grizzly bear technical review information to the federal ...grizzly bear technical review...
TRANSCRIPT
Grizzly Bear Technical Review Information
Submitted to the Federal Panel Reviewing ‘New Prosperity’
24‐July‐2013
Prepared by:
Sue Senger, PhD, RPBio, PAg
Environment Lead
St’át’imc Government Services
1
Background:St’át’imcValuesontheLandscapeThe St’át’imc have lived on their land since time immemorial, and use resources from their land to thrive
throughout their territory (St'át'imc Land and Resource Authority 2004). The St’át’imc have retained
Title and Rights for their territory (Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe, 1911). The St’át’imc view the land
and the people as inseparable (St'át'imc Land and Resource Authority, 2004). Water, its significance and
life sustaining properties, is often one of the first things discussed when it comes to the environment.
The integrity of the water – its quality, quantity, and the seasonal timing of its flow – are all very critical
to the St’át’imc. Although St’át’imc elders do not place the value of one animal over another, the
Environment Program at St’át’imc Government Services (SGS) has been using Grizzly bear and Mule deer
as two key indicator species for impacts to St’át’imc values on the landscape. We also look carefully at
motorized access changes which not only impact Grizzly bears and Mule deer, but also impact the value
of core wilderness and the level of use an area may receive post‐development.
The Grizzly bear is a culturally significant animal and symbolic of guardianship, medicine, wisdom and
strength. The traditional St’át’imc diet shows substantial overlap with the Grizzly bear’s diet. From
spring bulbs and forbs, to summer berries, medicinal plants and Whitebark pine nuts, the St’át’imc
traditionally rely on the same plants as the bear. They also share the same protein sources like deer,
bighorn sheep, mountain goat, moose, fish, and even smaller foods like marmots. We have
demonstrated this St’át’imc Knowledge (SK) by comparing Grizzly bear foods as determined from GPS‐
collared bears (2005‐2008 research project) and plants identified as culturally significant through
ethnobotanical references, student projects and community knowledge (Senger 2011). Therefore the
Grizzly bear is as an umbrella species for the land based resources of the St’át’imc culture.
All Grizzly bear population units (GBPUs) within St’át’imc territory are listed as Threatened by the
provincial government (Hamilton et al. 2004; Apps, et al. 2009). If Grizzly bears are failing to thrive and
are at risk of extirpation in a territory they have occupied since time immemorial, then the landscape
basis for the St’át’imc culture is likewise at risk of extirpation (Figure 1 – GBPU /territory map). To
protect St’át’imc values on the landscape for future generations, the St’át’imc Chiefs Council (SCC)
passed a resolution for Grizzly bear recovery which creates the framework for our development of
recovery strategies including access management, human‐bear and livestock‐bear conflict mitigation,
critical habitat protection and management of the landscape (St'át'imc Chiefs 2011) (Appendix 1). The
term ‘recovery’ means returning the Grizzly bear populations to healthy status within seven generations
and ensuring that the bears will occupy their traditional range for time immemorial. This concept
highlights the significance of both bear populations numbers and distribution as indicators of success.
The portion of the South Chilcotin GBPU that falls within St’át’imc territory is more sparsely occupied
and at greater risk than the area around Fish Lake and the New Prosperity proposal.
2
We will demonstrate why any impacts to Grizzly bears resulting from either the mine itself and/ or its
cumulative effects on the landscape jeopardize Grizzly bear recovery to healthy status within St’át’imc
territory. The South Chilcotin GBPU extends beyond the St’át’imc into Tsilhqot’in territory. The
St’át’imc Chiefs Council stands in solidarity with the Tsilhqot’in against the development of the New
Prosperity mine proposal (St'át'imc Chiefs 2013) because of the significant impact this development will
have on the land, and thus have on their way of life.
