COVER LETTER
REPORT SUBMISSION
1. BACKGROUND
2. STATEMENT OF CONCERN FOR WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
3. CABINET INTERVENTION
4. ANALYSIS OF THE CAYOOSH RANGE AND LINKS TO OTHER RANGES

4(a). No grizzly bear data
4(b). The Ski Development will negatively impact Mountain Goat populations

NOVEMBER 22, 1999.

ATTN: RAYMOND L. CROOK
Environmental Assessment Office
             Victoria, B.C.

Re: Project Response - Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Ski Development Project

Dear Sir:

Please find attached a report we have prepared for submission on this project.  We are very concerned about the deficiencies in the proposal and review so far, and we are submitting this report to place on the public record our serious concerns about this project.

We would like to remain involved throughout the remainder of the Environmental Assessment Review and believe this issue is deserving of fuller public consideration.

The following 9 page report is being faxed to you today to fulfill my statement to you that I would be forwarding you a report.  The complete report, with attachments, is being delivered via courier to you this afternoon and should arrive for your attention hopefully by tommorow.  Please forward a copy of the complete report to all members of the Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Committee members.

Yours very truly, Will Koop.

NOVEMBER 22, 1999

RAYMOND L. CROOK
MELVIN CREEK/CAYOOSH PROJECT COMMITTEE CHAIR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE
 

From our telephone conversation on November 9, 1999, I stated that I would forward to you a  technical response regarding NGR Resort Consultants Inc.'s July 6, 1999 Cayoosh Resort Project Report.  During our conversation I learned from you that the public response period ceased on October 12, and that because of my ignorance of the public process and deadline, and my great personal interest in the area, I nevertheless wished to forward you my comments to become part of the public process.

The following information was compiled since November 6, 1999, when I became aware of the ski development project report and process.  Because of time constraints, I hope to present to you more of my concerns and possible deficiencies on other issues which I have also noted with regard to the Cayoosh Resort Project Report.
 

1. BACKGROUND

I have been hiking through the forested valleys and climbing various ridge and mountain systems in the greater Duffey Lake back country corridors area since 1978.  This includes the Cayoosh Creek headwater system near Mount Marriot (Mt. Aspen), the Van Horlick drainage and headwaters, the Blowdown valley and adjacent Gott Creek headwaters, and the upper basins of the Common Johnny, Barkley, Lost, and Melvin Creek areas.  My first experience in the Melvin Creek and adjacent valley systems was for a period of 8 days in August 1979.  During that trip, our party explored the ridges, peaks, and valleys in this area and camped near Melvin Lake.  Since that time I have both hiked and skied the valley and ridge systems contiguous to the Melvin Creek area on an annual, or bi-annual, basis.  I have seen up to 35 goats in one herd near the Melvin Creek area, as well as wolverines (2 frolicking together), raptors, and grizzly bear signs (tracks and scat).
 

2. STATEMENT OF CONCERN FOR WILDLIFE POPULATIONS

My principal concern about the ski development proposal for Melvin Creek relates to the long term cumulative impact that this development, and others undoubtedly following, will have on the carnivore and ungulate wildlife populations, not only within the pristine Melvin Creek drainage and its perimeter, but in and along adjoining drainages, and along the drainages that enter the Duffey Lake and Cayoosh Creek corridors.  In particular are the effects to the grizzly bear, mountain goat, wolverine, and wolf populations.  Despite the mitigation suggestions for ungulates by NGR's consultant David Hatler in Volume 1, Part V, and the absence of data collection for grizzly bears from the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks in the Duffey Lake/Cayoosh Creek corridor, I believe the present Melvin and Lost Creek valleys and adjacent ridge systems have great significance as undeveloped corridors to the wildlife that have and will depend upon them.

