Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters an Overview of Land-Use Designation Options January 2010

Deciding the future of the Sacred Headwaters An Overview of Land-use Designation Options January 2010

Paul Colangelo Preface The temporary moratorium on Royal Dutch Shell’s coalbed methane (CBM) project in the Sacred Headwaters provides a window of opportunity to look at ways to: 1. Permanently keep coalbed methane development out of the Sacred Headwaters; 2. And/or permanently protect the Sacred Headwaters. In order to achieve one or both of these goals, there are a couple of different approaches. One is to change CBM or energy development regulations and planning processes, and the other is to work toward legislated protected areas. Following are some potential options to meet either of these goals. When reviewing the options, keep in mind: First Nations Rights and Title are protected. In particular with the land-use designation options, there are some activities that would need to be negotiated, but no option infringes on Aboriginal Rights and Title. You have power. The Sacred Headwaters is in Tahltan territory. You have power to determine its future. Use your voices. Shell has power. Royal Dutch Shell is one of the largest corporations in the world. They have billions of dollars. They have patience. They do not walk away from projects even where conflict exists. They currently still own the tenure to the Sacred Headwaters. Government has power. The BC Government sold Shell the tenure, granting them drilling rights. They will also be key to any solution that includes changing these tenure rights. Downstream nations and communities care. Given the importance of wild salmon to the cultures, economies and ecosystems of all those who live in the Skeena watershed, there is strong opposition to CBM in the Sacred Headwaters. Downstream First Nations and communities recognize that what affects the headwaters, affects them all. It is possible to overcome the impossible. While some options may seem un-doable or be faced with resistance by decision-makers, it does not mean that the barriers can not be overcome. Solutions take time. In comparison, opposition can appear easy. Moving toward solutions can be a long process. Consensus takes time and bureaucracies move slowly. Taking the first steps are important for sending the right signals. Existing solutions may not be the only solutions. The solutions listed are comprehensive however there may be new solutions that can be developed to ensure a broader range of needs are met while achieving the overarching goal. olangelo C aul P

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Section 1. Potential policy approaches

One of the driving forces behind the widespread coalition against coalbed methane (CBM) development is the protection of wild salmon. With its large extraction of groundwater, need for disposal or treatment of water, well proximity to the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers, road and pipeline construction, and impacts on other fish ecologies, CBM development should not be allowed to continue in the Sacred Headwaters. A focus on the protection of wild salmon could potentially be leveraged to broader habitat protection and a decision to keep CBM development permanently out of the area.

Approach 1: Applying Ecosystem-Based Management to the watershed

What: Ecosystem based management (EBM) is a balanced, science-based approach whose aim is to manage natural resources while taking into account ecological integrity and human well-being. If applied to the Skeena watershed, it would mean establishing and monitoring ecosystem indicators such as temperatures, hydrological flows, riparian conditions, salmon habitat, salmon stocks and water quality. With sensitive riparian areas identified (high value fish habitat), reserve zones can be established where there is critical spawning or rearing habitat. With EBM, decisions on resource uses should be adapted to ensure that we stay within ecosystem capacities rather than exceeding them, and a precautionary approach should be taken. To date, management of resources has been very fragmented and cumulative impacts are rarely addressed when resource decisions are being made. Applying EBM to the watershed would apply to all industries that seek to use it, including oil and gas development, forestry, mining, and road and transportation corridor building.

