Environmental Assessment Report

Transcription

FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN
RESORT EXPANSION
WESTBANK, BC
Prepared for:
Pheidias Development Management Corporation
Suite 1660-1188 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
V6E 4A2
Prepared by:
ENKON Environmental Limited
Suite 201 – 2430 King George Highway
Surrey, BC V4P 1H8
Phone (604)-536-2947
Fax (604)-536-2948
e-mail: [email protected]
web page: www.enkon.com
Project No.: 1031-003
June 2001
Final Environmental Assessment Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion
Westbank, BC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owners of the existing Crystal Mountain Ski Hill are currently planning an expansion
of the ski hill operation near Westbank to include additional ski runs, lifts and
residential/commercial development in the base area.
Since the existing Crystal Mountain Ski Hill already has a tenure for approximately 900
acres to operate the existing ski hill, and the proposed development is an expansion, the
project is not subject to review under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act
(EAA) process. However, it is subject to review by BC Assets and Land Corporation
(BCAL) under the provincial Commercial Alpine Ski Policy (CASP) process. As such,
and due to the existing ski hill already in operation, BCAL did not advertise for new
proponents and started the CASP review process at the “Concept Phase”. In March 2001
an interim agreement was signed with the province and the proponent proceeded with the
final approval phase, the “Master Plan”.
The mountain area will be expanded from the existing three lifts and 20+ ski trails to 12
lifts and associated ski trials that will encompass the area to the north beyond Mount
Last. The expansion to Mount Last (1,500 metre asl) combined with a new lift into the
Powers Creek drainage (800 metres asl) will provide a vertical drop of approximately
700-750 metres. The vertical drop does not compete with some of the other ski hills in
the Okanagan but the emphasis is on family skiing, not extreme or expert skiing.
The base village area will be expanded to include new residential areas (single family
chalets and townhome units), golf course, and a resort core area with a small number of
hotel units and retail space to support the base area and mountain facilities. The resort is
planned as a family oriented “regional” resort to draw clientele primarily from Kelowna,
Westbank, Peachland, Summerland, Penticton and as far away as Vancouver. The key
for the expansion will be to maintain and develop the four-season recreation component
including winter skiing/snowboarding, golfing, summer events/festivals and a number of
other recreation and tourist venues.
This environmental report identifies the environmental resources, concerns and issues
associated with the proposed development of Crystal Mountain Ski Hill Expansion.
Additionally, it provides conceptual mitigation measures and management plans to
reduce or eliminate potential impacts of the proposed expansion on the environmental
resources. Guiding principles for sustainability including site design, building design and
construction, water management, energy management, and waste management/recycling
are also provided.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biogeoclimatic Zones and Plant Communities
The proposed mountain and base area expansion lands lie within the Montane Spruce
(MS), and Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) zones.
The project site is located in the Central Okanagan Regional District of BC and is
identified as a Resource Management Zone Type 4 (Natural Disturbance Type 4, fire;
OSLRMP Draft #6). The ecosystem is characterized by frequent low intensity fires and
is described as a fire maintained system. A general biodiversity objective for the area is
to retain all ecological elements and processes, including species richness, distribution
and diversity. The area is defined to contain an intermediate biodiversity emphasis in the
OP Management Guidelines section 2, and there is a low biodiversity emphasis for the
remainder of the area.
The following table identifies BC Conservation Data Centre’s Vascular Plant Tracking
List of Rare Plants that are known to occur in the Kamloops Forest District and may
occur on the proposed expansion lands.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Bluebunch Wheatgrass ®
Elymus spicatus
Common Juniper ®
Juniperus communis
Hybrid White Spruce (B)
Picea engelmanii x glauca
Horsetail (B)
Leafy moss (B)
Falsebox (B)
Red-stemmed feathermoss (B)
Gooseberry (B)
Grouseberry (B)
Trembling Aspen ®
Common Snowberry ®
Kentucky Bluegrass ®
Equisetum spp.
Minium blytti
Paxistima myrsinites
Pleurozium scherberi
Ribes lacustre
Vaccinium scoparium
Populau trembloides
Symphoricarpos albus
Poa pratensis
Douglas Fir (B)
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Ponderosa Pine (B)
Pinus ponderosa
“®*” Indicate Red listed species
Study Site BGC
Zone
IDFxh1/02
IDFxh1/03
MSdm2/02
MSdm2/02
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/05
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/05
MSdm2/05
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1/02
IDFxh1/03
IDFxh1/02
IDFxh1/03
“(B)” Indicate Blue listed species
The following table identifies BC Conservation Data Centre’s Vascular Plant Tracking
List of Rare Plant Communities that are known to occur in the Penticton Forest District
and could potentially occur on the site. Information regarding the presence of these
communities is currently unknown.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Plant Community Name
Big Sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass- balsamroot
Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass-balsamroot
Hybrid white spruce/horsetail/leafy moss
BGC
Zone
IDFxh1a
MSdm2
Provincial
List Status
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Structural
Stage
Shrub/Herb
Herb
Herb
Old Forest
Forest inventory mapping define the proposed expansion lands as containing tree stands
composed primarily of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, Engleman’s spruce, and to a lesser
extent some ponderosa pine with an average age of 41-120 years. Riparian zones along
Jack, Law and Powers Creeks are primarily composed of tree stands aged 41-100 years
with dominant species composition of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir and Engleman’s
spruce.
Fisheries
Jack, Law and Trepanier Creeks are important habitat for fish and wildlife. Jack and Law
Creek drain into a larger stream, Trepanier Creek to the south that eventually flows into
Okanagan Lake.
The only fish species documented to be of regional concern to this project are rainbow
trout (Onchyrhyncus mykiss) (FISS mapping) and kokanee salmon (FISS Database and
Ministry pers. comm. D. Tesch). Penticton MELP indicate that rainbow trout and
kokanee salmon are present in the watershed along the base of Powers Creek to Highway
97 where a potential culvert barrier may obstruct/prevent upstream migration. Further,
there exists a natural waterfall barrier to fish movement approximately 500 metres
upstream from this Highway 97 culvert. The lower portion of Powers Creek is a known
spawning area for kokanee salmon, while the lower portion of Trepanier Creek is a
known spawning area for both kokanee salmon and rainbow trout.
A report by Wildstone Resources Ltd. (1996) identified rainbow trout and potentially
eastern brook trout as being present in Jack Creek along the mainstem from Trepanier
Creek to the headwaters. Kokanee salmon are likely restricted to upstream migration
from Trepanier Creek due to a natural barrier (waterfall) about a kilometer upstream of
Okanagan Lake. There is no fish presence documented from approximately 1,000 m asl
to the headwaters of the east arm of Jack Creek (D. Tesch). Additionally, there have
been no fish identified in two west branches of Jack Creek at elevation 856 m and 960 m
asl. The Minstry of Environment, Lands and Park indicate that the headwaters of Law
Creek are very dry and likely would not be able to support fish populations.
In order to protect fish habitat within the streams flowing through the mountain or base
area development lands, the fisheries leavestrip requirements recommended by the
provincial “Fish Protection Act-Streamside Protection Regulations” should be utilized
(see table below). Development of ski runs and lift lines should also minimize the
number of crossings of Jack Creek mainstem and tributaries. Ski runs should be
developed outside the minimum leavestrip requirements and should run parallel to Jack
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Creek mainstem and tributaries where possible. Ski run and lift line crossings of streams
should minimize clearing and top trees where feasible. Ski lift lines should avoid placing
towers within the leavestrip areas.
Stream
Minimum Leavestrips (metres)
Jack Creek mainstem above Minimum 30 metres from the high water mark or
1,000 m asl
the top-of-ravine bank for a non-fish bearing
permanent stream
Jack Creek mainstem below Minimum 30 metres from the high water mark or
1,000 m asl
the top-of-ravine bank for a fish bearing stream
Jack Creek West Branches
Minimum 30 metres from the high water mark or
permanent stream
Jack Creek Tributaries
non-permanent stream
Powers Creek Mainstem
or non-fish bearing permanent stream
Powers Creek Tributaries
or non-fish bearing permanent stream.
Law Creek Mainstem
or non-fish bearing permanent
Surface and Groundwater Resources
Streams/springs located near the base, around the mountain expansion lands are not
directly associated with domestic ground water supply, and they do not provide a potable
water supply to any residents in the area. However, further downstream Powers, Law,
Jack and Trepanier Creeks have users licensed to withdraw water for domestic and/or
irrigation purposes. Powers and Trepanier Creeks are community watersheds that
provide potable water for residents at the base of the mountain. Several lakes associated
with Powers Creek including Lambly Lake, Jack Pine Lake, Painter Lake and Webber
Lake provide storage for the community water supply.
Golder (2001) do not anticipate that the use of groundwater in the Crystal Mountain
Resort area will affect nearby surface water flows. This is due to the surface water flows
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
being largely isolated from the underlying groundwater in the bedrock by up to 12m of
low permeability glacial till and another 45m of bedrock. Further, as most of the
groundwater extracted for use at the site will be re-introduced to the subsurface as
naturally renovated or treated effluent, there will be little net loss to the local
groundwater surface.
Viewscapes
Viewscapes associated with the project area are important for recreational enjoyment for
residents of the adjacent towns and villages of Westbank and Glenrosa as well as a source
of tourism. Visual landscape management activities are also important for future
resource management. Areas of the study site, which lie on the south face of Mount Last,
have been defined by the LRMP as being Visual Management Zone (VMZ) 1. This area
is declared a “scenic area” and has adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) under the
Forest Practice objectives and strategies of the LRMP. The areas to the north of the
project site have been identified in the LRMP as VMZ 2. This area is not scenic and does
not have established VQOs. Here the main focus should be in designing and
implementing resource management activities that blend into the natural landscape.
Soil Stability
Primary concerns associated with soil stability for the proposed expansion lands include
landslides or debris flows in steep areas along the:
•
•
West adjacent to Jack Creek headwaters; and
Areas along the north face around the headwaters of Powers and Jack Creek.
Wildlife Resources
The following table lists the number of red (endangered) and blue (threatened) listed
wildlife species that could potentially occur on the site, although none were observed or
heard during the July 2000 field surveys.
Skiing and related winter activities result in little contact with wildlife because bears, and
other mammals are hibernating, most birds have migrated south and the few which
remain are not engaged in critical breeding activities. In addition, most big game animals
have migrated to more favorable winter ranges. The ski hill expansion will also be a
focus of recreational activity in summer, a season when more wildlife species are present
and active in the area. However, key summer habitats such as wetlands 8-10 and Jack
Creek wetland will be protected from development and should continue to provide
important wildlife habitat. Although the upper slopes of the mountain in the MSdm2
zones are important habitat for moose, other ungulates, nesting birds and black bear,
these areas will be relatively inaccessible during the summer season.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Data Centre's Rare Vertebrate Animal Tracking List (Penticton
Forest District Species List) and their likely occurrence in the project area
(April 26, 1999)
Species
Latin Name
BC Status
Birds
COSEWIC Status
April 1999 status
Lark Sparrow
Chondestes grammacus
Red
Not at Risk
*Western Screech-Owl
Otus kennicottii macfarlanei
Red
Indeterminate
American Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
Red
Threatened
Brewer's Sparrow, Breweri
Spizella breweri breweri
Red
Not at Risk
Burrowing Owl
Athene cunicularia
Red
Endangered
Ferruginous Hawk
Buteo regalis
Red
Vulnerable
Grasshopper Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
Red
Not at Risk
Prairie Falcon
Falco mexicanus
Red
Not at Risk
Sage Grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus
Red
Extirpated
Sage Thrasher
Oreoscoptes montanus
Red
Endangered
Swainson's Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
Red
Not at Risk
Upland Sandpiper
Bartramia longicauda
Red
Not at Risk
White-Headed Woodpecker
Picoides albolarvatus
Red
Threatened
Yellow-Breasted Chat
Icteria virens
Red
Threatened
Long-Billed Curlew
Numenius americanus
Blue
Vulnerable
American Avocet
Recurvirostra americana
Blue
Not at Risk
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
Blue
Not at Risk
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
Blue
Endangered
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Blue
Not at Risk
California Gull
Larus californicus
Blue
Not at Risk
Canyon Wren
Catherpes mexicanus
Blue
Not at Risk
*Flammulated Owl
Otus flammeolus
Blue
Vulnerable
Gray Flycatcher
Empidonax wrightii
Blue
Not at Risk
Great Blue Heron
Ardea herodias
Blue
Vulnerable
*Lewis's Woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
Blue
Vulnerable
*Sandhill Crane
Grus canadensis
Blue
Not at Risk
Sharp-Tailed Grouse
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Blue
Not at Risk
Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Blue
Vulnerable
White-Throated Swift
Aeronautes saxatalis
Blue
Not at Risk
*Williamson's Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus thyroideus
Blue
Not at Risk
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Yellow
Not at Risk
Redhead
Aythya americana
Yellow
Not at Risk
Ring-Billed Gull
Larus delawarensis
Yellow
Not at Risk
Rough-Legged Hawk
Buteo lagopus
Yellow
Not at Risk
Mammals
*Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus
Red
Vulnerable
*Northern Long-Eared Myotis Myotis septentrionalis
Red
Not at Risk
California Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis californiana
Blue
Not at Risk
Fisher
Martes pennanti
Blue
Not at Risk
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Data Centre's Rare Vertebrate Animal Tracking List (Penticton
Forest District Species List) and their likely occurrence in the project area
(April 26, 1999)
Species
Latin Name
BC Status
COSEWIC Status
*Fringed Myotis
Myotis thysanodes
Blue
Vulnerable
Great Basin Pocket Mouse
Perognathus parvus
Blue
Not at Risk
*Nuttall's Cottontail
Sylvilagus nuttallii
Blue
Vulnerable
*Spotted Bat
Euderma maculatum
Blue
Vulnerable
*Townsend's Big-Eared Bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Blue
Not at Risk
*Western Harvest Mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Blue
Vulnerable
Blue
Not at Risk
*Western
Myotis
Small-Footed Myotis ciliolabrum
Reptiles
Night Snake
Hypsiglena torquata
Red
Not at Risk
*Gopher Snake
Pituophis catenifer deserticola
Blue
Not at Risk
*Painted Turtle
Chrysemys picta
Blue
Not at Risk
*Racer
Coluber constrictor
Blue
Not at Risk
*Rubber Boa
Charina bottae
Blue
Not at Risk
Western Rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
Blue
Not at Risk
*Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
Red
Not at Risk
Tailed Frog
Ascaphus truei
Red
Not at Risk
*Northern Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Red
Endangered
Great Basin Spadefoot
Spea intermontana
Blue
Vulnerable
Amphibians
However, clearing of forests for ski lift/runs, housing and commercial development will
potentially cause fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat, reduction of wildlife trees,
loss of old growth areas and reduction of course woody debris (see table below). To
minimize these impacts, the riparian systems associated with Powers, Jack and Law
Creeks in IDFdk2 and IDFxh1 habitats should be considered important habitat units for
protection of wildlife such as marten, several bird species, wintering moose and deer.
Habitat alteration associated with clearing for new ski trails/runs can have both positive
and negative consequences for wildlife. Most of clearing will be in the mountain face of
stands aged 21 to 140 years. Based on examination of the existing ski runs/lift lines, the
new ones will support a variety of herb and shrub communities, from dense, tall grassfireweed stands on moist low elevation sites, to sparse shrub-juvenile conifer stands on
steep, rocky terrain. Based on the kinds of vegetation expected on the ski runs/lifts the
following kinds of wildlife use would be predicted for the new runs/lifts:
•
Mule and white-tailed deer: spring/early summer grazing on herbaceous
vegetation plus some use of new leafage on shrubs;
•
Black bear: spring grazing on herbaceous vegetation (particularly in moist sites);
summer use of berries on shrubby sites;
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Impact
Contributing Factors
•
Permanent Habitat Loss
•
Habitat Alteration
•
Wildlife Disturbance and/or
habitat avoidance due to
construction activity
•
•
Undesirable bear-human
interactions
•
Avalanche control
Closure of hunting
•
•
•
Traffic collisions with Wildlife
Hotels, condos, housing,
restaurant roadways and
supporting infrastructure
Mainly clearing of new ski
trails
Storm drainage effects on
wetland
Noise and human activity
assoc. with construction of
lifts, buildings and roads
Increased number of hikers
in bear country
Attraction to food wastes in
resort, housing or housing
areas
Noise from explosive devices
Public safety
Improved road design and
increased traffic volumes
Main Species of Concern
• Terrestrial forest dwelling
species
•
•
Terrestrial forest dwelling
species
Wetland wildlife
•
Grizzly bear, ungulates
•
Nesting birds, small
mammals
•
•
•
Potential Mountain Goats
Big game & upland birds
Deer, small mammal
•
Hare: use of herbaceous summer forage; spring and fall use of shrubby sites;
•
Small mammals: cover and forage for voles in dense herbaceous growth (mostly
moist sites); deer mouse use of shrub stands; chipmunk use of berries and seeds;
•
Birds: nesting habitat for a few species which utilize edge and open areas;
foraging habitat (insects, seeds, berries) for species which nest in adjacent forest;
and
•
Predators: open hunting areas for owls, hawks, ermine and coyotes to hunt small
mammals.
In general, although clearing of forests for development of ski runs/lifts is anticipated to
enhance species diversity, it will also have potential negative consequences for those
wildlife species that depend primarily on mature forest stands, and/or require forestinterior conditions. However, many of these species (e.g. marten, fisher rubber boa and
songbirds) do forage to some extent in openings that are adjacent to forest stands.
Although it is not possible to analyze positive and negative effects of ski trail clearing for
each wildlife species, we believe that potential negative impacts are unlikely to outweigh
positive ones.
Wildlife management plans were developed for herpetifauna, birds and mammals to
reduce potential impacts of the proposed development on wildlife habitat and
populations. They are intended to provide guidance for future planning and for
mitigating construction and operation activities.
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conclusions
Based on existing baseline resource information on fish and wildlife habitat, forest
resources (including old growth), terrain information and surface/groundwater resources
significant impacts from siting mountain and base area facilities have been avoided to a
large degree. However, there will still be impacts to forest resources and associated
wildlife habitat from the development of ski lifts, ski runs, base area
commercial/residential units and access roads. Impacts to wildlife from forest removal
will likely result in a species shift from mature forest dwelling wildlife to wildlife that
prefer edge habitat and early seral stage vegetation. In addition, careful siting and
management of wastewater treatment facilities will be required to avoid impacts to
surface and groundwater users in the base area. It is anticipated that these impacts can be
managed through the implementation of wildlife management plans, stormwater
management plans, erosion and control plans, spill contingency plans, riparian setbacks
and fertilizer and pesticide plans.
ix
Westbank, BC
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
(MELP) Planning and Assessment Office personnel E. Maynard for his most valuable
assistance in project information collection and direction. B. Lincoln for his input on
wildlife issues and concerns, D. Tesch’s assistance on fisheries concerns, B. Michael for
information on water resource issues and concerns, J. Bryan for his assistance on waste
concern issues, R. Venables, and G. Hatch who provided mapping and information for
this report. The Conservation Data Centre (CDC) also provided information on red and
blue listed fish and wildlife species.
x
Westbank, BC
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ X
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................XI
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.1
Project Facilities..................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.2
Project Activities ..................................................................................................................1-4
1.2.3
Ecological Attributes and Land/Resource Tenures..............................................................1-5
1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................1-6
1.3.1
Goals....................................................................................................................................1-6
1.3.2
Objectives.............................................................................................................................1-6
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 INFORMATION SOURCES .................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS ..............................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1
Herpetifauna ........................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1.1
2.2.1.2
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
Reptiles ...........................................................................................................................................2-2
Amphibians and Painted Turtle ......................................................................................................2-3
Raptors and Breeding Birds.................................................................................................2-4
Bats ......................................................................................................................................2-8
Mule and White-tailed Deer.................................................................................................2-8
2.2.4.1
2.2.4.2
Aerial Survey................................................................................................................................2-10
Ground Survey (Incidental sightings) ...........................................................................................2-10
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE RESOURCES.............................................................................3-1
3.1 FISH RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1
Species Presence and Distributions .....................................................................................3-1
3.1.2
Rare and Endangered Fish Species .....................................................................................3-2
3.1.3
Fisheries Issues ....................................................................................................................3-3
3.1.4
Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................3-3
3.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................3-6
3.2.1
Surface Water Licenses ........................................................................................................3-6
3.2.2
Groundwater Resources.......................................................................................................3-9
3.2.3
Surface and Groundwater Issues .......................................................................................3-10
3.2.4
Proposed Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................3-10
3.2.4.1
3.2.4.2
Construction Phase .......................................................................................................................3-11
Operations Phase ..........................................................................................................................3-14
3.3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZONES ................................................................................................3-22
3.3.1
Visual Management Zones .................................................................................................3-22
3.3.1.1
3.3.1.2
3.3.1.3
Viewscapes ...................................................................................................................................3-22
Visual Management Issues ...........................................................................................................3-23
Mitigation of Viewscapes .............................................................................................................3-23
3.4 TERRAIN AND SOILS .....................................................................................................................3-23
3.4.1
Terrain ...............................................................................................................................3-23
3.4.2
Soils....................................................................................................................................3-23
xi
Table of Contents
3.4.3
Soil Stability Issues ............................................................................................................3-25
3.4.4
3.5 VEGETATION RESOURCES ............................................................................................................3-26
3.5.1
Biogeoclimatic Zones.........................................................................................................3-26
3.5.2
Tree Composition and Age Structure .................................................................................3-29
3.5.3
Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities.......................................................3-29
3.5.4
Vegetation Issues ...............................................................................................................3-30
3.5.5
3.6 WILDLIFE RESOURCES .................................................................................................................3-32
3.6.1
Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species..............................................................................3-32
3.6.1.1
3.6.1.2
3.6.1.3
3.6.2
Wildlife Inventory...............................................................................................................3-69
3.6.2.1
3.6.2.2
3.6.2.3
3.6.2.4
3.6.2.5
3.6.3
3.6.4
Herpetifauna .................................................................................................................................3-32
Birds .............................................................................................................................................3-38
Mammals ......................................................................................................................................3-49
Snakes...........................................................................................................................................3-69
Amphibians and Painted Turtles...................................................................................................3-70
Birds .............................................................................................................................................3-70
Bats...............................................................................................................................................3-74
Mule and White-tailed Deer .........................................................................................................3-74
Wildlife Issues ....................................................................................................................3-76
3.6.4.1
3.6.4.2
3.6.4.3
3.6.4.4
3.6.4.5
3.6.4.6
Permanent Habitat Loss ................................................................................................................3-77
Habitat Alteration .........................................................................................................................3-78
Recreational Disturbance..............................................................................................................3-78
Construction-caused Disturbance .................................................................................................3-79
Closure of Hunting .......................................................................................................................3-79
Traffic Collisions with Wildlife....................................................................................................3-79
4.0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS ..............................................................................................4-1
4.1 HERPETIFAUNA ..............................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1
Snakes ..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2
Amphibians ..........................................................................................................................4-3
4.2 RAPTOR AND BREEDING BIRDS ......................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1
Passerines ............................................................................................................................4-6
4.2.2
Raptors.................................................................................................................................4-7
4.3 BATS ..............................................................................................................................................4-8
4.4 MULE AND WHITE-TAILED DEER ...................................................................................................4-9
4.4.1
Deer Winter Habitat.............................................................................................................4-9
4.4.2
Deer/Skier Interactions During Winter Alpine Use ...........................................................4-10
4.4.3
Deer and Base Lands/Urban Development........................................................................4-10
4.4.4
Deer and Corridor Impacts................................................................................................4-11
4.4.5
Deer and Automotive Collisions ........................................................................................4-12
4.5 BLACK BEARS AND COUGAR ........................................................................................................4-12
4.5.1
Undesirable Bear-Human Interactions..............................................................................4-12
4.5.1.1
4.5.1.2
Food and Waste Management.......................................................................................................4-12
Back-Country Encounters.............................................................................................................4-13
5.0 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN CONCEPTS ............................................................................................5-1
5.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 SITE DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.3 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................................5-2
5.4 WATER MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................5-4
5.4.1
Stormwater Management .....................................................................................................5-4
5.4.2
Water Conservation .............................................................................................................5-6
5.5 ENERGY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................5-6
5.5.1
Energy Conservation............................................................................................................5-6
5.5.2
Energy-Efficient Independent Power ...................................................................................5-7
xii
Table of Contents
5.6
WASTE MANAGEMENT/RECYCLING ...............................................................................................5-7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................6-1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED OR REVIEWED .........................................................................................7-1
List of Tables
Table 3.1
Streams of the Crystal Mountain..................................................................3-2
Table 3.2
Water Licenses/Users in the Powers and Trepanier Creek Drainages .........3-8
Table 3.3
B.C. Conservation Data Centre: Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List
Kamloops Forest Region BGC Zones.......................................................3-29
Table 3.4
B.C. Conservation Data Centre: Rare Natural Plant Community Tracking
List Penticton Forest District, August 2000. .............................................3-30
Table 3.5
Summary of BC and Cosewic Status Species List andTheir Likely
Occurrence in the Project Area (1999)......................................................3-33
Table 3.6a Wildlife Potential in the Montane Spruce Zone (Msdm2).........................3-35
Table 3.6b Wildlife Potential in the Interior Douglas Fir Zones (Idfdk2 and Idfxh1).3-36
Table 3.7
Snakes Encountered During Spot and Road Surveys.................................3-69
Table 3.8
Amphibians Encountered During Roadside Call Surveys .........................3-70
Table 3.9
Herpetifauna Encountered During Time Constraint ..................................3-70
Table 3.10 Summary Table of Bird Surveys................................................................3-71
Table 3.11 Nocturnal Raptors Encountered along Transect 1 on July 04, 2000..........3-71
Table 3.12 Nocturnal Raptors Encountered along Transect 2 on July 06, 2000..........3-72
Table 3.13. Results of the Bat Survey at Jack Creek Wetland.......................................3-74
Table 3.14 Potential Effects of Ski Area Expansion on Wildlife.................................3-76
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Crystal Mountain Area Map.........................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2 Crystal Mountain Facilities ..........................................................................1-3
Figure 2-1 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Aerial Transects..........2-5
Figure 2-2 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Herpetifaunal Survey
Stations ........................................................................................................2-6
xiii
Table of Contents
Figure 2-3 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Bird and Herpetifaunal
Point Counts ................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-4 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Jack Creek Wetland Bat
and Gee Trap Survey Stations.....................................................................2-9
Figure 3-1 Surface Drainage and Slope Analysis ..........................................................3-7
Figure 3-2 Crystal Mountain Soils...............................................................................3-24
Figure 3-3 Crystal Mountain Biogeolimatic ................................................................3-27
Figure 3-4 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Deer Sightings, Corridor
and Optimum Habitat ................................................................................3-75
Figure 4-1 Crystal Mountain Resort Expansion Bio-inventory Environmentally
Sensitive Areas............................................................................................4-2
List of Graphs
Graph 1. Transect 1 Species Richness and Diversity.....................................................3-72
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Photographs
Appendix C
Water Licenses
Appendix D
Bird Survey Data
xiv
Westbank, BC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The owners of the existing Crystal Mountain Ski Hill are currently planning an expansion
of the ski hill operation near Westbank to include additional ski runs, lifts and
residential/commercial development in the base area (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
Since the existing Crystal Mountain Ski Hill already has a tenure for approximately 900
acres to operate the existing ski hill, and the proposed development is an expansion, the
project is not subject to review under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act
(EAA) process. However, it is subject to review by BC Assets and Land Corporation
(BCAL) under the provincial Commercial Alpine Ski Policy (CASP) process. As such,
and due to the existing ski hill being in operation, BCAL did not advertise for new
proponents and started the CASP review process at the “Concept Phase”. In March 2001,
an interim agreement was signed with the province and the proponent proceeded with the
final approval phase, the “Master Plan”.
The mountain area will be expanded from the existing three lifts and 20+ ski trails on 65
hectares to twelve lifts (nine new lifts) and associated trails that will encompass the area
to the north beyond Mount Last. The expansion to Mount Last (1,500 metre asl)
combined with a new lift into the Powers Creek drainage (800 metres asl) will provide a
vertical drop of approximately 700-750 metres. The vertical drop does not compete with
some of the other ski hills in the Okanagan but the emphasis is on family skiing, not
extreme or expert skiing.
This environmental report identifies the environmental resources, concerns and issues
associated with the proposed development of Crystal Mountain Ski Hill Expansion.
Additionally, it provides conceptual mitigation measures and management plans to be
used during the initial design and planning phase of the project to reduce or eliminate
potential impacts of the proposed expansion on the environment. Guiding principles for
sustainability including site design, building design and construction, water management,
energy management, and waste management/recycling are also provided.
1.2
Project Description
1.2.1
Project Facilities
The proposed expansion will transform the existing ski hill into a four season resort with
a variety of new on-mountain and base area facilities.
1-1
Pheidias Development
Management Corporation
INTRODUCTION
The base area will be expanded to include new residential areas (single family chalets,
townhomes and condominiums), golf course(s), and a resort core area with a small
number of hotel units and retail space to support the base and mountain facilities.
The resort is planned as a family oriented “regional” resort to draw clientele primarily
from Kelowna, Westbank, Peachland, Summerland, Penticton and as far away as
Vancouver. The key for the expansion will be to maintain and develop the four season
recreation component including winter skiing/snowboarding, golfing, summer
events/festivals and a number of other recreation and tourist venues.
The proposed expansion is planned for 3,860 bed units comprised as follows:
ACCOMODATION
TYPE
NUMBER OF UNITS
NUMBER OF BED
UNITS
Hotels
3@ 100 rooms at 2 bed 600
units per guest room
Bed and Breakfast
5 units at an average of 8 40
bed units each
Condominiums
160 units at an average 3 480
bed units each
Townhouses
145 units at an average 4 580
bed units each
Single Family Houses
355 chalets at an average 6 2,130
bed units each
Employee Housing
10 units at an average 3 bed 30
units each
Total Bed Unit Count
-
1.2.2
3,860
Project Activities
The present ski operation is open from Tuesday night through Sunday afternoon and has
affordable lift prices that draw families from nearby communities. The present operation
is open for skiing from early-December to mid-March and they have just started
developing summer events such as mountain bike races and festivals. Presently, only
three people live on the mountain, while the nearest population is approximately 8 km
down the mountain (Westbank).
1-4
INTRODUCTION
The present owner of Crystal Mountain has operated the mountain since 1992 and has
struggled to make the mountain a success. The intention is to have the ski area open
seven days a week during the winter. The success of the mountain will depend on
developing the summer season and a year round market.
Typical winter activities will include alpine and telemark skiing, snowboarding, sightseeing, tobogganing and tubing. Summer activities will include golfing, mountain
biking, hiking, sight-seeing, wildlife viewing, festivals and horse-based trail rides.
1.2.3
Ecological Attributes and Land/Resource Tenures
The project site is located in the Central Okanagan Regional District of BC and is
identified as a Resource Management Zone Type 4 (Natural Disturbance Type 4, fire;
OSLRMP Draft #6). The ecosystem is characterized by frequent low intensity fires and
is described as a fire maintained system. A general biodiversity objective for the area is
to retain all ecological elements and processes, including species richness, distribution
and diversity. The area is defined to contain an intermediate biodiversity emphasis in the
OP Mgt. Guidelines section 2, and there is a low biodiversity emphasis for the remainder
of the area.
The proposed mountain and base area expansion lands lie within the MSdm2, IDFdk2,
IDFxh1 zones. A mature and/or old growth Engleman’s Spruce, Douglas Fir and
lodgepole pine community primarily dominate the site. Riparian communities are
associated with three streams including Powers Creek to the east, Law Creek along the
south east and Jack Creek to the west and south west.
Jack, Law and Trepanier Creeks are important fish and wildlife habitat. Jack and Law
Creeks drain into a larger stream, Trepanier Creek to the south that eventually flows into
Okanagan Lake. The lower portion of Powers Creek is a known spawning area for
kokanee salmon, while the lower portion of Trepanier Creek is a known spawning area
for both kokanee salmon and rainbow trout.
The mountain is located in a community watershed that provides potable water for
residents at its base.
A number of red (endangered) and blue (threatened) listed wildlife species could
potentially occur on the site, although none have been confirmed as being present.
The proposed expansion does not contain any protected areas as defined in the Okanagan
Shsuswap LRMP.
The proposed expansion lands contain timber rights entitled to Gorman Brothers Lumber
Ltd. and Riverside Forest Products, while the Telemark Cross-Country Ski Club has
tenure for lands in the southwest corner of the site.
1-5
INTRODUCTION
1.3
Goals and Objectives
1.3.1
Goals
The primary goal of this report is to identify the key environmental issues/concerns at an
early stage of planning to ensure that the Crystal Mountain Ski Hill Expansion is
developed in an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable way.
The secondary goal of this report is to introduce the concept of “Sustainability”that will
be achieved when environmental goals become social and economic goals, and there is a
greater degree of integration between environmental, economic and social systems.
The concept of sustainable design has come to the forefront in the last 20 years. It is a
concept that recognizes that human civilization is an integral part of the natural world and
that nature must be preserved and perpetuated if the human community itself is to
survive. Sustainable design articulates this idea through developments that exemplify the
principles of conservation and encourage the application of those principles in our daily
lives.
Sustainable design, sustainable development, design with nature, environmentally
sensitive design, holistic resource management - regardless of what it's called,
"sustainability," the capability of natural and cultural systems being continued over time,
is key.
1.3.2
Objectives
The objectives of this environmental report are as follows:
1. Collect relevant environmental resource information from government agencies,
consultant reports, maps, the public, Internet web sites, etc.;
2. Identify issues and concerns from review of baseline environmental data and
government agency/public input;
3. Conduct field studies as directed by BC Environment, Lands and Parks to provide
additional information on key fish and wildlife resources;
4. Provide conceptual mitigation measures and management plans to eliminate or reduce
potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the resort
development; and
5. Introduce “Guiding Principles of Sustainability” including site design, building
design and construction, stormwater management, water conservation, energy
efficiency, conservation and management, waste management and recycling.
1-6
Westbank, BC
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1
Information Sources
All data describing the environmental resources in the proposed expansion lands have
been obtained from various federal, provincial, regional (OSLRMP) and local
government sources, consultant reports and various scale base mapping. In addition, a
meeting held at Crystal Mountain with government agency personnel on October 26,
1999 identified concerns regarding potential environmental and engineering impacts.
Based on the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks initial review of environmental
resource data collected by ENKON, field studies were conducted in July, 2000 to
supplement existing information sources.
Information sources included:
1. Information obtained from governmental World Wide Web sites:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fsh/IS/products/fiss/fiss_home.htm
http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis/cdc/
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fsh/IS/
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fsh/IS/products/w_atlas/maps/maps.htm
http://webmap.ei.gov.bc.ca/frbc/
2. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) – Okanagan Region;
•
•
•
•
•
Wildlife Program – B. Linclon
Planning and Assessment – E. Maynard
Water Management – B. Michael
Pollution Prevention – J. Bryan
Groundwater Division – M. Wei
3. Ministry of Forests (MoF) Penticton Forest District - Roger Venables
4. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Conservation Data Centre (CDC) Victoria
5. Gorman Brothers Forest Products – J. Hatch
6. Peachland Sportsman Association
2-1
METHODOLOGY
7. Base mapping including:
•
1:20,000 TRIM Map
•
1:20,000 Forest cover map
•
1:1,000,000 Mountain Goat Winter Range map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Grizzly Bear Management Unit map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Fisher Capability map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Marten Capability map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Elk Winter Habitat map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Mule Deer Winter Habitat map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Moose Winter Habitat map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Caribou Habitat map (LRMP)
•
1:1,000,000 Sheep Habitat map (LRMP)
•
1:60,000 Bio-geoclimatic zone map
8. Draft #6 Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP (1999).
Based on discussion with B. Lincoln of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
the key wildlife resources surveyed in July, 2000 within and adjacent to the proposed ski
hill expansion lands included:
1) Raptors and Breeding Birds
2) Bats
3) Herpetifaunal
4) Mule and White-tailed Deer
All surveys were completed by experienced Registered Professional Biologists in British
Columbia.