I have gone on record through correspondence with concerns about the overall accelerated road access and inappropriate clearcutting of high elevation forests within the Duffey Lake area and Cayoosh Creek corridor to the Lillooet District Forest Manager (August 12, 1994), regarding the sensitive and slow recovery rate of the original forest, its long-term impact on the forest hydrology, and the cumulative impacts on wildlife populations.  The Melvin, Barkley, and Lost Creek valleys are the last undeveloped drainages in the mid-Cayoosh range, and are particularly important in contrast to the many roaded and clearcut valleys and slopes along the Cayoosh Creek and Duffey Lake corridor.  There has been enough road development and clearcutting damage done within the Duffey Lake area and Cayoosh corridor to warrant a cessation of development or an extreme reduction of forestry for a long-term process of recovery for many inter-dependent values.  As such, the related importance of Melvin and Lost Creek areas cannot be overstated.
 

3. CABINET INTERVENTION

In 1993, the Kamloops Regional Protected Areas Team (RPAT), a team of government agencies, which included two biologists, reserved Melvin Creek as a special interest for conservation protection (values listed below under section 4a).  According to EAO's correspondence files for the Cayoosh ski resort proposal, "the Honourable Moe Sihota wrote to the Honourable Glen Clark on August 15, 1994, advising that the proposed resort was within an Area of Interest under the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS)" [R.L Shimmin to George McKay, September 22, 1994].  Despite the concerns of RPAT, the BC MELP stated to George McKay, Manager, Ski Industry Development, that "our comments that follow will apply if this area was not included within a Protected Area."  In other words, MELP made provisions for the proposed ski development even though the area was a candidate for protection at that time, inferring that movement had been provided to remove the protection.  I believe it is obvious that ministerial direction was being given to MELP to clear the way for the development proposal when Shimmins states that "B.C. Environment believes that Cayoosh Resort can be developed in a manner that lies within acceptable limits of environmental impact", even before the EAO began its impact assessments.

When RPAT got wind of Cabinet's internal decision to remove Melvin Creek basin from the adjoining Lost Creek Area of Interest, members were alarmed and filed their objections with the Kamloops Interagency Management Committee (IAMC).  The Kamloops IAMC wrote a briefing note to LUCO in April 1995 requesting Cabinet provide more than just verbal comments on the removal of Melvin Creek.  In the Kamloops IAMC May 2, 1995 minutes it states that "government is still directing IAMC to remove Melvin Creek from the AoI [Areas of Interest]."  On May 4, 1995, Derek Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO), wrote to John Thompson, Chair of the Thompson-Okanagan IAMC:

"Upon review of the issues ... the Deputy Ministers Committee recommended, and Cabinet accepted, that the portion of the Cayoosh Creek area of interest which is contained within the alpine ski proposal for Melville [sic, "Melvin"] Creek, will be deleted from the current area of interest boundary.  The proposed ski area will be the subject of a comprehensive [emphasis] environmental review under the Environmental Assessment Act as part of the project review." (See attachment E)

4. ANALYSIS OF THE CAYOOSH RANGE AND LINKS TO OTHER RANGES

I have attached colored map information and a letter from grizzly bear biologists on the following issues:

* Attachment A - Forest cover map.  The color map presents the greater picture of habitat impact through logging and road access from the Stein Park area to the south, to the town of Lillooet to the northeast, and north of Anderson and Seton Lakes.  This perspective is missing from NGR's July 1999 Project Report, Vol.1, chapter 5, in terms of grizzly bear corridors between coastal and interior ranges.  Considerations for future grizzly bear recovery in these areas, through road closures, is necessary for their viability.

* Attachments B - B.C. Ministry of Environment maps regarding grizzly bears for the Lillooet LRMP.  B-1: The Wildlife Branch Research and Conservation Sections maps of the Lillooet LRMP Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability; and B-2, Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability, March 26, 1999.  B-3: Grizzly Bear Draft Management Options, prepared by the LRMP Data Management Team, March 31, 1999.

* Attachment C - Preliminary Grizzly Bear Mapping, with Core Grizzly Security Areas, by McCrory Wildlife Services, December 11, 1998, for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.

