Dene Tha' Traditional Land Use, Concerns and Mitigation Measures

Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use, Concerns and Mitigation Measures with Respect to TCPL’s Proposed Northwest System Expansion Projects, British Columbia Portion

Prepared for: TransCanada Pipelines Limited, Calgary, Alberta National Energy Board, Major Projects Management Office, Calgary, Alberta

Prepared by: Dene Tha’ First Nation Lands and Environment Department, Chateh, Alberta Baptiste Metchooyeah, Project Manager Connie Martel, Admin. Assistant

In Association with: All Nations Services, Edmonton, Alberta ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta

Report Author: Marc Stevenson, PhD., All Nations Services

GIS Authors: Bill Tkachuk, P. Eng., ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. Matt Munson, B.Sc., Dene Tha’ First Nation Lands and Environment Department

Appendix Author Marc Stevenson, PhD., All Nations Services

Dene Tha’ Translation: Baptiste Metchooyeah Stanley Salopree

Date: October 31, 2011

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Objectives

2.0 Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use Study Methodology 2.1 TLUS Planning 2.2 TLUS Methodology 2.3 Traditional Land Use Field Assessments 2.4 A Note on Traditional Land Use Studies

3.O Dene Tha’ Land Use and Occupation in Proposed Project Areas 3.1 History of Land Use 3.1.1 Dene Tha’ Registered Traplines in BC 3.1.2 Dene Tha’ Registered Traplines in Alberta 3.1.3 The Proposed 1934 Dene Tha’ Hunting Reserve 3.2 Seasonal Land Use Patterns of the Dene Tha’ in the Vicinity of Proposed TCPL Project Areas in BC and Alberta 3.2.1 Winter 3.2.2 Spring 3.2.3 Summer 3.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall 3.2.5 Fall

4.0 Determining Areas of Direct and Indirect Impact 4.1 Areas of Direct Impact 4.2 Areas of Indirect Impact

5.0 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint and Land Use in the Vicinity of TCPL’s Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo, Townsoitoi and Little Hay River Sections) 5.1 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint 5.1.1 Registered Traplines and Trapping Areas 5.1.2 Villages 5.1.3 Multiple Cabin Sites 5.1.4 Cabins 5.1.5 Campsites 5.1.6 Burials/Cemeteries 5.1.7 Caches 5.1.8 Traditional Trails 5.1.8.1 Wagon Roads 5.1.8.2 Dogteam/Horse/Trapline Trails 5.1.9 Seasonal Migration Routes 5.2 Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use by Season 5.2.1 Winter 5.2.1.1 Trapping 5.2.1.2 Hunting 5.2.2 Spring 5.2.2.1 Hunting 5.2.2.2 Fishing and Gathering 5.2.3 Summer 5.2.3.1 Hunting 5.2.3.2 Fishing and Gathering 5.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall 5.2.4.1 Hunting and Fishing

5.2.5 Fall 5.2.5.1 Hunting and Fishing

6.0 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint and Land Use in the Vicinity of TCPL’s proposed Komie North Extension (Horn River Mainline) 6.1 Cultural Footprint 6.1.1 Land Use Interviews, 2009 6.1.2 Field Investigations, 2011 6.2. Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use by Season 6.2.1 Winter 6.2.2 Spring 6.2.3 Summer 6.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall 6.2.5 Fall 6.3 Calliou Group TLUS Information

7.0 Dene Tha’ First Nation Concerns Regarding TCPL’s Proposed Pipelines in BC 7.1 General Environmental Concerns, Impacts, and Changes 7.1.1 Impacts on Caribou 7.1.2 Impacts on Moose 7.1.3 Impacts on Furbearers 7.1.4 Changes in Predator Populations 7.1.5 Impacts on Avifauna 7.1.6 Impacts on Water 7.1.7 Changes in Landscape and Climate 7.1.8 Impacts on Traditional Trails and Landmarks 7.1.9 Impacts on Traditional Livelihood 7.2 Specific Environmental Concerns 7.2.1 Bases of Specific Concerns 7.2.2 Specific Concerns 7.2.2.1 Pipelines in Wetland Areas 7.2.2.2 Pipelines at River Crossings 7.2.2.3 Pipeline Clearing and Use After Decommissioning 7.2.2.4 Pipeline Layout, Design and Infrastructure 7.2.2.5 Use of Chemicals 7.2.2.6 Refuse Disposal 7.2.2.7 Environmental Monitoring 7.2.2.8 Traditional Sites and Protected Areas 7.2.2.9 Current RoW’s and Buffer Zones 7.2.2.10 DTFN and Industry Relations 7.2.2.11 Training and Employment 7.2.2.12 Lack of Knowledge 7.2.2.13 Decline of Traditional Economy 7.2.2.14 Failure to Uphold Responsibility 7.2.2.15 Lack of DTFN Standards 7.2.2.16 Changes in Wildlife Abundance and Behaviour

8.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Recommendations to Address DTFN Concerns 8.1 Addressing Specific Concerns 8.1.1 Protecting Muskeg, Marsh and Wetland Areas 8.1.2 Protecting River and Major Stream Crossings 8.1.3 Pipeline Design, Clearing, Construction and Maintenance 8.1.4 Environmental Monitoring 8.1.5 Protecting Traditional Sites and High Conservation/Cultural Value Areas

8.1.6 Improving DTFN and TCPL Relations 8.1.7 Supporting Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use 8.2 Addressing General Concerns 8.2.1 Research 8.2.1.1 Lack of Knowledge re: Individual Impacts 8.2.1.2 Lack of Knowledge re: Cumulative Impacts 8.2.2 No Net Loss

9.0 Conclusions

Appendix A: Dene Tha’ First Nation/TransCanada Corporation Northwest Expansion Projects in BC, Traditional Land Use Study Field Investigations Summer/Fall 2011

The traditional land use information presented in this report remains the sole property of the Dene Tha’ First Nation. Any use, citation or reproduction of any information contained in this report is permissible only with written consent of the Dene Tha’ First Nation.

1.0 Introduction

TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada or TCPL) is planning to install ca. 365 km of pipeline and two compressor stations in Dene Tha’ traditional territory in Alberta and BC (Map 1) over the course of the next 3 years. Currently, TCPL is in the process of developing five regulatory applications for submission to the National Energy Board (NEB) that would assess the anticipated environmental, social, economic and other impacts of these projects. It is TransCanada’s practice, and a NEB requirement, to consult with First Nations on whose traditional lands national energy projects will be built, in order to obtain input into the development of projects so as to minimize impacts and disruptions to traditional land use. In the spirit of respect and cooperation, TCPL and the Dene Tha’ First Nation (DTFN) have signed an agreement to conduct a traditional land use study in relation to TCPL’s Proposed Northwest System Expansion Projects in northwest Alberta and northeast BC,1 which are located entirely within an area currently used by the Dene Tha’ for traditional use (Map 1). Individual projects making up the proposed Northwest System Expansion Projects in northeast BC include:  Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo Section) (29.1 km, 42” pipe)  Horn River Mainline Loop (Townsoitoi Section) (22.1 km, 42” pipe)  Horn River Mainline Loop (Little Hay Creek Section) (27.4 km, 42” pipe)  Horn River Mainline Loop (Komie North Section) (96.7 km, 36” pipe)

Proposed Northwest System Expansion Projects in northwest Alberta include:  Hidden Lake North Compressor Station  Tanghe Creel Lateral Loop No. 2 (Sloat Creek Section) (38 km, 48”” pipe)  Tanghe Creel Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) (32 km, 48”” pipe)  Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3 (33.1 km, 48” pipe)  Northwest Mainline Lateral Loop (Timberwolf Section) (49 km, 48” pipe)  Northwest Mainline Lateral Loop (Pyramid Section) (30.4 km, 48” pipe)  Moody Creek Compressor Station

These projects have different construction “kick-off” dates, with the Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop (Sloat Creek) pipeline being the first (November 1, 2011), followed by the Moody Creek and Hidden Lake North compressor stations (Fall 1012), and the Northwest Mainline Expansion Projects (Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop-Cranberry, Northwest Mainline-Timberwolf, and Horn River Mainline Loop-Kyklo Creek) (Fall 2012). All other project construction “kick-off” dates are slated for the fall 2013 (Horn River Mainline-Komie North, Horn River Mainline Loop- Townsoitoi, Northwest Mainline-Pyramid, Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3, or Fall 2014 (Horn River Mainline-Little Hay Creek).

1 Rather than conducting an individual traditional land use study for each of the five applications, the DTFN and TCPL have agreed to conduct one larger study for reasons relating to “economies of scale,” capacity pressures, interviewee fatigue and so on,

In this report. a brief history of factors shaping Dene Tha’ use and occupation of their traditional territory over the last 80 years is provided, along with a general description of seasonal patterns of land use that characterized Dene Tha’ presence on the landscape over this time period. The occupation sites and land use activities of DTFN members specific to a 20 km area around TransCanada’s proposed pipelines in BC are then described -- a companion report detailing Dene Tha’ occupation sites and land use activities in relation to TCPL’s proposed pipeline and compressor station projects in Alberta, was previously submitted to TransCanada and the National Energy Board.2 This is followed by a description of those sites where Dene Tha’ have left physical evidence of their presence on the land (i.e., the Dene Tha’ “cultural footprint”), within 20 km of TransCanada’s proposed Alberta projects. Descriptions of Dene Tha’ current and recent land use activities by season, using the same 20 km Study area or “zone of influence” are then provided. Subsequently, general concerns, as identified by Dene Tha’ elders and land users participating in this Study, about the industrialization of Dene Tha’ traditional territory, as well as specific concerns about the type of industrial installations that TCPL is considering, are presented. Finally, a list of recommendations to “substantially address” these concerns is forwarded in the hope that TCPL and the DTFN can work together in a spirit of cooperation to mitigate the adverse and cumulative impacts of its proposed projects on Dene Tha’ traditional lands, resources and livelihood. A report documenting the findings of flyovers and field investigations of TransCanada’s Alberta projects conducted after the TLUS interviews appears as an appendix (Appendix A).

1.1 Objectives

The agreed upon objectives of the TCPL traditional land use study are:

1) to identify, map and record within the Study area, including:

a) sites and areas of Dene Tha’ traditional land use, b) current land use information held by DTFN members relevant to the exercise of their traditional activities, and c) areas of historical and cultural importance to DTFN;

2) to assist in the evaluation of the potential effects of TransCanada’s proposed projects on the ability of DTFN members to exercise their traditional activities; and

3) to facilitate the development of mitigation measures to inform the Project’s Environmental Protection Plan.

2 Dene Tha’ First Nation (2011), Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use, Concerns and Mitigation Measures with Respect to TCPL’s Proposed Northwest System Expansion Projects, Alberta Portion

2.0 Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use Study Methodology 2.1 TLUS Planning

The purpose, need, scope and logistics for a DTFN-lead traditional land use study (TLUS), and how it relates to TransCanada’s proposed projects, were determined in collaboration with DTFN members and TCPL representatives via several teleconferences and face-to-face meetings prior to June 28, 2011. Concurrently and subsequently, the following tasks were conducted:

1) Identification of community elders, resource users and knowledge holders that could assist in identifying areas and sites of current and historical sites and occupation, as well as TEK relevant to the Study Area were identified.

2) Preparation of an interview guide to introduce interviewees to the project and guide the interviews.

3) Preparation of maps to support and guide the TLUS.

To assist in the spatial recording of traditional land use information and TEK, 1:250,000 base maps were prepared by Bill Tkachuk of ISL Engineering, with the assistance of Matt Munson of the Dene Tha’ Lands and Environment Department, resulting in the production of a 2 map set for each interviewee. During interviews geospatial information provided by each informant was recorded on these maps, with the locations of land use areas, occupation sites and other examples of DTFN’s “cultural footprint” within and beyond the Study area being checked and validated by each interviewee.

An interview guide was prepared to assist the interviewers -- Marc G. Stevenson of All Nations Services, and Baptiste Metchooyeah of the Dene Tha’ Lands and Environment Department – to inform interviewees about TCPL’s proposed projects and the scope and purpose of the TLUS. Interviews were structured so as to allow each interviewee to share knowledge about:

 His/her personal history of land use in the Study area  Relatives’ (e.g., parents, children, siblings) land use history in the Study area  Stories of Dene Tha’ land use and occupancy  Locations lived/sites occupied (cabins, settlements,)  Duration and intensity of occupation, other occupants/land users, season of use, etc.  Trails, waterways and other transportation routes used  Known grave sites and cemeteries locations  Sacred/ceremonial sites  Other evidence of DTFN “Cultural Footprint” (caches, campsites, tepees, etc.)  Species of animals and plants used, season of use, areas of use/ trapping areas  Concerns about, and observed changes and impacts, to the environment  Mitigation measures for reducing impacts

2.2 TLUS Interviews

In total, 45 Dene Tha’ were interviewed, by the Study’s lead consultant, Dr. Marc G. Stevenson of All Nations Services, with the assistance of Baptiste Metchooyeah and Stanley Salopree (Table 1.) Interviewees were selected by the Dene Tha’ First Nation Lands and Environment Department on the basis of their current and historical land use as well as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and consisted of male land users ranging in age from 45 to 92.3 Informants and interviewees were contacted, and interviews were arranged, by Baptiste Metchooyeah and Connie Martel of the Dene Tha’ First Nation Lands and Environment Department. Interviews were recorded electronically on a digital recorder, and conducted in Dene and English, with Baptiste Metchooyeah and Stanley Salopree serving as translators. Interviews ranged from 45 minutes to 3 hours in length, and notes were taken with respect to each point, line and polygon recorded. Interviews took place in three one-week segments between June 29th and August 5th, 2011, with most interviewees originating from Chateh (Assumption) (n=35), and the rest from Meander River (n=7) and Bushe (n=3). Land users/elders were asked to give permission to the DTFN to use their land use information and relevant traditional knowledge and were reimbursed for their time and participation. Currently, interviews are in the process of being transcribed.

