Cartography and contested ocean space: an analysis of intertidal shellfish harvest spaces in the territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation.

By

Katrina Stephany

A Thesis Presented to The University of Guelph

In partial fulfillment of requirements For the degree of Masters of Arts In Geography

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

© Katrina Stephany, 2015 ABSTRACT

CARTOGRAPHY AND CONTESTED OCEAN SPACE: AN ANALYSIS OF INTERTIDAL SHELLFISH HARVEST SPACES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE HEILTSUK FIRST NATION

Katrina Stephany Advisor: University of Guelph, 2015 Dr. Jennifer Silver

Where many Settler societies tend to view oceans as asocial spaces distinct from land and separate from human culture and relationships, many coastal Indigenous peoples do not perceive home lands and oceans as materially or conceptually discrete. A small body of research that contextualizes these differences and explores their implications exists, but more is needed as marine development is set to expand worldwide. The premise of this thesis is that cartography can be used to document Indigenous ocean territories and help to clarify the contemporary use and governance of contested ocean spaces. The research, undertaken in the territory of the

Heiltsuk First Nation located in the Canadian Province of British Columbia, identifies and enumerates overlap between Indigenous sites of marine cultivation and harvest called ‘clam gardens’ and state-identified sites for shellfish aquaculture.

Three primary tasks were completed in this thesis. First, GIS base-maps were produced that synthesize locational and qualitative data regarding documented Heiltsuk clam gardens (i.e., sites built by Heiltsuk ancestors for shellfish cultivation) and contemporary intertidal shellfish harvest sites. Second, the base maps were overlaid with polygons denoting areas identified in

Federal and Provincial reports as open to future development for shellfish aquaculture. Finally, instances of spatial overlap between clam gardens, contemporary harvest sites, and areas identified as open to privatization for shellfish aquaculture were enumerated and critically evaluated, particularly in terms of the potential they create for future resource conflict. Data sources included Heiltsuk marine resource harvest and use surveys, transcripts of key informant interviews housed in HIRMD, coordinates of clam gardens documented by Heiltsuk and academic archaeologists and re-confirmed with GPS during fieldwork, and two key government documents regarding shellfish aquaculture expansion.

Findings reveal at least 348 instances of overlap between Heiltsuk intertidal harvest sites and areas identified for shellfish aquaculture expansion. Eighteen of 27 identified clam gardens located in the study area were adjacent to spaces identified in Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans maps as ‘green’, a signal meant to communicate their potential as possible sites for future private geoduck aquaculture tenures. Three key arguments emerge from this research.

First, that ocean space is contested and competing Heiltsuk and Settler Government territorialities are at play in the study area. Second, that shellfish aquaculture expansion has the potential to reduce coastal First Nations’ present-day access to important harvest sites. Finally, that scholarly and public discussion needs to shift away from presenting clam gardens as

‘ancient’ archaeological sites and towards a perspective that acknowledges them as active territorial spaces. In sum, this thesis demonstrates overlapping Indigenous and State territorialities in contested ocean space and contributes a case study to growing literature on the implications of clam gardens to contemporary oceans governance in BC. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

Most importantly, I first wish to acknowledge that the majority of my Thesis research has taken place on unceded First Nations’ territory. In Guelph, Ontario, it is important to acknowledge First Nations resource stewards who came before us, including the Attawandaron, the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinaabe, and the Meti. I also acknowledge the Heiltsuk First

Nation, where the majority of this research was conducted, and the territories of the Coast Salish

Peoples, on whose land research findings were presented in Vancouver, BC, at the annual

Canadian Association of Geographers (CAG) conference in July 2015.

Secondly, I want to give thanks to my Thesis advisory committee, consisting of Dr.

Jennifer Silver, Dr. Dana Lepofsky, and Dr. Noella Gray. Their assistance and advice during the duration of my Graduate studies at the University of Guelph has been invaluable. Equally important in the completion of my Thesis work has been Dr. Adam Bonneycastle, for assistance in creating and navigating ArcGIS base maps for the project, the Clam Garden Network (CGN) for their help in making this project an important contribution to ongoing clam garden research on the West Coast, and Dr. Marco Hatch and Amy Groesbeck for allowing me to assist in their clam garden research. Thanks also goes to Elroy White (Gitla), Skye Augustine, Julia Jackley,

Dr. Nancy Turner, Dr. John Harper, Dr. Anne Salomon, Kirsten Rowell, Nicole Smith, Kira

Krumhansl, and Jennifer Carpenter, whose insights and support were invaluable in developing my Thesis research.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge SSHRC, for funding a large part of my Graduate research, HIRMD, and especially Jennifer Carpenter, for their advice and counsel in completing my collaborative research in Heiltsuk territory, and the Hakai Institute, for providing residence in

iv a float house during my three-month stay in Bella Bella. Equally important to acknowledge is my family, who provided support during my research and Field study periods.

v ACRONYMS

BC British Columbia

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CGN Clam Garden Network

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans

EEC Exclusive Economic Zone

FSC Food, Social and Ceremonial

GIS Geographical Information Services

HCEC Heiltsuk Cultural Education Centre

HIRMD Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department

HTC Heiltsuk Tribal Council

HTTAOA Heiltsuk Traditional Territory Archaeological Overview Assessment

HTUS Heiltsuk Traditional Use Study

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MPA Marine Protected Area

MSP Marine Spatial Planning

RAAD Remote Access to Archaeology Data

RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SCCA Shellfish Culture Capability Appraisal

SFU Simon Fraser University

SOK Herring Spawn on Kelp

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TLUAOM Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Mapping

TREM Traditional Resource and Environmental Management

UBCIC Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ` pg. 1

1.1 Scholarly Context and Research Aim pg. 1

1.2 Project Impetus and Research Objectives pg. 4

1.3 Outline of Thesis pg. 5

2 MANUSCRIPT pg. 7

2.1 Introduction pg. 7

2.2 Scholarly Context pg. 9

2.2.1 Contested Ocean Space pg. 9

2.2.2 Shellfish Governance in BC pg. 11

2.2.3 Clam gardens pg. 12

2.3 Study Area and Methods pg. 13

2.4 Findings pg. 18

2.4.1 Spatial overlap between DFO planned aquaculture tenures and Heiltsuk intertidal harvest sites pg. 19

2.4.2 Spatial overlap between 1997 BC SCCA Study and clam garden sites pg. 20

2.4.3 Overlap between DFO geoduck aquaculture tenures and total Heiltsuk shellfish harvest/cultural use patterns pg. 20

2.4.4 Existing spatial overlap between identified clam garden sites and HTUS locations pg. 21

2.5 Discussion and Conclusions pg. 21

3 THESIS CONCLUSIONS pg. 26

3.1 Key Findings and Arguments pg. 26

3.2 Research Contributions and Future Research Opportunities pg. 29

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY pg. 32

vii 5 APPENDIXES pg. 44

5.1 Clam Gardens and their Importance to Coastal First Nations Communities. pg. 44

5.2 Potential shellfish aquaculture sites deemed to have the greatest potential by SCI value (SCCA, 1997). pg. 50

5.3 Bella Bella Mapping Codes pg. 54

5.4 University of Guelph Ethics Review Board Certificate and Research Number pg. 91

5.5 Copy of Heiltsuk MoU and Research Agreement (HIRMD) pg. 92

viii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: The Study area within Heiltsuk Territory pg. 15

Figure 2: Proposed DFO and SCCA aquaculture sites within the study area pg. 18

Table 1: Spatial overlaps for shellfish mariculture sites within Heiltsuk territory pg. 19

Figure 3: Classic morphology of a clam garden feature at low tide in the Broughton Archipelago pg. 45

Figure 4: Aerial image of a “triple ridge” clam garden pg. 46

Figure 5: Diagram of a walled clam garden profile pg. 47

ix

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scholarly Context and Research Aim

Globally, conflicts over ocean space and marine resource management are increasing between State Governments and Indigenous Peoples (Valencia and Vanderzwaag, 1989;

Mulrennan and Scott 2000; Erueti and Charters, eds. 2007). Questions of sovereignty and best economic practices, as well as differing opinions toward how to utilize and conserve space and resources, often ignite these conflicts. Foundational to these conflicts is the fact that settler societies tend to view oceans as asocial spaces distinct from land and separate from human culture and relationships (Jackson 1995; Steinburg 1999). For many Indigenous peoples, particularly those whose home territories are coastal, land and ocean spaces are not conceptually distinct. In fact, many Indigenous communities view ocean space as integral to territory, central to culture, and foundational to key governance practices, life experiences, and even personal identity (Jackson 1995; Mulrennan and Scott 2000).

Clam gardens are a method of shellfish cultivation and management used for generations by Indigenous First Nations in the Canadian Province known today as British Columbia (BC)

(Williams 2006; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013; Lepofsky et al. 2015). Specifically, they are human-constructed rock-faced terraces built in the lower intertidal zone designed to increase clam productivity (Groesbeck et al. 2014). Through a variety of mechanisms, these terraces, in combination with other bivalve management techniques, enhance clam production (Williams

2006; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013:7; Groesbeck et al. 2014; Lepofsky et al. 2015). In some instances, clam gardens appear to be part of larger coastal management complexes that also

1 include features such as fish traps and weirs, as well as stream modification (Caldwell et al.

2012).1

In the past, researchers and state natural resource managers have failed to recognize the role of cultivation in Indigenous harvest and consumptive activities on the Northwest Coast.

That is, they assumed that Northwest Coast peoples ‘hunted and gathered’, rather than actively managing and cultivating the spaces and resources around them (Turner and Berkes 2006;

Turner et al. 2013). Clam gardens offer an illustrative example that, like landscapes, seascapes had been intentionally managed to nutritionally and economically support First Nations (Turner and Berkes 2006; Cannon and Burchell 2009; Turner et al. 2011; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013).

Researching clam gardens can help us to better understand Indigenous ocean territories and

Settler-Indigenous resource conflicts on Canada’s West Coast. Therefore, they are the focus of growing research attention (Caldwell et al. 2012; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013; Augustine and

Dearden 2014; Groesbeck et al. 2014; Berkes 2015; Deur et al. 2015; Lepofsky et al. 2015).

Interest in clam gardens comes after several decades during which the Federal and

Provincial Governments prioritized the development of industrial invertebrate fisheries and shellfish aquaculture expansion in intertidal and nearshore spaces (Silver 2013, 2014; Klain et al.

2014). In the 1970s, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans initiated what are now two profitable commercial invertebrate fisheries managed today using private licenses: one for sea cucumbers; and one for large clams called geoduck (Klain et al. 2014). During roughly the same period, the Provincial Government made almost four thousand hectares of intertidal and nearshore space available to shellfish aquaculture in the form of private leases for marine tenures

(Silver 2013, 2014). Within leased shellfish tenures, shellfish farmers adopt intensive cultivation

1 See Appendix 1 for a detailed background on clam garden morphology and on the importance of clam gardens to coastal First Nations communities. 2 The EEZ is a recognized jurisdictional marine area, extending from the coastline to a distance of 200 nautical miles 2 and husbandry techniques for growing one or more of a variety of permitted shellfish species, including Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), Manilla clams (Venerupis philippinarum), Pacific scallops (Chlamys rubida) and geoduck (Panopea generosa). First Nations representation and participation in these fishing and aquaculture activities remains minimal, although a few success stories exist and some government efforts have been made to address this disparity (Klain et al.

2014; Silver 2014).

While Federal and Provincial governments assert sovereignty over waters and resources within the Canadian exclusive economic zone (EEZ)2 on the BC coast, many coastal First

Nations hold a different perception regarding governance authority and sovereignty in marine waters (Atleo 2004; Menzies 2010; Ayers et al. 2012). For example, within their home lands and oceans, the Heiltsuk First Nation recognizes Gvi’ilas, the guiding law that consists of principles that inform Heiltsuk understanding of place (Harkin 1996; White 2006; Housty et al. 2014).

Recognizing that Gvi’ilas guides the Heiltsuk to pursue a collective “power of place” helps to better contextualize Harris’ (2001) observation that Heiltsuk assertions regarding their territorial boundaries and governance authority do not align, and often conflict with, Federally delineated and regulated fishing management areas. As Harris (2001) writes, government fisheries management regimes “assume the territoriality of the Canadian state” with the effect of

“diminishing Heiltsuk efforts to be recognized as a political community with the authority to govern resource use in their traditional territory” (p.196).

On land, GIS has long been employed to document Indigenous territorial boundaries and synthesize data regarding significant resource sites and cultural uses (Chapin et al. 2005; Egan

2012; Palmer and Rundstrom 2013; Blomely 2014). Indigenous-initiated mapping, particularly

2 The EEZ is a recognized jurisdictional marine area, extending from the coastline to a distance of 200 nautical miles (nmi). This region provides for sovereign jurisdictions which include establishing artificial islands and barriers, marine scientific research, and conservation/preservation measures within the country’s boundaries (www.un.org).

3 that which demonstrates continuous use and management, has been central to First Nations’ resource management and planning, court cases, and treaty negotiations (Tobias 2000, 2009;

Freeman 2011; Gilmore and Young 2012). Because clam gardens are marine harvest sites initiated and cultivated by Heiltsuk ancestors, identifying how they overlap with contemporary

Heiltsuk harvest sites, as well as Federally and Provincially identified areas open to shellfish aquaculture, offers a tangible and timely opportunity to explore overlapping territorialities and changing access in contested ocean space (e.g., Brown et al. 2008; Harris and Millerd 2010).

1.2 Project Impetus and Research Objectives

The aim of this research was to gather and synthesize data regarding the location of clam gardens and other activities within the marine territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation on the central coast of BC. This aim was conceived in an effort to document, enumerate, and further examine instances of overlap between clam gardens and present-day activities related specifically to shellfish. The project was developed iteratively with and approved by the Heiltsuk Integrated

Management Department (HIRMD). A research protocol for work with human subjects was also approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Office. The final GIS database and maps have been returned to and will remain the sole property of HIRMD.

The thesis research itself consisted of three objectives. First, create a data base and base map which identified documented Heiltsuk clam gardens and contemporary intertidal harvest sites. Second, overlay the base map with polygons representing areas identified in Provincial and

Federal documents as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases. Third, enumerate and discuss overlaps between clam gardens, Heiltsuk shellfish harvest and use sites, and areas identified as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases. Data

4 sources for this work included Heiltsuk marine resource harvest and use surveys, transcripts of key informant interviews housed in HIRMD, coordinates of clam gardens documented by

Heiltsuk and academic archaeologists and re-confirmed with GPS during fieldwork, and two key government documents regarding shellfish aquaculture expansion.

