Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Integrated Knowledge and Land Use Report and Assessment

for

Shell Canadaʼs Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine April 20, 2011 Craig Candler (Ph.D) and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN)

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Integrated Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Shell Canada’s Proposed Jackpine Mine Prepared and authored by:

Craig Candler (Ph.D) and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative

On behalf of:

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN)

Submitted to:

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation

ACFN Integrated Knowledge and Use Report for JPME and PRM 4/20/2011

www.thefirelightgroup.com 3

Executive Summary

This report provides baseline information and impact assessment regarding Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) knowledge and use in the area of two proposed oil sand mines: the Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME), and the Pierre River Mine (PRM). Eleven individual mapping interviews specific to JPME and PRM were conducted and information from previous studies was integrated. ACFN mapped (site-specific) information include data from approximately 100 interviews conducted with more than 50 ACFN elders and land users. Assessment was based on project footprints and included local study areas (LSAs) within 5km of project footprints, and a larger regional study area (RSA) based on ACFN cultural protection areas (ACFN 2010), and downstream portions of the Athabasca River, including the Athabasca delta.

Lands within the LSAs and RSA contain unique and culturally important resources and landscapes that are integral to the practice of ACFN use and knowledge. Maps illustrate ACFN use within, adjacent to, and down stream of the proposed projects. Fifty-five ACFN use values were reported within the JPME LSA including thirteen habitation values, preferred hunting, berry gathering, and fishing sites, trails, and water routes. The JPME LSA also includes a large portion of ACFN trapline RFMA #1714. 45 use values were reported within the PRM LSA including 14 habitation values, hunting sites, fishing sites, important wood bison and moose habitat, and trails and water routes. The PRM LSA includes portions of a historic ACFN trapline.

Likely effects are characterized by standard criteria including magnitude and duration. The JPME and PRM projects, either separately or taken together, are considered likely to have significant adverse residual effects on specific ACFN knowledge and use values, including but not limited to effects on use in the vicinity of RFMA #1714, effects on wood bison, and downstream loss of use due to perceived contaminants and effects on the Athabasca River at low flow levels.

It is recommended that the proponent, ACFN, and Federal and Provincial Crown undertake a process to ensure adequate quantity and quality of resources exist for the continuation of ACFN knowledge and use into the future. This process should prioritize avoiding and reducing impacts over mitigating them. Where project effects on ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided they should be mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, using effective strategies agreeable to the ACFN. If impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a significant level, then permissions for JPME and PRM should require consent from the Federal and Provincial Crown, and authorized representatives of the ACFN.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3

List of Figures and Tables................................................................................................. 8

List of Appendices............................................................................................................. 9

Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 10

Section 1: Outline of the Report ..................................................................................... 11

1.1 About the Authors ............................................................................................... 12

1.2 What is a Project Specific Traditional Use Study? .............................................. 13

1.3 Limitations of the Report ..................................................................................... 14

Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies ............................................................... 15

2.1.1 Jackpine Mine Expansion ............................................................................. 16 2.1.2 Pierre River Mine .......................................................................................... 17 2.1.3 Redclay Compensation Lake ........................................................................ 17 2.1.4 Water Withdrawals ........................................................................................ 17

2.2 Existing Studies................................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Proponent’s Consideration of ACFN Traditional Knowledge and

Land Use Within the Applications ................................................................. 18 2.2.2 Summary of the 2008 ACFN Study for JPME and PRM ............................... 21

Section 3: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation ............................................................... 24

3.1 Culture and History ............................................................................................. 24

3.2 Treaty 8 and Dené Livelihood ............................................................................. 26

3.3 ACFN Reserves and Traplines ........................................................................... 28

3.4 Population and Demographics ............................................................................ 29

3.5 ACFN Vision and Planning.................................................................................. 31 3.5.1 ACFN Cultural Protection Areas ................................................................... 32



Section 4: Methods for Baseline Collection and Impact Assessment ............................ 35

4.1 Baseline Collection Methods............................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Identification of Key Valued Components ..................................................... 35 4.1.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ................................................................. 37 4.1.3 Interview and Mapping Methods ................................................................... 39 4.1.4 ACFN Baseline Information Sources ............................................................ 40

4.2 Impact Assessment Methods .............................................................................. 42 4.2.1 Valued Components for Assessment............................................................ 42 4.2.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ................................................................. 43

4.3 Assessment Methods.......................................................................................... 43 4.3.1 Residual Effects Characterization ................................................................. 43 4.3.2 ACFN Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Environmental Consequence ........................................................................ 45 4.3.4 Significance Threshold .................................................................................. 46 4.3.5 Confidence in Predictions ............................................................................. 47

Section 5: JPME Project Baseline and Assessment ...................................................... 48

5.1 Baseline for Site-specific VCs within the JPME LSA and RSA ........................... 48

5.2 Baseline Summary for Non-site-specific VCs Within the JPME LSA and RSA... 53 5.2.1 Water and River values – Quantity ............................................................... 56 5.2.2 Water and River Values – Quality ................................................................. 57 5.2.3 Culturally Important Species – Bison ............................................................ 59 5.2.4 Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground

Caribou.......................................................................................................... 59 5.2.5 Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds ............................................. 61 5.2.6 Culturally Important Species – Plants ........................................................... 61 5.2.7 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands – Traplines ...................................... 62 5.2.8 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Reserves and Cultural

Protection Areas............................................................................................ 62 5.2.9 Intangible Cultural Resources – ACFN Knowledge and Language .............. 64

5.3 Assessment of JPME Project Effects.................................................................. 65 5.3.1 Anticipated JPME Project Effects on Site-specific VCs within the LSA

and RSA........................................................................................................ 66 5.3.1.1 Site-specific Subsistence Values ........................................................... 66 5.3.1.2 Site-specific Habitation Values .............................................................. 66 5.3.1.3 Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values ................................................... 67 5.3.1.4 Site-specific Transportation Values ....................................................... 68 5.3.1.5 Site-specific Environmental Feature Values .......................................... 68



5.3.2 Anticipated JPME Effects on Non-Site-specific VCs..................................... 69 5.3.2.1 JPME Effects on Water and River Values – Quantity ............................ 69 5.3.2.2 JPME Effects on Water and River Values – Quality .............................. 69 5.3.2.3 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Wood Bison............... 70 5.3.2.4 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou

and Barren Ground Caribou .................................................................. 71

5.4 Existing JPME Mitigations................................................................................... 74 5.4.1 Oil Sands Mine Reclamation and ACFN Knowledge and Use...................... 75

5.5 JPME Residual Project Effects ........................................................................... 76

5.6 Significance of Residual JPME Effects ............................................................... 78

Section 6: PRM Project Baseline and Assessment........................................................ 80

6.1 Baseline for Site-specific VCs within the PRM LSA and RSA............................. 80

6.2 Baseline Summary for Non-Site-specific VCs within the PRM LSA and RSA .... 86 6.2.1 Water and River values – Quality.................................................................. 87 6.2.2 Culturally Important Species – Bison ............................................................ 89 6.2.3 Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground

Caribou.......................................................................................................... 90 6.2.4 Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds ............................................. 91 6.2.5 Culturally Important Species – Plants ........................................................... 93 6.2.6 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Traplines ..................................... 93 6.2.7 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Reserves and Cultural

Protection Areas............................................................................................ 93 6.2.8 Intangible Cultural Resources – Knowledge and Language ......................... 96

6.3 Assessment of PRM Project Effects ................................................................... 96 6.3.1 Anticipated PRM Project Effects on Site-specific VCs within the LSA

and RSA........................................................................................................ 97 6.3.1.1 Site-specific Subsistence Values ........................................................... 97 6.3.1.2 Site-specific Habitation Values .............................................................. 97 6.3.1.3 Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values ................................................... 98 6.3.1.4 Site-specific Transportation Values ....................................................... 98 6.3.1.5 Site-specific Environmental Feature Values ........................................ 100

6.3.2 Anticipated PRM Effects on Non-Site-specific VCs .................................... 100 6.3.2.1 PRM Effects on Water and River Values – Quantity ........................... 100 6.3.2.2 PRM Effects on Water and River Values – Quality.............................. 101 6.3.2.3 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Wood Bison .............. 102 6.3.2.4 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou

and Barren Ground Caribou ................................................................ 103



6.3.2.5 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds.......... 104 6.3.2.6 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Plants ........................ 104 6.3.2.7 PRM Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Traplines.. 104 6.3.2.8 PRM Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands – ACFN Indian

Reserves and cultural protection areas ............................................... 105 6.3.3 PRM Effects on Intangible Cultural Resources ........................................... 105

6.4 Existing PRM Mitigations .................................................................................. 106 6.4.1 Oil Sands Mine Reclamation and ACFN Knowledge and Use.................... 106

6.5 PRM Residual Project Effects ........................................................................... 108

6.6 Significance of Residual PRM Effects............................................................... 110

Section 7: Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................... 112

7.1 JPME and PRM Combined Summary of Baseline and Cumulative Impact Assessment....................................................................................................... 112

7.2 Monitoring and Accountability ........................................................................... 115

7.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 115

7.4 Closure.............................................................................................................. 116

Section 8: References Cited ........................................................................................ 117



List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: ACFN Indian Reserves and Traplines (RFMAs) Held by ACFN Members in Relation to the Projects ............................................................ 30

Figure 2: ACFN Traditional Lands and Cultural Protection Areas in Relation to the Projects .............................................................................................. 33

Figure 3: Regional Study Area and Local Study Area in Relation to the Project ........ 38 Figure 4: Environmental Consequence Rating System .............................................. 45 Figure 5: Reported ACFN Use Values within the JPME Project Local Study Area .... 49 Figure 6: Reported ACFN Site-Specific Use Values in Relation to the JPME

Project Footprint, LSA and RSA .................................................................. 52 Figure 7: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values Within the JPME Regional

Study Area ................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8: Reported Current (Winter 2010/11) Loss of Use Areas in the RSA,

Including Reported Specific Loss of Use Due to Water Level and Quality Downstream of the Muskeg River ................................................... 55

Figure 9: ACFN Navigation and Navigable Hazards in Relation to the JPME Project.......................................................................................................... 58

Figure 10: Reported Core Bison and Core Caribou Habitats in Relation to the Project and RSA .......................................................................................... 60

Figure 11: Environmental Consequence of Residual Impacts ...................................... 77 Figure 12: Reported ACFN Use Values within the PRM Project Local Study Area ...... 81 Figure 13: Reported ACFN Site-Specific Use Values in relation to the PRM

Project Footprint, LSA and RSA .................................................................. 83 Figure 14: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values within the PRM Regional

Study Area ................................................................................................... 84 Figure 15: Reported Current (Winter 2010/2011) Loss of Use Areas in the RSA

including Reported Specific Loss of Use due to Water Level and Quality Downstream of the Muskeg River ................................................... 85

Figure 16: ACFN Navigation and Navigable Hazards in relation to the PRM Project ... 88 Figure 17: Reported Core Bison and Core Caribou Habitats in relation to the

Project and RSA .......................................................................................... 92 Figure 18: Environmental Consequence of PRM........................................................ 109 Figure 19: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values within the PRM Regional

Study Area ................................................................................................. 113



List of Appendices

Appendix 1: ACFN Elders’ Declaration on Rights to Land Use.................................... 120

Appendix 2: Summary of Existing Downstream Effects of Oil Sands Developments on ACFN Rights ....................................................................................... 121

Appendix 3: Summary of Existing Proponent Mitigations and Commitments of Potential Relevance to ACFN Knowledge and Use Practice ................... 124

Appendix 4: Informed Consent Documentation............................................................ 130

Appendix 5: Interview Guide ........................................................................................ 131

Appendix 6: Direct to Digital Capture Method .............................................................. 144

Appendix 7: Curriculum Vitae, Dr. Craig Candler......................................................... 147

Appendix 8: Curriculum Vitae, Steven DeRoy.............................................................. 155



Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACFN Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

ATK Aboriginal traditional knowledge

CASCA Canadian Anthropology Society/ Société Canadienne d'Anthropologie

JPME Jackpine Mine Expansion

LSA Local study area

PRM Pierre River Mine

RFMAs Registered Fur Management Areas (Alberta)

RSA Regional study area

TEK Traditional ecological knowledge

Firelight Group or Firelight Firelight Group Research Cooperative

the project

In the ACFN 2008 study and in the Shell Canada application JPME and PRM are treated as one project. “The project” is used when referring to these studies, as effects were not specific to either project, but were treated jointly.

the projects

Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine – for the purpose of this study JPME and PRM are treated as two separate projects, not as one single project, as per the proponent’s assessment.

the proponent Shell Canada

TUS Traditional use study

VCs Valued components

VECs Valued ecosystem components



Section 1: Outline of the Report

This report provides information and assessment based on available Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) knowledge and land use data and with regard to two proposed oil sand mine developments (“the projects”), as well as related works, proposed by Shell Canada (“the proponent”) within the traditional lands of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. The projects (defined in Section 2), are the Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME) immediately adjacent to, and extending north and west from, Kearl Lake, Alberta, and the Pierre River Mine (PRM) located north and west of Kearl Lake on the west side of the Athabasca River (see Figure 1). Specific ACFN knowledge and use values,1 including areas and resources relied upon by ACFN members for the practice of treaty rights,2 have been documented within and adjacent to the proposed footprints for each of the projects. The primary goal of this report is to articulate available ACFN knowledge and use related to the area of the proposed projects, including how ACFN use has changed over time, where areas of lost use resulting from impacts by oil sands or other developments already exist, and how the projects are likely to further influence ACFN knowledge and use values. The report is intended for consideration as part of the JPME and PRM regulatory approval process and for JPME and PRM planning purposes. It integrates qualitative information collected through a 2008 ACFN study submitted to the proponent (summarized in Section 2) along with additional and supplemental ACFN information and analysis (summarized in Sections 5, 6, and 7). Based on available evidence, and considering the level of existing adverse industrial effects in the Kearl Lake area and on the Athabasca River, this report finds that the projects, as proposed, either separately or taken together, are likely to result in significant adverse residual effects (separate from the effects of other known and anticipated projects) on ACFN knowledge and use within the local study areas (LSAs).

1 For the purpose of this report, an “ACFN knowledge and use value” is any reported cultural resource,

tangible or intangible, including site-specific (mapped) and non-site-specific (non-mapped) value, that is considered important to ACFN livelihood (see Section 3), or is associated with past, present or planned ACFN use.

2 For the purpose of this report, treaty rights are understood to include, but are not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering for sustenance and livelihood purposes. For additional detail, see Section 5.



In combination with effects from other projects, the residual effects of the projects are likely to contribute to and exacerbate existing significant cumulative effects on ACFN knowledge and use in the regional study area (RSA). Both LSA and RSA are described in detail below. While a determination regarding the significance of residual project effects was not made in the proponentʼs applications, the findings of this report are generally consistent with data presented in the proponentʼs applications. The report is organized into seven sections:

• Section 1 provides an outline of the report, including goals and limitations;

• Section 2 provides a summary description of the projects based on documentation provided by the proponent and a summary of previous studies of ACFN knowledge and use specific to the proposed projects, including the consideration of effects on ACFN knowledge and use within the proponentʼs applications, and the initial ACFN project-specific study submitted to Shell in 2008;

• Section 3 provides contextual information regarding the ACFN, including a brief discussion of Treaty 8, the relationship between treaty and trapline rights, and a general ethno-historical summary;

• Section 4 provides a discussion of methods used for baseline information collection, and for impact assessment;

• Section 5 provides baseline information and impact assessment regarding ACFN knowledge and use within the JPME LSA and beyond within the RSA, and includes an identification of key valued components (VCs), a description of maps and observations by traditional land users regarding ecological and industrial change in the LSA and RSA, as well as related changes in ACFN use;

• Section 6 provides baseline information and impact assessment regarding PRM knowledge and use within the JPME LSA and beyond within the RSA, in the same format provided for the JPME; and

• Section 7 provides a summary of findings and conclusions.

1.1 About the Authors

The lead author of this report, Dr. Craig Candler, holds a Bachelor of Arts (with Honours) in Anthropology, a Master of Arts in Anthropology from the University of Alberta, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology from the University of British Columbia (completed in 2008). He has taught senior undergraduate courses at the University of Alberta and the University of British Columbia. Dr. Candler has more than 15 years experience working in the fields of community-based research and traditional use and



traditional knowledge studies with First Nations. Much of Dr. Candlerʼs work, including graduate work, has been with Dené and Cree peoples in the boreal forest of British Columbia and Alberta. He has written components for large and small environmental assessments and has been an invited speaker on cultural impact assessment for the Western and Northern Canada Affiliate of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Dr. Candler worked for five years with the Victoria Office of Golder Associates as a Senior Traditional Studies Specialist, and as the Senior Technical Lead for traditional studies in Golderʼs Cultural Science Division in BC. Much of this work involved integration of indigenous use and knowledge within environmental assessments, including identification of mitigations, and including consideration of data from multiple disciplines, including wildlife, aquatic resources, and vegetation. In late 2009 Dr. Candler left Golder Associates to co-found the Firelight Group Research Cooperative, and is currently its President. He also serves on the Executive of the Canadian Anthropology Society/Société Canadienne d'Anthropologie (CASCA), and is a member of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Cartography for this report was provided by Steven DeRoy, Vice President of the Firelight Group. Steven has over 12 years experience working with aboriginal communities in Canada, focusing on cartography, GIS, community training, and technical services. An internal peer review of the report was completed by Alistair MacDonald, a Firelight Group Associate, and Regional Director of the International Association for Impact Assessment's Northern Alberta office. Review and support was also provided by Nicole Nicholls (ACFN IRC), and Carolyn Whittaker (the Firelight Group). While others have reviewed and made suggestions, the opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the primary author, Craig Candler. Appendix 7 provides a CV for Dr. Craig Candler, Lead Researcher, and for Steven DeRoy, Cartographer.

1.2 What is a Project Specific Traditional Use Study?

A project specific traditional use study (TUS)3 is a systematic and evidence based form of investigation that applies indigenous knowledge and social science to accomplish goals that may include:

3 While there are various names and acronyms used, the term traditional use study (TUS), or variants,

is perhaps the most common in western Canada. Tobias (2010: 32-33) provides a discussion of terms and definitions and suggests the term use-and-occupancy mapping (UOM). For the purpose of this study, we use the term TUS to remain consistent with other work. Our definition of project specific TUS is consistent with Tobias 2010, and our professional experience.



• Describing the knowledge, use and interests of a community in relation to a proposed project or area;

• Assessing potential effects; and

• Identifying mitigations or recommendations that may reduce negative effects and maximize positive ones.

Most traditional used studies use mapping as an important method. Good community mapping practice (see Tobias 2010) emphasizes individual map biography interviews involving documentation of prior informed consent and a consistent and well documented method for data collection and management (see Appendices 4 through 6).

1.3 Limitations of the Report

This report is based on research conducted by the Firelight Group Research Cooperative and the ACFN as part of a project-specific ACFN knowledge and use study conducted in response to the proposed projects. This study was designed to meet these immediate needs, but also to be useful to the ACFN within the broader research program of an ACFN Southern Territories Use and Avoidance4 Study. Information provided herein is the most current available to ACFN, but is not complete due to lack of resources. It is based on the understandings of the authors, and is not intended as a complete depiction of the dynamic and living system of use and knowledge maintained by ACFN elders and members. Absence of data does not mean absence of use or value. Additional studies are necessary to fill information gaps regarding ACFN knowledge and use, and the resources, criteria, thresholds and indicators necessary to sustain meaningful practice of Treaty 8 rights into the future. Nothing in this submission should be construed as to waive, reduce, or otherwise constrain ACFN rights within, or outside, regulatory processes. Nor should it be construed as to define, limit, or otherwise constrain the treaty or aboriginal use or rights of other First Nations or aboriginal peoples. This report integrates and includes information from several sources (see Section 4), including information collected as part of an initial report prepared by ACFN specific to the JPME and PRM and submitted to Shell in 2008. This report is specific to the JPME and PRM projects and should not be relied upon to inform other projects or initiatives without written consent of the ACFN.

4 Avoidance refers to the loss of use of a location or area for a particular purpose due to changes,

often related to industrial effects.



Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies

Shell is seeking approval for the Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME), including new mining areas adjacent to the existing Jackpine Mine operations (Jackpine Mine – Phase 1), and approval of a new mine, the Pierre River Mine (PRM), on the west side of the Athabasca River. Based on project information,5 the JPME and PRM are on opposite sides of the Athabasca River, are proposed within distinct areas, and rely on separate facilities. They constitute two separate applications. For the purposes of this report, JPME and PRM are treated as separate projects. Where they are discussed together, the term “the projects” is used. Redclay Compensation Lake is a third, related project proposed by the proponent, but not included in “the projects.” The Redclay Compensation Lake project is not part of either the JPME or PRM application, and is dealt with in a separate report to be provided by ACFN to the proponent. Within the project description for the JPME submitted with its application, the proponent states:

The combined EIA for the Jackpine Mine Expansion and the new Pierre River Mine concluded that there would be no unacceptable environmental or socioeconomic effects from the projects, provided that the proposed mitigation and monitoring are undertaken (p. P-3).

Regarding project benefits, the proponent states that the projects will result in

5 Project information reviewed includes: digital map data provided by the proponent; Project

Descriptions for the JPME and PRM (Volume 1 and 2 of the EIA); Traditional Land Use Environmental Setting for the JPME and PRM Project (December 2007); Volume 5, Sections 8.1 (Human Environment Conclusions), 8.3 (Traditional Knowledge and Land Use), and 8.7.7 (Traditional Land and Culture Impacts) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (2007); those portions I believed to be relevant of the Environmental Impact Update Report (2008); those portions I believed to be relevant of the Additional Information and Clarification for Federal Departments (2010); and those portions I believed to be relevant of the Round 1 and Round 2 Supplemental Information Responses. A general search of project documents for mitigations considered to be of relevance to ACFN values was compiled for appendix 3.



approximately 2,130 new full time permanent jobs and approximately 28,790 work years of construction employment over a 10-year period:

These new projects will contribute billions of dollars in taxes and royalties to the municipal, provincial and federal governments, which will benefit all Canadians…Since the Muskeg River Mine started up in 2002, Albian Sands has paid more than $50 million in taxes to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The proposed projects will continue to build on this tax base, contributing substantial economic benefits to the region (p. 1-9).

Regarding project benefits to aboriginal peoples, the proponent is more muted:

Indirect benefits from these projects will be created by using local suppliers, including First Nations and Métis companies, provided that they are competitive and meet the project and operations requirements (p. 1-9).

2.1.1 Jackpine Mine Expansion

The existing Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 is located on the east side of the Athabasca River, west of Kearl Lake, and approximately 70 km north of Fort McMurray, Alberta. It has an approved production capacity of 200,000 barrels per calendar day (bbl/cd). Other operating or proposed oil sands mines in the immediate area include the Kearl Oil Sands project (operated by Imperial Oil), the Muskeg River Mine (operated by Albian Sands), and the Fort Hills Oil Sands project. The project is downstream from numerous other oil sands and industrial projects located in the Lower Athabasca Region. Shell is proposing to expand the bitumen production of the existing Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 by 100,000 bbl/cd and open a large expanded mining area with associated processing facilities northeast of the existing Jackpine Mine facilities. The proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME) is located within the Muskeg River watershed immediately south of the Firebag River, and includes areas north and west of Kearl Lake. Beginning in 2012, JPME anticipates diverting multiple streams, including portions of Pemmican, Green Stockings, Blackfly, Wesukemina and Lyinimin creeks. Later in the mine life (approximately 2041) upper reaches of the Muskeg River will be diverted through either an 11.3 km water pipe, or through ditches around the northern perimeter of the project footprint. Based on map data provided by the proponent, the footprint of the JPME would more than double the approved footprint of the existing Jackpine Mine – Phase 1. The operating lifetime of the JPME is anticipated to be approximately 40 years. A detailed project description for the JPME is included as Volume 1 of the proponentʼs application.



2.1.2 Pierre River Mine

Shell is proposing to construct a new mining area on the west side of the Athabasca River approximately 12 km south of its confluence with the Firebag River. Based on Shellʼs project description for the PRM, the mine would produce up to 200,000 barrels of bitumen per calendar day (bbl/cd). The proposed PRM is located within the watershed of streams flowing east from the Birch Mountains into the Athabasca River. Beginning in 2016, PRM anticipates diverting multiple streams, including the lower portions of Pierre River, Eymundson Creek, Asphalt Creek and Big Creek. Other proposed or operating oil sands mines in the immediate area include the Horizon Mine (operated by CNRL), and the Frontier and Equinox Mines. Based on Shellʼs project description, the operating lifetime of the PRM is anticipated to be approximately 40 years. The PRM would be a truck and shovel mining operation similar in scope to Jackpine Mine – Phase 1. No facilities currently exist at the PRM site. All required systems would need to be constructed to service initial operations. A detailed project description for the PRM is included as Volume 2 of the proponentʼs application.

2.1.3 Redclay Compensation Lake

Separate from the PRM and JPME applications, and as part of compensation for anticipated impacts to fish habitat from JPME and PRM, the proponent is proposing to construct a human-made lake on the west side of the Athabasca River, to the north of the PRM, and immediately west of the confluence of the Athabasca River and the Firebag River. A separate report detailing ACFN Traditional Knowledge and Land Use specifically related to the proposed Redclay Compensation Lake is being prepared for the proponent under separate cover.

2.1.4 Water Withdrawals

The Athabasca River will be a primary source of water for both the JPME and the PRM. Based on the JPME project description, the JPME will use an existing Athabasca River intake structure constructed for the Muskeg River Mine, but will upgrade the water intake, and will require increased water allocation of approximately 18 Mm3/a to support the expanded Jackpine Mine, for a total allocation of approximately 53.5 Mm3/a. Based on the PRM project description, the PRM will require a new river intake structure planned for north of Sled Island on the Athabasca. The PRM will require a new water allocation to meet its water requirements of up to 55.1 Mm3/a.



2.2 Existing Studies

While a number of existing studies regarding ACFN knowledge and use have been considered in preparation of this report, two previous studies address ACFN knowledge and/or use in direct relation to the projects.

2.2.1 Proponent’s Consideration of ACFN Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Within the Applications

Shellʼs December 2007 Application for Approval for the projects provides an assessment of impacts to traditional knowledge and land use as detailed in Volume 5, Section 8 – Human Environment. Shell submitted an update to the application on May 30, 2008, and corrected or modified the application through responses to supplemental information requests (SIRs). The proponentʼs baseline and assessment of effects on ACFN traditional knowledge and land use treats the JPME and PRM projects as a single project. This makes it difficult to identify distinct potential JPME or PRM project effects, and is compounded by the fact that much of the analysis does not clearly identify effects to ACFN, but speaks more generally regarding aboriginal peoples. Based on limited information, 8.3.3.2 of the proponentʼs application provides a summary of findings indicating that the area of the project “has been actively used for traditional activities for hundreds of years” (p. 8-27), and that common themes of existing traditional land use studies available to the proponent and within “the RSA” include:

• Access to and conduct of traditional activities remains a vital part of aboriginal culture and daily life;

• Cumulative effects related to oil and gas activities and overall resource development in the area are already having a major impact on traditional lands and traditional use;

• Aboriginal peoples in the area maintain a strong connection to the land and highly value environmental integrity; and

• Traditional users feel that they should have an active role in resource management in the region. Their traditional knowledge can provide valuable insight for planning and decision making (p. 8-27, 28).



While the proponentʼs assessment of the likely effects on ACFN traditional land use clearly anticipates direct project effects in some areas, several irregularities suggest that the assessment underestimates the likely residual project effects (post-mitigation), and cumulative effects, on ACFN traditional knowledge and land use. These irregularities include:

• LSA not based on project effect or footprint: The spatial scope of an LSA forms a primary basis for impact assessment. As shown in figure 8.3.1 (p. 8-20), in areas adjacent to RFMA 1714 the LSA boundary is the physical project footprint with no buffer to reflect direct effects that may occur beyond the footprint. The project footprint of the PRM extends beyond the shown boundaries of the six traplines. On the west side of the Athabasca River more than half of the PRM footprint seems to be outside the LSA, including the western extent of the Athabasca River bridge crossing. This is an extremely unusual approach that suggests a large area of the project was not appropriately assessed by the proponent, likely resulting in an underestimation of effects on ACFN use and rights.

• Minimal attention to effects within the ACFN RSA: The proponentʼs unusual approach to determining the scope of the LSA means that a large portion of the PRM footprint is within the ACFN RSA. The qualitative impact assessment does not address any of the RSAs, and while detailed attention is later given to the Fort MacKay RSA, minimal consideration is given to the ACFN RSA. This suggests that a large portion of the PRM footprint, as well as areas beyond, was not meaningfully assessed for effects on ACFN rights and use even where existing information made this possible. The extent of the ACFN RSA is not clear.

• Confusion between trapline rights and aboriginal or treaty rights: Throughout the assessment there is an implied assumption that the owner of an RFMA is an appropriate representative of the traditional use and rights of a First Nation, and that the boundaries of an RFMA define or constrain the practice of traditional use and aboriginal rights in some way. While there is often a relationship between an RFMA and the current or past practice of aboriginal rights, RFMA boundaries do not determine or limit traditional use and associated rights. The confusion of RFMAs with aboriginal rights and use seems to have influenced the scope of the LSA, as well as the scope of interviews conducted by the proponent and considered in the assessment, and the nature of the mitigation recommended. This confusion, in combination with a lack of appropriate data, is likely to have underestimated assessment of effects on ACFN and resulted in inappropriate mitigations.



• Inappropriately vague or unsupported conclusions: Despite the presence of some very useful data, in places the proponent comes to conclusions that are not supported by data, and in others comes to only vague conclusions where the data supports much stronger ones.

8.3.6.2 finds that the area of disturbance within the ACFN RSA will be increased, and there will be direct project effects on the six RFMAs. However, despite available data that RFMA 1714 is highly disturbed in the base case (46% of total area) and the project will disturb an additional 14% to 27%, resulting in a total disturbance area of between 60% and 73%, there is no strong conclusion, no finding of significance, and no evaluation of environmental consequence6. In other cases, the proponent finds ʻno effectʼ where this finding is not supported by available data:

With regard to fishing, the project will not have a direct effect on traditional fishing (p. 8-53).

This perspective is expanded in SIR 1, response 20b (p. 16-3), which states that:

The Jackpine Mine Expansion will not change the ability of aboriginal groups to use the fish and fish habitat resources in the lower Athabasca River.

While there seems to have been some evidence regarding fishing use in the LSA (provided by trapline holders), given the lack of attention to effects on traditional use within the ACFN RSA, it is unclear what kind of use data such a strong conclusion regarding traditional fishing in the Lower Athabasca region is based on. In each case, inappropriately strong or inappropriately vague conclusions by the proponent seem to underestimate impacts on ACFN use and rights.

