Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

T’7ekmin’-tp re Simpcwul’ecw te xyemstem-kuc “Through the Heart of Simpcwul’ecw”

Simpcw Traditional Land Use and Ecological Knowledge Project In Response to the Proposed Kinder Morgan/TM Pipeline

Prepared for:

Kinder Morgan Canada 300 5th Avenue SW, Suite 2700 Calgary, AB T2P 5J2

Prepared by:

Simpcw First Nation 500 Dunn Lake Road Barriere, BC V0E 1E0

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page i Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Executive Summary

This Report was prepared solely in connection with Kinder Morgan Canada`s proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“TMEP”). The purpose of this Report is to provide a summary of the resources and places used by Simpcwemc within the TMEP footprint, both past and present, for the exercise of traditional and cultural activities, including resource harvest and resource preparation, settlement, and spiritual and ceremonial purposes. This Report should be considered as a whole. Selecting only portions of the Report for reliance may create a misleading view of the Simpcw First Nation’s (“Simpcw”) claims or interests to the area. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of Simpcw traditional land use information and traditional ecological knowledge, this Report provides only a summary of Simpcw’s use and occupation of the proposed TMEP footprint. For example, specific locations of Simpcw sites will not be identified in order to ensure their protection and preservation. Simpcw retains exclusive ownership over the traditional land use and traditional ecological knowledge collected and provided in this Report. Kinder Morgan Canada may use the information contained in this Report to inform any regulatory processes and for the purposes of informing the planning, design, evaluation, assessment, development, operation and maintenance of the TMEP and not for other purposes. To be clear, no person may rely on this Report for any other purpose without the prior written approval from Simpcw. Should a third party use this Report without Simpcw’s approval, they may not rely upon it. Simpcw accepts no responsibility for loss or damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this Report. This Report does not constitute consultation as owed by the Crown to Simpcw with respect to the proposed TMEP, or any other contemplated Crown action within Simpcw Territory. This Report was conducted within a specified timeline and budget. As such, it is not a complete account of Simpcw’s use of its Territory or of the proposed TMEP footprint. While a substantial effort was employed to obtain as many references as possible in completing the work described in this Report, it is expected that additional sources remain that were inaccessible during this project; and that additional interviewees did not come forward. Any such information could affect the results of this Report. This Report, identifying the results of the Land and Resource Use Study, provides the basis for the requirement on the part of British Columbia, Canada and Kinder Morgan Canada via delegation by government, to engage in deep consultation with Simpcw with regard to the proposed TMEP.

As government has purported to delegate aspects of its obligation to consult and accommodate to Kinder Morgan Canada, it is vital that the company appreciates the significance of Simpcw’s aboriginal title and rights in and around the proposed TMEP footprint. Taken together, the strength of Simpcw’s claim of aboriginal title and rights, and the severity of the potential impacts of the proposed TMEP situate the duty to consult relative to these projects at the high end of the spectrum identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida Nation.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page ii Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Acknowledgments

Simpcw would like to thank Estsek’ Environmental Services LLP (“Estsek’”) and Kerri Jo Fortier for organizing and facilitating this Report; Steven Patterson for his GIS skills and knowledge of the area; Judy Banks; Dodie Eustache; and Marissa Eustache for their extensive patience in researching, interviewing and reporting; and to Sidney Jules for his knowledge and assistance with field work. We would also like to extend a “thank you” to all the individuals (Elders and other community members) who participated in the interview process – with special mention to Mona Jules for assisting us with the name of this Report.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page iii Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... ii Acknowledgments ...... iii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Proponent’s Proposed project: Overview ...... 1 1.2 Land and Resource Use Study Project Overview ...... 1 1.2.1 What Is a Land and Resource Use Study? ...... 1 1.2.2 Why Conduct This Study? ...... 2 1.2.3 How Was This Study Conducted? ...... 3 1.2.4 Who Participated in This Study? ...... 3 2.0 Glossary ...... 4 2.1 Acronym Glossary ...... 4 2.2 Term Glossary ...... 4 3.0 Methodology ...... 5 3.1 Background Research ...... 5 3.1.1 Documentary Review...... 5 3.1.2 Analysis...... 5 3.2 Interviews ...... 6 3.3 Reporting...... 6 3.3.1 Main Document ...... 6 3.4 Mapping ...... 6 3.4.1 Plant Harvest ...... 7 3.4.2 Hunting ...... 7 3.4.3 Selcweyce (Mountain Caribou) ...... 8 3.4.4 Teniye (Moose) ...... 9 3.4.5 Rocky Mountain Mule Deer ...... 9 3.4.6 White-tailed Deer ...... 10 3.4.7 Rocky Mountain Elk ...... 10 3.4.8 Mountain Goat ...... 10 3.5 Parallel (Separate) Field Studies ...... 11 3.6 Archaeology ...... 11 4.0 Background ...... 12 4.1 Cultural Setting ...... 12 4.2 Territorial Setting ...... 14 4.2.1 Relationships with Others ...... 15 4.3 Physical Setting ...... 20 4.3.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones ...... 20 4.4 Traditional Life-Ways ...... 24 4.4.1 Social Organization ...... 24 4.4.2 Governance ...... 25 4.4.3 Resource Sharing Among Family and Affines ...... 26 4.4.4 Simpcwul’ecw Is Like a Garden Of All Things ...... 26 4.4.5 Trapping for Fur ...... 27 4.4.6 Trade and Economy ...... 28 4.5 Post-Contact Period ...... 29

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page iv Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

4.6 Archaeological Record...... 33 4.6.1 Limits of Archaeological Evidence ...... 33 4.6.2 Known Archaeological Record in Simpcw Territory ...... 35 5.0 Results ...... 37 5.1 Plants ...... 37 5.2 Animals ...... 42 5.3 Birds ...... 43 5.4 Fish ...... 44 5.5 Places ...... 45 6.0 Summary and Recommendations ...... 53 6.1 Summary of Potential Effects ...... 53 6.1.1 Potential Effects From the Proposed TMEP ...... 53 7.0 References Cited...... 57

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Simpcwul’ecw ...... 13

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Plants (Non-Exhaustive) Used by Simpcwemc ...... 38 Table 2. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Animal Species (Including Non-Game Species) used by Simpcwemc ...... 42 Table 3. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Bird Species (Including Non-Game Species) Used by Simpcwemc ...... 43 Table 4. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Fish Species Used by Simpcwemc ...... 44 Table 5. Summary of Named Stream Crossings on Proposed TMEP Right Of Way ...... 45 Table 6. Summary of Potential Resources Affected and Potential Effects ...... 54

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page v Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

1.0 Introduction

During the summer and fall of 2013 Simpcw commissioned Estsek`, a community owned environmental company with Simpcw employees, to undertake a Land and Resource Use Study (the “Study”) within Simpcwul’ecw (Simpcw Territory), in cooperation with the Simpcw Archives and Simpcw Research Department. The objective of this Study is to provide information to better understand potential effects from the proposed TMEP upon Simpcw’s section 35(1) aboriginal title and rights, and associated land and resource use. Figure 1 illustrates the location of Simpcw Territory, overlain with the proposed TMEP route. This Study places emphasis on the proposed TMEP route, specifically through Simpcw Territory between Hargreaves and the southern extent of Simpcwul’ecw.

1.1 Proponent’s Proposed project: Overview TMEP is a proposed expansion of an existing crude oil pipeline which extends from Hinton, Alberta and connects with a terminal in Burnaby, British Columbia. The expansion consists of twinning (where possible) the existing line, with some new pipe added depending on engineering requirements. Pipe diameter ranges from 24” to 30”, with a 36” section at Hargreaves, British Columbia. The proposed route lies through the heart of Simpcwul’ecw, which inspired the title of this Study by Mona Jules, a Simpcw member.

The route generally traverses west-east along the existing Yellowhead Highway 16 before turning south to parallel Highway 5. Those familiar with the area will recognize this route as being similar to the existing route; and the line has already been completed up to Hargreaves (just east of the intersection between Highway 16 and Highway 5). A section on either side of the community of Barriere (approximately 42 kilometers long) is not subject to construction at this time, because there are already two pipes installed along this section that can be used.

1.2 Land and Resource Use Study Project Overview This section explains What the Study is; Why this Study was done; a summary of How it was completed; and Who participated. To assist the reader in understanding the various terms, a Glossary is included in the following section.

1.2.1 What Is a Land and Resource Use Study? A Land and Resource Use Study is designed to document and understand the following: How people use (and have used) the land base, including: o Travel (travel routes; portages); o Settlement areas; o Trapping areas; o Resource harvest areas (berries, plants, roots, cambium); o Horticultural practices (berry management; maintenance and cultivation of other food and medicine plants);

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 1 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

o Agricultural practices; o Territorial/land management boundaries; o Spiritual and ceremonial areas and places; and, o Burial places. [Where available, genealogical work can provide key information to corroborate the community’s understanding of how their Territory has been used and controlled since time immemorial.] How resources were used, such as: o Plants and plant fibre; o Amphibians; o Berries; o Reptiles; o Roots; o Minerals; o Cambium; o Wood; o Minerals; o Birds; and o Water; o Bone. o Fish; o Mammals;

“How” includes the methods by which resources where obtained (harvesting, gathering, processing [as in boiling specific plants to obtain materials, dyes etc.]); and also the methods such resources were then prepared for use; and then how these were finally used.

1.2.2 Why Conduct This Study? For a First Nation faced with the prospect of development within their territory, it is important to be able to effectively express how a project may affect its interests, including its section 35 rights and title. A study such as this, identifies those places, areas and resources that may be affected by a proposed project; and assists the Nation in putting forward evidence to effectively discuss those potential effects. Additional benefits to a Nation include the documentation of oral histories and traditions; and the compilation and collation of existing, similar studies to the benefit of the community. Such results can assist in passing histories, laws and traditions on to future generations.

For a proponent, understanding how a proposed project may affect aboriginal rights and title is crucial to engaging in open and meaningful dialogue with a First Nation within whose territory such a project is proposed.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 2 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

1.2.3 How Was This Study Conducted? The following section presents a summary of the process used to complete this Study; further details are included in the “Methodology” Section 3.0 of this Report. In summary, this Study was completed in three phases: Background Research; Interviews; and Reporting.

Background research was conducted to review all relevant and available published and community-driven research projects to collect information about the Simpcw people and its land, including traditional ecological knowledge and oral histories from Simpcw Elders and other community knowledge holders.

Following the Background research, interviews were conducted with Simpcw Elders and other community knowledge holders.

Following completion of the researching and interviewing, information was collated into spreadsheet format and spatial files; and a summary document (this Report) was prepared.

1.2.4 Who Participated in This Study? Under the direction of Simpcw Chief and Council, Estsek’ led the Study, with integral and substantial support from Simpcw members (including, but not limited to, Dodie Eustache and Marissa Eustache), as well as Judy Banks who has worked with Simpcw on several similar previous studies. Sidney Jules provided field visits and contributed knowledge concerning Land and Resource Use; and archaeological information. Other community members have also been employed on this Study in varying capacities.

Importantly, this was a community-driven process that involved many community members.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 3 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

2.0 Glossary

The following glossary is provided as a courtesy to the reader, to assist in understanding the sometimes thick terminology that tends to accompany studies of this nature. The “Acronym Glossary” is provided as a quick reference to assist in understanding some of the various acronyms and terms presented in this report.

2.1 Acronym Glossary KM: Kinder Morgan Canada TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge TLU: Traditional Land Use TMEP: Trans Mountain Expansion Project

2.2 Term Glossary “Area” means a broad portion of the landscape, within which people interacted with the land and its resources. “Place” means a specific geographical location, with a larger footprint than a “site”; and can reference more of a general area. “Site” means a highly specific geographical location. “Traditional Land Use” means how people use, and have used, the land for “traditional” purposes. It is a broad scope that includes Traditional Ecological Knowledge. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” refers to the knowledge of a First Nation, specifically with respect to plants, the animals, and living environment. It does not include land use, nor does it consider non-living resources (minerals, metals). “Traditional Use” is a broader term than “Traditional Land Use”, referring to the use of resources.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 4 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

3.0 Methodology

This Study was completed in three phases: 1. Background research; 2. Interviews; and 3. Reporting.

3.1 Background Research

3.1.1 Documentary Review Thorough background research is critical to completing a Land and Resource Use Study. This exercise is completed for several reasons including: To determine the level of existing research; To compile and collate the results of previous relevant studies; To identify gaps in knowledge, with respect to places and resources; To develop meaningful and effective interview questions to ask of members being interviewed; and Avoid asking questions that have already been asked. Background research took the form of the following sources: Secondary written sources (including technical reports, journal articles, books, historical and archival research); Primary written sources (Previous Oral History and Traditional Use studies); Geospatial analysis (for accessing digital maps); and Government databases (archival sources; previously recorded archaeological sites (“RAAD”); and also for evaluating the documented presence of fish and wildlife species). In compiling the above resources, Simpcw was consulted for any references they were aware of; which led to the review and inclusion of numerous references from work previously conducted. All reviewed sources were summarized and incorporated into the final documentation. Secwepemc names were also recorded, whenever same were encountered during research and interviews. Each such reference was noted and the source reference and the page number were recorded in the tracking spreadsheet. The result is a detailed and lengthy spreadsheet containing the results of the distilled references.

3.1.2 Analysis Following completion of the documentary review, the spreadsheet was consulted and data sorted for the purpose of identifying a list of places, areas, activities and resources referred to in the documentary record. Upon completing that review, the number of references recorded with respect to each resource was determined. Places, areas, activities and resources that proved to have more

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 5 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 than five references were separated from those having less than five references. The number five was chosen qualitatively based upon the overall number of references available; and also having regard to the average number of references available for each of the parameters.

3.2 Interviews Interviews were conducted throughout the duration of this Study. Interviews were conducted on the principle of respect, both for the individuals to be interviewed and also for Simpcw. The interviewees were selected through consultation with Simpcw.

Interview questions were designed to be open-ended (not leading); with interviewers trained in interview techniques and who are Simpcw members; or who have backgrounds in anthropology or ethnography and experience conducting formal interviews.

3.3 Reporting

3.3.1 Main Document

This Report includes information that is redacted due to its culturally sensitive nature, as determined by Simpcw. Specifically, this redacted information includes exact polygon location of traditional (and current) harvesting, spiritual, burial or ceremonial sites, places or areas. Furthermore, given that the information contained in this Report will be presented to regulatory authorities and put into the public domain, Simpcw was cautious in providing the information presented herein. It is for this reason, that this Report does not contain more detailed information, or a complete account of Simpcw’s use and occupation of the TMEP footprint.

3.4 Mapping Each recorded reference relates to a polygon on a map. The resulting map displays individual polygons, each representing the results of this Study with respect to land and resource use. Simpcw maintains these maps and the related information. The size of a polygon ranges depending on the description and accompanying level of detail provided in the source document or interview.

Polygons are placed on the map based upon the information obtained during the preparation of this Study. Polygon labels correspond to labels on a spreadsheet. The intention is that Simpcw can review any given area and cross reference the polygon ID with the spreadsheet to view a summary of interests. Both the mapping and the spreadsheet can be updated in-house.

All efforts are made to be as accurate as possible. Further to the discussion presented in the section of this Report discussing the Limits of Archaeological Evidence, Land and Resource Use did not occur in specific “sites”, but rather occurred in spatial areas surrounding that “site”. A harvest “site” (a singular place identified by an interviewee regarding resource use) will not have occurred within a neat, defined area; but is actually the product of thousands of years of observation (along with, depending on the resource, maintenance and cultivation) of that entire area. Any “site” results from use of that entire “area”. What the “area” for any reference may be depends ultimately on the

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 6 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 resource being harvested. The polygons presented are intended to reflect those spatial extents as much as is possible or practical within the limits of the information provided. The following are brief descriptions of some general resources and the expected area to be covered by the same.

3.4.1 Plant Harvest Simpcw have relied on plants for multiple purposes including subsistence and medicinal use since time immemorial. Plants are not a static resource, in that the locations in which they are found (and harvested) depends upon various factors such as: 1. the time of year; 2. Simpcw cultivation or maintenance practices; 3. annual precipitation/sunshine; 4. annual temperatures; 5. forest cover (which is dynamic); 6. forest fires and other factors (including urban expansion and industrial activity that affects forest and ground cover); 7. understory; 8. soil compaction; and 9. available nutrients. For example, berry patches have been maintained by Simpcwemc since time immemorial. Patches are monitored and picked for two years at a time in rotation. Patches themselves, necessarily move over the years as forest succession occurs. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a reference to berry picking in the area of a named creek would encompass that entire creek valley, and often, this is how a reference from an interviewee will be presented.

3.4.2 Hunting Hunting is an integral practice of the Simpcw People and helps define Simpcw’s traditional way of life. Indeed, since time immemorial Simpcw have relied on the harvesting of animals within their Territory to provide subsistence to their families and community. With respect to the proposed TMEP footprint, important game to Simpcw include caribou, moose, mule deer, white- tailed deer, elk and mountain goat.

Large areas of land are generally required for hunting and depend on the species being hunted. Animals are highly mobile, and regardless of the method used to hunt an animal, an infinite number of places within an area are used to hunt. Therefore, hunting polygons are designed to reflect as much as possible, the potential range of the hunted animals.

For reference and to assist in understanding the complexities related to the large areas hunters and trappers need to cover, the following sections outline range area requirements for Mountain Caribou, Moose, Mule Deer, White-tailed Deer, Elk and Mountain Goat.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 7 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

3.4.3 Selcweyce (Mountain Caribou)

3.4.3.1 General Mountain Caribou are an endangered ecotype of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) distinguished from other Woodland Caribou by their use of high elevation sub-alpine forests and exclusive diet of arboreal lichens during late winter (Heard and Vagt 1998). There are 13 local populations of Mountain Caribou in BC (Hatter 2006). Approximately 1900 Mountain Caribou live in the Mountains of the Southern Interior Eco-province (MCTAC 2002). The Province of BC “blue listed” (vulnerable or sensitive species) Mountain Caribou in 1993. Mountain Caribou status was elevated to the provincial red (endangered or threatened) list in 2000 due to further population declines and fragmentation (MCTAC 2002). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated Mountain Caribou as nationally threatened in May 2000. Mountain Caribou rely almost exclusively on old growth Engelmann Spruce-Sub-Alpine Fir (ESSF) forests during the mid to late winter months.

