Habitat Linkages for Species at Risk In

RECLAMATION & EROSION CONTROL  NATURAL RESOURCES  AGRICULTURAL SERVICES  GEOMATICS

Habitat Linkages for Species at Risk in

the Upper Columbia Valley, BC:

Background Information

Prepared for: Columbia Wetlands Stewardship Partners

Prepared by: Ian Adams MSc RPBio and Mike Robinson MSc RPBio

Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. Environmental Sciences Section PO Box 874 Cranbrook, BC V1C 6J4 www.intref.bc.ca

March, 2009 09PCAR6A Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... I

LIST OF TABLES...... II

LIST OF FIGURES...... II

1 BACKGROUND...... 3

2 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING STATUS...... 3

2.1 FAIRMONT HOT SPRINGS...... 5 2.2 TNT HOODOO / HOFERT PROPERTY...... 5 2.3 AKISQ’NUK FIRST NATION...... 7 2.4 LAKE WINDERMERE...... 7 2.5 DISTRICT OF INVERMERE...... 11 2.6 TOBY BENCHES...... 12 2.7 SHUSWAP INDIAN BAND...... 13 2.8 DRY GULCH...... 14 2.9 RADIUM HOT SPRINGS...... 15 2.10 STEAMBOAT - JUBILEE MOUNTAIN...... 16 2.11 OCP – ZONING BYLAW CONFLICTS...... 17 3 SPECIES AT RISK IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA VALLEY...... 17

3.1 RIVERINE...... 17 3.2 WETLANDS...... 20 3.3 GENERALIST...... 21 3.4 GRASSLANDS / OPEN FOREST...... 22 3.5 FORESTED...... 24 4 CORRIDOR / CONSERVATION PLANNING INITIATIVES...... 25

4.1 CANMORE / BOW VALLEY...... 25 4.2 NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CANADA NATURAL AREA CONSERVATION PLANNING FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRENCH...... 26 4.3 TECHNIQUES...... 27 5 OTHER DATA...... 27

5.1 CONSERVATION / PROTECTED AREAS MAPPING LAYER...... 27 5.2 HIGH VALUE CONSERVATION FORESTS...... 27 5.3 ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION...... 29 6 CLOSURE...... 30

7 REFERENCES...... 31

7.1 LITERATURE CITED...... 31 7.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS...... 36

i Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of regional land use planning documents in the Upper Columbia Valley...... 5 Table 2: Summary of shoreline codes for Lake Windermere Management Guidelines (source: EKILMP 2009)...... 8 Table 3: Minimum parcel size for selected zonations under RDEK Bylaw 900...... 14 Table 4: Species at risk known to occur or potentially occur in the Upper Columbia Valley, their conservation status and key notes, contacts and references. Species marked are extirpated from the Upper Columbia Valley...... 18 Table 5: Documented Great Blue Heron rookeries between Fairmont and Brisco, BC. (source: Machmer 2008)...... 20 Table 6: High Conservation Values evaluated for candidate HCVF identification process in the Invermere TSA. Source: Wells 2005...... 28

List of Figures

Figure 1: Overview of regional and municipal land status Upper Columbia Valley...... 4 Figure 2: Conceptual wildlife corridors (brown lines) in the Fairmont Hot Springs area. Differentiation between thick and thin brown lines is unknown. Source: Schedule E of the Fairmont OCP (RDEK 2004)...... 6 Figure 3: Badger priority zones and movement corridors identified within the Lake Windermere Official Community Plan area, within blue polygon. Areas shaded grey are excluded from the OCP...... 9 Figure 4: Development Permit areas (orange-tan areas) for north half of Lake Windermere OCP area. Source: Schedule L1 of RDEK 2008; Schedule L2 (not shown) shows Development Permit areas for the south half of the Lake Windermere OCP area...... 10 Figure 5: Development Permit Area (solid blue) for watercourse, wetlands and wildlife habitat in the District of Invermere...... 11 Figure 6: Land use designation map for Toby Benches Land Use Plan Area (D’Avignon 1998). Lower Toby Benches subarea shading was added to demonstrate the Land Use plan boundary...... 12 Figure 7: Land use zoning and identified wildlife corridors (green) on the Shuswap Band reservation. Pink indicates ‘development zone’, tan indicates agricultural lands. Source: Jamieson et al. 2009...... 13 Figure 8: Zoning map for Dry Gulch area under RDEK bylaw 900. The predominant A2 zoning is “Rural Residence (Country)”...... 14 Figure 9: Partial representation of Schedule B from Radium Hot Springs OCP, Environmental Inventory Mapping. Identified wildlife movement corridors are in dashed fine black lines.....15 Figure 10: Conceptual wildlife corridors (dashed green lines) as outlined in Schedule E of the Steamboat - Jubilee Mtn. OCP area (outlined in dotted blue) (RDEK 2006)...... 16 Figure 11 Candidate High Conservation Value Forests in the Invermere TSA. Source: Wells 2005...... 29

ii Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

iii Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

1 Background Wildlife corridors are widely viewed as an opportunity to link together high quality habitat areas through patches of limited to poor habitat quality; a means to ameliorate the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. They have been hailed as ecological saviours, or “cornerstones of modern conservation” (Chetkiewicz et al. 2006). However, their ability to deliver on the ground has been a challenge not always met (Rosenberg et al. 1997). Much of any given corridor’s biological value lies in its design and a significant body of literature is devoted to assisting land and wildlife managers design effective corridors (Beier et al. 2008; Chetkiewicz et al. 2006; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006; Rosenberg et al. 1997). Regionally, habitat connectivity is cited in the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy (Section 3.3) as an important management objective with the intent to “use the system of regional connectivity corridors to enhance management of rare habitats, red/blue listed and other regionally significant species, and ecosystems that are under-represented in the protected areas (i.e. < 12% by ecosection)” (Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee 1997). The Upper Columbia Valley in southeastern British Columbia (BC) has witnessed rapid development over the past 15 years. Concurrent with this rapid development has been the decline of natural habitat quality in the Rocky Mountain Trench due to ingrowth of open forests and forest encroachment onto natural grasslands due, primarily to fire suppression. As a result, numerous species have declined in abundance, some disappearing locally altogether. For example, badgers (Taxidea taxus) were effectively extirpated north of Fairmont Hot Springs by the late 1990s (Kinley and Newhouse 2008) and Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) have been absent from the East Kootenays since the 1990s (Ohanjanian 1990). Various jurisdictions have generally operated independently of each other with respect to long term planning. This lack of coordination among government jurisdictions, agencies, corporations and other organizations represents a major impediment to ensuring effective habitat connectivity through the increasingly fragmented Upper Columbia Valley. The purpose of this report is to provide initial action toward combining the zoning, land use planning and wildlife habitat management efforts to ensure effective habitat linkages. This report gathers background data on land use zoning and municipal-level planning for wildlife habitat and movement as well as the current state of species at risk knowledge and planning in the Upper Columbia Valley, from the north end of Columbia Lake (Fairmont Hot Springs) to the community of Edgewater on the Columbia River. 2 Land Use Planning and Zoning Status A key objective of this study was to pull together land use planning and zoning documents. Seven different land use zoning plans exist for the study area (Table 1), in various levels of detail. There are various jurisdictions covering land use planning in the region (Figure 1), including Regional District of East Kootenay and incorporated towns of Invermere and Radium Hot Springs, two Indian Reservations and national and provincial parks. The only jurisdiction without a land use plan in some form are the Akisq’nuk First Nation lands, however some level of planning is being considered there also (Band Administrator, pers. comm. to B. Jamieson). Following are brief summaries of the wildlife habitat and corridor sections of each plan. Analysis of specific zonings was beyond the scope of this report, but is fully available for a more detailed project to identify wildlife linkages.

4 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Figure 1: Overview of regional and municipal land status Upper Columbia Valley.

