Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2022/The relationship between the 'Namgis First Nation and forest tenure concessions on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Map Showing Northern Vancouver Island. The Area of Tree Farm License 37 is shown in green.

The ‘Namgis First Nation is a Kwak’wala speaking Nation indigenous to northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia (BC), Canada. The traditional, unceded territory of the ‘Namgis is centered around Gwa’ni, the Nimpkish River[1]. Since 1960, the timber rights to the Nimpkish Valley have been leased in an area-based concession, Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 37. TFL 37 was owned by Canadian Forest Products Inc (Canfor) until 2006, when it was sold to Western Forest Products Inc (WFP)[2].

In 2019, BC and the ‘Namgis began a discussion around “modernized land use planning in the Nimpkish Valley”[3].This planning is aimed at reconciliation with First Nations, developing sustainable resource economy, and stewarding natural resources through a changing climate[4]. As such the ‘Namgis, BC, and WFP, as well as residents of local towns have been engaged in two projects:

  • The Gwa'ni Project
  • The TFL 37 FLP Pilot Project

The Gwa’ni Project is a government-to-government[5] land use planning project that was initiated in 2021. The TFL 37 Forest Landscape Planning (FLP) pilot project is a joint venture between WFP and the ‘Namgis to develop a landscape-level plan for forestry operations within the TFL 37 boundary.

Keywords

‘Namgis, Forest Concessions, Land Use Planning, First Nations, Vancouver Island.

Case Study Aims and Intentions

The purpose of this case study is to explain the overlapping relationship between the 'Namgis traditional, ancestral, unceded territory and TFL 37, to describe the ongoing projects to reconcile those two uses of the territory. Both projects being discussed posses the potential to become precedent setting for other areas across BC, Canada, or internationally. While they are far short of full devolution of decision making power, the level of engagement represents a step a way from the current, highly centralized decision making process currently at play in BC. As these are ongoing processes, a major goal of this case study is to provide context and a departure point for those wishing to further explore the subject.

Description

The ‘Namgis and their Territory

Currently, there are around 1,900 registered citizens of the ‘Namgis First Nation[6]. The majority of citizens live on Cormorant Island, about 4 km off the east coast of Vancouver Island[7]. The island is home to two reserves and the village of Alert Bay, also known as ‘Yalis, as well as the nation’s seat of government. However, traditionally the 'Namgis lived throughout the Nimpkish Valley and only came to settle on Alert Bay after the residential school was built in the late 19th century[7]. Other notable historical settlements include a number of known sites along Nimpkish Lake[8], and Xwalkw, a now inhabited settlement that has been dated back to between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. According to the ‘Namgis oral tradition, they are descended from Gwa’nalalis a culture hero that is transformed into the Gwa’ni (Nimpkish) river by, K’aniki’lakw, a patriarchal figure. Upon being transformed, Gwa’nalalis is told by K’aniki’lakw that, he will ‘flow for as long as the days shall dawn in the world, … full of salmon so that your descendants may never be hungry.’ [1] The implication from this story is that the river is not just a geographical feature of the ‘Namgis territory, but ancestor and kin that will care for and be cared for by the people. This sentiment extends out to much of the landscape across the territory:

"If you listen to the old people talk about legends and stuff, basically all the mountains and rivers and stuff are people in the family. It is part of us" - Corey, a respondent in Richmond et al's (2005) study[7].

View of the front of the Big House at 'Yalis. The front is decorated with an ornate face and trees tower in the background.

As recently as two generations ago, ‘Namgis still lived within their territory on the mainland[8], though the traditional economy was interrupted by the end of the 19th century[9]. Hunting and a rich berry harvest provided much of the diet, but fishing and seafood was at the core of traditional ‘Namgis cuisine. Indeed, ‘Namgis territory is one of the ‘most robust environments for marine food in the world’ ; halibut, herring, a variety of shell-fish, multiple types of kelp, and of course, salmon formed a substantial part of the pre-contact diet[9]. The abundance of the land allowed for a rich festival culture which included Potlatch ceremonies [7].

View of Nimpkish Lake and Valley with foliage in the foreground and clouds overhead.

