SXTA Land Selection, Protection, and Governance Frameworks: Developing Intra- and Inter-Governmental Relations
A Treaty Related Measures Project funded by Canada
prepared and submitted
on behalf of the
Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association
October 31, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Yálh yexw kwás hó:y to all those who participated in, informed and otherwise contributed to this project...in an effort to advance understanding of Stó:lō principles, teachings and relationships with and within S’ólh Téméxw.
‘We have to learn to live together in a good way.’
– T’xwelátse (Time Immemorial)
i CREDITS
Project Direction and Authorship Project Director / Co-Author ...... David Schaepe, Ph.D. Researcher / Co-Author ...... Sue Formosa, Msc., Cert. Geom., Adv. Dip. GIS Researcher / Co-Author ...... Sheila Schmidt Researcher / Co-Author ...... Karen Brady, Ph.D. Researcher ...... Naxaxalhts’i (Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie), Hon. Ph.D. Analysts...... Mehaffey Consulting Inc. Research Assistant ...... Cathy Hall Research Assistant ...... Lisa Davidson Research Assistant & Copy Editor ...... Carly Teillet
SXTA Lands Working Group - Project Steering Committee
...... Angie Bailey, Chief, Aitchelitz FN ...... Mike Kelly, Councilor, Leq’á:mel FN ...... Frank Malloway, Chief, Yakweakwioose FN ...... Harry Murphy, Councilor, Popkum FN ...... Jeff Point, Councilor, Skowkale FN ...... Lawrence Roberts, Tzeachten FN ...... Deborah Schneider, Councilor, Skawahlook FN
Treaty Negotiating Team – Project Advisors ...... Grand Chief Joe Hall, Political Advisor ...... Jean Teillet, Legal Advisor / Chief Negotiator ...... David Schaepe, Ph.D., Advisor / Analyst ...... Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie, Cultural Advisor
Administration / Clerical Support ...... Tracey Joe, Lead Administrator ...... Rachel Anderson, Administrative Clerk ...... Sharlene Charlton, Financial Services ...... Darren Stollings, Financial Services
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 SECTION I: LAND SELECTION ...... 4 TWO TREATY RELATED MEASURES & PHASES OF THE PROJECT ...... 4 Phase One – Community Economic Development Visioning (A Summary)...... 4 Phase Two – Selection of Treaty Settlement Lands of Interest ...... 6 IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC LANDS OF INTEREST ...... 7 PROJECT APPROACH...... 7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 7 PROJECT PARTICIPATION ...... 7 METHODS ...... 8 Geographic Information System Technology ...... 8 RESULTS ...... 10 Identified Lands of Interest ...... 10 Land Statusing and Evaluating Encumbrances within LOIs ...... 12 SECTION II: LAND MANAGEMENT OFF-TREATY SETTLEMENT LAND AS AN ASPECT OF DEVELOPING AN SXTA LAND PACKAGE ...... 15 CULTURAL PRACTICES AND CULTURAL SITE PROTECTION AS A FACTOR OF THE SXTA TREATY ...... 15 CULTURAL SITES PROTECTION PLAN PROJECT - PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 17 METHODS ...... 18 Phase I - Detailed Review and Refinement of Existing Cultural Heritage Sites ...... 18 RESULTS ...... 21 THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN ...... 31 Background To The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan ...... 31 Development Of The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan: An Inter-Stó:Lō Collaboration ...... 31 Timeline ...... 32 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY ...... 34 S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan: External Datasets Reviewed And Used During Development ...... 34 TYPES OF “LAND USE ZONES” DESCRIBED IN JOINT PROVINCIAL-FIRST NATION LAND USE PLANS AND AGREEMENTS: A REVIEW OF EXISTING LAND USE PLANS ...... 36 IDENTIFICATION OF S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE CATEGORIES: A STÓ:LŌ PERSPECTIVE ...... 42 DESCRIPTIONS OF USE AREAS FROM THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN ...... 43 CURRENT VERSION AND CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT: THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN AS A ‘LIVING PLAN’ ... 47 SECTION III: INFORMING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SXTA GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK – COSTING SXTA GOVERNANCE ...... 50 CONCLUSION ...... 52 APPENDIX I: SXTA LAND SELECTION PRESENTATION ...... 53 APPENDIX II: SXTA FIRST NATIONS ‘AT-A-GLANCE’ PROFILES ...... 66 APPENDIX III: ENCUMBRANCES AND COMMONAGES ...... 125 APPENDIX IV: GIS METHODOLOGICAL RULES – PROJECT METADATA ...... 130 APPENDIX V: GIS PROJECT METADATA - SPATIAL DEFINITIONS FOR THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN TYPES ...... 134
i
INTRODUCTION
In preparation for establishing a land selection package for Stage 4 of the Treaty process, Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association (SXTA) is engaged in this Treaty Related Measure (TRM) project focusing on ‘Land Selection, Protection and Governance: Developing Intra- and Inter-governmental Relations.’ This project builds on the SXTA's outcomes of previously completed Governance and Lands TRMs, as well as the other currently active TRM addressing the SXTA’s economic development interests. The purpose of this TRM is to contribute to advancing the SXTA's ability to move forward in the treaty process dealing with core issues of land selection and relations of governance, supporting a Government mandate to make a land and cash offer, and facilitating the conclusion of an Agreement-in-Principle. As well, the results of this project will serve to maintain the direct involvement of SXTA community members and leadership, enhancing their contribution and connection to the SXTA's development of an Agreement-in-Principle as a critical part of the treaty-making process. This report presents the results of the Project as conducted throughout the 2012-13 and 2013-14 fiscal years and addressing the objectives and activities outlined below.
Objectives
The key objectives of this TRM are aimed at advancing the SXTA treaty-settlement land selection process, and development of the SXTA governance framework. These objectives include:
(I) Land Selection (a) Advance SXTA’s position regarding land selection and jurisdiction in the lands categories laid out in the SXTA's recently completed 'Lands TRM Phase II'. Three priority categories include lands to be acquired for Residential, Economic Development, Cultural/Protected purposes – focusing on residential and protected areas but also including input on economic development when/where such input is provided (recognizing that requiring further information on economic development-associated land selection was treated in the SXTA's coincident Economic Development TRM Proposal - April 2012); and (b) Identify specific parcels of land of interest to the SXTA community members for potential acquisition as treaty settlement lands.
(II) Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Governance Framework A third major element of this study examines fiscal issues of governance, today and in relation to a primary treaty-based modeled, including costs and financing required to achieve self-governance and self-sufficiency as central pillars of the SXTA treaty
Page 1 of 138
vision. This study aims to advance the development of the SXTA's governance framework by increasing our understanding of the relationship between the situation and needs of today and requirements supporting a successful post-treaty SXTA government, and program and service delivery system. In between an understanding that ‘knowing where we are going’ is a factor of ‘knowing where we have been’ is a recognition that we also need to understand the ‘now.’ Describing the ‘now’ – the current status of SXTA’s seven Indian Band-based political framework, program and service delivery processes, and lands and population – is a major focus of this study. This study aims provides information supporting community-based needs in developing treaty-based relationships of governance, land tenures (e.g., orphaned or cut-off reserve lands; CP lands; commonage reserves and lands), and land and resource management and protection (e.g., environmental contamination; cultural use). This study serves to compile data and community-based questions critical to outlining the transition from Indian Act to Treaty-based relations for the SXTA community.
Activities
Activities carried out to date, in support of meeting our objectives include:
Facilitating discussions with SXTA leadership and other stakeholders knowledgeable about issues, interests, and considerations regarding land selection and governance; Conducting SXTA Working Group Workshops – facilitate dialogue with the SXTA Lands/Governance Working Group, to discuss and build lands selection and governance development strategies addressing community interests and questions; Conducting workshops with Stó:lō cultural practitioners to discuss and identify areas needed for the protection of cultural practices and values (i.e., traditional cultural expressions); Updating, reviewing and revising the Stó:lō Heritage Database maintained and managed by the Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre for the purpose of increasing the accuracy of descriptions and spatial extents of documented cultural sites. Conducting SXTA Community Outreach – facilitate discussions with and gain feedback from SXTA Community members about specific land selection interests and SXTA governance/jurisdictional issues and perspectives – needed to compete the final mapping and information framework (i.e., matrix) documenting SXTA interests in land for land selection; Continue revising the Stó:lō Heritage Database as it pertains to the accurate depiction and description of sites included in the Cultural Sites Management Framework -- needed to complete the final map and data matrix; Continue revising the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan as it incorporates updated information and detail contributed through on-going treaty-related work; and
Page 2 of 138
Revise and/or elaborate on the SXTA governance framework, as informed by the results of this research.
Substantial progress was made identifying areas of cultural significance as a basis for a ‘Cultural Sites Protection Plan’ and Land Use Plan, both serving to address land and resource use- and management-issues off-potential treaty settlement land (i.e., beyond the areas of interest identified in the SXTA Land Selection Workshops). This area of the TRM is connected to the SXTA Main Table by way of the Lands Technical Working Group. Preliminary results from this project have been shared with BC and Canada for the purpose of advancing the analysis of relations between SXTA, provincial and federal land interests in areas identified as cultural sites in need of protection. Through this project, we are exploring ways of providing protection using existing legislation and working to develop a management framework – relating both to land selection and governance. As well, the SXTA developed and launched an outreach-based land selection workshop aiming to collect information from the community, leadership, and focus groups being compiled in a map and database of specific land of interest to the SXTA.
This report is divided into three main sections address:
(I) Land Selection providing a basis for defining potential Treaty Settlement Land; and
(II) Land Management off-Treaty Settlement Land as an aspect of developing an SXTA Land Package. Two sub-sections are included dealing with the: a. Stó:lō Cultural Site Projection Plan b. S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan
(III) Informing the Development of the SXTA Governance Framework – Costing SXTA Governance, and Current Demographics of SXTA Reserve Lands and Population
Page 3 of 138
SECTION I: LAND SELECTION
In preparation for establishing a land selection package for Stage 4 of the Treaty process, the Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association (SXTA) engaged in this Treaty Related Measure (TRM) project to identify specific lands of interest supporting current and future economic development needs for the SXTA communities. The SXTA is comprised of seven First Nations: Aitchelitz, Leq’á:mel, Popkum, Skawahlook, Skowkale, Tzeachten and Yakweakwioose. Information describing these seven SXTA First Nations is provided for reference as appendixes in this report. The lands of interest (LOIs) identified by the SXTA membership provide the SXTA leadership with significant community-based baseline guidance in the process of defining treaty settlement lands.
TWO TREATY RELATED MEASURES & PHASES OF THE PROJECT
The selection of treaty settlement lands of interest was carried out in two phases as aspects of two TRM projects. These phases of the land selection process are referred to as: (I) Phase One – Community Economic Development Visioning (Schaepe et al 2013); and (II) Phase II - Identifying Specific Lands of Interest (included in the current project and report). These studies are presented below; Phase I in summary and Phase II in complete fashion.
Phase One – Community Economic Development Visioning (A Summary)
This project engaged the seven SXTA First Nations in visioning sessions for the purpose of identifying current and future economic development needs for their communities. The sessions were designed to develop the economic side of the SXTA treaty settlement land selection, and to aid in profiling and developing the community economic development (CED) vision for the SXTA communities, individually and as a whole (see Schaepe et al 2013 – SXTA TRM Report on Community Economic Development Visioning).
In Phase One each of the seven SXTA Nations was engaged in a community visioning process to identify aspects of their communities that they would like to preserve, improve upon, and create, as they consider potential lands of interest for Stage 4 of the Treaty process.
Analysis of the data identified recurring themes that emerged in response to the preserve question, improve question and create question. The themes remained the same, when communities were asked to explore their short-term versus long-term objectives. Themes also remained consistent across all seven of the SXTA communities. For more details on the themes identified through the visioning process, please refer to the report, Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association: Phase One – Community Visioning Process.
The table below presents a summary of the aggregate responses across all of the SXTA communities. It includes the 15 identified theme categories, a brief description of the most frequent responses within each category, and an estimated percentage of the overall responses aligned with each category.
Page 4 of 138
% THEME MOST FREQUENT RESPONSES CATEGORY
Community Economic Development
15% Land Base Preserve, improve and create land base for our community
10% Live/Residential Improve our existing housing and build more On Reserve housing for our members
10% Play/Recreation Preserve and build sports fields and recreation centers
10% Learn/Education Provide supports for our children and youth to graduate and for trades training
7% Work/Commercial Build a shopping mall, gas station, casino and a variety of agricultural ventures
7% Employment Provide more jobs for community members and supports with job searches
Community Infrastructure and Environment
10% Community Meeting Preserve, improve or create a Community Hall, Band Offices and Longhouse Space
7% Community Improve roads and sidewalks and expand sewer, water and other Infrastructure infrastructure
7% Environment Preserve the watersheds, fish and wildlife, and other natural spaces
5% Safety and Security Improve policing and emergency response On Reserve
Community Culture and Support Systems
5% Health and Wellness Build a medical center, daycare and Elder care facilities
3% Culture and Preserve our culture and create a museum or books to educate more people Teachings
3% Supports for Provide rehabilitation or other supports for members who are struggling Members
Community Strengths and Management
.5% Relationships Improve our relationships with neighboring communities and First Nations
.5% Community Plans Continue to build on a land use plan, taxation and other strategies
Page 5 of 138
Approximately 70% of the aggregate responses described a need to develop more community supports for community members. Meanwhile, approximately 30% of responses identified “revenue generating” community economic development opportunities. The majority of discussions specific to revenue-producing CED focused on “commercial” business ventures. Analysis of these responses generated approximately 20 recurring business ideas, including:
. Retail Businesses, such as shopping mall, food market, gas station, restaurant, casino, convention center, movie theatre, arcade, trailer park and campgrounds, marina and moorage, and dirt track.
. Agricultural Ventures, such as farmers market, greenhouse, community garden, orchards, fish farm and cannery, and deer and buffalo ranch.
The findings from Phase One were presented back to each of the SXTA communities, so they may reference their identified land use needs as they proceed with Phase Two – the land selection process.
Phase Two – Selection of Treaty Settlement Lands of Interest
This aspect of the current TRM project focused on identification of specific land interests matching the SXTA communities’ economic development needs, as identified in Phase One, as a basis for defining the SXTA’s TSL package. Of note, this process excluded cultural site protection needs from the land selection process, as this area of relations to land and resources was addressed elsewhere, as explained in the introductory presentation to the land selection sessions (see Appendix I: SXTA Land Selection Presentation; also see Section II of this report). Information gathered during Phase One of the CED visioning project was used in Phase Two as a basis for the SXTA communities’ land selection process, assisting in identifying lands of interest providing a substantial input into the development of the SXTA treaty settlement land (TSL) package. Additional sources of input were used to develop the SXTA TSL package. These include input from the SXTA leadership, SXTA Working Group representatives, and additional external advisory input, as further described below.
Due to the sensitive nature of the information gathered during this project, as deemed at this time by the SXTA, no specific Lands of Interest maps are presented in this report. Rather, the methodology of the project is provided, along with some general outcomes that speak broadly to the project objectives, activities and outcomes.
It is important to note the utility of these findings. Information resulting from this process has already proven directly useful to the SXTA Main Table negotiations having been incorporated in a preliminary lands presentation provided to the SXTA Main Table on October 3, 2013. The results of this project (and the others included in this report) are playing a significant role in moving the SXTA Treaty Table toward a ‘Land and Cash Offer’ mandate as a milestone of negotiations in Stage 4 of the BCTC process. These findings are also proving fundamental to a more complete presentation of lands information being developed for the SXTA Main Table meeting scheduled on November 12, 2013.