Table 1. Dene Tha’ elders, land users and knowledge holders interviewed.

Jean-Baptiste Talley (JBT) Larry Yatallie (LY) James Danais (JD) James Metchooyeah (JaM) Edward Akazay (EdA) Eric Kolay (EK) Gabriel Akimnachie (GA) Joseph Martel (JoM) Sam Beaulieu (SB) Stephen Tsonchoke (ST) Willie Chambaud (WC) Thomas Tally (TT) Marcel Metchooyeah (MM) Harry Chonkolay Jr. (HCJ) Harry Natannah (HN) Baptiste Waspcolin (BW) Charlie Chissakay (CC) August Natannah (AN) David Waspcolin (DW) Keith Pastion (KP) Adolphous Beaulieu (AB) Alex Waspcolin (AW) Philip Martel (PhM) Francis Akimnachie (FA) Archie Ahnassay (AA) Ervin Fournier (EF) Gerry Pastion (GP) Peter Chonkolay (PC) Ronnie Semansha (RS) David Martel Sr. (DMS) Albert Seninatha (AS) Stanley Salopree (SS) David Martel Jr. (DMJ) Jimmy Seniantha (JS) Fred Deedza (FD) Vincent Bassa (VB) Ernest Akinneah (ErA) William Apannah (WA) Peter Martel (PeM) Modest Pierre (MP) Johnny Beaulieu Jr. (JBJ) Thomas Denechoan (TD) Harry Metacat (HM) Fabian Chonkolay (FC) Alexis Keena (AK)

3 While no female land users were interviewed, several were identified to provide a female perspective on Dene Tha’ traditional land use. In particular, it was recognized that women could inform the intensive land use patterns that develop around cabins, campsites and other sites of Dene Tha’ occupation, while men conduct activities further removed from habitation sites (e.g., hunting and trapping). The interviewing of women remains an unrealized objective of this TLUS, and forms the basis of one of the recommendations for further research in Section 8.0 of this report.

2.3 Traditional Land Use Field Assessments

In late August of 2011, meetings were held and field teams were assembled to undertake field assessments of important cultural sites and current resource use areas identified during the TLUS interviews and a review of existing traditional land use information held by the DTFN in relation to TransCanada’s project areas.4 Two field teams, one on the Alberta side and one on the BC side were assembled and dispatched by helicopter to their respective areas on August 31, 2011. With coordination and logistics being provided by TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA), field site assessments were conducted in areas identified to be of cultural and suspected traditional land use value to the Dene Tha’. Despite being hampered by poor weather conditions and lack of suitable landing areas, the BC field assessment team managed to visit several locations over a two day period along the direct and indirect areas of impact of TCPL’s pipelines in BC (see Appendix A). Relevant Dene Tha’ knowledge and information, and concerns with respect to, each site were recorded along with GPS readings and photographs of most site locations.

2.4 A Note on Traditional Land Use Studies All “traditional land use studies” are incomplete and a distorted record of the actual traditional land use activities undertaken by Aboriginal communities. Rarely are all individuals who use and/or occupy traditional lands, either presently or the past, ever consulted or interviewed. Furthermore, while land use information provided by contemporary land users is likely to be more accurate in terms of where, when, with whom, etc. land use activities took place, the specific details associated with historic patterns of land use and occupancy, as recalled by previous generations of land users, tend to fade with time. Moreover, such knowledge, which is based on individual experiences, and not necessarily shared by the larger community, comes to be vested with a handful of surviving elders that represent only small segment of the original or contemporary population of land users. At the same time, traditional land use patterns of younger people likely differ from those of previous generations owing to a host of contemporary factors and considerations. At best, traditional land use studies offer a narrow view of what actually took place, and what is taking place. At worst they are a distorted reflection of reality, especially when one considers what information is “left off the map,” and/or what knowledge is not easily captured by two-dimensional representations.

4 For example, the DTFN undertook a community-led TLUS with TransCanada in 2009 for a portion of TransCanada’s projects extending 84 kilometres along the existing Ekwan pipeline, now referred to as the Horn River Mainline Loop (i.e., Kyklo, Townsoitoi, and Little Hay sections).

Yet, such studies, once completed, often become in the eyes of government, industry and other stakeholders with an interest in accessing such information, the authoritative source or reference for the traditional land use activities undertaken by Aboriginal communities. In other words, they “become written in stone.” This proclivity effectively 1) freezes in time Aboriginal activities and patterns of land use, which are constantly changing and evolving in response to a host of drivers, and 2) dissuades decision-makers and developers from consulting with affected Aboriginal parties on a case by case basis, or taking seriously Aboriginal concerns or interests not raised in the TLUS. Moreover, there is a general tendency for the latter parties to value TLUS only for the geospatial information that they contain, so that campsites, cabins, trails and other locales or physical manifestations of Aboriginal land use can be avoided by development. This “dots on a map” (Webb et al. 2009)5 approach relegates Aboriginal traditional land use and occupancy, and the rights that attend them, to “postage stamp” types of existence,6 while transforming “Aboriginal title” into a form of title (fee-simple) that “comports with British common law.”

However, it is not just “dots on a map” or places on the landscape where Aboriginal peoples took up residence in the exercise of their hunting, trapping and other constitutionally protected traditional use activities that require protection. Rather, it is the larger land base around such “dots” that allows these activities to be exercised that requires protection. Furthermore, there needs to be a sufficient integrity to that land base in terms of water and air quality, viable game and fish habitat, etc., for traditional land use activities to be exercised in a meaningful way. While the size and quality of the lands required to conduct traditional land use around Aboriginal occupation sites will vary through time and space, and with each group, these factors need to be taken into account in contemporary land use development plans and practices. Yet, rarely, if ever, has this been the case.

Given these indiscretions, it is a wonder why Aboriginal communities would want to share their traditional land use information at all. However, for many Indigenous peoples and communities confronted with development it has come down to an inequitable choice of “map or be mapped” (Bryan 2009).7 Dene Tha’ First Nation views the production and the limited distribution of this report as way to advance its members’ interests in the face of on-going

5 Negotiating Cultural Sustainability: Deep Consultation and the Little River Cree in the Wabasca-Mikkwa Lowlands, Alberta. In Changing the Culture of Forestry in Canada: Building Effective Institutions for Aboriginal Engagement in Sustainable Forest Management. (M.G. Stevenson and D.C. Natcher, eds.) CCI Press, Edmonton, pp. 107-126. 6 This phrase was used in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2007 BCSC 1700) when Judge Vickers ruled that the Tsilhqot’in had met the test for Aboriginal title to 50% of their traditional territory. 7 Where Would We Be Without Them? Knowledge, Spaces and Power in Indigenous Politics. Futures 41:24-32.

challenges to their traditional land use activities, which are integral to their culture, identity and future. At the same time, the DTFN realizes that this TLUS is not an end in itself; information relevant to Dene Tha’ traditional land use will need to be systematically updated on regular basis as traditional land use activities change and evolve over time and space.

The DTFN is fortunate in having a partner in TransCanada who is committed to corporate social and environmental responsibility, and looks forward to working with TCPL to create a future that will balance economic and resource development with environmental and cultural protection for generations to come.

3.O Dene Tha’ Land Use and Occupation in Project Areas 3.1 History of Land Use

For generations, the Dene Tha’ were composed largely of small groups of Dene families allied through kinship in productive, land-based hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activities. Historically, the Dene Tha’ inhabited northwest Alberta, northeast BC and southern portions of the Northwest Territories, and were what some anthropologists,8 refer to as a “foraging” society, with small bands roaming over large tracts of land, often taking up residence at many locations over the course of a single year. According to Dene elders interviewed for the Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use Study (1997): “As I remember, we didn’t live in one spot. If firewood was scarce around our camp, we would move to a different location.” (David Providence, 1997:18)

“There were no boundaries; we were free to roam everywhere.” (Louison Ahkimnatchie, 1997:18)

The foraging lifestyle was the way of life guaranteed under treaty. However, with the arrival of more and more settlers over the years, the creation of registered traplines, and the historic failure of the Crown in 1934 to a “special hunting and trapping preserve” for the Dene Tha’, this way of life became virtually impossible to sustain. Gradually, as their lands were taken up, the Dene Tha’ were forced onto reserves where they began the transition from “foragers” where “people moved to resources” to

8 Lewis Binford (1980), Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails; Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation, American Antiquity 45:4-20.

“collectors” wherein “resources were moved to people.” In the words of one government official: “these people in the olden days were free to move around from the Hay Lake to Fort Nelson in British Columbia, the Lower Hay River and Great Slave Lake. They would winter whenever winter caught up with them and they lived mainly off the country. Now we have registered traplines and (the) Indians are compelled to remain at places like Hay Lake. They are fenced I and there just isn’t enough fur and game left in that area to provided a living for them.”9

3.1.1 Dene Tha’ Registered Traplines in BC In 1932, the RCMP at Hay Lakes ordered the evacuation of all “Hay Lake Indian” families from their ancestral hunting and trapping grounds in northeast BC, despite the facts that government officials knew that, under Treaty 8, Dene Tha’ families were allowed to trap in BC.10 Moreover, they knew that the Dene Tha’ had hunted and trapped in this area for generations, and how valuable this area was to them: I never had such a pitiful job in my life when I advised these Indians, that only BC Indians are given trapping privileges in BC. The old people sat there and cried, they told me that I could not find enough food in any one of their camps to feed one of my dogs for one night, which I am sure was the truth, they told me that they had trapped (in BC) towards Hay River and the Shikilie River for generations.11

The country between the NWT line and Kotcho Lake and thence to the Alberta line is one of the very best Fur countrys in Western Canada. While I was in the Shikillie River country I never seen better fur signs and Beaver dams to be found all over the country, and Big Game such as Moose and Caribou can be found all the way up and down the Shikillie River and the same on the Black (Petitot) River and the Hay River.12

With the assistance of Fort Nelson game warden, J.S, Clark, Dene Tha’ trappers in BC were allowed to register their trapping areas in BC, with 10 applications being received in December 1932 (Bouchard 2009:13). By 1938, 23 Dene Tha’ were identified by the BC Game Department as trapping in the Fort Nelson district of BC.13 By 1943, 37 Dene Tha’ held registered traplines in northeast BC.14 New registered traplines were found

9 (N. Walker, 3 December 1948, NAC RG10, Vol.6734, File 420-2-2-1-1) 10 See Dene Tha’ Presence in Northeastern BC (Bouchard 2009) for a detailed examination of this failed attempt to create a special hunting reserve for the Dene Tha’. 11 Patrol Report of J.S. Clark, 20 April 1932, BC Archives GR 1085, Box 2, File 8, Hay Lakes Indians, 1932-34. 12 Patrol Report of J.S. Clark, 20 April 1932, BC Archives GR 1085, Box 2, File 8, Hay Lakes Indians, 1932-34. 13 BC Archives, GR 1085, Box 39, File 5. 14 J.L. Grew, 14 August 1943, NAC RG10, Vol. 6743, File 420-2-2-3.

15 for younger Dene Tha’ trappers in the early 1950s, and former traplines that spanned both Alberta and BC were divided for administrative convenience.15

3.1.2 Dene Tha’ Registered Traplines in Alberta In 1926 the province of British Columbia instituted a “registered trapline system” (RTS), providing individual trappers with exclusive trapping rights within designated areas (“traplines”). The RTS was primarily a conservation measure based on the premise that the registered trapper would practice good husbandry on his/her area to ensure long-term sustainable use. According to the Alberta Trappers Association, Alberta was quick to recognize and seize on the advantages of trapline registration and implemented a similar program establishing Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) in the early 1940s.16 However, the failed joint federal/provincial initiative to create “special hunting reserves” for Treaty Indians in the western provinces in fulfilment of Treaty promises and following the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, was likely just as important a motivating factor. This is evidenced in the fact that the Fur Supervisor for Alberta during that time (W.B. Skead),17 endeavoured to ensure that RFMAs assigned to Treaty Indian bands were contiguous or adjoining so as to prevent their appropriation by white trappers.

3.1.3 The Proposed 1934 Dene Tha’ Hunting Reserve With the incursion of white trappers and other interests onto Dene Tha’ trapping grounds in northeast BC, Indian agents proposed the creation of “hunting ground exclusively for use of Treaty Indians at Hay Lakes and Upper Hay River” (see Bouchard 2009:14-20 for discussion). This reserve was to be 140 miles in an east-west direction and 230 miles in a north-south direction, 32,000 sq. miles in total, and to include lands in northwest Alberta, northeast BC and the southern NWT (Bouchard 2009) (see Map 2).18

15 Dene Tha’ traplines that were bisected by the BC Boundary Commission’s 1951-52 survey, for example, were assigned to one province only with former trapping privileges being extended to both holders (Paul Metchooyeah and Alexis Seninatha) and their sons (Bouchard 2009:22). 16 http://www.albertatrappers.com/education/educationManual/educationManual_011-017.pdf 17 W.B. Skead, Annual Report—Alberta Fur Supervisor, Map B, January 1948, NAC RG 10 Vol. 6734, File 420-2- 1-3, Reel C-8096. 18 As early as the 1930s, the Department of Indian Affairs, in recognition of the extensive territory needed to maintain Dene Tha’ traditional livelihoods, proposed that a “hunting reserve exclusively for use of Treaty Indians at Hay Lakes and Upper hay River (Dene Tha’) be set aside” (Bouchard 2006:20). This reserve was to be 140 miles in an east-west direction and 230 miles in a north-south direction, and to include lands in northwest Alberta, northeast BC and the southern NWT (Bouchard 2006:20).

