21. ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate (the Application) assesses the potential adverse effects of the Project on Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests. The Kemess Underground Project (the Project) has the potential to affect Aboriginal and treaty rights where it interferes with the ability of Aboriginal groups to engage in practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to their distinctive cultures and/or by interfering with the exercise of rights. Project components and activities that give rise to new surface disturbance, adverse environmental and socio-economic effects, sensory disturbance, and interfere with access to harvesting and cultural use areas have the greatest potential to interfere with the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

This chapter is intended to assist the Crown discharge its legal and constitutional duty to determine whether the Project will adversely affect Aboriginal and treaty rights and whether consultation, including accommodation, is adequate. The assessment is not intended to determine whether Aboriginal rights exist, or whether such rights have been infringed from a legal perspective. The assessment adopts a conservative approach by assuming that rights exist where asserted or reasonably expected, and assesses the extent to which the Project potentially limits their exercise.

In accordance with the order under Section 11 of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (2002), issued for the Project on May 14, 2014, and the order under Section 13 of the Act (amending the order under Section 11) issued on June 23, 2014, Aboriginal groups considered in this assessment include:

• Takla Lake First Nation (TLFN); • Tsay Key Dene Nation (TKDN); • Kwadacha Nation (KwN); • Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap (GWNK); • Doig River First Nation (DRFN); • Halfway River First Nation (HRFN); • Prophet River First Nation (PRFN); • Saulteau First Nations (SFN); • West Moberly First Nations (WMFN); • Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN); • Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN); • McLeod Lake Indian Band (MLIB); and • Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-1 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

TLFN, TKDN, and KwN are identified in Schedule B of the Section 11 and 13 Orders. These First Nations have a common Tse’khene heritage and are jointly represented by the Tse Keh Nay (TKN) alliance. WMFN, SFN, MLIB, BRFN, DRFN, FNFN, HRFN, and PRFN are signatories to Treaty 8. Métis who potentially have interests in the Project area are represented by Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC). The location of the Project in relation to the above Aboriginal groups and the disputed western boundary of Treaty 81 is identified in Figure 21.1-1.

The chapter follows the assessment methodology outlined in Chapter 8 (Effects Assessment Methodology) and is organized as follows:

• Section 21.2 provides an overview of the legal, constitutional, and policy framework guiding the assessment;

• Section 21.3 presents background information on each Aboriginal group, including its traditional territory, ethnography, land use setting, governance, economy, and reserves;

• Section 21.4 summarizes AuRico’s engagement activities with each Aboriginal group, including key issues raised by Aboriginal groups and actions taken by AuRico to address the issues;

• Section 21.5 outlines the scope of the assessment;

• Section 21.6 identifies current Aboriginal uses in the vicinity of the Project and asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to the Project;

• Section 21.7 identifies potential Project effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights considered in the assessment and proposed mitigation measures;

• Section 21.8 defines residual effects assessment criteria and identifies residual effects for each Aboriginal group; and

• Section 21.9 describes potential effects on other Aboriginal interests with respect to potential environmental, economic, health, social and heritage effects (i.e., interests which are not necessarily elements of traditional activities).

1 The Canadian federal and BC governments dispute the western boundary of Treaty 8. Canada alleges the western boundary is the Arctic/Pacific watershed and BC takes the position that the western boundary is to the east, along the central range of the Rocky Mountains. This matter is before the BC Supreme Court. The Project is located within the disputed area.

21-2 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 Figure 21.1-1 Location of the Project in relation to Aboriginal Groups and Treaty 8 Disputed Boundary

128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

First Nation Highway !. Community/Settlement Forest Service Road Provincial Treaty 8 Railway NorthwestBoundary 1Territories ± Yukon Kemess Underground 60°0'0"N Federal Treaty 8 ^_ Project Boundary in BC1 Omineca Resource Treaty 8 Disputed Area1 Access Road 60°0'0"N

1 Source: DataBC 2015 1:3,500,000 0 50 100

Date: January 08, 2016 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Kilometres ¤£97 Fort Nelson First Nation

Prophet River First Nation B r

i A

t 58°0'0"N

i s l b

h e

C r

t

o a

l u 58°0'0"N m

b

i a Kwadacha Nation Kemess Underground Project Blueberry River Doig River ^_ First Nations First Nation Tsay Keh Dene Nation Halfway River First Nation Fort St. John Black Pine !. !. Williston Saulteau

West Moberly 56°0'0"N First Nations Lake First Nations 56°0'0"N

Gitxsan Takla Lake Nation First Nation Mackenzie !. ¤£97 Takla Lake McLeod Lake Indian Band ¤£16 Babine Smithers Lake !. Stuart Lake !. Fort St. James

!. Burns Lake Contains information licensed under 54°0'0"N the Open Government Licence – Prince British Columbia and Canada. François Lake !. !.Copyright:© 2014 Esri ¤£16 George 54°0'0"N 128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-084 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.2 LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

21.2.1 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Aboriginal rights refer to practices, customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group (R. v. Van der Peet, 1996e). Aboriginal rights arise from both prior occupation of land and prior social organization and distinctive cultures of Aboriginal peoples on that land. To be protected as Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982), an Aboriginal group’s practices, customs and traditions must have been in existence prior to European assertion of sovereignty (1846 in British Columbia) and still in existence in 1982 when the Constitution was patriated. Métis’ Aboriginal rights are tied to post-contact ethnogenesis of the Métis, particularly the period after a particular Métis community arose and before it came under the effective control of European laws and customs (R. v. Powley, 2003b). The practices, customs and traditions constituting Aboriginal rights evolve over time and may be resumed after an interruption (R. v. Sundown, 1999b).

Examples of Aboriginal rights include (but are not limited to) the right to fish, hunt, and trap on traditional lands (including the right to subsist on these resources) and may include cultural practices (R. v. Van der Peet, 1996e). Aboriginal rights may be site-specific, demarcated by a tract of land where the practice, custom or tradition was undertaken (R. v. Marshall, 1996a). Aboriginal perspectives often also stress the right to self-determination and self-government, which may or may not be tied to specific tracts of land, as Aboriginal rights (Indigenous Foundations 2009). Activities that are incidental to Aboriginal rights (such as building cabins and carrying firearms) may also be protected as Aboriginal rights (R. v. Simon, 1985b; R. v. Sundown, 1999b).

Aboriginal rights vary from group to group depending on the customs, practices, and traditions that form integral parts of their distinctive cultures (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2010). To be integral, a practice, custom or tradition must relate to the Aboriginal group’s pre-contact “way of life,” including “their means of survival, their socialization methods, their legal systems, and, potentially, their trading habits” (R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006b). The practice, custom or tradition does not need to be unique to the Aboriginal society, but there must be an element of Aboriginal specificity distinguishing its culture from other societies (R. v. Van der Peet, 1996e).

Aboriginal title is a subcategory of Aboriginal rights (R. v. Van der Peet, 1996e) that refers to an Aboriginal group’s exclusive use and occupation of land. Aboriginal title is not limited to traditional practices such as hunting, fishing, and gathering, but includes the right to: decide how the land will be used; possess the land; reap the economic benefits of the land; and pro-actively use and manage the land (Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2014). Once Aboriginal title is granted, development cannot proceed on that land without the consent of the Aboriginal group, or before the Crown establishes a justified intrusion under the Constitution Act, 1982. Further, it may be necessary for the Crown to reassess prior conduct in light of declaration of Aboriginal title and halt projects if consent was not first obtained from the Aboriginal title holder (Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2014).

Treaty rights are defined by the terms of a historic treaty or set out in a modern land claims agreement. Treaty rights are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982). Examples of treaty rights include reserve lands, annual payments, and certain rights to hunt, fish, and gather. Aboriginal groups have interpreted treaties as sacred and solemn promises that guarantee

21-4 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS protection of the groups’ rights and way of life. Treaty rights are not frozen in time, but are updated on the basis of modern practices that can be considered to be reasonably incidental to the core treaty right in its modern context (R. v. Marshall, 1999a).

21.2.2 Treaty 8

The proposed Project is located within the area of Treaty 8 that is in dispute by the federal and provincial governments. Treaty 8, one of 11 historic numbered treaties, was negotiated between the federal government and Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Aboriginal groups in 1899. Adhesions were made in 1899, 1900 and 1910. WMFN and SFN were admitted to Treaty 8 in 1914 (Madill 1986). The MLIB adhered to Treaty 8 in 2000. The treaty covers approximately 840,000 km2 (84,000,000 hectares [ha]), encompassing northeast British Columbia, northern Alberta, the northwestern corner of Saskatchewan, and part of the Northwest Territories.

The western boundary of the treaty is currently in dispute. The text of the treaty describes the western boundary as the “central range of the Rocky Mountains,” whereas maps accompanying the treaty and the enabling Order-in-Council (OIC, P.C. 2749) indicate the western boundary to be the height of land separating the Arctic drainage system from the Pacific drainage system (a more westerly range of mountains). The Government of Canada has concluded that the more westerly range of mountains was the intended boundary of Treaty 8 (Madill 1986). In contrast, the Government of BC argues that the “central range of the Rocky Mountains” lies farther to the east. The MLIB petitioned to be included in Treaty 8 on the basis that their reserve community is located within the federally-recognized boundary, and adhered to the treaty in 2000. WMFN, HRFN, SFN, PRFN, DRFN, and FNFN sought a court declaration regarding the interpretation of the western boundary (Willson v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2007). The case is ongoing and is now being pleaded under West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2013 (BSCS 1260) (CanLII n.d.). TLFN and TKDN have been granted intervenor status in proceedings.

Treaty 8 provides its signatories the right to “pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading, or other purposes.” In exchange for surrendering their lands, signatory First Nations would receive Indian reserves based on 640 acres for each family of five; families or individuals who wished to live off-reserve would receive “land in severalty to the extent of 160 acres to each Indian.” Treaty 8 provisions also include entitlements to land, ongoing financial support, and provisions for education, farm stock, farm implements, ammunition, twine, and clothing (Madill 1986).

The courts have further articulated and interpreted Treaty 8. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005). Moreover, while the Crown has the right to “take up” lands covered by Treaty 8, it is nevertheless under an obligation to inform itself of the potential impacts such actions may have on the exercise of Treaty 8 rights, to communicate its findings to the potentially affected

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-5 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

First Nations, and to engage with the First Nations in good faith with the intention of substantially addressing their concerns. The BC Court of Appeal determined that Treaty 8 “guarantees continuity in traditional patterns of economic activity and respect for traditional patterns of activity and occupation” (West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011).

Some Treaty 8 First Nations describe Treaty 8 as “livelihood rights,” entailing that the Crown has an obligation to secure a continuous supply of game and fish for First Nations’ subsistence. In addition, some Treaty 8 First Nations assert that Treaty 8 rights include cultural, spiritual, social, and economic components (BC Hydro Power and Authority 2013). Treaty 8 First Nations also assert that activities incidental to the practice of Treaty 8 rights are protected under Treaty 8, in accordance with R. v. Simon (1985b).

21.2.3 The Duty to Consult and Accommodate

The Crown (federal, provincial and territorial governments) has a legal duty to consult with and, where appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it contemplates a conduct that might adversely affect the potential or established Aboriginal or treaty right (Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004b; Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004a; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage,2005). The duty to consult stems from the honour of the Crown and the Crown’s unique relationship with Aboriginal peoples.

Third parties, such as proponents, do not have a legal obligation to consult Aboriginal groups. However, the Crown may delegate procedural aspects of consultation to proponents, or the direct engagement component of consultation that involves sharing and discussing information. According to the BC EAO, procedural aspects of consultation include (BC EAO 2013):

• providing information about the proposed project to First Nations early in the planning process;

• obtaining and discussing information about specific Aboriginal interests that may be impacted with First Nations;

• considering modifications to plans to avoid or mitigate impacts to Aboriginal interests; and

• documenting engagement, specific Aboriginal interests that may be affected, and any modifications to address concerns and providing this record to EAO.

Procedural delegation does not include authority to determine whether Crown decisions regarding a proposed project represent potential infringements of Aboriginal rights (BC EAO 2013).

The BC EAO delegated procedural aspects of the duty to consult with respect to the Project to AuRico through the section 11 Order. Section 11.1.10.2 of the section 11 Order directs AuRico to “identify potentially affected Aboriginal interests raised by such Aboriginal groups and identify measures to avoid or mitigate such potential adverse effects and/or to otherwise address or accommodate the concerns of such Aboriginal groups, as appropriate.”

21-6 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.2.4 Guidance for the Assessment of Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

21.2.4.1 Consulting with Aboriginal Groups to Identify Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

The Crown has provided general consultation guidelines to aid the identification of Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests (Table 21.2-1).

Table 21.2-1. Summary of Applicable Policy Framework for Aboriginal Rights and Interests

Guidance Document Jurisdiction Description Guide to Involving Proponents when Provincial Provides operational guidance to provincial decision makers Consulting First Nations (BC MARR) and staff with respect to the role of proponents in consultation (BC MARR 2014) To be used in conjunction with the Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations When Consulting First Nations. Guide to Involving Proponents when Provincial Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the provincial Crown Consulting First Nations in the (BC EAO) and proponents in First Nation consultation throughout an Environmental Assessment Process environmental assessment process. (BC EAO 2013) Updated Procedures for Meeting Provincial Outlines the provincial government’s procedures for meeting Legal Obligations when Consulting (BC) its legal obligations to consult First Nations on proposed land First Nations (Province of BC 2010) resource decisions. Proponent Guide for Providing First Provincial Provides guidance to proponents on meeting consultation Nation Consultation Information: (BC EAO) expectations which relate to the potential impacts of the Non-Treaty First Nations proposed project on Aboriginal rights, including title. (BC EAO 2010) Proponent Guide for Providing Provincial Provides guidance to proponents on meeting consultation Treaty Nation Consultation (BC EAO) expectations which relate to the potential impacts of a Information: Treaty Nations proposed project on treaty rights and interests which arise (BC EAO 2010) under a treaty between the First Nation, the Province and Canada. Considering Aboriginal Traditional Federal Provides general guidance on the collection, consideration, Knowledge in Environmental (CEA Agency) and integration of Aboriginal traditional knowledge into Assessments Conducted under the environmental assessments. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2015a) Aboriginal Consultation and Federal Provide step-by-step direction on the government-wide Accommodation: Updated Guidelines (AANDC) responsibility of departments and agencies to fulfill the duty for Federal Officials to Fulfill the to consult. Duty to Consult (AANDC 2011) Determining Significance of National Examines the methodology and approach to determining Environmental Effects: An Aboriginal (Aboriginal significance in cases where Aboriginal interests and rights are Perspective (Winds and Voices Organization) involved. The two key objectives of the research were (1) to Environmental Services, 2000) develop draft criteria for consideration when determining significance of environmental effects, and (2) to recommend “better practices” for evaluating the significance of environmental effects when the interests and rights of Aboriginal peoples are involved.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-7 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The BC EAO (2013) suggests that proponents should ask the following questions when consulting with First Nations:

• What practices, traditions, or customs were engaged in by First Nations in the past (at time of contact or 1846) in the vicinity of, or in relation to, the area in which the proposed project would be situated?

• What practices, traditions or customs are currently engaged in by First Nations in that area?

• How might the proposed project potentially affect the practices, traditions or customs identified above?

• What measures could be used in the proposed project design or operation to avoid, mitigate or otherwise address those potential impacts?

• What are the opportunities for all or some of the identified practices, traditions and customs to be engaged in elsewhere within the First Nation’s asserted traditional territory? What are the First Nation’s views as to whether these practices would still be meaningful if engaged in elsewhere within the traditional territory?

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC; 2011) outlines the following considerations when assessing adverse impacts on potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights:

• What is the likely or potential impact of the activity on the land, water and resources? If there are any impacts, what changes to the current condition or use of lands, water or resources are likely to occur as a result of the activity? Are these changes significant?

• Have Aboriginal groups raised concerns about the particular activity or similar activities in the area?

• Does the activity involve lands or resources that are currently the subject of Treaty negotiations or are part of existing comprehensive land claim agreements or self-government agreements?

• Are the potential adverse impacts likely to be of a temporary or permanent nature?

• Are there any other activities occurring in the same area? Is this activity likely to have any cumulative effects in combination with other activities in the same or surrounding area?

21.2.4.2 Determining Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

While it is beyond the scope of this assessment to determine infringement of Aboriginal and treaty rights, it is instructive to review case law on the matter. According to R v. Sparrow (1990), the existence of one or more of the following factors will indicate prima facie infringement with Aboriginal and treaty rights:

1. The limitation on the right is unreasonable. 2. The limitation on the right will impose undue hardship on the Aboriginal rights-holder.

21-8 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

3. The limitation will deny the rights-holder their preferred means of exercising the Aboriginal right.

According to R. v. Morris (2006a), infringement is determined simply on the basis of whether there has been a “meaningful diminution of the right” (at para. 53). Similarly, Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario holds that infringement occurs when a First Nation is left without the ability to meaningfully exercise its rights. Examples of actions that may result in diminution of Aboriginal rights include actions that limit the amount of land available for the exercise of rights (Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario, 2014 ); access (R. v. Côté, 1996c) and mobility (R. v. Mitchell, 2003a); harvest levels (R. v. Gladstone, 1996d); methods, timing, or extent (R. v. Badger, 1996b; R. v. Marshall, 1999a); affordability; cultural transmission (R. v. Côté, 1996c); and other limitations on direct and incidental rights.

21.2.4.3 Developing Accommodation Measures

Case law has defined accommodation in its broadest sense as adapting, harmonizing or reconciling Aboriginal and Crown interests (BC MARR 2014). In practice, accommodation consists of measures to avoid, eliminate, or minimize potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights (AANDC 2011). Where it is not possible to avoid, eliminate, or substantially reduce adverse impacts, it may be appropriate to compensate Aboriginal groups (AANDC 2011). Accommodation can also include measures aimed at promoting the broader interests of the Aboriginal group (Province of BC 2010); however, collaborative business initiatives may not always serve as accommodation measures (AANDC 2011). In general, accommodation measures seek to balance potential impacts on Aboriginal interests with other societal interests (BC MARR 2014). Responsibility for accommodation rests with the Crown; however, proponents can assist in fulfilling this obligation by exploring options to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on Aboriginal Interests (BC MARR 2014).

The Province of BC may consider the following general measures when determining whether accommodation has been adequate in the circumstances (BC MARR 2014: 10):

• avoiding the impact to the identified Aboriginal interest;

• modifying the proposal to mitigate potential impacts to Aboriginal interests (e.g., altering the footprint or location of the proposed activity);

• changing the timing of proposed activities;

• requirements for impact or environmental monitoring; and

• other mitigation strategies.

Where applications or projects have been modified by a proponent for reasons or purposes other than to address First Nation concerns, such modifications will not, in most cases, be considered a mitigation or accommodation in relation to potential impacts on Aboriginal interests (BC MARR 2014).

In certain situations, economic or financial accommodations may be considered where mitigative measures are insufficient and there is a reasonable probability of permanent or ongoing

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-9 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE infringement of a strong rights claim involving title or an economic component (Province of BC 2010). Compensation could take a variety of forms, including (AANDC 2011):

• habitat replacement;

• providing skills, training, or employment opportunities for members of the Aboriginal group;

• land exchanges;

• impact-benefit agreements; or

• cash compensation.

21.2.4.4 Assessing the Importance of Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

In guidelines issued for recent environmental assessments (Murray River Coal Project, Brucejack Gold Mine Project, Rainy River Gold Project, Pacific Northwest LNG, Prince Rupert LNG Project, Fire Lake North Mining Project, Côté Gold Mine, Whabouchi Mining Project, Goliath Gold Project), the CEA Agency has recommended use of an impact matrix methodology to evaluate the seriousness of impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights. As described in these guidelines, this approach includes the following steps:

• identification of the activities and components of the project;

• predicting/evaluating the likely effects on identified valued components;

• identification of technically and economically feasible mitigation measures for any significant adverse environmental effects;

• determination of any residual effects;

• ranking of each residual adverse environmental effect based on various criteria; and

• determination of the potential significance of any residual environmental effect following the implementation of mitigation.

The impact matrix methodology (introduced by Leopold et al., 1971 (Leopold et al. 1971) and refined by the CEA Agency, 1994 (CEA Agency 1994)) is applied in the last two steps described above. For example, in a discussion document provided for the Murray River Coal Project, the CEA Agency (2015) identified the following factors that are considered by the federal Crown when assessing the seriousness of potential adverse impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights, after the implementation of accommodation measures:

• the certainty of adverse impacts – what is the likelihood that the impact will occur?

• the magnitude of the adverse impacts – what is the nature and degree of the impact?

• the duration and frequency of the adverse impacts – how often will the impact occur? Will these occurrences be short or long term?

• the reversibility of the adverse impacts – is the adverse impact reversible (are impacts of a permanent or temporary nature?)

21-10 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

• the extent of the adverse impacts – will these be localized in nature or broader? How does the geographic extent of the adverse impact relate to the geographic extent of the right, as practiced?

• the context – Aboriginal perspective on the importance, uniqueness or value of a particular use, area, activity or species, including consideration of any past potential impacts.

In addition, the CEA Agency (2015) notes that federal officials may differentiate between high, medium and low impacts, as follows:

• high impact – ability to exercise the right has been significantly diminished;

• moderate impact – ability to exercise the right has been diminished or disrupted; and

• low impact – ability to exercise the right is minimally disrupted.

The CEA Agency (2015) notes that “the federal Crown is open to considering other criteria and concepts from Aboriginal groups, as the federal Crown recognizes that each Aboriginal group is unique and the circumstances which may cause a serious impact on their Aboriginal or Treaty rights needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.”

Some Aboriginal groups consider the approach outlined by the CEA Agency to be inadequate from an Aboriginal perspective. For example, some groups observe that the impact matrix methodology is based on a system of beliefs and values (or worldview) that is at odds with Aboriginal views. Whereas the impact matrix approach values quantification and reductionism, Aboriginal perspectives often stress qualitative understanding and holism (Winds and Voices Environmental Services Inc. 2000). As described by a First Nations environmental consulting firm in a research monograph prepared under the CEA Agency’s Research and Development Program, entitled “Determining Significance of Environmental Effects: An Aboriginal Perspective”(Winds and Voices Environmental Services Inc. 2000):

the Aboriginal worldview is based on their intimate connection with, understanding of, and dependence on the land and the environment. Great value is attached to qualitative information that has been acquired over thousands of years. An explicit value system exists wherein Aboriginal people have responsibilities, on individual and community levels, to protect the environment for future generations. This also applies to Aboriginal and treaty rights for both present and future generations. As such, any impact to the land and environment that threatens or endangers future generations of people or other species is significant.

The First Nations environmental consulting firm (Winds and Voices Environmental Services) drew on case studies, literature review, and interviews with Aboriginal persons to develop criteria for determining the significance of environmental effects, including key values and significant impact indicators. Criteria relevant to the assessment of effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights are reproduced in Table 21.2-2.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-11 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Table 21.2-2. Aboriginal Values and Significance Indicators for Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights – Winds and Voices Environmental Services

Aboriginal Values Aboriginal Significance Indicators • Preservation of treaty and Aboriginal rights • Interference with the peaceable enjoyment of traditional • Preservation of lands and resources which are lands necessary to exercise treaty and Aboriginal • Limitations or restrictions on access to lands and rights resources in traditional territory by virtue of granting of • Preservation of unimpeded access to traditional leases, licenses and/or permits to third parties territory • Limitations or restrictions on the exercise of harvesting • Protection of boundary markers which define rights traditional territories, Indian reserves and/or • Decrease in land base or degradation of lands and cultural territories resources in areas identified under land claims • Constitutionally recognized rights cannot be • Exclusion or prevention of Aboriginal peoples from unilaterally abrogated or diminished by federal developing, managing, protecting lands and resources government, provincial or territorial within traditional territories or land claims areas governments, agents of the crown, or by the • Infringement to the Aboriginal right where the project granting of licenses or approvals to third parties imposes undue hardship on the holder of the right; • Aboriginal peoples have responsibilities to denies the holder of the right their preferred means of existing and future generations to protect treaty exercising the right, and unreasonably limits Aboriginal and Aboriginal rights or treaty rights • Aboriginal peoples have responsibilities to existing and future generations to protect and preserve the land and resources which are the foundation of their culture • Aboriginal peoples have responsibilities to the Creator to respect and protect the environment

Source: Winds and Voices Environmental Services (2000)

21.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ABORIGINAL GROUPS

This section draws on the results of the TKN’s Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Study (TLUS), which was undertaken for the Project in 2015 (Appendix 20-A). Other sources include ethnographic overviews characterizing Gitxsan and Wilp Nii Kyap (Crossroads 2015a), the Treaty 8 First Nations (Crossroads 2015d) and the Métis (Crossroads 2015c) .

21.3.1 Takla Lake First Nation

21.3.1.1 Traditional Territory

TLFN’s traditional territory is approximately 27,250 km2, bordered on the west by the Skeena Mountains and on the east by the Rocky Mountains (TLFN n.d.). The northern extent of the territory encompasses Thutade Lake and the Project. The TLFN territory is also within the combined territory of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC), identified in the CSTC Statement of Intent (BCTC 2013). Both TLFN and CSTC territory overlap the Project (Figure 21.3-1).

21-12 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 Figure 21.3-1 Takla Lake First Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in Relation to the Project

128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

Main Map ¤£97 ¤£37 Alberta ^_ Kemess ± Underground Project ka, s a A !. Mackenzie

Al 58°0'0"N US Smithers !. ¤£16 Prince !. George ¤£16 58°0'0"N

¤£97 British Columbia

Kwadacha (Fort Ware) !. Vancouver !. ¤£1

¤£97 Kemess ^_ Underground Project Tsay Keh !.

Black Pine Bear River 3 !. Klewaduska 6 Williston !. Lake !. Tsupmeet 5 !. Bear Lake 4 !.

!. Bear Lake 1B 56°0'0"N Tsaytut Island 1C !. Bear Lake 1A !. North Takla Lake 12

56°0'0"N Driftwood River 1 !. Kotsine 2 !. North Takla Lake 11A !.!. North Takla Lake 10 ¤£97 Cheztainya Lake 11 !. Takla Landing ¤£37 North Takla Lake 7A !.!.!. North Takla Lake 7 !. Mackenzie

North Takla Lake 8 !. Takla Takla Lake 9 Lake

Takla Lake First BabineHighway Nation Traditional TerritorySmithers Lake Source: Takla Lake First!. Nation Forest Service Road Interim Agreement on Forest and Range Opportunities, 2009 Railway Stuart Lake Local Study Area Omineca Resource !. Fort St. Access Road James Regional Study Area !. Indian Reserve Burns Lake 1:2,450,000!. ¤£27 !. Community 0 40 80 Prince !. Settlement ¤£16 George KilometresFrançois Lake !. 54°0'0"N Kitimat Kemess Underground Contains information licensed under the Open ^_ Date: December 10, 2015 Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Project Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

54°0'0"N Copyright:© 2014 Esri

128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-092 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.1.2 Ethnography and Language

The TLFN was created in 1959 with the amalgamation of the former North Takla Band and Fort Connelly Band (from Bear Lake). TLFN members are of Tse’khene (Sekani) and Dakelh (Carrier) descent and speak the Dakelh language (FPCC n.d.-a)2.

The Tse’khene are Athapaskan peoples (Beaver-Sarcee-Sekani branch) traditionally inhabiting mountainous areas of BC drained by the Finlay and Parsnip branches of the Peace River3 (Denniston 1981). The name “Tse’khene” means “people on the rocks [mountains]”(Jenness 1937). In the late 1700s, Tse’khene peoples occupied the east side of the Rocky Mountains from late fall to early spring with their territory extending down the Peace River as far as the present-day town of Peace River, Alberta (Jenness 1937). By the early 19th century, the Tse’khene were forced westward into the mountains by the Dane-zaa (Lamb 1960), with their eastern boundary pushed back along the Peace River to near Hudson’s Hope, BC (Jenness 1937).

Among the Tse’khene, regional bands each identified with a general territorial range, with constituent subsistence-camping units in the form of local bands and task groups. Group affiliations appear to have been based on identity and membership through bilateral kinship ties, allowing maximum individual choice to accommodate a difficult environment (Denniston 1981). However, as they were pushed westward into the Rocky Mountains by the Dane-zaa and Cree, the Tse’khene began to intermarry and have close contact with the Gitxsan and Dakelh to the west. These interactions introduced concepts of matrilineal kinship groups into Tse’khene society (Denniston 1981). The Tse’khene, in this way, are distinguished from the Dane-zaa and Cree to the east.

Each local group among the Tse’khene had a leader who was neither hereditary nor elected, but acquired his position through force of character, skill in hunting, and sane judgment. If he presumed to issue orders, he had no means of enforcing them. At any time a new leader might arise to supersede him, and his influence inevitably waned with advancing years. The only laws were the regulations prescribed by custom, which generally prevented a family from amassing any of the necessities of life at the expense of other families (Jenness 1937).

The Tse’khene were historically a nomadic hunting and gathering people, and commonly pursued game over vast territories. They generally spent the period from around November until mid-summer on the plateaux and Rocky Mountain slopes, hunting caribou and moose on the snow and, when the snow had melted, driving them into snares. Large game was plentiful on the eastern side of the mountains from late fall to early spring. At mid-summer, they resorted to the lakes to fish, predominantly on the western side of the mountains. Fishing figured more predominantly in the Tse’khene traditional economy than that of their Dane-zaa neighbours to the east (Jenness 1937; Lamb 1957).

2 Of the total TLFN registered population in 2010, 15% could speak and understand Dakelh fluently, and another 15% could understand and/or speak Dakelh somewhat (FPCC n.d.-a). 3 Much of this area was inundated by the construction of the WAC Bennett Dam and the creation of Williston Lake.

21-14 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

In the fall, families travelled to hunting territories and were heavily engaged in hunting and drying meat in preparation for winter. Hunting big game such as caribou, moose, mountain goats, and sheep also took place in the winter, but to a lesser extent. Much of the winter was spent trapping fur-bearing animals such as lynx, marten, wolverine, weasel, squirrel, wolf, fisher, and mink. Ice-fishing occurred in the various lakes and rivers. Following the winter thaw, Tse’khene caught otters, beavers, and muskrats in traps, fished for trout and whitefish, and gathered a variety of bulbs, roots, and sap. In the early summer months, families travelled to the mountains to hunt groundhog, sheep, moose, partridges, ptarmigan, goat, and caribou (L. Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007). Mid-summer was used for social gatherings, fishing, sharing and trading (Jenness 1937; Lamb 1957).

The Dakelh are the Athapaskan-speaking Aboriginal groups inhabiting the central interior of BC. The word “Dakelh” or “Dakelhne” is thought to mean “people who travel on water” in reference to the many extensive lakes in their territory where canoes were used.

The Dakelh are an alliance of several small nations with each nation having its own distinct territory, usually corresponding to a lake system or watershed, as well as distinct cultural features and language (McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). Furniss (1995) identifies three branches of the Dakelh: The Southern Dakelh, whose traditional territory stretches from the Bowron Lakes in the east to the western Chilcotin Valley; the Central Dakelh, traditionally occupying an area from the upper Fraser Valley near Jasper in the east to Cheslatta Lake in the west; and the Northern Dakelh, occupying the area from Burns Lake in the east to Moricetown in the west, and north to Babine Lake.

