KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICES

APPENDIX 9.0-A Heritage Background Baseline Report

VE51988 – Appendices

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... I

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ...... III

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ...... IV

GLOSSARY ...... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V

1.0 HERITAGE BASELINE INFORMATION ...... 1 1.1 Principles of Heritage Resource Management ...... 2 1.1.1 Research Objectives ...... 3 1.1.2 Kitsault Mine Project Description ...... 3 1.1.3 Information Sources and Methods ...... 3 1.2 Biophysical and Cultural Setting ...... 4 1.2.1 Landscape and Terrain...... 4 1.2.2 Geology ...... 5 1.2.3 Hydrology ...... 5 1.2.4 Modern Vegetation ...... 5 1.2.5 Wildlife Resources ...... 6 1.2.6 Ancient Environments...... 6 1.3 Cultural Setting ...... 7 1.3.1 Ethnographic Background ...... 7 1.3.2 Traditional Habitations ...... 7 1.3.3 Traditional Subsistence ...... 8 1.3.4 The Contact Period ...... 9 1.4 Archaeological Background ...... 10 1.4.1 Archaeological Site Types ...... 10 1.4.2 Regional Cultural Chronology ...... 13 1.5 Baseline Assessment Results ...... 15 1.5.1 Document Review ...... 15 1.5.2 Evaluation of Archaeological Resource Potential ...... 19 1.5.3 Archaeological Research in the Kitsault Area ...... 22 1.5.3.1 Local Study Area ...... 22 1.5.3.2 Regional Study Area...... 22 1.5.4 Archaeological Data Gap Analysis ...... 24 1.5.4.1 Archaeological Resource Inventory - Level of Effort ...... 24 1.5.5 Potential Archaeological Resources ...... 25 1.6 Study Limitations and Recommendations ...... 27 1.6.1 Study Limitations ...... 28 1.6.2 Remaining Information Gaps ...... 28

REFERENCES ...... 30

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 TOC i

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

List of Tables

Table 1.4-1: Sequence of Complex Cultural Characteristics from Tsimshian Territory ...... 14 Table 1.5-1: Identified Archaeological Sites in the Regional Study Area ...... 23 Table 1.5-2: Potential Archaeological Remains in Proximity to the Proposed Project ...... 27

List of Figures

Figure 1.5-1: Archaeology Baseline Local Study Area and Kitsault Mine Project Layout ...... 17 Figure 1.5-2: Archaeology Baseline Regional Study Area ...... 18 Figure 1.5-3: Baseline Assessment Archaeological Potential and Kitsault Mine Project Layout ..... 21

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 TOC ii

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Abbreviation Definition Agency (the) Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment AIR Application Information Requirements AMEC AMEC Earth and Environmental Application (the) The proponent‟s Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the proposed Project, made under section 16 of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act. AOA Archaeological Overview Assessment BC British Columbia BC EAO British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office BCEAA Environmental Assessment Act 2002 of British Columbia BC MFLRNO British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations BP Before Present (i.e., radiocarbon years before present) CEA Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CMT culturally modified tree CWHws1 Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime Submontane variant CWHws2 Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime Montane variant EA Environmental Assessment GIS Geographic Information System HCA Heritage Conservation Act HIP Heritage Inspection Permit LSA Local Study Area MEM Meziadin Mountains Ecosections MHmm1 Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Leeward variant MHmm2 Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Windward variant MHmmp Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Parkland variant Millennia Millennia Research Limited n number / number of sites NCTSA North Coast Timber Supply Area NLG Nisga‟a Lisims Government NRA Nass Ranges Ecoregion NTS National Topographic System proponent (the) Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. proposed Project (the) Kitsault Mine Project Rescan Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. RSA Regional Study Area RAAD Remote Access to Archaeological Data

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page iii

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Abbreviation Definition TMF Tailings Management Facility TRIM Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping VC Valued Component WRMF Waste Rock Management Facility

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Abbreviation Definition km kilometre m metre Mt million tonnes % percent

GLOSSARY

Abbreviation Definition Biface Stone tool which has been worked or used on both sides Intensification Refers to archaeological evidence as reflected in the increase and specialization of the exploitation of a resource such as salmon; may also be reflected in advances in technology for the exploitation of the resource Landscape Integrity The relative measure of the landscape as a reflection of past historic alterations to the landscape. High landscape integrity indicates that the lands in question are pristine and have not been altered by historic development. Low landscape integrity indicates that the lands have been greatly impacted by historic activities. Lithic(s) Stone tool or fragments resulting from stone tool manufacture Orthophoto Aerial photograph manipulated to lack topographic distortion, like a map Sedentism Archaeological term meaning “living in one place”; refers to the development of long term settlement at one location Social Differentiation Refers to archaeological evidence as reflected in status items suggesting a ranked or stratified society Storage Refers to archaeological evidence that features such as pits or specific perishable remains (e.g. salmon bones) were indicators that storage of such resources was occurring 10‟ 10 minutes when used in reference to a latitude or longitude (i.e., degree, minutes, seconds of latitude or longitude)

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page iv

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A baseline review of archaeological information related to heritage resources for the proposed Kitsault Mine Project (proposed Project) was conducted by the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Resources group of AMEC Earth and Environmental (AMEC). The review has been conducted in support of Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd.‟s (proponent) Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the proposed Project, made under section 16 of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (Application). The review was done in accordance with the “British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998). Archaeological sites are locations with material remains produced by human activities in the past. In British Columbia (BC), archaeological sites are usually attributed to Aboriginal groups‟ settlement and land use. Archaeological resources in BC are Valued Components (VCs) by virtue of their protection under the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) (Government of BC 1996a.

The proposed Project area is represented by the Local Study Area (LSA). The review of archaeological sources available for the LSA was extremely limiting as a tool for baseline research. The Application Information Requirements (AIR) indicated that there would be no Regional Study Area (RSA) as there will be no proposed Project effects (land altering to impact archaeological or historic heritage sites) outside the mine development footprint. However, given the paucity of information available for the proposed Project area, expansion of the research catchment area was required. A larger geographic scope, or RSA was utilised for the baseline research and is defined as those lands drained by Alice Arm, Observatory Inlet, and the Nass River Valley. The absence of any detailed archaeological studies for the RSA required the inclusion of the Prince Rupert area and the lower Skeena River (to Kitselas Canyon) for the baseline study.

Archaeological site records were downloaded from the Provincial Heritage Register via the Remote Access to Archaeological Resources (RAAD) system. This system allows the recovery of information about documented sites within the LSA and RSA. A literature review was conducted, which included the findings of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) conducted by Rescan Environmental Services Inc. (Rescan) (2010).

The AIR states that results from the Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) will be used to define and describe the geographic boundaries of the AIA. Normally AOAs precede AIAs for Environmental Assessment (EA) Applications. However, initial archaeological studies, including an AIA, for the proposed Project had been undertaken by Rescan. AMEC was retained by the proponent to complete the EA Application, and as part of the Application, preparation of this baseline report, including an AOA, as well as work at the AIA level, was required. In accordance with recommendations provided in the Rescan (2009) report, AIAs were to take place for lands assessed as having moderate to high archaeological potential. Concurrent with the AOA, AMEC conducted an AIA for additional developments for the proposed Project. Information on the results of both the Rescan and AMEC AIAs are included in this baseline report.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page v

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

The more recent AIA, which included field work in the proposed Project area, was conducted by AMEC in the fall of 2010. The AIA included proposed Project facilities not assessed by Rescan (2010). A brief summary of the findings is discussed in this AOA, and the full details of the study are pending (AMEC 2012 pending). The AIA was conducted in accordance with standards described in the “British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998). The field portion of the AIA assisted in determining the precise extent and rating for potential archaeological resources within the proposed Project area.

The nearest archaeological site is situated at the mouth of the Kitsault River, northwest of the proposed Project. Additional sites have been identified further south, down Alice Arm and Observatory Inlet. The majority of identified archaeological sites are situated in the Nass River Valley.

This AOA determined that few archaeological studies have taken place in the proposed Project area, and that a significant percentage of the land base remains essentially unexamined for archaeological resources. Both the coastal setting and middle- and high- elevation environments in general have not been extensively inspected in comparison to the Nass River and Skeena River settings.

The AOA concluded that some lands within the LSA exhibit high or moderate potential for archaeological resources.

The results of the AIA conducted by AMEC (2012 pending) determined that no archaeological resources were present in the LSA of the proposed Project. Neither Rescan (2010), nor AMEC (2012 pending) included the RSA in their field work. However, based on the available literature for the area, the potential for additional archaeological sites to be identified within the RSA is assessed as being moderate to high. Based on survey findings within the current proposed Project footprint, no further archaeological work is recommended.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page vi

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

1.0 HERITAGE BASELINE INFORMATION This baseline report describes the outcome of a baseline review of archaeological information for the proposed Kitsault Mine Project (proposed Project), conducted by the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Resources group of AMEC Earth and Environmental (AMEC). The proposed Project is located about 140 kilometres (km) north of Prince Rupert, and south of the head of Alice Arm on the northern coast of British Columbia (BC).

The proposed Project will consist of the redevelopment of a mine property previously operating at the same site, and the development of new facilities to support the proposed mine.

The proposed Project area is represented by the Local Study Area (LSA). The review of archaeological sources available for the LSA was extremely limiting as a tool for baseline research. The Application Information Requirements (AIR) indicated that there would be no Regional Study Area (RSA) as there will be no proposed Project effects (land altering to impact archaeological or historic heritage sites) outside the mine development footprint. However, given the paucity of information available for the proposed Project area, expansion of the research catchment area was required. A larger geographic scope, or RSA, was utilised for the baseline research and is defined as those lands drained by Alice Arm, Observatory Inlet, and the Nass River Valley. The absence of any detailed archaeological studies for the RSA required the inclusion of the Prince Rupert area and the lower Skeena River (to Kitselas Canyon) for the baseline study.

