The Kitimat River: Its Use and Its Importance to Residents of the Kitimat District
.+ Environment Canada Environnement Canada Fisheries Service des peches and Marine Service et des sciences de la mer
The Kitimat River: Its Use and Its Importance to Residents of the Kitimat District
by William F. Sinclair
Technical ReQort Series No. PAC/T -75-20 NOB/ECON 9-75 Northern Operat ions Branch Pacific Region THE KITIMAT RIVER: ITS USE AND ITS IMPORTANCE
TO RESIDENTS OF THE KITIMAT DISTRICT
by
William F. Sinclair
July, 1975
, t- FOREWORD
The growth of northern communities and the influx of new industrial development are making the maintenance of water quality. in our northern rivers an increasingly serious problem. Even though much has been done in recent years to alleviate some of the effects of pollution - especially through the use of filtering systems and other water treatment processes - the overall outlook is disturbing. Under the present system, our northern waterways will be subjected to an ever increasing number of conflicting uses. Industrial effluent and domestic sewage loads will increase far beyond the assimilative capac ity of our northern water courses. At the same time, the demand for quality water oriented recreational activity will grow with increases in population. In consequence, society is faced with the challenge of how it is to allocate water resources in a manner which will contribute to the well-being of northern residents.
It is suggested in this presentation that the Kitimat River is one of the northern waterways which will be subjected to increasing use conflict problems. Information from a number of different sources is used to show that the Kitimat River makes an important contribution to the social well-being of residents of the Kitimat municipality; it contributes to the stability of the local population and contributes to the welfare of local industry. The reader should be cautioned not to interpret this report or the information presented in this report as supporting the view that the Kitimat River should be used solely for recreational purposes or for fish production. Like most modern com munities, Kitimat uses its river for many different purposes. Each is important to the resident population. It is only necessary that cap tains of industry and local civic leaders be prepared to make trade-offs
f-- (ii )
which are in the best interests of the resident population. This will not be accomplished unless all pertinent information is available. It was intended that this report make a contribution in this direction.
I wish to acknowledge the large amount of help I received in preparing this report. The Municipal! ty of Ki timat provided directly, and cooperated to provide indirectly, a considerable amount of the data contained herein. In particular, I would like to thank Art Currie and Craig Campbell from the district office for their Itind cooperation and their well-founded criticisms.
I am indebted also to Stew MacKenzie, Regional Manager, Alcan Smelter Services, Kitimat, who critically reviewed certain passages contained in this report. John Pousette of the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District provided me with advice, assistance and general cooperation throughout our field investigations.
Special thanks are due to Ed Christiansen, District Super visor, Kitimat, and to Dave Schutz, Senior Biologist, both of the Fisheries and Marine Service who provided me with information on the Kitimat River's fish populati'ons.
Great assistance was rendered to me by those who gathered and assimulated the data contained in this report. Brian Lewis was respon sible for most of the field work, while Rob Morley carried out the cal culations necessary for the preparation of the tables.
I am especially indebted to those who provided me with a con structive critical review of this paper. Those making a contribution in this direction include Rick Kussat of the Environmental Protection Service, Sandy Argue and Bill Masse of the Fisheries and Marine Service. (:1.11)
As always, I am indebted to Sharon Evans of the Economics and Sociology unit, Northern Operations Branch for her patience, diligence and loyalty to her work. She is responsible for typing, editing and the general appearance of this presentation. I am indebted also to Kon Johansen who prepared the maps contained herein.
William F. Sinclair Chief of Economics and Sociology Northern Operations Branch July, 1975
,- (iv)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
1 Background 3
2 The District of Kitimat 7
3 Use of the Kitimat River 25
4 The Importance of Outdoor Recreational Opportunities 44 to Residents of the Kitimat Area and to Local Industry
5 Summary and Conclusions 57
Appendix I 59
Bibliography 64 (v)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Kitimat Population According to Ethnic 11 Origin - 1971
Table 2 Age Distribution for Selected Locations in 12 British Columbia - 1971
Table 3 Distribution of Individual Annual Income for 13 Persons Over 15 Years of Age in Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Terrace - 1971
Table 4 Distribution of Individual Annual Income for 15 Persons Living in Kitimat, British Columbia Communities 10,000 to 29,999 and All of British Columbia 15 Years of Age and Over - 1971
Table 5 Level of Education and Formal Training for 16 Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Other British Columbia Residents Not Attending School Full Time - 1971
Table 6 Kitimat Labour Force According to Industrial 17 Division - 1971
Table 7 Percentage of Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, 19 British Columbia and Canada Labour Force According to Industrial Division - 1971
Table 8 Total Average Number and Percentage of Times 20 That Workers Have Changed Jobs During Resi dence in Kitimat - 1974
Table 9 Male and Female Labour Force Participation 21 Rate in Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, British Columbia and Canada - 1971
Table 10 Number and Percentage of Households According 23 to Actual Length of Residence and Expected Length of Residence in Kitimat - 1974
Table 11 Number and Percentage of Resident Population 27 Who Sport Fish in Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Terrace (vi)
Table 12 Estimated Escapement of Kitimat River Fish 28 by Species 1963 - 1973
Table 13 Number and Percentage of Sport Fishing and 29 Non-Sport Fishing Recreationists According to Permanent Place of Residence - 1974
Table 14 Annual Sport Fishing Effort on the Kitimat 32 River According to Place of Permanent Resi dence - 1974
Table 15 Favourite Fishing Location of Fishermen Sur 33 veyed on the Kitimat River According to Per manent Place of Residence - 1974
Table 16 Number of Days Fished, Total Angler Days, 35 Daily Costs and Total Expenditures Associated With First Favourite Fishing Location of Kitimat Residents - 1974
Table 17 Number of Days Fished, Total Angler Days, 36 Daily Costs and Total Expenditures Associated With Second Favourite Fishing Location of Kitimat Residents - 1974
Table 18 Number of Days Fished Per Year by Kitimat 38 Resident Sport Fishermen Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974
Table 19 Number and Percentage of Resident Recreation 39 ists U8ing the Kitimat River and the General Resident Population of Kitimat According to Age Category - 1974
Table 20 Percentage of Kitimat, Yellowhead and British 41 Columbia Residents Surveyed on the Kitimat River According to Age and Sex - 1974
Table 21 Percentage of Canadian Non-British'Columbian 42 and Non-Canadian Recreationists Surveyed on the Kitimat River According to Age and Sex - 1974
Table 22 Main Advantage of Living in Kitimat According 45 to Age Category as Reported by Resident Rec reationists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974 (vU)
Table 23 Heason for Moving to Kitimat According to Age 47 Category as Reported by Resident Recreation ists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974
Table 24 Disadvantages of Living in Kitimat According 48 to Age Category as Reported by Resident Rec reationists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974
Table 25 Amenities Reported Least Available in Kitimat 49 According to Age Category by Resident Recrea tionists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974
Table 26 Amenities Reported Least Available in Kitimat 50 According to Length of Residence Category by Resident Recreationists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974
Table 27 Number and Percent of Kitimat Households 52 Using Selected Recreational Facilities and Amenities According to Actual Length of Resi dence in Kitimat - 1974
Table 28 Number and Percent of Kitimat Households 53 Using Selected Recreational Facilities and Amenities According to Expected Length of Residence in KLtimat - 1974
Table 29 Average Number of Times Per Week That SUr 54 veyed Households Use Selected Recreational Facilities and Amenities According to How Long They Expect to Live in Kitimat - 1974
Table 1: 1 Location of Interview by Place of Residence 60 of Recreationists Surveyed on the Kitimat River - 1974 (viii )
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 Kitimat River System 4
Map 2 Kitimat Townsite 9
Map 1:1 Kitimat River Interview Locations (1974) 61 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to help provide an understanding of the recreational importance of the Kitimat River and the fish avail able in the river to people living in the District of Kitimat and its surrounding areas. Since there exists no analytical framework which is generally accepted as adequate for this task, the analysis will be carried out in an admittedly cursory fashion. Assessments of our natural resources suffer from a continual barrage of preconception and emotional opinion. Nonetheless, clues on how a given population feels about particular resource endowments often are revealed in their behav ioural patterns, attitudes and opinions. For this reason, a consider able amount of information is presented on the activities, attitudes and opinions of the Kitimat area population. Furthermore, this infor mation is assessed in conjunction with other information on employment, income and the industrial makeup of the community with a view to assessing how the recreational and aesthetic opportunities generated by the Kitimat River and its fish stocks affect isolated segments of the local population.
Source of Data
The information presented in this report is taken from a num ber of different sources. Most of the basic background information is extracted from the 1971 Statistics Canada Census Survey and from records maintained by the District of Kitimat. The information on activities, attitudes and opinions of residents is taken from a house hold survey which was undertaken by the District of Kitimat during 1974. The information on sport fishermen was gathered in a shoreline survey of recreationists carried out during the summer of 1974. Expen diture, angling effort and preference as to fishing location informa tion is taken from a mail survey of sport fish licence holders living in northern British Columbia during the spring of 1975. A complete - 2 -
resume of the household and recreational surveys is presented in Appendix I.
Terminology
The focus of this study makes it necessary to establish cer tain definitions which will be used throughout the presentation. The term Kitimat resident is used to refer to persons whose place of resi dence is located in the Kitimat municipality or the Indian reserve. A resident of the Yellowhead region is a person whose place of residence is located in that area of British Columbia bordered on two sides by a straight line which runs due west from Prince George to the British Columbia coastal mainland and due north from Prince George to the British Columbia-Yukon border. For the purposes of this presentation, residents of Kitimat and residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands are not included as residents of the Yellowhead region. A British Colpm bian non-resident is an individual who resides in British Columbia but does not live in the Yellowhead region. A Canadian non-British Colum bian is a resident of Canada who does not live in British Columbia. The term Canadian non-resident is used to refer collectively to British Columbian non-residents and Canadian non-British Columbians. The term non-Canadian is used to refer to personH whose permanent place of resi dence is not located in Canada. The term angler day refers to one individual fishing any portion of a single day.
r - 3 -
1. Background
The Kitimat River, located in central northwestern British Columbia, drains a basin area of 772 square miles. It is formed by runoff from the Coastal Mountain Range and flows southwesterly along the bottom of the Kitimat Valley into the north arm of Douglas Channel (see Map 1). The Kitimat River is shallow and swift. It flows over deep gravel beds at an average rate of 4,330 cfs. and is only 2 feet 1 deep in many places during the summer low water period. Tree stumps and logs line its banks and clutter its gravel beds making river navi gation dangerous. Roughly a mile-wide delta of gravel and silt is spread by the river into the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel and Minette Bay. This flow of fresh water into the Pacific Ocean forms one of British Columbia's most important estuaries.
The Kitimat River has three principle tributaries: the Wedeene, the Little Wedeene and Hirsch Creek. All three are formidable rivers during spring thaw. It is during this period and during the fall storms that the destructive power of the river is displayed. Many floods are known to have occurred within living memory. The worst flood is said to have occurred nearly 50 years age. Bowever, the river has flowed over its banks many times in more recent years.
