DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017 Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017 Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Kootenay Operations “Sustainable forest management is the balanced, concurrent sustainability of forestry-related ecological, social and economic values for a defined area over a defined time frame.” Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Acknowledgements We wish to thank all members, past and present, of the Public Advisory Group (PAG) for their contributions and dedication to sustainable forest management in the Kootenay Region. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions from Indigenous Peoples, ENGOs and members of the public who provided input into the development of this plan, as well as the Annual Reports. In addition, we would like to thank Kootenay Forest Management Group staff who provided timely and thought-provoking additions to many sections. The biodiversity and wildlife sections of this plan (Criterion 1) were written by Kari Stuart- Smith, PhD., RPBio, Forest Scientist for Canfor, with the assistance of Stephanie Keightley, BSc. In addition, they provided expertise into the Climate Change, soils and water quality sections. Ecosystem Resilience sections, including silviculture, regeneration, invasive plant species and climate change were written by Kori Vernier, RPF. Ian Johnson, RPF wrote the sections on forest productivity, soils, water quantity and quality, as well as socio-economic sections such as, overlapping tenure holders and non-timber forest benefits. In addition to leading this SFM Plan, Grant Neville, RPF wrote the balance of the socio-economic sections. These included but are not limited to: First Nation and stakeholder involvement/information sharing, local employment, local procurement, contribution to the communities and safety. December 2017 Page i Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Signature Page The following have committed to implement and maintain on a continuous improvement basis. December 2017 Page ii Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Executive Summary Since the early 2000’s forest tenure holders ("licensees") operating in the East Kootenay have worked with members of the public, local stakeholders, Indigenous representatives and Government Agencies to develop and implement a Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFM Plan) for the Defined Forest Area (DFA). This SFM Plan addresses the increased size of the DFA, changes in forest condition, public, stakeholder, and Indigenous Peoples input and local community values. Public participation, performance objectives, management systems, review of actions, monitoring of effectiveness, and continual improvement are cornerstone to the success of SFM. Through the public participation and expert advice, performance objectives were developed for the DFA to reflect local and regional interests. Compliance with existing forest policies, laws and regulations are the baseline requirements of the SFM Plan. This edition of the SFM Plan includes updated references to the applicable laws and regulations, as well as an updated suite of Criteria, Elements, Values, Objectives, Indicators and Targets that address the current environmental, economic and social conditions within the DFA. Both the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management Requirements and Guidance (CSA Z809-16) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification (FSC-BC Oct. 2005) guide this SFM Plan. This SFM Plan localizes the implementation and monitoring of the criteria and indicators for both Standards. The SFM Plan is a dynamic and evolving document that is to be reviewed and revised on a regular basis (approximately every 5 years). Canfor is committed to the monitoring of the indicators set out in the SFM Plan. On an annual basis Canfor prepares an Annual Report in reference to the targets established for the indicators in the SFM plan. Annual Reports are made available for review and to provide input. This process provides Canfor, the public, and Indigenous Peoples with an opportunity to bring forward new information and to provide input concerning new or changing public, stakeholder, and Indigenous Peoples values and interests that can be incorporated into future updates of the SFM Plan, both at the DFA and Timber Supply Area (TSA) level. This SFM Plan has been written appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, is available to the public and is kept current. December 2017 Page iii Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Canfor Environmental Policies Canfor believes in conducting its business in a manner that protects the environment and ensures sustainable forest management. In July of 1999, Canfor formally announced its commitment to seek sustainable forest management certification of all Canfor’s forestry operations. The Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFM Plan) presented here and its implementation is intended to fulfil that commitment for Canfor’s Kootenay Operations. The management of Canfor has set out a number of commitments that define the mission, vision, policies and guiding principles for Canfor. These include the Canfor Mission, Environment Policy and Sustainable Forest Management Commitments. These commitments have been used to enable and guide the development of this Sustainable Forest Management Plan. In addition, they also commit to continual improvement of performance through implementing the plan under the principles of adaptive management. Canfor’s Environmental Policy and Sustainable Forest Management Commitments detail the commitments to Environmental and Sustainable Forest Management for the Canfor Defined Forest Area. These commitments are communicated internally and externally to all interested parties. To access and read the detailed Environmental Policy and SFM Commitments please link to: Canfor Policies December 2017 Page iv Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Figure 1: Canfor's Environmental Policy December 2017 Page v Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Sustainable Forest Management Commitments Figure 2: Canfor's Sustainable Forest Management Commitments December 2017 Page vi Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan December 2017 Page vii Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... i Signature Page ................