How: There are several indicators that the BC Government would support ecosystem-based management. A key recommendation out of the BC Pacific Salmon Forum, set up by Premier Campbell, was to implement an ecosystem-based approach to all resource management supporting thriving and diverse wild salmon populations . The province has already applied ecosystem-based management for terrestrial ecosystems such as in Clayoquot Sound and the Great Bear Rainforest, where multi-stakeholder groups work in collaboration with the Province to finalize ecosystem indicators and build them into land use plans governing all resource development activities. The Water Act has provisions for the Minister of Environment to develop watershed management plans to establish hydrological flows to support fish and other ecosystem values, and to resolve conflicts between consumptive use of surface and ground water resources and ecological needs for fish . The Living Water Smart Plan for BC released last year also supports ecological management of watersheds. In 2001, the Provincial Government established a 21 million dollar trust fund under Living Rivers to fulfill its vision - “to create a legacy for the province based on healthy watersheds, sustainable ecosystems and thriving communities. “ The main projects are in the Fraser and the Georgia Basin watersheds. A request for an ecosystem-based management approach to the watershed prior to the end of the Shell moratorium may be something that the provincial government would accept undertaking and has the potential to keep CBM activity out given the potential impacts on the watersheds, however there are no guarantees. EBM would essentially feed in to land-use planning and on-going management.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) approach 2: Implementing the Wild Salmon Policy for the Skeena River What: The goal of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Wild Salmon Policy is “to restore and maintain healthy and diverse salmon populations and their habitats for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada in perpetuity” . One of its strategies and action steps is to design and implement a fully integrated strategic planning process for salmon conservation. While the policy itself focuses on specific salmon populations that are classified into Conservation Units, this broader integrated planning may have the potential to impact decisions around coalbed methane. The Wild Salmon Policy includes a commitment to ecosystem-based management and therefore should impact resource development decisions along the watershed. While the WSP is relatively positive and comprehensive, it has yet to be fully implemented and its weight is unknown (DFO has tended to have relatively weak jurisdiction).

How: As part of its Wild Salmon Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working with a broad range of stakeholders including First Nations, government agencies and watershed planning and stewardship groups to develop indicators and benchmarks for habitat assessment. The Skeena Watershed Initiative, a multi-stakeholder process, was formed in 2008 with a desire to implement the Wild Salmon Policy on the Skeena. They are currently conducting a lot of short-term work around critical habitat identification and monitoring. While some initial steps have been taken, this initiative has yet to be fully implemented at the watershed level. The policy does provide a lot of potential and room for leverage. There is potential for the Tahltan to engage with other stakeholders in this process through the Skeena Watershed Initiative. The ultimate decision-makers on WSP recommendations are the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and provincial Minister of Environment. approach 3: Changing Coalbed Methane Regulations What: During the fight against CBM, it became obvious that the Oil and Gas regulations were inadequate. Current regulations for oil and gas development in British Columbia do not require environmental assessments. Environmental assessments are only required for CBM projects if ground water extraction reaches 75 litres/second. This volume of water is set far too high for CBM drilling given the large number of wells in small areas and method of extraction, as well as significant impacts on ground and surface water. Baseline assessments are required for CBM projects but once some exploratory activity has already taken place (which changes the baseline information given impacts of exploration). The Oil and Gas Commission grants permits on a well-by-well basis that doesn’t take into account the cumulative impacts of the entire CBM project. While exploratory wells may only cause incremental impacts in some regions, in relatively undeveloped areas like the Klappan, they can lead to substantial changes in environmental quality. At the same time, there is currently no ability within CBM regulations for communities and First Nations to say ‘no’ to a project (versus inputting into ‘how’ a project proceeds).

How: CBM development is relatively new in the province. This provides some potential for creating change and has been the request from various stakeholders during the CBM campaign to protect the Sacred Headwaters. However, formally changing regulations can be a challenging and lengthy procedure often involving technical working group sessions over a long period of time. A push for some of the changes above would likely have to come from higher-level advocacy within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Given the lack of CBM development in alpine and sub-alpine areas as well as within wild salmon habitat, there should at least be a possibility of establishing CBM no-go zones such as in the Sacred Headwaters. At the time of printing there was an opening to influence the environmental management regulations of the Oil and Gas Act. This might provide a window to include wild salmon protection within oil and gas regulations.- approach 4: Other potential planning tools: Although a Stikine Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) is already complete, there seems to be some potential to develop “best management practices” designations with goals, objectives and strategies that still allow for some development, but may limit others. Given that coalbed methane development in particular was not on the radar during the LRMP process, there may be some potential for additions. The former is likely a negotiated outcome with the provincial Integrated Land Management Bureau and approval from the Ministry level.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) CBM development should not be allowed to continue in the Sacred Headwaters.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Section 2. Land-use Designation Options

A number of BC Parks already exist in Tahltan territory, including Spatsizi, Edziza and Stikine River. The Wildlife Protection Act also covers some stone sheep and mountain goat protection. New partnerships and management structures have emerged in the creation of modern parks and protected areas that may also provide opportunities for modification. Below are outlines and examples of some relevant land-use designation options. OPTION 1: Class A Provincial Park

What: A Class A park is Crown land designated under the Park Act or by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. A range of commercial and non-commercial activities may be permitted in parks, especially with regards to activities that were occurring at the time the park was established (such as grazing, hay cutting and other uses). Industrial activities are not permitted in protected areas, including mining, oil and gas, commercial logging and hydro-electric development.