As will be elaborated in the next two chapters, research findings demonstrate that overlapping marine territorialities are at play in Heiltsuk territory. This creates the potential for conflict, especially should government-initiated shellfish aquaculture expansion impact Heiltsuk access to intertidal spaces. While several researchers have examined spatial ocean resource conflicts on the BC coast qualitatively (Deur et al. 2013, 2015; Harris 2001, 2002, 2008; Harris and Millerd 2010), quantitative support for these arguments remains limited in the literature

(Joyce and Cannessa 2009; Joyce and Satterfield 2010). This thesis contributes a case study that illustrates overlapping Heiltsuk and State territorialities in contested ocean space and contributes to growing literature on the implications of clam gardens to contemporary oceans governance in

BC.

1.3 Outline of the Thesis

The remaining chapters of this thesis include the thesis Manuscript (2.0) and the thesis

Conclusions (3.0). Chapter two contains the research manuscript, which further contextualizes the research in relevant literature, discusses the research methods, and elaborates key findings.

This manuscript has been formatted for future publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. The concluding chapter summarizes overarching arguments and contributions, and discusses possible future research directions. The five appendixes included at the end of the thesis include: (1) a detailed background on Clam Garden morphology and the importance of

5 clam gardens to coastal First Nations Communities; (2) potential shellfish aquaculture sites which fell within the research study area, deemed by British Columbia (BC) to have greatest harvest potential as determined through an established site capability index (SCI) (SCCA 1997);

(3) Heiltsuk cultural and harvest sites included in project base maps; (4) a copy of University of

Guelph REB agreements; and, (5) the project MoU established with Heiltsuk leadership.

6

2 MANUSCRIPT

Cartography and contested ocean space: an analysis of intertidal shellfish harvest spaces in the territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation.

Katrina Stephany Department of Geography, University of Guelph

Jennifer Silver Department of Geography, University of Guelph

Abstract: While GIS has been frequently used in analysis of Indigenous-State conflicts regarding terrestrial spaces, it has not been used to the same extent in contested ocean space. Using digital mapping, this research identifies and enumerates instances of spatial overlap between Heiltsuk-modified intertidal sites for shellfish cultivation and harvest (i.e., ‘clam gardens’) and ocean spaces identified in Federal and Provincial documents as open for private shellfish aquaculture tenures. The overlaps identified in this project quantitatively illustrate overlapping territorialities and suggest the potential for future marine resource conflicts. The paper demonstrates that cartography attentive to modified and cultivated ocean spaces may be an important tool for coastal First Nations as they continue to identify priority areas for planning and negotiation, as well as engage larger questions about rights and title in marine spaces.

2.1 Introduction

Conflicts over ocean space and marine resource use between national governments and

Indigenous nations and communities occur around the globe (Valencia and Vanderzwaag, 1989;

Mulrennan and Scott 2000; Dorsett 2007; Erueti and Charters, eds. 2007; McCormack 2013).

Questions of sovereignty and best economic practices, as well as differing opinions toward how to utilize and conserve space and resources, often ignite these conflicts. Also at play in these conflicts is the fact that settler societies tend to view oceans as asocial spaces, distinct from land and separate from human culture and relationships (Jackson 1995; Steinburg 1999).

The origins, politics, and impacts of Indigenous-Settler contestations over land and sea space have been addressed by Indigenous scholars, geographers, and historians (C. Harris 2002;

Murton 2007; D. Harris 2008; Coulthard 2014). In BC, Deur et al. (2013) remind us that settlers

7 often claimed traditional Indigenous resources and resource areas (marine and terrestrial) for their own and transformed these places by engaging in their preferred cultural, cultivation, and economic practices (pg. 13). These actions dispossessed First Nations from important territory and harvest areas, and by virtue of the settler legal system that developed, complicate contemporary efforts by nations to reassert rights and title over homeland spaces (Harris 2008;

Deur et al. 2013; Blomley 2014). While work on First Nations’ ocean territoriality and marine resources management in BC exists (Newell 1993; Harris 2001; Atleo 2004), focused attention on the politics of and contestations over ocean space is necessary (Turner et al. 2013; Augustine and Dearden 2014; Silver 2014).

Harris (2008) suggests that “[c]onflict over territory lies at the heart of colonialism” (pg. 9).

This paper, based on research undertaken in the territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation located in the central coast region of BC, identifies, enumerates, and discusses spatial overlaps between

Indigenous sites of marine cultivation (called ‘clam gardens’) and harvest and state-identified sites for shellfish aquaculture. Facilitated by extensive and sophisticated resource use inventories initiated and compiled by Heiltsuk leadership, ArcGIS was used to synthesize and map the physical locations of clam gardens and present-day Heiltsuk intertidal resource harvest sites. The resulting base map was then overlaid with polygons representing areas identified as open to future application and privatization in Federal and Provincial shellfish aquaculture expansion and planning documents. Analysis revealed numerous instances of spatial overlap between mapped features. As will be discussed, these overlaps provide quantitative support for

Harris’ (2008) assertion and demonstrate the potential for future conflict over ocean spaces and marine resources on the BC Central coast.

8

2.2 Scholarly Context

2.2.1 Contested Ocean Space

In many places, Indigenous peoples seek to retain access to marine resources and to reassert governance authority over territorial ocean spaces. For example, in New Zealand, legislative policies continue to catalyze legal battles between the State and Maori communities regarding ownership and access (Dorsett 2007). In Hawai’i, Indigenous communities and fishers seek to retain opportunities for both commercial and subsistence fishing adjacent to their lands

(McCormack 2013). In Canada, where rights and access to intertidal and foreshore spaces are legally categorized as the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government (often intertidal) and/or

Federal Government (foreshore and Exclusive Economic Zone), First Nations, Inuit, or Métis nations seek greater resource access and recognized governance authority through the courts, by obtaining commercial licenses, by pursuing self-driven management planning, and through protest (Newell 1993; UBCIC 2005; Schreiber 2006; Curry et al. 2014).

For many Indigenous peoples, particularly those whose home territories are coastal, separation between land and ocean is not conceptually distinct; oceans are often understood as integral to territory, central to culture, and as foundational to key governance practices, life experiences, and even personal identity (Jackson 1995; Mulrennan and Scott 2000). British

Columbia (BC) presents an appropriate case study regarding the question of contested space for two reasons. First, original treaties were never established for a majority of First Nations in this province. This meant that dispossession and the creation of a reserve system occurred without any formal negotiation or compensation process (Usher et al. 1992). This is especially important for understanding current contestations over marine harvest rights on the West Coast. Second, although it was recognized that many coastal First Nations relied on marine resources,

9 reservation boundaries ended where the land stopped and the water began (Harris 2008). The access that these communities have to marine resources for commercial use and for food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) purposes has transformed and/or diminished over time (Harris 2008).

As a result, Indigenous peoples, local commercial and local-scale fishers, and resource communities on the West Coast are apprehensive about their futures, as their fisheries face

“uncertainty about resource and markets, unprecedented structural changes in the industry, pressures from tough new environmental laws to protect endangered stocks, and from treaties with First Nations” (McRae and Pearse 2004:1). Government agencies, such as the DFO, are attempting to address these anxieties through governance efforts which include privatized marine tenures for aquaculture, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), designed to manage scarce resources and improve collaboration with local communities and

Indigenous groups (Sloan 2004; Ban et al. 2008, 2013; Augustine and Dearden 2014).

2.2.2 Shellfish Governance in BC

In Canada, the Federal government is charged with jurisdiction over commercial fisheries and shipping, as well as power over First Nations’ Reserves, treaty obligations, and land rights

(Howlett and Rayner 2003:174). Within the Federal government, there are three different agencies which hold power over decision making: the DFO, Environment Canada, and the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Howlett and Rayner 2003). In BC, the Provincial

Government is concerned with property, civil rights, and regulating fluvial, estuary, and tidal areas contained within the province (Howlett and Rayner 2003:174). Finally, First Nations are granted rights to undertake and manage FSC resource harvests within their communities – but their management rights can often be overseen, regulated, and even infringed by both Federal and Provincial authorities (Howlett and Rayner 2003).

10

Howlett and Rayner (2003) suggest that shellfish aquaculture planning in Canada is complicated by differing laws and jurisdictions between involved regulatory bodies (pg. 174). In terms of Heiltsuk management of shellfish resources, this complexity is illustrated through conflicting management policies between the Province of BC, the Federal government, and the

Heiltsuk nation. For example, the Provincial Government began the Shellfish Development

Initiative (SDI) to increase the total space under private ocean tenure for shellfish aquaculture and the profitability of the shellfish aquaculture sector (Silver, 2014:430). Advocates of the SDI claimed that this strategy would serve to offer greater economic development opportunity in remote coastal First Nations communities (Silver, 2014:430). However, several communities have experienced less-than-anticipated economic benefits to date. Part of this discrepancy has resulted from differing needs, expectations, and capacities of the communities involved and tensions between private and communal marine property regimes (Silver 2014).

In 2010, the DFO assumed the responsibility for licensing aquaculture operations from the Province of BC, as part of the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy which began in

1995 (IMFP 2013:7). This strategy was designed to expand geoduck (Panopea generosa) harvests on the West coast. In BC, complex management decisions are enhanced by questions of

Aboriginal Rights and Title over ocean space which remain unresolved through treaties and the courts. Ancient mariculture sites on the Northwest Coast of North America (clam gardens) are an example of Indigenous resource management features which not only demonstrate difference in management practices between the Canadian government and First Nations’ communities, but could generate future potential conflicts in the DFO’s efforts to expand privatized aquaculture on the West Coast. As I will discuss next, clam gardens raise questions about oceans governance authority and territorial sovereignty.

11

2.2.3 Clam gardens

The term ‘clam garden’ refers to a form of shellfish cultivation and management developed by coastal First Nations well before the first European settlers arrived (Fowler and

Lepofsky 2011; Groesbeck et al. 2014; Deur et al. 2015; Lepofsky et al. 2015). These features have distinctive morphologies, which include a constructed rock wall at the low tide line and evidence of beach clearing and deliberate management (Harper 1995:2; Lepofsky et al. 2015).

The concept of clam gardens, or “clam terraces” was first introduced when John Harper noticed these features during aerial surveys along the Broughton Archipelago in 1995 (Harper 1995).

Harper noticed a large number of walled clam beaches which had become visible at low tide in

Johnstone Strait. These observations were important, because they forced researchers and resource planners to acknowledge that First Nations communities engaged in mariculture activities long before settler society began controlling shellfish harvests along the West coast.

Because clam gardens are human-constructed spaces that improve shellfish productivity, they raise pressing questions about ocean territory and governance authority in the context of changing marine property regimes for shellfish aquaculture and enclosure for marine conservation and management. Specifically, shellfish aquaculture expansion necessitates converting common property intertidal spaces into private tenure leases while MSP and MPAs involve the delineation of new boundaries and rules regarding human activity (Ayers et al. 2012;

Silver 2014). As a result, many coastal First Nations are grappling with whether to pursue shellfish aquaculture and how best to participate in MSP/MPA processes relevant to their territorial waters. While shellfish aquaculture may offer economic development opportunities, marine tenures must be leased from government agencies (Joyce and Satterfield 2010).

Moreover, while MSP and MPAs processes are increasingly inclusive and seek to address valid

12 conservation concerns, some Indigenous scholars and leaders see these sorts of processes as tied to the ongoing politics of settler colonialism (Alfred 2001; Coulthard 2014).

2.3 Study Area and Methods

This project was developed iteratively with, and approved by, the Heiltsuk Integrated

Management Department (HIRMD). A research protocol for work with human subjects was also approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Office. Three research objectives were pursued. The first objective was to create a database and base map containing Heiltsuk clam garden locations and contemporary intertidal harvest sites. The second objective was to overlay the base map with polygons representing areas identified in Provincial and Federal documents as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases. The third objective was to enumerate and discuss overlaps between clam gardens, Heiltsuk shellfish harvest and use sites, and areas identified as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases. Data sources for this project include Heiltsuk marine resource harvest and use surveys, information from transcripts of key informant interviews housed in HIRMD, the physical locations of

Heiltsuk clam gardens shared by other researchers and re-confirmed using GPS during my field stay, one Federal report that identifies areas open to potential geoduck aquaculture expansion

(IGMF 2013), and one Provincial report that identifies areas open to potential oyster, clam, and scallop aquaculture expansion (SCCA 1997). With the exception of the Federal and Provincial shellfish aquaculture reports, data was searched and collected during fieldwork conducted in

Bella Bella, BC between May-August 2014. The final GIS database and maps have been returned to, and will remain the sole property of, HIRMD. Software package ArcGIS 10.2.1 was used throughout the project.

13

Shown in Figure 1, the study area extends from Goose Island to King Island (west to east) and Yeo Island to the southern end of Hunter Island (north to south). The study area was narrowed to cover only a portion of Heiltsuk territory for two key reasons. First, the study area included only those areas within Heiltsuk territory where extensive clam garden surveys by members of HIRMD and archaeologists have been completed, where locational data regarding

Heiltsuk intertidal harvest sites had been gathered, and where Provincial and Federal maps showing potential shellfish aquaculture tenure sites existed (SCCA 1997; IGMF 2013). Second, I sought to exclude territorial areas immediately adjacent to, or which overlapped with, boundaries shared or contested by neighbouring First Nations. Goose Island was an exception to this exclusion, as the land mass falls within Area 7, which is established by the DFO for the purposes of regulating seafood harvests on the Central coast.

14

Figure 1: The study area within Heiltsuk territory. Map inset shows the relationship of the study area to the BC West Coast, with study area outlined in red. Cartography created from ArcGIS 10.2.1, by Katrina Stephany, 2015.

Research objective one was pursued during my stay in Bella Bella. Over the last several decades, the resource harvest sites used by Heiltsuk peoples for commercial, food, social, and ceremonial purposes have been pinpointed and documented through Heiltsuk-lead ‘Traditional

Use Studies’ (i.e., HTUS 2014). For this research, HIRMD gave permission to digitize all intertidal and nearshore locations from HTUS (2014) that fell in the study area. In addition, I was granted permission to include locational data recorded during twelve semi-structured interviews on clam harvesting, management, and use conducted by members of the larger ‘Clam Garden

15 Network’ (transcripts now housed at HIRMD).3 Finally, the geo-referenced locations of twenty- seven known clam gardens in the study area were shared by Heiltsuk leadership and/or Clam

Garden Network archaeologists. During my field stay I confirmed clam garden locations by visiting sites and recording them with a Garmin GPSmap 60Cx hand-held GPS unit.