In accordance with guidelines prepared by the provincial Archaeology Branch (BC Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, now BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (BC MFLRNO)), the work conducted for this proposed Project is intended to identify baseline archaeological resource concerns that may arise from the proposed Project.

The AIR states that results from the Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) will be used to define and describe the geographic boundaries of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA). Normally AOAs precede AIAs for Environmental Assessment (EA) Applications. However, initial archaeological studies, including an AIA, for the proposed Project had been undertaken by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Rescan). AMEC was retained by Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. (proponent) to complete the Application for an EA Certificate for the proposed Project, made under section 16 of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (Application); as part of the Application, preparation of this baseline report, including work at both the AOA and AIA levels, was required. In accordance with recommendations provided in the Rescan (2009) report, AIAs were to take place for lands assessed as having moderate to high archaeological potential. Concurrent with the AOA, AMEC conducted an AIA for additional development areas associated with the proposed Project. Information on the results of both the Rescan and AMEC AIAs are included in this baseline report.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 1

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

1.1 Principles of Heritage Resource Management The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) (Government of Canada 1992) “Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage” defines heritage resources as: “a human work or a place that gives evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning and that has historic value” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) 1996). It further outlines four categories of heritage resources: paleontology; archaeology; historic sites; and traditional land use.

The BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) (Government of BC 2002) requires studies of a proposed project‟s effects upon cultural heritage resources, which includes impacts to archaeological sites. For all reviewable projects, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO) requires an assessment of cultural heritage resources to be conducted in accordance with Archaeology Branch Guidelines (BC EAO 2010).

Only archaeological resources are discussed in this report. As per the “British Columbia Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998), an AOA is used for assessing archaeological resource potential within the proposed Project area for those archaeological sites which are provided protection under the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) (Government of BC 1996a).

For the purposes of this assessment, archaeological sites are defined as locations which:

“consist of the physical remains of past human activity. The scientific study of these remains, through the methods and techniques employed in the discipline of archaeology, is essential to the understanding and appreciation of prehistoric and historic cultural development in British Columbia. These resources may be of regional, provincial, national or international significance” (Archaeology Branch 2011).

Archaeological resources in BC are Valued Components (VCs) by virtue of their protection under the HCA. Section 13 of the HCA specifies that an individual (or corporation) must not “damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object” from an archaeological site, except in accordance with a Permit issued by the Minister. The HCA confers automatic protection upon archaeological sites that pre-date 1846, or undated sites that could pre-date 1846. This protection is granted regardless of whether they are recorded in the Provincial Heritage Register, or whether they are located on Crown land, or on private property. Post- 1846 historic heritage sites that do not meet the criteria for automatic protection can be protected by Ministerial Order or Designation by an Order-in-Council, or by municipal and regional governments under the Local Government Act (Government of BC 1996b).

The types of archaeological resources automatically protected by Section 13 of the HCA include:

Archaeological sites occupied or used before 1846; Aboriginal rock art with historical or archaeological value;

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 2

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Burial places with historical or archaeological value; Heritage ship and aircraft wrecks; and Sites of unknown attribution that could have been occupied prior to 1846.

Protected archaeological sites may not be altered or disturbed in any manner without a Permit issued under Sections 12 or 14 of the HCA. Further, heritage sites of Aboriginal origin not automatically protected by the HCA may be subject to legal interpretations of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia (1997), regarding the fiduciary responsibilities of both federal and provincial governments for protecting Aboriginal groups‟ cultural heritage.

1.1.1 Research Objectives The baseline review described in this report conforms in part to an AOA as defined in the “British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998). The objectives of this AOA are to:

Identify lands that have the potential to contain archaeological resources in the vicinity of the mine development currently proposed for the Project; Identify documented archaeological resources that potentially conflict with the proposed Project; and Provide recommendations for additional studies or other measures to protect archaeological resources, as required.

Because no archaeological sites were altered during this study, a provincial Section 14 Heritage Inspection Permit (HIP) was not required for the overview research.

1.1.2 Kitsault Mine Project Description The proponent is proposing to re-develop the Kitsault deposit. The archaeological assessment upon which this report took into account the following elements of the Project Description to define areas of interest for the study:

An expansion of the historic Kitsault Pit; Construction of a new processing facility and related infrastructure; Disposal of tailings in a Tailings Management Facility (TMF); Creation of a Waste Rock Management Facility (WRMF); and Construction of water management facilities.

1.1.3 Information Sources and Methods The archaeological baseline research involved the following tasks:

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 3

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

A desktop review of regional ethnographic and archaeological literature for the northern part of the Northwest Coast region generally, and the Alice Arm-Kitsault area specifically; A review of the 2010 report by Rescan, which documented the results of an AIA for the mine footprint and LSA; A review of the findings of an AIA conducted by AMEC in the fall of 2010 (AMEC 2012 pending) for additional proposed facilities within the mine footprint and LSA not previously assessed by Rescan; A search for documented archaeological data in the Provincial Heritage Register, an electronic database maintained by the Archaeology Branch, accessed via the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) online application; A preliminary review of paleoenvironmental, biophysical, and topographic information pertaining to the proposed Project area; Identification of archaeological resource data gaps, in terms of the extent of past archaeological survey coverage within the defined study area; A preliminary evaluation of archaeological resource potential within the proposed Project location; and Preparation of a written report describing the results of the baseline assessment. The report is produced in the format outlined in the “British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998).

1.2 Biophysical and Cultural Setting Environmental conditions, both past and present, govern the availability of natural resources and “live-ability” of the natural landscape for human habitation and sustenance. As such, environmental conditions are principle factors which determine land use, settlement, and subsistence patterns of ancient inhabitants of this region. In this section, background information on past and present resource characteristics that may have influenced human occupation and land use is presented in order to provide the framework for interpreting heritage resources.

1.2.1 Landscape and Terrain Generally speaking, the proposed Project is situated in mountainous coastal terrain with steep slopes, small plateaus, and numerous drainages (Demarchi 1996). The LSA and RSA of the proposed Project fall within the Nass Ranges Ecoregion (NRA), which is a transitional coastal-interior area lying east of the Kitimat Ranges physiographic unit, and the Meziadin Mountains Ecosections (MEM), which is a rugged, granitic mountainous area that lies on the leeward side of the Boundary Ranges physiographic unit and west of the low Nass Basin (refer to the Vegetation Baseline Report (Appendix 6.10-A) for more information).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 4

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

1.2.2 Geology The proposed Project, a former mine site, contains an estimated 215 million tonnes (Mt) of economically mineable molybdenum (Section 3.0). The geology of the LSA is characterised by intensive intrusive activity, which has metamorphosed Jurassic-era volcanic and sedimentary rocks into greenschist facies (Section 3.0). Intrusive multiphase diorites, quartz monzonites and younger felsic units form the Alice Arm intrusives in which molybdenum mineralisation occurred. None of these geological formations contain rock types typically sought in pre-Contact times for stone-tool manufacture. However, some basalt flows and glacial tills have been observed in the greater region, outside the proposed Project area (Section 3.0). These are more likely to have contained rock types which would have been sought for flaked or ground tool manufacture on the North Coast (Fladmark et al. 1990; Matson and Coupland 1995).

1.2.3 Hydrology Numerous lakes are located within the LSA or in proximity to the proposed Project. These include Patsy Lake, Clary Lake and Killam Lake. Drainages include Patsy Lake, which drains into Lime Creek and Alice Arm via Patsy Creek; and Clary Lake which drains into the Illiance River and Alice Arm via Clary Creek. Major drainages near the proposed Project area are the Illiance River and the Kitsault River, both of which are north of the proposed Project area and drain into Alice Arm (Section 3.0).

1.2.4 Modern Vegetation Five Biogeoclimatic (BGC) variants are present within the proposed Project area:

Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime Submontane variant (CWHws1) (Pojar et al. 1991a); Coastal Western Hemlock Wet Submaritime Montane variant (CWHws2) (Pojar et al. 1991a); Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Leeward variant (MHmm1) (Pojar et al. 1991b); Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Windward variant (MHmm2) (Pojar et al. 1991b); and Mountain Hemlock Moist Maritime Parkland variant (MHmmp) (Banner et al. 1993).

Shoreline settings along Alice Arm are within the CWHws1 variant, and consist of western hemlock, some western red cedar, amabilis fir, with ground cover of Alaskan blueberry, oval- leaved blueberry, bunchberry, queen‟s cup, five-leaved bramble and various mosses. The CHWws2 is typically found at slightly higher elevations above the CWHws1 variant but is also present in cooler or moister environments than the CWHws1 variant (Pojar et al. 1991a). The MHmm1 occurs above the CWHws2 variant, within the proposed Project area, specifically around the Kitsault Pit, Patsy Lake, Clary Lake and Killam Lake. The MHmm2

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 5

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

variant is characterised by the presence of mountain hemlock, amabilis fir, western hemlock, and some yellow cedar with Alaskan blueberry, black huckleberry, white-flowered rhododendron and various mosses. The highest elevations of the proposed Project area are situated within the MHmmp and are located on the ridge southwest of the Kitsault Pit or atop localised elevated hilltops at the proposed mill location. The parkland variant is characterised by a mosaic of tree island, subalpine meadows, and krummholtz shrubs. The MHmm2 variant is a minor component of the proposed Project area. It is only found at similar elevations as the MHmm1 variant, but occurs on south facing wind exposed slopes.

1.2.5 Wildlife Resources Wildlife species typically found in the proposed Project area, situated within the Nass Wildlife Area, North Coast Forest District, include western toad, olive-sided flycatcher, sooty grouse, American marten, mountain goat, moose, and grizzly bear (refer to the Wildlife and their Habitat Baseline Report (Appendix 6.11-A) for more information). Moose winter habitat has been identified in terrestrial areas surrounding Alice Arm and the Kitsault River. Coastal marine species include northern resident orca, west coast transient orca, grey whales, humpback whales, minke whale, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Dall‟s porpoise, harbour porpoise, Steller sea lions and sea otters (Section 3.0).

