[Note:  The following document is only part of a larger report written by the Environmental Assessment Office's Cayoosh Project Committee in response to the St'at'imc (pronounced 'Statlium') reports to the Environmental Assessment Office.  The sections appearing on this website mostly relate to the issue of wildlife ecology impacts, and are an official response to the May 2000 Ecodomain Consulting report for the St'atimc (see the initial wildlife report by Ecodomain Consulting on SPEC's website).  Sub-headings under each section are here numbered in order for the reader to see the arguments in a systematic manner.  Out of respect, information relating to St'at'imc cultural studies are not being released to the public at this time.

In the interests of those following the grizzly bear issue, the coverage by the Project Committee in this document of response is quite scanty, in contrast to their section on mountain goats.  On the grizzly bear issue, it is of critical interest to ask your provincial and federal government representatives and biologists:

* why the Environmental Assessment Office failed to officially conduct grizzly bear studies in the greater Duffey Lake area?;
* where have "mitigations" of grizzly bears been successfully and scientifically conducted on a large ski development project for active grizzly bear habitat in British Columbia, or in any other North American jurisdictions?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preamble
Section 9 - Wildlife, General
subsections: 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16
Section 10 - Mountain Goats
subsections: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3
Section 11 - Grizzly Bears
subsections: 11.1, 11.2
Section 12 - Birds
subsections: 12.1, 12.2
Section 15 - Cumulative Environmental Effects
subsections: 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5
Section 22 - Regional Traffic Effects
subsections: 22.1, 22.2, 22.3
List of abbreviations

PREAMBLE

Background - NGR Resort Consultants Inc.

(NGR) proposes to develop a four-season, 14,186-bed-unit, mountain tourism resort in the Melvin Creek valley, located north of the Duffey Lake Road between Pemberton and Lillooet.  Winter activity would focus on snow sports, primarily alpine skiing, cross-country skiing and snowboarding.  In summer, the alpine scenery in the area would support sightseeing, hiking, walking and biking.  Village-based sports such as tennis, golf and swimming would also be offered.

On November 7, 1996, the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), pursuant to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act), accepted for review NGR's application for a project approval certificate for the Melvin Creek/Cayoosh resort project (the ‘project').  The project application also triggered review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).  On July 1999, NGR submitted a project report to address outstanding issues identified during the review of its application.  The Melvin Creek/Cayoosh project committee set up under the EA Act to oversee the review of this project application is now close to completing the necessary environmental assessment.  The project committee comprises federal, provincial and local government agencies.  Although invited, First Nations have declined to be formal committee members.

Potentially affected First Nations in the vicinity of the project include the eleven Bands of the St'at'imc Nation.  On March 28, 2000, the EAO received four studies, performed on behalf of the St'at'imc Chiefs by Creekside Resources Inc. and consultants commissioned by Creekside.  The funding for the studies was provided by the EAO and the proponent, NGR Resort Consultants Inc. (NGR), to contribute to the fulfillment of their legal obligations with respect to resort-related First Nations concerns.  The four studies were as follows:

1.  Cultural Heritage Study Final Report, dated March 24, 2000, and prepared by Sue Montgomery, Project Manager, St'at'imc Impact Assessment study – it includes the following components:

* Final Report – current status – draft, considered incomplete by St'at'imc Chiefs, therefore not approved by them – being used at government's risk.
* Appendix I – St'at'imc Cultural Bibliography – current status – as for Final Report.
* Appendix II – Interview Summary Table – current status – as for Final Report.
* Review of Archaeology Studies Regarding Proposed Cayoosh Creek Resort  - Final Report – March 24, 2000, prepared by Sue Montgomery, Archaeologist, Project Manager, St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study – current status – draft, may need further work, once the Cultural Heritage Study Final Report is completed.
* Final Report – Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig, Ecodomain Consulting – current status – considered final, but St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.
* Revised Draft Report – St'at'imc Cultural Heritage Study – Proposed Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Creek Resort:  Review and Summary of St'at'imc Ethnobiological Documentation with Reference to Melvin Creek and Environs, British Columbia, dated March 2000, and prepared by Brian D. Compton – current status – may be finalized shortly, but St'at'imc wish to discuss an inaccuracy in the report with the author.

3.  St'at'imc Socio-Economic Study – Final Report, dated January 18, 2000, and prepared by Columbia Pacific Consulting - current status - final.

4.  St'at'imc Social and Cumulative Impact Analysis Arising from the Proposed Cayoosh Resort (undated) - current status - draft, may need further work, once the Cultural Heritage Study Final Report is completed.

Note – It is important to note that the St'at'imc studies were filed with the EAO in draft form on March 28, 2000, with advice from St'at'imc legal counsel that the studies should be considered as drafts, since they had not been approved for release by the St'at'imc Chiefs, and that therefore, any reliance on them is at government's own risk.  The current status of each report, as noted above, is as outlined in an April 7, 2000 letter from Chief Mike Leach, on behalf of St'at'imc interests, which indicated that, while some reports were still draft, others were now final and approved.  Where reports are not considered final and approved for release by St'at'imc Chiefs, references to them in these project committee responses acknowledges this.Upon receipt, the reports were immediately circulated to federal, provincial and local government agencies.  In keeping with EAO's agreement with the St'at'imc Chiefs, the studies were circulated to project committee members on a confidential, need- to-know basis for their review.

In this document, the project committee has included responses to issues raised in the First Nations studies.  Where the proponent, NGR Resort Consultants Inc. (NGR), has also provided responses to issues, these have also been reported here.  Responses to issues raised in the St'at'imc studies have been presented under the issue headings developed by the Melvin Creek/Cayoosh project committee for issue tracking purposes.

In some cases, the project committee has completed its consideration of issues at the time of providing this report to St'at'imc Bands, and this is indicated in the project committee's responses to those issues.  In other cases, issues are still under active consideration, and in those cases, the status of issue consideration is reported here.
 

SECTION 9:  WILDLIFE – GENERAL

Wildlife Impacts

St'at'imc Report

Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs had approved the report, which is now considered final, although St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.

St'at'imc Concerns

9.1.a.  First Nations Issue - Lack of strategic process – MELP lacked a comprehensive strategic process for wildlife assessments, and failed to allocate sufficient staff and resources.  MELP's Wildlife Branch should be responsible for reviewing the wildlife assessments, with involvement of the Resource Inventory Branch and Conservation Data Center (CDC), as for other EA reviews.  The EA process has focussed on impacts in Melvin Creek, and is not likely to address impacts on wilderness values, regional land use planning, wildlife systems as a whole, or the feasibility of mitigation.

9.1.b  Proponent Response:  NGR did not agree with MELP's interpretation of certain issues, but in NGR's view, MELP's review effort was diligent, concerted, and conscientious.  Ecodomain notes that there is no formalized process for ensuring involvement of parties which it suggests as necessary.  NGR does not necessarily disagree with Ecodomain's opinion, since it is confident in subjecting its work to any review that is objective and professional.  Commenting on the last point, Table V-12 (see project report, Wildeor/LGL report, page 78) listed potential impacts at three geographic levels:

(1) local (i.e., Melvin Creek);
(2) the Cayoosh Range as a whole; and
(3) all of MU 3-16.

9.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  Early in the review, staff resources were identified in MELP's Kamloops (Southern Interior) regional office to provide technical input to address all aspects of concern to MELP.  MELP wildlife staff from the Southern Interior Region led the review, and have involved staff from the headquarters Wildlife Branch as necessary.  Under the EA process, NGR is responsible for identifying environmental impacts, avoiding impacts where possible, and proposing mitigation and compensation to offset unavoidable impacts for consideration by MELP staff.  NGR is asked to address rare and endangered species in the review, and this may involve them in contacting the CDC directly to obtain current information on species lists.  It was not considered necessary for the Resource Inventory Branch to become involved in this project for the reasons mentioned below – see response to item #3.