Today, much of the ‘Namgis economy revolves around finfsh aquaculture and forestry through direct participation and through revenue sharing agreements with the province [10] [11]. As recently as the 1990’s, however, Alert Bay endured a 40% unemployment rate and a per capita income of $9,500 (~$16,000 adjusted for inflation). In interviews, ‘Namgis citizens cited colonial dispossession as a key factor in economic stagnation and were acutely aware of how that affected their physical health[7].

Treaty Process

Awareness of the links between colonial oppression and physical/ economic health is a large part of the motivation for the ‘Namgis leadership seeking pathways to greater autonomy. The ‘Namgis, in conjunction with the Winalagis Treaty Group which includes the Kwaikutl, Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala, the Gwa’Sala-‘Nakwaxda’xw, the Qautsino, and the Tlatlasikwala Nation, began the process of developing a modern treaty with BC in 1997. They moved through the second and third stages of the process in 1998 and 2000 respectively, but have spent nearly 23 years in stage four, with little progress made public[12]. Still, there was support for the treaty process within the nation as recently as 2009, with members noting that a treaty is still the best way to reclaim agency over their territory[8].

Conflict and Governance Within the Nation

Little has been published about diverging opinions within the community. There is currently an election being held, with a variety of perspectives displayed between the candidates[13], however this there is nothing to suggest major disagreements. In addition to the elected council, there are hereditary chiefs known as Gigagame[12]. The division of power between these two agencies is not readily clear, but in a comparable case the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia decision affirmed that Wet'suwet'en elected band council's authority only applied on the reservation, while the hereditary chiefs jurisdiction extended across the entire traditional territory[14].

Tenure arrangements and Logging

In 1960, the BC government created Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 37 and awarded it to Canadian Forest Products Inc. (Canfor). TFL’s are renewable, area-based tenures, often regarded as the holy grail of forest tenures be they entail exclusive access to timber resources for the tenure owner. The first TFL’s were created in 1947 and from the outset were intended as ‘industry-government partnerships’, based on ‘abundant faith in private enterprise’[15]. The TFL tenure was intended to insulate major corporations from the ‘rigours of competition’[15]. Prior to the existence of TFL tenures, permits to harvest were awarded piecemeal through highly competitive timber-sale by timber-sale auctions.

Today, TFL 37 covers ~167,000 ha of which 86,195 ha are available for timber harvest. Four provincial parks lie within or adjacent to the TFL[16]. The TFL lies within the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zone and the principle species are western hemlock, western red cedar, balsam (amabilis) fir, Douglas-fir, and yellow cedar. The TFL is steep and mountainous, with about 10% only harvestable by aerial extraction. The current Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is 889,415 m3 of which 45,642 m3 are set aside for First Nations harvest[2].

Prior to 1960

In the Nimpkish Valley, prior to the creation of TFL 37, a number of contractors cycled through the area. By 1925, the town of Englewood had emerged as the regional hub with a sawmill and harbor access for exporting lumber. The town was about 5 km south of Alert Bay, which by that point was already home to much of the ‘Namgis population and a residential school. Logs arrived from Nimpkish Lake by rail, were milled, and left by boats that had travelled from as far away as South America [17]. By 1953, however, the mill had closed the town was effectively little more than a booming ground and log sort. As Canfor consolidated harvesting rights, it moved its center of operations to Woss, some 20km southwest and inland. Concurrently the logging railroad that had run from Nimpkish Lake to Englewood was expanded, stretching south beyond Woss and allowing access to ‘the largest remaining block of virgin Douglas fir in the province’ [18].

The logging railroad in Woss remained in operation until 2017, the last of its kind in Canada. It was decommissioned after a deadly crash in April of that year[19].

Canfor: 1960 to 2006

The original terms of TFL 37 stipulate a 21-year lease and describe the boundary as the ‘watershed and drainage basins relating to this licence are defined as the watershed of the Nimpkish River’.  The licence allowed for hunting, trapping, and fishing within the boundary, so long as the activity ‘does not materially prejudice the rights of the Licensee… for growing and harvesting of forest products’ [8]. It was not until 1995 that the terms of the licence included a recognition of aboriginal usage [20]. Management Plan #8, developed in 1998, notes that the 1997 Delgamuukw decision affirms that ‘First Nations groups have a spectrum of aboriginal rights in lands used or occupied by their ancestors’ and that the ‘Namgis First Nation has ‘claims over most of TFL 37’[21].

