KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICES
APPENDIX 16.0-A Kitsault Aboriginal Group Profiles
VE51988 – Appendices
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ...... I
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ...... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ...... 1 1.3 Objectives ...... 2
2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 2 2.1 Methods ...... 2 2.2 Limitations ...... 3
3.0 RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...... 4 3.1 Metlakatla First Nation ...... 4 3.1.1 Overview ...... 4 3.1.2 Historical Context ...... 6 3.1.2.1 Pre-Contact ...... 6 3.1.2.2 Contact ...... 6 3.1.2.3 Post-Contact ...... 6 3.1.3 Language ...... 8 3.1.3.1 Level of Use and Fluency ...... 8 3.1.3.2 Language Revival ...... 8 3.1.4 Cultural Practices ...... 8 3.1.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance ...... 8 3.1.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality ...... 11 3.1.5 Seasonal Round ...... 11 3.1.6 Past Land Use ...... 12 3.1.7 Past Marine Use ...... 12 3.1.8 Contemporary Land Use ...... 13 3.1.9 Contemporary Marine Use ...... 13 3.1.10 Resource Importance ...... 13 3.1.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours ...... 15 3.1.12 Travel Routes and Corridors ...... 15 3.1.13 Occupation Sites ...... 15 3.1.14 Tourism ...... 16 3.1.15 Cultural Revival ...... 17 3.1.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management ...... 17 3.1.16.1 Past Land Management Practices ...... 17 3.1.16.2 Contemporary Planning and Management ...... 17 3.1.17 Summary ...... 21 3.2 Kitsumkalum First Nation ...... 21 3.2.1 Overview ...... 21 3.2.2 Historical Context ...... 24 3.2.2.1 Pre-Contact ...... 24 3.2.2.2 Contact ...... 25 3.2.2.3 Post-Contact ...... 25 3.2.3 Language ...... 26 3.2.4 Cultural Practices ...... 26 3.2.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance ...... 26
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 TOC i
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.2.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality ...... 27 3.2.5 Seasonal Round...... 27 3.2.6 Past Land Use...... 28 3.2.7 Past Marine Use...... 29 3.2.8 Contemporary Land Use ...... 29 3.2.9 Contemporary Marine Use ...... 29 3.2.10 Resource Importance ...... 30 3.2.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours ...... 32 3.2.12 Travel Routes and Corridors ...... 32 3.2.13 Occupation Sites ...... 32 3.2.14 Tourism ...... 33 3.2.15 Cultural Revival ...... 33 3.2.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management ...... 34 3.2.17 Summary ...... 36 3.3 Kitselas First Nation ...... 37 3.3.1 Overview ...... 37 3.3.2 Historical Context ...... 39 3.3.2.1 Pre-Contact ...... 39 3.3.2.2 Contact ...... 40 3.3.2.3 Post-Contact ...... 40 3.3.3 Language ...... 41 3.3.3.1 Level of Use and Fluency ...... 41 3.3.3.2 Language Revival ...... 42 3.3.4 Cultural Practices ...... 42 3.3.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance ...... 42 3.3.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality ...... 44 3.3.5 Seasonal Round...... 45 3.3.6 Past Land Use...... 45 3.3.6.1 Hunting and Trapping ...... 45 3.3.6.2 Fishing ...... 46 3.3.6.3 Berry / Fruit Gathering ...... 46 3.3.6.4 Trees and Plants Gathering ...... 47 3.3.7 Past Marine Use...... 47 3.3.8 Contemporary Land Use ...... 47 3.3.8.1 Hunting and Trapping ...... 47 3.3.8.2 Fishing ...... 48 3.3.8.3 Berry, Plant, and Tree Use ...... 48 3.3.8.4 Agriculture ...... 48 3.3.9 Contemporary Marine Use ...... 49 3.3.10 Resource Importance ...... 49 3.3.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours ...... 51 3.3.12 Travel Routes and Corridors ...... 51 3.3.13 Occupation Sites ...... 51 3.3.14 Tourism ...... 52 3.3.15 Cultural Revival ...... 52 3.3.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management ...... 53 3.3.16.1 Past Land Management Practices ...... 53 3.3.17 Summary ...... 53 3.4 Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs ...... 54 3.4.1 Overview ...... 54 3.4.2 Spatial Context ...... 54 3.4.3 Historical Context ...... 56 3.4.3.1 Pre-Contact ...... 56 3.4.3.2 Contact ...... 56
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 TOC ii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.4.3.3 Post-Contact ...... 56 3.4.4 Language ...... 57 3.4.5 Cultural Practices ...... 58 3.4.5.1 Social Organisation and Governance ...... 58 3.4.5.1.1 Hereditary Chief System ...... 58 3.4.5.1.2 Band System ...... 58 3.4.5.2 Worldview and Spirituality ...... 60 3.4.6 Seasonal Round ...... 60 3.4.7 Past Land Use ...... 61 3.4.8 Past Marine Use ...... 61 3.4.9 Contemporary Land Use ...... 61 3.4.10 Contemporary Marine Use ...... 62 3.4.11 Resource Importance ...... 62 3.4.12 Trading Among Aboriginal Neighbours ...... 64 3.4.13 Travel Routes and Corridors ...... 65 3.4.13.1 Water Travel Routes ...... 65 3.4.13.2 Overland Travel Routes ...... 65 3.4.14 Occupation Sites ...... 65 3.4.15 Tourism ...... 66 3.4.16 Cultural Revival ...... 67 3.4.17 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management ...... 68 3.4.18 Summary ...... 70 3.5 Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office ...... 70 3.5.1 Overview ...... 70 3.5.2 Spatial and Cultural Context ...... 71 3.5.3 Historical Context ...... 73 3.5.3.1 Pre-Contact ...... 73 3.5.3.2 Contact ...... 73 3.5.3.3 Post Contact ...... 74 3.5.4 Language ...... 74 3.5.5 Cultural Practices ...... 75 3.5.5.1 Social Organisation and Governance ...... 75 3.5.5.1.1 Hereditary Chief System ...... 75 3.5.5.1.2 Band System ...... 76 3.5.5.2 Spirituality, Traditional Laws, and Worldview ...... 76 3.5.6 Seasonal Round ...... 77 3.5.7 Land Use ...... 78 3.5.8 Contemporary Land Use ...... 78 3.5.9 Resource Importance ...... 79 3.5.10 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours ...... 80 3.5.11 Travel Routes and Corridors ...... 80 3.5.11.1 Land Travel ...... 80 3.5.11.2 Water Travel ...... 80 3.5.12 Occupation Sites ...... 80 3.5.13 Tourism ...... 81 3.5.14 Cultural Revival ...... 81 3.5.14.1 Language ...... 81 3.5.14.2 Culture ...... 82 3.5.14.3 Autonomy ...... 82 3.5.15 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management ...... 83 3.5.15.1 Fisheries ...... 83 3.5.15.2 Forestry ...... 84 3.5.15.3 Wildlife Harvest ...... 85 3.5.15.4 Plant, Berry and Mushroom Harvesting ...... 85
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 TOC iii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.15.5 Cultural Resources ...... 86 3.5.16 Summary ...... 86
REFERENCES ...... 87
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Aboriginal Territories Overlap with Kitsault Transportation Route ...... iii Table 2: Summary of Information on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups ...... iii Table 3.1-1: Registered Metlakatla Population ...... 7 Table 3.1-2: Membership Of Elected Band Council And Chief ...... 9 Table 3.1-3: Contact Information for Offices Involved in Governance and Administration for the Metlakatla ...... 10 Table 3.1-4: Metlakatla Reserves, Numbers, Locations and Sizes ...... 10 Table 3.1-5: Summary of Resources Used By Metlakatla ...... 14 Table 3.2-1: Summary of Traditional Resources of Importance to the Kitsumkalum First Nation ...... 30 Table 3.2-2: Proposed Kitsumkalum Management Objectives for Baker Inlet Area ...... 34 Table 3.2-3: Management Measures, Targets, and Direction for the Port Essington Area ...... 36 Table 3.3-1: Summary of Kitselas First Nation Language Knowledge, Use, and Fluency ...... 41 Table 3.3-2: Chief and Council Names and Terms ...... 43 Table 3.3-3: The Name, Location, and Brief Description of the Kitselas First Nation Reserves ...... 43 Table 3.3-4: Traditional Resource of Importance Used by the Kitselas First Nation ...... 49 Table 3.4-1: Overview of Gitxsan Bands, Elected Officials, and Contact Information ...... 59 Table 3.4-2: Summary of Important Resources to the Gitxsan Chiefs ...... 62 Table 3.5-1: Huwilp that Overlap with Kitsault Transportation Route ...... 73 Table 3.5-2: Distribution of Aboriginal Language Fluency by Age ...... 75 Table 3.5-3: Resources of Importance to the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs ...... 79
List of Figures
Figure 3.1-1: Metlakatla Asserted Territory Overlapping with the Kitselas Transportation Route Options ...... 5 Figure 3.2-1: Kitsumkalum Asserted Territory Overlapping with the Kitselas Transportation Route Options ...... 23 Figure 3.3-1: Kitselas Asserted Territory Overlapping with the Kitselas Transportation Route Options ...... 38 Figure 3.3-2: Aerial Photo of Kitselas Showing Location of Gitlaxdzawk (Berthiaume 1999) ...... 52 Figure 3.4-1: Gitxsan Asserted Territory Overlapping with the Kitselas Transportation Route Options ...... 55 Figure 3.5-1: Gitanyow Asserted Territory Overlapping with the Kitselas Transportation Route Options ...... 72
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 TOC iv
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition Agency (the) Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency AIP Agreement in Principle AIR Application Information Requirements Application (the) The proponent’s Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the proposed Project, made under section 16 of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act ATV all terrain vehicle BC British Columbia BCEAA British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act BC EAO British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office BC MARR British Columbia Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation BC MNRO British Columbia Ministry of Natural Resource Operations BC MOF British Columbia Ministry of Forests BC MOFR British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range BCTC British Columbia Treaty Commission CMT Culturally Modified Tree CSTC Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Dialectic Dialectic Research Services DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment FSR Forest Service Road FWA Framework Agreement on Land Management GHCO Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office GHS Gitxsan Health Society GTO Gitxsan Treaty Office HC Health Canada Hwy Highway INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada KCLUP Kispiox – Cranberry Landscape Unit Plan KFP Kitselas Forest Products KHSP Kitselas Head Start Program KKSHRD Kitsumkalum Social History Research Projects KVL Kalum Ventures Ltd. LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LU landscape units MCFS Ministry of Child and Family Services MCK Metlakatla Governing Council
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page i
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Abbreviation Definition MDC Metlakatla Development Corporation MNBC Métis Nation of British Columbia MPCBC Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia n/a not applicable NNADP National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program NWA Nass Wildlife Area OGMA Old Growth Management Area proponent (the) Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. proposed Project (the) Kitsault Mine Project Rescan Rescan Environmental Ltd. ROW Right-of-Way SLUPA Strategic Land Use Planning Agreement SNDS Skeena Native Development Society SOI Statement of Intent SRMP Sustainable Resource Management Plan TSA Timber Supply Area Wilp House Adaawk Oral History
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT Abbreviation Definition ha hectare km kilometre km2 kilometres squared m metre m3 cubic metres % percent
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page ii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Avanti Mining Corporation is proposing to redevelop a molybdenum mine located at the north end of Alice Arm. According to the section 13 Order issued by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO), the proponent is required to consult with potentially affected Aboriginal groups determine the effects of the proposed Kitsault Project on their Aboriginal rights and interests as a means of addressing their concerns and minimising adverse potential and residual effects. These are expected to be primarily related, but not limited, to the area in and around the Kitsault transportation route, including Highway 37 (Kitwanga to Cranberry Junction), Nass Forest Service Road (FSR), and Highway 113 (Nass Camp to Terrace). The potentially affected Aboriginal groups are summarised in Table 1, including the length of overlap in kilometres (km). The Metlakatla First Nation also overlaps with proposed Kitsault mine site.
Table 1: Summary of Aboriginal Territories Overlap with Kitsault Transportation Route
Overlap with Kitsault Transportation Aboriginal Group Route (km) Kitselas First Nation 0 Kitsumkalum First Nation 67 Metlakatla First Nation 6 (mine site too) Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs 109 Gitxsan Chiefs 27
This report contains the results of desk-based research of publicly available sources on Aboriginal interests and values related to the proposed Kitsault Project on a range of topics, including Aboriginal land, resource use and planning, demographics, health, social and economic interests. Publicly available information for each Aboriginal group was compiled from academic, Aboriginal, and government sources. The outcomes of the research are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Information on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups
Aboriginal Group Category Details Kitselas First Nation Governance Chief Glenn Bennett and five councilors. Traditional governance through four clans and waap system. Territory and There is no overlap of the Kitsault transportation route with reserves the 647,000 ha Kitselas territory. Nine reserves mostly along Highway 16 east of Terrace. History Five historical villages along Kitselas canyon with gatekeeper role before contact. Contact in mid-1800s with steamboat, followed by gold rush and Port Essington migration.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page iii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Aboriginal Group Category Details Demographics 543 registered members (2011). Language 11% of Kitselas members speak Symalgyax. Land use Pre-contact semi-nomadic subsistence lifestyle relying on setting fish, wildlife, and plants. Contemporary hunting, fishing, berry and plant gathering, agriculture, forestry, and trapping. Land use Participation in the North Coast LRMP. planning Participation in the Kalum LRMP. Economy Participation in forestry and fisheries with several ventures and businesses. Main employers: manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and resource-based, business, and health and education. Land use Continued practice of traditional activities, such as hunting, interests trapping, and fishing. Cultural tourism focused on petroglyphs. Continued participation in land use planning processes. Heritage Preservation of cultural heritage, especially petroglyphs and interests Kitselas Canyon. Adherence to the Kitselas Lands Management Act (KFN 1995). Economic Tourism, fishing, agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, interests and land management. Developing cultural tourism. Health and Administering holistic programs to meet Kitselas health and social interests wellness needs. Networking with other health and social professionals. Kitsumkalum First Nation Governance Chief Don Roberts with six councilors. Stage 4 of 6 in the BC Treaty Process. Hereditary chief and matriarch system through the waap system as represented by the Kitsumkalum Treaty Office. Territory and 2,735 km2 territory overlap with 67 km of Kitsault reserves transportation route. Four reserves close to Nisga’a Highway and Highway 16. History Three historical villages with emphasis on fishing and trapping. Port Essington migration for employment at cannery. Current revival of cultural practices and customs. Demographics 657 registered members, of which 211 live on reserve. Median age is 41 years. Language 4% of Kitsumkalum members know Sm’algyax. There are efforts to revive the language. Land use Past use included hunting, trapping, gathering berries,
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page iv
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Aboriginal Group Category Details setting fishing, and agricultural cultivation. Interests in coastal use. Land Use Participation in the North Coast LRMP and Kalum LRMP. Planning Economy Resource extraction, construction, and manufacturing make a third of Kitsumkalum employment. Public sector employment represents the highest employment among Kitsumkalum. Land use Continued participation of traditional activities. interests Cultural tourism. Heritage Preserving Robin Town as an officially-recognised heritage interests site. Preserving ethno-historical record for treaty purposes. Economic Participation in green industry, including run-of-river, pellet interests plant, bio-mass energy, and wind power. Recreation and eco-tourism. Health and Administering culturally relevant and holistic health and social interests social services for Kitsumkalum both physical and psychological wellbeing. Metlakatla First Nation Governance Chief Harold Leighton with six councilors under the Metlakatla Governing Council. Traditional governance through four clans and wall system. Territory and 10,622 km2 territory 6 km of Kitsault transportation route. Reserves 16 reserves near Prince Rupert, none of which proximate to Kitsault transportation route. History Pre-contact semi-nomadic hunting and gathering society with a seasonal round that covered both coastal and inland areas. Hudson Bay fort and Christian presence at contact changed Metlakatla way of life. Demographics 830 registered members (2011) with many living off-reserve in Prince Rupert. Language Few Metlakatla speak Sm’algyax; however, there are efforts to revive the language. Land use Continued traditional activities, including hunting, trapping, setting fishing, cedar harvest, and seaweed gathering. Land use Involvement in the North Coast LRMP process, including a planning special forest management zone overlapping the proposed Project. Signatory to the Metlakatla Indian Band Forestry Agreement. Developed Strategic Land Use Planning Agreement with designated zones.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page v
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Aboriginal Group Category Details Economy Majority of Metlakatla employment is in the public sector (58%). Development of tourism opportunities, especially around the cruise ship industry. Economic participation in forestry and fisheries. Land use Developing sustainable ecotourism and recreation. interests Economic development related to forestry, small-scale hydroelectric developments, and mineral extraction. Continued ability to practice traditional activities. Heritage Protecting villages and historical sites, pictographs, interests middens, petroglyphs, and CMTs. Economic Developing tourism, fisheries, construction, and education interests opportunities to improve economic participation. Health and Metlakatla developing health planning process to address social interests community health needs and priorities. Health and social services provided by both Metlakatla and Prince Rupert. Gitanyow Hereditary Governance Traditional governance through hereditary chief and wilp Chiefs system and territories. Chief Tony Morgan and six councilors. Territory and 55,000 km2 territory overlaps with 109 km of Kitsault reserves transportation route, including five wilp territories. Three reserves along Highway 37. History Pre-contact history is marked by frequent migration and war with Tsetsaut before settlement at Kitwancool. From contact Gitanyow have struggled to settle land claim issue with a strong cultural and sustenance connection to the land. Demographics 789 registered members, of which 385 live on-reserve. Gitanyow also organised into 8 huwilp. Language Previously spoke Gitanyow, now most members speak Gitxsan dialect (Gitxsanmaax). Use and fluency of Aboriginal language varies from wilp to wilp. Land use Gitanyow continue to participate in land-based cultural and setting subsistence activities, including hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant gathering. Gitanyow use to fish along Kitwancool Lake, but have moved to Meziadin Lake due to salmon depletion. Sacred site at the Cranberry Canyon, including graves and petroglyphs. They currently hunt approximately 20 to 30 moose annually (with declines in hunting allocations).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page vi
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Aboriginal Group Category Details Pine mushroom picking along the network of FSRs to the mine site. Salmon and steelhead fishing sites along the Nass River.
Land use Participation in the Kispiox Cranberry Land Use Plan. planning Participation in the Nass South SRMP. Economy Economic participation in primary and secondary industries, including mining, forestry, construction, and manufacturing. Several local businesses in the Gitanyow community offering forestry-relates services. Land use Continued participation in traditional and contemporary land interests uses. Interested in maintaining biodiversity and avoiding fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Restoration of sockeye salmon in Kitwanga River and Kitwancool Lake. Participation in sustainable forestry activities. Participation in stewardship and management of resources. Heritage Protection of CMTs. interests Maintenance of the Grease Trail. Restoration of historic villages. Establishment of museum of Gitanyow culture and history. Economic Sustainable economic development. interests Developing economic component of wilp territory title through revenue sharing with province. Health and Holistic approach health challenges. social interests Address lack of health services in Gitanyow. Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs Governance Hereditary chief and wilp system and territories. Chiefs and councilors for each of the four Gitxsan Bands. Territory and 33,000 km2 of territory overlapping with 27 km of Kitsault reserves transportation route. History Semi-nomadic people relying on a seasonal round for hunting, trapping, and fishing. Common warfare with neighboring groups.
Contact in 1800s which gradually changed Gitxsan traditional way of life with increasing participation in wage economy and influence from missionary activities. Demographics 5,316 registered members, of which 1,900 live on-reserve administered by four Gitxsan Bands. Gitxsan also organised by traditional system into 64 wilp (houses) with 20 to 250 members each. Language 20% to 30% of on-reserve Gitxsan members speak Gitxsanmaax.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page vii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Aboriginal Group Category Details Ongoing efforts to revive the language. Land use Gitxsan have and continue to participate in traditional setting activities, including hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant / berry harvesting. Land use within wilp territories based on membership or permission. Land use Developing Watershed Sustainability Planning and the planning Kitsault transportation route overlaps with the Lower Skeena watershed. Gitxsan wildlife and water policies.
Economy Economically reliant on declining forest industry. Incomes comparable to other Aboriginal groups at low to mid-$30,000. Land use Continued practice of traditional activities. interests Sustainable and environmentally responsible development. Management of wilp resources by watershed. Heritage Protecting, maintaining, managing, and repatriating past and interests future discoveries of Gitxsan heritage resources. Proper use of Gitxsan place names. Continued development of the ’Ksan museum. Economic Sustainable economic development by watershed. interests Revenue sharing with province. Developing green industry, including bio-energy, and carbon credits. Health and Administering holistic and comprehensive health. social interests Addressing limited in-community health programs and services. Community challenges: depression, drug abuse, and suicide.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page viii
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview This report identifies the local Aboriginal groups that could potentially be affected by the Kitsault Mine project (proposed Project) and provides key information with regard to contact information, asserted territory and ethnography, language, land use setting and planning, governance, economy, and reserves information for each Aboriginal group. The information was compiled from a review of Aboriginal, government, academic sources as well as direct discussions with Aboriginal groups.
As part of its assessment of the proposed Project, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO 2011) released section 13, an amendment to the section 11 Order (BC 2010c), identifying five Aboriginal groups that may be potentially affected by the proposed Project’s site and / or transportation route, including:
Metlakatla First Nation; Kitsumkalum First Nation; Kitselas First Nation; Gitxsan Chiefs; Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office, including: o Wilp Wiitaxhayetwx-Sidok; o Wilp Gwass Hlaam; o Wilp Gwinuu; o Wilp Gamlaxyeltxw; and o Wilp Luuxhon.
1.2 Regulatory Requirements Section 16 of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (Government of BC 1992) requires discussion and consideration of Aboriginal group pertaining to the proposed Project. This information is provided following the guidance found in BC EAO’s “Environmental Assessment Office User Guide” (BC EAO 2010a), Application Information Requirements (AIR) Template, and “Proponent Guide for Providing First Nation Consultation information (Non-Treaty First Nations)” (BC EAO 2010b). Furthermore, the regulatory requirements with regard to Aboriginal groups are also outlined in the section 13 Order issued by the BC EAO on 9 June 2011, defining the Aboriginal groups with whom the proponent should consult and requiring a separate effects assessment report related specifically to the use of the transportation route by the proposed Project to Highway (Hwy) 16. The revision required by the section 13 Order to be included in the Application Information Requirements (AIR) states that:
“The Proponent must complete a road use impact assessment study which provides baseline information on current use of roads between the Project site and junctions with Highway 16. Baseline information will be provided for the northern transportation option which includes the Nass Forest Service
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 1
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Road and Highway 37 (Cranberry Junction) to Kitwanga and the southern option which includes the Nass Forest Service Road, Highway 113 (through New Aiyansh) to Terrace. The study will assess the transport of materials and people required for the construction, operation, and closure of the project and the probability and potential magnitude of related accidents and malfunctions. These assessments will include the likely effects on representative Valued Components including: Air Quality, Noise, Fish and Aquatic Habitat, Wetlands, Vegetation, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Social, Economics, and Human Health within the study area defined in the AIR” (BC EAO 2011).
1.3 Objectives The objectives of this report are to:
Provide information of past and existing Aboriginal interests, values, rights, and practices as a basis of conducting an assessment of effects of the proposed Project (especially transportation and access) on Aboriginal rights; Fulfill and address the regulatory requirements, particularly BC EAO’s section 13 Order; Provide contextual and historical information on each Aboriginal group to better understand issues and interests raised by Aboriginal groups during consultation activities; and Provide information to support development of meaningful, locally relevant mitigation measures.
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Methods This report is a compilation of desk-based research from a variety of primary and secondary sources. They were reviewed with a focus on Aboriginal land rights, interests, and values that may interact or overlap with the Kitsault Project, mostly related to the Kitsault transportation route. There are several sources that Aboriginal groups have in common, given their linguistic and cultural similarities. In other words, ethnographers often amalgamate Coastal (e.g., Metlakatla First Nation), and Inland Tsimshian groups (e.g., Kitsumkalum and Kitselas First Nations). The main sources reviewed in detail for this report include:
Each Aboriginal groups’ official websites; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) First Nation Profiles; Rescan Environmental Services Traditional Knowledge and Use (TK / TU) Report submitted as part of the Northwest Transmission Line (NTL) Project Environmental Assessment Application; Handbook of North American Indians – Volume 7: Northwest Coast;
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 2
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs), Landscape Unit Plans (LUPs); Presentations and meeting summaries; Agreements with each Aboriginal groups; Aboriginal policies, procedures, and programs; Halpin, M. and Seguin, M. 1990 (Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan); Daly 2005 (Our Box was Full); McDonald, J.A. 2003 (People of the Robin: The Tsimshian of Kitsumkalum); Duff, W. 1959 (House, Territories, and Laws of the Kitwancool); Sterritt, J. et al. 1998 (Tribal Boundaries of the Nass River); and Statistics Canada and BC Stats on Aboriginal communities.
The report contains publicly available information of contemporary Aboriginal uses, activities, and communities from desk-based research. The results of the research provide limited site-specific information about the locations, seasons, level and type of Aboriginal use and access considerations related to the proposed Kitsault Project. This report contains broad information about important matters to potentially affected Aboriginal groups related to the mine site and transportation route. Ongoing discussions and consultation may yield more specific and detailed information for future consideration and integration during the Application review period.
2.2 Limitations The sources used in this report are often historical, and are not considered comprehensive. Furthermore, some of the sources are written from the perspective of ethnographers or persons outside of the Aboriginal group, and, in some instances, with a particular agenda or angle. Ethnographic accounts only provide a snapshot (i.e., a point in time) of Aboriginal activities of dynamic and evolving Aboriginal culture. Finally, this report has no direct input and/or feedback from the potentially affected Aboriginal groups. The proponent anticipates that this will take place during the post-Application review period in Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings specifically related to the Kitsault transportation route. All potentially affected Aboriginal groups are invited to attend TWG meetings to amend, add, or revise what is presented in this report.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 3
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.0 RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS 3.1 Metlakatla First Nation 3.1.1 Overview The name Metlakatla is comes from the Tsimshian Maaxłakxaała, meaning "saltwater pass" (MFN 2011a). Metlakatla originally referred to a small community of the same name seven kilometres northwest of Prince Rupert, which is one of the seven Tsimshian village communities in BC. The asserted territory of the Metlakatla covers approximately 10,622 km2 of northwestern BC (Figure 3.1-1), and overlaps with the proposed Kitsault Project, as well as the most westerly portions of the Kitsault transportation route for 6 km. There is no land access to the community, and the Metlakatla Band accesses Prince Rupert via a Band-owned passenger ferry. There are 16 Metlakatla reserves (seven of which are shared with Lax Kw’alaams), the primary and most populated one being S1/2 Tsimspean IR2 (No. 07754) (INAC 2011a).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 4
Bear Lake Legend C A Segment 1: Kitsault mine site to Cranberry U N N A DA I Connector/Nass FSR T E D STATES 37A Segment 2: Cranberry Connector to Cranberry Meziadin Junction Junction Segment 3: Cranberry Junction to Kitwanga along Highway 37 Stewart Segment 4: Cranberry Connector to New 37 Aiyansh Segment 5: New Aiyansh to Sand Lake Segment 6: Sand Lake to Terrace Populated Place
Bulkley House Kitsault Mine Project Highway Metlakatla First Nation Indian Reserve Cranberry Junction Parks & Protected Area ALASKA KEY MAP 37 Alice Arm Road NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Alice Arm YUKON Kitsault Townsite BRITISH COLUMBIA Fort Nelson Juneau BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA Kitsault Mine Project Fort Babine Fort St. John Stewart
Nass Camp Project Location Gitanyow Nass Forest Service Road Hazelton Prince Rupert Edmonton Prince George
New Aiyansh
Calgary
Kamloops Kitwanga Kelowna 113 Smithers Landing Vancouver Kitseguecla Old Fort Victoria Laxgalts'ap Moricetown UNITED STATES Gingolx UNITED STATES Sand Lake Scale:1:900,000 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Granisle 16 Kilometers 113
Smithers 37 d x m . 16 2 Reference v _
0 Base Data 1 0
- Round Lake Atlas of Canada scale 1:1,000,000. 0 5
- Territory Boundary: Metlakatla First Nation Website 4 1 \ CLIENT: e n i l e s a
B Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. \ s c i Lax Kw'alaams m Perow o Topley n PROJECT: o c e - o i Wiley Kitsault Mine Project c Georgetown Mills o s _ 4 1 \ g
n Metlakatla Asserted Territory
i 16 p p Houston Broman Lake a
M Disclaimer: The lines on this map represent Lakelse Lake overlapping with the Kitsault \ t l u the approximate boundaries of traditional territories a
s Metlakatla t i as described by the Metlakatla. They are illustrative Transportation Route Options
K Prince Rupert _ only. Publication of this map in this report does not DATE: ANALYST: 8 8
9 imply that the Metlakatla First Nation, other First April 2011 MY
1 Figure 5 Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the 37 E JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE:
V Name Segment Length (Km) \ Government of Canada, Avanti or any of E VE51988 MY
V 14-50-010_metlakatla.pdf
\ their respective consultants have confirmed, s Metlakatla 1 6 t c agreed to, or acknowledged (as the case may be) GIS FILE: e j
o Port Edward r the traditional territory as represented on this map 14-50-010.mxd P \
S PROJECTION: DATUM: I G \ : UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The Metlakatla is the only one of the 14 Tsimshian Nation tribes in Canada that is not associated with one tribe. The Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams together comprise the Coast Tsimshian peoples. The Coast Tsimshian were traditionally divided into 9 tribes, each of which consisted of four clans. The “House” (called the Walp by Coastal Tsimshian) was the basic political, economic, and social unit that governed affairs of the Tsimshian territory, including the Skeena River (west of Terrace) and Prince Rupert. The Metlakatla are known as a “fishing people”, and traditionally have a strong reliance on salmon (all 5 species), shellfish, eulachon, ungulates, bears and other hunted mammals, and plants such as berries, seaweeds, and cedar trees. The Metlakatla continue to be involved with the Province in land use decision-making and planning through various agreements and input of traditional knowledge. Neighbouring Aboriginal groups include the Gitxsan and Gitanyow Hereditary Chief territories to the east, overlapping territories of the Nisga’a Nation, Haida Gwai’i to the west across Hecate Straight, and the Haisla and Hieltsuk First Nations to the south.