The basic Dakelh group was the extended family (sadeku) consisting of several brothers and their wives and children (McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). Each family held rights to a hunting and gathering territory (known as a keyoh) and fishing sites. Size and composition of each group was variable, as well as the size of its territory. Descent in a family was determined matrilineally, and marriage occurred outside of the family group (Hudson 1983; Brown 2002).

The ‘Bahlat’ is the central institution of Dakelh society. These community feasts served to reinforce social structure, settle disputes, re-distribute wealth, and celebrate cultural values. Hereditary chiefs served as key landowners and resource managers on behalf of their clans and use the Bahlat system to settle disputes over trespass and the use of resources (Brown 2002). There are four clans recognized in the Dakelh social structure—Grouse, Beaver, Toad, and Grizzly Bear (Morice 1893).

The traditional Dakelh way of life was based on a seasonal round, with the greatest activity in the summer when berries were gathered and fish caught and preserved. The mainstay of the economy was fish, especially the several varieties of salmon, which were smoked and stored for the winter in large numbers. Hunting and trapping of deer, caribou, moose, elk, black bear, muskrat, beaver, and rabbit provided meat, fur for clothing, and bones for tools. Other fur-bearing animals were trapped to some extent, but until the advent of the fur trade, such trapping was probably a minor activity (Hall 1992). Plants play an important role in Dakelh culture as food, medicine, and technology. Morice (1893) inventoried a wide range of plants used by the Dakelh including berries, roots and bulbs, plant stalks, various leaves, and the cambium of certain tress. Winter activity was more limited, with some hunting, trapping, and fishing under the ice (Tobey 1981). Although many Dakelh now have jobs and otherwise participate in the non-traditional economy, fish, game, and berries still constitute a major portion of the diet.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-15 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.1.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The TLFN is a member of the CSTC, which is currently negotiating a treaty with Canada and BC. They are currently in Stage 4 of the six-stage BC Treaty process (BC MARR n.d.). In 2015, the Province of BC, CSTC, and the seven Carrier Sekani signed a Collaboration Agreement and an Environmental and Socio-Cultural Initiatives Agreement with First Nations and BC, to support responsible resource development. The intent of the Collaboration Agreement is to develop a collaborative approach to negotiating government-to-government agreements in relation to forestry, mining, oil and gas, water, and environmental stewardship in their territories (BC MARR n.d.). The Environmental and Socio-Cultural Initiatives Agreement is intended to strengthen CSTC communities through social, cultural and economic development supports such as skills training, education and language programs for community members (BC MARR 2015).

In 2008, the TLFN reached an Agreement with the Province of BC along with the KwN and TKDN regarding the reclamation, remediation and monitoring of mine sites in their traditional territories (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.1.4 Governance

The TLFN is governed by a Chief and four Council members elected for a four-year period, with Councillor elections staggered every two years (TLFN 2015). The Band is the membership authority and there is a custom electoral system (AANDC 2015b). The last election took place in May of 2015, with the next election planned for 2017 (AANDC 2015b). In addition to Treaty negotiations, the CSTC offers support services in the areas of: economic development; education; fisheries; forestry; financial management; natural resources; and community management and planning (CSTC 2014).

21.3.1.5 Economy

Key places of employment at Takla Landing (the main community of the TLFN) include the Band office, the Takla Trading Post, and the Takla Development Corporation. Other employers historically included Canfor, the Government of BC, and AuRico Gold and other mining companies (SNC Lavalin 2013). There are 12 community members who are certified and have worked as environmental monitors on exploratory drilling operations in recent years. Other community members have worked as labourers on exploratory drilling operations (SNC Lavalin 2013). Between 2013 and 2015 AuRico employed 18 TLFN members in seasonal work at Kemess.

Historically, the forestry sector provided job opportunities for many community members; however, forestry has been largely reduced since 2006. Skilled labour shortages, remoteness and the mountain pine beetle epidemic contributed to this decline. In recent years, forestry-related activities have sporadically returned, alongside an increase in the mining exploration (SNC Lavalin 2013).

Recent and upcoming mineral exploration in the region also provide some employment. In 2012, approximately eight community members worked in the mineral exploration in the region; however, such positions are often seasonal and last only for a few months each year (SNC Lavalin 2013).

21-16 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

The community has limited services with some businesses on reserve and access to others in Fort St. James. The Takla Trading Post consists of a small general store, a restaurant and accommodations. The community also has a gas station, postal service and an RV site (SNC Lavalin 2013).

21.3.1.6 Reserves

The TLFN has 17 Indian reserves covering an area of 809 ha (AANDC 2015e). In addition, the TLFN is still awaiting confirmation of 21 parcels of reserve land that were promised to them in 1974 as part of the 3-for-1 railway agreement. Canada is holding 860.73 acres of federal Crown land which is intended for Reserve creation for the TLFN. Several of these reserves are in close proximity to the Project.

Takla Landing (North Tacla Lake IR 7 and 7A) is located on the eastern shore of Takla Lake, approximately 315 km northwest of Mackenzie and 440 km northwest of Prince George; the community is 182 km from the Project (as the crow flies). Takla Landing is home to the TLFN, which comprises members of the former Fort Connelly First Nation and North Takla Lake Bands.

21.3.2 Tsay Key Dene Nation

21.3.2.1 Traditional Territory

The proposed Project is located within TKDN traditional territory as presented in their Statement of Intent to negotiate a treaty with Canada and BC (BCTC 2013; Figure 21.3-2).

21.3.2.2 Ethnography and Language

The TKDN are of Tse’khene descent, and speak the Tse’khene language. Section 21.3.1.2 provides a brief overview of Tse’khene ethnography. According to a 2014 survey, of the total registered membership population, 7.5% of TKDN people were fluent in Tse’khene, while 1.5% could understand or speak it somewhat, and 4.5% were described as “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.-c)

21.3.2.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The TKDN entered the BC Treaty process in 1994 and is currently in stage 4 (or the agreement-in- principle stage) of the six-stage process. In 2010, the TKDN temporarily suspended negotiations to allow new leadership to consider available options and consult members. In 2011, the TKDN resumed tripartite negotiations and these negotiations are ongoing.

The TKDN reached an Agreement with the Province of BC, together with the KwN and TLFN, in 2008 regarding the reclamation, remediation, and monitoring of mine sites in their traditional territories (BC MARR n.d.).

The TKDN reached an agreement with the Province and BC Hydro in 2010 to address historical damages arising from the construction of the W.A.C Bennett Dam, Williston Reservoir and associated infrastructure. The subsequent flooding of the reservoir displaced communities (including Fort Grahame, Finlay Forks, Pine Creek, and Ingenika) and destroyed traditional hunting, gathering and burial grounds (BC Hydro 2009).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-17 Figure 21.3-2 Tsay Key Dene Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in relation to the Project

127°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 123°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

Main Map ¤£97 ¤£37 Alberta ^_ Kemess ± Underground Project ka, s a A !. Mackenzie Al US Smithers !. ¤£16 Prince !. George ¤£16 58°0'0"N

¤£97 British 58°0'0"N Columbia

Vancouver !. ¤£1 Kwadacha (Fort Ware) !. Kemess Underground Project

^_ 57°0'0"N Tsay Keh !. 57°0'0"N Police Meadow 2 Ingenika Point !. !. Indian Settlement 1

!. Black Pine

Williston !. Lake 56°0'0"N Mesilinka 56°0'0"N

Takla Tutu Creek 4 Landing !. !. !.Mackenzie Tsay Keh Dene Highway Traditional Territory Source: DataBC 2015 Forest Service Road Takla !. Local Study Area RailwayLake Parsnip 5

Regional Study Area Omineca Resource 55°0'0"N Access Road £97 Indian Reserve/ ¤ !. 1 1:2,250,000

55°0'0"N Settlement 0 25 50 !. Community !. Settlement Kilometres 1 Babine The designated location of Ingenika Stuart Kemess Underground Point Indian SettlementLake is presently the ^_ Project site of an airstrip. Residences and other Lake Contains information licensed under the community infrastructure are located !. Open Government Licence – British Date: January 08, 2016 approximately 10 km northwest in the Fort St. James Columbia and Canada. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N community of Tsay Keh. Copyright:© 2014 Esri ¤£16 128°0'0"W 127°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 123°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-085 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.3.2.4 Governance

The TKDN is governed by a band council consisting of a Chief and four council members elected for four-year terms (AANDC 2014a). The TKDN is the membership authority and there is a custom electoral system. The next elections are scheduled for June 2016 (AANDC 2014a).

21.3.2.5 Economy

The TKDN has pursued a range of initiatives to create employment and training opportunities for its members in forestry, mining and other sectors. A key focus for the current TKDN administration is to build a stable economic base that provides full-time, long-term employment in a healthy environment with skilled jobs, preferably in TKDN territory. As part of this focus, the TKDN restructured its business holdings in 2012 to limit its liability, better manage its business affairs and take advantage of an enhanced tax structure. This restructuring included the formation of two Limited Partnerships and the completion of two Limited Partnership Plans of Agreement with the newly formed Tsay Keh Economic Development Corporation as the General Partner.

The TKDN currently operates several businesses including Chu Cho Industries LP, a TKDN-based earth works and transportation contractor; and Chu Cho Environmental, an environmental services company. In 2013, Chu Cho employed 16 full-time employees (six of whom are TKDN members) and 107 seasonal employees (85 of whom are TKDN members). The TKDN also hires seasonal workers for the farm at Police Meadows—trail cutting, operating the mill, and woodcutting—which usually employs an average of additional 25 to 30 people seasonally. To augment its capacity, the TKDN also employs the services of professional advisors and consultants when needed (L. Gleeson, pers. comm., 2014).

The TKDN owns and operates the Ingenika Trading Post in Tsay Keh. They also have an airstrip and charter a flight, in partnership with KwN, three times a week (L. Gleeson, pers. comm., 2014).

The TKDN also own Tsay Keh Dene Outfitters, which conducts guided hunts in the Omineca Mountains. All hunts are by way of backpacking and boat. Stone sheep, mountain goat, and moose are the main species hunted, though grizzly bear and caribou are also potentially available. They also provide five- to ten-day fishing trips from August to September (Tsay Keh Dene Outfitters 2014).

21.3.2.6 Reserves

The TKDN has three Indian reserves with a combined area of 201 hectares: Police Meadow IR 2 (129.5 hectares); Tutu Creek IR 4 (37.5 hectares); and Parsnip IR 5 (34.2 hectares). The TKDN also occupies two parcels of federal Crown land that it is in the process of converting to reserves. Tsay Keh (formerly Ingenika) is the main community for the TKDN. The community of Tsay Keh is located at the north end of the Williston Reservoir, approximately 380 km northwest of Mackenzie and 500 km northwest of Prince George (L. Littlefield, Dorricott, L., Cullon, D. 2007). As the crow flies, the community is 74 km from Kwadacha and 111 km from the Project. Black Pine, a settlement located along the Omineca Resource Access Road (ORAR), is occupied year-round by upwards of five TKDN families.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-19 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.3 Kwadacha Nation

21.3.3.1 Traditional Territory

The traditional territory of the KwN is captured within the larger Kaska Dena Council traditional territory as provided in their Statement of Intent to negotiate a Treaty with Canada and BC (BCTC 2013). The Project occurs outside the southern boundary of the Kaska Dena Council and KwN traditional territory (Figure 21.3-3).

21.3.3.2 Ethnography and Language

KwN are of Tse’khene and Kaska descent, and speak the Tse’khene language. Section 21.3.1.2 provides a brief overview of Tse’khene ethnography. According to a 2014 survey, of the total KwN registered membership population, less than 4% speak Tse’khene fluently, while 8% understand or speak the language somewhat, and 16% are described as “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.-c).

The Kaska, similar to the Tse’khene, are an Athapaskan-speaking ethnolinguistic group, and live north and west of the Tse’khene in northern BC and southeastern Yukon, in the area drained by the Liard River. The primary unit of Kaska society was the local band, consisting of an extended family with a male leader. The Kaska have two matrilineal moieties, Crow and Wolf, which are often referred to as clans. Most Kaska are aware of their clan affiliation, but rules governing marriage and other forms of interaction between clans are less strictly observed than in the past (Honigmann 1981).

Early-contact-period Kaska subsistence strategies were basically similar to those of other Athapaskan peoples of the subarctic plateau, especially those who similarly lacked salmon and migratory herds of barren-ground caribou. Woodland caribou, moose, Dall sheep, berries and whitefish are among the principal traditional resources of the rugged upper Liard River region (Honigmann 1981).

21.3.3.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

KwN is a member of the Kaska Nation which includes three BC First Nations (KwN, Dease River First Nation and Daylu Dena Council) and two Yukon First Nations (Liard First Nation and Ross River Dena Council). The Kaska Dena Council represents the BC Kaska and is negotiating a comprehensive Treaty on behalf of its members under the BC Treaty process. Negotiations are currently in Stage 4 (Agreement in Principle) of the six-stage negotiation process. They also completed an Incremental Treaty Agreement in 2013 with the Province of BC, which resulted in the initial transfers of lands to the First Nations. They also, together, negotiated a Strategic Engagement Agreement with the Province of BC in 2014 (BC MARR n.d.).

KwN reached an agreement with the Province and BC Hydro in 2008 to address historical damages resulting from the construction and operation of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam.

21-20 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 Figure 21.3-3 Kwadacha Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in Relation to the Project

130°0'0"W 128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

£1 ¤ Yukon 60°0'0"N British Columbia 60°0'0"N ±

¤£97

Dease Lake !. 58°0'0"N

58°0'0"N Weissener Lake 3 !. Fort Ware 1 Kwadacha ¤£37 !.(Fort Ware) Sucker Lake 2 !.

Bob ^_ Tsay Keh !. Quinn Kemess !. Lake Underground Project

Kwadacha Nation Traditional Territory !. Williston Source: Fasken Martineau (2013). Black Pine Lake Community Summary: Kwadacha First Nation Final Report Meziadin Junction Kaska Dena!. Council 56°0'0"N Traditional Territory Source: DataBC 2015 56°0'0"N !. Indian Reserve Main Map !. Community !. £ Settlement Takla Landing !. ¤97 Alberta ¤£37 Kemess Underground ^_ Kemess !. ^_ Project Gitanyow Takla Underground !. Lake Project Omineca Resource ka, s !. la A Mackenzie Access Road ¤£16 A Smithers US !. Babine ¤£16 Highway Prince !. Lake George ¤£16 Forest Service Road !.Smithers Railway ¤£97 ¤£16/37 British 1:3,250,000 Columbia 0 50 100 Burns Lake Kilometres Vancouver !. !. ¤£1 Date: January 06, 2016 Contains information licensed under the Open Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Prince Copyright:© 2014 Esri George

!. 54°0'0"N 130°0'0"W 128°0'0"W 126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-091 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Also in 2008, KwN reached an Agreement with the Province of BC along with the TKDN and TLFN regarding the reclamation, remediation and monitoring of mine sites in their traditional territories. A Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement was negotiated between the KwN and the Province of BC in 2014 (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.3.4 Governance

KwN is governed by a band council comprising a Chief and a Deputy Chief as well as three council members (Kwadacha Nation 2014) elected under a custom election system (AANDC 2014b). The last election was held in March 2014 (Kaska Dena Council 2014).

21.3.3.5 Economy

KwN employs a number of community members through Kwadacha Natural Resources LP. A notable amount of employment (approximately 75 people) also stems from the two Band offices (SNC Lavalin 2013). KwN also owns the Kwadacha Community Store.

KwN has a business selling traditional herbal teas online. Kwadacha Elders’ Dune Tiyah Society created their own tea venture from traditional plants grown within their region. Tii-mâstêt is the traditional Kwadacha name for the type of tea leaves harvested (known to others as Labrador Tea, or rhododendron tomentosum). The business is run by Elders who harvest tea leaves by hand and process the tea leaves in an industrial dehydrator. The tea is picked in mountainous areas within the traditional territory (JagaSilk n.d.).

Kwadacha Outfitters provides outdoor and tourism services including hunting, fishing, and eco-tours in Kwadacha country. Kwadacha Outfitters began operation in the fall of 2013 and operates over 2,700 square miles in the Cassiar and Rocky Mountains of northern BC. Access to these areas is fly-in and riverboat only. Guided hunts focus on five species (stone sheep, grizzly, moose, caribou, and mountain goat).

21.3.3.6 Reserves

KwN has three Indian reserves—Fort Ware IR 1 (Kwadacha), Sucker Lake IR 2, and Weissener Lake IR 3—with a combined area of 385.4 hectares. The main community is located on Fort Ware IR 1 (Kwadacha), at the confluence of the Finlay, Fox and Kwadacha rivers, approximately 450 km northwest of Mackenzie and 580 km northwest of Prince George. It is 79 km (as the crow flies) from the Project.

21.3.4 Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap

21.3.4.1 Traditional Territory

The Gitxsan laxyip (traditional territory) encompasses approximately 33,000 km2 in northwestern BC (Gitxsan Treaty Society 2007). The territory is mountainous and densely forested, and comprises nine watersheds that also define administrative units: the Babine, Kispiox, Gitsegukla, Lower Skeena, Middle Skeena, Upper Skeena, Nass, Suskwa, and Sustut (Wilson and Patsey 2004).

21-22 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

A Statement of Intent map produced by the BC Treaty Commission in 1994 indicates that the northeastern boundary of Gitxsan traditional territory overlaps with the RSA and a portion of the LSA, but not with the Project area. A map produced by the Gitxsan Treaty Office in 2007 shows the Project as entirely within the Gitxsan traditional territory, which extends east to the Ingenika River and north to the Firesteel and Finlay rivers (Gitxsan Treaty Society 2007). The portion of the Gitxsan traditional territory that is adjacent to or overlaps with the Project (depending on the map) is within Tutadi territory of wilp Nii Kyap. The Tutadi territory is held by Haimadimtxw, a wing chief within wilp Nii Kyap4.

Figure 21.3-4 shows the location of the proposed Project in relation to Gitxsan Nation’s asserted traditional territory.

21.3.4.2 Ethnography and Language

Gitxsan peoples speak Gitsenimx, a dialect of the Sm’algaxm (or Tsimshianic) language family (First Voices 2013; FPCC n.d.-e)5. The linguistic family includes the Tsimshian proper and the Nisga’a, who share a common language and cultural connections throughout most of northwestern BC (Johnson 2000). Gitxsan means “People of the Skeena River” whereas Git means “People of” and Ksan is the traditional name of the Skeena River (Gottesfeld 1994).

The Gitxsan are a hierarchical society with matrilineal corporate groups that are divided into four clans: Lax Gibuu (Wolf), Lax Skiik (Eagle), Lax Seel/Ganeda (Frog), and Giskaast (Fireweed). Each clan is further divided into huwilp (house groups; singular: wilp) with each house headed by Simgigyat (house chiefs) (Johnson 2000). The members of Wilp Nii Kyap trace ancestry through the Lax Gibuu (Wolf) clan. Each wilp owns a set of ranked names with authority generally corresponding to the rank of each name. The hereditary chief has the highest-ranked name, and is the spokesperson and authority on behalf of all wilp members and their associated laxyip.

Features of the wilp system that reinforce a common understanding of history, house territory boundaries, status, and names, include adaawk (oral history), ayuuk (laws/crests), getimgan or pst’aan (totem poles), daxgyet (authority), and limx’oy (ancient songs). Adaawk contain key historical events in the wilp, which are recounted in the context of feasts to reinforce wilp title, and occur over several generations. Totem poles are a significant visual indication of wilp title and provide an account of wilp history. Ayuuk are symbolic representations of a wilp’s history and are for the exclusive use of the wilp (Halpin and Seguin 1990).

4 Nii Kyap is the name of the hereditary chief of Wilp Nii Kyap. A hereditary chief may have several wing chiefs, usually of lesser rank, who perform particular functions for House members (GHCO n.d.). 5 According to a 2014 survey, approximately 4.5% Gitxsan people are fluent in Gitsenimx, while 7% can understand or speak it somewhat, and 9% are “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-23 Figure 21.3-4 Gitxsan Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in relation to the Project

400000 550000

¤£97 Main Map Alberta Kemess ¤£37 ^_ Underground ± a, Project k !. Mackenzie AlasUSA Smithers !. 6400000 6400000 ¤£16 !. Prince ¤£16 George ¤£97 British Columbia

Kemess Vancouver !. ¤£1 Underground ^_ Project Bob Quinn !. Lake 6250000 6250000 British Columbia Meziadin Junction Alaska, !. USA !. Stewart Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs Traditional Territory Source: DataBC 2015 ¤£37 Kisgegas Local Study Area !. Regional Study Area Historic Village of !. !. Wilp Nii Kyap (Currently Uninhabited) Kispiox Takla !. Landing !. Gitxsan Community !. Glen Vowell !. Community/Settlement Gitanmaax Highway Gitwangak !. !. Forest Service Road Babine 6100000 Railway Gitsegukla 6100000 Lake ^_ Kemess Underground Project !.Smithers Omineca Resource Access Road 1:2,000,000 Terrace 0 25 50 !. ¤£16 Kilometres Contains information licensed under the Open Date: January 08, 2016 Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Copyright:© 2014 Esri

400000 550000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-086 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

The wilp system serves an important social organizing function and is supported by feasting. The potlatch was the Gitxsan’s primary institution where social, cultural, economic, spiritual, and political practices were enacted. Surplus goods from their territories were gifted in the feast and demonstrated a chief’s ability to steward their land and take care of their house members. Feasting gifts such as food, Chilkat blankets, copper, and carvings were just a few of the gifts that were prepared for the ceremonial exchange of goods (GHCO n.d.).

The Gitxsan peoples traditionally supported their clan and house members with the resources obtained from within their territories. They also gifted or traded with their neighbouring nations (Daly 2013).

At the end of winter (usually February to April), Tsimshian groups (including the Gitxsan) fished for oolichan (also known as eulachon or candlefish; scientific name, Thaleichthys pacificus) on the Lower Nass River. The fish were either dried or processed into a highly prized nutritious oil or “grease” (Halpin and Seguin 1990). As salmon began to enter the rivers in early summer, people moved to traditional fishing sites where they maintained seasonal camps. House chiefs controlled the use of fishing sites. Women harvested berries within house territories. Tsimshian peoples also collected various roots and shoots for fresh consumption, particularly early in the season. Bulbs such as wild onions and “Indian rice” (Northern Rice Root or Fritilleria camschatcensis) were harvested toward the end of summer, though the digging season varied considerably from group to group (Kitsegukla Band 1979).

The Gitxsan’s seasonal round is described by Daly (2013). Around the end of April, Gitxsan peoples travelled to spring salmon and steelhead fishing sites, and prepared summer fishing weirs. They also hunted for beaver and burned berry patches and insect-infested stands of trees in early spring. In summer and fall, the Gitxsan fished for salmon; gathered berries, bark, and roots; hunted; and trapped birds and animals. Women in the western villages picked blue huckleberries and blueberries at traditional sites in the mountains for several weeks. In fall, hunters made short trips from the village. The feast season began in late fall and at the beginning of winter. The trapping season began with the snowfall and intensified in January; most Gitxsan trapped and hunted in the late winter after a period of feasting. Steelhead was also caught in winter through the ice (People of 'Ksan 1980). Char, Dolly Varden, and whitefish were also caught (Daly 2013).

Table 21.3-1 summarizes these and other activities in the Gitxsan seasonal round, modified from Morgan (2013) and Budhwa (2007).

Table 21.3-1. Traditional Gitxsan Seasonal Round

Period Activity Spring • Picking Soapberries • Collecting Tree Sap (Cedar, Pine, Birch) • Gathering Plant Foods (Wild Onion, Fern, Rice root, etc.) • Gathering Medicines • Peeling Birch Bark, Spruce roots (continued)

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-25 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Table 21.3-1. Traditional Gitxsan Seasonal Round (completed)

Period Activity Summer • Peeling Cedar • Berry Picking (Saskatoons, Raspberries, Huckleberries, Blueberries, Cranberries, etc.) • Harvesting Salmon • Picking Mushrooms • Gathering Medicines Fall • Hunting (Caribou, bear, moose, deer, goat, etc.) • Berry Picking • Picking Mushrooms • Harvesting Material Goods (wood, dentalia, copper, etc.) • Harvesting Crab Apples • Collecting Firewood Winter • Trapping (Groundhog, beaver, marmot, rabbit, marten) • Ice Fishing • Feasting • Making clothing, robes, and regalia, feast gifts • Storytelling, song and dance, traditional games Source: Budhwa (2007); Morgan (2013)

21.3.4.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The Gitxsan are involved in the BC Treaty process, negotiating a Treaty with BC and Canada on behalf of its five member First Nations. They currently are in negotiations to achieve an Agreement- in-Principle (Stage 4 of six stages in the BC Treaty process). No additional agreements have been negotiated independently by the Gitanmaax, Gitsegukla, Glen Vowell, or Kispiox communities. The Gitwangak Band Council negotiated a Cut-off Claim in 2008 with BC and Canada in order to resolve outstanding issues related to reserve lands cut-off by the 1912 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (BC MARR n.d.)

21.3.4.4 Governance

Modern Gitxsan governance is based on the hereditary system (described above) alongside the Band-based electoral system defined under the Indian Act (1985a). The Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs’ Office (GHCO) represents the Simgigyat (house chiefs), and acts as a spokesperson in matters dealing with resource management. The GHCO is a centralized authority with which federal, provincial, regional, and municipal governments engage, as well as companies engaging in environmental assessment and resource development (in accordance with the Section 11 Order issued by the BC EAO on May 14, 2014, AuRico consulted directly with Wilp Nii Kyap). The GHCO is based in the Village of Hazelton.

21-26 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

In addition to the hereditary governance system, five6 Gitxsan bands are established under the Indian Act (1985a): Gitanmaax, Gitwangak, Gitsegukla, Glen Vowell, and Kispiox. These bands follow the Indian Act (1985a) electoral system; each band is governed by a chief and councillors who are elected every two years. While the hereditary chiefs are responsible for the management of lands and resources in the Gitxsan territory on behalf of the Simgigyat, the bands are responsible for the day-to-day operations of on-reserve communities (AANDC 2013).

21.3.4.5 Economy

The economic and business interests of the Gitxsan Nation are represented through the Gitxsan Development Corporation (GDC), which is founded upon the traditional laws and land management practices of the Nation (GDC 2012). Subsidiaries of the GDC include forestry- and energy-focused business enterprises, Gitxsan Environmental Services (which focuses on land and resource management and the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge), Gitxsan Safety Services (which provides field-based safety services for natural resource activities) and fuel services (GDC 2012). Gitxsan Safety Services Inc. also recently acquired D&R Traffic Control Ltd in January 2015, a business that provides ambulance and first aid services at industrial sites (CFNR Network 2015).

Some of the Gitxsan bands, such as Gitanmaax, have their own development corporations in addition to the GDC.

21.3.4.6 Reserves

The Gitxsan reside on five Indian reserves (in northwest BC: Gitwangak IR 1, Gitsegukla IR 1, Gitanmaax IR 1, Glen Vowell (Sik-e-dakh IR 2), and Kispiox IR 1. Gitxsan members also live in the Village of Hazelton, the District of New Hazelton, and elsewhere in BC (GHCO n.d.). Gitanmaax Indian Reserve (IR) 1 is adjacent to the Village of Hazelton. New Hazelton, Kispiox IR 1, and Glen Vowell (Sik-e-dakh) IR 2 are located within a 10 km radius. Gitsegukla IR 1 is located approximately 28 km west of New Hazelton along Highway 16. Gitwangak IR 1 is located 22 km west of Gitsegukla and about 4 km north of the Skeena River along Highway 37.

21.3.5 Doig River First Nation

21.3.5.1 Traditional Territory

The DRFN does not identify a specific traditional territory within Treaty 8; rather, the DRFN holds rights to all of Treaty 8 (T8TA 2015c), comprising approximately 840,000 km2, encompassing

6 Some Gitxsan organisations also include the Gitanyow. While the Gitanyow have, in the past, been affiliated with Gitxsan bands and speak the Gitsenimx language, they have asserted sovereignty separately from the Gitxsan since 1994 (when they submitted their own Statement of Intent to negotiate a Treaty with BC and Canada). The Gitanyow huwilp are not included in the list of Gitxsan huwilp, and Gitanyow house territories are not included in current maps of Gitxsan house territories. The Gitanyow consider themselves to be a separate “nation” with distinct Aboriginal rights and title, as indicated in their 2012 Gitanyow Huwilp Recognition and Reconciliation Agreement with British Columbia. See http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId= D6A739497FA94740A285A8B54BCB1086&filename=gitanyow_reconciliation_agreement.pdf.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-27 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE portions of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. Figure 21.1-1 shows the location of DRFN in relation to the Project.

21.3.5.2 Ethnography and Language

The DRFN are of Dane-zaa descent. The Dane-zaa are an Athapaskan-speaking group from the Peace River Valley in northeastern BC and northwestern Alberta. Dane means “people” and zaa means “real”. The word sounds very similar to their word for “beaver” which may explain why newcomers called them the “Beaver Indians” (Brody 2000). Dane-zaa Záágé is the language of the Dane-zaa (FPCC n.d.-d)7.

In the post-contact period, the Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains along the Halfway River, and across the height of land into the headwaters of the Liard drainage along the Sikanni Chief, Prophet, and Muskwa rivers. In the late 18th century, Algonquian-speaking Cree peoples moved into the Lower and Middle Peace River areas of what was traditionally Dane-zaa territory (R. Ridington 1981).

For the Dane-zaa, the basic social and territorial unit was the bilaterally extended family band. The regional group or wǝdǝneɂ was a collection of families sharing common territory, kinship, and dialect. The wǝdǝneɂ were not fixed or permanent political or territorial units; rather, they changed composition frequently in adaptation to changes in the availability and distribution of resources. Social groups could be described as a series of partially overlapping circles within an area bounded by geography, common history, language, and culture (R. Ridington 1981).

Dane-zaa leadership was relatively diffuse and depended on personal qualities such as male hunting proficiency, generosity, demonstrated wisdom and judgment, and possession of supernatural powers. The dispersed population and influence of the environment effectively prevented the development of complex political institutions. The leader was merely the “first among equals”, and important group decisions were based upon consensus (Rogers and Smith 1981).

The Dane-zaa were traditionally nomadic hunters who lived primarily on bison, moose, beaver, deer, caribou, sheep and goats (R. Ridington 1968). Before 1830, the Dane-zaa hunted bison in the prairies and woodlands adjacent to the Peace River, as well as moose in the muskeg country, woodland caribou in the lower mountain ranges, and sheep and goats in the high mountains. By the early 1830s, the bison populations in Dane-zaa territory were considerably reduced from over-hunting. In response, the Dane-zaa shifted their subsistence harvesting to focus almost exclusively on moose as their main source of meat. While some bison were harvested in the later part of the nineteenth century, moose have been the major source of meat since the 1830s (R. Ridington 1968).

