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 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. I have also done extensive grizzly bear habitat surveys in at least 15 provincial and national parks, including extensive habitat mapping and ground-truthing of several types of habitat map modeling. I also have had extensive research experience in the BC Cariboo-Chilcotin, including an environmental impact study on wildlife for the proposed Moran Dam, an environmental impact study for the Toosey Indian Band of the effects of military exercises on the Chilcotin DND military block, bufflehead duck surveys for the Canadian Wildlife Service, two Aboriginal Species-at-Risk studies (ASFAR), including grizzly bears in the New Prosperity Regional Study Area (RSA and beyond, a biological assessment of the Brittany Triangle, a DNA study of wild horses of the Brittany with Texas A & M University, and for the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, I have been involved in studies including wildlife tourism, grizzly bear viewing, climate change, and access management. Disclaimer The findings contained in this report were compiled from on-site field investigations of grizzly bear habitat values in the Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) study area; reviews of all available studies and information on grizzly bear habitats, population numbers, mortality, grizzly bear salmon and trout feeding areas, and conservation status in the Fish Lake study area and BC Chilcotin. The scientific literature was reviewed for all relevant materials. The author has also relied on anecdotal information, traditional knowledge of grizzly bears from Xeni Gwet’in wildlife researchers, and my own independent professional interpretation of the literature. I feel I have provided an accurate and authoritative analysis with regard to the subject matter covered herein. The conclusions and summation expressed herein are entirely my own and have not been subjected to outside peer review. I take full responsibility for any errors or omissions on my part but not on the part of errors or omissions extant in the data provided by outside sources. While best efforts have been made to ensure the validity of this review, no liability is assumed with respect to the use or application of the information contained herein. 3 LEGAL COVENANT FROM THE XENI GWET’IN GOVERNMENT 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 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. Nothing in this report shall abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal title or aboriginal rights of the Tsilhqot'in, the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation, or any Tsilhqot'in or Xeni Gwet'in members. Midnight: A Chilcotin grizzly bear on mark trail along salmon stream 4 SPECIAL NOTE ON ASSUMPTIONS OF STANDARDS FOR MINE-UPGRADE OF THE TASEKO/WHITEWATER/4500 MINE ROAD The proposed standards for the upgrade and re-routing of some of the Taseko/Whitewater/4500 road were important to my assessment of mortality risk to grizzly bears from traffic collisions. For example, I cite evidence from Apps et al. (2009) that the Duffy Lake Road (which is in the next GBPU south of the New Prosperity location) started as a logging road in about 1970, and was upgraded/paved in 1991 to become an extension of Highway 99. This transportation improvement is believed to have caused the extirpation of resident female grizzly bears north of the road. Since the new mine road standards, such as paved/unpaved, were not made available in the Prosperity EIS documents, I made a written request to Taseko in 2010 that went through the review panel but I never received a response. Nor were the road standards available in the 2011 EIS. On July 24, 2013, I again asked Taseko representatives at the New Prosperity hearings to provide the standards (paved or unpaved) of a new road upgrade. They were vague and said they could not say. In light of the fact that if the mine is approved, the road will be significantly upgraded to handle large-scale industrial traffic, I am making the assumption that the road will, in effect, become a paved highway some time during the 35-year life span of the mine and am calling it that for purposes of discussion in this document. The practice, now common, of identifying ‘critical habitat’ and classifying it into management situation categories is an approach that may help a few individual bears over the short-term, but, over the long-term, will surely violate the totality of resources and space necessary for population viability (Dr. J. Craighead 1995). 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................18 2.0 STUDY APPROACH ......................................................................................................18 2.1 Background review: Expanded review of the scientific literature on grizzly bears, including conservation status......................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Increased inventory of habitats, numbers, and movements of grizzly bears.................................. 19 2.2.1 Assessment of minimal numbers of grizzly bears that seasonally frequent the Fish Lake study area .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Assessment of minimal grizzly bear numbers that annually frequent the mid-upper Taseko and Fish Lake mine area and the Chilcotin Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU).....................................................................................................................19 2.2.3 Field surveys of grizzly bear habitats and their use in the Fish Lake study area.............. 19 2.2.4 Determination of grizzly bear/wildlife corridor movement values in the Fish Lake study area ......................................................................................................... 20 2.3 Assessment of Taseko Mine’s New Prosperity EIS (2011)........................................................... 20 3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION............................................................................................20 3.1 Part 1. Additional Grizzly Bear Baseline Inventory Information For The Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Mine Study Area And The South Chilcotin Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) .................................................................................................................................. 21 3.1.1 Grizzly bear vulnerability and its value as an indicator species ....................................... 21 3.1.2 International, federal, & provincial conservation status of the South Chilcotin Ranges grizzly bear ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2.1 International: International recognition of the vulnerability of British Columbia’s grizzly bears includes banning the importation of any trophy