Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay (Kwadacha First Nation, Takla Lake First Nation and Tsay Keh Dene)

February 2017

Prepared for the Tsay Keh Nay

Authored by Brian Toth and Michelle Tung Ecologistics Resource Management Inc. Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 8 1 Introduction ...... 20 2 Scope of Assessment and Report Structure...... 23 3 Methodology ...... 23 3.1 Overview of the TKN’s Rights ...... 23 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 23 3.1.2 Aboriginal title, rights and interest ...... 23 3.1.2.1 Takla Lake First Nation ...... 23 3.1.2.2 Tsay Keh Dene First Nation ...... 26 3.1.2.3 Kwadacha First Nation ...... 30 3.2 Overview of historical and contemporary ecological context ...... 32 3.3 Territorial/Landscape‐Level Assessment ...... 32 3.4 Assessment of Current Status/Health of Key Indicators ...... 33 3.5 TKN’s Current Abilities to Exercise their Rights ...... 34 3.6 Project Effects and Impacts described in the Application ...... 34 3.7 Assessing Project Effects and Impacts based on Current Conditions ...... 35 3.8 Mitigation Options / Recommendations ...... 35 4 Summary of the Application Findings ...... 35 4.1 Project Description ...... 35 4.2 Aquatic Resources ...... 37 4.2.1 Aquatic Resource VCs assessed in the Application ...... 37 4.2.2 Overview of Application Conclusions ...... 39 4.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 41 4.3.1 Wildlife Resource VCs assessed in the Application ...... 41 4.3.2 Overview of Application Conclusions ...... 42 4.4 TKN’s Rights...... 44 5 Landscape Level Indicators ...... 49 5.1 Territorial Disturbance Analyses ...... 49 5.2 Riparian Forest Removal ...... 49 5.3 Road Density ...... 52 5.4 Equivalent Clearcut Area ...... 54 6 Biological Indicators ...... 57

February 2017 Page 1 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.1 Aquatic‐Fish ...... 57 6.1.1 Fisheries‐Aquatics Status Overview ...... 57 6.1.2 Fraser Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources ...... 58 6.1.2.1 Fraser Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context ...... 58 6.1.2.2 Fraser Watershed – Historical Environmental Context ...... 59 6.1.3 Skeena Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources ...... 76 6.1.3.1 Skeena Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context ..... 76 6.1.3.2 Skeena Watershed – Historical Environmental Context ...... 77 6.1.4 Upper Stikine Watershed (upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) – Aquatic‐Fish Resources 100 6.1.5 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources ...... 100 6.1.5.1 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context 100 6.1.5.2 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Historical Environmental Context ...... 101 6.1.6 Peace Watershed – Easter Slope Drainages ...... 122 6.1.6.1 Liard watershed ‐ (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) ...... 122 6.2 Wildlife ...... 123 6.2.1 Wildlife Management in TKN Territories ...... 123 6.2.2 Environmental Trends ...... 125 6.2.2.1 Historical Environmental Context and Trends ...... 125 6.2.2.2 Management Policy ...... 126 6.2.2.3 Outcomes (Current Context) ...... 126 6.2.3 Caribou ...... 126 6.2.3.1 Status ...... 128 6.2.3.2 Contributing factors/threats ...... 133 6.2.3.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Rights ...... 133 6.2.4 Moose ...... 134 6.2.4.1 Status ...... 134 6.2.4.2 Contributing factors/Threats ...... 137 6.2.4.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right ...... 138 6.2.5 Mountain Goat ...... 139 6.2.5.1 Status ...... 139 6.2.5.2 Contributing factors/Threats ...... 142 6.2.5.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right ...... 144

February 2017 Page 2 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.2.6 Stone’s Sheep ...... 145 6.2.6.1 Status ...... 146 6.2.6.2 Contributing Factors/Threats ...... 151 6.2.6.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right ...... 151 6.2.7 Hoary Marmot ...... 152 6.2.7.1 Status ...... 152 6.2.7.2 Contributing Factors/Threats ...... 152 6.2.7.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right ...... 153 6.2.8 Grizzly Bear ...... 153 6.2.8.1 Status ...... 153 6.2.8.2 Contributing Factors/Threats ...... 156 6.2.8.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right ...... 157 6.3 Summary; Status of Aquatic‐Fish and Wildlife and TKN’s Harvesting Rights ...... 157 6.3.1 Aquatics‐Fish ...... 158 6.3.2 Wildlife Summary ...... 160 7 Anticipated Project Impacts and Effects on TKN ...... 170 7.1 Project Impacts Relative to TKN Rights ...... 173 7.1.1 Takla Lake First Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) ...... 173 7.1.2 Takla Lake First Nation (Wildlife) ...... 174 7.1.3 TKD Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) ...... 176 7.1.4 TKD Nation (Wildlife) ...... 177 7.1.5 KFN Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) ...... 180 7.1.6 KFN Nation (Wildlife) ...... 180 7.1.7 Summary of Characterized Effects ...... 182 8 Conclusions ...... 191 9 Recommendations ...... 192 10 References Cited ...... 194

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Project impacts on TKN’s interests (ability to exercise) relative to each value assessed...... 17 Table 2. Application's Aquatic Resource VC's and Indicators...... 38 Table 3. Overview of Application Conclusions for Fish and Fish Habitat VCs ...... 40

February 2017 Page 3 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 4. Overview of Application’s conclusions for Caribou, Moose, Grizzly, Mountain Goat, and Hoary Marmot VC’s...... 43 Table 5. Summary of Potential Effects on TKN Rights related to Resource Harvesting (from Project Application)...... 46 Table 6. Riparian forest removal statistics for WAUs located within the TKN’s Territories ...... 50 Table 7. Road density statistics for the WAUs located within the TKN Territories...... 52 Table 8. ECA statistics for the WAUs located within the TKN’s Territories...... 55 Table 9. Nechako River chinook stocks and their assigned management unit, whether or not they are enumerated, and their presence within TLFN Territory...... 66 Table 10. Lake trout (char) populations within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area...... 70 Table 11. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Fraser portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources...... 73 Table 12. Sustut River fence counts 1992‐2005 (from Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007) and 2006‐2010 from annual reports...... 80 Table 13. Population estimates for adult steelhead in the lower Sustut/Bear River (from Baxter 1997). . 89 Table 14. Lake trout (char) populations within the Skeena watershed portion of the study area...... 94 Table 15. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Skeena portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources...... 95 Table 16. Lake trout (char) populations within the Peace watershed portion of the study area [from community (FISS database http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/fissSpeciesSelect.do)]...... 109 Table 17. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Peace‐ Williston portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to use those resources...... 116 Table 18. Game Management Zones (GMZs) and Management Units (MU’s) within KTN Territorial boundaries, by region...... 125 Table 19. Conservation Status and Current Trends of Local Caribou Populations in TKN Territories...... 131 Table 20. Moose population and trend estimates for provincial regions (from BC Ungulate Species Regional Population Estimates and Status Preseason 2014 (BC MFLNRO, 2014)...... 134 Table 21. A summary of moose population status/trend data relevant to TKN territories...... 137 Table 22. Mountain Goat population and trend estimates for provincial regions (from MFLNRO, 2014)...... 141 Table 23. Trend information on populations in TKD Territory...... 141 Table 24. Thinhorn sheep population and trend estimates (BC MFLNRO 2014)...... 146 Table 25. Stone Sheep Population Trends for GMZ’s in TKN Territories (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). 149 Table 26. Population Distributions and Descriptions (by Provincial Region)...... 150 Table 27. Assessed effects on Hoary Marmot; from the Project Application...... 152

February 2017 Page 4 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 28. Grizzly Bear Population Units – Status, Density and Population (summarized from BC MFLNRO 2012) ...... 155 Table 29. Summary of Wildlife Health/Status...... 163 Table 30. Summary of Project impacts on TKN’s interests (ability to exercise) relative to each value assessed...... 183 Table 31. Summary of fish status/trends, findings re ability to exercise rights, and relation to Project Impacts...... 184 Table 32. TKN Summary of wildlife status, findings re ability to exercise rights, and relation to Project Impacts...... 187

List of Figures Figure 1. Overview of the TKN’s Territories in relation to the Project location and major watersheds, parks and other features...... 22 Figure 2. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of KFN Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator...... 50 Figure 3. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of TKD Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator...... 51 Figure 4. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of Takla Lake First Nation Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator...... 51 Figure 5. Current Road Density Indicator levels within KFN Territory...... 53 Figure 6. Current Road Density Indicator levels within TKD Territory...... 53 Figure 7. Current Road Density Indicator levels within Takla Lake First Nation Territory...... 54 Figure 8. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of KFN Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category...... 55 Figure 9. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of TKD Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category...... 56 Figure 10. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of Takla Lake First Nation Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category...... 56 Figure 11. Takla Lake First Nation Territory (yellow), TKD Territory (orange), KFN (red) and provincial wildlife/fisheries management units (MUs) (purple)...... 58 Figure 12. Nechako River hydrograph: pre impoundment, diversion and regulation, and post (1980‐ 2000)...... 60 Figure 13. Early Stuart; spawner escapement, total run size, total catch and enroute loss as a % of escapement (only spawner escapement available 2012‐2015)...... 62 Figure 14. Late Stuart; spawner escapement, total run size, total catch and enroute loss as a % of escapement (only spawner escapement available 2012‐2015)...... 63

February 2017 Page 5 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 15. Number of 4‐yearold adult recruits per spawner (for all Fraser sockeye stocks adequately monitored to generate this information) – from https://www.watershed‐watch.org/issues/salmon‐ biodiversity/the‐fraser‐sockeye‐inquiry/...... 64

Figure 16. Escapement trends for Spring and Summer 52 (from Riddell et al 2013)...... 67 Figure 17. Trends in Babine (closed symbols) and non‐Babine (open symbols) sockeye salmon escapement and marine survival of Babine smolts (crosses) lagged to correspond to adults returning at age 5 (from Wood 2008)...... 77 Figure 18. Sustut River watershed overview map (Bear River watershed inset) ‐ from Gottesfeld and Rabnett (2007)...... 78 Figure 19. Trends in the proportions of adult (age 4 and age 5) Pinkut/Fulton and wild Babine Lake sockeye arriving at the Babine Lake counting fence, 1950‐2010. The trend lines are fitted by LOWESS (F=0.5) (from Cox‐Rogers and Spilsted 2012)...... 79 Figure 20. Estimates of spawning escapements from Azuklotz Creek/Lake and Bear Lake/River outlet (Note; Bear Lake shoals spawner counts seem to have been discontinued 1973‐2008) – from NuSEDs. . 83 Figure 21. Non‐enhanced Skeena sockeye nursery lakes juvenile sockeye biomass relative to nursery lake rearing capacity (from Connors et al 2013)...... 84 Figure 22. Timing of Skeena River entry for adult sockeye returning to the Bear and Babine (and other) systems (from Connors et al 2013)...... 85 Figure 23 (Right). Trends in non‐Babine sockeye escapements by sub‐area. The open circles in the top frame indicate total counts at the Sustut weir; horizontal dashed lines indicate provisional limit reference points (figure from Wood 2008)...... 86 Figure 24. Total estimated exploitation rate for aggregated sockeye CUs returning to the Sustut River (data from English et al 2016)...... 87 Figure 25. Modeled estimates of exploitation and escapement for Bear Lake sockeye (from English 2013)...... 87 Figure 26. Steelhead counts (including upper Sustut fence) 1992‐2013...... 88 Figure 27. Estimated escapement of Skeena Steelhead at the Tyee Test Fishery, 1956‐2015 (to the last day of the Fishery) – from Beere 2016...... 90 Figure 28. Chinook counts from the upper Sustut River Fence 1994‐2010...... 91 Figure 29. Annual visual spawner escapement estimates for Bear River Chinook, 1984‐2014...... 92 Figure 30. Escapement, harvests, and exploitation rate trends for Area 4 (Skeena) Coho (from English et al 2016)...... 93 Figure 31. Visual estimates of coho within the Bear River and tributaries (2002‐2014)...... 93 Figure 32. Peace‐Williston watershed (red line) with southern boundary (blue dashed line) of TKN study area (from FWSP 2014)...... 102 Figure 33. Depiction of inundation‐effects on low elevation stream channel/valley bottom habitats (from BC MoWLAP 2002)...... 103

February 2017 Page 6 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 34. Estimated number of kokanee spawners observed (from Langston 2012)...... 111 Figure 35. TKN Territory boundaries and Provincial MU’s (IMAP, provincial layers)...... 124 Figure 36. National Ecological Areas established by COSEWIC in 1994 (COSEWIC, 2002)...... 127 Figure 37. Caribou subpopulations in the Northern Mountain DU(7), Central Mountain DU (8) and Southern Mountain DU (9) (from COSEWIC 2014). The border between COSEWIC's Northern and Southern Mountain National Ecological Areas depicts the COSEWIC (2002) Northern and Southern Mountain Population boundaries...... 128 Figure 38. TKN Territory boundaries and caribou herd distribution/status...... 129 Figure 39. New herd boundary refinements for the caribou that reside in the zone of trace occurrence (ZTO) (from Sittler et al, 2015)...... 130 Figure 40. Distribution of mountain goats in British Columbia (Mountain Goat Management Team, 2010)...... 139 Figure 41. Population estimates of mountain goats in BC (from Kuzyck et al, 2012)...... 140 Figure 42. Summary of mountain goat harvest zones, general open season areas and hunting closures in the Peace Region (7B), British Columbia (from Wood, 2014)...... 142 Figure 43. Distribution of mountain sheep in British Columbia (from Kuzyk et al, 2012)...... 145 Figure 44. Population estimates of thinhorn sheep in BC (from Kuzyk et al, 2012)...... 147 Figure 45. Annual harvest of Stone’s sheep in BC from 1976‐2011 (from Kyzyk et al, 2012)...... 148 Figure 46. Grizzly Bear Population Units (2012). Environmental Reporting BC. From Grizzly Bear Population Status (Ministry of Environment (BC MoE), 2012, pg 2)...... 153 Figure 47. TKN Territory Boundaries and GBPU’s...... 154 Figure 48. Areas open (green) and closed (red) to Grizzly bear hunting in BC. Threatened units are identified by cross‐hatching. White areas within BC are extirpated or never occupied (from MFLRNO, 2012)...... 156

February 2017 Page 7 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Executive Summary Ecologistics Resource Management Inc. was retained by the Kwadacha First Nation (“KFN”), Takla Lake First Nation (“TLFN”) and Tsay Keh Dene (“TKD”) (collectively, the “the Tsay Keh Nay” or “TKN”) to assess: i. the current conditions of key biological indicators relevant to the TKN’s Aboriginal title, rights and interests (the “Rights”) taking into account effects of past and ongoing land and resource use, and underlying environmental trends; and

ii. the impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s (“AuRico”) proposed Kemess Underground Project (the “Project”) on the TKN’s Rights. In this assessment, we identify biological indicators central to the TKN’s Rights, and summarize available information regarding the current “status or health” of each of these indicators. Where the status or health of an indicator is of a diminished state, we identify and note the contributing factors to that diminished state. We then characterize the Project’s impacts on TKN Rights relative to the existing baseline conditions, including the status or health of fish and wildlife populations and TKN members’ ability to meaningfully exercise their Rights. The Project AuRico submitted an environmental assessment application (the “Application”) for the Project in 2016. The Project is an underground gold and copper mine located approximately 310km northwest of Mackenzie, which has the potential to adversely impact each of the TKN’s Rights. In particular, the Project has the potential to adversely affect the abilities of TKN members to exercise their harvesting rights. Background Context to Current Conditions The following background trends and historical effects to environmental values within TKN’s Territories have had, and continue to have, significant adverse impacts on the TKN members’ ability to meaningfully exercise their Rights:  Climate change related trends, including warming air and water temperatures, and shifting precipitation and run‐off patterns, which caused the following environmental effects in TKN Territories:

o large‐scale forest health issues; o fires and salvage logging; o altered stream thermographs/hydrographs; o large‐scale terrestrial habitat disturbance and alteration, with corresponding effects on wildlife species; and

o shifting discharge regimes, warming stream temperatures and lower summer flows adversely effecting fish health.

February 2017 Page 8 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 The impoundment and regulation of the Peace River and the creation of the Williston and Dinosaur reservoirs, which has caused the following widespread environmental effects in the TKN Territories:

o inundated watersheds, including river‐bottom habitats that were central to traditional use, including travelling, seasonal occupation, and harvesting and gathering and related cultural practices;

o shifts in fish fauna and their distribution within the reservoir‐affected areas; o alienation of lands; and o fish toxicity effects.  The diversion, impoundment and regulation of the Nechako River which has adversely affected fish populations utilized by TKN.  The enhancement of sockeye runs returning to Babine Lake (Pinkut and Fulton) and subsequent focused high‐exploitation commercial fisheries that intercept non‐enhanced stocks at non‐ sustainable rates. These issues have resulted in well documented and ongoing adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem health, and on the biological resources that TKN Territories are capable of supporting. All of these issues have constrained the ability of TKN members to meaningfully exercise their Rights. These factors serve as “background‐context” to the current condition of environmental values and biological indicators within TKN Territories. Landscape Disturbances We assessed landscape‐level indicators of riparian forest removal, road density and equivalent clear‐cut area (“ECA”) based on watershed assessment units (“WAUs”) in each of the TKN Territories. Key findings for each of TKN Territory include the following:  KFN Territory – A total of 879 WAUs assessed:

o Riparian Forest Removal: . 5.2% of WAUs assessed are at high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values; and . 3.5% of WAUs assessed are at medium risk for adverse effects on aquatic values.

o Road Density: . 3.6% of WAUs assessed exceed the accepted threshold for grizzly bear population sustainability.

o ECA: . 5.1% of WAUs assessed exceed high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values and indicate highly altered terrestrial/forest landscape.

February 2017 Page 9 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 TKD Territory – A total of 879 WAUs assessed:

o Riparian Forest Removal: . 8.5% of WAUs assessed are at high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values; and . 10.2% of WAUs assessed are at medium risk for adverse effects on aquatic values.

o Road Density: . 26.3% of WAUs assessed exceed the accepted threshold for grizzly bear population sustainability.

o ECA: . 5.6% of WAUs assessed exceed high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values and indicate highly altered terrestrial/forest landscape.

 Takla Lake First Nation Territory – A total of 959 WAUs assessed:

o Riparian Forest Removal: . 9.7% of WAUs assessed are at high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values; and . 14.8% of WAUs assessed are at medium risk for adverse effects on aquatic values.

o Road Density: . 37.5% of WAUs assessed exceed the accepted threshold for grizzly bear population sustainability.

o ECA: . 5.8% of WAUs assessed exceed high risk for adverse effects on aquatic values and reflect highly altered terrestrial/forest landscape. As indicated above, landscape disturbance is variable within each TKN Territory, and indicator‐risk levels are generally heightened from north to south (largely related to forestry). The adverse effects of two of the three land use indicators assessed (i.e., riparian forest removal and ECA) are cumulative with the climate change trend‐effects (i.e., altered run‐off patterns, and warming stream temperatures). Assessment of the Health‐Status of Fish and Wildlife Species Given the size of the TKN Territories, we undertook an assessment of the health‐status of fish species that the TKN rely on to exercise their fishing Rights at the major watershed level, and the health‐status of wildlife species at the population or sub‐population level. Where populations or sub‐populations under consideration had not been formally assessed and assigned a status, status was inferred from population trend data, regulatory measures, or other means. The current status of the fish and wildlife resources assessed are summarized below.

February 2017 Page 10 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Aquatic Resources: Current Status 1. Fraser Watershed o Salmon (sockeye, chinook and coho): Poor status; (i.e. species on a declining escapement trends and are unavailable for harvest in some years and available in other years at levels insufficient to meet TKN needs, due to low returning abundance, restricted allocation and/or conservation closure) o Sturgeon: Extremely poor status – COSEWIC/SARA‐listed Endangered; (i.e. population is listed under the Species at Risk Act as Endangered (prohibitions restrict harm); population has suffered a recruitment failure due to the damming, diversion and regulation of the Nechako River) o Other resident fish stocks (trout, char, whitefishes, burbot, minnows/chub, suckers, etc.): assumed to be healthy status but information deficient (used by TKN but stocks are generally not actively managed/monitored)

2. Skeena Watershed o Salmon . Sockeye (Bear): chronically underperforming (low escapements) due to over exploitation; highly sought after and used by TKN . Sockeye (Sustut, Asitka, Johanson): small stocks and data limited/suspected to be declining and underperforming . Chinook (Bear): declining returning spawner abundance, highly used . Coho (primarily returning to the Bear): returns improving recently, highly used late in salmon harvesting season . Steelhead (Sustut/Bear): Bear population not monitored; returns improving, highly used o Resident fish stocks (trout, char, whitefishes, burbot, minnows/chub, suckers, etc.): status is assumed secure due to remoteness of area; information deficient (used by TKN but stocks are generally not actively managed/monitored)

3. Peace‐Williston Watershed o Reservoir affected areas: transition to a reservoir environment has had numerous adverse effects on key species including Arctic grayling (est. 1% of their historical abundance) and mountain whitefish – both known to be of very diminished status relative to pre‐impoundment; other species have benefited from habitat transition, including bull trout, lake trout, lake white fish, and kokanee. o Lake trout (non‐reservoir populations): 9 of 28 naturally occurring lake dwelling populations demonstrate overharvest or heightened sensitivity to harvest.

February 2017 Page 11 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

o Dolly Varden: unique to Finlay and Ingenika river headwater drainages. Kemess/Thutade area population has had contamination issues due to Kemess South (“KS”). 4. Peace‐Eastern Slopes o Remote headwaters of Halfway/Graham rivers; non‐reservoir affected at present (rivers drain into the Peace River downstream of Peace Canyon Dam). TKN area within this watershed is largely upstream of fish barriers, so contains largely isolated populations of fish. The fish values are assumed to be of high value and of healthy status but there is no monitoring information to support this assumption. 5. Upper Stikine (Upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida):

o Important traditional use area with substantial ecotourism. Very limited inventory information available and no monitoring information that would inform a status assessment. Largely within protected areas and fish values suspected to be healthy 6. Liard (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash): o Important traditional use area with substantial ecotourism. Very limited inventory information available. Largely within protected areas and parks and fish values suspected to be healthy due to remoteness. Issues identified with recent increased access and use by non/TKN licenced hunters/anglers via increased fly‐in and jet boat access and concerns over localized harvest and disturbance in more easily accessed areas. Wildlife Resources: Current Status 1. Caribou: There are 12 recognized caribou populations within the TKN area: o The northern most populations (Spatsizi, Rabbit, Muskwa, Gataga, Pink Mountain and Frog) are information deficient for the purposes of understanding their numerical trends. They are generally located in remote, undeveloped areas and support licenced hunter harvest under General Open Season regulations (“GOS”). o Six (6) populations within the TKN area (Finlay, Graham, Chase, Wolverine, Takla, and Scott) are recognized to be in declines of varying severity. o The Finlay, Chase, Wolverine, Graham and Takla populations have declined and are expected to continue to decline. o The Scott population has been extirpated from much if its range, and is designated Endangered.

2. Moose: Limited contiguous survey‐monitoring information is available for moose within the majority of the TKN area. Where information is available, it does not suggest a broadscale decline within the area, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. Moose are of considerable interests to TKN due to their integral support of sustenance needs.

3. Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep: There is insufficient information available to assess the health of mountain goat and stone’s sheep populations. The Province is of the view that the status of

February 2017 Page 12 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

these species within the TKN area is stable based on available licenced hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. TKN has noted range retractions for both species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access), forestry and mining, and licensed hunting pressure.

4. Grizzly bear: The populations of grizzly bears within the TKN area are recognized as viable, but disturbance indicators related to development pressures are likely adversely affecting the two primary populations within the area.

5. Hoary marmot: The provincial status is considered secure, and within the TKN area there is an absence of inventory and monitoring information. Assessment of the Baseline‐Context of the Ability to Exercise The abilities of the TKN to exercise their rights within the TKN area is highly correlated to the status of key fish and wildlife species within the TKN area. An assessment of the TKN’s current abilities to exercise those rights within the TKN area is provided below, and considers (i) documented historical environmental effects, (ii) current levels of habitat disturbances within the TKN’s Territories, and (iii) current status of key biological indicators. These findings were assigned to the following categories:  Not constrained; ability to exercise is largely intact

 Moderately constrained; ability to exercise is possible but constrained in some minor‐to‐ moderate manner (e.g. population(s) is below a desired level, access is constrained by range retraction or other factor, harvesting conditions are adversely effected, etc.)

 Highly constrained; access/harvest is not possible in some years, and/or otherwise constrained below the level desired to meet the need

 Fully constrained; access/harvest not possible Aquatic Resources: Impact on TKN’s Rights) 1. Fraser Summary: TKN members’ ability to meaningfully exercise fish harvesting rights within the Fraser watershed portion of the Territories is highly constrained.

2. Skeena Summary: TKN members’ ability to exercise fish harvesting rights in the Skeena watershed is not presently constrained, but there is considerable risk to harvesting rights due to external influences (marine exploitation and productivity) and limited monitoring (harvesting beyond sustainable levels).

3. Peace‐Williston Summary: TKN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Peace‐Williston is highly constrained due to the large‐scale habitat alterations that occurred as a result of reservoir creation, and related direct effects on traditional use sites, fish faunal transition, and toxicity issues (real and perceived).

4. Peace‐Eastern Slopes Summary: TKN’s Rights to harvest fish from Peace‐Eastern slope drainages are not constrained.

February 2017 Page 13 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

5. Upper Stikine Summary: TKN’s Rights to harvest fish from the upper Stikine are not constrained.

6. Liard Summary: TKN’s Rights to harvest fish from the Liard portion of the TKN area are not constrained. Wildlife Resources: Impact on TKN’s Rights i. Caribou: The TKN’s use of caribou is constrained by declining abundance and range contraction largely due to habitat alteration and disturbance. Declines are predicted to continue and worsen:

a. The ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights is moderately constrained on the 6 most northern populations within the TKN area, and

b. The ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights is highly constrained on the 6 southern populations within the TKN area

ii. Moose: The ability of TKN to harvest moose is moderately constrained by what are suspected to be localized effects on abundance due to concentrated effort and harvest in areas where moose habitat and access coincide. Access to moose of particular importance to TKN due to challenges related to harvesting caribou.

iii. Goat and Stone’s sheep: The TKN’s ability to harvest these species is moderately constrained based on historical effects.

iv. Grizzly: The TKN’s ability to harvest this species is not constrained.

v. Hoary Marmot: At present, it is assumed that the TKN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights in relation to Hoary Marmot is not constrained. These findings (in relation to ability to meaningfully exercise harvesting rights) reflect the concerns expressed by leadership, membership and technical personnel (from each of the TKN First Nations). Given environmental trends and land use pressures as well as the health or status of the key biological indicators assessed herein, the ability of TKN members to meaningfully exercise their corresponding Rights is expected to be increasingly constrained relative to existing conditions. As such, any incremental effects interacting with the current effects, environmental trends and causative factors described above, should be considered within a framework of heightened sensitivity and magnitude – in other words, as the current conditions already reflect considerable adverse environmental effects and significant adverse impacts on the TKN’s Rights, any further environmental effects and corresponding impacts to TKN Rights are significant from TKN’s perspective – i.e. they should be qualified as “high magnitude” and “severe”.

February 2017 Page 14 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Project Effects Assessment Important means by which the Project will potentially interact with the Territories and impact Aboriginal Rights of the TKN First Nations associated with the land, waters, air, and resources in the Territories include the following: 1. Biophysical impacts on wildlife: The Project is predicted to have localized impacts on wildlife behaviour, including movement patterns and habitat use, and direct effects on terrestrial/wildlife habitats. It is also predicted that the Project will result in the mortality of hoary marmots and destruction of their habitats. TKN management and use of the land, and harvesting and associated cultural practices within the Project area will be precluded by the access restrictions associated with the Project. The Project area will adversely affect moose, caribou, grizzly and hoary marmots through habitat alteration and disruption, and the TKN’s abilities to exercise their harvesting rights for those species will also be adversely affected. 2. Biophysical impacts on aquatic species: Aquatic values are anticipated to (continue to) be adversely effected by waste rock and tailings management, and related seepage, wastewater and effluent management. These issues will result in adverse effects to water quality and quantity that will adversely affect fish and their habitat within the receiving environment. Fishing areas within the access restricted zone will be unavailable for use. TKN‐use in areas downstream of the access restricted zone will be affected by perception risk. Adverse effects on fish and fish habitat within streams/lakes receiving mine effluent and seepage/wastewater are cumulative to adverse effects on watershed health and dolly varden/bull trout relating to KS, and may eliminate additional harvesting opportunities. 3. Additional disturbed areas: The mine site and ore/wastewater transport corridor will impact the ecology of the lands and waters in the Territories, and alienate lands from TKN’s use. The “disturbed area” includes the disturbed and operational areas of the mine, and a buffer. 4. Restricted access to a large area in TKN Territories: The total amount of land that would be restricted from TKN access and use as a result of the access restrictions implemented in relation to the Project and KS would be approximately 4,480 ha (Nov 9, 2016 memo to CEAA). 5. Occupation of TKN Territories: Additional lands within the Territories that will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKN entities (Increased area of lands alienated from traditional uses or other TKN objectives). 6. Delayed reclamation and restoration of KS lands: The continued use of areas previously disturbed for KS that will delay their reclamation. 7. Contamination of water: Additional (to KS) contaminated wastewater, seepage and tailing storage facility (“TSF”) effluent that directly affect aquatic and terrestrial values and also poses addition environmental risk, predicted to result in: a. Altered water quality and hydrology in downstream areas; and, b. Further deterrence to traditional use through TKN members’ perception of risk relating to effluent and toxicity (environmental health) effects. 8. Increases in industrial traffic, noise, dust, etc.

February 2017 Page 15 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

a. Deterring traditional use due to access restrictions in the Restricted Area and potentially through alterations in the environmental setting within a broader area. 9. Increased access to the Territories by non‐TKN members: Improved/maintained access corridors into the Territories. a. Potentially facilitating increasing numbers of resident hunters and anglers accessing the Territories in the vicinity of the Project because of well‐maintained access, increasing competition for resources and increasing harvest of resources. Both will adversely impact the ability of TKN members to exercise their Rights. 10. Increased risk to the Territories and Aboriginal RIghts of the TKN First Nations: Potential accidents and malfunctions arising from the construction and operation of the Project, including as a result of a breach of the TSF, will introduce a significant risk of damage being caused to the Territories and the Aboriginal title and rights of the First Nations. 11. The Project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise their Rights. The Project also has the potential to cause the following effects and risks for TKN (that were not identified by AuRico in its Application):  Well‐maintained vehicular access into the area and the restart of KS mine infrastructure (i.e. processing plant) associated with the Project has the potential to facilitate additional mineral exploration work, which increases the potential for additional exploration‐related and mining‐ related impacts on TKN’s interests.

 Accidents or malfunctions associated with dangerous goods or hazardous materials could impact waterways with effects on water quality and/or fish, or other values associated with wetland habitats. They could also result in contamination of terrestrial habitat.

Effects Characterization We related these potential Project impacts and effects on each TKN First Nation taking into consideration the information described above with respect to each Territory regarding: a. background context of environmental disturbance/alteration and trends;

b. fish and wildlife population statuses;

c. findings with respect to the related baseline of the “ability to exercise”; and,

d. findings with respect to the Project’s impacts relative to that baseline (i.e. will it worsen that baseline, and to what degree)

Using the following “effects characterization system”, we concluded the Project’s effects on TKN’s interests in the fish and wildlife values assessed as summarized in Table 1. • Negligible impact – no detectable impact or any change from current conditions;

• Negligible‐to‐minor – some detectable impacts or change from current condition;

February 2017 Page 16 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

• Minor impact – ability to exercise the right is minimally disrupted;

• Minor‐to‐moderate – ability to exercise the right is more than minimally disrupted;

• Moderate impact – ability to exercise the right has been diminished or disrupted;

• Moderate‐to‐serious – ability to exercise the right has been more than moderately diminished; and

• Serious impact – ability to exercise the right has been significantly diminished. Table 1. Summary of Project impacts on TKN’s interests (ability to exercise) relative to each value assessed.

Fisheries TKN Mountain Interests Hoary First Caribou Moose Goat and Grizzly Peace‐ Marmot Nation Stone Sheep Williston Moderate Minor‐to‐ Minor‐to‐ Minor Negligible‐ Negligible KFN impact moderate moderate impact to‐minor impact Serious Serious Moderate Minor Negligible‐ Negligible‐ TLFN impact impact impact impact to‐minor to‐minor Serious Serious Moderate Minor Negligible‐ Negligible‐ TKD impact impact impact impact to‐minor to‐minor

While the Project alone is not anticipated to have detrimental effects on the status of key species supporting TKNs’ Rights, or alter or alienate large proportions of the TKN area from TKN‐use, the Project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species, and/or other factors impacting the abilities of the TKN to exercise their harvesting Rights. We conclude there is a strong rationale for characterizing the Project’s effects on the TKN’s interests as being of a high magnitude, and as severe in some cases. In particular, key adverse effects of the Project on TKN’s interests (as outlined in Section 7 and Tables 31 and 32) include: 1. The Project’s potential adverse effects on aquatic values (water quality/quantity and toxicity) and TKN’s interests (alienation of fishing areas, perpetuation of perception risks, etc.) within the Peace‐Williston watershed are characterized as being Serious due to the highly constrained baseline of the ability of TLFN and TKD to exercise fishing rights.

2. The Project’s potential adverse effects on caribou (mortality and loss of habitat/use) and TKN’s interests (alienation of hunting areas and population conservation and recovery) are characterized as being Serious due to the highly constrained baseline of the ability of TLFN and TKD to exercise caribou harvesting rights (and moderate constraints on moose harvesting rights).

February 2017 Page 17 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Application Findings In the Application, AuRico anticipated that the Project would result in residual adverse effects on the Aboriginal Rights of TLFN, TKD and KFN. Adverse effects related to TKN’s resource harvesting that are identified in the Application include:  Limit on the utility of hunting of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the local study area (“LSA”) due to altered animal movement.  Limits on continuity (sense of place) with respect to fishing in Amazay Lake and or plant gathering around Almazy Lake due to sensory disturbance. In the Application AuRico concluded that, on the basis of the small scale and scope of the affected area, the mitigation measures proposed, the low magnitude and local extent of potential effects, and ongoing engagement with TKN, these effects were not significant. AuRico was requested by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (“CEAA”) to provide additional consideration of the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes (“CULRTP”) and Aboriginal Rights relative to a pre‐disturbance baseline (prior to access restrictions related to Kemess South ~ 1996). The results of that additional consideration is summarized in a memo to CEAA dated November 9, 2016, and includes the following findings: In relation to the displacement of TKN‐use:  Based on a 500 metre buffer around the KUG Project and the Kemess South site, the area to which access will be restricted is approximately 4,480ha (the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use).  The displacement of TKN First Nations’ land use activities as a result of the KUG Project is rated as not significant (residual). In relation to the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices:  Based on the 4,480ha access restricted zone, and that the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use (TKN First Nations utilize ridges, hillsides, mountains, creeks, and lakes in the vicinity of the KUG Project in general, rather than in site‐specific, ways).  The potential limitation on the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact. Confidence in the rating is moderate. The additional consideration results in the following changes to the Application:  In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 20 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to displace TKN First Nations’ CULRTP activities from the Project Area, in comparison with pre‐disturbance conditions. Following the application of mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated not significant.  In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 21 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to reduce the spatial extent within which TKN First Nations have the ability to exercise Aboriginal harvesting and social and ceremonial rights. Following the application of mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated as having a low impact on TKN First Nations Aboriginal rights.

February 2017 Page 18 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary Conclusions We’ve concluded that there is a strong rationale for characterizing the Project’s effects as being of a high magnitude, and as severe in some cases. This is in contrast to the Application findings, which characterized all effects on the TKN’s interests as residual/low impact. The difference between the findings of the Application and the assessment presented herein stem from differences in methodologies/approaches that include:  The assessment presented herein was based on the spatial context of the TKN Territories and fish and wildlife supporting harvesting Rights within the Territories, whereas the Application was based on limited study areas related to the Project and its components.  AuRico did not contemplate the TKN’s current ability to exercise their Rights in their Territories; conversely, in this assessment, current conditions were assessed based on the health‐status (availability) of key fish and wildlife species that support the meaningful exercise of the TKN’s Rights. The lack of consideration of the TKNs’ current “abilities to exercise” their Rights within AuRico’s assessment leads to residual impacts either not being recognized or being characterized as insignificant.  In this assessment, adverse effects on indicators (and causative factors) that have exceeded recognized risk‐impact thresholds, or are declining, are appropriately characterized as being significant or more consequential, respectively. In this report, we recommend mitigation measures that relate to issues and concerns identified during this study, as well as information gaps observed.

February 2017 Page 19 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 1 Introduction In May 2016, AuRico submitted the Application for the Project, which is an underground gold and copper mine located approximately 310km northwest of Mackenzie. The Project has the potential to adversely impact each of the TKN’s Rights. The following components of the Project are proposed within the TKN’s Territories:  underground facilities (access and haulage decline, conveyor and conveyor decline, ventilation intake decline, cave gallery, gyratory crusher, ventilation system and exhaust raise, water sumps and pumps, garages, electrical substation, warehouse, storage, and explosives magazines, refuge stations, and lunchroom);  surface portal facilities (offices, workshop, stores, decline ventilation system, waste stockpile, ore stockpile, topsoil stockpiles, laydown areas, fuel storage tank, water handling infrastructure);  access corridor (road, tunnel, surface conveyor, power transmission line, underground dewatering pipeline);  Tailings Storage Facility (TSF); subaqueous storage of waste rock and tailings, and East Dam  Concrete‐shotcrete batch plant; and  New water management components at KS Mine site (water treatment plants within or adjacent to existing process plant, discharge pipelines from KUG TSF to Attichika Creek, diversion infrastructure). Existing infrastructure that will be used and modified for the Project includes the following facilities:  KS Mine process plant;  Ore stockpile area adjacent to the process plant;  Transport network for materials and concentrate (transportation via the existing ORAR and rail load‐out facility at Mackenzie);  Administration and accommodation facilities;  Potable water facility and sewage treatment facility;  Process water pipeline;  Explosives magazines;  Power network (existing 230‐kV power line from BC Hydro Kennedy substation, step‐down transformers, and backup diesel generators);  All‐weather gravel airstrip; and  Access to ventilation raise via existing exploration access roads. The provincial and federal environmental assessment processes are intended to assess Project impacts and environmental effects through a standardized process, as outlined in the corresponding legislation. However, this approach has been widely criticized as being incongruent with First Nations’ perspectives. For example, the UFFCA (2014) recently scoped the environmental assessment processes for key

February 2017 Page 20 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay process and methodologies that contributed to an incongruence of perspectives. Key problem areas identified included:  consideration of impacts and effects at scales that do not align with First Nations’ interests (spatial, biological, temporal);  lack of comprehensive assessments of current conditions, and the thresholds that were used to characterize effects;  lack of recognition of effects (despite mitigation);  absence of cumulative effects thresholds; and  lack of recognition of the incongruence between guiding environmental assessment legislation and policy and First Nations’ Aboriginal Rights, and how they are contemplated (within the process). In light of these deficiencies, this assessment seeks to outline the TKN’s Rights, consider their current status‐health or integrity, and then assess the impacts and effects of the Project within this context. Note that this assessment does not contemplate the technical soundness/adequacy or sufficiency of the Application. The approach adopted in this assessment is intended to overcome the inherent challenges within the provincial and federal environmental assessment processes that can lead to disparate results, and is intended to contribute to a mutual understanding of perspectives regarding the environmental effects of the Project and the corresponding impacts on the TKN’s Territories and Rights. The following map (Figure 1) provides an overview of the TKN’s Territories in relation to the Project location and major watersheds, parks and other features.

February 2017 Page 21 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 1. Overview of the TKN’s Territories in relation to the Project location and major watersheds, parks and other features.

February 2017 Page 22 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 2 Scope of Assessment and Report Structure We took the following steps to assess the environmental effects of the Project, and the corresponding impacts on the TKN’s Rights: 1. The authors’ current understanding of the TKN’s Rights for the purposes of this Project were first described and “framed” to produce a common understanding of associated environmental matters that need to be subject to the environmental assessment process. 2. The TKN area was then scoped relative to key historical effects that influence the current condition of the environment and the TKN’s ability to exercise their Rights. Key environmental trends within the TKN’s Territories were also identified at this stage. 3. Landscape‐level indicators were then assessed for each of the TKN’s Territories to understand the current condition of each Territory relative to land and resource use pressures, and potential sensitivity to additional disturbance. 4. Key biological resources that are central to the TKN’s Rights (as described above) were then assessed in terms of their current health‐status. 5. This information was then used to build and inform an understanding of the existing status‐ health of the TKN’s Rights. 6. The environmental effects of the Project that are relevant to the TKN’s Rights were then summarized based on the information presented in the Application. 7. Based on this information, the associated adverse effects of the Project, and corresponding impacts on the TKN’s Rights, were characterized.

3 Methodology 3.1 Overview of the TKN’s Rights TKN has provided the authors with the following description of their Aboriginal Rights in relation to the Project. 3.1.1 Introduction Each of the TKNs is a “band” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c 1‐5, and their members are “aboriginal peoples of Canada” within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 3.1.2 Aboriginal title, rights and interest

3.1.2.1 Takla Lake First Nation Ancestors of Takla Lake First Nation’s (“TLFN”) have occupied, hunted, fished, gathered, travelled, governed, acted as stewards of, and raised families on the lands waters within the Territory since time immemorial. The lands and waters have provided TLFN people with spirituality, sustenance, economy and transportation. TLFN’s ancestors lived this way at contact (in or around 1793) and at the time of the British Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in 1846. Further, prior to contact, TLFN’s ancestors also each

February 2017 Page 23 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay operated according to legal orders that governed their peoples’ use of lands, waters and natural resources, which is the source of TLFN’s stewardship practices today. Despite a degree of interruption caused by modern factors including ongoing industrial development, TLFN members continue to rely on a variety of resources, live in villages, occupy semi‐permanent campsites and harvest resources on a regular and seasonal basis throughout the Territory. Accordingly, TLFN holds Aboriginal Rights throughout the Territory, including to the lands, waters, airsheds and resources therein. TLFN has identified specific Aboriginal Rights that will be adversely impacted by the Project. These Aboriginal Rights are described individually below, but are often closely tied to one another, with impacts on one having potentially wide‐ranging impacts on others. TLFN’s Aboriginal title is properly regarded as carrying with it the right to possess lands in the Territory and exclusively occupy, use and control the Territory for its members’ benefit. Case law of the Supreme Court of Canada also confirms that Aboriginal title includes incidental rights to (i) exercise authority and jurisdiction over, (iii) decide on current and future uses, and (ii) actively use and manage its Territory, including the water, land, air and resources therein, in accordance with TLFN’s laws, customs and practices. Closely tied to these concepts is the right or ability to benefit from uses of the land and the resources therein, or put another way, TLFN’s economic interests. This includes deriving benefits from the Territory and pursuing economic development opportunities in a variety of ways; whether related or unrelated to modern forms or natural resource development and extraction. In addition, this encompasses accessing and using natural resources by preferred means, which use includes wild foods for the contemporary TLFN community and its ancestors, as well as for sale, trade, or barter as TLFN’s ancestors did historically. Additionally, TLFN continues to govern and conduct itself in a manner which is respectful of certain customary principles of environmental integrity and stewardship. For example, it continues to require regular access to an environment that is not significantly degraded and is capable of sustaining (i) the ecosystems therein, (ii) a robust subsistence economy and (ii) TLFN and its members both today and into the future. Prior to contact with Europeans, TLFN operated according to a legal order that governed the use of lands, waters and natural resources (a system of individual landholding or occupation called k’eyukh). This forms the basis for stewardship practices today. This stewardship governance practice corresponds to a well‐established legal mandate under customary law which requires TLFN to manage the lands and resources in the Territory in a sustainable way. This springs from, and sustains a legal responsibility imposed on TLFN by its own system of laws that dictates how lands must be managed and resources must be harvested. TLFN therefore continues to use its lands and resources in a manner reflective of its historical and inherent role as steward of the Territory, including by using its detailed collective knowledge and historical occupation of the Territory to maintain an understanding of its overall health and to ensure long‐term sustainability. Significant numbers of young TLFN adults continue to use lands and resources within the Territory today. This is a strong indication of TLFN’s continued, strong relationship with the land in the Territory, and TLFN’s future ability and capacity to act as stewards in that regard.

