Table of Contents

     Introduction
1.  First Nations Issue - Environmental Assessment Process
2.  First Nations Issue - Review of Wildlife Inventory and Impact Analysis
3.  First Nations Issue - Independent MELP review
4.  First Nations Issue - Black Bear, Cougar, Lynx, and Wolverine
5.  First Nations Issue - Terrestrial ecosystem mapping
6.  First Nations Issue - Mule deer
7.  First Nations Issue - Problem Wildlife Management
8.  First Nations Issue - Larger Related Impacts
9.  First Nations Issue - Heli-skiing
10.  First Nations Issue - Highway #99
11.  First Nations Issue - Future Inventories After Approval
12.  First Nations Issue - Riparian and Wetland Wildlife Habitats
13.  First Nations Issue - Comparing resort developments in National Parks
14.  First Nations Issue - Comparing Logging and Resort Development
15.  First Nations Issue - Risk Analysis
16.  First Nations Issue - TEM Mapping for Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Wolverine, Wolf and Cougar Habitat Capability/Suitability
17.  First Nations Issue - Mountain Goats
18.  Grizzly Bear Impacts
19.  Cumulative Environmental Effects
20.  Conclusion

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to respond to comments from the Project Review Committee about technical issues and potential impacts associated with wildlife and wildlife habitat, that were raised in our March 16, 2000 Final Report, "Review of Wildlife and Habitat Assessment For St'át'imc Impact Assessment Study of the Proposed Cayoosh Resort Development."

We were originally asked to consider and review the wildlife related documentation prepared by NGR Resort Consultants, and the available commentary from the Environmental Assessment Office, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.  That Final Report was based on Terms of Reference approved by the St'át'imc leaders on behalf of the 11 St'át'imc First Nation communities.

This new document is on behalf of the St'át'imc First Nation and it is intended to pursue the question: Were the wildlife inventories comprehensive enough to cover all the significant wildlife resources of Melvin Creek and were the wildlife inventories adequate enough to evaluate the impacts of the proposed  development resort?

1.  First Nations Issue - Environmental Assessment Process

Ecodomain Consulting made a very basic assertion that MELP did not have a comprehensive strategic plan, a neutral review by appropriate government scientists, or provincially standardized methodologies for the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for wildlife and wildlife habitat for the proposed Cayoosh resort development.  These assertions were not answered by the Project Review Committee (PRC).  The Environmental Assessment Act states in Section 2(d) that it will "provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment" of reviewable projects.  The statements from the PRC about how regional staff resources were identified to address all aspects of concern to MELP, does not answer the question about a strategic plan nor does it adequately address the need to provide for an open, accountable and neutrally administered process with provincially standardized methodologies.

An accountable and neutrally administered process that is strategically organized, is one that that organizes staff, resources and guidelines into the most advantageous position prior to engaging the plan. A strategic plan would involve not only the appointment of various agencies to the Project Review Committee and the listing of concerns and the studies generally required. It also involves:

1) using recognized experts from all involved and legally mandated agencies with experience and skills applicable to the EA from the onset, as well as
2) applying previously established standardized provincial guidelines for the types of wildlife studies and
3) establishing the level of intensity or significance required for acceptance.

NGR has made it very clear throughout the process that MELP has continued to change the goal-posts on them, thus the plan changed continually rather than being worked out systematically in advance. NGR claims now that MELP's review effort was "diligent, concerted, and conscientious", but this is to be expected from a proponent seeking approval for a project.  The fact remains that MELP did not require provincially standardized RIC surveys, nor (most importantly) was the level of significance of an impact that would be warranted significant enough to cancel or significantly change the project established prior to the assessment.

"Discussion with MELP regional staff on the applicability of the new TVBRIM (Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Reconnaissance Inventory Manual) methodology, used to inventory and rate the sensitivity of riparian areas," is listed under the Project Report Specification.  It is not clear how a discussion is a specification for an environmental assessment.  The requirements listed as specifications are very general,  (e.g., "Field surveys and mapping...", "...assessment of the potential impacts...").  This is a rather informal approach for a regulatory body to take, particularly in a province where Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) standards exist for most of these surveys and mapping procedures.