By 1998, TFL 37 accounted for almost 1.5% of BC’s total fibre flow and 5% of regional (Vancouver Island and lower mainland) fibre. Directly and indirectly, the TFL provided 3,323 jobs in the area, 22 of which were held by First Nations (~0.7%)[21].

WFP: 2006 to Today

In 2006, Canfor sold TFL 37 to Western Forest Products (WFP) Inc. Some estimates put the sale price around $45 million[22]. That same year, the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) dropped by approximately 10%, the most substantial reduction since 1975. Since WFP’s takeover, the management plan has not included economic and employment data, but WFP did, in 2015, sign a Forestry Fund Agreement with the ‘Namgis and have nominally integrated First Nations values into planning related to archaeological sites, fish and wildlife habitat, and old growth management[2].

As of 2021, in addition to TFL 37, WFP owns TFL 39 (Haida), TFL 19 (Tahsis), and TFL 6 (Quatsino). TFL 39 is a dispersed series of units covering more than 400,000 ha's in two blocks on the Sunshine Coast, two on northern Vancouver Island, including directly north and directly south of TFL 37, and North Broughton Island [23]. TFL 6, 171,000 ha, surrounds Quatsino Sound on northern Vancouver Island[24]. It is subdivided into a northern unit, based out of Holberg and a southern unit based out of Jeune Landing. TFL 19 covers about 190,000 ha on the west coast of Vancouver Island, abutting TFL 37 to the north and the southern portion of TFL 39[25]. Additionally, WFP holds the rights to 308,726 m3 of annual cut in the volume-based North Island TSA and 14,065 m3 in the adjacent Great Bear Rainforest South TSA. In total, the total cut of WFP on northern Vancouver Island and the mid/south coast totals 4.6 million m3 of annual cut, making them the largest tenure holder on the coast by a significant margin[26].

Other Values and Area Users

Recreation

Five provincial parks are located within the Nimpkish Watershed:

  • Lower Nimpkish River (200 ha),
  • Nimpkish Lake (3,950 ha)
  • Claud Elliot (328 ha)
  • Schoen Lake (8,775 ha)
  • Woss Lake (6,634 ha)

Additionally, WFP maintains 6 named recreation sites and 4 trails within the TFL boundary as well as a number of unnamed sites, access corridors, and valuable view sheds[2]. When naming priority activities that the 'Namgis wanted to be able to more readily do on their territory, 'camping' and 'fishing' were among the most common responses. Less common recreational responses included 'hike' and 'swimming' [27]. Additionally, providing "high-quality experiences and recreation opportunities in efforts to attract visitors and stimulate economic growth" is listed as one of the 15 values of the Gwa'ni Project[28].

White water kayaking on the Nimpkish and Woss Rivers is popular[29].

Trail Map of Mount Cain Ski Area

Mt. Cain is a small but prominent ski area in the region that boasts "Vancouver Island's Best Powder" and draws a small but dedicated following[30].

Chanterelle Mushrooms

Traditional food harvest not-withstanding, the most prominent non-timber forest product (NTFP) available in the Nimpkish watershed is the chanterelle mushroom. Harvest rates and sale prices vary wildly, but periods of logging curtailment or shutdown correlate with an increase in harvest activity, suggesting that chaterelles are a valuable source of secondary income and can help to diversify the local economy. An estimated 5kg/ ha can be produced in the area, 99% of which is exported, mainly to European markets. At present, a scarcity of buyers and a lack of organization among pickers has left much of the natural yield underutilized, despite the region being "particularly well-suited to commercial development of chanterelles" [31].

Towns Within the Area

In addition to Alert Bay/ 'Yalis, the towns of Woss, Port McNeill, and Telegraph Cove fall within the TFL 37 boundary and/or the traditional territory of the 'Namgis.

Port McNeill is the largest town with 2,356 residents as of the 2021 census[32]. The ferry terminal to access Alert Bay and Sointula Island is located in Port McNeill.