Home range sizes are extremely variable depending on the location of the herd and distances between seasonal habitats. Individual home ranges of 150 – 600 km2 are typical but can vary from <100 – 800 km2 (Chichowski et al in Prov. of BC 2004); Population annual home range size varies greatly from 432 km2 to 21,970 km2 and densities range from 5 – 116 individuals/1000 km2 (Hatler 1986, Hatter 2001). More important than home range size is the recognition of seasonal habitat use and migration patterns between seasonal habitats. There are four distinct seasons of use recognized for Mountain Caribou in the Southern Interior of BC, discussed further below. A vertical migration is associated with each season. The extent of the elevation change depends largely on the mountain ranges associated with individual herds. The elevation migration is more pronounced in herds where elevation extremes in their habitat are prevalent.

3.4.3.2 Spring (End of April to end of May) Sometime around the end of April, Mountain Caribou migrate down to lower elevations to take advantage of spring green-up of herbaceous plants (Shackleton 2013, Cichowski et al 2004). Areas where snow free patches provide access to herbaceous plants and graminoids are preferred. Pregnant female Mountain Caribou leave the low elevations early (May) and head up to isolated rugged areas within the ESSF forests to calve their young.

3.4.3.3 Summer (June to October) As the snowline recedes, Mountain Caribou migrate back up in elevation to forage in the Sub- alpine forests of the ESSF and in the Alpine Tundra (AT) parkland. The summer diet of Mountain Caribou is the most varied, including herbaceous plants, shrubby vegetation, lichens (both arboreal and ground) and fungi (Shackleton 2013, Cichowski et al 2004, Simpson et al 1985).

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 8 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

3.4.3.4 Fall/Early Winter (November to Mid-January) The early un-consolidated snow packs cause Mountain Caribou to migrate back down in elevation to the lower edges of the ESSF and further down into the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH). Here they feed on some arboreal lichens (mostly from litterfall or windthrown trees) but the primary early winter food source is a shrubby plant falsebox (Pachistima myrsinites). They also crater down to feed on terrestrial lichens and herbaceous vegetation under the new snow (Shackleton 2013, Cichowski et al 2004, Kinley et al 2003).

3.4.3.5 Late Winter (Mid-January to Mid-April) As the snow pack solidifies the Mountain Caribou migrate back up to the subalpine and alpine areas. The consolidated snow pack acts as a platform allowing them to gain access to arboreal lichens at higher elevations. Their winter diet is almost exclusively arboreal lichens primarily made up of Alectoria spp and Bryoria spp. This ability to exist at high elevations in the deep winter snowpack has also allowed Mountain Caribou to avoid predation.

3.4.4 Teniye (Moose) Moose (Alces alces andersoni) are relatively new to the Southern Interior of BC. Only a few individuals were seen south of Prince George before 1900. The southerly moose migration reached Bowron Lakes in 1901, Horsefly and Likely by 1912, Williams Lake by 1932. At this time they also moved east towards Wells Gray Park and reached Adam’s Lake by 1931. The southward migration was mostly spurred on by land use changes such as logging and burning creating early seral vegetation providing an abundance of forage for moose (Ritcey 1996).

In general home range sizes and movements are relatively small for moose. Annual home ranges are extremely variable depending on the proximity of seasonal (summer and winter ranges) and whether the population is migratory or not. Migratory populations mean home ranges varied from 137 – 938 km2 and non-migratory moose ranged from 28 -218 km2 (Hundertmark 2007). Total home range size in the northern latitudes varied from 0.8 to 1932 km2 (Innes 2010). Studies conducted by Gillingham and Parker (2008) indicated annual home range sizes averaged 195 km2. Seasonal home ranges are also larger in the northern latitudes (40 -60° N) with mean size of 51km2 (Hundertmark 2007 cited in Innes 2010). The distance moose travel between winter and summer habitat varies greatly. Moose seasonal movements in Alaska varied from 16 – 93 km between summer and winter habitats. In many areas in North America this is much lower (Brna and Verbrugge 2013). Seasonal movements in the interior of BC vary from 10 -90 km (generally shorter in non-mountainous terrain) (Perry 1999). Seasonal home ranges seem to average 5-10 km2 and vary between 2.2and 147 km2 (Naughton 2012; Hundertmark 2007; Blood 2000a; Perry 1999; and Cederlund and Sand 1994).

3.4.5 Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemonius) are likely the most abundant ungulate in the Southern Interior of BC. Seasonal migrations between summer habitat (higher elevation (>1500m) sub-alpine and alpine) and winter (lower elevation (<1500m) valley bottoms and south facing slopes) are common in most Mule Deer populations. These seasonal migrations are especially evident in mountainous regions with high winter snow levels (D’Eon and Serrouya 2005). Distances between summer and

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 9 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 winter ranges can vary from 13km in Southeastern BC to 130 km in Montana (Klinkenberg 2012; D’Eon and Serrouya 2005; Conner and Milner 2004; Mackie 1998; Thomas and Irby 1990; Siglin 1965). Mule Deer home range size depends on the abundance and interspersion of food, thermal and security cover. 0.77 – 3.11 km2 for adult does, 3.63 – 10.36 km2 for bucks is typical but home ranges can be up to 77.7 km2 for bucks. (Ferguson 2005). Home range size for does with fawns in Montana was considerably smaller 23 – 350ha (Riley and Dodd 1984). Generally Mule Deer with established summer and winter home ranges will use the same ranges year after year. (Ferguson 2005).

3.4.6 White-tailed Deer White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) occupy lowlands and riparian areas. White-tailed Deer have slowly moved into south central BC from the southeast corner of BC. In the North Thompson many of the White-tailed Deer have concentrated along the river and specifically the islands. Some seasonal movement from the river floodplains and riparian areas to elevated benches within 3-5 km are common (Personal observations). Annual home range sizes for White-tailed Deer are much smaller than for Mule Deer ranging from 43 – 3037 ha (Innes 2013b). Seasonal home ranges are much smaller than annual home ranges averaging 70 – 153 ha in northern latitudes (Innes 2013b). Migration distances between summer and winter ranges vary between 13 and 30 km in the central USA (Hygnstrom et al 2008).

3.4.7 Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain Elk, or Wapiti, (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) are also migratory animals that traditionally (pre-European) covered much of BC (Naughton 2012). They are one of two sub- species of elk found in BC. Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) a coastal subspecies is restricted to populations on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast. The current range of Rocky Mountain Elk has been somewhat reduced but remains close to what populations were thought to be around the late 1700s (Shackleton 2013). A few isolated populations exist near Prince George and Quesnel but most of the central and northern populations are found in the Northeast corner of BC from the Peace River up to the Liard River. The highest density of elk in BC is in the Southeast between the Columbia and the Rocky Mountains from Rogers Pass down to the US border. Isolated populations of elk are found throughout the southern interior of BC with relatively healthy populations near Princeton and along the eastern edge of the Okanagan Valley (Shackleton 2013). Several populations have been re-introduced in BC including one at Adams Lake. Elk migrate from higher alpine areas in the summer to lowlands during winter (Naughton 2012, Banfield 1978). Individual home range sizes vary but are quite small although travel from summer to winter ranges can be in excess of 100 km. Home ranges in the northwestern USA are estimated at 1500 to 4000 acres and are largely dependent on herd size, climate, topography and condition of their habitat (USDA 1999). Home range sizes in the Peace Williston were calculated at 23.4 – 41.5 km2 during a 1985 - 1987 study of transplanted Elk (Backmeyer 2000). Home range sizes for Elk in Northern BC averaged 191km2 (Gillingham and Parker 2008).

3.4.8 Mountain Goat Mountain Goats (Oreamnos americanus) inhabit steep sub-alpine and alpine habitats along cliffs, talus slopes and avalanche chutes (Innes 2011). Average annual home range sizes varied from 6.3

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 10 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

– 44.9 km2 in BC (Poole et al 2009). Specifically, in the Robson Valley, average annual home range sizes varied from 8.9 – 25 km2 (Poole and Heard 2003). Migration from summer to winter habitat ranged from 2- 16 km (Innes 2011). Seasonal home range size varies throughout BC. Home ranges of individual goats was generally less than 250 ha within south coast populations (Taylor et al 2004) but individual home ranges in the interior are likely larger.

3.5 Parallel (Separate) Field Studies To collaborate the oral histories of the community Elders and members, Simpcw members were employed in field studies in which they had an opportunity to record the resources present at visited locations. While these visits were restricted to a single point in the year and thus cannot be said to accurately represent the resources that may occur at any such location, some relevant information was recorded and entered into a separate spreadsheet.

Despite the limitations, it is useful to have a record of some of the resources present along the proposed TMEP right-of-way. Spatial files were also generated, although due to field entry errors not all coordinates are accurate. Not all records included coordinates, resulting in some gaps in the spatial information; however general areas have been noted. In addition, notations were made by field crews that include Land and Resource Use information.

3.6 Archaeology Archaeological sites were reviewed and spatial data, as well as detailed site descriptions (in Excel format); have been identified. This information is not included in this Report, that information may be available on a restricted basis to third parties through archaeological consultants. A discussion on the archaeological context of Simpcwul’ecw is provided in this Report, along with a discussion on the limitations of archaeological information with respect to Land and Resource Use.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 11 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

4.0 Background

“Simpcw Yecweminte temicw” – We are taking care of the land1.

“In those days we were wealthy, and did not worry about our house or our food…we had plenty and were ready to share our good fortune…and we did”2.

“Simpcw identity is not best defined by the results of Anthropological inquiry after all, as scholarly as this may be…on the contrary, Simpcw identity is rather best defined in our terms for our connections to our homelands…it might take a little longer, but it’s more realistic, filled with not just facts, but real truths, and a lot more fun to learn from…”3.

4.1 Cultural Setting Simpcwemc are first and foremost the sole proprietors of the Territory “Simpcwul’ecw”, [simpk- ol-okw], consisting of Simpcwemc places and landscapes, histories and heritage, much as described within The Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Chiefs of the Shuswap, Okanagan and Couteau Tribes 1910). Further, Simpcw is a Nation of people who have lived exclusively in these homelands as described herein, since time immemorial, where they continue to maintain traditions, familial ties and rights to country, expertise and intimate landscape knowledge specific to Simpcwul’ecw Territory, within which the proposed TMEP footprint is situated (see Simpcwul’ecw Territory below, Figure 1).

Simpcw, or the North Thompson “Division”, was originally one of 32 distinct Secwepemc or “Shuswap” bands which occupied much of the Interior Plateau of what is now much of British Columbia, prior to the ravages of 19th and early 20th century depopulating disease epidemics, subsequent absorption of remnant individuals and families by other Secwempc groups, and collateral relocations by the Department of Indian Affairs. However, owing to these external impacts, the numbers of bands has decreased to 17 contemporary communities today.

As one of these 17 contemporary member bands of the larger Secwepemc Nation, Simpcwemc speak Secwepemctsín, which is in turn linguistically derived from the wide-spread Interior Salishan language family (Boelscher 1985-1986). As such, Simpcw shares a number of cultural similarities with other Interior Salishan groups in addition to language, as reflected in the seasonal use of kekulis (semi-subterranean houses), specialized large-catch fish and game harvesting technologies (fish weirs, dip-nets), tool technologies and materials, belief system, and territorial maintenance through familial networks. These ancient networks necessarily include inherited hunting and trapping territories, fishing places, trading partners (see below), and connections through marriage between, for instance, Chu Chua Simpcwemc and clans Tqéqeltkemc and Kenpesq’t, or to those living at what are now known as Raush River (formerly known as Shuswap River) and McBride (Teit 1909).

1 Paraphrased from Joe Jules’ statement in Simpcw First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan (2009), p.24. 2 Paraphrasing the Chiefs of the Shuswap, Okanagan and Couteau Tribes of British Columbia in their Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 1910. 3 Simpcw, Joe Jules, perscomm, to Marianne Ignace, March 2011.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 12 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Figure 1. Map of Simpcwul’ecw

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 13 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

However, it is important to note that each of the larger Secwepemc groups maintain distinct regional differences, as documented in the oral historical, archaeological, linguistic, and post- contact history and ethnographic records (See Teit, 1909; Boelscher 1984-1992; Ignace 1992, 1999, 2005; Kuipers 1974 and 1989; Muckle 1986, Mohs; Bouchard & Kennedy 1995; Simpcw 1989 [Elders’ Interviews]; Hudson’s Bay Archives – Thompson’s River Post Journals and Alexandria Post Journals; Dawson 1891; Fisher, 1996; Palmer, 1975; Ray, 1939). These differences are further specialized between the sub-groups of the Secwepemc as each is inextricably charged with the independent and autonomous stewardship of its homelands, which necessarily includes the protection of and respect for each other’s territorial boundaries (Teit 1909:Fig 1 [Map showing Shuswap Boundaries]).

Other differences include Simpcwemc traditional use of game chutes and traps, used largely for caribou and elk, and use of bison products obtained both by traditional hunting arrangements on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and through trade networks not immediately available to other Secwepemc nations. Further, there are slightly differing regional dialects of Secwepemctsín, audible to even foreign listeners, and these further assist in distinguishing Simpcwemc from residents of other Secwepemc regions (Boelscher 1985-1986) and Simpcw are often referred to still as having a “Northern Shuswap” dialect. Finally, and most immediately apparent, is the distinction that Simpcwul’ecw occupies the largest tract of territory of all Secwepemc divisions. The primary reason for this is that Simpcwemc are the most highly mobile of all Secwepemc; their hunting, fishing and particularly trading networks required much travel.

With respect to identity and connection with Simpcwul’ecw, its expansive area encompasses a huge diversity of geographies, ecologies and resources, some of which required the development of regionally specific travel, occupation knowledge, and technologies for resource harvesting. While many plant and animal species are found across the entire Interior Plateau, certain populations are more abundant in specific areas and, where reflected relative to other Interior groups, are found to be more frequently referred to in Simpcw traditional ecological knowledge, oral history, local archaeology and environmental study (Secwepemc Fisheries Commission 2005, Appendix 6).

4.2 Territorial Setting Simpcwul’ecw is the largest of the Secwepemc territories (Boelscher 1985-1986) encompassing north-west Adams Lake, Canoe River, down to the Big Bend of the Columbia River, over into the headwaters of the Athabasca River, north to Mount Robson, Tete Jaune Cache and Jasper, then north west above the Upper Fraser and nearly as far north as 54 degrees N Latitude. Mount Robson, and its attendant halo of cloud around its peak, provided a visual reference point for travel and served as notification of Secwepemc, specifically Simpcwemc, territorial authority in the region as, at 2743 m above sea level (“ASL”) if you could see the mountain, you were in or near Simpcw country. The following excerpt illustrates the early recognition of Simpcwul’ecw by even very foreign travelers, specifically Iroquoian hunters, trappers and guides (Great Lakes people working for the North West Company), sent into the Interior from Jasper House. For reference purposes, they would often re-name physical landmarks in relation to their proximity to a post, or, in this case, by the post manager’s name.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 14 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

This highest peak in the Canadian Rocky Mountains was called Yuh-hai- has-kun, “mountain of the spiral road,” by the Shuswap Indians, from the appearance of a track running around the mountain. [However]…It was already known as Robson’s Peak by 1863 when Milton and Cheadle passed by. It may have been referred to as Mount Robinson as early as 1827, according to a now lost copy of fur trader George McDougall’s journal…The most probable of the contending theories about Robson’s name, although one discounted by [historian A.G.Harvey, 1937], is that it was named after Colin Robertson (1783-1842), a Hudson’s Bay Company officer. Both Robinson and Robertson were often given the slurred pronunciation Robson. In 1820 Robertson, in charge of the Hudson’s Bay Company post of St Mary’s on the Peace River, sent a company of Iroquois fur hunters across the Rockies to the area around Tête Jaune Cache. This party, with Ignace Giasson in command and Pierre Bostonais (“Tête Jaune”) as guide, must have passed close to Mount Robson and may have named it after Robertson. (Swanson 2002) Of particular interest here, in regards to naming and territorial recognition, is that Swanson’s (2002) research indicates that not only did Iroquoians not re-name the peak in their own language, nor in French, but the Cree who have frequented the Robson’s Peak region for many generations also did not re-name it, other than to refer to it as “The Big Mountain”, and its only known local aboriginal name is the Secwepemctsín Yexyexéscen4 (“Yuh-hai-has-kun”, as first interpreted by G.M. Dawson [1892] and used in the Provincial and National Parks tourist literature in that form).

Simpcwul’ecw territorial northern boundary thereafter follows the Upper Fraser River trench as far as Goat River, above present day McBride. To the west, Simpcw Territory at one time went as far as Soda Creek, but now remains bounded by that of the Lakes Division (Styetemc or Canim, Lac La Hache and the now amalgamated Green Timber Band), south again to roughly Bridge Lake, where it retreats eastward again to cross the Bonaparte Plateau, and the North Thompson River at Black Pines to McClure and over to Adams Lake, taking in the top two thirds of the Lake. The territorial boundary then crosses above the Shuswap Highlands and closes the polygon again at the Columbia River, beneath Pésellkwe (Kinbasket) Lake (Teit 1909:471, Fig 1).

Territory is not typically demarcated with dots and lines on a paper map, but is known by certain landforms, water bodies, and place names which are mapped in both Simpcw memories and in those of the peoples with whom Simpcwemc shares boundaries. Where Setétkwe (North Thompson River) flows through Simpcwul’ecw, it is known as Simpcw7etkwe – the river of Simpcwemc. Simpcwemc are able to describe complete routes of travel through the recitation of place names, which in turn reflect unique landmarks, events and activities that take place there, so that the traveler always knows where they are.