* Attachment D - A five page letter regarding grizzly bear conservation, endorsed by ten bear scientists, for representatives at the Lillooet LRMP process, January 16, 1999.

"Environment Canada also supports statements made by the B.C. MoE at the January project meeting that some environmental impacts from the project may extend outside of the Melvin Creek basin.  An example could be potential impacts from heavier recreational use of adjacent valleys.  Accordingly, the Project Committee should consider extending the geographic scope of the project review area beyond Melvin Creek basin...."

The questions I have for the EAO is, was this greater ecosystem assessment analysis actually done, and if so, to what degree, for how long, and by whom?  If it wasn't done, and that is my impression from the MELP response document of November 1, 1999, then this is an oversight on the cumulative impacts from this project.

4(a). No grizzly bear data

For instance, according to Ministry of Environment personnel, there has been no study done of grizzly bear populations in this area, aside from a report recently presented to the Ministry of Parks by McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd., on March 15, 1998, for the Duffey Lake Provincial Park, a report which is oddly not referenced in the Hatler report (I recently received a copy of the report from the Ministry of Parks).  According to McCrory, "no background bear ecology studies have been done in the ecosystem" (page 4).  The fact that there have been no grizzly bear studies conducted regarding this proposal is unacceptable because of the status attributed to the grizzly by MELP in 1993 and at the current Lillooet LRMP table:

(1) Protected Area Strategy (PAS) Summary Sheets, December 31, 1993, for the Cayoosh Range.  High conservation rating for:
          * "upper portions of Melvin and Downtown Creeks and the complete  undisturbed watershed of Lost Valley Creek"
          * "abundant alpine lakes with basins, meadows and shrub complexes"
          * "provincially important goat population; critical grizzly bear area with links to other areas".

(2) Lillooet LRMP Characterization Table, Wilderness, Conservation, Protected Areas for the Cayoosh.  Key Biological and Physical Factors for wildlife: "provincially important habitat for mountain goat (winter & summer); critical grizzly bear area with links to other areas; black bear, moose, wolf, cougar, pika, hoary marmot; tailed frog, spotted owl."

With regard to some of the findings on statements about grizzly bears in this area from McCrory's 1998 report, are the following selected quotations:

"The park is in a zone of extirpation and / or recovery for grizzly bears and straddles a critical linkage zone for fragmented, disparate populations still occupying the coastal and transitional ranges." (Page i)
"Overall, from both a bear hazard and conservation perspective, Duffey Lake Provincial Park should be developed in a low key manner." (Page iv)
"The Widlife Branch recorded tracks leading to a fresh den in the alpine in Lost Valley just to the north of Common Johnny Creek." (Page 11)
"Grizzly bears still feed in the fall at a number of salmon spawning areas to the north and west of the park." (Page 11)
"Large areas of very old glacier lily corm diggings in large alpine meadows at the headwaters of Common Johnny Creek, about 200 m north of the park boundary." (Page 12)

Hatler's assessment summary of grizzly bear populations is only based on conjecture from selected references (vol.1, chapter 5, pages 79-80): "Whether or not a functional population exists in the Cayoosh Range, maintaining grizzly bears in the area is clearly a delicate matter."  Hatler has oddly neglected to reference another report recently published in 1998, British Columbia's Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, An Independent Review of Science and Policy.  This report, which has a comprehensive reference section, and a thorough critique of the grizzly bear conservation strategy, also has a small section on Environmental Impact Assessment and Bear Conservation.  In this section the report notes two important issues: that intact ecosystems are very important for grizzly recovery strategies, much like the concerns that government biologists should be incorporating for the Duffey Lake area; that, in contrast to legislated measures in the United States, there is a fundamental violation of proper inventory impact assessment for grizzly bears in British Columbia due to political constraints imposed upon other provincial agencies by the Ministry of Forests:
 

"The area of unaltered (pristine) habitat without human disturbance is one measure of habitat effectiveness; it can be subjected to science-based assessment of its ability to sustain or recover a grizzly bear population.