5 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Table 1: Summary of regional land use planning documents in the Upper Columbia Valley. Area Plan Year Fairmont Hot Springs Official Community Plan 2004 Hoffert / Hoodoos Property Management Plan 2004 (The Nature Trust of BC) Akisq’nuk First Nation No official zoning - Lake Windermere Official Community Plan 2008 Invermere Official Community Plan 2001 Toby Benches Land Use Strategy 1998 Shuswap Band Jamieson et al. 2009 2009 Dry Gulch No OCP, RDEK Bylaw 900 - Radium Official Community Plan 2002 Steamboat – Jubilee Official Community Plan 2006 Mountain (incl. Edgewater)

2.1 Fairmont Hot Springs The lands in and around the unincorporated community of Fairmont Hot Springs are regulated by the 2004 Fairmont Hot Springs Area Official Community Plan (RDEK bylaw 1734; RDEK 2004). Section 9.1 of the bylaw addresses wildlife habitat and corridors with the recognition that “Preserving wildlife corridors between crown and private conservation lands is important for habitat connectivity in the Columbia Valley. High density, extensive or intensive land use development may not be compatible in some areas identified as being important to wildlife” (RDEK 2004). Schedule E of the OCP maps “conceptual wildlife corridors” (Figure 2). The origin or authors of this linework is unknown (R. Haworth pers. comm.) and they represent very broad-brush opportunities for maintaining north-south wildlife movement through the area. The majority of land in the Fairmont Hot Springs area is owned by Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. R. Haworth (pers. comm.) has indicated a desire to incorporate wildlife habitat and corridors into the company’s long term development plans. Specifically, the identified central corridor along the Columbia River (and adjacent golf course) is considered of marginal value due to the extent of development both current and proposed. An amendment to the OCP in late 2008 discourages wildlife fencing around the golf courses, except in winter to protect greens and tee boxes. This amendment was brought forward at the request of Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. as part of their policy to support wildlife populations in the area (R. Haworth pers. comm.). Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. has long term development plans for the ski hill area that lies within the eastern conceptual corridor as well as long term plans for seasonal development for the area immediately south of Hwy 93/95 by the CPR overpass (R. Haworth pers. comm.). This area is heavily used by elk in winter but lightly used in summer.

2.2 TNT Hoodoo / Hofert Property The Nature Trust of BC purchased the Hoffert / Hoodoos property west of Fairmont in 2003. Most of the property lies in the Lake Windermere OCP and is zoned “Open Space / Recreation and Trails” (RDEK 2008: Schedule D). The objectives of this zoning designation are: (a) to provide local parks, trails, and other recreational opportunities in locations and in sufficient quantity to be available and accessible, where possible, to all members of the community; and (b) to support the

6 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley establishment of a comprehensive trail network within and between communities. The property’s management plan outlines strategies to “maintain, restore and enhance the ecological integrity of the Hoodoo/Hofert property” (TNT 2004). Identified management actions include: access management; ecological restoration and habitat enhancement (especially grassland, wetland / riparian and spruce forest ecosystems); fire management; and domestic cattle range use. The strategies take a “fine filter” approach of individual species and issues at the site / stand level and there is little mention of habitat connectivity or wildlife corridor connections to surrounding lands.

Figure 2: Conceptual wildlife corridors (brown lines) in the Fairmont Hot Springs area. Differentiation between thick and thin brown lines is unknown. Source: Schedule E of the Fairmont OCP (RDEK 2004).

7 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.3 Akisq’nuk First Nation Zoning and land use planning on the Akisq’nuk (Columbia Lake) First Nation lands (see Figure 3 for location of Reservation within the Upper Columbia Valley) was not investigated. There is currently no planning in place, but the First Nation is considering it in the near future (M. Skidmore pers. comm. to B. Jamieson)

2.4 Lake Windermere The Lake Windermere Official Community Plan (RDEK Bylaw 2061; RDEK 2008) was passed in 2008 and covers most lands around Lake Windermere (Figure 3) other than Akisq’nuk First Nation lands and the District of Invermere. It is bordered to the north by Toby Benches Land Use Strategy, the Shuswap Band lands, and the Dry Gulch area. It is bordered on the southeast corner by Fairmont Hot Springs area OCP. There are two sections of the OCP that relate to wildlife: 1. Section 12 covers Environmental Considerations. This addresses Environmentally Sensitive Areas, where private owners are encouraged to control noxious and invasive plants, preserve wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife habitat, control ingrowth and encroachment and numerous other policies (see section 12.2). Section 12.3 of the OCP (RDEK 2008) states 2 main objectives for wildlife habitat and corridors: (a) To maintain habitat connectivity through undisturbed open space and wildlife corridors to support the movement of various wildlife species and access to foraging and nesting areas. And (b) To encourage the protection of natural ecosystems unique to the plan area. There are two map schedules developed to guide this a. Schedule F maps “wildlife habitat” but only maps winter range for elk and bighorn sheep. b. Schedule G maps badger habitat corridors. The badger corridors were loosely devised by T. Kinley (pers. comm.) based on known usage and soils, key ‘pinch point’ in movement corridors and high risk mortality areas, especially along Hwy 93/95. Kinley cautions that they are rough estimates Numerous policies follow to assist in implementing these objectives. Most pertinent to this project is policy 12.3(2i): “Habitat connectivity, vulnerable plant communities and movement of endangered animal species shall be considered at the time of applications for rezoning or OCP amendment.” A report by a qualified environmental professional may be required providing information on endangered or vulnerable species utilizing the area, mitigation opportunities and identifying dedicated conservation areas. Additionally, policy 12.3(2b) recognizes Windermere Creek “as being an important wildlife corridor and an essential uninterrupted linkage from the upland wildlife habitat to Lake Windermere.” 2. Section 21.4 addresses development on lands zoned as Environmentally Sensitive. These are areas designed to “protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat and movement corridors associated with Lake Windermere, the Columbia River and wetlands, Windermere Creek, Holland Creek, Goldie Creek, Paddy Ryan Lakes, the Toby Creek escarpment and other identified environmentally sensitive areas” (RDEK 2008 section 21.4 (3b). These areas were designed to primarily protect known wildlife movement corridors (primarily east-west, providing access to Lake Windermere to nearby upland areas) by P. Holmes (pers. comm.). Numerous guidelines (Section 21.4[4]) place restrictive requirements on any development permits issues within these areas. Schedules L1 and L2 map Development Permit Area #2 in the north (Figure 4) and south end of the OCP area, respectively. The line work continues beyond the OCP boundaries onto adjacent lands managed by District of Invermere, Akisq’nuk F.N., Shuswap Band and RDEK lands outside the Lake Windermere OCP (e.g. Toby Benches). The policies and guidelines in the OCP do not apply beyond the boundaries.

8 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Coinciding with these sections of the OCP are recently completed shoreline management guidelines for fish and wildlife habitat on Lake Windermere (EKILMP 2009). These guidelines build on foreshore inventory and mapping work conducted for lake (McPherson et al. 2008) that was completed in response to concerns over increasing development pressures on the shoreline. The lake’s shoreline is divided into four colour codes based primarily on ecological values (Table 1). These data are all mapped and available.

Table 2: Summary of shoreline codes for Lake Windermere Management Guidelines (source: EKILMP 2009). Shoreline Ecological Values Example Land Use % of Code shoreline Red Very high existing ecological values Most creek mouths, Recommended 49 (or high values overlapping with key wildlife corridors, designated as habitat areas) contiguous conservation wetlands value with no development Orange Key habitat areas that are sensitive Areas at risk from Activity risks 6 to development adjacent require an development environmental assessment Yellow Very high and high current Areas that are at Development may 27 ecological values with relatively low risk by direct or be considered, development disturbance cumulative impacts above high water from development mark and outside riparian areas Grey Moderate, low and very low current May contain Development 18 ecological values valuable habitats, should be in-lake wetlands, concentrated in cobble substrate these areas. areas Restoration activities are important

9 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Shuswap Indian Band

District of Invermere

Akisq’nuk First Nation

Figure 3: Badger priority zones and movement corridors identified within the Lake Windermere Official Community Plan area, within blue polygon. Areas shaded grey are excluded from the OCP

10 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Figure 4: Development Permit areas (orange-tan areas) for north half of Lake Windermere OCP area. Source: Schedule L1 of RDEK 2008; Schedule L2 (not shown) shows Development Permit areas for the south half of the Lake Windermere OCP area.

11 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.5 District of Invermere The District of Invermere’s Official Community Plan (Bylaw 1085) was passed in 2001 (Invermere 2001). There is minimal allowance for wildlife habitat and movement corridors within the plan. Chapter 4 zones designated areas into a “watercourse, wetlands and wildlife habitat development permit area” (Figure 5). Within these areas, development applications “may require a site specific environmental inventory to be conducted to identify the environmental features, wildlife habitat or corridors on the property” (emphasis is in the OCP; Invermere 2001). The line work of Figure 5 was developed by Osprey Communications (R. Hromadnik pers. comm.); however, no digital version of this exists (A. Candy pers. comm.; D. Olson pers. comm.). There are currently no plans for the District of Invermere to review and possibly update their OCP (R. Hromadnik, pers. comm.). Also, plans for the “Grizzly Ridge” development southwest of Invermere (between Abel Ck and Toby Ck) that would significantly increase the size of the District have been discontinued, though the developer may still directly approach RDEK (R. Hromadnik pers. comm.).

