval process for the Robb Trend Project. A study shows that mining in this area could release 50 to 60 million tonnes of coal for processing. This coal will be processed at the existing plant. This amount would provide CVRI with enough coal to operate until 2030.

Location and Size of Robb Trend Project The Robb Trend Project is located close to the community of Robb. It extends nearly 50 km from the Pembina River, past the community of Robb and incorporates coal leases on the north side of Highway 47. Overall it covers an area of about 7,500 hectares of land. When in operation, coal will have to be trucked an average of 10 km from mine areas in the Robb Trend to the present coal plant. The Embarras River and its tributaries drain the western portion of the Robb Trend Project. The Erith River and its tributaries run through the middle portion of the proposed mining area. The southern end of the Robb Trend Project area drains directly to the Pembina River system.

Steep ridges and broad valleys are the most common land features in the area. Some oil and gas related activities are seen throughout the area. This includes gas lines and wells in development to the north. Public access throughout much of the Robb Trend Project is limited both by the

nature of the terrain and the present industrial uses in this area. However, there is some local snowmobile and quad use close to the community of Robb. Hunting is active throughout the proposed mining area.

The Robb Trend Project is located in an area that is zoned for mining. The Coal Development Policy for Alberta was adopted in 1976. It guides the exploration and development of coal resources throughout the Province. Mining of coal deposits is permitted under strict control. This ensures environmental protection and satisfactory reclamation of any disturbed land.

The Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (1990) is the Government of Alberta’s resource management policy for public lands. In this plan, the Robb Project area is called the “Robb Highlands Regional Management Area (RMA).” The management plan for this RMA allows for a range of uses while recognizing the area’s resource values.

Finally, the West Fraser Forest Management Area covers much of the Robb Trend Project. CVRI has a good relationship with West Fraser and will work with them to plan reclamation activities.

Mining Methods CVRI uses two mining methods depending on geology, structure, and type of mining pit. A large walking dragline is used in areas where the coal seam is relatively even in thickness and the area is flat (Figure 2). The dragline digs out the overburden (the soil and rock above the coal) and swings to the side to deposit the waste rock into large piles beside the mine pit. Where the coal is thicker and ground is steeper, large backhoes are used for mining (Figure 3). Where this method is used, a “stepped” pit is made which gets thinner and thinner as the pit gets deeper and deeper. Overburden is hauled by truck to nearby rock dumps or used as fill in nearby pits.

Figure 2 Dragline used to remove the overburden to expose the coal seam

Figure 3 Large backhoes used to load haul trucks

The mining of coal involves a number of steps including:

 Timber Harvesting – In cooperation with the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) holder (West Fraser).

 Topsoil - is salvaged and used for reclamation.

 Water Management - Ponds and ditches are made to manage and control water from the disturbed areas. Water discharged from the mine area is carefully controlled to maintain quality.

 Rock Removal - The overburden rock is drilled and broken with the use of explosives. Mine equipment then removes the overburden to expose the coal seam.

 Coal Recovery – Coal is then dug out and hauled to the coal processing plant for cleaning.

 Sloping - Upon completion of the mine pit, overburden piles (spoil piles) and pit walls are re-sloped and contoured (re-shaping the land to a more natural looking state).

 Topsoil Replacement – Topsoil is reapplied to the re-sloped mine pit areas. Grass is immediately seeded to provide erosion control and create a vegetated landscape. After this trees are planted. The resulting terrain of lakes, wetlands, rolling grass and forested lands will provide recreational and commercial forestry opportunities (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Lovett Lake early 1990s

Coal Processing Plant No changes to the coal processing plant will happen as a result of the Robb Trend Project. All coal mined in the Robb Trend Project area will be hauled to the existing plant for processing.

The coal processing plant was expanded in 2005. The expansion included replacement of much of the coal processing equipment, changes to the coal dryer, and addition of other control equipment. The plant reached full capacity of 4 million tonnes per year in late 2006. Additional capacity and lowering of operating costs have been achieved.

Water used by the plant continues to be recirculated through the Coal Creek pond system. This is in keeping with the existing plant water system. Minimal ‘make-up’ volumes are required from groundwater sources.

Environmental Protection and Assessment CVRI strongly believes in protecting and enhancing the environment. The existing operations at the Coal Valley Mine are carried out in an environmentally responsible manner. The company is always trying to improve its mining practices to make them better for the environment. CVRI plans to use the same approach for the Robb Trend Project.