Map 2. Proposed boundaries for 1934 Federal Reserve for the Dene Tha’.

However, as it was soon realized that it would be “impossible to dispossess the trappers, whites and Indians, (already) registered in the area”, and that Hay Lakes Indians had already applied for registered traplines in BC, with others pending, this initiative was soon abandoned.19

19 T, Van Dyk, 10 Feb. 1935, BC Archives, GR 1085, Box 2, File 8, Hay lakes Indians, 1932-34.

Today, many Dene Tha’ still hunt, fish, trap and gather resources on their traditional territory, but their ability to spend time on the land has diminished considerably over the years: “On the whole, I think my family has been impacted by all the oil and gas and forestry that happened in our territory. We cannot go into areas that (we) once did and want to go. We cannot make a living as we once did from hunting, fishing and trapping. There are less animals in the areas around the communities where we live as they have been covered by roads, pipelines, and cut blocks. …The animals are shifting and moving to places further away from us. As a result, younger men and families are starting to travel larger distances up to Bistcho, the areas west of Bistcho, Sulphur Lake near Manning and north of Indian Cabins. It is harder to find animals and people have to spend more money on gas to go out to these places” (Erwin Wht-Chillay).20

3.2 Seasonal Land Use Patterns of the Dene Tha’ in the Vicinity of Proposed TCPL Project Areas

Prior to the advent of registered trapping areas in 1930s and 40s, the Dene Tha’ travelled widely throughout their traditional territory returning each year to small, multi-family settlements on the shores of lakes and at the junction of rivers and creeks. However, after the introduction of registered traplines in BC in the 1930s, many Dene Tha’ were forced to move permanently to the Hay-Zama area (JS, PC), where they adopted an annual land use pattern that still continues to this day, albeit in somewhat modified form because of the extent of industrial activity on their lands and the collapse of the traditional trapping economy.

3.2.1 Winter (November-March) Formerly, many Dene Tha’ families spent from mid-October to late March on their traplines, returning briefly to the Hay-Zama lakes area for Christmas and New Year’s (JBT, GA, ST, HCJ). For more distant trapping areas that took up 10 days by horse and foot to reach, some families would not return to the Hay-Zama area until June (CC). With the introduction of on- reserve schools and other services, trapping soon came to be dominated by small groups of men related by blood and marriage. Today, trapping is still carried out by many Dene Tha’ men, often only on the weekends (KP). At least 14 trappers still use Jean-Baptiste Talley’s trapline (RFMA #88) today, and he himself, spends about 1.5 months on his trapping grounds each winter, broken down into four 8 day periods (JBT). Beaver, marten, squirrel, wolverine, wolf, fox, weasel, lynx, fisher, muskrat, mink, and other fur bearing animals were the principal furs

20 Survey of Dene Tha’ First Nation Traditional and Current Land and Resources Uses in Areas That May be Affected by the Mackenzie Gas Project (Dene Tha’ First Nation 2006), Tab 1, p.3-4.

trapped during the winter. The hunting of moose, caribou and other game was secondary to trapping.

Today, with the low price of furs, this situation is reversed. As August Natannah remembers: “In 1970s people stopped moving all over, “skidoos” were introduced, and prices of furs went down” (AN). Today, the dominant traditional land use activity undertaken during the winter by the Dene Tha’ is moose hunting by truck and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or quads), whereby many Dene Tha’ hunt moose from winter-only access roads, cutlines, seismic lines, power transmission lines and other anthropogenic created linear disturbances.

Fishing also continues to be a popular winter activity, especially around Hay-Zama lakes, including the Chinchaga, Amber, and Sousa rivers forks (JaM, GA, MM, JS, EK, SB, TT, CC, AN, AB, PhM, GP, DMS, DMJ, TD, PeM). Fish are also taken in the winter at Rainbow Lake (JBT, JS, EK, AB), and as far away as Bistcho Lake (AW), Ekwan Lake (FC), Petitot River (JoM), and the Kutcho/Shekiliie forks (ST).

3.2.2 Spring (April-June) With the moderation of temperatures in late March-early April, many Dene Tha’ trappers would return to their trapping areas to hunt beaver/muskrat/otter hunting for a month or more (CC, JBT, GA, ST, JaM). While some Dene Tha’ no longer participate in the spring beaver/rat hunt, many still do. These animals are hunted/trapped until about mid- May, i.e., “the start of mating season when they start biting each other” (KP). While most hunters/trappers keep to within their registered trapping areas, there are occasions when they are forced to go beyond their usual trapping grounds, such as in 1955, when there was a severe shortage of beaver throughout Dene Tha’ traditional territory (CC). Spring beaver hunting camps are generally situated near creeks, ponds and lakes (JoM), “anywhere beaver snares can be set under the ice” (JoM), and are often marked by blazes in trees at the base of which ice chisels and sleighs -- “there are thousands of sleighs in the bush”– may be found (JoM). While dogs and horses were used frequently to hunt beaver (JaM, BW, DW), they were also hunted by canoe/kicker along creek and rivers after the ice goes (ST, FA, JD, JoM).

Perhaps the most eagerly anticipated event each spring is/was the arrival of geese and from the south. “Wavys” or speckled/white-fronted geese was the primary object of the spring goose hunt for Dene Tha’ (WC) and Hay-Zama lakes was the most popular spring goose hunting area (ST, LY, AN, FA, GP, VB), attracting Dene people as far away as Ft. Nelson (JTB).

Moose and caribou were formerly hunted each spring by some Dene Tha’, especially north and west of Hay-Zama Lakes (MM, RS, CC, FA, GP, JBT, ST) as far as Bistcho Lake (GP) and the Estcho Plateau (ST). However, with the exponential increase in oil/gas development and logging operations on Dene Tha’ lands, hunters have been forced to abandon caribou hunting altogether and range farther south and east in the spring for moose towards the Chinchaga Forestry Road, Sulphur Lake and Doig River (MM, TT, AN, FA, GP, DMJ).

As in winter, Hay-Zama lakes, Rainbow Lake and the Chinchaga, Amber and Shekilie forks long the Hay River remain the most popular fishing locations for the Dene Tha’ in the spring (JTB, JaM, GA, JS, MM, HCJ, FD, FC, SB, AN, AB, FA, DMJ, PeM).

With the disappearance of ice in the late spring, berries and medicinal plants begin to be picked by some Dene Tha’, especially along the Chinchaga and Hay rivers (FC, GP).

3.2.3 Summer (June/July) In former times, Dene Tha’ families living in the Hay-Zama area would embark upon an annual summer-fall migration from late June to early October. Starting after the celebration of Treaty Days, families would not return to Chateh until there was a foot of snow on ground around Oct. 5th (JBT). During this time they would fish; hunt moose, bear, geese/ducks and small game; and pick berries and medicinal plants in preparation for the upcoming winter (JBT). Today, many elements of this annual migration are still practised. For example, many Dene Tha’ still hunt moose, deer, ducks, bear, grouse (chickens), rabbits and other small game by canoe/kicker along the Chinchaga, Hay and Meander rivers each summer (AW, PC, JS, KP, PhM, EF, RS, SS, FD, FC, JD, TT, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMJ, DMS, PeM, JBJ, FC).

Moose are also hunted in the summer by vehicle, ATV and foot access on land as far south as the Sulphur Lake/Clear Hills/Worsely/Doig area; east as Dixonville/Hawk Hills area; north as the NWT border; and west as Ft. Nelson/Liard Highway. Those areas 1) between the Doig River Reserve in BC and Sulphur Lake (MM, EA, WC, KP, PhM, EF, TT, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, AK, GA), 2) bordering the Chinchaga Forestry Road (TT, FA, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ), and 3) west of Rainbow Lake into BC (JBT, AW, CC, RS, SS, FC, SB, AN, FA, GP, VB, JS) appear to be the most heavily hunted areas for moose in the summer.

Geese and duck hunting occurs during the summer along rivers with boats/canoes along rivers (SS, FD, JBJ, FC, JS), often in conjunction with the other of other species, and around lake

shores, particularly Hay-Zama lakes (FC, JD, AB, FA, TD, AK), where sticks and dogs are sometimes used to procure ducks during the moulting season (AB).

Summer is the height of berry and medicinal plant picking activities. The most popular berry and medicinal plant collecting locations appear to be the Hay-Zama lakes area (JD, EK, AN, PC, AB, DMJ, VB, TD), the Chinchaga and Hay rivers (FC, TT, GP) and sloughs at the base of the ridge southwest of Hay-Zama lakes (AN, HN). Among the medicines collected are mint leaves, juniper berries, rat-root, pitcher plant, Labrador tea and tamarack bark.

While Dene Tha’ fish the Hay (EF, RS, FD, EK, HN) and Chinchaga (PC, EF, TT, GP) rivers in the summer, Rainbow (Long) Lake (JBT, JS, C, FC, EK, TT, HN, AB, GP, DMS, DMJ, PeM) and Hay-Zama lakes (JaM, MM, JS, HCJ, KP, EF, PhM, FD, JD, SB, CC, TT, AN, GP, AB, DMJ, VB, PeM, AK), particularly the Amber, Chinchaga and Sousa rivers forks, are the most heavily fished areas in during the summer.

3.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall (August/September) After the horseflies die away (DMS) and the fireweed blooms (CC), and as August approaches, moose quickly begin to build up fat reserves. Concomitantly, there is a shift towards the hunting this animal, as Dene Tha’ begin to build up food reserves for coming winter. At the same time, the hunting of other animals such as deer (JBJ), elk (FC), caribou (FC), ducks (TD, AN) bears (JBJ), rabbits (EK, JBJ) and chickens (EK, JBJ) becomes less important. Moose are not so much hunted from boats or canoes along rivers and lake shores (HN, GP, DMS), but by truck, quad and on foot from roads and other linear features throughout Dene Tha’ traditional territory (ST, GA, MM, AW, AS, JS EA, HM, JM, HCJ, CC, KP, PhM, EF, RS, FD, FC, WA, JD, EK, TT, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, PeM, JBJ). Currently, the most popular Dene Tha’ moose hunting by far during August and September are west of Dixonville to the Doig River Reserve in BC (MM, AW, EA, HM, JoM, KP, CC, PhM, EF, FD, EK, TT, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, PeM), the Chinchaga Forestry Road to Tanghe Creek (CC, KP, FC, TT, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, PeM), and west of Rainbow Lake to the BC border (SST, MM, AS, JS, CC HCJ, RS, WA, AN FA, GP).

Berries and medicinal plants continue to be picked, but sparingly, in August and September along the Chinchaga River (KP, GP,) Hay-Zama (JBJ), Chinchaga Forestry Road (FC), Dixonville to Doig (FC) and Mackenzie Highway (FC), often in conjunction with moose hunting (JBJ, FC, GP).

While fish are still taken from Rainbow Lake in late summer and early fall (JBT, JS, AS), most Dene Tha’ fish around the Hay-Zama lake area, especially the Chinchaga, Amber and Sousa rivers forks (JaM, MM, JS, SB, AN AB, FA, DMJ, DMS, PeM).

3.2.5 Fall (October/ November) As with other seasons, the most heavily hunted animal by Dene Tha’ during the fall is moose, although other terrestrial animals such as caribou, deer, bear, rabbit, and grouse are also hunted incidental to moose (FC, GS, JBJ, EK). While some Dene Tha’ continue to hunt moose by canoe/kicker along the Hay and Chinchaga rivers during the fall (HN, DMS, GP), this animal are hunted predominantly via truck, quad and foot from roads, cutlines and other linear disturbances as far away as Ft. Nelson, Ft. Liard, Trout Lake and the NWT border (JS, ST, AW, GP). Prior to 1975, moose were also hunted in the fall on horseback (ST). However, the most heavily used fall moose hunting areas are southwest of Hay-Zama lakes to the BC border (AW, AS, JS, HM, LY, HCJ, CC, RS, SB, HN, AN, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, VB), on either side of the Chinchaga Forestry Road (CC, KP, SS, FD, TT, FA, GP, DMS, DMJ, TD, EK), and from Sulphur Lake to the Doig River Reserve in BC (ST, EA, JM, KP, TT, SB, HN, AN FA, GP, GA, DMS, EA, VB).

Geese and ducks, most notably around the Hay-Zama lakes complex, are also hunted every fall by many Dene Tha’ (ST, WC, WA.GP, FD, DMS, VB). Berries and medicinal plants continue to be picked well into the fall by a few Dene Tha’, mostly in conjunction with the hunting of moose (FC, GP). Although a few Dene Tha’ continue to fish at Rainbow Lakes (HN, JS) and along the Hay River (HN, JM) during the fall, most informants most fall fishing occurs at the Hay-Zama lakes (JBT, JaM, GA, MM, JS, JBJ, FC, AB, AN, FaM, DMJ, PeM), particularly at the Amber, Chinchaga and Sousa rivers forks.

4.0 Determining Areas of Direct and Indirect Impact 4.1 Areas of Direct Impact: Pipelines The area of direct impact for pipelines and other linear disturbances (roads, power lines, seismic lines, etc.) where Dene Tha’ will no longer be able to conduct traditional land use activities or carry out their responsibilities to care for the land, has been estimated to include the width of the proposed “right of way” (RoW) and 250 m on either side of the RoW. This estimate is based on both scientific and Dene Tha’ traditional knowledge. For example, scientific studies of moose in the vicinity of roads found that signs of moose were reduced within 200 m of roads (Rolley and Keith 1980), while other researchers found that woodland caribou tend to

avoid areas within 250 m of industrial installations (Dyer et al. 2001).21 Similarly, other mammals have also been seen to systematically avoid industrial features within this distance (Forman et al. 2003), whereas birds in woodland habitats have been observed to avoid linear disturbances by up to 300 m (Kroodsma 1982, Belisel and Clair 2001 and Machtans 2006).22 Additionally, it has been demonstrated that woodland caribou in the vicinity of Alberta petroleum installations move significantly faster and cross habitat boundaries more frequently than caribou that are not exposed to such activities, thus resulting in increased energy expenditures, especially during the winter.23 Dene Tha’ traditional ecological knowledge also supports these scientific findings, particularly if industrial installations emit noise and gases, and/or are located near or in caribou and moose calving grounds.