2.2
Field Surveys
2.2.1
Herpetifauna
2.2.1.1 Reptiles
The reptile survey focused on identifying the presence/not-detected status of the
following blue listed reptile species:
•
•
•
Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola);
Racer (Coluber constrictor); and
Rubber Boa (Charina bottae)
2-2
METHODOLOGY
Although these species and their habitat identification were of focus, all incidental snake
sightings during the survey period were recorded.
The presence/not-detected inventory status of these reptiles on the study site followed
methodologies outlined in “Standard Inventory Methodologies for Snakes Standards for
Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 38: Snakes”(Version 2.0) These
included:
1. Spot site inventory with hand collection methods; and
2. Road Surveys (day and night).
Following the review of aerial photo interpretation and a helicopter flight over the study
area, the reptile habitat inventory sites were stratified based on the potential of the target
species occurring in habitat within the study area. These areas consisted primarily of:
1. Meadow areas (racer);
2. Meadow areas with rock outcrops (gopher snake, racer: Photographs 1 and 2);
3. Building locations associated with open areas (gopher snake, racer); and
4. Talus or outcrop rock locations (rubber boa).
Further details of the reptile surveys are outlined in ENKON (October 2000).
2.2.1.2 Amphibians and Painted Turtle
The amphibian and painted turtle surveys focused on identifying the presence/notdetected status of the following red and blue listed species:
•
Tiger Salamander
•
Northern Leopard Frog
•
Painted Turtle
Although these species and their habitat identifications were of focus, all incidental
amphibian and turtle sightings during the survey period were recorded.
The presence/not-detected inventory status of these herpetifuauna on the study site
followed methodologies outlined in “Inventory Methods for Pond-breeding Amphibians
and Painted Turtle Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 37
(Version 2.0).” Survey methodologies followed RIC protocol and included:
•
•
•
•
Auditory Surveys
Road Surveys
Time-constrained searches
Systematic Surveys
2-3
METHODOLOGY
Further, following the review of aerial photo interpretation and a helicopter flight over
the study area (Figure 2-1) turtle and amphibian survey habitat inventory locations were
identified. These focused on areas of breeding ponds and riparian habitats as well as on
accessible roads with characteristic habitat for the target species (Figure 2-2). A more
systematic, higher intensity pond survey was performed for the area in and around the
Jack Creek wetland, south of the ski base area. Further details of the amphibian surveys
are outlined in ENKON (October 2000).
2.2.2
Raptors and Breeding Birds
Study design followed the:
•
•
•
Resource Inventory Committee’s presence/not detected protocols of “Standard
Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity:
Raptors (Version 1.1) Sections 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.6 and 3.3.7;
Canadian Wildlife Service’s (CWS) “Forest Bird Monitoring Program
(FBMP)”;and
Environment Canada’s (Env. Can.) ”Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)”.
The study area was divided into three “Transects” (Figure 2-3). A total of 17 point
counts (PC) were positioned along Section 1, 13 in Section 2 and 7 in Section 3 (Figure
2-3). The point counts were set up so that each would be surveyed/inventoried from a
different angle (location) and therefore, thoroughly covered using protocols of
“standwatch” and roadside call playback methodology. It also sampled the different
vegetational structure and their stages. Additionally, the methodology ensured that all
areas of each section would be thoroughly covered. Survey locations were set up where
the proposed development would have the greatest impact on the target species; along the
southwest and west sections of the study area.
Any passerine and raptor visual encounters along with auditory accounts (songs/calls)
were recorded during each point count survey, roadside call playbacks as well as
throughout the site inventory survey as incidental sightings.
Target species songs and calls used at each PC station were as follows; each call/song
was played in the following order:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Northern Saw-whet Owl (NSWO)
Northern Pygmy Owl (NOPO)
Flammulated Owl (FLAM) Blue-listed
Western Screech Owl (WESO) Red-listed
Barred Owl (BDOW)
Great-horned Owl (GHOW)
2-4
METHODOLOGY
2.2.3
Bats
The presence/not-detected survey locations were selected by examination of all potential
characteristic bat foraging and roosting habitat within the project site. The large wetland
on Jack Creek at the base of the ski hill was chosen for the survey (Figure 2-4). It was
chosen based on the following criteria:
Good foraging habitat (i.e. riparian areas and forest interior);
1. Close proximity to the proposed development site and the expected area of
greatest impact to potential bat habitat (i.e. base development);
2. Greatest potential for bat presence; and
3. Close proximity to roosting areas around the wetland and near buildings.
Prior to the survey, all buildings of the ski base were examined and assessed for roosting
potential. The area around the proposed ski base development (Jack Creek Wetland) was
surveyed using three presence/not-detected methodologies as recommended by RIC. The
three methodologies employed followed RIC protocols and consisted of:
Mist Netting
Visual Detection
Acoustic Detection Protocols
Further details of the bat surveys are outlined in ENKON October (2000).
2.2.4
Mule and White-tailed Deer
The mule and white-tailed deeer surveys followed the MELP Inventory Branch
Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) protocols. The
protocols and guidelines defined in the following documents were used:
1) Aerial Based Inventory Techniques for Selected Ungulates (Version 1.1, 1997);
and any incidental observations followed the
2) Ground-based Inventory Methods for Selected Ungulates: Moose, Elk and Deer
(Version 2.0, 1998).
2-8
METHODOLOGY
2.2.4.1 Aerial Survey
Aerial inventory and deer presence has historically been unsuccessful for deer because
significant portions of deer populations remain in forest cover and sightability is
generally low, particularly in the coniferous forests such as the IDF and MS zone of
Crystal Mountain. While there are exceptions with mule deer, white-tailed deer cannot
be reliably censused from the air in British Columbia (MELP 1997). During this survey,
the procedure of presence/not detected (possible) analysis was performed following the
“Encounter Transect” protocol, as defined in ‘Aerial Based Inventory Techniques for
Selected Ungulates’ – Section 3.4. The primary purpose of the aerial survey (Figure 2-1)
for the Crystal Mountain ungulate survey was to:
1) Identify (where possible) areas of current and potential deer use;
2) Locate any significant deer trails or seasonal migratory routes; and
3) Identify potential areas of browse.
2.2.4.2 Ground Survey (Incidental sightings)
Most ungulate populations in the province exhibit some degree of seasonal movement
between summer and winter ranges (Demarchi et al. 1983). These range shifts are
largely a response to greater snow accumulations at higher elevations, forcing animals to
lower elevation winter ranges where the snow depth is less.
These winter ranges are usually smaller than summer ranges thereby concentrating the
ungulates into smaller groups and higher animal densities allowing easier ground-based
sampling.
The purpose of the ground survey was to:
1) Identify any potential migratory paths and game trails as well as significant
habitats for life requirements; and
2) Assess the presence/not detected (possible) status of deer in habitat identified
through topographic mapping and potential habitat identified during the aerial
survey.
The following criteria was used to assess deer presence/not detected (possible) status
along the chosen transects:
•
Track evidence
•
Evidence of browse
•
Scrapings
•
Scat presence
•
Incidental observation
2-10
Westbank, BC
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE RESOURCES
3.1
Fish Resources
3.1.1
Species Presence and Distributions
The only fish species documented to be of regional concern to this project are rainbow
trout (Onchyrhyncus mykiss) (FISS mapping) and kokanee salmon (FISS Database and
ministry pers. comm. D. Tesch). Both of these species have been identified in Powers
and Jack Creeks by the FISS Database, 1999. Fish species utilizing Powers Creek have
been addressed in reports written by the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks
(MELP, 1993 and 1994) and three reports in 1995. B. Janz of Penticton MELP has
pointed out the following fisheries information: rainbow trout and kokanee salmon are
present in the watershed along the base of Powers Creek to Highway 97 where a potential
culvert barrier may obstruct/prevent upstream migration. Further, there exists a natural
waterfall barrier to fish movement approximately 500 metres upstream from this
Highway 97 culvert.
A report by Wildstone Resources Ltd. (1996) identified rainbow trout and potentially
eastern brook trout as present in Jack Creek along the mainstem from Trepanier Creek to
the headwaters. Kokanee salmon are likely restricted to upstream migration from
Trepanier Creek due to a natural barrier (waterfall) about a kilometer upstream of
Okanagan Lake. There is no fish presence documented from approximately 1,000 metres
elevation to the headwaters of the east arm of Jack Creek (D. Tesch). Additionally, in
this report there have been no fish identified in two west branches of Jack Creek at
elevations approximately 856 metres and 960 metres.
Two branches of Law Creek headwaters encroach onto the study site. There is currently
insufficient knowledge of fisheries populations about this stream but a discussion with B.
Michael, MELP, indicates that the headwaters of Law Creek are very dry and likely
would not be able to support fish populations.
Powers Creek has been identified as containing kokanee salmon, rainbow trout and
Eastern brook trout (pers. comm. B. Janz). Both kokanee salmon and rainbow trout occur
as natural populations, but only rainbow trout and the non-indigenous eastern brook trout
have been stocked into lakes outside of the study area along Powers Creek headwaters.
These include Paynter Lake, Lambly Lake and Jack Pine Lake. Eastern brook trout have
been introduced into the lakes north of the study site. Since there is a hydrological
connection with Powers Creek to the lakes in the north, it is likely that rainbow and
eastern brook trout would be present throughout the headwaters of Powers Creek.
3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE RESOURCES
Another lake along the headwaters of Powers Creek is Webber Lake. The FISS database
mentions no presence of fish in this water body.
Table 3.1 defines all known streams for the area. This information has been collected
from TRIM data, existing reports and conversation with MELP staff.
Table 3.1
3.1.2
Streams of the Crystal Mountain
Ski Hill Lands
Name
Maximum Elevation
(meters) Identified on
TRIM (1:20,000) Maps
Fish Presence as Defined
by FISS Mapping and
FISS Database
Jack Creek
1,440
Powers Creek
1,420
Law Creek
1,060
Kokanee Salmon, Rainbow
Trout
Kokanee Salmon, Rainbow
Trout, and possibly Eastern
Brook Trout
None
Rare and Endangered Fish Species
Red, Blue or Yellow listed fish species that may potentially occur on the study site,
defined by BCs Conservation Data Centre (CDC) rare vertebrate animal tracking list
(Penticton Forest District) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) are presented below.
Umatilla Dace (Rhinichthys umatilla) Red Listed
The umatilla dace is listed as vulnerable by COSEWIC in BC. It was designated as rare
in the 1980s, transferred to the vulnerable category when the former was replaced in
1990.
The FISS database does not identify this species as being present in the study site and
since habitat may not be suitable for this species, it is not expected to occur in the study
site.
Chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus) - Blue Listed
In British Columbia chiselmouth has been reported only in Eucchiniko River, Nazko
River, Nicola Lake, Missezula Lake, Wolfe Lake, Skaha Lake, Gallagher Lake and
Tuglunuit Lake and Okanagan River. It is not expected to occur in the study site.
3-2
Montain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) - Blue Listed
In British Columbia, mountain sucker occurs in the Columbia River, primarily associated
with the Simmilkameen River of the Okanagan. Its not expected to occur in the study
site.
Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi) Blue Listed
In British Columbia mottled sculpin occurs in the Columbia River, primarily associated
with the Simmilkameen River of the Okanagan. Its not expected to occur in the study
site.
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Blue Listed
The bull trout is blue-listed because populations are declining throughout its global range.
In B.C., the declines are mainly due to habitat degradation, disruption of migration
patterns, and over fishing.
Bull trout have not been identified in Jack or Powers Creek and are not expected to occur
on the study site.
3.1.3
Fisheries Issues
Generally, potential impacts to fish populations and habitat may occur during
construction and operation of the mountain and base area lands.
Construction impacts are generally related to sedimentation of streams during storm
events or snow melt in areas of exposed soils (i.e. ski runs, lift lines and access roads).
Changes in the hydrological regime of streams including timing of run-off and peak flow
rates are generally associated with removal of riparian zones during land clearing and
road building. Operation impacts are generally associated with potential changes in
water quality, peak flow rates and timing of run-off from the use of golf course
fertilizers/pesticides and stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces (i.e. parking lots,
roads, etc.).
3.1.4
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures during the planning phase of the
project should eliminate or minimize potential impacts to fish habitat and populations
within or downstream of the mountain and base area development.
1. In order to protect fish habitat within the streams flowing through the mountain or
base area development lands, the fisheries leavestrip requirements recommended by
the provincial “Fish Protection Act-Streamside Protection Regulations” should be
utilized. Specifically the minimum leavestrip (no disturbance zones) requirements
should include:
3-3
Stream
Minimum Leavestrips (metres)
Jack Creek mainstem above Minimum 30 metres from the high water mark or
1,000 m asl
permanent stream
Jack Creek mainstem below Minimum 30 metres from the high water mark or
1,000 m asl
Jack Creek West Branches
permanent stream
Jack Creek Tributaries
Powers Creek Mainstem
or non-fish bearing permanent stream
Powers Creek Tributaries
or non-fish bearing permanent stream.
Law Creek Mainstem
or non-fish bearing permanent
2. Development of ski runs and lift lines should minimize the number of crossings of
Jack Creek mainstem and tributaries. Ski runs should be developed outside the
minimum leavestrip requirements and should run parallel to Jack Creek mainstem and
tributaries where possible. Ski run and lift line crossings of streams should minimize
clearing and top trees where feasible. Ski lift lines should avoid placing towers
within the leavestrip areas.
3. All instream work should be done under summer low flow conditions during the
“fisheries window.”
4. Stream crossings should avoid critical fish habitat within the base area lands and
should adhere to the following guidelines to protect non-fish bearing streams:
a) Access roads and utility corridors within the base area lands should be designed in
the same locations as existing crossings to eliminate any further stream crossings;
b) No infilling or stormwater detention/retention should be proposed in Webber
Lake and the wetland near the existing base area;
3-4
c) Where necessary, stream crossing structures should be considered in the
following order of priority:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bridges (preferred clear span)
Open bottom culverts
Box culverts
Pipe arch culverts
Stacked culverts
Round culverts
d) Culverts should be designed as per the recommendations of the federal/provincial
“Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat” (1992)
with the following criteria:
•
Diameters of all culverts will be >0.45 metres
•
Average water velocities and slopes will not exceed:
•
1.2 metre per second and <1.0% for culverts <24 metres in length (unless
baffled)
•
0.9 metres per second and 0.5% for culverts >24 metres in length (unless
baffled)
•
Depth of water will not be <0.23 metres
•
Culverts >61 metres will generally not be considered
•
All culverts will be designed to the 1:100 year flood
•
Bottom of all culverts will be 0.31 metres below the grade line of the
natural stream bed
•
All culverts will be designed with outlet pools and tail water controls
e) Stream crossings should be constructed perpendicular to the flow of water in all
cases.
f) Stream crossings for ski trails should be avoided, but if necessary they should
follow the same requirements for road crossings outlined in the Forest Practises
Code.
5. In order to limit the post development storm/snowmelt off-site runoff rate to the
predevelopment runoff rate, and to maintain as closely as possible the natural predevelopment flow pattern and water quality in the receiving watercourse, the
following protection measures should be used:
a) If retention or protection of in stream habitat or adjacent riparian habitat is not
feasible, rehabilitation and bank stabilization of stream banks impacted by the
proposed development should be implemented.
3-5
b) Clearing of forest for the development of ski runs should be performed to manage
forest harvesting so that spatial distribution of cutblocks (i.e., aspect and
elevation) and harvesting techniques maintian the existing timing and magnitude
of stream flows.
3.2
Surface and Ground Water Resources
Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM, 1:20,000 scale) identifies three
watercourses associated with the study site (Figure 3-1). These consist of Powers Creek,
Law Creek and Jack Creek. Powers Creek is located along the eastern border of the
property with headwaters originating in the northern portion of the project site. It
empties directly into Okanagan Lake after flowing through Glenrosa at the westend of the
town of Westbank. Law Creek drains the southern portion of proposed development area
and empties into Trepanier Creek just above its mouth. Two headwater tributaries of
Law Creek are located in the project site (Figure 3-1). These two tributaries are at the
base of the existing ski hill and contribute flows to the major headwater tributaries
southeast of the project area. The headwaters of Jack Creek lie in the central section of
the study site with tributaries extending to the west and east. A headwater tributary of
Jack Creek along the eastside of the mountain has a small wetland that detains the flow of
water and provides consistent flows to the main stem, located south of the study site.
Jack Creek drains south, emptying into Trepanier Creek which in turn empties into
Okanagan Lake.
Four lakes lie to the north of the proposed development including Webber, Paynter,
Lambly and Jack Pine (Jackpine) Lakes. All four lakes drain into Powers Creek.
3.2.1
Surface Water Licenses
Streams/springs located near the base and around the mountain expansion lands are not
directly associated with domestic ground water supply, and they do not provide a potable
water supply to any residents in the area. However, the streams draining the study site
have licensed water users downstream of the proposed development (Table 3.2,
Appendix C).
Powers Creek is a community water supply (Appendix Figure 1). Its watershed covers
13,596 hectares, including the mainstem and tributaries in the eastern portion of the study
site and four lakes north of the study site. There is a Forest Resource BC (FRBC)
community watershed water quality monitoring site located on Powers Creek at
approximately 600-m asl.
A total of 30 water licenses for use and/or storage have been issued on Powers Creek, 23
of them to the Westbank Irrigation District (Westbank I.D.), which is the Waterworks
Local Authority for the town of Westbank. The Westbank Irrigation District also holds
water licenses for use and storage on Powers Creek, North Powers Creek and Lambly
Lake as well as licenses for storage on West Powers Creek, Lower Jack Pine Lake,
Paynter Lake and Webber Lake. As the Local Waterworks Authority, it is licensed to use
3-6
182,865,000 gallons of water per year from Powers Creek, and 255,800,000 gallons/year
each from North Powers Creek and Lambly Lake.
Table 3.2
Water Licenses/Users in the Powers and Trepanier Creek Drainages
Source Name
Powers Creek
North
Creek
Powers
Size of
Watershed
(Hectares)
13,596
(included)
Numbers and Types
of Water Users
2 Domestic Users
Victor Projects LtdIrrigation
Scottish Cove HoldingsDomestic and Irrigation
Bylands NurseriesIrrigation
Gellatly Investments LtdIrrigation
Westbank Irrigation
District Irrigation and Rediversion
Storage (Westbank I.D.)
Fisheries BranchConservation Stored Water
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage
Westbank Irrigation
District
West Powers Creek
(included)
Lambly Lake
(included)
Westbank Irrigation
District-Re-diversion
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage and Rediversion
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage
Westbank Irrigation
District
Lower Jack Pine
Lake
(included)
Paynter Lake
(included)
Webber Lake
(included)
Trepanier Creek
23,437
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage
Westbank Irrigation
District-Storage
Permitted Withdrawal
or Storage
500 gallons per day each
Maximum withdrawal of
182,865,000 gallons per
year
3.48 acre feet
500 gallons per day and
140.4 acre feet
4.2 and 48 acre feet
26.1 acre feet
3810 acre fee
12.5 and 450 acre feet
3 f3 per second
2950 acre feet
year
No data
425 acre feet
5560 acre feet
73,300,000-182,500,000
gallons per year
771 acre feet
350 acre feet
180 acre feet
30 Domestic Users
250-1,500 gallons per
day
Central Okanagan
Regional District-Domestic
8,000 gallons per day
3-8
Source Name
Size of
Watershed
(Hectares)
Numbers and Types
of Water Users
Municipality of PeachlandStorage
Municipality of PeachlandDomestic
Municipality of Peachland
Jack Creek
(included)
Law Creek
(included)
Permitted Withdrawal
or Storage
878 acre feet
2500 gallons per day
year
Transportation and
Highways – Domestic
16 Irrigation Users
302 acre feet
1 Stockwatering
250 gallons per day
1 Processing
Fisheries BranchConservation Stored Water
3 Domestic Users
8 Irrigation Users
1 Watering
1 Domestic User
3 Irrigation Users
1 Storage
500 gallons per day
2 f3 per second
106 acre feet
0.67 acre feet
500 gallons per day
61 acre feet
4 acre feet
Source: Ministry of Environment
As the Local Irrigation Authority, the Westbank Irrigation District is allowed to use 3,810
acre-feet of water from Powers Creek 2,950 acre-feet of water from North Powers Creek
and 5,560 acre feet from Lambly Lake.
The remaining eight water licenses on Powers Creek have been issued to individuals,
businesses and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for domestic, irrigation and
conservation use.
Trepanier Creek also is a community watershed. It is the largest watershed in the study
area, comprising 23,437 hectares. Trepanier Creek itself is not included within the
boundary of the proposed development, but Jack and Law Creeks provide some of its
flow within and near the project site. Trepanier Creek has 91 water licenses, while Law
Creek and Jack Creek have 5 and 11 licenses, respectively. The Municipality of
Peachland, which is both the Waterworks Local Authority and the Irrigation Local
Authority, holds 35 of the licenses on Trepanier Creek (Table 3.2, Appendix A). The
municipality is licensed to withdraw 379,497,000 gallons/year (3,378 acre feet) for
irrigation and domestic use as the Waterworks Local Authority. The remaining Trepanier
Creek water users include private individuals, companies and government agencies.
3.2.2
Groundwater Resources
Golder (2001) state that review of BC Environment’s water well database indicated that
the nearest registered water wells were located approximately 4 km to the southeast of the
3-9
resort, outside the Jack Creek watershed. Review of the well logs indicated that
groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 90m to 120m below ground
surface, in bedrock. Golder concludes that it is unlikely that groundwater use at the
resort would affect other water wells. MELP also concludes that residents in these areas
obtain their water supply from individual wells, (pers. comm. M. Wei, MELP) and are
not expected to be affected by the proposed ski hill expansion.
3.2.3
Surface and Groundwater Issues
The primary concerns/issues for water resources associated with the proposed expansion
are potential effects on the quality or quantity of surface water. These concerns include
the following:
1) Impacts on surface water quality in the Powers, Jack, Law and Trepanier Creek
drainages during construction (i.e. siltation, accidental spills of hydrocarbons) and
operation (i.e. road salts, pesticides and fertilzers) of the ski resort. These creeks are
important as community water supplies, irrigation and fisheries enhancement;
2) Changes in the hydrological regime (i.e. volume, rate and/or timing of stormwater
run-off) of Powers, Jack, Law and Trepanier Creeks during operation of the ski
resort; and
3) Golder (2001) do not anticipate that the use of groundwater in the Crystal Mountain
Resort area will affect nearby surface water flows. This is due to the surface water
flows being largely isolated from the underlying groundwater in the bedrock by up to
12m of low permeability glacial till and another 45m of bedrock. Further, as most of
the groundwater extracted for use at the site will be re-introduced to the subsurface as
naturally renovated or treated effluent, there will be little net loss to the local
groundwater surface.
3.2.4
To protect water quality and quantity, the design and construction of the expansion
facilities will include the following mitigation measures:
1) The design of new base area facilities will incorporate sustainable design concepts,
including stormwater management and water conservation (see Section 5.4).
2) Treatment and disposal of wastewater will comply with applicable provincial
legislation. Applicable legislation includes the Municipal Sewage Regulation under
the BC Waste Management Act, if the discharge is more than 5,000 Imperial gallons
(22.7 m3) per day, or the Sewage Disposal Regulation (411-85) under the BC Health
Act, if the volume is lower and the disposal is to ground.
3) Various management plans to protect water quality and quantity will be developed for
the construction and operational phases of the development. As recommended in the
3-10
OSLRMP, prior to the proposed work performed in the watershed, licensed users
should be advised of proposed operations. The following sections outline conceptual
management plans that should be expanded and incorporated during the further
planning and design of the proposed expansion.
3.2.4.1 Construction Phase
An overall mitigation plan to protect water quality and quantity should be developed for
the construction phase. The overall mitigation plan should have specific elements to
prevent the release of silt during periods of disturbance in or around surface watercourses
(“Erosion and Silt Control Plan”) and to prevent other deleterious substances (fuels, oils,
construction materials) from entering surface watercourses (“Spill Prevention Plan” and
“Spill Contingency Plan”). It also should include:
•
Provision for environmental monitoring during all instream works and any other
construction activities that carry a risk of sedimentation or other impacts to water
quality;
•
Assessment of water quality during construction by measuring turbidity and possibly
making other in situ measurements such as pH;
•
Provision to maintain flows during instream works (specifically, installation of any
new culverts) through the use of dam and pump, flume techniques or temporary
diversions; and
•
Confirmation that the drinking water supply for the community of Westbank, will not
be subjected to significant water quality degradation.
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
Land development activities associated with the clearing of land, grading slopes, road
building, excavation, grubbing and stockpiling of materials for the expansion of the
Crystal Mountain Ski Hill could result in the erosion of soils and input of sediments into
nearby streams/creeks. Therefore, to minimize sedimentation in nearby streams the
following principles should be incorporated into the “Sediment and Erosion Control
Plan”.
•
The design and construction of the development, including roads, utilities, and
building sites, should be planned to fit the existing terrain and site conditions. The
particular soil conditions and topography should be taken into account during site
development and construction should be confined to the least critical areas (i.e. avoid
areas with high erosion potential);
•
The development should be scheduled to minimize the risk of erosion. When
possible, construction activities should be planned for the dry months of the year to
avoid having large areas of exposed soils during significant rain events or snow melt.
The development should be staged/phased to allow for the re-establishment of
vegetation to minimize erosion;
3-11
•
Existing vegetation should be retained wherever possible, which has been reflected in
the selection of the resort site in a relatively flat, urbanized area at the base of the
mountain. Clearing of rights-of-way should be minimized, and clearing boundaries
should be clearly marked to avoid unnecessary impacts to fish and wildlife habitat;
•
Runoff should be diverted from denuded areas by isolating cleared areas and building
sites and avoiding steep slopes. Natural drainage should be maintained wherever
possible;
•
The length and steepness of slopes should be minimized were possible;
•
Runoff velocities and erosive energy should be reduced by maximizing the length of
flow paths, constructing interceptor ditches and channels, and using filter fabric, rock
or polyethylene lining in steep interceptor or conveyance ditches;
•
Denuded areas and bare soils should be re-vegetated/protected. Cut and fill slopes
and disturbed areas should be re-seeded or re-vegetated as soon as possible.
Temporary stockpiles of soil and exposed slopes should be covered with
polyethylene. To minimize erosion, mulches and other organic stabilizers should be
used on cleared areas until vegetation is established. Seeding should be conducted
prior to the end of the growing season to allow germination and establishment of
roots;
•
Eroded sediments should be retained on-site with erosion and sediment control
structures such as sediment traps, silt fences, wetlands and sediment control ponds;
•
Sediment and erosion control materials should be stockpiled on site; suggested
materials include filter cloth, hay bales, rip-rap, grass seed, drain rock, culverts,
matting polyethylene, used tires, etc.; and
•
Erosion and sediment control measures should be inspected and maintained regularly.
Spill Prevention and Spill Contingency Plans
A “Spill Prevention Plan” should be prepared for the construction phase and should
include the following:
•
The construction staging area should be located at least 30 m away from streams or
any ephemeral drainage channels;
•
Activities that carry a risk of materials spills should take place within a bermed
staging area. These activities include mixing concrete or other materials and any
vehicle fuelling and other maintenance that is done on site;
•
Any areas where vehicle fuels or other potentially deleterious substances are stored
should be equipped with impervious containment berms. If fuel tanks larger than 250
l are present within a berm, the bermed area should have a holding capacity equal to
125% of the capacity of the largest tank;
•
Storage and maintenance facilities should have spill clean up and disposal equipment;
3-12
•
Any equipment that will work in streams and/or wetlands should be maintained and
used in a manner that will prevent deleterious substances such as fuel, oil, grease or
other chemicals from entering the watercourse. This may necessitate cleaning the
equipment prior to use; and
•
Mobile construction equipment should be fuelled, lubricated and serviced only at
approved locations (i.e. within the bermed staging area; at least 30 m from all
watercourses). Field servicing of equipment, particularly near streams should not be
permitted. In addition, equipment and machinery should not be washed near
watercourses.
In addition to the “Spill Prevention Plan,” a “Spill Contingency Plan” should be
developed for the construction phase. The “Spill Contingency Plan” should be approved
by the Regional Waste Manager. It should be in writing and kept in a binder at the
construction office/staging area and other location(s) where potentially deleterious
materials are stored or used. All pages of the contingency plan should be numbered and
dated for referencing and updating. The plan should include the following elements:
•
A copy of the Spill Reporting Regulation (which includes a list of substances and spill
volumes that must be reported);
•
The 24-hour toll-free telephone number of MELP’s Environmental Emergency
Program: 1-800-663-3456 prominently displayed;
•
A list of the information that should be provided when reporting a spill to
Environmental Emergency Program:
-
Reporter’s name and telephone number;
Name and telephone number of person who caused the spill;
Location and time of the spill;
Type and quantity of the substance spilled;
Cause and effect of the spill;
Details of action taken or proposed;
Description of the spill location and surrounding area;
Names of agencies on the scene; and
Names of other persons or agencies advised concerning the spill.
•
A list of 24-hour emergency contacts for the project (e.g. site engineer, construction
supervisor, environmental monitor): names, positions and telephone numbers;
•
A list of other 24-hour emergency contacts, including the Westbank Irrigation District
(local waterworks authority for the town of Westbank), and a description of the
circumstances under which they should be contacted;
•
A list of the substances most likely to be involved in a spill or incident;
3-13
•
The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all potentially deleterious substances
stored on site and clean-up instructions for each substance or class of substances;
•
A list of the spill response equipment on site along with a map of where it is stored;
•
A description of potential environmental impacts should a spill occur;
•
A detailed site map that identifies areas of particular concern with respect to
environmental impacts, such as probable flow pathways to watercourses; and
•
Detailed instructions for preventing/mitigating environmental impacts, such as
containment measures for spills that have entered watercourses.
3.2.4.2 Operations Phase
An overall “Water Management Plan” should be prepared which is intended to prevent or
minimize any potential impacts to the aquatic resources. Withdrawal of surface water
and release of stormwater into any stream could create potential low flow concerns, water
quality and flooding problems. The proposed water management plan should include:
•
Mapping of existing drainage patterns throughout the resort development area;
•
Establishment of minimum low flows for potentially impacted creeks in conjunction
with the regulatory agencies;
•
Identification of all water requirements for the project (e.g. domestic, fire protection,
irrigation, snow-making) and identification of the source(s) able to supply these
needs;
•
Identification and protection/stabilization of unstable banks and natural hazard areas
along the upper sections of the project area potentially impacted from development;
•
Calculation of storm water runoff volumes and engineered design of all surface water
transportation routes including wetlands, detention/retention ponds, swales, ditches,
underground collection systems, catch basins, oil/water separators, etc.;
•
Assessment of groundwater aquifers including depths from surface waters, volumes,
depth to bedrock, impacts of withdrawal on surface flows, etc.; and
•
Preparation of specific management plans, including a “Stormwater Management
Plan” to provide treatment and detention of runoff from developed areas; spill
contingency plan(s) for all components of the development that store and use
potentially deleterious substances (e.g., fuels, pesticides), and a “Fertilizer and
Pesticide Management Plan” for the golf course(s).
In addition to the preventative measures in the Storm Water Management Plan, the Best
Practical/Management Technologies as outlined on the OSLRMP should be considered to
3-14
provide both water quality benefits and runoff control during the construction and
operation of the proposed development.
Stormwater Management
A “Storm Water Management Plan” should be prepared for the proposed expansion lands
in accordance with both the Urban Quality Control Guidelines (MELP, 1992) and the
Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (DFO/MELP, 1992). In
general, the plan should outline mitigation methods to ensure that the pre and post
development water quality, stream flows and flow timing remain the same. The plan
should also include provisions to ensure that there are no impacts within or downstream
of the proposed resort development.
The “Stormwater Management Plan” should address both the improvement of stormwater
quality and control of peak runoff rates and volumes of water. The plan should include
the following elements:
•
Leavestrips should be provided adjacent to tributaries and the mainstem of associated
streams/springs to filter stormwater, dissipate the erosive force of runoff and protect
stream banks;
•
The resort should be designed for increased runoff through the use of stable,
engineered non-erodible ditches, inlet and outlet control structures;
•
The resort should incorporate sustainable design concepts to manage stormwater
management as outlined in Section 5.4.1;
•
The stormwater conveyance system should incorporate biological and physical
processes to remove contaminants and detention and retention structures to reduce
peak runoff rates and volume of water; and
•
An adaptive water quality and quantity monitoring program should be developed for
all phases of development. The program should include measuring stream flows,
total suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorous levels and temperature in Jack and
Trepanier Creeks.
The following technologies/methods to improve stormwater quality should be considered
for inclusion in the management plan:
•
Use of sediment ponds/wetlands as wet detention ponds with a minimum surface area
of 1.5% of the catchment area and have a permanent pond volume equal to the 1 in 2
year design stormwater runoff volume. The ponds should be designed with native
aquatic vegetation with sufficient water depth and area covered to perform the
biological function of treatment effectively;
•
Infiltration systems, which will provide retention of potentially, contaminated initial
flows (first flush);
3-15
•
Use of wetlands to specifically treat storm water runoff and provide biological and
physical removal mechanisms similar to a wet detention pond. Wetlands provide
buffering and retention of runoff flows and also can provide fish and wildlife benefits.
General design guidelines should include vegetation types and area coverage, water
depth and drainage design and have a minimum surface area of 1.5% of the
catchment area;
•
Bio-filters, which include filter strips, grassed swales and linear engineered wetlands
will provide physical removal of deleterious substances (i.e. particulate contaminants)
and are suitable for sheet flow runoff typical of large linear impervious surface such
as roadways and parking lots;
•
Marking of curbside stormwater drains with bright yellow fish symbols (has become
a standard method in B.C.) to remind people that most drains empty into fish bearing
streams; and
•
Oil/water separators and catch basins for treating hydrocarbons, which are common
components of parking lot runoff.
Spill Contingency Plans
A spill contingency plan should be prepared for each resort facility that stores or uses
potentially deleterious materials.
Fertilizer and Pesticide Management Plan
The following conceptual fertilizer and pesticide management plan should provide a
guideline to be used for the operation of the golf course. The plan is intended to
minimize the potential for runoff or leaching of fertilizers and pesticides to surface
drainages, including water features. Field studies (Krause and Niemczyk 1989, Watschke
et al. 1989) have demonstrated that both runoff and leaching of pesticides and fertilizers
from well-managed turf are negligible. The fertilizer and pesticide management plan
includes guidelines for producing a well managed healthy turf. The plan also includes a
list of pesticides that will not pose a threat to fish or wildlife. The fertilizer and pesticide
management guidelines are based on review of recent literature and on discussions with
British Columbia golf course supervisors and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Pesticide Management Branch personnel.