• Inappropriate reliance on optimistic and distant future reclamation objectives: Much of the assessment relies on assumptions that reclamation of mined areas will be successful and will provide opportunities for ACFN knowledge and use that are equivalent (or greater than) what is naturally existing. Available information suggests that both these assumptions are highly questionable. Even in the event that the assumptions prove true, the removal of lands from aboriginal use for periods of time that exceed one generation (generally 20 to 25 years) is considered ʻpermanentʼ for the purposes of traditional use and social or cultural impact assessment, due to the interruption of knowledge transmission regarding the disturbed areas7.

6 Federal guidance documents (Hegmann et al 1999: 44) suggest that a 10% (or greater) change in a

VEC is usually considered significant. 7 This approach is consistent with that taken in other environmental assessments, and with the well-

documented importance of particular places and landscapes to the continuity of aboriginal knowledge transmission (Basso 1996, Berkes 1999, Palmer 2005).



• Inappropriate mitigations and no clearly identified residual effects ratings: Section 8.3.5.5, the proponent identifies five mitigations specific to First Nations TEK and land use (p. 8-48, 49)8:

• Compensation for directly affected trapline holders;

• Continued consultation with key aboriginal groups;

• Access to traplines;

• Employee/contractor education; and

• Reclamation

The adequacy of mitigations, and residual effects post-mitigation, are not considered in the applications. They also do not clearly distinguish impacts to ACFN use from impacts to the use of other potentially affected First Nations.

Compensation of trapline holders is a common practice designed to compensate for the commercial rights of RFMA owners. As noted above, the proponent seems to have made an error in confusing traditional use rights with trapline or RFMA rights. As individual trapline holders are generally not understood to represent the aboriginal or treaty rights of a First Nation, compensation to a trapline holder is likely an inappropriate mitigation for impacts to ACFN knowledge and use.

Likewise, because ongoing consultation with key aboriginal groups is a required component of the regulatory environmental process, and may be considered an ongoing legal obligation of the Crown delegated to the proponent, it is unusual to see it considered as mitigation.

2.2.2 Summary of the 2008 ACFN Study for JPME and PRM

In 2008, the ACFN submitted an initial study to the proponent entitled Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Study for the Proposed Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project. The 2008 report was based on a series of eight interviews conducted in 2007 by Lionel Lepine of the ACFN, assisted by Sherri Labour:

…The participants were chosen based on their proximity and livelihood activities in and around the Shell leased expansion areas…Participants

8 Section 5.7 of the 2008 project EIA update, and section 8.7.7 of the 2007 EIA mention additional

mitigations including ʻagreements with First Nations, and others,ʼ and support for ʻcommunity initiatives that contribute to the preservation of Aboriginal culture.ʼ While these may ultimately be relevant, we have not considered them under mitigations as the specifics of any planned agreement or contributions are not known.



were Elders, hunter-gathers and other members of the ACFN who actively use the land for traditional purposes today. The interviews were digitally taped … and photographs were taken for archival purposes with the consent of the participants (ACFN 2008: 2).

The 2008 study provided the proponent with early identification of key ACFN concerns related to the project, and to ACFN concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of oil sands projects already in the Kearl Lake area (Ibid: 17). Key concerns specific to the proposed project,9 identified in the 2008 ACFN report and integrated in this report, include anticipated adverse effects on:

• Human and ecological health downstream of the project due to observed changes in Athabasca River water quality associated with oil sands development (p. 9-11, 13), and downwind of the project due to observed changes in air quality, including dust and noxious emissions associated with oil sands development (p. 14);

• River based navigation and access downstream of the project due to observed changes in Athabasca and Muskeg River water levels associated with oil sands development (p. 11);

• Habitat, riparian ecosystems, and water flow within the Muskeg watershed due to diversion of the Muskeg River, and streams flowing from Birch Mountains (p. 11);

• Ability to hunt moose, caribou, bear and buffalo, and other wildlife central to ACFN use, due to observed destruction of habitat and interruption of east-west movement corridors by oil sands development (p. 16, 19);

• Ability to hunt migratory birds due to observed changes in migratory patterns associated with oil sands development (p. 20);

• Ability to fish for subsistence and commercial purposes due to observed fish abnormalities associated with oil sands development and related fears (p. 20);

• Ability to harvest food and medicinal plants due to observed habitat destruction and dust or other contaminants caused by oil sands development (p. 14, 22);

• Ability to enjoy cabin sites, hunting areas, and related site-specific values (p. 19) within the project footprints, or in their vicinity, including aesthetic effects;

• Area noise, air emissions and traffic levels and associated disturbance resulting from increased access, particularly bridge access across the Athabasca River (p. 23-24);

• Practice of aboriginal livelihood rights within historic traplines, particularly RFMA 1714 (p. 25);

9 In the 2008 ACFN study “the project” refers to the combined effects of both the JPME and the

PRM.



• Ability to maintain and access cultural and spiritual values, including possible burials, due to disturbance by the project (p. 26-27); and

• Intangible resources, including aboriginal language and knowledge transmission, particularly for members living in Fort McMurray or other areas south of Fort Chipewyan (p. 29).



Section 3: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

In relation to the areas associated with the JPME project LSA, a participant in the 2007-2008 JPME and PRM said:

…itʼs really a good feeling to be out in the bush because you can feel that quiet…and you could feel the universe and that loud echo that you canʼt describe … as soon as you come into town, itʼs gone. Even if you go for a walk in the bush and back into town, that feeling is just gone. So itʼs a good feeling to have, feel connected to the earth, I guess, to yourself, and to the ancient spirits, you know, and to the land, to your being I guess…thatʼs what keeps some people grounded, to actually go out there as often as they can, and if they lose that, itʼs almost like they lost part of their soul... (A01 interview transcript, July 27, 2007)10

3.1 Culture and History

The Athabascan Chipewyan First Nation is part of the larger Dené sułine, or Chipewyan cultural group, the most numerous and widely distributed of the Northern Athapaskan language group (Smith 1981). Most ethnographies agree that up to the late 18th century and the rise of the northwest fur trade, Chipewyan peoples relied primarily on barren ground caribou (rangifer tranadus groenlandicus) and the forest-tundra ecozone from Great Slave Lake and Lake Athabasca in the west to the Hudson Bay north of Seal River in the east; and from the Arctic Circle near the mouth of the Coppermine River in the north to the Churchill River drainage in the south. Annual travel and residence patterns, social organization, religious beliefs and oral traditions were based around the annual caribou migration. From November to April Chipewyan peoples were primarily in the boreal forest moving with the caribou herds. In the spring the herds would travel back up to the tundra and the Chipewyan would follow, potentially spending the spring to late summer in the barren grounds (Smith 1981:272-273).

10 Interview quotes are referenced using participant ID number and date. The 2007-08 and 2010

ACFN interviews use similar, but separate, systems for assigning participant ID numbers. A01 in earlier data sets does not necessarily correspond with the same individual represented by A01 in the 2010 data set.



The demand for furs and availability of trade goods were important factors in the shift of Dené sułine peoples from the forest-tundra ecozone into the boreal forest, and the Athabasca delta area where furbearers, especially muskrat, were plentiful. The North West Company established Fort Chipewyan in 1789. With establishment of the Fort as a trading post, some Chipewyan, including the ancestors of the ACFN, began to reside more permanently in the boreal forest and around the western edge of Lake Athabasca, still relying on the annual migration of barren ground caribou, but also relying increasingly on boreal forest resources including woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), moose (Alces alces) and various other kinds of fish and game (Smith 1981: 272). By the late 19th century, most Athabasca Chipewyan lived in several key village areas for at least part of the year, still relying on subsistence hunting and gathering, but also actively engaged in the fur trade. Village areas were located at Jackfish in the Athabasca Delta, Old Fort Point on the south shore of the Athabasca River, Birch River within present day Wood Buffalo National Park, and Point Brule and Poplar Point along the Athabasca River (Tanner and Rigney 2003). Based on oral histories of ACFN elders provided through interviews, the last migration of barren ground caribou south of Lake Athabasca took place in the late 1950s. After this, ACFN hunters had to travel farther to the north of Lake Athabasca to hunt winter caribou, shift to store bought foods, or rely more heavily on other traditional food sources such as moose, wood bison, fish, and woodland caribou. In the late 1960s, construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the upper Peace River impacted water levels in the Peace-Athabasca Delta and led to a rapid decline in the population of muskrat and other aquatic furbearers, a staple of the local fur economy. Tanner and Rigney quote ACFN elder Alec Bruno:

No water, no rats. After 1967, Reserve 201 was never the same. Without water, nothing grows. By 1969, there was no water nowhere… When we moved to Fort Chip, everything changed. We didnʼt have that lifestyle any more. The reason we moved into town was that the delta dried up…My way of life has been taken away from me. Of course I miss it. I go over it in my mind all the time. My mind is always out there on the land. You donʼt forget it. It was the only life I knew. It was a good life (2003: 86).

Changes in the environment, lower fur prices, industrial impacts, and Canadian colonial and education policies all influenced transition to a permanent ACFN settlement at Fort Chipewyan through the 1960s and 70s, but seasonal reliance on historic village areas, traplines, and the wider traditional territory continued. Since the late 1960s, and with the intensification of the oil sands economy over the past 20 years, ACFN members and families continue to maintain livelihoods that are lived in relationship to the land, and also participate in the contemporary wage economy. ACFNʼs submission to the Alberta government on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (ACFN 2010) notes that, in the Dené understanding, livelihood is not purely, or even



mainly, about economics. It is, instead:

…about supporting the total way of making ones way in the world as a Dené individual. It is about “the way of life on the land” and how that relates to maintaining culture in the face of change. This includes the relationship between the physical acts of making a living and the spiritual and moral obligations of Dené individuals to themselves, to their community, and to the Earth and all of its creatures. It requires that physical and spiritual needs are met in order to sustain oneself and oneʼs community. As such, livelihood is central to individual and community well-being and to cultural continuity.

Dené livelihood ties people with place and culture with the land. These connections have implications for individual and community health and well-being and for maintaining the resilience of culture in the face of change. In the traditional Dené cosmology, the land is alive. The Creator imbued the land, the waters and all creatures that dwell upon or therein, with spirits and ACFN Elders remember the spirits that helped their ancestors to survive (ACFN 2010: 4-5).

3.2 Treaty 8 and Dené Livelihood

The Dené speaking peoples of Fort Chipewyan, led by Chief Alex Laviolette, signed Treaty 8 on the shores of Lake Athabasca in 1899.11 The ACFN considers the promises the Crown made in entering into Treaty 8 to be the foundation on which all subsequent non-aboriginal use, including Crown and industrial use, in the region depends. The Crownʼs own negotiators confirm, shortly after signing, that:

Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed…We had to solemnly assure them [the First Nations] that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur-bearing animals would be made, and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.

We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life…As to education the Indians were assured that…the law, which was as strong as a treaty, provided for non-interference with the religion of the Indians in schools maintained or

11 For a detailed history of Treaty 8 and its signing, see Fumoleau 2004. For a detailed history of

Fort Chipewyan, see McCormack 2010.



assisted by the Government (Laird, Ross and McKenna, Report of Commissioners for Treaty No. 8, 1899).

In work with ACFN members and elders, Treaty 8 is consistently held up as a vital and foundational document that forms the basis for a relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples based in reconciliation, sharing, and protection of ACFN cultural and economic livelihood in relation to all lands and waters covered by the treaty. At the time of signing, the Crown was well aware of the extent of resources that lay beneath the area encompassed by Treaty 8 (Fumoleau 2004). In 1888, the director of the geological survey of Canada, Dr. Robert Bell, confirmed, "the existence in the Athabaska and Mackenzie valleys of the most extensive petroleum field in America, if not in the world… it is probable this great petroleum field will assume an enormous value in the near future and will rank among Canadaʼs chief assets” (quoted in Hein 2000: 2-3). Ten years later, Treaty 8 was signed. Almost 70 years later, in the late 1960s, the first large scale oil sands mining operation (what would become Suncor) opened north of Fort McMurray. ACFNʼs recent (2010) submission to the Alberta government on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan provides a clear ACFN perspective regarding the future of Treaty 8 rights, including livelihood rights:

Treaty Rights of ACFN are understood to include, but are not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering for sustenance and livelihood purposes. The full practice of these rights reasonably includes, and is not limited to, access to sufficient lands and resources in which the rights can be exercised. “Sufficient” refers not only to quantity but quality, and is evaluated from the perspective of what is required to fulfill not only subsistence requirements, but also cultural needs, of the First Nation now and into the future.

Determining what is “sufficient” encompasses a suite of interconnected tangible and intangible resources that underlie the meaningful practice of rights. These “resources” include, but are not limited to:

• Routes of access and transportation;

• Water quality and quantity;

• Healthy populations of game in preferred harvesting areas;

• Cultural and spiritual relationships with the land;

• Abundant berry crops in preferred harvesting areas;

• Traditional medicines in preferred harvesting areas;

• The experience of remoteness and solitude on the land;



• Feelings of safety and security;

• Lands and resources accessible within constraints of time and cost;

• Sociocultural institutions for sharing and reciprocity; and

• Spiritual sites.

3.3 ACFN Reserves and Traplines

Prior to signing Treaty 8, the aboriginal rights and titles of the Athabasca Chipewyan were held outside of Canadian law. In practice, indigenous Dené law and land management remained in place well past signing of the treaty. In the 1920s, through formation of Wood Buffalo National Park, and in the 1940s through the creation of traplines, Canadian laws and restrictions regarding the practice of ACFN knowledge and use were imposed in the Fort Chipewyan area. Dené approaches to governing lands, and rights relating to use of lands, including trapping, continue to be grounded in pre-treaty relationships between people and place. However, through most of the 20th century, until today, traplines and Indian Reserves provided the most common legal mechanism for recognizing special rights within ACFN territory, and so provided ʻsafeʼ places for the practice of rights. While reserves and traplines do not constrain treaty rights, Indian Reserves and traplines controlled by ACFN members provide a unique resource integral to contemporary practice for many ACFN members. While an RFMA is held by an individual, it provides a resource used by the wider community and is frequently important to the collective use and rights of the First Nation as a whole – extending far beyond the commercial use of the RFMA for the purpose of trapping. Marvin LʼHommecourt, when asked why he and his family return to their cabins and hunting areas in and around RFMA 1714 despite existing impacts from oil sands industry, his response was simple: “itʼs because of the memories”. In 2007, another ACFN member stated:

…trapping, you harvest your beavers, you harvest your muskrats, your fishers, martens, what else…weasels, squirrels, all that kind of stuff is harvested in traplines. Thatʼs for that [trapline holderʼs] use; but in our traditional way, … we hunt and live off the land. So these arenʼt, you know, as far as Indian people, we hunt in everybodyʼs land. If thereʼs a moose then weʼre going to go shoot a moose. It doesnʼt belong to this Indian here because itʼs on his land, on his trapline. Heʼs only there to harvest those certain animals in order to make…a living of some sort, to feed his family or whatever….As traditional users, we hunt everything. If thereʼs moose over here it doesnʼt matter if heʼs on your trapline. Thereʼs buffalo over here or if thereʼs moose over here we going to go there, and if we see him then we take him… I canʼt even teach my children my traditional ways because of, because oil sands is not going to let me through (A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007).



Figure 1 shows ACFN Indian Reserves and traplines (RFMAs) held by ACFN members in relation to the project. Several of ACFNʼs traplines12 are held in the area of the Athabasca Delta, but others extend up the Athabasca River past the ACFNʼs Poplar Point reserve toward Fort MacKay. A large portion of the JPME footprint is within RFMA 1714, an area historically used by ACFN members, and a trapline that has been passed on within the ACFNʼs LʼHommecourt family since at least the 1960s. As discussed in Section 5, RFMA 1714 constitutes a unique resource for ACFN use and rights practice, and remains a focal point for traditional land use by some ACFN members despite significant industrial impacts, particularly over the past decade.

3.4 Population and Demographics

The registered population of the ACFN is 924 (INAC 2010). While Fort Chipewyan remains the administrative base, the population of the ACFN is widely dispersed, with the majority of members living in Fort McMurray or other more southern areas. While the community of Fort Chipewyan has been an economic and administrative centre for the ACFN for generations, the cultural heartlands of ACFN knowledge and land use are further south. Members living in southern areas tend to use nearby resources, though many return to Fort Chipewyan and surrounding territories on a regular basis. Based on oral histories recounted by ACFN elders, ACFN membership at time of treaty was later reduced due to government policies and the economic draw of the oil sands further south:

• With establishment of Wood Buffalo National Park in 1922, and expansion in 1926, members of the Cree band residing in the area, and a number of ACFN (then known as the “Ft. Chipewyan Band”) members, were allowed to maintain homes and use rights within the bounds of the park. Many ACFN members later transferred to the Cree Band in order to maintain their rights and homes within the park. The remaining ACFN members were excluded from use of homes and cabins in the Birch River settlement and lucrative trapping areas along the shores of Lake Claire. Patricia McCormack examined this transition and indicates that, “in 1944, a sizeable portion of the Chipewyan band, those members living in WBNP, was quietly removed from the Chipewyan Band list and added to the Cree band list. Legally, they became Cree Indians” (McCormack 1989:125).

12 For the purpose of this report, ACFN traplines are those RFMAs that are held, in whole or in

part, by an ACFN member.



Figure 1: ACFN Indian Reserves and Traplines (RFMAs) Held by ACFN Members in Relation to the Projects



• In the southern portions of ACFNʼs territory, relationships between ACFN families from Poplar Point and Point Brule, and other Dené speaking families further south along the Athabasca River, are particularly close. Several ACFN elders and knowledge holders indicated that a number of ACFN members transferred membership to Fort MacKay in the 1970s as the oil sands economy grew in Fort McMurray at the same time as the fur economy in Fort Chipewyan sharply declined after construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River in 1967–68. With oil sands jobs easier to find in Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay, ACFN members with existing family connections to Fort MacKay First Nation are reported to have transferred membership in order to benefit from housing and family connections closer to employment from the oil sands. Strong family connections between particular ACFN families and those of Fort MacKay continue.

As a result of these historic dynamics, portions of several historic ACFN families are now affiliated with other First Nations in the region, resulting in strong family connections between ACFN and other First Nations, including Fort MacKay and Mikisew Cree.

3.5 ACFN Vision and Planning

The ACFNʼs submission on the Lower Athabasca River Plan (ACFN 2010) provides an articulation of ACFNʼs planned future land use. Consistent with the ACFN Elders Declaration on Rights to Land Use (Appendix 1), it presents Treaty 8 as the foundation of the ACFN vision for the Lower Athabasca Region and indicates that, consistent with the spirit and intent of Treaty 8, the reconciliation of non-aboriginal and First Nation interests must be a primary goal in considering any development. ACFNʼs vision for future development includes that:

1. All ACFN members have a right, now and in the future, to practice their Treaty 8 rights in their preferred manner and locations with confidence, to sustain the health and well-being of themselves and their families, and to pass their culture on to their children. Their ability to do so requires priority access to sufficient quality and quantity of the tangible and intangible resources (e.g., water, game, fish, berries, spiritual sites, cultural landscapes and homelands, traditional knowledge, and others) that underlie meaningful practice of rights.

2. Development on ACFN traditional lands must proceed in step with negotiation and implementation of meaningful and reliable consultation and accommodation frameworks, including protective measures and benefit sharing mechanisms between industry and the ACFN, particularly in areas critical for the past, present and future practice of their rights. This includes:



• Meaningful participation in decisions regarding development guided by principles of shared decision-making and joint stewardship for lands and resources of critical importance to the continued practice of rights; and

• Reasonable sharing of wealth generated from traditional lands and associated resources at least proportional to direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects from developments that harm, or take up, air, land and water.

3.5.1 ACFN Cultural Protection Areas

The ACFNʼs submission on the Lower Athabasca River Plan (ACFN 2010) identifies three kinds of cultural protection areas or zones. Figure 2 shows ACFN traditional lands and cultural protection areas in relation to the projects. The JPME area is within the Fort MacKay proximate zone. The PRM spans the Fort McKay proximate zone and the k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland), with the majority of the PRM footprint, and the Redclay Compensation Lake falling within k'es hochela nene. The PRM is also within a critical waterway zone associated with the Athabasca River. More information on cultural protection areas in relation to the projects is provided in Sections 5 and 6. Based on the ACFN submission (ACFN 2010), homeland zones are identified as areas of critical importance to past, present, and future practice of ACFN use and rights. They are the places where ACFN history, culture, and livelihood are most firmly rooted. The homeland zones are presented as the places ACFN members are most likely to rely on, and require priority access to. As the population of the ACFN continues to rapidly grow, the resources needed to sustain the use practice and rights will also increase. Proximate zones are areas relied upon for the practice of use and rights by an increasing number of ACFN members living in and around Fort Chipewyan, Fort MacKay, and Fort McMurray. Three proximate zones are identified in Figure 2; including areas around Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray, and Fort MacKay. Interviews with ACFN members suggest that use of the Fort Chipewyan and Fort McMurray proximate zones is increasing, while use of the Fort MacKay proximate zone is declining, mainly due to perceived industrial disturbance (e.g., A29 Dec. 16, 2010; A17 Aug. 10, 2010; A15 Aug. 04, 2010). Critical waterway zones recognize the integral importance of water quality and quantity to the ACFN membership and their practice of use and rights. These interconnected zones extend 5 km on either side of waterways considered critical for the practice of ACFN rights. Due to the essential role that water plays within ACFN culture and the sensitivity of waterways to cumulative effects, these zones are designed to provide special consideration for the importance of water in sustaining Treaty 8 rights. The document states that ACFN members consider the homeland zones sacred because they are considered necessary to the rights, identity, and ultimately, the



Figure 2: ACFN Traditional Lands and Cultural Protection Areas in Relation to the Projects



cultural survival of ACFN. ACFNʼs top priority is described as:

…protecting the viability of these lands as sanctuaries for their current use and that of future generations. Each homeland area differs from others in terms of the ecological and landscape patterns and processes, including abundance of various resources that characterize it … Each zone is integral and necessary to the meaningful practice of rights by ACFN members within core traditional lands and no one homeland zone can “replace” another in terms of utility for sustaining ACFN use. All are required as part of a connected system.

Large, contiguous areas, such as the homeland zones, are essential to past, present, and future ACFN practice of rights because of the wide ranging and dispersed nature of wildlife resources in the boreal, especially large ungulates such as moose, bison, and caribou, upon which much of ACFNʼs cultural practice and traditional economy depends. The importance of large areas within which livelihood can be practiced is likely to increase as a result of known or perceived contamination of waters by oil sands activities along the Athabasca drainage. This has largely eliminated ACFN opportunities for subsistence fishing on the Athabasca River resulting in ACFN members traveling further afield in search of ʻcleanʼ areas where game animals can be harvested with confidence.

Due to the limitations of existing studies, further research and sub-regional planning is required for all designations.



Section 4: Methods for Baseline Collection and Impact Assessment

4.1 Baseline Collection Methods

Baseline data collection for both projects involved scoping of valued components, existing document review and gap analysis, interviews and data collection, a field visit, and analysis.

4.1.1 Identification of Key Valued Components

Consistent with standard assessment practice, a valued component (VC)13 is an important aspect of the environment that a project has potential to effect and that is considered within an environmental assessment (Hegmann et al. 1999). The term key indicator resource (KIR) is used in the proponentʼs EA to designate a similar concept. In the context of ACFN knowledge and use, the identification of VCs provides a way to focus on what is most important regarding a particular project. The VCs for this assessment were determined through:

• An initial eldersʼ scoping meeting in Fort Chipewyan in June 2010;

• Review of materials from ACFNʼs initial 2007–2008 traditional use study for the JPME and PRM projects; and

• Review of other materials, including ACFNʼs 2010 submission regarding the Lower Athabasca River Plan (LARP).

An initial eldersʼ scoping meeting, held in June 2010, involved discussion of preliminary VCs and methods for the ACFN Southern Territories and Use Study. This meeting emphasized the importance of several key VCs, including water and river values,

13 Valued ecosystem component is another term frequently used, but is focused on biophysical

resources. This report uses the more general term valued component (VC) in relation to ACFN knowledge and use values, as VCs may include tangible or biophysical resources (particular places or species), as well as more social or knowledge based VCs such as place names or traditional knowledge regarding a particular area.



woodland caribou, and woods bison. These values, as well as others more specific to the projects, including impacts on ACFN practice of rights within RFMA 1714, were reinforced through review of ACFNʼs initial 2007–2008 traditional use study for the JPME and PRM projects. Valued components for baseline collection include the following site-specific and non-site-specific VCs. For the purpose of this report, site-specific VCs include values that may be mapped and are reported as specific and spatially distinct (though the locations may be considered confidential). Site-specific values, such as cabins, or kill sites, reflect specific instances of use that anchor the wider practice of livelihood within a particular landscape. A particular moose kill site may be mapped with a precise point, but that value is correctly interpreted as an anchor, or focal point, for a wide spectrum of other related livelihood practices and values, including wider hunting areas covered in efforts to find the moose, practice of navigation and tracking in order to access it, religious or ceremonial practices that may be associated with the hunt, food processing and preparation techniques to utilize it, and the range of social relationships and knowledge transmission (teaching) activities that are required for a successful hunt to occur. In other words, every mapped site-specific value implies a much wider range of activities, and a wider geographic area, upon which the meaningful practice of that use relies. The actual area covered by recorded site-specific use values should be understood as a tiny portion of the area actually required for the meaningful practice of ACFN livelihood. Site-specific VCs include:

• Subsistence values (including harvesting and kill sites, plant food and trapping areas);

• Habitation values (including temporary or occasional and permanent or seasonal camps and cabins);

• Cultural/spiritual values (including burials, village sites, ceremonial areas and medicine collection areas);

• Transportation values (including trails, water routes and navigation sites); and

• Environmental feature values (including specific highly valued habitat or resource areas).

For the purpose of this report, non-site-specific VCs include values that are largely specific to a resource or other concern, based in traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) or aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK), and spatially indistinct or difficult to map. Non-site-specific VCs include:

• Water and river values (including quality and quantity of water and aquatic resources);

• Access and enjoyment of ACFN lands (especially ACFN traplines, reserves and cultural protection areas indicated in Figure 1 and Figure 2);



• Culturally important14 species (including quality and quantity of wood bison, moose, woodland caribou, migratory birds, and plants); and

• Intangible cultural resources (including ACFN language and knowledge, and sense of place).

4.1.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The temporal boundaries for baseline collection include past, present, and planned future ACFN knowledge and use. For the purpose of this study, a past value refers to an account of ACFN knowledge and use prior to living memory, a present value refers to an account of ACFN knowledge and use within living memory of ACFN participants, and a planned future value refers to anticipated or intended ACFN knowledge or use patterns. Spatial boundaries for baseline collection include a local study area (LSA) for each of the projects within which intense project related disturbance can be expected, and a larger regional study area (RSA) shared by the projects, and within which project related effects may interact with ACFN values (see Figure 3). The LSA is defined as an area within 5 km15 of the project footprint including the mine site and associated works as indicated in Figure 3. Unlike the LSA used by the proponent, each of the LSAs used for this report includes the footprint of a single project, plus a buffer within which direct interactions between the project and ACFN values may exist. The RSA is a broader area within which direct or indirect effects of the projects may be anticipated, such as noise, dust, odors, access management activities, traffic, effects on water and other forms of disturbance experienced by ACFN members. A single RSA has been defined for both projects. The southern and western limits of the RSA are defined by ACFN cultural protection areas (see Figure 2) within which ACFN has identified specific management objectives, and where the movement of sensitive and culturally important animals, including woodland caribou and wood bison, may be impacted by the project. The eastern extent of the RSA is provided by the Alberta border, and the northern extent by the flow of the Athabasca River to Lake Athabasca. A buffer of 5 km

14 For the purpose of this report, a culturally important resource is one that is especially integral, or

important to, an aspect of ACFN culture or livelihood. Examples include species that are relied upon for subsistence, for specific cultural practices, or because of particular cultural associations. Garibaldi and Turner define ʻcultural keystone speciesʼ as, “…the culturally salient species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people, as reflected in the fundamental roles these species have in diet, materials, medicine, and/or spiritual practices” (Garibaldi and Turner 2004).

15 Five kilometers (just over three miles) is an approximation of the distance easily travelled in a day trip from a point (such as a cabin, camp or other location) by foot through bush, as when hunting, and returning to the point of origin (Candler et al. 2010: 29). This distance was confirmed by the ACFN elderʼs council as part of the ACFN Athabasca River Knowledge, Use and Change Study (2010). It is used as a reasonable approximation of the area of regularly relied upon resource use surrounding a given transportation or habitation value.



Figure 3: Regional Study Area and Local Study Area in Relation to the Project



has been applied to the river and bodies of water that receive flow from the Athabasca River, including Lake Mamawi. The northern, or downstream, extent of the RSA, in the area of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, was identified based on ACFN knowledge of river flows reported by elders and river users. Inclusion of the Lake Mamawi area (east of Lake Athabasca) in the RSA based on knowledge of ACFN elders and land users regarding the flow of the Athabasca River was confirmed by an experienced hydrologist (Martin Carver, personal communication, January 18, 2011). Attention to downstream effects is based on ACFN concerns regarding loss of use due to increased fear or concerns regarding waterborne contamination caused by the projects. Due to the potential displacement of ACFN land use, such as subsistence hunting, it is also possible there will be indirect project effects outside the RSA as ACFN members avoid areas perceived to be effected by the projects.

4.1.3 Interview and Mapping Methods

Baseline data collection for both projects was largely based on map biography interviews with ACFN elders and land users conducted between July and December 2010. Eleven interviews with eight participants (seven male, one female) were conducted as part of work regarding the projects. A site visit and in-field interview took place in October 2010 at one of the ACFN cabins within the JPME LSA and associated with RFMA 1714. All other interviews, with the exception of one conducted in Cold Lake, took place in Fort Chipewyan or Fort McMurray. No GPS-based field verification of interview data was conducted. All JPME and PRM project-specific interviews were conducted with individuals, included documentation of prior informed consent (see Appendix 4), and used a standardized interview guide (see Appendix 5) designed to meet the needs of the study and to provide a consistent, but flexible, framework for soliciting and recording responses. Dr. Craig Candler led each interview with Steven DeRoy as co-researcher providing GIS and mapping support. Interviews followed a semi-structured and project-specific method framed within a larger ACFN Southern Territories Use and Avoidance Study. The Southern Territories framework supports consistency of method between multiple project-specific studies and compatibility of results between studies. In addition to the interviews specific to the JPME and PRM projects, 39 compatible interviews using comparable methods were conducted on four other projects. Data from all of these is considered in this report. Other Firelight Group researchers (Rachel Olson and Carolyn Whittaker) and/or ACFN Industry Relations Corporation Staff (Nicole Nicholls and Lionel Lepine) participated in many of these additional interviews. The lead author, Dr. Craig Candler, was present for all but 14 of these interviews. All were completed under Craig Candlerʼs supervision and direction.