According to Connie Martel and Charlie Chissakay, if any Dene Tha’ or other Treaty Indian is found hunting/killing moose within 265 m of the Chinchaga Forestry Road, the Department of Fish and Wildlife will confiscate the kill, maybe the firearm and levy a fine (See Appendix A TERA Field Notes for DTFN Field Site N6). While this alone would suggest that lands within this distance from this road, and perhaps other transmission lines and pipelines have been effectively removed from Dene Tha’ traditional use, more scientific and traditional knowledge research needs to be gathered to confirm the “area of direct impact” for TCPL pipelines within the Dene Tha’ traditional territory. Nevertheless, the “precautionary principle” dictates that we use, at a minimum, the “RoW + (250 m x 2)” formula around pipelines to estimate the amount of land that will be removed from Dene Tha’ traditional use.

4.2 Areas of Indirect Impact: Pipelines The extent of areas indirectly impacted by pipelines is even more difficult to determine, and require consideration, among other things, of:

 increased loss of natural habitat due to on-going habitat fragmentation,  increased loss/displacement of valued food and game resources due to on-going habitat fragmentation and noise pollution,  increased loss/displacement of valued food and game resources due to exposure to water and air borne toxins and carcinogens,

21 R.E. Rolley and L.B. Keith (1980), Moose population dynamics and winter habitat use at Rochester, Alberta 1965-1979, Canadian Field Naturalist 94:9-18. S.J. Dyer, J.P. O’Neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin (2001), Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou, The Journal of Wildlife Management 65:531-542. 22 R.T. Forman et al. (2003), Road Ecology: Science and Solutions, Island Press, Washington, DC. 23 C.J.A. Bradshaw, S. Boutin and D.M. Hebert (1997). Effects of Petroleum Exploration on Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1127-33. R.L. Kroodsma (1982) Edge effect on breeding forest birds along a pipeline corridor, The Journal of Applied Ecology 19:361-70. M. Belisle and C.C.S. Clair (1994), Cumulative effects of barriers on the movement of forest birds. Conservation Ecology 5 (9). C.S> Machtans C.S. (2006), Songbirds response to seismic lines in the western boreal forest: A manipulative experiment, Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:1421-1430.

 increased loss/displacement of valued food and game resources due to increased predator access (both human and non-human),  introduction and spread of invasive and non-native vegetation and species, and  unanticipated individual, multiple, and cumulative environmental impacts.

While the extent of these impacts, may be difficult to assess, when considered together there is little doubt that they will continue to increase the energy requirements and compromise the reproductive success of animals highly valued by the Dene Tha’, and increase the distance travelled, and time and money needed, to hunt these animals.

How this translates into a “zone of influence” or “indirect impact” that can be plotted on a map, however, remains problematic, not to mention case-specific. During the traditional land use interviews conducted for this study, 20 km was repeatedly mentioned by Dene Tha’ land users as the furthest distance from major access roads, such as the Chinchaga Forestry Road, that they would normally pursue moose and deer in most seasons. Twenty kilometres also approximates the distance that a Dene Tha’ hunter/trapper can travel by foot or horseback in one day (and dog team or snowmobile in half a day), when ranging out from a trapper’s cabin or campsite. As a result, we have decided to use a 20 km radius on either side of the proposed pipelines, to demarcate the “area of concern” or “zone of influence,” i.e., the extent of the area indirectly impacted by these industrial installations under normal operating conditions. The following sections describe the cultural footprint and seasonal land use activities of the Dene Tha’ within these areas of concern for Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo Creek, Townsoitoi Creek, and Little Hay River sections) and the Horn River Mainline (Komie North Extension).

5.0 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint and Land Use in the Vicinity of TCPL’s Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo, Townsoitoi and Little Hay River Sections)

5.1 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint 5.1.1 Registered Traplines and Trapping Areas

The Dene Tha’ were formerly at liberty to travel, hunt, trap, fish and gather resources from the land throughout their traditional territory (see above). However, with the imposition of registered traplines in the 1930s and 40s, winter fur trapping (and spring beaver/muskrat hunting) was confined to respective trapping areas and Dene Tha’ trappers become subject to increasing regulation. Although the Dene Tha’ were still free to hunt, fish and gather the resources of the land at anytime and anywhere within their traditional territory (subject, of course, to the land being “taken up”), registered traplines tended to concentrate hunting, fishing and gathering activities around them, especially in the vicinity of cabins, for much of the year. At the same time, trapping regulations introduced “closed seasons” for many fur species. Dene Tha’

registered trapping areas within 20 km of the proposed Northwest Mainline Loop include RFMA (Registered Fur Management Areas) 84 and 88 in Alberta, and 756T001, 756T017 and 756T014 in BC). However, James Metchooyeah occasionally trapped lynx as far as the Petitot River/Sahdonnah River junction while Jimmy Seniantha recalls that, prior to the introduction of registered traplines, his and his parents’ trapping area extended west of Kutcho Lake onto the Estcho Plateau (JaM).

5.1.2 Villages At least six formerly occupied villages are located within 20 km of the proposed Horn River Mainline Loop (Map 3). The closest to the proposed pipeline is located at the junction of Kyklo Creek and the Kutcho River, ca. 2 km north of the Townsoitoi section of the pipeline (AS). Another abandoned village is found at the junction of Kutcho River and a small creek immediately northeast of the Kutcho River-White Spruce Creek junction (ST). According to Stephen Tsconchoke this village, Ne Go’ cheah, consisted of four cabins, now collapsed and eroding into the earth, occupied mainly by Ft. Nelson Dene people (Tewtwins) for over 30 years (ST). Another village located within 20 km of the proposed pipeline is Ekouta (ST), at the south end of Ekwan Lake (ST, BW, DW). This settlement was occupied by several families, predominantly in the 1920s and 1930s (ST), including the Edward Netlies, Willie Whiteheads, and Henry McCarthy’s (ST, JBT), and has an associated graveyard with 20-30 graves (ST). Bapstiste and David Waspcolin report an old Dene village about 20 km east of the BC-Alberta border on the Hay River that was occupied by the Natannah family (BW, DW), but is now the site of Peter Ahnassay’s winter trapping cabin (AN). Another old Dene Tha’ village is located about 3 km northeast of the Kutcho River-Shekilie River forks. Although this village was occupied by Archie Ahnassay’s grandfather -- his grandfather’s old collapsed cabin is still visible here -- and other Dene Tha’ long before Archie was born (1940), Archie has camped at this location each winter for the last 54 years while hunting and trapping (AA).

By far the most referred to settlement among the 45 Dene Tha’ hunters and trappers interviewed for this Study is located at Kutcho River-Hay River junction about 9 km west of the BC-Alberta border and 13 km north of the proposed Horn River Mainline Loop (Map 3). This site is located at the intersection of 3 registered traplines held by Jean-Baptiste Talley, Stephen Tsonchoke (and Charlie LeFou’s and Harry Chonkolay Jr.) and a Ft. Neslon trapper’s (McCarthy). Known as prime winter fishing hole (JS, ST), this location boasts the remains of an old village site composed of collapsed cabins (AK, JBT, JaM, BW, DW, JS, AN, HN, AB, FA, JD, TT, EF), associated grave sites (JBT, JaM, TT, BW, DW, JS, AS, AN, HN, AW, PC, FA, JD), wagon trails (JBT), birch bark canoes (TT), and campsites (AA), which Jimmy Seninatha refers to as Tsa ‘tsa (JS).

Map 3.

While some informants have observed only 2 or 3 graves at this location (TT, AW, AS FA), Jean-Baptiste Talley and James Metchooyeah recall, respectively, that there were 7 (JBT) and 12 (JaM) Dene Tha’ burials altogether. Moreover, Peter Chonkolay inferred that there are at two separate graveyards at this location, each with 2-3 graves (PC). According to Jean-Baptiste Talley, this village was a permanently occupied community from 1915 to the late 1940s, when it was finally abandoned in 1951 after a school was built in Chateh (JBT). Adolphous Beaulieu, who lived here for several years until his Dad got a trapline in Alberta near Rainbow Lake, recalls that the village was also occupied by the Kazony, Bouchard and Beaulieu families (AB). Archie Ahnassay’s dad and grandfather also camped here every winter, while trapping fur in the winter and hunting beaver and muskrat in the spring (AA).

Field interviews with James Baptiste Talley, Steven Tsconchoke and other Dene Tha’ confirmed the presence of two graveyards, as well as two settlements, and a campsite within ca. 1-2 km of the Kutcho River-Hay River forks (see Appendix A). According to Stephen Tsconshoke each settlement had 4 log cabins (ST). The site was temporarily abandoned in the 1930s when residents were forced to move back to Alberta (see above), and permanently abandoned after 1955 (i.e., around the time cutlines first appeared in the region) (ST).

5.1.3 Multiple Cabin Sites Located on the Kutcho River about 5 km southwest of the Kutcho River- Shekilie River forks, two cabins (one newly built), occupied by Harry Chonkolay Jr. and Charlie LeFou, are found (Map 3) (HCJ). Harry Chonkolay Jr. apparently occupies this cabin for three 1.5 month periods each year from November to May (HCJ). Another site with two cabins, used largely for winter trapping and hunting, belonging to Germaine Pastion and Harry Pastion, is located on Fire Creek, about 5 km northeast of the BC-Alberta border (TT).

5.1.4 Cabins Stephen Tsconchoke maintains two cabins on his shared trapline (756T014), one on White Spruce Creek about 9 km upstream from its confluence with the Kutcho River, the other on the Kutcho River near its union with the Shekilie River (Map 3) (ST). Stephen built his cabin at the former location after a fire in 1974-75 destroyed his older cabin on the Kutcho River about 10 km upstream from the Kutcho-Shekilie forks (ST).

In addition to cabins at the Hay River-Kutcho River forks (Tsa ‘tsa), the Dene Tha’ built cabins at other locations on the Hay River in BC within the project area over the years. David Sutha’s cabin is located about 6 km west of the BC-Alberta border on the Hay River, while Jean-

Patrick Talley once had a cabin, which later burnt, 10 km upstream of Tsa ‘tsa (JBT). Jean- Baptiste Talley’s father long ago built a cabin on the Hay River ca. 26 km west of the BC-Alberta border and 14 km south of the Horn River Mainline Loop (JBT). Although this cabin no longer exists, Jean-Baptiste often occupies a tent cabin at this location during the winter (JBT). Other Dene Tha’ cabins built on the Hay River within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence” include those occupied by Peter Ahnassay 6 km and 20 km east of the BC-Alberta border (TT, AN), and August Natannah’s winter trapping cabin 10 km east of the border (AN).

At the intersection of the BC-Alberta border and Fire Creek, Gerry Pastion regularly occupies a tent cabin, which he uses for winter trapping, spring beaver hunting and fall moose hunting, while maintaining another tent cabin 10 km to the southeast for the same purposes (GP). Jean-Baptiste Talley has a tent cabin and cache, which he uses every winter, on Fire Creek about 5 km southwest of the BC/Alberta border (JBT).

5.1.5 Campsites The Dene Tha’ use and occupy a number of temporary dwelling sites or campsites within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop (Map 3). James Danais has a campsite, Eh Keh da Deheh (“beaver dam crossing”) about 10 km east of the BC-Alberta border on Fire Creek (JD). Campsites located along the Hay River include those occupied by Joseph Martel each spring while hunting for beaver (JoM) and Archie Ahnassay (and formerly, his father and grandfather) each winter at Tsa ‘tsa (AA). The latter also maintained over many decades a campsite, where a Dene Tha’ village once stood, about 3 km northeast of the Kutcho River-Shekilie River forks (AA). Stephen Tsconchoke recalls that there was a campsite on the Hay River at the BC-Alberta border where Dene Tha’ used to transfer their gear from wagons to pack horses while travelling and hunting into BC (ST). A summer campsite is also found at the north end of Ekwan Lake (JBT), while an all season campsite, occupied predominantly by Ft. Nelson Dene, is located about 8 km east of Ekwan Lake (JBT).

5.1.6 Burials/Cemeteries Several Dene Tha’ graveyards have been recorded within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence.” The graveyards at the south end of Ekwan Lake and at the junction of the Kutcho and Hay rivers, were discussed previously, and appear to be the final resting place of 20-30 (ST) and 7-12 individuals (AW, AS), respectively. Other multiple burial sites are found on the Hay River 13 km east of the BC-Alberta border (AN) and at the Kutcho River-Shekilie River forks (AS). While a “LeFou family member and grandchild” are buried at the former location (AN), the old graveyard at the Kutcho-Shekilie forks may have some connection to the Dene Tha’

village 3 km downstream (AA). A single burial within the project area is reported at the intersection of the BC-Alberta border and the Hay River (AK).

5.1.7 Caches Dene Tha’ caches can be expected to be found within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop in connection with villages and cabin sites. They may also be associated with campsites (GP, JBT), “off-loading” camps where Dene Tha’ transferred gear from wagons to pack horse when travelling or hunting into BC (ST), or at any location where they killed and butchered a moose (or other large game) and prepared dry meat for retrieval at a later date, especially along the Hay River (Map 3).