Telegraph Cove is home to 228 residents[33].

Woss is the base of operations for WFP. In 2016 it was home to 189 residents, down 19.6% from the 2011 census[34].

The Gwa'ni Project and the Forest Landscape Pilot

Two concurrent and related projects, the Gwa'ni Project and the TFL 37 Forest Landscape Planning (FLP) Pilot Project, are currently underway to modernize land use planning in the Nimpkish Valley. The two projects have overlapping goals, but important differences. Table 1 compares them. Key commonalities are in bold. Draft plans are expected to be released for both projects by spring of 2023.

Table 1: Comparison Between the Gwa'ni Project and FLP Pilot
Gwa'ni Project TFL 37 FLP Pilot
Geographic Area 'Namgis Traditional Territory

(Nimpkish River Watershed and Coastal Area)

TFL 37 Boundary

(Nimpkish River Watershed minus Provincial Parks and other removed areas described in Management Plan #10).

Scope Multi-use land use planning Forest practices planning
Primary Parties 'Namgis First Nation

Province of British Columbia

'Namgis First Nation

Western Forest Products Inc.

Secondary Parties Western Forest Products Inc.

Residents of Port McNeill, Woss, Telegraph Cove

Recreational Users

BC Provincial Government in an advisory role

WFP North Island Public Advisory Group Residents of Port McNeill, Woss, Telegraph Cove

Recreational Users

Objectives Update the higher level Vancouver Island Land Use Plan

Restore 'Namgis authority and decision making power over their territory

Improve ecosystem health and functioning

Develop economic opportunities

Develop Forest Landscape Plan to replace existing Forest Stewardship Plans across the province

Integrate 'Namgis and western values and interests into decision making for forestry practices in TFL 37

Identify areas of improvement for the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA)

Improve ecosystem health and functioning

Broader Context Part of a province wide effort by the NDP government to Modernize Land Use Planning, including similar project between BC and the shíshálh Nation, BC and the Squamish, Líl̓wat, and N'Quatqua Nations One of four FLP pilots taking place across BC

In short, the Gwa'ni Project is larger in scope and seeks to give the 'Namgis greater control over their territory, while the TFL 37 Pilot Project seeks to update and revamp forest operations planning to be more aligned with 'Namgis values within the boundaries of TFL 37. Given the overlapping geographic context and values, the two projects are intertwined. The key difference is that the Gwa'ni Project is a government-to-government collaboration, while the TFL 37 Pilot is a partnership between WFP and the 'Namgis, with the province in a supporting role[3][16][28]. Both projects have significant potential to change the Nimpkish Valley by restricting intensive industrial use of the land-base and by bringing more 'Namgis citizens back to the land.

The Gwa'ni Project logo, commissioned by 'Namgis member Shawn Karpes. The logo is an interpretation of the story of how Gwa’nalalis became the Gwa'ni River.

Interested and Affected Stakeholders

Given the scope of the area, the two projects will impact a wide-swath of stakeholders. Table 2, below, details the various categories of parties, identifies them as Interested or Affected, broadly categorizes their level of power and influence, and outlines their primary objectives.

Affected Parties

The 'Namgis and the other, neighboring First Nations are the only affected stake-holders. There are significant, non-monetary values associated with the area and a deep cultural connection. Though the 'Namgis have been displaced from the bulk of the territory, the spiritual connection to the land is deep and permanent. In Cranmer's 2009 video, members of the 'Namgis nation visit their territory, some for the first time, and see pictographs and old village sites[8]. These are irreplaceable touchstones that link people and place. The relation between impacts on the land and impacts on the people can be understood in comments like:

"The way our people talk, the woods, bushes, mountains, land – those are basically our cupboards." - Corey, a respondent in Richmond et al's (2005) study[7].

"The rivers are our bloodstream." - Clarence, a respondent in Richmond et al's (2005) study[7].

"If your forests and the oceans die, I think the people are going to die along with it. There have got to be measures and steps taken to ensure that we have a healthy land and healthy people." - Robbie, a respondent in Richmond et al's (2005) study.