4.2.1 Relationships with Others In accordance with the symbiotic relationships maintained with neighbouring Secwepemc peoples, Simpcwemc have historically honoured good fortune and shared resources with others of the larger

4 Perscomm. with Marianne Ignace, as recorded during an interview with Simpcw Elder, Chris Donald, 1985.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 15 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Secwepemc Nation through formal mutual agreements, particularly along communal territorial boundaries (Thomson & Ignace 2005). This is specifically observed in the shared salmon fisheries with Tk’emlups (Kamloops) and Simpcw’s cousins at Styetemc or Canim Lakes on the North Thompson and Raft Rivers, and in the use of caribou hunting territories from north of Adams Lake, and throughout the TumTum, Oliver, Finn and Avola Creek areas (Secwepemc Fisheries Commission 2005:22) shared with members of the Shuswap Lakes division. Certain other resources such as salmon fishing sites along the Fraser are also shared with Simpcw by the Upper Fraser Shuswap. The following communication by a Simpcw community member and knowledge holder describes the protocol of sharing as it was traditionally practiced and much as it is today: …When people looked after the tamicw (land), in the proper way, they were recognized as the Yecweminem (guards or guardians) of those lands. The management of those lands happened through a process called Spallulukw ta Yecweminte re Tamicw which means to gather for the purposes of looking after the Land. Within this process the chiefs of the nations met with the people and discussed with them the upcoming year’s activities on the land. This process involved the Yecweminem or the ones recognized as the guardians of the land which was usually the heads of the families from the bands who were responsible for looking after the hunting, fishing, foods, and medicine on the land in certain areas of the nation. Each band belonged to a division and each of these bands was given an area to look after. These areas were recognized from band to band and the heads of families [kweseltken] were responsible for looking after the management of resources in their areas. When one band had a need to approach the areas of another band they went through a protocol where the chiefs met and recognized the Yecweminem of the areas. These people were approached and recognized as the guardians of these areas and were then asked for permission to come out onto the land and hunt within the areas or fish or gather foods and medicines. This process was followed through and quite often involved families related to one another either through blood relation or marriage. This process is still recognized in present day and often relatives still go out on the land together and hunt. This process is reciprocal and often leads to trade and barter for goods and foods and medicines between the bands (Jules 2011)5. Interior peoples in general practiced this form of respectful pursuit of permission to use resources or to cross country, and generally speaking, those of the Interior Salishan culture, particularly Secwepemc could be expected to also either bring a gift for their hosts, or to share in the profits of combined labours. Reciprocity is a fundamental element of social and cultural fabric, and was and is practiced not just as a matter of polite ritual, but as a practical and meaningful act.

In pre-colonial times Simpcwul’ecw was bounded to the north-northeast around what is now Jasper National Park by Sekani, roughly along those west-facing slopes as far south as Goat River; and by the Dakelh to the southern and western extents, which territory is just north of today’s Bowron Lake Park. Sharing boundaries with Simpcwemc at Soda Creek to the north, were the southern Dakelh, from whom moose hide was often obtained, and to the west, Tsilhqot’in who provided

5 Perscomm, with Judy Banks Joe Jules, Simpcw, 18, April, 2011.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 16 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 dentalium shells and goat and sheep’s wool fabrics (Teit 1909)6, which they obtained from peoples farther west. South of the Tsilhqot’in were the Upper Fraser and Canyon Secwepemc Divisions, from whom Simpcwemc could obtain stone work materials, clothing and made baskets, dried fish, and trade for rarer exotic items they had obtained from the coast. The territorial boundary did not extend as far south west as to be in direct contact with the Lillooet, or Nlaka’pamux (Thompson Division), but trading often occurred to and from these nations through middle-players whose lands lay in between. To the south, the Shuswap Lakes people provided tule for mat-making, made baskets, and surpluses of harvested goods specific to their homelands. Trade relations with K’tunaxa and Okanagan were intermittent and limited to items suitable for transporting, as Simpcw might only meet up with them at seasonal gatherings in the very far south. While Simpcw had good trading relations with Siksika and Nakoda in the Yellowhead Pass and foothills around Entrance-Hinton, again at what is now Banff, Lake Louise and Saskatchewan River Crossing, Golden and Radium, the interface with them was largely seasonal and trade-related, and on the whole mutually beneficial. Simpcw also hunted to a limited extent in the foothill country of their territories, and allowed them to take fish and to hunt the same way in Simpcwul’ecw.7

To illustrate the degree to which Nations knew and recognized each other’s territories and identity, provided here is a short text about names: people had their own names for themselves, and Simpcw had names in their own language to distinguish between groups as well, long before all these were either supplanted, or anglicized into what you see today. On the northern boundaries of Simpcwul’ecw, Simpcw traded with Sekani (TsayKeh Dene) and Dakelh (Carrier), called by Simpcw in total, “Yū’nehana”8; to a lesser extent Simpcw traded with the Dunneza, (Beaver), of the southwest Peace country, for their fine pelts and moose hides, and whom Simpcw called “Sekao’lamux”; at Jasper and east into the foothills with Nakoda (Stoney), Hohe Nakota (Assiniboine), and Piikáni and Siksiká (Blackfoot) and K’tunaxa (Kootenai) in the southeast, at the southernmost reaches of Secwepemc territories.

Following traditional protocols triggered with intermarriage between groups9, or by extended invitation, or by previous arrangement, entrance into Simpcwul’ecw for the purpose of harvesting was, and remains, by informed consent. In addition, Simpcw delegations travelled extensively through other Secwepemc territories conducting trade missions, harvesting plant products, and visiting distant family (Teit 1909:471), so it was in the interest of Simpcw to maintain good relations with their neighbours. In particular, the annual western trek across the Bonaparte to the Green Lake “gathering” involved Simpcw members crossing into country belonging to Upper Fraser and Bonaparte Divisions, and meeting to trade, and converse, seek suitable potential marriage partners, and to participate in gaming and competition with all manner of other visiting

6 Teit corroborates this in his discussions of trade and garment manufacture, 1909. 7 See text of the Memorandum of Agreement made in duplicate at Windermere, District of Kootenay, Province of British Columbia: 27 September 1895 File #1398 (Windermere Agreement), between the Kootenay (K’tunaxa), the Shuswap Indian Band (Kenpesq’t), and the Stonies [sic], of Morley , Northwest Territories [AB] 8 We further assigned names for the sub-groups of Yū’nehana, according to their locations, in relation to our own, thus: the people living above us on the Fraser River, we called “Steka’lltxemux”, and those of Alexandria, or the farthest from us, we referred to as “Stkema’ksemux”. 9 Inter-group marriage occurred to a limited extent between Simpcwemc and non-Secwepemc, as seen in boundary communities such as Soda Creek, Jasper House, K’tunaxa and Lillooet, and with some Tsilhqot’in to the far west, and Okanagan in the far south, to a lesser degree.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 17 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Secwepemc people (Matthew 1986a:15; Teit 1909:557; Department of Indian Affairs, 1881:193; O’Reilly 1881).

Simpcw did, however, demand the respect of those neighbours with whom they did not share linguistic or familial ties and are observed in both the oral and written records as defending their country from Sekani, Nēhiyaw (Cree) and to a lesser extent, Anishinabe, (Saulteaux), as well as Dakelh and Tsilhqot’in at various times in pre-contact and early post-contact history (Teit 1909:454). Indeed, Simpcw defended their lands against intruders who came unannounced or with harmful intentions. Stories are still told today of those incursions on Simpcw Territory and how they were rebuffed with force and loss of life, and payback of those wrongful assertions on Simpcw Territory.

Teit’s map (Teit 1909) describes a temporary period where Sekani attempted to expand into Simpcwul’ecw, during the mid-to-late 1700’s probably to take advantage of the fur trade traffic, but also to alleviate hunting and fishing pressures in their own country, and they are depicted as occupying territory at that time in a narrow finger running along the north drainage of the northern Fraser, roughly parallel to what is now the border between BC and Alberta. A documented account of conflict with Sekani people over North Thompson resources (such as salmon and arrowstone) is outlined by Teit (1909) where in approximately 1785 and 1786, Tqéqeltkemc at Pesqlélten (Finn Creek fishery) endured attacks by Sekani, but were able to muster numbers from within Simpcwul’ecw and wreak revenge on, and restitution from the perpetrators (Teit 1909:548).

Other stories told by Simpcw Elders (Boelscher 1985-1986)10 describe skirmishes with some Nēhiyaw nationals attempting to expand their hunting territories west into Simpcwul’ecw, in either poor salmon yield years, or in their bid to supply more northern and eastern posts (likely Jasper’s House and Rocky Mountain House as they then were situated), in the early 1800’s; Again, Simpcw guardians hunted down the intruders and sent them retreating to the other side of the mountains, but adopted three of their woman. Mary was married to Louis Sisyuluc, father of George Sisyuluc, informant to James Teit, somewhere around the late 1830’s11. Teit (1909:227; 1900:293) further confirms that strangers caught trapping, hunting, or plant gathering within the ethnolinguistic group territory of another group were divested of their loot, driven off or killed. Moreover, depending on the severity of the crime, further restitution was often sought and negotiated until justice was considered rendered.

Other territorial disputes, defense of homelands and ousting of strangers and raiders are evident in the histories of such places within Simpcwul’ecw, as Snine7ellcw (Owl’s Nest) near Vavenby, and Kelentem (Battle Mountain) (Ignace 1989:103-108) in today’s Wells Grey Park. Certain more recent battles are recalled in 1989 by one Simpcw Elder12, Chris Donald, born around 1910. His grandparents were alive during the conflicts, in particular one transpiring around 1870, against a party of Nēhiyaw at the mouth of Raft River, where subsequently the dead bodies of most of their

10 See Marianne Boelscher Field Notes (MFBN) Anthropology Transcripts, 1985. 11 Ibid MFBN, 1985; Mary is the grandmother of Catherine Louis, b. 1869-d. 1950, who married Abel Jules b.1858-d. 1910; Catherine became an influential, multi-lingual and highly educated Elder, who learning from her Elders, passed on much of the cultural knowledge to her own children and other members, and even acted as a mid-wife and nurse throughout Simpcwul’ecw for much of her life. 12 Ibid See quotes from Simpcw Elder Chris Donald’s 1989 Interview, pp. 106-107

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 18 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 warriors were cremated following a battle with Simpcwemc, leaving a “white ash” deposit on the earth, as a reminder to potential transgressors.

These existing territorial dynamics became particularly volatile as the pressure to supply the fur trade in its later years with goods and services became less tolerable and more competitive as fur and food species became depleted (Schefke 2004) and the never-ending demand to supply posts and forts with salmon and venison forced trade and resource sharing restrictions. As fur trade competition increased, Hudson’s Bay Company (“HBC”) attempts to expand traditional resource territories became more marked, the dynamics ultimately created more vigilant enforcement of territorial boundaries and limits to proprietary tolerance, particularly in the sharing of salmon fishery sites and product near trading posts (Thomson and Ignace 2005). Indeed, the only armed conflict on written record that occurred between Secwepemc groups, took place between Simpcwemc and Upper Fraser Secwepemc in the Williams Lake area around 1835, probably over already stressed hunting and fishing resources, given that the fur trade was in full insatiable swing in the region by then, increasing the pressure between peoples along previously shared boundaries to first defend their lands and then raid others. The Upper Fraser Shuswap was met on a number of occasions during this conflict with Simpcwemc defensive forces fortified by Nēhiyaw warriors (probably by then these were Simpcw in-laws)13. However, in general, territories were defended overtly, using organized military might only when a threat to resources or disrespect for protocol was evident. Simpcwemc usually chose to negotiate settlements peacefully and with lasting agreements in place (Ignace 2000).

Within Simpcwul’ecw, while the lands and resources belonged to all Simpcwemc, individual hunting, trapping territories and fishing places were respected, shared when appropriate and gained through inheritance so internal conflict was seldom at issue over these rights. That said, this is not to diminish the existence of the occasional blood feud, or conflicts between individuals, as being human, these things did occur, but rarely over territorial resources (Teit 1909:542). On the other hand, there is general agreement among ethnographic research14 concurring with James Teit where he states,

All the land and hunting grounds were looked upon as tribal property all parts of which were open to every member of the tribe. Of course, every band had its common recognized hunting, trapping and fishing places, but members of other bands were allowed to use them whenever they desired…Fishing places were also tribal property, including salmon stations…at the lakes everyone had the privilege of trapping trout and erecting weirs. (Teit 1909:572)

13 Ibid, p.105: Ignace also points out that the long relationship between Simpcwemc and Cree, “was, at best, ambiguous” as at some points in history there was definitely blood spilled; however, generally, the later years (1870’s and onward) were marked by more inter-marriage and mutual assistance. The one major exception to this is the story of Pitel or Peter “One Eye”, baptized Fidele Moyis, and was a grandfather to Elder Chris Donald. Pitel was kidnapped around 1870 by some Cree and taken to their homelands east of Jasper House, but escaped and made it home to Tsoqwtsoqwellqw. Also see Marianne Ignace, PhD. Anthropological Expert Witness Report re: R. v. Denault et al, .R.v. Lebourdais et al, 2000:30. 14 See Simpcw Oral Histories, Teit, Ignace, Thompson and Ignace, Boelscher, Muckle, Mohs.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 19 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

It should also be noted here that very clear boundaries were acknowledged in areas of increased economic or political intensity, or where there was a cross-secting of diverse ethnolinguistic groups, as seen in the early post-contact Soda Creek and Alexandria areas. The Nazkot’en (Southern Dakelh ), referred to the Soda Creek Secwepemc (some of whom were members of Styetemc, or Canim Lake Simpcw), and indeed all other Simpcw bordering their homelands as “Atnah”, sometimes written in the early literature as “Athnah” or even “Atnaugh” (Fraser 2007; Thomson and Ignace 2005:17), or “strangers”, “people not of us”. Although there was some intermarriage between Simpcw, Nazkot’en and Lheit-lit’en (Northern Dakelh), by and large these non-Secwepemc peoples limited their harvesting to their own territories, except where sharing protocols permitted invitational use. Further, on the 1812 David Thompson map, located on the eastern bank of the Fraser River, he locates what he calls the “Sklim- hoo- lim-oo” which Boelscher, an accomplished linguist and fluent speaker of Secwepemctsín, clarifies as Stemcwulecwmec, which is the Fraser Shuswap name for the Northern Shuswap people “…the most powerful nation in these Countries” (Thompson 1814).

The recognition of Simpcwemc distinctness by others, and effective responses in the defense of Simpcwul’ecw, while exercising powers to share and to extend invitation, as well as striving to maintain good relations with others, reaffirms and demonstrates Simpcwemc sense of identity and territorial occupation of their own homelands.

4.3 Physical Setting What Simpcwemc know about their environments within Simpcwul’ecw comes from living off their Territory since time immemorial, and while information is expressed differently from that produced through academic inquiry, both approaches cross-sect and the data tend to concur. Further, Simpcw knowledge of Simpcwul’ecw is absolutely essential to living on it. Based on their knowledge of stable ecologies peculiar to the diverse geographic regions within Simpcwul’ecw, Simpcwemc have long ago developed methods for prediction of the appearance of specific migratory species, their success, the shape they’re likely to be in, and about water levels, snow pack, and when and where to travel, camp and harvest. Simpcwemc look for indicators exhibited in species behavior and distribution, weather patterns, and even subtle changes in these, as mistakes are costly and success depends on accuracy.

4.3.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones Simpcwul’ecw is a land of great diversity and contrasts, from the dry pine and grass benches of today’s McClure, to the high and rugged mountains of the Columbia River Trench and Rocky Mountains, sheer-walled canyons cut by rivers, and broad and rolling or round-top plateaus shaped by glaciers. In scientific terms, Simpcwul’ecw, whose mean temperatures range from 20C in the summer to -20C in the winter, spans several elevations from 600 m to 2300 m ASL. Within this diversity of landforms, there exists a vast array of ecosystems consisting of forests of conifers, deciduous species, sub-alpine meadows and tundra, grasslands and wet lands, and associated ecologies and ecosystems within the various elevations, including old growth forest high above the low-lying wetlands along the North Thompson River flood plain on both sides of the river (Simpcw 1998).

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 20 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

As described elsewhere in this Report, Simpcwul’ecw is roughly defined by the middle of the Bonaparte Plateau to the west, and by the height of land in the Rocky Mountains to the east; to the north it can be generally delineated by the northern most limits of the Douglas fir/western red cedar/and western hemlock, just north of the McBride area. Simpcwul’ecw is further bounded to the south by the Selkirk Range and Shuswap/Columbia Highlands, concluding north of the junction of Sinmax Creek and Adams Lake, near Squam Bay, taking in nearly two thirds of the northwest lakeshore and surrounding landforms to the northwest. Simpcw cousins at Kenpesq’t (Kinbasket) are at the southernmost extent of Simpcwul’ecw in the temperate Columbia Valley, shielded by the Rocky Mountains to the east, bounded by Lake Windermere to their immediate south.

The proposed TMEP pipeline route traverses several major Vegetation Zones within Simpcw homelands including the Okanagan/Thompson Plateau to the west and south of the site, and the Wet Columbia Mountain Zone to the east (Parish et al 1996, pp. 11-14). Both of these zones are interspersed at various elevations by other small biogeoclimatic sub-zones. Each of the biogeoclimatic zones and elevations will necessarily possess diverse but interdependent ecological zones and attendant resident or migrating species of cultural significance to Simpcw, including ancient and contemporary trapping, hunting, fishing and berry-picking areas, and seasonal and harvest indicator species, particular to each of these zones. These biogeoclimatic zones are described below.

Alpine Tundra (AT) which exists above 1700 m in the northern reaches of Simpcwul’ecw, and as high as 2300 m ASL in the more temperate southern region15: this zone is essentially treeless, with a generally harsh climate characterized by long, cold winters, short cool growing seasons, which, outside of dwarfed shrubs, prohibits the growth of wood-stemmed plant life and instead supports largely herbs, mosses and lichens. Snow pack varies with wind aspect, and surface type, with some areas supporting exceptionally deep snow and others bare, exposing talus and outcroppings. As isolated as this zone is from others, it has three sub-zones each characterized by diverse plant species: the heaths support short evergreen shrubs of the heather family, crowberry, partridgefoot and mountain sagewort (Pojar et al 1996:18): alpine meadows with their higher soil moisture content, differ slightly in their support of Sitka valerian, common horsetail and arctic lupine, among others; alpine rocklands with their steep slopes and layered talus, bluffs, outcrops and screes, support little in the way of substantial soils, but provide pockets of support for such diminutive species as dwarf willow, moss campion, cinquefoils, grasses, sedges and several species of lichens and mosses. This is essential upper elevation habitat for endangered Mountain Caribou, Mountain Goats and Bighorn sheep, as well as Pika in the talus slopes, and marmots in slightly lower elevations. Some plant fibres used by Simpcwemc for medicinal purposes grow in this zone. Owing to the severe climate, this zone is highly sensitive to human use and takes a very long time to recover from even limited repetitive use; even so, these areas are becoming increasingly more at risk, as recreation and exploration escalate.