5.1.8 Traditional Trails 5.1.8.1 Wagon Roads: Within the 20 km “zone of influence” for the Horn River Mainline Loop there are a number of old wagon roads that were used extensively by the Dene Tha’ (Map 3). A wagon road, which parallels Fire Creek for much of its length (JD, JBT), was maintained by the Dene Tha’ to travel to Ft. Nelson and back (JBT), while Fort Nelson Dene used the same road when visiting the Dene Tha’ at Hay-Zama lakes, particularly during the spring geese hunting season (JBT). Another well-used wagon road originates from the Chateh/Habey/Hay-Zama Lakes area and parallels the Hay River into BC as far as the Hay River-Kutchoo River forks (Tsa ‘tsa) (ST, AS, JS, HN). A wagon road, which branches north off the Hay River, was used extensively by Dene Tha’ trapping in RFMA #84 (HN).

5.1.8.2 Dogteam/Horse/Trapline Trails: Numerous Dene Tha’ dogteam-pack horse trails are found within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop (Map 3). Several trapping trails are confined to RFMA 88, with one running along the Hay River to the BC-Alberta border (TT), and four others looping back to Hay-Zama and incorporating trapping cabins and camps belonging to Harvey Denechoan, Gerry Pastion, and James Danias along the way (see above) (GP, JD, TT). Another trapping trail, which runs along the 29th baseline just north of the Hay River to the BC-Alberta border, is confined to RFMA #84 (HN).

Other trails from Hay-Zama lakes and found within the project area extend far into BC. Perhaps the longest, if not oldest, was Jimmy Seninatha’s (and his parents’) trapping trail that ran along the Hay River, up the Kutcho River to just west of Kutcho Lake and then north to Kimea Creek before descending the Shekilie and Hay rivers back to “Zama,” a journey that

would take all of 2 months to complete each winter (JS). Eric Koklay and Harry Natannah, also used dog/horse trails along the Hay and Shekilie rivers to access their trapping areas in BC (756T015 and 16) (EK, HN). While dogteam/horse/trapping trails in BC frequently paralleled the Hay River, some of these trails diverged towards Ekwan Lake (ST), Kanntah (AN), and Ft. Nelson (AN, KP) via the Fontas River.

Dene Tha’ hunting moose within the 20 km “zone of influence” for the Horn River Mainline Loop regularly use the “Huskey/Powerline Road,” ”Harvest Road,” (JBT, VB, CC, AS, JD, WC, FA) and the 28th baseline up to and along the BC-Alberta border before heading west into BC (Map 3), sometimes as far as Ft. Nelson (JD, WC). In fact, this pattern of hunting, which usually begins in the late summer and continues until spring, is often combined with hunting expeditions that utilize the “Sierra Road” and “Koho Trail” in the Kutcho Lake and Shekilie River areas in BC before looping back across the BC-Alberta border to Chateh (JD, WC, CC), particularly during the winter. The 29th baseline road, and cutlines in BC, are also used to access Archie Ahnassay’s trapline (AA), Harry Chonokolay’s trapping cabin near the Kutcho-Shekilie forks (HN) and August Natannah’s trapping and hunting areas in BC as far as Ft. Nelson (AN).

5.1.9 Seasonal Migration Routes Every year for generations the Dene Tha’ have embarked on seasonal migrations along rivers/creeks and wagon roads (Map 3). Within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence” the most heavily utilized seasonal migration route was along the Hay River. After Treaty Days (JBT), and at the height of the “horsefly season” (late July-early August) which drives moose to seek relief in rivers, creeks and lakes (DMS), many Dene Tha’ formerly set out on a 2-3 month canoe trip along the Hay River to hunt moose, deer, waterfowl, bear and small game, to gather berries and medicinal plants, and to fish (JBT, BW, DW, AW, PC, AS), before returning to the Chateh/Habey area with the first snowfall, usually in early October (JBT). For those families who preferred not to retrace their voyage, two overland routes were normally followed to reaching the Hay River (JS): the shorter one involving a trek along Rosebud Ridge before reaching the Hay River (BW), the longer one incorporating Basset and Rainbow (Long) lakes (PC). Families embarking on the latter voyage would include the Talleys, Senianthas, Pastions, Denechoans, Natannahs and Chonkolays (PC). Summer migrations along the Hay River were sometimes extended to Ekwan Lake and Kanntah via Ekwan Creek (AS), with regular visits to the village site at the Kutcho River-Kyklo Creek forks (AS). A seasonal migration route that diverges from the Hay River extends up the Kutcho River and a creek that flows into the Kutcho- Shekilie forks from the northwest (AW). This route was commonly navigated in the spring while hunting beaver and muskrats (AW).

During summer migrations along the Hay River, drymeat would be made and cached along various sections of the river for retrieval by respective trapline holders during the winter trapping period (PC). Today, canoes are used less frequently, having been replaced by smaller boats with outboard engines (kickers), and the length of time spent on the river rarely exceeds 14 days (FC). Nevertheless, this annual summer/fall migration pattern remains a highlight for many Dene Tha’ and an integral expression of their on-going connection to their traditional lands and waterways. Summer migration routes along rivers may be expected to yield a plethora of evidence of Dene Tha’ use and occupation, including campsites, tepees, lean-to’s, meat-drying racks, fish-drying racks, caches, graves, canoes, sleds, culturally modified trees (e.g., birch trees that have been stripped of their bark to make “moose callers”, etc.).

5.2 Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use by Season 5.2.1 Winter (November-March) 5.2.1.1 Trapping: The Dene Tha’ hunt and trap extensively in the area west of Hay-Zama lakes into BC, particularly in that area bounded by the Hay River. Dene Tha’ registered traplines within the Horn River Mainline Loop “zone of influence” include RFMA 88 and 84 in Alberta, and 756T001, 756T017 and 756T014 in BC (Map 4) (JBT, ST, BW, DW, AW, AS, HCJ, KP, JD, TT, HN, AN, GP, TD, AK). Trapping areas in Map 4 that go beyond registered trapline boundaries in BC and Alberta refer to either earlier times prior to the introduction of trapping regulations (AB, JS) or to times when Dene Tha’ trappers were forced to go beyond their normal trapping grounds (CC, JS, AS, JaM). Like other Dene Tha’ registered traplines elsewhere in their traditional territory, those above have been handed down through the generations from father to son, or brother to brother -- some Dene Tha’ interviewed for this study were able to identify past senior trappers on their traplines going back 5 to 6 generations (HN). The initial selection of Dene Tha’ registered traplines in both BC and Alberta reflected centuries-old land use patterns that pre- dated by generations the signing of Treaty 8 the institutionalization of registered traplines.

Formerly, Dene Tha’ trappers would leave the Hay-Zama lakes area in mid-late October for their winter trapping grounds, with many returning before the Christmas-New Year holidays. In early January, they would set out again for their trapping grounds, sometimes taking 7 days to reach their winter trapping cabins, and not return to the Chateh/Habay area until after the close of the fur trapping season (March 15) or after the spring beaver hunt (June 1). While moose and other game were hunted when and where encountered, fur trapping was the primary concern of trappers during the winter, with some furs (e.g., lynx) fetching as high as $800 on occasion.

Map 4.

Most Dene Tha’ trappers have since modified this pattern of land use, and trapping is not is carried out as extensively or intensively as it once was within the Horn River Mainline Loop “zone of influence.” Even so, some older Dene Tha’ trappers still spend a considerable amount time each winter on their trapping grounds. For example, Harry Chonkolay Jr. goes out to his trapline three times each year between November and May for “about 1.5 months each time” (HCJ), while Jean-Baptiste Talley spends about 1.5 months on his trapping grounds each winter, broken down into four 8 day periods (JBT). Younger Dene Tha’ trappers, however, tend to trap only on the weekends (KP) as trapping has become secondary to hunting for those who are employed the rest of the week.

5.2.1.2 Hunting: While hunting moose and other big game (deer, caribou, bison) in former times were incidental to fur trapping during the winter period, today moose hunting is the primary activity conducted by Dene Tha’ within 20 km of the proposed Northwest Mainline pipeline and Moody Creek compressor station. Twenty-seven of the 45 (60%) Dene Tha’ interviewed (FC, WC, VB, AW, MM, BW, DW, AS, KP, JD, TT, GP, JBT, HCJ, JS, DMJ, PhM, AN, RS, FA, ST, CC, EF, EK, PC, EA, JBJ,) hunt within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop (Map 5). However, even this number significantly underestimates the intensity of winter use in this area; according to Dene Tha’ senior trapline holder Jean-Baptiste Talley, there are at least 20 other Dene Tha’ who hunt and trap west of Hay-Zama lakes into BC each winter including Abraham Talley, Victor Talley, Johnson Talley, John T. Talley, Fred Talley, Andy Talley, Harvey Dendchoan, Thomas Didzena, Baptiste Didzena , Davis Sutha, Roger Sutha, Peter Talley, Curtis Talley, Colin Talley, Joseph Didzena, Tommy Seniantha, Herman Seniantha, Harry Pastion, Germaine Pastion, Paul Metchooyeah, and Martel Metchooyeah.

Fifteen of the 45 Dene Tha’ interviewed (33%) indicated that they use the 28th Baseline, Harvest, Nexxon Road, Husky and Powerline roads during the winter to access moose hunting habitat within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop (JS, PhM, EF, WC, RS, JBJ, JD, EK, TT, AS, DMJ, AN, FC, FA, VB) (Map 5). Many Dene Tha’ hunters use these roads as part of a several day hunting trip that takes them to the Sierra Road (south of Kutcho Lake), north to Helmet and east along the Koho Trail before returning to Chateh (PhM, EF, JD, JBJ, TT, EK, GP, FA, FC). Some also take a side trip to Ft. Nelson to visit relatives (JS, PhM, EF, JBJ, JD, GP). While most Dene Tha’ hunt moose (and occasionally caribou) along cutlines and bush roads within this area, some also frequent moose licks for recent signs of moose (JBT).

Map 5.

5.2.1.3 Fishing: The Dene Tha’ do not fish extensively during the winter within the project area. However, James Metchooyeah fishes the entire length of the Shekilie River in BC (JaM), Archie Ahnassay fishes the Kutcho-Shekilie rivers forks (AA) and Stephen Tsconchoke fishes the Kutcho-Hay rivers forks, which is known as a good fishing area (ST) (Map 5). Ekwan Lake during the winter is also fished by Fabian Chonkolay while hunting moose and caribou (FC).

5.2.2 Spring (April-May) 5.2.2.1 Hunting: The intensity of Dene Tha’ hunting within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence” falls off significantly in the spring (Map 6), in part because of the low fat reserves on moose and other animals, and the fact that moose calf in May and June – Dene Tha’ tend to avoid moose calving and breeding grounds in the spring. Seven Dene’ (15.5%) reported that they hunt moose within the project area in the spring, mostly in the context of the “year–round” hunting of this species (JS, MM, ST, HCJ, CC, RS, FA). Concomitantly, there appears to a greater range of species hunted in the spring (including moose, deer, caribou, rabbit, beaver, muskrat, etc.), with a focus on the hunting of beaver and muskrat within registered trapping areas (AW, PC, JS, JoM, FA, JBT, ST, AA, AS, HCJ, KP, FC, JD, HN). While spring hunting of beaver/muskrat occurs as far north as the Petitot River (PC) and west of Kutcho Lake on the Estcho Plateau (PC, ST), it appears that most spring hunting activities within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop occur within the area bounded by the Hay River, where boats are often used (JoM, FA, FC). Geese and ducks return to Dene Tha’ traditional territory in the spring. However, they appear to be rarely hunted within the “zone of influence” in the spring; there are more favourable areas where they are hunted, such as the Hay-Zama lakes complex.

5.2.2.2 Fishing and Gathering: Other than the Shekilie and Hay rivers (JoM, FC), fishing is not actively pursued in the spring within the project area (Map 6).

For some Dene Tha’ the collection of medicinal plants and berries begins each year in the late spring while hunting moose, beaver and other species by boat along the Hay River from Hay-Zama lakes to west of the BC-Alberta border (FC) (Map 6).

Map 6.

5.2.3 Summer (June-July) 5.2.3.1 Hunting: Moose are actively hunted each summer by boat along the Hay River within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence” by several Dene Tha’ (PC, KP, RS, AN, PeM, JBJ, JS) (Map 7). Moose habitat is also accessed in the summer within the project area from trapline trails or all-season access roads (e.g., Harvest, Husky, Powerline roads) (MM, JS, JoM, HCJ, CC, RS, FC, AN, FA, GP). While summer moose hunting is conducted as far west as the Ft. Liard Highway between Ft. Liard and Ft. Nelson (FC, GP), and as far north as Kimea Creek (JS), it appears to be concentrated within that area in BC and Alberta bounded by the Hay River. In addition to moose, other animals (e.g., deer, bear, grouse, rabbit, ducks, etc.) are also procured during the summer within this project’s “zone of influence” (JS, FC, JBJ), particularly when travelling by boat along the Hay River (see above).

5.2.3.2 Fishing and Gathering: Fishing within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop occurs principally along the Hay River (EF, FD, HN), and secondarily at the Hay-Kutcho forks (RS) and along the southern portion of the Shekilie River (JoM) (Map 7).

Medicinal plants and berries are picked during the summer within the Horn River Mainline Loop’s “zone of influence” along the Hay River (FC) and at the base of the ridge southwest of Hay-Zama lakes to the BC-Alberta border (TT).

5.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall (August-September) 5.2.4.1 Hunting and Fishing: The level of hunting intensity appears to fall off in late summer/early fall (August- September) with 17.7%% (8/45) of interviewees reporting that they hunt moose within 20 km of the Horn River Mainline Loop (ST, MM, JS, JoM, HCJ, CC, RS, FA) (Map 8). Again, most moose hunting activities during this period are concentrated within the Hay River “loop” which travels from Rainbow Lake, west into BC, and then east to Hay-Zama lakes area. Other than moose, there appears to be very little hunting of other species within this project’s 20 km “zone of influence” during this period.