The historic seasonal round of the Dane-zaa included a fall moose hunt to provision dry meat. Families dispersed to their traplines in the winter, and winter stores were supplemented by available

7 Of the total registered DRFN population, 16.6% can speak Dane-zaa fluently, and two-thirds can understand or speak Dane-zaa somewhat (FPCC n.d.).

21-28 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS game. Spring included travel to trading posts to trade furs, then participation in an intensive beaver hunt. During the summer, smaller hunting groups would usually come together around larger lakes to fish, as well as to sing, dance, and renew contacts with one another (Brody 1981; TMW 2009).

Table 21.3-2 shows the traditional seasonal round for First Nations of Dane-zaa descent, modified from Brody (1981).

Table 21.3-2. Traditional Dane-zaa Seasonal Round

Period Activity Late spring - Early summer • Congregation of local groups • Trading furs • Hunting bull moose, rabbit, grouse, moulting waterfowl • Fishing Summer • Singing and dancing, renewal of kinship ties • Short hunting trips for moose, deer, grouse • Berry picking Late summer - Early fall • Dry-meat and grease hunt- moose, deer, bear, goose, marmot • Berry picking Fall • Dispersing into local groups • Outfitting, horses to winter pasture • Hunting for moose, deer, grouse • Trapping of rabbit, beaver, fine furs • Fishing (if hunting fails) Winter • Trading furs • Trapping rabbit and fine furs • Hunting moose, deer, and grouse Spring • Trade furs and collect horses from winter pasture • Spring beaver hunt • Hunting for muskrat, otter, waterfowl, moose, young grouse • Collecting eggs

Source: Brody (1981)

21.3.5.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

In 2009, the DRFN, together with the WMFN and PRFN, signed five agreements with BC related to wildlife, provincial parks, land-use planning, and economic benefits flowing from the use of Treaty 8 lands including: Amended Economic Benefits Agreement; Government-to-Government Protocol Agreement; Parks Collaborative Management Agreement; Wildlife Collaborative Management Agreement; and Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement (BC MARR 2010). Among other things, the Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement provides a framework for the establishment of appropriate designations and other mechanisms to address the meaningful exercise of rights for the various “Treaty 8 Significant Areas,” or areas identified by the parties as particularly critical to the preservation of the meaningful exercise of Treaty 8 First Nations’ rights. In May 2010, DRFN, together with WMFN and PRFN, signed a final agreement and four resource management

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-29 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE agreements with BC, including: Crown Land Management Agreement; Heritage Conservation Memorandum of Understanding; Long-term Oil and Gas Agreement; and Forests and Range Resource Management Agreement (BC MARR 2010).

21.3.5.4 Governance

The DRFN is identified as an “Indian Band” and is governed by a Chief and two Councillors elected under the Indian Act (1985a) election system (AANDC n.d.). Elections are held every two years. Elders play an important role in decision making through an Elders Council and regular community meetings (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012). The DRFN is also a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) and the Council of BC Treaty 8 Chiefs (T8TA 2015a).

21.3.5.5 Economy

Local economic activities are based on natural resource and construction industries, and include road building, general contractors, forestry, oilfields (maintenance, facility construction, turnarounds), seismic work, first aid and safety services, and reclamation (T8TA 2015a). The DRFN is engaged in business ventures and cultural activities that focus on strengthening the economic base, improving the health of the community, and maintaining Dane-zaa traditions and language (Finavera Wind Energy Inc. 2011).

21.3.5.6 Reserves

The DRFN has two Indian reserves: Doig River No. 206 and Beaton River No. 204 (North Half), with a combined area of 1,358.1 ha (AANDC n.d.). The main community is located on Doig River No. 206, approximately 30 km (by road) east of Rose Prairie, BC, and 60 km northeast of Fort St. John.

21.3.6 Halfway River First Nation

21.3.6.1 Traditional Territory

The HRFN does not identify a specific territory within Treaty 8; rather, the HRFN holds rights throughout Treaty 8 (T8TA 2015c). Figure 21.1-1 shows the location of HRFN in relation to the Project.

21.3.6.2 Ethnography and Language

The HRFN are of Dane-zaa descent. Section 21.3.5.2 presents a brief overview of Dane-zaa ethnography and language. Of the total registered HRFN population, 21% can speak Dane-zaa fluently, 73% can understand or speak Dane-zaa somewhat, and 6% are “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.).

21.3.6.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The HRFN is in discussions with BC on land and resource issues outside the BC treaty process. They do not, however, have any agreements with BC pertaining to land use and planning (BC MARR n.d.).

21-30 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.3.6.4 Governance

The HRFN is identified as an “Indian Band” and is governed by a Chief and two Councillors elected under the Indian Act (1985a) election system (AANDC 2015e). The HRFN is also a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) and the Council of BC Treaty 8 Chiefs (T8TA 2015c).

21.3.6.5 Economy

The HRFN has established the Halfway River Group to lead a collection of limited partnership companies serving the forestry, oil and gas, mining, energy and infrastructure industries. The Halfway River Group is located on-reserve and provides services in BC and Alberta. The companies provide employment and skills development for community members. Services provided by the Group include logging, mining, civil and commercial construction, workforce accommodations and catering, first aid and security, as well as clearing, mulching, brushing and slashing. Specific businesses overseen by the Group include:

• Halfway River Frost LP;

• Halfway River IDL LP;

• Halfway River Horizon North Camp Services;

• Halfway River Mountainview Safety Ltd.;

• Halfway River Western Canada Mulching Ltd.;

• Halfway River Compass Ventures Ltd.; and

• Halfway River Ventures Ltd.

Each of these represents a partnership between the HRFN and an existing company. For example, Halfway River IDL LP is a partnership between the Halfway River First Nation and IDL Projects, a construction company that provides civil and infrastructure, commercial, public and institutional, industrial and mining/energy construction work in Canada and the Caribbean (Halfway River Group 2015). The HRFN is also involved in gravel excavation and sales (Finavera Wind Energy Inc. 2011).

21.3.6.6 Reserves

The HRFN has one reserve, Halfway River No. 168, with an area of 3,988.8 ha (AANDC 2015e). This community is located on the north bank of the Halfway River, near Wonowon, BC, about 100 km northwest of Fort St. John. It is accessible by road via the Alaska Highway and Road 117 (Fasken Martineau 2013).

21.3.7 Prophet River First Nation

21.3.7.1 Traditional Territory

Within the boundaries of Treaty 8, the PRFN describes its traditional lands as covering approximately 25,000 km² from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest east of the Prophet River (Timberland Consultants Ltd. 1998). Section 21.3.5.1 provides further information on the boundaries of Treaty 8. Figure 21.1-1 shows the location of PRFN in relation to the Project.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-31 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.7.2 Ethnography and Language

The PRFN are of Dane-zaa descent. Section 21.3.5.2 presents a brief overview of Dane-zaa ethnography and language. According to a 2014 survey, of the total registered population of the PRFN, 9.3% of members speak Dane-zaa fluently, 25.6% understand or speak Dane-zaa somewhat, and 5.6% are “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.).

21.3.7.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

In 2009, the PRFN, together with WMFN and DRFN, signed five agreements with BC related to wildlife, provincial parks, land use planning, and economic benefits flowing from the use of Treaty 8 lands including: Amended Economic Benefits Agreement; Government-to-Government Protocol Agreement; Parks Collaborative Management Agreement; Wildlife Collaborative Management Agreement; and Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement (BC MARR n.d.). Among other things, the Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement provides a framework for the establishment appropriate designations and other mechanisms to address the meaningful exercise of rights for the various “Treaty 8 Significant Areas,” or areas identified by the parties as particularly critical to the preservation of the meaningful exercise of Treaty 8 First Nations’ rights. In May 2010, PRFN, together with WMFN and DRFN, signed a final agreement and four resource management agreements with BC, including: Crown Land Management Agreement; Heritage Conservation Memorandum of Understanding; Long-term Oil and Gas Agreement; and Forests and Range Resource Management Agreement (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.7.4 Governance

The PRFN is identified as an “Indian Band” under the Indian Act (1985a), and is governed by a Chief and two Councillors elected under a custom electoral system. The next election for chief and council will occur in June, 2018 (AANDC 2015f). The PRFN is also a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) and the Council of BC Treaty 8 Chiefs (T8TA 2015c).

21.3.7.5 Economy

Recent economic activities have included seasonal activities such as hunting and guiding, as well as restaurant and commercial services, work camp establishment and management, and catering (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012). A recent community-based report notes that economic development at Prophet River IR 4 has been limited due to the remoteness of the community and limited access to markets, as well as social factors such as low education levels (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012).

While business development initiatives are reported to be limited, there are seven contractors associated with the PRFN:

• Prophet River Operations Ltd., a 100% band-owned business;

• Klua Ventures, a 100% member-owned business;

• EK Water Services, 100% member-owned business;

21-32 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

• JBand S.T.A.R. First Aid Services, 50% member-owned business;

• Little Beaver Contracting Enterprise, 50% member-owned business;

• Prophet River Contracting, 100% band-owned; and

• a joint venture with EOS Pipeline and Facilities Inc., when working in PRFN traditional territory.

The PRFN does not hold forestry tenures or guide outfitting licences. One PRFN member has been seasonally employed as a guide in the Williston Reservoir area for a privately owned guide- outfitting operation (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012).

21.3.7.6 Reserves

The PRFN has one reserve, Prophet River IR 4, located approximately 100 km south of Fort Nelson on Highway 97. The community is accessible via year-round road access. Prophet River IR 4 is approximately 374 hectares of mostly muskeg terrain in the lower foothills of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012).

21.3.8 Saulteau First Nations

21.3.8.1 Traditional Territory

The SFN does not define a traditional territory within Treaty 8 (section 21.3.5.1). The SFN, along with WMFN, identify a shared Area of Critical Community Interest (ACCI) within Treaty 8, in the immediate vicinity of their communities. Within the ACCI is a 1,090 km2 area of land referred to as the Peace-Moberly Tract (BC, SFN, and WMFN 2006), for which a Sustainable Resource Management Plan has been developed in partnership with the Province of BC. Figure 21.1-1 shows the location of SFN in relation to the Project. Figure 21.3-5 shows the location of the ACCI and the Peace-Moberly Tract which are shared in common with WMFN.

21.3.8.2 Ethnography and Language

Many SFN members are originally descended from the Saulteaux (or Anishinaabe) ethnographic group. The name “Saulteaux” came from French traders and missionaries who, in the early 17th century, described Ojibwa bands living near the waterfalls on St. Mary’s River as Saulteurs, meaning “People of the Falls” (Steinbring 1981). The Saulteaux were historically settled around Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg, principally in the areas of present-day Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and northern Michigan. Pressure from, and interaction with, British and French fur traders and American settlers gradually pushed the Saulteaux westward to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Saulteaux in these areas speak the Western Ojibwa variant of the Algonquian language family (Steinbring 1981).

The oral histories of the SFN indicate their arrival in northeast BC sometime in the late 1800s, following a long northwest migration of Anishnaubemowin (Saulteaux)-speaking peoples from southern Manitoba, in search of a location that had been seen in a vision by Napaneegwan, a

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-33 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE respected elder or “prophet”. After many years of travelling, they arrived at Moberly Lake, in the shadow of the Twin Sisters mountains (also known as Beattie Peaks or Klin-se-za), around 1911 (Nesoo Watchie Resouce Management 2011). Since settling at Moberly Lake, the Saulteaux have intermarried with the Dane-zaa and Cree people in the region. The use of “Nations” in their name indicates their mixed ancestry (PRCI 2010).

Most SFN members identify with Saulteaux cultural practices and beliefs passed down from their eastern Saulteaux ancestors; however, Nēhiyawēwin (Cree) is now the predominant Aboriginal language among members of the SFN8 (FPCC n.d.-b). Only a few elders continue to speak Anishnaubemowin. English is the primary spoken language (TMW 2009; Finavera 2011).

Upon relocating to the Peace River valley in the early 20th Century, the SFN’s Saulteaux ancestors established a hunting and trapping economy based on a seasonal round, with moose constituting the most important game resource (Nesoo Watchie Resouce Management 2011). They also hunted and trapped elk, deer, mountain goat, caribou, grouse and rabbits (Weinstein 1979). Furbearing mammals, including lynx, beaver, and marten, were trapped (The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2014). The SFN historically hunted and trapped the lands south of the Peace River, and east of the Rocky Mountains (Leonard 1995). This area included lands within the Murray River and Sukunka River watersheds, as well as northward within the Kiskatinaw River watershed to the Peace River (TMW 2009). In addition to hunting, trapping, and fishing, they gathered plants and fungi for subsistence, medicinal, and spiritual purposes (The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2014).

The SFN seasonal round included winter hunting (moose, caribou, deer), fishing, and trapping in the Rocky Mountain foothills. In the spring activities included trading furs at Chetwynd or Hudson’s Hope, followed by the spring beaver and muskrat hunt. Summer was typically spent around Moberly Lake, where the SFN harvested whitefish, pike, lake trout, and other fish (Weinstein 1979). Autumn activities included an intensive moose hunt to provision dry meat for the winter. Following the fall moose hunt, families dispersed to family-held traplines for the remainder of the winter.

21.3.8.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

SFN, together with WMFN and BC, developed a draft Sustainable Resource Management Plan (SRMP) for the Peace Moberly Tract in 2006 (BC, SFN, and WMFN 2006).

21.3.8.4 Governance

The SFN is identified as an “Indian Band” under the Indian Act (1985a) and is governed by a Chief and four Councillors under a custom electoral system. The Chief and four Councillors each represent one of the five founding SFN families. Each family nominates a leader who becomes a Councillor, and then the general membership elects a Chief from among these five family heads.

8 According to a recent survey, of the total population of registered SFN members, nearly 6% are fluent speakers of Cree, while 11% can understand or speak Cree somewhat, and 16.4% are “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.)

21-34 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Elections are held every three years (Finavera 2011). The SFN is also a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) and the Council of BC Treaty 8 Chiefs (T8TA 2015b).

21.3.8.5 Economy

The SFN’s economic activities include a cattle ranch and farm, silviculture, and gravel excavation and sales. The SFN has three band-owned businesses including Three Nations Ventures, Six Nations Ventures, and 4 Evergreen Resources, Inc. (T8TA 2015b). More recently, the SFN’s business activity has included the provision of services to the mining sector. Agriculture, tourism, forestry, construction, and heavy industrial support and supply have also been reported to be important economic drivers in recent years (Rescan 2013).

21.3.8.6 Reserves

The SFN has one reserve, East Moberly Lake No. 169, which covers 3,025.8 ha. The reserve is located in the northern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, along the east end of Moberly Lake, approximately 100 km southwest of Fort St. John and 25 km north of Chetwynd.

21.3.9 West Moberly First Nations

21.3.9.1 Traditional Territory

The WMFN identifies the Peace River sub-basin as their “Preferred Treaty Territory” (WMFN 2012) within the boundaries of Treaty 8 (section 21.3.5.1). Along with the SFN, they also identify a shared Area of Critical Community Interest (ACCI) within Treaty 8, in the immediate vicinity of their communities. Within the ACCI is a 1,090 km2 area of land referred to as the Peace-Moberly Tract (BC, SFN, and WMFN 2006), for which a Sustainable Resource Management Plan has been developed in partnership with the Province of BC.

The Project is situated within the WMFN “preferred Treaty territory” (West Moberly First Nations 2012), but is located outside of the Peace-Moberly Tract and ACCI (Figure 21.3-5).

21.3.9.2 Ethnography and Language

WMFN members are of Dane-zaa and Cree descent; the use of “Nations” in the WMFN name is in recognition of mixed ancestry. Members generally identify as “Mountain Dunne Za,” or people of the Rocky Mountain foothills (Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012). Dane-zaa Záágé is the language of the Dane-zaa9; however, Nēhiyawēwin (Cree) is the predominant Aboriginal language spoken in the community10 (FPCC n.d.-g). English is the primary spoken language in the WMFN community.

Section 21.3.5.2 presents a brief overview of Dane-zaa ethnography.

9 According to a 2014 survey, of the total registered population of WMFN, only one member is fluent in Dane-zaa, two individuals somewhat understand and/or speak the language, and 23 individuals are learning the language (FPHLCC 2014a). 10 No data is currently available on the number of Cree speakers in WMFN.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-35 Figure 21.3-5 West Moberly First Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserve in Relation to the Project

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

West Moberly First !. !( Peace Moberly Tract Community/Settlement Nations Reserve Area of Critical Highway tories Provincial Treaty 8 Boundary Community Interest est Terri ForestNorth wService Road (Source: YukonBCGOV FLNRO GeoBC) West Moberly Preferred 60°0'0"N Federal Treaty 8 Boundary Treaty Territory Railway ± in BC (Source: Aboriginal Source: West Moberly Kemess Underground Affairs and Northern First Nations (2012) ^_ Project 60°0'0"N Development Canada) Omineca Resource Local Study Area 1:3,250,000 Access Road Regional Study Area 0 50 100

Date: December 10, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Kilometres

¤£97

B

r 58°0'0"N

i A t

i l s b

h e

r C t

a o

l u 58°0'0"N

m

b

i a Kwadacha (Fort Ware) Kemess !. Underground Project ^_ Tsay Keh !.

Fort St. Black Pine !. !. John

Williston West Moberly Lake 168A 56°0'0"N Lake !. Moberly !( Lake 56°0'0"N

Takla !. Landing Mackenzie !. ¤£97 Takla Lake

¤£16 Babine Smithers Lake !. Stuart Lake Fort St. Contains information licensed under the Open Government !. James Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Copyright:© 2014 Esri

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-087 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

The Cree people living in the Peace Region have been identified as offshoots of the Western Woods Cree, who inhabited the forest areas transitional to the prairies and to the Rocky Mountains in the late 18th century (Smith 1981). However, Mandelbaum (1979) groups the Cree of the Peace Region with the Plains Cree whose territory extended to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta. A review of the academic literature (Goddard 1916; Smith 1981; Darnell 2001) concludes that the boundary between the Western Woods Cree and Plains Cree is difficult to delineate due to poor historical records, and due to the disappearance of the Plains buffalo adaptation11, which culturally defined the Plains Cree in the post-contact period.

The ancestors of these Cree groups came from the woodland areas between Hudson Bay and Lake Superior, a region associated with Algonquian-speaking groups (Smith 1981). The first noted contact between Europeans and Cree was made by Jesuit priests between 1640 and 1690 (Mandelbaum 1979). The Cree were originally known by the French as Christinaux, and the word “Cree” may have originated from this word. Cree groups developed strong economic ties with fur traders during the growth of the fur trade in Upper Canada in the 1660s, which resulted in an increase in trapping activity, and would eventually influence a westward movement of Cree in pursuit of wildlife resources.

With regard to the traditional Cree harvesting patterns, during the summer, for two to three months, a regional band of the Western Woods Cree would congregate on the shores of lakes where abundant fish, supplemented by game and berries, permitted large numbers of people to come together without exhausting their supply of food resources. During this time, social ties would be reinforced and families realigned. There was also planning for the winter dispersal. In the late summer or early autumn, the local bands would begin departing by canoe for the winter territory before the waterways froze. Hunting was the major activity in early winter: moose and elk were hunted by bow and arrow, while migrating herds of woodland caribou were snared or speared in pounds12. Trapping activity was concentrated during November and December, when furs were of the highest quality. In late winter, activities were limited due to severe weather. In the spring, woodland caribou were hunted during their spring migration. As ice broke up on the rivers and lakes, local bands returned to their pre-arranged summer location. Spring was also a time for visiting the fur-trading forts and selling furs (Smith 1981).

21.3.9.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

WMFN has developed a number of natural resource management plans and agreements within its traditional territory. In the early 1970s, WMFN enacted a traditional law placing a moratorium on

11 As the Plains Cree moved westward from their ancestral home around Hudson Bay and Lake Superior, they came into contact with the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre peoples of Saskatchewan and eastern Alberta. These nations had already acquired the horse from Plains groups to the south, and followed bison herds on horseback. The Plains Cree quickly acquired this lifestyle and subsequently took on many of the traits of their Assiniboine and Gros Ventre neighbours. With the virtual disappearance of bison by the 1880s, the nomadic bison hunting lifestyle phased out, and they returned to forest hunting for moose and caribou, in smaller encampments, and to fish again in the lakes and rivers, as they did before they migrated to the Plains. Further information is available in Mandelbaum (1979). 12 A “pound” for the purposes of this report is a culturally modified earthwork, pile of stones, or brush fence, usually in the shape of a “V” or a semi-circle, into which herd animals (such as caribou) are driven to contain them prior to being dispatched with spears or bows and arrows.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-37 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE caribou harvesting by band members in an effort to stay the dwindling caribou population. In 2006, WMFN, SFN and BC developed a draft Sustainable Resource Management Plan (SRMP) for the Peace Moberly Tract (BC, SFN, and WMFN 2006). In 2009, WMFN, together with DRFN and PRFN, signed five agreements with BC related to wildlife, provincial parks, land use planning, and economic benefits flowing from the use of Treaty 8 lands including: Amended Economic Benefits Agreement; Government-to-Government Protocol Agreement; Parks Collaborative Management Agreement; Wildlife Collaborative Management Agreement; and Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement (BC MARR 2010). Among other things, the Strategic Land and Resource Planning Agreement provides a framework for the establishment appropriate designations and other mechanisms to address the meaningful exercise of rights for the various “Treaty 8 Significant Areas,” or areas identified by the parties as particularly critical to the preservation of the meaningful exercise of Treaty 8 First Nations’ rights. In May 2010, WMFN, together with DRFN and PRFN, signed a final agreement and four resource management agreements with BC, including: Crown Land Management Agreement; Heritage Conservation Memorandum of Understanding; Long-term Oil and Gas Agreement; and Forests and Range Resource Management Agreement (BC MARR 2010). In 2013, WMFN released a draft “Action Plan for the Klinse-Za Herd of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada” (Jarvis 2013).

21.3.9.4 Governance

The WMFN is identified as an “Indian Band” under the Indian Act (1985a) and is governed by a Chief and four Councillors (one from each of the key family groups), who are elected according to a custom electoral system (AANDC 2015e). The Chief is elected by the entire community, while each family determines their own method of selecting their councilor. The Chief does not have a vote in council (EPCOR 2009).

The WMFN is a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) and the Council of BC Treaty 8 Chiefs (T8TA 2015d).

21.3.9.5 Economy

Business activities of the WMFN include logging and industrial contracting. Forestry, retail, mining, and oil and gas industries have been economic drivers (Rescan 2013). Currently, WMFN businesses include a number of joint ventures providing a diverse range of services, mainly to industries related to the development of natural resources, including (Dunne-za Ventures LP 2015; West Moberly First Nations 2015):

• Dunne-za Ventures LP, a WMFN company, provides services to the oil and gas, forestry and mining sectors (e.g., forestry, earthworks, transportation, road upgrades, and clearing).

• 5 Star Energy Services Inc., a partnership with Tri-Light Ventures, supplies oilfield equipment to the oil and gas industry.

• The nine-hole Moberly Lake Golf Course, located 30 km north of Chetwynd, includes a restaurant, lounge and outdoor patio.

21-38 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

More recently, the WMFN started a tourism-based business, Dunne-za Lodge, which is a retreat destination with cabin rentals located on the northwestern shore of Moberly Lake (West Moberly First Nations 2015).

21.3.9.6 Reserves

The WMFN community is based on West Moberly Lake IR 168A, a 2,033 ha Indian Reserve situated at the west end of Moberly Lake, approximately 90 km southwest of Fort St. John, and 30 km north of Chetwynd (AANDC 2015e). This is the only reserve held by the WMFN.

21.3.10 Fort Nelson First Nation

21.3.10.1 Traditional Territory

The FNFN defines a traditional territory within Treaty 8 (Figure 21.3-6). The territory encompasses the northeast corner of British Columbia, stretching from the Liard Plateau and the western mountain ranges to the Etsho Plateau (FNFN 2012).

21.3.10.2 Ethnography and Language

FNFN members are of Dene Tha and Cree descent, with some Dane-zaa lineages. Section 21.3.5.1 presents a brief overview of Dane-zaa ethnography and language, while Section 21.3.9.1 presents a brief overview of Cree ethnography and language.

The Dene Tha are an Athapaskan-speaking group whose ethno-linguistic boundaries extend from the Northwest Territories to Northeastern BC and Northwestern Alberta. The Dene Tha, also known in ethnographic literature as the Slave or Slavey, lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle in small kin-based tribes, and resided in small villages dispersed throughout their territories (FNFN n.d.).

The primary Dene Tha economic and social unit was the “local group”. Members of the local group shared food and material goods. Leadership in the group was provided by a successful male hunter who often also served as a medicine man or shaman. Relationships among local groups were friendly and warm. Gatherings of local groups provided opportunities for exchanges of information, finding spouses, and celebrating achievements (Asch 1981).

Dené K’e is the language of the Dene Tha13 (FPCC n.d.-f). Some members also speak Beaver (Dane-zaa) (Wolfenden 2012). In recent decades, English has become the dominant language of education and business in their community (Wolfenden 2012).

13 Of the total registered FNFN population, 6.5% speak Dené K’e fluently, 14% can understand or speak the language somewhat, and 17% are “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-39 Figure 21.3-6 Fort Nelson First Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in Relation to the Project

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

ries st Territo Northwe ± Yukon 60°0'0"N 60°0'0"N

Snake 5 !(

Fort Nelson 2 Fort !. Nelson !(

¤£97 Kahntah 3 Fontas 1 !( !(

B

r 58°0'0"N

i A t

i l s b

h e

r C t

a o

l u 58°0'0"N

m

b

i a Kwadacha (Fort Ware) Kemess !. Underground Project ^_ Tsay Keh !.

Fort St. Black Pine !. !. John Williston Lake 56°0'0"N

56°0'0"N Fort Nelson First !. !( Community/Settlement Nation Reserve Highway Provincial Treaty 8 Boundary (Source: BCGOV FLNRO GeoBC) Forest Service Road Takla !. Landing Federal MackenzieTreaty 8 Boundary!. Railway ¤£97 in BC (Source: Aboriginal Kemess Underground Takla Affairs and Northern ^_ Project Lake Development Canada) Omineca Resource Local Study Area Access Road ¤£16 Babine Regional Study Area Smithers Lake 1:3,250,000 !. Fort Nelson First Nation 0 50 100 Stuart LakeTraditional Territory Fort Source:St. Fasken Martineau Kilometres (2013)!. Community Summary: Fort Nelson Contains information licensed under the Open James Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. First Nation Final Report Date: December 10, 2015 Copyright:© 2014 Esri Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-088 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

The Dene Tha, similar to other Athapaskan/Dene peoples in northeast BC, undertook a seasonal round of subsistence activities that focussed primarily on the hunting of large game in small groups in the fall and winter, and the congregation of peoples around a lake to fish in the summer. Snaring was the main hunting technique for taking both large and small game. Moose, woodland caribou, wood bison and other big game were also hunted with bow and arrow, club or spear when crossing water or open country. Beaver were prodded out of their lodges and then clubbed. Furbearers trapped include marten, muskrat, lynx, and mink. Fishnets made of woven willow bast or caribou babiche were used in both lakes and rivers, while weirs were used in creeks to catch fish including trout, loche, whitefish, northern pike, and inconnu. Edible berries and roots were gathered in bark baskets. Surplus food was preserved in summer by smoking and drying over a smudge fire, while in winter it was frozen and cached. Berries were eaten raw or pounded with meat and fat to make pemmican (Asch 1981).

Table 21.3-3 outlines some of the traditional seasonal round of the Dene Tha.

Table 21.3-3. Dene Tha Traditional Seasonal Round

Season Activity Spring • Moose hunting (after rutting/calving season) • Beaver hunting • Hunting Geese and Ducks • Fishing Summer • Hunting for Moose, Elk, Deer • Fishing • Hunting for Ducks & other Birds • Berry Picking (Huckleberries, Cranberries, Blueberries, Raspberries, Saskatoons) Fall • Hunting for Moose, Rabbits, Bear, Elk • Fishing • Hunting for Ducks, Geese, and other Birds Winter • Hunting for Moose, Elk, Deer

Source: M. Stevenson and Dene Tha' First Nations Lands and Environment Department (2012)

Most FNFN families still practice traditional lifestyles—including hunting, trapping, plant harvesting and fishing—which supplements household income and overall family livelihood (Wolfenden 2012).

21.3.10.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The FNFN signed an Oil and Gas Consultation Agreement in and an Economic Benefits Agreement with BC in 2012 (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.10.4 Governance

The FNFN is identified as an “Indian Band” and is governed by a Chief and six Councillors elected under the Indian Act (1985a) election system. The next election will be held in August 2016 (AANDC 2015a). The FNFN are not currently members of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-41 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.10.5 Economy

The FNFN Economic Department manages several businesses and partnerships, including Eh-Cho- Dene enterprises (which provides land clearance, road and oilfield construction services), the Liard Hotsprings Lodge; a gravel pit; Black Diamond camp and logistics services (for remote industry camps); and communications services for remote camps and operations. The FNFN is planning to replace the Economic Development Department with a corporation, and the Department is already run by a CEO and board of directors (FNFN n.d.). The following provides an overview of the FNFN’s key businesses and partnerships:

• Eh-Cho-Dene Enterprises was established over 30 years ago and owns 50% of a drilling rig. The business initially provided services to the forestry sector (e.g., clearing contracts) but expanded with the growth of the oil and gas sector in northeastern BC. Today the company employs supervisors, project managers, mechanics, operators, labourers, and administrative staff. The business has a nine-bay shop supported by licenced mechanics and a fleet of more than 200 pieces of heavy equipment (e.g., excavators, loaders, trailers, rock trucks). Eh-Cho Dene specializes in road, lease, and oilfield construction, seismic cutting, excavations, and land clearing. The rig, which is overseen by the businesses partner, was most recently in use between Calgary and Red Deer in 2013. The company employs about 50 people; however, in the winter of 2011, the Eh-Cho-Dene employed 150 full-time workers (Province of BC 2015a).

• The Liard Hotsprings Lodge is located 160 km west of Fort Nelson and is open year round. The 21-unit, 6,000 sq. ft. lodge is a short walk from Canada’s second largest hotsprings in the Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park (Province of BC 2015a).

• The Black Diamond Dene Limited Partnership, which owns modular structures, arose from a partnership with the Alberta-based Black Diamond Group, a provider of temporary and permanent modular building and energy services products. The latter uses the modular structures to build and rent accommodation and workspace camps for the oil and gas industry (Province of BC 2015a). In August 2014, Black Diamond Dene Limited acquired a lease for an operating camp servicing natural gas exploration and production activities the Horne River Basin. The facilities include a 425-room lodge and related infrastructure, and provide accommodations to multiple oil and gas ventures working in the area (Vancouver Observer 2014).

• The Waterways Communications Limited Partnership is a joint venture with Northwestel to provide communications services (e.g., internet, voice, and data) to resource companies operating in the Horn River Basin. The partnership was established in 2010 (Province of BC 2015a).

21.3.10.6 Reserves

The FNFN has four reserves totaling 9,752.6 ha (AANDC 2015a). The main community is located on Fort Nelson IR 2, at the confluence of the Muskwa and Nelson rivers and on both banks of the Nelson River, 6 km southeast of Fort Nelson at mile 293–295 on the Alaska Highway.