Only waters in low land areas adjacent to Alice Arm are fish-bearing. The upland area of the mine site is non-fish bearing. Dolly Varden are the predominant species in the fish- bearing waters, with small numbers of coho salmon and sculpins present in Roundy and Avanti Creeks (refer to the Freshwater Aquatic Resources Baseline Report (Appendix 6.7-A) for more information).

1.2.6 Ancient Environments Significant environmental changes have taken place on the northern part of the Northwest Coast region in the 12,000 years since the end of the last glacial advance. These changes altered the availability of food and other resources, and likely played a critical role in the lives of the ancient inhabitants of the Kitsault area. Paleoclimatic and paleoecological summaries for the proposed Project area are not available, but much work has been done in the greater northern Northwest Coast region (Barrie et al. 2005; Fedje et al. 2005; Fladmark 2001; and Lacourse and Mathewes 2005).

Paleoenvironmental research has established that the Cordilleran Ice Sheet covered all of northern BC until 15,000 radiocarbon years Before Present (BP). It retreated from the Northwest Coast coastal lowlands of Haida Gwaii between 13,500 and 13,000 BP (Barrie et al. 2005).

Glaciostatic rebound as a result of glacial retreat exposed areas of the continental shelf between Haida Gwaii and the mainland (Barrie et al. 2005; Fedje et al. 2005). These unglaciated areas potentially served as refugia for plant and animal species and allowed for colonisation of neighbouring areas. As the ice retreated, these areas may have served as important pathways for human migration (Fladmark 2001; Lacourse and Mathewes 2005).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 6

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Sea levels fluctuated until approximately 5,000 BP when their rate of change stabilised or slowed, allowing for the establishment of anadromous salmon runs (Fladmark 2001).

1.3 Cultural Setting 1.3.1 Ethnographic Background The proposed Project area is located within the territory of the Nisga‟a Nation, represented by Nisga‟a Lisims Government (NLG).

Nisga‟a Nation citizens belong to the Tsimshian cultural and linguistic family. Tsimshian people inhabit the areas surrounding the Nass and the Skeena Rivers in northwestern BC (Halpin and Seguin 1990). The Tsimshian language family falls into four main divisions: the Nisga‟a; Gitxsan; Coast Tsimshian; and Southern Tsimshian. The Nisga‟a Nation citizens are Nisga‟a language speakers, which is mutually intelligible with the Gitxsan language but differs from both the Coast and Southern Tsimshian languages (Halpin and Seguin 1990). All groups placed emphasis on fish-based subsistence, including salmon fishing in the summer and fall, and eulachon oil production during the late winter. Large game predominantly included moose, caribou, and deer, but bears and mountain goats would have been hunted when and where available. Smaller mammals were more important as fur-bearers than as supplementary food-sources. For additional ethnographic information about the Nisga‟a Nation people and the Tsimshian Culture group as a whole, see Boas (1895, 1916), MacDonald (1983), Sapir (1915), and Part C of the Application (and Appendix 13.0-A, Nisga‟a Nation Rights, Interests and Values Report).

1.3.2 Traditional Habitations The Nisga‟a Nation society was characterised by a semi-sedentary lifestyle dependent upon fishing, gathering, and hunting for subsistence. The society was stratified and four classes of people were usually present:

An upper class or chiefly families or smkikét or „real people‟; Those of lesser rank or liqakitét, or „other people‟; Free people who had not taken ancestral names were termed wah?á?ayin or “having no relatives”; and Slaves (Garfield 1939 cited in Halpin and Seguin 1990).

The primary social and economic unit of the Nisga‟a Nation society was the house group, each consisting of one or more extended families occupying a single plank house. Residence was usually with the man's family (“patrilocal”) while descent was reckoned bilaterally. Each house group owned its house, rights to resource procurement sites, and ritual property including ancestral names, legends, songs, and dances. Rights to these properties were acquired through inheritance and were normally held by the most important members of the household. Relationships by marriage between clans were also extremely important (Halpin and Seguin 1990).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 7

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Nisga‟a Villages were usually comprised of one or more long houses. Leadership was provided by the most respected heads of households and kin groups in the village. The prestige of these people was based on inherited social position, demonstrated good manners, ancestry, spiritual power, and wealth. Each village was linked through ties of marriage and kinship with other villages to form a social network without distinct boundaries. Marriages arranged between socially-equal families in different villages helped to establish a co-operative system for resource procurement, including shared access to specific resource locations and shared labour.

Long house villages usually also included hearths, storage pits, and cooking features, correlated with the intensive use of salmon and the development of a relatively sedentary subsistence-settlement pattern. While fishing has been recorded as the dominant economic activity, there is abundant archaeological evidence for shellfish gathering, hunting and root gathering.

Other structures included menstrual huts, summer houses, sweat lodges and underground caches (Drucker 1950). In the spring, the people moved from their winter villages to seasonal camps, along the coast line or sometimes at mid to high elevations. Other types of lodges or temporary shelters were also constructed, depending on the duration of the stay and the number of persons requiring cover.

1.3.3 Traditional Subsistence Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Nisga‟a Nation economies were based on fishing, hunting, gathering, and trading. Population and settlement were contingent upon the availability and distribution of seasonal resources. These resources would have included:

Anadromous salmon and eulachon runs in the Kitsault and Nass Rivers and their tributaries, amongst other rivers and creeks in the region; Marine fish such as flatfish and herring from the inlets; Shellfish; Land mammals such as deer, wapiti, bear, mountain goat and mountain sheep; Sea mammals such as seals and sea otters; Birds of various species were also hunted and sea bird eggs collected; and Forest plant resources available to the Nisga‟a Nation included western red cedar, yellow cedar, western hemlock (for bark and timber), blueberries, and huckleberries (for subsistence).

At winter‟s end, the main activity was eulachon fishing on the Nass River. The Nisga‟a Nation then moved to more coastal environments for seaweed collection and fishing for halibut and herring spawn. Harvesting of sea bird eggs and shellfish such as abalone took place in the late spring and summer months. With the return of the salmon, the Nisga‟a Nation moved to their fishing sites, where seasonal camps were maintained. Early autumn

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 8

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

included the preservation of salmon and other resources for the winter months (Halpin and Seguin 1990). During the fall, organised hunting of mule deer, mountain goat, mountain sheep, wapiti, and smaller mammals occurred along the forest edges, as well as in alpine and subalpine settings. Sporadic hunting took place during the winter months (Halpin and Seguin 1990).

1.3.4 The Contact Period Similar to other regions of the northern part of the Northwest Coast region, the Nisga‟a Nation have a long history of European contact. Russian vessels first reached the Alaskan coast in 1741, with reports of vast sea otter populations prompting an active fur trade. Other Europeans and Americans soon followed. By the time Spanish explorations reached the Tsimshian area in 1792, they observed deeply established trading relationships. In 1793, Captain George Vancouver sailed into the Nisga‟a Nation area. Encouraged to engage in trading by the Aboriginal people he met, he declined and continued on his exploration (Halpin and Seguin 1990; Inglis et al. 1990; Martindale 2003).

Martindale (2003) suggested that early trade relationships, first in sea otter, then land mammal pelts, did not result in vast changes to Tsimshian lifeways; rather, trade at Fort Simpson (established 1830) and Port Simpson (established 1834) was incorporated into seasonal rounds. Trading occurred with the spring eulachon fishery on the Nass River. However, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few prominent leaders who acted as wholesalers.

Epidemics resulting from European contact took a toll on people in this area, just as it did elsewhere. A pre-Contact Nass Valley population as high as 8,000 had been reduced to as little as 900 by 1793 (Frances 2000), though other estimates are more conservative (Halpin and Seguin 1990).

The arrival of missionaries, beginning with William Duncan in the Prince Rupert Harbour area in 1857, had a large impact on Tsimshian lifeways. By 1862, 1,100 Tsimshian people had been drawn to Duncan‟s mission at Metlatakla (Halpin and Seguin 1990). Missions in Nisga‟a-speaking areas on the Nass River soon followed: at Greenville‟ Canyon City; Kincolith; and New Aiyansh (Inglis et al. 1990). Missionaries exerted moral control as they simultaneously controlled the trade in European goods which Tsimshian people had come to rely upon (Martindale 2003). By the 1980s, Tsimshian people were employed primarily in fishing, logging, and professional positions, with a small amount engaged in trapping (Inglis et al. 1990).

Mining on Alice Arm began with the establishment of Silver City and the Dolly Varden silver mine (1916 - 1921). The Yukon Dominion Telegraph, constructed in 1910 - 1911, served mining communities in the area, and traversed the proposed Project area (Rescan 2010). Open pit mining at the Kitsault Mine took place from 1968 - 1972, with workers from the community of Alice Arm commuting to the mine site. By the time the mine re-opened in 1981, Alice Arm had become a ghost town, and the Kitsault Townsite was proposed as a

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 9

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

stable settlement. Eighteen months later, the price of molybdenum fell drastically and the mine and the Kitsault Townsite were abandoned (Rescan 2010).

The Nisga‟a Nation have long pushed for more control over their lands, with Nisga‟a Nation speakers forming a land committee in the 1890s and protesting non-Nisga‟a Nation settlement of the Nass Valley. This was followed by a reaffirmation of Nisga‟a Nation sovereignty in 1913, the Nisga‟a Nation‟s first unsuccessful suit against the government for Aboriginal title to the Nass Valley in 1967 and the 1975 Nisga‟a Declaration (Inglis et al. 1990).

Nisga‟a Nation self-government was recognised in 1999, with the Nisga‟a Treaty, marking the first treaty in BC in a century. This landmark ratification gave the Nisga‟a Nation approximately 8 percent (%) of their claimed territory, and a share in fish, animal, timber, and mineral resources (Frances 2000).