For work specific to the projects, all interviews were recorded using digital audio recording, digital video recording of the map surface, and through interview notes captured on interview forms or in notebooks. Questions were designed to gain an understanding of the participantʼs background and relationship to the southern territories, and of patterns of avoidance and use, including hunting, trapping, fishing and related practices, and how the participantʼs use has changed over time. Where data was location-specific it was mapped using points, lines, or polygons. Where possible, temporal information regarding season and year was recorded. Interviews averaged approximately two and a half hours, with the longest lasting approximately four hours. For some participants, there was not adequate time to address the southern territories as a whole. Where this was the case, areas in the vicinity of the footprints of the proposed Shell projects were emphasized. All interviews were conducted in English. Data collection focused on the project LSAs, but extended north as far as Wood Buffalo National Park, and south past Fort McMurray. A scoping process (see below) and a review and gap analysis of existing information sources, including existing ACFN data sets and ethnographic material, was conducted prior to the start of interviews in order to inform the interview process. Additional detail regarding other information sources and how they were used is provided in Section 4.1.4 below. Interview and mapping protocols were based on standard techniques (Tobias 2010). Map data was captured and managed using a direct-to-digital process involving mapping on-screen, with Google Earth imagery as a digital base and geo-referenced 1:50,000 scale or better data displayed on a wall or screen. Appendix 6 contains additional details on the mapping process. Interview data was collected so that disaggregation of individual participant data is possible, and first hand and second hand information is distinguishable. Where participants had recorded data in previous studies, and where that data was available, information was reviewed to verify its quality (including validity and accuracy) and avoid redundancy before proceeding with the interview. Coding of data took place on screen so that it could be reviewed as it was entered.

4.1.4 ACFN Baseline Information Sources

ACFN mapped (site-specific) baseline information sources include spatial data from approximately 100 interviews conducted with more than 50 ACFN elders and land users, including data from the following studies:

• ACFN TUS Study (2002) – Resource Use – 1,339 sites from 27 people, plus 51 sites from 'unknown' or 'unidentified' participants;

• ACFN TUS Study (2002) – Human Use – 170 sites from 33 people, plus 43 from 'unknown' participants;



• ACFN Athabasca River Knowledge and Use (2010) – 368 sites from 14 participants;

• ACFN Species at Risk Bison and Caribou Study (2010) – 62 sites from 10 people;

• ACFN Southern Territories Use & Avoidance – Shell specific (2010) – 169 sites from eight participants (three of which completed two interviews);

• ACFN Southern Territories Use & Avoidance – Total specific (2010) – 71 sites from eight participants;

• ACFN submission on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) (2010); and

• ACFN Jackfish GPS (2010) – five sites from one person.

Using the 2010 interview data as a core, other map data was considered for analysis and preparation of baseline maps. To be considered, map data had to be:

• Recorded in a reliable spatial format with meta-data clearly associated;

• Collected using a documented and consistent method; and

• Able to provide generally unique and non-redundant data comparable to information collected through the 2010 interviews.

The 2002 data set was created by the ACFN working with Jim Tanner and Alice Rigney, and contains information, digitized as points, collected from 32 ACFN elders (Tanner and Rigney 2003: 162), many of whom who have since passed away. Minimal redundancy

exists between the data collected in 2002 and 2010 as the 2002 data focuses largely, though not exclusively, on ACFN use and occupancy in the Athabasca Delta area, and there is limited overlap between participants in the 2002 interviews and participants in 2010. Data from 2002, while mapped at a relatively coarse scale, was recorded using a documented and generally consistent method and interview guide (Tanner and Rigney 2003: 161-164) including spatial information, activity code, and identification of the individual reporting the use or value. Due to the limited precision of the mapping, locations from the 2002 data are assumed to be general and approximate, but otherwise adequate to include in analysis. Problems in the 2002 data for one ACFN member (A02), likely attributable to map processing errors, were identified. For the purposes of this study, and with consent of that member, that personʼs 2002 data was removed from the dataset, and replaced with updated data recorded in 2010. Map data from the ACFN submission on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) (2010) is based on a synthesis and analysis of existing data and was relied upon for delineation of homeland and cultural protection areas. The ACFN Jackfish GPS data contributed a small number of points in the Athabasca Delta. To enable integration of the 2010 and 2002 data sets, old and new data was categorized or ʻlumpedʼ using five broad activity classes. A new column was added to the dataset, and was used to produce the maps and analysis included in Sections 5 and 6. The



original recorded activity code was maintained within the meta-data. For example, various sites recorded as burials, medicine collection and ceremonial sites, and birth/death sites were all considered to be part of the “cultural/spiritual” activity class. Permanent and temporary habitation areas, including cabins, permanent camps, and temporary camps, were classed as “habitation.” Hunting sites, fishing sites, berry collection areas, and trapping areas were classed as “subsistence.” Trails, water routes, and hazards like sand bars, dangerous rocks, or other transport related locations were classed as “transportation.” Additional baseline information sources, including ethnographic material, academic papers, court affidavits, internal ACFN documents, and the 2008 ACFN site-specific study for JPME and PRM, were reviewed and considered in the gap analysis, or following the interviews. The 2008 ACFN JPME and PRM study was used, in particular, to identify interview participants, and refine the interview guide and VCs. Data collected in 2008 was reviewed and updated in 2010.

4.2 Impact Assessment Methods

4.2.1 Valued Components for Assessment

Valued components (VCs) for assessment are the same as those noted above for baseline collection. They include five classes of site-specific values:

• Subsistence values (including harvesting and kill sites, plant food and medicine collection areas, and trapping areas found within the LSA and RSA);

• Habitation values (including temporary or occasional and permanent or seasonal camps and cabins found within the LSA and RSA);

• Cultural/spiritual values (including burials, village sites, ceremonial areas, and medicinal plant sites found within the LSA and RSA);

• Transportation values (including trails, water routes, and navigation sites within the LSA and RSA); and

• Environmental feature values (including specific highly valued habitat for moose, Woodland bison and woodland caribou within the LSA and RSA).

They also include non-site-specific values. For the purpose of this report, non-site-specific VCs include values that may be specific to a resource or other concern, but may be spatially indistinct or difficult to map. Non-site-specific VCs included in this assessment are:

• Water and river values (including quality and quantity of water and aquatic resources within the RSA);



• Culturally important species (including bison, moose, caribou, migratory birds, and plants within the RSA);

• Access and enjoyment of ACFN lands (especially ACFN traplines, reserves, and cultural protection within the LSA and RSA); and

• Intangible cultural resources (including ACFN language and knowledge).

4.2.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The temporal and spatial boundaries for assessment correspond to those for baseline collection. Past, present, and planned future ACFN use and rights practice were considered within a local study area (LSA) consisting of the footprint plus 5 km buffer, and a larger regional study area (RSA) within which project related effects may interact with or influence ACFN values (see Figure 3).

4.3 Assessment Methods

To facilitate consideration and integration of findings, the methods used in residual effects characterization are generally consistent with the methods used by the proponent in the applications made for the PRM and JPME projects. Like many social and ecological values, First Nations traditional use values exist within an ongoing process of interdependent environmental, cultural, economic and social change that is rooted in the past and extends into the future. Knowledge and use values, like ecosystem values, are not static. The assessment of impacts provides a prediction of likely future change resulting from the projects given available information. ACFN knowledge and use involves complex and dynamic cultural and ecological systems where what appear to be minor changes in a single component may have larger and unexpected consequences for the whole.

4.3.1 Residual Effects Characterization

Residual effects are those effects remaining following full implementation of mitigation measures. In this assessment, generally consistent with the methods used in the proponentʼs applications, and with Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency guidance documents (Hegmann et al 1999), residual effects are characterized based on criteria outlined below:

Direction of an impact may be positive, neutral or negative with respect to the baseline (e.g., a change resulting in increased traditional use would be classed as positive, whereas a change resulting in decreased traditional use would be considered negative).



Magnitude describes the intensity, or severity of an effect. It is the amount of change in a measurable or perceivable parameter or variable relative to the baseline condition, guideline value, or other defined standard. In the case of effects on ACFN knowledge and use, magnitude was determined based on a qualitative and quantitative (where possible) evaluation of VCs potentially effected (as discussed in the baseline). Factors considered include:

• Vulnerability of value or sensitivity to change (high/low);

• Cultural importance (high/low);

• Rarity of similar values within the LSA/RSA (high/low);

• Intensity of likely community concern (high/low); and

• Degree of likely change in use practice (high/low).

Where change is predicted to be discernable but low in all factors, magnitude is considered to be low. Where change is predicted to be discernable and only one factor is high, magnitude is considered to be moderate. Where change is predicted to be discernable and more than one factor is high, then the magnitude is considered to be high.

Geographic extent is the spatial area affected by a specific project. It is generally based on the local and regional study areas developed. Effects within the LSA only (within 5 km of footprint) are considered to be local, effects extending into the RSA are considered to be regional (even if they diminish in magnitude), and effects that extend outside the RSA are considered to be beyond regional.

Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact occurs. It considers the various phases of a project, including construction, operation, reclamation and closure, during which the effects may occur as well as the length of time for the environmental component to recover from the disturbance.

Reversibility indicates the potential for recovery of pre-project patterns or conditions of use and knowledge. An effect is defined as not reversible if the VC cannot be restored to pre-impact condition within the long term as defined under duration. Because traditional knowledge and use is dynamic, a value is considered restored if pre-existing cultural transmission and use patterns are restored. Reversibility is achieved where transmission and use are restored to the point of moving toward a condition that is essentially indistinguishable from pre-existing cultural transmission and use patterns. For this to occur, both the physical/economic and cultural/spiritual relationships between people and land need to return to pre-existing patterns. Due to the importance of intergenerational transmission to the survival of cultural knowledge and cultural landscapes, where an area will be removed from aboriginal use for one generation



(generally between 20 and 25 years) or more, impacts to the transmission of knowledge regarding that area are considered permanent (irreversible)16.

Frequency describes how often the effect occurs within a given time period and is classified as low, medium or high in occurrence. Seasonal effects (intermittent, but effect may last for weeks or months) are considered to be of medium frequency. Continuous effects are considered to be of high frequency.

4.3.2 ACFN Sensitive Receptors

Consistent with good EA practice (Vanclay 2003), this assessment is designed to be conservative and is based on the most sensitive receptors or most vulnerable users. In the case of JPME, this is understood to be ACFN members relying on access to lands associated with RFMA 1714, including the LʼHommecourt family and ACFN members living in the Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay areas. In the case of the PRM, this is understood to be families associated with the kʼes hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland).

4.3.3 Environmental Consequence

To facilitate compatibility between assessments, an environmental consequence rating was calculated based on the method described in the proponentʼs assessment. The environmental consequence rating consolidates the results of the impact characterization (direction, magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent and reversibility) into one rating. This approach allows different components to be compared using a common rating so that areas of greatest potential concern can be identified. The table below (Figure 4) details the system used to estimate the environmental consequence of residual impacts.

Figure 4: Environmental Consequence Rating System

Resource Direction Magnitude Geographic extent Duration Reversibility Frequency

ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice

positive, negative or neutral

negligible (0) low (+5) moderate (+10)

local (0): effect restricted to the LSA

regional (+1): effect extends beyond the

short-term (0): <3 years medium-term (+1): 3 to 20 years

reversible (-3) irreversible (+3)

low (0): loss of use or avoidance occurs once per year or less

moderate

16 As noted in section 2, this approach is consistent with that taken in other environmental

assessments, and with the well-documented importance of particular places and landscapes to the continuity of aboriginal knowledge transmission (Basso 1996, Berkes 1999, Palmer 2005).



high (+15) magnitude varies

LSA into the RSA

beyond region (+2): effect extends beyond the RSA

long-term (+2): >20 years

(+1): occurs intermittently

high (+2): occurs continuously

The system identifies a numerical score for each VC used to assign environmental consequence to residual impacts. Consistent with the proponentʼs assessment, the following score ranges were used to characterize effect:

• Negligible – 0 to 5;

• Low – 6 to 10;

• Moderate – 11 to 15;

• High – 16 to 20; and

• Very high – over 20.

4.3.4 Significance Threshold

In addition to the environmental consequence rating, and consistent with good practice (Vanclay 2003, UNPAN 2006), a significance evaluation is provided for anticipated residual project effect. In this assessment, with regard to ACFN knowledge and use, a significant effect is considered to be:

• An effect (positive or adverse) that is attributable to the projects or the projects in combination with other changes (including effects of other projects or human activities), and that is likely to result in:

• Strong concern or interest by ACFN members, and

• Clearly discernable (measurable or perceivable) changes to the preferred exercise of a culturally important practice, land use or right.17

Significant effects are generally related to a change in the availability or quality of, or access to, resources (tangible or intangible) important to ACFN knowledge, use, or rights practice. Significance evaluation is based on post-mitigation residual effect and may differ when considered at various spatial or social scales, for example individual, family or community, is based on impact characterization (summarized by the environmental consequence rating), assumes the most sensitive user or receptor (ACFN family or sub-group), and is based on the significance threshold identified. 17 This definition is similar to qualitative thresholds used in other environmental assessments, and

is consistent with good practice described in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Cumulative Impact Assessment Practitioner’s Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999).



4.3.5 Confidence in Predictions

Confidence in predictions provides the level of certainty that the effects of the projects will occur at the level predicted (Hegmann et al. 1999). For the purpose of this report, confidence in predictions is assigned based on the following three categories:

• Low — Based on professional judgment with limited available secondary or primary information.

• Medium — Based on professional judgment and primary information that is limited due to extent of primary research or level of community representativeness among research participants.

• High — Based on professional judgment, strong primary information (including mapping at 1:50,000 or better) conducted with a reliable sample or operational-level studies involving field visits with knowledge holders, strong project information, and secondary literature review.



Section 5: JPME Project Baseline and Assessment

The JPME project is proposed in the upper Muskeg River watershed. This section provides baseline and assessment specific to the likely effects of the project on ACFN knowledge and use.

5.1 Baseline for Site-specific VCs within the JPME LSA and RSA

…there was nothing eight years ago [c. 1999], you might walk...for hours, and then no cars or nothing, now itʼs just steady going... Big trucks, garbage trucks, everything, water trucks... a lot of traffic, and people are even coming to the trapline asking, you know, and thereʼs people going to the trapline when weʼre not there and theyʼre just partying and drinking there, those people from … staying in camp there, theyʼre stopping there and drinking their beer there and stuff...I used to see cranes and everything around there, like sandhill cranes, I donʼt see nothing much no more. I donʼt recognize lots of that area now and they cleared it out…. in 10 years or whatever, the way things are going, thereʼs not going to be much for wildlife and trapping. Even the meat you eat is not the same as it was before…the land is the most important, itʼs the future of the children, itʼs not the money, really, itʼs the environment, itʼs the air you breathe, … the fish and the animals you eat for survival…itʼs not all about money… (A02 interview transcript, July 28, 2007).

Figure 5 provides a map of ACFN site-specific data reported within the JPME project LSA including 32 site-specific use values inside, or within 250 m, of the proposed project footprint. Fifty-five site-specific use values were identified within the LSA (5 km of the proposed JPME project footprint), including 32 subsistence values, and 13 habitation values. All mapped values are based on reported ACFN use and knowledge. Due to the density of reported transportation features and navigational hazards along the Athabasca River, river-based transportation is shown and analyzed as a simplified transportation ʻcorridor.ʼ All ACFN data (points, lines and polygons) are shown with a 1 km buffer. Points were randomized by 250 m, then 1 km buffers were generated



Figure 5: Reported ACFN Use Values within the JPME Project Local Study Area



around all points, lines, and polygons in order to account for margin of error, and to protect confidential information. Specific traditional use activities reported by ACFN members inside or within 250 m of the proposed JPME footprint include:

• Multiple permanent habitations (cabins) used since at least the 1960s to the present and belonging to members of the LʼHommecourt family. Some of the cabins are shared, through family ties, with other First Nations in the region (e.g., A14 Oct. 14, 2010 and Dec. 14, 2010; A13 Aug. 6, 2010; A18 Aug. 5, 2010; A19 Aug. 5, 2010);

• Commercial and subsistence fur trapping areas (beaver, marten, fisher and mink) extending up Wapisew Creek (e.g., A14 2002; A14 Dec. 14, 2010);

• Small game hunting (grouse and rabbit kill sites) along Wapisew Creek and along the access road (e.g., A14 2002; A25 Oct. 6, 2010);

• An environmental Feature (high value moose habitat) (e.g., A24 Oct. 5, 2010);

• Big game hunting including multiple moose and deer kill sites (e.g., A14 Oct. 14, 2010; A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A18 Aug. 5, 2010; A25 Oct. 6, 2010);

• Temporary habitation (camping area adjacent to Kearl Lake) (e.g., A25 Oct. 6, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010);

• Food plant collection (berries) (e.g., A18 Aug. 5, 2010); and

• Transportation values including a trail and water route up the Muskeg River (e.g., A14 May 22, 2010; A18 Aug. 5, 2010).

Interview material from 2007 indicates that the water transportation corridor mapped for Muskeg River likely does not represent the full navigable extent of the Muskeg River in past years:

…where Annieʼs cabin is, thereʼs a creek there. We used to go to it… by the road there. By the bridge, Muskeg River they call it. You just go by boat. All the way to her cabin. You canʼt go there now. No water… Iʼm talking about twenty years ago. Thirty years ago [that you could travel Muskeg River by boat]... It will be all damaged. It will be all gone … Ten, fifteen years, thereʼll be nothing left (A05 interview transcript, July 2007).

Regarding use of the LSA for subsistence practices, one participant in the 2007–2008 interviews noted:

…used to be chickens right on the road, they eat gravel, thatʼs what they eat…I donʼt see any of that now, not like before. I used to be able to kill them with a slingshot…I used to pick berries … going to that trapline, thereʼs a good spot there… there would be lots of blueberries there, but I guess there is so much traffic now, all the dust is getting all over those berries and stuff. You canʼt really go walk way in the bush. I used to take



my granny there and sheʼd sit in one spot and just pick around her, and sheʼd move around and sit in another spot, pick around that area…And once theyʼre in operation, you might as well say goodbye to the hunting and stuff around there, youʼll have to go somewhere else (A02 interview transcript, July 28, 2007).

Also within the JPME portion of the LSA, reported site-specific values include the western extent of a concentration of cultural/spiritual values associated with Cree Burn Lake. Intensification of industrial impacts, particularly since the late 1990s, in the area of Kearl Lake and RFMA 1714, including physical disturbance of lands, traffic, noise, physical disturbance, and concerns regarding contamination, have resulted in general loss of use of the area by many ACFN members. This loss of use is due largely to concerns regarding the quality of resources, including water and meat, from the area, and because of disturbance from traffic, noise, and other industry-related activities (e.g., A14 Oct. 14, 2010; A15 August 04, 2010). Effects from existing industry in the area has already resulted in shifts in land use by some ACFN members to north of the Firebag River, and to the south of Fort McMurray (upstream of the oil sands mine operations) (e.g., A01 August 04, 2010; A16 August 05, 2010).

Iʼd rather go south with my kids now, like Iʼd find anywhere to go…away from that area because itʼs not ever going to be the same…(A01 interview transcript, July 27, 2007).

A primary cabin belonging to Marvin LʼHommecourt is within the LSA and can now only be accessed through an oil sands security checkpoint. Based on ACFN reports (e.g., A17 August 04, 2010; A15 Aug. 04, 2010), and field experience during a site visit made in October 2010, existing industry road access controls discourage ACFN members from using or visiting cabins, camps, and other traditional use values. Existing cabins are within sight and hearing of a work camp and associated mine infrastructure. While Marvin holds commercial trapline rights under RFMA 1714, he and his family, along with other ACFN members, have also historically relied on the LSA and RFMA 1714 and surrounding areas for broader use and practice of treaty rights. In an affidavit sworn January 30, 2009, Marvin LʼHommecourt states:

My concerns about development on the traditional lands are that they are going to chase all the game away and cut the trees down, just like in my trapline. I know what happened in my trapline, and thatʼs what will happen over around Poplar Point if they develop. There will be more people there, I wonʼt be able to go there, and be by myself with my family. There will be more disturbance, more garbage…I wouldnʼt want to go there and do my cultural practices, like hunting. It is very important to me to be able to hunt in that area. If I donʼt do it, Iʼll go crazy. Itʼs good to be on the land, thatʼs where the spirit is. If Industry digs a big hole in the ground, theyʼll destroy



the spirit of the land…they destroy the spirit of the land and then I wonʼt want to go there. But I have to go there anyway, because itʼs part of me, part of my heritage (LʼHommecourt 2009: 13).

The concentration of ACFN reported use within the LSA suggests that the JPME project area is a focal point for ACFN knowledge and use south of the Firebag River, not only for members of the LʼHommecourt family, but also for several other ACFN members, most of them residents of Fort McMurray. This concentration of ACFN use values is likely due to a number of reasons.

• The LSA includes RFMA 1714, which is, and has been, held by the ACFNʼs LʼHommecourt family since the 1960s. The LʼHommecourt family maintains several cabins in the LSA and, despite industrial impacts to the area, returns to the area to hunt, trap, and teach their children on a regular basis.

• RFMA 1714 is the closest ACFN area (trapline or reserve) accessible by road from Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay. The RFMA and surrounding area has historically been an area for the practice of livelihood use and knowledge by many ACFN members (based on 2010 interviews, including A13, A14, A15, A17, A18, A24, A25, A29, A30) living in the Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay area, and was considered relatively undisturbed until intensification of oil sands activities in the area in the late 1990s.

• The area includes high value wildlife habitat (especially moose) and has historically been a preferred harvesting area for subsistence resources including moose, deer, small game (grouse and rabbit), fur, berries, and other resources.

Figure 6 provides an account of reported ACFN site-specific values inside or within 250 m of the JPME footprint, within the LSA, and within the RSA.

Figure 6: Reported ACFN Site-Specific Use Values in Relation to the JPME Project Footprint, LSA and RSA

Within 250 m of JPME Footprint

Within 5 km of JPME Footprint (LSA)

Within Regional Study Area (RSA) Activity Class

# of values

Subsistence 21 32 1,524

Habitation 8 13 268

Cultural/spiritual 1 6 202

Transportation 2 2 20

Environmental features

1 2 32

TOTAL 33 55 2,161



Figure 7 provides a map of ACFN site-specific use data reported within the JPME Project RSA and shows the relative density of site-specific use values downstream of the JPME project. The RSA includes 2,161 reported site-specific use values, including 1,524 subsistence values and 268 habitation values, the majority of which are located in the Athabasca delta. Figure 8 shows areas of general loss of use due to industrial impacts reported by ACFN members in the RSA, as well as a cluster of specific instances of lost use due to resource quality (perceived contamination), and water levels near where the Muskeg joins the Athabasca River. General loss of use extends beyond the JPME and into the RSA, and includes avoidance of aquatic resources, including fish and aquatic plants (eg: A01 Aug. 4, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010; A31 Dec. 18, 2010), extending downstream along the Athabasca River to Lake Athabasca. Loss of use within the RSA due to terrestrial disturbance from oil sands activities is also reported:

I used to camp at McClelland Lake on the other side… on the north side of it. One of my friends owns a trapline there and we used to hunt there. Up into the Fort Hills, thereʼs places in there that I used to hunt that I canʼt hunt anymore because of too much construction going on. At first it started off with the drilling projects and now thereʼs just all kinds of movement in there, as far as heavy equipment, thereʼs all kinds in there…(A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007)

5.2 Baseline Summary for Non-site-specific VCs Within the JPME LSA and RSA

…ever since I moved to Fort McMurray...Even before that, way before that when I travelled with my grandpa, we never used to follow the channel all the way, the river was so high that we were able to drive anywhere, just go anywhere, I remember those days…Grandpa liked to visit around, he had all kinds of friends in there, as he made his way up, I remember the animals, we used to see lots of animals like bears, eagles, you know, geese. Even a few years ago there was still a few…itʼs more scarce now, I donʼt know where the birds are going, theyʼre probably flying a different route…they used the Athabasca for the gravel and the sand and they need it as they went down, but with the amount of industry thatʼs going on now today, the birds donʼt even want to travel here anymore. Theyʼre going around. Theyʼre finding different routes where theyʼre going to get their natural intakes... So thatʼs affected the use of harvesting for us as Native people eating wild birds (A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007).



Figure 7: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values Within the JPME Regional Study Area



Figure 8: Reported Current (Winter 2010/11) Loss of Use Areas in the RSA, Including Reported Specific Loss of Use Due to Water Level and Quality Downstream of the Muskeg River



Key non-site-specific VCs associated with the JPME Project LSA and RSA include:

• Water and river values (including quality and quantity of water, fish, and aquatic resources), particularly associated with the Muskeg River and Athabasca River (e.g., A01 Aug. 04, 2010; A29 Dec. 16, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010);

• Culturally important species (including quality and quantity of high value moose habitat, and adjacent known core caribou habitat) (e.g., A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A01 Oct. 07, 2010; A22 Oct. 05, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010);

• Access and enjoyment of ACFN lands (especially ACFN traplines, reserves, and cultural protection areas) (e.g., A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A01 May 17, 2010; A04 May 19, 2010); and

• Intangible cultural resources (including ACFN language and knowledge) (e.g., A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A01 May 17, 2010; A21 Dec. 16, 2010).

5.2.1 Water and River values – Quantity

The ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use Knowledge and Change Study (Candler et al. 2010) highlights the Athabasca River and adjacent streams as integral resources for the culture and economy of the ACFN. They are critical to the ability of ACFN members to hunt, trap, fish, and otherwise practice treaty rights in a preferred manner. Appendix 2 contains a summary of existing information regarding downstream effects of existing oil sands development on ACFN use and rights. ACFN river-based transportation routes have been documented downstream from the JPME within the LSA and RSA. The Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers are used by ACFN members to access traditional lands. ACFN members report that at low flows, navigational use of the Muskeg River is restricted by low water levels. Figure 9, based on data from the ACFN Athabasca River Study, shows (in red) navigable watersheds18 that are known to become unnavigable at very low water, and hazards and incidents (in light yellow) downriver from the JPME along the Athabasca and Muskeg Rivers.

Reductions in flow on the Muskeg River also contribute to low flows, and resulting navigational hazards, on the Athabasca River, a critical transportation corridor for accessing ACFN territories. This corridor is vulnerable to low water conditions, especially towards the Athabasca delta where the majority of ACFN Indian Reserve lands, including important seasonal village areas, are located, and where all use depends on water access.

If we lose anymore water I think weʼre in deep trouble in terms of transportation and access to the different areas, even around Fort Chip and Fort McMurray, the Athabasca River. Canʼt afford to have the water

18 where at least a portion of the stream is navigable from the Athabasca River.



drop any further than it is now. I think weʼre at the very max in terms of quantity… (A04 interview transcript, May 18, 2010).

5.2.2 Water and River Values – Quality

We used it [the Athabasca River] … the quantity was a lot greater and certainly the quality was. We used to use that for drinking water, drinking source. Not any more. …you think twice about eating fish out of the river. Donʼt do it as much as you used to. We used to catch a lot of fish for human consumption and dog food, not any more… (A04 interview transcript, May 18, 2010).

As documented in the ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use and Knowledge Study (Candler et al. 2010), ACFN members have observed changes in the quality of water and aquatic resources (including perceived abnormalities in fish and contamination of medicinal plants) on the Athabasca River system. These perceived changes in quality are attributed by ACFN members to oil sands development and have led to fear and other psycho-social impacts19 associated with contaminants (Health Canada 2005). The resulting and widespread loss of confidence in the quality of fish, water and other aquatic resources is having a serious effect on ACFN knowledge and use practice. See Appendix 2 for a summary of existing information regarding downstream effects of existing oil sands development on ACFN use and rights. ACFN fishing for subsistence use has been documented within the JPME LSA, as well as downstream from the JPME project. As shown in Figure 8, while there is general loss of use indicated in the JPME project area by at least some ACFN members, there is also an existing concentration of reported specific loss of use incidents, primarily related to quality of harvested fish and meat, near the confluence of the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers. The Muskeg River, where it joins the Athabasca, was reported by ACFN members as a preferred fishing area that is now widely avoided (along with much or all of the Athabasca River) due to observed abnormalities in fish from the area, and fears regarding contamination from existing oil sands operations in the watershed (e.g., A01 May 17, 2010; A13 Aug 06, 2010).

19 Health Canada (2005) identifies the following psycho-social factors associated with

contamination – at least some of which are clearly affecting ACFN use of lands and waters: fear; feelings of vulnerability and powerlessness; anger; distrust; Grief; Guilt; Sense of depersonalization; Frustration; Isolation; Depression.



Figure 9: ACFN Navigation and Navigable Hazards in Relation to the JPME Project



5.2.3 Culturally Important Species – Bison20

ACFN hunting of wood bison has been documented within the RSA. Bison kill sites are included in the subsistence activity class shown in Figure 7. Based on ACFN interviews, there is core and currently used wood bison habitat along the Firebag River, but it does not intersect with the JPME LSA. As shown in Figure 10, the main wood bison population is west of the Athabasca River and is most relevant to the PRM and RCL projects.

5.2.4 Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground Caribou

Based on ACFN TEK, and as shown on Figure 10, the RSA includes areas of known core woodland caribou habitat.

Woodland caribou (Alberta boreal population) is listed as a threatened species protected under Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act. Woodland caribou are of key cultural importance to the ACFN. An ACFN study regarding traditional knowledge of caribou range and distribution within ACFN territory is currently near completion. As shown in Figure 10, the JPME LSA is inside known woodland caribou range, and immediately adjacent to observed core Kearl Lake and known core Firebag River woodland caribou habitat. ACFN hunting of woodland caribou has been documented within the RSA and woodland caribou kill sites are included in the subsistence activity class shown in Figure 7.

Both woodland and barren ground caribou are valued for their meat, and fine hide. However, supported by the historic reliance of ACFN peoples on caribou and caribou migration (Smith 1981, Tanner and Rigney 2003), the connection of ACFN to caribou is often discussed as extending far beyond subsistence. In an affidavit sworn October 1, 2010, Allan Adam stated the following:

…We have a spiritual connection and relationship with the caribou… The Dene have always lived of the caribou, regardless of whether itʼs woodland or barren ground, there has always been a connection…

20 Wood bison, woodland caribou, and barren ground caribou seem to have been largely not been

addressed within the proponentʼs EIA.



