Blueberry River First Nations

INITIAL SCOPING AND COMMUNITY PROFILE Final Report FOR THE PROPOSED WYNDWOOD PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT

Rachel Olson PhD, and Firelight Research Inc. with Blueberry River First Nations

April 24, 2017

Final Report / April 24, 2017

Prepared and authored by:

Dr. Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. with Blueberry River First Nations

On behalf of:

Blueberry River First Nations

Submitted to:

Norma Pyle, Blueberry River First Nations

Thanks and acknowledgements go to Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) members, elders, knowledge holders, land users, staff, and leadership who contributed. This Report could not have been completed without their support and expert knowledge. The following project team was involved in collecting, analysing and writing this report.

• Principle Investigator: Dr. Rachel Olson • Project Manager: Steve DeRoy • Researchers: Andrew Thompson, Boyd Barrett and Charlotte Moores • Mapping and GIS: Andrew Thompson

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this Report is based on research conducted by Firelight Research Inc., as well as published works and archival research. It reflects the understandings of the lead authors and is not intended to be a complete depiction of the dynamic and living system of use and knowledge maintained by BRFN members. It may be updated, refined, or changed as new information becomes available. All mapped information is based on interviews with BRFN knowledge holders conducted within constraints of time, budget, and scope. Base map data originate from the National Topographic System and Natural Resources Canada. The information contained herein should not be construed as to define, limit, or otherwise constrain the Aboriginal or Treaty rights of BRFN or any other First Nations or Aboriginal peoples.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents ...... 2 List of figures ...... 4 List of tables ...... 4 Acronyms and abbreviations ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Overview ...... 6 1.2 Limitations ...... 7 2. Background ...... 7 2.1 Blueberry River First Nations ...... 7 2.1.1 Overview ...... 7 2.1.2 BRFN traditional land use and economy ...... 8 2.2 The history of cumulative effects on BRFN subsistence and culture ...... 10 2.2.1 The early fur trading era ...... 10 2.2.2 Treaty 8 ...... 10 2.2.3 Early to mid-1900s ...... 10 2.2.4 1950s onwards ...... 11 2.2.5 BRFN today (2017) ...... 11 3. Cumulative impacts facing BRFN today ...... 11 3.1 Existing cumulative impacts on BRFN territory ...... 11 3.1.1 Cumulative impacts today (2017) ...... 11 3.2 BRFN experience with cumulative impacts ...... 14 3.2.1 Land disturbance ...... 15 3.2.2 Decreased access to the land ...... 17 3.2.3 Decreased connection to the land ...... 18 3.3 Socio-economic impacts ...... 21 3.3.1 Education ...... 21 3.4 Language use ...... 22 3.5 Health and social services ...... 23 3.6 BRFN traditional use of the proposed Wyndwood Pipeline Expansion Project General Supply Area ...... 23 4. Conclusion ...... 26

4.1 Summary ...... 26 4.2 Gaps and further research needs ...... 26 4.3 Closure ...... 27 Citations ...... 28 Interview citations ...... 31 Appendix 1 ...... 33

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: BLUEBERRY RIVER FIRST NATIONS TRADITIONAL TERRITORY ...... 9

FIGURE 2: OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY IN BRFN TERRITORY ...... 13

FIGURE 3: FORESTRY AND OTHER INDUSTRIES IN BRFN TRADITIONAL TERRITORY ...... 14

FIGURE 4: EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISON, 2006 TO 2011 (STATISTICS CANADA, 2013) ...... 21

FIGURE 5: POST-SECONDARY QUALIFICATIONS, 1996 TO 2011 (STATISTICS CANADA, 2013) ... 22

FIGURE 6: POPULATION WITH ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE MOTHER TONGUE (STATISTICS CANADA, 2013) ...... 22

FIGURE 7: BRFN TLU VALUES IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED WYNDWOOD PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT GENERAL SUPPLY AREA ...... 25

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: BRFN SITE-SPECIFIC USE VALUES WITHIN THE GENERAL SUPPLY AREA ...... 24

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Alberta

BC British Columbia

BRFN Blueberry River First Nations

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

CIA Cumulative Impacts Assessment

CV Curriculum Vitae

EA Environmental assessment

EAO Environmental Assessment Office

FSR Forest Service Road

Firelight Group Firelight Research Inc.

