Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study Prepared for: Enbridge - - PDF document
Line 21 Pipeline Segment Replacement Project Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study Prepared for: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Prepared by: dl Ku e First Nation, in collaboration with Shared Value Solutions
Line 21 Pipeline Segment Replacement Project
Prepared for: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Prepared by: Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation, in collaboration with Shared Value Solutions Ltd. October 12, 2017
Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background and Study Purpose ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Dene Worldview: the interconnectedness of ecological and cultural wellbeing ................. 2 1.3 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Governance: Dene laws, values, principles and decision‐making ........... 2 1.4 Summary of the Project ............................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Defining the Study Area ............................................................................................................... 1 1.5.1 Local Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.5.2 Regional Study Area ................................................................................................................ 1 1.6 Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.7 Study Team .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.7.1 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation.............................................................................................................. 2 1.7.2 K’iyeli Cultural Services ........................................................................................................... 3 1.7.3 Shared Value Solutions ........................................................................................................... 3 1.8 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.8.1 Existing LKFN Research ............................................................................................................ 3 1.8.2 Line 21 Segment Replacement Mapping Interviews ............................................................... 5
2.0 Study Results ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Fish Habitat, Migration Routes and Spawning Areas ............................................................ 11 2.1.2 Land Mammal Habitat and Migration Routes ....................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Bird Habitat and Migration Routes ....................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Plant Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.5 Species at Risk Habitat and Migration Routes ...................................................................... 14 2.1.6 Salt Licks ................................................................................................................................ 15 2.1.7 Natural Drinking Water Sources ........................................................................................... 16 2.1.8 Changes to the Land and Environment ................................................................................. 17 2.2 Cultural Sites .............................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.1 Historical Settlements or Gathering Places ........................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Contemporary Gathering Areas ............................................................................................ 23
2.2.3 Burial Sites ............................................................................................................................. 23 2.2.4 Death Sites ............................................................................................................................ 25 2.2.5 Spiritual or Sacred Sites ......................................................................................................... 25 2.2.6 Traditional Place Names ........................................................................................................ 26 2.2.7 Other Cultural Locations ....................................................................................................... 27 2.3 Subsistence Land and Resource Use ......................................................................................... 29 2.3.1 Hunting .................................................................................................................................. 33 2.3.2 Trapping ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.3.3 Fishing ................................................................................................................................... 41 2.3.4 Plant and Natural Material Gathering ................................................................................... 46 2.4 Commercial Land and Resource Use ......................................................................................... 50 2.4.1 Commercial Fishing ............................................................................................................... 53 2.4.2 Commercial Trapping ............................................................................................................ 53 2.4.3 Commercial Guiding .............................................................................................................. 57 2.4.4 Commercial Gathering .......................................................................................................... 57 2.5 Occupancy and Access Areas ..................................................................................................... 59 2.5.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 62 2.5.2 Overnight Locations .............................................................................................................. 63 2.5.3 Access Areas and Routes ....................................................................................................... 64
3.0 Community Perspectives on the Proposed Project ..................................................... 66 4.0 Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 68
4.1 Project interactions with traditional land and resource use: implications of risks to LKFN Aboriginal Rights ..................................................................................................................................... 68 4.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 70
5.0 References ................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix A: Study Team Member Biographies ...................................................................... 73 Appendix B: Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific Data Collection Toolkit .......................... 74
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background and Study Purpose
Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation recognizes and values the fact that living on and off the land for millennia has provided for an accumulated knowledge and understanding of the human place in relation to the
environment and the use of natural resources, relationships between people, and is reflected in language, social organization, values, institutions and laws of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation. It is the ancient, communal, holistic and spiritual knowledge that encompasses every aspect of human existence, which has been passed from generation to generation orally and through personal experience and spiritual teachings, and pertains to the identity, culture and heritage of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ Fist Nation. Traditional knowledge is one of the cornerstones of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s identity and it continues to be relevant today. Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation believes that this knowledge is of benefit to the whole and that the best way to ensure its survival is to continue to use it and to share it in a manner that respects Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation values and traditions, and recognizes Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation people as custodians of this knowledge. Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation believes that Traditional Knowledge and Western science complement each other to provide a complete picture of the land. It is therefore imperative that Traditional Knowledge be considered on an equal footing with Western science in any project carried out on Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ traditional territory. (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2003) On March 10, 2017, Enbridge Pipelines NW Inc. (the “Proponent”) applied to the National Energy Board (“NEB”) to replace a section of its Line 21 pipeline, also known as the Norman Wells Pipeline. The application includes plans for the installation up to 2.5 kilometers of new pipeline under the Mackenzie River, as well as the decommissioning of the section of pipeline that is being replaced (the “Project”). The pipeline segment Enbridge is planning to replace traverses the core of Dene traditional territory and Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s (“LKFN”) homeland. The lands, animals and water that stand to be impacted by the Project are critical to the cultural identity and wellbeing of the Dene people and members of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation. The Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study for the Line 21 Segment Replacement (the “Study”) presents a summary of existing Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s Indigenous Knowledge, Land Use and Occupancy information in the Project area, as well as Indigenous Knowledge information that was collected in 2017 specific to the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area. The Study presents cultural, economic and ecological values that must be considered in the mitigation and protection planning for the Line 21 Segment Replacement Project should it be allowed to proceed.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 2 The data included in this report should not be considered comprehensive or completely inclusive of all
gathered from a sample of the community’s population and is intended to be an indicative representation of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ community members’ knowledge and use of the lands and waters within and surrounding the study areas. This report does not address how LKFN community members should be compensated by Enbridge if the Project is approved, nor does it imply support or consent for the Line 21 Segment Replacement project. In addition, this report does not examine the socio‐economic impacts Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation members may experience in tandem with potential impacts to lands and resources as a result of the Project. Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́, “the place where the rivers come together” is a village in the Dehcho Region of Canada’s Northwest Territories. A main feature of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s traditional territory is the confluence of the Liard River into the Mackenzie River. For centuries, this was the location that the Dene people would gather each summer to meet, celebrate and trade. These rivers have always acted as a transportation route for Dene people living in the region, providing access to the lands and waters that Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation relies on. Guided by Dene principles and values, Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ is proud of the beauty and vastness of their home. The land creates not only breathtaking views, it inspires an intimate connection with the environment. The community’s vision is one of positive change and accomplishment. Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation is a strong people that take pride in their rich heritage, as well as planning for the benefit of generations to come.
1.2 The Dene Worldview: the interconnectedness of ecological and cultural wellbeing
The Dene world view is “based upon the natural world of animals, ecology, aquatic beings and the natural elements: fire, wind, sky and water. The human animal was always interconnected with those
whole community. Dene elders teach community members be sensitive to the land, water, sky or universe, and animals and plants because they offer life. People are not directors in that environment but an integrated part of a whole system. The Dene rely on the environment and its species. We do not abuse what the creator has loaned to us to protect, for example; the caribou is not abused and every part of it is used for something and what is not usable is burned” (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2017).
1.3 Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Governance: Dene laws, values, principles and decision-making
LKFN’s traditional and moral authority is informed by Dene laws and values, which are based upon the necessity to act for the collective rather than for the individual interest, and to protect the land from which the people come from.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 3 The LKFN shares information and make decisions based on the following 10 Dene Principles:
recognize our equality with this land and all living creatures.
collective right to use the land and its resources to ensure our survival as a people. We also have a collective responsibility to protect the land and resources for our children and grandchildren.
and that which we take from the land. We do not waste anything that we have taken from the land, but share it with all who are in need.
accumulation of individual wealth or status.
context of a collective identity and collective responsibility for the survival and well‐being of the entire group.
respect the land, ourselves, and each other. They teach us how to live in balance and good health, and how to protect ourselves and our children. We must continue to live by these laws and pass them on to our children.
cared for us and passed on the gifts of generations past. We also honour and provide for our children who will pass on the ways of the Dene to generations yet to come.
and women make in working together for the survival of the people.
experience, wisdom, and powers for the benefit of the people. We don’t expect them to work for us or serve us but we look to them for guidance and instruction to help us govern ourselves in a good way. When it comes to protecting and making decisions concerning the Nation’s lands and resources, everyone has the right to be heard and to take part in the decision‐making process on discussion of matters which will affect us. We respect the rights of Dene in family groups, in communities, or in regions to make decisions without interference from outside with respect to matters which affect us in
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 4
1.4 Summary of the Project
The Line 21 Liquids Pipeline extends from Norman Wells, NWT to Zama, Alberta, a distance of 869 km. It was constructed in 1985 for the transport of oil from the Norman Wells oil field. (Dillon Consulting, 2017) On March 10, 2017 Enbridge (the Proponent) filed applications to the NEB to decommission and replace a section of the Line 21 pipeline that runs under the Mackenzie River. The replacement has been described by the Proponent as a preventative measure based on increased slope movement near the Mackenzie River that was identified during regular inspection and maintenance in 2016. The right‐of‐way (ROW) for Line 21 runs along the opposite (north) side of the Mackenzie River from Fort Simpson, and crosses the river approximately 9 km east of Fort Simpson, upstream of the confluence with the Liard River. The length of pipeline being replaced is roughly 2500 m. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) will be staged at for entry at 250m north of the river and will exit 260m south
Consulting, 2017). The Project will involve: Right‐of‐way clearing and preparation; Temporary workspace and staging areas (north site, south site); South Slope camp (located near the MV Lafferty Ferry crossing of the Liard River) and North Slope camp Access trails on north and south sides of Mackenzie River; Construction, welding, coating, non‐destructive examination (NDE), hydro‐testing and inspection; (HDD) of the Mackenzie River crossing; and Cleanup and reclamation of the Right‐of‐Way.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 1
Figure 1 Proposed entry and exit locations for Horizontal Directional Drilling on north and south of Mackenzie River
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 1 The proposed method for crossing the Mackenzie River is a HDD or trenchless crossing. Preliminary geotechnical investigations suggest that HDD is appropriate for the identified crossing location, however, a feasibility study is currently being completed (Figure 1). Materials, equipment and machinery used for the Project will be brought to site by truck and barge. Individual pipeline segments will be trucked from the mill then clamped and welded manually on‐site. Once installation of the pipeline is completed, integrity and leak testing will be done prior to operation. Site remediation is to be done after pipeline installation has been completed. The Proponent estimates that the Project will be completed within 5 months of the start date. However, this timeline is contingent on regulatory approval, site conditions and transport options. For example, the north bank of the Mackenzie River has no overland access outside of winter conditions and barge access on the Mackenzie River is not suitable year‐round. For this reason, the Proponent must time transport and access accordingly.
