Mt Polley TUS Report

Traditional Knowledge Land Use and Occupancy Study (TKLUOS)for Xatśūll (Soda Creek) and T’exelc (Williams Lake Indian Band) for the Mount Polley Mine Extension, M200

Prepared for the Mount Polley MineNovember 30, 2012

...........................................................................................................................Introduction# 6

..............................................................................Map 1 - Map of development area. 7

......................................................................................................Ownership of Information# 8

.......................................................................................................................Scope of Work# 8

.................................................................................................3.1 Report Organization 10

............................................................................................................3.2 Methodology 10

...................................................................................................3.2.1 Confidentiality 11

...................................................................................3.2.2 Interview Considerations 11

..........................................................................................3.2.3 Research concepts 12

....................................................................................3.3 Study Area and Environment 13

......................................................................................Map 2 - Biogeoclimatic map 15

....................................................................................................3.4 Mount Polley Mine 16

......................................................................................................3.5 Literature Review 17

..................................................................................................................The Secwepemc# 20

...................................................................................................4.1 Social Organization 24

..................................................................................................4.2 Pre-contact History 26

..................................................................................................................4.3 Land Use 27

.......................................................................4.4 Pre-contact period (and Appendix 4) 28

.................................................................................................4.5 Post Contact Period 29

...............................................................................4.5.1 Fur Trade (see Appendix 4) 30

..............................................................................................................4.5.2 Mining 32

............................................................................................................4.5.3 Disease 34

...........................................4.5.4 Non-native Settlement and Reserve Establishment 34

1

.......................................................4.5.5 Continued Erosion of Traditional Territories 40

............................................................................................Map 3 - Mining Impacts 41

..........................................................................................Map 4 - Forestry Impacts 42

.............................................................................Map 5 - Private Property Interests 43

..................................................................................................Traditional Use Resources# 44

........................................................................................................................5.1 Plants 44

..................................................................................5.1.1 Cambium Pinus contorta 45

............................................................................................................................Berries 45

................................................5.1.2 Huckleberries Vaccinium membranicum Wenex 45

.....................................................................5.1.3 Blueberries Vaccinium spp Sesep 47

.........................................................................5.1.4 Cranberries Viburnum trilobum 48

.................................................................5.1.5 Kinnickinnick Arctostaphus uva -ursi 48

...................................................................................5.1.6 Raspberries Rubus spp. 48

.......................................................5.1.7 Saskatoons Amelanchier alnifolia speqpek 49

.................................................5.1.8 Soapberries Shepherdia Canadensis ‘Sxusem’ 49

.........................................................................5.1.9 Wild Strawberries Fragaria spp 49

.............................................................................................................Roots and Bulbs 50

.............................................................5.1.10 Tiger Lilly Lilium colombianum Textsin 50

..................................................5.1.11 Wild potato Claytonia lanceolata Skinkwinem 50

................................................................................................Plants stems and leaves 51

.....................................................................5.1.12 Devil’s Club Oplopanax horridus 51

......................................................5.1.13 Wild rhubarb Heracleum lanatum xwetellp 51

.............................................................................5.1.14 Tea Ledum Groenlandicum 51

.................................................................................................................Tree products 52

2

..........................................................5.1.15 Balsam Bark Abies balsamea and pitch 52

...........................................................................5.1.16 Birch Bark Betula papyrifera 52

.........................................................................................5.1.17 Cedar Thuja plicata 53

..............................................................................5.1.18 Yarrow Achillea Millefolium 53

....................................................................5.1.19 Fiddlehead Ferns Pteridium spp. 53

...........................................................................................................................The Xatśūll# 54

......................................................................Map 6 - Xatśūll Territory and Reserves 55

.........................................................................................................6.1 Land Alienation 56

....................................................................................................6.2 Land Use Patterns 60

..................................................................................................6.3 Results of TKLUOS 61

..............................................................................................................6.3.1 Berries 61

...........................................................................Chart 1. Berries harvested – Xatśūll 61

...................................................................................................6.3.2 Huckleberries 62

.......................................................................Map 7 - Huckleberry harvesting areas 62

....................................................................................................6.3.3 Other Berries 63

.................................................................................Map 8 - Berry Harvesting areas 63

..................................................................................................6.3.4 Plants General 64

..........................................................................................Chart 2. Plants harvested 64

..........................................................................................Chart 3. Medicinal Plants 64

................................................................................Map 9 - Xatśūll Plant Harvesting 65

...............................................................Map 10 - Xatśūll medicinal plant harvesting 66

............................................................................................6.3.5 Animals Harvested 67

...............................................Chart 4. Mammals Harvested by Xatśūll in Study Area 67

..................................................................................Chart 5. Fish Harvested Xatśūll 67

..................................................................Map 11 - animals harvested in study area 68

3

........................................................................Map 12 - fish harvested in study area 69

............................................................Chart 6. Birds Harvested Xatśūll in study area 69

...........................................................................................6.3.6 TKLUOS Concerns 70

..............................................................................................6.3.7 Cultural Features 71

................................................................................Map 13 - Xatśūll camping areas 72

....................................................................6.3.7 Questions about the development 73

..................................................................................................................6.4 Summary 78

..........................................................................................................................The T’exelc# 79

..............................................................................................................7.1 Introduction 79

...........................................................................Map 14 - T’exelc traditional territory 80

..................................................................................................7.2 Results of TKLUOS 84

........................................................................................................7.2.1 Resources 84

...............................................................................................................7.2.2 Plants 85

......................................................Chart 1. Berries harvested in study area– T’exelc 85

.....................................................................Map 15 - Huckleberry harvesting areas 86

....................................................................Map 16 - T’exelc berry harvesting areas 87

..............................................................................Chart 2. Plants harvested T’exelc 88

....................................................................Map 17 - T’exelc Plant harvesting areas 89

....................................Chart 3. Medicinal Plants harvested in the study area T’exelc 90

..............................................................Map 18 - T’exelc Medicine harvesting areas 91

............................................................................................7.2.3 Animals Harvested 92

...........................................................................Chart 4. Animals Harvested T’exelc 92

...............................................................................Chart 5. Birds Harvested T’exelc 92

.................................................................Map 19 - T’exelc animal harvesting areas. 94

.................................................................................Map 20 - T’exelc Fishing areas. 95

4

............................................................................................................7.2.4 Animals 96

.................................................................................................7.3 Cultural Features 96

...................Map 21 - Showing the location of some pre-contact/post-contact trails. 98

..................................................................................................................7.4 Summary 99

..................................................................7.5 Community Concerns about the Project 99

............................................................................Map 22 - T’exelc Camping areas. 100

.........................................................................................................................Discussion# 109

.................................................................................................8.1 Summary of Points 112

............................................................................................................Recommendations# 114

..........................................................................................................References cited 116

.................................................................................Appendix 1. TKLUOS Questions 119

.......................................................................................Appendix 2. TKLUOS Codes 126

..........................................Appendix 3. Confidentiality Agreement with Interviewees 130

Appendix 4. Archaeological and Archival Review of Secwepemc Use and Occupation for ...............the Mount Polley Development Area and Ancillary Transmission Corridors. 131

5

Introduction This report presents information collected in a focussed traditional knowledge, land use and occupancy1 study (TKLUOS) conducted in the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nations’ communities and stewardship areas in the central Cariboo, British Columbia between May and November 2012. This research is in response to the proposed expansion of the Mount Polley Mine, located southwest of Likely in the eastern Cariboo. This mine is located within the lands of the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nation communities. The proposed expansion of this mine provided the impetus for discussions between the mine and the Aboriginal communities to address the current and anticipated impacts of this mine on the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nations’ Aboriginal Rights and Title.

The Mount Polley Mine is an open pit gold and copper mine, whose deposit was discovered in 1964. Drilling and exploration of the property has taken place in various phases since 1966. In 1992 a mine development certificate was obtained from the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to cover all aspects of the Mount Polley Mine development and operation2. In September 1997 the mine was officially opened.

However, low ore prices saw the suspension of mining activity in September 20013. Changes in ore prices led to the reopening of the mine in early 20053. The discovery of additional mineral deposits have led to the current proposed mine expansion.

6

1 This is a focussed study using the Mount Polley development as its point of departure. This is in contrast to general traditional use studies that examine a large area to identify traditional uses on a general territorial scale2 http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/Summary.aspx?minfilno=093A++0083 http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/Summary.aspx?minfilno=093A++008

At the time of the mineral exploration and the opening and operation of the mine, no studies were undertaken to identify the impact of the mine on the First Nations communities. The Xatśūll and T’exelc communities have a long history of use of the area that is demonstrated through their oral histories and continued stewardship of the land.

An important goal of this research is to identify and describe the effect of the Mount Polley Mine on the traditional uses of the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities. This is accomplished by first identifying the traditional knowledge, land use and occupancy within the area. Second, it entails viewing the information against the background of environmental and resource change that has occurred through the operation of the Mount Polley Mine to determine what has been affected. The third goal is to identify the effects of the proposed mine expansion on the future traditional knowledge, land use and occupancy of the area; a direct correlation to potential impacts on Aboriginal Rights and Title.

Map 1 - Map of development area.

7

Ownership of Information Ownership of information and intellectual property rights shall apply as outlined in sections 15, 16 and 17 of the TKLUOS agreement between Mount Polley Mine and the communities of Xatśūll and T’exelc. Information from the Xatśūll (Soda Creek Indian Band) and T’exelc (Williams Lake Indian Band) First Nations has been obtained through separate studies. The information presented in this reports reflects these separate research efforts and all information belongs to each individual First Nation and has been prepared for the purposes of the Spanish Mountain Ltd Spanish Mountain Gold project and may not be used for any other purposes. Please note that the cultural information must be interpreted in conjunction with the respective First Nation.

Scope of Work THIS WORK UNDERTAKES A TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, LAND USE AND OCCUPANCY STUDY IN THE REGION AROUND THE MOUNT POLLEY MINE AS WELL AS CONNECTED CULTURAL TRADITIONS AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES.

In order to determine the impacts of this mine on the two communities, focussed traditional use studies were conducted by the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nations. The directed studies are in response to the Mount Polley development as opposed to general TUS studies that look at a large territory and general impacts. This specialized traditional use study was designed to include specialized information on traditional knowledge, land use and occupation. This was undertaken through the use of several sources of information. This includes interviews of community members from the T’exelc and Xatśūll communities about traditional uses, knowledge and occupations in the study area. Field trips also formed an important part of the research in order to elicit information and verify locations of importance. Historical research and previous research by each of the communities were also incorporated into the reports.

Separate studies were undertaken by each First Nation. This report reflects this methodological approach by presenting cultural information from each community separately.

8

The research in the T’exelc community was supervised and conducted by Elected Band Councillor Rick Gilbert, assisted by community member Jamie Thomas, and Elder Jean William, under the direction of Aaron Higginbottom, Natural Resource Manager.

The research in the Xatśūll community was supervised and conducted by Donna Dixon and Sheri Sellars, under the direction of Jacinda Mack M.A., Manager, Natural Resources with the assistance of Chus Sam Natural Resources Referral Coordinator. Xatśūll community member Teena Sellars led field tours in the study areas. Erin Robinson M.A., conducted interviews in Likely and transcribed interviews. Final report edits were conducted by Jacinda Mack.

Archival, archaeological and historical research and report preparation was undertaken by Aaron Blake Evans M.A. Project organization, training, supervision and report preparations were undertaken by Beth Bedard PhD Candidate.

Final graphic report layout and production by CopperMoon (www.coppermoon.ca)

9

3.1 Report OrganizationThis objectives of this research focus on determining the existing impacts of the Mount Polley Mine, and the predicted impacts of the expansion on the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities’ Aboriginal rights. The impacts of this project are assessed based on a focussed traditional knowledge land use and occupancy study. The report begins with a description of the proposed Mount Polley project. The study methodology and working concepts are described; this is followed by a description of significant plant and animal resources. Subsequently the research for each community is presented, separately and summarized. The report concludes with a discussion of findings and final recommendations.

Extensive appendices prepared by Aaron Evans are attached and provide further detail and supporting information. These are referenced in the text.

3.2 Methodology The methodology for obtaining community information was focussed on a holistic participatory action research model. As part of this research, community technical expertise and capacity building were supported by training band members in interview techniques and mapping.

The study process began with the creation of a three phased work plan and schedule based on Mount Polley Mine`s time constraints. The first phase consisted of an examination of the materials held within each community to provide a data base and to identify data gaps for the study. This included archival and historic research by Aaron Blake Evans. This phase also included the development of training manuals and interview questions. These questions were developed with the objective of obtaining a focussed, complete picture of communities’ use and relationships to the land. Therefore, while this was a focussed study, the research boundaries were porous, because traditional resource activities such as plant and animal harvesting do not occur in isolation from other cultural elements. The manual concentrated on balancing these information needs, while still obtaining information that could be layered on to previous traditional use studies. This was done by expanding the scope of the questions onto similar resource and activity categories used in previous TUS studies.

The questions were assessed and refined by the community TKLUOS supervisors before they were used (See appendix 1). The training of the community TKLUOS supervisors took place shortly after they were hired. This training consisted of a review of traditional use principles, mapping, record keeping, audio recording and optimal questioning techniques. The process of

10

recording and coding information (See appendix 2) on maps is an acquired skill. Therefore, the one to one training was followed by the beginning of Phase 2 and the participation of the community supervisor in traditional use interviews. This permitted the initial practise of learned techniques in an assisted manner.

3.2.1 Confidentiality All information from this TKLUOS is owned by the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nations and the community member being interviewed. At the beginning of each interview, a confidentiality agreement was signed by the interviewee with the interviewer as a witness. This confidentiality agreement (Appendix 3) states that the identity of the individual is confidential, but that their information may be presented in a compiled and anonymous format. Each individual was assigned an interviewee number to identify them in an anonymous manner.

3.2.2 Interview Considerations The interview process was based on structured interviews focussed on open ended questions. The interviews were undertaken in English, with the use of some Secwepemctsín (Secwepemc language) in several interviews. These interviews were digitally recorded and the information was marked on transparent Mylar overlays, and in some cases paper maps. A map biography was created for each person interviewed. The interview guides were structured to provide personal background information, followed by different types of harvest activities, questions about resources, cultural questions and finally the interviewee’s perception of the development and their own plans for future use of the area. The community individuals interviewed are those with knowledge of traditional use and culture in the area. The interviewees included men and women. Women’s knowledge is particularly important in this study because of women’s frequent use of the study area resources.

An important consideration for interviewees was their ability to ‘practise’ the culture by accessing the resources within the study area. For many, the lack of a vehicle, lack of a driver’s license or financial constraints, inhibit their ability to access the resources. Awareness of these obstacles is important because infrequent visits to the area may not reflect a lack of interest, only difficulties accessing it. To address this, some of the questions dealt with the interviewees’ intent to use the area in the future. In addition to the interview process, several field trips were undertaken by each community to the study area. These included day and overnight trips.

11

After the interview process the maps and Mylars were digitized by Paragon Mapping, a local Geographic Information Systems firm in Williams Lake. Additional maps were created by Xatśūll Natural Resources Referral Coordinator, Chus Sam.

3.2.3 Research concepts This traditional knowledge, land use and occupation study [TKLUOS] focuses on a holistic and integrated model of community land use. It focuses on the connections between activities, resources and the land. Terms used in this TKLUOS are discussed in the following section.

Traditional: This study begins with the concept of ‘traditional’. Traditional is a concept that reflects community values, beliefs and activities. It is not time sensitive and can be applied to the past, present and future. The concept of ‘Traditional’ anchors practices within a culture and includes the dimensions of spirituality and history.

Traditional knowledge: Traditional knowledge has been described by Berkes as “a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural transmission” it has a focus on “the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment”4.Traditional knowledge is alive within a community; it is more than data and observations, it is part of the lived experience. Traditional knowledge is an important part of the holistic approach used within this study. Because of the rapid changes in environment through development and environmental destruction, traditional knowledge, which is rooted in the land, has become a fragile and a rapidly disappearing cultural category5 which needs to be recorded and protected6.

Traditional Use: First Nations traditional use refers to a “long historical use” of resources7 and lands by a community, its ancestors, and ultimately its descendants. A traditional use study is designed to identify and record this long record of use and to identify planned future uses. As such it focuses on intent and future plans.

Land use: Land use emphasizes the physical features of traditional use. It emphasizes the plants, animals, water, earth and other interconnected aspects.

12

4 Firket Berkes 1993:35 Battiste 20026 UNESCO 1999: http://issuu.com/ipogea/docs/tkwb7 World Health Organization http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jwhozip42e/4.1.html#Jwhozip42e.4.1

Occupation: This concept pertains to the repeated use of an area over time. Occupancy of an area indicates a relationship between a community and the landscape. This is the landscape that a community refers to as part of its territory due to its cultural and physical dependence on the area and its long history of use.

Traditional territory or Stewardship area: The traditional territory is the area of plant and animal resources, water, earth, and air and all of their interconnections that a community has stewardship over recognizes as its own.

Shuswap/ Secwepemc: these terms are used interchangeably

3.3 Study Area and Environment The Mount Polley, Quesnel River and Quesnel Lake areas are part of an important cultural and resource landscape for the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities. The study area is located in the region surrounding the Mount Polley Mine. This area is defined with a porous boundary that permits the inclusion of information about animal movements, travel, trails and resources and cultural practices that cut across the mine area.

The physical environment of the study area is described as the Quesnel Highlands along the eastern margins of the central plateau that adjoin the Cariboo Mountains. Quesnel Lake is part of an ancient drainage that angles northwestward into the Fraser River. This drainage system also includes the Horsefly River and other rivers draining into Quesnel Lake such as the Mitchell and Penfold Rivers. The Mount Polley Mine site is located close to the edge of a highland, immediately to the north of Mount Polley Lake, the land slopes down towards Quesnel Lake. Mount Polley Lake and Bootjack Lake drain in a westerly direction before turning sharply northward, merging into Hazeltine Creek which drains into Quesnel Lake.

The Mount Polley Mine area is located at the edge of a highland; which is situated along the margins of the Interior Cedar Hemlock, moist, cool variant 3, Horsefly. This ICH mk3 adjoins the Interior Cedar Hemlock wet cool variant 2, Quesnel. ICH wk2 providing a productive ecotonal8 environment.

The study area forms an important part of the traditional territories of the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities. The general territories of the two communities are characterized by a varied environment that ranges from dry sage brush desert, rare grasslands and Douglas fir interface,

13

8 Turner et al 2003

as well as extensive lodge pole pine forests, alpine areas and the unique interior cedar hemlock forests. The terrain relief ranges from the desert-like conditions along the banks of the Fraser River to high elevation glaciers as well as the largest and deepest lake in British Columbia, Quesnel Lake. This unique environmental diversity and the rich resources have been important aspects in shaping the Xatśūll and T’exelc cultures, spirituality, world view, belief systems, social organization and subsistence practices.

According to the BC Ministry of the Environment, the interior cedar-hemlock eco-zone that is found in the Quesnel Lake area is “the most productive forest in the BC interior” and contains “more tree species than any other ecological zone in BC”.9 This portion of the traditional territories of the Xatśūll and T’exelc and provides an environmental, resource and cultural keystone that sustains the communities.

The study area is extremely complex it is characterized by the intersection of 11 different biogeoclimatic zones and subzones which results in an exceptionally productive ecotonal environment that provides many important resources for the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities. It also provides environmental and seasonal diversity. Because of the high relief in the area, ripening seasons are prolonged and enable a longer window in which to harvest resources. The rich archaeological heritage along Quesnel Lake and its tributaries attest to a long history of resource use in the region.

14

9 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Bro/bro48.pdf

Map 2 - Biogeoclimatic map

15

3.4 Mount Polley MineThe Mount Polley Mine is located within the traditional territories of the Xatśūll and T’exelc First Nations. The mine is owned by the Imperial Metals Corporation and according to its website it:

is an open pit copper/gold mine producing an average of 20,000 tonnes per day. The mine is located eight kilometres southwest of Likely and 100 kilometres (by road) northeast of Williams Lake, British Columbia. The Mount Polley property covers 18,405 hectares, which consist of seven mining leases totaling 2,006.75 hectares, and 41 mineral claims encompassing 16,314.69 hectares. Mount Polley concentrates are trucked to facilities at the Port of Vancouver and shipped to overseas smelters or transported by rail to smelters in North America.10

The mine is planning an “extension” to be located within the existing mine footprint. It includes the excavation of new pits, the expansion of the tailings pond, and the ability to release a higher quantity of effluent from the tailings pond.

The Mount Polley area was traditionally used for picking berries, for camping and for hunting prior to the mine’s construction.11

16

10 http://www.imperialmetals.com/s/MountPolleyMine.asp11 T201207-01

3.5 Literature Review The information for this study is based on previous and recent interviews and oral histories, as well as written historic, archival, ethnographic and ethno-historic sources.

Written work that has been undertaken among the Secwepemc includes ethnographic work from the 19th century. The earliest work is written by Franz Boas, the first ethnographer to work with the Shuswap, in particular the southern Kamloops Shuswap. He visited them for brief periods several different times12. While informative, his notes are descriptive, general and apply primarily to the southern Secwepemc.

During his geological surveys in British Columbia, George Dawson also recorded information about the Secwepemc. He stated that his descriptions of the Native people were unsystematic, but his long term work among the First Nations in 1877, 1888, 1889 and 1890 provided him with a firsthand experience and knowledge of the communities13. His work provides interesting and informative observations, but his primary interest was the geology of the area and not the study of the Aboriginal cultures.

The first and major ethnographic work undertaken in the Secwepemc region consists of an ethnographic study of the Shuswap, the larger Salishan linguistic and cultural group of which the Xatśūll and T’exelc are part. This detailed manuscript by James Teit14 describes the social structure among different Shuswap subgroups, their religion, subsistence strategies, material culture and myths. While Teit visited the region in 1887, 1888, 1892, 1897 and 1900, specific information on the Xatśūll and T’exelc is not as comprehensive as more southerly Shuswap groups15. This first ethnographic study was edited by Franz Boas and published in 1909 as part of the Jessup North Pacific Expedition research. While Teit’s work on the Nlakapamux is extensive because of his long term contact and interaction with them, his work on the Secwepemc tends to be uneven and has less depth.

Further ethnographic work among the Secwepemc was undertaken in 1937, by the anthropologist Verne Ray. He based many of his observations on Teit's work as well as a Shuswap Elder from Soda Creek, Joe Michel16.

17

12 Boas 189113 Dawson 1891:314 Teit 190915 Teit 1909:45816 Ray 1942

The anthropologist Gary Palmer undertook research among the southern Shuswap and focused on ethnobotanical studies; his work was published in 1972 and 1975. In addition, the anthropologist James Brow17 undertook research within the northern Secwepemc communities regarding intercommunity relationships.

In 1995 Elizabeth Furniss published a paper on the northern Secwepemc communities’ social adaptations to changing historic conditions18. In 1997 she completed her PhD dissertation entitled “The Burden of History, Colonialism and the Frontier Myth in a Rural Community.” This deals with the native and non-native relationships within the context of First Nations’ treaty negotiations in the Cariboo. In 2000 she published this as a book under the title Colonialism and Frontier Myth in a Rural Community.