1.4 Archaeological Background Archaeological sites are locations with material remains produced by human activities in the past. In BC, archaeological sites are usually attributed to Aboriginal groups‟ settlement and land use in pre-Contact times, but places with physical evidence of more recent activities pre-dating World War II may be recorded as historical archaeological sites. Historical sites often have intact structural remains or “built heritage” (including residences, industrial structures, and farm outbuildings). Historical sites could also include roads and trails, single objects such as vehicles or machines, and featureless sites such as rubbish dumps.

Archaeological sites in BC are recorded in the Provincial Heritage Register, maintained by the Archaeology Branch (Site Inventory Section), the provincial government agency responsible for management of archaeological resources in accordance with the HCA.

Archaeological sites are numbered according to the Borden Site Designation Scheme (Borden 1952), which is used throughout Canada. This scheme is based on National Topographic System (NTS) maps and uses latitude and longitude to generally pinpoint a site‟s location. The four alternating upper and lower case letters (e.g., GiTi) denote a unique “Borden unit” measuring 10‟ latitude x 10‟ longitude. Sites are numbered sequentially within each Borden unit based (usually) on their date of discovery (i.e., GiTi-1 at the head of Alice Arm is the first site recorded in the “GiTi” Borden unit).

1.4.1 Archaeological Site Types Archaeological sites are defined according to the types of archaeological remains (i.e., artefacts and features) present, and according to the types of traditional activities suspected to have taken place at the site. A particular site can be comprised of one or more of these types of archaeological remains, and generally speaking, it is expected that larger sites will be more complex than smaller ones.

Typical archaeological remains found in the Kitsault area include habitation sites (semi- permanent or transitory, village sites, and seasonal camps), midden sites, wetsites, fish

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 10

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

weirs, subsistence features, artefact scatters, lithic procurement sites, rock art, burial places, petroforms, culturally modified trees (CMT), trails, and historic remains, each of which is described below:

Habitation sites are locations used for semi-permanent or transitory residence. They are characterised by features such as house depressions or platforms, caves and rockshelters, hearths, and refuse deposits (or middens) consisting of fire-altered rocks, charcoal, ash, artefacts, and faunal remains. Burial places and subsistence features are usually present at larger, or longer occupied, habitation sites; Villages are a specific type of habitation site, occupied for longer periods of time by many generations. Villages are typically comprised of cultural depressions (one or more circular, sub-rectangular, and / or rectangular depressions, the remains of semi-sub-terranean pithouses or plank-houses). Village sites frequently include smaller pits used for food preparation and storage, burials, and the remains of activities undertaken outside the houses, including deposits of ash and other rubbish, butchered animal bones, and the waste products of stone tool manufacture. Village sites are usually found in environmental settings characterised by good solar exposure, protection from winter winds, and proximity to potable water, though secluded locations without these other attributes were often selected as defensible positions; Seasonal camps include similar kinds of archaeological materials and features, with the exception of house depressions. Most seasonal camps are comprised of scatters of stone artefacts, representing transitory occupation of riparian or inland environmental settings, oriented toward the exploitation of particular resources. Camps repeatedly occupied for centuries will often exhibit deposits of anthropogenic sediments, containing stone artefacts, animal bones, ash, fire- altered rocks, and charcoal. Seasonal camps near major watercourses will be found in the same settings that villages occur, but those in landward settings usually have an unobstructed view of potential game routes; Middens represent the remnants of ancient villages or resource harvesting camps. When found in riparian environments of major rivers such as the Kitsault River, Nass River, and Skeena River, they consist primarily of distinctive black, anthropogenic soil with occasional fish, bird, and mammal bones, fire-altered rocks, ash and charcoal, artefacts, and cultural features (such as hearths or pits). In this region, middens were also used as burial places; Wetsites occur when a rare combination of environmental factors produces a specialised type of waterlogged deposit. These sites only occur in permanently- saturated, anaerobic settings. They are renowned for exceptional preservation of ordinarily perishable artefacts, such as basketry, matting, cordage, and wooden implements (e.g., yew-wood wedges);

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 11

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Fish weirs are the remains of wooden stakes and poles aligned to catch fish. They can also be constructed of rocks and may be used in conjunction with wooden stakes. Fish weirs constructed of wood may be considered a variant of a wetsite. Fish weirs are known at a few sites from the northern Northwest Coast region. Fish weirs can be expected in any waterways that support seasonal salmon runs; archaeological weirs would appear as alignments of broken wooden stakes embedded in the beds of streams or river channels and / or rock alignments in backwater channels, sloughs or river bars; Subsistence features are usually present at locations used to harvest and process natural resources, but are often associated with habitation sites. Cache or storage pits are the most common type of subsistence feature, and appear as circular surface depressions between 1 metre (m) and 4 m in diameter, frequently in close-spaced clusters. Cooking features represent another characteristic subsistence feature in this region; they may appear as small, charcoal-filled depressions, or level platforms covered with greasy, black carbon- stained soil. Fish weirs may also be considered a subsistence feature; Artefact scatters usually consist of stone artifacts (including formed tools and waste materials resulting from the production of such tools), and less-frequently, butchered animal bones, found on the ground or buried beneath the surface. Artefacts scatters will always be present around habitation sites, and most sites where subsistence features are present, but can also occur in sites by themselves, denoting transitory hunting or way-camps; Lithic procurement / quarry sites are locations where lithic (stone) raw material, suitable for making stone tools has been gathered and / or mined by Aboriginal people; Rock art consists of paintings (pictographs) or carvings / etchings (petroglyphs) and is typically found on bedrock outcrops or large boulders. Rock art is often found along steep shorelines and traditional trails, or at locations of strong spiritual significance to Aboriginal people; Burial places are locations where Aboriginal people interred their dead. They are commonly found near winter villages, but occur generally throughout the landscape for individuals who died when away from their villages. In this region, burial places are most often found in association with habitation sites such as shell middens; Petroforms are deliberate constructs of stones (e.g., canoe runs, fish traps, clam gardens), which could either be associated with villages or seasonal camps or with subsistence activities (intertidal fish traps, or streams and rivers); CMTs are trees which have been intentionally altered by Aboriginal people and denote the ongoing use of forest resources. Examples include trees with scars from bark stripping or plank removal, stumps and felled logs, trees tested for soundness, trees chopped for pitch, and trees de-limbed for firewood

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 12

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

(Archaeology Branch 2001). Although a number of tree species were traditionally used by Aboriginal people in the northern part of the Northwest Coast region, bark-stripped western red cedar is the most common CMT in this region. A bark-stripped CMT is a tree from which a section of bark has been removed, resulting in a triangular to rectangular bark scar (Archaeology Branch 2001); Trails represent routes used by Aboriginal people, either for subsistence pursuits, long-distance trade (e.g., eulachon oil – “grease trails”), or communication with neighbouring Aboriginal groups. Many trails became historically known routes during the fur trade period, and were used later for contemporary roads. CMTs are commonly found within a short distance of pre- Contact and more recent trails; and Historic remains denote artefacts, structures, and other features usually associated with Euro-Canadian or Asian-Canadian settlement and land use although they may also be associated with Aboriginal groups‟ historic occupation. In the proposed Project area, they are most likely to be associated with late-19th and early-20th century mining and forestry.

1.4.2 Regional Cultural Chronology The proposed Project is situated within the Northwest Coast Culture Area, which encompasses the west coast of North America from southeastern Alaska to southern Oregon (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). No cultural chronology is currently available for the proposed Project area, or the nearby Nass River.

The closest developed cultural chronology is in the Prince Rupert - Skeena River area. Archaeologists have defined a sequence of pre-Contact cultures in the Prince Rupert - Skeena River area, based on site investigations throughout the region in Prince Rupert Harbour, the lower Skeena River drainage, and the Skeena River as far upstream as Kitselas Canyon (Ames 1979; Coupland 1996; Coupland et al. 1991, 2003; Cybulski 2001; Martindale 1996, 1999, 2003). The most recent general summaries of Northwest Coast pre- history are Ames and Maschner (1999), Carlson (1983), Fladmark et al. (1990), and Matson and Coupland (1995).

The regional chronology is compiled largely from data of the Prince Rupert Harbour area and Lower Skeena, where most of the archaeological work has been done (Table 1.4-1). Long-held assumptions that occupations in this area did not predate 5,000 BP have recently been challenged with dates from the Dundas Islands, 25 km west of Prince Rupert Harbour (Martindale et al. 2009). These dates show that sites in the region may date to 7,000 BP, and possibly as early as 10,000 BP, placing them squarely within the North Coast Microblade Tradition (Carlson 1996) though others disagree with this Tradition (Ames and Maschner 1999). The North Coast Microblade Tradition extends from sometime after the end of the last glacial (approximately 10,500 BP) to 7,000 BP. Previously, Prince Rupert Harbour and Kitselas Canyon sites on the Skeena River, dated between 5,000 and 4,300 BP, fell into this sequence, which is characterised by microblades, pebble and flake

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 13

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

tools, and very few ground stone tools (Matson and Coupland 1995). Occupations and shell midden accumulations older than 5,000 BP are presumed to have been drowned by rising sea levels (Ames 2005; Fladmark et al. 1990).

Subsequent periods are locally defined with the Morseby Tradition on Haida Gwaii, the various Namu sequences at Namu on the Central Northwest Coast and the Prince Rupert Harbour sequence after 3500 BP. Ames and Maschner (1999) include the North Coast Microblade Tradition within their Archaic sequence (11,000 BP to 5000 BP) followed by the early Pacific (5000 BP to 3500 BP), then the Middle Pacific (3500 BP to 1500 BP) and the Late Pacific (1500 BP to contact).