To complete research objective two, I obtained and assessed Provincial and Federal reports which identified intertidal and nearshore areas with the potential for private shellfish aquaculture tenures. Spaces identified in these documents were digitized as polygons and used to create a layer in the ArcGIS database. First, I acquired a publically-available BC Government

Shellfish Culture Capability Appraisal drafted in 1997 that delineated possible tenure sites for clam, oyster, and scallop aquaculture (SCCA 1997). This report evaluated sites and mapped and labelled spaces as ‘Not Advisable’, ‘Medium’, or ‘Good’ based on biophysical criteria including salinity, temperature, and tidal height (SCCA 1997, 1-2). For this research, only those areas with a rating of medium and good, and that fell within the study area, were included. Next, I obtained a publically-available Federal Draft Integrated Geoduck Aquaculture Management Framework

(IGMF 2013) and assessed corresponding online maps that delineated ocean spaces throughout coastal BC to a depth of 30m and indicated, by colour, how applications for geoduck aquaculture tenures would be considered.4

Whereas SCCA (1997) inventoried and mapped potential tenure areas based largely on biophysical characteristics, IGMF (2013) delineated areas by distinguishing whether they had been previously harvested in recent wild geoduck fishery openings: spaces were either ‘green’

3 See more on the Clam Garden Network here: http://clamgarden.com/ 4 The Federal Government has kept geoduck aquaculture to a limited number of sites in the Strait of Georgia region between Vancouver Island and the Southern Mainland Coast. However, IGMF (2013) is a draft framework that seeks to guide “coast-wide opportunities for geoduck aquaculture” (pg. 4). It was circulated for public review and consultation purposes during late 2013 and into 2014. The consultation period on this draft has concluded, but a final framework has not yet been released. At last check, the corresponding maps no longer appear to be online, but were originally saved from: www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/aquaculture/index-eng.html

16

(no documented geoduck fishery), ‘yellow’ (harvested 1 to 3 times in the last four wild geoduck fishery openings), ‘red’ (harvested 4 of 4 times during last four wild geoduck fishery openings), or ‘no-go’ (due to water quality concerns or sanitation closures) (IGMF 2013:12). The draft framework document noted that applications to any space (no matter the colour) would be subject to review by regulatory agencies and considered for approval relative to: adjacent land- use activities; First Nations Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) use; impacts to other fisheries and habitats; species listed under the Federal Species at Risk Act; intertidal stream channels and fish spawning areas; sanitation/water quality requirements; size and density of proposed tenures; proximity to research and development areas; and, considerations of tenure transfer (IGMF 2013,

11).5 Yellow areas would be considered against the extent of their potential impacts on wild fishery harvests and be limited to 20 hectares, while red areas would generally not be considered unless made by a First Nation. First Nation applications for tenure within red areas would be limited to 5 hectares and any granted tenures would be non-transferrable. All coloured areas identified in the online maps that fell within the study area were included as polygons in the top map layer.

To complete research objective three, I overlaid the base map with the polygons that outlined spaces delineated in SCCA (1997) and IGMF (2013). Figure 2 shows an example of one resulting layered map. For reasons of privacy and confidentiality, HTUS harvest sites and sites derived from the key informant interviews are not visible in this map and will not be released publically. As will be discussed for the remainder of the paper, the enumeration of overlap between Heiltsuk shellfish harvest sites, clam gardens, and areas open to possible shellfish aquaculture reveal some important trends and suggest the potential for future conflict.

5 As this was a ‘framework’ document, details regarding specific review procedures, timelines, and impact indicators were limited.

17

Figure 2: Proposed DFO and SCCA aquaculture sites within the study area. DFO geoduck tenure application areas (IGMF 2013) and Provincially-delineated sites categorized as ‘medium’ or ‘good’ for shellfish aquaculture (SCCA 1997).

2.4 Findings

Table 1 enumerates spatial overlap present between Heiltsuk and government aquaculture features mapped for this project. The table shows that there are important overlaps between

DFO-proposed geoduck tenure sites, SCCA locations, and traditional Heiltsuk harvest areas. In this section I present and discuss four key findings that, as I will come back to later in the paper, support three broader arguments. These three arguments include discussions of the ways current

DFO aquaculture expansion proposals may serve to increase resource conflicts, reduce access to

18 important cultural/harvest areas for First Nations, and potentially limit research understandings for the significance of clam gardens as sites of active territoriality.

Table 1: Spatial overlaps for shellfish mariculture sites within Heiltsuk territory. Total area and number of State- defined green, yellow, red, and no-go geoduck tenure sites and counts of spatial overlap with SCCA sites, confirmed clam gardens, and Heiltsuk-identified HTUS areas.

Total No. of Clam No. of SCCA No. of Heiltsuk Harvest Area (km2) Gardens Sites Locations ‘Green’ 69 18 9 280 ‘Yellow’ 12 1 0 14 ‘Red’ 25 4 0 44 ‘No Go’ 12 4 1 10

Total 118 27 10 348

2.4.1 Finding one: spatial overlap between DFO planned aquaculture tenures and Heiltsuk intertidal harvest sites.

Within the study area, the DFO evaluated approximately 118 km2 of foreshore and intertidal space for its geoduck aquaculture potential. Zones coded as ‘green’ (i.e., areas with no known wild geoduck fisheries, and therefore, no stated limit tenure size in proposals) constitute

58.5% of the total area evaluated. However, eighteen of 27 clam gardens also fall into green coded areas. Here we see the possibility that shellfish aquaculture expansion in Heiltsuk territory could physically damage clam gardens. Moreover, having identified specific locations where very different governance and property regimes (i.e., Heiltsuk, communal and state, private) have been enacted and/or could be in the future, this finding quantitatively supports Harris’

(2001) observation that competing (indeed, overlapping) territorialities are at play on the central coast of BC.

19

2.4.2 Finding Two: spatial overlap between 1997 BC SCCA Study and clam garden sites

The second key finding is that 9 of 10 sites within the study area identified by the

Provincial Government in SCCA (1997) as viable for clam, oyster, and/or scallop aquaculture fall within spaces subsequently delineated as ‘green’ for geoduck aquaculture applications. This finding suggests potential for conflict even amongst different participants in shellfish aquaculture, and may place HIRMD’s interest in locally-owned shellfish aquaculture businesses

(see HIRMD 2011, and more to come in discussion) in tension with external applicants who may wish to grow different species and/or obtain different leases in the same places. It also reminds that Provincial and Federal government visions for shellfish aquaculture expansion in BC might differ, or perhaps, that Provincial priorities have shifted towards Federal interests in geoduck aquaculture expansion over time. Finally, cause for concern is once again raised here that shellfish aquaculture tenures and shellfish farming activities (like beach leveling, or the use of

PVC tubing to protect juvenile geoduck) that take place on or adjacent to clam gardens could damage their rock wall terraces. Surveys to locate clam gardens and risk assessments regarding potential damage from a range of activities should take place throughout coastal BC.

2.4.3 Finding Three: Overlap between DFO geoduck aquaculture tenures and total Heiltsuk shellfish harvest/cultural use patterns.

Within the study area, 294 of the 348 (84.4%) Heiltsuk harvest features (clam gardens and HTUS sites) mapped for the project fall within ‘green’ and ‘yellow’ DFO geoduck tenure sites. This high occurrence of spatial overlap is likely related to the large area covered by both green and yellow polygons (81 km²). However, it is interesting to note that only 54 (15.5%) of the study area features fall within the 37 km² area covered by ‘red’ and ‘no-go’ polygons

20 together. In addition to raising questions about whether spaces with clam gardens may also be attractive for shellfish aquaculture, this finding suggests significant potential for Heiltsuk access to contemporary shellfish harvest sites to be affected should expansion occur. Ideally, the final version of the DFO Integrated Geoduck Aquaculture Management Framework will further clarify just how First Nations’ intertidal and nearshore harvest areas (for FSC, as well as commercial) are to be considered and weighted in the geoduck aquaculture application review process. First Nation-driven research that assesses and categorizes the economic, cultural and food security implications of geoduck aquaculture expansion may also be appropriate.

2.4.4 Finding Four: Existing spatial overlap between identified clam garden sites and HTUS locations.

Although privacy and confidentiality restrictions mean that the specific locations of clam gardens cannot be shown on publically-circulated maps, the digitized maps of HTUS (2013) data and locations discussed the interview transcripts suggest that intertidal harvesting for clams, cockles, and other species has occurred on or adjacent to all 27 clam gardens identified within the study area, and that some clam gardens remain particularly important sources of commercial and/or food, social, and ceremonial resources today. This suggests that clam gardens constructed and cultivated by Heiltsuk ancestors have been harvested by multiple generations of Heiltsuk and could indicate that clam garden management served to increase shellfish productivity and frequency.

2.5 Discussion and Conclusions

I have now presented four key findings that emerged through the research. Notably, clam garden sites in the study area often fall within spaces identified in government classification and

21 mapping studies as open for possible shellfish aquaculture expansion. Moreover, HIRMD- gathered data (HTUS 2013) indicate that clam gardens constructed by Heiltsuk ancestors were cultivated and/or harvested over multiple generations, and suggest that several clam garden spaces continue to be regularly harvested by Heiltsuk members today. These findings show that, just as on land, GIS is well-suited to organize, synthesize, and represent quantitative and qualitative information in ways that engage spatially with territorial ocean spaces. With the remainder of the paper, I will make three broader arguments supported by the findings.

First, the research identified and enumerated overlap amongst DFO-delineated polygons coloured to identify spaces and signify review procedure for geoduck aquaculture applications;

Heiltsuk clam gardens and intertidal/nearshore harvest areas; and, Provincially-identified sites for possible clam, oyster, and scallop tenures. This demonstrates that there are competing interests in ocean spaces within the study area and raises the possibility of Heiltsuk resistance to shellfish aquaculture expansion if tenures were granted or developed without the explicit approval of Heiltsuk leadership. However, HIRMD suggests that Heiltsuk leadership may well choose to pursue or permit shellfish aquaculture operations within their territory for the economic benefit of Heiltsuk members (HIRMD 2011). More fundamental than competing interests, then, is the issue of ‘competing territorialities’ as outlined by Harris (2001) and quantitatively reconfirmed by this research. Specifically, shellfish aquaculture operates under a property model wherein private access rights to specific ocean spaces are leased by sector participants (including participating First Nations) from issuing government departments (Silver

2013, 2014). This reaffirms the sovereign authority of the state in oceans governance and brings in steady revenue to government from annual tenure fees. First Nations in other parts of the province have suggested frustration with these contradictions (Joyce and Cannessa 2009; Joyce

22 and Satterfield 2010). The state-led private marine tenure model for shellfish aquaculture stands to be perceived all the more inflammatory with clam gardens now the focus of significant academic attention and public interest.

Second, the area covered by DFO-delineated ‘green’ and ‘yellow’ polygons in the study area, and the number of HTUS (2013) harvest sites that fall within them, indicate that shellfish aquaculture expansion could reduce the access that Heiltsuk members have to harvest and has the potential to physically damage identified and yet-to-be identified clam garden structures. Both opportunities and limitations of MSPs and MPAs come into view here. While each might help to identify and protect clam gardens, defray specific instances of conflict, or improve Heiltsuk access to specific sites, these management initiatives are not poised to resolve deeper legal and constitutional questions about Indigenous ocean spaces. This is important in the context of

Brown et al.’s (2008) observation that “jurisprudence on Aboriginal rights and title” and

“evidence of extensive occupation, management and use of these [foreshore] areas by First

Nations for fish weirs and clam gardens” (pg. 2) may open the door to future First Nation legal cases and claims to ocean territory. Moreover, it is also conceivable that some First Nation community-members and leaders will remain suspicious of the potential for MSP or MPA processes to complicate or contradict their pursuit of territorial claims, or to reinforce the governance authority of non-Indigenous governments and organizations. Indeed, Ayers et al.

(2010) note that the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission has raised concerns with the implications of MPA establishment for future treaty negotiations (pg. 262), and found in their own study that various Hul’qumi’num participants perceived MPA no take zones as a potential violation of Aboriginal Rights or as another way that the government might limit Indigenous fishing opportunities (pg. 270).

23

Finally, recalling that settler societies have tended to treat oceans as asocial spaces distinct from land and, as such, ‘empty’ spaces open to colonialized resource development

(Jackson 1995), research and public discussion of clam gardens needs to move away from a dialogue of ‘ancient’ archaeological features (e.g., Groesbeck et al. 2014; Jackley et al. 2015;

Lepofsky et al. 2015) and towards framing them as active territorial spaces. To be clear, many traditional knowledge holders and researchers have been instrumental in documenting and surveying clam gardens in order to better understand their importance culturally, economically, and ecologically to First Nations communities. Nevertheless, an opportunity to connect historic clam garden management with current harvest and governance practices may be lost if research trajectories and terminology remain focused on ‘ancient’ origins. Research that synthesizes and enumerates data about how clam garden spaces have been used by First Nations over time may help to remedy this, as might emerging efforts to reconstruct terraced walls and revitalize the cultural, management, and economic practices associated with clam garden spaces.6

As is true in many places, different understandings of ocean space are foundational to disagreements about marine resource management in BC that occur between Indigenous First

Nations and Settler governments. Mapping contested ocean space can serve to ‘bridge’ these differing understandings by documenting an array of activities and interests. However, as this research also reminds, tensions are deeply rooted in the fact that overlapping ocean territorialities exist and have yet to be reconciled legally or through a functioning ‘Nation-to-Nation’ governance relationship. From this perspective we can see that controversy stands to emerge if

State-administered property and access regimes change. While MSP and MPAs may help to improve consensus around particular issues, it seems likely that contestation will continue to

6 For example, see the e.g., the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve Clam Garden Restoration project: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/gulf/natcul/natcul6/natcul6b.aspx.

24 simmer so long as First Nations’ ocean territories remain broadly unacknowledged and legally unaddressed.

25

3 THESIS CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous peoples have a long history of active territorial management on the Northwest

Coast of North America (Turner and Berkes 2006; Turner et al. 2013). Clam gardens illustrate that, like landscapes, seascapes have been intentionally cultivated and have economically and nutritionally supported Nations for millennia (Turner and Berkes 2006; Cannon and Burchell

2009; Turner et al. 2011; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013). Using GIS mapping, this thesis has enumerated and examined the location of clam gardens and shellfish harvest sites. It reveals spatial overlap, competing territorialities, and raises questions about contemporary oceans governance processes. The remainder of this chapter will summarize findings, contributions, and future research opportunities.