"Disturbance inventory and Habitat Effectiveness assessments are also the foundation for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which again is conspicuous by its absence in British Columbia's land use allocation process.  While provincial government biologists apparently consider EIA unworkable for B.C.'s forest planning process (Hamilton 1996), this is contrary evidence from National Forest (and more broadly based) plans in the United States which indicates EIA can be an effective planning tool, can be applied to vast areas, and greatly increases the prospects of introducing science to the planning process.  It also vastly improves public participation and public oversight." (Page 52)

As is evident on the B.C. Environment maps for grizzly bears, and on the McCrory map, the Melvin Creek Resort development, its relation to adjoining valleys, and the development that will inevitably follow, will obstruct grizzly bear recovery and survival programs in the Duffey Lake/Cayoosh Creek corridor, and in fact the entire ecosystem.  Melvin Creek, as an undeveloped watershed, and its relation to the undeveloped Lost Creek, Barkley, and Common Johnny Creek areas, is vital to the future grizzly bear survival as habitat and security corridors between northwestern and southeastern mountain ranges, and the important linkage to the Cayoosh Range to the northeast of Melvin Creek, identified on the McCrory map as the "Core Grizzly Security Area".  No matter how Mr. Hatler attempts to mitigate the effects in his report to NGR, the Melvin Resort development footprint will make a substantial hole in the overall ecosystem, and will cause the permanent extinction of these carnivores over the long term.

4(b). The Ski Development will negatively impact Mountain Goat populations

MELP has, since this project proposal began in the early 1990s, repeatedly commented on the "provincial significance" of this mountain goat population.  For instance, the Ministry of Environment Kamloops RPAT - Goal 2 (Special Feature) Candidate Site Data Base, under Melvin Creek Meadows, mentions that the area has "provincially important goat habitat".  Melvin Creek headwaters and ridge system forms almost the center of mountain goat movement corridor between habitat ranges.  Melvin Creek basin is also an important kidding center and provides winter range for a number of the goat population, with movement between Barkley Valley and Melvin Creek: "Mr. Jury reported that on March 28, 1995, Phil Belliveau, Wayne Wall and he had seen 62 goats east of Melvin Lake" (Al Raine to Ray Crook, September 26, 1997).

Despite MELP's recent mitigation recommendations in their November 1, 1999 report regarding ski lift areas, and suggestions to delete ski lift proposals, the proponent will undoubtedly get his way for their placement over the long term.  Pressures on the ecology by ski mountain developers, especially in such a highly confined 2,825 hectare valley, with prevailing emphasis on profits and growth, will usually win the day, so it is important to be realistic about future impacts.  According to NGR's original proposal, stage four of the development would see lifts extending into an adjacent drainage on Downtown Creek headwaters.  How can you prevent development over the long term, and who is going to be able to contain it?

Helicopter tourism throughout the range, and adjacent ranges, will inevitably occur, as provided in the Project Review correspondence, despite MELP's opposition to this and its overall impact on goats and other wildlife.   Even though MELP originally clarified to the government's Manager of Ski Industry Development the condition that there be "no helicopter skiing, helicopter hiking, or other heli-related activities as this will unreasonably stress wildlife populations" (MELP, September 24, 1994), NGR has nevertheless stated in its July 1999 report mission statement, under point number 3, that it will "capitalize on ... BC's heli-ski operators".  According to MELP, up to one third of the total goat population in this area is at risk, a statistic which is cause for serious evaluation.