The following fertilizer and pesticide management plan is intended to provide guidelines
for chemical management rather than rigid protocols. The actual fertilizers and pesticides
applied will vary somewhat depending upon soil and turf conditions. To ensure that the
guidelines are applied properly, the golf course should employ a fully trained and
experienced golf course superintendent, who will be responsible for all aspects of course
maintenance, including chemical management.
3-16
Fertilizer Management
The primary objective of a fertilizer management plan is to ensure that the turf receives
the necessary nutrients in the required amounts and at the proper time. This will produce
a healthy turf, while reducing the potential for leaching of excess nutrients.
Fertilizer consists of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), and in some cases,
trace elements. Due to its solubility in water, nitrogen is the fertilizer component with
the greatest potential for runoff or leaching. Phosphorus is immobile in soil and only
likely to be lost through erosion, which is unlikely on a golf course. The leaching
potential of potassium is somewhat lower than that of nitrogen, and no undesirable
impacts to water quality have been associated with potassium leaching from fertilization.
Therefore, the fertilizer management plan emphasizes nitrogen management.
The recommended fertilization rates and other management techniques are based on
published literature (Petrovic 1989, Zontek 1990, Mugaas et al. 1991) and discussions
with golf course superintendents. These recommendations assume "average" conditions
and, in practice, may vary depending upon the results of soil tests, final decisions on
course construction, and observations of turf health.
Fertilizer requirements of different areas of the golf course will also vary. Therefore, the
management plan is presented by area (greens and tees, fairways, roughs).
General Maintenance Practices
Fertilizers should be applied conservatively, using the lowest rate required to produce
healthy turf. More frequent applications of smaller amounts of fertilizer (0.25 to 0.5 lb.
N per 1000 ft2) should be used in preference to a few, large applications, to reduce the
potential for loss through runoff or leaching. Lower rates may be used on putting greens
to achieve better control of growth.
Slow-releasing nitrogen sources, such as sulphur-coated urea (SCU), isobutylidene diurea
(IBDU), or other cold water insoluble nitrogen, will be emphasized. A minimum of 50%
of any nitrogen application to fairways and 65% of any nitrogen application to greens and
tees will be in one of these forms.
Nitrogen should not be applied during hot, dry periods when irrigation requirements are
high; nor should it be used in late fall, when, it can promote the growth of turf diseases
such as grey snow mold (leading to fungicide applications).
Several other precautions will be taken to ensure that nutrients from fertilizers do not
enter water features. Fertilizers should be applied in a manner that maintains a buffer
zone around water features. A gravity spreader (rather than a rotary spreader) should be
used near ponds to further reduce the possibility of granules entering the water.
3-17
The golf course should be irrigated conservatively to reduce the potential for runoff or
leaching. This should include heavier, less frequent watering rather than light, frequent
applications of water. Light irrigation (0.25 to 0.5 inches of water) should follow
applications containing quick-release fertilizers to move the fertilizer off the foliage and
into the ground. This irrigation should help to prevent runoff and fertilizer burn.
All bulk fertilizers should be transferred to the application equipment in a dedicated
fertilizer storage/preparation facility designed to contain and allow cleanup of any spills.
Spilled fertilizers should never be flushed into the storm drainage system.
Fertilizer applications should be based on soil tests. Soil testing should begin during the
construction phase. It should be done every one to two years after that, depending upon
the type of turf grown. Putting greens may be tested several times per year. Soil testing
should be supplemented periodically with plant tissue analysis to identify potential
nutrient problems.
Application Rates for Greens and Tees
Greens and tees are the most heavily managed areas of a golf course. The player's
perception of the golf course is based primarily on the appearance of the greens. They
therefore receive the highest rates of fertilizer applications. Tees may be fertilized at a
similar rate to greens or at a somewhat lower rate (60% to 70% of the rate for greens),
depending upon the maintenance standards and budget determined for the course.
An appropriate fertilization rate (per 1000 ft2) for established bentgrass greens is 0.5 to
0.7 lb. N per growing month (or about 4.5 to 5.0 lb. per growing season), 1 to 2 lb. P per
growing season, and 3.5 lb. K or more per growing season. The actual amounts of
phosphorus and potassium applied should be based on the results of soil tests. The
fertilizer requirements likely should be higher while the turf is becoming established,
particularly if USGA specification sand greens are constructed.
Fertilization should begin in spring and continue through the growing season. The first
fertilizer application of the year should normally be a complete fertilizer (N-P-K), and
may have high nitrogen content (1 lb. N/1000 ft2). Nitrogen should continue to be
applied approximately every four weeks at a rate of about 0.5 lb./ 1000 ft2, with some
additional, light applications if required to maintain turf quality. There usually are two
phosphorus applications annually (spring and fall), but an additional, light application
may be made at mid-season (June). Potassium is normally applied three to five times per
season, in an N-K or N-P-K mix. One mid-season fertilizer application may include iron
or a trace element package (calcium, magnesium, copper, sulphur, zinc, molybdenum,
manganese and iron).
Application Rates for Fairways
The appropriate fertilization rate for bentgrass/fescue fairways is approximately 3 lb. N,
1.0 to 2.0 lb. P, and 2.0 to 3.0 lb. K per 1,000 ft2 per season. The fertilizer should be
3-18
delivered in four or five applications. Two to three of these applications should contain
phosphorus.
Application Rates for Roughs
Fertilizer may be applied to limited areas of manicured rough, which is mowed during the
growing season. The rough should be fertilized at a rate equivalent to 1.0 to 2.0 lb. N, and
about 1.0 lb. each of P and K per 1000 ft2 per season. The fertilizer should be applied in
three to four applications.
Pesticide Management
Integrated Pest Management
The primary focus of the pesticide management plan should be to minimize pesticide use
by employing an integrated pest management (IPM) program. Major components of an
IPM program include:
•
Establishing tolerance levels for pests (disease, weeds, insects), monitoring the pests,
and treating only when the pre-determined tolerance level is exceeded;
•
Using effective alternatives to pesticides when they are available;
•
When pesticides are required, using the "least toxic" alternative (a pesticide
characterized by low water solubility, low leachability, and low acute toxicity to fish
and wildlife); and
•
Using pesticides at the minimum effective application rate.
For golf courses, an essential component of IPM is an emphasis on maintaining healthy
turf, which minimizes the need for chemical control of weeds, insects, and diseases.
Measures to maintain a healthy turf include:
•
Constructing greens and tees to provide a base that will not compact;
•
Reducing stress to turf by constructing greens and tees of sufficient size to handle the
expected traffic and providing cart paths and requiring their use;
•
Providing adequate surface and subsurface drainage;
•
Managing snow to minimize accumulations and accelerate melting: Spreading dark
organic material will accelerate snow melt; snow blowing equipment and snow fences
can be used to distribute snow evenly;
•
Selecting, where available, turf species and cultivars that are resistant to the locally
endemic diseases such as grey snow mold, Fusarium, and take-all patch: A blend of
different cultivars or species having resistance to different diseases can provide
superior overall performance;
3-19
•
Using high quality seed stock that includes an analysis of the types and numbers of
weed seeds contained in the product;
•
Providing adequate irrigation;
•
Watering early in the morning rather than in the evening to reduce the potential for
promoting diseases;
•
Fertilizing, aerating, and overseeing adequately to develop a dense, healthy turf; and
•
Paying particular attention to fall cultivation: aerating, top dressing with compost, and
avoiding fertilization in late fall when active growth may lead to damage from cold
and/or disease.
Pesticide Selection
The fungicides are the class of pesticides most frequently applied on local golf courses.
They are applied most commonly to control grey snow mould, although Fusarium and
take-all patch sometimes are problems during the summer. In addition, damping-off
fungus is a potential problem on new turf.
All registered pesticides are considered environmentally safe if applied in accordance
with approved manufacturer's instructions. However, chemicals with LC50<1.0 mg/L are
considered highly toxic to fish and generally will be used with caution at the Crystal
Mountain Golf Course. The more toxic fungicides would only be used in special cases, if
other chemicals proved ineffective. For example, benomyl might be required to treat
damping-off fungus on new greens.
Herbicides registered for use on golf courses and used locally to control broadleaf weeds
include dicamba, 2,4-D (amine), and mecoprop, which are often used in combination.
Roundup (glyphosate) can be used for total vegetation control on areas such as cart paths.
None of the herbicides listed is highly toxic to fish. The most toxic herbicide, Roundup,
is virtually immobile once it comes in contact with soil and is highly unlikely to enter
local streams. Therefore, any of these herbicides may be used on the Crystal Mountain
Golf Course.
Turf insects are generally not a problem locally, but it will be necessary to control
mosquitoes and possibly blackflies in the golf course ponds. It may be possible to coordinate treatment for mosquito larvae with the regional district’s mosquito control
program. This program entails treatment with the biological agent Bacillus thuringiensis
Berliner var. israeliensis, which also is effective for blackfly larvae. Adult populations of
mosquitoes and blackflies should be monitored closely. Treatment for adults (with
malathion) should be implemented only if and when populations exceed a predetermined
threshhold level. To maximize the threshhold, golfers should be encouraged to use
personal methods against mosquitoes (e.g. long sleeved shirts and pants and repellents).
Biological controls should be implemented as they become available. Current research
involves biological controls for several turf diseases. Such products should be tested at
3-20
the Crystal Mountain Golf Course when and if they become available locally. They
should be used regularly, if they prove effective and are safe.
Pesticide Application
The golf course supervisor and/or other maintenance personnel should hold a British
Columbia Pesticide Applicator's Certificate. A certified Pesticide Applicator should be
responsible for any pesticide use on the golf course. Any other persons preparing or
applying pesticides should be provided with adequate instruction.
The golf course superintendent or greens keeper should determine when a disease or
weed problem requires chemical treatment. Fungicide treatments should normally be
limited to the greens and tees. Fairways should only be treated in unusual circumstances
involving severe disease, and roughs will not be treated at all. The greens keepers
normally should avoid the use of herbicides on greens and tees, where the turf typically is
shallow-rooted and could be damaged by these chemicals.
All pesticides should be applied only for their registered purpose and in accordance with
approved manufacturer's instructions. To ensure against the possible entry of pesticides
into streams, applicators should adhere to the Pesticide Management Guideline that a 10m pesticide free zone be maintained around any golf course water features that discharge
to natural watercourses. Any vegetated buffers around water features should also remain
pesticide free. In addition, wherever practical, heavily managed areas (greens and tees)
should be set back at least 10-m from golf course water features. Pesticides should not be
applied on any portions of greens or tees that may be less than 10 m from the water
features.
All pesticides should be prepared in a dedicated area designed to contain spills.
Equipment used to apply pesticides should also be cleaned in the dedicated area.
Cleaning should be done in a manner that will protect water quality. Rinsate should
never be poured down sink drains or into the storm sewer system. If practical, it should
be reapplied to an appropriate area of turf or saved and used as make-up water for a
future batch of the same pesticide. If these recycling measures prove impractical, the
rinsate should be disposed in a manner approved by the British Columbia Ministry of
Environment.
Chemical Storage Facility
Fertilizers and pesticides should be stored and prepared for use in a manner that will
prevent their accidental release to the environment. The storage facility should be located
at least 100-m away from all streams. It should have an impermeable floor and otherwise
be constructed such that any potential chemical spills can be contained within the storage
area for clean up. Enough cleanup material should be kept on hand to deal with a spill of
twice the volume of the largest container in the building. If floor drains are provided,
they should empty to holding tanks rather than to the storm sewer.
3-21
The pesticide storage and preparation areas should be in a separate room isolated from
the fertilizer area and from any other facilities, particularly employee lunchrooms. Any
floor drain in the pesticide storage area should lead to a holding tank that is separate from
the tank draining the fertilizer storage area. This arrangement should avoid cross
contamination and allow recovery and reuse of spilled pesticide or fertilizer.
The pesticide storage area should incorporate a number of safety features. It should be
adequately ventilated (the atmosphere will be turned over at least six times per hour).
The facility should meet the local fire code and be supplied with a separate fire alarm and
fire extinguisher. A separate area should be dedicated to storage for protective equipment
and notebooks containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous materials used on
site.
The pesticide storage area should meet the requirements outlined in the B.C. Pesticide
Control Act. It should remain locked at all times when it is unattended. The outside
door should carry a sign which states, "WARNING - CHEMICAL STORAGE AUTHORIZED PERSONS ONLY". Only the golf course supervisor or other authorized
persons should be allowed to enter the pesticide storage area. The local fire department
should be notified of the presence of pesticides on the premises.
3.3
Resource Management Zones
3.3.1
Visual Management Zones
3.3.1.1 Viewscapes
Viewscapes associated with the project area are important for recreational enjoyment for
residents of the adjacent towns and villages of Westbank and Glenrosa as well as a source
of tourism. Visual landscape management activities are also important for future
resource management. The proposed expansion lands lie within the Visual Management
Zone 1 and 2 (VMZ) as defined by the Okanagan - Shuswap LRMP (Appendix Figure 2).
These VMZs have been mapped according to the Ministry of Forests’ visual landscape
inventory procedures and standards, and have had input from the LRMP. Further, this
area has had a series of Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) from the LRMP applied to it.
These represent a level of public acceptability for visual alteration as a result of landscape
planning.
Areas of the study site, which lie on the south face of Mount Last, have been defined by
the LRMP as being VMZ 1. This area is declared a “scenic area” and has adopted
VQO’s under the Forest Practice objectives and strategies of the LRMP. The areas to the
north of the project site have been identified in the LRMP as Zone 2. This area is not
scenic and does not have established VQOs. Here the main focus should be in designing
and implementing resource management activities that blend into the natural landscape.
3-22
3.3.1.2 Visual Management Issues
Forest practices such as harvesting, residential development and road building will have
the potential to create visible disturbances that may not blend into the existing and natural
landscape when viewed locally or from afar. The main issue in managing for these visual
areas is to maintain quality and, if necessary, mitigate any necessary wildlife habitat
issues to an acceptable level of visual and habitat quality, while balancing social,
environmental, economic, and aesthetic considerations. With respect to the VQOs it is
the goal of this project to maintain the natural appearing landscape for recreation and
wildlife use as well as maintain visual quality.
3.3.1.3 Mitigation of Viewscapes
Through the implementation of the Okanagan - Shuswap LRMP and the Ministry of
Forests’ visual landscape inventory procedures and standards it will be necessary to
maintain a natural appearing landscape of Zone 1 and the VQOs identified in these
documents and procedures. Forest health, blowdown, timber salvage, ski runs, trail
networking etc will have to be addressed during expansion. It will also be necessary to
restore the natural landscape appearance in Zone 1 post development. The design of a
natural landscape, which includes appearance and wildlife issues, will be considered
where past visual impacts have occurred and if necessary, will be improved, using
measures such as redesigning, revegetating or other procedures.
Zone two, located along the north aspect of the project site will be maintained of a
diverse appearance and structural complexity with priority focused on the maintenance of
wildlife and recreational interest. Impact for visual importance should include the
management for “sensitive area” designation as outlined in the LRMP. Resource
development, in the form of ski runs, trails etc. should focus on activity oriented to
establishing a blend with the natural landscape through the application of landscape
design principles and wildlife needs. The Okanagan - Shuswap LRMP will be used to
assist in this procedure.
3.4
Terrain and Soils
3.4.1
Terrain
Terrain mapping for the Okanagan shows that much of the project area has slopes greater
than 15% (Figure 3-1). Steep slopes (>30%) occur along some sections of Jack Creek
and at the headwaters of Law Creek, while much of Powers Creek has slopes >45%. The
steepness of these slopes suggests a high potential for erosion.
3.4.2
Soils
Soil mapping (Figure 3-2) indicates that most of the surficial material in the project area
is colluvium or moraine. Glacio-fluvial material occurs along the valley floor of Jack
3-23
Creek and the headwaters of Powers Creek. Additional information on soils is
interpreted from the descriptions of the biogeoclimactic zones.
The north and northwest facing slope of Mount Last is primarily composed of dystric
brunisols and humo-ferric podzols. These two soil types develop on coarse-textured
deposits and in wet soils. They are characteristic of morainal deposits composed
primarily of volcanic materials. Xeric sites are primarily found on the upper to mid
sections of north and northwest aspect slopes and on the gentle slopes and plateaus. They
are primarily formed on dominantly deposited colluvium and subdominant morainal
material. In the subxeric areas of mid-slopes, morainal deposits dominate the soil profile.
Areas of lowland adjacent to the streams of Jack Creek and Powers Creek headwaters and
along the north, contain soil moisture regimes which are subhygric to subhydric and are
dominated by fluvial (fine) and lacustrine material over morainal deposits. Sections with
wetlands contain seepages and organic deposits.
The south and southeast facing slopes of the study site (main stem of Jack Creek and
headwaters of Law Creek) are also dominated by dystric brunisols, but contain gray
luvisols and eutric brunisols. These soils are characteristics of well - to moderately well drained upland sites on morainal deposits derived from basic volcanic bedrock. These
soils tend to have medium to rich nutrient status, because of the predominance of baserich bedrock and the low rates of leaching in the dryer locations such as this. These soils
are found on the south-facing slope of the study site. Plateaus along the east, south of
Jack Creek and the wetland lie on a deposit of heavy colluvium and soils tend to have a
hygric to subhydric moisture regime. Steeper slopes of the east are primarily morainal
bedrock with a thin layer of parent colluvium from upper crest to the lower toe slope
where morainal deposits begin to dominate. This area exhibits a moisture regime,
submesic. The bottom of the slope along the east along the riparian area of Powers Creek
is primarily a transition zone of deposited morainal material and a light layer of
colluvium.
3.4.3
Soil Stability Issues
Detailed terrain stability/hazard mapping has not been completed for the project site.
However, some soil stability issues can be identified based on slopes and surficial
materials. The colluvial and morainal materials of the Montane Spruce and Interior
Douglas Fir biogeoclimactic zone typically have a moderate to high content of coarse
fragments (>20% to >50%) and range from sandy loam to sand. These types of soils
generally are more stable than finer glacio-fluvial material, but even coarse colluvium or
moraine may erode on steep slopes. Moister sites typically have greater erosion potential
than well-drained sites. Therefore, landslides or debris flows are potential concerns in
steep areas along the:
1) West adjacent to Jack Creek headwaters; and
2) Areas along the north face around the headwaters of Powers and Jack
Creek.
3-25
3.4.4
Roads and other facilities should not be sited in areas with very high erosion
potential/landslid hazard. The preliminary site plan does not include any roads or
facilities on the steeper slopes adjacent to Powers Creek. To determine additional siting
requirements, a detailed terrain stability hazard/soil erosion assessment should be
completed prior to construction. Mapping results should be incorporated into a “Forest
Development Plan” for tree harvesting, road building or siting of on-mountain facilities
in the defined hazard areas of concern. The mapping results should also be used to
complete an erosion control plan for construction.
The stability/hazard assessment should follow the standards described in:
1) “Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook (Second Edition August 1999);
and
2) Kamloops and Penticton Forest Regions, Interim Guidebook Supplement, 1996-A
User’s Guide to Terrain Stability and Terrain Assessments.
3.5
Vegetation Resources
3.5.1
Biogeoclimatic Zones
The proposed mountain and base area expansion lands lie within the Montane Spruce
(MS), and Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) zones (Figure 3-3).
Montane Spruce (MS) Zone MS dm2
The Montane Spruce subzone dm (dry/mild) and variant 2 (north exposure) occurs along
the north east section to the summit of Mount Last and along the north western border of
Jack Creek at an elevation of 1,275-1,530 m asl. It has a cool, continental climate
characterized by cold winters and moderately short, warm summers. The most distinctive
feature of the MS zone is the landscape, which is composed of extensive young and
maturing seral stands of lodgepole pine that have formed following wild fire. The
primary forest composition of the MSdm2 is a mixed stand of lodgepole pine and the
climax species balsam and Engleman’s spruce. The moss dominant understory contains
falsebox, black huckleberry, and grouseberry. Red-stemmed feathermoss is the major
moss species. Drier sites, plateaus and terraces of MS have the understory dominated by
pine grass. Falsebox is a common shrub with a poorly defined moss and lichen layer.
The herbaceous layer is primarily composed of plants such as bluebunch wheatgrass,
kinnikinnick. The lower elevational wetland riparian areas of the MSdm2, (adjacent to
Powers Creek and Jack Creek) support climax stands of subalpine fir and Engleman’s
spruce with scattered Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.
3-26
The shrubby understory of these sites is dominated by black gooseberry, with devil’s
club. In wetter wetland sites grouseberry, common horsetail and glowmoss are prevalent.
Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) Zone IDFdk2, IDFxh1
The Interior Dougalas Fir zone (IDF) includes two sub-zones, the IDFdk2 and IDFxh1.
The IDFdk2 is the largest of the two and along with the northwestern MSdm2 of Mount
Last, it is the second largest biogeoclimatic zone within the project site.
The IDFdk2 variant occurs primarily in between the MSdm2, (higher elevations) and the
IDFxh1 (lower elevations) at about 700-1300 m asl. The IDF zone is characterized by a
warm, dry climate regime with a relatively long growing season in which moisture
deficits are common. The IDFdk2 is moister and warmer than the IDFxh1 which occurs
at lower elevations along the north boundary of Trepanier Creek. General vegetation of
the IDFdk2 is defined by mature seral stands that contain lodgepole pine with
regenerating Douglas fir. On the steep to gentle south-facing slopes, Douglas fir forms
mature climax stands. These stands are open, with a sparse understory of saskatoon
berry, birch-leaved spirea and bluebunch wheatgrass. The moss layer is poorly
developed. Ponderosa pine may occur on lower elevation, south slopes. The moisture
regime for this site along the lowlands of Jack and Law Creeks consist of Engleman’s
Spruce climax stands with lodgepole pine and Douglas fir. These act as a seral
component. The understory is diverse; red-osier dogwood is the constant shrub, but no
single herb dominates. Characteristic herbs in the lowland/wetland/stream areas are
dominated by Twinberry/Softleaved sedge and willows, but primarily consist of sedges,
common horsetail, false Soloman’s seal, twinflower and palmate colt’sfoot. The
bryophyte layer is poorly developed consisting primarily of re-stemmed feathermoss in
the hygric sites.
The IDFxh1 zone lies to the very east of the study site, along the base of Powers Creek, at
an elevation of approximately 700-1,000 m asl. Mature climax stands of this zone are
composed of Engleman’s spruce as a seral species, Douglas fir and ponderosa pine. The
moderately shrubby understory along the toe slope and wetter areas consist of Douglas
maple, common snowberry, red-osier dogwood and black gooseberry. In the wet
bottomland sites willows and a dense herbaceous cover of sedges, buttercups, bluejoint
and tufted clubrush are present. Lanky moss forms a patchy moss layer.
Natural Disturbance Type 4 (NDT 4) (Grasslands and Open Forests i.e. IDF)
NDT4 is the acronym for Natural Disturbance Type 4, a term describing a group of dry
biogeoclimatic subzones occurring along the south face of the project area. The primary
natural disturbance factor associated with NDT4 is fire. This ecosystem is characterized
by frequent low intensity fires and is described as a fire maintained system. Classical
NDT4 ecosystems are typified by large diameter, widely spaced trees, well developed
grass/shrub understory, and a mosaic of thickets and openings interspersed over the
landscape. The NDT4 zone consists of the warmer, drier biogeoclimatic (BGC) zones,
notably the bunchgrass zone (BG), ponderosa pine zone (PP), and parts of the interior
3-28
Douglas fir zone (IDF). In the study site the IDFdk2 and IDFxh1 habitat may be
classified NDT4 habitat.
3.5.2
Tree Composition and Age Structure
Forest inventory mapping define the proposed expansion lands upland areas as containing
primary tree stands composed of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, Engleman’s spruce, and to
a lesser extent some ponderosa pine with an average age of 41-120 years. Riparian zones
along Jack, Law and Powers Creeks are primarily composed of tree stands aged 41-100
years with dominant species composition of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir and Engleman’s
spruce.
Gorman Brothers Lumber Limited’s proposed forest development plan update within the
project area (1998–2003) indicates several areas of proposed cutblocks along the summit
south facing slope of Mount Last and along the base below the Jack Creek wetland (at the
base of the ski hill).
3.5.3
Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities
Table 3.3 identifies BC Conservation Data Centre’s Vascular Plant Tracking List of Rare
Plants that are known to occur in the Kamloops Forest Region. Information regarding the
presence of these species on the proposed expansion lands is currently unknown.
Table 3.3
B.C. Conservation Data Centre: Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List
Kamloops Forest Region BGC Zones
Common Name
3.5.3.1.1.1 Scientific
Name
Bluebunch Wheatgrass ®
Elymus spicatus
Common Juniper ®
Juniperus communis
Hybrid White Spruce (B)
Picea engelmanii x glauca
Horsetail (B)
Leafy moss (B)
Falsebox (B)
Red-stemmed feathermoss (B)
Gooseberry (B)
Grouseberry (B)
Trembling Aspen ®
Common Snowberry ®
Kentucky Bluegrass ®
Equisetum spp.
Minium blytti
Paxistima myrsinites
Pleurozium scherberi
Ribes lacustre
Vaccinium scoparium
Populau trembloides
Symphoricarpos albus
Poa pratensis
Douglas Fir (B)
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Ponderosa Pine (B)
Pinus ponderosa
“®*” Indicate Red listed species
Study Site BGC
Zone
IDFxh1/02
IDFxh1/03
MSdm2/02
MSdm2/02
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/05
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/07
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/01
MSdm2/05
MSdm2/05
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1a
IDFxh1/02
IDFxh1/03
IDFxh1/02 IDFxh1/03
“(B)” Indicate Blue listed species
3-29
Table 3.4 identifies BC Conservation Data Centre’s Vascular Plant Tracking List of Rare
Plant Communities that are known to occur in the Penticton Forest District and could
potentially occur on the site (Appendix X). Information regarding the presence of these
communities is currently unknown. They may include one or more of the following:
Table 3.4
B.C. Conservation Data Centre: Rare Natural Plant Community
Tracking List Penticton Forest District, August 2000.
Plant Community Name
Big Sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass- balsamroot
Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass-balsamroot
Hybrid white spruce/horsetail/leafy moss
3.5.4
BGC
Zone
IDFxh1a
MSdm2
Provincial
List Status
Red
Red
Blue
Blue
Structural
Stage
Shrub/Herb
Herb
Herb
Old Forest
Vegetation Issues
The following issues specific to plants and plant communities were identified for the
proposed expansion lands.
1) Protection of Resource Management Zones (RMZ) as per the LRMP such as the
NDT4 habitat, fisheries aquatic concerns, recreational zones, significant forest
ecosystems, and ungulate winter ranges to maintain bio-diversity;
2) Maintaining bio-diversity in the area with the associated IDF and MS zones and
protection for all red and blue listed plant species (Table 3.3 and 3.4) where identified
and applicable;
3) Riparian zone protection associated with Jack, Law and Powers Creek as designated
in the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP resource management zone protection, the Forest
Practices Code Biodiversity Guidelines and the Fish Protection Act-Streamside
Protection Regulations;
4) Old growth stands identified in higher elevations in the proposed expansion lands,
around the west section of Powers Creek, the north and northwest facing slopes, will
require management to meet biodiversity old seral attributes such as ecosystem
representation, connectivity, interior conditions etc. Wildlife tree patches may be
required as per the Okanagan - Shuswap LRMP and the Forest Practices objectives
and strategies and shall be distributed no greater than a maximum of 500 meters
apart;
5) Much of this NDT 4 on the study site has shifted from open, old growth dominated
stands to dense, closed canopy stands leading to potentially poor forest health,
reduced biological diversity, and possible increased risk of catastrophic wildfire. As
well, aggressive conifer encroachment is reducing both the area and productivity of
grasslands associated with this habitat type. The LRMP states that goals to improve
3-30
the NDT 4 habitat type include maintaining the existing ecosystem, minimize its’ loss
and provision of connectivity between these habitats. Ski run development and resort
establishment on the south slope of Mount Last will have to meet the LRMP
guidelines; and
6) It will be necessary to work with Gorman Brothers Lumber Ltd. to address their
interests.
3.5.5
The following conceptual guidelines should be used to lessen impacts to vegetation and
forest resources within the proposed expansion lands.
1) Front Country Visual Landscape Management Guidelines should be addressed
including areas visible from Glenrosa and Westbank, Highway 97 and Kelowna.
Principles of visual guidelines should address the three classes of landscape
management including foreground (up to 1 km away), midground (1-5 km away) and
background (5-12 km away);
2) Backcountry Recreation Management Guidelines should be used to maintain a
recreation inventory and establishing recreation objectives within the expansion lands
that are consistent with the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP VQOs and Area Land Use
Plan;
3) Tree clearing and removal will be subject to MOF specifications to reduce habitat
impact when clearing for the proposed expansion;
4) It will be necessary to develop a strategy to maintain bio-diversity by managing the
forest that emulates natural disturbance models and the optimum variety of patch
sizes during ski run planning. It will also be necessary to maintain corridor
connectivity to allow the movement of forest-dwelling organisms across the
landscape, while leaving areas of sufficient size to maintain forest interior habitat
conditions and prevent the formation of excessive edge habitat. Development
planning should follow the bio-diversity guidelines as per the “Forest Practices Code
Bio-diversity Guidebook”;
5) Develop management plans to address old growth seral targets using Biodiversity
Guidelines;
6) A management plan should be developed to reduce the impact of conifer
encroachment on the IDF NDT 4 zone. The plan should incorporate recreation use,
trail systems, and revegetation projects; and
7) Ensure the retention of mosaic seral stages within riparian corridors.
3-31
3.6
Wildlife Resources
3.6.1
Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species
Red, Blue or Yellow listed animals that may potentially occur on the study site, defined
by BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) rare vertebrate animal tracking list (Penticton
Forest District) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC), are presented below (Tables 3.5 and 3.6) (Appendix Figure 3).
3.6.1.1 Herpetifauna
*Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) - Red Listed
It is one of the most widespread salamanders in North America, generally associated
with the dry southern interior of BC. It is usually found near small, frequently alkali
lakes and ponds. During the summer, it hides below ground in abandoned burrows or
hollows. Generally, it is active during the night on the surface just after spring rains,
approximately March and April. The tiger salamander primarily feeds on earthworms
and molluscs and baby frogs such as the Pacific Tree Frog. Favoring permanent
ponds and wetland areas with slower running water for breeding, this salamander lays
its eggs in areas of slower moving water attached to twigs and rushes of its occupied
wetland. In BC this species enters into the Okanagan Valley, reaching as far north as
Summerland.
This species may potentially occur in the project site, although it is at the limit of its
range in BC. If present on site, it would likely be associated with the wetland along
Jack Creek, or in other smaller wetland sites along the east face in the IDFxh1 zone of
Powers Creek.
*Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) - Red Listed
The southern mountain population of northern leaopard frog has been designated as
endangered in BC as of 1998 by COSEWIC. In BC, this species has been found in
the eastern Kootenay region and along the southern border of the province near
Creston and Osoyoos. Its presence may be possible in streams associated with
ground water springs and wetland areas adjacent to some open meadow locations. It
is currently unknown if it actually occurs on the project site. This frog favors wetland
habitat with ground water springs. It may potentially occur in the wetland along Jack
Creek.
3-32
Table 3.5
Summary of BC and Cosewic Status Species List andTheir Likely
Occurrence in the Project Area (1999)
Species
Latin Name
BC Status COSEWIC Status
Based on April 1999 status
Birds
Lark Sparrow
Chondestes grammacus
Red
Not at Risk
*Western Screech-Owl
Otus kennicottii macfarlanei
Red
Indeterminate
American Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
Red
Threatened
Brewer's Sparrow, Breweri
Spizella breweri breweri
Red
Not at Risk
Burrowing Owl
Athene cunicularia
Red
Endangered
Ferruginous Hawk
Buteo regalis
Red
Vulnerable
Grasshopper Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
Red
Not at Risk
Prairie Falcon
Falco mexicanus
Red
Not at Risk
Sage Grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus
Red
Extirpated
Sage Thrasher
Oreoscoptes montanus
Red
Endangered
Swainson's Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
Red
Not at Risk
Upland Sandpiper
Bartramia longicauda
Red
Not at Risk
White-Headed Woodpecker
Picoides albolarvatus
Red
Threatened
Yellow-Breasted Chat
Icteria virens
Red
Threatened
Long-Billed Curlew
Numenius americanus
Blue
Vulnerable
American Avocet
Recurvirostra americana
Blue
Not at Risk
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
Blue
Not at Risk
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
Blue
Endangered
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Blue
Not at Risk
California Gull
Larus californicus
Blue
Not at Risk
Canyon Wren
Catherpes mexicanus
Blue
Not at Risk
*Flammulated Owl
Otus flammeolus
Blue
Vulnerable
Gray Flycatcher
Empidonax wrightii
Blue
Not at Risk
Great Blue Heron
ardea herodias
Blue
Vulnerable
*Lewis's Woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
Blue
Vulnerable
*Sandhill Crane
Grus canadensis
Blue
Not at Risk
Sharp-Tailed Grouse
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Blue
Not at Risk
Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Blue
Vulnerable
White-Throated Swift
Aeronautes saxatalis
Blue
Not at Risk
*Williamson's Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus thyroideus
Blue
Not at Risk
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Yellow
Not at Risk
Redhead
Aythya americana
Yellow
Not at Risk
Ring-Billed Gull
Larus delawarensis
Yellow
Not at Risk
Rough-Legged Hawk
Buteo lagopus
Yellow
Not at Risk
Mammals
*Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus
Red
Vulnerable
*Northern Long-Eared Myotis Myotis septentrionalis
Red
Not at Risk
California Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis californiana
Blue
Not at Risk
Fisher
Martes pennanti
Blue
Not at Risk
*Fringed Myotis
Myotis thysanodes
Blue
Vulnerable
Great Basin Pocket Mouse
Perognathus parvus
Blue
Not at Risk
3-33
Species
Latin Name
BC Status COSEWIC Status
*Nuttall's Cottontail
Sylvilagus nuttallii
Blue
Vulnerable
*Spotted Bat
Euderma maculatum
Blue
Vulnerable
*Townsend's Big-Eared Bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Blue
Not at Risk
*Western Harvest Mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Blue
Vulnerable
Blue
Not at Risk
*Western
Myotis
Small-Footed Myotis ciliolabrum
Reptiles
Night Snake
Hypsiglena torquata
Red
Not at Risk
*Gopher Snake
Pituophis catenifer deserticola
Blue
Not at Risk
*Painted Turtle
Chrysemys picta
Blue
Not at Risk
*Racer
Coluber constrictor
Blue
Not at Risk
*Rubber Boa
Charina bottae
Blue
Not at Risk
Western Rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
Blue
Not at Risk
*Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
Red
Not at Risk
Tailed Frog
Ascaphus truei
Red
Not at Risk
*Northern Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Red
Endangered
Great Basin Spadefoot
Spea intermontana
Blue
Vulnerable
Amphibians
* Target species for field inventory
3-34
Table 3.6a
Wildlife Potential in the Montane Spruce Zone (Msdm2)
Habitat
Habitat
Distribution
in Study Site
Characteristic Potential and Representative Wildlife
Wildlife Species in the MS zone
Species at
Risk
Young
seral forest
Extensive
Moose, Mule Deer, Black Bear, Lynx, Coyote, Little
Brown Myotis, Snowshoe Hare, Porcupine, Heather
Vole, Deer Mouse, Masked Shrew
Mature
coniferous
forest
Riparian
areas,
wetlands,
open
meadows
(clearcuts),
floodplain
and streams
Moderate
Common
Northern Hawk Owl, Northern Pygmy-owl, Ruffed
Grouse, Three-toed Woodpecker, Black-backed
Woodpecker,
Wilson’s
Warbler,
Rufous
Hummingbird, Pine Grosbeak, Western Tanager,
Dark-eyed Junco, Audubon’s Warbler
Moose, Mule Deer, Cougar, Lynx, Coyote, Black
Bear, Fisher, Marten, Red Squirrel, Snowshoe Hare,
Silver-haired Bat, Little Brown Myotis, Southern
red-backed Vole, Deer Mouse, Masked Shrew
Barred Owl, Black-backed Woodpecker, Three-toed
Woodpecker, Stellar’s Jay, Red Crossbill, Goldencrowned Kinglet, Mountain Chickadee, Red-breated
Nuthatch.