The neighboring First Nations groups are also affected. Their traditional, ancestral territory may abut or include overlapping portions of 'Namgis territory, or there may have been historic use agreements. In the former case, management of the Nimpkish watershed has spillover implications for the territory to which the neighboring nation has title, or the traditional usage is irreplaceable.

Interested Parties

Interested parties include WFP, the provincial government, non-Indigenous residents, visiting workers or recreational users, and conservation agencies.

WFP is deeply interested in TFL 37 for financial reasons only. However, they have other holdings and have rights to monetary compensation, should they lose their tenure. In this way, for WFP as corporation, the specific area of TFL 37 is effectively substitutable, either for a cash buyout or in exchange for an alternative tenure elsewhere. WFP has made certain environmental and community-oriented investments in the area, but that can be interpreted as part of the cost of maintaining the social licence to operate rather than a reciprocal relation with the specific landscape. Similarly, the provincial government is interested in the happenings within the Nimpkish Valley, given their purview of crown ownership. However, the provincial government is no more interested in the Nimpkish Valley than any other portion of crown land within the province. Individuals within the government are making decisions form Victoria, the capital, rather than from within the valley.

Non-Indigenous residents of Port McNeill, Woss, and Telegraph Cove are all also very interested, but not affected stakeholders. Their livelihoods are connected at present with the area, but their is a high degree of potential mobility and, while ancestry may stretch back one or more generations, the positionality as immigrant or settler precludes an irreplaceable connection. Similarly, the visitors who come from elsewhere for recreational or temporary work opportunities are choosing the Nimpkish Valley from a range of alternative options. Given a change in the management of the valley, recreational users and temporary workers could have, and often do, select other areas. Still, they are interested because the opportunities within the Nimpkish Valley may be significant.

Finally, a number of environmental non-government organizations (ENGO's) are interested in the Nimpkish Valley. Like the government, these conservation organizations have a wide regional, provincial, or even international mandate and the Nimpkish Valley represents one opportunity among many to achieve certain conservation goals. Conservation organizations may be strong allies for First Nations, but may also "ignore the complexity of native outlook and concerns"[35].

Table 2: Interested and Affected Stakeholders
Party Interested/Affected Power Influence Objectives
'Namgis First Nation Affected High High Reassert rights and title to traditional unceded territory; assure access to cultural, recreational, and food-producing sites within territory; ensure environmental best practices; build opportunities for economic development and employment.
Other First Nations

(Kwakiutl, Mowachaht-Muchalaht, Quatsino,

K’ómoks, Mamalilikulla, Tlowitsis,

Wei Wai Kum, We Wai Kai)

Affected Low Low Maintain access to traditional use areas, per 'Namgis permission; build opportunities for economic development and employment.
Western Forest Products Inc. Interested High High Maintain dominance of north island timber rights; maximize operational profits; maintain social license to operate in region; maintain sustained timber yield.
BC Provincial Government Interested High High Maintain centralized authority over land-base; sustain stumpage revenue and export tariff revenue.
Non-Indigenous Residents of Woss, Alert Bay, Telegraph Cove, and Port McNeill Interested Low High Strengthen communities; develop economic opportunities and employment; maintain a healthy environment.
Non-Indigenous Residents of Vancouver Island, including recreational users and transient forestry workers Interested Low Medium Maintain access to recreational areas; maintain a healthy environment; develop economic opportunities and employment.
ENGO's (Dogwood Foundation, Sierra Club, Ancient Forest Alliance, and more) Interested Low Medium Preserve old growth; maintain ecosystem functioning; maintain biodiversity.