Table 1.4-1: Sequence of Complex Cultural Characteristics from Tsimshian Territory

Years BP1 Prince Rupert Harbour (Coast) Kitselas Canyon (Interior) 0 Regional trade (coastal fauna; European goods)2 1,000 Warfare (defensive village locations) Lineage ranking (big houses) Land tenure3 (of fishing locations) Slavery (male / female burial ratios) 2,000 Social differentiation (status items) Social differentiation3 (status Control of trade3 (exotic imports) items) Raiding and violence (traumatic death) Craft specialization (woodworking) 3,000 Sedentism3 (settlement pattern) Sedentism (winter village) Intensification3 (marine resources) Storage3 (faunal profile) Intensification (salmon) Population increase (shell middens) Storage (cache pits) 4,000 5,000

Source: Martindale 1999 Notes: 1. BP - Before Present (i.e., radiocarbon years before present). 2. Archaeological data in brackets are used to infer complex characteristics. 3. Martindale considers the archaeological data upon which these inferences are based to be weak

Between about 4,500 and 3,500 years BP, assemblages in the region see a shift towards ground stone tools, the addition of bone harpoons, leaf-shaped chipped stone bifaces, and woodworking tools made from bone, antler, shell and porcupine quills (Matson and Coupland 1995). Sites from this time are characterised by small middens and faunal remains suggesting changes in the fishing and hunting-based subsistence economy (Fladmark et al. 1990) and residential mobility (Martindale 1999).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 14

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Changes in subsistence and settlement patterns are evident between 3,200 and 2,700 BP, with the rise of permanent villages consisting of large, rectangular multi-family houses. Year-round occupation is evident at the Boardwalk Site (GbTo-31), which like the Paul Mason Site (GdTc-16) had two rows of houses (Ames and Maschner 1999). The Boardwalk Site may also have the earliest zoomorphic design – a characteristic of Northwest Coast art – in a cross-hatched motif interpreted as fish bones (Ames and Maschner 1999). Faunal remains in cooking features and pebble and notched pebble net sinkers are added to the material culture assemblage. These changes in the archaeological record have been used to infer an increasing reliance on fishing (Matson and Coupland 1995). By 3,000 BP, burials occur in middens and cemeteries (Ames 2005).

By 2,500 BP, status differentiation, warfare, and long-distance trade are evident in Prince Rupert Harbour archaeological assemblages. Personal adornment items are made from materials which would have been traded from long distances, including copper, obsidian, jet, amber and dentalia (Matson and Coupland 1995). High status goods, including labrets, shell beads and gorgets, and dog interments, are present in burials regardless of age and gender, implying ascribed status (Ames and Maschner 1999). Bone clubs and burials with evidence of fractures consistent with trauma are used to infer the presence of warfare (Matson and Coupland 1995).

Social inequalities are inferred by differential house sizes at the Paul Mason Site between 2,000 and 1,500 BP (Ames 2005). Similarities begin to occur between coastal sites and year-round sites in the Skeena Valley between 1,700 and 1,000 BP (Martindale 2003). Craft specialisation is evident (Martindale 1999).

Male burials outnumber female burials at Greenville (GgTj-6; ~1,500-500 BP), potentially indicating differential burial practices of female slaves. Arm fractures and a cranial fracture consistent with club blows are used to infer the presence of warfare (Cybulski 1992). Status differences may also be represented by labret wear on the women who are buried there, while faunal remains were interpreted not as evidence of subsistence, but of the ceremonial feeding of the dead (Cybulski 1992). Zoomorphic art at this time is abundant until 100 BP. Differential deposition of salmon bones at McNichol Creek (GcTo-6) may be evidence of salmon processing prior to storage (Matson and Coupland 1995).

In the early Contact period, archaeological evidence shows a shift towards regional spatial organisation. Large villages, located at the confluences of tributaries and the Skeena River, formed as a result of changing relationships in response to European trade (Martindale 2003).

1.5 Baseline Assessment Results 1.5.1 Document Review The review of archaeological and ethnographic sources used for the proposed Project area, as represented by the LSA (Figure 1.5-1), was extremely limiting as a tool for baseline research. Given the paucity of information available for the proposed Project area,

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 15

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

expansion of the research catchment area was required. This larger geographic scope, or RSA (Figure 1.5-2) is defined as those lands drained by Alice Arm, Observatory Inlet, and the Nass River Valley. The absence of any detailed archaeological studies for the RSA required the inclusion of the Prince Rupert area and the lower Skeena River (to Kitselas Canyon) for the baseline report.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 16

468000 470000 472000 474000 476000 478000 Legend ILLIAN

6148000 C 6148000 E RIV E R Barge Landing Facility Road Transmission line Diversion Ditch Process Plant Open Pit Ore Stockpile Topsoil Stockpiles ALICE Clary Lake Freshwater Intake ARM C East Waste Rock Management Facility LA RY CREEK BARGE LANDING FACILITY Tailings Beach 6146000 (KITSAULT TOWNSITE) KITSAULT 6146000 TMF Supernatant Pond TOWNSITE D OA R Local Study Area RM E A IC AL CLARY L IM LAKE E C R E E K BARGE LANDING FACILITY (LOG SORT)

KILLAM ALASKA LAKE AVAN KEY MAP TI CR EE K YUKON NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Fort Nelson Juneau 6144000 6144000 BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA

Fort St. John Stewart Project Location

Edmonton Kitimat Prince George

K PATSY LAKE E E R C

E K Calgary E M I E L R Kamloops C TSY Kelowna PA TO Y Vancouver TAR TRIBU Victoria UNITED STATES 6142000 6142000 EK E R Scale:1:40,000 UNITED STATES C Y S 0 0.5 1 T A P Kilometers

Reference 1. Base Data Geobase 1:20,000 (TRIM) Land and Resource Data Warehouse 1:20,000 (TRIM)

R Image: Orthophoto 40cm O L U 'A 2: Kitsault Mine General Layout T N H A Supplied by AMEC and Knight Piescold December 2010 D IN Y W G CLIENT: C I R S K E

E

K Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. 6140000 6140000 PROJECT: Kitsault Mine Project

Archaeology Baseline Local Study Area and Kitsault Mine Project Layout

DATE: ANALYST: December 2010 MY Figure

JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: VE51988 GH 16-50-002_study_area.pdf

GIS FILE: 16-50-002.mxd

PROJECTION: DATUM:

6138000 468000 470000 472000 474000 476000 478000 6138000 UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y:\GIS\Projects\VE\VE51988_Kitsault\Mapping\16_Archaeology\Baseline\16-50-002_v2.mxd

400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000 520000 540000

Legend 6200000 6200000 Archaeological Site

GlTr GlTq GlTp GlTo GlTn GlTm GlTl GlTk GlTj GlTi GlTh GlTg GlTf GlTe GlTd GlTc Local Study Area Regional Study Area

2

1 3 GkTr GkTq GkTp GkTo GkTn GkTm 6180000 GkTl GkTk GkTj GkTi GkTh GkTg GkTf GkTe GkTd GkTc 6180000 1

1 1 2 1

4

2 1 1 GjTr 6 GjTq GjTp GjTo GjTn GjTm GjTl GjTk GjTj GjTi GjTh GjTg GjTf GjTe GjTd GjTc 3 6160000 6160000 ALASKA 5 2 2 KEY MAP 1 5 NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 1 4 YUKON 3 8 7 2 1 Fort Nelson 5 Juneau 5 1 31 BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA A ICE RM L Fort St. John GiTr A Stewart GiTq GiTp 4 Project Location GiTo GiTn 6 GiTf 1 GiTm GiTl GiTk GiTj GiTi GiTh GiTg GiTe GiTd GiTc 1 7 Kitsault Mine Location Edmonton 3 Kitimat Prince George 6140000 6140000

12 10 10 3 11 4 7 Calgary

2 11 Kamloops Kelowna 2117 10 Vancouver 2 11 23 20 2 9 Victoria 6 2 UNITED STATES GhTr 1 GhTq 5 22 4 GhTp GhTo GhTn GhTm GhTl 1 GhTj GhTi GhTh GhTg 12 GhTf GhTe GhTd GhTc GhTk Scale:1:500,000 UNITED STATES 14 3 7 0 10 20 13 2 6120000 7 4 6120000 Kilometers T 8 48 E 5 9 16 25 L 3 16 24 N 1 I 3 Y 3 26 R 2 4 O T 3 5 A 1 V Reference R 1 E 3 1. Base Data GgTr S 4 World topographic map: 1:500,000 GgTq GgTm B 1 GgTp GgTo GgTn O GgTk GgTj GgTi GgTh GgTg GgTf GgTe GgTd GgTc CLIENT: 3 2 GgTl 1 Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. 7 2 2 2 8 7 6100000 6 9 6100000 PROJECT: 5 1 2 4 Kitsault Mine Project 17 43 11 3 1 1 3 2 5 2 6 1 T 1 1 E 1 910 L 6 Archaeological Baseline N I 3 GfTr D 22825 GfTq N Local and Regional Study Area GfTp GfTo GfTn A L GfTl GfTk GfTc 23 31 34 GfTj GfTi GfTh GfTg GfTf 4 GfTd T 6 26 DATE: ANALYST: R 2 GfTe 32 2 O GfTm February 2011 MY Figure P 5 JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: 14 VE51988 GH 16-50-008_regional_study_area.pdf 2 1

6080000 18 6080000 134 1 GIS FILE: GeTr GeTq GeTp 1 16-50-008.mxd 2 GeTo GeTn GeTm GeTl GeTk GeTj GeTi GeTh GeTg GeTf GeTe GeTd GeTc 74 PROJECTION: DATUM: 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000 520000 540000 UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y:\GIS\Projects\VE\VE51988_Kitsault\Mapping\16_Archaeology\Baseline\16-50-008.mxd KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Many of the necessary documents required for this study were available in the AMEC library, and were supplemented as necessary by additional reports obtained from the electronic library maintained by the Archaeology Branch, and from the personal library of Geordie Howe and Richard Brolly (AMEC). This aspect of the research sought general information on pre-Contact archaeology, Aboriginal groups‟ land use and settlement, and historic land-use patterns. The review of archaeological reports describing past research focussed on the studies that were centered within the LSA as defined above, and with more general synthesis obtained from the RSA as far as the Skeena River.