9.2.a.  First Nations Issue - Inadequate inventories – Given the significance of wildlife resources, the wildlife studies were inadequate for informed decisions.  The wildlife study area was not large enough to assess biological or population impacts, especially on wide-ranging species (e.g. grizzly bears, wolverine, wolves).  NGR's consultants have recommended additional studies/inventories, and DFO considers existing studies inadequate for cumulative effects assessment purposes.  Invertebrates, non-rare vascular and non-vascular plants and plant associations were not inventoried.  Other than mountain goats, large mammals (e.g. grizzly and black bears and mule deer) receive limited attention.  Inferences about presence or abundance of some species (e.g. Spotted Bat, Harlequin Duck and Spotted Owl) are made without current Melvin Creek survey data.

9.2.b.  Proponent Response: Ecodomain does not define ‘inventory', but the context suggests that the reference is intended to refer to absolute numbers of animals and/or to the degree of compliance with Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) standards.  For most of the species mentioned, government management of habitats and harvests has proceeded for decades without information on absolute numbers, because reliable methodologies to establish them do not exist.  RIC standards include methods for inventory at the relative abundance and presence/absence levels, recognizing that absolute abundance assessments may not be either possible or necessary for particular purposes.  NGR's inventories have been sufficient to support informed decisions.  The methodology used was one developed by NGR's consultant, Wildeor, specifically for impact assessments, and which RIC specifically requested Wildeor to formalize as a general biodiversity procedure.  The objective is to first identify species known or suspected to be present, then to narrow the focus to those species for which there are identifiable concerns.

In regard to size of the study area, the most likely error associated with too small an area is to over-estimate potential impacts, since a relatively high frequency of use and occurrence in a small area may nevertheless be less than or proportional to that in the larger surrounding area.  Wildeor usually suggests to proponents that studies be conducted over a larger area than the development site, to provide for that perspective.  NGR/Wildeor do not follow the implied reasoning that a low degree of impact in a small study area would translate to a larger effect in a larger study area.

The NGR/Wildeor comments on additional studies were mostly made in the context of mitigative ‘fine-tuning' for specific facility developments, and were not an admission of inadequacy for overall assessment at the conceptual project planning level.  The reference to DFO's cumulative effects concerns is too vague in the context in which it is raised for NGR to respond to it.

Regarding Spotted Bat, this species, if it occurs at all, is most likely to occur in the lower, drier portion of the valley, which will be subject to logging, whether or not there is a ski development.  Spotted Bat is unlikely to occur in that area, according to data from the CDC.  The concern expressed for Harlequin Ducks is out of proportion to the likelihood of significant occurrence (i.e. several breeding birds) or the potential for impact if a few individuals actually are present.  NGR has committed to a specific, pre- development survey, if the project is granted an EA certificate.

9.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  The wildlife inventories submitted by NGR were deemed adequate by the project committee and MELP staff to complete an assessment of the potential effects of the project for strategic-level EA review purposes.  If the project is granted an EA certificate, further work would be completed prior to development, consistent with NGR's commitments.  This work would include detailed riparian evaluations, a one-season Spotted Owl inventory, a July/August ground survey prior to any site disturbance to inventory rare and endangered plants and fauna, and inspection to confirm the site-specific presence/absence of threatened and endangered plants at potential sites in the development area.  The Grizzly Bear Assessment Report by MELP's Carnivore Specialist describes the area which could potentially be impacted by the project, and refers to mitigation/compensation measures which could address the impacts.  While details are still being worked out by the project committee, these measures are essentially two-fold: (1) a comprehensive bear management plan to be implemented by NGR; and (2) complementary measures to be implemented by government agencies (MELP, MoF and BCAL) to manage any increased recreational use of surrounding areas by resort visitors, residents and workers.  Although no further study is proposed, follow-up monitoring is recommended to confirm the effectiveness of agreed-to measures.  NGR has committed to employ a qualified biological consultant to conduct a Harlequin Duck survey during appropriate seasons, and prior to any logging, blasting or road construction. This survey should determine Harlequin Duck presence and abundance in the development area.

9.3.a.  First Nations Issue - Independent MELP review – Key MELP groups (the Resource Inventory Branch, the Wildlife Branch, the CDC) were not asked to undertake independent review of the wildlife habitat and population studies, as for other EA reviews.

9.3.b.  Proponent Response: As noted in NGR's response to item #1, there is no established process for including these groups as reviewers for all EA Projects.

9.3.c.  Project Committee Position:  In the EA process, there is no practice of asking the CDC to undertake independent assessments of projects.  Prior to conducting rare plant field surveys, data on rare plant occurrences in the Cayoosh Range were obtained from the CDC by NGR, and have been listed in the project report.  MELP's carnivore specialist and ungulate specialists from the Wildlife Branch are involved in the review of this project.  The Resource Inventory Branch's involvement in EA reviews occurs primarily when Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) is part of a project report and requires review.  TEM was not undertaken for this project, since Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Reconnaissance Inventory Manual (TVBRIM) mapping was used.  This form of mapping was used for the preliminary wildlife inventories, and was acceptable to MELP for this project.

9.4.a.  First Nations Issue - Terrestrial ecosystem mapping – MELP's TEM procedures and protocol were not applied to habitat capability/suitability mapping, so as to produce a single ecological base map which can be used for many species (especially depleted or recovering species – in this case, goats, grizzly bears and wolves, and possibly also wolverine).

9.4.b.  Proponent Response:  NGR's consultant Wildeor agrees that it would be useful for MELP to produce TEM for the entire province.  However, Wildeor disagrees that TEM is necessary for reliable impact assessment of projects in the EA process.  TEM has no inherent or empirical predictive value for any species.  One can map the landscape in great detail, and TEM almost requires that (at great cost), but the species ratings which are then applied are still subjective, and are based, for most species, on inadequate knowledge of how they actually integrate the various "patches" that constitute their environment.  The TEM approach has been in use for several years now, but there is no evidence of it becoming mainstream technology in North American biological practice.  Other jurisdictions in North America seem to be conducting what they consider to be acceptable impact assessments without TEM.  In BC, TEM is not required for forestry, which is responsible for most of the habitat alteration in BC.  TEM, and the assorted RIC inventory standards, should be offered as resources to biological practitioners, not imposed as mandatory.  Wildeor disagrees that methods which vary from RIC standards are sub-standard, or that methods should be judged more on their degree of compliance with RIC standards than on their suitability for the task at hand.

9.4.c. Project Committee Position:  NGR was not required to produce TEM for the project report.  Adequate mapped information was provided to MELP staff in order to complete an assessment of the project in appropriate detail for EA-level review purposes.  Footprint areas of the project will be inventoried for the presence of red-listed and blue-listed species as part of the post-EA CASP process, if the project is granted an EA certificate.

9.5.a.  First Nations Issue - Black Bear, Cougar, Lynx and Wolverine – Melvin Creek could become a ‘sink habitat' for these species, which were inventoried only incidentally, and need further investigation.

9.5.b.  Proponent Response:  Conservation Officers currently destroy over 1000 black bears annually in BC, mostly in or near urban centers, Concern for significant impacts on this species is misplaced – the primary issue is the potential for conflict at the resort.  NGR's proposed bear management plan will be designed to both mitigate and deal with that problem.  For the other species mentioned, occurrence in the Melvin Creek drainage is sporadic and not demonstrably critical, even at the individual animal level.  Further investigation would not change or further illuminate that situation.  Others have previously expressed concern that the proposed resort would displace carnivores from the project area.  In contrast, Ecodomain's sink concept suggests a belief that the animals will not be displaced, will not even avoid the resort area, and will be vulnerable to mortality factors when/if they arrive.  Given the natural wariness of these species, and planned mitigation against factors that could lead to attraction of bears and other carnivores to the resort (e.g. proper refuse and pet management), the sink scenario for these species is difficult to envisage.

9.5.c.  Project Committee Position:  In the professional opinion of MELP wildlife staff, the main species of concern with respect to a ‘sink habitat' is the black bear. There may be increased mortality and decreased reproductivity of black bears resulting from the development.  However, a Bear Management Plan, which includes appropriate mitigation measures, should address this issue.