21-42 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.3.11 Blueberry River First Nations

21.3.11.1 Traditional Territory

The BRFN defines a traditional territory within Treaty 8 (Figure 21.3-7). The territory incorporates areas of documented historical, current, and ongoing use by BRFN members (Blueberry River First Nations 2012). The traditional territory of the BRFN in BC is described as extending north to the confluence of the Sikanni Chief and Fort Nelson rivers; west as far as Sikanni Chief Lake and Peace Reach on the Williston Reservoir; south to Tacheeda Mountain and Quintette Mountain; and east to the BC-Alberta border, with the reasonable prospect of the territory extenting into the Peace region within Alberta (Blueberry River First Nations 2012).

21.3.11.2 Ethnography and Language

The BRFN are of Dane-zaa and Cree decent, and speak the Dane-zaa language. Section 21.3.5.1 presents a brief overview of Dane-zaa ethnography and language, while Section 21.3.9.1 presents a brief overview of Cree ethnography and language. Of the total BRFN registered membership, about 5% speak and understand Dane-zaa fluently and 3% somewhat understand and/or speak the language (FPCC n.d.).

21.3.11.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

In 2005, the BRFN entered into a Negotiation Protocol Agreement with BC, in which they agreed to negotiate and attempt to reach agreements on the management of natural resources (among other outstanding issues). The BRFN signed land use agreements with BC in 2007, including a Strategic Land Use Planning Agreement and a Mining and Minerals Protocol Agreement. They also negotiated and signed Consultation and Collaboration agreements with the Province of BC in 2008 related to issues such as wildlife, parks and, Crown land (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.11.4 Governance

The BRFN is identified as an “Indian Band” and governed by a Chief and four Councillors, elected under the Indian Act (1985a) election system (AANDC 2015d). The BRFN is not a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association or any other tribal associations.

21.3.11.5 Economy

The BRFN owns Blueberry River Enterprises GP Ltd., a company involved in construction, alterations, repairs and earthworks. The company has excavators, logging trucks and loaders, dozers, mulchers, trucks, and other equipment. The company focuses on developing economic opportunities for the BRFN in oil and gas, construction, and logging industries (Blueberry River Enterprises GP Ltd. 2015).

21.3.11.6 Reserves

The BRFN has two reserves (Blueberry River No. 205, and the south half of Beaton River No. 204) totalling 1,508.8 ha (AANDC 2015d). The BRFN’s main community is on Blueberry River No. 205 near Buick Creek, BC, located approximately 80 km northwest of Fort St. John.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-43 Figure 21.3-7 Blueberry River First Nation's Traditional Territory and Reserves in Relation to the Project

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

Blueberry River First !. !( Community/Settlement Nations Reserve Highway tories Provincial Treaty 8 Boundary est Terri Forest Service Road Northw (Source:Yukon BCGOV FLNRO GeoBC) 60°0'0"N Federal Treaty 8 Boundary Railway ± in BC (Source: Aboriginal Kemess Underground Affairs and Northern ^_ Project 60°0'0"N Development Canada) Omineca Resource Local Study Area Access Road Regional Study Area 1:3,250,000 Approximate Blueberry 0 50 100 Traditional Territory Source: Fasken Martineau (2013). Kilometres Community Summary: Blueberry River First Nations Final Report Date: December 10, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N

¤£97

B

r 58°0'0"N

i A t

i l s b

h e

r C t

a o

l u 58°0'0"N

m

b

i a Kwadacha (Fort Ware) Kemess !. Underground Project Beaton River 204, ^_ South Half Tsay Keh Buick !. !( !. Creek !(

Blueberry River No. 205 Fort St. Black Pine !. !. John

Williston 56°0'0"N Lake 56°0'0"N

Takla !. Landing Mackenzie !. ¤£97 Takla Lake

¤£16 Babine Smithers Lake !. Stuart Lake Fort St.!. Contains information licensed under the Open Government James Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Copyright:© 2014 Esri

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-089 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.3.12 McLeod Lake Indian Band

21.3.12.1 Traditional Territory

The MLIB defines a traditional territory of approximately 108,000 km2 within Treaty 8 (McLeod Lake Indian Band n.d.) (Figure 21.3-8). Their territorial boundary is described as: “to the south, the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds near Summit Lake; to the east, following that height of land to the border of British Columbia and Alberta; to the north, following the border to the Peace River, west, following the southern bank of the Peace River to Williston Lake, south, following the western bank of Williston Lake to the western bank of Manson Arm, south, along the west bank of Manson Arm, southwest and west, along the height of land between Manson River and Eklund Creek and Jackfish Creek, southwest; and, to the west, along the height of land between the Nation River watershed and the Omineca River watershed, south and east along the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds to the commencement point” (cited in Big Sky Consulting Ltd. and Site C First Nations Engagement Team 2013).

21.3.12.2 Ethnography and Language

The MLIB members are of Tse’khene descent and speak the Tse’khene language (FPCC n.d.-c)14. Section 21.3.1.2 provides a brief overview of Tse’khene ethnography.

Up until the 1960s (i.e., before the creation of Williston Lake), many MLIB families followed an annual cycle of land use practices similar to previous generations. Small family groups of various compositions would spend much of the fall, winter, and early spring on traplines. In the summer, band members would congregate at McLeod Lake. From the main village on the lake, people would spread out on the land to hunt, fish and gather plant resources through the summer and early fall. Once winter set in, many people would return to the traplines, where they would trap for furs as well as continue with hunting, fishing, and food preservation (Golder Associates 2009).

The traditional seasonal round of the MLIB is summarized in Table 21.3-4, modified from Terrane (2008).

21.3.12.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

The MLIB have ratified a McLeod Lake Land Code under the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management. This agreement provides a framework for participating First Nations to establish regimes to manage their lands and resources as an alternative to land administration sections of the Indian Act (Turtle Island Native Network 2003).

In 2006, the MLIB reached a five-year agreement with the Province that provides access to 175,000 cubic metres of wood in both the Mackenzie and Prince George Timber Supply Areas. The volume augments the band’s existing harvesting operations under Duz Cho Logging (McLeod Lake Indian Band nd).

14 Of the total MLIB registered population in 2012/2013, 2% could speak and understand Tse’khene fluently, 6% could understand and/or speak Tse’khene somewhat, and 12% were “learning speakers” (FPCC n.d.)

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-45 Figure 21.3-8 McLeod Lake Indian Band's Traditional Territory and Reserves in Relation to the Project

126°0'0"W 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

McLeod Lake Indian McLeod Lake Indian (! Band Reserve Band Traditional Territory* Provincial Treaty 8 Boundary .! Community/Settlement

Northwest Territories 60°0'0"N (Source: BCGOV FLNRO GeoBC) Yukon Highway ± Federal Treaty 8 Boundary in BC (Source: Aboriginal Forest Service Road Affairs and Northern Railway 60°0'0"N Development Canada) Kemess Underground Local Study Area ^_ Project Regional Study Area Omineca Resource Access Road

*QSOI_BCREG spatial data downloaded from 1:3,250,000 BC Land and Resource Data Warehouse on June 24, 2015 (Last Modified Jan 6, 2015) 0 50 100 (https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so) Date: December 16, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Kilometres

¤£97

British Columbia 58°0'0"N

Alberta 58°0'0"N

Kwadacha (Fort Ware) Kemess .! Underground Project

^_ Tsay Keh .!

Fort St. Black Pine .! John .!

Williston Finlay Bay 21 56°0'0"N Lake (! Weston Bay 20 (! 56°0'0"N

Mackenzie 19 Takla .! Landing Mackenzie .!(! ¤£97 Takla Mcintyre Lake 23 Pack River 2 Lake Blue Lake 24 (! Mcleod Lake 5 (!(! Mcleod Lake 1 (!(!(! Quaw Island 25 ¤£16 War Lake 4 (! (! Tom Cook 26 Babine (! Lake Carp Lake 3 (! (! Tacheeda Lake 14 Smithers (! (! (! (! .! Weedon Carp 6 Hominka 11 16 Stuart Lake (! Davie Lake 28 ¤£ Weedon Lake 27 (! (! Fort St. Contains information licensed under the Open Government .! Kerry Lake West 8 Sas Mighe 32 Arctic Lake 10 Licence – British Columbia and Canada. James Copyright:© 2014 Esri Kerry Lake East 9 .! 126°0'0"W Burns Lake 124°0'0"W 122°0'0"W

.! François Lake .! KitimatAURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project ¤£16 PrinceProj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-19-090 George Nechako Reservoir ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Table 21.3-4. Traditional Seasonal Round of the McLeod Lake Indian Band

Period Activity Winter • Trapping from late fall to spring • Fishing • Hunting and drying or freezing the meat • Traveling with dog sleds and teams of six to eight dogs • Women would set rabbit, squirrel, and marten snares

Spring • Trapping into the spring, • Beaver hunting • Fishing started in earnest • Drying fish and meat; smoking meat for summer use • Picking berries Summer • Fishing throughout the summer, drying fish for dogs • Hunting in the summer • Use of mountain areas • Drying fish and meat • Picking berries • Harvesting groundhogs Fall • Trapping re-commences; entire family stayed at main cabin, a base for trapping activities • Fishing • Hunting

Source: Terrane (2008)

In 2014, the Minister of Natural Gas Development and the Commissioner of the Oil and Gas Commission signed a consultation agreement with MLIB that defines the roles, responsibilities, and processes for consultation on oil and gas applications.

An Economic and Community Development Agreement was negotiated in 2010 with the Province of BC to provide resource royalties to the MLIB for the Mt. Milligan Mine Project (BC MARR n.d.).

21.3.12.4 Governance

The MLIB is identified as an “Indian Band” under the Indian Act (1985a). It is governed by a Chief and six Councilors (two on-reserve, two off-reserve, an elder Councilor, and a youth Councilor), who are elected under a custom electoral system every three years. The MLIB is currently negotiating a self-governance agreement with BC and Canada through the BC Treaty Commission. The three parties have completed stage two (“Readiness”) of the six-stage process (BC Treaty Commission n.d.). The MLIB is not a member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-47 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.3.12.5 Economy

Business Ventures

The MLIB founded Duz Cho Logging in 1988 and it has since become one of BC’s largest logging contractors. In 1996, the company was awarded a contract to clear a 340-km right-of-way for a hydroelectric line connecting the Kemess Mine to the Kennedy substation near Mackenzie. The company was awarded the Aboriginal Business of the Year Award in 2001. In 2008, annual revenues dropped from $19 to $6 million; however, by 2011 the company’s revenues were back up to $28 million. Today, the company employs 140 full-time workers as well as seasonal workers and has an array of specialty equipment. The company has diversified from its core harvesting operations to services for the gas, oil, and mining sectors (Province of BC 2015b).

A second business, Duz Cho Construction, was established in 2002 to work in the oil and gas, coal and general construction industries. The company’s services include land clearing and road construction, as well as other industry-specific activities (Province of BC 2015b). Duz Cho Construction has formed a number of alliances and joint ventures with other businesses, including: McCaw’s Drilling and Blasting Ltd., Ledcor CMI Ltd., Western Protection Alliance, and Dunne-za Ventures Ltd (owned by the WMFN).

McLeod Lake Indian Band Development Corporation

In addition to these specific business ventures, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Development Corporation, now known as Tse’khene Community Development Corporation, is an incorporated entity owned by the MLIB that was established in 2002 to conduct business and make investments on behalf of the band. The development corporation is currently involved in the following activities (McLeod Lake Indian Band 2013):

• Economic Development: arranges funding for projects, provides business training and advice for MLIB members.

• Commercial Real Estate: owns a shop and office in Chetwynd and undeveloped fee simple land at Mackenzie Junction and Summit Lake.

• Residential Real Estate: owns houses in Prince George and McLeod Lake for rental to band members. • McLeod Lake Indian Band Exploration LP: is a limited partnership between Duz Cho Construction and McLeod Lake Indian Band Business Trust, and facilitates work with the oil and gas industry (e.g., pipeline construction and maintenance).

The MLIB is actively engaged in planning and developing MLIB Cultural Tourism Ventures, which will offer canoeing, fishing, berry-picking, guided plant walks, traditional food preparation, Tse’khene language immersion, animal track identification, and cultural history from serviced culture camps. The business is targeted for MLIB youth as well as paying tourists. The MLIB also plans to build a boat launch and dock at the north end of McLeod Lake. They have also opened the historic Carp Lake Trail (from McLeod Lake to Carp Lake) and established a culture camp at McIntyre Lake (McLeod Lake Indian Band 2013).

21-48 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Member Businesses

Two MLIB members operate businesses. Anna Pierre Trucking employs three to four band members in the provision of trucks and licenced drivers for the logging and gravelling. Burns and Gill Guide Outfitters has been in operation for over two decades and employs a band members on a seasonal basis to assist with guiding, packing, and camp cooking (McLeod Lake Indian Band 2013).

21.3.12.6 Reserves

The MLIB has 22 reserves with a combined area of approximately 18,300 hectares. The main MLIB community is situated on McLeod Lake IR 1, adjacent to the unincorporated Village of McLeod Lake, and approximately 145 km north of Prince George (Rescan 2013; AANDC 2015c).

21.3.13 Métis Nation British Columbia

21.3.13.1 Traditional Territory

The MNBC does not claim title to a traditional territory; instead, on behalf of their citizens, they assert rights and traditional uses over the entire province of British Columbia (MNBC 2010).

21.3.13.2 Ethnography and Language

The Métis National Council (MNC) adopted the following definition of “Métis” in 2002 (MNC n.d.-b):

“Métis” means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and who is accepted by the Métis Nation.

The Métis are descendants from the union of European (predominantly French and Scottish) men and First Nation women during the 17th and 18th century fur trade. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, these relationships resulted in a distinct Aboriginal people with their own cultural identity, settlements, language, and traditions (Barman and Evans 2009; MNC n.d.-a). In the Cree language the Métis are known as otipemisiwak, which is translated as “the people who own themselves” (Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples 2013).

Métis communities emerged along the freighting waterways and Great Lakes of Ontario, and extended west across the prairies, and as far north as the Mackenzie River. Within Canada15, the “Historic Métis Nation Homeland” includes a part or all of the present-day provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC, and the Northwest Territories. Historically, although the Métis people of this region were deeply rooted in their home communities, they were connected through a highly mobile fur trade network, seasonal rounds, extensive kinship connections and a collective identity (i.e., common culture, language, way of life, etc.; MNBC 2015c). The Métis also had recognized Aboriginal title, which the Government of Canada attempted to extinguish through the issuance of “scrip” and land grants in the late 19th and 20th centuries (MNC n.d.-a).

15 A small part of the Historic Métis Nation Homeland extends below the 49th Parallel into the northern United States, though the exact boundaries are unclear.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-49 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The presence of Métis in BC is linked to the fur trade. In the 1790s, Métis were present in the Peace River drainage and eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains (MNBC 2015c). In addition, numerous Métis fur trade employees and their families could be found throughout the Columbia (present day southern BC and Washington State) and Athabasca (present day northern BC, Alberta, and southern NWT) fur trading districts (Barman and Evans 2009).

The primary language spoken by Métis in BC is English, though the traditional Métis language is Michif16. Michif is a mixed language (also known as a pidgin or Creole language) that emerged in the 19th century and adopted a consistent character between 1820 and 1840. Michif combines Cree and Métis French (a variety of Canadian French), with some additional borrowing from English and First Nation languages such as Ojibwa and Assiniboine (Bakker 1997). There are several dialects of Michif, however, with some blending French and/or English with other languages such as Athapaskan, Sioux, or Ojibwa (MMCS 2004).

The Métis played an integral role in the early fur trade as intermediaries between early European fur traders and First Nations communities. This role was partly due to the ease with which the Métis conversed in both First Nations and European languages, as well as their familiarity with both cultures and their respective worldviews (A. Stevenson 2004).

Historically, the livelihood of the Métis came from subsistence harvesting based on a seasonal round, and from commercial production of furs, fish and game. The mobility of the Métis people was the foundation of their harvesting traditions. Harvesters used and occupied a vast area together with their families according to a seasonal round directed by the availability of resources. (Traditions Consulting Services 2013).

The Métis in BC placed a high value on harvested foods and harvesting activities. Traditionally, the Métis harvested large and small mammals such as moose, elk, deer, caribou, black bear, beaver, muskrat, porcupine and rabbit. They also harvested a variety of upland game birds as well as waterfowl from rivers and lakes. Harvested fish include northern pike, whitefish, pickerel, grayling, and trout. Berries and other food plants were harvested during the spring and summer months and while camping or on big game harvests (Traditions Consulting Services 2013).

21.3.13.3 Land Use Setting and Planning

Established in 2002, the British Columbia Métis Assembly of Natural Resources is “a policy committee that consists of Métis land-users and knowledge holders that provide conservation and management support to the MNBC Ministry of Natural Resources”. The policy decisions and activities of this organisation are intended to support the cultural and sustenance needs of the Métis citizens in British Columbia (MNBC 2015c). The Natural Resources Act (passed by the MNBC General Assembly in 2008 and most recently revised in 2010) regulates the Métis harvest in BC. It gives authority to seven

16 The Métis Nation Provincial Survey (MNPS) from 2006 reported that less than 5% of the Métis population surveyed speak Michif themselves; almost 15% indicated that Michif was spoken by someone in their home. Despite the fact that the language is not widely spoken, over two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they were interested in learning Michif (BC Provincial Health Officer 2009).

21-50 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Regional Captains of the Hunt and a Harvester Cards system17 (MNC 2011). It also seeks to ensure Métis traditional knowledge is incorporated into all guidelines (MNBC 2015c).

21.3.13.4 Governance

The governance structure of the MNBC was established in 2003 by the Métis Provincial Council of BC and includes a senate, governing assembly, youth and women’s representatives, an electoral act, and a citizenship process. The MNBC Governing Assembly is composed of 11 elected individuals which also sits as a board of directors and includes representation from each of the seven MNBC regions (MNBC 2015c).

The seven MNBC regions cover the province of BC, and provide the basic organizational structure of the organisation. Within these regions, there are 35 Métis “chartered communities”; qualification as a chartered community requires at least 25 Métis citizens who are at least 18 years of age (MNBC 2015c).

The Project is situated within MNBC’s Northeast BC region. The closest Métis chartered communities to the Project include Smithers (represented by the Tri-River Métis Association), Terrace (the Northwest BC Métis Association), Prince George (the Prince George Métis Community Association) and Chetwynd (Moccasin Flat’s Métis Society) (MNBC 2015c). The mandate of the MNBC is to develop and enhance opportunities for Métis communities by implementing culturally relevant social and economic programs and services (MNBC 2015c).

21.3.13.5 Economy

The MNBC website provides a directory of the various Métis businesses that include, for example, ranching, painting, plumbing, trucking, acupuncture, spas, helicopter, design, and realty companies (MNBC 2015a). The MNBC recently announced a proposal for a Métis Capital Corporation in BC to better facilitate Métis involvement in partnerships with industry (MNBC 2015a).

21.3.13.6 Reserves

The Métis do not possess Indian Reserves as they are not defined as “Indians” under the Indian Act (1985a).

21.4 SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

21.4.1 Introduction

This section summarizes AuRico’s past and planned consultation activities with Aboriginal groups. The full discussion of AuRico’s engagement with Aboriginal groups, including the purpose and methods of consultations, past and planned consultation efforts, specific issues raised by Aboriginal groups and AuRico’s responses to address these issues, and descriptions of Project-related

17 Currently, the Harvester Cards do not authorize freshwater or saltwater fishing, cutting timber, trapping, or hunting other than the harvesting of migratory birds (MNBC 2015c).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-51 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE agreements, is presented in Chapter 3 (Information Distribution and Consultation). This section provides a brief summary of Aboriginal engagement to provide context relating to AuRico’s relationships with Aboriginal groups consulted with respect to the Project.

AuRico began consulting with Aboriginal groups with respect to the Project in 2010. Upon the commencement of the environmental assessment (EA) process in 2014, AuRico’s consultation has been informed by in the following:

• the requirements in the BC EAO Section 11 and Section 13 orders issued for the Project;

• AuRico’s Aboriginal Consultation Plan (Appendix 3-G);

• the Project AIR;

• requests and suggestions from Aboriginal groups; and

• direction provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency.

The TKDN, TLFN, and KwN (i.e., those Aboriginal groups identified on Schedule B of the section 11 Order) are jointly represented by the Tse Keh Nay (TKN) based on their common history, culture and language, and deep social and political ties (Takla Lake First Nation 2013). The Chiefs of TKN member First Nations comprise the membership of TKN along with other representatives from the three First Nations and TKN staff. As such, AuRico consulted the three Aboriginal groups jointly, as summarized in Section 21.4.2. AuRico also shared information with Aboriginal groups identified on Schedule C of the section 11 Order group, as summarized in Sections 21.4.3 through 21.4.12.

21.4.2 Tse Keh Nay

21.4.2.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico initiated consultation activities with TKN (i.e., TLFN, TKDN, and KwN communities) in October 2010 to describe the proposed Kemess Underground proposal and discuss TKN’s preferred approach to consultation, including possible agreements with TKN related to the proposed Project. AuRico continued to meet with TKN and held a series of community meetings in Takla Landing, Kwadacha, and Tsay Keh. The community meetings provided an opportunity for AuRico to present the plans for the proposed Project, discuss potential environmental concerns, as well as to discuss training, jobs, and business opportunities. There has been ongoing consultation with TKN members, both collectively and separately since this time.

In June 2012, AuRico and TKN signed an Interim Measures Agreement (IMA) which guides consultation and engagement activities between AuRico and the three TKN members, including, but not limited to: the establishment of a Senior Implementation Committee (SIC) which is responsible for IMA implementation, environmental management provisions, employment (including reviewing barriers for Aboriginal employment), and business opportunities; establishment of the Environmental Management Committee (EMC) to identify specific studies and issues related to the environment (including wildlife, fish, and fish habitat) as well as provide general project updates to the Chiefs and community members; establishment of a new agreement with TLFN trapline holders; provision of information related to the Kemess South (KS) Closure Plan, including responses to

21-52 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS questions related to closure and reclamation; provision for AuRico and the TKN to work together in an open, transparent manner on the Project, including incorporation of TKN perspectives; and negotiation of an Impact Benefits Agreement (IBA) which will be ratified by the communities.

As required by the section 11 Order, AuRico also developed an Aboriginal Consultation Plan (ACP; Appendix 3-G; described in further detail below). AuRico provided a draft report, the Interim Pre-Application Aboriginal Consultation Report, covering consultation with TKN and other Aboriginal groups until December 2014 to TKN for review and comment. Following receipt of TKN comments, AuRico revised the report (finalized February 2015) and provided to TKN and BC EAO. Details about AuRico’s consultations with TKN is included in a communications tracking table in Appendix 3-D (Summary of Communications with Aboriginal Groups).

Approach to Consultation

Complementary to the goals of the IMA, AuRico and TKN developed a Joint Communication Plan (updated March 2015) to foster a positive and respectful ongoing relationship. The Joint Communication Plan provides a framework for communication between TKN and AuRico related to the KUG Project during the Environmental Assessment (EA) process and a strategy for implementation of the plan. The Joint Community Plan indicates that communications will be inclusive of all TKN nations and will reach all segments of TKN members (e.g., elders, youth, off-reserve members), two-way, culturally appropriate and conducted in a manner that promotes a positive an respectful relationship between TKN and AuRico.

Through the development and implementation of this Plan, AuRico and TKN have and continue to determine appropriate strategies for engagement.

Additionally, in August 2014, AuRico circulated a draft of the ACP outlining AuRico’s approach to consultation to the TKN for review and comment. AuRico revised the ACP in response to comments received. Consultation activities have included, but are not limited to, meetings and regular communications with TKN, community meetings, mine site tours, and a Project newsletter. Additionally, TKN have participated in regular meetings of the Senior Implementation Committee (SIC) and Environmental Management Committee (EMC)18.

Generally, AuRico has shared information about the Project, water management, environmental management, jobs/training, business opportunities, KS mine closure, and the environmental assessment process.

Based on the TKN community members’ desire to understand water discharge options and to be part of the decision-making process, AuRico engaged the TKN in the assessment of various water discharge alternatives. The aim was to have TKN involved in the decision-making process and to ensure that TKN values and information were represented in the selection of the water discharge location. Based on the outcomes of the alternatives assessment process and further analysis, AuRico

18 A description of the SIC and EMC is included in the section “Agreements with TKN”, below.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-53 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE selected Attichika Creek (the TKN’s preferred alternative) as the discharge location. Consultation related to water management is described in more detail in section 3.6.4.7 of Chapter 3, Information Distribution and Consultation19.

AuRico’s approach to consultation was based on ongoing input from the TKN members. For example, TKN members requested a differentiation between the communications plan and engagement strategy and the need for both. To address this concern, AuRico and TKN collaborated on the development of the Joint Communication Plan. Members of TKN also noted the importance for AuRico to present information about current and future plans of the Project to the broader community as well as to develop a communication strategy around water management. TKN emphasized the need for information to be presented in a way that was accessible for community members. To address this concern, since the start of the EA process in 2014, AuRico has held community meetings in Takla Landing, Tsay Keh, and Kwadacha (three meetings held in each community, including a community meeting to present and discuss water discharge alternatives). At these meetings, plain language and graphics were used to present technical topics. TKN highlighted the need to integrate TK and the knowledge of Elders into the EA. As such, AuRico supported the development of a TLUS. TKN requested the opportunity to review complete baseline studies and to be able to identify gaps and concerns. To this end, AuRico has shared baseline studies with TKN, and addressed comments and concerns raised by TKN during their review. For the review process, AuRico developed comment tracking tables for each baseline study that TKN provided comments on.

Working Group

TKN First Nations are members of the BC EAO Working Group (established May 2014). Through a collaborative approach established between AuRico and TKN, AuRico shared the draft VC Scoping Summary and draft AIR first with the TKN (and following that with other members of the Working Group) for their review and comment prior to submitting these documents to the BC EAO. TKN commented on both the VC Scoping Summary and the draft AIR, which AuRico subsequently revised. In November 2014 AuRico discussed the valued components related to the Project and the status of the EA process at community meetings in Kwadacha (November 5), Tsay Keh (November 6), and Takla Landing (November 13).

In addition to the formal review of the Application with the Working Group, AuRico also committed to provide the Application to the Aboriginal members of the Working Group (i.e., TKN20), 60 days prior to submitting it to the BC EAO. Working Group meetings are described in more detail in Chapter 3 (Information Distribution and Consultation).

19 The alternatives assessment process is further described in the Water Management Alternatives Assessment report (Appendix 4-G), which includes a summary of TKN engagement related to water management and discharge alternatives. Engagement with the TKN is also summarized in Appendix 3-D, Summary of AuRico’s Communication with Aboriginal Groups. 20 The TKDN, TLFN, and KwN (i.e. the Aboriginal groups identified on Schedule B of the section 11 Order) are jointly represented by the Tse Keh Nay (TKN).

21-54 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Agreements with TKN

AuRico has established several agreements with the TKN. Through the TKN, there has been representation by TLFN, TKDN, and KwN in the establishment and implementation of these agreements. The agreements between AuRico and TKN include:

• The IMA (June 2012), which guides consultation and engagement activities between AuRico and the three TKN First Nations. Through this agreement a Senior Implementation Committee (SIC) and an Environmental Management Committee (EMC) were established with representation from TKN and have been meeting monthly since May 2013. This agreement also outlined provisions for a new agreement with registered TLFN trapline TR739T006 as well as guidelines if the Project entered into the EA process (i.e., the Environmental Assessment Conduct Agreement). The IMA also covered employment and training, business opportunities, and the review of KS closure (see Section 3.6.4.6, Agreements with Tse Keh Nay, for a list of IMA provisions).

• Exploration Agreements (2013-2014 and 2015-2016 field seasons), which outlined opportunities for TKN participation in the exploration and drilling programs. AuRico also engaged TKN companies to support ongoing environmental and reclamation activities and site road maintenance21.

• Joint Communication Plan (updated March 2015) which outlines the approach to foster a positive and respectful ongoing relationship between TKN and AuRico and outlines goals and principles; the audiences and strategies for engagement such as community meetings, career fairs, mine site tours; the Project website; and a Project newsletter.

• Environmental Assessment Conduct Agreement (EACA; June 2014) which outlines how AuRico and the TKN will work together throughout the EA process and how AuRico will support the TKN’s review of the Application. This includes funds for a Technical Coordinator and other technical advisors when required to assist the TKN in their review of the Application and related documents.

• Employment and Contract Opportunity Framework (March 2015) which identifies specific responsibilities and requirements related to employment and contracting opportunities. The framework acknowledges that some employment opportunities will be direct employment by AuRico while other opportunities will be contracted out to TKN.

In April 2015, AuRico and the TKN began to negotiate the terms of an Impact Benefits Agreement for the Project.

Site Visits

In addition to the site visit AuRico hosted for the Working Group on June 25, 2014, AuRico has hosted five additional site visits for TKN representatives and members of TKN First Nations as follows:

21 This work has been conducted in an area/deposit that is outside the Project area and also outside of the “land boundary” relating to the IMA.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-55 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

• June 8, 2011: tour and discussion of portal locations, including TKN's preferred option for the portal location (outside of the Amazay watershed), and IMA issues such as plans for Project, environmental concerns, jobs/training, business opportunities, KS closure, and committees;

• June 10, 2013: tour and discussion of water management and water quality, wildlife, exploration activities, reclamation activities, proposed mining procedures and new infrastructure;

• September 9, 2014: tour and discussion of jobs and training, water management and water quality, wildlife, exploration activities, chance find procedures for artifacts or burial sites, and reclamation work completed on KS;

• June 23, 2015: helicopter tour of vegetation growth along the Kemess hydro powerline; and

• August 18, 2015: tour and discussion of east cirque (location of subsidence), water pipe route to Attichika Creek, the Leach Cap dump and collection pond, and East Dam location.

AuRico plans to host an additional site visit during the Application review stage for TKN representatives.

Consultation during Application Review

During the Application review period, AuRico and the TKN are planning to hold a multi-day gathering during the 60-day TKN review to discuss the Application. The gathering will enable the TKN to identify potential issues and provide an opportunity for AuRico to respond to the issues and provide additional information. Additionally, AuRico will distribute copies of the Application to TKN communities and will respond to comments. AuRico will continue to hold regular SIC and EMC meetings and to follow guidance of the EACA and collaborative approach to the EA process established with TKN. By mutual agreement, AuRico will hold meetings with TKN First Nations to discuss potential effects of the proposed Project on Aboriginal rights and interests and proposals to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise address the effects as appropriate.

21.4.2.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

Appendix 3-E (Aboriginal Groups Comment Tracking Table) contains a comment tracking table for comments raised by Aboriginal groups. The table lists the comments raised by Aboriginal groups until September 30, 2015, and AuRico’s responses, which explain how each comment has been considered and addressed. The responses reference where additional information is available in the Application.

The comments originated at meetings and correspondence with TKN, Working Group meetings, meetings associated with Project Activity Committees (i.e., EMC, SIC), community meetings, site visits, and correspondence.22

22 Consultations as well as issues raised by Aboriginal groups are tracked using StakeTracker, a consultation tracking software.