3.1.2 Historical Context 3.1.2.1 Pre-Contact The Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams together comprise the Coast Tsimshian peoples. Prior to the early 1800s, most Coastal Tsimshian lived semi-nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyles. The seasonal round, described in Section 3.1.5, was central to pre-contact subsistence economy, whereby different hunting and gathering locations were utilised between seasons based on local resource availability. Focus changed from fishing and harvesting marine resources such as shellfish, to hunting, to berry picking and other plants and cedar material, to gathering and drying seaweed, depending on the season. People lived in permanent villages during the winter months, where sporadic hunting occurred. Men and women took part in weaving and carving in the winter, which was when most ceremonial events were held (Halpin and Seguin 1990; Satanove 2008; MFN 2011a).
3.1.2.2 Contact The history of Euro-Canadian contact with the Coastal Tsimshian peoples began in 1792 with Jacino Caamaño’s journals that cover his landing on Pitt Island, although the peoples may have experienced the effects of European trade between 1700 and 1750 (Satanove 2008). Many Coastal Tsimshian people moved to the area surrounding the fort established by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1834, after which time their lives began to change due to contact with European cultures. In 1857, Anglican lay minister William Duncan set up a mission at Fort Simpson. In 1862, he re-established the village of Metlakatla as a Christian village of approximately 350 Tsimshians from Lax Kw'alaams (a.k.a. Port Simpson), including members of other Tsimshian tribes (Halpin and Seguin 1990; Satanove 2008; MFN 2011a).
3.1.2.3 Post-Contact Soon after the community was established, a smallpox epidemic decimated Lax Kw'alaams. However, it left Metlakatla relatively unscathed, which minister Duncan interpreted as due to
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 6
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES divine providence. Some of Duncan’s followers, including Paul Legaic, who was the most powerful Tsimshian chief, began to divide time between Lax Kw'alaams and Metlakatla, and between Christianity and Coastal Tsimshian traditional culture. Tsimshian traditional beliefs included those of human reincarnation (Mills 1994); this idea clashed with those of Christianity, and through missionary gestures and residential schools, many of these beliefs were gradually lost. By 1879 the population at Metlakatla had grown to approximately 1,100. Duncan, however, was earning a reputation as dissident, evangelical, of an independent temperament, which led to his expulsion from the Church of England's Missionary Society in 1881. In response, he created his own non-denominational "Independent Native Church." In 1887, he took 800 or more Metlakatla Tsimshians on a canoe journey to found the community of "New" Metlakatla” in Alaska. After Duncan's departure, the 100 or so remaining residents of "Old Metlakatla," were left in the hands of William Ridley, the Anglican bishop of the newly formed Diocese of Caledonia, a purported nemesis of Duncan.
In July 1901, a fire destroyed St. Paul's Church (an extremely large church built by Duncan in 1874) at Metlakatla, which was rumoured to have been started by a band of Alaska Tsimshians under Duncan’s orders. The fire led to Ridley's departure for England in 1905. A second St. Paul's Church was built to replace the first in 1903, but was again burned down in 1914. Since the early 1900s, Metlakatla, BC, has remained among the smallest of the Tsimshian communities. The Metlakatla are now predominantly Anglican.
According to INAC (2011a) the Metlakatla have a population of 830. A large majority of off- reserve members live in Prince Rupert, within Metlakatla traditional territory. The distribution of Metlakatla demographics is provided in Table 3.1-1.
Table 3.1-1: Registered Metlakatla Population
Residency Number of People Registered Males On Own Reserve 37 Registered Females On Own Reserve 54 Registered Males On Other Reserves 3 Registered Females On Other Reserves 4 Registered Males On Own Crown Land 0 Registered Females On Own Crown Land 0 Registered Males On Other Band Crown Land 0 Registered Females On Other Band Crown Land 0 Registered Males On No Band Crown Land 0 Registered Females On No Band Crown Land 0 Registered Males Off Reserve 353 Registered Females Off Reserve 379 Total Registered Population 830 Source: INAC 2011a
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 7
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.1.3 Language 3.1.3.1 Level of Use and Fluency The language of the Metlakatla people is Sm’algyax, which belongs to the Tsimshian language family. Various dialects are spoken throughout the north coast of BC and New Metlakatla, Alaska. Due to residential schools and Metlakatla’s close proximity to Prince Rupert, few people are fluent in Sm’algyax.
3.1.3.2 Language Revival A number of qualified teachers are now working to revive the language and Sm’algyax classes are offered to band members in Metlakatla and Prince Rupert (MFN 2011a). Information on the level of success of these programs was not publically available or determined at the time this report was written. Additional information can be gained during consultation with this Aboriginal group.
3.1.4 Cultural Practices 3.1.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance The Coast Tsimshian were traditionally divided into 9 tribes, each of which consisted of four clans or matrilineal Houses: Wolf (Laxibuu), Eagle (Laxsgiik), Killer Whale (Gispwudwada), and Raven (Ganhada) (Boas 1916). The “House” (called the Walp by Coastal Tsimshian) was the basic political, economic, and social unit that governed affairs in the Tsimshian territory. The traditional system was matrilineal and each Walp was composed of people that were related through their mother’s lineage. Twenty to forty people typically occupied a Walp, including chiefs and their families, other relatives, and slaves (Satanove 2008). Each Walp held a rank, which determined their rights to precedence in both political and ceremonial events (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Specific ranked names pertained to each Walp; generally, the highest ranked name was held by the hereditary chief, which was passed down through the generations. The hereditary chief was assisted by several wing chiefs to administer various functions. Particular Walp owned specific hunting, fishing, and gathering territories (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Governance was carried out in the feast hall, where decisions were made, witnessed, and legitimised. Feasts were also used to maintain social order, validate inheritance and succession, and deal with conflicts. Transmission of the oral history also occurred during the winter months, in the form of storytelling from authorised elders.
Due to contact impacts and government laws that limited traditional ceremonies, this traditional system of governance was largely lost. The current representative government of the Metlakatla is called the Metlakatla Governing Council. This Council oversees 3,464 hectares of land on 16 reserves. The Governing Council is comprised of an elected chief and six councillors, each of whom serve three-year terms. In March 2007, the Metlakatla members ratified a custom election code that removed election provisions from under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. The council functions as the governing unit of the band and as an administrator of social and health services. The names of the elected Chief and Council members, along with their terms, are provided in Table 3.1-2.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 8
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.1-2: Membership Of Elected Band Council And Chief
Title Surname Given Name Appointment Date Expiry Date Chief Leighton Harold 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Bolton Alvin 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Leask Alrita 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Leask Alvin Jr. 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Nelson James, Sr. 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Nelson Robert 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Councillor Smith Cindy 30 August 2010 29 August 2013 Source: INAC 2011a
Contact information for the Governing Council, the Development Corporation, Treaty office, and Stewardship offices are provided in Table 3.1-3.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 9
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.1-3: Contact Information for Offices Involved in Governance and Administration for the Metlakatla
Metlakatla Metlakatla Governing Metlakatla Treaty Metlakatla Development Council Office Stewardship Office Corporation PO Box 459 Address: PO Box 224 Address: PO Box 224 Address: PO Box 224 Prince Rupert, BC Prince Rupert, BC Prince Rupert, BC Prince Rupert, BC V8J 3R2 V8J 3P6 V8J 3P6 V8J 3P6 Office: 1 (250) 628-3234 Office: 1 (250) 628-3201 Office: 1 (250) 628-3315 Office: 1 (250) 628-3315 Fax: 1 (250) 628-9205 Fax: 1 (250) 628-9259 Fax: 1 (250) 628-9259 Fax: 1 (250) 628-9259 Source: MDC 2011; Metlakatla Treaty Office; and MFN 2011a.
A list of all of the existing Metlakatla reserves, with reserve numbers, location descriptions, and sizes of reserves are included in Table 3.1-4. Most reserves are too far the south of the proposed Kitsault project to be considered proximate.
Table 3.1-4: Metlakatla Reserves, Numbers, Locations and Sizes
No. Name Location Hectares 07768 AVERY ISLAND 92 COAST DISTRICT, RG. 5, LOT 3917, ENTIRE AVERY 20.40 ISLAND, NORTH OF STEPHENS ISLAND IN BELL PASSAGE 07761 DASHKEN 22 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, ON EAST SHORE OF SMITH 3 ISLAND AT MOUTH OF THE SKEENA RIVER 07769 EDYE 93 COAST DISTRICT, RGE 5, LOT 3916, ALL OF A SMALL 0.40 ISLAND IN EDYE PASSAGE, SOUTH OF PRESCOTT ISLAND 07758 KHTAHDA 10 COAST DISTRICT RANGE 5, ON LEFT BANK OF THE 1.40 SKEENA RIVER AT MOUTH OF THE KHTADA RIVER 07757 KHYEX 8 COAST DISTRICT RANGE 5, ON RIGHT BANK OF THE 15.40 SKEENA RIVER AT MOUTH OF KHYEX RIVER 07762 KSHAOOM 23 COAST DISTRICT RANGE 5, AT NORTH END OF DE 2.60 HORSEY ISLAND AT MOUTH OF THE SKEENA RIVER 07764 LAKELSE 25 COAST DISTRICT RANGE 5, ON RIGHT BANK OF THE 1.70 LAKELSE RIVER 1 MILE NORTHWEST OF LAKELSE LAKE 07763 MEANLAW 24 COAST DISTRICT RANGE 5, ON RIGHT BANK OF THE 8.40 SKEENA RIVER 2 MILES NORTH OF VEITCH POINT 07766 RUSHTON ISLAND 90 COAST DIST RGE 5, LOT 3915, ENTIRE RUSHTON ISLAND 6.80 & 1 SMALL ISLAND TO N., IN BROWN PASS. ENTRANGE TO CHATHAM SOUND 07754 S1/2 TSIMPSEAN 2 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, ON W COAST OF TSIMPSEAN 3270 PENINSULA AND NORTH END OF DIGBY ISLAND, ON E SHORE OF CHATHAM SOUND 07759 SCUTTSAP 11 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, ON LEFT BANK OF THE 1.50 SKEENA RIVER, 1 MILE SOUTHWEST OF KWINITSA C.N. STATION 07756 SHOOWAHTLANS COAST DIS. RGE 5, WEST END OF SHAWATTAN LAKE, 0.50 (SHAWTLANS) 4 NORTH END OF MORSE BASIN, 2 MILES NORTHEAST OF
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 10
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
No. Name Location Hectares PRINCE RUPERT 07767 SQUADEREE 91 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, LOT 3914, ON POINT ON 2.20 SOUTHWEST COAST OF STEPHENS ISLAND, N. ENTRANCE TO HECATE STRAIT 07765 TUCK INLET 89 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, LOT 3950, AT HEAD OF TUCK 1.60 INLET, 10 MILES NORTH OF PRINCE RUPERT 07760 TUGWELL ISLAND 21 COAST DISTRICT, ENTIRE TUGWELL ISLAND, ENTRANCE 126.20 TO VENN PASS, 8 MILES WEST OF PRINCE RUPERT 07755 WILNASKANCAUD 3 COAST DISTRICT, RANGE 5, ON EAST SHORE OF KAIEN 2.30 ISLAND, 2 MILES EAST OF PRINCE RUPERT Source: INAC 2011a
3.1.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality Aboriginal worldviews are typically holistic and involve a reciprocal relationship between people and their environments. There is no separation between humans and the resources found in nature. The spiritual roles of the Coastal Tsimshian chief, known as swansk halait, support this paradigm: for example, he would purify “bad luck” such as harvest failures or a non-productive salmon run (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Legend and the oral record of the Tsimshian constitute their history, and their worldview is documented in artifact remains. Totems, crests painted on housefronts, costume features, baskets, and carvings all serve as a testament to that ethnographic record which documents the stories of the Coastal Tsimshian.
While they were not well-documented in early reports of ethnographers, beliefs in reincarnation are found in current literature sources, most evidently in Halpin and Seguin (1990) and (Mills 1994). The documented traditional belief is that people were reincarnated in their grandchildren, and goes so far as to suggest that potlatches “make it possible for lineage members to be reincarnated properly” (Halpin and Seguin 1990).
3.1.5 Seasonal Round A seasonal round describes traditional activities undertaken in the summer, fall, winter, and spring over the course of a calendar year. The seasonal round was central to pre-contact subsistence economy, whereby different hunting and gathering locations were utilised among seasons based on local productivity and items sought. From mid-February to April, tribes used camps and facilities at the mouth of the Nass River (Satanove 2008). Halpin and Seguin (1990) documented that, at the end of winter and before the ice broke, the main activity was eulachon fishing on the Nass and Skeena rivers. Eulachon grease was a particularly important commodity for the Tsimshian, as they held a monopoly in sourcing the grease. The Coastal Tsimshian also fished eulachon commercially before contact with Europeans (Satanove 2008). In the month of May, activity shifted to the camps where seaweed was gathered and dried. Men typically fished for halibut, and herring spawn at this
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 11
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES time. Supplies were also gathered for basket weaving or artefact construction from hemlock, spruce, and lodgepole pine.
Abalone and the eggs of sea gulls and oystercatchers were gathered in June, coinciding with the arrival of the first salmon of the season, which were caught by trolling. The people moved into fishing camps during the summer, where each clan fished in their respective fishing areas. Women collected salmonberries throughout the summer, followed by wild crab-apples and high bush cranberries. From mid-summer to fall, each tribe used fishing, trapping, and hunting camps in the lower Skeena River (Satanove 2008). Reserves of salmon were also stored during the autumn, and chum salmon were smoke-dried in great quantities. After the preservation of salmon was completed, hunting grounds became the focus of resource-gathering, which included hunting and trapping of deer, elk, seal, sea lions, sea otter, mountain goat, and other endemic fauna (Halpin and Seguin 1990; Satanove 2008).
People lived in permanent villages during the winter months, where sporadic hunting occurred. Shellfish middens give testament to the extensive shellfish consumption in these villages. Men and women took part in weaving and carving in the winter, which was also the season when most ceremonial events were held. Transmission of the oral history also occurred during the winter in the form of storytelling from authorised elders. The Coastal Tsimshian’s seasonal round changed as the social complexity changed (Satanove 2008).
3.1.6 Past Land Use Hunting and trapping were traditional activities among Coastal Tsimshian in the late autumn (Boas 1916, Garfield 1939, McDonald 1985, Halpin and Seguin 1990, Inglis et al. 1990). Traditionally, animals such as deer, elk, mountain goat, sheep, bear, porcupine, racoons, and marmot were taken by the Coastal Tsimshian. By the late nineteenth century, with the growth of the fur trade, Coastal Tsimshian had begun to use areas along the Skeena River tributaries for hunting and trapping more frequently (Satanove 2008). Hunting and trapping is still practiced by many Metlakatla within their asserted territory and species of greatest value include ungulates (e.g., deer, moose) and bears (Coastal Watchman Web Page).
Coastal Tsimshian women traditionally harvested ripening salmonberries, soapberries, high bush cranberries and wild crab-apples during the late summer months. Some of these berries were dried, while others were stored in grease (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Berry picking, medicinal plant gathering and bark collecting are activities that are well-documented in academic literature and traditional use studies, and a host of medicinal and food plants are still harvested by the Metlakatla.
3.1.7 Past Marine Use The Metlakatla were traditionally highly reliant on fish and marine resources. They used marine and freshwater aquatic resources for food, social, ceremonial, and commercial purposes, and created surplus to use in times of shortage or for trade. Harvesting, consuming, managing, processing, and trading fish resources was an integral part of their
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 12
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES culture before and after contact with Europeans (Satanove 2008). Inglis et al. (1990) document that locally harvested foodstuffs such as fish, shellfish, herring eggs, eulachon, seal grease, berries, and seaweed (which was dried) comprised well over half of a household’s diet. Seal, sea lions, sea otter and various other sea mammals and birds were hunted, and shellfish and various bird eggs were collected. Eulachon and salmon had a particularly strong influence on Coastal Tsimshian economy, history, culture, and seasonal activities.
3.1.8 Contemporary Land Use Hunting, harvesting of marine resources, and inland berries and trees are still practiced today by Metlakatla, although fishing and hunting methods have become more modernised, including motorised boats instead of canoes, guns, modern trapping methods, and new and more efficient fishing techniques. Since entering into the market economy, the Coastal Tsimshian have broadened the volume and geographic extent of their export market, and have included tourism and local charter and ferry services to their land uses. The Metlakatla have also been developing capacity for more involvement in biological monitoring of changes in populations, and are joining forces with other Aboriginal groups as stewards of their land, making sure that land use laws and regulations are being followed by their own people as well as those utilising resources in their asserted territory (Guardian Watchman Web Site).
3.1.9 Contemporary Marine Use Coastal Tsimshian continue to hunt seal and other marine animals, collect shellfish, eggs, fish and dry seaweed in marine areas. Some methods for collection remain the same as part of their cultural practices, while some new techniques have been implemented for more efficient hunting, collecting and fishing. The Metlakatla are also involved in commercial fisheries for various species and monitoring of activities in coastal and marine areas within their asserted territory. Coastal tourism also exists, with Metlakatla- run boat charter companies and whale watching tourism.
3.1.10 Resource Importance Table 3.1-5 summarises key resources used by the Metlakatla First Nation. This table is not considered comprehensive or exhaustive, and additional information of resource use may be obtained during future consultation with the Aboriginal group.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 13
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.1-5: Summary of Resources Used By Metlakatla
Category Resource Name Uses Fish Chum Sustenance and an integral part of customs and Pink history. Sockeye Trade with other Aboriginal group and traditionally Chinook associated with rank. Coho Excess was a staple in winter when smoked or preserved. Importance to commercial Aboriginal Fisheries. Seen as important as a food supply for Spirit bears and marine mammals, including Killer whales, which are contributors to their tourism in the area and culturally significant to the Metlakatla. Other fish Eulachon Traditionally, an important species used to collect species and fish Herring spawn grease considered a delicacy. products Halibut Used during trade with other Aboriginal groups. Fished for in May by men as part of the traditional seasonal round. Sustenance and part of the contemporary fishery. Fished for in May by men as part of the traditional seasonal round. Sustenance and part of the contemporary fishery. Seaweed Various species of Traditionally and presently harvested and dried. green, brown and red An important staple in the diet of the Metlakatla. seaweeds Culturally significant female practice done in the spring. Berries and Salmonberry Traditional foods gathered for sustenance as part of Fruits Crab Apples the seasonal round by women in the summer. High Bush Cranberry Additional berries and bark materials used for medicinal purposes. Tree Materials Hemlock Culturally significant for basket weaving and artefact Cedar construction. Lodgepole pine. Spruce Other marine Sea gull eggs Important traditional dietary items. items Oystercatcher eggs Terrestrial and Deer Species traditionally hunted by the Metlakatla. Marine Wildlife Elk Some skins and parts of animals used for Mountain Goat ceremonial purposes and regalia. Bear Seal Sea lion Sea otter
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 14
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.1.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours Trade with neighbouring Aboriginal group such as the Gitxsan, Gitanyow, Nisga’a, and the Haisla Nation was important. Due in large part to the advantageous position on the coast, and the Skeena and Nass Rivers, and also because of their local expertise regarding fish and shellfish, the Coastal Tsimshian enjoyed relative affluence in trading with other Aboriginal groups and settlers (Inglis et al. 1990). Although interior tribes also had access to salmon, its abundance fluctuated and they had fewer options, and thus trade with the Coastal Tsimshian was sometimes required (Satanove 2008). Additional marine resources, such as shell fish and marine mammals were also available from the Coastal Tsimshian. In exchange, the interior Aboriginal group would trade berries that were exclusive to inland areas with the Coastal Tsimshian (see Section 3.4.12). Access to all five salmon species was a significant feature of the Coastal Tsimshian, and the resulting catch provided assurance against famine, excess for trade and was a primary economic resource.
3.1.12 Travel Routes and Corridors The Skeena Trail is located between the coastal settlement of Metlakatla, continuing inland toward Terrace where the neighbouring Kitsumkalum and Kitselas Nations are situated. MacDonald and Cove (1987) note the importance of this trail as a trade route that originated near the mouth of the Skeena River and allowed Coastal Tsimshian and European settlers to access Terrace.
The Work Channel Trail began at the mouth of the Skeena River and continued northward, passing the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla until it connected with the Nass River, Observatory Inlet and Portland Inlet. From there, the trail continued to Meziadin Lake and the Stikine Trail (MacDonald 1987). Without the network of historical trade routes, or heritage trails, overland travel through the coast forest biotic area proved quite difficult because of the dense vegetation cover and high precipitation. As such, travel methods focussed primarily on the water, photographic evidence showing specifically the use of spoon canoes by Coastal Tsimshian peoples (Halpin and Seguin 1990).
3.1.13 Occupation Sites Prior to contact with European settlers, the Coastal Tsimshian lived in permanent villages along the Skeena River and its tributaries, on Kaien Island and near Metlakatla Pass. They also used a number of campsites within their territory (Lax Kw’alaams Band 2009). Some groups had summer and winter territories on the coast, while others had winter villages on the coast and summer territories on the lower Skeena River below Kitselas Canyon. After contact with Europeans, all groups had village sites on the Skeena River. The Coastal Tsimshian also once occupied the Upper Zimacord Valley (Satanove 2008).
The current locations of the four communities of the Coastal Tsimshian First Nation are between the town of Terrace westward towards Port Simpson and between the Portland and Observatory Inlets and Skeena River. The Lax Kw’alaams in Fort Simpson is located on the modern-day establishment of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Roughly 15 km away is the
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 15
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Metlakatla Band, which is located on the coast and is accessible by ferry from Prince Rupert.
Many sites exist within the Metlakatla asserted territory that have significant cultural heritage, archaeological and traditional use values that require monitoring and protection. These include villages and historical sites, pictographs, middens (e.g., shell middens), petroglyphs, and culturally modified trees. Metlakatla community members also continue to harvest and use the land and marine resources for ceremonial/cultural activities. More information on the heritage sites of relevance to the Kitsault project may be gleaned from consultation with the Metlakatla First Nation.
3.1.14 Tourism Due to the lack of roads through most of Metlakatla territory, tourism is limited and reliant on boating. Still, tourist demand and supply exist in the Metlakatla territory, particularly for eco- tourists wishing to participate in grizzly or Spirit bear viewing or whale watching. The Metlakatla Development Corporation (MDC) acts as the independent business arm for the Aboriginal group. Established in 1989, the MDC owns and operates a number of local ventures (MDC 2011), including a number that are considered tourism, or tourism facilitating enterprises, including:
Metlakatla Ferry Services Ltd.; North Co-op Ferry Services Ltd.; Grassy Bay Services Ltd.; and Seashore Charters Ltd. (eco-tourism and cultural tours).
Attachment B of the Strategic Land Use Plan Agreement (SLUPA) between the province and Metlakatla First Nation indicates a large Biodiversity (Tourism/Mining) zone within provincial forest to the immediate southwest of the proposed Kitsault site, and a small one to the immediate northeast of the end of Alice Arm. Biodiversity zones were ascribed to Provincial Forest areas that have high ecological values and biological richness, with a history of no commercial timber harvesting. The objectives within the biodiversity zone are to retain the landscape in a predominantly natural condition, while allowing specified resource extraction activities and access development, but excluding timber harvest and some commercial hydro-electric development.
According to Attachment D (ILMB 2006), a visual classification area overlaps with the proposed Kitsault project and marine shore area. Attachment D also shows the same large Biodiversity zone to the immediate southwest of the proposed Kitsault project as a Management Area. “Management Areas” are designed to integrate and balance extractive resource use, while protecting or sustaining identified resource values. There are no excluded uses under this designation, but special objectives may be developed for management within these zones. This Management Area was indicated as potentially including specific plans for Kermode bear management, cultural management, a cedar stewardship area, and special forest management.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 16
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
While these documents indicate potential tourism potential interest in that area proximate to Kitsault for expanded tourism purposes by the Metlakatla is not directly indicated in publically available information. More information on future tourism interests may be gained from consultation with the Metlakatla.
3.1.15 Cultural Revival Some aspects of the traditional culture of the coastal Tsimshian peoples are still alive today, while some attempts are being made to actively revive others. Traditional activities related to the seasonal round are still practised by Metlakatla members today, including hunting and fishing; seaweed gathering / processing; hemlock and cedar gathering; and marine harvesting activities (CTTS 2008). The Metlakatla also formed a traditional dance (The Sugyigyet Dancers) group to revive their traditional dance.
The language of the Metlakatla people is Sm’algyax, which belongs to the Tsimshianic language family. Various dialects are spoken across the north coast of BC and New Metlakatla, Alaska. Due to residential schools and Metlakatla’s close proximity to Prince Rupert, few people are fluent in Sm’algyax, but a number of qualified teachers are now working to revive the language and Sm’algyax classes are offered to band members in Metlakatla and Prince Rupert (MFN 2011a).
The Metlakatla have also joined the “Guardian Watchman Program” (Guardian Watchman Web Page) to ensure the protection of the health of the cultural resources used by the Metlakatla. The objectives of the Metlakatla Guardian Watchmen Program include certain objectives aimed at reviving the culture and maintaining transmission of traditional knowledge. The objectives of this group that promote cultural revival include: Developing mentorship relationships between elders and young people in the community, establishing a year-round Metlakatla presence throughout the territory, providing a clear and strong role for community members to be involved in monitoring efforts, helping to improve the quality of life for Metlakatla people by monitoring and protecting species important for food and cultural purposes, and supporting the implementation of land and marine use plans and the Metlakatla treaty process.
3.1.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management 3.1.16.1 Past Land Management Practices Traditional fish conservation methods employed by the Metlakatla involved limiting quantities taken, appropriate timing of fishing and seasonal closures. For example, they usually captured salmon only after the fish entered spawning grounds or rivers. When fishing for salmon became too difficult, the Coastal Tsimshian traded for salmon using halibut, carved items, and meat (Anderson in Satanove 2008).
3.1.16.2 Contemporary Planning and Management Metlakatla is actively involved in land use planning initiatives that impact land and resources within their asserted territory. In April 2001, Gitga’at First Nation, Haida Nation, Haisla Nation, Heiltsuk Nation, Kitasoo / Xaixais First Nation, and Metlakatla First Nation signed the
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 17
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
General Protocol Agreement with the Government of British Columbia to promote Aboriginal involvement in provincial land use planning processes, and to help conclude interim measures agreements. The interim Metlakatla Indian Band Forestry Agreement (2003), was signed as an interim measure that provided benefits to the Metlakatla when forestry-related activities within their asserted territory. Members of the Lax Kw’alaams Band and Coastal Tsimshian Resources have also explored the creation of a Joint Venture company to market their logs and lumber in China (Drury 2009). In 2004, community natural resource planners worked with advisory committees to produce a draft of a Strategic Land and Resource Use Plan (SLUP) for Metlakatla Territory. Metlakatla also participated with stakeholders to develop the North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (ILMB 2004).
The North Coast LRMP, with final recommendations, was signed in 2006. A special forest management zone was recommended in the NCLRMP, which overlaps with the Kitsault project, covering part of the Kitsault and Stagoo Landscape Units (LU 25 and 45, respectively, Map 3; NCLRMP 2004). A Tourism Area was also suggested, which overlaps with the Kitsault Project area (Map 8; ILMB 2004), as does a grizzly bear occupied area (Map 6; ILMB 2004), the Nass Wildlife Area (Map 7; ILMB 2004), and a Class 1 visual management area (Map 10; ILMB 2004). The Metlakatla indicated that they respected the NCLRMP Table, and that the Province would engage with them on a government-to- government basis on NCLRMP results. While the Metlakatla agreed that there were areas of alignment between Metlakatla’s Land Use Plans and the NCLRMP, there was a requirement for the Province and Metlakatla to discuss outstanding issues of importance during government-to-government negotiations.
