6.0 Trapping · SECTION 6.0 TRAPPING HEG FRONTIER MINE PROJECT ICA PAGE 46 OF 419 6.0 Trapping The Métis are the children of the fur trade. In Fort McKay, trapping has always been

SECTION 6.0 TRAPPING

HEG FRONTIER MINE PROJECT ICA PAGE 46 OF 419

6.0 Trapping

The Métis are the children of the fur trade. In Fort McKay, trapping has always been considered part of the annual round of harvesting activities and an important part of the Métis lifestyle. Historically, furs were traded, but small mammals were also an important source of food and materials used for clothing, tools, and in some cases medicine (FMTA 1983; Notzke 1994, p. 123; FMSD 2011; Stelfox et al. 2013). Few Fort McKay families considered trapping as an income-producing occupation in and of itself. In fact, in most cases, what is “earned” in the bush is rarely treated as “income” (FMTA 1983). Trapping is simply part of the Métis way of life.

All these people, all these Métis people lived the same way like everybody else. Everybody lived the same way, like trapping and hunting – that’s how they make their living because there weren’t any jobs. Except that some of the younger people when the steam boat was travelling in those days. When I was just a kid it used to be odd when people they work, like my uncle. His name was Mathew Boucher, he used to work in the steamboat. The steamboat was run by wood. (Emma Faichney in Campbell et al. 2005, p. 43)

Métis members in Fort McKay have historically trapped large tracts of land on either side of the Athabasca River between Fort Chipewyan and Lac La Biche. Customary trap line areas were most often kin-based collective harvesting areas used for generations.

I trapped with Dad and he trapped all over. Where you had a chance to go, you just went.... you would trap anywhere in those days, in the 1930s. (Ernie Lacord in FMFN 1994, p. 90)

The registered fur management system and other government policies related to wildlife harvest did affect traditional systems of trapping, however in the Athabasca region, prior to formalized provincial trap line maps, trapping was more or less self-managed by trappers despite the existence of trap line regulations since the 1940s (Clark et al. 2014). As one Fort McKay Elder explained (FMSD 2011, p.24), “It was more like I said, people would stick together, they go out in the bush, find a good place to trap, they all trap together. Until forestry came in there and start marking the trap lines. When they start mapping the trap lines, you don’t bother that guy where his trap lines are... you could be charged for killing his fur.” Map 2 shows historic trap lines (circa. 1960) (Provincial Archives of Alberta – GR1990.0377) and existing Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA) boundaries belonging to Métis people from Fort McKay. The historic trap line maps from 1957-1960 are the earliest maps of registered trap lines produced by the government of Alberta. During workshops, participants were asked to mark a map that showed historic



trap lines and current RFMAs, to show where they have spent time hunting, camping, trapping or harvesting berries or plants. They also noted if these areas were “owned” by family members or friends. These areas are listed in Table 6-1.

This map starts to reveal a pattern of use and provides evidence of continuous occupation in the Athabasca district since Fort McKay was established in the late 1700s. As with many Aboriginal communities in northern Alberta, RFMAs belonging to Métis families in Fort McKay often get “passed down” to sons, daughters or other relations after some period of co-use or “apprenticeship”.

And right behind the Industrial Park is, uh, my Uncle Alex's [Boucher] trap line...But it used to be Uncle Alex's trap line. Now it's Stephen's, eh? ... It went from my Uncle Alex to his daughter Bertha, now Bertha's son Stephen.... Because it comes from river ...From the riverbank right to Muskeg River. (FMM014-WS2)

Table 6-1 Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs - or “trap lines”) held by Fort McKay Métis Members, or Community Members with Métis heritage.

RFMA Registered Trap line holder (2015) 2215 Bruce Faichney Jr. 2137 Glen Faichney 1716 Dennis Shott and Susan Quintal 1650 Roddy Boucher 850 Jerry Boucher 2925 Ernst Tremblay and Andrew Boucher 2804 Zachary Powder’s 2457 Howard Lacorde RFMA Registered Trap line owner (1957) 10 Joe Boucher 33 Phillip McDonald 65 Paul Ahyasou 134 Willie Bouchier 135 Willie Bouchier 453 Morbert L. Hommecourt 587 Francis Orr, William W. 613 Wilfred Grandjamb 685 Rudolph Flett 771 Albert Ahyasou and Adolph Ahyasou 772 Gabriel Oar 879 Edward Rolland, Harvey Rolland 1397 Jim Cardinal 1402 Sam Huppie 1461 Felix Beaver 1534 Madoline Boucher, Henry Boucher



1596 August Tremblay 1650 Isador Lacord 1714 Modest and Walter Powder 1716 Henry Shott 1729 A. Huppie 1751 Dumas Huppie 1998 Walter Cardinal 2005 Richar Loutitt 2006 Jonas Boucher 2084 Alex Boucher 2155 Zac Powder 2214 Fred McDonald 2338 Freddy Boucher 2516 Henry Shott 8324 Alphonse Powder



Map 2: Historic

and Current Trap Lines Used By Métis Families

From Fort McKay

LEGEND

CommunityHistoric Fort McKay Métis Trap LineHistoric Fort McKay Métis Trap AreaTrapping Areas Used By Fort McKay Métis FamiliesRegistered Fur Management AreasFort McKay Métis and First Nation Traditional TerritoryFirst Nation ReservesProtected Areas

Provincial BorderCold Lake Air Weapons RangeTownship BoundaryWaterbodyWatercourseMajor RoadRailway

0 4020

Kilometers

Created: December 11, 2015

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N

Base Features: AltaLIS, IHS, Geogratis

1:1,500,000

Cold Lake Air Weapons Range

UV63

UV881

Birch Mountains Wildland

Marguerite River Wildland

Athabasca River

GardinerLakes

Clearwater River Provincial Park

Dillon RiverWildland

Wood Buffalo National Park

ALBE

RTA

SASK

ATCH

EWAN

McClellandLakeTar River

FirebagRiver

Point Brule

Poplar Point

Lobstick Point

Bitumount

Little Red RiverFort McKay

Fort McMurrayWaterways

Conklin

Philomena

La Loche

Firebag River

1650

2172

850

2215

2137 1716

2457

2925

2926

2894

ForrestLake

NamurLake Lloyd

Lake

GordonLake

Lac laLoche

PeterPondLake

SouthWabasca

LakeSandyLake

DillonLake

VermetteLake

WinefredLake

CallingLake

1402

1751

1998

20052214

33

135

2516

453

1650

1534

1729

1461

10

1716

772

2084

587

2338

1714

1395

1596

65

613

8324

134

7718

79

685

2006

±

The McKay Métis

!

!

!

!Fort MacKay

Edmonton

GrandePrairie

Fort McMurray SASK

ATCH

EWAN

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

BRIT

ISH

COLU

MBI

AMap 2 – Historic and Current Trap Lines Used by Fort McKay Métis Families



6.1 Trapping in the 1960s

During the 1960s, winter trapping continued to provide income and prescribe the seasonal movements for many of the older males in the community who travelled between Fort McKay and the family trap lines dispersed throughout the Athabasca district.

I had the best trap line in the world with beaver, coyote, marten, fox, lynx, otter, fisher, red squirrel, bear, wolf and skunk... I have four cabins, two at Tar Creek, one at Johnson Creek and one north of Tar River. (Ernie Lacord in FMFN 1994, p.91)

I was born in McKay and lived off the land for most of my life. I trapped with my dad [Ernie Lacord] until I was old enough to get my own trap line. Then I went out on my own – trapping beaver, squirrels, mink and fox. We travelled by dog team in the winter and walked and packed dogs and packed ourselves in the spring. (Howard Lacord in FMFN 1994, p.115)

Well it's good [trapping lifestyle]. Hard work, but happy. You eat, you could make a living, and you could go snare squirrels, you know. That's good. Oh yeah, nice. (FMM003-WS1)

6.1.1 Cultural Values Linked to Trapping in the 1960s

Fort McKay Métis members associate 1960s Trapping with the following cultural values:

• Identity;

• Self Reliance;

• Self Determination;

• Cooperation;

• Faith;

• Pride;

• Happiness;

• Adaptability;

• Understanding Nature; and

• Respect.

Identity

It is difficult to separate Métis culture from the fur trade. Trapping is most definitely linked to a sense of Métis identity and history. In the 1960s, virtually every Métis member in Fort McKay had access to a family trap line (Ross & Fox 1979).