1.5 Defining the Study Area
The geographic scope of the study area and rationale are described below.
1.5.1 Local Study Area
The Local Study Area (“LSA”) for the Study consists of a 1.5km buffer around all Project components (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Additionally, the LSA includes 8km downstream of the Project in the Mackenzie River, as well as 1km upstream of the Project in the same river. A buffer of 500m on the riverbanks edging this area within the Mackenzie River are also included within the LSA, accounting for riparian zones that could be impacted should a spill or discharge of drilling fluid occur. The length of the Mackenzie included in the LSA represents the community’s area of concern for the
Should the Project commence during a time of high discharge, the 8km downstream from the proposed HDD crossing encompassed in the LSA represents the area Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation considers important to protect from the impacts of construction activities and potential malfunctions. The LSA is represented by the pink areas within Figure 2 and Figure 3.
1.5.2 Regional Study Area
Given LKFN concerns about the extent of their traditional territory, knowledge of land use and sensitive habitat, and the potential reach of a possible oil spill or HDD frac out (accidental release of drilling fluids), a Regional Study Area (“RSA”) was established to include 20km around the extent of all Project components, represented by the map extents of the “Northern RSA” (Figure 2) and “Southern RSA” (Figure 3). The RSA is inclusive of the LSA. LKFN considers these areas throughout the RSA to be distinct and interconnected ecosystems.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 1
Figure 2 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Overview Map, Northern RSA and LSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 1
Figure 3 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Overview Map, Southern RSA and LSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 2
1.6 Disclaimer
The results presented in this report should not be regarded as comprehensive or an exhaustive representation of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s land use, occupancy and knowledge in the study area. Data presented in the report consists of previously known LKFN land use and knowledge of the study area as well as additional Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data. While both datasets are valuable to the Study, neither of these data sources should be regarded as all‐inclusive. Given the sample size and short time frame of the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific LKFN study participant interviews, the data contained in this report should not be viewed as representative of the complete breadth or depth of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s land use, occupancy and knowledge for the study area; the results of both datasets represent merely a preliminary snapshot of participants’ land use and
and is intended to be an indicative representation of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ community members’ knowledge and use of the lands and waters within and surrounding the study areas. The maps contained within this report should be used with caution beyond providing an initial indication of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s land use, occupancy and knowledge within the study area. “There is over 4000 years of conclusive evidence of Dene and Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation members connection to, and use of the land and waters through oral history and practicing of their inherent Aboriginal rights” (Chief Antoine, personal communications, June 14, 2017). Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s connection to, and use of, their lands and resources remains their right and fundamentally critical to the community’s present and future health and wellbeing.
1.7 Study Team
This Study was a collaborative process undertaken by Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, K’iyeli Cultural Services (“KCS”) and Shared Value Solutions (“SVS”). More details about the Study Team are described below. Biographies for team members can be found in Appendix A.
1.7.1 Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation
Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation staff spearheaded this Study, compiling previous research, conducting additional fieldwork as well as presenting data. The Study team from LKFN was made up of the following individuals: Liza McPherson, Executive Director Dieter Cazon, GIS Technician Climate Muyambo, Project Oversight Jonas Antoine, Project Oversight
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 3
1.7.2 K’iyeli Cultural Services
K’iyeli Cultural Services is a consulting company based in Fort Simpson that provides translation, interpretation and transcription services. KCS worked collaboratively with LKFN to conduct additional mapping interviews. KCS provided translation support as well as general interview support for the additional fieldwork conducted for this
Gilbert Cazon, Associate Partner Mary Jane Cazon, Associate Partner
1.7.3 Shared Value Solutions
SVS is a consulting firm based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The firm specializes in Indigenous Knowledge (IK), land use and occupancy studies; analyzing and presenting study results for applicability to environmental assessment processes, community negotiations with proponents and the Crown, and the development of appropriate project mitigations. SVS worked collaboratively with LKFN to compile, integrate and present previously existing data as well as to write the report. SVS also provided support for qualitative interviews. The Study team from SVS was made up of the following members: Trieneke Gastmeier, M.A., Heritage and Social Research Specialist, Lead Researcher Keegan McGrath, M.Sc., Fisheries and Aquatics Biologist, Researcher Mike VanEgmond, B.A., Researcher Rachel Speiran, M.A., Senior Community Development Specialist, Project Oversight and Report Review
1.8 Methodology
This Study is the result of existing LKFN research, as well as follow‐up mapping interviews and qualitative interviews specific to the Line 21 Segment Replacement. A description of the methodology employed for each component that went into this Study is provided below. LKFN worked collaboratively with KCS and SVS to carry out this Study.
1.8.1 Existing LKFN Research
Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation has been recording community members’ knowledge and land use within its traditional territory in a systematic way for over 20 years. In preparing for the current Study, LKFN gathered data from previous studies and digitized the information together on composite maps. These
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 4 collated maps were then analyzed for ‘gaps’ – areas where information was sparse or missing – which helped inform the follow‐up Line 21 Segment Replacement interviews. Given slight differences in the methodologies employed in these studies for collecting data, the maps presented in this report distinguish the established LKFN research, or “Existing LKFN Data,” from the “Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific” data, outlined in Section 1.8.2. The previous studies, including transcripts, were also reviewed for qualitative information, which was used as a reference in the write‐ ups for the Study results in this report. The studies used within this report include: 2004 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation and Fort Simpson Traditional Knowledge Project Literature Review and Traditional Knowledge Study for Mackenzie Gas Project Imperial Oil Resources This study provides a summary of the traditional knowledge of selected Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation members who have knowledge and/or use within the project study area. The knowledge provided by study participants included traditional place names, traditional land use areas, locations of cabins, trails, culturally significant sites, wildlife and plant resources, hydrology and geology. 2007 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Assessment of Traditional Knowledge Relating to the Proposed Mackenzie Gas Project “The purpose of this study was to document the past and present land use of LKFN members in the areas that may be affected by the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP). LKFN membership identified the plants, animals, people, cabins, campsites, sacred sites, trails, trap lines, water bodies and lands that will be influenced by the proposed pipeline. These ecological and cultural values were mapped on paper and then added to the digital database held at the band office. This study also compiled a list of the concerns and recommendations brought forward by LKFN members LKFN then used this information to compile a list of ecological and cultural areas they believe should be protected from disturbance from the MGP. The traditional ecological and cultural knowledge collected during this study would then contribute to the environmental assessment required for the Mackenzie Gas Project” (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2007: 3). 2013 Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation Traditional Knowledge Assessment of Enbridge Pipeline Inc. MV2013P0011 Land Use Permit This study provides a summary of the Indigenous Knowledge research of Enbridge’s Norman Wells Pipeline, as required as part of their application for land use permit V2013P0011 (the renewal of LUP MV2006P0018) with the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB). This Study was carried out by Blyth & Bathe Inc. and focused on the right‐of‐way within LKFN territory. A combination of individual interviews and workshops were used to collect information about traditional use as well as the impacts to traditional use and the environment. Where existing data was unclear and/or incomplete, it was not included in the Study.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 5
1.8.2 Line 21 Segment Replacement Mapping Interviews
The methodology for the Line 21 Segment Replacement Project‐specific LKFN land use mapping interviews was collaboratively created by LKFN and SVS. This methodology is based on the best‐practice map biography technique pioneered by Terry Tobias in his manual Living Proof: The Essential Data‐ Collection Guide for Indigenous Use and Occupancy Map Surveys (2009). The map biography is the recognized standard data collection method for land use and occupancy studies in Canada. A map biography is an interview process in which a person provides an account of their life on the land and water, including places they have travelled, stayed and gathered resources. These locations are then
respondents may indicate places that they have not used personally, but about which they have knowledge from family or other members of the community (Tobias, 2009). For the current Study, participants were asked questions about ecological knowledge, cultural sites, personal harvesting and land use, and commercial harvesting and land use. Together with Kiyeli Cultural Services, Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation conducted a total of four individual map biography interviews in October 2017. Participants were chosen using the following criteria: People who have used or have knowledge of the land along or near the proposed Enbridge Line 21 Segment Replacement Project areas or downstream on the Mackenzie River from those areas 18 years or older, and from a variety of age groups and families a member of LKFN Both men and women Some people who make (or have made) a living off the land People who would have knowledge of the locations of species at risk and species of cultural importance to LKFN Study results represent information dating from participants’ lifetimes and thus spans the 1900s up until the present. Historical information dates back further than this. Geographical locations were recorded using ArcGIS, and affiliated information for each mapped point was documented using a customized Excel spreadsheet. LKFN then digitized and collated this data with previously existing LKFN data. Importantly, given minor differences in methodology, the data from existing LKFN research is separated from the Line 21 Segment replacement‐specific research. Both research datasets, however, are valuable and relevant to the Study. LKFN worked collaboratively with SVS to present the results of the Study. A copy of the toolkit used for this Study can be found in Appendix B.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 6
2.0 Study Results
The results of the Study are detailed in the sections below. Write‐ups are focused on the LSA, with additional information provided for the Study as a whole. Throughout the presentation of results below, “Existing LKFN Data” refers to land use, occupancy and knowledge data in the RSA and LSA compiled from LKFN’s existing database (Section 1.8.1) and “Line 21 Segment Replacement specific” data refers to land use, occupancy and knowledge data in the RSA and LSA collected with the methodology outlined in Section 1.8.2. In total, 1287 sites were mapped (1052 from the Existing LKFN Data and 235 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data). Of this number, 626 sites were mapped specifically within the LSA (477 from the Existing LKFN data and 149 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data).