How: Class A parks can be designated by two means. Class A parks can be established by either order in council under the Park Act or by inclusion in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

class a park Examples and opportunities Stikine River Recreation Area After a battle against hydro-electric dam proposals, the Stikine River Recreation Area was legislated in the late 1980s, protecting a broad corridor down the Stikine River valley from Spatsizi Provincial Park almost all the way to Telegraph Creek. The recreation area not only protected important habitat but also included the spectacular Grand Canyon of the Stikine. In the late 1990s, when the Stikine Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) process was convened, there was an attempt by some of the mining industry to dismantle the Stikine River Recreation Area. stikine river A convergence of key groups including the Friends of the Stikine, BC Spaces for Nature and the Tahltan First Nation resulted in the Recreation Area being upgraded to Class A Provincial Park status, adding substantial areas of land north of the Stikine and around Spatsizi. Expanding the boundaries of the Spatsizi-Stikine River Provincial Park complex has effectively protected the key wildlife and ecological values of the upper Stikine and Grand Canyon . Given the past history of park extensions and reclassifications in the area, there is potential for this to happen again for the Sacred Headwaters. Under the Stikine Country Protected Areas Management Plan, the Tahltan have a stewardship plan that includes the parks in the area . A Memoradum of Understanding was signed to set up an Advisory Council in 2003 between the Tahltan Central Council and BC Parks to oversee and manage all initiatives and undertakings related to the planning, operation and management of the protected areas within Tahltan traditional territories. The Council is made up of four representatives of each government body. Included in the agreement is a clause for the committee to deal with “the establishment of new protected areas under the provincial government’s Protected Areas Strategy”. Initial interest to either extend existing park boundaries or create new ones could begin at this level. An expansion of the Park could also include negotiations to change the whole area into a Conservancy classification (see more below).

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) OPTION 2: Conservancy

What: Similar to a Class A park, a conservancy is Crown land designated under the Park Act or by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Conservancies provide for a wider range of low impact, compatible economic opportunities than a Class A park that can be approved with the application for a park use permit. These economic opportunities must still not restrict, prevent or hinder the conservancy from meeting its intended purpose with respect to maintaining biological diversity, natural environments, First Nations social, ceremonial and cultural uses, and recreational values. The new conservancy designation explicitly recognizes the importance of these areas to First Nations for social, ceremonial and cultural uses. Commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects, are prohibited in a conservancy. Commercial activities such as stand-alone wind farms and shellfish aquaculture could receive approval.

How: Conservancies can be designated by two means. Conservancies can be established by either order in council under the Park Act or, as is the norm, by inclusion in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. There is opportunity to either create a new conservancy for the Sacred Headwaters or change one of the Class A Parks to a conservancy with extended boundaries to ensure coalbed methane is no longer developed. Key to developing conservancies is establishing government-to-government relationships for land-use planning. While collaborative management agreements can be established with the designation of a Class A Park and likely a National Park Reserve, it tends to be part of the process with Conservancies. At the onset, it’s important to ensure that all members share a vision for the future of the protected area, agree on the objectives of cooperative management for their protected area, and have a clear understanding of each other’s interests and assumptions.

conservancy Examples Great Bear Rainforest The Great Bear Rainforest is a unique model of protected area, spanning a number of First Nations traditional territories and incorporating 55 new conservancies on BC’s north and central coasts. The conservation plan developed includes $120 million for First Nations conservation management and economic development initiatives in the Great Bear Rainforest. The funds were equally granted by the federal and provincial governments and private foundations, and is a relatively unique structure for the largest remaining tract of temperate rainforest that might not necessarily be repeated.