I just traveled with my parents. Well, my dad had been trapping ever since he was a kid, so when my brother Alex, ever since he was grown up, he'd be trapping all the time. Same with my dad with his dad, his late dad. By foot and dog team. Yep. There was only dog team those days, and … and then by foot. And … and in the summer, it'd be by boat, uh, like paddling. I remember people used to have like two-horse kicker, a one-horse kicker, I remember. (FMM001-WS1)

Self Reliance

Trapping is directly linked to self-reliance. In the 1960s, Fort McKay Métis members continued to rely heavily on small mammals (rabbits, squirrel, beaver, muskrat, porcupine) for food and fur for personal items (such as mitts, mukluks, blankets, drums etc.) In the 1960s, members remember being able to rely on trapping small animals around Fort McKay for food.

Usually I put rabbit snares behind there [school building], long time ago you know. Before school start, check ‘em [traps], take the rabbit home, come home and there's the best rabbit for lunch. It was a way of life! (FMM003-WS1)

In the 1960s, several Fort McKay Métis members continued to travel by river, foot and dog team to access trap lines. In this way, trappers were not limited by fuel costs, all weather roads, or mechanical skills to reach the “bush”. Fort McKay Métis members felt that individuals comfortable using traditional travel methods (such as river boats or dog team) were more self-reliant.

All the years I was growing up, we lived on the trap line down the river. We didn't live on mile 14, I think it was mile 21, or like that, the old fort, the base of the fort hills. We had ... My dad's kicker was two-and-a-half horse, ... and he used to pull that boat (back up river). It's easy. I’d pull it myself... one rope here, and one rope here, so that way, it doesn't unbalance, and you just walk with it. It's easy... My dad used to ride in it. And the dogs. ‘Cause in the springtime, when we go for spring hunt, we have six dogs and a sleigh. And we go down the river, and from there we come back on a boat, eh. That's how we come back. (FMM002-WS1)

In addition to providing food, trapping also provided supplemental income to several Métis individuals.

Self Determination

In the 1960s, Fort McKay Métis members were able to access the majority of their traditional trapping areas. Although Fort McKay Métis members limited



most of their fur harvesting to RFMAs, they were still able to freely decide when and where they wished to trap within that area.

[What I like about trapping] I'm still poor, well, yeah. But I could get up and go and nobody could tell me, sit down here, do nothing. I'd still go, I could decide whether to go or not. (FMM003-WS1)

Cooperation

In the 1960s, many trappers worked their lines alone, however those individuals who had families living on the trap line with them would get help processing furs (scraping, stretching and smoking hides) before they were used or sold.

A trapper’s family had to learn to work together to survive. Several of the focus group participants shared stories about children helping their mothers through the winter trapping season.

My dad used to leave in ... in the beginning of October, and never come back till Christmas Eve [out on trap line]. My mom was responsible for us, that's why we all learned to help our mom for everything that went on in her house. Everything, like wood, and food. We were poor, my dad didn't have anything to leave for us, so we had to hustle, my brothers, my sisters, we used to put rabbit snares, shoot chickens, could cut wood with a sweet saw, bring it home. I used to have two dogs, they used to pull my wood. (FMM002-WS1)

In the 1960s there was no official Métis representation or regional hunting and trapping association, and Métis did little to interact with government or industry related to wildlife management or harvest planning.

Faith

Trappers working in the bush in the 1960s had a deep belief in the bounty of the land and ability of the bush to provide whatever was needed. This faith is reflected in the confidence Fort McKay trappers showed in heading out to their trap lines with only a few supplies.

Adaptability

In the 1960s, a good portion of Fort McKay Métis members had the skills necessary to survive in the bush. Knowledge related to setting traps, snares, tracking animals and processing meat and fur were as common as going to school. These skills and associated Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) enabled Métis members to move comfortably between subsistence lifestyles and paid work.



Same as me, I was raised and born out around Tar Creek (9 miles from here, just about a mile down from Moose River). That was our schooling that was our life. I'd go out with my parents. That's where we lived, and my aunties. Yes [we had cabins there] and my brother Howard and his wife. (FMM017-WS1)

Understanding Nature, Pride and Happiness

Many Elders attribute their knowledge of the land to trapping excursions where individuals and small groups would travel along the rivers, by foot, dog team, horses or snow machines from Fort McKay to their family trap lines. This travel between McKay and trap lines is how individuals came to know the landscape, local wildlife, place names, and the history of the area. Trapping is an activity that required people to become intimately familiar with waterways, the land and wildlife behaviour – thus strengthening that individual’s sense of place. This knowledge builds confidence and pride in ones self.

INTERVIEWER: So how much of the year would you spend (on your trap line)?

FMM003-WS1: Uh three quarters of my time. Yep. At the lake [McLelland Lake] there was an old fort on the Athabasca, on Firebag River, right around there....”

INTERVIEWER: How did you know where you needed to go?

FMM003-WS1: Listen. Listen and look. You listen to the bush - you're walking - stop, listen. You hear a squirrel - it's there. Now if you hear a squirrel going, you put a snare or maybe a trap, and there keep going.

INTERVIEWER: How does it make you feel [trapping]?

FMM003-WS1: Happy! Because I knew. You know? Like, my dad, mom, most of it my grandpa and my grandma taught me. And sometimes I don't believe it, but… I believe it today. But today I'm older and I understand real good now.

Figure 6-1 shows the activity-value linkages for Trapping in the 1960s.



Figure 6-1 Cultural Values Linked to Trapping in the 1960s

6.2 Industrial Stressors Affecting Trapping

Environmental and social effects resulting from development on the land surrounding the community of Fort McKay has been well documented in numerous EIAs, community reports and regional research projects (Stelfox et al. 2013; Fort McKay IRC 2010a; Fort McKay IRC 2010b; HEG 2009; Tanner et. al 2001; FMFN 1994; FMTA 1983). The industrial stressors causing significant environmental and social change are introduced in Section 2. Fort McKay Métis members feel that it is some of these industrial impacts that are directly affecting their ability to maintain certain aspects of their culture.

Fort McKay Métis members feel the most significant industry stressors affecting Trapping are:

• Loss of land;

• Changes in access to land;

• Animals have moved away;

• Increased regional population; and



• Policies and approaches to compensation and distribution of benefits.

6.2.1 Loss of Land

Since the 1960s, the main cause of loss of Fort McKay Métis land has been oil sand developments (mines, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainages [SAGDs], upgrading facilities and related infrastructure) that disturb large areas, change local hydrology and create linear disturbance. In the early 1980s, the Fort McKay Tribal Administration (currently known as the Band Council) declared that, “It is impossible for us (the people of Fort McKay) to continue to withdraw and still have enough land to serve as an economic base for us in the ways that we choose. This is particularly clear in the case of the trap lines” (FMTA 1983, p. 34).

The indicators selected to measure landscape-level oil sand impacts to lands that were traditionally used and occupied by Métis and First Nation families from Fort McKay are listed in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Indicators Used to Track Changes Related to Loss of Land

Loss of Land • % of landscape natural vs. anthropogenic within the area that has been mapped as the area traditionally used and occupied by the people of Fort McKay (First Nation and Métis).

• Total area (ha) of land taken up by oil sands development and related infrastructure on Métis Trap lines (% land disturbance).

• Loss of TLU sites (FMFN 1994).

• Distribution and quality of habitat for traditionally used plants [Edible Berry Habitat Suitability Index (Blueberry – Vaccinium myrtilloides) and bog cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea)].

• Total amount of Crown land protected for Aboriginal use and subsistence harvesting in the RMWB.

• Locations of current harvesting activities.

• # of people harvesting on:

o their own trap line;

o a family trap line;

o areas outside of family trap lines (friends, provincial land);

o traditional areas (Poplar Point, Moose Lake);

o newly cleared areas on crown land (roadways, cut lines and seismic lines).

By 2011, tenured leases for oil sands mines and SAGD projects covered approximately 80% of the area traditionally used and occupied by Fort McKay community members (Métis and First Nation) (FMSD 2011). Today, almost the



entire land base of Fort McKay’s traditional territory has been leased out to energy developers, and many of these leases have been, or are currently in the process of being developed or explored (Spink and Able 2015, p. 4).