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 7
2.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Individuals gain knowledge of the natural world and the ecology of their surroundings through years of personal experience. This knowledge is passed down through generations and is informed by cultural understandings of the relationship that humans have with the lands, waters and animals. The ancestors
since time beyond memory. For this reason, they are able to provide specific insight about local ecology and the environment. This knowledge is essential for understanding the potential environmental effects
plants that may not exist in the available literature or through local resource management agencies. This information is defined as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Study participants were asked to share their TEK as it relates to the lands, waters, and animals in the study area. The wealth of TEK shared demonstrates the deep connection to local ecology possessed by LKFN who have acted as stewards of the land for generations and have made the choices to share and document locations of ecological importance. LKFN's intimate connection to the land coupled with the large amount of time spent harvesting and travelling on the land, in many cases, has made them experts in local knowledge and ecology. Existing TEK data was also pulled from previous studies completed by LKFN, however these studies did not have a specific focus on the LSA and much of the TEK available was for outside this area. The categories of TEK that were most frequently reported by participants included bird habitat and migration routes, and species at risk information, followed closely by TEK regarding fish and then terrestrial mammals. Table 1 shows the number of features mapped in each TEK category. In total 115 TEK data points were recorded, 57 of which were from within the LSA. Figure 4 and Figure 5 are composite maps showing all TEK sites mapped in the LSA. Due to the proximity of these areas to the Project, they are at high‐risk for potential environmental impacts. These potential impacts within the LSA will require mitigation strategies that are appropriate for the unique environmental context within which they occur. These mitigation strategies need to be developed and approved in consultation with LKFN before implementation.
Table 1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ‐ RSA Data
TYPE EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA TOTAL COUNTS – ALL RSA DATA Fish Habitat, Migration Routes and Spawning Areas 8 8 Land Mammal Habitat and Migration Routes 3 16 19
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 8 Bird Habitat and Migration Routes 5 30 35 Plant Habitat 9 9 Species at Risk Habitat and Migration 31 31 Salt Licks 2 2 Natural Drinking Water Sources 8 8 Changes to the Land and Environment 3 3 TOTAL 8 107 115
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 9
Figure 4 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Northern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 10
Figure 5 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Southern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 11
2.1.1 Fish Habitat, Migration Routes and Spawning Areas
Four locations of TEK related to freshwater fishes were identified by LKFN community members (Table 2) in the LSA. This included Arctic grayling spawning, Arctic grayling migration, sucker spawning and sucker migration. Any impacts or spills related to the Project would potentially result in impacts to this known spawning and migration area.
Table 2 Fish Habitat, Migration Routes and Spawning Areas: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1703‐110‐1 Arctic Grayling (Bluefish) Fish Spawning 1703‐110‐2 Suckers Fish Spawning 1703‐110‐3 Bluefish Fish Migration 1703‐110‐4 Arctic Grayling (Bluefish) Fish Migration The spawning and migration areas have been identified near the mouth of a tributary that flows into the Mackenzie River. This tributary flows into the Mackenzie River approximately 800m downstream of the pipeline crossing location (see Figure 4).
2.1.2 Land Mammal Habitat and Migration Routes
Existing data and information shared by LKFN participants was used to identify locations of important mammal habitat, these are areas that mammals rely on for reproduction, feeding, shelter, migration or
mammal habitat within the LSA. Table 3 provides details of each land mammal habitat and migration route mapped in the LSA including species and type of habitat.
Table 3 Land Mammal Habitat and Migration Routes: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT 1703‐110‐15 Moose Migration
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 12 REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1702‐38‐4 Porcupine Habitat 1702‐38‐27 Moose Migration 1703‐110‐10 Moose Calving 1701‐109‐1 Moose Habitat 1701‐109‐4 Moose Habitat 1702‐38‐3 Moose Calving 1702‐38‐2 Moose Habitat The areas most commonly identified by participants included moose calving, migration and habitat, but participants also shared one TEK location for porcupine. The porcupine habitat was identified adjacent to the ROW, approximately 600 m south of the South Work Site. The moose calving and migration habitats are located adjacent to the pipeline ROW, along its length (see Figure 4 and Figure 5)
2.1.3 Bird Habitat and Migration Routes
Many bird species inhabit the study region, some of which are resident year‐round while others make yearly migrations. Bird habitat and migration routes were identified based on existing data and through mapping with LKFN participants. In total, 17 areas were identified within the LSA, one of which was from existing LKFN data. This included TEK on several species including pintails, mallards, and other ducks.
Table 4 Bird Habitat and Migration Routes: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
38-121
Birds Migration LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐14 Ducks Migration 1701‐109‐15 Mallards Migration 1701‐109‐16 Pintail Migration 1703‐110‐19 Black Ducks Migration 1703‐110‐20 Geese Migration 1703‐110‐21 Crane Migration
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 13 1703‐110‐22 Ducks Migration 1701‐109‐10 Chickens Habitat 1701‐109‐11 Ducks Habitat (Nesting) 1701‐109‐12 Mallards Habitat (Nesting) 1701‐109‐13 Pintails Habitat (Nesting) 1701‐109‐7 Ducks Habitat 1701‐109‐8 Mallards Habitat 1701‐109‐9 Pintails Habitat 1703‐110‐11 Ducks Habitat (Nesting) 1702‐38‐28 Multiple Species Migration As indicated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, numerous bird habitats are located within the LSA. Ducks and cranes are known to migrate across the Mackenzie River including along islands at the confluence of the Mackenzie and Liard Rivers. Duck nesting also is known along the tributary located to the northwest of the North Work Site. Mallard and Pintail habitat has been observed to the west of Access Pullout 1. Potential exists for these sites to be impacted by construction activity, increased access, or in the event that an accident or malfunction associated with the Project occur.
2.1.4 Plant Habitat
A total of eight areas of important plant habitat were mapped in the LSA in the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data. Species identified included ceremonial plants, medicinal herbs and foods such as birch, cranberries and Labrador tea. Table 5 provides a breakdown of plant habitat mapped in the LSA.
Table 5 Plant Habitat: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA N/A N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT 1701‐109‐17 Low Bush Cranberries Habitat
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 14 REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐18 High Bush Cranberries Habitat 1702‐38‐13 Birch Habitat 1702‐38‐49 Labrador Tea Habitat 1702‐38‐12 Labrador Tea Habitat 1702‐38‐14 Labrador Tea Habitat 1702‐38‐15 Birch Habitat 1704‐53‐26 Birch Habitat Specific sites within the LSA are indicated in Figure 4 and Figure 5. There are cranberry habitats identified along the ROW, approximately 1.5 km south of South Work Site. There is also a concentration
2.1.5 Species at Risk Habitat and Migration Routes
Due to their extensive knowledge of the natural environment and active presence on the land, LKFN community members hold vital knowledge related to species at risk. Through the years they have witnessed the population declines and changes in overall health of various species. The community of LKFN also has an important role to play in species at risk stewardship since they use the land across their territory year‐round. With more time spent on the land can come more sightings of species at risk, providing crucial information about abundance and habitat use. Species at risk are plants, wildlife or fish that are in danger of disappearing from the wild. They can be threatened by a whole range of natural or anthropogenic causes. Species at risk are designated by the territorial and federal governments into numerous categories based on the population status of the
traditional territory is home to a wide variety of species at risk. These species, including wolverine and caribou, hold important cultural value to LKFN. The participants of the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific study identified 12 locations of species at risk sightings throughout the LSA (Table 6). These were primarily bird species at risk (e.g. horned greeb, shorteared owl, common nighthawk) but also included sighting of mammals including wolverine and
Table 6 Species at Risk Habitat and Migration Routes: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 15 EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐18 Wolverine Habitat 1702‐38‐16 Short Eared Owl Habitat 1702‐38‐17 Olive Sided Flycatcher Habitat 1702‐38‐18 Common Nighthawk Habitat 1702‐38‐23 Wolverine Habitat 1704‐53‐37 Horned Greeb Habitat 1704‐53‐38 Horned Greeb Habitat 1701‐109‐23 Caribou Habitat – on the right of way 1702‐38‐20 Bank Swallow Habitat 1702‐38‐22 Gypsy Cuckoo Habitat 1703‐110‐27 Barn Swallows Habitat 1704‐53‐28 Short Eared Owl Habitat As indicated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, important habitat for species at risk is located throughout the LSA. Wolverine habitats were observed adjacent to the ROW to the north of the Access Pullout #1 and approximately 1.5km south of the South Camp. Shorteared owl was noted 400m south of the South
the Liard River, approximately 1km to the north of the South Camp. Potential exists for these species to be impacted by construction activity and access, or in the case that an accident or malfunction associated with the Project occur.
2.1.6 Salt Licks
Salt licks are mineral deposits or areas that have been weathered to expose mineral nutrients. These areas attract many animals who use the calcium, sodium, potassium and other minerals from the salt licks to support physiological processes such as bone and muscle growth. As a result, hunters often rely
lick in the LSA (Table 7). This was identified on the north bank of the Mackenzie River, approximately 500 m north of the pipeline along a tributary of the river (Figure 4).