The Metlakatla shortly thereafter negotiated and agreed to a Strategic Land Use Planning Agreement (GoBC 2006) with the Province and other Coastal Aboriginal groups. The purpose of the SLUPA was to: a) confirm the outcome of government-to-government discussions held on strategic land use planning between the Metlakatla and the Province; b) provide a framework that will assist the Parties to work collaboratively to implement the Land and Resource Protocol in the Traditional Territory of the Metlakatla; and c) provide a framework that will assist the Parties to work collaboratively to implement this Agreement and any subsequent land use planning and management activities, including implementation of Ecosystem-based Management (EBM)1, and in the preparation and implementation of Detailed Strategic Plans. The Metlakatla also continue to negotiate natural resource management strategies at their Treaty table.
The Metlakatla Strategic Land Use Planning Agreement (GoBC 2006) includes a number of attachments indicating existing designated zones in the areas associated with the proposed Kitsault mine site. The attachments of interest in the SLUPA (GoBC 2006) include:
Attachment B1 - Land Use Zones of the North Coast LRMP: Map;
Attachment B2 - Land Use Zones: Allowable Use and Designations: Table;
1 An adaptive, systematic approach to managing human activities…that seeks to ensure the co-existence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 18
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Attachment C - Proposed Management Area Objectives: Table; and Attachment D - Management Areas of the North Coast LRMP: Map.
Attachment B indicates a large Biodiversity (Tourism / Mining) zone within Provincial forest to the immediate southwest of the proposed Kitsault site, and a small one to the immediate northeast of the end of Alice Arm. Biodiversity zones were ascribed to Provincial Forest areas that have high ecological values and biological richness, with a history of no commercial timber harvesting. The objectives within the biodiversity zone are to retain the landscape in a predominantly natural condition, while allowing specified resource extraction activities and access development, but excluding timber harvest and some commercial hydro-electric development.
Attachment D also shows the same large Biodiversity zone to the immediate southwest of the proposed Kitsault project as a Management Area. “Management Areas” are designed to integrate and balance extractive resource use, while protecting or sustaining identified resource values. There are no excluded uses under this designation, but special objectives may be developed for management within these zones. This Management Area was indicated as potentially including specific plans for Kermode bear management, cultural management, a cedar stewardship area, and special forest management.
The province agreed to, as part of the SLUPA (GoBC 2006), consult with the Metlakatla regarding any potential for infringement of Aboriginal interests, as depicted in these attachments, arising from the establishment of, or changes to, Legal Objectives, or due to proposed changes in Land Use Zone or Management Areas. The agreement also bound the Metlakatla to, cooperatively and efficiently:
Negotiate the related agreements regarding collaborative arrangements for managing the protection areas described in attachment B1 and negotiating and working diligently to reach agreement on specific matters related to land and resource use and management within the asserted Traditional Territory including tenure and site selection for commercial recreation, archaeological and heritage site inventory, impact assessment and site alteration permitting; and stewardship of cedar and other cultural forest resources; Confirm protected area and Management Area boundaries at a more detailed scale; Prepare Strategic Resource Management Plans (SRMPs) or Detailed Strategic Plans; Implement Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) within the Traditional Territory, including collaborating with the EBM Working Group on technical issues, and the further development of EBM; and Identify issues related to the implementation or interpretation of the Agreement and developing recommendations for their resolution.
As a result of the aforementioned Agreements, the Metlakatla are working collaboratively with the Province to reconcile stewardship ethics and land use interests and to prepare
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 19
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Strategic Resource Management Plans (SRMPs) or detailed management plans. To date, the 28 new conservancies have been established (MFN 2011a). The Metlakatla continue to incorporate traditional knowledge in land use planning, identify sustainable economic development opportunities, and have strengthened working relationships with provincial representatives. The Metlakatla are currently implementing commitments made in the land use planning documents through strategic agreements with the provincial government, development of protected area and conservancy management plans, and internal stewardship and environmental assessment policy formulation.
The Metlakatla have also begun to improve the way they manage and engage in the review and approval of natural resource development applications and proposals to ensure their values are considered when evaluating projects within their asserted territories. Their new Development Referrals and Applications Policy document includes clarifications on:
Referral and application requirements; How to initiate a referral or application; Referral and application and procedures; Accommodation and benefit sharing; Dispute resolution; and How application and referral decisions are made.
Finally, the Metlakatla have joined the “Guardian Watchman Program” (Guardian Watchman Web Page) to ensure the protection of the health of the cultural resources used by the Metlakatla. The objectives of the Metlakatla Guardian Watchmen Program are to work towards:
Establishing a year-round Metlakatla presence throughout the territory; Building the authority to enforce rules and regulations; Providing a clear and strong role for community members to be involved in monitoring efforts; Developing mentorship relationships between elders and young people in the community; Establishing strong relationships with all other user groups and agencies operating in the territory; Helping to improve the quality of life for Metlakatla people by monitoring and protecting species important for food and cultural purposes; and Supporting the implementation of land and marine use plans and the Metlakatla treaty process.
Currently, the Fisheries Program conducts the majority of Metlakatla’s monitoring that feeds information into the Guardian watchman program, including monitoring of:
Abalone;
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 20
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Food Social Ceremonial Fisheries (salmon, halibut, clams); Roe on kelp; Bird by-catch; Crab surveys; Impact of remediation efforts for salmon habitat on the Ecstall River; and Oolichan surveys on the Ecstall River.
3.1.17 Summary In summary, the Metlakatla First Nation is a coastal fishing people, with a strong relationship and reliance on marine and terrestrial resources within their asserted territory, which overlaps with the proposed Kitsault project as well as the initial most westerly portion of transportation route. While most Metlakatla reserves are sufficiently far from the proposed mine site, consultation is required to identify sites used for traditional marine food collection that are proximate to the proposed mine. The Metlakatla, due to their traditional reliance on salmon, seaweed, marine shellfish and other endemic marine mammals, as well as their interest in eco-tourism (e.g., whale watching, grizzly bear viewing) are likely to be invested in the maintenance of these resources within their asserted territories. Land use planning zones in the SLUPA (GoBC 2006; attachments B and D) indicate a proposed management zone to the immediate southwest of the proposed Kitsault mine site, which includes management for cedar, cultural resources, biodiversity, the Kermode (spirit) bear, and special forests. More detailed and relevant spatial information for potential overlaps between the proposed Kitsault project and sites of cultural, sustenance, economic, and spiritual importance may be obtained during consultation with the Metlakatla First Nation.
3.2 Kitsumkalum First Nation 3.2.1 Overview This section provides a desk-based review of publically available, ethno-historical information on the Kitsumkalum First Nation. The Kitsumkalum, along with the Kitselas, are commonly grouped with the Coast Tsimshian by ethnographers (e.g., Halpin and Seguin 1990) and are sometimes referred to separately as “the Canyon Tsimshian” (Duff 1965; McDonald 2003). The Kitsumkalum and the Kitselas First Nations have also been referred to as “the Freshwater Tsimshian” (McDonald 2003). The Kitsumkalum and Kitselas differ from other Coastal Tsimshian First Nations historically, however, as they did not spend their winters along on the coast during the pre-contact period (Coupland 1988; Emmons 1912; William Beynon referenced in McDonald 2003).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 21
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Kitsumkalum asserted traditional territory covers approximately 2,735 km2 of northwest BC (Figure 3.2-1); it extends north of Highway 16 and Terrace, and includes the area surrounding Kitsumkalum Lake and Kitsumkalum River north to Lava Lake. Neighbouring Aboriginal groups include the Kitselas to the east, the Gitanyow, Gitxsan, and Nisga’a Nation to the north and Haisla to the South. The asserted territory includes Kalum Mountain and the Kitsumkalum and Cedar rivers. There are four Kitsumkalum reserves, the primary reserve being Kitsumkalum IR1 (west of Terrace) (INAC 2011b). Many Kitsumkalum peoples moved to Port Essington, a fish cannery established in the 1870s at the mouth of the Ecstall River in the Skeena River. The Kitsault transportation route intersects with 67 km of Kitsumkalum’s asserted territory in the northeast portion of the territory to Terrace.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 22
Bear Lake Legend C A Segment 1: Kitsault mine site to Cranberry U N N A DA I Connector/Nass FSR T E D STATES 37A Segment 2: Cranberry Connector to Cranberry Meziadin Junction Junction Segment 3: Cranberry Junction to Kitwanga along Highway 37 Stewart Segment 4: Cranberry Connector to New 37 Aiyansh Segment 5: New Aiyansh to Sand Lake Segment 6: Sand Lake to Terrace Populated Place
Bulkley House Kitsault Mine Project Highway Kitsumkalum First Nation Indian Reserve Cranberry Junction Parks & Protected Area ALASKA KEY MAP 37 Alice Arm Road NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Alice Arm YUKON Kitsault Townsite BRITISH COLUMBIA Fort Nelson Juneau BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA Kitsault Mine Project Fort Babine Fort St. John Stewart
Nass Camp Project Location Gitanyow Nass Forest Service Road Hazelton Prince Rupert Edmonton Prince George
New Aiyansh
Calgary
Kamloops Kitwanga Kelowna 113 Smithers Landing Vancouver Kitseguecla Old Fort Victoria Laxgalts'ap Moricetown UNITED STATES Gingolx UNITED STATES Sand Lake Scale:1:900,000 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Granisle 16 Kilometers 113
Smithers 37 d x m . 16 2 Reference v _
9 Base Data 0 0
- Round Lake Atlas of Canada scale 1:1,000,000. 0 5
- Territory Boundary: Kitsumkalum Treaty Website 4 1 \ CLIENT: e n i l e s a
B Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. \ s c i Lax Kw'alaams m Perow o Topley n PROJECT: o c e - o i Wiley Kitsault Mine Project c Georgetown Mills o s _ 4 1 \ g n i 16 Kitsumkalum Asserted p p Houston Broman Lake a
M Lakelse Lake
\ Disclaimer: The lines on this map represent
t Territory overlapping with the l u the approximate boundaries of traditional territories a
s Metlakatla t i as described by the Kitsumkalum.They are illustrative Kitsault Transportation Route Options K Prince Rupert _ only. Publication of this map in this report does not DATE: ANALYST: 8 8
9 imply that the Kitsumkalum First Nation, other First Name Segment Length (Km) April 2011 MY
1 Figure 5 Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the 37 E JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE:
V Kitsumkalum 5 5.4 \ Government of Canada, Avanti or any of E VE51988 MY
V 14-50-009_kitsumkalum.pdf
\ their respective consultants have confirmed, s Kitsumkalum 6 61.6 t c agreed to, or acknowledged (as the case may be) GIS FILE: e j
o Port Edward r the traditional territory as represented on this map 14-50-009.mxd P \
S PROJECTION: DATUM: I G \ : UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The Kitsumkalum were originally a semi-nomadic people with a strong reliance on salmon. They also harvested berries and fruits through the summer (e.g., salmon berries, high bush cranberries, and wild crab-apples), which were dried and preserved in grease (Halpin and Seguin 1990). The Kitsumkalum also trapped and hunted a wide range of mammals used for fur and/or food, including moose, deer, mountain goat, caribou, porcupine, bear, beaver, sea lion, seal, various game birds, mink, marten, fisher, fox, sea otter, and hare (Daly 2005; Halpin and Seguin 1990; McDonald 1985; MacDonald 1989; People of ‘Ksan 1980). Trade occurred between the Kitsumkalum and other interior Aboriginal groups. The Gitxsan traded soapberries and other berries, furs, and meat with coastal groups for shellfish, seaweed, halibut, red snapper, herring eggs, and oolichan grease (Daly 2005; Halpin and Seguin 1990; People of ‘Ksan 1980). Oolichan grease was a key trade item that necessitated a network of trails along coast and inland called the “grease trails.” Contemporary land use is now focused on agriculture, silvaculture, fishing, and potential tourism opportunities. Some traditional land use is still practiced, but traditionally hunting has diminished due to prohibitive hunting laws.
3.2.2 Historical Context 3.2.2.1 Pre-Contact The seasonal round of the Kitsumkalum is similar to that described for other Coastal Tsimshian in terms of timing of various activities; however, winters were spent along freshwater instead of the coast. The Kitsumkalum occupied three major village sites before European contact and settlement: Dalk Gyilkyaw, Gitxondakl, and Kitsumkalum. The main village was Dalk Gyilkyaw, known also as “Robin Town”, which was located atop the canyon of the Kitsumkalum River. The location of Dalk Gyilkyaw was ideal for fishing and trapping, and for using dipnets to catch salmon and other fish. The village of Kitsumkalum was also established on an abundant fishing location. Alex Bolton, the Kitsumkalum Chief (McDonald 2003), reported that the tribal traditional territories of the Kitsumkalum cover the area shown in Figure 3.2-1, but he explained that traditional resource use by the Kitsumkalum extended to other locations outside of the asserted territory. He refers to such places as: “… areas where we have interest in the resources but we don’t own. And that’s where our [sea] food harvesting [takes place].” Chief Bolton states that the Kitsumkalum fished for salmon, halibut, crabs, seaweed, and other “winter foods” on the lower Skeena River and on the coast in a number of passes and islands. He also states that, in the spring of fall, the Kitsumkalum would be up the Ecstall River and along the lower Skeena. McDonald (2003) notes that individuals activated social connections along the coast and along the Nass, and joined the production of resources at other villages, which gave them access to the resources. The Kitsumkalum participated in the oolichan fishery on the Nass, and were given the right to make grease from the base of Red Cliffs. This right was recognised later when the Indian Reserve Commission allotted a reserve in that location for the Tsimshian Bands that used the area. Additional information on the types of plants and animal resources used by the Kitsumkalum is provided in the seasonal round (Section 3.2.5) and land use (Section 16.4.2) sections.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 24
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.2.2.2 Contact In 1834 the Hudson’s Bay Company established a trading post in Port Simpson, after which more contact occurred between Coastal Tsimshian and white people in general. The earliest European reference to the Kitsumkalum people in colonial archives is an entry in the Hudson Bay Company journal for November 13, 1852. On that date a canoe of people came to trade who were identified as "Kith lum ki lum" (Living Landscapes Web Site). The arrival of this group of people was recorded in the Company's journal, with few additional details. The oldest account of a European visit to the lands of the Kitsumkalum is a military report from a Royal Navy surveying expedition that went up the Skeena River in 1859 (Living Landscapes Web Site). Contact with the Kitsumkalum began to have more notable effects in the latter half of the 1800s with the arrival or large numbers of miners to Lorne Creek.
3.2.2.3 Post-Contact Following the influx of miners in 1887, Kitsumkalum culture began to change. The village of Dalk Gyilakyaw was abandoned in the 1880s partially because people moved to the Skeena and the coast, and because policies of the Department of Indian Affairs encouraged people to move closer to schools and employment (McDonald 1985). A large number of Kitsumkalum moved to Port Essington to work for the cannery. Agricultural settlers began to arrive and took over hunting grounds around Kitsumkalum Lake. Their arrival stopped movement of many people between Port Essington (during the fishing season) and the Valley (to hunt, dry fish, garden, and gather). Later more immigrants arrived in the area, depleting certain game populations of caribou and deer. The regional population grew dramatically after World War II, which increased cultural impacts and impacts on resources.
The Aboriginal social organisation of Kitsumkalum was drastically altered by assimilationist laws and policies implemented by the government (McDonald 1985). The basic social unit following contact was no longer the matrilineal group collectively recognised as the House, or waap, but instead the social unit became the nuclear family residing in private family homes. Families still recognise their interrelatedness according to descent from some recent and well-known common ancestor, but the genealogies are shallow. Since the matrilineal principle grew weaker in the post-contact period, the ancestral focus of relatedness is not often found through a grandparent from either the paternal or the maternal side. These modern clans can be important in community life, but they only serve an informal purpose. The four traditional matrilineal phratric divisions are still present, physically and socially, in Kitsumkalum - the Ganhada (Raven), Laxksiik (Eagle), Gispudwada (Killerwhale), and Lagybu (Wolf). Phratries continue to be symbolically meaningful to the identity of the community as Tsimshian, but assimilation has eliminated their functionality (McDonald 1985).
The Kitsumkalum participated increasingly in agricultural activities after contact. However, right-of-way developments both on- and off-reserve interfered with their gardens (McDonald 2003). Many Kitsumkalum families lived at Port Essington year-round. Of those who stayed inland, many moved off-reserve to or near Terrace (McDonald 2003). Terrace grew to
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 25
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES become the largest inland community on the Skeena River, initially developing as an agriculture centre and then expanding into forestry (Berthiaume 1999). Once the cannery in Port Essington closed in the 1960s, families moved back to the Terrace area, and the Kitsumkalum re-occupied the town site of Kitsumkalum as an Indian Reserve (McDonald 2003). The village of Endudoon, also called “New Town”, a Kitsumkalum reserve near Terrace, was largely abandoned after a fire burned much of it down in 1957. Overall, for two centuries Kitsumkalum culture and traditions has been under pressures from traders, missionaries, residential schools, militaries, foreign laws (colonial or Canadian), a rapidly expanding industrial economy, and demographic changes (McDonald 1985).
3.2.3 Language Kitselas and Kitsumkalum speak Sm’algyax (Halpin and Seguin 1990 and Berthiaume 1999). The Kitselas and Kitsumkalum are included linguistically with the Coastal Tsimshian (Duff 1965); however, certain words such as the word for House differs from even the Kitselas (Kitselas use the word wilp, Kitsumkalum use waap, other Coastal Tsimshian use the word walp) (Berthiaume 1999; Halpin and Seguin 1990; McDonald 2003). Although Kitsumkalum and Kitselas pronunciation differs from coastal groups, they can understand each other.
Knowledge and use of Aboriginal language is not reported to be strong in the community. Among residents of Kitsumkalum 1, less than four percent considered an Aboriginal language to be their mother tongue, and no residents reported speaking one at home (Statistics Canada 2007). However, seven percent of residents reported having some knowledge of an Aboriginal language, and there are efforts being made to revive the language.
There is a growing interest in the promotion and teaching of Sm'algyax by the Kitsumkalum. The Kitsumkalum have formed a partnership group with the Kitselas called the Kitselas- Kitsumkalum Language Authority, which promotes the teaching of their native language. Both groups recognise the value of understanding Sm'algyax. The language authority believes that the more the Kitsumkalum can conceptualise the world using their own language, the better they will understand that worldview (KFUN 2011).
3.2.4 Cultural Practices 3.2.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance The Kitsumkalum follow the traditional matrilineal system of Tsimshian social organisation; each family belongs to a hereditary House (Waap), and each House belongs to one of four clans. The Kitsumkalum are represented by four clans: Killerwhale (Gisbutwada); Eagle (Laxsgiik); Raven (Ganhada); and Wolf (Laxgibuu or Laxgibaaw) (Kitsumkalum 2007). The Kitsumkalum differ from the other Tsimshian tribes as their traditional governance structure does not include “Lak’agyiget rank”: the house leaders are their own house chiefs and there is no ‘spokesperson’, councillor or noblemen role as there exists in the other groups (Kitsumkalum 2007). Each of the hereditary Waap of the Kitsumkalum owns the resources (e.g., fishing sites and hunting grounds) within the Waap territory (laxyuup), and is also
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 26
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES responsible for the sustainable management of these resources (Kitsumkalum 2009). Waap ownership also extends to other aspects of the culture, including traditional names, stories and histories (aadawx), songs and dances (Kitsumkalum 2009). Certain aspects of the traditional system of governance of the Kitsumkalum are being revived; Kitsumkalum leaders practice traditional activities such as feasting and other cultural traditions.
The elected Band council is currently led by Chief Don Roberts and six councillors, with a term ending in 2011 (INAC 2009). The Band is responsible for the on-reserve administration of services and funds; however, for matters related to lands and resources, and treaty negotiations, the Kitsumkalum are represented by the Kitsumkalum Treaty Office (Kitsumkalum 2009) and the Tsimshian First Nations Treaty Society (TFNTS 2009). Currently, the Kitsumkalum are in stage 4 of the BC Treaty Process, and are reportedly close to signing an Agreement-in-Principle that will define potential treaty lands and other entitlements (TFNTS 2009). Important issues to the Kitsumkalum include the governance system, education, fisheries, lands, resources, forestry issues, and financial agreements and compensation (Kitsumkalum 2009).
A detailed genealogy study on the Kitsumkalum by Dr. Chris Roth is ongoing. This comprehensive survey of the Kitsumkalum people uses information on the Treaty Occice’s archival records, church records, censuses, ethnographic records, newspaper archives, and the community’s living knowledge.
3.2.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality In the pre-contact period, most of the Kitsumkalum society was structured by adherence to informal laws taught through stories that taught lessons. The spiritual principles also taught idea of cause and effect, understanding what works and what does not and passing that information down between the generations such that each generation is increasingly wise. The Kitsumkalum also adhered to ideas that abuse of resources or animals could result in poor fortune or retaliation. Finally, their oral history refers also to a sun god. These laws and spiritual principals are mirrored by the Kitselas, and more detail is provided in Section 3.3.4.2.
3.2.5 Seasonal Round A seasonal round describes traditional activities undertaken in the summer, fall, winter, and spring over the course of a calendar year. In his doctoral thesis, McDonald (1985) discusses in detail three resource use patterns, including seasonal rounds, of the Kitsumkalum: the early, the traditional (1930s), and the present. He constructed the traditional pattern through interviews with living members of the older generation:
“We begin it in the early spring, which is when halibut season opens (March/April to June). At this time people who were more oriented to camp life began commercial fishing. Residence for them was the camp where the fish were being caught and prepared for food as well as for sale. Some gathering of seaweed, herring eggs, and abalone would occur also. Elsewhere, on the Skeena River, people who did not have ocean camps planted their
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 27
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES gardens along the river when conditions permitted, usually sometime in May. The end of the halibut season turned the fishermen’s attention to the salmon fishery and when whole families would move to Port Essington to participate. It was especially important for them to be near the canneries for the women to work there. Salmon season closed in the early Fall (usually September), allowing people to disperse again to their Fall residences until freeze up, in order to dry fish, hunt, and harvest the gardens. For children near Terrace, this also meant a period of schooling; for the other children, schooling was more intermittent. Men who had logging claims worked these whenever they were at camp and, as winter progressed, fur trapping took on greater importance. Winter was not a slack season during the 1930s trapping, hunting, and logging kept the men busily occupied. Some Port Essington families only stayed in town for short periods of a few weeks, in order to participate in Christian celebrations (notably Christmas and New Year’s) and to send the children to school. If the weather conditions were poor, the men would leave their families behind for slightly longer periods, but this was not popular. The arrival of the first oolachan in March signalled the end of the winter period. People followed this routine until after World War II, when the joint effects of the collapse of the trapping industry in the 1950s and the enactment of the 1946 Forestry Act changed major sectors of the camp economy.”
Berry picking still occurs as various berries among locations ripen in the late spring and into the fall. Seaweed and seafood are still gathered throughout the late spring and summer. Hunting small game and fowl occurs as the regulated seasons permit, or, in the case of non- regulated species, as available through the year. Subsistence eulachon and salmon are fished, with fished quantities often meeting demand as early as July. Additional fishing occurs at minimal levels until early fall (McDonald 2003).
3.2.6 Past Land Use Previous land use revolved around hunting, trapping, gathering berries, fruits and tree items, fishing and agricultural cultivation of certain foods. The items that were hunted or fished for or collected, along with timing of resource use, are included in the seasonal round section (3.2.5) as well as the pre-contact section (3.2.2). Spring salmon and “fresh salmonberries and all other kinds of fresh berries” are mentioned as foods to offer a visiting chief in “The Chief Who Married the Robin and the Sawmill Duck” (Boas 1916). Multiple mentions of salmonberries suggest they were particularly valued and available. McDonald (1985) documented mammals and birds were regularly hunted by the Kitsumkalum. The hunting area ranged from the coast to farther upriver. Wildlife hunted included deer, elk, seal, sea lions, sea otter, mountain goat, mountain sheep, bear, porcupine, raccoons, eagles, marmots, caribou, moose, mountain lion, hares, lynx, swans, geese, ducks, and other waterfowl. Ten species of furbearers are recorded as being hunted or trapped and sold by the Kitsumkalum: fox, beaver, marten, lynx, mink, muskrat, river otter, squirrel, weasel, and wolf. Wood products were also collected for carving of totem poles, building homes, and creating traditional art and utensils. More information on traditional uses of land resources can be gathered through direct consultation with the Nation.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 28
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.2.7 Past Marine Use McDonald (1984) suggests that winter residence by the Kitsumkalum in coastal areas began with the establishment of the cannery at Port Essington. However, recollections of Chief Bolton (discussed in section 3.2.2) and the “coastal content” found in crests of the Kitsumkalum could also suggest a stronger connection to the coast than appears in literature. Shellfish, seaweed, halibut, red snapper, herring eggs, sea lions, seal, sea otter, and eulachon grease are all coastal products used by this Nation (Daly 2005; Halpin and Seguin 1990; People of ‘Ksan 1980, McDonald 1985). Seaweed, herring eggs, and abalone were also collected on the coast. More information on traditional uses of marine resources can be gathered through direct consultation with the Nation.
3.2.8 Contemporary Land Use Hunting has changed dramatically in contemporary compared to pre-contact times. Provincial legislation limited hunting and hunting methods, making hunting more difficult for the Kitsumkalum; this resulted in a loss or decrease in hunting practices. For example, hunting dogs were outlawed under the Game Protection Act (RSBC 1887 C52 sl4). Traps, nets, snares, baited lines, and other contrivances for ducks were outlawed in 1887 (RSBC 1888 C52 sl5). Certain types of guns were outlawed (RSBC 1911 C95 s11), and hunting nocturnal hunts for game birds and members of the deer family were prohibited in 1924 (RSBC 1924 C98 s11). Traps (Boas 1916:404), drugs, and poisons and using sail or motor boats for hunts were also outlawed (ibid., s14.1). The latter prohibition corresponds to the appearance of gas boats in the fishing industry on the Skeena River.
Clearcutting has affected trapline access, and has decreased the amount of habitat needed to support a number of trapped species requiring older growth forest (McDonald 1985). McDonald (2003) also notes that provincial licensing interfered with and eroded the matrilineal system of inheritance of trapline properties. MacDonald (1985) reports that:
“since the collapse of the industry in the 1950s very little trapping has occurred and the traditions have not been passed on fully… There occurred an abandonment of many lines, especially by the Kitsumkalum. This effect was not always apparent in official records, which do not require Indians to report whether or not they trapped in any particular season.”
3.2.9 Contemporary Marine Use The Kitsumkalum have an interest in protecting the health and sustainability of the marine ecosystem, and in achieving economic gain from marine developments and resources when projects and opportunities align with their values. The Kitsumkalum are actively involved in deliberating the pros and cons of current large scale proposals for projects that could pose risks to their marine interests, and potentially provide economic benefits. The Kitsumkalum are in discussion and debate regarding the Enbridge Gateway project, which would involve a Port in Kitimat and a shipping route through Douglas channel, proximate to areas used for harvesting and hunting of marine resources.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 29
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.2.10 Resource Importance The resources used by the Kitsumkalum First Nation are summarised in Table 3.2-1. This table includes publically available information and is not considered exhaustive or comprehensive. Further components of interest may be determined through future consultation with the Kitsumkalum First Nation.
Table 3.2-1: Summary of Traditional Resources of Importance to the Kitsumkalum First Nation
Category Resource Name Uses Fish Halibut Sustenance and an integral part of customs and Sockeye salmon history Pink salmon Halibut important to commercial fishery Coho salmon Trade with other Aboriginal groups Chum salmon Excess salmon was a staple in winter when smoked Chinook salmon or preserved Steelhead Salmon importance to commercial Aboriginal Fisheries Rainbow trout Food supply for other animals, such as grizzly bears Other fish used Oolichan Traditionally, an important species used to collect for products grease considered a delicacy Traded with other Aboriginal groups along grease trails Berries and Various Berries [Likely Traditional foods gathered for sustenance Plants Berries/Fruit (From Some berries and plants used for medicinal Kitselas First Nation purposes (to be determined during consultation with Information)]: the Aboriginal group) Salmon berries Huckleberries Blueberries Raspberries Black hawthorn Bunchberry Cloudberry Crabapple Cranberry (bog, high and low bush) Crowberry Black and Red currant Elderberry Black gooseberry Huckleberry Soapberry Saskatoon Strawberry Thimbleberry
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 30
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Category Resource Name Uses Various Plans/Fungus [Likely Plants/Fungus Used (From Kitselas First Nation Information]: Salal Devils club Mushrooms Skunk cabbage Springbank clover Fireweed Lichen Liquorice Pacific silverweed Rice-root Wild onion Common juniper Cinquefoil Mushrooms Copperbush Cow parsnip Indian hellebore Labrador tea Lupine Skunk cabbage Sylvan goat's beard Wildrose Hazelnut Lily of the valley Trees Cedar Culturally significant for basket weaving and artefact Hemlock construction Lodgepole pine Spruce Other marine Seaweed Traditional resources used by Kitsumkalum items Abalone Marine items traded with interior Aboriginal groups Herring eggs Sea Lion Seals Sea Otter Terrestrial and Wildlife hunted [deer, elk, Species traditionally hunted or trapped Marine Wildlife seal, sea lions, sea otter, Some skins and parts of animals used for mountain goat, mountain ceremonial purposes and regalia sheep, bear, porcupine, Some animals depicted in artwork and totem pole raccoons, eagles, carving marmots, caribou, moose, mountain lion, hares, lynx,
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 31
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Category Resource Name Uses swans, geese, ducks, and other waterfowl] Furbearers [fox, beaver, marten, lynx, mink, muskrat, river otter, squirrel, weasel, and wolf].