Page 6 of 138
IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC LANDS OF INTEREST
Project Approach Phase Two of the land selection project focused on matching the community economic development needs of the SXTA and its member First Nations with specific land interests. The approach applied in Phase Two included the following three stages:
I. Gather best available information from best sources of local-level, community-based information: . SXTA community members . Other experts and analysis as needed II. Meet with key individuals and focus groups (e.g., Councils; economic development and lands staff) from each SXTA community to identify lands of interest based on needs identified through Phase One – CED Visioning Process III. Compile ‘lands of interest’ results gathered throughout Phase Two of this project
Project Objectives The objectives of Phase Two of the CED land selection project were as follows:
1. Match the community-based input on the CED vision, interests, and needs with specific lands 2. Create an inventory of specific land interests 3. Develop the preliminary land selection package to support negotiations of the SXTA Land and Cash Offer IV. Gather best available information from best sources of information . SXTA community members . Other experts and analysis as needed V. Meet with key individuals and conduct focus groups in each SXTA community to identify lands of interest, based on the needs identified through Phase One – Community Visioning Process VI. Compile land interest results gathered through Phase Two of the project
Project Participation As part of the land selection process, meetings were held with a variety of groups from each community to identify lands of interest (LOIs) for inclusion in the SXTA Land and Cash Offer within the treaty process at Stage IV. Meetings took place between April and October of 2013. The SXTA Outreach Team hosted and facilitated sessions within the SXTA communities to present a summary of the Phase One results, followed by the identification of potential lands of interest. Contributors included: Aitchelitz Community Members, Leq’á:mel Community Members, Popkum Community Member(s), Skawahlook Community Members, Skowkale Community Members, Tzeachten Community Members, Yakweakwioose Community Members, SXTA Leadership, SXTA First Nation Councils, SXTA Lands & Governance Working Group, SXTA Treaty Negotiating Team, and external advisors. A breakdown of Phase Two community land selection sessions is provided in the tables below.
Page 7 of 138
SPECIFIC LAND SELECTION SESSIONS – 2013 DATE COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP May 15 Aitchelitz Chief & Council Jun 4 Leq’á:mel Family KTG Jun 13 Leq’á:mel Chief & Council Jun 26 Leq’á:mel Family Advisory Group Jul 23 Yakweakwioose Community Meeting Jul 25 Leq’á:mel Family KTG Aug 1 Skawahlook/Tzeachten Chief & Council Aug 19 Skowkale Chief & Council Aug 19 Leq’á:mel Family KTG Sep 24 & 26 Popkum One on One
As many community members as possible were canvased to participate in meetings. A GIS Specialist (Sue Formosa) attended to map lands of interest and related information, and to provide information on possible uses for each LOI identified. A process of ‘live mapping’ was developed to accommodate this process (see Methods below). This was done through meetings with Family Representative groups, Chiefs and Councils, Kitchen Table Gatherings, Lands Working Group and other SXTA meetings.
The lands within S’ólh Téméxw were presented as a blank slate to encourage identification of any lands of interest -- whether or not those lands have existing encumbrances (such as or whether these lands have existing tenures or rights of way (ROW) currently identified on them), or otherwise are currently held as crown or private lands.
METHODS
Geographic Information System Technology
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology played a critical role in the methodology developed for collecting data on SXTA treaty settlement lands of interest, derived from our workshops and group interviews. Workshops and group interviews were held over a series of months from April - October 2013 in the SXTA communities and at Stó:lō Resource Centre. All participants signed in at the start of each meeting. All interviews used Google Earth as the method of mapping the LOIs and an Excel workbook as the means for capturing the specifics on potential use types, location, current encumbrances, and properties known to be currently on the market or with an identified interest in selling. GIS technology and data developed for this
Page 8 of 138
project allowed for the ‘live’ manipulation of maps and definition of LOIs at each session – avoiding the use of static hard-copy maps altogether. This method, the technical details of which are provided below, proved to be very effective.
Information Captured During Lands of Interest Workshops: Lands of Interest GIS Database Framework Loi_Id - Land of Interest id Governance - National or Local
Land SubType - Industrial (ind), Commercial (com), Agricultural (agr), Institutional (inst), Residential (res), Infrastructure (inf), Recreation (rec), to be defined (tbd); cultural (cul); cemetery (cem)
Land use definition – specific, general
Spatial Definition - specific parcel(s) or land area outlined, general area outlined and will require refinement
Parcel Id - Current parcel id (PID) if available for private lands within an identified LOI
Current Status - fed crown (fcr), prov crown (pcr), private (pri), tenure (ten)
Selected By - name of SXTA member/family/MIA who makes this land selection (MIA - membership in attendance)
Band Affiliation - band of the selected by member: Ait, Leq,Pop, Sko, Ska, Tze, Yak
Group Affiliation – family (FR), C&C, kitchen table gathering (KTG); SXTA meeting type
Location - city, municipality the land is current in
Address - street address of the land selection, if available
Size – hectares
Additional Support - tally numbers of supporting people/communities for LOIs selected more than once
Notes – specific economic development interest; current status for sale
** Subsequently added an overlap field to track where LOIs partially duplicated a land area selection
Page 9 of 138
Each LOI was given a unique identifier. In some meetings the LOI may have been generalized for the sake of time in the group context and later refined on entry into the geodatabase. The raw spatial data was exported from Google Earth and saved as a ‘kml’ dataset with the date of the data collection used as the title for the kml (e.g. LOI_Aug12013). All raw data was saved in the Raw Data folder. Each ‘kml’ was then converted to a feature class, cleaned, and imported into the Lands Of Interest file geodatabase LOI feature class1. The LOI feature class was updated after each meeting and uploaded into Google Earth for each subsequent meeting to inform the participants of LOIs already selected or identified. Where subsequent participants concurred with a previous LOI choice, this was noted on the related spreadsheet. At the completion of the project in October 2013, all of the raw data and pdfs of the community participant forms were compiled and archived.
RESULTS Findings and conclusions from both Phase One and Phase Two was used to inform:
1. Completion of the Land Selection Package 2. Presentation of the Land Selection Package at the November 12, 2013 SXTA Main Table Meeting 3. Negotiation of the SXTA Land and Cash Offer 4. Completion of Stage 4 and Drafting the Agreement in Principle
Identified Lands of Interest
A total of 114 LOIs were identified by SXTA community members as a result of this land selection project. Seven of these LOIs were duplicate selections. Several of the LOIs were refined to capture full land parcels where only part of the land parcel had been identified during the interview.
A total of 24 types of land uses were identified along with these LOI parcels. A number of LOIs were selected as priority land (i.e., candidate lands for potential Incremental Treaty Agreements)
LOIs were processed (as per the footnote below) to allow for their presentation and description of area by their land base only – having removed all water bodies (lakes, rivers, streams,
1 GIS Method for obtaining only land base quantum for the LOIs
Clip rivers to LOI_valuation then use to erase areas of river in LOIs -> LoiRiverErase Clip islands in rivers and lakes to keep in as landbase, add to LoiRiverErase - add 'a' to the LOI where the larger landbase is still represented in the LoiRiverErase file to ensure unique id for these multipart Islands related to the landbased portion of the islands’ LOIs Clip 20k H and G streams to LOIs then buffer streams to give 10m cross-section, then dissolve streams for removing streams/sloughs from the LoiRiverErase file -> LOI_Value Clip 20k lakes to LOI_Value then erase LOI_Value -> LOI_Valued
Page 10 of 138
slough channels) which resulted in multipart polygons. These were left as multipart polygons to ensure the unique id for each LOI was shared by all parts.
At the end of the SXTA’s review process, 96 LOIs remained for consideration as potential TSL lands. Once the waterways were removed, there were an additional 13 polygons for islands within LOIs which crossed water bodies. As this work was being completed, two additional sites were identified as LOIs, bringing the total to 111 LOIs.
A map series was completed showing the potentially qualifying sites by location and type(s) of potential use(s), and in combination with other data for protected sites, commonages, contaminated sites, ROWs, and the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan.
It is anticipated that the shape file polygons for the LOIs will be provided to Canada and British Columbia to facilitate analyses by line ministries, following the presentation by the SXTA scheduled for the Main Table on November 12, 2013.
Page 11 of 138
Land Statusing and Evaluating Encumbrances within LOIs
The spatial data for provincial, federal, and municipal crown lands, the provincial tenures and the ICIS cadastre were and continue to be used to determine existing encumbrances within each of the LOIs. The crown datasets are approximate status of the land as of March 2013. The ICIS cadastre is an approximate status of private land as of July 2013. A number of maps are provided below, representing some basic view of the land-status data available to the SXTA.
As of October 2013, it became clear in discussions between SXTA support staff and provincial staff that the development of the database and supporting tables was required to adequately handle the volume of related information. This collaborative process will facilitate analyses of current encumbrances on LOIs in an ongoing manner – increasing the efficiency, effectiveness and certainty of developing findings on the status of lands within the LOIs.
View of S’ólh Téméxw differentiated by slope (above or below 30%) and showing major transportation corridors (SRRMC 2012).
Page 12 of 138
View of S’ólh Téméxw showing the distribution of private and crown lands developed as a basis for carrying out land status analyses on identified lands of interest (SRRMC 2012).
Page 13 of 138
View of S’ólh Téméxw showing the distribution of parks, forest districts, agricultural land reserve and mining tenures developed as a basis for carrying out land status analyses on identified lands of interest (SRRMC 2012).
Page 14 of 138
SECTION II: LAND MANAGEMENT OFF-TREATY SETTLEMENT LAND AS AN ASPECT OF DEVELOPING AN SXTA LAND PACKAGE
CULTURAL PRACTICES AND CULTURAL SITE PROTECTION AS A FACTOR OF THE SXTA TREATY
Culture is a fundamental element of the SXTA treaty, which a prior SXTA Chief aptly described as “a cultural treaty” (SXTA video – Lands and Treaty, 2007). Culture represents one of the three pillars of this treaty, as negotiated to date. Culture runs throughout all aspects of the rolling draft of the SXTA’s Agreement in Principle. The integral place of cultural within the SXTA’s land package is illustrated in the figure below.
In defining their relationships to land and resources within S’ólh Téméxw, the SXTA developed a model illustrating relations of land and authority within S’ólh Téméxw (below).
Page 15 of 138
This model is guiding the SXTA’s approach to: (1) treaty land selection, (2) off-treaty selection land (TSL) shared decision-making, land use and resource management, and (3) access and use for traditional cultural activities and expressions maintaining a fulsome relationship with S’ólh Téméxw. Within the treaty process, a current goal is to define significant cultural areas (i.e., landmarks, places, objects) of S’ólh Téméxw and to determine what type(s) of protection can be established as a factor of ‘off-treaty settlement land’ shared decision-making and management involving the SXTA. The interest of the SXTA is to establish and entrench long- lasting protective measures and mechanism for these integral portions of their cultural landscape, so that they need not be considered or included within the SXTA’s land selection process (otherwise aimed at identifying treaty settlement land and focusing on community economic development). Findings from a previous SXTA treaty related measures project on Stó:lō relations with land and resources (Schaepe and Gough 2012) informs this strategy.
A major study was carried out as an element of this TRM, with the aim of informing the concept of shared decision-making and off-TSL land and resource management – the Cultural Sites Protection Project. This project directly and indirectly impacted the development of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan and Stó:lō Heritage Database. While both items were initiated prior to this TRM project, they are interconnected with the Protection Project as interrelated efforts and mechanisms to establish visibility, organization, definition, and protection for cultural sites and places significant to the Stó:lō, and deeply embedded in the SXTA treaty-making process. For this reason, they are included in the reporting on this TRM project.
Page 16 of 138
Cultural Sites Protection Plan Project - Project Objectives
The Cultural Sites Protection Plan Project was established as factor of the SXTA’s land model and land selection process, shown above. The model developed by the SXTA separates community economic development-related needs from needs related to cultural practices, places and protections. This separation was applied in practice to the current approach to defining treaty settlement lands. This project serves to identify lands of interest as needed to maintain a vibrant, recognized, respected and protected cultural heritage, for all eternity.
This project specifically served to develop: (1) a table of documented Stó:lō heritage resources (e.g., sites, places, landmarks) currently lacking federal or provincial legal recognition or protection; (2) an inventory of management options founded on existing federal and provincial legislation and protective mechanisms; and (3) a Stó:lō Heritage Management Framework, for use as an appendix to the SXTA Agreement in Principle Rolling Draft chapter on Language, Culture and Heritage, linking documented Stó:lō heritage resources with existing legislation and protective mechanisms as a model of broad-based resource management and shared decision-making throughout S’ólh Téméxw.
Current Stó:lō cultural practitioners, including both smílha and sxwó:yxwey practitioners, responded to invitations to participate in this study. The common interest recognized in this inventory of the places, places within S’ólh Téméxw needed to as critical elements of spiritual practice, was the need for protection from encroachment, infringement, and impacts on such places resulting either directly or indirectly from land use and development. This need was commonly viewed as requiring urgent attention in the form of cultural site recognition and protection measures. Such measures currently do not exist in provincial or federal law for the vast majority of sites identified in this study -- outside of the application by the Stó:lō of the Stó:lō Heritage Policy Manual and related management planning tools as a factor of Section 35 aboriginal rights. Information gathered during this portion of the study is being used to inform the tripartite Land Technical Working Group (LTWG) and their current effort to identify SXTA cultural sites, protective needs, protective measures, and government interests for these sites, as factors of establishing culture protection that the SXTA has identified as a critical element of the Treaty.
Project Framework – Phases I-III
The Cultural Sites Projection Plan Project was carried out in three phases, as outlined below:
Phase I – DEFINITIONS AND INVENTORY
August 2012 – July 2013 Review of cultural heritage spatial and non-spatial data o David Schaepe, Sonny McHalsie, Sue Formosa Enter cultural heritage management standard sites into the Stó:lō Heritage Database (SHeD) o David Schaepe, Sonny McHalsie, Sue Formosa Review definitions, content of Language, Culture, Heritage Chapter re: heritage resources
Page 17 of 138
o David Schaepe, Sonny McHalsie Create a conceptual framework of cultural heritage resources and related definitions (e.g., sites, places, landmarks) and assign classification to cultural heritage management standard sites in the SHeD) o David Schaepe, Sue Formosa Create a table of Stó:lō heritage resources o Sue Formosa Create a map of Stó:lō heritage resources (confidential) o Sue Formosa
Phase II – FRAMEWORK February – March 2013 Evaluate cultural heritage sites for fit with federal and/or provincial legislation. Assign legislation type and act to each applicable site within the SHeD. o David Schaepe, Sonny McHalsie, Sue Formosa, Karen Brady
STEP III - INVENTORY April – October 2013: Expand site inventory to all include as fully as possible all currently known cultural landscape features and current cultural practice areas. o David Schaepe, Sonny McHalsie, Sue Formosa, Karen Brady
METHODS
Over the last three or more decades, cultural data has been gathered by interviews with Stó:lō community members. The interviews were taped and transcribed. Printed maps were used to indicate locations of the sites referenced in the interviews. Initially these were depicted on ‘NTS’ map sheets by points or generalized polygons. In the past decade, the need has grown for very specific site locations to create better, more accurate, effective, and efficient plans for the protection of cultural sites. This current project provided an opportunity to (1) refine the spatial definition of previously identified sites, (2) gather information on additional information on current spiritual practices and places of practice, and (3) update existing files regarding the use of information in respect of emerging definition of traditional cultural property laws and intellectual property rights.
Phase I - Detailed Review and Refinement of Existing Cultural Heritage Sites
Existing and newly recorded sites were examined and documented / re-documented in this project. The refinement of existing cultural spatial data, specifically associated with landscape features, required refinement that was completed by SRRMC staff (McHalsie, Schaepe, Formosa). This section of the methodology report addresses the process for refining the cultural spatial data and links to the Spiritual Sites Inventory Project in the results and outcomes sections.