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 16
Table 7 Salt Licks: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1704‐53‐47 Salt Lick
2.1.7 Natural Drinking Water Sources
Drinking water is fundamental to the survival of all living things. A source of clean drinking water is important for the community of LKFN and for community members when they are out on the land. In total there were five natural drinking water sources identified in the LSA (Table 8). The locations of these drinking water sources can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Drinking water sites are found 6km north of the South Camp, approximately 2km east of the ROW from Access Pullout #1 and two sites are located along a tributary approximately 600m northwest of the North Work Site.
Table 8 Natural Drinking Water Sources: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1702‐38‐25 Natural Drinking Water Source Spring 1703‐110‐30 Natural Drinking Water Source Red Water 1701‐109‐24 Natural Drinking Water Source Spring; Tea Water 1703‐110‐29 Natural Drinking Water Source Creek 1703‐110‐31 Natural Drinking Water Source Creek
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 17
2.1.8 Changes to the Land and Environment
Some LKFN participants remarked upon changes to the environment that they had observed. These changes may be part of natural cycles (e.g., forest fires, climate fluctuations, insect outbreaks etc.) or they may be linked with anthropogenic causes (e.g., climate change, overhunting, development etc.). These changes are important to note because they can act cumulatively or synergistically; have implications for land use or access and/or act as indicators for environmental change forecasting. LKFN participants identified two changes within the LSA (Table 9). This included an observation of increased number of falling trees 4km to the southwest of the South Work Site. The second observation of change was adjacent to the pipeline ROW approximately 7km north of the south camp where a wetland area had dried up (see Figure 5).
Table 9 Changes to the Land and Environment: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐25 Changes to the Land and Environment Falling Trees 1702‐38‐29 Changes to the Land and Environment Water Dried Up; Lodge Fell In; Beaver Bones Around Site
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 18
2.2 Cultural Sites
Participants were asked to locate various LKFN cultural sites throughout the study area. What constitutes a cultural site can often be very personal and differ from western conceptions. For the purposes of this Study, however, cultural sites were broken down into the following categories: Historical Settlements or Gathering Places Contemporary Gathering Areas Burial Sites Spiritual or Sacred Sites (Cultural Sites) Traditional Place Names Death Sites Other Cultural Locations Cultural sites identified should be viewed only as a sample of possible sites within the RSA, the limitations of which are related to the number of participants interviewed. In total, participants mapped 80 cultural sites within the RSA, including eight historical settlements or gathering places, five contemporary gathering areas, 18 burial sites, 14 spiritual or sacred sites, 25 traditional place names, eight death sites, and two “other cultural sites” that did not fit into the above
discussion of these specific cultural sites within the LSA can be found below. The total number of cultural sites mapped for this Study can be found in Table 10.
Table 10 Cultural Sites ‐ All RSA Data
TYPE EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA TOTAL COUNTS – ALL RSA DATA Historical Settlements or Gathering Places 6 2 8 Contemporary Gathering Areas 5 5 Burial Sites 11 7 18 Spiritual or Sacred Sites 11 3 14
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 19 Traditional Place Names 25 25 Death Sites 8 8 Other Cultural Locations 2 2 TOTAL 61 19 80
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 20
Figure 6 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Cultural Sites, Northern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 21
Figure 7 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Cultural Sites, Southern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 22 Concentrations of mapped cultural sites occur east of the Project on the northern and southern banks of the Mackenzie River; directly over the North Worksite Camp and Shoofly, as well as the North Worksite HDD; and between the Access Pullout #5 and the South Laydown and Storage site. In total 30 cultural sites were located within the LSA, as further elaborated in the sections below. If approved, Project‐related activities near these areas may impact the use and integrity of these cultural
related to or identify with these areas, which could have an impact on community well‐being.
2.2.1 Historical Settlements or Gathering Places
LKFN has occupied this land since time immemorial and this is reflected through Dene cultural heritage and sense of collective responsibility to protect the cultural resources which are tied to cultural identity. Cultural heritage material in this area should be regarded as the property of LKFN and should never be disturbed without LKFN consent and oversight. A total of eight historical settlements or gathering places were mapped within the RSA (six from the existing LKFN data and two from the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data). Within the LSA specifically, a total of three historical settlements were mapped (two from the existing LKFN data and
within the LSA. Historical settlements or gathering places refers to areas where community members came together in the past for a particular purpose, but which is no longer used for that purpose. It is important to note that the lack of historical gathering places mapped does not indicate that there are no gathering places present within the LSA; rather, this absence indicates that of the interviewees who participated in the Study, none identified any historical gathering places within this geographical extent. Table 11 provides additional details about the historical settlements mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 11 Historical Settlements or Gathering Places: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
25-444 Historical Settlement 0-454 Historical Settlement
LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT 1702‐38‐31 Historical Settlement Dene lived here
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 23 SPECIFIC DATA All three historical settlements within the LSA have the potential to be impacted by the Project should any accident or malfunction occur. As indicated in Figure 6, 0‐454 overlaps directly with the North Worksite HDD. If the Project is approved, this site in particular could be directly affected, possibly leading to the disturbance of LKFN cultural heritage material. The other historical features within the LSA include a site extending just southeast of Fort Simpson into the Mackenzie River as well as just northwest of the Access Pullout #3.
2.2.2 Contemporary Gathering Areas
Participants were asked to locate contemporary gathering areas on the map. A total of five contemporary gathering areas were mapped within the RSA (all from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific‐data); of these features, two were mapped specifically within the LSA. Contemporary gathering areas refer to places where LKFN community members gather today for feasts, recreation, events, trading, etc. Table 11 provides additional details about the contemporary gathering areas mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 12 Contemporary Gathering Areas: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA N/A N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1703‐110‐33 Contemporary Gathering Place 1703‐110‐35 Contemporary Gathering Place As indicated in Figure 6, both contemporary gathering places within the LSA are less than 1km northwest of the North Worksite HDD. Should the Project be approved, the Project construction activities (including the affiliated sound), influx of workers, and any possible accident or malfunction could have a detrimental impact on these two sites, which could affect LKFN’s cultural wellbeing.
2.2.3 Burial Sites
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 24 Participants were asked to locate burial sites on the map. A total of 18 burial sites were mapped within the RSA (11 from the existing LKFN data, and seven from the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data). Within the LSA specifically, 14 burial sites were mapped (10 from the existing LKFN data, and four from the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data). In the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific‐data, burial sites referred to places where individuals were buried out on the land and does not refer to church cemeteries. Table 13 provides additional details about the burial sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 13 Burial Sites: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
15-122
Burial Site
51-123
Burial Site
53-124
Burial Site
98-445
Burial Site
7-446
Burial Site
13-447
Burial Site
13-448
Burial Site
55-455
Burial Site
55-456
Burial Site
55-457
Burial Site LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1703‐110‐36 Burial Site Older Brother 1703‐110‐37 Burial Site Elder 1701‐109‐28 Burial Site 1702‐38‐32 Burial Site
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 25 As indicated in Figure 6 and Figure 7, numerous burial sites are located within the LSA. Concentrations
site is east of the North Worksite. Potential exists for these sites to be affected should an accident and malfunction associated with the Project occur.
2.2.4 Death Sites
Participants were asked to locate death sites on the map. A total of eight death sites were mapped within the RSA, all from the existing LKFN data. Within the LSA specifically, three death sites were
Replacement‐specific data, which is a limiting factor on this data. In the existing LKFN data, death sites refer specifically to known areas where individuals have died; it does not refer to locations where individuals were buried. Table 14 provides additional details about the death sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 14 Death Sites: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
18-458
Death Site
18-459
Death Site
0-460
Death Site LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A As indicated in Figure 7 the three death sites present are concentrated south of Access Pullout #5 and northwest of the South Laydown and Storage. Site 18‐458 is less than 250m away from the South Laydown and Storage.
2.2.5 Spiritual or Sacred Sites
Participants were asked to locate spiritual or sacred sites on the map. Within the RSA, a total of 14 spiritual or sacred sites were mapped (11 from the existing LKFN data and three from the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data). Two sites were mapped specifically within the LSA, both of which were from the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 26 Within the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific interviews, spiritual or sacred sites were defined as places interviewees or other LKFN community members regard as sacred, such as powwow grounds, fasting sites, sweat lodges, vision quest sites, etc. This category also includes ceremonial sites. In Figure 6 and Figure 7, spiritual or sacred sites are referred to as “Cultural Sites”. Table 15 provides additional details about the spiritual or sacred sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 15 Spiritual or Sacred Sites: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA N/A N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐34 Spiritual or Sacred Site 1703‐110‐34 Spiritual or Sacred Site As seen in Figure 6, within the LSA one spiritual or sacred site is located just west of the South Worksite while the other is just northwest of the North Worksite. Both sites are along the shore of the Mackenzie; should any accident or malfunction occur, it is possible that the integrity of these spiritual or sacred sites could be impaired by the Project if it is approved. Both sites are within 2km of the Project. Any impacts to sacred and spiritual sites associated with the Project could affect the socio‐cultural fabric of LKFN.
2.2.6 Traditional Place Names
Participants were asked to locate any traditional place names on the map. Within the RSA, a total of 25 traditional place name sites were mapped, all of which were from the existing LKFN data. Five of these sites are specifically located within the LSA. Traditional place names sites refer to areas on the land or water that community members know the name of in their own language. Table 16Table 15 provides additional details about the traditional place names sites mapped within the
“Notes” column. The traditional place names can be found in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Table 16 Traditional Place Names: LSA Data
TYPE NOTES
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 27 EXISTING LKFN DATA Traditional Place Name Mbeh Gáh Gotsee Traditional Place Name Maotse Ndué Traditional Place Name Ehdalá Traditional Place Name Įchı̨́h Ndu Traditional Place Name Nı́ts’ıhtıa LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A As seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7, concentrations of traditional place name sites within the LSA occur northwest of the North Worksite and South Worksite; one traditional place name site is present just northwest of Access Pullout #3. These traditional place names represent the longstanding connection and understanding between Dene peoples and the lands and waters in this region, carried forward from generation to generation despite changes to the community and their culture. Any impacts or changes related to the project that occur that could affect the appearance or quality of these locations could have an impact on the cultural landscape of LKFN.