Recently, MELP hired a consultant to review existing wildlife EA reports and to provide comment about what guidelines for wildlife studies should be required for EA processes (that report has been finished and accepted).  Currently MELP is in the process of organizing staff to agree on the guidelines for EA and there is tentative agreement that RIC standards for wildlife studies do apply for most EA purposes.  In the interests of the wildlife resources in Melvin Creek, the St'át'imc First Nation must assess whether the EA for wildlife has been an open, accountable and neutrally administered process that was strategically positioned from the outset with provincially standardized methodologies.  It is our considered opinion that it was not.

2.  First Nations Issue-Review of Wildlife Inventory and Impact Analysis

The comments from the PRC have confirmed that MELP did not require inventories that would allow a full assessment of the impact of a ski resort.  We have been asked to assess whether the wildlife inventories were adequate.

We stand by our original statements, "Considering the significance of the wildlife resources in the subject area of Cayoosh and Melvin watersheds and the magnitude of the proposed Cayoosh resort development, the wildlife studies were inadequate to make informed decisions about the impacts of the proposed resort development.  One major short-coming was that the study area for wildlife was not large enough to study the biological or population effects, particularly for wide-ranging species such as grizzly bears, wolverine and wolves."  Other shortcomings include:

1) some groups of species were not included (species such as invertebrates, plants and plant associations are increasingly becoming important to evaluate considering their importance in ecosystems),
2) grizzly bears were not given sufficient attention,
3) mule deer and black bear populations were not systematically inventoried, and
4) some studies were natural history investigations and not suitable as inventories.

NGR underestimates the experience of Ecodomain Consulting by suggesting that we do not understand the term "inventory".  We have never misled anyone to think that an inventory necessarily means absolute numbers.  In fact, we quote from a document of ours, published in June 1999, "Wildlife managers rarely count all the wildlife in an area to get accurate numbers.  In fact, studies have shown that attempts at total counts are less accurate than taking smaller random samples to arrive at an estimate of wildlife numbers."  The ultimate point that is lost on NGR and the PRC is whether the wildlife inventories were adequate to assess the impact of the resort.  We maintain they were not.

3.  First Nations Issue - Independent MELP review

The St'át'imc dispute that MELP is legally responsible for wildlife in their territory because they deem that the province has asserted jurisdiction over wildlife in St'át'imc territory without St'át'imc consent.  Ecodomain Consulting respects this position of the St'át'imc First Nation.  For the purposes of this review, we will clarify that under the existing rule of law, we are making an assumption that the Wildlife Act of British Columbia is the legal authority for wildlife in the province of British Columbia.

Under this existing legal authority, the Wildlife Branch is ultimately responsible and should be held accountable for the fate of the wildlife resources of St'át'imc territory.  For this reason it is imperative that the Wildlife Branch set the standards for assessing developments which impact wildlife populations and their habitats. This legal authority rests with the Director of Wildlife and not the regional office of the Ministry of Environment or some other government agency such as the Environmental Assessment Office.  Additionally, there should be a clear arms-length relationship with a proponent's consultants.  If a proponent's consultant assists in developing specifications, developing methodologies, or critiquing third-party reviews, then the neutrality and independence of MELP's review process could be considered compromised.

The role of the Conservation Data Centre (CDC) is to provide existing "species at risk" data. Ecodomain consulting did not suggest that the CDC be asked to undertake an independent assessment of projects. However the Resources Inventory Branch as a member of the provincial government's RIC not only assists in setting provincial inventory and mapping standards but also serves to ensure that these standards are upheld. Ecodomain Consulting maintains our original position that both the Wildlife Branch and the Resources Inventory Branch should have been directly involved in the EA from the beginning. We again recommend that the EAO engage not only the regional operations of MELP but also the Wildlife Branch and the Resources Inventory Branch in the project monitoring and approval process in all future matters involving wildlife and wildlife habitat.