9.6.a.  First Nations Issue - Mule deer – Mule deer impacts were not assessed in any depth, although Melvin Creek is important for mule deer habitat.  Investigation is needed of: resort impacts on mule deer habitat; effects of a ‘no hunting' zone on habituating mule deer to people presence; and how the enhanced/habituated mule deer population is to be managed.  The consultants recommend a mule deer impact assessment and a literature review of the effects of vegetation changes on mule deer numbers and habituation to human presence.  TEM of mule deer habitat capability/suitability should be undertaken, based on a study area defined by MELP's provincial ungulate specialist.  Also recommended is a GPS radiotelemetry study of mule deer in Melvin Creek, based on a study area defined by MELP's provincial ungulate specialist.

9.6.b.  Proponent Response:  The NGR/Wildeor studies confirmed that the Melvin Creek drainage is used by a number of deer during low-snow and snow- free periods, but that it is not winter range and is therefore not highly important as deer habitat.  Ecodomain appears to concur with NGR's position that the presence of the resort is as likely to enhance the situation for local deer as to impact it, although the need for a ready management plan to deal with an enhanced/habituated deer population is not a clearly identifiable priority.  It is likely that a management plan can be devised in consultation with MELP, should the need arise.  The suggested GPS studies are not necessary for impact assessment at the EA certification level, and it is not clear that they would have great value, or that only MELP specialists are qualified to design such studies.Project

9.6.c.  Committee Position:  In the professional opinion of MELP's wildlife staff, the project report presented a reasonable discussion of mule deer issues.  MELP does not require further mule deer studies (e.g. using TEM or GPS radiotelemetry).  Mule deer could potentially be positively affected by increased food sources and/or negatively impacted by the proposed project because of encounters with people and dogs.  Increased mule deer mortality as a result of the development is not anticipated.  Overall, the anticipated impacts on mule deer, as a result of the development, will not be significant.  If a problem wildlife issue emerges, because deer are attracted to the resort, the issue should be managed through a Problem Wildlife Plan, and the project committee is discussing this with NGR.

9.7.a.  First Nations Issue - Problem wildlife management – NGR recognises that certain species could become a nuisance.  At the same time, NGR wants to encourage some species as a tourist attraction.  Managing for conditioned or habituated wildlife requires strict enforcement of regulations governing human access and behaviour, and needs considerable management resources.  NGR's proposal is to develop management plans for problem wildlife (black and grizzly bears, mule deer, rodents, birds, etc.), once the resort is underway.  MELP should develop, approve and enforce such plans.

9.7.b.  Proponent Response:  From the outset, NGR has agreed that MELP should and would be involved in the development and administration of local management plans and monitoring.  However, except for its ultimate responsibility for enforcement, MELP's appropriate role is more that of partner – expertise other than MELP's is also available.

9.7.c.  Project Committee Position:  The proper management of problem wildlife is an important issue.  It will be NGR's responsibility to develop a Problem Wildlife Plan, and to implement that plan, once it is approved by the RM-FWH.  Enforcement of the Problem Wildlife Plan could be achieved through SLRD by-laws.

9.8.a.  First Nations Issue - Impacts beyond Melvin Creek – Ecosign indicated in a 1999 report that the area could support up to 27,900 skiers per day, although the current EA application is for 12,000 skiers per day.  The expansion potential has not been assessed during the EA review, including MELP's wildlife assessments.  The wildlife study area should have been larger, especially if expansion plans are possible.  Adventure tourism opportunities associated with the resort are not being addressed in the EA process in general, or in the wildlife studies in particular.

9.8.b.  Proponent Response:  Conclusions about wildlife impacts from the proposed resort are intended to be applicable to the existing proposal, and not to modifications.  Expansions to other areas would require additional studies in and around those areas.

9.8.c.  Project Committee Position:  The EA Act legislates that the review process will focus on the project as proposed by the proponent.  It is not the task of project committees to speculate on possible future modifications or expansions of projects under review.  Various statutory procedural options are available to government to consider future proposals to modify a certified project, once development is underway.  Having said that, it is true that it would be difficult to accommodate 27,900 skiers per day at the proposed resort location, even if technically, that much skiable terrain could be identified.  It is unlikely that proposals for resort expansion on anything like that scale in the future would be approvable, given the priority which needs to be placed minimizing off-site environmental effects if the resort proceeds in its current form (e.g. to protect grizzly bear values).  Much of the focus of the EA review has been placed on measures to contain this resort within the Melvin Creek drainage, because of significant concern over impacts on surrounding drainages.  If ministers wish to grant an EA certificate to this project, the project committee is recommending that approval be on the basis that the resort NOT sponsor any recreational activities such as adventure tourism outside the drainage (e.g. helicopter recreation).  In addition to the role of the EA process in establishing appropriate location, design and operating constraints on the resort, the project committee recognizes that there is also a role for land use planning processes (e.g. through the Lillooet LRMP) and resource management agencies in ensuring that non-resort-related backcountry recreation activities in surrounding areas are effectively managed – see, for example, responses to comments on grizzly bear impacts in section 11.

9.9.a.  First Nations Issue - Helicopter skiing – would cause new wildlife impacts.  Helicopter recreation should be prohibited in the Cayoosh Range.  Even though NGR commits that helicopter-based tourism will not be incorporated into the resort's operational plan, there could be pressure from others to base helicopter operations at the resort.

9.9.b.  Proponent Response:  NGR's resort proposal does not include helicopter recreation, and a prohibition of those activities in the Cayoosh Range would not impact resort plans.

9.9.c.  Project Committee Position:  The EA review is limited in scope to the proposed project and its potential impacts (see response to item #8).  The resort will not include helicopter- based recreation activities (neither heli-skiing nor heli-hiking).  The EA review does not have the mandate to assess impacts from non-project-related helicopter-based recreation, except in the more generalized context of the resort project's cumulative environmental effects (see section 15).  MELP has identified the potential impacts of non-resort-related helicopter-based recreation on key wildlife species (e.g. mountain goat, grizzly bear) in discussions with appropriate regulatory agencies, notably BCAL.  BCAL's position is that any applications for heli-skiing which have the potential to impact on critical mountain goat or grizzly bear habitat would require environmental impact assessments, including addressing cumulative impacts.  MELP would be one of the key reviewing agencies.

9.10.a.  First Nations Issue - Highway #99 – There is no wildlife impact assessment for the increased traffic.  Traffic on Highway #99 will increase at least ten times from the current 1,000 vehicles per day to 10,000 per day as a direct result of the resort.  Wildlife impacts could be significant, and should be studied.  Highways cause habitat fragmentation for wide-ranging species such as grizzly bears and wolverine.  The consultants recommend a Highway #99 wildlife impact assessment, based on year-round traffic flows as they relate to seasonal wildlife movements.

9.10.b.  Proponent Response:  Wildlife collision mortality was discussed on page 64 of the Wildeor study, included in NGR's project report.  Table V-12 (page 78) identified and rated potential collision mortality impacts for all listed species and groups, but primarily in reference to the new access road.  A resort-caused increase in Highway #99 traffic was not specifically considered in the project report.  NGR studies did not focus on the issue because neither NGR (nor apparently MELP) considered it significant.  Collision mortality of wildlife could increase somewhat with resort development.

The incidence of collisions is most likely to be significant when a highway supports high-volume and high-speed traffic, and either passes through an area of animal concentration (e.g. an ungulate winter range), or crosses an important and regularly-used animal movement corridor, or exposes a particularly sensitive or vulnerable species.  Most of the incremental growth in future Highway #99 traffic attributable to the resort would occur in winter.  The basis for Ecodomain's citing of a 10-fold increase in traffic and other calculations is unclear (80,000 vehicles at 10,000 vehicles per day accounts for only 8 days).  The actual projected increase for winter (Nov 1 – April 30) at Year 10 is indeed 80,000 vehicles which, when added to current winter volumes of 37,800 to 42,000, amounts to an increase of ca. 200%.  However, that total, expressed on a per day basis (840-870 vehicles daily over the 140 day season), constitutes less than the current summer volume of 1000 vehicles per day.  The only source of wildlife kill data for the area (MoTH's Wildlife Accident Report System, or WARS) lists no winter wildlife kills on Highway #99 – clearly, this cannot be correct.   The projected resort-caused 22% traffic increase during the summer season (to 158,500 vehicles) is considerably less than that for winter.  That total figure is itself less than 20% of the volume recorded in both Yellowstone National Park (1992-97 mean = 995,513, from YNP Web Page) and Banff National Park (1997-99 mean = 1,027,765, data from Parks Canada).  Summer WARS records for Highway #99 indicate a total of 10 kills, all deer (5 each in 1994 and 1995).