Page 18 of 138
A SHeD ‘data dictionary’ had been developed to enter cultural spatial data of all types into a geodatabase. This data dictionary was an underpinning for the development and refinement of cultural data for this TRM.
To create more rigorous cultural heritage site datasets, a review was required of the spatial and non-spatial data for each site to:
sort the known from the unknown, sort the sites according to the SHeD types, enter all sites into the SHeD database and assign a Section IV designation (i.e. landmark, place, object, burial) create spatial points to represent approximate locations for unknown sites, create a standard spatial polygon for each of the known cultural heritage sites link each standard polygon on the StoloConnect web portal with all other SHeD interview references for that site for that site type use the standard polygons to spatially define five of the STUP categories use the standard polygons to evaluate the sites for protective classification(s), and enter the protection classification(s) and legislated act for each relevant site into the sites’ rows in the SHeD database.
Spatial Datasets Reviewed
DATASET SOURCE(S)
Sxwoxwiyam SRRMC; D:\Work\SHeDShapesRevisions.mdb (SxwoxwiyamNoStolo)
Place Names (Placenms.shp) SRRMC; D:\CultHeritageFiles07\OverlaysA07
Stl’áleqem (Stlaleqem) SRRMC; D:\Work\SHeDShapesRevisions.mdb
Sanctuary SRRMC; D:\Work\SHeDShapesRevisions.mdb
SensitiveWaterways/Waterbodies SRRMC; D:\Work\SHeDShapesRevisions.mdb
Stlaleqem_Land SRRMC; D:\Work\SHeDShapesRevisions.mdb
Our process required:
going through each dataset one site at a time and reviewing the documentation from a variety of sources, including the SRRMC’s placenames spatial file, the Stó:lō Geographical Place Names database, ethnographic sources (e.g., Boas, Suttles, Duff,
Page 19 of 138
Hill-Tout, Smith, Jenness), the Stó:lō-Coast Salish Atlas, Brent Galloway’s Place Names files, and the Dictionary of Upper River Halkomelem. Developing a set of rules for confirming or reassigning site type &/or location for each site, Using a copy of the data to review the sites with satellite imagery as the base layer. Moving a site’s Placenms.shp point as a marker if is determined that a site location needs to be moved, Using the attribute tables of the SxwoxwiyamNoStolo, SensitiveWaterways/Waterbodies, Sanctuary, and Stlaleqem_Land spatial files to make revisions to the data type, site name spelling, and note needed changes to site spatial data, Creating CLFPoly, CLF Pnt, GeoPoly, and GeoPnt to contain the SxwoxwiyamNoStolo points as sorted by 1) keeping in CLF, 2) indicating general location of CLF, 3) moving to geographic location marker no currently known CLF, and 4) indicating general geo location, After the reviewing of each dataset, entering each of the dataset’s sites into the SHeD database through the web form on www.stoloconnect.com, Entering the source(s) for the documentation and geographic feature(s) of each site. Copying the CLFPoly, CLFPnt, GeoPoly and GeoPnt features into the SHeDPoly and SHeDPnt feature classes, in the SRRMC_GIS_GretchenSQL.sde geodatabase, Entering the site id provided in the web form into the Site_Id field of the SHeDPoly or SHeDPnt feature class row for that site, Entering the original site id and the dataset that the site was pulled from. Note any changes to the data from the original dataset, Noting in the SxwoxwiyamNoStolo, SensitiveWaterways/Waterbodies, Sanctuary, or Stlaleqem_Land spatial file that the site has been entered into the SHeD, and Assigning the various cultural heritage site data types to the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (STUP) layers where relevant.
Mapping and Remapping – Efficiencies Gained using new Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Technology
The application of current GIS technology to the remapping of previously recorded sites or the new mapping of newly document sites allowed for significant efficiencies to be gained in the mapping of cultural sites throughout all aspects of this project. This third phase of this project, for example, was carried out between April 2013 and October 2013. Group interviews were held during this time. Contributors included: Frank Malloway (Yakweakwioose FN), Terry Horne (Yakweakwioose FN), Herb Joe (Tzeachten FN), Helen Joe (Tzeachten FN), Jeff Point (Skowkale FN), Angie Bailey (Aitchelitz FN), Harry Murphy (Popkum FN), Gary Paul (Leq’á:mel FN), Betty Paul (Leq’á:mel FN), Shawn Gabriel (Leq’á:mel FN). The site inventory resulting from this study contains spatial and non-spatial information describing these sites. The spatial location of each site was defined as precisely as possible, generally at a scale of 1:5,000. Where relevant, a secondary and, possibly, a tertiary extent were defined as a factor of site protection needs - in addition to the primary site location. Each primary site location and spatial definition was the primary focus of this study. Geographic Information
Page 20 of 138
Systems technology was critical to the success of this project in terms of plotting new sites and refining existing site data.
In addition to the spatial extent of each site, related use information was entered into the Stó:lō Heritage Database during each meeting. The information entered was confirmed as each site was completed. Specific questions were asked to determine who uses the site, how long the site has been used for, all of the site’s uses, times of year that the site is used, times of year when access to the site is required, access roads/trails that need to be available.
Information on scope of site, size, protective needs, threats and current protective measures will also be entered for each site. Primary scope was the site itself. Secondary scope was the immediate surrounding extent (as defined by the land form) and applied for bathing, fasting, and training sites. Tertiary scope was the watershed within which the activity occurred and applied for bathing sites.
The participants were asked to spatially define sites on Google Earth during the meetings. The site polygon was replicated for each practice type. Each site was given the next sequential site id based on the interviewee source as determined by the SHeD site entry. The spatial data was exported from Google Earth and saved as a ‘kml’ dataset with the date of the data collection used as the title for the kml.
Each kml was converted to a feature class, cleaned, and imported into the SHeDPoly in the SHeD feature dataset. Sites that were identified and used by several individuals were classified as Harmonized sites within the SHeD database. Sites that were identified and used by a single individual were classified as Sqwelqwel sites within the SHeD database. All of these sites will held in a restricted access feature class within the SHeD database. At the completion of the project in December 2013, all of the raw data and pdfs of the consent forms was stored on an external drive set up for housing spatial data from projects. GIS rules and metadata are provided in Appendix IV.
RESULTS
Assigning Protective Legislation for Standard Sites
An inventory of land protection/management options founded on existing federal and provincial legislation and protective mechanisms was provided by the province and federal negotiation teams engaged in the SXTT TLWG. The SXTA SRRMC staff and the provincial and federal negotiation team representatives evaluated all harmonized protective measures sites for current federal or provincial legal recognition or protection. The protection status was entered into the database for all of these sites.
All harmonized protective measures sites that are lacking federal or provincial legal recognition or protection were evaluated for potential qualification within provincial and/or federal protective legislation. The land protection option(s) and the government(s) jurisdiction were entered into the SHeD database for each of the potentially qualifying standard measures
Page 21 of 138
sites. The Site Use section of the web form was used to detail how the site qualifies for the selected land protection option.
A Stó:lō Heritage Management Framework (i.e., a potential draft L/C/H/ Chapter Appendix) was developed to link documented Stó:lō heritage resources with existing legislation and protective mechanisms as a model of broad-based resource management and shared decision- making throughout S’ólh Téméxw.
Queries were developed to create tables of potentially qualifying sites by SHeD type, by Section 4 type (place, object, landmark), location, protective legislation, and/or other attribution. A map series was completed showing the potentially qualifying sites (in combination with the cultural landscape features) by protection legislation, by Section IV type (landmark, place, object, burial), and/or other attribution. The polygons for the sites were provided to the province to facilitate analyses by line ministries, under a confidentiality agreement with BC and Canada. There was an understanding signed about the limitations on use of these polygons. Only the SiteId was provided for each site as a means of protecting access to private information.
As of October 2013, the protection information continues toward completion; it became clear that the development of the database and supporting tables was required to adequately handle the large amount of information provide by BC to facilitate analyses of current encumbrances and for forward planning for protection.
Potential Applications
Spiritual Practice Site Protection Land Selection Referral Review Consultation and Accommodation Impact and Overview Assessment High-Level Strategic Planning as represented in the sanctuary layer of the STUP These potential areas of application guide and influence the continued development of the STUP and its underlying site-specific data.
Page 22 of 138
Stó:lō Heritage Database – Cultural Site Classification Framework Revision
This project resulted, in part, in the review and refinement of the Stó:lō Heritage Sites database and classification framework established in the Stó:lō Heritage Policy Manual (2003). The revised framework is provided below:
Site Type Site Subtype Definition Heritage Management Plan Sxwōxwiyám Full range of history Xéyt Place of a transformed being Avoid Wóqw' Place of flood story Avoid Sqáyéx; Xwyélés Storied places about Mink; Mink Avoid tracks Tel Sweyal Place of sky-born people Avoid Other Defined on a site specific basis Avoid Sqwelqwel Recent history; current practice Xá-Xa Site of special significance requring protection Regalia placement place Place for regalia placement Avoid Stl’áleqem Spiritually potent place Avoid
Mimestíyexw place Place where mimestíyexw live Avoid Burial Burial mound, mass grave(s), Avoid cremation site, cemetery, single burial or memorial site, grave house, tree burial, water burial S’ó:lmexw place Water where water babies live Avoid Cave Place of spiritual power Avoid Tunnel Metaphysical portal between places Avoid on the landscape Shxwexwó:s cave Habitation site for thunderbird Avoid (shxwexwó:s ) metaphysical being Sxwó:yxwey origin place A place tied to the sxwó:yxwey origin Avoid story Resource Natural resource use of the Harvesting landscape Practice Hunting Hunting animals or birds using gun or Minimize knife impact Trapping Trapping animals or birds using traps, Minimize snares etc. impact Terrestrial harvesting Harvesting food, materials or Minimize medicine impact Aquatic harvesting Fresh water fishing, salt water Minimize fishing, shell fish harvesting, impact collecting roots, tubers or reeds, Aquatic processing Processing - dry rack , smoke house, Minimize cleaning area, boiing pit impact
Page 23 of 138
Habitation Longhouse, sqeml(pithouse), fish Mitigate camp, hunting camp, trapping camp, food processing camp Travel Trail, waterway route Minimize impact Material Material remains from ancestral use Culture of landscape Archaeological site Archaeological site of any type - Avoid habitation, camp, burial, processing area, tool making area - held in RAAD data Archaeological site lead Reported material evidence of Avoid possible archaeological site Surficial find Worked material on ground surface Minimize impact Symbol Pictograph, petroglyph Avoid CMT Culturally modified tree Avoid
Spiritual Varying places where ceremonies Practice presently can take place Burning place Place where ancestors may be fed for Avoid a particular reason Isolation/puberty place Place where bathing, fasting, Avoid initiation and training, and sweats take place Smílha place Place where bathing, fasting, Avoid initiation, meditation, and training, spirit power questing and sweats take place Sxwó:yxwey place Place where bathing, fasting, Avoid meditation,and regalia cleaning take place Sweats place Place where a sweat may occur Avoid Prayer Tree Tree where prayers are made and held Avoid for safety in preparation for resource harvesting Healing Rock Designated place for this practice by Avoid shxwlá:m Places where these have been seen Metaphysical or found evidence of them Being Sásq’ets Place where sasquatch has been Minimize sighted or left a footprint impact Shxwexwó:s Place where thunderbird is seen in Minimize flight impact Pítxel Lake lizard seen in Minimize impact Spirit animal Place seen in Minimize impact
Page 24 of 138
Place name Used to mark places on the landscape Geographic Landmark For navigation in the landscape; Minimize lookout; defensive site impact Other categories of cultural Name the places of history in the Defined by data landscape (sxwōxwiyám), name the data type places of important harvests; each of these are recorded in type and marked as having a placename Resource Places where natural resources Management have been managed Practice Plantation Place where crops are cultivated Minimize impact Burning place Place where controlled burning Minimize happens impact Irrigation/Spring/Waterway Water management - dam; silt Minimize removal; vegetation removal impact Deer drive Place where deer are gathered Minimize impact Fishing weir/trap Place where weir or trap is managed Minimize impact Clam bed Place where a clam bed is seeded and Minimize maintained impact Spawning ground Pools maintained for spawning Minimize impact Other Places where other cultural Practices practices occur Canoe training Place where canoe training occurs Minimize impact Healing place Place where people or animals go to Minimize heal themselves impact
This framework establishes a new standard from which to inform treaty negotiations related to Language, Culture and Heritage as well as Lands, Land Use Planning, and range of other topics.
Cultural Sites, Site Areas and Mapping Efficiencies
The project resulted in the definition of a total of 147 cultural sites located throughout S’ólh Téméxw. The area of these sites total 14,567 hectares, equaling 1.09% of S’ólh Téméxw and 2.99% of the Core Area. The majority of sites, and related site area, are situated within the Core Area of the SXTA Statement of Intent.
Mapping efficiencies gained through the application of updated GIS mapping methods applied to the review of previously documented cultural sites resulted in significant reductions to site areas in many cases. The total area of cultural sites documented in the SRRMC database and used within the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (discussed below), prior to the re-mapping carried out
Page 25 of 138
in this TRM, equalled 20,419.95 hectares. This total land area decreased to 14,462.67 hectares as result of this TRM project, while yet including all newly added cultural use areas to the existing database (cultural practice sites account for an additional 106.01 hectares). Mapping efficiencies thus account for a revision and removal of 5,967.28 hectares from the Stó:lō cultural sites requiring recognition and protection -- a 29.2% reduction in total area. This is a significant contribution to the integrity, accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Stó:lō cultural sites database, protection plan, and land use plan.
The large scale map provided above, serves to provide a view of the extent of Stó:lō cultural sites included in this inventory and protection plan, while yet protecting restricted site-specific location information. The plotting of sites on this map clearly illustrates the range of site sizes among the 147 sites represented. The bar graphs, below, show the distribution of a cultural landscape feature and cultural practice site types by area (in hectares). For example, 46 of 53 (87%) cultural practice sites are less than 3.3 hectares in area, while 65 of 94 (69%) cultural landscape features are less than 23.25 ha in area. Thus, many of these sites are small and effectively limited in their potential impact on the economic development interests of British Columbia, as is currently being assessed (see below).
Page 26 of 138
Page 27 of 138
Page 28 of 138
Lhílheqey (Cheam Peak) – an example of a large area, although remotely located, cultural landscape feature included in the SXTA Cultural Site Protection Plan and S’ólh Téméxw Land Use Plan.
S’il’ix (Seal Hunter; aka, Siwash Rock) – an example of a small area, urban situated, cultural landscape feature included in the SXTA Cultural Site Protection Plan and S’ólh Téméxw Land Use Plan.
Page 29 of 138
Evaluating Land Status and Government Interests
Preliminary land statusing is now underway, reviewing government interests on these Stó:lō cultural site areas. Preliminary correlations between Stó:lō cultural sites and the layers of government interests provided through the LTWG are provided below:
Archaeology – 20 sites have archaeological site polygons ALR – 19 sites have some relation to this form of land status Forestry – 43 sites have some version of this tenure Guide Outfitter – 64 sites have some version of this tenure Habitat protection – 15 sites have some version of this tenure Land tenures – 85 sites have some version of this tenure Mineral tenures – 52 sites have some version of this tenure; several being only claims Recreation tenures – 15 sites have some version of this tenure – a mix of sites, trails and reserves Traplines – 102 sites have some version of this tenure Water Act - 22 sites – most are points of diversion or community watershed Cadastre – 44 sites have some version of this tenure – most are on Sumas Mountain
Preliminary analyses indicate that, of the 147 identified cultural site areas the majority of overlapping government interests, particularly those tied to the cadastre for fee simple properties, are associated with a small batch of large polygons -- including Sumas Mountain, Mount Hope, and the Chilliwack River.
