prosperity gold-copper project - canada.ca

Prosperity Gold-Copper Project

Supplemental Report to Taseko Mines Ltd. Prosperity Gold-Copper Project Environmental Impact Statement:

Local and Regional Environmental Effects on Wildlife and

Vegetation Resources of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government at the Proposed Mine Site

Compiled by Taseko Mines Limited

October 2, 2009

Supplemental Report to Taseko Mines Ltd. Prosperity Gold-Copper Project Environmental Impact Statement

Taseko Mines Limited October 2009

Page i

Executive Summary In January 2009 Taseko Mines Limited submitted a nine volume Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Project to both

a federal review Panel and the provincial Environmental Assessment Office

(EAO). During the public review and comment period that followed, comments

received from both the provincial government and the Tsilhqot‘in National

Government (TNG) indicated that additional assessment of project effects on

wildlife and vegetation at the mine site was required to characterize predicted

project effects on a more local/sub-regional scale. As a component of this

assessment, additional wildlife and vegetation species known to be of particular

importance to the TNG were also considered.

Working collaboratively with BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) officials,

three new study areas were established. The Eastern Trapline Area as defined in

the William case was used as the local study area. Two larger study areas were

also identified: the Rights and Title Area as defined in the William case (for

ecosystem type and wildlife habitat analyses), and a general Regional Study

Area, which is the combined area of the Taseko River and Big Creek watersheds

(for wildlife habitat analyses).

A list of 22 species of wildlife were identified by the BC MOE and, based on

habitat loss and population density estimates, local population effects expressed

in terms of numbers of animals were predicted. No attempt was made to draw

conclusions on the significance of these local effects as there was no quantitative

context available for so doing.

Linkages between 52 plant species identified as being important to the TNG and

the vegetation Key Indicators (KIs) assessed in detail in the EIS were identified

and the potential effect of the mine development on these species was

determined based upon inferences drawn from the KI-specific effects

assessments completed for the EIS. No significant residual effects were

predicted for any of the 52 plant species.

Similarly, linkages between the 24 wildlife species indentified as important to the

TNG in the William case and six of the wildlife KIs assessed in detail in the EIS

were identified the potential effect of the mine development on these species was

determined based upon inferences drawn from the KI-specific effects

assessments completed for the EIS. No significant residual effects were

predicted for any of the 24 William case species.


October 2009 Taseko Mines Limited

Page ii

PEM-based wildlife habitat capability models were developed for four species

that were identified in the William case and also assessed as KIs in the EIS (i.e.,

moose, mule deer, fisher, and black bear) and area summaries of the change in

habitat capability from baseline to maximum disturbance (as defined in the EIS)

were generated for each of the modeled species. A similar analysis was

conducted for grizzly bear but using habitat suitability and capability map

products recently developed by the BC MOE, rather than PEM-based models.

Project-related changes in habitat availability, viewed in the context of the

smallest study area (i.e., the Eastern Trapline Study Area) were understandably

the largest, ranging from -6.1 to -36.1% for moderate and higher value habitat

classes. In a regional context, Project-related changes in habitat availability

ranged from -0.8 to -2.3% for moderate and higher value habitat classes in the

Regional Study Area, and from -1.0 to 2.5% for moderate and higher value

classes in the Rights and Title Study Area.



Page iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... iv

1 Background and Scope of Report ..................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Report .................................................................................................... 1

2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Environmental Effects Rating Criteria for Assessing Effects Significance ............. 4

2.2 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance ......................................... 5 2.2.1 Moose ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Mule Deer ................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Fisher ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.4 Black Bear .................................................................................................. 7 2.2.5 Grizzly Bear ................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Wildlife................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.1 Local Population Effects ............................................................................. 7 2.3.2 William case Wildlife Species ..................................................................... 8

2.3.3 Habitat Loss ............................................................................................... 9 2.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 14

2.4.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot‘in National Government ....... 14

2.4.2 Vegetation Loss ........................................................................................ 15

3 Effects Assessment .......................................................................................... 16

3.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................. 16

3.1.1 Local Population Effects ........................................................................... 16 3.1.2 William Court Case Wildlife Species ......................................................... 25

3.1.3 Habitat Loss ............................................................................................. 32 3.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 51

3.2.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot‘in National Government ....... 51

3.2.2 Vegetation Loss ........................................................................................ 51

4 References ......................................................................................................... 62



Page iv

List of Tables

Table 1 Characterization of Environmental Effects for Wildlife ..................... 4

Table 2 Biogeoclimatic Unit Distribution in the Maximum Disturbance (Footprint) Area and Rights and Title Study Area .......................... 12

Table 3 Local Population Effect Predictions for Twenty-two Wildlife Species .......................................................................................... 17

Table 4 William Court Case Species – Effects Assessment Approach ...... 26

Table 5 Portion of MSxv and SBPSxc in the Rights and Title Study Area that is Protected or of Special Interest ........................................... 34

Table 6 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Moose Winter Feeding Habitat Capability ................ 43

Table 7 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat Capability ............ 44

Table 8 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Fisher Natal Denning Habitat Capability ................... 45

Table 9 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Black Bear Denning Habitat Capability ..................... 46

Table 10 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability ................................. 47

Table 11 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability ................................. 48

Table 12 Effect Characterization and Determination of Significance for Wildlife ........................................................................................... 49

Table 13 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot‘in National Government – Linkages to Vegetation Key Indicators Assessed in the EIS ...... 52

Table 14 Change in Area of Old Forest from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance ................................................................................... 60

Table 15 Change in Area of Vegetation Key Indicators from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Alpine and Parkland, Grasslands and Wetlands ....................................................................................... 61

List of Figures Figure 1 Regional and Local Study Areas (Wildlife and Vegetation) ............. 2 Figure 2 Biogeoclimatic Units in and Around the Study Areas..................... 13



Page 1

1 Background and Scope of Report

1.1 Background

In January 2009 Taseko submitted our EIS and on March 11, 2009 the Province

of British Columbia accepted the EIS as complete. Beginning on March 26, 2009

a joint EAO and Federal Panel 60 day public comment period was held. During

this period comments were received from both provincial regulatory agencies and

First Nations to the effect that the EIS did not effectively assess project effects on

all wildlife and vegetation species that are of importance to the Tsilhqot‘in people

and that the EIS assessment of significance did not characterize project effects

on wildlife populations their habitat and vegetation in the context of more

meaningful local areas. It was subsequently determined that this needed to be

done in order that any residual project effects could be better understood.

In considering these comments Taseko took into account the fact that In the

Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects

section of the approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines

(January 2009) direction was given to pay specific attention only to interactions

between the Project and the 21 identified KIs (Section 1.0, page 39).

Notwithstanding that this was done, in consultation and collaboration with the

Williams Lake office of the BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE), Taseko and its

consultants have undertaken additional analysis to further characterize project

effects to address the above mentioned comments. This supplemental report

provides the results of this additional analysis.

While the body of this report was compiled by Taseko Mines Ltd., GIS, wildlife

and vegetation experts from Stantec (formerly Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.)

undertook the technical analysis and drafted the methods and effects

assessment sections of the report.

1.2 Scope of Report

For this assessment, Local, Regional and Rights and Title study areas, were

chosen to provide a more relevant and local context in which to evaluate and

assess significance of effects. The Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the

William case was chosen as a local study area in which to evaluate project

effects, the combined area of both the Taseko River and Big Creek Watersheds

was chosen as a natural ecologically based Regional Study Area and the Rights

and Title Study Area, including the Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the

William case, was chosen as a relevant area with which to evaluate significance

of effects. All three study areas are shown on Figure 1.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

Ch i l c ot in R ive r

Tase

ko

R

iver

C H I L K O L A KE

F R A S E R R I V E R

Tat layokoLake

Ta se

ko L ake Road Segment

Chi lko

Rive r

Redstone

Riske Creek

Alexis Creek

Tatlayoko Lake

400000

400000

450000

450000

500000

500000

550000

550000

5650

000

5650

000

5700

000

5700

000

5750

000

5750

000

0 5 10 15 20Kilometres

Map Prepared by Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.

Data Sources:Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83

Produced by: Steve ParkerVerified by: Tony DinneenDate: September 18, 2009

Rev #: 02

Figure 1Study Areas

$

Spatial_data\Analysis\PEM_Analysis\MXDs\TASEKO_PEM_Study_Area.mxd

450 0

Roa

d

£¤20

Segm

ent

1:1,250,000

£¤20

Taseko Prosperity Mine SIte

Eastern Trap LineArea

(Local Study Area)

LEGENDExisting Access RoadProposed Prosperity Mine Access RoadMaximum Disturbance AreaRegional Study AreaRights and Title Study AreaLocal Study Area

!. City/TownHighwayRoadRiver (1:2mil)Lake (1:2mil)Tsilhqot'in Aboriginal Title AreaTsilhqot'in Aboriginal Rights Area

**Anaham is currently not represented by the TNG but forillustrative purposes included here in the TNG boundary.



Page 3

In a May 2009 comment made while reviewing the EIS, the Tsilhqot‘in National

Government (TNG) listed some 52 plant species of importance to them and

asked Taseko to comment on how they might be affected by the Project. In this

report Taseko establishes linkages between those 52 species and those

vegetation KIs already assessed within the EIS and predicts effects significance

for all 52 species. Using the wildlife species identified in the William case, similar

linkages between these species and the wildlife assessment presented within the

EIS were also established.

Taking the assessment even further, Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM)

based habitat capability models were utilized to develop new predictions of direct

habitat loss from within the mine site area. In turn these losses, presented in the

context of the two newly defined study areas, provide a meaningful context in

which to assess effects at a local level. As a final step in this assessment a list of

22 species of wildlife were identified by the BC MOE and, based on habitat loss

and population density estimates, local population effects, expressed in terms of

numbers of animals were predicted.

For all the habitat area assessments two temporal scenarios are used for the

prediction of potential mine site area effects on both wildlife and vegetation:

Baseline: Represents conditions prior to any Project-specific

developments.

Maximum Disturbance: Represents the potential worst-case conditions

(represented by the maximum disturbance footprint) that could occur

during the construction and operations phases. The total area (footprint) of

maximum disturbance is 4997 ha. This includes 4410 ha associated with

the mine site and 578 ha associated with the transmission line right-of-

way. There is a 9 ha overlap between the mine site footprint and the

transmission line right-of-way. Note that only part of the maximum

disturbance (footprint) area (i.e., 3118 ha) overlaps with the Rights and

Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (see Figure 1).

The analysis and results presented in this supplemental report build upon and

complement the extensive work completed and reported in the EIS.



Page 4

2 Methods

2.1 Environmental Effects Rating Criteria for Assessing Effects Significance

Each residual Project effect1 identified in the assessment is evaluated using

multiple criteria: direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, ecological

context, and reversibility. These criteria are assessed in the context of the nature

of potential effects, the mitigation strategies that are available for reducing or

eliminating such effects (as described in the EIS), and the nature and anticipated

severity of residual effects after mitigation. The definitions for the effect attributes

for each criterion are presented in Table 1. In addition, a ―prediction confidence‖

rating is applied to each residual Project effect characterization (Table 1). The

confidence rating considers the accuracy and application of analytical tools, an

understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and an understanding

of known responses of a species to potential Project effects.

Table 1 Characterization of Environmental Effects for Wildlife

Criterion Environmental Effect Attribute Definitions

Direction

Positive: measurable environmental effect moves condition in a positive direction relative to baseline

Negative: measurable environmental effect moves condition in negative direction relative to baseline

Magnitude

Quantitative assessment: Expressed as a quantity. Units of expression vary depending on the measurable parameter, but, typically for wildlife the unit is hectares. In addition the quantity may be expressed as a percent change.

