DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Columbia Basin Species and Plant Fish & Wildlife Community Conservation Compensation Program PREPARED BY John M. Cooper1 Chris Steeger2 Suzanne M. Beauchesne1 Marlene Machmer2 Lynne Atwood3 E. Todd Manning1 1 Manning, Cooper and Associates Errington, BC 2 Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. Nelson, BC 3 Genoa Environmental Consulting Ltd Cobble Hill, BC July 2004 Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation Written by John M. Cooper, Suzanne M. Beauchesne, and Todd Manning Manning, Cooper and Associates Box 646, Errington, BC V0R 1V0 Marlene Machmer and Chris Steeger Pandion Ecological Research Ltd 532 Park Street, Nelson, BC V1L 2G9 Lynne Atwood Genoa Environmental Consulting Ltd 3845 Lefran Road Cobble Hill, BC V0R 1L0 For Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Nelson, BC July 2004 ii Executive Summary Dry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) and Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide critical habitat for a diversity of species. Several Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plant communities may occur within treatment units considered for habitat restoration. It is the intent of CBFWCP and MWLAP to consider all Red and Blue-listed species and communities when planning restoration so as to prevent conducting treatments for one species/community to the detriment of another. Nine wildlife species (Lewis’s Woodpecker, Williamson Sapsucker, White-headed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Long Billed Curlew, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Northern Goshawk) and seven plant communities (Douglas-fir/snowberry/ balsamroot, Antelope- brush /bluebunch wheatgrass, Western snowberry-Idaho fescue, Bluebunch wheatgrass - junegrass, Douglas-fir – western larch - spruce /pinegrass, Ponderosa pine-trembling aspen/rose [Solomon's seal], Ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass-silky lupine) were considered. We used these UTM locations to map the known occurrences of the focal species within range and pasture units of the plan area, to provide a spatial context for the species- specific prescription guidelines compiled in this report. For each wildlife species and plant community, information on restoration objectives, BEC zone, subzones and variants, restoration techniques, best management practices and silvicultural practices useful for restoration were summarized from available published and technical literature. Specific recommendations for each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plant community were developed from the available literature, combined with our professional opinion. Recommendations for each species and plant community were made, where applicable, for tree stocking densities, range of canopy closure, preferred residual tree species, preferred spatial configuration, wildlife tree stocking density, provision for future wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover density and height, and herb cover. Recommendations for treatment techniques and estimates of restoration success probability are made. Relevant background information on each wildlife and plant community is also provided. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................1 2. Methods.................................................................................................3 2.1 Mapping component ........................................................................................3 2.2 Wildlife species habitat and plant community restoration information..............5 3. Mapping Results....................................................................................6 4. Wildlife Species Habitat Restoration Information ..................................9 4.1 Restoration techniques.....................................................................................9 4.2 Lewis’s Woodpecker .....................................................................................10 4.3 White-headed Woodpecker............................................................................13 4.4 Williamson’s Sapsucker.................................................................................15 4.5 Flammulated Owl ..........................................................................................17 4.6 “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse..................................................................20 4.7 Long-billed Curlew........................................................................................23 4.8 Northern Goshawk.........................................................................................25 4.9 Badger ...........................................................................................................28 4.10 Bighorn Sheep ...............................................................................................30 4.11 Relative potential for success of restoration ...................................................33 5. Plant Communities Habitat Restoration Information............................ 44 5.1 Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot................................................................44 5.2 Antelope Brush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass .........................................................45 5.3 Western Snowberry-Idaho Fescue..................................................................47 5.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass/Junegrass...................................................................48 5.5 Douglas-fir-Western Larch-Spruce/Pinegrass.................................................50 5.6 Ponderosa Pine-Trembling Aspen/Rose [Solomon’s Seal] .............................51 5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass-Silky Lupine ....................................52 6. Discussion ........................................................................................... 