As well as regional ethnographic sources (Boas 1895; 1916), more recent land use information was obtained from summary articles (Dunn and Booth 1990; Halpin and Seguin 1990; Inglis et al. 1990), archaeological site inventories (Albright 1990; Carlson 1977), and an archaeological overview report (Golder 2000). The results of two AIAs which included field work in the proposed Project area were considered (Rescan 2010; AMEC 2012 pending).

Geo-referenced location data for documented archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed Project was obtained from the Provincial Heritage Register, an electronic database maintained by the Archaeology Branch. This information, including site- distribution maps and Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM) based orthophotos, is available via the RAAD on-line application. For the data-gap analysis, data from documented archaeological sites was confined to those “Borden units” that encompassed the LSA and within approximately 60 km of the proposed Project area along Alice Arm and Observatory Inlet.

Generalised topographic information was obtained from 1:50,000-scale NTS maps and 1:20,000 TRIM maps, as well as scalable orthophotos available from Google Earth™. Biophysical information pertinent to the proposed Project was obtained from maps prepared for the Project Description (Section 3.0).

1.5.2 Evaluation of Archaeological Resource Potential For the purposes of this study, archaeological resource potential is defined as the capability of a landscape (or portion of a landscape) to have supported the kinds of past Nisga‟a Nation activities that would have resulted in the formation and preservation of archaeological remains. Some kinds of Nisga‟a Nation activities (e.g., medicinal plant collection) did not usually result in the creation of physical remains, and such activities cannot normally be considered in the context of an assessment of archaeological resource potential. The same constraint also applies to places of cultural significance (e.g., spirited places), but where Nisga‟a Nation data is available, both kinds of information can be used as landscape attributes to assess archaeological resource potential.

As considered here, potential evaluations are not synonymous with probability, which is a quantifiable measure of site occurrence, but simply rate the sensitivity of lands that should be examined by archaeologists in advance of land-altering developments.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 19

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

The assessment of archaeological potential is based upon a consideration of the locations of documented sites, ethnographic and historic land use information, and landscape characteristics that influence (favourably or negatively) the distribution of archaeological sites. Because archaeological site locations are often correlated with particular micro- environmental landscape attributes, the presence or absence of these variables can be used to identify lands with greater or lesser archaeological potential.

Criteria used to define polygons of moderate or high archaeological potential are separated into macrosite and microsite landscape attributes. Macrosite criteria apply to the determination of archaeological potential in a regional context. The macrosite criteria include: known archaeological sites; travel / transportation corridors; bedrock geology; ungulate range; and solar aspect.

Microsite criteria refer to factors that refine the shape, location and degree of individual “polygons” denoting particular classes of archaeological potential. These criteria include site-specific landform features such as terrace / fan, promontory, saddle, open shallow water, watercourse, relict watercourse, confluence, or watercourse node. These landscape attributes are not usually discernable at map-scales larger than 1:5,000 or 1:10,000.

Lands are categorised as having “High”, “Moderate”, or “Low” archaeological resource potential. These varying classes affect the scope and level of effort recommended for future archaeological assessment studies. In general, the higher the potential class, the greater the level of effort expected by regulatory authorities. For the present study, the potential values are defined as follows:

High potential: Lands exhibiting topographic and biophysical attributes highly supportive of past cultural activities that would have left archaeological evidence. These lands exhibit the highest archaeological sensitivity within a particular landscape; Moderate potential: Lands exhibiting fewer attributes that would have supported past Nisga‟a Nation cultural activities than the preceding category; and Low potential: Lands that exhibit few characteristics supportive of past Nisga‟a Nation cultural activities. Further archaeological investigations are not normally recommended for lands categorised as having low archaeological potential.

A Geographic Information System (GIS) based model of archaeological potential was developed for the North Coast Timber Supply Area (NCTSA) in 2000 (Golder 2000). This model is available in the Archaeology Branch‟s RAAD on-line application. This model covers lands within the LSA as well as all lands within the North Coast Timber Supply Area.

The coverage of this model was acquired from the Archaeology Branch. According to this model, a small percentage of moderate to high potential lands are within the proposed Project area. Figure 1.5-3 shows the LSA and archaeological potential based upon the North Coast AOA Potential Model (Golder 2000).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 20

Legend

RIVER Road NCE LLA I Transmission Line Access Road Pipeline - Freshwater Process Plant

ALICE ARM Open Pit Ore Stockpile Topsoil Stockpiles CLARY CREEK East Waste Rock Management Facility Northeast Embankment Tailings Beach TMF Supernatant Pond

KITSAULT North Coast AOA Potential Model TOWNSITE AD High Potential RO M L AR Moderate Potential IM E CLARY E LIC C A LAKE RE EK

ALASKA KEY MAP NORTHWEST TERRITORIES YUKON KILLAM A VAN LAKE Fort Nelson TI C Juneau REE K BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA LAKE #901

Fort St. John Stewart

R O LIME CREEK U Edmonton N Project Location Kitimat Prince George D Y C R EE K Calgary

Kamloops Kelowna

PATSY LAKE Vancouver

Victoria UNITED STATES

Scale:1:35,000 UNITED STATES 0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Note: Drawing is preliminary and subject to revision during ongoing design K as additional information is obtained. E Reference E R 1. Base Data C Geobase 1:20,000 (TRIM) Y S Land and Resource Data Warehouse 1:20,000 (TRIM) T A 2: Kitsault Mine General Layout P Supplied by AMEC and Knight Piesold on March 2011 3: North Coast AOA Potential Model Supplied by Archaeology Branch

CLIENT: KSI GWINHAT'AL Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd.

ROUNDY CREEK PROJECT: Kitsault Mine Project

Baseline Assessment Archaeological Potential and Kitsault Mine Project Layout

DATE: ANALYST: March 2011 KG Figure

JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: VE51988 DGH 16-50-009_ArchPotential_REV1.pdf

GIS FILE: 16-50-009_REV1.mxd

PROJECTION: DATUM: UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y:\GIS\Projects\VE\VE51988_Kitsault\Mapping\16_Archaeology\Baseline\16-50-009_REV1.mxd KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

1.5.3 Archaeological Research in the Kitsault Area 1.5.3.1 Local Study Area Previous archaeological research for this proposed Project (Rescan 2010) identified no archaeological sites in the LSA. A previous, larger coastal survey which covered the LSA identified no sites in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Carlson 1977). An AIA in the Alice Arm area also identified no sites, and described the area east of Roundy Creek as having little or no archaeological potential (Albright 1990). The closest identified heritage site is the historic fishing camp GiTi-1 (Gitzault site), approximately 15 km north at the head of Alice Arm.

Seven historic land use features were recorded during a previous archaeological survey of the LSA (Rescan 2010), however, all post-date 1846 and are not protected by the HCA. The majority of these features (n=5) consist of one or more blazed trees, interpreted as trail markers associated with mining exploration within the last century. The Rescan (2010) survey interpreted a partially buried wooden board, nails, and wire as debris from a historic drill pad. The final feature identified was a section of telegraph line, built between 1910 and 1911, which linked Stewart to the main Yukon Dominion Telegraph line and served communities at the head of Alice Arm.

The results of the AIA conducted by AMEC in the fall of 2010 found no archaeological sites in the LSA (AMEC 2012 pending).

1.5.3.2 Regional Study Area Archaeological research along the Portland Inlet and Observatory Inlet (Figure 1.5-2) areas has resulted in the identification of numerous sites, including several at the entrance to Alice Arm and northward into Hastings Arm (Table 1.5-1). Many sites have both pre-Contact and historic components. The closest protected site is Gitzault (GiTi-1), which is approximately 15 km north of the LSA on Alice Arm. Gitzault was recorded as the remnants of a historic fishing and camping site during a 1976 survey by Simon Fraser University archaeologists (Carlson 1977). The archaeological site form (accessed 30 November 2010) is ambiguous about whether a pre-Contact component is present at Gitzault. It lists the presence of a pre- Contact cache pit, but appears to contradict itself by stating that no pre-Contact component was recorded. Closer to the mouth of Alice Arm are a handful of sites, including cache pits and CMTs (Carlson 1977).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 22

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Table 1.5-1: Identified Archaeological Sites in the Regional Study Area

Borden Number Site Name Typology GfTj-1 CMT (bark-stripped) GgTl-2 CMT (bark-stripped tree, rectangular and tapered scars) GgTm-1 Dogfish Bay Historic smoke house GgTm-2 Historic house GgTm-3 CMT (bark-stripped, large rectangular scar) GgTm-4 Gitladamix Kitladamix Old Historic house, surface refuse Aiyansh GgTm-5 CMT (bark-stripped, large rectangular scar) GgTm-6 CMT (bark-stripped, tapered scar) GgTm-7 Scowban Historic smokehouse GhTk-1 CMT (bark-stripped, large rectangular scar) GhTk-2 Salmon Cove Pre-contact shell midden and fish trap GhTl-1 CMT (bark-stripped) GhTl-2 CMT GiTi-1 Gitzault Historic house and smokehouse, possibly pre- Contact cache pit? GiTk-1 CMT (bark-stripped) GiTk-2 CMT (bark-stripped, tapered scar) GiTk-3 Pre-contact cultural depression GiTk-4 CMT (bark-stripped) GiTk-5 Git a loht Pre-contact cache pit and trail GiTk-6 Githenaksit Historic cabin, pre-Contact cache pit and surface lithic scatter GiTk-7 “Khamsen's Piss Pot” Natural feature associated with traditional tale GiTk-8 CMT (bark-stripped) GiTk-9 CMT, arbourglyph and pre-Contact burial GiTk-10 Canyon City Cave CMT (n=7), pre-1920 GiTk-11 CMT (bark-stripped, girdled scar and tapered scar) GjTk-1 Pre-contact lithic scatter, CMT (bark-stripped) GjTm-1 CMTs (n=90), some pre-dating 1846 GkTj-1 Pre-Contact cache pit GkTm-1 CMT (bark-stripped, large rectangular scar)

Notes: Data in this section were compiled using the provincial Archaeology Branch‟s Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) on-line application; CMT - culturally modified tree or trees

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 23

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

There are a few recorded sites on Hastings Arm, off Observatory Inlet, including pre-Contact cache pits, CMTs, and GiTk-9, which contains a pre-Contact burial and an arbourglyph (Carlson 1977).