TechnicalInputtotheReviewPanel:
CurrentPopulationsandCumulativeEffects
1. The South Chilcotin GBPU, particularly the region within St’át’imc Territory, is at risk.
The current population estimate for the GBPU is 203 (Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural
Resource Operations, 2012). The current status is “Threatened”. Analysis based on DNA
evidence, demonstrates that the southeastern edge of the South Chilcotin Range, within
St’át’imc territory, is more sparsely populated than the northwest (Apps 2009). There are
perhaps 100 Grizzly bears within St’át’imc territory from this GBPU. There is a long history of
the negative impacts of development on Grizzly bear habitat within the St’át’imc territory,
including the loss of substantial, high‐valued riparian habitat throughout the Bridge River system
due to hydro power infrastructure and roads (Senger and Hamilton 2008). These historic
impacts to habitat contributed to bear mortality and the reduced bear distribution seen today.
The April 2012 population estimate does not account for recent mortalities in the unit (see #3
below) or recent impacts to habitat (see # 4).
Within St’át’imc territory, we can demonstrate that the Grizzly bears require vast areas of
connected ecosystems and habitats in which to thrive.
o Evidence from GPS collared Grizzly bears (2005‐2008) in the Stein‐Nahatlatch and South
Chilcotin GBPUs demonstrates that male Grizzly bears use larger annual home ranges
than females. Male home range size ranged from 1000‐1500 km2 based on 95% fixed
kernel home range analysis (unpublished data – based on over 11,500 GPS locations for
4 bear‐years of data). Females, by contrast, averaged only 100‐270 km2 (unpublished
data – based on over 17,900 GPS locations for 9 bear‐years of data).
Wide‐ranging males are exposed to a greater array of mortality risks across the
landscape than females.
The small home ranges of female Grizzly bears make them highly susceptible to
disturbance and development that falls within the watersheds they use.
Recent research has shown that: “Female grizzly bear dispersal is also gradual,
taking several years (McLellan and Hovey2001) and this characteristic makes
females more susceptible to fragmentation (Proctor 2003, Proctor et al. 2005) as
3
they move try to move through a human‐dominated environment, increasing
their risk of human‐caused mortality.” (pg. 35) (Proctor et al. 2012).
Secure habitats, and linkages between them, are essential for movement,
dispersal, and gene flow in the South Chilcotin GBPU.
Our experience working in the critically Threatened Stein‐Nahatlatch GBPU (N=24),
demonstrates that:
1. any mortality disproportionately affects the probability of achieving recovery in
small populations, to the point that the survivorship of individuals strongly alters the
chances for success, and
2. the rate at which the tipping point can be reached is faster than our ability to react.
o In 2012, two adult breeding female Grizzly bears died, one of natural causes and the
other human‐caused. This brings the total known female mortality up to 6 since 2006
(4 adults; 2 subadults). In that same time frame, there has been limited evidence of cub
survivorship (i.e. Individual cubs and sometimes whole litters are lost), or recruitment
(i.e. subadult females become reproductive adults). Therefore taken at face value, the
loss of 6 females from a population of 24 is a 25% loss over 8 years, or 3% annual loss.
o The loss of these two breeding females vastly reduces the probability of recovering the
Stein‐Nahatlatch GBPU. There are perhaps 4 remaining breeding females left, but this
has not been confirmed at this time.
o We are now beyond the tipping point for this unit, and without significant investment
and improved management, the unit will extirpate.
o The existing Acts and Regulations, habitat protection, human‐bear conflict mitigation,
access management, and the level of resources and investment available for recovery
efforts have been completely inadequate to prevent the ongoing decline of this
threatened GBPU. Basing the requirements for new developments, like Taseko, on
these existing parameters has a low likelihood of preventing Grizzly bear population
decline in the adjacent South Chilcotin GBPU.
o We are on the edge of having to record another substantial reduction in Grizzly bear
occupancy in North America. Figure 2 illustrates the scenario in which Garibaldi Pitt
(N=2), North Cascades (n=6) and Stein‐Nahatlatch (N=24) all extirpate. This amounts to a
species range reduction of over 17,000 km2 in British Columbia.
o It is the cumulative effect of developments that disrupt core wilderness and linkages,
and contribute to human‐caused mortality, which will determine whether Grizzly bears
continue to exist in southwest British Columbia. Added into this network of human use
created by industry, continued expansion of human settlement areas and the rapid
increase in recreation drastically reduce the areas left as core, secure habitats for Grizzly
bears.