Qualitative assessment:

Low: ≤5% change

Medium: >5% to 15% change

High: >15% change

Geographic Extent

Site-specific: environmental effect(s) on wildlife confined to single small area within local study area

Local: environmental effect(s) on wildlife occurs within local study area

Regional: environmental effect(s) on wildlife occurs within or beyond regional study area

Duration Short-term: environmental effect(s) limited to no more than one annual cycle within the life history of an individual (≤ 1 year)

1 Residual Project effects are Project effects that persist after application of prescribed mitigation

measures (e.g., irreversible habitat loss)



Page 5

Criterion Environmental Effect Attribute Definitions

Medium-term: environmental effect(s) last for part or all of the average life span of an individual (i.e., ≤10 years for moose and fisher; ≤15 years for mule deer; ≤25 years for black and grizzly bear).

Long-term: environmental effect(s) last beyond individual life spans and will affect multiple generations (i.e., >10 years for moose and fisher; >15 years for mule deer; >25 years for black and grizzly bear).

Permanent: environmental effect(s) permanent (i.e., irreversible)

Reversibility

Reversible: environmental effect(s) reversible with reclamation and/or natural succession and/or Project closure

Irreversible: environmental effect(s) permanent and cannot be reversed with reclamation and/or natural succession and/or Project closure

Ecological Context

Undisturbed: area relatively unaffected, or not adversely affected, by human activity

Developed: area substantially previously disturbed by human activity, or human activity is still present

Prediction Confidence

Low: not confident in prediction, could vary considerably

Medium: confident in prediction, moderate variability

High: confident in prediction, low variability

2.2 Standards or Thresholds for Determining Significance

Whether or not an environmental effect exceeds a threshold or standard, in

combination with magnitude and duration (i.e., intensity of the effect), inform the

determination of the effect‘s significance. Typically, the context for the

determination of significance is the sustainability of the population (or sub-

population, herd, management unit, etc., as applicable).

Provincial or regional standards (e.g., annual allowable mortality rate) or

thresholds (e.g., maximum road density) are not available for most terrestrial

wildlife species. Consequently, in the absence of prescribed thresholds and

standards, determination of the significance of a Project environmental effect was

qualitative and based on logical reasoning. Besides magnitude and duration (as

per Table 1), considerations included status, size and range of the population

unit, broad-scale habitat conditions, thresholds developed for other jurisdictions

or closely related species, and area-specific policies for land use and species

management, where known.

Species-specific standards and/or thresholds are described below



Page 6

2.2.1 Moose The maintenance of good quality habitat is recognized in the Cariboo-Chilcotin

Land Use Plan. A regional strategy to maintain good quality moose habitat is not

as advanced as it is for mule deer, although it will follow a similar framework as

described in Keystone (2006). Identification of areas for designation as moose

winter range is in progress (e.g., Intrepid 2004; Keystone 2006), but at present no

targets or objectives are available. In the absence of prescribed thresholds and

standards, the significance of the Project‘s environmental effects on moose is

determined qualitatively as described for wildlife in general. The context for

determining significance for moose is the sustainability of the population in the

Rights and Title Study Area and Regional Study Area.

2.2.2 Mule Deer The maintenance of good quality habitat is a priority management goal for areas

identified as mule deer winter range in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan. The

Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part

1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones (Dawson et

al. 2007), and the General Wildlife Measures in the FRPA Order for Shallow and

Moderate Snowpack Zones2 describe stand-level objectives for winter range

management in the area of overlap between the Project and mule deer Ungulate

Winter Range. Objectives are set for a number of parameters including basal

area, opening size, and stand structure habitat classes. However, these General

Wildlife Measures and objectives are intended for planning timber harvesting on

individual mule deer Ungulate Winter Ranges, and are not readily applicable as

thresholds or standards for the Project‘s potential effects on habitat availability. In

the absence of prescribed thresholds and standards, the significance of the

Project‘s environmental effects on mule deer is determined qualitatively as

described for wildlife in general. The context for determining significance for mule

deer is the sustainability of the population in the Rights and Title Study Area and

Regional Study Area.

2.2.3 Fisher There are no recognized standards or thresholds for fisher natal denning habitat

availability from Region 5 or any other jurisdiction. In the absence of prescribed

thresholds and standards, the significance of the Project‘s environmental effects

on fishers is determined qualitatively as described for wildlife in general. The

context for determining significance for fisher is the sustainability of the

population in the Rights and Title Study Area and Regional Study Area.

2 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/Amendment_ShallowModerate_Feb07_Ord.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/Amendment_ShallowModerate_Feb07_Ord.pdf



Page 7

2.2.4 Black Bear There are no provincial or regional standards or thresholds for black bear

denning habitat availability from Region 5 or any other jurisdiction. In the absence

of prescribed thresholds and standards, the significance of the Project‘s

environmental effects on black bears is determined qualitatively as described for

wildlife in general. The context for determining significance for black bear is the

sustainability of the population in the Rights and Title Study Area and Regional

Study Area.

2.2.5 Grizzly Bear There are no recognized standards or thresholds for grizzly bear habitat

suitability and capability from Region 5 or any other jurisdiction. That is, there are

no specific thresholds related to actual area required according to habitat value

class. However, minimum core area3 thresholds of >60% of available habitat

have been identified to ensure grizzly bear persistence in British Columbia

(Salmo Consulting 2003). In the absence of prescribed thresholds and standards

related to the measurable parameters used in this analysis, the significance of

the Project‘s environmental effects on grizzly bears is determined qualitatively as

described for wildlife in general. The context for determining significance for

grizzly bear is the sustainability of the population in the Rights and Title Study

Area and Regional Study Area.

2.3 Wildlife

Three approaches were used to place predicted mine site area environmental

effects on wildlife in a spatial context more relevant to the TNG:

Predictions of local population effects for a suite of 22 wildlife species

Development of a matrix that links species identified in the William case

with the wildlife effects assessment presented in the EIS

Predictions of direct habitat loss from the mine site area were made for

three study areas: the Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William

case, the entire Rights and Title Area as defined in the William case, and a

watershed-based Regional Study Area (refer to Section 2.2 and Figure 1).

These approaches are described in more detail below.

2.3.1 Local Population Effects During their review of the EIS, the BC MOE requested that Taseko further

characterize the local effect of the project, specifically with respect to number of

3 That is, relatively undisturbed ―wilderness‖ area



Page 8

animals potentially directly or indirectly affected. BC MOE identified 22 species4

for which they wanted to see local effects assessed. Six of these species are

species identified in the William case (i.e., moose, mule deer, California bighorn

sheep, grizzly bear, black bear, and fisher). The objective of this analysis was to

provide an estimate of the number of animals potentially affected and where

possible to characterize the nature of any effects. The study areas used for this

assessment were the Mine Site Local Study Area and Transmission Line Local

Study Area as defined in the EIS. This analysis used a relatively simple

calculation to determine number of individual animals potentially affected:

Area of habitat loss (ha) X species density (individuals/ha) = number of

individuals potentially affected (directly or indirectly)

The type and reliability of the data sources used in these calculations varied with

the species under consideration. The data source for the habitat loss information

was the EIS. The data sources for the species density information were varied

and included estimates of carrying capacity and density developed by BC MOE

Region 5 for specific species (e.g., mule deer), and information from the literature

and/or other regions. In addition, for some species (e.g., Lewis‘s woodpecker),

information on home range size or territory size was used as a surrogate for

density. All the data sources used in this analysis were determined in

consultation with BC MOE.

The results of this analysis and a summary of the data sources are presented in

Section 3.1.1.

2.3.2 William case Wildlife Species Twenty-four species were identified in the William case as being of particular

importance to the TNG. Six of these species (moose, mule deer, California

bighorn sheep, grizzly bear, black bear and fisher) were identified as wildlife KIs

and assessed in detail in the EIS. For the remaining 18 species not identified as

KIs, the assessment of mine site area effects is considered to be inferable from

the results of the effects assessment for an appropriate ―umbrella KI5‖ or for a KI

that is related or similar in behaviour and habitat use pattern or for an appropriate

vegetation (i.e., habitat type) KI. These linkages between non-KI species and KIs

are presented in Table 1.

4 The 21 wildlife KIs plus the bald eagle

5 Sensu ―umbrella species‖—an umbrella species is a species with broad habitat and resource

requirements that can be managed to also provide habitats and resources for other species

(Dunster and Dunster 1996)



Page 9

2.3.3 Habitat Loss The assessment of habitat loss at the mine site conducted for the EIS was based

on Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM). As a first step in this supplemental

assessment, consideration was given to exploring the availability and applicability

of other TEM-based wildlife models to the study areas described in Section 1.2.

This was necessary because the TEM-based models developed for the EIS did

not extend beyond the regional study areas defined for the EIS and did not

address all William case species. To assist in this review, the BC MOE provided

a list of over 600 TEM-based wildlife habitat models available for the province.

This list was reviewed and only three models were found to have moderate

potential for application to the expanded study areas—that is, there were models

for three William case species, not presently modeled in either the EIS or this

report (i.e., marten, bobcat and montane vole), that were developed for the Churn

Creek area. While there is some overlap of biogeoclimatic units with the

expanded study areas defined for this report, there are several biogeoclimatic

units for which ratings would have to be specifically developed in order to apply

these models. In addition, there are two models for two other William case

species, not presented or modeled in the EIS or this report (i.e., cougar and lynx),

that have been developed for the Williams Lake area by Lignum. Further

information on these models was not available from the provincial database6 but

regardless there is unlikely to be substantive overlap of biogeoclimatic units with

the three study areas defined for this report. Thus, these models have only low

potential for application to the expanded study area. In summary, it was

concluded that there are no models available from the Province that can be

readily used in the habitat analysis described in this report.

As an alternative, Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) based maps and models

were considered. Two methods were used to predict the direct mine site area

loss of wildlife habitat:

Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM)-based habitat capability models

Grizzly bear habitat capability and suitability mapping

These two methods are described in more detail below.

PEM-based Habitat Capability Models A list of the unique PEM ecosystem units in the study areas was generated from

the 1:20,000 PEM product created for the Williams Lake Timber Supply Area by

Moon et al. (2008). PEM is an expert-based system that uses available digital

spatial data and knowledge of ecological-landscape relationships to automate the

6 EcoCat at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecocat/

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecocat/



Page 10

generation of ecosystem maps, and is considered a useful alternative to

Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) (Resources Inventory Committee 1999a).

Moon et al. (2008) provides a detailed description of how the Williams Lake TSA

PEM was generated and describes the ecosystem units identified.

PEM wildlife habitat capability7 ratings tables were developed by Stantec based

on the provincial protocol (i.e., Resources Inventory Committee 1999b) for the

following wildlife species/life requisites:

Moose winter feeding habitat

Mule deer winter shelter habitat

Fisher natal denning habitat

Black bear denning habitat

These four species/life requisites were selected because they are species

identified in the William case and they are also key indicator species for which

TEM-based habitat models were developed for the EIS. This was important

because the wildlife habitat capability ratings for the PEM units were based on

the TEM-based habitat models developed for the EIS. A six-class rating scheme

was used for moose, mule deer and black bear (i.e., high, moderately high,

moderate, low, very low and nil [as per Resources Inventory Committee 1999b])

and a four-class rating scheme was used for fisher (i.e., high, moderate, low and

nil [as per Resources Inventory Committee 1999b]).