North of the LSA on the Kitsault River is one pre-Contact site (GkTj-1); a cache pit. Northwest into Portland Canal are historic sites, including a cabin and camp (GjTm-1) and a bark-stripped tree (GkTm-1) (Carlson 1977). Later work along Portland Canal identified as many as 90 CMTs at this site, many pre-dating 1846 (Millennia Research Ltd. (Millennia) 2004).

South towards Nass Bay on Observatory Inlet, the Provincial Heritage Database includes several historic habitation and bark stripping sites, and Dogfish Bay (GgTm-1), a historic smokehouse.

Sites become more concentrated where Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet merge into Portland Inlet, into Nass Bay and northeast into the Nass River Valley. Dozens of sites are concentrated along the Nass River as it flows south past Meziadin Lake, and along a former eulachon “grease trail” (McMurdo 1975; St. Pierre 1974). Lower Nass sites include pictographs, settlements both historic and pre-Contact, and a burial site (Carlson 1977). Northward along the Nass River, pre-Contact sites include burials, hearths, cache pits, and fishing features (St. Pierre 1974). Historic sites include cabins, CMTs, and GhTg-14, the village of Old Aiyansh (St. Pierre 1974). Upper Nass sites are fewer, but also include a burial site (GkTf-1), lithic scatters, village remains (GiTg-2), and cache pits (McMurdo 1975).

Tsimshian territories to the south in the Skeena River Valley and Prince Rupert Harbour have seen more archaeological work (Coupland et al. 1991; Eldridge et al. 1989; Martindale 1996, 1999; Wilson 1991), and many more recorded sites. In the Skeena River Valley and Prince Rupert Harbour area, sites are abundant, and include burial sites, CMTs, habitation sites ranging in size from rock shelters to villages, cache pits, pictographs, and lithic scatters (Martindale 1999).

Neither the Rescan (2010) AIA, nor the AMEC (2012 pending) AIA included the RSA as a component of their field studies. Documented sites within the RSA are variable in types of sites, extent of sites, and site localities. In some localities within the RSA, site locations likely reflect regional disparities in archaeological site density and in others, the extent and intensity of previous archaeological studies. However, with the existing data, it is not clear if the occurrence of sites represents genuine high-use areas, or are simply reflective of the places where archaeologists have looked for sites; that is, comparable densities of archaeological sites may occur throughout the landscape in contexts that have not been inspected for archaeological sites.

1.5.4 Archaeological Data Gap Analysis 1.5.4.1 Archaeological Resource Inventory - Level of Effort Archaeological site data downloaded from RAAD identifies locations where archaeologists have encountered sites during field studies. However, a particular archaeological field-

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 24

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

survey typically covers a significantly larger area than that encompassed by a single site, and information about lands where no sites have been found is just as significant for the research carried out for this proposed Project.

Currently, the Archaeology Branch requires that all archaeological reports submitted in fulfillment of HIP conditions include shapefiles showing the extent of field-survey coverage for the project described. This requirement is a recent initiative, and many older reports do not have such information in a readily accessible format. Only one project (Rescan 2010) provided shapefiles of individual survey locations and these were uploaded to the proposed Project maps used for this study. This exercise provided a measure of confidence that the documented presence of archaeological sites does or does not reflect the actual distribution of those resources within the landscape of the defined LSA.

No archaeological sites are documented in the LSA. However, 29 archaeological sites are documented in the defined RSA, and basic information about these sites is summarised in Table 1.5-1.

The baseline research determined that there have been four archaeological studies conducted within the LSA. These include studies identified via site inventory records, the Archaeology Branch electronic library, or from a review of archaeological permits issued from 1960 to 2010. Two studies (Rescan 2010; AMEC 2012 pending) are within the proposed Project area.

No parts of Alice Arm have been covered by intensive, systematic archaeological research studies, and a significant percentage of the land base remains essentially unexamined for archaeological resources. In particular, there is a notable paucity of documented archaeological sites along the shoreline of Alice Arm generally, though CMT surveys have taken place further south on Alice Arm (Millennia 2002; 2004). Excluding the Rescan (2010) AIA and the AMEC (2012 pending) AIA, no mid to upper elevation localities in the region have been subject to archaeological assessment.

Together with the sparse record of documented sites and limited area of lands covered by previous archaeological studies, the present research highlights gaps in our understanding of archaeological resource density and distribution in this area. Two archaeological studies (Rescan 2010; AMEC 2012 pending) have been completed within the LSA and no archaeological sites were identified. The frequency of sites identified by previous projects in the RSA signifies that archaeological sites remain to be discovered in the area. The number of identified sites is in all probability a reflection of the level of archaeological effort and not the actual distribution of archaeological sites in the RSA.

1.5.5 Potential Archaeological Resources Using a variety of information sources, this baseline review evaluated the archaeological resource potential of the proposed Project. Based upon the baseline data, the kinds of archaeological remains that potentially could be present within the proposed Project area

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 25

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

are identified in Table 1.5-2. The table indicates the types of sites that could occur, but is not intended to predict the probability of their occurrence.

In summary, the land upon which the Barge Landing Facilities (Kitsault Townsite and Log Sort) are situated have the greatest overall potential for the most kinds of archaeological remains to be present, closely followed by the proposed plant and related infrastructure, and tailings disposal area. The existing Kitsault Pit and associated development should have a low diversity of archaeological remains comparable to the low diversity found at sites of other Project components, but its setting has also been the most profoundly affected by historic land use. The proposed mine development is rated as having a low to moderate diversity of potential archaeological remains, but is situated in a resource-deficient, forested, subalpine upland environment.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 26

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Table 1.5-2: Potential Archaeological Remains in Proximity to the Proposed Project

Proposed Project Facility Processing Plant Barge Landing Facilities Site Type Current Pit Tailings and Related (Kitsault Townsite and Expansion Disposal Infrastructure Log Sort) Habitation L L L M-H Village L L L M-H Seasonal camp L M M M-H Midden L L L M-H Wetsite L L L L-M Fish weirs L L L L-M Subsistence L M M M-H features Artifact scatters L H H H Lithic procurement L L L L / quarry Rock art L L L` M Burial place - pre- L L-M L-M M Contact / historic Petroform L L L M CMT L M-H M-H M-H Trail – traditional / ? M M L historic Historic site L M-H M L

Notes: CMT - culturally modified tree; H - denotes high potential, at least under pristine environmental conditions; M-H - denotes moderate to high archaeological potential, even with high landscape integrity; L-M - denotes low to moderate archaeological potential, even with high landscape integrity; L - denotes low archaeological potential, even with high landscape integrity; ? - potential for trait to occur is uncertain, and may be contingent upon landscape integrity

The results of the AIA conducted by AMEC (2012 pending) concluded that no archaeological resources are present in the LSA of the proposed Project area.

1.6 Study Limitations and Recommendations This AOA concludes that some lands within the proposed Project area exhibit high or moderate potential for archaeological resources. The precise extent and potential rating for those lands was determined during the field assessment of the AIA conducted by AMEC in the fall of 2010 (AMEC 2012 pending).

In preparation for the AMEC AIA, archaeological data gaps and study limitations were identified and addressed.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 27

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

1.6.1 Study Limitations The baseline review of potential archaeological concerns arising from the proposed Project faced the following limitations in regards to determining archaeological resource potential in the proposed Project area:

1. A GIS based model of archaeological potential for the NCTSA (Golder 2000) covers the proposed Project area. The coverage is available via RAAD. However, no comparison between the assessed potential of lands covered by the GIS model and actual field assessments exist. The validity of the model, especially for lands within the proposed Project area, remains unknown. 2. Only two AIAs (Rescan 2010; AMEC 2012 pending) are available for the study area, and for mid to upper elevation lands in the LSA.

1.6.2 Remaining Information Gaps The AOA determined that few archaeological studies have taken place in the proposed Project area and that a significant percentage of the land base in the RSA remains essentially unexamined for archaeological resources. Both the coastal setting and middle- and high-elevation environments in general have not been extensively inspected in comparison to the Nass River and Skeena River settings (Coupland 1996; 2003; Martindale 1996; 1999; 2003).

The majority of the information used in this AOA was based on the expertise of archaeological professionals who have worked extensively on the northern part of the Northwest Coast region. The outcome of their research indicates that lands with moderate and high archaeological resource potential could exist within the proposed Project area. However, the AMEC (2012 pending) AIA did not find evidence of any archaeological resources within the LSA. Neither the Rescan (2010) AIA, nor the AMEC (2012 pending) AIA included the RSA as a component of their field studies.

Archaeological potential ratings are relative measures of archaeological resources that may occur within a landscape, and are highly contingent upon adequate data. Where data gaps were recognised, identification of lands where sites may be located was a critical requirement prior to the commencement of field studies for the AIA (AMEC 2012 pending).