21-56 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Key issues raised by TKN include (but are not limited to):

• potential impacts on water quality in Thutade Lake due to water discharge;

• potential impacts on wildlife resulting from habitat loss and disruption of animal migrations as a result of Project infrastructure;

• potential impacts on fish due to sedimentation affecting spawning areas;

• potential impacts on Amazay Lake;

• potential effects on graveyards and spiritual sites, and other cultural and archaeological sites;

• potential impacts on trails, camp sites, and traditional meeting grounds at the north end of Thutade Lake;

• potential impacts on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes resulting from increased competition and hunting pressure, restricted access, First Nations’ avoidance of industrial sites, and perceived risk of contamination;

• decreased quality of furs trapped on traplines that might be affected by the Project and subsequent decreases in economic value of furs; and

• employment and training.

In response, AuRico has:

• selected the portal site to avoid interaction with Amazay Lake;

• relocated the access road and conveyor system away from higher value fish habitats in El Condor Creek;

• re-routed access to portals using a different alignment with short tunnel to avoid sensitive habitat along Kemess Creek;

• elevated the conveyor and designed gravel ramps over the proposed Discharge Waterline to facilitate the passage of wildlife;

• engaged the TKN in the assessment of water discharge alternatives and selected TKN’s preferred discharge alternative (Attichika Creek);

• relocated the alignment of the discharge outfall to avoid bull trout staging and spawning areas in Attichika Creek;

• undertaken to stage directed discharges from the tailings storage facility to the natural hydrograph of Attichika Creek, limit the discharge period to the open water season (May to October), and decrease the amount of water discharged during the final years of the Construction phase;

• undertaken a sampling program for Thutade Lake bull trout in response to the TKN request for increased sampling of adult bull trout in Thutade Lake who use Attichika Creek to assess bio-accumulation;

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-57 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

• committed to sharing the results of proposed monitoring programs with the TKN over the life of the Project;

• agreed to compensate a TLFN trapline holder for the portion of the trapline overlapping with the Project;

• committed to a full range of best practices and environmental management and monitoring programs to mitigate any environmental effects; and

• committed to helping TKN benefit from business opportunities associated with the Project by circulating job notices to TKN first, interviewing qualified applicants, making reasonable efforts to provide training, and supporting TKN applications for training funds.

AuRico has also funded a number of studies requested by TKN but not required under the environmental assessment process, including:

• an archaeological overview assessment which included establishing a cultural database in each TKN FN community;

• supporting external reviewers for TKN to review the KS Reclamation and Closure Plan, including a dam breach and inundation study related to KS;

• support for a caribou collar program;

• a socio-economic review of TKN communities;

• a performance review of socio-economic conditions related to KS Project Approval Certificate M96-03;

• a state of baseline data review;

• a fish passage culvert assessment and monitoring program undertaken by the TLFN;

• water monitoring and invasive plant species programs over several years, undertaken by the TKDN; and

• terrestrial monitoring programs over several years undertaken by the TKDN.

A full summary of TKN comments and AuRico’s responses is contained in Appendix 3-E.

21.4.2.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Aboriginal Rights as Identified by TKN

The TKN alliance draws on shared ancestry, history, and culture. The TLUS indicates that the proposed Project is within an area of historical, economic, and cultural importance to the TKN and that there is extensive evidence of Aboriginal rights and title in the area. Through their participation in the development of the TLUS, TKDN, TLFN, and KwN collectively stated that,

Effects on Aboriginal rights and related interests could result from the Project, Project components, and activities that interfere with the ability of the Sekani groups to engage in the practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to their distinctive culture and/or by interfering with the exercise of their rights and any assertions of title to their traditional territories. (Crossroads 2015:80).

21-58 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

TKN nations raised concerns about potential effects of the Project on wildlife, such as increased wildlife mortality from Project-related vehicle collisions, wildlife contamination, and competition for wildlife from non-Aboriginal hunters having increased access to the area. KwN commented that members may avoid areas where exploration or other industrial activities are taking place, disrupting their right to harvest or undertake cultural practices in the desired locations. Based on these comments, AuRico anticipates that these impacts to wildlife may reduce the ability of TKN members to practice hunting and trapping within their traditional territory.

Members of TLFN also hold a trapline tenure (TR739T006) in the Project area. AuRico expressed their interest in establishing a new agreement with TLFN-held traplines to address impacts of the Project on the trapline. In 2001, compensation was negotiated with the TLFN-registered holders of trapline tenure TR739T006 for the KS Project. This agreement was updated in 2005 to address compensation for the proposed Kemess North Project. AuRico met and consulted with the holders of this tenure regarding a new agreement, which was signed on December 18, 2014.

Additionally, TKN nations identified the need to protect heritage and traditional use areas, and indicated that there are cultural values associated with Thutade Lake, Amazay Lake, and Finlay River. KwN is concerned about potential effects of the Project on water in Finlay River, at the community of Kwadacha. Based on these comments, AuRico anticipates that there may be impacts to social and ceremonial practices.

TKN nations indicated there is potential for decreased quality of furs trapped on traplines that might be affected by the Project, which would result in decreases in economic value of furs. This may affect their means of survival, should trapping be a source of economic income. TKN nations noted that traplines close to the mine may be less profitable on account of noise disturbances from the Project affecting wildlife in the area.

TKN First Nations indicated that dust from the Project may smother harvestable plants and expressed concern about contamination of plants and soils, which may affect their right to harvest plants.

21.4.2.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

Since 2012, TKN has filled two seasonal environmental monitor positions at KS, including staff members from TLFN and TKDN. A water monitoring program and invasive plant species program was implemented by TKDN (Chu Cho Environmental) in 2014, and water quality and terrestrial monitoring programs in 2015 (both funded by AuRico).

TKN members expressed a concern about long-term and cumulative environmental effects in the area. The community stressed the importance of responsible care and maintenance of the mine post-closure. TKDN suggested that each community have a "watchman" that participates in ongoing monitoring and closure activities, and who reports back to the community. KwN expressed an interest in a collaborative approach to monitoring. During consultation, KwN indicated that in the case of a Finlay River discharge option, that monitoring stations should be located downstream; however, this option was not selected.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-59 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.4.2.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

Where possible, traditional knowledge has influenced the Project design. For example, the conveyor in the Kemess Valley will be elevated to avoid acting as a barrier to moose. Further the selection of the portal location was informed by input from TKN.

AuRico supported the development of a TKN TLUS that was provided to inform the EA. The TLUS identifies TKN traditional knowledge, land and resource use, and cultural resource information relevant to the Project area. All three TKN First Nations were directly involved in the study, including involvement in planning, interviews, and review of the final report. An objective of the TLUS was to build capacity within the TKN by meaningfully involving representatives of each TKN First Nation in the study and ensuring that the information gathered made a contribution to the existing TKN knowledge base. TKN also provided input regarding the specific data that could be used and publicly disclosed in the Application. The development of the TLUS and presentation of information into the effects assessment respected the guidance provided by TKN regarding the level of detail and format of the data. The TLUS report was shared with AuRico and the consultants preparing the Application so that relevant information could be incorporated into the assessment. In June 2015, AuRico was informed that TLFN may do an independent TLUS.

AuRico engaged TKN regarding water discharge options to have TKN involved in decision-making process and to ensure that TKN values and information were represented in the selection of the water discharge location. Overarching themes from the TKN included a preference for the Attichika Creek option due to its proximity to the Project and existing perceptions that the creek has been affected by the KS Mine. The importance of “perception” was strongly stated by all groups, as perceived effects can have a powerful effect on peoples’ behaviour and use of lands and resources, even if actual effects are not measureable. Based on the outcomes of the alternatives assessment process and further analysis, AuRico selected Attichika Creek (the TKN’s preferred alternative) as the discharge location. On November 4, 2015 AuRico met with TKN to present Attichika Creek water quality discharge predictions. Consultation related to water management is described in more detail in Section 3.6.4.7 of Chapter 3, Information Distribution and Consultation23.

Information from the TKN TLUS was considered in the development of the Application in several ways, including but not limited to:

• Surface hydrology: In the baseline study on surface hydrology, there was consideration of the importance of water to TKN: “Probably the greatest resource in the TKN territory is the abundance of pure, fresh, drinking water that supports the ecosystems of the region” (Crossroads 2015e: 68). Therefore, access to clean water and the sustained ability to harvest (e.g., fish) were considered while undertaking the assessment of potential effects to surface hydrology.

23 The alternatives assessment process is further described in the Water Management Alternatives Assessment report (Appendix 4-G), which includes a summary of TKN engagement related to water management and discharge alternatives. Engagement with the TKN is also summarized in Appendix 3-D, Summary of AuRico’s Communication with Aboriginal Groups.

21-60 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

• Terrestrial ecology: Plant and tree species of cultural importance were identified through a review of information from the Kemess North project, from literature and from ethnographic information.

• Wildlife: Baseline information considered the concerns raised by Aboriginal groups relating to declining populations of moose, caribou, mountain goat and groundhog (hoary marmot). Baseline studies included information from interview and studies related to traditional knowledge (Appendix 15-A).

• Heritage: Baseline studies considered information from interviews and consultation with TKN members having knowledge of cultural resources.

AuRico also funded an Archeaological Overview Assessment (AOA, delivered in 2013) which built upon the existing TKN information and knowledge base, supplemented by interviews with TKN Elders and community meetings. TKN members were directly involved in the collection of traditional knowledge and land use information. Confidential databases of the information were developed for each First Nation for their future use and reference.

Additionally, all TKN members participated in the October 2014 Working Group during which time AuRico reviewed the approaches to traditional knowledge and traditional land use studies (TK/TLUS) for the assessment.

21.4.3 Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap

21.4.3.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico initiated consultation with GWNK in 2011, primarily related to a Notice of Work for 2011. In 2013, after consulting about the appropriate representatives of the GWNK, a meeting was held to discuss the Project, jobs, training, contract opportunities, and the EA process. In 2013, AuRico also met with Gitxsan Chiefs Office (GCO) and Gitxsan Development Corporation (GDC) regarding the proposed Project. Subsequent consultation has been primarily through emails and phone calls. In March 2014, AuRico met with the Chief of Wilp Nii Kyap to provide an overview of the Project Description and to provide an update on the Project including the 2014 field program. During each of these consultations, GWNK indicated that the Project is within their asserted territory and expressed an interest in consultation.

Based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency about consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C, in April 2015, AuRico provided the GWNK Summary Report to Wilp Nii Kyap. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on Wilp Nii Kyap (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, and physical and cultural heritage). AuRico encouraged Wilp Nii Kyap’s review and comment on the report.

In November 2015, AuRico provided the GWNK Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to GWNK. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on GWNK (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-61 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged GWNK’s review and comment on the report. No comments have been received to date.

Topics of discussion have included potential Project employment, jobs and training opportunities, contract opportunities, EA process, the project description, and project updates.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.3.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

During meetings with AuRico between 2011 and 2014, GWNK indicated the Project is within their traditional territory. To date, GWNK has not raised any issues with the Project.

21.4.3.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Aboriginal Rights as Identified by Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap

During meetings with AuRico between 2011 and 2014, GWNK indicated the Project is within their traditional territory and expressed an interest in consultation. To date, GWNK has not identified potential impacts to their Aboriginal rights.

21.4.3.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap has not identified interests in long-term monitoring.

21.4.3.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

At the March 2014 meeting, GWNK provided AuRico with a map showing Gitxsan traditional territory, which was also sent to AuRico by email. No specific traditional knowledge from GWNK has been included in the Application.

21.4.4 Doig River First Nation

21.4.4.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with DRFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with DRFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to DRFN to introduce the Project and describe the process for collecting information and assessing potential effects in accordance with Section (5)(1)(c) of CEAA 2012, and presenting plans for seeking DRFN input in the EA. In response, DRFN requested information about AuRico’s producing mines and advanced exploration project, and additional information about the Kemess Underground Project, including types of jobs that would be available, which was provided by AuRico in March 2015.

21-62 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Doig River First Nation Summary Report to DRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on DRFN. AuRico encouraged DRFN’s review and comment on the report.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Doig River First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to DRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on DRFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged DRFN’s review and comment on the report.

During these consultation activities, no concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.4.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by DRFN regarding the Project.

21.4.4.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Doig River First Nation

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by DRFN regarding the Project.

21.4.4.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by DRFN.

21.4.4.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific DRFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.5 Halfway River First Nation

21.4.5.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with HRFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with HRFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to HRFN to introduce the Project and describe the process for collecting information and assessing potential effects in accordance with Section (5)(1)(c) of CEAA 2012, and presenting plans for seeking HRFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Halfway River First Nation Summary Report to HRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on HRFN. AuRico

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-63 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE encouraged HRFN’s review and comment on the report. In August 2015, AuRico received comments from HRFN requesting a robust approach to tailings safety, in consideration of potential impacts to the Peace River Watershed in the case of a tailings storage facility breach. The HRFN also requested further contact regarding potential procurement and employment opportunities.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Halfway River First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to HRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on HRFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged HRFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In November, in response to a letter from HRFN (dated May 2015 and forwarded to AuRico by the EAO on October 30, 2015), AuRico provided additional background information regarding the approach to consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C of the section 11 Order, as well as providing information on the guidance received by the BC EAO and CEA Agency to prepare an assessment of potential effect of the Project in accordance with Section 5(1)(c) of CEAA 2012. AuRico supported renewed efforts for consultation with HRFN to address comments and questions related to the Project and environmental assessment process.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.5.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

Comments have been provided by the HRFN that are relevance to the EA. Key issues and AuRico’s responses are summarized in Table 21.4-1.24

Table 21.4-1. Key Issues Raised by Halfway River First Nation and AuRico’s Responses

Issue Response Chapter of Application Concern with the level of AuRico provided an overview of the consultation Chapter 3 consultation regarding requirements with Aboriginal groups listed in Schedule C the Project as outlined in the section 11 Order. AuRico expressed an interest in renewed effort to engage HRFN with respect to the Project and EA process. Concern with the AuRico provided an overview of the guidance received Chapter 20 approach to the by the BC EAO and CEA Agency to prepare an assessment of potential assessment of potential effect of the Project in accordance effects of the Project with Section 5(1)(c) of CEAA 2012. AuRico expressed an interest in renewed effort to engage HRFN with respect to the Project and EA process.

24 Comments from HRFN were received in October 2015, after the consultation record cut-off date for Chapter 3 (Information Disclosure and Consultation), which was September 30, 2015.

21-64 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.4.5.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Halfway River First Nation

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by HRFN regarding the Project.

21.4.5.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by HRFN.

21.4.5.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific HRFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.6 Prophet River First Nation

21.4.6.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with PRFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with PRFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to PRFN to introduce the Project and describe the process for collecting information and assessing potential effects in accordance with Section (5)(1)(c) of CEAA 2012, and presented plans for seeking PRFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Prophet River First Nation Summary Report to PRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on PRFN. AuRico encouraged PRFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Prophet River First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to PRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on PRFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged PRFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received from PRFN.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.6.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by PRFN regarding the Project.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-65 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.4.6.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Prophet River First Nation

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by PRFN regarding the Project.

21.4.6.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by PRFN.

21.4.6.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific PRFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.7 Saulteau First Nations

21.4.7.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with SFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with SFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to SFN outlining the Project, status of the EA, AuRico's approach to assessing Project effects in relation to CEAA 2012 5(1)(c), and plans for seeking SFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Saulteau First Nations Summary Report to SFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on SFN. AuRico encouraged SFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Saulteau First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to SFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on SFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged SFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received from SFN.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.7.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by SFN regarding the Project.

21-66 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.4.7.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Saulteau First Nations

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by SFN regarding the Project.

21.4.7.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by SFN.

21.4.7.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific SFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.8 West Moberly First Nations

21.4.8.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with WMFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with WMFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to SFN outlining the Project, status of the EA, AuRico's approach to assessing Project effects in relation to CEAA 2012 5(1)(c), and plans for seeking WMFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the West Moberly First Nations Summary Report to WMFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on WMFN. AuRico encouraged WMFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received from WMFN.

In November 2015, AuRico provided the West Moberly First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to West Moberly First Nations. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on WMFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged WMFN’s review and comment on the report.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.8.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by WMFN regarding the Project.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-67 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.4.8.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by West Moberly First Nations

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by WMFN regarding the Project.

21.4.8.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by WMFN.

21.4.8.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific WMFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA

21.4.9 Fort Nelson First Nation

21.4.9.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with FNFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with FNFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to FNFN outlining the Project, status of the EA, AuRico's approach to assessing Project effects in relation to CEAA 2012 5(1)(c), and plans for seeking FNFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Fort Nelson First Nation Summary Report to FNFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on FNFN. AuRico encouraged FNFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Fort Nelson First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to FNFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on FNFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged FNFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments have been received from FNFN to date.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.9.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by FNFN regarding the Project.

21-68 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.4.9.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Fort Nelson First Nation

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by FNFN regarding the Project.

21.4.9.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by FNFN.

21.4.9.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific FNFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.10 Blueberry River First Nations

21.4.10.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with BRFN based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with BRFN in March 2015 by providing a letter to BRFN outlining the Project, status of the EA, AuRico's approach to assessing Project effects in relation to CEAA 2012 5(1)(c), and plans for seeking BRFN input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the Blueberry River First Nations Summary Report to BRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on BRFN. AuRico encouraged BRFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the Blueberry River First Nations Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to BRFN. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on BRFN (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged BRFN’s review and comment on the report. No comments have been received from BRFN to date.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.10.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by BRFN regarding the Project.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-69 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.4.10.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by Blueberry River First Nations

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by BRFN regarding the Project.

21.4.10.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by BRFN.

21.4.10.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific BRFN traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.11 McLeod Lake Indian Band

21.4.11.1 Consultation Activities

AuRico consulted with MLIB based on guidance provided by the BC EAO and CEA Agency regarding consultation with Aboriginal groups listed on Schedule C.

AuRico initiated consultation with MLIB in March 2015 by providing a letter to introduce the Project and describe the process for collecting information and assessing potential effects in accordance with Section (5)(1)(c) of CEAA 2012, and plans for seeking MLIB input in the EA.

In April 2015, AuRico provided the McLeod Lake Indian Band Summary Report to MLIB. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on MLIB. AuRico encouraged MLIB’s review and comment on the report. No comments were received.

In September 2015, AuRico provided the McLeod Lake Indian Band Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to MLIB. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on MLIB (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged MLIB’s review and comment on the report. No comments have been received from MLIB to date.

During these consultation activities, no comments or concerns were raised with AuRico regarding their approach to consultation.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.11.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by MLIB.

21-70 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.4.11.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Treaty Rights as Identified by McLeod Lake Indian Band

To date, no adverse effects on treaty rights have been raised by MLIB regarding the Project.

21.4.11.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, no long-term monitoring issues or interests have been raised by MLIB.

21.4.11.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific MLIB traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.4.12 Métis Nation British Columbia

21.4.12.1 Consultation Activities

In March 2015, AuRico sent a letter to the MNBC to introduce the Project and describe the process for collecting information and assessing potential effects in accordance with Section (5)(1)(c) of CEAA 2012. MNBC responded to indicate that the information had been forwarded to the natural resources department.

In April 2015, AuRico sent a letter and draft report describing AuRico’s understanding of MNBC’s history, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, health and socio-economic conditions, and physical and cultural heritage. MNBC provided information about the harvesting and traditional knowledge information, and subsequently AuRico met with MNBC’s Director of Natural Resources. MNBC provided a traditional land use and occupancy report for the Project in September 2015.

In November 2015, AuRico provided the Métis Summary Report: Assessment of Potential Effects related to 5(1)(c) to MNBC. The report was used to inform the assessment of potential effects of the Project on MNBC (specifically health and socio-economic conditions, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance). AuRico encouraged MNBC’s review and comment on the report.

During the Application review process, AuRico will continue to compile, track, and, where possible, address issues raised by Aboriginal groups during engagement activities, including attempting to resolve any outstanding issues.

21.4.12.2 Issues Raised and AuRico’s Responses

To date, no issues have been raised by MNBC regarding the Project.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-71 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.4.12.3 Potential Adverse Effects on Aboriginal Rights as Identified by Métis Nation British Columbia

To date, MNBC has not identified potential adverse effects on Aboriginal rights.

21.4.12.4 Interest in Long-term Monitoring

To date, MNBC has not identified interests with respect to long-term monitoring.

21.4.12.5 Incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the Assessment

To date, no specific MNBC traditional knowledge has been provided to AuRico for incorporation into the EA.

21.5 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

21.5.1 Valued Components

Aboriginal groups included in this assessment have emphasized the social, cultural, and political aspects of Aboriginal and treaty rights, in addition to their material aspects (Chapter 3; L. Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007; West Moberly First Nations Land Use Department 2009; Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012). Consequently, this assessment breaks Aboriginal and treaty rights down into a number of categories, or Valued Components (VCs), based on the comments provided by Aboriginal groups during consultations, the TKN TLUS, secondary materials from other environmental assessments, and professional experience25.

Table 21.5-1 identifies candidate VCs, associated customs, practices and traditions, potential effects that may be caused by Project components and activities, and whether the VC is included or excluded from the analysis.

Based on the rationale provided in Table 21.5-1, the following categories of customs, practices, and traditions are selected as VCs for the assessment:

• cultural transmission;

• social and ceremonial practice; and

• resource harvesting.

Customs, practices, and traditions related to language use, networks of exchange, travel and dwelling, and governance are excluded from the list of VCs, as these customs, practices, and

25 These Valued Components were not included in the Application Information Requirements (AIR; BC EAO 2016) or the VC Scoping Document (ERM 2014). Aboriginal and Treaty rights are specific and therefore not well-suited to a priori arrangement in abstract categories. The VCs used in this assessment are not intended to stand in for or replace specific rights, but serve as a means to differentiate among conceptually distinct sets of practices, as well as to ensure that the full range of rights-based practices are considered.

21-72 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS traditions are considered to be incidental (though no less important) to other VCs and are considered therein. Craftwork is excluded from the list of VCs as it has not been identified as a topic of concern by Aboriginal groups and will not be considered further in this assessment.

Table 21.5-1. Candidate Valued Components Included in the Assessment

Customs, Practices, Included/ Candidate VC and Traditions Excluded Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion Language Use Using place names, Excluded Place names, stories and legends have been identified telling stories and in the vicinity of the Project. However, use of place legends names, stories, and legends is considered to be incidental (though no less important) to other activities that may interact with the Project, including subsistence and ceremonial practices, and are therefore considered within those VCs. Cultural Teaching land-based Included Aboriginal groups undertake cultural transmission as Transmission skills and traditional a primary activity – in culture camps, for example – in knowledge in situ the vicinity of the Project and therefore cultural transmission is included as a VC. Where cultural transmission is incidental to the exercise of other activities, it is considered within relevant VCs. Social and Engaging in rites of Included Social and ceremonial practices have been identified in Ceremonial passage, social/political vicinity of Project. These practices have the potential to Practice events, spiritual practices, directly interact with the Project, or be indirectly and ceremonies affected as a result of impacts on resources required for social and ceremonial practices. Resource Resource harvesting Included Resource harvesting by Aboriginal peoples has been Harvesting (hunting, trapping, identified in the vicinity of the Project. These practices fishing, gathering) for have the potential to interact with the Project. subsistence, trade, social, cultural, ceremonial, or spiritual purposes Craftwork Making traditional crafts, Excluded Not identified as a concern by Aboriginal groups art, clothing, etc. from included in the assessment. resources harvested from the land Networks of Sharing, trading, Excluded Aboriginal groups have identified networks of Exchange bartering within and exchange and reciprocity as important component of between communities Aboriginal rights. Exchange within networks is considered to be incidental (though no less important) to resource harvesting and is considered within that VC. Travel and Using travel routes, Excluded Travel routes and campsites have been identified in Dwelling camps and cabins on the vicinity of the Project. Use of travel routes and the land cabins is considered to be incidental (though no less important) to other activities, including resource harvesting and cultural transmission, and is considered within those VCs.

(continued)

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-73 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Table 21.5-1. Candidate Valued Components Included in the Assessment (completed)

Customs, Practices, Included/ Candidate VC and Traditions Excluded Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion Governance Governing land and Excluded Aboriginal groups have identified governance and resources through stewardship as important components of Aboriginal traditional political rights. Maintenance of the social and political order structures and with respect to stewardship of resources entrusted to maintaining social and particular family units is considered to be incidental to political order other activities, including resource harvesting, and are considered within that VC. Other aspects of governance are considered to be appropriate to Crown-Aboriginal relations and will not be considered in this assessment. Aboriginal Exclusive use and Excluded TKN has claimed Aboriginal title over lands within Title occupation of land, which the Project is situated. Gixsan Nation has including: deciding how asserted in meetings that the Kemess Underground the land will be used; Project is within its traditional territory. Treaty 8 First possessing the land; Nations ceded title in the treaty. Métis do not have a reaping the economic claim for Aboriginal title. Aboriginal title is excluded benefits of the land; and as a VC due to uncertainties regarding the pro-actively using and implications of title for subsurface rights and due to managing the land the fact that infringement of title is related to government-level decision making more that to specific Project components and activities.

Tse Keh Nay claims title over lands within which the Project is located (Appendix 20-A). Gitxsan Nation has asserted that the Project is located within their traditional territory. Should an Aboriginal group establish title over these lands, the Project has the potential to infringe the group’s ability to: decide how the land will be used; possess the land; reap the economic benefits of the land; and pro-actively use and manage the land (Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2014). It is unclear if economic effects of such infringement extend to subsurface rights (Junger and Ryan 2014). As stated in Delgamuukw v BC, “on the basis of Guerin, Aboriginal title also encompass mineral rights” (1997). However, this statement is obiter dicta, i.e., a brief, non-binding comment made in passing by the court. In the Tsilhqot'in decision, the court noted that Aboriginal title “confers ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple.” Fee simple ownership in BC does not convey subsurface rights.

Issues regarding decision-making and management of the land are governance issues that can only be addressed by the Crown. The provincial government has the power to regulate land use in the province, whether or not the land is held by holders of Aboriginal title (Delgamuukw v. BC, 1997). The government would have to establish that infringement of title is justified on the basis of (1) consent provided by the Aboriginal title holder and/or (2) if the Crown can establish that it acted on the basis of a compelling societal objective, minimal infringement, and meaningful consultation. Given the uncertainties regarding Aboriginal title and the fact that infringement is tied to government-level decision-making, Aboriginal title is excluded as a VC from this assessment.

21-74 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.5.2 Defining Assessment Boundaries

21.5.2.1 Spatial Boundaries

Project Area

The Project area contains all existing and new infrastructure required for the Project (both surface and underground; see Chapter 8, Effects Assessment Methodology, Figure 8.2-1). The total Project footprint in previously undisturbed areas, including the buffer areas around proposed infrastructure, is 487 ha, of which less than 100 ha is specific to planned infrastructure. The additional buffered area is included to accommodate disturbance from construction and potential siting changes prior to final design. While existing land disturbance is not included in the scope of the assessment, effects resulting from Project activities undertaken in pre-disturbed areas are within the assessment scope.

Local Study Area

The LSA (Figure 21.5-1) is defined as the area surrounding the Project footprint within which there is a reasonable potential for immediate effects on a VC due to an interaction with a Project component or physical activity. It covers approximately 16,560 ha including the Project footprint, and follows the same boundary of the LSA used for the wildlife and terrestrial ecology baseline studies. The LSA includes the area that may be directly disturbed by activities associated with the Project as defined by streams and height of land boundaries.

Regional Study Area

The RSA (Figure 21.5-1) is defined as the broader spatial area representing the maximum limit where potential effects may occur. It covers approximately 1,455,180 ha and follows the same boundary of the RSA used for the wildlife and terrestrial ecology baseline studies. It is defined by naturally occurring barriers (e.g., major mountain ranges and watersheds).

21.5.2.2 Temporal Boundaries

Temporal boundaries, provided in Table 21.5-2, are the time periods considered in the assessment for various Project phases and activities. Temporal boundaries reflect those periods during which planned Project activities are reasonably expected to potentially affect a VC. Potential effects will be considered for each phase of the Project as described in Table 21.5-2.

21.6 PROJECT SETTING

21.6.1 Regional Overview

The Project is located in north central British Columbia, within the Swanell Ranges of the Omineca Mountains. Situated to the east of Thutade Lake in the upper Finlay River watershed, the Project is located within the Arctic Ocean drainage basin. Ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 m above sea level (masl), the Project straddles the treeline in mountainous and rugged terrain rising above a broad valley that includes the lower Kemess Creek and Attichika Creek floodplains.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-75 Figure 21.5-1 Local and Regional Study Areas for the Assessment of Aboriginal Rights and Interests

580000 680000

K Main ¤£97 e ¤£37 Alberta c Map h Kemess ik ^_ a Underground ± R Project iv ka, e s a r A !. Mackenzie Al US O Smithers !. b ¤£16Haworth o Prince !. R LakeGeorge ¤£16 iv e r ¤£97 Weissener British Columbia Lake r ive 6400000 R 6400000 a ch Chukachida a d Lake a S w Vancouver !. ¤£1 t K i k i n e R Kwadacha iv e (Fort Ware) r !. ne River Too doggo

F r in e la iv y R R i y ve la r in F

Kitchener Kemess Lake Underground ^_ Project

Tsay Keh Tatlatui !. Lake nika Inge Rive Pelly Thutade r Lake Lake 6300000 6300000

S k S e wa e nn n el a l Ri R ver iv e r

Local Study Area Tutizzi Regional Study Area Lake !. Community/Settlement Kemess Underground ^_ Project Omineca Resource O Access Road m in e 1:1,200,000 c a R 0 20 40 iv e r Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – British Columbia and Canada. Kilometres Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the Date: December 14, 2015 GIS User Community

6200000 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Copyright:© 2014 Esri 6200000

580000 680000

AURICO METALS INC. - Kemess Underground Project Proj # 0196303-0024 | GIS # KUG-11-066 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Table 21.5-2. Temporal Boundaries for the Effects Assessment for Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Phase Project Year Length of Phase Description of Activities Construction -5 to -1 5 years Pre-construction activities and construction of surface access road and conveyor, access tunnel, declines, power supply to the underground, water lines, water treatment plants; underground lateral development and initial undercutting, and underground dewatering; ore stockpiling and ore processing start-up; and receiving environment monitoring. Operations 1 to 13 13 years Ramp up to commercial ore production and steady state production, TSF dam construction, underground dewatering, tailings storage, water treatment, concentrate shipping, receiving environment monitoring, and progressive reclamation. Closure 14 to 19 6 years Underground decommissioning and flooding; decommissioning of infrastructure at portals, process plant, admin complex, and camp facilities; reclamation, water treatment; and receiving environment monitoring. Post-Closure 20 to 59 40 years Removal of water treatment plant(s), underground flooding, and limited receiving environment monitoring.

The area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Temperatures range from -35ºC to 25ºC, with the coldest months occurring from November to March. Annual precipitation is approximately 700 mm. Maximum snowpack at the end of March is approximately 550 mm snow water equivalents.