great bear rainforest

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) OPTION 3: Other relevant BC Classification A “BC Regional Protected Area Strategy” is a designation under the Environment and Land Use Act by order in council. It is most often used in areas just outside of a park such as the lower portion of Seven Sisters that allows for pine mushroom cultivation as well as for potential road and pipeline construction. In essence, it allows activities that are otherwise not permitted in Class A parks or Conservancies, but still provides for some land-use protection. Ecological Reserves Ecological reserves are areas selected to preserve representative and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomena. Unlike provincial parks where recreation is a primary activity, the focus of ecological reserves is on preservation, education and research. The legislation guiding the program is very restrictive and all extractive activities are prohibited. As such, ecological reserves are considered to be the areas most highly protected and least subject to human influence. A portion of the central part of Spatsizi park just south of Coldfish Lake has been designated as the Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve. The reserve was created for the study of stone sheep and mountain goats in an undisturbed habitat. No hunting is allowed in the reserve. While a portion of the Sacred Headwaters that is most pristine might qualify for this designation and be appealing for some research and educational purposes, there may not be as much local support given how restrictive activities are within a reserve.

Brian Huntington

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) OPTION 4: National Park Reserve national park What: By law, Canadian national parks are “protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained reserve Examples in an unimpaired state for future generations ”. A National Park Tuktut Nogait Reserve is established where an area proposed for a national park is subject to one or more claims in respect of aboriginal rights that has In 2005, Parks Canada and the or have been accepted for negotiation by the government of Canada. Deline Land Corporation agreed A National Park Reserve will not be established as a National Park to add 1,850 square kilometres of until the claim or claims are settled and notes that boundaries might land to the existing Tuktut Nogait change slightly once they are. National Park. The Federal government has committed to ensuring a park is In addition to protecting the established in 39 different natural regions. A Headwaters National Bluenose caribou herd and its Park Reserve, abutting Spatsizi and Tatlatui provincial parks, would calving habitat, the new park allows fit into natural region #7 (northern interior plateau and mountains). the Inuvialuit to pursue subsistence A reserve would provide a large contiguous area for wildlife while hunting and harvesting activities protecting the sensitive headwaters of the Spatsizi, Klappan, Nass, within the park. Commercial or Skeena, and other rivers. sport hunting activities are not permitted in Tuktut Nogait. How: Given that region number 7 is currently unrepresented in the national parks system, there is opportunity for a Headwaters National A key part of the agreement aims Park Reserve to be created. The Federal government must first receive to enhance and support local invitation from the Provincial government before a park can be employment and businesses, and considered. A Tahltan request would help initiate this invitation. It strengthen local economies. The takes a number of years to set up a national park given the various Deline Land Corporation plans to economic, suitability, ecological/biological and recreation/human build a visitor centre, which will enjoyment studies that are required before their establishment. contain information on national The ecological integrity of the area on the east side of the Sacred historic sites within the Deline Headwaters might be more suited for a Federal Park, although there District, and information on the could be potential to encompass a significant enough area that road addition and the park. Parks and rail grade access areas already impacted would only account for a Canada has agreed to work with the small portion (if at all). Federal Parks’ budgets are a lot greater than Deline Land Corporation in support provincial ones and require the establishment of infrastructure (such of the visitor centre and to provide as Park Headquarters). interpretive materials. Rights and support: The Federal government recognizes its duty to Gwaii Haanas consult and provides funding for First Nations to effectively engage In 1981 plans to expand logging in negotiations. Federal Parks are often operated in conjunction with to Burnaby Island led to the first a Management Board (primarily First Nations and Canada Parks concerted efforts to protect Gwaii representatives). Park Establishment Benefit Agreements are also Haanas on Haida Gwaii. By 1985 created with First Nations where some one-time funding may support the Haida Nation designated Gwaii the development of some infrastructure (such as a community centre) Haanas a Haida Heritage Site, and and some training opportunities. two years later logging ended when Traditional rights are written into the Act and subsistence harvesting Canada and British Columbia signed is allowed. Where and when hunting and fishing are allowed is the South Moresby Memorandum of negotiated into the agreement (eg. taking quads to hunt during prime Understanding. caribou mating would likely not be allowed whereas snowmobiling Today, the Government of Canada into hunt when there are no sensitive conservation concerns would be and the Council of the Haida Nation allowed). rating fund that gave back to the “Islands community”. manage Gwaii Haanas through the unique Gwaii Haanas Agreement signed in 1993. The two parties

