DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Assessment for Southern Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Assessment for Southern Canada i CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHERN CANADA ii Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC). 2018. Conservation Assessment for Southern Canada. vii+137 pp. NCC staff Michael Bradstreet, Andrea Hebb and Dan Kraus (in alphabetical order) contributed to the concept, design, analysis and writing of this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank all of the partners and agencies that provided data used in the assessment. In addition, thanks to NCC staff and to Karen Beazley, Dalhousie University; Louise Gratton, Two Countries, One Forest Society; Dave Howerter, Ducks Unlimited Canada; Cathy Nielson, Environment and Climate Change Canada; Mike Patterson, International Institute for Sustainable Development; Dave Phillips, formerly Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment; Justina Ray, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada; and Oscar Venter, University of Northern British Columbia who reviewed the assessment and provided valuable suggestions for improvement. Allan Edelsparre, University of Toronto, provided guidance and support for the statistical analysis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... v BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 The Loss of Canada’s Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................ 1 Need for a Conservation Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals of the Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 4 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................................................................... 5 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Data Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Biodiversity ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Species Richness (Criterion B1) ....................................................................................................................... 12 Species at Risk (Criterion B2) ............................................................................................................................ 12 Globally Rare Species (Criterion B3) .............................................................................................................. 13 Species of High Conservation Responsibility (Criterion B4) ................................................................ 13 Unique and Distinctive Species (Criterion B5) ........................................................................................... 14 Key Biodiversity Areas (Criterion B6) ........................................................................................................... 14 Intactness (Criterion B7) ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Ecosystem Distinctiveness (Criterion B8) .................................................................................................... 17 Threat ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Human Footprint (Criterion T1) ...................................................................................................................... 19 Watershed Stress (Criterion T2) ...................................................................................................................... 19 Conservation and Habitat Risk Index (Criterion T3) ............................................................................... 21 Fragmentation (Criterion T4) ............................................................................................................................ 21 Land Use Change (Criterion T5) ....................................................................................................................... 21 Rate of Climate Change (Criterion T6) ........................................................................................................... 22 Lack of Water (Criterion T7) .............................................................................................................................. 23 Conservation Response ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Protected Areas (Criterion R1) ......................................................................................................................... 25 Representation (Criterion R2) .......................................................................................................................... 26 NCC’s Assessment of the Criteria and Measures to Identify Important Ecoregions ............................. 26 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Scoring.............................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Classifying Ecoregions by Biodiversity and Threat Values ........................................................................ 28 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Threats ............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Final Suite of Criteria and Measures .................................................................................................................... 33 Ecoregion Scores for Biodiversity, Threat and Conservation Response ................................................... 34 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Threat ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Conservation Response ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Protected Areas (Criterion R1) ......................................................................................................................... 43 iv Representation (Criterion R2) .......................................................................................................................... 44 Identifying Important Ecoregions ............................................................................................................................. 47 DISCUSSION AND APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 53 Identifying and Protecting Important Areas for Conservation ..................................................................... 54 Species at Risk Recovery ............................................................................................................................................... 55 Capacity Building .............................................................................................................................................................. 55 Monitoring Our Progress: A Living Conservation Assessment...................................................................... 56 Looking Forward .............................................................................................................................................................. 56 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A – Summary of Ecoregions ........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indian and Non-Native Use of the Bulkley River an Historical Perspective