GIS Geographic Information System

GSA General Supply Area ha Hectare km Kilometre(s) kPa Kilopascal(s)

M Metre n.d. No Date

NEB National Energy Board

PhD Doctor of Philosophy the Project The Wyndwood Pipeline Expansion Project the Proponent Westcoast Energy Inc., doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission

ROW(s) Right-of-Way(s)

VC(s) Valued Component(s)

1. INTRODUCTION

Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) are experiencing cumulative industrial impacts on their lands. This report aims to use incidental BRFN traditional knowledge, gathered for geographically distinct projects, to provide a preliminary profile to inform the scoping of an assessment of impacts of the proposed Wyndwood Pipeline Expansion Project (the Project). This report is intended to provide information for the scoping of appropriate Valued Components (VCs) for a full assessment of Project impacts, along with an initial profile of Blueberry use and values.

Because of the continuously shifting current use (a result of ongoing industrial disturbance and alienation in Blueberry’s territory) and the fact that the incidental information presented in this report does not consider the extent to which lands and resources impacted by the proposed Project are no longer useable, a comprehensive study of traditional land use is required in order to determine the current status of BRFN traditional land use to inform an assessment of Project impacts on BRFN. Due to time and capacity constraints imposed by the National Energy Board process for the Project this was not feasible.

BRFN members have in-depth traditional knowledge of the environment, its waters, plants and animals, and human environmental interactions. This knowledge is also informed by many decades of observing how industrial development has changed the environment in northeastern BC, and how these changes to the environment have also impacted BRFN members’ ability to practice their Treaty Rights. This long-term observation has shown BRFN that the cumulative weight of an ever-intensifying network of industrial impacts of varying sizes have devastating impacts. Forest cover and wetlands are diminishing, and traffic, noise, pollution, and overhunting are increasing. Animal and plant species are in decline, and fences, fields, urbanization and access restrictions prevent BRFN members from practicing their rights throughout their territory. This impacts Blueberry’s way of life, including their culture and traditional economy. It is within this context that impacts of the proposed Project must be considered.

1.1 OVERVIEW

Firelight Research Inc. (Firelight or Firelight Group) is pleased to provide this report (the Report) to Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN). The Report describes BRFN’s history, and provides an initial baseline profile in relation to the proposed Project.

This Report is organized into 4 sections:

• Section 1 presents a brief introduction and Report limitations; • Section 2 background information from a literature review regarding BRFN and cumulative industrial and other impacts in their territory; • Section 3 presents a discussion of ongoing cumulative impacts on BRFN treaty rights and socio-economic indicators, maps showing BRFN alienation from their traditional territory, and an overview of reported BRFN TLU data within the Project General Supply Area; and 6

• Section 4 presents the conclusion, gaps and further research needs.

1.2 LIMITATIONS

The data presented in this Report has a number of limitations. This Report relies on incidental data collected during previous interviews with BRFN members. No interviews were conducted for this Report.

Given these limitations, this Report can be taken to represent only a small portion of total BRFN use and knowledge. It is therefore especially important to note that absence of data does not suggest absence of use or value, nor does the presence of a use mean that that use or associated knowledge is ongoing or still possible today.

This Report is not a replacement for Project specific studies that may be required, such as studies or assessments based on socio-economics, cultural impacts, diet, health and wellbeing, Indigenous rights, governance, or planning and policy.

This Report is based on the understandings and analyses of the authors and is not intended as a complete depiction of the dynamic way of life and living system of use and knowledge maintained by BRFN members.

All data included in this Report is the property of the BRFN, and may not be used or reproduced outside the Project regulatory process without the written consent of the BRFN.

Nothing in this Report should be construed as to waive, reduce, or otherwise constrain BRFN rights within, or outside of, regulatory processes. Nor should this Report be construed as to define, limit, or otherwise constrain the Aboriginal or Treaty rights of other First Nations or Aboriginal peoples. It should not be relied upon to inform other projects or initiatives without the written consent of the BRFN.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 BLUEBERRY RIVER FIRST NATIONS