February 2017 Page 24 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TLFN’s stewardship obligations require it to sustain healthy ecosystems in the Territory, including through the k’eyukh system’s allocation of resources, with a view to maintaining these resources as a viable foundation for TLFN members’ sustenance and culture, both today and for the benefit of future generations. Consulting with, and receiving direction from members and k’eyukh holders is also a vital aspect of TLFN’s approach to stewardship. Coupled with these practices related to environmental integrity and stewardship is the act of actually accessing, harvesting, using and enjoying the benefits of natural resources for desired purposes – for cultural, ceremonial, spiritual, subsistence, economic and/or other reasons – and to do so in a preferred manner. Incidental and essential to this is the ability to safely travel unobstructed over the lands and waters throughout the Territory. Specific resources that are of historical and contemporary importance to TLFN include the following:  a variety of fish, including salmon, whitefish, char, trout, ling and suckers;

 large and small game, including caribou, moose, mountain sheep, goats, bear, rabbit, marmot, porcupine, beaver, otter, squirrel, marten, fisher, lynx, wolverine, grouse and a variety of waterfowl;

 berries (including rose hips, lingonberries, high‐bush cranberries, soapberries, strawberries, raspberries, huckleberries, kinnikinnick and crowberries) and roots, fruits, mushrooms, tree cambium, shoots, leaves, flowers and lichens associated with a broad variety of plants;

 trees, for firewood, structural, and medicinal purposes; and

 earthen material, such as stones and gravel. Essential to carrying out these practices and accessing these resources, and vice versa, is the maintenance of individual and community health, which is itself comprised of maintaining conditions conducive to healthy bodies, minds, and spirits (i.e., to the intertwined environmental, cultural, spiritual, social and economic conditions that ensure the well‐being of individuals and of TLFN as a whole). This cannot be achieved without equitable socio‐economic conditions for TLFN and its members. In the latter regard, as previously mentioned, there is also an inescapable economic component to TLFN’s connection to the Territory and its title and rights: to continue, as it has in the past, to benefit from the use of its lands and resources. The trapping of fur bearing animals, for example, was and continues to be an important part of TLFN’s subsistence economy. Of particular concern to TLFN at present is the preservation of its forest resources. The Territory’s forests in particular have always been and remain a vital, irreplaceable part of TLFN’s traditional way of life and practices. They are home to the animals that TLFN members hunt and trap, and the plants, medicines and timber that are harvested and used for consumption, ceremony, economy, traveling via trails, art, to bury the dead, and to build homes and hunting cabins. TLFN’s way of life cannot be readily separated from the forests that surround it and its members. TLFN and its members are part of the forest, and vice versa. The increase in logging in recent years in the Territory has been a central and growing concern to TLFN and its members. The Territory holds one of the last remaining significant expanses of forest in the region, and as such in the last few years has increasingly become the target of numerous logging

February 2017 Page 25 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay companies. Already, TLFN is seeing evidence of many significant and adverse impacts from these activities. It appears at present to TLFN that there is too much timber harvesting happening too quickly. Significant volumes of timber have already been removed from the Territory, and many logging trucks continue to leave the Territory loaded with logs from trees in the Territory every day. These forestry activities continue to cause very significant damaging effects to the Territory and the wildlife that lives in it, including in particular to caribou, grizzly bears and fur‐bearing animals that remain central to TLFN’s way of life, sustenance and spirituality. The significant increase in logging activity is one of many ongoing impacts in the Territory that now tangibly threaten TLFN’s way of life. Significant portions of the Territory have already been lost to land alienation. Agricultural uses, mining, fee simple land ownership, and Crown expropriation or other use and rights‐of‐way have all removed significant tracts of harvesting lands. This alienation has already caused significant impacts on the Nation’s use of their Territory. These factors have taken a significant toll on the Territory, and the cumulative impact of all these activities appear to be of overwhelming import with respect to TLFN’s Aboriginal Rights. For that reason, the impacts of additional resource extraction project (and increased resource extraction by existing projects) are of utmost concern to TLFN. This is particularly true in relation to the KUG Project. Finally, there are also many archaeological, spiritual and cultural sites and practices throughout the Territory which are of prime importance to TLFN and its members. The survival of TLFN’s unique culture depends on the preservation and protection of both the existence and sanctity of these important archaeological, spiritual and cultural sites and to ensure they are kept physically intact for current and future generations. In addition to maintaining TLFN and its members’ connection to the land, such uninhibited, undisturbed, and private access to these sites is essential to fostering TLFN’s ongoing sense of community (including Elder‐youth interactions) and providing traditional knowledge holders and Elders with opportunities to share history, knowledge, traditional ways and skills with other members, including youth. What can or cannot occur at these key sites is of critical importance: of the many places of spiritual and cultural significance to TLFN throughout the Territory, included are many burial sites, places for acquiring spiritual powers, meeting and ceremonial grounds, and other places rich in oral histories and important to the teachings of TLFN laws and culture. TLFN’s fasting ceremonies in particular cannot be carried out at these sacred places if they have been disturbed or altered.

3.1.2.2 Tsay Keh Dene First Nation Ethnohistorical sources report that at the time the British Crown assumed sovereignty over British Columbia, the Sekani people consisted of five main regional bands or groups. They included: 1) the Tseloni; 2) the Tlotona, 3) the Sasuchan; 4) the Yutuwichan; and 5) the Tsekani. The Tsay Keh Dene (“TKD”) are primarily descended from the Sasuchan and Yutuwichan regional bands or groups. In the late 1700s, Sekani territory encompassed the areas drained by the Finlay and Parsnip Rivers (including the Nation River), Bear Lake and the upper Sustut River, Takla Lake and Driftwood River, and areas on the upper Stikine, Kechika and Liard Rivers. In the east, Sekani territory also encompassed the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains adjacent to the upper Peace River and extending to Rocky Mountain Portage. To the south, Sekani territory extended to the upper Pine and Moberly Rivers.

February 2017 Page 26 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

At the time the British Crown assumed sovereignty over British Columbia, the territorial boundaries of the Sekani people were largely unchanged, albeit for some Sekani regional bands or groups travel to the foothills on the east side of the Rocky Mountains became less common due to conflict with the Beaver Indians. The Sekani way of life was characterized by a seasonal round by which the Sekani sustained themselves. In that seasonal round, the Sekani made regular and extensive use of large parts of their territories for hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering. However, this seasonal round was by no means random or haphazard. Rather, it was based on a long period of highly skilful adaptation by the Sekani to their physical environment. This resulted in clearly discernible patterns of movement by the Sekani over well‐ defined areas as they drew on and exploited the resources available to them. Within Sekani territorial boundaries, Sekani regional bands or groups maintained their own hunting and resource gathering territories. Access to these hunting and resource gathering territories was limited to Sekani regional bands or groups. Sekani society was highly equalitarian and the sometimes harsh environment in which they lived fostered a strong ethic of cooperation, mutual dependence and sharing. However, this liberality within the Sekani regarding access to hunting and resource gathering territories did not extend to outsiders. The Sekani as a whole were very territorial and trespass by outsiders was generally met with hostility. Long before the arrival of Europeans, the Sekani made extensive use of the rivers and other water courses within their territory for fishing and as a conduit for travel, trade and social interaction. The Findlay, Parsnip, Mason, Omenica, Ingenika, Ospika, Mesilinka, Sustut, Nation and Peace Rivers (among others) were a vital part of this network. Likewise, these water courses provided convenient access for the Sekani to a profusion of well‐established trails for travel to other parts of their territories including camping and resource gathering sites. This system of trails was an integral part of the territories of the Sekani regional bands or groups who used them. In the journal of his 1824 expedition up the Findlay River, Samuel Black described these trails as “Thecannie Roads”. In 1913, Frank Swannell reported that “well opened” trails can be found in Sekani territory along almost every water course. Ethnographers appear to agree that only a small fraction of the trails used by the Sekani were recorded because large parts of Sekani territory were unexplored by cartographers until the twentieth century (See Jenness’ description of part of this extensive network of trails in “The Sekani Indians of British Columbia” at pp. 2 to 5). Ethnohistorical sources show conclusively that the ancestors of the TKD regularly used and occupied the Findlay River and its watersheds. Fur trade records in particular are replete with references to Sekani use and occupancy of the Findlay River region. They also show that the Sekani were intimately familiar with this area and their resources and how to exploit them – knowledge that could only be gained through regular and extensive use of the areas for travel, camping and seasonal subsistence practices. Like other First Nations, the Sekani lived under a system of customary laws. At the core of this system of customary laws was the basic principle that Sekani traditional territories were reserved for the use of Sekani bands or groups unless permission for access was obtained by outsiders. Jenness described this system as one in which “ownership of hunting territories … remained the property of the bands”. In fact, the oral histories of the Sekani people reveal that incursions by outsiders into Sekani territory without permission often resulted in swift retaliation. Jenness records that it was not uncommon for outsiders who ventured into Sekani territory without permission to be “killed without pity”. He recounts several

February 2017 Page 27 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay stories in which Sekani people defended their territories against raids by the Gitxsan, Carrier, Beaver and Cree. Analysis of Sekani conceptions of territory supports the view that the Sekani regarded the lands within their territories as belonging to them. This concept of territory and exercise of territorial rights by the Sekani was manifested by three main characteristics: 1) the dispersion of Sekani people over wide areas at fairly constant population densities; 2) the regular movement of Sekani people over their territories to exploit resources, pursue trade or socialize; and 3) resort to conflict when necessary to discourage or repel trespassers (Lanoue, 1983). In Wilson Duffs “Indian history of British Columbia”, he addresses the misconception that “Indians did not own the land” they used and occupied. He notes that even though patterns of use and ownership among First Nations societies were different from Western legal concepts of ownership, First Nation peoples land rights were “clearly defined”. These land rights were deeply rooted in the cultures and legal systems of the First Nation peoples who used and occupied the land within their territories. He squarely rejects the myth that the vast bulk of British Columbia was not owned by anyone when Europeans settlers arrived (See p. 8). This reasoning applies with equal force to the Sekani people and their use and occupation of their territories. Throughout TKD traditional territory including Thutade Lake and Amazay Lake, Sekani place names exist for lakes, rivers, mountains and many other geographic features of the landscape on which TKD and their ancestors sustained themselves and maintained their culture and way life. These place names are generally descriptive in nature in that they are grounded in an interpretation of the landscape or embody important social or historical events, environmental knowledge, and spiritual and traditional teachings that define TKD and their ancestors as a people. With these place names TKD and their ancestors affirmed their ownership of the lands and waters they used and occupied and, ultimately, their role as stewards of those lands and waters. The existence and abundance of these place names across the landscape and their prominence in oral histories, stories and legends of the TKD people, is very strong evidence of the time depth of use and occupation by TKD and their ancestors of their traditional territory. In short, the ethnohistorical record and oral history of the TKD people establishes that at the time the British Crown assumed sovereignty over British Columbia, TKD’s Sekani ancestors were the exclusive occupants of a sizeable and fairly well defined territory. Even at the extremities, Sekani territorial boundaries were generally recognized. Some ethnographers (e.g. Yerbury) opine that Sekani use and occupation of their traditional territories was not challenged in a sustained or coordinated manner by their larger neighbours due in large part to the harsh conditions in which the Sekani made their living. Unauthorized incursions into Sekani territory by outsiders, when they occurred, were normally confined to raiding and were short‐lived. Historic Use and Occupancy of the Kemess Project Area Considerable historical evidence exists regarding regular use and occupancy of the Kemess Project Area by TKD’s ancestors prior to and in 1846 and beyond. In 1806, Simon Fraser recorded an encounter with Sekani men who visited the NWC trading post at Rocky Mountain House. He noted that these men were very familiar with the upper reaches of the Findlay River to its source at Thutade Lake ‐ knowledge that could only plausibly be gained through use of the area.

February 2017 Page 28 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

In 1824, Samuel Black recorded that on travelling to the upper reaches of the Finlay River, he met a Sekani man who belonged to a band that followed a Chief known as Methodiates. Through this Sekani man, Black learned that Methodiates’ band was at Thutade Lake, the source of the Findlay River. Black subsequently met Methodiates and elicited from him detailed information on the band’s use of Thutade Lake and surrounding areas. Black records that Thutade Lake was described by Methodiates as ‘the best place for living”. Black and his party later travelled to and explored Thutade Lake with the assistance of Sekani guides. In doing so, evidence exists that Black’s party fished in Amazay Lake, a fishery with which the Sekani were very familiar (Littlefield, Dorricott and Cullon, 2006). Black’s journal notes that while at Thutade Lake, he observed clear evidence of Sekani encampments along its shores. He ultimately concluded that, despite a request by Methodiates for the establishment of a trading post at Thutade Lake, a trading post on the upper Findlay was not a viable enterprise. Fur trade records from the early 1800s also contain references to the use and occupation of the Findlay River by the Sekani. These references coupled with other evidence establishes that TKD’s Sekani ancestors used and occupied the entire Findlay River and its watershed from its lower reaches at Findlay Forks to its headwaters at Thutade Lake. With the establishment of a trading post at Bear Lake in 1826, fur trade records show that use by the Sekani of Thutade Lake and surrounding areas for hunting and trapping intensified (Littlefield, Dorricott and Cullon, 2006). Historical accounts of TKD’s use and occupancy of Thutade Lake and the surrounding area in the first half of the nineteenth century is corroborated by TKD oral history. TKD oral history reveals that Thutade Lake, Amazay Lake and areas to the west including Kemess Lake were regularly used by TKD’s ancestors for a wide range of traditional activities included within the Sekani seasonal round. These traditional activities included (among things) hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, camping and spiritual quests or ceremonies. Seasonal or temporary camps at Thutade, Amazay and Kemess Lakes were often used by TKD’s Sekani ancestors when pursuing these traditional activities. To gain access to these areas, the Sekani followed well established trails that pre‐dated the arrival of Europeans. Quite often, these trails were actively maintained by the Sekani. Trails from the Ingenika River and Findlay River (among others) led to and were extensively used by the Sekani to reach Thutade Lake, Amazay Lake and surrounding areas. In “Tse Kay Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake): A Draft Report” by Littlefield, Dorricott and Cullon (2007), the authors present detailed information about Sekani historical and present use of the Kemess Project area including Thutade Lake and Amazay Lake. This report by Littlefield et al. is entirely consistent with the oral history of TKD regarding their use and occupation of these areas. However, the report by Littlefield et al. is also noteworthy for its exposition of the spiritual significance of Thutade and Amazay to the Sekani people. Thutade and Amazay were regarded as places in which “hunting medicine” could be acquired or for spiritual quests by young Sekani men on reaching puberty. Thutade and Amazay are also the site of burials of Sekani men and women, several of whom feature prominently in Sekani stories. This deep spiritual attachment to Thutade and Amazay by TKD’s Sekani ancestors attests to a long history of use and occupation of these areas by TKD and its Sekani ancestors. Historical evidence and Sekani oral history combined establish on a preponderance of evidence that at the time the British Crown assumed sovereignty over British Columbia in 1846, Thutade Lake and the surrounding areas including Amazay Lake were used and occupied by TKD’s Sekani ancestors exclusively. This evidence of regular and exclusive use and occupancy by TKD’s Sekani ancestors is not contradicted

February 2017 Page 29 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay by any credible evidence and constitutes the basis of a strong claim by TKD to Aboriginal rights and title – Aboriginal rights title that were never surrendered or extinguished.

3.1.2.3 Kwadacha First Nation The majority of historic evidence accumulated by previous TKN studies can be applied to Kwadacha First Nation (“KFN”), TLFN, and TKD equally since ancestors from all three communities used the Thutade area extensively before the establishment of HBC trading posts in or near each community. Tsek’ene people were very mobile, spoke the same language, inter‐married, moved freely within the studied territory, and have a cultural history of sharing and supporting each other. The significance of previous historical research as it applies to KFN should be noted. KFN’s main ancestral origin is Tsek’ene; its current political ties are Kaska. The distinction between cultural origin and political affiliations must be remembered in discussions of the Thutade/Upper Finlay area. Clear evidence of the presence of Tsek’ene people in the Finlay River area and of their trail system is presented in Samuel Black’s journal (1824). Black describes the well‐known Methodiates, leader of the Tsek’ene people who inhabited the Finlay River from the confluence of the KFN River to the Thutade Lake area. Later records indicate Methodiates and members of his upper Finlay group traded at Fort Connolly, which required travel through the Thutade area. Also, when Black proceeded to Thutade Lake, where he camped for some time, he noted the many campfires of Tsek’ene people around the lake. Black provides clear, written evidence that the Upper Finlay River and Thutade Lake area were traditional homelands of Methodiates and his Tsek’ene followers. Extensive interviewing of KFN Elders over the past 20 years demonstrates consistent belief that the Upper Finlay, Toodoggone, Firesteel, Tatlatui, and Thutade areas were traditionally used by KFN Tsek’ene people previous to Black’s journey in 1824. The Fort Connolly post was established in 1827 at Bear Lake and many of the people trading there were from the upper Finlay area. The primary purpose of the post was apparently to obtain furs from the Tsek’ene peoples. Research has established that the trail system around and through the Thutade Lake area provided links to coastal peoples with whom the Tsek’ene traded for items such as salt. Another example of this coastal‐interior trade is the arrowheads of obsidian found in Rocky Mountain Trench and traced to Mt. Edziza. Ft. Grahame, also known as Bear Lake Outpost (BLO) was established in 1875, closed and re‐opened, and finally closed in 1949. This post, located down the Finlay River from KFN Tsek’ene people, provided easier access to trading and may have begun a change in travel patterns for the people of the upper Finlay. The Fort Ware HBC trading post was established in 1920’s as “Fort Grahame Outpost.” Previous to that, there was no settlement along the Finlay River above Fort Grahame. Extended family groups of Tsek’ene travelled on known trails following seasonal hunting and gathering patterns, and gathering seasonally with other Tsek’ene groups. The nearest posts were Fort Grahame, Fort Connelly (Bear Lake) and McDame’s Creek. HBC records show periodic trading at all these posts by KFN ancestors. In the late 19th and early 20th century, up to the 1920’s, one particular group was referred to as “Fort Grahame Nomads” or “Old Davie’s” band. They travelled throughout the triangle formed by these three posts and beyond, clearly using trails, resource‐harvesting areas, and gathering sites within the area.

February 2017 Page 30 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

HBC records verify that Tsek’ene people travelled quickly and widely. For example, HBC journals from posts along the Liard River much further north record trading with Tsek’ene from the Fort Connelly area. In 1926, BC’s Registered Trapline System came into effect. KFN Elder interviewees credit Aatse Davie, the only community leader who spoke English (as verified by video interviews with KFN Elders), with ensuring that KFN families were registered in specific trapline areas. Davie seemed to understand the need to provide hunting and trapping areas for his people. He knew that without registering his community families, outside non‐Native trappers would establish registered ownership of trapline areas and jeopardize food and income sources for his Tsek’ene people. Previous to that, families gathered seasonally in traditional areas to discuss and organize trapping and hunting, feeling free to make use of all areas within Tsek’ene territory and working together to ensure survival. For example, in the 1935 census list of Fort Ware, the Patrick family (Patrick is generally associated with Bear Lake/TLFN) are listed as community members, indicating the interaction and cooperation of Tsek’ene people. During the 1930’s and 1940’s, KFN Tsek’ene culture faced traumatic events. First, in the late 1930’s, influenza struck in the settlement of Fort Ware. Oral history given by Elders confirms that in one short period 19 community members died. Secondly, in the mid‐1940’s children began attending Lejac Residential School and were out of community for 10 months of the year. These two events caused a break in the oral traditions and generational teaching. Many stories of times past were lost and visiting researchers and/or recording technology were not yet present in the area to assist with community memories. Current‐day KFN was the final Tsek’ene group to be organized as a Band (1940’s), the last to have road access and electrical power, and the last to retain geographical isolation. One of the unfortunate results is that much of the stories and oral history of early 20th century KFN Tsek’ene people have been lost. As wheeled vehicles and boats replaced trails as the main means of transportation, KFN people, geographically the closest settlement to Thutade Lake, turned more frequently to the nearest trading posts – Fort Ware and Fort Grahame. Now, with better roads, more community members return to the Moose Valley / Thutade area to hunt, camp, and harvest. Local geographic names are directly derived from Tsek’ene language, as verified by KFN Elders: o Thutade – water above (head waters) o Tatlatui – where the waters separate o Toodoggone – dark waters (water runs muddy in springtime) The Caribou Hide Trail, historically a main transportation link, passes partially through current‐day KFN territory, including the Thutade Lake area. Family links: o Elder Mary Jean Poole, nee Bob, traces her family to Bear Lake o Monroe Massettoe, grandfather of Elder Shirley Massettoe and siblings, considered Thutade Lake area to be his trapping line. He was recognized as coming from Dease Lake and traveled through the Thutade‐Tatlatui area to marry one of Aatse Davie’s daughters. The Upper Finlay was and still is the Massettoe’s traditional hunting/trapping area.

February 2017 Page 31 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

o Aatse Davie is considered by KFN people as their first chief and the one who established the village of Fort Ware. Oral history traces his place of birth to Fort Connelly and his mother a Tsek’ene woman who lived near the settlement. 3.2 Overview of historical and contemporary ecological context Several existing environmental effects and trends have, and continue to have, significant adverse impacts on the TKN’s Rights. As such, they are important components to each of the TKN’s current ability to meaningfully exercise their Rights. Relevant matters were scoped through discussions with TKN’s technical staff. Findings are incorporated into the fish and wildlife status assessments, as they are important considerations in interpreting trends and status. 3.3 Territorial/Landscape‐Level Assessment The BC Watershed Health Indicator Tool was used to describe the current state of each of the TKN’s Territories in a standardized manner that would inform the descriptions of current conditions of territorial / landscape habitats within the TKN’s Territories. Three specific indicators were used which inform “risk” (in terms of hydrological and fish habitat effects, etc.) to each watershed unit and also relate to terrestrial habitat health/characterization. The indicators used, and the manner in which they were derived from provincial data layers, are as follows:  Riparian Forest Removal (Incursion/Removal): o Percentage of the total stream length within or adjacent to cut‐blocks. Summarized/weighted by stream order classes, with higher order streams receiving a greater weighting.

 Road (Linear Feature) Density: o Density of roads per square kilometer (Road km / Reporting unit area km2) – Road data constructed from a combination of Digital Road Atlas (DRA), Forest Road Tenure (FTEN), and Terrain Information Management Program (TRIM).

 Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) or Forest Cover Disturbance: o ECA is based on forest species height, as per the 1999 Watershed Assessment Guidebook with full recovery at 12 m.

o Mountain Pine Beetle effects were derived from the Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) attributes for pine stands, and years since attack for Dry versus Wet/Moist Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) subzones.

o The following are also considered 100% ECA: . New harvest areas in the last 20 year (if height not know/estimated); . Right of ways (RoWs); . Burns since 1990; . BCLCS_LEVEL_5 – Gravel Pit, Mine, Road Surface, Tailings, Urban; and

February 2017 Page 32 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

. NON_PRODUCTIVE_DESCRIPTOR_CD – Clearing, Gravel Pit, Urban.

The BC Watershed Health Indicator Tool provides up‐to‐date GIS information on landscape characteristics and disturbances that inform five watershed health indicators. The tool provides the information quantitatively on the spatial scale of sub‐watersheds termed “assessment watersheds”1. These watershed assessment units (WAUs) can vary substantially in area, and are generally smaller than 1:50K third‐order watersheds (i.e., the former Watershed Atlas scale). This approach provides a mechanism through which landscape disturbance within the TKN’s Territories can be assessed and related to the health of stream/aquatic and terrestrial habitats and the resources they support. To visually display the indicator results for each WAU on maps (i.e., % of stream length adjacent to logged/cleared areas (weighted) relative to total stream length within WAU, kms of road per km2 of assessment watershed area, ECA as a % of WAU), the following thresholds were developed: For riparian forest removal (% removed/affected):  <9% of stream length in WAU =low risk;  ≥9<18% of stream length in WAU=medium risk; and  ≥18% of stream length in WAU= high risk.

For road density (km of road/km2) of WAU area:  <0.3 km/km2 =low risk;  ≥0.3<0.6 km/km2 (0.6 km/km2 recognized grizzly bear threshold);  ≥0.6<1.0 km/km2 =increasing risk to aquatic and terrestrial values;  ≥1.0<2.0 km/km2=further increased risk to aquatic and terrestrial values; and  ≥2.0 km/km2 =high risk to all aquatic and terrestrial values.

For ECA (% area “cleared” within WAU):  <18% =low risk;  ≥18<36% =medium risk;  ≥36<50% =high risk;  ≥50<70% =higher risk; and  ≥70% =highest risk.

For the purposes of mapping each indicator‐type, different colours were applied to each WAU based on these thresholds. Results were then presented for each of the TKN’s Territories on maps provided in Appendix 1. 3.4 Assessment of Current Status/Health of Key Indicators To assess the current status / health of key indicators, the resources (environmental components) that are integral to the TKN’s distinct cultures and meaningful exercise of their Rights were first identified. Given time and resources constraints, these were limited to the following species that were understood

1 http://www.forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/articles/Streamline_Vol13_No2_Art7.pdf

February 2017 Page 33 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay to be integral to the TKN’s current exercise of fish and wildlife harvesting Rights (i.e., it is not a complete list of species of interest to each of the TKNs, and excludes important species such as furbearers, game birds and waterfowl, plants/herbs/berries, etc.):  Anadromous Fisheries Resources (Salmon): Sockeye, Chinook, Steelhead and Coho Salmon;  Resident Fisheries Resources: White Sturgeon, Lake Trout (char), Bull Trout (char), Rainbow Trout, Kokanee, Whitfishes and Burbot; and  Wildlife Resources: Moose, Caribou, Grizzly Bear, Mountain Goat, Stone’s Sheep and Hoary Marmot. Information relating to the current status‐health of each of these species was reviewed and summarized, and factors contributing to a current diminished status were identified. Information was considered at the watershed or regional level and population or stock level (for fish), rather than at the species level, for the purposes of maintaining the relevance of information to the TKN’s Rights and possible impacts thereon from the Project. Notably, the availability of management information for populations/stocks of various fish and wildlife species that support the TKN’s Rights does not typically align with their Territorial boundaries. Therefore, the area over which aquatic data was considered related to each major watershed encompassed by the TKN area. To the extent possible, wildlife data and information was considered according to recognized “population units” (caribou/grizzly), or provincial management unit or other geographical boundary. Where a resource component was identified as having a current diminished status or declining trend, the contributing factors and implications on the TKN’s Rights were considered. 3.5 TKN’s Current Abilities to Exercise their Rights The historical effects and environmental trends relevant to the TKN’s Territories, existing land and resource use pressures, and the status‐health of key biological indicators supporting the exercise of the TKN’s Rights were used to understand TKN’s current ability to meaningfully exercise their Rights. This was described relative to the following “categorizations of constraint”:  Not constrained; ability to exercise is largely intact

 Moderately constrained; ability to exercise is possible but constrained in some minor‐to‐ moderate manner (e.g. population(s) is below a desired level, access is constrained by range retraction or other factor, harvesting conditions are adversely effected, etc.)

 Highly constrained; access/harvest is not possible in some years, and/or otherwise constrained below the level desired to meet the need

 Fully constrained; access/harvest not possible Where available, the TKN’s traditional use information and community member and technical personnel’s perspectives were also used to inform this assessment. 3.6 Project Effects and Impacts described in the Application The environmental effects of the Project, and the related impacts on the current baseline‐context of the TKN’s Rights were summarized based on the materials presented in the Application.

February 2017 Page 34 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 3.7 Assessing Project Effects and Impacts based on Current Conditions The environmental effects of the Project were assessed with respect to the current condition of key indicators within the TKN’s Territories, including how the Project‐related environmental effects may be incremental to, or cumulative with, existing causative factors that have contributed to the current diminished status of key indicators, and/or the current ability of TKN to access and use those resources (i.e. the baseline‐context of the ability to exercise rights). The Project’s potential impacts on the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN First Nations were then characterized in relation to the following categories: 1. Negligible impact – no detectable impact or any change from current conditions; 2. Negligible‐to‐minor – some detectable impacts or change from current condition; 3. Minor impact – ability to exercise the right is minimally disrupted; 4. Minor‐to‐moderate – ability to exercise the right is more than minimally disrupted; 5. Moderate impact – ability to exercise the right has been diminished or disrupted 6. Moderate‐to‐serious – ability to exercise the right has been more than moderately diminished; and 7. Serious impact – ability to exercise the right has been significantly diminished 3.8 Mitigation Options / Recommendations Based on the current condition of the TKN’s Territories and their abilities to exercise their Rights, a variety of recommendations are outlined. These were either options that were identified by the authors and subsequently vetted by the TKN’s technical staff and leadership, or options that were identified by the TKN’s technical staff and leadership.

4 Summary of the Application Findings 4.1 Project Description The Project’s effects as assessed by Aurico are summarized below based on materials presented in the Application. The Project is located approximately 250 km north of the town of Smithers, 430 km north‐northwest of the city of Prince George, and 6.5 km north of the past‐producing KS Mine (coordinates: 57º0′N; 126º45′W; Figure 5.2‐1 from Application). The Project is situated on Aboriginal title lands within the Peace River Regional District (PRRD) and within the traditional territories of the Takla Lake First Nation and TKD Nation. The traditional territory of KFN Nation is adjacent to and downstream from the Project. The Kemess Underground (KUG) deposit lies approximately 6.5 km north of the existing KS Mine infrastructure. The KS Mine, a closed open‐pit mine, was owned and operated by Northgate Minerals and acquired by AuRico in 2011. The KS site is currently under care and maintenance. The Project proposes to use existing facilities at the KS Mine wherever feasible, and to develop additional infrastructure to safely extract the ore from the KUG deposit in an attempt to limit adverse environmental effects. Access to the underground deposit area will require development of the

February 2017 Page 35 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay proposed access corridor, which will require upgrading and extension of an existing road and development of an access tunnel through a steep ridge north‐west of the KS Mine site. The access corridor will contain a dewatering pipeline, transmission line, and surface ore conveyor. The access corridor will provide access to the portals of three declines, one each for underground access (personnel, equipment, materials), ore conveyor and ventilation intake. Each decline will descend approximately 260 m vertically to the panel cave and underground operations. Mining will take place on a single extraction level. Ore will be recovered using load‐haul‐dump (LHD) machines and crushed underground by means of a gyratory crusher. Crushed ore will be transferred to process plant by underground and surface conveyor. Ore processing will occur using an existing semi‐autogenous/ball mill circuit at the KS Mine site. The KS open pit will be used as a tailings and waste rock storage facility (TSF) for materials produced from the KUG construction and operations. Concentrate from the process plant will be trucked along the Omineca Resource Access Road (ORAR) to an existing rail load‐out facility in Mackenzie and shipped using the existing CN Rail network. Market conditions and supply will govern where the concentrate will be shipped and smelted. The Project will use the existing administration and accommodation facilities and will rely on power supplied from the existing 230‐kilovolt (kV) transmission line constructed to service the KS Mine. Surface disturbance from the Project will be less than 100 hectares (ha), including a 35‐ha subsidence zone compared to 1,240 ha (675 ha of which has been reclaimed) of surface disturbance at the KS Mine. This represents 5% of the existing disturbance. The overall scope of the proposed Project includes development of new infrastructure specific to the KUG as well as use of existing infrastructure from the KS Mine. New components and associated activities include:  underground facilities (access and haulage decline, conveyor and conveyor decline, ventilation intake decline, cave gallery, gyratory crusher, ventilation system and exhaust raise, water sumps and pumps, garages, electrical substation, warehouse, storage, and explosives magazines, and refuge stations and lunchroom);  surface portal facilities (offices, workshop, stores, decline ventilation system, waste stockpile, ore stockpile, topsoil stockpiles, laydown areas, fuel storage tank, water handling infrastructure);  access corridor (road, tunnel, surface conveyor, power transmission line, underground dewatering pipeline);  Tailings Storage Facility (TSF); subaqueous storage of waste rock and tailings, and East Dam;  Concrete‐shotcrete batch plant; and  New water management components at KS Mine site (water treatment plants within or adjacent to existing process plant, discharge pipelines from KUG TSF to Attichika Creek, diversion infrastructure). Existing infrastructure that will be used and modified for the Project includes the following facilities:  KS Mine process plant;

February 2017 Page 36 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Ore stockpile area adjacent to the process plant;  Transport network for materials and concentrate (transportation via the existing ORAR and rail load‐out facility at Mackenzie);  Administration and accommodation facilities;  Potable water facility and sewage treatment facility;  Process water pipeline;  Explosives magazines;  Power network (existing 230‐kV power line from BC Hydro Kennedy substation, step‐down transformers, and backup diesel generators);  All‐weather gravel airstrip; and  Access to ventilation raise via existing exploration access roads. 4.2 Aquatic Resources The Project area contains all existing and new infrastructure for the Project (both surface and underground). The new area of disturbance for KUG will be about 100ha, representing the subsidence area above the deposit, the connecting road and conveyer corridor, and the expansion of Borrow 10 (aggregate pit). The local Study Area (LSA) includes watersheds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project footprint (including ancillary components) with a potential for direct effects. Watersheds and creeks within the LSA include East Cirque, Central Cirque (also referred to as Inlet 6), El Condor, Kemess Creek, Waste Rock, Attycelley and Attichika creeks, Amazay Lake and its outlet Amazay Creek. 4.2.1 Aquatic Resource VCs assessed in the Application In the Application, AuRico considers the VC’s specific to fish and fish habitat set out in Table 2, below.

February 2017 Page 37 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 2. Application's Aquatic Resource VC's and Indicators.

Subject Area Valued Components Indicator Changes in:  Fish habitat (quality and quantity)  Adfluvial bull trout  Recruitment (as measured through changes in Fish  Dolly Varden abundance and population structure); and  Rainbow trout  Fish health (as measured directly through changes in fish condition and indirectly through changes in water and sediment quality. Changes in:  Periphyton  Benthic  Primary productivity, abundance and diversity, Aquatic habitat Invertebrates and  Sediment Quality  Chemical concentrations (contaminants of potential concern, COPCs)

The analysis of potential effects from the Project is scoped using the following interaction pathways:  direct mortality;  erosion and sedimentation;  changes in surface water quantity;  changes in surface water quality (sediment quality); and  habitat loss. Potential Sources of Project Effects are described for each interaction pathway, below: (see Application 14.5.2 for more details):  Direct mortality: Project construction activity during installation and removal of discharge pipeline and diffuser in lower Attichika Creek (may cross a small seepage on Attichika floodplain). Construction of access road within access corridor and upgrading of any existing roads in Project area may improve access.  Sediment erosion: Land disturbances during all phases of the Project can potentially increase surface, erosion and run‐off.  Water quantity impacts on fish: The effects assessment considers residual effects to fish and aquatic habitat for any predicted streamflow alterations beyond the existing streamflow regime (i.e., percent change greater than 0%), and beyond the 5% margin of error. Potential sources include increase in flow in Attichika Creek due to KUG TSF dewatering, and alterations to existing stream flow regime of Waste Rock Creek.

February 2017 Page 38 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Water Quality: Include direct discharges to receiving environment (from water treatment plant), seepage (surface water‐ground water interactions), metal leaching and acid rock drainage generated from excavating or exposing material or runoff from temporary stockpiles.  Habitat loss: Removal of vegetation within the LSA during project construction. The only contact between the Project and fish and aquatic habitat is the proposed discharge pipeline that crosses a section of the Attichika floodplain to the discharge location on the mainstem of Attichika Creek. 4.2.2 Overview of Application Conclusions AuRico determined that of the 5 effects pathways, two had residual effects: change in water quantity and change in water quality. These effects were carried forward into a cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As part of the CEA, AuRico concludes that no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects are expected to interact cumulatively with the predicted Project‐related residual effects for fish and aquatic habitat within the RSA. The existing KS Mine has already been accounted for in the proposed Project mine design. No cumulative effects were identified in the CEA. Residual and cumulative effects assessment conclusions are summarized in Table 3.

February 2017 Page 39 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 3. Overview of Application Conclusions for Fish and Fish Habitat VCs

Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Residual Effect Likelihood Significance/ Cumulative Effective‐ Effect? of residual Effects Confidence ness effects (Y/N)

VC ‐ FISH

Direct mortality High N N/A N/A N/A

Erosion and sedimentation High N N/A N/A N/A

Not significant Change in water quantity Moderate Y Streamflow increases on Attichika Creek Low N/A* (high)

Not significant Increased Discharge in Waste Rock Creek High N/A* (high)

Change in total Cd concentrations in Attichika Not significant Change in water quality Moderate Y Moderate N/A* Creek (high)

Change in Nitrate concentrations in Waste Not significant Moderate N/A* Rock Creek (high)

Change in total Al and Cu concentrations in Not significant Moderate N/A* Waste Rock Creek (high)

Change in total Se concentrations in Waste Not significant Moderate N/A* Rock Creek (high)

Change in water quality: High N N/A N/A N/A atmospheric deposition

Habitat loss High N *No cumulative effects to fish and aquatic habitat resulting from changes in water quantity and quality were identified in the CEA

February 2017 Page 40 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

4.3 Wildlife Resources 4.3.1 Wildlife Resource VCs assessed in the Application The VC’s selected for inclusion in the Application’s wildlife effects assessment are:  Woodland caribou  Moose  Mountain goat  Grizzly bear  Furbearers (Wolverine and American marten)  Hoary Marmot  Bats  Raptors  Migratory waterbirds  Migratory landbirds, and  Western toad. Seven effects pathways were identified:  Habitat loss and alteration area: construction phase due to clearing of vegetation in the Project footprint area.  Sensory disturbance: light, noise, human presence, including potential disturbance associated with use of the ORAR.  Disruption of movement: includes disruption associated with use of the ORAR, barriers from physical infrastructure (proposed access corridor), avoidance due to sensory disturbance, roads that facilitate movement, fragment habitat.  Direct mortality: includes vehicle‐wildlife collisions and vegetation clearing during infrastructure construction.  Indirect mortality: increased hunting pressure on ungulates and bears as a result of greater human access to the RSA’s (existing access road, and proposed access road in the proposed access corridor).  Attractants: including odors and food sources, refuge/shelter from Project infrastructure, generating vegetation on road verges, travel corridors such as roads or cleared areas under transmission lines, ponds or ditches that provide water and aquatic habitat.  Chemical hazard: chemicals of potential concern (COPC) in water and fugitive dust, bioaccumulation of COPC’s in food web.

February 2017 Page 41 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Of the 7 effects pathways, 5 were considered as being viable (i.e. creating potential effects) for the VC’s considered in this report, and those 5 were carried forward for consideration. 4.3.2 Overview of Application Conclusions AuRico determined that the following potential effects would result in residual effects for VC’s of interest:  habitat loss/alteration (Hoary Marmot only);  direct mortality (Hoary marmot only);  disruption of movement (caribou, moose, grizzly); and  attractants (grizzly). Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, access corridor and water discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, and grizzly bear. Grizzly bear habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations. Table 4, below, summarizes the Application’s conclusions for Caribou, Moose, Grizzly, Mountain Goat, and Hoary Marmot.

February 2017 Page 42 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 4. Overview of Application’s conclusions for Caribou, Moose, Grizzly, Mountain Goat, and Hoary Marmot VC’s.

Potential Effect Residual Effect Cumulative Effect Residual Likelihood Significance Confidence Effect Caribou Habitat loss/alteration N N/A N/A N/A N/A Sensory disturbance N N/A N/A N/A N/A Direct mortality N N/A N/A N/A N/A Disruption of Y Moderate Not significant High Not a cumulative movement effect Attractants N N/A N/A N/A N/A Moose Habitat loss/alteration N N/A N/A N/A N/A Sensory disturbance N N/A N/A N/A N/A Direct mortality N N/A N/A N/A N/A Disruption of Y Moderate Not significant Moderate Not a cumulative movement effect Attractants N N/A N/A N/A N/A Grizzly Bear Habitat loss/alteration N N/A N/A N/A N/A Sensory disturbance N N/A N/A N/A N/A Direct mortality N N/A N/A N/A N/A Disruption of Y Moderate Not significant Moderate Not a cumulative movement effect Attractants Y Moderate Not significant High Not a cumulative effect Mountain Goat Habitat loss/alteration N N/A N/A N/A N/A Sensory disturbance N N/A N/A N/A N/A Direct mortality N N/A N/A N/A N/A Disruption of N N/A N/A N/A N/A movement Attractants N N/A N/A N/A N/A Hoary Marmot Habitat loss and Y Moderate Not significant Moderate Not a cumulative alteration (construction effect. phase) Sensory disturbance N N/A N/A N/A N/A Direct Mortality Y Low Not significant Moderate Not a cumulative (construction) effect Disruption of N N/A N/A N/A N/A movement

February 2017 Page 43 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 4.4 TKN’s Rights In the Application, AuRico considers the following VCs specific to Aboriginal Rights:  Social and ceremonial resources;  Cultural Transmission; and  Resource harvesting. This is only a very small subset of VCs of the Aboriginal Rights that TKN has asserted in relation to the Project, which resulted in a highly deficient assessment of Project impacts on TKN Aboriginal Rights. Three types of limitations on Aboriginal Rights are considered: • Limits on the spatial extent of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions; • Limits on the utility of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions; and • Limits on the continuity of Aboriginal peoples’ customs, practices and traditions Table 5 summarizes these three limitations as they related to resource harvesting. The Project is anticipated to result in residual adverse effects on the Aboriginal Rights of TLFN, TKDN, and KFN. Adverse effects related to resource harvest are:  Limit on the utility of hunting of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA due to altered animal movement.  Limits on continuity (sense of place) with respect to fishing in Amazay Lake and or plant gathering around Almazy Lake due to sensory disturbance. On the basis of the small scale and scope of the Project, the proposed mitigation measures, the low magnitude and local extent of potential effects, and ongoing engagement with TKN, AuRico concludes these effects are rated as not significant. AuRico was requested (by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ‐ CEAA) to provide additional consideration of the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes (CULRTP) and Aboriginal Rights relative to a pre‐disturbance baseline (prior to access restrictions related to Kemess South ~ 1996). The results of that additional consideration is summarized in a memo to CEAA dated November 9, 2016, and includes the following findings: In relation to the displacement of TKN‐use:  Based on a 500 metre buffer around the KUG Project and the Kemess South site, the area to which access will be restricted is approximately 4,480ha (the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use).  The displacement of TKN First Nations’ land use activities as a result of the KUG Project is rated as not significant (residual). In relation to the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices:  Based on the 4,480ha access restricted zone, and that the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use (TKN First Nations utilize ridges, hillsides, mountains, creeks, and lakes in the vicinity of the KUG Project in general, rather than in site‐specific, ways).

February 2017 Page 44 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 The potential limitation on the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact. Confidence in the rating is moderate. The additional consideration results in the following changes to the Application:  In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 20 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to displace TKN First Nations’ CULRTP activities from the Project Area, in comparison with pre‐disturbance conditions. Following the application of mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated not significant.  In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 21 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to reduce the spatial extent within which TKN First Nations have the ability to exercise Aboriginal harvesting and social and ceremonial rights. Following the application of mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated as having a low impact on TKN First Nations Aboriginal rights.

February 2017 Page 45 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 5. Summary of Potential Effects on TKN Rights related to Resource Harvesting (from Project Application).

Residual Limitation Description Confidence Effects TLFN TLFN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some restricted access associated with new infrastructure Spatial (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these locations are Extent of Low already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available to hunting or trap Moderate Resource impact due to firearm and other safety considerations. TLFN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing sites in the vicinity Harvesting of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. The Project is not anticipated to interfere with access to these fishing sites. TLFN (as a member of TKN), identifies numerous hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering areas within the LSA and RSA. No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from new surface disturbance are anticipated, with the exception of effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, including the 1.3‐km access corridor and water discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, grizzly bear, marten, and Utility of wolverine. Grizzly bear and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or Low Resource Moderate destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations. The utility of TLFN’s hunting efforts impact Harvesting of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA could be reduced as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the utility of TLFNs resource harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated. The effect will be reversible upon closure except potentially for hoary marmot, if the availability of dens is reduced due to subsidence TLFN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close vicinity of the mine, due to safety considerations. Should Continuity members fish in Amazay Lake, or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise of Low from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection Moderate Resource impact with the land, spirit, and ancestors. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot if Harvesting the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence.