These early findings indicate that the majority of government-related interests are localized, associated with a handful of sites, and are generally not widespread. These early indicators point positively that further analysis will establish a foundation for defining a workable means of establishing protection for these critical features of the Stó:lō cultural landscape as a keystone of the SXTA treaty.
Page 30 of 138
THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN
In the Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association’s treaty negotiations with British Columbia (BC) and Canada, land use planning was raised as a priority issue relating to shared decision- making and management of land and resource use, with particular interest in both advancing economic development and protecting cultural heritage. In 2008 a project was launched to develop a Stó:lō land use plan that would facilitate a framework for balancing economic development and cultural site and traditional practice protection needs, and assist in the understanding and negotiation of land use planning. The current TRM project contributed to significant revision of the categorization and definition of cultural site areas defined within this land use plan.
The term “S’ólh Téméxw”, meaning “Our Land”, represents a Stó:lō-based set of relationships with the land. The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (STUP) aims to bring visibility and recognition to this set of relationships by using a single picture to identify areas on the landscape that are of cultural significance to Stó:lō and require protection. The intention is that this single picture will permit economic development to proceed in a way that minimizes the risk of impacting these significant cultural areas.
Background to the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan
Underpinning the development of the STUP is a rich foundation of conversations around culture and heritage that have taken place since Stó:lō first joined the BC Treaty Process in 1995. At that time, the Stó:lō treaty group comprised all nineteen member bands of Stó:lō Nation. The treaty work included discussions on the definition of heritage, the compilation of heritage site datasets, and the recognition of direct community action as an indicator of Stó:lō conservation priorities. There was an ongoing effort to understand Stó:lō cultural foundations and to present them in a contemporary manner. This effort, which involved engagement with community leadership in conjunction with researching several decades of interviews with cultural knowledge holders, ultimately led to the development and approval of the Stó:lō Heritage Policy in 2003. The cultural heritage sites were defined from these processes. From 2003 to 2008, there were additions to these datasets through other cultural use studies and contributed knowledge by community members.
Development of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan: An Inter-Stó:lō Collaboration
In 2006, after the Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association (SXTA) re-engaged treaty negotiations with British Columbia (BC) and Canada. Land use planning was raised as a priority issue in response to treaty discussions around the topics of shared decision-making and governance in relation to lands and cultural heritage. In 2008, a project was launched to develop a Stó:lō land use plan that would facilitate the treatment of lands as a significant issue in treaty-making. The SXTA established a Lands Working Group to develop a comprehensive, regional-scale land use plan. In recognition of shared rights and the network of relationships among Stó:lō that connects them to S’ólh Téméxw, the Lands Working Group invited other Stó:lō to collaborate with them during the development of the STUP. It was hoped that a
Page 31 of 138
collaborative approach would solidify the long-standing relationships between Stó:lō and avoid inter-Stó:lō conflicts over different visions of how the land and resources should be used.
The term “S’ólh Téméxw” - meaning “Our Land” - represents a Stó:lō-based set of relationships with the land. The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (STUP) works to bring visibility and recognition to this set of relationships by using a single picture to identify areas on the landscape that are of cultural significance to Stó:lō and require protection. The intention is that this single picture will permit economic development to proceed in a way that minimizes the risk of impacting these significant cultural areas.
This project was initiated and directed by David Schaepe with support from the SXTA Treaty Negotiating Team including Joe Hall (Chief Political Advisor), Jean Teillet (SXTA Chief Negotiator), Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie (SXTA Cultural Advisor). Additional support was provided by Robyn Heaslip (SRRMC Environmental Researcher), Sue Formosa (SRRMC GIS Technician), and Karen Brady (SRRMC Land Use Planner), and a number of other contributors from other Stó:lō organizations.
The SXTA developed the STUP in collaboration with technical and operational staff from Stó:lō Nation, Stó:lō Tribal Council, and the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe. Over the course of twenty months, nine meetings were held by the Lands Working Group and a collective table was established that convened at various locations including the Stó:lō Nation offices, the Stó:lō Tribal Council offices, and Government House. All meetings were facilitated by the Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre (SRRMC).
Timeline
DATE ATTENDEES COMMENTS
2008 Initial direction to start working on a land use plan as a substantive component of the treaty process.
David Schaepe heads up the STUP initiative and follows up with direction from the SXTA to engage in developing a broad-based, multi- institutional land use plan representative of Stó:lō economic development, cultural heritage and environmental issues, broadly. Nine SXTA Lands Working Group meetings were held over a period of twenty months to develop the STUP in collaboration with Stó:lō Nation, Stó:lō Tribal Council, and Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe. 7 April 2008 Attendees not recorded
Page 32 of 138
14 July 2008 Dave Schaepe (Chair) Otis Jasper Denise van den Eerenbeemt Matt Wealick Sonny McHalsie Robyn Heaslip 15 August 2008 Dave Schaepe (Chair) Frank Malloway Jeff Point Frank Andrew Otis Jasper Tanya MacDonald Matt Wealick Robyn Heaslip 24 September 2008 Attendees not recorded
28 May 2009 Dave Schaepe (Chair) Frank Malloway Jeff Point Debra Schneider 15 September 2009 Dave Schaepe (Chair) Frank Malloway Jeff Point Alice Thompson 6 October 2009 Attendees not recorded
24 November 2009 Dave Schaepe (Chair) Mike Kelly Frank Malloway
Page 33 of 138
Geographic Extent
Although Stó:lō traditional territory extends into the United States, the geographic area represented by the STUP is delimited by the International Boundary in order to reflect the Canadian-specific nature of the treaty process within which the STUP is being developed. The STUP map uses the same boundary as the Statement of Intent map submitted by the SXTA to the BC Treaty Commission and shows the extent of Stó:lō traditional territory in BC.
Methods - Creation of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan Map Geographic Information System Technology
The STUP map was developed within a Geographic Information System (GIS), created and managed by the SRRMC. The GIS contains an extensive collection of Stó:lō cultural heritage data within the SHeD (Stó:lō Heritige Database), linked to a spatial geodatabase, and is designed to facilitate discussions on the topic of heritage management by generating maps that show the geographic location of Stó:lō cultural resources.
The existing Cultural Heritage data was used to guide the definition of the cultural landscape features, the sensitive waterways/waterbodies, the sanctuaries, the protected watersheds and the culturally sensitive habitat. The spatial data underpinning the STUP came from a variety of sources across a couple of decades.
In 2011, a group of SRRMC staff reviewed the datasets with the help of Terry Tobias, cultural use research consultant and author of Living Proof, a guide to methodology for capturing and conveying cultural use on the landscape. This review revealed that there was replication of sites across the datasets, a lack of clarity in how the cultural heritage data were to be sorted into the various types within the STUP classification, and a disconnect between the STUP and site- specific spatial data.
At the site-specific level, there was a mix of known, approximate and unknown site locations in the datasets. There was a lack of precision in the data for the intended purpose of refining the STUP and for the selection of protective legislation. There was little information about the sites linked to the spatial data.
S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan: External Datasets Reviewed and Used During Development
The following datasets that were used to inform the development of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (STUP). Included in the inventory below are the source and version of each dataset used to inform the development of the STUP.
Page 34 of 138
Wildlife Datasets Reviewed Source: Provincial / Provincial Data Warehouse / Combination of Ministries
Deer Management Area (2001) Provided for Chilliwack. Critical Goat Winter Range Habitat (2001) Region 2 Surrey – Lower Mainland (MELP). Grizzly Study (2000-2001) Stó:lō Nation Grizzly Bear Traditional Knowledge Study. Mountain Beaver (2005) From Wildlife Habitat Areas 2005 dataset Spotted Owl (2005) From Wildlife Habitat Areas 2005 dataset Feeding Areas for Black-Tailed Deer, Marbled Murrelet, Mountain Goat, NW Moose, Roosevelt Elk, and White-Tailed Deer (2002)
Parks Source: Provincial, Municipality, City
Provincial Parks Data: Annual updates incorporated into the spatial data display Provincial data warehouse (now DataBC) Municipality Parks Data: Annual updates incorporated into the spatial data display Parks data received from both Metro Vancouver and the FVRD City Parks Data: Annual updates incorporated into the spatial data display Parks data received from both Metro Vancouver and the FVRD
Floodplain Source: Provincial Date – 2003 Provincial data warehouse TRIM 2 data
Crown lands Source: Provincial, Federal Provincial Crown Lands Data: Tantalis (2008, 2011 updates)
Federal Crown Lands Data: Federal government direct provision of “Real Properties” (what they call Crown Land) through treaty digitally.
Page 35 of 138
Agricultural Land Reserve Source: Provincial (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands) Annual Updates Provincial data warehouse
Stó:lō Heritage Sites / Archaeological Sites Source: Provincial (Archaeology Branch) / Stó:lō Nation – SRRMC databases Annual Updates RAAD (Remote Access to Archaeological Data) Stó:lō Heritage Database – Archaeological Sites Stó:lō Heritage Database – all other Stó:lō heritage site categories
Creation of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan Supporting Documentation Types of “Land Use Zones” described in joint Provincial-First Nation Land Use Plans and Agreements: A Review of Existing Land Use Plans
Existing First Nations land use plans were reviewed during the development of the STUP (SRRMC, 2008), including:
- Lil’wat Land Use Plan - Xay Temixw Land Use Plan - Squamish First Nation Agreement on Land Use Planning - St’at’imc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan - Haida Land Use Vision
This review provided an understanding of how other First Nations categorized their lands in order to highlight and protect areas of cultural significance and ensured that important use categories were not overlooked during the development of the STUP.
The following section is extracted from the SRRMC’s review and comparison of established Provincial / First Nation-based land use plans and agreements as of 2008 (Heaslip 2008).
A. Lil’wat Land Use Plan
o Lil’wat Nt’ákmen (“Our way”) Areas What activities are allowed? . Harvesting traditional resources . Practicing cultural/spiritual activities . Limited culturally-appropriate economic development activities may be allowed (ie. Low impact tourism and recreation; commercial botanical harvesting) What activities are NOT allowed? . Industrial resource development
Page 36 of 138
. Water-based power projects . Intensive Tourism and Recreation . Agriculture . Land development for commercial activities
o Collaborative management areas – in the Lil’wat plan these are Parks that was collaboratively managed with the Province. What activities are allowed? . Harvesting traditional resources . Practicing cultural/spiritual activities . Limited culturally-appropriate economic development activities may be allowed (ie. Low impact tourism and recreation; commercial botanical harvesting) What activities are NOT allowed? . Any kind of industrial resource development
o Cultural Education Areas What activities are allowed? . Low impact tourism and recreation . Commercial botanical forest harvesting . Intensive tourism and recreation in areas that do not conflict with the education focus of the area . Industrial resource development, in areas that do not conflict with the education, scenic, cultural or environmental focuses of the area . Water-based power projects, where environmental and cultural impacts do not occur
o Stewardship Areas – areas to be managed to protect ecological values and water quality first and to allow economic activities only if they are proven to protect the environment. What activities are allowed? . Economic development activities that provide for Lil’wat families and community. What activities are not allowed? . Industrial logging . Mining . Motorized tourism activities . Power projects
o Conditional Economic Development Areas – economic activities permitted on the condition that environmental and cultural values are protected and that the activity is sustainable. What activities are allowed? . Economic development activity that respects Lil’wat environmental and cultural principles . Small-scale logging outside of rare and sensitive areas . Tourism
Page 37 of 138
. Commercial botanical harvesting What activities are NOT allowed? . Industrial logging . Mining . Most land development
o Managed Resource Use Areas - managed to maintain environmental and cultural values while providing opportunities for our people to gain economic benefits. These areas have been used for forestry and other resource activities. What activities are allowed? . Forestry and other resource activities as long as they are conducted in a sustainable manner . Broader range of activities was considered compared to Stewardship areas and Conditional economic development areas
B. Haida Gwaii Strategic Land Use Agreement
o New Protected Areas – set aside for ecological and cultural conservation. Provision for corridors to access future power development and to prevent cut-off from adjacent land and resource tenures. What activities are allowed? . Spiritual and recreational activities . Educational activities What activities are NOT allowed? . Intensive resource development - mining, ecotourism, etc.
o Operating Areas – continued resource development and management activities in accordance with Ecosystem Based Management Objectives What activities are allowed? . Forest harvesting & management . Non-forestry resource and land development . Continuation of existing industrial access routes and new routes where necessary What activities are NOT allowed? . Those that do not follow Ecosystem Based Management Objectives
o Special Value Areas – Having value as areas of critical nesting habitat for goshawk, great blue heron and Saw-whet owl. Provision for corridors to access future power development and to prevent cut-off from adjacent land and resource tenures. What activities are allowed? . Low impact activities that do impact forests (must have 100% forest retention in Special Value Areas) What activities are NOT allowed? . Forestry, . Resource development, etc.
Page 38 of 138
C. Squamish First Nation Agreement on Land Use Planning
o Wild Spirit Places – areas of high importance to Squamish – within these places specific zones have been created – conservancy zones, wildland zones, special cultural management areas: o Conservancy Zones – collaboratively managed between Squamish and Province. What activities are allowed? . Squamish cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities . Sustainable economic development activity compatible with Squamish Nation’s social, cultural and ceremonial uses . Hunting and angling . Non-motorized commercial recreation activities compatible with Squamish Nation social, cultural and ceremonial uses What activities are NOT allowed? . Commercial logging . Mineral exploration and development . Hydroelectric power generation . Road building . Lodging and facilities except for Squamish Nation cultural purposes . Motorized access and use except for the pre-existing tenures. . Other commercial development
o Wildland Zone What activities are allowed? . Squamish cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities . Sustainable economic development activity compatible with Squamish Nation’s social, cultural and ceremonial uses . Opportunities for natural/wilderness backcountry recreation and tourism . Commercial recreation enterprises and tourism operations . Subsurface resource development subject to recognition and accommodation of Squamish environmental, social and cultural values. . Exploration for minerals, aggregates, dimension stone, oil and gas and geothermal resources using low impact methods . Hunting and angling . Cabins and facilities for First Nation cultural purposes What activities are NOT allowed? . Commercial timber harvesting . Hydroelectric power generation including “run-of-the-river” IPPs . Motorized commercial use except for pre-existing tenure. . Commercial recreation lodges and facilities
o Special Cultural Management Areas – some forestry was permitted subject to strict forest management practice guidelines that fully protect the Squamish Nation cultural values and ecological integrity of these areas. What activities are allowed?
Page 39 of 138
. Forestry – done by helicopter, except where harvesting is feasible using existing roads, and following the Squamish forest management guidelines. What activities are NOT allowed? . New road-building . Logging of old growth forest
o Cultural Sites What activities are allowed? . Squamish cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities What activities are NOT allowed? . Resource development – ie. Commercial logging . Limit commercial backcountry recreational and tourism use. . new road construction
o Village Sites What activities are allowed? . Squamish cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities . Key objective: preserve archaeological, cultural and heritage resources What activities are NOT allowed? . new roads or crown land tenures . Resource development
o Cultural Training Areas – located in the Wildland Zone What activities are allowed? . Squamish cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities . Opportunities for backcountry recreation as appropriate. . Squamish Nation commercial recreation and tourism activities . Mineral exploration and development using low impact methods . Low impact, non-motorized recreation activities . Hunting and angling What activities are NOT allowed? . Commercial logging and hydroelectric development . Motorized recreation use . Leases for cabins or similar structures
o Wildlife Focus Areas – for deer, moose, elk, mountain goat, and grizzly bear. Specific management direction given for each species.
