DOCSLIB.ORG

C S a S S C C S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C S a S S C C S C S A S S C C S Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique Research Document 2011/107 Document de recherche 2011/107 Pacific Region Région du Pacifique Recovery Potential Assessment Évaluation du potentiel de for the Umatilla Dace (Rhinichthys rétablissement du naseux d’Umatilla Umatilla ) (Rhinichthys umatilla) 1 Brian Harvey 2 Tom Brown 1Fugu Fisheries Ltd. 3-932 Boulderwood Rise, Victoria, BC V8Y3G5 2Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, 3190 Hammond Bay Rd., Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7 This series documents the scientific basis for the La présente série documente les fondements evaluation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in scientifiques des évaluations des ressources et Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of the des écosystèmes aquatiques du Canada. Elle day in the time frames required and the traite des problèmes courants selon les documents it contains are not intended as échéanciers dictés. Les documents qu’elle definitive statements on the subjects addressed contient ne doivent pas être considérés comme but rather as progress reports on ongoing des énoncés définitifs sur les sujets traités, mais investigations. plutôt comme des rapports d’étape sur les études en cours. Research documents are produced in the official Les documents de recherche sont publiés dans language in which they are provided to the la langue officielle utilisée dans le manuscrit Secretariat. envoyé au Secrétariat. This document is available on the Internet at: Ce document est disponible sur l’Internet à: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs ISSN 1499-3848 (Printed / Imprimé) ISSN 1919-5044 (Online / En ligne) © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011 © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................III LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... IV ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. V RÉSUMÉ..................................................................................................................................... VI 1 ABOUT THIS RECOVERY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................1 2 CURRENT/RECENT SPECIES STATUS ................................................................................1 2.1 SPECIES BIOLOGY......................................................................................................1 2.1.1 Appearance ...........................................................................................................2 2.1.2 Life history .............................................................................................................2 2.1.3 Food and feeding...................................................................................................3 2.1.4 Taxonomy and genetic characterization................................................................3 2.1.5 Community ecology and interactions with other species.......................................4 2.2 RANGE, NUMBER OF POPULATIONS AND ABUNDANCE .......................................4 2.2.1 Abundance ............................................................................................................6 2.2.2 Allowable Harm .....................................................................................................7 2.2.2.1 Similkameen River........................................................................................................7 2.2.2.2 Kettle River ...................................................................................................................7 2.2.2.3 Columbia, Kootenay and Slocan Rivers.......................................................................8 2.3 CURRENT OR RECENT LIFE HISTORY PARAMETERS ...........................................9 2.4 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND USE PATTERNS ....................................................9 2.4.1 Adult habitat.........................................................................................................10 2.4.2 Spawning habitat.................................................................................................11 2.4.3 Juveniles (less than one year of age)..................................................................11 2.4.4 Young of the year (fry).........................................................................................11 2.5 POTENTIAL CRITICAL HABITAT...............................................................................12 2.6 POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION TARGETS FOR RECOVERY ..........................12 2.7 RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................12 3 SCOPE FOR MANAGEMENT TO FACILITATE RECOVERY ...............................................13 3.1 PROBABILITY THAT THE RECOVERY TARGETS CAN BE ACHIEVED .................13 3.2 MAGNITUDE OF EACH MAJOR POTENTIAL SOURCE OF MORTALITY ...............14 3.2.1 Threat 1: Hydroelectric development and dams..................................................15 3.2.1.1 Columbia, Kootenay and Pend d’Oreille Rivers Dams...............................................15 3.2.1.2 Shanker’s Bend dam proposal ...................................................................................20 3.2.1.3 IPP projects ................................................................................................................21 3.2.2 Threat 2: Alien species........................................................................................21 3.2.2.1 Invasive