4
The scale at which cumulative effects on Grizzly bear population sustainability must be
measured is at the GBPU level, and that of the threatened status of southwest British Columbia.
It is inappropriate to consider a smaller area given that:
o The ability to maintain the occupancy of the Grizzly bear species range in British
Columbia rests on our success or failure at recovering the threatened GBPUs.
o The strongest “source population” of bears for reproduction and dispersal (i.e.
redistribution and genetic flow) within the Threatened units lies clearly within the South
Chilcotin GBPU, in the northwest.
The Taseko documentation, quoted below, suggests that the location of the
mine footprint within the GBPU somehow lessens its potential for cumulative
impacts, but this is an ill‐conceived upscaling of footprint impacts to the
landscape and GBPU level. If viewed from the GBPU perspective, the mine
footprint falls between the strongest source of breeding bears in the South
Chilcotin and the more sparsely occupied southeast. That source must be
protected to avoid erosion of recovery opportunities (Nielsen 2011). The
Taseko proposal will disrupt bear movement across the landscape and lead to
increased mortality risk, both of which will reduce the likelihood of successful
Grizzly bear recovery within St’át’imc territory (Figure 3).
“With respect to grizzly bears specifically, . . . . the Project’s location in the more
developed and lower capability portion of the northwestern quadrant of the GBPU, the
better state of this portion of the GBPU relative to other portions to the south and east . .
.the Project’s incremental contribution to future cumulative effects is predicted to be not
significant with respect to the sustainability of the GBPU “ on page 1‐28 in the Responses to
Supplemental Information Request 1b on Cumulative Effects Assessment
According to Chief Art Adolph of Xaxli’p, the loss of Grizzly bears within St’át’imc
territory is akin to “ethnocide” – the loss of a way of life (pers.comm, 4‐July‐
2013). The Grizzly bears reflect the health of the ecosystem and we are failing
to provide what is necessary for their ongoing survival.
In light of the rapid decline in the Stein‐Nahatlatch GBPU, ensuring the stability of source
regions in the South Chilcotin is critical. The risk is that the southeast portion of the unit will fail,
and the existing source population in the northwest will become the new edge of the species
distribution.
5
HomeRanges
2. Individual bears with home ranges within St’át’imc territory are at risk at the New Prosperity
proposed site.
Evidence of large scale movements out of St’át’imc territory comes from a male Grizzly bear (M4
– aka Homer) that was collared in the Whitecap drainage in 2006 outside of the community of
Shalalth/Seton Portage. That year, Homer traveled up the Bridge River drainage and into the
headwaters of the Lord River, of Edmond Creek and of the Tchaikazan River which feeds into
Taseko Lake (Figure 3).
If there were Grizzly bears collared closer to the edge of St’át’imc territory, some these home
ranges would in all likelihood overlap the New Prosperity footprint directly.
The loss of any individual Grizzly bears from St’át’imc territory would reduce the probability of
recovery. At approximately 100 bears within the GBPU inside the territory, and a 50:50 sex
ratio, there are perhaps 50 females remaining. The number of these females that are
reproductive adults is currently unknown. The loss of breeding males has ramifications for the
productivity of these females and for genetic diversity within the population.
Mortality
3. The existing level of human‐caused mortality in the South Chilcotin GBPU far exceeds what can be
tolerated in a threatened population, and this has not be adequately considered in terms of significant
cumulative effects from adding the Taseko development.