D. St’at’imc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan o Qu7 (Water) Protection Areas – all domestic use watersheds and 50m buffers on all streams and water bodies o Nt’akmenlhkalha (Cultural) Protection Areas – all of St’at’imc terriotry
Page 40 of 138
o Habitat Protection Areas (Grizzly, Ts’i7 (Deer), St’s’uqwax (Fish), and general habitat protection areas) What activities are allowed (in all protection areas)? . St’at’imc traditional uses . St’at’imc restoration and fuel management activities may be permitted. What activities are NOT allowed (in any protection areas)? . Logging . Mining and mineral exploration . Road building . Cattle grazing . Other range use . Chemical pesticide or herbicide use . Oil or gas development . New commercial or residential development . Limitations on motorized recreation
o Environmentally Sensitive Areas – areas with steep slopes (>60%), poor or thin soils, or difficulty regenerating
o Community Economic Development Areas – CED includes having ownership, the benefit of jobs and adherence to our environmental values
o Restoration Areas
E. Summary of Commonalities in Types of Land Use Zones o Zones for cultural protection & education: Protection of sacred sites, village sites, spiritual sites, etc. No development/no impact zones Protection of traditional use areas – hunting, fishing, gathering, etc. May allow some low impact tourism/recreation, and/or commercial botanical harvesting, and/or education.
o Zones for environmental protection: Protection of critical habitat of high value species. May allow some low impact activities and/or resources extraction that adheres to specified management principles and strategies. Protection of animal corridors Protection of water resources
o Zones for economic development: Most activities allowed but subject to approval (permitting process, etc). Activities must be carried out in a manner that meets specified principles and management strategies.
o Zones for collaborative management: Collaborative decision-making on activities in these zones Some activities grand-fathered in, future activities may be restricted.
Page 41 of 138
Activities to be carried out in a manner that meets specified, agreed upon principles and management strategies
Identification of S’ólh Téméxw Use Categories: A Stó:lō Perspective
As the STUP is a contemporary expression of a uniquely Stó:lō-based set of relationships with the land, all traces of federal, provincial, and local government jurisdiction are absent from the STUP map. For ease of reference, the location and extent of the Indian Reserves associated with each Stó:lō band are displayed on the map. Landforms and man-made features, such as canals, are also shown on the map to facilitate the identification of areas within S’ólh Téméxw. The visualization of the landforms has been enhanced using a hill-shading option in the GIS mapping software to give them a three-dimensional appearance on the map.
Informed by the Stó:lō Heritage Policy and its underlying cultural heritage datasets, a series of use categories were defined and identified spatially on the STUP map. These use categories represent the areas of S’ólh Téméxw that are most important to Stó:lō in terms of their cultural heritage.
The STUP is a “living” land use plan and, as such, is expected to evolve in response to new data sources, future research, and ongoing engagement with both Stó:lō and non-Stó:lō individuals and organizations. The STUP has already been through a number of iterations and is currently at Version 10 as of October 10, 2013. The use categories, and their associated conditions, include:
USE CATEGORIES CONDITIONS Canyon Heritage Area Reserved for traditional Stó:lō uses
Cultural Landscape / Sxwōxwiyám Feature No disturbance Limited use
Sanctuary No disturbance Privacy Pristine environment Stó:lō use/access priority
Protected Watershed Water quality restricted uses
Protected Waterway / Waterbody Water quality restricted uses
Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Parkland No motorized vehicles
Page 42 of 138
Descriptions of Use Areas from the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan
The following description related to the most current version of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (v10). There are seven types of defined Use Areas within in the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan:
1. Cultural Landscape Feature 2. Culturally Sensitive Habitat 3. Sensitive Waterway / Waterbody 4. Sanctuary 5. Protected Watershed 6. Canyon Heritage Area 7. Subalpine Parkland
Descriptions of each Use Area, including basic use restrictions, are individually presented below.
1. Cultural Landscape Feature
The Cultural Landscape Feature use area represents terrestrial sites on the landscape that are integral to Stó:lō worldview and establish their unique relationship with the land and resources of their traditional territory. These sites, described in Stó:lō narratives in relation to Transformation Stories and the Flood Story, comprise individual rocks and features, such as mountains, that are viewed as living parts of the landscape that must be treated with respect.
Use Area Restrictions: Activities proposed within the Cultural Landscape Feature use area must be assessed for their potential impacts on: Surface integrity, with an understanding that surface activities that cause superficial damage may be permissible whereas sub-surface activities that cause internal damage to these sites will not be tolerated; and Appearance, in relation to sites on the landscape that are identifiable from a distance making their form a crucial aspect of their cultural significance.
2. Culturally Sensitive Habitat
The Culturally Sensitive Habitat use area represents terrestrial sites on the landscape that are used by culturally-recognized beings. An example of a Culturally Sensitive Habitat is the set of trails used by stl’áleqem (spiritual beings) to move from one area of S’ólh Téméxw to another. Interviews with Stó:lō community members (Schaepe et al 2003), revealed a belief that culturally-recognised beings may move or cease to exist if their habitat becomes sufficiently degraded and their life force may disappear. Within Stó:lō worldview, everything has a life force which needs to be strong and connected in order to support individual and community health. Therefore, degraded habitats can lead to diminished health through the breakdown of the life force associated with the culturally-recognised beings that inhabit these terrestrial areas on the landscape.
Page 43 of 138
Use Area Restrictions: Activities proposed within the Culturally Sensitive Habitat use area must be assessed for their potential impacts on: The terrestrial habitat of culturally-recognised beings.
3. Sensitive Waterway / Waterbody
Over the past several decades, Stó:lō community members have observed a substantial decline in water quality. The Sensitive Waterway / Waterbody use area was created in response to this reduction in water quality. A primary concern in the Sensitive Waterway / Waterbody use area is how a decrease in water quality may affect the aquatic habitat of culturally-recognised beings, such as stl’áleqem and s’o:lmexw, that live in the bodies of water throughout S’ólh Téméxw. Interviews from the Sumas Energy 2 Impact Study, revealed a belief among community members that culturally- recognised beings may move or cease to exist if their habitat becomes sufficiently degraded and their life force may disappear. Within Stó:lō worldview, everything has a life force which needs to be strong and connected in order to support individual and community health. Therefore, poor water quality can lead to diminished health through the breakdown of the life force associated with the culturally-recognised beings that inhabit the waterways within S’ólh Téméxw.
Use Area Restrictions: Activities proposed within the Sensitive Waterway/Waterbody use area must be assessed for their potential impacts on: The aquatic habitat of culturally-recognised beings.
4. Sanctuary
The Sanctuary use area represents areas of the landscape that support Stó:lō spiritual/religious activities. These activities, which include fasting, bathing, and the storage of possessions, require a pristine and private environment.
Use Area Restrictions: Activities proposed within the Sanctuary use area must be assessed for their potential impacts on: Water quality, in the channels and drainages that sustain spiritual bathing; Viewscapes, the visual landscape defined from the vantage point of where the spiritual activity is carried out; Soundscapes, the acoustic environment necessary for the practice of spiritual activities; Scentscapes, the olfactory environment necessary for the practice of spiritual activities; and Privacy
Page 44 of 138
5. Protected Watershed
The water-based spiritual activities carried out within the Sanctuary use area have a critical dependence on the water that comes from watersheds which lie outside, but feed into, the Sanctuary use area. The Protected Watershed use area has been created to ensure that these watersheds are used in ways that protect the quality of the aquatic environments that they feed into further downstream in the Sanctuary Use Area.
Use Area Restrictions: Activities proposed within the Protected Watershed use area must be assessed for their potential impacts on: Water quality, required for spiritual bathing; Water clarity, required for spiritual bathing; Water flow, in relation to the energy derived from bathing pools; and Riverbed structure, including indirect impacts on site access and use.
6. Canyon Heritage Area
The Canyon Heritage use area encompasses the Fraser Canyon and its surroundings. It is delineated by Siwash Creek watershed and Sawmill Creek watershed. The Canyon Heritage use area is of great significance to Stó:lō due to its density of heritage resources and the variety of traditional activities it supports. Although many of the sites and activities are focussed in and around the Fraser River, the entire landscape associated with the Canyon Heritage use area is important to Stó:lō. Elements of Stó:lō cultural heritage represented by the Canyon Heritage Area include: Sites o Cemeteries o Ancestral Remains o Ancestral Communities o Transformation Sites (At least ten percent of all transformation sites in S’ólh Téméxw are concentrated in the five mile section of the Fraser Canyon) o Stl’áleqem Sites o Habitat of Spiritually Potent Beings o Tunnel Systems (Connecting to other areas within S’ólh Téméxw) o Narratives . The locations of narratives throughout the landscape that go all the way back to the Flood Story. o Placenames Contemporary Activities o Dry-Rack Fishing: The Fraser Canyon represents a unique area to carry out this activity due to the fact that similar environmental conditions cannot be reliably found elsewhere. o Salmon Fishing: The Fraser Canyon supports an incredible salmon population, access to the salmon, and relationships with the salmon. The Stó:lō believe that the Salmon Baby was taken to the Fraser Canyon and is the reason that the salmon return there every year.
Page 45 of 138
Other Activities Supported by the Canyon Heritage Use Area, include: o Hunting o Plant Collecting o Resource Gathering o Spiritual Use o Access / Use of Frozen Lakes
Fundamental to the importance of the Canyon Heritage use area is the role it plays in ensuring cultural continuity by providing opportunities for inter-generational engagement. Each year children are brought by their extended family to fish camps in the Fraser Canyon and are taught about Stó:lō ways of being by experiencing traditional activities and learning about their culture. The Fraser Canyon is a place where Stó:lō identity is sustained.
The Canyon Heritage Area is highly intolerant to impacts. If the area is disturbed, access to contemporary traditional use sites may be impacted and a critical part of the Stó:lō education process may be lost. Impacts to the river and to the salmon habitat could fundamentally affect the relationship between Stó:lō, the river, and the salmon and, in doing so, erode Stó:lō culture and identity.
Use Area Restrictions: All proposed activities in the Canyon Heritage use area must allow for the maintenance of contemporary traditional activities while limiting development, use, or visitation by outsiders. Permissible activities could include Stó:lō-guided ecotourism ventures that bring visitors into the Canyon Heritage use area. Selective logging, outside the visible range of the Fraser Canyon, might also be possible. Activities such as mining would impact the landscape in a way that would be considered intolerable in this use area. As the Canyon Heritage use area has suffered major impacts from roadways, highways, railways, and transmission lines in the past, adding to that cumulative set of impacts would also be considered intolerable.
7. Subalpine Parkland The Subalpine Parkland use area represents higher elevations within S’ólh Téméxw where the forested area ends and the meadow ecosystem begins. While sensitive to disturbance, this ecosystem is also highly productive and was heavily used in the past, and sometimes still is today, for activities such as hunting and gathering. This ecosystem also represents sensitive mountain goat habitat.
Use Area Restrictions: All proposed activities in the Subalpine Parkland use area must ensure that sensitive areas within this ecosystem remain undisturbed. Recreational uses are the most compatible activity for this use area. Non-motorized vehicles should be used as much as possible, i.e., no snowmobiles and no quads / all-terrain vehicles.
Page 46 of 138
Current Version and Continual Development: The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan as a ‘Living Plan’
The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan is a “living” land use plan and, as such, provides a stable basis for land use planning and decision-making processes while yet expected to evolve in response to new data sources, future research, and ongoing engagement with both Stó:lō and non-Stó:lō individuals and organizations. The STUP has already been through a number of iterations and is currently at Version 10 (v10) as of October 2013 (see below). The latest revisions to the STUP accounting for version 10 resulted from of including mapping for the Cultural Sites Protection Plan conducted as an element of this TRM.
The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (v10), developed as a factor of Treaty-Related Measures Projects addressing Governance, Land Use Planning, and Cultural Sites Protection, and including collaborative input from a number of Stó:lō organization.
Page 47 of 138
The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan with the SXTA Statement of Intent and Core Interest Area.
Current Application of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan
The S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (v10) is currently being applied as an aspect of Stó:lō involvement in resource management and development planning broadly throughout S’ólh Téméxw in the following areas of application:
Referral Review informing the Consultation and Accommodation Process – via the Stó:lō Strategic Engagement Agreement Pilot Project, including six of seven SXTA First Nations, as well as eight other non-treaty Stó:lō First Nations. Cultural Heritage Overview and Impact Assessment processes High-Level Strategic Planning of Land and Resource Use
These applications actively inform the development of high-level government-to-government relations between the Province (mainly) and First Nations regarding land and resource use off- reserve, off- potential treaty settlement land throughout S’ólh Téméxw Use. The Plan, then, serves as a mechanism for pre-treaty inter-governmental relationship building around land and resource management, and shared decision-making.
Page 48 of 138
As part of the SXTA’s treaty-related measures and LTWG workplans, the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan is being shared with and reviewed by local government planners within the central Fraser Valley (Hope-Abbotsford). This collaborative effort was established by the SXTA and supported by the Fraser Valley Regional District Board of Directors. The objective of this effort is to assess the relationship of the STUP with existing land use plans (i.e., local government plans) with regard to points of agreement or disagreement, aiming to harmonize land use planning visions and tools. The work carried out for this TRM, serving to redefine cultural sites and refine the content of the STUP, provided critical input supporting this initiative.
Page 49 of 138
SECTION III: INFORMING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SXTA GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK – COSTING SXTA GOVERNANCE
Significant effort was put into carrying out fiscal analyses identifying the cost of governance for the SXTA, focusing on the ‘now’, that is aiming to answer the question: how much does governance cost today, within the Indian Act framework of Indian Band, programs and services? Efforts focused on financial, as well as demographic descriptions of the SXTA, as a whole and as individual First Nations, today.
This portion of the TRM focused on the following areas of analysis:
Stó:lo Nation Financial Assessment Individual First Nation Financial Assessments Aitchelitz First Nation Leq’a:Mel First Nation Popkum First Nation Skawahlook First Nation Skowkale First Nation Tzeachten First Nation Yakweakwioose First Nation Projected SXTA Treaty-based Political and Government Support Costs Political Structure Projected SX Government Support Land and Resources Estimated Personnel Requirements Estimated Heritage Resource Requirements Municipal Services
These findings serve to inform the SXTA in the development of their governance framework, and are playing an active role in shaping the framework of the SXTA Constitution – currently being drafted and nearing completion. Findings from these analyses contain information that the SXTA deemed to be confidential and which, therefore, cannot be shared.
Page 50 of 138
The demographic portion of this TRM focused on the following areas of analysis: Reserve Lands, and Band Membership. Findings from these analyses served to inform the development of governance by increasing the understanding of the present, current dynamics and trends of relations between land and people on reserve. These findings bring attention to the ‘now’ and the needs of the SXTA, bridging understanding between the past and the future. This bridgework is critical to building understanding as a foundation to the success of the SXTA treaty. Findings are presented in Appendixes II-III.
Page 51 of 138
CONCLUSION
As note in Section I, information resulting from these analyses have proven directly useful to the SXTA Main Table negotiations. Information derived from these analyses, either directly or indirectly, was incorporated in a preliminary lands presentation provided to the SXTA Main Table on October 3, 2013. These findings are proving fundamental to a more complete presentation of lands information being developed for the SXTA Main Table meeting scheduled on November 12, 2013. The land and governance information provided in this report was provided to and use iteratively with the SXTA throughout the duration of the TRM project. Impact of this study are widespread, influencing the development the SXTA lands package, governance framework, and constitution – three core elements of the SXTA treaty. The results of this TRM project, overall, are playing a significant role in moving the SXTA Treaty Table toward a ‘Land and Cash Offer’ mandate as a milestone of negotiations in Stage 4 of the BCTC process.