3.1 Key Findings and Arguments

This research sought to better understand interrelationships amongst clam gardens, contemporary Heiltsuk shellfish harvest sites, and ocean spaces identified for potential shellfish aquaculture development via private marine tenure. The research objectives were to: create a GIS data base and base map which identified documented Heiltsuk clam gardens and contemporary intertidal harvest sites; overlay the base map with polygons representing areas identified in

Provincial and Federal documents as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases; and, enumerate and discuss overlaps between clam gardens, Heiltsuk shellfish harvest and use sites, and areas identified as open to application for private shellfish aquaculture tenure leases. The analysis presented in this thesis focused on enumerating and critically discussing overlaps between clam gardens, contemporary shellfish harvesting, and possible shellfish aquaculture expansion sites. The full GIS database and maps have been returned to Heiltsuk leadership.

26

The total space in the study area delineated as open to consideration for geoduck tenure by DFO in IGMF (2013) is 118km2. Of the 27 identified clam gardens in the study area, 18 fall within ‘green’ identified areas, one falls within ‘yellow’ identified areas, four fall within ‘red’ identified areas, and four fall within ‘no-go’ areas. This is important for two reasons. First, 19 identified clam gardens fall within spaces that, with final approval of the draft IGMF (2013) document, will be open to application for geoduck aquaculture (18 of these are within green spaces where proposed tenure size is not limited). Second, commercial geoduck fisheries

(described by Klain et al. 2014) have been occurring in close proximity to another 4 clam gardens. Having identified specific locations where very different governance and property regimes (i.e., Heiltsuk, communal and state, private) have been enacted and/or could be in the future, this key finding quantitatively supports Harris’ (2001) observation that competing

(indeed, overlapping) territorialities are at play on the central coast of BC.

In addition to overlap with clam gardens, areas delineated as ‘green’ and ‘yellow’ overlap with 280 of the 348 (80.5%) of the Heiltsuk shellfish harvest areas. This raises cause for concern that shellfish aquaculture tenures and shellfish farming activities (like beach leveling, or the use of PVC tubing to protect juvenile geoduck) that take place on or adjacent to clam gardens could damage their rock wall terraces. It also suggests the potential that Heiltsuk shellfish harvesters could be displaced should geoduck aquaculture expansion proceed and new private marine tenures become formalized. Ideally, the final version of the DFO Integrated Geoduck

Aquaculture Management Framework will further clarify just how First Nations’ intertidal and nearshore harvest areas (for FSC, as well as commercial) are to be considered and weighted in the geoduck aquaculture application review process.

27

Finally, the digitized maps of HTUS (2013) data and the interview transcripts suggest that intertidal harvesting for clams, cockles, and other species has occurred on or adjacent to all

27 clam gardens identified within the study area, and that some clam gardens remain particularly important sources of commercial and/or food, social, and ceremonial resources today. This suggests that clam gardens constructed and cultivated by Heiltsuk ancestors have been harvested by multiple generations of Heiltsuk and could indicate that clam garden management served to increase shellfish productivity and frequency. Particularly productive or frequently-harvested clam garden spaces identified through this project could be internally considered by HIRMD as candidates for focused study regarding continuity of use, traditional ownership, and governance regimes and/or for community reconstruction and management. Archaeologists, ethnographers, and HIRMD will no doubt continue to explore these avenues.

These key findings support three broader arguments. First, the findings demonstrated the potential for conflicting sovereign interests within the study area. Heiltsuk resistance and conflict could occur if the community is not explicitly included and collaborated with during the decision making process. The Heiltsuk are not inherently opposed to shellfish aquaculture proposals within their territory, and have expressed interest in the economic benefits to their community which shellfish aquaculture could bring. What is important is that Heiltsuk are consulted during the development phases and implementation of these projects, and have meaningful opportunity to deny, revise, and/or be involved in site-specific development. This is especially important, as clam gardens currently being surveyed in Heiltsuk territory pose new possibilities for Indigenous sovereign claims to marine harvest spaces.

Second, the findings suggest that current DFO shellfish aquaculture expansion efforts have the potential to negatively impact First Nations’ access to intertidal spaces. Researchers,

28 such as Ban et al. (2008), Augustine and Dearden (2014), Bendell (2015), Berkes (2015), Brown et al. (2010), Dumbauld et al. (2009), Jackley et al. (2015), Lepofsky et al. (2015) and Silver

(2014), have argued concerns that failure to include First Nations communities in marine resource planning policies can result in marginalization and loss of access to important harvest areas and economic opportunities. Clam gardens suggest a history of continued use, management and exclusive familial ‘ownership’ within specific intertidal ocean spaces (White

2006; Nefstead 2012). As such, clam gardens remain important to coastal First Nations – not only as cultural sites, but as potentially central to future discussions of marine harvest access rights and Aboriginal title. Rather than risking potential damage to clam garden sites (both identified and not), it remains important that these areas are fully surveyed, and the potential impacts of privatized aquaculture on these important harvest sites are minimized, before further expansion of geoduck tenure locations is established.

Finally, this thesis argues for a perceptual shift towards recognizing clam gardens as active First Nations’ territorial spaces. While there have been important research contributions for producing better understandings of Indigenous mariculture as illustrative of best governance practices and sustainable conservation harvest efforts, a lot of discussion tends to frame these practices as ‘ancient’ mariculture rather than promoting a paradigm shift which fully recognizes these features as relevant and evolving territorial spaces.

3.2 Research Contributions and Future Research Opportunities

As is true in many places, different understandings of ocean space are foundational to disagreements about marine resource management in BC that occur between Indigenous First

Nations and Settler governments. Mapping contested ocean space can serve to ‘bridge’ these differing understandings by documenting an array of activities and interests. This case study

29 supports the arguments of several researchers (Bennett et al. 2015; Joyce and Cannessa 2009;

Paasi 2011; Stelzenmuller et al. 2013) that GIS can be a powerful tool for Indigenous peoples as they assert sovereignty ocean spaces and seek greater authority in governance processes surrounding fisheries management, MPAs, and MSP. Moreover, GIS can be used outside of these State processes to help reveal how tensions that emerge through contemporary oceans governance are actually rooted competing territorialities.

A second contribution this of this research is the GIS database and maps that have now been returned to Heiltsuk leadership. Given colonial histories for appropriation of Indigenous knowledge and territories through cartography and research (Brealey 1995; Tuhiwai-Smith

2012), it is appropriate for the Heiltsuk to retain the rights to control the maps created for this research, and to use the compiled data-bases for means of their choosing. Other project deliverables, also in accordance with the research MoU, included two educational posters for

Heiltsuk use internally. These posters were designed to assist HIRMD in community education regarding clam garden research, in order to aid community members in future identification of these features and to help the community better understand the importance clam gardens have in future resource use planning.

This case study suggests a need for social science research regarding public perceptions of and discourses about clam gardens. As stated previously, it is important to understand clam gardens, not as sites of ‘ancient’ mariculture, but as evidence of current, active Indigenous territorial spaces. This shift, both academically and in public understanding, is necessary for ensuring inclusion and collaboration of First Nations’ knowledge and practice in future marine governance legislation. Inclusion of these systems of knowledge in contemporary governance

30 decisions may serve to increase First Nations community well-being, ensure sustainable marine harvests for the future, and ultimately serve to reduce current sovereign conflicts in ocean space.

Brown et al. (2010) and Nefstead (2012) have suggested that coastal First Nations may consider petitioning Provincial and/or Federal courts with the argument that clam gardens demonstrate their longstanding use, occupancy, and management of territorial ocean waters.

While it is beyond the scope of this research to comment on the likelihood of future actions by the Heiltsuk or any other coastal First Nations, the ongoing cartographic documentation and analysis of Indigenous sites, narratives, and knowledge in ocean space stands to strengthen this possibility. Cartography of this nature serves to conclusively demonstrate that, like Indigenous landscapes, Indigenous seascapes are complex spaces defined by unique socio-political and socio-ecological characteristics. It is precisely this type of understanding that has advanced terrestrial Rights and Title claims.

Finally, the base maps created for this project can be used for future clam garden studies by First Nations leadership as well as archaeologists, ecologists, and social scientists.

Specifically, as greater numbers of clam gardens are identified and, spatial analysis tools available in GIS may allow for statistical analysis that help to predict or quantify clam garden locations. This data base may assist researchers to make more expedient decisions for where clam gardens are most likely to be found and to speak to statistical relationships between clam gardens and other topological, oceanographic, ecological, and human-constructed features.

31

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Affolderbach, J., Clapp, R.A. and Hayter, R. 2012. Environmental Bargaining and Boundary Organizations: Remapping British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 102(6). 1391-1408.

Ahousaht. 2009. Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General). http://uuathluk.ca/Nuu-chah-nulth_Fishing_Rights_decision.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2015.

Alfred, T. 2001. Deconstructing the British Columbia Treaty Process. (In) Dispatches from the Cold Seas: Indigenous Views on Self-Government, Ecology and Identity, eds. C. Rattray and T. Mustonen. Temere Polytechnic.

Anderson, A.C. (n.d.) Fort McLoughlin Report. [Unpublished Manuscript]. HBCA, Manitoba. B.120/e/1.

Anderson W.A. 1902. [Telegraph Communications]. Letter to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, Ontario, 28 Feb 1902. Fisheries Correspondence, File No. 2780, Letter No. 11345.

Atleo, R. 2004. Tsawalk: a Nuu-chah-nulth worldview. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Augustine, S. and Dearden, P. 2014. Changing paradigms in marine and coastal conservation: A case study of clam gardens in the Southern Gulf Islands, Canada. The Canadian Geographer. 58(3). 305-314.

Ban, N., Chris Picard, and Amanda CJ Vincent. 2008. Moving toward spatial solutions in marine conservation with indigenous communities. Ecology and Society. 13(1). 2008.

Ban, N., Bodtker, K. M., Nicolson, D., Robb, C. K., Royle, K., & Short, C. 2013. Setting the stage for marine spatial planning: Ecological and social data collation and analyses in Canada's Pacific waters. Marine Policy. 39. 11-20.

Bella Bella. 2014. Qqs Projects Society: Supporting Youth, Culture and Environment. www.qqsprojects.org. Accessed June 22, 2014.

Bendell, L.I. 2015. Favored use of anti-predator netting (APN) applied for the farming of clams leads to little benefits to industry while increasing nearshore impacts and plastics pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 91(1). 22-28.

Berkes, F. 2015. Coasts for People: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Coastal and Marine Resource Management. New York, NY: Routledge.

32

Binnema, T., Ens, G.J. and Macleod, R.C. (eds). 2001. From Rupert’s Land to Canada. Edmonton, AB:The University of Alberta Press.

Bissett, J. 1877. Report to Chief Factor James Graham, 12 Oct 1877. [Manuscript]. HBCA, Winnipeg, Manitoba. A.11/85 fos. 466, 466d.

Blomley, N. 2014. Making Space for Property. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 104(6). 1291-1306.

Braun, B. 2002. The Intemperate Rainforest: Nature, Culture and Power on Canada’s West Coast. Minneapolis, MN: The Regents of the University of Minnesota.

Brealey, K. 1995. Mapping them “Out”: Euro-Canadian Cartography and the Appropriation of the Nuxalk and Ts’ilhqot’in First Nations’ Territories, 1793-1916. The Canadian Geographer. 39(2). 140-156.

Brealey, K. 2002. First (National) space: (A)boriginal (re)mappings of British Columbia. [PhD Dissertation]. Presented to the University of British Columbia.

Brody, H. 1983. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Brown, M., Mildon, D. and Woodward and Company. 2010. The Proof is in the Putting: Clam Gardens and Fish Weirs as Proof of Aboriginal Title in British Columbia. [Conference Proceedings]. 12th Annual International Congress of Ethnobiology. Tofino, BC.

Burchell, M., Cannon, A., Hallmann, N., Schwarcz, H.P. and Schone, B.R. 2013. Inter-site variability in the season of shellfish collection on the central coast of British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science. 40. 626-636.

Caldwell, M.E., Lepofsky, D., Combes, G., Washington, M., Welch, J.R. and Harper, J.R. 2012. A Bird’s Eye View of Northern Coast Salish Intertidal Resource Management Features, Southern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology. 7(2). 219- 233.

Canada Department of Marine and Fisheries, Geographic Branch. 1913. Bella Bella: Handbook of the Indians of Canada. 1-60.

Cannon, A. 2000. Settlement and Sea-levels on the Central Coast of British Columbia: Evidence from Shell Midden Cores. American Antiquity. 67-77.

Carlson, R.L. 1970. Preliminary Report: Excavations at FaSu, 1970. [Manuscript]. Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, B.C.

Carlson, K.T. 2001. A Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Vancouver, BC: Douglas and McIntyre LTD.

33

Carpenter, J., Rath, J., Reid, T,I., Campbell, A., Freeman, W., Gladstone, W., Wallace, E., Brown, B., Hall, H. and Windsor, E. 2007. The Words in Digital Heiltsuk-English Dictionary, version 2.1. Bella Bella, BC: Heiltsuk Education Cultural Center (HCEC).

Castleden, H., Mulrennan, M. and Godlewska, A. 2012. Community‐based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples in Canadian geography: Progress? An editorial introduction. The Canadian Geographer. 56(2). 155-159.

CBC. 2015. North by Northwest Podcast, interview with Dr. Dana Lepofsky on clam gardens. 49:45 – 52:41. www.cbc.ca. Accessed 2/4/15.

CBC News. 2014. Geoduck fishery dispute prompts First Nation Blockade Threat. www.cbc.ca. Accessed 4/1/2015.

CCIRA. 2015. Heiltsuk Nation. Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance. www.ccira.ca. Accessed July 3, 2015.

CCRD. 2015. Bella Bella. www.ccrd-bc.ca. Accessed July 2, 2015.

Coulthard, G.S. 2014. Indigenous Americas: Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. University of Minnesota Press.

Cruikshank, J. 1992. Invention of Anthropology in British Columbia’s Supreme Court: Oral Tradition as Evidence in Delgamuukw v. B.C. BC Studies. 95. 25-42.

Deur, D., Turner, N.J., Clan Chief Adam Dick (Kwaxsistalla), Daisy Sewid-Smith (Mayanilth) and Kim Recalma-Clutesi (Oqwilowgwa). 2013. Subsistence and Resistance on the British Columbia Coast: Kingcome Village’s Estuarine Gardens as Contested Space. BC Studies. 179. 13-37.