4.  First Nations Issue-Black Bear, Cougar, Lynx, and Wolverine

If a resort is constructed, the Melvin Creek drainage will become a "sink habitat" where within-habitat reproduction is insufficient to balance local mortality. While NGR suggested in their comments that total displacement of these animals may occur, the siting of a ski resort does not mean that these species will not attempt to use Melvin Creek, particularly if there are resources to attract them (cats, dogs, garbage, forage) or habitats which are even temporarily suitable for denning, foraging (ski slopes), and movement corridors.  It is not uncommon for these large and medium-sized carnivore species to occur even in populated areas in British Columbia.  Such sink habitats put demands on adjacent landscapes to produce a supply of animals thereby negatively affecting a larger area than just that directly adversely impacted by the development.

The surveys were inadequate to have an accurate inventory of the animals and consequently it is not possible to know the impacts on the populations in the Cayoosh as a whole.  Because Conservation Officers destroy black bears in the province, does not mean that this species has no value or that impacts cannot be measured.  The province's Bear Aware program is attempting to reduce the need for the number of control actions by Conservation Officers.  The ultimate point for the St'át'imc is not how black bears, cougar, lynx and wolverine are managed provincially, but how a resort in Melvin Creek will affect these species.  The red or blue-listing of a species is not the only determinant in evaluating the importance or significance of a species to the St'át'imc.

5.  First Nations Issue- Terrestrial ecosystem mapping

It is circular logic by the PRC to suggest that the Resources Inventory Branch was not invited to review the consultant's maps because TEM mapping procedures were not employed.  The point is, TEM was not employed and the Resources Inventory Branch were not involved whereas they have been in many other EA processes.  The Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Reconnaissance Inventory Manual (TVBRIM) form of mapping which was developed and applied by the consultant is a form of mapping which has not been accepted by RIC as a standard mapping procedure.  It is likely that TVBRIM is provisional and will require further review by experts and possibly a period of refinement.  The PRC maintains that TVBRIM was acceptable to MELP for this project. While MELP may have accepted this lower standard, a key question that has to be answered by the St'át'imc is: Is this level of mapping adequate to address St'át'imc's interests in the wildlife resource?

Ecodomain Consulting stands by our original recommendation that suitable scale TEM mapping be conducted both within and adjacent to the subject area.  Ecodomain Consulting has learned that in addition to the projects listed in our original submission, TEM mapping is also being employed for the EA of the Southern British Columbia Natural Gas Pipeline project.
In addition, a streamlined version of TEM (i.e., provisional ecosystem mapping or PEM) which utilizes many of the same techniques is being developed to be applied to forest developments province-wide.  Thus TEM is the standard that a neutrally- administered, independent MELP EA would require.

6.  First Nations Issue-Mule deer

The PRC states, "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." There is an obvious disparity between "positively affected" and/or "negatively impacted". Contrary to PRC's assurances, this suggests that at the present time the existing mule deer studies are not adequate.

Not enough is known about the potential effects of the proposed ski resort on the ecology, distribution and abundance of mule deer to predict whether the net effect will be beneficial or harmful to the Melvin Creek mule deer population. This also applies to any other portion of the greater Cayoosh mule deer population, which may utilize Melvin Creek as a movement corridor, or as seasonal range. Considering the importance of mule deer to the St'át'imc, and the disparity in PRC's evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed ski resort, Ecodomain maintains our original recommendation that TEM mapping of mule deer habitat be conducted prior to any development and that a suitable mule deer distribution, movement and abundance study be conducted either with or without the use of GPS radio-collars.

7.  First Nations Issue-Problem Wildlife Management

Ecodomain Consulting is concerned with the response of the PRC vis-à-vis the development of a Problem Wildlife Management plan.  It should not be the responsibility of a proponent to develop and implement a Problem Wildlife Management Plan.  The development of such a plan must include the direct involvement of the affected First Nations.  In addition to approval by the Regional Fish and Wildlife Habitat Manager, it should also be approved by the Director of Wildlife.  It should also be noted that the response from PRC does not address the habituation of certain wildlife species such as mule deer, to become "tourist attractions" as suggested by the proponent.  Whether or not this is acceptable to the St'át'imc should be determined.