Engelmann Spruce-Sub Alpine Fir (ESSF) ends the alpine tundra at roughly 900 m to 1700 m ASL in the Northeast section of the territory, and from 1500m to 2300m ASL in the

15 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification of British Columbia Appendix 3, 1999: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wrp/wrt6/appendix3.html

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 21 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Southeast. The climate is severe with long, cold winters, deep snow pack, and relatively short, cool growing seasons able to support only the hardiest of wood-stemmed species, with Engelmann Spruce, subalpine fir and lodge pole pine being predominant16. Open parkland covers much of the upper elevations, with small groves and clumps of hardy tree and shrub species, such as grouseberry, blueberry and black huckleberry, and dotted with heaths and grasslands. The understory consists largely of Rhododendron, false azalea, devil’s club, and hellebore, with some tuft or bunch grasses, both tree and ground mosses, and ferns in the remnant old growths. In areas with greater moisture, mountain hemlock will appear, and in drier conditions, lodge pole pine and white bark pine create extensive stands. These trees are essential for a number of uses, including medicine, tools and structural products, but the old growth stands provide the greatest forage volume for caribou, because these mature stands house the special mosses and tree lichens that sustain the small bands that frequent them seasonally, as well as smaller game and fur-bearing species. Moose, Bighorn sheep and Mountain Goats, and Mule Deer seasonally occupy these slopes, but generally vacate as the deep snow accumulates in early winter. Grizzly bear and fur bearing species such as marten, fisher, wolverine, marmot, and snowshoe hare also reside in this zone. Frogs, toads and salamanders, bats, owls, woodpeckers, grouse, small finches and other seed- eaters, thrushes and jays (Meidinger and Pojar 1991) also contribute to this zone and are culturally significant to Simpcw, particularly for hunting and trapping as well as plant product harvest.

Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) dominates this zone which, ranging between 350 m to 1450 m ASL, is considerably warmer than ESSF with short cool winters and less snow pack. As above, fire has facilitated the growth of significant stands of lodge pole pine, however, and at the lower elevations, ponderosa pine is typically resident, though more sparsely than the other species.17 This zone has a very diverse topography giving rise to a greater diversity in species and habitats. At lower elevations subject to more moisture, stands of cottonwood, paper birch and Soopolallie, Saskatoon, huckleberry, hazelnuts, and low-bush blueberry provide us with much in the way of essential plant products. Further, the understory of the healthier stands house juniper, Oregon grape, grouse or snowberry, wild rose, balsamroot, nodding onion, kinnickinnick, savannah, blue bunch and pine grasses, feather moss, and some lichens. Both black and grizzly bear, moose, elk and Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer tend to occupy these elevations for much of the growing season in areas where cattle grazing has not depleted the understory, or there has been some regrowth. Both Bighorn sheep and White-tail deer come through the drier sub-zones periodically throughout the year. In the IDF zone, wetlands are more frequent and support rushes, sedges, cane willow and scrub or swamp birch, wherein bat, beaver, muskrat, reptiles such as painted turtles and lizards, amphibians including salamander frogs and toads, and both resident and migrating water, shore and reed-birds, and their predators. Of course, Coyote and fox den in this zone in greater abundance, as do weasel, mink, and marten. Again, the great woodpeckers (Pilated), flickers, jays, crows, horned owls, and to varying degrees, eagles, hawks, herons, grouse and bitterns also makes these subzones their home. All of these species figure prominently in Simpcw cultural systems, not only for their immediate physical usefulness to Simpcwemc, but as indicators

16 ibid, Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification of British Columbia Appendix 3, 1999. 17 It should be noted here that recently this zone in particular has suffered extensive losses not only from logging, and an absence of natural fire, but from the subsequent ravages of beetle and larvae infestations, resulting in the near extinction in many mature sites, of specifically ponderosa pine in the lower elevations.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 22 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 of other phenomenon, and as teachers where many of them figure prominently in Simpcw stories and lessons for living well.

Setetkwe (North Thompson River) and its tributaries travel through the bottom lands and narrow valleys of this zone nourishing the associated habitats such as the salmon and trout spawning grounds along its shoreline between Clearwater and Vavenby, which in turn provided for Simpcw and many of the larger fur bearing animals that share Simpcwul’ecw. The following is an excerpt from the Kamloops/Clearwater TSA Socio-Economic Analysis, 1995, which succinctly describes the primary fisheries in the vicinity of that portion of the proposed TMEP route:

The Thompson, North Thompson, South Thompson and Adams rivers and their tributaries support a significant population of anadromous fish - sockeye, coho, Chinook and pink salmon, and steelhead. The Adams River, world famous for its sockeye stocks, is perhaps the most well-known of the aquatic habitats in the Kamloops [/Clearwater] TSA’s. The North Thompson River contains all remaining wild stocks of rainbow trout within the TSA[s] and the Southern Interior Region of BC. The North Thompson and Albreda Rivers are important migratory routes for Dolly Varden char and whitefish, as well as rainbow trout. The Barriere River supports important spawning runs of Dolly Varden char and trophy sized rainbow trout…and its tributaries are also significant due to the quantities of unused resident spawning habitat they contain…in the North Thompson Basin, sockeye producing waterways include Raft River and Fennel Creek…Pink salmon spawn primarily in the Thompson River system…the most significant Chinook salmon producing rivers include the North Thompson, Clearwater and South Thompson Rivers [as is] Finn Creek…Among some of the major coho producing streams are Louis Creek, Dunn Creek, Lion Creek, Albreda River and the Upper Adams River. (Bridges and Associates 1995)

Interior Cedar- Hemlock (ICH) rests around 400 m and 1000 m ASL, primarily in the lower slopes of the Columbia Mountains along the interior wet belt, and in isolated sub-zones of the western slopes of the Rockies, Blue River, Wells Gray, and TumTum Adams/ and Mica Creek/Shuswap Highlands. This zone is characterized by cool, wet winters and warm, generally dry summers, with a late snow melt and seasonal rainfall. Several major rivers and water bodies such as the Columbia River, the Canoe River, and what is now called Kinbasket Lake and Windermere Lake exist in this zone. In the moister to wet sub-zones, cedar and hemlock dominate and form parts of climax or old growth stands, although this zone houses the greatest diversity of tree species in the province, and will often include stands of Douglas fir, some larch, and western white pine. Where the canopy permits, there is Douglas maple, the yew, devil’s club, red-osier dogwood, black huckleberry, blueberry, falsebox, wintergreen and plantain and some cane berries. The yew tree is a coniferous species of great cultural significance to Simpcw for medicinal purposes. In the lower understory, are ferns and mosses, gooseberry, and in the very wet-to-bog type sub-zones are the skunk cabbage, tea-berry, blueberry, huckleberry, Labrador tea, false azaleas, vetches and pea vines, rushes and grasses (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Indeed, these

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 23 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 resources, located within the TMEP footprint, are still very much an important part of Simpcw’s traditional use.

There are warmer, drier semi-arid sub-zones within the ICH in the mid-south Columbia Valley at Windermere. The area is largely protected from harsh prairie winds by the Rockies to the east, and from moist coastal weather from the Columbia Mountains to the west. This subzone some minor grasslands, wetlands along the valley-bottom creeks and marshes, and in general provide critical habitat for Bighorn, elk, Mule and White-tailed Deer, bear, badger, marmot, at one time beaver and muskrat, amphibians and reptiles, eagles, hawks and now turkey vultures and wild turkeys, grouse, heron, waterfowl, reed and shore birds. As in the IDF zone, some of the smaller lakes at higher elevations in this zone also support trout and whitefish.

4.4 Traditional Life-Ways This section describes the Simpcwemc traditional social organization systems, before colonial re- structuring. The information in this section is largely represented here through our knowledge, and summaries of Elder information. It is however, corroborated by academic writing, and is so denoted in the text through footnotes. Our own systems of governance worked for us for a long, long time. We lived according to a reciprocal relationship with tamicw, our land: the land’s ability to look after us, and our ability to look after it. Joe Able Jules 2011

4.4.1 Social Organization Simpcwemc, like other Secwepemc, functioned as “a profoundly egalitarian society” (Ray 1939), although some groups to the west along the Fraser, did adopt some ranking systems from neighbouring groups more influenced by coastal cultures. Simpcwemc society instead has at its elemental core, that reciprocal relationship which necessitated the maintenance of small, seasonally mobile, largely self-governed units of a few families each, which Simpcwemc call kweseltken, whose central authority was that of elder males and their wives (Boelscher 1998:21) and children. There might be five to ten adults, some youths and other Elders, and lots of children in a kweseltken and this was the primary living, teaching and political unit. It was easier on the land to take only what was needed from it, so it could regenerate enough to look after small groups, and in turn, Simpcwemc would monitor the behaviour of the animal and plant life and their habitats in each home area. All that was required to set-up camp was either brought with the people every year, or constructed from the surrounding landscape, with the collaboration of the people in a kweseltken. Several kweseltken together would constitute a “band”, occupying a “range” or one or more watersheds within that region.

Simpcw technologies were complex and required a great deal of individual skill development18, and still other daily functions required the skills of cooperation and collaboration with other people. Simpcw also had specialists whose individual contributions to higher learning and teaching

18 See for instance the description of building marten/fisher traps as briefly described by Sam Joseph, November 07, 1984, interviewed by Gordon Mohs, for Elder Interview Transcripts, The Alliance of Tribal Councils: North Thompson Band: Sam & Angelique Joseph, pp. 105-111.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 24 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 ranged from becoming proficient in other neighbouring languages and customs, to hide- preparation and lace making, basket building and weaving, to medicine, surgery and healthcare, hunting, trapping and trap building, trading and fishing technologies and bush sense. Tool manufacture technology alone took many years for a young individual to learn and to perfect, and the subtle nuances between bone, antler and stone types, weights, uses, edge preparation (without breaking the tool), were just the beginning. Individuals also needed to know where to get whatever it was they needed, and that also had to be learned from someone who was good at it.

Adults and able bodied Elders and youth, undertook most of the bull-work within a kweseltken, from packing and unpacking, to setting up camp and striking it later, building bridges and repairing houses, cache pits and scaffolds. A great deal of the heavy resource harvest resulting from good hunting, fishing and plant and berry gathering, trapping and processing of food product, manufacture of equipment, and much of the butchering and tanning fell to younger people, under the watchful eye of experts (Matthew & Matthew 1978:16).

Women typically specialized in the processing and preservation of meats, fish, plant products and medicines, as well as the production of their own fine tool points and hunting and fishing equipment. They snared and shot small game, built equipment for other jobs, hauled water, made containers and clothing and dug roasting pits, and they were the primary collectors in and monitors of the berry patches, wild potato and other root and bark-producing sites. It is the belonging to a kweseltken, or a “sense of belonging to or affiliated through birth and socialization with [primarily] their father’s bands” (Boas 1890:637; Ignace 1994:21)19 that provided the ties between that unit and other such groups, and therefore to certain home country, and other parts of Simpcwul’ecw as well.

4.4.2 Governance In terms of political decision-making, issues are first dealt with at the kweseltken level, and often Elders meet with those of other neighbouring kweseltken to consult on a more regional basis. At other times, several kweseltken constituting a “band” are represented at a larger council of several bands by hereditary band leaders, now called “chiefs”. Still, when it came to major decision- making, like the resolution of conflict, or the regulation of harvesting areas, it is a council of (chiefs) who would meet, in the company of trusted Elders and advisors, and senior military strategists as appropriate. Because traditionally (chiefs) are raised to fill that role, they have a very good idea of the political relations between people within and outside of their bands and those outsiders with whom Simpcwul’ecw borders are shared.

A Simpcw chief was required to see to the general welfare of the band, settle internal disputes, approve or reject marriage pairings, regulate resource use and calculate harvest enterprise and returns and attend political meetings.

19 Note: Traditionally, kinship was reckoned through the father’s line, particularly in the assignment of names for boys; however rights to country and access to the relevant resources was reckoned through the maternal line.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 25 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

4.4.3 Resource Sharing Among Family and Affines People are also adopted when appropriate, and sometimes children are orphaned, and placed with relatives from other kweseltken. Historically, persons captured by Simpcw when left behind by their own people as a result of a skirmish would do penance as a slave, until such time as they were permitted to become citizens and even marry into the band. Simpcwemc women tend to move to the home of the man’s kweseltken, and their sons carry his name, but access to lands and resources is reckoned through the woman’s territorial association. So, if a Tqéqeltkemc man from Pesqlélten (Finn Creek) marries someone from Styetemc (Canim Lake), or St̓yélltsucw (Barriere), they are able to access resources in her home country, as well as in his mother’s. This practice demonstrates one method employed by Simpcw to reduce harvest pressure in an area by giving people the option of moving around the landscape, sometimes not returning to his kweseltken until later in the year, in time for the preparation for winter. The rights to harvest in Simpcwul’ecw are extended to women who married out of the division, and into a neighbouring Secwepemc group, but depending on distance, those rights might only be exercised semi-annually, or as travel and logistics could be accommodated.

4.4.4 Simpcwul’ecw Is Like a Garden Of All Things

Although Simpcwemc are traditionally considered great hunters, they consistently rely upon the seasonal salmon harvests, including spring salmon, sockeye and other species. Fisheries occurred in every river and creek attended by fish species. In many locations in which an abundance of salmon occurred, Simpcwemc construct salmon traps made of poles and upright stakes in the form of a “fence”, or “barrier”, of enough substance to slow down the movement of fish long enough to be gathered by hand nets, which are then hauled up onto the high banks on either side of the “fish- trap”. These salmon runs helped to sustain Simpcwemc nutritional needs and also provide enough surpluses for preserving and trading. This system of harvest has been constructed in such a way that only a small percentage of fish are actually caught, allowing the balance to make it to the spawning grounds and begin the new cycle.

Simpcwemc also harvest numerous species of fish from the shoreline of the various creeks and rivers (large and small), as well as from some of the exceptional trout lakes within or potentially affected by the proposed TMEP. This practice continues today with harvests of all species of fish and is monitored closely by Simpcw Fisheries staff and monitors through an annual fish harvest plan. Whitefish, suckers, other coarse fish and grayling are also harvested for subsistence purposes depending on the time of year and number of people immediately on hand to feed. Where present, sturgeon is also hunted.

Upland, meat harvesting energies are focused on species such as caribou, moose, elk, deer, sheep, goat, grouse, waterfowl, turtle, porcupine, marmot, grizzly and black bear, in accordance with the seasonal movements and annual production of preferred available sustainable food and material resources within Simpcwul’ecw. Simpcwemc knew when to avoid hunting during the birthing season of each species, as they do not all occur exactly at the same time. Much fine winter clothing, leather, buckskin and rawhide are produced from these species, and tanning and preparation of materials sufficient to sustain Simpcwemc needs requires a great deal of knowledge of country and animal behaviour to meet their own demands, and for some external trade.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 26 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Qelqelescen (Baldy Mountain) was known to house small, but sufficient Mountain Caribou bands so that as they travelled through the general area, they could be judiciously harvested. Individual Caribou may be hunted if determined to be appropriate. Because Mountain Caribou occupy higher elevations, hunting them requires planning and logistical coordination, and the collaboration of a number of people at once. Simpcwemc know the caribou trails, which have been etched into the ground for centuries.

Caribou populations are presently reduced as a result of development and habitat loss. This animal is an important game species to Simpcw. Presently, caribou hunting is restricted within Simpcw in light of the population decline.

In addition to the hunting crew required for most ungulates, a processing crew needs to be relatively close at hand so that meat can be either smoked and processed for drying, or packed out to a main camp as quickly as possible. All major hunting is ultimately for the community, or at least a family function, and much of the fresh meat is distributed among those in a kweseltken, and any visiting family, although some is dried and preserved for either giving to other families, or later use.

Simpcw are one of the only Secwepemc groups to conscientiously pursue and utilize bison products as part of the trade with Eastern Slope and prairie peoples, particularly bison hides for robes and leather products, commencing long before the advent of Europeans. However, Kenpesq’t also ply a trade in bison products with K’tunaxa, Nakoda, Siksika and others in the southern Columbia foothills. While Simpcwemc were not known to participate in the “Hunt” [sic] per sé, there is considerable ethnographic and archival evidence showing their use of these traded bison products.

Simpcwul’ecw is known for its rich regional diversity of workable stone for the construction of projectile points and other tools, and while Simpcw conscientiously protect such resources, Simpcwemc selectively trade tool, point and surgical (obsidian) stone with neighbouring peoples.

4.4.5 Trapping for Fur As discussed earlier in this Report, the extent to which fur trapping was practiced by Simpcwemc, both for immediate use and for trade, is embedded in Simpcw knowledge and is well documented in their oral history. Simpcw harvesting technologies and uses for fur, as well as trading networks are discussed in further detail below. Simpcw trapping territory and processing activities have been documented in the early fur trade journals and subsequently quantified in their District Returns reports as to the volume, type and origin of the species rendered. While there is ample evidence that primarily beaver, in the earliest days of the post-contact trade, was produced by Simpcw trappers in notable quantities, there was a lesser demand for marten, fisher, fox, black bear, lynx and bobcat (though in later years, these latter three were more often hunted). Species pursued for commercial purposes, necessarily varies depending upon external market forces and it is impossible to predict which fur bearing species may be a target species in the future.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 27 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Simpcw manages a highly regulated and well-governed trapping industry that began long before either the arrival of the fur-trading companies, or the trap line permit system imposed by the colonial government. Simpcw today, works within (or tolerates) the Provincial framework to the extent that has been forced upon them; however they also maintain their traditional management systems so as to eventually return those systems to full operation. As indicated above, trapping is an activity that is conducted on lands strictly designated to the rightful operators, recognized as such by others, and usually inherited from one generation to another, to ensure that the vital ecological and wildlife knowledge required for sustainability is maintained. Both men and women can be proficient at harvesting fur-bearing animals, and the processing of hides of all types is often conducted by all present. Snaring is the typical technology presently used in the harvest of most fur-bearing animals.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, animal populations have improved since the 1940s (although still far short of pre-1900 numbers) and harvesting by Simpcwemc (through both trapping and hunting) continues, although intensity has necessarily been reduced in reaction to the overall decline in game populations. Large areas are depended upon for trapping purposes to ensure a productive harvest. Registered traplines typically cover hundreds of square kilometers.