February 2017 Page 46 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TKD TKDN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some new access restrictions associated with new Spatial infrastructure (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these Extent of Low locations are already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available to Moderate Resource impact hunting or trap due to firearm and other safety considerations. TKDN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing Harvesting sites in the vicinity of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. No new access restrictions would interact with potential fishing sites. Utility of The utility of TKDN’s hunting efforts of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA could Nation’s be reduced, as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot Low Moderate Resource in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the Impact Harvest utility of TKD’s resource harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated. TKDN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close proximity of the mine due to safety considerations. Should Continuity members fish in Amazay Lake or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise of Low from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection Moderate Resource impact with the land, spirit, and ancestors. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot if Harvesting the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence. KFN KwN (as a member of TKN) identifies five hunting areas and one trapping area that appear to overlap with existing and proposed Project infrastructure. While there will be some new access restrictions associated with new Spatial infrastructure (the proposed access corridor, facilities at the proposed decline, and the subsidence zone), these Extent of Low locations are already in close proximity to existing Project components and would not be effectively available for Moderate Resource impact hunting or trapping due to firearm and other safety considerations. KwN (as a member of TKN) identifies four fishing Harvesting sites in the vicinity of Project infrastructure. All sites appear to be situated on Amazay Lake. No new access restrictions would interact with potential fishing sites. KwN (as a member of TKN), identifies numerous hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering areas within the LSA and Utility of RSA. No adverse effects on wildlife habitat resulting from new surface disturbance are anticipated, with the Nation’s exception of effects related to subsidence. Subsidence is anticipated to remove and alter hoary marmot habitat and Low Moderate Resource result in hoary marmot mortality. Linear components on the mine site, including the access corridor and water impact Harvest discharge line, are anticipated to affect the movement of woodland caribou, moose, grizzly bear, marten, and wolverine. Grizzly bear and wolverine that become habituated to the presence of attractants will be relocated or destroyed. All residual effects are rated as not significant on wildlife populations. The utility of KwN’s hunting efforts

February 2017 Page 47 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

of moose and bear and trapping of marten and wolverine within the LSA could be reduced, as these animals might be displaced from the area. Members will not be able to hunt for hoary marmot in the area of the underground deposit for the life of the mine due to safety considerations. No other effects on the utility of KwN’s resource harvesting activities(hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering) are anticipated. KwN members will not be able to hunt or trap in close proximity of the mine due to safety considerations. Should Continuity members fish in Amazay Lake or gather plants around Amazay Lake, they may experience visual changes and noise of Low from the Project. These sensory disturbances may reduce members’ sense of place and their feeling of connection Moderate Resource impact with the land, spirit, and ancestors. The effect will be reversible upon closure, except potentially for hoary marmot Harvesting if the availability of marmot dens is reduced due to subsidence.

February 2017 Page 48 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

5 Landscape Level Indicators 5.1 Territorial Disturbance Analyses Land and resource exploitation is in many ways additive to or exacerbating the environmental effects of climate change trends. A high level assessment of terrestrial disturbance indicators was undertaken to better inform the assessment of both the current conditions of each of the TKN’s Territories, and how those conditions may relate to fish and wildlife population status and/or trends, and how the Project may affect those existing conditions. BC’s Watershed Health Assessment Tool was used to assess each of the TKN’s Territories in terms of three indicators of aquatic and ecosystem health: riparian forest removal (logged riparian), road density, and equivalent clear‐cut area (ECA). Data layers utilized were updated to 2015, or newer. Appendix 1 of this report provides the following maps for TKN; KFN, TKD, and Takla Lake First Nation, respectively: 1. Overview of the TKN’s Territories; 2. Riparian Forest Removal; 3. Road Density – Density of Roads per Square Kilometer (current conditions); 4. Forest Cover Disturbance – ECA (current conditions). 5.2 Riparian Forest Removal Risks to stream/aquatic resource values are classified below based on the riparian forest removal (i.e., logged riparian) indicator outlined in BC’s Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (“IWAP”). The IWAP procedure specifies risk levels and thresholds associated with stream‐aquatic resource values as follows:  Low Risk: 0 to 9% riparian forest removal;  Medium Risk: >9 to 18% riparian forest removal; and  High Risk: >18% riparian forest removal. Risks to stream/aquatic resource values associated with riparian forest removal include diminished fish habitat potential, altered water quality, and weakened stream channel integrity. In this assessment, riparian forest removal was determined for each of the WAUs in the TKN’s Territories using the BC Watershed Health Tool. The results are provided in Table 6 and Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4, below, with maps presented in Appendix 1a, 1b, and 1c.

February 2017 Page 49 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 6. Riparian forest removal statistics for WAUs located within the TKN’s Territories

Number of WAUs per riparian forest removal risk TKN Territory category Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk (<9%) (≥9%<18%) (≥18%) KFN – Kwadacha 802 31 46 First Nation TKD – Tsay Keh 714 90 75 Dene TLFN – Takla Lake 724 142 93 First Nation

KFN 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 <9% (Low Risk) ≥9%<18% (Medium ≥18% (High Risk)

% of WAUs w/i each Risk Category Risk) Riparian Forest Removal Risk Category

Figure 2. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of KFN Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator.

February 2017 Page 50 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TKD 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 <9% (Low Risk) ≥9%<18% (Medium ≥18% (High Risk)

% of WAUs w/I each Risk Category Risk) Riparian Forest Removal Risk Category

Figure 3. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of TKD Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator.

TLFN 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 <9% (Low Risk) ≥9%<18% (Medium ≥18% (High Risk) Risk) % of WAUs w/i each Risk Category Riparian Forest Removal Risk Category

Figure 4. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of Takla Lake First Nation Territory based on the Riparian Forest Removal indicator.

As indicated in the results presented above, and depicted on the maps in Appendix 1, stream/aquatic resource values in a high proportion of the WAUs within each of the TKN’s Territories (91%, 81% and 76% in KFN, Tsay Keh and Takla Lake, respectively) are currently in the low risk category based on the riparian forest removal (i.e., logged riparian) indicator. These statistics suggest that there are currently minor to moderate adverse effects on fish and aquatic habitats as a result of riparian forest removal/clearing, generally worsening from north to southwest within the TKN area.

February 2017 Page 51 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 5.3 Road Density Risks to stream/aquatic resource values are classified below based on the road density indicator, as determined from the following sources:  BC’s IWAP which specifies risk levels/impacts and thresholds associated with stream‐aquatic resource values as Low: 0 to 0.9 km/km2, Medium: 0.9 to 1.72 km/km2, and High: >1.72 km/km2;

 Various sources that cite target road densities of 0.47‐0.75 km/km2 to maintain sustainable/viable grizzly bear populations2; and

 Other literature that summarizes road density thresholds in relation to fish and wildlife objectives3. Risks to stream/aquatic resource values associated with road density include sedimentation, erosion and altered hydrology. Road density is also strongly linked to terrestrial habitat integrity for a number of wildlife species. In this assessment, road density was determined for each of the WAUs in the TKN’s Territories using the BC Watershed Health Tool. The results are provided in Table 7 and Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7, below, with maps presented in Appendix 1a, 1b, and 1c. Table 7. Road density statistics for the WAUs located within the TKN Territories.

Number of WAUs per Road Density risk category 2 TKN (road length (km) / WAU area (km )) Territory

Worsening environmental and ecological effects

<0.3 ≥0.3<0.5 ≥0.5<0.6 ≥0.6<1.0 ≥1.0<2.0 ≥2.0 KFN 820 23 4 17 10 5 TKD 562 57 29 90 100 41 TLFN 472 90 37 127 177 56

2 Boulanger J, Stenhouse GB (2014) The Impact of Roads on the Demography of Grizzly Bears in Alberta. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115535. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115535; also, BC Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Grizzly Bears and Black Bears. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Regional Operations and Environmental Assessment Section Victoria, B.C. DRAFT Prepared by: A. Grant MacHutchon Wildlife Biologist, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Comox, B.C. April 2001 3 Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management for Northeast British Columbia Volume 2 Cumulative Effects Indicators, Thresholds, and Case Studies. Appendix 1 Cumulative Effects: Sources, Indicators, and Thresholds, Prepared by: Terry Antoniuk and Barbara Ainslie, Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary, January, 2003

February 2017 Page 52 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

KFN 900 800 700 600 500 400 300

Number of WAUs 200 100 0 <0.3 ≥0.3<0.5 ≥0.5<0.6 ≥0.6<1.0 ≥1.0<2.0 ≥2.0 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU area (km2))

Figure 5. Current Road Density Indicator levels within KFN Territory.

TKD 600

500

400

300

200 Number of WAUs 100

0 <0.3 ≥0.3<0.5 ≥0.5<0.6 ≥0.6<1.0 ≥1.0<2.0 ≥2.0 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU area (km2))

Figure 6. Current Road Density Indicator levels within TKD Territory.

February 2017 Page 53 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TLFN 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150

Number of WAUs 100 50 0 <0.3 ≥0.3<0.5 ≥0.5<0.6 ≥0.6<1.0 ≥1.0<2.0 ≥2.0 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU area (km2))

Figure 7. Current Road Density Indicator levels within Takla Lake First Nation Territory.

If the “threshold” of 0.6km of road/km2 is used as the coarse‐scale indicator of when road density will cause adverse consequences on watershed and/or terrestrial habitat integrity, 3.6%, 26.3% and 37.5% of the WAU’s within the KFN, Tsay Keh and Takla Lake Territories, respectively, have exceeded that level, and adverse effects would be anticipated. These statistics suggest that there are currently very minor to moderate adverse effects on watershed health and terrestrial habitat integrity as a result of road development, generally worsening from north to the southwest within the TKN area. Some of the more severe anticipated effects would include compromised grizzly bear population sustainability within relatively high proportions of TKD and Takla Lake Territories. 5.4 Equivalent Clearcut Area Risks to stream/aquatic resource values are classified below based on the ECA indicator, as outlined in BC’s IWAP. The IWAP procedure specifies risk levels and thresholds associated with stream‐aquatic resource values as follows:  Low Risk: <18% ECA;  Medium Risk: >18 to 36% ECA; and  High Risk: >36% riparian forest removal. Additional classifications were created for higher levels of ECA (i.e., ≥36 and <50%, ≥50 and <70%, and ≥70) that reflect increasing landscape alteration. Risks to stream/aquatic resource values associated with high ECA levels include altered hydrology and temperature regimes. In this assessment, the ECA was determined for each of the WAUs in the TKN’s Territories using the BC Watershed Health Tool. The watershed health tool incorporates non‐anthropogenic impacts on forests including recent burns and forest health issues (i.e. dead forests as a result of mountain pine beetle), which contribute to adverse watershed health, but can be beneficial to terrestrial habitat values.

February 2017 Page 54 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

In order to relate anthropogenic impacts to ECA (i.e. logging) road density was considered for each category of ECA. The results are provided in Table 8 and Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10, below, with maps presented in Appendix 1a, 1b, and 1c. Table 8. ECA statistics for the WAUs located within the TKN’s Territories.

Number of WAUs per ECA (% cleared) risk category TKN Territory Low Medium High High+ High++ Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk <18% ≥18%<36% ≥36%<50% ≥50%<70% ≥70% KFN – Kwadacha 683 151 33 11 1 First Nation TKD – TKD 487 343 37 12 0 TLFN – Takla Lake 556 347 46 10 0 First Nation

800 1.6 KFN ECA 1.51 700 1.4

600 KFN Road 1.2 500 Density 1

400 0.8

300 0.6 area (km2))

200 0.4 Number of WAUs

100 0.2 0.141 0.11 0.049 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU 0 0.038 0 <18% (Low Risk) ≥18%<36% ≥36%<50% (High ≥50%<70% ≥70% (High++ (Medium Risk) Risk) (High+ Risk) Risk)

Figure 8. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of KFN Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category.

February 2017 Page 55 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

600 1.2 1.1 TKD ECA 500 1

TKD Road 400 0.8 Density

300 0.6 0.547 area (km2)) 200 0.4 Number of WAUs

0.271 100 0.2 0.2 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU 0 0 0 <18% (Low Risk) ≥18%<36% ≥36%<50% (High ≥50%<70% ≥70% (High++ (Medium Risk) Risk) (High+ Risk) Risk)

Figure 9. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of TKD Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category.

600 1.8

1.6 1.555 TLFN ECA 500 1.4

400 TLFN Road 1.2 Density 1 300 0.833 0.8 0.736 200 0.6 area (km2)) Number of WAUs 0.4 0.355 100 0.2

0 0 0 Road Density (length of road (km) / WAU <18% (Low Risk) ≥18%<36% ≥36%<50% (High ≥50%<70% ≥70% (High++ (Medium Risk) Risk) (High+ Risk) Risk)

Figure 10. Current Aquatic and Ecosystem Health of Takla Lake First Nation Territory based on the ECA indicator, with corresponding average road density for each ECA category.

February 2017 Page 56 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

As indicated above and in the maps presented in Appendix 1, 22%, 45%, and 42% of the WAUs within the KFN, Tsay Keh, and Takla Lake Territories, respectively, reflect ECA levels that represent a medium (or higher) risk to watershed health. When corresponding average road density is considered relative to ECA, it is apparent that ECA within KFN Territory is highly influenced by non‐anthropogenic factors. TKD and TLFN Territories reflect ECA levels that are more reflective of forestry related impacts. ECA is not typically utilized as a terrestrial habitat integrity indicator, but risk levels identified for watershed health likely correlate to terrestrial habitat indicators such as core patch size and fragmentation. High ECA levels in combination with road density impacts reflect a high level of industrial activity, with corresponding disturbance effects.

6 Biological Indicators 6.1 Aquatic‐Fish 6.1.1 Fisheries‐Aquatics Status Overview The TKN area, consisting of the Territories of the KFN, TKD and TLFN, covers a substantial area incorporating portions of the following watersheds (Figure 11): 1. Fraser (Stuart/Takla) 2. Skeena (Sustut, Bear, Johanson) 3. Stikine (upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) 4. Peace/Williston (Finlay, KFN, Ingenika, Nation, Omineca) a. Upper headwaters of the watershed draining the eastern slopes of the northern Rockies into the Peace, including the Halfway/Graham 5. Portions of the Liard watershed (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) a. Upper headwaters of watersheds draining the eastern slopes of the northern Rockies into the Liard River, including the Sikanni Chief The majority of the TKN area is centered around and encompassed within the Peace/Williston watershed. Watersheds within the TKN area surrounding this central area include portions of the upper Fraser/Nechako and the Skeena, which include productive salmon bearing waters, and portions of the watersheds draining to the north and east into the Liard River watershed. Given the vast geographical differences in the watershed, and their connection to different oceans, there are a very wide array of fish species within the TKN area. There are substantial differences in the availability of information on fisheries resources within these different areas. More information is available for watersheds with species supporting active commercial fisheries (i.e. salmon within the Fraser and Skeena) , relative to more remote areas. There was considerable information for the Williston portion of the Peace based on various assessments conducted for industrial activities within the watershed. The fisheries‐aquatic interests of the TKN are considered below according to the watersheds groups outlined above, and the resources specific to each of those watersheds.

February 2017 Page 57 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Liard watershed (Kechika/Gataga) 7‐51, 7‐52 Stikine (Spatsizi, upper Stikine, Chukachida) 6‐19, 6‐20 Liard watershed (Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) 7‐50, 7‐51

Liard watershed; headwater watersheds draining the eastern slopes of rockies into Liard, including the Sikanni Chief 7‐42, 7‐57

Skeena (Sustut, Bear, Johanson) Peace; headwater 6‐18 watersheds draining the eastern slopes of rockies into the Peace, including the Halfway/Graham 7‐43, 7‐36 Fraser (Stuart/Takla) Peace/Williston (Finlay, KFN, 7‐27, 7‐26 Ingenika, Nation, Omineca) 7‐40, 7‐41, 7‐33, 7‐38, 7‐37, 729, 7‐28

Figure 11. Takla Lake First Nation Territory (yellow), TKD Territory (orange), KFN (red) and provincial wildlife/fisheries management units (MUs) (purple). 6.1.2 Fraser Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources Assessment of Current Conditions – Fraser Watershed

6.1.2.1 Fraser Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context There are underlying environmental trends that have had and/or continue to have significant environmental effects on each of the TKN’s Territories. Climate change is an impactful matter influencing long‐term environmental trends within the Fraser watershed portion of the TKN area. Climate change has resulted in higher, more moderate winter temperatures, and warmer drier summer temperatures. These climate change trends have already resulted in the following environmental effects:

February 2017 Page 58 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Large‐scale forest health issues (MPB) and more frequent and intense forest fires associated with disease affected areas (Carroll, et al 2003);  Altered spring‐summer peak flow (freshet) timing and lower summer flows (Kang, D. et al. 2016); and  Higher summer water and air temperatures (Fraser Basin Council, 2015).

These are key causative factors in the current diminished status of a number of biological indicators assessed herein – for example:  Altered (earlier) freshet is directly implicated in the diminished status of Early Stuart sockeye;  High summer water temperatures are directly implicated in the diminished status of other Nechako sockeye stocks, including the Late Stuart sockeye. Broader climate change related impacts are considered responsible for the decline in marine productivity that has adversely affected all Fraser and Skeena sockeye stocks; and  Salvage logging to maximize the economic viability of the forests affected by the MPB epidemic has resulted in an increase in forest cover removal and roads, and contributes incrementally to increasing water temperatures, hydrology changes and other effects associated with climate change. This is a probable contributor to the decline in moose populations within portions of the Omineca.

Earlier spring seasonality and warmer summers are causing other indirect effects on the landscape, including a rapid conversion of lands to range and hay/crop lands, with resulting implications on terrestrial and aquatic habitats associated with intensive land uses (Fraser Basin Council, 2015).

6.1.2.2 Fraser Watershed – Historical Environmental Context There are key historical effects that also “frame” or influence the current environmental condition of the TKN’s Territories. One of the most prominent historical effects within the portion of the Fraser watershed within the study area is the diversion, impoundment and regulation of the Nechako River (beginning in 1952). Biological indicators within this river have not been monitored adequately to fully understand the effects of diversion and regulation. Nevertheless, significant adverse effects on the watershed’s unique population of white sturgeon (SARA listed Endangered) have been documented, and is suspected to be related to the river’s altered hydrograph (Recovery Plan for Nechako White Sturgeon)4, as depicted in Figure 12, below.

4 http://nechakowhitesturgeon.org/uploads/files/Recovery%20Plan%20July07%202004.pdf

February 2017 Page 59 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 12. Nechako River hydrograph: pre impoundment, diversion and regulation, and post (1980‐ 2000).

Other documented effects include warmer summer water temperatures that result in adverse effects on migrating sockeye salmon, as well as on other fisheries/aquatic resources within the River. Diversion, impoundment and regulation of the Nechako River has affected and continues to adversely affect TLFN’s ability to harvest sturgeon and sockeye. Fraser Watershed (Upper Stuart/Takla); Aquatic Resources Salmon resources, particularly sockeye, have historically been and continue to be fundamentally important in the cultural and socio‐economic fabric of the TLFN. They are harvested within the TLFN Territory annually (K. West Pers. Comm.; D. Radies Pers. Comm.). TLFN Territory includes salmon bearing areas within the Fraser and Skeena watershed. TKD Territory includes salmon bearing portions of the Skeena watershed. Sockeye stocks that originate and return to the Fraser River’s Nechako watershed and the Stuart River reflect subpopulation structuring, and are individually described as “stocks”, or more recently, as Conservation Units (CUs). Conservation Units are the “management unit” construct of Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) (DFO 2005). In the case of sockeye, each CU is generally defined by the lake environment they utilize as natal‐rearing habitat. Each CU has evolved to reflect differing life history and biological characteristics, including migratory timing, peak spawning period, and morphology. In part, the WSP is intended to guide Canada’s management of salmon stocks for the purposes of ensuring the diversity reflected across CUs is maintained (DFO 2005).

February 2017 Page 60 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Fraser sockeye stocks that support TLFN’s harvesting Rights within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area include: 1. Early Stuart sockeye (CU Takla‐Trembleur‐EStu) 2. Late Stuart sockeye (CU Takla‐Trembleur‐Stuart‐S)

Early Stuart Sockeye Early Stuart sockeye are the earliest returning sockeye to the Fraser River and are prized for that reason and for their high oil content. The stock has been traditionally used by many First Nation communities in their “First Fish” ceremony, which marks the beginning of the fishing season (C. Ciesielski Pers. Comm.). Early Stuart sockeye are unique in their use of small lake‐tributary streams for spawning. They return to tributaries of Takla Lake and the Middle River to spawn, and are known to rear in Takla and Trembleur Lake. They are integral to TLFN, who only has direct access to 2 Fraser sockeye stocks. Early Stuart have historically spawned in 44 different streams in the Stuart‐Takla Watershed. Streams with the highest production of Early Stuart sockeye are tributaries of Middle River. Gluskie, Forfar and Kynock (One’el) creeks have been used as an identifier for overall health of the Early Stuart Run as a whole. The level of distribution can change drastically from year to year. In 2011 only 9 of the 44 potential‐historical Early Stuart Spawning Streams had Early Stuart sockeye return to spawn and a total of 758 sockeye were estimated to have returned to spawn, which is one the lowest escapements on record. The stock has recently totaled over 1 million sockeye in the late 1990’s. The Early Stuart sockeye are managed as an independent Management Unit within DFO’s sockeye management framework and have been assessed as being of Conservation Concern since 1996 (they have not been subjected to direct commercial exploitation and have been the subject of a shared harvesting arrangement amongFraser First Nations, as facilitated by DFO). Spawners are enumerated annually through a combination of ground and aerial surveys, and counting fences in some years. Early Stuart Sockeye Status and TKN Use The stock status was recently reviewed by DFO according to Wild Salmon Policy criteria and determined based on productivity and abundance metrics to be within the “red zone ” (of poor status) (DFO, 2013). The stock’s decline has been the subject of several investigations and ongoing conservation planning (Levy et al, 2008; Patterson and Hague, 2008). See Figure 13 for a plot of spawning escapements and total run size of Early Stuart Sockeye.

February 2017 Page 61 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Early Stuart Sockeye 1,800,000 100% 1,600,000 90% 1,400,000 80% 1,200,000 70% 60% 1,000,000 50% 800,000 40% 600,000 30% 400,000 20%

No. of Fish 200,000 10% 0 0% Enroute Loss as % of Escapement 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Spawning Escapement Total Catch Total Run Enroute Loss as % of Escapement (Spawning Escapement, Total Catch, Total Run) Linear (Spawning Escapement) Linear (Total Run)

Figure 13. Early Stuart; spawner escapement, total run size, total catch and enroute loss as a % of escapement (only spawner escapement available 2012‐2015).

The distribution of spawners has also changed, with most of the Takla Lake spawning streams, which are further north, seeing far lower numbers than the Middle River streams, potentially related to migratory stress. This has had a substantial effect on TLFN, as the Driftwood River at the top of Takla Lake was previously used by a substantial number of spawners, providing community members at Takla Landing with excellent access to a productive resource. The stock’s diminished status has led to continual conservation‐based limitations on the harvests of the stock by TLFN for more than a decade, including no harvest in some years. The condition of the returning fish arriving to Takla Lake is also anecdotally noted to have become problematic, likely related to migratory stress (M. French Pers. Comm.). Late Stuart Sockeye Late Stuart sockeye are managed as a component of the Summer Management Unit aggregate of Fraser sockeye stocks by DFO, along with Stellako sockeye (and multiple other sockeye stocks that don’t return to the Nechako/Stuart watersheds). The Late Stuart sockeye return to spawn in the Middle River, tributaries to Trembleur and Stuart lakes, and the Tachie River. Spawning usually occurs in late September and early October, following Early Stuart return and spawn‐timing. Late Stuart spawning locations are also spatially separated from Early Stuart, in that they generally use larger streams, south/downstream of Takla Lake. Juveniles rear within Trembleur and Stuart lakes. See Figure 14 for a summary of the spawning escapement, total run, catch and estimated enroute loss for Late Stuart Sockeye.

February 2017 Page 62 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Late Stuart Sockeye 6,000,000 90% 80% 5,000,000 70% 4,000,000 60% 50% 3,000,000 40% 2,000,000 30%

No. of Fish 20% 1,000,000

10% Enroute Loss as % of Escapement 0 0%

(Spawning Escapement, Total Catch and Total Run) Spawning Escapement Total Catch Total Run Enroute Loss as % of Escapement Linear (Spawning Escapement) Linear (Total Run)

Figure 14. Late Stuart; spawner escapement, total run size, total catch and enroute loss as a % of escapement (only spawner escapement available 2012‐2015).

Late Stuart sockeye are accessible to TLFN within the southern portion of its Territory. In recent years, the Late Stuart sockeye have been experiencing declining returns. Late Stuart Sockeye Status and TKN Use The stock’s status was recently reviewed by DFO according to Wild Salmon Policy criteria and determined to be within the “red‐amber zone” (of cautionary‐poor status) based on metrics of short and long term trends, productivity, and abundance (DFO 2013). Contributing Factors (Early and Late Stuart Sockeye) The severe decline in the number of Early Stuart sockeye returning to Takla Lake is a significant concern for TLFN beyond the direct effects on food availability. The effects of the declining abundance of the stock is recognized to have effects on the productivity of the lake, and resident fish stocks are increasingly relied upon by TLFN members. It is notable that the DFO status assessments referenced above has only considered data to 2010. However, trends for the Early and Late Stuart stocks have been observed to be in continuous decline from 2011‐2015. The contributing factors to the declining status of Early and Late Stuart sockeye are recognized to include:

February 2017 Page 63 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

a. Migratory stressors: Earlier timed fish (Early Stuart) are experiencing discharge‐flow conditions on their spawning migrations that are outside of their historic norms (e.g. high volume discharges) with increasing frequency, which is adversely impacting the fishes’ energetics and health (leading the high rates of enroute loss and/or diminished spawning success). These changes to flow regimes are related to land clearing (altering run‐off timing), water withdrawals, impoundment and discharge regulation. Climate change trends combined with land/water use are a basis of many of the matters affecting run‐off timing.  Late Stuart sockeye are adversely affected in a similar manner but by increasingly frequent high water temperatures (outside of the limits they have historically experienced) during their spawning migration that induce stress and enroute mortality and/or diminished spawning success. Climate change trends combined with land/water use are a basis of many of the matters affecting water temperature regimes. b. A steep decline in “marine productivity” is recognized to be a major factor influencing the abundance of most Fraser sockeye stocks (since the mid‐1990s) (Figure 15). Diminished survival of juvenile sockeye in the marine environment is the causative mechanism, resulting in fewer adults returning ~3‐years after ocean entry. The poor marine productivity is likely a result of altered ocean currents and temperature regimes, as a result of overall climatic warming trends.

Figure 15. Number of 4‐yearold adult recruits per spawner (for all Fraser sockeye stocks adequately monitored to generate this information) – from https://www.watershed‐watch.org/issues/salmon‐ biodiversity/the‐fraser‐sockeye‐inquiry/.

c. Management of exploitation: DFO’s harvest management policy is in conflict with escapement, conservation and sustainability objectives for Late Stuart sockeye in the following ways: i. While substantially reduced on an annual basis due to declining Fraser sockeye abundances experienced in the last decade, exploitation has remained higher than sustainable given the recruitment‐productivity of some stocks (i.e. from generation to generation they have been producing too few individuals to maintain population levels

February 2017 Page 64 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

with even minimal exploitation in some cases, causing declining abundance). This effect has of course been more severely felt by the longer migrating stocks such as Late Stuart. ii. DFO’s management framework for Fraser sockeye does not yet fully reflect a management approach which incorporates the WSP CU level of resolution; i.e. DFO continues to manage Fraser sockeye stocks in aggregates based on timing of entry to the Fraser approach area – a continuing point of contention with Interior Fraser First Nations and other groups advocating for the sustainability of the various Fraser River sockeye stocks (Personal Communications; C. Ciesielski 2016, D. Haskell 2016, G. Sterritt 2016). iii. Late Stuart Sockeye are managed as a part of an aggregate group of sockeye known as the “Summer” Run which include a number of other stocks that travel to the mid and Lower Fraser. On years that other stocks are of a high abundance, the smaller Late Stuart stock faces the fishing pressure focused on these much larger, better performing stocks, with a targeted 65% exploitation rate in years when “aggregate abundance” allows it.

The decline in Early Stuart sockeye and their shift in spawner distribution have been especially impactful to the TLFN community, as the stock supported large‐scale harvesting and was readily accessible. Early and Late Stuart sockeye were traditionally harvested in large numbers and preserved to support dietary needs throughout the year. Chinook Chinook are present within TLFN Territory but are poorly described and no populations within the Territory are presently monitored. Chinook are captured in fisheries targeting other species. Information provided (below) is relevant to chinook stocks that return to the Nechako watershed and are monitored (to infer a potential trend in abundance) (Table 9). Chinook that originate from and return to habitats in the Nechako watershed belong to two different Management Units (MUs) within DFO’s Fraser chinook management framework. Chinook that return to the Nadina, Endako, Driftwood and Chilako rivers are earlier in their return and spawn timing (referred to as “52 Springs” – the 5 refers to the predominant age of returning adults, and the 2 refers to their predominant freshwater life history – a minimum residency until their 2nd year of life). The Endako and Chilako river stocks are the larger stocks within this MU in the Nechako, and are the only stocks within this MU that are regularly enumerated. The predominant chinook stocks returning to the Nechako River‐proper and Stuart River are a component of the MU termed the “Summer 52” (slightly later timed in their adult return and spawn timing than the Spring stocks, same minimum freshwater residency of 1+years). The largest of these stocks return to the Nechako and Stuart river mainstems. The Nechako stock is subject to an annual intensive enumeration program as a component of the Nechako Fisheries Compensation Program (NFCP)5. Chinook were selected as an indicator of river’s regulated discharge regime under the 1987 Settlement Agreement6. The Stuart stock has not been enumerated recently, and enumeration of the

5 http://www.nfcp.org/ 6 http://www.nfcp.org/Settlement_Agreement/1987%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf

February 2017 Page 65 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay river’s chinook population has historically been challenging. Where comparable data exists, Stuart escapements have been similar in magnitude to the Nechako escapements. Chinook supporting TLFN’s fisheries in the Fraser watershed migrate up the Stuart River and into the Driftwood and Middle rivers. These stocks are not enumerated. Table 9. Nechako River chinook stocks and their assigned management unit, whether or not they are enumerated, and their presence within TLFN Territory.

Drainage (Nechako Current Enumerated TKN Watershed) Management unit (Yes/No) Territory Nadina River 5.2 Springs No No Endako River 5.2 Springs Yes No Driftwood River 5.2 Springs No Yes Chilako River 5.2 Springs Yes No Nechako River 5.2 Summers Yes No Stuart River 5.2 Summers No No Stellako River 5.2 Summers No No Kazchek River 5.2 Summers No No Kuzkwa River 5.2 Summers No No Pinchi Creek 5.2 Summers No No Tachie River 5.2 Summers No No Middle River 5.2 Summers No Yes

At present, both these management units (52 Springs and 52 Summer) have been declining (as have most other Fraser chinook stocks), and DFO has undertaken an investigation of causative factors after multiple years of management measures that have not elicited the desired response (Riddell et al 2013). The status of both of these chinook MUs can be considered poor, as inferred by their escapement and productivity trends, and the corresponding management measures employed by DFO. Measures have recently included limitations on TLFN’s harvest (in addition to sport and commercial harvests). Limitations on First Nations harvests are a reflection and indicator of poor stock status.

The escapement trends related to both Spring and Summer 52 management units are provided (see Figure 16 below). The broad management objectives for both MUs is the achievement of MU‐level escapements at a Base Period Escapement Goal.

February 2017 Page 66 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 16. Escapement trends for Spring and Summer 52 (from Riddell et al 2013).

While no specific data exists for the stocks of chinook that enter TLFN’s fisheries area in the Fraser watershed, it is likely they are trending similar to their overall MU(s). Fraser Chinook Status and TKN Use

The 2016 Salmon Outlook qualifies Spring 52 and Summer 52 chinook as stocks of concern, the same category within which Interior Fraser Coho and SARA listed stocks are categorized. The 2016‐17 South Coast IFMP indicates that the management objectives for these chinook stocks will be planned as “zone‐ 1” within DFO’s Fraser chinook management framework, meaning “Significant conservation concerns. Very high risk of extremely low spawning populations.” The corresponding management actions include:  Directed fisheries minimized  By‐catch retention /limited directed First Nations fisheries  Non‐retention/closed recreational and commercial chinook fisheries in the Fraser River and tributaries; and

February 2017 Page 67 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Management actions to reduce by‐catch or incidental harvest in other recreational and commercial fisheries.

Key contributing factors to diminished status include: (i) overexploitation due to DFO management policy, which is in conflict with escapement, conservation and sustainability objectives that are central to TLFN’s interests; (ii) poor marine productivity, which is a function of climate change trends; and (iii) unknown freshwater habitat constraints (substantial data gaps). Coho Coho salmon within the Nechako watershed are a component of the Upper Fraser subpopulation of Interior Fraser Coho (IFC), which COSEWIC has assessed as endangered. Their presence and distribution in the Nechako are poorly described, although very limited inventory effort has been undertaken. The harvest of coho by TLFN members is historically documented in the Takla watershed, but stock distributions in the upper Fraser watershed are believed to have been heavily impacted by the Hells Gate slide in the early 1900s. Their existing distribution in the upper Fraser has been characterized as a re‐colonization (R. Bailey Pers. Comm. 2013). Coho have been documented within the Nechako River and the Stuart system in the last decade. Spawning adults have been confirmed in the Nechako River, and juveniles have been documented from the Nechako maintstem and tributaries to the Nechako and Tachie rivers. Coho Status and TKN Use While COSEWIC assessed Interior Fraser Coho as endangered, they are not listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), meaning they are not subject to SARA prohibitions. They are, however, managed according to a Conservation and Recovery Strategy, and commitments made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when rationalizing their exclusion from SARA listing (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team, 2006). They have been managed by DFO towards the objectives identified within the strategy through a very stringent 3% exploitation cap within Canadian domestic fisheries. A key factor that contributed to the current depleted health status of Coho is the severe impact of the Hell’s Gate slide in the early 1990s, which resulted in the loss of historic populations upstream from the obstruction. Populations are currently considered to be re‐colonizing. White Sturgeon White sturgeon within TLFN Territory are known to occur within Takla Lake. Fish occurring within Takla Lake are part of the Nechako white sturgeon population. White sturgeon in the Nechako watershed were assessed as endangered by COSEWIC in 2006 and 2012, and are presently under reassessment. Additionally, they were added to Schedule 1 of SARA in 2006. Their management is guided by SARA and the population specific goals and objectives identified within the Recovery Strategy for White Sturgeon in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2014a). The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (of which TLFN is a member) has been an active member of the Recovery Team (Technical Working Group‐TWG), leading recovery planning and implementation (since prior to the creation of SARA) and has contributed to many of the studies that have documented and monitored the population’s status and its primary distribution. CSTC continues to cooperatively contribute to recovery, monitoring and research efforts (C. Ciesielski Pers. Comm.).

February 2017 Page 68 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The following summarizes pertinent information about the Nechako white sturgeon population and recovery process (C. Williamson, Pers. Comm, 2016):  Genetic evidence indicates that there is very limited inter‐breeding between white sturgeon from the Fraser watershed populations.  Radio tagging/movement information suggests the population’s core range includes the lower Stellako River, Fraser Lake, Nautley River, Nechako River from Diamond Island to the Stuart River confluence and the Stuart system (Stuart Lake, Trembleur Lake, Takla Lake). There doesn’t appear to be any sub‐population structure within those areas.  Individuals from the population have been documented to occasionally move into and back from the Fraser River.  The population has suffered from a “recruitment failure” since 1967 – essentially a failure to produce juveniles. The remaining population (recent estimates a maximum of 600 individuals) are largely fish >40‐years of age, and declining in reproductive potential. It is estimated that the population will become unrecoverable within 15‐20 years – meaning there will be too few individuals that could successfully reproduce. o The recruitment failure is likely caused by the effect of damming and subsequent regulation of the Nechako River’s flows, but the exact causative pathway is not fully understood. The leading recruitment failure hypothesis relates to changes that have occurred in the River’s habitat at the sturgeon’s only known spawning reach in Vanderhoof, with strong evidence that the substrate at the site is continually inundated with fine sediment, which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to egg and larval development. o Experiments to understand larval habitat needs and to start to understand sediment dynamics in the spawning reach are ongoing.  In 2014, a sturgeon hatchery was built in Vanderhoof to raise several thousand juvenile white sturgeon on an annual basis to be released back into the Nechako as 1‐year olds.  Work is intended to continue on restoring the spawning habitat so that successful wild spawning and juvenile recruitment can be re‐established. Recent experiments have produced encouraging results.

White sturgeon are important to TLFN culturally, including their contribution to sustenance (M. French pers. Comm., 2016). Since the population’s protection by SARA in 2006, there have been prohibitions in place that restrict activities with the potential to kill, harm, or harass Nechako white sturgeon. Since 2006 TLFN has reported by‐catch encounters and participated in harm reduction and outreach measures (C. Ciesielski, pers. Comm., 2016). Lake Trout (Char) Lake trout populations are typically resident in a single larger lake, with no or limited gene flow with other populations in most cases. They are sensitive to harvest as a result of their biology and life history, including slow growth rates, late age of maturity and longevity (R. Pillipow pers. comm, 2016). Lake trout are a yellow‐listed species (“not at risk of extinction” ‐ secure) in British Columbia (CDC, 2014). However, until recently, limited information existed regarding lake trout populations in BC. Their

February 2017 Page 69 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay secure status in BC results from their distribution in less‐developed areas with poor road access (T. Downe in Mills, K.H., Dyck, M, and Harwood, LA, 2008). The first lake trout‐specific regulation in BC was introduced in 1980, and by the mid‐to‐late 1980s, additional location‐based spawning closures and reduced bag limits were introduced. More angling regulations are now based on lake trout biology and lake specific data, but the effectiveness of regulations has largely not been assessed (T. Downe in Mills, K.H., Dyck, M, and Harwood, LA. 2008). Lake trout within the Omineca are among the most actively managed populations in BC, with many populations having been assessed in recent years. The lakes in Table 10 represent the three lake trout populations within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area. Inzana and Takatoot lakes have been sampled for the purposes of assessing their health relative to the population’s sustainability. Each demonstrated an adequate level of recruitment and population structure to suggest exploitation was sustainable (R. Pillipow pers. comm., 2016). Takla Lake’s lake trout population’s health has not been assessed. Table 10. Lake trout (char) populations within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area.

Fraser Regulation TKN Territory TLFN TKD KFN Inzana Lake (7‐26) General regional regulations (Daily Quota 3; Y N N 1>50cm – not retention Sep 15‐Oct 31 Takatoot Lake (7‐26) General regional regulations Y N N Takla Lake (7‐27) General regional regulations Y N N

Lake Trout (Char) Status and TKN Use Lake trout support culturally important sustenance fisheries for TLFN, particularly fall fisheries, as well as ice fisheries and spring net and line fisheries. Lake trout harvests have been increasing and are more heavily relied upon given declining availability of sockeye. With this increased fishing pressure, there is a concern that TLFN may be harvesting some populations at unsustainable rates (D. Radies, Pers. Comm., 2016). Where assessed within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area, lake trout populations have been determined to be of a healthy status. Concern was expressed regarding Takla Lake’s lake trout population and the risk of recent increasing reliance on char harvests with difficulty obtaining sockeye. Takla Lake’s lake trout population has not been surveyed/assessed (R. Pillipow pers. comm., 2016). Other Resident Species There are a range of other resident species in the Fraser watershed portion of the study area that are important to TLFN that are beyond the scope of this analysis. An overview of the distribution and use of some of these species is provided below. The records cited below from the provincial FIDQ tool only reflect those waterbodies that have been the subject of formal sampling, which is typically undertaken by government agency personnel, consultants/ contractors working on behalf of the forest industry, or academia conducting research activities.

February 2017 Page 70 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Kokanee populations are widespread through the Nechako basin and occur within all sockeye nursery lakes (Francois, Fraser, Takla, Trembleur, Stuart). A review of the provincial Fisheries Inventory Data Queries (FIDQ) tool indicated 95 kokanee observation records from 29 individual waterbodies for the Fraser watershed portion of the study area 7. Kokanee populations within this area are not monitored to any extent and are managed within Provincial harvest regulations according to a blanket harvest regulation. TLFN members use kokanee extensively for sustenance and other purposes. They are also well recognized for their importance to the ecosystem in terms of their contribution to fish and wildlife diets. Wild native rainbow trout are extensive throughout the Nechako River watershed. They are extensively inventoried but little work has been completed on specific biological, life history and genetic traits exhibited between the various populations, and few wild populations are monitored to any extent. A total of 683 records of rainbow trout from approximately 250 individual waterbodies within the Fraser watershed portion of TLFN Territory are in the provincial Fisheries Inventory Data Queries tool. TLFN captures rainbow trout in lakes and rivers throughout its Territory. In some cases fisheries are large‐ scale in terms of catch and are focused on large‐body variants to support sustenance needs, or highly‐ recruiting small‐body variant populations which are used for a variety of purposes. Other fisheries for rainbow trout are opportunistic (supporting needs while on the land) and support a variety of purposes. There is an active spring trout fishery targeting large spawning rainbow trout within the Driftwood River and at its confluence with Takla Lake. Bull trout populations in the upper Fraser and Nechako watershed have been the focus of a number of research projects in the last decade, with a focus on understanding basic biology, life history, distribution and habitat use. Ongoing work is focused on identifying the nature of population structure, seasonal migrations and their timing, and habitat use (R. Pillipow pers. comm., 2016). The Nechako River and its main tributaries and lakes are known to provide important habitats, particularly in relation to seasonal feeding opportunities. There are 31 records of bull trout from 14 individual waterbodies within the Fraser watershed portion of TLFN Territory in the provincial Fisheries Inventory Data Queries tool. There are an additional 99 records for dolly varden from 46 individual waterbodies within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area, which would also now be considered to refer to bull trout. TLFN harvest bull trout in directed seasonal fisheries at known congregation and feeding locations, and incidentally in various other net, setline and rod and reel fisheries. Bull trout are managed conservatively within the Fraser portion of the Omineca Region, largely due to their sensitivity to exploitation and population‐level information limitations. Lake whitefish are by‐captured in char fisheries and also the subject of directed gillnet fisheries in select lakes. There are 13 records of lake whitefish observations from 6 individual lakes within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area in the provincial Fisheries Inventory Data Queries tool. Lake whitefish populations within this area are not monitored to any extent and are managed with a blanket harvest regulation. Burbot are highly sought after by TLFN members and are by‐captured in net fisheries and targeted in setline fisheries (both through the ice and during the ice‐free period). There are 27 records of burbot observations from 12 individual waterbodies within the Fraser watershed portion of the study area in

7 http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/searchMultiple Waterbodies.do

February 2017 Page 71 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay the provincial Fisheries Inventory Data Queries tool. Burbot populations within this area are not monitored to any extent and are managed within the Provincial harvest regulations with a blanket harvest regulation. TLFN uses and/or historically used various species of sucker, pikeminnow, chub, peamouth and other resident “coarse fish” species for both sustenance and other uses (e.g. rendering for oil, trapping attractants, etc.). These species are not monitored to any extent. A summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Fraser portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources is provided in Table 11.

February 2017 Page 72 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 11. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Fraser portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources.

Fraser Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use)

Severely Constrained. Access to this key  Migratory stressors: Changing fisheries resource is constrained due to flow and temperature regimes Red Zone (of poor both diminished abundance and within the Fraser River watershed status); determined Early Stuart restrictive regulation in recent years. related to land clearing, water based on productivity Y N N Sockeye Fish cannot be regularly caught in the withdrawals and impoundment and abundance metrics amount, locations, and/or using the and discharge regulation, and (DFO 2013) methods desired. The condition of climate change trends. sockeye is also becoming problematic.  Poor ocean productivity: A function of climate change trends.  Migratory stressors: Changing flow and temperature regimes Red‐Amber Zone (of within the Fraser River watershed cautionary‐poor related to land clearing, water status); determined Severely Constrained. Access to this key Late Stuart withdrawals and impoundment based on long‐term Y N N fisheries resource is constrained due to Sockeye and discharge regulation, and and short‐term trend diminished abundance. climate change trends. metrics, productivity  Overexploitation: Due to DFO and abundance metrics management of exploitation.  Poor ocean productivity: A function of climate change trends. Poor status (lowest Constrained by limited abundance and abundances on record  Overexploitation: Due to DFO Chinook (Spring regulation. Significant data limitations. for the MUs; managed Y N N management of exploitation. and Summer 52) by DFO as conservation  Low marine productivity. concern); information

February 2017 Page 73 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Fraser Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) limited for TLFN’s area

ENDANGERED,  Stock distribution heavily Coho Salmon COSEWIC (managed Not Possible. By regulation impacted by Hell’s Gate slide (sub population according to (Conservation Strategy). Distribution (early 1900’s) that resulted in the of Interior conservation and Y N N within the area is poorly understood. loss of historic populations Fraser Coho, recover strategy, and Abundance is inadequate to support (upstream of obstruction). IFC) ministerial harvesting. Populations considered to be re‐ commitments) colonizing. Resident Fish Stocks Not Possible. The right can no longer be Recruitment failure since 1967, exercised (SARA – until/if rebuilding is related to effects of impoundment, successful). diversion and regulation of the Endangered, COSEWIC, TLFN cannot legally or sustainably Nechako River. Leading recruitment Nechako White Schedule 1 listed under Y N N harvest white sturgeon. failure hypothesis: changes in river’s Sturgeon SARA habitat at spawning reach, and TLFN has forgone directed harvest of continuous sedimentation that is the species for more than a decade out detrimental to egg and larval of concern for the sustainability of the development. population. Sustainable or Note; many lake trout populations unknown status (3 Concerns over increasing reliance on within the southern Omineca are Lake trout populations within Y N N char stocks due to decline in sockeye documented to have population (char) Fraser portion of study availability. structures that reflect overharvest, area) largely correlated with access. Other; kokanee, Unknown status; rainbow trout, populations not Y N N Not presently constrained. Data deficient. bull trout, lake monitored in any way whitefish, (no identified

February 2017 Page 74 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Fraser Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) burbot, coarse conservation concerns) fish

February 2017 Page 75 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.1.3 Skeena Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources Assessment of Current Conditions – Skeena Watershed

6.1.3.1 Skeena Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context There are underlying environmental trends that have had and/or continue to have significant environmental effects on each of the TKN’s Territories. The most impactful matter influencing long‐term environmental trends is climate change, and specifically a trend towards higher, more moderate winter temperatures, and warmer drier summer temperatures. These climate change trends have already resulted in the following environmental effects within the parts of the TKN Territories:  large‐scale forest health issues (MPB) and more frequent and intense forest fires associated with disease affected areas (Carrol, et al 2003);  altered spring‐summer peak flow (freshet) timing and lower summer flows (Kang, D. et al. 2016); and  higher summer water and air temperatures (Fraser Basin Council, 2015).