The area supports the habitat of goat, stone sheep, grizzly bear, black bear, moose, caribou, wolf, wolverine, lynx, snowshoe hare, beaver, porcupine, and marten. Lakes and creeks in the vicinity of the Project, including Thutade Lake and Amazay Lake, support fish species such as Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, burbot, char, rainbow trout, as well as mountain and lake whitefish. Harvestable plants are relatively scarce above the treeline, while the lowest elevations support numerous harvestable plants, including berries, food plants, medicinal plants, and plants used for other traditional purposes (Section 13.4.3.6).

Prior to European contact in the mid-1700s, the region was primarily occupied by Tse’khene (Sekani). The Tse’khene are Athapaskan peoples (Beaver-Sarcee-Sekani branch) who traditionally inhabited mountainous areas drained by the Finlay and Parsnip branches of the Peace River26 (Denniston 1981). The Tse’khene traditionally pursued a seasonal round within their territories, primarily focussed on big game such as caribou, moose, mountain goats, and sheep, but also focussing on fishing, plant gathering and trading with neighbouring Aboriginal groups (see Section 21.3.1.2).

The Tse’khene seasonal round covered vast distances, traditionally extending across the Rocky Mountains as far east along the Peace River as the present-day town of Peace River, Alberta (Jenness 1937). By the early 19th century, the Tse’khene were forced westward into the mountains by the

26 Much of this area was inundated by the construction of the WAC Bennett Dam and the creation of Williston Lake.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-77 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Dane-zaa (Lamb 1960), with their eastern boundary pushed back along the Peace River to near Hudson’s Hope, BC (Jenness 1937). As they were pushed westward into the Rocky Mountains, the Tse’khene came into closer contact with and began to intermarry with the Gitxsan and Dakelh (Carrier).

The Gitxsan also claim historic use of the area, which appears to describe a frontier zone between the two groups. Gitxsan and Tse’khene engaged in trade and intermarriage, but also conflict, as a historic battle at Thutade Lake attests.

The fur trade became established in the region following contact in 1793 by Alexander Mackenzie (an explorer and trader with the North West Company), and the establishment of fur trading forts, including Fort McLeod (1805), Fort Connelly (1826), Fort Ware (1927), and Fort Grahame (1867). The fur trade prompted changes in the Tse’khene seasonal round, as families concentrated greater activity in the winter and spent time at the forts in spring and again in late fall or early winter. The fur trade also resulted in changes in harvesting techniques, diminishment of animal populations (particularly smaller fur-bearers), and human disease.

Other changes associated with non-Aboriginal settlement influenced Aboriginal occupation and use of the land. The discovery of gold in the region spurred the Omineca Gold Rush (1869 to 1871) and the McConnell Creek Gold Rush (1907 to 1908), resulting in the influx of settlers. The establishment of the Indian Reserve system in the 1860s and the establishment of the Lejac residential school in 1910 displaced Aboriginal peoples and put pressure on Aboriginal groups to transition away from traditional practices and toward a more sedentary lifestyle. The BC government instituted the registered trapline registration system in 1926 which conflicted with the pre-existing management of traditional territories. Agriculture and industrial activities such as forestry, oil and gas extraction, and mining have removed areas from traditional harvesting rounds, altered wildlife and plant habitat, and opened up areas previously inaccessible to non-Aboriginal harvesters. The W.A.C. Bennett Dam Between, completed in 1968, flooded a large portion of Tse’khene harvesting territories when it created the Williston Reservoir (Brody 1981; L. Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007; WMFN 2012). Impacts of the Williston Reservoir were particularly felt by TKDN, who were relocated as a result of flooding (Appendix 20-A).

Access into the LSA and RSA has gradually increased over the years. The first rough road approaching the area was the Omineca road from Fort St. James to Germansen Landing. The road was extended to Aiken Lake from 1959 to 1962. From 1970 to 1971, Falconbridge extended the road to Moose Valley. In 1986, Cheni Mines extended the road from Moose Valley to Sturdee Valley and Lawyers Pass. Access to the Project area was further improved with the opening of the ORAR to the public; the section south of Moose Valley opened in 1986, and the section north of Moose Valley in 1992 (Dewhirst 1995).

Mineral exploration has taken place in the Kemess area since 1889. Actual mining of the KS deposit commenced as an open pit operation in 1998 and continued to 2011. The KS Mine was accessed via the ORAR, which was maintained as an all-weather main line road from Mackenzie, providing transportation of mine supplies and concentrate. Since the closure of the KS Mine, the ORAR has been maintained during the summer months.

21-78 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.6.2 Tse Keh Nay (Takla Lake First Nation, Tsay Keh Dene Nation, and Kwadacha Nation)

21.6.2.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify approximately 14 hunting areas in the LSA, including (but not limited to) areas in the eastern hills of Amazay Lake, an area on the north side of Attichika Creek (east of its confluence with Kemess Creek), Kemess Lake, the area above the underground deposit, an area on East Cirque Creek, and areas to the south of Attycelley Creek (Appendix 20-A; Chapter 20). Species traditionally and currently harvested in the LSA include mountain goat, moose, beaver, marmot and bear. TKN members also hunt these species in the RSA, in areas including (but not limited to) Caribou Hide, Toodoggone River, Finlay River, Thutade Lake, Pilot Creek, Mount Forrest, Fredrickson Creek, Moose Valley, and Johanson Lake (just outside of the RSA).

TKN members trap fur-bearing species within the LSA, including within a provincially registered trapline held by a TLFN family (TR0739T006). TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify approximately five trapping areas in the LSA, located on the west and east sides of Amazay Lake, the northeastern tip of Thutade Lake, and in the narrow valley to the east of the underground deposit (Appendix 20-A). Trapping areas in the RSA are located in the vicinity of (but not limited to) Thutade Lake, Finlay River, Fredrickson Creek, Moose Valley, Ingenika River, the river valleys southwest of Savage Mountain, and east of Johanson Lake (just outside of the RSA). Species targeted for trapping include beaver, otter, marten, mink, fisher, wolverine, lynx, and squirrels. Fisher is usually trapped at the edge of the timber line, while marten and wolverine are harvested lower down on the hillsides. Beaver traps are set along creeks and lakes in May once the snow melts (Dewhirst 1995). Trapping for other fur bearers is most intensive between November and April when furs are at their thickest.

TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify approximately 12 fishing locations in the LSA. Four fishing locations are within Amazay Lake, three at the northern end of Thutade Lake, three along the Finlay River and Attycelley Creek, and one in the vicinity of Attichika Creek (Appendix 20-A). Species targeted in Thutade Lake include Dolly Varden, trout, and suckers. Within the RSA, members fish in waterbodies and areas including (but not limited to) Firesteel River, Thutade Lake, Fredrickson Lake, Thorne Lake, Thorne Creek, and Moose Valley. Fishing locations just outside of the RSA include Johanson Lake, Sustut Lake, Sustut Creek, and Willow Creek.

The areas around Thutade Lake and Amazay Lake within the LSA are used by TKN members for plant gathering (possibly in addition to other areas). TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify one plant-gathering location in the LSA to the northeast of Amazay Lake. The Amazay Lake area was traditionally used for berry picking, juniper collection and the collection of “gun medicine” (Joint Review Panel 2007). Gathering sites identified within the RSA include (but are not limited to) areas around Thutade Lake (primarily along the western side but also on the hillside on the east side of the northern narrows), Moose Valley, Fredrickson Lake, Johanson Lake (just outside of the RSA), Ingenika River, and Toodoggone River. Berries traditionally gathered in the summer around Thutade Lake include rose hips, lingonberries, high-bush cranberries, soapberries, strawberries, raspberries, huckleberries, blueberries, kinnikinnick, and crowberries. TKN members also collect medicinal plants within the RSA.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-79 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

TKN members undertake social and ceremonial practices within the LSA. TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify approximately 20 cultural resources, 9 ceremonial sites, and 6 special resources in the LSA. Thutade Lake and Amazay Lake continue to serve as important sites for summer gatherings, where “people camp, share stories and information, and enjoy the beauty of the place” (Appendix 20-A, p. 70). The lakes are regarded as strong places for dreams and acquiring spiritual power (L. Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007). Amazay Lake and its surrounding hills, for example, are a sacred area used for spirit questing for young men (Appendix 20-A). The names of ancestors, burial sites, stories, and songs are connected to the lakes. Within the RSA, Metsantan and Caribou Hide, Thutade Lake, Thorne Lake, Moose Valley, Sustut Lake (just outside of the RSA), and Caribou Flats are identified as important social and cultural sites. Johanson Lake, just south of the RSA, is used for cultural transmission in youth camps.

TKN members’ use of their traditional territories is supported by cabins, tent sites, and trails. TLFN, TKDN, and KwN collectively identify approximately three cabins and approximately 20 camps in the LSA. The camps and cabins are located along portions of five trails running along Attichika Creek, Thutade Lake, Attycelley Creek, Amazay Lake, and Kemess Creek. The RSA contains numerous camps, cabins, and trails, particularly in the vicinity of (but not limited to) Thutade Lake, Thorne Lake, Moose Valley, and Caribou Hide. Camps, cabins and trails are also located just outside of the RSA in the area of Sustut Lake and Johanson Lake. Many of the camps and cabins are occupied from spring to fall, while some TKN people stay to trap through the winter (Appendix 20-A).

21.6.2.2 Asserted Aboriginal Rights in the Project Area

According to a TKN statement on rights and interests in the Kemess area (Appendix 20-A):

The Kemess area, including the site of the proposed Kemess Underground mine, is of major historical, economic and cultural importance to the Tse Keh Nay and extensive evidence of Aboriginal rights and title exists. It is an area that was used, occupied and defended by the ancestors of the Tse Keh Nay before and after the arrival of Europeans. The significance of the Kemess area for Tse Keh Nay, including its use for traditional purposes, remains very high even today.

As further described in the TKN TLUS (Appendix 20-A, p. 80),

Effects on Aboriginal rights and related interests could result from the Project, Project components, and activities that interfere with the ability of the Sekani groups to engage in the practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to their distinctive culture and/or by interfering with the exercise of their rights and any assertions of title to their traditional territories.

While neither TLFN, TKDN, KwN, nor TKN on their behalf, have explicitly identified specific Aboriginal rights during consultation or in the materials reviewed for this assessment, AuRico conservatively assumes that TLFN’s, TKDN’s, and KwN’s Aboriginal rights include the rights to hunt, trap, fish, gather, engage in social and ceremonial practices, and exercise Aboriginal title. Given the location of the Project within TKN members’ traditional territories, together with extensive

21-80 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS evidence of TKN members’ current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, AuRico assumes that TLFN’s, TKDN’s, and KwN’s Aboriginal rights extend throughout the study areas.

21.6.3 Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap

21.6.3.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

Gitxsan’s current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is primarily concentrated in the Skeena watershed. During hearings for the Kemess North Project, Gitxsan presented evidence of historic use of areas adjacent to the Project area, including hunting, trapping, fishing, and berry picking (Joint Review Panel 2007). Gitxsan also traded with Tse’khene in the vicinity of the Project (Joint Review Panel 2007). A review of available information and consultation efforts to date did not identify current Gitxsan use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.2).

21.6.3.2 Asserted Aboriginal Rights in the Project Area

During meetings with AuRico between 2011 and 2014, GWNK indicated the Project is within their traditional territory. Gitxsan Nation claimed an interest in the Kemess North Project area, including Aboriginal title (Joint Review Panel 2007). This interest is tied to Gitxsan’s historic and contemporary system of land tenure, resource management and governance (Joint Review Panel 2007). In a submission to the Kemess North Joint Review Panel (May 23, 2007), Gitxsan noted that the Project is located in a Gawa Gyaani (peace treaty) area, where rights among neighbouring First Nations are shared (Joint Review Panel 2007). The determination of how rights are shared is based on family connections, while rights are ultimately held by the House Chief for communal benefit of the wilp.

21.6.4 Doig River First Nation

21.6.4.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The main community of DRFN is located on the Doig River IR 206, approximately 385 km in a straight line or 770 km by road, east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current DRFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.3).

21.6.4.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, DRFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.5 Halfway River First Nation

21.6.5.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The community of HRFN is located on the Halfway River IR 168, approximately 310 km in a straight line or 830 km by road, east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current HRFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.4).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-81 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.6.5.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, HRFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.6 Prophet River First Nation

21.6.6.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The community of PRFN is located at the Prophet River IR 4, approximately 270 km in a straight line or 1000 km by road, northeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current PRFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.5).

21.6.6.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, PRFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.7 Saulteau First Nations

21.6.7.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The community of SFN is located on the East Moberly Lake IR 169, approximately 340 km in a straight line or 600 km by road from the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current SFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.6).

21.6.7.2 Asserted and Established Aboriginal Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, SFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.8 West Moberly First Nations

21.6.8.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The community of WMFN is located on West Moberly Lake IR 168A, approximately 330 km in a straight line or 615 km by road, southeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current WMFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.7).

21.6.8.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, WMFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21-82 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.6.9 Fort Nelson First Nation

21.6.9.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The main community of FNFN is located on the Fort Nelson 2 Indian Reserve, approximately 315 km in a straight line or 1,100 km by road, northeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current FNFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.8).

21.6.9.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, FNFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.10 Blueberry River First Nations

21.6.10.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The main community of BRFN is located on the Blueberry River 205 Indian Reserve, approximately 350 km in a straight line or 780 km by road, east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available information and consultation efforts have not identified historic or current BRFN use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.9).

21.6.10.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, BRFN has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.11 McLeod Lake Indian Band

21.6.11.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The main community of the MLIB is located on the McLeod Lake 1 Indian Reserve, approximately 330 km in a straight line or 450 km by road, south of the Project. A review of available information and consultation efforts to date have not identified historic or current MLIB use of the LSA or RSA (Section 20.4.4.10).

21.6.11.2 Treaty Rights in the Project Area

As a signatory to Treaty 8, the MLIB has a treaty right to “pursue [its] usual vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.”

21.6.12 Métis Nation British Columbia

21.6.12.1 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes in the Project Area

The Métis Use and Occupancy Study of the AuRico Metals Kemess Project (MNBC 2015b) identifies current Métis land and resource use as occurring primarily outside of the RSA. Areas of use are

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-83 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE generally concentrated along main roads and highways, including Highway 37 (south of Bell II), and roads stemming from Highway 16 (including sites around the Kispiox Valley, Babine Lake, Takla Lake, Germansen Landing, and the Williston Reservoir). One ptarmigan harvest was documented in the RSA in the vicinity of Toodoggone River north of the Project. No current uses are documented in the LSA.

21.6.12.2 Asserted Aboriginal Rights in the Project Area

Métis Nation BC asserts rights and traditional uses over the entire province of British Columbia (MNBC 2010).

21.7 POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

21.7.1 Potential Project Effects

Based on consultation with Aboriginal groups, review of secondary material, and professional experience with other related projects, the meaningful exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights (Chapter 3; Appendix 20-A; Winds and Voices Environmental Services Inc. 2000; Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2012; A. Ridington 2013; The Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2014) depends on the following key factors:

• land base within which to pursue seasonal rounds;

• populations of important wildlife species in preferred harvesting areas;

• berry, food crops and medicines in preferred harvesting areas;

• water from natural sources on the land;

• confidence in the quality of country foods and feelings of safety and security on the land;

• routes of access and transportation to harvesting areas;

• access to known and preferred habitation sites on the land;

• ability to maintain traditional land tenure and governance systems;

• freedom from competition for access to and harvesting of resources;

• connection to and adequate protection for and respect for spiritual sites;

• knowledge of land and socio-cultural institutions to pass across generations; and

• socio-cultural institutions for sharing and reciprocity.

Key potential effect pathways, as derived through consultation with Aboriginal groups, review of secondary sources, and professional experience, include the following:

• interference with access preventing Aboriginal use of preferred areas for traditional purposes;

• reduced availability of wildlife and fish resources in preferred locations due to direct mortality (resulting from traffic, contamination, attractants, hunting pressure) and alteration of movement (resulting from sensory disturbance, physical impediments, habitat fragmentation);

21-84 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

• reduced availability of plant resources in preferred locations due to direct removal (resulting from site clearing) and alteration (resulting from edge effects from clearing, roads);

• reduced confidence in the safety of water and country foods, due to (real and perceived) contamination of water, plants, and animals (resulting from dust, chemicals, metals, herbicides, spills, explosives);

• reduced sense of place due to sensory disturbance (resulting from noise, light, visual changes) and presence of outsiders (resulting from increased access, increased population);

• reduced mobility due to removal of trails and waterways (resulting from site clearing, infrastructure), reduced safety on roads (resulting from traffic), removal of campsites (resulting from site clearing, infrastructure); and

• reduced sense of connection with land, spirit, and culture due to removal, alteration, and disturbance of burial sites, cultural heritage sites, spiritual and ceremonial sites, sites connected with important names, legends, and stories, and teaching and learning sites (resulting from site clearing, infrastructure, roads).

Informed by Canadian case law (but with the understanding that the scope of this assessment does not include determination of infringement), this assessment conceptualizes adverse effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights with respect to limitations on, or diminution of, their meaningful exercise (R v. Sparrow, 1990; R. v. Morris, 2006a). Three types of limitations on Aboriginal and treaty rights are considered:

• limits on the spatial extent of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions;

• limits on the utility of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions; and

• limits on the continuity of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions.

Key effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights considered in this assessment are summarized in Table 21.7-1 and outlined in the sections below.

21.7.1.1 Limits on the Spatial Extent of Customs, Practices, and Traditions

Aboriginal and treaty rights are practiced in specific geographical areas within an Aboriginal group’s traditional territory and/or treaty area. The particular locations of such activities are dynamic, changing in response to seasonal variation, animal movements, environmental changes, and socio-political structures.

Where the Project removes or otherwise restricts access to land and resources, it holds the potential to limit the spatial extent within which Aboriginal and treaty rights are practiced. The effect is not equivalent to a reduction in the quantity of land available for use within a traditional territory. Rather, the effect is assessed with respect to the spatial expression of rights within that traditional territory, including limitations on the ability to maintain fluid spatial patterns of activity. In addition, the Project has the potential to affect the spatial extent of Aboriginal and treaty rights if it results in Aboriginal peoples avoiding certain areas due to concerns about contamination of resources.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-85

Table 21.7-1. Effects and Indicators Used to Assess Impacts on Valued Components

Valued Component Effect Cause-Effect Pathways Effect Indicators Data Availability Proxy Indicators Social and Limited Restricted access to the Project area resulting Quantity of land removed Available Direct effects indicator to Ceremonial spatial extent in inability to access spiritual and ceremonial from spiritual and be used Practices sites located within the Project area ceremonial use (in ha) Establishment of infrastructure and use of Effort (time and expense) Not available Qualitative estimation of roads resulting in interference with travel required to access sites interference with routes routes to social and ceremonial sites located of access outside of the Project area Limited Fugitive dust covering medicinal plants Potency of medicinal Not available Quantity of land (in ha) utility resulting in reduced potency of medicines plants containing habitat supporting medicinal plants covered with fugitive dust Sensory disturbances resulting in reduced Perceived qualities of Not available Degree of sensory disturbance ability to gain spiritual value from spiritual spiritual sites at spiritual sites, where sites identified or assumed Limited Site clearing resulting in full or partial Number of spiritual sites Available Direct effects indicator to continuity removal of social and ceremonial sites affected be used Sensory disturbance resulting in reduced Perceptions of cultural Not available Degree of sensory disturbance sense of place in connection with the land, connectedness at key sites at spiritual sites, where spirit, ancestors, and future generations identified or assumed Cultural Limited Restricted access to the Project area resulting Quantity of land removed Available Direct effects indicator to Transmission spatial extent in reduced spatial extent of formal learning from culture camps be used sites (i.e., culture camps) that occur within or overlap with the Project area Establishment of infrastructure and use of Effort (time and expense) Not available Qualitative estimation of roads resulting in interference with travel required to access sites interference with routes routes to formal learning sites (i.e., culture of access camps) located outside of the Project area

(continued)

Table 21.7-1. Effects and Indicators Used to Assess Impacts on Valued Components (continued)

Valued Component Effect Cause-Effect Pathways Effect Indicators Data Availability Proxy Indicators Cultural Limited Project hiring resulting in reduced number of Percentage of youth Not available Number of Aboriginal Transmission utility youth available to recruit for culture camps available for recruitment peoples expected to be hired (cont’d) in culture camps by the Project Environmental effects resulting in reduced Number of opportunities to Not available Local effects on abundance abundance of resources in the vicinity of teach culture (e.g., hunting harvested resources; qualitative culture camps, thereby reducing teaching skills, plant identification) estimation of potential effects opportunities at culture camps on teaching opportunities Limited Sensory disturbance resulting in reduced Perception of sense of Not available Noise and visual effects at continuity sense of place while teaching customs, place at culture camps sensitive receptors around the practices, and traditions Project area Increased presence of non-Aboriginal peoples Percentage of non- Not available Local population growth resulting in reduced sense of place while Aboriginal people attributable to the Project. harvesting resources engaging in competing Estimation of non-Aboriginal land uses access increased by the Project Resource Limited Restricted access to the Project area resulting Quantity of land (in ha) Partially available – Direct effects indicator used. Harvesting spatial extent in reduced area within which to practice removed from availability spatial information Effect is interpreted seasonal rounds for seasonal round regarding seasonal qualitatively in relation to the rounds not spatial expression of the available for all seasonal round, where data Aboriginal groups is available. Establishment of infrastructure and use of Time required to access Not available Qualitative estimation of roads resulting in interference with access to lands and resources along interference with access along sites outside of the Project area routes intersected by known and assumed routes Project components and activities Release of effluent and airborne emissions Degree of Aboriginal Not available Quantitative estimates of resulting in Aboriginal people’s avoidance of confidence in resources impacts on human health areas considered by Aboriginal groups to be harvested from areas resulting from country foods contaminated perceived to be impacted harvest in study areas by the Project

(continued)

Table 21.7-1. Effects and Indicators Used to Assess Impacts on Valued Components (completed)

Valued Component Effect Cause-Effect Pathways Effect Indicators Data Availability Proxy Indicators Resource Limited Environmental effects resulting in reduced Quantity of resources Not available Local effects on abundance Harvesting utility abundance of harvested resources in harvested per harvesting of resources available (cont’d) preferred harvesting areas trip for harvest Limited Sensory disturbance resulting in reduced Perception of sense of Not available Noise and visual effects at continuity sense of place while harvesting resources place in harvesting areas sensitive receptors around potentially affected by the Project area the Project Increased presence of outsiders resulting in Percentage of Not available Local population growth reduced sense of place while harvesting non-Aboriginal people attributable to the Project. resources engaging in competing Estimation of non-Aboriginal land uses access increased by the Project

ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.7.1.2 Limits on the Utility of Customs, Practices, and Traditions

Aboriginal groups’ customs, practices, and traditions achieve a variety of ends and confer certain value to users (including intrinsic value). For example, hunting enables Aboriginal peoples to harvest resources that are adequate to meet subsistence needs, maintain sharing networks, and transmit skills to younger generations, among other purposes.

Where the Project adversely affects the amount of resources available to be used by Aboriginal groups, the effort (time and expense) required to harvest resources, the potency of spiritual and ceremonial resources and experiences, or the number of youth acquiring requisite skills and knowledge, it limits the utility of Aboriginal groups’ customs, practices, and traditions.

21.7.1.3 Limits on the Continuity of Customs, Practices, and Traditions

Aboriginal and treaty rights are collectively held and exist in relation to Aboriginal groups’ cultural and historical relationship with the land. Consequently, customs, practices, and traditions serve to maintain the continuity of key cultural values and beliefs, knowledge, sense of place, identity, and connections with contemporaries, ancestors, and future generations. As these things are experienced in and held by individuals, the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights requires that individuals have opportunities to experience and maintain connections to things that are larger than themselves.

Where the Project interferes with Aboriginal people’s ability to experience a connection with cultural teachings, spirituality, ancestors, or the land, it holds the potential to limit cultural continuity. Sensory disturbances (e.g., noise, light, dust, visual changes) and increased presence of non-Aboriginal peoples could interfere with an Aboriginal person’s sense of place (quiet enjoyment, solitude, safety, feeling of inhabiting the same landscape inhabited by ancestors) while exercising rights. Project effects that interfere with sacred sites, sites containing place names, legends and stories, traditionally used trails, camp spots, and use areas also hold the potential to limit cultural continuity.

21.7.2 Screening Potential Effects

Table 21.7-2 summarizes potential interactions between environmental changes caused by the Project and Aboriginal and treaty rights (see Appendix 8-A for a full list of components and activities). Only interactions ranked as possible (◒) and/or expected (●) are carried forward to effects assessment.

21.7.3 Environmental Management Plans, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Programs

AuRico’s proposed measures to mitigate potential environmental effects are summarized in Table 25.4-1 of Chapter 25 (Summary and Conclusion) and in Chapter 24 (Environmental Monitoring Plans). These measures are considered to be sufficient to avoid any significant adverse environmental effects. Since changes to the environment form key pathways leading to adverse effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights, AuRico’s proposed environmental mitigation measures also help to minimize adverse effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-89

Table 21.7-2. Potential Interaction of Environmental Changes Caused by Project Components/Activities with Aboriginal Rights

Project Project Component/Activity Phase Anticipated Changes to the Environment Potential Effects Ceremonial Practices Cultural Transmission Resource Harvesting Workforce hiring and C, O Hiring will not lead to local population growth, as    No anticipated effects. The Project is procurement employees will work on a fly-in/fly-out basis. While on not anticipated to increase local shift, workers will be housed in the camp at the mine site. population levels or result in The major centres expecting to supply the Project are increased presence of outsiders or Smithers and Prince George, both of which are more than harvesting pressure. 500 km from the Project by car. Access management C, O, The mine site will be off-limits to unauthorized personnel ◒  ◒ Access restrictions have the potential Cl, PC in accordance with the Mines Act (1996) Health, Safety and to limit the spatial extent of resource Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. An harvesting activities and ceremonial existing gatehouse and security check-in will be used at the practices, where these activities entrance to the Project (about 1.5 km from the ORAR overlap with the Project area. No turnoff) to control and record the access of people to culture camps are known to occur in restricted working areas. Gates will be used on any other the Project area. roads which provide access into the Project area from the ORAR. Mine site (surface C, O, No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from ◒  ● Project effects on wildlife and infrastructure, Cl, PC surface disturbance are anticipated, with the exception of current use of lands and resources underground mine effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to for traditional purposes could limit facilities, access remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary the utility of resource harvesting. corridor, mine site marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, TKN identifies ceremonial sites in access roads, tailings including the access corridor and water discharge line, are the vicinity of the existing Project storage facility, water anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, road located to the north of the discharge line) moose, grizzly bear, marten, and wolverine. Grizzly bear proposed underground workings. and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of No effects on cultural transmission attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual are anticipated, as Project effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations. components and activities are not anticipated to interact with known culture camps.

(continued)

Table 21.7-2. Potential Interaction of Environmental Changes Caused by Project Components/Activities with Aboriginal Rights (completed)

Project Project Component/Activity Phase Anticipated Changes to the Environment Potential Effects Ceremonial Practices Cultural Transmission Resource Harvesting No residual adverse effects on fish populations are anticipated from discharge of treated water into Attichika Creek or from interaction between groundwater and surface water. No residual effects on harvestable plants are anticipated after application of measures to avoid and minimize dust, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and changes to hydrology. No residual effects on human health are anticipated as the result of consumption of country foods. With respect to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, Project components and activities at the mine site are anticipated to reduce the availability of woodland caribou, moose, black bear, wolverine, marten, and hoary marmot for Tsay Keh Nay harvesters. This effect is rated as not significant due to its low magnitude and local geographic extent. No residual effects are anticipated on Aboriginal peoples’ tangible and intangible heritage as identified heritage resources are located outside of assessment boundaries. Notes:  = an interaction is not expected, no adverse effect anticipated and no further assessment is warranted. ◒ = an interaction is possible, and may result in an adverse effect requiring active management, mitigation and/or monitoring; warrants further consideration. ● = an interaction is expected, and may result in an adverse effect requiring active management, mitigation and/or monitoring; warrants further consideration

APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Residual adverse environmental effects may still cause adverse effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights, even where they are determined to be not significant. Moreover, Aboriginal groups may have relatively lower confidence in the effectiveness of environmental mitigation measures, particularly if such measures were not developed in accordance with Aboriginal traditional knowledge, values, and worldviews. In addition, Aboriginal and treaty rights may be affected by factors that are not specifically associated with environmental changes, such as access restrictions and human population growth.

Consequently, AuRico has adopted a number of measures recommended by TKN to mitigate potential impacts on Aboriginal rights (Appendix 20-A). The measures suggested by TKN and AuRico’s responses are outlined in Table 21.7-3.

21.8 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS

21.8.1 Assessment Criteria Definitions

Based on consultation with Aboriginal groups, review of case law, the CEA Agency’s document “A Reference Guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (1994),” and professional experience with related projects, the assessment applies the following assessment criteria to characterize residual effects:

• Historical context: in West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (2011), the BC Court of Appeal determined that historical context is essential to determine the seriousness of impacts on Aboriginal rights. Historical context refers to the practice of an Aboriginal or treaty right prior to contact or establishment of the Treaty and historical impacts on such a right. The assessment characterizes potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights within this historical context.

• Magnitude: magnitude describes the severity of effects, a key trigger in determining the duty to consult (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004a) According to the CEA Agency, the “severity of adverse impacts depends on a variety of factors including: the scope and size of the activity, its environmental effects, and whether the impact is permanent or temporary” (AANDC 2011: 36). Concerns articulated by Aboriginal groups are also considered in determining the severity of effects.

• Extent: extent describes the amount of spatial overlap between a Project effect and an Aboriginal or treaty right. The extent of an effect is assessed in relation to an Aboriginal group’s preferred (and currently available) areas for the practice of Aboriginal or Treaty rights.

• Duration: the Haida decision (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004a) related impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights to the length of time during which they were affected.

• Reversibility: the seriousness of impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights is determined by the extent to which they result in irreparable harm (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004a). In line with the Applications overall methodology (Ch. 8), an impact may be reversible, partially reversible, or irreversible.