Overall, existing data do not suggest the occurrence of significant animal concentrations or crossing locations along Highway #99.  Wolves, wolverines, and grizzly bears are cited as sensitive species by some.  Wolves and wolverines might be vulnerable if there were concentrations of prey species and/or regular availability of carrion (road kills) along Highway #99, but that is not currently the case, and there is no basis for predicting a change in that regard.  The main ungulate wintering areas along the Highway #99 corridor are found on various steep slopes north of the highway, and there is no reason for either ungulates (or their predators and scavengers) to cross the highway to access the heavily logged and generally snowbound slopes to the south in that season.  The winter increase in traffic obviously has no implications for bears, which are denned at that time.  The small resort-related summer traffic increase seems little cause for concern, particularly since much of it will probably not occur in the nocturnal and crepuscular times, when carnivores are most active.  Furthermore, given that there will almost certainly be significant periods of low or no traffic after dark, an increased fragmentation effect beyond that already present is unlikely.

The relationship between traffic volume and wildlife collision mortality is not a purely mathematical one, in part because several other factors are involved (e.g. varying weather and visibility conditions, vehicle speed, road width, driver experience and awareness), and in part because animals are inclined, and often able, to take evasive action.

In summary, the Highway #99 corridor does not pass through any known seasonal wildlife concentration areas, and there is currently no evidence of regular crossing or chronic kill locations.  Further, projected traffic volumes will not be excessively high in comparison to many other highways in areas with higher wildlife use.  At the same time, current kill data are deficient and, should the project be approved, an upgrade of the reporting system is desirable to provide the basis for establishing pre-development (baseline) conditions and facilitating ongoing monitoring and appropriate adaptive management responses.

9.10.c.  Project Committee Position:  MoTH has advised the project committee that Highway #99 traffic will not increase by a factor of 10, as suggested in the Ecodomain report.  The origin of the misimpression is unclear.  Based on recent forecasts generated by MoTH for the Highway #99 Corridor Plan, regional traffic volumes are estimated to essentially double over a 25-year horizon, as a result of the general regional growth of traffic, of which resort traffic would be only one component (see chart below).

These forecasted volumes include the effects of the proposed resort, as well as other factors in regional traffic growth.  According to MoTH records, 20 wildlife vehicle collisions (2 black bear and 18 deer) occurred on Highway #99 between Mount Currie and Lillooet from 1991 to 1999.  Although these numbers are only approximate, they are relatively low, which would indicate that there is not likely a significant wildlife/vehicle conflict.  The steep terrain and location of feeding/grazing areas relative to Highway #99 support the notion that the significance of impacts on wildlife from highway traffic will not increase over time.  MELP has indicated that it would work with MoTH to address and mitigate any future identified impacts on wildlife from increased use of Highway #99.

9.11.a.  First Nations Issue - Pre- vs. post-approval wildlife inventories – Adequate wildlife inventories should be required by the EA process before the project is approved, and not conducted at NGR's discretion or conducted as post-approval monitoring projects.  Deferring such studies means an inadequate baseline (from preliminary surveys) to monitor development-related changes at the subpopulation and population levels.  If problems are identified, it is nonetheless difficult to arrange for the removal of project components which are causing problems.

9.11.b.  Proponent Response:  The inventory deferrals are for post-approval (but not post-development) surveys, so that they will still be baseline surveys.  Deferred surveys are intended for final pre-construction planning at specific facility sites and/or for species which, if present, will occur as individuals, not at the population or sub-populations levels.

9.11.c.  Project Committee Position:  As indicated in the response to item #2, the project committee is satisfied that the wildlife inventories completed to date by NGR, plus additional studies committed to by NGR, are adequate to complete an assessment of the potential effects of the project for strategic-level EA review purposes.   Further inventories, where warranted to achieve an adequate baseline, will be completed after the EA certification decision, if the project is granted an EA certificate, and prior to disturbance at the site where there is enough time available.  A pre- and post-baseline inventory may not be needed for all species, particularly if closely related species are undergoing study.

9.12.a.  First Nations Issue - Wetland and riparian habitat – Lack of a detailed village plan has hampered wetland and riparian assessments.  There is no evidence of studies of the possibly unique plant associations or invertebrates within the wetland zones which are proposed for development.  Despite probable wetland impacts, NGR's consultants evaluate the proposed reserved fens as ‘no impact' areas, and do not add their hectares to the total of wetlands lost.  A risk analysis should be undertaken, based on 1:5,000 TEM mapping, which considers the magnitude and likelihood of potential wetland and riparian impacts, and to calculate the area of wetlands which will be lost.

9.12.b.  Proponent Response:  The areas in question are wet areas at high elevation.  While deserving of special consideration because of their relative local contribution to biodiversity, they are not particularly productive.  NGR's assessment did give them special consideration, and did look for unique features of both vegetation and vertebrate occurrence.  Ecodomain is correct that there was no assessment of invertebrate occurrence - such assessments are not commonly undertaken in studies such as this.

9.12.c.  Project Committee Position:  A detailed footprint of the development was not provided in the EA review, but will be provided as part of the CASP ski area master planning process, if the project is granted an EA certificate.  NGR has agreed to preserve as much of the wetlands as possible, recognizing that they are located in the heart of the proposed Upper Village development.  In the absence of site-specific development information, MELP has opted for a conservative approach to environmental protection by requesting a range of mitigation measures, which include: restricting access to fens and wetlands and other ecologically sensitive areas, wherever possible; providing full protection for the Green Valley wetlands; providing a detailed wetland protection plan; and maintaining wetlands and stream setbacks.

9.13.a.  First Nations Issue - Comparing resort developments in National Parks – The resort should be examined in light of the setting outside a protected area, where it is more difficult to control people's activities and access.  It will be more difficult to control out-of- bounds skiing, biking and horseback riding.  The experience at other ski resorts (e.g. in the Purcell Mountains of southeastern BC and elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains (e.g. in BC, Alberta and Colorado) should be examined.

9.13.b.  Proponent Response:  Given the topography around Melvin Creek, ‘out-of-bounds' activity will be more difficult to undertake than to control, not achievable in bikes and horses, and not easy on foot.  The notion of ‘greatly modified' populations around ski resorts is not entirely consistent with the specific information compiled for NGR by Day and Odd (see Day, D., and N. Odd.  2000. "An Overview of Ski Area Experience with Mountain Goat, Grizzly Bear, and Other High-profile Species in the Rocky Mountain National Parks and Environs".  Unpubl. Rep. for NGR Resort Consultants Ltd., Iris Environmental Systems, Banff, AB.  78pp.).

9.13.c.  Project Committee Position:  Although the EA review is limited in scope to the proposed project and its potential impacts (see response to item #8), and does not undertake broad-based investigations of the type suggested here, where readily available, experience elsewhere is factored into assessments, and this has occurred in this case.  The project committee generally concurs with NGR's response – see above - and is satisfied that measures committed to by NGR will adequately address the issue.  It is expected that resort visitors would largely remain in the valley, and in the vicinity of the base development.  A small number of winter visitors or employees may ski out-of-bounds into adjacent backcountry areas, but this problem would be limited, due to the steep and dangerous access into most of the adjacent valleys, and a range of other measures to be implemented by NGR to discourage this. NGR has committed to address the issue of all-season activities outside the boundaries of the development and to implement means to minimize public access from within the resort itself to areas outside the Melvin Creek drainage.

9.14.a.  First Nations Issue - Comparing logging and resort development – The St'at'imc consultants disagree with NGR's cumulative effects assessment, which discounts most road and infrastructure impacts because of proposed logging in Melvin Creek.  Logging is not a permanent alienation of the land base, and may actually enhance certain wildlife habitats.