During the 1980’s the linguist Andie Palmer began her research within the northern Secwepemc Esketemc community (also formerly known as Alkali Lake Band), and in 1994 she completed her PhD dissertation based on this work. Her research has theoretical application to the northern Secwepemc communities.

Nancy Sandy’s MA thesis describing how traditional values were passed from generation to generation provides interesting information about resource use as part of the process of learning about Secwepemc culture.

18

17 Brow 197218 Furniss 1995

General histories that pertain to the region include The Cariboo Mission: A History of the Oblates by Margaret Whitehead. This work focuses on the history of the Williams Lake Indian Residential School, at St. Joseph’s Mission, immediately adjacent to the main T’exelc community and describes First Nations’ experiences at the school. Gold and Grand Dreams. Cariboo East in the Early Years by Marie Elliot, provides a popular and well researched history of the Likely and Quesnel Forks area from 1860 that includes information about the northern Secwepemc. The book They Call it the Cariboo by Robin Skelton is a more popular history of the early non-native occupations. Trails to Gold Vol 2 by Brownen Patenaude has some detail about the trail systems in the early gold rush from the 1860s.

Other sources of information utilized include the Department of Indian Affairs Annual Reports. While these are often highly biased they can provide some information about communities that can be linked to other sources of information for verification. Another source is the McKenna-McBride Commission testimonies from 1914. These must also be treated with caution, but provide some information.

Appendix 4 provides additional historic maps, ethnohistoric, archival and historic sources.

19

The Secwepemc THIS SECTION WILL PROVIDE A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE SECWEPEMC, A CULTURAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF THE XATŚŪLL AND T’EXELC. THIS BACKGROUND WILL ENABLE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MOUNT POLLEY MINE ON THE TWO COMMUNITIES.

The Xatśūll and T’exelc traditional Salishan speaking communities are part of the larger Secwepemc19 Nation. This shared identity is based on language, customs and history. There are extended cultural and kinship bonds that characterize this cultural identity. While this traditional identification has been modified by the historic imposition of government segmentation into politically and economically autonomous bands such as the Xatśūll and the T’exelc; the underlying identity as Secwepemc remains.

The Secwepemc occupy a territory of more than 180,000 square kilometers20 in south and central British Columbia The territory extends from the east slope of the Rocky Mountains westward to Tête Jeune Cache, and encompasses Quesnel Lake21 and westward past the Fraser River then south east to Kamloops and to the Rocky Mountains. The Fraser River, Quesnel River and Horsefly Rivers are an important locus for settlement and resource harvesting of the large salmon runs. The Secwepemc communities lived along this river from Alexandria in the north to Lillooet in the south22.

20

19 Secwepemc is also spelled Shuswap. With the increasing acknowledgement of the importance of the language to the maintenance of traditional culture, there has been a return to the use of traditional words, pronunciations, and the development of more standardized spellings20 From the Secwepemculecw (http://landoftheshuswap.com/msite/land.php)21 James Teit states that the Shuswap territory “… extend[s] north by Green Lake to Lac la Hache, and thence north to Quesnel Lake or somewhat beyond.”Teit 1909:453 22 Duff 1965

Figure 1 The Shuswap Nation Territory outlined in yellow based on information provided by the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council.

According to Teit, the Secwepemc Nation is roughly divided into northern and southern peoples; the division is primarily based on dialectal linguistic, geographic and some cultural differences. The Xatśūll and T’exelc are two of the five northern Secwepemc communities. Neighboring the Secwepemc Nation to the north and west are the Athapaskan or Dene speaking Carrier Nation and Tsilhqot`in Nations. To the east are the Cree and Blackfoot, in the southeast are the Ktunaxa peoples, while to the south are the Salishan speaking Okanagan, and Nlaka’pamux, as well as the more westerly Halkomelem, and the Stl’alt’imx.

The 17 Secwepemc communities have a membership of more than 7,00023. These are Xatśūll [Soda Creek], T’exelc [Sugar Cane], Esket [Alkali Lake], Xgat’temc/Stswcemc [Dog Creek/Canoe Creek], Tsq’escen [Canim Lake], Llenlleney’ten [High Bar], Sexqeltin [Adams Lake], Tk’emlups [Kamloops], Qw7ewt [Little Shuswap], Sk’etsin [Neskonlith], Simpcw [Chu Chua], Tsk’wylecw [Pavillion], Knpesq’t [Kinbasket], Skitsestn [Deadmans Creek], Splatsin [Spallumcheen], Pelltiqt [Whispering Pine, Clinton], and St’uxwtews [Bonaparte], all linked by deep rooted relationships and customs that span thousands of years.

The historic creation of reserves by governments resulted in changes to the available areas that the two communities are able to use. While the Secwepemc still use traditional areas, historic decisions were made by governments that exclude the Xatśūll and T’exelc from a large

21

23 This includes individuals within these communities who have ‘Indian status’ as defined by the Canadian Federal Indian Act legislation (http://www.secwepemc.org/adc/pplint.html). Douglas Weir notes that even in 1965 ‘status’ is “...an unnatural group which can lose [or gain] members” through marriage and is separate from ethnicity (Ibid: 28).

portion of their traditional territories. These decisions include the sale of unceded and un-surrendered Xatśūll and T’exelc traditional lands and resources, as well as the leasing and development of a large portion of these lands. These limitations were the result of politically expedient decisions and the exclusion of the two communities from much of their traditional territories does not reflect their pre-contact or historic occupational patterns.

The restrictions imposed upon the northern Secwepemc included the constraints of living on reserves. The pre-contact cultural patterns included travelling large distances to access resources and satisfy community and family needs for food, resource items, trade, spiritual reasons and gatherings24.

The pre-emption of land by non-natives and the establishment of reserves meant a forced restriction of people’s movements. In the McKenna-McBride testimony the Williams Lake Chief Baptise William described the prohibition against Native trapping and the restriction against hunting in the mountains [Quesnel Lake area]; the police constable at 150 Mile House said they were not permitted to trap25.

One Elder described the difficult conditions in the 1950s, when permission from the Indian agent was needed to leave the reserve and described “an invisible fence around the reserve”. The community members were told that being out after dark would result in arrest and leaving the reserve without permission would result in arrest. The Indian Agent, William Christie enforced a system governed by a fear of jail and punishment. The restrictions on movement included travel to the study area. Another Elder emphasized that [as late as the 1950s] “Quesnel Lake, they wouldn’t even let us in that area”26.

Hunting was also sharply curtailed. Because of the restrictions on movement and hunting, many people survived through ‘jawbone’ or store credit.

22

24 Beeson 197125 McKenna-McBride Commission Testimony 1914:125 http://gsdl.ubcic.bc.ca/cgi-bin/library?e=d-10000-00---off-0williams--00-2--0-10-0---0---0prompt-10---4-------0-1l--10-en-50---20-about-williams+lake--00-3-1-01-0-0-01-0-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&cl=search&d=HASH012546f8a633801cf9826ee3.11.4 ; In 1908 there were complaints about Native ‘overhunting’ limiting the amount of game for tourist hunters. This may have provided the impetus for the illegal limitations placed on Native hunting. In 1913, regulations were passed that Native people required a license to carry traps, to hunt and hunting, to carry a firearm. ‘ The History of the British Columbia Conservation Officer Service – 100 Years of Integrity, Service and Protection’ by G.W. Lister, International Game Warden Summer 2005 http://www.moosecop.net/History/26 Group interview Xatśūll Nov 13 2012.; X2012-10 & 19

A common theme encountered in many of the interviews is the hostile environment experienced by community members when hunting, berry picking or other resource harvesting trips. A frequent experience for many of the community members is to encounter new fences and “No Trespassing” signs. There are accounts of Xatśūll and T’exelc community members who have been warned off what has become someone else’s private land. These are very disturbing events and they add a dimension of tension and fear to the practice of traditional hunting and harvesting.

23

Figure 2 This sign is located in one of the traditional areas for harvesting huckleberries.

4.1 Social Organization In the historic period, First Nations communities in central British Columbia were subject to tremendous social, cultural, physical and psychological forces to change. It is important to understand these forces as well as the cultural continuities that characterize the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities. The current fixed band divisions are largely a historic creation; the pre-contact situation was more flexible and responsive to community and family needs.

James Teit referred to the Secwepemc Fraser River populations, as the Slemxu’lexamux27. He emphasized the fluidity of movement between communities and family groups who would often spend winters with different groups. This mobility resulted in fission – fusion type of social structure. In the past, large gatherings occurred28 and remain an important cultural feature, ensuring a sharing of knowledge, and the maintenance of intercommunity connections on political, social, cultural and spiritual levels.

Ethnohistoric information was recorded by various individuals and includes the religious orders working to convert the Indigenous people in central British Columbia. According to Father LeJeune, an Oblate priest who arrived in the central interior of British Columbia in 1882, at the time of contact with the Europeans, the Shuswap were the largest and most powerful nation in northwest North America.

The Shuswap tribe had by far the most extensive territory of all native tribes of the Pacific Coast, beginning in the neighborhood of Lillooet, running up the valleys of the Fraser River to Fort George; thence eastward to the country of Tête Jeune and the Rocky Mountains; then along that range southwards to the neighborhood of the Columbia Lakes; and westward to the Arrow Lakes, the Spallumcheen, Salmon Arm, Kamloops, Ashcroft to the starting point, Lillooet....At a rough estimate the territory covers about 40,000 square miles.29

24

27 Teit 1909:45328 Beeson 197129 LeJeune 1925

James Teit described pre-contact Secwepemc were:

..further divided into a number of bands wintering in certain definite localities, with headquarters at a principal village. These bands, although in older times somewhat better defined than those of the Thompson Indians, were not so well marked 50 years ago as now. This was owing to the far greater number of small villages existing at the time. The inhabitants of those situated at equal distances from two central villages or headquarters of different bands sometimes affiliated with one band, sometimes with the other. Besides the small wintering places were frequently changed, and even the main locality of village of a band would have more families one winter, and less another30.

One of the important characteristics is the tradition of seasonal movement to access resources. This is still an important feature of the northern Secwepemc culture and resource harvesting.

Teit describes the western Shuswap as having more social stratification than eastern and southern groups. This stratification was shown through societies, clans and power for chiefs31. He describes the division of the north and western Secwepemc into three classes: nobles, commoners and slaves. This has been described as a historic diffusion from the coast32. Verne Ray describes this social stratification as recent and superficial33.

25

30 Teit 1909:45731 Teit 1909:57232 Teit 1909:53633 Ray 1939:29

Furniss emphasizes that;

Secwepemc culture displayed…kinship based on bilateral descent, a strong emphasis on egalitarian social relations, collective residence of one to several families in semi-permanent winter villages, relatively open and unrestricted access to resources (with the exception of salmon fishing and berrying sites), and formal political authority vested in the hereditary chief whose function was to oversee the general welfare of the band, to mediate and resolve disputes, and to provide general counsel and leadership in political affairs.34

The distinctive mobility that characterizes the Secwepemc was noted by Weir, who noted that “ It is more common …in the Interior for a band to be made up of several settlements or have scattered families living on several of its reserves…” as opposed to the coastal pattern of occupying a single village”.35 This mobility has important functions to enable the access of dispersed resources. It also serves the function of randomizing the harvesting of some resources in order to minimize harvesting impacts. It also serves to create reciprocal relationships with other groups. The traditional economy is based on reciprocity, and is focused on sharing resources. The resource regime contains nutritional components as well as the social components characteristic of a mobile subsistence strategy.

4.2 Pre-contact History Archaeology can provide a powerful confirmation of long term Secwepemc archaeological history. Archaeology has the ability to provide dates of early occupation as well as information on activities and subsistence strategies identifying plants and animals harvested. Archaeological research in the region provides evidence for occupations in this region for at least 5,000 years36. Earlier dates of occupation from other areas of the province indicate a likelihood of occupations that significantly predate 5,000 years.

Archaeology in British Columbia is governed by the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act. Most archaeological research in this region to date has been in the form of surveys and archaeological impact assessments conducted in response to developments such as timber harvesting or mining. Because of the limited archaeological work in the Quesnel Lake area, trends indicated by surface features and isolated lithic finds by local inhabitants, indicate a

26

34 cf Ray 1939 in Furniss 2004:14535 Weir 1965:1536 Reimer and Hall 2005

large population within the last several thousand years. The large numbers are probably an indication of the abundant resources in the area. Based on information from adjacent areas it can be inferred that the inhabitants focussed on the abundant salmon resources and animal populations. These in conjunction with the abundance of berry and other plant resources would have enabled a very comfortable living.

Some of the sites reported include, pictographs, and numerous large pithouse villages along the shores of Quesnel Lake. There are accounts of locals who have found large numbers of artifacts such as arrowheads and stone tools along the shores of Quesnel Lake, indicating a very intense, widespread and long term occupation of the area. One community member described hearing that there was “a great big war in one of these bays in Quesnel Lake so there, there’s supposed to be a lot of people died.”37

The extensive use of the territory was emphasized by an individual who said that the old people “they lived everywhere…Yea they lived everywhere yea and they, they used the whole territory”38 and “the old people used to live way out there and they got pushed out by the white man a long time ago, so a lot of the stories were lost about that area.”39

4.3 Land UseCurrent land use and occupation patterns represent a modified continuation of historic use of the area. The persistence of the distinctive patterns of land use contrasts sharply with the rapidly changing post contact physical, natural resource and regulatory environment for the T’exelc and Xatśūll. The changes include the alienation of Secwepemc traditional territories through their sale by government agencies, as well as regulatory obstacles and developments that impede or curtail the community’s use of their traditional ancestral territory.

Prior to contact with Europeans, the Secwepemc land use was guided by the cultural requirements for food, resources, spiritual and social needs. This responsive mobility was focused around family and kin groups whose composition varied yearly as families merged and dispersed according to needs. After the 1850’s, when contact with Europeans became more sustained and the non-native settlement began in the area, the Xatśūll and T’exelc mobility has been increasingly constrained. These constraints include the restriction of the community members to living on small reserves as required by the Department of Indian Affairs.

27

37 T201207-0738 T201207-0739 T201207-07

4.4 Pre-contact period (and Appendix 4)In the pre-contact and early historic period, winter residences were focused around pithouse villages. Pit houses are semi subterranean structures that consist of a large excavated depression, the size of which depended on the numbers and needs of the group. Very large pithouses can be up to 15-20 m in diameter and two to three meters in depth. This usually circular depression was roofed over with timbers that formed a cone shape; this was then covered with matting or bark and finally capped with a thick earth layer forming a well-insulated structure that protected the inhabitants even in the coldest winters. The entrance was through a hole in the apex of the cone which also served as an escape for smoke, it was through this hole that notched a log ladder emerged, this served as the men’s entrance, while in some homes the women’s entrance was a ground level tunnel.

The earliest pithouses in the central interior region date to between 3,500 to 4,500 years ago40. In the Quesnel Lake area, there are numerous archaeological sites containing pit house villages. Many of these are sites that contain up to 50 or 60 pithouses. Because of the lack of archaeological work in the region, many of these have still not been registered with the provincial Archaeology Branch. These winter pit house villages are situated along the lake in areas that appear close to salmon spawning areas and migration routes for large mammals. The location of these winter villages along Quesnel Lake also took advantage of the lower elevations, milder winters and lower snowfall than that found in the higher elevation regions surrounding the lake. The abundance of salmon permitted the drying and storage of a considerable resource for winter use. Salmon was often stored in subterranean cache pits, lined with bark and covered with earth. While none have been positively identified for the Quesnel Lake area, their occurrence in adjacent areas indicates a high probability that they were also used in this region.

28

40 Fladmark 1986:127, Reimer 2005

4.5 Post Contact PeriodPrior to contact and in the early post contact period, each extended family group had a harvest area. The boundaries were permeable, family members and others could move as needed. The chiefs and representatives of the families were men, but women had a great deal of power and Teit recorded the presence of female chiefs among the western Shuswap.41

The movement of family groups was determined by resource harvesting locations. Families had their traditional hunting and trapping areas as well, families travel to the east into what are still termed the “snow mountains” [Cariboo Mountains] in the fall for hunting and berry picking. This meant following trails from the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities to Quesnel Lake and crossing it on a raft. In the historic period horses were taken across as well. The land and family structure were tied together. When there were abundant resources the land was able to support larger groupings. When there were fewer, the winter settlements were sparser.

Numerous changes have affected the use of lands, in the past resource areas were reached by walking, by horseback or with horse and buggy. This meant long trips that lasted several days or weeks. However, today day trips are common for harvesting resources. In the past camps would be constructed with what Dawson terms ‘summer residences at hunting or fishing places” these he describes “as a rule roughly constructed of poles, which are then covered with matting or roughly wattled with branches. The size and forms of these are very varied and quite irregular” (1891:8). Current archaeological evidence for these locations includes the scattered remains from stone tool making, these lithics, representing debitage or debris from sharpening, and butchering animals. These locations may also exhibit burnt and broken faunal remains that are the result of food preparation or butchering as well as burnt and fractured rocks from camp fires (See Appendix 4 for a more detailed description of the pre-contact cultural sequences and recorded and registered archaeological sites).

In the immediate post contact period, after the arrival of fur traders, the northern Secwepemc still continued to travel seasonally and to harvest resources as they had always done. The seasonal travel for resources began in the spring when the weather warmed up enough to leave the winter pithouses. At this time important resources were the first shoots of the season such as wild rhubarb, salmonberry, and fireweed. This was also the time to harvest cambium and to dig roots, in particular sunflower roots and tiger lily roots. This was supplemented by

29

41 Teit 1909:582

catching spawning trout and hunting whenever possible. Birch bark was harvested at this time as well.

During the summer the harvesting of berries began as well as medicinal plants along with the focus on salmon fishing, and hunting. This was a time to prepare resources for winter by drying or smoking.

In the fall hunting was emphasized, along with harvesting the last of the berries, high elevation huckleberries, chokecherries and late season plants.

In early winter people began to move into the warm pithouses and prepare to spend the winter.

4.5.1 Fur Trade (see Appendix 4)Among the first non-native visitors to the area was the Northwest fur trading company’s employee, Simon Fraser and his crew, who in 1808 travelled down the Fraser River searching for a route to the Pacific., we know that he had contact with inhabitants within the Northern Secwepemc communities territory. Oral history recorded by James Teit in 1900 stated that Simon Fraser’s

This visit is remembered by a very old man, Setse'l by name, who was born in the village Peq on Riske Creek, and was still living at Alkali Lake in 1900. He was a small boy when Simon Fraser's party came down Fraser River with canoes. Xlo'sem, the Soda Creek chief, accompanied the party as guide, and interpreted for them.”42

He noted that “Some of the Soda Creek Indians were the only Shuswap who had seen white men prior to Fraser's party”43.

The fur trade provided the ability to participate in the cash economy and was to be a part of First Nations’ peoples’ lives until the 1960s with the collapse of fur prices. During the fur trade period up until 1846 with ratification of the Oregon Treaty and the settling of the US – Canadian border, the Hudson’s Bay Company’s monopoly controlled access to British Columbia and settlement in the region. Only a handful of non-native people lived in the area. Don Marshall, in his written history of the gold rush in 1858 describes the earlier fur trade as being conducted in comparative peace.44

30

42 Teit 1909:44943 Teit 1909:44944 Marshall 2002:199

The Secwepemc left a favourable impression on visitors and Teit cites Simon Fraser as saying that

'The Atnah [Shuswap] wish to be friendly to strangers. The men are tall and slender, of a serious disposition, and inclined to industry....They are great travellers, and have been at war beyond the Rocky Mountains.... The Atnahs….seem more honest than any other tribe on this side of the mountains."(Simon Fraser cited in Teit 1909:470).

The earliest fur trade contacts began with the construction of Fort Kamloops in 1812. Other fur trade establishments were Fort Alexandria, built in 1821 north of Williams Lake, as well as Fort Chilcotin, west of Williams Lake built in 1829 and occupied intermittently until its abandonment about 1840.

In addition to the fur trade, other early contacts between non-native peoples and the northern Secwepemc were with the Catholic Church, in particular with the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. In 1842 the priest Modeste Demers travelled north to British Columbia from the missions in Oregon where a Roman Catholic church had been built at Champoeg45. This began the period of Catholic missionization. In 1867, St. Joseph’s Mission was built south of Williams Lake, in order to provide a base for the conversion of the native people in the Chilcotin and Cariboo area46. Subsequently, the churches in conjunction with the Canadian government initiated and ran the Indian residential schools. These schools are an important part of the land history because they separated the children from their home communities. The church’s objective was to assimilate the children into European culture and to teach them to adopt a sedentary agricultural way of life47. This interrupted the transmission of traditional knowledge, and in some cases alienated the students from the traditional knowledge that was a cornerstone of the traditional land use patterns. This forced cultural change is something that community members are still struggling with48.

31

45 Walker 1998:144.46 Gresko 1999:5047 Todd 199948 Haig-Brown 1988

4.5.2 Mining

The issues and conflict around mining are not new to the Xatśūll and T’exelc. The first gold rush in British Columbia began in the late 1850s. After the initial discovery of gold along the Fraser River, the news spread to miners in the San Francisco area49. Prior to the discovery of gold on the Fraser River there were few non-native inhabitants, missionaries or traders in central or southern British Columbia.50 However, the gold rush precipitated the arrival of thousands of miners within a few months. In 1858, approximately 23,000 miners sailed from San Francisco to British Columbia in a three month period between May and July, and another 8,000 are thought to have travelled overland into central British Columbia at this time.51 This was a time of conflict and tension between Indigenous inhabitants and gold miners52, especially as the newcomers were described as “the refuse of California.”53

Many of these miners arrived from the declining gold rush in California and brought with them the attitude that the Indigenous populations could be eliminated and that the miners were entitled to riches from the land.54 Many community members feel this attitude continues to exist today.

Immediate conflicts between the Native people and the miners occurred. The rapid incursion of the miners onto native lands, the destruction of the native resources, and the exclusion of native people from their traditional areas resulted in numerous deaths as well as armed outbreaks of violence, one of which was the Fraser River Canyon War in 1858.55

First Nations’ philosophies and world views respect the land, the salmon, and animals. This is seen in the many complex beliefs, and rituals such as the First Fish Ceremonies that accompany salmon fishing and other First Fruits Ceremonies for resource harvesting. The First Nations warned the miners that the effects of these mining activities would be the deposition of silt and debris in the Fraser River56 and that this would affect the water quality and impact the salmon runs. The salmon runs were affected by placer mining downstream from Lillooet as early as 1858 57. A drop in the salmon runs resulted in extreme hardship and the starvation

32

49 Marshall 2000:4550 Marshall 200251 Beckham1998:157, Douglas 185852 Douglas 1858, Marshall 200253 Begbie cited in Marshall 2000:188.54 Marshall 200055 Marshall 200056 Marshall 2000:71, 8657 Ferguson and Healy 2009, Marshall 2000

deaths of hundreds among the Native communities along the Fraser River and its tributaries who were dependent on salmon58. It is probable that this collapse in the salmon populations must have affected the northern Secwepemc as well.