Page 52 of 138
APPENDIX I: SXTA LAND SELECTION PRESENTATION
Page 53 of 138
Page 54 of 138
Page 55 of 138
Page 56 of 138
Page 57 of 138
Page 58 of 138
Page 59 of 138
Page 60 of 138
Page 61 of 138
Page 62 of 138
Page 63 of 138
Page 64 of 138
Page 65 of 138
APPENDIX II: SXTA FIRST NATIONS ‘AT-A-GLANCE’ PROFILES
The SXTA Collective
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 1177 total CP parcels with 455 total CPs (391.64 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 94 (108.72 hectares) Band Land = 229 (422.66 hectares) Total hectares = 923.03 hectares
SXTA Overall Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 229 422.66 R/W 94 108.72 CP 1177 (455) 391.64 Total Hectares: 923.03
Page 66 of 138
Population Total population: on- and off- reserve 2013
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year 2013 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Male Female Total Own Band Other Band Total Total Aitchelitz 24 17 41 20 6 26 15 Leq'a:mel 235 251 486 121 9 130 356 Popkum 6 4 10 1 0 1 9 Skawahlook 38 47 85 7 5 12 73 Skowkale 115 130 245 154 22 176 69 Tzeachten 276 260 536 250 0 250 286 Yakweakwioose 26 40 66 32 3 35 31 TOTAL 720 749 1469 585 45 630 839
SXTA Overall Population – Gender Breakdown
SXTA Total Population – On/Off Reserve
Page 67 of 138
Aitchelitz First Nation
The community of Aitchelitz is located within the city of Chilliwack and has a current total population of 41 people. They have one singly owned reserve (Aitchelitch 9) which is approximately 21.40 hectares. Aitchelitz is governed by a hereditary chief and three councilors. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Although Aitchelitz is located within a major service centre, they are not connected to sanitary or water services. All homes on the reserve are serviced by individual wells and septic fields.
Aitchelitz as a band has no revenue sources other than their governance funding. Their members lease out CP lands to various individuals and companies. All leased areas of Aitchelitz are buckshee and all revenues generated go directly to the CP holders. Once Aitchelitz implements their taxation law they was able to collect property tax from the individual lease holders and generate band revenues.
All of the leases currently held on Aitchelitz are industrial based. Because they are buckshee (not regulated by AANDC, a ‘handshake deal’) they do not need to meet any requirements set out by Aboriginal Affairs. This has caused environmental problems as there is a huge amount of waste contamination on the reserve that has made the area unusable by future developments.
Aitchelitz is currently going into their second and final year of their Land Code development. Once they have ratified their Land Code and have chosen an operational date, they was responsible for administering their own lands. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Aitcheltich 9 = 21.40 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 7 total CP parcels with 17 active CPs (13.92 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 3 (2.44 hectares) Band Land = 2 (5.03 hectares) Total reserve = 21.40 hectares
Page 68 of 138
Aitchelitz Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 2 5.03 R/W 3 2.44 CP 7 13.92 Total Hectares: 21.40
Population Total population: on- and off- reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 41 24 17 26 15 2010 40 23 17 31 9 2005 39 20 19 31 8 2000 32 17 15 19 13 1995 19 10 9 19 0 1990 20 9 11 18 2
Page 69 of 138
Aitchelitz - Áthelets 558 8161 Aitken Road Ts'elxwéyeqw Chilliwack, BC V2R 4H5 SNS / SXTA Hereditary Chief Angie Bailey Reserves: Councillor John A. George Aitchelitch 9 21.40 hectares Councillor Leona Sam Section 10 (custom membership code) Councillor Gordon George Developmental Stage of Land Code
Aitchelitz Chief and Council List / Community Information
Overall Population Growth
Overall Population Growth
Page 70 of 138
Leases and Permits Currently Aitchelitz has 0 registered leases/permits but does have a few different buckshee leases/permits on CP land (Lot 6-1). All of the leases/permits are industrial type enterprises. The following is a list of the companies located on Aitchelitz: Iota Construction Valley Disposal Goodies Trading Autobody Shop Two other individual leases are on the property Aitchelitz has one registered easement for a pipeline with Trains-Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.
Utilities The community does not use municipal water or sewer services. All of the homes on the reserve use well water and septic tanks.
Taxation The community does not levy or collect property taxes. Aitchelitz is in the process of developing a Property Taxation Law and authority to collect property tax in the future. There are currently no non-member residents that have homes on the reserve but there are leased properties that could be subject to taxation once their Law is passed.
Revenues Currently the community does not generate any other source of revenues. All of the leased revenues revert to individuals, not the band.
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Chilliwack
Page 71 of 138
Leq’á:mel First Nation
The community of Leq’á:mel is located 25 km east of Mission and has a current total population of 387 people. They have ten singly owned reserves (Alyechootlook 5, Holachten 8, Lackaway 2, Lakahahmen 11, Lakway Cemetery 3, Papekwatchin 4, Skweahm 10, Sumas Cemetery 12, Yaalstrick 1, and Zaitscullachan 9) which are approximately 342 hectares total. Leq’a:mel is governed by a chief and six councilors. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Leq’á:mel is not connected to sanitary or water services. All homes on the reserve are serviced by individual wells and septic fields.
Leq’á:mel has a number of residential leases on CP and band land. Only one of the leases is registered through AANDC, the rest are buckshee. The band owns three mobile home parks which contains 140 units. They generate revenues through rents and taxation for these units.
All non-members pay property tax to Leq’á:mel. Any rents from non-members on CP lands are collected by the CP holder. Leq’á:mel also has four agricultural leases and two commercial leases which generate rental revenues. There is only one right of way permit for the railway, which is very minimal. There are no other sources of income for this community.
Leq’á:mel went operational with their Land Code in 2007. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Alyechootlook 5 = 8.00 hectares Holachten 8 = 105.39 hectares Lackaway 2 = 24.19 hectares Lakahahmen 11 = 39.90 hectares Lakway Cemetary = 3.97 hectares Papekwatchin 4 = 27.85 hectares Skweahm 10 = 78.81 hectares Sumas Cemetary = 2.50 hectares Yaalstrick 1 = 29.80 hectares Zaitscullachan 9 = 22.50 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 72 total CP parcels with 104 active CPs (121.16 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 24 (26.08 hectares) Band Land = 89 (195.66 hectares) Total reserve = 847.34 acres
Page 72 of 138
Leq’á:mel Reserve Parcel Allocation
Page 73 of 138
Page 74 of 138
Page 75 of 138
Page 76 of 138
Page 77 of 138
Aylechootlook Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 4 1.57 R/W 2 0.96 CP 4 5.47 Total Hectares: 8.00 Holachten Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 52 65.59 R/W 9 16.86 CP 13 22.95 Total Hectares: 105.39 Lackaway Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 9.81 R/W 1 0.19 CP 8 14.20 Total Hectares: 24.19 Lakahahmen Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 14 10.29 R/W 4 0.34 CP 20 29.26 Total Hectares: 39.90 Lakway Cemetary Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 3.97
Page 78 of 138
R/W 0 0.00 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 3.97 Papekwatchin Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 22.74 R/W 0 0.00 CP 3 5.11 Total Hectares: 27.85
Skweahm Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 13 26.97 R/W 7 7.67 CP 24 44.17 Total Hectares: 78.81 Sumas Cemetary Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 2.42 R/W 1 0.07 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 2.50 Yaalstrick Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 29.80 R/W 0 0.00 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 29.80 Zaitscullachan Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 1 22.50 R/W 0 0.00 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 22.50 Leq’á:mel Overall Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 89 195.66 R/W 24 26.08 CP* (total CP holders 104) 72 121.16 Total Hectares: 342.90
Page 79 of 138
Population Total population: on- and off- reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 486 235 251 130 356 2010 347 159 188 130 217 2005 329 149 180 127 202 2000 304 137 167 126 178 1995 279 126 150 109 170 1990 232 108 124 54 178
Overall Population Growth
Overall Population Growth
Page 80 of 138
Leq’á:mel Chief and Council List / Community Information Leq’á:mel - Leq’á:mel 579 43101 Leq’á:mel Way Leq’á:mel Deroche, BC V0M 1G0 SNS / SXTA Chief Alice Thompson Reserves: Councillor Barbara Leggat Alyechootlook Councillor Darrel McKamey Holachten 8 Councillor Shawn Gabriel Lackaway 2 Councillor Justin Laslo Lakahahmen 11 Councillor Mike Kelly Lakway Cemetary 3 Councillor Dan Grauman Papekwatchin 4 Skweahm 10 Section 10 (custom membership code) Sumas Cemetary 12 Land Code Operational Yaalstrick 1 Zaitscullachan 9
Leases and Permits Leq’á:mel has two registered leases (residential and recreational), one easement, four permits and one right of way registered with AANDC. They include agreements for Telus, BC Hydro, a wellsite, and septic field.
They have numerous buckshee leases. There are three band-owned residential leases for mobile homes (140 units). There are four agricultural leases (farms/grazing) and two commercial leases (RV storage and scrap metal business).
There are also member-owned buckshee leases. There is one member-owned mobile home residential lease and one other residential CP lease.
Page 81 of 138
Utilities Leq’á:mel is not connected to sanitary or water services. All homes on each of the reserves are serviced by individual wells and septic fields. There are two community absorption mounds in social housing subdivisions.
Taxation Leq’á:mel has their taxation law through the Indian Taxation Advisory Board. The band taxes non-members and the funds are directly funneled through to the First Nation.
Revenues Leq’á:mel depends on revenues generated through taxation and lease rentals. Apart from a small permit fee from CN/CPR for the right of way, they have no other source of revenues.
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre (Mission, B.C.) and has year round road access.
Page 82 of 138
Popkum First Nation
The community of Popkum is located between the city of Chilliwack and the township of Hope. Popkum has a current total population of 10 people. They have two singly owned reserves (Popkum 1 and Popkum 2) which are approximately 149 hectares. Popkum is governed by a chief and one councilor. They are a Section 11 band which means AANDC maintains their membership list.
Popkum has no registered leases on their reserves, but they do have some buckshee leases. Because Popkum has no CPs, it is assumed all lease revenues go directly to the Band.
Popkum is listed as an operating FSMA community which means they have the power to collect property tax. This information is yet to be confirmed by the band.
Popkum’s lands are administered through AANDC via the Stó:lō Lands Department. They are not currently in Land Code development but are on the list to develop one in the future.
Reserves Popkum 1 = 141.10 hectares Popkum 2 = 8.60 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 0 total CP parcels Right of Ways/Easements = 3 (21.30 hectares) Band Land = 7 (124.13 hectares Total reserves = 145.43 hectares
Popkum Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 7 124.13 R/W 3 21.30 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 145.43
Page 83 of 138
Population
Total population: on- and off- reserve Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 10 6 4 1 9 2010 8 6 2 1 7 2005 8 6 2 1 7 2000 9 7 2 3 6 1995 10 9 1 5 5 1990 7 6 1 6 1
Page 84 of 138
Overall Population Growth
Popkum - Pópkw'em 585 RR#1 - PO Box 2 Tít Rosedale, BC V0X 1X0 SNS / SXTA Chief James Murphy Reserves: Councillor Harry Murphy Popkum 1 141.10 hectares Popkum 2 8.60 hectares Section 11 (AANDC membership code) RLAP Lands Program (Stó:lō Lands) Popkum Chief and Council List / Community Information
Leases and Permits Currently Popkum has two permits (BC Hydro and Telus) and two easements (Trans Mountain Pipeline) registered with AANDC. There are no registered leases but Popkum does have a few buckshee leases. Unconfirmed, there is a quad park, log home business, and billboards that would need an agreement with the band. These details are yet to be confirmed with the band.
Utilities The community does not use municipal water or sewer services. All of the homes on the reserve use well water and septic tanks.
Taxation Popkum is listed as a FSMA community, which means they have the power to tax. It is not confirmed whether or not they do.
Page 85 of 138
Revenues It is assumed Popkum collects lease revenues from the buckshee businesses operating on their reserves. Because all of the land is Band land, it is assumed all revenues go directly to the Band. Other sources of revenue have not been confirmed but it is assumed there may be a small payment for the registered permits and easements on their reserves.
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Hope
Page 86 of 138
Skawahlook First Nation
The community of Skawahlook is located approximately 20 km from the township of Hope and has a current total population of 85 people. They have two singly owned reserves (Skawahlook 1 and Ruby Creek 2) which are approximately 74 hectares. Skawahlook is governed by a chief and a councilor. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Skawahlook is not connected to sanitary or water services. All homes on the reserve are serviced by individual wells and septic fields.
Skawahlook generates revenues through taxation, lease/permit monies, and band-owned business monies. The community signed on with the taxation law with the FSMA. This allows the community to collect property taxes from non-member residents and from right of way agreements. Skawahlook currently has right of way agreements with BC Tel/Telus and Spectra. They are currently working on an agreement with CPR.
Skawahlook has no buckshee leases. Currently there is one residential CP owned mobile home park which has approximately eight units. The rents generated from this residential development are collected by the CP holder directly and the band receives all of the property tax revenues for the non-member residents. The community operates a Frame Shop and Gallery on band land and there is one permit registered with BC Tel/Telus.
Skawahlook went operational with their Land Code in 2010. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Skawahlook 1 = 57.56 hectares Ruby Creek 2 = 41.02 16.81 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 12 total CP parcels with 14 active CPs (25.53 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 8 (5.11 hectares) Band Land = 12 (43.73 hectares) Total reserve = 74.37 hectares
Page 87 of 138
Skawahlook Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Skawahlook 1 Total Hectares Band Land 4 38.77 R/W 3 3.32 CP 2 (3) 15.47 Total Hectares: 57.56 Instrument Type Ruby Creek 2 Total Hectares Band Land 8 4.96 R/W 5 1.79 CP 10 (11) 10.06 Total Hectares: 16.81 Instrument Type Total Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 12 43.73 R/W 8 5.11 CP 12 (14) 25.53 Total Hectares: 74.37
Page 88 of 138
Population Total population: on- and off- reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve
Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 85 38 47 12 73 2010 77 35 42 12 65 2005 72 32 40 15 57 2000 66 27 39 15 51 1995 68 29 39 15 53 1990 58 26 32 17 41
Overall Population Growth
Page 89 of 138
Overall Population Growth
Skawahlook Chief and Council List / Community Information
Skawahlook - Sq'ewá:lxw 582 58611A Lougheed Highway Tít Agassiz, BC V0M 1A3 SNS / SXTA Chief Maureen Chapman Skawahlook 1 Councillor Debbie Schneider Ruby Creek 2 Section 10 (custom membership code) Land Code
Leases and Permits Currently Skawahlook has three easements, two permits and 2 right of ways registered with AANDC for telephone communications, hydro, pipeline, transmission lines and a gas line. They have a band-owned business (Gallery/Frame Shop) and there is one CP holder owned mobile home park. There are no buckshee leases.
Utilities The community does not use municipal water or sewer services. All of the homes on the reserve use well water and septic tanks.
Page 90 of 138
Taxation
The community does collect property taxes. Skawahlook signed on to the Indian Tax Advisory Board in Kamloops to administer band taxation.
Revenues Skawahlook generates revenues through their registered permits/easements/right of ways and through monies generated through their Gallery and Frame Shop. They also receive property tax revenues from the mobile home park tenants and through taxation of right of ways (Telus, Spectra).
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Hope
Page 91 of 138
Skowkale First Nation
The community of Skowkale is located within the city of Chilliwack and has a current total population of 245 people. They have two singly owned reserves (Skowkale 10 and Skowkale 11) which is approximately 68 hectares. Skowkale is governed by a chief and four councilors. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Skowkale is connected to municipal sanitary services. There are only two homes in the community that are still on septic and well water.
Skowkale generates revenues through taxation of the 323 non-member registered sub-leases. Any rents that are generated are directly collected by the CP holder. There is one CP owned commercial lease located on Skowkale 11. There are no Band owned lease developments.
There are two residential buckshee leases on CP land. These leases are directly dealt through the CP holder. All monies collected from these developments go to the CP holder. The Band does not collect taxes from these developments.