3.2.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours Trade occurred between the coast and the interior peoples. Specifically, the Gitxsan traded soapberries and other berries, furs, and meat with coastal groups for shellfish, seaweed, halibut, red snapper, herring eggs, and eulachon grease (Daly 2005; Halpin and Seguin 1990; People of ‘Ksan 1980). Grease became the key trade item for a network of trails that extended along the coast and inland to the Rockies called the “grease trails.”
3.2.12 Travel Routes and Corridors The Kitsumkalum had a traditional trading route (“grease trail”) that linked Robin Town to other villages on the Nass River. This trail ran from Tseax Creek to the Skeena River. Two other traditional trails are known in the asserted territory: Laxgibuu Road, which ran east to west and crossed the Kitsumkalum Trading Road north of Kitsumkalum Lake (heading towards Gitxsan territory) and the “Ha’uts Highway,” which linked Robin Town to hunting grounds in the Zimacord Valley (Arthur Stevens, Collection Marius Barbeau B-F-49.3, cited in McDonald 2003). This latter trail is proximate to the proposed Kitsault transportation route. These routes and others have largely been destroyed by logging or generally neglected. However, the Kitsumkalum Trading Road was used as the basic alignment of the modern Nisga’a Highway (McDonald 2003). Canoes were a main mode of transportation, which was used to carry people and freight along the river. Dogs were sometimes also used for transportation. At present, cars, trucks, motorised boats, snowmobiles, or walking are the main modes of transportation used to reach hunting rounds. Logging roads and highways have now replaced old trails for hunting purposes, and much hunting and trapping occurs near road systems (McDonald 2003).
3.2.13 Occupation Sites Kitsumkalum aadawx explains how the Kitsumkalum people moved from a village ten miles north of Kitsumkalum Lake to Dalk Gyilakyaw (Robin Town) in the Kitsumkalum Canyon. A different part of the aadawx documents how the people left their village at the headwaters of the Kitsumkalum River and moved to a new village at the mouth of the river, where the village of Kitsumkalum is currently (McDonald 2003). Kitsumkalum village was a favourite fall camp and old fishing spot (McDonald 1985). The Zimacord reserve is at the confluence of the Zimacord and Skeena rivers, where the Kitsumkalum had a trapping and hunting cabin (McDonald 1985). Kitsumkalum heritage and cultural sites can be found along the Skeena River and the Pacific coast (Kitsumkalum 2009). More detailed information on
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 32
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES relevant heritage and cultural site locations can be obtained through direct consultation with the Kitsumkalum First Nation.
3.2.14 Tourism Since the 1980s, the Kitsumkalum First Nation has indicated a growing interest in ecotourism projects. Feasibility studies were conducted in 1982, 1985 and more recently in 2002 on tourism potential for the region (Kessel 1982; Inselberg and Kerby, 1985; Kitsumkalum Economic Development Office, 2002). There have been fewer concrete actions to implement many of the tourism development projects explored, however. A feasibility study for a Riverboat tour on the Skeena River was conducted by Nepal in 2002. According to information on tourism activities in the territory provided by Kermodei Tours (Kermodei Website), individual Kitsumkalum band members may be employed, or have potential to be employed, doing historical tours, white water rafting guiding, guided fishing, and skiing and other winter sports on local hills (e.g., Shames Mountain).
3.2.15 Cultural Revival The Kitsumkalum, like the Kitselas, developed policies to promote and recover their heritage in the 1980s. There has been a cultural resurgence including the feasting practices (Berthiaume 1999; McDonald 2003). The reintroduction of the practice and purposes of feasting as a central hub of the Kitsumkalum has been important. According to Miller (1984) the Tsimshian Yaawk (feast) was suppressed by missionaries and government policies over a century ago. The practice seems to have disappeared early in the 20th century. However, the memory of the practice remained in people’s memories and in stories. There is no formal date for when the last full potlatch was held prior to reintroduction of the practice, but by 1930s, Garfield (1939) observed that "no large potlatches are being given at the present time, the skeleton of the old procedure being followed only in the death and name taking". In the traditional Aboriginal culture of the area, any important changes in social statuses and relationships should be marked with a ceremonial feast (Boas 1916; Garfield 1939). Feasts are the forum on the Northwest Coast "where political goals are tested and sanctioned" (Boelscher 1988). Traditional arts such as dance, song, carving and crest making are also being reintroduced by initiatives of the Chief and council.
In August 1987, the Kitsumkalum ceremonially raised two new crest (or totem) poles. One of the most general intentions for the ceremony was to give expression to the meaning of being Tsimshian, and an elaborate Tsimshian ceremony followed. During the ceremonial process, statements describing the impact of Canadian rule were made, describing how changes associated with their loss of culture, land and tradition pushed Kitsumkalum into a state of cultural and economic depression and dependency.
As mentioned in the language section (3.2.3), there is a growing interest in the promotion and teaching of Sm'algyax and the Kitsumkalum have formed a partnership group with the Kitselas to promote language education called the Kitselas-Kitsumkalum Language Authority (KFN Web Site). The Kitsumkalum Health Services were also recently awarded an
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 33
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Imagine Grant (February 2011) to support the development of a Kitsumkalum Cultural Camp in order to teach youth about traditional Kitsumkalum culture.
3.2.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management McDonald (1985, 2003) discusses resource management activities and traditional knowledge with respect to maintaining and enhancing berry bushes and other plant species through controlled burns and notes that the Kitsumkalum were growing potatoes as early as 1855.
Contemporary Planning and Management.
The Kitsumkalum have land within the North Coast LRMP area. The Kitsumkalum have worked with the Province of BC on a government-to-government basis to develop the NCLRMP and a North Coast Strategic Land Use Agreement between the Nation and the provincial government. As a result of this work, the Kitsumkalum have provided specific recommended management objectives in addition to those already recommended by the North Coast LRMP planning table. Where a Management Objective suggested by the Kitsumkalum is different from one already recommended by the North Coast LRMP planning table, the Chief Negotiators for Kitsumkalum and the Province recommend to their respective principals that the Management Objective below be considered as an alternative. Recommended management objectives from the Kitsumkalum are provided below for 4 key locations: Baker Inlet, Port Essington, and Island Point and Arthur Island.
Table 3.2-2: Proposed Kitsumkalum Management Objectives for Baker Inlet Area
Management Objective Measure/Indicator Targets Direction Avoid impacts to Impact on trapping Minimal Impacts Work with Aboriginal trapping and trap areas and trails groups during trails landscape level planning to design old growth reserves that include traplines and trails. Where harvesting on traplines and trails cannot be avoided, consider replacement options within old growth reserves.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 34
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Management Objective Measure/Indicator Targets Direction Preserve cabin sites, Incidence of negative Minimal Impact Work with First nations camp sites and other impacts on Aboriginal during landscape level major Aboriginal cultural features, planning to design old cultural features from including gravesites, growth reserves that development village sites, or other incorporate their major major cultural features cultural features. Promote use of traditional ecological knowledge in landscape level planning, in collaboration with First nations, to identify and protect these values. Maintain the Presence of unaltered Reserve high value Incorporate reserves productive capacity of high value fish habitat fish habitat and into Old Growth fish habitat and adjacent riparian adjacent riparian forest Management Areas. forest from logging Where no practical alternative exists, permit road construction according to DFO Guidelines. Future use of logging Minimal impact Undertake practices that damage assessments of marine fisheries values. fisheries values, including traditional fishing sites, prior to approving helicopter logging drop zones, log storage or log dumps.
Table 3.2-3 indicates proposed management objectives to reach the management intent for the Kitsumkalum First Nation in the Port Essington Area, which is to maintain historic cultural values of Port Essington, including a natural environment in the surrounding area, by establishing a Protection Area for the crown land portion.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 35
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.2-3: Management Measures, Targets, and Direction for the Port Essington Area
Objective Measure/Indicator Targets Management Direction Maintain cultural Apply for National Application Undertake a feasibility study heritage values within Historic Site completed by to determine the land status the Protected Area Designation June 2006 of Port Essington, the physical condition of buildings, etc, and opportunities for conservation of cultural heritage values. Promote partnerships to manage this area with all Aboriginal groups and local government. Examine opportunities to purchase land for cultural heritage protection
As a measure of applying for National Historic Site designation seek support of all Aboriginal groups and from local government and associated organisations Promote cultural Include concept in tourism application for National Historic Site Designation
“Other sites” are also listed in the management recommendations from the Kitsumkalum, which include Island Point (North end of Porcher Island) and Arthur Island, neither of which is close to the Kitsault mine site or the transportation route. The objective within these sites should be to maintain the integrity of Aboriginal traditional use sites and related cultural landscape. The values to be maintained in these areas include Herring Egg gathering Camp and a seaweek and kelp Harvest Camp. The management direction is to identify these sites in landscape level plans, ensure any adjacent development considers these sites and avoid damaging the sites or the values they are associated with.
3.2.17 Summary In summary, the Kitsumkalum have traditionally used their territory and traditional asserted territory for food harvesting, material harvesting, and recreation. Today, as in the past, Kitsumkalum continue to hunt, fish, trap, and gather various foods and plants in their asserted traditional territory. The Kitsumkalum also travelled along grease trails near Kitsault transportation route in traditional trade with other neighbouring Aboriginal groups including areas along the proposed transportation route. Currently, the economy is based
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 36
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES largely on resource extraction, construction and forestry, as well as public sector jobs. The Kitsumkalum have an expressed interest in growing their cultural tourism industry. The governance of the Kitsumkalum First Nation is conducted by the Kitsumkalum Band and Council that oversees Kitsumkalum reserve lands. The Kitsumkalum worked on a government to government basis in developing the NCLRMP and provided strategic management plan objectives for Port Essington, Baker Inlet, Island Point, and Arthur Island. The Kitsumkalum First Nation has made recent strides to revive their traditional culture and language.
3.3 Kitselas First Nation 3.3.1 Overview The Kitselas traditional asserted territory covers approximately 647,000 hectares or 6,470 km2 (Figure 3.3-1). The asserted territory extends westward to the longitude of Fiddler Creek, eastward to the longitude at Gitnadoix River, southward to the latitude of Kitimat River, and northward to the latitude at Sand Lake. Neighbouring First Nations include the Nisga'a to the North, the Haisla to the South, the Gixtsan and Gitanyow to the north and northwest, respectively, and the Kitsumkalum and Metlakatla to the west, with Metlakatla and Kitselas asserted territories overlapping near Terrace. Kitsault asserted territory is proximate to the Kitsault route, where Hwy 16/37 runs adjacent to the Skeena River northeast from Terrace.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 37
Bear Lake Legend C A Segment 1: Kitsault mine site to Cranberry U N N A DA I Connector/Nass FSR T E D STATES 37A Segment 2: Cranberry Connector to Cranberry Meziadin Junction Junction Segment 3: Cranberry Junction to Kitwanga along Highway 37 Stewart Segment 4: Cranberry Connector to New 37 Aiyansh Segment 5: New Aiyansh to Sand Lake Segment 6: Sand Lake to Terrace Populated Place
Bulkley House Kitsault Mine Project Highway Kitselas First Nation Indian Reserve Cranberry Junction Parks & Protected Area ALASKA KEY MAP 37 Alice Arm Road NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Alice Arm YUKON Kitsault Townsite BRITISH COLUMBIA Fort Nelson Juneau BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA Kitsault Mine Project Fort Babine Fort St. John Stewart
Nass Camp Project Location Gitanyow Nass Forest Service Road Hazelton Prince Rupert Edmonton Prince George
New Aiyansh
Calgary
Kamloops Kitwanga Kelowna 113 Smithers Landing Vancouver Kitseguecla Old Fort Victoria Laxgalts'ap Moricetown UNITED STATES Gingolx UNITED STATES Sand Lake Scale:1:900,000 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Granisle 16 Kilometers 113
Smithers 37 d x m . 16
2 Reference v _
1 Base Data 1 0
- Round Lake Atlas of Canada scale 1:1,000,000. 0 5
- Kitselas Asserted Territory: Rescan 2009 4 1 \ CLIENT: e n i l e s a
B Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. \ s c i Lax Kw'alaams m Perow o Topley n PROJECT: o c e - o i Wiley Kitsault Mine Project c Georgetown Mills o s _ 4 1 \ g n i 16 Kitselas Asserted Territory p p Houston Broman Lake a
M Disclaimer: The lines on this map represent Lakelse Lake
\ overlapping with the Kitsault t l u the approximate boundaries of traditional territories a
s Metlakatla t i as described by the Kitselas. They are illustrative Transportation Route Options
K Prince Rupert _ only. Publication of this map in this report does not DATE: ANALYST: 8 8
9 imply that the Kitselas First Nation, other First April 2011 MY
1 Figure
5 Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the 37 E JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: V
\ Government of Canada, Avanti or any of
E VE51988 MY
V 14-50-009_kitsumkalum.pdf
\ their respective consultants have confirmed, s t c agreed to, or acknowledged (as the case may be) GIS FILE: e j o the traditionaPl toerrtr itEordyw aas rrdepresented on this map r 14-50-009.mxd P \
S PROJECTION: DATUM: I G \ : UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The Kitselas First Nation is still involved traditional activities such as salmon fishing, hunting (particularly for moose, bear, mountain goat, and game birds), berry picking, plant harvesting, and trapping. The Kitselas were considered more sedentary relative to neighbouring First Nations, as they spent both the winters and summers in the canyon, and relied more heavily on salmon (Allaire et al. 1979 referenced in Rescan 2009b). The Kitselas territory receives approximately half the rainfall of Prince Rupert or Kitimat (KFN 2011), and it is situated on the periphery of coastal and interior climatic influences. These climatic factors are related to the diversity of resources that could be produced in the area, and explain some of the differences in traditional land use between the Kitselas other Tsimshian First Nations. The Kitselas asserted territory contains multiple heritage sites, many of which have been the focus of archaeological research, and which the Kitselas plan to promote as part of their cultural tourism industry (Rescan 2009b). While the Kitselas society was originally self-governed and organised using a traditional Chief and House system, it now has a limited contemporary use. Following the introduction of the Indian Act, the Kitselas have been governed by the Kitselas Band Council located in the Skeena Valley near Kitselas, northeast of Terrace. The Kitselas asserted territory is comprised of seven reserves.
3.3.2 Historical Context 3.3.2.1 Pre-Contact According to their history in the Men of M’deek (Robinson 2003), the Kitselas occupied the Canyon area since they discovered it. Archaeological and ethnographic interpretations provide evidence that First Nations people have occupied the Kitselas Canyon area for over 5,000, and up to 10, 000 years. There were historically five known villages in the Kitselas Canyon and the Skeena River. The earliest village sites were Tsunyow, Gitaus, and the Paul Mason, all of which were abandoned hundreds of years ago. The villages of Gitlaxdzawk and Gitsaex were developed after the abandonment of these latter three villages. The village Gitlaxdzawk acted as more than a village; it was also a fortress that overlooked a narrow passage of the Skeena River. The ability of the fortress to control the passage of canoe traffic gave them great power over trade in the area between coastal and inland First Nations. When enemies were seen from the fortress, large boulders were thrown into canoes. This fortress village had ten large longhouses and numerous totem poles, and is estimated to have been home to over 300 people. The largest house belonged to a Chief of the Raven or Ganhada clan. The village of Gitsaex is located opposite and upriver from Gitlaxdzawk and was occupied during approximately the same time. Gitsaex was a large village with seventeen longhouses and at least four or five totem poles; it is thought to have housed up to 600 people. Two other sites of historic importance in the traditional asserted territory, which were not villages, are Dry and Ringbolt Islands, both of which were in the canyon. These sites contain four and five respective petroglyphs thought to have spiritual importance. The exact meanings of those petroglyphs are unknown, but are thought to be associated with the people of the neighbouring village of Gitlaxdzawk.
The pre-contact lifestyle of the Kitselas included a strong dependence on salmon, the collection of plants, berries, and tree materials, the trade of oolichan grease, and hunting
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 39
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES and trapping in a seasonal round. The seasonal round was similar to that of other Tsimshian; however, the Kitselas were described as more sedentary due to their non- nomadic lifestyles during both the summer and winter. The Kitselas have also been described as more dependent on salmon (Allaire et al. 1979 referenced in Rescan 2009b). The traditional asserted territory of the Kitselas straddled both the coastal and interior zones and was surrounded by steep slopes of varied aspects, which added diversity to the types of plants and animals available to them. Lists of food plants available to the Kitselas have been published in a Ministry of Forests survey (Coupe et al. 1982 referenced in Coupland 1988) and the book Food Plants of British Columbia Indians by Turner (1978). Differences in the plants commonly collected by the Kitselas, compared to those collected by neighbouring Gitxsan, included coastal species such as salal, salmonberry, crab-apple, and Alaskan Blueberry (Coup et al. 1982 referenced in Coupland 1988). Kitselas Canyon is described in the aadawx of the Kitselas as an area that “promised abundant game” (Robinson 2003).
3.3.2.2 Contact Early surveyors moving up the Skeena River in the mid 1800s were likely the first white people to encounter the Kitselas directly. Prior to that time, the Kitselas would not permit white people to pass through what later became known as the Kitselas or Little Canyon of the Skeena River until they had declared peaceful intentions. The Kitselas maintained control of the Kitselas Canyon waterway until the second half of the 19th Century when large, steam-powered sternwheelers began to be used in the area. In 1870, the Hudson Bay Company estimated the Kitselas numbered 1000 people (Emmons 1912). Prospectors arrived on the Skeena River in 1871 after gold was discovered. The settlement of the townsite at Terrace, primarily by whites, did not happen until the 1900s.
3.3.2.3 Post-Contact The contact period resulted in many of the same negative impacts on First Nations traditions, culture, language, spirituality, and governance over time as have been reviewed for other First Nations discussed thus far, and similar impacts occurred for the Kitselas. In the case of the Kitselas, the negative impacts of contact also include the abandonment of two communities, Gitlaxdzawk and Gitsaex in the 1870s as a result of small pox. However, Berthiaume (1999) also discusses some positive aspects of contact. The Kitselas, sometime after contact, continued to control the Kitselas Canyon, exacting a toll from furs bought and sold. Evidence of the resulting affluence is seen in totem poles and large houses of Gitlaxdzawk and Gitsaex, which were built during the mid-1800s (Berthiaume, 1999). The metal tools that were gained by the Kitselas from the fur trade also began to enhance carving of totem poles and other cultural objects. Following contact, the Kitselas remained actively involved in the shifting economy including involvement in the fur trade and the fishing industries. The Kitselas also began to provide transportation services as riverboat crew members. Intertribal warfare declined following contact and the practice of slavery was abolished. Berthiaume (1999) does not elaborate on the participation of the Kitselas in the wage economy or the impacts that the wage economy had on seasonal rounds. Berthiaume (1999) does, however, refer to the eventual loss of control of trade
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 40
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES through the canyon, competition with white settlers for resources (e.g., timber, game, and fish), and jobs; these factors were cited as contributing factors in the abandonment of the villages. As settlement increased in the area due to the growth of the commercial fishing industry and the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railroad, the town of Kitselas was built on top of the ancient village of Gitaus in the 1890s. The Hudson’s Bay Company and a competitor of the company also contributed to the settlement of Kitselas; they were also involved with the transport of goods by riverboats from Port Essington to Kitselas and on to Hazelton from 1891 to 1912. Once the railway between Prince Rupert and Smithers was completed in 1913 (Berthiaume, 1999), most goods were transported by rail. The switch from riverboat to rail transportation led to the rapid decline of the town of Kitselas. As a result, no buildings remain at Kitselas. Many Kitselas and Kitsumkalum families lived at Port Essington year-round, and many moved off-reserve to the town of Terrace or nearby (McDonald 2003). Terrace quickly grew to become the largest inland community on the Skeena River. The two current sites occupied by Kitselas - Kulspai and Gitaus- were developed in the 1960s and early 1990s. The Kitselas Canyon has now been declared a National Historic Site by the federal government.
3.3.3 Language 3.3.3.1 Level of Use and Fluency The language used in the Kitselas Nation is Tsimshian (Symalgyax). The coastal and inland dialects of the language differ only in the use of a few words. Duff (1965) included the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum linguistically with the Coastal Tsimshian. However, Berthiaume (1999) stated that the word that the Kitselas use for House is wilp, which is different from the Kitsumkalum who use the word waap (McDonald 2003), and the Coastal Tsimshian use walp (Halpin and Seguin 1990). The Kitsumkalum and Kitselas people speak Sm’algyax in a similar way and can understand each other (McDonald 2003). Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of language use, knowledge, and fluency.
Table 3.3-1: Summary of Kitselas First Nation Language Knowledge, Use, and Fluency
1996 2001 Languages characteristics Total Male Female Total Male Female Language Knowledge 100 45 55 135 65 70 Aboriginal language(s) 15 0 10 15 0 10 English only ** 80 40 40 130 65 70 French only ** 0 0 0 0 0 0 English & French ** 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Languages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pop. with Aboriginal languages 10.0 0.0 18.2 14.8 15.4 14.3 first learned (%) Pop. with Aboriginal spoken at 10.5 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 home (%)
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 41
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
1996 2001 Languages characteristics Total Male Female Total Male Female Pop. with knowledge of 15.0 0.0 18.2 11.1 0.0 14.3 Aboriginal lang. (%) Source: INAC 2011b
3.3.3.2 Language Revival There is a growing interest in the promotion and teaching of Sm'algyax by the Kitselas. The Kitselas have formed a partnership group with the Kitsumkalum called the Kitselas- Kitsumkalum Language Authority, which promotes the teaching of their native language. Both Nations recognise the value of understanding Sm'algyax, as the language serves to aid in the conceptualisation of ides and experience. The language authority believes that the more the Kitselas can conceptualise the world using their own language, the better they will understand that worldview (KFN 2011).
3.3.4 Cultural Practices 3.3.4.1 Social Organisation and Governance The Kitselas are divided into four matrilineally-related clans: Laxsgiik (Eagle), Gispudwada (Killer Whale), Ganhada (Raven), and Laxgiboo (Wolf). The social organisation discussed for other Tsimshian groups applies to the Kitselas. According to numerous ethnographers summarised in Halpin and Seguin (1990), the Coastal (and Southern) Tsimshian were the only peoples among the broader group to have a village chief who was the chief of the highest-ranking house in the village, and the other houses, in all clans, were ranked under him in descending order (Robinson 2003 referenced in Rescan 2009b). Governance and social organisation was carried out in the feast hall, where decisions were made, witnessed, and legitimised. Feasts were also used to maintain social order, validate inheritance and succession, and deal with conflicts. Contemporary use of this traditional system is now exercised minimally, though some aspects are being revived.
With the passing of the Indian Act in 1876 many of the existing political and economic systems previously practiced by First Nations were outlawed and replaced by a Chief and Council system of governance called the Kitselas Band Council. The Chief and Council of the Kitselas Band are nominated and elected every two years. They are responsible for providing governance and guidance to the Kitselas administration through the development of a Council Mandate. Meetings are held monthly to address items of importance and to meet the recommendations of the Committee to Council. The Committee to Council is comprised of Kitselas staff who provide the Council with relevant input on community issues. The names of the elected members, the duration of their terms, and their contact email addresses are included in Table 3.3-2.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 42
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.3-2: Chief and Council Names and Terms
Title Given Name Surname Appointment Date Expiry Date Chief Judith Gerow 13 June 2011 12 June 2013
Councillor Bill, Sr Bennett 13 June 2011 12 June 2013
Councillor Joseph Bevan 13 June 2011 12 June 2013
Councillor Cora Kennedy 13 June 2011 12 June 2013
Councillor Gerald Seymour 13 June 2011 12 June 2013
Source: INAC 2011c
The central contact information for the Chief and Council of the Kitselas First Nation Band Administration is:
2225 Gitaus Rd Terrace, BC V8G 0A9 Phone: 1-250-635-5084 Website: http://www.kitselas.com/
The Kitselas asserted territory is comprised of seven reserves, which are described in Table 3.3-3. The Kitselas Band is based at Gitaus in the Skeena Valley near Kitselas, BC to the northeast of Terrace, BC.
Table 3.3-3: The Name, Location, and Brief Description of the Kitselas First Nation Reserves
Name Location Hectares (ha) Kitselas Indian Reserve Situated approximately 16.3 km east of the junction 434.60 No.1 / (Git'aws) of Hwy 16 and 37. Lat. 54°37' N - Long. 128°25'W Chimdimash Indian Situated approximately 22.6 km east of the junction 65.10 Reserve No.2 of Hwy 16 and 37. (Tsmdimaas) Lat. 54°41' N - Long. 128°21'W Ikshenigwolk Indian Situated approximately 36.5 km east of the junction 28.70 Reserve No.3 of Hwy 16 and 37. (Ks'nigwaalk) Lat. 54°45' N - Long. 128°16'W Kshish Indian Reserve Situated approximately 20 km east of Terrace on the 258.30 No.4 (Endudoon) Kitselas Road. Lat. 54°34' N - Long. 128°28'W Kshish Indian Reserve Lat. 54°34' N - Long. 128°28'W 4.0 No.4B Original (Endudoon)
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 43
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Name Location Hectares (ha) Zaimoetz Indian Reserve Situated approximately 5.5 km east of the junction of 109.40 No.5 (Tsmhuutsa) Hwy 16 and 37. Lat. 54°34' N - Long. 128°28'W Kulspai Indian Reserve Situated approximately 3 km west of the junction of 6.90 No.6 Hwy 16 and 37 on Queensway Drive. (Gn spa) Lat. 54°29' N - Long. 128°35'W Ketoneda Indian Reserve Approximately 47.5 km east of the junction of Hwy 16 40.80 No.7 and 37. (Git'ndaa) Lat. 54°50' N - Long. 128°19'W Spkshuut Indian Reserve Lat. 54°09' N - Long. 129°57'W 2.0 No.8 Source: KFN 2011and INAC 2011c Note: ha - hectare; Hwy - Highway; km - kilometre; lat. - latitude; long. - longitude; N - north; W - west; ° - degree; ‘ - feet
3.3.4.2 Worldview and Spirituality The oral history of the Kitselas refers to God as Gyamk, the “Sun God”. The Kitselas have a strong spiritual connection to the land and animals within their territories. Many traditional stories mention animals as key characters that bring about trouble when treated with disrespect. For example, in the story of the Feast of the Goat, the people were punished for abusing a goat. In the story of the Great Grizzly Bear (M’deek), people died for not treating fish in the honourable way (Robinson 2003). Chief Neas-D-Hok, as recorded in Robinson (2003), summarises the “law of the native people” as taught by his grandfather. In his relaying the law of the native people, he elaborates on four key principals: sympathy (compassion), hospitality, respect for others, and training the historian.
The basic laws organising Kitselas culture places a great deal of emphasis on information gained through trial and error over lifetimes and generations. Two types of laws were born from this worldview. The first type of law is a positive law that promotes actions that result in good consequences. For example: when someone repeatedly observes that a particular action works well and is a benefit to people, the action may become positive law. An example of this would be a health law for the prevention of disease or promotion of good health. The second type of law is a negative law to avoid harmful consequences for the prevention of actions that are seen to be harmful to the people of Kitselas. These laws and principles are summarised in the following story (KFN 2011):
“Laws they had; but these were few; laws framed by Wise Men who watched the face of nature; who pondered long on the workings of Gyamk, the sun God who lived in the Sky City of Lahah; laws that were made as they watched cause and effect work out their ends in the form of men. Some happening came to the people. The result was good and fortunate. "This is right," said the Wise Men. "This will be embodied in a new law so that good fortune may be still more assured to our People“. And when misfortune came these Wise Men delved deeply to find its cause. At last, satisfied they had learned that which they had
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 44
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES sought for, they said, "The action that lies at the root of this difficulty is wrong. Our People must be protected in the future that the same error may not be committed again. We make a new law forbidding that action." So grew the Code. So were the children instructed in the ways of Right and Wrong. So generation followed generation, each one more vigorous, more prosperous.”
Ideas of Shamanism and transformation are also frequently encountered in examination of Kitselas traditional culture. Petroglyphs found on Dry and Ringbolt Islands within Kitselas asserted territory may be associated with shamanism. The idea of transformation is associated with shamanic activity, as some Shamans were believed to have the power of transformation. An example of how this transformation is shown is the carving of one of the petroglyph faces of Dry Island. When viewed with your back to the river, the carving appears to be a human face or a mask; however, when it is viewed from the other side, the face transforms into that of an animal or another mask. Other petroglyph figures on Ringbolt Island and other art objects show a veneration for multiple culturally importance animals. The small 'Blackfish' petroglyph is thought to represent a killer whale. Grizzly bear, mountain goat, beaver, frogs, Raven, and eagle are also found frequently in Kitselas First Nation artwork.