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Canfor Environmental Policies....................................................................................................... iv Sustainable Forest Management Commitments ............................................................................. vi 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to Sustainable Forest Management ................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of SFM Plan ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Purpose of an SFM Plan ........................................................................................................ 2 2.0 SFM Planning Process ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Plan Development, Implementation & Maintenance ............................................................ 4 2.2 Structure and Responsibility.................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 Canfor Involvement ........................................................................................................ 8 2.2.2 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Indigenous Peoples Involvement .................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Other Tenure Holders Involvement .............................................................................. 12 2.3 SFM Plan Links to Other Strategic Initiatives ..................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Strategic Forest Management Initiatives ...................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Strategic Plans, Policies & Supporting Documents ...................................................... 15 2.4 Canfor’s SFM Plan – Local Level ....................................................................................... 17 3.0 Background to the SFM Plan .................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Geographical Description .................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Biophysical Description ...................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Socio-Economic Description ............................................................................................... 38 4.0 Establishing the Foundation for SFM Planning ...................................................................... 43 4.1 Inventory and Assessments ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insert Park Picture Here
    Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Part of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site November 2012 Cover Page Photo Credit: Christian Kimber (Park Ranger) This document replaces the direction provided in the Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park Master Plan (1989). Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Approved by: November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Tom Bell Date Regional Director, Kootenay Okanagan Region BC Parks November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Brian Bawtinheimer Date Executive Director, Parks Planning and Management Branch BC Parks Plan Highlights The management vision for Mount Assiniboine Park is that the park continues to be an international symbol of the pristine scenic grandeur of British Columbia’s wilderness and the recreational enjoyment it offers. Key elements of the management plan include strategies to: Implement a zoning plan that enhances the emphasis on Mount Assiniboine Park’s value both as a component of a UNESCO World Heritage Site (which protects significant examples of Canadian Rocky Mountain ecosystems) and as the location of an internationally recognized wilderness recreation feature associated with heritage structures from the earliest days of facility-based backcountry tourism in the Canadian Rockies. Approximately 86% of the park is zoned as Wilderness Recreation, 13% is zoned as Nature Recreation, less than 1% is zoned as Special Feature and less than 0.01% is zoned as Intensive Recreation. Develop an ecosystem management strategy that coordinates management of vegetation and wildlife in the park with that of adjacent protected areas under other agencies’ jurisdiction and with activities on adjacent provincial forest lands. This includes a proposal to prepare a vegetation management strategy to maintain or restore natural disturbance regimes (i.e., insects, disease and fire) wherever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway 3: Transportation Mitigation for Wildlife and Connectivity in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem
    Highway 3: Transportation Mitigation for Wildlife and Connectivity May 2010 Prepared with the: support of: Galvin Family Fund Kayak Foundation HIGHWAY 3: TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FOR WILDLIFE AND CONNECTIVITY IN THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT ECOSYSTEM Final Report May 2010 Prepared by: Anthony Clevenger, PhD Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University Clayton Apps, PhD, Aspen Wildlife Research Tracy Lee, MSc, Miistakis Institute, University of Calgary Mike Quinn, PhD, Miistakis Institute, University of Calgary Dale Paton, Graduate Student, University of Calgary Dave Poulton, LLB, LLM, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Robert Ament, M Sc, Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .....................................................................................................................................................iv List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................vi Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 Background........................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context
    Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks lie in southeastern British Columbia in the Rocky Mountains, about 85 km southwest of Calgary, Alberta. They are flanked to the East by the Elk Valley and the Kananaskis Valley and to the West by the Park Ranges. The mountain ranges of the Kootenay District provide a wide diversity of natural values and recreation opportunities as evidenced by the numerous national and provincial parks in the District (Fig. 2). Over 16% of the land base in the East Kootenays is in protected areas. · Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas. In conjunction with Banff National Park and Peter Lougheed Provincial Park in Alberta, they form a large, contiguous protected area that is rich in natural, recreational and cultural values. Also, these parks are critical links in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y)1. · The combined size of these two provincial parks contributes to the protection of biodiversity in the region and is integral to the conservation of wildlife populations, plant communities and biodiversity. · These parks offer a wide range of top caliber wilderness recreation opportunities and outstanding features. Plate 2 : Fish fossil in Elk Lakes Provincial Park 1 Proposal by Canada and U.S. conservation groups to create a thread of ecological connectivity linking protected areas in both countries from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon. 11 Significance in the Protected Areas System Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) Summits on the Air
    Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) Summits on the Air Canada (Alberta – VE6/VA6) Association Reference Manual (ARM) Document Reference S87.1 Issue number 2.2 Date of issue 1st August 2016 Participation start date 1st October 2012 Authorised Association Manager Walker McBryde VA6MCB Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged Page 1 of 63 Document S87.1 v2.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) 1 Change Control ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Association Reference Data ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Programme derivation ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 General information .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Rights of way and access issues ..................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Maps and navigation .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Safety considerations ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The District of Sparwood Community Profile
    THE DISTRICT OF SPARWOOD COMMUNITY PROFILE 1 Community Profile 3 District of Sparwood Overview 3 A Brief History 3 Location 3 Geography 4 First Nations 4 Wildlife 4 Climate 5 Demographics 6 Local Government 9 Primary Economic Structures 10 Emerging Industries 12 Community Services and Amenities 14 Education 14 Health Services 15 Government Services 16 Financial Services 17 Transportation 18 Utilities and Technological Services 19 Sparwood Community Network (SCN) 20 Media 21 Real Estate 22 Recreation and Tourism 23 Cultural and Social Amenities 25 Economic Development Profile 26 Business Advantages 26 Reasons to Invest 27 Investment / Business Opportunities 29 Natural Resource Potential 29 Tourism Related Businesses 29 Services 30 Construction / Development 30 Retail 31 Access to Markets 31 Federal and Provincial Taxes 32 Business Resources 34 Databases and e-Links 35 2 District of Sparwood Overview A Brief History1 Prior to 1900, there was a railroad stop known as Sparwood, which was so named because of the trees from this area being shipped to the Coast for manufacturing spars for ocean vessels. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, coal development in this area resulted in the creation of three small communities known as Michel, Natal and Sparwood, respectively. The former two communities were in the immediate area of the coal mines and the latter, Sparwood, was a few miles removed.. By 1966, the Village of Natal and the settlement of Michel had become adversely affected by coal dust. There was no regulatory legislation to protect the public. The Village of Natal, in cooperation with the Provincial and Federal Governments, entered into an Urban Renewal and Land Assembly program, which eventually resulted in the townspeople of Natal and Michel moving to, and expanding, Sparwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Genesis and Expression of a Cloniforming Carbonate Ramp From
    PSGenesis and Expression of a Clinoforming Carbonate Ramp from a Geological and Geophysical Perspective* 1 1 2 Jean-Yves Chatellier , Jeff Closson , and Anne Hargreaves Search and Discovery Article #50148 (2009) Posted January 26, 2009 *Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX, April 20-23, 2008 1Talisman Energy Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada. ([email protected]) 2Canadian Stratigraphic Services 2000 Ltd, Calgary, AB, Canada. Abstract Progradation in a carbonate ramp is not always well expressed in seismic or in geological cross sections. Clinoforms in the Carboniferous Banff Formation (Alberta, Canada) have been studied in an integrated approach using log analysis, sedimentology and seismic data. The genesis and geometry of several clinoforms have been examined against their structural settings. Cutting descriptions from Canstrat have been used to better understand the sedimentology and lithologies above and below the clinoforming surfaces. In the Western Alberta Basin, the Carboniferous Banff Formation is a prograding carbonate ramp with some very well developed clinoforms. Three main types of clinoforming surfaces have been recognized on wireline logs in association with transgressive shales, slump related chert units or catastrophic grain supported carbonate events. The seismic expression associated with the carbonate ramp has been tested against lateral facies variations. Synthetic seismograms have been generated on many wells from a variety of clinoforms in order to determine if and when a progradation would be seen on seismic. A comparison between two geographically distinct clinoforms with apparently identical log expressions has outlined extreme differences in their potential to be seismically visible. The structural context favorable to recognizable clinoforming pattern is variable and the direction of progradation may vary dramatically especially when alternate fault activity is syndepositional.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Taber-Vauxhall Count