Extensive regions have undergone a profound transformation caused by past exponential growth of oil sand mines and associated infrastructure (Stelfox et al. 2013). “The nature and extent of land disturbance varies significantly between mining and in-situ operations, with mining creating large areas of total surface and subsurface land disturbance. In-situ facilities, on the other hand, create considerable surface fragmentation and linear disturbance associated with well pads, the pipelines between well pads, and the central processing facilities” (Spink and Abel 2015, p. 1). In terms of anthropogenic disturbance, oil sands mines represent the largest features of disturbance, whereas seismic lines represent the most extensive source of edge on the landscape today (Nishi J. S. et al. 2013, p. 16).

To tell you the truth on our trap line there is nothing to trap now, there's just there, like this [gesturing flat land]. No trees, nothing. My brother always trapped, my brother Howard [Lacorde], always trapped with my Dad, and now there’s nothing there to trap. He has a new trap line Birch Mountain [far away]. (FMM001-WS1)

To calculate the amount of land that will be disturbed both directly and indirectly within the area traditionally used by Fort McKay community members (First Nation and Métis), an analysis completed in 2013 applied a 500 meter (m) buffer to all existing, approved and planned disturbances (Lagimodiere 2013). Using this conservative buffer, it was determined that 57% of traditionally used land (over 2 million hectares [ha]) will be taken up by cumulative industrial development when all existing, approved and planned developments area considered (Stelfox et al. 2013; Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group 2008). The proportion of the study area that is natural or anthropogenic is a useful indicator because the distribution and abundance of many native species of plants and animals are related to the amount and structure of natural landscapes (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 26).

In 2013, it was determined that within Fort McKay’s traditional lands, the bitumen mining sector had taken up ~53,600 ha of land, the in-situ sector had taken up ~34,000 ha of land, settlements took ~3,000 ha and transportation another ~1,500 ha of land (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 79). Using the industrial disturbance footprints for existing and approved oil sands projects (as of December 2015), this project determined that over 78,730.47 ha of land within RFMAs (trap lines) specifically registered to Fort McKay Métis members will be directly affected by industrial development (Map 3 and Map 4).



Map 3: Current Traplines Used

ByFort McKay

Families

LEGEND

CommunityFort McKay Métis and First Nation Traditional TerritoryTrapping Areas Used By Fort McKay Métis FamiliesRegistered Fur Management AreasFirst Nation ReservesProtected Areas

Provincial BorderTownship BoundaryWaterbodyWatercourseMajor RoadRailway

0 4020

Kilometers




1:1,350,000



Marguerite River Wildland

Athabasca River

GalootLake

GardinerLakes

ALBE

RTA

SASK

ATC

HEW

AN

Big PointChannel

McClellandLake

Tar

Rive

r

Firebag River

Fort Chipewyan

Embarras

Point Brule

Poplar Point

Lobstick Point

Bitumount



Firebag River

16502172

850

2215

2137 1716

2457

2925

2926

2894

LakeAthabasca

LakeClaire

MamawiLake

NamurLake

GordonLake

NorthWabasca

Lake±

The McKay Métis

!

!

!

!Fort MacKay

Edmonton

GrandePrairie

Fort McMurray SASK

ATCH

EWAN


BRIT

ISH

COLU

MBI

A

Map 3 – Current Trap Lines Used by Fort McKay Métis Families



Map 4 – Current Trap Lines with Industrial Disturbance

Map 4: Current Trap Lines With

Industrial Disturbance

LEGEND

CommunityFort McKay Métis and First Nation Traditional TerritoryTeck Frontier ProjectApproved and Existing DisturbancePlanned DisturbanceTrapping Areas Used By Fort McKay Métis FamiliesRegistered Fur Management Areas

First Nation ReservesProtected AreasProvincial BorderTownship BoundaryWaterbodyWatercourseMajor RoadRailway

0 4020

Kilometers




1:1,350,000



Marguerite River WildlandAt

haba

sca R

iver

GalootLake

GardinerLakes

ALBE

RTA

SASK

ATCH

EWAN

AudetLake

Fort Chipewyan

Embarras

Point Brule

Poplar Point

Lobstick Point

Bitumount



Firebag River

TeckFrontierProject

Big PointChannel

McClellandLake

TarRiverFirebag River

16502172

850

22152137

1716

2457

29252926

2894

LakeAthabasca

LakeClaire

MamawiLake

NamurLake

GordonLake

NorthWabasca

Lake±

!

!

!

!Fort MacKay

Edmonton

GrandePrairie

Fort McMurray

The McKay Métis

SASK

ATCH

EWAN


BRIT

ISH

COLU

MBI

A



6.2.2 Changes in Access

Over the last few decades, the construction of roads, seismic lines, pipelines and transmission lines has vastly increased the ability for non-traditional users (e.g. recreationalists, hunters, fishermen, campers) with motorized off-highway vehicles to access what were previously remote, largely inaccessible areas of the boreal forest. This has increased hunting pressure and resulted in increased conflicts between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal harvesters.

Observed impacts of unmanaged access include reductions of fish and wildlife populations, reductions in wildlife distribution and increases in disturbed, eroded land, and loss of water quality (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 53).

At the same time, gates and safety related access restrictions on mine and SAGD leases have affected the ability of Métis harvesters to travel to and use family trap lines and historical hunting, fishing, trapping and plant harvesting locations.

Indicators used to track changes in access over time are listed in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Indicators Used to Track Changes in Access for Fort McKay Métis Trappers

Changes in Access to Land

• Anthropogenic edge density (km/km2);

• # of community members on industry "access lists";

• # of access protocol/agreements with industry;

• # of security gates encountered on the way to a harvesting area;

• Time spent travelling to hunting areas or waiting at security gates to get access through mine sites;

• Access routes used by community members (map or list) and the frequency of access routes changing.

Access corridor density is considered to be the most useful landscape indicator because it integrates many ecological impacts of roads, human use and vehicles and can help researchers understand issues related to access and landscape fragmentation (Stelfox et al 2013). For the Fort McKay Cumulative Effects study, anthropogenic edge density was tracked by ALCES Group as the sum of all edges from (mines) and linear features associated with human footprints (seismic lines, pipelines, roads, well sites airstrips, power transmission lines and gravel pits) (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 25). At that time (2013), the average footprint edge density across the Fort McKay territory was ~1.2 km/km2 (in 2010), but this was projected to increase to more that twice that density over time (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 79).



Well, you need to know where you're going for the most, 'cause there's cut lines alright, there's cut lines all over the place on the way out there, so you need to know where you're going... (FMM005-WS1)

There is currently no coordinated implementation strategy for an Access Management Plan, nor any empirical monitoring to determine the effectiveness of access management measures. Motorized use of roads, trails, and seismic lines by the public is considered both intensive and extensive (Nishi et al. 2013).

Security gates limit the ability of Métis harvesters to move freely about their trap lines and can significantly increase the amount of time needed to travel to harvesting areas.

We can't hunt, we can't gather, if we can't get access. Right? And that's one thing that's hurting this community is that, the only areas we are able to access [the trap lines] are off the map for the most part. And those that can access trap lines, can access their cabin, they can get to their cabin and they can stay there. Right. But to really go out, others are limited in terms of what you can do... (FMM005-WS1)

Some people still do [go out on the land to hunt or gather], but most everybody, … like they said yesterday, they've lost their trap lines, they've lost access to their traditional areas. Most (or all?) the leases are all spoken for, so a lot of them are already developed, they've got gates up, you got to go through security. Sometimes you get hassled, like they said yesterday to go visit somebody else's trap line, if you're not with him, you're not on a list. Even to go to Moose Lake, there's a gate. There's a gate there at the old Deer Energy..... when you go off the Cedar Hill Road, the very first thing you come to is a gate to keep going down the trail where these guys are talking about where they went hunting. There's a security right there..... they have a list. And, then the security companies, they have such high turnover. There's a new guy there and he doesn't know you from the last time you were there, and they give people a hard time, right? Like, they're just a security guard, they don't make any decisions, they're just following protocol and stuff, right? So, you hear lots of stories about people getting hassled, even trying to get to these areas. So, to answer your question, there's … it's being diminished rapidly. (FMM006-WS1)

To go out and hunt or trap is not easy, and some places have security gates, so you have to ask permission. (FMM002-WS1)

Yea, and then you know, when my uncle Andrew goes hunting, what, he's gotta ask for everybody's permission to go on his own trap line?