Moose, Mule Deer, Black Bear, Coyote, Long-tailed
Weasel, Little Brown Myotis, Water Vole, Deer
Mouse, Western Jumping Mouse, Meadow Jumping
Mouse
Northern
Leopard Frog
Ruffed Grouse, American Dipper
Northern Leopard Frog, Western Painted Turtle
3-35
Table 3.6b
Wildlife Potential in the Interior Douglas Fir Zones (Idfdk2 and
Idfxh1)
Habitat
Habitat
Distribution
in study site
Characteristic Potential and Wildlife species at risk
Representative
Wildlife
Species in the IDF zones
Old-growth
and mature
coniferous
forest
Moderate
Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer,
White-tailed Deer, Black Bear,
Cougar, Coyote, Big Brown Bat,
Hoary Bat, Red Squirrel, Southern
Red-backed Vole
Young seral
forest
Extensive
South aspect
IDF
Abundant
Flammulated Owl, Williamson’s
Sapsucker, Rubber Boa
Northern Pygmy-owl, Pileated
Woodpecker, Clark’s Nutcracker,
Red-naped Sapsucker, Red-breasted
Nuthatch, Red-tailed Hawk, Pacific
Tree Frog
Moose, Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule
Deer, White-tailed Deer, Black
Bear, Cougar, Coyote, Badger,
Northern Pocket Gopher
Ruffed Grouse
Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer,
White-tailed Deer, Black Bear,
Cougar, Coyote, Badger, Big Brown
Bat, Northern Pocket Gopher
Western Yellow-bellied Racer,
Rubber Boa, Townsend’s Big Eared
Bat, Flammulated Owl, Whiteheaded
Woodpecker,California
Bighorn Sheep, Gopher Snake
White-breasted Nuthatch
3-36
Tailed Frog, Coastal Population (Ascaphus truei) - Blue Listed
The tailed frog has two disconnected parts to its range. It is primarily found along the
pacific coast of BC and as far south as California. Its other range is just west of the
Rocky Mountains in Idaho and Montana, just barely extending into BC. This frog
occupies cold mountain streams of undisturbed forests, primarily cold, clear, unsilted
waters. Its occurrence within the study lands is not expected due to the lack of habitat
and range restrictions.
Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) - Blue Listed
The great basin spadefoot has been designated as vulnerable in BC as of 1998 by
COSEWIC. Its presence is not possible due to the lack of suitable habitat as it prefers
open woodland, meadow, sage or bunchgrass prairie habitats. This habitat is not
located on or adjacent to the study site.
Night Snake (Hypsiglena torquata) - Red Listed
The night snake has only been recorded once in BC near Kaledon in the southern
Okanagan Valley in 1980. Its occurrence on the project site is unlikely.
Pigmy Short-Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasi) - Red Listed
The pygmy short-horned lizard has been designated as extirpated in BC by
COSEWIC in 1998. BC is the most northerly range of this species in North America.
Only two known specimens for the province were collected near Osooyoos, in 1910.
It is not likely to occur on the study site due to a lack of habitat requirements.
*Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) - Blue Listed
The rubber boa may be present along Powers and Law Creeks of the IDFxh and the
IDFdk1 zones. It favors rotting logs or under rocks, logs or bark of Course Woody
Debris (CWD).
*Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) - Blue Listed
The painted turtle prefers ponds, streams and wetland habitats with muddy bottoms,
slow-moving water and emergent aquatic vegetation. The painted turtle is very
common in these habitat types and often occurs at densities of 500 or more per
hectare.
If present on the project site, the painted turtle would most likely occur in the Jack
Creek wetland and other wetlands along the north face of Powers Creek.
3-37
Yellow-Bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor) - Blue Listed
The yellow-bellied racer occurs within open or sparsely treed habitats of the IDFxh
along riparian corridors. During the winter (November through March), it hibernates
in dens located in forested areas usually associated with rock outcrops or talus slopes.
This species will often den communally with rattlesnakes, gopher snakes and garter
snakes. Nest sites are usually found on south facing slopes in either talus or sand
substrates. There is an old sand quarry located to the base of the existing ski hill
which may contribute to this habitat because in the south Okanagan, nest sites are
found near the crest of a sandy hills, with little surrounding vegetation.
Management guidelines to protect the yellow-bellied racer habitat include retention of
wildlife trees, course woody debris, rock outcrops, and boulders.
Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) - Blue Listed
The western rattlesnake prefers talus slopes in sagebrush and lightly forested areas
and is not likely to be found within the project site. In winter it prefers rock outcrops
and talus slopes which function as dens for hibernation.
*Gopher Snake (Pituophis Catenifer deserticola) - Blue Listed
The gopher snake is known to occur in forested and open sagebrush areas, but is
primarily restricted to the grassland and shrub steppe habitat in BC. Summer
foraging habitat often consists of dry open or brushy areas adjacent to riparian strips.
It is known to occur in IDFxh BGC zones and may occur on the south-facing slope of
the project site and along the riparian areas of Powers and Law Creeks.
Management guidelines to protect the gopher snake include retention of wildlife trees,
course woody debris, rock outcrops, and boulders.
3.6.1.2 Birds
Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) - Red Listed
The grasshopper sparrow prefers grassland habitat for breeding and foraging and is
unlikely to occur on the project site. Development will have no impact on this
species.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) - Red Listed
The burrowing owl has been designated as endangered in BC by COSEWIC.
Historically it was designated as threatened in 1979, confirmed in 1991 and upgraded
to endangered in 1995. This species prefers large open fields with burrows for
breeding and foraging. No breeding or foraging habitat is present in the project site.
The proposed development will have no impact on this species.
3-38
Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) - Red Listed
The upland sandpipe prefers open field environments. There is no breeding or
foraging habitat available on the project site. The proposed development will have no
impact on this species.
Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) - Red Listed
The ferruginous hawk is one of B.C.'s rarest birds as only two breeding records have
been reported in B.C. Populations are thought to be vulnerable throughout western
North America. It is designated as vulnerable in Canada by COSEWIC.
The ferruginous hawk occupies prairies and deserts and hunts over open and semiopen areas for medium-sized mammals and birds. Major prey species include
Columbian ground squirrels, northern pocket gophers and yellow-bellied marmots.
This species perches on the ground more often than other buteos, but will use large
trees, snags, power poles and fenceposts. It nests in open grasslands and deserts with
scattered trees. It occupies BGC zones: BG: BGxh, BGxw, IDF: IDFxh, IDFdm,
IDFdk, IDFmw, and PP: PPxh, PPdh. It is not likely to be present on the project site.
Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) - Red Listed
The swainson’s hawk does not breed or forage in habitat common to the project site
as it prefers large open fields for breeding and foraging. The proposed development
will have no impact on this species.
Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) - Red Listed
The sage grouse has been designated as extirpated in BC by COSEWIC and has not
been reported in BC since the 1960’s. The sage grouse is not expected to occur
within the project site as the habitat is not suitable for breeding or foraging.
Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) - Red Listed
The Lark Sparrow prefers to breed in sagebrush/rabitbrush areas of the BG zone and
lower open areas of the Okanagan. It is associated with gentle sloping hills and
barrren areas. Habitat within the project site is not suitable for breeding or foraging.
Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) - Red Listed
The Prairie Falcon is at risk in B.C. due to human disturbance at nesting sites,
secondary poisoning from insecticides and loss of foraging habitat in the southern
portion of its range. COSEWIC has designated this species as not at risk in Canada.
3-39
The parairie falcon is primarily restricted to the south-central interior of the province
and ranges through the Okanagan, Similkameen, Nicola and south Thompson valleys
north to the Chilcotin-Cariboo basin region. It is considered a late summer visitant to
the alpine Cascade Mountains, a very rare transient in southeastern B.C., and casual
in the west Kootenay.
The prairie falcon occurs within open treeless habitats such as prairies, deserts and
alpine meadows. It is not likely to occur in the project site as it prefers grassland and
sagebrush habitats of the south-central interior. In the breeding season, it is often
found near cliffs adjacent to water and open areas. Aeries are located on low cliffs
near water. Nests are located on cliff ledges below overhangs that provide shade.
The study site is devoid of these cliffs. Generally nests are unlined, shallow
depressions scooped in gravel or sand. Aeries are used for many years. The prairie
falcon hunts over open areas where prey such as ground squirrels and passerines are
visible. The proposed development will have no impact on this species.
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) - Red Listed
The American falcon has been designated by COSEWIC as threatened in BC. Both
the anatum and Peale’s race are considered at risk. The anatum is considered
threatened and the Peale’s is considered vulnerable in BC. It prefers to breed on open
terraces of cliffs and valleys in the province. This raptor prefers to forage adjacent to
lakes and large waterbodies. The habitat within the project site is not suitable for
breeding or foraging. The proposed development will have no impact on this species.
Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens ) - Red Listed
The B.C. yellow-breasted chat has been designated as threatened in Canada by
COSEWIC. There is currently only a small population size (<50 pairs) in B.C. and
its dependence is on lowland riparian thickets. It is not found in the BGC zones of
the study site and prefers the BG: BGxh, BGxw CWH: CWHds PP: PPdh, and PPxh
zones below approximately 600 m asl. This species prefers to breed in thick shrubby
deciduous berry areas associated with riparian wetlands and deciduous shrub
communities. The yellow-breasted chat is not likely to occur on the project site. The
proposed development will have no impact on this species.
Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) - Red Listed
The sage thrasher is red-listed provinicially and listed as endangered by COSEWIC
because of very low, variable abundance. It is restricted to a handful of breeding sites
in a small area of the province.
The Sage Thrasher (SATH) breeds in large tracts of big sagebrush (Artemesia
tridentata) surrounded by open areas of perennial grasses. It is most commonly
found in BG: BGxh1 BGC zones. In compariosn to habitats found on the project site,
nesting sites are characterized by higher grass cover, particularly perennial grass,
3-40
significantly lower rock cover and lower cattle feces cover. These habitats are not
found on the project site. Therefore, the proposed development is not expected to
impact the sage thrasher.
*Western Screech-Owl (Otus kennicottii macfarlanei) - Red Listed
The western screech owl is currently indeterminate by COSEWIC in BC. It is an
occupant of riparian deciduous areas, in cavities, nest boxes, trees vines and crevaces.
It has a very good chance of occurring in the study site primarily along Jack and
Powers Creek riparian corridors where it favors snags for roosting/nesting. Being
adaptive in nature in urban and residential areas it frequents orchards, parks and
gardens. Nesting of this species is likely found at elevations above 540 metres.
Due to its’ adaptive nature, the proposed development is not expected to have a
negative impact on western screech owl. Mitigation of development impacts include
retention of wildlife trees and deciduous woodlots, buffer zones along riparian areas
along with the implementation of FPC Biodiversity Guidebook Guidelines.
White-Headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) - Red Listed
The white-headed woodpecker is red-listed due to small population size (estimated
<100 pairs) in B.C. and has been designated as threatened by COSEWIC. It occurs
and is restricted primarily to the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau southern interior areas
of B.C. Breeding attempts of this species in BC have been documented primarily
through the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau through the southern Okanagan valley
north of Naramata. Only seven nests in B.C. have been found, all in open-canopied
stands (<70% canopy cover) of mature ponderosa pine forest from an levation from
450 to 600 m asl. Nests are located in or on the edge of forest clearings. The whiteheaded woodpecker is a primary excavator, making its cavities in dead or dying trees,
with a preference for large ponderosa pine (usually >60 cm dbh). Leaning or brokentopped snags or stumps are commonly used as nest trees, often with heartrot creating
a hard outer shell and a soft interior. Cavities occur from 2.5 to 9 m above ground.
The white-headed woodpecker forages in open ponderosa pine and mixed pine Douglas-fir forests up to an elevation of 700m asl, and in Engelmann spruce lodgepole pine forests up to 1,300 m asl. In early summer, it forages mainly for
insects on the lower portions of large, live ponderosa pine trees in the puzzle bark
stage (>60 cm dbh). Nests in B.C. have been found primarily in ponderosa pine, both
live and dead (five nests). Roosts were located in cavities and under sloughing bark
of large ponderosa pine (mean dbh 61 cm). However, information on roosting
requirements for this species in B.C. is lacking. Although there is no information on
home range or territory size in B.C., recent (1993) information from Oregon indicates
that home ranges vary from about 100-400 ha with fragmented habitats requiring the
larger areas. The scarcity of white-headed woodpeckers in B.C. and their position at
the northern edge of their range points to requirements for larger home ranges. This
species is primarily found in the folloowing BGC zones: BG: BGxh ESSF: ESSFmw,
3-41
ESSFmm, ESSFmk, ESSFmc, ESSFmv ICH: ICHdw IDF: IDFxh (study site),
IDFxw, IDFxm, IDFdm, IDFdk (study Site) MS: MSxk, MSdc PP: PPxh.
Due to its life requisites and the type of vegetation on site, the white-headed
woodpecker is not expected to occur on the site. Therefore there are no impacts
anticipated for the white-headed woodpecker from the proposed development.
Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri breweri) - Red Listed
Two taxonomically distinct subspecies of the Brewer's sparrow occur in B.C.
including Spizella breweri breweri and S. b. taverneri. S. b. breweri is red-listed
because of its small population size (800-1000 in B.C.) and restricted known breeding
range. Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of this account refers to this subspecies.
The Brewer's sparrow breeds in sagebrush steppe in southcentral B.C. Nests are
invariably built in sagebrush plants in height from 64 to 170 cm. Previous
researchers had recorded nests built near the ground, at an average height ranging
from 30-49 cm. The Brewer's sparrow is an opportunistic ground forager that feeds
on seeds and insects, primarily on the open ground between and beneath the
sagebrush plants. Wetlands and mesic ravines may be important insect foraging areas
during the nesting season.
Brewer's sparrows maintain small territories
(approximately 2 pairs/ha) within semi-colonial aggregations. It primarily occupies
the BGC zones of BG: BGxh1 (BGxh2 - suspected, BGxh3 - possible) ESSF: ESSFxc
IDF: IDFxh1, IDFdk1 MS: MSxk PP: PPxh1, PPxh1a.
It is not very likely to breed in the project area. Brewer's sparrows breed regularly
south of Penticton to the U.S. border on the westside of the Okanagan valley, and in
the Similkameen valley south of Keremeos. Ten major sites are currently on file with
the CDC, which range from an elevtation of 350-m (east of Osoyoos) to 1800-m asl
(Mt. Kobau). Breeding is strongly suspected in the Thompson Basin (Lac du Bois,
Black Canyon, West Kamloops Lake and Perry Ranch) but this has yet to be
confirmed. Singing males have also been observed near the confluence of the Fraser
and Chilcotin Rivers, but it is unknown whether these represent breeding birds or
unsuccessful outliers.
The Brewer’s sparrow is not expected to occur on the project site and will not be
impacted from development.
White-Throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis) - Blue Listed
The white-throated swift is known to breed in the Similkameen Valley near Hedley,
and in the Okanagan Valley (Vaseaux Lake north to Naramata). The breeding centre
appears to be a 20 km stretch from Vaseaux Lake to Penticton. It prefers cliff habitat
with rock bluffs and canyons from an elevation 300 to 800 metres asl.
3-42
The white-throated swift is not expected to occur on the site and will not be impacted
from development.
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) - Blue Listed (GBHE)
Only the Great blue heron pacific race (A.h.fannini) is considered vulnerable and at
risk by COSEWIC. Great blue herons prefer to nest and forage within or adjacent to
wetlands.
The Jack Creek wetland and other smaller wetlands could potentially be used for
foraging by Great blue herons. Since the majority of these wetalnds are to be
protected under the current development plan, there should be minimal impact to
Great blue herons from development.
Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus) - Blue Listed
The short-eared owl has been designated as vulnerable in BC by COSEWIC. There is
no breeding or foraging habitat present in the study site or adjacent to it because this
species prefers large open fields for breeding and to forage in. It may occur as an
incidental to the study site. If at all, most likely as passing by during natal disbursal
or during migration in spring and fall as an incidental sighting. The proposed
development will have no impact on this species.
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) - Blue Listed
The American bittern is provincially blue-listed and designated as “not at risk” in
Canada by COSEWIC.
The American bittewrn inhabits the borders of lakes, marshes and rivers. It breeds in
valley bottom marshes or on flat plateau regions, from near sea level on the coast up
to an elevation of 1,300 m asl in the interior. The American bittern nests in emergent
vegetation and builds its platform nest over water or mud. It occupies BGC zones of
BG, BWBS, CDF, CWH, ICH, IDF, MS, SBPS, SBS in BC. There is no breeding or
foraging habitat available in the project site therefore the proposed development will
have no impact on this species.
Canyon Wren (Catherpes mexicanus) - Blue Listed
The Canyon Wren is provincially blue-listed and is primarily associated with cliffs
and talus areas within the Okanagan. These habitats are not available on the project
site therefore the proposed development will have no impact on this species.
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) - Blue Listed
The bobolink is blue-listed in B.C. due to a loss of habitat from grazing and
urbanization. This species breeds locally in the south and central interior and has been
3-43
reported in the southern Okanagan valley, Cariboo-Chilcotin region, 30 km northeast
of Prince George, and in the east and west Kootenays. The bobolink inhabits BGC
zones: BGxh, BGxw ICH: ICHxw, ICHdw, ICHmw, ICHmm, ICHdk, ICHmk IDF:
IDFxh (study site), IDFxw, IDFxm, IDFdm (study Site), IDFdk, IDFmw PP: PPxh,
PPdh. Within these zones, the bobolink shows a preference for large, established
cultivated hayfields, moist meadows and weedy fields predominated by a mixture of
tall grasses. It builds nests in ground hollows frequently at the base of tall weedy
plants. They may be semi-colonial at breeding grounds. The bobolink is particularly
vulnerable to early mowing of hayfields, which directly affects reproductive activities
including courtship and nest success.
The habitat within the project site is not suitable for breeding or foraging for
bobolinks therefore the proposed development will have no impact on this species.
Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) - Blue Listed
This gray flycatcher is provincially blue-listed and been recently observed (1990)
breeding in the Summerland area (44 birds – Meadow valley road, Shingle Creek
road, sites north of Mt. Nkwala, and Ecological Reserve No. 7 near Upper Trout
Creek), Vaseaux Lake, and around the Oliver area. In the same year, no birds were
recorded between Peachland and Summerland. R. Cannings suggest that suitable
habitat exists west of Princeton and Merrit, north to the Kamloops area, and east in
the Rocky Mountain trench near Cranbrook.
Breeding habitat favored by this species is restricted to ponderosa pine forests with an
understory of grasses and scattered shrubs or young pines that the bird uses for
foraging and perching. These pines are generally 10 to 15 metres in height; usually
25 cm dbh with 10 to 15 metre wide clearings scattered throughout the stand. For
areas in the southern Okanagan valley which have been confirmed breeding habitat,
the following vegetative structure best describes its life requirements in the southern
Okanagan, Oliver: shrubby, mainly consisting of antelope-brush and threetip
sagebrush. Shingle Creek Road (Summerland): understory of scattered buckbrush.
Other Summerland sites have little or no shrubs, the ground being dominated by
bluebunch grass and wheatgrass. Many of the breeding territories are young
ponderosa pine stands that have been thinned for silvicultural purposes. This may
create forest openings that area required by this flycatcher for foraging. Also, piles of
cut trees are used as preferred low perch sites.
Since no suitable habitat for gray flycatchers exist within the project site, the
proposed development scenario is not expected to impact this species.
*Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) - Blue Listed
The sandhill crane is provincially blue-listed and is designated as “not at risk” in
Canada by COSEWIC.
3-44
Biogeoclimatic zones favoured include: BG: all BWBS: BWBSmw, CDF: CDFmm,
CWH: all, ICH: all IDF: IDFdk, IDFmw MS: all PP: all SBPS: SBPSxc, SBPSdc,
SBPSmk, SBPSmc SBS: SBSdw, SBSdk, SBSmh, SBSmw, SBSmk, SBSmc.
Sandhill cranes roost and feed in open wetland areas such as bogs, swamps, marshes,
estuaries, fens and dry upland areas such as grasslands and agricultural fields. Its’
nests are large heaps of vegetation in water, surrounded by a screen of emergent
vegetation. Young forage with their parents around the perimeter of the wetland,
primarily in sedge meadows. When threatened, adult and young sandhill cranes will
often run into heavy forest cover. In B.C., the sandhill crane is a solitary nester with
breeding pairs sparsely distributed across available habitat.
The Jack Creek wetland is not suitable for use by sandhill cranes due to a lack of
shallow foraging areas and unfavourable closed canopy around the wetland edge.
The small wetlands near the proposed teahouse could potentially be used for foraging
by sandhill cranes during migration, however, due to the closed canopy around the
wetland edge their use would be unlikely.
California Gull (Larus californicus) - Blue Listed
The California gull is provincially blue-listed and prefers to forage on agricultural
lands and open water areas. There is no suitable breeding or foraging habitat within
the project site therefore the proposed development will have no impact on California
gulls.
*Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) - Blue Listed
The Lewis’s woodpecker is provincially blue-listed and has been designated as
vulnerable by COSEWIC. Within BC the Lewis’s woodpecker occupies IDFdk and
IDFxh habitats. It forages in open woodlands and riparian areas that provide
sufficient visibility and space for effective flycatching. Nesting habitat for this
species may be found in excavated cavities by other woodpeckers (i.e. Northern
Flickers), or natural cavities. In a few places, Lewis' woodpeckers nest in loose
aggregations. During winter it keeps feeding areas of up to six hectares and may
roost in mature deciduous and coniferous trees and snags, similar to those used for
nesting. Scanning perches are important year-round adjacent to riparian zones.
Within the project site, favored habitat for the Lewis’s woodpecker can be found in
structural aged stands 3a: shrub stage for foraging, 6-7: mature - old conifer stands
(age class 7-9), mature hardwoods as defined along the upper slopes of the
IDFdk2zone, (age class 5-7) and especially in low elevation riparian habitats. The
Lewis’s woodpecker has potential to occur along the riparian areas of the south slope
to the MSdm2 BGC area.
Other areas within the project site potentially used by Lewis’s woodpecker include
Ponderosa pine and black cottonwood with extensive heartrot (decaying centre) along
the riparian areas of Jack and Powers Creeks. Optimal breeding habitats in the area
3-45
contain large snags (>30 cm dbh), open tree canopy (25% closure), and a shrub
understorey (50% crown cover) that harbours abundant insect prey. Broken-topped
or large limbed trees are used as hawking perches and live or dead trees with heartrot
(Wild Tree class 2-6, dead internal decay, heartrot, loss of branches) are suitable
nesting and roosting trees; however, softer snags (WT class 4-6) are preferred
(Biodiversity Guidelines, 1995).
The proposed development will impact Lewis’s woodpecker, however the
implemenaion of the following management guidleines should reduce the potential
impact:
•
Maintaining concentrations of nest and storage trees;
•
Maintain the integrity of nesting areas; and
•
The establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA) where an aggregation of
nesting woodpeckers occurs. An aggregation is defined as five or more
nesting pairs, each within 250 metres of another. The WHA will include all
the nest sites plus a 100 metre buffer.
Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) - Blue Listed
The long-billed curlew is provincially bue-listed and has been designated as
vulnerable by COSEWC. In BC it normally breeds a) from Williams Lake west
through Alexis Creek, b) in the Okanagan and lower Similkameen valleys, c) in the
East Kootenay Trench, d) in the Nicola valley and e) near Kamloops. A few pairs
breed north along the North Thompson River towards McBride and north of Williams
Lake to Quesnel. Records outside the periphery of its breeding range suggest that it
may breed over a slightly larger range than currently documented. Nonbreeding birds
are widely distributed through the south-central interior, north to the Nechako
lowlands.
The long-billed curlew nests in dry, open grasslands from 280-1,220 m asl elevation.
Nests are shallow scrapes on the ground, often placed beside an object like a stone or
pile of animal dung. It favors the following BGC zones:BG: BGxh, BGxw CDF:
CDFmm CWH: CWHmm ESSF: ESSFxc PP: PPxh, PPdh IDF: IDFxh (located in the
study site), IDFdm ICH: ICHdw SBPS: SBPSxc, SBPSmk SBS: SBSmh, SBSmw.
Since the long-billed curlew breeds in dry, open grassy uplands, it is not likely to
occur on the project site, therefore there will not be any impacts from development.
*Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus ) - Blue Listed
The flammulated owl is provincially blue-listed and has been identified as vulnerable
by COSEWIC. It was originally designated as rare in 1988 and transferred to the
vulnerable category when the former was replaced in 1990. This owl prefers to breed
in areas of well-spaced Douglas fir of varying ages, generally containing thick clumps
of young trees with some ponderosa pines. The general appearance is that of
3-46
parkland; with a very open understory consisting largely of pinegrass,
bluebunchgrass, wheatgrass, birch-leaved spirea, and isolated larger shrubs such as
saskatoon berry. Its preference for slope aspect varies considerably but slopes are
generally moderate to steep (up to 37°) and are often dissected by streams and gullies.
Nesting preference includes Douglas fir snags and dead ponderosa pines. Many
prefer old woodpecker cavities, usually made by Northern Flickers.
The proposed development is not expected to impact the flammulated owl because of
its adaptive nature to co-exist with urban settings. The development may create some
favorable foraging habitat from ski lift and run clearing. In order to minimize
impacts to the flammulated owl from development, the following management
guidelines should be implemented:
1) Maintaining concentrations of nest and storage trees;
2) Maintain the integrity of nesting areas; and
3) The establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA) where an aggregation
of nesting woodpeckers occurs. An aggregation is defined as five or more
nesting pairs, each within 250 metres of another. The WHA will include
all the nest sites plus a 100 metre buffer.
American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) - Blue Listed
The American avocet is provincially blue-listed but due to its habitat requirements
(i.e. shorebird) would not occur on the project site and would not be impacted from
development.
*Williamson's Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus thyroideus) - Blue Listed
The Williamson’s sapsucker is provincially blue-listed and has been designated as
threatened by COSEWIC.
The Williamson’s sapsucker breeds in forested areas (principally the western larch,
interior Douglas Fir, and ponderosa pine) at elevations between 850 and 1,300 m asl,.
Most preferred habitat for nesting by this bird includes, in order of preference,
western larch, ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, lodgepole pine and possibly poplars.
Nest locations generally range in height from 2-18 metres.
Local records suggest the Williamson’s sapsucker is present in the project site.
Whether it breeds on the proposed expansion lands is unknown.
Should positive identification of breeding for this species be confirmed on the project
site the following mmanagement plans should be implemented:
1) Maintaining concentrations of nest and storage trees;
2) Maintain the integrity of nesting areas; and
3-47
3) The establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA) where an aggregation
of nesting woodpeckers occurs. An aggregation is defined as five or more
nesting pairs, each within 250 metres of another. The WHA will include
all the nest sites plus a 100 metre buffer.
Sharp-Tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) - Blue Listed
The sharp-tailed grouse is provincially blue-listed but has been extirpated from the
Okanagan Valley (Campbell et.al.1990). Only two locations in BC have been
identified as positive breeding areas. One scattered throughout the east Kootenays
and the south central interior north to the vicinity of Babine Lake, and the other in the
parklands and boreal forest of northeastern BC. It will not occur on the study site as a
breeder mainly because it tends to inhabit areas of the BG and open PP BGC zone
meadowlands, bunchland grasslands, sagebrush flats, and open ponderosa pine and
birch woodlands of the southern interior. The development should not impact sharptailed grouse.
Barn Owl (Tyto alba) - Blue Listed
The barn owl has been provincially blue-listed has been defined as very rare in the
central southern interior of BC. Highest concentrations of this owl are along the
coast. It is unlikely to occur on the project study lands because of the inopportune
habitat. The Barn Owl prefers open country associated with agricultural areas, but
also frequents grasslands river bottom meadows, and, infrequently cities, and
residential areas. This habitat is not present on or adjacent the study site. There
should be no impacts to barn owls from development.
Rough-Legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) - Yellow Listed
The rough-legged hawk has been provincially yellow-listed and does not breed in the
Okanagan region. It occurs only in the late fall and winter to this area and frequents
open habitats of fields and lowlands foraging on rodents. It prefers lowland areas and
shrub to low level trees to perch. This species frequents habitat similar to the Shorteared Owl and is not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of foraging
habitat. There should be no impacts to rough-legged hawks from development.
Redhead (Aythya americana) - Yellow Listed
The redhead is provincially yellow-listed and prefers open water bodies to forage.
Although the project site does not contain any breeding habitat, foraging habitat may
occur in the Jack Creek wetland. Due to its’ unlikely occurrence on the site, the
redhead will not be impacted from development.
3-48
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Yellow Listed
The bald eagle is provincially yellow-listed, however there is no suitable breeding or
foraging habitat on the project site. The proposed development will have no impact
on bald eagles.
Ring-Billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) - Yellow Listed
Although the ring-billed gull is provincially yellow-listed, there is no suitable
breeding or foraging habitat within the project site, therefore there the proposed
development will have no impact on ring-billed gulls.
3.6.1.3 Mammals
Bats
The presence of bats in the study area is dependent on three factors, food, roosting and
hibernating locations. Because this mammal is small and relatively poorly insulated,
maintaining its body temperature around 40°C requires a lot of energy. Feeding habits
and locations for feeding adopted by bats are primarily associated with riparian
communities and wetland, riverine areas of low elevations where temperatures are steady
and warm.
Hibernacula if present on the study site would be selected by this mammal primarily on
the basis of temperature and humidity. Each species has its preferred conditions-cool
enough to keep from freezing or from burning large amounts of energy to avoid freezing.
Recent studies have shown that humidity may play a larger role in this mixture. Natural
arousals appear to be caused by loss of water; bats occupying humid sites hibernate for
longer periods before arousing to drink. Arousal is by far the most costly aspect of
hibernation because it requires the expenditure of large quantities of stored fat to raise the
body temperature and remain warm. Therefore, the best hibernation sites are in humid
caves or mines that remain at relatively constant temperatures 0-5°C throughout the
winter.
The availability of roosting sites in the study area is a limiting factor to the presence of
bats, for reproduction and feeding. It is well known that bats favor areas other than
caves, such as trees (hollows, under bark, in thick foliage), rock crevices, animal
burrows, buildings and holes under rocks. In the study area, the latter are more likely
because no caves or mines have been identified on site. As discussed above, permanent
residence of bats on the study site is limiting to hibernacula, of which are likely not
occurring, the roost sites (mentioned above) are the most possible. In British Columbia
species spend summer days in habitat such as tree cavities, thick foliage of trees and
shrubs. Females primarily prefer hollows and buildings for maternity congregations.
Locations of day and night roosts can vary for both the males and females. Bats, as a
family, show a strong relationship to roosting and hibernating sites, thus, using them year
after year.
3-49
Presented below is a list of red and blue listed bat species that have been identified by the
CDC to occur within the Penticton Forest District. Accounts for each species, and the
possibility of it occurring within the study area are discussed.
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) - Red Listed
This species has been designated vulnerable status by COSEWIC in BC only. It was
designated rare in 1998, transferred to the vulnerable category when the former was
replaced in 1990. This species is found primarily in the arid desert habitats, often
near rocky outcrops and water. In BC, it is restricted to lower elevations (300-490
metres), in grassland areas and ponderosa pine forests near cliff faces. From studies
performed in the United States, information shows that horizontal rock crevices with
hot, constant temperature (30°C) are preferred summer day roosts, although it has
been found roosting in tree cavities, buildings, caves, mine adits and crevices in cliffs.
In BC this species seems to hunt mainly over tracts of open grassland sparsely
covered with big sagebrush, rabbitbrush and bitter-brush.
The presence of the Pallid bat on site or adjacent to it is unlikely because of
unfavorable habitat associated.
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) - Blue Listed
This species occupies elevations from sea level to approximately 1,070 m asl in BC,
although most occurrences have been in lower elevations.
In British Columbia this species has been found to occupy places like houses on
Vancouver Island, on Thetis Island, and in old mine caves of the Okanagan Valley to
the Williams Lake region. In the interior of BC, bat hibernacula are found primarily
in dry, open exposed locations near mine entrances where the temperature is 5-8°C.
During a February 1990 survey in the Okanagan, this species was found to occupy
caves along the north shore of Kamloops Lake. It is relatively sedentary and rarely
ranges far from the hibernating location. If so, it moves only 10-65 km between the
summer roost and winter hibernaculum.
Since this bat prefers to roost and hibernate primarily in caves it is not expected to
occur on the study site due to the lack of suitable habitat (Nagorsen 1993).
Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) - Blue Listed
designated rare in 1988, transferred to the vulnerable category when the former was
replaced in 1990. It is associated primarily with desert terrain, typically, roosts with
rocky crevices in steep cliff faces. The most important sites in British Columbia are
located in cliffs, such as McIntyre Bluff, Gallagher Bluff, Spotted Bluff, the westside
3-50
of Vaseux Lake and Vaseux Canyon. It prefers to hunt over ponderosa pine forests,
hay fields and marshes adjacent to lakes.
The presence of this bat on the study site is unlikely due to the insufficient habitat.
Western Small-Footed Myotis (Myotis giliolabrum) - Blue Listed
This bat has been found in the dry interior of BC. Initially though to be restricted to
the Similkameen/Okanagan area, it has recently been discovered in other interior
areas of BC. In the province, this bat occurs in the dry interior valleys as far north as
the Chilcotin River and Williams Lake Region. It lives near cliffs and rock out-crops
in arid valleys and badlands. In the summer it roosts in cavities in cliffs, boulders,
vertical banks, the ground and talus slopes, and under rocks. It prefers small
protected crevices where the environment is dry and hot (27-33°C). Small caves,
abandoned mine adits and buildings serve as night roosts.
The presence of this bat on the study site is unlikely due to the insufficient habitat
structure.
Northern Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) - Red Listed
This species has been red listed because it is one of the rarest bats in the province.
There are only three substantiated records for the province; Hudsons Hope in the
Peace River area, Mount Revelstoke National Park and the Revelstoke Dam. It may
occur in Galcier and Kootenay National Parks.
This bat is associated with boreal forests and is not expected to occur within the
project site due to the lack of habitat.
*Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) - Blue Listed
designated rare in 1978; confirmed rare in 1988 transferred to the vulnerable category
when the former was replaced in 1990.
This bat tends to inhabit desert, arid grasslands and arid forests of the Okanagan in
BC. The BC population is associated with ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forests;
elevational range in the province is from 300-800 metres. It is a colonial bat that
tends to cluster in groups. In parts of its range, roosts have been identified to consist
of caves, mines, rock crevices and buildings. In the Okanagan, this bat favors
wetland riparian areas. There have been no winter records of this bat in the province.
More study is needed to identify if these species occur. Likely areas in the study site
would be along the edges of Jack Creek, in the wetland area at the base of the ski hill.