Figure 10: Reported Core Bison and Core Caribou Habitats in Relation to the Project and RSA



While barren ground caribou migration patterns have changed since the 1950s, the PRM and JPME are located within the reported historic range of barren ground caribou. Several ACFN participants indicated that the change in caribou migration in the 1950ʼs was due to wide spread forest fires that removed lichen and other caribou food sources (A04 October 5, 2010; A24 October 5, 2010). Barren ground caribou are of key cultural importance to the ACFN and rarely encountered in the southern portions of ACFN territory since the 1950s (Tanner and Rigney 2003). ACFN hunting of barren ground caribou has been documented within the RSA.

5.2.5 Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds

the big migration of geese, theyʼre always in … the delta, and much of it is gone, the deltaʼs gone, so, much of the birds donʼt even land there, they fly over, its dried out... So pretty soon we wonʼt be able to even eat our own food and we wonʼt be able to use some of the medicinal medicine that we get from so close to the river, this big Athabasca river system. … I wonʼt eat the fish from here. No way (A07 interview transcript, August 1, 2007).

As noted in the initial ACFN traditional use study for PRM and JPME, submitted to Shell in 2008, ACFN members have reported changes in migratory bird patterns, including ducks and geese, concurrent with oil sands development. These changes are reported to have impacted the quantity of birds available for the ACFN spring bird hunt, particularly in the area of the Athabasca delta. ACFN hunting of migratory birds has been documented within the RSA and is included in the subsistence activity class shown in Figure 7. Migratory birds are of key cultural importance to the ACFN. The spring bird hunt is a core component of the ACFNʼs past and present seasonal round.

In an affidavit sworn January 30th, 2009, Raymond Cardinal stated the following:

Every spring time, in May, I do one traditional hunt for migrating birds with my family and friends…there would normally be between 15 and 20 of us. My father taught me when I was growing up…I start hunting when I get on the Athabasca River at Fort McKay, and continue as I travel north on the river. Iʼm gone for about a week (Cardinal 2009).

5.2.6 Culturally Important Species – Plants

ACFN harvesting of culturally important plants, including berries and medicinal plants, has been documented within the LSA and RSA. Several kinds of medicinal plants are collected in water, or in riparian areas such as along the Muskeg and Athabasca rivers, and in the Kearl Lake and McClelland Lake areas. As with fish, ACFN members report having observed changes in the quality of water and medicinal plants on the Athabasca River system concurrent with oil sands development. These perceived changes have led



to widespread loss of use and inability to confidently practice ACFN knowledge and use. Harvesting of food plants, including berries, is included in the subsistence activity class shown in Figure 7. Harvesting of medicinal plants is included in the cultural/spiritual activity class shown in the same figure.

5.2.7 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands – Traplines

RFMA 1714 has historically served as a focal point for the practice of ACFN use and treaty rights by the LʼHommecourt family, and by other ACFN members more generally, particularly those residing in Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay.

As indicated in the proponentʼs assessment, a large portion of the project footprint is located within RFMA 1714. As discussed above, existing oil sands development has already heavily impacted the trapline. The project would increase the area of disturbance on the trapline from the current estimated 46% to 60% of total area. The project would mine to within 250 m of historically and currently used LʼHommecourt cabins, and would permanently eliminate cultural landscape features including trails, other cabins, harvesting areas, streams, rivers, and high value wildlife habitat upon which use of the cabins and trapline, and practice of treaty rights, depends.

Due to existing impacts over the past five to ten years, many ACFN members report that they currently avoid the area of RFMA 1714 (e.g., A15 Aug. 04, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010; A01 October 7, 2010; A29 October 15, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010). This suggests that, within RFMA 1714 and the JPME LSA more generally, a tacit, or implicit threshold of disturbance of use resulting in widespread loss of use by ACFN members seems to have already been reached. As shown in Figure 8, ACFN members also indicate that access and enjoyment has been lost to a large area south of the Firebag River, including the LSA and portions of the RSA due to oil sands related impacts including: road controls, traffic, noise, dust, smell, ground disturbance, perceived contamination, and disturbance by recreational users. The majority of these impacts are reported to have accumulated over the past decade (since approximately 2000).

5.2.8 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Reserves and Cultural Protection Areas

ACFN reserve lands are located within the RSA. As documented in the ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use and Knowledge Study (Candler et al. 2010), and as reported by ACFN member, impacts of existing oil sands operations on ACFN reserve lands include:

• Perceived impacts on Athabasca River water quality (due to contaminant concerns, and resulting in loss of confidence in fish and other aquatic resources); and



• The impact of water withdrawals on river flow during ice free low flow periods resulting in impediments to river travel and navigation required to access many of the ACFNʼs reserve lands.

Other impacts noted by study participants, and associated with existing oil sands developments include noise, traffic, air quality, loss of access due to industry road controls, and loss of remoteness. Potential project interactions with impacts to ACFN Cultural Protection Areas are discussed below.

5.2.8.1 Fort MacKay Proximate Zone

As shown in Figure 2, all of the JPME LSA is within the Fort MacKay proximate zone, an area that includes lands and waters identified as currently relied upon by ACFN members living in and around the Fort MacKay settlement, or in Fort McMurray. A number of ACFN members live in or use the Fort MacKay Proximate zone (e.g., A01, A02, A12, A13, A14, A21). Many of these ACFN members are of families affiliated with the Point Brule and Poplar Point, settlements within k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland). Many also have strong family connection to members of Fort MacKay First Nation. This proximate zone includes areas east and west of the Athabasca River, extending in the west to the area of Gardiner Lakes, and east to the Firebag River and is generally accessible by road from Fort MacKay or Fort McMurray. The Proximate Zone is identified in as important to ACFN use, despite impacts, in part because it is readily accessible in terms of distance from settlement and because specialized equipment, for example, boats and snowmobiles are not required to access much of it. As the zone become increasingly polluted and otherwise impacted by oil sands development, ACFN use may shift to other areas where constraints of travel time and expense allow. However, with each removal of lands from meaningful practice of the subsistence economy comes an associated reduction in access to tangible resources, for the same population. This leads to competition increases, costs increase, opportunities for transmission of knowledge are lost, and the number of ACFN members who no longer feel able to use ACFN lands or practice their rights as frequently as they would like, or at all, increases. Because of existing impacts including restricted and gated access to areas controlled by oil sands companies, traffic, disturbance, and perceived pollution, since the late 1990s many ACFN members have lost use of large portions of this proximate zone for the practice of rights, including subsistence rights. The area includes important ACFN traplines, camps, cabins, trails, hunting, fishing and resource procurement areas, habitat areas used historically by bison and woodland caribou, as well as other species, and cultural/spiritual areas. Despite adverse impacts, practice of ACFN use and rights in this zone by some members remains strong. However, available evidence suggests that



adverse effects from oil sands has already reached a threshold where many ACFN members feel that harvesting of resources such as fish, moose, or medicinal plants is no longer safe throughout much of this zone. As a result, several ACFN members who relied upon the Fort MacKay proximate zone up to recent years now must travel further (north of the Firebag River, or south to the Fort McMurray proximate zone) in order to practice use and rights, or alternately, are not able to practice use and rights due to the elimination of meaningful opportunities formerly relied upon.

5.2.9 Intangible Cultural Resources – ACFN Knowledge and Language

In additional to concerns regarding impact to more concrete values, many ACFN participants also identified concerns regarding the potential impact of oil sands developments on intangible cultural resources, including language and the transmission of knowledge regarding areas of lost use resulting from industrial effects. Particular kinds of knowledge, in the form of place based stories, place names, and histories, are associated with particular places (Basso 1996), and the cultural practices, or uses, that take place there. Actions that destroy a place, or cause the use of a place to be lost (for example, because of fear of contaminants), especially over long periods of time, frequently result in a gap in the transmission of place based knowledge, and eliminate the place as a cultural resource for remembering, teaching, and learning the knowledge associated with it. In the JPME LSA, the ACFNʼs LʼHommecourt family, has particularly strong oral histories and place based knowledge associated with the LSA. Other kinds of knowledge may not be associated with a particular place, but with an aesthetic feeling, or sense associated with particular kinds of places, especially ones that are considered ʻnatural.ʼ With increased urbanization, and the increasing rarity of places that are ʻnaturalʼ or ʻwildʼ for ACFN members living in urban areas, places that offer this sense, but that are still accessible from urban areas, can be a very valuable and rare cultural resource. One ACFN participant put it this way:

…theyʼre polluting not just the earth and the animals and the air and the water, but the people too. And thatʼs sad…You know what the weird thing is? A lot of these kids growing up right now, theyʼll think that all this is normal…and itʼs not normal. I remember washing my hair in rain water, saving it in a barrel…and go jump in the lake, and you know, it wouldnʼt smell like oil or gas, it would smell like water and it would be clear and you could see the bottom, and you could see fish swimming, you know, and was just nice … you could even drink the water from the lake when you went for a walk in the bush, you could just bring a cup with you and just drink from the river, the lake, anywhere, now you have to bring your own water into the bush, … everybody brings their own water out in the bush now for the past, I donʼt know, 20 years. Thatʼs what I mean, these kids that are like maybe ten years old or so right now, donʼt know whatʼs normal. They think that … polluted water and air you canʼt really safely breathe and animals dying and suffering and animals getting extinct …



they think thatʼs normal. They think itʼs normal, so thatʼs what scares me the most, more than everything else thatʼs going on, what scares me is that the kids think itʼs normal … itʼll be another … world without traditional knowledge. Theyʼll have whatever anybody tells them, theyʼll believe [it] to be true because how would they know the difference? If the earth is all screwed up and the water is all polluted and they canʼt see the sun and they canʼt see the stars and they canʼt breathe the air, then how in the heck are they supposed to know if theyʼd never washed in rain water … never swam in a clean lake, like how are they going to know whatʼs normal? Thatʼs what scares me, and thatʼs my grandkids Iʼm talking about and the next generation. I donʼt even think they know what it was like … itʼs probably to them like a fairy tale now (A01 interview transcript, July 27, 2007).

5.3 Assessment of JPME Project Effects

… the landscape sure looks pretty sad with all those trees gone … first it was burned, then a whole bunch of trees were gone and now thereʼs a big pit there like a moonscape. And itʼs hard to feel happy and excited to go in the bush when you have to drive through the mine and the pits and everything to get there and once your there you feel like, you know, theyʼre moving in, theyʼre getting closer, theyʼre right there, theyʼre coming, theyʼre at your door. It kind of takes away the excitement and the fun and adventure of being out there in the bush in the wild when all of thatʼs going on. I mean you see it, you could smell it, you could taste it, you could feel it, you know, thatʼs what theyʼre doing, you could hear it. So it effects all of your senses so of course itʼs going to effect you right? Unless you totally donʼt care, then. Maybe thatʼs why people just drink so they donʼt have to think about it (A01 interview transcript, July 27, 2007).

Based on the proponentʼs application (V. 5: 1-14), construction of the JPME is anticipated to begin in 2012, operations in 2015, and closure activities in 2065. Construction, operation, closure, and post-closure activities will result in clearing and taking up of lands, and may have effects on any or all of the categories of site-specific and non-site-specific traditional use values identified in the LSA and RSA through direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, perceived or actual contamination on traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to lost or reduced use. The following are anticipated project effects on site-specific VCs.



5.3.1 Anticipated JPME Project Effects on Site-specific VCs within the LSA and RSA

5.3.1.1 Site-specific Subsistence Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects, the JPME footprint will destroy and/or render un-useable preferred and site-specific ACFN hunting, trapping, and food gathering values within the JPME footprint, including past, current, and planned future use areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the LSA, up to 33 documented ACFN site-specific subsistence values will be adversely impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, fear associated with increased contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use. 21 documented ACFN site- specific subsistence values are inside or within 250 m of the project footprint and will be destroyed and/or rendered essentially un-useable by the project. These include important and currently used moose, deer, small game (rabbit and grouse), and plant food (berry) harvesting areas inside or within the project footprint. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, more than 1,500 ACFN site-specific subsistence values have been documented including a large concentration of values in the Athabasca delta. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, and including ACFN values in the Athabasca Delta, the values most at risk of project effects are downstream of the project along the Muskeg and the Athabasca Rivers. ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these subsistence values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during ice free periods of low flow, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to lost or reduced use. Also see non-site-specific effects below.

5.3.1.2 Site-specific Habitation Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will destroy and/or render unusable preferred ACFN habitation values within the LSA and RSA, including past, current, and planned future use areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the LSA, up to 13 documented ACFN site-specific subsistence values will be impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, perceived increases in contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, upon which habitation areas rely, leading to



increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use, as well as other disturbance. Of 13 within the LSA, 8 documented ACFN site-specific subsistence values within the LSA are inside or within 250 m of the project footprint and will be destroyed or rendered un-useable by the project. These include multiple currently used cabin sites, including a primary cabin associated with the LʼHommecourt family, as well as camp sites. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, 268 ACFN site- specific subsistence values have been documented. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, values most at risk of project effects are those downstream of the project along the Muskeg and the Athabasca Rivers. These include regularly used cabins, and the most critical village sites and Indian Reserve lands of the ACFN. As with subsistence values noted above, ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that these habitation values are likely to be impacted by the project through anticipated seasonal or intermittent effects on Athabasca River levels during ice free low flow periods, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, upon which use of habitation areas rely, leading to potential lost or reduced use.

5.3.1.3 Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects of the JPME may disturb site-specific ACFN cultural/spiritual values within the LSA and RSA, including ceremonial areas, burials and medicine collection areas, including past, current, and planned future use areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the JPME LSA, up to six documented ACFN site-specific cultural / spiritual values are likely to be impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, or other disturbances. These include a concentration of cultural / spiritual values, including burials, and ceremonial areas to the west of the JPME LSA and along the banks of the Athabasca River. These values have already been partially impacted by existing development in the area, but are still active as important cultural/spiritual values. Of the six sites within the LSA, a portion of one large polygon is inside or within 250 m of the project footprint. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, more than 200 ACFN site-specific cultural / spiritual values are documented. These include ceremonial places, medicine collection places, and major burial sites sensitive to a variety of effects, including water level and water quality changes. ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these cultural / spiritual values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of anticipated effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during low flow, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to avoidance or reduced use. See non-site-specific concerns below.



5.3.1.4 Site-specific Transportation Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will destroy and/or render unusable ACFN transportation values within the LSA and RSA, including documented trails and water routes associated with past and current use. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the JPME LSA, two documented ACFN site-specific transportation values (a trail and a water route along the Muskeg River) will likely be destroyed or rendered unusable by the JPME Project. If not destroyed by direct disturbance, it will be impacted by reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, or other disturbances. Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively show specific instances of lost use due to water level, and navigational hazards. Both occur downstream of the JPME project, including a concentration of low water navigational hazards on water routes along the Athabasca River. These navigational corridors are downstream of the project along the Muskeg and the Athabasca Rivers are especially vulnerable to impact during ice-free low water periods. They include water transportation routes, including access to reserve lands and other lands critical to ACFN use and rights practice in the Athabasca Delta, on the Athabasca River, and along adjacent rivers and streams. See non-site-specific concerns below.

5.3.1.5 Site-specific Environmental Feature Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects are likely to destroy and/or disturb site-specific ACFN environmental feature values including past, current, and planned future habitat areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the JPME LSA, two documented ACFN site-specific environmental features, both associated with high quality moose habitat (culturally important and unique due to quantity of animals, and proximity or ease of access from Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay), will be impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, perceived increases in contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use, as well as other disturbances. Of these two environmental feature values, one is inside the project footprint and would be destroyed or rendered un-useable by the JPME Project. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, 32 ACFN site-specific environmental features have been documented including an east – west moose migration corridor crossing the Athabasca River, which the JPME project has the potential to obstruct.



Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, the values most at risk of project effects are areas of core woodland caribou habitat both north and east of JPME, as well as areas downstream of the project along the Muskeg and the Athabasca Rivers. Some or all of these environmental feature values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to avoidance or reduced use. See non-site-specific concerns below.

5.3.2 Anticipated JPME Effects on Non-Site-specific VCs

5.3.2.1 JPME Effects on Water and River Values – Quantity

ACFN members have identified the level of water, particularly water of the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers, to be of concern within the RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, it is estimated that construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will destroy or disturb large areas of muskeg, wetlands, and stretches of rivers and streams within the footprint, and is likely to impede the practice of ACFN use downstream of the project by reducing water levels in the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers during low flow periods. The project will increase the intensity, scope and area of existing patterns of ACFN loss of use due to disturbance of the Muskeg River, and low water levels downstream of the project along the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers (Candler et al. 2010). This effect will be most pronounced during ice free low water periods and is likely to result in impediments to access to past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Documented existing impacts to ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice related to water levels (Candler et al. 2010) include loss of access to large areas of traditional lands along the Athabasca River and adjoining tributaries, increased incidence of sand bars and navigational hazards, ecological change, including vegetation changes and changes in channel and channel migration, and loss of access to Indian Reserves (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) lands leading to increased avoidance, reduced use, and loss of knowledge transmission opportunities. These changes are likely to be most pronounced downstream of the project and in the Athabasca delta area where the majority of ACFN reserve lands, and the greatest intensity of ACFN use values occurs. See Appendix 2 for additional detail.

5.3.2.2 JPME Effects on Water and River Values – Quality

ACFN members have identified the quality of water, particularly water of the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers, to be of concern within the RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will contribute to already high perceived levels of industrial



contaminants within the ACFN environment. Currently perceived levels of water borne contaminants, in combination with other changes, are having serious psycho-social effects and resulting in wide spread avoidance and loss of use by ACFN members in the region (Candler et al. 2010). The project is likely to result in increased intensity, scope and area of ACFN avoidance and loss of use, particularly downstream of the project along the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers and including past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. As shown in Figure 8, current avoidance patterns related to existing industrial development indicate that the waters of the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers downstream of the project, and much of the project footprint and LSA, are perceived to have already reached and surpassed thresholds where widespread ACFN avoidance or loss of use is taking place. While these thresholds of practice/avoidance have not been quantified, existing patterns indicate that the project is likely to expand existing ACFN traditional use avoidance patterns, including increased intensity, scope and area of avoidance by ACFN members. Documented existing impacts to ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice related to water quality (Candler et al. 2010) include observed adverse changes (including changes in taste, odor, and observed sheen) in traditional drinking water sources, and observed adverse changes in traditionally relied upon aquatic resources (abnormal fish, tainted aquatic medicines and moose meat). These are directly related to patterns of general avoidance of subsistence resources (aquatic and terrestrial) south of the Firebag River, and general avoidance of aquatic resources (fish, and in some cases aquatic medicines) extending throughout the Athabasca delta (figure 8), including ACFN Indian Reserve (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) lands, and leading to increased avoidance, reduced use, and loss of knowledge transmission opportunities. ACFN avoidance patterns related to the LSA are not universal, but are widespread. In some cases, particular resources (such as moose) are only avoided if there is a perceivable behavioral or physical abnormality (cysts noted in meat, or animals ʻlook sickʼ). Project related avoidance and loss of use due to concerns regarding contaminants are likely to be most pronounced downstream of the project in the area of the Firebag River, and in the Athabasca delta area where the majority of ACFN reserve lands, and the greatest intensity of ACFN use values occurs. See Appendix 2 for additional detail.

5.3.2.3 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Wood Bison

ACFN members have identified core wood bison habitat within the RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the JPME Project is likely to have minor effects on wood bison and wood bison habitat identified by ACFN knowledge holders.



Subject to a lack of available information regarding project interactions with Bison, this effect is anticipated with a moderate degree of confidence. It is unclear from the proponentʼs application whether or not potential project effects on woodland bison were evaluated. Based on the precautionary principle, in the absence of information regarding the likely effect of the project on culturally important and unique wood bison, caution should be applied.

5.3.2.4 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground Caribou

ACFN members have identified core woodland caribou habitat within the RSA and adjacent to the JPME LSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb or destroy the range, and possibly core habitat of culturally important populations of woodland caribou resident in the Firebag River and Kearl Lake areas, as well as the historic range of barren ground caribou. Project effects will adversely impact the current or potential availability of woodland caribou and barren ground caribou as preferred, unique, and culturally important resources for ACFN knowledge and use practice. Ethnographic material (Smith 1981) and ACFN interviews indicate that woodland caribou were important in the past, remain highly valued, and are an essential component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland and beyond. Subject to a lack of available information regarding project interactions with woodland caribou and barren ground caribou or habitat, this effect is anticipated with a moderate degree of confidence. It is clear from the proponentʼs applications that woodland caribou historically frequented the JPME LSA, and tracks were observed within the project area21. It is unclear from the proponentʼs application whether project effects on woodland caribou or barren ground caribou were evaluated, despite their current or historic presence in the project footprint. In addition to disturbing or destroying caribou range, the project is also anticipated to increase perceived contamination potentially resulting in decreased or lost use by ACFN members.

5.3.2.5 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds

ACFN members have identified important migratory bird habitat and hunting areas within the RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge and review of project information, 21 As discussed in Volume 5, section 7-37, one woodland caribou track was observed within the JPME

LSA. The Traditional Land Use Setting Report indicates that at least three separate trapline holders indicated that Woodland Caribou frequent, or used to frequent, the LSA.



construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects may disturb migration routes and the availability of culturally important populations of migratory birds, including various species of duck, geese, and other birds. ACFN knowledge holders have reported a downward trend in the number of migratory birds transiting the JPME LSA and RSA in recent decades. Project effects related to removal of muskeg, drying of upland lakes, reduced water levels downstream of the project (including in the Athabasca Delta), as well as intentional disturbance of birds and flyways through use of cannons, may further adversely impact the current or potential availability of migratory birds as preferred and culturally important resources for ACFN knowledge and use practice. Ethnographic material (Smith 1981, Tanner and Rigney 2003) and ACFN interviews indicate that migratory birds, especially Spring water fowl, were important in the past, are currently highly valued, and are an essential component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland and beyond. This effect is anticipated with a medium degree of confidence due to lack of detailed ACFN knowledge and use studies focused on migratory birds. In addition to potentially disturbing migration patterns, the JPME project is also anticipated to increase perceived contamination potentially resulting in increased ACFN avoidance or loss of use related to migratory birds.

5.3.2.6 JPME Effects on Culturally Important Species – Plants

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb culturally important plant species including berries and medicine plants. Due to likely increased perceived contamination of plant resources from upstream oil sands mines, the JPME project is likely to result in increased intensity, scope and area of ACFN avoidance, and loss of use downstream of the project along the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers and including past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

5.3.2.7 JPME Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Traplines

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb or eliminate ACFN access and enjoyment of lands associated with an ACFN trapline (RFMA 1714). The JPME project is likely to displace, and will potentially eliminate, meaningful practice of ACFN knowledge and use in and around RFMA 1714 and within the watershed of the Muskeg River. Project effects within the LSA and RFMA 1714 will include loss of access and enjoyment due to project related fencing and road controls, traffic, noise, dust, smell, ground



disturbance, and perceived contamination of air, ground, and water. Ground disturbance and active mining of large areas of RFMA 1714, including the areas currently most accessible by road, will be of greatest significance to members of the ACFNʼs LʼHommecourt family, and other ACFN members living in the Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay areas (present and future) who rely on, or would rely on, areas associated with RFMA 1714 for knowledge and use practice. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

5.3.2.8 JPME Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – ACFN Indian Reserves and Cultural Protection Areas

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will contribute to the disturbance or elimination of ACFN access and enjoyment of lands associated with ACFN Indian Reserves (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) downstream of the project. Portions of Chipewyan 201 and 201E located away from the main channel of the Athabasca River are particularly vulnerable to loss of access due to declining water levels. Project effects on ACFN Indian Reserves will also include perceived contamination of air and water in the vicinity of ACFN reserves, and particularly Chipewyan 201G (Poplar Point). The project, as currently proposed, will not support ACFN management goals identified in ACFNʼs submission on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (ACFN 2010) including no-net loss of habitat, and no-net increase of linear disturbance within Cultural Protection Areas. These effects are anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

5.3.2.9 JPME Effects on Intangible Cultural Resources

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will reduce or eliminate opportunities for the transmission of ACFN knowledge specific to areas within the LSA, or within the project footprint, and contribute to the disturbance or elimination of ACFN knowledge and language specific to the JPME area, and potentially extending to the RSA as a result of potential impediments to access and travel by water related to low flow levels on the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers, and potential expansion of loss of use areas associated with perceived effects of industrial oil sands mining. These effects are anticipated with a high degree of confidence.



5.4 Existing JPME Mitigations

The proponentʼs applications identify five mitigations specific to First Nations TEK and land use (p. 8-48, 49). The mitigations are:

• Compensation for directly affected trapline holders;

• Continued consultation with key aboriginal groups;

• Access to traplines;

• Employee/contractor education; and

• Reclamation.

Appendix 3 contains a summary of other mitigations committed to by the proponent within the applications and associated documents. At best, these constitute partial mitigations to the anticipated effects of the project for the following reasons:

• As noted in 2.2.1 above, compensation to trapline holders may be a mitigation for loss of commercial trapping rights, but is not a mitigation for impacts to aboriginal use or treaty rights;

• Regarding reclamation, as discussed in 5.4.1 below, the proponentʼs assumptions regarding the ability to restore landscapes consistent with ACFN tangible and intangible cultural values is considered unreasonably optimistic by ACFN elders and knowledge holders;

• While supported access to traplines through the mine footprint is useful, based on past experience in the region, and reports from ACFN members, it is unlikely to provide an effective mitigation to ACFN avoidance of areas due to larger access and disturbance issues;

• Cultural education of Shell employees and contractors is positive, but it is unclear what anticipated project effect this is a mitigation for; and

• Continued consultation with key aboriginal groups is also positive, but consultation with aboriginal groups is generally a responsibility delegated to the proponent by the Crown (and so is not a mitigation). In the absence of a formal shared decision making process, or JPME project co-management arrangements, it is unclear how the proponent could structure ongoing consultation in a manner that could provide reliable mitigation of anticipated project effects.



5.4.1 Oil Sands Mine Reclamation and ACFN Knowledge and Use

While the technology of reclamation continues to improve, and proponents in the region have show slow progress in reclamation, there is little evidence that the proponentʼs reclamation plan can reasonably be expected to re-create cultural or ecological landscapes consistent with aboriginal traditions of knowledge and use. The practice of ACFN use and treaty rights involves access to subsistence resources, but also requires the ability to practice and transmit place-based cultural knowledge which is essential to the ʻmode of lifeʼ. Even if perfect reclamation of the physical and cultural landscape was possible, in the case of both JPME and PRM, the affected area will be removed from ACFN use for at least fifty years and potentially much longer, depending on the length of time closure and reclamation requires. Where an area has been removed from aboriginal use for one generation (approximately 22 years)22 or more, impacts to the transmission of knowledge regarding that area are considered permanent and irreversible. Where disturbance involves removal of landforms and where areas relied on for teaching are fundamentally altered or made inaccessible, then the role of landscape in transmitting knowledge (Basso 1996) is fundamentally and irrevocably changed through development. Several ACFN participants expressed clear skepticism regarding the ability of proponents to reclaim lands in a manner consistent with ACFN knowledge and use values:

…if a company says itʼs going to dig a hole and then youʼre going to replant, the hole is already dug, right, the spirit of the land is gone when youʼre digging, when you dig a big kick ass hole like… ten mile radius, the spirit of that land is gone. Itʼll never come back, even if you put trees, muskeg and trees back and throw a couple of buffalos there, itʼs never the same…you can still see the type of land that they put back, is almost the same, but it certainly is not. Itʼs all spaced and coordinated… and trees are all nicely spaced in rows like theyʼre planting apple trees or something. Johnny Apple Seed was there. [laughter]… and out in Poplar Point, you know, itʼs wild and itʼs beautiful…No matter what they do, theyʼll never be, ever, ever the same. All they got to do is stay away from it, thatʼs the only thing, if they want to keep it the same, just stay away (A03 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

They say there going to make it better then it was. There is a reason why that bush is thick right there (agreeing) You know, because they plant trees and vegetation far apart and make it look pretty yeah does that make it better. It doesnʼt make it better, that is there for a reason yup. It

22 The numeric definition of a generation varies, but is generally estimated as the average age at which

a woman has her first child. While accurate demographic data for the ACFN is not available, 22 years is taken as a reasonable estimate.



vegetates something there. It takes care of some kind of species in there or some kind of animal or some kind of vegetation species thatʼs in there. Its scared a species to us as native people, thereʼs medicine in these trees that we use, theyʼre certain types trees that look that those jackpines, there actually tamarack, those small little tamarack, thatʼs good medicine for upset bellyʼs and stuff like that. We use that stuff…you going to put those back? Are they going to be sacred still? You still going to be nurtured from what was naturally there before, not what was all taken out from underneath it. Put it all back, thereʼs sand and mud and whatever, and then put a soil on it and plant it and put it up again? I donʼt think itʼs sacred anymore, itʼs been disturbed. That affects us that way, you know, our rat root thatʼs, a lot of rat root grow in marshes around this area here, in the Shell project…Muskeg River…what about the rat root that is so sacred to the people too, you know, that we use for a number of things, not only colds and headaches and upset stomachs, it works as a natural medicine that one, it helps everything in your body. As long as you respect, you do, my traditional ways is you pray to that medicine and ask for it to help you, and it does, you know, if you believe. Those are my concerns, you know if oil sands go in there, theyʼre going to disrupt that, pretty hard to put it back the way it was. You can say itʼs better, but naturally it isnʼt… if you want to make a difference then donʼt mine. Youʼll save our children, youʼll save your children (A06 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

There is also skepticism that industry will actually be around long enough to reclaim the land:

You think industry is going to around forever, what happens when everything collapses around here, the oil prices drop out of the sky? And everybody just getʼs up and leaves. Is he just going to leave everything the way it is? Be another Uranium City? How is it going to affect the people that live off the land, once youʼre gone?... (A06 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

Based on ACFN experience, even the best and most sensitive reclamation techniques cannot be expected to reverse or fully mitigate impacts to ACFN use values.

5.5 JPME Residual Project Effects

Given anticipated project effects on ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice, and considering existing mitigations proposed in the applications (described above and in Appendix 3), the residual (post-mitigation) effects of the JPME project are anticipated to range from moderate to very high.



Figure 11 provides a characterization of the residual effects, and a rating of environmental consequence for each VC.