2.2.7 Other Cultural Locations
Participants were asked if they were aware of any other cultural locations on the map. Two “other cultural locations” were mapped within the RSA, one of which was present within the LSA. Questions about other cultural locations were only asked in the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific interviews, and thus this data is only reflective of the four individual interviews from which this data emerges. “Other cultural locations” refers specifically to any other location that does not fit into the above categories but are important to the LKFN community. Table 17Table 15 provides additional details about the other cultural locations mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 17 Other Cultural Locations: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA N/A N/A N/A
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 28 LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA
1703-110-38
Other Cultural Location Elder says do not disturb this area; area used for young people As indicated Figure 6, this cultural location overlaps directly with the North Worksite and consequently will be impacted directly if the Project is approved. This is an area noted by an LKFN community member to be important to the community.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 29
2.3 Subsistence Land and Resource Use
The Dene that have lived in the area around Fort Simpson have traveled extensively all over their traditional territory. They have used this area since time immemorial and have an inherent right to continue using this area for their own enjoyment, and for future enjoyment. Traditional hunting, fishing and gathering sites became settlement sites where people set up more permanent residence. (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2007). Participants were asked about their personal harvesting activities throughout the study area. For the purpose of this Study, harvesting is described in four categories:
In total, participants mapped 610 land and resource use sites within the RSA, including 355 hunting sites, 33 trapping sites, 130 fishing sites and 92 plant and natural material gathering sites. The total number of land and resource use features can be found in Table 18. As with all other data represented in this Study, land and resource use sites presented below should be viewed as a sample of total personal harvesting sites that take place within the RSA and beyond. It should not be assumed that everyone who have personal harvesting sites within this geographic area were interviewed for this Study; nor should it be assumed that the information recorded with participants was comprehensive. Rather, the mapped harvesting sites should be viewed as a representative sample of the total harvesting activities that take place in this area.
Table 18 Subsistence Land and Resource Use ‐ All Data
TYPE EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA TOTAL COUNTS – ALL RSA DATA Hunting 327 28 355 Trapping 26 7 33 Fishing 95 35 130 Plant and Natural Material Gathering 73 19 92
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 30 TOTAL 521 89 610
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 31
Figure 8 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Personal Harvesting and Land Use, Northern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 32
Figure 9 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Personal Harvesting and Land Use, Southern RSA
Redacted
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 33 The extent and diversity of land use in such a small area and across multiple seasons is indicative of the interconnected relationship Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation has with the lands and waters throughout their traditional territory and the potential for the Project to have drastic impacts on the community’s way of life. In total, 250 sites were located within the LSA. A more in‐depth discussion of specific sites within the LSA can be found below.
2.3.1 Hunting
A total of 355 hunting sites were mapped within the RSA (327 from the existing LKFN data and 28 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data).
Mammals & Small Game
A total of 86 mammal and small game harvesting sites were mapped within the LSA, eight of which are from the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data. Participants identified locations where they have hunted moose, bear, caribou, beaver, porcupine, rabbit, muskrat and wolf. Table 19 provides additional details about hunting sites mapped within the LSA where mammals and small game were harvested. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details available.
Table 19 Hunting, Mammals and Small Game: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
7-128
Bear
60-129
Bear
80-130
Bear
82-131
Bear
0-133
Bear
0-140
Bear
77-144
Bear
78-145
Bear
76-132
Caribou
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 34
76-143
Caribou
11-134
Moose
15-135
Moose
15-136
Moose
15-137
Moose
26-138
Moose
26-139
Moose
67-141
Moose
67-142
Moose
94-146
Bear
94-147
Bear
99-148
Bear
94-151
Bear
94-152
Bear
99-156
Bear
38-149
Caribou
38-150
Caribou
97-153
Moose
99-154
Moose
99-155
Moose
103-157
Moose
1-263
Beaver
1-264
Beaver
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 35
1-265
Beaver
1-266
Beaver
7-267
Beaver
15-268
Beaver
15-269
Beaver
18-270
Beaver
26-271
Beaver
49-272
Beaver
82-273
Beaver
82-274
Beaver
88-275
Beaver
51-276
Porcupine
53-277
Porcupine
53-278
Porcupine
96-279
Porcupine
96-280
Porcupine
96-281
Porcupine
15-282
Rabbit
89-283
Wolf
1-284
Beaver
1-285
Beaver
1-286
Beaver
2-287
Beaver
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 36
29-288
Beaver
29-289
Beaver
29-290
Beaver
29-291
Beaver
38-292
Beaver
38-293
Beaver
38-294
Beaver
38-295
Beaver
35-296
Porcupine
38-297
Porcupine
51-298
Porcupine
51-299
Porcupine
61-300
Porcupine
86-301
Porcupine
99-302
Porcupine
99-303
Porcupine
99-304
Porcupine
29-305
Rabbit
29-306
Rabbit
35-307
Rabbit
38-308
Rabbit
38-309
Rabbit
94-310
Wolf
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 37 LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1703‐110‐40 Moose Fall. 1703‐110‐39 Bear Fall. 1703‐110‐41 Caribou Fall. 1704‐53‐48 Bear Fall. 1702‐38‐37 Rabbits
rabbit for food. 1703‐110‐46 Beaver Fall. 1703‐110‐47 Muskrat Fall. 1703‐110‐48 Rabbit Fall. As indicated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, participants recorded widespread harvesting of mammals and small game in the LSA. There is a concentration of mammal harvesting sites directly adjacent to the proposed location of the North Work Site, Camp and Shoofly, including locations where participants have hunted bear, caribou and moose. Participants also indicated several locations where they have harvested these species along the north and south shorelines of the Mackenzie River. There are also a number of bear, caribou and moose harvesting sites in the vicinity of the South Camp and South Laydown and Storage Areas. Figure 8 and Figure 9 also demonstrate that extensive small game harvesting takes place adjacent to the North Work Site, Camp and Shoofly and along the north and south shores of the Mackenzie River where participants recorded the harvesting of beaver, rabbit, porcupine and muskrat. Small game harvesting sites were also recorded directly in the footprint of and surrounding the proposed south laydown and storage areas, as well as within 1.5 kilometers of access pullouts and along the existing pipeline right of way. These concentrations of mammal and small game harvesting sites clearly indicate that areas where construction activity and access are planned to take place are not only extensively used by Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation members for harvesting activity, but also play a critical ecological function for mammals and small game in the region. Project‐related activity and potential impacts resulting from the project, including the increase of access, activity and noise along the ROW and in construction and storage areas, as well as any possible accident or malfunction, could adversely impact the abundance and availability of mammals and small game in the LSA and inhibit Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s ability to safely utilize these areas for harvesting purposes.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 38
Birds
A total of 51 bird hunting sites were mapped within the LSA, 12 of which are from the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data. Species that were identified by participants included duck, goose, loon, ptarmigan, grouse, chicken and mallard. Table 20 provides additional details about hunting sites mapped within the LSA where birds were
and “Notes” provides information about any additional details available.
Table 20 Hunting, Birds: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
1-158
Duck
1-159
Duck
1-160
Duck
1-161
Duck
1-162
Duck
7-163
Duck
7-164
Duck
7-165
Duck
7-166
Duck
7-167
Duck
41-168
Duck
67-169
Duck
73-170
Duck
73-171
Duck
73-172
Duck
73-173
Duck
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 39
73-174
Duck
73-175
Duck
82-176
Duck
82-177
Duck
86-178
Duck
108-179
Duck
7-180
Goose
7-181
Goose
7-182
Goose
67-183
Goose
67-184
Goose
82-185
Goose
108-186
Goose
53-187
Loon
53-188
Loon
53-189
Loon
35-190
Chicken
38-191
Chicken
38-192
Duck
38-193
Duck
94-194
Goose
94-195
Goose
35-196
Ptarmigan
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 40 LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1702‐38‐34 Ducks Spring and fall. Participant hunts ducks for food. 1702‐38‐35 Geese Spring and fall. Participant hunts geese for food. 1702‐38‐36 Chickens
chickens for food. 1703‐110‐42 Ducks Fall. 1703‐110‐43 Chickens Fall. 1703‐110‐44 Ptarmigan Fall. 1703‐110‐45 Grouse Fall. 1704‐53‐53 Ducks Spring. 1704‐53‐54 Mallards Spring. 1704‐53‐55 Ducks Black ducks. Spring. 1704‐53‐56 Geese Spring. 1701‐109‐37 Geese Spring and Fall. As demonstrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, participants indicated a concentration of bird hunting in the vicinity of the proposed locations of the south laydown and storage areas, the south camp, the north work site, the north camp and shoofly, recording the harvesting of ducks, geese, ptarmigans, grouse and
downstream and directly adjacent to the proposed HDD crossing within and along the shorelines of the Mackenzie River. One participant also identified a frequented bird hunting area throughout the segment
proposed south laydown and storage areas accessed in the spring and fall for the harvesting of the ducks, geese and chickens (Figure 9). These results clearly indicate that the proposed Project could have considerable impacts on the harvesting of birds. If the Project is approved, the proposed construction activity, increased access along the existing pipeline right of way, barge traffic, changes to the landscape and any unforeseen accident or
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 41 malfunction will pose threats to abundance and availability of birds in the area and could have detrimental impacts to Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s ability to continue harvesting birds in the LSA.