The PEM list for the Eastern Trapline and Regional Study Areas include five

biogeoclimatic units that were not rated as part of the EIS: Boreal Altai Fescue

Alpine zone (BAFA), Coastal Mountain-Heather Alpine zone (CMA) zone,

Montane Spruce dry very cold subzone (MSdv), Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine

Fir very cold very dry parkland subzone (ESSFxvp).and Engelmann Spruce–

Subalpine Fir very cold very dry West Chilcotin variant (ESSFxv1). Ratings for

these ecosystem units were developed based on the species accounts prepared

for the EIS (Madrone Consultants Ltd. 1999). The Rights and Title Study Area

includes six more biogeoclimatic units that were not rated as part of the EIS or as

part of the Eastern Trapline and Regional Study Areas. In order to focus the

assessment for this report on the ecosystems directly affected by the mine

development, only the two biogeoclimatic units represented within the maximum

disturbance area (footprint) of the mine (i.e., Montane Spruce very dry very cold

[MSxv] and Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce very dry cold [SBPSxc]) were modeled for

this study area (Figure 2). Steen and Coupé (1997) and Meidinger and Pojar

7 The PEM product does not include structural stage attributes; therefore, the wildlife habitat

analysis is based on habitat capability rather than suitability



Page 11

(1991) provide detailed biophysical and ecological descriptions of these

subzones. The following are summaries of that information with supplemental

information on wildlife derived from Stevens (1995).

Montane Spruce Very Dry Very Cold Subzone (MSxv)

The MSxv is moderately large (8751 km2) and is the most extensive subzone of

the MS in the Cariboo Forest Region. The largest area occurs around the Itcha

and Ilgachuz Mountains. This subzone also occurs at middle elevations along the

leeward slopes of the Coast Mountains. The MSxv typically occurs above the

SBPSxc and below the ESSFxv. This subzone is one of the least productive units

for tree growth in BC. Winters are cold and summers are cool with frequent

growing season frost. Mature forests on zonal (typical) sites in the MSxv are

predominantly even-aged, even-sized lodgepole pine with scattered white

spruce. Subalpine fir is common in the southern parts of this subzone. Douglas-fir

is absent. The understory vegetation on zonal sites is dominated by crowberry,

grouseberry, common juniper, bunchberry, mosses and lichens. Very few

medium to tall shrubs are present. Mature pine stands have a relatively closed

canopy with little pine regeneration in the understory. Grasslands are uncommon

in the MSxv but wetlands are abundant. The main ecological factors that affect

wildlife habitat use species diversity in the MS are the cold snowy winters, short,

warm summers, extensive pine forests and mountainous topography. Fewer

wildlife species (187, mostly birds) are associated with this subzone than with the

SBPSxc (Stevens 1995). Almost all of the William case wildlife species may

occur in this subzone in one or more seasons. The exceptions are mountain

goat, short-tailed weasel (ermine) (as per Stevens 1995) and probably feral

horses.

Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce Very Dry Cold Subzone (SBPSxc)

The SBPSxc is the most extensive subzone of the SBPS (10,898 km2). Within

the Cariboo Forest Region it extends from approximately Lessard Lake in the

northwest to Churn Creek in the southeast. It occurs along the leeward side of

the Coast Mountains so is strongly affected by the Coast Mountains rainshadow

and has the least precipitation of any subzone in the SBPS. Vegetation

production and soil development are severely limited by the cold, very dry

climate. Mature forests on zonal sites in the SBPSxc are predominantly

lodgepole pine with scattered aspen. No other tree species are common. The

understory vegetation on zonal sites is dominated by kinnikinnick, lichens and

pinegrass. Low shrubs like prickly rose and common juniper are common but

have low cover. Pine regeneration in the understory is sparse to moderately

dense, depending on canopy cover, and is often clumped. Grasslands are not

common in the SBPSxc but wetlands are very abundant. The main ecological

factors that affect wildlife habitat use and species diversity in the SBPS are the



Page 12

cold dry winters, cool dry summers, and its position on central high elevation

plateaus, leeward of the mountains. More wildlife species (251, mostly birds) are

associated with this subzone than with the MSxv (Stevens 1995). Almost all of

the William case wildlife species may occur in this subzone in one or more

seasons. The exceptions are mountain goat and bighorn sheep (as per Stevens

1995).

The area of SBPSxc and MSxv within the Rights and Title Study Area was

determined from the Provincial Biogeoclimatic Subzone/Variant Mapping, Version

7.08 (Table 2). The area of SBPSxc and MSxv in the maximum disturbance

footprint is only a small portion (2.3%) of that present in the Rights and Title

Study Area (Table 2). As described above, these two biogeoclimatic units also

extend well beyond the Rights and Title Study Area boundary (also see Figure 2).

Table 2 Biogeoclimatic Unit Distribution in the Maximum Disturbance (Footprint) Area and Rights and Title Study Area

Biogeoclimatic Unit

Area (ha) in Maximum

Disturbance (Footprint)

Area (ha) in Rights and Title

Study Area

Percentage of Area in Maximum Disturbance

(Footprint) as a Portion of the Rights and Title Study

Area

SBPSxc 2,414 107,245 2.3

MSxv 705 26,189 2.7

Total 3,119 133,434 2.3

8 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HRE/becweb/resources/maps/gis_products.html

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HRE/becweb/resources/maps/gis_products.html

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

Ch i l c o t in R iver

Tas e

ko

R

iver

C H I L K O L A KE

F R A S E R R I V E R

Tat layokoLake

Ta se

ko L ake Road Segment

Chi l ko

Rive r

Redstone

Riske CreekSpringhouse

Alexis Creek

Williams Lake

Tatlayoko Lake

400000

400000

450000

450000

500000

500000

550000

550000

5650

000

5650

000

5700

000

5700

000

5750

000

5750

000

0 5 10 15 20Kilometres

Map Prepared by Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.

Data Sources:Province of British Columbia, Taseko Mines Ltd.Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD 83

Produced by: John BlythVerified by: Tony DinneenDate: September 18, 2009

Rev #: 01

Figure 2Biogeoclimatic Unitsin and Around the

Study Areas

$

Spatial_data\Analysis\PEM_Analysis\MXDs\TASEKO_PEM_BEC_Area.mxd

450 0

Roa

d

£¤20

Segm

ent

1:1,250,000

£¤20

Taseko Prosperity Mine SIte

Eastern Trap LineArea

(Local Study Area)

LEGENDExisting Access RoadProposed Prosperity Mine Access RoadMaximum Disturbance AreaRegional Study AreaRights and Title Study AreaLocal Study Area

!. City/TownHighwayRoadRiver (1:2mil)Lake (1:2mil)

BGC LABELBAFAunBG xw 2CMA unCMA unpCWH unESSFdvpESSFmwESSFmwpESSFxcpESSFxcwESSFxv 1ESSFxv 2ESSFxvpIDF dk 4IDF dwIDF xmIMA unMS dc 2MS dvMS xvSBPSxc

**Anaham is currently not represented by the TNG but forillustrative purposes included here in the TNG boundary.



Page 14

Area summaries of the change in habitat capability from baseline to maximum

disturbance (as defined in the EIS) were generated for each of the modeled

species (i.e., moose, mule deer, black bear and fisher). The results of this

analysis are presented in Section 3.1.3.

Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability and Suitability Mapping The grizzly bear habitat capability and suitability map products developed by the

BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) for the Central Interior Ecoprovince were

used as the basis for this analysis. Hamilton (2007) describes the development of

these map products in detail. As BC MOE recommended that these map

products be used in a regional assessment for grizzly bears, they are considered

more applicable to the analysis described in this document than a PEM-based

model based on ratings developed for the EIS. Two map layers were used in this

analysis: habitat capability and average (weighted) habitat suitability. A six class

rating scheme was used for both layers (i.e., high, moderately high, moderate,

low, very low and nil [as per Resources Inventory Committee 1999b]).

An area summary of the change in habitat capability and suitability from baseline

to maximum disturbance (as defined in the EIS) were generated. The results of

this analysis are presented in Section 3.1.3.

2.4 Vegetation

Two approaches were used to assess predicted mine site area environmental

effects on vegetation of importance to the TNG:

Development of a matrix that links plants species of importance to the

TNG with the vegetation effects assessment presented in the EIS

Predictions of direct vegetation loss from the mine site area were made

using spatial contexts relevant to the TNG. Two study areas were chosen:

the Eastern Trapline Area as defined in the William case and a watershed-

based Regional Study Area (refer to Section 1.2 and Figure 1).

These two approaches are described in more detail below.

2.4.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government

As part of their May 25, 2009 comments on the EIS, the TNG provided Taseko

with a list of 52 plant species of importance to the TNG and requested that

Taseko further assess the effects of the Project on these plant species. A matrix

was developed to indicate linkages between the plant species of importance to

the TNG and the vegetation KIs assessed in detail in the EIS. Each plant species

was linked to one or more vegetation KIs based on the species‘ general



Page 15

ecological requirements (e.g., a species that grows in bogs is linked to the

wetlands KI). In some cases, the linkage was very broad – for example, species

associated with forests were linked to the KI old forest; however, that does not

mean that they may not occur in younger forest stands as well. Having

established clear linkages between each of the plant species and one or more

vegetation KIs, the mine site area environmental effects on each species can be

directly inferred from the effects assessments for those KIs as presented in the

EIS.

The results of this analysis and a summary of the data sources are presented in

Section 3.2.1.

2.4.2 Vegetation Loss

Old Forest The 1:20,000 Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) spatial data from the

Integrated Land Management Bureau‘s (ILMB‘s) Land and Resource Data

Warehouse9 was used as basis for old forest analysis. Definitions of old forest for

each of the biogeoclimatic units represented in the study areas were based on

the ILMB‘s Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Retention Order10. This

methodology is consistent with the approach used for the old forest effects

assessment in the EIS. Area summaries of the change in area of old forest from

baseline to maximum disturbance (see definition in Section 1.2) were generated

by leading tree species (i.e., Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and spruce) and are

presented in Section 3.2.2.

Alpine and Parkland, Wetlands and Grasslands As described for wildlife (Section 3.1), a unique PEM ecosystem unit list was

generated for the two study areas from the PEM spatial data provided by the BC

MOE (Moon et al. 2008). Alpine and parklands, wetlands, and grasslands

ecosystem types were identified from this list based on PEM map codes and

biogeoclimatic units. More specifically:

Alpine and parklands ecosystems were identified as any areas that fell

within the BAFA, CMA, and ESSFxvp biogeoclimatic units;

Wetland ecosystems were any units identified as non-forested meadow

(ME), non-forested wetland (WE) and open water (OW) in the PEM (but

excluding the BAFA, CMA and ESSFxvp)11; and

9 http://lrdw.ca/

10 http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/policiesguidelinesandassessements/oldgrowth/index.html

11 This identification targeted non-forested wetlands

http://lrdw.ca/

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/policiesguidelinesandassessements/oldgrowth/index.html



Page 16

Grassland ecosystems were any areas that fell within the Bunchgrass very

dry warm Alkali (BGxw2) biogeoclimatic unit except for those identified as

ME, OW or non-productive brush (BR) in the PEM plus any units identified

as grassland (GL) in the PEM in the Interior Douglas-Fir very dry mild

(IDFxm), Interior Douglas-fir dry cool (IDFdk), MSdv, MSxv, and SBPSxc

biogeoclimatic units.

Area summaries of the change in area of these ecosystem types from baseline to

maximum disturbance (see definition in Section 1.2) were generated and are

presented in Section 3.2.2.

3 Effects Assessment

3.1 Wildlife

3.1.1 Local Population Effects The results of the local population effects predictions are presented in Table 3.

No attempt was made to draw conclusions on the significance of these local

effects as there was no qualitative context available for so doing.