Owing to its more northerly proximity, the Skeena River watershed and its fish stocks have not experienced the scale of adverse effects that the Fraser watershed has in relation to climate change related effects. However, the Skeena River has experienced summer high temperature issues affecting sockeye migration in recent years, and this trend will continue to worsen. Trends within the Skeena watershed indicate an ongoing loss of glacial area and reduced snowpack within its sub‐watersheds (Porter et al 2013). The Skeena’s salmon stocks have also been subject to the diminished marine productivity trends that have affected all pacific coast salmon stocks, but this relationship within the Skeena is highly influenced by the enhanced Babine‐component of the Skeena’s stocks (Wood 2008).

February 2017 Page 76 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 17. Trends in Babine (closed symbols) and non‐Babine (open symbols) sockeye salmon escapement and marine survival of Babine smolts (crosses) lagged to correspond to adults returning at age 5 (from Wood 2008).

6.1.3.2 Skeena Watershed – Historical Environmental Context The Skeena watershed has not been the subject of largescale hydroelectric development, but has been and is subject to a variety of land and resource use pressures, including forestry and mining. In the context of the portion of the Skeena watershed within this study area (the Sustut River watershed), the most relevant influence relates to how fisheries for the Skeena watershed’s various salmon stocks are managed. This has a direct impact on how many salmon and steelhead return to spawn and support fisheries within the Sustut watershed, which is largely undeveloped. Likely the largest factor influencing the Skeena’s salmon stocks and related fisheries for those stocks is the spawning channels that were created on two main tributaries to Babine Lake, Pinkut Creek and Fulton River. These spawning channels and their related infrastructure were created as a component of the Babine Lake Development Project, which was initiated in 1962. The project was intended to increase sockeye fry production into Babine Lake, which was assessed as having juvenile sockeye productivity‐ potential in excess of what was being seeded by the system’s wild stocks (West 1978). The intent was to maximize the sockeye catch within the marine‐based commercial sockeye fisheries occurring in the Skeena approach and estuary areas.

February 2017 Page 77 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 18. Sustut River watershed overview map (Bear River watershed inset) ‐ from Gottesfeld and Rabnett (2007).

February 2017 Page 78 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The project has been successful in increasing sockeye fry densities in, and smolt output from, Babine Lake, but there are significant implications for non‐enhanced sockeye (and other salmon species) within the Babine and broader Skeena system. This includes targeting highly abundant returns of enhanced sockeye in mixed‐stock/species fisheries at high exploitation rates which are detrimental to the non‐ enhanced stocks (Cox‐Rogers and Spilsted 2012). Approximately 90% of all Skeena River sockeye are now from Babine Lake, and of these, on average 75% are enhanced fish from Pinkut Creek and Fulton River spawning channels (Cox‐Regers and Spilsted 2012).

Figure 19. Trends in the proportions of adult (age 4 and age 5) Pinkut/Fulton and wild Babine Lake sockeye arriving at the Babine Lake counting fence, 1950‐2010. The trend lines are fitted by LOWESS (F=0.5) (from Cox‐Rogers and Spilsted 2012).

The implications of the enhanced Babine sockeye stocks on the sockeye and steelhead stocks returning to the Sustut watershed are referenced within the descriptions of those stocks below. Skeena Watershed (Sustut/Bear); Aquatic Resources Information relating to Skeena salmon escapement figures presented below, unless otherwise referenced, was obtained from DFO’s Pacific Region’s centralized Oracle database (NuSED New Salmon Escapement Database System) that holds adult salmon escapement data.8

8 http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c48669a3‐045b‐400d‐b730‐48aafe8c5ee6

February 2017 Page 79 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Sockeye Sockeye return to the Sustut watershed to spawn within the Bear River watershed and sub‐watersheds within the upper Sustut. Three or four distinct sockeye stocks spawn in the upper Sustut River drainage. Sockeye rearing lakes include Asitka Lake, Sustut Lake, and the Johanson Watershed lakes (Spawning Lake and Johanson Lake). Stocks returning to the Bear system are denoted as two Conservation Units – Bear and Azuklotz, owing to juvenile’s suspected‐independent usage of these nursery/rearing lakes (which are very closely linked). Enumeration data relating to the Sustut’s sockeye stocks is based on annual or periodic visual or fence indices (incomplete counts of total escapement), infrequent lake assessments of juvenile abundance, and a variety of run reconstruction techniques. Sustut sockeye are some of the longest migrating sockeye stocks within the Skeena watershed. Upper Sustut Sockeye Sockeye rearing lakes within the upper Sustut include Asitka Lake, Sustut Lake, and the Johanson Watershed lakes (Spawning Lake and Johanson Lake). Individual spawning populations are the subject of periodic visual observations, and since 1992, an enumeration fence has been installed on the upper Sustut mainstem, providing counts of sockeye returning to Sustut, Spawning and Johanson lakes (Table 12). Table 12. Sustut River fence counts 1992‐2005 (from Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007) and 2006‐2010 from annual reports9.

Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Steelhead 1992 100 2590 30 487 1993 199 2169 18 476 1994 956 3737 118 598 1995 523 24 658 1996 3368 33 515 1997 965 5 701 1998 570 2777 64 1252 1999 609 221 30 896 2000 1020 476 12 377 2001 1639 1258 9 769 2002 988 674 64 812 2003 1106 4992 119 1104 2004 483 1604 25 1042 2005 383 1175 88 271 2006 472 808 121 163 2007 721 2469 48 263 2008 793 212 38 193 2009 273 540 223 1162 2010 174 426 114 1050

9 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/skeena/fish/sk_series_reports/

February 2017 Page 80 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Note that the sockeye counts in Table 12 are generally reflective of the full sockeye migration period and include stocks returning to the upper Sustut and Johanson/Spawning (M. Beere Pers. Comm. 2016). Coho and chinook counts are not reflective of the full run‐timing of those species. The fence location and methodology was standardized in 1994. Johanson Watershed (Spawning and Johanson Lakes) These stocks have one of the longest migrations of all Skeena sockeye stocks. Since 1992, Johanson sockeye spawner abundance has been estimated from the Sustut weir counts (located upstream of the Moosevale Creek‐Sustut River confluence – see Table 12 above), however, few estimates of total terminal spawner abundance exist. Catch or exploitation rate data for these stocks (as an amalgamation of all upper Sustut sockeye CUs) were estimated by English et al .(2016) based on reconstruction techniques (see Fig 23 below). Their modeling produced an estimated average annual escapement for the combination of Spawning/Johanson and Sustut or 3362 fish. Both the Johanson and Spawning CU are data deficient. There has been inconsistent spawner abundance monitoring, and the small combined size of the stocks makes the calculation of catch or exploitation rate difficult. The following information is outlined by Connors et al. (2013) in relation to the stocks:  The principal sockeye spawning grounds for Spawning and Johanson are groundwater receiving shorelines at depth below normal visibility.  Johanson Lake has clear and moderately cold water. It is relatively deep with steep shorelines, ultra−oligotrophic with low producvity in a high elevaon, short rearing season. Spawning Lake is a mid−valley lake of Solo Creek, which drains into Johanson Creek. Snowmelt dominates the hydrological regime. It is a high elevation rearing lake with short rearing season.  Fry recruitment is limited for both lakes by low adult spawner abundance and rearing habitat is likely underutilized.

Habitat concerns exist related to linear development and increased sediment inputs. In the past, mineral exploration development activity polluted Johanson Lake (Connors et al 2013). Run timing for both the Johanson and Sustut CUs are assumed to be similar to that for middle−run timing groups. Management actions taken to reduce harvest rates for Skeena sockeye in coastal Canadian commercial fisheries after 2009 have probably reduced the exploitation rates for this CU, but in−river harvest rates can be in excess of 50% due to large harvests in terminal fisheries. Johanson Watershed Sockeye; Status and TKN Use Long‐term data is unavailable for the purposes of assessing the recent (3‐generations) status of these stocks (Connors et al 2013). Brett (1952) reported the average escapement to the “Sustut Lakes” in 1946 and 1947 at approximately 5,000 sockeye. Aggregate sockeye stock counts are discontinuous from 1950 to the early 1990s, and population trends are difficult to distinguish. English et al. (2016) estimated (based on run reconstruction techniques) an average escapement of 3,362 spawners for an aggregate of the Sustut/Johanson/Spawning sockeye CUs. The rearing capacities of both Johanson and Spawning lakes are thought to be underutilized due to low spawner escapement.

February 2017 Page 81 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Long term reconstruction techniques suggest that the stock has been on a declining trend and is functioning at or near its provisional limit reference point (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008). The Johanson stocks are targeted by TKN and other First Nations in terminal fisheries in Johanson Creek and Lake and fishing sites in the upper Sustut River downstream of the Johanson Creek confluence. Sustut Lake Sockeye Sustut sockeye escapement records date back to the late 1940s and then are intermittent till the early 1960s. From the early 1960s to early 1990s, the annual average escapement was 606 sockeye (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Escapement data from the lower fence counts during the 1990s suggest the annual average to be at least double that number of spawners. The peak of the sockeye run passes through the fence in late August. Spawning is principally sustained in Sustut Lake in patchy sections along the southern shoreline (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Sustut Lake Sockeye; Status and TKN Use The CU is considered data deficient due to inconsistent monitoring and a recent (3‐generation) status can therefore not be accurately applied (Connors et al 2013). Long term reconstruction techniques suggest that the stock has been on a declining trend and is functioning at or near its provisional limit reference point (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008). TKN members harvest Sustut sockeye in their fisheries on the Sustut River. Asitka Sockeye The Sustut River fence counts (Table 12, above) do not include Asitka Lake spawners, since the Asitka River branches from the Sustut downstream of the counting weir. The annual escapement from visual estimates (twenty years recorded since 1950) averages approximately 300 sockeye, with a range of 1 to 700 (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Connors et al (2013) estimated annual escapement of 166 spawners to 2010. Spawning locations noted include the three largest bays within the lake to the south, southwest, and to the west, and in the upper section of river below the outlet (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Spawners are noted to be frequently prevented from reaching Asitka Lake by beaver dams and are then thought to spawn in patchy groundwater influenced locations 16 km downstream of Asitka Lake (Connors et al 2013). Asitka Sockeye; Status and TKN Use The long‐term record of intermittent escapement data makes it difficult to assess the status of the stock. Recent annual escapement figures (2007‐2014) range from 57 spawners to 1563 spawners (mean 608) (NuSEDs). Long term reconstruction techniques suggest that the stock has been on a declining trend and is functioning at or near its provisional limit reference point (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008).

February 2017 Page 82 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Sockeye returning to the Asitka River are harvested by TLFN members at fishing sites in the mainstem of the Sustut River. Azuklotz Sockeye A fairly consistent time series of visual spawner abundance estimates (indexes) are available for Azuklotz Creek back to 1950 (Figure 20). Run timing is assumed to be similar to Bear sockeye and used to derive annual estimates of catch and exploitation rate (Connor et al 2013, English et al 2016).

16000 Bear ‐ Sockeye 14000 Azuklotz ‐ Sockeye 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 Estimated Spawner Escapement 0

1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 Figure 20. Estimates of spawning escapements from Azuklotz Creek/Lake and Bear Lake/River outlet (Note; Bear Lake shoals spawner counts seem to have been discontinued 1973‐2008) – from NuSEDs.

The principal spawning grounds for the stock are upper and lower Azuklotz Creek. It is unclear how much juvenile sockeye rearing occurs in Azuklotz Lake, but current thinking is that some rearing occurs there (hence the separation of the Bear and Azulklotz CUs) (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Azuklotz is a clear, warm, shallow and multi−basin, oligotrophic lake with low to moderate producvity. It receives a moderate amount of sediment from the upstream fan which is very unstable. Fry recruitment is limited by very low adult spawner abundance and rearing habitat is generally underutilized. Fish passage to Azuklotz is often obstructed by beaver dams in the short, lower Azuklotz Creek reach between Bear and Azuklotz lakes (Connors et al 2013). Habitat issues center on the BC Rail corridor that crosses the upper Azuklotz creek fan downstream of the apex. This crossing impacts stream integrity and is the priority rehabilitation site in the upper Skeena watershed. The BC Rail corridor functions as a contaminated linear corridor (Connors et al 2013). This CU is part of the middle run timing group for Skeena sockeye. After the Independent Science Review Panel10 in 2008, management actions were taken to reduce harvest rates for Skeena sockeye in coastal Canadian commercial fisheries to address conservation concerns for non−Babine sockeye CUs. Use and status of Azuklotz sockeye is discussed below.

10 http://www.cec.org/sites/default/files/submissions/2006_2010/8881_09‐5‐arsp‐ annex_12_skeena_independent_science_review_panel_report.pdf

February 2017 Page 83 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Bear River/Lake Sockeye Spawner abundance counts are largely historical visual aerial surveys of lakeshore (shoal) spawners at depth, making conditions for accurate counts difficult. DNA data from Tyee Test fishery have been used to estimate run timing and derive annual estimates of catch and exploitation rate. A single fence count conducted in 1947 recorded 42,000 spawners (Connors et al 2013). Direct counts, combined with recaptures from a fence‐tagging program, demonstrated that a high proportion of the returning sockeye salmon spawned in the lake, with only Azuklotz Creek supporting a >1,000 fish stream spawning population (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). The principal sockeye spawning grounds are the shallow and deep water locales fed by groundwater on western shorelines of Bear Lake. Minor spawning occurs in Salix Creek and Bear River downstream of the lake outlet (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007, Connors et al 2013). Fry recruitment is limited by very low adult spawner abundance and rearing habitat is generally underutilized (Figure 21). Bear Lake was assessed as one of the top 3 most productive sockeye nursery lakes within the Skeena watershed, and was assessed as supporting only 10% of the juvenile sockeye density that it could support (Shortreed et al 1998).

Figure 21. Non‐enhanced Skeena sockeye nursery lakes juvenile sockeye biomass relative to nursery lake rearing capacity (from Connors et al 2013).

The Bear (and Azuklotz) sockeye run‐timing is highly coincidental with the enhanced Babine stocks, and it is therefore historically been subject to high levels of exploitation targeting those enhanced stocks.

February 2017 Page 84 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 22. Timing of Skeena River entry for adult sockeye returning to the Bear and Babine (and other) systems (from Connors et al 2013).

This CU is part of the middle run timing group for Skeena sockeye. After the Independent Science Review Panel in 2008, management actions were taken to reduce harvest rates for Skeena sockeye in coastal Canadian commercial fisheries to address conservation concerns for non−Babine sockeye CUs (Connors et al 2013). The recent modeled exploitation rate reflected in Figure 25 below may substantiate that outcome. Azuklotz and Bear Sockeye; Status and TKN Use English et al (2016) modeled reconstruction of an aggregate of the Bear/Azuklotz/Asitka CUs produced an estimated average escapement of 5301 fish. Connor et al (2013) estimated the recent status of the Azuklotz sockeye CU to be healthy based on available data (to 2010, with a focus on spawner escapements in the prior three generations). Bear Lake has been recognized as having juvenile productivity potential well in excess of existing levels of fry recruitment, and that increasing spawner escapement and fry recruitment would result in increased smolt output (Shortreed et al 1998). There are habitat issues associated with the rail line effect Azuklotz Creek, which are discussed above. Gottesfeld and Rabnett (2007) indicate that the Bear Lake sockeye spawners decreased greatly in the 1950s and have not recovered. Connors et al (2013) indicated the stock’s status in terms of the stock‐ recruitment parameter is very poor. Status based on other metrics were assessed as healthy, suggesting the stock is chronically underperforming due to past over‐exploitation. A long‐term declining trend in escapement was evident from the works reviewed that considered the full period of record of escapement data series (Wood 2008, English 2013, English et al 2016).

February 2017 Page 85 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Sockeye returning to Bear Lake and Azuklotz Lake/Creek are specifically targeted and captured by TLFN members within fisheries in the Sustut River and Bear Lake and the Bear River, which is an area of considerable importance for TLFN’s salmon/steelhead fishery. TLFN is highly reliant upon sockeye returning to the Sustut/Bear system as the option to harvest Early and Late Stuart sockeye from Takla Lake has been lost (M. French 2016). The proximity of the Bear Lake fisheries (relative to more distant options) was also noted to make this fishery of primary importance to TLFN. Summary; Sustut‐Bear Watershed Sockeye Status and TKN Use Sockeye stocks returning to the Sustut watershed vary considerably in terms of their spawning habitat and nursery lake productivity characteristics. Available data suggest they have all been subjected to a long‐term trend of over‐harvesting and are under‐performing relative to their potential. Figure 23 (Right). Trends in non‐Babine sockeye escapements by sub‐area. The open circles in the top frame indicate total counts at the Sustut weir; horizontal dashed lines indicate provisional limit reference points (figure from Wood 2008).

Small unproductive stocks in the upper Sustut are at risk should over‐exploitation continue, although short‐term data suggests returns appear to be stable at or below their lower reference limit. Continued/further declines in marine productivity or increases in exploitation would of course be detrimental (and increase risk), given the stock’s diminished statuses. Larger stocks returning to the Bear and Azuklotz system are subjected to high rates of exploitation in TLFN’s fisheries, following the already high rates of exploitation theyare subject to in marine and downstream fisheries. The author notes that there are some anomalies in terms of the escapement estimates available for the Bear‐Azuklotz sockeye relative to personally observed terminal‐harvests on these stocks. There is substantial risk to TKN’s terminal fisheries that are reliant upon these stocks. The risk arises from the stock’s poor/diminished status, fishery management (exploitation) decisions, and is exacerbated by the generally poor state of escapement data. All Sustut stocks should be benefiting from reduced sockeye exploitation rates that were recommended to guide fishery management decisions following the 2008 Independent Science Review Panel.

February 2017 Page 86 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

90 Total ER Sustut (Sustut/Johanson/Spawning) 80 Total ER Bear (Bear/Azuklotz/Asitka) 70 60 50 40 30 20

Total Exploitation Rate (ER) (%) 10 0

Figure 24. Total estimated exploitation rate for aggregated sockeye CUs returning to the Sustut River (data from English et al 2016).

Figure 25. Modeled estimates of exploitation and escapement for Bear Lake sockeye (from English 2013).

Steelhead The Sustut steelhead are unique relative to other Skeena steelhead in that their return timing is early, and coincidental with major commercial fisheries for sockeye salmon (Baxter 1997). This had made their management a significant concern and challenge, given Provincial conservation concerns for steelhead and the conflicts between Provincial and sportfishing interests (for steelhead), and Federal interests in commercial fisheries for sockeye and other salmon. The Sustut’s steelhead population consists of at least two sub‐populations, divided into upper and lower, with the Bear River being the boundary (steelhead using the Bear River are considered lower Sustut). Enumeration of spawning steelhead on the lower Sustut population, including the Bear River,

February 2017 Page 87 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay has been minimal. The upper Sustut has had an enumeration fence operated continually since 1992. The two sub‐populations are suspected to have unique life histories, including return timing through Skeena approach areas, and of course exposure to variable mortality (angling/harvest/predation) based on their chosen spawning area. The upper Sustut fence‐index of escapement may therefore not be a good surrogate for the lower Sustut/Bear population. Upper Sustut Steelhead Steelhead arrive in the upper Sustut from early August through to mid‐October. They overwinter predominantly in Sustut and Johanson Lakes, particularly at their outlets. Steelhead spawn in May and June, coinciding with warming water temperatures and increasing streamflow. Spawning has been noted to occur in the upper Sustut River upstream of the Johanson−Sustut confluence and likely peaked in the week of May 21, and was completed with most fish off their spawning redds and holding in deep water by June 15th (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). The two principal spawning locations are the upper Sustut River upstream of Johanson Creek and the mainstem of Johanson Creek (Bustard 1994). Bustard noted that there is limited spawning in the mainstem below the Johanson−Sustut confluence, and that more spawning apparently occurs in upper Sustut River than in Johanson Creek. No other steelhead spawning locations are known on the Sustut mainstem. Observed numbers of returning adults from the fence counts up to 2005 are reflected in Table 12, above. Past and more recent Sustut fence steelhead counts are provided in Figure 26, below.

Figure 26. Steelhead counts (including upper Sustut fence) 1992‐2013.

Lower Sustut/Bear Steelhead The Bear Watershed supports one of the largest summer‐run steelhead populations in the Skeena Watershed and is well known for its large and abundant steelhead. Bear Lake is a known overwintering

February 2017 Page 88 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay area, and it has been suggested that steelhead also overwinter in Sapolio Lake (lakelet at the Bear River outlet from Bear Lake) as well as in the mainstem Sustut River at the Bear confluence (from Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Steelhead have not been consistently enumerated within this system (Table 13). Individual (point‐in‐ time) observations include 3000 spawers (Chudyk 1972) and 700 spawners. The “chinook spawning areas‐dunes” are noted to be heavily used by steelhead, with spawning occurring throughout the Bear River to within a few kms of its confluence with the Sustut (Baxter 1997). Table 13. Population estimates for adult steelhead in the lower Sustut/Bear River (from Baxter 1997).

Sustut/Bear Steelhead Status and TKN Use As outlined above, escapement figures (since 1992) for the upper Sustut have been consistently collected, and counts for the Bear have not been maintained. Steelhead are managed by the Province as a catch and release sport fishery, and the primary influence on escapement is by‐capture in commercial and First Nations FSC fisheries. Within‐season decisions with respect to commercial fisheries for sockeye can be extremely impactful on Sustut steelhead. They have likely benefited from reductions in mixed‐ stock/species fishery exploitation that were implemented in 2009. Conservation status of the Skeena’s steelhead stocks is considered to be within the “routine management zone” (Beere 2016). The Province’s new Framework for Steelhead Management11 discusses the challenges in the application of statuses for individual steelhead populations. An overall estimate of Skeena steelhead is provided in the Tyee Test Fishery in the lower Skeena (Figure 27).

11 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/docs/Provincial‐Framework‐for‐Steelhead‐Management‐in‐BC‐April‐2016.pdf

February 2017 Page 89 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 27. Estimated escapement of Skeena Steelhead at the Tyee Test Fishery, 1956‐2015 (to the last day of the Fishery) – from Beere 2016.

There are substantial data gaps in relation to Sustut steelhead management, including the absence of historical or recent escapement information and/or any form of monitoring program for lower Sustut (Bear) steelhead. Available information suggests the Skeena (and likely both Sustut steelhead stocks) are healthy, but experience diminished returns in some years when they are subjected to high rates of by‐ catch in commercial sockeye fisheries. This has implications on the sustainability of TKN’s terminal fisheries for these stocks. Steelhead that return to the Sustut/Bear watershed are highly prized by TLFN members. They are by‐ captured in summer and fall net fisheries for sockeye and coho, and targeted along with chinook in rod and reel fisheries. They are also targeted in spring rod and reel fisheries prior to their spawning period. Chinook (Bear River/Other‐Sustut) Chinook returning to the Sustut fall into two general groupings; those returning to the Bear River system which spawn in the highly lake‐influenced Bear River, and those that return to spawn in the Sustut River and its smaller tributaries. Bear River chinook are categorized as the “mid‐Skeena Large Lakes CU”, along with Babine and Morice chinook. Other chinook returning to the Sustut are categorized the “upper Skeena CU” (Connors et al 2013). This CU is made up of chinook spawning in stream habitats upstream of the Slamgeesh River in areas not influenced by large lakes. This CU is highly data deficient and the stocks comprising this CU are poorly described. The CU’s components in the upper Sustut and Johanson have some unsegregated escapement data from the upper Sustut fence (Figure 28). The fence is installed too late to enumerate the earliest migrating component of these stocks, and therefore reflects an index of abundance only. Gottesfeld and Rabnett (2007) summarized three documented principal chinook spawning areas for the Sustut chinook: Johanson Creek upstream of the Johanson Creek−Sustut River confluence, Sustut River upstream of the Johanson−Sustut confluence, and Sustut River downstream of the Johanson−Sustut confluence. In general, adult chinook spawn in approximately 10 km of habitat that extends from 0.5 km

February 2017 Page 90 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay downstream of the Moosevale Creek−Sustut River confluence to 1.0 km upstream of the Johanson Creek−Sustut River confluence.

1800 1600 Chinook (Sustut Fence) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Figure 28. Chinook counts from the upper Sustut River Fence 1994‐2010.

Bear River chinook salmon are one of the largest chinook populations in the Skeena system. It is estimated that of the chinook returning to the Sustut watershed, as much as 85% spawn in the Bear River (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). Adult chinook returning to the Bear River are annually enumerated via aerial surveys (Figure 29). Gottesfeld and Rabnett (2007) described documented chinook spawning areas occurring from 2‐3 km downstream of the lake outlet adjacent to the airstrip, which has excellent gravel and many dunes resulting from redd construction. The remainder of chinook spawning takes place from this locality downstream to 2 km above the Sustut confluence.

February 2017 Page 91 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

25000 Bear River Cn Spawner Escapement 20000 Linear (Bear River Cn Spawner Escapement) 15000

10000

5000

0

Figure 29. Annual visual spawner escapement estimates for Bear River Chinook, 1984‐2014.

Chinook (Bear River/Other‐Sustut) Status and TKN Use Connors et al (2013d) indicates that the upper Skeena (Sustut, non‐Bear stocks) populations are too information deficient to apply a status. The trend in upper Sustut fence counts suggests a downward trend was observed until 2010. Connors et al (2013e) found the middle‐Skeena large lakes chinook CU to be below their lower benchmark in terms of the trend in spawners, and the Bear spawning escapements show a more marked decline than the Morice and Babine stocks. Other metrics used to assess the status of the CU were found to be healthy. Chinook within the Bear system are heavily fished by TKN members in directed rod and reel fisheries, and by‐captured in net fisheries for sockeye. Large numbers are harvested. Declines in abundance have been concerning. Coho Knowledge about coho escapements and spawning distribution within the Sustut watershed is poorly developed, with periodic escapement and spawning observations for many Sustut tributaries. Small numbers of coho are counted through the upper Sustut fence but are known to continue their migration after removal of the fence. Within the Bear watershed coho are better described and annually monitored as an index of abundance. Coho arrive in the Bear River generally throughout September and head to their spawning grounds. Scattered spawning occurs in the Bear River and in tributaries feeding Bear Lake, which include the lower reaches of Salix Creek, the un‐named creek across the lake from Salix Creek, Azuklotz Creek, and the un‐named tributary flowing into lower Azuklotz Creek (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). There were serious conservation concerns with Bear system coho in the late 1990s, due to very few coho adult spawners (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2007). The aggregate escapements have increased since exploitation was reduced in the 1990s (Figure 30 and Figure 31).

February 2017 Page 92 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The author notes that the number of coho observed in the Sustut and Bear rivers and associated TKN fisheries suggest that coho are more widespread and/or return in larger abundances than what the escapement‐index records suggest.

Figure 30. Escapement, harvests, and exploitation rate trends for Area 4 (Skeena) Coho (from English et al 2016).

3000 Bear Coho Spawners 2681 2500

2000 2085 1836 1500 1234 1120 1114 1000 841 848 753 500 581 350 130 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 31. Visual estimates of coho within the Bear River and tributaries (2002‐2014).

February 2017 Page 93 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Coho Status and TKN Use Coho are generally understood to be recovering from high rates of exploitation that were driving spawning population numbers lower. Some level of recovery is evident, although data is limited for the Bear‐Sustut system. Coho are targeted by TKN members in rod and reel and net fisheries, and by‐captured in net fisheries. They are harvested in substantial numbers, particularly when other species (sockeye, chinook, steelhead) are not available. Skeena/Sustut; Resident Fish Stocks Very little information has been gathered on resident fish stocks within the Sustut watershed, other than inventory information. Bull trout, mountain whitefish and rainbow trout are regularly documented at the Sustut Fence. Burbot, kokanee, lake trout, lake and mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, and largescale and longnose sucker and other coarse fish are documented from other portions of the watershed. The watershed’s resident fish stocks are not monitored (Beere 2016, pers. comm.) Lake trout are captured regularly by TLFN members in Bear Lake. Lake trout are also known from two other lakes within the watershed (Table 14). Those lakes are closed to sport (resident and non‐resident) anglers. Table 14. Lake trout (char) populations within the Skeena watershed portion of the study area.

Skeena Regulation TKN Territory TLFN TKD KFN Bear Lake (6‐18) General regional regulations (Daily Quota 3; Y N N 1>50cm – no retention Sep 15‐Nov 30) Sustut Lake (6‐18) Closed to fishing Y Y N Johanson Lake (6‐18) Closed to fishing Y Y N

A summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Skeena portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources, is provided in Table 15, below.

February 2017 Page 94 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 15. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Skeena portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to access/use those resources.

Skeena Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) The Bear CU is Bear Lake is a primary fishing location Long‐term high rates of commercial chronically for TLFN and thousands of sockeye are exploitation on the stock (run timing underperforming due harvested annually (when returns coincides with enhanced Babine). to past over‐ support harvesting). TKN harvest of Fry recruitment is limited by very low Bear River/Lake exploitation. A long‐ sockeye in the Sustut system is adult spawner abundance and sockeye; term declining trend in considered unconstrained but at rearing habitat is generally denoted as two escapement was significant risk underutilized (due to diminished Conservation evident from the works Y N N TLFN is now highly reliant upon sockeye adult‐spawner escapements Units (CUs) – reviewed that returning to the Sustut/Bear system as overtime); assessed as supporting Bear and considered the full the option to harvest Early and Late only 10% of the juvenile sockeye Azuklotz period of record of Stuart sockeye from Takla Lake has density that it could support escapement data series been lost due to their diminished (Shortreed et al 1998). Habitat issues (Wood 2008, English abundance and distribution (M. French associated with the rail line effect 2013, English et al 2016). Azuklotz Creek. 2016). Upper Sustut (Beyond Bear River) Sockeye; Three or four distinct sockeye stocks [Asitka Lake, Sustut Lake, and the Johanson Watershed lakes (Spawning Lake and Johanson Lake)] The CU is considered The long‐term record of intermittent data deficient due to Stock supports sockeye harvesting in escapement data makes it difficult to inconsistent the mainstem of Sustut River. TKN Asitka Lake assess the status of the stock. monitoring and a Y Y N harvest of sockeye in the Sustut system Sockeye CU Rearing lake is underutilized for recent (escapement is considered unconstrained but at rearing due to decreased spawner trend over the last 3‐ significant risk. generations) status can abundance. therefore not be

February 2017 Page 95 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Skeena Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) accurately applied (Connors et al 2013). Long term reconstruction techniques suggest that the stock has been on a declining trend and is functioning at or near its provisional limit reference point (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008). The CU is considered data deficient due to inconsistent monitoring and a recent (3‐generation) Stock supports sockeye harvesting in status can therefore Monitored via Sustut fence since the mainstem of Sustut River and not be accurately 1992 (combined with Sustut Lake headwater areas. TKN harvest of applied (Connors et al Y Y N Johanson/Spawning). Rearing lake is Sockeye CU sockeye in the Sustut system is 2013). Long term underutilized for rearing due to considered unconstrained but at reconstruction decreased spawner abundance. techniques suggest significant risk. that the stock has been on a declining trend and is functioning at or near its provisional limit reference point

February 2017 Page 96 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Skeena Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008). Both the Johanson and Spawning CU are data deficient. Long term reconstruction techniques suggest Stock supports sockeye harvesting in Monitored via Sustut fence since Johanson that the stock has been the mainstem of Sustut River and 1992 (combined with Sustut). Lake/Spawning on a declining trend headwater areas. TKN harvest of Y Y N Rearing lakes are underutilized for Lake Sockeye and is functioning at or sockeye in the Sustut system is rearing due to decreased spawner CUs near its provisional considered unconstrained but to be at abundance. limit reference point significant risk. (i.e. indicative of overfishing and/or a point of conservation concern) (Wood 2008). One of the largest summer‐run Substantial data gaps in relation to steelhead populations in the Skeena. Data deficient (not Sustut steelhead management, Heavily utilized and relied upon by TLFN monitored); including the absence of historical or (summer/fall and spring). Use is not Bear River Conservation status of recent escapement information considered to be constrained, but is Steelhead the Skeena’s steelhead and/or any form of monitoring Y N N considered to be at significant risk. “Lower Sustut stocks is considered to program for lower Sustut (Bear) CU” be within the “routine The stock can experience diminished steelhead. They have likely benefited management zone” returns in some years when they’re from reductions in mixed‐ (Beere 2016). subjected to high rates of by‐catch in stock/species fishery exploitation commercial sockeye fisheries. This has that were implemented in 2009. implications on the sustainability of

February 2017 Page 97 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Skeena Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) TKN’s fisheries.

Monitored annually Supports headwater fisheries of TLFN since 1992 (via Sustut and TKD – summer/fall, spring. Use is fence); recent not considered to be constrained, but is Other Sustut escapement trend has considered to be at significant risk. They have likely benefited from Steelhead been positive. Skeena reductions in mixed‐stock/species Y Y N Primary influence on escapement is by‐ “Upper Sustut steelhead index overall capture in commercial and First Nations fishery exploitation that were CU” also positive (within FSC fisheries. Within‐season decisions implemented in 2009 the “routine with respect to commercial fisheries for management zone” sockeye can be extremely impactful on (Beere 2016) Sustut steelhead. Connors et al (2013e) Bear River found the middle‐ Chinook within the Bear system are chinook; part of Skeena large lakes heavily fished by TKN members in “mid‐Skeena chinook CU to be directed rod and reel fisheries, and by‐ Large Lakes Low recruitment (productivity) noted below their lower captured in net fisheries for sockeye. CU”. as primary cause of decline (trend in benchmark in terms of Large numbers are harvested. Declines Populations Y N N spawner abundance). Exploitation is the trend in spawners, in abundance have been concerning to that spawn believed to have declined. and the Bear spawning TKN. TKN harvest of chinook in the downstream of escapements show a Sustut system is considered large lakes (e.g. more marked decline unconstrained but at significant risk. Babine, Morice, than the Morice and Bear). Babine stocks.

Other Sustut Connors et al (2013d) Supports mainstem Sustut and Chinook; part of indicates that the headwater chinook harvests. Use is not Y Y N Data deficient “upper Skeena upper Skeena considered to be constrained, but is CU”. Non‐lake populations are too considered to be at significant risk. influenced information deficient

February 2017 Page 98 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Skeena Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Popul TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) populations. to apply a status. Index of abundance from Sustut fence indicates a downward trend to 2010 Coho; poorly Generally understood described for to be recovering within Coho are targeted by TKN members in the Sustut the Skeena from high rod and reel and net fisheries, and by‐ (known to be rates of exploitation captured in net fisheries. They are widespread; that were driving harvested in substantial numbers, Bear Lake Decreasing marine exploitation has spawning population Y Y N particularly when other species population resulted in increasing escapement. numbers lower. Some (sockeye, chinook, steelhead) are not monitored via level of recovery is available. Use is not considered to be an index; same evident, although data constrained, but is considered to be at for upper Sustut is limited for the Bear‐ significant risk. – via steelhead Sustut system. fence) Resident fish stocks; burbot, kokanee, No monitoring is rainbow trout, completed on the lake trout, lake watershed’s resident and mountain Y Y N Use is assumed to be unconstrained. Data deficient fish stocks; status is whitefish, and assumed secure due to largescale and remoteness longnose sucker and other coarse fish

February 2017 Page 99 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.1.4 Upper Stikine Watershed (upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) – Aquatic‐ Fish Resources Upper Stikine Watershed – Overview Portions of the upper Stikine River watershed and Chukachida River are encompassed by the northeastern portions of TKN Territory. These are relatively remote areas with limited access, but include productive fish and wildlife habitats that have supported historical and ongoing use. Portions of this area are contained within “protected areas” within Chukachida and Spatsizi protected areas. Metsantan Lake, a tributary to the upper Stikine, was a regularly occupied village until the mid‐1900s, and continues to be used seasonally by TKN. While largely undeveloped/settled, the area’s relatively short history post‐contact has involved extensive mineral, trapping and trading activity, and has seen considerable interest (guided hunting) for its wildlife values (Melymick 2013). There is very limited fisheries inventory information available for the area, but the area is known to support grayling, rainbow trout, bull trout/dolly varden (FIDQ). As indicated above, while remote, the area has seen substantial use. Mining exploration roads were developed into the area near Metsantan Lake and the areas is subject to restricted motorized vehicle use above 1450m elevation. It is quite likely that fish populations in this area are relatively healthy, based on assumptions of difficult and therefore limited access and use, but there is virtually no information available to substantiate this opinion. 6.1.5 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Aquatic‐Fish Resources

6.1.5.1 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Environmental Trends and Contemporary Ecological Context There are underlying environmental trends that have had and/or continue to have significant environmental effects on each of the TKN’s Territories. The most impactful matter influencing long‐term environmental trends is climate change, and specifically a trend towards higher, more moderate winter temperatures, and warmer drier summer temperatures. Trends and projections specific to the Peace that have been confirmed include:  Increasing trends in stream discharge over the winter months of December to April and an earlier onset of the spring freshet over the basin, which was mainly attributed to the observed warmer temperatures of the late winter and spring periods (Omar et al 2006).

February 2017 Page 100 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Modeled projections based on trends include precipitation increases in autumn, winter and spring, and lower increases (Peace) in summer. Temperature is projected to increase in all seasons, with higher increases in winter (Peace). Projected hydrologic changes show an increase in runoff, with median increases between 3.1% ‐ 23.4%, but a decrease in summer runoff. Changes in other hydrologic variables include increases in summer evapotranspiration (due to higher temperature) and winter precipitation falling as snow (due to higher winter precipitation). Spring runoff will continue to shift earlier occurrence as a result of earlier snowmelt (Shrestha et al 2011).  The Williston‐Peace is projected to see an increased water supply, reflecting ongoing trends, which include increasing inflows in late‐fall and winter (warmer temperatures and precipitation falling as rain); the snowmelt will begin earlier; and summer flows will be lower (Georg and Weber 2013).

These climate change trends have already resulted in the following environmental effects within the parts of the TKN Territory:  Large‐scale forest health issues (MPB) and associated salvage logging, and more frequent and intense forest fires (Carrol, et al 2003);  Altered spring‐summer peak flow (freshet) timing and lower summer flows (Kang, D. et al. 2016); and  Higher summer water and air temperatures (Fraser Basin Council, 2015).

These effects occur “on top of” the historical context of a highly altered Peace watershed within the study area.

6.1.5.2 Peace‐Williston Watershed – Historical Environmental Context The most profound background or historical environmental influence on the portion of the Peace River watershed within the study area has been hydroelectric development. BC embarked on the creation of the WAC Bennett Dam from 1961 to 1968 and subsequently created the Williston Reservoir (full pool 1971), which flooded 350,000 hectares of forested land. The reservoir runs 250 kilometres north‐south and 150 kilometres east‐west, and is the seventh largest reservoir in the world by volume, and has a surface area of 1,779 km2 (at full pool) and 1770 km of shoreline. The licenced operating range of reservoir is about 30 m (Stockner et al. 2001).

February 2017 Page 101 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 32. Peace‐Williston watershed (red line) with southern boundary (blue dashed line) of TKN study area (from FWSP 2014).

The creation of the WAC Bennett Dam and Williston Reservoir has had well documented profound socio‐cultural and socio‐economic effects on the TKN, including dislocation from traditional lands, isolation, and disruption of traditional activities and practices. This assessment focuses on the environmental effects of the reservoir, and in particular, the transitioning health‐status of species in the post‐impoundment context of the watershed, and how that is reflected in TKN’s ability to use resources and exercise their Rights. The creation of the reservoir had substantial environmental effects on the large river environs of the Peace, Finlay and Parsnip rivers, as well as the lower portions of the large and small tributaries to those systems. In general the reservoir eliminated the majority of low elevation, low gradient riverine habitats,

February 2017 Page 102 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay that were critical to many life history components of the area’s fish fauna that were uniquely adapted to pre‐impoundment conditions. It transformed (via flooding) those habitats into reservoir (lacustrine) habitats that altered habitat suitability to the detriment of riverine species, and to the benefit of pelagic‐ oriented species.

Figure 33. Depiction of inundation‐effects on low elevation stream channel/valley bottom habitats (from BC MoWLAP 2002).

The inundation of vast amounts of forested land has and continues to have indirect effects on aquatic resources. The flooding provides a new source of nutrients and inorganic mercury for bacteria in the flooded environment. Bacterial decomposition of this new organic material increases the natural rate of methyl mercury creation in the new reservoir which can last for several decades or longer. Ultimately, this causes methyl mercury concentrations to increase in water, plankton, aquatic insects, and fish, which consume aquatic insects. In Canada, the phenomenon of increased methyl mercury concentrations in the environment and especially in fish as a result of reservoir creation has been well documented. Methyl mercury accumulates in tissues of fish due their piscivorous diets (eating other fish) and for humans, consuming fish with high mercury levels poses a health risk. This can be particularly hazardous for First Nations that year‐round, seasonally or periodically have a high proportion of fish in their diets. The impacts of the effects of hydroelectric development and climate change‐related trends are reflected below in the discussion of fish and wildlife population status‐health, and TKN use. Reservoir and Fish Populations The status of the different fish populations within the portions of the Peace watershed affected by the creation of the reservoir is difficult to assess. Firstly, the large size of the area and the historic context of the reservoir create a situation where there is limited scientific baseline in relation to the fish species and their long‐term distribution and population trends. Secondly, a reservoir follows an ecological process that results in a transition of productivity and habitat suitability, and therefore its ability to support fish species with a variety of differing life histories and habitat requirements also transitions. There has been considerable survey work (Williston watershed lakes and streams) through the Peace‐ Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP).12 Most work has focused on documenting

12 https://www.bchydro.com/pwcp/reports.html

February 2017 Page 103 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay presence‐absence and species composition and waterbody characteristics in the vast area. Those activities that have been repetitive for the purpose of monitoring are referred to below. Extensive efforts have been undertaken to monitor Williston Reservoir and related fish populations. But, habitat changes in the Williston Reservoir are not well understood, and changes are likely still occurring (FWCP 2014). Non‐native species (e.g., Kokanee, Brook Trout) have been introduced and native species (e.g., Rainbow Trout) have been stocked in Dinosaur Reservoir and in lakes connected to Williston Reservoir. Some natural populations may have migrated from nearby lakes and established populations in the reservoir (Langston and Murphy 2008). The flooding of approximately 1,700 km2 of a minimally harvested forested area created a sudden, large release of nutrients to the reservoir, which resulted in artificially high production levels in the reservoir during the first 5‐10 yrs. After 15‐25 years the reservoir consumed most of these nutrients, notably phosphorus (P), via sedimentation and outflow (Stockner et al. 2000). Reservoirs typically reach equilibrium with nutrient input/output at 20 to 30 years post‐impoundment. Nutrient data from the FWCP‐Peace monitoring program in the early 2000s suggested that equilibrium conditions had been reached, with some consistency in annual nutrient input/output, sedimentation and discharge (Stockner 2001). Recent surveys have determined the reservoir to be an ultra‐oligotrophic (low productivity) system (Wilson and Langston 2000, Harris et al. 2005). The reservoir’s capacity to support fish based on productivity is limited by nutrient levels. Further, the wide range of water level fluctuations the reservoir undergoes reduces the productivity of littoral habitat, and the food supply for species that rely on this habitat, such as lake whitefish (Blackman et al. 1990). Because of the continuous drawdown‐cycle, the littoral doesn’t contribute the biogenic carbon production (aquatic plant production), that a stable lake of the same size would. The repeated drawdown also restricts connectivity between the reservoir and its tributaries. Other limiting factors for fish likely include habitat quantity and quality and predation (Sebastian et al. 2009). TKN community members have experienced a legacy of adverse socio‐cultural and economic effects that stem from the reservoir’s creation, which deters many people from engaging in their traditional activities on or around it. Further, the reservoir is a “new” waterbody within the TKN area and while it may present new types of fishing opportunities for new species, the lack of historical‐traditional cultural connections to the reservoir and those opportunities, is in itself a deterrent to use. Additionally, it is considered an inhospitable and dangerous environment by many TKN members, and there is substantial perception risk about the health of the fish in the reservoir (or coming from the reservoir) in terms of “health‐risk” in consuming them. Other historical (and ongoing) development impacts include large‐scale forestry operations throughout much of this portion of the study area, as well as long history of mining. Both activities have been demonstrated to have significant direct and indirect impacts on the aquatic environment and fish resources in particular locations. Arctic Grayling Limited fisheries information is available on Arctic grayling populations prior to the formation of the reservoir, but in the mid and late 1970’s the species was very numerous and widespread in the watershed (Blackman 2002). Populations were noted to severely decline in a short period in the early

February 2017 Page 104 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

1980s. By the late 1980s only populations in the largest tributary streams remained, and grayling had disappeared from the reservoir. The declines were substantiated by the broad‐scale monitoring programs. Arctic grayling declined from 13% of the sportfish caught in the reservoir in 1975 to <<1% in 1988 (8% to <<1% using comparable data taken from the same gill netting sites). Angler creel surveys indicated that Arctic grayling declined from 58% of the sportfish catch from the Peace Reach in 1977 to <1% in 1988 (Blackman 1992). Arctic grayling are known to have extreme vulnerability to overfishing, an inability to compete with introduced species, vulnerability to changes in stream flows, complex and frequently site specific life history patterns, and long, complex migrations to spawning, feeding, and overwintering areas. They do not adapt well to changes in the environment. Causes of the declines are thought to be a combination of overfishing, and an inability of at least one life history stage to compete in the reservoir once productivity began to decrease and the cover provided by the floating log mats was removed (Blackman 2002). More recent research suggests that formation of the Williston Reservoir created a barrier for migration of fluvial Upper Peace River Arctic grayling and populations were likely impacted immediately, and grayling that seemed to persist in the reservoir into the 1980s were likely residual ‘pre‐reservoir’ fish. The research suggests that grayling are now restricted only to a number of tributary systems with no interconnectivity (Clarke et al 2007). Arctic grayling were listed as endangered (red listed) by BC in 1995, which was subsequently changed based on population delineation criteria, which resulted in the spatial unit of “designation” becoming very large, including a broad array of largely healthy grayling populations. Catch and release angling regulations for grayling within the upper Peace watershed have been in place since 1996. Arctic Grayling Status and TKN Use The grayling within the upper Peace River watershed are considered (based on phylogeographical lineages) to be a component of the “South Beringia lineage” of Arctic grayling, which includes all grayling within all of BC with the exception of those assigned to the Nahanni lineage (Liard River tribs, including the Muskwa, Beaver, LaBiche, Petitot, and Minnaker rivers) (Stamford and Taylor 2004). The South Beringian lineage of the Arctic grayling is speculated to have declined 10‐25% over the long‐ term (BC CDC 2016). However, as the “conservation or designatable unit” is so large and widespread, and because no index sites have been established representative of the entire range, it is not possible to assess abundance trends over time, and they are classified as “apparently secure (S4)” within BC (BC CDC 2016). However, genetic assessments suggest that Arctic grayling within the upper Peace River watershed (upstream of the WAC Bennett Dam) have been reduced to 1% of their historical abundance (Stamford and Taylor 2005). Grayling are a species of primary importance to TKN use. The ability to meaningfully exercise harvesting Rights related to grayling are extremely constrained due to population declines and the alteration of fishing locations. The limited remaining populations that can be harvested are remote and costly to access. Additional information on importance of grayling, perspectives on health of remaining grayling stocks, trends in their status (important in the absence of western info), etc.