2.3.2 Trapping
A total of 33 trapping sites were mapped within the RSA (26 from the existing LKFN data and seven from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data) and two trapping sites were identified within the LSA. Trapping in this section of the study refers only to activity where animals are trapped for personal use, as opposed to trapping for the sale of furs and other material. More information on trapping for commercial purposes can be found in the commercial land use section of this report. Table 21 provides additional details about trapping sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details available.
Table 21 Trapping: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1701‐109‐5 Snare Line Winter. 1704‐53‐11 Lynx Participant trapped lynx for food. Winter. As indicated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, personal trapping sites within the LSA could potentially be impacted by the Project. One participant identified a trap line that runs perpendicular to the existing pipeline right of way between the South Work Site and Stringing Area and Access Pullout #1 and a personal trapping location was identified on the north shore of the Mackenzie River. Both sites are utilized primarily in the winter. The construction activities associated with the Project could impact the continued use of these sites, and increased access along the right of way during construction will essentially nullify the use of the trap line within the LSA during construction activity planned to occur during the winter.
2.3.3 Fishing
A total of 130 fishing sites were mapped within the RSA (95 from the existing LKFN data and 35 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data). Note that in the methodology used for existing LKFN data, fishing locations were recorded by the fishing technique used, with the potential for multiple species to be represented at one location. In the methodology used for the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data, fishing locations were recorded
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 42 by species with additional information gathered on the fishing method used and time of year where available. A total of 78 fishing locations were mapped within the LSA, 28 of which are from the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data. Participants reported the fishing of a multitude of species, most commonly whitefish, northern pike/jackfish, grayling, pickerel, coney and suckers. Different techniques recorded for fishing include net, rod, night line and fish trap. Table 22 provides additional details about fishing sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details available.
Table 22 Fishing: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE SUBTYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
1-197
Net
1-198
Net
4-199
Net
7-200
Net
7-201
Net
26-202
Net
50-203
Net
50-204
Net
79-205
Net
82-206
Net
82-207
Net
82-208
Net
82-209
Net
82-210
Net
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 43
88-211
Net
88-212
Net
89-213
Net
95-214
Net
108-215
Net
51-216
Night Line
53-217
Night Line
53-218
Night Line
55-219
Night Line
59-220
Night Line
79-221
Night Line
79-222
Night Line
89-223
Night Line
7-224
Rod
17-225
Rod
17-226
Rod
25-227
Rod
25-228
Rod
25-229
Rod
26-230
Rod
37-231
Rod
41-232
Rod
50-233
Rod
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 44
55-234
Rod
55-235
Rod
55-236
Rod
59-237
Rod
82-238
Rod
88-239
Rod
89-240
Rod
103-241
Rod
52-242
Fish Trap
29-243
Net
38-244
Net
38-245
Night Line
29-246
Rod LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1703‐110‐50 Whitefish Net Summer and Fall. 1703‐110‐51 Northern Pike/Jackfish Net Summer and Fall. 1703‐110‐52 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1703‐110‐53 Walleye/Pickerel Net Summer and Fall. 1701‐109‐56 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1701‐109‐2 Suckers Net Summer and Fall. 1702‐38‐43 Whitefish Summer and Fall. 1702‐38‐42 Jackfish/Northern Pike Summer and Fall. 1702‐38‐40 Coney Summer and Fall.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 45 1702‐38‐41 Pickerel Summer and Fall. 1703‐110‐9 Pickerel Net Spring and Summer. 1703‐110‐5 Jackfish Net Spring and Summer. 1703‐110‐6 Coney Net Spring and Summer. 1703‐110‐7 Whitefish Net Spring and Summer. 1703‐110‐8 Suckers Net Spring and Summer. 1704‐53‐4 Whitefish Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐5 Jackfish Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐6 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐7 Suckers Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐8 Bluefish Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐9 Jackfish Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐10 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐11 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐12 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐13 Pickerel Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐14 Jackfish Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐15 Coney Net Summer and Fall. 1704‐53‐16 Whitefish Net Summer and Fall. Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s extensive fishing activity throughout the waterways within the LSA. Participants recorded a substantial amount of fishing upstream, downstream and directly adjacent to the proposed HDD crossing, including whitefish, pike, jackfish, coney, suckers, grayling and walleye throughout the spring, summer and fall. Figure 8 and Figure 9 also indicate fishing locations in the minor waterways in the vicinity of the North Work Site, North Camp and Shoofly, the
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 46 South Camp and Storage Areas and adjacent to the Access Pullouts and existing pipeline ROW. There is also a concentration of fishing activity along the bank of the Liard River, adjacent to the South Laydown and Storage Areas, where participants recorded catching whitefish, jackfish, pike, coney and walleye. It should also be noted that participants mapped ice‐fishing locations throughout the RSA, indicating that fishing areas are important all year round. The data collected for Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s fishing activity in the LSA demonstratives their extensive and ongoing dependence on the waterways in their traditional territory as a source of sustenance. The fish provided by the Mackenzie River and the Liard River, along with the rivers and tributaries that flow into them, are a mainstay for the health and well‐being of the community. Along with the impacts that the proposed construction activity and increased access in the area will have on Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s ability to continue utilizing the areas above safely, an unforeseen malfunction or accidental release of drilling fluids during the HDD could have catastrophic impacts on the health of the fish in the Mackenzie River and, in turn, the health of the community.
2.3.4 Plant and Natural Material Gathering
A total of 92 gathering sites were mapped within the RSA (73 from the existing LKFN data and 19 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data). A total of 33 gathering sites were mapped within the LSA, 13 of which were from the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data. Plants and natural materials that participants reported gathering include blueberries, cranberries, chokecherries, crowberries, medicinal plants, birch and rotten wood. Table 23Table 22 provides additional details about gathering sites mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details available.
Table 23 Plant and Natural Material Gathering: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
0-471
Berries
55-472
Berries
55-473
Berries
25-474
Berries
7-475
Berries
51-476
Berries
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 47
39-466
Berries
28-464
Birch
0-465
Birch
55-469
Birch
0-470
Birch
82-462
Other Food
94-463
Other Food
0-467
Other Food
28-468
Other Food
94-477
Medicinal Plant
35-478
Birch
39-480
Berries
99-481
Berries
0-482
Berries LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1702‐38‐44 Blueberries
1703‐110‐23 Birch Spring and Summer. Uses birch for snowshoes. 1703‐110‐24 Birch Spring and Summer. Uses birch for axe handles. 1703‐110‐25 Birch Spring and Summer. Uses birch for paddles. 1703‐110‐54 Blueberries Fall. 1703‐110‐56 Cranberries Fall.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 48 1703‐110‐55 Chokecherries Fall. 1703‐110‐57 Crowberries Fall. 1703‐110‐59 Rotten Wood Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. 1703‐110‐58 Birch Summer, fall. 1704‐53‐63 Cranberries Fall. 1704‐53‐64 Crowberries Fall. 1702‐38‐46 Rotten Wood Spruce trees. As indicated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, there are a number of gathering areas within the LSA that stand to be impacted should the project be approved. Participants reported gathering a variety of plants adjacent to the North Work Site, Camp and Shoofly including blueberries, cranberries, chokecherries and crowberries throughout the fall. Figure 9 also indicates berry gathering areas that were identified adjacent to Access Pullout #1 and Access Pullout #2. Participants also identified a substantial amount of gathering that takes place downstream from the HDD crossing: on the north and south shorelines of the Mackenzie River and on Martin Island. Berries,
summer and fall to make snowshoes, axe handles and paddles. Large gathering areas were also identified adjacent to the South Camp, South Laydown and Storage areas, where participants reported gathering medicinal plants, birch, blueberries and other berries. One participant spoke about the uses of different types of wood that community members gather. “Some people they use trees for birch bark canoes, baskets. Spruce bark canoes, spruce boughs for the ground, the roots to sew canoes with… they even use that [rotten wood] for tanning moose hide.” (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2007) Another participant in a past study noted the abundance of berries on the shoreline of the Mackenzie River. “When you go close to the river you find an abundance [of berries] but when you go further you don’t really see much.” (Liidli Kue First Nation, 2007)
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 49 The increase of activity and access in the proposed construction areas, as well as any potential accident
availability of the plants and natural materials that are gathered.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 50
2.4 Commercial Land and Resource Use
Participants were asked to identify areas where they engaged in commercial land and resource use throughout the study area. This includes commercial fishing, trapping, guiding and gathering. For a land use activity to be considered commercial, the primary motivation for the activity should be for economic
this section, even where there is an individual or family socio‐economic aspect to the person’s land or resource use. For example, if an individual caught some fish for personal use and traded these for other goods or services, it would not be considered commercial fishing. In total, participants mapped 95 commercial land and resource use features within the RSA, all of which are commercial trapping locations (Table 24). The location of the commercial land and resource areas can be found in Figure 10 and Figure 11. A more detailed description of the commercial trapping data within the LSA can be found below in Table 26.
Table 24 Commercial Land and Resource Use ‐ RSA Data
TYPE EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA TOTAL COUNTS – ALL RSA DATA Commercial Fishing Commercial Trapping 75 20 95 Commercial Guiding Commercial Gathering TOTAL 75 20 95
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 51
Figure 10 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Commercial Harvesting and Land Use, Northern RSA
REDACTED
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 52
Figure 11 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Commercial Harvesting and Land Use, Southern LSA
REDACTED
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 53
2.4.1 Commercial Fishing
No data on commercial fishing was described by participants in the LSA or RSA in the existing LKFN data and the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data.