Fishing within the project area during August and September appears to be restricted to the Shekilie (JoM) and Hay rivers (HN).

Map 7

Map 8

Map 9.

5.2.5 Fall (October-November) 5.2.5.1 Hunting and Fishing: Unlike the 20 km “zone of influence” associated with the nearby Moody Creek compressor station (see Alberta application report), moose hunting appears to decrease in intensity within 20 km the Horn River Mainline Loop during the fall (October-November), with only 10 of the 45 (22.2%) informants interviewed engaged in this activity in this area (JS, HM, HCJ, CC, RS, HN, FA, GP DMS, VB) (Map 9). Moose are no longer hunted on the Hay River by boat in the fall within the project area as moose habitat is accessed predominantly via foot, ATVs and truck using the Husky, Powerline, and Nexxon roads and associated cutlines and bush roads. Moose hunted in the fall within the Horn River Mainline Loop “zone of influence” are also hunted by Dene Tha’ extending their activities as far as Ft. Nelson and along the Husky/Sierra/Koho trail hunting loop (GP, JS).

Fishing within the project area during the fall appears to be restricted to the Shekilie (JoM) and Hay rivers (HN) (Map 9).

6.0 Dene Tha’ Cultural Footprint and Land Use in the Vicinity of TCPL’s Pipelines in BC, Horn River Mainline (Komie North Extension)

6.1 Cultural Footprint 6.1.1 Land Use Interviews, 2009 No cabins, campsites, traditional trails or other physical evidence of Dene Tha’ use and occupation within 20 km of the Komie North Extension of the Horn River Mainline pipeline were reported among the 45 land use interviews conducted for this Study. Nevertheless, in a previous traditional land use study conducted in 2009 with a different cohort of Dene Tha’ land users for TransCanada’s Horn River Mainline pipeline project (Calliou Group 2010),24 which connects the proposed Komie North Extension pipeline to the west end of the Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo Creek section), a considerable body of information about the Dene Tha’ presence in the southeast section of the Komie North Extension project was recorded. This included reference to settlements, graves, spiritual sites (Ernest Chonkolay) and a Dene Tha’ trail about 20 km southeast of the south end of the proposed Komie North Extension that heads southwest from the north end of Kutcho Lake towards Ft. Nelson (R. Sutha and R. Yatchotay) (Fig. 2-5 in Calliou Group 2010). Although no other evidence of Dene Tha’ occupation within the 20 km “zone of influence” of the Komie North Extension project was reported by either cohort of land users, a contemporary Dene Tha’ cabin and sacred site (C. Chissakay, R. Metchooyeah, E.

24 Calliou Group (2010), Aboriginal Knowledge and Land Use Study, Dene Tha’ First Nation, TransCanada Horn River Mainline Pipeline Project, Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Supplemental Report.

Chonkoloay) (Fig. 2-6. in Calliou Group 2010) were reported to be within 10 km of the Horn River Mainline pipeline.

6.1.2 Field Investigations 2011 Even though no sites of Dene Tha’ occupation were identified during the 2011 TLUS interviews within 20 km of the Komie North Extension project, several locations along the proposed pipeline were targeted for field investigation as they demonstrated characteristics similar to other locations where Dene Tha’ cabins and campsites are known to occur, i.e., the junction of two or more water courses. Unfortunately, unfavourable landing conditions at most of these locations prevented on-the-ground investigation of these sites. Even so, a small field crew composed of Jean-Baptiste Talley, Robert Metchooyeah and Marc Stevenson was able to visit a cultural site previously found by happenstance by TCPL personnel along the proposed RoW near the headwaters of Dilly Creek. A demonic “human face” with raised eyebrows and slanted eyes carved into a large poplar tree initially drew attention to the site (Photo 1). Located within a stand of big timber (poplar and spruce), on high ground above an extensive network of beaver dams and ponds, this site was identified by Jean-Baptiste Talley as a spring beaver hunting camp (JBT). Further investigation of the site revealed the presence of beaver pelt drying racks (Photo 2), pots and pans (Photo 3), other axe-cut trees, and the remains of a clothing cache (canvas bag of clothes formerly suspended from the limb of a tree). While the age of the site was estimated to be around 50-60 years, the presence of nylon rope and the fact that people intended to return to the site (as evidenced in the cache of clothes and hanging pots and pans), suggested that the site may have been repeatedly occupied in more recent times.

The site is most likely an old Dene Spring beaver hunting camp associated with recurrent seasonal use of the area over the last half century. Whether this campsite was occupied by Dene Tha’ known to have hunted on the Estcho Plateau west of Kutcho Lake (e.g., Stephen Tsconchoke; A. Talley, P. Ahnassay, B. Martel [see Calliou Group 2010:8) or other Dene hunters from Ft. Nelson or Ft. Liard is not known at this time, but certainly worthy of further investigation. Also warranting further research is the meaning and symbolism associated with the “face in the tree”; anthropomorphic representations of human faces engraved in trees, while known to some Northwest Pacific Coast cultures, are extremely rare in interior Dene cultures.

This site requires immediate protection and stabilization (see Appendix A for further information). The fact that this site was found by chance in a remote location far from any discernible creek or water source, would suggest either incredible luck or the possibility that this type of site is not unique and there may be many more waiting to be discovered in Dene

Tha’ traditional territory. In the latter regard, we may expect to find similar spring beaver hunting camps in well-timbered, well-drained higher elevations surrounded by beaver ponds.

Photo 1. Jean-Baptiste Talley and “Face-in-tree” at spring beaver hunting camp on Komie North Extension pipeline RoW (Photo credit: Stevenson).

Photo 2. Beaver pelt stretching/drying racks at “Face-in-tree” spring beaver hunting camp on Komie North Extension RoW (Photo credit: Stevenson).

Photo 3. Pans hanging in tree at “Face-in-tree” spring beaver hunting camp on Komie North Extension RoW (Photo credit: Stevenson).

6.2. Dene Tha’ Traditional Land Use by Season 6.2.1 Winter Before the introduction of registered traplines in BC in 1930s, Dene Tha’ -- many of whom lived at a village on the south end of Kutcho Lake (AS) -- hunted and trapped on the Estcho Plateau north and west of Kutcho Lake. Trapping and hunting grounds were one and the same during this period, and Jimmy Seninatha recalls that he hunted in an area west of Kutcho Lake within 20 km of the proposed Komie North Extension pipeline (JS) (Map 10). After the introduction of registered traplines and abandonment of the Kutcho Lake settlement, James Metchooyeah hunted and trapped lynx in an area north of Kutcho Lake and south of the Petitot River (JaM), a portion of which falls within 20 km this project’s “zone of influence.”

Several Dene Tha’ hunters interviewed currently moose during the winter north and west of Kutcho Lake within 20 km of the start of Komie North Extension pipeline (AW, PC, FC) (Map 10).

6.2.2 Spring Stephen Tsonchoke hunts caribou in March on Estcho Plateau northwest of Kutcho Lake (ST), while Peter Chonkolay hunts beaver all around and west of Kutcho Lake, south of Cabin Lake (PC). Both types of hunting are conducted within 20 km of the south end of the proposed Komie North Extension pipeline (Map 10).

6.2.3 Summer Near the north end of the planned Komie North Extension pipeline, both Gerry Pastion and Fabian Chonokolay hunt moose during the summer from access roads off the Ft. Liard Highway (GP, FC) (Map 10). Fabian also hunts ducks at the same time (FC).

6.2.4 Late Summer/Early Fall None of the Dene Tha’ interviewed for this Study conducted traditional use activities during August and September within 20 km of the Komie North Extension pipeline.

6.2.5 Fall Within 20 km of the north end of the Komie North Extension pipeline, Stephen Tsconchoke hunts moose from roads and cutlines emanating from the Liard Highway (ST), while Fabian Chonkolay picks certain types of medicinal plants every year northwest of Kutcho Lake (FC) (Map 10).

Map 10.

6.3 2009 TLUS Information Dene Tha’ traditional land use in the vicinity of TCPL’s Horn River Mainline pipeline, which connects the southern end of the Komie North Extension to the western end of the Horn River Mainline Loop, was previously recorded by Calliou Group (2010). Although the Calliou Group TLUS report (2010) does not analyse Dene Tha’ traditional land use by season, it does differentiate it by time period. According to the Dene Tha’ elders and land users interviewed by the Calliou Group, historically the Dene Tha’ hunted (Betsy Martel, Peter Ahnassay, Lucy Fournier, Sylvester Seniantha), trapped (Lucy Fournier, Jean-Baptiste Talley, Sylvester Seniantha) and fished (Lucy Fournier, Sylvester Seniantha) the Estcho Plateau northwest of Kutcho Lake within 20 km of the proposed south end of the Komie North Extension pipeline (Calliou Group 2010). Current hunting practices on the Estcho Plateau by Peter Ahnassay and Sylvester Seniantha cross the proposed Komie North Extension pipeline (Calliou Group 2010), while Robert Metchooyeah currently fishes and gathers medicinal plants within this project’s “zone of influence” towards the south and east (Calliou Group 2010). In addition to Peter Ahnassay and Sylvester Seniantha, several Dene Tha’ hunters still hunt in this area, including Lorny Ahkimnachie and Joesf Martel (Table 2).

Table 2. 2009 TLUS references to Dene Tha’ land use and occupation in the vicinity TCPL’s proposed Komie North Extension (complied by DTFN Lands and Environment Dept.).

Interview Informant Theme Interview Note Area May 2009 (trip 2) Jean Baptiste Talley Trapping Father would just go South East half of wherever he pleased to Komie N section feed our family when there were no boundaries May 2009 (trip 2) Ernest Chonkolay Ceremonial This area contains both South East half of graves and spiritual sites Komie N section as there was many settlements in this area July 2009 Peter Ahnassay Hunting Hunts moose here; has South East half of observed changes in last Komie N section 4 years since oil and gas activity started July 2009 Lorny Ahkimnachie Hunting Hunts in the area South East half of Komie N section July 2009 Sylvester Seniantha Hunting Killed a Caribou here last South East half of year (2008) Komie N section June 2009 (camp) Josef Martel Hunting Hunting South East half of Komie N section

7.0 Dene Tha’ First Nation Concerns Regarding TCPL’s Proposed Pipelines in BC 7.1 General Environmental Impacts, Changes and Concerns

According to Albert Seniantha, cutlines first appeared in Dene Tha’ traditional territory around 1942 (AS), while Peter Chonkolay recalls that industry first came onto his trapping and hunting grounds in 1952 (PC). Seismic activity apparently began in Stephen Tsconchoke’s trapping area in 1960s, which was soon followed by forestry and logging operations (ST). Since then, the amount of industrial activity and linear disturbance on Dene Tha’ traditional lands has increased exponentially. Today, the environmental impacts of the logging and petroleum exploration/ development across Dene Tha’ traditional territory threaten not only the region’s wildlife, water and other renewable natural resources, but the ways of life of those people who depend on them. The following identifies the general environmental impacts and changes that the Dene Tha’ have witnessed and experienced as a result of industrial development on their traditional lands, after which Dene Tha’ concerns specific to the proposed Tanghe Creek (Sloat Creek section) and Hidden Lake North and Moody Creek compressor stations are presented.

According to Dene Tha’ interviewed for this study, there are far “too many roads, cutlines, pipelines and seismic lines” (JBT, CC) in Dene Tha’ territory. Jean-Baptiste Talley knows from experience that once a road or line is carved out of the forest, development will take place within 5 years (JBT). Most Dene Tha’ also have direct experiential knowledge that these linear features displace caribou (MP, SB, CC), moose (MP, MM, ST, HM, SB), and furbearers (JBT, PC, AK). Clear-cutting by the forestry industry further displaces moose, caribou and other animals (ST, MM, HM, EA) and, to Marcel Metchooyeah, produces even greater environmental impacts than the oil/gas industry (MM). At the same time, linear features also attract predators such as wolves (JBT, MP, SS, CC, AN) as well as human hunters (CC, HCJ).

As if these impacts (see below) were not sufficient cause for alarm, chemical pollution, noise pollution, air pollution (flaring/gas emissions), and pipeline, well-site and compressor station infrastructure contribute to the adverse environmental impacts produced by industry in Dene Tha’ traditional territory, All of these negatively impact game animals highly valued by the Dene Tha’ as well as water, birds and other species.

The use of herbicides to kill vegetation in the vicinity of pipelines, powerlines and other industrial installations is vehemently opposed by Dene Tha’ hunters and trappers (GP, JBJ, MM); “chemicals used to kill weeds goes into the ground and kills other plants and animals” (GP). At the same time, they remain concerned about the use of dangerous fluids (e.g., anti-freeze), and solvents getting into the ground around drilling and well sites (JBJ), and the noise that industrial

activities and installations produce, which are known to “spook” caribou (JBT, ST, GA, AK). Equally concerning are gas emissions and flaring from well sites (JaM, AK,). According to James Metchooyeah, “sour gas is killing off animals,” and there are “Danger” signs and “Poison Gas” warnings all over his trapping grounds in northwest Alberta/northeast BC (JaM). Pipelines have been observed to create sinkholes and rearrange water flows (JS), and if pipeline trenches are not back-filled properly, beavers will build dams against the abandoned berms (AN). Moreover, drainages (rivers and creeks) along pipelines are highly vulnerable to spills, especially if located in permafrost and muskeg areas (EdA). Pipelines also displace animals (AK, AN) – e.g., traps set along the edges of pipeline “right of ways” do not yield furbearers (AN) -- and the age of pipelines and their decommissioning and reclamation remains a concern (MM, DMS). As with roads, seismic lines and other types of linear disturbances, many Dene Tha’ land users feel that there are far too many pipelines, pump and well sites on their lands, and remain concerned about the effects of these installations on animals (JaM, JBJ, AB, VB). In particular, the use of solvents around drilling and well sites has been seen to leave white powder residues that attract moose (JBJ).