Deur, D., Adam Dick, Kim Recalma-Clutesi and Nancy J. Turner. 2015. Kwakwaka’wakw “Clam Gardens”: Motive and Agency in Traditional Northwest Coast Mariculture. Human Ecology. 1-12.

DFO. 2014. DFO Marine Fish Habitat Information Requirements for Finfish Aquaculture Projects. www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca. Accessed June 22. 2014.

Dorsett, S. 2007. An Australian Comparison on Native Title to the Foreshore and Seabed. (In) Erueti, A. and Charters, C. (eds). Maori Property Rights and the Foreshore and Seabed: The Last Frontier. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.

Donatuto, J., Grossman, E., Konovsky, J., Grossman, S. and Campbell, L.W. 2014. Indigenous Community Health and Climate Change: Integrating Biophysical and Social Science Indicators. Coastal Management. 42(4). 355-373.

34

Drucker, P. 1938. [Phillip Drucker Papers]. Field Notes. National Anthropology Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology. Ms4516.

Dumbauld, B.R., Ruesink, J.L. and Rumrill, S.S. 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the estuarine environment: A review with application to oyster and clam culture in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290. 196-223.

Egan, B. 2012. Sharing the colonial burden: Treaty-making and reconciliation in Hul’qumi’num territory. The Canadian Geographer. 1-21.

Elder, G.H., Pavalko, E.K. and Clipp, E.C. 1993. Working with Archival Data. (In) Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.

FAO. 2014. Land Tenure. www.fao.org. Accessed June 22, 2014.

Fedje, D. and Mathewes, R. 2005. Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Fisheries Correspondence. 1912. [Letter]. Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa. 31 Jan 1912. File No. 6, Letter No. 714137.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. North Coast Intertidal Bivalve Harvest Strategy. Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Pacific Region. 1-16.

Fort McLoughlin Journal. 1833. HBCA, Winnipeg, Manitoba. B.120/a/1.

Fort McLoughlin Report. 1834. HBCA, Winnipeg, Manitoba. B.120/e/1.

Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Fowler, C. and Lepofsky, D. 2011. (Chap 17) Traditional Resource and Environmental Management. (In) Ethnobiology. Anderson, E.N., Pearsall, D., Hunn, E. and Turner, N. (eds). Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 285-304.

Freeman, M.R. 2011. Looking back—and looking ahead—35 years after the Inuit land use and occupancy project. The Canadian Geographer. 55(1). 20-31.

Gillis, D. 2015. The untold story behind the central coast herring fishery fiasco. [Blog Post]. The Commonsense Canadian. www.commonsensecanadian.ca. Accessed 4/8/15.

Gilmore, M. and Young, J. 2012. The use of participatory mapping in ethnobiological research, biocultural conservation, and community empowerment: A case study from the Peruvian Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology. 32(1). 6-29.

Government of Canada [Website]. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Acts, Agreements, Treaties and Land Claims. www.aadnc.gc.ca. Accessed 4/8/15.

35

Gregory, R., Failing, L. and Harstone, M. 2008. Meaningful Resource Consultations with First Peoples: Notes from British Columbia. Environment. 50(1). 36-45.

Groesbeck, A., Salomon, A., Rowell, K., Puckett, M., Lepofsky, D. and Clark, T. 2011. Quadra Island Clam Garden Field Report. (Unpublished Report). 1-21.

Groesbeck, A.S., Rowell, K., Lepofsky, D. and Salomon, A.K. 2014. Ancient Clam Gardens Increased Shellfish Production: Adaptive Strategies from the Past Can Inform Food Security Today. PloS One. 1-13.

Haggan, N., Turner, N., Carpenter, J., Jones, J.T., Mackie, Q. and Menzies, C. 2006. 12,000+ Years of Change: Linking traditional and modern ecosystem science in the Pacific Northwest. [Working paper #2006-02]. Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia.

Harkin, M. 1988. History, Narrative, and Temporality: Examples from the Northwest Coast. Ethnohistory. 35(2). 99-130.

Harkin, M. 1996. Engendering Discipline: Discourse and Counterdiscourse in the Methodist- Heiltsuk Dialogue. Ethnohistory. 43(4). 643-661.

Harley, J.B. 1988. Maps, Knowledge and Power (Chap 8). From: D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels, eds. The Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge, Cambridge: University Press. 277-312.

Harley, J.B. 1989. Deconstructing the Map. Cartographica. 26(2). 1-20.

Harper, J., Haggarty, J. and Morris, M.C. 1995. Final Report: Broughton Archipelago Clam Terrace Survey. Coastal Ocean Resources Inc, Report File P95/16.

Harris, D.C. 2001. Territoriality, Aboriginal Rights, and the Heiltsuk Spawn-on Kelp Fishery. HeinOnline. 195. 1-44.

Harris, C. 2002. Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Harris, D. 2008. Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Harris, D. and Millerd, P. 2010. Food fish, commercial fish, and fish to support a moderate livelihood: characterizing Aboriginal and treaty rights to Canadian fisheries. Arctic Review on Law and Politics. 1. 82-107.

Hayter, R. 2003. “The war in the woods”: Post-Fordist restructuring, globalization, and the contested remapping of British Columbia’s forest economy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 93(3). 706-729.

36

Heaslip, R. 2008. Access Protocols and Social Identity in Kwakwaka’wakw Clam Management: From Colonialism to Cultural Revitalization. [Unpublished Thesis]. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University. Report No. 445.

Heikkila, K. and Fondahl, G. 2012. Co-managed research: non-Indigenous thoughts on an Indigenous toponymy project in northern British Columbia. Journal of Cultural Geography. 29(1). 61-86.

Heiltsuk Marine Use Plan. 2011. [Draft]. Heiltsuk Integrated Marine Use Plan.

Heiltsuk Traditional Territory Archaeological Overview Assessment (HTTAOA). 1997. Volume 1 Final Project Report. Prepared for: BC Archaeology Branch, Heiltsuk First Nation. Millennia Research Ltd.

Heiltsuk Marine Planning and MaPP. n.d. [Newsletter]. Prepared by the Heiltsuk Marine Use Planning Committee and Planning Staff. (Julia Carpenter, Marine Use Planning Coordinator).

Hirt, I. 2012. Mapping Dreams/Dreaming Maps: Bridging Indigenous and Western Geographical Knowledge. Cartographica. 47(2). 105-120.

Hobler, P.M. 1987. Measures of Acculturative Response to Trade on the Central Coast of B.C. Historical Archaeology. 21(1).

Hobler, P.M. 2000. Old Bella Bella, Genesis and Exodus. Urban History Review. 28(2). 6-18.

Hodgson, D.L. and Schoeder, R.A. 2002. Dilemmas of Counter-Mapping Community Resources in Tanzania. Development and Change. 33. 79-100.

Housty, W., Noson, A., Scoville, G., Boulanger, J., Jeo, R., Darimont, C. and Filardi, C. 2014. Grizzly bear monitoring by the Heiltsuk people as a crucible for First Nation conservation practice. Ecology and Society. 19(2). 1-16.

Howlett, M. and Rayner, J. 2004. (Not so) “Smart regulation”? Canadian shellfish aquaculture policy and the evolution of instrument choice for industrial development. Marine Policy. 28. 171-184.

HTCATP. 1977. Heiltsuk Tribal Council Autobiographies Taping Project: Autobiographies of the Elders. [Manuscript]. HCEC, Waglisla.

HTTAOA. 1997. Heiltsuk Traditional Territory Archaeological Overview Assessment. Volume 1. Final Project Report. (Prepared for) B.C. Archaeology Branch, Heiltsuk First Nation. Millennia Research Ltd.

37

Hunt, G. 1933. Fieldnotes from Bella Bella and miscellaneous Kwakiutl notes, 1897-1933, submitted to Franz Boas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Boas collection, 372 reel 21.

Hunter, J. 2015. B.C. treaty process in limbo after province pulls chief commissioner. The Globe and Mail. March 25, 2015. www.theglobeandmail.com. Accessed April 1, 2015.

Hurley, M.C. 2000. Aboriginal Title: The Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. [Background Paper, BP-459E]. Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament.

IGMF, 2013. Pacific Region Integrated Geoduck Management Framework. [Draft]. www.geoimf-cgipan-eg.pdf. Accessed 4/8/15.

IFMP. 2015. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Summary: Geoduck and Horse Clam Pacific Region. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Isabella, J. 2011. The Edible Landscape. Archaeology. 30-33.

Jackley, J., Gardner, L., Djunaedi, A. and Salomon, A.K. 2015. Ancient clam gardens, traditional management portfolios, and the resilience of coupled human-ocean systems. Ecology and Society.

Jackson, S. 1995. The water is not empty: cross-cultural issues in conceptualising sea space. Australian Geographer. 26(1). 87-96.

Joyce, A. and Canessa, R. 2009. Spatial and Temporal Changes in Access Rights to Shellfish Resources in British Columbia. Coastal Management. 37(6). 585-616.

Joyce, A.L. and Satterfield, T.A. 2010. Shellfish aquaculture and First Nations’ sovereignty: The quest for sustainable development in contested sea space. Natural Resources Forum. 34. 106- 123.

Kolko, J. 2012. Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving. www.ssir.org. Accessed September 15, 2015.

Laurier, E. 2012. Participant Observation. In Clifford, French, and Valentine (Eds.) Key methods in geography (116-130). London: Sage Publications.

Lepofsky, D. and Caldwell, M. 2013. Indigenous marine resource management on the Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes. 2(12). 1-12.

Lepofsky, D., Smith, N.F., Cardinal, N., Harper, J., Morris, M., (Elroy White), Gitla, Bouchard, R., Kennedy, D., Salomon, A.K., Puckett, M. and Rowell, K. 2015. Ancient Shellfish Mariculture on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity. 80(2). 236-259.

38

Louis, R.P. Johnson, J.T. and Pramono, A.H. 2012. Introduction: Indigenous Cartographies and Counter-Mapping. Cartographica. 47(2). 77-79.

McCormack, F. 2013. Commodities and Gifts in New Zealand and Hawaiian Fisheries. (In) Engaging with Capitalism: Cases from Oceania. McCormack, F. and Barclay, K. (eds) Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 53-81.

McLaren, D., Fedje, D., Hay, M.B., Mackie, Q., Walker, I.J., Shugar, D.H., Earner, J., Lian, O.B. and Neudorf, C. 2014. A post-glacial sea level hinge on the central Pacific coast of Canada. Quaternary Science Reviews. 97. 148-169.

Menzies, A. 1793. Menzies’ Journal of Vancouver’s Voyage II: 1793-1794. Transcript of the original in the British Museum. PABC, Victoria. A A 20 V28M. v.2. 592-645.

Moss, M.L. 2011. (Chap 1). The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries: An Introduction. (In) The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. Moss, M.L. and Cannon, A. (eds). Fairbanks, AK: The University of Alaska Press. 1-13.

Murton, J. 2007. Creating a Modern Countryside: Liberalism and Land Resettlement in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Nefstead, M. 2012. Aboriginal Rights to Clam Aquaculture in Heiltsuk Territory. [unpublished paper]. University of Victoria, Faculty of Law. 1-20.

Newell, D. 1993. Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada’s Pacific Coast Fisheries. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Nisga’a Tribal Council. 1993. Nisga’a: People of the Naas River. Vancouver, BC:Douglas and McIntyre LTD.

Norman, E.S. 2012. Cultural Politics and Transboundary Resource Governance in the Salish Sea. Water Alternatives. 5(1). 138-160.

North by Northwest. 2015. [CBC Podcast]. Interview with Dana Lepofsky and the Clam Garden Network. February 1, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/nxnw. Accessed, 5/7/15.

Olson, R.L. 1949. Field Notes from Bella Bella and Rivers Inlet. University of California Archives: The Bancroft Library, Berkley. Microfilm cu-23.1, no. 66. Six volumes, 1935- 1949.

Paasi, A. 2011. Geography, space and the re-emergence of topological thinking. Dialogues in Human Geography. 1(3). 299-303.

Pacific Region. 2012. RE: Development of a Community Harvest Plan for Food, Social and Ceremonial Intertidal Bivalve Harvest. (Unpublished Communication). Letter from the

39

Pacific Region Resource Management division of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to Chief C Councilor Marilyn Slett, Heiltsuk Tribal Council. August 2, 2012.

Palmer, M. and Rundstrom, R. 2013. GIS, Internal Colonialism, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 103(5). 1142-1159.

Pinkerton, E. and Silver, J. 2011. Cadastralizing or coordinating the clam commons: Can competing community and government visions of wild and farmed fisheries be reconciled? Marine Policy. 35. 63-72.

PMFAR. 2007. Pacific Fishery Management Area Regulations. [website amended 2011, and current to 2015-03-24]. Justice Laws Website. www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Accessed 4/9/15.

Powell, M. 2012. Divided Waters: Heiltsuk Spatial Management of Herring Fisheries and the Politics of Native Sovereignty. The Western Historical Quarterly. 43(4). 463-484.

Rich, E.E. (ed). 1941. The Letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, first series, 1824-1838. London: Hudson’s Bay Record Society.

Rohner, R.P. (ed). 1969. The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Diaries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coast from 1886 to 1931. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Rossiter, D.A. 2008. Negotiating Nature: Colonial Geographies and Environmental Politics in the Pacific Northwest. Ethics, Place and Environment: A Journal of Philosophy and Geography. 11(2). 113-128.

SCCA. [Consulting Report]. 1997. Shellfish Culture Capability Appraisal for South Central Coast Study Region. [Prepared By] Aquametrix Research LTD and Axys Environmental Consulting LTD. [Prepared For] B.C. Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Victoria, BC. 1-36.

Scholten, H.J. and Stillwell, J.C.H. (Eds). 1990. Geographical Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning. The GeoJournal Library, Volume 17. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Silver, J.J. 2010. Seeking Certainty: A Political Ecology of Shellfish Aquaculture Expansion on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management.

Silver, J.J. 2013. Neoliberalizing coastal space and subjects: On shellfish aquaculture projections, interventions and outcomes in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies. 32. 430-438.

Silver, J.J. 2014. From fishing to farming: Shellfish aquaculture expansions and the complexities of ocean space on Canada’s west coast. Applied Geography. 54. 110-117.

40

Silver, J.J. 2014. Shellfish and Coastal Change: Pacific Oysters and Manila Clams in BC Waters. BC Studies. 181. 83-103.