Page 17

Table 3 Local Population Effect Predictions for Twenty-two Wildlife Species

Species

Density Estimate/Home

Range Size/Territory

Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

California

bighorn

sheep

MU-03 density estimate:

0.21 sheep/km2 (0.17-0.26

sheep/km2)

MU-02 density estimate:

0.14 sheep/km2 (0.10-0.18

sheep/km2)

Combined density

estimate:

0.18 sheep/km2 (0.14-0.22

sheep/km2)

Mine Site NA NA NA NA

Displacement is due to

sensory disturbance not

direct habitat loss.

TLLSA is defined by a

1.5 km buffer on either

side of the proposed

transmission line

alignment.

Transmission

Line

Area of sheep

TLLSA: 940 ha

(9.4 km2)

Nil

1.7 sheep

displaced

(range = 1.3-

2.1)

Temporary and

intermittent: during

construction and

intermittent through

life of the project

(maintenance

activities)

Mule deer

MU 5-04 (mine site):

density = 0.16 (range 0.11-

0.23)

Farwell UWR carrying

capacity: 15.9-21.0

deer/km2

Alkali UWR carrying

capacity: 10.7-15.8

deer/km2

Mine Site --

Upland habitat:

845.1 ha (8.5

km2)

1.4 deer

displaced

(range 0.9-2.0

deer)

Permanent

Density derived from

MOE population estimate

for MU 5-04. Possibly an

under-estimate. Transmission

Line

UWR: 239 ha

(2.4 km2) of

UWR: 65.5 ha

(0.7 km2)

(Farwell), 173.5

ha (1.7 km2)

(Alkali)

Nil

Carrying

capacity lost:

29.3-41.6 deer

(Farwell – 11.1-

14.7 deer, Alkali

– 18.2-26.9

deer)

Long term

12

Citations for information sources available upon request



Page 18

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Moose Winter density = 0.35

moose/km2

Mine Site --

Upland: 845.1

ha

Wetlands:

403.5 ha

Combined:

1248.6 ha

(12.5 km2)

4.4 moose

displaced

(winter)

Permanent

Used same density

estimate for length of

RoW although east of

Fraser River the density

is lower (see Stalberg

2005). Transmission

Line

Wetland

ecosystems:

46.6 ha (0.5

km2)

VRI: 763.2 ha

(7.6 km2)

(forested – all

types and ages)

Total: 8.1 km2

Nil

2.8 moose

displaced

(winter)

Short to long term

Grizzly bear To be determined in

consultation with BC MOE

Mine Site Pending Pending Pending Pending TML is working closely

with the BC MOE to

refine the assessment of

the Project on grizzly

bears

Transmission

Line Pending Pending Pending Pending

Black bear Unknown (as per BC MOE) Mine Site --

Upland: 845.1

ha

Wetlands:

403.5 ha

Combined:

1248.6 ha

(12.5 km2)

Unknown (as

per BC MOE) Permanent

Black bears are not

considered a

conservation concern

regionally (as per BC

MOE)



Page 19

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Transmission

Line

VRI: 174.4 ha

(1.7 km2) (non-

pine leading

mature and old

forest)

Nil Unknown (as

per BC MOE)

Medium to long

term

Fisher Density: 7.9-13.1 animals

per 1000 km2

Mine Site --

Upland habitat:

845.1 ha (8.5

km2)

0.07-0.12

fishers

displaced

Permanent Density is for habitat in

general not natal denning

habitat specifically so

area loss predicted by

habitat suitability

mapping is not

applicable.

Transmission

Line

VRI: 174.4 ha

(1.7 km2) (non-

pine leading

mature and old

forest)

Nil

0.01-0.02

fishers

displaced

Long term

American

badger Undetermined

Mine Site NA NA NA NA No residual project effect

is predicted (see EIS for

details) Transmission

Line Nil Nil None predicted --

Townsend‘s

big-eared bat

Density: 1 bat

[individual]/126 ha (Santa

Cruz Island, CA)

Mine Site NA NA NA NA Low confidence in

prediction. No

appropriate information

on density is available in

the literature and the BC

MOE does not have a

regional population or

density estimate for this

species (or for density of

colonies/km2 for this

species).

Transmission

Line

VRI: 123.8 ha

(non-pine

leading mature

and old forest)

Nil 1 bat displaced Long term

Great blue

heron (interior

subspecies)

Territory size: 0.6 ha

(freshwater marsh, Oregon) Mine Site --

Wetland

ecosystems:

403.5 ha

242.1 herons

displaced Permanent

Very likely an over-

estimate. Herons have

not been reported in



Page 20

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high feeding

habitat: 176 ha

Nil 105.6 herons

displaced

Short to medium

term

such high numbers

during any project-

related field surveys.

Mallard Pending (CWS)

Mine Site --

Wetland

ecosystems:

403.5 ha

Pending (CWS) Permanent CWS will provide

information to

characterize the local

project effect for

mallards.

Transmission

Line

Wetland

ecosystems:

46.6 ha

Nil Pending (CWS) Medium term

Barrow‘s

goldeneye

(western

population)

Pending (CWS)

Mine Site --

Fish Lake

area: 116.7 ha;

Little Fish Lake

area: 6.5 ha

Pending (CWS) Permanent

CWS will provide

information to


project effect for

Barrow‘s goldeneye. Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate

nesting habitat:

1.3 ha

Wetland

ecosystems:

46.6 ha

Nil Pending (CWS)

Long term (nesting)

Medium term

(wetlands)

Sandhill

crane

Home range: 85 ha in

upper Michigan

Mine Site --

Wetland

ecosystems:

403.5 ha

4.7 home

ranges Permanent

CWS may be able to

provide better regionally-

specific information to


project effect for sandhill

cranes.

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high feeding

habitat: 44.7 ha;

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 12.5 ha

Nil < 1 home range Short to medium

term



Page 21

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Long-billed

curlew

Nesting density: 0.7

pairs/100 ha to 3.4

pairs/100 ha (Chilcotin)


Direct habitat loss is

relatively minor (pole

placement) Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 29 ha

Grassland

ecosystems in

RoW: 88 ha

Nil

Model

prediction: 0.2-

1.0 pairs

displaced

Grasslands

prediction: 0.6-

3.0 pairs

displaced

Short to medium

term

Lewis‘s

woodpecker

Territory size: 1 to 6.1

ha/pair (Blue Mountains

[OR/WA])

Mine Site NA NA NA NA Estimate for entire region

is only 10-30 pairs (as

per BC MOE) so this

predicted local

population effect is

clearly an over-estimate

at the upper end of the

range.

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 12 ha

Nil 2-12 pairs

displaced Long term

Yellow-

breasted chat

Territory size: 0.2 to 5.64

ha, average 0.99 ha

(Okanagan)

Mine Site NA NA NA NA No residual project effect

predicted is predicted

(see EIS for details).

Note that this species is

considered very unlikely

to breed in the Project

area.

Transmission

Line

Nil moderate or

high nesting

habitat

Nil None predicted --

Sagebrush

Brewer‘s

sparrow


(Washington); 0.52 ha

(Idaho)

Mine Site NA NA NA NA Over-estimate. No birds

were detected during bird

surveys in the area. MOE

does not have a regional

population or density

estimate.

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 7.4 ha

Nil 14.2 to 74

territories Medium term



Page 22

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Sharp-tailed

grouse

(columbianus

subspecies)

Home range: within 2.8 km

of the lek (BC); 1.87 km2

(Idaho); males 1.7 km2 and

females 3.6 km2 (Montana)


No lek sites known for

Project area. BC MOE

does not have a regional

population or density

estimate.

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high feeding

habitat: 63.1 ha;

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 31.4 ha

Nil < 1 home range Short to medium

term

Prairie falcon

Home range: known to

travel 26 km from nest to

feeding area

Mine Site

No overlap

between any of

the five buffered

cliff complexes

(including the

known nest site)

and the LSA

Nil None predicted --

No residual project effect

is predicted (see EIS for

details). Locations of

prairie falcon nest sites in

Region 5 are relatively

well known. Only one

nest site has been

identified in the Project

area.

Transmission

Line NA NA NA NA

Short-eared

owl

Density: 1 pair/5.5 ha

(Montana)


(Manitoba)

Mine Site --

Model:

moderate

feeding

habitat: 146 ha

26.6 pairs

displaced

2 territories

Permanent

Probable over-estimate

using the pair density

estimate. Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high feeding

habitat: 37.2 ha

Nil

6.8 pairs

displaced

< 1 territory

Short to medium

term

Flammulated Home range: 2.2-3.7 ha Mine Site NA NA NA NA Probable overestimate.



Page 23

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

owl (BC)

Transmission

Line

Model:

moderate and

high nesting

habitat: 17.4 ha

Nil

4.7-7.9 home

ranges

(assumes no

overlap)

Long term

BC MOE does not have

a regional population or

density estimate but this

species is not common in

the Region. The

province‘s breeding

population is estimated

to be 600-750 pairs (van

Woudenberg 1999).

Bald eagle

Nest density: 9 active

nests/100 km of shoreline

(Nechako River)

Mine Site --

Fish Lake

shoreline: 9.4

km; Little Fish

Lake shoreline:

1.4 km)

Total: 10.8 km

1 active nest

predicted based

on shoreline

length; spring

2009 site visit

by BC MOE

estimated 5-10

active nests and

50-100 birds

feeding in the

Project area13

Permanent

Shoreline length estimate

includes islands

Transmission

Line

Riparian

ecosystems:

123.8 ha

Nil Unknown Long term

Amphibians Unknown14

Mine Site --

Wetland

ecosystems:

403.5 ha

Unknown Permanent

Not all the wetland

ecosystems predicted to

occur within the RoW will

13

BC MOE 2009, unpublished data (R. Packham, J. Youds) 14

No appropriate density estimate is available from the literature and the BC MOE does not have a regional density estimate to provide. Project-

related field data collected in 2006 was focused on species inventory and presence/absence rather than the development of density estimates.



Page 24

Species



Size12

Project

Component

Area Lost at

Maximum

Disturbance

Area

Permanently

Lost

Local

Population

Effect

Duration Comments

Transmission

Line

Wetland

ecosystems in

RoW: 46.6 ha

Nil Unknown Short to medium

term

be directly affected (lost).



Page 25

3.1.2 William Court Case Wildlife Species The linkages between the William court case wildlife species and the wildlife and vegetation KIs are presented in Table 3. The linkages presented in this table allow for inferences of project effects based on the findings of the EIS and the findings presented in this report (i.e., Tables 6 to 12 in Section 3.1.3 and Tables 14 and 15 in Section 3.2.2).



Page 26

Table 4 William Court Case Species – Effects Assessment Approach

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator

Occurrence in Project Area Effects Assessment

Approach in EIS

Additional Effects Assessment Approach

Presented in this Report

Moose Yes Common Key Indicator

See Table 4 for effects assessment for moose

winter feeding habitat. Also see Table 2 for local

population effect prediction for moose.

Mule deer Yes Common Key Indicator

See Table 5 for effects assessment for mule

deer winter shelter habitat. Also see Table 2 for

local population effect prediction for mule deer.