First Nation’s oral histories and written sources59 provide a history of the ‘discovery’ of gold along the Horsefly River by Peter Dunlevey in 1859. A northern Secwepemc guide called Tomaa, upon discovering that Dunlevey and his partners were looking for gold, led them to the Horsefly River and showed them where the gold deposits were located.60 This occurred possible because Tomaa and other members of his community knew that land well because of their long history and use of the area. The gold deposit that Tomaa showed to Dunlevey began the movement of thousands of miners into the Horsefly and Quesnel Lake area. Instead of mining, some newcomers focussed on providing services for the miners. Some of these settled in the area of Beaver Valley and Little Lake, a short distance east of the Mount Polley Mine. The first of these pre-emptions in Beaver Valley consisted of 480 acres that was taken up in 1860. By “Messers D’Orsay and DeShilles”61 who began a farm at the site. They were followed by ” Sellars and Dunlevey [who] turned their ranches at Mud Lake and Beaver Lake into hostelries”.62 In 1861 another pre-emption was recorded for R. Smith at Little Lake who also provided supplies and accommodation for miners.

By May 1862, it had been recorded that more than 1,700 men had arrived in Quesnel Forks to begin mining, and by July 1862 that number had risen to 5,500 miners.63 The Natives of the region began to pack equipment for the miners, and in 1861 they were charging $50 per day to pack from Quesnel Forks to Antler Creek.64 In the summer of 1862 it was estimated that 9,000 miners were in the Cariboo mining district. By September 2,200 miners were left.However, by 1883 the Indian Agent noted;

The number of Indians stopping at the mines is now very limited. Formerly representatives from both interior and coast tribes made regular pilgrimages there with injury to their morals in consequence. Those possessing camps at the present time at Cariboo are chiefly engaged in packing...”.65

33

58 Smith 199859 Beeson 197160 Beeson 197161 Wright 1987:1262 Ibid63 Wright 1987:2664 Furniss 1992:8, Wright 1987:23, 65 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1883:181

4.5.3 Disease By 1862 the devastating smallpox epidemic spread through British Columbia. This epidemic had a very high mortality rate and led to social disruption and depopulation66. Estimates of mortality range up to 90%.67 This caused tremendous suffering and loss, while the last smallpox epidemic took place almost 150 years ago in 1862; oral histories in the communities still provide powerful and poignant accounts of the suffering endured during this time. Recent research by Tom Swanky68 suggests that in central British Columbia small pox was intentionally spread as part of the process of clearing the land to facilitate settlement by non-natives. He notes that smallpox began in the Cariboo Mountains. Reports of the death of many Natives from Beaver Lake, along the Beaver Valley were noted.69 A description of Beaver Lake described it as “a white field of death. The area undulated with small mounts, all snow graves. Smallpox had struck the local Indian tribe and wiped out every man, woman and child...Altogether, I counted 90 graves, but there may have been more”.70 “There were signs of smallpox everywhere,. Small Indian villages devastated by the disease were eerily characterized by the ubiquitous hummocks of snow. At Williams Lake I counted 120, and found only three Indians alive”.71

The discovery of gold, the spread of epidemic diseases and the subsequent establishment of large ranches and pre-emptions changed the demographic and the settlement patterns in central British Columbia. The land base and resources were no longer as accessible to the northern Secwepemc.

4.5.4 Non-native Settlement and Reserve Establishment The gold rush and the arrival of tens of thousands of miners meant that political control was needed to protect British interests. In 1859 Governor James Douglas instituted the requirement to obtain mining licenses and established a framework of political control that included a land pre-emption system, taxes, duties and the need to separate Native land from non-native land.

34

66 Boyd 199967 Harris 199868 Swanky 201269 Swanky 2012:39270 Stangoe 2005:48, Gallaher 2007:2771 Stangoe 2005: 48 Gallaher 2007:28

This was done through the establishment of reserves of land for First Nations. This process began in the 1850’s with the Douglas Treaties undertaken by the Chief Factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company and governor of Vancouver Island, James Douglas. Douglas continued to establish some reserves in the 1860s, however, without the accompanying treaties.72 These non-Treaty reserves were established in the interior of British Columbia, in the Kamloops area as well as the central interior.

James Douglas established the position of Gold Commissioner. This individual was tasked with issuing mining certificates as well as the laying out of Native reserves. In 1864 the gold commissioner from Lillooet, A.C. Elliot laid out the some of these Douglas Reserves. Elliot was given clear instructions on July 20th, 1864, by the Colonial Secretary that he was to "...take steps for marking out the Indian Reserves..." in his district and that "...such can only be done by a personal inspection and conference with the Indians in the ground...” He was instructed that reserves were to be "...distinctly marked out by conspicuous boundary posts”. During this survey the land was measured, holes were dug for the boundary posts that were cut down and dressed. For assistance he hired native workers.73 It is possible that Elliot may have travelled as far north as Soda Creek and Williams Lake, and promised the large reserve lands for this area. Most of these early records have been lost; oral history remains one of the only sources for this type of information.

Reserves continued to be established under the direction of Douglas in response to First Nations concerns about their lands and the threat of violence similar to the attacks on Americans that occurred in Washington State.

Douglas’ approach towards native land reserves and rights differed radically from that of his successor. Joseph Trutch did not favour large reserves for the Native population and worked to have the Douglas reserves reduced. This reduction was undertaken through manipulation of the written record. He stated that:

The subject of reserving lands for the use of the Indian tribes does not appear to have been dealt with on any established system during Sir James Douglas' administration. The rights of the Indians to hold lands were totally undefined, and the whole matter seems to have been kept in abeyance, although the Land Proclamations specially withheld from pre-emption all Indian Reserves or settlements.74

35

72 Madill 1981, Tennant 199173 Elliot 186474 Trutch 1868

Trutch goes on to say:

The Indians regard these extensive tracts of land as their individual property but of by far the greater portion thereof they make no use whatever, and are not likely to do so; and thus the land, much of which is either rich pasture, or available for cultivation and greatly desired for immediate settlement remains in an unproductive condition, is of no real value to the Indians, and utterly unprofitable to the public interests.75

Either Trutch misunderstood the differing uses of the lands by the Native communities, or he ignored them. The presence of large Native settlements and established territories were not fenced agricultural lands. This dispossession through pre-emptions became a strongly held tenet of the British Columbia government. This imposed a Eurocentric evaluation of land use. It did not acknowledge the stewardship based relationships to land that held by communities. It did not acknowledge the need to let the land and resources rest, while hunting or travelling to another area.

Pre-emptions enabled a new arrival to what is now British Columbia to identify, occupy, improve and then obtain title to the land. Beginning with the first guidelines for pre-emption in British Columbia in the 1859 Land Act, it was stated that

any head of a family, a widow, or single man over the age of eighteen years being a British Subject, or any alien upon making a declaration of his intention to become a British subject…may record any tract of unoccupied and unreserved Crown lands (not being an Indian settlement)...

This ordinance enacted by Governor Douglas included anyone intending to become a British subject, including Aboriginal people to pre-empt. This was repealed in 1870 by Trutch and the right to pre-empt was restricted to

… any male person being a British Subject, of the age of eighteen years or over, may acquire the right to pre-empt any tract of unoccupied, unsurveyed land, and unreserved Crown Lands (not being an Indian settlement) not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres76

36

75 Trutch 1867:6-776 British Columbia Land Act 1870

Native people were not allowed to pre-empt land, because ‘Indians’ were not considered to be ‘persons’ under the law. While pre-emptions were only allowed in areas that showed no Native use or occupation, this was routinely ignored. An example of this is the current T’exelc Village Claim. This village was occupied by new settlers and community members were removed from the land. There are numerous accounts in oral histories of deception by government officials and Indian agents in order to gain control of Native lands

Trutch felt that reserves were too large for the Native people. In actions that precipitated the increasing land shortages for First Nations he said “I am therefore of opinion that these reserves should in almost every case be very materially reduced”77. His approach was to "disavow absolutely [the surveyors] authority to make these reserves of the extravagant extent and instead to survey off the Reserves afresh" and make them smaller. This system "was carried out last year in the reduction of the Kamloops and Shushwap preserves where tracts of land of most unreasonable extent were claimed and held by the local tribes”78

Trutch’s actions provided the template that was used to dispossess the First Nations lands. His approach toward the reserves and Native Title is summed up in his statement that

The Indians have really no right to the lands they claim, nor are they of any actual value or utility to them and I cannot see why they should either retain them to the prejudice of the general interests of the colony…79

The suffering from the loss of lands and resources was immediately felt and resulted in starvation and marginalization for the Xatśūll and T’exelc.

37

77 Trutch 1867:778 Trutch 1867:7-879 Trutch 1967:8

In 1879 Archibald McKinley responded to a plea from the Williams Lake community that they were starving and said;

…the Indians from Yale to Spence's Bridge possess no land at all …Those on the Bonaparte, Canoe Creek, Dog Creek, Alkali Lake and Soda Creek have only very small reserves at present of an extremely sterile soil, and those of Williams Lake none whatever, and for my own part really do not see where lands in these neighborhoods are to be found to give them without purchasing from white settlers80

With Canadian confederation in 1868, the federal government assumed the fiduciary responsibility for the First Nations. While the establishment of the reserve system by the provincial and federal governments from the 1860s to the 1930s did provide a small level of land security, but it also restricted the community to a small portion of their original lands. Furthermore, the reserves are not owned by the communities they are held in trust for them by the federal government.

The creation of reserves by government representatives took place with only limited input from the communities. These decisions were the result of political and legislative decisions and did not reflect pre-contact, or early historic uses, or traditional land uses of the northern Secwepemc.

It was not until 1881 that reserves were identified and surveyed by the Indian Reserves Commissioner Peter O'Reilly for the T’exelc and Xatśūll communities. The decisions about reserve creation were limited to lands that had not been pre-empted by non-natives. O’Reilly’s comments in 1881 when he surveyed the reserves indicated that the lands had been pre-empted by non-native interests, leaving almost nothing for the community.

38

80 McKinley 1879

This lack of land, the lack of resources, and the inability to survive as they had in the past meant serious hardships for the communities. The initial policies of Trutch, and the post confederation neglect of First Nations in British Columbia resulted in an appeal by the Premier of British Columbia, who on April 11, 1884, wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister, John McDonald in which he chastises the federal government for its lack of attention, while indicating that the province cannot take responsibility for the Native people.

He wrote,

The Indians at … Soda … Creek[s] certainly would seem to have urgent claims for relief at the hands of the Dominion Govt and I cannot but think that the Govt have not fully realized their responsibilities in respect of the Indians who are in their charge. It is manifestly wrong that the Indians whose guardianship the Federal Govt assumed at Confederation, should be left in some instances to starve, simply because the provincial govt cannot afford to do that which never ought to have been expected, never asked for at their hands, that is to purchase improved property at high prices and give it to the Dominion Govt for Indian purposes. The Indians are a heavy burthen to the province as it is. It would not be an exaggeration to ‘say that the cost of administration of justice is double to the province on Indian account and yet as wards of the Dominion they contribute nothing to the provincial treasury. It is quite different however with the federal govt in that regard. The Indians are large consumers of goods upon which heavy duties are paid to the Dominion and if there were no other or better reason, the fact that the Indians contribute more to the exchequer of the Dominion than is expended on their behalf out to be sufficient to induce the Dominion Govt to make such expenditure in the interest of their Indian wards as the circumstances demand. The province is ready to give such areas of crown land for Indian reserves as necessary and are reasonable but it is not fair to expect that it can take of its small and inadequate revenue and purchase improved farms for either the Indians or the Dominion govt (McBride 1884).

In this letter Premier McBride points out that the federal government is not living up to its fiduciary responsibilities and emphasizes that the issue with the “Indians” is explained as being of a financial nature.

39

4.5.5 Continued Erosion of Traditional Territories The pattern of land sales, mining leases and other forms of alienation of lands continues to date. This is demonstrated in a series of maps prepared by Xatśūll. Map 3 shows the mining leases and claims, while Map 4 shows lands that have timber harvesting interests, while Map 5 shows private property interests.

These maps, individually and combined, show a strong trend towards the exploitation of the resources within the Xatśūll and T’exelc traditional use areas. They also indicate an ever diminishing area in which the Xatśūll and T’exelc can continue to practice their culture. It demonstrates a disregard for the communities’ Aboriginal Rights and Title.

While the federal and provincial governments were the cause of many hardships for the northern Secwepemc, one of the harshest was the government policy of land alienation. This resulted in serious hardship and cultural stress for the Xatśūll and T’exelc. The TKLUOS research has documented the strongly felt connection is to the land. This connection is notable, not only because it is characteristic of the culture, but it has persisted despite the many obstacles that interfered with the use and stewardship of the land.

40

Map 3 - Mining Impacts

41

Map 4 - Forestry Impacts

42

Map 5 - Private Property Interests

43

Traditional Use Resources Caution: Please note that some of the following plants and herbs have medicinal properties and can be harmful if misused or incorrectly used. Northern Secwepemc traditional knowledge is an integral part of the correct and safe usage of many of these plants.

5.1 Plants The harvesting of resources is one of the ways in which the use of the land is documented in studies assessing development effects on traditional cultures. This empirically based approach is very useful and informative. But it is one dimension of traditional land use and culture. The holistic relationships between First Nations and the land also include spiritual and emotional connections.

Plant species harvested in the study area are diverse. Based on the TKLUOS interviews a few species form the backbone of harvesting. These consist of the Vaccinium species, huckleberry, high, low and medium bush blueberry, as well as soapberry and various Rubus species such as raspberries and blackcaps. Salmonberries and thimbleberries are also

44

harvested. These keystone species81 are highly esteemed and they continue to be harvested in large quantities for family and community use by the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities.

Medicinal species harvested include devils club, and balsam bark as well as other species. Frequently information about medicinal plants is held within the community and it is assumed that the amount of medicinal plant harvesting is much higher than reported.

This section will describe the plant species that have been reported to be harvested in the study area.

5.1.1 Cambium Pinus contortaCambium harvesting is practiced by some community members. Cambium is only available to be harvested for a short window in the spring. It has been described as ‘candy’ or ‘medicine’ by some users because of its sweet taste and health giving properties. Harvesting is done by cutting off a strip of bark on one side of the tree, and scraping off the cambium. The cut is not made around the tree because that would kill it. The cambium can be eaten fresh or dried for later use.

It is a plant food that is high in carbohydrates, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, and niacin. It contains minerals and micronutrients82. It reduces free radicals and “contains a suite of nutrients which contribute to immunity, electrolyte balance, and stress relief in the human body”.83

Berries 5.1.2 Huckleberries Vaccinium membranicum WenexHuckleberries are one of the most important berries for harvesting among the northern Secwepemc and other groups. They have been called ‘the real Cariboo gold’ by northern Secwepemc community members. In the 1890s George Dawson noted that the plant “…

45

81 Cultural keystone species are “the species most closely associated with indigenous and local peoples, wherever they reside, are the ones they depend upon the most extensively to meet their needs for food, clothing, shelter, fuel, medicine, and other necessities of life. These are the species that become embedded in a people’s cultural traditions and narratives, their ceremonies, dances, songs, and discourse. These are also the species for which a people will have developed the most detailed names and associated vocabulary, and the ones on which they focus in their immediate activities and conversations” (Turner as cited in Dilbone 2011:90)82 Dillbone 201183 Dillbone 2011:88

generally grows pretty high on the mountains, and to the well-known spots where it abounds excursions are annually made at the appropriate season”.84

Huckleberries provide a significant nutritional input for the Xatśūll and T’exelc community members. They contain the flavonoid anthocyanin which has a positive effect on fighting cancers, improving cardiovascular disease as well as containing anti-inflammatory properties and anti-aging benefits85.

Huckleberries are an important cultural and resource keystone for the northern Secwepemc communities of Xatśūll and T’exelc . Significantly, the harvesting, processing and sharing of this berry resource belongs largely to the women’s activities. It is a focus of cultural activity, community bonding, the focus for the establishment and maintenance of relationships and the sharing of cultural information. The huckleberries are frozen, canned, dried or made into jams. Huckleberry products form an important part of the inter and intra community exchange systems among the northern Secwepemc communities.

The traditional knowledge about the conditions of the berry harvest is illustrated in the description of a Xatśūll Elder’s knowledge.

In the spring time, when the blossoms were coming out, around here mostly, she would take 2 trips. And out there, [Likely area] that would be a special trip out there. In the spring time, she would make her rounds, and see where the blossoms are. And she knew, almost to the day when they were going to be ripe.86

An issue of concern is the increasing pressure on the huckleberry and other berry resources. The berries respond well to fire, pruning and similar disturbances, indicating the importance of First Nations management practices in the past.

This is a popular resource with non-native recreational and commercial harvesters as well. It is anticipated that this demand will keep growing. There are also commercial harvesters who have

46

84 Dawson 1891:2185 RR 2010.86 X2012-8

Figure 3 Huckleberries

begun to frequent the area. One community member from both communities has told of seeing individuals harvesting berries commercially. This has been a serious issue in southeastern British Columbia, and the increasing pressures due to developments and loss of habitat in the region seem primed to create social and resources pressures in this area.87 Concerns about over-harvesting, with the destruction of environment the pressures on the resources will become more intense.

Important cultural and food resources are becoming harder to find and access for the northern Secwepemc Xatśūll and T’exelc. This is in part due to the inability of First Nations to practice traditional cultivation techniques such as burning to encourage plant and berry growth. This practice was in conflict with the commercial emphasis on tree harvesting and it became illegal to burn areas to create preferred habitats as early as 187488. The significance of this resource to communities indicates the need to develop long term stewardship plans to preserve it for the future.

5.1.3 Blueberries Vaccinium spp SesepBlueberries have similar properties to the Huckleberries and are distributed within the same area. There tend to be fewer blueberry patches in comparison to huckleberries in the study area.

47

87 Richards and Alexander 2006, Keefer 2008, Keefer, M., W. Cocksedge, R. Munro, J. Meuleman, N. MacPherson 2010:4088 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/pubs/docs/sifmc.pdf, Turner http://www.firstnations.de/media/06-4-1-turner.pdf

Figure 4 Blueberries

5.1.4 Cranberries Viburnum trilobumThese berries are good sources of calcium, iron, potassium and phosphorous. These plants do not tend to form thickets and are harder to harvest in large quantities because the plants tend to be dispersed

5.1.5 Kinnickinnick Arctostaphus uva -ursiKinnickinnick is harvested for its leaves which are used for smoking. The berries can be harvested for eating.

5.1.6 Raspberries Rubus spp.Raspberries are an important and valued resource. They provide vitamin C, vitamin K, and magnesium and manganese.

48

Figure 5 Kinnickinnick

Figure 6 Raspberries

5.1.7 Saskatoons Amelanchier alnifolia speqpekThis berry is at the margins of its most productive environment. The berries are a good source of fibre, riboflavin, biotin and manganese and moderate amounts of calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium. They are also high in antioxidants such as phenolics, flavonols and anthocyanins and contain small amounts of niacin, thiamine and niacin.89

5.1.8 Soapberries Shepherdia Canadensis ‘Sxusem’Soapberry is a highly prized berry among the Secwepemc. It is harvested according to special techniques and either frozen, dried or canned. It is made into a juice or whipped into a meringue like confection, often called ice cream. It has a distinctive bitter sweet taste and is a very nutritious plant. One cup of berries has six times the amount of vitamin C needed daily and is a good source of beta-carotene. It has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-proliferative properties, and enhances circulation.90 The berry can be dried, frozen or canned and is also a valued trade item. This plant is present along Bootjack Lake.

5.1.9 Wild Strawberries Fragaria sppWild strawberries were reported as a favorite berry to harvest. Most of the harvesting reported was for immediate consumption. The berries contain small amounts of phosphorus, thiamine, niacin, riboflavin. They are good sources of vitamin C, vitamin A and calcium.91

49

89 http://www.canadasfood.com/history_products/saskatoon_berries.php90 Keefer, M., W. Cocksedge, R. Munro, J. Meuleman, N. MacPherson 2010:4091 http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/other/ai215e/AI215E08.htm

Figure 8 SoapberriesFigure 7 Saskatoons

Roots and Bulbs5.1.10 Tiger Lilly Lilium colombianum Textsin

Another resource that has been identified by community members are tiger lily roots. These were an important food resource. The corms would be harvested by digging in the spring or fall and steam cooked. They formed an important source of carbohydrates.92 Teit notes that the largest roots came from the “Horsefly District”. He also describes the attempt by the northern Secwepemc groups to claim the productive areas around Quesnel Lake where large lily roots were found. These claims were rejected by the remaining Secwepemc communities, probably because of the importance of this resource area to all groups.93 This plant has been recorded in the vicinity of Mount Polley Mine. It is located along the margins of Bootjack Lake and Mount Polley Lake.94 Some of the recorded occurrences of this plant are now located under piles of Potentially Acid Generating rock materials beside Bootjack Lake.

5.1.11 Wild potato Claytonia lanceolata Skinkwinem This plant was reported by Dawson to be an important food source.95 These plants have been reported by community members to occur within the study area. Dawson notes that after pit cooking the roots they turn into a flour and are ready to eat.96 Community members have reported that this plant is located on Spanish Mountain.

50

92 Dawson 1891: 19, Teit 190993 Teit 1909:57394 Klinkenberg, 201295 Dawson 1891: 2096 Dawson 18 91: 21

Figure 9 Tigerlilies

Plants stems and leaves5.1.12 Devil’s Club Oplopanax horridusThis is one of the most commonly used medicinal plants in the area. It is harvested from ‘clean’ areas. Those locations distant from road dust, construction or human activity. Its harvesting is done very carefully because of the spines along the bark.97 Elders have noted that this plant has properties that can result in illness if not used properly. Therefore they requested that specific information about this plant be withheld. Within the northern Secwepemc areas the environments where these plants are found are restricted to portions of the Quesnel Lake region.

5.1.13 Wild rhubarb Heracleum lanatum xwetellpThis plant is eaten by many northern Secwepemc. Because of its localized distribution, and limited harvesting window, it is often eaten as it is harvested; though some freezing and saving of the plant stems occurs. The peeled sappy and nearly white part of the large leaf stalks and stems are eaten in the spring.98 This plant is located adjacent to Mount Polley. This plant has been described as one of the most important vegetable plants of pre-contact cultures. The plant contains folate and ascorbate acid as well as calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron and copper.99 This is collected in the study area.

5.1.14 Tea Ledum Groenlandicum This has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.100 It has also been suggested as having anticancer properties.101 This is collected in the study area.

51

97 http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/oplhor/all.html#2198 Dawson 1894:2299 Kuhnlein and Turner 1986100 http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_legr.pdf101 http://www.naturalstandard.com/news/news200704076.asp

Tree products5.1.15 Balsam Bark Abies balsamea and pitchThis has antiseptic properties and is used medicinally. This is collected in the study area.

Pitch has strong antiseptic properties and is used topically.102 This is a product collected in the study area.

5.1.16 Birch Bark Betula papyriferaBirch bark is harvested during a brief period in the spring when the bark is loose. It is used for making baskets and represents a respected traditional skill. One community member remembered how birch bark baskets were an important item that could be used as containers, and also sold.