Man's use of the Kitimat River goes back many years. Long before the first settlers discovered the Kitimat Valley and its free flowing river, "Ki tamaat Indians had established a village on the east shore of the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel. In the past, the Kitamaat
Indians lived part of each year in what was referred to as '~inter 2 quarters" located approximately 2 miles up the river from its mouth. The fields and many of the houses of this village were used for agri-
1 Water Flow Data, Department of the Environment, Inland Waters Directorate, Ottawa, 1974. 2 Kitimat Townsite Report, published and distributed by the District of Kitimat, December 1960, p. 10. Kitimat Roley Cr. River :..;.:.,..:...- System
.... 1__ Cr. Provincial Pork \ )
, Boundary Watershed J -4'~ ~Woters~ Boundary------\ M~nette i '",,-. \ I ,B y-~ \ 5---'\) Kitimat Municipal L------~I Boundary.
5 0 5 10 MAP I - Kitimat River System. pw!"+mte.. ---t;;;?,.¥hM Ut;;;;;j we'· -2'1 Scale (Mi.) - 5 -
cuI tural purposes and for storing salmon and other fish species caught in the river during late summer and fall. Changes in the Kitamaat Indians' mode of life has eliminated their need for this village.
The first known development in the Kitimat Valley and in areas encroaching on the Kitimat River occurred in 1906. Many settlers 3 moved into the Kitimat Valley at that time precipitating a land boom. A railway route was surveyed through the valley, a wharf and hotel were built on the shore of the Kitimat Arm, and a crude road was cut through to Terrace. This first activity was short-lived. Many of the settlers soon drifted away. In fact, most of the early settlers had left by the beginning of the Second World War.
The next major development occurred in 1951 with the start of construction of the aluminum smelter on the westernmost portion of the Kitimat River's delta area. Dredging and landfill operations were undertaken to accommodate the aluminum smelter mill and wharfage facil ities were built. Construction of the main settlement was carried out concurrently with the developing aluminum mill and many physical dis turbances arose from these activities. Sewage and ef,fluent disposal, domestic water supply and a significant increase in outdoor recreation helped to modify the physical characteristics on the lower reaches of the Kitimat River. The year 1970 saw the completion of a giant forest products complex belonging to Eurocan and with it came further dredg ing, landfill and channelization of the Kitimat River and its estuaries.
Other projects which commenced during that period and im pinged on the Kitimat River include the construction of a new railway line by the Canadian National Railway, construction of a highway link ing Terrace and Kitimat and a marked increase in logging activity throughout the valley. All three of these activities had considerable impact on the Kitimat River system. In fact, it is suspected that many
3 Loc. cit.
,~, - 6 -
small streams which hosted coho runs as well as other species of salmon were destroyed or unable to support fish as they had previously.
These early projects together with development which took place in the 1950s appear to have set the stage for a pattern of use and development which continues today. Many new large-scale develop ment projects have been contemplated for the Kitimat Valley in recent years. In fact it seems as if most large firms wishing to locate in the coastal areas of northern British Columbia give some consideration to Kitimat. This is partially due to the natural attributes of the area. The deep natural harbour sheltered by'steep natural barriers on both sides of Kitimat Arm make Kitimat an attractive place for an industrial seaport. However, it is also attractive because it. pos sesses a skilled industrial labour force, a basic industrial infra structure and a population whose attitude is conducive to further development. There is a good possibility that some large-scale indus trial development will take place in Kitimat during the next few years. It is also reasonable to expect that with any new development there will be fUrther alterations to the physical characteristics of the Kitimat River and further deterioration in recreational potential of the river and its ability to support fish stocks. - 7 -
2. The District of Kitimat
The town of Kitimat was planned and built in conjunction with the development of the aluminum smelter mill in the early 1950s. It was cut out of a vast wilderness area for the express purpose of pro viding a permanent residence for the smelter's work force and their families. Officials of the aluminum company recognized the need to provide an attractive town which would complement the work force re quirements of the mill. The planning purpose of Kitimat has been sum marized: The purpose of Kitimat is the industrial success of the plant. That success will depend on the degree that workers are content, that they like living in Kitimat. -Unless the town can attract and hold industrial workers, there will be continuous turnover and difficulty, interfering with depend able output.
The workers must find Kitimat more than temporarily acceptable. They must be enthusiastic about it as a partic ularly fine place in which to live and bring up their fam ilies. It must become the place they want as homeland, the town they are going to make their own.
There is much to contend against in making this possible, including climate, remoteness, strangeness.
There is the weather - seemingly incessant rain, snow, winds. There is strangeness - and wilderness. There is re moteness from all habitual things and places - old friends, markets, customs. There is the counterattraction of the big city with its varied life and entertainment, and the chance of easily getting another good job.
Men will pioneer for a time in the wilderness for good pay and plenty of good food and a free trip every two months. However, labour turnover is incompatible with an efficient plant, particularly in an industry that requires lengthy training for its workers.
At Kitimat the setting for a good life must be hewn out of the unknown wilderness. Pioneers must become old-timers, bound to Kitimat by enthusiastic love of their town and its unusual qualities. They must be given the utmost freedom to develop their lives and that of their community to fit their - 8 -
needs, their desires and their pocketbooks. And so the plans of Kitimat, both operational and physical, have been developed to serve as a flexible setting for good living that is open to continuous growth and expansion. 4
It was intended that Kitimat would be built in a manner which would permit workmen and their families to live in relative comfort, offsetting some of the drawbacks associated with remoteness, strange ness and climate. Many new and innovative dimensions were built into th;s,L ";nstant... town" 5 Fl'or examp e,,~, til s c ear f rom th- e t ype 0 f municipal government that was established and the size of the town, that Alcan did not intend to discourage any new additional investment by outside developers. Kitimat was to be a democratic self-governing public town supported by strong industrial sponsorship but not a com pany town. The town, like the plant, was supposed to be built in four stages which would ultimately accommodate a total maximum occupancy of 6 50,000 people. Apparently, it was intended that the town of Kitimat be of sufficient size to accommodate an expansion of its existing facilities and any new commercial or industrial activities which might 7 be developed by outside interests.
The forethought and planning which went into the development of Kitimat is readily apparent to those visiting Kitimat today. Kitimat is a modern community of approximately 12,000 (1971). It has wide paved streets and broad boulevards. Kitimat's industrial and residential areas are separated. Its residential area is divided into many different neighbourhoods, each self-sufficient in terms of shop ping and educational facilities. Most of the town's industry is located on the western side of the Kitimat River which flows through the heart of Kitimat's commercial and industrial areas (see Map 2).
4 "Kitimat: A New City", Architectural Forum, July 1954, p. 134. 5 Alcan had some experience at planning new "instant towns" in other places throughout the world. 6 Kitimat Townsite Report, p. 77. 7 Ibid., p. 78. - 9 -
Highway @
Town Bridge
Radley--~~ Park
Eurocan Mill Site
Alcon Smelter Site
Devel0701 Site
o; 2 - - - - I - --Scale (MI.)
MAP 2 - Kitlmat Townsite. - 10 -
The river itself is bordered on both sides by a park which is suitable for both day and overnight visitors. Despite these obvious attributes, however, there is considerable evidence to indicate that Kitimat has not achieved the stability and growth envisioned by those who planned its development.
This lack of permanence and of stability is partially re vealed in the ethnic origin and age distribution of its population. Table 1 provides a breakdown of Kitimat's population according to ethnic origin in 1971. According to Table 1, nearly 43 percent of Kitimat's residents are of British origin while 13 percent are of German ancestry. The remainder is fairly evenly distributed over the twelve other ethnic categories shown in the table. The highly diverse background of Kitimat's population is further suggested by the per centage of persons who fall into the "other and unknown" category. Nearly 15 percent of Kitimat's total population is not captured in the ethnic categories specifically identified in the table.
Table 2 provides an age distribution comparison between Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace and all of British Columbia. Table 2 shows that a mere 0.6 percent of Kitimat's total population is 65 years of age and over. This table also shows that 4.2 and 3.9 percent of the populations of Prince Rupert and Terrace, respectively, are in this same age category. More than 9 percent of all British Columbia's popu lation is 65 years of age and over. The information presented in Table 2 indicates that Kitimat has a slightly younger population than either Prince Rupert or Terrace and a substantially younger population than the remainder of the province.
Another important consideration when assessing the stability of a community is the income, education and employment alternatives available to its resident population. Table 3 provides a comparison of individual incomes for all persons over 15 years of age among Kitimat, TABLE 1
KITI~~T POPUh~TION ACCORDING TO ETHNIC ORIGIN - 1971
Non-Reserve Reserve
Ethnic Origin :Male Female Male Female Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % British Isles 2,795 43.3 2,585 46.5 15 4.3 10 3.2 5,405 42.7 French 300 4.6 250 4.5 550 4.3 Asiatic 95 1.5 55 1.0 150 1.2 Austrian 85 1.3 80 1.4 165 1.3 German 880 13.6 720 12.9 1,600 12.6 Hungarian 120 1.9 45 0.8 165 1.3
I-' Italian 245 3.8 190 3.4 435 3.4 I-' Jewish 5 0.1 5 0.1 10 0.1 Native Indian and Eskimo 35 0.5 105 1.9 320 92.8 300 96.8 760 6.0 Netherlands 185 2.9 195 3.5 380 3.0 Polish 135 2.1 125 2.2 10 2.9 270 2.1 .Russian 30 0.5 5 0.1 35 0.3 Scandinavian 315 4.9 225 4.0 540 4.3 Ukrainian 170 2.6 145 2.6 315 2.5 1 Other and Unknown 1,060 16.4 830 14.9 1,890 14.9
TOTAL 6,455 100.0 5,560 100.0 345 100.0 310 100.0 12,670 100.0 ------
Source: Statistics Carillda 1971 Census Survey. 1 It is suspected that a significant portion of the "other and unknown" category is of Portugese decent which is not captured in the data.
I TABLE 2
AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR SELECTED LOCATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA - 1971
Age Total B. C. CategorI- Kitimat Prince Rupert Terrace Population No. % No. % No. % No. %
o - 9 2,885 24.6 3,765 22.5 3,295 25.5 387,670 17.7
10 - 19 2,350 20.1 3,235 19.4 2,690 20.8 423,430 19.4
20 - 34 3,280 28.0 4,435 26.5 3,415 26.4 478,220 21. 9
~ ~
35 - 44 1,745 14.9 1,985 11.9 1,465 11.3 255,780 11. 7
45 - 64 1,380 11.8 2,585 15.5 1,565 12.1 434,520 19.9
65 - 69 40 0.3 340 2.0 150 1.2 68,235 3.1
70 and Over 35 0.3 365 2.2 350 2.7 136,765 6.3 -- -- TOTAL 11,715 100.0 16,710 100.0 12,930 100.0 2,184,620 100.0 --
Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey. TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL ANNUAL INCOME FOR PERSONS
OVER 15 y~ OF AGE IN KITIMAT, PRINCE RUPERT AND TERHACE - 1971
Kitimat Prince Rupert Terrace
Income Categor~ Non-Reserve Indian Reserve Non-Reserve Indian Reserve Non-Reserve Indian Reserve No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
No Income Reported 1,910 25.1 135 39.7 2,060 18.2 1,875 22.7 15 33.3
Less Than $1,000 765 10.1 30 8.8 1,225 10.8 1,005 12.2 5 11.1
J-' $1,000 - $1,999 415 5.5 50 14.7 1,295 11.4 630 7.6 5 11.1 c..J
$2,000 - $3,999 605 8.0 45 13.2 1,545 13.6 1,135 13.7 5 11.1
$4,000 - $5,999 765 10.1 30 8.8 1,135 10.0 875 10.6
$6,000 - $9,999 2,045 26.9 60 17.6 2,445 21.6 1,680 20.3 10 22.2
$10,000 and Over 1,085 14.3 5 1.5 1,625 14.3 1,070 12.9 5 11.1
TOTAL 7,595 100.0 340 100.0 11,325 100.0 8,270 100.0 45 100.0
Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey.