Discussion & Critical Issues

The Gwa'ni Project and the TFL 37 FLP Pilot Project both provide opportunities for the 'Namgis to reassert their sovereignty over their territory. Within the community, the connections between colonization, dispossession of land, and economic and physical health issues is well-understood[7]. For many years, the treaty process, though slow, was thought to be the best way to achieve the autonomy that would allow the 'Namgis to address many of these issues[8]. However, with the process effectively stalled, it is reasonable that the 'Namgis would be open to other opportunities to reassert themselves. While neither the Gwa'ni Project and the TFL 37 FLP offer legal recognition of the 'Namgis aboriginal rights and title, they do offer decision making power and a proverbial seat at the table. In practice, these de facto rights may be more impactful than de jure title, though ideally, eventually, both will be achieved. Additionally, in both projects but especially in the Gwa'ni project, community engagement has been a critical step. The goal, then, is not just to give 'Namgis leadership more authority, but to further the connection between all citizens and the territory. Outreach activities include surveys, a community open house, and a website, where members are invited to share their priorities for conservation, including sites to give Kwak'wala names to and preferred activities.[27]

Within the broader context of forest management in BC, the Gwa'ni Project and the TFL 37 FLP Pilot Project are part of longer shifts in provincial management priorities. While the rights and power of corporate entities like WFP remain relatively unchallenged, there is a decades long trend to more and more acknowledgement of First Nations rights and title. Recall that early versions of the TFL management plans made no mention of First Nations rights. That BC is now willing to engage in government-to-government negotiations represents a significant shift, that should be understood in context of important court decisions including the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia 1997, Haida Nation v. British Columbia 2004, and Tsilhqo'tin Nation v. British Columbia 2014[36]. It is also important to understand these planning processes in context of the upheaval in the 1990's around Clayoquot Sound. In the decades since the 'War in the Woods' the narrative of a pitched ideological battle between loggers, representing economic development, and protesters, representing environmental conservation has evolved considerably[35]. One example of this evolution lies in the conversation around old-growth deferrals. After the government released sweeping province wide decision, the 'Namgis announced that they would waive the decision and interact directly with licensees[37]. This shift in conservation reflects a change in perspective among environmentalists and loggers alike from viewing First Nations as fulfilling tropes[35], to seeing them as negotiable, active partners.

Critical Issues

Still to be addressed is the considerable financial power-imbalance between the 'Namgis and WFP, and the 'Namgis and the provincial government. While on paper, the parties are equal peers, 'Namgis participation is subsidized by both WFP and the provincial government[16]. Related to this is the challenge of capacity; both WFP and the provincial government are able to retain staff of Registered Professional Foresters and other experts that far exceeds the hiring capacity of the 'Namgis. Recall that the nation's entire population is under 2000, while WFP employed over 3000 people in 1998[21]. It is therefore essential that WFP and BC uphold the 'Namgis as equal partners and that the 'Namgis continue to assert their national sovereignty on unceded territory.


This conservation resource was created by Course:FRST522.