Based on the findings of the AOA, the following actions were taken to address the data gaps:

1. An AIA was conducted by AMEC in the fall of 2010 which built upon existing knowledge about the proposed Project area (AMEC 2012 pending). It was conducted in accordance with standards described in the “British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines” (Archaeology Branch 1998). The AIA was conducted according to the conditions of a Section 14 HIP, issued by the Archaeology Branch, pursuant to the HCA. The AIA involved an intensive field survey, including subsurface testing, and focussed on lands rated as having

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 28

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

moderate or high archaeological potential by the Golder (2000) model and the AIA reported on by Rescan (2010). The AIA conducted by AMEC (2012 pending) assessed proposed development lands not addressed by Rescan (2010). The AIA was conducted for the proposed Project prior to the onset of land-altering developments within the proposed Project footprint. 2. The GIS model of archaeological resource potential for the NCTSA was used only as a preliminary assessment of archaeological site potential. Comparisons between the output of this model and the results of the field assessment component of the AIA for the proposed Project were made.

The results of the AIA conducted by AMEC (2012 pending) determined that no archaeological resources were present in the LSA of the proposed Project. Neither Rescan (2010), nor AMEC (2012 pending) included the RSA in their field work. However, based on the available literature for the area, the potential for additional archaeological sites to be identified within the RSA is assessed as being moderate to high. Based on the current proposed Project footprint, no further archaeological work is recommended.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 29

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

REFERENCES Albright, S. 1990. Heritage Impact Assessment of the Kitsault Log Dump and Sort Area on a Portion of Lot 65, Cassiar Land District, Alice Arm, B.C. Heritage Inspection Permit Report # 1990-121. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. AMEC. 2012 pending. Avanti Mining Inc. Kitsault Mine Project Archaeological Impact Assessment, Heritage Inspection Permit #2010-0363. To be submitted to the Archaeology Branch, BC. Ames, K.M. 1979. Report on Excavations at GhSv-2, Hagwilget Canyon. In Skeena River Prehistory, edited by G.F. MacDonald and R.I. Inglis, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey Papers 87, National Museum of Civilization, Hull, PQ (formerly National Museum of Man, Ottawa, ON). Ames, K.M. 2005. The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia. The Artifacts. BAR International Series 1342, Hadrian Books, Oxford. Ames, K.M. and Maschner, H.D.G. 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast. Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson Ltd. New York, US. Archaeology Branch. 1996. Protocol Agreement with the Ministry of Forests. Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Victoria, BC. Accessed 2010. http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/policy/chr.htm. Archaeology Branch. 1998. British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines. Archaeology Planning and Assessment Section, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2001. Culturally Modified Trees of British Columbia: A Handbook for the Identification and Recording of Culturally Modified Trees [version 2.0]. Archaeology Branch and Resources Inventory Committee, Province of BC. Accessed 2010. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ric. Archaeology Branch. 2011. British Columbia Archaeological Resource Management Handbook. Definition of Archaeological Resources. Accessed 2011. http://www.tti.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/docs/resource_management_handbook/index.h tm#arch Banner, A., MacKenzie, A., Haeussler, S., Thomson, S., Pojar, J., and Trowbridge, R. 1993. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Barrie, J.V, Conway, K.W., Josenhans, H., Clague, J.J., Mathewes, R.W., and Fedje, D.W. 2005. Late Quaternary Geology of Haida Gwaii and Surrounding Marine Areas. In Haida Gwaii Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R.W. Mathewes, pp. 7-20, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 30

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2010. Application Information Requirements (AIR) Template. Available at http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/AIR_Template_oct2010.pdf (accessed 2011). BC Ministry of Forests and Range (BC MOFR). 2008. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Subzone / Variant Map for the North Coast Forest District, Coast Forest Region, [map]. Available at ftp.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/external/!publish/becmaps/papermaps (accessed October 2010). Boas, F. 1895. Tenth Report on the North-Western Tribes of Canada. Committee of North- Western Tribes of the Dominion of Canada. British Association of the Advancement of Science, London, England. Boas, F. 1916. Tsimshian Mythology, based on texts recorded by Henry W. Tate. Washington: Thirty-First Annual Report, 1909-10, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC. Borden, C 1952. A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia 3: 44-48. Carlson, R. L. 1977. Archaeological Survey of the Lower Nass, Observatory Inlet and Portland Canal. Permit 1976-8. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Carlson, R.L. 1983. Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. In Indian Art Traditions of the Northwest Coast, edited by R.L. Carlson, pp. 13-31. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Carlson, R.L. 1996. Introduction to Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. In Early Human Occupation In British Columbia, edited by R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona, pp. 3-10. UBC Press 1996. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency). 1996. Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, ON. Coupland, G. 1996. The Early Prehistoric Occupation of Kitselas Canyon. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, edited by. R. L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona, pp. 159- 170, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Coupland, G., Bissel, C., and King, S. 1991. Final Report of Archaeological Investigation of the McNichol Creek Site in 1990. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Coupland, G., Colten, R.H., Case, R. 2003. Preliminary Analysis of Socieoeconomic Organization at the McNichol Creek Site, British Columbia. In Emerging from the Mist. Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G Matson, G. Coupland and Q. Mackie, pp. 152-169, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Cybulski, J.S. 1992. A Greenville Burial Ground. Human Remains and Mortuary Elements in British Columbia Coast Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 160, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, PQ.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 31

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Cybulski, J.S. 2001. Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 146, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. 1997. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. The Attorney General of Canada. Demarchi, D. A. 1996. An Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; Victoria, BC. Available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecology/ecoregions/intro.html (accessed November 2010). Drucker, P. 1950. Culture Elements Distributions, XXVI: Northwest Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 9(3): 157-294. Berkeley, CA. Dunn, J.A. and Booth, A. 1990. Tsimshian of Metlakatla, Alasak. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 7 Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 294-297, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Eldridge, M., Bouchard, R., and Kennedy, D. 1989. Khutzeymateen Ethnography and Archaeology. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Fedje, D.W., Josenhans, H., Clague, J.J., Barrie, J.V., Archer, D.J., and Southon, J.R. 2005. Hecate Strait Paleoshorelines. In Haida Gwaii Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R.W. Mathewes, pp. 21-37, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Fladmark, K.R., Ames, K.M., and Sutherland, P.D. 1990. Prehistory of the Northern Coast of British Columbia. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 7 Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 229-239, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Fladmark, K.R. 2001. From Land to Sea: Late Quaternary Environments of the Northern Northwest Coast. In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, Mercury Series paper 160, edited by J. Cybulski, pp. 25-48. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, PQ. Francis, D. 2000. Encyclopedia of British Columbia. Harbour Publishing. Maderia Park. Garfield, V.E. 1939. Tshimshian Clan and Society. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 7(3): 167-340. Seattle, WA. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2000. An Archaeological Overview of the North Coast Timber Supply Area. Report on file with the Ministry of Forests, North Coast District, Prince Rupert and the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Government of British Columbia (BC). 1996a. Heritage Conservation Act. RSBC 1996, c187.

Government of BC. 1996b. Local Governments Act. RSBC 1996 c323.

Government of BC. 2002. Environmental Assessment Act. SBC 2002. c43.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 32

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Government of Canada. 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). S.C. 1992. c37. Halpin, M.M. and Seguin, M. 1990. Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 7 Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 267-284, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Inglis, G.B., Hudson, D.R., Rigsby, B.K., and Rigsby, B. 1990. Tsimshian of British Columbia Since 1900. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 7 Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 285-293, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Lacourse, T. and Mathewes, R.W. 2005. Terrestial Paleoecology of Haida Gwaii and the Continental Shelf: Vegetation, Climate, and Plant Resources of the Coast Migration Route. In Haida Gwaii Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R.W. Mathewes, pp. 38-58, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. MacDonald, G.F. 1983. Prehistoric Art of the Northern Northwest Coast. In Indian Traditions of the Northwest Coast. edited by R.L. Carlson pp. 99-120, Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. McMurdo, J. 1975. The Heritage Survey of the Proposed C.N. Rail Line from Aiyansh to Meziadin Lake. An Interim Report Prepared for the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board. January, 1975, Victoria, BC. Martindale, A. 1996. Final Report of the Exchamsiks River Survey. Permit 1995-109. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Martindale, A. 1999. The River of Mist: Cultural Change in the Tsimshian Past. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. Martindale, A. 2003. A Hunter-Gatherer Paramount Chiefdom: Tsimshian Developments through the Contact Period. In Emerging from the Mist. Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G Matson, G. Coupland and Q. Mackie, pp. 12-50, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Martindale, A., Letham, B., McLaren, D., Archer, D., Burchell, M., and Schöne, B.R. 2009. Mapping of Subsurface Shell Midden Components Through Percussion Coring: Examples from the Dundas Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1565- 1575. Matson, R.G. and Coupland, G. 1995. Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Millennia Research Limited (Millennia). 2002. North Coast Forest District Archaeological Impact Assessments Conducted Under Permit 2002-294. Final Report of the 2001- 2002 Field Season. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 33

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND HERITAGE BACKGROUND

Millennia. 2004. North Coast Forest District Archaeological Impact Assessments Conducted Under Permit 2002-294. Final Report of the 2002-2003 Field Season. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Pojar, J., Klinka, K., and Demarchi, D.A. 1991a. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. In Ecosystems of British Columbia, edited by D. Meidinger and J. Pojar, pp. 95-112, Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Pojar, J., Klinka, K., and Demarchi, D.A. 1991b. Mountain Hemlock Zone. In Ecosystems of British Columbia, edited by D. Meidinger and J. Pojar, pp. 113-124, Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Rescan). 2010. Kitsault Project: Archaeology Impact Assessment Final Report - Heritage Inspection Permit 2009-0085. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. St. Pierre, P. 1974. Report on a Heritage Resource Inventory along the Proposed Terrace- Meziadin C.N.R. Line: Mile 0-Mile 75. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Sapir, E. 1915. Sketch of Social Organization of the Nass River Indians. Anthropological Series 7, Geological Survey Bulletin 19, Ottawa, ON. Wilson, I.R. 1991. Test Excavations at GeTn-2 Crow Lagoon, Northwestern British Columbia. December 1991. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Baseline Appendix 9.0-A November 2011 Page 34