Should there be positive identification made the following general mitigation and
3-51
management for this, and any other identified Red/Blue listed bats in the project study
site should include the following:
1) Protect known hibernacula, maternity colonies and roosting sites, and
adjacent foraging areas and movement corridors;
2) Establish a WHA around hibernacula, maternity colonies and roosting
sites. The WHA should include a 100-m radius core area and a 200-m
buffer. It also includes a minimum 20-m on either side of any stream,
wetland or lake within 500 m of the occurrence. This riparian area should
be treated as a core area;
3) Maintain microclimate conditions of the colony site;
4) Minimize disturbance to colonies;
5) Maintain forage opportunities and night roosting habitat near colonies;
6) No road construction should be carried out within the core area unless the
District Manager and regional fish and wildlife manager are satisifed there
is no other practicable option and the variance is approved by the District
Manager and regional fish and wildlife manager;
7) Do not harvest or salvage in core area;
8) Harvesting within the buffer is subject to timing constraints. For maternity
colonies, harvesting should not be carried out from June to July. Around
hibernacula, harvesting beyond the core area may need to be limited
during select winter months. Consult MELP for specific timing
information;
9) Use partial harvesting systems in the buffer that maintain 80% basal area
unless variance is approved by the District Manager and Regional Fish
and Wildlife Manager;
10) Retain a selection of stand structural elements, such as large green trees,
snags, logs on the forest floor, and canopy gaps. Older green trees should
have structural characteristics such as cracks and crevices in thick bark,
bark pulling away from the trunk forming crevices, and holes in the bole
where limbs have been shed. Snags should have cracks, peeling bark, bird
holes and hollow interiors;
11) Avoid the use of pesticides. Spot treatments with herbicides may be used
in exceptional circumstances (e.g., noxious weeds) where it can be
demonstrated that the herbicide will not be harmful to the species or
habitat being managed; and
12) Treed linkage corridors should be maintained to ensure connectivity
between roosting habitat and riparian foraging habitat, because most bat
species take advantage of forest edges as movement corridors. These
linkage requirements should be considered and accommodated within any
forest ecosystem networks that are established through a landscape unit
plan.
3-52
Other Mammals
Badger (Taxidea taxus) - Red Listed
Due to the requirements of larger grassland areas needs to sustain this species, it is
doubtful that it will occur in or around the project area. The badger is more likely
located in the south aspect Douglas fir and ponderosa pine habitats of the IDF rather
than the study site’s IDF and MS zones. It is not likely to occur in the study site.
Wolverine, Luscus (Gulo gulo luscus) Blue Listed
This species has been designated vulnerable status by COSEWIC in BC. Considered
one population in Canada and designated rare in 1982. The western population was
confirmed as rare in 1989, transferred to the vulnerable category when the former was
replaced in1990. Due to unfavorable habitat characteristics and the fact that this
species is timid of urban presence, this species is not considered to be on the study
site.
*Fisher (Martes pennanti) Blue Listed
The fisher is blue-listed because populations are believed to have declined recently
over much of their range (Appendix Figure 4). Preferred habitat resembles that found
in SBS, SWB and BWBS biogeoclimatic zones. The potential of this species
occurring on the project study site is possible but currently unknown. It also favors
the BGC zones BWBS, CWH, ESSF, ICH, IDF (study site), MH, MS (study site),
SBPS, SBS, SWB. Populations are particularly susceptible to over-harvest by
trapping, and are sensitive to habitat change through forest harvest, regeneration and
stand tending. No provincial population estimate exists for the fisher, but it is legally
harvested for its pelt in some areas of the province.
Fishers inhabit forested habitats, particularly those with mixed habitat and structural
classes, edges and riparian areas. Fisher occurs in extensive mid-successional to
mature forests in the west, but in western North America they are more associated
with late successional forests.
Aspects of forest structure (see "Habitat
requirements") are likely more important determinants of distribution and habitat use
than are forest types.
In the study site the fisher is more likely to be associated with riparian and dense
wetland forest types like the Powers and Jack Creek areas. It generally stays in or
near forests with canopy closure of at least 30%. Resting and maternal denning sites
are located in these habitats in large, mature and declining trees. Winter resting sites
are associated with large coarse woody debris (CWD) and large spruce with spruce
broom rust. Maternal den sites in B.C. are almost entirely found in large declining
cottonwood, although they will likely use other tree species. Availability of suitable
maternal and resting den sites may be limiting factors for the population.
3-53
The fisher is a generalist predator. Prey includes porcupine, snowshoe hare, squirrels,
mice, voles, shrews, birds and carrion. In central B.C. (dry SBS), 55% of their diet is
comprised of snowshoe hare, squirrels and mice. Most foraging in winter occurs
above the snow layer, and as such snow conditions likely influence foraging and
distribution patterns. Summer foraging is strongly associated with CWD. Primary
prey species are associated with abundant CWD and understorey shrub cover.
The reported home range of fisher ranges from 4-32 km2 for females (mean 15 km2)
and 19-79 km2 for males (mean 40 km2). Because of their relatively large home
range, 600 km2 has been suggested as a minimum area necessary to manage for viable
populations.
Fisher forage within many structural stages. Structural stages 1a (non-vegetated), 1b
(sparse), 2 (herb), 3a (low shrub), and 3b (tall shrub) are not utilized during winter.
They may be used in other seasons providing sufficient forage and security cover is
present. Most habitat use is associated with structural stages 6 (mature forest) and 7
(old forest) where structural characteristics of older forests are most developed.
Resting and maternal denning habitat is typically associated with structural stages 6
and 7, and key features are availability of CWD, large wildlife trees and canopy cover
in winter. Fisher will forage in a wider range of structural stages (particularly in
summer) and habitat use may be influenced by population cycles of major prey
species.
Riparian and riparian-associated habitats, particularly those with large spruce trees
(minimum 25 cm dbh; recommended 40 cm dbh) potentially along Powers and Jack
Creeks with broom rust, and large (75 cm dbh) cottonwood or fir trees, are used as
resting and maternal denning sites are favored areas by the fisher. Coarse woody
debris (decay class 2-6, Biodiversity Guidelines Guidebook) is important for resting
sites and as habitat for prey species. A continued supply of decay class 2 logs are
required to provide denning sites. In the SBS zone maternal den sites are
predominantly in large cottonwoods in cavities created by broken branches.
Riparian-riparian and riparian-upland connectivity is also important. The fisher uses
habitats with generally greater than 30% canopy cover and a productive understorey
that supports a variety of small and medium-sized prey species.
For mitigation of positively identified fisher species on site the following
recommendations should be followed:
1) Maintain stand structure and mature and old forest connectivity,
particularly along riparian systems;
2) Areas managed for fisher should contain 30-45% mature and old forest,
depending on the diversity of habitat available and prey abundance, and be
suitable for fishers. Suitable habitat is characterized by shrub cover,
coniferous canopy cover, sub-hygric or wetter moisture regime, patches of
large, declining trees (particularly black cottonwood), and greater than
average amounts of coarse woody debris for the zone (>200 m3/ha);
3-54
3) Landscape connectivity should be maintained through the use of corridors
of mature and old seral forests. Ideally, connectivity should be centred on
stream systems and can be achieved by maintaining riparian buffers of 100
m on each side of a stream;
4) Distribution of cutblock sizes should focus on the small and large sizes of
the patch size recommendations described in the Guide to Landscape Unit
Planning. Fishers will use small cutblocks but also require larger habitat
areas. Over the long term, larger cutblocks will develop into these larger
habitat areas;
5) To provide denning and resting habitat within the harvested landbase,
wildlife tree patch requirements should exceed Forest Practices Code
requirements in that wildlife tree patches should be 2 ha or greater. Large
diameter spruce (>40 cm dbh), cottonwood (>75 cm dbh) or fir in decay
classes 2 and 3 are preferred;
6) Select trees with cavities, broom rust or witches broom;
7) Maintain natural levels, decay and size characteristics and dispersion of
coarse woody debris; and
8) Maintain windfirm mature cover within riparian management zones (i.e.,
at least 30% canopy closure).
*California Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) Blue Listed
The California bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis californiana, and Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep, O. c. canadensis are blue listed because their winter ranges are
threatened by past overgrazing, competition with domestic stock and other ungulates,
land alienation and human encroachment (Appendix Figure 5). They are also
threatened by disease, particularly those transmitted by domestic sheep. Bighorn are
most commonly found in the BGC zones AT, ESSF, MS (study site, northern face),
IDF (southern face of study site), PP, BG. It currently unknown if this species uses
the MSdm2 or the IDFdk2 habitat along with other ungulates for foraging or other in
the area. More study is needed. This may be a species present during the winter on
the study lands.
Wild sheep are predominately grazers, relying on grassland habitats. Grasses, sedges
and forbs comprise the majority of bighorn food but up to 25% of the diet may be
shrubs such as sage, saskatoon, bearberry, juniper and willow. Breeding occurs in
November and usually takes place on high, grassy slopes of the winter range. Ewes
give birth to lambs from April-May on rough, rocky escape terrain adjoining the
winter range grasslands. Some bighorns are migratory. Ewes and lambs remain on
the winter range until late spring and early summer, when the lambs are strong
enough to move with the ewes to higher, summer ranges; adult rams usually leave the
winter ranges before the ewes and younger sheep. Bighorns are gregarious: ewes,
lambs, yearlings and two-year-old rams stay together for much of the year in groups
which may reach 100 animals; rams of about three years and older form loose
3-55
aggregations and, except for the rut, remain apart from the females and younger
animals. Bighorns are not territorial. Home ranges vary with the distance between
summer and winter ranges, which may be as much as 60 km apart.
California bighorn sheep are scattered in small herds on the mountains and grasslands
of the Ashnola River system, the east side of the South Okanagan Valley in the
vicinity of Vaseux Creek, Shorts Creek west of Okanagan Lake, the Fraser River
basin from Lillooet north to Williams Lake, the upper Taseko and Chilko Rivers and
an isolated herd on Far Mountain, north of Anaheim Lake. Two herds have been
established near Kamloops Lake and Grand Forks following transplants.
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are found primarily in the southern Rocky Mountains
and Rocky Mountain Trench east of the Columbia River, from the 49th parallel north
to the Blaeberry River. Smaller herds are located between the Blaeberry and upper
Wapiti Rivers. Transplants have created bands near Salmo, Castlegar, Squilax,
Spences Bridge and Adams Lake.
Many California bighorn herds do not have available alpine habitat and remain in one
general location year-round. Some herds in the Ashnola River system spend their
summers in sub-alpine forested areas or open forests below the subalpine, while
others move into typical bighorn sheep alpine habitat each summer. Suitable forested
areas, such as dense thickets of brush and young conifers or dense stands of spruce,
pine or fir frequently provide escape habitat for summering California bighorns.
Most Rocky Mountain bighorn herds forage on alpine and subalpine meadows, grassy
mountain slopes, high ridges and in high cirques and basins with readily available
steep and rugged rock bluffs, cliffs and ledges for escape; this summer habitat is often
between 2,000 and 2,500-m asl. Although this habitat is not present in the study area
there may be occasions of their presence. Between summer and winter ranges are
linkage corridors for bighorn sheep moving between their primary seasonal ranges;
transitional ranges usually include open forested habitat.
The limiting habitat for bighorn sheep is winter range. There are two types - normal
winter range and severe winter range. In the occasional severe winter, the priority for
sheep is relief from the energy drain of pushing through snow. Large canopied trees
may provide this relief. In normal winters, the priority for sheep is access to food in
areas that provide predator escape terrain. Most herds winter on low-elevation, southand west-facing slopes where relatively warm temperatures and a lack of persistent
snow permit sheep to locate food. These are often below 600 m asl but range to 1800
m asl. Some herds winter on high, wind-swept ridges that are both influenced by
periodic temperature inversions and regularly cleared of snow by strong winds.
South- and west-facing grasslands within ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests
provide the majority of winter habitat; however, timbered, rocky bluffs and openings
with early seral stages following wild fires or logging are also used by foraging
sheep. Escape terrain is critical on winter ranges and is usually provided by steep
rock bluffs and canyons with narrow ledges, rugged rocky slopes, talus slopes, and
3-56
dense timber patches bordering the winter foraging sites. The two types of winter
range should be close to one another. Without access to severe winter range the
consequence may be substantial die-offs.
Stages 4 to 9 (pole/sapling to old forest) are used as cover, both escape and thermal,
and as a canopy to reduce the effect of deep or ice crusted snowfalls.
Low-elevation bunchgrass ranges on south- and west-facing slopes, adjacent to
suitable escape terrain and water, provide winter habitat for all age classes and spring
lambing areas. A mixture of conifers of varying age classes, either in clumps within
the grasslands, or bordering the grasslands, provide some cover, but adjacent rock
bluffs, ledges, canyons and steep slopes are critical. Visibility is an important factor
for wild sheep: they select ranges where their outlook is unrestricted by standing
timber, high shrubs, brush or other obstructions.
If confirmed on the site mitigation for the California Bighorn Sheep should include
the following:
•
Maintain sensitive ranges other than winter range;
•
WHAs should be established on some critical identified ranges such as
lambing areas, transitional ranges and certain alpine forage and escape habitat.
WHAs will generally be 50 ha or smaller;
•
Maintain WHA in a natural state;
•
Minimize access to prevent human disturbance and to avoid invasions of nonindigenous plants into grassland communities;
•
If present avoid disturbance to lambing area;
•
Do not construct roads unless the district manager and regional fish and
wildlife manager are satisifed there is no other practicable option and the
variance is approved by the District Manager and regional fish and wildlife
manager. Deactivate new non-permanent roads after use;
•
Limit road use within lambing WHAs during the lambing season unless a
variance is approved by the District Manager and regional fish and wildlife
manager;
•
Maintain grassland seral stage distribution as specified by regional wildlife
and range staff;
•
Do not use helicopters in the WHA to remove timber during critical times.
Consult MELP for appropriate times; and
•
Avoid use of domestic sheep for vegetation management purposes to
minimize epizootics, predators and competition for forage.
3-57
Great Basin Pocket Mouse (Perognathus parvus ) - Blue Listed
Habitat within the project site is not suitable for breeding or foraging by great basin
pocket mice. Pocket mice prefer to breed in grassland habitats and forage on
agricultural lands. It is not expected to occur in the project site.
Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) - Blue Listed
Western harvest mouse has been designated as vulnerable by COSEWIC in BC.
Habitat is not suitable for breeding or foraging for this species. Prefers to breed in
grassland habitats and forage on agricultural lands. Not expected to occur in the
project site.
Nuttall's Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii) - Blue Listed
Habitat is not suitable for breeding or foraging for this species. Prefers to breed in
grassland habitats with brush grasses and forage on agricultural lands. Not expected
to occur in the project site.
Other animals, which may occur on the project site, are presented below. Information
was collected from general forest cover mapping, the LRMP information based on
BGC zone data and literature about the area. Several of the mammals discussed in
this section form an important part of the prey base for carnivorous furbearers and
raptorial birds.
*American Marten
Marten has been recorded, and is considered a significant furbearer in the study site
by LRMP mapping (Appendix Figure 6). Its habitat has been designated as
“moderate and low priority” in the study area, primarily associated with the south
facing slope of IDFdk2, (moderate), and the IDFxh1 along the east slope of Powers
Creek.
Marten are generally associated with late-successional stands of mesic conifers,
especially those with complex physical structure near the ground (Buskirk and
Ruggiero, 1994). They may use younger forests and even open areas in the snow free
seasons if good cover is provided nearby. The complex physical structure near the
ground provides escape space/refuge sites; access to subnivean space where most
prey are captured in winter; and protective thermal environments, especially in winter
(Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). They require well insulated resting dens when not
active. Dens are almost always subnivean and typically associated with coarse
woody debris such as squirrel middens, stumps, snags, and the root masses of large
trees (Lofroth and Steventon, 1990).
Marten diet varies by season. In summer, their diet includes bird’s eggs and
nestlings, insects, fish, fruit and young mammals. In winter, voles, mice, hares and
3-58
squirrels dominate (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). Marten hunt mostly on the ground,
though they are good climbers and may chase squirrels or reach bird nests by
climbing. Hunting is often done beneath the snow and fallen logs or rocks are used to
access the subnivean spaces (Stevens and Lofts, 1988). Food is a significant factor
limiting marten presence and distribution, especially in winter. Fluctuations in small
mammal densities in Montana were believed to directly affect the carrying capacity
for marten (Weckwerth and Hawley, 1962). However, large quantities of snow in
winter with limited access routes to get at prey below deep snow may be more
restrictive on marten winter densities than the actual density of prey present (Clark
and Campbell, 1976). Thompson and Harested (1994) suggest that although marten
have been reported to show some diet preferences, it is unlikely that the presence of
individual prey species influences habitat selection.
Resting sites are very important to marten and include fallen trees, dense vegetation,
natural cavities between rocks or stumps and in trees. The resting sites provide
thermal shelter during inclement weather to reduce energy expenditure. Resting sites
are often located near recent kills (Stevens and Lofts, 1988). In Wyoming, Clark and
Campbell (1976) report that marten frequently select large (35 to 152.2 cm dbh),
rotten Engelman spruce or sub-alpine fir snags as refuge sites.
Marten prefer coniferous stands with a closed canopy. Recorded canopy closure
preferences vary widely; from as low as 20% to as high as 100%. Koehler and
Hornocker (1977) report that habitat with less than 30% cover is utilised but
movement about these areas may be restricted to edges. In Colorado, marten have
been recorded searching for prey 0.8 to 3.2 km from forest cover from May to
November (Streeter and Braun, 1968). In these cases, they were most commonly
found in boulder fields looking for prey such as pikas (Ochotona princeps). Lefroth
(1994) suggests that differences in canopy closure preferences must be interpreted in
the context of the range of canopy closures that are available in the area.
There is little documentation on the requirements of natal den sites however logs,
trees, rocks and snags account for the greatest number of reported dens (Buskirk and
Ruggiero, 1994). The availability of natal sites may be related to structural
complexity, often associated with old-growth forests.
Males generally have larger territories than females. A male’s territory ranges from
0.9 km2 to 17.9 km2 and may overlap those of several females. A female home range
may be from 0.5 km2 to 8.5 km2 (Stordeur, 1985). Home range size depends upon
prey and habitat.
Marten home range does not shift among seasons although they do specialise in the
higher quality portion of their range during winter (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994).
Winter is considered the most critical season for marten when habitat requirements
are most restrictive (Allen, 1982; Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994; Lefroth and
Steventon, 1990).
3-59
Little is known about landscape-scale marten habitat use. Attributes such as stand
size, stand shape, area of interior, amount of edge, use of corridors and connectivity
may be important in marten habitat selection but are almost completely unknown
(Buskirk, 1992). Reports of minimum habitat size have been estimated in the
western.
US to be approximately 2.59 km² for males. Based on this information, it is assumed
that at least 2.59 km² of suitable habitat must be available before an area will be
occupied by this species (Allen, 1982).
Marten are adversely affected by logging and by forest fires, both of which may
remove overhead cover and coarse woody debris (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994;
Strickland and Douglas, 1987; Thompson and Harestad, 1994).
Security habitat (which provides cover) is required in all seasons, however, winter
cover is considered the single most important factor determining habitat selection for
marten (Allen, 1982; Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). If adequate winter cover is
available, habitat requirements during other seasons may also be satisfied. For
example, an area that provides suitable winter cover will also provide suitable
summer cover, and suitable habitat for feeding, denning etc.. Habitat characteristics
that relate to the provision of cover are therefore emphasised. Good security habitat
is characterised by a coniferous canopy with canopy closure greater than 30% and
high coarse woody debris.
In winter, food availability is closely linked to security—those areas that provide
good security provide access to subnivean spaces where prey are captured. Thus,
habitat that provides security provides adequate feeding. During the growing season,
marten may also use areas for feeding that are not suitable for winter cover.
Dens have been found in logs, trees, rocks and snags. We assume that natal den sites
are provided in habitat with good security.
Habitat that provides living contains both security and food. These requisites are
often provided in the same habitat, however, marten will feed in areas with suboptimal security if there is adequate security nearby in summer. In winter, marten
habitat can only be as good as the security it provides.
The following are general guidelines to be considered for Marten habitat protection
during the construction phase following discussions with local trappers:
•
Minimize disturbance associated with roads and ski right of way corridors;
•
Maintain a network of connected mature/old seral marten habitat to provide
cover/habitat requirements and facilitate the movement of marten across the
landscape;
3-60
•
Retain all veteran Douglas-fir, and aspen and cottonwood patches and distribute
CWD evenly;
•
Meet requirements for old growth forest seral stage retention as outlined in the
Okanagan - Shuswap LRMP;
•
Reduce intensity of cut in areas for lift development allowing for single tree
selection, group selection, patch cut and 60% of old trees will be retained where
necessary;
•
Identify and manage suitable riparian corridors within defined Riparian
Management Areas. Retention and maintenance of minimum stand height of 10
metres and a crown closure of 30% will be attempted;
•
Identification and management of suitable corridors within mature forests within
Riparian Management Areas with closed crown restrictions of 30-70% will be
implemented;
•
Plan at best for stand level connectivity by following the “best management
practices (BMP) described in FPC Riparian Management Area Guidebook for S4S6 streams. Where this cannot be attained due to windthrow concerns, retain all
dead trees that do not pose a risk to worker and public safety, harvest only
windthrow prone trees and retain non merchantable and understorey conifer and
deciduous trees within 10 metres of the channels to the fullest extent as much as
possible;
•
Where more than one S4 and S6 stream passes through a proposed ski right of
way and the BMP cannot be achieved we willincrease the retention level on one
stream. This will provide increased opportunities for marten movement during
early seral conditions;
•
For identified S4 streams riparian management will follow necessary LRMP
guideline options;
•
Ski right of ways will be cut to retain the linear plan for corridor connectivity; and
•
CWD collected from cut areas will be distributed evenly along existing corridor
systems.
*Black Bear
Sources of black bear information are currently unknown other than the existing
information collected from mapping and discussions with Ministry personnel. Black
bears are thought to occur throughout the study site and adjacent to the town of
Westbank and Glenrosa.
Black bears demonstrate a high degree of plasticity in diet. While categorized are
omnivores, vegetation usually forms the bulk of the diet. They tend to seek food
items high in protein or sugars (Jonkel, in Schmidt and Gilbert 1978). Grasses
sedges, and other green vegetation is sought out in the early spring, along with carrion
in the form of winter-killed ungulates. Cambium feeding on conifers takes place
3-61
primarily in spring and early summer (Poelker and Hartwell 1973). Succulent
perrenial forbs become important in late spring, with berries dominating the summer
and fall diet. Insects and other locally abundant food items are consumed
opportunistically. Black bears require forest cover for resting and travel. Riparian
areas frequently serve as travel corridors. Trees provide an important means of
escape from larger black bears and grizzlies (where both species occur). Black bear
denning sites found among radio-collared bears in the vicinity of Golden include
brush piles, blowdowns, hollow cottonwood/cedar trees, and excavations under the
roots of trees (Woods et al. 1997).
Green herbaceous material which dominate the spring-early summer diet is fairly
widely available around wetlands, along streams and seepage sites, and in disturbed
areas such as roads and ski slopes. Berries, which predominate in the summer diet,
are expected to be widespread and relatively abundant in aspen forest (soopolallie,
high-bush cranberry, service berry), openings in the subalpine forest (black
huckleberry) and disturbed sites (red raspberry, mountain ash, red elderberry).
Woodland Caribou, Southern (Rangifer tarandus) - Blue Listed
Woodland caribou have been designated as vulnerable by the COSEWIC in BC and is
not found in the project study site as defined by the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP
(Appendix Figure 7). The closest population is located to the north of the study site
along the northern border of the Okanagan - Shuswap region.
*Moose
Ungulate information has been obtained from the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP and
identifies moose as a significant species occupying the north face (BGC zone MS) of
the study site. It has been identified in the LRMP as primarily winter habitat along
the riparian corridors of Powers and Jack Creeks (Appendix Figure 8).
Although predominantly a forest-dweller, moose frequent a variety of non-forested
habitats along river/stream floodplains. As browsers, moose tend to concentrate in
shrub-dominated areas, particularly in winter. Shrubs and forbs are among common
winter forage. Forbs and aquatic plants may form a significant proportion of the
summer diet (Peek 1975). Wetlands may receive heavy use in summer as a source of
forage plants and to avoid heat stress (Stelfox 1993). Along with regenerating burns,
wetlands often provide winter forage around their margins.
Moose travel easily through deep snow, but expend more energy when snow depths
exceed 70 cm (Paquet 1997).
The presence of Moose in the area has been defined from Ministry mapping and the
area of winter habitat most favored by this ungulate is located along the west and
north face of the mountain. A full directional aspect makes up the project area, and
3-62
the west and southwest slopes are the most favored habitat. The riparian corridors of
Jack, and Powers Creeks are likely favored habitat corridors and browse areas.
Moose are generalist herbivores that feed on herbaceous plants, leaves and new
growth of shrubs and trees in summer and twigs of woody vegetation during winter
(Jackson et al., 1991). They occupy a range of habitat types within forested
communities, favouring immature forest shrubland for food and dense, woody forest
areas for cover (Nietfeld et al., 1985).
In winter, the most commonly consumed food is willow. Twigs of aspen,
serviceberry, maple, birch, and red osier dogwood are also eaten in great quantities.
Leaves and twigs of falsebox are a second favoured winter food, but this small shrub
is usually buried deep under the snow. Conifers such as spruce and lodgepole pine
will not sustain moose, although some types of fir and yew are eaten readily (Allen et.
al., 1987; Cushwa et.al., 1976; Edwards, 1985; LeResche et. al., 1974; Peterson,
1955; Pierce, 1984; Ritchie, 1978 and Spencer et. al., 1964). Bark may be stripped
off larger trees, especially in late winter and early spring when food is in short supply
(Nietfeld et al., 1985).
Depth, density and hardness of snow is an important factor limiting suitability and
availability of certain habitat for moose in the critical winter months (Franzmann,
1978). Nietfeld et al. (1985) reports that moose in Alberta tend to avoid areas with
greater than 65-75 cm of snow. Eastman (1977) found that moose move into forested
habitats in mid-winter when snow depths approached 80cm. Collins and Helm
(1997) found that lower shrubs became unavailable when snow depths exceeded 110
cm. Some moose may remain at higher elevations in late winter where thermal cover
is reduced and wind action or temperature inversions reduce snow depth.
Floodplains are the mainstay habitat for moose during severe winters, particularly in
areas where lack of recent disturbance in upland forests has led to a decline in browse
availability (Simkin, 1975; Bishop and Rausch, 1975). Moose are attracted to
uplands disturbed by recent fires, homestead or subdivision clearing and right-of-way
construction (Collins and Helm, 1997).
During summer, moose diet includes many aquatics, forbs, grasses, and the foliage of
many of the trees eaten in winter (Banfield, 1974). Moose are attracted to weedy
lakes, marshes and sluggish streams where they can feed on aquatic vegetation
(Nietfeld et al., 1985). In aquatic feeding, they may feed on sedges or horsetails in
shallow water or on burreeds that float on the surface and may dive deeply for
pondweeds or water lilies (MELP, undated).
Disturbances, such as fire and clearcutting, return forests to earlier successional
stages that usually provide abundant browse. Burn areas generally provide the most
suitable moose browse after 10-15 years, the length of time varying with the time of
year of the burn and its intensity. LeResche and Davis (1974) estimated that the
beneficial effects of fire on moose habitat lasts than 50 years with moose density
3-63
peaking 20 to 25 years following a fire. Wolf and Zasada (1979) reported that aspen
provided the most browse for moose 1 to 5 years after fire, while birch and willow
provided the most 10 to 16 years after fire. MacCracken and Vierek (1990) report
that following a spring fire moose browse was abundant within two months.
Discontinuous forest mosaic created by fire or timber harvest enhance “edge effect”
increasing diversity of plant species favoured by moose and staggers plant maturation
rate of various seral stages.
Dense, mature, coniferous forest is utilised as shelter from severe winter conditions,
hot summer temperatures, as escape from harassment by insects and concealment
from predators. Moose escape the summer heat by spending much of their time in the
water, in cool timbered areas, or by retreating to high mountainous areas, especially
importanant in the Okanagan (pers. comm. R. Lincoln, MELP). Moose do not thrive
in hot dry regions (MELP, undated). During summer, moose select tree muskegs and
immature aspen stands greater than 10-m in height.
Boreal white spruce forests, white spruce-subalpine fir forests, wet interior white
spruce forests, deciduous riparian forest, boreal spruce-trembling aspen mixed forests,
trembling aspen forests, and birch-willow scrub parkland are important forest types.
Other forested habitats such as Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forests and Douglas
fir-lodgepole pine forests are also used but mostly for cover. The mature forested
habitats, wetland habitats, avalanche shrubland, and alpine/subalpine meadows with
gentle terrain are important in the summer for food and general living (Stevens and
Lofts, 1988). Eastman (1977) found that moose in northcentral BC used partial
cutovers and burns more than coniferous forest; deciduous forests and clearcuts were
used least.
Moose generally make seasonal movements between winter and summer ranges,
coinciding with spring thaw and freeze-up but they retain the same home range year
after year (Nietfeld et al., 1985). In mountainous terrain, seasonal migrations are
limited to up and down the mountain slopes and wintering in the valleys. Moose
move into winter ranges before snow depths become limiting. Occasionally lone
bulls winter high up on old avalanche slides where there has been thick regeneration
of willows (Banfield, 1974).
Habitat sizes for the moose vary considerably with geographic location. On average,
moose annual home range in northern Alberta and southern Alaska are approximately
568 – 638 km2 (Novak et al., 1987). In British Columbia, average seasonal moose
ranges in summer are 218.9 ± 38 ha for males and 615.2 ±629.4 ha for females and in
winter, 576.5 ± 365.8 ha for males and 596.2 ± 450.9 ha for females (Schwab, 1985,
as cited in Stevens and Lofts, 1998).
Immature forest shrubland provides optimal food in winter. These areas, plus aquatic
and wetland habitats provide optimal food in summer. Burn and clearcut areas
generally provide high quality browse after 10-15 years. Young burned (70-year-old)
3-64
aspen-white spruce-black spruce stands produce 10 times more forage than older
stands (130 to 180 years old) (MacCracken and Viereck, 1990).
Security and thermal protection is provided by forest cover. In winter, dense, mature
coniferous forest provides shelter from low temperatures and wind. Mature stands
provide both thermal benefits and good snow interception because of their multilayered structure and the deep, spreading crowns of the older trees. In summer,
moose often use these thermal shelter areas to escape heat, although we assume that
thermal habitat requirements are most important in winter. Ideal winter thermal
habitat is composed of conifers taller than 6 m, with a canopy closure of 75 percent or
greater (Allen et. al. 1987, Timmerman and McNichol, 1988, Krefting, 1974).
Schwab and Pitt (1991) suggest that optimal canopy closure should be 70% in a
mature forest and to escape winter wind chill factors and high summer temperatures.
Security may also be provided by concealing topography, such as that provided in
gullied, ridged and hummocky terrain.
Deep snow restricts movement and the availability of food however, snow is not
likely to be a limiting factor in the Study Area. Average maximum winter snowpacks
for areas directly adjacent to the north of the Study Area are less the 80 cm with south
aspects and windblown areas generally having less than 60 cm (Chilton, 1990).
Aerial surveys (MELP) in the Study Area have shown moose utilising habitats with
little or no nearby security in both summer and winter. Ideal moose habitat contains
an interspersion of food and security/thermal habitat. Food and security must be
within 200m of each other.
Rocky Mountain Elk
Elk tend to be associated with burn areas and forests in close proximity for cover
from predators. If present this ungulate may occur in the IDFdk2 and MSdm2
regions of the study site but because of its adaptive nature is not expected to be
impacted beyond current levels.
Rocky Mountain elk primarily occur in the Kootenays, the lower Peace River area
and the Muskwa-Prophet River drainages on the eastern slope of the Rocky
Mountains (Appendix Figure 9). Although Rocky Mountain elk were historically
abundant and widely distributed in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Thompson-Nicola
areas, elk declined for unknown reasons and today only small, widely scattered herds
remain in these areas.
Elk are habitat and diet generalists. They are good dispersers and rapidly exploit
newly created habitats (Geist, 1982 in Singer and Norland, 1994). Elk require areas
for food and cover, winter and summer and winter ranges (containing suitable food
and cover), rutting, calving, migration routes and mineral licks (Fish and Wildlife
Branch, 1981). Early successional stages and forest openings provide feeding habitat
3-65
while forest cover provides security and thermal protection. They are often
associated with the boundaries or ecotones between forest and non-forest ecosystems
as this provide great abundance and diversity of forage with close proximity to cover
(Skovlin, 1982).
Elk are often migratory, spending winters in low elevation ranges and summers in
higher elevation upland areas. The migration movements are primarily a function of
vegetation availability in relation to snow depth. In the growing season, elk are
grazers, preferring early successional stages, including grasslands, parkland,
avalanche tracts, clear-cuts, burns, roadsides and forest openings. Grasses and sedges
are eaten extensively and will be used year-round, if available. Broad-leaved
herbaceous plants are also used extensively (Nietfeld et al., 1985). Browse may be an
important part of the summer diet, depending on the availability of grasses and forbs.
(Fish and Wildlife Branch, 1981).
In winter, snow cover limits ground level forage and elk are forced to browse on
deciduous trees and shrubs. Preferred winter browse species include Saskatoon
(Amalanchier alnifolia), water birch (Betula occidentalis) and trembling aspen
(Betula tremuloides) (Nietfeld et al., 1985). Conifers, with the exception of spruce,
are also utilised. Snow-free areas associated with southerly aspects and periodic
chinook weather provide the greatest access to forage in winter and spring (Carr,
1972). In agricultural areas, cultivated crops may provide significant amounts of
forage in fall and winter.
Snow depth is the factor most limiting to elk distribution and movement. Elk
movements apparently begin to be restricted by snow depths in excess of 46 cm
(Beall, 1974). Snow depth limits forage availability in winter, and at depths > 61 cm,
browsing will replace grazing (Skovlin, 1982).
Seasonal use of aspect is determined largely by forage availability, thermal comfort
factors and cover type. Thermal forest cover on upper north-facing slopes provides
the coolest habitat during the summer and the most succulent, high quality forage into
autumn months (Skovlin, 1982; Nietfeld, et al., 1985). Skovlin (1982) states that
many investigators have reported that elk prefer southern to southwestern exposures
in winter and spring. South-facing aspects are seldom selected in summer. Sites that
are protected by topography or dense vegetation are often sought out during the
winter or early spring because these areas provide a refuge from strong winds,
crusting or drifting snow.
Forest cover provides both cover and thermal protection. McNamee et al. (1981)
characterised escape cover for elk as vegetation over 2 m with a stem density of
between 50 and 2000 stems/ha while Black et al. (1976) states that vegetation capable
of hiding 90% of an elk from a human at 61m as preferred. In winter, elk require
thermal protection from low temperatures and is provided best in conifer stands with
continuous closed canopies (Skovlin, 1982). Closely stocked stands of coniferous
forest, 12 m or greater with high stem densities and an average canopy closure
3-66
exceeding 70%, are used in winters characterised by very deep snow cover (Black et
al. 1979; Skovlin, 1982).
Good interspersion and juxtaposition of food and cover components is important and
is provided by irregular topography and parkland or forest/meadow vegetation cover
(Black et. al., 1979). Valley and riparian habitats are important as travel corridors
between high elevation summer range and low elevation winter range; stringer forest
stands also provide protected travel lanes during migration (Black et. al., 1979).