That's what happened to us when we were going towards the cabin. All of a sudden we were faced with a great big gate and security. (Barb Faichney in FMSD 2011)

Out of fifty Métis members in Fort McKay, only nine individuals are listed on industry access lists. All others must get special permission to be put on an access list, or travel with the registered trap line holder to enter trap line areas within oil sand lease areas. Fort McKay Métis harvesters have never been asked to track how long it takes them to get to hunting or berry picking areas, or how many security gates they encounter. However, anecdotal evidence suggests most Métis community members have experience with security gates limiting access and that the average travel time to access healthy land has increased over the last several decades due to access restrictions and modifications to the landscape.

6.2.3 Changes in Wildlife Abundance

Fort McKay Métis members believe that the massive clearing and fragmentation of land, increases in traffic and the increase regional population caused by oil sands development and related infrastructure has reduced suitable habitat for wildlife, reduced overall wildlife abundance, increased hunting pressure and decreased harvesting success. Over the last few decades, community members have shared insights and observations related to large game species such as moose, smaller furbearers, birds and fish (ALCES Group, 2013; Nishi et.al, 2013, FMSD 2011a; FMSD 2015, FMIRC 2009; HEG 2009; FMFN 1994,). They have also shared their concerns related to future reclamation success and the ability of reclaimed lands to support important wildlife species (Berryman et. al 2013, FMIRC 2010b). Many remain skeptical of industry promises that assure community members they will be able to hunt or snare small mammals near Fort McKay sometime in the future.

Fort McKay Métis members’ observations and insights related to wildlife abundance and habitat are supported by environmental monitoring and research that has been carried out within Fort McKay traditional lands (Nishi et al. 2013; Stelfox et al. 2013; Lagimodiere 2013; FMIRC 2010b). The Fort McKay Cumulative Effects Project (2013) found that to date, “cumulative effects of industrial activity has caused direct loss of natural landscape and wildlife habitat and indirect reduction in performance of moose, fisher, native fish and edible berry biotic indicators in areas adjacent to land use footprints, which occur as linear (seismic lines, pipelines, transmission lines and roads) and polygonal features (surface mines, tailings ponds, settlements, well sites, processing plants)” (Nishi et. al 2013, p. 73). They found that over the last 50 years, the amount of core forest that was > 200m from an anthropogenic footprint was reduced for up to ~20% of the forested lands in Fort McKay’s traditional territory (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 85). This has implications for the Métis



harvesters in that they must travel further and further away from Fort McKay to trap.

Indicators chosen for changes in wildlife abundance are listed in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Indicators Used to Track Changes in Wildlife Abundance

Animals have moved away

• Distribution and quality of wildlife habitat; • Fisher Habitat Suitability Index; • Incidental observations of rabbits, chickens (spruce grouse),

porcupines; • Observations of strange animal behavior (migration patterns,

population #s, unusual encounters).

The Fort McKay Cumulative Effects Project (2013) found, “despite implementation of coordinated management and mitigation, the expected extent, rate and pace of bitumen development will likely result in diminished performance of key biotic indicators as well as extirpation of local populations in core industrial foci within the study area. This will be accompanied by an equivalent functional loss in sustainable harvesting opportunities (moose, fisher, fish), which are core land based activities tied to the culture and traditional economy of Fort McKay peoples” (Nishi et al. 2013, p. 118).

6.2.4 Increased Regional Population

The simultaneous development of several large oil sand projects in the region has created an unparalleled demand for workers, which has resulted in a rapid increase in the number of people moving into the region.

Indicators chosen to track increased population are listed in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5 Indicators Used to Track Increased Population Related to Trapping

Increased Population

• # incidents/encounters with recreational users (hunters, quads) on trap lines;

• Census statistics for RMWB;

• Population of workforce living at camps in close proximity to Fort McKay (<25 km);

• Population numbers in Fort McKay.

• # of carcasses and wildlife body parts left at kill sties

Access to land and the loss of land described previously is made worse by the increased regional population and significant increase in off-highway access by non-Aboriginal land users into areas that were previously very isolated. The



increased number of non-community members using the land has resulted in numerous accounts of vandalism, theft and conflicts between Fort McKay Métis trappers and non-Aboriginal people. These incidents have discouraged some Elders from wanting to spend time on trap lines due to concerns over personal safety. The combination of increased roads and larger regional population will substantially impact wildlife species that are culturally important to Fort McKay Métis and without this wildlife there will be reduced trapping.

6.2.5 Policies and Approaches to Compensation and Distribution of Benefits

The lack of a provincial policy on consultation with Métis, and the lack of engagement with the Fort McKay Métis regarding regional plans and policies, has been a major issue for Fort McKay Métis members.

Up until about 2013, the Fort McKay Métis and the Fort McKay First Nation worked as one group in relation to industry consultation, negotiations and agreements. However, for a number of reasons, the First McKay First Nation ended the relationship forcing the Fort McKay Métis to branch off to pursue benefits directly for their members.

Indicators used to track changes in the distribution of benefits to Fort McKay Métis members that are related to Trapping are listed in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6 Indicators Used to Track Effects Related to Government and Industry Policies and Approaches to Engagement Related to Trapping

Government and Industry policies and approaches to engagement with Fort McKay Métis

• # of Métis members that have received trap line compensation vs. the total # of Métis members that have been affected by cumulative oil sands development.

• # of Métis families able to access Moose Lake.

• # of Métis families that are invited to participate in community-based monitoring initiatives.

An important example of a stressor is the industry and government approach to compensation for Métis trap lines taken up by oil sands developments. Fort McKay Métis families generally feel they have been treated unfairly by industry and government laws when it comes to compensation for disturbance to trap lines. They feel they have little power to influence decisions related to development on their trap lines. Trap lines not only provide food and income, they also provide a living record of Métis history, family stories and the Métis identity.



A long time ago, you have a trap line, that’s yours to keep. Yours to make a living on. Nowadays people come in here give ten thousand dollars, here they have already taken over the line, and now companies they got it [the trap line]. Yeah, ten thousand dollars, what the hell is that nowadays? It's ten dollars. Now industry’s they come in, they come in to trap line. They tell you, get the hell out I’m taking over and I’ll give you this much, don’t ever come back. Where the hell is that guy from? But for fifteen thousand, you know, full of baloney, that. (FMM003-WS1)

Many Fort McKay Métis members also feel that industry agreements and mine site access regulations have negatively affected family relations by limiting access to some community members that are not on a security list, but also because compensation money is given to one person, even though an entire family and network of relations may be affected by the loss of the trap line.

What happens is, while a whole family is raised on a trap line, the Alberta government only allows one person to hold that line. So that one person is the only person that industry goes to see, or government goes to see, when they’re negotiating on the trap line. So only one person gets the money, and it’s right across this whole community. Where those families were raised on the same trap line, but only one person benefits from that trap line. (FMM005-WS1)

Yeah everybody could use the trap line. It didn't need to just be a person, the whole family can use it. But, when money came, it got paid to a person (and no one could use the trap line). (FMM015-WS1)

The lack of dedicated lands for Fort McKay Métis members’ traditional use is a stressor.

See but the First Nation, they have the Moose Lake to go to, we don't have anything. We had our trap lines right, but we don't have anywhere to go now. So one thing that we're looking at doing is partnering up with other native communities from where the water is clean, where the game is good. And being able to go there. I mean we have nowhere to go. The Métis have nowhere to go. (FMM005-WS1)

6.3 Trapping in 2015

Trapping is no longer considered a subsistence activity in Fort McKay. While remaining an important cultural activity, few Fort McKay Métis members have the opportunity or ability to spend significant amounts of time trapping. Much of the land historically trapped by Fort McKay Métis members has been significantly impacted by oil sands development. Surface mining has affected over 78 thousand ha of Métis-held trap lines. Because they are no longer able to make a living off trapping and the bush, many Fort McKay Métis members



work for one of the oil sand companies or a company that provides services to the oil and gas or forestry sectors. This economic shift, from a dual economy to a predominantly wage-based economy, has affected how much time people have to trap.