Figure 11: Environmental Consequence of Residual Impacts

Valu

e

Dire

ctio

n

Mag

nitu

de

Geo

grap

hic

exte

nt

Dura

tion

Reve

rsib

ility

Freq

uenc

y

Envi

ronm

enta

l Co

nseq

uenc

e

Site-specific Subsistence Values

Negative high (+15)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):

continuous Very High (23)

Site-specific Habitation Values

Negative high (+15)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values

Negative low (+5)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):

continuous Moderate (13)

Site-specific Transportation Values

Negative moderate

(+10)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

moderate

(+1):

intermittent

High (17)

Site-specific Environmental Features

Negative high (+15)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Water and River values (quantity)

Negative moderate

(+15)

regional (+1):

extends beyond

LSA into RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

moderate

(+1):

intermittent

Very High (23)

Water and River values (quality)

Negative high (+15)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Culturally Important Species (Wood Bison)

Negative low (+5)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Culturally Important Species (Woodland and Barren Ground Caribou)

Negative moderate

(+10)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):

continuous High (18)



Culturally Important Species (migratory birds)

Negative low (+5)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Culturally Important Species (plants)

Negative Low (+5)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN traplines)

Negative

high (+15)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

high (+2):


Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN IRs and cultural protection areas

Negative high (+15)

regional (+1):

effect extends

beyond the LSA

into the RSA

long-term

(+2): >20

years

irreversible

(+3)

moderate

(+1):

intermittent

High (22)

5.6 Significance of Residual JPME Effects

Based on available information, residual project effects (separate from effects of other projects) of the JPME on ACFN knowledge and use would be adverse and of moderate to very high environmental consequence. They are likely to result in serious adverse changes in the knowledge and use practice of ACFN members. The most serious adverse effects associated with JPME are likely to occur in the following areas:

• Disturbance or destruction of subsistence, habitation and other values historically and currently practiced within and around the area associated with RFMA 1714. Given the context of pre-existing impact in RFMA 1714, the project is likely to destroy the last remaining viable and accessible portion of a historic ACFN trapline, and result in complete or near complete ACFN loss of use in the LSA for multiple generations. Project effects are anticipated to disturb or destroy at least 14% of the total trapline area, and more than 20% of the currently remaining undisturbed trapline area23. These effects are likely to result in strong concern by ACFN members affected, and be a clearly discernable (measurable or perceivable) change to the preferred exercise of a culturally important practice, land use or right. As such, this is considered a significant adverse effect.

• Given the baseline of pre-existing impact along the Athabasca River, the project is likely to expand and intensify ACFN loss of use areas by increasing perceived contamination resulting in fear and other psycho-social effects, and impacting water based transport extending downstream to the Athabasca Delta. This is likely to contribute to the loss or avoidance of use of preferred hunting, fishing

23 As noted in 2.2.1, Federal guidance documents (Hegmann et al 1999: 44) suggest that a 10% (or

greater) change in a VEC is usually considered significant.



and plant collecting areas, and culturally important camps and habitation values in the vicinity of the project and downstream along the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers. Loss of use is likely to result in strong concern or interest by ACFN members affected, and be a clearly discernable (measurable or perceivable) change to the preferred exercise of a culturally important practice, land use or right. As such, this is considered a significant adverse effect.

The primary finding of this assessment is that the JPME project (not in combination with other projects) is likely to have significant adverse residual effects on ACFN knowledge and use, particularly in relation to effects to ACFN use in the vicinity of RFMA 1714, and downstream loss of use due to perceived contaminants and effects on the Athabasca River at low flow levels. The primary recommendation of this assessment is that the proponent and the Federal and Provincial Crown undertake a process, agreeable to and involving the ACFN, to ensure that adequate quantity and quality of resources exist for the continuation of ACFN knowledge and use into the future. This process should prioritize avoiding and reducing impacts over mitigating them. Where impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided then they should be mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, using effective strategies agreeable to the ACFN. If impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, then permissions for JPME to proceed should require consent from the Federal and Provincial Crown, and authorized representatives of the ACFN.



Section 6: PRM Project Baseline and Assessment

The PRM project is proposed on the west side of Athabasca River within the Pierre River watershed. This section provides baseline and assessment specific to the likely effects of the PRM project on ACFN knowledge and use.24

6.1 Baseline for Site-specific VCs within the PRM LSA and RSA

Figure 12 provides a map of ACFN site-specific data reported within the PRM Project LSA including 15 site-specific use values inside, or within 250 m, of the proposed project footprint. 45 site-specific use values were identified within the LSA (5 km of the proposed PRM project footprint), including 21 subsistence values, and 14 habitation values. All mapped values are based on reported ACFN use and knowledge. Due to the density of reported transportation features and navigational hazards along the Athabasca River, river based transportation is shown and analyzed as a simplified transportation ʻcorridorʼ consisting of a single polygon. All ACFN data (points, lines and polygons) is shown with a 1 km buffer. Points were randomized by 250 m, then 1 km buffers were generated around all points, lines, and polygons to account for margin of error, and to protect confidential information. Specific traditional use activities reported by ACFN members inside or within 250 m of the proposed PRM footprint include:

• A seasonal summer camp area currently occupied annually by ACFN members, including members of the LʼHommecourt family, and providing a focal point for subsistence harvesting (particularly moose) (e.g., A14 December 14, 2010);

• Two transportation corridors (the Athabasca River, and a trail used for access to hunting and resource areas near Ronald Lakes and into the Birch Mountains) (e.g., A01 October 7, 2010; A05 May 19, 2010);

24 Several relevant figures and quotes that also apply to and are present in the JPME baseline

and assessment are reproduced in this section to support independent review.



Figure 12: Reported ACFN Use Values within the PRM Project Local Study Area



• Environmental Features including high quality moose habitat and multiple accounts of core bison habitat (e.g., A01 October 7, 2010; A14 December 14, 2010; A29 October 15, 2010);

• Large game hunting (multiple moose kill sites)(e.g., A14 May 22, 2010; A14 December 14, 2010); and

• Small game hunting (grouse) (e.g., A14 December 14, 2010).

Beyond 250 m of the project footprint, and within the PRM LSA there are:

• Multiple reported ACFN hunting and kill sites, particularly of moose, along the Athabasca River (e.g., A01 October 7, 2010; A03 May 18, 2010; A14 December 14, 2010; A21 December 16, 2010);

• Subsistence fishing areas along the Athabasca River (e.g., A01 May 17, 2010; A21 December 16, 2010);

• Berry picking sites (e.g., A21 December 16, 2010);

• Multiple permanent and temporary habitation values (cabins and camps) used by ACFN members along the Athabasca River (e.g., A01 October 7, 2010; A02 December 17, 2010; A12 December 15, 2010; A21 October 13, 2010; A21 December 16, 2010; A30 December 16, 2010). Use of habitation areas by ACFN members within the footprint and LSA is ongoing and current, and relies upon confidence in the quantity and quality of resources in surrounding areas (including the footprint and LSA). Permanent ACFN habitations in the PRM LSA and along the Athabasca River are estimated to date from at least the early 1900s, and likely earlier. One of the earliest reported ACFN habitations, located within and to the north of the LSA, relied upon a permanent dug well to access a reliable supply of ground water (e.g., A21 October 13, 2010; A21 December 16, 2010); and

• In addition to core wood bison habitat, core woodland caribou habitat is reported to intersect with the western edge of the LSA (A22 October 5, 2010).

The PRM mine area, and associated LSA, is at the northern most boundary of a large area extending to the Fort McMurray area that multiple ACFN members have reported is no longer considered safe for hunting and other resource procurement uses due to access restrictions, disturbance, and concerns regarding contaminants from existing oil sands developments. This area is shown on Figure 15. Existing nearby oil sand mines include CNRL, Albion, and other planned or approved operations. In most, if not all cases, general avoidance practices in the area of the proposed PRM by ACFN members have developed recently (within the past five years) as a result of exploration activity and upstream oil sands developments. This loss of use is due largely to concerns regarding the quality of resources, including water and meat, from the area, and because of disturbance from traffic, noise, and other industry related activities. Effects from existing industry in the area has already resulted in shifts in land use by some ACFN members to north of the Firebag River, and to the south of Fort



McMurray (upstream of the oil sands mine operations) (e.g., A01 August 04, 2010; A16 August 05, 2010). As discussed in the assessment below, construction of the PRM is likely to expand the area of avoidance, or lost use, further to the north and into k'es hochela nene (an ACFN cultural protection area). Figure 13 provides an account of reported ACFN site-specific values inside or within the 250 m of the PRM footprint, within the LSA, and within the RSA.

Figure 13: Reported ACFN Site-Specific Use Values in relation to the PRM Project footprint, LSA and RSA

Within 250 m of PRM Footprint

Within 5 km of PRM Footprint (LSA)

Within Regional Study Area (RSA) Activity Class

# of values

Subsistence 8 21 1,524

Habitation 2 14 268

Cultural/spiritual 0 0 202

Transportation 2 4 20

Environmental features 3 6 32

TOTAL 15 45 2,161 Figure 14 provides a map of ACFN site-specific use data reported within the PRM Project RSA and shows the relative density of site-specific use values downstream of the PRM project. The RSA includes 2161 reported ACFN site-specific use values, including 1524 subsistence values and 268 habitation values, the majority of which are located in the Athabasca delta. Figure 15 shows areas of general loss of use due to industrial impacts reported by ACFN members in the RSA, as well as a cluster of specific instances of lost use due to resource quality (perceived contamination), and water levels near where the Muskeg joins the Athabasca River. No similar concentration of specific loss of use due to water quality exists in the vicinity of the proposed PRM. General loss of use extends beyond the JPME and PRM projects and into the RSA. General avoidance of aquatic resources, including fish and aquatic plants, extends downstream along the Athabasca River to Lake Athabasca.



Figure 14: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values within the PRM Regional Study Area



Figure 15: Reported Current (Winter 2010/2011) Loss of Use Areas in the RSA including Reported Specific Loss of Use due to Water Level and Quality Downstream of the Muskeg River



6.2 Baseline Summary for Non-Site-specific VCs within the PRM LSA and RSA

…ever since I moved to Fort McMurray...Even before that, way before that when I travelled with my grandpa, we never used to follow the channel all the way, the river was so high that we were able to drive anywhere, just go anywhere, I remember those dayʼs…Grandpa liked to visit around, he had all kinds of friends in there, as he made his way up, I remember the animals, we used to see lots of animals like bears, eagles, you know, geese. Even a few years ago there was still a few…itʼs more scarce now, I donʼt know where the birds are going, theyʼre probably flying a different route…they used the Athabasca for the gravel and the sand and they need it as they went down, but with the amount of industry thatʼs going on now today, the birds donʼt even want to travel here anymore. Theyʼre going around. Theyʼre finding different routes where theyʼre going to get their natural intakes... So thatʼs affected the use of harvesting for us as Native people eating wild birds (A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007).

Key non-site-specific values associated with the PRM LSA and RSA include:

• Water and river values (including quality and quantity of water and aquatic resources) associated with the Birch Mountains and including the Athabasca River (e.g., A01 Aug. 04, 2010; A29 Dec. 16, 2010; A21 Dec. 16, 2010);

• Culturally important species (including high value moose habitat, known and observed core wood bison habitat and known core woodland caribou habitat) (e.g., A01 Oct. 07, 2010; A22 Oct. 05, 2010; A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010; A12 Dec. 15, 2010);

• Access to and enjoyment of ACFN lands (especially ACFN traplines, reserves, and cultural protection areas). The PRM footprint would be the first oil sands mine within the kʼes hochela nene homeland, and would create new road access to the homeland area (e.g., A21 Oct. 13, 2010 and Dec. 16, 2010; A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A01 May 17, 2010).

• Intangible cultural resources (including ACFN language, knowledge, and sense of place) (e.g., A14 Dec. 14, 2010; A01 May 17, 2010; A21 Oct. 13, 2010 and Dec. 16, 2010).Water and River values – Quantity

The ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use Knowledge and Change Study (Candler et al 2010) highlights the Athabasca River and adjacent streams as integral resources for the culture and economy of the ACFN, that are critical to the ability of ACFN members to hunt, trap, fish, and otherwise practice their livelihood and treaty rights in a preferred



manner. Appendix 2 contains a summary of existing information regarding downstream effects of existing oil sands development on ACFN use and rights. ACFN river-based transportation routes have been documented downstream from the PRM within the LSA and RSA. One ACFN participant described the Athabasca River this way:

When we were younger the Athabasca River was … a wild beast. In other words, because it was alive, it had tremendous amount of water, it fed all the tributaries, lakes and everything. When the spring flood and that occurred … it brings life to the delta and when it brought life to the delta it also kept our people healthy, our population stable and, in other words, it sustained our way of life for our people for the existence of who we are today (A06 interview transcript, May 19, 2010).

As illustrated on Figure 16, in addition to the Athabasca River, portions of Big Creek, and Redclay Creek are reported to have been used by ACFN members as water transportation routes to access resources, and both are reported to become too low to travel on at low flow levels. The Athabasca River is a river historically and currently used by ACFN members to access large areas of traditional lands and practice livelihood and treaty rights. ACFN members report that the Athabasca has become increasingly difficult to navigate in recent years, particularly at low flows. Figure 16, based on data from Candler et al 2010, shows (in red) navigable watersheds that are known to become unnavigable at very low water, and hazards and incidents (in light yellow) downriver from the PRM along the Athabasca River.

Reductions in flow in streams flowing into the Athabasca River also contribute to low flows, and resulting navigational hazards, especially towards the Athabasca delta where the majority of ACFN Indian Reserve lands, including important seasonal village areas, are located, and where all use depends on water access. As show on Map 16, the PRM project is proposed along a stretch of the Athabasca River, extending downstream to the Poplar Point Reserve, that is reported to be particularly difficult to navigate at low water levels due to sand bars and other hazards.

6.2.1 Water and River values – Quality

…Whatever emissions come from mining that area [Birch Mountains], are going to end up in that area up there, certain winds come around and will take them up there. Whatʼs going to happen to the natural fish … weʼre not going to able to eat those too? You know, the amount of impact itʼs going to have on the traditional use of this land is, and to me itʼs scary because itʼs never going to be the same again. And what about my little guy, heʼs only four years old, you know, and eventually Iʼm going to teach him…We have to travel all the way to Chip to go teach him … the traditional use of things, and Iʼm not able to access any of the traditional uses of the other land thatʼs around us (A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007).



Figure 16: ACFN Navigation and Navigable Hazards in relation to the PRM Project



As documented in the ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use and Knowledge Study (Candler et al 2010), ACFN members have observed changes in the quality of water and aquatic resource (including perceived abnormalities in fish and contamination of medicinal plants) on the Athabasca River system. These perceived changes in quality are attributed by ACFN members to oil sands development and have led to fear and other psycho-social impacts associated with contaminants (Health Canada 2005)25. The resulting and widespread loss of confidence in the quality of fish, water and other aquatic resources is having a serious effect on ACFN knowledge and use practice. See Appendix 2 for a summary of existing information regarding downstream effects of existing oil sands development on ACFN use and rights. ACFN fishing for subsistence use has been documented within the PRM LSA, as well as downstream from the PRM project.

6.2.2 Culturally Important Species – Bison26

Based on ACFN interviews, and as shown on figure 17, the LSA, RSA, and the footprint of the PRM in particular, includes areas of observed and known core Ronald Lake Bison habitat. ACFN hunting of wood bison is current and ongoing, and has been documented within the RSA. Bison kill sites are included in the subsistence activity class shown on the RSA and LSA maps. Wood Bison are a rare and culturally important species. The Ronald Lake herd, in particular, is of unique and central cultural importance to the ACFN. ACFN oral histories indicate that wood bison were important in the past, and continue to be important, for cultural and subsistence purposes today. Prior to the 1960ʼs, bison hunting was primarily a winter activity because of the amount of meat resulting from a successful hunt. In interviews and supporting documents, ACFN members frequently make reference to the sacred nature of bison:

…thereʼs even buffalos up there, woodland buffalos, like you, that you, that live up in the Birch Mountains … So you go into (Diana Lakes) in there, thatʼs where a lot of the buffalos hang out and feed or whatever, thatʼs where they basically stay … how is that going to effect those animals there? Like theyʼre sacred those animals to the Nativeʼs, if the spiritual part of our culture is to respect those animals and we do our spiritual ceremonies, our spiritual prayers, we ask, we have respect for those animals. For me, you know, thatʼs the way I use the land, I respect it for what it is. So before I go in there and take an animal I always say a prayer and make an offering… (A06 interview transcript, July 31, 2007).

25 Health Canada (2005) identifies the following psycho-social factors associated with

contamination, at least some of which currently influence ACFN use of lands and waters: fear; feelings of vulnerability and powerlessness; anger; distrust; grief; guilt; sense of depersonalization; frustration; isolation; depression.

26 Wood bison, woodland caribou, and barren ground caribou seem to have been largely not been addressed within the proponentʼs EIA.



In an affidavit sworn January 30, 2009, Raymond Cardinal stated the following regarding bison in the area of Poplar Point:

Once you chase away the buffalo they’re not coming back, or else if they stay, because they are used to that area, what’s going to happen to them? How will their health be affected? The buffalo is sacred to us. The traditional foods will be taken away and part of my spiritual being won’t be there, because the animals won’t be there anymore.

Historic and current ACFN hunting of wood bison has been documented within the RSA (e.g., A01 Oct. 07, 2010, A12 Dec. 15, 2010). While there are other populations of wood bison in Wood Buffalo National Park, ACFN hunting is restricted within the park. ACFN participants indicate that the Ronald Lake herd is the only herd of wood bison available to ACFN hunters outside the National Park, and that it is already under pressure from non-aboriginal hunters due to a lack of legal protections. The importance of bison as a winter food source for ACFN members likely increased after the 1950s and the loss of barren ground caribou as a reliable resource. Bison are currently hunted by ACFN members, and are considered an important component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland (ACFN 2010).

6.2.3 Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground Caribou

Based on ACFN interviews, and as shown on figure 17, the LSA, the RSA and the footprint of the PRM in particular, is located within known core Birch Mountain woodland caribou habitat. Woodland caribou (Alberta boreal population) are listed as a threatened species protected under Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act, and are of key cultural importance to the ACFN. An ACFN study regarding traditional knowledge of caribou range and distribution within ACFN territory is currently under way. Historic ACFN hunting of woodland caribou has been documented within the RSA, and ACFN members indicate that the future ability to hunt caribou is desired. Both woodland and barren ground caribou are valued for their meat, and fine hide. However, supported by the historic reliance of ACFN peoples on caribou and caribou migration (Smith 1981, Tanner and Rigney 2003), the connection of ACFN to caribou is often discussed as extending far beyond subsistence. In an affidavit sworn October 1, 2010, Allan Adam stated the following:

…We have a spiritual connection and relationship with the caribou… The Dene have always lived of the caribou, regardless of whether itʼs woodland or barren ground, there has always been a connection…



While barren ground caribou migration patterns have changed since the 1950s, the PRM and JPME are located within the reported historic range of barren ground caribou. Several ACFN participants indicated that the change in caribou migration in the 1950ʼs was due to wide spread forest fires that removed lichen and other caribou food sources (A04 October 5, 2010; A24 October 5, 2010). Barren ground caribou are of key cultural importance to the ACFN and rarely encountered in the southern portions of ACFN territory since the 1950s (Tanner and Rigney 2003). ACFN hunting of barren ground caribou has been documented within the RSA.

6.2.4 Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds

the big migration of geese, theyʼre always in … the delta, and much of it is gone, the deltaʼs gone, so, much of the birds donʼt even land there, they fly over, its dried out... So pretty soon we wonʼt be able to even eat our own food and we wonʼt be able to use some of the medicinal medicine that we get from so close to the river, this big Athabasca river system. … I wonʼt eat the fish from here. No way (A07 interview transcript, August 01, 2007).

As noted in the initial ACFN traditional use study for PRM and JPME, submitted to Shell in 2008, ACFN members have reported changes in migratory bird patterns, including ducks and geese, concurrent with oil sands development. These changes are reported to have impacted the quantity of birds available for the ACFN spring bird hunt. ACFN hunting of migratory birds has been documented within the RSA and is included in the



Figure 17: Reported Core Bison and Core Caribou Habitats in relation to the Project and RSA



subsistence activity class shown in Figure 17. Migratory birds are of key cultural importance to the ACFN. The spring bird hunt is a core component of the ACFNʼs past and present seasonal round. In an affidavit sworn January 30, 2009, Raymond Cardinal stated the following:

Every Spring time, in May, I do one traditional hunt for migrating birds with my family and friends…there would normally be between 15 and 20 of us. My father taught me when I was growing up…I start hunting when I get on the Athabasca River at Fort McKay, and continue as I travel north on the river. Iʼm gone for about a week (Cardinal 2009).

6.2.5 Culturally Important Species – Plants

ACFN harvesting of culturally important plants, including berries and medicinal plants, has been documented within the PRM LSA and RSA. Several kinds of medicinal plants are collected in water, or in riparian areas such as along the Athabasca river, and adjacent streams. As with fish, ACFN members report having observed changes in the quality of water and medicinal plants on the Athabasca River system concurrent with oil sands development. These perceived changes have led to widespread loss of use and inability to confidently practice ACFN knowledge and use. Harvesting of food plants, including berries, is included in the subsistence activity class shown in Figure 17. Harvesting of medicinal plants is included in the cultural/spiritual activity class shown in the same figure.

6.2.6 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Traplines

The PRM project footprint and LSA is not located within a current ACFN trapline. The LSA is within an area formerly used as a trapline by the members of the Trip de Roche family who maintained a primary cabin on the Athabasca River and within the northern boundary of the PRM LSA.

6.2.7 Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Reserves and Cultural Protection Areas

ACFN reserve lands are located within the RSA. As documented in the ACFN and MCFN Athabasca River Use and Knowledge Study (Candler et al. 2010), and as reported by ACFN members, impacts of existing oil sands operations on ACFN reserve lands include:

• Perceived impacts on Athabasca River water quality (due to contaminant concerns, and resulting in loss of confidence in fish and other aquatic resources); and



• The impact of water withdrawals on river flow during ice free low flow periods resulting in impediments to river travel and navigation required to access many of the ACFNʼs reserve lands.

Other impacts noted by study participants, and associated with existing oil sands developments include noise, traffic, air quality, loss of access due to industry road controls, and loss of remoteness. Potential project interactions with impacts to ACFN Cultural Protection Areas are discussed below. Current objectives within homeland zones include no-net increase in linear disturbance, and no-net loss of terrestrial habitat (ACFN 2010: 20-21).

6.2.7.1 Fort MacKay Proximate Zone

As shown in Figure 2, a portion of the PRM LSA is within the Fort MacKay proximate zone, an area that includes lands and waters identified as currently relied upon by ACFN members living in and around the Fort MacKay settlement, or in Fort McMurray (ACFN 2010). Despite impacts, ACFN use and occupancy in the Fort MacKay Proximate zone is current and ongoing, especially by families affiliated with the Point Brule and Poplar Point settlements within k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland). Many also have strong family connection to members of Fort MacKay First Nation. This proximate zone includes areas east and west of the Athabasca River, extending in the west to the area of Gardiner Lakes, and east to the Firebag River and is generally accessible by road from Fort MacKay or Fort McMurray. The Proximate Zone is identified as important to ACFN use, despite impacts, in part because it is readily accessible in terms of distance from settlement and because specialized equipment, for example, boats and snowmobiles are not required to access much of it. As the zone become increasingly polluted and otherwise impacted by oil sands development, ACFN use may shift to other areas where constraints of travel time and expense allow. However, with each removal of lands from meaningful practice of the subsistence economy comes an associated reduction in access to tangible resources, for the same population. This leads to competition increases, costs increase, opportunities for transmission of knowledge are lost, and the number of ACFN members who no longer feel able to practice their rights as frequently as they would like, or at all, increases. Because of existing impacts including restricted and gated access to areas controlled by oil sands companies, traffic, disturbance, and perceived pollution, since the late 1990s many ACFN members have lost use of large portions of this proximate zone for the practice of rights, including subsistence rights. The area includes important ACFN traplines, camps, cabins, trails, hunting, fishing and resource procurement areas, habitat areas used historically and currently by bison and woodland caribou, as well as other species, and cultural/spiritual areas. Despite adverse impacts, practice of ACFN use and



rights in this zone by some members (e.g., A14 Sec. 14, 2010; A21 Dec. 16, 2010) remains strong. However, available evidence suggests that adverse effects from oil sands has already reached a threshold where many ACFN members feel that harvesting of resources such as fish, moose, or medicinal plants is no longer safe throughout much of this zone. As a result, several ACFN members who relied upon the Fort MacKay proximate zone up to recent years now must travel further (north of the Firebag River, or south to the Fort McMurray proximate zone) in order to practice use and rights, or alternately, are not able to practice due to the elimination of meaningful opportunities formerly relied upon.

6.2.7.2 Athabasca River Critical Waterway Zone

As shown in Figure 2, The PRM footprint and LSA is also within the Athabasca critical waterway zone. The Athabasca River is central to the practice of ACFN use, and is already subject to extensive water withdrawals and impacts from upstream industry. As such, it is considered by ACFN members to be particularly vulnerable to additional industrial effects.

6.2.7.3 k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland)

As shown in Figure 2, The PRM footprint and LSA also spans the k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland). The majority of the PRM footprint and LSA including the crossing of the Athabasca River falls within k'es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland). The k'es hochela nene homeland includes lands and waters critical to ACFN members, and particularly those families affiliated with the Poplar Point (IR Chipewyan 201G) and Point Brule (IR Chipewyan 201F) areas. It has been identified by the ACFN as an area that is critical to historic, current, and future ACFN use and practice of rights (ACFN 2010). It includes areas west of the Athabasca River to the Birch Mountains and east of the Athabasca River into Saskatchewan. West of the Athabasca River, the southern and western boundaries of this homeland are defined by wood bison range extending south and west from the area of Ronald Lakes, extending into the Birch Mountains. Bison from this area are relied upon heavily by ACFN members, and are especially critical to those families affiliated with the Poplar Point and Point Brule areas. Impacts to this area are being experienced as a result of recreational use of the area and oil sands exploration. To date, no oil sands mines operate in kʼes hochela nene. As an area where ACFN use and rights can still be meaningfully practiced, the importance of k'es hochela nene is likely to increase as industrial effects continue to accumulate upstream along the Athabasca.



6.2.8 Intangible Cultural Resources – Knowledge and Language

In additional to concerns regarding impact to more concrete values, many ACFN participants also identified concerns regarding the potential impact of oil sands developments on intangible cultural resources, including language and the transmission of knowledge regarding areas of lost use resulting from industrial effects. Particular kinds of knowledge, in the form of place based stories, place names, and histories, are associated with particular places (Basso 1996), and the cultural practices, or uses, that take place there. Actions that destroy a place, or cause the use of a place to be lost (for example, because of fear of contaminants), especially over long periods of time, frequently result in a gap in the transmission of place based knowledge, and eliminates the place as a cultural resource for remembering, teaching, and learning the knowledge associated with it. Other kinds of knowledge may not be associated with a particular place, but with an aesthetic feeling, or sense associated with particular kinds of places, especially ones that are considered ʻnatural.ʼ In the PRM area, several ACFN families have particularly strong oral histories and place based knowledge associated with the LSA.

6.3 Assessment of PRM Project Effects

… the landscape sure looks pretty sad with all those trees gone … first it was burned, then a whole bunch of trees were gone and now thereʼs a big pit there like a moonscape. And itʼs hard to feel happy and excited to go in the bush when you have to drive through the mine and the pits and everything to get there and once your there you feel like, you know, theyʼre moving in, theyʼre getting closer, theyʼre right there, theyʼre coming, theyʼre at your door. It kind of takes away the excitement and the fun and adventure of being out there in the bush in the wild when all of thatʼs going on. I mean you see it, you could smell it, you could taste it, you could feel it, you know, thatʼs what theyʼre doing, you could hear it. So it effects all of your senses so of course itʼs going to effect you right? Unless you totally donʼt care, then. Maybe thatʼs why people just drink so they donʼt have to think about it (A01 interview transcript, July 27, 2007).

Based on the proponentʼs application (V.5: 1-14), construction of the PRM was anticipated to have begun in 2010, operations in 2018, and closure activities in 2049. Construction, operation, closure, and post-closure activities will result in clearing and taking up of lands, and may have effects on any or all of the categories of site-specific and non-site-specific traditional use values identified in the LSA and RSA through direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, perceived or actual contamination on traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to lost or reduced use. The following are anticipated project effects on site-specific VCs.



6.3.1 Anticipated PRM Project Effects on Site-specific VCs within the LSA and RSA

6.3.1.1 Site-specific Subsistence Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects, the PRM footprint will destroy and/or render un-useable preferred and site-specific ACFN hunting, trapping, and food gathering values within the PRM footprint, including past, current, and planned future use areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. The proposed location of the PRM is in a preferred corridor for moose hunting. Within the LSA, up to 21 documented ACFN site-specific subsistence values, most related to moose, will be adversely impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, and fear associated with increased contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use. Of those 21, 8 documented ACFN site- specific subsistence values are inside or within 250 m of the project footprint and will be destroyed and/or rendered essentially un-useable by the project. These include important and currently used moose, small game (grouse), and plant food harvesting areas inside or within the project footprint.

Within the RSA, and including the LSA, more than 1,500 ACFN site-specific subsistence values have been documented including a large concentration of values in the Athabasca delta. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, and including ACFN values in the Athabasca Delta, the values most at risk of project effects are downstream of the PRM project along the Athabasca River. ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these subsistence values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of access effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during ice free periods of low flow, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to lost or reduced use. Also see non-site-specific effects below.

6.3.1.2 Site-specific Habitation Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will impact, destroy and/or render unusable preferred ACFN habitation values within the LSA and RSA, including past, current, and planned future use areas. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

Within the LSA, up to 14 documented ACFN site-specific habitation values will be impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and



recreational access, and increases in perceived contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, upon which use of habitation areas rely, leading to increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use. Two documented ACFN site-specific subsistence values are inside or within 250 m of the project footprint and will be likely be destroyed or rendered un-useable by the project. These include a camp location at Clausenʼs Landing at the southernmost extent of the PRM footprint that is regularly used by ACFN members as a base for hunting activities. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, 268 ACFN site-specific subsistence values have been documented. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, values most at risk of project effects are those downstream of the project along the Muskeg and the Athabasca Rivers. These include regularly used cabins, and the most critical village sites and Indian Reserve lands of the ACFN. As with subsistence values noted above, ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that these habitation values are likely to be impacted by the project through anticipated effects on Athabasca River levels during ice free low flow periods, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, upon which use of habitation areas rely, leading to potential lost or reduced use.