-, - 14 -
Prince Rupert and Terrace. According to Table 3 more than 41 percent of Kitimat's non-reserve residents earn $6,000 per year or more. Slightly less than 36 percent of Prince Rupert's non-reserve residents and a little over 33 percent of Terrace's non-reserve residents earn $6,000 per year or more. It would appear from the information pre sented in Table 3 that a significantly higher percentage of Kitirnat's non-reserve population falls into higher income categories than is true of either Prince Rupert or Terrace.
Table 4 provides a comparison of individual incomes for per sons living in Kitimat and other areas of British Columbia for the year 1971. The data presented in Table 4 show that more than 40 percent of Kitimat's residents earn $6,000 per year or more. Slightly more than 30 percent of all British Columbians who live in communities of similar siz~ are included in this same income category. Approximately 29 per cent of British Columbia's total population earn $6,000 per annum or more.
Table 5 shows the level of education and of formal training for Kitimat, Prince Rupert and British Columbia residents who did not attend school full-time during 1971. According to Table 5, 4.8 percent of residents not attending school ful1-timo possess a university degree. Three point two percent of Prince Rupert residents and 3.6 percent of British Columbians living in communities of similar size have attained the same level of education. The information contained in Table 5 shows that Kitimat residents have a higher level of education and training than residents of Prince Rupert and other communities of similar size. Kitimat residents have a level of education which com pares favourably with British Columbia's total population.
Table 6 shows Kitimat's labour force according to industrial division for the year 1971. It shows that nearly 53 percent of Kitimat's total labour force is employed in manufacturing, 18 percent is employed TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL PJrnUAL INCOME FOR PERSONS
LIVING IN KITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA CO~ThruNITIES 10,000 TO 29,999
AND ALL OF BRITISH COLu~L~ 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER - 1971
All British Columbia Communities Population Total B. C. Income Category Kitimat 10,000 - 29,999 Population No. % No. % No. %
No Income Reported 2,045 25.8 36,640 21.4 327,690 20.8
r-> Less Than $1,000 795 10.0 22,315 13.0 202,955 12.9 c:n
$1,000 - $1,999 465 5.9 21,515 12.6 200,210 12.7
$2,000 - $3,999 650 8.2 21,955 12.8 212,030 13.5
$4,000 - $5,999 795 10.0 16,930 9.9 173,240 11.0
$6,000 - $9,999 2,105 26.5 34,175 19.9 298,020 18.9
$10,000 and Over 1,090 13.7 17,895 1004 160,925 10.2 --- TOTAL 7,935 100.0 171,425. 100.0 1,575,065 100.0
Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey_
T TABLE 5
LEVEL OF EDUCATION AND FORMAL TRAINING FOR KITI~~T, PRINCE RUPERT AND OTHER BRITISH COLUMBIA RESIDENTS NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL FULL-TIME - 1971
All British Columbia Communities Population Total B. C. Level of Schooling Kitimat Prince Rupert 10,000 - 29,999 Population 01 No. % No. % No. % No. /0
Elementary - with no other training 1,780 25.2 2,875 28.7 45,045 28.4 389,275 26.9 - with other training 230 3.3 220 2.2 3,740 2.4 34,865 2.4
Secondary - with no other training 2,905 41.1 4,310 43.0 67,725 42.7 612,885 42.3 ~ (j) - with other training 1,420 20.1 1,695 16.9 27,215 17.2 246,580 17.0
University - without degree and no other training 300 4.2 415 4.1 6,285 4.0 64,760 4.5 - without degree and other training 95 1.3 185 1.8 2,755 1.7 30,530 2.1
University - with degree and no other training 300 4.2 255 2.5 4,835 3.0 57,365 4.0 - with degree and other training 45 0.6 75 0.7 1,000 0.6 11,045 0.8 --- TOTAL 7,075 100.0 10,030 100.0 158,600 100.0 1,447,305 100.0 ------
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 92-720. - 17 -
TABLE 6
KITIMAT LABOUR FOnCE ACCORDING TO INDUSTRIAL DIVISION - 1971
Kitimat Kitimat Indian Industry Non-Reserve Reserve Total No. % No. % No. %
Agriculture
Forestry 120 2.3 5 4.0 125 2.4
Fishing and Trapping 10 8.0 10 0.2
Mining
Manufacturing 2,720 52.9 60 48.0 2,780 52.8
Construction 230 4.5 5 4.0 235 4.5
Transport 195 3.8 195 3.7
Retail and Wholesale 520 10.1 5 4.0 525 10.0
Personal Services 935 18.2 10 8.0 945 17.9
Public Administration 105 2.0 20 16.0 125 2.4
Industry Unspecified 315 6.1 10 8.0 325 6.2 -- TOTAL 5,140 100.0 * 125 100.0 * 5,265 100.0* --
*Data subject to rounding error. Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey.
i-- - 18 -
in personal services and that 10 percent is employed in retail or wholesale activities. The large portion of Kitimat's labour force which is employed in manufacturing reflects the existence of two large companies (Alcan and Eurocan).
A comparison between the industrial division of Kitimat's labour force and that of Prince Rupert, Terrace, British Columbia and Canada is presented in Table 7. According to Table 7, the percentage of Kitimat's labour force employed in manufacturing exceeds that of Prince Rupert and Terrace. In fact, it is considerably greater than that of British Columbia and Canada. This information suggests that Kitimat's industrial labour force requirements differ considerably from that of other similar sized communities in the area and from that of other areas in British Columbia.
Kitimat's unique employment situation also is revealed in Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 provides a breakdown on the total number of times that workers change jobs while living in Ki timat. It shows that more than 79 percent of all residents of Kitimat have not changed jobs while living in Kitimat. It also shows that only 12.6 percent" of Sur- veyed residents have changed jobs once and that only 3.5 percent of surveyed residents have changed jobs twice. According to Table 8 nearly 92 percent of all Kitimat residents have not changed jobs more than once while living in Kitimat.
Table 9 provides a breakdown of male and female labour force participation rates for Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, British Colu~ bia and Canada. Table 9 shows that Kitimat's male labour force par ticipation rate is substantially higher than it is for other areas of British Columbia and of Canada. It also shows that both Prince Rupert and Terrace have slightly higher female participation rates than does Kitimat. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that females living in Kitimat are less willing to work than their counterparts in TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE OF KITI1~T, PRINCE RUPERT, TERRACE, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND
CANADA ~~OUR FORCE ACCORDING TO INDUSTRIAL DIVISION - 1971
Prince British Industry Kitimat Rupert Terrace Columbia Canada % % % % %
Agriculture 0.1 0.6 5.0 5.8 Forestry 2.4 2.6 16.2 2.8 0.8
Fishing and Trapping 0.2 3.7 0.4 0.3 !-" ~ Mining 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.6 Manufacturing 52.8 27.4 12.7 15.7 19.6 Construction 4.5 5.0 6.6 6.7 6.0 Transportation 3.7 13.5 10.6 9.4 7.9 Retail and Wholesale 10.0 12.0 15.8 15.8 14.7 Personal Services 17.9 21.0 25.7 28.8 28.0 Public Administration 2.4 8.1 3.7 6.7 7.6 Industry Unspecified 6.2 6.5 7.8 7.5 7.7 --- TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ------
Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey. - 20 -
TABLE 8
TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF TIMES THAT WORKERS HAVE CHANGED JOBS DURING RESIDENCE IN KITIMAT - 1974
Residents No. %
Have Not Changed Jobs 2,645 79.2
Changed Jobs 1 Time 421 12.6
Changed Jobs 2 Times 117 3.5
Changed Jobs 3 Times 94 2.8
Changed Jobs 4 Times 30 0.9
Changed Jobs 5 Times 13 0.4
Changed Jobs 6 Times 13 0.4
Changed Jobs More Than 7 Times 7 0.2
TOTAL 3,340 100.0
1,249 Average Number of Job Changes = 3,340 = 0.37 times per person.
Source: Kitimat Planning Survey, 1974. TABLE 9
MALE AND FEMALE LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE IN KITIMAT, PRINCE RUPERT, TERRACE, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA - 1971 (Experienced Labour Force as a Percentage of Population 15 Years of Age and Over)
Kitimat Prince Rupert Terrace British Columbia Canada
Male Female Total Male Female Total ---Male ---Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Population 15 Years of Age I.\:) and Over 4,345 3,590 7,935 6,170 5,155 11,325 4,455 3,815 8,270 790,055 785,010 1,575,065 7,540,470 7,649,035 15,189,505 f-I.
Experienced Labour Force 3,925 1,330 5,255 5,080 2,350 7,430 3,590 1,665 5,255 561,635 284,740 846,375 5,335,600 2,781,780 8,117,380
Participation Rate 90.3% 37.0% 66.2% 82.3% 45.6% 65.6% 80.6% 43.6% 63.5% 71.1% 36.2% 53.7% 70.8% 36.4% 53.4%
Source: Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey. - 22 -
other locations. A substantially higher nLale participation rate coupled with a moderately lower female participation rate might suggest that Kitimat possesses relatively fewer female related employment opportunities.
Perhaps the clearest indication of what Kitimat's residents feel about living permanently in their community is revealed in Table 10. According to Table 10 more than 40 percent of all the com munity's residents have lived in Kitimat for less than 5 years, more than 50 percent of all residents have lived in the community for less than 10 years. It is also shown that 13 percent of its residents expect to live in Kitimat for less than 2 years, more than 34 percent of its residents expect to live in Kitimat for less than 5 years, and nearly 64 percent of its residents expect to live in the community for less than 10 years. Similar data are not available for other commu nities but it is suspected that the turnover of population in Kitimat surpasses that of most other communities in British Columbia and in Canada. Moreover, it is likely that the expected length of residence among those who live in Kitimat is shorter than it would be for resi dents of most other communities of similar size.