Figure 5: Development Permit Area (solid blue) for watercourse, wetlands and wildlife habitat in the District of Invermere

12 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.6 Toby Benches The Toby Benches includes lands north of Toby Creek and west of the Columbia River, excluding the “Lower Toby Benches” subarea of the Lake Windermere OCP (Figure 6). This area is covered by a Land Use Strategy dating from 1998 (D’Avignon 1998). Section 1.4 of the Land Use Plan covers fish and wildlife habitat, mostly noting high winter use by deer and elk. With respect to corridors, there is no official land designation (as a Land Use Plan, it’s legal scope is limited), but notes, “Wildlife migration corridors should be retained through the area to ensure connectivity and provide for ungulate movement between summer and winter ranges…” There is no mention of species at risk, and the plan predates the majority of badger research done in the Columbia Valley. There is little value in the land use plan for conservation planning. Under the Upper Columbia Valley Zoning bylaw 900 (RDEK 2009), most of Toby Benches is zoned A2, “Rural Residence (Country)” (see Section 2.8, Dry Gulch for further discussion of this zoning designation).

Wilmer (No planning)

L L

a o

Westside Subarea Lake Windermere OCP

Figure 6: Land use designation map for Toby Benches Land Use Plan Area (D’Avignon 1998). Lower Toby Benches subarea shading was added to demonstrate the Land Use plan boundary.

13 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.7 Shuswap Indian Band Concurrent work by Jamieson et al. (2009) is investigating species at risk management combined with development zoning for the Shuswap Band lands. This process has mapped habitat corridors amongst development and agricultural zones on the reservation (Figure 7). These corridors were designed primarily with badger habitat in mind, but are also of use for other grassland and open forest species (Jamieson et al. 2009). Spatial data (GIS layers) for these lands are available. The band developed a land use plan for the reserve in 2007 that identified the south portion of the reserve as lands available for development. The mapping provided in Figure 5 was developed cooperatively between the Kinbasket Development Corporation (KDC), developers working for the KDC, Trevor Kinley, a local biologist with long experience with badgers and Bob Jamieson, a biologist and land use planner, in late 2008. This work is being refined in an overview plan for species at risk management on the reserve lands that will be available in May 2009.

Figure 7: Land use zoning and identified wildlife corridors (green) on the Shuswap Band reservation. Pink indicates ‘development zone’, tan indicates agricultural lands. Source: Jamieson et al. 2009.

14 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.8 Dry Gulch This area covers lands administered by RDEK on the east side of the Columbia River, north of the Shuswap reservation and south of Radium Hot Springs. There is no OCP for this area or any wildlife habitat considerations at the regional / municipal level. Zoning for the area follows RDEK Bylaw 900 (RDEK 2009; Figure 8). The predominant zoning is A2, “Rural Residence (Country)”. Section 7.16 (3)a of RDEK bylaw 900 outlines minimum parcel size for this designation at 8.0 ha. Various Small Holding zones permit smaller parcel sizes (Table 3). Table 3: Minimum parcel size for selected zonations under RDEK Bylaw 900. Zone Map colour Minimum Parcel (Figure 8) Size Resort SH 2 1.0 ha Recreation SH 3 2.0 ha Zone SH 4 4.0 ha A2 8.0 ha

Figure 8: Zoning map for Dry Gulch area under RDEK bylaw 900. The predominant A2 zoning is “Rural Residence (Country)”.

15 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.9 Radium Hot Springs The current OCP for the Village of Radium Hot Springs, bylaw 254, was adopted in 2002 (Radium Hot Springs 2002). Section 4.3 of the plan addresses wildlife corridors. Key policies of the OCP regarding corridors include utilizing “research and assessment of wildlife corridors within and around the village to guide the protection and management of corridors” and working with partners to “elevate the importance of wildlife corridors by supporting corridor establishment and restoration.” Although perhaps implicit, especially in the first policy quoted here, there is no explicit commitment to connect corridors within the village with more regional corridors. Corridors were outlined by Osprey Communications (M. Read pers. comm.) and are presented in Schedule B, an “Environmental Inventory Map”. Digital layers of this map and Radium zoning (Schedule A of Radium Hot Springs OCP 2002) are available.

Figure 9: Partial representation of Schedule B from Radium Hot Springs OCP, Environmental Inventory Mapping. Identified wildlife movement corridors are in dashed fine black lines

16 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.10 Steamboat - Jubilee Mountain The area north of Radium to the northern limit of the RDEK, including the town of Edgewater, is covered by the 2006 Steamboat – Jubilee Mountain OCP (bylaw 1926, RDEK 2006). The OCP also covers substantial areas of the west side of the Columbia River, from Horsethief Creek north. Section 10.5 addresses wildlife habitat and corridors with four objectives: a. maintain connectivity between Kootenay National Park and the Columbia wetlands; b. retain designated wildlife corridors and undisturbed wildlife habitat; c. recognize and protect areas of critical wildlife habitat and winter range; and, d. provide support for the Columbia Wetlands Wildlife Management Area management plan. Conceptual wildlife corridors are outlined in Schedule E of the OCP (Figure 10). These are essentially the corridors identified by Tremblay (2001). Edgewater is the largest community in the Steamboat – Jubilee Mountain OCP area and the arbitrary northern limit of this study. Zoning for Edgewater is outlined in Schedule D1 of the OCP.

Figure 10: Conceptual wildlife corridors (dashed green lines) as outlined in Schedule E of the Steamboat - Jubilee Mtn. OCP area (outlined in dotted blue) (RDEK 2006).

17 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2.11 OCP – Zoning Bylaw conflicts The Upper Columbia Valley Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 1992 zoned the entire Upper Columbia Valley outside of Invermere and Radium. The subsequent development and adoption of Official Community Plans for most of this area has generated duplicate and sometimes conflicting zonings. All three RDEK OCPs (Fairmont, Lake Windermere and Steamboat – Jubilee) acknowledge this conflict and resolve it as follows: “This difference occurs because this plan provides a long term strategic vision for land use change within the plan area, whereas the zoning bylaw recognizes what can be developed today. While parcels may develop according to their existing zoning, any amendments to the zoning bylaw must be consistent with the [respective] OCP.”

3 Species at Risk in the Upper Columbia Valley Numerous species at risk inhabit the Upper Columbia Valley. Full documentation of species that occur or may possibly occur in the Valley is included in Table 4. Information here includes federal and provincial status (Conservation Data Centre red and blue lists as well as Conservation Framework goal rankings), inclusion under BC’s Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, current recovery planning efforts, and key movements for which planning is required. Species are sorted according to broad habitat association. Species in Table 4 with very limited distribution (e.g. Bobolink) or that are rarely observed in the trench bottom (e.g. wolverine) are not fully discussed in this section.

3.1 Riverine Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Cutthroat trout possess adfluvial, fluvial and resident populations differentiated by their use of various components of a stream network (McPhail 2007). Resident populations complete all life stages over a small range, while the migratory fluvial and adfluvial populations use small rivers for spawning and larger rivers (i.e. fluvial) and lakes (i.e. adfluvial) for rearing and migration (Magee et al. 1996; Schmetterling 2000). Although the variety of life history forms suggests that cutthroat trout potentially occupy most waters of the Upper Columbia Valley (lakes, large rivers, small streams), this species is readily displaced by introduced species with higher competitive abilities at warmer water temperatures (i.e. lower elevations). Therefore, the highest densities of cutthroat in this system will likely occur in tributaries to the Columbia River and Lake Windermere where lower water temperatures restrict establishment of introduced species. A provincial species management seminar was held in Cranbrook during February 2009 with the objective to develop a framework for a provincial plan. Mapping Data available: FISS database (BC Ministry of Environment, available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fiss/index.html) Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Bull trout, having coevolved with westslope cutthroat trout and therefore, possess many similarities. As with cutthroat trout, bull trout also exhibit adfluvial, fluvial and resident life histories (McPhail and Baxter 1996; McPhail 2007). Bull trout may potentially be found in Windermere Lake and mainstem Columbia River. However, they are also poor competitors at warmer water temperatures and will likely be more abundant in tributaries of the Upper Columbia River system. Bull trout require cool, clean water for successful spawning. Spawning success is also dependant on access to area of groundwater discharge (Baxter and McPhail 1999). Mapping Data available: FISS database (BC Ministry of Environment)

18 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Table 4: Species at risk known to occur or potentially occur in the Upper Columbia Valley, their conservation status and key notes, contacts and references. Species marked are extirpated from the Upper Columbia Valley. E

Conservation Framework Goals Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC CDC IWMS Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Where? movements Recovery Planning Contact References

Riverine / Lacustrine Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorthynchus clarkia lewisi Special Blue  2 2 3 widespread Waterways Preliminary Sue Pollard/ Bill Schmetterling 2000; McPhail Concern throughout provincial planning Westover 2007; Magee et al. 1996; meetings COSEWIC 2006 Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Blue  2 2 3 widespread Waterways none Bill Westover McPhail and Baxter 1996; throughout McPhail 2007; Baxter and McPhail 1999

Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus NAR Blue 4 2 3 Windermere Lake (one lacustrine McPhail 2007 questionable report); probably does not occur in UCV