6.3.1.3 Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, no site-specific ACFN cultural/spiritual values were identified within the LSA. Due to the limited information available, absence of information does not necessarily mean absence of value. Within the RSA, and including the LSA, more than 200 ACFN site-specific cultural / spiritual values are documented. These include ceremonial places, medicine collection places, and major burial sites sensitive to a variety of effects, including water level and water quality changes. ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these cultural / spiritual values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of anticipated effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during low flow. See non-site-specific concerns below.

6.3.1.4 Site-specific Transportation Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure PRM project effects will destroy and/or render unusable ACFN transportation values within the LSA and RSA, including documented trails and water routes associated with past and current use. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.



Within the PRM LSA, portions of two documented ACFN site-specific transportation values (a trail and a water route along the Athabasca River) will likely be impacted, destroyed or rendered unusable by the PRM project. The recorded trail is used to access hunting areas for bison and moose within the LSA, to the north and into the Birch Mountains. If not destroyed by direct disturbance, this trail would be impacted by reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, or other disturbances. Figure 16 shows reported hazards and incidents along the Athabasca River, including sand bars, mostly encountered at low water levels. The PRM project is proposed for a portion of the Athabasca River, extending downstream to Poplar Point, that is reported to be particularly susceptible to sand bars and transportation hazards at low flow levels. Project water withdrawals from the Athabasca River, and diversion of streams otherwise flowing into the Athabasca River, are likely to contribute to lower flow levels on the Athabasca downstream of the PRM project. Based on Candler et al. 2010, reported effects of sand bars and hazards include:

• Lost access to side channels and streams adjoining the River (see Figure 16);

• Increased travel time and expense due to reduced speed and need for increased care;

• Increased travel time and expense due to getting stuck on sand bars (including occasional inability to find a channel through);

• Increased travel time and expense due to avoidance of sand bar areas (including large areas where the Athabasca delta joins Lake Athabasca);

• Damage to boats, engines, and equipment; and

• Safety concerns related to collisions with sand bars or other hazards.

Figure 16 also shows that at least portions of Redclay Creek and Big Creek are reported to be navigable at adequate flow levels, and to be water routes used by ACFN members for accessing resources. The PRM project footprint would involve diversion and impoundment of portions of Big Creek, thereby removing it as a resource for future meaningful practice of ACFN use. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, values most at risk are those downstream of the project along the Athabasca River. These include water transportation routes, including access to reserve lands critical to ACFN use and rights practice in the Athabasca Delta, on the Athabasca River, and in adjacent rivers and streams. ACFN memberʼs observations that oil sands related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of anticipated effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during ice-free low water periods. See non-site-specific concerns below.



6.3.1.5 Site-specific Environmental Feature Values

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will destroy and/or disturb site-specific ACFN environmental feature values including past, current, and planned future habitat areas for wood bison and woodland caribou. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Within the LSA, up to six documented ACFN site-specific environmental features will be impacted by direct disturbance, reduced ACFN access, increased industry and recreational access, perceived increases in contamination of traditional resources or foods, including plants and animals, leading to increased scope and intensity of avoidance or reduced use, as well as other disturbances. These include reported core woodland caribou (a culturally important species) habitat, core range of a unique and culturally important population of Wood Bison, areas of high quality and river accessible moose habitat (culturally important) including an east – west moose travel corridor crossing the Athabasca River. Portions of three of these are inside or within 250 m of the project footprint, including areas of Bison and Moose habitat. These portions would be destroyed or rendered un-useable by the project. Due to a reported lack of legal protection from hunting by non-aboriginal hunters, ACFN elders and knowledge holders identify the Wood Bison population of the area as especially vulnerable to increased access by recreational hunters and industry likely to result from a bridge crossing the Athabasca, as planned as part of the PRM. See non-site-specific values below. Beyond the LSA, but within the RSA, the environmental feature values most at risk of project effects are areas of core Wood Bison habitat north and west of the PRM that would be subject to increased access by recreational hunting and industry, and areas of core caribou habitat immediately west of PRM. Some or all of these environmental feature values are likely to be impacted by the project as a result of effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during low flow, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to avoidance or reduced use. See non-site-specific concerns below.

6.3.2 Anticipated PRM Effects on Non-Site-specific VCs

6.3.2.1 PRM Effects on Water and River Values – Quantity

ACFN members have identified the level of water in the Athabasca River and adjacent streams to be of concern within the LSA and RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, it is estimated that construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will destroy or disturb large areas of muskeg, wetlands, and stretches of rivers and streams within the footprint, and is likely to impede the practice of



ACFN use along Big Creek and downstream of the project by reducing water levels flowing into the Athabasca River, or extracting water from the Athabasca during low flow periods. The PRM project is likely to increase the intensity, scope and area of existing patterns of ACFN loss of use due to lower water levels downstream of the project along the Athabasca River (Candler et al 2010). This effect will be most pronounced during ice free low water periods and is likely to result in impeded access to past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. Documented existing impacts to ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice related to water levels include loss of access to large areas of traditional lands along the Athabasca River and adjoining tributaries, increased incidence of sand bars and navigational hazards (see 6.3.1.4 above), ecological change, including vegetation changes and changes in channel and channel migration, and loss of access to Indian Reserves (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) lands leading to increased avoidance, reduced use, and loss of knowledge transmission opportunities (Candler et al 2010) . These changes are likely to be most pronounced downstream of the PRM and in the Athabasca delta area where the majority of ACFN reserve lands, and the greatest intensity of ACFN use values occurs. See Appendix 2 for additional detail.

6.3.2.2 PRM Effects on Water and River Values – Quality

ACFN members have identified the quality of water, particularly water of the Athabasca River, to be a concern within the LSA and RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will contribute to already high perceived levels of industrial contaminants within the ACFN environment. Currently perceived levels of water borne contaminants, in combination with other changes, are having serious psycho-social effects and resulting in wide spread avoidance (e.g., A01 Aug. 04, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010; A28 Oct. 06, 2010) and loss of use by ACFN members in the region (Candler et al 2010). The project is likely to result in increased intensity, scope and area of ACFN avoidance and loss of use, particularly downstream of the project along the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers and including past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence. As shown in Figure 15, current avoidance patterns related to existing industrial development indicate that the PRM footprint and LSA are located at the northern extent of a larger area of lost ACFN use surrounding existing oil sands mines. While thresholds of practice/avoidance have not been quantified, existing patterns, and the response of ACFN elders and land users (e.g., A01 Aug. 04, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010; A28 Oct. 06, 2010), indicates that the PRM project would expand existing avoidance patterns into the



k'es hochela nene or Poplar Point Homeland, and would likely include increased intensity, scope and area of avoidance by ACFN members. Documented existing impacts to ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice related to water quality (Candler et al 2010) include observed adverse changes (including changes in taste, odor, and observed sheen) in traditional drinking water sources, and observed adverse changes in traditionally relied upon aquatic resources (abnormal fish, tainted aquatic medicines and moose meat). These are directly related to patterns of general avoidance of subsistence resources (aquatic and terrestrial) south of the Firebag River, and general avoidance of aquatic resources (fish, and in some cases aquatic medicines) extending throughout the Athabasca delta (figure 15), including ACFN Indian Reserve (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) lands, and leading to increased avoidance, reduced use, and loss of knowledge transmission opportunities. ACFN avoidance patterns related to the LSA are not universal, but are widespread (e.g., A01 Aug. 04, 2010; A13 Aug. 06, 2010; A28 Oct. 06, 2010; A30 Dec. 16, 2010). Project related avoidance and loss of use due to concerns regarding contaminants are likely to be most pronounced downstream of the project in the area of the Firebag River, and in the Athabasca delta area where the majority of ACFN reserve lands, and the greatest intensity of ACFN use values occurs. See Appendix 2 for additional detail.

6.3.2.3 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Wood Bison

ACFN members have identified core wood bison habitat within the LSA and RSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb or destroy observed and known core Wood Bison habitat identified by ACFN knowledge holders, which intersects the footprint of the PRM project. The project will have adverse effects on Wood Bison habitat, and has the potential, through increasing non-aboriginal hunting access, to eliminate a preferred, unique, and culturally important resource from ACFN access. Subject to a lack of available information regarding project interactions with Bison, this effect is anticipated with a moderate degree of confidence. It is unclear from the proponentʼs application whether or not project effects on wood bison were evaluated. Based on the precautionary principle, in the absence of information regarding the likely effect of the project on culturally important and unique wood bison, high levels of caution should be applied. In addition to footprint effects on wood bison habitat, ACFN participants indicate that, due to lack of provincial recognition, the Ronald Lake herd is currently vulnerable to, and being reduced by, unregulated hunting due to a lack of legal protections. Creation of road access to the PRM area, including a bridge across the Athabasca River, is expected to result in increased non-aboriginal hunting pressure. Based on reported ACFN expectations, in the absence of legal protections, the elimination of the Ronald Lake herd, and so the species, from ACFN use is likely. Wood bison are currently hunted



by ACFN members, and are considered an essential component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland (ACFN 2010). In addition to disturbing or destroying observed and known core habitat, and increased access to wood bison by non-aboriginal hunters, the project is also anticipated to increase perceived contamination potentially resulting in increased ACFN avoidance or loss of use specific to wood bison.

6.3.2.4 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Woodland Caribou and Barren Ground Caribou

ACFN members have identified core woodland caribou habitat within the RSA and LSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb or destroy the range, and possibly core habitat of culturally important populations of woodland caribou resident in Birch Mountain area, as well as portions of the historic range of barren ground caribou. Project effects will adversely impact the current or potential availability of woodland caribou and barren ground caribou as preferred, unique, and culturally important resources for ACFN knowledge and use practice. Ethnographic material (Smith 1981) and ACFN interviews indicate that woodland caribou were important in the past, remain highly valued, and are an essential component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland and beyond. Subject to a lack of available information regarding project interactions with woodland caribou and barren ground caribou or habitat, this effect is anticipated with a moderate degree of confidence. It is unclear from the proponentʼs application if project effects on woodland caribou or barren ground caribou were evaluated, despite their current or historic presence in the project footprint27. In addition to disturbing or destroying caribou range, the project is also anticipated to increase perceived contamination potentially resulting in decreased or lost use by ACFN members.

27 As discussed in Volume 5, section 7-37, one woodland caribou track was observed within the JPME

LSA. The Traditional Land Use Setting Report indicates that at least three separate trapline holders indicated that Woodland Caribou frequent, or used to frequent, the LSA.



6.3.2.5 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Migratory Birds

ACFN members have identified migratory bird hunting areas within the RSA and LSA. Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects may disturb migration routes, and the availability of culturally important populations of migratory birds including various species of duck, geese, cranes, and other birds. ACFN knowledge holders have reported a downward trend in the number of migratory birds transiting the PRM LSA and RSA in recent decades. Project effects related to removal of muskeg, drying of upland lakes, reduced water levels downstream of the project (including in the Athabasca Delta), as well as intentional disturbance of birds and flyways through use of cannons, may further adversely impact the current or potential availability of migratory birds as preferred and culturally important resources for ACFN knowledge and use practice. Ethnographic material (Smith 1981, Tanner and Rigney 2003) and ACFN interviews indicate that migratory birds, especially Spring waterfowl, were important in the past, are currently highly valued, and are an essential component of planned future ACFN use in kʼes hochela nene homeland and beyond. This effect is anticipated with a medium degree of confidence due to lack of detailed ACFN knowledge and use studies focused on migratory birds. In addition to potentially disturbing migration patterns, the PRM project is also anticipated to increase perceived contamination potentially resulting in increased ACFN avoidance or loss of use related to migratory birds.

6.3.2.6 PRM Effects on Culturally Important Species – Plants

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb culturally important plant species including berries and medicine plants. Due to increased perceived contamination of plant resources from upstream oil sands mines, the PRM project is likely to result in increased intensity, scope and area of ACFN avoidance, and loss of use downstream of the project along the Athabasca Rivers and including past, current, and planned future use areas, documented areas of traditional use, and ACFN Indian Reserves. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

6.3.2.7 PRM Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN Lands – Traplines

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will disturb or eliminate ACFN access and enjoyment of lands associated with a historic trapline west of the Athabasca River and associated with the Trip de Roche family. Project effects within the LSA will include



loss of access and enjoyment due to project related fencing and road controls, traffic, noise, dust, smell, ground disturbance, and perceived contamination of air, ground, and water. This effect is anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

6.3.2.8 PRM Effects on Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands – ACFN Indian Reserves and cultural protection areas

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure project effects will contribute to the disturbance or elimination of ACFN access and enjoyment of lands associated with ACFN Indian Reserves (Chipewyan 201, 201 C, 201 E, 201 F, 201 G) downstream of the project. Portions of Chipewyan 201 and 201E located away from the main channel of the Athabasca River are particularly vulnerable to loss of access due to declining water levels. Project effects on ACFN Indian Reserves will also include increased perceived contamination of air and water in the vicinity of ACFN reserves, and particularly Chipewyan 201G (Poplar Point). The project, as currently proposed, will not support ACFN management goals identified in ACFNʼs submission on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (ACFN 2010) including no-net loss of habitat, and no-net increase of linear disturbance within Cultural Protection Areas and kʼes hochela nene homeland. These effects are anticipated with a high degree of confidence.

6.3.3 PRM Effects on Intangible Cultural Resources

Based on reported ACFN knowledge, and review of project information, construction, operation, closure and post-closure, project effects are likely to reduce or eliminate opportunities for the transmission of ACFN knowledge and language, including place names and place based knowledge (Basso 1996), specific to the LSA. This would contribute to the erosion and, over time, loss of ACFN knowledge and language specific to the PRM footprint and LSA, and potentially extending to other portions of the RSA as a result of loss of use due to impediments to access and travel by water related to low flow levels on the Athabasca River, and potential expansion of loss of use areas associated with perceived effects of industrial oil sands mining. These effects are anticipated with a high degree of confidence



6.4 Existing PRM Mitigations

The proponentʼs applications identify five mitigations specific to First Nations Knowledge and Land Use (p. 8-48, 49). The mitigations are:

• Compensation for Directly Affected Trapline Holders;

• Continued Consultation With Key aboriginal Groups;

• Access to Traplines;

• Employee/Contractor Education; and

• Reclamation.

Appendix 3 contains a summary of other mitigations committed to by the proponent within the applications and associated documents. At best, these constitute partial mitigations to the anticipated effects of the project for the following reasons:

• As noted in 2.2.1 above, compensation to trapline holders may be a mitigation for loss of commercial trapping rights, but is not a mitigation for impacts to aboriginal use and constitutional rights;

• Regarding reclamation, as discussed in 5.4.1 below, the proponentʼs assumptions regarding the ability to restore landscapes consistent with ACFN tangible and intangible cultural values is considered unreasonably optimistic by ACFN elders and knowledge holders;

• While supported access to traplines through the mine footprint is useful, based on past experience in the region, and reports from ACFN members, it is unlikely to provide an effective mitigation to ACFN avoidance of areas due to larger access and disturbance issues;

• Cultural education of Shell employees and contractors is positive, but it is unclear what anticipated project effect this is a mitigation for;

• Continued consultation with key aboriginal groups is also positive, but consultation with aboriginal groups is generally a responsibility delegated to the proponent by the Crown (and so is not a mitigation). In the absence of a formal shared decision making process, or PRM project co-management arrangements, it is unclear how the proponent could structure ongoing consultation in a manner that could provide reliable mitigation of anticipated project effects.

6.4.1 Oil Sands Mine Reclamation and ACFN Knowledge and Use

While the technology of reclamation continues to improve, and proponents in the region have show slow progress in reclamation, there is little evidence that the proponentʼs



reclamation plan can reasonably be expected to re-create cultural or ecological landscapes consistent with aboriginal traditions of knowledge and use. The practice of ACFN use and treaty rights involves access to subsistence resources, but also requires the ability to practice and transmit place-based cultural knowledge that is essential to the ʻmode of lifeʼ. Even if perfect reclamation of the physical and cultural landscape was possible, a common standard of socio-cultural impact assessment is that where an area has been removed from aboriginal use for one generation (approximately 22 years), impacts to the transmission of knowledge regarding that area are considered permanent and irreversible. Where disturbance involves removal of landforms and where areas relied on for teaching are fundamentally altered or made inaccessible, then the role of landscape in transmitting knowledge and values (Basso 1996) is fundamentally and irrevocably changed through development. Several ACFN participants expressed clear skepticism regarding the ability of proponents to reclaim lands in a manner consistent with ACFN knowledge and use values:

…if a company sayʼs itʼs going to dig a hole and then youʼre going to replant, the hole is already dug, right, the spirit of the land is gone when youʼre digging, when you dig a big kick ass hole like… ten mile radius, the spirit of that land is gone. Itʼll never come back, even if you put trees, muskeg and trees back and throw a couple of buffalos there, itʼs never the same…you can still see the type of land that they put back, is almost the same, but it certainly is not. Itʼs all spaced and coordinated… and trees are all nicely spaced in rows like theyʼre planting apple trees or something. Johnny Apple Seed was there. [laughter]… and out in Poplar Point, you know, itʼs wild and itʼs beautiful…No matter what they do, theyʼll never be, ever, ever the same. All they got to do is stay away from it, thatʼs the only thing, if they want to keep it the same, just stay away. (A03 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

They say there going to make it better then it was. There is a reason why that bush is thick right there (agreeing) You know, because they plant trees and vegetation far apart and make it look pretty yeah does that make it better. It doesnʼt make it better, that is there for a reason. It vegetates something there. It takes care of some kind of species in there or some kind of animal or some kind of vegetation species thatʼs in there. Its scared a species to us as native people, thereʼs medicine in these trees that we use, theyʼre certain types trees that look that those jack pines, there actually tamarack, those small little tamarack, thatʼs good medicine for upset bellyʼs and stuff like that. We use that stuff…you going to put those back? Are they going to be sacred still? You still going to be nurtured from what was naturally there before, not what was all taken out from underneath it. Put it all back, thereʼs sand and mud and whatever,



and then put a soil on it and plant it and put it up again? I donʼt think itʼs sacred anymore, itʼs been disturbed. That affects us that way, you know, our rat root thatʼs, a lot of rat root grow in marshes around this area here, in the Shell project…Muskeg River…what about the rat root that is so sacred to the people too, you know, that we use for a number of things, not only colds and headaches and upset stomachs, it works as a natural medicine that one, it helps everything in your body. As long as you respect, you do, my traditional ways is you pray to that medicine and ask for it to help you, and it does, you know, if you believe. Those are my concerns, you know if oil sands go in there, theyʼre going to disrupt that, pretty hard to put it back the way it was. You can say itʼs better, but naturally it isnʼt… if you want to make a difference then donʼt mine. Youʼll save our children, youʼll save your children. (A06 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

There is also skepticism that industry will actually be around long enough to reclaim the land:

You think industry is going to around forever, what happens when everything collapses around here, the oil prices drop out of the sky? And everybody just getʼs up and leaves. Is he just going to leave everything the way it is? Be another Uranium City? How is it going to affect the people that live off the land, once youʼre gone?... (A06 interview transcript, July 30, 2007).

Based on ACFN experience, even the best and most sensitive reclamation techniques cannot be expected to reverse or fully mitigate impacts to ACFN use values. Compensation and mitigation is less desirable than avoidance or minimization of impacts.

6.5 PRM Residual Project Effects

Given anticipated project effects on ACFN knowledge and use, and considering existing mitigations proposed by the proponent in the applications (described above and in appendix 3), the residual (post-mitigation) effects of the PRM project are anticipated to range from moderate to very high. Figure 18 provides a characterization of the residual effects, and a rating of environmental consequence for each VC:



Figure 18: Environmental Consequence of PRM

Valu

e

Dire

ctio

n

Mag

nitu

de

Geo

grap

hic

exte

nt

Dura

tion

Reve

rsib

ility

Freq

uenc

y

Envi

ronm

enta

l Co

nseq

uenc

e

Site-specific Subsistence Values Negative high (+15)

regional (+1): extends beyond LSA into RSA

long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)

high (+2): continuous Very High (23)

Site-specific Habitation Values Negative high (+15)


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Site-specific Cultural/ Spiritual Values Negative low (+5)


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)

high (+2): continuous Moderate (13)

Site-specific Transportation Values Negative moderate

(+10) regional (+1):

extends beyond LSA into RSA

long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)

moderate (+1):

intermittent High (17)

Site-specific Environmental Features Negative high (+15)


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Water and River values (quantity) Negative high (+15)


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)

moderate (+1):

intermittent Very High (22)

Water and River values (quality) Negative high (+15)

regional (+1): effect extends

beyond the LSA into the RSA

long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Culturally Important Species (Woodland Bison)

Negative high (+15)



long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Culturally Important Species (Woodland and Barren Ground Caribou)

Negative moderate (+15)



long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Culturally Important Species (migratory birds)

Negative low (+5) regional (+1): effect extends


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Culturally Important Species (plants) Negative low (+5)



long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN traplines)

Negative low (+5) regional (+1): effect extends


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)


Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN IRs and cultural protection areas)

Negative high (+15) regional (+1): effect extends


long-term (+2): >20

years

irreversible (+3)

moderate (+1):

intermittent High (22)



6.6 Significance of Residual PRM Effects

Based on available information, residual project effects (separate from effects of other projects) of the PRM on ACFN knowledge and use would be adverse and of moderate to very high environmental consequence. The most serious adverse effects associated with PRM are likely to occur in the following areas:

• Disturbance or destruction of important subsistence, habitation, transportation and environmental feature values in the LSA, primarily related to moose and bison hunting. The Ronald Lakes Bison, in particular, are rare, vulnerable, and culturally important. Given the baseline context of minimal pre-existing impact, and in the absence of effective provincial and First Nations legislative protection and enforcement, the industrial footprint disturbance and increased access by sport hunters to Bison core habitat is considered likely to impact or destroy the last remaining viable and accessible wood bison within ACFNʼs traditional lands, and result in complete or near complete ACFN loss of access28 to Bison for multiple generations. This effect would likely result in strong concern or interest from the ACFN members affected, and would be a clearly discernable (measurable or perceivable) change to their preferred exercise of a culturally important practice, land use or right. As such, this would be a significant adverse effect.

• Given the baseline of pre-existing impact along the Athabasca River, the project is likely to expand and intensify ACFN loss of use areas by increasing perceived contamination resulting in fear and other psycho-social effects, and impacting water based transport extending downstream along the Athabasca River. This is likely to contribute to the loss or avoidance of use of preferred hunting, fishing and plant collecting areas, and culturally important camps and habitation values in the vicinity of the project and downstream along the Athabasca River. Loss of use is likely to result in strong concern or interest by ACFN members affected, and would be a clearly discernable (measurable or perceivable) change to the preferred exercise of a culturally important practice, land use or right. As such, this would be a significant adverse effect

The primary finding of this assessment is that the PRM project (not in combination with other projects) is likely to have significant adverse residual effects on ACFN knowledge and use, particularly in relation to effects on wood bison, and downstream loss of use due to perceived contaminants and effects on the Athabasca River at low flow levels. The primary recommendation of this assessment is that the proponent and the Federal and Provincial Crown undertake a process, agreeable to and involving the ACFN, to ensure that adequate quantity and quality of resources exist for the continuation of ACFN

28 This is a precautionary assessment of effect due to the lack of information available on likely

project interactions with Wood Bison.



knowledge and use into the future. This process should prioritize avoiding and reducing impacts over mitigating them. Where impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided then they should be mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, using effective strategies agreeable to the ACFN. If impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, then permission for JPME and PRM to proceed should require consent from the Federal and Provincial Crown, and authorized representatives of the ACFN.



Section 7: Summary and Conclusion

7.1 JPME and PRM Combined Summary of Baseline and Cumulative Impact Assessment

The proposed JPME and PRM projects are both located within the Treaty 8 area and within lands historically and currently relied upon by ACFN members for the practice of knowledge, use and rights under Treaty 8, including hunting, trapping, gathering, fishing, and associated cultural and livelihood practices. Figure 19 layers reported ACFN loss of use areas with reported use values in the RSA. It shows the overlap between reported areas of aquatic loss of use (in transparent blue) and reported terrestrial loss of use (transparent grey), with reported ACFN site-specific knowledge and use values. The footprints of the proposed projects, taken together:

• Include or are within 250 m of 48 documented ACFN site-specific values, including historically and currently used cabins and camps, trails, habitat areas, and hunting areas;

• Include or are within 5 km of 100 documented ACFN site-specific values, including 27 accounts of permanent or temporary habitation;

• Include core habitat for Ronald Lake bison, Birch Mountain woodland caribou, and moose, all of which are historically and currently relied upon by ACFN members for subsistence, and are culturally important;

• Are within portions of the Fort MacKay Proximate Zone, and kʼos hechela nene (Poplar Point Homeland), which are ACFN Cultural Protection Areas identified in submissions to the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan;

• Are within historic and currently used ACFN traplines, one of which is currently registered under an ACFN member (Marvin LʼHommecourt, RFMA 1714), and will increase the total industrial disturbance area to approximately 60% of the total trapline area. Because much of the remaining area has no road access, or is otherwise burnt or disturbed, the viable area remaining for ACFN use within RFMA 1714 is likely far less than 40% of the remaining area;



Figure 19: Reported ACFN Site-specific Use Values within the PRM Regional Study Area



• Are within the Muskeg River and larger Athabasca River watersheds, both of which are already subject to ACFN loss of use due to water quality problems and low flows (Candler et al 2010). Multiple specific incidents of lost hunting and fishing use due to quality concerns (including multiple reports of abnormal fish and moose meat) have been reported by ACFN elders and land users near the confluence of the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers, along with specific and general avoidance behaviors related to existing impacts from industrial change, and existing concerns regarding safety and pollution; and

• Include diversion of Muskeg River, Pemmican Creek, Green Stockings Creek, Blackfly Creek, Wesukemina Creek, Lyinimin Creek, Pierre River, Eymundson Creek, Asphalt Creek and Big Creek. The projects will remove water totaling approximately 73 million m3 per year29 from the Athabasca River. This translates roughly to the amount of water, every year, in 29,200 Olympic swimming pools30 or a single pool 2m deep, 6 km long and 6 km wide31. Additional water will be removed from streams and ground water sources that, in the absence of the projects, would otherwise contribute to the Athabasca River.

Based on the concurrent timelines described in the project descriptions, the effects of the PRM and JPME projects will be experienced together, along with the effects of other industrial projects, by ACFN members and land users. Where both projects have been found to have significant impacts on their own, taken together these effects are compounded. In particular, fear of contaminants and other psycho-social effects, and reduced water levels during ice free low flow periods, are likely to result in expanded and intensified loss of use areas, and are likely to be subject to synergistic effects between the projects. Based on existing information, and in the absence of additional effective mitigations, the projects together are likely to result in significant adverse residual project effects in multiple areas (see Sections 5 and 6), and to have effects of high to very high environmental consequence on the following VCs:

• Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN IRs and cultural protection areas);

• Access and Enjoyment of ACFN lands (ACFN traplines);

• Culturally Important Species (Woodland Bison);

• Culturally Important Species (Woodland and barren ground caribou);

• Water and River values (quality);

• Water and River values (quantity);

• Site-specific Transportation Values;

29 Estimate is based on water license amounts indicated in the project descriptions (V.1:10-9 and V.2:

10-10 of the EIA). 30 This assumes a pool volume of 2500 m3 (a 25m x 50m x 2m pool). 31 An area of approximately 3650 ha.



• Site-specific Habitation Values;

• Site-specific Subsistence Values; and

• Site-specific Environmental Features.

Effects on ACFN knowledge and use are also likely to interact with effects from other projects to exacerbate or aggravate residual project effects, resulting in cumulative effects. A detailed assessment of cumulative effects on ACFN knowledge, use and rights practice resulting from project activities in combination with other existing and proposed projects in the area was beyond the scope of this report and is recommended prior to approval of the applications. The detailed cumulative effects assessment should include potential mitigations and ongoing community-based monitoring recommendations.

7.2 Monitoring and Accountability

Due to the nature and extent of project effects, it is likely that mitigation of several project effects will not be possible. Should the project be approved, monitoring and accountability measures agreeable to the ACFN should be established. The goal of these should be to develop a community based monitoring and accountability program that ACFN members trust, and that communicates effectively regarding actual risks and effects, and what they should mean for how ACFN members use their lands.

7.3 Recommendations

The primary recommendation of this assessment is that the proponent and the Federal and Provincial Crown undertake a process, agreeable to and involving the ACFN, to ensure that adequate quantity and quality of resources exist for the continuation of ACFN knowledge and use into the future. This process should prioritize avoiding and reducing impacts over mitigating them. Where impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided then they should be mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, using effective strategies agreeable to the ACFN. If impacts to ACFN knowledge and use cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a significant level, as defined in this report, then permissions for JPME to proceed should require consent from the Federal and Provincial Crown, and authorized representatives of the ACFN.



7.4 Closure

Should there be questions or clarification required regarding this report and assessment, please email requests to [email protected]. Signed April 20, 2011. ORIGINAL SIGNED Craig Candler, Ph.D. (Cultural Anthropology) Director, Community Studies and First Nations Consultation __________________________ The Firelight Group 864 Dunsmuir, Victoria, BC, V9A 5B7 T: +1 (250) 590-9017 C: +1 (250) 220-2064 E: [email protected] cc/ro/cw/dt/gg/sd



Section 8: References Cited

A01 Interview Transcript, May 17, 2010, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A02 Interview Transcript, July 28th, 2007, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A03 Interview Transcript, July 30th, 2007, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A03 Interview Transcript, May 18, 2010, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A04 Interview Transcript, May 18, 2010, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A05 Interview Transcript, July 2007, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A06 Interview Transcript, May 19, 2010, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A07 Interview Transcript, August 01, 2007, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. A14 Interview Transcript, December 14, 2010, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. ACFN — (2008) Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Study for the Proposed Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project. Ft. McMurray, Alberta: ACFN IRC unpublished report. — (2010) Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Advice to the Government of Alberta Regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan. Unpublished document provided to the Land Use Secretariat, November 22, 2010 Basso, Keith. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. Berkes, Fikret. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Palmer, Andie. (2005). Maps of Experience: The Anchoring of Land to Story in Secwepemc Discourse. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.