8.  First Nations Issue-Larger Related Impacts

The PRC maintains that it is "not the task of the project committee to speculate on possible future modifications or expansions of projects under review."  It is not speculation when there is documented evidence that a report contracted by the proponent for the EA process has proposed a larger resort area with more than double the number of skiers (Ecosign, 1999). It is undeniable that while a narrow interpretation of the EA Act could allow the PRC to use blinders in assessing a project, it is not a cautious approach to protecting the environmental resources of the province or of the St'át'imc territory.

The PRC makes a rather significant statement that an expansion would be unlikely because of 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)."  This is an indication of the significance of the impacts which are anticipated by MELP on the grizzly bear population in the Cayoosh.  The PRC goes on to say, "...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)."  This is another indication that the PRC is aware of the significance of the disruption of wildlife values in Melvin Creek and the potential for significant impacts as the resort and related recreational activities begin to spill out into other drainages.  It worthwhile remembering that the present design already includes a ski lift in Downton Valley and a lift and communications tower in Buckley Valley.

The PRC suggests that the land use planning processes and resource management agencies will have a role in ensuring that non-resort-related backcountry recreation activities in surrounding areas are effectively controlled and managed.  The subject area is part of the ongoing Lillooet Land and Resource Management (LRMP) planning process. The proposed Cayoosh ski resort EA process however, has been kept separate from the LRMP. The question remains: Will the LRMP include the new land use and resource management constraints to ensure that the growth and expansion of the resort is restrained once the EAO allows the resort to be built?  There is no assurance that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that recreational activities will be managed by land use planning processes once the provincial government allows the resort to be built.

9.  First Nations Issue - Heli-skiing

The PRC says that BCAL will require environmental impact assessments, including cumulative impacts, for any heli-skiing applications.  This is not standard in other areas and as we pointed out, more than 100 helicopter landing sites have recently been approved in the Kootenays. BCAL has ignored MELP biologists' objections to these tenures.  Finally, there is no appeal mechanism for these tenures once these permits are in place according to the Deputy Minister of MELP.

10.  First Nations Issue - Highway #99

As stated in our original report, wildlife impacts from increased traffic on Highway #99 were not part of the original environmental impact assessment.  Subsequent to this report Ecodomain Consulting determined that MELP did not consider such possible effects to be significant enough to warrant special study.  The potential impact on wildlife remains unknown and unstudied.  The proponent's response to this issue is incorrect because Ecodomain recommended a study of wildlife impacts including Highway #99 and did not refer specifically to the Melvin Creek access road).

Both the proponent and PRC admit that the wildlife mortality data on wildlife collisions provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH) from the Wildlife Accident Report System (WARS) are incorrect or at least incomplete.  The proponent states, "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."  Ecodomain Consulting agrees that a baseline of wildlife collisions should be established but that this be done over a sufficient period of time to establish a baseline prior to resort approval and not after.

PRC appears to discount Ecodomain Consulting's recommendation of a study of Highway #99 wildlife impacts partly because traffic will not increase tenfold as originally stated by Ecodomain Consulting but will only double.  Increased traffic volumes in themselves may not be as important as season of use and timing of peak traffic flows, however.  The majority of the increase in traffic will occur during the November 1 to April 30 period when wintering ungulates are concentrated in or adjacent to valley bottoms where the highways are located.  In addition, the Reid-Crowther report predicts that due to the expected travel time to the resort, traffic on the Duffey Lake road will peak between 3:45 and 4:45 PM daily.  Flows of early morning traffic are predicted to reach 526 vehicles per hour during the peak hour on the Melvin Creek access road.  These evening and early morning periods are when wild ungulates are most active, are most difficult to see and are most likely to be on the roadway.

Considering that:

1) The MoTH's WARS data are incomplete
2) winter traffic is expected to at least double by year 10, when the proposed ski resort is expected to be developed,
3) most of the increase in traffic will occur during the late fall through winter to early spring months when wild ungulates are most exposed to highway mortality and
4) peak traffic flows will occur during the early morning and evening hours when mammalian wildlife is most active, Ecodomain Consulting stands by our original recommendation that a proper study of potential highway mortality be conducted.