Mountain

goat --

Sporadic; record from Fish Creek Canyon,

more numerous in the adjacent coast

mountain ranges

Project effects on escape

terrain inferable from

effects assessment for

prairie falcon (cliffs)

None – mountain goats are not an issue with

respect to the mine development

California

bighorn

sheep

Yes

Present year-round in eastern portion of

Project area; common along the Fraser R.,

in particular at confluence of the Chilcotin

and Fraser

Key Indicator

California bighorn sheep not an issue with

respect to the mine development; however, see

Table 2 for local population effect prediction for

sheep with respect to transmission line corridor

Feral horses --

The Brittany Triangle, bounded on the west

by the Chilko River, on the east by the

Taseko River, and to the south by Nemaiah

Valley and the South Chilcotin Mountains,

holds the last major numbers of feral horses

in the province (McCrory 2002). However,

this area only marginally overlaps the mine

site RSA (i.e., where the access road follows

the Taseko River).

Qualitative assessment None



Page 27

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator


Approach in EIS



Grizzly bear Yes

Present in the Project area, west of Big Cr.;

current population estimate of the South

Chilcotin Ranges population is 10415

Key Indicator

See Tables 8 and 9 for effects assessment for

grizzly bear habitat. Local population effect

prediction for grizzly bear pending (see Table 2).

Black bear Yes Present Key Indicator

See Table 7 for effects assessment for black

bear denning habitat. Also see Table 2 for local

population effect prediction for black bear.

Wolf -- Present

Project effects inferable

from effects assessments

for ungulates (prey base)

and grizzly bear

Project effects on habitat inferable from effects

assessments for moose winter feeding habitat

(see Table 4), mule deer winter shelter habitat

(see Table 5), and grizzly bear habitat (see

Tables 8 and 9). Also see Table 2 for local

population effect predictions for moose and mule

deer.

Cougar -- Present



for ungulates (prey base)

and grizzly bear







deer.

Canada lynx -- Present

Project effects on habitat

inferable from effects

assessments for any one

of: old forest and black

bear denning, moose

winter shelter and mule

deer winter shelter habitats

(mature forest)


assessments for any one of: mule deer winter

shelter habitat (see Table 5), black bear denning

habitat (see Table 7), and old forest (Table 13).

15

Hamilton 2008; a updated population estimate has recently been completed (July 2009) but not released yet



Page 28

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator


Approach in EIS



Bobcat -- Possible





bear denning, moose



(mature forest)





Wolverine --

Present; current population estimate of the

South Chilcotin Ranges population unit is

4516



for ungulates (winter food

source) and grizzly bear







deer.

Fisher Yes Present Key Indicator

See Table 6 for effects assessment for fisher

natal denning habitat. Also see Table 2 for local

population effect prediction for fisher.

American

marten -- Present, apparently common





bear denning, moose



(mature forest)





16

Lofroth and Ott 2007



Page 29

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator


Approach in EIS



Weasels17

-- Present





bear denning, moose



(mature forest)





American

mink -- Present




of: riparian ecosystems, old

forest, and black bear

denning, moose winter

shelter and mule deer

winter shelter habitats

(mature forest)





Snowshoe

hare -- Present, common at times




of: moose and mule deer

winter shelter and Barrow‘s

goldeneye nesting habitat

(mature coniferous and

mixedwood forest)


assessment for mule deer winter shelter habitat

(see Table 5).

17

Short-tailed (ermine) weasel and long-tailed weasel



Page 30

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator


Approach in EIS



Red squirrel -- Present, common




of: old forest, black bear

denning, moose and mule

deer winter shelter (mature

forest)





Northern

flying squirrel -- Likely present





bear denning, moose



(mature forest)





American

beaver -- Present




of: wetlands and mallard

breeding and feeding

habitat


assessment for wetlands (see Table 14).

Common

muskrat -- Present




of: wetlands and mallard


habitat





Page 31

William

Court Case

Species

Selected as

a Key

Indicator


Approach in EIS



Northern river

otter -- Present




of: riparian ecosystems,

wetlands and mallard


habitat



Mice and

voles -- Present, likely common and ubiquitous Qualitative assessment None



Page 32

3.1.3 Habitat Loss Any evaluation of the wildlife habitat loss predictions presented in this report

should consider the following points:

As discussed in the EIS, the habitat loss predicted at maximum

disturbance is a worst case scenario. The actual habitat loss will be less

than predicted as only 52% of the ―maximum disturbance area‖ used to

determine the peak Project effect on habitat is likely to be physically

disturbed.

Note the differences between habitat capability and habitat suitability as

per the Resources Inventory Committee (1999b): ―Capability is defined as

the ability of the habitat, under the optimal natural (seral) conditions for a

species to provide its life requisites, irrespective of the current condition of

the habitat. It is an estimate of the highest potential value of a particular

habitat for a particular species and is useful in providing predictive

scenarios for various habitat management options…Suitability is defined

as the ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life

requisites of a species. It is an estimate of how well current habitat

conditions provide the specified life requisite(s) of the species being

considered. The suitability of the land is frequently less than the capability

because of unfavourable seral conditions.‖ Thus, the habitat capability of a

landscape does not necessarily reflect current wildlife habitat use patterns.

For example, a particular ecosystem unit may have high capability as

mule deer winter shelter habitat but have low suitability as mule deer

winter shelter habitat if it is currently a young forest rather than old forest

and, as such is unlikely to be used by mule deer.

Note that for all species considered here there will be some permanent

loss of habitat as the post-closure water features associated with the mine

development will cover an area of 1088 ha18—a more than three-fold

increase in the open water area in the Fish Creek drainage from baseline

conditions.

In addition, the mine development is proposed for an area that already has some

degree of human disturbance (e.g., logging, cattle grazing, recreation); therefore,

the ecological context is not pristine. In a broader regional context, wildlife habitat

is primarily affected by widespread logging, ranching activities, and mountain

pine beetle. Portions of the Rights and Title Study Area have been identified for

special consideration (i.e., Brittany Triangle) and there are two provincial parks

18

845 ha of upland habitat and 243 ha of aquatic and wetland habitat



Page 33

that overlap the Rights and Title Study Area (Nuntsi Provincial Park and Ts‘yl-os

Provincial Park).

Nuntsi Provincial Park is entirely within the area delineated as the Brittany

Triangle. Up to at least 2002, the Brittany Triangle was still an intact ecosystem

area that was unroaded and had not been subject to commercial logging

(McCrory 2002). The Brittany Triangle is area delineated by the Chilko River to

the west, the Taseko River to the east and the Coast Range to the south

(McCrory 2002). Seventy-five percent of the MSxv and SBPSxc present in the

Rights and Title Study Area is within the Brittany Triangle (Table 5). The SBPSxc

areas within the Brittany Triangle are dominated by pine-leading stands of

various ages, reflecting a diverse fire history (McCrory 2002). Pine forests in the

upland areas are interspersed with wet and dry graminoid-dominated meadow

complexes with small isolated pockets of wet spruce forest and aspen stands

(McCrory 2002). Mountain pine beetle effects will be similar to what is occurring

in the Fish Lake area. Following the beetle kill, the forested ecosystem types in

the SBPSxc will likely be influenced by increased forest fire incidence in the short

term and an increase in aspen-dominated ecosystem types over the long term.

Pine regeneration will likely be dense on drier sites and burned areas. McCrory

(2002) describes the Brittany Triangle as a core intact wilderness area with high

security and feeding value for large carnivores, ungulates and feral horses.



Page 34

Table 5 Portion of MSxv and SBPSxc in the Rights and Title Study Area that is Protected or of Special Interest

Special Interest or

Protected Area

MSxv in Rights and Title Study

Area

SBPSxc in Rights and Title

Study Area

MSxv and SBPSxc in Rights and

Title Study Area

Area (ha) in

Special Interest

or Protected

Area

As a Portion

(%) of Total

Present

Area (ha) in

Special Interest

or Protected

Area

As a Portion

(%) of Total

Present

Area (ha) in

Special Interest

or Protected

Area

As a Portion

(%) of Total

Present

Brittany Triangle 14516 55.4 86102 80.3 100618 75.4

Nuntsi Provincial Park 0 0.0 19187 17.9 19187 14.4

Ts‘yl-os Provincial Park 38 0.1 0 0.0 38 <0.1

All Special Interest or

Protected Areas Combined 14554 55.6 86102 80.3 100656 75.4



Page 35

As indicated in Section 3.1.2 and Table 4, the results of the effects assessments presented below are linked to other William case species to allow for inferences of project effects on these species as well, in conjunction with the EIS.

3.1.3.1 Moose

Baseline Conditions Moose are not a species of concern in BC nor are they listed federally. Moose

are common throughout central British Columbia (Shackleton 1999). The mine

site and must of the Rights and Title Study Area are within an area of moderate

moose abundance (Shackleton 1999). Moose abundance is low in the

southwestern portion of the Rights and Title Study Area (Shackleton 1999). East

of the mine site, there is an area of high abundance along Big Creek (Shackleton

1999; Stalberg 2005). Much of the Rights and Title is within an area of moderate

moose abundance with areas of Keystone (2006) estimated the density of moose

in the Interior Douglas-fir, Sub-boreal Pine Spruce and Montane Spruce zones as

0.3 animals/km2.

Characterization of Residual Project Effect The change in moose winter feeding habitat capability from baseline to maximum

disturbance is presented in Table 6. The focus of this assessment is moderate

and higher capability winter feeding habitat. The availability of this type of habitat

is considered limiting in a regional context, and therefore of greatest importance

with respect to the sustainability of moose.

No high capability habitat is affected by the Project. The loss of moderate and

moderately high capability habitat is high magnitude in context of the Eastern

Trapline Study Area, but low magnitude in context of the Regional Study Area,

and low to medium magnitude in context of the Rights and Title Study Area (table

6). This loss will persist for the life of the mine (~20 years) but will be partially

reversed over time as the succession of reclaimed areas progresses. There will,

however, will be a permanent loss of a large area of upland and wetland habitat,

some of which may have moose winter habitat capability, due to the increase in

the area of water features at post-closure (see Section 3.1.3).

In conclusion, the residual direct loss of moderate and higher value moose winter

feeding habitat at maximum disturbance is characterized as negative, low to

medium magnitude, regional in extent19, long term, partially reversible, and

occurs in a non-pristine ecological context (Table 12).

19

Regional extent indicates that the project may affect individuals from an area beyond the

immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Thus, this extent applies to species that have

large home ranges or make long distance seasonal movements across a landscape.



Page 36

Determination of Significance The residual loss of moderate or higher capability moose winter feeding habitat

at maximum disturbance is large locally (Eastern Trapline Study Area) and

moderately large to relatively small regionally (Rights and Title and Regional

study areas, respectively). This loss of moose winter feeding habitat is also

reflected in the predicted loss of wetlands (Section 3.2.2). However, the mine site

area has not been identified as a regionally important moose area and the

characterization of effect magnitude (area of habitat lost) is considered

conservative as it represents a ―worst case scenario‖ (see Section 3.1.3).

Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the

EIS (e.g., minimization of clearing area, reclamation of shoreline areas), the

residual Project effect on moose winter feeding habitat is predicted to be not

significant with respect to the sustainability of the moose population in the

Regional and Rights and Title study areas (Table 12). This finding is consistent

with the results of the assessment of residual effects on moose habitat presented

in the EIS.

Confidence in Prediction Confidence in the Project effect and significance prediction is medium (Table 12)

for the following reasons: the availability and loss of habitat was determined

using a quantitative model considered suitable for analyses at this scale;

information on the relative habitat quality and presence/relative abundance of

moose in the study areas is only generally known; the effect mechanism (direct

loss of habitat, including some permanent loss) is clear; and the proposed

mitigation measures, in combination with natural succession, may be effective at

minimizing the Project effect, although the success of the mitigation measures

will not be known until post-closure.