We may now summarize the data and discussion presented in this section. Kitimat was planned and built in conjunction with the development of an aluminum smelter mill in the early 1950s. Officials of the aluminum company recognized the need to provide an attractive town which would complement their work force requirements. They estab lished Kitimat with the intention of making it an attractive place for workers to establish a permanent home and to raise their families. As a result, many new and innovative features were incorporated into its planning and dev.elopment. It has a substantial amount of park area. Its residential area is divided into many different neighbourhoods, each self-sufficient in terms of shopping and educational facilities. Another outstanding feature of the community is that its industrial and residential areas are physically separated. - 23 -
TABLE 10
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS ACCORDING TO ACTUAL LENGTH OF RESIDENCE AND EXPECTED LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN KITIMAT - 1974
Accumulated Accumulated Actual Length Expected Length of Residence of Residence No. % No. %
Less Than 1 Year 249 11.2 149 6.7
Less Than 2 Years 403 18.2 288 13.0
Less Than 3 Years 577 26.0 524 23.6
Less Than 4 Years 730 32.9 682 30.8
Less Than 5 Years 899 40.6 764 34.5
Less Than 10 Years 1,274 57.5 1,41'7 63.9
10 Years or More 934 42.1 550 24.8
Source: Kitimat Planning Survey, 1974. - 24 -
The data presented in this section indicates that residents from Kitimat come from many different ethnic backgrounds, they enjoy relatively good personal income, have an age distribution and level of training that compares favourably with those living in other areas of British Columbia. In a general way, it could be argued that a diver sified, youthful, well-educated population would contribute to the com munity's stability of existence and its ability to grow. However, high income levels may help to attract people into a community, but it does not mean the community will become their permanent home. A diversified ethnic population may enrich the cultural climate of a community but it also may indicate that most do not share a traditional sense of attach ment to their community. youth and good education usually contribute to the individual's future ambition and thereby help to enhance the individual's ability to achieve personal goals, but this may be detri mental to the stability of the community if the opportunities wi thin the community are limited. In this regard, it is important to note that Kitimat's industrial labour force reqUirements differ from those of other communities and other areas of British Columbia and that the majority of Kitimat's workers are employed by two large companies. It is also important to note that Kitimat's male labour force participa tion rate is substantially higher than it is for most other areas of British Columbia and that a large portion of Kitimat's population does not intend to make Kitimat their permanent home. - 25 -
3. Use of the Kitimat River
The Kitimat Hiver, lts water and lts estuary are uEJed for a variety of purposes. The Kitimat municipality draws its domestic water supply from the river. Local industry uses water from the Kitimat River as an input in their production process. The Kitimat River is used as a vehicle for discarding domestic sewage and industrial waste material. The river and its estuary produce substantial fish popula tions which are used for both com.mercial and recreational purposes. The river and its estuary also form all important ocean harbour area which serves as a link between local industry and world markets. In fact, it was this ocean harbour potential together with the area's capacity for hydroelectric development whieh first attracted industry.
The river also is subjected to a number of nonconsumptive 8 uses. For example, park facilities and overnight camping grounds are located on the shores of the K:i.timat HiveI' and its trlbutartes. '1'ho quality of these facilities is enhanced to a considerable degree by the existence of the waterway. Fresh clean water flowing down a wide gravel bed enhances the aesthetic attractiveness of the shoreline camp site and contributes to the amount and quality of outdoor recreational 9 opportunities available in the area. Closely related to this is the amount of sport fishing activity which is generated by the fish popula tions available in the river and its estuary.
The purpose of this section is to identify the Kitimat River's recreational users and the amount of recreational activity which can be attributed to the Kitimat River each year.
8 Nonconsumptive use is defined here as those uses which do not alter the guantity or quality of the river's water supply. According to this definition, the addition of further pollutants represents consumptive use to the extent that additional water is required in the stream to dilute the pollutants to a tolerable level for further use. Municipal ities and industry which return water directly to the river so that it is available for reuse, at least for some purposes, are subjecting the water to nonconsumptive use. 9 Virtually all recreational activities take place above the areas where waste material enters the river. ,- - 26 -
It is important to keep in mind when reading this section that most of the data are taken from the shoreline or mail licence holders surveys.i0 Data gathered in the shoreline survey are not cor i1 rected for shoreline bias. Therefore, it is expected that the data gathered in the shoreline survey will be less accurate than the infor mation gathered in the mail survey. Nonetheless, it is expected that the shoreline survey information will give a fair, if not completely accurate, indication of the recreational activity which took place on the .Kitimat River during the summer of 1974.
Northern British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of wild forests, clean water lakes and long meandering wilderness rivers. This provides year-round outdoor recreational enjoyment to thousands of resident and non-resident outdoor enthusiasts. The significance of outdoor recreation to the resident population is partially revealed in Table 11 which shows the number and percentage of Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Terrace residents who sport fish each year. According to
Table 11 roughly one third of the populations of Kitimat, l~ince Rupert and Terrace are sport fishermen.
Even though sport fishing is important, it is not the only outdoor recreational activity which attracts recreationists to the Kitimat River. Despite substantial sport fish populations, the Kitimat River supports a substantial amount of general non-fishing recreational . 12 activlty. This is revealed in Tables 12 and 13. Table 12 provides
10 See Appendix I. 11 William F. Sinclair and·Robert W. Morley, "A Statistical Bias Problem in On-Site Surveys: The Severity of the Problem and Its Poten tial for SOlution", Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Northern Operations Branch, Pacific Region, May 1975, (to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada). 12 One example of a major non-fishing recreational event which takes place on the Kitimat River is the annual raft race. Kitimat's annual summer festival "Delta King Days" centers around an eight mile raft race down the Kitimat River. Practically the entire population turns out to watch the 80 to 100 (1975) participants race down the river on their makeshift rafts. - 27 -
TABLE 11
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENT POPULATION 1 WHO SPORT FISH IN KITIMAT, PRINCE RUPERT AND TERRACE
Total Resident Total Resident Percentage Population Sport Fishermen of Population (Non-Reserve)
Kitimat 11,803 3,930 33.3
Prince Rupert 15,747 5,102 32.4
2 Terrace 10,605 3,521 33.2
1 Source: Number of fishermen estimated from a 1972 telephone survey. Population from Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey. 2 Terrace population includes Thornhill and surrounding area (not including Lakelse Lake).
,- TABLE 12
ESTIMATED ESCAPEMENT OF KITI~AT RIVER FISH BY SPECIES 1963 - 1973 *
Year Sockeye Chinook ** Coho Chum Pink Steelhead
1963 none observed 7,500 15,000 7,500 7,500 not recorded 1964 none observed 3,500 15,000 15,000 200,000 not recorded 1965 none observed 3,500 7,500 1,500 15,000 not recorded 1966 1,000 20,000 30,000 20,000 100,000 not recorded 1967 none observed 3,500 750 7,500 7,500 not recorded 1968 none observed 3,500- 7,500 15,000 150,000 not recorded t-:l 1969 200 3,500 3,500 15,000 3,500 750 00 1970 none observed 3,500 7,500 15,000 180,000 1,500 1971 400 5,500 3,500 25,000 750 3,500 1972 750 3,500 3,500 60,000 200,000 3,500 1973 75 3,500 2,000 25,000 1,000 not recorded
Average 200 5,500 8,700 18,800 78,400 insufficient data available
* Estimated by stream counts conducted by Fisheries and Marine Service personnel.
** It is the opinion of some of those responsible for developing the data that chinook escapement is overestimated for most years shown in the table. NUMmm AND PJmCI~NTAGJ'; OF SPOHT I,'ISHING AN.D
NON-SPOH:r FISHING RECREATJONIS'l'S ACCORDING TO
PERMANENT PLACE OF RESIDENCE - 1974
Non-Fishing Sport Fishing General Hecreationists Recreationists No. % No. %
Kitimat Residents 410 57.3 134 53.6
Hesidents of the Yellowhead Region 22 3.1 21 8.4
Bri t:ish Columbia Non-Hesidents 109 15.2 47 18.8
CanadIan N6n-Drjiish Columbians 119 16.6 36 14.4
Non-Canadians 56 7.8 12 4.8
TOTAL 716 100.0 250 100.0
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974.
)-- - 30 -
data on the escapement for the Kitimat River by fish species for the eleven year period 1963 to 1973. It shows that all five salmon species are available on the river and that British Columbia's three most important anadromous sport fish species are available in the Kitimat River.
Table 13 provides distributions on the number and percentage of sport fishing recreationists and other general recreationists en countered on the Kitimat River during the summer of 1974 by permanent place of residence. According to Table 13 sport fish recreationists outnumber non-fishing recreationists by approximately 3 to 1. Further more, the distribution of sport fishermen and general recreationists among the various classifications roughly coincide. Fifty-seven per cent of sport fishermen and 54 percent of general recreationists were Kitimat residents. Similarly, 15 percent of sport fishermen and 19 per cent of general recreationists were British Columbia non-residents. Nearly 8 percent of the general recreationists were residents of the Yellowhead region while only 3 percent of sport fishing recreationists were from the Yellowhead region. This suggests that the Kitimat River is slightly less popular among sport fishing residents than it is among other non-fishing residents of the Yellowhead region. This may be par tially explained by the knowledge that Yellowhead resident fishermen have a number of excellent sport fishing alternatives within the region.
Even though residents of Kitimat and most sport fishermen living in northern British Columbia are generally aware of the amount of sport fishing activity which takes place on the Kitimat River each year, most British Columbia residents are not aware of the tremendous 13 fishing pressure exerted on this river. Fishing activity takes place on the Kitimat River throughout the entire twelve month period each year. During the summer and early fall when daylight hours are long
13 A sUbstantial amount of family outdoor recreational activity centers on the crab population available in Douglas Channel and the Kitimat River estuary. However, no reliable estimates on the amount of effort expended in this fishery are available. - 31 -
and fish are moving up the river, fishermen are active on the river 14 nearly twenty-four hours a day. Whether it is sunny and hot or rainy and cold, local sport fish enthusiasts are active on the Kitimat River. 'l'his is supported by the information presented in Table 14 which shows the amount of annual sport fishing effort which took place on the Kitimat River by residence category during 1974. Table 14 shows that the Kitimat River was subjected to nearly 104,000 angler days of effort during 1974. It shows that 77 percent of all angling effort on the Kitimat River was carried out by residents of Kitimat. Slightly more than 7 percent of total effort on the river was carried out by non Canadians.
Despite differences in accessibility between the Kitimat River and other major rivers in North America, better appreciation of the precise magnitude of this angling effort can be. gained by comparing the Kitimat River with other major sport fishing rivers in North America. For example, the Miramichi is reported to have recorded 15 65,412 salmon sport fish angler days during 1972. The Restigouche supported 4,592 salmon sport fish angler days during that same year.16 These comparisons suggest that the Kitimat River is one of Canada's most active sport fishing rivers.