4.4.6 Trade and Economy Trade is a substantial function of all Interior cultures to varying degrees, however, Simpcwemc participate in considerable direct and indirect trade with other neighbouring Interior Salish groups, such as Tk’emlups, Lakes Shuswap, Nlaka’pamux and Okanagan, to the south, from Canim Lake with Tsilhqot’in, Dakelh, Sekani, and from the upper Simpcw (Tqéqeltkemc), with Nakoda, Neyihaw, K’tunaxa, and Siksiká and Piikáni, and indirectly with coastal and prairie groups farther afield. Secwepemc Elders still remark on the great travel people used to (and still do, albeit using different methods) undertake in the conducting of trade, and of the renown of Secwepemc peoples for their ability to know where to meet the demand for diverse trade goods: That’s probably why our villages sites are spread all over…the Shuswap people were known to really travel a lot…You wanted something, go ask the Shuswap…how to get it, where to get it”.(Kenpesq’t First Nation 2009:127)20 While much of Simpcwul’ecw provided an abundance of salmon, medicines, berries and roots, which Simpcwemc would collect for themselves and for trading as well, Simpcwemc are also fortunate to have in their lower elevations, hazelnut trees; and Simpcw did a substantial trade in these (primarily winter food) which continues to a certain extent to this day, with all of their trading partners whose lands did not afford them. Simpcw also are able to trade in certain mined arrow and tool stone such as chert, bluestone, basalt and obsidian, jade, some of which are obtained within Simpcwul’ecw, and some of which can be traded for elsewhere in surplus specifically for selling or trading at a profit to others. Cariboo, lynx, wolverine, beaver, marten, fisher and marmot meat and hides, which are obtained within Simpcwul’ecw, are also traded with Simpcw neighbours, commencing long before the European/Canadian fur trade was introduced and continuing into the present.

20 Paraphrased from Kenpesq’t Elder Audrey Eugene

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 28 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

This maintenance of successful trading relationships contributes to a generally stable existence for Simpcw as the procurement and generation of trade goods from within the territory guarantees further procurement of necessary goods and materials from without. Trade conducted with goods obtained from other partners more distant from their market groups enables Simpcw traders to create a profit as intermediaries. In this way Simpcw was historically also able to maintain control over what came into and what went out of the territory, in terms of liquid assets, much as other groups practiced for the same reasons. This practice has been necessarily modified, with Simpcw today participating in both “traditional” trade practices to the extent possible; but also engaging in “modern” economic practices through a variety of businesses engaged in a variety of industries.

4.5 Post-Contact Period Simpcw oral history and knowledge of early post-contact life are corroborated by the daily journals of trading post clerks, traders, explorers, and clergy, confirming Simpcwul’ecw and stable presence of Simpcwemc within it dating from the mid-1700’s. Some writers have recorded their observations in great detail, clearly describing the land, travel routes, people by name and by nation (for example, see Cole 1981; Vibert 1997; Gosnell 1903; Valemount Historical Society 1984; Milton & Cheadle 1863). Further, the works of several writers, among them Teit (1909), Thompson and Ignace (2005), and Ray (1939) note that fur trade activities undertaken in Simpcwul’ecw, primarily by the Northwest Fur Company, and later HBC, largely generated an expansion of already existing trade networks, and did not necessarily create new power imbalances within these relationships to begin with, but ultimately facilitated the increased protection of the harvesting territories, and greatly intensified the harvesting volume of pelts as the demand for furs in Europe became insatiable. The intensity of trapping toward the middle of the century very nearly decimated the traditional beaver and muskrat populations in Simpcwemc territory, as at that time Simpcwemc were not practicing their selective trapping approaches.

In general, relationships here between post and brigade staff, management and later their blended families, sustained a relatively peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. Irrespective of some of the personal musings of various post clerks and factors, local groups did not plot the demise of Company men and, aside from some cultural faux pas and misunderstandings, Secwepemc nations tended to tolerate the existence of the traders, and eventually provided for their protection in their respective and other territories, kept them fed and guided them through unfamiliar country. In fact, as Thomson and Ignace (2005) point out, had the relationship not been mutually beneficial, it would have been quickly and systematically eradicated by the various nations forthwith, as at this point, other compelling factors that might influence such compliance were not yet in place.

Other lasting effects of the presence of eastern Canadians and Europeans in Simpcwul’ecw, first as a result of the trade, and later by miners and settlers, however, are evident in Simpcw post- contact history, not the least of which are the early disease epidemics: In the space of 100 years (between the early 1800’s and 1918) diseases decimated Simpcw population, to an estimated one third of its original stable state. Diseases such as smallpox, estimated to have been present in the southern Interior as early as 1808, and measles in the northern Interior by 1830 and observed again in 1847-48; additional epidemics in varying severity included whooping cough, and mumps, and the devastating 1918 Spanish Influenza (Ray 1976:139-157; Boyd 1994: 6-47; and Galois

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 29 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

1996:31-43) were introduced to populations that did not possess the immunities, or medicines to counter the effects. Isolation of victims was not easily achieved in communities where logistics required the close daily contact among individuals, particularly children and Elders, and since several of these diseases were transferred with an incubation period, many people inadvertently carried them even farther to areas not yet affected, before symptoms appeared. With each successive assault on populations, some not six or eight years apart, and often targeting either the aged or the very young, three major phenomena occurred to impact Secwepemc culture and make it vulnerable to the unstoppable front of colonial mandates of land and resource acquisition, and re-populating the country with its own. The three phenomena are summarized below, and articulate the effects on the remnant Interior populations in general: “Everybody died” - entire kweseltken were decimated, often with only one or two members surviving, only to be adopted by others soon to be affected; this means that sites were now left unpopulated, and often discovered by others unable to identify the bodies, or too weak themselves to bury their dead (Galois 1996:40-41); “Knowledge destroyed” – with the passing of each Elder, invaluable knowledge and narratives of the past became disparate within the system, resulting in successive generations being raised by adult survivors who struggled to maintain and pass on what knowledge they had learned; many of Simpcw’s health specialists, also died in these waves of illness, leaving the easing of pain and care of the sick and dying to those who had little knowledge of such science. “Site use discontinued” – with the reduction in labour-force and expertise, resource harvest and the logistical service of sites was almost impossible in some cases, for instance in the building and maintenance of large fish-traps, bridges, scaffolding and net systems, as well as in the construction of meat and hide processing camps, the establishment of new kekulis and repair of old ones. Simpcw Elders have recounted stories of the losses of family due to disease epidemics; in particular the complete destruction by smallpox of the kweseltken (of a total of 50 people), at what is now Louis Creek (Boelscher 1985-86)21, and similar incidents at Barriere and Little Fort (1862), that similarly caused the complete disappearance of the Canyon Secwepemc (originally at the confluence of the Tsilhqot’in and upper Fraser Rivers, near Dog Creek [See Hamm 1975]), with the few remaining survivors to be absorbed by Canim Lake and Chu Chua communities. In 1882, the Kamloops Indian Agency reported the resurgence of fatal measles and an early influenza which struck in the winter time and killed great numbers of young children and again in 1888, 1892, with the 1918 influenza reducing the surviving population by another third. Eventually these diseases were eradicated through the distribution of vaccines, allowing the remaining Simpcw survivors to re-establish a stable population at Chu Chua, and Canim Lake. It was into this vulnerable human landscape that the Catholic Church (and subsequently others) in the visage of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate entered the scene in 1866, to establish missions at Kamloops and Williams Lake. They went about baptizing members of every Secwepemc community, attempting to convert each one, and in the course, began the process of alienation from tradition, independence and beliefs ostensibly. However, for as much publicity as this and

21 M. Boelscher Field Notes, 1985-86 citing Elder Chris Donald; while it bears more detailed research, this incident may be the one described by Cheadle in his 1863 journey notes, regarding the strewn bodies of Simpcw villages along the North Thompson River.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 30 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 subsequent attempts at conversion and early assimilation have since garnered, Ignace (1995) reports clear articulation from interviewed Elders in various Secwepemc communities that such conversion never really took hold in substance, and that people by and large integrated only those church-borne rituals and behaviours they found useful into their existing worldview, beliefs and spirituality (Ignace 1995:13-14).

This initial establishment of church based influence in the Interior did, however, pave the way for the later establishment of a much more devastating phenomenon in the form of Indian Residential and Industrial Schools, a collaborative assimilation tool conceived and implemented by church and government together. Much authoritative and well researched material has been written on both the initial and the intergenerational impacts of residential school on the Aboriginal peoples of this country in general, since very few school aged children (sometimes as young as four, but rarely older than 13) anywhere escaped the system, and some of this material very specifically records the Secwepemc experience (Celia Haig-Brown 1988; Jack 2006; Remembering the Children nd; Foster 2010) at Williams Lake and particularly at Kamloops over their operational history of the best part of a century (1893-1977).

Throughout the post-contact period up until 1858 when BC became a colony, there were no official policies limiting Aboriginal land use in the Interior. From that date through the turn of the 20th century, and well into the post Second World War, Indian policy, and the subsequent development of Indian Agencies, both federal and colonial (prior to BC becoming a part of Canada in 1871), and the various Commissions struck to resolve the on-going land procurement mandate and the issues of Aboriginal resistance to this, began to impose ever-more limiting restrictions on traditional economies and technologies, including fishing, hunting and trapping, access to resources, and mobility. As clearly stated by the assembled chiefs as signatories to the Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, these restrictions and prohibitions, by the year 1910 had become untenable and the general Interior leadership had vowed to bring their concerns to the attention of the Canadian leaders, and if need be, the Queen herself.

Much of the best available research into these over-arching policies and their impacts on Aboriginal peoples in BC is presented in Robin Fisher’s Contact and Conflict (1996), which provides a chronology of the primary colonial policies in BC that followed the waning years of the fur trade and served to alter Simpcw’s relationship with non-natives thereafter. A condensed discussion on the subject of policy development between the Dominion government, and that of the Province, is provided by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs’ web-site, http://www.ubc.bc.ca/Resources/ourhomesare.com. Further, the UBCIC research department has produced for Simpcw First Nation an undated document (Simpcw First Nation nd) which chronicles the development of the five Simpcw reserves22, from their inception in 1877 through the various pre-emptions, re-shapings and reductions, owing to the construction of the CN Rail

22 These four original reserves are: North Thompson and Canoe Lake (main reserve) 3220 acres, with smaller fishing stations at Louis Creek, 8 acres; Little Fort (Nehelesten), 5 acres; Barriere River, 6 acres; and the fifth, Boulder Creek with 640 acres.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 31 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 tracks running the full length of the reserve, and several roads to accommodate the various mines situated on three sides of the reserves23.

With the increase after the turn of the 20th century in non-native settlement in Simpcwul’ecw, Simpcw were restricted by the private property laws from travelling freely and camping, trapping, fishing, gathering or hunting in some of their important areas. By the late 1930’s and into the 40’s Simpcw’s access to caribou was significantly less in many areas, owing largely to the loss of caribou habitat resulting from the clear-cut logging of old growth stands - and also from being unable to travel and camp where Simpcwemc needed to in order to process their harvest. However, Simpcwemc remained resourceful and by the time of the Great Depression of the 1930’s, they had incorporated a number of cash earning skills and other employment into Simpcw way of life, even though it was then prohibited by Indian Agency policy for Aboriginal people to be paid cash off reserve. People would hire whole families in the fruit-picking seasons, and for haying crews, sometimes in trade for goods if they could not pay the people. In later years, especially during the war years, several Simpcw men began working seasonally, or for the CNR, a logging show, a mill or a small mine. Many others still trapped and in addition to their own use of the furs, they sold the furs to either George Fennell, who moved up just north of Chu Chua in 1909 and started a store, or to fur buyers who would come to the reserve. Trapping by community members continues, selling fur in the open market and other licensed buyers.

In accordance with traditional hunting practices focused on preserving species and their habitats, men hunt and fish for their families and share surplus with others. Some graze cows, have gardens, and some raise, buy and sell horses. Historically, others hired themselves, their wagon or buggy and a team out to deliver goods from town, to the various homesteaders and enterprises situated along the river, once a passable wagon road was built to the Little Fort Ferry. In addition to the fur-bearing population reduction as a result of habitat loss to logging, the world-wide fur industry itself disintegrated in the late 1960’s (see Thomson and Ignace 2005) to the extent that trapping did not afford a reliable living for the number of individuals as it had previously; and therefore trapping, for many trappers, had to be supplemented with other work. By that time, Aboriginal Peoples had become citizens of Canada, and were allowed to come and go from the reserve to find work, attend school or join the armed forces without losing government issued status and community membership.

Irrespective of all these concurrent and sometimes recurrent impacts, Simpcwemc people have kept their culture alive, retained their identity, and safeguarded their history. Each successive generation of children are taught about where they came from and who they are, and particular attention is paid to language and knowledge, including territorial boundaries, and important places within them. Today, Simpcwemc still honour the practices of hunting, fishing, gathering, and sharing; and Simpcwemc keep Elders and children close to them, to the extent that Simpcw has its own nursery school day program in which traditions such as drumming and storytelling are taught, and in which Elders and other experts participate. They take both children and Elders out on the land to pick berries, roots, birch bark and to speak the names of places, plants and wildlife. For

23 In 1892 John Freemont Smith of Kamloops Coal Company applied for 10 acres to be surrendered from the reserve to accommodate a “highway” from his coal mine on the east boundary of the reserve to a landing on the North Thompson River, where coal could then be loaded onto a steamer for shipment to Kamloops; Smith later became Indian Agent for the Kamloops Agency and enjoyed a long career in the position.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 32 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014 example, North Thompson River Provincial Park, which will be included in the proposed TMEP footprint, is a significant site that Simpcw uses today to teach their youth of their traditional practices and culture. They visit sacred places and share stories and lessons, and in this way continue to pass on and safeguard Simpcw knowledge. This process is reinforced and supplemented by the integration of children by adults, into the ongoing practices of hunting, fishing and the harvesting of other resources (including berry picking and plant harvesting).

Although the restrictions discussed above have forced Simpcw to modify their practices and patterns of Land and Resource use to a certain extent, they nonetheless continue their practices; and retain (and continue to pass on) their knowledge with respect to such practices, so as to enable future generations both to maintain the practices presently employed; and also to recapture any lands or resources as may today (as a result of governmental coercion or development) be adversely affected, with respect to Simpcw’s interests.

4.6 Archaeological Record Archaeological inquiry concerns itself with exploring and learning about past cultures (as well as those extant but that have undergone substantial adaptive changes) through the examination of physical cultural or material remains. In the particular instance of Simpcw, the preponderance of house-pits (kekulis) and associated cultural depressions (cache pits, etc.), culturally modified trees, projectile points of particular stone, and other material culture as found in the archaeological record within Simpcwul’ecw, corroborate Simpcw cultural oral history.

4.6.1 Limits of Archaeological Evidence Archaeological evidence relies on highly restrictive components of material culture. In Simpcw Territory stone artifacts represent the majority of recorded archaeological sites. Stone, however, comprised a minor aspect of Simpcw material culture: Wood, bark, bone, hide, textiles (manufactured from plant fibres or bark), grasses and other plant resources (such as for dyes), as well as items obtained through commercial means (such as shells) were utilized in the majority of daily activities and practices. None of these items preserve over time, in the soils typically found in Simpcw Territory. Nor can archaeological studies take into account spiritual, legal or religious factors that may affect landscape and resource use (Rabnett 2000:5-7; Nicholas 2006; Budhwa 2007:41-44). Adding to the difficulty, is the fact that most natural resources (such as vegetation, forest cover, wildlife) shift patterns over time, necessarily causing changes in landscape use by people. Therefore, relying on archaeological evidence can result in a misleading picture of land use patterns – to do so is to interpret the landscape out of context (Nicholas 2006; Rabnett 2000:5- 6; Budhwa 2007:41-44).

Pre-contact day-to-day life was (and as it remains) highly complex, demanding Simpcw members to share a keen understanding of their laws and protocols. These rules governed access to resources required for survival and economic stability. People utilized every aspect of their land base and the resources therein. For example, it may assist the reader to consider a contemporary daily round and think about how each item, from clothing to food to shelter, would be made from the land base surrounding them. In order to do this, one must have a total appreciation for: The resource inventory available to them, and the seasonality of each resource.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 33 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

What resources can be used for:

o Thread o Flavouring o Medicine o Textiles o Entertainment o Weapons o Art o Shelter, both o Defense o Preservation of permanent and o Hunting temporary materials o Trapping o Transportation o Food o Butchering o Tools o Food preparation o Clothing o Woodworking o Food preservation o Footwear o Sewing o Food storage

Where resources can be procured, and at what time of year. Sometimes this could require an economic transaction, whether between Simpcw families or individuals, or with other Nations entirely. The above is no easy task. To survive required substantial knowledge of the complexity of the landscape and the resources available and includes knowledge of proper preparation and preservation techniques that cannot be overstated – rarely are resources available to the end user in the raw, unprocessed format. What should be equally evident from the above; as well as the results of this Study in general, is that: the overwhelming majority of Simpcw material culture is not represented in the archaeological record, due to preservation issues (as well as cultural practices that would have precluded preservation); and the overwhelming majority of Simpcw cultural practices, would leave no mark on the landscape or be represented in the archaeological record. The key point to keep in mind when reviewing or considering archaeological evidence is: Archaeological sites result from the use of the land and its resources; not the other way around (Budhwa & Harrison 2009).

