Written Evidence for the Towerbirch Expansion Project (the Project ) Hearing Order GH File: OF-Fac-Gas-N March 15, 2016

Transcription

1 Blueberry River First Nations Written Evidence for the Towerbirch Expansion Project (the Project ) Hearing Order GH File: OF-Fac-Gas-N March 15, 2016

2 Blueberry s Territory The Blueberry River First Nation ( Blueberry ) is located in northeast BC. We have more than 450 registered members including both Dane-zaa and Cree speakers. 1 Formerly, Blueberry was part of the Fort St. John Band, which adhered to Treaty 8 in When our ancestors adhered to the treaty, the treaty commissioners promised them they would always be able to practice their mode of life. These oral promises were expressed by David Laird, Commissioner to Treaty 8: We had to solemnly assure them 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 furbearing 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. 3 In 1977 the band was split into the Blueberry River and Doig River First Nations. 4 The ancestors of the Dane-zaa speaking members are the people whose occupancy of the Peace River region has been documented since the earliest history of the area. 5 Blueberry s traditional territory (the Territory ) is set out in a map below. 1 Rachel Olson and Steven Deroy, Blueberry River First Nations Knowledge and Use Study Final Report for the Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project, Firelight Group, 2014 ( Firelight ), pg. 3 2 Ridington, R., (1980). Beaver Indians. In Held, J. (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians ( Ridington, 1980 ) 3 Laird, D. Ross, J.H. and J.A.J McKenna (1899). Report of Commissioners to Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, September 22, Ridington, R and Ridington, J (2013). Where Happiness Dwells: A History of the Dane-zaa First Nations. Vancouver: UBC Press. ( Ridington and Ridington 2013 ) 5 Firelight, pg. 3

3 The lands that would be impacted by the proposed Project are part of Blueberry s Territory. Historically, they were a central part of Blueberry s seasonal round and were relied on to support our traditional mode of life, including our economy and culture. Blueberry s traditional lands have always been, and remain, foundational to our way of life, culture and identity. 6 These lands include the Territory, as well as parts of northwestern Alberta. As Kennedy and Bouchard concluded in a 2011 Report, the historical evidence [ ] shows that family groups who comprised the ancestors of the Blueberry River First Nations hunted north of the Beatton River to the vicinity of the Sikanni Chief River, as well as east to Clear Hills Alberta, southeast to Grande Prairie, Alberta, and west to the Rocky Mountain foothills. 7 Blueberry Land Use Dane-zaa ancestors have been living in the northeast of BC and northwest of Alberta for millennia. Dane-zaa oral history describes events and people being present in the area long before the arrival of white explorers. Archaeological evidence from the Charlie Lake caves shows that people have occupied the area for at least 10,500 years, hunting bison and other game. 8 The area was once rich in wildlife and attractive to First Nations due to the diversity of habitats available. Bison were abundant on the prairie along the Peace River, the muskeg to the north and east supported moose, elk, deer, beaver and other fur-bearers, and the mountains to the west provided habitat for sheep, goats and marmots (whistlers). Fish were also abundant in the rivers and lakes. 9 As a result, habitation of the area has been continuous since this time, as ancestors of the Dane-zaa took advantage of these resources, particularly the vast herds of bison. Dane-zaa ancestors also actively managed the landscape, for example performing controlled burning around the Peace River to maintain the prairie habitat for the bison herds. 10 Dane-zaa ancestors travelled seasonally around the Peace River country from the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta plains. This pattern of land use continued until relatively recently for most of the 20th century for some families with a variety of Crown authorized changes to the Territory (e.g., land privatization, agricultural development and fencing, government rules and regulations, the registered trapline system, oil and gas development) involuntarily reducing the geographic and seasonal mobility of Blueberry members. 11 Nonetheless, Blueberry harvesters still harvest in many different locations based on traditional knowledge of wildlife migration patterns and life stages. Seasonal gathering locations were, and remain, important to Dane-zaa culture, well-being and quality of life Blueberry. Communal relations have been reinforced and family ties extended through summer gatherings for hundreds of years. 6 Firelight, pg. 3 7 Bouchard, Randy and Kennedy, Dorothy, Blueberry River First Nations: Traditional Territory, 2011, ( Bouchard and Kennedy ) pg. v 8 Ridington and Ridington 2013, pg.67 9 Ridington and Ridington 2013, pg Ridington and Ridington 2013, pg Ridington 1980