3.1.3.2 Mule Deer

Baseline Conditions Mule deer are not a species of concern in BC nor are they listed federally. Mule

deer are widely distributed and relatively common in central and south-central

British Columbia (Shackleton 1999). The mine site and Rights and Title Study

Area are within an area of moderate mule deer abundance (Shackleton 1999).

East of this area, mule deer become more common, with areas of high

abundance along the Fraser and Chilcotin rivers and around Churn Creek

Protected Area and Big Creek Provincial Park (Shackleton 1999).

Characterization of Residual Project Effect The change in mule deer winter shelter habitat capability from baseline to

maximum disturbance is presented in Table 7. The focus of this assessment is



Page 37

moderate and higher capability winter shelter habitat. The availability of this type

of habitat is considered limiting in a regional context, and therefore of greatest

importance with respect to the sustainability of mule deer.

Almost no high capability habitat is affected by the Project. The loss of moderate

and moderately high capability habitat is medium magnitude in context of the

Eastern Trapline Study Area, but low magnitude in context of the Regional and

Rights and Title study areas (Table 7). This loss will persist for the life of the mine

but will be partially reversed over time as the succession of reclaimed areas

progresses toward mature forest condition. There will, however, will be a

permanent loss of a large area of upland habitat, some of which may have mule

deer winter habitat capability, due to the increase in the area of water features at

post-closure (see Section 3.1.3).

In conclusion, the residual direct loss of moderate and higher value mule deer

winter shelter habitat at maximum disturbance is characterized as negative, low

magnitude, regional in extent, long term, partially reversible, and occurs in a non-

pristine ecological context (Table 12).

Determination of Significance The residual loss of moderate or higher capability mule deer winter shelter

habitat at maximum disturbance is relatively small locally (Eastern Trapline Study

Area) and even smaller regionally (Regional and Rights and Title study areas).

Furthermore, the maximum disturbance area is not considered to be regionally

important as mule deer winter range (i.e., there are no designated mule deer

UWR polygons within the maximum disturbance footprint). The characterization

of effect magnitude (area of habitat lost) is considered conservative as it

represents a ―worst case scenario‖ (see Section 3.1.3). Therefore, with the

implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS (e.g.,

minimization of clearing area, reforestation of reclaimed areas), the residual

Project effect on mule deer winter shelter habitat is predicted to be not significant

with respect to the sustainability of the mule deer population in the Regional and

Rights and Title study areas (Table 12). This finding is consistent with the results

of the assessment of residual effects on mule deer habitat presented in the EIS.





mule deer in the study areas is only generally known; the effect mechanism

(direct loss of habitat, including some permanent loss) is clear; and the proposed



Page 38




3.1.3.3 Fisher

Baseline Conditions The fisher is blue-listed in BC but is not considered at risk federally. The current

range of the fisher in British Columbia is primarily within the Boreal Plains, Sub-

Boreal Interior, Central Interior, and Taiga Plains ecoprovinces (Weir 2003). The

Cariboo subpopulation is estimated to be 206–522 animals, the third most

abundant in the province (Weir 2003).

Characterization of Residual Project Effect The change in fisher natal denning habitat capability from baseline to maximum


and higher capability natal denning habitat. The availability of this type of habitat

is considered limiting in a regional context, and therefore of greatest importance

with respect to the sustainability of fishers.

The loss of moderate and high capability habitat is medium to high magnitude in

context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area, but low magnitude in context of the

Regional and Rights and Title study areas (Table 8). This loss will persist for the

life of the mine but will be partially reversed over time as the succession of

reclaimed areas progresses toward mature forest condition. There will, however,

will be a permanent loss of a large area of upland habitat, some of which may

have fisher natal denning habitat capability due to the increase in the area of

water features at post-closure (see Section 3.1.3).

In conclusion, the residual direct loss of moderate and higher value fisher natal

denning habitat at maximum disturbance is characterized as negative, low

magnitude, regional in extent, long term, partially reversible, and occurs in a non-

pristine ecological context (Table 12).

Determination of Significance The residual loss of moderate or higher capability fisher natal denning habitat at

maximum disturbance is large locally (Eastern Trapline Study Area), but small

regionally (Rights and Title and Regional study areas). The characterization of

effect magnitude (area of habitat lost) is considered conservative as it represents

a ―worst case scenario‖ (see Section 3.1.3). Therefore, with the implementation

of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS (e.g., minimization of clearing

area, reforestation of reclaimed areas), the residual loss of fisher natal denning



Page 39

habitat is predicted to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the

fisher population in the Regional and Rights and Title study areas (Table 12).

This finding is consistent with the results of the assessment of residual effects on

fisher habitat presented in the EIS.

Confidence in Prediction Confidence in the Project effect and significance prediction is low (Table 12) for

the following reasons: the availability and loss of habitat was determined using a

quantitative model but, given that the availability of suitable natal denning trees is

influenced by individual tree characteristics as well as ecosystem type, this

model may be less suitable at the scale of analysis presented here; information

on the relative habitat quality and presence/relative abundance of fisher in the

study areas is only generally known; the effect mechanism (direct loss of habitat,

including some permanent loss) is clear; the proposed mitigation measures, in

combination with natural succession, may be effective at minimizing the Project

effect.

3.1.3.4 Black Bear

Baseline Conditions Black bears are not a species of concern in BC nor are they listed federally.

Black bears are widely distributed throughout British Columbia. A 2001 study of

black bears in British Columbia estimated the population to be between 120,000

and 160,000 individuals (BCMELP 2001).

Characterization of Residual Project Effect The change in black bear denning habitat capability from baseline to maximum


and higher capability denning habitat. However, the availability of this type of

habitat, and of black bear habitat in general, is not considered limiting in a

regional context.

No high or moderately high capability habitat is affected. The loss of moderate

capability habitat is high magnitude in context of the Eastern Trapline Study Area

but small in context of the Regional and Rights and Title study area (Table 9).

This loss will persist for the life of the mine but will be partially reversed over time

as the succession of reclaimed areas progresses toward mature forest condition.

There will, however, will be a permanent loss of a large area of upland habitat,

some of which may have black bear denning habitat capability, due to the

increase in the area of water features at post-closure (see Section 3.1.3).



Page 40

In conclusion, the residual direct loss of moderate and higher value black bear

denning habitat at maximum disturbance is characterized as negative, low

magnitude, regional in extent, medium term, partially reversible, and occurs in a

non-pristine ecological context (Table 12).

Determination of Significance The residual loss of moderate or higher capability black bear denning habitat at

maximum disturbance is moderately large locally (Eastern Trapline Study Area),

but small regionally (Rights and Title and Regional study areas). Furthermore,

black bears are not considered a conservation concern regionally (Table 3) and

the characterization of effect magnitude (area of habitat lost) is considered

conservative as it represents a ―worst case scenario‖ (see Section 3.1.3).

Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the

EIS (e.g., minimization of clearing area, reforestation of reclaimed areas), the

residual Project effect on black bear denning habitat is predicted to be not

significant with respect to the sustainability of the black bear population in the

Regional and Rights and Title study areas (Table 12). This finding is consistent

with the results of the assessment of residual effects on black bear habitat

presented in the EIS.





black bear in the study areas is only generally known; the effect mechanism

(direct loss of habitat, including some permanent loss) is clear; and the proposed




3.1.3.5 Grizzly Bear

Baseline Conditions Grizzly bears are blue-listed in BC and federally designated as a species of

Special Concern and included on Schedule 320 of the Species at Risk Act. The

Rights and Title Study Area primarily overlaps with the South Chilcotin Ranges

Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) east of the Chilko River, and Klinaklini–

Homathko GBPU west of the Chilko River, to the west. The South Chilcotin

20

Schedule 3 includes species that have been designated as special concern, and have yet to be

re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed,

they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1.



Page 41

Ranges GBPU is one of nine that is classified as threatened21 in the province

(Hamilton et al. 2004). The population estimate and boundaries of this GBPU are

currently under revision (Table 4). The Klinaklini–Homathko GBPU is considered

viable (Hamilton et al. 2004).

Characterization of Residual Project Effect The change in grizzly bear habitat capability and suitability from baseline to

maximum disturbance is presented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. The focus

of this assessment is moderate and higher capability and suitability habitat. The

availability of this type of habitat is considered limiting in a regional context, and

therefore of greatest importance with respect to the sustainability of grizzly bears.

The Project has almost no effect on the availability of moderate and higher

capability habitat in context of any of the study areas (Table 10). There is also no

high or moderately high suitability habitat affected (Table 11). The loss of

moderate suitability habitat is medium magnitude in context of the Eastern

Trapline Study Area but low magnitude in context of the Regional and Rights and

Title study areas (Table 11).

In conclusion, the residual direct loss of moderate and higher value grizzly bear

habitat at maximum disturbance is characterized as negative, low magnitude,

regional in extent, medium term, partially reversible, and occurs in a non-pristine

ecological context (Table 12).

Determination of Significance The residual loss of moderate or higher suitability grizzly bear habitat at

maximum disturbance is large locally (Eastern Trapline Study Area), but very

small regionally (Rights and Title and Regional study areas). Furthermore, the

mine development is in the eastern portion of the South Chilcotin Ranges GBPU

which is generally lower value as grizzly bear habitat than the western portion

(e.g., in the vicinity of Chilko) which overlaps considerably with the Rights and

Title Study Area. In addition, the characterization of effect magnitude (area of

habitat lost) is considered conservative as it represents a ―worst case scenario‖

(see Section 3.1.3). Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation

measures proposed in the EIS (e.g., minimization of clearing area, reforestation

of reclaimed areas), the residual Project effect on grizzly bear habitat is predicted

to be not significant with respect to the sustainability of the grizzly bear

population in the Regional and Rights and Title study areas (Table 12). This

21

A GBPU is designated as threatened when the current population estimate is less than 50% of

habitat capability (Hamilton et al. 2004)



Page 42

finding is consistent with the results of the assessment of residual effects on

grizzly bear habitat presented in the EIS.



using quantitative models based on map products developed by the BC MOE

and considered suitable for analyses at this scale; information on the relative

habitat quality and presence/relative abundance of grizzly bear in the study areas

is only generally known; the effect mechanism (direct loss of habitat, including

some permanent loss) is clear; and the proposed mitigation measures, in

combination with natural succession, may be effective at minimizing the Project

effect, although the success of the mitigation measures will not be known until

post-closure.



Page 43

Table 6 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Moose Winter Feeding Habitat Capability

Habitat Capability Class

Regional Study Area Rights and Title Study Area (SBPSxc and

MSxv only) Eastern Trapline Study Area

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High 19,253 18,728 -525 -2.7 3,062 2,663 -399 -13.0 1,106 707 -399 -36.1

Moderate 41,326 40,854 -471 -1.1 16,511 16,286 -225 -1.4 1,211 987 -225 -18.5

Low 247,201 243,557 -3,644 -1.5 108,087 105,736 -2,351 -2.2 18,731 16,380 -2,351 -12.5

Very Low 111,457 111,225 -232 -0.2 1,158 1,137 -21 -1.8 7,427 7,406 -21 -0.3

Total Habitat 419,237 414,366 -4,872* -1.2 128,818 125,822 -2,996** -2.3 28,476 25,480 -2,996** -10.5

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as moose winter feeding habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Rights and Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as moose winter feeding habitat at baseline.