2.1.1 Overview

BRFN is one of four Dane-zaa (or Beaver) communities of the Peace River area in northeast British Columbia (Virtual Museum Canada 2007). Dane-zaa communities speak Dane-zaa Záágéʔ (also known as the Beaver Language), an Athapaskan language. BRFN also includes a number of Cree speakers. BRFN has more than 450 registered members (AANDC 2017). The primary BRFN Indian Reserve (IR No. 205) is located at Blueberry River, approximately 80 km northwest of Fort St. John, BC. A second, currently uninhabited BRFN Indian Reserve (IR No. 204) is located at the confluence of the Blueberry and Beatton rivers. Formerly, BFRN was part of the Fort St. John Band, however in 1977 the band was split into Blueberry River and Doig River First Nations (DRFN) (Ridington and Ridington 2013). Figure 1 depicts BRFN traditional territory. 7

2.1.2 BRFN traditional land use and economy

Dane-zaa people have been living in the northeast of British Columbia and the northwest of Alberta for millennia. Dane-zaa oral history describes events and people in the area long before the arrival of white explorers. Archaeological evidence from the Charlie Lake caves shows that people occupied the area from at least 10,500 years ago, hunting bison and other game (Ridington and Ridington 2013). Dane-zaa ancestors actively managed the landscape, performing controlled burning around the Peace River to maintain the prairie habitat for the bison herds (Ridington and Ridington 2013).

Dane-zaa ancestors travelled seasonally around the Peace River country from the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta plains (Virtual Museum Canada 2007). This pattern of land use continued well into the 20th century (Ridington 1980). From early contact in the late 1800s to 1942 when the Alaska Highway opened, BRFN ancestors continued to subsist mainly on hunting and trapping, though during the 19th century trade increased for food products such as flour, sugar, tea, rice, and potatoes (Ridington 1990). Bison was a key staple for the Dane-zaa prior to the 1900s but overhunting caused by an influx of trappers and traders in the region caused a sharp decrease in their numbers (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011). As bison effectively became extirpated, the Dane-zaa people were forced to replace bison with moose and woodland caribou where available, as dietary and cultural staples (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011).

Prior to the mid-1950s many Dane-zaa continued to live a semi-nomadic lifestyle in which they hunted, gathered, and socialized with other Dane-zaa, much as their ancestors had done for millennia. Subsistence resources were at times severely diminished in the region, but Dane-zaa continued to hunt large and small game animals, trap, fish, and pick berries (Brody 1981).

By the late 1970s, BRFN land use had already been impacted by changes to the landscape and increased encroachment and regulation by government, agriculture and industry. Brody (1981) mapped BRFN members’ land use during the autumn and winter of 1978-79, with members reporting that they hunted, fished, trapped, picked berries, and camped. This mapped land was therefore only a fragment of BRFN’s traditional land use patterns, which were far more extensive.

Despite huge changes to their traditional territory and consequent reductions in subsistence resources, BRFN members continue to actively pursue hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and other related traditional activities, including traveling the land, teaching others, cultural gatherings, and ceremonies to the extent that these practices remain possible. The land and animals also remain the foundation of their way of life, culture, and identity (MacDonald and Candler 2014). BRFN members hunt and consume a broad range of animals, particularly moose but also elk and deer, among others. Caribou were previously important for BRFN use, but populations are currently at critically low numbers in the area and subject to a self-imposed harvesting moratorium.

Figure 1: Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory

2.2 THE HISTORY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON BRFN SUBSISTENCE AND CULTURE

2.2.1 The early fur trading era

In 1794, the Northwest Company established Rocky Mountain Fort on BRFN’s traditional lands. Intensive use of the area’s resources encouraged by the trading post, and amplified by increasing numbers of white hunters and trappers proved unsustainable for the region. Rocky Mountain Fort closed after just 12 years due to declines in both furbearers and bison (Brody 1981). Bison were brought to near extirpation, which led the Dane-zaa to turn increasingly to moose as a primary food source (Ridington and Ridington 2013).

2.2.2 Treaty 8

The Fort St. John Indian Band, to which BRFN then belonged, signed Treaty 8 in 1900, (Brody 1981; Virtual Museum Canada 2007). In the treaty, the Crown solemnly promises (R v. Badger, [1996] 1 SCR 771), BRFN the right to continue their traditional way of life within their territory and to practice their treaty rights throughout the Treaty 8 area. These rights have been recognized and affirmed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

2.2.3 Early to mid-1900s

In the late 1800s, the Peace Region was recognized as having huge potential for mining and agriculture. An onset of agricultural settlement in the Peace occurred in the early 1900s, with the opening of the Peace River Block to homesteaders between 1907 and 1912 (BC Hydro 2012).