Singleton, S. 2009. Native People and Planning for Marine Protected Areas: How “Stakeholder Processes Fail to Address Conflicts in Complex, Real-World Environments. Coastal Management. 37(5). 421-440.

Sloan, N. 2004. Northern abalone: Using an invertebrate to focus marine conservation ideas and values. Coastal Management. 32(2). 129-143.

Smith, L.T. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillen.

Sparke, M. 1998. A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 88(3). 463-495.

Sparrow Case. 2015. Indigenous Foundations. UBC. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/. Accessed July 14, 2015.

St. Martin, K. 2001. Making space for community resource management in fisheries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 91(1). 122-142.

Steinberg, P. 1999. Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Toward a Geography of Ocean-Space. The Professional Geographer. 51(3). 366-375.

Stelzenmuller, V., Lee, J., South, A., Foden, J. and Rogers, S. 2013. Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: A review and some prototype tools. Marine Policy. 38. 214-227.

Stephany, P. 2013. Representations of Indigenous Territory: Mapping Blackfoot Oral Tradition using GIS. [Unpublished Honours Thesis]. Presented to the University of the Fraser Valley Department of Geography.

Stern, B.J. 1934. The Lummi Indians of north-west Washington. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Reprinted, 1969. AMS Press, Inc.

Stewart, J. 1823. Fort McLeod Report. HBCA. B.119/e/1.

Supreme Court Judgments. 2015. R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/. Accessed July 14, 2015.

Sustainable Aquaculture Proceedings. 2006. Report of Proceedings: Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. BC Legislature, 38th Parliament. Bella Bella, Thursday, October 5, 2006. ISSN 1718-1054.

41

Tennant, P. 1990. Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Tesar, M. 2015. Ethics and truth in archival research. History of Education. 44(1). 101-114.

Thorton, T.F. and Deur, D. 2015. Introduction to the Special Section on Marine Cultivation among Indigenous Peoples of the Northwest Coast. Human Ecology. 43(2).

Thrush, C. 2011. Vancouver the Cannibal: Cuisine, Encounter, and the Dilemma of Difference on the Northwest Coast, 1774-1808. Ethnohistory. 58(1). 1-35.

Tobias, T.N. 2000. Chief Kerry’s Moose: A guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection. Vancouver, BC: Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Ecotrust Canada.

Tobias, T.N. 2009. Living Proof: The Essential Data-Collection Guide for Indigenous Use-and- Occupancy Map Surveys. Vancouver, BC: Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Ecotrust Canada.

Tuhiwai-Smith, L. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, NY: Zed Books.

Turner, N.J. and Berkes, F. 2006. Coming to Understanding: Developing Conservation through Incremental Learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 34. 495-513.

Turner, N.J., Recalma-Clutesi, K. and Deur, D. 2011. Back to the Clam Gardens. Ecotrust Blog. www.ecotrust.org. Accessed June 2015. 1-7.

Turner, N.J., Deur, D. and Lepofsky, D. 2013. Plant Management Systems of British Columbia’s First Peoples. BC Studies. 179. 107-133.

Turner, N.J, Berkes, F., Stephenson, J. and Dick, Jonathon. 2013. Blundering Intruders: Extraneous Impacts on Two Indigenous Food Systems. Human Ecology. 41. 563-574.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 55: Exclusive Economic Zone. www.un.org. Accessed September 14, 2015.

Usher, P.J., Tough, F.J. and Galois, R.M. 1992. Reclaiming the land: aboriginal title, treaty rights and land claims in Canada. Applied Geography. 12. 109-132.

Valencia, M.J. and VanderZwaag, D. 1989. Maritime Claims and Management Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Rising Tides in the Pacific and Northern Waters. Ocean and Shoreline Management. 12. 125-167.

Vandergeest, P. 2007. Certification and Communities: Alternatives for Regulating the Environmental and Social Impacts of Shrimp Farming. World Development. 35(7). 1152- 1171.

42

Webster, S. 2002. Maori retribalization and Treaty rights to the New Zealand fisheries. The Contemporary Pacific. 14(2). 341-376.

White, E. (Xanius). 2006. Heiltsuk Stone Fish Traps: Products of My Ancestors’ Labour. [MA Thesis]. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.

Williams, J. 2006. Clam Gardens: Aboriginal Mariculture on Canada’s West Coast. Victoria, BC: Transmontanus, Series 15.

Wonders, K. 2008. First Nations Land Rights and Environmentalism in British Columbia. www.FirstNations.eu. Accessed June 29, 2014.

Wood, D. 1992. Rethinking the Power of Maps. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

43

5 APPENDIXES

Appendix One: Clam Gardens and their Importance to Coastal First Nations Communities

Clam gardens are important to both researchers and Indigenous communities for several reasons. First, they inform archaeological understandings of coastal First Nations’ management and harvest practices. Second, they may inform sustainable resource planning for the future.

Finally, they raise questions regarding First Nations’ rights and title to ocean spaces and marine resources in BC (Brown et al. 2010; Nefstead 2012; Augustine and Dearden 2014). This appendix will highlight these considerations, and reinforce the need for community-based cartography for social science research and resource planning objectives which include clam gardens and Indigenous shellfish harvest locations in governance planning.

The ‘Identification’ and legal significance of Clam Gardens

Clam gardens were identified by settler society when John Harper noticed human-built intertidal walls during aerial surveys along the Broughton Archipelago in 1995 (Harper 1995).

These features were previously undocumented in archaeological literature, and were absent from government-catalogued documents. Harper termed these features “clam terraces”, and identified three distinct morphologies common to all of them. These included: (1) a ridge of boulders and cobbles creating a wall at the lower tide line; (2) a sandflat or bedrock, which was covered with sediments and shell and barnacle fragments; and (3) a veneer of rocks on top of bedrock at the top of the bed (Harper, 1995:2). This definition has since been modified due to further research.

Lepofsky et al. (2015) now suggest that clam garden morphology can vary, depending on

44 cultural and environmental variables (Lepofsky et al. 2015:244). What remains consistent is evidence of built inter-tidal rock walls (Lepofsky 2015) (Figures 1,2,3).

Rock wall, built at low tide line;

Figure 3: Classic morphology of a clam garden feature at low tide in the Broughton Archipelago. Note the built rock wall in the forefront and bedrock bounding either side of the bed. Groesbeck et al (2014) suggest that these rock walls encourage greater shellfish productivity and growth. (Image Source: Harper, 1995).

45

Figure 4: Aerial image of a “triple ridge” clam garden located in the Broughton Archipelago. (Source: Harper, 1995)

46

Figure 5: Diagram of a walled clam garden profile. Current research conducted by Lepofsky et al. (2015) suggests that beach profiles below the rock wall may actually vary, depending on the environment in which the beach was managed. (Source: Augustine and Dearden 2014:308).

More recently, researchers have indicated a potential for clam gardens to better inform planning objectives, both ecologically and in resource management. Groesbeck et al. (2014) suggest that, based on ecological studies, clam gardens were managed to increase productivity and support large populations of coastal First Nations people. The authors conclude their arguments, stating, “ Documenting these traditional practices and their ecological and sociological benefits will help First Nations during a pivotal time, as First Nations continue to assert their rights to access traditional lands and resources and secure sustainable food production into the future” (Groesbeck et al. 2014:11).

Augustine and Dearden (2014) approach the study of clam gardens from a marine conservation and management perspective. They suggest that marine protected areas (MPAs) on the west coast are currently managed in ways that may exclude or marginalize First Nations communities from traditional harvest activities and resource planning (306). Current management strategies for ecosystem conservation and marine harvest governance involve establishing protected areas and exclusionary zones which restrict occupation and use in specific

47 areas (Augustine and Dearden 2014; Berkes 2015). In their case study, Augustine and Dearden suggest that a greater focus on First Nations’ mariculture (e.g., clam garden) activities can not only assist conservation efforts in MPAs, but also reduce conflicts and promote better relations with First Nations through collaborative management practices (Augustine and Dearden 2014).

Coastal First Nations communities often have a vested interest in rights and access to clam garden sites – not only for traditional food harvest reasons – but from the perspective that governance also from local understandings of sovereignty and Aboriginal title to territorial ocean spaces has not been formally resolved with the Canadian state.

In 1973, the Canadian government made a decision to allow First Nations communities to legally negotiate contemporary comprehensive land and resource claims (Usher et al. 1992).

Despite this decision, however, many negotiations remain unresolved today (Usher et al. 1992).

Until 1990, BC refused to participate in many of these discussions, and often claimed Aboriginal title no longer existed (Usher et al. 1992). Today, First Nations must demonstrate Aboriginal title by proving that their claim to land or resources exists through continuous use and occupancy. What makes this burden of proof especially difficult in BC, however, is the absence of established colonial Treaties (Usher et al. 1992). While negotiations and settlements have tended to focus on terrestrial spaces and resources, questions about Aboriginal rights and title to ocean spaces and marine resources are gaining some traction (Brown et al. 2010).

Clam gardens are legally and politically important in this context because they demonstrate longstanding cultivation, occupancy, and use within specific territorial intertidal spaces. Some suggest, therefore, that clam gardens could be engaged as evidence in negotiations or legal processes pursued by First Nations (Brown et al. 2010; Nefstead 2012). While it is not the intent of this thesis to engage closely with legal questions and processes, I do engage with the

48 fact that clam gardens in Heiltsuk territory are often located within the same spaces identified by

Provincial and Federal Government agencies for shellfish aquaculture expansion. This proximity could serve to ignite future conflicts in spaces the Heiltsuk regard as sovereign territory.

49

Appendix Two: Potential shellfish aquaculture sites deemed to have the greatest potential by SCI value (SCCA, 1997).

Proposed Species SCI Value Rating Beach ID Location Oyster/Manila 0.87/0.54 Good/Medium SC_177 East Kakushdish Harbour (1/3) Oyster/Manila 0.86/0.64 Good/Medium SC_178 East Kakushdish Harbour (2/3) Oyster/Manila 0.87/0.64 Good/Medium SC_179 East Kakushdish Harbour (3/3) Oyster/Manila 0.86/0.54 Good/Medium SC_180 Kakushdish Harbour, southern foreshore Oyster/Manila 0.86/0.64 Good/Medium SC_181 Mouth of Kakushdish Harbour Manila 0.73 Medium SC_031 Boswell Inlet, lower basin Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.73 Medium/Medium SC_035 Boswell Inlet, Upper Basin Oyster/Scallop/Manila 0.91/1.00/0.79 Good/Good/Good SC_027 Boswell Inlet, Margaret Bay Oyster/Manila 0.63/0.67 Medium/Medium SC_099 Burke Channel, Restoration Bay, Nootsum River Oyster/Manila 0.75/0.74 Medium/Medium SC_124 Burke Channel, Restoration Bay (1/2) Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.91 Medium/Good SC_125 Burke Channel, Restoration Bay (2/2) Oyster/Manila 0.70/0.54 Medium/Medium SC_056 Draney Inlet (mid- section), S of Allard Bay Oyster 0.65 Medium SC_055 Head of Draney Inlet, S of Allard Bay Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_052 Head of Robert Arm, South Robert Arm Oyster 0.55 Medium SC_090 Illahie Inlet, Green Island Anchorage Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.91 Good/Good SC_128 Fisher Channel, S end Codville Lagoon Oyster/Manila 0.91/0.77 Good/Good SC_129 Fisher Channel, E end Codville Lagoon Oyster 0.58 Medium SC_132 Fisher Channel, Evans Inlet NW of Boot Island Oyster/Manila 0.84/0.83 Good/Good SC_188 Fisher Channel, “The Trap”, Hunter Island Oyster 0.84 Good SC_130 Fisher Channel, Septimus Point Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.54 Medium/Medium SC_133 Fisher Channel, Port John Oyster/Manila 0.55/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_097 Fitz Hugh Sound, Namu Manila 0.50 Medium SC_096 Fitz Hugh Sound, Kiwash Cove Oyster/Manila 0.82/0.79 Good/Good SC_091 Fitz Hugh Sound, South Shore Kwakume Inlet Oyster/Manila 0.67/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_095 Fitz Hugh Sound, Warrior Cove Oyster 0.60 Medium SC_081 Mid-point Hardy Inlet, Matida Creek Oyster 0.60 Medium SC_082 Mid-point Hardy Inlet, McNair Bay Oyster 0.89 Good SC_083 Mid-point Hardy Inlet,

50

South Shore (1/2) Oyster 0.84 Good SC_084 Mid-point Hardy Inlet, South Shore (2/2) Oyster/Manila 0.82/0.79 Good/Good SC_203 Hunter Channel, Spire Point, Bob Bay Oyster/Manila 0.80/0.79 Good/Good SC_204 Hunter Channel, Bob Bay Oyster 0.75 Medium SC_205 Hunter Channel, north – W of German Point Oyster 0.89 Good SC_216 Joassa Channel, N of Quinnoot Point Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.77 Good/Good SC_217 Joassa Channel, Reba Point Oyster 0.64 Medium SC_119 Kildidt Sound, East Basin, Kildidt Lagoon Oyster/Manila 0.91/0.79 Good/Good SC_121 Kildidt Sound, North Shore Kildidt Lagoon Oyster/Manila 0.88/0.79 Good/Good SC_122 Kildidt Sound, West Kildidt Lagoon (2/2) Oyster/Manila 0.88/0.74 Good/Medium SC_123 Kildidt Sound, West Kildidt Lagoon (1/2) Oyster/Manila 0.62/0.67 Medium/Medium SC_105 Kwakshua Channel, Hecate Isl. E of Whittaker Point Oyster/Manila 0.79/0.67 Good/Medium SC_106 Kwakshua Channel, East of Keith Anchorage Oyster 0.59 Medium SC_111 Kwakshua Channel, West Pruth Bay Oyster/Manila 0.73/0.73 Medium/Medium SC_112 Kwakshua Channel, North Pruth Bay Oyster/Manila 0.77/0.65 Good/Medium SC_113 Kwakshua Channel, Wittaker Point, West Shore Kwakshua Channel Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_199 Lama Passage, W side Lizzie Cove Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.56 Medium/Medium SC_200 Lama Passage, W shore Lizzie Cove Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.69 Good/Medium SC_184 Lama Passage, Canal Bight (west) Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.88 Good/Good SC_185 Lama Passage, Canal Bight Oyster/Manila 0.91/0.74 Good/Medium SC_186 Lama Passage, East of Cliff Bluff Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_190 Lama Passage, Fancy Cove (3/3) Oyster/Manila 0.81/0.75 Good/Medium SC_193 Lama Passage, East of Harbourmaster Point Oyster/Manila 0.62/0.53 Medium/Medium SC_194 Lama Passage, Ada Cove Oyster/Manila 0.67/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_201 Lama Passage, W side ent. to Lizzie Cove Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.88 Medium/Good SC_202 Lama Passage, S of Westminster Point Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.62 Medium/Medium SC_183 Lama Passage, N of Twilight Point Oyster 0.77 Good SC_187 Lama Passage, N of Serpent Point Oyster/Manila 0.65/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_189 Lama Passage, Serpent Point Oyster/Manila 0.84/0.77 Good/Good SC_007 Naysash Inlet, Hickey Cove Oyster/Manila 0.80/0.79 Good/Good SC_008 Naysash Inlet, Naysash Creek