CVRI will do a large and thorough Environmental Assessment (EA) report. The report will allow the government, aboriginal groups, and others to understand the environmental impacts of the Robb Trend Project. The EA report will:

 describe current environmental conditions,  predict local and regional impacts,  discuss project alternatives,  evaluate long-term effects, and  provide monitoring and management plans.

The EA report will be available to aboriginal communities and the public for review and comment.

Access to the Mine Areas Highway 47 and the Town of Robb separate the mining areas of the proposed Robb Trend Project into west and east mining areas. Access options need to be made that provide a safe and low-cost route. This route should allow for coal to be brought to the existing coal processing plant. It should also keep environmental and social impacts as small as possible. There are 6 access options being considered.

Access options are shown in Figure 5. Before choosing an access route, CVRI will seek public and aboriginal input to help make the decision.

Figure 5 – Robb Trend Project Location

Economic Benefits Almost 500 people are now employed at the Coal Valley Mine. To date they have supplied about 60 million tonnes of coal to the market place. This has had a significant long term positive effect on the local and provincial economy.

Continued mine development with the Robb Trend Project will create economic benefits that will last a long time. This will make the overall quality of life better for a significant portion of the local and regional population. CVRI works to create a relationship in which economic development, employment, environmental responsibility, and community benefits are created.

CVRI supplies coal for power generating purposes both in Canada and overseas. Over time the focus of CVRI’s operations at the Coal Valley Mine has shifted to selling coal to buyers in the Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim countries lie around the Pacific Ocean. CVRI ships coal to countries such as South Korea and China in the Pacific Rim. The majority of the coal produced by the Robb Trend Project will be shipped via rail to the coast of British Columbia. Here it will be loaded on to ships bound for Pacific Rim countries.

CVRI believes that export coal markets will remain relatively strong into the future. This is because of:  high and constantly changing natural gas prices in North America  the movement of thermal coal into metallurgical coal markets (metallurgical coal is used for making steel)  strong Chinese needs for coal  increased demand in other North Asian countries

Development of the Robb Trend Project will provide the following benefits:  CVRI will continue to employ skilled, well paid employees in full time positions  Local, regional, and provincial contractors and retailers will continue to receive benefits by providing goods and services to the mine. CVRI will ensure that Alberta and Canadian engineering firms, contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers receive full and fair chances to compete in the supply of goods and services; and  Municipal, Provincial, and Federal Governments will continue to receive revenue in the form of production royalties, license fees, and taxes;

Public Consultation Process CVRI will focus its Public Consultation process on communities that are near the Robb Trend Project. This includes Mercoal, Coalspur, and Robb. Public Consultation will also involve other communities and stakeholders (a person, group, or organization with an interest in a project). This includes discussions with First Nations, Non-government organizations, and other industries. Consultation will be adjusted to meet the needs of new groups of stakeholders as they are identified. This will make sure that all public concerns have been taken into account.

Regulatory Review Process The Robb Trend Project is at the beginning of the regulatory review process. A Project Description Document was submitted to the government in October 2010. It is the first step in the regulatory process.

Proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EA have been prepared and are available for review and comment. Consultation with aboriginal communities, the general public, and government is important in the writing of the ToR. Alberta Environment issue and finalize the ToR. Once finalized, the ToR will provide an outline of the information needed to understand the environmental impacts of the Robb Trend Project.

Some of the important issues that will be discussed in the ToR include:  Control of local problems such as noise, dust, and traffic from the coal haul road;  Design and planning with the community of Robb to minimize impacts of new roads and utilities;  Good management of surface and groundwater resources;  Making a reclaimed landscape; and  Protection of the aquatic environment and associated wildlife in the area

The next step is preparing the detailed environmental assessment (EA). This EA report is required under Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). CVRI plans to submit the EA Report for the Robb Trend Project to Alberta Environment in July, 2011. The EA report will be available to aboriginal communities and the public for review and comment.

Table 1 on the next page lists the major government approvals required to do the project, and the Alberta regulatory agencies responsible for making those approvals.