Well, look at me, I had my late grandpa’s trap line. But I had to give it up, I couldn't keep it because I wasn't trapping. I was busy working, trying to support my family, so I had to give it up. So Shell … offer me seven thousand. I still got that receipt, in my house, with all the rest of my paper. So, that's all they offered me, seven, I try and to go higher and they said, ‘Nope. This is not yours. This is government. This is in the forestry’, or I didn't have no choice, so I have to. (FMM001-WS1)

So one of the biggest things you see with a lot of people is, with trap lines especially, People don’t usually trap anymore. I mean people don’t use them to trap. If anything they’ll snare rabbits, or they’ll go shoot chickens, or some places you can pick berries, but a lot of people just go to the bush, for the sake of going to the bush. They just want to be able to go and get away. (FMM005-WS1)

6.3.1 Cultural Values Linked to Trapping in 2015

Fort McKay Métis members associate Trapping in 2015 with the following cultural values:

• Identity;

• Self Reliance;

• Cooperation;

• Faith;

• Pride;

• Happiness;

• Adaptability;

• Understanding Nature; and

• Respect.

Identity

Trapping is still associated with Métis culture and identity. All the Fort McKay Métis members participating in this study wanted to have access to trap lines specifically for the purpose of carrying out traditional activities like trapping and snaring rabbits. Although few people actively trap for furs as a source of income, there is still a considerable portion of the Fort McKay Métis community that considers themselves “trappers”, since that was how their parents, grandparents and great grandparents survived, and they remember growing



up on the trap line and making a living in that way. However, because only a few Métis community members are trapping, the link between Trapping and the value identity has been slightly weakened.

Self Reliance, Adaptability and Understanding Nature

The link between Trapping and self-reliance has been significantly weakened. Fort McKay Métis trap lines have been severely affected by industrial development. Only twelve individuals out of approximately fifty Fort McKay Métis members have approved access to their trap lines. While undisturbed trap lines continue to support Fort McKay Métis hunting and trapping, trapping is no longer relied upon for income for Fort McKay Métis trappers and while some registered trappers continue to snare small mammals such as rabbits for food, there are no Fort McKay Métis members who rely completely on wild food and furs to sustain themselves or their families.

Fort McKay Métis members believe cumulative land loss limits community members’ opportunity and capacity to hunt, trap, fish and gather, forcing them to participate in the wage economy. This loss of land has changed the way community members spend their time and who they spend their time with. It has limited the number of opportunities for traditional intergenerational transfer of knowledge and community members’ skill sets and sense of place.

No Métis families in Fort McKay keep dog teams. In order to access trap lines, community members must use motorized transport (trucks, quads or snow machines). Walking to trap lines is no longer considered a real option. Because Fort McKay Métis trappers spend less time in the bush, younger people don’t have the same opportunities to learn about the land, waterways and animals that have sustained their families for generations.

I've never seen it [dog teams], but not like they did a long time ago, the dogs and all the canvas, everything, you don’t see those here anymore now. Not even a sleigh or whatever. Yeah. Fort Chip, they have that [dog sled races] every year (but not McKay). (FMM001-WS1)

Well, think about it, an animal, in the wintertime, they bulk up on their fur. So the furs are best in the winter. And they're easier to get to, because everything is frozen. Yeah. And they get around on the dog team, like she [FMM001-WS1] mentioned, in the wintertime. The old ways. Right now, it’s … I don't think there’s anybody really traps anymore. (FMM006-WS1)

Cooperation

Trapping is considered a solitary activity. None of the Fort McKay Métis trappers spend large amounts of time out on their lines, harvesting or



preparing hides for sale, so few families work together in this way. There are some opportunities at Moose Lake for community members to snare and skin rabbits and prepare the hides, but it is not common. Because of these factors, the link between trapping and the value cooperation has been weakened. This is a notable shift from how the community functioned historically and thus has resulted in an added strain to community networks and relationships.

Faith

Most Fort McKay Métis members feel the land their family has used for generations is no longer capable of supporting their families. With the settlement of Fort McKay located in the centre of the Athabasca oil sands mining region, increasing community anxiety has emerged about prospects for maintaining current and future traditional activities (Stelfox et al. 2013).

Happiness and Pride

Those that still participate in trapping receive a tremendous amount of satisfaction out of it. Fort McKay Métis members are proud of their knowledge, bush skills and ability to survive out in the bush. Elders in the community love to reminisce about days on the trap line and share their experiences with younger generations.

INTERVIEWER: So, you guys teach about dry fish and stuff, what about snares?

FMM009-WS: Everything!

INTERVIEWER: Everything? Setting the rabbit snares?

FMM009-WS: Everything what you could do.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah?

FMM009-WS: Yeah!

Respect

Fort McKay Métis members will not hunt or trap on other trap lines as a means of showing respect to the trap line holder, but because there are so few Fort McKay Métis trap line holders, there are few instances where this value can be instilled through Trapping.

INTERVIEWER: It seems like the trap line is where people would go hunting, trapping and most of their gathering. So, why don't they go other places?

FMM012-WS: They'd be imposing.

INTERVIEWER: Imposing? What would you feel like if you got invited onto the trap line? Would you go?



FMM012-WS: Well - yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Because it seems like white people, they don't know whose trap line it is.

FMM0011-WS: No.

INTERVIEWER: And so they go?

FMM011-WS: They just go...[laughs]... Where they please.

INTERVIEWER: But you guys wouldn't feel good doing that?

FMM011-WS: No.

INTERVIEWER: No?

FMM012-WS: Lots of people - we don't invite ourselves unless somebody invite us. If somebody invites us, then we go. If nobody invites us, we don't go.

INTERVIEWER: Why?

FMM014-WS: It shows respect to the trap line holder.

FMM012-WS: Yeah - That's how we were brought up and that's respect, you just don't go and say, "I'm coming." ... We weren't brought like that. We always ask, see? We're invited - we go. We don't get invited - we don't go.

Table 6-7 summarizes the changes in activity-value linkages for Trapping. These are the value linkages represented in Figure 6-2.

Table 6-7 Summary of Activity-Value Linkages for Trapping in 2015

Have cumulative stressors changed how, where, when or why cultural activities occur?

Line used on Cultural Model

Cultural value has been affected by changes to cultural activity

No, when performed, the cultural activity continues to instill cultural values in the same way.

Happiness,

Yes, cumulative cultural stressors have changed why, how, where and when cultural activities occur and as a result, the extent to which the value is instilled is lessened.

Identity Self reliance Adaptability

Yes, cumulative cultural stressors have changed why, how, where and when cultural activities occur and as a result severely diminished the opportunities to instill this value.

Understanding Nature Self determination Respect Pride Cooperation Faith



Figure 6-2 Cultural Values Linked to 2015 Trapping

6.4 Potential Impacts to Trapping from the Frontier Mine Project

This section describes some of the potential impacts the Frontier Mine Project will have and the project’s contribution to regional cumulative effects on Trapping.

6.4.1 Frontier Mine Project Stressors

Section 6.2 describes some of the industrial stressors that are causing existing cumulative effects to the ability of Fort McKay Métis to trap. These stressors are:

• Loss of land;

• Changes in access to land;

• Reduced animal abundance;

• Increased pollution;

• Increased regional population; and

• Government and industry policies related to Fort McKay Métis.



Loss of Land

The Frontier Mine Project is expected to take up approximately 29,300 ha within the lands traditionally used by Fort McKay Métis members. The Frontier Mine Project will not directly affect any trap lines registered to Fort McKay Métis members.

Within the Teck LSA, trapping by Fort McKay Métis members pre-dated the trap line system (FMSD 2011b, p. 53). Since that time, Fort McKay families have built relationships with the individuals that moved into the area and became registered owners. These families have maintained close ties and have conducted spring beaver hunts and trapped together in recent times (FMSD 2011b, p. 53). During 2011 interviews and field studies, Fort McKay members identified four trapping areas associated with past and present trapping activity within the Teck LSA. In addition to trapping sites identified during Teck TLU interviews, thirty-four trapping sites used by Fort McKay families were previously mapped in 1994 as occurring within the Teck LSA (FMSD 2011b, p.43). Furbearers trapped within the Teck LSA included rabbit, lynx, mink, beaver, wolverine, muskrat, wolf, weasel, otter, marten, squirrel, fisher, bear and fox. Trapping areas within the Teck LSA were shown as yellow crosshatching on Figure 4 in the TLU (2011b) – reproduced below for reference.