    Scientific Excellence • Resource Protection & Conservation • Benefits for Canadians DFO - Library i MPO - Bibliothèque ^''entffique • Protection et conservation des ressources • Bénéfices aux Canadiens I IIII III II IIIII II IIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIII 12020070 INDIAN AND NON-NATIVE USE OF THE BULKLEY RIVER AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE by Brendan O'Donnell Native Affairs Division Issue I Policy and Program Planning Ir, E98. F4 ^ ;.;^. 035 ^ no.1 ;^^; D ^^.. c.1 Fisher és Pêches and Oceans et Océans Cariad'â. I I Scientific Excellence • Resource Protection & Conservation • Benefits for Canadians I Excellence scientifique • Protection et conservation des ressources • Bénéfices aux Canadiens I I INDIAN AND NON-NATIVE I USE OF THE BULKLEY RIVER I AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1 by Brendan O'Donnell ^ Native Affairs Division Issue I 1 Policy and Program Planning 1 I I I I I E98.F4 035 no. I D c.1 I Fisheries Pêches 1 1*, and Oceans et Océans Canada` INTRODUCTION The following is one of a series of reports onthe historical uses of waterways in New Brunswick and British Columbia. These reports are narrative outlines of how Indian and non-native populations have used these -rivers, with emphasis on navigability, tidal influence, riparian interests, settlement patterns, commercial use and fishing rights. These historical reports were requested by the Interdepartmental Reserve Boundary Review Committee, a body comprising representatives from Indian Affairs and Northern Development [DIAND], Justice, Energy, Mines and Resources [EMR], and chaired by Fisheries and Oceans. The committee is tasked with establishing a government position on reserve boundaries that can assist in determining the area of application of Indian Band fishing by-laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Gateway Template
    Technical Data Report Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. Calgary, Alberta Paul Sargent, P.Biol., R.P.Biol. Colleen A. Bryden, M.Sc., R.P.Biol. Richard Wiacek, M.Sc. 2010 Wildlife Habitat Modelling: Approach, Methods and Species Accounts Technical Data Report Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Key Indicator Species ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Habitat Suitability Models ................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 General Approach ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Alternatives to Habitat Suitability Modelling .................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Selected Life Requisites and Seasons of Use............................................... 2-6 2.2.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping ..................................................................... 2-7 2.2.5 Habitat Ratings .............................................................................................. 2-7 3 Bird Habitat Models ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 White-winged Scoter .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • R11 Forest Management Plan : Part 3
    R11 Forest Management Plan 3.6 Detailed Indicator Sheets Indicator 1.1.1 Value: Biodiversity – Ecosystem Diversity Objective: Conserve ecosystem diversity by emulating natural disturbance patterns and the range of variation therein (i.e., coarse filter approach). Indicator: Treatment size and residual pattern. Target: Treatment size and pattern within the natural range of variation: multiple treatments over a series of years may be clustered to emulate larger natural burns. Greater than two thirds of these treatment events will be 600 ha or larger. The planning boundaries for individual treatment events will provide a minimum of 15% remnant undisturbed forest, with the average amount of post-treatment remnant area falling between 29% and 49%. Current Status: In developing this indicator and the associated targets, the Planning Team reviewed the work done by the Foothills Model Forest Natural Disturbance Program and the associated Highway 40 North Demonstration Project. The Natural Disturbance Program is a large research project that has been studying fire regimes in the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions of west-central Alberta. The Highway 40 project is a multi-partner initiative that is demonstrating how research results from the Natural Disturbance Program can be incorporated into a natural disturbance emulation approach to planning industrial activity. Assessing this indicator using methods similar to those of the Highway 40 project demonstrates use of the best available science, a direct recommendation of the Charrette process (Objective 5.1). Although the Foothills Model Forest study did not occur within the R11 FMU boundary, the study area did border R11 to the north-west and contained a similar compliment of natural subregions (Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills, Montane, Subalpine, and Alpine).
    [Show full text]
  • An#Integrated#Assessment#Of#The#Cumulative#Impacts#Of#Climate# Change'and'industrial'development'on'salmon'in'western'bc!! Stiki
    An#integrated#assessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate# change'and'industrial'development'on'salmon'in'Western'BC!! Stikine and Upper Nass Current Social-Ecological Conditions Summary Prepared by: Christina Melymick, Consultant April 2013 The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions of the Bulkley Valley Research Centre or the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. [email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada An#integrated#assessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate#change#and#industrial#development#on#salmon#in#Western#BC#! Acknowledgements Thank you to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for supporting this project. Thank you to Jim Pojar for his expansive knowledge and expertise, and for adding to the stack of resources used during research. Thank you to Dave Bustard for taking time from a busy schedule to lend his extensive local knowledge and expertise. Thank you to John Kelson for his eulachon knowledge. Thank you to Richard Overstall for his knowledge and support. Thank you to Rick Budhwa for his support and contribution to the cultural aspects of this report. Thank you to Johanna Pfalz for her support and for providing all the relevant maps. Thank you to Ken Rabnett for support, his breadth of knowledge on the study area. Thank you to Don Morgan for the opportunity to carry out the research and produce this report, and for constant patience, guidance and support through the course of completing this report. Credits Don