3.3.5 Seasonal Round The seasonal round of Kitselas was similar to that described for other Tsimshian such as the Gitxsan, in terms of timing of various activities, particularly salmon fishing, berry picking, plant harvesting, and other winter activities. However, the Kitselas First Nation displayed some key differences; they have been described as relatively sedentary, spending both winters and summers in the canyon, and they relied more heavily on salmon (Allaire et al. 1979). Some Kitselas are reported to have gone to the Nass for oolichan grease in March (Robinson 2003), while others obtained it from the Kitimat people of Douglas Channel (McNeary 1976). Coupland (1988) lists species of food plants available to the Kitselas from two sources: a Ministry of Forests survey (Coupe et al. 1982) and the book Food Plants of British Columbia Indians by Turner (1978). Notably different from the neighbouring Gitxsan is the use of coastal species such as salal, salmonberry, crab-apple, and Alaskan Blueberry (Coup et al. 1982 referenced in Rescan 2009b). Specific references to the timing of hunting and fishing of various species taken during the seasonal round are made in Section 3.3.6.
3.3.6 Past Land Use 3.3.6.1 Hunting and Trapping Hunting for moose, deer, black bear, mountain goat, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, and game birds are of great importance for subsistence and cultural practices of the Kitselas First Nation. Hunting moose, deer, black bear, and grizzly bear is culturally important, and it still occurs in the upper Kitsumkalum watershed, including the Cedar River, near Hellsgate Slough, at the Skeena substation, and along Lakelse River (Rescan 2009b). The Upper Kitimat River, from the Wedeene River to the headwaters has also been used by Kitselas for trapping, hunting, fishing, and gathering of various foods. Game was harvested by designated harvesters and was distributed among band members and Elders, as per
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 45
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Kitselas traditions. Hunting for bears occurs in the spring and the fall, whereas ungulates (deer, moose, and mountain goat) are hunted in fall to early winter (Rescan 2009b). Game birds are also hunted in the fall and winter, primarily from September to November. Birds hunted including species such as ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, blue grouse, Canada geese, and mallard ducks. Game bird hunting occurs near Hellsgate Slough, Skeena substation, and at the confluence of the Skeena and Lakelse rivers, off the main roads and side roads and around wetlands.
Trapping and snaring beaver and snowshoe hare is used for supplying food for the Kitselas people. The main relevant trapping area for several Kitselas families is the upper Kitsumkalum River (north of Kitsumkalum Lake), as well as the area around the Skeen substation (Rescan 2009b). Trappers used their traplines each year from early September until the end of February and used the area for spring beaver trapping from March to May. McDonald (2003) traced the loss of legal and economic control over traplines and notes that provincial licensing interfered with and eroded the matrilineal system of inheritance of properties. There are plans for obtaining additional traplines previously owned by the Kitselas for cultural revival (Rescan 2009c).
3.3.6.2 Fishing Fishing for sockeye, pink, coho, chum, and chinook salmon, steelhead, as well as rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and cutthrout trout is a highly significant activity for subsistence, economic, and cultural purposes. Salmon have long been, and continue to be, a staple dietary item for the Kitselas. The resources of the Skeena River, tributaries that feed it, and lakes in the asserted territory are used for fishing. Sockeye and spring salmon are the preferred fish species by the Kitselas First Nation, which are utilised as an important source of food. Salmon are often jarred, salted, dried, smoked, or frozen for use in the months where fish are less available. Fishing occurs during spring and fall runs (Rescan 2009b, KFN 2011).
3.3.6.3 Berry / Fruit Gathering Coupland (1988) lists species of food plants available to the Kitselas in a Ministry of Forests survey (Coupe et al. 1982) and the book “Food Plants of British Columbia Indians” by Turner (1978). The Kitselas harvest(ed) similar plants to their neighbouring First Nations; however they harvested some notably different plants as well, including salal, salmonberry, crab- apple, and Alaskan Blueberry (Rescan 2009b). The portion of the Kitselas asserted territory to the north of the canyon is drier, less rugged, and with more open forest than Kitselas Canyon; this area thus produced unique flora and fauna not available near the coast (Coupland 1988). The Kitselas harvest medicinal plants and berries from the area in and around the BC Hydro Skeena Substation, and north of Lakelse Lake towards the Skeen River (Rescan 2009b) from June to October, when they and focus their harvest on huckleberries, blueberries, salmon berries, raspberries, thimble berries, devils club, mushrooms, and skunk cabbage (Rescan 2009b). Berry species gathered for medicinal as well as food purposes included: black hawthorn, blueberry (bog, oval-leafed), bunchberry, cloudberry, crabapple, cranberry (bog, high and low bush), crowberry, black and red currant,
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 46
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES elderberry, black gooseberry, hazelnut, huckleberry, lily of the valley, raspberry, soapberry, salal, saskatoon, strawberry, and thimbleberry (McDonald 1998 referenced on KFN 2011). Forest plants that were gathered mainly for medicine included: devil's club, springbank clover, fireweed, lichen, liquorice, pacific silverweed, rice-root, wild onions, common juniper, cinquefoil, mushrooms copperbush, cow parsnip, indian helebore, labrador tea, lupine, skunk cabbage, sylvan goat's beard, and wildrose (McDonald 1998 referenced on KFN 2011).
3.3.6.4 Trees and Plants Gathering The historical use of the forest by the Tsimshian include the construction of canoes, longhouses, totem poles, wood-crafting, basketry, cooking utensils, and clothing. Cedar and hemlock forests were once prevalent in the Kitselas canyon area, and were used for making these items (Berthiaume 1999).
3.3.7 Past Marine Use Limited information is available on the use of marine resources by the Kitselas First Nation. However, this Nation is highly dependent on anadramous salmon, which spend part of their life cycle in the ocean, and is known to have been involved in the trade of items with coastal First Nations. The depiction of a killer whale on one of the nearby petroglyphs, thought to be created by Kitselas peoples, suggests that they had knowledge of marine resources, and that they travelled to and from the coast. In the Preface of Men of M’Deek, Chief Wright writes that: “… Tsimshians from the coast traded with Gitxsans of Kitwanga and with Carriers still further east. The coast people carried herring eggs, dried clams, dried halibut, dried kelp and other sea foods to the interior. In exchange they received prime furs, fruits and berries… The Men of Medeek held the toll gate.” Therefore, while the extent of the use of marine items by the Kitselas First nation is unclear, they were intricately involved as a gatekeeper of the Skeena River, exacting a toll for the exchange of marine items to inland Nations. Further information on their past marine use may be obtained through consultation with the Kitselas First Nation.
3.3.8 Contemporary Land Use 3.3.8.1 Hunting and Trapping The Kitselas First Nation people continue to hunt, fish, trap, and gather various foods and plants in their asserted traditional territory. Traditional land uses are primarily carried out by individuals with trapline tenures. The food is often distributed to Elders and others in the Kitselas community. Kitselas members fish from early spring to late fall. The fish are harvest as a supplement to other harvest activities (hunting and trapping). Kitselas members hunt ungulates in the Upper Kitimat and its tributaries, and harvested animals are distributed to Kitselas elders. Mountain goat hunting is limited to certain areas and usually occurs between July and February. Bears are harvested in the spring and then in September to November; harvested animals are distributed to other band members (KFN 2010).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 47
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Game birds are usually harvested in the fall between September and November. Upland birds are usually taken along road rights of way, while migratory bird harvesting occurs in the same areas frequented by water animals. Trapping of fur bearing animals also provides both a source of food and forms part of the First Nation’s local economy Several Kitselas members still actively trap. Most of the harvest for fur bearing animals takes place within 200 metres of roads, and in treed areas bordering rivers and streams (KFN 2010). The main trapping area of relevance to the Kitsault transportation route is several Kitselas families is the upper Kitsumkalum River (north of Kitsumkalum Lake) and the area around the Skeen substation (Rescan 2009b). The loss of legal and economic control over the traplines, which were normally owned by families and passed through the matrilineal system of inheritance, is documented in McDonald (2003). There are plans for the revival of traplines, whereby traplines lost due to government interference would be returned to the family to which they belonged (Rescan 2009b).
3.3.8.2 Fishing Fishing for subsistence still occurs by Kitselas First Nations. Fishing also contributes to the local economy. The Kitselas still fish from the Skeena River and other rivers, lakes and tributaries in their asserted territory. They harvest a variety of fish species, including all salmon species, trout, and steelhead. Kitselas generally fish from early spring to fall (Rescan 2009b). Fishing practices have expanded in scope; the Kitselas First Nation now participates in a commercial and scientific fisheries operation, as well as a federally-funded Selective Fisheries Program (Rescan 2009b).
3.3.8.3 Berry, Plant, and Tree Use Members of the Kitselas First Nation continue to collect country foods for subsistence and traditional medicines. Gathering of forest plants and berries usually runs from June to October in the rivers and tributary valleys, usually in lower elevations adjacent to wetted areas. Since 2001, the Kitselas First Nation have also operated the Kitselas Forest Products (KFP) Ltd, a successful land management and forest harvesting business that has harvested 400k m3 of timber over the past 5 years. KFP operates with two forest licenses in the traditional territory and focuses on hiring Kitselas First Nations members through a network of sub-contractors for phases of timber harvesting land management and timber harvesting (Rescan 2009b).
3.3.8.4 Agriculture The interest in agriculture in the asserted Kitselas territory is higher than it is in many neighbouring territories. The agricultural lands within the Kitselas asserted territory are rated as very high in quality (KFN 2011). This area has a long growing season, and weather that is suitable for a wide range of garden crops, fruit orchards, and berry fruits. The area is suitable for many types of farming, such as: dairy, poultry, hay, and fruit. Terrace was originally founded as an agricultural centre.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 48
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.3.9 Contemporary Marine Use Little information is available on current marine use by the Kitselas First Nation, although they continue to harvest salmon, which spend a portion of their life cycle in the ocean. Further information on contemporary marine use of resources may be obtained during future consultation with the Kitselas First Natino.
3.3.10 Resource Importance The resources used by the Kitselas First Nation are listed in Table 3.3-4. This table summarises publically available information and is not considered exhaustive or comprehensive. Additional components of interest may be determined through consultation with the Kitselas First Nation.
Table 3.3-4: Traditional Resource of Importance Used by the Kitselas First Nation
Category Resource Name Uses Fish Sockeye salmon Sustenance and an integral part of customs and Pink salmon history Coho salmon Trade with other Aboriginal groups Chum salmon Excess salmon was a staple in winter when smoked Chinook salmon or preserved Steelhead Importance to commercial Aboriginal Fisheries Rainbow trout Seen as important as a food supply for other animals, such as grizzly bears, which are hunted by Dolly Varden the Kitselas Cutthrout trout Other fish used Oolichan Traditionally, an important species used to collect for products grease considered a delicacy Used during trade with other Aboriginal groups; some Kitselas are reported to have gone to the Nass for oolichan grease in March (Robinson 2003), while others obtained it from the Kitimat people of Douglas Channel (McNeary 1976). Berries and Berries/Fruit: Traditional foods gathered for sustenance Plants Huckleberries Some berries and plants used for medicinal Blueberries purposes (to be determined during consultation with Salmon berries the Aboriginal group) Raspberries Black hawthorn Bunchberry Cloudberry Crabapple Cranberry (bog, high and low bush) Crowberry Black and Red currant Elderberry Black gooseberry
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 49
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Category Resource Name Uses Huckleberry Soapberry Saskatoon Strawberry Thimbleberry Plants/Fungus: Salal Devils club Mushrooms Skunk cabbage Springbank clover Fireweed Lichen Liquorice Pacific silverweed Rice-root Wild onion Common juniper Cinquefoil Mushrooms Copperbush Cow parsnip Indian hellebore Labrador tea Lupine Skunk cabbage Sylvan goat's beard Wildrose Hazelnut Lily of the valley Trees Hemlock Culturally significant for basket weaving and artefact Cedar construction Lodgepole pine. Spruce Other marine Killer whale Depicted in a petroglyph associated with the Kitselas items First Nation. Other marine items may have been obtained through trade with coastal Aboriginal groups (to be determined during consultation with the Aboriginal group) Terrestrial and Deer Species traditionally hunted by the Kitselas Marine Wildlife Moose Some skins and parts of animals used for Mountain Goat ceremonial purposes and regalia Bear (grizzly and black) Some animals depicted in artwork and totem pole carving
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 50
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Category Resource Name Uses Beaver Furbearers that are trapped by the Kitselas may be Eagle determined during consultation with the Aboriginal Frog group
3.3.11 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours An important aspect of Kitselas’ economy both before and after contact was related to the ability of the Kitselsa to control trade on the Skeena River. In the Preface of Men of M’Deek Chief Wright writes that: “… Tsimshians from the coast traded with Gitxsans of Kitwanga and with Carriers still further east. The coast people carried herring eggs, dried clams, dried halibut, dried kelp and other sea foods to the interior. In exchange they received prime furs, fruits and berries… The Men of Medeek held the toll gate. They exacted tribute from the traders who passed on the river…” (Robinson 2003). In other words, the Kitselas had such strong control of the waterway that they were able to trade pelts from the indigenous trappers upriver and resell them, at marked-up prices likely driven partially by British and European demand, to buyers on the coast. Therefore the Kitselas were described as being involved in trade with British and European-descended colonials prior to either interacting. It is reported that some Kitselas went to the Nass for oolichan grease, likely in March (Robinson 2003) but others may have obtained it from the Kitimat people of Douglas Channel.
3.3.12 Travel Routes and Corridors Much of the travel done by Tsimshian First Nations in general took place along rivers – either by water or along paths that followed river valleys. No publically available information could be found on location of traditional travel routes and corridors; information on relevant travel routes may be obtained in consultation with the Aboriginal group.
3.3.13 Occupation Sites The earliest village sites in the Kitselas canyon, Tsunyow, Gitaus, and the Paul Mason Site, have been dated between 3600 and 5000 B.P. (Coupland, 1988). The Paul Mason site is the oldest permanent village. It consisted of rows of multi-unit domestic dwellings that date back at least three thousand years (Coupland 1988). Two villages were occupied at the time of contact, Gitlaxdzawk and Gitsaex. The former overlooked the river and was essentially a fortress from which boulders and logs could be launched (Berthiaume 1999). These villages were abandoned during the 1870s as a result of the small pox epidemic and other social changes.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 51
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Figure 3.3-2: Aerial Photo of Kitselas Showing Location of Gitlaxdzawk (Berthiaume 1999)
The two current sites occupied by Kitselas - Kulspai and Gitaus- were developed in the 1960s and early 1990s. The town of Kitselas was built on top of the ancient village of Gitaus in the 1890s. Kulspai is located across the Skeena River from Terrace. Kuslpai was originally a place where canoes were beached as people moved southward to Lakelse Lake.
3.3.14 Tourism The Kitselas have shown a growing interest in integrating their rich heritage and archaeological resources in the cultural tourism industry. Canyon National Historic Site Project (Canyon Tours) is an initiative designed to restore a Kitselas Village as a basis for a cultural tourism industry. This Historic Site project will add to the aboriginal component of the regional tourism, which will benefit aboriginal residents in the Terrace region. The location of the Historic Site Project is approximately 15 km east of the city of Terrace and transportation route.
3.3.15 Cultural Revival The impacts of contact and associated laws resulted in a cessation of a large number of traditional activities. In the 1980s, the Kitselas began to developed policies to promote and recover their heritage. Since then, there has been a cultural resurgence, including the promotion and teaching of the language and traditional arts, as well as a return to feasting practices (Berthiaume 1999; McDonald 2003). The art of the Kitselas is the visual representation of family stories, and is primarily crest art; the return to the practice of feasting has created an interest in the production of art to be worn at feasts. As a result of community initiatives, more people are gaining an interest in learning the language of Sm'algyax, understanding the crest system, conducting of feasts and making of regalia such
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 52
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES as headdresses, blankets and totem poles. Two poles were also raised by the Kitselas at the National Historic Site in 2007.
Kitselas are also interested in the promotion of traditional songs and dances, and they have formed a dance group called “The Gitselasu Dancers”. Song and dance were both very important in the culture of the Kitselas First Nation, as they are re-enactments of village and family stories. The songs and dances are also important as they form an integral part of feast celebrations. The value of revived Kitselas cultural practices is the creation of a coherent unifying identity for the community (KFN 2011).
3.3.16 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management 3.3.16.1 Past Land Management Practices Past land management was largely related to the laws of cause and effect that were part of the worldview of the Kitselas. The belief that mistreatment of an animal could result in harmful consequences likely created a culture where individuals were aware, and careful observers of, the consequences of their actions.
The Kitselas First Nation is one of 36 signatories to the Framework Agreement on Land Management (FWA). This agreement allows the Kitselas and other signatory Aboriginal groups to manage their own Reserve Lands instead of management and administration being run by the Department of Indian Affairs Canada (INAC). A number of laws and policies exist that are use by the Kitselas Land Management Office to direct land and resource management within reserve boundaries. The general First Nations Land Management Act as well as the original Framework Agreement between Land Code First Nations and Canada applies broadly to Aboriginal groups.
Kitselas First Nation supports the title interests and land and marine use plans of the coastal Tsimshian peoples. Kitselas First Nation participated in the LRMP and related government- to-government discussions with the same understandings as other Aboriginal group. Kitselas and Kitsumkalum First Nations participation was tailored to reflect their respective areas of Traditional Resource Use (KFN 2011).
3.3.17 Summary In summary, the Kitselas are known for their less nomadic lifestyle and heightened reliance on salmon compared with neighbouring Tsimshian First Nations. The Kitselas have traditionally used their territory and traditional asserted territory for food harvesting, material harvesting and recreation. The Kitselas controlled trade on the Skeena River and collected tariffs and royalties on the transport of goods until the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway. Today, as in the past, Kitselas people continue to hunt, fish, trap and gather various foods and plants in their asserted traditional territory, including areas along the proposed Kitsault transportation route. The governance of the Kitselas First Nation is conducted by the Kitselas Band and Council that oversees Kitselas reserve lands. The Kitselas First Nation is a signatory to the Framework Agreement on Land Management (FWA), which allows the Kitselas to manage their own reserve lands; the Kitselas First
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 53
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Nation has developed a number of laws and policies to direct land management within their reserve land.
3.4 Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs 3.4.1 Overview The Gitxsan people, translated to mean “People of the River of Mist” (GCO 2011), are part of the Tsimshian people, who lived and continue to live along the Nass and Skeena Rivers, and nearby coastal regions of BC. The Tsimshian were composed of three subgroups: Tsimshian, Nisga’a Nation, and Gitxsan (Gitksan, Kitksan) (Daly, 2005). The latter of these, the Gitxsan, is the focus of this section. Specifically, this section provides desk-based, publicly available information on the Aboriginal rights, interests, and values held by the Gitxsan Chiefs (“Gitxsan” hereafter). It includes information on the spatial and cultural context of the Gitxsan asserted territory, including locations of Laxwiiyip boundaries (sub- divisions of territory by houses [aka wilps; more information in Section 3.4.5]) that are proximate to the proposed transportation route for the Kitsault Project. It also provides a summary of the land and resource uses of cultural, spiritual, economic, and recreational significance to the Gitxsan, in various seasons, locations and time periods, from pre-contact to present.
3.4.2 Spatial Context The Gitxsan asserted territory includes 33,000 km2 of northwestern BC (Figure 3.4-1) (GCO 2011). The western boundary of the asserted territory falls within 90 km or the proposed Kitsault mine and Alice Arm. The territory extends eastward to the longitude of Fort Babine, southward to (close to) Terrace, and northward (close to) the Toodoggon River, north of Bell II. Neighbouring and overlapping asserted territories to the Gixtsan include: the Gitanayow Hereditary Chiefs Office, which overlaps with the northwestern portion of the Gixtsan asserted territory, the Metlakatla First Nation to the west and south, the Kitsumkalum and Kitselas First Nation to the south, Nisga’a Nation to the southwest, Carrier Sekani to the east, and the Tahltan Nation to the north.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 54
Bear Lake Legend C A Segment 1: Kitsault mine site to Cranberry U N N A DA I Connector/Nass FSR T E D STATES 37A Segment 2: Cranberry Connector to Cranberry Meziadin Junction Junction Segment 3: Cranberry Junction to Kitwanga along Highway 37 Stewart Segment 4: Cranberry Connector to New 37 Aiyansh Segment 5: New Aiyansh to Sand Lake Segment 6: Sand Lake to Terrace Populated Place
Bulkley House Kitsault Mine Project Highway Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs Indian Reserve Cranberry Junction Parks & Protected Area Gitxsan Wilp (House) Gaxsbgabaxs Alice Arm Road 37 Alice Arm Kitsault Townsite Sakxam Higookxw Tenim Gyet ALASKA KEY MAP Kitsault Mine Project NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Fort Babine YUKON BRITISH COLUMBIA Nass Camp Fort Nelson Juneau Gitanyow Hazelton Nass Forest Service Road BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA
New Aiyansh Fort St. John Stewart
Project Location
Prince Rupert Edmonton Kitwanga Prince George 113 Smithers Landing Kitseguecla Old Fort
Laxgalts'ap Moricetown Calgary
Gingolx Kamloops Sand Lake Kelowna Vancouver
Granisle Victoria 16 UNITED STATES 113 Scale:1:900,000 UNITED STATES 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Smithers 37 Kilometers d x m . 16 2 Reference v _
3 Base Data 1 0
- Round Lake Atlas of Canada scale 1:1,000,000. 0 5
- First Nation Source: Gitxsan Treaty Office Website 4 1 \ CLIENT: e n i l e s a
B Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. \ s c i Lax Kw'alaams m Perow o Topley n PROJECT: o c e - o i Wiley Kitsault Mine Project c Georgetown Mills o s _ 4 1 \ g n i 16 Gitxsan Traditional Territory p p Houston Broman Lake a
M Disclaimer: The lines on this map represent Lakelse Lake
\ overlapping with the Kitsault t l u the approximate boundaries of traditional territories a
s Metlakatla t i as described by the Gitxsan. They are illustrative Name Segment Length (Km) Transportation Route Options
K Prince Rupert _ only. Publication of this map in this report does not DATE: ANALYST: 8
8 Sakxam Higookxw Wilp 3 9.0 9 imply that the Gitxsan First Nation, other First April 2011 MY
1 Figure
5 Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the 37 E Gaxsbgabaxs Wilp 3 3.7 JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: V
\ Government of Canada, Avanti or any of
E VE51988 MY
V 14-50-009_kitsumkalum.pdf \ their respective consultants have confirmed, Tenim Gyet Wilp 5 1.8 s t c agreed to, or acknowledged (as the case may be) GIS FILE: e j o the traditionaPl toerrtr itEordyw aas rrdepresented on this map Tenim Gyet Wilp 6 12.0 r 14-50-009.mxd P \
S PROJECTION: DATUM: I G \ : UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The Kitsault transportation route has the potential to interact with the asserted Gitxsan territory along Highway 37 and 113 (Figure 3.4-1). The Kitsault transportation route overlaps with three Gitxsan wilp, including Tenim Gyet (for 13.8 km), Gaxsbgabaxs (for 3.7 km), and Sakxam Higookxw (for 9.0 km). The total distance of overlap is 26.5 km.
3.4.3 Historical Context 3.4.3.1 Pre-Contact Archaeologists have dated Gitxsan villages and cache sites at over six thousand years of age. The Gitxsan had a well-organised society during pre-contact, with political, social, legal, and economic institutions based on the Huwilp (House groups) system. Feast halls were traditionally used for the practice of governance and they served important societal functions (GCO 2011). Traditional spiritual beliefs, including those of human reincarnation, were held (People of ‘Ksan, 1980; Mills, 1994). Warfare was common during pre-contact, and forts existed in a number of locations (MacDonald, 1989). The Gitxsan were semi-nomadic and their hunting and gathering system required them to travel on seasonal rounds based on resource availability. Trails beside the rivers or overland, travel over frozen rivers in winter, or canoe travel was used for travel between seasons (MacDonald, 1989; Daly, 2005). The Gitxsan pre-contact economy was largely based on the trading of natural resources, which included salmon, berries, the grease of oolichan (candle fish) (Halpin and Seguin 1990), and other species (e.g., groundhog, beaver, goats, and bears) (People of ‘Ksan, 1980; Daly, 2005).
3.4.3.2 Contact The Gitxsan population was estimated at several hundred thousand prior to contact. Contact began in the 1700s (for Tsimshian people in general) to 1800s (for Gitxsan; GCO 2011), first with the Russians and then with Europeans and Americans. The Collins Overland Telegraph to Russia was built up the Bulkley Valley from Quesnel to Kispiox before the project was cancelled. In 1850 gold seekers began traveling into the north of the territory using the upper Skeena River. In 1835, the Hudson’s Bay Company was established in Ft. Simpson. In 1868, a more permanent European presence occurred in the area due to the Hudson’s Bay Company building a trading post next to Gitanmaax. These events slowly gave rise to post-contact changes to Gitxsan lifestyle, land and resource use, as well as pressures on spiritual and political practices, and traditional language (Miller and Eastman, 1984; GCO 2011; Daly, 2005).
3.4.3.3 Post-Contact Post-contact settlements began to increase around the late 1860s when Gitaanmax became the location of the fur trading town Skeena Forks or Hazelton (Daly, 2005; GCO 2011). In the early 1870s, hundreds of prospectors began traveling up the Skeena to reach mine sites. Between 1871 and 1876, much of the provincial Crown land was acquired without negotiation with the Gitxsan through a treaty process, giving rise to local tension. Increased mining and construction of the first cannery on the Skeena River in 1876 (Halpin and Seguin, 1990) continued to bring Europeans into the area. Two Christian missions were
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 56
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES founded north of Kispiox in 1879 and in Hazelton in 1880 (Halpin and Seguin, 1990). The introduction of Christianity into the area, followed by the implementation of residential school systems, impacted the use of Gitxsan language, religion, and traditional culture. In 1884, feasts were banned by the federal government.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, government restrictions increased on how Gitxsan and others could use the land in the Gitxsan territory, leading to conflicts and resistance. The Gitxsan also began to get recruited for wage labour (e.g., at canneries), which corresponded with Gitxsan becoming less nomadic (Halpin and Seguin, 1990; Daly, 2005). The population in the present day asserted Gitxsan territory began to increase at a more rapid pace after the construction of the railway along the Skeena between 1907 and 1914 (MacDonald, 1989). Epidemics of smallpox, measles, and influenza impacted populations in the area in the late 1920s. Construction of Highway 37 over much of the ancient Kitwancool Trail increased the contemporary access to the area in the mid-1900s (McDonald, 2003).
The practice of traditional Aboriginal activities was more difficult in the post-contact era due to rapid changes in laws prohibiting cultural practices, and the introduction of new cultures, languages, religions, and land use practices. Daly (2005) suggests that the strongest impacts on the Gitxsan’s use of their territories resulted from reserves and residential schools, along with outside settlement and economic development. Numerous displays of resistance, and legal battles ensued over restrictions imposed on local Gitxsan culture and resource rights in the 1800s and 1900s (GCO 2011). The continued resistance from the Gitxsan culminated in the Delgamuukw case in 1994 to 1997, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Gitxsan based on oral history testimony (adaawk). The outcome of the case described the type of consultation process and compensation that must occur if aboriginal rights are infringed on as the result of a government decision.
Today, many Gitxsan people live by wage labour year-round or by receiving payments from government agencies, but some Gitxsan still rely on the land for a portion of their wage, subsistence, cultural identity, and for the processing and exchange of traditional foods.
3.4.4 Language The Gitxsan speak a dialect of the Tsimshian language group, which is said to be very similar to that spoken by the Nisga’a. Much of the literature refers to the two dialects together as Nass-Gitxsan. However, the two groups have significant political differences and prefer to have the languages referred to separately. The Gitxsan refer to their language as Gitxsanimaax. There is a western and eastern dialect of Gitxsanimaax. The level of use and fluency has decreased in the post contact period, and most young Gitxsan speak English. There are, however, ongoing efforts to record and revive the language (see Cultural Revival Section 3.4.16).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 57
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.4.5 Cultural Practices 3.4.5.1 Social Organisation and Governance The Gitxsan use a dual system of governance, including aspects of their traditional hereditary chief system and the Band System, implemented by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) in the early 1900s. Each of these systems is reviewed briefly below.
3.4.5.1.1 Hereditary Chief System The Gitxsan society is made up of a number of family lineages that define the group’s relationship with a specific territory. Over time, these lineages formed into house (i.e. Wilp) groups, each of which is identified as belonging to one of four clans: Wolf (Lax Gibuu), Frog (Lax Seel or Lax Ganeda), Fireweed (Gisgaast), and Eagle (Lax Skiik) (Daly 2005; GCO 2011; Overstall 2008). These clans, through strategic intermarriage, have a relationship that is interwoven; however, they keep distinct oral histories (Overstall 2008). A person is born into a particular Wilp and clan, and these are well organised by kinship lines. Kinship acts as an organisational construct for most aspects of life including property ownership, economic activity, residence patterns, education, inheritance, marriage, political activity, and most social relationships (GCO 2011).
There are approximately 64 Gitxsan Wilp, each ranging in size from 20 to 250 members, which belong to one of the four clans. Each Wilp controls most of its own affairs. Each Wilp is considered to have “assets”, which include wilnaatahl (close relatives), lax yiphl Wilp (lands and resources therein), adaawx (ancient oral history),ayook (laws that dictate behaviour), limx oo’ii (time immemorial songs that link the Wilp to its lax yip), and waaim taa (ancient potlatch seat names). Each Wilp and its citizens are required to behave according to Gitxsan law as it pertains to citizenship, adoption, marriage, property, use of resources, and conduct at potlatches and feasts (GCO 2011).