February 2017 Page 105 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Bull Trout Prior to hydro‐electric development of the Peace River, stream resident and fluvial bull trout populations were distributed throughout the majority of the entire upper Peace, Finlay, and Parsnip watersheds (Bruce and Starr 1985). Bull trout habitat in the upper Peace system experienced profound ecological change following completion of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. To date, however, assessing conservation status and identifying appropriate conservation and enhancement measures for Williston Reservoir bull trout have been limited by a lack of population data (Hagen and Decker 2011; Hagen and Pillipow 2013). Currently, specific data on Bull Trout trends within the Williston Reservoir are limited (FWCP 2014). Beginning in 2001, the BC and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Peace Region (FWCP) have employed a redd count methodology to monitor trends in bull trout spawner abundance within the Williston Reservoir watershed (Hagen and Pillipow 2014). This “index” (i.e. population trend rather than overall abundance) program estimates redds on the Davis and Misinchinka rivers and Point and Scott creeks. No significant trend in abundance has been noted within the data collected (Hagen and Pillipow 2014). Existing populations include small bodied variants in stream resident populations as well as large‐bodied fluvial populations. There is anecdotal evidence that fluvial bull trout populations have benefited from increases in fish populations as a result of the reservoir environment [i.e. kokanee (introduced) and lake whitefish]. Bull trout are provincially blue listed (S3‐4) and considered to be declining and stable throughout its ranges with in BC (which included most of the province) (BC Conservation Data Centre 2016). They are federally assessed by COSEWIC as being of “Special Concern”13 (not SARA listed in BC’s interior). Similar to grayling, the “conservation or designatable unit” for bull trout is of a very large geographical scale (5 designatable units recognized in Canada ‐ Genetic Lineage 1 (Southcoast BC populations) and Genetic Lineage 2 (Western Arctic, Yukon, Saskatchewan‐Nelson and Pacific populations). Bull Trout (Dolly Varden) Status and TKN Use As indicated above, it is not possible to accurately assess the status bull trout populations within the Peace portion of the study area – due to information limitations. However, real and/or perceived health risks surrounding the use of bull trout is a more relevant determinant in an assessment of the “ability to meaningfully exercise” Rights in relation to bull trout. Bull trout are culturally an important species for TKN’s fishing activities. Their size and seasonal congregations make them an important species for supporting large‐scale sustenance use. However, TKN community representatives indicate their members have considerable misgivings about harvesting this species due to fears of mercury contamination and potential health risks. A “mercury advisory” was placed on the consumption of fish from Williston Reservoir in the early 1990s and that advisory continue to exist today14. However, sampling/monitoring has been largely inadequate for the purposes of understanding risk and there is substantial confusion in that regard (Azimuth 2015). The anticipation based on trends observed in other reservoirs is that levels should be declining or declined to safe levels.

13 http://www.registrelep‐sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1202 14 http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile68m.stm

February 2017 Page 106 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The sampling with the most relevance to First Nation’s harvesting and consumption and associated health risk was completed by the West Moberly First Nation when they sampled 57 bull trout from the Crooked River (in 2012), a migration route directly connected to the Williston reservoir. A significant correlation was found between fish size (length and weight), age, and mercury concentration (owing to its cumulative nature). Thirty‐seven (37) % of the bull trout sampled had mercury concentrations exceeding the Health Canada Maximum Contaminant Standard and the BC MoE guideline of 0.5mg/kg wet weight. 96% of the bull trout sampled exceed the most permissive BC MoE guideline for fish tissue of 0.1mg/kg (which is based on the consumption of ~1kg of fish per week). Results suggest there is potential human health risk (ERM 2015). ERM (2015) also tested tissue from 3 Northern Pikeminnow that were captured during sampling and all three samples exceeded the Health Canada Maximum Contaminant Standard and the BC MoE guideline. This result suggests the contamination issue is likely prevalent among all piscivorous fish (fish that eat other fish) and could extend to fish that reside in tributary streams and rivers. Azimuth (2016) documented variability in mercury concentrations in bull trout tissue from different tributaries to the reservoir [Scott Creek fish (0.52 mg/kg) being higher than for Ingenika River (0.30 mg/kg) despite a smaller mean size (591 mm vs; 731 mm respectively) but sample sizes were small and varied as did fish size. Results indicated levels of mercury that exceed the Health Canada maximum contaminant standard and the BC MoE guideline. Dolly Varden Dolly Varden and bull trout are relatively closely related but unique species. Their ranges have been noted to overlap in very few areas, including the upper Finlay River, and headwaters of the Ingenika River (Triton 2006). Breeding has been noted to result in viable offspring in the upper Finlay, but not found to be widespread (Baxter et al 1997). In unique areas where bull trout and Dolly Varden ranges overlap, the species’ differences are maintained and reflected through differing life history strategies that result in biological and morphological differences (diet, migration, spawn timing, spawn site selection, and size differences) (Hagen 2000). Dolly Varden tend to be displaced by rainbow trout and bull trout, and are characteristically small. Their presence in and around the Kemess Mine has made them a focus of study and monitoring within that area, and substantial fisheries compensation work was directed towards dolly varden and bull trout habitat adversely affected by the mine (Bustard 2004). Selenium contamination was identified as an in issue in waters flowing from the non‐PAG waste rock dump in the early 2000s (Bent et al 2009). Dolly Varden have been documented/sampled in several upper Finlay tributary streams including within the Toodoggone watershed (Triton 2006). Dolly Varden Status and TKN Use There’s inadequate information with which to assess the status of Dolly Varden populations within the TKN area. Dolly Varden in the area of Kemess Mine have been adversely affected; compensation has included a variety of activities, including salvage/transplants and habitat development in constructed waterways. The habitat mitigation and compensation programs have been deemed to be very successful (Bustard 2004).

February 2017 Page 107 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

There are several issues that deter TKN use of Dolly Varden within the area of Kemess mine and portions of the Thutade watershed, including selenium contamination issues and the altered landscape and setting created by the mine. The distribution of the species is small within the TKN area, and deterrents to use within a considerable portion of that distribution (particularly with the easiest access), is impactful on TKN’s overall use of Dolly Varden. Lake Trout (Char) The large‐scale habitat change associated with the creation of the Williston Reservoir has of course favoured Lake Trout, which are generally not a riverine species (Euchner 2011). Lake Trout have not been stocked in the Williston Reservoir, and the source of present populations in the reservoir is thought be in‐migration from char populations in nearby lakes (Langston and Murphy 2008). There has not been a formal monitoring program but anecdotal information both suggest the population has been increasing (with the creation of the reservoir and stocking of kokanee)15. Lake trout are shoal spawners and given the manner in which the reservoir levels fluctuate, there is some speculation that their ability to successfully reproduce within the reservoir will be impaired, which may limit the population that colonizes the reservoir. Further, there are many (29 documented in BC’s records) naturally occurring lake trout populations within upper Peace portion of the study area (Table 16). Each population is typically resident in a single lake, with limited gene flow with other populations. Due to their biology and life history, including slow growth rates, late age of maturity and longevity, they are sensitive to harvest (R. Pillipow Pers. Comm. 2016). In BC, Lake trout are a yellow‐listed species (i.e., “not at risk of extinction”; CDC 2014). Until recently, however, limited information existed regarding lake trout populations in the province. Their secure conservation status in BC results from their distribution in less‐developed areas with poor road access – conversely, several accessible populations of lake trout are known to be depressed (T. Downe in Mills, K.H., Dyck, M, and Harwood, LA. 2008). The first lake trout‐specific regulation in BC was introduced in 1980, and by the mid‐to‐late 1980s additional location‐based spawning closures and reduced bag limits for lake trout were introduced. More angling regulations are now based on lake trout biology and lake specific data, but the effectiveness of regulations has largely not been assessed (T. Downe in Mills, K.H., Dyck, M, and Harwood, LA. 2008). Lake trout within the Omineca (Reg. 7) (the Peace portion of the study area) are among the most actively managed populations in BC, with many populations having been assessed in recent years. The lakes listed below in Table 16 represent the known lake trout populations within the Peace watershed portion of the TKN area. Lake Trout (Char) Status and TKN Use Lake trout are an important species supporting TKN use. They are targeted in fall net and rod and reel fisheries in locations where spawning congregations occur and at other times of the year where they are

15 http://www.synergyecology.ca/willistonlaketrout/

February 2017 Page 108 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay known to congregate to feed or stage. They are also caught randomly either in directed ice or open water fisheries (West 2016, Pers Comm). Lake trout (char) in the Williston Reservoir are subject to the same Provincial consumption health warning that relates to bull trout. No specific information on lake trout mercury levels could be found, but given their longevity and highly piscivorous diet, and recent sampling and analyses done by ERM (2015), it is reasonable to assume the warning is valid. TKN representatives confirmed that a perception of health risk exists in relation to lake trout from Williston Reservoir, which precludes large‐scale use of those fish and the reservoir (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm). The 28 (excluding Williston) lakes listed in Table 16 below represent the naturally occurring lake trout populations within the Peace portion of the study area. Those to which specific resident angler restrictions or management measures have been applied have demonstrated either some level of unsustainability in terms of population structure, or some level of sensitivity to harvest. Those subject to “general regional regulations” have either not been assessed and are deemed to be too remote (infrequently fished) to be a concern, or have been assessed and don’t show signs of over‐harvest. Those without specific protective measures are correlated to the more remote locations of the study area. Nine (9) of the 28 naturally occurring populations demonstrate some level of over‐harvest, or risk of over harvest. While the regulations imposed on resident anglers don’t apply to TKN members, the regulations suggest their ability to use these resources is impaired (i.e. reduced number of fish or catchability), and in exercising their Rights, they may be compromising sustainability of the population. Table 16. Lake trout (char) populations within the Peace watershed portion of the study area [from community (FISS database http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/fissSpeciesSelect.do)].

Peace Regulation TKN Territory TLFN TKD KFN Purvis Lake (7‐28) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov Y N N 1‐Apr 30 Tsayta Lake (7‐28) Lake trout possession quota = 2 (only one over Y N N 50 cm); no set lines; No fishing Nov 1‐Apr 30 Witch Lake (7‐28) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov Y N N 1‐Apr 30 Airline Lake (7‐28) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov Y N N 1‐Apr 30 Tchentlo Lake (7‐28) Lake trout possession quota = 2 (only one over Y N N 50 cm); no set lines; No fishing Nov 1‐Apr 30 Indata Lake (7‐28) Lake trout possession quota = 2 (only one over Y N N 50 cm); no set lines; No fishing Nov 1‐Apr 30 Chuchi Lake (7‐28) Lake trout daily quota = 2; no set lines; No Y N N Fishing Nov 1‐Apr 30

Williston Lake (7‐ General regional regulations; See mercury Y Y N warning on page 67 in this section ‐ Mercury

February 2017 Page 109 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace Regulation TKN Territory TLFN TKD KFN 29/30/37/38/40) levels in Lake Trout and Bull Trout (Dolly Varden) from Williston Lake and tributaries may be high. Klawli Lake (7‐28) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov Y N N 1‐Apr 30 Wudtsi Lake (7‐28) General regional regulations Y N N Humphrey Lake (7‐38) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov Y N N 1‐Apr 30 Tom Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y N N Fable Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y N N Byrnes Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y N N Silver Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y N N Manson Lakes (7‐28) General regional regulations Y Y N Beaverpond Lakes (7‐ General regional regulations Y N N 38) Uslika Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y Y N Wasi Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y Y N Tutizzi Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y Y N Aiken Lake (7‐38) General regional regulations Y Y N Tomias Lake (7‐38) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov N Y N 1‐Apr 30 Carina Lake (7‐38) Lake trout release; no set lines; No fishing Nov N Y N 1‐Apr 30 Fox Lake (7‐40/41) General regional regulations N N Y Weissener Lake (7‐41) General regional regulations* N N Y Obo Lake (7‐40) General regional regulations N N Y Fishing Lakes (7‐40) General regional regulations N N Y Toodoggone Lake (7‐ General regional regulations N N Y 40) Bud Lake (7‐39) General regional regulations N N Y Firesteel River (7‐40) General regional regulations Y N Y *Note; recently surveyed by BC FLNRO and found to show signs of overharvesting (Pillipow 2016, pers comm)

February 2017 Page 110 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Kokanee Williston watershed, prior to reservoir formation, supported localized native kokanee populations, in at least three locations: Thutade Lake (Finlay River headwaters), Arctic Lake (upper Parsnip River tributary) and Tacheeda Lakes (mid Parsnip River tributary). Kokanee are a pelagic planktivore that survive exceptionally well in reservoirs despite large drawdowns. Kokanee (Columbia River origin) were stocked into Williston Reservoir from 1990 to 1998 to create a kokanee sport fishery and a prey source for large piscivorous fish species. There are concerns about an expanding kokanee population of Columbia River origin having potentially negative impacts on some native species (e.g., Arctic grayling and native Williston kokanee (Langston 2012). The status of the kokanee population in Williston Reservoir and success of the kokanee stocking program was assessed in a five‐year study (2002–2006) to determine trends in Williston Reservoir’s kokanee population (Langston 2012). The observed number of spawners increased from 81,000 in 2002 to 1,011,000 in 2006. Pelagic surveys within the reservoir over similar periods also documented increasing kokanee populations (Sebastian et al 2009).

Figure 34. Estimated number of kokanee spawners observed (from Langston 2012).

It was noted that barriers have prevented kokanee access to some locations, most notably the Nation Lakes, Germansen Lake, and the Finlay River upstream of Cascade Canyon (Langston 2012). Kokanee Status and TKN Use The introduced kokanee have become the dominant fish species within the reservoir by number and biomass. TKN representatives indicate that there is some harvesting of the natural and stocked populations, but the lack of a traditional‐cultural connection to this “new” resource in a new environ is a deterrent to use. Further, the reservoir is considered by many TKN members to be an inhospitable and dangerous environment, and there is substantial perception risk about the health of the fish in the reservoir (or coming from the reservoir) in terms of risk in consuming them (i.e. due to methyl mercury contamination issues) (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm; Radies 2016 Pers Comm). Rainbow Trout Currently, specific data on Rainbow Trout distributions within the Williston watershed are limited and recent population trends are largely unknown (FWCP 2014). Rainbow trout are known to have declined

February 2017 Page 111 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay in reservoir‐affected waterbodies since the creation of the reservoir. Overall, Rainbow Trout make up a small proportion of pelagic fish abundance in Williston Reservoir (Blackman 1992). Rainbow Trout are not abundant in Williston basin rivers, and the river‐resident form declined between 1974‐75 and 1988 (Blackman et al. 1990). Older age classes of lake‐resident Rainbow Trout have declined in the Peace Reach between 2000 and 2008, possibly due to overfishing (Sebastian et al. 2009). There are regionally significant rainbow trout populations within Tatlatui Lake watershed and the Firesteel River (Osmon‐Jones et al 1977, Pillipow et al 2002). There are many rainbow trout populations within non dam‐affected waterbodies within the Peace portion of the study area, but limited information on the specific status of any of those populations. Little work has been completed on specific biological, life history and genetic traits exhibited between the various wild populations, and few wild populations are monitored to any extent. Some short‐term stream‐specific fish population census information exists for individual rivers (Mesilinka and Nation) where specific research has been conducted in the past (Koning et al 1998). Many lakes have been surveyed16 as a component of forestry planning and/or Provincial inventory initiatives, which provides the basis for an understanding of rainbow trout (and other species’) distribution within the watershed, and some understanding of lake productivity, stocking potential, etc. The province has stocked hatchery rainbow trout strains within several lakes and streams within the study area (available within FISS records). Rainbow Trout Status and TKN Use There are numerous rainbow trout populations in many streams and lakes within the Peace watershed portion of the study area. TKN harvest rainbow trout in lakes and rivers throughout each of their Territories within the Peace watershed. In some cases fisheries are large‐scale in terms of catch and are focused on large‐body variants (i.e., large fish that support spring‐early summer fisheries) to support sustenance needs; in other cases, highly‐recruiting small‐body variant populations are used for a variety of purposes. Other fisheries for rainbow trout are opportunistic and support a variety of purposes (French 2016, Pers Comm). Reservoir‐affected populations are believed to have declined. Limited survey information exists for other populations, which are numerous and widely distributed. TKN representatives indicate many lake and stream populations to which motorized access has been created have declined in abundance due to use and harvest (French 2016, Pers Comm). Mountain Whitefish Mountain Whitefish were likely the most abundant and had the greatest biomass within the riverine fish community prior to reservoir creation (FWCP 2014). Mountain Whitefish abundance has declined as a result of reservoir creation, likely due to loss of benthic invertebrate and larval insect habitat due to water level fluctuations (Blackman 1992). Prior to hydropower development of the Peace River, stream resident and/or fluvial mountain whitefish populations were likely distributed throughout the majority of the entire upper Peace, Finlay, and Parsnip watersheds. Currently, mountain whitefish spawners are common in the tributaries of Williston Reservoir. Trends in lacustrine or adfluvial forms (life histories that would see 1 or more age classes

16 https://www.bchydro.com/pwcp/reports2.html

February 2017 Page 112 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay present in the reservoir) within the reservoir indicate an overall decline of this species, with very low numbers reported since 1975 (mountain white declined from 12% of fish surveyed in the reservoir to 0.5% from 1975‐1988 (Blackman 1992). There are virtually no mechanisms through which stream resident mountain whitefish are assessed or monitored. As with rainbow trout, there are some short‐term stream‐specific fish population census information for individual rivers (Mesilinka and Nation) where specific research has been conducted in the past (Koning et al 1998). Mountain Whitefish Status and TKN Use Populations within the now permanently or seasonally inundated portions of the Finlay, Peace and Parsnip rivers and tributary streams have been heavily adversely impacted. Very little to no information exists on the many stream‐resident mountain white fish populations that are known to occur within the numerous tributary rivers to Williston Reservoir. It isn’t possible to assess their condition within the non‐reservoir affected portions of the Peace watershed within the study area. TKN indicate that they were a heavily utilized fish species associated with seasonal river travel. Lake Whitefish Lake Whitefish were likely a minor component of the riverine fish community prior to reservoir creation. The creation of Williston Reservoir dramatically altered Lake Whitefish habitat in the Peace/Williston region, and numbers initially increased (FWCP 2014). Lake Whitefish were the second most abundant fish (behind Kokanee) in Williston Reservoir, with previous estimates of up to 11 million fish distributed across the Finlay, Parsnip, and Peace reaches collectively (Sebastien et al. 2003). However, recent surveys in the Peace Reach found that Lake Whitefish abundance declined from 2000‐08 (Sebastian et al 2009). There are numerous lakes that have been documented to contain lake whitefish within the Peace watershed portion of the TKN area (from BC’s Fish Inventories Data Queries tool) including Fox, Weissener, Stelkuz, Foot, Fishing, Toodoggone, Manson, Wolverine, Aiken, Carina, Tomias, Blackpine, Ingenika, Pelly, Tucha, Tsayta, Indata and several others within the Nation watershed. Populations are not monitored to any extent, but have been or are intermittently surveyed as a component of inventory work (Triton 2005a,b, PWFWCP 2003, Province of BC 1982). Lake Whitefish Status and TKN Use Lake whitefish are a highly important species for some TKN community members. They are caught in large numbers in many lakes within the TKN area in a variety of seasonal fisheries, and eaten fresh and/or dried/preserved to support food needs throughout the year. They can be harvested in high numbers in some fisheries (French 2016, Pers Comm). The lake white fish population that has come to inhabit the reservoir is utilized by TKN members, but use is inhibited by the factors described above that preclude largescale use of the reservoir and its resources, including socio‐cultural factors (“new environ” lacking a cultural or traditional use legacy), perception of toxicity‐related health risks and perceived physical dangers (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm). The naturally occurring lake whitefish populations located throughout the TKN area are not monitored to any extent and a determination of status is not possible. Weissener Lake was recently surveyed as

February 2017 Page 113 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay part of a lake trout assessment and concerns were identified for both lake trout and lake whitefish population structures (Pillipow 2016 Pers. Comm.). Lake whitefish are noted to be a species that receives little directed effort from resident anglers. Non‐Reservoir Affected Portions of the Watershed There are several key areas within the Peace‐Williston watershed portion of the study area that possess unique fish populations due to complete or partial barriers to upstream fish passage, which makes them somewhat unique in the context of reservoir effects. Notable areas of this nature include the Nation Lakes, Germansen Lake, and the Finlay River upstream of Cascade Canyon (Langston 2012). The upper KFN watershed also possesses barriers to fish migration (Triton 2005a,b). While not reservoir effected, or with reduced reservoir effects, these areas have been impacted by other land and resource use/development activities:  The Nation River/Lakes is subject to considerable fishing pressure created by access – as reflected within Table 16 above, outlining lake trout regulations.  The upper Finlay River watershed possesses regionally significant fisheries resources in Tatlatui Lake and the Firesteel River which are the focus of several guiding/tourist operations.  The upper Finlay/Thutade watershed has legacy issues related to mineral exploration roads and mining (Baker‐Shasta)  Significant amount of placer mining over a 100+‐year period in the Germansen Lake region (undocumented impacts).

The “health” perception risks related to Williston Reservoir as well other adverse effects on TKN’s traditional practices extend to these areas in some cases. Bull trout in the area of Kemess mine (Thutade watershed upstream of Cascedero Falls) have been adversely affected and compensation has included habitat work on three streams. The habitat mitigation and compensation programs have been deemed to be very successful (Bustard 2004). There are several issues that deter TKN use of bull trout and Dolly Varden within the area of Kemess mine and portions of the Thutade watershed, including selenium contamination issues and the altered landscape and setting created by the mine (Gleason 2016 Pers Comm; Radies 2016, Pers Comm).

Peace – Fish Wildlife Compensation Program (Future Activities) It is worth mentioning that many of the future activities of the Peace Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) reflect the data gaps that have been identified above (limiting either an adequate assessment of status, or affecting use). The following priorities were noted (Bouillon 2016). 1. Bull Trout: Initiating an investigation to review the status of Bull Trout in Williston and Dinosaur Reservoirs. 2. Kokanee: Will plan kokanee abundance surveys to assess the status of the population in the Williston Reservoir 3. Arctic Grayling: Comprehensive review of information and recommendations for habitat and population conservation and enhancement will be complete by May 31, 2016.

February 2017 Page 114 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

4. Mercury projects completed: Comprehensive Mercury Investigation about to begin: • Will cover all areas of the reservoirs • Will include significant First Nations participation

A summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Peace‐Williston portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to use those resources is provided in Table 17.

February 2017 Page 115 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 17. Summary of the population health‐status of the aquatic‐fish resources within the Peace‐Williston portion of the study area, and TKN’s ability to use those resources.

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) Provincial “designatable unit” is of a very “broad” spatial scale that is too Arctic large to specifically Severe Constraints on use: Access to Causes of the declines are thought to Grayling reflect population‐ this key fisheries resource is constrained be a combination of overfishing, and condition at the Peace due to severely diminished abundance, an inability of at least one life history

watershed scale. Upper highly altered distribution, and altered stage to compete in the reservoir Y Y Y Peace populations (i..e fishing environs. Fish cannot be once productivity began to decrease upstream of WAC regularly caught in the amount, in the and the cover provided by the

Bennett Dam) have been locations, and/or using the traditional floating log mats was removed estimated to be 1% of methods desired. (Blackman 2002). their historical abundance (Stamford and Taylor 2005)

Provincially Blue Listed; Severe Constraints on use: Use and Federally Special Concern exercise of Rights related to this (same issue with the important species in the reservoir and Known mercury contamination “designatable unit” as reservoir‐affected areas is impaired by issues due to reservoir creation, grayling). Inadequate perception of health risk, and recent public‐agency health warnings and information available for Bull Trout Y Y Y studies have indicated there is a valid an inadequate tissue upper Peace to human health risk (ERM 2015). Adfluvial sampling/monitoring program. Adult determine status, but bull trout (migrating from the reservoir bull trout migrate widely through anecdotal evidence bull to streams to spawn and rear before accessible portions of the watershed. trout have benefited return to the reservoir as sub‐adults) from reservoir creation are far ranging in stream habitats and kokanee stocking. connecting to the reservoir, creating

February 2017 Page 116 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) additional issues. There’s inadequate information with which to assess the status of Dolly Varden populations within the TKN area. There are several issues that deter TKN use of Dolly Varden within the area of Dolly Varden in the area Kemess mine and portions of the of Kemess mine have Thutade watershed, including selenium Dolly Varden; been adversely effected contamination issues and the altered unique to Mining; perceived and real threats and compensation has landscape and setting created by the Finaly and related to metal contamination, included a variety of Y Y Y mine. The distribution of the species is Ingenika river highly altered landscapes and activities, including small within the TKN area, and headwater settings salvage/transplants and deterrents to use within a considerable drainages habitat development in portion of that distribution (particularly constructed waterways. with the easiest access), could be The habitat mitigation impactful on TKN’s overall use of Dolly and compensation Varden. programs have been deemed to be very successful (Bustard 2004). Lake Trout No formal monitoring of Severe Constraints on use: Use and (Char); reservoir population. exercise of Rights related to the Known mercury contamination reservoir Anecdotal evidence reservoir and reservoir‐affected areas is issues due to reservoir creation, population supports increasing Y Y Y impaired by perception of health risk, public‐agency health warnings and consists of numbers of lake trout and recent studies have indicated there an inadequate tissue migrants present (as would be is a valid human health risk in relation sampling/monitoring program. from anticipated with the to bull trout (authors are inferring that surrounding conversion of a riverine likely extends to lake trout – given diet

February 2017 Page 117 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) populations environment to a and longevity). that are reservoir and introducing colonizing the kokanee). reservoir. Lake Trout Nine (9) of the 28 Moderate Constraints on use: While the naturally occurring regulations imposed on resident anglers (Char); populations don’t apply to TKN members, they Approximately 1/3 of the naturally 29 naturally demonstrates some level suggest the ability to utilize these occurring populations are effected or occurring lake of over‐harvest, or risk of resources is impaired (i.e. reduced Y Y Y potentially effected by recently dwelling over harvest. number of fish or catchability), and in developed access and increased populations exercising their Rights, they may be use/harvest (Provincial compromising sustainability of the survey population. data).17

Moderate Constraints on use; available Introduced strain of kokanee is able and increasing in abundance. Some use to do well within the reservoir Introduced strain of Kokanee reported. The lack of a traditional‐ environment. Deterrents to use kokanee has been (small unique cultural connection to this “new” include; monitored and is wild stocks in resource in a new environ is a deterrent increasing in number and  lack of traditional‐cultural headwaters; to its use. Further, the reservoir is expanding range; largest connection to the new and large‐ Y Y Y considered by many TKN members to fish resource within the resource in a new environ growing be an inhospitable and dangerous reservoir by number and  perspectives on the safety introduced environment. Perception‐risk about the biomass. Primary food of the reservoir (in terms of strain in health of the fish in the reservoir (or sources for bull trout and boating/access) reservoir) coming from the reservoir) in terms of lake trout.  perception‐risk re health risk in consuming them is a further implications from deterrent. consuming fish from the

17 http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/viewMultipleWaterbodies.do

February 2017 Page 118 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) reservoir Minor Constraints on use; reservoir‐ affected populations are believed to  Reservoir‐affected have declined. Limited survey Adverse effects from reservoir noted populations believed information exists for other and issues with increased access and Rainbow populations, of which there are many. use. Populations are broadly to have declined Y Y Y Trout  Numerous lake and TKN representatives indicate many lake distributed and poorly studied. stream populations; and stream populations to which road Limited information available to no status information access has been created have declined assess status. in abundance due to use and harvest (French 2016, Pers Comm).

 Populations within the now permanently or seasonally inundated portions of the Finlay, Peace Minor Constraints on use; reservoir‐ and Parsnip rivers affected populations have declined Adverse effects from reservoir and tributary (Blackman 1992). Limited survey documented and issues with streams have been information exists for other increased access and use. Mountain heavily adversely populations, of which there are many. Y Y Y Populations are broadly distributed Whitefish impacted. TKN representatives indicate many lake and poorly studied. Limited  Very little to no and stream populations to which road information available to assess information exists on access has been created have declined status. the many stream‐ in abundance due to use and harvest resident mountain (French 2016, Pers Comm).. white fish populations that are known to occur within the numerous tributary rivers to

February 2017 Page 119 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) Williston Reservoir.  Population within the reservoir has become Minor Constraints on use: Reservoir the 2nd largest fish population is available but many resource (2nd to deterrents to community use of the kokanee) reservoir and its fish exist.  Numerous naturally Lake occurring lake Reservoir has created a habitat for a Y Y Y No Constraints on use: Naturally Whitefish populations lake whitefish population. throughout the non‐ occurring populations in individual reservoir affected lakes (absence of data to determine portions of the status, but anecdotal information they watershed that are are not the focus of resident angler not monitored to any effort (so access may be less of an extent (status not issue). determinable) Non‐Reservoir Affected Portions of the Peace‐Williston Watershed (Barrier‐Isolated Watersheds‐Populations) Nation Lakes, Germansen  Areas in some instances are more Lake, Finlay Variable; accessible areas remote/distant and hard to access River (Nation Lakes) highly  Perception of risk and other factors Variable; accessible areas (Nation (Thutade) used/exploited, areas affecting traditional practices Lakes) highly used/exploited, areas upstream of within Thutade have Y Y Y stemming from reservoir creation within Thutade have Kemess Cascade Kemess contamination influence traditional use of non‐ contamination issues, other areas Canyon, issues, , other areas reservoir effected areas information deficient upper KFN; information deficient  Some areas (Nation Lakes) popular largely bull with tourists and heavily used trout, lake trout,

February 2017 Page 120 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Williston Watershed – Summary‐Overview of Aquatics

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) rainbow trout

February 2017 Page 121 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.1.6 Peace Watershed – Easter Slope Drainages Headwaters of watersheds draining the eastern slopes of rockies into the Peace (Halfway/Graham) A small portion of TKN Territory incorporates the headwaters of watersheds that drain to the Peace watershed downstream of the reservoir catchment (Williston and Dinosaur) area. The area includes the headwaters of the Halfway River and Graham Rivers (MUs 7‐57, 7‐43, 7‐36). The areas within TKN area are largely remote and relatively high elevation, and largely contained within protected areas (Graham‐Laurier Park). The Graham River watershed is cited to have some of the highest fisheries values in the Peace‐Liard district, and includes bull trout, arctic grayling and rainbow trout (Woods 2001). The Halfway River (and tributary, the Graham River), drain into the Peace River downstream of the Peace Canyon Dam (into what will become the Site C reservoir). The portions of these watersheds of interest to the TKN largely occur upstream of known fish migration barriers, and therefore fisheries resources will not be directly affected by the planned creation of the Site C reservoir.

6.1.6.1 Liard watershed ‐ (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) Upper headwaters of watersheds draining the eastern slopes of the northern Rockies into the Liard River, including the Sikanni Chief The northern most portions of TKN territory encompasses watersheds draining into the Liard River watershed, including the Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash and Sekanni Chief. This area is encompassed within the Muskwa‐Kechika Management Area, including substantial portions within Provincial Park (Northern Rocky Mountains, Dunze Za Keyih, Stone Mountain) and several protected areas. This is a high use area for the TKN (KFN – Kaska Dena) for fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm; Radies 2016, Pers Comm). The area has a substantial history of and ongoing commercial use for ecotourism, including a primary use for guided hunting. Fish species within these tributaries and the associated lake include Arctic grayling, bull trout, burbot, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish, round whitefish, northern pike, and lake trout (Woods 2001). While there is some historical fisheries information (Woods 2001) and inventory information for the fish

February 2017 Page 122 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay species presence in this area (Triton 2006b, Diversified 2002) there is very limited fisheries information for this area that can be related to stock status. While largely undeveloped, and with many fish stocks located in remote areas and believed to be of a healthy status, TKN notes substantial increases in the use of these watersheds, largely through an increase in jet boat access and fly‐in access (Tuchodi, etc.). A concern is the disproportionate harvest pressure and disturbance of fish stocks (or areas with localized congregations of fish). Similar concerns exist with respect to wildlife and hunting within these areas. 6.2 Wildlife Key/select wildlife resources that are central to the TKN’s Rights were identified based on discussions with representatives. Species identified included caribou, moose, mountain goat, Stone’s sheep, hoary marmot, and grizzly bear. Information pertaining to the current health or status of each species was compiled (where available) and evaluated to understand how they may or not be available to support the TKN’s exercise of their harvesting Rights. Wildlife populations relevant to TKN are distributed across several provincial management boundaries and their current status is in some cases a reflection of historical impacts and/or environmental trends. As summary of provincial management regions, environmental trends and historical wildlife management policy relevant to the TKN area is summarized below. 6.2.1 Wildlife Management in TKN Territories The Province is divided into nine administrative regions, with a total of 225 management units (MUs) for the purpose of wildlife management. The KFN, TKD and Takla Lake First Nations (the TKN) combined Territories overlap with three Provincial administrative regions – the Omineca (region 7A), Peace (region 7B) and Skeena (region 6). The majority of TKN territory falls within the northern Omineca (region 7A), with smaller overlaps with the Peace region 7B in northern and eastern regions of TKN Territories, and Skeena (region 6) to the north and west (Figure 35).

February 2017 Page 123 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 35. TKN Territory boundaries and Provincial MU’s (IMAP, provincial layers).

Table 18 provides a summary of the game management zones (GMZs) that overlap with TKN Territories, and the management units within them. GMZs are areas larger than MUs that centralize multiple MUs into an area based on ecological and access criteria (e.g. presently the moose Population Management Units utilized in BC are the GMZs). There are 39 GMZs within BC.

February 2017 Page 124 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 18. Game Management Zones (GMZs) and Management Units (MU’s) within KTN Territorial boundaries, by region.

GMZ code Management Units (within MU occurrence in GMZ (within TKN KTN Territory) Territory Territory) KFN TKD TLFN Omineca (region 7A) McLeod Lake 7Oc 7‐26 X Omineca 7Od (entire GMZ) 727‐30, 38 X X Upper Finlay 7Oe 7‐37, 39‐41 X X X Peace (region 7B) Northeast Rockies 7Pc 7‐36, 42, 43, 50, 57 X X Liard 7Pd 51, 52 X Skeena (region 6) Upper Skeena 6d 6‐18 X X Stikine 6e 6‐19, 20 X

6.2.2 Environmental Trends

6.2.2.1 Historical Environmental Context and Trends Land use  The creation of the Williston and Dinosaur reservoirs eliminated key river bottom/lowland habitats. It also created large bodies of water that cut‐off migration routes and alienated wildlife from their seasonal habitats, and isolated wildlife in some cases (Stone’s Sheep and Mountain Goat). The creation of the reservoirs was especially impactful on MUs 729, 730, 731, 736, 737, 738, 740, and 741.  There has been considerable oil and gas exploration and development within Omineca 7B Peace, which creates a high density of infrastructure and linear development and related issues.  Forestry development within the Omineca (7A) and Skeena portions of the TKN area has been prevalent (TLFN and TKD Territories) and results in a reduction of primary old growth forests and promotes early seral vegetation (plantations) and creates high densities of roads/access.  Fire suppression has been a long‐term prerogative in the interest of forestry, particularly in Omineca/Skeena. It has substantially altered the structure of our forests and wildlife habitat. Climate change  Climate change trends are resulting in warmer and shorter winters, with less snow, which is effecting wildlife survival and also habitat use. It may also be contributing to wildlife health issues such as tick prevalence, and effecting the range and distribution of some wildlife species.  Climate change trends are resulting in extensive forest health issues that are promoting largescale salvage logging with impacts that include rapid transition of forest cover to early seral

February 2017 Page 125 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

in the form of plantations and many roads. These impacts are suspected to be a primary cause of the decline of moose observed in the southern Omineca.

6.2.2.2 Management Policy BC has had a range of wildlife management policies and approaches. Management has generally become far more conservative over time, in response to increasing recognition of population dynamics, better understanding of wildlife populations, accessibility, modernization of equipment, etc. These realities mean that some species and herds/populations have retracted in range and/or size as a result of past harvesting pressures. Policies have included sponsored wolf kills to promote ungulate population growth in the interests of the licenced‐guided hunting industry, prescribed burning to promote ungulate habitat, etc. Interpreting population/range and trend data has to incorporate historical management approaches.

6.2.2.3 Outcomes (Current Context) The result of these historical environmental contexts and trends is a landscape within the TKN area, particularly in southern portions (TLFN and TKD) that is largely road‐accessible, with significant disturbances reflecting forest harvesting, mineral exploration and mining, and reservoir development. The trend is for development (particularly forestry) to move northward in response to forest health issues and salvage logging opportunities. Following is a summary of the information available for select species that supports an understanding of the specie’s current health‐status within the TKN area. This includes caribou, moose, mountain goat, Stone’s sheep, grizzly bear and hoary marmot populations within or intersecting with the TKN area. Where wildlife assessed was found to be of a diminished status and/or declining abundance trend, contributing factors are discussed. An assessment of the TKN’s ability to exercise their harvesting rights in relation to each species considered is also provided. 6.2.3 Caribou Woodland caribou (R.t. caribou) is one of 4 subspecies of caribou currently recognized in Canada.

Eco‐types

“Eco‐types” of caribou broadly reflect adaptive behaviours of caribou (e.g., feeding, migration) to a variety of ecological conditions (e.g., amount and duration of snow cover, topography/terrain). In BC, caribou that live in areas of relatively shallow snowpack and which feed primarily on terrestrial lichens are called ‘northern’ ecotype caribou, while caribou that live in deep snow areas and feed primarily on arboreal lichens are ‘mountain’ ecotype caribou. The northern ecotype caribou occur in northern BC, including TKN Territories.

Population Structures

In 2002, COWEWIC established “Nationally Significant Populations” for forest dwelling woodland caribou ‐ the predecessor to the current Designatable Unit population system. TKN Territories included the Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain Populations. The Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain Populations correspond with and are named after National Ecological Areas (NEAs) (Figure

February 2017 Page 126 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

36). NEA’s were established by COSEWIC 1994 as one strategy at the national scale is to protect geographic populations of caribou (COSEWIC, 2002).

Figure 36. National Ecological Areas established by COSEWIC in 1994 (COSEWIC, 2002).

The Northern Mountain Population was assessed by COSEWIC and listed under the Species at Risk Act in 2005. The Southern Mountain Population was assessed COSEWIC in 2002 and listed under the Species at Risk Act in 2003. Following the Designatable Unit (DU) report on Caribou (COSEWIC 2011), a new population structure was proposed and accepted by COSEWIC (Figure 37). DUs are discrete and evolutionarily significant units of caribou defined to address issues with the current taxonomy and with classification of ecotypes (COSEWIC 2011). In TKN Territories, boundaries of the Northern mountain and Southern Mountain were modified, and a new DU was created ‐ Central Mountain DU‐8. In 2014, COSEWIC re‐assessed woodland caribou under the new DU population structure, and those recommendations are currently under review.

February 2017 Page 127 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 37. Caribou subpopulations in the Northern Mountain DU(7), Central Mountain DU (8) and Southern Mountain DU (9) (from COSEWIC 2014). The border between COSEWIC's Northern and Southern Mountain National Ecological Areas depicts the COSEWIC (2002) Northern and Southern Mountain Population boundaries.

6.2.3.1 Status In BC, the “northern” ecotype is ranked as vulnerable and is on the BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) Blue list (special concern). The majority of TKN Territories is within the Northern Mountain DU, with one local population from the Central Mountain DU (8) (Figure 38). COSEWIC (2014) assessed the Northern Mountain DU as “Special Concern”. A portion of these local populations are listed as “Threatened” under SARA (2003), as part of the former Southern Mountain Population. The Central Mountain DU is designated “Endangered” (COSEWIC 2014).

February 2017 Page 128 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 38. TKN Territory boundaries and caribou herd distribution/status.

While little long‐term trend information has been collected, the available information indicates that of the 12 local populations in TKN Territories, 6 subpopulations are in decline. The Finlay population has experienced an 89% population decline between 1994 and 2002 (COSEWIC 2014). The 9 subpopulations in the southern portion of the North Mountain DU, which include the Chase, Wolverine, Graham and Takla subpopulations, have declined and are expected to continue to decline (Environment Canada 2014; COSEWIC 2014). The Scott subpopulation has been extirpated from much if its range, and is designated Endangered (COSEWIC 2014).

Northern Mountain DU 7 The Northern Mountain DU (7) was designated “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2014). The Northern Mountain Population boundaries changed to include 9 local populations that were previously part of the Southern Mountain Population that was listed “Threatened” under SARA in 2003 (Figure 37). An overall trend for caribou in the Northern Mountain DU is not possible because survey data and/or data on vital rates for most subpopulations are lacking. Although COSEWIC considers the entire Northern Mountain DU population not at risk, herds in the southern portion of the DU (including Chase, Graham, Wolverine and Takla) are declining. The 9 subpopulations in the southern part of the range have declined by 27%

February 2017 Page 129 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay since the last COSEWIC assessment in 2002. Declines have not ceased and are not clearly reversible (COSEWIC 2014). All stable or increasing subpopulations within the Northern DU are located in the northern part of the DU 7’s range. The status of northern subpopulations may be compromised in the future because of increasing threats, particularly land use change with industrial development causing shifts in predator‐prey dynamics (Environment Canada 2014)

Recent studies on the caribou that occur within the southern zone of trace occurrence of the Northern DU 7 (within the area of the Project) has resulted in the a recommendation to expand the Spatsizi and Frog herd boundaries as well as designate a proposed new herd, the Thutade herd (Sittler et al, 2015). The Thutade herd area would be 7,837 km2 with 102 caribou observed in this area in 2010 and 95 in 2012. The Thutade herd boundary would be south of the Spatsizi and Frog herds, bounded on the east side by the Findlay River and the southern border would run along the Chase herd boundary (Figure 39).

Figure 39. New herd boundary refinements for the caribou that reside in the zone of trace occurrence (ZTO) (from Sittler et al, 2015).

Central Mountain DU 8

The Central Mountain DU (8) was SARA‐listed as Threatened (2003) as part of the former Southern Mountain Population, and is recommended for up‐listing to Endangered (COSEWIC, 2014). All subpopulations have experienced declines of about 60% since the last assessment in 2002 and two have been extirpated. Surveys have shown consistently high adult mortality and low calf recruitment, accelerating rates of declines (COSEWIC 2014). These threats (adult mortality and low calf recruitment/high calf mortality) are continuing and escalating (Environment Canada 2014).