The information presented in Table 14 is supported by infor mation presented in Table 15. Table 15 shows the favourite fishing
14 Even casual fishermen have ample opportunity to participate in the Kitimat fishery on a regular basis. This occurs for a number of rea sons. The most important factors are the large percentage of shtft workers in Kitimat's population and the location of the road linking the industrial and residential areas. Workers travelling to and from work on rotating shifts must travel along a road paralleling the river. Many see this as an opportunity to fish for a short time on their way to and from work. 15 The Miramichi is a world renowned Atlantic sport fishing river located in New Brunswick, Canada. The Restigouche is also located in New Brunswick. 16 Donald G. Hustins and William C. Hooper, "Recreational Angling in New Brunswick (Part II)", The Atlantic Salmon Journal, 1974, no. 3, p. 30. ,- - 32 -
TABLE 14
ANNUAL SPORT FISHING EFFORT ON THE KITIMAT RIVER ACCORDING TO PLACE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE - 1974
Angling Effort No. of Days %
Kitimat Residents 79,700 76.9
Residents of the Yellowhead Region 11,200 10.8
Canadian Non-Residents 5,200 5.0
Non-Canadians 7,500 7.3
TOTAL 103,600 100.0
Source: Mail Survey of Sport Fish Licence Holders in Northern British Columbia, Spring 1975. • "". TABLE 15
FAVOURITE FISHING LOCATION OF FISHERMEN SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER
ACCORDING TO PERM~ PLACE OF RESIDENCE - 1974
Residents of British Canadian Kitimat the Ye110whead Columbia Non-British Non- Residents Region Non-Residents Columbians Canadians Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 0/.,0 No. % Kitimat River 307 74.5 4 18.2 67 62.0 98 83.1 32 57.1 508 70.9 Douglas Channel 26 6.3 1 4.5 2 1.9 1 1.8 30 4.2 Hirsch Creek 3 0.7 3 0.4 Wedeene River 1 0.2 1 0.1 Lakelse Lake 8 1.9 1 0.9 9 1.3 Lakelse River 5 1.2 1 0.9 1 1.8 7 1.0 w Babine Lake 5 1.2 2 9.1 4 3.7 3 2.6 14 2.0 w Skeena River 4 1.0 1 4.5 1 0.8 6 0.8 Kalum River and Lake 4 1.0 4 18.2 3 2.8 1 0.8 12 1.7 Kitwanga River and Lake 3 0.7 3 0.4 Francois Lake 1 0.2 2 1.9 1 0.8 3 5.4 7 1.0 Kispiox River 1 0.2 1 4.5 2 1.9 3 2.5 7 1.0 Morice River and Lake 2 0.5 2 9.1 5 4.6 1 0.8 10 1.4 Copper River 14 3.4 3 13.6 2 1.9 1 0.8 9 16.1 29 4.1 BUlkley River 2 9.1 1 0.9 3 2.5 6 0.8 Other Rivers 7 1.7 3 2.8 1 0.8 1 1.8 12 1.7 Other Lakes 7 1.7 2 9.1 6 5.6 1 0.8 8 14.3 24 3.4 No Favourite 11 2.7 2 1.9 13 1.8 No Response 3 0.7 --- 7 6.5 4 3.5 1 1.8 15 2.1 TOTAL 412 100.0 22 100.0 108 100.0 118 100.0 56 100.0 716 100.0 --- Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 34 -
locations of fishermen, surveyed on the Kitimat River during the summer of 1974, according to place of residence. The data presented in this table show that more than 74 percent of all Kitimat residents indicated that the Kitimat River was their favourite sport fishing location. Eighty-three percent of Canadian non-British Columbians, 62 percent of Bri tish Columbia non-residents and 57 percent of non-Canadians indio. cated that the Kitimat River was their favourite fishing location. As already noted, this information was gathered in a shoreline survey during the summer of 1974 and may be biased high. However, the data on resident sport fishermen are substantiated by other information gathered in other surveys that were carried out independently of the shoreline survey.
The popularity of the Kitimat River among resident sport fishermen is supported by the data presented in Tables 16 and 17. The information presented in these tables also shows the average fishing costs per day and the estimated total expenditures on each of a number of selected rivers according to first favourite and second favourite locations among Kitimat residents. Tables 16 and 17, together, show that more than 82 percent of Kitimat's residents consider the Kitimat River their first or second favourite fishing location. These tables reveal that nearly 14 percent of Kitimat residents feel that the Douglas Channel is their first or second favourite fishing location. According to these data, the Copper River is a popular second favourite fishing choice among Kitimat's residents. It is interesting, but not surprising, to note that the Kitimat River is one of the lowest average fishing cost per day rivers among the many rivers presented in Tables 16 and 17 for Kitimat residents. These tables also show that more than
$450,000 was expended by residents of Kitimat fishing the Kit~mat River during 1974. In fact, these tables show that more than $850,000 was expended by Kitimat residents fishing the Kitimat River and Douglas 17 Channel during 1974.
17 It should be pOinted out that not all of the $850,000 would be spent in Kitimat, and that of the money spent in Kitimat, only some small portion of it would be spent on goods or services which were pro duced locally. TABLE 16
NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED, TOTAL ANGLER DAYS, DAILY COSTS AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH FIRST FAVOURITE FISHING LOCATION OF KITlMAT RESIDENTS - 1974
First Favourite Average No. of Total Average Fishing Estimated Total Fishing Location Days Fished Per Year Angler Days Costs Per Day Expenditures No. % $ $ Kitimat River 2,670 67.9 28 73,425 5.35 392,800 Douglas Channel 361 9.2 43 15,650 22.90 358,300 Skeena River 145 3.7 12 1,775 16.25 28,900 Copper River 70 1.8 24 1,700 14.75 25,000 Lakelse River 70 1.8 17 1,200 13.75 16,600 70 w Lakelse Lake 1.8 13 900 8.75 8,000 C)l Kitwanga Lake 51 1.3 10 500 12.50 6,400 Dala River 31 0.8 8 250 27.50 6,800 Kalum River 31 0.8 28 850 9.00 7,700 Kitwanga River 16 0.4 4 75 20.00 1,300 Uncha Lake 16 0.4 10 150 25.00 4,000 Tchesinkut Lake 16 0.4 7 100 30.00 3,400 Kasiks River 16 0.4 7 100 10.00 1,100 Nass River 16 0.4 6 100 2.00 200 Francois Lake 16 0.4 2 25 5.00 200 Other Lakes 122 3.1 9 1,100 25.50 28,400 Other Rivers 56 1.4 30 1,675 22.25 37,100 No Favourite 71 1.8 No Response 87 2.2
Source: Mail Survey of Sport Fish Licence Holders in Northern British Columbia, Spring 1975. TABLE 17
NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED, TOTAL ANGLER DAYS, DAILY COSTS AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH SECOND FAVOURITE FISHING LOCATION OF KITlMAT RESIDENTS - 1974
Second Favourite Average No. of Total Average Fishing Estimated Total Fishing Location Days Fished Per Year Angler Days Costs Per Day Expenditures No. % $ $ Copper River 688 17.5 9 6,125 10.85 66,200 Kitimat River 558 14.2 12 6,225 6.30 39,200 Lakelse River 428 10.9 9 3,975 10.20 40,400 Skeena River 369 9.4 9 3,425 9.05 30,900 Lakelse Lake 185 4.7 8 1,450 13.50 19,700 Douglas Channel 169 4.3 17 2,875 14.65 42,100 w Kalum River 149 3.8 14 2,050 11.50 23,600 CS'l Kalum Lake 75 1.9 6 475 17.75 8,300 Nass River 55 1.4 11 575 7.35 4,300 Dala River 35 0.9 6 200 15.00 3,200 Kildala River 35 0.9 7 225 20.00 4,600 Kitwanga Lake 35 0.9 5 150 15.00 2,400 Kispiox River 35 0.9 7 225 7.50 1,700 Nadina River 20 0.5 2 50 5.00 200 Kasiks River 20 0.5 2 50 11.00 400 Francois Lake 20 0.5 1 25 15.00 300 Meziadin Lake 20 0.5 3 50 30.00 1,800 Other Lakes 149 3.8 8 1,125 25.30 28,300 Other Rivers 94 2.4 10 950 14.60 14,000 No Favourite 299 7.6 No Response 492 12.5
Source: Mail Survey of Sport Fish Licence Holders in Northern British Columbia, Spring 1975. - 37 -
Tables 16 and 17, together, show that residents of Kitimat spend a considerable amount of time fishing at their favourite location each year. This is substantiated by the information presented in Table 18 which shows the number of days fished each year on the Kitimat River by residents who were surveyed on the Kitimat River during the summer of 1974. According to Table 18, more than 16 percent of all those interviewed fished between 50 and 59 times a yeari nearly 14 per cent fished between 30 and 39 times per year. This information sug gests that Kitimat sport fishermen are active fishermen who expend a considerable amount of their leisure time fishing the Kitimat River each year.
It would seem apparent from the information presented above that there is no financial restriction on participating in fishing activity on the Kitimat River. The average cost of $5.35 per day would 1S seem well within the reach of the Kitimat resident population. This does not however, mean that all Kitimat residents share equally in the opportunity to participate in fishing activities on the river. Certain segments of the resident population, for cultural or financial reasons, may not enjoy the same opportunity to participate in fishing' or in other outdoor recreational opportunities on the river. Table 19 pro vides information which is pertinent to the question of what segments of the population actually use the Kitimat River for recreational pur poses. This table provides a comparison between the age distribution of the resident recreationists and the general population. It shows that 20 percent of the general population fall into the 10 to 19 age category, while 26.8 percent of the recreationists belong to this same category. It shows that 15.4 percent of the general population are in the 30 to 39 age group while 19.7 percent of resident recreationists are included in this same age grouping. Only the 0 to 9 and the over 60 age categories appear to be less than proportionally represented on
18 As already noted previously in Table 3, non-reserve residents of Kitimat report incomes that cOmpare favourably with incomes reported in other communities of similar size and with the total British Columbia population.
,- - 38 -
TABLE 18
NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED PER YEAR BY KITIMAT RESIDENT SPORT FISHERMEN SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
No. of Days No. of Fished Per Year Persons Percentage
o - 9 24 5.9
10 - 19 40 9.8
20 - 29 60 14.6
30 - 39 56 13.7
40 - 49 21 5.1
50 - 59 67 16.3
60 - 79 40 9.8
80 - 99 11 2.7
100 - 149 47 11.5
150 - 199 22 5.4
200 - 249 19 4.6
250 or More 1 0.2
TOTAL 410 100.0
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 39 -
TABLE 19
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS USING THE KIT1MAT RIVER AND THE GENERAL RESIDENT POPULATION OF KITIMAT ACCORDING TO AGE CATEGORY - 1974
Resident General Age Category Recreationists Population No. % No. %
0-9 43 8.1 3,105 25.0
10 - 19 143 26.8 2,535 20.4
20 - 29 145 27.2 2,440 19.6
30 - 39 105 19.7 1,915 15.4
40 - 49 48 9.0 1,525 12.3
50 - 59 45 8.4 665 5.3
60 - 69 3 0.6 190 1.5
70 and Over 2 0.4 70 0.6
TOTAL 534 100.0 12,445 100.0
Sources: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974 and Statistics Canada 1971 Census Survey. - 40 -
the river when compared with the resident population.
Similar information is presented in Tables 20 and 21 which provide a comparison between Kitimat residents, residents of the Yellow head region, British Columbia non-residents, Canadian non-British Columbians and non-Canadian recreationists according to age and sex. These data, together, show that residents and visitor recreationists appear to enjoy recreational activities on the river regardless of sex or age.