4 Blueberry s seasonal round In order to survive, Blueberry people maintained a seasonal cycle, or seasonal round, based on the availability of different resources. 12 The traditional annual round was based on five seasons, rather than four, with the following activities occurring during this time: 1) Fall larger bands divided into smaller hunting groups to hunt game, primarily moose and deer, for dry meat and grease during the winter; 2) Early winter family groups would disperse to winter hunting and trapping areas for fur bearing animals; 3) Late winter the focus of hunting and trapping would shift towards predatory species (marten, lynx, fox, squirrel, fisher and wolverine); 4) Early Spring winter furs were traded and hunting focus shifted to beaver; and 5) Summer smaller groups would congregate into larger groups at summer camps and travel to summer hunting, fishing and berry picking areas. 13 Towards the end of summer, the new resource gathering year would begin with the fall dry meat hunt. 14 Blueberry s seasonal round extended throughout the Territory, 15 including those portions impacted by the proposed Project. An 1879 exploratory group observed Beaver people in the Dawson Creek and Pouce Coupe areas (the latter place named after the Beaver hunter who lived there) and noted that Beaver people could be found west to the Rocky Mountains. 16 Blueberry elder Johnny Chipesia reflected on the old days and the use of the lands impacted by the Project in 1966: In the summer time in the old days (I think this was before J s time) the whole bunch, blueberry, Rose prairie [Doig] & St. John beavers would got to Smokey [Smoky] R., Pouce Coupe, Dawson [Dawson Creek] to hunt moose. 17 Hunting has always been critical to Blueberry s way of life. Meat harvested from wild game in particular has always been an important source of sustenance for Blueberry people. They hunted bison on the prairies and woodlands adjacent to the Peace River, moose in the muskeg country, caribou in the lower mountain ranges and parklands and sheep and goat in the high mountains. 12 Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Bouchard and Kennedy pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg. v 16 Bouchard and Kennedy, pg. v 17 Bouchard and Kennedy, pg. 55

5 Prior to the mid-1800s, the most important food resource for Blueberry people was the wood bison. 18 The decline of the wood bison in the early 19 th century resulted in moose and caribou becoming increasingly important resource species. Both moose and caribou provided Blueberry with meat for sustenance as well as skins for clothing and shelter. 19 Today, Blueberry members continue to heavily rely on these species as a source of food, hide and tools. 20 As one Blueberry member noted without moose, we won t live. 21 Blueberry members have decided not to hunt caribou at this time because there are so few left in the territory. Blueberry s ancestors hunted extensively and regularly south of the Peace River in the early twentieth century. Many of these areas are no longer accessible to Blueberry River First Nations members due to non-aboriginal settlement, industry and agriculture. 22 Beyond providing an important source of sustenance, hunting has always played, and continues to play, a critical role in maintaining Blueberry s cultural continuity. Hunting is central to Blueberry members relationships with the land and serves as a mechanism by which their cultural knowledge is passed from generation to generation. 23 Blueberry people also harvested plants and berries. During the summer months, many different types of berries would be harvested including Saskatoon berries, huckleberries, blueberries, raspberries, gooseberries, crowberries and cranberries. The cambium of certain trees, along with certain roots, was also consumed. 24 Blueberry members continue to have an enduring connection to their historic land use areas. 25 The transmission of culture and traditional cultural practices from generation to generation, and the ability to continue carrying out these practices is critical to Blueberry. Much of this cultural knowledge is intimately tied to the activities that take place out on the land, and can therefore only be learned out on the land. 26 As one member stated: I can t explain what it means to me. It s me, it s my livelihood since I was a kid. My dad s livelihood. Grandparent s livelihood. To leave it go down [sic], you ve got to keep it going. It s our tradition. Large areas of land and variations in habitat type are required to effectively manage and conserve Blueberry s traditional economy. Riparian and alpine ecosystems are important for the continued collection of traditional medicinal plants. Important areas, natural conditions and various habitats are necessary for sustaining game and good hunting. These areas of importance 18 Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Firelight, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg. v 23 Firelight, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Firelight, pg. 28