My grandmother, well I guess all of the old people used to do that to make money. They would do buckskin and they would do birch baskets and take it up to the 153 store. And they would sell it up there. And they also used… birch for drying fish and meat. You collect…you cut the birch and then you let it go rotten. So you would leave it for a few years. And that was the best to dry fish… 103

An elder described the many birch trees located in the Mount Polley area.

You know around the lakes and so in this, in this area here that we have there are birch trees that are in there, in that Mount Polley, Morehead, Gavin Lake triangle… I know that near those lakes there’s um birch tree stands and that have had ah people in the past harvest off of it and ah my Mom and I only did a couple times take ah birch off to make something you know make a basket ...104

52

102 Johnson 2006 103 X 2012-8104 T201207-01

5.1.17 Cedar Thuja plicataWithin the Xatśūll and T’exelc traditional territories, cedar is only found in a restricted area in the study area. Cedar bark is used for basket making and weaving, while the roots can be used for basket making and the boughs are used for funerals.105

5.1.18 Yarrow Achillea Millefolium This plant is an important medicinal plant used as a pain killer, antiseptic and to help digestion.106

5.1.19 Fiddlehead Ferns Pteridium spp.Fiddlehead ferns can be eaten as an early spring food.

53

105 X 2012-7106 http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/yarrow-000282.htm

The Xatśūll THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT IS BASED ON THE TKLUOS RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY THE XATŚŪLL COMMUNITY. THE INFORMATION IS SPECIFIC TO THIS COMMUNITY AND CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE MOUNT. POLLEY EXTENSION PROJECT.

The most northerly Secwepemc community is Xatśūll, located in Deep Creek and Soda Creek about 25 and 35 kilometers north of Williams Lake. The Xatśūll reserves make up a small fraction of their original lands.107 Reserve lands are those lands set aside by the Federal government for the “benefit” of the “Indians”, they are held in trust for the First Nations, but they are owned by the crown. The Xatśūll were allotted Indian Reserve 1 (IR 1) at Soda Creek and Indian Reserve 2 (IR 2) at Deep Creek. While the community lives on both reserves, the main Xatśūll community is located on Indian Reserve # 2, situated along Highway 97. The Xatśūll band membership, which includes those individuals who have ‘Indian status under the Federal Indian Act, numbers 407 individuals. As of September 2012, the last census, 183 members people lived on reserve and 224 lived off reserve.108

The community has several businesses; these include the Xatśūll Heritage Village an important tourist draw for the region, as well as Whispering Willows Campsite.

54

107 Reserve lands are lands that have been allotted to First Nations communities. They are held by the Federal government on behalf of Aboriginal communities108 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 2012

The current community lands and resource uses are the result of their forced change through the historic period. Early descriptions of the Xatśūll show a large community with extensive lands, resources and hunting territories.

In his descriptions from the late 1800s, James Teit notes that the Soda Creek band or "people of Hatsu'l" [have] Hatsu'I… 109” as their main village. He goes on to describe the community of Xatśūll [Hatsu'l], as situated “on the east side of Fraser River, a little below the town of Soda Creek and about 165 miles north of Ashcroft, via the Caribou wagon-road.” He also describes “reserves and a few houses on Deep Creek and at Mud Lake [now known as McLeese Lake]”110. Xatśūll was described as “a numerous band… their winter houses extended in groups along the east side of the river, north more than halfway to Alexandria. Some of them also wintered along Deep Creek and on the west side of Fraser River”.111

Map 6 - Xatśūll Territory and Reserves

55

109 Teit 1909:457110 Teit 1909:457111 Teit 1909:457 footnote

It appears that over time the boundaries of the community have been stable. In 1909 Teit wrote that “the tribal boundaries have been nearly the same as at the present day. About 1860, or later, a number of families wintered on Fraser River several miles north of the present northernmost village of Soda Creek; but as these places were within the present recognized hunting-grounds, and have not been occupied by any alien people, the extinction or withdrawal of the people from these places does not mark any contraction of the tribal territory.”112

In addition he notes that a large portion of the hunting grounds were located in the Caribou and north of the head of the Fraser River113, this appears to describe the regions around Quesnel Lake.

Each winter village “was represented by…several large winter villages, each composed of from one to several extended family groups. In the early 1800s it was reported that Xatśūll had three main winter villages.114 Descriptions of the size and power of the Xatśūll community are supported by Sir Alexander Mackenzie’s 1793 accounts of a Sekani woman and man, evidently slaves, among the Soda Creek Shuswap at that time.115 Soda Creek also had powerful shaman who were among the best at mastering mystery sickness.116

6.1 Land Alienation Since the arrival of non-native settlers in the area, the Xatśūll land base has consistently been inadequate for the community needs. There are several reasons for this. One of the major factors is the loss of traditional Xatśūll lands through pre-emptions. These began shortly after the beginning of the gold rush. By the time reserves were established in the 1880 the department of Indian affairs annual report stated that, “The Soda Creek Indians have insufficient land, and there are no crown land in the vicinity of their village from which a proper reserve might be allotted”.117

56

112 Teit 1909:462113 Teit 1909:462114 Furniss 2004:144115 Teit 1909:548116 Teit 1909:614117 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881: 241

In one account the Indian Reserve Commissioner, Peter O’Reilly, stated in a letter to the Superintendent –General of Indian Affairs in Ottawa,118 that while in Soda Creek, “I was visited by the Chief “com-moo-saltz’ (Bernard) and his entire tribe, who gave me a hearty welcome.”

The Chief had been expecting a visit from the Indian Reserve Commission “for the last five years”. “He said he was sorry that the Queen had sold their land, and taken the money that had been received for it”.119 This shows that the Chief and the community still considered the lands as theirs.

The Chief described the lands the community wanted as extending, “from the mouth of Williams Lake Creek to seven miles above the steamboat landing, a distance of about twenty-two miles, and extending back from the river seven miles, including the farms of Messrs. Hawks, Collins, Dunlevy and Pinchbeck, and also the town site of Soda Creek”120. Despite O’Reilly’s response that this was far too much land, the Chief continued to assert the community’s right to this land. O’Reilly told the Chief that “it was not in my power to interfere with any land that had been disposed of by the Local Government, but that any unoccupied land in the neighborhood I was ready to visit with him, and if found suitable, to reserve it for the use of his people”121.

Ultimately the Government did purchase the Deep Creek farm for the band; this covered an area of 1,880 acres. To this offer the Chief stated “that it was of no use to them for agricultural purposes, as they could not grow either wheat or potatoes on it, and that unless he got all he asked for, he would not accept any”122. This refusal was to avoid being allotted a token piece of land, without meeting the community’s needs for agricultural lands.

O’Reilly acknowledged that the Deep Creek farm “though an excellent range for cattle and horses, and a portion of it well adapted for the culture of oats and barley, it is not capable of producing wheat”123. But he stressed that “there are no unsold public lands from which to increase the present reserve”.124 Ultimately, by avoiding dealings with the Chief and his brother, O’Reilly managed to convince other community members to accept the Deep Creek farm, while acknowledging it was not enough for their needs.125

57

118 September 22 1881119 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:266120 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:266121 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:266122 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:266123 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:266124 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:267125 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:267

As the Chief stated, the purchase of the Deep Creek farm did not alleviate the difficult conditions under which the community was trying to survive in. The Soda Creek community “complains bitterly of their condition in being without sufficient agricultural lands, and appealing strongly to me to intercede for them and make their wants known to the Government”126 The Indian Reserve Commission did not adequately address their dire need for land127 and O’Reilly continued to bring to the attention of the government that;

The fact is that all available lands in the locality have been taken up by white men, and unless some arrangement is made for the purchase of suitable lands from those who are willing to sell, these Indians will be left unprovided for, and in my opinion will continue to have just grounds for complaint.128

In 1884, three years after the initial Indian Reserve Commission visited the Xatśūll, O’Reilly continued to stress, that the community “… are, however, entitled to land of suitable quality and sufficient quantity for agricultural and grazing purposes, and it must be obtained for them… 129 The only arable land available to the community consisted of 20 acres which had been continuously cropped for 15 years and was no longer productive.130

The Xatśūll continued to make their voices heard about the impossible conditions for survival. O’Reilly noted that a living could not be made through farming, therefore;

…some of the tribe trap in the spring and fall, but the trapping grounds are distant and the furbearing animals are getting very scarce. There is also much uncertainty in the profits of trapping….In the fall, a temporary sustenance can be obtained by killing deer, but these are now so scarce that not enough can be killed to obtain a supply for the winter months.131

O’Reilly asked “How do these Indians live during the winter?” the only manner in which they avoided “many cases of death from actual starvation”132 was through credit or ‘jawbone’133 from the storekeepers.

58

126 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1882:210 127 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1882:210128 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1882:210129 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1884:54130 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1884:60131 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1884:184132 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1884:184133 Community Elders used this term to describe the relationship with store owners

The poor nutrition led to poor health outcomes, death and social trauma. O’Reilly continues with his description;

There is much sickness on this reserve, -consumption, bleeding at the lungs, and chronic rheumatism....I found here …some cases of old and totally destitute persons, who had not children nor near relations on whom to depend for support.134

The proximity of the community to the town of Soda Creek, which was the marshaling point for the paddle wheelers transporting gold miners to Quesnel to travel to the gold fields, affected the Xatśūll. The transient populations led to numerous conflicts and incidents of abuse with the community.

59

134 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1884:184

6.2 Land Use Patterns The Xatśūll describe their relationship as being in “harmony with the natural processes”,135 and importantly “the relationship to the land strengthened the culture.”136 The holistic relationship to the land is stressed by “… a relationship to the land that is important to its culture and the maintenance of its community, governances and economy”.137

These statements are strongly supported by the TKLUOS interviews undertaken with community members.

The use of the Quesnel Lake and the Mount Polley area are part of the current community practices and the community history.

One community member stated that “People travelled to harvest resources by horse and wagon up to the 1970s… [and were] gone for several days to weeks.138 This changed after community members began to get cars “…once we started getting vehicles, we would start going out there [Likely] on a regular basis. In summers I would be out in Quesnel Lake, easily…probably 4 or 5 times with different people. And sometimes we would just go and camp out.”139

“…those old people loved to pick berries. And if [name withheld] couldn’t get someone to take her out she would phone somebody else. I was usually, I was up to going out, because I love the area and I would want to go out and get different kind of berries. And that is when we were out there and she would say…we were out there picking strawberries…or not so much strawberries, but if we were out there picking some sort of berries, she would say, the huckleberries were the last ones. She would say, ‘oh, we have to come back in 2 weeks’. That is how I would end up being out there a few times. Sometimes, like my mom or, sometimes as a family we would go out and camp or we would just hang out, out there. It was such a beautiful area.”140

60

135 As stated on the Xatśūll website under Xatśūll culture and history, retrieved October 6, 2012 http://www.Xatśūll.com/Community/History/tabid/71/Default.aspx136 As stated on the Xatśūll website under Xatśūll culture and history, retrieved October 6, 2012 http://www. Xatśūll.com/Community/History/tabid/71/Default.aspx137 From the Xatśūll First nation interim agreement on Forest and Range opportunities between the Xatśūll (Soda Creek Band) as represented by the chief and council of the Xatśūll First Nation and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests and Range 2006 October http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Soda%20Creek%20FRO.pdf138 X2012-8139 X2012-8140 X2012-8

6.3 Results of TKLUOSThe following section describes the results from the TKLUOS. It is broken down by categories and percentages of interviewees who note the use of the resource. Maps showing the distribution of resources are included.

6.3.1 Berries Berry foods are some of the most important crops for harvesting by the northern Secwepemc communities. The following charts show the percentages of interviewees from Xatśūll that report having used a particular resource.

Strawberries

Saskatoons

Soapberries

Raspberries

Blueberries

Huckleberries

0 25 50 75 100

93

70

52

47

47

59

All Berries: % of use by respondents (n=17)

Chart 1. Berries harvested – Xatśūll

61

6.3.2 HuckleberriesHuckleberries are one of the valuable resources that are found within the study area.

Map 7 - Huckleberry harvesting areas

62

6.3.3 Other BerriesThe other berries include blueberries, raspberries, soapberries, saskatoons and strawberries.

There were a few areas around Morehead Lake one community member noted:

Cause I think it’s important just to note that you know ah there’s lots of ah huckleberries and ah saskatoons and raspberries that we’d get all the way you know ah wherever there was patches all the way ah up into like ah around Jacobie ah Bootjack back over to Gavin Lake over to Edney there’s a big almost like a big triangle running in there that we would just travel around on. 141

Map 8 - Berry Harvesting areas

63

141 TRM

6.3.4 Plants General

Cedar Bark

Birchbark

Rosehips

Wild Rhubarb

Wild potatoes

0 25 50 75 100

12

34

12

81

35

All Plants, food and materialsChart 2. Plants harvestedThis category contains cedar bark, birchbark, rosehips, wild rhubarb and wild potatoes.

Spruce boughs, tips, pitch

Princes Pine

Devils Club

Balsam Bark

Wild tea

0 25 50 75 100

47

35

47

6

46

All Medicinal Plants: % of use by respondents (n=17)Chart 3. Medicinal Plants

64

Map 9 - Xatśūll Plant Harvesting

65

Map 10 - Xatśūll medicinal plant harvesting

66

6.3.5 Animals Harvested

Rabbit

Beaver

Bear

Caribou

Deer

Moose

0 25 50 75 100

46

59

12

12

6

46

Mammals HarvestedChart 4. Mammals Harvested by Xatśūll in Study Area

Bass

Lingcod/Burbot

Trout

0 25 50 75 100

35

6

6

Fish Harvested: % of use by respondents (n=17)Chart 5. Fish Harvested Xatśūll

67

Map 11 - animals harvested in study area

68

Map 12 - fish harvested in study area

Geese

Ducks

Grouse

0 25 50 75 100

35

6

6

Birds Harvested: % of use by respondents (n=17)Chart 6. Birds Harvested Xatśūll in study areaBirds are mapped along with hunting.

69

6.3.6 TKLUOS Concerns Community members were also asked questions about the current conditions of animals, whether there were any changes in numbers, size and health. Some individuals described disturbing events in which shot animals appeared diseased.

“my son went out and he got a moose and that was out towards that way [Likely] somewhere, I’m not quite sure where. And he came back and I told him make sure, save me the liver. And a moose liver is huge, you know? And he went out and him and his friend were digging around and trying to look…and brought out this shrivelled up little thing. And he said, “mom, I think this is the liver. That is the only thing that it could be”.142

Another individual describes the condition of a moose shot by a friend “And the moose was so full of sores. ….. she couldn’t even take the moose out of the bush. She left it there because it was so diseased. And I am pretty sure that was up by Gibraltar Mine.”143

Another individual said “I’ve shot a couple that were...they were ugly.. Ya, their hides were full of scabs and they were balding...”.144 While other deer had “had big like, warts all over their bodies”145 In another case a bull moose was shot “ And it was just stinky and had those growths all over its body. So they just opened it and left it. It just stunk.”

While not all hunters had experiences with sick animals, those who havetell of similar conditions and concerns about animal health. One individual said “It’s not normal. Our people are hunters, so we see the changes. We are, I keep saying, we are like the canary in the mine. We see the changes.146

70

142 X2012-8143 X2012-8144 X 2012-6145 X2012-6146 2012-8

6.3.7 Cultural Features Community members describe camps at Morehead Mountain. “There was a little place on the side where we had a camp… A hunting camp. About 3 or 4 people camped there, and the road came in...right here. That is where we came in and we were in this area in here”.147 A gathering location where many families camped was on “… Bootjack Mountain. There used to be a camping area, but I don’t know exactly where it is. […] had another name for it in Shuswap”.148

While many trips to the study area are day trips. Camping is still common. Map 13 shows some of the locations in which community members choose to camp. The trail systems are another indicator of extensive precontact travel. It is has been noted that there were a great number of trails in the past. When there were blockages or washouts a trail would be diverted, and there were many routes to get to one place. Unlike today when there are only a few main roads to drive on, in the past trails were made as they were needed.

As can be seen, there are favoured camp locations. The area around the Mount Polley Mine is seldom used.

71

147 X2012-5 148 X2012-5

Map 13 - Xatśūll camping areas

72

6.3.7 Questions about the development How important is the area to you?

Community members were asked how important the area in which the Mount Polley mine is located is to them. One individual said;

On a scale of 1 to 10, “I think because of the…just the history of the Xat’sull people and the Secwepemc people in general, being out there, I would have to say it would be a 9. I know that a lot of our people…And even though I don’t go out there as much as I used to, I know a lot of our people still use it. So, that for me is important. And my kids and my grandkids, I hope can continue to go out there. And continue to harvest what it is we harvest out there.”149

While another responded;

“It’s very important, that area. Huckleberry picking place.”150

Some individuals are upset and uncertain how to deal with the potential losses.

This area is extremely important. I have been, like I said, coming to this area since I was in my 20’s and uh, you know going out there to get birch and other medicines in the area. You know, like our Balsam bark and things like that. I’m not really sure what to do now. When we talk about our berry picking areas, it is fairly specific spots that I have told you...so, you know... the idea of having to try and find something familiar and close...ya it’s pretty devastating the thought of it. And, you know...just having the water just concerns me...the heavy amount of pollution and destruction that goes along with some of the proposals that are happening right now….It is easy to say, oh there are huckleberries over there, but when it is our tradition of going back to the same areas over and over again...I’m not really sure where to start. I don’t know if I should be looking now, so that I am prepared...I really don’t know what to do.151

73

149 X2012-8150 X2012-3151 X2012-7

While another said the land is;

“Very important. I love the land out there, it’s so clean. It’s nice- little cold. But you get accustomed to it after a while“152 and that the “Area [is][ important for wildlife’.153

What do you think of the proposed expansion at Mount Polley?

Another question asked what the interviewee thought about the mine development. There was concern expressed about the mine and its impacts.

One individual said;

you look straight across and see the Mount Polley mine. We can see the big tailings that is on the side of it. We’ve watched it grow and grow larger and larger over time. So when you can see those sorts of things, you just stop trusting.154

And another individual, concerned about the development said “I don’t think, we don’t need any more extensions on Mount Polley.”155

When asked about the expansion another said “No, I don’t agree with that. We’ve already had that up at Gibraltar. We made a decision to stop some of it, ….. But I don’t agree with the fact that they are going to put so much into that water.“156

Another community member commented about the Mount Polley expansion, “ Well, I don’t know what to think. It doesn’t seem to matter what you think, it’s what they want that seems to matter. So what you think doesn’t seem to matter.”157 Another said, “I don’t like the idea, because I have already seen what Gibraltar has done. They have already destroyed some of our areas where we went picking berries. I don’t agree with it”.158

74

152 X2012-2153 X2012-6154 X2012-10155 X2012-5156 X2012-2157 X2012-10 158 X2012-5

The concern about ground water was echoed by another community member

“All those lakes, they all drain into that lake [Quesnel Lake]. They all drain in here. All this is going to be gone if there is a disaster there. Up there with their tailings pond. It could burst in 50 years, it could burst next week for no reason. Like they felt that earth quake as far as Quesnel. Ok, you take that another 50 miles down the road with Gibraltar and their tailings pond. All it needs is a couple of shakes, maybe a 5 point something shake. What happens to that tailings pond? It goes into the river.”159

What do you want to see protected?

One community member said they wanted to protect;

The pristine beauty of nature is what I would like to see. There aren’t too many places in the world where you can go where development isn’t happening. And there is some development happening there now. If you stand on top of Spanish Mountain and look across at Polley [Mount Polley Mine] you can see the destruction, and that’s not what I want to see out there. And just all of the placer mining and crap they are doing out there, it’s just terrible. I think that area should be…I definitely want the lake protected”160.

75

159 X2012-11160 X 2012-8

The concern about the water is a theme that runs through many of the comments;

The main thing that I worry about is the water, because there are so much things that impact that water. Our food supply and everything impacts it, and everything. So I think it’s the biggest thing. Protection of that water.

Do you want to see the Quesnel Lake and Likely area protected?

The answers to these questions were often short and to the point.

``Absolutely, absolutely, Yes, I wouldn’t mind if they could. It’s so far gone now. Whiteman is one step ahead of us”.161 And “I would like to, if it’s not destroyed”.162

What do you think the losses will be to yourself and your children?

In evaluating the effects of a project on a community and on individuals, it is important to identify the losses. The responses to this question emphasized traditional aspects of Xatśūll culture.

A loss of what we do on a, you know, annual basis. Camping out there, hunting. We already hardly go hunting as it is. For example, my family, we don’t go hunting as much as we used to. Like what my dad and my mom used to do. So I think it is slowly getting lost already. So with the impact of this changing, we are going to lose it even more. And unfortunately, we are getting so modernised and we haven’t...we are trying to pull our culture back into us. And if we don’t have that, what do we have if we don’t have that land base anymore? You know, how much farther do we have to go back to get what we want?163

And,

“Ya, I’m just worried about what is going to happen to the lake and the rivers and stuff…. Poisoning of the lakes or rivers…. Loss of the habitat… It would be hard on all the wildlife.”164 Another interviewee said “I know its going to be ruined. And the berries will be poisoned”.165

76

161 X 2012-3162 X2012-9l 163 X2012-2164 X2012-6165 X2012-3

Is this an area you plan to use in the future?

The future plans of the community are important. In response to the question about future use, answers included;

“yes, yes”166

“Yes, and I plan to use ‘til I can’t walk anymore.”167

What can be done to protect the area ?

Often the solutions to dilemmas are present within communities. Therefore we asked what the community members thought could be done to protect these areas. Responses included, “I don’t know what we can do about...I don’t know what we can do about it. Because, we don’t seem to have the power to stop anything or to discuss it. Nobody is listening.168 And;

I think that we need to be able to continue to talk and the mine needs to be aware of how often and many people utilise the area I think there needs to be some discussions over the “what ifs”. I think that we need more information about the wildlife. We need more information about the habitat. We need more information about the water quality in that area. All of that makes a difference. I just hope that this isn’t a done deal and I hope that there’s still time for discussion and there has already been some destruction that had happened already. And we haven’t even had a chance to voice our concerns, just part of this study. So, my hope is that this study opens up eyes about the use of this area. You know, some of the areas that I have circles are pretty tiny compared to the whole map here. It just makes me wonder why there? And I know I am not the only one. So, I hope that the number of people that utilise it make a difference.-169

77

166 X2012-2167 X2012-10168 X 2012-10169 X2012-7

6.4 Summary The community has strong ties to the study area. The interconnectedness of the water, plants and animals is something that concerns the community deeply. A common theme is how the community members now avoid the Mount Polley area. “... we don’t go over to the Mount Polley side because the mine is over there.170 We don’t always trust the water sources over there”. There is also caution about harvesting other consumables from the area. “(we do not) eat berries from around a mine site because they will be contaminated with dust. From the mine. So we tend not to take anything that sucks up water, which is everything”171. Meat from mine site areas is also avoided because “it is contaminated.”172

The main concerns expressed by the Xatśūll community members are;

• The protection of water from contamination by the mine.• The protection of important plants and animals• The destruction of an area that is of spiritual significance to them. • The hope that the mine will listen to the community.