species with low risk of interaction with Umatilla Dace ...............................23 3.2.2.2 Invasive species with higher risk of interaction with Umatilla Dace ..........................23 3.2.3 Threat 3: Water extraction...................................................................................25 3.2.4 Threat 4: Resource extraction .............................................................................26 3.2.5 Threat 5: Land use and other threats ..................................................................28 3.2.5.1 Agriculture...................................................................................................................28 3.2.5.2 Transportation corridors..............................................................................................28 3.2.5.3 Timber harvest............................................................................................................28 3.2.6 Threat 6: Scientific sampling ...............................................................................29 3.3 LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CURRENT QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF HABITAT IS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW POPULATION INCREASE................................................30 3.4 MAGNITUDE BY WHICH CURRENT THREATS TO HABITATS HAVE REDUCED HABITAT QUANTITY AND QUALITY.........................................................................30 4 SCENARIOS FOR MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES .....................................31 iii 4.1 FEASIBLE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE/MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE THREATS TO THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT ..................................31 4.1.1 Scenario 1: Do nothing........................................................................................31 4.1.2 Scenario 2: Extensive survey ..............................................................................31 4.1.3 Scenario 3: Mitigate and manage threats............................................................32 4.2 FEASIBLE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE/MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE THREATS TO THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT ..................................32 4.2.1 Hydroelectric threats............................................................................................32 4.2.1.1 Stranding ....................................................................................................................32 4.2.1.2 Shanker’s Bend ..........................................................................................................33 4.2.2 Alien species .......................................................................................................33 4.2.3 Water extraction ..................................................................................................34 4.2.4 Forestry ...............................................................................................................34 4.2.5 Filling data gaps ..................................................................................................34 4.3 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE THREATS TO THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT .............................................................................35 4.4 REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE ACTIVITIES THAT COULD INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY OR SURVIVORSHIP PARAMETERS .............................................35 5 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................35 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Dams in the Canadian range of Umatilla Dace............................................................16 Table 2. Alien invasive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kootenay System Operations
    Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Appendix C Kootenay System Operations Operation of the Kootenay River system is complicated as it is administered by several different jurisdictions and the hydroelectric facilities are owned by different agencies/companies. As shown in Figure 1, the Kootenay River originates in the Rocky Mountains not far from Field, BC. The river flows south, within a few km of the source of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, and then continues south into Koocanusa Reservoir, formed behind Libby Dam in Montana, United States. From Libby, the Kootenay River turns west and north, and re-enters British Columbia near the community of Creston, flowing into the south arm of Kootenay Lake. In the northern part of the Kootenay basin, the Duncan River is joined by the Lardeau River just downstream from Duncan Dam, and then flows into the north arm of Kootenay Lake. Water from the north and south arms of Kootenay Lake then flows through the west arm of the lake and past the Corra Linn Dam near Nelson (as well as other dams) en route to the Columbia–Kootenay confluence at Castlegar. The components of this system and various agreements/orders that regulate flows are described in this Appendix. November 29, 2013 1 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Figure 1: Kootenay and Columbia Region November 29, 2013 2 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies 1.0 Coordination of Libby Operations Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, Canada permitted the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic ERA Summary Report