Each Wilp are overseen by hereditary chiefs; however, the chief’s power is not dictatorial, because the power within a Wilp is never exclusively held by the chief. Each Wilp owns a set of ranked names with power authority generally corresponding to the rank of each name. The Wilp chief is the highest authority and is the spokesperson on behalf of Wilp members. In some cases there are two or more chiefs with equal power. Wilp members with adult names and a seat in the feast hall make up the third level rank within the Wilp. The most important aspect of the Wilp is control over the land. A chief is the nominal head of the territory; the power and authority is placed in the chief to make decisions on territories and Wilp plans (GCO 2011).
3.4.5.1.2 Band System The 1876 Indian Act divided Aboriginal groups with a shared traditional territory, identity, culture, language and governing body into separate bands and separate land reserves. The "band" system of administration was imposed on Aboriginal groups, which were made subject to detailed supervision by federal officials. There are four Gitxsan bands (i.e., Gitanmaax, Kispiox, Glen Vowell, and Gitwangak) with a total of 23 Gitxsan reserves. The
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 58
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Gitwangak 1 reserve is the most proximate to the Kitsault transportation route. The Gitxsan bands have elected chief and council, which are summarised in Table 3.4-1, including contact information, reserves, and election dates.
Table 3.4-1: Overview of Gitxsan Bands, Elected Officials, and Contact Information
Chief / Election Organisation Contact Information Reserves Council Members Director Date Gitxsan P.O. Box 229 N/A Gordon Elmer Derrick N/A Chief’s Office 1650 Omineca Street Sebastian Beverly Percival Hazelton, BC V0J 1Y0 1-866-842-6780 www.gitxsan.com Gitanmaax P.O. Box 440 Gitanmaax 1, Marjorie Robert Campbell June 2010 Band Hazelton, BC V0J 1Y0 Anlaw 4, McRae Bonita Danes (5 reserves) 250-842-5297 Kisegas, Jacqueline Green Ksoo-gun-ya http://www.gitanmaax. 2a, and Tsitsk Teresa Jack com/ 3 William Matthews Julie Morrison Keith Mowatt Garry Patsey Pansy Simms Richard Wright Shelley Wright Glen Vowel RR 1, Site J (Comp Sik-e-dakh 2 Mamie Barbara Huson March 2010 Band (1 43) Wesley Graham Sampson reserve) Hazelton, BC V0J 1Y0 Robert Sampson 250-842-5241 Gitwangak P.O. Box 400 Chig-in-kaht Alice Debbie Bright May 2009 Band Kitwanga, BC V0J 2A0 8, Gitwangak Morgan Alvin Derrick ( 7 reserves) 250-849-5591 1, Gitwangak Jason Harris 2, Kits-ka- haw 6, Fred Johnson Koonwats 7, Shirley MacDonald Kwa-tsa-lix 4, Keith Morgan and Tum-bah Rosalee Morgan 5 Wally Morgan Elizabeth Williams Amanda Zettergreen Kispiox Band Comp 25, Site K Agwedin 3, Bobby Tamatha Baskin July 2009 (10 reserves) Hazelton,BC V0J1Y0 Andak 9, Gul- Barnes Charles Hillis 250-842-5248 mak 8, Gun- Jordon Muldoe a-chal 5, Kis- an-usko 7, Gwen Simms Kispiox 1, Fred Starr Kuldoe 1, Rosaline Starr Quan-skum- Brian Williams ksin-mich- Lorne Wilson mich, Sidina Jack Wright 6, and Waulp 10 Source: INAC 2011e, f, g, and h
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 59
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.4.5.2 Worldview and Spirituality The Gitxsan Chiefs indicate that there are four levels of Gitxsan law and spirituality. These are reflected in the many stories and philosophies about morality, reincarnation, and respect. The Gitxsan believed in human and animal reincarnation as has been documented extensively in other documents (People of ‘Ksan 1980; Mills 1994). In the case of using animals as food and for their parts, they believe that the bones of the animals and fish must be treated with respect or they will not reincarnate, or return to give themselves up to humans. In this way, a person’s actions towards animals and their spirits are believed to have repercussions for resource availability of future generations (GCO 2011). The Gitxsan Chiefs provided the following description of Gitxsan spiritual views:
“For the Gitxsan, time is not linear but cyclical. Gitxsan spirituality is best summarized as follows: we recognize that all of creation is connected; all plants, animals, and people rely on the land from which they are born. We acknowledge that there is a balance that holds our existence on this planet stable; and that any change in one, or more components of this cycle will inevitably have (potentially detrimental) effects on the rest of life. This understanding progresses into our individuality, as we have four areas of our inner self; emotional, physical, spiritual, and intellectual, and any change to one or more of these areas will, without doubt, have inescapable consequences’. As children we are taught that wholeness, cleanliness, balance and control are the basis to healthy living; and that respect for the earth and all of creation is established only when one carries respect for one’s self. It is from this platform that Gitxsan law is derived. These laws are designed to ensure the gwilxyee’inst (our children’s inheritance) is preserved for the rest of time. For example: as animals and humans we are born “owing” a death. Should a fishes’ remains be treated with the proper respect (i.e. returned to the water or burnt, and no edible part of the fish is wasted) the spirit of the fish will be reincarnated and return to earth once again to sustain creation. However, should the fish remains not be treated with respect, or should the flesh of the fish be wasted in some manner, the spirit of the fish will not be reincarnated and the cycle will be broken. It is the cyclical understanding of balance which forms our awareness that our actions interact with not only physical components of life but the spiritual as well, consequently impacting our own continued existence” (Rescan 2009d).
3.4.6 Seasonal Round A seasonal round describes traditional activities undertaken in the summer, fall, winter, and spring over the course of a calendar year. The traditional seasonal rounds for Gitxsan are well documented, but vary among locations. In early spring, the Gitxsan fished for salmon, steelhead and other fish species, and hunted beaver (Daly 2005). Salmon was eaten in some form at almost every meal, was smoked for use throughout the year (People of ‘Ksan
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 60
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
1980). In summer and fall, the Gitxsan again fished for salmon, gathered berries (collection at higher elevation sites occurred later in the late summer/fall), bark, and roots, hunted, and trapped birds and animals. Winter trapping was practiced, and was intensified in January. Winter fish were also caught, and included Steelhead (principally caught through the ice) (People of ‘Ksan 1980), along with Char, Dolly Varden, and whitefish (Daly 2005).
3.4.7 Past Land Use Past land uses by the Gitxsan involved fishing, hunting, trapping, collection and trade of animal-derived greases, and berry harvest. There are no publically available maps for locations of key areas used for these activities, but some general knowledge can be used to assert habitats of importance for these practices. The Upper and Mid Skeena, Babine, lower Bulkley, and Kispiox Rivers and associated tributaries were likely important for fish harvest and travel of the Gitxsan (Sterritt et al. 1998). Low valley bottoms and wetlands, and areas with substantial cover, and which have lower snow depths in the winter were likely important for hunting of ungulates, and areas near escape terrain (cliff habitats) would have been essential for harvest of mountain goat and Stone’s sheep. Mature forest was likely favoured for trap lines that focused on furbearers and mushroom collection, and open areas including at higher elevations, would have been sought and managed for berry production. Berry patches were regarded as important as salmon fishing places (Burton and Burton, 2004), and berry patches were burned to improve their production until the practice was banned (Daly, 2005). While the Gitxsan territory does not include the area around the Kitsault mine site, it is possible that the Gitxsan travelled to and from this area for trade with other Aboriginal group. Highway 37 is known to be built along portions of the historical Kitwancool Trail that was used for overland travel between sites used during a seasonal round (McDonald, 2003).
3.4.8 Past Marine Use The Gitxsan have a long history of using marine-derived resources for consumption and in the construction of ceremonial regalia; however, many of these resources were acquired through trade with coastal Nations. The major salmon bearing rivers in the Gitxsan territory - the Upper and Mid Skeena, Babine, lower Bulkley, and Kispiox Rivers (Sterritt et al. 1998), brought oceanic fish into the Gitxsan territory during their migrations to and from their riverine spawning grounds. Spears, gaffs, dip-nets, weirs, and basket traps were traditionally used for fishing. Oolichan were obtained when they made their run up the Nass River, and through trade with neighbouring coastal Aboriginal groups (Section 3.4.12; Trading with other Aboriginal groups). Steelhead was also fished for during their run up the Skeena River.
3.4.9 Contemporary Land Use Present day land-based resource use still includes fishing, trapping, hunting, berry, mushroom and plant harvest, and trade. However, the ways in which resources are obtained have changed substantially. Sites are typically accessed by vehicle, ATV, snowmobile, and hunting and trapping methods have largely changed. Inland and lake fishing is done by motor powered boats and using a variety of modern different techniques.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 61
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The arena for the trade of traditional resources has also expanded, and items such as pine mushrooms are harvested and sold to Japan, while timbre is harvested and sold outside the territory. For example, the traditional use of trees for construction in the area is now a profitable enterprise; the Gitxsan Forest Enterprises Inc. (GFEI) was established in 2006 and is owned and operated by the Gitxsan Chiefs. The forest tenure is located in the region between Smithers and Terrace. Gitxsan guide outfitters also profit by hosting tourists who wish to hunt within their territory, which alters the value of wildlife items from one of importance in a subsistence and trade economy to one that is profitable in the modern market. Agriculture has also grown within the Gitxsan territory, which was not typical of Gitxsan culture pre-contact.
3.4.10 Contemporary Marine Use Fishing is still practiced within the Gitxsan territory. Today, gaffs, dip-nets, and gill-nets are used (Daly, 2005). Beach seining is also done in some years as part of a selective, in-river commercial fishery. Fish wheels have also been used recently and recreational fly fishing and reel fishing is common in the territory. Daly (2005) shows a map of fishing sites along the Skeena River in the Kitwanga area.
3.4.11 Resource Importance This section provides a non-exhaustive list of key resources that were and remain valued resources to the Gitxsan (Table 3.4-2). Contemporary locations of resources harvested and used by the Gitxsan presently are not publically available, but may be provided during future consultation with the Gitxsan Chief Office.
Table 3.4-2: Summary of Important Resources to the Gitxsan Chiefs
English Name Gitxsan Name Use Berries (maa’y): Berries were used as a dietary supplement, a trade good, and as medicine. Berries are also featured in other cultural applications; for example, the Gitxsan sometimes pour a mixture of berries and fat into the track of a new crest pole as it is raised (Daly, 1988; Daly, 2005); and berries are used as a dye for carvings or fabrics. The Gitxsan harvested a wide variety of berries for consumption and other purposes including (but not limited to) the species outlined here. Berries Food, Trade, Medicine, Ceremonial Uses: Black huckleberry (simmaa'y or The black huckleberry was prized by the Gitxsan and traded with other, sim'maa'y especially coastal, Aboriginal groups (Johnson, 1997). The black Soapberry (is) huckleberry thrives in areas located between 1000 and 1500 metres Lowbush blueberry (myahl) above sea level (Gottesfeld, 1994). Highbush Cranberry (sbikst and The soapberry was important for ceremonial purposes and may also be sgants'idipxst) made into a ‘treat’ or dessert by ‘whipping’ soapberries into a froth called yal'is, also known as "Indian Ice Cream" to non-natives (Johnson, 1997). Cloudberry Tea can be made from the leaves (a diurectic to fight infections of the Kinnikinnick berry bladder and uterus), and, according to Johnson (1997), soapberry Red raspberry possesses medicinal properties to aid in childbirth. Traded with Haida Rose hips (galem's) Gwaii Wild strawberry (miigunt and Lowbush (dwarf) blueberry is considered the most flavourful and was miidoots) traditionally the most desired. Does not grow well in coastal regions, and Black twinberry, Crowberry thus was featured as an important trade good offered by the Gitxsan (sganmaa'yhl gaak) (Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Chiefs, 1988: Map No. 6). Red elderberry (sganloots' or wishl Highbush Cranberry was used for food and medicinal purposes
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 62
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
English Name Gitxsan Name Use loots') (Johnson, 1997) Baneberry or wild sarsaparilla Cloudberry used for food and medicine (Daly, 2005; Marsden, 1987) (maa'ytwhl smex) Kinnikinnick used for food and medicine (Daly, 2005; Marsden, 1987) Gooseberries (diluws’a) Red raspberry may have been less favoured since they do not dry as Thimbleberries well as other berries (MacKinnon et al., 1999), but leaves were also used Choke cherries (eluuts’ook’) to clean salmon (Johnson 1997). Red currant(mesxwithl) Rosehips and strawberries were eaten (Budhwa, 2007) Cranberry (miisxwit) Inner bark if twinberry and crowberry used to treat disorders of the eye False Salomon’s seal (Budhwa, 2007), along with preparations of subalpine fir pitch and bark (Traditional Plant Use in the Hazeltons Web Site) Bark and roots of red-elderberry used as a purgative and emetic (Budhwa, 2007) Baneberry can be used to treat open wounds (Johnson, 1997; Johnson, 2006) Gooseberries, thimbleberries, choke cherries, red currant and cranberries were eaten (Budhwa, 2007) False Saloman’s seal berries were a delicacy only served to chiefs (Traditional Plant Use in the Hazeltons Web Page) Plants (use of plants and parts of a plant other than berries): The Gitxsan harvested a wide variety of plant species, some of which are listed below. Gottesfeld (1992) notes that the Gitxsan used 62 plant species, 37 of which are from woody taxa. Plant Items: Uses (Gottesfeld, 1992; Traditional Plant Use in the Hazeltons Web Site) Wild rhubarb (ha’mook’) Wild rhubarb, hazelnuts, leaves of skunk cabbage, nodding onion, and Hazelnuts young growths of the ostrich fern were eaten Skunk Cabbage Nectar of red columbine eaten as candy Cow parsnip Syrupy marrow of fireweed eaten Nodding onion Tea made from Labrador tea leaves Ostrich fern Red columbine Fireweed Labrador tea Trees and Barks: Uses: Spruce Pitch (sgyena doos) Spruce, Poplar both used for construction. Poplar (amk’ooxst) Red cedar bark was used to make rope, clothing, baskets, and roofing, Red Cedar while the wood was used in fish traps, nets, house construction, poles, Western Hemlock and Pine masks, bowls, the chief’s rattle, and storage boxes (Daly, 2005; Halpin Cambium and Seguin, 1990). Red Willow Hemlock and pine cambium used for food (Gottesfeld, 1992; People of ‘Ksan, 2000) Devil’s Club Red willow branches and willow bark were used as construction materials (MacDonald, 1989), in addition to cedar; Devil’s club used for medicine (Traditional Plant Use in the Hazeltons, Accessed April 25, 2011) Mushrooms: Pine mushrooms are picked in areas where the forest floor is moss Pine mushroom covered. Much of the pine mushroom is now picked is exported to Japan (Gitxsan Chiefs Office Web Site) Animals (yets’aasxw) and Fish (Hun): The Gitxsan harvested a wide variety of fish and other wildlife, including (but not limited to) the following species (Unless otherwise indicated, information from the People of ‘Ksan (1980), Gitxsan Chiefs Office Web Site). Mammals: Uses: Beaver (ts’imilx) Beaver a favoured food item, also used for pelts, grease
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 63
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
English Name Gitxsan Name Use Porcupine Food Caribou (Wijiix) Food Grizzly Bear (lak’I’nsxw) Food, pelt, grease Black bear (Autumn) food, grease Hoary Marmot (Gwiikw) Food, pelt, fat Groundhog Food, pelt, fat, grease American Marten (Hat’) Food, pelt Fisher Pelt Moose (Xadaa) Food Mountain Goat (Metx) Food, Coat hair used for weaving Chilkat blankets (E-fauna BC Atlas Stone Sheep (Dibe) Web Page) Wolverine (noosik’) Food Lynx (Weex) Food, pelt Rabbit Food, pelt Coyote (‘us sim sbagayt gan) Food, pelt Fox (k’ala’waa’a) Pelt Mink Pelt Deer Pelt Otter Food Sea Lion (Marine) Pelt Ermine Sea lion whiskers used to make the ceremonial headdress (Amalayt) Abalone Pelt; fur used on the back train of the Amalayt Eagle Often used in Amalayt Down feathers used in Amalayt Birds: Uses: Blue Grouse (lits’xw) Food Swan Food Ptarmigan (ay’aa’y) Food Additional species of waterfowl Food land birds Fish: Uses: Chinook Salmon Food; particularly in Cedar River of the Skeena River Coarsescale Sucker (daats’ax) Food Coho Salmon (eek’) Food, grease; Skeena, Babine, Bulkley, Kispiox, particularly in Stenstrum Cutthroat Trout (ksi milit) River Sockeye (misoo’o) Food, grease; particularly in Stenstrum River Dolly Varden (sabaaya’a) Food, grease; Skeena, Babine, Bulkley and Kispiox Rivers Lake trout (laahum tax) Food Longnose Sucker (hloots’) Food Steelhead (milit) Food Oolichan Food; Skeena, Babine, Bulkley and Kispiox Rivers Food, trade, grease
3.4.12 Trading Among Aboriginal Neighbours Neighbouring and overlapping asserted territories to the Gitxsan are previously outlined in the spatial context section (Section 3.4.2). A considerable amount of trading occurred along grease trails with neighbouring coastal Aboriginal groups. The Gitxsan pre-contact
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 64
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES economy was based on the trading of salmon, oolichan, berries, and other natural resources and products / goods derived from these resources (GCO 2011). The elevations and topography of the Gitxsan traditional territory provide ideal growing conditions for numerous species of berries that were revered by other Aboriginal groups and did not grow on the coast (Daly, 2005). Therefore, a portion of the Gitxsan’s seasonal storage of berries, including lowbush blueberry, black huckleberry, soapberry was traded with coastal groups in exchange for necessary or desired goods, such as seaweed and shellfish (Daly, 2005). The Gitxsan traded soapberry as far away as with the Haida Gwai’i, which is a considerable distance from their home territory (Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Chiefs, 1988: Map No. 3, citing Hauessler, 1987). The Gitxsan continue to emphasise the use of trade and barter in their system (GCO 2011).
3.4.13 Travel Routes and Corridors 3.4.13.1 Water Travel Routes In both pre- and post-contact times, the Skeena River was used for transportation of goods and people between the coast and the interior. The Gitxsan did not traditionally use canoes (The People of ‘Ksan, 1980), but they began increasing their use of local cottonwood dugouts and canoes until they were commonly used in the late nineteenth century. Canoes were used in the Skeena River, in smaller rivers, and in lakes. Once the rivers froze, they were walked along.
3.4.13.2 Overland Travel Routes Trails beside the rivers or overland provided the most reliable routes between seasons for the Gitxsan (MacDonald, 1989). The “Grease Trails” were traversed on foot as of the late 1800s (Daly 2005; People of ‘Ksan 1980). Overland trails were developed with defence in mind; hence, they avoided flat topography and used elevation to provide vantage points. The Kitwancool Trail starts in Kitwanga and heads north to Kitwancool Lake; it eventually veers west to the junction of the Cranberry River and the Nass River, and continues on to Aiyansh. Highway 37 was built over much of this ancient trail (McDonald 2003). A major segment of the Skeena River Trail also ran from Usk to Hazelton, and passed through Kitwanga (MacDonald 1989). Many other trails used for trade and transportation criss- crossed Gitxsan territory, which are depicted in MacDonald (1989) and MacDonald et al. (1987). The Kitsault transportation route overlaps with some of these historic trail trails. In present day, the provincial highway system runs through the Gitxsan territory, including Highways 16 and 37, and 62; the CN Railway line also runs through the village gravesites of Kitwanga.
3.4.14 Occupation Sites There were seven historic Gitxsan speaking villages: Gitwangak (Kitwanga), Gitanyow (Kitwancool), Gitsegukla (Kitseguecla). Four of these, Gitwangak (Kitwanga), Gitanyow (Kitwancool), and Gitsegukla (Kitseguecla) are proximate to the proposed Kitsault transportation route and will be discussed briefly in this section. Each of these communities
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 65
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES functioned primarily as winter villages on or near the Skeena River, except Gitanyow, which was further north on an oolichan oil trade route to the Nass River (Halpin and Sequin, 1990).
Gitwangak (Kitwanga): Gitwangak or Kitwanga means People of the Place of Rabbits, and is the most western Gitxsan village on the Skeen River. It is approximately 241 km from the coast, and over 100 km from the proposed Kitsault mine site. The Kitsault transportation route passes by this village. This village is also approximately 3 km from the National Historic Site of Taawdzep or Gitwangak Battle Hill (formerly known as Kitwanga Fort). Gitxsan legend purports that warrior Chief Nekt built the fortified village, which was occupied during the late 18th and 19th centuries. From this location, Chief Nekt was able to rule over the oolichan trade routes along the Kitwanga River. The fort was defended by rolling spiked logs down on attackers. As guns grew more accessible in the area, the fort was no longer secure; it was burned and abandoned in 1835. The inhabitants of the fort moved to the present-day village of Gitwangak. Following their move from Battle Hill to this village, members of the Frog-Raven (Ganada), Eagle (Laxskik), and Wolf (Laxgibu) clans erected a series of carved house poles between 1840 and 1942 to commemorate their history and the families who once lived at Battle Hill. The Fireweed (Gisgast) clan joined the village later. Totem poles continued to be erected at potlatches in this village, despite anti-potlatch laws imposed by the federal government from 1874 to 1954. The remaining poles represent the oldest collection of totem poles to remain in their original village context within BC (Barbeau, 1929; Miller and Eastman, 1984).
Gitsegukla (Kitseguecla): The original site of this village was on the bank of the Skeena River at the base of the ridge (where the modern cemetery is found). In 1872, prospectors en route to the Omineca gold rush started a fire, which destroyed the village. A protest by the people resulted in an expeditionary military force being sent to put an end to the rebellion. The second location of the village was further up the river, directly below what is now the modern village. This second village consisted of long houses by the river, with the doors facing the river, and totems in front of the houses. The houses were community homes that had up to 50 people in them but, by 1884, nuclear family houses were being built. In 1914, the river flooded and destroyed some of the village’s houses and totem poles. The flood convinced some people to move to the top of the ridge where the community is located today (Halpin and Seguin, 1990).
3.4.15 Tourism Tourism within Gitxsan territory, which is owned, operated, or enjoyed by the Gitxsan, or that employ Gitxsan people was considered for population centres and surrounding locations along or proximate to Kitsault transportation route.
Kitwanga: The key tourist activities in this area include totem viewing, walking tours, fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Cultural tourists are drawn to Kitwanga for the historic sites, art, and totem poles associated with the area. The Kitwanga National Historic Site, formerly known as Kitwanga Fort National Historic site, includes the site of the 18th century earthwork fortress, known as Battle Hill, along with trails (including the adjacent Kitwancool
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 66
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Grease Trail) with interpretive signs. Kitwanga is also the gateway to Kitwanga Mountain Provincial Park, where hiking to the seven sisters, and wildlife view are enjoyed.
Kitsegueguecla: Totem pole viewing, native art, and fishing, hiking and wildlife viewing in the surrounding areas are key tourism draws to the village Kitsegueguecla.
Hazelton: Hazleton draws tourists interested in outdoor recreation and culture. The New Hazelton area offers boating, hiking, heli-skiing, and fishing and knowledgeable guides. The many trails in the area offer opportunities for horseback riding, ATVing, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, dog sledding and snowshoeing. Culture seekers are also attracted to the area for its unique Aboriginal and cultural sites, and festivals and events. The Ksan Indian Village and Museum is found in here, which highlights the ancient village of Gitammaax, at the confluence of the Bulkley and Skeena Rivers. The museum collection consists of approximately 600 items illustrating the material culture of the Gitxsan.
3.4.16 Cultural Revival Cultural revival of the Gitxsan can be seen through a growing number of efforts and projects aimed at preserving and restoring 1) Language 2) Traditional practices, and 3) Autonomy (self-determination).
A selection of examples to illustrate some the efforts in these three categories including:
1. Language The Gitanimaax language is being archived in the First Voices Web Site and attempts are being made to revive its use; A “Gitxsanimx- Save the Language” Facebook Web site was established, which is dedicated to promoting the language which has over 300 members. 2. Traditional Practices The Gitxsan started an online community called the Gitxsan Culture Web Page, put together with the aim of revitalising the language and culture (Gitxsan Chiefs 2011a). The Gitxsan Child and Family Services has developed a program called “Positive Gitxsan Parenting”, which is a community based workshop for integration of traditional Gitxsan culture into parenting styles (Gitxsan Chiefs 2011b). Culture camps have been developed to reconnect Gitxsan children and youth to their heritage. The Gigeenix cultural camp is held in Kispiox, and the Gyeets cultural day camp is held in Gitanyow (Gitxsan Chiefs 2011b). The Gitxsan still practice traditional feasts and celebrations of honour. These feasts are still incredibly important events within the community (Gitxsan Chiefs 2011b). Native totem pole carvers are producing new poles, and taking the opportunity to educate apprentices in traditional styles. Heritage sites and monuments, such as Battle Hill, are being preserved as used as education sites for Gitxsan history
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 67
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3. Autonomy Some Gitxsan leaders are seeking to shed their dependence Indian Act to increase their autonomy. This proposal would require the governments of Canada and BC to enter into an unprecedented agreement to give the Gitxsan Chiefs a large measure of control over resources within their asserted traditional territories. In exchange, the Gitxsan would give up their reserves and their status under the Indian Act (Hunter, 2009).
3.4.17 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management Traditional land use practices involved fishing, hunting and berry collection, and travel between seasons. Kin groups each had access to distinct land tenure areas, which were managed based on principals of Gitxsan law, which emphasised sustainability, taking only what you need, and treating animals with respect. Today, however, land use planning and management integrates Gitxsan principals and practices, as well as their interests in resource use, with the objectives and methods of various government agencies. Some examples of this co-management can be seen in the development of the North Coast Land and Resources Management Plan (NCLRMP), which includes consideration and management of Gitxsan interests in the region. Co-management is also demonstrated by the Department of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences/Ministry of Natural Resources co- operating with the Gitxsan Watershed Authorities in managing fish stocks, wildlife, and Species at Risk (e.g., CSTC Fisheries Program, 2005).
Recently, the Gitxsan Treaty Office has been coordinating the creation of a comprehensive plan and procedure for resource management and development decision-making that is reflective of Gitxsan law and tradition for purposes of sustainability. The “Gitxsan Treaty Office Watershed Sustainability Planning” elaborates on the vision, watershed structure, principles, and steps toward implementing the watershed plan. The Kitsault transportation route overlaps with the Lower Skeena one of the nine Gitxsan watersheds. The aim of the watershed planning is to balance a number of Gitxsan values and issues related to social, economic, and environmental issues, leading to informed decision-making to achieve sustainable development. The plan outlines several information-gathering and compiling steps, including a Cultural Feature Inventory for the storage and groundtruthing of all previous traditional ecological knowledge and traditional use studies. Finally, the plan provides steps towards developing and implementing watershed plans based on the information gathered. Inter-Wilp agreements ensure a common framework for Wilp and watershed planners to work together through the various stages of the watershed planning process. Over the past five years, the Gitxsan Treaty Office has also developed and released drafts of their policies related to minerals (2009), wildlife (2009), forestry (2005), water (2004), and oil and gas (2004). The Gitxsan Treaty Office has requested that these be considered in the Project’s “Environmental Assessment Application”, and thus these documents are included in the appendices of Rescan (2009d). The following sections provide a brief summary of each policy.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 68
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Gitxsan Mineral Policy The Gitxsan Mineral Policy – Interim Report (reproduced in Rescan 2009d) is intended to be included in Gitxsan regulatory framework. The policy summarises the experience of other indigenous groups, both nationally and internationally, to provide context and framing for their mineral policy directions. The draft report identifies the importance of corporate social responsibility and local level engagement and involvement in decision-making to ensure sustainable development. The draft report also provides a synopsis of mining-generated employment and its benefits and challenges and outlines the role of royalties and taxation related to mineral development in British Columbia and Canada. According to the draft report, the Gitxsan mineral potential is generally moderate to high from information provided by the Integrated Land Management Bureau. Finally, the draft Gitxsan Mineral Policy outlines several options for mineral development revenue-sharing with Gitxsan within the cultural context of the Gitxsan Wilp system, its laws, and traditional practices.
Gitxsan Wildlife Policy The Gitxsan Wildlife Policy – Interim Report (reproduced in Rescan 2009d) “includes a summary of research material and findings, including some of the significant national and international issues and policies related to Wildlife management, recommendations for incorporating Gitxsan customary structures into the policies and their eventual implementation” (Rescan 2009d). The draft wildlife report also provides an overview of the wildlife management discussions and debates between Aboriginal groups and governmental agencies responsible for the preservation and conservation of wildlife species, which highlights differences between scientific and traditional knowledge systems. The Gitxsan Treaty Office also makes wildlife-specific recommendations related to species found on Gitxsan territories and general strategies for habitat and wildlife management, which reflect and uphold their traditional tenure system and practices. Finally, the Gitxsan Treaty Office recommends wildlife research and monitoring, which integrates both traditional and scientific methods and information, and is led by Wilp and watershed planners.