In addition to trapping areas, TLU interviews identified sixty-six site-specific traditional land use values, including twenty-four subsistence sites and polygons associated with past, present and planned future subsistence activities described in the LSA (FMSD 2011b, p. 39). When combined with historic information from There is still Survival Out There, sixty site-specific subsistence values associated with the LSA area, including hunting (moose, caribou, deer, ducks, grouse and buffalo), fishing, drying meat, gathering eggs, harvesting wood, picking berries and gathering medicinal plants (FMSD 2011b, p. 40), a total of eighty-four subsistence values were recorded and mapped within the Teck LSA(FMSD 2011, p. 40). These are the green-hatched areas on Figure 4 from the TLU (2011) below.



Figure 6-3(a) Maps from the Traditional Land Use Assessment Completed for the Frontier Mine Project (2011)



Figure 6-3(b) Maps from the Traditional Land Use Assessment Completed for the Frontier Mine Project (2011)



What this tells us is that the lands within and surrounding the Frontier Mine Project area have been used by people from Fort McKay for generations. It is considered an important harvesting area for a large extended family. This extended family is related by blood or marriage to the current registered trap line holder of RFMA #850. Relationships with this family extend to individuals and Métis families in Fort McKay.

Changes in Access to Land

The 2011, TLUS noted the extensive land-based trail network and the many rivers and creeks that were used for transportation throughout the region and through the Frontier Mine Project lease. There are major land-based trails, originally cut by hand and travelled on by foot and dog team that extend east-west from the Athabasca River to the Birch Mountains, as well as north-south along the Athabasca River. Many of these trails were ground-truthed during TLU field studies completed for the Frontier Mine Project area. The Fort McKay Métis believe the Frontier Mine Project will affect travel along both these important corridors that are used to reach family harvesting areas on trap lines and in the Birch Mountains. In terms of accessing other harvesting areas further away, participants in the TLUS (2011) felt a new access route will be required around the west side of the CNRL mine and will add hours to the journey required to reach other harvesting areas.

Reduced Animal Abundance

During the 2011 TLUS and the community workshops in November 2015, Fort McKay Métis members confirmed the importance of the Frontier Mine Project area in terms of trapping and as an area valued for its wildlife habitat including habitat for fisher and marten.

Fort McKay Métis people believe that the effects of the Frontier Mine Project will extend beyond the lease boundary in terms of the effects it will have on wildlife habitat quality, sensory disturbance, and wildlife movements. In 2011, Fort McKay members noted that, “the LSA connects the Athabasca River to Birch Mountain and it is important to keep this area as a healthy and intact ecosystem. As the Traditional Territory becomes increasingly fragmented, maintaining connectivity for wildlife movement is critically important” (FMSD 2011b). This belief was reiterated during the 2015 and 2016 focus group meetings. When describing potential Frontier Mine Project effects, one community member said:

It’s gonna affect us. No matter how you look at it its gonna affect us. You know, the canons going 24 hours a day. What about CNRL, they were out there, we’re out in the Birch Mountain over there. Way up there by the tower we can hear them just like they’re right there and



that’s about 20-30 miles away. (FMSD 2010c)

Increased Regional Population

The construction workforce is estimated to be 3,500 people, and the peak operations workforce is estimated to be 2,500 people. Teck will construction and operations camps, both located east of Oakley Lake. The location of the Frontier Mine Project on the west side of the Athabasca River opens up an area of traditional Fort McKay territory that was previously difficult to access, increasing the number of non-Aboriginal people able to access Fort McKay Métis’ traditional harvesting areas on the west side of the river.

Government and Industry Policies Related to Métis

As has been described earlier, the lack of a provincial Métis consultation policy has left some project proponents unsure of how/if they are required to engage Métis communities. Historically, what has happened is that companies have focused discussions and only negotiated compensation agreements with Métis individuals listed as RFMA owners. Without the support of the Fort McKay Métis leadership, or the provincial or federal governments overseeing these agreements, many Fort McKay Métis trappers suggest they were given little time to understand the full extent of the agreements and were made to feel they had no choice but to accept the terms they were given.

This situation does not apply to Teck, in that there are no RFMA holders directly affected by the Frontier Mine Project. To date, Teck has been open to involving the Fort McKay Métis community in project planning, and continues to have discussions with the MMSC regarding mitigation planning and accommodation agreements.

6.4.2 Frontier Mine Project Effects on Linkages with Cultural Values

As part of the process of determining the strength of the link between the activity Trapping and the twelve cultural values portrayed in the cultural model, a list of value-based indicators was generated. The value-based indicators are discussed for each cultural value. The impact of the Frontier Mine project on the linkages is then described using the impact rating criteria described in Section 5.

Identity

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and identity if:



• There is a decrease in the # of youth/adults/Elders trapping or a decrease in the # of Fort McKay Métis members with current experience trapping (within the last 10 years) or past experience (over 10 years ago).

• Fewer Fort McKay Métis members self-identify as a “trapper,” or have the desire to trap.

Since none of the RFMAs directly affected by the Frontier Mine Project are currently registered to Fort McKay Métis members, the effect the project has on this particular activity is considered moderate. While not a direct effect at this time, historical reports and oral accounts have shown that families in Fort McKay are interconnected, and kinship ties spread throughout the Athabasca district (between Fort Chipewyan to Lac La Biche, Wabasca to La Loche). The additional loss of lands that have a history of supporting trapping and traditional livelihoods has implications for the future generations of all of the region’s Aboriginal peoples.

Over time, as future generations have less access to harvesting areas and limited opportunities to trap, their preferences for food and desire to spend time in the bush trapping can change. Future generations may not self-identify as “trappers” if it is not something they are used to doing. This can lead to loss of skills, knowledge, sense of place and identity.

However at this time, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is family; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local (within the LSA); the duration is long term and therefore considered of medium importance. Because the impact is on a moderately strong link, and is likely, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Self Reliance

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and self reliance if:

• There is an increase in the distance and time spent travelling to harvest healthy furbearers (rabbits, squirrels, beaver, muskrat etc.),

• There is increased reliance on motorized transport to travel long distances based on inventory travel methods people use: walking, snow machines, trucks, dog sleds, boats, planes.

Fort McKay Métis families that have access to family trap lines still rely on these areas to harvest rabbits and other small animals for food, and to harvest other animals for fur. However, Fort McKay Métis members are not currently harvesting these animals within the Project area so the magnitude of the impacts of the Frontier Mine Project on Trapping is considered low. However,



the Frontier Mine Project will affect the ability of other Métis families to trap in the project area for at least two generations and will affect the way several Métis harvesters access other harvesting areas in the Birch Mountains or on family trap lines.

Métis community members believe the Frontier Mine Project will change they way Fort McKay Métis members can travel through the territory in that it will take them much longer to access traditional harvesting areas (for example RFMA 850). Because only a few people in the community have the ability to travel long distances to remote areas, changes in access can increase the reliance on motorized transports and actually reduce the number of people able to pursue harvesting activities. Individuals that don’t own a truck or all terrain vehicle (ATV) are most affected by changes in access; in Fort McKay the groups most affected by changes in access are Elders, young people and single mothers who are not trap line holders or directly related to a trap line holder.

Fort McKay Métis trappers expect that with a bridge across the Athabasca, they will encounter more people hunting or using ATVs west of the Athabasca. In terms of trapping, this can increase conflicts around cabins and traps.

For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is community; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered medium importance. Because the impact is on a moderately strong link, and is likely, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Self-Determination and Leadership

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and self determination if:

• There is a decrease in # of Métis RFMA holders in Fort McKay.

• There is an increase in # of Fort McKay Métis members that must ask permission/be on a list to access trap line areas.

• There is an increase in # of imposed seasonal or temporary harvesting restrictions due to industrial activity or government policy.

• There is a decrease in # of Fort McKay Métis members participating in and/or informed about regulatory processes for new developments.

• There is a decrease in MMSC participation in regional land use planning and wildlife management initiatives where they have an influential voice in management plans.



Over time, as future generations find it more difficult to secure RFMAs close to Fort McKay, and fewer have a lifestyle that allows them to trap, Fort McKay Métis members worry fewer young people will see the benefit of going through the process of obtaining RFMAs. As discussed in Section 7: Hunting, Section 8: Fishing and Water Use, Section 9: Plant Gathering and Section 13: Story Telling, this has broader implications for other traditional activities, since Fort McKay Métis members tend to restrict harvesting activities and camping to family trap lines. The combined loss of family trap lines and increased access restrictions are leaving Fort McKay Métis members feeling like they have nowhere to go to trap or carry out other traditional activities.