The conservation status and current trends of local caribou populations in TKN territories is summarized in Table 19.

February 2017 Page 130 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 19. Conservation Status and Current Trends of Local Caribou Populations in TKN Territories.

Local pop. First Nation COSEWIC Designatable Conservation Status From COSEWIC 2014 Pop. trend TLFN TKD KFNpopulations Units (DU’s) Pop. Last (2002) (COSEWIC, Est. surveyed 2011) (mat. adults) North‐ Spatsizi Y Y Y DU‐7 SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 2258 1994 Unknown* west BC Northern Northern North‐ Rabbit N N Y Mountain, Mountain SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 1095 2007 Unknown* east BC Muskwa N N Y SARA‐listed COSEWIC SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 828 2007 Unknown* Gataga N N Y Special assessed SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 220 2000 Unknown* Frog N N Y Concern Special SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 199 2001 Unknown* Finlay N Y Y (2005) Concern SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 19 2002 Declining.* (2014) 89% decline between 1994‐2002 Pink N Y Y SARA‐listed Special Concern (2005) 1145 1993 Unknown* Mountain North‐ Graham N Y N SARA‐Listed Threatened (2003). 637 2009 Declining (BC central Southern Recommended by COSEWIC for MoE, 2014; BC Mountain down‐listing to Special Concern Seip, D. (COSEWIC 2014, Environment 2015). SARA‐listed Canada 2014). Chase Y Y N Threatened SARA‐Listed Threatened (2003). 404 2009 Declining** (2003) Recommended by COSEWIC for down‐listing to Special Concern (COSEWIC 2014; Environment Canada 2014). Wolverine Y Y N SARA‐Listed Threatened (2003). 296 2010 9% decline Recommended by COSEWIC for from 1996‐ down‐listing to Special Concern 2010* (COSEWIC 2014; Environment Canada 2014). Takla Y N N SARA‐Listed Threatened (2003). 98 2004 Declining** Recommended by COSEWIC for

February 2017 Page 131 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Local pop. First Nation COSEWIC Designatable Conservation Status From COSEWIC 2014 Pop. trend TLFN TKD KFNpopulations Units (DU’s) Pop. Last (2002) (COSEWIC, Est. surveyed 2011) (mat. adults) down‐listing to Special Concern (COSEWIC 2014; Environment Canada 2014). Scott Y Y DU‐8 SARA‐Listed Threatened (2003). 35 2014 Approx. 60% Central Recommended by COSWEIC for up‐ decline since Mountain listing to Endangered (COSEWIC 2002* N COSEWIC 2014) assessed ENDANGERD (2014) * from COSEWIC 2014 ** The 9 subpopulations at the southern part of the DU, all of which belong to the former Southern Mountain population of Woodland Caribou, have experienced an overall decline of 27% (COSEWIC 2014).

February 2017 Page 132 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.2.3.2 Contributing factors/threats Northern Mountain DU‐7: Major threats include altered predator‐prey dynamics due to habitat change. Human disturbance and habitat loss (including functional habitat loss due to avoidance) have resulted from the cumulative effects of forest harvesting, mineral exploration and development and associated access, motorized and non‐motorized recreational activities, changes in forest structure due to Mountain Pine Beetle infestations and/or associated salvage logging, and impacts from climate change (COSEWIC 2014). The overall level of threat to the 9 populations in the southern part of the range (formerly part of the Southern Mountain Population) was assessed as high, based on cumulative impacts of threats calculated by the IUCN Threat Calculator (Environment Canada 2014). Central Mountain DU‐8: The primary threats include altered predator‐prey dynamics due to both direct and functional habitat loss and disturbance resulting from multiple industrial activities including forest harvesting, coal exploration and development, and oil and gas exploration and development. Additional factors include vehicle collisions, motorized off‐road recreation, facilitated access to caribou winter range for predators resulting from increased linear corridors and packed trails or ploughed roads in winter, impacts from climate change, and stochastic environmental events associated with small population sizes (COSEWIC 2014).

6.2.3.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Rights Available information on herd designation and monitoring information suggests the following: The more northerly populations in the TKN area are suspected to be stable, but there is a substantial lack of monitoring data. The exception is the Finlay subpopulation in north‐eastern BC that is in decline (population decline of 89% between 1994‐2002). The southern subpopulations are all in decline and this trend is not expected to cease or reverse. These declines are correlated with degree of land disturbance in TKD and TLFN Territories. Large‐scale salvage logging that is currently occurring in TLFN and TKD Territories is expected to exacerbate these trends. Caribou subpopulation statuses across TKN First Nations are assessed as follows: . KFN: All 7 subpopulations are within the Northern DU‐7 and are SARA‐listed “Special Concern”. However the Finlay subpopulation (19 animals) has experienced steep decline (89% between 1994 and 2002) and is currently declining. o Based on available information related to caribou herds supporting the KFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting rights, we assess KFN’s ability to exercise as moderately constrained. . TKD: Four of the six subpopulations in TKD Territory are in decline. The 2 Northern DU subpopulations (Spatsizi and Pink Mountain) are SARA‐listed ‘Special Concern’. The 3 subpopulations in north‐central BC (Graham, Chase, Wolverine) are SARA‐listed Threatened (2003) and are declining. The Scott subpopulation (last estimated at 35 remaining mature adults) is recommended for up‐listing to Endangered (COSEWIC 2014), and is extirpated from a portion of TKD Territory. . TLFN: With the exception of the Spatsizi subpopulation in north‐east BC, all 5 subpopulations that occur in TLFN territory are in decline. The Chase, Wolverine and Takla subpopulations in north‐central BC are SARA‐listed “Threatened” (2003). The Scott subpopulation (35 mature

February 2017 Page 133 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

adults) is recommended for up‐listing to Endangered (COSEWIC 2014), and is extirpated from a portion of TKD Territory. o Based on the available information related to caribou herds supporting the TLFN and TKD abilities to exercise caribou harvesting Rights, we assess their abilities to exercise as highly constrained and likely worsening. 6.2.4 Moose Moose are distributed throughout TKN Territories and TKN community members use moose extensively for sustenance and a variety of other purposes (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm; Radies 2016, Pers Comm; Sturmanis 2016, Pers Comm). In recent years, residents of both the TKD and KFN have raised concerns about moose becoming less abundant throughout their respective territories (Cadsand et al, 2013). In the Peace‐Williston Watershed, First Nations have expressed concerns about local declines in the abundance of moose and identified declining moose populations as a top concern because of their critical importance as a food source (FWCP 2014).

TKN community members have reported increased difficulty in finding moose in their Territories and at their traditional hunting locations, and also observations of increased competition from licensed hunters (Gleason 2016, Pers Comm; Radies 2016, Pers Comm; Sturmanis 2016, Pers Comm). 6.2.4.1 Status In BC, moose are yellow listed (BC CDC, 2016), a “designation” that is assigned to species that are “demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure”.

The most recent regional and provincial moose population compilation (2014) indicates a provincial estimate of 120,000 to 205,000 moose, and suggests that provincially, moose numbers have declined by approximately 27,500 moose since 2011 (MFLNRO 2015). These results are consistent with downward trends observed from recent surveys in central B.C. in 2012 and 2013, which has raised significant concerns by wildlife managers, First Nations and stakeholders (MFLNRO 2015). The Ministry developed the Provincial Framework for Moose Management in BC (MLFNRO 2015) as a step towards understanding the factors that may have led to these declines and to develop recommendations for actions that will meet management objectives, as well as maintaining current harvest levels in the rest of the province. A set of recommendations, “A Strategy to Help Restore Moose Populations; Recommendations” was developed for MFLNRO (Gorley 2016) to complement and build on the 2015 Provincial Framework.

Table 20. Moose population and trend estimates for provincial regions (from BC Ungulate Species Regional Population Estimates and Status Preseason 2014 (BC MFLNRO, 2014).

Region Estimated Estimated Trend Number (from 2008‐2011) Omineca 15000‐35000 Declining Peace 50,000‐80,000 Increasing‐declining Skeena 25000 – 45000 Stable

The Provincial Framework for Moose Management in BC (MLRNO 2015) describes the primary spatial scale for moose management to normally be the population management unit (PMU). Currently, this is the Game Management Zone (GMZ). Formal management objectives are meant to be developed for

February 2017 Page 134 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay each PMU in consideration of land use commitments, species at risk conservation, broader ecosystems considerations and First Nation’s needs. The primary population objectives for moose in B.C. include measures of adult sex ratio and density (MFLRO 2015).

In TKN Territories, there is a lack of consistent census data, and available population data is not necessarily collected at the PMU/GMZ scale. Available information is described below referencing geographical areas of relevance to the TKN area.

6.2.4.1.1 OMINECA REGION While the estimated population trend in the Omineca region is declining (MFLNRO 2014), declines have occurred in the southern portion of the region. BC MFLNRO (2014) reports that surveys in 2011/12 and 2012/13 showed that moose densities in the southern portion of the region around Prince George had declined by 50% since 2005. The majority of TKN Territories encompass the northern and central Omineca regions (Upper Finlay, Omineca River). These areas are reported to have remained relatively stable (FLNRO 2014). Recent surveys in TKN Territories found that moose populations have not changed at the regional scale. However, population declines were observed in local areas. Northern Omineca (TKD and KFN Territories) The 2013 survey in the North Williston found no indication of population decline relative to previous population estimates, suggesting low density but stable population (Cadsand et al, 2013). The authors found that moose numbers had not changed at the regional scale but inferred that observed declines were restricted to local areas (i.e. areas frequently used by people where moose are subjected to relatively high hunting pressure and disturbance). MFLNRO (2015) reported a 7% density decrease since 2006 in MU’s 7‐39, 7‐40 and 7‐41 (Northern Omineca) which overlaps the study area of Cadsand et al (2013). Central Omineca (TKD and TLFN Territories) A concurrent survey of the Omineca watershed and Takla areas (McNay, R.S. and L. Giguere 2013) inferred that while moose populations in the region were generally increasing, or at least stable, local populations like the Omineca River could be declining.  The Omineca watershed area saw an increase in density since 2006. MFLNRO (2015) reports a 37% increased density trend since 2006 for MU 7‐29 and 7‐38.  The Takla area had relatively low numbers, low calf:100 cow ratios, and relatively high bulls:100 cows ratios, which could be indicative of higher than desirable mortality on cows and calves.  Over the last 2 surveys, there has been an apparent consistent and steep decline in the number of moose using the Omineca River valley. The apparent decline in snow depth could help explain an overall decrease in use of (hence population density) the Omineca River valley and milder winters could also explain the apparent increase in population density in the watershed area (i.e. improved over‐winter survival). The steep decline observed in the density in the Omineca river valley could also be a consequence of focused hunting pressures where licensed hunter access has increased (i.e. jet boat). Recent reduction in regulated hunt opportunities in the region will counter the pressure from that component of mortality if in fact it has led to local population decline.

February 2017 Page 135 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

These findings highlight the need for population and trend data at a scale that is meaningful for TKN First Nations (i.e. regional trends may not reflect realities at the Territorial level). McNay and Giguere (2013) recommend that more research is needed to reconcile differing perspectives regarding localized declines. There is also a need to incorporate planned salvage harvesting into monitoring objectives. 6.2.4.1.2 PEACE REGION The TKN area includes a portion of the North East Rockies, which intersects portions of MU’s 7‐42, 7‐57, 7‐43, 7‐36 and 7‐42. There is a lack of recent survey information for the area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that moose numbers are declining, as reported by guide outfitters and First Nations. While some areas appear stable, there is a variety of surveys that suggest localized increases and decreases in abundance. MU 7‐42 has seen a sharp decline, with some of the worst calf recruitment numbers seen in the province. In that instance, a lack of industry pressures and a lack of hunting pressure suggests an increase in predation (Bridger, M. pers. comm, 2016). A 2015 survey of the entire MU 7‐42 (Lirette 2015) found a significant population decline of 70% from 2001‐2015. The corrected moose density estimate was 0.24 moose/km2, well below the average density found during recent surveys in the Peace Region. The trend is decreasing density from 1989‐ 2015, and is suspected to relate to increased predation. Bull/cow ratios were above levels that could negatively impact pregnancy rates or conception times. Calf/cow ratios have decreased steadily from 1983‐2015 and the observed 10.9/100 ratio is not considered sufficient recruitment to support a stable moose population, and suggests a high level of predation. KFN Territory – Northeast Rockies (MU 7‐50) and Liard area (MU’s 7‐51 and 7‐52: There are no recent reports for this region, and there is no indication of a regional trend (Bridger, M. pers. comm. 2016). Trend data is limited to harvest stats and indicates the following:  7‐50: declining harvest in last 20 years, as well as effort. Indicates stable to declining population.  7‐51‐ seeing an increasing trend in moose harvest, and stable effort – a positive indication.  7‐42 – slight decline in moose harvest relative to effort. 6.2.4.1.3 Skeena Region There is limited census data, and population/health information is limited to harvest data. Harvest data (Thiessen 2014) indicates that regions of the Skeena that overlap with TKN Territories are stable:  Stikine GMZ – no conservation concern.  Upper Skeena GMZ – most of harvest comes from the Sustut PMU (MU’s 6‐7, 6‐17, 6‐18). The population appears to be stable. A summary of moose population status/trend data relevant to TKN territories is provided in Table 21.

February 2017 Page 136 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 21. A summary of moose population status/trend data relevant to TKN territories.

REGION First Nation Health/Status OMINECA Northern Omineca KFN, TKD North Williston:  Low density but stable population  Declines in availability that may have been restricted

to local areas (i.e. areas frequently used by people where moose are subjected to relatively high hunting pressure and disturbance) (Cadsand et al, 2013). KFN, TKD, MU’s 39, 40, 41: 7% density decrease since 2006 in MU’s TLFN (MFLNRO, 2015) Central Omineca TKD, TLFN Omineca area, MU 7‐29 and 7‐38: 37% increased density trend since 2006 estimate (MLFNRO, 2015) TKD, TLFN Omineca and Takla Areas (McNay and Giguere, 2013). Omineca area – increased density, potentially related to milder winters Takla area ‐ relatively low numbers, potential indication of higher than desirable mortality on cows and calves. Omineca River – sharp decline in numbers of moose in Omineca River valley, potentially related to milder winters, focused hunting pressure. PEACE North‐east Rockies TKD Lack of recent census data. Anecdotal evidence suggests portions of MU’s moose numbers are in decline in some areas (Bridger, M. pers. 7‐42*, 7‐57, 7‐43, comm. 2016). 7‐36 MU 7‐42 KFN, TKD  70% decline from 2001‐2015, decreasing moose density, well below average density for Peace region  calf/cow ratios not considered sufficient recruitment to support stable moose population. Suggest high level of predation (Lirette, 2015) SKEENA Stikine GMZ KFN There is limited census data. Harvest data indicates no conservation concern (Thiessen, 2014). Upper Skeena TKD, TLFN There is limited census data. Most of harvest comes from the GMZ, Sustut PMU. Sustut PMU (MU’s 6‐7, 6‐17, 6‐18). The population appears to be stable. *small overlap of KFN Territory with 7‐42

6.2.4.2 Contributing factors/Threats There is no evidence for a regional landscape‐level population decline within the North Williston area (Cadsand et al, 2013). The effect of limited access and disproportionate hunting and harvesting within

February 2017 Page 137 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay the TKN area are difficult to reconcile with the Provincial management model at the MU level. A lack of consistent survey data over‐time is evident within the TKN area. An increase in clearing/logging and road development (access) and increased licensed hunter harvest, and an increase in the number of wolves and wolf predation on moose and other ungulates is suspected to be the cause of the moose population decline observed in the southern Omineca. Impacts of this nature are moving north into the TLFN/TKD area (see landscape disturbance indicators). McNay and Giguere (2013) note that moose in the Omineca watershed area have not appeared to decline with the incidence of MPB, as has been observed in other parts of BC. However, they note that the percentage of MPB kill is only half that of the Cariboo region and 3 years behind (in terms of severity of MPB attack). The creation of the Williston and Dinosaur reservoirs have had profound impacts on TKN Territories, with significant implications for wildlife. The creation of the dams eliminated key river bottom/lowland habitats. It also created large bodies of water that cut‐off migration routes and alienated wildlife from their seasonal habitats. The creation of the reservoirs was especially impactful on MUs 729, 730, 731, 736, 737, 738, 740, and 741. There is a clear need for information on limiting factors that affect moose populations. The FWCP Species of Interest Action Plan ranks identification of limiting factors affecting moose populations, including predation as Priority 1 (highest priority) (FWCP 2014). A FWCP‐led project has been approved for 2016 ‐ Investigation of Limiting Factors Affecting Moose Survival in the Peace Region. This project is designed to improve understanding of the ecological factors that limit moose survival in certain portions of FWCP's Peace Region (FWCP approved project list). Two applied research projects currently underway include: (1) a 5‐year provincially‐coordinated field study of GPS‐collared moose to assess their survival relative to their habitat use and anthropogenic disturbance (i.e. roads and cutblocks) and, (2) a retrospective modelling study in the Omineca to assess potential factors that may be contributing to the recent moose decline in that region (MFLRNO 2015).

6.2.4.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right Limited spatial and temporally contiguous survey‐monitoring information is available for moose within the majority of the TKN area. Where information is available, it does not suggest a broadscale decline within the area, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. These are suspected to reflect disproportionally high hunting pressure where access and heavily utilized moose habitats are coincidental. This situation is facilitated by the creation of access and the MU‐based harvest allocation system. Challenges in harvesting moose, including increased competition with licensed hunters, is cited as a serious concern for TKN (particularly as caribou are also becoming more challenging or unviable to harvest). A greater effort is required to harvest, or hunt in the desired setting, requiring greater travel, time and cost. Data limitations that would allow a determination of status or trend is not available, and moose are not a recognized conservation concern. Based in the information available, including population monitoring information and community perspectives, we’ve assessed that the ability of TKN to harvest moose is moderately constrained.

February 2017 Page 138 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 6.2.5 Mountain Goat Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are found throughout mountainous regions of British Columbia (Figure 40). Mountain goat range covers roughly 40% of the province (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010). The Omineca‐Peace‐Skeena Region contains 65% of the provincial mountain goat population (Kuzyk et al 2012), and mountain goat range occurs throughout the majority of TKN Territory. TKN Territories contain critical mountain goat habitat, as indicated by the recent approval of the Ungulate Winter Range U‐7‐029 (Mackenzie Forest District; Akie‐Pesika, Osilinka and Ospika populations) and U‐7‐030 (Mackenzie Forest District), issued May 24, 2016.

Figure 40. Distribution of mountain goats in British Columbia (Mountain Goat Management Team, 2010).

6.2.5.1 Status Approximately half of the world’s mountain goat population occurs in British Columbia; therefore, the province has a global responsibility for mountain goat conservation and management. Relative to other ungulate species, mountain goats have low reproductive rates and can be sensitive to human disturbance, so conservative management is advised (Kuzyk et al, 2012). In 2010, the BC Ministry of Environment released the Management Plan for the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) in British Columbia which contains detailed population and harvest information and provides recommendations for improved population monitoring and maintaining sustainable harvest (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010) (Kuzyk et al, 2012).

February 2017 Page 139 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The most recent status assessment of mountain goat in BC (2015) up‐listed mountain goats from Yellow/Secure to Blue/Special Concern, to reflect the sensitivity and current vulnerability of goat populations to both natural events or human activities within their range. The BC Conservation Framework, a tool to assess and rank species and ecosystems for conservation action, ranks mountain goats as “priority 1” (the highest priority rank) for Goal 2 – “Prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk” (BC Conservation Framework 2016). As in other parts of BC, the current status of mountain goat populations and distribution in the Omineca and Peace and Skeena regions are not well known due to a lack of recent, comprehensive inventories (Woods 2014; Marshall 2016 pers. comm).

Trends

Since most regions lack extensive inventories, trend data are based in large part on surveys of small portions of each region, or on indices to population trend (hunter harvest, hunter success, observations, kid:adult ratios) and there is no overall quantitative value for abundance trends for the total provincial population (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010; BC CDC 2016). Until recently, inventories of mountain goat populations in the Peace Region have been done sporadically, were disjointed or not inclusive, and have been focused on areas with industrial pressures, not population based (Woods 2014).

The recent trend in mountain goat numbers within the province is stable in areas with the highest numbers (northern and central British Columbia and the Kootenay), but stable/decreasing or decreasing in southern and south coastal areas where numbers are lower. In particular, numbers have declined steeply in the southern interior and there is little to no evidence of recovery. Overall, the population in BC is stable to declining (Mountain Goat Recovery Team 2010; BC CDC, 2016).

The estimated provincial population of mountain goats has remained relatively stable from 1987 to 2011 at about 50,000 animals (Kuzyk et al, 2012) (Figure 41).

Figure 41. Population estimates of mountain goats in BC (from Kuzyck et al, 2012).

The Omineca‐Peace‐Skeena regions contain approximately 65% of the provincial mountain goat population. The number appears stable; however, in recent years, resource development projects and backcountry recreation expansion have been associated with habitat alienation and habitat loss. The 2014 estimates for population number and trend (BC MFLNRO, 2014), describe the populations for all three regions as generally stable (Table 22).

February 2017 Page 140 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 22. Mountain Goat population and trend estimates for provincial regions (from MFLNRO, 2014).

Estimated Trend Region Estimated Number (from 2008‐2011) Omineca 3000‐4000 Stable Peace 3000‐5000 Stable – Increasing Skeena 18,000‐35,000 Stable From the British Columbia Ungulate Species Regional Population Estimates and Status Preseason 2014 (BC MFLNRO, 2014) The Peace Region has a stable to increasing trend. Recent information on populations within TKN Territories is summarized below (Table 23). Table 23. Trend information on populations in TKD Territory.

Region TKN Status/Trend Information Bridger 2016 Pers Comm, 2016. Lack of census information. Increases observed in populations where North East comparisons have been made. Trend for Northeast Rockies is Rockies (7‐ KFN – unknown, but appears to be good. Increases seen in other areas. 50), Liard (7‐ northern Harvest stats indicate: 51, 7‐52) portion of  7‐50 (northeast Rockies): increasing harvest steadily and effort Territory  7‐51 (Liard): very stable over time

 7‐52 (Liard): slightly increasing trends Population increase likely due to limited human intrusion and lack of access and industrial activity. North Peace Region Woods 2014. Northeast Since 1991, mountain goat populations in the Brewster Mountain area Rockies: TKD have increased from approximately 56 mountain goats in 1991, to 155 mountain goats observed in 2014 (both uncorrected estimates). In the MU’s 7‐36, 7‐ east of Rockies PMU, density of mountain goats in this PMU was much lower 43, 7‐57 – Williston than other recently inventoried PMUs in the South Peace. Based on Reservoir Upper Finlay: the current inventory, mountain goat populations in the North Peace Mu 7‐37 area of the Peace Region appear to be stable and potentially increasing (Omineca in both PMUs Region)

In the north, mountain goats are predominantly managed through a combination of General Open Season (GOS) and Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) opportunities where high levels of easy access could increase the risk of localized overharvest (Kuzyk et al, 2012). Within the Peace Region, mountain goat harvest is regulated through a GOS north of the Peace River where mountain goat populations are remote and hunter access is more difficult. Across the region, several mountain goat hunting closure areas have been established where high female harvest has occurred and where populations are more susceptible to over‐harvest due to greater access (Wood, 2014) (Figure 42).

February 2017 Page 141 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 42. Summary of mountain goat harvest zones, general open season areas and hunting closures in the Peace Region (7B), British Columbia (from Wood, 2014).

In the Peace region, KFN Territory (portions of MU’s 7‐52, 51, and 50) and TKD Territory (portions of MU’s 7‐42, 7‐57, 7‐43, 7‐36) are all managed through GOS, where mountain goat populations are remote and access is limited.

6.2.5.2 Contributing factors/Threats Early management concerns for mountain goats in the 1960s and 1970s were related to overharvest, mostly associated with increased access created by resource industries such as forestry. These roads opened up previously lightly hunted and inaccessible valleys, and resulted in progressive overharvest on a regional scale. In the 1980s and 1990s, logging pushed to higher elevations, which allowed for easier access for hunting mountain goats and in some areas encroached on their winter range (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010). In the most recent status assessment, the degree of threat to mountain goat was classified as “moderate and imminent” for British Columbia (BC CDC 2016). There are numerous threats to mountain goats, and although individually these threats may have only a low to medium impact provincially, the overall threat impact value is calculated as high due to cumulative effects, and localized population impacts are known. An IUCN threat assessment was completed in 2015 that identified the current threats of human intrusions and disturbance as the highest ranking threat (high‐medium). Other threats

February 2017 Page 142 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay include mining, activities associated with renewable energy production, disturbance from helicopters (recreation and industrial activities), harvesting of timber in winter range, increased access for predators and hunters along roads and other linear corridors (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010; BC CDC 2016). Mountain goats generally do not habituate well to human disturbance and extended periods of stress can cause organ damage, decreased viability and early death (Wright et al, 2012). Mountain goats are sensitive to helicopter disturbance, and further research on mountain goat ecology and industry impacts is warranted with the increase in resource extraction and recreational industries working in mountain goat and mountain sheep habitat (Kuzyck et al, 2012).

Many factors that may separately or cumulatively affect mountain goat populations are associated with or made more important because of the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation (that isolate herds, cause chronic stress, and amplify the risk of local extirpation). The relative importance of these factors is poorly understood, and may include regulated and unregulated hunting, predation, severe winter weather, disease, disturbance associated with human access, and demographic stochasticity (variability in population growth rates arising from random differences among individuals) and loss of genetic diversity (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010). Mountain goat populations are vulnerable to over‐ harvest and are likely more effected by harvest than other ungulates because of low recruitment and the fact that both sexes are harvested (Wright et al, 2012).

Potential impacts of climate change to mountain goats are not well understood, but are expected to strongly affect northern and alpine areas. Observed evidence of changes include shrinkage of glaciers in most areas of British Columbia in recent decades (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010). Most climate change models suggest an average 1ºC increase over the next 50 years, which will force a shift of ecosystems a predicted 300 m higher in elevation and 150 km farther north. More than 50% of alpine tundra ecosystems are forecasted to eventually disappear as subalpine forests shift up in elevation (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010).

TKN Territories

While northern populations have been reported as relatively “stable”, in recent years (Kuzyck et al, 2012; BC MFLNRO 2014), resource development projects and backcountry recreation expansion have been associated with habitat alienation and habitat loss (Kuzyk e al, 2012). There is increasing management concern regarding the cumulative effects of human disturbances on mountain goats, a species that typically has low recruitment rates. Regionally, the Mackenzie Land and Resource Management Plan identified mountain goats as an important species of special management interest (BCMSRM 2000).

Creation of the WAC Bennett Dam and the Williston Reservoir

The creation of the Williston Reservoir resulted in the flooding of the Rocky Mountain Trench. While mountain goats are residents of mostly higher elevation areas and dam construction had little direct impact on their habitat, flooding likely reduced movements and genetic exchange among local populations (FWCP 2014). The reservoir may have also forced abandonment of low‐elevation licks historically used by mountain goats (Courbould et al, 2010).

February 2017 Page 143 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Forestry In addition to the reservoir, forest harvesting practices around the reservoir may have negative effects on the use of remaining low‐elevation mineral licks (Courbould et al, 2010). With the continued demand for wood supply, forest development is expanding throughout the Mackenzie Timber Supply Area (TSA) of north‐central BC, into additional tributary watersheds and higher‐elevation forests. Forest development has the potential to reduce or eliminate access to mineral licks, cause disturbance to goats on their winter range, and create access for hunters to previously un‐hunted and vulnerable goat populations. Due to the perceived importance of low elevation mineral licks and other forested habitats to mountain goats, management concerns have been raised regarding the potential impacts of forest harvesting activities on mountain goat populations (Wood and Hengeveld 2003). In the only comprehensive study to investigate effects of forest disturbance on mountain goats, Courbould et al (2010) found that although the direct effects of forest removal (i.e., creation of early seral openings) do not appear to reduce the use of low‐elevation mineral licks by mountain goats in the short term, there is the potential for adverse effects in the longer term via the indirect effect of increased predation risk. Research is needed to evaluate the longer term impacts of forest disturbances on mountain goats that use low‐elevation mineral licks (Courbould et al, 2010). Other concerns related to forestry include increased hunter access to vulnerable goat populations. Kemess South Mine Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Kemess South Mine on mountain goat populations in the region. There have reportedly been negative effects on TKN opportunities for sustenance hunting, including additional hunting pressure by licensed hunters, due to increased access (Radies 2016, Pers Comm). There is a lack of information on the status of mountain goat populations and the impact of the mine (Takla Development Corporation Research Branch, 2011). Harvest

In the north, mountain goats are predominantly managed through a combination of GOS and LEH opportunities where high levels of easy access could increase the risk of localized overharvest. The main harvest management concern is the proportion of female mountain goats taken. Resident hunters usually harvest a higher proportion of female mountain goats than do non‐resident hunters. Since 1976, the ratio of female to male harvest has decreased, assumed to be the result of the hunter education program aimed specifically at improving gender identification of mountain goats (Kuzyck et al, 2012).

6.2.5.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right Goat are generally information deficient in terms of monitoring data that would capture population trends and allow a determination of status at the scale of the TKN area. Licenced hunting for these species is managed conservatively (GOS or LEH for goat) with compulsory reporting/inspection of all kills. Provincial perspectives on the species’ status within the TKN area is – stable – based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. That perspective is based on relatively short period of record. TKN have noted range retractions for both species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. The TKN’s ability to harvest this species is moderately constrained based on historical effects including range retraction and competition with licenced hunters.

February 2017 Page 144 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay 6.2.6 Stone’s Sheep Distribution Stone’s sheep is a subspecies of thinhorn sheep (Ovis dalli stonei). Recent research indicates that northern British Columbia supports all of the world’s Stone’s sheep population (U‐7‐028 order, 2016). Stone’s Sheep distribution in British Columbia runs northwest to southeast, from the east side of Bennett Lake on the British Columbia–Yukon border along the eastern side of the northern Coast Mountains to the northern end of the Skeena Mountains, through the Cassiar and Omineca mountains and the northern Rocky Mountains to just south of the Peace Arm of the Williston Reservoir [Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). The Peace Arm is generally the southernmost limit of Stone’s sheep in BC (FWCP 2014). The highest densities in BC are reported to be the Muskwa and Kechika River drainages and portions of the Stikine River watershed in north BC, with an additional population of note east of the Rocky Mountains on the north side of the Peace Reach, Williston Reservoir (Courbould 2011).

Figure 43. Distribution of mountain sheep in British Columbia (from Kuzyk et al, 2012).

TKN Territories contain critical mountain sheep habitat, as indicated by the recent approval of the Ungulate Winter Range U‐7‐028 Mackenzie Stone’s Sheep on May 24, 2016 (Order – Stone’s Sheep Ungulate Wintering Range U‐7‐028 – Mackenzie Forest District).

February 2017 Page 145 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.2.6.1 Status Provincial status: The most recent status assessment of Stone’s sheep (2010) ranked their provincial status as S‐4 (apparently secure, with some cause for concern) and yellow listed (any species or ecosystem that is at the least risk of being lost) (BC CDC 2016). Stone’s Sheep are not considered at risk in British Columbia because they are relatively common and their main habitats are secure. The BC Conservation Framework ranks Stone’s sheep as “priority 2” for Goal 2, – “Prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk” (BC Conservation Framework 2016).

Population and Trends There is little historic information about Thinhorn Sheep abundance (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004) and potential evaluation of population trends since the 1940s is limited to review of harvest statistics and sparse survey data (Hengeveld and Cubberly 2011). Skeena‐Omineca‐Peace Regions The British Columbia Ungulate Species Regional Population Estimates and Status Preseason 2014 (BC MFLNRO 2014) reported trend estimates for the Skeena, Omineca and Peace regions to be generally stable (Table 24, below). Table 24. Thinhorn sheep population and trend estimates (BC MFLNRO 2014).

Region Estimated Number Estimated Trend (from 2008‐2011) Omineca (Stone’s Sheep) 600‐900 Stable Peace (Stone Sheep) 6000‐9000 Stable – Increasing Skeena (Stone Sheep and Dall Sheep) 4000‐6500 Stable – Declining

From the British Columbia Ungulate Species Regional Population Estimates and Status Preseason 2014 (BC MFLNRO, 2014) Kuzyk et al (2012) reports that for the Skeena‐Omineca‐Peace regions, populations of the two subspecies of thinhorn sheep, Stone’s sheep and Dall’s sheep appear to be generally stable at between 9,900 and 15,000 animals since 1987 (Figure 44).

February 2017 Page 146 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 44. Population estimates of thinhorn sheep in BC (from Kuzyk et al, 2012).

In the Omineca, there is a lack of trend data. Hunter statistics are used to track indicators of population level concern, and harvest statistics are not showing any indication of concern for the region (Marshall 2016, Pers Comm). In the Peace Region, there is anecdotal evidence over time that the population declined following the end of a predator control project that led to some population growth (Bridger 2016, Pers Comm). The majority of thinhorn sheep harvest in Skeena region is managed through General Open Seasons (licenced resident hunters) and restricted guide quota (licenced non‐resident hunters that are guided). Some specific areas within Skeena are managed through LEH hunts and more restrictive guide quotas. In several of these areas populations appear to have declined over the past decade (Jex, B. 2016). Licensed harvest of Stone’s sheep ranged from 254 to 515 (x = 357) annually since 1976, with ̄ fluctuations occurring in the mid‐1980s and early 1990s (Figure 45), that are consistent with population abundance patterns in other thinhorn populations. Possible causes of fluctuations in harvest include: changes in weather patterns that affect winter and spring severity subsequently resulting in a negative effect on lamb survival and abundance; anthropogenic disturbances and increased levels of access that alienate habitats and alter habitat use; as well as economic drivers and hunting conditions that affect the numbers and timing and success of hunters (Kuzyk et al 2012).

February 2017 Page 147 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 45. Annual harvest of Stone’s sheep in BC from 1976‐2011 (from Kyzyk et al, 2012).

Demarchi and Hartwig (2004) found that Stone’s sheep population numbers did not vary significantly between 1975 and 1999. Stone’s Sheep numbers fluctuated from 11,950 in 1987 to a peak of 14,210 in 1994 to 10,550 in 2003. Most of the change has occurred in the Region 7B‐Peace‐Liard where Stone’s Sheep numbers were estimated to have declined from a peak of 8860 in 1994 to 5000 or fewer in 2003. Wolf numbers and thus wolf predation appears to have rebounded following government sanctioned wolf reductions of the 1980s and is believed to be the primary factor currently limiting Stone’s Sheep numbers in the Peace‐Liard Region (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004).

Trends varied by Game Management Zone (GMZ). All 4 GMZs that occur in TKN Territories experienced declining numbers (Table 25).

February 2017 Page 148 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 25. Stone Sheep Population Trends for GMZ’s in TKN Territories (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004).

GMZ TKN Trends (from Demarchi and Hartwig 2004) Between 1972 and 1996, the most recent survey of record, all Stikine (Skeena) KFN components of this subpopulation, including lambs and all classes of rams, declined markedly except for the 1998 Cry Lake survey. …it appears that declines of Stone’s Sheep numbers occurred in much of this GMZ since reaching a peak in the mid‐1990s. The decline in numbers may not have been universal throughout this GMZ. The Liard (Peace) KFN authors infer that where a wolf predation minimization program was in place, thinhorn sheep numbers were maintained while in other areas where wolves were uncontrolled, sheep numbers, particularly the mature ram component, declined from their highs of the mid‐1990s. Between 1990 and 1994 both the ram:ewe ratio and the lamb:ewe ratio increased. The class II ram component increased, while the class III and IV rams remained stable over the same time period. More recently, sheep numbers, including the mature ram component, declined. The most complete series of repeat sheep counts are from the Cypress River ‐ Prophet area (MUs 7‐42 and 7‐57). These counts North East KFN, TKD indicate a 13 % decline between 1990 and 1994, a 39% decline Rockies (Peace) between 1994 and 2002, for an overall decline of 47% between 1990 and 2002. The counts also show a substantial reduction in legal (full curl) rams, with a legal ram to 2+ year‐old ewe ratio of 7.7%. A recent survey in 7‐54 indicated that the legal ram to 2+ ewe ratio was only 2.4%, compared to a previous normal value of about 12% for this area (J. Elliott 2016, Pers Comm). Between 1985 and 1993, the most recent survey of record, all Upper Finlay KFN, TKD, components of this subpopulation, including lambs and all classes of (Omineca) TLFN rams, declined markedly.

Additional information on historical inventory work to‐date is included in the Table 26, below.

February 2017 Page 149 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 26. Population Distributions and Descriptions (by Provincial Region).

Region Survey‐Inventory Summary There was an estimated minimum of 600 Thinhorn Sheep in the Omineca on several ranges in 1986‐1988. The populations, especially those surveyed, were in good condition. Thinhorn Sheep in the area are characteristically found in areas of folded and faulted sedimentary rocks in the Omineca Mountains of the Finlay‐Omineca Planning Unit. More southern populations inhabit the Mitchell Ranges in MU 7‐27 in the Takla‐Nechako Region Planning Unit and on the east side of Williston Reservoir, south of the Peace Arm on 7A‐ Mount Selwyn in MU 7‐30. Sightings on various other ranges in both planning units have Omineca: also been reported (Demarchi and Hartwig, 2004). The Russel Range supports one of the largest Stone's sheep populations in the Williston Reservoir watershed (Study area MU 7‐40). Findings suggest that sheep population on the Russel Range is likely stable. However, the adult ram component was underrepresented in 1993 and may be a result of increased hunting pressure on full‐curl rams (class IV) and/or missed individuals (e.g., bachelor groups) (Courbald, 2001). In region 7B, the highest densities of Stone’s sheep coincide with suitable winter ranges in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). Development of the Alaska Highway in 1942 facilitated access to these Stone’s sheep populations, increasing both harvest pressure and management interest (Hengeveld and Cubberly 2011). There is little historic information about thinhorn sheep abundance. Long‐time residents of Fort St. John and Hudson Hope report that in the 1930s and 1940s, many guide‐ outfitters guided nonresident hunters in MUs 7‐35 and 7‐36 and took very good rams in the Schooler Creek and Nabesch River drainages. Reportedly, Stone’s Sheep were much more abundant in those areas at that time. Above average snowfalls in the 1960s Region through the mid 1970s may have reduced Stone’s Sheep by as much as 50%. By 1986‐ 7B‐Peace‐ 1988, an estimated 250 sheep occurred in Mus 7‐35, 7‐36, 7‐43 and, occasionally, in 7‐ Liard 47. Except for a small Stone’s Sheep herd intermittently reported on the Sikanni River in MU 7‐47, all sheep in the Peace Zone winter in the Hart Foothills Biophysical Area. Wolves (Canis lupus) are common in all sheep areas, and given the small size of herds and the restrictiveness of the winter ranges in this particular area, wolf predation likely limits population growth (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). Stone’s Sheep numbers were estimated to have declined from a peak of 8860 in 1994 to 5000 or fewer in 2003. Wolf numbers and thus wolf predation appears to have rebounded from targeted wolf reductions of the 1980s and is believed to be the primary factor currently limiting Stone’s sheep numbers in the Peace‐Liard Region by many resident northern hunters, guide outfitters and Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) staff (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). In 1986‐1988 in the Skeena Region, the estimated population of Thinhorn Sheep was Skeena about 4450, of which about 500 were Dall’s Sheep. Thinhorn Sheep occurred then, much Region as they do today (Demarchi and Hartwig, 2004).

February 2017 Page 150 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.2.6.2 Contributing Factors/Threats Current declines in mountain sheep are primarily related to habitat alienation or human developments. Wild sheep show high levels of range fidelity annually and have highly structured social organization. Populations are susceptible to density‐dependent and human influences on survival. Landscape changes can affect forage quantity and quality, disrupt movement corridors, restrict seasonal ranges, change inter‐species relationships, and influence pathogen or disease profiles (Hengeveld, P.E. and J.C. Cubberley (eds). 2011). Generally, potential effects threatening thinhorn habitat within the species’ range are:  Access developments: highways, logging roads and Rights‐of way.  Industrial developments: oil and gas exploration and development, prospecting and mining, hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and forestry, including domestic sheep silvicultural treatments.  Recreational developments and activities: motorized commercial backcountry recreation, all‐ terrain vehicle (ATV) use, etc.  Agricultural developments: croplands and livestock grazing on private and leased lands (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004; Paquet and Demarchi 1999). Williston Dam The creation of the Williston Reservoir in the late 1960s isolated sheep habitat south of the Peace Arm and formed a barrier to east‐west movement between the Rocky Mountains and the Omineca Mountains for some smaller sheep herds south of the settlement of Tsay Keh (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004). Dam construction had little direct impact on their habitat, but flooding likely reduced movements and genetic exchange among local populations. The movement of Stone’s sheep across the Peace River was likely disrupted by flooding and the species is now very rare south of the Peace Arm. FWCP sponsored a transplant of Stone’s sheep into previously occupied range on Mount Frank Roy but the project met with limited success (FWCP 2014). Industrial developments Transportation and utility corridors for highways, resource extraction roads, railroads, power transmission lines and pipelines are noted to have had a negative effect on Bighorn Sheep habitat in the province and there is similar potential for effects on thinhorn sheep habitat. Transportation and utility corridors remove habitat from use, dissect migration routes and lead to sheep being killed in collisions with vehicles. These developments can also affect seasonal movements of sheep along established, secure corridors, increasing their exposure to predation and hunting (Demarchi and Hartwig 2004).

6.2.6.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right Stone’s Sheep are generally information deficient in terms of monitoring data that would capture trends and allow a determination of status at the scale of the TKN area. Licenced hunting for these species is managed conservatively (sex/horn configuration restriction) with compulsory reporting/inspection of all kills. Provincial perspectives on the species’ status within the TKN area is – stable – based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. There is evidence to suggest existing abundance and distribution is considerably reduced from their historical state.

February 2017 Page 151 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TKN have noted range retractions for sheep over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. The TKN’s ability to harvest these species is assessed as being moderately constrained based on these historical and ongoing effects. 6.2.7 Hoary Marmot Hoary marmot are an important seasonal food source for TKN and support a specific set of cultural practices unique to the species (where the hunting activities take place) (West 2016, pers. comm ). They occupy high elevation alpine and sub‐alpine habitats within the TKN areas, typically in colonies. They are not a furbearer (subject to trapping regulation) or species hunted by licenced hunters and the Province does not monitor the species in any way. Given the propensity of mineral exploration sites and related roads in high elevation areas within the TKN area, it is quite likely they are frequently encountered and potentially affected, and have likely been effected within the area impacted by Kemess South, and are assessed as being adversely effected by the Project within the Application. They are known for their long hibernation periods in the north (~8‐months) and each colony generally maintains a single hibernaculum (West 2016, pers comm).

6.2.7.1 Status Their Provincial status is S5 (2015), BC list Yellow, which infers they are considered secure (BC CDC 2016). This is likely based on their broader “global status” and general considerations about their widespread distribution (not on monitoring data).

6.2.7.2 Contributing Factors/Threats There Provincial status is considered secure, and within the TKN area is there is an absence of inventory and monitoring information. As indicated above, they are anticipated to be adversely effected by the Project (Table 27). Table 27. Assessed effects on Hoary Marmot; from the Project Application.

Residual Cumulative Potential Effect Likelihood Significance Confidence Effect (y/n) Effect Habitat loss and Not a Not alteration Y Moderate Moderate cumulative Significant (construction phase) effect Not a Direct Mortality Not Y Low Moderate cumulative (construction) Significant effect

At present, there isn’t adequate information available with which to characterize the significance of these effects (i.e. how has other mineral exploration and mining within the TKN area had similar effects on Hoary Marmot).

February 2017 Page 152 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

6.2.7.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right Hoary marmot are an important seasonal food source for TKN and support a specific set of cultural practices unique to the species (where the hunting activities take place) (West 2016, pers comm). At present there is a lack of data through which their status can be assessed within the TKN area, but it is likely there has been considerable impacts of the nature outlined in the Application throughout the TKN area as a result of the long history of mineral exploration and mining. At present, it is assumed that the ability of TKN to exercise harvesting Rights in relation to Hoary Marmot are not constrained. 6.2.8 Grizzly Bear

6.2.8.1 Status The global distribution of the grizzly bear has declined by over 50% since the 1800s, with western Canada representing a significant core of the current North American range (MFLNRO 2012). Grizzly bear is a species of conservation concern provincially and federally, largely due to extensive range and population reductions caused by habitat development and fragmentation, and human‐related conflicts and mortality (COSEWIC Special Concern; BC CDC Blue List). The Province manages grizzly bears across 56 grizzly bear population units (“GBPUs”) that delineate individual bear populations according to natural/ecological and anthropogenic migration and genetic barriers. The GBPUs can be used for setting population objectives and land use priorities, and they can be assessed a conservation status (either Threatened or Viable) (MFLNRO 2012). Seven GBPU’s occur within TKN Territories (Figure 46).