Candler, C. , Rachel Olson and Steven DeRoy. (2010). As long as the rivers flow: Athabasca River knowledge, use, and change. Edmonton, AB: Parkland Institute, University of Alberta. Fumoleau, R. (2004) As Long As This Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870-1939. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner (2004) Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1 Health Canada (2005). Addressing Psychosocial Factors Through Capacity Building: A Guide for Managers of Contaminated Sites. Ottawa: Ministry of Health. Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec. Hein, Francis J (2000). Historical Overview of the Fort McMurray Area and Oil Sands Industry in Northeast Alberta, in Earth Sciences Report 2000-05. Alberta Geological Survey. Energy and Utilities Board. INAC 2010 community profiles http://pse5esd5.aincinac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng, accessed January 14, 2011. Laird, David, J.H Ross, and J.A.J. McKenna, Report of Commissioners to Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, September 22, 1899, in Copy of Treaty No. 8 Made June 21, 1899, and Adhesions, Reports, etc. Ottawa: Queenʼs Printer, 1966. McCormack, P. — (1989) Chipewyans Turn Cree: Governmental and Structural Factors in Ethnic Processes. In K. S. Coates and W. R. Morrison, eds. For Purposes of Dominion: Essays in Honour of Morris Zaslow. Pp. 125-138. North York, Ont.: Captus Press. — (2010). Fort Chipewyan and the Shaping of Canadian History, 1788-1920s. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Smith, James G.E., ed. (1981) "Chipewyan", pp. 271-284 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.6 (Subarctic), ed. by June Helm. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Tanner, J. and A. Rigney (2003). Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Traditional Land Use Study. Ft. McMurray, Alberta: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, unpublished report.



Tobias, T. (2010). Living Proof: The Essential Data-Collection Guide for Indigenous Use-and-Occupancy Map Surveys. Ecotrust Canada and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs: Vancouver, Canada. UNPAN (United Nations Public Administration Network) (2006) A Comprehensive Guide for Social Impact Assessment. Centre for Good Governance. Vanclay, Frank, 2003. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. In Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 1, March 2003, pages 5–11, Surrey, UK: Beech Tree Publishing.



Appendix 1: ACFN Elders’ Declaration on Rights to Land Use

This is our Dené sułine territory, our Traditional Lands. We have occupied these lands for the last 10,000 years and maybe longer. Our traditions go on and we have the right to continue our traditional way of life. We agreed only to share our lands and we still consider these lands ours. Clearly we have been here longer than anybody. The Government must recognize that we still have the right to use these lands.

Our Rights to use the lands and water on Traditional Lands have never been extinguished. The Traditional Lands, and our rights to use of the lands, are central to our Dené culture, identity and well-being. They are essential to the well-being of our future generations and their ability to sustain our culture in a changing world.

The meaningful practice of our treaty rights depends on having sufficient lands and resources to exercise those rights. Sufficient refers to not only quantity but quality, including what is required to fulfill our cultural and spiritual needs.

Our parents and grandparents have told us that Treaty 8, signed by our Chief Laviolette in 1899, is an intergovernmental agreement that, in return for sharing our Traditional Lands, upholds our inherent Dené rights to land use and livelihood. In our experience, Alberta is not upholding their end of the treaty and is sacrificing our rights to industrial development. We have never been properly consulted and the Federal and Provincial Governments have never accommodated our rights or compensated us for infringements.

ACFN has had enough with having our land destroyed, no one is dealing with it; neither the Federal nor the Provincial Crown. Yet you come to us for approval of new projects. It is time for the Government to stop cheating us of our rights to land use and livelihood, culture and identity without proper consultation, mitigation and compensation.

As the Elders of our community, we demand that our ability to practice our constitutionally protected treaty rights and traditional uses is sustained within our Traditional Lands for future generations. We demand that our rights are protected in the LARP and any other initiatives proposed by the governments.

The lands from Firebag north, including Birch Mountain on the west side of river, must be protected. Richardson Backcountry is not to be given away – not to any government.

Everything we do here, we do to protect our rights to land use, livelihood and culture.

— Declared by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Elders Council,

July 8, 2010, Fort Chipewyan, Alberta



Appendix 2: Summary of Existing Downstream Effects of Oil Sands Developments on ACFN Rights

This Appendix summarizes potential effects of oil sands development on the ability of ACFN to meaningfully practice treaty rights downstream. An analysis of existing data collected through the 2010 ACFN Athabasca River Use, Knowledge and Change study was conducted to identify existing dynamics affecting ACFNʼs ability to hunt, fish, and navigate in the Athabasca watershed north of the Muskeg River. Particular attention was paid to existing adverse effects observed river changes have had on ACFN reserve lands (specifically IR Chipewyan 201, 201C, 201D, 201E). Additional oil sands development along the Athabasca River is likely to exacerbate existing impacts on water level and quality and contribute additional impacts to ACFNʼs ability to exercise rights both on and around their reserve lands. Downstream Effects on Water Levels The decreasing water levels of the Athabasca River are of great concern to the ACFN. Boating and water based access is essential to the maintenance of ACFN mode of life. In Spring, Summer and Fall (the primary seasons for hunting, fishing, and subsistence procurement), boat access is the only option for moving between Fort Chipewyan and seasonal camps and villages, Indian Reserves, and core ACFN territories along the Athabasca delta, the river itself, and its tributaries. Water-based boat access is the preferred means, and often the only possible means (in the absence of roads) by which many ACFN members choose to exercise rights such as hunting, trapping, and fishing, even where road access is possible. The Athabasca Riverʼs delta ecology, and ACFN membersʼ familiarity with water navigation for subsistence, means that at adequate water levels, a web of interconnected waterways exists that can be used to ʻgo anywhereʼ in the delta area, and tributaries to the Athabasca River allow access deep into adjacent watersheds. Moose, the preferred game sought by most ACFN hunters, tend to congregate near water in summer months, so boats make for an ideal means of locating, shooting, and carrying the many hundreds of pounds of meat that results from a successful kill. Boats also allow for procurement of fish or terrestrial resources adjacent to river banks, and allow ACFN members to access areas without disturbance from – and increased safety risks from – industrial traffic associated with many of the roads closer to Fort McMurray and the oil sands developments.



In the Athabasca Use, Knowledge and Change Study, areas of lost use and access due to inadequate water levels were documented including:

• Ninety-six instances of lost use recorded due to low or extreme low water levels downstream from the Firebag River and the proposed project.

• Loss of use due to low water levels was associated with subsistence values (including hunting and trapping and food gathering areas), habitation values (including camps, cabins), transportation values (including water transportation routes), and cultural / spiritual values (including important burial sites).

The majority of these recorded instances have occurred in the past five years. Downstream Effects on Water Quality In interviews for the Athabasca River Use, Knowledge, and Change study, ACFN members expressed perceptions of declining environmental quality, concurrent with industrial development, that were explicitly connected by participants to oil sands mining related emissions, and linked to both risk knowledge communicated by government authorities and other ʻexperts,ʼ as well as local or traditional ecological knowledge related to perceived environmental change. Frequently reported water quality indicators which ACFN members have reported observing change in include:

• changes in the taste and smell of Athabasca River water,

• presence of unusual foams or films on the water visible on boats or in cooking vessels, and

• the absence or decline of particular species, including insects, along the Athabasca River.

Observed abnormalities in fish, moose, and other game, particularly in areas near the Muskeg River (downstream of the JPME), but also other parts of the Athabasca River and delta, are linked by ACFN members to perceived oil sands related contamination. In the Athabasca Use, Knowledge and Change Study, areas of lost use and access due to water quality were documented including 14 specific instances of lost use due to concerns regarding quality downstream from the Firebag River. Examples include places where a moose was shot but the meat was left on the land because of some abnormality in the meat, or where a fish was caught, but thrown back or fed to dogs because of some perceived quality issue (e.g. deformities, loss of colour, excessive slime). In conjunction with other interview findings, instances of avoidance due to concerns regarding quality suggest that, at least amongst some ACFN land users, a lack of confidence regarding the quality of resources, largely related to perceived oil sands



emissions, is having a significant adverse effect on subsistence use and the practice of treaty rights in and around the Athabasca River. It seems clear that psychosocial factors, consistent with Health Canada guidance (Health Canada 2005) and related to fear of contaminants related to oil sands development on the Athabasca River and surrounding areas, are resulting in avoidance of traditional foods and resources by ACFN members, especially fish and drinking water. This is likely to result in adverse effects on the meaningful practice of rights along the Athabasca, in the delta, and adjoining tributaries. Downstream Effects on ACFN Reserve Lands Issues of water level and quality are of particular importance when the geography of ACFN land use is considered, particularly in relation to ACFNʼs Indian Reserve lands. In the study:

• Fifteen instances of lost use due to low and extreme low water levels were recorded on reserve lands (IR Chipewyan 201, 201B, 201E).

• Associated use values include hunting and trapping areas, food gathering areas, camping areas, and burial sites on reserve.

• One instance of lost use due to quality was recorded on an ACFN reserve (IR Chipewyan 201G).

• Sixteen instances of lost access to navigable watersheds and river areas were recorded on or adjacent to reserve lands (IR Chipewyan 201, 201B, 201C, 201E, 201G). The majority of these instances occurred within the past five years.



Appendix 3: Summary of Existing Proponent Mitigations and Commitments of potential Relevance to ACFN Knowledge and Use Practice

On November 10, 2010, the ACFN requested the proponent provide a summary of existing mitigations and commitments designed to address the issues and concerns of the ACFN reported in the proponentʼs applications, raised in ACFNʼs 2008 traditional use submission, or raised through consultation to date. The proponent indicated that it was not able to provide this summary. In the absence of a list of commitments by the proponent, the following table was compiled as a list of existing mitigations and commitments that may be relevant to ACFN issues and concerns. It is drawn from the following documents, and may not be complete:

• Selections from the EIA, Volume 3: Air Quality, Noise and Environmental Health. Application for Approval of the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project and the Pierre River Mine Project. (Did not include full review of every page, was a selection including mitigations);

• Golder Technical Memorandum, August 5, 2010 on Shell Canada, Jackpine Expansion, Navigability Assessment, Information Requests;

• Jackpine Mine Expansion, Supplemental Information, Round 1, December 2009;

• Jackpine Mine Expansion, Supplemental Information, Round 2, June 2010; and

• Pierre River Mine Application and Jackpine Mine Expansion, Additional Information Requests from Federal Governments, August 3, 2010.



Impact area Proposed mitigation

Air quality Dust control through road watering at dry times. EIA 2-12 (Summary of EIA)

All air quality parameters were rated as negligible or low environmental consequence.

There are many specific air quality mitigation measures.

Noise Bird activated cannons fired when birds in area (EIA 2-15), Section 2.3.2

Consultation with parties during construction and operations about noise levels (EIA 2-15), Section 2.3.2

Water management

Operations: Return of groundwater dewatered from overburden materials and PAC to surface water bodies (EIA 2-29, Section 2.5.2.4)

Closure: topography and drainage system constructed to achieve equivalent capability to similar natural systems … seepage from capped and reclaimed ETDAs will be intercepted and routed through wetlands before being released into environment (EIA 2-29, Section 2.5.2.4)

Water withdrawal

Operations: All water from plant site in contact with oil sands will be contained within project development areas.

Minimize sediment loading to receiving streams and lakes by routing muskeg drainage, overburden dewatering, to polishing ponds, equipped with oil separation capability (where required) before released to receiving streams. (EIA 2-33, 2.5.3.4)

Closure: erosion protection measures for minimal erosion of embankments and storage facilities during floods. (EIA 2-33, 2.5.3.4)

Research: Surface Water Working Group working on in stream flow needs (EIA 2-33, 2.5.3.4)

There are specific withdrawal levels discussed with respect to each river and each mine expansion: Jackpine refers to Jackpine Creek, Muskeg River, Kearl Lake; Pierre River Mining Area refers to Big Creek and Eymundson Creek, and Athabasca River EIA 6-12)

Minimize raw water withdrawal requirements from the Athabasca River by recycling tailings and consolidated tailings porewater release…( EIA 6-340)

Use staged diversion, drainage and dewatering systems to minimize effects on flows of the Athabasca tributary streams and Athabasca River (EIA 6-340)

Water quality Polishing ponds: musket drainage and overburden dewatering waters will be directed to polishing ponds equipped with oil removal capabilities to trap eroded soil material, reduce suspended particulates, organics and oxygen-consuming constituents, and allow waters to approach ambient water temperatures, prior to release to the environment. (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)

Closed-circuit water recycling during operations: process-affected waters, runoff and or seepage to be captured and recycled. (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)

Perimeter ditches and wells: tailings pond water to be pumped back into the tailing pond, and at closure to be directed to wetlands, pit lakes or Treatment Lake. These have to be big enough that outflow from reclaimed landscape will be non-toxic before released into natural watercourses and waterbodies. (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)




Self-sustaining closure landscape and drainage system: landscape and drainage system will be constructed to have similar characteristics as natural systems. (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)

Best management practices: accidental spills from pipeline ruptures or vehicular accidents and failure of retention structures will be handled using best management practices. Surface water and groundwater monitoring and response plan will be implemented to determine effects of potential accidental releases promptly and to initiate required remedial action. (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)

Regional monitoring, research and management: Shell will continue to participate in RAMP (EIA 2-43, 2.5.4.3)

Project-specific monitoring and management

Discharges into receiving surface waters: provide necessary data regarding water quality of appreciable discharges and corresponding in-stream water and sediment quality changes. (EIA 2-45, 2.5.4.3)

Polishing ponds: monitoring of polishing pond will be undertaken for temperature, DO, biochemical oxygen demand … if monitoring program indicates ponds are not performing, appropriate mitigations will be implemented. (EIA 2-45, 2.5.4.3)

Pit lakes: water chemistry will be monitored, and where releases could be toxic or cause undesirable effects, the filling rate could be reduced…or use of passive treatment, and if there are detrimental changes to the thermal regimes of receiving streams, outflows from pit lakes will be directed to ponds or wetlands….. (EIA 2-45, 2.5.4.3)

Aquatic health Design operational diversions and closure channels to provide for fish passage;

Minimize effects on flows and water levels in receiving streams and lake,

Use best practices (sediment and erosion control, screening the water intake to meet federal and provincial requirements),

Implement a fish salvage program and develop a fish habitat of the same or higher productive capacity.

Develop a compensation lake in lower Big Creek watershed and closure channels.( EIA 6-29, 6.1.6.2);

Scheduling construction activities (EIA 6-598)

Develop a self-sustaining closure drainage system (EIA 6-598)

Note: Shell is considering measures such as managing access to compensation lakes and implementing a no-fishing policy for Shell employees while working on-site. (EIA Response 20b, 16-3, December 2009 CR020)

Wildlife Construction

Specific mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the project on terrestrial resources, wetlands and biodiversity during construction include:

Avoiding clearing between April 1 and August 30 to avoid the main breeding bird and ungulate calving seasons;

Constructing straight roads will long sight lines where feasible;




Leaving remnant forested areas undisturbed where practical;

Providing construction staff with environmental awareness training as part of their on-site orientation;

Contacting ABSRD, Fish and Wildlife to assist in removal of hibernating black bears if they are accidentally disturb, and

Implementing regulatory standard soil handling, management and storage practices. (EIA 2-60, 2.6.3)

Operations:

Specific mitigation measures:

Maintaining a 250 m wildlife corridor along the Athabasca River from the wetted edge in the 100 year flood event;

Providing for wildlife passage under the Athabasca River bridge on both the east and west banks of the river;

Designing lighting to reduce light pollution in the adjacent wildlife corridor;

Fencing the approaches to the Athabasca river bridge;

Retaining treed buffers around or near watercourses;

Planning and sharing access with other industrial partners;

Storing all food wastes in bear-proof containers followed by transport off site;

Providing project staff with environmental awareness training as part of their on-site orientation;

Posting wildlife crossing signage where key wildlife crossing areas are identified;

Reducing traffic volumes by continuing to support transport staff to site using buses;

Enforcing traffic speed limits;

Undertaking dust control on roads;

Deploying and maintaining bird deterrent systems;

Using markers, such as aviation spheres, to mark transmission lines, in particular those located above tree line or in clearings, and

Expanding and implementing the existing weed control system for the project area; (EIA 2-59-2-60, 2.63)

Reducing lighting impacts, however they do not commit to use alternative light technologies (Jackpine Expansion, Supplemental Information, Round 2, Response 40a)

Reclamation

Reclaiming the landscape to an equivalent capability…

Designing for reclaimed landforms to include diversity and micro-topographic relief;

Reclaiming and revegetating progressively

Reclaiming in consultation with ASRD, forestry rights holders and local



Impact area Proposed mitigation stakeholders. (EIA 2-59-2-60, 2.63)

Design feature: roads

Construct straight roads with long sight lines where feasible (EIA 7-10, 7.1.3)

Design features: pits by Musket River

The pit lakes by the Muskeg River will have a minimum 100-m offset intact adjacent to the river valley. Following mining, Shell will backfill the portions of the mine pit adjacent to the valley. In total, a minimum 200 m offset from the valley crest will be created…slope stability will be critical. (EIA 6-331)

Design feature: bridge over Athabasca

Providing for wildlife passage under the Athabasca River bridge on both the east and west banks of the river (EIA 7-11)

Will be constructed to leave space for potential navigation of the River (Supplemental Information, Round 3, Section 4)

Design feature: Muskeg River diversion channel

The loss of navigation along the Muskeg River over the period of 2041 to closure—Shell proposes to provide land transportation through the project area for river users.

Will also require the yearly transportation of fish in spring (capture and fish transport) (See response 335a in Shell Canada Limited 22-28, CR020), Jackpine Expansion Supplemental Information, Volume 1, part 3.

Design feature: Muskeg River bridge

Expected construction between 2024 and 2029—with no design plans or mitigation measures at this time.

Continued Consultation

Shell will continue to consult with all aboriginal stakeholders including FMFN, ACFN and MCFN.

Trappers satisfaction with trapping and access to traplines

Shell will facilitate access across the project area by trappers to their traplines. (EIA 2-85, 2.6.3)

According to industry standards Shell will provide compensations to trappers directly-affect by the project. (EIA 8-5)

Employee or contractor education

Shell is committed to providing a system for cultural diversity awareness training for their employees and contractors regarding respect for traditional resource users, traplines, cabins, trails and equipment. (EIA 2-85, 2.6.3)

Reclamation Shell’s approach to reclamation involves direct consultation with First Nations and Métis groups. There are two different reclamation groups that are referred to in the commitments, including one with the FMFN and CEMA (EIA 2-85, 2.6.3)

Resource use Remnant corridor between Athabasca River and the PRMA will be at a minimum 250 m wide, while the setback on other watercourses will be 100 m.

Access to the development area will be managed by Shell’

Impacts to fish and wildlife, as they affect fishing, hunting and trapping, will be mitigated as described in the Fish and Fish Habitat and Wildlife assessments, including off-site compensation, and

Reclamation plans will incorporate use values, such as recreational, fishing, hunting, trapping and berry picking capabilities.




Monitoring of resource use is not required or planned. However, Shell will report to ASRD if discoveries of new aggregate resources or changes in anticipated aggregate requirements occur. (EIA 2-67, 2.7.2.3)

Visual Aesthetics

Treed buffers will be maintained between road routes, and along the Athabasca river. (EIA 2-68. 2.7.3.3)

(There are other specific visual aesthetic mitigation measures that seem less directly applicable)

Historical resources

Twelve pre contact sites were identified. The report recommends two sites for excavation, or additional shovel testing leading to possible excavation, and then sites are recommended as requiring no further work. (EIA 2-70, 2.7.4.3)

Socio-Economics: Transportation

Increase of population to be mitigated by:

A camp-based model for housing workers, including recreation, health care and leisure facilities and services; (EIA 6-13-14)

A fly-in-fly out approach for transportation (EIA 6-13-14)

Use of buses (EIA 6-13-14)

Housing Use full-service on-site construction camps (EIA 6-13-14)

Adopt extended work schedules (EIA 6-13-14)

Provide workers with time off so they can travel home to their place of residence (EIA 6-13-14)

Complement regional resources with in-camp security and on-site health services (EIA 6-13-14)

First Nations TEK and Land Use

Compensation for Directly Affected Trapline Holders, Continued Consultation With Key Aboriginal Groups, Access to Traplines, Employee/Contractor Education, and Reclamation (EIA 8-48, 49)



Appendix 4: Informed Consent Documentation



Appendix 5: Interview Guide



























Appendix 6: Direct to Digital Capture Method

The methods for spatial data capture (direct to digital mapping) for the study were developed by Dr. Craig Candler and Steven DeRoy of the Firelight Group and were designed to reliably document detailed ACFN community use, knowledge, and avoidance in relation to Shell-specific development projects.

Interview Team and Materials

Interviews were conducted with at least two team members, plus the participant, present. One team member was primarily responsible for conducting the interview and taking hard copy notes. The second member was primarily responsible for managing the mapping software and recording data within the mapping software used, in this case Google Earth or Google Earth Pro. The majority of interviews were mapped using Google Earth Pro version 6.0.1.2032 running on a windows based laptop with a tablet pen, necessary for drawing lines and areas. A digital projector and laser pointer, digital video camera and tripod were also used as part of the mapping kit.

Study Area

The study area was defined generally as an area between Wood Buffalo National Park and Fort McMurray, with a focus on the area of the proposed projects. The larger study area was referred to as ʻthe southern territories,ʼ and included areas such as Point Brule, Poplar Point, Fort McKay, and Fort McMurray. The study area, and the ability in Google Earth to was explained to each participant at the beginning of the interview through reference to the maps projected on the wall.

Base Maps

Due to the size of the study area, and the need for both detail and flexibility, Google Earth imagery was chosen as the digital base map for mapping sites. Using a projector, the map image was projected onto a clear wall or screen. In order to improve readability and help the participant orient themselves, other geographic information system (GIS) shape files were overlaid on top of the Google Earth image. Where conversion from other formats was required, a licensed version of Google Earth Pro was used. Supplemental GIS data originated from the following Government of Canada online GIS data repositories or other sources:



• National Framework – Hydrology, Drainage Network: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/frameworkdata/hydrology/analytical/drainage_network/canada/

• Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Canadian Place Names: http://www.geogratis.gc.ca/download/frameworkdata/popplace/

• National Framework Canada Lands Administrative Boundary (CLAB) Level 1 (First Nation reserves): http://www.geogratis.gc.ca/download/frameworkdata/Cda_Lands_Adm_L1/

• National Topographic System 1:50,000 reference grid: ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/index/

• Data regarding the footprint of the JPME and PRM, as well as existing Shell mine infrastructure, received by the ACFN from the proponent.

Interview Process

Prior to commencing with the interview, informed consent to participate in the interview was documented through signing a consent form. Interviews were recorded using an external digital audio recorder, or the built-in microphone and sound recorder on the laptop for audio files. A digital video camera mounted on a tripod and pointing at the maps projected on the wall recorded the mapping of sites throughout each interview, and provided back up audio. All interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide, and notes were written directly onto the guide or in the interviewerʼs notebook. In Google Earth, a folder called “TEK” was created to store all new mapped data. Each participant was given a folder named by their participant code (e.g. A01). Within the participantsʼ folder, three folders were created to store newly mapped data. For example, participant “A01” had points stored in the A01_points folder, lines in the A01_lines folder, and areas in the A01_areas folder. Each participantʼs mapped data (points, lines and areas) were saved as a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file. The entire database was stored as a KMZ file (KML files are often distributed as KMZ files, which are zipped KML files with a .kmz extension). We mapped new sites using Google Earth at a scale of 1:50,000 or better. That being said, most sites were mapped at a scale of 1:5,000 or better, increasing the accuracy of the location of sites identified. Where possible, we added timestamps to include month or season, and the year the activity occurred. In some cases, people were able to identify specific dates or the beginning, middle or end of a month. At the end of the interview, audio files were saved in an audio folder and all video files in the video folder on the computer. Names for audio and digital files were saved in the following format:



[Participant ID]_[Participant Name]_[Interview Date MMMDDYYYY]_[file#].[file type] For example, A01_JOHNDOE_FEB282011_1.avi

Post-Interview Data Processing

After the interviews were completed, the data was backed up onto a portable hard drive. All data was mapped using a standardized Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12 projection. We downloaded a GIS conversion tool developed by the Department of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota called DNR Garmin (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mis/gis/tools/arcview/extensions/DNRGarmin/DNRGarmin.html). DNR Garmin is a reliable tool to convert points, lines and areas collected in Google Earth KML format to ESRI Shape file format. KML files (e.g. A01_points.kml) from the “KML” folder were converted into Shape files (A01_points.shp) and stored in a folder called “Shape.” Each dataset was checked for consistency and accuracy before converting new data files. Once the data was converted into ESRI Shape Files, we applied a geomasking process to protect the confidentiality of the data. Points were randomized using Hawthʼs “Generate Random Points” tool. This process involved buffering the original points by 250 metres, generating a new random point location within the 250 metre buffered area, and then buffering the new randomized point by 1 kilometre. Buffering tools come standard with ESRI ArcGIS, however, Hawthʼs tools were downloaded from ESRIʼs support pages (www.support.esri.com). Lines and areas were not randomized, but were buffered by 1 kilometre using ArcGIS.



Appendix 7: Curriculum Vitae, Dr. Craig Candler

Resumé Craig Candler, PhD January, 2010

864 Dunsmuir, Victoria, BC, V9A 5B7 ! T: +1 (250) 590-9017 ! C: +1 (250) 220-2064 [email protected]

1

Education Ph.D. Cultural Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 2008 M.A. Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 1999 B.A. (First Class Honours) Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 1996

Craig Candler, Ph.D. (anthropology) Director, Community Studies and First Nations Consultation Employment History The Firelight Group Research Cooperative-Victoria, BC Director/Community Studies and First Nations Consultation Specialist (2009 to date) Responsible, as a founding member and director, for helping establish The Firelight Group, a group of aboriginal and non-aboriginal research professionals providing respectful and respected environmental and social science research, consulting, and support services in processes where aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests interact, and where good relationships and quality research tools are desired by all sides. Currently serving as the president of the Firelight Group, tasks include business and organizational development, as well as design, development, and delivery of technical services including community-based traditional knowledge research and documentation systems, environmental and socio-cultural impact assessments and monitoring programs, indigenous land use mapping, archival research, community involvement processes, and First Nations consultation support services.

Golder Associates Ltd. – Victoria, BC Senior Anthropologist/Traditional Studies and Community Consultation Specialist (2005 to 2009) As Senior Anthropologist, provided technical leadership to the cultural sciences division of Golder in the fields of traditional studies and First Nations consultation, particularly within the context of environmental impact assessment. Responsible for design, development, and oversight of community-based traditional knowledge research and documentation systems, capacity building initiatives, environmental and socio-cultural impact assessment and monitoring, indigenous land use mapping, public involvement processes, archival research, and First Nations consultation support services. Tasks included leading baseline data collection, environmental assessment, and community involvement components related to community-based traditional use studies and First Nations consultation support, including projects with estimated capital costs in excess of one billion dollars. Projects included mines, wind and other energy developments, civil infrastructure, environmental remediation, and linear energy transmission projects. Key clients and partners included First Nations across BC and western Canada, private industry, and government agencies.





2

University of British Columbia, PhD Researcher – Vancouver, BC Lead Researcher, Changing Land Use and Children's Health in Mae Chaem, Northern Thailand (2000 to 2008) Responsible for designing, grant writing, coordinating, and conducting anthropological research within a multi-method (qualitative and quantitative) and community-based research project on oral histories of land use and child health change in Northern Thailand since the 1950s.

Third Stone Community Research – Edmonton, AB Anthropological Consultant (1995 to 2005) Founder and Principal of a private consulting company offering applied anthropological, community-based research and consultation services, specializing in First Nations land use documentation and mapping, and comprehensive socio-cultural and community impact assessment and mitigation. Projects included leading a large multi-year traditional use study for the Treaty 8 Tribal Association of BC, as well as smaller projects for communities and research agencies based in Alberta, BC, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories.

National Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Forest Management, University of Alberta – Edmonton, AB Research Coordinator (2000) Research and funding coordinator for socio-economic, community sustainability, and integrated and cumulative effects related projects supported through the NCE-SFM.

Centre for the Cross-Cultural Study of Health and Healing, University of Alberta – Edmonton, AB Coordinator and Consultant Liaison (1995 to 1999) Coordinator of office activities including development of a consulting program for academic and contract research, project proposal development, grant applications, reporting, financial administration, marketing and managing a publishing series, organizing public workshops and lectures, and coordinating volunteer involvement.

Project Experience – Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Traditional Use Studies (TUS)

Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca

Chipewyan First Nation

Northwest Alberta

Primary Researcher and Project Manager for a TEK/TUS project involving documentation of community use and knowledge along the Athabasca River to inform decisions regarding water withdrawals and oil sands production. Jointly funded through two First Nations, the project involves documentation of First Nations use and interests through interviews and mapping, and understanding the effects water quality and water level change on the practice of aboriginal and treaty rights along a major river and within an ecologically sensitive delta and lake area.





3

British Columbia Transmission

Corporation Southwest British

Columbia

Component Lead for an overview-level TUS for planning of a linear transmission project involving archival review, field interviews, and coordinated research with more than forty First Nations with traditional territories in the Fraser Valley, Fraser Canyon, and in the area of Nicola Lake. Tasks included methodology development, interview protocols, First Nations liaison, supervising and participating in mapping interviews and archival review, and leading analysis and reporting.

Kwoiek Creek Hydroelectric Project

Southwest British Columbia

Component Lead for community-based TUS conducted for environmental assessment of a run-of-river project, including transmission line, proposed by a First Nation joint venture. The project involved generation of energy and transmission through multiple First Nations territories. Tasks include methodology review, supporting First Nations interviewers to complete baseline, and leading community-based impact assessment and reporting.

Western Canadian Coal

Northeast British Columbia

Project Manager for the completion of Socio-Economic and Aboriginal Interests and Use chapters for an Environmental Assessment (EA) application to the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO) regarding a proposed coal development in northeast BC. The project involved working with First Nations and Metis groups and included methodology review, First Nations and aboriginal liaison, and reporting.

Peace River Coal Northeast British

Columbia

Component Lead for overview-level TUS and TEK work conducted for EA purposes for two coal mines and related developments. The project involved working with six First Nations and Metis groups. Tasks have included methodology development, First Nations liaison, archival review, community-based mapping, focus group interviews, and reporting.

North Coast Wind Energy

Northwest British Columbia

Component Lead for overview and operational-level TUS proposed within a harmonized BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA)-Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) process on the north coast of BC. The project involved a large generation area and more than 100 km of linear transmission corridor involving the traditional territories of three First Nations. Tasks included methodology development, archival review, First Nations liaison, and preliminary coordination of overview-level TUS interviews.

Aseniwuche Winewak

Nation Grande Cache, AB

Project Manager and lead researcher for a gap analysis of TUS data used for First Nations consultation purposes, providing specialist support for the optomization of an internal First Nations consultation and referral system, and providing research services in support of oral history interviews and document preparation related to a comprehensive claim.