21-92 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016

Table 21.7-3. Proposed Measures to Mitigate Potential Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Mitigation Measures Proposed by TKN VCs and Effects Addressed AuRico’s Responses Establish a thorough and comprehensive Spatial extent and utility of social and AuRico funded a water monitoring program carried out by water-monitoring program to: ceremonial practices that depend on water TKN in 2014 and 2015 and has budgeted to continue the • alleviate fears of contamination, and quality; continuity of social and ceremonial program in 2016 under the Additional Studies of the IMA • monitor ongoing water quality. practice affected by sense of place (June 2012). Spatial extent harvesting practices affected For the KUG Project, a comprehensive water monitoring by avoidance; utility of harvesting affected program will be implemented to meet regulatory requirements by resource quality; continuity of harvesting as outlined in the Fish and Aquatic Effects Monitoring practice affected by sense of place Program (Section 24.7). TKN’s involvement in the monitoring program is part of ongoing IBA negotiations. Establish a wildlife and fish management Utility of harvesting practices affected by AuRico will work with Aboriginal groups to develop a program, which uses both traditional and resource quality wildlife (Section 24.19) and fish monitoring program western methodologies that address: Proactive management of potential title lands (Section 24.7). • levels of toxins; AuRico does not have the authority to establish harvesting • harvesting regulations; and regulations. • protection of endangered species. AuRico is required to protect endangered species under the Species at Risk Act. Protect sacred and special places such as Spatial extent, utility of, and continuity of AuRico has selected TKN’s preferred discharge location, Amazay (Duncan) Lake, Thutade Lake, the social and ceremonial practices which avoids adverse environmental effects on Thutade Lake Finlay River, and sensitive wildlife areas. and the Finlay River. AuRico has given TKN written assurance that Amazay Lake will not be adversely impacted by mining activities. Archaeological work should be ongoing and Continuity of social and ceremonial practices AuRico funded an AOA for the Project (Crossroads 2013) at include the documentation and protection of the request of the TKN. burial sites, CMTs, old trails, and Any revisions to the current footprint or currently unassessed campgrounds. areas within the current footprint will be assessed to determine if additional archaeological studies, AOAs, or AIAs will be required prior to construction. The Heritage Management Plan (Section 24.9) outlines the Heritage Chance Find Procedure - should heritage sites, not identified during baseline studies, be discovered during Construction or Operations.

(continued)

Table 21.7-3. Proposed Measures to Mitigate Potential Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (continued)

Mitigation Measures Proposed by TKN VCs and Effects Addressed AuRico’s Responses Support local economies. Beneficial socio-economic effects (addressed AuRico signed an IMA with TKN in June 2012 that established Arrange for revenue sharing from the Project in Section 1.7). the Senior Implementation Committee to address issues of proponent and the provincial government. employment and business opportunities. Provide training and meaningful AuRico supports the TKN’s discussion with the government employment for TKN members for all regarding revenue sharing. activities that happen in their territories AuRico has in place an Employment and Contract including resource extraction industries, Opportunity Framework with TKN as of March 2015. geology, and archaeological studies. The IMA provides a template for all topics to be covered in Impact Benefits Agreements currently being negotiated. Recognize and accommodate all aspects of All VCs and effects. AuRico considered potential cumulative environmental the territories that are impacted by outside effects. TKN interests by projects that are given consent from TKN. Assist in the cultural resurgence of the TKN Spatial extent and continuity of social and AuRico will consider supporting cultural activities of the TKN. after a century of colonization by: ceremonial practices AuRico has supported the AOA, and has donated funds to • bringing back the summer gatherings; various TKN community needs. • creating culture camps and supporting Cultural protection is a specific item in current Impact Benefit cultural activities; and Agreement negotiations. • providing opportunities for TKN to learn their language, culture, and ways of living inside and outside of public education. Find ways to understand the TKN worldview Continuity of social and ceremonial practices AuRico has engaged with TKN in an attempt to understand its and respect traditional values and beliefs, worldview and perspectives and is committed to further particularly around resource use. engagement. Cultural protection is a specific item in current Impact Benefit Agreement negotiations. Include TKN in land use planning. Proactive management of potential TKN has been involved in the environmental assessment Aboriginal title lands (not assessed) process. AuRico does not have the authority to direct strategic land use planning processes.

(continued)

Table 21.7-3. Proposed Measures to Mitigate Potential Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (completed)

Mitigation Measures Proposed by TKN VCs and Effects Addressed AuRico’s Responses Balance the cultural, environmental, and All relevant VCs AuRico is committed to enhance economic benefits through economic impacts and benefits. measures and agreements with Aboriginal groups while mitigating environmental and cultural effects. Prepare a comprehensive community Spatial extent of resource harvesting Under the terms of the IMA, AuRico has funded and will education program on the real impacts and affected by avoidance consider funding programs outside of the environmental benefits of the mining industry and the assessment. Discussions about how to educate community chemicals that are used. members about the mining industry have taken place and will continue. Develop a plan to address climate change. Utility of resource harvesting; continuity The Project is not anticipated to cause substantial of social and ceremonial practices and contributions to climate change. resource harvesting Develop an emergency response plan and All effects associated with VCs AuRico has developed an Emergency Response Plan ensure the highest environmental and TKN (Section 24.5) and provided the plan to KwN and TKDN for standards are met for tailings ponds and their review and comment. other mine-related activities. Perform a cultural impact assessment Spatial extent, utility, and continuity of Potential cultural impacts are considered in Chapter 20 social and ceremonial practices (Effects of Changes to the Environment on Aboriginal Peoples) and the current Chapter.

APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Characterization criteria ratings are described in Table 21.8-1.

Table 21.8-1. Characterization of Residual Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Criteria Description of Ratings Historical context • Low: historical changes since contact have minimally limited the Aboriginal group’s ability to exercise its Aboriginal or treaty rights. • Moderate: historical changes since contact have limited the Aboriginal group’s ability to exercise its Aboriginal or treaty rights. • High: historical changes since contact have significantly limited the Aboriginal group’s ability to exercise its Aboriginal or treaty rights. Magnitude • Low: the scope of the Project is small and predicted environmental changes are minimal. • Medium: the scope of the Project is moderate and several environmental changes are predicted. • High: the scope of the Project is large and significant environmental changes are predicted.

Extent • Discrete: effect is limited to the Project area. • Local: effect is limited to the Local Study Area. • Regional: effect occurs throughout the Regional Study Area. • Beyond regional: effect extends beyond the Regional Study Area.

Duration • Short term: effect lasts less than 5 years (e.g., during the Construction phase of the Project). • Medium term: effect lasts from 6 to 18 years (i.e., encompassing the Operations phase). • Long term: effect lasts from 19 to 40 years (i.e., effects last into the Closure phase). • Far future: effect lasts more than 40 years (i.e., effects last into the Post-Closure phase and beyond). Reversibility • Reversible: effect can be reversed. • Partially reversible: effect can be partially reversed. • Irreversible: effect cannot be reversed, is of permanent duration.

The assessment draws on the characterization of impacts described above to determine the seriousness of impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, based on suggestions provided by CEA Agency on other projects (CEA Agency 2015b):

• High impact: the ability to exercise the Aboriginal or treaty right has been significantly diminished. • Moderate impact: the ability to exercise the Aboriginal or treaty right has been diminished or disrupted. • Low impact: the ability to exercise the Aboriginal or treaty right is minimally disrupted.

21-96 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.2 Takla Lake First Nation

21.8.2.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Takla First Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

TLFN (together with other TKN members) identifies 2 “special resources,” 12 “cultural resources,” and 5 “ceremonial” sites that potentially overlap with Project components (Appendix 20-A)27. One of the “special resources” appears to be adjacent to, or overlap with, existing facilities (mill sediment pond, sewage treatment plant, mill facility). The other “special resource” appears to be located adjacent to an existing mine access road on the north side of the underground deposit.

Five of the “cultural resources” appear to be adjacent to, or overlap with, existing infrastructure. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located at the south end of Amazay Lake, but may overlap with proposed infrastructure to be located at the decline entrance. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located on the south slope of the underground deposit and would not be affected by the underground workings. Two clusters of “cultural resources” appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and along the north mine site access road.

The five “ceremonial” sites appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and adjacent to the north mine site access road. These sites would not be subject to any further access restriction than at present.

Given that new infrastructure and use of existing infrastructure is not expected to result in new access restrictions to the “special resources,” “cultural resources,” and “ceremonial” sites identified in the TKN TLUS, no residual effects on the spatial extent of TLFN’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

Utility of Takla Lake First Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

No residual effects on harvestable plants are anticipated after application of measures to avoid and minimize dust, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and changes to hydrology. Consequently, no residual effects on the potency of medicinal plants, such as “gun medicine,” are anticipated.

TLFN (as a member of TKN), identifies two “special resources,” one “cultural resource,” and four “ceremonial” sites that appear to be located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake or at its eastern base at the north end of Thutade Lake. Amazay Lake is known as a place for spirit questing. If some or all of these sites are located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, the associated ceremonial practices may be affected by visual effects related to the subsidence zone, facilities at the decline entrance, and activities at other Project infrastructure. Noise may also be audible (although most Project activities will be underground and located approximately three or more kilometres from the summit of the hill to the east of Amazay Lake). Sensory disturbance holds the potential to reduce the potency or spiritual value of ceremonial activities undertaken on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake.

27 The precise locations of these sites is buffered to protect culturally sensitive information.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-97 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, given the low potential for noise and minimal visual changes in comparison with the existing environment. The extent is rated as local as the effect may be experienced within the LSA on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake. The duration is rated as long-term, lasting into the Closure phase. Finally, the effect is rated as reversible following closure and reclamation.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of TLFN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TLFN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TLFN members engage in social and ceremonial practices in a location that may interact with Project components and activities.

Continuity of Takla Lake First Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

Given the minimal surface disturbance associated with new Project components, the Project is not anticipated to remove or alter any TLFN social or ceremonial sites.

As described above, sensory disturbance is possible for members engaging in spiritual practices on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, and may result in reduced sense of place in addition to reduced spiritual potency. Users of ceremonial sites on the north side of the underground deposit may experience increased contact with mine personnel using the north access road. Such contact may reduce members’ sense of place and feelings of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, as the north mine site access road is existing, the surrounding area is already disturbed due to the presence of the KS Mine, and due to infrequent anticipated use of the north access road. The extent is rated as local as it pertains to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist into Closure, at which time the effect will be reversible.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of TLFN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TLFN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TLFN members engage in social and ceremonial practices in location that may interact with Project components and activities.

21-98 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.2.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Takla Lake First Nation’s Resource Harvesting

According to the TKN TLUS, mapped resource harvesting features are not site-specific, but representative of activity within a larger area.

TLFN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some restricted access associated with new infrastructure (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these locations are already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available to hunting or trap due to firearm and other safety considerations.

TLFN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing sites in the vicinity of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. The Project is not anticipated to interfere with access to these fishing sites.

TLFN does not identify any plant-gathering areas that appear to overlap with Project components. The access corridor and the proposed decline could interfere with members’ ability to gather berries and plants (including medicinal plants) should harvestable plants exist in these locations.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the spatial extent of plant harvesting is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small areas where access restrictions will be introduced in combination with no recorded plant gathering at these locations. The extent is rated as discrete, as it is limited to the Project area. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the spatial extent of TLFN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TLFN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TLFN members gather plants in locations that may interact with Project components and activities.

Utility of Takla Lake First Nation’s Resource Harvesting

TLFN (as a member of TKN), identifies numerous hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering areas within the LSA and RSA. No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from new surface disturbance are anticipated, with the exception of effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, including the 1.3-km access corridor and water discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, grizzly bear, marten, and wolverine. Grizzly bear and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-99 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The utility of TLFN’s hunting efforts of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA could be reduced as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the utility of TLFNs resource harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the utility of hunting and trapping is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small anticipated effect on wildlife movement and the continued availability of wildlife outside of the LSA. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot, if the availability of dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of TLFN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TLFN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

Continuity of Takla Lake First Nation’s Resource Harvesting

TLFN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close vicinity of the mine, due to safety considerations. Should members fish in Amazay Lake, or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the continuity of fishing and gathering is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, since visual changes will be small in relation to existing infrastructure and because noise will be minimal due to the underground nature of the mine. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot if the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of TLFN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TLFN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

21-100 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.3 Tsay Key Dene Nation

21.8.3.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

TKDN (together with other TKN members) identifies 2 “special resources,” 12 “cultural resources,” and 5 “ceremonial” sites that potentially overlap with Project components (Appendix 20-A) 28. One of the “special resources” appears to be adjacent to or overlap with existing facilities (mill sediment pond, sewage treatment plant, mill facility) which are already restricted from public access. The other “special resource” appears to be located adjacent to the existing Project road on the north side of the underground deposit and would not be subject to any further restrictions (i.e., a gate on the road at its intersection with the ORAR).

Five of the “cultural resources” appear to be adjacent to or overlap with existing infrastructure and would not be subject to any further access restrictions. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located at the south end of Amazay Lake, but may overlap with new facilities located at the decline entrance and may be subject to restricted access. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located on the south slope of the underground deposit and would not be affected by the underground workings. Two clusters of “cultural resources” appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and along the north mine site access road and would not be subject to any further access restriction.

The five “ceremonial” sites appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and adjacent to the north mine site access road. These sites would not be subject to any further access restriction than at present.

Given that new infrastructure and use of existing infrastructure is not expected to result in new access restrictions to the “special resources,” “cultural resources,” and “ceremonial” sites identified in the TKN TLUS, no residual effects on the spatial extent of TKDN’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

Utility of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

No residual effects on harvestable plants are anticipated after application of measures to avoid and minimize dust, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and changes to hydrology. Consequently, no residual effects on the potency of medicinal plants, such as “gun medicine,” are anticipated.

TKDN (as a member of TKN), identifies two “special resources,” one “cultural resource,” and four “ceremonial” sites that appear to be located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake or at its eastern base at the north end of Thutade Lake. Amazay Lake is known as a place for spirit questing. If some or all of these sites are located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, the associated ceremonial practices may be affected by visual effects related to the subsidence zone, facilities at the decline entrance, and activities at other Project infrastructure. Noise may also be audible (although most Project activities

28 The precise locations of these sites is buffered to protect culturally sensitive information

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-101 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE will be underground and located approximately three or more kilometres from the summit of the hill to the east of Amazay Lake). Sensory disturbance holds the potential to reduce the potency or spiritual value of ceremonial activities undertaken on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake.

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, given the low potential for noise and minimal visual changes in comparison with the existing environment. The extent is rated as local as the effect may be experienced within the LSA on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake. The duration is rated as long-term, lasting into the Closure phase. Finally, the effect is rated as reversible following closure and reclamation.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of TKDN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TKDN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TKDN members engage in social and ceremonial practices in location that may interact with Project components and activities.

Continuity of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

Given the minimal surface disturbance associated with new Project components, the Project is not anticipated to remove or alter any TKDN social or ceremonial sites.

As described above, sensory disturbance is possible for members engaging in spiritual practices on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, and may result in reduced sense of place in addition to reduced spiritual potency. Users of ceremonial sites on the north side of the underground deposit may experience increased contact with mine personnel using the north mine site access road. Such contact may reduce members’ sense of place and feelings of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, as the north access road is existing, the surrounding area is already disturbed due to the presence of the KS Mine, and due to infrequent anticipated use of the north access road. The extent is rated as local as it pertains to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist into Closure, at which time the effect will be reversible.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of TKDN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TKDN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TKDN members engage in social and ceremonial practices in location that may interact with Project components and activities.

21-102 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.3.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Resource Harvesting

According to the TKN TLUS, mapped resource harvesting features are not site-specific, but representative of activity within a larger area.

TKDN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some new access restrictions associated with new infrastructure (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these locations are already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available to hunting or trap due to firearm and other safety considerations.

TKDN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing sites in the vicinity of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. No new access restrictions would interact with potential fishing sites.

TKDN does not identify any plant gathering areas that appear to overlap with Project components. Access restrictions around the access corridor and the proposed decline could restrict members’ ability to gather berries and plants (including medicinal plants) should harvestable plants exist in these locations.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the spatial extent of plant harvesting is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small areas where access restrictions will be introduced in combination with no recorded plant gathering at these locations. The extent is rated as discrete, as it is limited to the Project area. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the spatial extent of TKDN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TKDN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if TKDN members gather plants in locations that may interact with Project components and activities.

Utility of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Resource Harvesting

TKDN (as a member of TKN), identifies numerous hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering areas within the LSA and RSA. No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from new surface disturbance are anticipated, with the exception of effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, access corridor and water discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, grizzly bear, American marten, and wolverine. Grizzly bear

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-103 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations.

The utility of TKDN’s hunting efforts of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA could be reduced, as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the utility of TKDN’s resource harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the utility of hunting and trapping is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small anticipated effect on wildlife movement and the continued availability of wildlife outside of the LSA. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot, if the availability of dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of TKDN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TKDN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

Continuity of Tsay Key Dene Nation’s Resource Harvesting

TKDN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close proximity of the mine due to safety considerations. Should members fish in Amazay Lake or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the continuity of fishing and gathering is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, since visual changes will be small in relation to existing infrastructure and because noise will be minimal due to the underground nature of the mine. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot if the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of TKDN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and TKDN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

21-104 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.4 Kwadacha Nation

21.8.4.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Kwadacha Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

KwN (together with other TKN members) identifies 2 “special resources,” 12 “cultural resources,” and 5 “ceremonial” sites that potentially overlap with Project components (Appendix 20-A) 29. One of the “special resources” appears to be adjacent to or overlap with existing facilities (mill sediment pond, sewage treatment plant, mill facility) which are already restricted from public access. The other “special resource” appears to be located adjacent to the existing mine site access road on the north side of the underground deposit and would not be subject to any further restrictions (i.e., a gate on the road at its intersection with the ORAR).

Five of the “cultural resources” appear to be adjacent to or overlap with existing infrastructure and would not be subject to any further access restrictions. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located at the south end of Amazay Lake, but may overlap with new facilities located at the decline entrance and may be subject to restricted access. Two “cultural resources” appear to be located on the south slope of the underground deposit and would not be affected by the underground workings. Two clusters of “cultural resources” appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and along the northern access road and would not be subject to any further access restriction.

The five “ceremonial” sites appear to be located at the north end of Amazay Lake and adjacent to the north Project access road. These sites would not be subject to any further access restriction than at present.

Increased traffic on the ORAR (up to 13 trips per day during Operations) is not expected to increase KwN’s effort to access social and ceremonial sites located outside of the Project area.

Given that new infrastructure and use of existing infrastructure is not expected to result in new access restrictions to the “special resources,” “cultural resources,” and “ceremonial” sites identified in the TKN TLUS, no residual effects on the spatial extent of KwN’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

Utility of Kwadacha Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

No residual effects on harvestable plants are anticipated after application of measures to avoid and minimize dust, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and changes to hydrology. Consequently, no residual effects on the potency of medicinal plants, such as “gun medicine,” are anticipated.

KwN (as a member of TKN), identifies two “special resources,” one “cultural resource,” and four “ceremonial” sites that appear to be located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake or at its eastern base at the north end of Thutade Lake. Amazay Lake is known as a place for spirit questing. If some or all of

29 The precise locations of these sites is buffered to protect culturally sensitive information

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-105 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE these sites are located on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, the associated ceremonial practices may be affected by visual effects related to the subsidence zone, facilities at the decline entrance, and activities at other Project infrastructure. Noise may also be audible (although most Project activities will be underground and located approximately three or more kilometres from the summit of the hill to the east of Amazay Lake). Sensory disturbance holds the potential to reduce the potency or spiritual value of ceremonial activities undertaken on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake.

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, given the low potential for noise and minimal visual changes in comparison with the existing environment. The extent is rated as local as the effect may be experienced within the LSA on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake. The duration is rated as long-term, lasting into the Closure phase. Finally, the effect is rated as reversible following closure and reclamation.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of KwN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and KwN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if KwN members engage in social and ceremonial practices in location that may interact with Project components and activities.

Continuity of Kwadacha Nation’s Social and Ceremonial Practices

Given the minimal surface disturbance associated with new Project components, the Project is not anticipated to remove or alter any KwN social or ceremonial sites.

As described above, sensory disturbance is possible for members engaging in spiritual practices on the hill to the east of Amazay Lake, and may result in reduced sense of place in addition to reduced spiritual potency. Users of ceremonial sites on the north side of the underground deposit may experience increased contact with mine personnel using the north access road. Such contact may reduce members’ sense of place and feelings of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context for this potential residual effect is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude is rated as low, as the north access road is existing, the surrounding area is already disturbed due to the presence of the KS Mine, and due to infrequent anticipated use of the north access road. The extent is rated as local as it pertains to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist into Closure, at which time the effect will be reversible.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of KwN’s social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is low as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and KwN’s social and ceremonial practices are poorly understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if KwN

21-106 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS members engage in social and ceremonial practices in location that may interact with Project components and activities.

21.8.4.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Kwadacha Nation’s Resource Harvesting

According to the TKN TLUS, mapped resource harvesting features are not site-specific, but representative of activity within a larger area.

KwN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some new access restrictions associated with new infrastructure (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these locations are already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available for hunting or trapping due to firearm and other safety considerations.

KwN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing sites in the vicinity of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. No new access restrictions would interact with potential fishing sites.

KwN does not identify any plant gathering areas that appear to overlap with Project components. Access restrictions around the access corridor and the proposed decline could restrict members’ ability to gather berries and plants (including medicinal plants) should harvestable plants exist in these locations.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the spatial extent of plant harvesting is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small areas where access restrictions will be introduced in combination with no recorded plant gathering at these locations. The extent is rated as discrete, as it is limited to the Project area. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the spatial extent of KwN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and KwN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood. Additionally, AuRico is unaware if KwN members gather plants in locations that may interact with Project components and activities.

Utility of Kwadacha Nation’s Resource Harvesting

KwN (as a member of TKN), identifies numerous hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering areas within the LSA and RSA. No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from new surface disturbance are anticipated, with the exception of effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-107 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE components on the mine site, including the access corridor and water discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, grizzly bear, marten, and wolverine. Grizzly bear and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations.

The utility of KwN’s hunting efforts of moose and bear and trapping of marten and wolverine within the LSA could be reduced, as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the utility of KwN’s resource harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the utility of hunting and trapping is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, given the small anticipated effect on wildlife movement and the continued availability of wildlife outside of the LSA. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot, if the availability of dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the utility of KwN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and KwN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

Continuity of Kwadacha Nation’s Resource Harvesting

KwN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close proximity of the mine due to safety considerations. Should members fish in Amazay Lake or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors.

The historical context of the potential residual effect on the continuity of fishing and gathering is rated as high, given existing disturbance related to the KS Mine and other historical changes to lands, resources, and Aboriginal peoples described in Section 21.6.1. The magnitude of the residual effect is rated as low, since visual changes will be small in relation to existing infrastructure and because noise will be minimal due to the underground nature of the mine. The extent is rated as local, as it is limited to the LSA. The duration is rated as long-term, as it will persist for the life of the mine. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot if the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence.

On the basis of these ratings, the potential limitation on the continuity of KwN’s resource harvesting practices is rated as low impact.

Confidence in this rating is moderate as the cause-effect relationships between the Project and KwN’s resource harvesting practices are not fully understood.

21-108 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.5 Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap

21.8.5.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Gitxsan wilp Nii Kyap have identified Amazay Lake and Thutade Lake as socially and spiritually significant sites (Joint Review Panel 2007). The primary concern expressed by GWNK with respect to Amazay Lake is with respect to the sacredness of its waters. The Project will not restrict access to Thutade or Amazay Lakes. Consequently, no residual effects on the spatial extent of GWNK’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current social and ceremonial practices engaged in by GWNK in the Project area, LSA, or RSA. Consequently, no residual effects on the utility of GWNK’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current social and ceremonial practices engaged in by GWNK in the Project area, LSA, or RSA. Consequently, no residual effects on the continuity of GWNK’s social and ceremonial practices are anticipated.

21.8.5.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Gitxsan wilp Nii Kyap claims historic use of areas in the vicinity of the Project, including hunting, trapping, fishing, and berry picking (Joint Review Panel 2007). A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified current use of the study areas or concrete examples of historic use. Given that the (a) Project is located on the periphery of Gitxsan’s traditional territory, (b) Gitxsan’s historic and contemporary resource harvesting is centred on the Skeena watershed, and (c) the Project is located in an area with extensive evidence of Tse’khene use, any limitations on the extent of GWNK’s resource harvesting is assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Should GWNK choose to harvest resources in the LSA, members may experience reduced utility with respect to hunting of moose and bear and trapping of marten and wolverine, as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. Given that (a) Project is located on the periphery of Gitxsan’s traditional territory, (b) Gitxsan’s historic and contemporary resource harvesting is centred on the Skeena watershed, and (c) the Project is located in an area with extensive evidence of Tse’khene use, any limitations on the utility of GWNK’s resource harvesting is assessed as negligible.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-109 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Gitxsan wilp Nii Kyap members will not be able to hunt or trap in close vicinity of the mine, due to safety considerations. Should members fish in Amazay Lake, or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection with the land, spirit, and ancestors. Given that (a) Project is located on the periphery of Gitxsan’s traditional territory, (b) Gitxsan’s historic and contemporary resource harvesting is centred on the Skeena watershed, and (c) the Project is located in an area with extensive evidence of Tse’khene use, any limitations on the continuity of GWNK’s resource harvesting is assessed as negligible.

21.8.6 Doig River First Nation

Doig River First Nation is of Dane-zaa descent. Dane-zaa traditionally occupied lands in the Peace River area to the east of the Rocky Mountains. In the post-contact period, Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). The current DRFN community is located approximately 770 km by road east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current DRFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.6.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of DRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of DRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of DRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21-110 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.6.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of DRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of DRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Doig River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of DRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.7 Halfway River First Nation

Halfway River First Nation is of Dane-zaa descent. Dane-zaa traditionally occupied lands in the Peace River area to the east of the Rocky Mountains. In the post-contact period, Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). The current HRFN community is located approximately 830 km by road east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current HRFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.7.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of HRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of HRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-111 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of HRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.7.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of HRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of HRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of HRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.8 Prophet River First Nation

Prophet River First Nation is of Dane-zaa descent. Dane-zaa traditionally occupied lands in the Peace River area to the east of the Rocky Mountains. In the post-contact period, Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). Within the boundaries of Treaty 8, the PRFN describes its traditional lands as covering approximately 25,000 km² from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest east of the Prophet River (Timberland Consultants Ltd. 1998). The current PRFN community is located approximately 1,000 km by road, northeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains by road east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current PRFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.8.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of PRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21-112 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of PRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of PRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.8.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of PRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of PRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Prophet River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of PRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.9 Saulteau First Nations

Saulteau First Nations descend from the Saulteaux (or Anishinaabe) ethnographic group. The oral histories of the SFN indicate their arrival in northeast BC at Moberly Lake around 1911, following a long northwest migration from southern Manitoba (Nesoo Watchie Resouce Management 2011). Upon relocating, the SFN’s Saulteaux ancestors established a hunting and trapping economy in the Peace River valley, including winter hunting in the Rocky Mountain foothills, trading furs at Chetwynd or Hudson’s Hope in the spring, fishing around Moberly Lake in the summer, an intensive moose hunt in the fall, and trapping in the winter. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). The current SFN community is located approximately 600 km by road from the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current SFN use of the LSA or RSA.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-113 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.8.9.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of SFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area which overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of SFN’s social and ceremonial practices is assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of SFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.9.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of SFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of SFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Saulteau First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of SFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.10 West Moberly First Nations

West Moberly First Nations are of Dane-zaa descent. Dane-zaa traditionally occupied lands in the Peace River area to the east of the Rocky Mountains. In the post-contact period, Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). WMFN identifies the Peace River sub-basin as their “Preferred Treaty Territory” (WMFN 2012), which

21-114 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS overlaps with the Project. The WMFN community is approximately 615 km by road southeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current WMFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.10.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of WMFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of WMFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of WMFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.10.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of WMFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of WMFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

West Moberly First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of WMFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.11 Fort Nelson First Nation

Fort Nelson First Nation is of Dene Tha and Cree descent, with some Dane-zaa lineages. The Dene Tha are an Athapaskan-speaking group whose ethno-linguistic boundaries extend from the Northwest Territories to Northeastern BC and Northwestern Alberta. According to the Supreme Court of Canada

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-115 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). Fort Nelson First Nation’s traditional territory encompasses the northeast corner of British Columbia, stretching from the Liard Plateau and the western mountain ranges to the Etsho Plateau (FNFN 2012). The FNFN community is approximately 1,100 km by road, northeast of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current FNFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.11.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of FNFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of FNFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of FNFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.11.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of FNFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of FNFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Fort Nelson First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area which overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of FNFN’s resource harvesting practices is assessed as negligible.

21-116 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

21.8.12 Blueberry River First Nations

Blueberry River First Nations is of Dane-zaa descent. Dane-zaa traditionally occupied lands in the Peace River area to the east of the Rocky Mountains. In the post-contact period, Dane-zaa extended westward into the mountains. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). Blueberry River First Nations’ traditional territory extends north to the confluence of the Sikanni Chief and Fort Nelson rivers; west as far as Sikanni Chief Lake and Peace Reach on the Williston Reservoir; south to Tacheeda Mountain and Quintette Mountain; and east to the BC-Alberta border with the reasonable prospect of the territory extenting into the Peace region within Alberta (Blueberry River First Nations 2012). The current BRFN community is located approximately 780 km by road, east of the Project on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current BRFN use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.12.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of BRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of BRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of BRFN’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.12.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of BRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-117 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Utility of Resource Harvesting

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of BRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of BRFN’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.13 McLeod Lake Indian Band

The MLIB is of Tse’khene descent. The Tse’khene are Athapaskan peoples (Beaver-Sarcee-Sekani branch) traditionally inhabiting mountainous areas of BC drained by the Finlay and Parsnip branches of the Peace River30 (Denniston 1981). The MLIB appear to descend from the Tsekani regional band, who occupied an area from McLeod lake south to the continental divide and east to the edge of the prairies (L. Littlefield, Dorricott, and Cullon 2007). According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, Treaty 8 First Nations’ “meaningful right to hunt” is not ascertained on a treaty-wide basis, “but in relation to the territories over which a First Nation traditionally hunted, fished and trapped, and continues to do so today” (Mikisew, at para. 48). The MLIB territorial boundary is described as: “to the south, the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds near Summit Lake; to the east, following that height of land to the border of British Columbia and Alberta; to the north, following the border to the Peace River, west, following the southern bank of the Peace River to Williston Lake, south, following the western bank of Williston Lake to the western bank of Manson Arm, south, along the west bank of Manson Arm, southwest and west, along the height of land between Manson River and Eklund Creek and Jackfish Creek, southwest; and, to the west, along the height of land between the Nation River watershed and the Omineca River watershed, south and east along the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds to the commencement point” (cited in Big Sky Consulting Ltd. and Site C First Nations Engagement Team 2013). A review of available materials and consultation efforts to date has not identified historic or current MLIB use of the LSA or RSA.

21.8.13.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

Spatial Extent of Social and Ceremonial Practices

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, the Project’s effects on the spatial extent of the MLIB’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

30 Much of this area was inundated by the construction of the WAC Bennett Dam and the creation of Williston Lake.

21-118 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Utility of Social and Ceremonial Practices

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of the MLIB’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Social and Ceremonial Practices

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of the MLIB’s social and ceremonial practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.13.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

Spatial Extent of Resource Harvesting

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the spatial extent of The MLIB’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Utility of Resource Harvesting

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the utility of The MLIB’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

Continuity of Resource Harvesting

The MLIB’s Treaty 8 rights pertain to the Treaty 8 area that overlaps with the Project. On the basis of the information presented above, effects on the continuity of The MLIB’s resource harvesting practices are assessed as negligible.

21.8.14 Métis Nation British Columbia

In the 1790s, Métis were present in the Peace River drainage and eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains (MNBC 2015c). In addition, Métis fur trade employees and their families could be found throughout the Athabasca fur trading district (present day northern BC, Alberta, and southern NWT; Barman and Evans 2009). MNBC asserts that Métis were present on the Pacific Slope before the exertion of government control around 1858 (Crossroads 2015b). The MNBC, on behalf of its citizens, assert rights and traditional uses over the entire province of British Columbia (MNBC 2010).