51

Oyster/Manila 0.62/0.61 Medium/Medium SC_070 Penrose Island Region, Klaguaek Channel, Entrance to Sunshine Bay Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_074 Penrose Island Region, Klaquaek Channel, NE end Penrose Island Oyster/Manila 0.75/0.77 Medium/Good SC_210 Raymond Passage, E side Norman Morrison Bay Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.77 Medium/Good SC_211 Raymond Passage, S side Norman Morrison Bay Oyster/Manila 0.71/0.77 Medium/Good SC_213 N Raymond Passage, S side Norman Morrison Bay Oyster/Manila 0.65/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_150 Return Channel, North Morehouse Bay Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.77 Good/Good SC_152 Return Channel, South Morehouse Bay Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.77 Good/Good SC_146 Return Channel, Donaldson Pt., W of Ettershank Point Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.77 Good/Good SC_147 Return Channel, Donaldson Pt., E of McArthur Point. Oyster/Manila 0.63/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_148 Return Channel, Nadden Rock, W of McArthur Pt. Oyster/Manila 0.55/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_153 West Return Channel, Raven Cove Oyster/Manila 0.77/0.77 Good/Good SC_154 West Return Channel, Raven Cove Oyster/Manila 0.67/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_155 West Return Channel, South Raven Cove Oyster/Manila 0.77/0.57 Good/Medium SC_065 Rivers Inlet, Charcoal Bay Manila 0.58 Medium SC_137 Roscoe Inlet, near entrance to Claise Bay Manila 0.69 Medium SC_138 Roscoe Inlet, head of Claise Bay (IR) Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_163 Roscoe Inlet, Johnson Channel, north end Oyster/Manila 0.75/0.50 Medium/Medium SC_139 Lower Roscoe Inlet, Shack Bay Oyster/Manila 0.69/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_141 Roscoe Inlet, Ripley Bay Oyster/Manila 0.60/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_142 Roscoe Inlet, Head of Ripley Bay Oyster/Manila 0.85/0.77 Good/Good SC_174 Seaforth Channel, East of Cone Point Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.54 Good/Medium SC_169 Seaforth Channel, Hampden Bay, E of Flirt Island Oyster 0.95 Good SC_175 Seaforth Channel, Hampden Bay Oyster/Manila 0.91/0.79 Good/Good SC_207 Seaforth Channel, Omidale Harbour (2/2) Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.91 Good/Good SC_208 Seaforth Channel, Omidale Harbour (1/2) Oyster/Manila 0.60/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_209 S. Seaforth Channel, Odin Cove Oyster/Manila 0.68/0.71 Medium/Medium SC_006 Smith Inlet, Burnt Island Harbour (3/3) Oyster 0.64 Medium SC_003 Smith Inlet, Walkum Bay Oyster/Manila 0.67/0.65 Medium/Medium SC_114 South Hunter Island, Lewall Passage, Lewall

52

Inlet (3/3) Oyster/Manila 0.95/0.91 Good/Good SC_102 South Hunter Island, Nalau Passage, South of Mustang Bay Oyster/Manila 0.89/0.77 Good/Good SC_159 Troup Passage, Troop Narrows, N end of Troup Passage Oyster/Manila 0.85/0.77 Good/Good SC_160 Troup Passage, Troop Narrows, N end of Troop Passage Oyster/Manila 0.85/0.77 Good/Good SC_161 Troup Passage, Troop Narrows, North side of Troup (2/2) Oyster/Manila 0.73/0.58 Medium/Medium SC_162 Troup Passage, Troop Narrows, North side of Troup (1/2) Oyster/Manila 0.95/0.91 Good/Good SC_157 Troup Passage North, Troop Passage Oyster/Manila 0.95/0.77 Good/Good SC_158 Troup Passage North, West of Troup Narrows

53

Appendix Three: Bella Bella Mapping Codes:

Code Key:

BA Burial Site C Camp CHA Clam Harvest Area FW Fish Weir HP House Platforms, Depressions and structural remains LC Logging Camp M Shell Midden RA Rock Art (Petroglyphs, Pictographs) UCB Unwalled Clam Beach V Village or Settlement WCG Walled Clam Garden

DATE CODE NUMBER GPS VERIFIED? ENTERED SOURCE

BA 1 N 5-Jun local information

BA 2 N 8-Jun local information

BA 3 N 24-Jun local information

BA 4 N 24-Jun local information

BA 5 N 24-Jul HTTAOA

BA 6 N 24-Jul HTTAOA BA 7 N 24-Jul HTTAOA

BA 8 N 24-Jul HTTAOA

BA 9 N 24-Jul HTTAOA

BA 10 N 25-Jul local information

54

C 1 Y 30-May visitation/local informant

visitation/SLRD/local C 2 Y 24-Jul information

visitation/SLRD/local C 3 Y 24-Jul information

visitation/SLRD/local C 4 Y 24-Jul information C

CH 1 N 5-Jun Visitation

FW 1 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 2 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 3 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 4 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 5 N 4-Jun HTTAOA FW 6 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 7 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 8 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

FW 9 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 10 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 11 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 12 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 13 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 14 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 15 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 16 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

55

FW 17 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 18 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 19 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 20 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 21 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 22 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 23 N 5-Jun HTTAOA FW 24 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 25 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 26 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 27 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 28 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 29 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

FW 30 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 31 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 32 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 33 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 34 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 35 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 36 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 37 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 38 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 39 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 40 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 41 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 42 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 43 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 44 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 45 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 46 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 47 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

56

FW 48 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 49 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 50 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 51 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 52 N 8-Jun HTTAOA FW 53 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

FW 54 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 55 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 56 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 57 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 58 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 59 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 60 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 61 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 62 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 63 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 64 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 65 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 66 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 67 N 9-Jun HTTAOA FW 68 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 69 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 70 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 71 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 72 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

FW 73 Y 13-Jun Visitation

FW 74 Y 14-Jun Visitation FW 75 N 29-Jun HTTAOA FW 76 N 29-Jun HTTAOA FW 77 N 3-Jul HTTAOA FW 78 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

FW 79 N 3-Jul HTTAOA FW 80 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

57

FW 81 N 3-Jul HTTAOA FW 82 N 3-Jul HTTAOA FW 83 N 3-Jul HTTAOA FW 84 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research FW 85 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research FW 86 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research FW 87 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research FW 88 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research FW 89 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research

HP 1 N 22-Jul HTTAOA

HP 2 N 22-Jul HTTAOA HP 3 N 22-Jul HTTAOA HP 4 N 22-Jul HTTAOA

HP 5 N 22-Jul HTTAOA

HP 6 N 22-Jul HTTAOA

HP 7 N 22-Jul HTTAOA

HP 8 N 22-Jul HTTAOA HP 9 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 10 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 11 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 12 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 13 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 14 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 15 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 16 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 17 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 18 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

HP 19 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 20 N 25-Jul HTTAOA

58

HP 21 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 22 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 23 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 24 N 25-Jul HTTAOA HP 25 N 27-Jul HTTAOA HP 26 N 27-Jul HTTAOA HP 27 N 27-Jul HTTAOA

HP 28 N 27-Jul HTTAOA HP 29 N 27-Jul HTTAOA HP 30 N 5-Aug HTTAOA HP 31 N 5-Aug HTTAOA HP 32 N 5-Aug HTTAOA HP 33 N August 5 HTTAOA

LC 1 N 5-Jun site visited

M 1 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 2 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 3 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 4 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 5 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 6 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 7 N 4-Jun HTTAOA M 8 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 9 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 10 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 11 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 12 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 13 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 14 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 15 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 16 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 17 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 18 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

59

M 19 N 4-Jun HTTAOA

M 20 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 21 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 22 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 23 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 24 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 25 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 26 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 27 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 28 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 29 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 30 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 31 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 32 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 33 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 34 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 35 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 36 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 37 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 38 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 39 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 40 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 41 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 42 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 43 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 44 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 45 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 46 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

60

M 47 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 48 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 49 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 50 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 51 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 52 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 53 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 54 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 55 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 56 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 57 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 58 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 59 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 60 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 61 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 62 N 5-Jun HTTAOA

M 63 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 64 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 65 N 5-Jun HTTAOA M 66 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 67 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 68 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 69 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 70 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 71 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 72 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 73 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 74 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 75 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 76 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

61

M 77 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 78 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 79 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 80 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 81 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 82 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 83 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 84 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 85 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 86 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 87 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 88 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 89 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 90 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 91 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 92 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 93 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 94 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 95 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 96 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 97 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 98 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 99 N 8-Jun HTTAOA

M 100 N 8-Jun HTTAOA M 101 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 102 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 103 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 104 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 105 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 106 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 107 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

62

M 108 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 109 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 110 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 111 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 112 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 113 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 114 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 115 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 116 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 117 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 118 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 119 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 120 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 121 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 122 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 123 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 124 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 125 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 126 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 127 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 128 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 129 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 130 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 131 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 132 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 133 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 134 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 135 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 136 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 137 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 138 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 139 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

63

M 140 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 141 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 142 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 143 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 144 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 145 N 9-Jun HTTAOA

M 146 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 147 N 9-Jun HTTAOA M 148 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 149 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 150 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 151 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 152 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 153 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 154 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 155 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 156 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 157 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 158 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 159 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 160 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 161 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 162 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 163 N 29-Jun HTTAOA

M 164 N 29-Jun HTTAOA

M 165 N 29-Jun HTTAOA

M 166 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 167 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 168 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 169 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 170 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 171 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 172 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 173 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 174 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 175 N 29-Jun HTTAOA

64

M 176 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 177 N 29-Jun HTTAOA

M 178 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 179 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 180 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 181 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 182 N 29-Jun HTTAOA M 183 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 184 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 185 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 186 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

M 187 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 188 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 189 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 190 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 191 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 192 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 193 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 194 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 195 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 196 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 197 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 198 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

M 199 N 3-Jul HTTAOA M 200 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

M 201 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

M 202 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

RA 1 4-Jun HTTAOA RA 2 4-Jun HTTAOA

RA 3 4-Jun HTTAOA

RA 4 4-Jun HTTAOA

RA 5 4-Jun HTTAOA

RA 6 4-Jun HTTAOA

65

RA 7 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 8 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 9 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 10 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 11 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 12 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 13 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 14 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 15 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 16 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 17 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 18 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 19 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 20 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 21 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 22 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 23 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 24 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 25 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 26 5-Jun HTTAOA

RA 27 5-Jun HTTAOA RA 28 8-Jun HTTAOA

RA 29 8-Jun HTTAOA

RA 30 8-Jun HTTAOA RA 31 8-Jun HTTAOA

RA 32 8-Jun HTTAOA

66

RA 33 8-Jun HTTAOA

RA 34 9-Jun HTTAOA

RA 35 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 36 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 37 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 38 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 39 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 40 9-Jun HTTAOA

RA 41 9-Jun HTTAOA

RA 42 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 43 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 44 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 45 9-Jun HTTAOA

RA 46 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 47 9-Jun HTTAOA RA 48 9-Jun HTTAOA

RA 49 Y 11-Jun visitation RA 50 N 3-Jul HTTAOA RA 51 N 3-Jul HTTAOA RA 52 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

RA 53 N 3-Jul HTTAOA

local information, verified by RA 54 N 24-Jul Elroy White

RA 55 N 24-Jul visitation

RA 56 Y 24-Jul visitation

RA 57 Y 24-Jul visitation

67

RA 58 Y 24-Jul visitation

SW 1 Y 30-May visitation

CHA 1 Y 29-Jun HTUC CHA 2 Y 29-Jun HTUC CHA 3 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 4 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 5 Y 29-Jun HTUS

CHA 6 Y 29-Jun HTUS

CHA 7 Y 29-Jun HTUS

CHA 8 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 9 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 10 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 11 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 12 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 13 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 14 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 15 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 16 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 17 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 18 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 19 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 20 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 21 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 22 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 23 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 24 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 25 Y 29-Jun HTUS

68

CHA 26 Y 29-Jun HTUS

CHA 27 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 28 Y 29-Jun HTUS CHA 29 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 30 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 31 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 32 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 33 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 34 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 35 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 36 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 37 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 38 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 39 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 40 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 41 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 42 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 43 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 44 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 45 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 46 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 47 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 48 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 49 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 50 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 51 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 52 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 53 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 54 Y 3-Jul HTUS

69

CHA 55 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 56 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 57 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 58 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 59 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 60 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 61 Y 3-Jul HTUS

CHA 62 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 63 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 64 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 65 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 66 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 67 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 68 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 69 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 70 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 71 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 72 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 73 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 74 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 75 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 76 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 77 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 78 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 79 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 80 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 81 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 82 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 83 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 84 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 85 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 86 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 87 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 88 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 89 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 90 Y 3-Jul HTUS

70

CHA 91 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 92 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 93 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 94 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 95 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 96 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 97 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 98 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 99 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 100 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 101 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 102 Y 3-Jul HTUS CHA 103 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 104 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 105 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 106 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 107 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 108 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 109 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 110 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 111 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 112 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 113 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 114 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 115 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 116 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 117 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 118 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 119 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 120 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 121 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 122 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 123 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 124 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 125 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 126 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 127 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 128 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 129 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 130 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 131 Y 4-Jul HTUS

71

CHA 132 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 133 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 134 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 135 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 136 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 137 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 138 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 139 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 140 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 141 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 142 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 143 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 144 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 145 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 146 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 147 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 148 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 149 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 150 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 151 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 152 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 153 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 154 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 155 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 156 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 157 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 158 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 159 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 160 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 161 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 162 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 163 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 164 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 165 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 166 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 167 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 168 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 169 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 170 Y 4-Jul HTUS