With the assistance of Tony Hamilton (Large Carnivore Specialist, Ministry of Environment), all
the documented Grizzly bear mortalities in the South Chilcotin GBPU have been summarized in
Table 1. There have been 14 human‐caused Grizzly bear mortalities from 2006 to date in 2013.
Note that 5 of these have occurred since April 2012, and 8 of 14 are in the lower density portion
of the GBPU.
Beyond these known mortalities (Table 1), there is a minimum standard of 2% per annum of the
standing population estimated as illegal and unreported kills. To factor this into consideration,
the following formula is used: (0.02*203 bears*8 years) = 32 bears. This value is added to the 14
known mortalities to give 46 bears in 8 years. That is converted to an annual rate as (46/203)/8
years = 0.03 or 3% per annum human‐caused mortality.
o This 2% standard estimate of unreported kills is completely appropriate for a highly
roaded, cattle dominated landscape with substantial ungulate hunting (pers. Comm.
Tony Hamilton, 22‐July‐2013).
6
o This value of human‐caused mortality needs to drop to near zero if Threatened units
have any chance to increase in numbers. Every additional human‐caused mortality
weakens the chances of successfully increasing the population and reaching
sustainability.
o At this existing mortality level, the South Chilcotin GBPU has limited probability of
expansion.
ANY amount of incremental human‐caused mortality is coming over and above these recent
events in the GBPU. There can be no further increases. The risk of any increase in mortality at
this point in time is cause for serious concern and reason to suspend consideration of the New
Prosperity proposal until these issues are properly addressed.
Although the male‐biased mortality in the South Chilcotin stands in sharp contrast to the
female‐biased mortality in Stein‐Nahatlatch, it is indicative of broad landscape scale mortality
risk that is not currently addressed. The poaching incidents highlight the need for a substantial
increase in enforcement within the unit to discourage further events. While support for
education programs as offered by Taseko will be helpful, education alone will not resolve this
mortality risk situation and therefore cannot be considered as mitigating this risk factor.
Table 1: Known human‐caused mortality of Grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin GBPU since 2006. A
total of 14 Grizzly bears have been killed including 10 males, 2 females and 2 bears of unknown sex.
Year Impact
Adult
Male
Subadult
Male
Adult
Female
Subadult
Female UNK
Mortality
Total Incident Notes
2006 mortality 1 1 Hurley drainage‐poaching incident (May6, 2006) ‐ successfully prosecuted yes
2007 mortality 1 1 Big Creek: Cow‐grizzly conflict situation (animal control kill) no
2007 mortality 2 2 Chilco River: Cow‐grizzly conflict situation (animal control kill) no
2008 mortalilty 1 1 Tyaugton Lake: Adult female killed in backyard; two male cubs into rehab. yes
2008 mortalilty 1 1
Tyaughton Lake: Male cub killed as a conflict animal (female sibling was
translocated; adult female left the area). (May 26‐29, 2008) (animal control
kill) yes
2010 mortality 2 2
Siwash area: Illegal kills of two Grizzly bears in relation to cattle conflict ‐ no
carasses ‐ no conviction no
2011 mortality 1 1
Hurley Road: poaching incident ‐ charges laid, pending court decision
(Nov 15, 2011) yes
2012 mortality 1 1
Bralorne: Homer is destroyed ‐ COS removal (April 27, 2012) (animal control
kill) yes
2012 mortality 1 1 Grizzly bear mistaken for a black bear by guided hunter ( June 5, 2012) yes
2012 mortality 1 1 Farwell Canyon: Cow‐grizzly conflict situation (animal control kill) no
2012 mortality 1 1 Shalalth: Subadult Grizzly killed in a backyard yes
2013 mortality 1 1 Grizzly bear mistaken for a black bear by guided hunter (May 13, 2013) yes
5 5 2 0 2 14 8 4
Inside St'at'imc
Territory
7
UncertaintyandtheDelaysinCauseandEffect
4. The existing level of landscape scale alteration north of the St’át’imc territory boundary far exceeds
the rate at which populations can respond to that change. In other words, the impacts of current forces
of change have yet to register as population level Grizzly bear affects and are therefore not incorporated
in the 2012 GBPU population estimate.