Table 1 Major Regulatory Approvals Required for the Project Regulatory Legislation Application/Submission Contact Body Alberta Environmental Environmental Alberta Environment Regulatory Environment Protection and Assessment Approvals Centre Enhancement Act Attention: Director, Northern Region 9th floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Telephone: 780-427-6311 Fax: 780-422-0154 Energy Coal Conservation Act Mine Permit Application Coordinator Resources Amendment Oil Sands Branch, Coal and Major Conservation Applications Board Energy Resources Conservation Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: 403-297-5366 Fax: 403-297-8122 E-mail: [email protected] Alberta Environmental Construction, Operation Alberta Environment Regulatory Environment Protection and and Reclamation Approvals Centre Enhancement Act Approval Attention: Director, Northern Region 9th floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Telephone: 780-427-6311 Fax: 780-422-0154 Energy Coal Conservation Act Licence to develop mine Application Coordinator Resources pits and dumps Oil Sands Branch, Coal and Major Conservation Applications Board Energy Resources Conservation Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: 403-297-5366 Fax: 403-297-8122 E-mail: [email protected] Alberta Water Act Approval to Construct Alberta Environment Regulatory Environment water management Approvals Centre features and conduct pit Attention: Director, Northern Region dewatering 9th floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Telephone: 780-427-6311 Fax: 780-422-0154 Sustainable Public Lands Act Surface dispositions #203, Provincial Building Resource 111 - 54 Street, Edson, AB T7E 1T2 Development Phone: 780-865-8267 Email: SRD.FNConsultlands- [email protected]

Robb Trend Project Schedule The EA and related applications for the Robb Trend Project will take about one year to complete. Work has already started on gathering information to support the required reports and applications. The regulatory agencies will require an additional one and a half years to complete their review. CVRI hopes to begin developing the Robb Trend Project in 2014. The proposed project schedule, with important dates for the Robb Trend Project is illustrated in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Regulatory Approvals Schedule

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Project Description and Consultation

Proposed Terms of Reference

Environmental Assessment

Regulatory Review Process

Approvals Issued

Mine Construction

______

Contact Information

Les LaFleur, P.Eng. Obed Mountain Mine Project Manager T 780-865-8607 Robb Trend Project F 780-865-8630 Coal Valley Resources Inc. [email protected]

Alternate Contact for Aboriginal Consultation

Dan Meyer, Ph.D. T 403-807-7981 Lifeways of Canada Limited F 403-730-5192 105, 809 Manning Road NE [email protected] Calgary, AB T2E 7M9

APPENDIX B: LETTERS FROM ASENIWUCHE WINEWAK NATION REGARDING PROPOSED CVM PROJECTS

Aseniwuche Winewak ation of Canada

Lifeways of Canada Limited 107,811 Manning Road N.E. Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L4

January 16, 2007

Attention: Dan Meyer, Ph.D. Project Archaeologist

RE: Map Consultation

Thank you for sending a series of maps of the proposed Coal Valley Mine expansion areas for Aseniwuche Winewak Nation to review. The proposed expansion project was not reviewed because it does not fall within the AWN Traditional Territory. If you have any questions or would like further discussion for clarification, please call me at 780-827 5510 or email [email protected]. Sid

Tom McDonald AWN Consultation Coordinator

Street: 1002099 SL Mail: Box 1808, Grande Cache, AB TOE OYO Phone: (780) 827-5510 Fax: (780) 827-4788 web: www.aseniwuche.com

APPENDIX C: O’CHIESE FIRST NATION AND NAKCOWINEWAK NATION CORRESPONDENCE

O'CHIESE BAND ADMINISTRATION BOX 1570 - ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE, ALBERTA T4T 182 PHONE: (403) 989-3943· FAX: (403) 989-3795· TOLL FREE: 1-888-256-3884

December 7,2006

Coal Valley Resources Inc Coal Valley Mine, Bag Service 5000 Edson,Alberta,Canada T7E 1W1 Attention Les LaFleur, Engineering Manager

Dear Les RE: Activities Approval at Rob Trend. Proposed Haul Road & Coal Spur Project

This letter serves to inform you that the O'Chiese First Nation has identified concerns in the area mentioned above and has ffionducted a site visi with your representatives over the period of August 12-241 ,2007 A combined effort that included the O'Chiese, Nakcowinewak, and select members of the Foothills Djlbaway (not to acting under the Foothills Ojibaway Society) was completed to our satisfaction

Through this letter O'Chiese First Nation grants authorization to your company for the commencement of your project. We are secure in the knowledge that constructive consultation has occurred and that through the mitigative measures arrived at, our significant sites have and will be protected and preserved to our satisfaction. Our authorization remains exclusive to O'Chlese First Nation and does not intend to supersede other First Nations that may have additional concerns in the project area.

Should you require any further information or clarification, please call me at 1.403 989 3943

Yours truly,

Bren~~~Lands Administrator cc: Beatrice Carpentier, Band Manager Chief & Council File BYF/eoc

C:\Documents and Settings\CHIEAMy Documents\Coal Valley Rob Trend Approvalletter.rtf