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Impacts Associated with the Proposed Upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway (Park Bridge to Brake Check): Preliminary Design Considerations
    OSIRIS WILDLIFE CONSULTING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS Wildlife Impacts Associated with the Proposed Upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway (Park Bridge to Brake Check): Preliminary Design Considerations Prepared for: Darcy Grykuliak, P.Eng. Lead Engineer, Kicking Horse Canyon Project Focus Corporation Ltd. Prepared by: W.L. Harper, M.Sc., RPBio Osiris Wildlife Consulting Victoria, BC December 15, 2004 Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife Impacts – Park Bridge to Brake Check Executive Summary This highway design project consists of upgrading, redesigning and relocating 5.5 km of the Trans-Canada Highway adjacent to the Kicking Horse River 12 to 17 km east of Golden, British Columbia. The environmental analysis in this report addresses potential wildlife impacts and their mitigation at a level appropriate to the preliminary design stage of the highway project. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, it is unlikely there will be measurable negative impacts on wildlife populations associated with direct mortality from animal- vehicle collisions, habitat fragmentation from barriers to animal movement, direct loss of habitats to the project footprint, or cumulative effects associated with other wildlife impacts in the area. Although the exact nature of the appropriate mitigation measures required cannot be determined until the detailed design stage, there are a number of reasonable and tested mitigation techniques available. Minor modifications to drainage culverts and concrete roadside barriers should address small animal concerns, and the bridge and tunnel system, if properly designed, should address large animal concerns. Although the faster design speed and straightening of curves in the project area means vehicle traffic speed will increase with completion of the project, a combination of mitigation measures, possibly including wildlife exclusion fencing, can mitigate these impacts of direct mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Robson Provincial Park, Draft Background Report
    Mount Robson Provincial Park Including Mount Terry Fox & Rearguard Falls Provincial Parks DRAFT BACKGROUND REPORT September, 2006 Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment BC Parks Omineca Region This page left blank intentionally Acknowledgements This Draft Background Report for Mount Robson Provincial Park was prepared to support the 2006/07 Management Plan review. The report was prepared by consultant Juri Peepre for Gail Ross, Regional Planner, BC Parks, Omineca Region. Additional revisions and edits were performed by consultant Leaf Thunderstorm and Keith J. Baric, A/Regional Planner, Omineca Region. The report incorporates material from several previous studies and plans including the Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan, Berg Lake Corridor Plan, Forest Health Strategy for Mount Robson Provincial Park, Rare and the Endangered Plant Assessment of Mount Robson Provincial Park with Management Interpretations, the Robson Valley Land and Resource Management Plan, and the BC Parks website. Park use statistics were provided by Stuart Walsh, Rick Rockwell and Robin Draper. Cover Photo: Berg Lake and the Berg Glacier (BC Parks). Mount Robson Provincial Park, Including Mount Terry Fox & Rearguard Falls Provincial Parks: DRAFT Background Report 2006 Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1 Park Overview.................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Midcretaceous Thrusting in the Southern Coast Belt, British
    TECTONICS, VOL. 15, NO. 2, PAGES, 545-565, JUNE 1996 Mid-Cretaceous thrusting in the southern Coast Belt, British Columbia and Washington, after strike-slip fault reconstruction Paul J. Umhoefer Departmentof Geology,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Robert B. Miller Departmentof Geology, San JoseState University, San Jose,California Abstract. A major thrust systemof mid-Cretaceousage Introduction is presentalong much of the Coast Belt of northwestern. The Coast Belt in the northwestern Cordillera of North North America. Thrusting was concurrent,and spatially America containsthe roots of the largest Mesozoic mag- coincided,with emplacementof a great volume of arc intrusives and minor local strike-slip faulting. In the maticarc in North America, which is cut by a mid-Creta- southernCoast Belt (52ø to 47øN), thrusting was followed ceous,synmagmatic thrust system over muchof its length by major dextral-slipfaulting, which resultedin significant (Figure 1) [Rubin et al., 1990]. This thrust systemis translationalshuffling of the thrust system. In this paper, especiallywell definedin SE Alaska [Brew et al., 1989; Rubin et al., 1990; Gehrels et al., 1992; Haeussler, 1992; we restorethe displacementson major dextral-slipfaults of the southernCoast Belt and then analyze the mid-Creta- McClelland et al., 1992; Rubin and Saleeby,1992] and the southern Coast Belt of SW British Columbia and NW ceousthrust system. Two reconstructionswere madethat usedextral faulting on the Yalakom fault (115 km), Castle Washington(Figure 1)[Crickmay, 1930; Misch, 1966; Davis et al., 1978; Brown, 1987; Rusrnore aad Pass and Ross Lake faults (10 km), and Fraser fault (100 Woodsworth, 199 la, 1994; Miller and Paterson, 1992; km). The reconstructionsdiffer in the amount of dextral offset on the Straight Creek fault (160 and 100 km) and Journeayand Friedman, 1993; Schiarizza et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Wildlife, Ecological and Landscape Coonectivity Values