Landscape alteration has occurred at an unprecedented rate in the South Chilcotin GBPU due to:
Mountain Pine Beetle infestations (MPB)
Increased forest harvesting due to MPB
Increased road access due to forest harvesting, and Recent significant declines in Moose populations.
These types of habitat level changes often do not register instantaneously as Grizzly bear
mortality, and therefore as a population decline. There is a lag time between these events and
whether female Grizzly bears have cubs that survive to become subadults. There is a further lag
time to determine if those subadults ever transition into breeding individuals that contribute to
the next generation of bears. Sublethal effects from the erosion of habitat effectiveness can
thus take 4‐8 years, or longer, to register at the population level. The current population
estimate is only a snapshot of what has occurred in the past. These rapid changes in the
landscape have not registered at the population level.
o There is substantial uncertainty in our ability to predict the results of these changes on
the South Chilcotin population numbers. Therefore it is of paramount importance that
quality, baseline, pre‐development data is obtained for Grizzly bears before any
significant project is allowed to proceed. This baseline includes Grizzly bear movement,
seasonal, annual and multi‐annual home ranges, cub production and survival, and the
identification and protection of critical linkages. The Taseko project has committed to
supporting the Provincial monitoring program, but it is unclear if this includes pre‐
development data collection and First Nations involvement in monitoring.
o Climate change is also a significant consideration. The seasonal availability of Grizzly
bear foods is changing in ways we do not understand. Release of spring habitat from
snow, the timing and quality of berry crops, flood and fire events, all contribute to
Grizzly bear survival and reproduction.
o Understanding the numbers and circumstances is critical for success. In St’át’imc
territory we have observed Grizzly bears moving into areas of human settlement where
they have not been seen in living memory, starting with Homer in 2007. This is despite
the low bear densities in the territory. Issues with seasonal food availability are
suspected in many of these cases. However, people typically respond to this situation
with the attitude that since more Grizzly bears are being seen, then there must be a
population increase. A single bear like Homer was responsible for dozens of sightings.
This misperception is prevalent, and an example of how difficult it is to protect
individual high‐valued Grizzly bears that interact with people. In my experience in
collecting sighting information on Grizzly bears since 2000 through interviews, people
8
typically underestimate how far a bear can move in a day or a week, and vastly
overestimate the connectivity of Grizzly bears across the GBPUs. The ability to respond
proactively to these types of behavior changes in bears is critical as we move forward.
The displacement of bears away from the mine footprint and road traffic may
exacerbate these types of current conflict trends in the GBPU.
TheNeedForEffectiveMitigation
5. Although there is a proposed Grizzly bear mitigation plan for this Taseko mining development, that
plan falls short of delivering on recovery objectives in several significant ways:
The development itself and its Grizzly bear mitigation plan are based on current Acts and
Regulations that have failed to achieve recovery in the Stein‐Nahatlatch GBPU, or any
Threatened GBPU in southwest British Columbia to date. This standard of conduct for industrial
development is too, despite the cooperative implementation of higher standards by some
companies that is occurring right now. We cannot operate from a position of ‘business as usual’
or even ‘no net loss’ and must transition to a position of ‘net gain for recovery’ throughout
southwest BC.
The mine footprint will directly impact individual Grizzly bears.
o During a July 2012 field visit to the Fish Lake area, I observed fresh Grizzly bear tracks
and evidence of recent foraging in the riparian area on the proposed mine footprint.