Skowkale is currently going into their second and final year of their Land Code development. Once they have ratified their Land Code and have chosen an operational date, they was responsible for administering their own lands. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Skowkale 10 = 55.90 hectares Skowkale 11 = 11.95 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 108 total CP parcels with 128 active CPs (38.27 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 3 (9.28 hectares) Band Land = 2 (20.3 hectares) Total reserve = 67.85 hectares
Page 92 of 138
Skowkale Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 41 20.30 R/W 31 9.28 CP Parcels 352 (128)* 38.27 Total Hectares: 67.85 *CP Parcels indicate subleased parcels held under a head lease. AANDC only calculates the head lease as 1 CP and not all of the individual parcels. There was a discrepancy between AANDCs totals and my totals as I have included all of the subleases as individual CP parcels under the CP count.
Population Total population: on- and off- reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 245 115 130 176 69 2010 232 111 121 166 66 2005 217 108 109 162 55 2000 193 97 96 138 55 1995 164 83 81 125 39 1990 121 64 57 75 46
Page 93 of 138
Overall Population Growth
Overall Population Growth
Page 94 of 138
Skowkale Chief and Council List / Community Information
Skowkale - Sq'ewqéyl 571 PO Box 2159 Ts'elxwéyeqw Chilliwack, BC V2R 1A7 SNS / SXTA Chief Willy Hall Reserves: Councillor Jeff Point Skowkale 10 Councillor Gerald Sepass Skowkale 11 Councillor James Archie Section 10 (custom membership code) Councillor Gordon Hall Developmental Stage of Land Code Leases and Permits Currently Skowkale has one easement, nine head leases, five permits, five right of ways and 319 sub leases registered. There are two buckshee residential leases on CP lands. The majority of the leases are residential and all fall on CP lands. There are no Band owned leases.
There is one commercial/industrial lease on CP land. Canex operates on Skowkale 11 on CP property. They hold two of the leases, one for the Canex building and one for their parking lot.
Utilities The community uses municipal water and sewer services. All of the homes on the reserves use sewer and city water services except for two CP properties.
Taxation The community does collect property tax from non-members only. Currently there are 323 non-members subject to property tax through the Band. Skowkale has their taxation through the First Nations Taxation Commission (FNTC).
Revenues Currently the community does not generate any other source of revenues. All rents are paid to the CP holders and the taxes are collected by the Band. Taxes are not collected from the non- registered residential leases.
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Chilliwack
Page 95 of 138
Tzeachten First Nation The community of Tzeachten is located within the city of Chilliwack and has a current total population of 536 people. They have one singly owned reserve (Tzeachten 13) which is approximately 251 hectares. Tzeachten is governed by a chief and four councilors. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Tzeachten is connected to sanitary and water services. There are a few homes on the reserve are serviced by individual wells and septic fields.
Tzeachten generates revenues through taxation, lease/permit monies, and band-owned business monies. The community signed on with the taxation law with the FSMA. This allows the community to collect property taxes from non-member residents and from right of way agreements.
Tzeachten has a few buckshee leases. There are residential, commercial and industrial type buckshee leases both on CP and Band land.
Tzeachten went operational with their Land Code in 2008. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Tzeachten 13 = 251.65 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 734 total CP parcels with 192 active CPs (192.75 hectares) Right of Ways/Easements = 20 (44.12 hectares) Band Land = 49 (14.77 hectares) Total reserve = 251.65 hectares
Page 96 of 138
Tzeachten Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Tzeachten 13 Total Hectares Band Land 49 27.07 R/W 20 48.30 CP 734(192) 207.55 Total Hectares: 282.92
Population Total population for on and off reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 536 260 276 250 286 2010 414 181 233 255 159 2005 368 163 205 229 139 2000 320 146 174 185 135 1995 281 134 147 134 147 1990 235 118 117 136 99
Page 97 of 138
Overall Population Growth
Overall Population Growth
Page 98 of 138
Tzeachten Chief and Council List / Community Information
Tzeachten - Ch'iyáqtel 575 45855 Promontory Road Ts'elxwéyeqw Chilliwack, BC V2R 4E2 SNS / SXTA Chief Glenda Campbell Tzeachten 13 Councillor Anthony Malloway Councillor Cathy Hall Section 10 (custom membership code) Councillor Lawrence Roberts Land Code Councillor Melanie Roberts
Leases and Permits Currently Tzeachten has 24 easements, 15 leases, three permits, four right of ways and 750 sub-leases. The majority of the developments are residential located on CP lands. There are five A to A leases (leased home to self for a mortgage) and two individual home leases. Vedder Crossing Plaza is a band owned commercial lease.
Tzeachten does have buckshee leases as well. The gravel pit, log home business, and Western Form Rentals are all buckshee. There are a few unregistered CP holder leases as well (Earl’s Gas Bar, Planet Earth, Gallery, Shell Gas Station, and a mobile home park).
Utilities Most of the reserve is on municipal sanitary services but there are a few homes that still use septic and well water.
Taxation The community does collect property taxes. Tzeachten is billed by the City of Chilliwack for these services. Tzeachten does all of the paperwork. 25% of the taxes goes to Tzeachten and 75% goes to the City of Chilliwack.
There are 1000 non-members who are taxed. Tzeachten members are not taxed.
Revenues Tzeachten receives taxation revenues and leasing revenues. They also receive revenues via fees paid through the Lands Office. There is a fee schedule that includes: registration fee; tax search fee; development application fee; business permit fee; zoning application fee; etc. In the future there was revenues generated through law enforcement via fines.
Page 99 of 138
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Chilliwack
Page 100 of 138
Yakweakwioose First Nation The community of Yakweakwioose is located within the city of Chilliwack and has a current total population of 66 people. They have one singly owned reserve (Yakweakwioose 12) which is approximately 19 hectares. Yakweakwioose is governed by a hereditary chief and four councilors. They are a Section 10 band which means they have their own custom membership code.
Although Yakweakwioose is located within a major service centre, they do not use the municipal utilities.
Yakweakwioose has no registered leases on their reserves, but they do have a buckshee lease. Because Yakweakwioose has no CPs, it is assumed all lease revenues go directly to the Band.
Yakweakwioose is listed as an operating FSMA community which means they have the power to collect property tax. Currently they do not receive revenues from taxation.
Yakweakwioose is currently going into their second and final year of their Land Code development. Once they have ratified their Land Code and have chosen an operational date, they was responsible for administering their own lands. Developing a Land Code allows the community to rewrite the land sections of the Indian Act into their own set of Land Laws which are then governed by the First Nation.
Reserves Yakweakwioose 12 = 19.42 hectares
Parcel Information Certificates of Possession = 0 total CP parcels Right of Ways/Easements = 1 (0.38 hectares) Band Land = 10 (19.04 hectares) Total reserve = 19.42 hectares
Page 101 of 138
Yakweakwioose Reserve Parcel Allocation
Instrument Type Instrument Count Total Hectares Band Land 10 19.04 R/W 1 0.38 CP 0 0.00 Total Hectares: 19.42
Population Total population for on and off reserve
Population Data Breakdown by Gender and On/Off Reserve Year Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Total 2013 66 26 40 35 31 2010 63 26 37 32 31 2005 58 23 35 32 26 2000 55 19 36 29 26 1995 39 15 24 29 10 1990 31 11 20 18 13
Page 102 of 138
Overall Population
Growth
Overall Population Growth
Page 103 of 138
Yakweakwioose Chief and Council List / Community Information Yakweakwioose - Yeqwyeqwí:ws 576 7176 Chilliwack River Road Ts'elxwéyeqw Chilliwack, BC V2R 4M1 SNS / SXTA Hereditary Chief Frank Malloway Reserves: Councillor Jason Malloway Yakweakwioose 12 48.00 acres Councillor Richard Malloway Section 10 (custom membership code) Councillor Jennifer Malloway Developmental Stage of Land Code Councillor Frank Malloway Jr.
Leases and Permits Currently Yakweakwioose has zero registered leases/permits but does have one agricultural buckshee permit on band land. There is one drainage ditch permit and one easement for an oil pipeline
Utilities The community does not use municipal sewer services. All of the homes on the reserve use septic tanks.
Taxation Yakweakwioose is listed as a FSMA community, which means they have the power to tax. They do not receive taxation revenues.
Revenues It is assumed Yakweakwioose collects permit revenues from the buckshee agricultural permit operating on their reserve. Because all of the land is Band land, it is assumed all revenues go directly to the Band. Other sources of revenue have not been confirmed.
Location First Nation is located within 50km of the nearest service centre and has year round road access.
Service Centre: Chilliwack
Page 104 of 138
SXTA CONTEMPORARY LAND AND POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
Part I – SXTA Population Tables
The 2013 population data was collected from individual communities. All other population was collected from the AANDC Population Statistics Report. 2013 totals for Tzeachten include status and non-status members. Year 2013 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 24 17 41 20 6 26 15 Leq’á:mel 235 251 486 121 9 130 356 Popkum 6 4 10 1 0 1 9 Skawahlook 38 47 85 7 5 12 73 Skowkale 115 130 245 154 22 176 69 Tzeachten 276 260 536 250 0 250 286 Yakweakwioose 26 40 66 32 3 35 31
Year 2012 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 23 17 40 25 6 31 9 Leq’á:mel 162 188 350 117 14 131 113 Popkum 6 4 10 1 0 1 9 Skawahlook 36 44 80 5 6 11 69 Skowkale 111 124 235 148 21 169 66 Tzeachten 187 238 425 234 24 258 167 Yakweakwioose 26 39 65 31 2 33 32
Year 2010 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 23 17 40 25 6 31 9 Leq’á:mel 159 188 347 116 14 130 217 Popkum 6 2 8 1 0 1 7 Skawahlook 35 42 77 6 6 12 65 Skowkale 111 121 232 146 20 166 66 Tzeachten 181 233 414 226 29 255 159 Yakweakwioose 26 37 63 31 1 32 31
Page 105 of 138
Year 2009 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 20 17 37 25 5 30 7 Leq’á:mel 156 186 342 113 15 128 214 Popkum 6 2 8 1 0 1 7 Skawahlook 35 40 75 6 10 16 59 Skowkale 110 119 229 151 17 168 61 Tzeachten 175 220 395 230 27 257 138 Yakweakwioose 26 37 63 31 2 33 30
Year 2008 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 21 19 40 27 6 33 7 Leq’á:mel 156 186 342 114 16 130 211 Popkum 6 2 8 1 0 1 7 Skawahlook 35 40 75 6 12 18 57 Skowkale 110 119 229 144 22 166 63 Tzeachten 174 214 388 224 25 249 139 Yakweakwioose 26 37 63 29 5 34 29
Year 2005 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 20 19 39 n/a n/a 31 8 Leq’á:mel 149 180 329 n/a n/a 127 202 Popkum 6 2 8 n/a n/a 1 7 Skawahlook 32 40 72 n/a n/a 15 57 Skowkale 108 109 217 n/a n/a 162 55 Tzeachten 163 205 368 n/a n/a 229 139 Yakweakwioose 23 35 58 n/a n/a 32 26
Page 106 of 138
Year 2000 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 17 15 32 n/a n/a 19 13 Leq’á:mel 137 167 304 n/a n/a 126 178 Popkum 7 2 9 n/a n/a 6 3 Skawahlook 27 39 66 n/a n/a 15 51 Skowkale 97 96 193 n/a n/a 138 55 Tzeachten 146 174 320 n/a n/a 185 135 Yakweakwioose 19 36 55 n/a n/a 29 26
Year 1995 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off Aitchelitz 10 9 19 n/a n/a 19 0 Leq’á:mel 126 150 279 n/a n/a 109 170 Popkum 9 1 10 n/a n/a 5 5 Skawahlook 29 39 68 n/a n/a 15 53 Skowkale 83 81 164 n/a n/a 125 39 Tzeachten 134 147 281 n/a n/a 134 147 Yakweakwioose 15 24 39 n/a n/a 29 10
Year 1990 Band Gender On-Reserve Off-Reserve Total Male Female Total Own Band Other Band On Total Off 18
Aitchelitz 9 11 20 n/a n/a 2 Leq’á:mel 108 124 232 n/a n/a 54 178 Popkum 6 1 7 n/a n/a 6 1 Skawahlook 26 32 58 n/a n/a 17 41 Skowkale 64 57 121 n/a n/a 75 46 Tzeachten 118 117 235 n/a n/a 136 99 Yakweakwioose 11 20 31 n/a n/a 18 13
Page 107 of 138
Part II – SXTA Population Graphs
Graph above depicts overall female vs male population for 2013 per SXTA community.
The graph above depicts overall off-reserve and on-reserve population for 2013 per SXTA community.
Page 108 of 138
The graph above depicts overall adult population for 2013 per SXTA community and how many participated during the TRM research community meetings.
Population Band 15+ Aitchelitz 26 Leq'a:mel 374 Popkum 10 Skawahlook 60 Skowkale 181 Tzeachten 408 Yakweakwioose 40
The table above depicts the population of each SXTA member community’s population 15 years old and older. Information was gathered from each member community.
Page 109 of 138
Part III – Population Growth Charts
Below are graph and line charts depicting the total population increase from 1990 to present day for each SXTA First Nation. Information was plotted from the Tables in Part I.
Page 110 of 138
Page 111 of 138
Page 112 of 138
Page 113 of 138
Page 114 of 138
Part IV – Reserve Lands
Overall Hectares The overall calculations for each community were based on parcel measurements using NRCan surveys, AANDC’s Electronic Registry Index Plan (ERIP), and AANDC reserve hectare statistics. Information was incorrect on AANDC’s statistics for Leq’á:mel, so their data was not used when determining Leq’á:mel totals. There was also a discrepancy between the totals for Tzeachten between AANDC, NRCan and the community, so the NRCan totals were used as the correct data.
The pie chart below shows the total hectares per SXTA community.
Page 115 of 138
The pie chart below shows all of the SXTA reserves and their total hectares.
Certificate of Possession The Lands information was gathered through AANDC’s Land Registry System (LRS). Numerous reports were printed off and read to create the tables used to determine the Certificate of Possession (CP) data. This data reflects only the registered interests on the reserves. If a community is in land code and has not kept their data base up to date or if AANDC has not yet registered an interest from a RLAP community, the reports will not reflect what could actually be a reality within that community.
The different types of reports used from the LRS include:
Parcel Abstract Reports Evidence of Title Reports
Page 116 of 138
Instrument Reports – Sub-leases
When calculating the number of CPs, the subleases were included in the overall count. AANDCs data only includes the head-leases, so there is a discrepancy between the totals. A CP can be held by more than one person and one person can hold more than one CP. When calculating the total number of band members with a CP, everyone who owned at least one interest in a CP (whether held through tenants in common or joint tenants) was counted. Members who owned more than one CP were only counted once for the member total.
Please see the Consolidated Parcel Information at the end of this appendix for specific parcel detail for each reserve. Please note only the head-lease CPs were included in the Tzeachten table, not the individual sub-lease CPs.
The table below includes CP parcel totals. The totals exclude CP Right of Way parcels.
Total CP CP Parcels Band Parcels Total CPs Total Pop. w/ CP ha Aitchelitz 7 17 11 13.93 Leq’á:mel 72 104 52 121.17 Popkum 0 0 0 0.00 Skawahlook 12 14 10 25.53 Skowkale 352 128 43 38.27 Tzeachten 734 192 67 225.43 Yakweakwioose 0 0 0 0.00 SXTA Totals 1177 455 183 391.65 ha
The table below shows the total population of each SXTA community and how many members have at least one CP or one interest in a CP, and the total population without a CP.