11.  First Nations Issue - Future Inventories After Approval

The PRC does NOT state that the wildlife inventory studies completed to date are adequate to complete an assessment for strategic-level EA review.  In fact, the PRC states, "...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."  This sentence means that adequate studies will not have been done until the "additional" studies are completed. (Italics added by the authors).

Ecodomain's original comments on this issue bear repeating: Pre- plan approval wildlife inventories are the accepted scientific practice to secure data about the state of the wildlife before this development alters their abundance, movement patterns, and habitats.  There are at least two major problems with monitoring after approval or construction of a development.  Firstly, it is assumed that future studies will be conducted at  a level adequate to detect subpopulation or population effects which can be attributed to the development.  Considering the complexity of factors which influence wildlife populations, this is highly doubtful.  Once a development is constructed, preliminary surveys before construction will not be sufficient to determine how the habitat or populations have changed.  Secondly, it is unlikely that any structures will be moved or ski lifts and runs abandoned and reclaimed after they are in operation because these changes may involve acrimonious negotiations between agencies and significant physical logistics and economic costs.

Adequate inventories should be a requirement of the Environmental Assessment process and should not be at the discretion of a developer.  If wildlife monitoring is required after approval or construction of a development, then there should be some clear objectives of how the resort development must be changed if certain wildlife impacts are found.

12.  First Nations Issue - Riparian and Wetland Wildlife Habitats

Neither the proponent nor the PRC answered the problems stated for riparian and wetland wildlife habitats.  Those main issues are:

1) the lack of an actual blue print of the proposed ski village development during this assessment process,
2) the proponent's resistance to widen the protective buffer on either side of Melvin Creek,
3) the lack of a map of the development or details of the wetlands in the facility area,
4) the list of extensive potential impacts on wetlands, and finally,
5) the proponent's evaluation of these proposed reserved fens as "no impact" areas in spite of these recognized very serious and probable impacts.

13.  First Nations Issue - Comparing resort developments in National Parks

The proponent cites Day and Odd (2000) which provides a subjective examination of ski areas within national parks but provides no references or information pertaining to ski developments outside of such controlled national park environs.  The PRC admits that the EA review is limited in scope to the actual development and does not factor in potential impacts from ancillary developments. Both the proponent and the NRC dismiss the notion that there will be ancillary developments, which will "piggy-back" on the proposed ski resort (e.g. helicopter assisted tourism and other forms of mechanized recreation including cat-skiing and snowmobiling ).

Despite the assurances of the PRC, they too support the proponent's position and assert that "…experience elsewhere is factored into assessments, and this has occurred in this case."  Ecodomain consulting has not seen any studies or references to ancillary developments and alienations, which are attracted to ski resort developments elsewhere. In our original report we recommended that an examination be conducted of the experiences in large scale ski resort developments outside of national parks in the Colorado Rockies, the Canadian Rockies of Alberta and the Rocky and Purcell Mountains of southeastern British Columbia.  This has not been done and we reiterate that recommendation here.  The EAO should also provide examples for British Columbia outside of protected areas where controls over ancillary land uses have been applied, enforced and maintained on provincial Crown land adjacent to ski resort developments.

14.  First Nations Issue - Comparing Logging and Resort Development

The PRC has taken the position that logging is a more temporary activity and is not directly comparable to resort development.  While we agree with this position, the point of departure with Ecodomain Consulting comes when the PRC maintains that they have "…devoted considerable attention in its review to efforts to minimize wildlife impacts, should the resort project proceed."  Ecodomain Consulting's opinion is that efforts to minimize wildlife impacts can only be successful if there is an adequate understanding of the requirements of the subject wildlife populations prior to development and that these requirements can and will be accommodated in the early development planning stages.  The PRC's assumption that there is adequate information or that all wildlife impacts can and will be mitigated is not supportable under the current circumstances.