Page 44

Table 7 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat Capability




Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 3,359 3,358 -1 - <0.1 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High 47,861 47,689 -172 -0.4 436 436 - <1 -0.1 3 3 - <1 -7.1

Moderate 150,682 149,122 -1,560 -1.0 29,130 28,405 -725 -2.5 11,943 11,218 -725 -6.1

Low 185,221 182,641 -2,580 -1.4 93,994 92,153 -1,841 -2.0 14,225 12,385 -1,841 -12.9

Very Low 8,209 8,183 -26 -0.3 619 600 -19 -3.0 645 627 -19 -2.9

Total Habitat 395,332 390,994 -4,338* -1.1 124,179 121,595 -2,585** -2.1 26,817 24,232 -2,585** -9.6

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as mule deer winter shelter habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Rights and Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as mule deer winter shelter habitat at baseline



Page 45

Table 8 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Fisher Natal Denning Habitat Capability




Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 1468 1435 -33 -2.3 1,030 1,014 -16 -1.6 153 137 -16 -10.7

Moderate 79676 79072 -604 -0.8 14,206 13,968 -238 -1.7 986 748 -238 -24.1

Low 280075 276405 -3670 -1.3 108,274 105,962 -2,312 -2.1 19150 16839 -2312 -12.1

Total Habitat 361219 356911 -4308* -1.2 123,510 120,944 -2,566** -2.1 20289 17723 -2566** -12.6

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as fisher natal denning habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Rights and Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as fisher natal denning habitat at baseline



Page 46

Table 9 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Black Bear Denning Habitat Capability




Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderate 168,539 165,867 -2,673 -1.6 88,754 87,178 -1575 -1.8 6,888 5,312 -1,575 -22.9

Low 151,369 149,972 -1,398 -0.9 29,086 28,196 -890 -3.1 12,393 11,503 -890 -7.2

Very Low 62,953 62,784 -169 -0.3 3,588 3,527 -60 -1.7 6,224 6,164 -60 -1.0

Total Habitat 382,862 378,622 -4,240* -1.1 121,428 118,902 -2526** -2.1 25,505 22,979 -2,526** -9.9

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as black bear denning habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Rights and Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as black bear denning habitat at baseline



Page 47

Table 10 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability


Regional Study Area Rights and Title Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderately High 68 68 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0

Moderate 136,228 136,191 -37 - <0.1 125,289 125,289 0 0.0 19,281 19,281 0 0.0

Low 197,930 195,794 -2,137 -1.1 154,397 153,498 -899 -0.6 12,969 12,069 -900 -6.9

Very Low 142,097 139,659 -2,438 -1.7 101,840 99,792 -2,047 -2.0 9,393 7,344 -2,049 -21.8

Total Habitat 476,324 471,712 -4,612* -1.0 381,525 378,579 -2,947** -0.8 41,643 38,694 -2,949** -7.1

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Rights and Title and Eastern Trapline study areas (i.e., 3118 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline



Page 48

Table 11 Change in Habitat Availability from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability


Regional Study Area Rights and Title Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

) a

t B

as

elin

e

Are

a (

ha

) a

t M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a

(%)

fro

m B

ase

lin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

High 5,983 5,983 0 0.0 10,669 10,669 0 0.0 426 426 0 0.0

Moderately High 28,135 28,135 0 0.0 9,932 9,932 0 0.0 1,216 1,216 0 0.0

Moderate 54,799 54,372 -426 -0.8 38,496 38,126 -371 -1.0 2,659 2,288 -371 -14.0

Low 135,316 131,243 -4,073 -3.0 72,236 69,748 -2,488 -3.4 15,193 12,703 -2,490 -16.4

Very Low 175,487 175,203 -284 -0.2 183,291 183,032 -259 -0.1 15,494 15,235 -259 -1.7

Total Habitat 399,720 394,936 -4,783* -1.2 314,624 311,506 -3,118 -1.0 34,989 31,869 -3,120** -8.9

* Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance does not add up to the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the regional study area (i.e., 4997 ha) because some of the footprint area is already nil value as grizzly bear habitat at baseline ** Total change in area (ha) from baseline to maximum disturbance is slightly more than the maximum disturbance area (footprint) in the Eastern Trapline study area (i.e., 3118 ha) due to rounding error



Page 49

Table 12 Effect Characterization and Determination of Significance for Wildlife

Potential Residual Environmental Effects

Residual Environmental Effects Characteristics

Sig

nif

ican

ce

Pre

dic

tio

n

Co

nfi

de

nce

Dir

ec

tio

n

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

Rev

ers

ibilit

y

Ec

olo

gic

al

Co

nte

xt

Loss of Moose Winter Feeding Habitat at Maximum Disturbance

N Low to medium; 624 ha of moderate and moderately high capability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 6)

R LT/P R/I D N M

Loss of Mule Deer Winter Shelter Habitat at Maximum Disturbance

N Low; 725 ha of moderate and moderately high capability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 7)

R LT/P R/I D N M

Loss of Fisher Natal Denning Habitat at Maximum Disturbance

N Low; 254 ha of moderate and high capability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 8)

R LT/P R/I D N L

Loss of Black Bear Denning Habitat at Maximum Disturbance

N Low; 1575 ha of moderate capability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 9)

R MT/P R/I D N M

Change in Grizzly Bear Habitat Capability at Maximum Disturbance

N No effect; nil moderate and higher capability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 10)

R MT/P R/I D N M

Change in Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability at Maximum Disturbance

N Low; 371 ha of moderate suitability habitat lost in Rights and Title Study Area (Table 11)

R MT/P R/I D N M

KEY

Direction: P Positive: measurable effect moves

condition in a positive direction relative to baseline N Negative: measurable effect moves

condition in negative direction relative to baseline Magnitude:

Quantitative assessment: Expressed as a quantity. Units of expression vary depending on the measurable parameter, but, typically for wildlife the unit is hectares. In addition the

Geographic Extent: S Site-specific: effect(s) on wildlife confined

to single small area within local study area L Local: effect(s) on wildlife occurs within

local study area R Regional: effect(s) on wildlife occurs

within or beyond regional study area Duration: ST Short-term: effect(s) limited to no more

than one annual cycle within the life history of an individual (≤ 1 year) MT Medium-term: effect(s) last for part or

all of the average life span of an individual;

Reversibility: R Reversible: effect(s) reversible

with reclamation and/or over time I Irreversible: effect(s) permanent

and cannot be reversed with reclamation and/or over time Ecological Context: U Undisturbed—area relatively

unaffected, or not adversely affected, by human activity D Developed—area substantially

previously disturbed by human activity, or human activity is still

Significance: S Significant N Not Significant

Prediction Confidence: Based on literature review, data analysis, professional judgment and effectiveness of mitigation L Low: not confident in prediction,

could vary considerably M Medium: confident in prediction,

moderate variability H High: confident in prediction,

low variability



Page 50

quantity may be expressed as a percent change.

Qualitative assessment:

Low: ≤5% change

Medium: >5% to 15% change

High: >15% change

actual number of years is KI-specific LT Long-term: effect(s) last beyond

individual life spans and will affect multiple generations; actual number of years is KI-specific P Effect(s) permanent (i.e., irreversible)

present


Taseko Mines Limited September 2009

Page 51

3.2 Vegetation

3.2.1 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government

The linkages between the 52 plant species of importance to the TNG and the

vegetation KIs are presented in Table 13. This table also summarizes the

findings of the EIS with respect to the vegetation KIs identified as linkages—that

is, no effect or no significant residual effect was predicted for any of the 52 plant

species as no significant residual effects were identified for any of the vegetation

KIs (see last column, Table 13).

3.2.2 Vegetation Loss As discussed for wildlife (Section 3.1.3), only 52% of the maximum disturbance

area associated with the mine site will be directly disturbed by the mine

development. Thus, the predictions of vegetation loss presented here are over-

estimates of the actual direct loss.

Old Forest The change in area of old forest from baseline to maximum disturbance is

presented in Table 14. Pine-leading old forest is the most common type in both

study areas. The potential loss of old forest is small (1.5%) in the context of the

Regional Study Area but relatively large (20.2%) in the context of the Eastern

Trapline Study Area. Most of this loss is predicted to be pine-leading old forest.

Note that these effect predictions do not account specifically for mountain pine

beetle effects; although it can be assumed that the majority of pine-leading old

forest stands in the region are already dead or will be beetle-killed in the next few

years. Further, the VRI does not include recent logging activity. Thus, the area of

intact old forest present at baseline and lost at maximum disturbance is over-

estimated in this analysis.

Alpine and Parkland, Wetlands and Grasslands The changes in area of alpine and parkland, wetland and grassland ecosystems

from baseline to maximum disturbance are presented in Table 15. No alpine or

parkland ecosystems are affected by the Project. The loss of grassland

ecosystems is small in both the Regional and Eastern Trapline Study Areas (<1

and 2.5% respectively). The Project-related loss of wetlands is small (<2%) in the

context of the Regional Study Area but relatively large (14.6%) in the context of

the Eastern Trapline Study Area.



Page 52

Table 13 Plant Species of Importance to the Tsilhqot’in National Government – Linkages to Vegetation Key Indicators Assessed in the EIS

Plant Species of Importance to Tsilhqot’in

22

General Ecological Requirements

Approach Assessment Results:

Significance Prediction from EIS

Biogeoclimatic Subzone23

Habitat Tsilhqot'in Name

Common Name

Scientific Name

IDFdk4 SBPSxc MSxv ESSFxv

7ests‟igwel Whitebark pine

Pinus albicaulis

no no no yes Typically occurs near treeline on mountains

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for old forest and rare ecosystems

No effect predicted – there is no ESSFxv within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine

7unqes Green alder Alnus tenuifolia

yes yes yes yes Moist forests, streamsides, bogs and fens

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on wetlands or riparian ecosystems

ch‟entSay Water birch Betula occidentalis

yes yes less no Occurs in moist draws and gullies

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on wetlands or riparian ecosystems

baWesdinin Oregon grape

Berberis aquifolium

yes no no no Dry forests and openings

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for old forest

No effect predicted – there is no IDFdk4 within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine

-- Buckbrush Ceanothus sanguineus

yes yes less no Often occurs after fires

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands

No significant residual project effect on grasslands

22

List taken verbatim from TNG comments received by Taseko Mines Ltd. on May 25, 2009 23

IDFdk4 = Interior Douglas-Fir dry cool Chilcotin variant; SBPSxc = Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce very dry cold subzone; MSxv = Montane Spruce

very dry very cold subzone; ESSFxv = Engelmann Spruce–Sub-alpine Fir very dry very cold subzone



Page 53


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


xwes-mal, (‗thorn.round\berry‘), xweschemal, xweschugh-dIg

Black hawthorn

Crataegus douglasii

yes yes yes less

Dry rocky slopes, shrub lands, open forests and burnt areas


No significant residual project effect on old forest

k‟alatan, k‟atatamal

Silverberry24

Elaeagnus commutata

yes yes no no

Dry banks on warm aspects along rivers or draws



-- Bog laurel Kalmia microphylla

yes yes yes yes Grows in bogs

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for wetlands

No significant residual project effect on wetlands

xwes cho Devil's club Oplopanax horridus

no no yes yes

Very moist to wet nitrogen-rich sites, floodplain, seepage and stream-edge semi-open forests

Project effects inferable from effects assessments for old forest and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on old forest or riparian ecosystems

-- False box Paxistima myrsinites

yes yes yes infrequent Dry forest areas, on forest edges or openings



lhin tenexwez (also R. lacustre) ―dog gooseberry‖

Black currant

Ribes hudsonianum

less less yes yes

Wet to moist woodlands, forests, stream banks



-- Wild gooseberry

Ribes irriguum

25

yes yes yes yes Wet areas, edges of forests



24

Also known as wolf willow 25

Ribes irriguum is not listed in BC, perhaps R. divaricatum?