    INVENTORY OF WILDLIFE, ECOLOGICAL, AND LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY VALUES, TSILHQOT'IN FIRST NATIONS CULTURAL/HERITAGE VALUES, & RESOURCE CONFLICTS IN THE DASIQOX-TASEKO WATERSHED, BC CHILCOTIN FINAL REPORT (Revised) August 4, 2014 For Xeni Gwet’in & Yunesit’in First Nations By Wayne McCrory, RPBio McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. Phone: 250-358-7796; email: [email protected] and First Nations cultural/heritage research: Linda Smith, MSc, & Alice William GIS mapping by Baden Cross, Applied Conservation GIS Corridor modeling by Dr. Lance Craighead, Craighead Research Institute ii LEGAL COVENANT FROM THE XENI GWET’IN GOVERNMENT When the draft of this report was completed in March 2014, the following legal covenant was included: The Tsilhqot'in have met the test for aboriginal title in the lands described in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700 (“Tsilhqot’in Nation”). Tsilhqot’in Nation (Vickers J, 2007) also recognized the Tsilhqot’in aboriginal right to hunt and trap birds and animals for the purposes of securing animals for work and transportation, food, clothing, shelter, mats, blankets, and crafts, as well as for spiritual, ceremonial, and cultural uses throughout the Brittany Triangle (Tachelach’ed) and the Xeni Gwet’in Trapline. This right is inclusive of a right to capture and use horses for transportation and work. The Court found that the Tsilhqot’in people also have an aboriginal right to trade in skins and pelts as a means of securing a moderate livelihood. These lands are within the Tsilhqot'in traditional territory, the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation’s caretaking area, and partially in the Yunesit’in Government’s caretaking area.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch1 Overview
    RESERVATION OF RIGHTS A number of governments and agencies participated in the development of this Kootenai Subbasin Plan, Part I (Assessment Volume), Part II (Inventory Volume), and Part III (Management Plan Volume), its appendices, and electronically linked references and information (hereafter Plan). The primary purpose of the Plan is to help direct Northwest Power and Conservation Council funding of projects that respond to impacts from the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. Nothing in this Plan, or the participation in its development, is intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, compromise, influence, or preclude any government or agency from carrying out any past, present, or future duty or responsibility which it bears or may bear under any authority. Nothing in this Plan or the participation in its development constitutes a waiver or release of any rights, including the right to election of other remedies, or is intended to compromise, influence, or preclude any government or agency from developing and prosecuting any damage claim for those natural resource impacts identified in the Plan which are not directly and exclusively resulting from, or related to, the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. Nothing in this Plan or the participation in its development is intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, waive any rights of enforcement of regulatory, adjudicatory, or police powers against potentially responsible parties for compliance with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to natural resource damages throughout the Kootenai Subbasin whether or not specifically identified in this Plan. © 2004 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) Citation: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Human Developments and Land Use on Caribou: a Literature Review Volume I: a Worldwide Perspective
    IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW VOLUME I: A WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE R.T. Shideler, M.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Alaska Department of Fish & Game Habitat and Restoration Division The Alaslia Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. For information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications contact the department ADA Coordinator (voice) 9071465-4120: (TTD) 9071478-3648. Any person who believes slhe has been discriminated against should write to: ADF&G, PO Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AJYD LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW Volume I: A Worldwide Perspective by R.T. Shideler, 1vI.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Norman A. Cohen Director Division of Habitat Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 June 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... vi ACKNmmS..................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... ix 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 1.1 Scope & Organization
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Filed by Wayne Mccrory, Rpbio, to Federal Review Panel On
    McCRORY WILDLIFE SERVICES LTD. RESPONSE TO 2011 TERRESTRIAL-WILDLIFE COMPONENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) & ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED NEW PROSPERITY GOLD-COPPER MINE PROJECT AT TEZTAN BINY (FISH LAKE) WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE GRIZZLY BEAR [With added comments on Northwestern Toad & Wild Horses] Report for Friends of Nemaiah Valley (FONV) for submission to the CEAA Panel CEAR reference number 782 August 14, 2013 version Wayne P. McCrory, RPBio McCrory Wildlife Services 208 Laktin Road, New Denver, British Columbia, V0G 1S1 Phone (250) 358-7796 email:[email protected] 2 PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS & DISCLAIMER INFORMATION Professional background & relevant qualifications This report was prepared by me, bear biologist Wayne McCrory, for Friends of Nemaiah Valley (FONV) for submission to the federal CEAA Panel reviewing the New Prosperity mine proposal in the BC Chilcotin. I am a registered professional bear biologist in the province of British Columbia. I have an Honours Zoology degree from the University of British Columbia (1966) and have more than 40 years professional experience. My wildlife and extensive bear work has been published in ten proceedings, peer-reviewed journals, and government publications. I have produced 80 professional reports, some peer-reviewed, many involving environmental impacts, and bear habitat and bear hazard assessments. I served for four years on the BC government’s Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee (GBSAC). Qualifications relevant to my review of the New Prosperity 2011 EIS include the following. I have had extensive experience in environmental impact assessment involving a diverse array of developments, including impacts of logging on grizzly bears, caribou surveys in the Yukon related to the Gas Arctic Pipeline, impacts of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline road, impacts of the Syncrude Tar Sands development on waterfowl and other wildlife, and others.
    [Show full text]