78

170 X 2012-7171 X 2012-11172 X 2012-11

The T’exelcTHIS SECTION OF THE REPORT IS BASED ON THE TKLUOS RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY THE T’EXELC COMMUNITY. THE INFORMATION IS SPECIFIC TO THIS COMMUNITY AND CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE MOUNT POLLEY EXTENSION PROJECT.

7.1 IntroductionThis section will provide an introduction to the T’exelc community and describe the research undertaken as well as a cultural and historic context. These will provide a context in which the effects of the current mining development on the T’exelc traditional practices and resources can be understood.

The T’exelc or Williams Lake Indian Band has its main reserve on the east end of Williams Lake. Band membership as of October 2012 is 728. There are 269 band members living on reserve and 459 off reserve.173 The band has several businesses on reserve, these include a log home building company, the Coyote Rock golf course, Borland Creek logging, Sugar Cane Wood Products, a value added mill, and the Chief Will-Yum Campsite.

James Teit described the community as being “In the Williams Lake valley, east of Fraser River, a short distance below the 150-mile post (from Lillooet), and about 140 miles north of

79

173 http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=719&lang=eng

Ashcroft.” He states that “This was a large band. Formerly they lived in seven villages, and had, besides, other winter camps. They lived principally around Williams Lake, but some wintered along Fraser River down to near Chimney Creek, and others up the San Jose valley to Lac la Hache”174. Their main community was “Peltcoktcotci'ceel”175.

Teit notes that the historical post reserve settlement pattern differed from the pre-contact one and noted it was less distinctive because of the dispersed settlements throughout the area. Furniss supports Teit’s observation that “…residence patterns were historically variable. Teit noted that ‘these bands … were not so well marked fifty years ago 1850-60 as now. This was owing to the far greater number of small villages existing at that time”176.

Map 14 - T’exelc traditional territory

80

174 Teit 1909:458175 Teit 1909:458176 Furniss 2004:144

Chief Williams Statement

The white men have taken all the land and all the fish. A vast country was ours. It is all gone.The noise of the threshing machine and the wagon has frightened the deer and the beaver.We have nothing to eat. My people are sick. My young men are angry.All the Indians from Canoe Creek to the headwaters of the Fraser say: "William is an old woman".I am old and feeble and my authority diminishes every day. I am sorely puzzled.I do not know what I say next week when the chiefs are assembled in a council.A war with the white man will end in our destruction, but death in war is not so bad as death by starvation.

The land on which my people lived for five hundred years was taken by a white man.He has crops of wheat and herds of cattle. We have nothing, not an acre.Another white man has enclosed the graves in which the bones of our fathers rest and we may live to see their bodies turned over by his plough. Any white man can take three hundred and twenty acres of our land and the Indians cannot touch an acre. Her Majesty sent me a coat, two ploughs and some turnip seed.The coat will not keep away the hunger, the ploughs are idle and the seed is useless because we have no land.

All our people are willing to work because they know they must work like the white man or die.They work for the white man. Mr. Haines was a good friend. He would not have a white man if he could get an Indian. My young men can plough and mow and cut corn with a cradle.

Now, what I want to say is this:THERE WILL BE TROUBLE, soon.The whites have taken all the salmon and all the land, and my people will not starve in peace.Good friends to the Indians say that Her Majesty loves her Indian subjects and will do justice.Justice is no use for a dead Indian. They say, "Mr. Sproat is coming to give you land." We hear he is a very good man but he has no horse.He was at Hope last June and he has not arrived here. Her Majesty ought to give him a horse and let justice come fast to the starving Indians.

Land, land, a little of our own land, that is all we ask from her Majesty.If we had the deer and the salmon we could live by hunting and fishing. We have nothing now and here comes the cold and the snow. We can make fires to make people warm - that is all we can do.Wood will burn. We are not stones.

Chief William of the Williams Lake Band 1879

From the Williams Lake Indian Band website. http://williamslakeband.ca/History/ChiefWilliamStatement1879.aspx

81

As described earlier, land pre-emptions by non-natives began when the gold miners arrived in the Williams Lake region. The pre-emption of the best lands around the lake left the T’exelc homeless in their own lands. In 1879 Chief William made his powerful statement about the suffering the community was undergoing.

To alleviate this situation the government purchased the Bates Estate to create reserve land. Fifteen reserves, seven of them cemeteries were established in 1881. O’Reilly stated that

I subsequently handed over to them that portion of the Bates' Estate, namely, the "sugar cane," the "Meason" and the "Young pre-emption," embracing 1,464 acres as purchased by the Dominion Government, together with adjoining public lands to the extent of 2,636 acres, making in the aggregate about 4,100 acres.177

These reserves are all located close to the Fraser River, and none are located in the Quesnel Lake area close to the study area. The contemporary community, located on government defined reserves, is a coalescence of several previously dispersed family groupings. The merging of these groups was in response to the post contact period pressures that include the devastating small pox epidemics in 1862-63 in which a large percentage of the Native people in British Columbia died. Surviving community members gathered together where a small reserve was set aside in 1864. The past and present use of the landscape has been closely tied to resource harvesting.

The post contact shortage of lands and resources has been a continual theme for the T’exelc.

During the McKenna-McBride hearings Chief Baptiste William said;

I want to have more room on my Reserves. I have lots of people here, and lots of ground on the hills, but it is all rocks.178

In response to the Commission’s questions as to what the T’exelc do for a living, Chief Baptiste Williams said they work “at the land”, and “..it is very seldom they go fishing; they all stay here on the ranch.” And they “don’t catch as many [salmon] as we used to” …”because the Fish Commissioner stops us from fishing.” In addition he mentioned further interference with the T’exelc subsistence, when he told he Commissioner that they “don’t hunt for furs’ nor did they trap because “Some Commissioners, I guess, stopped it. For 13 years we have not

82

177 Department of Indian Affairs Annual Report 1881:263178 The McKenna-McBride Commission Williams Lake Indian Band testimony to the commission. July 23, 1914:121

trapped now”. In response to the commissioners’ question as whether they had been told they could not got to the mountains, Chief Williams responded that “The constable at 150 told us not to go trapping. They made some kind of a law, and the Indians were afraid to trap”.. “no one traps any now”.179

In the testimony to the Commission the Chief, Subchief and interpreter all emphasized that there was little hunting, no trapping, limited salmon fishing and a very limited sale of agricultural products from the reserve lands. Resources and lands were inadequate to sustain the community members. According to contemporary Elders there was an environment of intimidation and fear that prevailed. Many Elders tell that they would be arrested if they left the reserve without permission from the Indian Agent.

The amount of land on the reserves has diminished; the burial reserves were eliminated by the Department of Indian Affairs in the 1930s. The non-graveyard reserves retain the same land area, but the population has increased from 158 in 1914 to 728 in October 2012. Illustrating further the increasing need for resources.

83

179 McKenna-McBride Commission testimony July 23, 1914:124-125

7.2 Results of TKLUOSThe interviews clearly demonstrate that the T’exelc have used and continue to use the study area around the Mount Polley Mine. The area used is that which is removed from the fugitive dust and from the water contamination. The area immediately adjacent to the mine is not used. This has put more pressure on other areas and resources.

The logging and mining disturbances have resulted in fewer plants and animals than in the past. For example, “Like it seems like when we’ve been out to, out to Likely … like back in the late 80s and early 90s there was lots of deer and moose that you seen in there, and now there’s you don’t see them as much.You know you go down the road and you’d be like geez, you just about run over one, every, every other kilometre and that”.180

7.2.1 ResourcesThe TKLUOS interviews further demonstrate that community members are still dependent on the resources available off reserve, and they also maintain a strong link to the study area.

84

180 T201207-06

7.2.2 Plants

Strawberries

Soapberries

Saskatoons

Rosehips

Raspberries

Oregon Grape

Huckleberries

Cranberries

Chokecherries

Blueberries

0 25 50 75 100

58

4

23

91

4

45

23

23

35

69

All Berries: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 1. Berries harvested in study area– T’exelc

An Elder spoke about the importance of sharing what you have gathered with other;. “a lot of times I’ll give, I’ll, I’ll share it, I’ll give, give lots of stuff away. All the berries that we get, we always share.” 181

85

181 T201207-04

Map 15 - Huckleberry harvesting areas

86

Map 16 - T’exelc berry harvesting areas

87

Fungus

Fiddlehead Ferns

Cedar bark, roots

Cambium

Birchbark

Avalanche lily

0 25 50 75 100

12

23

12

23

12

23

Plants harvested: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 2. Plants harvested T’exelc

One Elder spoke about the importance of lilies to the diet. They were a favorite food, and very good eating and also they can be used as a starvation food.

Sometimes the old people here goes out to the woods to get those roots, you know, …. Lily roots, oh, that's the best eating. There's lots of them … It's just something like a turnip stub. Oh, that good eating. That's what they used because you know sometimes when its hard before the spring you used to go there and if you got something to burn wood, it would burn wood, and then kind of melt the snow and work at them, take them out. That's for hard times. That's a long time.182

88

182 1964-1

Map 17 - T’exelc Plant harvesting areas

89

Yarrow

Spruce boughs, tips and pitch

Mullein

Labrador Tea

Devils Club

Balsam Bark

0 25 50 75 100

23

46

69

12

23

12

All Medicinal Plants: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 3. Medicinal Plants harvested in the study area T’exelc

90

Map 18 - T’exelc Medicine harvesting areas

91

7.2.3 Animals Harvested

Wolf

Squirrel

Rabbit

Muskrat

Moose

Groundhog

Caribou

Deer

Beaver

0 25 50 75 100

12

58

4

12

69

8

18

8

4

Mammals Harvested: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 4. Animals Harvested T’exelc

Ducks

Grouse

0 25 50 75 100

24

12

Birds Harvested: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 5. Birds Harvested T’exelc

92

Trout

Suckers

Salmon

Kokanee

Char

Burbot

0 25 50 75 100

18

4

24

12

4

48

Fish Harvested: % of use by respondents (n=27)Chart 6. Fish Harvested T’exelc

The T’exelc community website points out that fish were integral to the survival of the Secwepemc. Stewardship of the entire traditional territory was practiced. It also points out that protocols were present that ensured the distribution of fish to the community. Lake fish were a buffer resource that helped to minimize the overuse of other resources. These practices and beliefs are still followed.

93

Map 19 - T’exelc animal harvesting areas.

94

Map 20 - T’exelc Fishing areas.

95

7.2.4 AnimalsGeneral Observations by community members about animals include comments on their health. Some T’exelc hunters have observed that there are fewer animals to hunt.

Seem like they got smaller and way scarce it’s pretty hard, like last year we only got one moose, we were going pretty much any time we had off work, and we were going fishing, sometimes I would be fishing with […]and they would want me to go hunting but I fish every year with […], camping spots those guys [non-native recreational hunters] got out there they have RV’s quads, it seems like it’s every few km’s they use their quads out there. You don’t even really get a chance to go hunting, even if you get out of your vehicle and walk to one of the lakes or something, or swamps, you will be expecting it to be quiet and the next thing a hunter will going flying by, no point in going there cause everything would have been scared away.183

T’exelc hunters have also noticed diseased animals ‘They had funny lumps on them, under their hide”184

7.3 Cultural Features Cultural features include precontact village sites, pictographs, trails, archaeological sites containing pithouses, or quiggly homes.

A frequent comment was that the old trails are now the main roads.

I believe that most of the um wagon roads or the, the main highways that they have going through right now ah generally um followed any of our wagon roads that we had. The um road out to Likely that runs through Beaver Valley and up into Morehead and out to Likely ah that was part of the original Gold Trail but I’m sure that before it was the original Gold Trail it was the Indian trail.185

96

183 T201207-13184 T201207-13185 T201207-01

And,

Most of the time they’d walk around any wet areas, so there’s lots of trails in through there. That um Ditch Road that goes back from, from Horsefly back over to Likely I’m sure that, that was another one of our trails you know there’s ah split that go out the Likely Road, out or, yea well Likely Road out through Beaver Valley and out to Likely then you could go on the Ditch Road from Horsefly over to Likely and ah go through that, that back road area. Um there’s lots of other little, little roads and trails that I’ve seen in my journeys on my horse up through there. That you ah come across and you see them and you think oh look at that, that’s interesting.186

See Appendix 4 for trails

97

186 T201207-01

Map 21 - Showing the location of some pre-contact/post-contact trails.

98

7.4 Summary

7.5 Community Concerns about the ProjectMany community members are worried about the Mount Polley mine. There is grave concern about contamination caused by the mine and most community members will no longer gather foods or medicines or hunt in this area.

TKLUOS maps from this study and previous studies demonstrate community use in the mine area. Elders describe that Morehead Lake was an area used to camp while hunting moose and deer and fishing in the lake. Berry resources were also harvested. Large trout were caught by ice fishing in the winter. “…Ya there’s an old wagon trail that come by this place here, but anyhow mainly moose and deer through there and berries eh…. huckleberries …and sxusem”.187

The travel from Sugar Cane to the Likely area and the Mount Polley study area was along a frequently used and well known route for the T’exelc community members. We ”Camped at Big Lake, Morehead Lake, Gavin Lake”.188

Referring to the area along the route to Likely. “All through here. That’s where they must have lived long time ago…their trail going out to Likely and Horsefly. Its what I wanted to let you guys know. All through here. Its what my old Granpa … said”189

An elder reports that as a child he used to travel by team and wagon to the Beaver Valley area to camp. The [Morehead Lake] study area was used as one camping place on their way out to Quesnel Lake. Once they arrived at Quesnel Lake, they would hunt, fish, pick berries and gather various plants for medicinal uses. The fish were mostly eaten fresh but some were dried along with meat and berries for later use.190

99

187 T1999-18188 T1999-MT189 T1999-MT190 T 1999-18 Beaver Valley Report:26

Map 22 - T’exelc Camping areas.

100

The Elder continues;

We traveled from here, Sugar Cane, and we go up through Likely road with team and wagon. There was just trails that they followed, because there were no logging roads up there back then, not like they have now. There was very few roads back then, but there was trails we used to follow. Our first stop was Skulow Lake, we camped overnight. We stayed there that night. We would camp overnight there and then we would go up to Gavin Lake another day. The end of the day we would camp overnight there. Maybe we stay a couple days picking berries around there. From Gavin Lake we would make right to Quesnel Lake.191

The travel to access resources was usually not just for one type of food. When visiting the Mount Polley area, community members would look for other resources as well. Hunting and berry picking were often undertaken during the same trip. For example;

But places here like Morehead Lake had big trout and that eh…. We would dry some of them but not very much eh. They were more or less just for food for to feed the people that was there traveling. We were mainly out there to hunt moose and deer and to pick berries.”192

The travel from Sugar Cane to the Likely and Mount Polley area also took place during the transition between horse and wagon and vehicle transportation.

Over at the Horsefly River, or Quesnel River. Dad used to take us along there with that old Model T Ford, we’d get… I can remember that, we wouldn’t camp there, we’d drive there. But we’d take one day and Dad would take us in, we’d have to pick as much as we could. We’d find a good patch, be all just huckleberries there.193

101

191 T 1999 -18 Beaver Valley Report :27192 T1999-18193 T 1989-MT

Oral histories consistently indicated that community members would travel to Likely and the Morehead Lake area in the late summer, early fall;

Them old people used to go up there every fall. [….] they used to come up to my place and tell stories about it. [….] and […] would be there too. And my aunt […]. All of them sit around and tell what they used to do up there. They say they used to go there to […194] Quesnel Lake. I guess there used to be a lot of them that would out there in the fall time, about this time, to go hunting and trapping.195

How important is the area to you?

The interview included questions about how important the area is to the person being interviewed. All of the community informants felt strongly about the area.

It’s very important I mean we depend on this area to, for our food every year, I mean last, like all off this area, because last year was the first time we never got a moose …But I mean it’s, it gets pretty expensive when you, when you got to buy beef every year…So I mean a moose a year we depend on that, it’s makes our life a lot easier. And you know dry meat and everything else I mean it’s huge if, if we, if there’s no moose or deer we’d probably suffer.196

102

194 Place names are a category of information that is sometimes kept confidential.195 T 1999-MT196 T201207-08

And

Oh it’s, it’s huge for me, I still go out to this day and ah you know pick berries and fish and camp, this is, this whole area from, this line that I drew across here you know I consider this all my area and I’m you know I proudly possessive over it you know I spent a lot of time at Horsefly Lake ah as I said I am you know gonna spend a week out there ah in a couple of weeks I am gonna spend a week out there, we’ll fish and we’ll swim and we’ll go look for berries, for huckleberries ah same thing I’ll go out to the Likely area soon and start looking for berries and spend my time but you know I spend my holiday time all my ah spare time in there and then in the winter months you know we’ll, we’ll ride around on our skidoos in this, you know depending on how the weather is we’ll go for a day trip and go looking around in there and so it’s very dear to me I think that um you know how the mining develops is, is really ah needs to be in a sensitive way because we’re still really using. I use this area… And I know that, that there’s others from my community that use these areas as well. And my children will too you know I have taken my kids with me everywhere that I go I was telling them if they want huckleberry jam you better come pick berries then. So they come with me you know. 197

Another individual stressed that it was about more than food, but also important for physical and mental health. It is “Very important, it provides food, it provides medicine and recreation, I am out there for recreation for food, for gathering medicines, berries, …Fish yea birds.198

103

197 T201207-01198 T201207-07

Water was also mentioned as one of the most important features;“.. one of my big concerns is that you know let’s try to make sure that all of these waterways are protected”199

Another community member emphasized the importance of the area, and how deceptive the amount of development look..

It’s important for hunting and everything, it’s so sad like when you’re working and the way they do it make sure it’s nice and dandy, they have their roads going in and trees all over the sides, but once you get up in a helicopter you can see all those big huge clear cut areas. And it’s just everywhere looks like hell from the air, but when you’re down on the road they leave trees by the road. Looks so sad out there.200

Yet another person brought up the interconnectedness of the environment, and was a cautious about the mining.

I, I don’t think it’s a good idea, I mean yea people talk money you know, we are going to give you guys this, give you guys that. But I mean they’re not going to be able to give us the trees and our animals back once they’re all gone right… And killing off our fish I mean the Quesnel Lake run is so low you know every year they talk oh yea you get more fish, more fish and but I mean that run 2 years ago it was 400,000 and that was the biggest run it’s been in like for 4 years ..But I mean that runs starting to dwindle down pretty good… Ah 4 years ago the Stewart run they only got 3 salmon back… I mean that’s why they keep the, the Stewart run closed and their hoping that you know it builds itself back, builds itself back but I mean they, there’s no sign of it coming back any time soon “. 201

One elder said that the huckleberries in the Likely area are unique.

We went to Likely for the huckleberries and Horsefly for the huckleberries. And we used to go towards Barkerville. The huckleberries at Likely are different. [different species]202

104

199 T201207-01200 201207-13201 T201207-08202 T-1999-MT

What do you think of the proposed expansion at Mount Polley?

Distrust of mining companies and mining was a significant theme. One individual spoke about their experience at a mine, and the perception that profit was more important than environmental responsibility.

I would, I would like to see these areas protected and I worked out [… ] and I …seen some of the things and I know they’re having trouble with their ah with their dam or whatever it is. Their tailings pond, when I was there the tailings pond overflowed and was going over into the creek and stuff like that and they kinda hush hushed it so I am very concerned about the way they operate and they do, they don’t want to do anything’s that are environmentally sound like when you doing things that are environmentally sound it just costs them more money in the end . So anything they can do (pause) to get rid of it cheaply and the cheapest way is to just let it run down the creeks and go down the rivers and stuff like that.203

Concern about the contamination from the tailings pond was also mentioned by another community member;

…if there are tailing ponds that are involved they, I always, that always concerns me about chemicals because chemicals can spill in many of these lakes are tied together you know they one runs to the other to the other you know so Gavin Lake runs down into Beaver Creek and then Beaver Creek runs down into the ah the chain of lakes that will run down in to Quesnel and then down into ..the … And then eventually you know so there’s this, this potential that these whole areas from, from, one spot to the next that can be really harmed you know anything that’s happening in Quesnel Lake runs downs through the community of Likely and, and there on out and down to Quesnel as well so it isn’t just one community that is affected by it any sort of natural disasters. Or not natural disasters, man-made disasters that may happen from any mining accidents Fraser.204

Yet another community member spoke about tailings;

Well I think that those, I mean my concern always is you know, is their tailing ponds and how are all of those chemicals that are used to process um you know I am not ah, ah biologist by any means … but it always seems wrong to me that we are going to use a whole bunch of chemicals to process things and then just sort of let it go back into the, into the

105

203 T201207-07204 T201207-01

Mother Earth and then those, those lakes that are in that area all the way out to Quesnel Lake, Horsefly Lake, those are really hugely important lakes for us, not only for our gathering but they’re in our you know traditional territory that’s where we go to relax those are things that make us feel good, in these days and times you know that’s how we get back in touch with Mother Earth and nature and you know I really think that it’s important to know how any of the mining is going to impact any of these areas.205

As did another community member;

Well I think that the if they continue on putting the, the tailings into our creeks and rivers that our salmon are gonna be gone, the Horsefly run especially. There’s a big run in the Chilcotin but ah and that one’s thriving but the Horsefly run hasn’t been running for the last twelve years and I remember the last time I caught a lot of salmon from the Horsefly run was, I believe it was two thousand three and there was, and they all came up real hard at once. And then I haven’t seen anything since because I, I believe that the, the mine the Gibraltar Mine tailings that are going right into the river is affecting the stock right down. So and the Polley mine wants to put their tailings down through ah Polley Creek [Hazeltine] and that goes right into the Quesnel River and then there’s another guy over here I can’t remember what their names are they want to ah take tailings from ah take tailings from a mine that’s not even in our territory and then dump it in the river …. There’s a lot of mines and stuff like that, that are trying to go in and I don’t believe that they should.206

And also;

Yea I just hope um there’s ah good management techniques in place to protect and preserve I, I think those have to be more stringent the way they (pause) um manage their mining techniques”207

What do you think the losses will be to yourself and your children?

The losses include those to the resources, as stated by one individual;

Well I think that its could be detrimental to our salmon stocks there already, the salmon stocks are already dwindling especially the Horsefly run. If they do it environmentally sound and not put anything in the water that’s good,. And like I said the moose ….and stuff for, in our in the, in the modern day, traditional fishing or hunting grounds down ….. Road and stuff where most of our

106

205 T201207-01206 T201207-07207 T 201207-05

people on Sugar Cane go hunt we’re going to have to go in hunting areas like that where the moose are probably more towards the Rocky Mountains and stuff like that and the elk, and the elk are coming back so we’re gonna have to go deeper into the bush to ah harvest our stuff nowadays and so it’s very important and I don’t want to see it disappear and get contaminated and stuff. There’s a lot of ah stuff that’s going into our water now I believe, that’s why, that’s one of the main reasons why our ah Horsefly, Horsefly salmon are dying off.208

Another community member was concerned about the salmon stocks;

Yea big time because like I say once this run’s gone its gone you know… And salmon is a huge part of our life I mean, we, we dry and you know freeze salmon so we have it for the winter, I mean me and my Dad just last year we done a hundred salmon. And if we can’t do that, you know it’s pretty tough you miss it, I mean it’s a luxury.209

Community members stated concerns about the mine development and concerns about sloppy work. There are also community concerns about contamination. People hesitate to harvest anything in the Mount Polley area because of contamination.