That translates into current use and occupancy by Grizzly bears.
o Language in the Taseko documents implies the habitat values for Grizzly bear are
relatively low in the vicinity of the mine, but I saw ample evidence of current use in the
footprint and in the surrounding landscape. The quality of bear habitat varies
dramatically across the landscape and across the seasons. For wide‐ranging species, like
the Grizzly bear, isolated pockets of habitat often prove vital as linkages and corridors
between areas of substantial feeding opportunities. The around the mine development
is in current use, and this use inside a Threatened GBPU cannot be dismissed as
insignificant.
o My trip also included a site visit to the Xeni Gwet’in Reserve in Nemiah Valley where a
female Grizzly bear with two cubs was aversively conditioned by Conservation Officers
to reduce the potential for conflict in 2012. We can only speculate whether this female
crossed through the mine footprint to reach this point, but anecdotal evidence from
sightings suggests she might have travelled that way. More data is required to
understand use and occupancy of this area as a whole.
9
The mortality‐risk reduction framework as summarized in the tables provided in the “Response
to Supplemental Information Request 38a” projects optimistic values for successful
implementation for many individual mitigation steps. The question must be asked: what
happens when multiple steps fail to meet projected outcomes?
o Unless a mitigation step gets implemented, it has no value.
o There are multiple mitigation steps which require third party cooperation to implement
and this cooperation cannot be guaranteed over the life of the mine.
o Future forecasts of successful mitigation are simply that – a gaze at a crystal ball. The
people of Calgary did not expect to be flooded out of their homes in 2013. The
consequences of being wrong, of failing to mitigate mortality risk or impacts on
movements and linkage, will drastically impact recovery probabilities within St’át’imc
territory. This risk is significant to the St’át’imc Nation.
o At what point does the Precautionary Principle take precedence in the face of
considerable uncertainty, no site‐specific data (GPS collars and site‐specific DNA work)
on which to accurately build the mitigation plan and from which to measure rates of
change, and limited regional or provincial coordination to ensure cooperation and
implementation will occur?
o In Table 38A‐2 #6 “The effectiveness of access control measures along the transmission
line ROW will be monitored during the first and second year of mine operation. . . . ”
This is a very specific example of how the plan falls short for recovery. Monitoring for
the effectiveness of access control measures must occur throughout the life of the mine
and the transmission ROW and adjustments to mitigation measures must be made as
required to achieve the result. Anything less than this is inadequate in a threatened
GBPU.
In my experience since 2009 helping to manage a gate with a seasonal Wildlife
Act motorized vehicle closure in Texas Creek, I can report that it takes constant
vigilance to ensure that the closure has any measure of effectiveness. In 2013,
we will have to re‐establish the boulders preventing vehicles routing around the
gate, and install another sign (now the third one posted). While this example
may seem small to some readers, it is exactly the kind of detail that MUST be
attended to for success.
o In Table 38A‐3 # 4 “All waste that may be attractive to bears will be handled in
accordance with strict permit conditions” – this point limits Taseko responsibility to
“waste” instead of including all on‐site bear attractants. Mine site attractants typically
include petroleum products, machine lubricants, access to machine seats (e.g. bears
chewing ATV seats), etc. and all bear attractants must be fully managed or contained.
o In the Discussion of document 38b, page 38‐11, Taseko makes reference to its
commitment to “access planning” and coordinating the effort on this. While access
planning is laudable, what is needed right now, today, is on‐the‐ground access
management. The step of “identifying possibilities” is not the same as a commitment to
achieve reduced access. The susceptibility of Grizzly bears to increasing levels of traffic
has been well documented in a recent study (Proctor et al. 2012). It is not simply
whether a road is new or existing that determines its impact on Grizzly bear mortality,
10
but also the level and timing of use. The human usage of the entire area will be changed
if the Taseko project proceeds.
o Overall, document 38‐b downplays the impacts of the mine on Grizzly bears because it
fails to recognize the significant contribution of individual bears to population recovery.