The increased pressure on natural resources in the region due to an influx of non- Aboriginal trappers led to the establishment of a Provincial trapline registration system in 1912, and in 1926 trapline boundaries were surveyed (UBCIC 2005). The Crown largely failed to register traplines to BRFN members, negatively impacting on Dane-zaa subsistence and trade economies by limiting the areas that they could use for their way of life, and by creating conflict between First Nations and non-Aboriginals, (BC Hydro 2012). Dane-zaa traplines were often sold at a pittance, in desperation due to pressures on natural resources or without knowledge of their true value (Firelight Group and Treaty 8 FNCAT 2012).

In the 1940s, new transportation links brought more non-Aboriginal settlers into the area, increasing land privatization and conversion to agriculture. This centralized First Nations people into smaller and smaller areas.

With the return of World War II veterans to Canada, the Fort St John Indian Band was pressured to give up the Montney Reserve lands, which were formally surrendered in 1945 (ICC 2006). In 1948, IR 172 was sold for $70,000 to the Director of the Veterans’ Land Act (DVLA) for use as farmland for returning war veterans. In 1950, a portion of the revenue from the sale was used to purchase three small replacement reserves. Fort St. John Indian Band split into the Blueberry River and Doig River First Nations, and moved

to the replacement reserves (Treaty 8 FNCAT 2012; ICC 2006; Ridington and Ridington 2013).

2.2.4 1950s onwards

Between the 1950s and 1970s, aided by the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway (now known as the British Columbia Railway), forestry became a major industry in the Peace Region. In 1968, the Peace River Canyon was dammed by the construction of the WAC Bennett Dam, creating Williston Reservoir, which flooded large tracts of BRFN lands (BC Hydro 2012). Northeastern BC soon became a center for coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro-electricity production.

In 1976, oil and gas was discovered on the former IR 172 Montney Reserve. In 1978 the Fort St. John Indian Band filed an action against Canada for having breached its fiduciary duty, as well as claiming damages over the transfer of the mineral rights in Fort St. John Indian Band territory (ICC 2006). In 1998 the Federal government settled the damages with BRFN and DRFN for $147 million for lost oil and gas revenues.

On July 16, 1979, a sour gas well just outside of the BRFN reserve boundary developed a major leak, resulting in a cloud of poison gas rolling into the village. Every house was successfully evacuated, although some members experienced adverse effects from acute exposure to the gas during their escape. Since the well’s construction in 1976, BRFN had complained to multiple government bodies, but no action had been taken. The community relocated following the incident.

2.2.5 BRFN today (2017)

Ongoing expansion of the resource extraction industry, combined with increased non- Aboriginal settlement to the Peace Region has contributed to further alienation of BRFN from their land. Despite these changes, BRFN members continue to try to practice their treaty rights and way of life to the extent possible. However industrial development has displaced Blueberry members from areas in which they traditionally practiced their treaty rights.

Traditional use studies indicate that Blueberry members continue to place a high value on country foods, but that it is increasingly difficult for BRFN members to meet their subsistence needs from the land given cumulative industrial impacts in the region, as is explained further below (Bouchard and Kennedy 2011; Gibson and the Firelight Group 2014; Olson and DeRoy 2013).

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FACING BRFN TODAY

3.1 EXISTING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BRFN TERRITORY

3.1.1 Cumulative impacts today (2017)

Over the past several decades, the region that encompasses BRFN’s territory has been subject to unprecedented levels of industrial and agricultural activities. The speed and

scale of industrial development, especially hydrocarbon development, has affected BRFN’s traditional mode of life, including BRFN’s ability to maintain the sustainability of their traditional lands to sufficiently ground a cultural connection to their territory. Figures 2 and 3 depict many, but not all of the industrial disturbances within BRFN’s traditional territory.