72

CHA 171 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 172 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 173 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 174 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 175 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 176 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 177 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 178 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 179 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 180 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 181 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 182 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 183 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 184 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 185 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 186 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 187 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 188 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 189 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 190 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 191 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 192 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 193 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 194 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 195 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 196 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 197 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 198 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 199 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 200 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 201 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 202 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 203 Y 4-Jul HTUS

CHA 204 Y 4-Jul HTUS CHA 205 Y 5-Jul HTUS

73

CHA 206 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 207 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 208 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 209 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 210 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 211 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 212 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 213 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 214 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 215 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 216 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 217 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 218 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 219 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 220 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 221 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 222 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 223 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 224 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 225 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 226 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 227 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 228 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 229 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 230 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 231 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 232 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 234 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 235 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 236 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 237 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 238 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 239 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 240 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 241 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 242 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 243 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 244 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 245 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 246 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 247 Y 5-Jul HTUS

74

CHA 248 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 249 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 250 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 251 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 252 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 253 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 254 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 255 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 256 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 257 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 258 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 259 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 260 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 261 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 262 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 263 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 264 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 265 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 266 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 267 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 268 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 269 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 270 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 271 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 272 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 273 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 274 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 275 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 276 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 277 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 278 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 279 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 280 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 281 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 282 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 283 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 284 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 285 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 286 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 287 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 288 Y 5-Jul HTUS

75

CHA 289 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 290 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 291 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 292 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 293 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 294 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 295 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 296 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 297 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 298 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 299 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 300 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 301 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 302 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 303 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 304 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 305 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 306 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 307 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 308 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 309 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 310 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 311 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 312 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 313 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 314 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 315 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 316 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 317 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 318 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 319 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 320 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 321 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 322 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 323 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 324 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 325 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 326 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 327 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 328 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 329 Y 5-Jul HTUS

76

CHA 330 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 331 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 332 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 333 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 334 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 335 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 336 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 337 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 338 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 339 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 340 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 341 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 342 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 343 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 344 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 345 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 346 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 347 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 348 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 349 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 350 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 351 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 352 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 353 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 354 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 355 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 356 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 357 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 358 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 359 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 360 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 361 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 362 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 363 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 364 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 365 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 366 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 367 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 368 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 369 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 370 Y 5-Jul HTUS

77

CHA 371 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 372 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 373 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 374 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 375 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 376 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 377 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 378 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 379 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 380 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 381 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 382 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 383 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 384 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 385 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 386 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 387 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 388 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 389 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 390 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 391 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 392 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 393 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 394 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 395 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 396 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 397 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 398 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 399 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 400 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 401 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 402 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 403 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 404 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 405 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 406 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 407 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 408 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 409 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 410 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 411 Y 5-Jul HTUS

78

CHA 412 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 413 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 414 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 415 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 416 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 417 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 418 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 419 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 420 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 421 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 422 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 423 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 424 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 425 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 426 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 427 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 428 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 429 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 430 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 431 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 432 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 433 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 434 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 435 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 436 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 437 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 438 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 439 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 440 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 441 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 442 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 443 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 444 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 445 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 446 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 447 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 448 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 449 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 450 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 451 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 452 Y 5-Jul HTUS

79

CHA 453 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 454 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 455 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 456 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 457 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 458 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 459 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 460 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 461 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 462 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 463 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 464 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 465 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 466 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 467 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 468 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 469 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 470 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 471 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 472 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 473 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 474 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 475 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 476 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 477 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 478 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 479 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 480 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 481 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 482 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 483 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 484 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 485 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 486 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 487 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 488 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 489 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 490 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 491 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 492 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 493 Y 5-Jul HTUS

80

CHA 494 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 495 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 496 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 497 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 498 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 499 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 500 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 501 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 502 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 503 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 504 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 505 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 506 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 507 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 508 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 509 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 510 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 511 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 512 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 513 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 514 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 515 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 516 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 517 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 518 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 519 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 520 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 521 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 522 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 523 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 524 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 525 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 526 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 527 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 528 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 529 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 530 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 531 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 532 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 533 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 534 Y 5-Jul HTUS

81

CHA 535 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 536 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 537 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 538 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 539 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 540 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 541 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 542 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 543 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 544 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 545 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 546 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 547 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 548 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 549 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 550 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 551 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 552 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 553 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 554 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 555 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 556 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 557 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 558 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 559 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 560 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 561 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 562 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 563 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 564 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 565 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 566 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 567 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 568 Y 5-Jul HTUS CHA 568 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 570 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 571 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 572 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 573 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 574 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 575 Y 6-Jul HTUS

82

CHA 576 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 577 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 578 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 579 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 580 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 581 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 582 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 583 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 584 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 585 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 586 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 587 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 588 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 589 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 590 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 591 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 592 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 593 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 594 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 595 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 596 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 597 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 598 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 599 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 600 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 601 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 602 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 603 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 603 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 605 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 606 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 607 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 608 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 609 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 610 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 611 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 612 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 613 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 614 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 615 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 616 Y 6-Jul HTUS

83

CHA 617 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 618 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 619 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 620 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 621 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 622 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 623 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 624 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 625 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 626 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 627 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 628 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 629 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 630 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 631 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 632 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 633 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 634 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 635 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 636 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 637 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 638 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 639 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 640 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 641 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 642 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 643 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 644 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 645 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 646 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 647 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 648 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 649 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 650 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 651 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 652 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 653 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 654 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 655 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 656 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 657 Y 6-Jul HTUS

84

CHA 658 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 659 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 660 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 661 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 662 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 663 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 664 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 665 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 666 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 667 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 668 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 669 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 670 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 671 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 672 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 673 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 674 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 675 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 676 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 677 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 678 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 679 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 680 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 681 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 682 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 683 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 684 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 685 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 686 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 687 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 688 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 689 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 690 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 691 Y 6-Jul HTUS CHA 692 Y 6-Jul HTUS

UCB 1 Y 15-May Visitation

UCB 2 Y 16-May Visitation

85

UCB 3 Y 30-May Visitation

UCB 4 Y 30-May Visitation

UCB 5 Y 30-May Visitation UCB 6 Y 30-May Visitation

UCB 7 Y 14-Jun Visitation UCB 8 y 5-Aug Hakai Research UCB 9 y 5-Aug Hakai Research

V 1 N HTTAOA

V 2 N HTTAOA V 3 N HTTAOA

V 4 N 5-Jun Drucker, 1950; Olson, 1955 V 5 N Olson, 1955

V 6 N Olson, 1955

V 7 N Olson, 1955

V 8 N 5-Aug Drucker, 1950; Olson, 1955

V 9 N Olson, 1955

V 10 N Olson, 1955

V 11 N 27-Jul Olson, 1955 V 12 N 27-Jul Olson, 1955

V 13 N 5-Jun Olson, 1955

86

V 14 N Olson, 1955

V 15 N Olson, 1955

V 16 N Olson, 1955

V 17 N Olson, 1955

V 18 N Olson, 1955 V 19 N 5-Jul Olson, 1955

V 20 N 5-Jul Olson, 1955

V 21 N 5-Jul Drucker, 1950; Olson, 1955

Drucker, 1950; Olson, 1955; V 22 N 5-Jul Hobler, 2000

V 23 N 5-Jul Olson, 1955

V 24 N Olson, 1955

V 25 N 6-Jul Olson, 1955

V 26 N 6-Jul Olson, 1955

V 27 N 6-Jul Olson, 1955 V 28 N 6-Jul Olson, 1955

V 29 N 6-Jul Olson, 1955

V 30 N Olson, 1955

V 31 N Olson, 1955

87

V 32 N 27-Jul Olson, 1955 V 33 N Olson, 1955

V 34 N 5-Jul Olson, 1955

V 35 N Olson, 1955 V

WCG 1 Y 14-May Visitation

WCG 2 Y 15-May Visitation

WCG 3 Y 16-May Visitation

WCG 4 Y 17-May Visitation

WCG 5 Y 17-May Visitation

88

WCG 6 Y 18-May Visitation

WCG 7 Y 12-Jun Visitation

WCG 8 Y 12-Jun Visitation

WCG 9 Y 12-Jun Visitation

WCG 10 Y 13-Jun Visitation

WCG 11 Y 13-Jun Visitation

WCG 12 Y 13-Jun Visitation

WCG 13 Y 13-Jun Visitation

WCG 14 Y 13-Jun Visitation

WCG 15 Y 14-Jun Visitation

WCG 16 Y 14-Jun Visitation

WCG 17 Y 14-Jun Visitation

WCG 18 Y 14-Jun Visitation

WCG 19 N 15-Jun Visitation

WCG 20 N 15-Jun Visitation

89

WCG 21 N 3-Jul SLRD

WCG 22 N 3-Jul SLRD

WCG 23 N 3-Jul SLRD WCG 24 N 4-Jul SLRD WCG 25 N 4-Jul SLRD WCG 26 N 4-Jul SLRD WCG 27 N 6-Jul SLRD WCG 28 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 29 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 30 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 31 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 32 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 33 N 6-Jul SLRD

WCG 34 N 6-Jul RAAD WCG 35 N 6-Jul SLRD WCG 36 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 37 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 38 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 39 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 40 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 41 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 42 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research WCG 43 Y 5-Aug Hakai Research

90

Appendix Four: University of Guelph Ethics Review Board Certificate and Research Number Ethics REB#14AP023 certificate:

91

Appendix Five: Copy of Heiltsuk MOU and Research Agreement (HIRMD)

HEILTSUK BAND RESEARCH REGISTRATION FORM Name: Katrina Stephany Address: c/o Department of Geography University of Guelph 50 Stone Road East. Guelph, ON N1G 2W1

Telephone, Fax, email: Katrina Stephany: 519-803-1418, [email protected] Graduate Supervisor: Dr. Jennifer Silver: 519-824-4120 (ext. 52176), [email protected]

Title of Research Project: Clam Gardens in Heiltsuk Territory: using GIS to build synthesized maps of intertidal sites, oral histories, and harvest practices.

Detailed project description Summary Using GIS, this proposed project will build multi-layer maps of intertidal clam garden sites, prominent Heiltsuk clam harvest sites, ocean waypoints and places, and proposed shellfish aquaculture tenures. With this data in a GIS database, the research will examine spatial relationships and patterns between clam gardens and other intertidal and nearshore features, spaces and activities in Heiltsuk territory. These objectives have emerged out of several conversations between Jennifer Carpenter of HIRMD and my Graduate supervisor, Jennifer Silver, and they are meant to coordinate with existing HIRMD mapping expertise and projects. This research project will be completed towards my MA degree in Geography at the University of Guelph and falls under the umbrella of the ‘Clam Garden Network’ – coordinated by Dr. Dana Lepofsky of Simon Fraser University (SFU).

92 The proposed GIS analysis, and resulting maps, will be populated with numerous layers to be determined in consultation with HIRMD and any other relevant Heiltsuk organizations or individuals. Examples discussed by Jennifer Carpenter and Jennifer Silver include:

 locations of known clam garden sites;  clam harvest sites frequented both historically and today;  other intertidal and nearshore archaeological features;  Prominent ocean waypoints and places described in Heiltsuk history and oral stories; and,  contemporary shellfish aquaculture sites.

The GIS database and map layers might be used in resource management and economic development planning and/or in scenarios where HIRMD or Band Council wish to provide evidence of diverse intertidal use/occupation. The maps and GIS database will be retained by HIRMD and decisions about what to do with them will be to the discretion of HIRMD.

A wealth of data is housed already by HIRMD and the Cultural Centre. Jennifer Silver has gathered numerous publically available reports detailing potential shellfish aquaculture sites identified by the Provincial and Federal government, and interviews pertinent to shellfish harvest and clam garden management conducted by Nicole Smith and Elroy White are also promising. If data gaps are seen to exist by HIRMD or myself after these data sources have been exhausted, then additional interviews may be sought.

The outcomes of this project will include a GIS database and maps to be retained by HIRMD. My MA thesis will detail the methods through which maps were produced (i.e., the types of data gathered and how analysis was conducted) as well as a discussion of findings from spatial analysis regarding clam garden sites relative to other intertidal and nearshore features, oral histories, and contemporary shellfish aquaculture tenures. This type of analysis can offer insight into the kinds of features (ecological, archaeological, and economic) which clam gardens tend to be found around. Designed this way, the maps (or parts thereof) could be included in my MA thesis, but the thesis will not rest on the inclusion of the maps. Again, decisions about what to do with the maps and GIS database after I complete the project will be left to the discretion of HIRMD.

Additional details I propose to arrive in Bella Bella on approximately May 20, 2014. Recognizing the busy time that Tribal Journeys will be for your community in mid-July, I propose to conclude my stay on July 9. I am hopeful that this May 20 to July 9 stay would provide enough time to meet with officials from HIRMD, gather feedback, collect and synthesize data, and build the maps for spatial analysis. If needed, I could return to Bella Bella for a few weeks late July – early August. During the period of Tribal Journeys I intend to work in the Vancouver and Victoria archives looking for references to shellfish cultivations, as well as journal entries pointing to colonial trade recorded by explorers, ethnographers and traders. To the best of our (myself, Jennifer

93

Silver, and Dana Lepofsky) knowledge, a systematic search through these documents for evidence of shellfish cultivation, use and trade has not been conducted. By way of further introduction, I would like to share a few additional pieces on my background:  B.Sc. in Environmental Studies (U. of Vermont) and B.A. in Geography (U. of Fraser Valley);  Certificate in Indigenous Studies from U. of Fraser Valley (for more info on the certificate, see here: http://www.ufv.ca/geography/programs/landclaims/);  Several years of experience with GIS mapping, and my undergraduate thesis focused on mapping Blackfoot territory in Alberta. Mostly worked with ArcMaps and Arcview, including versions 9.3, 9.3.1, 10, 10.1, 10.2, as well as GoogleEarth; and,  Assisted in data collection and creation of digital maps for a research project on informal settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Sponsoring agency:  Department of Geography, University of Guelph

Funding agency:  University of Guelph  Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)

References [at least 3] (name, address, telephone number, email): Dr. Ken Brealey. Dean of Arts & Assistant Dean of Students, University of the Fraser Valley. (604) 504-7441 ext. 4336. [email protected]. Note: for additional insight or feedback regarding my work with First Nations in BC and Alberta, please contact Dr. Brealey.

Dr. Michelle Rhodes. Department Head, Geography, University of the Fraser Valley. (604) 504- 7441 ext. 4724. [email protected]

Eddie Gardner. Elder-in-Residence, University of the Fraser Valley. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Shirley Ann Hardman. Sto:lo and University of the Fraser Valley Senior Advisor on Indigenous Affairs. (604) 702-2615. [email protected]

94