15.  First Nations Issue - Risk Analysis

The Project Report Specifications are not specific enough and not rigorous enough to allow consultants to do adequate surveys to reach conclusions about the likelihood and significance of impacts on wildlife or habitats.  For instance, NGR makes assertions about the likelihood and significance about subpopulation effects and population viability.  These conclusions are speculation.  Conclusions about these issues require a level of study and a level of statistical analysis which was not completed under the EA.  For instance, population viability analysis requires a sophisticated model which usually includes such elements as landscape data and demographic data on a GIS platform.  Compounding this problem is the fact that no standardized procedure seems to be required by MELP for risk assessment.  A risk assessment procedure has been developed and published by the Ministry of Forests.  This could be useful in establishing a standardized methodology for EA risk assessment.  By using non-standard terms and methodologies, it becomes difficult to be consistent or to compare impacts between projects or between regions in the province.  Also, by allowing a proponent to help develop the methodologies for an environmental assessment, there are questions that may develop in the public's mind about conflict of interest and whether the method was designed to present the development in the best possible light.  Here are some recommended risk assessment guidelines which could be used to ensure that EA processes result in objective and more credible risk assessments:

* risk assessment guidelines should be established in advance of conducting risk assessments,
* the types of data, level of significance and types of studies sufficiently reliable for risk assessment should be identified,
* risk assessment guidelines should identify and describe the criteria by which data and studies will be evaluated.

16.  First Nations Issue - TEM Mapping for Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Wolverine, Wolf and Cougar Habitat Capability/Suitability

As stated under No. 4, above, the Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Reconnaissance Inventory Manual (TVBRIM) form of mapping which was developed and applied by the consultant is a form of mapping which has not been accepted by RIC as a standard mapping procedure. The PRC maintains that TVBRIM was acceptable to MELP for this project. While MELP may have accepted this lower habitat mapping standard, again the key question that has to be answered is: Is this level of mapping adequate to address. the St'át'imc's interests in the wildlife resource? Ecodomain Consulting stands by our original recommendation that suitable scale TEM mapping be conducted both within and adjacent to the subject area.

17.  First Nations Issue - Mountain Goats

It is clear from the NGR's comments and the PRC's comments that NGR continues to refuse to recognize MELP's objective of recovering the Cayoosh mountain goat populations to the 1960 level.  In addition, NGR discounts the 1966 Gates survey, and suggests that there is "...no concrete evidence on the extent of recovery necessary or to confirm that the current population is not already a recovered one."  This is a major problem because it is to NGR's advantage to maintain that the goat population is recovered and then to minimize the importance of Melvin Creek's goat habitat.  The PRC states that the goat study in Melvin Creek "...was not designed or funded to explore population trends."  Without understanding the population trends it is not possible to evaluate the importance of Melvin Creek for goat habitat, particularly without TEM.  This is another example of a failure to identify the type of study and type of data required and the criteria for evaluation prior to the assessment work.  The third party review would suffer from the same deficiencies, the absence of the type of data, type of study and criteria for evaluation since the same studies were reviewed by the third party.

The PRC did not answer Ecodomain Consulting's' comments concerning:

1) the weaknesses of the mountain goat study for evaluating use of Melvin Creek,
2) the small population size,
3) the lack of GPS function on the radio-collars (something the third-party reviewer also noted),
4) the absence of billies in Melvin Creek in study,
5) the need for larger sample sizes in winter, and
6) the problems with interpretation.

Wolf predation, particularly for mountain goats has not been adequately evaluated.  Wolves may be conditioned to the presence of people and then use the packed ski runs and roads to gain access to wind-blown areas where snow is also packed, both in Melvin Creek and in adjacent drainages.