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 34 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

4.6.2 Known Archaeological Record in Simpcw Territory The accumulative outcomes of investigations into the Simpcw archaeological record are several: a) with the identification and officially recording of at least 9 main village sites within Simpcwul’ecw (Simpcw First Nation 1998:23) there is ample evidence of Secwepemc habitation (ca. 7000-4000 B.P.), and consistent with Simpcwemc occupation for a minimum of 1800 years B.P., and likely before that; b) that some of the well-established winter village sites in the North Thompson describe continuous traditional use until after contact, as corroborated in archival texts (Milton & Cheadle 1863); and c) the archaeological record indicates that there is a definite physical site type associated with Secwepemc occupation, which is also referred to in oral histories, that indicates a distinction between Simpcw and other neighbouring ethnolinguistic groups. The archaeological record from the north east borderlands show the Secwepemc traditional large round or oval semi-subterranean kekulis and associated cache and cooking pit technologies in contrast to the surface oriented rather less permanent rectangular pole lodges of the Sekani and Dakelh and, to the east, plains-type teepee lodges of Nēhiyaw and Nakoda, and log and chinking cabins with earthen roofs, or “soddies” and the distinctive walled graves and yards of the later resident Iroquois and halfbreeds along the eastern foothills and west into Tete Jaune Cache, that occur in the peripheral boundary zones demarcating Simpcwul’ecw’ north- eastern boundaries. Further, there is archaeological data that show similar distinctions at the borderlands surrounding Kenpesq’t between the unique semi-subterranean dwelling sites of the Simpcw People who accompanied Kenpesq’t to the southern reaches of Simpcwul’ecw, and those of the K’tunaxa, whose archaeology is quite different in its largely Plains-influenced orientation.

Based on the living capacity for and frequency of the large pit-house complexes in the Simpcw archaeological record, particularly along both sides of the North Thompson River, Muckle (1986) and others (Hamm 1975, Mohs 1986), agree that the pre-contact population was much larger than early post-contact estimates suggest. Further, that judging from the condition (level of preservation) of many of the sites, it is likely that these villages were in regular use up until the smallpox epidemic of 1862-63. Some of the many dwelling places of Simpcw ancestors as found in the archaeological record have been identified as:

Tsoqwtsoqwellqw – former village south of the present main village of Chu Chua; Yeheletsen - where the Little Fort reserve is located and south along the North river; Styellstuc – Barriere River where the ball-park is now located; Xeleqtsetkwe – Clearwater River village; Cstwen – Raft River village; Stexwem – Louis Creek village; Tskakeken – Vavenby Flats Village; Llumin – Birch Island village/camp; and

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 35 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Pesqlélten – Finn Creek/ Avola village. Extant material notwithstanding, we believe that there is a need to undertake further systematic archaeological research within Simpcwul’ecw and that much in the way of information about pre- contact Simpcw culture can be brought to light as a result. We include here an excerpt from Kenpesq’t Traditional Land Use Study (2009), as it is applicable to all of Simpcwul’ecw with respect to forming opinions regarding the archaeological record:

It is important to keep in mind that the archaeological record in this area is incomplete and many factors influence the research in the area including the fact that natural sedimentary processes have obliterated or hidden much of the early archaeological record…many sites are just not highly visible, such as small temporary campsites, or lithic scatters, and certain materials such as plants and artifacts made of wood and other materials that decompose rapidly may not show up at all… there has also been a lack of systematic archaeological research in the area, and much of the recent development…has occurred in locations that would have been most heavily used by pre-contact cultures, especially along old travel corridors, trails and campsite locations. (Wright 1995; also see Boras et al 2006:18-19)

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 36 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

5.0 Results

During the course of this Study, information pertaining to resources and places used and in use by Simpcwemc was documented. This section presents a summary, by way of lists, of resources used by Simpcwemc. Also included, are a list of watercourse crossings the proposed TMEP would cross with a brief summary of the nature of the interests at each.

By way of summary, every natural resource is (and has been, since time immemorial) utilized by Simpcwemc, for a variety of purposes. Similarly, the entire landscape has been used for innumerable purposes. Numerous examples of resource and landscape use have been documented during this Study, with the following lists providing specific (non-exhaustive) examples.

5.1 Plants During this Study, hundreds of plant species were identified as being used by Simpcwemc. Many references include multiple or all sub-species of that family; largely because uses are the same between sub-species.

The harvest of plant products played an equally large role in Simpcw nutrition, spirituality and trade, the production of medicines and treatments, and in the construction of technologies and housing, clothing, and adornment. Plant harvest was a constant activity during the spring, summer and fall months, that transpired in conjunction with almost all other travel, hunting or fishing ventures. As the plant species were diverse and required in substantial quantities, processing was sometimes extensive and elevations and ecosystems often disparate and quite time consuming to access. Due to these factors, the collection and use of plants took a considerable level of knowledge, skill, human effort and collaborative organization.

Based on the ethnographic and ethnobotanical research conducted by specifically Boelscher (1984- 1989) and Ignace (2005), but in addition to others such as Compton (1990), Turner (1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1991, 1994) Palmer (1975), Parish Coupe & Lloyd (1996), and the vast data base of botanical species and traditional ecological knowledge provided by Simpcw Elders and contemporary plant harvesters, there exist several hundred plant names still in use in Secwepemctsín, many of which are still gathered and used today. Elders recall trips out into the bush to specific places, at particular times of the year, to collect and process plant products, and their recollections indicate an intimate and detailed knowledge of places and travel routes between them. These practices continue into the new generations and are facilitated by integrated Simpcw education systems. In addition, many of the plant species harvested, and otherwise observed by Simpcwemc, served as indicators for the advent of other phenomena in the bush, sometimes through the observed degree of robust flower or fruit production, frequency and density of distribution, occurrence of parasitic organisms (fungus, insects, etc). Often these indicators would signal seasonal feeding or reproductive behaviour and migration movements of caribou, elk, waterfowl and other bird species, as well as deer, moose, salmon and bear, at various elevations. A typical, if oversimplified example of this, is that when certain riverine plant species such as Red Willow (cane willow) is budding at lower elevations, moose are calving in similar settings higher up, and once they browse out the areas closest to their calving site, they will be on the move to wetter country as the pond and marshy areas begin to provide forage.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 37 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

The proposed TMEP traverses multiple Biogeoclimatic zones and an infinite variety of specific locations, all of which will inevitable impact Simpcw’s use of its plant resources. Indeed, across the whole route it can be stated that fishing, hunting, plant harvesting and berry picking were key activities. Moreover, the route traverses numerous locations that are of cultural, ceremonial or other importance; and include habitation sites, burial places and areas, campgrounds, food processing areas, resource procurement areas and trails. Table 1 presents a list (non-exhaustive) summarizing the plant species documented during this Study as having been used by Simpcwemc.

Table 1. List of Plants (Non-Exhaustive) Used by Simpcwemc Common Name Latin Name Secwepemc Name Alder, Mountain Alnus incana, spp.tennifolia Kwekwel7ellp Alder, Sitka Alnus viridis SSP sinuata Kwekwel7ellp Anemone, Cut-Leaf [Pacific] Anemone mulifida Aspen, Trembling [Poplar, Populus tremuloides Meltellp White] Eurybia conspicua (Lindl.) G.L. tqweqw`iycen Aster, Showy Nesom Balsam Root Balsamorhiza sagittata Birch, Paper (Western White Betula papyrifera qweqwllillenllp Birch) Birch, Water Betula occidentalis qweqwllillenllp Huckleberry, Black Vaccinium membranaceum Wenex Bladderwood, Columbia Physaria douglasii Blue Wildrye [Ryegrass] Elymus glaucus [E. cinereus] Blueberry, High Bush [Oval- deqwe7s; Seteke7 [within ICH Vaccinium ovalifolium Leaved] wk3] Blueberry, Low Bush Vaccinium caespitosum Blueberry, Velvet-Leaved Vaccinium myrtilloides sesepellp; Seteke7 Schoenoplectus acutus, Schoenoplectus spp., Kwtellp Bullrush Amphiscirpus spp., Scirpus spp. Buttercup, Sub Alpine Ranunculus eschscholtzii tswewye Cascara Rhamus purshiana Cat-Tail, common Typha latifolia Stneltcw Phenll; Qweqwetqwellp [within Thuja plicata Cedar, Western Red most zones] Phenll; T'sellp [within ICH Anemone mulifida Cedar, Western Red wk1] Cherry, Bitter Primus emarginata Lomatium dissectum or

Chocolate Tip Fritillaria affinis var. affinis Chokecherry Prunis virginianna

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 38 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Common Name Latin Name Secwepemc Name Cinquefoil Family Rosaceae Columbine, Red [Sitka] Aquilegia formosa Conk, Birch Polypore spp. t7ikwenkten Cottonwood, Black Populus trichocarpa Mulc Cranberry, Bog Vaccinium oxycoccos Cranberry, High Bush Viburnum opulus L. t`nis Cranberry, Low Bush Vaccinium vitas idaea Current, Red Ribes cereum Current, Red Swamp Ribes triste sxwesxuxwsen Current, Wild [Northern Black] Ribes hudsonianum twepwepupse7 Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Devil's Club Oplopanax horridus Ketse7elp Apocynum androsaemifolium Speosen Dogbane, Spreading [Apocynum cannabinum] Dogwood, Red Osier [Red Tseqtseqwellq Willow] Cornus [sericea] stolonifera Elderberry, Red Sambusus racemos L. tskwikw False Hellebore Veratrum viride nilmen False Solomon Seal Smilacima racemosa Q'ic'en; qicnellp Fern, Bracken Pteridium aquilimum Pepe7sestye Pseudotsuga menziesii var. Tsq'ellp Fir, Interior Douglas glauca Fir, Subalpine [Balsam] Abies lasiocarpa Melenllp Fireweed Epilobium angustifoiaum Ts`yexnellp Fungus, White (on the trunks of

large trees) unknown Ginger, Wild Asarum caudatum Goldrod Solidago spp. Gooseberry Ribes spp. Gooseberry, Black Ribes lacustre Steclculwel Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp.

Grass, Bunch spicata Hay, Alfalfa Medicago sativa Corylus comuta Marsh.

Hazelnut, Beaked (Betulaceae) Hemlock, Water (Douglas) Cicuta douglasii Hemlock, Mountain Tsuga mertensiana Peptnentkwllp Hemlock, Western Tsuga heterophylla Tneytkwllp; Peptnentkwllp Xwiyusten; xwixwyuysten Horsetail Equisetum arvense (within sbs vk) Xwiyusten; T'ucwen (within Horsetail, Meadow Equisetum pratense ICH mm1)

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 39 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Common Name Latin Name Secwepemc Name Xwiyusten; T'uc’wen (within Horsetail, Wood Equisetum sylvaticum ICH wk1) Indian Hellebore Veratrum viride Toxidodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Anacardiaceae [Rhus Ivy, Poison radicans] Juniperus scopulorum, J.

Juniper, Rocky Mountain communis Kinnickinnick Arcostaphylos uva-ursi Elk Kneeling Angelica [Rice,

Indian] A. genuflexa [Angelica arguta] Knight's Plume Ptilium crista-castrensis ‘ul'ecw Labrador Tea [Hudson Bay] Ledum groenlandicum Secsqeqxe7ten Larix occidentalis Nutt.

Larch, Western (pinaceae) Delphinium glaucum

Larkspur, Tall [nutallanu] Lichen, Black Bryoria fremontii Lichen, Edible Horse-Hair Bryoria fremontii wile Lichen, Freckle-Pelted Peltigera aphthosa wile Lichen, Green Map Rhizocarpon geographicum wile Cetraria nivalis Flavocetraria wile Lichen, Ragged Snow nivalis Lichen, Reindeer Cladina spp. wile Lichen, White unknown Calochortus macrocarpus-

Lily, Desert Mariposa Lily, Tiger Lilium columbianum Lilly, Wood Lilium phliladelphicum Lily, Yellow Avalanche Erythronium grandiflorum Lupine, Arctic Lupinus arcticus Qweqwenqrelip Maple, Douglas Acer glabrum ts`wellten Mint, Canada Mentha spp. Moss, Black (Wila) Bryoria fremontii Moss, Electrified Cat's-Tail Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus sepsyulecw; 'ul'ecw Moss, Hanging-Basket Rhytidadelphus loreus `ul`ecw Moss, leafy (generally) Mnium spp. ul'ecw Moss, Palm Climacium dendroides 'ul'ecw Moss, Pipe Cleaner Rhytibiopsis robusta 'ul'ecw Moss, Red-Stemmed ul'ecw Feathermoss Pleurozium schreberi Moss, sphagnum Sphagnum spp. ul'ecw

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 40 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Common Name Latin Name Secwepemc Name Moss, step Hylocomium splendens ul'ecw Moss, Yellow Green Cushion Dicranoweisia crispula ul'ecw Mountain Heather, Pink Phyllodoce empetriformis Phyla include Ascomycota,

Mushrooms Basidiomycota Nettle, Stinging Urtica dioica swecwmenllp Onion, Nodding [wild] Allium cernuum Onion, Poison Zigadenus spp. Oregon Grape, Tall Mahonia aquifolium Stselsellp Paintbrush, Common Red Castilleja miniata Parsnip, Water Sium suave Parsnip, Cow Heracleum maximum xwtellp Penstemon, Blue Penstemon spp Pine, Lodgepole Pinus contorta S72tqwllp Pine, Ponderosa ("yellow": Teit

1900) Pinus [ponderosa] contorta Plantain, Rattlesnake Goodyera oblongifolia slleq`wqe.nellp Potato, Wild aka "Spring skenkwiknem Beauty"; skenkwiknem Claytonia spp. Princess Pine Chimaphila umbellata Raspberry, Black Rubus leucodermis Raspberry, Red [Wild] Rubus idaeus S7eytsqwem Rose, Prickly [Wild] Rosa acicularis skepelenllp Rose, Wild Rosa spp. Sage, Pasture [Sagebrush] Artemisia frigida Sasparilla [Sarsparilla] Aralia nudicaulis steltal,lecw Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia peqpqellp; spepqellp Serviceberry, Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanum Timet Snowberry, Common Symphoricarpos albus elk`ekllp (Waxberry) Snowberry, Creeping Gaultheria hispidula Soopolallie [Soopalallie] Shepherdia canadensis Xusem [soapberry] Spireae, Birch-Leaved Spireae betulifolia Petsptsetskll Spring Beauty, Western Claytonia lanceolata Spruce, Engelmann Picea engelmannii Tsellp Spruce, White Picea glauca T's'ellp or Tsellp (most zones) Spruce, White Picea glauca Qweqwli7t (within sbs vk) Strawberry, Wood [Wild] Fragaria vesca Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Steq'wm'ellp

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 41 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Common Name Latin Name Secwepemc Name Thistle, Canada [Indian] Cirsium arvense [undulatum] qelspu7 Thomberry Crataegus columbiana Kenkeknem; Kenkeknem Twinberry, Black Lonicera involucrata sqwiews Valarian Valeriana sitchensis Waterlily, Yellow Nuphar lutea spp. Polysepala Willow, Red [See Dogwood, Cornus stolonifera Red Osier] Willow, Scouler's Salix scouleriana Qwelsellp Willow, Sitka Salix sitchensis Qwelsellp Witch's Hair, Common Alectoria sarmetosa wile [Lichen] Yarrow Achillea millefolium Yew, Western Taxus brevifolia

5.2 Animals Table 2 presents a list (non-exhaustive) summarizing the animal species identified as having been used by Simpcwemc during this Study. As with plant resources, many animal species include all subspecies as occur within Simpcwul’ecw. For some species, the use of sub-species was the same and therefore, no differentiation is required.

Table 2. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Animal Species (Including Non-Game Species) used by Simpcwemc in Proposed Project Route Species Common Name Secwepemc Name Grizzly Bear Skemcis Ursidae Black Bear Kenkeknem Caribou Selcweyce Deer Tsi7 Cervidae Elk Moose Teniye Gray Wolf Canidae Fox Coyote Sḱlep Cougar Felidae Lynx Bobcat Marten, Mustelidae Fisher Wolverine Species Common Name Secwepemc Name

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 42 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Marmot/ Gopher Rodentia Squirrel Little Brown Myotis Vespertilionidae Big Brown Bat Mountain Goat Bovidae Bighorn Sheep Sxwetey Leporidae Rabbit Castoridae Beaver Erethizontidae Porcupine Stsesuye Muridae Mice Cricetidae Muskrat Reptile Turtle

Uses of the above-listed species include uses other than that of game. As discussed above with respect to plants, a multitude of uses for different animals can be found. Some (such as mice) are not used for meat but instead other purposes. Deer provide another example, in which although the meat was consumed for food, virtually every other part has some application in daily life. Others, like certain birds and plants, are used as indicator species to communicate to Simpcwemc when other resources are ready for harvest or preparation. Detailed information regarding animal use and hunting practices, are presented in the preceding section of this Report (Traditional Lifeways).

5.3 Birds Table 3 presents a list (non-exhaustive) detailing the bird species identified as having been used by Simpcwemc during this Study. As with plant and animal resources outlined above, many bird species include all subspecies as they occur within Simpcwul’ecw. For some species, the use of sub-species was the same and therefore, no differentiation is made.

Table 3. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Bird Species (Including Non-Game Species) Used by Simpcwemc

Common Name Latin Name Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Mourning Warbler Geothlypis philadelphia Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Common Name Latin Name

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 43 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis

Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus Duck (Generally) Anitidae spp.

As with animals, many birds in the above list (such as the Bald Eagle) are not used as game; and did not necessarily have to be killed to obtain resources (feathers, for example). In addition, and as with certain other plant and animal species, certain birds (including songbirds) serve as indicators that communicate to the people, when other resources are ready for harvest.

5.4 Fish Table 4 presents a non-exhaustive list of species identified as being of importance to Simpcw during this Study. Fish, particularly salmon, were a mainstay of Simpcw culture. Species diversity among fish within Simpcwul’ecw is low compared to plants; and all fish species were utilized by Simpcwemc. As with other resources summarized above, many fish species include all subspecies as occur within Simpcwul’ecw.

Table 4. List (Non-Exhaustive) of Fish Species Used by Simpcwemc Common Name Latin Name Sepwecempc Name Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Sqlelten7uwi Spring/Chinook Oncorhynchus Salmon tschawytscha Kekesu7 Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Pisell = trout Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkia Pisell = trout Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Pisell = trout Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Pisell = trout Oncorhynchus nerka Kokanee Salmon kennerlyi Pisell = trout Steelhead Salmon Oncorhynchus mykiss Pisell = trout Suckers Catostomus spp. Tsqwmus = suckers Peamouth Chub Mylocheilus caurinus Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Bridgelip sucker Catostomus columbianus Tsqwmus = suckers Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus (Squaw fish) oregonensis Acipenser transmontanus Sturgeon

Common Name Latin Name Sepwecempc Name Lingcod Lota lota

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 44 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Prosopium spp., Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Grayling Thymallus arcticus Qwe7ek

The short list for fish species belies the significance of fish, particularly salmon, to Simpcw. Salmon are a central feature of Simpcw life and culture and feature daily in activities and practices.