Table 25 Commercial Fishing: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A
2.4.2 Commercial Trapping
Commercial trapping is an important cultural activity for LKFN. Commercial trapping provides food, furs, and a source of income. Throughout the RSA there are a total of 95 trapline data points that have been mapped (75 from LKFN existing data and 20 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data). This includes 20 data points from 3 traplines from Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data where participants identified specific locations where an individual animal was trapped. Note that in the methodology used for Existing LKFN data, trapping locations along a trapline were recorded as individual map features. In the methodology used for the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data, individual species along traplines were recorded as individual map features, with the possibility of multiple species being represented along a single trapline. Within the LSA there were 73 trapline data points identified (53 from LKFN existing data and 20 from the Line 21 Segment Replacement specific data). This includes a few traplines encompassed entirely within the LSA, however, the majority of the traplines mapped partially intersect with the LSA. This data includes both traplines and locations of animals captured along traplines located. Table 26 provides additional details about the commercial trapping data. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 54
Table 26 Commercial Trapping: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
11-423
Trapline
55_424
Trapline
59_425
Trapline
89_426
Trapline
89_427
Trapline
94_428
Trapline
94_429
Trapline
102_430
Trapline
14_431
Trapline
35_432
Trapline
38_433
Trapline
38_434
Trapline
38_435
Trapline
35_436
Trapline
35_437
Trapline
94_438
Trapline
94_439
Trapline
96_440
Trapline
35_441
Trapline
99_442
Trapline
99_443
Trapline
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 55
11_311
Trapline
55_312
Trapline
59_313
Trapline
89_314
Trapline
89_315
Trapline
94_316
Trapline
94_317
Trapline
102_318
Trapline
14_319
Trapline
35_320
Trapline
38_321
Trapline
38_322
Trapline
38_323
Trapline
35_324
Trapline
35_325
Trapline
94_326
Trapline
94_327
Trapline
96_328
Trapline
35_329
Trapline
99_330
Trapline
99_331
Trapline
51_105
Trapline
51_106
Trapline
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 56
51_107
Trapline
53_108
Trapline
53_109
Trapline
82_110
Trapline
82_111
Trapline
38_112
Trapline
38_113
Trapline
38_114
Trapline
82_115
Trapline LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA 1702‐38‐47 Martin On Right of Way 1702‐38‐48 Lynx On Right of Way 1704‐53‐68 Lynx 1704‐53‐69 Fox 1704‐53‐70 Weasel 1704‐53‐74a Beaver 1704‐53‐72 Muskrat 1704‐53‐73 Martin 1704‐53‐74b Squirrel 1704‐53‐75 Mink 1701‐109‐38 Lynx 1701‐109‐39 Fox 1701‐109‐40 Weasel 1701‐109‐42 Muskrat
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 57 1701‐109‐43 Martin 1701‐109‐44 Squirrel 1701‐109‐45 Rabbit Wolverines on Trapline 1701‐109‐46 Mink 1701‐109‐47 Wolf 1701‐109‐41 Beaver Figure 10 and Figure 11 illustrate the numerous traplines throughout the LSA, including the commercial trapping of martin, lynx, fox, weasel, beaver, muskrat, wolf, rabbit, squirrel and mink. There is a large concentration of traplines on the north bank of the Mackenzie River, especially towards the downstream limit of the LSA. There is also a concentration of traplines in close proximity to the South Camp. Due to the cultural and socio‐economic importance of these traplines, any impacts of the Project on the wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Study area have potential for significant harm to the social and economic well‐being of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation.
2.4.3 Commercial Guiding
No data on commercial guiding was described by participants in the LSA or RSA in the existing LKFN data and the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data.
Table 27 Commercial Guiding: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A
2.4.4 Commercial Gathering
No data on commercial gathering was described by participants in the LSA or RSA in the existing LKFN data and the Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific data.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 58
Table 28 Commercial Trapping: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
N/A
N/A N/A LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 59
2.5 Occupancy and Access Areas
Participants were asked to locate various LKFN occupancy and access areas throughout the study area. For the purpose of this Study, occupancy refers to a person’s demographics, such as where they live and where they grew up, as well as the way they physically occupy the land for activities such as overnight camping and cabin use. Access refers to the routes and modes of transportation people use to access these occupancy areas, whether by foot, boat, car, snowmobile etc. Occupancy and access sites were broken down into the following categories: Demographics Overnight Locations Access Areas and Routes In total, participants mapped 387 occupancy and access features, including nine demographic sites, 51
access areas can be found in Figure 12 and Figure 13. A more in‐depth discussion of the specific
The total number of occupancy and access areas mapped for this Study can be found in Table 299.
Table 29 Occupancy and Demographics ‐ All RSA Data
TYPE EXISTING LKFN DATA LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA TOTAL COUNTS – ALL RSA DATA Demographics 9 9 Overnight Locations 51 51 Access Areas and Routes 327 327 TOTAL 387 387
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 60
Figure 12 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study: Occupancy and Access Areas, Northern RSA
REDACTED
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 61
Figure 13 LKFN Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study, Occupancy and Access Areas, Southern LSA
REDACTED
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 62 Concentrations of occupancy sites on the maps include northeast of the North Worksite HDD, north of the South Laydown and Storage, and northeast of the Access Pullout #2 on the south side of the Liard
River and Liard River, as well as from the Liard River travelling southeast of the Access Pullout #3. A total of 216 occupancy and access sites were mapped specifically within the LSA. Given the extensive use of the Mackenzie River as a major artery of transportation, there stands a good possibility that the Project’s activities and/or accidents may affect LKFN community members’ ability to travel and access the land and waterways by way of obstructions or landscape alteration.
2.5.1 Demographics
A total of nine demographic sites were mapped within the RSA, all from the existing LKFN data. Demographic information was not asked within the LKFN Segment Replacement‐specific interviews; this information is therefore limited to the existing data. Of the nine mapped sites, six sites were within the LSA. Demographics refers to areas on the land where individuals are born or where they grew up as well as current residences. Of the areas mapped, all sites – both within the RSA and LSA – were birth locations. Table 30 provides additional details about the demographics mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 30 Demographics: LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
51-449
Birth Site
28-450
Birth Site
55-451
Birth Site
55-452
Birth Site
37-453
Birth Site
38-461
Birth Site LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 63 As indicated in Figure 12 and Figure 13, concentrations of demographic sites within the LSA are northwest of the North Worksite and South Worksite; one point is also present east of the South Laydown and Storage.
2.5.2 Overnight Locations
Participants were asked to locate any areas on the map they had stayed in an overnight location. In the RSA, a total of 51 areas were mapped, all from the existing LKFN data. Within the LSA, 23 locations were mapped: 20 cabin sites, two tent frame sites, and one camp site. This information in this section only represents existing LKFN data as participants were not asked about overnight locations in the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific interviews. Overnight locations refer to any type of temporary or permanent structure community members use to stay out on the land that is not their year‐round home. Table 31Table 15 provides additional details about the overnight locations mapped within the LSA. “Map ID” provides the unique number that corresponds to the affiliated feature on the map and “Notes” provides information about any additional details present.
Table 31 Overnight Locations ‐ LSA Data
MAP ID TYPE NOTES EXISTING LKFN DATA
38-8
Cabin
38-9
Cabin
38-10
Cabin
51-4
Cabin
53-5
Cabin
82-6
Cabin
82-7
Cabin
17-247
Cabin
50-248
Cabin
51-249
Cabin
55-250
Cabin
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 64
59-251
Cabin
35-253
Cabin
38-254
Cabin
94-255
Cabin
94-256
Cabin
94-257
Cabin
99-258
Cabin
99-259
Cabin
99-260
Cabin
29-261
Tent Frame
35-262
Tent Frame
82-252
Camp Site LINE 21 SEGMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIFIC DATA N/A N/A N/A As seen in Figure 12 and Figure 13, concentrations of overnight locations within the LSA occur northwest
within 250m of the North Worksite HDD. Another concentration of overnight locations occurs just northeast and northwest of the South Laydown and Storage. Seven of these locations occur within 250m
pose a threat to the quality, comfort and integrity of these sites.