I try to really to avoid that place [Mount Polley] but … ..I collected, I stripped some bark but I can’t really remember just exactly where it was, it was on the road, maybe right here, got birch bark a bunch of birch bark in there and there was a really beautiful a nice place ta go for a nice lunch”210

There are also concerns about losses include the loss of wildlife and water contamination. “Yea for sure um I’d like to see some form of wildlife protection and aquatic protection”211. And “I would like to see the lakes and creeks protected“.212 It was also stated, “I think we lose water, because mines use a lot of water, I think we’d lose land, I think we’d lose um the quality of life that we’re used to in those areas of hunting and providing”.213

107

208 T201207-07209 T201207-08210 T201206-02211 T201207-05212 T201207-07213 T201207-05

What can be done to protect the area?

Some T’exelc interviewees felt that there was not a great deal that could be done to protect the area from mining. “I don’t know I think we would have to stop mining all together if we wanted our land to be the same”.214

Another individual thought that proving the pre-contact use of the area was seen as another important answer to the problem.

The moose go to water, deer go to water, rabbits go to water, everything needs water to survive so anything around any big lake or creek or anything there’s sites and (pause) I’d like to see ah I’d like to see archaeology work along every creek and every lake and (pause) and really map out the territory and (pause) but I know, I know in my heart that there’s stuff around every lake.”215

Another community member believes that working with restrictions could be the answer.

Well I think um the more destruction that happens to the lands its, its not it’s irreplaceable and what you can replace will never be the same. So I think ah management ah techniques are key in are, for preservation”216

Finally one community member described the meaning of the land around the Mount Polley Mine area.

… my husband and I will drive down and go check out […] so that we can see but what happens when I go down along there is that I’ll be watching for berries. I’ll be looking for things you know and that’s what we do you know we are always on the look out. It’s, that’s precisely that’s my way of life I just ah I still live in a very modern world but there’s other things that are important to me and, and part of the land is definitely one of those things its very, very important, especially this area, this is, my home territory (pause). It is very close to my heart. Yea, yea and I spend a lot of time out, out in ah all of that area.217

108

214 T2012 7 05215 T201207-07216 T2012 7 05217 T201207-01

DiscussionTHE TKLUOS RESULTS DEMONSTRATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MOUNT. POLLEY AREA TO BOTH THE XATŚŪLL AND T’EXELC. THE HISTORY OF COLONIAL AND HISTORIC DISPOSSESSION OF LANDS, AND THE FIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN TIES TO THE LANDS, AND TO PRACTICE THEIR CULTURE, SHOW THE STRENGTH OF ATTACHMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY AREA TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE NORTHERN SECWEPEMC TRADITIONAL CULTURE.

The hunting of animals, fishing and collection of plant foods is an important part of the contemporary practice of traditional Xatśūll and T’exelc culture. While some T’exelc and Xatśūll community members work in the wage economy; the hunting, the fishing, and the gathering of foods and medicines have not lost their significance. The resource harvesting on traditional lands is the root of the cultural identity of the two communities. This harvesting, along with visiting locations on the land, is a way to teach cultural values, practices and activities.

The travel to access a resource also encompasses the collection of other resources as well. This includes the harvesting of berries, plants, medicines, roots, firewood or hunting. In this sense berries are a keystone species that facilitates community cohesion through travel for harvesting, and the harvesting of other resources at the same time. The sharing of these resources through the community serves an important cultural function in addition to the nutrition they provide.

109

Historically there have been serious barriers to the communities’ use of the study area. The gold rush saw the pre-emption and fencing of lands. The reserve system restricted people to the small reserves. The disappearance of horses and wagons meant a greater investment in vehicles and fuel to travel. The many ‘No Trespassing’ signs, fences and hostile land owners contribute to the climate of fear for many who want to practice their traditional culture. The presence of mining and logging equipment, the road closures and changing landscape also create barriers.

The continuing use of the lands in the study area, despite the external barriers show the ties to the land have never been broken, only momentarily thwarted. During the time when community members were not permitted to leave the reserve, and were not allowed to travel to the Likely area for fear of arrest, they continued to sneak out to the area in order to pick berries.218

Throughout this study, the Xatśūll and T’exelc communities have stressed that the use of the Likely and Quesnel Lake area continues to be central to their culture. It has been described as “the heart” of the territory.

Many community members expressed concern about the rapidly diminishing resources such as moose, deer, caribou, salmon and other species. There is also increasing pressure on the berry resources.

110

218 X2012-10

Not only do the Xatśūll and T’exelc and other First Nations communities depend on the resources. There is competition from recreational harvesters as well as an increasing harvest for commercial sales.

The erosion of resources through industrial development results in a compound loss. The loss of the resources such as huckleberries is more than the loss of the physical resource itself. It also refers to the loss of role that the resource plays in the community. This includes the sense of community cohesion that it creates through group harvesting. Almost everyone interviewed from both communities travelled for harvesting with someone else. This companionship, the telling of stories and histories, and the exchange of information all work to solidify and maintain cultural knowledge. After processing the berries or other harvested resources, the sharing of these within families, within the community and between communities serves to solidify and establish community relationships.

This research has shown the community values that are linked to the land create a foundation for the culture. This means that the loss of these resources would result emotional and psychological losses. These are not replaceable resources. The purchase of berries, medicines and meats in the supermarket does not replace the resources. It is not possible to learn the culture in Safeway or to learn to respect the land and animals when obtaining food is reduced to a financial transaction. Loss of these resources is more than the physical resource itself but also the role that the resource plays in the community. The sense of community cohesion that is creates through the group harvesting, the closeness and sharing of information and the building of community relationships are all important.

In addition to the continuing loss of resources almost every person interviewed stressed the importance of protecting the water. Not just for the northern Secwepemc communities, but for the people who live downstream as well.

111

8.1 Summary of Points• The lands and resources are all connected. • T’exelc and Xatśūll are concerned about the destruction of habitat.• T’exelc and Xatśūll are concerned about the protection of surface and subsurface water.• There is concern about the release of effluent into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake

due to contaminants from the tailings pond and possible acid mine drainage into Quesnel lake and the effects on salmon, trout and other species. Because they “use a whole bunch of chemicals to process things and then just sort of let it go back into the, into the Mother Earth and then those, those lakes that are in that area all the way out to Quesnel Lake, Horsefly Lake, those are really hugely important lakes for us”.

• It has been observed that wild animal health is suffering. There is concern that animal health is affected by pollutants such as dust and contaminated water

• There is grave concern about the contamination of surrounding areas by fugitive dust and escapement of liquids. The dust clouds rising from the mining site can be seen from across the lake from Spanish Mountain.

• Community members have stated that mining is ‘forever’. That the pollution is permanent. The tailings ponds and pits are there forever.

• The comparison of 10 years of mining with centuries of berry, animal and plant harvesting indicates that the most effective and sustainable use of the resources is to encourage subsistence harvesting as opposed to mining.

• The Project location is situated in a region in which traditional uses have occurred in the past but they have been impacted by the mine.

• Concern has been expressed about the increasing destruction of more and more habitat and the cumulative effects of development. The QR mine in the vicinity is already an acid generating mine.219 “You can see the destruction, and that’s not what I want to see out there. And just all of the placer mining and crap they are doing out there, it’s just terrible. I think that area should be…I definitely want the lake protected”.220

• The viewscape is damaged by the mine.

112

219 Sources: MEI Acid Rock Drainage Policy, June 1997; Draft Guideline for Metal Leaching and ARD at Mine Sites in BC, BC Ministry of Employment and Investment, Reclamation Section; BC Minfile, BC Ministry of Employment and Investment, Geological Survey Branch220 X 2012-8

• The early miners in mid to late 1800s brought with them the attitude that the Indigenous populations could be eliminated and that the miners were entitled to riches from the land.221 Many community members feel this attitude continues to exist today.

• The discovery of gold, the spread of epidemic diseases and the subsequent establishment of large ranches and pre-emptions changed the demographic and the settlement patterns in central British Columbia. The land base and resources were no longer as accessible to the northern Secwepemc.

Furthermore,• The rich and unstudied archaeological history points to a long term and extensive pre-

contact occupation of the area. The archaeological sites show occupation of the area and the use of resources. These archaeological resources are also in jeopardy from mine developments.

• There are many old trails that run through the region that illustrate extensive travel in the past. These are shown in Appendix 4.

• Camping was frequently undertaken at Moorehead Lake prior to the construction of the Mount Polley mine. People now go elsewhere to camp because the area is contaminated.

• The harvesting of berries, plants and medicines took place in the Mount Polley area before mine construction. The harvesting of berries, plants and medicines no longer takes place in the area surrounding Mount Polley because of the contamination of the area.

• Prior to the construction of the mine fishing took place on Morehead Lake. No one from the communities interviewed fished in the area any more.

• The area around the Mount. Polley mine was used for hunting of moose and deer in the past. Now hunting in the area is avoided because of contamination. This represents a lost resource.

• Some individuals had seen or heard about animals that had tumors, shrunken livers or other abnormalities, contributing to the fear of contamination.

• There is a serious decline in moose and deer for hunting, negatively affecting hunting success and the survival of health moose and deer populations.

• The impacts to the T’exelc and Xatśūll cultures from mining are one of high impact and intense, permanent long term alteration of the land, resources, natural conditions and human use.

• The Mount Polley Mine has and continues to negatively affected the Xatśūll and T’exelc’ Aboriginal Rights.

113

221

RecommendationsTHE HISTORIC, ARCHIVAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ETHNOGRAPHIC AND TKLUOS INFORMATION ALL SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY AREA TO BOTH COMMUNITIES. THE TKLUOS INTERVIEWS SHOW ALSO SHOW A DECLINING SHIFT IN THE USE OF THE AREA. CURRENTLY THERE IS AVOIDANCE OF THE AREA AROUND THE MOUNT POLLEY MINE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION AND POLLUTION. A RESOURCE AREA THAT WAS ONCE USED BY THE NORTHERN SECWEPEMC IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THEM. THIS IS PART OF THE ONGOING EROSION OF AVAILABLE TRADITIONAL RESOURCES.

As the many maps illustrate, the study area has unique resources, topography, biogeoclimatic features and a long history of occupation. Because of the uniqueness of this area it is recommended that a significant portion be designated a priority cultural and resource landscape for protection.

114

It is recommended that• The T’exelc and Xatśūll work in conjunction with the appropriate agencies to develop a

priority cultural and resource landscape to be protected, and to ensure the continuation of the unique biotic diversity in the area.

• Develop a protected environment that ensures a healthy and biotic community which will permit the safe harvesting of traditional resources for the future.

• Develop a protected environment that ensures a healthy and viable animal population that will permit safe harvesting for the future.

• Develop a protected environment that ensures the protection of archaeological resources.

• Treat the water from the mine using proven technology to ensure that only clean water is released. This option should be a standard part of mine operations.

• Address the cumulative effects of the increasing amount of mining in the area. • The T’exelc and Xatśūll develop a long term research strategy in conjunction with

established research partners such as the Quesnel River Research Centre and TRU to document the changes in resources and their affect on the northern Secwepemc.

115

References citedBeckham, S., 1998. History Since 1846 in Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau. Smithsonian.

Beeson, E., 1971 Dunlevey: From the Diaries of Alex P. McInnes, Lillooet Publishers. B.C.

Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective. In J.T. INglis (ed.) Traditional Ecological Knowledge:Concepts and Cases, Ottawa: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, pp:1-9

Boyd, R., 1999. The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Dawson, G. 1891. Notes on the Shushwap Peoples of British Columbia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada.

Dilbone, M. 2009. The nutritious springtime candy of people and animals in British Columbia: Lodgepole Pine cambium (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Louden var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson). Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Victoria.

Duff, W., 1969. The Indian History of British Columbia, Vol. 1. The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 5 Victoria.

Douglas, J., 1858. Governor James Douglas; Letter to the Colonial Secretary. May 8 1858. British Columbia, Volume 1. January to December 1858. Nos 1 to 63. pp10. Governor James Douglas. Co 60/1 1858 Public Records Office, Kew.

Ecoscape, 2012. Foreshore Inventory and Mapping and Aquatic Habitat Index, West Arm of Quesnel Lake. Report prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. http://cmnbc.ca/files/atlas_files/Quesnel-AHI_Final_Report.pdf

Ferguson, J, M. Healey, P. Dugan and C. Barlow, 2011. Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers. Environmental Management 47:141–159.

Fladmark, K., 1986. British Columbia Prehistory. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Furniss, E., 1992. The Victims of Benevolence: Discipline and Death at Williams Lake Residential School, 1891-1920. Williams Lake, BC: Cariboo Tribal Council

Furniss, E., 1995. "Resistance, Coercion, and Revitalization: The Shuswap Encounter with Roman Catholic Missionaries, 1860-1900." Ethnohistory 42:2 pp: 32.

Furniss, E., 1997. In the spirit of the pioneers: historical consciousness, cultural colonialism and Indian/white relations in rural British Columbia, UBC, Ph.D. dissertation:

Furniss, E., 1999.The Burden of History: Colonialism and the Frontier Myth in a Rural Canadian Community. Vancouver, UBC, Press.

Gallaher, B. 2007. The Promise. in Heart of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. D. Wilson (ed) Heritage House, Vancouver.

116

Gresko, J., 1999. Gender and Mission: The Founding Generations of the Sisters of Saint Ann and the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in British Columbia 1858-1914. Phd. Dissertation University of British Columbia.

Gottesfeld-Johnson, L. 1991. Plants That We Use: Traditional Plant Uses of the Wet 'suwet 'en People. Moricetown, BC: Kyah Wiget Education Society.

Haig-Brown, C. (1988). Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Vancouver, Tillacum Library.

Harris, C. 1998. Harris, Cole. "Social Power and Cultural Change in Pre-Colonial British Columbia." BC Studies 115-116 (Autumn/Winter 1997/98): 45-82.

Horvath, S., L. MacKinnon, M.Dickerson, M. Ross. 2002. The Impact of the Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study on the Dene Tha’ First Nation. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. XXII. Pp361-398.

Johnson, L. 2006. Gitksan medicinal plants-cultural choice and efficacy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2006, 2:29

Keefer, M., W. Cocksede, R. Munro, J. Meuleman, N. MacPerson. 2010. What About the Berries? Managing for Understory Species. Royal Roads University Victoria, BC December 2010

Kuhnlein, H.V. and N.J. Turner (1986) "Cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum): An indigenous vegetable of Native people of Northwestern North America", J. Ethnobiol. 6(2):309-324.

Klinkenberg, B. (Ed) 2012. E-Flora BC: Electronic Atlas of the Flora of British Columbia [eflora.bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. November 1 2012.

Kunlein, H., D. Loewen, S. Peackock, D. Leggee, N. Turner . Chapter 6. Nutrients in Selected Secwepemc Traditional Food Species. in Secwepemc People & Plants: Research Papers in Shuswap Ethnobotany, eds M. Ignace, N. Turner, and S. Peacock

McKinley, A. 1879. Letter from Archibald McKinely to I.W. Powell, Indian Reserve Commission. Federal Archives RG 10 vol 3583 file 1092.

Madill, D., 1981. British Columbia Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Research Branch, Corporate Policy, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/pubs/C-B/treC-B-eng.pdf

Marshall, D. 2002. Claiming the Land. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, UBC.

Potts, D. 2002. The Heat Budget of Quesnel Lake, British Columbia. Unpublished MA Thesis, UBC.

Ray, V. 1939. Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary. Publication Fund 3. Los Angeles.

Reimer/Yumks, R. and D. Hall, 2005. The 2002 University of Northern British Columbia and Cariboo Tribal Council Archaeological Field School at Ts’peten (GustafsonGustafsen Lake): Final Report. Heritage Investigation Permit #2002-240. Report prepared for the Cariboo Tribal Council and the University of Northern B.C.

117

Sandy, N. 2011.Reviving Secwepemc Child Welfare Jurisdiction. Unpublished MA Thesis, UVic.

Smith, T. 1998. History of the St’at’imc. St’at’imc language culture and education society, Lillooet. Peerless Printers, Kamloops.

Stangoe, I. 2005. Looking Back at the Chariboo-Chilcotin. Heritage House Publishing, Surrey.

Swanky, T. 2012. The True Story of Canada`s `War` of Extermination on the Pacific. Plus the Tsilhqot’in and other First Nations Resistance. Dragon Heart. Burnaby.

Teit, J., Ed. 1909. The Shuswap. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History: Jessup North Pacific Expedition 2(7), American Museum of Natural History.

Todd, D. 1998. O’Connor Appeal dropped after Healing Circle. Vancouver Sun. June 18, 1998.

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

Trutch, J. 1867. Correspondence from Joseph W. Trutch, CCLW and Surveyor General, Lands and Works Department, to Acting Colonial Secretary, August 28, 1867, BCA, GR 1372, file 951/4

Turner, N., I. Davidson-Hunt, M. O’Flaherty. 2003. Living on the Edge: Cultural and ecological Edges as sources of Diversity for Social Ecological Resilience. Human Ecology, Vol 31, No. 3

Walker, D. & R. Sprague, 1998. History until 1846 in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol Smithsonian

Weir, D. 1965Some Characteristics of the Indian Population of British Columbia. Unpublished Honours Graduate Essay UBC. Special Collections.

Wright, R. 1987. Quesnelle Forks, A gold Rush Town: Historical Perspective. Friends of Barkerville Society.

118

Appendix 1. TKLUOS QuestionsXats’ūll and T’exelc TKLUOS for the Mount. Polley Mine Extension

Interview GuideIntroduction1. We are here in _______________ to conduct a traditional knowledge land use and

occupancy study with ___________________ about the Mount. Polley area my name is __________ and also present and [observing/ assisting] is _____________. The date is _________________.

2. Do you understand the traditional knowledge land-use and occupancy study that we are doing?

If yes, proceed…. If no answer any questions.

3. May we use a tape recorder to record the interview? May we take a picture of you?4. You have signed the confidentiality form and we continue with the interview.Individual Information1. Where were you born? What year were you born?

2. What are you parents names? Do you know your grandparents names? What is your mother’s maiden name?

3. Where were you raised?

4. I/We wish to talk to you about how you and your family did things (or lived) in the past and today. Your information is important and valuable. I will be marking information on the map as we go.

5. I / We are interested in anything that you have done in the Mount. Polley, Quesnel Lake and Quesnel River area, and your travels to and from these places.

This refers to any hunting, berry picking, fishing, camping, or visiting the Spanish Lake area, or stories that you may have heard from friends or from family; all of this information is important.

6. Have you ever visited the Mount. Polley, Quesnel Lake and Quesnel River areas? If so please tell us when and what you did there.

119

Hunting1. Have you ever hunted in the map shown on the map? If no (and there are relatives ie

husbands, father, brothers or other family members who hunted in the area-if appropriate ask about them) or skip to question 32.

2. Have you ever killed moose in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have shot and killed moose to feed your family, community and friends.

3. Have you ever received any moose meat that was killed by someone else from this area? Please tell us approximately how often and if this meat was important to you.

4. Have you ever killed deer in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have shot and killed deer to feed your family, community and friends.

5. Have you ever received any deer meet that was killed by someone else from this area? Please tell us approximately how often and if this meat was important to you.

6. Have you ever killed caribou in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have shot and killed caribou to feed your family, community and friends.

7. Have you ever received any caribou meat that was killed by someone else from this area? Please tell us approximately how often and if this meat was important to you.

8. Have you ever killed mountain goat in this area? If yes, please show s some of the spots where you have shot and killed mountain goat to feed your family, community and friends.

9. Have you ever killed black bear in this area? If yes, please show s some of the spots where you have shot and killed black bear . This refers to black bear to feed your family, community and friends.

10. Have you ever killed grizzly bear in this area? If yes, please show s some of the spots where you have shot and killed Grizzly bear to feed your family, community and friends.

11. Have you ever shot and killed beaver or muskrat in this area? If yes please show some of the spots.

12. Have you ever snared or shot rabbits in this area? If yes please show us some of the spots?

120

13. Have you ever snared or shot squirrels, porcupine, marmot or groundhog in this area to eat? If yes please show us some of the spots.

14. Have you ever trapped in this area? If so please show us some of the spots on the map. What animals did you trap?

15. Have you seen or heard anything about animal migrations in the Mount. Polley area? (Quesnel Lake, Quesnel River)?

This refers to seasonal movement of animals. Or any knowledge that you may have about the animal populations in the area, decrease, increase, disease, change in species, and change in size…etc.

Fish1. Have you ever fished? If no (and there are relatives ie husband, father, brothers or other

family members who fished in the area-if appropriate) or skip to question 39.

2. Have you ever killed Rainbow trout or Dolly Varden in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have killed Rainbow trout or Dolly Varden to feed your family, community and friends.

3. Have you ever killed Lake Char, or Kokanee in this area? If yes, please show s some of the spots where you have killed Lake Char, and Kokanee to feed your family, community and friends.

4. Have you ever killed salmon in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have killed salmon to feed your family, community and friends.

5. Have you ever killed burbot/ling cod in this area? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have killed burbot/ling cod to feed your family, community and friends.

6. Have you ever killed sucker or pike? If yes, please show some of the spots where you have killed sucker or pike to feed your family, community and friends.

7. Did you ever ice fish with a hook and line in this area? If yes please show some of the spots.

121

Birds1. Have you ever hunted birds? If no (and there are relatives ie husbands, father, brothers or

other family members who hunted in the area-if appropriate ask about their hunting) or skip to question 42.

2. Have you ever shot and killed ducks or geese in this area to feed your family, community and friends? If yes please show us some of the spots.

3. Have you ever shot and killed or trapped grouse? If yes please show us some of the spots.

Plants1. Have you ever picked berries in this area? (If no and there are relatives ie wife, mother ,

sisters or other family members who picked in the area-ask about them if appropriate) or skip to question 46.

2. Could you tell us what type of berries• Huckleberries• Blueberries• Soapberries • Strawberries• Raspberries or others ? If yes please show us some of the spots.

3. How often have you picked berries in this area? Why do you choose this area to pick in?

4. Do you pick in any other areas close by? [ie. Horsefly, Cariboo Lake, Ghost Lake etc.] If so please show us on the map.

5. Do you gather any other food plants in this area? • Tea?• Mushrooms? • Cambium?• Wild potatoes, • Wild Rhubarb. If yes please show us some of the spots.

6. Do you gather any other plants in this area?• Birch bark? For baskets• Cedar? Bark? Roots?

122

• Spruce roots? Stinestin?[• Willow? for building or medicine?• Or other plants. If yes please show us some of the spots.

7. Do you gather any medicines in this area?• Devils club?• Barks? What kind?• Willow?• Fungus?• Other medicines? If yes please show us some of the spots.