Gitxsan Forest Policy The Gitxsan Sbagayt Gan Policy (reproduced in Rescan 2009d) makes a case for blending both technical and traditional knowledge to achieve a comprehensive Gitxsan land management plan for effective resource development decisions, especially related to forestry. Of particular importance to the Gitxsan is the determination of the Allowable Annual Cut. The “Gitxsan Sbagayt Gan Policy” provides management principles and policies related to “protected areas, compliance and enforcement, herbicides and pesticides, protection of riparian zones, Gitxsan timber supply area, Gitxsan Lax Yip allowable cut, allocation of harvesting rights, Sbagayt Gan tenures, replacement of harvesting rights, dispute resolution, Sbagayt Gan Daala, information management, and operational planning” (Rescan 2009d).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 69
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Gitxsan Water Policy The “Gitxsan Ax Policy – Interim Report” (reproduced in Rescan 2009d) links water quality and quantity issues to Gitxsan Wilp membership health and wellbeing. Similar to the “Sbagayt Gan Policy”, the Ax Policy outlines principles and management strategies for a variety of topic areas, including “domestic water, water supply, water quality standards, conservation of water, waste management and sewage treatment, infiltration and inflow into sewage treatment, sustainable ground water development, wetland protection, managing riparian zones, maintaining wildlife habitat in riparian zones, contamination, pollution and toxic/hazardous wastes, chemical use and disposal by small businesses, underground storage tanks, highway and airport de-icing, water scarcity and drought, flood control and management, erosion control, climate change and global warming, hoon protection, reconciliation of competing uses” (Rescan 2009d).
Gitxsan Oil and Gas Policy The Gitxsan Oil and Gas Policy (reproduced in Rescan 2009d) provides the recommended steps for Gitxsan oil and gas project consideration and approval, including necessary agreements (such as the Project Participation Agreement). The policy also outlines Gitxsan- led permitting process and licensing for oil and gas exploration and projects, including acceptable geophysical exploration methods. The Gitxsan Treaty Office has specific proposed regulations regarding pipelines. Finally, the oil and gas policy outlines Gitxsan interests in revenue sharing with oil and gas companies and dispute resolution mechanisms.
3.4.18 Summary In summary, the Gitxsan are traditionally semi-nomadic people, with a reliance on salmon, greases from various animals, and berries. They mainly utilised inland compared to marine resources, and accessed marine fish when they migrated up rivers into their territory. Alternatively, they obtained marine resources through trade of resources (e.g. inland berries) with coastal groups. The Gitxsan used many species, but were particularly known for their use of salmon, oolichan, berries that were promoted and managed through seasonal burning of berry patches, and mammals and birds used as meat and furs (e.g, beaver, ermine, mountain goat, moose, deer, and grouse). Site-specific information on key locations used by the Gitxsan for collection of resources, ceremonies, and other land use practices are not publically available, but may be obtained through direct consultation with the Gitxsan Chiefs. The Gitxsan have a number of well developed policies to guide land use practices in their territories, which should be considered during the development of an Environmental Impact Assessment.
3.5 Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office 3.5.1 Overview The Gitanyow (Kitwancool) people, translated as “People of many numbers” (GHCO 2002), are situated in northwestern BC and are represented by eight hereditary chiefs. Duff (1959) describes the Gitanyow as “an amalgamation of several groups of people of different origins,” including Prince Rupert, Nass Valley, Gitanmaaax, and Alaska. The Gitanyow are
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 70
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES culturally similar to the Gitxsan and have close historic ties to the Nisga’a, but have maintained political independence and avoided centralised tribal organisations (Sterritt et al. 1998).
This section provides desk-based, publicly available information on the Aboriginal rights, interests, and values held by the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs (“Gitanyow” hereafter). It includes information on the spatial and cultural context of the Gitanyow, including locations of Wilp boundaries (sub-divisions of the asserted territory by houses; more information in Section 3.5.5) proximate to the proposed transportation route for the Kitsault Project. It also provides a summary of the land and resource uses of cultural, spiritual, economic, and recreational significance to the Gitanyow, in various seasons, locations and time periods, from pre-contact to present.
3.5.2 Spatial and Cultural Context The Gitanyow asserted territory covers a total of 55,000 km2 of the Skeena and Nass watersheds, and extends from approximately 15 km north of Kitwanga Junction to Surveyor’s Creek, north of Meziadin Lake. The Gitanyow, similar to the Gitxsan, use the Wilp (i.e., house, or Huwilp as plural) system, and trace their ancestry to early Frog (Lax Ganeda) and Wolf (Lax Gibuu) clan peoples and ascribe the origins of their present territories on the Nass and Skeena Rivers to the period when their ancestors first established their villages and territories in the early postglacial period. Four Wilps make up each of these clans (described in Section 3.5.5).
Neighbouring and overlapping treaty lands and asserted territories to the Gitanyow include: The Nisga’a to the southwest and the Gitxsan (overlapping) to the north, south, and east, the Metlakatla First Nation to the west and south, the Kitsumkalum and Kitselas First Nation to the south, Carrier Sekani to the east, and the Tahltan Nation to the north (a detailed history of the Gitanyow houses can be found in Sterritt et al. 1998).
The Kitsault transportation route has the potential to interact with the asserted Gitanyow territory (Figure 3.5-1). The Huwilp that overlap with these portions of the transportation routes are the focus of this baseline. Two Huwilp overlap with the Nass Forest Service Road (FSR) and four overlap with Highway 37. The names of the Huwilp and their associated Hereditary Chiefs are listed in Table 3.5-1.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 71
Bear Lake Legend C A Segment 1: Kitsault mine site to Cranberry U N A A Malii and N D Wii’Litsxw - Txawokw IT Axwindesww Connector/Nass FSR ED S 37A STATE Segment 2: Cranberry Connector to Cranberry Meziadin Junction Junction Segment 3: Cranberry Junction to Kitwanga Stewart along Highway 37 Haitimsxw and Galee Segment 4: Cranberry Connector to New 37 Aiyansh Gwass Hlaam Malii Segment 5: New Aiyansh to Sand Lake and Biitoosxw Segment 6: Sand Lake to Terrace Gamlaxyeltxw and Sindihl Populated Place Bulkley House Kitsault Mine Project Highway Luuxhon Indian Reserve Cranberry Junction Parks & Protected Area
ALASKA KEY MAP 37 Alice Arm Road NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Alice Arm YUKON Kitsault Townsite Gwass Hlaam BRITISH COLUMBIA Fort Nelson Gwinuu Juneau BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA Kitsault Mine Project Fort Babine Fort St. John Stewart Nass Forest Service Road Project Location Gitanyow Hazelton Prince Rupert Edmonton Nass Camp Prince George New Aiyansh
Calgary Watakhayetsxw Kamloops and Sidok Kitwanga Kelowna 113 Smithers Landing Vancouver Kitseguecla Old Fort Victoria Laxgalts'ap Moricetown UNITED STATES Gingolx UNITED STATES Sand Lake Scale:1:900,000 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Granisle 16 Kilometers 113 Gitanyow Huwilp Territories Gamlaxyeltxw and Sindihl Smithers Gwass Hlaam and Biitoosxw 37 d x Gwass Hlaam m . 16 2 Reference v Gwinuu _
2 Base Data 1 0
- Round LakeHaitimsxw and Galee Atlas of Canada scale 1:1,000,000. 0 5
- Gitanyow Traditional Territory: Gitanyow treaty website 4
1 Luuxhon \ CLIENT: e n i l
e Malii s a
B Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. \
s Malii and Axwindesww c i Lax Kw'alaams m Perow o Wii’Litsxw - TxawokwTopley n PROJECT: o c e
- Watakhayetsxw and Sidok o i Wiley Kitsault Mine Project c Georgetown Mills o s _
4 Name Segment Length (Km) 1 \ g n i 16 Gitanyow Traditional Territory p Luuxhon 1 3.0 p Houston Broman Lake a
M Disclaimer: The lines on this map represent Lakelse Lake
\ overlapping with the Kitsault t Wiitaxhayetsxw and Sidok 1 13.4 l
u the approximate boundaries of traditional territories a
s Metlakatla t i as described by the Gitanyow.They are illustrative Gamlaxyeltxw and Sindihl 2 11.5 Transportation Route Options
K Prince Rupert _ only. Publication of this map in this report does not DATE: ANALYST: 8
8 Wiitaxhayetsxw and Sidok 2 18.6 9 imply that the Gitanyow First Nation, other First April 2011 MY
1 Figure
5 Nations, the Province of British Columbia, the 37 E Gamlaxyeltxw and Sindihl 3 5.3 JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: V
\ Government of Canada, Avanti or any of
E VE51988 MY
V 14-50-009_kitsumkalum.pdf \ their respective consultants have confirmed, Gwass Hlaam 3 49.1 s t c agreed to, or acknowledged (as the case may be) GIS FILE: e j o the traditionaPl oterrtr iEtodryw aasr rdepresented on this map Gwinuu 3 7.7 r 14-50-009.mxd P \
S PROJECTION: DATUM: I G \ : UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.5-1: Huwilp that Overlap with Kitsault Transportation Route
Nass Forest Service Road Highway 37 Wilp Hereditary Chief Clan Wilp Hereditary Chief Clan Watakhayetsxw Gabrielle Bright Lax Ganeda Watakhayetsxw Gabrielle Bright Lax Ganeda (Frog) (Frog) Luuxhon Don Russell Lax Ganeda Gwaas Hlaam Philip Daniels Lax Gibuu (Frog) (Wolf) Gamlaxyeltxw Edgar Good Lax Ganeda (Frog) Gwinuu Phyllis Haizimsque Lax Ganeda (Frog)
3.5.3 Historical Context 3.5.3.1 Pre-Contact Gitanyow peoples ascribe the origins of their present territories on the Nass and Skeena Rivers to when their ancestors first established their villages and territories in the early postglacial period (Sterritt et al. 1998). The Gitanyow oral histories (i.e., adaawks) indicate that the Gitanyow people once resided along the Nass River but, through warfare, were forced further into the interior. After re-settling in the Kitwanga River valley, Gitanyow forefathers built a fortress on a hill at Kitwancool, nine miles north of Gitanyow, and were protective of their land against outsiders, including other Aboriginal groups (Sterritt et al. 1998). Gitanyow history also records an important flood event in the Gwinuu adaawk, wherein the clan was lost in a flood and landed north of Ketchikan, Alaska. In an attempt to return home, the Gwinuu got lost at Kits-auth (aka Kitsault). They eventually returned and stayed at Kincolith, before moving up the Nass River inland to Ks-gay-gai-net (at the Cranberry River canyon) and settling in Gitanyow (Duff 1959; Sterritt et al. 1998). The Gitanyow oral history also refers to ongoing hostilities with the Tsetsaut. Following the second war with the Tsetsaut, the Gitanyow are said to have obtained the lands of the eastern Tsetsaut in 1861 (Sterritt et al. 1998).
3.5.3.2 Contact According to Sterritt et al. (1998), contact likely occurred with some degree of consistency in the mid-1800s, later than with coastal Aboriginal groups. There are records from the expedition of Hudson Bay Company’s clerk, Donald Mansen, travelling by boat up the Nass River and encountering multiple Aboriginal groups. These records includes writings of settlers, missionaries, and explorers and it includes more Aboriginal references in the 1880s after the Nisga’a and their neighbors, including the Gitanyow, forced government surveyors and commissions to meet with them to impress on them their territorial rights and the nature of their ownership of the land (Sterritt et al. 1998).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 73
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.3.3 Post Contact In the 1880s and 1890s, many Gitanyow decided to move to the lower Nass, where missionaries had established new settlements (Duff 1959). The first recorded census of Gitanyow peoples reported the population at 195 in 1889. Prior to the Tsetsaut wars and diseases brought by Europeans, Gitanyow were estimated to be at least several times that in number (Duff 1959). There were no federal or provincial treaties in effect for the area of northwest BC at the time of contact and thereafter. The Gitanyow, like other Aboriginal groups in the area, were covered under the British North American Act of 1867 and the Indian Act of 1876 which placed “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” exclusively under the jurisdiction and legislative authority of the federal government. The policies that the federal government implemented in the post-contact era affected the ability of the Gitanyow to practice their traditional culture. The outlawing of the feasting system by an amendment to the Indian Act in 1884, and the creation of the residential school systems are examples federal policies that affected the Gitanyow during this time. However, resistance by the Gitanyow continued through protest activities addressing ownership and control of their territory, particularly between 1919 and 1936. In the 1970s, the Gitanyow conducted extensive research and compiled records of their history to support their land claims policy (Sterritt et al. 1999). The Gitanyow are now in the process of treaty negotiations, and are working to revive their culture (see Section 3.5.16). The Gitanyow Band membership as of March 2011 was 790, of which 385 live on reserves (INAC 2011c).
3.5.4 Language The Gitanyow language (Gitsenimx language with the Gitwangak dialect) was previously spoken by Gitanyow members, but it is now considered the “old language.” The Gitanyow language is part of the Tsimshian language group and is most akin to the Gitxsan language. The Gitxsan dialect is now most commonly spoken by both Gitxsan and Gitanyow members. The use and fluency of the language varies from wilp to wilp with wilp Gamalaxyletxw and wilp Watakheyetxw reporting high levels of use.
The Aboriginal Language Initiative (ALI) assessed the use of the Gitanyow language for the Gitanyow band Council in partnership with the Gitanyow Independent School Society. In this assessment, there were 135 fluent speakers, 283 individuals who understood or spoke the language to some degree, and 53 learning the language (total of 797 individuals) (GIS 2009). The age demographics of speakers of various fluencies were also determined and are provided in Table 3.5-2. These demographics show that, while fluent language speakers are found mainly in upper age classes, there is some effort to revive the language by teaching young children (0-4 years of age) and adolescents (5-14 years of age) how to speak (GIS 2009). Section 3.5.16 refers to efforts underway to revive the language and level of fluency in the community.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 74
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Table 3.5-2: Distribution of Aboriginal Language Fluency by Age
Speak/Understands Fluent (135 total; # Learning (53 Total; # Age Somewhat (283 total; # individuals) individuals) individuals) 0-4 0 0 20 5-14 0 8 33 15-19 0 27 0 20-24 0 77 0 25-44 0 75 0 45-54 0 87 0 55-64 50 5 0 65-74 71 4 0 75-84 12 0 0 85 and over 2 0 0 Source: GIS 2009
3.5.5 Cultural Practices 3.5.5.1 Social Organisation and Governance Presently, the Gitanyow operate with a dual system of governance that relies on the Hereditary Chief system and the Band system. The former has decision-making power related to Wilp territories and is overseen by hereditary chiefs. The Band is in charge of administration of community services. Each system is discussed briefly in this section.
3.5.5.1.1 Hereditary Chief System Gitanyow society is made up of a number of family lineages that define the group’s relationship with a specific territory. Over time, these lineages formed into house groups (i.e. Huwilp), which are the highest legal and political entities in the Gitanyow society. Each house keeps distinct Adaawks (oral history), Ayuuks (crests), Getimgan (totem poles), Daxgyet (authority), and limx’oy (ancient song) (GHCO 2008; Overstall 2008). Each Wilp is identified as belonging to one of two clans, the Wolf (Lax Gibuu) and Frog (Lax Ganeda). Through intermarriage between members of different clans, the Frog and Wolf clans are culturally interwoven. Each clan has its own hereditary chief (Simooghet) with separate responsibilities and who possesses the Wilp name of the highest rank in each clan (Duff 1959). Each Wilp also has Sigidimhanakak (normally the mother and aunts of the head Chief) and sub-Chiefs (usually the brothers, matrilineal cousins, or nephews of the Head Chief). The homes of the Frog and Wolf clan hereditary chiefs were traditionally next to each other at the centre of the community, and the two chiefs would confer at times of concern. Social rank is important across clans; a Wolf chief of higher social standing than a Frog chief commands the respect of both clans.
The Wilp / clan system allows for resource and territorial decision-making and management based on Wilp membership, and under the guidance of the hereditary chief. Resources
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 75
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES management on Wilp lands were traditionally tied to the continuation, wealth, and status of the Wilp in the feasting system, where they provided generous gifts to those in need to enhance their Wilp status (Duff 1959). The most important feast in Gitanyow society follows the death of a chief, which provides an occasion for a successor to be selected by the clan and for the new chief to assume the name of the former. In the past, gifts given during feasts were generated from harvesting resources from the Wilp territory; however, the majority of gifts are now financial. The head chief of the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office is Glen Williams, who coordinates consultation activities with affected hereditary chiefs of each wilp for purposes of representing the wilp’s rights and interests. The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office (GHCO) entered the treaty process in December 1993, and is at the stage of negotiating an agreement in principle.
The contact information for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chief’s Office is: Gitanyow Hereditary Chief’s Office P.O. Box 148 Kitwanga, BC V0J 2A0 250-849-5373
3.5.5.1.2 Band System The 1876 Indian Act divided Aboriginal groups with a shared traditional territory, identity, culture, language and governing body into separate bands and land reserves. The "band" system was imposed on Aboriginal groups and bands were made subject to detailed supervision by federal officials. There is one Gitanyow band overseeing the asserted Gitanyow territory. The Band chief is Mark Starlund, who was elected on 3 June 2011 for a two-year term with elections held on 2 June 2013. The elected council members are Jason Derrick, Edward Derrick, Andrew Johnson, Trista Morgan, Vernon Smith, Joel Starlund, and Francis Williams. The Gitanyow Band membership as of March 2011 was 790, of which 385 live on reserves (INAC 2011c).
The contact information for the band governance systems is: Gitanyow Band Council P.O. Box 340 Kitwanga, BC V0J 2A0 250-849-5222 http://www.band.gitanyow.com/
3.5.5.2 Spirituality, Traditional Laws, and Worldview Traditionally, Tsimshian peoples believed in animal and human reincarnation, and that people often returned as grandchildren within their lineage (Mills 1994). Daly (2005) discusses many facets of feasts, noting that they served both to legitimise various transactions and for spiritual purposes as well. Chiefs had numerous spiritual responsibilities in addition to political duties, of which demonstrating respect for spirits and animals in all activities was one. Mauss (1990), wrote that “feasts are shamanic because the participant chiefs are human incarnations of the spirits associated with the names they
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 76
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES hold, whose songs they sing, whose dances they perform, and whose spirits they merge with to mediate the mental and emotion well-being of their people.”
Gitanyow Laws (Ayookxw) are another important aspect of Gitanyow worldview, founded on knowledge, experience, and practices developed over thousands of years. Gitanyow laws include laws of inheritance, ownership of Lax’yip, resources, the conduct of Li’ligit, duties and obligations, and they ensure balance, order, and peace. Gitanyow law requires non- clan members to obtain permission for activities from the hereditary chief (Sterritt et al. 1998). Historically, if a person from one clan was found on land of another clan, and he did not have permission of the chief, his life would be taken. Non-clan members are also only allowed to hunt in an area if granted permission, and if accompanied by someone owning the hunting ground. Someone who married into the clan could also hunt there, with the chief’s permission (Duff 1959). This law still pertains to the ways in which Gitanyow view industries in Gitanyow Asserted Territory, as demonstrated by the statement:
“Under our ayookxw (law) if any activity is to take place on our house territory, one must seek permission from the head chief. This ayookxw has been continuously violated by the carrying out of forest activities on our territory without our consent” (Rescan 2009e).”
One of the strictest Gitanyow laws is that no hunting ground can ever be cut in half and given to anyone; no one is allowed to make a hunting ground smaller or larger, even if they have power over it. This law also applies to fishing, resources above and below ground (Duff 1959).
3.5.6 Seasonal Round The Gitanyow were semi-nomadic, and moved through their territory on seasonal rounds. A seasonal round describes traditional activities undertaken in the summer, fall, winter, and spring over the course of a calendar year, and which are briefly described here. In early spring, fishing for oolichan at the mouth of the Nass River was done by many Aboriginal groups in the area (Halpin and Seguin, 1990). The grease rendered from the fat of these fish was traded among Aboriginal groups and was highly valued. In the spring, as the salmon arrived, groups dispersed to their traditional fishing sites. All five salmon species were available and essential to food supply, although sockeye was of primary importance to the Gitanyow (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Salmon was also smoked for use year round. All Aboriginal groups picked berries at lower altitudes over the course of summer, but, in the fall, the Gitanyow moved to higher elevations to pick berries. Fall hunting and trapping were important activities, and targeted a range of mammals used for fur and/or food, such as moose, deer, mountain goat, caribou, porcupine, bear, beaver, mink, marten, fisher, fox, otter, and hare (Daly 2005; Halpin and Seguin 1990; MacDonald 1989; People of ‘Ksan 1980). During the winter, some trapping and ice fishing may have occurred, but men and women generally occupied themselves with carving and weaving, respectively. Most rituals and ceremonies were held in mid-winter.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 77
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.7 Land Use According to Philpot Forestry Services (2005), the following areas and land uses, which are proximate to the Kitsault transportation route, are of importance to the Gitanyow:
Kitwanga, Cranberry, Kispiox, Nangeese, Kiteen rivers, and Meziadin-Nass River system (Historical use of the Cranberry and Kitwanga, but moved to the Meziadin- Nass River system as stocks declined); Kitwancool Lake for fishing with sockeye habitat rejuvenation under way; Beaver harvesting areas have been identified near Cranberry Junction in Gwass Hlaam; Important moose winter habitat extends along much of Hwy 37 southward from Cranberry Junction (in Wilp Gwinuu and Gwass Hlaam territory) to the southern extent of Gitanyow asserted territory; There is a mountain goat harvest area indicated to the east of Kitwancool Lake in Wilp Gwinuu territory; There is very high value grizzly bear habitat indicated along the valley following most of Hwy 37; Members of Wilp Watakhayetsxw fish for Coho and pink salmon proximate to the Nass FSR in the Cranberry River canyon; The Nass FSR (or Cranberry Connector) provides important access to Jack Pine Mountain for Gitanyow pine mushroom picking activities; Food harvest is indicated to occur south of Kitwancool Lake, in the southern portion of Hwy 37. Two or more mushroom collection sites are also indicated in this area; In the southern part of Wilp Gamlakyetlxw’s territory, Gitanyow report cedar stands (GHCO 2008). Old growth forests are found along Hwy 37 between Cranberry Junction and the southern extend of the Gitanyow asserted territory, and around Kitwancool Lake, which were likely important for wildlife habitat, and hunting/trapping in the past.
3.5.8 Contemporary Land Use Traditional activities still continue on Gitanyow asserted territory; however industrial wage labour has increased in the area. Examples of contemporary land uses ongoing in the territory, which employ some Gitanyow individuals, include:
Guide outfitting; Guided angling; Fisheries (Gitanyow directly involved in co-management); Forestry (e.g. Gitanyow directly involved in forestry decisions via the Gitanyow Forestry Agreement (GFA 2006)); Pine mushroom collection and sales;
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 78
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Cultural Tourism; and Mining.
3.5.9 Resource Importance Many of the same resources used by the Gitxsan were also used by the Gitanyow, depending on habitat and availability within Wilp territories. Items of particular importance to the Gitanyow are highlighted in Table 3.5-3, but do not represent an exhaustive list of important environmental components. Gitanyow involvement in land use planning efforts, namely Philpot Forestry Services (2005), provided some publically available key locations of importance to the Gitanyow that overlap with Kitsault transportation route (Section 3.5.7).
Table 3.5-3: Resources of Importance to the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs
Resource Use Salmon Most important food product of the Gitanyow, Sockeye especially sockeye; smoked and eaten year round. Chinook Oolichan and other fatty fishes were used to create greases, or items were traded for greases, which were Chum of high value. Pink Coho Steelhead
Other Fish: Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout Dolly Varden Bull trout Rocky Mountain whitefish Oolichan Various species of coarse fish Wildlife: Used for cultural, sustenance, and traditional purposes Moose Mountain Goat Bear (Grizzly and black) Furbearers (e.g. American marten, fisher) Marmots Waterfowl Plants: Harvest a variety of flora species or sustenance, Pine mushroom trading, revenue, and construction. Pine mushroom Various berries harvesting is a recent activity, and is an important source of income. Red cedar Old growth is important to Gitanyow for cultural, Old growth forest economic, and ecological reasons. Red cedar is as an important construction material for houses, totem poles, household supplies, and clothing (Philpot Forestry Services 2005). Gitanyow collected the cambium of various species, which was consumed, as well as inner bark of the red cedar (Halpin and Seguin 1990).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 79
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Locations of many of these items that are relevant to the transportation routes and are publically available are discussed in Section 3.5.7 and can be viewed on traditional use resource maps within Appendix II of the Philpot Forestry Services (2005) Gitanyow Land Use Plan.
3.5.10 Trading among Aboriginal Neighbours Cedar clothing and other items were used in trade with other Aboriginal groups for oolichan grease (GCHO 2006). During peaceful times, there are records of trade between the Gitanyow and the Tsetsaut; the Gitanyow are said to have bought their first guns from the Tsetsaut, who used to purchase guns and gunpowder from the Hudson’s Bay Company (Duff 1959).
3.5.11 Travel Routes and Corridors 3.5.11.1 Land Travel Numerous trail systems, many of which were used for grease trade and collection (i.e., grease trails) historically criss-crossed the Gitanyow asserted territory. Within the Cranberry-Kitwanga valleys, remnants of the Kitwancool Grease Trail remain unaltered by road construction or logging. The Kitwancool Grease Trail connected Grease Harbour on the Nass River with inland areas and was a major transportation route for commerce and travel of Aboriginal groups; the trail is of historic significance. Philpot Forestry Services (2005) also indicates a trail in Wilp Gamlaxyeltxw near Cranberry Junction.
3.5.11.2 Water Travel Water travel by the Gitanyow along the Nass River and other river systems was frequently done by canoe. Once the rivers froze, they could be walked upon; however, trails beside the rivers or overland provided the most reliable means of transport between seasons (MacDonald 1989).
3.5.12 Occupation Sites The present villages within the Gitanyow asserted territories include Meziadin Junction, Cranberry Junction, and Gitanyow. Of these, the Kitsault transportation route passes adjacent to the villages of Cranberry Junction and Gitanyow; these two settlements are considered in this section. The closest village to the Kitsault mine site is Cranberry Junction, which is over 50 km away. Highway 37, particularly from Cranberry Junction to the south end of the asserted territory, also passes through prime valley habitat of importance to large ranging mammals like moose and grizzly bear (Philpot Forestry Services, 2005), and many locations south of Kitwancool Lake host Gitanyow cabins and historic, temporary residences.
Cranberry Junction: The Gitanyow Fisheries Authority (GFA) indicates that Cranberry River was a historically important fishing area for salmon, and traditional oral histories recorded in Duff (1959) make multiple references to Cranberry River as a fishing/spawning area. Today, Cranberry Junction is seasonally populated based on the availability and
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 80
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES harvest of pine mushrooms with transient pickers occupying the area for several months in the summer and fall. Cranberry Junction is derived from the junctions along the south bank of the Cranberry River.
Gitanyow: The village of Gitanyow is located along the Kitwanga River just south of Kitwancool Lake. The village was formerly known as Kitwancool, but changed its name in the early 1980s. The Gitanyow had a single winter village located to the north on the oolichan oil trade route to the Nass River, which was a unique position along the trade routes as the other six traditional Gitxsan villages were located on the Skeena River. The Gitanyow also maintained hunting territories in the Skeena and Nass drainages. Today, Gitanyow is still in the same location. The people of Gitanyow village were known for distrusting authorities and intruders, effectively keeping their village largely isolated until the late 1920s (Barbeau 1929).
Other Historic Sites: Throughout the valley bottoms to alpine of the asserted Gitanyow territories are numerous sites that were used by Gitanyow Huwilp members for traditional uses such as fishing, hunting, gathering of resources for food, medicine, cultural and ceremonial purposes, habitation, trapping, and worship. Key historical cultural sites or importance include Kitwancool Lake (archaeological site), Gitanyow (historic village), and Meziadin Lake (GHCO 2006). A complete list of other sites and their uses is presented in Gitanyow Traditional Use Studies No. 1, 2, 3, (Petzelt 1998, 1999, 2000), and in the Gitanyow Cultural Heritage Resource Management Policy (GCHRMP). Other sites are known to Gitanyow Huwilp members but have not been documented or mapped through Traditional Use Studies.
3.5.13 Tourism Tourism within Gitanyow territory, which is owned, operated, or enjoyed by the Gitanyow, or that employ Gitanyow people, and which is proximate to the Kitsault transportation route, re considered here. The Gitanyow vision for economic development on their asserted territory includes growth in tourism and guiding activities (Philpot 2005).
Cranberry Junction: Cranberry Junction is not a tourist destination, but it is in an area that is a gateway to outdoor activities such as heli-skiiing, guided hunting, and guided fishing.
Gitanyow: Gitanyow is a tourist destination famous for its totem poles in the Kitwanga Valley. Many of the twenty poles date back to the 1800s and are still in their original positions. One of the oldest totem poles in Kitwancool is the "Hole in the Ice" totem, erected in about 1850.