The Métis Use and Occupancy Study of the AuRico Metals Kemess Project (MNBC 2015b) identifies current Métis land and resource use as occurring primarily outside of the RSA. Areas of use are generally concentrated along main roads and highways, including Highway 37 (south of Bell II), and roads stemming from Highway 16 (including sites around the Kispiox Valley, Babine Lake, Takla Lake, Germansen Landing, and the Williston Reservoir). One ptarmigan harvest was documented in the RSA in the vicinity of Toodoggone River north of the Project. No current uses are documented in the LSA.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-119 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

21.8.14.1 Residual Effects on Social and Ceremonial Practices

On the basis of the information presented above, no residual effects are anticipated on MNBC’s social and ceremonial practices.

21.8.14.2 Residual Effects on Resource Harvesting

On the basis of the information presented above, no residual effects are anticipated on MNBC’s resource harvesting practices.

21.9 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Potential effects on Aboriginal groups’ economic, social, heritage, and health interests are addressed in Chapter 20 (Effects of Changes to the Environment on Aboriginal Peoples).

21.10 SUMMARY

The Project is anticipated to result in residual adverse effects on the Aboriginal rights of TLFN, TKDN, and KwN. Adverse effects include limits on social and ceremonial practices and resource harvesting practices in the Project area and LSA. On the basis of the small scale and scope of the Project, the proposed mitigation measures, the low magnitude and local extent of potential effects, and ongoing engagement with TKN, these effects are rated as not significant. Potential effects on TKN members’ Aboriginal rights and proposed accommodation measures are summarized in Table 21.10-1.

21-120 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016

Table 21.10-1. Summary of Potential Effects on Takla Lake First Nation’s, Tsay Keh Dene Nation’s and Kwadacha Nation’s Aboriginal Rights and Accommodation Measures

Potential Effects on Aboriginal Rights Accommodation Measures Limits on the utility (potency or Mitigation for sensory disturbance: spiritual value) of ceremonial • Equipment will be adequately maintained to minimize noise, including lubrication and replacement of worn parts, activities undertaken on the hill to especially exhaust systems. the east of Amazay Lake due to • Site procedures will be optimized to minimize noise changes, e.g., keeping doors closed. sensory disturbance • Loud procedures will be conducted indoors, where practical, and enclosures, berms, acoustic screening, and Limits on the continuity (sense of shrouding where stationary sources require control will be identified. place) of social and ceremonial • Equipment will be turned off when not in use where practical to avoid unnecessary idling of motors. practices due to sensory disturbance • Diesel-powered vehicles will be fitted with mufflers meeting manufacturers’ recommendations for optimal experienced on the hill to the east of attenuation, and will be maintained in effective working condition. Amazay Lake and contact with

mine personnel in the vicinity of the • Blasting configurations will be restricted to minimize disturbance during shift change and to minimize north access road instantaneous charges per delay to suit blast. • Suitable stemming depth in blast holes will be adopted to minimize noise impact and ensuring impulse noise, such Limits on the spatial extent of plant as blasting, are limited to certain times of the day. harvesting due to access restrictions • A cultural awareness program will be established for Project Employees. around the access corridor and the proposed decline Mitigation for wildlife effects: Limits on the utility hunting of • Create gravel ramps over the KUG TSF water discharge pipe to Attichika Creek in order to facilitate movement moose and bear, and trapping of over them. marten and wolverine, within the • Prohibit hunting, trapping, and fishing by employees. LSA due to altered animal • Apply and monitor speed limit restrictions on Project traffic. movement • Manage snowbank height on Project roads and creating escape pathways (i.e., gaps) in snowbanks to allow wildlife Limits on continuity (sense of place) to exit the road area. with respect to fishing in Amazay • Road maintenance will not use salt. Lake and or plant gathering around • Ensure proper waste management. Amazay Lake due to sensory • Perform pre-construction surveys for active hoary marmot dens within subsidence zone and 250-m buffer area. disturbance • Avoid clearing high-quality forested denning habitat during March to May (low elevation older growth forests) or pre-clearing surveys to identify and avoid active den sites if clearing occurs in high-quality denning habitat from March to May.

(continued)

Table 21.10-1. Summary of Potential Effects on Takla Lake First Nation’s, Tsay Keh Dene Nation’s and Kwadacha Nation’s Aboriginal Rights and Accommodation Measures (completed)

Potential Effects on Aboriginal Rights Accommodation Measures Mitigation for hunting, trapping, and fishing: • Compensation for affected trapline holders. • Work with Aboriginal groups to develop a a wildlife and fish management program. • AuRico funded a water monitoring program carried out by TKN in 2014 and 2015, and has budgeted to continue the program in 2016.

Mitigation for social and ceremonial effects: • AuRico funded an AOA for the Project (Crossroads 2013) at the request of the TKN. • Any revisions to the current footprint or currently unassessed areas within the current footprint will be assessed to determine if additional archaeological studies, AOAs, or AIAs will be required prior to construction. • AuRico will consider supporting TKN summer gatherings, culture camps, and other means of cultural revival. • AuRico will consider developing a cultural awareness program together with TKN for Project employees. • Negotiation of Impact Benefits Agreements. • Under the terms of the IMA, AuRico has funded programs outside of the environmental assessment and has budgeted for this in 2016.

ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

REFERENCES

1982. Constitution Act, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK). C. 11. 1985a. Indian Act, RSC. C. I-5. R. v. Simon, 1985b [1985] 2 SCR 387. R v. Sparrow, 1990 [1990] 1 SCR 1075 R. v. Adams, 1996a [1996] 3 SCR 101. R. v. Badger, 1996b [1996] 1 SCR 771. R. v. Côté, 1996c [1996] 3 SCR 139. R. v. Gladstone, 1996d [1996] 2 SCR 723 R. v. Van der Peet, 1996e SCC [1996] 2 SCR 507, 137 DLR (4th) 289. Delgamuukw v. BC, 1997 [1997] 3 SCR 1010. R. v. Marshall, 1999a SCR 456. R. v. Sundown, 1999b [1999] 1 SCR 393. 2002. Environmental Assessment Act, SBC. C. 43. R. v. Mitchell, 2003a [2003] 2 SCR 396. R. v. Powley, 2003b SCC 2 SCR 2007. Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004a [2004] 3 SCR 511 2004b. Wildfire Act, SBC. C. 31. Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 3 SCR 388. R. v. Morris, 2006a [2006] SCJ No 59. R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006b [2006] 2 SCR 686. Willson v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2007 BCSC 1324 [QL]. West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011 BCCA 247. Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48. AANDC. 2011. Aboriginal consultation and accommodation: Updated guidelines for federal officials to fulfill the duty to consult. Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675 (accessed December 2015). AANDC. 2013. Governance. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100013803/1100100013807 (accessed March 2015). AANDC. 2014a. First Nation Detail - Tsay Keh Dene. http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=609&lang=eng (accessed May 2014).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-123 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

AANDC. 2014b. First Nations Electoral System Breakdown, by Province and Territory, in Canada. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1337794249355/1337794353857#bc (accessed June 2014). AANDC. 2015a. Community Profile - Fort Nelson First Nation. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Search/ FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=543&lang=eng (accessed March 2015). AANDC. 2015b. First Nation Detail - Takla Lake First Nation. http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/ Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=608&lang=eng (accessed November 2015). AANDC. 2015c. First Nations Community Profiles- McLeod Lake Indian Band. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/ Search/FNGovernance.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=618&lang=eng (accessed March 2015). AANDC. 2015d. First Nations Profiles. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng (accessed February 2015). AANDC. 2015e. First Nations Profiles. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng (accessed February 2015). AANDC. 2015f. Prophet River First Nation. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx? BAND_NUMBER=544&lang=eng (accessed February 2015). AANDC. n.d. First Nation Detail: Doig River First Nation. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx? BAND_NUMBER=548&lang=eng (accessed March 2015). Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. 2010. Aboriginal rights. https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028605/1100100028606 (accessed December 2015). Asch, M. 1981. Slavey. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 6: Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 338-49. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Bakker, P. 1997. A Language of Our Own: The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. New York: Oxford University Press. Barman, J. and M. Evans. 2009. Reflections on Being, and Becoming, Metis in British Columbia. BC Studies, 161: 59-91. BC, SFN, and WMFN. 2006. The Peace Moberly Tract Draft Sustainable Resource Management Plan. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/north/peace_moberly/final_draft_PMT_SRMP- July19.pdf (accessed March 2012). BC EAO. 2010. Proponent guide for providing First Nation consultation information: Non-treaty First Nations. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office: Victoria, BC. http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/EAO_Guidelines_FN_Consultation-Non_Treaty_ Nations.pdf (accessed December 2015). BC EAO. 2013. Guide to involving proponents when consulting First Nations in the environmental assessment process. http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/guidance.html (accessed May 2015).

21-124 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

BC EAO. 2016. Application Information Requirements for the Kemess Underground Project. Published by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office: Victoria, BC. BC Hydro. 2009. Tsay Keh Dene vote yes to Williston settlement agreement. http://www.bchydro.com/ news/press_centre/news_releases/2009/yes_vote_rights_historic.html (accessed February 2015). BC Hydro Power and Authority. 2013. Asserted or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Aboriginal Interests, and Information Requirements. Victoria, BC. BC MARR. 2010. BC and Treaty 8 First Nations Sign Five Agreements. BC MARR press release. May 20, 2010. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010ARR0007-000595.htm (accessed July 2014). BC MARR. 2014. Guide to involving proponents when consulting First Nations. Province of British Columbia. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource- stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations (accessed December 2015). BC MARR. n.d. Website- BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR). http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/ (accessed November 2015). BC Treaty Commission. n.d. McLeod Lake Indian Band. http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/mcleod.php (accessed June 2014). BCTC. 2013. Website- BC Treaty Commission (BCTC). http://www.bctreaty.net/ (accessed May 2015). Big Sky Consulting Ltd. and Site C First Nations Engagement Team. 2013. McLeod Lake Indian Band: Traditional land use baseline and assessment report. BC Hydro Power and Authority. http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/63919/90517/McLeod_Lake_ Indian_Band.pdf (accessed June 2014). Blueberry River Enterprises GP Ltd. 2015. Blueberry River Enterprises GP Ltd.,. http://breltd.net/ (accessed March 2015). Blueberry River First Nations. 2012. Blueberry River First Nations Community Baseline Profile for BC Hydro's Site C Clean Energy Project. Prepared for BC Hydro Power and Authority: Fort St. John, BC. Brody, H. 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. Brody, H. 2000. The Other Side of Eden: Hunters, Farming, and the Shaping of the World. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd. Brown, D. 2002. Carrier Sekani Self-Government in Context: Land and Resources. Western Geography, 12: 21-67. Budhwa, R. 2007. The Importance, Traditional Use, and Locations of Various Berry Species within the Gitxsan Traditional Territory. . http://bvcentre.ca/files/research_reports/07- 19GitxsanBerryPatches.pdf (accessed February 2015). CanLII. n.d. West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2013 BCSC 1260. https://www.canlii.org/ en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc1260/2013bcsc1260.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZd2V

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-125 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

zdGVybiBib3VuZGFyeSB0cmVhdHkgOAAAAAAB&resultIndex=3 (accessed February 2015). CEA Agency. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Determining whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse effects. https://www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D213D286-1 (accessed December 2015). CEA Agency. 2015a. Considering Aboriginal traditional knowledge in environmental assessments conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. https://www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=C3C7E0D3-1 (accessed December 2015). CEA Agency. 2015b. Overview: Assessment of Impacts to Rights in the Environmental Assessment Process. Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON. CFNR Network. 2015. Gitxsan Aquire Traffic Control Services Company. Crossroads. 2013. Tse Keh Nay/Kemess Underground Archaeological Overview Assessment. Prepared for Tse Keh Nay and AuRico Gold Inc. by Crossroads CRM.: Smithers, BC. Crossroads. 2015a. Ethnographic Overview of Gitxsan Wilp Nii Kyap. Prepared for AuRico Gold Inc. by Crossroads Cultural Resource Management: Smithers, BC. Crossroads. 2015b. Metis Kemess Ethnographic Report. Prepared for AuRico Gold Inc. by Crossroads Cultural Resource Management: Smithers, BC. Crossroads. 2015c. Métis Kemess Ethnographic Report. Prepared for AuRico Gold Inc. by Crossroads Cultural Resource Management: Smithers, BC. Crossroads. 2015d. Treaty 8 First Nations ethnographic overview. Prepared by Crossroads Cultural Resource Management Ltd.: Smithers, BC. Crossroads. 2015e. Tse Keh Nay Kemess Underground Project Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Study. Prepared on behalf of Tse Keh Nay Alliance: Smithers, BC. CSTC. 2014. CSTC Services. http://www.carriersekani.ca/about-cstc/cstc-services/ (accessed May 2014). Daly, R. 2013. Our Box Was Full: An Ethnography for the Delgamuukw Plaintiffs. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Darnell, R. 2001. Plains Cree. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 13 Plains Pt 1 of 2. Ed. R. J. DeMallie. 638-51. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Denniston, G. 1981. Sekani. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 6 Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 433-41. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Dewhirst, J. 1995. An Aboriginal Sustenance Impact Assessment of the Kemess South Copper-Gold Project: A Status Report. Prepared for El Condor Resources Ltd. by John Dewhirst, Archaeo Tech Associates: Victoria, BC. Dunne-za Ventures LP. 2015. Website. http://www.dunneza.com/default.htm (accessed April 2015). EPCOR. 2009. Environmental Assessment Application- Quality Wind Project. EPCOR Power Development (BC) Limited Partnership (EPCOR). http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p311/

21-126 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

d30045/1244503042626_1774c28f078631994c6e711329c796d845fb3b87654dc59d3bbd2719c71ff f1d.pdf (accessed October 2012). ERM. 2014. Kemess Underground Project: Valued Component Scoping Summary. Prepared for AuRico Gold Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd.: Vancouver, BC. Fasken Martineau. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project Volume 5, Appendix A 10 Part 1, Community Summary: Halfway River First Nation. http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_ staticpost/63919/85328/Vol5_Appendix-Halfway.pdf (accessed February 2015). Finavera. 2011. Application for an EA Certificate- Wildmare Wind Energy Project. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/ appsdata/epic/documents/p300/d33280/1301682421010_411095c38ecee4ced80da2d632e57 dd4de4bba255ff2e38c90210a752906b3ac.pdf (accessed October 2012). Finavera Wind Energy Inc. 2011. First Nations Information Requirements. Application for an Envrionmental Assessment Certificate- Wildmare Wind Energy Project. http://www.finavera.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Wildmare%20Section%206.3%20- %20First%20Nations%20Information%20Requirements.pdf (accessed March 2015). First Voices. 2013. Gitsenimx Community Portal. http://www.firstvoices.ca/scripts/ WebObjects.exe/FirstVoices.woa/wa/enterLanguageArchive?archive=02d830a123efe761 (accessed November 2014). FNFN. 2012. Respect for the Land: Fort Nelson First Nation Strategic Land Use Plan. Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN). FNFN. n.d. Website - Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN). http://www.fortnelsonfirstnation.org/ (accessed March 2015). FPCC. n.d.-a. First Peoples' Language Map of BC- Dakelh- First Peoples' Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/fphlcc/dakelh (accessed May 2015). FPCC. n.d.-b. First Peoples' Language Map of BC- Nehiyawewin. First Peoples' Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/fphlcc/cree (accessed April 2015). FPCC. n.d.-c. First Peoples' Language Map of BC- Tse'khene. First Peoples' Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/fphlcc/tsekhene (accessed April 2015). FPCC. n.d.-d. First Peoples' Language Map of British Columbia- Dane-zaa. First Peoples' Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/fphlcc/dane-zaa (accessed March 2015). FPCC. n.d.-e. First Peoples' Language Map of British Columbia- Gitsenimx. http://maps.fphlcc.ca/gitsenimx (accessed March 2015). FPCC. n.d.-f. First Peoples’ Language Map of BC- Dene K’e. First Peoples’ Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/fphlcc/dene_ke (accessed April 2015). FPCC. n.d.-g. West Moberly First Nations. First Peoples' Culture Council (FPCC). http://maps.fphlcc.ca/west_moberly (accessed March 2015). Furniss, E. 1995. The Carrier Indians and the Politics of History. In Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience. Ed. R. B. Morrison and C. R. Wilson. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-127 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

GDC. 2012. Gitxsan Development Corporation- Website. http://www.gitxsanbusiness.com/ (accessed March 2015). GHCO. n.d. Gitxsan- Website. http://www.gitxsan.com/ (accessed March 2015). Gitxsan Treaty Society. 2007. Gitxsan Traditional Territory- Map. http://www.gitxsan.com/old/images/stories/PDFs/gitmap2.pdf (accessed January 2015). Goddard, P. E. 1916. The Beaver Indians. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 10 (4): 204-92. Golder Associates. 2009. Overview of McLeod Lake Indian Band Traditional Knowledge of Alpine Ecosystems as Relevant to the Proposed Roman Coal Mine. 07-1414-0149. Submitted to McLeod Lake Indian Band by Golder Associates: Gottesfeld, L. M. J. 1994. Conservation, Territory, and Traditional Beliefs. An Analysis of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en Subsistence, Northwest British Columbia, Canada Human Ecology, 22 (4): 443-65. Halfway River Group. 2015. Building the Future http://halfwayrivergroup.ca/index.php (accessed March 2015). Hall, L. 1992. The Carrier, My People. Cloverdale, BC: Friesen Printers. Halpin, M. M. and M. Seguin. 1990. Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7: Northwest Coast. Ed. W. Suttles. 267-84. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Honigmann, J. J. 1981. Kaska. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol 6: Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 442- 50. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Hudson, D. R. 1983. Traplines and Timber: Social and Economic Change among the Carrier Indians of Northern British Columbia. Ph.D. diss., University of Alberta, Edmonton. Indigenous Foundations. 2009. Aboriginal Rights. First Nations Studies Program, University of British Columbia. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal- rights.html (accessed December 2015). JagaSilk. n.d. Organic Indigenous Tea, TII-MASTET - a labrador tea by Kwadacha (Northern B.C. Canada) Fall 2013, 25g (5 x 5g). Jarvis, D. 2013. West Moberly First Nations’ Action Plan for Restoring the Klinse-Za Herd of Woodland Caribou – Increased Land Use Planning to Result? http://energylawbc.ca/west-moberly-first- nations-action-plan-for-restoring-the-klinse-za-herd-of-woodland-caribou-increased-land- use-planning-to-result/ (accessed July 2014). Jenness, D. 1937. The Sekani Indians of British Columbia. Anthropological Series 20, National Museum of Canada Bulletin, 84. Johnson, L. M. 2000. "A Place That's Good": Gitksan Landscape Perception and Ethnoarchaeology. Human Ecology, 28 (2): 301-25.

21-128 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Joint Review Panel. 2007. Kemess North Copper-Gold Mine Project- Joint Review Panel Report. http://www.elc.uvic.ca/documents/Kemess-South-EA-Report-Sept2007.pdf (accessed August 2014). Junger, R. and B. Ryan. 2014. What does Aboriginal title mean for mining In British Columbia? McMillan LLP. http://www.mcmillan.ca/What-Does-Aboriginal-Title-Mean-For-Mining-In-British- Columbia (accessed December, 2015). Kaska Dena Council. 2014. Election Results for Kwadacha Nation http://www.kaskadenacouncil.com/ newsarchives/current-news/item/election-results-for-kwadacha-nation-2014 (accessed June 2014). Kitsegukla Band. 1979. Adawkhl Gitsegukla- Gitsegukla History. Kitsegukla Band: Gitsegukla, BC. Kwadacha Nation. 2014. Band Council. http://www.kwadacha.com/nation/60/band+council (accessed May 2014). Kwadacha Outfitters. 2015. Kwadacha Outfitters. http://www.kwadachaoutfitters.com/home.html (accessed February 2015). Lamb, W. K., ed. 1957. Sixteen Years in the Indian Country: The Journal of Daniel Williams Harmon, 1800-1816. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Lamb, W. K., ed. 1960. The Letters and Journals of Simon Fraser, 1806-1808. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Leonard, D. W. 1995. Delayed Frontier: The Peace River Country to 1909. Calgary, AB: Edmonton and District Historical Society. Leopold, L., F. Clarke, B. Hanshaw, and J. Balsley. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geological Survey Circular 645: Littlefield, L., L. Dorricott, and D. Cullon. 2007. Tse Kay Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake): A Draft Report http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/ documents_staticpost/cearref_3394/hearings/SM01.pdf (accessed June 2013). Littlefield, L., Dorricott, L., Cullon, D. 2007. Tse Key Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake): A Draft Report. Contributions by: Place, J., Tobin, P. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_3394/hearings/SM01.pdf (accessed March 2014). Madill, D. F. K. 1986. Treaty Research Report- Treaty Eight (1899). Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Mandelbaum, D. 1979. The Plains Cree: An ethnographic, historical and comparative study. Regina, SK: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina. McLeod Lake Indian Band. 2013. McLeod Lake Indian Band Baseline Profile http://www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/94739E.pdf (accessed March 2015). McLeod Lake Indian Band. n.d. McLeod Lake Indian Band. http://www.mlib.ca/pages/about-us/ (accessed June 2014).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-129 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

McLeod Lake Indian Band. nd. McLeod Lake Indian Band. http://www.mlib.ca/pages/about-us/ (accessed June 2014). McMillan, A. D. and E. Yellowhorn. 2004. First Peoples in Canada (Third Edition). Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. MMCS. 2004. Michif Language. Michif and Métis Cultural Site (MMCS). http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/creelang/ (accessed July 2012). MNBC. 2010. BCTC Columbia Valley Transmission CPCN, Exhibit C9-3: Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission- Commission Information Request on the Evidence of the Métis Nation BC, BCTC Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Columbia Valley Transmission Project. Métis Nation BC (MNBC) http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/ 2010/DOC_25662_C9-3-MNBC-response-IR-BCUC.pdf (accessed February 2014). MNBC. 2015a. The Business Case for a Metis Capital Corporation in British Columbia. Metis Nation BC (MNBC). http://www.metisnation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2-AMDI-MNBC- Economic-Development-Roundtable-March-6-2015-copy.pdf (accessed March 2015). MNBC. 2015b. Metis Use and Occupancy Study: AuRico Metals Kemess Project. Edited by Christopher Gall. MNBC Ministry of Natural Resources: Abbotsford, BC. MNBC. 2015c. Website - Métis Nation BC (MNBC). http://www.mnbc.ca/ (accessed April 2015). MNC. 2011. Métis Harvester's Guide 2011. Métis National Council (MNC). http://www.metisnation.ca/ wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Harverster_Guide_2011_final2.pdf (accessed March 2015). MNC. n.d.-a. The Metis Nation. Metis National Council (MNC). http://www.metisnation.ca/index.php/who-are-the-metis (accessed July 2012). MNC. n.d.-b. The Métis Nation. Métis National Council (MNC). http://www.metisnation.ca/index.php/who-are-the-metis (accessed July 2012). Morgan, R. E. 2013. Dim Wila Dil Dils'm: The Way We Live: Gitwangax Traditional Health Governance (Prevention). Unpublished Manuscript. Morice, A. G. 1893. Notes on the Western Dene. Transactions of the Canadian Institute, 4: 122. Nesoo Watchie Resouce Management. 2011. Saulteau First Nations culture and traditions study in reference to the proposed BC Hydro Site C Clean Energy Project. Prepared for Saulteau First Nations and BC Hydro: Kamloops, BC. People of 'Ksan. 1980. Gathering What the Great Nature Provided: Food Traditions of the Gitksan. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. PRCI. 2010. Roman Coal Mine Project- Environmental Assessment Report, Volume 3: Human Environment Assessment. Peace River Coal Inc. (PRCI): Vancouver. Province of BC. 2010. Updated procedures for meeting legal obligations when consulting with First Nations: Interim. Province of British Columbia. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/ natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations (accessed December 2015). Province of BC. 2015a. Aboriginal Business & Investment Council: Fort Nelson First Nation http://www.bcabic.ca/content/fort-nelson-first-nation (accessed March 2015).

21-130 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

Province of BC. 2015b. Aboriginal Business and Investment Council: McLeod Lake Indian Band. Rescan. 2013. Murray River Coal Project: 2013 Socio-economic Baseline Report. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p367/d38448/1417652496744_92CqJ1bdy m3NBdBcB1WwLTfZ2v2KGMVcp9vdtcNlZqdh8T0ssQlM!-231679769!1417649021926.pdf (accessed March 2015). Ridington, A. 2013. McLeod Lake Indian Band Traditional Land Use Study: Assessing Potential Heritage and Land Use Impacts for BC Hydro's "Site C Clean Energy Project" on the Peace River, BC. McLeod Lake Indian Band: Vancouver, BC. Ridington, R. 1968. The Environmental Context of Beaver Indian Behavior. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Ridington, R. 1981. Beaver. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6 Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 350-60. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Rogers, E. S. and J. G. E. Smith. 1981. Environment and Culture in the Shield and Mackenzie Borderlands. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 6 Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 130-45. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. 2013. "The People Who Own Themselves": Recognition of Metis Identity in Canada http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/ 411/appa/rep/rep12jun13-e.pdf (accessed March 2015). Smith, J. G. E. 1981. Western Woods Cree. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 6 Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 256-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. SNC Lavalin. 2013. The Proposed Kemess Underground Mine: A Socio-Eonomic Review of the Impacted Tse Keh Nay Communities. Steinbring, J. H. 1981. Saulteaux of Lake Winnipeg. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 6 Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 244-55. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Stevenson, A. 2004. The Métis Cultural Brokers and the Western Numbered Treaties, 1869-1877. MA diss., University of Saskatchewan. Stevenson, M. and Dene Tha' First Nations Lands and Environment Department. 2012. Dene Tha' Traditional Land Use with Respect to BC Hydro's Proposed Site C Dam, Northeastern British Columbia. Dene Tha' First Nation Lands and Resourced Department. T8TA. 2015a. Doig River First Nation. Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA). http://treaty8.bc.ca/communities/doig-river-first-nation/ (accessed March 2015). T8TA. 2015b. Saulteau First Nations. Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA). http://treaty8.bc.ca/communities/saulteau-first-nations/ (accessed March 2015). T8TA. 2015c. Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA)- Website. http://treaty8.bc.ca/ (accessed March 2015). T8TA. 2015d. West Moberly First Nations. Treaty 8 Tribal Association (T8TA) http://treaty8.bc.ca/communities/west-moberly-first-nations/ (accessed March 2015). Terrane. 2008. Mt. Milligan Copper-Gold Project, Environmental Assessment, Section 2- First Nations Considerations. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p285/d26336/122054 6031751_8e248a8d30d9a8ce43a254554de79f2c88f19738bbe9.pdf (accessed November 2012).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-131 APPLICATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

The Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2014. Saulteau First Nations Knowledge and Use Study for HD Mining Murray River Coal Project: Final Report. Vancouver, BC: Prepared for Saulteau First Nations. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p367/d38448/ 1417652761383_92CqJ1bdym3NBdBcB1WwLTfZ2v2KGMVcp9vdtcNlZqdh8T0ssQlM!- 231679769!1417649021926.pdf (accessed February 2015). Timberland Consultants Ltd. 1998. Prophet River Wildlife Inventory Report 1997-1998. Prepared for Prophet River Indian Band: Fort Nelson, BC. TLFN. 2015. About the Band & Community. http://www.taklafn.ca/band-and-community/ (accessed November 2015). TLFN. n.d. Website- Takla Lake First Nation (TLFN). http://www.taklafn.ca/our-territory/ (accessed May 2015). TMW. 2009. Environmental Assessment Application- Thunder Mountain Wind Project, section 6.4- Aboriginal Communities and Traditional Land Uses. Prepared for Thunder Mountain Wind LP (TMW) by Aeolis Wind: Fort St. John, BC. Tobey, M. L. 1981. Carrier. In Handbook of North American Indians, volume 6: Subarctic. Ed. J. Helm. 413-32. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Traditions Consulting Services. 2013. Site C Clean Energy Project: Volume 5 Appendix A17 Part 3 Revised Aboriginal Land and Resource Use Summary: Métis Nation British Columbia. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p371/d35997/1377300913231_cfff53268b eb4b1510174543f58cdf7611a4861269c501c35e1c5b2dfd931b06.pdf (accessed July 2014). Treaty 8 First Nations Community Assessment Team and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2012. Telling a Story of Change the Dane-zaa Way: A Baseline Community Profile of Doig River First Nation, Halfway River First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, and West Moberly First Nations. Submitted to BC Hydro Power and Authority. Tsay Keh Dene Outfitters. 2014. Tsay Keh Dene Outfitters. http://www.tsaykehdeneoutfitters.com/fishing-trips.html (accessed July 2014). Turtle Island Native Network. 2003. Nineteen First Nations Sign Framework Agreement to First Matins Land Management Initiative. http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-landmanagement.htm (accessed July 2014). Vancouver Observer. 2014. After kicking out government officials at industry summit, Fort Nelson First Nation signs LNG worker camp deal. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/after- kicking-out-government-officials-industry-summit-fort-nelson-first-nation-signs-lng-camp (accessed March 2015). Weinstein, M. 1979. B.C. Utilities Commission Exhibit 374A: Indian Land Use and Occupancy in the Peace River Country of Northeastern B.C. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs: Vancouver. West Moberly First Nation. 2015. Businesses http://www.westmo.org/programs/dunneza-lodge (accessed March 2015). West Moberly First Nations. 2012. "We Used to Come Here All the Time": A Review of the Proposed Dawson Creek to Chetwynd Transmission Line in Western Treaty No. 8. Prepared for BC Hydro and Power Authority by West Moberly First Nations: Moberly Lake, BC.

21-132 | Kemess Underground Project ERM | PROJ #0196303 | REV H.1 | MAY 2016 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

West Moberly First Nations Land Use Department. 2009. "I Want to Eat Caribou Before I Die: Initial Submissions for the Proposed Mining Activity at First Coal Corporation's Goodrich Property. West Moberly, BC. Wilson, A. and G. G. Patsey. 2004. Inside the Gitxsan: The Gwalax Yee’nst: A Cursory Description of Innate Traditional Gitxsan Processes, Structure, and Teachings. Gitxsan Treaty Society. http://www.gitxsan.com/old/images/stories/Final_Draft_Prelim_inside_the_gitxsan1.pdf (accessed November 2014). Winds and Voices Environmental Services Inc. 2000. Determining significance of environmental effects: An Aboriginal perspective. Catalogue No. EN05-3/70-2003E-IN Research and Development Monograph Series, 2000 Ottawa, ON. WMFN. 2012. "We Used to Come Here All the Time": A Review of the Proposed Dawson Creek to Chetwynd Transmission Line in Western Treaty No. 8. Prepared for BC Hydro and Power Authority by West Moberly First Nations (WMFN): Moberly Lake, BC. Wolfenden, K. 2012. Fort Nelson First Nation Primary Concerns and Comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines for the Site C Clean Energy Project. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/80494E.pdf (accessed March 2015).

AURICO METALS INC. Kemess Underground Project | 21-133