5.5 Places Simpcwemc use of Simpcwul’ecw was total. The point of describing more specific land use within certain areas is solely to assist Simpcw in understanding how a proposed project may affect their use (present or future) of that area with a view to mitigation, or accommodation. References are correspondingly infinite. Information collected during this Study (both through background research as well as through interviews and field visits) has been correlated back to the maps owned and maintained by Simpcw. The information collected during this Study, is presented back to Simpcw to permit the existing information to be expanded upon.

Specifically, there are 72 crossings of named streams within the proposed TMEP right-of-way. Eleven of those lie within that portion of the right-of-way that is proposed to use an existing pipe section which is already installed (on either side of Barriere). The eleven creeks within that existing section are, for reference: Badger Creek Barriere River Chinook Creek Fishtrap Creek Ipsoot Creek Louis Creek Nelson Creek Oliver Creek Peterson Creek Rushton Slough Struthers Creek Table 5 summarizes these stream crossings (in alphabetical order):

Table 5. Summary of Named Stream Crossings on Proposed TMEP Right Of Way Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Fishing Albreda River Hunting Berry Picking Avola Creek Pesqlelten Hunting

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 45 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Campground Habitation Trails Fishing Badger Creek Spet7 Hunting Campground Fishing Habitation Barriere River Styellstucwetkwe Trapping Berry Picking Hunting Bearpark Creek Berry picking Fishing Hunting Bill Creek Fishing Hunting Blackberg Creek Fishing Berry Picking

Fishing

Blue River Toqtiqkwe Hunting Habitation Trapping Fishing Bryan Creek Berry picking Transportation/trail Camp Creek Hunting Fishing Hunting Canoe River Trail Trapping Fishing Cedar Creek Hunting Berry Picking Fishing Chappell Creek Hunting Fishing Chinook Creek Berry picking Transportation/trail Berry Picking Clearwater River Fishing

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 46 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Trapping Habitation Xelaqtsetkwe Trail Burials Food Preparation Clemina Creek Hunting Fishing Cook Creek Hunting Berry Picking Hunting Berry picking Cornet Creek Trapping Fishing Hunting Fishing Cove Creek Berry picking Trapping Cranberry Creek Trapping Fishing Transportation/trail

Trapping Crooked Creek Berry picking Plant collection Hunting Hunting Crossing Creek Berry picking Fishing Fishing Tselxem tsitsen Darlington Creek Hunting Trails Hunting Berry picking Divide Creek Trapping Fishing Fishing Dominion Creek Hunting Trails Hunting Dora Creek

Eakin Creek Fishing

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 47 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Hunting Berry picking Trails Berry Picking Fishing

Hunting Trapping Pesqlelten Finn Creek Plant Collection Root Collection Trails Habitation Ceremonial Trapping Ckukwe7 Fishtrap Creek Habitation Fishing Fishing Hunting Fraser River Trapping Trails Warfare Fishing Froth Creek Hunting Hunting Berry picking Plant collection Gill Creek Root collection Trapping Trails Fishing Fishing Goose Creek Berry picking Hunting Hunting Fishing Hogan Creek Trapping Trails Hunting Fishing Hornet Creek Berry picking Trapping

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 48 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Fishing Hunting Ipsoot Creek Berry picking Trails Hunting Ivy Creek Fishing Hunting Berry picking Jake Creek Trapping Fishing Berry Picking Fishing Lemieux Creek Yehelstenetkwe Hunting Burials Berry picking Lindquist Creek Hunting Trails Fishing Fishing Louis Creek Habitation Berry Picking Fishing Mad River Trapping Food Preparation Habitation Berry Picking Hunting Mann Creek Trapping Ceremonial/Traditional Fishing Marathon Creek Hunting Trails Fishing Miledge Creek Hunting Hunting Trapping Montanna Creek Berry picking Fishing Fishing Montigny Creek Berry picking Trails

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 49 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Fishing Moonbeam Creek Hunting Fishing Hunting Nehalliston Creek Berry picking Trails Fishing Nelson Creek Berry picking Trails Hunting Noblequartz Creek Berry picking Fishing Fishing North Thompson River Warfare Hunting Fishing Oliver Creek Berry picking Trails Berry picking Hunting Peavine Creek (Vavenby Flats) Spelmaxtsk Habitation Trapping Fishing Peterson Creek Berry picking Trails Berry picking Fishing

Root collection Hunting Ctwenetkwe, Ctswen Raft River Burial ground Habitation Lookout Food preservation Warfare Fishing Berry picking Robina Creek Trails Hunting Fishing Rushton Slough Berry picking

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 50 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Trails Hunting Trapping Sager Creek Berry picking Fishing Hunting Berry picking Trapping School Creek Root collection Trails Fishing Fishing Serpentine Creek Hunting Fishing Trails Spokane Creek Berry picking Hunting Fishing Struthers Creek Berry picking Trails Hunting Sundt Creek Trails Fishing Fishing Hunting Swift Creek Trapping Burial Fishing Switch Creek Hunting Plant Collection Hunting Teepee Creek Fishing Trapping Trails Fishing Terry Fox Creek Hunting Trails Fishing Hunting Thunder River Habitation Campground

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 51 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Name Secwepemc Name Activities (Non-Exhaustive List) Berry Picking Fishing Thuya Creek Ctsiltsilelkwe Hunting Plant Collection Hunting Tumtum Creek Tska7 Berry picking Campground Fishing Whitewater Creek Hunting

As identified above in Table 5, Simpcw has interests all along the proposed pipeline route; the stream crossings have been broken out as these are generally considered the most ecologically and/or environmentally sensitive locations. The Activities listed in no way denote the limits of activities that were and are carried out at the Table 5 locations.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 52 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

6.0 Summary and Recommendations

This section summarizes the results presented in this Report.

6.1 Summary of Potential Effects The work completed during this Study indicates complete use of Simpcwul’ecw including within the proposed TMEP right of way. The understanding of plants, animals, fish, birds, minerals and geography is highly detailed, complex and wholly interrelated. There is likely no species within Simpcwul’ecw that does not play a role in Simpcwemc understanding and use of Simpcwul’ecw or its resources. It is suggested that Simpcwemc land and use patterns have been modified over time, with the most change occurring during the past 200 years in response to non-Aboriginal pressures and coercive measures. However, Simpcwemc have always had to modify resource and land use within Simpcwul’ecw to respond to natural changes in environmental conditions. Recent changes in such use shall not be construed as amounting to an abandonment of any practice. In many instances, development (industrial or otherwise) including the taking up of land by government at any time, may affect Simpcwemc ability to exercise Land or Resource use; and in such instances, the Crown ultimately holds such land in trust on behalf of Simpcwemc. Nothing shall prevent Simpcwemc from performing any activity that they have or do conduct, at any time as they choose. In particular, the importance of leaving Simpcwemc with the ability to communicate and pass their Land and Resource practices, including beliefs and customs, on to the future generations is paramount.

6.1.1 Potential Effects From the Proposed TMEP Effects from the proposed TMEP are anticipated to be different between construction and operations. However, potential adverse construction effects should not be automatically considered temporary, because there are potential for long term or permanent effects that may adversely affect Simpcwemc exercise of Land and Resource use. For example, the pipeline corridor may adversely affect animal species that are deterred by linear developments (such as caribou); and the introduction of invasive plant species can occur during various construction activities (including remediation).

Effects during operations are expected to include, but not be limited to, effects caused by noise and light disturbance at pump stations. Oil spills are considered to be an exceptional event; however such an event would be anticipated to negatively affect Simpcw use of fish, animals, and plants. Use of waterways in general, would also be affected.

Table 6 outlines a non-exhaustive list of potential resources that could be affected and a non- exhaustive summary of potential effects that could result from construction of the proposed TMEP. Also included in Table 6, is a non-exhaustive summary of potential effects of a spill from the pipeline.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 53 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Table 6. Summary of Potential Resources Affected and Potential Effects

Activity Potential Resources Affected Potential Effects

Food plants Destruction of plants Medicinal plants Removal of plants Berries

Wood (pine, spruce) Removal of trees

Disturbance to wildlife migration, feeding Wildlife and habitation Brushing & Clearing Increased access to fishing, hunting and harvest areas Disruption of habitat Effects on nesting Birds Disturbance of breeding and migration patterns from noise and light (if nighttime operation) Removal of riparian vegetation (effects Fish upon Simpcw fisheries) Disturbance to wildlife migration, feeding and habitation Wildlife Increased access to fishing, hunting and harvest areas Food plants Introduction of invasive species Medicinal plants Berries Grading/Grubbing/ Disruption of habitat Trenching/Construction Effects on nesting Birds Disturbance of breeding and migration patterns from noise and light (if nighttime operation) Fish Release of sediment into fish bearing watercourses

Release of deleterious substances into watercourses Stockpiling Fish Release of sediment into fish bearing watercourses Remediation Food plants Replanting of invasive or less-useful species

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 54 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Activity Potential Resources Affected Potential Effects Medicinal plants Replanting of invasive or less-useful species See "Plants" generally (below)

Berries Replanting of invasive or less-useful species See "Plants" generally (below)

Wildlife Attraction of wildlife to browse resulting from replanting Spill Fish Release of deleterious substance into fish bearing watercourses. Short-term impacts to water quality and potentially longer-term effects on sediment quality (decreased suitability for fish spawning/rearing habitat) Potential fisheries closures due to contaminant levels, conservation concerns or tainting Any animals within the vapour dispersion or effective radius caused by a release could be immediately harmed or killed. (Qualitative Risk Assessment, Kitimat LNG Terminal, James P. Lewis, P.E.,PEng.Project Technical Liaison Associates, Inc, 2005) Short- and long-term impacts on primary food source for fish during many life stages Plants Covering leaf surfaces in oil and preventing photosynthesis from occurring Seepage of oil into soil, preventing plant uptake of important nutrients/water and resulting in decrease in live and total vegetation cover in affected area Species-specific impacts on the uptake of important nutrients Species-specific impacts caused by growth inhibition of seedlings/saplings Lateral dispersal of oil spills emphasized by rains Long-term detrimental effects due to increased concentration of hydrocarbons in the soil leading to vegetation die-off years after the initial spill event

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 55 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Activity Potential Resources Affected Potential Effects Birds Birds within the vapour dispersion or thermal radiation effective radius caused by a release could be immediately harmed or killed. Direct spray or indirect contact external contamination of feathers with oil; feathers absorb oil which cause them to lose critical water-repellency, insulation, and flight characteristics resulting in hypothermia, starving, or drowning Direct spray or indirect contact external contamination of eggs with oil; oil is able to seep through egg shells and amounts as low as 1-10 ųL have been shown to be lethal to bird embryos Ingestion of oil through preening or oil- contaminated food sources such as plants or insects; oil toxicity due to ingestion may affect the individual bird and also decrease fertility Wildlife Animals within the vapour dispersion or thermal radiation effective radius caused by a release could be immediately harmed or killed. Direct spray or indirect contact external contamination with oil; dermal contamination with oil can affect water- repellency and insulation characteristics Ingestion of oil through preening/cleaning or oil-contaminated food sources such as plants, insects, or other animals; oil toxicity due to ingestion may affect the individual animal as well as decrease fertility Table references: James & Lewis 2005; Leighton 1993

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 56 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

7.0 References Cited

Backmeyer. R. J. 2000 Habitat Use and Movements of Rocky Mountain Elk on the Peace Arm of Williston Reservoir, 1991 – 1994. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 224. 19pp plus appendices.

Banks, J. 2011 Simpcw First Nation: Preliminary Research Report in Support of Simpcw Strength of Claim. Report Prepared for Simpcw Title and Rights Department, April 28, 2011.

Blood. D. 2000a Moose in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Brochure. Province of British Columbia. 6pp.

Blood. D. 2000b Mule Deer in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Brochure. Province of British Columbia. 6pp.

Blood. D. 2000c White-tailed Deer in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Brochure. Province of British Columbia. 6pp.

Blood. D. 2000d Elk in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Brochure. Province of British Columbia. 6pp.

Boas, F. 1890 The Shuswap in Second General Report on the Indians of British Columbia, 1890. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 60:632-47, Leeds.

Boelscher, M. 1985-1986 Field Notes, maintained at Simpcw First Nation Archives

Boras, D.; M. Larsson, B.P. Wood & N. Mirau 2006 Archaeological Impact Assessments Columbia Forest District Harvesting Areas, 2005 Field Season. Report on file with Simpcw First Nation.

Boyd, R. 1996 Pacific Northwest Measles Epidemic of 1847-1848, in Oregon Historical Quarterly, 95, no. 1

Bridges and Associates Inc. 1995 Kamloops TSA Socio-Economic Analysis. Report prepared for the Economics and Trade Branch, BC Ministry of Forests.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 57 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (BC MWLAP). 2004 Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Biodiversity Branch, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, Victoria, B.C.

Brna, P. J. and Verbrugge, L.A. (Eds.) 2013 Wildlife resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds, Alaska. Final Report. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Alaska. 177 pp.

Budhwa, R. and P. Harrison 2009 South Nass Timber Supply Area: Archaeological Overview Assessment. Report prepared on behalf of MarkUs Consulting and West Fraser Mills (Skeena Sawmills Division).

Chichowski D.B. 1993 Seasonal Movements, Habitat Use, and Winter Feeding Ecology of Woodland Caribou in West-Central British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests Lands Management Report No. 79. 65pp.

Cichowski, D., T. Kinley, and B. Churchill. 2004 Caribou, Rangifer tarandus. The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy Version 2004: Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C.

Chiefs of the Shuswap, Okanagan and Couteau Tribes 1910 Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Letter presented at Kamloops, 1910.

Cole, J.M. 1981 Exile in the Wilderness: The Biography of Chief Factor Archibald McDonald, 1790-1853. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Compton, B. 1990 Secwepemc (Shuswap) Botanical Terminology. (Draft) PhD Dissertation, University of Victoria.

Conner, M.M., and M.W Miller. 2004 Movement patterns and spatial epidemiology of a prion disease in mule deer population units. In Ecological Applications 14:1870-81.

Dawson, G.M. 1891 Notes on the Shuswap People of British Columbia. In Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1891. 9(2):3-44

D'Eon, R.G., and R. Serrouya. 2005 Mule deer seasonal movements and multiscale resource selection using global positioning system radio-telemetry. in Journal of Mammalogy 86 (4) pp 736 – 744.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 58 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Department of Indian Affairs 1881 Archival Document: RG10 Reel C., UBCIC Resource Centre

Edwards R.Y. 1954 Fire and the Decline of a Mountain Caribou Herd. In Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 18, No. 4. Pp 521-526.

Elliott, J. 2009 Snare, Snake and Iroquois: An Upper Athabaska Ethnohistory. Essay available online: http://www.metismuseum.ca/media/document.php/13491.pdf

Ferguson K. 2005 Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 28. Wildlife Habitat Council and the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Maryland, USA. 16pp.

Fisher, R. 1996 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Foster, J. 2010 The Kamloops Residential School: Indigenous Perspectives and Revising Canadian History. Honours Essay prepared for the University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus.

Fraser, S.; edited by W. K. Lamb 2007 Letters & Journals of Simon Fraser 1806-1808. Dundurn Publishing, Toronto.

Galois R. M. 1996 Measles, 1847-1850 – The First Modern Epidemic in British Columbia, in BC Studies, no. 109, Spring 1996: 31-43.

Gillingham M. P. and K.L. Parker. Nd Differential Habitat Selection by Moose and Elk in the Besa-Prophet Area of Northern British Columbia. In Alces Vol. 44. Pp 41 – 63.

Gosnell, R. E. 1903 Journals and Correspondence of John McLeod, Senior: Chief Trader, Hudson's Bay Company, who was One of the Earliest Pioneers in the Oregon Territory: from 1812 to 1844. Archived copies from the Originals in the Dominion Government Archives.

Haig-Brown (Vayro), C 1988 Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Arsenal Pulp Press, Vancouver.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 59 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Hamilton, D. 2011 Silviculture options for use in ranges designated for the conservation of mountain caribou in British Columbia. In BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 12(2):39–54. http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/68/87

Hamm, L.C. 1975 Shuswap Settlement Patterns, Master’s Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of a Master’s Degree to the Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.

Hatter, I. 2006 Mountain caribou 2006 survey results, subpopulation trends and extinction risk. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Draft report.

Hygnstrom, S. E. S.R. Groepper,K.C. VerCauteren,C.J. Frost, J.R. Boner, T.C. Kinsell, and G.M. Clements, 2008 Literature Review Of Mule Deer And White-T Ailed Deer Movements In Western And Midwestern Landscapes (2008). In Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. Paper 962. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/962

Innes, R.J. 2013a Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2013, December 11].

Innes, R.J. 2013b Odocoileus virginianus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2013, December 11].

Innes, R.J. 2011 Oreamnos americanus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2013, December 11].

Innes, R.J. 2010 Alces americanus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2013, December 9].

Jack, A. 2006 Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Residential School. Theytus Books, Penticton.

James, P., and J. P. Lewis 2005 Qualitative Risk Assessment, Kitimat LNG Terminal. PEng. Project Technical Liaison Associates, Inc.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 60 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Johnson, C.J., K.L. Parker, D.C. Heard, and D.R. Seip 2004 Movements, foraging habits, and habitat use strategies of northern woodland caribou during winter: Implications for forest practices in British Columbia. In BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5(1):22–35. URL: www.forrex.org/jem/2004/vol5/no1/art4.pdf

Jules, J. 2011 Joe Jules (Cultural Advisor, Simpcw First Nation): Personal communication to Judy Banks April 18, 2011.

Kenpesq’t First Nation 2009 Kenpesq’t Traditional Land Use Study. On file with Kenpesq’t First Nation.