Treaty 8 Tribal Association


Project Coordinator for all aspects of a large multi-community, multi-year traditional use study (TUS) with a budget in excess of one million dollars, including mapping and TEK interview components, training, project management, site visits, GPS data collection, archival review, GIS and database design, digitization, indigenous toponomy, and oral history. Facilitated negotiation of community consultation and information protection protocols.

Sawridge First Nation and Kapawe’no First

Nation Traditional Use Study

Central Alberta

Methodology development, interview protocols, First Nations liaison, and proposal development.





4

Bigstone Cree Nation TUS Gap Analysis

Northwest Alberta

Assisted with gap analysis, evaluating community goals and needs, and the potential of an existing TUS data set to meet those goals and needs. Review of digital data, methodologies, and community goals.

Beaver First Nation Traditional Use Study

Northwest Alberta

Methodology development, First Nations liaison, training and capacity building workshops on community-based research, mapping strategies, GIS/GPS technology, and proposal writing.

Dene Tha’ Consultation Pilot

Project Northwest Alberta

Methodology development and expert review of TUS data collection and mapping, digital data capture, and database design. Assisted negotiation of final information sharing and consultation protocols.

Halfway River First Nation Traditional Use

Study Northeast British

Columbia

Designed and delivered TUS methodology, field work, training, and capacity building in mapping and land use research.

Dene Tsaa Tse K’nai (Prophet River) First

Nation Traditional Use Study


Designed and delivered TUS methodology, field work, interviews, design of field recording and GPS strategies, coordination of field visits, training, reporting and capacity building.

Canadian Circumpolar Institute

Edmonton, AB

Literature review and critique of emerging GIS and GPS technologies in the context of traditional knowledge research in Canada’s north.

Gwich’in Tribal Council and the

Sustainable Forest Management Network

Winnipeg, MN

Archival research in the Hudson’s Bay Archives, archival documentation and report writing on historic environmental change and resource use along the Mackenzie Delta.

Project Experience – Socio-Economic and Cultural Impact Assessment

Western Canadian Coal


Project Manager for the completion of Socio-Economic and TUS chapters for an Environmental Assessment (EA) application to the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO) regarding a proposed coal development in northeast BC. The project has involved working with First Nations and Metis groups. Tasks have included methodology review, First Nations liaison, and reporting.

Public Works and Government Services

Victoria, BC

Design and implementation of public and First Nations involvement, including social studies, related to a risk assessment of contaminants in a heavily used urban industrial waterway.



Assisted with design and development, including fundraising, criteria and indicators, and determination of community-relevant VECs (Valued Ecosystem Components) for a community-based and First Nations-led centre for cumulative impact assessment, geared particularly towards the oil, gas, and forestry sectors, and utilizing both community- and science-based knowledge.

World Agroforestry Centre

Chiang Mai, Thailand

Design and delivery of a two-year study working within a multidisciplinary team to develop community-based methods for tracing environmental and community health changes over time, particularly with regards to pesticide use and early child health. Methodology development, training, field interviews, analysis, reporting.





5



As-and-when needed technical support and recommendations to local governments towards the resolution of community concerns involving forestry, oil and gas, highways, and agriculture sectors.

Sustainable Forest Management Network

Edmonton, AB

Worked as part of a multidisciplinary management team to support and manage socio-economic and cumulative effects related to boreal forest industries and communities. Team included industry, academic, and government representatives.

Bigstone Cree First Nation

Northern Alberta

Extended field work and community-based research on the effects of northern industry, particularly pulp and paper development, upon social relations, community factionalism, and the practice of traditional medicine in a Northern Cree community.

Project Experience – First Nation Consultation and Negotiation

BC Hydro Aboriginal

Relations and Negotiations Northwest BC

Assisted in leading a consultation team providing specialist First Nations consultation services in relation to the environmental permitting of a large transmission line project in northwestern BC. The project involved multiple First Nations in the area of Terrace, BC, as well as the Nisga'a Nation. Tasks included procedural consultation support, acting as point of contact for First Nation consultation, coordination and documentation of consultations within the environmental assessment process, supporting negotiations regarding memorandums of understanding and provision of capacity funding, as well as support, where appropriate, for negotiation of long-term impact and benefits agreements (IBAs) or other agreements related to project construction and operation.

Mount Hays Wind Farm LP

Northwest BC

Component Lead for First Nations consultation services in relation to permitting of a proposed development through provincial and federal processes. The project involved three First Nations and traditional territory interests within an existing municipal boundary. Tasks included procedural consultation support, acting as point of contact for First Nation consultation, coordination and documentation of consultations, facilitation of negotiation regarding letters of understanding and development of accommodation packages including non-financial and financial accommodations, and support for negotiation of a long-term impact and benefits agreement (IBA).



Component Lead for First Nations consultation services in relation to a multi-billion dollar project being processed through a harmonized provincial-federal process. The project involved supporting consultation and accommodation discussions involving three First Nations and related traditional territory interests south of Prince Rupert, BC. Tasks included procedural consultation advice, acting as point of contact for First Nation consultation, coordination and documentation of consultations, facilitation of negotiation regarding letters of understanding and development of accommodation packages including non-financial and financial accommodations, and negotiation of long-term impact and benefits agreement (IBA).

Catalyst Paper Corp. Vancouver Island, BC

Project Manager for provision of Public and First Nations consultation support, including analysis of First Nations consultation requirements





6

and strategic advice. Tasks included delivery of consultation tools including letters, contact matrices, project website development, and open house coordination.

Public Works and Government Services

Victoria, BC

Project Manager for provision of expert consultation support, including analysis of First Nations consultation requirements under federal policy and recent court decisions. Tasks included project and document review and reporting.

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation

Grande Cache, AB

Project Manager for conducting a gap analysis of TUS data used for consultation purposes, and providing expert support for the optomization of an internal First Nations consultation and referral system.



Assisted with the design and development of a TUS data system designed for referral and consultation purposes. Tasks included design and implementation of GIS and databases, and negotiation of information sharing protocols.

Dene Tha’

Consultation Pilot Project

Northwest Alberta

Methodology development and expert review of TUS data collection and mapping, digital data capture, and database design. Assisted negotiation of final information sharing and consultation protocols.

Project Experience – Training and Capacity Building



Designed and delivered a week-long training workshop to three north coast First Nations on community-based TUS/TEK research, including traditional use mapping, for environmental assessment purposes. Training included classroom and field components and was taught in collaboration with four community Elder instructors.



Design and development (including fundraising) for a community-based and First Nations-led centre for cumulative impact assessment utilizing both traditional and scientific knowledge and criteria for evaluating and monitoring environmental, socio-economic, and health changes.

University of British Columbia

Vancouver, BC

Design and delivery of a senior university-level course on the ethnography of Southeast Asia.

University of Alberta Edmonton, AB

Design and delivery of senior university-level courses in the School of Comparative and Religious Studies, and Department of Anthropology.

Northern Lights College

Inuvik, NT

Design and delivery of a college-level course on anthropology, community research, and natural resource management for post-secondary Gwich’in and Inuvialuit students.





7

Professional Affiliations

Canadian Anthropological Society (CASCA) – Member of the CASCA Executive, effective June 2010, representing applied and practicing anthropologists in Canada at the national level. Canadian Asian Studies Association – Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies (CASA-CCSEAS) American Anthropological Association (AAA)

Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) Selected Publications

Peer Reviewed Publications, Journal Articles, and Proceedings

Craig, Candler, et al. 2010. As long as the Rivers flow: Athabasca River knowledge and use study. Alberta: Parkland Institute, University of Alberta.

Craig, Candler, Rachel Olson, Steven Deroy and Kieran Broderick.

Participatory GIS as a Sustained (and Sustainable?) Practice: The Case of Treaty 8 BC. Participatory Learning and Action, 54 (2006), p. 325-356.

Young, David and Craig Candler. 1997. “The Paradoxes of Northern

Development in Canada: An Anthropological Perspective,” in The Proceedings of the 11th International Abashiri Symposium on Peoples and Cultures of the North, Abashiri, Japan.

Candler, Craig, David Young, Cliff Pompana and Denise Spitzer. A Hermeneutic Exposition of a Plains Healer’s Concept of “The Grandfathers”. Anthropos, 92 (1996), 115-128.

Books and Theses Candler, Craig. 2008. Changing Land Use and Children’s Health in

Mae Chaem, Northern Thailand. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia.

Candler, Craig. 1999. Healing and Cultural Formation in a Bush Cree Community. M.A. thesis, University of Alberta.

Scholarly Conference Presentations

Invited Roundtable member for: Anthropological Connections: Networking Practising Anthropologists in Canada, Canadian Anthropological Society (CAS-SCA), Montreal, Canada (2010).

The Good, the Bad and the Glossy: Anthropology, Land Use Mapping

and ‘Adequate’ First Nations Consultation and Accommodation. Presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Vancouver, Canada (2006).

Incorporating TEK and Aquatic Toxicity Science. Interactive Workshop Presentation for the Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, Jasper, Canada (2006).

Transcendent Life (and) Science: Medicine, Ecology, and Flexible

Biotechnical Citizenship in a Northern Thai Valley. Presented at the





8

32nd Congress of the Canadian Anthropological Society (CAS-SCA), Merida, Mexico (2005).

Globalization in a Pill: Opium, Yaa Baa, and Addictive Modernity in

Northern Thailand. Presented at the joint meetings of the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies (CCSEAS) and the Canadian Asian Studies Association East Asian Council (CASA-EAC), Université de Montréal, Canada (2003).

Maps, Dreams, and GIS: Telling Stories with New Technology.

Presented at the 27th Congress of the Canadian Anthropological Society (CAS-SCA), University of Calgary, Canada (2000).

The Concept of Significance in Cultural Resource Management:

Protecting What Past for Whose Future? Presented at the 1999 Chacmool Conference on Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Canada (1999).

Paper, Pipes and the Pentecost: Healing and Change in a Northern

Cree Community. Presented at the 25th Congress of the Canadian Anthropological Society (CAS-SCA), Toronto, Canada (1998).

Reviews and Other Craig Candler has provided external and/or internal peer review on

specialist technical reports, academic articles, and book length works, including peer review of chapters and contributions to Terry Tobias' (2010) landmark work, Living Proof: the Essential Data-Collection Guide for Indigenous Use-and-Occupancy Map Surveys.



Appendix 8: Curriculum Vitae, Steven DeRoy

Resumé Steven DeRoy February 17, 2011

!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$

D.&(&2EF&)+GH.I&J1)&K14I.4)+L3EM+N$$OOOE.I&J1)&K14I.4)+L3EM+N$

Education BA Geography (in progress), University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, 2011 GIS/Cartographic Technology, Sir Sandford Fleming College, Lindsay, ON, 1998

Steven DeRoy Director and Vice President Employment History The Firelight Group – Winnipeg, MB Director and Vice President (2009 to date) Responsible, as co-founder and director, for helping establish The Firelight Group, a firm of aboriginal and non-aboriginal professionals specialized in providing respectful and respected environmental and social science research, consulting, and support services in processes where aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests interact, and where good relationships are desired by all sides. Tasks include business development, as well as design, development, and delivery of technical services including community-based traditional knowledge research and documentation systems, environmental and socio-cultural impact assessments and monitoring programs, indigenous land use mapping, GIS technical support and training, research, community involvement processes, and First Nations consultation support services.

Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources – Winnipeg, MB Research Associate/GIS Specialist (2007 to 2010) As a Research Associate/GIS Specialist, my primary role was to build a mapping and GIS service at CIER that would support both internal staff and external clients with technical, advisory and professional support on a range of projects. Responsible for design, development, and oversight of an Ontario-wide risk assessment inventory of fuel systems and waste site inventory project; managed, researched and documented good practices for setting up GIS offices in Aboriginal communities across Canada (this resulted in publication of “Good Practices Guide: Setting up and keeping an Aboriginal Mapping Program.”); conducted an assessment of land use planning issues for First Nations in Ontario; coordinated an indigenous place names mapping initiative for the Little Grand Rapids First Nation; GIS data manager for the Pimachiowin Aki world heritage site nomination; development of environmental monitoring tools for the Mikisew Cree First Nation; species at risk tool development using CyberTracker software; delivery of comprehensive community planning services; advisory support to Clean Energy and Community Adaptation Program; and internal IT liaison. Clients included First Nations, Ivey Foundation, RBC Blue Water Foundation, INAC, Parks Canada, and GeoConnections/ Natural Resources Canada.

Treaty 8 Tribal Association – Fort St. John, BC GIS Advisor (2005 to 2006) Provided mapping and GIS advisory support to six member First Nation communities (Fort Nelson, Prophet River, Halfway River, Doig River, Saulteau, and the West Moberly First Nations), chiefs and councils, internal staff, and to the Treaty 8 negotiations team. Aided in the storing and mapping of traditional use information and maintained a




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


comprehensive digital data library containing numerous datasets from diverse government agencies, conservationists & industry; expedited the consultation referral and permitting process through ongoing training and technical support for Treaty 8 land use offices; researched, wrote proposals and secured funding for an online mapping application; participated in joint planning and management activities involving government agencies, industry and Treaty 8 First Nations; and acted as Information Technology manager for 25 client users.

Red Road HIV/AIDS Network – West Vancouver, BC GIS Technician/Consultant (2004 to 2007) Managed the web-based mapping system, utilizing ESRI’s ArcIMS software, to map out the locations of HIV and AIDS service organizations throughout the province of British Columbia. Also designed and developed 30,000 map guides highlighting HIV/AIDS and health services for both the city of Vancouver and northern British Columbia; represented the Red Road interactive mapping project at various conferences, workshops and meetings; and coordinated the redesign and maintainance of www.red-road.org.

Ecotrust Canada – Vancouver, BC Aboriginal Mapping Network Coordinator and GIS Mapping Analyst (2002-2004) Manager for the Aboriginal Mapping Network, with responsibilities including management of program initiatives, presentation of the program to funders, members, and organizations at various conferences and workshops, and co-facilitatation of two workshops with national and international participation addressing issues of concern to aboriginal mappers. Supported identification of funding sources relating to land use and occupancy research (this resulted in publication of "A New Trail: Fundraising for Cultural Research and Land Use and Occupancy Studies - A Reference Guide For Securing Funds."), provided mapping and GIS training and technical support to First Nation communities involved with developing land use plans and bioregional atlases, and maintained the Ecotrust Canada and Aboriginal Mapping Network websites (www.nativemaps.org).

DrakeGIS & Mapping Ltd. – Kelowna, BC Marketing Manager (2000 to 2002) Assisted in the development of the company in response to the increasing need for mapping and GIS services in BC. Cultivated strategic affiliations and joint ventures with small consulting companies and First Nation bands; researched, identified and wrote proposals for contract opportunities; project leader for a traditional use study for the Nazko Band Government; responsible for the completion of all mapping phases for fish & fish habitat inventory mapping projects and watershed assessment maps for various clients as well as administrative duties.

Urban Systems Ltd. – Kelowna, BC GIS/Cartographic Technologist (1999) Performed tasks for the Digital Information Management and Resource Systems (DIMARS) project including editing watermain, sanitary sewer




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


and storm sewer drawings using AutoCAD 14; setting up databases for each drawing in ArcView; and linking data to scanned drawings in PDF.

Computer Master – Mississauga, ON MicroStation Operator (1999) Acted as a consultant for the Regional Municipality Of Peel by adding, updating and editing watermain plans and files using MicroStation SE. Involved recording and updating changes made to waterplans into graphic conversion databases using Excel. Toronto Hydro Electric Commission – Scarborough, ON CAD Operator (1999) Produced and created small site plans, single line diagrams, and updated and revised landbase files, strip maps and subdivision maps using IRAS/B within MicroStation SE. Also assisted in training MicroStation SE to co-op students.

Project Experience – Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Traditional Use Studies (TUS)

Mikisew Cree First Nation

Northern Alberta

Co-researcher and GIS Manager for an Indigenous Knowledge study for assessing Shell-specific oil sands development projects near Fort McKay. The project involved work planning, gap analysis, methodology development, leading and participating in field interviews using direct-to-digital mapping, and First Nations liaison.

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Southern British Columbia

Technical support and training for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Knowledge and Use Project (Marine and Foreshore). The project involved methodology development, development of a training guide, and leading a direct-to-digital mapping training session with key staff and youth.

Athabasca Chipewyan

First Nation Northern Alberta

GIS Manager for a TEK community-based monitoring of Woodland Caribou and Wood Bison herds, funded in part by the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk Program (AFSAR). The project involved GIS data management, analysis, and final map production.

Athabasca Chipewyan


Co-researcher and GIS Manager for a use and interests assessment for Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion project and Pierre River Mine project. Key tasks include methodology development, participating in field interviews using direct-to-digital mapping, data management, GIS analysis, map production, and reporting.

Athabasca Chipewyan


Co-researcher and GIS Manager for a TEK/TUS project involving documentation of community use and interests assessment for the Total Jocelyn Oil Sands Mining project near Fort McKay. The project involved methodology development, participating in interviews using direct-to-digital mapping, data management, GIS analysis, map production, and reporting.

Athabasca Chipewyan

First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First

GIS Manager for the development of relevant base maps and digitization of Traditional Ecological Knowledge data for the Athabasca River Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study. The project involved




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


Nation Northern Alberta

working with researchers, establishing methodologies, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Ktunaxa Nation Council


GIS Manager and researcher for a TEK/TUS component of an environmental impact assessment for Teck Coal`s proposed mining project. The project involved working with First Nation researchers and included direct-to-digital mapping interviews, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

God’s Lake First Nation

Eastern Manitoba GIS Manager for the digitization of all Traditional Use Study data collected for the Historical Resources Branch of Manitoba. The project involved working with First Nation researchers and included methodology review, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Manto Sipi Cree Nation

Eastern Manitoba GIS Manager for the digitization of all Traditional Use Study data collected for the Historical Resources Branch of Manitoba. The project involved working with First Nation researchers and included methodology review, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Wabanong Nakaygum

Okimawin Eastern Manitoba

GIS Manager for 13 First Nations involved in the collection of Traditional Use Study data for the Wabanong Nakaygum Okimawin East Side Planning Authority. The project involved working with First Nation researchers and included methodology review, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Little Grand Rapids

First Nation Eastern Manitoba

Project leader for the development of a Saulteaux/Syllabics place names map for the Little Grand Rapids First Nation. The project involved working with two First Nation researchers to document and verify toponyms. Tasks have included methodology development, First Nations liaison, training, community-based mapping, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Mikisew Cree Nation

Northeast Alberta Facilitated the development of a community-based, environmental monitoring program using Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science, to record changes in the environment, and to create tools to assist in environmental monitoring. Tasks included conducting community-based research to develop traditional knowledge indicators of environmental health, customization of CyberTracker software to enable the Mikisew Cree First Nation to collect TEK observations in the field, and reporting.

Keeseekoowenin

Ojibway First Nation Southern Manitoba

Conducted community-based research for the development of an environmental monitoring program using Indigenous Knowledge and scientific monitoring techniques. Tasks included methodology development, First Nation liaison support, training, customization of CyberTracker software, GIS pre- and post-processing, and reporting.

Coalition of First

Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain

National Park Southern Manitoba

Completed a needs assessment for completing an Anishnabe Knowledge Study. The report outlined two potential approaches for the Anishnabe Knowledge Study, which differed primarily in the technical skills required for data collection and in the nature of the products that would be developed from the study. Tasks included interviews, literature reviews, methodology development, technical writing, and reporting.




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


Saulteau First Nation and the West Moberly

First Nations Northeast British

Columbia

Conducted a cultural values assessment by integrating land use and occupancy research findings from past studies into the Peace Moberly Tract Land Use Plan. The planning committee consisted of representatives from the BC provincial government, industry and First Nations. Tasks included methodology development, gathered data from numerous research studies from both SFN and WMFN, developed maps that showed the distribution of cultural heritage, and created buffered zones for areas of cultural sensitivity. Also facilitated training workshops for land use personnel from the WMFN to create the maps to be used in the land use plan.

Prophet River First

Nation Northeast British

Columbia

Provided technical expertise for the development of maps to be used in a land use planning initiative for a 5 square kilometre area around the PRFN's reserve lands. Created a series of maps that integrated scientific and cultural heritage data for a planning initiative between the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) and the PRFN. The maps were produced for community input on issues affecting hunting, fishing, and other activities.

Doig River First Nation


Provided technical expertise for integrating land use and occupancy research findings from past studies into the communities Treaty Land Entitlement process. Tasks included facilitating training workshops to land use personnel from DRFN to create maps of cultural heritage, and provide technical support during the community consultation process for identifying potential land parcels that would be added to the DRFN reserve lands.

Fort Nelson First


Columbia

Provided technical and training expertise for the development of a community atlas and mapping of traditional use study research findings. Tasks included facilitating training workshops for a community GIS Trainee, and the development of a community atlas that integrated scientific and cultural data, and digitize traditional use study research findings to create deliverables to the OGC on behalf of the community.

Halfway River First


Columbia

Provided technical expertise to land use personnel to identify a RCMP historic trail route. Involved researching and identifying maps of historic data highlighting the trail, along with a field reconnaissance with land use personnel from HRFN to GPS the exact location of the trail.

Bigstone Cree Nation

TUS Gap Analysis Northwest Alberta

Assisted with gap analysis, evaluating community goals and needs, and the potential of an existing TUS data set to meet those goals and needs. Assessed community land use and occupancy study (CLUOS) data and provided GIS training to staff members.

Aboriginal Mapping

Network Vancouver, British

Columbia

Interviewed practitioners and researched funding sources that would support Traditional Use Study research activities in First Nation communities that resulted in the development of "A New Trail: Fundraising for Cultural Research and Land Use and Occupancy Studies - A Reference Guide For Securing Funds."

Nazko Band

Government Traditional Use Study

Central British Columbia

Initiated a Traditional Use Study in accordance with the BC Traditional Use Study guidelines. Project leader for the development of a Traditional Use Study for the Nazko Band Government, coordinating literature reviews, and managing budgets and personnel.




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


Project Experience – Land Use Planning, Atlases and Bioregional Mapping

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Northern Alberta

Technical support for the ACFN’s Industry Relations Corporation to support on-going consultation with government and industry. Key tasks include digital mapping, data management, and GIS analysis.

Athabasca Chipewyan


Technical support for the ACFN’s Lower Athabasca Region Plan, editing maps and conducting GIS analysis to consider ACFN’s interests and vision for planning.

Fisher River Cree

Nation Manitoba

Facilitated workshops for the development of a community vision for watershed planning. Involved methodology development, community consultations, coordination with First Nation Liaisons, mapping, and synthesizing responses for inclusion into a community vision.

Ivey Foundation Northern Ontario

Conducted an assessment of Ontario-based First Nation land use issues to gain a deeper understanding of community-driven, participatory land-use planning priorities. Involved working with First Nations by traveling to and interviewing practitioners, synthesizing data and reporting.

Treaty Relations

Commission of Manitoba Manitoba

Produced and designed a 24-page portfolio for the Historical Atlas of First Nations in Manitoba, 2009 Map Portfolio. Involved collaborating with academic researchers and writers, conducting archival and historical research, graphic design and layout, GIS analysis and cartography.

Little Black Bear First

Nation Southern Saskatchewan

Provided advisory, technical and training support to the Little Black Bear First Nation for the development of a comprehensive community plan. Involved designing implementation strategies for First Nations involvement, including workshop facilitation, mapping, and synthesizing responses for inclusion into a community vision.

Parks Canada

Northwest Territories In support of the public participation program for the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve, develop a 22-layer atlas showing conservation and other values of the area. Prepared relevant data and edited maps for the final production of the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem Atlas. Also prepared satellite imagery suitable for draping on a 3D model.

Whitesand First Nation

Northwest Ontario Collaborated with the Aboriginal Strategy Group to work with the Whitesand First Nation to develop a land use plan vision in Armstrong, Ontario. Involved workshop facilitation and synthesizing responses for inclusion into a community vision document.

Doig River First Nation


Collaborated with Herb Hammond to identify forestry resources within DRFN's territory to give the community options for economic independence. Involved the creation of a series of maps that highlighted forest data (age, species, site class, etc.) that could be analyzed for the visioning process.

Tahltan First Nation

Northwest British Provided technical expertise for the production of maps for the Tahltan First Nation's territory. Involved the creation of a series of maps to




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


Columbia support the community's interest in identifying potential economic opportunities and protection from industrial development activities.

Heiltsuk Nation

Central Coast of British Columbia

Provided technical and training expertise for the production of the Heiltsuk Nation’s land use plan. Tasks included obtaining, filtering and managing all relevant information (scientific and cultural data), resulting in the production of indicator data, spreadsheets and maps. It also involved facilitating training workshops to the land use personnel to identify and filter cultural data from past TUS research for inclusion into the land use plan.

Sencot’en Alliance


Provided technical and training expertise for the development of a bioregional atlas for 5 communities of the Sencot'en Alliance. Involved researching and gathering information and digital data for inclusion into the bioregional atlas. It also involved facilitating training workshops to support land use staff from 5 communities to create maps for the atlas.

Tsleil Waututh Nation


Provided technical and training expertise for the development of a park atlas for Say Nuth Khaw Yum (Indian Arm Provincial Park). Researched and gathered information and digital data for inclusion into the park atlas, resulting in over 45 map layers. It also involved facilitating training workshops with the community GIS technician to create maps for the park atlas.

Hupacasath First

Nation Southern British

Columbia

Provided technical and training expertise for the development of the Hupacasath First Nation’s land use plan. Obtained, filtered and managed all relevant information (scientific and cultural data), resulting in the production of indicator data, spreadsheets and maps. Also facilitated training workshops with land use personnel to create maps that would be included in the land use plan.

Nazko Band Government

Central British Columbia

Produced a land interest document that provided an overview of the Ndazkoht'en people and their long-term goals and vision. Involved community-based research, interviews and synthesizing results into a comprehensive report.

Project Experience – Capital Infrastructure

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) –

Ontario region Ontario

Development of a risk assessment inventory database tool for fuel tank systems and wastes disposal sites on Indian reserves throughout Ontario for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (awarded the ESRI Canada 2009 Award of Excellence). Involved developing a comprehensive implementation plan detailing methodology, managing GIS consultants, provided training and technical support to data collectors, conducted quality assurance, developed training manuals and final reporting.

Swan Lake First Nation

Southern Manitoba Provided technical expertise for the development of a 5-megawatt wind farm on the Swan Lake First Nation. Involved the production of mapping products.

Treaty 8 Tribal

Association Provided technical expertise for the development of a wind farm tenure application in Treaty 8 territory. Involved laying out the site location using




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$



3D modelling and developing mapping products.

DIMARS - Summerland Central British Columbia

Conducted GIS data entry and analysis for the Digital Information Management And Resource Systems (DIMARS) project. Involved editing watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer drawings and setting up databases that linked to scanned drawings.

Regional Municipality

of Peel Southern Ontario

Conducted GIS data entry and analysis for the adding, updating, and editing of water main plans and files for the entire Regional Municipality of Peel.

Toronto Hydro

Southern Ontario Conducted GIS data entry and analysis for small site plans and single line diagrams, and updated and revised land base files, strip maps and subdivision maps.

Project Experience – Health and Social

National Aboriginal Health Organization

Canada-wide

Technical lead for the production of numerous mapping products designed for use in highlighting Aboriginal midwifery in Canada. Involved methodology development, pre- and post-GIS analysis, quality assurance, map development and reporting.

Red Road HIV/AIDS

Network British Columbia

Technical Lead for the development of a comprehensive listing of HIV/AIDS and health services available to First Nations for the province of British Columbia. Involved methodology development, pre- and post-GIS analysis, quality assurance, map development and reporting.

Red Road HIV/AIDS

Network Northern British

Columbia

Technical Lead for the development of 10,000 pocket book guides highlighting HIV/AIDS and health services available to First Nations for the northern region of British Columbia. Involved methodology development, pre- and post-GIS analysis, quality assurance, map development, managing graphic design consultants, coordination with print shop, and reporting.

Red Road HIV/AIDS

Network Southern British

Columbia

Technical Lead for the development of 20,000 pocket book guides highlighting HIV/AIDS and health services available to First Nations for the city of Vancouver. Involved conceptualizing and planning, methodology development, pre- and post-GIS analysis, quality assurance, map development, managing graphic design consultants, coordination with print shop, and reporting.

Conferences/Workshops

• Presenter, Central Boreal Learning Network, November 4-6, 2009 in Montreal, Quebec; • Presenter, Working Forum on the Duty to Consult: Now What?, October 22-23, 2009 in

Edmonton, Alberta; • Presenter, Keepers of the Water III, August 13-17, 2008 in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta; • Presenter, Wabanong Nakaygum Okimawin Traditional Area Land Use Plans, June 24-

25, 2008 in Winnipeg, Manitoba; • Presenter, Northern British Columbia GIS Conference 2006, May 30-31, 2006 in Prince

George, British Columbia; • Presenter, Mapping for Change, September 7 – 11, 2005 in Nairobi, Kenya, Africa;




!"#$%&'(&)*)++,$-.)&&./$012213&4/$5%/$6!7$#58$$9:$;#$<=">?$=#8@8#""$$A:$;#$<=">?$==B@>C>B$$$


• Presenter, Indigenous Communities Mapping Initiative Conference, March 10 – 15, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia;

• Presenter, Geotec Event “A Spirit of Collaboration”, May 16-19, 2003, in Vancouver, British Columbia;

• Presenter, Natural Resources Information Management Forum: Putting Knowledge to Work, 2003 in Richmond, British Columbia;

• Presenter, Intertribal GIS Council Conference 2003, in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho; • Presenter, Sto:lo Environment Conference, April 16, 2003 in Chilliwack, British Columbia; • Presenter, UBCIC Land Claims Research Conference, 2003 in Vancouver, British

Columbia; • Presenter, Northern British Columbia GIS Conference 2002, May 2002 in Prince George,

British Columbia. Selected Publications

Journal Articles Craig, Candler, Rachel Olson, Steven DeRoy and Kieran Broderick. Participatory GIS as a Sustained (and Sustainable?) Practice: The Case of Treaty 8 BC. Participatory Learning and Action, 54 (2006), 325-356.

Other “Direct-To-Digital Mapping Methodology Using Google Earth” guidebook

produced by the Firelight Group for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation (2011). “Good Practices Guide: Setting up and keeping an Aboriginal Mapping

Program” guidebook produced by CIER for GeoConnections and Natural Resources Canada (2010).

Rachel Eni, Gladys Rowe, and Steven DeRoy. Assessing the Social,

Cultural, Health Impacts of Hydro-electric Construction in Fox Lake. Poster presentation at the 10th annual Health Impact Assessment Conference in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Employment Equity

• Registered with Indian Status through the Ebb & Flow First Nation (Manitoba), Registry Number: 280 00936 01

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Documents