The proponent has known about the significance of the goat population in this area for almost nine years, an issue which has not only been at the center of continued controversy, but is also one of the key issues for the Stage Two of the Project Review.  The sense that I get about this issue from the correspondence and reports to the EAO on the Cayoosh Project, is that the proponent is trying to work around it, and has provided numerous pressures on government to come up with soft compromises and untested mitigation recommendations.  In this sense, is the general understanding that political pressures have been brought down on public servants to advance the project, and to compromise habitat values to accommodate the project.  For instance,

"I spoke to George McKay at the BC Investment office this morning.  He was meeting in this morning with his ADM, and Al Raine.  He wanted to know if the wildlife issues were significant enough that we would oppose the project or could they be managed."  "Obviously there are political overtones to this as we have seen in the past". (MELP memo, June 29, 1994)

"Ministry of Environment's wildlife staff have opposed the resort proposal since 1991 and have initially prejudged the impacts on wildlife prior to obtaining the LGL report.  We have objected to these biased positions of certain field staff.  The staff members were making public statements about their personal opposition to any development in Melvin Creek.  We are pleased to report that following a meeting with the new Regional Director and senior staff, a very professional and objective commitment was made."  (NGR report to Ray Crook, November 7, 1996)

5. THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HEARING

After reading the proponent's response to Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Issues in the July 6, 1999 Project Report, volume 2, section H, regarding cumulative effects, it is evident that there is only "anecdotal evidence" (page 22) and a prolific amount of ambiguity regarding previous "reductions in habitat" to the Cayoosh Range and the Duffey Lake and Cayoosh Creek corridors.  Most of the discussion regarding selective wildlife impacts in these 22 pages prepared by Sector Environmental Resource Consulting relates to the Melvin Creek drainage, and there is no analysis of how future extensive real estate development, business activities, and potential tourism over the long term will impact the greater Duffey Lake corridor wildlife populations, with the ski development acting as a ‘trigger'.  There is no baseline data provided to understand how the proponent came to the conclusion that "the cumulative impacts of the resort development and the region are predicted to remain at low levels", and that these unknown and uncharacterized impacts are then somehow "manageable" (page 20).  In contrast, there is also confusion presented in this section regarding cumulative impacts on grizzly bears as being "considerable" and "manageable" (page 20).  The very nature of providing natural gas facilities and eventual electrical transmission lines to an undeveloped high elevation multi-corridor ecosystem over the long term, for what the proponent refers to as the "intra-Cayoosh project" (page 19), makes it difficult to understand how the proponent can conclude that "the nature and extent of cumulative effects attributable to Cayoosh Resort project activity are generally low in both extent and severity" (page 22).  This 22 page cumulative effects section should not be interpreted as the final word on "cumulative effects".

It is clear from my limited research that there are strongly held opposing views about this project.  It is also clear from the views of some, including Mr. McCrory, that there are very high grizzly bear and other important wildlife values that would be seriously affected by the overall development (more detailed concerns about grizzlies and other wildlife issues are further elaborated by McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. apparently being sent to the EAO on the same day of this letter, November 22, 1999, concerns which should be immediately addressed).  The potential high loss of wildlife, and the conflicting views, all point to the need for a full Environmental Assessment Hearing.  This project has received little public attention, and the public deserves to have an opportunity to thoroughly question the people holding the opposing views.  This can only be done in the context of a full scale Environmental Assessment Hearing, in which the proponent is required to have his experts be subject to questioning by interested parties.  As such, there should be a moratorium placed on any and all development in the area during this time.

It is by no means clear, from the documents I have received, how the Environmental Assessment Office intends to carefully consider, if at all, cumulative effects.  The cumulative effects issue in this case is the central concern.  Government and the proponent must be clearer on their position on cumulative effects, and the only way to determine these positions is by a comprehensive Environmental Assessment Hearing.  To do otherwise would be to undermine the integrity of the Environmental Assessment procedures.  To not proceed to a comprehensive and open Assessment Hearing, in a case with such significant potential losses, would be a travesty.

I am therefore making a formal request.  What is your Office's position on whether there is a need for a comprehensive public hearing?

Sincerely,  Will Koop.

cc. Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Committee members.