9.14.b.  Proponent Response:  Some changes resulting from logging (e.g., loss of soil) may extend over such a long time frame that the boundary between ‘temporary' logging impacts and ‘permanent' resort impacts becomes indistinct.  As with logging, some aspects of resort development can be expected to ‘enhance certain wildlife habitats'.  The selective use of ski runs by foraging grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area was documented in Day and Odd (2000).  Use of those habitats by black bears, deer, grouse, marmots, and other wildlife is common in other ski areas in BC.  The permanent alienation of land as a result of resort development may be offset by the capability to control access and to assist enforcement (i.e. it may have less overall impact than logging with unrestricted use of access roads.

9.14.c.  Project Committee Position:  The project committee agrees that differences exist in the extent and duration of impacts due to logging and the resort development, and has recognized this distinction in proposed studies and mitigation.  More or less temporary resource activities such as logging, while reducing the usefulness of habitats for some wildlife species (often on a temporary basis only), may have the effect of enhancing conditions for other species.  However, the construction of more or less permanent facilities for housing and infrastructure typically eliminates the usefulness of those areas for larger species of wildlife and/or sets up human/wildlife conflicts which have the potential to lead to displacement of animals from the area around the facilities.  Some species may be forced onto neighboring habitats which are less productive, or which are already occupied by competing animals.  Thus, wildlife impacts associated with permanent facilities tend to be significant and long-term in nature.  The project committee has devoted considerable attention in its review to efforts to minimize wildlife impacts, should the resort project proceed.

9.15.a.  First Nations Issue - Risk analysis – A risk analysis should be conducted for all wildlife and vegetation impacts for all aspects of resort development, and it should consider both the magnitude and likelihood of potential impacts.  Best-case , worst-case and moderate-case scenarios should be modeled over a sufficiently large land base to address population effects.

9.15.b.  Proponent Response:  NGR/Wildeor would need more specifics on how and where the NGR/Wildeor assessment would be improved by risk analysis in order to comment on this proposal.

9.15.c.  Project Committee Position:  The project report provided a qualitative discussion of the cumulative effects of the project, and identified the lack of available empirical data.  Much of the assessment relied on the professional experience and judgement of the consultants. To conduct a risk analysis, as proposed above, more empirical data would be required than is feasible or likely warranted.   Where appropriate, risk and uncertainty were considered in the assessment process.  In order to respond in more depth to this concern, further clarification from St'at'imc's consultant is needed with respect to what is meant by a risk analysis, as well as an understanding of how a risk analysis would provide information or address questions that have not already been addressed during the EA review of the project.

9.16.a.  First Nations Issue - Undertake TEM mapping of grizzly bear, black bear, wolverine, wolf and cougar habitat capability/suitability, based on a study area defined by MELP's provincial grizzly bear and carnivore specialists.

9.16.b.  Proponent Response:  TEM would not add materially to the assessment already done.

9.16.c.  Project Committee Position:  Undertaking TEM, in addition to the biophysical mapping which NGR has already provided or committed to providing, was not deemed necessary for strategic-level EA review purposes.  MELP recommends the application of an adaptive management approach, consisting of both monitoring and an effective feedback mechanism, to guide the implementation of mitigation measures and reduce impacts on the listed species.
 

SECTION 10:  MOUNTAIN GOATS

Mountain Goat Impacts

St'at'imc Report
Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs had approved the report, which is now considered final, although St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.

St'at'imc Concerns

10.1.a.  First Nations Issue - Mountain goats – MELP stressed goat concerns.  However, the FRBC-funded goat study, which was modified to take account of the resort after originally being intended to guide timber harvesting, was weak in that it did not answer critical questions about movement patterns and habitat use in Melvin Creek, and was not interpreted for a recovered goat population, which minimizes the importance of Melvin Creek for goats.  Too few goats were collared, and the collars did not have a GPS function, so that movements/locations between monitoring events were not recorded.  No billies were collared in Melvin Creek.  A GPS radiotelemetry study of goat movement patterns in Melvin Creek should be conducted, based on a study area defined by MELP's provincial ungulate specialist.  Given underutilisation of goat habitat at present, lower-quality habitat niches must be inferred, and TEM would assist this process.  Visual surveys in winter are hampered by rapid obliteration of tracks.  However, one winter sighting of 62 animals is recorded.  Melvin Creek would likely receive heavier use if the goat population were nearer historic levels.  Habitat fragmentation through elimination of travel corridors would be a concern.  Facilities near kidding areas could result in habitat abandonment.  NGR's consultant and the Lemke study (1999) adopt differing views of the likelihood of development disturbances causing habitat abandonment.

10.1.b.  Proponent Response:  The FRBC study was not designed to address all goat issues in Melvin Creek, although the radio-collared sample gave some priority to locations in the general vicinity of Melvin Creek.  The report for that study (Lemke, S.L.  1999.  "Cayoosh Range Mountain Goat Study Results and Recommendations".  FRBC Report, Re. Workplan TOM98403, Activity No. 10580, for BC MELP, Kamloops.  101pp.) was based on analysis of telemetry data, per its primary objectives.  NGR/Wildeor, per their primary objectives, analyzed and used those data (not the Lemke report or conclusions).  Wildeor's report conceded the possibility that the telemetry data might not be completely representative (see page 40, para 2), and also used other data sources and lines of reasoning in its analysis, and was not dependent on the radio-tracking study.  It is difficult to name a BC mountain goat impact assessment which was based on better information.  The assessment documentation included NGR's project report, the document prepared for the third-party review (Hatler, D.F., and G.F. Searing.  2000. "Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development: Mountain Goat Data and Issues".  Rep. Prep. For 3rd Party Review, NGR Resort Consultants Ltd., Sun Peaks, BC  17pp + appendices.), and the third-party review.

Regarding the notion of a recovered population, with only anecdotal information from the past (the 1966 Gates survey has not been produced), and no full survey since that time, there is no concrete evidence on the extent of recovery necessary, or to confirm that the current population is not already a recovered one.  Moreover, any failure to interpret the data for a recovered population does not minimize the importance of Melvin Creek to goats.  If current populations are indeed low, and animals are free to choose habitats with little or no competition, likely they would gravitate to the best habitats.  If Melvin Creek supports some of the best habitats, then the failure to interpret for a recovered population maximizes the apparent importance of Melvin Creek.  A recovered population would expand into other, less suitable areas not currently used by goats, and the relative contribution of Melvin Creek to the overall population would be diminished.  If Melvin Creek is not among the best habitats, the NGR/Wildeor assessment is further supported.

NGR/Wildeor disagree with Ecodomain's comments on potential impacts.  Ecodomain discounted the Lemke study as a reliable source of information for the Melvin Creek assessment (see above), but used a statement from Lemke's report in critiquing the NGR/Wildeor assessment.  The quoted statement is from Lemke's Section 6.4, Access Management.  NGR/Wildeor identified access effects, if not mitigated, as among the most important for mountain goats, although MELP disagreed.  The relevant section of Lemke's report (6.3, Commercial Recreational Development) lists concerns and mitigation recommendations that accord with those in the project report.

10.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  MELP's Regional Wildlife Plan in 1983 outlines an objective to restore the mountain goat populations to 1960 levels in the Cayoosh Range. The original intent of the FRBC mountain goat study was to address logging concerns in adjacent watersheds.  The FRBC study, which was already in progress for one year before the development entered the EA process, received some additional funding to expand the terms of reference to allow increased focus on the project development area.  The intent of the study was to focus primarily on habitat, and was not designed or funded to explore population trends.  NGR has committed to continuing mountain goat monitoring, and this further study should provide an inventory of the present mountain goat population monitored over time, and an adequate sampling of radio-collared mountain goats.  The terms of reference of this study will be based on consensus between MELP and NGR, with an independent scientific review team making recommendations.  MELP's ungulate specialist will be directly involved in the development of the terms of reference for this study. Monitoring will be carried out during the pre-construction, construction and operations periods.

10.2.a.  First Nations Issue - Third-party review of mountain goat studies – The third-party consultants flag the fact that the Lemke study was not intended to answer questions for the EA review of the resort proposal.  They also note the limitations of VHF radio-collar goat monitoring, difficulties in identifying the cause of species decline at the population level, and the lack of research into ski resort impacts on goats.  Despite this, the third-party consultants conclude that there will be little impact on local and Cayoosh Range goat populations.  There is no new insight into risk of impact at the sub-group and population level.  The consultants place little weight on MELP's population recovery objective, and supported NGR's view that there is a difference between winter use and winter range.  The St'at'imc consultants believe that the review should have been conducted by the Wildlife Branch and Resource Inventory Branch.