Page 54


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


lhin tenexwez ‗dog gooseberry‘

Swamp gooseberry

Ribes lacustre

yes yes yes yes Moist woods and seepage areas

Project effects inferable from effects assessments for old forest, wetlands and riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on old forest, wetlands or riparian ecosystems

ts‟elhiq Dwarf raspberry

Rubus arcticus, and/or R. pubescens

less yes yes yes Moist woods



texaltsel Wild raspberry

Rubus idaeus

yes yes yes no Moist rich forest openings



NitSan nibaxalyish „it takes away one‟s Dress”

Blackcap Rubus leucodermis

yes yes less no

Dry forest openings, often on disturbed areas like clear-cuts


No significant residual project effect on wetlands and riparian ecosystems

-- Dwarf/alpine willow

Salix arctica no no yes yes Grows in bogs, and at high elevation

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands (alpine)

No significant residual project effect on grasslands; there are no alpine areas within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of mine

chib (tchib) Red elderberry

Sambucus racemosa

only along creeks

only along creeks

yes in clearings

Moist to mesic meadows and forests, streambanks, disturbed areas



nelghes Dwarf mountain blueberry

Vaccinium caespitosum (?also V. myrtilloides)

yes yes yes yes Dry, sunny forest openings,





Page 55


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


yanlhtSel Oval-leaved blueberry

Vaccinium ovalifolium

no no yes yes Common in moist forests



niselix Bog cranberry

Vaccinium oxycoccos

yes yes yes yes Grows in bogs



nists‟elIsh, ?isdzelIsh, niselix, or isdzElix

Lingonberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea

no only in bogs

only in bogs

yes Bogs, meadows



xwes-chugh (Cirsium spp.; „big prickle/spine‟)

Edible thistle

Cirsium edule

yes yes yes no

Often in fields and disturbed areas, also meadows, avalanche tracks and open forests



sunt‟iny Spring beauty

Claytonia lanceolata

less less yes yes Moist meadows and upland grasslands



ax Spiny wood fern

Dryopteris expansa

less no yes yes Often grows on decaying wood in moist forests



7esghunsh Yellow glacier lily, beartooth

Erythronium grandiflorum

no no no yes

Moist to mesic meadows, edges of snow-melt, along streams and occasionally in open forests in the montane to alpine zones

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands (montane)

No effect predicted – there is no ESSFxv within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine



Page 56


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


7undziny Blueleaf wild strawberry

Fragaria virginiana

yes yes yes less Common forest plant as well as in open areas



sachen Tiger lily

Lilium columbianum

yes yes yes yes Moist forest openings



7est‟anchis (see also Rumex)

Wild celery, barestem lomatium

Lomatium nudicaule

yes only on warm slopes

no rarely

Dry rocky or grassy slopes, and open forest in the dry IDF


No significant residual project effect on grasslands; unlikely to be present within the proposed maximum disturbance limit of the mine

tl‟etch‟et nelhtsen („meadow fragrant‟)

Field mint Mentha arvensis

yes yes yes less

Wet marshes, meadows, thickets, and stream and lake margins

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for riparian ecosystems

No significant residual project effect on riparian ecosystems

7est‟anchis Sour dock26

Rumex acetosa ssp. alpestris

yes yes less no Often grows in fields and grazed areas

None (introduced species)

Non-invasive introduced species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

? nistiny yaz chuZ ―deer‘s young?‖

Mountain dandelion

Agoseris glauca var. dasycephala

yes yes yes yes

Grasslands and montane areas, often on scree slopes



26

Also known as green sorrel or garden sorrel



Page 57


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


tl‟uWesen niZt‟an (‗snake

berry‘)

Pacific anemone

Anemone multifida

yes yes yes yes Rocky outcrops, and warm, open areas



?tsachén ? Red columbine

Aquilegia formosa

yes yes yes yes Often grows in openings, and logging areas



-- Heart-leaved arnica

Arnica cordifolia

yes yes yes yes Common plant in conifer forests



ts‟elh niZt‟an? False Solomon‘s seal

Maianthemum racemosum

yes yes yes yes

Moist to mesic forests, streambanks, meadows and clearings



xilhday Yellow pond-lily

Nuphar polysepala

yes yes yes yes Grows in open water


No significant residual project effect on wetlands; any population associated with Fish Lake will be lost but this species is likely to re-establish on Prosperity Lake

-- Great mullein

Verbascum thapsus

yes yes no no Dry roadsides, gravel pits, fields and waste places


Invasive species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

-- Mountain valerian

Valeriana sitchensis

no no yes yes Grows at higher elevations





Page 58


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


sesdan (?‘bear leaves‘)

Death camus

Zygadenus venenosus

yes yes yes yes Edges of wetlands, in fens



tishbinlh Indian-hemp

Apocynum cannabinum

yes yes less less Often grows on warm, gravelly slopes and banks



Timber milkvetch

Astragalus miser

yes yes less less Grows in forest openings and dry, sunny areas

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands and old forest

No significant residual project effect on grasslands or old forest

ts‟utanchuny ya?elhdeZ

Paintbrush Castilleja miniata

yes yes yes yes

Grows on moist soils, often close to creeks and rivers



binek‟en (‗you colour yourself with it‘)

Strawberry-blite

Chenopodium capitatum

yes yes no no

Often grows in disturbed places like roadsides and fields



tlh‟EgwElzEyx Giant wildrye grass

Leymus cinereus

yes yes no no More common in grasslands in valley bottoms

Project effects inferable from effects assessment for grasslands and old forest

No significant residual project effect on grasslands or old forest

-- Pineapple weed

Matricaria matricarioides

yes yes yes no

Grows on disturbed soils such as roadsides and grazed areas


Invasive species, unlikely to be affected by Project, may increase following project-related disturbance

-- Alfalfa Medicago sativa

yes yes less no Fields and roadsides


Agricultural plant, unlikely to be affected by Project, and may increase following project-related



Page 59


22






Common Name

Scientific Name


disturbance

tl‟ekw‟a, tl‟eqw‟a

Reedgrass27

Phragmites australis

yes yes no no Grows on edges of marshes with open water



“takatlh‟ulh” taqatl‟ulh

Pondweed

Potamogeton natans and other spp. of pondweed

yes yes yes yes

Grows in open water such as ponds and lake edges


No significant residual project effect on wetlands; any population associated with Fish Lake will be lost but pondweeds are likely to re-establish on Prosperity Lake

gwelhts‟i (‗it stings)

Stinging nettle

Urtica dioica yes yes yes yes Grows on rich soils



dech-lizba Tree fungus

-- yes yes yes yes Common in older forests of all types



7elhts‟ibadzagh

Mushrooms -- yes yes yes yes Common in all forested areas



27

Also known as common reed



Page 60

Table 14 Change in Area of Old Forest from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance

Leading Tree Species

Regional Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Bas

eli

ne A

rea

(h

a)

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

)

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Bas

eli

ne A

rea

(h

a)

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

)

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Douglas-fir 8,191 8,182 -10 -0.1 9 9 0 0.0

Lodgepole pine 94,502 93,110 -1,392 -1.5 6,789 5,571 -1,219 -18.0

Spruce 9,441 9,142 -299 -3.2 742 436 -306 -41.3

Total Old Forest 112,134 110,434 -1,700 -1.5 7,540 6,015 -1,525 -20.2



Page 61

Table 15 Change in Area of Vegetation Key Indicators from Baseline to Maximum Disturbance: Alpine and Parkland, Grasslands and Wetlands

Ecosystem Type

Regional Study Area Eastern Trapline Study Area

Bas

eli

ne A

rea

(h

a)

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

)

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Bas

eli

ne A

rea

(h

a)

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Are

a (

ha

)

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

ha)

fro

m B

as

elin

e t

o

Ma

xim

um

Dis

turb

an

ce

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

in

Are

a (

%)

fro

m

Bas

eli

ne t

o M

ax

imu

m

Dis

turb

an

ce

Alpine and Parkland 131,664 131,664 0 0.0 13,424 13,424 0 0.0

Grasslands 3,587 3,569 -18 -0.5 582 567 -15 -2.5

Wetlands 34,397 33,737 -660 -1.9 3,653 3,120 -533 -14.6



Page 62

4 References

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BCMELP). 2001. Black Bears in

British Columbia. Ecology, Conservation and Management. Wildlife

Branch, Victoria, BC.

Dawson, R.J., H.M. Armleder, B.A. Bings, and D.E. Peel. 2007. Management

strategy for mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin–Part A:

Management Plan for shallow and moderate snowpack zones. Land

Management Handbook 60, BC Ministry of Forest and Range, Research


Dunster, J.A. and K.J. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource

Management. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.

Hamilton, A.N. 2007. Central Interior ecoregional assessment: grizzly bear

habitat capability and suitability mapping. Unpublished report, BC Ministry

of Environment, Victoria, BC.

Hamilton, A.N. 2008. 2008 Grizzly bear population estimate for British Columbia.

BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C.

Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear

(Ursus arctos) Population Estimate 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection. Victoria, BC.

Intrepid Biological Contracting (Intrepid). 2004. Preliminary list of ‗high value‘

wetlands for moose within the Cariboo Forest Region. Prepared for BC

Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Williams Lake, BC.

Keystone Wildlife Research (Keystone). 2006. Identification and management of

moose winter habitat in the Cariboo region: literature review and mapping

pilot study. Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment, Williams Lake, BC.

Loforth, E.C. and P.K. Ott. 2007. Assessment of the sustainability of wolverine

harvest in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:

2193-2200

Madrone Consultants Ltd. 1999. Technical Report: Species-habitat models for

Prosperity Project Area. Prepared for Taseko Mines Ltd., Vancouver, BC.

McCrory, W. 2002. Preliminary Conservation Assessment of the Rainshadow

Wild Horse Ecosystem, Brittany Triangle, Chilcotin, British Columbia,

Canada: A Review of Grizzly and Black Bears, Other Wildlife, Feral



Page 63

Horses, and Wild Salmon. Prepared for Friends of Nemaiah Valley,

Victoria, BC.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Research

Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Moon, D.E., R.A. MacMillan, R. Coupé, and N. Phillips, 2008. Williams Lake TSA

PEM Final Report. Prepared for BC Ministry of Forests and Range,

Williams Lake, BC.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1999a. Standards for Predictive Ecosystem

Mapping. Inventory Standard. Version 1.0. BC Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Alternatives Task Force,

Victoria, BC.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1999b. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating

Standards. Version 2.0. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,

Resources Inventory Branch. Victoria, BC.

Salmo Consulting Inc., Diversified Environmental Services, GAIA Consultants

Inc., Forem Technologies Ltd. and AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

(Salmo Consulting). 2003. Volume 2: Cumulative Effects Indicators,

Thresholds, and Case Studies. Prepared for BC Oil and Gas Commission

and Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board, Fort St. John, BC.

Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed Mammals of British Columbia. Royal British

Columbia Museum Handbook. UBC Press. Vancouver, BC.

Stalberg, M. 2005. 2005-Big Creek (5-04) Winter Moose Inventory. BC Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection. Williams Lake, BC.

Steen, O.A. and R.A. Coupé. 1997. A field guide to forest site identification and

interpretation for the Cariboo Forest Region. Land Management

Handbook No. 30. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife diversity in British Columbia: distribution and habitat

use of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals in biogeoclimatic zones.

Working Paper 04/1995. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, and

Wildlife Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife


Weir, R.D. 2003. Status of the Fisher in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-

105. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch,



Page 64

and BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Conservation

Data Centre. Victoria, BC.

prosperity gold-copper project - canada.ca

Documents