Figure 46. Grizzly Bear Population Units (2012). Environmental Reporting BC. From Grizzly Bear Population Status (Ministry of Environment (BC MoE), 2012, pg 2).

February 2017 Page 153 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Seven GBPU’s occur within TKN Territories (Figure 47, below). The Finlay‐Ospika and Omineca GBPU’s occur almost entirely within TKN Territories and make up the majority of the GBPU range within TKN Territories.

Figure 47. TKN Territory Boundaries and GBPU’s.

All GBPU’s in TKN Territories are assessed as ‘viable’, and have not been closed to harvest (MFLNRO, 2012). Table 28, below, summarizes GBPU Status and most recent population estimations.

February 2017 Page 154 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 28. Grizzly Bear Population Units – Status, Density and Population (summarized from BC MFLNRO 2012)

% area with Est. Density 0.6km of GBPU TKN Territory Status pop. (Bears/1000km^2) road/km2 ** (2003) KFN TKD TLFN Spatsizi Y 666 Viable 30‐40 2 Upper Skeena‐ Y Y 755 Viable 40‐50 2 Nass Muskwa Y 840 Viable 20‐30 3 Rocky Y Y 538 Viable 10‐20 20 Finley‐Ospika Y Y Y 971 Viable 30‐40 6 Omineca Y Y 402 Viable 10‐20 21 Nation Y 170 Viable 0‐10 42

Each GBPU has been assigned a conservation status of either Threatened or Viable. This status is based on the difference between the current population estimate and the estimated habitat capability for the GBPU, where habitat capability is defined as the inherent, idealized ability of the land to support a specific density of grizzly bears independent of human influence. Where the current estimate is less than 50% of habitat capability, the GBPU is designated as Threatened. The selection of the 50% threshold should not be considered an absolute indication of population status but rather a subjective limit chosen in the context of considerable uncertainty about what constitutes a viable grizzly bear population. In some cases a population may be viable at less than 50% of habitat capability. In others, populations that exceed 50% may still not be viable over the long term (Hamilton et al, 2004). Trends A number of populations in the southern extent of grizzly bear range in Alberta and southern BC are known to be declining, and there are concerns about unsustainable mortality rates there and in parts of Yukon. There is strong evidence of genetic fragmentation in the southern parts of its range where some populations are increasingly isolated and subject to demographic stochasticity. Their poor condition in some parts of the range, combined with their naturally low reproductive rates and increasing pressures of resource extraction and cumulative impacts in currently intact parts of the range, heightens concern for this species if such pressures are not successfully reversed (COSEWIC 2012). There is a notable lack of population trend information in BC. Figure 48 below, indicates which populations were identified as being closed to hunting in 2012 due to a “threatened” status, or an estimated population of less than 100 animals.

February 2017 Page 155 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Figure 48. Areas open (green) and closed (red) to Grizzly bear hunting in BC. Threatened units are identified by cross‐hatching. White areas within BC are extirpated or never occupied (from MFLRNO, 2012).

If the “threshold” of 0.6km of road/km2 is used as the coarse‐scale indicator of when road density has demonstrated adverse consequences on watershed and/or terrestrial habitat integrity, 3.6%, 26.3% and 37.5% of the WAU’s within the KFN, Tsay Keh and Takla Lake Territories, respectively, have exceeded that level, and localized adverse effects would be anticipated. The Nation and Omineca GBPU’s are in the southern portion of TKN Territories and the ranges of both these populations have relatively high levels of linear development, and the populations have relatively‐inherently low populations/densities. Large scale salvage logging has been occurring in both portions of those GBPU ranges, and it is likely that this ongoing habitat degradation has adversely impacted these two GBPUs and would result in modeled population declines.

6.2.8.2 Contributing Factors/Threats Grizzly bears are widely known to be good indicators of ecosystem health. This is due to their sensitivity to habitat loss, damage, and fragmentation, reductions or eliminations of key food sources such as salmon, and their susceptibility to induced mortality associated with increased human contact (i.e. collisions, human/property conflict, poaching, etc.). BC MoE (2012) states that the cumulative effects of human development is the greatest threat to Grizzly bears in BC; these effects impact bears in three main (often overlapping) ways:  Conflicts between bears and humans increase in frequency, often resulting in bears being killed or relocated;  Bear populations become isolated because of human settlements, agriculture, and utility corridors in major valley bottoms;

February 2017 Page 156 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Habitat may be lost or degraded by development, alienated through bears’ avoidance of humans and human activities, or fragmented (for example, by high density road networks with high traffic volumes) (BC MoE 2012). Roads are known to have a negative effect on Grizzly bear habitat use when they reach a density of about 0.6 km of road per sq km; this effect gets stronger when road density increases over ~1 km/sq km. In addition, new or improved roads bring people into contact with Grizzly bears more frequently, and sometimes those encounters are lethal for bears (BC MoE 2012). Activities that increase the proportion of altered and managed landscapes and linear features (i.e., collisions, human/property conflict, poaching, and increased density, such as the Project) impart adverse effects that are contrary to the GBPU management objectives for threatened and/or viable populations, and that ultimately impact TKN’s Rights. A changing climate may also challenge Grizzly bear populations. Climate change is expected to expected to exacerbate fragmentation and negatively influence salmon runs in coastal BC (COSEWIC, 2012). Other potential impacts include increasing incidence of berry crop failures and other seasonal foods, competition between black bears and Grizzly bears as tree lines move further north and higher in altitude, decreasing den stability with the changing nature of permafrost, and effects on prey species such as caribou and moose, and increasing intensity in human development as parts of the North become more amenable to agriculture and other activities, are all potential concerns for Grizzly Bears (COSEWIC 2012).

6.2.8.3 TKN Ability to Exercise Right Grizzly bear populations within the TKN area are recognized as viable, but disturbance indicators related to development pressures are likely adversely affecting the two primary populations within the area (Omineca and Finlay‐Ospika). Both TLFN and TKD have high proportions of WAU’s within their Territories with high road density, and linear development has been increasing in recent years, related to large scale salvage logging in both territories. It reasonable to presume that ongoing industrial activity in TLFN and TKD has adversely impacted the Nation and Omineca GBPU’s, resulting in population declines. We’ve assessed the ability of TKN to harvest this species is not constrained (but it should be noted that projected development in the area will change this finding within the southern portions of the TKN area). 6.3 Summary; Status of Aquatic‐Fish and Wildlife and TKN’s Harvesting Rights Following is a summary of findings in relation to our consideration of the status of the various fish and wildlife resources within the TKN area, and how the status information relates to the ability of TKN to meaningfully exercise their harvesting Rights. This takes into consideration, the background environmental context and trends, and other factors that influence the ability to exercise. The information reviewed/developed as part of this assessment indicates that the populations and ranges of a large number of fish and wildlife species within the TKN’s Territories have been extensively modified relative to their historical state due to largescale habitat alteration and other factors. Other key species have undergone recent (10‐20 years) large‐scale declines in abundance, while others have been declining for longer periods and have exceeded biological thresholds of population sustainability,

February 2017 Page 157 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay as summarized in Table 11 29. Others do not reflect a diminished status, and for many, there is inadequate information available from which to infer status or relevant trends. Factors contributing to diminished statuses vary, ranging from factors external to the local area (such as marine productivity and other climate change related trends), to impoundment and reservoir creation, and in some cases localized factors (such as those related to land and resource management, including forestry and MPB impacts). In all cases of diminished population health/status, additional landscape disturbance, including clearing/linear development, increased or maintained industrial traffic, will have the potential to contribute to factors that have or are facilitating the diminished state of species that are central to the TKN’s culture, and to the abilities of these First Nations to meaningfully exercise their Rights. Findings indicate that the ecological integrity of the TKN’s territorial land bases in some cases, compromised, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats therein already impaired in relation to their potential to support the species of interest or concern to the TKN. 6.3.1 Aquatics‐Fish Following are summary findings on the TKN First Nation’s ability’s to exercise their fish harvesting Rights, based on the summarized status of the various fish species assessed across the major watershed groups encountered by the TKN area, and TKN perspectives. 1. Fraser – TLFN a. Salmon (sockeye, chinook and coho): poor status, access highly constrained. i. (Species are unavailable for harvest in some years and available in other years at levels insufficient to meet TKN needs, due to low returning abundance, restricted allocation and/or conservation closure) b. Sturgeon: access/harvest not possible ii. (Population is listed under the Species at Risk Act as Endangered; population has suffered a recruitment failure due to the damming, diversion and regulation of the Nechako River) c. Other resident fish stocks (trout, char, whitefishes, burbot, minnows/chub, suckers, etc.): assumed to be healthy (unconstrained) but information deficient iii. (Stocks used by TKN but they are generally not actively managed/monitored by the Province) Fraser Summary (TLFN’s interests); status of fish stocks relied upon is generally poor, particularly for key stocks, and TLFN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights within the Fraser portion of their Territory is highly constrained. 2. Skeena – TLFN/TKD a. Salmon i. Sockeye (Bear); chronically underperforming due to over exploitation – primary food fish supporting TLFN ii. Sockeye (Sustut, Asitka, Johanson); small stocks and data limited/suspected to be declining and underperforming iii. Chinook (Bear); declining returning spawner abundance; highly used by TLFN iv. Coho (primarily Bear); returns improving recently, highly used by TLFN

February 2017 Page 158 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

v. Steelhead (Sustut/Bear); Bear population not monitored; returns improving, highly used by TLFN and TKD Ability to exercise salmon and steelhead harvesting rights are not presently constrained. b. Resident fish stocks; status is assumed secure due to remoteness – highly information limited Skeena Summary (TLFN/TKD interests); multiple stocks and species; sockeye are chronically underperforming due to long term overexploitation, but TLFN and TKD continue to rely upon them. Chinook are in a severe decline. Coho and steelhead have recently performed well due to exploitation management in marine commercial fisheries. Both stocks are information limited in the Bear watershed. For TLFN, the Bear/Sustut is now their only option for salmon sustenance needs. TLFN/TKD’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Skeena is not presently constrained, but there is considerable risk to harvesting Rights due to external influences (marine exploitation and productivity) and limited monitoring.

3. Peace‐Williston (TKD, TLFN, KFN) a. Resident fish within reservoir effected areas; Arctic grayling, bull trout, lake trout, lake white fish, mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, kokanee; transition to a reservoir environment has created a number of issues deterring use – traditional practices have been disrupted and new environment is perceived as dangerous, fish are perceived as being unsafe to eat and recent studies suggest those perceptions are well founded. New (stocked) species such as kokanee are flourishing b. Non‐reservoir effected areas18 (Nation Lakes, Germansen Lake, upper Finlay (Firesteel/Thutade), upper KFN); some are remote/distant, others are accessible and therefore popular and well used, perception risks and other factors are a deterrent c. Lake trout (non‐reservoir); 9 of 28 naturally occurring lake dwelling populations demonstrate overharvest of heightened sensitivity to harvest. d. Dolly Varden; unique to Finaly and Ingenika river headwater drainages. Kemess/Thutade area population have had contamination issues Peace‐Williston Summary (TLFN, TKD, KFN interests); reservoir creation has highly effected fish fauna composition and distribution within the area, fishing areas have been altered, cultural practices disrupted, contamination/mercury issues have health consequences and create perceptions that deter use, etc. TKN’s Rights to harvest fish from the Peace‐Williston are qualified as highly constrained.

4. Peace‐Eastern Slopes (TKD) a. Remote headwaters of Halfway/Graham rivers: non‐reservoir effected. TKN area within this watershed is largely upstream of barriers, so contains largely isolated populations of fish. Assumed fish values are of high value and healthy status but no monitoring information to inform that.

18 Peripheral areas of the watershed that are upstream of fish migration barriers and therefore not subjected to the direct effects of impoundment and inundation.

February 2017 Page 159 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Peace‐Eastern Slopes Summary (TKD interests); non reservoir affected at present. Assumed fish values are healthy and TKD’s Rights to harvest fish from Peace‐Eastern slope drainages are not constrained.

5. Upper Stikine (Upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) (KFN) a. Important traditional use area with substantial ecotourism. Very limited inventory information available and no monitoring information that would inform a status assessment. Largely within protected areas and fish values suspected to be healthy. Upper Stikine (Upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) Summary (KFN interests); assumed that fish values are healthy. KFN’s Rights to harvest fish from the upper Stikine are not constrained.

6. Liard (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) (KFN) a. Important traditional use area with substantial ecotourism. Very limited inventory information available. Largely within protected areas and parks and fish values suspected to be healthy due to remoteness. KFN identified some issues with recent increased access and use by BC residents via increased fly‐in and jet boat access and concerns over localized harvest and disturbance in more easily accessed areas. Liard (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/Tuchodi, Wokkpash) Summary (KFN interests); assumed that fish values are healthy within this area. KFN’s Rights to harvest fish from the Liard portion of the TKN area are not constrained. 6.3.2 Wildlife Summary Following are summary findings on the TKN First Nation’s ability’s to exercise their wildlife harvesting Rights, based on the summarized status of the various wildlife species assessed across the TKN area, and TKN perspectives. Caribou Caribou have been of particular interest to management agencies as they are recognized to be in decline in many parts of their range. However, much of the focus has been on population designation/herd range delineation, and in many cases these activities are taking place well into the declines some localized sub‐populations or herds have been experiencing. Delineation of this nature is key to implementing and interpreting monitoring information and recovery actions, but unfortunately there’s limited monitoring information for many areas. There are 12 recognized caribou populations within the TKN area. The northern most populations (Spatsizi, Rabbit, Muskwa, Gataga, Pink Mountain and Frog) are information deficient for the purposes of understanding their numerical trends. They are managed for licenced hunting via General Open Season with sex/horn configuration restrictions. They are generally located in remote, undeveloped areas. The remaining 6 populations within the TKN area (Finlay, Graham, Chase, Wolverine, TLFN, and Scott) are recognized to be in declines of varying severity. The Scott herd in particular is recognized as Endangered. As these populations are the most central to the TKN communities, the TKN’s use of caribou is constrained by declining abundance and range contraction. Declines likely relate the primary

February 2017 Page 160 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay causative factors identified for more heavily studied/monitored populations; industrial and other human activities resulting in habitat change favouring other species, habitat disturbance/avoidance, and increased predation. Declines are likely to continue and worsen. Caribou subpopulation statuses across the TKN area is as follows:  KFN – All 7 subpopulations are SARA‐listed “Special Concern”. However, the Finlay subpopulation (19 animals) has experienced steep decline (89% between 1994 and 2002) and is currently declining. o The KFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights are moderately constrained.  TKD – Four of the six subpopulations in TKD Territory are in decline. The 2 Northern Mountain subpopulations (Spatsizi and Pink Mountain) are SARA‐listed ‘Special Concern’. Three subpopulations (Graham, Chase, Wolverine) are SARA‐listed Threatened (2003) and are declining. The Scott subpopulation (35 mature adults) is recommended for uplisting to Endangered (COSEWIC 2014), and is extirpated from a portion of TKD Territory.  TLFN: With the exception of the Spatsizi subpopulation, all 5 subpopulations that occur in TLFN territory are in decline. The Chase, Wolverine and Takla subpopulations in north‐central BC are SARA‐listed “Theatened” (2003). The Scott subpopulation (35 mature adults) is recommended for uplisting to Endangered (COSEWIC 2014), and is extirpated from a portion of TKD Territory. o The TLFN and TKD abilities to exercise caribou harvesting Rights are highly constrained and likely worsening.

Moose Limited spatial and temporally contiguous survey‐monitoring information is available for moose within the majority of the TKN area. Where information is available, it does not suggest a broadscale decline within the area, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. These are suspected to reflect disproportionally high hunting pressure where access and heavily utilized moose habitats are coincidental. This situation is facilitated by the creation of access and the MU‐based harvest allocation system. Challenges in harvesting moose, including increased competition with licenced hunters, is cited as a serious concern for TKN (particularly as caribou are also becoming more challenging or unviable to harvest). A greater effort is required to harvest, or hunt in the desired setting, requiring greater travel, time and cost. Data limitations that would allow a determination of status or trend is not available, and moose are not a recognized conservation concern. The ability of TKN to harvest moose is moderately constrained. Mountain Goat Goat are generally information deficient in terms of monitoring data that would capture trends and allow a determination of status at the scale of the TKN area. Licenced hunting for this species is managed conservatively (GOS or LEH for goat) with compulsory reporting/inspection of all kills. Provincial perspectives on the species’ status within the TKN area is – stable – based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data.

February 2017 Page 161 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

TKN have noted range retractions for both species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. The TKN’s ability to harvest these species is moderately constrained based on historical effects including range retraction and competition with licenced hunters. Stone’s Sheep Stone’s Sheep are generally information deficient in terms of monitoring data that would capture trends and allow a determination of status at the scale of the TKN area. Licenced hunting for this species is managed conservatively (sex/horn configuration restriction) with compulsory reporting/inspection of all kills. Provincial perspectives on the species’ status within the TKN area is – stable – based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data (available over a relatively short period of record). There is longer‐term evidence to suggest existing abundance and distribution is considerably reduced from their historical state. TKN have noted range retractions for sheep over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. The TKN’s ability to harvest this species is moderately constrained based on historical effects including range retraction and competition with licenced hunters. Hoary Marmot Hoary marmot are an important seasonal food source for TKN and support a specific set of cultural practices unique to the species (where the hunting activities take place). At present there is a lack of data through which their status can be assessed within the TKN area. Based on the findings within the Project Application, t is likely there have been impacts of the nature outlined in the Application throughout the TKN area as a result of the long history of mineral exploration and mining in the area. At present, the TKN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights in relation to Hoary Marmot are not constrained. Grizzly bear Grizzly bear populations within the TKN area are recognized as viable, but disturbance indicators related to development pressures are likely adversely affecting the two primary populations within the area (Omineca and Finlay‐Ospika). Both TLFN and TKD have high proportions of their Territories with high road density, and linear development has been increasing in recent years, related to large scale salvage logging in both territories. It reasonable to presume that ongoing industrial activity in TLFN and TKD has adversely impacted the Nation and Omineca GBPU’s, resulting in population declines. The TKN’s ability to harvest this species is not constrained (but it should be noted that projected development in the area will change this finding). The health/status of wildlife populations and TKN’s interests are summarized in Table 29, below.

February 2017 Page 162 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 29. Summary of Wildlife Health/Status

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) CARIBOU (DU/Sub‐ population) Northern Mountain DU(7) SARA‐listed Special Spatsizi Y Y Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Concern (2005) SARA‐listed Special Rabbit N N Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Concern (2005) SARA‐listed Special Muskwa N N Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Concern (2005) SARA‐listed Special Gataga N N Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Concern (2005) SARA‐listed Special Frog N N Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Concern (2005) Severe Constraints on use: Access to In decline. Causative factors for this subpopulation is constrained due to decline not specific, but likely relate severely diminished abundance. SARA‐listed Special to broader issues affecting declining Finlay N Y Y Declining population (89% between Concern (2005) caribou populations (forestry/roads, 1994‐2002). Population estimate of 19 predation). Close proximity to KFN mature adults in 2002. Close proximity village so likely significant effect. to KFN village so likely significant effect. Pink SARA‐listed Special N Y Y Assumed not to be constrained. Current trend unknown. Lack of data. Mountain Concern (2005)

February 2017 Page 163 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use)

SARA‐Listed Threatened Constraints on use due to diminished In decline. In the southern portion of (2003). and declining abundance. the DU and in more accessible Recommended by ranges in the northern portion of the Graham COSEWIC for down‐listing N Y N 9 subpopulations in the southern part of DU, industrial and other human to Special Concern the DU‐7 range have declined by 27% activities resulting in habitat change (COSEWIC 2014, EC, since the last COSEWIC assessment in favouring other prey species, and/or 2014). 2002, and will likely continue to decline. disturbance to caribou are continuing) (COSEWIC, 2014) SARA‐Listed Threatened Constraints on use due to diminished In decline. In the southern portion of (2003). and declining abundance. the DU and in more accessible Recommended by ranges in the northern portion of the Chase COSEWIC for down‐listing Y Y N 9 subpopulations in the southern part of DU, industrial and other human to Special Concern the DU‐7 range have declined by 27% activities resulting in habitat change (COSEWIC 2014, EC, since the last COSEWIC assessment in favouring other prey species, and/or 2014). 2002, and will likely continue to decline. disturbance to caribou are continuing) (COSEWIC, 2014) SARA‐Listed Threatened Constraints on use due to diminished In decline. In the southern portion of (2003). and declining abundance. the DU and in more accessible Recommended by ranges in the northern portion of the Wolverine COSEWIC for down‐listing Y Y N 9 subpopulations in the southern part of DU, industrial and other human to Special Concern the DU‐7 range have declined by 27% activities resulting in habitat change (COSEWIC 2014, EC, since the last COSEWIC assessment in favouring other prey species, and/or 2014). 2002, and will likely continue to decline. disturbance to caribou are continuing) (COSEWIC, 2014) SARA‐Listed Threatened Constraints on use due to diminished In decline. In the southern portion of (2003). and declining abundance. the DU and in more accessible Recommended by ranges in the northern portion of the Takla COSEWIC for down‐listing Y N N 9 subpopulations in the southern part of DU, industrial and other human to Special Concern the DU‐7 range have declined by 27% activities resulting in habitat change (COSEWIC 2014, EC, since the last COSEWIC assessment in favouring other prey species, and/or 2014). 2002, and will likely continue to decline. disturbance to caribou are continuing) (COSEWIC, 2014)

February 2017 Page 164 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) Central Mountain DU(8)

SARA‐Listed Threatened Severe Constraints on use: Access to In decline. The primary threats to (2003). this subpopulation is constrained due to caribou in the Central Mountain DU Recommended by severely diminished abundance. include altered predator‐prey COSWEIC for up‐listing to Scott Y Y N Population decline of 60% since 2002, dynamics due to both direct and Endangered (COSEWIC, estimate of 35 mature adults in 2002. functional habitat loss and 2014) Extirpated from portions of TLFN and disturbance resulting from multiple TKD Territories. industrial activities (COSEWIC, 2014). Moose (geographic area) BC Yellow listed (Secure) In some areas, extensive forestry activities, including extensive clear Moderate Constraints on use: Declines cutting and linear feature (road) density contributing to access Moose; in availability in local areas frequently development and corresponding Region 7a – used by people where moose are increase in mortality, including Omineca, Unknown. Lack of subjected to relatively high hunting predator efficiency (and diminishing North Peace population status/trend N Y Y pressure and disturbance (Cadsand et overwintering success). (east of data. al, 2013). Williston In some areas, low density (Cadsand et Accessible areas subject to focused Reservoir) al, 2013), density decrease (Mu’s 7‐30‐ hunting and disturbance, increased 41), since 2006 (MFNLRNO, 2015). competition with licensed hunters. Challenges in harvesting are noted by TKN to be a substantial impact.

Moose; Unknown. Lack of Accessible areas subject to focused Moderate Constraints on use: high Region 7a ‐ population status/trend hunting and disturbance, increased Y Y N levels of licenced hunters referenced – Central data. Sharp decline in competition where licensed hunters hunting in focused areas. Omineca numbers of moose in have access (jetboat). Omineca River valley,

February 2017 Page 165 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) (Omineca while there were Watershed increased density trends and Takla in Omineca watershed regions). area (McNay and Giguere, 2013) and other areas (MFLNRO, 2015) Unknown. Lack of population status/trend data. Anecdotal evidence Moose; Peace suggests moose numbers High level of predation cited in one Region are in decline in some Moderate Constraints on use: due to N Y N area demonstrating a decline and (Northeast areas (Bridger, M. pers. population declines. low calf/cow ratio. Rockies) comm. 2016). MU 7‐42 70% decline, low calf/cow ratio (Lirette, 2015).

Moose; Unknown. Lack of Skeena population status/trend Status inferred from hunter effort Region – data. Licenced hunter No constraints on use inferred. Y Y Y and harvest data. No constraints on Stikine and harvest data indicates use inferred. Upper Skeena populations are stable. GMZs

BC CDC Blue Williston Reservoir ‐ flooding likely Mountain listed/Special Concern, Moderately constrained use based on reduced movements and genetic historical effects including range Goat Priority 1 for Goal 2 – Y Y Y exchange among local populations, retraction and competition with “Prevent species and may have also forced abandonment licenced hunters. ecosystems from of low‐elevation licks historically becoming at risk” (BC used by mountain goats. Portions of

February 2017 Page 166 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) Conservation Framework, the TKN area with developed access 2016). have likely Omineca‐Peace‐Skeena populations – stable, with stable/increasing trend in the Peace region. Lack of trend data at the TKN area scale. Stone’s Sheep Regions/GMZs; BC Yellow listed (Secure) Region 7A – Between 1985‐1993, Moderately constrained use based on Omineca – declined markedly. Lack KFN; Localized concerns about historical effects including range Upper Finlay of good monitoring data; Y Russell Range herd due to retraction and competition with Subpopulatio hunter effort/harvest accessibility. licenced hunters. n (GMZ) stats used

Stone’s Sheep numbers Wolf numbers/wolf predation were estimated to have appears to have rebounded declined from a peak of following government sanctioned 8860 in 1994 to 5000 or Moderately constrained use based on wolf reductions of the 1980s. fewer in 2003. historical effects including range Believed to be the primary factor Region 7B ‐ currently limiting Stone’s sheep Estimated number for Y Y retraction and competition with Peace –Liard Peace region ‐ 6000‐ licenced hunters. numbers in the Peace‐Liard Region 9000, stable‐increasing by many resident northern hunters,

(MFLNRO, 2014). Lack of guide outfitters and Ministry of monitoring data at the Water, Land and Air Protection required spatial scale to (MWLAP) staff (Demarchi and infer status. Hartwig, 2004).

February 2017 Page 167 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) Moderately constrained use based on Region Stable‐declining historical effects including range Lack of monitoring data at the Skeena ‐ Y (MFLNRO, 2014) retraction and competition with required spatial scale to infer status. upper Stikine licenced hunters. Lack of monitoring data. Potential for Stable (BC CDC) Assumed that the ability to exercise Hoary historical effects in TKN area due to Provincial status is S5 Y Y Y harvesting Rights in relation to Hoary Marmot mineral exploration and mining (2015), BC list Yellow Marmot are not constrained. legacy. Grizzly (GBPUs) COSEWIC Special Concern; BC CDC Blue List Assumed to be largely unaffected due “viable”; modelled based Spatsizi Y to area’s remoteness and lack of on habitat Lack of population/trend data development. Assumed to be largely unaffected due Upper “viable”; modelled based Y Y to area’s remoteness and lack of Skeena‐Nass on habitat Lack of population/trend data development. Assumed to be largely unaffected due “viable”; modelled based Muskwa Y to area’s remoteness and lack of on habitat Lack of population/trend data development. Assumed to be largely unaffected due “viable”; modelled based Rocky Y Y to area’s remoteness and lack of on habitat Lack of population/trend data development. Assumed to be largely unaffected due Finlay‐ “viable”; modelled based Y Y Y to area’s remoteness and lack of Ospika on habitat Lack of population/trend data development. “viable”; modelled based Omineca Y Low abundance (density). Population Both TLFN and TKD have high on habitat anticipated to decline, due to increasing proportions of Territory with high

February 2017 Page 168 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Summary‐Overview of Wildlife Health/Status

Species/Pop TKN Territory Contributing Factors (Population Health/Status TKN’s Interests (Ability to Exercise) ulation TLFN TKD KFN Health/Status and Use) habitat degradation. Use assumed to be road density. Ongoing large scale unconstrained. salvage logging anticipated to exacerbate habitat degradation. Low population (170) and density, risk High proportion of range with high “viable”; modelled based of decline due to increasing habitat Nation Y road density. Habitat degradation on habitat degradation. Use assumed to be has continued since last estimate unconstrained. (large scale salvage logging).

February 2017 Page 169 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

7 Anticipated Project Impacts and Effects on TKN In the Application, AuRico concluded that the Project is anticipated to result in residual adverse effects on the Aboriginal Rights of TLFN, TKDN, and KFN. AuRico identified the following adverse effects related to resource harvesting:  limit on the utility of hunting of moose and bear, and trapping of marten and wolverine, within the LSA due to altered animal movement; and

 limits on continuity (sense of place) with respect to fishing in Amazay Lake and or plant gathering around Amazy Lake due to sensory disturbance. AuRico concluded in the Application that, based on (i) the small scale and scope of the Project,(ii) the proposed mitigation measures, (iii) the low magnitude and local extent of potential effects, and (iv)ongoing engagement with TKN, those effects would not be significant. AuRico was requested by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) to provide additional consideration of the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes (CULRTP) and Aboriginal Rights relative to a pre‐disturbance baseline (prior to access restrictions related to Kemess South ~ 1996). The results of that additional consideration is summarized in a memo to CEAA dated November 9, 2016, and includes the following findings: In relation to the displacement of TKN‐use:  Based on a 500 metre buffer around the KUG Project and the Kemess South site, the area to which access will be restricted is approximately 4,480ha (the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use).

 The displacement of TKN First Nations’ land use activities as a result of the KUG Project is rated as not significant (residual). In relation to the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices:  Based on the 4,480ha access restricted zone, and that the area has not been identified as being of particular significance or intensive use (TKN First Nations utilize ridges, hillsides, mountains, creeks, and lakes in the vicinity of the KUG Project in general, rather than in site‐specific, ways).

 The potential limitation on the spatial extent of TKN First Nations’ social and ceremonial practices is rated as low impact. Confidence in the rating is moderate. The additional consideration results in the following changes to the Application:  In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 20 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to displace TKN First Nations’ CULRTP activities from the Project Area, in comparison with pre‐disturbance conditions. Following the application of mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated not significant.

 In contrast to conclusions presented in Chapter 21 of the Application, the proposed KUG Project is anticipated to reduce the spatial extent within which TKN First Nations have the ability to exercise Aboriginal harvesting and social and ceremonial rights. Following the application of

February 2017 Page 170 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

mitigation measures, this residual effect is rated as having a low impact on TKN First Nations Aboriginal rights.

In this assessment, we identify the following means through which the construction and operation of the Project will potentially interact with the TKN Territories and impact Aboriginal Rights. These potential Project impacts include: 1. Biophysical impacts on wildlife: The Project is predicted to have localized impacts on wildlife behaviour, including movement patterns and habitat use, and direct effects on terrestrial/wildlife habitats. It is also predicted that the Project will result in the mortality of hoary marmots and destruction of their habitats. TKN management and use of the land, and harvesting and associated cultural practices within the Project area will be precluded by the access restrictions associated with the Project. The Project area will adversely affect moose, caribou, grizzly and hoary marmots through habitat alteration and disruption, and the TKN’s abilities to exercise their harvesting rights for those species will also be adversely affected.

2. Biophysical impacts on aquatic species: Aquatic values are anticipated to (continue to) be adversely effected by waste rock and tailings management, and related seepage, wastewater and effluent management. These issues will result in adverse effects to water quality and quantity that will adversely affect fish and their habitat within the receiving environment. Fishing areas within the access restricted zone will be unavailable for use. TKN‐use in areas downstream of the access restricted zone will be affected by perception risk. Adverse effects on fish and fish habitat within streams/lakes receiving mine effluent and seepage/wastewater are cumulative to adverse effects on watershed health and dolly varden/bull trout relating to KS, and may eliminate additional harvesting opportunities.

3. Additional disturbed areas: The mine site and ore/wastewater transport corridor will impact the ecology of the lands and waters in the Territories, and alienate lands from TKN’s use. The “disturbed area” includes the disturbed and operational areas of the mine, and a buffer.

4. Restricted access to a large area in TKN Territories: The total amount of land that would be restricted from TKN access and use as a result of the access restrictions implemented in relation to the Project and KS would be approximately 4,480 ha (Nov 9, 2016 memo to CEAA).

5. Occupation of TKN Territories: Additional lands within the Territories that will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKN entities (Increased area of lands alienated from traditional uses or other TKN objectives).

6. Delayed reclamation and restoration of KS lands: The continued use of areas previously disturbed for KS that will delay their reclamation.

February 2017 Page 171 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

7. Contamination of water: Additional (to KS) contaminated wastewater, seepage and TSF effluent that directly affect aquatic and terrestrial values and also poses addition environmental risk, predicted to result in:

a. Altered water quality and hydrology in downstream areas; and,

b. Further deterrence to traditional use through TKN members’ perception of risk relating to effluent and toxicity (environmental health) effects.

8. Increases in industrial traffic, noise, dust, etc.

a. Deterring traditional use due to access restrictions in the Restricted Area and potentially through alterations in the environmental setting within a broader area.

9. Increased access to the Territories by non‐TKN members: Improved/maintained access corridors into the Territories.

a. Potentially facilitating Increasing numbers of resident hunters and anglers accessing the Territories in the vicinity of the Project because of well‐maintained access, increasing competition for resources and increasing harvest of resources. Both will adversely impact the ability of TKN members to exercise their Aboriginal Rights of the TKN First Nations.

10. Increased risk to the Territories and Aboriginal Rights of the TKN First Nations: Potential accidents and malfunctions arising from the construction and operation of the Project, including as a result of a breach of the TSF, will introduce a significant risk of damage being caused to the Territories and the Aboriginal title and rights of the First Nations.

11. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations.

We also identified that the Project will significantly increase environmental risk as a result of:  Well‐maintained vehicular access into the area and the restart of KS mine infrastructure (i.e. processing plant) associated with the Project has the potential to facilitate additional mineral exploration work, which increases the potential for additional exploration‐related and mining‐ related impacts on TKN’s interests.

 Accidents or malfunctions associated with dangerous goods or hazardous materials could impact waterways with effects on water quality and/or fish, or other values associated with wetland habitats. They could also results in contamination of terrestrial habitat.

 Malfunctions and/or accidents associated with the TSF.

February 2017 Page 172 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Manifestation of these risks would adversely affect TKN rights through additional alienation of lands and/or the contamination of lands and waters, and associated toxicity effects and perception issues around wild foods.

7.1 Project Impacts Relative to TKN Rights The following summarizes the Project’s potential impacts relative to each TKN First Nation’s baseline‐ context. Tables 30 and 31 below summarize information relating to the status/population trends for fish and wildlife species assessed, how that information relates to the TKN’s Rights, and how the Project’s impacts are anticipated to affect the Aboriginal RIghts of the TKN First Nations. Project effects on TKN are categorized relative to the following characterizations: • Negligible impact – no detectable impact or any change from current conditions; • Negligible‐to‐minor – some detectable impacts or change from current condition; • Minor impact – ability to exercise the right is minimally disrupted; • Minor‐to‐moderate – ability to exercise the right is more than minimally disrupted; • Moderate impact – ability to exercise the right has been diminished or disrupted; • Moderate‐to‐serious – ability to exercise the right has been more than moderately diminished; and • Serious impact – ability to exercise the right has been significantly diminished. 7.1.1 Takla Lake First Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) TLFN Territory encompasses portions of the Fraser, Skeena, and Peace Williston Watersheds. Based on baseline information developed, we’ve found that the ability of TLFN to exercise fish harvesting rights is highly constrained: 1. Fraser Summary: TLFN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights within the Fraser portion of the TKN Territory is highly constrained. 2. Skeena Summary: TLFN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Skeena is not presently constrained, but there is considerable risk to harvesting Rights due to external influences (marine exploitation and productivity) and limited monitoring (potential for harvesting beyond sustainable levels). 3. Peace‐Williston Summary: TLFN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Peace‐Williston is highly constrained due to the large‐scale habitat alterations that occurred as a result of reservoir creation, and related direct effects on traditional use sites, fish faunal transition, and toxicity issues (real and perceived).

The Project is located in the Peace‐Williston watershed and has been assessed as having the following impacts on aquatic values and TLFN’s interests in aquatic values: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. 4,480ha of TLFN Territory will be unavailable for use;

February 2017 Page 173 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

c. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TLFN entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TLFN’s preferred uses or objectives for the long‐term; d. Adverse effects on fish and fish habitat within streams/lakes receiving mine effluent and seepage/wastewater are cumulative to adverse effects on watershed health and dolly varden/bull trout relating to KS, and may eliminate additional harvesting opportunities e. Well‐maintained access (ORAR ‐ transects the Peace Williston and Skeena watersheds) will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced anglers and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Project impacts will worsen TLFN’s already highly constrained ability to exercise fish harvesting rights and other aquatic interests. As such, the anticipated Project impacts on TLFN are:  Peace‐Williston: Negative (Serious) due to highly constrained baseline and direct impacts in Territory  Skeena: Negligible in the Skeena (assuming adequate baseline). 7.1.2 Takla Lake First Nation (Wildlife) Caribou Four of the five populations that occur in TLFN Territory are recognized to be in decline, and the trend is described as not clearly reversible. The Chase, Wolverine and Takla populations are SARA‐listed “Threatened” (2003). The Scott population is Endangered (COSEWIC 2014), and is extirpated from a portion of TLFN Territory. Causative factors include habitat disturbance and predation. TLFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights is highly constrained and likely worsening (due to continued population declines for 4 populations). The Project area is not encompassed within the recognized core range of any recognized population, but caribou presence is common in the Project area. Recent studies of the “southern zone of trace occurrence” (which encompasses the Project) have resulted in a recommendation to designate a new/proposed population, the core range of which would encompass the Project footprint. The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on caribou and TLFN’s interests in caribou: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect caribou through habitat alteration and disruption, and these affects will be incremental to other factors in the region that are contributing to declining caribou populations; c. 4,480ha of TLFN Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TLFN entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TLFN’s preferred uses or objectives (including caribou) for the long‐term;

February 2017 Page 174 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Given the importance of caribou to TLFN’s Rights, and the highly constrained and worsening baseline, the anticipated Project impacts on TLFN’s interests in caribou are Negative (Serious). Moose Contiguous survey‐monitoring data for moose in the Takla area is lacking. Available information does not suggest broad scale declines, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. Likely causative factors for localized declines noted include focused hunting/harvesting in areas where motorized access and moose habitat coincide. The ability of TLFN to exercise their moose harvesting Rights is moderately constrained. The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on moose and TLFN’s interests in moose: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect moose through habitat alteration and disruption; c. 4,480ha of TLFN Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TLFN entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TLFN’s preferred uses or objectives (including moose) for the long‐term; e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Based on the poor state of TLFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting rights, the importance of moose, concerns regarding localized hunting pressure and concentrated harvest, and the ORAR’s role in facilitating licenced hunter access, the anticipated Project’s impacts on TLFN’s interests in moose is negative (moderate). Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep Monitoring/survey information is generally deficient for both species. Provincial perspectives on these species’ status within the Takla area is stable, based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. TLFN have noted range retractions for these species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. TLFN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights is “moderately constrained”, based on historical effects. The Project area is not coincident with Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep habitat/range. The ORAR has and will continue to facilitate licenced hunter access to goat and sheep range, resulting in increased hunting and harvest. Anticipated Project impacts on TLFN’s interests in goat and Stone’s sheep is negative (Minor).

February 2017 Page 175 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Grizzly The four GPBU’s within TLFN Territory (Upper Skeena‐Nass, Finley‐Ospika, Omineca, Nation), are categorized as “viable”. While there is a lack of population trend data, terrestrial disturbance indicators (Section 5.1 Eco) suggest that the 2 southern‐most GBPU’s (Omineca and Nation) are likely adversely affected by development pressures. TLFN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights related to grizzly bear are presently not constrained, but are expected to worsen. The Project area is located within the Finlay‐Ospika GBPU. Project impacts on grizzly and TLFN’s interests in grizzly include: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect grizzly through habitat alteration and disruption, and conflicts and mortalities; c. 4,480ha of TLFN Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TLFN entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TLFN’s preferred uses or objectives (including grizzly) for the long‐term; e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. The anticipated Project impacts on TLFN’s interests in grizzly are negative (Negligible to Minor), assuming the baseline is not constrained. Hoary marmot The provincial status of hoary marmot is considered secure. Within the Takla area there is an absence of inventory and/or monitoring information. TLFN’s ability to exercise harvesting rights is assumed to be not constrained. The Project is predicted to result in the mortality of hoary marmots and destruction of their habitat within specific areas within the Project’s footprint. The anticipated Project impacts on TLFN’s interests in marmot are negative (Negligible to Minor), assuming baseline of the ability to exercise is unconstrained. 7.1.3 TKD Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) TKD Territory encompasses three major watersheds (Skeena, Peace‐Williston, Peace‐Eastern Slopes), Based on baseline information developed, we’ve found that the ability of TKD to exercise fish harvesting rights is highly constrained:  Skeena Summary: TKD’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Skeena is not presently constrained, but there is considerable risk to harvesting Rights due to external influences (marine exploitation and productivity) and limited monitoring (potential for harvesting beyond sustainable levels).

February 2017 Page 176 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

 Peace‐Williston Summary: TKD’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Peace‐Williston is highly constrained due to the large‐scale habitat alterations that occurred as a result of reservoir creation, and related direct effects on traditional use sites, fish faunal transition, and toxicity issues (real and perceived).  Peace‐Eastern Slopes: Assumed not presently constrained. Remote headwaters of Halfway/Graham rivers, fish values assumed to be of high value/healthy status. The Project is located in the Peace‐Williston watershed and has been assessed as having the following impacts on the aquatic values and TKD’s interests in aquatic values: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. 4,480ha of TLFN Territory will be unavailable for use; c. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKD entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TKD’s preferred uses or objectives for the long‐term; d. Adverse effects on fish and fish habitat within streams/lakes receiving mine effluent and seepage/wastewater are cumulative to adverse effects on watershed health and dolly varden/bull trout relating to KS, and may eliminate additional harvesting opportunities e. Well‐maintained access (ORAR ‐ transects the Peace Williston and Skeena watersheds) will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced anglers and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Project impacts will worsen TKD’s already highly constrained ability to exercise fish harvesting rights and other aquatic interests. As such, the anticipated Project impacts on TKD are:  Peace‐Williston: Negative (Serious) due to highly constrained baseline and direct impacts in Territory  Skeena: Negligible in the Skeena (assuming adequate baseline). 7.1.4 TKD Nation (Wildlife) Caribou Four of six populations in TKD Territory are recognized to be in decline, and the trend is not clearly reversible. The Graham, Chase, Wolverine populations are SARA‐listed Threatened (2003). The Scott population is Endangered (COSEWIC 2014) and is extirpated from a portion of TKD Territory. TKD’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights is highly constrained and likely worsening (due to continued population decline of 4 populations). The Project area is not encompassed within the recognized core range of any recognized population, but caribou presence is common in the Project area. Recent studies of the “southern zone of trace occurrence” (which encompasses the Project) have resulted in a recommendation to designate a new/proposed population, the core range of which would encompass the Project footprint. The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on caribou and TKD’s interests in caribou:

February 2017 Page 177 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect caribou through habitat alteration and disruption, and these affects will be incremental to other factors in the region that are contributing to declining caribou populations; c. 4,480ha of TKD Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territory will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKD entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TKD’s preferred uses or objectives (including caribou) for the long‐term; e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Given the importance of caribou to TKD’s Rights, and the highly constrained and worsening baseline, the anticipated Project impacts on TKD is Negative (Serious). Moose Contiguous survey‐monitoring data for moose in the TKD area is lacking. Available information does not suggest broad scale declines, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. Likely causative factors for localized declines noted include focussed hunting/harvesting in areas where motorized access and moose habitat coincide. The ability of TKD to exercise their moose harvesting Rights is moderately constrained. The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on moose and TKD’s interests in moose: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect moose through habitat alteration and disruption; c. 4,480ha of TKD Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territory will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKD entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TKD’s preferred uses or objectives (including moose) for the long‐term; e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Based on the poor state of TKD’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting rights, the importance of moose, concerns regarding localized hunting pressure and concentrated harvest, and the ORAR’s role in facilitating licenced hunter access, the anticipated Project’s impacts on TKD’s interests in moose is negative (moderate).

February 2017 Page 178 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep Monitoring/survey information is generally deficient for both species. Provincial perspectives on these species’ status within the TKD area is stable, based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. TKD have noted range retractions for these species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. TKD’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights is “moderately constrained”, based on historical effects. The Project area is not coincident with Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep habitat/range. The ORAR has and will continue to facilitate licenced hunter access to goat and sheep range, resulting in increased hunting and harvest. Anticipated Project impacts on TKD’s interests in goat and Stone’s sheep is negative (Minor). Grizzly The four GPBU’s within TKD Territory (Upper Skeena‐Nass, Rocky, Finley‐Ospika, Omineca), are categorized as “viable”. While there is a lack of population trend data, terrestrial disturbance indicators (Section 5.1) suggest that the southern‐most GPBU, Omineca, is likely adversely affected by development pressures. TKD’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights is presently not constrained, but is expected to worsen. The Project area is located within the Finlay‐Ospika GBPU. Project impacts on grizzly and TKD’s interest in grizzly include: a. The project will incrementally contribute to factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species and / or other factors impacting the abilities of TKN members to exercise the Aboriginal Rights of the TKN Nations; b. The Project will adversely affect grizzly through habitat alteration and disruption, and conflicts and mortalities; c. 4,480ha of TKD Territory will be unavailable for use, including hunting; d. Additional lands within the Territories will be occupied for industrial purposes by non‐TKD entities, and altered/alienated in ways that may make them unsuited to TKD’s preferred uses or objectives (including grizzly) for the long‐term; e. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; f. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, g. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. The anticipated Project impacts on TKD’s interests in grizzly are negative (Negligible to Minor), assuming the baseline is not constrained. Hoary marmot The provincial status of hoary marmot is considered secure. Within TKD area there is an absence of inventory and/or monitoring information. TKD’s ability to exercise harvesting rights is assumed to be not constrained. The Project is predicted to result in the mortality of hoary marmots and destruction of their habitat within specific areas within the Project’s footprint.