Elk use gradually increases with increasing slope, to a maximum of 30-40%. The
most frequently used slopes appear to be in the 15-30% class (Skovlin, 1982). A
threshold in slope use appears between about 40-50%, after which elk use tends to
diminish sharply (Nietfeld et al., 1985).
Rutting occurs in September through October and calves are generally born in late
May or June (Fish and Wildlife Branch, 1981). Calving sites usually occur on
transitional spring or fall ranges or even on upper elevation winter ranges. Site
selection is extremely variable: some cows will select a very secluded area with high
cover while others are much less selective (Skovlin, 1982).
Elk have a greater digestive capacity (larger rumen to body size ratio) than the
smaller North American ungulates (such as mule deer and bighorn sheep) suggesting
that elk may compete more successfully in poor range conditions (Collins and Urness,
1983 in Singer and Norland, 1994).
In winter, food availability in relation to snow is the most important factor limiting
elk distribution. Snow-free areas associated with southerly aspects and periodic
Chinook weather provide the greatest access to forage in the winter and spring.
Winter feeding habitats are primarily low elevation grassy or shrubby openings in
open stands of various timber types on warm south and west aspects. Low-elevation,
recent burns provide particularly good food.
In the growing season, optimal feeding habitats are early successional stages,
including grasslands, parkland, avalanche tracts, clear-cuts, burns, wetlands, riparian
habitats, roadsides and forest openings, primarily at higher elevations.
Security and thermal protection are both provided by forested habitats. Security may
be satisfied by vegetation over 2 m. This may occur in a variety of structural stages
but those with a dense understory are optimal. Security may also be provided by
concealing topography such as that provided in gullied, ridged and hummocky
terrain. Closed canopy coniferous stands provide thermal cover in winter. Dense
vegetation over 12m in height with a canopy closure of greater than 70% is assumed
to provide optimal thermal protection.
Habitat that provides living in the growing season and in the winter are those areas
containing food and security/thermal in close proximity. Black et al. (1979) reports
3-67
that most elk occur within 183-m of cover. Areas that provide living habitat yearround have suitable summer and winter ranges.
*White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) - Not at Risk
White-tailed deer are “mixed” feeders (i.e. browse and herbage) associated mainly
with valley bottom and lower slope habitats of the study site. Their flexible feeding
habits also allow them to exploit higher elevation areas however, they are generally
transient throughout BGC zones like the ESSF and similar MS habitats (Cowan and
Guiguet 1965: Pojar 1987). Since snow depths greater than 30 cm increase energy
expenditures for travel, whitetail use of higher elevations is largely restricted to the
summer months. Forbs provide nutritious forage in the spring when they are
succulent and green. Agricultural crops and pasture are readily used wherever they
occur. A variety of browse plants are consumed in the fall and winter, however,
conifer branch tips are preferred (Halls, in Schmidt and Gilbert 1982). Deer require
snow interception and thermal cover within their winter range.
Ungulate distribution maps indicate that white-tailed deer are abundant at lower
elevations in the vicinity of the study site (Appendix Figure 10). In general the
productivity of habitats below 1,370 m asl is significantly limited by snowfall for this
species. Higher elevation habitats are more severely limited by snowfall and slope
steepness (Canada Land Inventory 1968).
White-tailed deer are common in the project area in spring and fall and individuals
have been seen on several occasions, particularly in disturbed and early-seral habitats
at the base of the existing ski hill and adjacent riparian habitats. The main winter
range for white-tailed deer in assumed to be throughout the IDF series and in summer
and spring the MSdm2 zone mainly associated with west and southwest-facing slopes
are available and along riparian areas in close proximity to treed areas necessary for
shelter. Deer tracks have been observed in many areas of the study site in lower
elevations and they have been known to migrate through annually (pers. comm. B.
Lincoln and E. Maynard MELP).
*Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) - Not at Risk
Like their white-tailed counterparts, mule deer are adapted to a wide-range of forage
types. In fact, no significant differences are reported in the diet of the two species
where their distribution overlaps (Cowan and Guiguet 1965). Favoured browse
species include aspen, willow, red-osier dogwood, saskatoon and juniper. Numerous
forbs and graminoids are also eaten (op. cit. 1965). Mule deer have cover
requirements similar to whitetails however, the former can tolerate longer and more
severe winters. As a result, mule deer tend to make greater use of subalpine/alpine
zones (Wallmo 1981).
According to the LRMP mapping, mule deer occur at low densities along the riparian
edges of Jack and Powers Creeks. Mule deer habitat capability is essentially the same
3-68
as described for white-tailed deer. It is presumed that most resident mule deer would
migrate to winter ranges on warm aspect slopes of west and south facing slopes in the
area as well as along the riparian edges. Mule deer have been seen and documented
by residents within the area.
*Coyote
Coyote are likely found within the project site because of the opportunity for food
close to human civilization. This species is quite adaptive and is not expected to be
siginifcantly influenced by the proposed hill expansion beyond its current status
although, its impact may be felt on the residential community with respect to pet
population declines.
*Cougar
Cougar are also likely to be found within the project site because of available prey
such as white-tailed deer, deer and smaller rodents. Cougars are somewhat adaptive
and are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed development.
3.6.2
Wildlife Inventory
3.6.2.1 Snakes
During ENKON’s early July, 2000 herpetifaunal surveys a total of 8 snakes comprised of
two species (common and Western garter) were observed/captured (Table 3.7). No red or
blue listed snake species were encountered.
Table 3.7
Snakes Encountered During Spot and Road Surveys
No.
Species
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Common Garter Snake
Common Garter Snake
Common Garter Snake
Common Garter Snake
None
None
None
Common Garter Snake
None
None
None
Western Terr. Garter Snake
None
None
None
None
None
None
TOTALS
Spot
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Road
Transect
1
1
2
2
3
3
Duration of
Survey (min.)
35
25
30
20
25
25
35
40
35
60
40
245
210
75
77
188
41
75
1281
Date
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 5
July 5
July 5
July 6
July 4-6
July 3
July 4
July 6
July 6
July 6
July 6
3-69
3.6.2.2 Amphibians and Painted Turtles
During ENKON’s July 2000 herepetifauna surveys, 49 Spotted Frogs, 3 Western Toads,
and 8 Pacific Tree Frogs were observed or heard. Only six calls from Spotted Frogs
(Rana pretiosa) and four calls from Pacific Tree Frogs (Hyla regalis) were recorded
during the roadside call surveys (Table 3.8). Amphibians observed or heard during the
time constraint and systematic searches included two Western Toads (Bufo boreas), three
Pacific Tree Frogs (Hyla regilla; Photograph 5) and one Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa;
Photograph 6; Table 3.9). No Painted Turtles were identified during any of the surveys
and no red or blue listed species of amphibians were recorded.
Table 3.8
Amphibians Encountered During Roadside Call Surveys
July 2000.
Species
Number
Western Toad (Bufo boreas)
Pacific Tree Frogs (Hyla regilla)
Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa)
1
1
1
2
1
Location
Transect 1 Point Count 3
Table 3.9
Herpetifauna Encountered During Time Constraint
and Systematic Searches, July 2000
Species
No.
Method
Total Time
Loc.
Spotted Frog (Rana
pretiosa)
35
6
0
1
Gee trapping
Dip nets
Foot Searches
Foot Searches
96 hrs.
6 hrs.
3 hrs.
2 hrs.
Jack Creek Wetland
Jack Creek Wetland
Jack Creek
Wetlands 8-10 (Figure 2-2)
Pacific Tree Frog
(Hyla regalis)
1
Foot search
1.5 hrs.
Forest trail around Jack
Creek wetland
TOTALS
43
Western Toad
(Bufo boreas)
108.5 hrs.
3.6.2.3 Birds
A total of 41 bird species (passerines and raptors) were encountered during ENKON’s
early July 2000 bird surveys (Table 3.10). No Red or Blue Listed species were observed
or heard (Appendix D).
3-70
Table 3.10
Transect
Survey
No.
1
1N
2
2N
3
3N
TOTAL
Summary Table of Bird Surveys
Total Species
Encountered
Date
Times
07/05/00
07/03/00
07/06/00
07/05/00
07/07/00
07/06/00
4 days
0515-0636 hrs
0023-0401 hrs
0548-0701 hrs
2137-0045 hrs
0735-0816 hrs
2137-2252 hrs
24
2
31
2
27
0
41
No. of
Stations in
Transect
17
17
13
13
7
7
37
*Target Red/Blue
Species
Encountered
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N= Night survey “*” = Target bird species are presented in Table 1
Based on the results of the three diurnal transect point counts it appears that bird species
and species abundance on Crystal Mountain is primarily correlated with the structural
stages of the forest (Graphs 1-3). Clearcut areas of Transects 2 and 3 showed a high
correlation with bird diversity, both species composition and species number, while the
closed forest areas along the upper sections of Transect 1 and the mid sections of
Transects 2 and 3 resulted in both lower species diversity and number. Individual species
which occupied these areas were characteristic of “core”, large forest areas (i.e.
Townsend’s Warbler). No red, blue or yellow listed bird species identified in Table 3.5
were encountered throughout the survey times and none were either seen or heard during
the weeks’ surveys.
Based on the results of the three evening transect point counts it appears that the raptor
species encountered during the survey were primarily correlated with the structural stages
of deep forest and appeared to be heard from areas with riparian zones. A total of 10
individuals were encountered during the surveys and no red, blue or yellow listed raptor
species identified in Tables 3.11 and 3.12 were encountered throughout the survey times.
Additionally, none were either seen or heard during the weeks’ surveys.
Table 3.11
Nocturnal Raptors Encountered along Transect 1 on July 04, 2000
Species
Number
Location
Great-horned Owl
1
On study site in middle over ski area
Northern Saw-whet Owl
1
Off study site along Powers Crk.
Great-horned Owl
1
In valley of Powers Crk.
1
On summit of study site
1
Direction of Lamby Lk.
Total of individuals
5
3-71
Table 3.12
Nocturnal Raptors Encountered along Transect 2 on July 06, 2000
Species
Number
Location
Great-horned Owl
1
Behind at Stn 3
Great-horned Owl
2
Off end of valley
1
Off end of valley north of PC
Great-horned Owl
1
Off property to east
Total of Individuals
5
Graph 1. Transect 1 Species Richness and Diversity
S pecies Richness and Diversity at Each Point Count Along Transect 1
33
Species Richness
No. of Individuals
Number of Individuals
28
23
18
13
8
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Point Count
3-72
Species Richness and Diversity at each Point Count of Transect 2
30
No. of Individuals
25
Number
20
Diversity of Species
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Point Count
S pecies Richness and Diversity at Each Point Count Of Transect 3
30
Species Richness
Number of Species
Number of Individual
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Point C oint
3-73
3.6.2.4 Bats
During early July 2000 ENKON conducted a bat survey along the shore of Jack Creek
wetland. The results of the acoustical recording of foragings (AnaBat 5) yielded four
discernible species, including little brown, silver-haired, California and big brown bat
(Table 3.13). No red or blue listed bat species were identified during the survey.
Table 3.13. Results of the Bat Survey at Jack Creek Wetland
Species (common name)
Species (latin name)
Total
number
of calls
Status in the Penticton
Forest District
Little Brown Bat
Myotis lucifugus
31
No status
Silver-haired Bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
11
No status
California Myotis
Myotis californicus
1
No status
Big Brown Bat
Eptesicus fuscus
22
No status
Undeterminable
26
Not assessed due to background
noise/complexity of call
22
Not assessed due to errors in
recordings
10
TOTALS
4
123
In general, the results of this study indicate that heavy use by bats in the area adjacent to
Jack Creek wetland demonstrates the importance of the wetland and immediate area
surrounding it as a foraging site for bat species. The mature and old growth trees in the
vicinity of the wetland likely provide important roosting habitat.
3.6.2.5 Mule and White-tailed Deer
As part of the terms of reference agreed upon by MELP for the project review, ENKON
conducted a deer survey to identify mule and white-tailed deer presence/absence status in
the study. Deer encountered were enumerated, aged and sexed where possible. Based on
delineation of transect lines from the aerial surveys, habitat potential for deer (mule and
white-tailed) on the mountain was assessed using ground based inventory methodology
(RIC protocols). Primary focus was on the identification or migratory paths and game
trails as well as significant habitat for life requirements within the study and immediate
surrounding area.
A total of 4 adult mule deer were observed over the week’s survey period and all
individuals were observed downslope of the project study area (Figure 3-4).
3-74
Based on habitat assessment, aerial survey, discussions and interviews with local
residents, the southeast and southwest portion of the project site are used by deer during
the fall and spring.
3.6.3
Wildlife Issues
Skiing and related winter activities result in little contact with wildlife because bears and
other mammals are hibernating, most birds have migrated south and the few which
remain are not engaged in critical breeding activities. In addition, most big game animals
have migrated to more favorable winter ranges. The ski hill expansion will also be a
focus of recreational activity in summer, a season when more wildlife species are present
and active in the area. However, key summer habitats such as wetlands 8-10 and Jack
Creek wetland will be protected from development and should continue to provide
important wildlife habitat. Although the upper slopes of the mountain in the MSdm2 and
IDFdk2 zones are important habitat for moose, other ungulates, nesting birds and black
bear, these areas will be relatively inaccessible during the summer season.
However, clearing of forests for ski lift/runs, housing and commercial development will
potentially cause fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat, reduction of wildlife trees,
loss of old growth areas and reduction of course woody debris (Table 3.14). To minimize
these impacts, the riparian systems associated with Powers, Jack and Law Creeks in
IDFdk2 and IDFxh1 habitats should be considered important habitat units for wildlife
such as marten, several bird species, wintering moose and deer and should be protected.
Table 3.14
Potential Effects of Ski Area Expansion on Wildlife
Impact
Contributing Factors
•
Permanent Habitat Loss
•
Habitat Alteration
•
Wildlife Disturbance and/or
habitat avoidance due to
construction activity
•
•
Undesirable bear-human
interactions
•
Avalanche control
Closure of hunting
•
•
•
Traffic collisions with Wildlife
Hotels, condos, housing,
restaurant roadways and
supporting infrastructure
Mainly clearing of new ski
trails
Storm drainage effects on
wetland
Noise and human activity
assoc. with construction of
lifts, buildings and roads
Increased number of hikers
in bear country
Attraction to food wastes in
resort, housing or housing
areas
Noise from explosive devices
Public safety
Improved road design and
increased traffic volumes
Main Species of Concern
• Terrestrial forest dwelling
species
•
•
Terrestrial forest dwelling
species
Wetland wildlife
•
Grizzly bear, ungulates
•
Nesting birds, small
mammals
•
•
•
Potential Mountain Goats
Big game & upland birds
Deer, small mammal
3-76
Habitat alteration associated with clearing for new ski trails/runs can have both positive
and negative consequences for wildlife. Most of clearing will be in the mountain face of
stands aged 21 to 140 years. Based on examination of the existing ski runs/lift lines, the
new ones will support a variety of herb and shrub communities, from dense, tall grassfireweed stands on moist low elevation sites, to sparse shrub-juvenile conifer stands on
steep, rocky terrain. Based on the kinds of vegetation expected on the ski runs/lifts the
following kinds of wildlife use would be predicted for the new runs/lifts:
•
Mule and white-tailed deer: spring/early summer grazing on herbaceous
vegetation plus some use of new leafage on shrubs;
•
Black bear: spring grazing on herbaceous vegetation (particularly in moist sites);
summer use of berries on shrubby sites;
•
Hare: use of herbaceous summer forage; spring and fall use of shrubby sites;
•
Small mammals: cover and forage for voles in dense herbaceous growth (mostly
moist sites); deer mouse use of shrub stands; chipmunk use of berries and seeds;
•
Birds: nesting habitat for a few species which utilize edge and open areas;
foraging habitat (insects, seeds, berries) for species which nest in adjacent forest;
and
•
Predators: open hunting areas for owls, hawks, ermine and coyotes to hunt small
mammals.
In general, although clearing of forests for development of ski runs/lifts is anticipated to
enhance species diversity, it will also have negative consequences for those wildlife
species that depend primarily on mature forest stands, and/or require forest-interior
conditions. However, many of those species (e.g. marten, fisher rubber boa and
songbirds) do forage to some extent in openings that are adjacent to forest stands.
Although it is not possible to analyze positive and negative effects of ski trail clearing for
each wildlife species, we believe that negative effects are unlikely to outweigh positive
ones.
3.6.4
3.6.4.1 Permanent Habitat Loss
Full mitigation for permanent alienation of habitat is usually not possible. Nevertheless,
some general measures can be taken to mitigate the effects of habitat loss as follows:
•
Maximize greenways between buildings and roads for use by small wildlife
species (this is also desirable for aesthetic reasons);
•
Carry out forest clearing outside of the bird nesting season (best timing is August
1st to March 31st);
•
Revegetate any disturbed sites not occupied by structures, using native plants if
possible; and
3-77
•
Erect bird boxes for cavity-nesting species.
3.6.4.2 Habitat Alteration
Little in the way of mitigation appears to be needed in the case of forest clearing for new
ski runs or for the proposed golf facility. However, negative effects can be reduced in the
following ways:
•
Carry out forest clearing outside of the bird nesting season (best timing is August
1st to March 31st);
•
Confine clearing to width needed for skiing;
•
Revegetate any sites where clearing or grubbing result in soil disturbance;
•
Maintain spacing between ski trails so as to avoid extremely narrow forest strips
between them;
•
Limit the extent of forest “glading” between ski trails, because this tends to
expand the area of impact;
•
Prescribe riparian retention levels (swaths) to provide the desired seral stage
characteristics post clearing; and
•
During the planning stage retain functional connectivity at the habitat, lanscape
and regional level. Allow for functional connectivity for important habitats in
close proximity to each other to allow for long dispersal needs.
3.6.4.3 Recreational Disturbance
Owing to the reality that urban encroachment will impact on the landscape from a
recreational and wildlife perspective, the following mitigative attempts will be made to
reduce this immediate and long term impacts:
•
Erect and maintain appropriate signs to identify access, non-accessible areas,
moterized and non-moterized;
•
Seasonal access restrictions may be developed for specific areas in consultation
with identified user groups;
•
Create and on-going round table of residents and interested parties to periodically
redefine necessary recreation strategies in order to manage and integrate
recreational opportunities and uses;
•
Encourage a stewardship role, by organized user groups or clubs, in the
management of recreational activities and facilities; and
•
Ensure the trail corridor/network and the associated recreation opportunities are
maintained or enhanced for continued public use. We would prefer strong
measures such as condo association bylaws requiring control of pets, prevention
of weeds escaping into surrounding habitats, noise mitigation, litter controls, solid
3-78
waste management. These would cause adherence to trails and thus reduce
human encroachment into areas of restricted access.
3.6.4.4 Construction-caused Disturbance
Acceptable mitigation for construction noise and disturbance effects can be achieved if
the following measures are adopted:
•
For all construction work, engine noises should be muffled to the maximum
extent possible; and
•
In the ridge crest area, any noisy construction work, blasting, and helicopter
movements should be temporarily curtailed if bighorn sheep come within 500 m
of work sites, and should not be resumed until the animals have departed the area
(this is expected to be an infrequent event).
3.6.4.5 Closure of Hunting
Mitigation is not generally needed.
3.6.4.6 Traffic Collisions with Wildlife
1) Appropriate signing to warn motorists;
2) Long-term documentation of collision sites, if any, so that problem areas
can be identified for specific attention; and
3) In years of deep snow, snow berms created by ploughing should be broken
at intervals so that animals can easily escape from the roadway.
3-79
Westbank, BC
4.0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS
The following wildlife management recommendations are intended to act as a planning
tool to reduce the impacts of the proposed development on wildlife resources. They are
intended to provide guidance for future planning and for mitigating construction and
operation activities.
4.1
Herpetifauna
The most significant habitat for local herpetifauna occurs along riparian areas, including
the Jack Creek wetland and rock outcrops (Figure 4-1). Development encroachment and
degradation of water quality are the greatest issues associated with herpetifauna,
especially for amphibians.
The following mitigation measures should be implemented where possible to reduce
potential impacts to herpetifauna from ski hill expansion.
4.1.1
Snakes
Primary snake habitat in the study site is associated with rock outcrop areas and open
natural fields with ephemeral ponds. The following general recommendations should be
taken into consideration and implemented where possible during the construction phase
of the resort expansion. They are as follows:
•
Do not develop trails within open meadow/wetland areas or rock outcrops;
•
Place roads as far as practical from any rock outcrops as they may be potential
hibernacula sites;
•
If possible, avoid construction near rock outcrops between April and October
when snakes are most active;
•
Rehabilitate temporary access roads immediately after use;
•
Avoid soil compaction during construction of ski trails and maintain understorey
vegetative structure in riparian areas; and
•
During timber harvesting of ski trails do not harvest or salvage areas adjacent to
rock outcroppings. Where possible, place slash onto ski trail edges to create
better escape habitat during the active herpetifaunal season (Photograph 9).
4-1
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS
4.1.2
Amphibians
Primary amphibian habitat in the study site is associated with ephemeral ponds and
wetlands.
The following general recommendations should be taken into
consideration and implemented where possible during the construction phase of the
resort expansion.
They are as follows
•
Establish a minimum 15 metre buffer adjacent to the Jack Creek wetland, Jack
Creek and Wetlands 8-10 (Figure 2-2). These areas contain key natal habitats for
frogs and have the following characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Year round water flow
Stable channel beds
Coarse rocky substrates
Forest cover; and
Lack of fish.
•
Any construction related runoff waters should be maintained sediment free, if
discharged into the Jack Creek wetland. Water levels within the wetland should
be maintained no higher than the top of emergent vegetation;
•
Where possible, maintain Wetlands/Meadows 1-7, 11 and 12 (Figure 2-2) to
retain microclimatic conditions for foraging adult herpetifauna;
•
Rehabilitate temporary access roads;
•
Any selective tree harvesting should be conducted to promote secondary or old
growth forest characteristics such as the retention of large diameter trees,
multilayered canopies, snags and coarse woody debris;
•
Minimize the risk of windthrow adjacent to wetlands/meadows;
•
Avoid the use of pesticides. Spot treatments with herbicides may be used in
exceptional circumstances (e.g., noxious weeds) where it can be demonstrated
that the herbicide will not be harmful to the aquatic environment or herpetifauna
habitat being managed;
•
Riparian areas adjacent to the Jack Creek wetland should be managed according
to the recommended "best management practices" from the Riparian Management
Area Guidebook; and
•
Prevent the introduction of fish populations to the Jack Creek wetland.
To protect water quality and quantity of the streams and associated wetlands, the design
and construction of the expansion facilities will need to include the following mitigation
measures:
4-3
•
The design of the new base area facilities should incorporate sustainable design
concepts, including stormwater best management practises and water
conservation;
•
Treatment and disposal of wastewater should comply with applicable provincial
legislation. Applicable legislation includes the Municipal Sewage Regulation
under the BC Waste Management Act; and
•
Various management plans to protect water quality and quantity should be
developed for the construction and operational phases of the base development
adjacent to the wetland and immediate Jack Creek.
Additionally, as
recommended in the OSLRMP, prior to any proposed work performed in the
watershed, licensed users should be advised of proposed operations and should be
offered the opportunity to participate in the preparation of a written contingency
plan.
•
Provision for environmental monitoring during all instream works and any other
construction activities that carry a risk of sedimentation or other impacts to water
quality;
•
Assessment of water quality during construction by measuring turbidity and
possibly making other in situ measurements such as pH; and
•
Provision to maintain flows during instream works (specifically, installation of
any new culverts) through the use of dam and pump, flume techniques or
temporary diversions; and
•
The plan should also include a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.
Land development activities associated with the clearing of land, grading slopes, road
building, excavation, grubbing and stockpiling of materials for the expansion of the
Crystal Mountain Ski Hill could result in the erosion of soils and input of sediments into
Jack Creek. Therefore, to minimize or eliminate sediment inputs into amphibian habitat,
the following principles should also be incorporated into the design of a detailed
“Sediment and Erosion Control Plan” for the project:
•
The design and construction of the development, including roads, utilities, and
building sites, should be planned to fit the existing terrain and site conditions to
avoid impacts to associated Jack Creek and the wetland. The particular soil
conditions and topography should be taken into account during site development
and construction should be confined to the least critical areas (i.e. avoid areas
with high erosion potential);
•
The development should be scheduled to minimize the risk of erosion. When
possible, construction activities should be planned for the dry months of the year
to avoid having large areas of exposed soils during significant rain events or snow
melt. The development should be staged/phased to allow for the re-establishment
of vegetation to minimize erosion;
4-4
4.2
•
All existing vegetation should be retained wherever possible. The clearing of
rights-of-way should be minimized, and clearing boundaries should be clearly
marked to avoid unnecessary impacts to amphibians of the wetland and Jack
Creek and associated wetlands at the top of the mountain;
•
Runoff should be diverted from denuded areas by isolating cleared areas and
building sites and avoiding steep slopes. Natural drainage devoid of excess
sediment should be maintained wherever possible;
•
The length and steepness of slopes should be minimized were possible;
•
Runoff velocities and erosive energy should be reduced by maximizing the length
of flow paths, constructing interceptor ditches and channels, and using filter
fabric, rock or polyethylene lining in steep interceptor or conveyance ditches;
•
Denuded areas and bare soils should be re-vegetated/protected. Cut and fill
slopes and disturbed areas should be re-seeded or re-vegetated as soon as
possible. Temporary stockpiles of soil and exposed slopes should be covered
with polyethylene. To minimize erosion, mulches and other organic stabilizers
should be used on cleared areas until vegetation is established. Seeding should be
conducted prior to the end of the growing season to allow germination and
establishment of roots;
•
Eroded sediments should be retained on-site with erosion and sediment control
structures such as sediment traps, silt fences, sediment control ponds;
•
Sediment and erosion control materials should be stockpiled on site; suggested
materials include filter cloth, hay bales, rip-rap, grass seed, drain rock, culverts,
matting polyethylene, used tires, etc.;
•
Erosion and sediment control measures should be inspected and maintained
regularly; and
•
The plan should also include a Spill Prevention and Spill Contingency Plan.
Raptor and Breeding Birds
While the ski hill expansion will remove forested areas for base area and ski run
development, the results of this study show that on Crystal Mountain bird diversity and
species numbers appear to coincide with primary vegetative growth in clearcut or open
forested areas.
Forest fragmentation as a result of land clearing creates an “edge effect”, characteristic of
human urbanisation in forested areas (Riley 1994, Sandilands and Houndsel undated,
Tweit and Tweit 1986, Adams 1994). Bessinger and Osborne (1982) reported that forest
edge communities support greater diversities and densities of birds. Interior-edge effects
have been researched extensively with special reference to raptors and neotropical
migrant bird species (Adams 1994, Robbins et al. 1989, Terbrough 1992a, b, Sandilands
and Houndsell undated, Scott et. al., 1989). As a result of land clearing – as may be the
4-5
case for this proposed development - the vegetational diversity and the loss of “core
woodlot” in the landscape will likely cause an increase in bird diversity (Riley and Mohr
1994).
Bird species such as pine siskin, Swainson’s thrush, Oregon junco, and the black-capped
chickadee were found to be most common around the edges of the forest in open areas.
These areas were characteristic of forest fragmentation resulting from previous logging
practices and road development. Fragmented landscapes, as exemplified by this area add
to bird species diversity (Riley and Mohr, 1994, Adams 1994, Besseinger and Osborne
1982).
Some species encountered are especially adapted to breeding in the interior forest areas
and do not survive edge conditions (Wilcove 1987), primarily as a result of indirect urban
impacts (Terbough 1992b). These species are primarily associated with forest ground
and tree canopy feeding. Bessinger and Osborne (1982) found that core forest birds
favoured forest forage in canopies and had a secondary affiliation for ground utilisation.
To core forest nesting birds, fragmentation is detrimental to breeding.
Six species (Swainson’s thrush, golden-crowned kinglet, hermit thrush, brown creeper,
winter wren and Townsend’s warbler) that require interior core area habitat niches were
all associated with woodlots (>200 m in depth) on the study lands. This indicates that
tracts of forest large enough to support these core forest nesting species are present within
the overall development lands. These areas also possessed lower bird diversity compared
to the fragmented landscapes of previous development areas. Since these areas posses
interior forest nesting passerines they also possess good habitat for the certain raptor
species including Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, Northern Sawwhet owl, flammulated owl, and Northern pygmy-owl.
Some raptors favour large forest core areas with variances in canopy cover like the
northern goshawk (Campbell et. al. 1990, James 1984, Bright-Smith 1994, Graham et. al.
1994) while others require the same habitat with adjacent field foraging areas like the
red-tailed hawk (Palmer 1988, James 1988). Some are quite adaptable to urban
fragmentation given proper habitat including the Merlin and Coopers’ hawk and the redtailed hawk (James 1988, James 1994, Palmer 1988, Rosenfield and Bietfield 1993).
4.2.1
Passerines
To maintain the bird diversity of Crystal Mountain the following general
recommendations for the retention and development of passerine open and core forest
habitat, not specific to any species, should include the following where possible:
•
Retain and enhance forest edge habitat along roadways and adjacent to the ski
base area to provide escape or thermal cover for passerines;
•
Retain portions of the woodlots (> 200 m in depth) adjacent to the proposed ski
runs and buildings to support core forest dwelling passerines;
•
Maintain habitat diversity including vegetation age/successional structure;
4-6
•
During replanting/revegetation, refrain from even-aged management and any
single aged tree removal, encourage horizontal three dimensional successional
planting of aged stands and utilise indigenous native plants to promote indigenous
bird species and discourage exotic/invasive species as a result of urban
encroachment;
•
Retain coarse woody debris on forest floors and ski runs for core forest nesters;
and
•
Avoid the use of pesticides in lawn, forest or shrub treatments.
4.2.2
Raptors
Crystal Mountain has shown to have a potential to contain habitat for several raptor
species. Areas along the summit contain suitable nesting habitat for owls and potentially
some diurnal raptors like red-tailed and sharp-shinned hawk. A general raptor
management approach should include the following:
•
Retention of representative even-aged second growth forest, with trees aged
approximately 40-80 yrs. with deep crowns and fewer trees per unit area. Forest
canopy closure should be maintained at 60-70% with little or no ground cover;
•
Any nest trees encountered during the land clearing process should be protected
with a 1-2 tree length buffer unless the tree remains unoccupied for approximately
a two year period;
•
Prevent construction around any active raptor nest from March through late July;
•
For nesting owls, areas where trees which are to be removed, ensure that any
cavity trees be retained and they be large enough to be "thermally buffered";
•
Roost trees should be maintained in relatively large reserve patches or areas of
intact forest. For this purpose areas around foraging zones i.e. the wetlands and
riparian corridors should have corridor widths a minimum of 15 metres;
•
While the core forest habitat and the adjacent riparian areas may be important as a
prey source for raptors as well as for potential roosting habitat, there should be a
balance between the creation of beneficial feeding areas along the riparian edges
and cleared areas of forest;
•
Maintain riparian habitats adjacent to watercourses (i.e. Jack, Law, Powers Creek
and tributaries) and Wetlands 8-10 as these areas are important foraging areas for
raptors such as the western screech owl;
•
Retain a selection of stand structural elements, such as large green trees, snags,
logs on the forest floor, and canopy gaps during tree removal for development.
Older green trees should have structural characteristics such as cracks, and holes
in the bole where limbs have been shed. Snags should have cracks, bird holes and
hollow interiors; and
4-7
•
4.3
Treed linkage corridors should be maintained between core forested areas to
ensure connectivity between roosting habitat and riparian foraging habitat. These
linkage requirements should be considered and accommodated within any forest
ecosystem networks that are established through a landscape unit plan.
Bats
Although no red, blue or yellow listed species were encountered during the surveys, it
was shown through the inventory period that there are healthy populations of bats present
within the study area. Some bat species are quite adaptable to human encroachment and
in many cases utilise human structures for roosting and during the winter, hibernating
(Nagorsen 1995).
In BC current forest-harvesting and land clearing practices generally do not provide
enough suitable habitat for tree-roosting bats to maintain populations at current levels
(Grindell 1996 in MELP 1996). As part of regular forest or land clearing practices during
logging, large clearcut areas remove substantial proportions of the available roosting
habitat for bats. The remaining forested areas are often deficient in suitable roosting
habitat because older stands are the ones most often targeted in forest-harvesting
operations. Bat roosting habitat is one of the most important criteria to bats during their
life cycles (Nagorsen 1995, Grindal 1996).
Older tree stands provide snags with larger than average heights and diameters across a
wider range of decay stages, and are typified by greater tree spacing and large gaps in the
canopy (MELP 1996). Thus, they provide more suitable roosting habitat for tree-roosting
bats than do younger stands (Nargorsen 1995). Second growth stands, typified by the
forest of Crystal Mountain in which a significant component of large trees will be
retained as a result of the land clearing for the development may also provide suitable
roosting habitat.
During land clearing for ski runs and the development of the base area it is recommended
that where possible:
•
Retain the Jack Creek wetland and Wetlands 8-10 for forage opportunities and
night roosting habitat adjacent to the wetlands;
•
Requirement of bats for suitable roost trees could be met by maintaining relatively
large reserve patches or areas of intact forest. For this purpose, a minimum 15
metre buffer should be protected around wetlands;
•
Retention of suitable roost cavity trees (of preferred species, size, decay
characteristics, bark characteristics, etc.) to ensure protection from predators and
the elements;
•
Do not harvest or salvage timber snags and stubs. Allow for the retention of these
within forest removed areas where possible;
4-8
•
During construction, protect any identified hibernacula, maternity colonies and
roosting sites. These may include old buildings (i.e. the ski area houses).
Maintain microclimate conditions of any identified colonial sites;
•
Retain a selection of stand structural elements, such as large green trees, snags,
logs on the forest floor, and canopy gaps during tree removal for development.
Older green trees should have structural characteristics such as cracks and
crevices in thick bark, bark pulling away from the trunk forming crevices and
holes in the bole where limbs have been shed. Snags should have cracks, peeling
bark, bird holes and hollow interiors;
•
Post construction, encourage a ban on the use of pesticides. Spot treatments with
herbicides may be used in exceptional circumstances (e.g. noxious weeds) where
it can be demonstrated that the herbicide will not be harmful to the species or
habitat being managed; and encourage the restriction on lawn treatments of
herbicides. Discourage the use of pesticides, especially those that may impact
primary food sources of bats; and
•
Treed linkage corridors should be maintained between larger core forest areas to
ensure connectivity between roosting habitat and riparian foraging habitat. The
bat species identified take advantage of forest edges as movement corridors.
These linkage requirements should be considered and accommodated within any
forest ecosystem networks that are established through a landscape unit plan.
4.4
Mule and White-tailed Deer
4.4.1
Deer Winter Habitat
In BC, the limiting season for deer habitat requirements is primarily winter and consists
of thermal cover, security and food abundance. The proposed ski expansion development
of Crystal Mountain will impact deer habitat primarily in areas of the proposed base
lands. This will be on:
1) Fall/Winter forage /browse habitat (Photograph 10) and late fall/early winter
movement corridors (Photographs 7 and 8) located along the southern portion of
the project site (Figure 3-4); and
2) Winter shelter habitat around Jack Creek and Jack Creek wetland (Figure 3-4);
The following management efforts should be implemented during the planning phase
where possible, to ensure that winter deer habitat is retained:
•
Areas of proposed ski runs, and base land development areas associated with
riparian zones (Jack, Law and Powers Creek), should be delineated with a
minimum 15-30 m buffer zone (total riparian management width of 30 to 60
metres, dependant on density of development). These setbacks should be
primarily composed of coniferous trees and shrubs greater than 1.5 m tall and a
4-9
canopy closure of greater than 75%, at least a pole-sapling stage. This will ensure
adequate north-south riparian and east-west deer corridor travel as well as retain
necessary winter thermal and shelter habitat.