8. Do you collect water from this area when you visit? Do you bring your water?

9. Do you collect firewood in this area?

Travel1. Have you camped in a tent, cabin or lean to in this area?

• Could you please show us some of the spots?• How often have you camped at these places? How long?• Was the camping part of your travel to hunt or gather food?

2. When you travel to hunt or gather food, do you go alone? Who usually goes with you?

3. Do you usually take day trips or camp when you visit these areas?

4. Do you know of any traditional trails, or old wagon roads? If so please show us on the map.

5. Do you know of any cabins in this area? If so could you please show us some of the spots on the map? • If yes, do you know who owns these cabins? Do you know how old they are?

6. Do you know of any burial places in this area where community members, Secwepemc or others are buried? If yes, how did you find out about that place? • Have you visited it? What did you see? How long ago was it? • Could you show us the locations on a map?

7. Do you know of any old village sites in this area? This could be Ci7lksten/quiggly pits/pithousses, or camp sites, with chipped stone. It could also refer to arrowheads, stone

123

knives, scrapers or chips of stone. If yes could you show us their location on the map and describe them?

8. Do you know of any rock carvings or rock paintings in this area? If so please show us on the map.

9. Do you know of any carved trees? If so please show us on the map.

10. Do you know of any bark stripped trees? Birch or cedar? If so please show us on the map.

11. Do you know of any gathering sites, this could be places where people gathered together, maybe a long time ago to trade, celebrate or for spiritual reasons? If so please show us on the map.

Sacred Sites1. Do you know of any sacred sites in this area? [These could have to do with coyote stories].

If so please show us on the map.

2. Do you know of any sweat lodge sites in this area? If so please show us on the map.

3. Do you know of any places where there are non-human beings?

Place Names1. Do you know of any place names in Secwepemctsìn?

Development1. How important is this area to you?

2. What do you think about the proposed Mount Polley extension?

3. Do you want to see these areas protected?

4. Do you have any photographs of this area? Historic or present day pictures are important. Can we copy them?

5. What do you think the losses will be to yourself and the community if this project goes ahead? In five years, 10 years, for your grandchildren? What do you think can be done about it?

6. What would you like to see protected within the territory?

124

Closure1. Is there anything else that you would like us to mark on the map?

2. Are there any stories about this area that you have heard from others that you would like to share?

3. WE are here in the _______________ at _______ and it is ______________date. We have just completed a TKLUOS mapping session with ______________. My name is ___________. Present and assisting have been _________________. All information has been marked on clear plastic using black, red and blue ink. We have used ________ and _______ etc. map sheets at __________ scale. All overlays will be dated and signed, I am signing the overlay and I will ask that ___________ also sign the overlay.

125

Appendix 2. TKLUOS CodesXats’ūll and T’exelc TKLUOS for the Mount. Polley Mine Extension

Site Type/Resource Key

Alder [ALD] ALD

Balsam [BA] BA

Bark or type [BK] BK

Barks Stripped trees [BS] BS

Beaver [BV] BV

Birch bark? For baskets?[BR] BR

Black Bear [BB] BB

blueberries, [BL] BL

Burbot/Ling Cod [LC] LC

Burials [BU] BU

Cabin [CB] CB

Cambium?[CM] CM

Cariboo [CA] CA

Cedar? Bark? Roots? [CR] CR

Deer [DR] RDR gift DR RDR

Devils Club[DC] DC

Ducks [DU] DU

Fireweood [FW] FW

Fungus [FU] FU

Gathering Sites [GA] GA

Geese [GS] GS

Grizzly Bear [GB] GB

126

Grouse GR

huckleberries, [HB] HB

Ice fish IF

Kokanee[KO] KO

Lake Char [LR] LR

Lithics [LI] LI

Marmot-ground hog [MT] MT

Moose [MO] RMO gift MO RDR

Mountain Goat [MG] MG

Mushrooms? [MR] MR

Muskrat [MK] MK

Non Human Beings [NH] NH

Pike [PI] PI

Pitch PT

Porcupine [PO] PO

Rabbit [RA] RA

Raspberry [RS] RS

Rock Carvings or Pictographs [RC] RC

Sacred Sites [SS] SS

Salmon[SA] SA

Saskatoon [SK] SK

soapberries [SO] SO

Spruce roots? Stinestin?[ST] ST

Squirrel [SQ] SQ

strawberries[SR] SR

Sucker [ SU] SU

127

Sweat House Sites [SW] SW

Tea [TE] TE

Trapped [TP] TP

Tree Carvings[TC] TC

Trout [TR] TR

Village [VI] VI

Water[WA] WA

Wild potatoes, [WP]. WP

Willow [WL] WL

CodeALD Alder [ALD]BA BalsamBB Black Bear [BB]BK Bark or type [BK]BL blueberries, [BL]BR Birch bark? For baskets?[BR]BS Barks Stripped trees [BS]BU Burials [BU]BV Beaver [BV]CA Cariboo [CA]CB Cabin [CB]CM Cambium?[CM]CR Cedar? Bark? Roots? [CR]DC Devils Club[DC]DR RDR Deer [DR] RDR giftDU Ducks [DU]FU Fungus [FU]FW Firewood [FW]GA Gathering Sites [GA]GB Grizzly Bear [GB]GR grouseGS Geese [GS]HB huckleberries, [HB]

128

IF Ice fish [IF]KO Kokanee[KO]LC Burbot/Ling Cod [LC]LI Lithics [LI]LR Lake Char [LR]MG Mountain Goat [MG]MK Muskrat [MK]MO RDR Moose [MO] RMO MR Mushrooms [MR]MT Marmot-ground hog [MT]NH Non Human Beings [NH]PI Pike [PI]PO Porcupine [PO]PT Pitch RA Rabbit [RA]RC Rock Carvings or Pictographs [RC]RS Raspberry [RS]SA Salmon[SA]SK Saskatoon [SK]SO soapberries [SO]SQ Squirrel [SQ]SR strawberries[SR]SS Sacred Sites [SS]ST Spruce roots Stinestin [ST]SU Sucker [ SU]SW Sweat House Sites [SW]TC Tree Carvings[TC]TE Tea [TE]TP Trapped [TP]TR Trout [TR]VI Village [VI]WA Water[WA]WL Willow [WL]WP Wild potatoes, [WP].

129

Appendix 3. Confidentiality Agreement with IntervieweesXats’ull TUS Confidentiality Form: TKLUOS 2012 I ____________________ agree to do a TKLUOS mapping session about the Mount Polley Region. I agree that the information provided may be used as part of the Xats’ull cultural resources inventory and used in research regarding the proposed Mount. Polley extension. The research may also be used for for Xats’ull Aboriginal Rights and Title, consultation and litigation. Your identity will be kept confidential.

Interviewee _________________________________________________

Interviewer___________________________________________________

Date_______________________________________________________

130

Appendix 4. Archaeological and Archival Review of Secwepemc

Use and Occupation for the Mount Polley Development Area and

Ancillary Transmission Corridors.By Aaron Blake Evans, November 15, 2012

Executive SummaryReview of the archaeological and archival literature supports that the history and prehistory that the Quesnel Lake western basin was used and occupied by Sewepemc people. Archaeological site reports support that the Quesnel Lake’s western basin was used for winter habitation and resource harvesting well into prehistory. Early North West Company fur trader accounts support that the Sewepemc were hunting and trapping in the Quesnel Lake area and to the head of the Thompson River. Archival map evidence records a myriad of trails connecting Quesnel Lake and Quesnel River to the south – areas traditionally used and occupied by Secwepemc peoples. Trail connections led to the Fraser River as well as to the chain of lakes to the south including Mud Lake, Beaver Lake, Horsefly Lake, Lac La Hache, Williams Lake and Green Lake. This trail network was then utilized by the gold miners in the 1860s to access the gold fields. The trail network further served the Royal Engineers for reconnaissance to determine where to build the Carbioo Wagon road. One small remnant of that trail network is located within the Spanish Mountain development area above and to the east of Cedar Creek. The onslaught of the Cariboo gold miners, more than the fur traders, altered the northern Secwepemc people’s lives significantly. The miners were responsible for poisoning and blocking the rivers, thus all five species of pacific salmon were prevented from reaching their spawning grounds. Similarly for survival, miners hunted and fished for other species Secwepemc peoples had traditionally utilized. With the onslaught of foreign diseases the northern Secwepemc were further reduced in numbers and regrouped into major villages away from the Quesnel Lake area.

131

..................................................................................................................Introduction 134

...............................................................................................1.1 Legal Landscape 134

................................................................................1.2 The Development Footprint 135

................................................................................................................Methodology 135

...............................................................................................2.1 Literature Review 136

.........................................2.2 Bioclimatic context of Quesnel Lake’s Western Basin 137

......................................................................2.3 Environmental History of the area 138

.................................................................................................................Ethnography 138

....................................................................3.1 Band: the hunter & gatherer model 139

........................................................................3.2 Fraser River Division Sewepemc 140

.................................................................................3.3 Lakes Division Sewepemc 140

Archaeological Sites within Quesnel Lake’s Western Basin with Polley & Spanish Lake .............................................................................................................................areas 142

............................................................................4.1 The Sqleten tradition 5500 bp 142

......................................4.2 Plateau Pithouse Tradition 4000 to 3500 bp to present 143

...................................................4.3 Archaeology reports for the development area 143

..........................4.4 BG FdRj Registered Archaeological Sites: FdRj-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 145

.............................4.5 BG FdRi Registered Archaeological Sites: FdRi-1 & FdRh-11 146

4.6 BG FcRi Registered Archaeological Sites Cariboo Island, Quesnel Lake: FcRi-2, 3, 4, 5, ....................................................................................................................6, 7, 10 147

.............................................................4.7 Horsefly Bay, Quensel Lake: FcRi-4, 16 147

.4.8 Horsefly River, Little Horsefly River & Lake FcRi-5, 7, 8, 20; FCRh-4 to 7, 9, 10 147

............................................4.9 BG FcRj South of Polley & Bootjack Lakes: FcRj-1 148

......4.10 BG FdRk West & South of Polley Mtn. Development area: FdRk-1, 2, 3, 4 148

132

4.11 BG FeRk North of FdRk & Polley Mtn. Development site: FeRk-1 to 4 and 6 to ............................................................................................................................12 148

....................................................4.12 BG FeRj North of the head of Quesnel Lake 149

...........................4.13 BG FeRi North of FdRi & the Spanish Mtn. Development site 149

......................................................................4.14 BG FdRh West of Spanish Lake 149

.................................................................................4.15 Archaeological Summary 149

................................................Ethnohistoric and Historic Research Archival Records 149

......................................................................................Appendix 1 - Map Information 150

133

IntroductionThis report was created in conjunction with the Texel’c (Williams Lake) and Xat’sull (Soda Creek) First Nations (FNs). The report aims to address several overlapping and complex issues. It is first an archival-archaeological response to the proponents of Mount Polley extensionprojects for documentation of Sewepemc prehistoric to historic occupation and use in their respective mining development areas (Figures One and Two). An interview based research project was also conducted by a team of Xat’sull and Texel’c FN members in tandem with this archival research. This report also begins to formulate a response to Aboriginal Rights and Title (“Strength of Claim”) issues along the larger northern boundary of Sewepemc traditional territory as the development area is situated within this northern border.

1.1 Legal LandscapeThe legal significance of these issues has recently been adjudicated on by the BC Supreme Court (Halalt 2011, and Williams 2012). In the Halalt decision, the court placed specific emphasis on the Crown’s need to consult First Nations and their lack of “Strength of Claim” research on the FN’s use and occupation of the area and resources in question for aiding and directing the consultation process. The court in fact, reprimanded the province for their negligence on these issues and found against the Crown in this case. The province currently responds to this legal result (amongst others) with reports issued from the Aboriginal Research Division within BC’s Legal Services Branch, within the Ministry of Justice. That Research Division has significant resources to research both specific development projects, as well as the larger Strength of Claim issues. Those reports have been reviewed and will be addressed throughout this report.

Similarly and closer to the current area of study, the recent findings in the Williams v. British Columbia (Williams) case are of more import. In 2007, Justice Vickers of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the Tsilhqot’in (Chilcotin) people had proven Aboriginal title to approximately 200,000 square hectares in and around the remote Nemiah Valley (south and west of Williams Lake, BC. Although Justice Vickers declined to make a declaration of title, he found that the tests for title were met in almost half the area claimed. In 2012, the BC Court of Appeal agreed with Vickers's finding that the Crown had infringed on those rights but not to aboriginal title. The Appeal court upheld Vickers' findings yet disagreed with his ruling theory of traditional occupation of the land as opposed to claims on site-specific tracts of land. Justice Groberman writing for the bench stated that "Aboriginal title must be proven on a site-specific

134

basis…A title site may be defined by a particular occupancy of the land (e.g., village sites, enclosed or cultivated fields) or on the basis that definite tracts of land were the subject of intensive use (specific hunting, fishing, gathering, or spiritual sites). In all cases, however, aboriginal title can only be proven over a definite tract of land, the boundaries of which are reasonably capable of definition.”

1.2 The Development FootprintThe main focus area of this study includes the Mount Polley Lake/ Mountain Mine Site and its respective transmission line corridor (see Figures One and Two - taken from the company’s websites).

Imperial Metals’ Polley Mountain Mine plans to expand from its current open pit matrix. Included in the current footprint are the extensive facilities and pits between Polley and Bootjack Lakes, as well their transmission lines from the mine facility to its junction with their power lines within the right of way of Highway 37.

Map Removed.

MethodologyThe essence of this report was to consider the archaeological record within the general development area. From that baseline, a literature review of previous ethno historical, ethnographic and archival records was performed to shed light on the aboriginal use of the development area. The primary focus is the ethno-historic footprint for the Quesnel Lake western basin: including the areas from Quesnel Rapids east to Maynard and Spanish Lakes, Horsefly Lake and River to the south and back in an easterly direction to Polley Mountain, Polley Lake and Bootjack Lake. This report’s historic chronology follows through the contact period (1792, Alexander Mackenzie of the North West Company in the area), the assertion of British Sovereignty (1846 British-American/Oregon Boundary treaty) to the time of the crown Colony then province of British Columbia, 1858 to 1871. Discussion of post confederation history will briefly touch on the Indian Reserve Commission process in conjunction with original settler crown grants and pre-emptions in the late 19th century. Further early 20th century ethnographies and ethnologies were reviewed yet the aim was to keep the focus on the primary source archival and historical records.

135

The main proviso of this review and previous traditional use and occupation studies is to note that a series of historic events have significantly contributed to altering northern Sewepemc use and occupation patterns including: 1.) the 1800 to 1846 fur trade expansion into the northwest; 2.) the Cariboo Gold rush, its influx of non aboriginal peoples into the Cariboo district and their mining impact on the landscape and watersheds between 1862-65; 3.) 1862 small pox epidemic; and later, 4.) the 1898 damming of Quesnel River near Likely for gold mining, which blocked spawning salmon from returning to the Quesnel Lake system. Particular impacts to Sewepemc traditional land use and occupation patterns from the above will be discussed within the historical context of each event in turn.

2.1 Literature ReviewSeveral comprehensive literature reviews have been completed that discuss Carrier and Sewepemc traditional use and occupation in the development areas: Three reports produced by the Legal Services Branch of the BC Ministry of the Attorney General that the researcher was able to review include: 1.) 2012 Spanish Mountain Gold Mine: Review of Ethnographic and Historical Sources, to referenced as the AG’s SM report; 2.) 2012 Northern Secwepemc Te Qelmucw – Canim Lake, Canoe Creek, Soda Creek and Williams Lake First Nations: Review of Ethnographic and Historical Sources, to be referenced as the AG’s NSTQ report; and, 3.) 2010 Tsilhqot’in Nation, Review of Historical and Ethnographic Sources Relating to the Use of Land and Natural Resources. These reports have been treated as part of this report’s research baseline and will be discussed where relevant.

Other equally important contemporary reports to the study area include: 1.) Diane Alexander, 1996 A Literature Review of Native Land Use in the Northern Half of the Horsefly Forest District. First draft, Vancouver, B.C. on file at the Ministry of Forests, Williams Lake, and 2.) Diane Alexander 1997, A Cultural Heritage Overview of the Cariboo Forest Region. Ministry of Forests, Williams Lake. 3.) Elizabeth Furniss, 1993a Changing Ways: Southern Carrier History 1793-1940I, Quesnel School District, and 4.) Elizabeth Furniss 1993b, Dakelh Keyoh: The Southern Carrier in Earlier Times. Quesnel: Quesnel School District.

Essential works consulted in the aid of understanding the ethnohistory of the Northern Sewepemc peoples include:

1) Geologist George Dawson’s 1891, Notes on the Shuswap People of British Columbia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada. Section II;

136

2) Ethnologist Franz Boas’, 1899 The North-Western Tribes of Canada: Twelfth and Final Report of the Committee. Report of the 68th meeting of the British Society for the Advancement of Science for 1899, London;

3) Catholic Reverend A.G. Morice’s 1906, The History of the Northern Interior of British Columbia (formerly new Caledonia) [1660 to 1880], London; and,

4) Field anthropologist James Teit’s 1909, The Shuswap. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.

All other primary and secondary sources will be cited where discussed and listed in the bibliography. All cited maps, sketches, field books, drawings and figures are located within Appendix One following the report.

2.2 Bioclimatic context of Quesnel Lake’s Western BasinSpanish Mountain rises above Quesnel Lake’s western basin and its northwest arm. Spanish Lake rests at the northern base of Spanish Mountain and drains out along the Spanish River into the Caribou River, eventually linking to the Quesnel River at Quesnel Forks. Polley Mountain rises about 5 kilometers to the west of Quesnel Lake’s western outflow. Bootjack Lake lies at the western foot of the mountain and Polley Lake to the east. These mountain lakes drain to the northwest through Moorehead Lake to the Quesnel River.

Viewed on a map, Quesnel Lake resembles a tuning fork or perhaps a flattened “w”. Surprisingly, it is the deepest lake (sometimes called a fjord) in British Columbia and rests mostly on the Interior Plateau while its North and East Arms cut into the Cariboo Mountains. It is a large sheet of water with an east-west span of 81 kilometers and north-south span of 36. Polley Lake is unique for this part of the interior as its’ shores lie within the wet, Western Hemlock zone, while the upper reaches of its catchments are within the sub alpine, Engelmann Spruce zone (Potts 2004). Between these two zones lay the Montane Parkland subzone ranging in elevation from 1500 to 2100 meters (Alexander 1996b, pp. 53-54). This pristine, oligotrophic (low in plant nutrients yet high in undissolved oxygen) lake and its watershed are a cornerstone of the province’s salmon fishery, and were historically home to up to 30% of the Fraser River sockeye run. Within this context, Sewepemc pre-historic use and occupation of the area can be understood in terms of where resources were available and where placement of settlements would best serve resource procurement at different times of the year (Teit 1909, Alexander 1997).

137

2.3 Environmental History of the areaThe environmental history for the study area has significant implications for human occupation. The entire area was compressed under glacial ice with ice retreat and stagnation producing a plethora of pro-glacial lakes. The area has been postulated to have been ice free and habitable by about 10 000 years before present (bp) (Clague 1981). Following deglaciation, further geological processes impacted the study area. Fluvial down cutting occurred, particularly along the Fraser and Chilcotin rivers forming steep canyons, river terraces and scarp slopes. Co-terminus processes included fluvial, alluvial and aeolian disposition and erosion.

The climate likewise changed throughout the post glacial period with varying impacts on human habitation. Between 12 000 to 15 000 bp, conditions were cool and moist. The following 3500 years marked a warmer and drier period (Matthews 1985). At this time, grasslands were most widespread with forests confined to upper elevations. Many rivers and lakes were probably dry or too low to support fish populations. Temperatures remained warm for the next 2500 years and then the area began to get cooler and moister. Between 4500 to 3000 bp a dramatic increase in fish populations and stability occurred and this coincides with the ethnographic pattern of reliance on fish, more stable land use patterns right through to the contact period (Fladmark 1982).

EthnographyAll of the sources cited in this report’s Introduction discuss in anthropological detail the ethnography of neighbouring groups in and around the development zone including: Sewepemc, Carrier and Tsilhqot’in. Teit (1909), Alexander (1997) and Lane (1981) provide a wealth of detail that is not systematically contested in this report. Rather, it is best for this report to provide a basic discussion of Sewepemc social organization and seasonal rounds that can then be mapped in the prehistoric discussion of archaeological cultural periods. Further discussions on Sewepemc seasonal harvesting and the study area are provided in the traditional use study component report that accompanies this one.

138

3.1 Band: the hunter & gatherer modelSewepemc “band” societies, like the Tsilhqot’in and Southern Carrier groups were predicated on marriage and kinship ties creating camp clusters with mutual interest in resource exploitation. The Sewepemc are Salishan speakers similar to their cousins to the south: the Nlakapamk (formerly the Thompson) and the Lil’wat (formerly the Lillooet). Alexander notes that the Sewepemc are described as a “traditional band = egalitarian society”. However, Sewepemc society in the proto to historic period may have included a number of social rankings such as nobility and commoners, and even. The village was the basic political unit and each band focused around one village or headquarters. This was especially true during the winter months when the families of a band congregated at or within a few kilometers of the main winter village.

The seasonal use and location of the camps and village sites was based largely on the availability of resources. This seasonal round involved a wide scale movement on the land between well established hunting, fishing, plant harvesting, ceremonial and trading sites. Cycles of salmon runs, migration of wildlife, ripening of berries and climate were integral to the traditional knowledge and survival of the Secwepemc. These cycles were well known to the Secwepemc and are recorded on the landscape through place names, stories and legends and passed on through the families by the oral tradition.

The family was the basic unit of this complex social structure and system of. Families interacted within the tribe, tribes interacted within the nation and nations interacted through regional trade and protocol agreements. Most of the traditional ecological knowledge and land use protocols were passed on at the family level. Heads of families would be delegated decision making authority by the chief of a tribe regarding the resources that they had close ancestral ties to or knowledge of. Access to resources and protocol alliances were gained through inter-tribal marriages. Through this system of land use, the seasonal occupancy patterns of many tribes were linked in a web of interaction that covered vast areas.

139

3.2 Fraser River Division SewepemcJames Teit’s 1909 and Alexander’s 1997 ethnographic studies describe the Northern Sewepemc culture-resource groups within what has been delineated as the Fraser River division and the Lakes division Sewepemc. However, Alexander (1997, p.51) states that the Fraser River division included bands for whom salmon was the most abundant and sought after for food. Salmon spawning rivers in their territory had large runs every year. They could usually catch and dry enough salmon in a few months to provide enough food for the following year as well as to provide a surplus for trade. Thus they were more sedentary compared to the Lakes division. To accommodate this sedentary seasonal cycle, the River division had large winter villages comprised of pit houses. These winter villages were located on river terraces from High Bar to Soda Creek, mostly on the east side of the Fraser River. The Fraser River division was comprised of the Sewepemc peoples of Soda Creek, Buckskin Creek, Williams Lake, Alkali Lake, Dog Creek, Canoe Creek, Empire Valley, Big Bar, High Bar and Clinton bands (Teit 1909).