7.1.1 Impacts on Caribou Jean-Baptiste Talley once counted 34 caribou around his cabin – “now there are hardly any” (JBT). Other Dene Tha’ also state that caribou, once plentiful on their hunting and trapping grounds, have all been but extirpated (GA, PeM, HN, EK, WC, SS, DMJ, SB, MP, HCJ). For Eric Kolay, “the disappearance of caribou from his trapping area began in the 1980s, about the same time logging and seismic activity started, has been the biggest environmental change that he has seen” (EK), while Willie Chambaud, who “used to live off caribou from here (Meander) to Bischto Lake, now sees very few caribou tracks” (WC). According to Modest Pierre, caribou are not only fewer in number, they do not migrate much anymore as they are restricted to patches on the landscape and stay only in one place (MP). Fragmentation of the landbase has been so widespread that Edward Akazay characterizes his hunting and trapping territory as: “...patches here and there, and roads between the patches” (EdA).

The displacement of caribou is seen by some Dene Tha’ as directly attributable to the oil/gas industry as caribou, unlike moose, are apparently hyper-sensitive to noise and steadfastly avoid areas with too many activities (WC, GA). The decline in caribou numbers across much of Dene Tha’ traditional territory can be credited more to their displacement by industrial activity (e.g., Stanley Salopree believes that caribou have forced to the northeast portions of Dene Tha’ traditional territory), than to declining health (MP).

7.1.2 Impacts on Moose The moose population apparently began to decline throughout Dene Tha’ territory about 50-60 years ago (SS), around the same time industrial activities first started to impact the area. While moose are attracted to salt left on winter roads (SS), and new growth in areas that were clear-cut several years before, they also tend to avoid freshly clear-cut areas (HM, ST, SB). There has been a noticeable decline in moose around the Rainbow Lake area (MM) and west of Rainbow Lake in the vicinity of RFMA #88 (TD), as well as other areas (MP, PeM, DMJ). Consequently, “we have to travel farther” (DMJ). As Harry Metacat remarked, “clear-cutting displaces moose and other animals, chases them away. If they clear-cut the land, what’s in it for us? Where can we go?” (HM).

The overall displacement of moose in some areas has, at the same time, been met with an increase in wood bison as the dominant herbivore (VB, TD); on some RFMAs (e.g., #88) these animals have essentially replaced moose. While industrial disturbance and increased predation by natural and human predators (see below) may largely account for this phenomenon, the fact that Dene Tha’ no longer “burn for moose” (AS) may also be responsible:

“We used to burn, that’s why there is no trees throughout much of our traditional territory. Burned for moose. Controlled burning for food. Raspberry Hill is a remnant of this practice” (Albert Seniantha 2011).

The health of moose also appears to have deteriorated since industry arrived in the area. Dene Tha’ hunters now notice white spots on moose livers, stomachs and lungs, especially in the vicinity of power generating stations and well sites (JBJ). Others find foreign “jelly sacs” on moose bellies (FA), and remain concerned about moose are eating leaves and other vegetation coated in white powder around abandoned well sites (JBJ).

7.1.3 Impacts on Furbearers Clear-cutting not only displaces moose, but lynx, marten and other furbearing animals (JoM, ST, SB, MM, DMS). According to Sam Beaulieau, there is no moose, lynx or marten, and hardly any beaver, on his trapline after logging (SB). For Stephen Tsconchoke, clear-cutting has displaced moose as well as furbearers, because animals abandon their dens (ST). As a result he hardly sees any animals anymore in the fall on his trapline (ST). In Jimmy Seninatha’s experience, clear-cutting and silviculture activities destroy root systems and squirrel habitat (JS), thus displacing squirrels – “there are no cones for them” (MM) – and other furbearers such as martens (MM, TD). Traps set near pipelines no longer yield any furbearers (AN). Compared to when he trapped with Paul Chissakay on the Shekilie River, Alex Keena now sees very few animal tracks anymore, especially around pipelines (AK). And “seismic lines and cutlines are

just like fire” to James Metchooyeah; “they have the same effects of fire” (JaM). Many Dene Tha’ recognize a direct inverse correlation between the amount of industrial disturbance in an area and number of furbearers (TT, JaM, DMS, AN, JS, ST). Today, for example, there are very few muskrats around Duck Lake (Hay-Lakes complex), compared to when Adolphous Beaulieau used to get as many as 700 in one season (AB).

With the decline in fur trapping, beavers have begun to overpopulate the region; “there’s too many beaver ponds, (making it) hard to travel” (PeM), and “there’s just dead water everywhere” (EdA). At the same time, in the process of clearing for logging roads, pipelines, seismic lines, etc., waterfowl habitat and beaver dams are destroyed (SS, MM), the latter creating sloughs (MM).

7.1.4 Changes in Predator Populations The fact that roads, seismic lines, cutlines, powerlines, pipelines and other forms of linear disturbance throughout Dene Tha’ traditional territory has resulted in an increase in predators, such as wolves (JBT, MP, SS, CC, AN ), is indisputable. This, in turn, has lead to a decline in caribou and moose in certain areas (CC, MP). At the same time, wolf-human interaction is increasing as wolves are attracted to garbage and are getting habituated to humans (AN). Another predator that appears to have entered recently invaded Dene Tha’ lands are cougars; Fred Deedza apparently caught on his trapline (RFMA 186) last winter (FD).

The dramatic increase in linear disturbance throughout Dene Tha’ territory has also attracted more non-Dene Tha’ hunters, which has resulted fewer moose for Dene Tha’ families and waste. Charlie Chissakay sums this impact up succinctly in the following formula:

Too much access = too many hunters = too few moose + too much waste of hides and meat” (CC)

7.1.5 Impacts on Avifauna: Many Dene Tha’ interviewed have observed a declining trend on their traditional hunting and trapping grounds in song birds and concomitant increase in scavenger birds such as magpies and crows (AN, FD, MP, PC, SS, ST). “There used to be lots of songbirds, but you do not hear them anymore”(SS). According to Stephen Tsonchoke, there are “hardly any sparrows and robins today” compared to before, but “lots of magpies” (ST). Both magpies and crows are considered as competition for, and a major factor in displacing songbirds (AN, FD, SS). Another bird species that has disappeared from some Dene Tha’ hunting and trapping grounds are nighthawks (AS), which are listed as an endangered species in northern Alberta.

The hunting of geese and ducks was a seasonal highlight for many Dene Tha’, especially those living in the Habey/Chateh area. The Hay-Zama Lakes area was apparently so good for migratory waterfowl that people formerly came from Ft. Nelson to hunt them (JTB). However, snow, “wavys” or speckled/white-fronted geese —the primary waterfowl for Dene people (WC) -- are rarely found these days on Hay-Zama Lakes (AN, FD, JD, JTB, WB, SS). Some Dene Tha’ blame the oil/gas industry, and specifically operation of their well-sites on these lakes for driving these geese away (JTB, JD), while others suggest that an increase in air traffic around these lakes is responsible (SS). In any case, it appears that the flyway or migration route for geese that formerly nested on Hay-Zama lakes has shifted eastward (AN). Similarly, the diversity of ducks in the area has decreased; according to Frank Denechoan, there used to be lots of different kinds of ducks on Hay-Zama lakes, but there are only a few now. Apparently, thousands of ducks died 17-18 years ago when there were a lot of well sites on Hay-Zama lakes (JD). This may or may not be the same event that Baptiste Metchooyeah referred to when a form of avian botulism, which was “unheard of prior to oil/gas development,” killed an estimated tens of thousands of migratory waterfowl on Zama Lake in 2000.25

7.1.6 Impacts on Water There has been a noticeable drop in the water table throughout much of Dene Tha’ traditional territory over the last 50 years, which some Dene Tha’ attribute directly to industry (GA, ST). In some areas, “water goes into the ground too fast” (GA), in other areas “drainage systems have changed, and there’s lots of standing bodies of water that don’t drain” (ST). Furthermore, “ridges and hills are clear-cut, creating more runoff” (ST). According to Philip Martel, the water looks different now, “there’s a sheen on it” (PhM), and Edward Akazay no longer drinks water from the land as “it tastes differently” (EdA). Many Dene Tha’ feel that water from creeks and rivers is not safe or fit to drink anymore, and have resorted to buying and taking bottled water into the bush (HM, EA, GP, VB, HN, JoM). Vincent Bassa and Harry Natannah are exceptions, but only drink muskeg and creek water far removed from any industrial activity (VB, HN). The impacts of industry on local and regional water sources remains a major concern for most Dene Tha’, and people like Gerry Pastion feel that industry has yet to prove that its use of water is acceptable to Dene people (GP).

25 Baptiste Metchooyeah (2000). Letter to Tom Gogal, 23 August 2000 re: Botulism Cleanup of West Hay Lake and North Zama Lake Update. This letter states that: “the recent botulism cleanup of west Hay Lake and north Zama Lake reports 18,900 dead birds been picked up and who knows how many are still out there. This is approximately 20% of more than 100,000 migratory birds visit the Hay/Zama Complex area.”

7.1.7 Changes in Landscape and Climate It is certain that the multiple and cumulative impacts of the industrialization of Dene Tha’ traditional lands have displaced, and/or reduced in numbers, some species (moose, caribou, marten, songbirds, ducks/geese, etc.), and resulted the invasion of other species (wolves, buffalo, magpies and crows, etc.). However, alterations in traditional land use and climate patterns may also be compounding these impacts. Formerly, the Dene Tha’ used to conduct controlled burns of their traditional territories, particularly near rivers, to improve hunting and berry picking: “We used to burn, that’s why there is no trees throughout much of our traditional territory. Burned for moose. Controlled burning for food. Raspberry Hill is a remnant of this practice” (Albert Seniantha 2011).

However, since the forced abandonment of this traditional practice, extensive hay meadows have been replaced by bush and trees:

“There used to be hay meadows along Adair Creek, and good hunting, but now its just all bush” (WA)

“There used to be open areas around Habay, now there’s nothing but trees” (AB).

“Land is more dense than before, was more open before” (FA).

Other industry-induced changes to the landscape, in addition to those described above, include the recent abandonment by forest companies of windrows and piles of good timber left to rot on traplines (MM), and the excavation of gravel pits, which are tending to get larger and encroaching on prime fur trapping and berry picking areas (MM).

Climate change may be also be compounding the impacts of industrialization as “there is too much snow and rain in the winter, and summers have been cooler and wetter summer over the last 20 years “ (FD). According to David Martel Jr., there used to be “two feet of snow in October -- “now it doesn’t snow until December” -- and there is “more extreme weather presently than in the past” (DMJ).

7.1.8 Impacts on Traditional Trails and Landmarks As a result of clear-cutting, linear disturbance and other industry activities, many trails and landmarks used by Dene Tha’ to navigate their way through the bush have been destroyed (JBT, PC, BW, DW, AN, MM). As a consequence, “it is now easier to get lost” (MM). The destruction of traditional trails not only results in greater navigational confusion, but is a greater burden for traditional land users wishing to maintain trails (AN). Old wagon roads,

which used to all over (DMJ), are particularly susceptible to clear-cutting and seismic lines (PC, BW, DW, AN).

7.1.9 Impacts on Traditional Livelihood The individual, combined and cumulative impacts of industrialization of Dene Tha’ traditional lands have undermined significantly the ability of nation members to carry out traditional use activities on their lands and to carry out their responsibilities to “care for the land” for future generations. Beginning around 1975, animals began to disappear from Gabriel Akimnachie’s trapping grounds in northeast BC (GA). As a result, “very few people -- only four present day users -- hunt or trap there anymore” (GA). Extensive logging and clear-cutting operations now prevent Edward Akazay from using his trapline, which he characterizes as “patches here and there, with roads between the patches” (EdA). According to Stephen Tsconchoke, logging has displaced both animals and traditional land users from his trapline (ST). Vincent Bassa has not trapped since logging operations destroyed his trapline (RFMA 181) 8-10 years ago (VB) and the loss of animals on Jean-Baptiste Talley’s trapline has also significantly “reduced his livelihood” (JBT). Additionally, many Dene Tha’ are now having to travel further (PeM, DMJ), and spending more on gas – a significant factor in limiting hunting and traditional land use (EF) -- in search of moose and other game. Further, while many middle-aged and older trappers are still trapping, most younger Dene Tha’ are eschewing trapping for other jobs. (PC). Consequently, Modest Pierre feels that “there are not enough trappers now to speak up for the land and animals,” which, in turn, “makes it easier for industry to destroy Dene land and resources” (MP). Formerly, relations among and between Dene Tha’ headmen (registered trapline holders), were based on mutual respect and cooperation (PC). However, with the degradation of the environment and collapse of the fur economy, the role of headmen has diminished and become more regulatory (PC). According to Adolphous Beaulieu, “trapline holders have become very territorial, economics drive them” (AB).

The Dene Tha’ have reached a turning point in their history, where their very survival and connection to the land is at stake (SS). Yet, many have grown despondent and hold little hope for the future:

“Once the land is ruined, there’s no recovery or turning back to the way it was” (JoM).

“Industry is using regulatory processes to destroy Dene Tha’ lands” (JS).

“We don’t feel we are part of the land anymore” (HN).

“A lot is taken off the land, but nothing is given back to the land or us” (BW, DW).

“We can’t go back again (to the way things were), very hard to go back to where it was. We will become extinct” (HM).