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) strongly agree on the need to protect Gwaii Haanas, even though the question of ownership is unresolved. A unique aspect of the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve is the Watchmen Program, whereby Haida are posted at the five most frequently visited village and cultural sites in Gwaii Haanas from May to September. The Watchmen’s primary mandate, to protect sensitive cultural sites, is accomplished by educating visitors about the natural and cultural heritage of Gwaii Haanas. They share Haida values and age-old traditions with new generations of Haida and with visitors from around the world. The Watchmen program is funded several ways, including visitor fees. It has its own management and provides seasonal employment for the Haida. Out of the campaign, members of the Council of the Haida Nation and the Residents Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) established an Accord on a Community Development Fund that eventually evolved into the Gwaii Trust Society. Its purpose was to develop a permanent model for a locally controlled, interest-generating fund that gave back to the “Islands community”.

Gwaii haanas

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) OPTION 5: Biosphere Reserve

What: Biosphere reserves are an international conservation designation given by UNESCO and are created “to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere.” All reserves have legally protected core areas (which give long-term protection to landscapes and ecosystems), buffer zones (where some resource extraction can take place, as long as it does not undermine the objectives of the core areas), and transition zones or zones of cooperation (where people work together to use the area’s resources in a sustainable manner) . This effort requires relevant research, monitoring, education and training. Each biosphere reserve has its own system of governance to ensure it meets its functions and objectives. Often a committee or board is established and have some accountability to the international community. The level of funding depends on the nature and extent of the projects and activities undertaken, and contributions are expected from industry, tour operators, charitable foundations, research funding agencies, governments and local municipalities. UNESCO can provide advice and occasionally seed funds to initiate local efforts.

How: In Canada it takes an average of eight years for an area to be designated as a Biosphere Reserve. The first step requires both mobilizing public support and identifying the biophysical and cultural characteristics of the area that are globally significant. Once these are established, setting up a multi-stakeholder coordinating committee can help move things forward. The boundaries and three zones then need to be set which requires extensive data gathering and public dialogue. After objectives are developed, a draft nomination application can be completed and sent to the Canadian Man and the Biosphere office for comments before final submission. UNESCO meets once a year in late October to decide on designations.

Biosphere Reserve Example Clayoquot Biosphere Reserve In 1991, the Clayoquot Biosphere Project was formed and a working group established representing the Nuu- chah-nulth Central Region First Nations — the Ahousaht, Hesquiaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Toquaht, and Ucluelet, the District of Tofino, District of Ucluelet and Area C of the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District. The Central Region Board, environmental organizations and private sector interests also supported the nomination process. People with diverse interests and concerns came together to prepare the UNESCO nomination that would build support and ensure a sustainable future for the people of the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve Region. The nomination was funded and facilitated through this working group, with strong financial support coming from federal and provincial government bodies. UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Designation. UNESCO officially designated the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve in 2000 and the Chretien government provided a $12 million federal grant endowment fund for the communities in the region. Given the strong support to protect the Sacred Headwaters from coalbed methane from First Nations, local governments, environmental organizations and the private sector, there could be opportunities to regenerate support amongst the various stakeholders for an internationally classified Biosphere Reserve.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) OPTION 6: UNESCO World Heritage Site

What: In order to be considered a UNESCO World Heritage site, sites must have outstanding universal value and meet at least one of ten selection criteria. Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List can benefit from the elaboration and implementation of a comprehensive management plan that sets out adequate preservation measures and monitoring mechanisms. If selected, the basis for periodic reporting is on its universal value - to provide an assessment as to whether the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed on the World Heritage List are being maintained over time. Assessment is done through scientific and technical studies, development of supportive policies and planning, training, education and awareness building. According to UNESCO, the World Heritage concept is so well understood that sites on the List are a magnet for international cooperation and may thus receive financial assistance for heritage conservation projects from a variety of sources.