Wetland Rana pipiens Endangered Red 4 6 1 Creston / Bummer's Flats na RT in place; strategy FWCP Adama and Beaucher 2006 Northern Leopard Frog  E in advanced draft Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Special Blue 6 2 3 numerous ponds in area N-S none Concern Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias herodias Blue 6 2 3 numerous areas - colonies N-S none Marlene Machmer Machmer 2008; Machmer id'd and Steeger 2003. American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Blue 5 2 3 N-S none John Cooper Cooper and Beauchesne 2003 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Blue 6 2 3 Zehnder ranch N-S none Ted Antifeau Cooper and Beauchesne Concern 2003 Grassland Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Blue 2 6 2 extirpated na none Ritcey 1995: Ohanjanian E  columbianus 1990 Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Special Blue  4 6 4 Windermere / Zehnder N-S none Penny Ohanjanian Cannings 1999; Ohanjanian Concern 2001 Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Special Red  3 6 2 1 nest recorded near N-S none John Cooper Beauchesne and Cooper Concern Fairmont in 2007 2008; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Cooper and Gillies 1999; Cooper et al. 1998 American Badger Taxidea taxus jeffersonii Endangered Red  6 6 1 low density, widespread N-S, some E-W RT in place; strategy Trevor Kinley / Eric Apps et al. 2002; Newhouse throughout area in federal Lofroth 2006; Kinley and Newhouse consultation process 2008; jeffersonii Badger Recovery Team 2008.

Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis Blue  4 6 3 Radium / Stoddart E-W none Alan Dibb / Irene Dibb 2007; Tremblay 2001; Teske

19 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Conservation Framework Goals Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC CDC IWMS Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Where? movements Recovery Planning Contact References

Closed forest Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Special Blue  5 2 3 Mt Swansea WHA N-S none Ted Antifeau Manley 2004; Manning Concern Cooper 2005 Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Endangered Red  6 6 1 not recorded in area N-S RT in place; strategy Kari Stuart-Smith / Ohanjanian et al. 2007; 2008; nataliae in advanced draft Penny Ohanjanian 2009; Gyug 2007 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Threatened Blue 5 2 4 higher elevation species, N-S & upslope none initiated yet Kari Stuart-Smith Manning Cooper 2007. not likely in study area Fisher Martes pennanti Blue 4 6 2 extirpated E-W None Irene Teske / Rich Weir et al. 2003; Weir 2003 E  Weir Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Special Blue  3 2 3 higher elevation - rarely in E-W none Eric Lofroth / John Krebs et al. 2007 Concern valley bottom Krebs / Irene Teske Generalist Western Toad Bufo boreas Special Yellow 3 2 4 widespread ? none Concern Rubber Boa Charina bottae Special Yellow 5 3 4 scattered reports in area N-S none Alan Dibb / Rob St. St Clair and Dibb 2004 Concern Clair Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Threatened Yellow 6 2 4 various reports throughout N-S none initiated yet Irene Manley Manley 2009 area Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica status report Blue 6 2 3 N-S none McCracken 2008 in prep Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Special Blue  3 2 3 higher elevation - rarely in E-W none Proctor et al. 2005; Tremblay Concern valley bottom 2001; COSEWIC 2002 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Blue 6 2 3 known from Columere, N-S none elsewhere?

1 Conservation Framework Goals (available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/index.html): Goal 1 Contribute to global efforts for species and ecosystem conservation Goal 2 Prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk Goal 3 Maintain the diversity of native species and ecosystems

2 Includes relevant local “grey literature”. Species assessed by COSEWIC have a status report available and species on IWMS list have a species account available (see BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004).

20 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

3.2 Wetlands Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) The leopard frog has undergone a significant and widespread decline throughout the western portion of its range in Canada and the United States (COSEWIC 2000). Locally, Ohanjanian and Teske (1996) did not find any individuals in a 1995 regional inventory, though this species was fairly common in the Columbia wetlands 20-30 years ago (L. Halverson, pers. comm. to Jamieson et al. 2009). Leopard frogs have been reintroduced to the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area and Bummer’s Flats north of Fort Steele, but no plans exist at this time for reintroductions to the Columbia wetlands (D. Adama pers. comm.). Conservation of leopard frogs at Creston is strongly recommended to be the priority recovery action for the time being (Adama and Beaucher 2006). Mapping Data available: not applicable, leopard frogs are extirpated from the study area. Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) Painted turtles inhabit shallows of lakes and ponds with muddy substrate and abundant aquatic plants. Available basking sites are important as are nearby sandy, open sites suitable for nesting (BC Reptiles 2009). Turtles are found as far north as Golden in the East Kootenays (BC Reptiles 2009) and are commonly seen around the Invermere area including Dorothy Lake and numerous ponds in the Columbia wetlands. Protecting wetland habitats and directing roadways away from potential nesting sites are important management features for this species (Ovaska et al. 2004). Maintaining populations in sites where they currently are found is important and turtles have limited dispersal capabilities. Mapping Data available: unknown, probably none. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias herodias) The sub-species of Great Blue Heron that occurs in the BC interior is at a lower level of conservation concern that the A.h. fannini subspecies which occurs on the coast. Herons are colonial nesters, primarily selecting deciduous trees close to key foraging areas. Interior herons eat primarily small fish, but likely also consume invertebrates, frogs and other small prey (Butler 1992). Recent work (Machmer 2008; Machmer and Steeger 2003) found several breeding colonies throughout the East Kootenay (Table 5). However, many colonies are inactive and breeding success at active ones is very low (mean = 2.85% ±0.19). Increased Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) populations are thought to be a primary reason for nest failure (M. Machmer pers. comm.). Mapping Data available: UTMs of known colony locations (active and inactive) are readily available.

Table 5: Documented Great Blue Heron rookeries between Fairmont and Brisco, BC. (source: Machmer 2008). Colony Last Active Successful? Dutch Ck 2007 Y Wilmer / Toby Ck 2003 N Thompson’s Landing 1998 ? Brisco 1999 ?

21 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Bitterns live in relatively large (>10 ha) wetlands, generally with stable water levels, extensive emergent vegetation and tall grass and sedge areas. Cooper and Beauchesne (2003) used call- play-back methods to survey for bitterns throughout the Columbia Basin in 2003. North of Fairmont, they found bitterns at Lillian Lake, Bittern Lake and Twin Lakes in the Invermere area but noted that bitterns were absent from many areas where they were previously recorded and where suitable habitat exists. Annual conditions, particularly water levels, may play a significant role in bittern presence. Mapping Data available: sightings locations probably available from J. Cooper. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Short-eared Owls occupy open or fallow fields, grasslands or marshes where they hunt in low flights for, primarily, small mammals (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). Drier areas are considered better habitat than wetlands or marshes (Cooper and Beauchesne 2003). Little is known of Short-eared Owl occurrence in the East Kootenay. A recent inventory effort found no individuals (Cooper and Beauchesne 2003). The only known report of a Short-eared Owl from the Columbia Valley comes from the Zehnder ranch west of Invermere (D. Zehnder pers. comm.). Occasional sightings have also been reported in the Wasa – Bummer’s Flats area (D. Nicholson pers. comm.). Cooper and Beauchesne (2003) found few sites in the Columbia Basin that they considered high quality (15 of >50). The only high quality sites noted in the Columbia Valley were dry fields at either end of Windermere Loop Rd. Fields and open areas in the Columbia R. wetlands were considered either too heavily impacted by agriculture or too inundated by spring floods to rate as high quality Short-eared Owl habitat. Mapping Data available: None; can plot the one sighting on Zehnder ranch southwest of Invermere.