Kinley, Trevor A., John Bergenske, Julie-Anne Davies, and David Quinn 2003 Characteristics of early-winter Caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, feeding sites in the southern Purcell Mountains, British Columbia. In Canadian Field-Naturalist 117(3): 352- 359.

Klinkenberg, B. (Editor) 2012 E-Fauna BC: Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia [efauna.bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. [Accessed: 12/10/2013 6:00:20 PM]

Kuipers, A. H. 1974 The Shuswap Language: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. The Hague, Mouton.

1989 A Report on Shuswap with a Squamish Lexical Appendix. Peeters Publishing, Leuven, Belgium.

Leach R. and W. Edge 1994 Summer Home Range and Habitat Selection by White-tailed Deer in the Swan Valley, Montana. In Northwest Science Vol. 68 (1). Pp 31 – 36.

Leighton, F.A. 1993 The toxicity of petroleum to birds. CCWHC.

Lloyd D., K. Angove, G. Hope and C. Thompson 1990 A guide to Site Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 23. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC.

Mackie, R.I 1998 Ecology and Management of Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer in Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 61 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Matthew, N. and M. Matthew 1978 A Brief Description of the North Thompson Shuswap Culture History. Report prepared for Simpcw First Nation, archived in Simpcw First Nation Archives.

Marie Matthew 1986a Introduction to the Shuswap People. Secwepemc Cultural Education Society, Kamloops.

Meidinger, D. & J. Pojar 1991 Special Report Series 6 Ecosystems of British Columbia. Report prepared for the BC Ministry of Forests.

Milton, Viscount M.P. & W.B. Cheadle 1865 The Northwest Passage By Land: Being a Narrative of an Expedition from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 3rd Edition. Cassell, Petter & Galpin, London.

Mohs, G. 1986 CN Rail Twin Tracking Project/NTIB Archaeological Project. Technical report on file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

Muckle, B. 1986 Archaeological Investigations in the Traditional Territory of the North Thompson Indians 1986. Technical report on file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

Naughton D. (editor) 2012 The Natural History of Canadian Mammals. Canadian Museum of Nature. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON. 784pp.

Ignace, M.B. 1989 Existing Maps of the Aboriginal Territories of the Shuswap Nation. On file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

1995 Anthropological Expert Evidence Report. Report prepared for Simpcw First Nation. On file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

1998a Robson Valley Terasen Gas Traditional Use Report. Technical report on file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

1998b Shuswap in D.E. Walker Jr. (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12. Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1998. pp203-219.

2005 Report on Secwepemc Use and Occupation of the Tete Jaune Cache to Jasper Area. Technical report on file at Simpcw First Nation Archives.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 62 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Ministry of the Attorney General, Legal Services Branch. 2011 Harper Creek Mine: Review of Ethnographic and Historical Sources. Report prepared by the BC Ministry of the Attorney General, Legal Services Branch, Aboriginal Research Division. June 2011.

Nicholas, G. P. 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. In American Indian Quarterly, Fall 2006, Vol. 30 Nos.3&4:350-380

North Thompson Indian Band (See Simpcw First Nation)

O’Reilly 1881 Archival Document: Within Indian Reserve Commission, Department of Indian Affairs, British Columbia, RG10 Reel C. UBCIC Resource Centre.

Palmer, G. B. 1975 Shuswap Indian Ethnography, in Syesis Vol 8:29-81.

Parish, R., R. Coupe, and D. Lloyd 1996 Plants of Southern Interior British Columbia. Lone Pine Press, Edmonton.

Perry, J. (editor) 1999 Moose, Mule Deer and Caribou: Sharing Current Knowledge. Southern Interior ForestExtension & Research Partnership. File Report 99-5. 41 p. http://www.siferp.org/info/fr/fr99-5.pdf

Poole, K.G.; Stuart-Smith, K.; Teske, I.E. 2009 Wintering strategies by mountain goats in interior mountains. In Canadian Journal of Zoology. 87: 273-283. [80804]

Poole, K G. and D. C. Heard 2003 Seasonal habitat use and movements of Mountain Goats, Oreamnos americanus, in east- central British Columbia. In Canadian Field-Naturalist 117 (4): 565-576.

Rabnett, K. 2000 The Past Into the Present: Cultural Heritage Resources Review of the Bulkley Timber Supply Area. Report prepared for Ministry of Forests Bulkley-Cassiar Forest District, Smithers.

Ray, A.J. 1976 Diffusion of Diseases in the Western Interior of Canada, 1830-1850, in Geographical Review, 66

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 63 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Ray, V. F. 1939 Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Remembering the Children.ca Nd Internet Resource: Residential Schools, a Chronology. Accessed online from piyakootihi.communityofficeonline.com (2013: available at http://www.rememberingthechildren.ca/history/)

RIC (Resource Inventory Committee) 2002 Aerial-based Inventory Methods for Selected Ungulates: Bison, Mountain Goat, Mountain Sheep, Moose, Elk, Deer and Caribou. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 32. Resource Inventory Committee. Province of British Columbia. Accessed online at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ric.

Riley S. and A. Dodd 1984 Summer Movements Home Range, Habitat Use and Behaviour of Mule Deer Fawns. In Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4). Pp1302 – 1311.

Ritcey R. 1996 Moose in British Columbia. Species Information Brochure. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. 4pp.

Secwepemc Fisheries Commission 2005 Secwepemc Cultural Knowledge of Select Species At Risk. Kamloops.

Sederlaund G. and H. Sand 1994 Home Range Size in Relation to Age and Sex in Moose. In Journal of Mammology Vol. 75, No. 4. Pp1005 – 1012.

Shackleton, D. 2013 Hoofed mammals of British Columbia. Vol. 3. The mammals of British Columbia: The Revised Edition. Univ. British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. R. British Columbia Mus. Handb. 264pp.

Schefke, B. R. 2004 An Environmental History of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fur Trade in the Pacific Northwest: a Thematic Overview. Report submitted to the University of Washington, Department of History, April 2004

Siglin, R.l 1965 Literature Review on Mule Deer Movements and Capture Techniques. Colorado Division of Wildlife Project W-105-R, Fort Collins, CO.

Simpcw First Nation

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 64 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Nd Simpcw Road Right-of-Way Report, UBCIC Research Department (Specific Claims), undated but originated after 1992. Report on file at Simpcw Archives.

1995 Thunder Blue Landscape Unit Project. Report prepared by Simpcw G.I.S. Staff.

1998 Final Report, Clearwater Forest District Simpcw Traditional Use Study. Report prepared for North Thompson Indian Band (Simpcw First Nation). On file with the Simpcw First Nation Archives.

1999 Provincial Heritage Register Database: Data Dictionary, Robson Valley Forest District: Traditional Use Study May 1998-March 1999. Report prepared by the Simpcw G.I.S. Team.

2005 Report on Traditional Land and Resource Use: Reargaurd, Finn, and Blackpool Pump Station Sites. Report prepared August 5, 2005 with respect to a proposed Terasen Pipleine project.

2009 Simpcw First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan.

Simpson K. 1990 Monashee Caribou Management Plan. Report to Ministry of Environment. Penticton, BC. 34pp.

Simpson, K., G. P. Woods and K. B. Hebert 1985 Critical habitats of caribou in the mountains of southern BC. BC Ministry of Environment Wildlife Report No. WR-23.

Spalding, D.J. 2000 The Early History of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. No. 100. 61pp.

Stevenson S. K., A. N. Lance and H. M. Armleder 1998 Estimating the Abundance of Arboreal Forage Lichens: User’s Guide. A Guide for users of: Estimating the Abundance of Arboreal Forage Lichens. Land Management Handbook Field Guide Insert 7. Land Management Handbook No. 43. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. 42pp.

Stevenson, S.K., & Hatler, D.F. 1985 Woodland caribou and their habitat in southern and central British Columbia. - Land Management Report 23. B.C. Min. Forests. Victoria, B.C.

Stevenson, S., Armleder, H., Jull, M., King, D., McLellan, B. & Coxson, D. 2001 Mountain caribou in managed forests: recommendations for managers. Wildlife Branch, British Colombia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Rep R-26

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 65 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Swanson, J.L. 2002 The Spiral Road. Banff Alberta: Internet resource, retrieved from http://www.spiralroad.com/sr/pn/index.html

Taylor S.D., W. Wall, and Y Kulis 2004 A GPS Telemetry Study of Mountain Goat Habitat Use in South Coastal BC. Interfor, Campbell River, BC. And Forest Investments Accounts, British Columbia.

Teit, J. 1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. In Franz Boas (ed.) Memoirs of American History, Volume II: Anthropology I, The Jesup North Expedition. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

1909 The Shuswap. In Franz Boas (ed.) The Jesup North Expedition, Volume II, Ethnology and Archaeology of Southern British Columbia and Washington. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Tera Westland 2005 Traditional Land and Resource Use Study: For the Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. TMX - Anchor Loop Project. Report prepared for Terasen (Trans Mountain) Pipelines Inc., November 2005.

Thomas, T.R., and L.R. Irby 1990 Habitat use and movement patterns during migration by mule deer in southeastern Idaho. In Northwest Science 64:19-27.

Thompson, D. 1814 Map of the North-West Territory of the Province of Canada by David Thompson, 1814. David Thompson Fonds, Reference Code: F 443-6, AO 1541, Archives of Ontario, I0012850

Thomson, D. & M. Ignace 2005 They Made Themselves Our Guests: Power Relationships in the Interior Plateau Region of the Cordillera in the Fur Trade Era in B.C. Studies, No. 146, Summer 2005.

Turner, N. J. 1977 Edible and Medicinal Wild Plant Foods. Lecture presented to Community Education, Okanagan College, Kelowna April 1977.

1978 Food Plants of Interior First Peoples (1st Edit.). B.C. Provincial Museum, Victoria.

1979 Plants in British Columbia Indian Technology. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook, No. 38, RBCM Victoria.

1982 Nutritional Aspects of Traditional Plant Use by British Columbia Indian Peoples. Prepared for the School of Family and Nutritional Sciences, UBC.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 66 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

1994 The Earth’s Blanket. Douglas & McIntyre, Madeira Park.

Turner, N.J. & H.V. Kuhnlein 1991 Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: Nutrition, Botany and Use (Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology). Routledge: Florence, Kentucky.

USDA 1999 American Elk (Cervus elaphus). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 11. Wildlife Habitat Management Institute and the Wildlife Habitat Council. Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Madison MS. 8pp.

Wilson, R.L. 1983 Heritage Resource Investigations of the Mid-North Thompson River Region, British Columbia. North Thompson River Archaeological Project, Report No. 2. Report prepared for the North Thompson Indian Band, 1983.

Wilson S.F. 2005 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Mountain Goat Habitat Management. Report prepared for Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. 21pp.

Wittmer H.U., B.N. McLellan, D.R. Seip, J.A. Young, T.A. Kinley, G.S. Watts and D. Hamilton. 2005 Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. NRC Canada. in Canadian Journal of Zoology Vol. 83. Pp 407-418.

Valemount Historical Society 1984 The Yellowhead: Our People. D. W. Friesen & Sons Ltd., Cloverdale.

Vibert, E. 1997 Trader’s Tales; Narratives of Cultural Encounters in the Columbia Plateau 1807-1846. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

Wright , J.V. 1995 A History of Native People of Canada in Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 152.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 67 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

References Referred To

Akrigg, G.P.V & Helen B. 1969 1001 British Columbia Place Names. Vancouver, British Columbia: Discovery Press.

Anderson, N. M 2011 The Pathfinder; A.C. Anderson’ Journeys In The West. Heritage House Publishing.

Anderson, R. A. & B. O. K. Reeves. 1975 Jasper National Park Archaeological Inventory. Manuscript Report Series 158. Ottawa: Parks Canada.

BC Ministry of Mines 1898 Report of the Minister of Mines (Donald Division).

BC Ministry of Mines 1915 BC Report, Ministry of Mines for the year 1897.

BC Ministry of Forests 1912-1916 Department of Interior Forestry Branch - Report 1912-1916. File Name: BC Forest Report 1912-1916

Birrell, A. 1978 Benjamin Baltzly; Photographs and Journal of an Expedition through British Columbia – 1871. Toronto: The Coach House Press.

Boas, F. 1891 The Shuswap. In Second General Report On The Indians Of BC. Report Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science. Vol 60:632-647.

Carlson, C. 2006 Indigenous Historic Archaeology Of the 19Th Century Secwepemc Village At Thompson’s River Post, Kamloops, BC. Canadian Journal of Archaeology. Vol 30: 193-250.

Clearwater & District History Book Committee 1996 Upper North Thomson Reflections: History of the North Thompson Valley. Accession # 1997.157. North Thompson Valley: Clearwater & District History Book Committee.

Cole, J. M. 1981 Exile in the Wilderness: the Biography of Chief Factor Archibald McDonald, 1790-1853. University of Washington Press.

Compton, B. D. 1990 Secwepemc (Shuswap) Botanical Terminology. Preliminary Draft prepared 29 July, 1990. Department of Botany, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 68 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Cooperman, J. 1998 The History of Adams Lake: “The People Of Sxstêlln”. In The Shuswap Chronicle, The North Shuswap Historical Society. Vol. 2:4.

Dawson, G. M. 1895 [Kamloops] British Columbia: Kamloops Sheet. Montreal: The Canadian Engraving and Lithograph Company.

Ducks Unlimited and Environment Canada 1998 Understanding Wetlands: A Wetland Handbook for British Columbia’s Interior. Kamloops, BC: .Ducks Unlimited.

Gadd, B. 2005 Handbook of the Canadian Rockies. 2nd ed. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Galois, R.M 1996 Measles, 1847-1850: The First Modern Epidemic in British Columbia. BC Studies, no. 109.

Gibson, J. R. 1997 The Lifeline of the Oregon Country: The Fraser-Columbia Brigade System, 1811-47. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Golden & District Heritage Society, The. 1972 Kinbasket Country; the story of Golden and the Columbia Valley.

Gosnell. R. E. 1903 Journals and Correspondence of John McLeod, Senior: Chief Trader, Hudson's Bay Company, who was One of the Earliest Pioneers in the Oregon Territory: from 1812 to 1844: Copied from the Originals in the Dominion Government Archives.

Hart, H. 1980 History of Hinton: Alberta on the Yellowhead-Gateway to the Rockies. Hinton, Alberta: Mrs. Hazel Hart.

Holt, F. & Heizer. F. R 1969 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archeology. 2nd ed. United States of America.

Ignace, R. 2008 Our Oral Histories Are Our Iron Posts: Secwepemc Stories And Historical Consciousness. Phd Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Department Of Sociology and Anthropology.

Ignace, R. E. 1974 Kamloops Agency and the Indian Reserve Commission 1912-1916. Master’s Thesis, UBC

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 69 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Jules, J. 2011 Secwepemc Natural and Spiritual Law. Compiler, Simpcw First Nation Title and Rights.

Kelm, M. E. 1999 British Columbia First Nations and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19. BC Studies, no. 122.

Kershaw L. & A. Mackinnon et al. 1998 Plants of the Rocky Mountains - A Field Guide. Canada: Lone Pine Publishing.

Ramsey, B. 1971. Ghost Towns of British Columbia. Vancouver: Mitchell Press Ltd.

Reeves, B.O.K. 1974 Prehistoric Archaeological Research on the Eastern Slopes Of The Canadian Rocky Mountains 1967–1971. Bulletin (Canadian Archaeological Association). No. 6 (1974), pp. 1-31.

Richards, T. H. & M. K. Rousseau 1987 Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication No. 16.

Simpcw Natural Resources, Title And Rights Department 2011 Harper Creek/YMI Preliminary Report In Support of Simpcw First Nation Strength of Claim in the Harper Creek Mine Area (Yellowhead Mining Inc.)

Simpcw First Nation Nd Simpcw Report On Jasper National Park Nd Simpcw Robson Valley Desk-Top Review, prepared by Eustache and Jules 2012 Simpcw Harper Creek TLUEK. On File with Simpcw First Nation. 2012 Simpcw Louis Creek Statement of Claim 2013 Simpcw Southern Boundaries Statement of Claim

Simpcw First Nation Natural Resources Department 2013 Research Report in Support of Simpcw First Nation Strength of Claim in the Robson Valley Area of British Columbia. Working Draft.

2013 Occupation and Use of the Southern Boundary Areas Between Simpcwel’ucw and Tk’emlupsTe Secwepemc. (DRAFT).

2013 SOC-Simpcwel’ucw Southern Boundaries Interview Research (A) Interviewees Chris Donald, Eddie Fortier, Ida Matthew, Louis Matthew, Henry Celesta, Ida Williams. Compiled by Eustache, Dodie,

2013 SOC-Simpcwel’ucw Southern Boundaries Research (B). Southern Boundary Archival Research-1984-88. Compiled by Eustache, Dodie.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 70 Simpcw First Nation –Land and Resource Use Study May 2014

Simpcw First Nation. 2005 Robson Valley Traditional Land and Resource Use Study. Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Anchor Loop Project. Draft.

2013 Research Report in Support of Simpcw First Nation Strength of Claim: In the Robson Valley Area of British Columbia. (Robson Valley SOC), Compiled by Banks, J. Draft.

Smith, P. T. 1993 A Very Respectable Man’: John Freemont Smith and the Kamloops Agency, 1912-1923. Simon Fraser University.

Smyth, D. 1985 Some Fur Trade Place Names of The Yellowhead Pass: West of The Summit to Tête Jaune Cache. Canoma (journal of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) Vol. 11, No. 2

Smyth, D. 1984-85 The Yellowhead Pass and the Fur Trade. BC STUDIES, no. 64.

Talbot, F.A. 1912 The Making Of A Great Canadian Railway. Seeley, Service & Co. LTD, London.

Taylor, C.J. 2010 Jasper: A History of the Place and Its People. United States: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.

Taylor. C. W. 1984 Tracks Across My Trail: Donald “Curly” Phillips, Guide and Outfitter. Alberta: Jasper- Yellowhead Historical Society.

Walker D. E., Sturtevant W. C, and D. E. Walker, Jr. 1998 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau.

Wheeler, M. 1979 The Robson Valley Story. McBride Robson Valley Story Group and Government of Canada’s New Horizon Program. McBride, BC, Canada.

Wilson, R. L. & C. Carlson 1980 The Archaeology of Kamloops. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication No.7.

Prepared by Simpcw First Nation Page 71