“We are slowly disappearing. It’s hard to combine both ways of life” (JoM).

Dene Tha’ traditional ecological knowledge suggests that the “land can take of itself” (GP), but it also recognizes that “animals cannot speak for themselves” (GP), and that the Dene Tha’ have a duty and responsibility to “care for the land and animals.” Currently, this duty and responsibility is impossible to uphold. Yet, the very survival of the Dene Tha’, their culture and the lands upon which they depend, requires that this duty and responsibility to be exercised.

7.2 Specific Environmental Concerns

The Dene Tha’ have reached a crossroads whereby some tough decisions and sacrifices must be made in an effort to balance desired social, cultural, economic, and environmental objectives and to design a sustainable “blueprint” for the future. It is against this background of uncertainty, despondency, and on-going environmental degradation that TCPL has applied to install two compressor stations and ca. 365 km of pipeline on Dene Tha’ traditional territory.

7.2.1 Bases of Specific Concerns The following concerns about TCPL’s proposed pipelines and compressor stations were informed by, and/or based on:

 General concerns articulated above,  A pre-field meeting with Dene Tha’ land users on August 29, 2011,  Field visits to locations and sites of interest/concern on August 30 and 31, 2011  A post-field meeting with Dene Tha’ land users on Sept. 2, 2011, and  A joint meeting with DTFN Lands Dept. personnel, land users, TCPL and TERA Environmental Consultants on Sept. 13, 2011.

With the assistance of TCPL’s environmental consultant, TERA Environmental Consultants, Dene Tha’ land users were able to visit sites of interest and/or concern along, or in the vicinity of:

 the proposed Horn River Mainline Loop (Kyklo, Townsoitoi, and Little Hay River Sections)  the proposed Komie North Extension of the Horn River Mainline

With helicopter support provided by TERA, several locations were visited within in that were either along the RoW or within the 20 km “zones of influence” for the Horn River Mainline Loop and Komie North Extension pipelines. A fuller description of these locations, their cultural and

ecological significance, and the concerns that Dene Tha’ have about them, can be accessed in Appendix A.

7.2.2 Specific Concerns 7.2.2.1 Pipelines in Wetland Areas:  Too many pipelines in marshy/muskeg and oxbow areas (JBT, CC, Appendix A);  Trenching of pipelines causes too much erosion in wet areas (CC)  Pipelines are not properly placed or constructed in muskeg areas and wetlands (JBT, PhM)  Pipelines are not being dug deep enough; ‘big pipes’ in bogs and marshes eventually migrate to the surface (ST, MM, FC); seen instances where pipelines surfaces in bogs and leaked – could smell from long way off – recorded (ST)  Weights on pipelines are not heavy enough to keep them down (ST)  Pipelines are not being inspected regularly enough (ST)  Wildlife, beavers especially, are vulnerable along pipeline areas (AW)

7.2.2.2 Pipelines at River Crossings:  Not enough attention paid to protecting river crossings (AS)  Directional drilling and pipelines at river and creek crossings are not going deep enough (JBT, PC, AS, Appendix A)  Drilling disturbance, noise and equipment should be kept away from rivers and creeks, and line of sight blocks between river banks and drilling operations must be maintained (Appendix A)

7.2.2.3 Pipeline Clearing and Use after Decommissioning:  Removal of beavers in vicinity of proposed pipelines not being done properly or right time of year (AW, Baptiste Metchooyeah, Robert Chonkolay, JBT, MM)  The DTFN wants assurances that pipelines after decommissioning will not be used to transport fresh water out of Dene Tha’ traditional territory (DTFN Lands Dept.)

7.2.2.4 Pipeline Layout, Design and Infrastructure:  Pipeline risers (Xmas tress) leaking, which animals ingest (Appendix A)  Too many wolves associated with high visual corridor RoWs, results in over-predation (Appendix A)

7.2.2.5 Use of Chemicals:  Spraying of chemicals along pipeline RoW’s is killing animals and bio-accumulating in larger animals such as moose and buffalo (Ernest Chonkolay, MM, Appendix A)

7.2.2.6 Refuse Disposal:  Abandoned oil barrels left scattered and in piles across landscape attract bears (ST)  Companies leave garbage all over the place (FC)

7.2.2.7 Environmental Monitoring:  Not enough Dene Tha’ are involved in environmental monitoring (AW, CC, MM, BM, RC, JaM, FC)  Elders and youth not working together in monitoring roles or environmental studies (FC)  Water and wildlife not being monitored/tested throughout life of project (before, during, and after operation) (Robert Metchooyeah)

7.2.2.8 Traditional Sites and Protected Areas:  Traditional trails and medicine patches not marked (FC, JBT)  Old campsites and trials not protected for future generations (FC, Appendix A)

7.2.2.9 Current RoW’s and Buffer Zones:  buffer zones around lakes and rivers not large enough (FC)  RoW’s too large (Appendix A)

7.2.2.10 DTFN and Industry Relations:  DTFN and companies not working together enough (FC, JoM, JBT, AS, JaM)  Need to work better together to lessen impacts and protect land (JaM)  Not enough TCPL “brass” (high level executives) engaged with DTFN (GP)  TCPL places too much emphasis on dealing with trapline holders, many other Dene Tha’ hunters who are impacted by development are not consulted (GP)

7.2.2.11 Training and Employment:  Not enough Dene Tha’ working in oil patch (RM, JBT)  Not enough trapline holders hired as monitors (JaM)  Not enough DTFN ownership in pipeline industry (RM)  Not enough Dene Tha’ youth involved in environmental and land issues (RM, JoM)  Not enough DTFN youth being trained and employed patch (AS, JBT)  Not enough DTFM members employed to clear and maintain RoW’s or clean up garbage (Appendix A).

7.2.2.12 Lack of Knowledge:  Not enough information from companies about what’s going on; land users not informed (PC, FC)  DTFN Land Dept. personnel lack sufficient information (JoM)  Not enough information about why animals avoid pipelines and compressor stations (BM)  Not enough information about acceptable thresholds re: environmental impacts, linear disturbance, etc. (BM, MS)  No follow-up on studies (JBT)

7.2.2.13 Decline of Traditional Economy:  not enough Dene Tha’ trapping or out on land, need to maintain connection for future generations (JaM)  No viable economy based on traditional use (MM)

 Land base declining where Dene Tha’ can go to conduct traditional land use (Appendix A)

7.2.2.14 Failure to Uphold Responsibility:  Unable to exercise duty and responsibility to take care of the land and animals, responsibility has been taken away (FC)

7.2.2.15 Lack of DTFN Standards:  No DTFN certification standards in place to assist industry (FC)  Dene Tha’ not being hired to remove beavers the “right way” from proposed pipeline areas, draining water from area and letting beavers freeze to death, using dynamite to blow-up beaver dams, or ripping up dams with heavy equipment not the right way (Appendix A)

7.2.2.16 Changes in Wildlife Abundance and Behaviour:  loss of skunks (AS, Appendix A)  hunting behaviour of wolves had changed over time due to linear disturbances (Appendix A)  less diversity and numbers of songbirds (Appendix A)

8.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Recommendations to Address DTFN Concerns

As outlined in the Supreme Court decision in Delgamuukw,26 the goal of consultation is to “substantially address the concerns” of the affected Aboriginal group. The Dene Tha’ have many concerns that are specific to TCPL’s projects, but also more universal concerns with respect to industrial development generally on Dene Tha’ traditional lands. However, the working relationship between TCPL and Dene Tha’ is such that, we feel that many of these concerns -- specific and general -- can be “substantially addressed” together in a spirit of trust, cooperation and mutual respect. The task of “addressing” these concerns is a shared responsibility, although there are concerns whereby one party (Proponent, Regulator, First Nation) is primarily responsible, and must take the lead.

The following proposed mitigation measures and recommendations were developed during numerous interviews, discussions and meetings with Dene Tha’ hunters and trappers from June 28 to September 30, 2011. Recommendations for addressing both specific and general concerns of the Dene Tha’ raised in Section 7.0 of this report are forwarded in the spirit of cooperation and reconciliation. The rationale underlying the following recommendations are, for the most part, provided in the previous section (7.0). However, justification for, and

26 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010,

elaboration of, some proposed mitigation measures is warranted in this section, particularly those that are more general in nature and broader than project specific impacts.

8.1 Addressing Specific Concerns 8.1.1 Protecting Muskeg, Marsh and Wetland Areas  Avoid placing pipelines in muskeg, marsh and wetland areas.

 Ensure that trenching in muskeg, marsh and wetland areas is kept to a minimum.

 Ensure that pipelines in muskeg, marsh and wetland areas are dug deep enough so as not to threaten aquatic wildlife or water quality.

 Ensure that pipelines muskeg and wetlands in muskeg, marsh and wetland areas have sufficient weights to keep them from surfacing.

 Ensure that pipelines in muskeg, marsh and wetland areas are inspected regularly, and their impacts on local wildlife (e.g., beaver populations) continually assessed.

8.1.2 Protecting River and Major Stream Crossings  Avoid placing pipelines in Oxbow areas.

 Ensure that directional drilling at river crossings is deep enough.

 Ensure that dust, noise and heavy equipment operation is kept to a minimum around rivers and creeks, and is located as far away from river banks as possible.

 Ensure that line of sight blocks between river banks and drilling operations are maintained.

 Avoid and respect DTFN buffer zones/conservation zones around rivers and lakes, especially at river/stream intersections.

8.1.3 Pipeline Design, Clearing, Construction and Maintenance

 Ensure that removal of beavers in vicinity of proposed pipelines is done correctly and the right time of year using Dene Tha’ hunter/trappers.

 Ensure that width of pipeline RoWs are reduced to the smallest footprint as possible.

 Avoid creating new RoWs, by ensuring that existing RoW’s are utilized.

 Reduce “lines of sight” along existing RoWs by planting trees/vegetation where feasible.

 Reduce “line of sight” along new RoWs by incorporating “doglegs” into pipeline RoW layout.

 Eliminate spraying of chemicals during pipeline RoW clearing and maintenance.

8.1.4 Environmental Monitoring

 Monitor and test water and wildlife throughout life of projects in vicinity of pipelines and compressor stations (before, during, and after operation).

 Support Dene Tha’ capacity building in environmental monitoring, ensuring opportunities for elders and youth to work together during monitoring.

8.1.5 Protect Traditional Sites and High Conservation/Cultural Value Areas

 Ensure that areas that have a high potential for Dene Tha’ cultural and heritage sites that were identified, but not visited, during the field program are assessed and researched to the satisfaction of the DTFN (see Appendix A).

 Undertake further ethnographic research and site assessment at Dene Tha’ village site at Hay River-Kutcho River forks.

 Undertake further ethnographic research and site assessment at “Face-in-Tree” site on Komie North Extension pipeline RoW.

 Provide assistance to Dene Tha’ First Nation to GPS traditional trails and medicine patches.

 Avoid and respect DTFN buffers around high value conservation (medicine patches, moose licks, etc.) and cultural areas (settlements, cabins, grave sites, etc.).

 Ensure that all Dene Tha’ that current use or have a history of land use in the vicinity of the Komie North Extension are interviewed regarding their land use.

Note: During the traditional land use interviews and field site assessment flyovers conducted for this study, information became available about the geophysical characteristics of two types of commonly occupied Dene Tha’ sites: 1)settlement/village sites, and 2) spring beaver hunting camps. While the former appear to occur most frequently at the junction of rivers and creeks, the latter may be found on high ground, surrounded by big timber, and adjacent to ponds, lakes and rivers where beaver snares can be set beneath the ice. Dene Tha’ land users participating in the flyovers were unable to visit/assess several locations within direct footprint of TCPL’s proposed pipelines that met these specific site characteristics – time and the lack of unsuitable landing areas in close proximity to these locations being the major contributing factors. It is recommended that these locations be directly assessed by DTFN Lands Department personnel and key land users prior to pipeline design and clearing.

8.1.6 Improve DTFN and TCPL Relations  Provide more information to DTFN about land use plans, schedules, impact assessments, etc.

 Develop shared protocols and policies that would lessen industrial impacts to land.

 Develop shared consultation protocol that encompasses all land users within defined areas.

 Hire DTFN trapline holders/senior trappers as environmental monitors of trapping areas.

 Develop opportunities for DTFN Chief and Council to routinely engage/meet with high level executives.

 Hire and train more Dene Tha’, especially youth, in pipeline industry jobs.

 Promote DTFN ownership in pipeline industry.

 Involve and train Dene Tha’ youth involved in environmental and land issues

 Hire DTFM members to clear and maintain RoW’s, remove beavers from RoWs, cleanup garbage, monitor environment, conduct assessment and studies where capacity can be demonstrated.

8.1.7 Support Traditional Land Use

 Support and enhance Dene Tha’ traditional land use through hiring and training in environmental monitoring, assessment and stewardship.

 Provide opportunities for Dene Tha’ land users and youth to engage with each other in environmental monitoring, assessment and stewardship.

 Support DTFN to develop reclamation standards for Dene Tha’ traditional lands, and reclaim land to standards.

8.2 Addressing General Concerns 8.2.1 Research

The Dene Tha’ First Nation feels that it, government and industry lack sufficient knowledge to proceed with many types of development on Dene Tha’ traditional lands. At the same time, the DTFN Lands Department lacks information needed to adequately respond to industry, and to uphold its responsibility to “care for the land and animals” on behalf of the nation. Research is clearly needed to properly assess the individual, multiple and cumulative impacts of development on its members land use, and to work with industrial partners to mitigate these impacts. At the same time, cumulative impacts from many developments has and continue to adversely impact lands and animals that the Dene Tha’ depend on – a situation that appears not to be on the “radar” of either government or industry.