    SUMMARY REPORT TECK COMINCO METALS LTD. AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT Issue Date: SeptemberDecember 20102007 Prepared by: Stella Swanson Golder Associates, Calgary, (now Swanson Environmental Strategies Ltd.) Prepared for: Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. (now Teck Metals Ltd.) Trail, British Columbia Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the Risk Assessment .............................................................. 1 Study Area Description ................................................................................... 2 OVERALL APPROACH USED FOR THE ERA 3 The Past: Cominco smelter Bottom-Up and Top-Down Perspectives ......................................................... 3 Problem Formulation: The First Step in Risk Assessment .............................. 5 Sequential Analysis of Lines of Evidence (SALE): a New Method for Assembling a Weight-of-Evidence for Risk ................................................ 5 Description of the SALE Process .................................................................... 6 The Present: Teck Cominco External Review of the ERA Approach ............................................................ 7 smelter RESULTS OF THE PROBLEM FORMULATION: THE FIRST STAGE OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT 7 Risk Management Goal and Objectives .......................................................... 7 Meeting the Risk Management Objectives ............................................. 7 Assessment Endpoints and Measures: Specific Aquatic Ecosystem Components and Characteristics to be Protected ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shorthead Sculpin (Cottus Confusus) Is a Small, Freshwater Sculpin (Cottidae)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2010 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 28 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report(s): Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Don McPhail for writing the provisional status report on the Shorthead Sculpin, Cottus confusus, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. The contractor’s involvement with the writing of the status report ended with the acceptance of the provisional report. Any modifications to the status report during the subsequent preparation of the 6-month interim status and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Eric Taylor, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee Co- chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le chabot à tête courte (Cottus confusus) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Shorthead Sculpin — illustration by Diana McPhail Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/251-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18592-7 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2010 Common name Shorthead Sculpin Scientific name Cottus confusus Status Special Concern Reason for designation In Canada, this small freshwater fish is endemic to the Columbia River basin where it has a very small geographic distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Teck in Its Tweens: an Update on 12 Years of Litigation Over the Canadian Smelter
    Teck in its Tweens: An Update on 12 Years of Litigation Over The Canadian Smelter Kelly T. Wood Assistant Attorney General Just over the border from Northeast Washington, in the town of Trail, B.C., the Teck Metals (formerly Teck Cominco) smelter hovers over the Columbia River like a bird of prey. In 2002 and 2003, swimmer Christopher Swain swam the length of the Columbia—from its Canadian headwaters to the Pacific Ocean—in an effort to bring attention to pollution and blockage issues. Passing the Teck smelter, Swain recalled the sight as he took slow freestyle-swim breaths beneath the smelter: “Water. Mordor. Water. Mordor. Water. Mordor . .” The Trail smelter is currently the largest lead/zinc smelter in the world, a title it recently regained after a downturn in emerging markets caused the prices of metals to take a dive, and a number of other smelters to close, in the early 2010s. For a period of 100+ years, Teck discharged hazardous byproducts from its smelting operations into the Columbia River, both liquid effluent and granulated slag. Up to 145,000 tons of slag went into the Columbia on an annual basis, the vast majority of which was dutifully carried downstream the 10 river miles to Washington. So much slag (millions of tons) washed downstream from the Trail smelter, that a “black sand” beach formed in a backwater eddy north of the town of Northport. Over time, Teck slag physically decays in the river, leaching heavy metals to the surrounding environment. And, other metals in Teck’s liquid effluent discharges also adsorbed to river sediment and settled into the quiescent waters of Lake Roosevelt.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Wildfire Risk Analysis – Preliminary Report
    MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS, POST-WILDFIRE RISK ANALYSIS – PRELIMINARY REPORT NOTE: The results given on this form are intended to be a preliminary warning of potential hazards and risks. If conducted, further work may alter or refine the conclusions. Interpretations are a result of a visual estimation of burn severity with limited field checking. Please contact the author for more information. FIRE: Talbott Fire N51250 FIRE YEAR: 2020 DATE OF REPORT: Oct. 30, 2020 AUTHOR: Tedd Robertson, P.Geo. Eng.L., Sitkum Consulting Ltd. REPORT PREPARED FOR: Selkirk Resource District (Kootenay Lake FD), Southeast Fire Centre, Regional District Central Kootenay (RDCK) FIRE SIZE, LOCATION, AND LAND STATUS: 1302 ha in size, located at the south end of Perry Ridge approximately 30 km north of Castlegar, B.C. Located on crown land situated upslope of private land. VALUES AT RISK: Private property (including residences and inferred human safety), domestic water quality and supply, and public roads have been addressed below. Other downslope values not specifically addressed include fish habitat in the Slocan River and Little Slocan River, as well as existing forest roads. COMMENTS: The attached burn severity map is based on visual estimates from the helicopter overview flight and ground observations. Satellite based burn severity mapping (BARC mapping) is not available for 30% of the fire area, and is believed to underestimate burn severity in many locations based on field work, so this report presents the results based on the visual estimations. Smoke reduced visibility on the northwest side of Perry Ridge during the overview flight, reducing the reliability of observations in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Draft
    DRAFT SCOPING STUDY WORKING COPY FOR VIEWING PURPOSES BRILLIANT ONLY HEADPOND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE KATARINA HARTWIG HEATHER LESCHIED MAY 2017 Scoping Study: Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Katarina Hartwig, Heather Leschied | May 2017 Design and Layout: Mandi McRobbie Cover Photo: Douglas Noblet, WildAir Photography ©2017 Living Lakes Canada All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce all or part of this publication for non-commercial purposes, as long as you cite the source Living Lakes Canada Box 691 Invermere, BC V0A 1K0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Scoping Study is intended to be the first phase of a stewardship strategy for the Brilliant Headpond Reservoir. The Scoping Study is guided by the Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Steering Committee, which includes leaders from the Brilliant Headpond communities of Tarrys, Thrums, Glade, Shoreacres, and South Slocan, representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation and Okanagan Nation Alliance, and Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) Area I Director, Andy Davidoff, and RDCK Area H Director, Walter Popoff. The Brilliant Headpond Reservoir (“BHPR”) was created by the damming of the Kootenay River at the Brilliant Canyon for the completion of the West Kootenay Power Corps. Brilliant Dam hydroelectric project completed in 1944. The BHPR area extends from Columbia Power Corporation’s (current owner) Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion Project (2007) upstream to the Slocan Pool area just below BC Hydro’s Kootenay Canal (1975) and FortisBC’s South Slocan (1928) dams. FortisBC owns and operates the four dams on the Lower Kootenay, upstream of Brilliant Dam, and FortisBC operates Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion facilities on behalf of Columbia Power Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Blaylock’s Bomb: How a Small BC City Helped Create the World’s First Weapon of Mass Destruction Ron Verzuh our years into the Second World War, the citizens of Trail, British Columbia, a small city with a large smelter in the moun- tainous West Kootenay region near the United States border, were, Flike most of the world, totally unaware of the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Trail’s industrial workforce, employees of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada (CM&S Company), were home-front producers of war materials destined for Allied forces on the battlefields of Europe. They, along with the rest of humanity, would have seen the creation of such a bomb as pure science fiction fantasy invented by the likes of British novelist H.G. Wells.1 They were understandably preoccupied with the life-and-death necessity of ensuring an Allied victory against the Nazis, Italian fascists, and the Japanese. It was no secret that, as it had done in the previous world conflict, their employer was supplying much of the lead, zinc, and now fertilizer that Britain needed to prosecute the war.2 What Trailites did not know was that they were for a short time indispensable in the creation of the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. 1 H.G. Wells, The Shape of Things to Come (London: Penguin, 2005) and The World Set Free (London: Macmillan and Co., 1914). Both allude to nuclear war. 2 Lance H. Whittaker, “All Is Not Gold: A Story of the Discovery, Production and Processing of the Mineral, Chemical and Power Resources of the Kootenay District of the Province of British Columbia and of the Lives of the Men Who Developed and Exploited Those Resources,” unpublished manuscript commissioned by S.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Contamination of the Upper Columbia River And
    American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Committee Reaching Across the 49th Parallel: The Origins and Transformation of Canada/U.S. Environmental Disputes Phoenix, AZ April 2-4, 2009 Cont ami na tion of the Upper ClColumbi a River and the Transboundary Application of CERCLA: Pakootas v. TCM Metals, Ltd. Presented by: Richard A. Du Bey Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC | Seattle, WA | (206) 682-3333 | [email protected] 1 Superfund (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. (1980) • Provides a Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites . ..., . , and other . releases . into the environment • Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are held strictly jointly and severally liable for total cleanup cost 2 Superfund (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. (1980) • Provides for