New unconventional shale deposits in the Montney Play Trend have driven more recent growth in the oil and gas industry, from the mid-2000s onwards. As a result of this rapid expansion in oil and gas activity, in addition to the widespread landscape changes that went before it described above, the amount of undisturbed land available for BRFN use and occupancy has been reduced to a small fraction of what was previously used (Lee and Hanneman 2012; Salmo Consulting et al. 2003; MSES 2012; MacDonald and Candler 2014). Analyses of environmental and land use change were published in 2003 and 2012 for Treaty 8, indicating exceptionally high levels of land conversion to agricultural and industrial uses (Lee and Hanneman 2012; Salmo Consulting et al. 2003). These analyses have now been updated for BRFN’s traditional territory (David Suzuki Foundation, 2016). This 2016 analysis shows that:

• 73% of the area inside Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory is within 250 metres of an industrial disturbance, and 84% is within 500 metres of an industrial disturbance; • Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory has less than 14% intact forest landscape remaining; • Including roads, transmission lines, seismic lines and pipelines, there are 110,300 km of linear features in 38,327 km2 of territory – or 2.88 km of linear disturbance per square kilometer. Significant portions of the territory have a linear disturbance density that is much higher (ranging from 6.1 to 12 km per km2) with other areas spiking over 24 km per km2; • Active petroleum and natural gas tenures cover 69% of Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory; • Of the 19,974 oil and gas wells in Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory, 36% are active. There are 9,435 oil and gas facilities, primarily test facilities (6,210) and battery sites (1,120); • Agricultural lands comprise 13% of Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory. Privately owned land now makes up 20% of the First Nation’s traditional territory; and • Two hydro dams, WAC Bennett and Peace Canyon, lie within Blueberry River First Nations traditional territory, and construction on a third dam, Site C, is now underway. BC Hydro has identified 104 potential run-of-the-river developments in the First Nation’s traditional territory.

The expansion in oil and gas activity is likely to continue, and the provincial LNG Strategy will induce further development in BRFN territory. According to research by Hughes (2014), National Energy Board approvals for 14.6 billion cubic feet per day of LNG exports would require “drilling nearly 50,000 new wells in the next 27 years (double the approximately 25,000 wells drilled in BC since the 1950s)”. Hughes (2014) calculates that this is equivalent to 3,000 new wells per year and another 2,000 per year to maintain production, requiring water consumption in amounts that exceed that of the

City of Calgary. Ongoing and planned oil and gas, forestry, and ancillary activities are contributing to extensive cumulative effects within BRFN territory.

Figure 2: Oil and gas activity in BRFN territory

Figure 3: Forestry and other industries in BRFN traditional territory

3.2 BRFN EXPERIENCE WITH CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

BRFN knowledge holders confirm the findings of the studies noted above regarding the extent of development throughout their territory. This is particularly noticeable in the

Beatton River watershed and other heavily developed areas, where BRFN treaty rights can no longer effectively be exercised due to the high level of cumulative disturbance to the land and waters. BRFN members experience cumulative impacts from development throughout their territory in a number of ways, including but certainly not limited to:

• disturbance to the land; • decreased access to the land; and • decreased connection to the land.

BRFN members expressed anxiety about the survival of future generations as they are unsure how, or if, today’s children will be able to live off the land or remain connected to their culture. BRFN members are determined to maintain their cultural practices even in the face of the many changes they have seen in recent decades. Passing on their way of life to future generations is of the utmost importance.

3.2.1 Land disturbance

Land disturbance within BRFN territory has been caused by a number of factors, including anthropogenic land use change, habitat degradation and fragmentation, as well as an increase in human presence and traffic in the area. Recent interviews with BRFN members reveal that their ability to harvest game, plants, and medicines has declined in recent years, due to cumulative impacts decreasing the quality of environment within BRFN territory.

Many BRFN knowledge holders expressed deep concern about their food security when unable to harvest enough for their families’ needs.

BRFN participants report that the conversation of forest to farmland, and access restrictions associated with private lands and fences, are some of the biggest factors impacting harvesting success in the vicinity of the BRFN reserve.

Land clearing associated with industry has reduced the availability and the health of plants, animals, as well as mineral licks, which are vital to sustaining healthy animal populations.

BRFN members noted that BRFN territory is increasingly disturbed, due to the expanding network of pipelines, wells, roads, and other linear disturbances associated with industry. This has increased access to the territory for non-Aboriginal hunters, and opened up new areas for industrial and human traffic, and resulted in more garbage and noise throughout the territory. BRFN members felt a sense of grief in seeing the land so degraded.

BRFN members note that changes to the weather and reduced water levels in creeks and rivers are also compounding industrial impacts on the environment, while industrial development is itself one cause of reduced water levels.

Contamination of water, plants, and animals is a major concern for BRFN members. As already discussed, the quantities of plants and animals available for subsistence use has declined markedly in BRFN’s territory. Contamination also causes the quality of remaining resources to decline. BRFN members report that water, game animals, fish, and plants have all become contaminated due to industrial activity and traffic, leaks of industrial chemicals, the release of mercury in waterways, herbicide and pesticide spraying.