18.  Grizzly Bear Impacts

In a document dated April 27, 2000 the Ministry of Environment's Large Carnivore Specialist, Matt Austin states, "Based on my review of the documentation it is my opinion that the Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project, including the mitigative measures that the proponent has committed to implementing, has the potential for significant direct and cumulative impacts to the Stein-Nahatlatch grizzly bear population and to the potential to recover this threatened population in the future."  Austin also highlights the potential impacts of the proposed resort on grizzly bears within Melvin Creek citing that fully 99% of Melvin Creek is effective habitat "…in core area condition."  While Austin goes on to state that in his view the "…impacts could be substantially addressed through a number of additional mitigative measures…" this is the most serious charge involving wildlife to this point in the project review.  Had this information regarding the importance of Melvin Creek as core grizzly bear habitat within an official grizzly bear recovery area been accepted by the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks from the onset, the provincial government may not have advertised a ski resort development opportunity at this location.  Since the government called for the proposal, the option of not proceeding has been fettered. Ecodomain Consulting maintains that should the development proceed that Melvin Creek will no longer be suitable habitat for resident grizzly bears and that any bears that enter the valley with the intention of remaining will have to be removed and/or destroyed.  The question then remains:  Are the St'át'imc prepared to write-off the Melvin Creek watershed as grizzly bear habitat in exchange for a government commitment of off-site mitigation in the form of theoretical land and resource management "improvements" on other suitable grizzly bear habitat in the Stein-Nahatlatch grizzly bear recovery area?    If the answer is yes, then there must be a guarantee that an improvement in land uses leading to significantly improved habitat protection will be achieved over the larger area.  This decision should be made in the light that Austin's (2000) recommendations are largely theoretical and are not well established management practices for grizzly bear habitat improvements in the province.  Another consideration is the less than desirable track record of land use within "special management zones" in the regions of the province with existing official land use plans.  Prior to making this final decision on the fate of Melvin Creek, the St'át'imc' should know whether or not these off site mitigative measures are not likely to occur at a level and over a sufficient period of time which will provide adequate compensation for loss the Melvin Creek watershed as grizzly bear habitat.

19.  Cumulative Environmental Effects

Cumulative impacts can be defined as the combined, incremental effects of human activity over time, from one or more sources.  Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects.  This can result in the compounding of the effects of all actions over time.  Thus the cumulative impacts of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a resource, no matter what entity is taking the actions.  Thus, all actions, not only the project proposal must be considered because all potentially contribute to cumulative impacts.  Cumulative impacts are not simply a list of ecosystem issues but involve more extensive and broader review of possible effects and interactive effects.  In addition, a greater degree of detail is needed for more potentially serious impacts.  This does not appear to have been done for wildlife resources.

The EA for the proposed Cayoosh resort failed to provide a cumulative impact assessment by not following several basic steps in cumulative impact assessment.  These include:

1) a failure to identify a geographic area that includes resources potentially affected by the proposed project,
2) a failure to extend that area to include the same and other resources affected by the combined impacts of the project and other actions and
3) a failure to provide a guide for evaluating the analysis for adequacy.

20.  Conclusion

The PRC maintains that, "The wildlife inventories by NGR were deemed adequate..."  "...to complete an assessment of the potential effects of the project for strategic-level EA review purposes."  Under Section 26 (1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, "the executive director, on the recommendation of the project committee, must (a) accept the project report for review if it meets the final form of the project report specifications..."  Thus, because specifications from MELP were ostensibly met, MELP is legally obligated to accept NGR's report.  The St'át'imc' must, however, decide, not only whether MELP's specifications were met, but whether MELP's specifications were adequate to access the potential effects of the proposed ski resort and whether the specifications were neutrally developed and administered.  Ecodomain Consulting maintains that the specifications were not adequate to evaluate the significant wildlife resources or the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts in the appropriate geographic area, and were not neutrally developed or administered.

The PRC plans to work out details on a bear management plan and a recreational use "complementary measure".  These plans will not necessarily address preventing impacts, they may only plan for modifying impacts (see comments on impacts outside Melvin Creek, helicopter skiing, Highway #99, and comparison with National Parks in previous paragraphs).  While a strategic level decision is not the final hurdle that NGR must clear in the EA process, it is a significant step that can lead to the issuance of a development certificate and ultimately the construction of the resort.  Thus any wildlife impacts must be carefully assessed at this stage.  Because Ecodomain Consulting has concluded that the wildlife studies were not adequate, Ecodomain Consulting must also conclude that MELP's specifications were also not adequate to assess wildlife impacts.