3.3 Generalist These species have no clearly defined habitat associations. Western toads, for example, have a clear dependency on standing water for reproduction, but are relatively plastic in their selection of suitable breeding habitat (e.g. established ponds to meltwater in tire ruts). Western Toad (Bufo boreas) Concern over dramatic declines in western toad numbers throughout parts of its range, especially in the U.S.A., led to the federal listing of the species (COSEWIC 2002). In BC, the species is not considered at risk, but they are being watched (Davis 2002). Toads are found in a variety of habitats, including forests, open meadows and wetland habitats and marshes. They can range up to one kilometre from their breeding sites, which area also vary from ephemeral pools to large, permanent ponds (Davis 2002 and references therein). In the Upper Columbia Valley, habitat appears to be in largely intact, but other amphibians have also disappeared from intact habitat (see Leopard Frog above) and chytrid fungal disease can easily extirpate amphibians from local sites. Providing linkages for amphibians is particularly important because they are highly susceptible to road kill and have limited dispersal abilities (Ovaska et al. 2004.). Because of their overall conservation concern, but probable still healthy local populations and limited dispersal abilities, western toads would make a good focal species to develop habitat linkages. Ovaska et al. (2004) provide guidance and best management practices for amphibians and reptiles in BC, and note that western toads are particularly vulnerable to road mortality during breeding movements. Mapping Data available: none Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Rubber Boas use a variety of low elevation habitat types generally associated with broken rock or talus areas or large wood debris adjacent to hot springs, especially at the northern limit of their

22 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley range. They occur at Radium Hot Springs (St. Clair and Dibb 2004) and Fairmont Hot Springs (Ferguson 2004) and likely elsewhere. Few specific habitat associations are known (Reptiles of BC 2009). Avoiding soil compaction and maintaining sufficient cover are important management practices to maintain rubber boas (see Ovaska et al. 2004). Mapping Data available: unknown, probably none. Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) The Common Nighthawk is an aerial insectivore that arrives in the East Kootenay in late May to early June. Nests are built directly on the ground in a wide array of habitats including: beaches, pasture, open forest, lakeshores, gravel roads, river banks, railways, airports and flat gravel rooftops (COSEWIC 2007a and references therein). Large flocks of nighthawks congregate post- fledging, prior to southward migration in late summer. Most nighthawks have migrated south by mid-September. Reasons for the species’ decline is unknown, but likely related to declines in insect prey either on the breeding territories or on wintering grounds in Central to South America (COSEWIC 2007a). Sightings data were collected from the public throughout the Kootenays in 2008, with numerous foraging and nesting records in the study area, primarily at low elevations (I. Manley pers. comm.). Causes of declines in nighthawks (and other aerial insectivores) are poorly understood (COSEWIC 2007a); maintaining suitable nesting habitat in the Upper Columbia Valley is likely the best strategy to maintaining the species locally. Mapping Data available: sightings locations should be available from I. Manley. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Several species of swallow are known in the Upper Columbia Valley (Campbell et al. 1997). Only Barn Swallows are provincially listed (blue) and will soon be assessed by COSEWIC (a status report is in preparation). Based on the recent listing of other aerial insectivores which have suffered similarly significant declines, Barn Swallows are likely to be assessed as at least Special Concern. Most swallows and other aerial insectivores have suffered major declines across North America. For example, Barn Swallows have had statistically significant annual declines of 6.1 % from 1986 – 2006 across Canada, based on breeding bird survey data (McCracken 2008). Barn Swallows are loosely colonial nesters, building open cup nests often on human-made structures (Campbell et al. 1997) and are known from several sites in the Upper Columbia Valley. Mapping Data available: none.

3.4 Grasslands / Open Forest Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) Sharp-tailed grouse habitat in the East Kootenay consists of large grassland areas and/or burns. They require extensive areas of grassland with good cover for nesting and shrub communities, riparian areas and/or aspen stands for wintering habitat (Leupin 2003). Sharp-tailed grouse have been extirpated from the East Kootenays since the early 1990s (Ohanjanian 1990), although there are reports of recent re-establishment in the Grasmere / Tobacco Plains area from Montana (Leupin 2003). Many individuals would like to see a dedicated program to reintroduce sharp-tails to the East Kootenay, including First Nation bands. A successful reintroduction would require creation / and or maintenance of large (several square kilometres) grassland areas. One area identified as a possibility where sharp-tails are historically known is the benches west of the Columbia River between Toby Creek and Frances Creek, to the south end of Steamboat Mountain (Jamieson et al 2009). Mapping Data available: none – species is extirpated from the study area. Could hand-locate old sightings data.

23 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed Curlew’s select broad grassland areas with short vegetation. They prefer relatively large open dry, short-grass prairies (>500 m in diameter) with a low-profile vegetation that permits adults to detect predators (Cannings 1999; BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). Over-grazed range is commonly inhabited (Ohanjanian 2001). Ohanjanian (2001) confirmed two breeding pairs near Invermere in 2001; one on the Kimpton ranch at Windermere and the other on the Zehnder Ranch southwest of Invermere. There are numerous other historical sightings in the area. Management goals include: providing low profile vegetation for nesting in April (<10 cm) and brood rearing in May (~25 cm in height), minimizing disturbance from humans and livestock during breeding (April to mid July), maintaining native bunchgrass and minimizing forest encroachment (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). Mapping Data available: none pertinent to study area. Locations of known curlew breeding sites can be easily added. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Lewis’s Woodpecker is closely associated with recent burned areas, with large diameter ponderosa pine and / or deciduous trees that provide suitable cavity nesting habitat (Cooper and Gillies 2000). Beauchesne and Cooper (2007) found greatly reduced numbers of Lewis’s Woodpeckers throughout the East Kootenay, compared to surveys completed in the same area in the late 1990’s (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Thirteen breeding pairs of Lewis’s Woodpeckers were found In both 1997 and 1998 between Dutch Creek burn (now on The Nature Trust of BC Hoodoos / Hoffert property) and the Fairmont Hot Springs area. In 2007, only one breeding pair was found in these areas, near Fairmont. Beauchesne and Cooper (2007) contribute the Dutch Ck decline to loss of nesting habitat as most suitable nesting trees had decayed and fallen over. In Fairmont, the authors were unable to access many areas due to private property restrictions but concluded that housing development on previously occupied lands had contributed to significant habitat declines. Jamieson et al. (2009) report other sightings in the Invermere area. Mapping Data available: Locations of known nest sights should be available. Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) Badgers are associated with grassland, open forest, dispersed agriculture and some other non- forested habitats of the BC Interior. In the East Kootenay, badgers have been found in non- traditional habitats up to alpine meadows and in more densely forested areas, although these locations are the exception (Apps et al. 2002). Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus) are the main prey, although badgers eat a wide variety of small burrowing mammals, other vertebrates and invertebrates, and carrion. Primary threats to population viability include vehicle collisions, other human-caused deaths of badgers or their prey, and loss of habitat to development and the in-growth of forest caused by fire suppression (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). In the East Kootenay, home ranges vary from less than 10 km2 to >800 km2 (Kinley and Newhouse 2008). They are typically about five times larger for males than females and home ranges of both sexes are generally larger in the Columbia Valley than farther south. Badgers were effectively extirpated from the Upper Columbia Valley by the late 1990’s. A translocation project from northwest Montana helped to re-establish the population in the early 2000’s and the population seems to have recovered to a reasonable level of viability (Kinley and Newhouse 2008; see also Kinley and Newhouse 2005). Badgers make an excellent choice for focal species for movement corridors in the Upper Columbia Valley. They cover a wide range of habitat (mostly north-south movements), maintain broad home ranges, primarily at the valley-bottom where the greatest conservation concerns lie and are susceptible to a wide range of threats, including habitat degradation and loss, and road mortality.

24 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Mapping Data available: historical and recent sightings, telemetry locations and badger habitat classification all available. Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis) Bighorn sheep are seasonally migratory ungulates with traditional winter ranges in the Upper Columbia Valley between Fairmont and Edgewater. Current bands are most numerous in the Stoddart Creek to Radium area. Additional individuals are found on the east side of Columbia Lake, generally south of Fairmont Hot Springs. Bighorn sheep movement corridors in the Radium Hot Springs area have been spatially identified, both within the lower elevation winter range and seasonal movements between winter and summer ranges (Dibb 2007; Tremblay 2001). These corridors have played a key role in identifying areas for habitat restoration and benefit other species considered here, including badger and Flammulated Owl (Dibb 2004). As areas that have already been identified, at least partially treated for restoration and that are functioning as corridors, they are likely to serve as key components to habitat connectivity in the Upper Columbia Valley. Mapping Data available: telemetry locations and movement corridor layers are available.

3.5 Forested These species are associated with generally closed-canopied forests. The species occur at varying elevations, usually above trench bottom. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) The Flammulated owl is a small, migratory owl that feeds on insects and nest in cavities in mature to old Douglas-fir forests, often with some ponderosa pine component at low- to mid-elevations. A habitat mosaic is required of small forest openings of grasslands and shrubs for feeding with nearby thickets of Douglas-fir for security cover (Cooper et al. 2005). In the East Kootenay, most records are from south of the study area. However, there are nesting records from Mt Swansea, near Invermere, and near Fairmont Hot Springs. Wildlife habitat areas, under the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy of the provincial Forest and Range Practices Act have been established around all nest sites in the East Kootenay (T. Antifeau pers. comm.). There is one nest record near Brisco (cited in Ferguson 2004), but Invermere is generally considered the species’ northern range limit in the East Kootenay. Mapping Data available: WHA boundaries and known nest locations is available. Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae) Williamson’s Sapsucker is the most strikingly sexually dimorphic woodpecker species in North America. It’s nesting habitat are cavities in large diameter ponderosa pine or western larch trees in closed to open mature and old forests at low to mid elevations. They drill distinctive sap wells in smaller diameter Douglas-fir and western larch trees and are closely tied to carpenter ants for feeding their young. Williamson’s Sapsucker was previously thought to be extirpated from the East Kootenays (Cooper 1995). However, since being listed as ‘endangered’, an extensive inventory effort throughout the East Kootenays from 2006 to 2008 has located numerous breeding pairs throughout the southern trench area (Gyug et al. 2007; Ohanjanian et al. 2006, 2008, 2009). No records exist for the species in the Upper Columbia Valley, but survey efforts for the species did not extend north of an approximate line from Whiteswan Lake to the east and Lavington Creek to the west. No Williamson’s Sapsuckers were found north of Kimberly Nature Park. There is one record from the late 1990’s near Whiteswan Lake area (Campbell et al. 2000 in Gyug 2007). Mapping Data available: none – species is not known to occur in study area. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Olive-sided Flycatchers nest in mid- to high-elevation forests (upper MS to ESSF). They prefer open areas of forest, primarily burned stands or regenerating cut-blocks (Altman and Sallabanks