3.5.14 Cultural Revival 3.5.14.1 Language The Gitanimaax language is being archived in the First Voices Web Site and attempts are being made to revive its use. A “Gitxsanimx- Save the Language” Facebook Web site was established, which is dedicated to promoting the language which has over 300 members.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 81
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
The demographics of Gitanyow traditional language speakers shown in Table 3.5-2 in Section 3.5.4, demonstrate that there is some effort to revive the language by teaching young children (0-4 years of age) and adolescents (5-14 years of age) how to speak. There are also ongoing efforts to archive the language and the sound of the dialect.
3.5.14.2 Culture Cultural revival is ongoing in the Gitanyow asserted territory. Creating a federal “Heritage Park” in Gitanyow is the subject of treaty negotiations as is the repatriation of certain artifacts from the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Royal British Columbia Museum (Overstall, 2008). Current feasting is still ongoing, and there is a culture camp in Gitanyow that aims to teach young Gitanyow traditional practices. Gitanyow Independent School also works to teach Gitanyow about their history and traditions.
3.5.14.3 Autonomy The Gitanyow have a vision for autonomy that rests strongly on realising economic self- determination through revenue sharing, funding for capacity building and restoration, protection of traditional resources, and procuring job opportunities in forest rehabilitation. The process of joint land use planning enables the Aboriginal group to influence land use decisions so they are consistent with the type of economic activities they would like to see in the territory. The Gitanyow would like to develop economic activities, such as guiding, tourism, cultural and educational initiatives, resource extraction, silviculture and restoration, and traditional fisheries (Philpot 2005). The joint land use planning process enacted within Gitanyow asserted territory supports Gitanyow livelihoods and economic self-determination by protecting traditional resources and access to those resources. The availability of traditional resources decreases Gitanyow dependency on wage labour, and enables them to support themselves off the land. Since the land use plans take into consideration the entire asserted territory, the Gitanyow support the protection of resources over the whole area, not a limited portion as offered in the treaty process.
Revenue sharing is also part of the Gitanyow vision, which would ensure that a portion of all revenues from resource extraction would go to the Wilp and GCHO. Rather than being based on a per capita formula (as are initial Forest and Range Agreements and Forest and Range Opportunities), the Gitanyow see true revenue sharing being based on the amount of timber harvested from their territories (GHCO 2006). Equitable revenue sharing has the potential to support stable Aboriginal governments, while providing “an economic return on Gitanyow investments in their land that can be used to enhance and sustain [their] traditional system” (GCHO 2006). Such funds could be used as capital to start Aboriginal forest-based enterprises, increase employment by hiring staff for programs within their asserted territory, and provide revenue for economic planning. The funds would also strengthen the local economy by ensuring money circulates back in to the territory.
Gitanyow were also accepted into the federal treaty negotiation process in 1980. It has participated in the BC treaty process since 1994, but since 1996 the process has been stalled at stage four, which is the negotiation of an agreement in principle.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 82
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.15 Land and Resource Use Planning and Management The Gitanyow have and continue to participate in land-based cultural and subsistence activities, including hunting, trapping, fishing, spiritual worship, and plant and mushroom harvesting. The Gitanyow have a strong connection to the land and continue to rely on it for sustenance. Gitanyow are interested in sustainable use and protection of their Wilp territories, and, as such, have participated extensively in several the provincial land use planning processes. Two land use plans cover the extent of Gitanyow Wilp territories, namely the Nass South Sustainable Resource Management Plan (NSSRMP) and the Kispiox-Cranberry Landscape Unit Plan (GHCO 2006). The Gitanyow Wilp have provided input about their traditional use sites, values, interests, Aboriginal rights and title related to the plan areas. The KCLUP plan area covers the Kitsault transportation route along Hwy 37 and part of the Nass FSR. This section provides an overview of Gitanyow land use activities and values as expressed in the KCLUP and other planning documents that are publicly available.
Contact with Euro-Canadians significantly changed the Gitanyow landscape and how it is used. In particular, forestry activities, including clearcut logging and kilometers of access roads, have damaged or destroyed many Gitanyow traditional use sites and ecological function, including wildlife and fish habitat. Gitanyow describe the destruction of cabins, medicinal food gathering sites, and hunting and trapping areas. Logging has also adversely affected aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including water quality.
Gitanyow divide their land use into site specific (e.g., fishing, villages, and grave sites) and larger use areas (e.g., hunting, trapping, and access routes) (GHCO 2006). Gitanyow traditional use sites are described in “Gitanyow Traditional Use Studies, No. 1, 2, and 3” prepared from 1998 to 2000.
3.5.15.1 Fisheries Fisheries co-management has been implemented between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs within their asserted territory since 1994. The Gitanyow Fisheries Authority (GFA) is the technical arm of the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs (GHC), and provides fisheries, wildlife, and environmental expertise and services. GFA shares an office with the GHCO, which is located in the village of Gitanyow. The Gitanyow Fisheries Authority (GFA) administers and implements the Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) Fishery each season, under the specifications as outlined in Schedules A and B-1, of the Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement between the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Under this Agreement the Gitanyow are permitted to fish all salmon species, however sockeye, chinook and coho are the primary species fished. Fishing can occur at certain areas throughout the Gitanyow asserted territory, with the Meziadin River providing the bulk of the FSC fish for the Gitanyow. For conservation reasons, the Gitanyow have voluntarily stopped fishing Kitwanga sockeye. GFA is responsible for:
Negotiating annually the communal FSC license with DFO;
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 83
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Creating a fishing plan in conjunction with DFO; Following and implementing an enforcement protocol and catch monitoring; and Issuing Designation Cards and Transport Permits to Gitanyow members.
Locations of high fishing sites that are proximate to the Kitsault transportation route are discussed in Section 3.5.7 (Land use) and in traditional use maps found within Philpot (2005).
3.5.15.2 Forestry In the past, Gitanyow have participated in the local forest industry with employment in sawmills; however, they have had limited involvement in timber harvesting and silviculture operations. The Gitanyow have also had long-standing concerns about methods and operations of forestry licensees. Through the land use planning process, Gitanyow and the province have developed more collaborative and sustainable approaches and guidelines for ecosystem diversity and protection. For example, in 2005, Philpot Forestry Services Ltd. was retained by the Ministry of Forests, Skeena-Stikine Forest District, to consult, co- operate and plan with the Gitanyow, the Ministry of Forests, and Forest Licensees, to prepare a Landscape Unit Plan (LUP) for all Gitanyow asserted territories within the Kispiox and Cranberry Timber Supply Areas (TSA). For purposes of the LUP, the Gitanyow territories within the Kispiox and Cranberry areas are considered a single landscape unit. Individual House Territories (or parts of House Territories) are considered as planning subunits of the LUP, and include the Houses of Gwaas Hlaam, Gwinuu, Malii, Wiitaxhayetsxw, and Gamlaxyeltxw-Sindihl. A Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has been prepared and approved for the Kispiox Timber Supply Area and is considered as Ministerial Policy for land management within the Kispiox T.S.A.; it is assumed for purposes of this Landscape Unit Plan that the Ministerial Policy set forth in the Kispiox LRMP will apply equally to the Cranberry T.S.A. (Philpot 2005). The identification of cultural forest values is an integral part of the Gitanyow / MoF joint LUP. The cultural features map, which was an input to the overall plan, identifies fishing sites, hunting areas, food gathering areas such as berry sites, traplines, wildlife habitat, medicinal plants, trails and more.
Gitanyow receive funding under agreements such as the Forestry Agreement to support their capacity to participate in the Joint Resources Council, the implementation of joint land use plans and to engage in the resolution of key issues early in the planning cycle (GFA 2006, Section 8.1). Capacity support to engage in land use planning and consultation assists the Gitanyow in creating a land base and policy environment that is consistent with their interests and traditional laws. By participating in the joint land use plans, Gitanyow are able to indicate which areas should be off limits to logging and other development. The result is increased certainty for operators. A final feature of the Gitanyow vision is the “creation of a sound economic climate” (GHCO 2006).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 84
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.15.3 Wildlife Harvest Wildlife species of importance to the Gitanyow are moose, goat, bear (grizzly and black), furbearers, waterfowl, and marmots, which are used for cultural, sustenance, and traditional purposes. Hereditary chiefs have and continue to play an important role in resource management, and protection, especially for wildlife. Of particular concern related to wildlife for Gitanyow chiefs is the loss and fragmentation of old growth forests as an important habitat for several species and increased hunting pressure from legal and illegal hunting. Relevant to the Kitsault transportation route, Gitanyow are concerned about increased disturbance of wildlife from human and vehicular traffic. In particular, prospects of upgrading the Cranberry Connector to meet highway standards providing alternative access (other than Highway 37) to the Nass Valley and Terrace causes Gitanyow concern for important moose winter range. Gitanyow Huwilp anticipate an increase in vehicular traffic and noise along the newly created highway, which may cause increased rates of moose displacement, disturbance, and mortality from hunting and collisions.
Locations of high wildlife value that are proximate to the Kitsault transportation route were discussed in Section 3.5.7 (Land use) and in traditional use maps found within Philpot (2005).
3.5.15.4 Plant, Berry and Mushroom Harvesting The Gitanyow have and continue to harvest a variety of flora species for sustenance, trading, revenue, and construction purposes. Of particular importance to the Gitanyow Wilp are pine mushrooms, red cedar, and Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs). While Gitanyow pine mushroom harvesting is a recent land use activity, it is an important source of annual income to the Gitanyow. Most harvesting of mushrooms occurs around the village of Gitanyow with non-motorised access by foot or bike. Also, Members of Wilp Watakhayetsxw harvest mushrooms in and around Jack Pine Mountain. The Kitsault transportation route does not overlap with harvesting activities; however, the Nass FSR provides important access to Jack Pine Mountain. These harvesting sites are of particular economic value to Gitanyow members. Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) are important to Gitanyow Wilp for a variety of reasons, including cultural, economic, and ecological. OGMAs provide important habitat for wildlife, fish, and bird species that Gitanyow Wilp rely on. The KCLUP identifies red cedar as a valuable resource to Gitanyow Wilp. It is an important construction material for houses, totem poles, household supplies, and clothing, which was used in trade with other Aboriginal groups for oolichan (GHCO 2006). In the southern part of Gamlakyetlxw and Sindihl’s Wilp territory, Gitanyow report cedar stands (GHCO 2008). Given the high level of forestry activity within Gitanyow territory, cedar resources have been depleted with remaining stands targeted for harvest due to their high economic value. Gitanyow would like to ensure future availability of cedar for cultural purposes. Some food gathering locations that are proximate to Hwy 37 were discussed in Section 3.5.7 (Land use) and in traditional use maps found within Philpot (2005).
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 85
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
3.5.15.5 Cultural Resources The Gitanyow Cultural Heritage Resource Management Policy (GCHRMP) evolved from the Nass Sustainability Resource Management Process, which produced a needs assessment that recommended the development of the policy. The recognised need was for a policy to be developed in order to manage the impacts of the resource development on heritage resources. This policy describes how to manage cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, historical records, social institutions, expressive cultures, old buildings, religious beliefs and practices, folk life, artifacts, and spiritual places (GHCO 2009). The GCHRMP was partially funded by the provincial government and took about two years to complete.
3.5.16 Summary In summary, the Gitanyow are culturally similar to the Gitxsan, but are known for their history of resistance to intrusion from outsiders. The Gitanyow have a dual government, which includes the hereditary chief system and the band system. Fish, particularly salmon (i.e., sockeye) are a staple to the Gitanyow throughout their history. The Gitanyow have also relied heavily on hunting and trapping various mammals, collecting berries, and consuming greases from fatty fish, such as oolichan. The Gitanyow have entered into several co- management agreements (e.g. fisheries, forestry, and cultural resources) to increase their decision-making abilities in current resource development activities within the asserted territory. The Gitanyow are presently in the treaty process, whereby they seek to increase their ability to revive their culture and realise autonomy and self-determination.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 86
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
REFERENCES
Allaire, K, G. MacDonald, and R. Inglis. 1979. Gitlaxdzawk: Ethnohistory and Archaeology. In Skeena River prehistory, R. Inglis and G. MacDonald (eds.) pp. 53-166. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series No. 87, Ottawa. Barbeau, M. 1929. “Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper Skeena River, British Columbia”. National Museum of Canada Bulletin No. 61, Anthropological Series No. 12, Facsimile Edition. F.A. Acland: Ottawa. Boas, F. 1916. Tsimshian Mythology, based on texts recorded by Henry W. Tate. Thirty- First Annual Report, 1909-10, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 27-1037. Smithsonian Institute, Washington. Berthiaume, R. 1999. “The Gitselasu: The People of Kitselas Canyon”. First Nations Education Centre, Terrace. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2010a. Environmental Assessment Office User Guide. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/EAO_User_Guide.pdf. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2010b. Proponent Guide for providing First Nation Consultation Information (Non-Treaty First Nations). Retrieved May 2011: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/Guide_Proponents_Non_Treaty_FN.pdf. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2010c. Kitsault Project section 11 Order. Submitted to Avanti Mining Corporation, 24 November 2010. Retrieved March 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p356/1290638070396_69e81c22589 b7dedfbf1667182cbefcbf63eaeedf4c28b246400daf2f1087d8a.pdf. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2011d. Kitsault Project section 13 Order. Submitted to Avanti Mining Corporation, 8 June 2011. Retrieved June 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p356/1307558827198_19f5b67eb88 91985802db92bc944445d20cbf444157f9ecdc36812f401d5a184.pdf. British Columbia (BC) Stats. 2006a. Aboriginal Community Data Initiative – 2006 Census – Metlakatla Band. British Columbia (BC) Stats. 2006b. 2006 Census Profile - S1/2 Tsimpsean 2, IRI. BC Stats. Government of British Columbia. BC Treaty Commission (BCTC). 2009. Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.bctreaty.net/files/issues_rights.php. Burton, C., and P. Burton. 2004. Wilp Sa Maa'y Harvesting Co-operative: Northwestern British Columbia Case study analysis prepared for the Department of Northern and Indian Affairs. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/pr/ra/coo/Wilp_e.html.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 87
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) Fisheries Program. 2005. Habitat Stewardship Program Final Report. Prepared by the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Working towards harm reducing and selective fishing methodologies for Carrier First Nations within the Nechako River watershed. Coast Tsimshian Tribal Society. 2008. Coast Tsimshian Tribal Society. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.coasttsimshian.ca. Coupe, R.; Ray, C.; Comeau, A.; Ketcheson, M. and Annas, R. 1982. “A guide to some common plants of the Skeena area”. Information Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria. Coupland, G. 1988. Prehistoric Cultural Change at Kitselas Canyon. Canadian Museum of Civilization, National Museums of Canada, Hull. Daly, R. 1988. “Anthropological Opinion on the Nature of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Economy”. Opinion evidence for the Plaintiffs in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1991] 3 W.W.R. 97, [1991] 5 C.N.L.R. xiii, (1991), 79 D.L.R. (4th) 185 (B.C. Supreme Court); (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1, 49 W.A.C. 1, 104 D.L.R. (4th) 470, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97, [1993] 5 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C. Court of Appeal); (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (Supreme Court of Canada). On file at the Gitxsan Treaty Office, Hazelton, BC. Daly, R. 2005. Our Box Was Full: An Ethnography for the Delgamuukw Plaintiffs UBC Press, Vancouver. Drury, W. 2009. China Trip. Lax Kw’alaams Maalsgm sa’wins’k, vol. 2, no. 2a, p. 3. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.laxkwalaams.ca/index.php?x=universalNews&action=view&heading=new sletters&id_value=111. Duff, W. 1959. Houses, territories and laws of the Kitwancool. BC Provincial Museum, Victoria, BC. Duff, W. 1965. The Indian history of British Columbia. Volume 1: The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 5, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Emmons, G. 1912. The Kitselas of British Columbia. American Anthropologist 14: 467-71. First Voices. 2011. Official Web Site. Retrieved April 2011: http://www.firstvoices.com/en/home. Garfield, V. 1939. Tsimshian Clan and Society. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 167-340. Gitanyow Fisheries Authority (GFA). Official Web Site. Retrieved April 2011: http://www.gitanyowfisheries.com/. Gitanyow Forestry Agreement. 2006. Gitanyow Forestry Agreement between Gitanyow Huwilp and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Gitanyow_Forestry_Agreement.pdf.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 88
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Gitanyow Human Services. 2009. Official Website. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.health.gitanyow.com/whoweare.htm. Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office (GHCO). 2002. Website. Retrieved May 2011: www.kermode.net/gitanyowchiefs/. Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office (GHCO). 2006. Kispiox-Cranberry Landscape Unit Plan. Retrieved June 2011: wildfire.ca/...LUP/Gitanyow%20LUP%20Draft%205%20030506%20(Final).doc. Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office (GHCO). 2008. Building a New Relationship with the Gitanyow. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.forrex.org/program/con_bio/PDF/Workshops/Dynamic_Landscapes_Work shop/PG/Glen%20-%20Collaborating%20with%20First%20Nations.pdf. Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office (GHCO). 2009. The Gitanyow Cultural Heritage Resource Management Policy. Gitanyow, BC. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.bvcentre.ca/files/Misc/ReconcilingCRM.pdf. Gitanyow Independent School (GIS). 2009. Language Needs Assessment (Gitanyow Independent School Society). Retrieved June 2011: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/node/1379. Gitxsan Chiefs. 2011a. Gitxsan Culture Website. Retrieved April 2011: http://gitxsanculture.com/main/. Gitxsan Chiefs. 2011b. Gitxsan Child and Family Services. Retrieved April 2011: http://www.gitxsancare.com/home. Gitxsan Chiefs Office (GCO). 2011. Official Web Site. Retrieved April 2011: http://www.gitxsan.com/. Gitxsan Health Society (GHS). 2011. Gitxsan Health Society Website. Retrieved (May 2011): http://www.gitxsanhealth.com. Gitxsan Treaty Office (GTO). 2010. Alternative Governance Model. Retrieved (May 2011): http://www.gitxsan.com/governance/alternative-governance-model.html. Gottesfeld, L.M.J. 1994. Aboriginal burning for vegetation management in Northwest British Columbia. Human Ecology 22(2): 171-188. Government of British Columbia. 2002. Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). Retrieved from June 2011: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/--%20e%20-- /environmental%20assessment%20act%20sbc%202002%20c.%2043/00_02043_01. xml. Government of British Columbia (GoBC). 2006. Metlakatla BC- Strategic Land Use Plan Agreement. Retrieved May 2011 http://coastalfirstnations.ca/files/Documents/Metlakatla_FN_SLUPA.pdf. Government of Canada. 1982. “Constitutional Acts 1867 to 1982/: Section 35”. Retrieved April 2011: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html#anchorsc:7-bo-ga:l_II.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 89
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Guardian Watchman Web Site. Retrieved May 2011: http://coastalguardianwatchmen.ca/nation/metlakatla. Halpin, Margori and Margaret Seguin. 1990. Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian,Nishga, and Gitksan. In “Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 7: Northwest Coast”, pp. 267- 284. Wayne Suttles (ed.). Smithsonian Institute, Washington. Hauessler , S. 1987. “Ecology and Berry Chemistry of Some Food Plants Used by Northwest British Columbia Indians”. Opinion evidence for the Plaintiffs in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1991] 3 W.W.R. 97, [1991] 5 C.N.L.R. xiii, (1991), 79 D.L.R. (4th) 185 (B.C. Supreme Court); (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1, 49 W.A.C. 1, 104 D.L.R. (4th) 470, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97, [1993] 5 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C. Court of Appeal); (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (Supreme Court of Canada). On file at the Gitxsan Treaty Office, Hazelton, BC. Horne. 2009. British Columbia Local Area Economic Dependencies: 2006. BC Stats. March 2009. Government of British Columbia. Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). N.d. North Coast Strategic Land Use Agreement. North Coast Strategic Land Use Agreement between the Kitsumkalum and the Province of British Columbia. Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). 2004. North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Recommendations (Draft 4). Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Retrieved May 2011: http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/docs/NCLRMP_Final_Recom mendations_feb_2_2005.pdf. Maps retrieved from http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/plan/final_landuse_recommen d.htm. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011a. First Nations Community Profiles- Metlakatla. Retrieved May 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011b. First Nation Profiles - Kitsumkalum. Retrieved June 2011 http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=681&lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011c. First Nation Profiles- Gitanyow. Retrieved June 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=537&lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011d. First Nation Profile- Kitselas. Retrieved from June 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=680&lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011e. First Nation Profiles - Gitanmaax. Retrieved June 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=531&lang=eng.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 90
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INCA). 2011f. First Nation Profiles – Glen Vowel. Retrieved June 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=533&lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011g. First Nation Profiles - Kispiox. Retrieved June 2011: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=532&lang=eng. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2011h. First Nation Profiles-Gitwangak. Retrieved June 2011 [http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=536&lang=eng]. Inselberg, A and Kerby, D.N. 1985. Kitsumkalum – Skeena Rivers Guiding Enterprise – Feasibility Study. Unpublished draft, 100 pp. Inglis, G.B., Hudson, D.R., Rigsby, B.R., and Rigsby, B. 1990. Tsimshian of British Columbia Since 1900. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, pp. 285-293. Wayne Suttles (ed.). Smithsonian Institute, Washington. Johnson, L.M.J. 1997. “Health, Wholeness, and the Land: Gitksan Traditional Plant Use and Healing”. Doctoral thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Johnson, L.M. 2006. “Gitksan Medicinal Plants - Cultural Choice and Efficacy. Journal of Ethnobotany and Ethnomedicine” 2006: 2:29. Kalum Ventures Ltd .Web Site. 2011. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.kitsumkalum.bc.ca/kalumventures.html. Kessel, C. 1982. Preliminary report on the feasibility of a touring and guiding operation: Kitsumkalum Band River Tour Project. Unpublished draft, 18 pp. Kitsumkalum 2007 Kitselas First Nation (KFN). 2008. Kitselas Treaty Negotiations Overview Retrieved July 2011: http://www.kitselas.com/images/uploads/docs/Treaty_Book_01.pdf. Kitselas First Nation (KFN) 2010. Comments to the Joint Review Panel pursuant to the JPR Procedural Direction for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Proposed Project. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/44506/44506E.pdf. Kitselas First Nation (KFN). Official Web Site. 2011. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.kitselas.com/. Kitselas First Nation (KFN). 1995. Kitselas Reserve Lands Management Act. Retrieved July 2011: http://www.kitselas.bc.ca/LandManagement/Kitselas%20Land%20Code%20June%2 019%2005%20Final.pdf. Kitsumkalum Economic Development Office (KEDO). 2002. (Referenced in Nepal, S. 2002). Retrieved from [http://www.linkbc.ca/torc/downs1/kitsumkalum.pdf] on June 2011. Report for Kitsumkalum Treaty Office - Ecotourism Feasibility. Unpublished Draft 30pp. Kitsumkalum First Nation (KUFN). Official Web Site. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.kitsumkalum.bc.ca/.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 91
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Kitsumkalum First Nation (KUFN). 2009. Kitsumkalum Community and Economic Profile. Draft report submitted August 27, 2009. Ksan Website. 2011. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.gitxsan.com/community/archived- news/70-draft-12-gitxsan-language-a-language-chapter-released.html. Lax Kw'alaams Band. 2009. First Nation Community of Lax Kw'alaams (Official Website). Retrieved May 2011: http://www.laxkwalaams.ca. Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, and Allied Tribes of Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla. 2009. Consultation Protocol for Natural Resources and Business Development. Retrieved May 2011: www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6850. Living Landscapes Web Site. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/northwest/robin_town/people.html. Marsden, S. 1987 An Historical and Cultural Overview of the Gitksan. Opinion evidence for the Plaintiffs in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1991] 3 W.W.R. 97, [1991] 5 C.N.L.R. xiii, (1991), 79 D.L.R. (4th) 185 (B.C. Supreme Court); (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1, 49 W.A.C. 1, 104 D.L.R. (4th) 470, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97, [1993] 5 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C. Court of Appeal); (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (Supreme Court of Canada). On file at the Gitxsan Treaty Office, Hazelton, BC. McDonald, J.A. 1985. Trying to Make a Life: The Historical Political Economy of the Kitsumkalum. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. MacDonald, J.R. 1985. From Ceremonial Objects to Curios: Power Exchange at Port Simpson and Metlakatla. Master of Arts Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. MacDonald, George F., and John J. Cove (eds.). 1987. Tsimshian Narratives. Collected by Marius Barbeau and William Beynon. Mercury Series, Directorate Paper no. 3. Volume 2. Trade and Warfare. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa. MacDonald, G. F. 1989. Kitwanga Fort Report. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. MacDonald, J.A. 1998. (Cited on Kitselas Web Site). Tsimshian Culture: A Light Through the Ages. American Anthropologist. 100: 572-573. MacDonald, G.S. 1994. The Epic of Nekt. Seguin, In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past, Views for the Present. pp. 65-81. M. Seguin (ed.). UBC Press, Vancouver. MacDonald, J.A. 2003. People of the Robin: The Tsimshian of Kitsumkalum. A resource book for the Kitsumkalum Education Committee and the Coast Mountain School District 82, with the assistance of the First Nations Education Centre, Coast Mountain School District, Edmonton. Co-published by Alberta ACADRE Network. CCI Press. Metlakatla First Nation (MFN). 2011a. Official Web Page. Retrieved from May 2011: http://www.metlakatla.ca/.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 92
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Metlakatla First Nation (MFN). 2011b. Health Department Web Site. Retrieved May 2011 http://www.metlakatla.ca/mfn_government/health_department. Metlakatla Development Corporation (MDC). 2011. Official Web Page. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.metlakatla.ca/development_corp. Metlakatla Indian Band Forestry Agreement Measures (Draft For Ratification). 2003. Retrieved from [http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/metlakatla_forest_agreement.pdf]. Accessed on June 2011. Miller, J. and C.M. Eastman. 1984. The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors of the North Pacific Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Mills, A. 1994. Rebirth and Identity: Three Gitksan Cases of Pierced-Ear Birthmarks. In: Reincarnation Belief among Indians and Inuit. A. Mills and R. Slobodin (eds.). pp. 211-241. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR). 2008. Lax Kw'alaams First Nations. Retrieved November 2008: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/lax_kwalaams_first_nation/default.html. Nepal, S. 2002. Riverboat tours in Kitsumkalum: A feasibility study. Retrieved from http://www.linkbc.ca/torc/downs1/kitsumkalum.pdf (May 2011). Overstall, R. 2008. The Law in Opened: The constitutional role of tangible and intangible property in Gitanyow, pages 92-113, In First Nations Cultural Heritage Law: Case studies, voices and perspectives. Edited by C. Bell and V. Napolean. People of ‘Ksan. 1980. Gathering What the Great Nature Provided: Food Traditions of the Gitksan. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. Philpot Forestry Services. 2005. Landscape Unit Plan for all Gitanyow Traditional Territories within the Kispiox and Cranberry Timber Supply Area. Prepared for: Ministry of Forests, Smithers and Gitanyow Huwilp Society. Rescan Environmental Services (Rescan). 2009a. Northwest Transmission Line: Socio- economic Baseline Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Transmission Corporation. Rescan Environmental Services (Rescan). 2009b. Northwest Transmission Line: Kitselas Traditional Use and Knowledge Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Transmission Corporation. Retrieved June 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p299/d32061/1271434683741_7067 9abae257b77cb049dd0d5f020cc53ffd95d0f7999c6e6f7df1d4e533615c.pdf. Rescan Environmental Services (Rescan). 2009c. Northwest Transmission Line Project: Kitsumkalum Traditional Use and Knowledge Report. Appendix 10.10.1. Retrieved June 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p299/d32061/1271434711369_7067 9abae257b77cb049dd0d5f020cc53ffd95d0f7999c6e6f7df1d4e533615c.pdf.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 93
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES
Rescan Environmental Services (Rescan). 2009d. Northwest Transmission Line: Gitxsan Traditional Use and Knowledge Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Transmission Corporation. Retrieved June 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p299/d32061/1271434743609_7067 9abae257b77cb049dd0d5f020cc53ffd95d0f7999c6e6f7df1d4e533615c.pdf Rescan Environmental Services (Rescan). 2009e. Northwest Transmission Line Project: Gitanyow Traditional Use and Knowledge Report. Appendix 10.10.1. Retrieved June 2011: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p299/d32061/1271434815450_7067 9abae257b77cb049dd0d5f020cc53ffd95d0f7999c6e6f7df1d4e533615c.pdf. Robinson, W. 2003. Men of M'deek and Wars of M'deek. People of the Gitselasu. Terrace. Satanove, Honourable Madam Justice. 2008. Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 447. Supreme Court of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC. Statistics Canada. 2007a. 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census of Canada. Retrieved May 2011: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp- pd/prof/92-594/index.cfm?Lang=E. Statistics Canada. 2007b. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census of Canada. Retrieved May 2011: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community. Sterritt, N.J., Marsden, S., Galois, R., Grant, P.R., and P. Overstall. 1998. Tribal Boundaries in the Nass Watershed. UBC Press. 319 pp. Tsimshian First Nation Treaty Society (TFNTS). 2009. Official Website. Retrieved June 2011: http://www.tfntreaty.ca/. Tribal Resource Investment Corporation (TRICORP). 2009. Official Website for the Tribal Resource Investment Corporation. Retrieved May 2011: http://www.tricorp.ca. Turner, N. 1978. “Food Plants of British Columbian Indians Part II: Interior Peoples”. Handbook No 35, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria.
Version 1.0 VE51988 – Appendix 16.0-A November 2011 Page 94