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Christie, J.J. (2009). Origin narratives, places, and concepts among the ‘Namgis, a Kwakwaka’wakw group in British Columbia, Canada. In Christie, J.J. (Ed.) Landscapes of origin in the Americas: Creation narratives linking ancient places and present communities. (1st Ed., pp. 45-54). University of Alabama Press.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Davis, M. & Janzen, S. (August 2017). Tree Farm License 37 Management Plan #10. Western Forest Products.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Namgis First Nation. (June, 2022). Gwa’ni Project: Information for ‘Namgis Members. Accessed on December 9, 2022 at https://engage.namgis.bc.ca/gwani-project
  4. ↑ "Modernizing Land Use Planning in British Columbia". British Columbia Land Use Planning. October 26, 2021.
  5. ↑ 'Namgis First Nation & British Columbia. (January 18, 2021). Memorandum of Understanding for Modernized Land Use Planning.
  6. ↑ "'Namgis First Nation". British Columbia First Nation A-Z Listing.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Richmond, C., Elliott, S. J., Matthews, R., & Elliott, B. (2005). The political ecology of health: Perceptions of environment, economy, health and well-being among ’Namgis First Nation. Health and Place, 11(4), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.04.003
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Cranmer, B. (Director). (2009). ‘Namegan’s om dłu’wans awinagwise = We are one with the land. [Film]. Moving Images Distribution. http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=4537449
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Satterfield, T., Robertson, L., Pitts, A., & Jacobson, D. (2015). Reasserting ‘Namgis food sovereignty aka three boats and a pick up truck. Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. [Report].
  10. ↑ Donaldson, D., Popham, L., Fraser, S., Chamberlain, R., Svanvik, D., Sumner, R. (June 27, 2018). Letter of Understanding regarding a government-to-government process to address finfish aquaculture in the Broughton Area, including recommendations on Provincial Tenure Replacement Decisions. British Columbia.
  11. ↑ 'Namgis First Nation & British Columbia. (n.d.) Forest & Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA). British Columbia.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 'Namgis First Nation, Canada, & British Columbia. (2000). Framework Agreement to Negotiate a Treaty. Accessed on November 5, 2022 at https://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/405684/namgis_frmwrk.pdf.
  13. ↑ "'Namgis First Nation Election Announcement". 'Namgis First Nation Facebook Page. December 8, 2022.
  14. ↑ Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Rajala, R.A. (2006). Up-Coast: Forests and Industry on British Columbia’s North Coast, 1870-2005. Royal BC Museum Corporation.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 TFL 37 FLP Pilot. (n.d.) Tree Farm Licence 37 Forest Landscape Planning Pilot Project. British Columbia Forestry. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-landscape-plans/tfl-37-forest-landscape-planning-pilot-project
  17. ↑ Harris, E. A. (1994). Company towns, especially Englewood. In B.C. Historical News ,28(1), 2-5. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/company-towns-especially-englewood/docview/204990009/se-2
  18. ↑ Barnett, T. (1995). An Englewood sequel. B.C. Historical News, 28(3). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/englewoodsequel/docview/205050570/se-2?accountid=14656
  19. ↑ "Faulty coupling, rotted ties led to deadly train derailment in Woss, B.C.: report". CBC News. October 25, 2018. Retrieved December 14, 2022.
  20. ↑ Minister of Forests & Canadian Forest Products Limited. (March 1, 1995). Tree Farm Licence No. 37. British Columbia.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Management Plan #8. (December, 1998). Canadian Forest Products Ltd. British Columbia.
  22. ↑ Horter, Will (October 24, 2007). "WFP TFL scheme: Born in Scandal". Retrieved December 14, 2022.
  23. ↑ Davis, M. & Janzen, S. (April 2014).Tree Farm License 39 Management Plan #10. Western Forest Products Inc.
  24. ↑ Davis, M. & Gourlick, K. (September 2011).Tree Farm License 6 Management Plan #10. Western Forest Products Inc.
  25. ↑ Watkinson, M. & Dumont W.E. (August 1, 2001). Tree Farm Licence 19 Management Plan #9. Western Forest Products Inc.
  26. ↑ Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (March 30, 2021). "Linkages and Licences" (PDF). Apportionment System.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Gwa'ni Project Team. (2021). What We Heard- 2021 Community Engagement. 'Namgis First Nation.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 British Columbia & 'Namgis First Nation (June 17, 2022). "Gwa'ni Project: A Guide to Land Use Planning Values" (PDF).
  29. ↑ "Whitewater Kayaking on Vancouver Island". VancouverIsland.com. 2021.
  30. ↑ "Mountain Stats". Mountcain.com.
  31. ↑ Ehlers, T., & Hobby, T. (2010). The chanterelle mushroom harvest on northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia: Factors relating to successful commercial development. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 11(2), 73-83. http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/55/25
  32. ↑ Statistics Canada. (February 9, 2022). Population and dwelling counts: Canada, provinces and territories, and census subdivisions (municipalities), British Columbia.
  33. ↑ Statistics Canada. 2017. Mount Waddington D, RDA [Census subdivision], British Columbia and British Columbia [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.
  34. ↑ Statistics Canada. 2017. Woss, UNP [Designated place], British Columbia and British Columbia [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Trigger, D. S. (1996). Contesting ideologies of natural resource development in British Columbia, Canada. Culture, 16(1) 55-69. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084103ar
  36. ↑ British Columbia & 'Namgis First Nation. (June 17, 2021). Modernized Land Use Planning Timeline.
  37. ↑ Black Press Media Staff (February 25, 2022). "'Namgis First Nation announces it will waive ministerial deferrals for old growth". Vancouver Island Free Daily.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2022/The_relationship_between_the_%27Namgis_First_Nation_and_forest_tenure_concessions_on_Vancouver_Island,_British_Columbia,_Canada&oldid=738882"