10.2.b.  Proponent Response:  See response to item #1.  The third-party reviewers had broad experience and expertise, conducted in-depth analysis of NGR's data, and viewed the areas of concern at Melvin Creek first-hand, so their assessment should not be discounted.  Not only MELP employees are qualified to conduct such a review.

10.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  See the project committee's response to item #1.  MELP's Wildlife Branch participated in setting up the third-party review of mountain goat issues, including the development of terms of reference and selection of appropriate qualified consultants.  Both NGR and MELP agreed to accept the conclusions and recommendations of the third-party review

10.3.a.  First Nations Issue - Wolves and wolf predation on mountain goats – NGR's consultants predict low wolf impacts, which fail to take account of the fact that the wolf population appears to be recovering.  Improved access (roads, trails, etc.) provides ready corridors for wolf movement, and could increase mountain goat predation.  The consultants recommended a predator access study to determine if road construction into sub-alpine/alpine areas within (or near) goat range will alter wolf/goat predator/prey relationships.

10.3.b.  Proponent Response:  Since there was no historical record of wolves in the Cayoosh Range prior to the late 1990s, the term range expansion may be more appropriate than recovery.  Concern for resort effects on wolf recovery is inconsistent with any suggested recovery goal for mountain goats.  Any ‘enhanced movements to alpine/subalpine areas' would occur only in winter, when NGR's data indicate that there is little prey available in the Melvin Creek drainage, and therefore little reason for wolves to travel there in that season.  During the snow-free period, wolves can and do travel through and over alpine and subalpine habitats.  A more likely scenario is that wolves will continue to exist in the Cayoosh Range, providing that (1) they are not deliberately and specifically exposed to human control, and (2) there is a sufficient prey base.  They will likely avoid facilities such as the proposed resort, thereby creating a small local predator refuge for some prey individuals).  The issue is not significant in this situation.  Wolves are not now limited in their access to and around subalpine and alpine areas, except when snow conditions are limiting (soft and deep), at which time ungulate prey species are not present and small mammals are not available.

10.3.c.  Project Committee Position:  The project committee accepts the opinion of MELP's wildlife staff that wolves are not expected to be an unusual cause of predator access concern, given the number of people who will be at, or in the vicinity of, the development area.  Wolves are not expected to travel up packed runs from the village core, where people are present.  NGR has committed to prohibiting recreational snowmobile activity within the Melvin Creek drainage.  There is some potential for wolves to use packed trails in adjacent drainages to access mountain goats.  However this issue largely non-project-related, and is beyond the scope of the EA- review.
 

SECTION 11:  GRIZZLY BEARS

Grizzly Bear Impacts

St'at'imc Report
Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs had approved the report, which is now considered final, although St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.

St'at'imc Concerns

11.1.a.  First Nations Issue - Grizzly bear recovery area – The MELP Minister has declared the Stein- Nahatlatch grizzly bear population ‘threatened', and designated the area to be a ‘recovery area'.  This has implications for the assessment, especially since the grizzly bear population in the Cayoosh and Melvin Creek watersheds was not inventoried or monitored.  If recovery is the goal, even a small potential impact is contrary to recovery, and therefore significant and adverse.  Despite the view of NGR's consultant, there is evidence of a formerly much larger population.  The Antifeau report (1980) and MELP Wildlife Branch information demonstrate the importance of Melvin Creek and surrounding areas for grizzly bear habitat.  Open access and liberal hunting policies have depleted the Cayoosh area populations over time, and they appear to be in the early phase of recovery.  As recovery progresses, bear/human conflicts at the resort could increase over the next 20 to 30 years.

11.1.b.  Proponent Response:  The NGR/Wildeor assessment included consideration of the likely relative importance of the Melvin Creek drainage to bears in the Cayoosh Range.  Based on these studies in Melvin Creek and adjacent drainages, there is no reason to conclude that Melvin Creek is pivotal, either as foraging or movement habitat.  The Antifeau report does not demonstrate a formerly much larger population.  If other MELP Wildlife Branch information so indicates, it has not been shared with NGR.  Ecodomain's comments suggest that any other information is primarily in the form of habitat capability assessments.  Such assessments are theoretical, not empirical, and not necessarily correct.  The fact that an area could support higher numbers of bears is not evidence that it has done so.  Ecodomain's grizzly bear section begins by stating: "…The statement by Hatler et al (1999) that ‘There is no evidence that a separate, fully viable population of grizzly bears has ever existed in the Cayoosh Range' is both inaccurate and misleading….Firstly, there are few areas of the size of the Cayoosh Range which support a ‘...separate viable population of grizzly bears..."  That was also Wildeor's point, so the statement is accurate, not misleading.  In any case, despite what the data indicated, NGR/Wildeor identified grizzly bears as the species of most concern after mountain goats, described the potential concerns, and identified the need for an appropriate mitigation plan.  Ecodomain did not provide evidence to support its apparent position, for both goat and grizzly bear, that mitigation is not possible.

11.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  The project committee is still considering this issue and completing its assessment of this matter.  The project committee accepts the professional judgement of MELP's grizzly bear specialists that the resort, even taking into account NGR's mitigation commitments, has the potential for substantial direct and cumulative impacts on the Stein- Nahatlatch grizzly bear population, and on the potential to recover the population in the future.  However, MELP has also stated that these impacts could be substantially addressed by a combination of mitigation measures.  While details are still being worked out, these measures are essentially two- fold: (1) a comprehensive bear management plan to be implemented by NGR; and (2) complementary measures to be implemented by government agencies (MELP, MoF and BCAL) to manage any increased recreational use of surrounding areas by resort visitors, residents and workers.  Given NGR's existing commitments, the most substantial additional mitigation responsibilities are those which would rest with the provincial government.  NGR has committed to developing and implementing a bear management plan which includes measures for managing any recreational use outside the Melvin Creek basin which originates directly from the resort (e.g. people hiking, biking, riding horses or driving motorised vehicles from the resort into neighbouring drainages).  This plan is to be developed to the satisfaction of the RM-FWH, and if effectively implemented, will partially address the component of this issue that is under NGR's control.  The intent should be to minimise, to the greatest degree possible, the movement of people from the Melvin Creek drainage directly into surrounding drainages.  Arrangements to implement these measures should be in place prior to the construction and operation of the project, and should be complemented by an adaptive management approach in which the results of an effective monitoring program allow refinement of these measures.

11.2.a.  First Nations Issue - Conduct a GPS radiotelemetry study of grizzly bears in Melvin Creek, based on a study area defined by MELP's provincial grizzly bear specialist.

11.2.b.  Proponent Response:  The suggested GPS studies are not necessary for impact assessment at the EA certification level, and it is not clear that they would have great value.

11.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  GPS radiotelemetry is not a recommended means of determining bear movement in a study area.  The Bear Management Plan which NGR has committed to develop and implement if the project is granted an EA certificate is expected to incorporate appropriate monitoring and feedback mechanisms for adaptive management of this species.
 

12.  BIRDS

St'at'imc Report
Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs had approved the report, which is now considered final, although St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.St'at'imc Concerns

12.1.a.  First Nations Issue - Inadequate inventories – Given the significance of wildlife resources, the wildlife studies were inadequate for informed decisions.  Inferences about presence or abundance of some species (e.g. Harlequin Duck and Spotted Owl) are made without current Melvin Creek survey data.

12.1.b.  Proponent Response:  See section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #2.  Regarding Spotted Owl, this species, if it occurs at all, is most likely to occur in the lower, drier portion of the valley, which will be subject to logging, whether or not there is a ski development.  Spotted Owl is surveyed by establishing night transects, with stations set up at intervals to listen for calls.  In consultation with biologists experienced in those surveys (Donald Demarchi and John Surgenor, pers. comm.), it was confirmed that such surveys are logistically difficult and unsafe without roads or, at minimum, well-developed trails, and the specific survey was therefore deferred.