The foregoing discussion has revealed a number of interesting points about the use of the Kitimat River. The Kitimat River is used for many different purposes. The most important of these include its use as a source of domestic and industrial water supply, its use as a vehicle for discarding domestic sewage and its estuary's importance as an ocean harbour area. It was also indicated that the Kitimat River is an important outdoor recreational area which affords Kitimat residents many hours of recreational enjoyment each year. On the basis of infor mation gathered on local recreational activities, it can be estimated that the Kitimat River, and areas immediately adjacent to the river, are the focal point for more than 35 percent of the annual outdoor rec 19 reational activity of local residents. Although the Kitimat River is used for a number of different recreational purposes, it is used mostly for sport fishing. All three of British Columbia's most important anad romous sport fishing species are available in the river. The Kitimat River was subjected to nearly 104,000 angler days of sport fishing effort during 1974. Kitimat residents accounted for nearly 77 percent of this total fishing effort. The Kitimat River (not including Douglas Channel) accounts for more than 60 percent of local annual sport fish-
19 Lakelse Lake is another extremely important recreational area for residents of Kitimat. See: William F. Sinclair, The Socio-Economic Importance of Maintaining the Quality of Recreational Resources in Northern British Columbia: The Case of Lakelse Lake, Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Northern Operations Branch, Pacific Region, June 1974, PAC/T-74-10, NOB/ECON 5-74. TABLE 20
PERCENTAGE OF KITIMAT, YELLOWHEAD AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RESIDENTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER ACCORDING TO AGE AND SEX - 1974
Residents of the 2 British Columbia 1 Age Categorr Kitimat Residents Yellowhead Region Non-Residents3 Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total % % % ~ % % % % %
0-9 7.4 9.6 8.1 10.3 7.0 5.2 6.8 5.8
10 - 19 29.2 21.0 26.8 20.7 14.3 18.6 13.5 15.3 14.2
20 - 29 24.4 33.8 27.2 20.7 35.7 25.6 16.6 18.6 17.4
~ 30 - 39 18.6 22.3 19.7 20.7 14.3 18.6 25.0 17.0 22.0 f-l
40 - 49 10.6 5.1 9.0 17.2 21.5 18.6 14.6 18.6 16.1
50 - 59 8.8 7.6 8.4 6.9 7.1 7.0 11.5 11.9 11.6
60 - 69 0.8 0.6 7.1 2.3 11. 5 10.2 11.0
70 and Over 0.3 0.6 0.4 3.5 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.9 --- TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ------
1 Three hundred and eighty-one males and 160 females are included in this category. 2 Twenty-nine males and 14 females are included in this category. 3 Ninety-six males and 60 females are included in this category.
Source: Kitimat River Recreational Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 42 -
TABLE 21
PERCENTAGE OF CANADIAN NON-BRITISH COLUMBIAN AND NON-CANADIAN RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER ACCORDING TO AGE AND SEX - 1974
Canadian 1 2 Age Category Non-British Columbians Non-Canadians Male Female 'rotal Male Female Total --%- --%- % ~ % ~
o - 9 2.0 3.6 2.6 2.1 1.5
10 - 19 26.0 21.8 24.5 8.7 6.0
20 - 29 15.0 7.3 12.3 8.7 9.5 9.0
30 - 39 9.0 16.4 11.6 13.0 9.5 11.9
40 - 49 23.0 23.6 23.2 4.3 14.3 7.5
50 - 59 17.0 21.8 18.7 30.4 47.6 35.8
60 - 69 5.0 5.5 5.2 26.1 19.0 23.9
70 and Over 3.0 1.9 6.5 4.5 -- TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --
lOne hundred males and 55 females are included in this category. 2 Forty-six males and 22 females are included in this category.
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 43 -
ing effort. This would suggest that the Kitimat River is one of Canada's most active sport fishing rivers. It was also shown that nearly $450,000 was spent by residents of Kitimat fishing the Kitimat River during 1974. Most residents of Kitimat seem to share equally in the opportunities to avail themselves of the recreational opportunities provided by the river. Both sexes and practically all age categories seem to actively participate in outdoor oriented recreational activities which center on the river. - 44 -
4. The Importance of Outdoor Recreational Opportunities to Residents of the Kitimat Area and to Local Industry
It was established in the previous section that the Kitimat River is used for a wide variety of activities each year. It is used as a source of domestic water supply, ,for domestic sewage and for industrial waste. However, it is also used by a sUbstantial portion of the local population for sport fishing and other forms of outdoor rec reational activity. Based on the information presented in the previous section, it was established that residents of Kitimat use the Kitimat River for more than 60 percent of their total annual sport fishing effort. It was also estimated that residents of Kitimat use the Kitimat River for more than 35 percent of their total annual outdoor recrea tional activity. This information immediately brings to mind the ques tion of precisely how important is outdoor recreation, and the oppor tunities provided by the river, to the local population. In this section we will attempt to show the importance of recreational oppor tunities to Kitimat residents and to local industry by presenting information on the attitudes and opinions of Kitimat recreationists. This information together with information on the recreational activ ities of various segments of the resident population will provide the reader with some indication of the recreational value of the Kitimat River to those who reside in the area.
Evidence on what contribution outdoor recreation makes to those living in Ki timat is provided in 'rable 22 which shows the reported main advantage of living in Kitimat according to age category by rec reationists surveyed on the Kitimat River during the summer of 1974. Table 22 shows that recreationists reported that the four most highly rated advantages of living in Kitimat are job and money, clean environ ment, fishing and the outdoors. In fact, more than 50 percent of all respondents indicated that the clean environment, fishing and the out doors were the main advantages of living in Kitimat. Fishing was par ticularly important in the under 19 age category. Also listed as TABLE 22
MAIN ADVANTAGE OF LIVING IN KITIMAT ACCORDING TO AGE CATEGORY AS REPORTED BY RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITlMAT RIVER - 1974 No o - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - Over Response Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Job, Money 3 1.6 59 22.9 21 22.3 2 40.0 85 15.4 Clean Environment 27 14.6 36 14.0 14 14.9 1 20.0 4 50.0 82 15.0 Fishing 60 32.4 36 14.0 16 17.0 112 20.4 Boating 2 0.8 2 0.4 Hunting 2 1.1 10 3.9 2 2.1 14 2.5 Wilderness 6 3.2 5 1.9 2 2.1 1 12.5 14 2.5 Scenery 30 16.2 15 5.8 5 5.3 50 9.1 ~ Outdoors 24 13.0 46 17.8 14 14.9 84 15.3 iJ1 Away From City 7 3.8 14 5.4 5 5.3 1 20.0 27 4.9 Quiet and Private 2 1.1 9 3.5 5 5.3 16 2.9 Good Social Environment 9 4.9 20 7.8 8 8.5 1 20.0 3 37.5 41 7.4 Parks 1 0.5 3 1.2 4 0.7 Snow 5 2.7 5 0.9 Mi ld Climate 5 2.7 1 0.4 1 1.1 7 1.3 None 1 0.5 1 0.4 1 1.1 3 0.5 No Response 3 1.6 1 0.4 4 0.7
TOTAL 185 10.0,.,0 258 100.0 94 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 550 100.0 ---
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 46 -
being very important were scenery and a good social environment which, respectively, accounted for 9.1 and 7.4 percent of the total responses.
Table 23 shows the main reasons, reported by resident recrea tionists, for moving to Kitimat according to age category. This table shows that nearly 42 percent of all respondents stated that their main reason for moving to Kitimat was to gain employment. This was true in both the 20 to 39 and the 40 to 59 age categories. However, 67 percent of the respondents in the 19 and under age category indicated that they moved to Kitimat because their parents lived in the community. Another 23 percent of this group stated that they were born in Kitimat. Approx imately 12 percent of all the respondents reported that they lived in Kitimat to be with their spouses. The.environment, country living, fishing and hunting appear to be relatively unimportant reasons for moving to Kitimat.
Table 24 shows what resident recreatiQnists reported were the main disadvantages of living in Kitimat according to age category. This table shows that 53.3 percent of all respondents did not like local weather conditions, 15.4 percent of the respondents stated that isola tion was a main disadvantage and 8.2 percent considered high prices and poor product selection as main disadvantages. Only 8 percent of all respondents indicated that there were no disadvantages to living in Kitimat.
Continuing in this same vein, respondents were also asked to report on the amenities they felt were least available to them as resi dents of Kitimat. Table 25 provides information on what resident rec reationists felt were the amenities least available to them in Kitimat according to age category. Table 26 provides similar information on this same group according to length of residence in the area. These tables show that a substantial segment of resident recreationists felt that they were satisfied with the amenities available to them. This TABLE 23
REASON FOR MOVING TO KITIMAT ACCORDING TO AGE CATEGORY AS REPORTED BY RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
No o - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - Over Response Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Born Here 42 23.1 3 1.2 45 8.3
Parents Here 122 67.0 18 7.0 1 1.1 141 26.0
Like Country (Environment) 4 2.2 12 4.7 4 4.4 1 11.1 21 3.9
Live in Country 1 0.5 6 2.3 1 1.1 1 11.1 9 1.7
~ ....;J Spouse Lives Here 2 1.1 53 20.7 11 12.2 1 20.0 1 11.1 68 12.5
Fishing 10 3.9 10 1.8
Hunting 1 0.4 1 0.2
Money 7 2.7 7 1.3
Employment 6 3.3 141 55.1 70 77.8 3 60.0 5 55.6 225 41.6
Other Reasons 3 1.6 4 1.6 3 3.3 1 11.1 11 2.0
No Response 2 1.1 1 0.4 1 20.0 4 0.7 --- TOTAL 182 100.0 256 100.0 90 100.0 5 100.0 9 100.0 542 100.0 ---
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. TABLE 24
DISADVANTAGES OF LIVING IN KITIMAT ACCORDING TO AGE CATEGORY AS REPORTED BY RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
No o - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - Over Response Total 01 No. % No. % No. % No. 10 No. % No. %
No Disadvantage 19 10.3 18 7.0 7 7.4 44 8.0 Weather (rain, winter, snow) 112 61.0 119 46.1 56 59.6 4 80.0 2 25.0 293 53.3 Isolation 15 8.0 53 21.0 16 17.0 1 12.5 85 15.4 1 Shops, High Prices 11 6.0 29 11.2 2 2.1 3 37.5 45 8.2 Pollution 11 6.0 1 0.4 1 1.1 13 2.4 (Lack) Outdoor Recreation 1 0.5 4 1.6 4 4.3 9 1.6 oc~ Housing, Land Shortage 4 2.2 13 5.0 4 4.3 1 12.5 22 4.0 Social Atmosphere 4 2.2 4 1.6 8 1.4 Transportation 4 1.6 3 3.2 1 12.5 8 1.4 Social and Night Life 4 2.2 7 2.7 12 2.2 Working Conditions 1 1.1 1 20.0 2 0.4 Health Facilities 1 0.4 1 0.2 No Response 3 1.6 5 1.9 8 1.4 ------TOTAL 185 100.0 258 100.0 94 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 550 100.0 ---
1 This category refers to what respondents felt was a lack of product selection in local shops and to high prices.
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. TABLE 25
AMENITIES REPORTED LEAST AVAILABLE IN KITIMAT ACCORDING TO AGE CATEGORY BY RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
No o - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - Over Response Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Satisfied 68 36.2 77 30.0 41 43.6 3 60.0 1 12.5 190 34.4 Recreation Centre and Organized Sports 40 21.3 28 10.9 9 9.6 1 12.5 84 15.2 Cultural Activities 4 2.1 20 7.8 4 4.3 28 5.1 Boating Facilities .::. (marina, yacht club) 9 4.8 12 4.7 8 8.5 1 20.0 30 5.4 ~ Outdoor Recreational Amenities 49 , 26.1 43 16.7 17 18.1 1 20.0 4 50.0 108 19.6 Social/Night Life 4 2.1 42 16.3 13 13.8 2 25.0 61 11.1 Poor Shopping 1 0.5 6 2.3 1 1.1 8 1.4 Handicap Facilities 3 1.2 3 0.5 Weather 4 1.6 4 0.7 No Response 13 7.0 22 8.6 1 1.1 36 6.5 --- TOTAL 188 100.0 257 100.0 94 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 552 100,0 ------
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. TABLE 26
AMENITIES REPORTED LEAST AVAILABLE IN KITI~mT ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF RESIDENCE CATEGORY BY RESIDENT RECREATIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
1 Year to 5 Years to 10 Years to 15 Years to Less Than Less Than Less Than Less Than Less Than More Than 1 Year 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 20 Years Total G; No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 10 No. %
Satisfied 43 36.1 57 34.3 37 32.5 16 29.1 28 41.8 9 29.0 190 34.4 Recreation Centre and Organized Sports 12 10.1 16 9.6 27 23.7 19 34.5 8 11.9 2 6.4 84 15.2 Cultural Activities 11 9.2 7 4.2 3 5.5 4 6.0 3 9.7 28 5.1.