    Banff National Park Date: May 28, 29, 2016 Compiler: Brenda Lepitzki Participants: BBWK (Banff Bird walk group): Amar Athwal, Jennifer Kleinitz, Jill Beleyme, Tomo Fujimori, and 25 participants(= 29); UMJL (University of Manitoba at Johnson Lake group): Nicola Koper, Michael Campbell, Michael Bell, 6 students (= 9). Area Covered: Day 1: Bow River bridge to Recreation Grounds & stables, to Sundance Road and Rainy Bay, to Cave and Basin marsh. Day 2: Johnson Lake trail and beaver pond, plus the road from highway to Johnson Lake. Weather: Day 1: Temp. 5 to 12oC Wind speed: (light to gusty) 5 to 20 km/hr. Wind direction: from west Precipitation: none in morning, light rain in afternoon Comments: sky cloudy Day 2: Temp. 8 to 16oC Wind speed: NA Wind direction: NA Precipitation: NA Team Distance/Hours: Total Team Mileage: 27.7 km; by vehicle 12.1 km; on foot 15.6 km. Total Team Hours: 8.0 hr; by vehicle 0.5 hr; on foot 7.5 hr. Number of Species: 66 (+ 12CW) Number of Birds: 412 (+ 16 CW) Other species seen during count week: 12 species: Cinnamon Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Red-tailed Hawk, Mourning Dove, Downy Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Western Wood-pewee, Least Flycatcher, European Starling, Magnolia Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, House Sparrow. Highlights: Banff Bird walk: “The top highlight was, without question, a Northern Mockingbird, a species that has been found in the park on only a handful of occasions over the years. Luckily, Amar got a photo to confirm the identification.” Jason Rogers. U. Manitoba: “Warbling Vireo, Violet-green Swallow, Sora, Great Blue Heron” Nicola Koper.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaciers of the Canadian Rockies
    Glaciers of North America— GLACIERS OF CANADA GLACIERS OF THE CANADIAN ROCKIES By C. SIMON L. OMMANNEY SATELLITE IMAGE ATLAS OF GLACIERS OF THE WORLD Edited by RICHARD S. WILLIAMS, Jr., and JANE G. FERRIGNO U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1386–J–1 The Rocky Mountains of Canada include four distinct ranges from the U.S. border to northern British Columbia: Border, Continental, Hart, and Muskwa Ranges. They cover about 170,000 km2, are about 150 km wide, and have an estimated glacierized area of 38,613 km2. Mount Robson, at 3,954 m, is the highest peak. Glaciers range in size from ice fields, with major outlet glaciers, to glacierets. Small mountain-type glaciers in cirques, niches, and ice aprons are scattered throughout the ranges. Ice-cored moraines and rock glaciers are also common CONTENTS Page Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J199 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 FIGURE 1. Mountain ranges of the southern Rocky Mountains------------ 201 2. Mountain ranges of the northern Rocky Mountains ------------ 202 3. Oblique aerial photograph of Mount Assiniboine, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains----------------------------- 203 4. Sketch map showing glaciers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains -------------------------------------------- 204 5. Photograph of the Victoria Glacier, Rocky Mountains, Alberta, in August 1973 -------------------------------------- 209 TABLE 1. Named glaciers of the Rocky Mountains cited in the chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Grizzly Bear Population Dynamics Across Productivity and Human Influence Gradients
    Grizzly bear population dynamics across productivity and human influence gradients by Clayton T. Lamb A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta © Clayton T. Lamb, 2019 Abstract Coexistence with large carnivores is one of the greatest conservation challenges across the globe, in part because mechanisms of coexistence are unknown or contested. Large carnivores can be conflict-prone and pose real or perceived threats to human life and property. In North America, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) typify the struggle to conserve and coexist with large carnivores amongst a matrix of competing land uses. Grizzly bears are a symbol of wildness to society, but the management of this species can divide communities, derail collaborative conservation initiatives, and are the focus of high-profile media coverage and lawsuits. At the center of this controversy is scientific uncertainty around population dynamics of the species, primarily relating to population size, limiting factors, and the ecology of conflict. The contemporary threats of wilderness loss, human population expansion, and climate change pose both a no-analog future for grizzly bears, but also opportunity. Leveraging novel ecological tools, and the ongoing human-induced landscape and climate change, considerable opportunity exists to investigate the mechanisms driving grizzly bear population dynamics and those promoting coexistence—enduring populations of wildlife in human-dominated landscapes. The goal of this dissertation was to test the factors limiting grizzly bear population dynamics across ecosystems, update local population estimates, and to identify the mechanisms promoting carnivore coexistence and those exacerbating it.