Additionally, a 15-30 m
conservation buffer with the same vegetative composition should be delineated
around the Jack Creek wetland. Terrain with slope gradients exceeding 20%
(escape terrain) should be preserved as open space, where possible;
•
Forested woodlots (minimum of >0.8-2.0 ha with a minimum width of 91 m
(Nietfeld et al. 1985) for deer shelter and forage should be retained adjacent to
and between ski runs. Ski runs should not exceed a maximum width of 180 m to
allow for deer to escape to shelter habitat (Nietfeld et al. 1985);
•
The low shrub areas west of the Nordic Ski trails adjacent to Jack Creek
(Photograph 7) should be protected for mule and white-tailed deer foraging,
where possible;
•
Location of Lifts 6, 7, 8 and 10 (Figure 1-2) should avoid riparian areas of Jack
Creek as much as possible. Retention of riparian areas adjacent to Jack Creek
will maintain the integrity of north-south and east-west movement corridors and
also provide important shelter and forage habitat; and
•
All lift towers and ski runs should be located a minimum of 15 metres from Jack
and Powers Creek or tributaries and clearing for lift lines should minimise
impacts to riparian areas.
4.4.2
Deer/Skier Interactions During Winter Alpine Use
Based on discussions with the residents in the area the presence of deer in the winter is
relatively abundant. However, fatal or serious deer encounters with skiers on the existing
ski hill historically have not been a problem (pers. comm. M. Morin) and deer have
avoided the ski hill during times of skier use. In addition, since the majority of the ski
runs are going to be along the north and northeast area of the hill away from favoured
riparian areas of deer forage, interaction with skiers and deer is expected to be negligible.
4.4.3
Deer and Base Lands/Urban Development
Deer are opportunistic feeders and human development in many ways has accentuated
their presence to urban settings by the creation of deer favoured, edge foraging habitat
associated with forest edge retention, also favoured by deer for shelter. Therefore, urban
encroachment to the area is not expected to decrease populations in the base area
development.
In fact, deer tend to be more of a nuisance to urban areas in many ways, just like any wild
animal; deer behave in ways that occasionally inconvenience people. Expensive
ornamental plants used to enhance the value of a home and to increase the landscaping
aesthetics can be planted one day only to be severely browsed overnight by local deer
populations. In discussions with local residents during the survey home owners in the
area noted deer on several occasions in the backyards of homes south of the proposed
4-10
base lands, and further south around the Nordic ski area. Deer presence on many
occasions has been noted to be a nuisance to the residents in the winter and spring.
Forest fragmentation resulting from the development along base lands and by the
development of the ski runs is anticipated to increase deer presence by creating favoured
habitat for browse and by the creation of immediate shelter refuge. This may cause deer
problems for residents resulting in property damage. There are a number of means to
minimise, or eliminate nuisance deer impacts to property and thus discourage deer
presence. The following methods of mitigating deer attraction to the base development
should be implemented during the planning phase, where possible:
1) Implementation of wire fencing to isolate deer from gardens and ornamental
plants;
2) Installation of a motion activated sprinkler that keeps deer and other animals away
from gardens. The system senses animals the same way security lights detect
people; movement and heat. When an animal is seen, a valve opens instantly
releasing a three-second pulsating spray of water. The combination of the sudden
noise, movement, and water frightens animals away;
3) Use of plastic netting to cover vegetation favoured by deer;
4) Application of repellents, placed on or near vegetation needing protection from
deer browse. Many of these act in two ways, as a repelling odour or repelling
taste; and
5) By the planting of deer resistant ornamentals.
4.4.4
Deer and Corridor Impacts
As mentioned, deer are opportunistic feeders and human development has accentuated
their presence to urban settings by the creation of deer favoured, edge foraging habitat
associated with forest edge retention. In fact a mature forest provides little food for deer
and may be considered marginal deer habitat at best. In general, development in and
around a mature forest within the Crystal Mountain area increases available food supplies
and becomes a deer attractant. By the creation of the proposed ski runs browse for deer is
expected to increase because deer are attracted to forest edges, where sunlight reaches the
ground and provides palatable and available plants for them (Lowel and Halls 1984,
Nietfeld et al. 1985). The clearing of these forest areas for ski run development will
undoubtedly create this favourable environment. The development of Lifts 6, 7, 10 and
11 (Figure 1-2) and its associated runs is expected to have the greatest impact on the
corridor travel of the deer.
Mitigation through size retention of edge forest adjacent to ski runs, or appropriate forest
edge size retention should be implemented where possible in order to maintain existing
deer movements which should reduce/prevent unwanted deer/displacement.
Management planning should be implemented where possible to ensure corridor
integrity.
4-11
4.4.5
Deer and Automotive Collisions
Finally, an impact associated with the base area development is increased traffic volume
due to the added urban presence going to, in and around the ski base area. Traffic
collisions with wildlife are usually a problem on high-volume, high-speed highways that
pass through major ungulate ranges. However, a few animals such as deer are routinely
hit on rural roads and suburban streets with 50 km/hr speed limits. In view of the
increased traffic volumes that are expected to occur on the access roads around the
mountain, collisions with wildlife will be more likely than at present, although such
occurrences should still be infrequent and not a cause of any population declines. To
mitigate for this impact the following should be implemented with the development of
the base area:
•
Appropriate signage should be erected to warn motorists of deer crossings;
•
In years of deep snow, the snow berms created by ploughing should be broken at
intervals so that animals can easily escape from the roadway;
•
Slow speed zones along the access road should be considered; and
•
The possible erection of road side reflectors that reflect light and create a barrier
image such as the “Streiter-Lite Wildlife Warning Reflector”. Headlights from
passing vehicles strike rows of staggered reflectors, which are mounted on posts
at headlight height along each side of the highway, with each reflector in turn
directing flashes of low intensity reflected light across the road. Entering light
from vehicle headlights is reflected at approximately 90 degrees. Drivers do not
see and are not bothered by the light. (http://www.strieter-lite.com/).
4.5
Black Bears and Cougar
4.5.1
Undesirable Bear-Human Interactions
4.5.1.1 Food and Waste Management
The key to prevention of most bear problems is scrupulous food and waste management.
Since the ski hill is an existing development, there are bear-human interactions which are
dealt with under current terms and conditions. The proposed expansion allows the
opportunity for further interactions to be well planned. In other residential sites where
significant nuisance black bear problems have arisen, intensive public education
programs together with aversive conditioning of bears with rubber bullets and emetics
had little effect (McCarthy and Sevoy, 1994). The only effective solution is complete
physical separation of bears and garbage so that they can never develop a taste for it. The
ultimate disposal of garbage is not the main problem; this can be accomplished by
complete on-site incineration in a forced air incinerator of suitable capacity, or by hauling
to an approved landfill, presumably in Westbank. If an incinerator is used it should be
located in an open area where any bears approaching it have to leave forested cover. The
4-12
incinerator should be fenced with chain link fence set in concrete and should be kept
scrupulously clean. The inert residue can be buried or transported to a landfill.
The usual problem in rural communities is that bears have access to garbage cans beside
homes or in carports or sheds that are not bear-proof. A simple ordinance requiring
sealed garbage cans of a particular size is not good enough. Storage of food wastes
indoors for up to a week at room temperature in not acceptable, so the project should
design some kind of alternative. The approach might have to vary between single family
residences, condominium units and commercial facilities. At single family residences,
outdoor bear-proof lockers or sheds may be acceptable. In other areas, daily removal of
garbage to centrally located dumpster-like units, provided they are bear-proof, could be
the best approach. In any event it is imperative that no food wastes, soiled packaging,
etc. be stored outside of buildings unless in bear-proof structures. This precludes the
usual curb-side pick up of garbage cans. Other matters to consider include the following:
•
The project should adopt a thorough recycling program;
•
Outdoor composting units should not be allowed; and
•
Food and waste transfer points such as loading docks must be kept exceedingly clean.
4.5.1.2 Back-Country Encounters
The potential for bear or cougar-human encounters can never be completely eliminated,
but can be significantly reduced by means of public education and appropriate design of
facilities, particularly hiking trails. The following measures are recommended for
implementation for the proposed expansion at the Ski Hill:
•
All project staff employed in outdoor work during the active bear season (April
through October) should participate in a bear and cougar awareness training program.
Workshops are available from experts on this subject (e.g. G. Shelton);
•
Public education of summer recreationists should include provision of brochures
which identify the potential of accounts. Some have previously been prepared by
Parks Canada, B.C. Environment, and other jurisdictions. These include information
on species identification and habits, precautions to take while hiking, and how to
react if threatened or attacked;
•
For bears a pack in/pack out policy should be established for hikers. No outdoor
waste receptacles should be provided for trail users;
•
Policy prohibiting wildlife feeding should be initiated for bears (although exceptions
could be made for harmless species like ground squirrels and gray jays);
•
On-going log should be maintained of all sightings and particularly of any close
encounters. The public and Crystal Mountain Ski Hill staff could contribute this to.
A designated staff member should be in charge of compiling such records. In this
way, both problem areas and opportunities for bear viewing can be identified;
4-13
•
Any serious encounters between people and bears and cougars, particularly if they
involve human injury or repeat offences, should be promptly reported to the B.C.
Environment Conservation Officer Service for resolution; and
•
Bear hazard assessment of the kind commonly done for provincial parks (e.g.
McCrory, 1998) should be undertaken to map locations where encounters are most
likely to occur. This could rely to a large extent on habitat work already done for this
study. This would aid in designing a summer-use trail plan that avoids key bear
habitats.
4-14
Westbank, BC
5.0 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN CONCEPTS
5.1
Design Principles
The Crystal Mountain Ski Hill Expansion proposal will be designed to be a "low impact"
development. To accomplish this objective, the development will follow the Guiding
Principles of Sustainable Design developed by the US National Parks Service (Hart,
1994). Using these principles, the project design will:
•
be subordinate to the local ecosystem;
•
respect the natural resources of the site and absolutely minimize the impacts of
the development;
•
exemplify appropriate environmental responsiveness;
•
enhance appreciation of natural environment and encourage/establish rules of
conduct for residents and industrial tenants;
•
strive for minimal environmental disruption, resource consumption, and material
waste;
•
avoid use of energy intensive, environmentally damaging, waste producing,
and/or hazardous materials; and
•
use cradle-to-grave analysis in decision making for materials and construction
techniques.
The guiding principles will specifically focus on and be applied to the following areas of
project design and construction:
•
Site design;
•
Building design and construction;
•
Water management;
•
Energy management; and
•
Waste management/recycling.
Application of the guiding principles to these areas is discussed in the following sections.
5.2
Site Design
The overall site layout will:
5-1
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN CONCEPTS
•
Protect the core of the identified wildlife areas, including potential herpetifaunal
and riparian habitat;
•
Capitalize on the aesthetics of the natural environment; and
•
Encourage a community lifestyle that minimizes the use of moterized vehicles.
Specifically, facilities will be sited to redevelop already disturbed locations, such as the
ski hill base, existing clear-cut areas, roads, and utility corridors. No development will
occur within the riparian areas or identified red/blue listed species habitat that will in any
way adversely affect the habitat.
Residential areas will be designed to take advantage of the natural environment.
Residential areas will be created as islands of development surrounded by a buffered
landscape to the wetlands, treed areas and greenspaces. The greenspaces will be located
to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible. The ski hill base and golf course will
be oriented to provide views of the undisturbed wetlands and woodland features, while
the ski runs will be set in areas of lowest impact. Transportation corridors will be
maintained at current levels with roads and transportation corridors will also be
maintained at a current status.
5.3
Building Design and Construction
Both the creations of ski lanes and lifts, associated buildings and lots will be designed to:
•
fit into surrounding landscape;
•
and accentuate the habitat diversity;
•
protect and enhance the natural environment
by the implementation of buffers;
•
Use the LRMP visual management objectives
to create a more environmentally desirable
development; and
•
Life Cycle Considerations for
Sustainable Building Materials (Hart,
1994)
Source of raw ingredients (renewable?
sustainable? locally available? nontoxic?)
Raw material extraction (energy input?
habitat destruction? topsoil erosion?
siltation/pollution from runoff?)
emphasize the use of environmentally
responsible building materials (i.e. non-toxic,
recyclable materials made from renewable
resources) and construction techniques.
Transportation (most local source? fuel
consumption? air pollution?)
Architectural design and landscaping will ensure
that the development is aesthetically compatible
with the surrounding landscape providing
minimum
impact
on
adjacent
lands.
Architectural design will emphasize low-rise
buildings, natural building materials and naturalcolored building exteriors. Landscaping will rely
on indigenous plants, particularly plants that
Treatments and additives (use of
petrochemicals? exposure to, and
disposal of, hazardous materials?)
Processing
and/or
manufacturing
(energy input? air/water/noise pollution?
waste generation and disposal?)
Use
and
operation
(energy
requirements? longevity of products
used? indoor air quality? waste
generation?)
Resource recovery/disposal (potential for
recycling/reusing materials? disposal of
solid/toxic wastes?)
5-2
enhance wildlife habitat value and promote the ecological area.
Architectural design will strive for "smaller is better," optimizing use and flexibility of
spaces to minimize overall building size and the resources necessary for construction. In
particular, architectural design will minimize the building "footprint" to reduce the
amount of land required for construction and the amount of impermeable surface created
with proper surface water run-off maintenance.
The mountain base area layouts and architectural design will take advantage of winter
sun for natural lighting and heating and prevailing winds for summer cooling. Placement
of the proposed development will save the east and south natural areas for outdoor use.
Ski lift development into the mountain aspect will use environmentally sensitive
construction techniques and will focus on minimal land impact during the construction
process. Building contractors for the ski hill base development will be required to use
environmentally sensitive construction techniques and building materials. Contractors
will be encouraged to subscribe to a program similar to the "Green Builder Program of
Colorado", which provides detailed criteria under which an individual building qualifies
for the "BUILT GREEN" designation. Also for lift line development the general, criteria
will include the following:
•
Protection of trees and natural features during construction;
•
Saving and reusing all site topsoil;
•
Construction using the simplest technology appropriate to the functional need;
•
Use of natural, recycled and non-toxic building materials;
•
Use of local materials to reduce energy cost and air pollution associated with
transportation;
•
Avoidance of toxic materials and materials from non-renewable sources;
•
For base development the incorporation of features (insulation, lighting, pluming
fixtures, appliances) that promote energy and water conservation; and
•
Use of durable materials to save energy costs of maintenance/replacements.
Builders will be encouraged to examine the complete life-cycle energy, environmental,
and waste implications of each building material. This "cradle-to-grave" analysis (Hart,
1994) includes the tracing of a material or product and its by-products from its initial
source and extraction through refinement, fabrication, treatment and additives,
transportation, use, and eventual reuse or disposal. This tracing includes the tabulation of
energy consumed and the environmental impacts of each action and material.
The environmental design and construction objectives will be achieved through all phases
of the project by carefully screening architects and builders. Restrictive covenants and/or
zoning bylaws may be used to ensure compliance with architectural and construction
guidelines.
5-3
5.4
Water Management
Sustainable design concepts related to water management for the proposed ski hill
expansion will include incorporation of stormwater management features into the overall
development and incorporation water conservation features into building design. In
support of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.2.4, the following sections
provide details of the stormwater management and water conservation features that will
be included in the project design.
5.4.1
Stormwater Management
The objectives of stormwater management are to maintain natural drainage patterns
(maximizing infiltration and minimizing runoff) and to remove contaminants from
stormwater. To maintain the natural drainage patterns it will be important to promote
infiltration by minimizing the extent of impermeable surfaces. The "traditional
neighborhood" design of the development with its emphasis on greenspace will promote
infiltration compared with the more common "urban sprawl" design (USEPA, 1996).
Within the ski base hill residential development area the following design features will be
used to minimize impermeable surfaces:
•
Narrow, one-way lanes and small parking facilities needed in order to reduce
pavement width;
•
Clustered design for dwelling units and other facilities to reduce the amount of
impermeable (or less permeable) roadway required;
•
Streets, sidewalks and driveways made from porous materials;
•
Streets without curbs and gutters but with grassed swales to collect infiltrate
water;
•
Homes surrounded by groundcover of original vegetation and natural stands of
forests (where they currently are present);
•
Building design to minimize the amount of impervious surface area on each
residential lot;
•
Permeable materials used for all walkways, patios and driveways;
•
Permanent restriction on the amount of impervious surface area on individual lots
(e.g. restrictive covenants to prevent homeowners from constructing impervious
patios, pathways or building additions);
•
Landscaping along the roof drip-lines with plants that have a high capacity for
storing water on their leaves;
5-4
•
"Bio-retention areas": low islands of trees, shrubs and other vegetation to detain,
infiltrate and treat runoff;
•
Similar methods of maintaining permeability will be applied commercial lots,
where possible;
•
Permeable materials used for parking lots (porous paving materials or grass
parking lots);
•
Building design and use planning that consolidates functions or segments
facilities to reduce the footprint of individual structures and provide greenspace
around buildings;
•
Bio-retention islands of vegetation at strategic intervals in large paved areas (e.g.
parking lots) to capture and treat runoff (aesthetically pleasing in additional to
functional); and
•
Grading to direct runoff into the bio-retention islands.
The use of porous paving materials throughout the development will be an important
design feature for maintaining infiltration. Several types of porous paving materials are
available, including porous asphalt, porous paver blocks, and concrete grid pavement.
Porous asphalt is installed above an underground stone reservoir, which detains runoff
and allows it to exfiltrate gradually into the subsoil. Concrete grid pavement consists of
concrete blocks interspersed with pervious material such as gravel, sand or grass. They
typically are placed on a sand or gravel base which allows stormwater to infiltrate into
the underlying soil.
To function properly, all of these porous materials require careful installation and
ongoing maintenance. Porous paving should be installed at the end of construction, when
the potential for high sediment loads in runoff is minimized. Construction runoff should
be directed away from areas where porous paving materials will be installed to prevent
siltation and maintain the permeability of the underlying soil. Porous paving materials
require ongoing maintenance to with a vacuum-type street sweeper to prevent clogging.
Additional stormwater collection/detention requirements will be met with methods that
emphasize infiltration. Such methods include grassed swales and infiltration trenches.
There are several types of infiltration trenches, including dry wells, pits designed to
control small volumes of runoff (such as runoff from rooftops) and enhanced infiltration
trenches. The latter are equipped with pretreatment systems to remove sediment and oil.
These systems are best suited to drainage areas not exceeding five to ten acres (two to
four hectares). Infiltration systems require regular inspection and cleaning to ensure
proper functioning. With sufficient measures to promote infiltration, stormwater
detention ponds and wetland treatment systems should not be necessary.
5-5
5.4.2
Water Conservation
Water conservation will be incorporated into the design and construction of hotels and
residences. These facilities will be equipped with plumbing fixtures and appliances that
conserve water. Conservation features include:
•
High efficiency showerheads, which use 1.0 to 2.5 gpm1 (3.8 to 9.5 Lpm)2
compared with 3.5 to 6 gpm (13 to 23 Lpm) for standard showerheads;
•
Flow controls such as aerators or laminar faucets in bathrooms and kitchens; these
devices use 0.5 to 2 gpm (1.9 to 7.6 Lpm) compared with 3 to 5 gpm (11 to 19
Lpm) for standard fixtures;
•
Water conservation toilets (may include toilets with a lower flush option for fluids
and a standard flush for solids);
•
Front loading, horizontal axis, clothes washers;
•
Water heater installed as close as possible to the point of use; and
•
Hot water demand system that supplies instant hot water through the action of an
electronically controlled pump in a recirculating loop (optional).
5.5
Energy Management
Energy management will include energy conservation through external building design
and siting and provision of insulation, energy-conserving fixtures, appliances and other
features. The use of an energy-efficient independent power source for the development
also will be considered.
5.5.1
Energy Conservation
Builders should be required to incorporate energy conservation features into each home.
Details of energy conservation features are provided in the Colorado Green Builder
Program. BC Hydro could provide a list of energy conserving ("Power Smart") materials
and appliances appropriate for British Columbia. In general, energy conservation
measures will include:
1
2
•
Home insulation to R2000 standard;
•
Incorporation of passive heating and cooling and natural lighting into
home/building design;
•
Use of energy efficient lighting such as compact fluorescent light bulbs; halogen
lighting, extended-life incandescent bulbs or other lighting that has received BC
Hydro's "Power Smart" designation;
gallons of water per minute
liters of water per minute
5-6
•
Provision of low energy appliances that have received BC Hydro's "Power Smart"
designation;
•
Insulation of hot water pipes and water heaters;
•
Provision of light-colored interior walls, ceiling and soffit and light-colored
carpet;
•
Installation of a 90% or higher energy efficiency furnace that is centrally located
with all duct runs reduced as much as possible;
•
Avoidance of ducts in outside walls or attics unless the ducts have minimum R-13
insulation rating;
•
Provision of return-air ducts in every bedroom;
•
Provision of a setback thermostat, preferably with an on-switch for the furnace
fan to circulate air; and
•
Installation of a sealed-combustion gas fireplace or sealed wood-burning fireplace
or stove with outside combustion air.
5.5.2
Energy-Efficient Independent Power
Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Ballard) has developed an energy-efficient, non-polluting
fuel cell technology. Using a process that does not involve combustion, the fuel cell
converts hydrogen, methanol and natural gas into electricity without pollution. In the near
future, Ballard expects to market small generators capable of powering 50 to 100 homes.
From an environmental perspective, the generators have several advantages:
5.6
•
Since the technology does not involve combustion, the power plants help to
reduce ground-level ozone, acid rain and emission gasses;
•
The units will be manufactured in Burnaby and therefore energy use associated
with shipping will be minimal; and
•
Since the power is generated at the point of use, power lines crossing the
landscape are unnecessary; this will help to preserve the aesthetic quality of
Mount Last.
Waste Management/Recycling
Each builder/contractor will be required to develop a waste management plan for
construction materials. The builders must:
•
•
•
Identify opportunities for reuse/recycling of construction debris;
Minimize job site waste by using materials wisely; and
Recycle at least 50% of job site waste.
5-7
To promote recycling each home will be equipped with:
•
•
•
•
a built-in kitchen recycling center with two or more bins and
a backyard compositing bin;
Education of homeowners in water conservation; and
Education of homeowners in energy conservation.
5-8
Westbank, BC
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed expansion of the Crystal Mountain Ski Hill resort will be located in the
vicinity of the current downhill ski operation.
Based on existing baseline resource information on fish and wildlife habitat, forest
resources (including old growth), terrain information and surface/groundwater resources
significant impacts from siting mountain and base area facilities have been avoided to a
large degree. However, there will still be impacts to forest resources and associated
wildlife habitat from the development of ski lifts and runs and base area
commercial/residential units and access roads. Impacts to wildlife from forest removal
will likely result in a species shift from mature forest dwelling wildlife to wildlife that
prefer edge habitat and early seral stage vegetation. In addition, careful siting and
management of wastewater treatment facilities will be required to avoid impacts to
surface and groundwater users downstream of the base area. It is anticipated that these
impacts can be managed through the implementation of stormwater management plans,
erosion and control plans, spill contingency plans, riparian setbacks and fertilizer and
pesticide plans.
6-1
Westbank, BC
7.0 REFERENCES CITED OR REVIEWED
Adams, A. W. 1978. Migration . In. Elk of North America – Ecology and Management.
J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweil eds., Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
698 p.
Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Marten.
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-92/10.11. 9 pp.
U.S.D.I. Fish and
Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behaviour of the long-billed curlew in southeastern
Washington. Wildl. Monogr. No. 73. 67 pp.
Archibald, G.W. and R.F. Pasquier (eds.). Baraboo, WI. pp. 469-477.
De Smet, K.D. 1992. Status report on the long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) in
Canada. Dep. Nat. Resour., Winnipeg, MB.
Arnett, A., L. Irwin, F. Lindzey and T. Hershey. 1990. Use of clearcuts by Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep in south central Wyoming. In Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep
and Goat Counc. 7:194-205.
B.C. Environment Water Management Division, Kout, A.P., 1983. Water Quality
Problems, Revelstoke Airport Bench Area Ministry of Environment Water Management
Branch, File:82L/6
B.C. Environment Water Management Division, 1992. Revelstoke Airport Bench AreaInitial Water Quality Investigation. Water Management Division Memo File: 82L/I6#3.
B.C. Environment, 1995. Forest Practices Code – Biodiversity Guidebook.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. 99 p.
B.C.
Beall, R.C. 1976. Elk Habitat Selection in Relation to Thermal Radiation. Pp 97-100 in
Hieb, S.R., (Ed). Proceedings of the Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium, Moscow, Idaho.
December 16-17, 1975. University of Idaho, Moscow. 142 pp.
Beecham, J. 1980. Some Population Characteristics of two Black Bear Populations in
Idaho. Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. Series No. 3. p. 201 – 204.
Banci, V. 1989. A fisher management strategy for British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ.,
Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. No. B-63.
7-1
REFERENCES CITED OR REVIEWED
Bindernagel, J., D. Blood and E. DeBock. 1991. Upper Columbia Basin: Aerial Wildlife
Survey, March 1991. Report prepared for B. C. Hydro and Power Authority, Vancouver.
D. Blood and Associates Ltd., Nanaimo.
Bicak, T.K., R.L. Redmond and D.A. Jenni. 1982. Effects of grazing on long-billed
curlew breeding behaviour and ecology in southwestern Idaho. In Proc. symp. on wildlife
livestock relationships. J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke (eds.). Univ. Idaho, For., Wildl. and
Range Exp. Sta., Moscow, ID. pp. 74-85.
Black, H., R.J. Pederson, R.J., Scherzinger and J.W. Thomas. 1979. Deer and Elk. Pp
104-127 in Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests in the Blue Mountains or Oregon and
Washington. USDA.
Black, H., R.J. Scherzinger and J.W. Thomas. 1976. Relationships of Rocky Mountain
elk and Rocky Mountain mule deer habitat to timber management in the Blue Mountains
of Oregon and Washington. In Proceedings Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium. For.,
Wildl. and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow.
Blower, D. 1988. Wildlife Distribution Mapping, Big Game Series (Black-tailed Deer;
Elk; Moose; Mountain Goat). Scale 1:2,000,000. Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks, Victoria.
Blair, G. S. 1993. Species conservation plan for white-headed woodpecker. USDA For.
Ser., Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho Dep. Fish and Game, Lewiston ID. pp. 1-14.
Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich and D.S. Dobkin. 1992. Effects of livestock grazing on
neotropical migratory landbirds in Western North America. USDA For. Serv., Rocky
Mtn For. Range Exp. Sta., Fort Collins, CO.
Boyd, R. J. 1978. American Elk. In. Big Game of North America – Ecology and
Management. J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert Eds. , Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C. 494 p.
Braumandl, T. F. and M. P. Curran (Editors) 1992. A Field Guide for Site Identification
and Interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. B. C. Ministry of Forests, Land
Manage. Handbook No. 20.
Brown, W.S. and W.S. Parker. 1976. Movement ecology of Coluber constrictor near
communal hibernacula. Copeia 1976(2):225-242.
Buck, S.G., C. Mullis, A.S. Mossman, I. Show and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat use by
fishers in adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. In Martens, sables, and fishers:
Biology and conservation.
Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens.
In Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and conservation. S.W.
7-2
Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds.). Cornell Univ. Press.
Ithaca, NY. pp. 283-296.
Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds.). Cornell Univ. Press.
Ithaca, NY. pp. 377-387.
Buskirk, S. W. and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American
Martens. Comstock Publishing Assoc. Cornell Univ. Press.
Buskirk, S.W. 1992. Conserving circumboreal forests for martens and fishers.
Conservation Biology 6: 318-320.
Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B.
Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (tech. eds.). The Scientific Basis for
Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the
Western United States. Gen. Tech. Report RM-254. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.
Butler, R.W. 1997. The Great Blue Heron. University of British Columbia Press,
Vancouver.
Cadman, M.D. and A.M. Page. 1994. Status report on the yellow-breasted chat in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Canada Land Inventory 1968. Land Capability for Wildlife – Ungulates, Golden 82 N.
Scale 1: 250,000. Dept. of Regional Economic Expansion.
Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I McT.-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser and M. C.
McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol’s. 1 and 2. Royal B. C. Museum and
Canadian Wildlife Service.
Campbell, C.A. 1991. Status Report on the Yellow-bellied racer, Coluber constrictor
mormon, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa,
ON.
Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME). 1989. Appendix V. Canadian
Water Quality Guidelines: Updates (September 1989). Ottawa, Canada.
Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status report on the white-headed woodpecker, Picoides
albolarvatus in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. #B-80.
Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the yellow-breasted chat in British Columbia. B.C. Min.
Cannings, R.J. 1991. Status report on the sage thrasher, in British Columbia. B.C. Min.
7-3
Carr, H.D. 1972. The Status of Elk in Alberta in 1972. Alberta Fish and Wildlife
Division. Unpubl. Rpt. 19pp.
Carl, G.C., Clemens, W.A., and Lindsay, C.C. 1967. The Fresh-Water Fishes of British
Columbia. A. Sutton, Victoria. 192pp.
Chadwick, D. H. 1983. A Beast the Colour of Winter- the Mountain Goat Observed.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 208 p.
Chilton, R. 1990. Fort Nelson and Area Average Winter Snowpack Mapping. Wildlife
Working Report No. WR-49. Ministry of Environment, Fort St. John, BC. 7 pp. + map.
Clark, T. W., and T. M. Campbell, III. 1976. Population organisation and regulatory
mechanisms of martens in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Proc. of the first Conf.
On Sci. Research in the National Parks, U. S. D. I. Nat. Park Serv., Trans. Proc. Series 5.
Vol. 1.
Cooper, J.M. 1996. Status of the Sandhill crane in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ.,
Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. No. B-83.
Cowan, I. McT. and C.J. Guiguet, 1965. The Mammals of British Columbia. BC
Provincial Museum, Victoria, Handbook No. 11, 414 p.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1998. Internet
web site: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/COSEWIC.
Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada.
Craighead, J. J., J. S. Sumner and G. B. Scaggs. 1982. A Definitive System for Analysis of
Grizzly Bear Habitat and Other Wilderness Resources. University of Montana, Missoula,
279 p.
Demarchi, D. A., B. Fuhr, B.A. Pendergast and A.C. Stewart. 1983. Wildlife Capability
Classification for British Columbia: an Ecological (Biophysical) Approach for
Ungulates. Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 56 p.
Demarchi, D. A., K. Simpson, and W. Harper. 1996. Mountain Caribou Habitat
Suitability in B.C. – Current 1996. Wildlife Branch. Victoria, B.C. Map.
Demarchi, M.W. and D.A. Demarchi. 1994. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the
Kootenay Region: a habitat and population enhancement plan to 2004. B.C. Min.
Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C. Internal report.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1992.
Land development guidelines for the protection of aquatic habitat. 127pp.
7-4
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
1997. Fisheries Information Summary System datasheets and corresponding map.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1997. Unpublished FISS datasheets.
Drewein, R.C. and J.C. Lewis. 1987. Status and distribution of cranes in North America.
Proc. 1983 Inter. Crane Workshop. Inter. Crane Foundation.
Dobler, F.C. 1992. Washington State shrub steppe ecosystem studies: with emphasis on
avian species occurrence, densities and diversity. Paper presented at Northwest Scientific
Association Annual Meeting, 1992, Bellingham, WA.
Dodds, Craig. 1998. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Golden, BC. Personal
Communication.
Douglas, C.W. and M.A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. In Wild furbearer management and
conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch
(eds.). Ontario Min. Nat. Resour., Toronto, ON. pp. 510-529.
ENKON Environmental Limited. 1998. Fisheries Assessment of the Kickinghorse River
between Golden and the western boundary of Yoho National Park, prepared for Ministry of
Transportation and Highways (Kamloops)
Enns, K.A., E. Peterson and D. McLennan. 1993. Impacts of hardwood management on
British Columbia wildlife: problem analysis. For. Can., B.C. Min. For.,
Victoria, B.C.
FRDA Rep. No. 208.
Environment Canada 1974. Canada Land Inventory, Land Capability for Wildlife –
Ungulates. Map Sheet 82 N (Golden). Scale 1:250,000.
Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. No. B-81.
Environ., Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. No. B-79.
Erskine, A. J. 1977. Birds in Boreal Canada: Communities, Densities and Adaptations.
Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series
Number 41. 71
Ferguson, R. S. and L. Halvorson. 1997. Checklist of Birds of the Upper Columbia River
Valley. Matrix Resource Services, Golden, B. C.
Festa-Bianchet, M. 1988. A pneumonia epizootic in bighorn sheep, with comments on
preventive management. In Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat
Counc.,
W.
Samuel (ed.). 6: 66-76.
Fleener, George G. 1981. Life history of the Cutthroat trout, Salmo Clarki Richardson, in
Logan River, Utah. Amer. Fish. Soc. 151:235-248
7-5
Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1981. Preliminary Elk Management Plan for British
Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Province of British Columbia. 19 pp.
Fitzner, R.E., D. Berry, L.L. Boyd and C.A. Rieck. 1977. Nesting of ferruginous hawk
(Buteo regalis) in Washington, 1974-75. Condor 79:245-249.
Fraser, D.F., T. Hooper and L.R. Ramsay. 1991. Preliminary species management plan
for long-billed curlew in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Wildl.
Br., Victoria,
B.C.
Fraser, D.F. and E. Walters. 1993 Preliminary species management plan for yellowbreasted chat in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl.Br.,
Victoria, B.C. Draft rep.
Geist, V. 1982. Adaptive Behavioral Strategies. In. Elk of North America – Ecology and
Management. J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweil eds. Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C., 698 p.
Geist, V. 1982. Adaptive Behavioural Strategies. Pp. 219-277 In Thomas, J.W. and D.E.
Towill (eds.). Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, Pa. 698 pp.
Gibbs, J.P. and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Call-response surveys for monitoring breeding
waterbirds. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:27-34.
Gibbs, J.P., S. Melvyn and F.A. Reid. 1992. American Bittern. In The Birds of North
American, No. 18. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (eds.). Philadelphia: The
Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Gibbard and Gibbard Environmental Consultants. 1992. Yellow-breasted chat survey.
B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Penticton, B.C. Unpubl. report.
Green, D. M. and R. W. Campbell, 1984. The Amphibians of British Columbia. Royal
B.C. Museum Handbook No. 45. 100 p.
Gregory, P. T. and R. W. Campbell. 1984. The Reptiles of British Columbia. Royal B.
C. Museum Handbook No. 44. 102 p.
Halls, L. B. 1978. White-tailed Deer. In. Big Game of North America – Ecology and
Management. J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert eds. , Wildlife Management Institute,
Hancock, J. and J. Kushlan. 1984. The herons handbook. Croom Helm, Ltd., Kent,
England.
7-6
Hagmeier, E.M. 1956. Distribution of marten and fisher in North America. Can. Field
Nat. (70): 149-169.
Hebert, D. M. and W. G. Turnbull, 1977. A Description of Southern Interior and Coastal
Mountain Goat Ecotypes in British Columbia. Proceedings of the First International
Mountain Goat Symposium. Kalispell, Montana, p. 126 – 146.
Hebert, D. 1973. Altitudinal migrations as a factor in the nutrition of bighorn sheep.
Univ. B.C., Vancouver, B.C. PhD thesis.