Total Pop. w/ % Total Pop. w/ Total Pop. % Total Pop. Band Total Pop. CP CP Without CP Without CP Aitchelitz 41 11 26.83% 30 73.17% Leq’á:mel 486 52 10.70% 434 89.30% Popkum 10 0 0.00% 10 100.00% Skawahlook 85 10 11.76% 75 88.24% Skowkale 245 43 17.55% 202 82.45% Tzeachten 536 67 12.50% 469 87.50% Yakweakwioose 66 0 0.00% 66 100.00% SXTA Total 1469 183 12.46% 1286 87.54%
Page 117 of 138
The pie charts below show the data in the above table overall for the SXTA and for each community.
Page 118 of 138
Page 119 of 138
Band Land Band Land is often not included in the LRS as there are no registered instruments against the parcel. Any Band Land parcels that were not in the LRS reports were researched using AANDC’s Electronic Registry Index Plan (ERIP). The ERIP is occasionally unreliable as there are sometimes mistakes in AANDC’s data. The community Lands offices were also contacted for discrepancy information.
The totals in the table below include all Band Land parcels, excluding Band Land Right of Ways.
No. of Band Band Land Band Parcels ha Aitchelitz 2 5.03 Leq’á:mel 89 195.66 Popkum 7 124.13 Skawahlook 12 43.73 Skowkale 41 20.3 Tzeachten 68 14.77 Yakweakwioose 10 19.04 SXTA Totals 229 422.66
Page 120 of 138
CP Land vs Band Land: Available Land for Non-CP Population The calculations for the comparison of CP land and Band land includes the right of way totals in each. All CPd RoWs and all Band land RoWs are included in the overall totals.
The total number of members who own a CP or an interest in a CP were subtracted from the total population for each community. These non-CP holders were then divided by the Band land total to create an area calculation of available band land for non-CP holders.
The table below shows the SXTA communities, how many non-CP holder members there are in each, and how much band land would be available to each member.
Total CP Parcels Band Parcels ha Per Non- Band Reserve(s) ha ha ha CP Pop. Aitchelitz (30 Non-CP Holder) 21.39 13.92 7.47 0.25 Leq’á:mel (434 Non-CP Holder) 342.9 121.16 221.74 0.51 Popkum (10 Non-CP Holder) 145.43 0 145.43 14.54 Skawahlook (75 Non-CP Holder) 74.37 25.53 48.84 0.65 Skowkale (202 Non-CP Holder) 67.85 44.07 23.78 0.12 Tzeachten (469 Non-CP Holder) 251.65 225.43 26.22 0.06 Yakweakwioose (66 Non-CP Holder) 19.42 0 19.42 0.29 SXTA Total 923.03 430.13 492.90 16.42
The pie charts below show the CP land and Band Land overall and per reserve, as calculated in the above table.
Page 121 of 138
Page 122 of 138
Page 123 of 138
Page 124 of 138
APPENDIX III: ENCUMBRANCES AND COMMONAGES
Right of Ways Types of Right of Ways (RoW) in the calculation include: roads, right of ways, easements, hydro permits, CP roads, dykes, and pipeline permits. Not all parcels are registered within the LRS so ERIPs were also consulted when looking at the total calculations. RoWs can either be Band Land or CP. If a RoW overlapped a CP/Band Land, the RoW was subtracted from the parcel total.
Band Total RoW Parcels RoW ha Aitchelitz 3 2.44 Leq’á:mel 24 26.08 Popkum 3 21.3 Skawahlook 8 5.11 Skowkale 31 9.28 Tzeachten 24 44.12 Yakweakwioose 1 0.38 SXTA Totals 94 108.71
Orphaned, Contaminated and Usable Land Cut off or orphaned lands were determined through looking at the ERIPs and Google Earth images. Areas were indicated by looking at any part of a reserve that seemed to be cut off and unusable from the rest of the reserve, or if a reserve was cut off completely by lack of accessibility.
Contaminated areas were determined through the community’s Environmental Assessments which were completed for Bands in land code. Data was not available for Popkum. Areas of Potential Environmental Contamination (APEC) were included in the totals. Leq’á:mel APECs were drawn with points in their environmental assessment, not polygons, so APEC totals may be inaccurate overall for this community.
Usable land was calculated by subtracting the RoWs, orphaned, and contaminated areas from the total reserve area. Usable land includes CP and Band Land.
Page 125 of 138
The table below shows the calculations used to determine usable land for each SXTA reserve. All calculations are in hectares.
Reserve Orphaned RoW Contaminated Usable Total Aitchelitch 9 2.18 2.44 13.26 3.52 21.40 Alyechootlook 5 7.04 0.96 0.00 0.00 8.00 Holachten 8 3.33 16.86 25.12 60.08 105.39 Lackaway 2 9.41 0.19 0.25 14.34 24.19 Lakahahmen 11 1.07 0.34 0.57 37.92 39.90 Lakway Cemetery 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.97 3.97 Papekwatchin 4 13.03 0.00 0.00 14.82 27.85 Skweahm 10 3.85 7.67 4.17 63.12 78.81 Sumas Cemetary 12 0.00 0.07 0.27 2.16 2.50 Yaalstrick 1 29.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.80 Zaitscullachan 9 1.13 0.00 0.00 21.37 22.50 Popkum 1 18.74 21.25 0.00 96.84 136.83 Popkum 2 0.00 0.05 0.00 8.55 8.60 Skawahlook 1 7.61 3.32 3.29 43.34 57.56 Ruby Creek 2 2.14 1.79 2.08 10.80 16.81 Skowkale 10 2.98 7.75 10.21 34.96 55.90 Skowkale 11 0.00 1.53 1.98 8.44 11.95 Tzeachten 13 0.00 44.12 73.22 134.31 251.65 Yakweakwioose 12 0.93 0.38 15.31 2.80 19.42 Totals 103.24 ha 108.72 ha 149.73 ha 561.34 ha 923.03 ha
The table below shows the calculations used to determine usable land for each SXTA band. All calculations are in hectares.
SXTA Community Orphaned RoW Contaminated Usable Total Aitchelitz 2.18 2.44 13.26 3.52 21.40 Leq’ámel 68.66 26.09 30.38 217.78 342.91 Popkum 18.74 21.30 0.00 105.39 145.43 Skawahlook 9.75 5.11 5.37 54.14 74.37 Skowkale 2.98 9.28 12.19 43.40 67.85 Tzeachten 0.00 44.12 73.22 134.31 251.65 Yakweakwioose 0.93 0.38 15.31 2.80 19.42 Total 103.24 108.72 149.73 561.34 923.03 % 11.18 11.78 16.22 60.81 100.00
Page 126 of 138
The pie charts below depicts the SXTA community usable and unusable land based on the table above.
Page 127 of 138
Commonage Areas (partial) Commonage areas are parcels of land held in common by multiple communities. Not all of the communities that hold commonage areas are part of the SXTA. The table below depicts the land area, the interest, and the hectares held by the SXTA. It is important to note that this analysis and related quantification only partially represents the SXTA’s full set of interest, which also includes the collective fishing reserves and related area within in the 5-Mile Fishery section of the lower Fraser River Canyon. The calculations produced for this report do not include the collective fishing reserves and related area within in the 5-Mile Fishery section of the lower Fraser River Canyon, of which the SXTA membership maintains a strong interest as part of their commonages.
Commonage Area Total ha Interest SXTA Total ha Grass Reserve 65.41 4/9 28.8 Skumalapsh Reserve 448.4 1/5 89.68 Pekw'xe:yles Reserve 10.34 1/3 3.45 Coqualeetza (in ATR process) 22.33 1/3 7.44 Centre Creek (fee simple) 13.4 4/7 7.64 Xáy:tem (fee simple) 6.48 1/3 2.16 Total (partial) 139.17
The pie chart below depicts the data from the table above.
Page 128 of 138
Reserves as Percentages of S’ólh Téméxw and Core Area of the SXTA Statement of Intent The total area of SXTA reserves were calculated as a percentage of the overall Core Area and overall S’ólh Téméxw area totals as defined with the SXTA Statement of Intent filed with the BC Treaty Commission (2007).
Area % of Core Area % of S’ólh Téméxw (ha) (487,568 ha) (1,332,386 ha) SXTA Reserves 923.03 0.19% 0.07%
Page 129 of 138
APPENDIX IV: GIS METHODOLOGICAL RULES – PROJECT METADATA
Rules for Establishing Harmonized Site Polygons
If a spiritual practice site has been used over a period of time by a number of practioners, then it was defined as a harmonized (i.e., single polygon associated with collective experience) site within the SHeD If a spiritual practice site has been used a number of times by one practitioner, then it was defined as a sqwelqwel site (i.e., a single polygon associated with an individual experience) within the SHeD If a spiritual practice site has been used once for a unique event, then it was defined as a a sqwelqwel site (i.e., a single polygon associated with an individual experience) within the SHeD
Rules for Inclusion in the Protective Legislation (i.e., ‘Section 4’) Assessment
The site must be a harmonized site to obtain a ‘Section 4’ – in reference to the current Section 4 of the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) - classification and evaluation for possible protective legislation (note: Section 4 allows for the expansion of legal protection to include cultural site types, beyond ‘archaeological’ sites, that are not currently defined with the HCA). This project developed and applied a set of ‘standard’ English-named types – places, objects, and landmarks – to experiment with the prospect of creating a provincial standard that could facilitate inclusion of Stó:lō cultural sites within the provincial HCA legislation and protective framework Sites where use is intangible (e.g. bathing site) was assigned as a ‘place’ Sites where use is tangible (e.g. regalia storage) was assigned as an ‘object’ Note – cultural landscape features (aka, ‘landmarks’) were included as a factor of the first phase of work on this project.
Rules for Assigning the Scope of Protection for a Site
All sites will receive a primary scope of protection designation in the SHeD and a ‘p’ was entered into the protection attribute field in the SHeDpoly feature class of the SHeD dataset in the .sde geodatabase Bathing, regalia storage, initiation, training, fasting, and spirit questing sites will have a secondary scope of protection spatially defined – at times this was an entire sanctuary area while at other times this was a more tightly defined spatial extent. An ‘s’ was entered into the protection attribute field in the SHeDpoly feature class of the SHeD dataset in the .sde geodatabase Bathing sites will have a tertiary scope of protection spatially defined – most typically this was the watershed within which the site is located. A ‘t’ was entered into the
Page 130 of 138
protection attribute field in the SHeDpoly feature class of the SHeD dataset in the .sde geodatabase The scope(s) of protection t displayed on the Stó:lō Connect web portal map and where there is more than primary scope of protection for a site, these was nested for display and analysis.
Rules for Use of Harmonized Sites at the STUP level
All harmonized spiritual practice sites was used in defining the sanctuary layer in the STUP. The sanctuary layer is a generalized ‘in the backyard of communities’ layer and has a many-to-one relationship with the harmonized spiritual practice sites. The harmonized spiritual practice sites will only be used at the site specific level
Rules for Establishing Standard Site Polygons
Find documentation and geographic feature(s) that define the site Assign SHeD site type and Section 4 classification based on the documentation/story for the site Sxwōxwiyám to include places where events occurred but where no landscape feature representing this event remains - classify under sxwōxwiyám as Other Digitize at 1:20000 for large land forms and at 1:10000 for small boulder areas Digitize the perimeter of the site’s landscape or waterway – no generalized polygon Digitize whole feature where there is no description of the exact extent of the site on a named feature(e.g. Sumas Mountain – CLF65) Move and/or resize polygon from the pre-SHeD dataset into the geodatabase SHeD dataset’s SHeDpoly feature class to fit the documentation and landscape identified for the site Use the GIS text box in the SHeD database web form to enter information about the changes to location, size, SHeD type, name, and/or spatial data type from that of the site in the original dataset Use the GIS text box in the SHeD database web form to indicate that a standard site is new and not from pre-SHeD datasets When applicable, use the GIS text box in the SHeD database web form to indicate the layer of the use plan to which that the SHeDpoly belongs. When a source provides cultural heritage information linked to an known geographic location site represented by a polygon, then the site becomes a standard site with source id 2012i47, the site type is determined from the SHeD data dictionary, a Section 4 classification is assigned to the site and the changes are entered into the SHeD database Changes in spatial data from a geographic location polygon to a standard polygon will trigger a review of the STUP and the protective
Page 131 of 138
Rules for Using a Point to Indicate a Site Location
Spatial point data was used as placeholders for noting a general location of a site or for noting a geographic location that has the possibility of being a cultural heritage site.
Rules for Using a Point to Indicate a Cultural Heritage Site Location
Find documentation that defines the site Assign SHeD site type determined from the SHeD data dictionary; based on the documentation/story for the site Enter into the SHeD database web form as that SHeD site type with the relevant Section IV classification Digitize a point, in the SHeD dataset’s SHeDPnt feature class, to indicate the general location of the site (most often this step will use the placenms.shp data to identify the location) Use the GIS text box of the SHeD database web form to enter information about the changes to location, SHeD type, name, and spatial data type from that of the site in the original polygon dataset, and the need for ground truthing Use the GIS text box of the SHeD database web form to indicate that a site is new, is not from pre-SHeD datasets, and needs ground truthing These sites will not be used for the STUP, nor for considerations of protective legislation When a site’s location is confirmed, the point is replaced by a SHeDPoly polygon that defines the site location. The SHeD database entry for the site is updated to indicate the change in spatial data type, the use plan layer it is in (where applicable), a Section IV classification is assigned to the site and the ground-truthing is confirmed Changes in cultural heritage spatial data to polygon will trigger a review of the STUP and the protective legislation
Rules for Using a Point to Indicate a Geographic Location as Possible Site
Confirm no documentation can be found for the site at the current time Enter into the SHeD database we form as an approximate geographic location and note the possibility of being a Cultural Heritage site Digitize a point, in the SHeD dataset’s SHeDPnt feature class, to indicate the general location of the site (most often this step will use the placenms.shp data to identify the location) Use the GIS text box in the SHeD database web form to enter information about the changes to location, SHeD type, name, and spatial data type from that of the site in the original polygon dataset , the need for ground truthing Use the GIS text box in the SHeD database web form to indicate that a site is new, is not from pre-SHeD datasets, and needs ground truthing No Section IV classification is assigned to these sites
Page 132 of 138
These sites will not be used for the STUP, nor for considerations of protective legislation When a geographic location is confirmed, the point is replaced by a SHeDPoly polygon that defines the geographic location. The database entry for the site is updated to indicate the change in spatial data type and confirmation of ground truthing When a source provides cultural heritage information linked to an approximate geographic location site represented by a point, then the site type is changed, a Section IV classification is not assigned to the site, and the changes are entered into the SHeD database web form Changes in spatial data to polygon will not trigger a review of the STUP and the protective legislation if the site remains a geographic location When both cultural heritage information and the location are confirmed, then the point is replaced by a SHeDPoly polygon to indicate the site. The SHeD database entry for the site is updated to indicate the change in spatial data type, site type, a Section IV classification is assigned to the site and ground truthing is confirmed Changes in spatial data to polygon will trigger a review of the STUP and the protective legislation if the site is changed to a cultural heritage site type
Page 133 of 138
APPENDIX V: GIS PROJECT METADATA - SPATIAL DEFINITIONS FOR THE S’ÓLH TÉMÉXW USE PLAN TYPES
Standard measures sites were used to spatially represent three of the S’ólh Téméxw Use Plan (STUP) site types. Standard measure polygons were used at the STUP and site-specific levels.
The spatial extent of the Canyon Heritage Area will not be determined by the standard measures sites. This site type is defined by a distinct geographic area in which several culturally important activities take place for Stó:lō people.
The polygons for the sub-alpine STUP site type will not be determined by the standard measures sites. This site type is derived from an analysis which selected all lands with 0-20% slope in the mountain hemlock biogeoclimatic zone within S’ólh Téméxw.
Page 134 of 138