3.3 Lakes Division SewepemcThe Lakes division includes bands for which salmon was important but runs were smaller and less dependable. This required more harvesting diversity with hunting, gathering and lake fishing to augment their subsistence economy. As a result, the Lakes division groups were smaller and more mobile to adapt to the scarcity or abundance of one resource over another during a given seasonal round. These peoples were also more likely to live in lodges and not pit houses due to the time and energy required in building a pit house rather than an above ground lodge. Although, Teit stated that the Lakes division Sewepemc began constructing and using pit houses in the protohistoric period (Teit 1909, pp.775-776). Teit recorded that the Lakes division Sewepemc included: Canim Lake; Lac la Hache; Green Timbers; and the Tete Juene Cache groups whose traditional territories included:

…the lakes of the plateau… [they] ranged very little south, east or west, because of their proximity to the grounds of other division. To the north, however, they hunted around the eastern parts of the Horsefly and Quesnel Lakes. The Clearwater Lakes, and up into the Caribou Mountains opposite the Yellow Head pass (Teit 1909: 454).

140

3.3.1 Pit Houses One of the most visible manifestations of Sewepemc settlement is the pit house. The remains of these, called house pits and cultural depressions are easily identifiable by the depressions that result from their construction. Teit (1909:492; among others) reported that the Shuswap ordinarily used the pit house during the winter. The size and shape of the house and the number of people resident varied. Most were apparently round or circular in shape but some were rectangular. All were semi-subterranean. Alexander reports estimate for the number of people being housed in anyone "ranging from 15 to 100, or 1 to 20 nuclear families" (1996:16). The number of house pits found at any one location range from one or two up into the hundreds (Teit 1909: 458). Teit reported that the location of a Sewepemc winter village was most commonly placed on a terrace along the Fraser River and that the only Sewepemc people known to not build winter pit houses were the Canim Lake Band who wintered in bark-covered lodges similar to those used by the Carrier (Alexander 1996:20).

Note: Academic debate continues on the origin and use of pit houses. The presence of prehistoric pit house villages in traditional Carrier and Tsilhqot’in territory tends to fall close to the respective nation’s boundaries with Sewepemc peoples. It appears to indicate they used pit houses in the proto-historic to the historic period. The diffusionist view is that the Carrier and Tsilhqot’in learned to construct pit houses from the Sewepemc as they intermarried along the border zones and the practice disseminated from there (Alexander 1997: 65). In the Williams case, Tsilhqot’in witnesses testified that historically, they had rebuilt and reoccupied pit houses not built by themselves (Williams 2007, Plaintiff’s Reply arguments, Volume One, Page 69).

Similarly, it is also worthy of note that there is some archaeological opinion that the Carrier may have migrated southwards into the Quesnel Lake region about 300 years ago. However, no evidence exists to suggest a violent relationship between the Carrier and Sewepemc - leading to a shift in territorial authority and/or sharing territory within the study area (Alexander 1996: 11-19). These large scale shifts in indigenous populations are alleged to have taken place in the 1800's, but linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that some large scale shift may have occurred prior to that date due to environmental factors such as volcanic ash distribution or salmon population collapse (Magne and Matson 1984, 1985; Wilmeth: 1978; Dyen 1962). However, this argument as yet lacks sufficient evidence, archaeological, anthropological or archival to substantiate any Carrier migration be it in the historic or the pre-historic period.

141

Archaeological Sites within Quesnel Lake’s Western Basin with

Polley & Spanish Lake areasMost of the archaeological overview for this report draws from the August 1998 Archaeological Overview Assessment: Northern Sewepemc Traditional Territory, Final Report prepared for the Cariboo Forest Region, BC Ministry of Forests. The report’s authors include: Ian R. Wilson; Kevin Twohig; and Bruce Dahlstrom. This report will be cited as (Wilson 1998).

The prehistory of this area is usually broken down into an early period, a Middle period, and the Plateau Pithouse tradition period. The Early period is the most poorly documented but is generally defined from deglaciation to 7000 years bp The Middle period is defined as the time spanning the start of the Nesikep tradition, about 7000 bp, to the beginning of the Plateau Pithouse tradition at between 3500 to 4000 bp. Two different cultural traditions are proposed within this period: Nesikep and the Sqelten. Traits of the early Neskip phase include lanceolate, corner notched and barbed points, formed unifaces, a microblade technology using wedge shaped cores; antler wedges; ground rodent incisors; bone point and needles; small oval scrapers; and faunal assemblages including deer; elk; salmon; trout; bird and freshwater mussels. The late Neskep tradition spanning until 4400 bp is said to have a tool kit of thin pentagonal points, lanceolate knives, elliptical knives, thin continuous edges circular scrapers, fine and medium grade basalts for stone work but no microblades (Stryd and Rousseau 1996). In general this archaeological cultural tradition assumes portable shelters, a nomadic lifestyle and predominately land based economy (Wilson 1998, pp. 17- 19).

4.1 The Sqleten tradition 5500 bpThe Sqelten tradition is seen as a cultural continuum for the last 5500 years bp. The tradition is viewed as a river oriented culture emerging from the migration of Salish peoples into the area to harvest increasingly predictable salmon runs. The tradition is divided into the initial Lochnore phase, followed by the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, comprised of the Shuswap Plateau and Kamloops horizons respectively. The Plateau Pithouse Tradition (PPT) forms the final 3500 to 4000 years of this prehistoric period and characterized by the presence of semi-permanent pit house villages and storage pits for intensive salmon exploitation. The transition to this PPT phase is thought to have taken place in response to environmental changes during the cool, moist climatic optimum at 4000 bp (approximately).

142

4.2 Plateau Pithouse Tradition 4000 to 3500 bp to presentThe early PPT period is represented by medium to large house pit depressions with storage pits in house pit floors. Other archeological features and tools for this period include: key shaped formed unifaces; scrapers; distinctive projectile points; split cobble tools; reliance on local basalts and a wide variety of bone and antler technology; as well as flexed burials within house pits. Faunal remains found include: mammals; birds; freshwater mussels; and, fresh and anadromoous fish. However, microblades and ground stone tools are not common to this period (Richards and Rousseau 1987). The latter PPT (Plateau horizon, 2400 – 1200 bp) is characterized by smaller house depressions ranging from oval to circular and lack outer rims with a central hearth present. There also appears to be significant reliance on high quality lithics - such as fine grained basalts and obsidian. Lastly, further finds within this period and linked to the ethnographic northern Sewepemc include: native copper artifacts; tubular beads; gaming pieces; and, incisor tools. By this phase salmon exploitation is crucial. The Kamloops horizon links to the historic period and evidences high variably in the size and shape of house pits. Small side notched points, ground stone, bone, antler and tooth artifacts are very common whereas microblades are not. Burials are flexed and wealth items are occasionally associated possibly indicating a form of status within cultural practices by this time (Wilson 1998, pp. 21-22).

4.3 Archaeology reports for the development areaThis report reviewed all registered archaeological site reports for the general development vicinity and found within the Borden grid quadrants of FdRh, FdRi, FdRj, FdRk, FcRh, FcRi, FcRj (Figure Four). All site reports were retrieved from the province’s Archaeology Branch’s Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) register. Further Heritage Inspection Permit (HIP) and Site Alteration Permit (SAP) reports were retrieved online from the Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL). These resources are created and maintained by the British Columbia (BC) Archaeology Branch. A thumb drive of AIAs and their detailed reports in PDF format is provided with this report for further review. Considering the onslaught and impact of gold seekers in the 1860s through to the continuing impacts of industrial forestry and mining in the region, it is a testament to prehistoric Sewepemc use and occupation of the area that so many sites remain somewhat intact archaeologically. The next several paragraphs are dedicated to a brief description of significant archaeological features to be encountered in the wider development area.

143

4.3.1 Cultural DepressionsCultural depressions are the remnants of circular or rectangular pits excavated by people into natural sediments. Cultural depressions may have been excavated for houses (pit house, house pit), food storage (cache pit), food cooking (roasting pit), burials, animal pitfalls, and side hill platforms. Some of the most commonly identified types of cultural depressions are cache pits and house pits. Cache pits and house pits are also classified as features ‐  non‐portable artifacts of human workmanship. Other commonly recognized types of cultural depressions include fire pits or roasting pits, ceremonial pits for sweat lodges, pitfall traps, and cremations.

4.3.2 Cache PitsCache pits are surface features that were used for food storage. These pits were dug into the ground, usually sandy well‐drained soils, to keep food fresh, cool and protected from animals. Cache pits were used to store food resources such as dried berries and fish throughout the lean winter months. The structure of a cache pit is shown in the figure below. The sides of the pit would be lined with

Spruce or birch bark, and/or goods may have been placed into a bark basket before burial/storage in the pit. Father Morice reported that cache pits were in use into the contact period (1893: 197). Raised caches were also used frequently in the historic period. A raised cache consists of an elevated wooden box structure fashioned from small logs, used to protect food from the elements and animals.   Cache pits may be identified alone, in pairs, or in clusters. They may be found in association with cultural material (artifacts) or other cultural features (CMTs, house pits). Campsite‐type areas along lakes, rivers, streams, or stream sites where weirs or traps could be used are likely locations for cache pits. Cache pits are also identified along trail routes, on meadows or swamp hunting sites, at stream mouths or intakes, salt licks, etc. They are generally situated in south and west facing locations. Pits may also be placed away from camp areas to take advantage of shade or sandy ridges for easy digging. They may also be situated in concealed areas such as an island to protect them from enemies or to facilitate

Easy re‐location. Cache pits vary in size from approximately 1 to 4 meters in diameter, and can measure from typically 25 cm to 100 cm deep. Physical characteristics of cache pits that are visible today include:

• relatively round in appearance• a berm or rim may be present around the outer edge• a rounded or bowled bottom as opposed to a flat one

144

• lots of moss growth in the pit which indicates it was not recently formed• location – high, well drained area• soil – relatively easy to dig.

4.3.3 Pit House – House PitsA second type of cultural depression that may be encountered in development areas is the house pit. House pits are the remains of semi‐subterranean earth lodge dwellings called pit houses or kekulis (the Chinook jargon name whereas, Isjhken [C7ilksten] is the Sewepemc term). These structures are believed to have been used primarily as winter dwellings, measuring approximately 30 to 100 cm deep, and 4 to 10 m in diameter.  Pit houses are normally constructed using an earth‐covered log framework roof over a circular to rectangular hole. They generally consisted of a conical framework of beams and roof supports erected over the hole and covered with spruce bark, moss, and a layer of soil. The entrance was located at the top of the structure and doubled as a smoke vent. Pit houses were reportedly in use as dwellings in the southern interior up to 1882. Pit house depressions may be distinct or very subtle. Common locations for pit houses include south and southwest facing lakeshores, riverbanks and stream outlets. House pits representing winter dwellings may be situated farther from water bodies than spring, summer or fall dwellings, as snow would have been a source of potable water, and fuel would have been more readily available from within the forest. Locations away from large water bodies would provide better protection from the elements. As a result, house pits can be found up to 500 m or more from hydrology features (Archer CRM 2009: 16- 20).

4.4 BG FdRj Registered Archaeological Sites: FdRj-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6FdRj contains 3 registered archaeological sites. Site FdRj-1 is of particular note for it is a cultural depression, or a house pit. The site is located at the mouth of Bilboa Creek on the western shore near the outflow of Quesnel Lake. Site FdRj-2 is a remnant of the prehistoric Sewepemc trail from Lac La Hache situated on upper Cedar Creek and crosses into the Spanish Mountain Gold property. FdRj-3 is an historic, heritage site associated with gold mining. FdRj-4 contains a single basalt, unmodified flake obtained from a shovel test on small terrace along shores of drainage creek at SE end of Bootjack Lake.

FdRj-5 is the result of an archaeological survey performed for Mount Polley’s proposed transmission line back in 1996. The site is also at the SE end of Bootjack Lake. The survey located 2 partial projectile points, and a number of unmodified flakes. With the exception of a

145

quartz piece and an unidentified raw material piece and 5-6 poor quality obsidian artifacts, the lithics are made of basalt.

Note: Lithics is a term used in archaeology for either worked stone and/or the detritus left behind from working stone into tools. This and the presence of small unmodified flakes suggest that stone tool manufacture was performed at the site.

River and stream rolled cobbles of basalt were noted in the area during survey and may have been a source of raw material. Most specimens appear to represent later stage lithics reduction. Due to the type of “greasy” organics deep in the subsurface tests, it was postulated that the lithics may represent a large habitation site. Only a proper excavation could answer that hypothesis. FdRj-6 is located at the mouth of where Cedar Creek enters Quesnel Lake. Several disturbed, stone artifacts were recorded and left in situ. (See Appendix One: Maps One and Two).

Together, these sites represent several types including: transportation; resource procurement; tool manufacture and winter habitation. Together these types indicate an area culturally used for a variety of purposes. These archaeological site types will be found throughout the Quesnel Lake area under review.

4.5 BG FdRi Registered Archaeological Sites: FdRi-1 & FdRh-11Site FdRi-1 is a small stone hook located back in the 1950s. It was found near the mouth of a small creek flowing into the north side of Quesnel Lake directly north of Cariboo Island. Cariboo Island is a significant cluster of archaeological sites and will be discussed in detail below. Cariboo Island is located in the middle of Quesnel Lake between the Horsefly and Lynx peninsulas directly south of the Spanish Mountain development area. (See Appendix One, Map Three for BG FcRi sites on Cariboo Island.) FdRh-11 is a site on the tip of the Lynx peninsula. It yielded five, fine grained basalt lithic flakes. An unregistered archaeological site was also found on the Lynx Peninsula during a 2012 pedestrian survey and stated to contain containing a high density of cultural depression, house pits (Beth Bedard, archaeologist, Thompson Rivers University: personal communications October 18th, 2012).

146

4.6 BG FcRi Registered Archaeological Sites Cariboo Island, Quesnel Lake:

FcRi-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10This section will review the archaeological site reports for BG FcRi. Archaeological site FcRi-2 is located on the northern part of Cariboo Island. The site contains surface lithics (culturally worked stone) and a cultural depression. The depression was not defined as either a house or cache pit. FcRi-3 is also on Cariboo island and contains a concentration of 10 to 13 large cultural depressions with the largest at 20 m in diameter and the smallest being about 3 m. Unfortunately, there also appears to be signs of people illegally digging for artifacts. Other sites on Cariboo Island include FcRi-9 through 14 located on or near the shoreline. Within these sites are 15 cache pits and three cultural depressions (not defined) as well as associated lithics. The cache pits were found to range from 1 to 1.5 meters in diameter and between 0.40 to 0.75 meters in depth. Associated lithics consist of basalt and chert flakes.

4.7 Horsefly Bay, Quensel Lake: FcRi-4, 16FcRi-4 is located on the western shore of Horsefly Bay, on the Horsefly Peninsula of Quesnel Lake. The site is very significant in that it, like FcRi-3, contains a density of 6 large cultural depressions (house pits) and numerous small depressions. Two artifacts were recovered consisting of two lithic flakes: one chert and one dacyte. FcRi-16 also located on Horsefly Bay contains 3 house pits, cultural depression, a cache pit as well as a lithic scatter consisting 2 basalt flakes and 1 chert flake.

4.8 Horsefly River, Little Horsefly River & Lake FcRi-5, 7, 8, 20; FCRh-4 to 7, 9,

10Three miles southwest of this site on the west side of the Horsefly River is FcRi-5, also containing a house pit cultural depression. Further to the Southeast on the Little Horsefly River between Gruhs Lake and Little Horsefly Lake, FcRi-7 and 8 contain the remnants of a fish weir as well as a house pit depression. Site FcRi-20 lays directly Southeast of FcRi-8 and contains 11 cultural depressions house pits with hearth features at the centre of one as well as a few associated lithic flakes.

Although BG FcRh was is as much detail it is worth noting that on the eastern end of Little Horsefly Lake, FcRh-4 is in close geographic association with FcRi-8 and 20. FcRH-4 appears to be a complex of 5 house pits with a high density lithic scatter of 20 stone artifacts.

147

Further lithic artifacts were located in the vicinity in FcRh-5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 respectively. Also a hearth feature was located at FCRh-6 with associated fired cracked rock (FCR), lithic flakes and tools and a possible mammal bone. These archaeological sites are attributed to the Plateau Horizon of Plateau Pithouse Tradition.

On Lynx peninsula recent TUS survey work, discovered that another large habitation site with large cultural depression, house pits, also a large square depression, and smaller cultural depressions within reach of a natural spring was present. Prehistorically, the area had been a major migration route for Caribou crossing from Horsefly Bay to Cariboo Island to the Lynx Peninsula to the North Arm of Quesnel Lake.

4.9 BG FcRj South of Polley & Bootjack Lakes: FcRj-1North of Roberts Lake on west bank of Gravel Creek is FcRj-1. This is the only site within BG FcRj being south of the Polley Mountain development area quite a distance and 17 kms west of the town of Horsefly. The site consists of one Culturally Modified Tree (CMT) with 2 rectangular bark strips taken out of a Lodgepole Pine. The site is considered traditional use and not archaeological.

4.10 BG FdRk West & South of Polley Mtn. Development area: FdRk-1, 2, 3, 4Northwest of Polley Lake and on a terrace above the southern shore of Little Lake is FdRk-1. This archaeological site is comprised of lithics only within a depression. The lithics include 1 obsidian flake, 21 processing flakes, and 1 modified flake forming an awl. FdRk is located just Northwest of FdRk-1 50 m above the shore of Little Lake. FdRk-4 contains a low density lithic scatter including 1 non diagnostic dacyte basal point fragment, 9 flakes and 2 clear and transparent flakes. FdRk-2 is located far to south on an S3 Creek and contains contain more lithics including 6 basalt flakes, 2 of which are retouched. FdRk-3 is situated on a point of land overlooking 3 Mile Creek east of Oppenheim Lake. The site contains to worked basalt flakes.

4.11 BG FeRk North of FdRk & Polley Mtn. Development site: FeRk-1 to 4

and 6 to 12BG FeRk was outside the scope of this research but a brief review of registered archaeological sites FeRk-1 to 4 and 6 to 12 evidenced mostly lithic finds and a few CMTs but no habitation features.

148

4.12 BG FeRj North of the head of Quesnel LakeBG FeRj lies north of FdRj and includes the settlement of Quesnel Forks and the upper portion of Keithley Creek it did not yield one registered, archaeological site as of yet.

4.13 BG FeRi North of FdRi & the Spanish Mtn. Development siteBC FeRi contains the lower sections of Cariboo Lake and Keithley Creek. This Borden Grid in the heart of the old Cariboo gold rush did not include one registered archaeological site.

4.14 BG FdRh West of Spanish LakeSimilarly, the Borden Grid block of FdRh to the west of the Spanish Mountain development site does not include any registered archaeological sites. Yet as stated earlier the presence of archaeological features may be present but have not yet been surveyed and/or excavated.

4.15 Archaeological SummaryThe site reports reviewed above appear to indicate a pattern of winter habitation on Quesnel Lake and the Little Horsefly Lake and River system. As discussed in the bio-climatic section, the areas down by Quesnel Lake especially would have been the warmest zone during the winter. It also appears that Cariboo Island and Horsefly Bay was an ancient centre of winter habitation. Cariboo Island is so named to the former migration of Caribou across Quesnel Lake near this location (Alexander 1997: 113). The combination of ancient habitation sites with lithic sites dovetails well with the knowledge that this area of Quesnel Lake also hosted large populations of migrating salmon and caribou.

Ethnohistoric and Historic Research Archival Records Extensive ethnohistoric and historic research has been undertaken for strength of claim. This research demonstrates the longterm Xatśūll and T’exelc long term the study area around Mount Polley.

149

Appendix 1 - Map InformationMap 1: BG FdRj Registered Archaeological Sites 1 through 6.Confidential (RAAD, BC Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria)

Map 2: BG FdRj Registered Archaeological Site 6.Confidential (RAAD, BC Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria)

Map 3: BG FcRi Registered Archaeological Sites on Cariboo Island.Confidential (RAAD, BC Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria)

Map 5: Samuel Black’s 1835 Map of Quesnel Lake excerpt.

(CM 2079, BC Archives, Victoria).

Map 6: Latitude and Longitude around Quesnel - Alexandria areaMap removed

Map 7: Archibald McDonald’s 1827 map of the Thompson River DistrictMap Removed (HBCA B97/a/2, fo.40)

150

Map 8: 1867 HBC William Newton’s map of James Bissett’s exploration of the North Branch of the Thompson River, and Clearwater River to Quesnel Lake.

(HBCA G.1/323)

151

Map 9: 1862 BC Exploration Map compiled.

(1862 Map to show routes discussed in reports by Justice Begbie; Commander Mayne’s; Lieutenant Palmer and Mr. Downie. Archive.org)

Map 10: RE Wright’s 1863 further additions to Begbie’s earlier sketches and now entitled “Sketches from Lillooet to Quesnel River” excerpt.Map Removed (CM_95/3025 and CM A_137, A_138, BCARs, Victoria)

Map 11: 1863 BC interior map showing routes to the goldfieldsMap Removed (Skeleton map of BC excerpt Lieutenant Palmer’s 1863 report. archive.org)

152

Map 12: Excerpt from Diane Alexander’s 1997 compiled Trail network map

(Alexander 1997: Appendix C-8).

Map 13: 1865 Sketch Showing Government Reserves in the Quesnel DistrictMap Removed (LTSA Victoria, 24T1, Land Reserves)

Map 14: Shows Key of Lieut. Palmer’s 1863 mapMap Removed (CM_A1832, BCARS, Victoria)

Figure 15 A: 1871 Compilation of BC Reserves TablePHOTO of text Removed (GR 1069, Box 37, File 31/2, BCARs, Victoria)

Figure 15 B: Excerpt from 1871 Compilation of BC Reserves TableMap Removed (GR 1069, Box 37, File 31/2, BCARs, Victoria)

153

Map 16: Trutch – Launders 1871 of BCMap Removed (Hayes 2012: 3580359, BC LTSA: Old Maps drawer)

Map 17: BC Indian Superintedent Powell’s 1873 mapMap Removed (Hayes 2012: 113, LAC, NWC 119561)

Map 18: Father Morice’s 1893 Map of Dene TerritoriesMap Removed (Morice 1893: 108, archive.org)

Map 19: Father Morice’s 1904 Map of New CaledoniaMap Removed (Morice 1904: 1, archive.org)

Map 20: George Dawson and Tolmie 1883 map

(Dawson 1884: 132 and AG’s SM report page 76)

154

Map 21: Dawson 1891Map Removed (Dawson 1891: 45, archive.org)

Map 22: 1865 J.W. McKay’s Tete Juene Cache to Richfield mapMap Removed (HBCA Archives: E15/13, fo.41)

Map 23: Boas’ 1890 mapMap Removed (Boas’ 1890 report, archive.org)

Map 24: 1896 German edition of Boas Tribal map of BCMap Removed (Hayes 2012: 12)

Map 25: Teit’s 1909 Shuswap Tribal Boundaries

(Teit 1909: 450, AG’s NSTQ report: 129 colourized version)

155