6 include: mineral licks, calving grounds, thermal cover, shelter from hunters and predation, beaver lodges, bear trees and other sites of ecological importance. 27 When Blueberry members explain the importance of getting out on the land to their sense of culture today, they identify key activities as including: spending time in cabins or camping, trapping, teaching, hunting, and gathering. 28 For the Beaver, summer gatherings in predetermined sites were important meeting places for multiple family groups and members of different bands: In mid-summer several hundred people came together to sing and dance, each group setting up a dance lodge and fire. 29 The critical resources required for teaching and maintaining a sense of culture include, but are not limited to: overall ecological functioning, including healthy ecosystems capable of supporting Blueberry s traditional mode of life; sufficient resources, such as moose; the visual quality of landscapes, pristine areas, peace and quiet, and solitude; traditional campsites, historical wagon trails, historical landmarks, culturally and spiritually significant sites; and access to and the healthy functioning of specific areas. Blueberry s use of the Project area As outlined, historically the Project area was an important part of Blueberry s seasonal round. However, non-aboriginal settlement, agriculture and industrial activity have pushed Blueberry out of the area. Despite this, Blueberry members have used, and in some places continue to rely on, the lands impacted by the proposed Project for the exercise of their treaty rights. Blueberry has been unable to undertake a Project-specific traditional land use study, or gather information specific to the Project area from our members, but based on incidental traditional land use data we know that Blueberry relies on parts of the areas affected by the Project to: Gather traditional resources including saskatoons and blueberries; Establish traditional camps in the summer and winter; Hunt for wildlife, including for moose; and Host traditional gatherings, including at a place where people once sat together. Cumulative Impacts From early contact with European explorers to 1942 when the Alaska Highway opened, most Blueberry members continued to rely mainly on hunting and trapping as the basis of their economy, though during the 19th century there was also increasing trade for food products such as flour, sugar, tea, rice and potatoes. 30 Bison, a key staple for the Dane zaa, sharply declined in 27 BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife (Northern Interior Forest Region); McGuigan, Erin Kathleen 2003, Of Moose and Man: Collaborating to Identify First Nation s Priorities for Cumulative Impact Assessment in Northeast British Columbia ( McGuigan 2003 ) 28 McGuigan Ridington 1980, pg Ridington, R. 1990, When Poison Gas Come Down Like a Fog: A Native Community s Response to Cultural Disaster, in Little Bit know Something: Stories in a Language of Anthropology, pg. 206

7 the Peace River prairies in the first quarter of the 1800s 31, with fur traders noting these decreases and associated hardships on Beaver people in their journals and correspondence. 32 The Dane zaa replaced bison with moose and caribou as a staple in diet and culture, with elk later largely replacing caribou. Caribou were previously an important resource for Blueberry, but are currently at critically low numbers in the area and, as a species at risk, are subject to federal and First Nations self-imposed harvesting moratoriums. Today, even Blueberry members find it hard to hunt moose because of depleted populations, a species that was once abundant in the Territory. These, and many other resources, are under increased pressure from the cumulative impact of development in the Territory. The cumulative effects of the thousands of wells, roads, pipelines, gas plants, clear cuts, dams, transmission lines and other developments authorized by the Crown are destroying our land and threatening our traditional way of life. There are very few places left for members to exercise their rights under Treaty No. 8, including rights to hunt, fish and trap. Many of the best lands in Blueberry s territory are now either subject to other interests or are significantly disturbed. By some estimates, over two-thirds of Blueberry s territory is subject to land fragmentation, edge effects, and other adverse impacts of development. In addition, and as a result of this fragmentation, multiple wildlife species, including moose, caribou, grizzly bear, among others, have been subject to long-term declines. A report detailing many of these impacts Lee, P and M Hanneman Atlas of land cover, industrial land uses and industrial-caused land changes in the Peace Regions of British Columbia. Global Forest Watch Canada Report No. 4 is attached as Appendix A. The result is that today Blueberry faces an unprecedented crisis. The lands and resources that once sustained our vibrant culture and economy are increasingly under threat. We are observing the impacts of development in our Territory in our community. Blueberry is below average First Nations on AANDC s well-being index across a broad range of indicators, including social and family cohesion, inequality, cultural continuity, education, mental and physical health and language retention. 33 Blueberry is losing ground on well-being with significant drops in key indicators between 2001 and This includes dramatic drops in language retention and education. These decreases in a variety of indicators correspond with the increasing levels of industrial disturbance in our Territory. Unless cumulative impacts are meaningfully dealt with in our territory, the time will soon come when our culture and way of life have been destroyed and we no longer exist as a unique people and nation. Indeed, our elders fear for our youth and wonder if they will be able to learn what it means to be Blueberry and live off the land. This is a grave situation. The Crown has breached its solemn promises under Treaty No Ridington Bouchard and Kennedy, pg Gibson, D Blueberry River First Nation Socioeconomic Scoping and Baseline Profile for the Coastal GasLink Project. Firelight Group. ( Gibson 2014 )