February 2017 Page 179 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The anticipated Project impacts on TKD’s interests in marmot are negative (Negligible to Minor), assuming baseline of the ability to exercise is unconstrained. 7.1.5 KFN Nation (Aquatic‐Fish) KFN Territory occurs in the Peace‐Williston, Upper Stikine and Liard watersheds. While the KFN ability to exercise fish harvesting rights in the Peace Williston is negatively impacted by reservoir effects, the northern portion of Territory is largely undeveloped (and the ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights within the majority of the Territory are assumed to be unconstrained). Based on baseline information developed, we’ve found that the ability of KFN to exercise fish harvesting rights is moderately constrained: . Peace‐Williston Summary: KFN’s ability to exercise fish harvesting Rights in the Peace‐Williston is highly constrained due to the large‐scale habitat alterations that occurred as a result of reservoir creation, and related direct effects on traditional use sites, fish faunal transition, and toxicity issues (real and perceived);  Upper Stikine: Not constrained. Important traditional use area, fish values suspected to be healthy.  Liard: Not constrained. Important traditional use area, fish values suspected to be healthy. Project impacts in KFN Territory are related to downstream risk to the aquatic environment. The Project is located in the Peace‐Williston watershed (outside of KFN Territory) and has been assessed as having the following impacts on the aquatic values and KFN’s interests in aquatic values: a. The manifestation of the risks the Project poses to the downstream environments would become cumulative with permanent large‐scale habitat alterations within the Peace‐Williston watershed, which have caused, and continue to cause, highly significant adverse impacts on the ability of KFN’s members to exercise their Aboriginal title and rights; b. Well‐maintained access (ORAR) will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced anglers and increased harvesting of resources; c. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, d. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. As such, anticipated Project impacts on KFN’s interests in fish are:  Peace‐Williston: negative (moderate) due to highly impacted baseline; lack of direct effect within KFN Territory, downstream risks posed, access facilitated  Upper Stikine: negligible (assuming adequate baseline); potential increase in access, lack of direct effect within KFN Territory. 7.1.6 KFN Nation (Wildlife) Caribou The 7 recognized caribou populations in KFN Territory are SARA‐listed “Special Concern”. The Finlay population (last estimated at 19 animals) is the most accessible population to KFN and has experienced steep decline (89% between 1994 and 2002), and is currently in decline. The population trend for the other six populations are unknown. KFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting Rights is considered moderately constrained given available information.

February 2017 Page 180 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on caribou and KFN’s interests in caribou: a. The Project (which is outside of KFN area) will adversely affect caribou through habitat alteration and disruption, and these affects will be incremental to other factors in the region that are contributing to declining caribou populations; i. Any Project effects that extend to caribou within KFN Territory would be cumulative with other factors influencing caribou b. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; c. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, d. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. The anticipated Project impacts on KFN’s interests in caribou is Negative (Minor to Moderate) given the importance of caribou, moderately constrained baseline (considering most accessible Finlay population is in severe decline), and indirect Project impacts. Moose Contiguous survey‐monitoring data for moose in the KFN area is lacking. Available information does not suggest broad scale declines, but there are localized areas that appear to have experienced declines. Likely causative factors for localized declines noted include focussed hunting/harvesting in areas where motorized access and moose habitat coincide, and increased predation. The ability of KFN to exercise their moose harvesting Rights is moderately constrained. The Project has been assessed as having the following impacts on moose and KFN’s interests in moose: a. The Project (which is outside of KFN area) will adversely affect moose through habitat alteration and disruption; a. Any Project effects that extend to moose within KFN Territory would be cumulative with other factors influencing moose availability and harvesting. b. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; c. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, d. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. Based on the impacted state of KFN’s ability to exercise caribou harvesting rights, the importance of moose, concerns regarding localized hunting pressure and concentrated harvest, and the ORAR’s role in facilitating licenced hunter access, the anticipated Project’s impacts on KFN’s interests in moose is negative (Minor to Moderate). Mountain Goat and Stone’s Sheep Monitoring/survey information is generally deficient for both species for KFN Territory. Provincial perspectives on these species’ status within the KFN area is stable, based on available hunter harvest and effort data, and some population survey data. KFN have noted range retractions for these species over time associated with reservoir development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. KFN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights is “Moderate‐Low Constrained”, based on historical effects.

February 2017 Page 181 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

The Project area is not coincident with Mountain goat and Stone’s sheep habitat/range or KFN Territory. The ORAR has and will continue to facilitate licenced hunter access to goat and sheep range, resulting in increased hunting and harvest. Anticipated Project impacts on KFN’s interests in goat and Stone’s sheep is negative (Minor). Grizzly Bear The five GPBU’s within KFN Territory (Spatsizi, Upper Skeena‐Nass, Muskwa, Rocky and Finley‐Ospika), are categorized as “viable”. KFN’s ability to exercise harvesting Rights related to grizzly are presently not constrained. The Project area is located within the Finlay‐Ospika GBPU. Project impacts on grizzly and KFN’s interests in grizzly include: a. The Project will adversely affect grizzly through habitat alteration and disruption, and conflicts and mortalities; b. The Project’s effects occur within/are cumulative with large‐scale habitat alterations within the Peace‐Williston watershed, which have caused, and continue to cause, highly significant adverse impacts on the ability of KFN’s members to exercise their Aboriginal title and rights; c. Well‐maintained access will result in increasing competition for resources with licenced hunters and increasing harvest of resources; d. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through perception risk; and, e. Further deterrence of traditional use in the area through changes in the environmental setting. The anticipated Project impacts on KFN’s interests in grizzly are negative (Negligible to Minor), assuming the baseline is not constrained. Hoary marmot The provincial status is considered secure. Within KFN area there is an absence of inventory and/or monitoring information. KFN’s ability to exercise harvesting right is not constrained. The Project’s impacts on hoary marmot are not anticipated to influence KFN’s interests in hoary marmots. 7.1.7 Summary of Characterized Effects Table 30, below, provides a summary of the Project’s impacts on each TKN First Nation taking into consideration the information described above (and summarized in Tables 31 and 32 below) with respect to each Territory regarding: a. background context of environmental disturbance/alteration and trends; b. fish and wildlife population statuses; c. findings with respect to the related baseline of the “ability to exercise”; and, d. findings with respect to the Project’s impacts relative to that baseline (will it worsen that baseline, and to what degree)

February 2017 Page 182 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 30. Summary of Project impacts on TKN’s interests (ability to exercise) relative to each value assessed.

Fisheries Mountain TKN Interests Goat and Hoary First Caribou Moose Grizzly Peace‐ Stone Marmot Nation Williston Sheep Moderate Minor‐to‐ Minor‐to‐ Minor Negligible‐ Negligible KFN impact moderate moderate impact to‐minor impact Serious Serious Moderate Minor Negligible‐ Negligible‐ TLFN impact impact impact impact to‐minor to‐minor Serious Serious Moderate Minor Negligible‐ Negligible‐ TKD impact impact impact impact to‐minor to‐minor

February 2017 Page 183 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 31. Summary of fish status/trends, findings re ability to exercise rights, and relation to Project Impacts.

Anticipated Project Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Anticipated Project Impact Impacts On Ability to Exercise Rights Aquatic TLFN TKD KFN 1. 4,480ha of area  Reservoir affected areas: Arctic grayling, unavailable for use bull trout, lake trout, lake white fish, 2. Additional contaminated mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, wastewater, seepage and kokanee; transition to a reservoir Highly TSF effluent that directly TLFN; Negative (Serious) environment has created a number of constrained. Highly affect aquatic habitats and due to highly impacted issues deterring use; traditional practices Traditional constrained. also pose addition baseline have been disrupted and new “reservoir Highly practices have Traditional environmental risk environment” is perceived as dangerous, constrained. been disrupted practices have 3. Altered water quality and fish fauna has changed (preferred species Traditional and new been disrupted hydrology in receiving TKD; Negative (Serious) are unavailable), fish are perceived as practices have “reservoir and new waterways and due to highly impacted being unsafe to eat and recent studies been disrupted, environment” is “reservoir downstream areas baseline suggest those perceptions are well fish fauna has perceived as environment” is (Attichika Creek and Waste founded. New (stocked) species such as shifted dangerous, fish perceived as Rock Creek) kokanee are flourishing. (preferred fauna has dangerous, fish 4. Further deterrence of KFN; Negative Peace  Non‐reservoir affected areas: (Nation Lakes, species shifted fauna has shifted traditional use in the area (Moderate). Williston Germansen Lake, upper Finlay unavailable), (preferred (preferred through perception risk (Firesteel/Thutade), upper KFN): Some of fish are Downstream risk to species species relating to concerns about these areas are remote/distant, others are perceived as aquatic environment (no unavailable), unavailable), fish effluent and toxicity accessible and therefore popular and well being unsafe to direct effect within fish are are perceived as (environmental health) used, perception risks and other factors are eat and recent Territory). Increased perceived as being unsafe to effects. a deterrent to TKN use. studies suggest access issues related to being unsafe to eat and recent 5. Increasing numbers of  Lake trout (non‐reservoir populations): 9 of those ORAR. Some reservoir‐ eat and recent studies suggest anglers will access TKN 28 naturally occurring lake dwelling perceptions are effect within baseline; studies suggest those area because of well‐ populations demonstrate overharvest or well founded. northern portion of those perceptions are maintained access, heightened sensitivity to harvest. Territory largely perceptions are well founded. resulting in increasing  Dolly Varden: unique to Finlay and Ingenika undeveloped. well founded. competition for resources river headwater drainages. and increasing harvest of Kemess/Thutade area population has had resources (both adverse contamination issues due to Kemess South effects on TKN’s harvesting (KS) and substantial perception risk exists. activities)

February 2017 Page 184 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Anticipated Project Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Anticipated Project Impact Impacts On Ability to Exercise Rights Aquatic TLFN TKD KFN  Salmon (sockeye, chinook and coho): poor status, access highly constrained; (i.e. species are unavailable for harvest in some years and available in other years at levels insufficient to meet TKN needs, due to low returning abundance, restricted allocation and/or conservation closure) Highly  Sturgeon: access/harvest not possible; (i.e. constrained population is listed under the Species at Risk (sockeye, Project does not affect the Fraser na na Na Act as Endangered; population has suffered chinook) Fraser watershed a recruitment failure due to the damming, Not possible diversion and regulation of the Nechako (sturgeon/coho) River)  Other resident fish stocks (trout, char, whitefishes, burbot, minnows/chub, suckers, etc.): assumed to be healthy but information deficient (used by TKN but stocks are generally not actively managed/monitored)  Sockeye (Bear): chronically Not presently underperforming (under‐escaping) due to constrained. Considerable Not presently over exploitation; highly sought after and risks to constrained, used by TKN harvesting considerable  Sockeye (Sustut, Asitka, Johanson): small rights. Sockeye risks to ORAR facilitates access to TLFN/TKD; Negligible Skeena stocks and data limited/suspected to be (Bear) primary harvesting na upper Skeena/Sustut (assuming adequate declining and underperforming food fish. rights. Sockeye watershed (pre‐existing) baseline)  Chinook (Bear): declining returning Chinook (Bear) and Steelhead spawner abundance, highly used Coho (primarily (Sustut/Bear)  Coho (primarily Bear): returns improving Bear) Steelhead highly used. recently, highly used (Sustut/Bear)  Steelhead (Sustut/Bear): Bear population highly used.

February 2017 Page 185 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Anticipated Project Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Anticipated Project Impact Impacts On Ability to Exercise Rights Aquatic TLFN TKD KFN not monitored; returns improving, highly used  Resident fish stocks (trout, char, whitefishes, burbot, minnows/chub, suckers, etc.): status is assumed secure due to remoteness of area; information deficient (used by TKN but stocks are generally not actively managed/monitored) Remote headwaters of Halfway/Graham rivers; Fish values assumed to be of high value Project does not affect the Peace – Assumed not and of healthy status but no monitoring Peace‐Eastern Slopes Eastern na presently na Na information to support this assumption. watersheds within the TKN Slopes constrained Creation of Site C reservoir will adversely area affect fish stocks associated with area. (Upper Stikine, Spatsizi, Chukachida) Known to Not Project does not affect the Upper support grayling, rainbow trout, bull constrained. KFN; Negligible Upper Stikine watershed Stikine trout/dolly varden. Largely within protected na na Important (assuming adequate within the TKN area (access areas and fish values suspected to be healthy, traditional use baseline) facilitated by ORAR) but very limited fish inventory. area (Kechika/Gataga, Muskwa/ Tuchodi, Wokkpash). Important traditional use area with substantial ecotourism. Very limited Project does not affect the Liard inventory information available. Fish values Not na na Liard watershed within the Na suspected to be healthy due to remoteness. constrained. TKN area Concerns identified with increased access and localized harvest/disturbance in more accessed areas.

February 2017 Page 186 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Table 32. TKN Summary of wildlife status, findings re ability to exercise rights, and relation to Project Impacts.

Anticipated Anticipated Project Impacts On Ability Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Project Impact to Exercise Rights Wildlife TLFN TKD KFN 1. Loss of hunting opportunity within access restricted area 2. Habitat  7 northern‐most sub‐ alteration and populations (Spatsizi, disruption TKD/TLFN/; Negative (Serious) given the Rabbit, Muskwa, Gataga, within Project importance of caribou and the highly Frog, Finlay, Pink Highly Moderately area constrained baseline (and declining Mountain) “Special constrained. Highly constrained. 3. Increased herds accessible within TLFN and TKD Concern” (SARA,2005). Four constrained. Finlay licenced hunter areas). Finlay recognized to be in populations in Likely population access Caribou decline. decline. Scott worsening. KFN; Negative (Minor to Moderate) most facilitated,  4 sub‐populations population Five of seven given the importance of caribou but no accessible to resulting “Threatened” (SARA, extirpated populations in direct impact within Territory, and KFN, increase 2003), recognized to be from portion decline. moderately constrained baseline declining. competition in decline. of Territory. (considering most accessible – Finlay and harvest  Southern‐most Scott population) Note; Project area population “Endangered” is not actually (COSEWIC, 2014). encompassed within core range of recognized population (but caribou presence is

February 2017 Page 187 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Anticipated Anticipated Project Impacts On Ability Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Project Impact to Exercise Rights Wildlife TLFN TKD KFN common) 1. Loss of hunting opportunity TKD/TLFN; Negative (Moderate) given within access the importance of moose and concerns restricted area re localized hunting pressure and Limited contiguous survey‐ 2. Habitat concentrated harvest, and ORARs role in monitoring information is alteration and facilitating licenced hunter access. available within the majority disruption of the TKN area. Available Moderately Moderately Moderately within Project KFN; Negative (Minor to Moderate); Moose information does not suggest constrained. constrained. constrained. area given the importance of moose and broad scale decline, but 3. Increased concerns re localized hunting pressure there are localized areas that licenced hunter and concentrated harvest, and ORARs appear to have experienced access role in facilitating licenced hunter access; declines. facilitated, absence of direct effect on Territory and resulting much of Territory without access and increase related effects. competition and harvest BC CDC Blue listed/Special Project area is not Concern. coincident with Generally information goat deficient. The Province Moderately Moderately Moderately habitat/range; considers f this species’ constrained, constrained, constrained, ORAR has and will TKD/TLFN/KFN; Negative (Minor), Mountain status within the TKN area to based on based on based on continue to baseline is assumed to be moderately goat be stable, based on available historical historical historical facilitate licenced constrained. hunter harvest and effort effects. effects. effects. hunter access to data, and some population sheep range, survey data. TKN have noted resulting in range retractions over time increased harvest. associated with reservoir

February 2017 Page 188 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Anticipated Anticipated Project Impacts On Ability Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Project Impact to Exercise Rights Wildlife TLFN TKD KFN development and industrial development (largely road access) and licenced hunting pressure. BC Yellow‐listed (Secure). Generally information deficient. The Province Project area is not considers this species’ status coincident with within the TKN area to be sheep stable, based on available Moderately Moderately Moderately habitat/range; hunter harvest and effort constrained, constrained, constrained, ORAR has and will TKD/TLFN/KFN; Negative (Minor), Stone’s data, and some population based on based on based on continue to baseline is assumed to be moderately sheep survey data. TKN have noted historical historical historical facilitate licenced constrained. range retractions over time effects. effects. effects. hunter access to associated with reservoir sheep range, development and industrial resulting in development (largely road increased harvest. access) and licenced hunting pressure. COSEWIC “Special Concern”, 1. Loss of hunting Moderately Not BC CDC Blue list. 7 GBPU’s opportunity constrained. constrained. within TKN Territories within access recognized as “viable”. Omineca and Will likely restricted area However, authors note that Nation worsen Not 2. Habitat TKD/TLFN/KFN; Negative (Negligible to Grizzly disturbance indicators GBPU’s likely (Omineca constrained. alteration and Minor), baseline is assumed to be bear GBPU likely related to development adversely disruption unconstrained. pressures are likely adversely impacted by adversely within Project affecting the two southern‐ development impacted by area most populations– Omineca pressures. development 3. Likely and Nation. Will likely pressures). mortalities

February 2017 Page 189 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Anticipated Anticipated Project Impacts On Ability Value Health/Status Ability to Exercise Rights Project Impact to Exercise Rights Wildlife TLFN TKD KFN worsen. associated with conflicts during operations 4. Increased licenced hunter access The provincial status is Project will result TKD/TLFN; Negative – (Negligible to considered secure. Within in the mortality of Hoary Not Not Not Minor), baseline is assumed to be TKN area there is an absence hoary marmots marmot constrained. constrained. constrained. unconstrained. of inventory and/or and destruction of monitoring information. their habitats. KFN; no impact

February 2017 Page 190 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

8 Conclusions Given documented historical environmental effects and their relation to the current health of fish and wildlife populations in the Territories, the state of habitat disturbances, and existing health/status of key biological indicators, our findings indicate that the ecological integrity of the TKN’s territorial land base has been severely compromised in some areas, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats therein are already impaired in relation to their potential to support key species of interest or concern to the TKN. Based on the findings of this assessment, we conclude that TKN member’s abilities to meaningfully exercise their Rights in relation to many species of key cultural importance are constrained or not possible in many instances. These findings reflect the concerns expressed by leadership, membership and technical personnel from each of the TKN First Nations. Further, given environmental trends and land use pressures, the status of many of the preferred species within the TKN’s Territories will likely worsen in the near‐term. While the Project is not anticipated to singularly have detrimental effects on the status of key species assessed, the Project will incrementally contribute to existing factors that have already resulted in the diminished status of key species, and/or other factors constraining the abilities of the TKN to exercise their Rights. There is a strong rationale for characterizing the Project’s effects on TKN’s interests at a high magnitude, and as severe in some cases. Key adverse effects of the Project on TKN’s interests (as outlined in Section 7 and Tables 31 and 32) include: 1. The Project’s potential adverse effects on aquatic values (water quality/quantity and toxicity) and TKN’s interests (alienation of fishing areas, perpetuation of perception risks, etc.) within the Peace‐Williston watershed are characterized as being Serious due to the highly constrained baseline of the ability of TLFN and TKD to exercise fishing rights. 2. The Project’s potential adverse effects on caribou (mortality and loss of habitat/use) and TKN’s interests (alienation of hunting areas and population conservation and recovery) are characterized as being Serious due to the highly constrained baseline of the ability of TLFN and TKD to exercise caribou harvesting rights (and moderate constraints on moose harvesting rights).

AuRico concluded within their Project Application that the Project would have residual negative effects on the TKN’s interests. The difference between the findings of the Application and the assessment presented herein stem from differences in methodologies/approaches that include:  The assessment presented herein was based on the spatial context of TKN’s Territories and fish and wildlife supporting harvesting Rights within the Territory, whereas the Application was based on limited study areas related to the Project and its components.  AuRico did not contemplate the TKN’s current ability to exercise their Rights in their Territory; conversely, in this assessment, current conditions were assessed based on the health‐status (availability) of key fish and wildlife species that support the meaningful exercise of the TKN’s Rights. The lack of consideration of the TKN’s current “abilities to exercise” their Rights within

February 2017 Page 191 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

AuRico’s assessment leads to residual impacts either not being recognized or being characterized as insignificant.  In this assessment, adverse effects on indicators (and causative factors) that have exceeded recognized risk‐impact thresholds, or are declining, are appropriately characterized as being more consequential, respectively.

9 Recommendations We identified the following recommendations during this assessment. Many relate to data gaps that were identified in terms of understanding the status of various fish and wildlife species of importance to TKN. Others relate to issues that were identified by TKN, and others relate to specific matters that may assist in mitigating the adverse baseline conditions and the adverse effects of the Project. 1. TKN should develop monitoring initiatives and regulations outlining their motorized vehicle use within areas of the TKN area recognized to be sensitive (and closed to non‐TKN motorized vehicle use).

2. TKN should develop regulations for their use of fisheries resources within the Sustut and Johanson watersheds.

3. TKN, BC and Canada should develop monitoring/management programs for non‐monitored salmon/steelhead stocks in the Sustut/Bear watershed.

4. BC, Canada and TKN should develop a functional monitoring program for caribou that supports an ongoing understanding of caribou populations’ statuses relative to TKN’s ability to exercise Rights, and also informs the status assessment needs of COSEWIC. a. TKN to initiate caribou monitoring programs to feed into Provincial‐Federal recovery processes (initiative and/or engage in the caribou management process if they’re not already). b. TKN should develop regulations outlining their use/harvest of caribou within shared territory/range.

5. BC, TKN and AuRico should collaboratively create the waste water and TSF permitting conditions (chemical parameters and volume expectations).

6. BC, TKN and AuRico should collaboratively create the Environmental Monitoring Plan prior to EA completion, for incorporation (as a Condition) into any Certificate issued for the Project.

7. Where they aren’t in place already, TKN should develop community‐based fish and wildlife harvest monitoring programs.

8. TKN should engage BC to modify the various management measures to improve their wildlife harvesting opportunities (success and context) (such as GOSs for wildlife, wildlife allocation – moose LEH, access matters; seasonal restrictions on roads and boat access). a. BC and TKN should develop a moose harvest management plan for the TKN area that incorporates measures to offset the effects of high moose harvest rates within localized

February 2017 Page 192 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

areas related to access factors. This could include a combination of access and allocation management measures and/or adjustments to the timing of licenced hunter seasons. Key objectives of the plan would be to reflect the priority of TKN’s harvesting Rights where localized declines are noted/likely, and TKN’s access to caribou is constrained or not possible.

9. BC and TKN should develop and implement a moose survey/monitoring program that relates moose population trends in TKN Territories and also considers broader moose PMU monitoring objectives and considerations.

10. TKN should take steps to “heighten the importance” of Hoary Marmot in relation to their engagement in exploration permitting. This could include a TKN requirement for measures to be incorporated into permit applications as to how the species’ presence will be assessed prior to authorization/granting, and how/what measures will be incorporated into exploration activities to avoid/minimize and monitor for impacts and effects.

11. TKN, BC and Canada should design and implement a periodic sampling program for the purposes of monitoring toxin accumulation in fish tissues within the Peace‐Williston watershed.

Further Points of Note… 12. This assessment identified a strong correlation between the development of the WAC Bennett Dam and the flooding of the Peace and Finlay rivers’ valleys and significant adverse effects on the ability of the TKN to exercise their Rights. a. Where they’re not engaged and represented already, TKN should ensure they’ll fully engaged in the PW‐FWCP and ensure the initiatives supported through that program is prioritizing key data gaps, issues/concerns and enhancement opportunities of importance to TKN b. Where appropriate, compensation should be pursued.

February 2017 Page 193 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

10 References Cited

Azimuth. 2015. Williston Reservoir Watershed – Fish Mercury Consultation and Next Steps. Prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Peace. Project No. FWCP‐P – 01‐14 B.C. Conservation Data Centre (BCCDC). 2014. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed May 15, 2014). B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2016. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 25, 2016) B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2016. Conservation Status Report: Oreamnos americanus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 17, 2016) B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2016. Conservation Status Report: Salvelinus confluentus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 14, 2016). B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2016. Conservation Status Report: Thymallus arcticus ‐ Southern Beringean lineage. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 10, 2016). B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2016. Species Summary: Ovis dalli stonei. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Aug 2, 2016). B.C. Conservation Framework. 2016. Conservation Framework Summary: Cervus elaphus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Aug 3, 2016). B.C. Conservation Framework. 2016. Conservation Framework Summary: Oreamnos americanus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 18, 2016). B.C. Conservation Framework. 2016. Conservation Framework Summary: Ovis dalli stonei. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Aug 2, 2016). Bailey, R. 2013. Pers. Comm. Program Head, Chinook and Coho Stock Assessment, Fraser River Salmon Section, DFO Science Branch. Baxter, J.S. 1997. Upper Sustut, Lower Sustut, and Bear River Steelhead: Summary of Current Data and Status Review, 1997. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch. Skeena Fisheries Report SK‐98, June 1997 Baxter, J.S., Taylor, E.B., Devlin, R.H., Hagen, J., and McPhail, J.D. 1997. Evidence for natural hybridization between Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a northcentral British Columbia watershed. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 421‐429. BC MFLNRO. 2012. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. April 2012. 9pp. BC MFLNRO. 2014. BC ungulate species regional population estimates and status, pre‐season 2014. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management‐ issues/docs/2014_Provincial%20Ungulate%20Numbers%20Oct%2030_Final.pdf BC MFLNRO. 2015. Provincial Framework for Moose Management in British Columbia. February 2015.

February 2017 Page 194 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

BC Ministry of Environment. 2012 Grizzly Bear Population Satus in BC (2012). Environmental Reporting BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants‐and‐ animals/print_ver/2012_Grizzly_Bear_Population_Status_BC.pdf B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2014. Science update for the South Peace Northern Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 15) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 43 pp. BC MoWLAP. 2002. Williston Watershed Arctic Grayling – Wildlife in British Columbia at Risk. Murray Lashmar and Juanita Ptolemy. WLAP 261989.302. Beere, M. 2016. Steelhead Stock Status Review – British Columbia. http://www.psmfc.org/steelhead/2016/Beere_PCSMM_2016_BC_ST_Stock_Status.pdf Beere, M. Pers. Comm. 2016. BC FLNRO Senior Fisheries Biologist, Skeena Region. Bent, H., J., McConnachie, and G.J. Lysay. 2009. Selenium Management Challenges at Kemess Mine. Conference Paper https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/britishcolumbiaminereclamationsy/50878/items/1. 0042563 Blackman, B. 1992. Fisheries Resources of the Williston Reservoir Twenty Years After Impoundment. BC Environment Fisheries Branch and BC Hydro Environmental Services. Blackman, B. February 2002. An information summary on Arctic grayling from the Williston Reservoir Watershed with data gap analysis and recommendations. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 258. 26pp plus appendices. Blackman, B.G., D.A. Jesson, D. Ableson and T. Down. 1990. Williston Lake Fisheries Compensation Program Management Plan, PWFWCP Report No. 58. 38 pp. Bouillon, D. 2016. Presentation to the Peace River Regional District; http://prrd.bc.ca/board/agendas/2016/2016‐18‐152850530/pages/documents/06‐D‐ 1FWCP_May_26.pdf Brett, J.R. 1952. Skeena River sockeye escapement and distribution. J. Fish. Bd. Can., 8 (7) 1952. Bruce, P.G. and P.J. Starr. 1985. Fisheries resources and fisheries potential of Williston Reservoir and its tributary streams. Fisheries resources and fisheries potential of Williston Reservoir and its tributary streams ‐ a preliminary overview 69:101. Bustard, D. 1994. Steelhead spawning studies upper Sustut River 1993. Prepared for B.C. Environment (Habitat Conservation Fund). Smithers, BC. Bustard, D. 2004. Summary of Fisheries Compensation Work at Kemess Mine to 2003. Prepared for Kemess Mines Ltd. Cadsand, B., D.C. Heard, J. Courtier, A. Batho, and G.S. Watts. 2013. Moose density and composition in the north Williston watershed, British Columbia, winter 2012‐2013. Unpub. Rep., British Columbia Min. of For. Lands and Nat. Resource Operations, Prince George, BC. 22pp. Carroll, Allan L.; Taylor, Steve W.; Regniere, Jacques; and Safranyik, Les, "Effect of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia" (2003). The Bark Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography. Paper 195. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/barkbeetles/195

February 2017 Page 195 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Chudyk, W.E. 1972. Bear River report. On file at MELP, Smithers, BC. Ciesielski, C. 2016. Pers. Comm. Fisheries Program Manager, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Ciesielski, C. 2016. Pers. Comm. Fisheries Program Manager, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Clarke, A.D., Telmer, K. H. and Shrimpton, J. M. 2007). Habitat use and movement patterns for a fluvial species, the Arctic grayling, in a watershed impacted by a large reservoir: evidence from otolith microchemistry. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 1156–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐ 2664.2007.01350.x "Connors, B.M.; Pickard, D.C.; Porter, M.; Farrell, G.; Bryan, K.; Casely, S.; Huang, S. 2013a. Conservation Unit snapshots: Middle Skeena Large Lakes Chinook CU. ttp://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/library/lib_406/ Connors, B.M.; Pickard, D.C.; Porter, M.; Farrell, G.; Bryan, K.; Casely, S.; Huang, S. 2013b. Conservation Unit Snapshots: Spawning sockeye CU. Skeena Salmon Program. Connors, B.M.; Pickard, D.C.; Porter, M.; Farrell, G.; Bryan, K.; Casely, S.; Huang, S. 2013c. Conservation Unit Snapshots: Johanson sockeye CU. Skeena Salmon Program. Connors, B.M.; Pickard, D.C.; Casley, S.; Ochoski, N.; Bryan, K. and S. Huang. 2013d. Conservation Unit Snapshots: Bear sockeye CU. Skeena Salmon Program. Connors, B.M.; Pickard, D.C.; Porter, M.; Farrell, G.; Bryan, K.; Casely, S.; Huang, S. 2013e. Conservation Unit Snapshots: Azuklotz sockeye CU. Skeena Salmon Program. " Corbould, F.B. June 2001. Abundance and distribution of Stone’s sheep and mountain goats on the Russel Range, March 1993. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 243. 19pp plus appendices. Corbould, F.B., J.B. Ayotte, M.D. Wood, and G.W. Blackburn. 2010. Experimental evaluation of logging impacts on mineral‐lick use by mountain goats, north‐central British Columbia. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report No. 343. 65pp plus appendices. COSEWIC. 2011. Designatable Units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangerd Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 88pp. COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 84 pp. (www.registrelep‐sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Ottawa, ON. COSWEIC. 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Xi+98pp. Cox‐Rogers, S., and Spilsted, B. 2012. Update assessment of sockeye salmon production from Babine Lake, British Columbia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2956: ix + 65 p.

February 2017 Page 196 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Demarchi, R.A., and C.L. Hartwig. 2004. Status of Thinhorn Sheep in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, Victoria BC. Wildl. Bull. No. B‐119. 96pp. Diversified Environmental Services. 2002. Overview Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory, Upper Muskwa River Watershed Group. Muskwa‐Kechika Trust Fund, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Fort St. John, B.C. English, K, Peacock, D., Challenger, W. and T. Mochizuki. 2016. North and Central Coast Salmon Escapement, Catch, Run Size and Exploitation Rate Estimates for each Salmon Conservation Unit for 1954‐2014. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates. Prepared for Pacific Salmon Foundation and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. English, K.K. 2013. Extended Time‐series of Catch and Escapement Estimates for Skeena Sockeye, Pink, Chum, Coho and Chinook Salmon Conservation Units. Report for Pacific Salmon Foundation. 19 p. Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON. ERM. 2015. Aboriginal Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Bull Trout Harvested From the Crooked River, British Columbia. Prepare for West Moberly First Nations by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd.: Vancouver British Columbia. Euchner, T. 2011. Site C Clean Energy Project 2010 Dinosaur Reservoir Sampling and Literature Review. 51 pp. Vancouver, BC. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2005. Canada’s Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon. ISBN 0‐662‐40538‐2. Cat. No. Fs23‐476/2005E Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Integrated biological status of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) under the Wild Salmon Policy. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/056. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014a. Recovery strategy for White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in Canada [Final]. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 252 pp. Fraser Basin Council. 2015. Nechako Watershed Health Report. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/Water_BCWF/Nechako‐Mar31‐2015_FINAL.pdf French, M. 2016. Pers Comm. Member, Takla Lake First Nation. FWCP, 2014. Peace Basin: Species of Interest Action Plan. March 31, 2014. FWCP. 2014. Peace Basin Reservoirs Action Plan. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. March 31, 2014. Gleason, G. 2016. Pers Comm. Director, Lands, Resources & Treaty Operations, TKD Nation Gorley, R.A. 2016. A Strategy t Help Restore Moose Populations. Recommendations. Prepared for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations, Fish and Wildlife Branch. July 8, 2016.

February 2017 Page 197 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Gottesfeld, A. and K. Rabnett. 2007. Skeena Fish Populations and Their Habitat. Skeena Fisheries Commission Hagen, J. 2000. Reproductive isolation between Dolly Varden and bull trout in sympatry: the role of ecological factors. Master of Science Thesis (Dept. of Zoology), University of BC February 2000. Hagen, J., and A. S. Decker. 2011. The status of bull trout in British Columbia: a synthesis of available distribution, abundance, trend, and threat information. BC Government Fisheries Technical Report No. FTC 110. Hagen, J., and R. Pillipow. 2013. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawner abundance in index tributaries of the Williston Reservoir, fall 2012. Report by BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources Operations, Prince George, BC, to the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Peace Region. PWFWCP Report No. 364 Hagen, J., and R. Pillipow. 2014. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawner abundance monitoring in tributaries of Williston Reservoir – 2013 Update. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Peace Region Report No. 368. 22 pp. Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard, and M.A. Austin, 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Population Estimate. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 7pp. Hansen, J.I. and B. Paterson. 2016. Wolverine Caribou Herd Population Estimate 2016. Prepared for: Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources Operations Prince George, BC. 15pp. Harris et al. 2005 and reference is ‐ Harris, S.L., A.R. Langston, J.G. Stockner and L. Vidmanic. 2005. A Limnological Assessment of Four Williston Reservoir Embayments, 2004, PWFWCP Report No. 305. 48 pp. Haskell, D. 2016. Personal communications. Fisheries Manager, Tl'azt'en First Nation. Hengeveld, P.E. and J.C. Cubberley (eds). 2011. Stone’s sheep population dynamics and habitat use in the Sulphur / 8 Mile oil and gas pre‐tenure plan area, northern British Columbia, 2005 ‐ 2010. Synergy Applied Ecology, Mackenzie, BC. 167 pp plus appendices. Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team. 2006. Conservation Strategy for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), interior Fraser River populations. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Jex, Bill. 2016. Skeena Region and Provincial Updates for thinhorn sheep. Wild Sheep Society of BC. Kamloops 2016 AGM. Kang, D. H., Gao, X., Shi, S., Islam and S., Déry. 2016. Impacts of a Rapidly Declining Mountain Snowpack on Streamflow Timing in Canada’s Fraser River Basin. Sci. Rep. 6, 19299; doi: 10.1038/srep19299 (2016). Koning, C.W., Ashley, K.I., Slaney, P.A., and Paul, A.J. 1998. Stream fertilization as a fisheries mitigation technique for perturbated oligotrphic trout srteam in BC. Pages 109‐120 in M.K. Brewin and D.M.A Monita, tech. cords. Forest‐fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems. Proc. Forest‐Fish Conf., May 1‐4, 1996, Calgary, Alberta. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv., North. For. Cent., Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR‐X‐356.

February 2017 Page 198 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Kuzyk, G., P. Dielman, Bill Jex, C. Proctor, A. Reid, H. Schwantje, I. Teske, C. Thiessen. 2012. Population and Harvest Trends of Mountain Sheep and Mountain Goats in British Columbia. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Symposium 18: x‐x; 2012. Langston, A. R. 2012. Williston Watershed Kokanee Spawner Distribution and Enumeration Surveys (2002 – 2006). Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Peace Region Report No. 357. 11 pp plus appendices. Langston, A.R. and E.B. Murphy. 2008. The History of Fish Introductions ( to 2005 ) in the Peace / Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Area, PWFWCP Report No. 325. 59 pp. Levy, D, Woodey, J and L. Hardy. 2008. Stuart Area Sockeye Salmon Runs and their Importance to the First Nations of the Upper Fraser River Watershed. Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance Lirette. D. 2015. 2014/15 Winter Moose Survey: MU 7‐42. Peace Region Technical Report. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Fort. St. John, BC. 18 pp. Littlefield, L., L. Dorricott, D. Cullon. Tse Keh Nay Traditional and Contemporary Use and Occupation at Amazay (Duncan Lake): A Draft Report. Prepared on behalf of the Tse Key Nay. Draft Submission to the Kemess North Joint Review Panel. May, 2007. McNay, R.S., and L. Giguere. 2013. Moose (Alces alces) population density and composition around the Omineca and Takla regional areas, north‐central BC. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 438. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, British Columbia, Canada. Melymick, C. 2013. An integrated assessment of the cumulative impacts of climate change and industrial development on salmon in Western BC; Stikine and Upper Nass – Current Social‐Ecological Conditions Summary. http://bvcentre.ca/files/integrated/StikineandUpperNass15Jan2014v3.pdf Mills, K.H., Dyck, M, and Harwood, LA. 2008. Proceedings of the Second Lake Trout Symposium 2005, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2778: xi + 247 p. Mountain Goat Management Team. 2010. Management Plan for the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 87 pp. Omar I. Abdul Aziz, Donald H. Burn. 2006. Trends and variability in the hydrological regime of the Mackenzie River Basin. Journal of Hydrology 319 (2006) 282–294 Osmond‐Jones, E. J., M. Sather, W.G. Hazelwood, and B Ford. 1977. Wildlife and fisheries inventory of Spatsizi Wilderness and Tatlatui Provincial Parks, British Columbia. B.C. Parks Branch, Victoria. 292pp. Paquet, M.M. and R.A. Demarchi. 1999. Stone’s Sheep of the Northern Rockies: the Effects of Access. Prepared for Foundation of North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS), Guide‐Outfitters Association of British Columbia (GOABC). MAIA Publishing Ltd. Patterson, D.A., and M.J. Hague. 2008. Evaluation of the potential freshwater factors linked to the decline of Early and Late Stuart sockeye salmon: SEF final report. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burnaby, B.C. Pillipow, R. 2016. Pers. Comm. Section Head (Omineca Region), Fisheries. BC FLNRO.

February 2017 Page 199 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Pillipow, R. D. Cadden and T. Zimmerman. 2002. Spawning Assessment of Rainbow Trout in Four Tatlatui Park Lakes. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund – HCTF Project File #7‐187. Porter, M.; Pickard, D.; Casley, S.; Ochoski, N.; Bryan, K. and S. Huang. 2013. Sockeye Habitat Report Cards: Asitika CU. Skeena River Basin. Skeena Salmon Program – Pacific Salmon Foundation Porter, M.; Pickard, D.; Casley, S.; Ochoski, N.; Bryan, K. and S. Huang. 2013. Sockeye Habitat Report Cards: Sustut CU. Skeena River Basin. Skeena Salmon Program – Pacific Salmon Foundation Program, Report No. 251. 12pp plus appendices. Province of British Columbia. 1982. Haworth Lake, Weissener Lake, Quentin Lake and Chesterfield Lake MV 7‐41. Ministry of Environment‐ Resource Analysis Branch, Prince George, BC. PWFWCP ‐ Peace Williston Fisheries and Wildlife Compensation Program. 2003. Raw data from Quentin and Weissener Lake. Radies, D. 2016 Pers Comm. Director of Environment, Lands and Resources, Takla Lake First Nation Riddell, B., M. Bradford, R. Carmichael, D. Hankin, R. Peterman, and A. Wertheimer. 2013. Assessment of Status and Factors for Decline of Southern BC Chinook Salmon: Independent Panel’s Report. Prepared with the assistance of D.R. Marmorek and A.W. Hall, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. for Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver. BC) and Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat (Merritt, BC). xxix + 165 pp. + Appendices. Sebastian, D., G Andrusak, G. Scholten and A. Langston. 2009. Peace Project Water Use Plan Williston Fish Index Reference: GMSMON #13. An index of fish distribution and abundance in Peace Arm of Williston Reservoir based on hydroacoustic and gillnet surveys. Sebastian, D.H., G.H. Scholten and P.E. Woodruff. 2003. Williston Reservoir fish assessment: results of hydroacoustic, trawl and gill net surveys in August 2000. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program report No. 274. 34pp plus appendices. Seip, D. 2015. Population status of caribou herds in the PNCP management area. Presentation to the Peace Northern Caribou Committee Workshop, June 30, 2015, Saulteau First Nation, Moberly Lake, BC. Shortreed, K.S., J.M.B. Hume, K.F. Morton, and S.G. MacLellan. 1998. Trophic status and rearing capacity of smaller sockeye nursery lakes in the Skeena river system. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2240: 78p. Shrestha, R.R., A.J. Berland, M.A. Schnorbus, A.T. Werner, 2011: Climate Change Impacts on HydroClimatic Regimes in the Peace and Columbia Watersheds, British Columbia, Canada. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, 37 pp. Sittler, K. S., R. S. McNay, and L. Giguere. 2015. Herd Boundary Refinement for the Chase, Spatsizi, and Frog Caribou Herds in North‐central British Columbia. Final Report 2012‐2015 ‐ HCTF Project #7‐ 394. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 499. Wildlife Infometrics Inc.: Mackenzie, BC. Stamford, M. D., and E. B. Taylor. 2005. Population subdivision and genetic signatures of demographic changes in Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) from an impounded watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2548–2559.

February 2017 Page 200 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Stamford, M.D., and E.B. Taylor. 2004. Phylogeographical lineages of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in North America: divergence, origins and affinities with Eurasian Thymallus. Molecular Ecology 13:1533‐1549. Stockner, J.G., A.R. Langston and G.A. Wilson. 2001. The Limnology of Williston Reservoir, PWFWCP Report No. 242. 51 pp. Stockner, J.G., E. Rydin and P. Hyenstrand. 2000. Cultural oligotrophication: causes and consequences for fisheries resources. Fisheries Habitat ‐ Perspective 25:7–14. Sturmanis, K. 2016. Technical Support, KFN Nation. Personal Communication. Takla Development Corporation Research Branch, 2011. Tse Key Nay Review: State of Baseline for Kemess Underground Development. Prepared for Northgate Minerals Corporation. Oct. 20, 2011. Thiessen, C. 2014. Skeena Region moose harvest overview: 1976 – 2011. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Smithers, BC. 57 pp. Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2005a. Overview 1:50,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of a portion of the Fox River (WSC: 239‐350100) Watershed Group – Part II. Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Prince George. Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2005b. Overview 1:50,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of a portion of the Fox River (WSC: 239‐350100) Watershed Group. Prepared for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Prince George. Triton Environmental Ltd. 2006b. Overview (1:50,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of the Fox River (239‐350100) Watershed Group – Part II. MoE Prince George. Triton. 2006. Appendix 8; Niche Segregation of Dolly Varden in the Upper Finlay River Watershed. Materials submitted as part of proposed fish habitat compensation plans for the Kemess North mine expansion. West, C.J. 1978. A Review of the Babine Lake Development Project 1961‐1977. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report Series No. 812. Enhancement Services Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Environment. West, K. 2016. Pers. Comm. Member, Takla Lake First Nation. Williamson, C. 2016. Pers. Comm. Chair, Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative Williston Reservoir, North‐Eastern BC, February 2000. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Wilson, G.A. and A.R. Langston. 2000. Williston Reservoir Zooplankton Analysis Program, 1999, PWFWCP Report No. 215. 21 pp. Wood, C. 2008. Managing Biodiversity of Pacific Salmon: Lessons from the Skeena River Sockeye Salmon Fishery in British Columbia. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 49:349‐364 Woods, A. 2001. Historical Fisheries Information from the Muskwa‐Kechika Management Area. Fisheries Branch, BC MoELP, Fort St. John BC. Woods, A. 2014. Mountain Goat Inventory North Peace July 2014. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Fort St John BC. 20pp.

February 2017 Page 201 of 203

Assessment of the Impacts of Aurico Metals Inc.’s proposed Kemess Underground Mine Project on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Interests of the The Tsay Keh Nay

Wright, C., V. Brumovsky, and R.K. McCann. 2012. Delineating Ungulate Winter Range for Mountain Goats in North‐central British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 385. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, British Columbia, Canada.

February 2017 Page 202 of 203