25 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

2000) with tall trees or snags to perch on to hawk flying insects. Based on Breeding Bird Survey data, populations across Canada have declined 79% from 1968 to 2006 and 29% between 1996 and 2006, leading to their threatened status (COSEWIC 2007b). Olive-sided Flycatchers may be seen at lower elevations in migration, but nest primarily at higher elevations. Breeding bird survey work conducted for Canfor, Radium Division, found numerous Olive-sided Flycatchers in and adjacent to this study area (Manning Cooper and Associates 2007). However, most of their transects were at higher elevations than this report is focused on. Mapping Data available: Detection locations by Manning Cooper and Associates (2007) is available; these points are only biologically meaningful and a corresponding layer of where point count stations were sampled is also available. Other data from this study on songbirds is also available. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Grizzly bears are seldom observed at lower elevations in the Rocky Mountain Trench. Habitat generalists, and primarily herbivorous in the interior, seasonal movements are generally associated with plant phenology and often follow elevational gradients. Occasional sightings are reported, but the species is generally restricted to the surrounding benchlands and higher elevations (Tremblay 2001). There is very limited east – west movement of grizzly bears between Purcell and Rocky Mountain systems (Proctor et al. 2005). There are greater opportunities for cross-trench movement of grizzly bears north of Radium Hot Springs (Tremblay 2001). Given the limited east-west movement of grizzly bears between the Purcell and Rocky Mountain ranges, facilitating that movement should be considered, as linkage planning progresses further north. Mapping Data available: unknown. Movement corridors identified by Tremblay (2001) should be available.

4 Corridor / Conservation Planning Initiatives

4.1 Canmore / Bow Valley Development concerns in the Canmore / Bow Valley area immediately east of Banff National Park in western Alberta led to a large scale corridor planning effort in the 1990s. Much of this work was initiated in response to a large resort development (Three Sisters Resort) as well as rapid expansion of the Town of Canmore itself. The Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group was formed as a partnership of the Province of Alberta, Banff National Park, the Town of Canmore and the Municipal District of Bighorn to address wildlife movement concerns with respect to regional planning. Substantial effort and resources were extended to identify functional corridors to connect larger wild areas of Kananaskis Country across the narrow Bow Valley and high traffic volume Trans- Canada Highway to Banff National Park and areas to the north. Guidelines were produced (BCEAG 1999) and these were subsequently reviewed and assessed for function and effectiveness (Herrero and Jevons 2000; Golder Associates 2002). Although designed as “multi- species corridors”, they were designed to facilitate movement of primarily large mammals – wolves, cougars, bears (primarily grizzly bear, but also black bear) and elk. Herrero and Jevons (2000) concluded that the corridor system “consistently fail[s] to meet the minimum standards for functional, viable corridors set by BCEAG”. Deficiencies were usually cited as too narrow, lack of hiding or thermal cover, unsuitable terrain (e.g. steep slopes) or too much human use (e.g. recreational trail use leading to potential wildlife-human conflicts). Given that wildlife corridors were typically located on land that couldn’t be developed (G. Buxton pers. comm.), such ineffectiveness is not surprising. Corridors were subsequently redesigned as ‘across valley corridors’ and ‘along valley corridors’ (Golder Associates 2002). Major concerns remain potential for human-wildlife conflicts within the corridors and step-wise degradation of a corridor’s habitat

26 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley value by encroaching development. The corridors were designed based on a significant amount of research on large mammal (wolf, bears, elk) use of the area. In the years since this work, the Town of Canmore has worked to modify the system as required. The primary concern is ongoing human use within corridors (G. Buxton pers. comm.). Some trails have been closed, while the town has attempted to establish alternatives in other areas. Recommendations include considering where current human recreational trail use exists and planning corridors around that. This is especially important if target species represent potentially dangerous human-wildlife conflicts, such as bears and cougar. Canmore has also found that “zoning doesn’t work” and is only “as good as the council in office” (G. Buxton pers. comm.). Instead, Canmore has increasingly turned to conservation easements placed on private properties. The Government of Alberta does not permit easements on crown land, but Canmore is attempting to persuade developers to place easements on properties within corridor areas, by only re-zoning lands to accommodate development if appropriate easements are established. Staff with the Town of Canmore have indicated they are willing to meet with those planning wildlife corridors in the Upper Columbia Valley to further convey their experiences (G. Buxton pers. comm.).

4.2 Nature Conservancy of Canada Natural Area Conservation Planning for Rocky Mountain Trench The following discussion is based on a conversation with A. Harcombe, Terrestrial Ecologist for British Columbia with Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) on an initiative started in early 2009 by the NCC on Natural Area Conservation Planning. While this report on habitat linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley is more focused geographically and detailed in its objective, there are overlaps between this project and NCC’s Natural Area Conservation Planning initiative. The managers of each are advised to work together and communicate their objectives and progress to each other. The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) underwent an Ecoregional Planning process for the Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregion which included most of southeastern BC, southwestern Alberta and adjacent American States (NW Montana, Idaho panhandle and NE Washington). Among the main products of this ecoregional plan are the following (NCC 2004):  a portfolio of sites that collectively conserve biological diversity in the Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregion; and  an assessment of multi-site threats and priorities for conservation action. The NCC process divided the region into numerous “Conservation Areas”. The Upper Columbia Valley section that is the focus of this study occurs as the “Rocky Mountain Trench A” conservation area. Threats to this area were identified as forest in-growth and encroachment, residential home development, invasive species and water quality degradation (NCC 2004) More specific to this project is the work that has evolved from the ecoregional planning process. Natural Areas Conservation Planning is a process designed to target high value biodiversity ecosystems and the threats facing them. Using IUCN criteria and individual species known to occur within each target ecosystem, threats were ranked according to their scale of severity, scope and irreversibility. Eleven main threats were identified and these usually divided into more specific threats, for example development is divided into suburban expansion, industrial area expansion and tourism / resort expansion. The potential impact of each threat to the target ecosystems has been ranked by local experts (East Kootenay Conservation Program partners), resulting with a matrix of threat magnitudes. This process will be used to guide conservation goals, actions and help property securement organizations prioritize purchases to maximize conservation benefit.

27 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

This process has clear overlaps with the current effort to identify linkages and habitat connectivity through the Upper Columbia Valley for species at risk. Seven of the ten target ecosystems occur in the area:  Large hydro-riparian rivers (Columbia mainstem)  Small / Medium hydro-riparian systems (virtually all main tribuataries, including Toby, Horsethief, Frances and Forster Creeks)  Grasslands  Upland marshes and shallow open water  Dry, open, mature / old forests  Upland hardwoods  Carnivore / Ungulate Connectivity

4.3 Techniques A variety of techniques for designing wildlife corridors exist. Time limitations have kept this section short and at an overview level. No review of methods or recommendations on one process over another is offered.

CorridorDesign.org (www.corridordesign.org) This website is maintained by Dr. Paul Beier’s lab at the University of Northern Arizona. Dr. Beier has worked on wildlife corridor and connectivity issues for twenty years or more and has published numerous seminal papers on the topic (Beier et al. 2008a; Beier and Noss 1998; Beier and Loe 1992). CorridorDesign.org provides a step-wise approach to designing a habitat corridor from pre-modeling steps through corridor design and implementation. A suite of ArcGIS tools within ESRI’s software are available (Majka et al. 2007), including an extensions to help design and evaluate corridor effectiveness. An indepth resources page on other GIS tools provides exhaustive links to other methods and options. Also a guide to best management practices related to corridors is available (Beier et al. 2008b)

Horskins 2005. Horskins’ (2005) PhD dissertation from Queensland, Australia provides a thorough review of connectivity theory, design and an assessment using species from tropical Australia. The target species are of limited relevance to the Upper Columbia, but the document provides good background. 5 Other Data Following are other available data sources which may be of benefit in identifying key natural areas in the Upper Columbia Valley.