54 7. Recommendations................................................................................ 55 8. Acknowledgements.............................................................................. 56 9. Literature Cited.................................................................................... 57 10. Other literature consulted..................................................................... 65 List of Figures Figure 1. Study area: Natural Disturbance Type 4 in the East Kootenay Trench…..…..4 Figure 2. Pasture units known to contain 0-4 listed wildlife species ………..………….7 Figure 3. Occurrences of rare wildlife (e.g., Badger) by pasture unit in the NDT4 of the East Kootenay Trench …………….………………………………………………...8 iv List of Tables Table 1. Species and plant communities at-risk addressed in this report ……………..……2 Table 2. Relative impact on Red and Blue-listed wildlife species from restoration of NDT4 conditions in the EKT. (X=highly beneficial, x=beneficial, blank=negligible impact)………………………………………………………...33 Table 3. Stocking targets, wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover targets and herb cover targets for rare wildlife habitat in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench………………………….….34 Table 4. Stocking targets for rare plant communities in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench…………………..38 Table 5. Habitat types and expected feasibility of success of restoration treatments for Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the East Kootenay Trench……………………………………………………………….…………...41 Table 6. Restoration techniques recommended for Red and Blue wildlife and plant communities in open grassland and open forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench……………………………………………………………………………42 List of Appendices Appendix 1. Map of occurrences for six Red and Blue-listed wildlife species in the East Kootenay Trench. Appendix 2. Pasture unit names, numbers, size, and occurrence of listed wildlife species. Appendix 3. Scientific names of wildlife and plants mentioned in text. Appendix 4. KBLUP management guidelines for NDT4 systems. Appendix 5. List of contacts and information sources. v 1. Introduction Dry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) and Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide critical habitat for a diversity of species (Machmer 2001). The East Kootenay Trench contains an estimated 135,000 ha of NDT4 Ponderosa Pine (PP) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) ecosystems that are considered for restoration treatments (Figure 1). The East Kootenay Trench is a narrow flat glacial plain with a distinctive rain shadow that lies in the southern portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from about Golden south to the border with the USA. These ecosystems are characterized by frequent, low intensity fires which promote open stands of mature trees with sparse regeneration, a vigorous understory of bunchgrasses, shrubs and forbs, and a low incidence of insects and diseases (Arno et al. 1995; Daigle 1996; Gayton 1998). Successful fire suppression has led to forest ingrowth and encroachment, and resulted in large-scale conversion of native grasslands and open forests to a closed forest condition (Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000). Effects of this conversion include the loss and degradation of critical wildlife habitat and biodiversity, reduction in forage values, establishment and spread of noxious weeds, decreased forest health, and increased risk of catastrophic wildfire (Daigle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecosystem Classification and Interpretation of the C.3 Sub-Boreal Spruce Zone, Prince Rupert Forest Region, British Columbia
    Ecosystem Classification and Interpretation of the c.3 Sub-Boreal Spruce Zone, Prince Rupert Forest Region, British Columbia by J. Pojar', R. Trowbridge', and D. Coates2 'Ministry of Forests 2Ministry of Forests Research Section Silviculture Section Prince Rupert Forest Region Prince Rupert Forest Region Bag 5000 Bag 5000 Smithers. B.C. Smithers, B.C. VOJ 2N0 VOJ 2N0 Province of British Columbia Ministry of Forests ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Numerous individualsassisted in the various phases ofthis report. D.J. Wilford managed theprogram in its first few years. K. Awmack, A. Banner, M. Blouw, W. Chapman, A. Deas, S. Haeussler, D. Holmes, R. Laird, A. Macadam, K. McKeown, M. O'Neill, L. Ricciotti, 6. Robinson, J. Schwab, 0.Wilford, and D. Yolehelped carry out field work. S. Lindeburghand B.M. Geislercontributed tothe Interpretations sections of theguide. J. van Barneveld and 0. Meidingerreviewed the manuscript and provided many usefulsuggestions. G. Bishop, P. Frank, P. Nystedt,and P. Sowden did most ofthe illustrations. F. Boasand J. Godfrey identified some ofthe bryophytes. Final editing and preparationof the report was by W. Taylor and K. McKeown. M. Romeo, and C. Huismanand J. Taekema did the typing andword processing, respectively. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 2.0 OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 4 3.0 PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHY ............................................ 5 3.1 Ecosystem ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (1987): "Tectonomagmatic Evolution of Cenozoic Extension in the North American Cordillera"
    Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by Frances J Cooper on January 21, 2013 Geological Society, London, Special Publications Tectonomagmatic evolution of Cenozoic extension in the North American Cordillera Brian P. Wernicke, Philip C. England, Leslie J. Sonder and Robert L. Christiansen Geological Society, London, Special Publications 1987, v.28; p203-221. doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1987.028.01.15 Email alerting click here to receive free e-mail alerts when service new articles cite this article Permission click here to seek permission to re-use all or request part of this article Subscribe click here to subscribe to Geological Society, London, Special Publications or the Lyell Collection Notes © The Geological Society of London 2013 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by Frances J Cooper on January 21, 2013 Tectonomagmatic evolution of Cenozoic extension in the North American Cordillera B.P. Wernicke, R.L. Christiansen, P.C. England & L.J. Sonder SUMMARY: The spatial and temporal distributions of Cenozoic extension and magmatism in the Cordillera suggest that the onset of major crustal extension at a particular latitude was confined to a relatively narrow belt (< 100 km, pre-extension) and followed the onset of intermediate and silicic magmatism by no more than a few million years. Extension began in early Eocene time in southern British Columbia, northern Washington, Idaho and Montana. Farther S, extension began at about the Eocene- Oligocene boundary in the Great Basin and slightly later in the Mojave-Sonora Desert region. The intervening area, at the latitude of Las Vegas, remained quiescent until mid- Miocene time. Compositional and isotopic characteristics of most pre-Miocene magmas are consistent with their containing major components of melted continental crust.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLES Late Cretaceous Through Cenozoic Strike-Slip Tectonics of Southwestern Alaska
    " .--- ~, , - /.. ./ . - n L~O J t-7.7/ ~ / (C/ / ' '0! L/ 'L ' x/(,' i J(ff /t1cz/j7 ARTICLES Late Cretaceous through Cenozoic Strike-Slip Tectonics of Southwestern Alaska l and William Marti 1. Miller, Dwight C. Bradley, Thomas K. Bundtzen McClellcmd2 u.s. Geological Survey, 4200 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, u.S. (e-mail: mlmillerCtYusgs. gov) ABSTRACT New geologic mapping and geochronology show that margin-parallel strike-slip faults on the western limb of the southern Alaska orocline have experienced multiple episodes of dextral motion since -100 Ma. These faults are on the upper plate of a subduction zone -350-450 km inboard of the paleotrench. In southwestern Alaska, dextral displacement is 134 km on the Denali fault, at least 88-94 km on the Iditarod-Nixon Fork fault, and perhaps tens of kilometers on the Dishna River fault. The strike-slip regime coincided with Late Cretaceous sedimentation and then folding in the Kuskokwim basin, and with episodes of magmatism and mineralization at ~ 70, -60, and -30 Ma. No single driving mechanism can explain all of the -95 million-year history of strike-slip faulting. Since -40 Ma the observed dextral sense of strike slip has run contrary to the sense of subduction obliquity. This may be explained by northward motion of the Pacific Plate driving continental margin slivers into and/or around the oroclinal bend. From 44 to 66 Ma, oroclinal rotation, perhaps involving large-scale flexural slip, may have been accompanied by westward escape of crustal blocks along strike-slip faults. However, reconstructions of this period involve unproven assumptions about the identity of the subducting plate, the position of subducting ridges, and the exact timing of oroclinal bending, thus obscuring the driving mechanisms of strike slip.
    [Show full text]
  • SR51 Follow-Up Report on Wildlife and Cattle Grazing in the East
    Follow-up Report on Wildlife and Cattle Grazing in the East Kootenay FPB/SR/51 July 2015 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Objective ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methods and Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 2 Has authorized grazing been reduced since 2008? ..................................................................................... 2 Are the objectives of the elk management plan being met? ......................................................................... 4 Are the net effects of the ecosystem restoration activities meeting the desired target condition? ............... 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix I: Funding Sources 1997- 2013 ............................................................................... 10 Introduction In 2008, the Board published the complaint investigation
    [Show full text]
  • Native and Non-Native Plant Species in Grazed Grasslands of British Columbia’S Southern Interior
    Research ReportNATIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES IN GRAZED GRASSLANDS BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management Native and non-native plant species in grazed grasslands of British Columbia’s southern interior Don Gayton1 Abstract Herbaceous vegetation on 17 native grassland sites in southeastern British Columbia were assessed for their proportion of native and non-native plant species. All sites were on grazed Crown rangeland, and found within the Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zones. Vegetation cover values for individual species were aggregated into native and non-native categories. Values for non-native herbaceous species at the 17 sites ranged from 0 to 84% of total herbaceous cover, with an average of 35%. When compared to ungrazed controls, results varied by site. Managers of these grasslands should review and adjust current practices to discourage not only noxious weeds, but all non-native species. KEYWORDS: plant species origin, floristic diversity, British Columbia grasslands, native plant species, non- native plant species, species invasion, grazing impacts. Contact Information 1Ecosystem Management Extension Specialist, FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Box 1013, Nelson, BC V1L 6A5. E-mail: [email protected] JEM — VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1 © FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership Gayton, D. 2004. Native and non-native plantJEM species — VOLUME in grazed 5, N grasslandsUMBER 1 of British Columbia’s southern interior.51 BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5(1):51–59. URL: www.forrex.org/jem/2004/vol5/no1/art6.pdf GAYTON Introduction In spite of their limited extent, grasslands atural grasslands occupy less than 1% of British Columbia’s land base (Grasslands Conserva- play an important ecological, economic, N tion Council of British Columbia 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • The Fire History of a 416-Year-Old Western Larch Tree in Southeastern British Columbia