    [Show full text]
  • MOUNT LORETTE, BEAVER MINES and STEEPLES RAPTOR COUNTS
    MOUNT LORETTE, BEAVER MINES and STEEPLES RAPTOR COUNTS SPRING 2019 www.eaglewatch.ca PETER SHERRINGTON Introduction 2019 is the 28th consecutive year that a spring raptor count has been conducted at the Mount Lorette site. In 1992 an eight-day reconnaissance count starting on March 20 at the site established that Golden Eagles moved to the northwest in significant numbers through the Rocky Mountain Front Ranges. Most of the birds moved along the Fisher Range, crossing the Kananaskis Valley to Mount Lorette before continuing their migration to the northwest. A 48 day (393 hour) count at the site in the spring of 1993 yielded 4140 migrating Golden Eagles and the following year a seventy day (649 hour) count produced 4213 birds which remains the highest spring count ever for the species at Mount Lorette. Between 1994 and 2007 extensive spring counts averaging 82 days (897 hours) were conducted at the site with a maximum count in 2005 of 94 days (1238 hours). Despite the steady increase in observer effort during this period, the number of migrating Golden Eagles counted has steadily and significantly decreased since 1995. In 2006 RMERF conducted it first complete fall count at the Piitaistakis-South Livingstone site near the Crowsnest Pass in SW Alberta and in 2008-10 also conducted full spring counts there. During this period extensive comparative counts were made at Mount Lorette between March 1 and April 15 which is coincident with the height of the Golden Eagle migration and during which period over 90% of the population moves north. Observer effort from 2008-10 at Mount Lorette averaged 43 days (487 hours) with a maximum count of 46 days (519 hours) in 2010 when no days were lost to inclement weather.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lfarsufy Øtddoor Club 6I Ournal
    The lfarsufy øtddoor Club 6iournal VOLUME XXXII 1989 ISSN 0524- 5613 ‘74€ ?b2ire4 of tttih Ca!um&a Vnicowwi, Ciad PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE MURIEL PACHECO Hi. You may not know me if you are a new member this year, but I’m your president. When I was elected for this position last year I thought I was going to have a light academic load. As it turned out I ended up taking an intensive program in education and I have spent most of my year on the north shore. No, not skiing, but teaching rebellious high school students art. Fortunately with the aid of my better half, Andy Pacheco, dedicated executive members, and some very keen general members, the club has held together without my visible presence. I believe one of the most notable advances the club had made this year is with its move towards greater organisation through the transfer of much of the club’s paperwork to the personal computer. John Omielan spent many hours developing a custom-made program for the club’s Hustler’s Handbook in which now is contained each member’s interests and abilities in the outdoors - a must when desperately searching for a partner to go on trips. The journal is now done with a PC by club members, which saves both time and money. Also of particular note are the instructional booklets which have been devel9ped for the club’s two most popular courses, rock school and glacier school, by myself and Craig Hollinger respectively. Craig has also gone a long way towards preparing a structured telemark school.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Taber-Vauxhall Count
    Banff National Park Date: May 30, 31, 2015 Compiler: Brenda Lepitzki Participants: University of Manitoba group: Nicola Koper, Michael Bell, Michael Campbell, Jennie Horvat, Kurtis Ulrich, Jordana Milne, Larissa Gospodyn, Laura Kummerfield, Yurika Baba, Holly Radcliffe. Banff Community Birdwalk: Jill Beleyme, Amar Athwal, 19 other participants. Shirley Truscott, Gary Truscott. Area Covered: Day 1 Community Bird Walk group: Recreation grounds (stables), Marsh Loop trail partly along Bow River, Sundance Canyon road to Rainy Bay, Cave and Basin marsh. Shirley & Gary Truscott: Rundle Trail from Banff Golf Course trail head to Harlequin Rock.University of Manitoba group: Johnson Lake loop trail, road to Johnson Lake from TransCanada Highway. Day 2 (2 participants, U. Manitoba’s Nicola Koper and Michael Bell): Shoreline trail of Lake Louise Weather: Day 1: Temp. 9 to 12oC Wind speed: 0 to 5 km/hr. Wind direction: from west Precipitation: none Comments: overcast, low cloud Day 2: Temp. 16 to 20oC Wind speed: 5 to 10 km/hr. Wind direction: NW Precipitation: none Comments: done in afternoon – definitely reduced numbers of birds seen Team Distance/Hours: Total Team Mileage: 29.8 km; by vehicle 11.3 km; on foot 18.5 km. Total team hours: 11 hr 05 min (11.08 hr); by vehicle 50 min (0.83 hr); on foot 10 hr 15 min (10.25 hr). Number of Species: 62 (+ 19 CW) Number of Birds: 436 Other species seen during count week: Birds: Sharp-shinned Hawk juvenile, Merlin, Calliope Hummingbird, Rufous Hummingbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Willow Flycatcher, Say’s Phoebe, Eastern Kingbird, Steller’s Jay, Bank Swallow, Black-capped Chickadee, Mountain Chickadee, Gray Catbird, Cedar Waxwing, Tennessee Warbler, Orange-crowned Warbler, Magnolia Warbler, Le Conte’s Sparrow, White-throated Sparrow.
    [Show full text]