5.1 Conservation / Protected Areas Mapping Layer A GIS layer (ArcMap .shp file) that combines all the conservation lands in the Upper Columbia is being assembled by T. Kinley (Sylvan Consulting, Invermere, BC). This layer includes all property purchased by conservation securement organizations (e.g. The Nature Trust of BC, Nature Conservancy of Canada, etc).

5.2 High Value Conservation Forests Sustainable forest management planning was recently undertaken by both Canadian Forest Products Ltd (Canfor), Radium Division and Tembec Enterprises, BC Division for the Invermere Timber Supply Area of the Rocky Mountain Forest District. As part of this process, High Value

28 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Conservation Forests (HCVFs) were identified following a process outlined by the Forest Stewardship Council BC Regional Steering Committee (Wells 2005). Three categories of HCVFs were identified:  Category HCV1 - Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g., endemism, endangered species, refugia).  Category HCV2 - Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.  Category HCV3 - Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. The process involved a collaboration of groups which first identified a set of values (Table 6). Road use and intactness was also considered. These values were then mapped and analyzed spatially for concentrations of conservation value. Areas were further analyzed for contributions to under-represented ecosystems. A map product was generated spatially identifying key areas of conservation value (Figure 11). Many of these areas are beyond the focus area of this project and some of the data are captured elsewhere (e.g. Flammulated Owls WHAs). However, the process helps confirm key areas such as Windermere Creek (polygon 144 on Figure 11) and hardwood and cottonwood areas in Andreen Ck (polygon 132 on Figure 11). Data availability: The resultant linework for the HCVFs in Figure 11 are included in the data package with this report. The value layers in Table 6 are likely available as well, but not included here.

Table 6: High Conservation Values evaluated for candidate HCVF identification process in the Invermere TSA. Source: Wells 2005.

29 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Figure 11 Candidate High Conservation Value Forests in the Invermere TSA. Source: Wells 2005.

5.3 Ecosystem Representation Ecosystem representation work conducted by Wells et al. (2004) laid the groundwork for much of the rare and underrepresented ecosystem contributions to the HCVF work described above. Their project used a complex ordination approach to analyze biogeoclimatic subzone variants at the site series level and vegetation prominence. The site series were plotted on two ordination axes and grouped into similar ecosystem clusters. The resultant groupings are expected to be more biologically relevant than BEC variants or site series because of the substantial variation in climate, soils, vegetation and ecosystem productivity. These ecosystem groups were named and mapped following similar methods to Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM). The same limitations inherent to PEM (e.g., low precision) are subject to this process and widespread ground-truthing has yet to occur. However, the mapped product allows managers to identify ecosystem groups that are either rare or under-represented in protected areas within the East Kootenays. For the purposes of identifying habitat corridors through the Upper Columbia Valley, the Ecosystem Representation layer developed by Wells et al. (2004) may prove a useful tool in identifying key or otherwise rare ecosystems. The spatial analyses are also based on the Non- timber Harvesting Land Base (NHLB). These are the lands not subject to industrial forest harvesting and thus represent a greater likelihood of remaining in their current state (or succeeding naturally to older seral stages), which is beneficial for long-term conservation habitat planning. Data availability: Ecosystem representation layers should be available from either Tembec or Canfor or Ralph Wells directly with permission of either forestry company. Proprietary concerns over these data are unlikely.

30 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

6 Closure

Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. trusts that this report satisfied your present requirements. Should you have any comments, please contact us at your convenience.

Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. Prepared by:

and

Ian Adams, MSc, RPBio Mike Robinson, MSc, RPBio Senior Wildlife Biologist Aquatic Biologist

Reviewed by:

Sherri McPherson RPBio Senior Aquatic Biologist

31 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

7 References

7.1 Literature Cited

Adama, D. and M-A. Beaucher. 2006. Population Monitoring and Recovery of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in Southeast British Columbia, 2000 to 2005. Report to Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC. Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 502. Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse and T.A. Kinley. 2002. Habitat associations of American badgers in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80:1228-1239. Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1999. The influence of redd site selection, groundwater upwelling, and over-winter incubation temperature on survival of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from egg to alevin. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77:1233-1239. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Biodiversity Branch, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, Victoria, B.C. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/accounts.html BCEAG (Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group). 1999. Guidelines for human use within wildlife corridors and habitat patches in the Bow Valley. Municipal District of Bighorn, Town Canmore, Banff National Park and Government of Alberta. Canmore, AB. Available: http://www.biosphereinstitute.org/docs/BCEAG-Wildlife-Corridor-1999.pdf Beauchesne, S.M. and J.M. Cooper. 2007. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) survey in the East Kootenay Trench, British Columbia 2007. Technical report to Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC. Beier, P., and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:434–440. Beier, P., and R. F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology. 12:1241–1252. Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008a. Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology. 22:836-851. Beier, P., D.R. Majka, S. Newell and E. Garding. 2008b. Best Management Practices for Wildlife Corridors. Northern Arizona University. Available: http://www.corridordesign.org/downloads/corridordesign.org_BMPs_for_Corridors.pdf Butler, R.W. 1992. Great Blue Heron. In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 25. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith. 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. Royal B.C. Mus. in association with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 693pp. Cannings, R.J. 1999. Status of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Penticton, BC. 32 pp. Chetkiewicz, C.-L.B., C.C. St. Clair, and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics. 37:317–342. Cooper, J.M. 1995. Status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker in British Columbia, Wildlife Working Report No. WR-69. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Wildlife Branch. Victoria, B.C.

32 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Cooper, J.M., and S. Beauchesne. 2000. Inventory of Lewis’s Woodpecker Breeding Population and Habitat in the East Kootenay. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Rep. No. WR-100. 30pp. Cooper, J.M., and S. Beauchesne. 2003. Short-eared Owl and American Bittern inventory in the Columbia Basin, 2003. Report to Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC. Cooper, J.M., and C. Gillies. 2000. Breeding Distribution of the Lewis's Woodpecker in the East Kootenay Trench in Relation to Fire History. Pp. 423-428 in L.M. Darling, ed. 2000. Proc. Conf. on the Biology and Manage. Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15-19 Feb., 1999. Vol. 1; BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp. Cooper, J.M., E.T. Manning, A.M. Deans and R. Howie. 2005. Flammulated Owl Management Plan For British Columbia. Report to BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Penticton, BC. COSEWIC 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern leopard frog Rana pipiens (Southern Mountain and Prairie populations) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western toad Bufo boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi (British Columbia population and Alberta population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC. 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC. 2007b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Crooks, K.R. and M.A. Sanjayan, editors. 2006. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. D’Avignon, C. 1998. Toby Benches Land Use Strategy. Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Available: ftp://ftp.rdek.bc.ca/PlanningBylaws/TobyBenchesLandUse.pdf Davis, T.M. 2002. Research Priorities for the Management of the Western Toad, Bufo boreas, in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-106. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/statusrpts/wr106.pdf Dibb, A.D. 2004. Restoration of bighorn sheep habitat and associated open forest and grassland ecosystems at Radium Hot Springs, BC. In: T.D. Hooper, editor. Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference. March 2-6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Dibb, A.D. 2007. Spatial Analysis of Bighorn Sheep Movement in the Radium Hot Springs Area, British Columbia: Modelling and Management. M.Sc. thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. EKILMP (East Kootenay Integrated Lake Management Partnership). 2009. Windermere Lake shoreline management guidelines for fish and wildlife management.

33 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Ferguson, R.S. 2004. Species at Risk assessment report for the Rocky Mountain and Kootenay Lake Forest Districts, B.C. Canada. Report to Tembec Industries, Cranbrook, BC and Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., Radium Hot Springs, BC. Available: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2005/FIA2005MR087-2.pdf Golder Associates. 2002. Assessment of wildlife corridors within DC Site 1, DC Site 3, and District “R”. Report to Three Sisters Resorts, Inc. and Town of Canmore. Gyug, L.W., I.A. Ohanjanian, C. Steeger, I.A. Manley, and P.W. Davidson. 2007. Distribution and density of Williamson’s Sapsucker in British Columbia, Canada. British Columbia Birds. 16:2-15. Herrero, J. and S. Jevons. 2000. Assessing the design and functionality of wildlife movement corridors in the southern Canmore region. Report to BowCORD, Bow Valley Naturalists, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and UTSB Research. Calgary, AB. Available: http://www.stratalink.com/corridors/default.htm Horskins, K. 2005. The Effectiveness of Wildlife Corridors in Facilitating Connectivity: Assessment of a Model System from the Australian Wet Tropics. PhD Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Available: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16039/ Invermere. 2001. The District of Invermere Official Community Plan, Bylaw 1085, 2001. District of Invermere, BC. Available: http://www.invermere.net/municipal/ocp.htm Jamieson, B., M. Thomas, T. Kinley and M, Worgan. 2009 (draft). A management strategy for species at risk in a semi-urban landscape on the Shuswap Reserve lands at Invermere, BC. Report to Kinbasket Development Corp. and the Shuswap Band. Invermere, BC. jeffersonii Badger Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/recovery/rcvrystrat/badger_jeffersonii_rcvry_strat180 92008.pdf Kinley, T. A., and N. J. Newhouse. 2008. Ecology and translocation-aided recovery of an endangered badger population. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:113-122. Kinley, T. A., and N. J. Newhouse. 2005. East Kootenay Badger Project 2004-2005 Update: Ecology, Translocation, Sightings and Communications. Report to Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Parks Canada and BC Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection. Available: http://www.fwcp.ca/version2/reports/pdfs/East_Kootenay_Badger_Project_0405_Update.pdf Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee. 1997. Kootenay Bounary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy. BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Victoria, BC. Krebs, J., E. C. Lofroth, and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71:2180–2192. Leupin, E. 2003. Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tymanuchus phasianellus) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Rep. No. B-104. Machmer, M.M. and C. Steeger. 2003. Breeding inventory and habitat assessment of Great Blue Herons in the Columbia River Basin. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation. Program. Nelson, B.C. 28pp. Machmer, M.M.. 2008. Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagle inventory and stewardship in the Columbia Basin (2007-2008). Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, B.C. 34pp. Manley, I.A. 2004. Inventory of Flammulated Owls breeding in the East Kootenay 2004. Report to BC Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection. Nelson, BC.