01 Boating Facilities 0 (marina, yacht club) 1 0.8 12 7.2 9 7.9 2 3.6 4 6.0 2 6.4 30 5.4 Outdoor Recreational Amenities 9 7.6 43 25.9 24 21.1 11 20.0 14 20.9 7 22.6 108 19.6 Social/Night Life 10 8.4 19 11.4 14 12.3 3 5.5 8 11.9 7 22.6 61 11.1 Poor Shopping 6 3.6 1 0.8 1 3.3 8 1.5 Handicap Facilities 2 1.2 1 1.8 3 0.5 Weather 4 2.4 4 0.7 No Response 33 27.7 2 1.7 1 1.5 36 6.5 ------TOTAL 119 100.0 166 100.0 114 100.0 55 100.0 67 100.0 31 100.0 552 100.0 ------
Source: Kitimat River Recreationists Shoreline Survey, Summer 1974. - 51 -
was true over most age and length of stay categories~ However, 19.6 percent felt that there were not enough outdoor recreational amenities available to them and 11.1 percent felt that there was a shortage of social and night life amenities. A comparison between the information presented in Tables 25 and 26 does not reveal any significant differ ences between the attitudes of individuals belonging to different age or length of residence categories.
The information presented in Tables 22 through 26 reveals a number of interesting observations about resident outdoor recreation ists. Perhaps the most important of these with respect to determining the Kitimat River's importance to residents of Kitimat is, that even though the vast majority enjoy amenities such as a clean environment, fishing, scenery and the outdoors, they do not move to Kitimat for these reasons. The vast majority of those interviewed suggested that they moved to Kitimat because of employment opportunities. The over whelming importance of employment in attracting people to the area is further reinforced by the information which shows that the second and third most important reasons for moving to Kitimat are to be with rela tives. Many resident recreationists are unhappy with the weather, but at the same time, appear to be relatively satisfied with the amenities available to them in the community. Most other responses to questions on amenities serve to sUbstantiate the importance of outdoor recreation to recreationists who are living in the area.
Tables 27, 28 and 29 provide information on household partici pation in particular leisure time activities according to actual and expected length of residence in Kitimat. Table 27 shows the number and percentage of households which use particular recreational facilities according to actual length of residence in the Kitimat community. According to this table nearly 40 percent of all householdS participate in outdoor recreational activities, 35.9 percent of households use the swimming pool and another 18.6 percent use the schools for recreational
i-- TABLE 27
1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF KITIMAT HOUSEHOLDS USING SELECTED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND AMENITIES ACCORDING TO ACTUAL LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN KITIMAT - 1974
Length of Less Than 5 - 9 10 Years Residence 1 Year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Years or More Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. C'c
Pool 75 30.1 52 33.8 50 28.7 52 34.0 71 42.0 150 40.0 342 36.6 3 37.5 795 35.9 Arena 26 10.4 13 8.4 22 12.6 22 14.3 23 13.6 75 20.0 188 20.1 369 16.7 Riverlodge 17 6.8 11 7.1 18 10.3 11 7.2 13 7.7 34 9.1 68 7.3 2 25.0 174 7.9 Curling 9 3.6 7 4.5 13 7.5 13 8.5 16 9.5 33 8.8 63 6.7 154 7.0 C.11 t>:) School (for recreation) 33 13.3 13 8.4 22 12.6 24 15.7 32 18.9 87 23.2 199 21.3 410 18.6 Outdoor 109 43.8 64 41.6 62 35.6 60 39.2 58 34.3 149 39.7 377 40.4 3 37.5 882 39.8 Bowling 5 2.0 4 2.6 2 1.1 2 1.3 4 2.4 17 4.5 33 3.5 67 3.0 Library 2 0.8 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.7 1 0.6 5 1.3 3 0.3 14 0.6 Y.M.C.A. 1 0.7 2 1.2 1 0.3 1 0.1 5 0.2 Other 42 16.9 27 17.5 24 13.8 23 15.0 33 19.5 55 14.7 159 17.0 363 16.4
Total Number of Households 249 154 174 153 169 375 934 8 2,216 in Residence Category
1 Percentage columns do not add to 100 percent. Percentages are calculated using the number of times facilities and amenities are mentioned as a proportion of total household respondents in each group.
Source: Kitimat Planning Survey, 1974.
'. TABLE 28
1 NUMBER AND PERCE NT OF KITIMAT HOUSEHOLDS USING SELECTED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND AMENITIES ACCORDING TO EXPECTED LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN KITIMAT - 1974
Length of Less Than 5 - 9 10 Years Residence 1 Year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Years or More Unknown Total e- No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. c
Pool 46 30.9 38 27.3 71 30.1 50 31.6 33 40.2 232 35.5 240 43.6 85 34.1 795 35.9 Arena 20 13.4 17 12.2 28 11. 9 21 13.3 13 15.9 120 18.4 108 19.6 42 16.9 369 16.7 Riverlodge 11 7.4 10 7.2 23 9.7 6 3.8 6 7.3 53 8.1 53 9.6 12 4.8 174 7.9 Curling 9 6.0 8 5.8 10 4.2 13 8.2 4 4.9 50 7.7 43 7.8 15 6.0 154 7.0 01w School (for recreation) 19 12.8 14 10.1 34 14.4 27 17.1 10 12.2 121 18.5 131 23.8 54 21. 7 410 18.6 Outdoor 51 34.2 55 39.6 104 44.1 70 44.3 33 40.2 256 39.2 235 42.7 78 31.3 882 39.8 Bowling 1 0.7 3 2.2 8 3 ..4 8 5.1 2 2.4 22 3.4 17 3.1 9 3.6 67 3.0 Library 1 0.7 3 2.2 3 1.3 1 0.6 5 0.8 1 0.2 14 0.6 Y.M.C.A. 1 0.7 1 0.4 1 0.6 2 0.3 5 0.2 Other 28 18.8 20 14.4 41 17.4 25 15.8 16 19.5 107 16.4 91 16.5 35 14.1 363 16.4
Total Number of Households 149 139 236 158 82 653 550 249 2,216 in Residence Category
1 Percentage columns do not add to 100 percent. Percentages are calculated using the number of times facilities and amenities are mentioned as a proportion of total household respondents in each group.
Source: Kitimat Planning Survey, 1974. TABLE 29
AVERAGE ~~MBER OF TIMES PER WEEK THAT SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS USE SELECTED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND AMENITIES ACCORDING TO HOW LONG THEY EXPECT TO LIVE IN KITIMAT - 1974
All Less Than 5 - 9 10 Years Households 1 Year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years ---Years or More Times/Week
Pool 0.570 0.554 0.492 0.589. 0.695 0.678 0.782 0.644 Arena 0.215 0.180 0.153 0.158 0.232 0.282 0.320 0.245 Riverlodge 0.174 0.101 0.140 0.051 0.073 0.107 0.122 0.109 Cl1 Curling 0.087 0.101 0.068 0.101 0.049 0.104 0.111 0.101 ~ School (for recreation) 0.141 0.108 0.174 0.234 0.146 0.253 0.300 0.234 Outdoor 0.524 0.676 0.644 0.703 0.683 0.654 0.669 0.626 Bowling 0.007 0.022 0.034 0.063 0.024 0.055 0.051 0.044 Library 0.007 0.022 0.013 0.006 0.014 0.002 0.008 Y.M.C.A. 0.007 0.004 0.057 0.003 0.006 Other 0.289 0.194 0.254 0.209 0.280 0.248 0.235 0.235 --- Total Recreational 2 .. 021 1.958 1.976 2.171 2.182 2.398 2.592 2.252 Outings Per Week ------
Source: Kitimat Planning Survey, 1974. - 55 -
purposes. With but a few obvious exceptions, most facilities were used equally over most length of residence categories. Noticeable excep tions are the arena, the swimming pool and the curling rink where use increases with length of residence.
Table 28 shows the number and percentage of Kitimat house holds which use selected recreational facilities on a regular basis according to the number of years they expect to live in Kitimat. Once again, this table shows that nearly 40 percent of all respondents indi cate that they participate in the outdoors. However, the use of most facilities increases only very slightly with expected length of resi dence in the community.
Table 29 shows the number of times households use selected recreational facilities and amenities each week according to expected length of residence in the community. The information presented in this table shows that after the first year, there is a consistent increase in the number of times per week that households use recrea tional facilities and amenities as the time they expect to reside in the community increases. For example, households with an expected length of residence of one year use the facilities nearly twice a week (1.958) and households with an expected length of residence of ten years or more use facilities and amenities more than twice a week (2.592). Nonetheless, the only recreational facility or amenity which shows a continual and perceptible increase in the number of times used per week over all expected length of residence categories is the school facilities. These increase from slightly over once every ten weeks in the one year expected length of residence category (.108) to three times every ten weeks (.300) in the ten years or more expected length of residence category. Once again however, the two recreational cate gories most intensively used by residents are the pool and the outdoors which are both used slightly more than six times every ten weeks (0.644 and 0.626). - 56 -
A true appreciation of the importance of outdoor recreation and the opportunities afforded by the Kitimat River cannot be gained without knowledge on how the existence of these amenities influence the behavioural pattern of local residents. It would seem reasonable to expect that any service facility or amenity which offsets some of the drawbacks associated with remoteness, higher prices and the strangeness of the climate would contribute to the stability of the resident popula tion. This in turn, could be expected to contribute greatly to the success of local industry by helping to cut back the rate of labour 20 turnover. Information presented in this report has shown that the vast majority of residents move to Kitimat because of local employment opportunities. It was also shown that a significant percentage of Kitimat's existing population do not consider Kitimat their permanent home. It was also revealed that there is no single reason why resi dents of Kitimat are dissatisfied with their community. However, it would seem obvious from the information presented on the advantages and disadvantages of living in the community, that weather, environmental and recreational considerations have considerable bearing on the atti tude of the residents towards their community. In fact an improvement in recreational and environmental amenities might not improve the stability of the community but the reverse is not necessarily true. There is every reason to believe that any deterioration in the quality of the amenities available to local residents would almost certainly increase dissatisfaction with the community. Deterioration in the quality of recreational and environmental amenities would further de tract from the stability of the community and aggrevate the already serious labour force turnover problem.