2.5.3 Access Areas and Routes
Participants were asked to locate any areas on the map that they used to access the land or water. In the RSA, a total of 327 areas were mapped, all from the existing LKFN data. Within the LSA, 187 access areas and routes were mapped. The information in this section only represents existing LKFN data as participants were not asked about access areas and routes in the Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific interviews.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 65 Access areas and routes refer to any type of trail used to access the land or water, whether seasonal or year‐round. Given the large number of trails present on the map and for ease of map readability, access areas and routes were not labelled in Figure 12 and Figure 13 Access areas and routes are concentrated within the LSA along the Liard and Mackenzie Rivers, which act as major transportation veins for the LKFN community. Several trails intercept directly with North Work Site, Camp and Shoofly; South Laydown and Storage; the South Camp; and Access Pullout #3. Any changes to the landscape could alter the ability of LKFN community members to use these trails.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 66
3.0 Community Perspectives on the Proposed Project
This section presents a sampling of community perspectives on the proposed Project. This anecdotal information is referenced from Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s Written Evidence Submission: Enbridge Line 21 Pipeline Segment Replacement Project, 2017. An overarching theme arising from LKFN members pertains to a negative historical legacy associated with the Line 21 pipeline. Unresolved issues and grievances related to poor consultation and past impacts from the pipeline remain unacknowledged and in turn, inform community members’ opinions
A lack of consultation or accommodation from the original construction of the pipeline: When the pipeline was originally constructed and commissioned in 1985, only one family member was engaged; this individual was promised money, which was never paid ($500k). Negative, unacknowledged and unresolved impacts from the original pipeline: Families in the area have had to move trap lines and snares due to roads that have been built to the Mackenzie River for the Pipeline. Ongoing harvesting in the area: The pipeline is built “right behind” one of the family’s homesteads: the current elder is the third generation who has lived on that land and families in the community still trap and hunt in the area. Concerns and potential impacts to land use, socio‐economics and wellbeing: The two families in the area expect impacts to their traditional practices to get worse with the Project. Specific concerns voiced by community members related to the Project include: More people will have access to the land LKFN uses and lives on Negative impacts to water and the environment related to construction activity and access, including impacts of construction on bird habitat, fish spawning habitat, and drinking water. Trucks and machines that will be encroaching on their land The (access) roads will potentially increase non‐community member access to their land A hill in the area will be “removed” to get sand and gravel They will not be able to trap and hunt anymore The transition from living off the land to a more town‐focused life has had mental health impacts on the community, including addictions issues. This is partly due to increased traffic near their homes
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 67 There are fewer animals in the area to hunt now “because of the pipeline and all the activities” Spills on their land because of the work The use of boats and barges on the Mackenzie River Whether or not there will be clear cutting of trees for construction Rabbits, fish, and berries are “all changing” (because of development in the area) People are concerned about the integrity of the segment of pipeline that is being decommissioned and abandoned in the Mackenzie River (especially given thawing permafrost and the impacts of ice breakup on the River) and about related environmental impacts. LKFN members are unsure of the state of permafrost in the project area and along Line 21. LKFN members want assurance that permafrost is being monitored, clear information on whether or not more landslides are expected, and clear plans to address permafrost‐related issues and impacts. Treaty 11, 4000 years of oral history, contemporary land use mapping and recent anecdotal evidence through interviews with LKFN leaders, community members, land users and knowledge holders affirms that the LKFN has constitutionally protected harvesting rights (i.e., hunting, fishing, gathering of plants, medicines, berries, water etc.), including, the use of timber for domestic purposes, throughout its traditional territory, which includes the RSA and LSA presented in this Report.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 68
4.0 Discussion and Conclusions
In total, 1287 traditional ecological knowledge, land and resource use sites were mapped across the RSA and 626 sites were mapped within the LSA (477 from existing LKFN data and 149 from Line 21 Segment Replacement‐specific data) surrounding the proposed Enbridge Line 21 Segment Replacement Project and associated Project components, including sites that were mapped directly within the footprints of proposed Project areas. Based on the Study results, it is evident that should the Project be approved, there will be impacts to LKFN Aboriginal and Treaty rights and interests. LKFN community members have never ceded their rights. The Study’s results affirm the fact that LKFN community members have used, currently use and will continue to use the lands and waters surrounding the Project area and that Dene and specifically Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation cultural identity and wellbeing is inherently connected to this area. Fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering are not only important subsistence activities, they are valued cultural activities that strengthen the social fabric of Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation. To the Dene people, “the land is not property, it is what sustains them, and where they thrive” (Chief Antoine, Personal Communication, June 14, 2017). Any impacts to the ecological health of the land and water, or restricted access to areas used for harvesting will negatively impact the health and overall well‐being of the community. Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation has harvested animals, fish, plants and medicines and utilized the lands and waters in their traditional territory using their own systems of laws and knowledge since time
resources remains their right and is fundamentally critical to the community’s present and future health and wellbeing (Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation, 2017).
4.1 Project interactions with traditional land and resource use: implications of risks to LKFN Aboriginal Rights
Various project components and activities associated with replacing the 2.5km pipeline segment may interact with, and pose risks to LKFN land and resource uses, and in turn, infringe upon LKFN Aboriginal rights. The Project’s effect mechanisms and value component interactions involve direct construction related activities as well as indirect activities related to the temporary, transient workforce needed for the
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 69
approximately 120 personnel)
Project area The potential risks associated with these Project components and activities in relation to LKFN land and resource use and cultural sites that are of primary concern include: Construction activities, project related access and project infrastructure and equipment have the potential to create disruptions to the integrity and/or access of lands and resources that LKFN members use. This includes ROW preparation, clearing, temporary access routes, barge traffic; increase in human activity; and potential for accidents, spills or malfunctions.
Uncertainty around permafrost‐related impacts. This includes concerns about future landslides, a lack of knowledge of permafrost conditions and permafrost monitoring work, and lack of clear plans to deal with permafrost. Uncertainty around possible impacts related to decommissioning abandoned pipeline segment in place. Especially considering the lack of information on removal options provided to LKFN. Risks posed by construction activities to bird habitat, fish spawning habitat, and drinking water.
The potential for an inadvertent frac‐out, which would release high pressure drilling mud into the river during drilling activities. Drilling mud is used at high pressure to lubricate the hole as the drill navigates below the river. Accidental frac‐outs can occur when the drill intersects a seam or crack in the substrate, and the high‐pressure mud flows through the crack and into the river, potentially releasing large volumes of drilling mud into the watercourse. The result of such an accident could:
destroy suitable spawning habitat,
cause drilling mud sediment to settle or smother rearing habitat for juvenile fish,
reduce prey availability,
bury and suffocate invertebrate communities,
inhibit the growth potential of juvenile fish,
cause decline and changes in fish community structure,
cause decline of fish species that eat invertebrates or require clean gravel for spawning and/or cause them to be replaced by more tolerant species,
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 70
negatively impact the integrity of riparian areas
result in reduced fish production through impacts to incubating eggs and larval fish, can suffocate adult fish individuals, and
cause fish kill events. Work camps and transient workers: Social elements of the Project include workforce requirements and indirect effects from human activities related to an influx in temporary workers such as negative pressures on the LKFN’s lands and resources through hunting and fishing. An increase of human presence and activity may also disturb wildlife habitat and migration, also indirectly affecting traditional land use practices. These Project effect mechanisms have a high potential to interact with the Łíídlįį Kų́ę́ First Nation traditional land and resource use and cultural values identified in this Study and directly impact or result in unacceptable risks to land, water, animals and the, LKFN’s rights and way of life. Given the inherent connections between social, ecological, economic and cultural values, potential impacts are complex and inter‐dependent. The lands and waters in Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation’s traditional territory are the source of life and health for the community. It is imperative that every measure be taken to acknowledge the value and meaning of these lands and waters to the LKFN and to protect the health of those lands and waters to ensure that Łı́ı́dlı̨́ı̨́ Kų́ę́ First Nation can continue to rely on them as a pillar of their community’s well‐being for generations to come.
4.2 Recommendations
The Study’s evidentiary results clearly demonstrate that the LKFN community has the potential to experience many direct and indirect negative impacts from the Project components, including physical, social and environmental impacts, and assume many risks and potential negative impacts associated with construction activity and any potential release of drilling fluids from HDD. This not only emphasizes the need for Enbridge to continue meaningful and ongoing engagement and consultation with LKFN during the hearing process and beyond, but also suggests the need for mitigation, monitoring and accommodation measures to address these potential impacts. Should the Project be approved, LKFN recommends the following measures: Construction schedules that minimize impacts to seasonal harvesting practices, habitats and access routes should be developed in collaboration with LKFN community representatives To ensure the protection of the sensitive balance in the ecosystems throughout LKFN’s traditional territory and to prevent the erosion of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, non‐community members in the region associated with the Line 21 Segment Replacement project should be prohibited from hunting and fishing within the Project area during construction
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 71 Promote and facilitate the incorporation of LKFN’s traditional knowledge to identify and remediate environmental impacts as they arise through the development and implementation
Inclusion of LKFN environmental and cultural heritage monitors in all environmental and cultural heritage assessments, emergency response protocols and ongoing monitoring related to the Project during and post construction. LKFN monitors should have unhindered access to the Line 21 Segment Replacement and Line 21 sites, subject only to safety considerations Ensure the meaningful participation of LKFN and other Dehcho First Nations in the development
Replacement Project or future Line 21 activities Inclusion of environmental monitoring outcomes in reporting to community, including an annual report on the environmental and social performance of Line 21 that addresses LKFN concerns Accommodation measures for land users whose harvesting practices will be inhibited in any way as a result of the Project. The terms of these accommodation measures should be developed in collaboration with LKFN community representatives Ground truthing (i.e., information provided by direct observation or empirical evidence) with LKFN community members should be carried out if there is a need to verify data presented in this Study Full assessment of risks associated with abandoning the existing segment of pipeline in place, including assessment of risks associated with contamination, ice break up on the Mackenzie River, and changing permafrost conditions. An assessment of the feasibility for removing this segment of pipeline should be conducted as LKFN wants the old section of pipe removed. The measures above are not comprehensive or exhaustive, and any additional mitigations, monitoring and accommodation measures should be developed in consultation with LKFN community representatives and the Line 21 Technical and Indigenous Knowledge Expert Committee.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 72
5.0 References
Antoine, C. (2017, June 14). Dillon Consulting. (2017). Environmental and Socio‐Economic Assessment Line 21 Replacement Project, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Liidlii Kue First Nation. (2003). Traditional Knowledge Interim Policy. Liidlii Kue First Nation. (2007). Liidlii Kue First Nation Assessment of Traditional Knowledge Relating to the Proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (2007) . Liidlii Kue First Nation. (2017). Written Evidence of the Liidlii Kue First Nation for the Line 21 Segment Replacement Project. LKFN & Blythe and Bathe. (2013). Liidlii Kue First Nation Traditional Knowledge Assessment of Enbridge Pipeline Inc. MV2013P0011 Land Use Permit (2013) . Nogha Geomatics. (2004). Liidlii Kue First Nation and Fort Simpson Traditional Knowledge Project Literature Review and Traditional Knowledge Study for Mackenzie Gas Project Imperial Oil Resources . Tobias, T. (2009). Living Proof: The Essential Data Collection Guide for Indigenous Use and Occupancy Map Surveys.
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 73
Appendix A: Study Team Member Biographies
Łı́ı́dlı ̨ ́ı ̨ ́ Ku ̨́ e ̨́ First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Land Use Study | 74
Appendix B: Line 21 Segment Replacement Specific Data Collection Toolkit