Bears currently using the proposed footprint are at increased mortality risk, and the
location of the mine within the GBPU significantly influences linkage. ANY incremental
mortality within the GBPU will have significant implications for population recovery at
this juncture.
Summary:
The St’át’imc are inseparable from the land. They use the Grizzly bear as an umbrella species for the
land‐based aspects of their culture. Grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin GBPU in general, and within
St’át’imc territory specifically, are currently at risk. The St’át’imc are committed to recovering Grizzly
bear populations to health status and ensuring the bears occupy their traditional range. The Taseko
development, due to its location and the uncertainty associated with successful mitigation of its
cumulative impacts, does not contribute to achieving recovery in its current form. While its mitigation
plan includes some important strategies that may be helpful and effective, the optimistic outcome is
based on implementing each and every strategy fully and successfully. Recent events in the Stein‐
Nahatlatch GBPU illustrate just how difficult this can be and how quickly a positive trajectory can change
in a small population. The risk associated with being wrong in this circumstance, with failing to mitigate
the cumulative effects of this development on Grizzly bears, will undermine the St’át’imc culture. This
risk is significant.
11
ReferenceList
Apps, Clayton D. Grizzly bear population abundance, distribution and connectivity across British Columbia's Southern Coast Ranges Version 1.0. 2009. Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe. 1911. www.statimc.net Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. British Columbia Population Estimate for 2012. 2012. Nielsen, Scott E. (2011). Relationships between grizzly bear source‐sink habitats and prioritized biodiversity sites in Central British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 12, 136‐147.
Proctor, Michael, Paetkau, David, McLellan, Bruce N., Stenhouse, Gordon, Kendall, Katherine C., Mace, Richard D., Kasworm, Wayne F., Servheen, Christopher, Lausen, Cori L., Gibeau, Micheal L., Wakkinen, Wayne, Haroldson, Mark A., Mowat, Garth, Apps, Clayton D., Ciarniello, Lana, Barclay, Robert M. R., Boyce, Mark S., Schwartz, Charles C., and Strobeck, Curtis (2012). Population Fragmentation and Inter‐Ecosystem Movements of Grizzly Bears in Western Canada and the Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180, 1‐46.
Senger, S. E. Grizzly bears as the umbrella species for the St'át'imc First Nation Culture. 20th International Conference on Bear Research & Management.Program and Abstracts.July 17‐23, 2011.Ottawa, Ontario, Canada . 2011. Ref Type: Abstract
Senger, S. E. and Hamilton, A. N. A preliminary assessement of historic human impacts on grizzly bear habitat in the Bridge River Valley. 1‐29. 2008. St'át'imc Chiefs. St'át'imc Chiefs Council Resolution on Grizzly Bear Recovery. 2011. St'át'imc Chiefs. In Solidarity with Tshilqot'in ‐ Discussion at SCC Meeting on 4‐July‐2013. Re: New Prosperity Proposal. 2013. (Personal Communication) St'át'imc Land and Resource Authority. Nexkmenlhkalha Iti Tmicwa. St'át'imc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan, Part 1. March 2004. 1‐29. 2004. Lillooet BC. www.statimc.net.
13
Figure 2: The projected range reduction for Grizzly bears in southwest BC if the three critically threatened Grizzly bear population units (GBPUs)
extirpate: Garibaldi Pitt (N=2), North Cascades (N=6) and Stein‐Nahatlatch (N=24).
14
Figure 3: Satellite imagery showing Fish Lake and the general location of the Taseko proposal relative to unroaded wilderness (Provincial Digital
Road Atlas layer as tan lines), the St’át’imc territory boundary (red line), a 25km buffer on the territory (purple line), and the GPS locations of the
male Grizzly bear Homer (red dots – hourly locations) that was collared in Whitecap, outside of Shalalth/Seton Portage. Some of the site visit
locations from the 2012 field trip are highlighted in yellow.