How: The first step is to be included on Canada’s “Tentative List” which includes an inventory of its most important natural and cultural heritage sites. At the moment, Gwaii Haanas is the only BC location on Canada’s Tentative List. Once on this list, Canada can present a comprehensive nomination file to the World Heritage Centre. This then gets passed on to two Advisory Bodies for evaluation. Once a site has been nominated and evaluated, it is up to the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee to make the final decision for inscription. To be accepted, sites must be of outstanding universal value. According to one of UNESCO’s working papers (“A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites”), one of the additional mountain protected areas that have been suggested for consideration for nomination to the World Heritage List under the Nearctic realm is the Edziza shield volcano with the Skeena coastal mountains in Spatsizi Park .

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Nahanni

world heritage site Examples The following two Canadian examples also show how expansion or further support for protection can occur with World Heritage status. Nahanni River In 1978, the headwaters of the Nahanni River became the first site recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The preservation of this undisturbed river includes formidable canyons and the breeding habitat for four endangered species (peregrine falcons, golden eagles, bald eagles and trumpeter swans) . In June 2009, the federal government, Dehcho First Nations and government of the Northwest Territories announced a massive expansion to the Nahanni reserve. It now protects over 30,000 km2 of crucial habitat for grizzly bears, woodland caribou and Dall’s sheep (about the size of Vancouver Island). It will protect the length of the South Nahanni River in the Dehcho, the highest mountains and largest glaciers in the NWT and the deepest canyons in Canada . Federal funding was provided to negotiate the permanent land protection and develop impact- benefit agreements. Tatshenshini-Alsek In the 1980s and 1990s, concerns arose over a proposal to extract a rich body of copper ore from a site in the high Alsek Ranges. Under a coalition of over 50 conservation groups known as ‘Tatshenshini International’, a campaign was launched to achieve protection of the area from mining interests and to preserve it as wilderness. By 1993 in recognition of all the potential environmental risks associated with the proposed mine and the world-class wilderness values at stake, the government of British Columbia moved to protect Tatshenshini-Alsek as a Class A park. In combination with the adjoining national parks and World Heritage Sites of Kluane, Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay this completed the world’s largest international park complex. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature subsequently proposed the Tatshenshini- Alsek area to be added to the World Heritage Site, to which it was included in 1994. Tatshenshini-Alsek is under a collaborative management agreement between the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and the Provincial government. The consensus-based Park Board consists of two members representing the Province of BC and two representing the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. As part of their agreement, specific recognition was provided for the traditional and current uses of the Park by the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations and recognition of their oral history; intentions to integrate traditional and scientific knowledge in managing the Park; identification of economic opportunities for the CAFN, and provisions for the maintenance and operation of the Park by the CAFN .

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Option 7: Canadian Heritage River status for the Stikine or upper Skeena

What: The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) is a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances Canada’s river heritage, and ensures that Canada’s leading rivers are managed in a sustainable manner . Selected rivers must have outstanding natural and/or cultural values, and offer quality recreational opportunities. In essence, local citizens must drive public support to convince governments (federal and provincial) to approve a particular river for this classification. The CHRS is a public trust administered by the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board, comprised of members appointed by federal, provincial and territorial governments. The CHRS has no legislative authority. Governments retain their traditional jurisdictional powers and management responsibilities throughout this process. Voluntary participation, partnership, cooperation and community involvement are what drive it. This status doesn’t necessarily prohibit development (it doesn’t have the legislative authorities that parks do) but can help draw attention and resources toward the conservation of the river.