enforcement by Tribal, State and Federal governmental aggfencies for the clean up pf of hazardous substances and each of the three sovereiggyns may assert statutory claims for Natural Resource Damages (NRD) 3 Tribal Interests at Risk • Indian Reservations are the remaining homeland of Indian Tribes • Tribes entitled to use and enjoy their reservation homeland and associated on and off-Reservation natural resources • Tribal rights to natural resources have significant economic, cultural and spiritual value 4 Case Study: the Upper Colum bia River • Lake Roosevelt created by Grand Coulee Dam in 1942 • 150 miles between Grand Coulee Dam and US/Canada border •Collllville Reservation west of LLkake Roosevelt • Spokane Reservation east of Lake Roosevelt 5 Area of Concern Cominco Smelter 6 The Grand Coulee Dam 7 Source of Contamination • Contamination from world’ s largest lead- zinc smelter 16 km upstream from border • 1992 USGS sediment study identified elevated levels of metals in sediments • 1994 WA Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortisbc Inc. an Indirect Subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form
    FortisBC Inc. An indirect subsidiary of Fortis Inc. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Dated March 10, 2020 FortisBC Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 CORPORATE STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 NAME AND INCORPORATION ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 INTER-CORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................................................................... 6 2.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS ......................................................................................... 6 2.1 THREE-YEAR HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 THE BUSINESS OF FORTISBC INC. ................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 GENERATION AND POWER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Factors Affecting Fish Passage in the Columbia River Treaty Renegotiation
    Water International ISSN: 0250-8060 (Print) 1941-1707 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20 Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation Graeme A. Lee Rowlands & Richard A. Wildman To cite this article: Graeme A. Lee Rowlands & Richard A. Wildman (2018): Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation, Water International, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 Published online: 10 Sep 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwin20 WATER INTERNATIONAL https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1511200 RESEARCH ARTICLE Institutional factors affecting fish passage in the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation Graeme A. Lee Rowlandsa and Richard A. Wildmana,b aQuest University Canada, Squamish, Canada; bGeosyntec Consultants, Portland, OR, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The United States and Canada have begun renegotiating the Received 21 April 2017 Columbia River Treaty, which is an international model for trans- Accepted 9 August 2018 fi boundary water governance. This paper identi es six institutional KEYWORDS ff fi factors that will a ect negotiations pertaining to sh passage dur- Dams; fish passage; ing the renegotiation of the treaty: geographical advantage, issue governance; Indigenous linkage, a basin commission, the duration of agreements, negotiat- peoples; salmon; Columbia ing autonomy and side payments. These factors and the methods River Treaty used to determine them can be applied to other transboundary river basins where basin states have a history of transboundary resource governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Slocan Lake Foreshore Fish & Wildlife
    SLOCAN LAKE FORESHORE FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT INCLUDING FORESHORE INVENTORY AND MAPPING (FIM) AQUATIC HABITAT INDEX (AHI) Prepared for: SLOCAN LAKE STEWARDSHIP SOCIETY PO Box 322, New Denver, BC V0G 2S0 Prepared by: GALENA ENVIRONMENTAL Ltd 8075 Upper Galena Farm Rd, Silverton, BC V0G 2B0 May 2011/File No. 09-31 Slocan Lake Foreshore Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, FIM & AHI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Responding to concerns about water quality in Slocan Lake and the potential increase in the use of the lake, local residents formed the Slocan Lake Stewardship Society (SLSS) in June 2006. Expanding development pressures in the Slocan Lake area and increasing use of the foreshore areas provided the impetus to develop a strategy that will serve to direct lake and foreshore use in a manner which would respect community values and protect the existing ecosystem. One of the goals of the Society is to lead the development of a set of community-driven guidelines, in accordance with Regional, Provincial and Federal policies and regulations. These guidelines would serve to direct land and water use in and around the lake and to achieve a uniform standard for the activities of developers, local governments, the tourism industry and local residents. To serve as a basis for the development of future land-use guidelines, the SLSS undertook to complete a study of the present state of Slocan Lake. The present report documents the results of three components of that study: a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, a Foreshore Inventory and Mapping (FIM), and an Aquatic Habitat Index (AHI). In 2007, staff from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nelson, carried out an Overview Foreshore Inventory and Mapping of the Slocan Lake shoreline (Arnett 2009).
    [Show full text]