12.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  The project committee is satisfied with the conservative approach adopted in MELP and CWS advice, placing its emphasis on developing mitigation measures to address concerns, rather than on detailed inventory studies. NGR has committed to employ a qualified biological consultant to conduct a Harlequin Duck survey during the appropriate seasons and prior to any logging, blasting or road construction. This survey should determine Harlequin Duck presence and abundance in the development area.  A one-season Spotted Owl inventory will also be conducted as part of NGR's commitments.

12.2.a.  First Nations Issue – Harlequin Ducks - Have a qualified biological consultant conduct a Harlequin Duck survey prior to plan approval, and develop any required mitigation measures.

12.2.b.  Proponent Response:  Intensive study activity in the area in recent years and professional judgement combine to suggest that Harlequin Duck is not a species of high concern in the area.  Nevertheless, an intensive pre-development survey will be undertaken if the project is approved.  Continued failure to find Harlequin Ducks in the area, even in intensive surveys, will not prove that they do not occasionally occur there, but it is not a focal species for EA certification purposes.

12.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  Further to the previous response, the project committee is satisfied with the recommendation of MELP and CWS that the survey need not be completed prior to an EA certification decision, providing that it is completed prior to any logging by Ainsworth, or any project construction disturbance.
 

SECTION 15.  CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Cumulative Wildlife Impacts

St'at'imc Report
Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment for St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development, dated March 16, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Demarchi and Carol Hartwig.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs had approved the report, which is now considered final, although St'at'imc Chiefs dispute the consultant's statement that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in the province, since the province is deemed to have asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'at'imc territory without St'at'imc consent.

St'at'imc Concerns

15.1.a.  First Nations Issue - Inadequate wildlife inventories – Given the significance of wildlife resources, the wildlife studies were inadequate for informed decisions.  The wildlife study area was not large enough to assess biological or population impacts, especially on wide-ranging species (e.g. grizzly bears, wolverine, wolves).

15.1.b.  Proponent Response:  see section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #2.

15.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  The wildlife inventories submitted by NGR were deemed adequate by the project committee and MELP staff to complete an assessment of the potential effects of the project for strategic-level EA review purposes.  If the project is granted an EA certificate, further work would be completed prior to development, consistent with NGR's commitments.  This work would include detailed riparian evaluations, a one-season Spotted Owl inventory, a July/August ground survey prior to any site disturbance to inventory rare and endangered plants and fauna, and inspection to confirm the site-specific presence/absence of threatened and endangered plants at potential sites in the development area.  The Grizzly Bear Assessment Report by MELP's Carnivore Specialist describes the area which could potentially be impacted by the project, and refers to mitigation/compensation measures which could address the impacts.  While details are still being worked out by the project committee, these measures are essentially two-fold: (1) a comprehensive bear management plan to be implemented by NGR; and (2) complementary measures to be implemented by government agencies (MELP, MoF and BCAL) to manage any increased recreational use of surrounding areas by resort visitors, residents and workers.  Although no further study is proposed, follow-up monitoring is recommended to confirm the effectiveness of agreed-to measures.

15.2.a.  First Nations Issue - Impacts beyond Melvin Creek – Ecosign indicated in a 1999 report that the area could support up to 27,900 skiers per day, although the current EA application is for 12,000 skiers per day.  The expansion potential has not been assessed during the EA review, including MELP's wildlife assessments.  The wildlife study area should have been larger, especially if expansion plans are possible.  Adventure tourism opportunities associated with the resort are not being addressed in the EA process in general, or the wildlife studies in particular.

15.2.b.  Proponent Response:  see section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #8.

15.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  The EA Act legislates that the review process will focus on the project as proposed by the proponent.  It is not the task of project committees to speculate on possible future modifications or expansions of projects under review. Various statutory procedural options are available to government to consider future proposals to modify a certified project, once development is underway.  Having said that, it is true that it would be difficult to accommodate 27,900 skiers per day at the proposed resort location, even if technically, that much skiable terrain could be identified.  It is unlikely that proposals for resort expansion on anything like that scale in the future would be approvable, given the priority which needs to be placed minimizing off-site environmental effects if the resort proceeds in its current form (e.g. to protect grizzly bear values).  Much of the focus of the EA review has been placed on measures to contain this resort within the Melvin Creek drainage, because of significant concern over impacts on surrounding drainages.  If ministers wish to grant an EA certificate to this project, the project committee is recommending that approval be on the basis that the resort NOT sponsor any recreational activities such as adventure tourism outside the drainage (e.g. helicopter recreation).  In addition to the role of the EA process in establishing appropriate location, design and operating constraints on the resort, the project committee recognizes that there is also a role for land use planning processes (e.g. through the Lillooet LRMP) and resource management agencies in ensuring that non-resort-related backcountry recreation activities in surrounding areas are effectively managed – see, for example, responses to comments on grizzly bear impacts in section 11.

15.3.a.  First Nations Issue - Helicopter skiing – would cause new wildlife impacts.  Helicopter recreation should be prohibited in the Cayoosh Range.  Even though NGR commits that helicopter-based tourism will not be incorporated into the resort's operational plan, there could be pressure from others to base helicopter operations at the resort.

15.3.b.  Proponent Response:  see section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #9.

15.3.c.  Project Committee Position:  The EA review is limited in scope to the proposed project and its potential impacts (see response to item #8).  The resort will not include helicopter-based recreation activities (neither heli-skiing nor heli-hiking). The EA review does not have the mandate to assess impacts from non-project- related helicopter-based recreation, except in the more generalized context of the resort project's cumulative environmental effects (see section 15).  MELP has identified the potential impacts of non-resort-related helicopter-based recreation on key wildlife species (e.g. mountain goat, grizzly bear) in discussions with appropriate regulatory agencies, notably BCAL.  BCAL's position is that any applications for heli-skiing which have the potential to impact on critical goat and grizzly bear habitat would require environmental impact assessments, including addressing cumulative impacts.  MELP would be one of the key reviewing agencies.

15.4.a.  First Nations Issue - Highway #99 – There is no wildlife impact assessment for the increased traffic.  Traffic on Highway #99 will increase at least ten times from the current 1,000 vehicles per day to 10,000 per day as a direct result of the resort.  Wildlife impacts could be significant, and should be studied.  Highways cause habitat fragmentation for wide-ranging species such as grizzly bears and wolverine.  The consultants recommend a Highway #99 wildlife impact assessment, based on year-round traffic flows as they relate to seasonal wildlife movements.

15.4.b.  Proponent Response:  see section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #10.

15.4.c.  Project Committee Position:  As discussed in section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), Highway #99 traffic will not increase by a factor of 10, rather, based upon recent forecasts undertaken by MoTH for the Highway #99 Corridor Plan, traffic volumes will essentially double over a 25 year horizon.  These forecasted volumes include the effects of the proposed resort being approved and constructed.  According to MoTH records, 20 wildlife vehicle collisions (2 bear black bear and 18 deer) occurred on Highway #99 between Mount Currie and Lillooet from 1991 to 1999.  Although these numbers are only approximate, they are relatively low which would indicate that there is not likely a significant wildlife/vehicle conflict.  The steep terrain and location of feeding/grazing areas relative to Highway #99 support the notion that the significance of impacts to wildlife from highway traffic will not increase over time.  MELP has indicated that it would work with MoTH to address and mitigate any future identified impacts on wildlife from increased use of Highway #99.

15.5.a.  First Nations Issue - Comparing resort developments in National Parks – The resort should be examined in light of the setting outside a protected area, where it is more difficult to control people's activities and access.  It will be more difficult to control out-of-bounds skiing, biking and horseback riding.  The experience at other ski resorts (e.g. in the Purcell Mountains of southeastern BC and elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains (e.g. in BC, Alberta and Colorado) should be examined.

15.5.b.  Proponent Response:  see section 9 (Wildlife Resources – General), response to First Nations item #13.

15.5.c.  Project Committee Position: Although the EA review is limited in scope to the proposed project and its potential impacts, and does not undertake broad- based investigations of the type suggested here, where readily available, experience elsewhere is factored into assessments, and this has occurred in this case.  The project committee is satisfied that measures committed to by NGR will adequately address the issue.  A small number of winter visitors or employees may ski out-of-bounds into adjacent backcountry areas, but this problem would be limited, due to the steep and dangerous access into most of the adjacent valleys, and a range of other measures to be implemented by NGR to discourage this. NGR has committed to address the issue of all-season activities outside the boundaries of the development and to implement means to minimize public access from within the resort itself to areas outside the Melvin Creek drainage.
 

SECTION 22:  REGIONAL TRAFFIC EFFECTS

St'at'imc Report
St'at'imc Impact Assessment Study - Proposed Cayoosh Resort - Comments on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues, prepared by UMA Engineering.

Status as of April 7, 2000 - St'at'imc Chiefs have approved the report, which is now considered final.

St'at'imc Concerns

The second section of the report evaluated, from the perspective of the St'at'imc communities, the impacts of increased traffic generated by the resort development.

22.1.a.  First Nations Issue:  The report noted that the traffic projections provided in the project report appeared reasonable.  It also noted that the two St'at'imc communities which would be affected by increased traffic volumes along Highway #99 would be Mount Currie and Cayoose.  The issues raised by these communities concern the impact of increased vehicular traffic on non-vehicular background traffic, and the general increase in traffic throughout the day over present levels.  There was concern that an increase in traffic from the resort would have a detrimental effect on non-vehicular movements (by pedestrians, cyclists, horseback riders, etc.).  In order to address this concern, the report recommended that an additional study take place to quantify the impact of the resort traffic on non-vehicular traffic in both the Mount Currie and Cayoose communities.  The study should assess traffic throughout the day, and not be confined to the resort's peak hours, and should include the impacts of construction-related traffic during project development.

22.1.b.  Proponent Response:  If the resort proceeds, the daytime traffic volumes along Highway #99 will be slightly increased from the existing average volume flows during the winter months.  Present volumes are on average 30 to 40 vehicles per hour, and with the resort, an additional 20 to 30 vehicles per hour may pass through during the non-peak period.  These traffic volumes should be well below the Year 10 peak hourly volumes of 329 vehicles southbound and 173 vehicles northbound, but more than the existing 30 vehicles per hour.  Presumably MoTH will address the issue of non-vehicular traffic in both Mount Currie and Cayoose, with sidewalks required as the resort traffic develops.  Construction-related traffic would most likely impact the Cayoose Reserve.  In terms of construction materials, it is anticipated that a concrete plant will be established near the resort area, thus avoiding the need to route heavy construction trucks through both Mount Currie and Cayoose.  However, building material will be delivered through both the communities (mostly from Lillooet) during the summer and fall seasons.

22.1.c.  Project Committee Position:  UMA's technical assessment appears to be reasonable, other than that the traffic effects of the resort relate to spreading of the daily traffic peak from the summer months over the entire year.  Summer peaking characteristics relate more to tourism traffic and background traffic on Highway #99, while winter traffic is more a reflection of traffic from the resort.  Furthermore, the year 10 traffic forecasts on Highway #99 through Mount Currie could be handled with a two-lane roadway.  If non-vehicular traffic is an issue for the First Nations communities, a further study of this issue could be undertaken with MoTH.  However, traffic impacts on the communities would not be caused solely by the resort.  Normal background growth in traffic, even without the resort, will result in summer traffic volumes by year 10 which could be great enough to be of concern to First Nations, based on points raised in the UMA report.  Solutions considered to mitigate impacts on non-vehicular traffic (i.e. pedestrians, bicycles, horseback riders) may include separation of the roadway from other paths or non-vehicular locations.  Given the relatively narrow roadway width through portions of the First Nations communities, this type of solution may only be achievable with the acquisition of additional property adjacent to the roadway, which would also have an impact on First Nations, as pointed out on page 11 of the report.

22.2.a.  First Nations Issue:  The report raised an issue with respect to the timing of improvements to the Duffey Lake Road.  Concern was expressed that, in the absence of a firm budget and schedule, the improvements may lag behind the demand placed on the road by the resort development.  In order to address this, the report noted the need for a firm commitment to provide improvements to the Duffey Lake Road no later than when warranted by resort traffic.

22.2.b.  Proponent Response:  This is a MoTH issue.  It is anticipated that improvements will be made to the Duffey Lake Road as the existing summer peak traffic warrants.  It is the summer traffic which will determine the need for improvements, since as the winter traffic volumes are well below anticipated summer volumes.

22.2.c.  Project Committee Position:  The province will work with all levels of government to determine improvements required to meet future traffic volumes on Highway #99.  Improvements are needed to meet the general regional growth of traffic – the resort proposal, by itself, is not prompting the need for those improvements.  Implementation of any roadway improvements are subject to provincial priorities and funding availability.

22.3.a.  First Nations Issue:  The communities of Skatin, Xa'xtsa and Samahquam raised concerns about potential improvements to the Harrison Lake route.  These communities are aware of archaeological studies of gravel pit prospects along the Harrison Lake/Lillooet Lake corridor.  The report recommended that, if plans to improve this route are approved, the province should consult in detail with these three communities, and traffic studies should be undertaken to examine the impacts of such improvements.

22.3.b.  Proponent Response:  NGR is not aware of any such plans by the province.  Such plans are not proposed for purposes of NGR's resort proposal.  It is hoped that the province would consult with Bands, and that the Bands would be involved in planning for such a major undertaking.

22.3.c.  Project Committee Position:  This issue is not directly relevant to the EA review of the Melvin Creek/Cayoosh resort proposal, but the project committee has received feedback from MoTH.  It is acknowledged that the province has undertaken some investigation of an alternative route from Harrison Mills to Highway #99, in order to accommodate information requests from the treaty process in this area.  Planning analysis of this and other route alternatives around the province is no indication that the province is committed to construction of such a route, and at the present, there are no plans to proceed with this route.  In the past, MoTH has acknowledged that significant consultation with First Nations has yet to take place.  If the project were to be seriously considered, there would be consultation both before and after any decision to proceed.
 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIA - Archaeological Impact Assessment
Ainsworth - Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd.
Antiquus - Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd.
AOA - Archaeological Overview Assessment
ATV(s) - all-terrain vehicle(s)
BCAL - BC Assets and Land Corporation
BCAS - BC Ambulance Service
CASP - Commercial Alpine Ski Policy
CDC  - Conservation Data Center
CEAA - Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CMT(s) - culturally modified tree(s)
COSEWIC - Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
CSA - Canadian Standards Association
CWS - Canadian Wildlife Service
DESCO - Distributed Energy Services Co. Ltd.
DFO - Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DoT  - Transport Canada
EA - environmental assessment
EA Act - Environmental Assessment Act
EAO - Environmental Assessment Office
EA process - environmental assessment process
EA review - environmental assessment review
FRAP - Fraser River Action Plan
FRBC - Forest Renewal
BCGPS - geographic positioning system
HCA - Heritage Conservation Act
HRDC - Human Resources Development Canada
LGL - LGL Limited
LNG - liquid natural gas
LRMP - Land and Resource Management Plan
LRMP process - Land and Resource Management Planning process
MAETT - Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology
MAG - Ministry of Attorney General
MCDCV - Ministry of Community Development, Co-operatives and Volunteers
MELP - Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
MEM - Ministry of Energy and Mines
MMA - Ministry of Municipal Affairs
MoF - Ministry of Forests
MoTH - Ministry of Transportation and Highways
MSBTC - Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture
MSDES - Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security
MU - Grizzly bear Management Unit
NGR - NGR Resort Consultants Inc.
Project committee - Melvin Creek/Cayoosh project committee
Proponent - NGR Resort Consultants Inc.
RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RIC  - Resource Inventory Committee
RM-FWH MELP - Regional Manager – Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, Min. of Environment, Lands and Parks
SLRD - Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
TEM - terrestrial ecosystem mapping
TVBRIM - Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Reconnaissance Inventory Manual
UMA UMA - Engineering Ltd.Urbanics Urbanics Consultants Ltd.
WARS  - Wildlife Accident Report System
WCB - Workers Compensation Board
Wildeor - Wildeor Wildlife Research and Consulting