    ExtensionFIRE HISTORY Note OF A 416-YEAR-OLD WESTERN LARCH TREE IN SOUTHEASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management The fire history of a 416-year-old western larch tree in southeastern British Columbia L.R. Mark Hall1 Abstract The fire history obtained from pre-settlement fire-scarred trees provides useful benchmarks for the restoration of dry interior, fire-dependent forest ecosystems. In the Rocky Mountain Trench of southeast British Columbia, historical benchmarks obtained from periods prior to significant European influence (i.e., pre-1850) are common reference points for forest ecosystem restoration. This extension note discusses the fire history of a 416-year-old western larch (Larix occidentalis) whose growth rings recorded 268 years of fire history before 1850. The study tree’s estimated mean fire intervalmfi ( ) is 34.1 years, and its fire intervals ranged from 19 years to 51 years. The tree did not record a fire during the last 130 years of its life. This extension note also discusses the development of a network of cross-dated benchmark sites across the landscape that would create a master fire chronology for the region. Such a chronology would reflect the natural variability of historical fire patterns, helping policy-makers, managers, recovery teams, and restoration practitioners understand the spatial and temporal distribution of landscape-scale disturbances that historically have created fire-dependent ecological communities (many of which include wildlife and plant species now at risk). The creation of a benchmark network would also refine dry interior forest restoration/conservation programs and improve their efficacy. keywords: fire history, historical benchmark, master chronology, restoration, Rocky Mountain Trench, western larch.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2020
    Pend d’Oreille Reservoir. Photo by Fabio Moscatelli. Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2020 This publication provides an overview of BC Hydro’s operations on the Columbia River. At 2,000 kilometres long, the Columbia River is the fourth largest river in North America. The headwaters of the Columbia River are in Canal Flats, British Columbia (B.C.). The river then flows northwest Canada through the Rocky Mountain trench before heading south through B.C. and Washington, emptying into the Pacific Vancouver Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. Other major tributaries of the Columbia River in Canada include the Kootenay and Pend U.S. d’Oreille rivers. Seattle Only 15% of the Columbia River basin lies in Canada. The Montana Canadian portion of the basin is mountainous and receives a Washington lot of snow producing, on average, 30 to 35% of the runoff for Canada and the United States (U.S.) combined. The river’s large annual discharge and relatively steep gradient Idaho gives it tremendous potential for the generation of Oregon electricity. The hydroelectric dams on the Columbia’s main stem and many more on its tributaries produce more hydroelectric power than on any other North American river. BC Hydro’s facilities in the Columbia basin include 13 hydroelectric dams, two water storage dams, and a system of reservoirs. Four of the larger reservoirs within Canada are operated according to the Columbia River Treaty and other agreements signed between Canada and the U.S. BCH20-712 Columbia River Operations Update | 1 Columbia River Treaty compensated for energy losses at its Kootenay Canal operations that result from the timing of water releases The Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United from the Libby Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty
    An Overview: Columbia River Treaty WHAT IS THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY? KEY DATES: 2014 AND 2024 The Columbia River The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) is The years 2014 and 2024 are key dates an international agreement between for the CRT for two reasons: Basin is a transboundary Canada and the United States for the 1. The year 2024 is the earliest date watershed that crosses joint development, regulation and either Canada or the U.S. may one international and management of the Columbia River terminate the CRT, provided seven state boundaries. in order to coordinate flood control 10-year advance notice is given and optimize hydroelectric energy (2014); and production on both sides of the border. 2. The Assured Annual Flood The CRT has no official expiry date, Control provision of the CRT BC AB CANADA but has a minimum length of 60 years, expires automatically in 2024 U.S. which is met on September 16, 2024. It (unless renegotiated) and flood wa MT is possible that one or both countries control specified under the CRT may wish to renegotiate parts or all of changes to a Called Upon Flood Wy the CRT, or terminate it entirely. Control operation. id or Photo: Kinbasket Reservoir behind Mica Dam. William D. Layman, courtesy of Wenatchee Valley Museum & Cultural Center. Right: Map shows the Columbia RIver Basin in Canada and the U.S. in lighter green CA UT and the Columbia Basin Trust region in darker green. NV www.cbt.org/crt Why Was the CRT Signed? Key Provisions of the Columbia River Treaty THE CHALLENGE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS DOWNSTREAM POWER BENEFITS Canada and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Landforms Along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Winter 4-10-2015 Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans Charles Matthew Cannon Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geology Commons, and the Geomorphology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Cannon, Charles Matthew, "Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans" (2015). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2231. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2228 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans by Charles Matthew Cannon A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology Thesis Committee: Andrew G. Fountain, Chair Jim E. O’Connor Scott F. Burns Portland State University 2015 Abstract River systems, such as the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, USA have been influenced by human activities, resulting in changes to the physical processes that drive landform evolution. This work describes an inventory of landforms along the Columbia River estuary between the Pacific Ocean and Bonneville Dam in Oregon and Washington. Groupings of landforms are assigned to formative process regimes that are used to assess historical changes to floodplain features. The estuary was historically a complex system of channels with a floodplain dominated by extensive tidal wetlands in the lower reaches and backswamp lakes and wetlands in upper reaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Escape Tectonics and the Extrusion of Alaska: Past, Present, and Future
    Downloaded from geology.gsapubs.org on February 1, 2015 Escape tectonics and the extrusion of Alaska: Past, present, and future T. F. Redfi eld Geological Survey of Norway, Leiv Eirikssens vei 39, 7491 Trondheim, Norway David W. Scholl Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94035, USA, and U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA Paul G. Fitzgerald Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA Myrl E. Beck, Jr. Department of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225, USA ABSTRACT as a laterally moving crustal raft or orogenic fl oat (e.g., Oldow et al., The North Pacifi c Rim is a tectonically active plate boundary 1990; Mazzotti and Hyndman, 2002). zone, parts of which may be characterized as a laterally moving oro- We refer to this mobilization of crustal blocks as the North Pacifi c genic stream. Crustal blocks are transported along large-magnitude Rim orogenic stream (NPRS). We postulate that, since the Eocene, NPRS strike-slip faults in western Canada and central Alaska toward the crust has ascended the British Columbia margin, entered the apex of the Aleutian–Bering Sea subduction zones. Throughout much of the Alaska orocline, encountered a buttress or backstop preventing further Cenozoic, at and west of its Alaskan nexus, the North Pacifi c Rim northward displacement, and escaped southwestward toward the Aleu- orogenic Stream (NPRS) has undergone tectonic escape. During tian and Bering Sea subduction zones (Beck, 1986; Scholl and Stevenson, transport, relatively rigid blocks acquired paleomagnetic rotations 1991; Dumitru et al., 1995; Mackey et al., 1997; Fujita et al., 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River and Tributaries
    CII--L--·----.--- REVIEW REPORT ON COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPENDIX A COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN IN CANADA Prepared by SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS October 1, 1948 347 CONTENTS Chapter I-Introduction: Page Scope of report --------------..---....--------- . 3.51 Treaties ---------351 Acknowledgments- --------------353 Chapter II-General Data: Geography and locations ------- ------- 354 General topography-.------------------------354 Streams ------------------357 Clark Fork-Pend Oreille River ..-.------------------ 357 Kootenay River---.- - ----------------------- 359 Columbia River -------------------- 363 Kettle River ---.- ------.. -----.. ----- ..- 365 Okanagan River-, --------------- 365 Geology-------------- 368 Soils and cover-----------------. 369 Climate------------------370 General -------------370 Records ----------------------------- 371 Storms --- -------------- 373 Hydrology ------------------- . ..... -373 General.-------------.------ .--. 373 Records ---.--------.----.........--.....------ - 374 Surface-water supply -.-----------------.-------------... 374 Ground-water supply -.--, -------- -----, - -377 Flood history and character---,------ ----------,. -377 Water rights ..-.--------------...............---.378.. .. Chapter III-Economic development: Population ----379 Resources and industries----------------381 Agriculture ------ ----..-.- --- .-------- 381 Forestry-,- -------------383 Minerals and miring, 384 Manufacturing 388 Power - ---------------- .---.------. 389 Recreation, fish and wildlife ----------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • A. Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Team
    CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT Volume One: Report Version 2.0 (May 2004) British Columbia Conservation Data Centre CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT • VOLUME 1 • REPORT i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL TEAM..................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment Core Team............................................... vii Coordination Team ....................................................................................................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Assessment Contact........................................................................viii B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... ix C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... xi Description..................................................................................................................................... xi Land Ownership............................................................................................................................. xi Protected Status.............................................................................................................................. xi Biodiversity Status......................................................................................................................... xi Ecoregional Assessment ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]