To help mitigate this issue, Teck has committed to work with MMSC (and other Aboriginal communities) on developing an Access Management Strategy for the Frontier Mine Project. To date, Teck has been open to involving the Fort McKay Métis community in project planning. This ICA has created an opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to become better informed about regional oil sands development and some of the initiatives being considered by the MMSC to try and improve environmental, social and economic conditions in the community. This will help reduce stress on self-determination, but it will not eliminate the effect.

The potential impacts from the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage are expected to be negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is regional; the duration is long term and therefore considered high importance. Because the impact is on a threatened/weak link, and is likely, the effect is considered highly significant.

Cooperation

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and cooperation if:

• There is a decrease in Fort McKay Métis participation in Hunters and Trappers Association meetings.

• There is a decrease in meaningful participation of Fort McKay Métis members in environmental monitoring programs:

o Community programs.

o Industry or regional monitoring programs or studies.

o Government programs (federal and provincial).

The Frontier Mine Project will not directly affect the measures listed above. For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is not significant.



Faith

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and faith if:

• There is a decrease in the belief that the bush will provide.

As sections above have noted, the Frontier Mine Project will be directly impacting trapping areas used by some Fort McKay Métis families, thereby contributing to the regional issues that are adversely affecting the ability for Métis people to trap around Fort McKay.

The Frontier Mine will be the most northern open pit mine on the west side of the Athabasca River. It is proposed for an area that was considered relatively “clean” by the community. As more land is taken up by oil sands development, Métis members are starting to doubt that future generations will be able to exercise their rights to trap.

For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is community wide; magnitude is high; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered of high importance. Because the impact is on a threatened/weak link, and is likely, the effect is considered highly significant.

Pride

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and pride if:

• There is a decrease in the # of Fort McKay Métis members recognized for traditional skills, TEK or “knowing their history”.

• There is a decrease in the # of opportunities for Fort McKay Métis Elders to share their knowledge and bush experience.

• There is a decrease in the # of Fort McKay Métis members fulfilling roles as “teachers”.

As the sections above have described, if fewer Fort McKay Métis members are trapping, there will be fewer opportunities for Elders to pass on knowledge and skills to younger generations. Many Fort McKay Métis members take great pride in their knowledge of the region, the environment and its waterways. Providing opportunities for community members to share skills and knowledge is not only required to pursue a subsistence Métis lifestyle, it can also inform land use governance systems and build pride in traditional knowledge.



The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered medium importance. Because the impact is on a moderately strong link, and is likely, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Happiness

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and happiness if:

• Community members feel their circumstances related to trapping are getting worse, not better.

• Trapping no longer makes community members feel “happy”.

Fort McKay Métis members feel that the Frontier Mine Project will decrease the ability of community members to spend time on the land, and so they believe they will be “worse off” if the Frontier Mine Project is approved. As more barriers to trapping are imposed, the positive, “happy” feelings community members historically associated with being on the land are diminished when they are forced to travel through cleared areas, wait at security gates and listen to mining activity or cope with industrial odours.

For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered highly important. Because the impact is on a moderately strong link, and is likely, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Adaptability

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and adaptability if:

• There is a decrease in # of Fort McKay Métis members able to set a snare/trap, track animals, skin/butcher animals, demonstrate survival skills, run dogs, stretch/scrape hides, smoke meat, dry meat.

As sections above have noted, the Frontier Mine Project will not be directly impacting Fort McKay Métis trap lines, but these areas have been used historically by Fort McKay Métis members, including both friends and family of Métis individuals participating in focus groups carried out for this project. With



fewer multi-generational trapping excursions taking place, the way skills and information are generated and transferred among different generations and gender groups has changed. Fort McKay Métis members believe the addition of the Frontier Mine Project will contribute to this effect. With fewer young people learning these skills, Elders worry that future generations will no longer be able to survive off the land when the mines close down.

This can also affect Fort McKay Métis members’ participation in community programs and environmental work carried out by industry and government.

For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered highly important. Because the impact is on a moderately strong link, and is likely, the effect is considered moderately significant

Understanding Nature

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and understanding nature if:

• Fort McKay Métis members spend less time in the bush.

• There is a decrease in the # of Fort McKay Métis members who consider themselves knowledgeable about animal behavior, are able to track animals, and are able to survive in the bush.

The Fort McKay Métis believe that over time, the Frontier Mine Project will negatively affect the ability of Fort McKay Métis members to trap and access healthy harvest areas. These effects will contribute to the many factors already limiting the amount of time community members spend in the bush. Over time, as future generations have less access to harvesting areas and limited opportunities to trap, many community members believe that their preferences for food and desire to spend time in the bush trapping will change since they are not something they are used to.

As discussed above, with fewer multi-generational trapping excursions taking place, the way skills and information are generated and transferred among different generations and gender groups are changing. Fort McKay Métis members believe the addition of the Frontier Mine Project will contribute to this. With fewer young people learning these skills, Elders worry knowledge related to animal behavior, local landscapes and ecology will diminish. Fort McKay Métis are concerned this will limit future generations’ ability to return to the land when the mines close down.



For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered of medium importance. Because the impact is on a weak/threatened link, and is likely, the effect is considered highly significant

Respect

Fort McKay Métis members feel the Frontier Mine Project will have an adverse effect on the linkage between Trapping and respect if:

• There is a decrease in the number of Fort McKay Métis Elders invited to participate in camps and community initiatives.

The Frontier Mine Project will not directly influence this indicator, however if fewer Fort McKay Métis members are trapping in the region, there are fewer opportunities for Métis Elders to pass on customs related to processing meat and philosophies related to waste and respecting the gifts from Mother Earth.

For these reasons, the potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered of medium importance. Because the impact is on a threatened/weak link, and is likely, the effect is considered highly significant.

Figure 6-4 illustrates the impact that the Frontier Mine Project will have on Trapping as it is proposed in the updated application.



Figure 6-3 Frontier Mine Project Impacts on Linkages between Trapping and Cultural Values.

6.4.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures, Protection Plans and Offset Programs for the Frontier Mine Project

In August 2015, MMSC shared their specific concerns related to the contributions the Frontier Mine Project will make to cumulative effects in Fort McKay’s territory, and the extent to which these effects continue to impact Fort McKay Métis’ current and future generations’ traditional livelihood, existence, culture and traditional economy (See: Fort McKay’s review of Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application. Project Update June 2015 and Supplemental Information Request No. 4 (August 2015).

All of the comments and recommendations made in that document are adopted by the Frontier Mine Project ICA.

Fort McKay Métis culture and the activity Trapping is already under a tremendous amount of stress as a result of the rapid and significant shifts in environmental, social and economic conditions that have occurred within Fort



McKay Métis territory. As a way of increasing the resiliency of Fort McKay Métis culture, so that it may better withstand the pressures industry is imposing on their way of life, the Frontier Mine Project ICA makes recommendations aimed at not only mitigating Frontier Mine Project contributions to cumulative impacts, but also for maintaining and potentially strengthening the state of current linkages through protection measures and offset strategies.

• Mitigation measures are designed to help reduce the stress that the Frontier Mine Project would place on Fort McKay Métis culture.

• Protection plans and offset strategies would help strengthen linkages between the nine activities and the twelve cultural values that would be weakened by the stressors created by the Frontier Mine Project.

Key to the implementation of all these recommendations are concepts related to monitoring for adaptive management and increased participation in land use planning and resource management decisions around Fort McKay. The full descriptions of MMSC recommendations related to these critical strategies are provided in Section 16: Recommendations Summary.

The MMSC believes that careful implementation of these measures will help Teck ensure they are building and operating their project in the least impactful way possible. In addition to mitigation measures, the Fort McKay Métis believe linkages could be strengthened by protecting:

• Important traditionally used places and watersheds.

• Important skills and knowledge (such as tracking, using traditional tools, processing meat and hides).

Offset strategies are also recommended in Section 16 as a means of potentially strengthening the state of current linkages being affected by the Frontier Mine Project’s contribution to cumulative effects through some other initiative. Example of recommended offsets that could help instill some of the values traditionally instilled through Trapping are:

• Cultural camps.