.' 20 It was recognized by the founders of Kitimat that it was absolutely essential that the town must attract and hold industrial workers for the good of local industry. This viewpoint is amplified on pages 6 and 7. The seriousness of labour turnover in local industry is reflected in the report: R. D. Algar et al., Abridged Report of the Task Force on Hourly Employee Turnover, Aluminum Company of Canada, Kitimat, B. C., 1973. - 57 -
5. Summary and Conclusions
Man's use of the Kitimat Valley and its river goes back many years. Long before the first settlers discovered British Columbia, the Kitamaat Indians had established a village on the east shore of the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel. The first known development in areas encroaching on the Kitimat River occurred in 1906 when many settlers moved into the valley. The overall effect of these early activities was very minor and most of the settlers had left by the beginning of the Second World War. In 1951 the Aluminum Company of Canada commenced construction of an aluminum smelter mill on the westernmost portion of the Kitimat River's delta arm. The town of Kitimat was planned and built as an integral part of this same development. It was recognized that if the aluminum smelter was to be a success, Kitimat had to be an attractive town which would complement its work force requiremeuts. The forethought and planning that went into the development of Kitimat is readily apparent to those visiting the community today. Kitimat is. a modern community of 12,000 people. It has a substantial amount of park area, wide boulevards, attractive shopping areas and good educa tional facilities.
Most of Kitimat's labour force is employed by two large com panies. Nearly 53 percent of all Kitimat's labour force is employed in the manufacturing industry and its male labour force participation rate is substantially higher than it is for other communities of similar size. Most residents move to the community to take advantage of local employment opportunities. Workers tend to remain with the same employer throughout their period of residence in the community and it would seem that a great many of them do not intend to make Kitimat their permanent home. Local weather conditions and lack of product selection are con sidered the main disadvantages of living in Kitimat. Nonetheless, more than one third of the total population are reasonably satisfied with living in the community. The four most highly rated advantages of - 58 -
living in Kitimat are job and money, clean environment, fishing and the outdoors. The importance of outdoor recreational opportunities to the community is further substantiated by the recreational patterns adopted by local residents. Nearly 40 percent of all households participate in outdoor recreational activities each year. Participation in the out~ doors does not appear to decline with length of residence in the com munity.
In this report it has been shown that the Kitimat River is a particularly important outdoor recreational amenity. More than half of the local population uses it for sport fishing or for some other form of outdoor leisure activity. It is estimated that the Kitimat River supports more than 104,000 angler days of fishing effort each year. More than 60 percent of this activity is carried out by residents of the Kitimat community. It is estimated that resident anglers spent $450,000 as a result of fishing on the river during 1974. This informa tion suggests that the Kitimat River may be one of Canada's most active sport fishing rivers.
With a planned population capacity of nearly 50,000, a skilled industrial labour force and the area's potential for hydroelectric power development, there is reason to believe that government and business leaders will continue to look to Kitimat for major industrial develop ment projects. It would appear likely that some large-scale industrial development will take place in Kitimat in the near future. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that new developments will lead to further alterations in the physical characteristics· of the Kitimat River. This will make maintenance of the river's water quality an increasingly serious problem. In an area where population and labour force turnover are problems, where fishing, outdoor recreation and the environment are considered the main advantages of living in the community, deteriora tion in the river's quality will almost certainly have an adverse effect on the social well-being of local residents. - 59 -
APPENDIX I
Data Sources
Except for the information extracted from the 1971 Statistics Canada Census Survey, all of the data contained in this report are taken from economic, social and planning surveys carried out in British Columbia within the past year. Information on activities, attitudes and opinions of residents is taken from a household survey which was carried out by the District of Kitimat during 1974. The information on sport fishermen was gathered in the shoreline survey of recreationists carried out by Fisheries and Marine Service personnel during the summer of 1974. Expenditure, angling effort and preferences to fishing loca tion information is taken from a mail survey of sport fish licence holders living in northern British Columbia. This survey was carried out by Fisheries and Marine Service personnel during the spring of 1975.
Recreational Shoreline Survey
The recreational shoreline survey was carried out along the banks of the Kitimat River during July and August, 1974. Actual enumer ation took place over fourteen days during the two month period when all persons encountered on the river were interviewed about their outdoor activities. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section was designed to gather information on the general recreational pursuits while the second section dealt specifically with sport fishing activity. Table 1:1 provides a breakdown of interviews by place of residence according to location surveyed on the river. It shows that 965 recreationists were surveyed during the two month period. Five hundred and eighty-six of those interviewed were either residents of Kitimat or residents of the Yellowhead region. Map 1:1 shows the Kitimat River and the interview locations. TABLE 1:1
LOCATION OF INTERVIEW BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF RECRR4TIONISTS SURVEYED ON THE KITIMAT RIVER - 1974
Residents of British Canadian Kitimat the Yellowhead Columbia Non-British Non- Residents Region Non-Residents Columbians Canadians Total Of No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Ie Across from Eurocan 140 25.8 37 23.7 27 17.4 8 11.8 212 22.0 At Eurocan 95 17.5 4 9.3 30 19.2 43 27.7 22 32.4 194 20.1 Below Eurocan 11 2.0 2 4.7 4 2.6 3 1.9 2 2.9 22 2.3 Across from Alcan 4 0.7 4 0.4 Hirsch Creek Park 119 21.9 14 32.6 10 6.4 6 3.9 149 15.4
Highway 25 9 1.7 14 9.0 3 1.9 3 4.4 29 3.0 O'l 0 At Townsite 2 4.7 10 6.4 2 2.9 14 1.5 Radley Park 25 4.6 4 9.3 36 23.1 41 26.5 13 19.1 119 12.3 Upstream from Town 21 3.9 21 2.2 Wedeene River Park 22 4.1 3 7.0 3 1.9 3 4.4 31 3.2 At Town Bridge 54 9.9 3 7.0 3 1.9 15 9.7 4 5.9 79 8.2 Highway 25 Bridge 4 0.7 2 4.7 8 5.1 8 5.2 22 2.3 Road on East Side of River 21 3.9 1 2.3 1 0.6 3 1.9 26 2.7 Cable Car Pool 8 1.5 ·5 11.6 5 3.2 11 16.2 29 3.0 Logging Bridge 2 4.7 2 0.2 Unspecified 10 1.8 1 2.3 1 0.6 12 1.2 ------TOTAL 543 100.0 43 100.0 156 100.0 155 10·0.0 68 100.0 965 100.0 ------
--"---_... ------61 -
Highway 25 Bridge
Wedeene
Kltimat River at Eurocan Municipal Boundary
2 3 4 Downstream from o Townsite -- - - - ,- Scole (Mi.)
MAP 1:1- Kitimat River Interview Locations (1974) - 62 -
Mail Survey of Licence Holders
A mail survey was carried out on sport fish licence holders living in northern British Columbia during the spring of 1975. Approx imately 10 percent of the licence holders living in Kitimat were cap tured in the survey. A total of 280 questionnaires were sent to resident licence holders. A useable return of 211 questionnaires were received. This is a return of over 75 percent.
Kitimat Planning Survey
During the summer of 1974 the Kitimat municipality conducted a household survey of the resident population. Households were identi· fied in the Assessor's Office and 60 percent of all Kitimat households were captured in the survey. Personal interviews were carried out in each of the households included in the survey.
The Quality of the Survey Results
As is the situation in most surveys, the data are subject to surveying and sampling error. For instance, in a mail survey there are practically always some problems which result from the interpretation respondents apply to certain questions. Shoreline surveys practically always encounter some randomness problems and may not represent the total user population. House-to-house enumeration may suffer because enumerators might tend to lead the respondents and because some house holds were included in the sample to the partial or total exclusion of others. However, in these surveys every precaution was taken to safe guard the accuracy of the information gathered. All three surveys were subject to careful scrutiny and some of the data were tested for re sponse bias. In addition, virtually all of the data collected in these surveys were compared with other data from other sources. In every case the data used in this report were found to be consistent with the infor- - 63 -
mation gathered elsewhere. Good sampling return and excellent coopera tion were experienced in all three surveys. It is felt that the infor mation used in this study is reasonably reliable and accurate. - 64 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Algar, R. D. et al. Abridged Report of the Task·Force on Hourly Employee Turnover. Aluminum Company of Canada, Ki tiina t, B. C., 1973.
British Columbia. District of Kitimat. Kitimat Townsite Report. Kitimat, December 1960.
British Columbia. District of Kitimat. Recreation Survey 1975. Kitimat.
Canada. Department of the Environment. Water Flow Data. Inland Waters Directorate, Ottawa, 1974.
Canada. Statistics Canada. Population. Catalogue 92-720, Ottawa, March 1974.
Clark, Paul. "Kitimat - A Saga of Canada." Canadian Geographical Jour nal, October 1954, vol. 49, pp. 152-173.
Ecl"oy~ L. G. "Start-Up at Ki timat: Sa£ra of Industrial Courage." We~s~t",e~r~n,-----_____ Business and Industry, July 1954, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 38-46.
Edel, Matthew. Economies and the Environment. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood CliffS, New Jersey, 1973.
Hartman, L. M. and Seastone, Don. Water Transfers: Economic Efficiency and Alternative Institutions. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1970.
Hustins, Donald G. and Hooper, William C. "Recreational Angling in New Brunswick (Part 11)." The Atlantic Salmon Journal, 1974, no. 3, pp. 26-31.
"Kitimat: A New City." Architectural Forum, July 1954, pp. 129-147.
Kneese, Allen V. and Bower, Blair T. Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions. The J'ohns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1968.
Kraft, R. W. "Investigations of the Effect of the Power Development on Fisheries." The Engineering Journal, November 1954, pp. 1446-1449.
Madhill, J. T. "Electrical Engineering and Operating Aspects of Alcan's B. C. Project." The Engineering Journal, April 1953, pp. 362-374.
Pugh, W. L. "The Ki tima t Harbour." The Engineering J'ournal, November 1954, pp. 1450-1459. - 65 -
Reed, F. L. C. and Associates. The Development of Northern British Columbia: Factors, Concepts and Issues. Vancouver, B. C., September 1972.
Sinclair, William F. The Socio-Economic Importance of Maintaining the Quality of Recreational Resources in Northern British Columbia: The Case of Lakelse Lake. Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Northern Operations Branch, Pacific Reg:ion, June 1974, PAC/T-74-10, NOB/ECON 5-74.
and Morley, Robert W. "A Statistical Bias Problem in On-Site Surveys: The Severity of the Problem and Its Potential for Solution." Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Northern Operations Branch, Pacific Region, May 1972, (to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada).
Tan, Lee. Projected Population of Kitimat. District of Kittmat, Planning Department, Kitimat, B. C., September 1969, Report No. 6934.
Zech, F: H. Rental Housing Needs. District of Kitimat, Planning Depart ment, Kitimat, B. C., December 1974.