34 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

Majka, D., J. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2007. CorridorDesigner: ArcGIS tools for designing and evaluating corridors. Available: http://corridordesign.org Manning Cooper and Associates. 2005. Flammulated Owl management plan for British Columbia. Prepared for BC Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection. Penticton, BC. Manning Cooper and Associates. 2007. Forest Songbird and Woodpecker Monitoring in the Radium Forest District. Report to Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor), Radium Division. Radium Hot Springs, BC. McCracken, J. 2008. Are aerial insectivores being ‘bugged out’? Bird Watch Canada. Winter 2008. pp 4-7. available: http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/BWCwi08.pdf McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB. McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A Review of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Life-history and Habitat Use in Relation to Compensation and Improvement Opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. Fisheries Branch. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. McPherson, S. and D. Hlushak. 2008. Windermere Lake fisheries and wildlife habitat assessment. Report to East Kootenay Integrated Lake Management Partnership. Cranbrook. BC. Magee, J.P. and T.E. McMahon. 1996. Spatial Variation in Spawning Habitat of Cutthroat Trout in a Sediment-Rich Stream Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 125:768- 779. NCC (Nature Conservancy of Canada). 2004. Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment Volume One: Report. Nature Conservancy of Canada, BC Region. Victoria, BC Newhouse, N. 2006. East Kootenay Badger Project Summary: June 1996 – June 2006. Report to Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC and Parks Canada, Radium Hot Springs, BC. Available: http://www.fwcp.ca/version2/reports/pdfs/EK_Badger_Summary_2006.pdf Ohanjanian, I.A. 1990. The Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in the East Kootenay: a report on their status and options for reintroduction. Bioquest International Consulting, Kimberley. Ohanjanian, I.A. 2001. The Long-billed Curlew in the East Kootenay. Report to BC Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Cranbrook, BC. Ohanjanian, I.A., and I.E. Teske. 1996. A herpetological survey of 87 wetlands in the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Area. Unpublished report to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, British Columbia. Ohanjanian, I.A., I.A. Manley and P. Davidson. 2006. The Williamson’s Sapsucker in the East Kootenay region of British Columbia: Results of 2006 inventory. Technical report to Tembec, Galloway Lumber Co., BC Timber Sales, BC Ministry of Environment. Cranbrook BC. Available: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2007/LBIP_4586002.pdf Ohanjanian, I.A., P. Davidson, S. Hansen and C. Conroy. 2008. The Williamson’s Sapsucker in the East Kootenay region of British Columbia: Results of 2007 inventory. Technical report to Tembec, Galloway Lumber Co., BC Timber Sales, BC Ministry of Environment. Cranbrook BC. Ohanjanian, I.A., P. Davidson, S. Hansen and J. Beare. 2009 (draft). The Williamson’s Sapsucker in the East Kootenay region of British Columbia: Results of 2008 inventory. Technical report to Tembec, Galloway Lumber Co., BC Timber Sales, BC Ministry of Environment. Cranbrook BC. Ovaska, K, S. Lennart, C Engelstoft, L. Matthias, E. Wind and J. MacGarvie. 2004. Best Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in

35 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

British Columbia. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Ecosystems Standards and Planning, Biodiversity Branch. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/BMP/herptile/HerptileBMP_final.pdf Proctor, M.F., B.N. McLellan, C. Strobeck, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2005. Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 272:2409-2416. Radium Hot Springs. 2002. Village of Radium Hot Sproings Official Community Plan Bylaw No.254, 2002. Village of Radium Hot Springs, Radium Hot Springs, BC. Available: http://radiumhotsprings.ca/images/stories/documents/OCP.pdf RDEK (Regional District of East Kootenay). 2004. Fairmont Hot Springs Area Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1734, 2004. Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Available: http://www.rdek.bc.ca/Bylaws/bylawmain.htm RDEK. 2006. Steamboat – Jubilee Mountain Official Community Plan Bylaw No.1926, 2006. Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Available: http://www.rdek.bc.ca/Bylaws/bylawmain.htm RDEK. 2008. Lake Windermere Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2061, 2008. Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Available: http://www.rdek.bc.ca/Bylaws/bylawmain.htm RDEK. 2009. Lake Upper Columbia Valley Zoning Bylaw No. 900 – Consolidation, 2009. Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Available: http://www.rdek.bc.ca/Bylaws/bylawmain.htm Reptiles of BC. 2009. The Reptiles of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment and Thompson Rivers University. url: http://www.bcreptiles.ca/snakes/rubberboa.htm Accessed March, 2009. Rosenberg D.K., B.R. Noon, and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Biological corridors: Form, function, and efficacy. BioScience. 47:677–87. St. Clair, R.C., and A. Dibb. 2004. Rubber Boas in Radium Hot Springs: Habitat, Inventory, and Management Strategies. In T.D. Hooper, ed. Proc. of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conf. March 2-6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, Victoria, BC. 5pp. Schmetterling, D.A. 2000. Redd Characteristics of Fluvial Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Four Tributaries to the Blackfoot River, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:776–783. Tremblay, M.A. 2001. Modelling and management of potential movement corridors for elk (Cervus elaphus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in the Radium Hot Springs area, British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Wells, R. 2005. Candidate High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) Assessment in the Invermere Timber Supply Area (HCV 1-3). Report to Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., Radium Hot Springs, BC.and Tembec Industries, Cranbrook, BC.

Wells R.W., D. Haag, T. Braumandl, G. Bradfield and A. Moy. 2004. Ecosystem Representation in the East Kootenay Conservation Program Study Area. Technical report to Tembec, Inc., Cranbrook, BC and Canfor, Ltd., Radium Hot Springs, BC.

36 Species at Risk Habitat Linkages in the Upper Columbia Valley

7.2 Personal Communications Adama, D. Wildlife Biologist, BC Hydro. Golden, BC. Former chair, Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team. Antifeau, T. Wildlife Biologist, BC Ministry of Environment, Nelson, BC. Regional Rare & Endangered Species specialist. Buxton, G. Manager, Planning and Development, Town of Canmore. Canmore, AB. Candy, A. Natural Resource Specialist, Osprey Communications, Invermere, BC. Dibb, A. Wildlife Specialist, Kootenay, Yoho & Lake Louise National Parks. Radium Hot Springs, BC. Harcombe, A. Terrestrial Ecologist, Nature Conservancy of Canada. Victoria, BC. Haworth, R. Vice President, Development, Fairmont Hot Springs Resort. Fairmont Hot Springs, BC. Hillary, D. Canadian Rocky Mountains Program Manager, Nature Conservancy of Canada. Invermere, BC. Holmes, P. Ecosystem Biologist, Ministry of Environment, Invermere BC. Hromadnik, R. Planner, District of Invermere. Invermere, BC. Jamieson, B. Wildlife Biologist, Bioquest Consulting. TaTa Creek, BC. Kinley, T. Wildlife Biologist, Sylvan Consulting, Ltd. Invermere, BC. Machmer, M. Wildlife Biologist, Pandion Consulting. Nelson, BC. MacLeod, K. Planner, Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC. Manley, I. Wildlife Biologist, Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. Nicholson, D. Naturalist. Cranbrook, BC. Nicolajsen, J. GIS Technician, Regional District of East Kootenay. Cranbrook, BC Olson, D. Planner. Lead consultant on District of Invermere OCP (Invermere 2001). Read, M. Chief Administrative Officer, Village of Radium Hot Springs. Radium Hot Springs, BC. Zehnder, D. Rancher and Natural Resource Specialist. Invermere, BC.