• Traditional food security systems.

• Transportation to harvesting areas.

• Training to participate in environmental and socio-cultural monitoring programs.

Multiple cultural values can be instilled through programs that provide opportunities and support for multi-generational Métis groups to be out on the land trapping and/or working together to process and distribute meat, fur or hides.



Fort McKay Métis members believe a cultural camp, where community members can spend time setting traps and snares, will help their youth “learn by doing” and help develop a better sense of their identity as Métis. All sectors of the community (youth, young adults, adults and Elders) want to protect the traditional skills necessary to maintain a Métis lifestyle, and believe the best way for them to increase their knowledge and abilities is to spend time with Elders on the land. This not only helps them learn trapping and other harvesting skills, but helps to provide the context and understanding of Métis traditions and Métis history in the region. By supporting a cultural camp, Teck would help strengthen links to identity, self-determination, cooperation, faith, pride, happiness, adaptability, understanding nature, and respect.

Because spending long periods of time on the land is no a longer realistic option for Métis families from Fort McKay, the MMSC are concerned that an annual cultural camp will not be enough to ensure community members have access to healthy traditional foods. Recruiting community members to help harvest wild meat, process it and distribute it among the community during hunting and gathering seasons can create an opportunity to strengthen linkages to many cultural values listed above. By supporting a traditional food security system, Teck would help strengthen links to cooperation, faith, pride, happiness, adaptability, understanding nature, and respect.

Fort McKay Métis also believe a program that can provide transportation for community members to places like Moose Lake, McClelland Lake, the Birch Mountains, Ells River watershed, McKay River watershed and the Firebag River watershed is a key strategy for increasing harvesting and intergenerational learning opportunities for Métis people from Fort McKay. By funding or supporting transportation for community members so that they could reach trap lines and places they could snare rabbits and squirrels, Teck would help strengthen links to identity, self reliance, faith, pride, adaptability, understanding nature, and respect.

Providing support and meaningful opportunities for the MMSC to participate in project planning, including access management, reclamation and watershed management, and long-term monitoring can help to address stress on links to self-determination, adaptability, understanding nature, Cooperation, pride and respect.

The MMSC believe long term monitoring is key to understanding if mitigations and management strategies are having the desired effect. Fort McKay Métis families believe getting training to effectively participate in environmental and socio-cultural monitoring programs can help build skills and knowledge more traditionally gained by living off the land and provide another means of



instilling values related to self determination, cooperation, understanding nature, adaptability, pride, respect and faith.

Table 6-8 shows which of the value-based indicators identified for Trapping will be affected in a positive way when recommendations are implemented over the life of the project.



Table 6-8 Mitigation, Protection and Offset Contributions to Value-Based Indicators for Trapping

Value Value-Based indicators for Trapping Mitigation Protection Cultural Camp

Food Security System

Transport program

Monitoring FMMCA in planning

Identity Increase in the # of Métis youth/adults/Elders trapping or the # of community members with current experience trapping (within last 10 years), or past experience (over 10 years ago).

✓ ✓ ✓

Identity Increase in # of Fort McKay Métis members that self-identify as a “trapper,” and have the desire to trap.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Self Reliance Decreased distance travelled and time spent to harvest healthy furbearers (rabbits, squirrels, beaver, muskrat etc.).

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Self Reliance Decreased reliance on motorized transport to travel long distances based on inventory travel methods people use: walking, snow machines, trucks, dog sleds, boats, planes.

✓ ✓

Self determination/ Leadership

Increase in # of Métis RFMA holders in Fort McKay.

✓ ✓


Decrease in # of Fort McKay Métis members who must ask permission/be on a list to access trap line areas.

✓ ✓ ✓

Self determination/

Decrease in # of imposed seasonal or temporary harvesting restrictions due to

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓





Transport program


Leadership industrial activity or government policy.


Increase in # of Fort McKay Métis members participating in and/or informed about regulatory processes for new developments.

✓ ✓ ✓


Increase in MMSC participation in regional land use planning and wildlife management initiatives where they have an influential voice in management plans.

✓ ✓

Cooperation Participation in Fort McKay Métis Hunters and Trappers Association meetings.

✓ ✓

Cooperation Meaningful participation in environmental monitoring programs: • Community programs. • Industry or regional wildlife monitoring

programs or studies. • Government programs (federal and

provincial).

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Faith Belief the bush will provide. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Pride Increase in # of Fort McKay Métis members recognized for traditional skills, TEK or “knowing their history”.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Pride Increase in # of opportunities for Fort McKay Métis Elders to share knowledge and bush experience with youth

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓





Transport program


Pride Increase in # of Fort McKay Métis community members fulfilling roles as “teachers”.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Happiness Belief things getting are getting better ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Adaptability Increase in the # of Fort McKay Métis members able to set a snare/trap, track animals, skin/butcher animals, demonstrate survival skills, run dogs, stretch/scrape hides, smoke meat, dry meat.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓


Time spent in the bush ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓


Increase or decrease in # of Fort McKay Métis members who consider themselves knowledgeable about animal behavior, are able to track animals, and are able to survive in the bush.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Respect Wastage seen at kill sites or improper disposal of parts.

✓ ✓

Respect Increase or decrease in # of Fort McKay Métis Elders invited to participate in camps and community initiatives.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓



6.4.4 Residual Impacts from the Frontier Mine Project

Assuming the Frontier Mine Project implements all the recommendations above for mitigation, protection, offsets, monitoring and participation in planning, the linkages between Trapping and cultural values would be strengthened.

Table 6-9 State of Value-Based Linkages for Trapping if Offsets are applied to 2015 Models

Value State of 2015 Value Linkage State of 2015 Link with Offsets

Identity Moderate Strong

Self Reliance Moderate Strong

Self determination/ Leadership Weak Moderate

Cooperation Weak Moderate

Faith Weak Moderate

Pride Weak Moderate

Happiness Moderate Strong

Adaptability Moderate Strong

Understanding Nature Weak Moderate

Respect Weak Moderate

Applying the same rationale in Section 6. 5 that describes the Frontier Mine Project’s contribution to cumulative stressors affecting Trapping, the impact criteria is applied considering the improved state of the values linkage.

Identity

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage continues to be negative; with a societal impact of family; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local (within the LSA); the duration is long term and therefore considered of medium importance. However, assuming all offset strategies are implemented and successful, and the strength of the linkages changes from moderate to strong over the life of the project, the effect is considered not significant.



Self Reliance

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is community; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered medium importance. Because the linkage has improved with offsets strategies to become strong, the effect is considered not significant.

Self-Determination and Leadership

The potential impacts from the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage are expected to be negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is regional; the duration is long term and therefore considered high importance. Because the linkages have improved with offset strategies to become moderately strong, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Cooperation

The Frontier Mine Project will not directly affect the indicators associated with cooperation. However, offset strategies have the potential to strengthen this linkage such that the net effect of the project is considered positive.

Faith

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is community wide; magnitude is high; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered of high importance. Because the linkages have improved with offset strategies to become moderately strong, the effect is considered moderately significant.

Pride

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered medium importance. With successful offsets, the impacts will fall on a moderately strong link and so the effect is considered moderately significant.

Happiness

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered



highly important. Even though the linkage has improved with offset strategies to become strong, the effect is still considered moderately significant.

Adaptability

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is medium; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered highly important. Even though the linkages have improved with offset strategies to become strong, the effect is still considered moderately significant.


The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered of medium importance. Because of offsets, the impact is now on a moderately strong link, and is likely, so the effect is considered moderately significant.

Respect

The potential impact of the Frontier Mine Project on the linkage is negative; the societal impact is at the community level; the magnitude is low; the geographic extent is local; the duration is long term and therefore considered medium importance. Because of offsets, the impact is now on a moderately strong link and is likely, so the effect is considered moderately significant.

Figure 6-4 illustrates the impact that the Frontier Mine Project will have on Trapping as it is proposed in the updated application.



Figure 6-4 Frontier Mine Project Residual Impact on 2015 Trapping

Documents

6.0 Trapping · SECTION 6.0 TRAPPING HEG FRONTIER MINE PROJECT ICA PAGE 46 OF 419 6.0 Trapping The Métis are the children of the fur trade. In Fort McKay, trapping has always been