Appendix 15-B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix 15-B Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Prepared for: KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report December 2015 The world’s leading sustainability consultancy AuRico Metals Inc. KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report December 2015 Project #0196303-0021 Citation: ERM. 2015. Kemess Underground Project: Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report. Prepared for AuRico Metals Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd.: Vancouver, British Columbia. ERM ERM Building, 15th Floor 1111 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2J3 T: (604) 689-9460 F: (604) 687-4277 ERM prepared this report for the sole and exclusive benefit of, and use by, AuRico Metals Inc. Notwithstanding delivery of this report by ERM or AuRico Metals Inc. to any third party, any copy of this report provided to a third party is provided for informational purposes only, without the right to rely upon the report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AuRico Metals Inc. (AuRico) proposes to develop the Kemess Underground Project (the Project), an underground gold-copper mine located in north-central British Columbia (BC) approximately 250 km north of Smithers, 430 km north-northwest of Prince George, and 6.5 km north of the past-producing Kemess South (KS) Mine (coordinates: 57º0′N; 126º45′W). This report provides habitat suitability modelling for the Project, based on the terrestrial ecosystem mapping conducted by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. The goal of the wildlife habitat suitability modelling was to map the current distribution and quality of habitat for selected wildlife species within the Project Local Study Area (LSA). Results of habitat suitability modelling will be used in the assessment of potential effects on wildlife in the Application for an Environmental Assessment (EA) Certificate (the Application). Habitat suitability modelling was conducted using provincial ratings standards (RIC 1999) for the following species and associated seasons: • caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) early winter, late winter, spring reproducing, and summer habitat; • moose ( Alces americanus ) early and late winter habitat; • mountain goat ( Oreamnos americanus ) winter and summer habitat; • grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) spring, summer, fall habitat; • American marten ( Martes americana ) winter habitat; and • hoary marmot ( Marmota caligata ) growing season (combined spring, summer, and fall) habitat. The results of habitat suitability modelling indicate that there is valuable habitat for each species within the LSA. The distribution of high quality habitat (High and Moderately High rated habitat) for caribou was negligible during the early winter (~1% of LSA), but increased through the late winter (13% of LSA), spring calving period (12% of LSA), and the summer (16% of LSA) when caribou are expected to use higher elevation habitats (Table 1). Moderate amounts of high quality winter habitat for moose were mapped across the LSA. In general, more high quality early winter habitat for moose (20% of LSA) was identified relative to late winter habitat (11% of LSA), as it is expected that moose will be restricted to lower elevations as the snowpack accumulates over the winter (Table 1). The LSA contained similar amounts of high quality winter and summer habitats for mountain goat; High and Moderately High rated winter and summer habitats each accounted for 15% of LSA (Table 1). Grizzly bear spring habitat was generally the most abundant seasonal habitat for bears in the LSA, with roughly 13% of the LSA identified as high quality spring habitat. High quality summer and fall habitats were generally very limited, with roughly 3% of the LSA identified as high quality summer habitat and less than 1% of the LSA rated as high quality during the fall (Table 1). Large portions of AURICO METALS INC. i WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING REPORT the LSA were identified as functional habitat (High and Moderate rated habitat) for American marten during the winter, with just over 40% of the LSA rated as High and Moderate. Functional growing habitats for hoary marmot were very limited within the LSA, totalling approximately 7% of the LSA. Table 1. Habitat Suitability Modelling Results Moderately High 1 High 1 Moderate 1 Low 1 Very Low 1 Nil 1 Area Area Area Area Area Area Species Season (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % (ha) % Caribou Early Winter 2 0 0 232 1 6,723 40 469 3 4,587 28 2,173 13 Late Winter 1,104 7 1,078 6 3,124 19 8,056 48 5 < 1 3,292 20 Calving 1,369 8 669 4 3,451 21 5,498 33 3 < 1 5,669 34 Summer 1,392 8 1,254 8 4,179 25 6,345 38 4 < 1 3,485 21 Moose Early Winter 1,364 8 2,026 12 533 3 7,233 43 5,182 31 322 2 Late Winter 282 2 1,610 10 242 1 2,176 13 3,094 19 9,255 56 Mountain Goat Winter 826 5 1,604 10 1,248 7 551 3 11,299 68 1,130 7 Summer 1,198 7 1,244 7 1,288 8 524 3 11,275 68 1,130 7 Grizzly Bear Spring 602 4 1,531 9 7,147 43 3,087 19 3,969 24 322 2 Summer 0 0 474 3 9,639 58 2,254 14 3,969 24 322 2 Fall 0 0 113 1 7,548 45 4,139 25 4,536 27 322 2 American Marten Winter 4,379 26 NA NA 2,544 15 1,263 8 NA NA 8,472 51 Hoary Marmot Growing 101 1 NA NA 1,031 6 363 2 NA NA 15,163 91 1 Area and % habitat within LSA, LSA = 16,658 ha. 2 A total of 2,473 ha (15 % of LSA) was not rated for early winter suitability. NA = not assessed, as habitat was rated using a 4-class scheme: high, moderate, low and nil. ii ERM | PROJ #0196303-0021 | REV B.1 | DECEMBER 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared for AuRico Metals Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. Baseline terrestrial ecosystem mapping that was used in this report was produced by Ardea Biological Consulting Ltd. Wildlife habitat models were produced by Shaun Freeman (B.Sc., R.P.Bio). Report writing was conducted by Julia Shewan (B.Sc.) and reviewed by Katie Kuker (M.Sc.). The Kemess Underground Project was managed by Mark Branson (M.Sc.) and Greg Norton (M.Sc.). AURICO METALS INC. iii KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modelling Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................vii List of Appendices............................................................................................................................ viii Glossary and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ ix 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Project Proponent ................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Overview of Habitat Suitability Modelling ..................................................................... 1-3 1.6 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.7 Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 1-4 2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Species Selection .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Model Development and Limitations ............................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Development .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Wildlife Habitat Suitability Models .................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1 Caribou .................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.1.2 Early Winter Habitat Model ................................................................ 2-4 2.3.1.3 Late Winter Habitat Model .................................................................