BRFN members fear that consumption of country food may not be healthy for them. This is particularly important for medicine plants, as their efficacy is reliant upon them growing in clean, undisturbed places. This fear and uncertainty can therefore cause loss of use of resources over wide areas.

3.2.2 Decreased access to the land

Land use changes have forced BRFN members to travel further in order to practice their treaty rights. BRFN members used to be able to hunt, trap, and gather plants and drink water in the areas immediately surrounding their reserve. More recently, BRFN members report that they often have to travel into the mountains to the west of the BRFN reserve in order to make successful animal kills, and collect healthy plants, and water. This is particularly the case for medicine plants, as clean undisturbed environments are important for their efficacy and uses. As a result, the area around Pink Mountain is of increased importance:

It should be noted however that BRFN members report that, more recently, the mountains are also beginning to be impacted by industrial development, with resulting declines in the quantities and quality of the animals and plants that can be found there.

Many members expressed concern about the cost of going further out to hunt, noting that fuel and vehicle upkeep costs are prohibitive, and that hunting now takes longer than in the past. Overhunting, increased predation, and reduced water levels interact with industrial impacts to further increase the difficulty for BRFN members to access suitable land for hunting, gathering plants, and camping.

Overhunting places significant pressure on game species in the few relatively intact habitat areas that remain in the region. Increases in the road network, and in the network of other linear features such as pipeline right-of-ways, transmission lines, and seismic lines, allow non-Aboriginal hunters access to increasingly large areas of habitat.

BRFN members report that increasing numbers of predators, particularly wolves, are also impacting large game populations. This has further increased the duration, cost of hunting for BRFN members.

Younger BRFN members also reported the dramatic changes they have seen on the landscape in their lifetimes. They, like their elders, are concerned that they will lose the ability to not only live their cultural practices and traditions but also pass them along to younger generations.

3.2.3 Decreased connection to the land

BRFN members are increasingly alienated from the land, and unable to exercise their traditional mode of life in many parts of the territory. BRFN members, from all generations, expressed detailed knowledge and great concern about the changes to the land, waters, and the Dane-zaa way of life. Cumulative impacts to BRFN territory have resulted in the desecration of spiritual places and a loss of connection to the land, which is magnified by a persistent fear of industrial catastrophe. These impacts, and the ongoing of industrialization of the landscape prevent BRFN from fully enjoying and practicing their treaty rights.

BRFN knowledge holders highlighted the immense importance subsistence harvesting and continued access hold for their cultural continuity. Members reported that learning what it means to a BRFN member comes in part through by being on the land – hunting, camping, gathering berries, processing animals, observing and listening to Elders. Language is often taught to younger generations while members are out on the land.

The BRFN worldview is deeply connected to the land. Many members describe being on the land as a spiritual practice and experience, one that is essential to their well being.

Overall, BRFN members note that their spiritual connection to the land and their knowledge of it are at risk as the landscape changes.

Some specific sites have particular cultural significance, and have particular sets of knowledge and experience tied to them. Loss of these places, either permanently or over a long period of time, frequently results in a gap in the transmission of place-based knowledge. Further, it eliminates the site as a cultural resource for remembering, teaching, and learning the knowledge and cultural practices with which it is associated. Ceremonial sites, community gathering places, and burial sites are particularly important examples of such sites. While they may not be threatened with direct destruction, their attractiveness and as cultural sites may decline due to changes in the surrounding area.

The importance of the connection between BRFN culture and the land cannot be overstated. The link between cultural loss and social dysfunction for the Dane-zaa people has long been known (e.g., Brody 1981). The academic literature illustrates that low cultural continuity and self-determination are linked to mental health, resiliency and risk of addictions and suicide (e.g., Chandler and Lalonde 2007; Kirmayer et al. 2007; Loppie-Reading and Wien 2009; and McCormick 1994, 1997, 2000). For BRFN, the connection to the land is intrinsic to language, cultural practices and teaching, family and community cohesion (Gibson 2014). This is combined with physical health impacts

of changes to the land including both lower physical activity and the risk of contaminants.

BRFN members emphasized that individual industrial developments cannot be considered in isolation. It is the cumulative weight of a huge nu