8 The Crown is not taking seriously the cumulative impacts of Crown-authorized development on Blueberry s treaty rights, despite the fact that the extent of development throughout our Territory is well documented: A 2012 study conducted regarding the core of our Territory found that, as of 2011: 66% of the land in this area was either directly disturbed by industrial activities, or within 250 m of an industrial feature; linear disturbance density was 1.58 km/km 2, a disturbance density so significant traditional wildlife species could cease to be viable; and each year an average of 136 km 2 is effectively removed from the area as a result of industrial activity and development. 34 The Beatton watershed is an area that has been subject to particularly extensive industrial development over the past 25 years. Oil and gas development, forestry, agriculture, mining, gravel operations and other development mean that, as of 2012, studies found that 90.8% of the Beatton watershed is disturbed when buffered by 500 m. 35 Disturbance today is likely even greater as development, particularly oil and gas development, has continued unabated. This is an unacceptable level of disturbance in an area that has historically been a preferred area for the practice of our treaty rights. At one time, Blueberry was part of what was referred to as the Beatton River Band, reflecting the key importance of this area to us. Project Specific Impacts The proposed Project must be considered in this important cumulative impacts context, which has seen the constant degradation of Blueberry s way of life, and the, once healthy, ecosystems we rely on to sustain it. It is Blueberry s experience that major pipelines and related infrastructure, such as the proposed Project, have extremely detrimental impacts on our lands, resources and treaty rights. These impacts include, but are certainly not limited to: Destruction of wildlife and plant habitat and disturbance of important environmental features within the pipeline footprint and the surrounding Zone of Influence ( ZOI ); Aquatic and riparian habitat disruption at river crossings; Habitat fragmentation/disruption of wildlife movement due to lack of large contiguous habitat patches; 34 MSES, Effects of Industrial Disturbance on the Traditional Resources of the Blueberry River First Nations (August 2012). See also: Lee and Hanneman, (2012) Atlas of Land Cover, Industrial Land Uses and Industrial- Caused Land Changes in the Peace Region of British Columbia, Global Forest Watch report #4 International Year of Sustainable Energy for All. ( Lee and Hanneman 2012 ); Salmo Consulting Inc. (2003), Cumulative Effect Assessment and Management Framework for Northeast British Columbia. 35 Lee and Hanneman, pg. 68.

9 Disturbance effects on animals that impact population health of disturbance-vulnerable species like caribou, grizzly bear, moose and some fish species; Increased invasive plant and animal abundance in cleared areas and ZOIs; Potential increases in wildlife mortality and morbidity, including from increased predation and hunting of wildlife, particularly along pipeline rights of ways and access roads; Water contamination potential through spills, accidents and malfunctions; Reduced abundance and altered distribution of moose and other wildlife, fish and berries and plants; Potential extirpation of rare plants and species at risk, such as caribou; Sensory, access and other disturbance and disruption of Blueberry special interest areas and Blueberry activities within them; Increased or improved access routes within several kilometers of pipelines, driving non- Aboriginal harvesting rates up; Overall increase in non-aboriginal hunters/users resulting in increased pressures on wildlife, reduced quiet enjoyment of the land by Blueberry, and reduced safety and willingness of members to harvest from preferred areas in Blueberry Territory; Perceived and/or actual contamination (i.e chemicals for land clearing, spills) of air, water, plants and animals; Disturbance of spiritual sites and ceremonial sites; Loss/reduced access and use due to road closures, access controls and increased traffic; Reduced access, use and knowledge of food plants, medicinal plants and other cultural materials; Reduced harvesting success overall; Actual and/or perceived contamination of moose and other wildlife, water and fish, and berries and plants; Reduced hunting, fishing, and harvesting and, consequently, reduced food security for members; Reduced harvesting returns compared to travel costs and time; Reduced quiet enjoyment of the land; Erosion/alteration of known, prioritized and highly valued portions of the Blueberry cultural landscape; Reduced transmission of traditional knowledge specific to the lands, reducing cultural continuity, especially via impacts to areas/sites of high recreational, teaching, gathering, and knowledge transmission value; Reduced transmission of Blueberry culture, including language; Negative health impacts; and Negative socio-economic impacts and increased economic marginalization. As outlined above, Blueberry is below average First Nations on a variety of socio-economic indicators. Because of this, Blueberry is highly vulnerable to Project impacts and is likely less to be able to take advantage of potential opportunities the Project could offer. 36 The result is that 36 Gibson 2014.

10 Blueberry is likely to suffer a greater proportion of the negative Project impacts than nonaboriginal communities without realizing their fair share of Project benefits. Limitations of this Evidence There are very significant limitations to this evidence submission. It was prepared by Blueberry on a very short timeline to meet National Energy Board deadlines and with very few resources at our disposal due to the severe capacity constraints we face. Blueberry has not had the capacity or support to undertake a Project-specific traditional land use study, Project-specific socioeconomic study, Project-specific cumulative effects study or to talk to our members about the potential impacts of this Project on our treaty rights and interests. At this time we do not know the extent to which portions of our Territory remain available for meaningful treaty rights practices as this area is constantly shrinking as a result of increased development. The lack of any Project-specific study, and a lack of knowledge about the extent of the cumulative impacts crisis in our territory, means that substantial gaps exist in existing documentation about the extent and nature of Blueberry s historical and current use of the lands impacted by the proposed Project. This lack of data means any potential impacts of the proposed Project on Blueberry cannot yet be assessed as the appropriate baseline data is not available.