How: The process for becoming a Canadian Heritage River is just two steps, but can be rigorous and lengthy. The first step for private citizens and groups is to convince the participating government representatives that a particular river is worthy of this status. River nominations may be submitted to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board only by participating governments. To be considered, the river must have outstanding natural, cultural and/or recreational values, a high level of public support, and it must be demonstrated that sufficient measures will be put in place to ensure that those values will be maintained. Once nominated, the Board reviews the nomination and, if it meets selection guidelines for the System, recommends it to the responsible Ministers. A nominated river becomes designated once a management plan, or heritage strategy, that ensures the river will be managed to conserve its outstanding natural, cultural and/or recreational values, is lodged with the Board by the government(s) that made the nomination. Production of a management plan or heritage strategy is based on public consultation and consensus. There could be potential to bring in ecosystem-based management in the development of such a plan. All protective actions on Canadian Heritage Rivers depend on existing laws and regulations, and respect the rights of Aboriginal peoples, communities, private landowners, and other stakeholders.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) heritage river Examples and opportunities BC rivers that currently have Canadian Heritage River Status are the Fraser, Cowichan and Kicking Horse rivers. The environmental group Friends of the Stikine were interested in achieving this heritage status for the Stikine River . The Stikine is currently part of the BC Government’s list of provincial heritage rivers but could be elevated to national status for a bit more influence in decision-making. Another potential nomination could be the upper Skeena from the Sustut confluence to Kuldo. Obtaining Heritage River status does not necessarily keep CBM out; the Athabasca is also a Canadian Heritage River and is being used as a dumping ground for the tar sands. Upper Skeena untington H rian B

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Comparing Land Use Designation Options

Policy or Land-use Permanently or likely to Funding Available Type of Development Impact on Hunting Rights Likelihood and next step Examples Designation keep CBM out permitted

Ecosystem-based No guarantees Potentially to help Uncertain – looks at thresholds Potentially improves Several signals of support Terrestrial examples in management collaboratively carry out if for making decisions management (i.e. reduces non- from BC for applying EBM Clayoquot Sound and the supported by the Province. resident hunting) to watersheds. Request to Great Bear Rainforest. province needed.

Implementation of Wild Likely Potentially through Uncertain – management at None The Skeena Watershed None. The Wild Salmon Salmon Policy in the Skeena partnerships for work watershed level Initiative has started the Policy has yet to be fully toward implementation and process. implemented. monitoring

Changes to Oil and Gas Likely No All None Difficult but workable within Environmental management Regulations high-level at MEMPR. regulations under the BC Oil and Gas Act are yet to be finalized.

Conservancy Yes Yes Potential for small-scale None, although could Likely as expansion of an Lax Kwil Dziidz/Fin enterprises, such as a stand- help open negotiations for existing Park (in the MOU Conservancy near Hartley Bay. alone wind farms or shellfish restrictions under the Wildlife of the Stikine LRMP) with aquaculture. Act. negotiation to change from a Park to a Conservancy.

Class A Park Yes Some Mining, oil and gas, None, although could Likelihood greater as an Spatsizi-Stikine River commercial logging and hydro- help open negotiations for expansion of an existing Park. Provincial Park electric development are NOT restrictions under the Wildlife permitted. Act.

National Park Reserve Yes Yes None Yes. Only allows First Area within missing National Gwaii Haanas National Park Nations subsistence hunting; Park classification. Needs First Reserve negotiated into agreement. Nations and BC Government support.

UNESCO World Heritage site Yes Yes None that adversely impact the Yes. Traditional and current The Klappan has high Tatshenshini-Alsek and the ecological value. First Nations uses recognized ecological and cultural heritage Nahanni River in Agreements. values. First step is to get on Canada’s “tentative list”.

Biosphere Reserve Yes No None in core areas, some in First Nations traditional Need to have the area legally Clayoquot Sound Biosphere buffer and transition zones. hunting in core areas and other protected first. Reserve in buffer and transition zones.

Canadian Heritage River No Potentially some toward a All unless management plan None Need to convince provincial BC rivers are the Fraser, Status management plan meaningful government to make Skeena/ Cowichan and Kicking Horse Stikine priorities. Status could Rivers. help support an EBM approach to the watershed.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Policy or Land-use Permanently or likely to Funding Available Type of Development Impact on Hunting Rights Likelihood and next step Examples Designation keep CBM out permitted

Changes to Oil and Gas Likely No All None Difficult but workable within Environmental management Regulations high-level at MEMPR. regulations under the BC Oil and Gas Act are yet to be finalized.

Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Deciding the Future of the Sacred Headwaters (Jan. 2010) Produced for the Tahltan Central Council With support from ForestEthics