Holroyd. 1994. National Recovery Plan for the Ferruginous Hawk. Recovery of
Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee, Ottawa, ON. Report No. 11.
Hooper, T.D. and M.D. Pitt. [1994]. Breeding bird communities and habitat associations
in the grasslands of the Chilcotin region, British Columbia. Environ. Can, Can. For.
Serv., B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. FRDA Rep. (in prep).
Hornocker, M. G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwest Montana.
Can. J. Zool. 59 : 1286 – 1301.
Hoyer, R.F. 1974. Description of a rubber boa (Charina bottae) population from
western Oregon. Herpetologica 30(3):275-283.
Houston, C.S. 1982. Artificial nesting platforms for ferruginous hawks. Blue Jay 40:208213.
Howard, R.P. 1975. Breeding ecology of the ferruginous hawk in northern Utah and
southern Idaho. MSc thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, UT.
Jamieson, B. 1986. The Impact of Mechanized Skiing on Mountain Goats in the Kootenay
Region. Report prepared for Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook. 31 p.
Jenni, D.A., R.L. Redmond and T.K. Bicak. 1982. Behavioural ecology and habitat
relationships of long-billed curlews in western Idaho. Report to the Bureau of Land
Management, Boise, ID.
Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures. Watershed
Restoration Technical Circular No. 8, revised April 1996. Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks and Ministry of Forests. 97 pp.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1991. Crane music, a natural history of American cranes. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Jonkel, C. 1978. Black, Brown (Grizzly) and Polar Bears. In. Big Game of North
America – Ecology and Management. J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert eds. , Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 494 p.
7-7
Jonkel, C. and I. McT.-Cowan. 1971. The Black Bear in the Spruce-Fir Forest. The
Wildl. Soc., Wildlife Monograph No. 27, 57 p.
Jones, J.L. and E.O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in northcentral Idaho. In Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and onservation. S.W.
Keisker, D.G. 1987. Nest tree selection by primary cavity-nesting birds in south-central
British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Rep. No. R-13.
Koehler, G. M. and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3): 500-505.
Lees, J. A. and W. J. Clutterbuck. 1888. A Ramble in British Columbia. Longmans,
Green and Company, London. 387 p.
Lewis, J.C. 1980. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In Management of migratory shore
and upland game birds in North America. Sanderson, G.C. (ed.). Univ. Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, NB. pp. 5-43.
Littlefield, C.D. 1986. Autumn sandhill crane habitat use in southeast Oregon. Wilson
Bull. 98:131-137.
Littlefield, C.D. and D.G. Paullin. 1990. Effects of land management on nesting success
of sandhill cranes in Oregon. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:63-65.
Littlefield, C.D., M.A. Stern and R.W. Schlorff. 1994. Summer distribution, status, and
trends of Greater Sandhill Crane populations in Oregon and California. NW. Nat.
75:1-10.
Lofroth, E.C. 1994. Scale dependent analyses of habitat selection by marten in the SubBoreal Spruce Biogeoclimatic Zone, British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of
Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University.
Lofroth, E.C. and J.D. Steventon. 1990. Managing for Marten Winter Habitat in Interior
Forests of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch.
Marshall, D.B. 1992. Sensitive vertebrates of Oregon. Oreg. Dep. Fish and Wildl.,
Portland, OR.
McCarthy, T.M. and R.J. Seavoy. 1994. Reducing Nonsport Losses Attributable to Food
Conditioning: Human and Bear Behaviour Modification in an Urban Environment. Int.
Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9 (1): 75 – 84.
McCartney, J.M. 1985. The ecology of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis
oreganus, in British Columbia. MSc thesis, Univ. Vict., Victoria, B.C.
7-8
McCrory, W. 1998. A Bear Habitat and Hazard Assessment – Duffy Lake Provincial
Park. Report prepared for B.C. Parks Garibaldi/Sunshine Coast District. 29 p. +
Appendices.
McCrory, W. and D. Blood. 1978. An Inventory of the Mammals of Yoho National Park,
Report prepared for Parks Canada. 266 p.
McNamee, P.J., M.L. Jones, R.E. Everitt, J.H. Staley, and D. Tait. 1981. Report on the
Integrated Wildlife Intensive Forestry Research-Planning Workshop. Fish and Wildl.
Bull No. B019, IWIFR-4, BC Ministries of Environment and Forestry, Victoria. 147 pp.
McWhirter, D., S. Smith, E. Merrill and L. Irwin. 1992. Foraging behaviour and
vegetation response to prescribed burning on bighorn sheep winter range. In
Bienn. Symp North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc., J. Emmerich and W.G. Hepworth
(eds.). 8: 264-278.
Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow and H.M Wight. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir
forests, western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:787-797.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of
Forests, Victoria. Special Report Series 6. 330 p.
Millikin, R.L., S. McConnell and R. van der Driessche. [In prep]. Habitat selection by
sage thrashers in British Columbia. Can. Wildl. Serv., Delta, B.C.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). 1997. B.C. Conservation Data
Centre: Rare Vertebrate Animal Tracking List.
Internet web site:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/cdc/atrkprov.htm.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1992.
guidelines for the Province of British Columbia.
Urban Runoff Quality Control
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. Hunting and Trapping Regulations
Synopsis: 1998 - 1999. B.C. Environment, Victoria. 88 p.
Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Penticton, B.C.
Nagorsen, D. W. 1996. Opossums, Shrews and Moles of British Columbia. Royal B. C.
Museum Handbook (Vol. 2, Mammals of British Columbia) 169 p.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993 . The Bats of British Columbia. Royal B.C.
Museum Handbook, Victoria, 164 p.
Nagorsen, D. 1990. The Mammals of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia
Museum Memoir No. 4. Royal British Columbia Museum and Wildlife Branch, Victoria.
7-9
Nagpal, N., L.W. Pommen, and L.G. Swain. 1995. Approved and Working Criteria for
Water Quality -–1995. Water Quality Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Nagy, J.A. and M.A. Haroldson. 1990. Comparisons of Some Home Range Population
Parameters among four Grizzly Bear Populations in Canada. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and
Manage. 8: 227 – 235.
Nelson, K.J. and P.T. Gregory. [in press]. Status of the Great Basin Gopher Snake in
British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Work.
Rep.
Nietfeld, M., J. Wilk, K. Woolnough and B Hoskin. 1985. Wildlife Habitat Requirement
Summaries for Selected Wildlife Species in Alberta. Wildlife Resource Inventory Unit,
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. ENR Technical Report Number T/73.
Nussbaum, R.A. and R.F. Hoyer. 1974. Geographic variation and the validity of
subspecies in the rubber boa, Charina bottae (Blainville). NW Sc. 48(4):219-229.
Ohanjanian, I.A. 1985. The long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus, on Skookumchuck
Prairie - status report and enhancement plan. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl.
Br., Cranbrook, B.C.
_____. 1987. Status report and management recommendations for the long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus) on the junction. B.C. Min. Environ. Lands and Parks, Wildl. Br.,
Caribou-Chilcotin Region, B.C.
_____. 1992. Numbers, distribution and habitat dynamics of long-billed curlews in the
East Kootenay. B.C. Min. Environ., Wildl. Br., Cranbrook, B.C.
Parker, W.S. and W.S. Brown. 1980. Comparative ecology of two colubrid snakes in
northern Utah. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI. Publ. Biol. and Geol. No. 7.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Status report on the long-billed curlew in the Columbia and
Northern Great Basins. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR.
Paquet, M. 1997. Toward a Mountain Caribou Management Strategy for British
Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. p. 72.
Parish, R., R. Coupe and D. Lloyd. (Editors) 1996. Plants of Southern Interior British
Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver.
Peek, J. 1975. A Review of Moose Food Habits Studies in North America. In. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Moose Ecology, Quebec City. J. Bedard Ed..
University of Laval Press, Quebec . 741 p.
7-10
Peepre, J. S. and D. A. Blood. 1990. Impact Assessment Report on Heli-skiing in Mount
Robson Provincial Park. Report prepared for Ministry of Parks - Northern Region,
Prince George. 42 p.
Poelker, R. J. and H. D. Hartwell. 1973. Black Bear of Washington – Its Biology, Natural
History and Relationship to Forest Regeneration. Washington State Game Dept.
Olympia, Wash. 149 p.
Pogson, T.H. and S.M. Lindstedt. 1991. Distribution and abundance of large sandhill
cranes, Grus canadensis, wintering in California's Central Valley. Condor 93:266-278.
Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In The scientific basis for conserving
forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United
States. L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (eds.).
USDA For. Serv., Ft. Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. pp. 38-73
Purkett, Charles A. 1980. Growth rate of trout in relation to elevation and temperature.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 50:251-259
Ramakka, J.M. and R.T. Woyewodzie. 1993. Nesting ecology of ferruginous hawk in
northwestern New Mexico. J. Raptor Res. 27:97-101.
Resource Inventory Committee. [In prep]. Standardized inventory methodologies for
components of biodiversity in British Columbia: Shorebirds. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands
and Parks, Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C.
Resources Inventory Committee. 1996. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for
Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity. Forest and Grassland Songbirds. Draft
Report, February, 1996. Min. of Env., Lands and Parks, Victoria. 20 p.
Resource Analysis Branch. 1968a. Aerial Survey. Mapsheet 94/F Ware. Aerial wildlife
survey flown Jan. 25, 1968. BC Ministry of the Environment.
Resource Analysis Branch. 1968b. Aerial Survey. Mapsheet 94/G Trutch. Aerial
wildlife survey flown February, 1968. BC Ministry of the Environment.
Resource Analysis Branch. 1969a. Aerial Survey. Mapsheet 94/F Ware. Aerial wildlife
survey flown Jan. 22-23, 1969. BC Ministry of the Environment.
Resource Analysis Branch. 1969b. Aerial Survey. Mapsheet 94/G Trutch. Aerial
wildlife survey flown Jan. 17-21, 1969. BC Ministry of the Environment.
Reynolds, T.D. and C.H. Trost. 1980. The response of native vertebrate populations to
crested wheatgrass planting and grazing by sheep. J. Range Manage.
33:122-125.
7-11
Rideout, C. B., 1978. Mountain Goat. In. Big Game of North America – Ecology and
Management. J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert eds. , Wildlife Management Institute,
Rich, T. 1978. Nest placement in sage thrashers. Wilson Bull. 90: 303
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats and species. Wash. Dep. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Sarell, M.J. 1993. Snake hibernacula in the South Okanagan. Unpublished report for B.C.
Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Penticton, B.C.
Schmutz, J.K. 1984. Ferruginous and Swainson's hawk abundance and distribution in
relation to land use in southeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1180-1187.
__________. 1987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. J.
Range Manage. 40:438-440.
Schmutz, J.K. and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Migration and mortality of Alberta ferruginous
hawks. Condor 89:169-174.
Schmutz, J.K., S.M. Schmutz and D.A. Boag. 1980. Coexistence of three species of
hawks (Buteo species) in the prairie-parkland ecotone. Can. J. Zool. 58:1075-1089.
Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966pp.
Shewchuk, C.H. and H.L Waye. 1995. Status Report for the Gopher Snake in British
Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Draft Report.
Shewchuk, C.H. and P.T. Gregory. [1994]. Methods for sampling snakes in British
Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. (In press.)
Simpson, K., E. Terry and D. Hamilton. 1997. Toward a Mountain Caribou Management
Strategy for British Columbia – Habitat Requirements and Sub-population Status. B.C.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. Wildlife Working Report No. WR90. 29 p.
Siddle, C. and G. Davidson. 1991. Status of the Lewis' woodpecker in British Columbia.
Draft. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C.
Singer, F.J. and J.E. Norland. 1994. Niche relationships within a guild of ungulate species
in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, following release from artificial controls. Can.
J. Zool. 72:1383-1394.
7-12
Skovlin, J.M. 1982. Habitat Requirements and Evaluations. Pp. 369-413 In Thomas, J.W.
and D.E. Towill (eds.). Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 698 pp.
Slaney, P.A. and Zaldokas, D. 1997. Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures. Watershed
Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and
Ministry of Forests.
Sugden, L. 1961. The California bighorn in British Columbia with particularreference to
the Churn Creek herd. Dep. Recr. Cons., Victoria, B.C.
Stelfox, J. B. 1993. Hoofed Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton.
241 p.
Stephens, V. and S. Lofts. 1988. Species Notes for Mammals. Volume 1 in A.P.
Harcombe (tech. ed.). Wildlife Habitat Handbooks for the Southern Interior Ecoprovince.
Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests.
Steventon, J.D. and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten use of habitat in a commercially clear-cut
forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1): 175-182.
Stewart Environmental Ltd. 1996. Fish and Wildlife Assessment of the Trans Canada
Highway from Donald to Golden. Prepared for Ministry of Transportation and Highways
(Kamloops)
Stordeur, L. 1985. Marten in British Columbia with Implications for Forest Management.
Res. Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria.
Streeter, R. G., and C. E. Braun. 1968. Occurrence of marten in Colorado alpine areas.
Southwest Nat. 13(4): 449-451.
Sullivan, T. P. 1990. Responses of Red Squirrel Populations to Supplemental Food. J.
Mammal. 71 (4): 579 – 590.
Suter, G.W., II and J.L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and
prairie falcon nest site protection. J. Raptor Res. 15:12-18.
Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt and P.A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill crane. In The birds of North
America, No. 31. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy
of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Terratech Western Profile Consultants Ltd., 1995. Landslide Hazard Mapping in
Settlement/Transportation Corridors Revelstoke Forest District. BC Ministry of Forests,
Nelson Forest Region, consultants report 10pp.
7-13
Thomas, R. and R. Pawlas. 1991. Mountain Caribou Distribution. Scale 1: 10,000,000.
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
Thompson, I.D. and A.S. Harested. 1994. Effects of Logging on American Marten With
Models for Habitat Management. Pages 355-366 in Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harested, M.G.
Raphael (eds.). Martens, Sables and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Thurow, T.L. and C.M. White. 1983. Nest site relationship between the ferruginous hawk
and Swainson's hawk. J. Field Ornith. 54:401-406.
Wallmo, O. C. 1981. Mule and Black-tailed Deer Distribution and Habitats. In. Mule
and Black-tailed Deer of North America. O.C. Wallmo ed., Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, D.C. 605 p.
Weckworth, R. and V. Hawley. 1962. Marten Food Habits and Population Fluctuations
in Montana. Jour. Wildl. Manage. 26 (1): 55 – 74.
Weckwerth, R. P. and V. D. Hawley. 1962. Marten food habitat and population
fluctuations in Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 26(1): 55-74.
Weir, R.D. 1994. Diet, spatial organization, and habitat relationships of fishers in southcentral British Columbia. Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, B.C. MSc thesis.
Wildlife Branch. 1995. Aerial Survey. Mapsheet 94/G Trutch. Aerial wildlife survey
flown Feb. 21-23, 25 and 26 1995. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks.
Wood, M.D. 1988. Impacts of Man on Mountain Goats. Report prepared for Ministry of
Parks – South Coast Region. 34 p.
Woods, J. G., B. N. McLellan, D. Paetkau, M. Proctor and C. Strobeck. 1997. West
Slopes bear research project, second progress report, 1997. Columbia Mountains
Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke, B. C. 34 p.
Wright, V. and B. Wales. 1993. Bibliography of selected literature regarding the
management of cavity excavators in eastside habitats: Oregon and Washington. USDA
For. Serv., La Grande, OR.
Young, S.P. 1958. The Bobcat of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,
NB.
Zuleta, G.A. and C. Galindo-Leal. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Four Species of
Small Mammals at Risk in a Fragmented Landscape. Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, Victoria. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-64. 34 p.
7-14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Figures
APPENDIX B
Photographs
APPENDIX C
Water Licenses
Water Licenses Issued for Streams and Lakes in the Crystal Mountain Study Area
Licence #
C049299
C051681
C051681
C068951
Water Rights Map
82.E.082.1.1 U
82.E.082.1.1 W
82.E.082.1.4 A
82.E.082.1.4 A
Source Name
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Purpose
Domestic
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
C068952
C070137
C106762
C106763
C106764
C107661
C107662
C115258
C017582
C017583
C033404
C033404
C033406
C049771
C067991
C067991
C066522
C066522
C066522
F066486
Z112729
C003779
F011745
F011746
F011747
C015445
C003778
C003778
C014418
C015442
C015443
C015444
C017582
C033387
C033388
C033388
C033404
C033404
C033404
C033405
C043507
C056443
C064293
82.E.082.1.4 A
82.E.082.1.1 V
82.E.082.1.1 AA
82.E.082.1.1 AA
82.E.082.1.1 AA
82.E.082.1.4 A
82.E.082.1.4 A
82.E.082.1.1 W
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
8500 G
82.E.082.1.2 H
82.E.082.1.2 H
82.E.082.1.2 H
82.E.082.2.3 H
82.E.082.2.3 K
8499 B
8499 B
8499 B
8499 B
8500 J
82.E.082.4.1 C
82.E.082.4.1 C
82.E.082.4.1 B
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.2.2.3 C
82.E.082.2.2.3 C
82.E.082.2.2.3 C
8500 A
8500 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
8500 A
82.E.082.2.2.3 E
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.2.2.3 D
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Jack Creek
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Lambly Lake
Law Creek
Law Creek
Law Creek
Law Creek
Law Creek
Lower Jack Pine Lake
Paynter Lake
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Domestic
Watering
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Domestic
Irrigation Local Auth
Storage
Waterworks Local Auth
Storage
Storage
Storage
Domestic
Irrigation
Storage
Irrigation
Irrigation
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Rediversion
Irrigation
Domestic
Irrigation
Rediversion
Storage
Irrigation
Rediversion
Conserv.-Use Of Water
Quantity
500
14.4
14.4
15
Unit
GD
AF
AF
AF
Licensee Name
HARRISON LYLE J & INGELISE R
SCHERER ROBERT & BERNICE
SCHERER ROBERT & BERNICE
GEYER WILLIAM H & MARIANNE
500
0.67
11.46
14.19
28.95
19.2
2.86
1000
1305
1305
1425
182500000
500
755
270
73300000
500
45.84
4
15
0
600
63
42
66.25
350
500
365000
87.5
381.25
728.75
387.5
GD
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
GD
AF
AF
AF
GY
AF
AF
AF
GY
GD
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
GY
AF
AF
AF
AF
3.48
500
140.4
1425
182500000
AF
GD
AF
AF
GY
450
48
AF
AF
HUTCHINGS ANDREW
PATERSON KIM H
DACRE BRUCE L & JULIE E
HARRISON LYLE J & INGELISE R
MAKKONEN ARMAS I & ELFRIEDE H
MILLER ALLAN & BEV
SPENCER JOHN J & BETTY L
LAFRENIERE ANDREW R & KAREN R
WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
KLEIN JESSICA S
KLEIN JESSICA S
KLEIN JESSICA S
LEWIS IONA M
MACPHERSON ROBERT
VICTOR PROJECTS LTD
SCOTTISH COVE HOLDINGS LTD
SCOTTISH COVE HOLDINGS LTD
BYLANDS NURSERIES
FISHERIES BRANCH
3 CS
Licensee Address
RR 2 COMP 27 SITE 27 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
437 CURLEW RD KELOWNA BC V1W4L2
437 CURLEW RD KELOWNA BC V1W4L2
4375 MAXWELL RD RR 2 SITE 27B COMP 21
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
4200 SPIERS RD KELOWNA BC V1W4B5
2505 O'REILLY ROAD KELOWNA BC V1W2V7
RR 2 SITE 27B COMP 14 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
2927 THACKER DR KELOWNA BC V1Z1W9
RR 2 COMP 12 SITE 27B PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
SITE 27B COMP 1 RR 2 PEACHLAND B C V0H1X0
3717 ELLIOTT RD WESTBANK BC V4T2H7
SITE 26A COMP 5 RR 2 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
3916 ANGUS DR WESTBANK BC V4T2J8
1540 ROSS ROAD KELOWNA BC V1Z1L6
1030 MC CURDY RD KELOWNA BC V1X2P7
102-266 LAWRENCE AVE KELOWNA BC V1Y6L3
102-266 LAWRENCE AVE KELOWNA BC V1Y6L3
1600 BYLAND RD KELOWNA BC V1Z1H6
3547 SKAHA LAKE RD PENTICTON BC V2A7K2
1 of 4
Licence #
C067990
C067991
C104097
C112169
F011739
F011740
F011741
F011742
F011743
F011744
F011748
F011749
F015806
F015807
F015808
F019711
F021027
C017582
C033404
C033404
C033406
C049771
C067991
C067991
C056010
C104097
C014419
C014419
C020626
C041486
C053283
C055765
C055766
C057847
C057854
C057856
C057858
C057858
C057859
C057860
C057861
C057862
C057863
C057864
C057865
C057866
C057867
C057869
Water Rights Map
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.2.2.3 C
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
82.E.082.4.1 A
8500 A
82.E.082.4.1 C
82.E.082.4.1 C
82.E.082.4.1 C
82.E.082.2.3.4 D
82.E.082.2.2.3 C
8499 E
8500 L
8500 L
8500 L
8500 L
8500 L
8500 L
8500 F
8500 D
8499 K
8499 L
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.2 G
82.E.082.1.2 B
82.E.082.1.2 D
82.E.082.1.2 D
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
Source Name
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
North Powers Creek
West Powers Creek
West Powers Creek
Webber Lake
Webber Lake
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Purpose
Rediversion
Rediversion
Rediversion
Irrigation
Storage
Domestic
Irrigation
Rediversion
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Rediversion
Storage
Storage
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Rediversion
Domestic
Quantity Unit Licensee Name
26.1 AF GELLATLY INVESTMENTS LTD
48.25 AF WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
42 AF WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
500 GD STEWART WILLIAM A C & ALDYTHE U
4.2 AF BYLANDS NURSERIES LTD
182500000 GY WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
73300000 GY WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
379497000 GY PEACHLAND MUNICIPALITY OF
500 GD BARNES KEITH E DR
1000 GD TRANSPORTATION & HIGHWAYS MIN.
PEACHLAND MUNICIPALITY OF
13.5 AF PEACHLAND MUNICIPALITY OF
500 GD PEACHLAND MUNICIPALITY OF
15 AF PEACHLAND MUNICIPALITY OF
Licensee Address
2355 GEORGE CRT WESTBANK BC V4T2K4
3396 GLENCOE RD WESTBANK BC V4T1M1
1600 BYLAND RD KELOWNA BC V1Z1H6
BOX 390 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
1054 WESTSIDE ROAD S KELOWNA BC V1Z3S1
523 COLUMBIA ST KAMLOOPS BC V2C2T9
2 of 4
Licence #
C057871
C059173
C059174
C059246
C059481
C062124
C062126
C062128
C062129
C062297
C062891
C063738
C064109
C064111
C064112
C065175
C065176
C065176
C066187
C066188
C066189
C066190
C066267
C066295
C068220
C068220
C068221
C068221
C068222
C068222
C068223
C068223
C068224
C068225
C070136
C070487
Water Rights Map
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 J
82.E.082.1.1 G
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 G
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 F
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 T
82.E.082.1.1 T
82.E.082.1.1 T
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 M
82.E.082.1.1 N
82.E.082.1.1 L
82.E.082.1.1 R
82.E.082.1.1 K
82.E.082.1.1 E
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 A
82.E.082.1.1 Z
82.E.082.1.2 A
Source Name
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Purpose
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Rediversion
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Quantity
7.08
1000
500
500
500
207
13.5
39
Unit
AF
GD
GD
GD
GD
AF
AF
AF
500
37.2
3.25
500
500
500
50
240.3
1825000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
5.33
500
5.33
500
5.33
500
5.33
4.8
7.5
500
1500
GD
AF
AF
GD
GD
GD
AF
AF
GY
GD
GD
GD
GD
GD
GD
GD
AF
GD
AF
GD
AF
GD
AF
AF
AF
GD
GD
C070488
C103294
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Domestic
Domestic
500 GD
500 GD
C103299
C103309
C103637
C104243
C104243
C104850
C105052
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.1 R
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.1 N
82.E.082.1.1 R
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Domestic
Domestic
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Domestic
Irrigation
500 GD
250 GD
7.5 AF
30 AF
30 AF
8000 GD
7.5 AF
Licensee Name
FLINSKY MARK & LISA
DUNCAN LAURIE A
FAULKNER GORDON S
SZALKA GEORGE E & COLLEEN
MANKY HENRY & EDNA
COLDHAM WILLIAM A & RUTH J
TAYLOR GRANT A & KAREN L
DIXON TREVOR D
SINCLAIR BERNADETTE L
MADSEN DAVID
FIESSEL LEONARD E COLLEEN A
VANDALE ELMER L & MARLENE M
ANDREWS KAREN M
SMITH KIM P & THERESA F
Licensee Address
RR 2 SITE 27B COMP 27 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
15832 PROSPECT CRES WHITE ROCK BC V4B2C4
RR 2 SITE 27C COMP 4 VENNER CT PEACHLAND BC
SITE 27B COMP 6 RR2 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
SITE 27B COMP 17 RR 2 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
RR 3 COMP 8 SITE 48 SUMMERLAND BC V0H1Z0
SITE 27B COMP 13 RR 2 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
RR2 COMP 15 SITE 27B PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
RR 2 SITE 42 COMP 15 GIBSONS BC V0N1V0
RR 2 S 27C C 7 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
4840 TREPANIER BENCH RD RR 2 SITE 27 COMP 4
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
PETERSON KEVIN C & CAROLE A
RR 2 SITE 27 COMP 46 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
FIRST ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD
10820 WALTERS RD S84 C11 RR 4 SUMMERLAND BC
V0H1Z0
THIESMANN HELMUT & GAIL
DIETRICH WALTER
745 WAYNE RD KELOWNA BC V1X4L9
CENTRAL OKANAGAN REGIONAL DIST. 1450 KLO RD KELOWNA BC V1W3Z4
SMITH KIM P & THERESA F
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
3 of 4
Licence # Water Rights Map Source Name
C105072 82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Purpose
Irrigation
Quantity Unit Licensee Name
7.5 AF MUIR COLIN E & VALERIE A
C105073
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Domestic
500 GD MUIR COLIN E & VALERIE A
C105074
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Domestic
500 GD FIRST ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD
C105412
C105413
C105416
C105417
C105417
C105417
C105418
C105418
C105420
C105420
C105421
C106007
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Irrigation
Irrigation
Domestic
Domestic
Irrigation
Stockwatering
C106109
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Irrigation
38.5
AF FIRST ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD
C106116
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Irrigation
12
AF FIRST ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD
C106148
C106674
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Domestic
Irrigation
500 GD VERGNANO JEAN E D & JUDITH L
20.19 AF SMITH KIM P & THERESA F
C106675
C106684
C106684
F043601
Z103296
Z103298
Z103298
Z103310
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.2 A
8495C Y4
82.E.082.1.2 A
82.E.082.1.1 Y
82.E.082.1.1 Y
82.E.082.1.3 D
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Trepanier Creek
Irrigation
Domestic
Irrigation
Irrigation
Domestic
Domestic
Irrigation
Conserv.-Stored Water
9.81
500
14.34
31.5
1000
500
2.1
2
Irrigation
Domestic
Irrigation
Domestic
Processing
30
9
1000
250
33.6
250
0
3
500
45.84
1000
500
AF
AF
GD
GD
AF
GD
AF
GD
AF
GD
GD
AF
GD
AF
AF
GD
GD
AF
CS
THIESMANN HELMUT & GAIL
VERGNANO JEAN E D & JUDITH L
FIPKE ANNA E
FIPKE ANNA E
FIPKE ANNA E
FIPKE ANNA E
C F MINERAL RESEARCH LTD
KLEIN JESSICA S
KLEIN JESSICA S
FIRST ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD
PETERSON KEVIN C & CAROLE A
MCKAGUE DONNA A
MCKAGUE DONNA A
CLEMENTS JAMES H & FLORENCE P
MCKAGUE DONNA A
CAMPBELL DOUGLAS & IRENE
CAMPBELL DOUGLAS & IRENE
FISHERIES BRANCH
Licensee Address
4850 TREPANIER RD RR 2 COMP 48 SITE 27
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
4850 TREPANIER RD RR 2 COMP 48 SITE 27
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
V0H1Z0
1677 POWICK RD KELOWNA BC V1X4L1
RR 2 COMP 5 SITE 26A PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
RR 2 COMP 5 SITE 26A PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
V0H1Z0
V0H1Z0
V0H1Z0
PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
SITE 31 COMP 8 RR 1 PEACHLAND BC V0H1X0
343 94TH AVE SE CALGARY AB T2J0E7
343 94TH AVE SE CALGARY AB T2J0E7
3547 SKAHA LAKE RD PENTICTON BC V2A7K2
4 of 4
APPENDIX D
Bird Survey Data
Raptor Results of Transect 1
07/03/00
Distance on
Transect (m)
0 (at Wetland)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Transect 1
PC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Weather: clouds=100%, wind=2North, Drizzle on-off
Time start
(hrs.)
0023
0042
0101
0117
0131
0145
0158
0211
0225
0241
0255
0301
0311
0323
0335
0347
0401
Location
Species
Number
Great-horned Owl
1
On study site in middle over ski aea
1
Off site along Powers Crk.
Great-horned Owl
1
In valley of Powers Crk.
1
On summit of study site
1
Direction of Lamby Lk.
07/04/00
Transect 1
Weather: clouds=70%, wind=2NE
Distance on
Transect (m)
PC
Time start
(hrs.)
0
500
1000
1500
2500
3500
4500
5500
6500
7500
8500
9500
10500
11500
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
12
13
2137
2146
2156
2207
2220
2245
2300
2315
2330
2330
2346
0001
0023
0045
Location
Species
Number
Great-horned Owl
1
Behind Station 3
2
1
Off end of valley
Off end of valley north of last point count
Off property to east
Great-horned Owl
Great-horned Owl
07/05/00
Transect CWeather: clouds=30%, wind=1NW Clear
Distance
on
Transect
(m)
PC
Time
start
(hrs.)
Species
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2137
2147
2205
2213
2225
2238
2252
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
Location
Big Brown Bat seen at stream from wetland of Jack Crk.
Wind picked up to beaufort 4 NW
Transect 1 Breeding Bird Survey
06/05/00
Transect 1
Distance on
Transect (m)
PC
0 (at Wetland)
1
500
1000
1500
2000
2
3
4
5
Time
start
(hrs.)
0515
0526
0529
0533
0538
Species
Townsend's Warbler
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Western Tanager
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Black-capped Chickadee
Orange-crowned Warbler
Warbling Vireo
Common Raven
Swainson's Thrush
Brown-headed Cowbird
American Robin
Oregon Junco
Audabon's Warbler
Common Raven
Western Tanager
Townsend's Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Oregon Junco
American Robin
Western Tanager
MacGillivray's Warbler
Common Raven
Townsend's Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Pine Siskin
Audabon's Warbler
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Townsend's Warbler
Warbling Vireo
American Robin
American Robin
Townsend's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Audabon's Warbler
Pine Siskin
Oregon Junco
Song
Call
Visual
2
3
2
1
6
1
2
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
07/06/00 Transect 2
Distance
on
Transect
(m)
0
500
1000
PC
Time
start
(hrs.)
1
0548
2
3
0552
0556
1500
4
0601
2500
5
0606
3500
6
0612
Species
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Warbler
Pine Siskin
Cassin's Finch
Townsend's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Western Tanager
Audabon's Warbler
Pine Grosbeak
Nashville Warbler
Least Flycatcher
Pine Siskin
Cassin's Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Winter Wren
Warbling Vireo
Pine Siskin
American Robin
Least Flycatcher
Nashville Warbler
Western Tanager
Winter Wren
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Warbler
Warbling Vireo
Swainson's Thrush
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Townsend's Warbler
Cedar Waxwing
Cassin's Finch
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Song
Call
Visual
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
7
1
2
4
1
1
07/07/00
Transect 3
Distance on
Transect
(m)
PC
Time
start
(hrs.)
0
1
0735
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2
3
4
5
6
7
0740
0745
0753
0800
0808
0816
Species
Oregon Junco
Hammond's Flycatcher
Western Tanager
Audabon's Warbler
American Robin
Swainson's Thrush
Pine Siskin
Swainson's Thrush
Oregon Junco
Brown Creeper
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Audabon's Warbler
Pine Siskin
American Robin
Pine Siskin
Audabon's Warbler
Winter Wren
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Oregon Junco
Townsend's Solitaire
Pine Grosbeak
Chipping Sparrow
Cassin's Vireo
Swainson's Thrush
Common Raven
Hairy Woodpecker
Audabon's Warbler
Pine Grosbeak
Warbling Vireo
Pine Siskin
Oregon Junco
Audabon's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Brown Creeper
Oregon Junco
Chipping Sparrow
Nashville Warbler
Hairy Woodpecker
Chipping Sparrow
Oregon Junco
Audabon's Warbler
Pine Siskin
Swainson's Thrush
Warbling Vireo
Cassin's Vireo
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Cassin's Finch
Turkey Vulture
Song
Call
Visual
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
07/06/00 Transect 2
Distance
on
Transect
(m)
4500
5500
PC
Time
start
(hrs.)
7
0617
8
0624
6500
9
0631
7500
10
0637
8500
9500
10500
11
12
13
0645
0652
0701
Species
Swainson's Thrush
Oregon Junco
Audabon's Warbler
Common Raven
Pine Siskin
American Robin
Least Flycatcher
Red-shafted Flicker
Brown Creeper
Swainson's Thrush
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Winter Wren
Pine Siskin
Townsend's Warbler
Western Tanager
Audabon's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Least Flycatcher
Chipping Sparrow
Hermit Thrush
Pine Siskin
Swainson's Thrush
Oregon Junco
Nashville Warbler
Cassin's Finch
Red-shafted Flicker
Red-tailed Hawk
Turkey Vulture
Common Raven
Song Sparrow
Winter Wren
Pine Grosbeak
Townsend's Warbler
Song
Call
Visual
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
06/05/00
Transect 1
Distance on
Transect (m)
PC
2500
6
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
7
8
9
10
11
12
Time
start
(hrs.)
0542
0546
0551
0555
0600
0605
0610
Species
Western Tanager
Pine Siskin
Oregon Junco
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Warbler
Audabon's Warbler
Oregon Junco
Pine Siskin
Audabon's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Warbler
Cassin's Vireo
Nashville Warbler
Oregon Junco
Audabon's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Common Raven
Townsend's Warbler
Pine Siskin
Audabon's Warbler
Hairy Woodpecker
Wilson's Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Pine Siskin
Townsend's Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Winter Wren
Northern Waterthrush
Swainson's Thrush
Pine Siskin
Wilson's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Audabon's Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Western Tanager
Song
2
2
3
1
Call
Visual
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
06/05/00
Transect 1
Distance on
Transect (m)
PC
6000
13
6500
7000
14
15
Time
start
(hrs.)
0614
0620
0625
7500
16
0630
8000
17
0636
Species
Pine Siskin
Warbling Vireo
Oregon Junco
Hermit Thrush
Warbling Vireo
Hermit Thrush
Pine Siskin
Swainson's Thrush
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Red-shafted Flicker
Townsend's Warbler
Oregon Junco
Nashville Warbler
Pine Siskin
Warbling Vireo
Townsend's Warbler
Swainson's Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Warbler
Song
Call
Visual
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

Environmental Assessment Report

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Uchee Creek

Conceptual Map - West Creek Business Park

2016 Spa Creek Clean Water PaddleFEST

Salish Sucker Recovery and Management

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best

hypomyces image

Patio Party - DuPage Pads

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection