DOCSLIB.ORG

1 December 12, 2002 Larry Koller Box 3B, Comp 12 Tulameen, BC V0X 2L0 Phone Or

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 December 12, 2002 Larry Koller Box 3B, Comp 12 Tulameen, BC V0X 2L0 Phone Or 1 December 12, 2002 Larry Koller Box 3B, Comp 12 Tulameen, BC V0X 2L0 Phone or Fax (250) 2956502 To: Honourable Joyce Murray Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection Room 124 Parliament Buildings Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 VIA FACSIMILE 604 775-2121 Dear Madam, On July 9, 2002 you appointed me to the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Taskforce. You have asked me to make recommendations, with supporting rationale, on the completion and implementation of a Grizzly Bear recovery Plan based on a review of: (1) the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the North Cascades of British Columbia(January 19, 2001) (Draft recovery plan) (2) the Input received during the Public Consultation Period (Public Input), (3) the Proposed responses to this input from the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team (Team Responses), and, (4) Any additional technical/scientific input. In addition to this, for the first eight meetings we had the privilege of a resource person from the recovery team to guide us through the above. You have to appreciate that the taskforce represents a wide range of stakeholder interests. Even with a two-month extension, aside from general agreement that there should be a conservation strategy for the grizzly bear your expectation of a consensus on recommendations for completion and implementation of the recovery plan is overly optimistic. Now, because of the timeframe for submitting (Dec. 15) and finding that we have exceeded our budget, I am breaking away from trying to reach consensus recommendations; keeping to the Terms of Reference re: Decision-making. I was nominated by Dave Chutter MLA (Yale-Lillooet) to represent local residents on the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Taskforce. Local residents are opposed to the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the North Cascades of British Columbia (January 19, 2001) (#153 of Public Input). This position was re- enforced at meetings in Tulameen and in conversations with constituents throughout the Taskforce process. The idea of augmentation, even an augmentation trial is unanimously opposed. For clarity, augmentation in this 2 document refers to the artificial increase of the grizzly bear population in the North Cascades through the translocation and/or introduction of grizzly bears from another remote population. It is the reason for the Draft recovery plan. Recommendation1: The existing grizzly bears of the North Cascades need more research. Inventory techniques should be designed and implemented to determine the absolute abundance of grizzly bears and to monitor population trends. Rationale: If we find out the facts to eliminate speculation there will be less chance for mistakes. There is uncertainty in the material the taskforce had to review: “The scientific knowledge of the North Cascades grizzly bears is quite incomplete,” page 24 of the Draft recovery plan “It is not known whether grizzly bears currently move between the north Cascades and the Stein/Nahatlatch “(#7, Team Responses) “Grizzly bear home range in the North Cascades is not known.” (#9, Team Responses). There are also inconsistencies throughout the material the taskforce had to review with regards to numbers: “with augmentation by 2005 there will be a minimum of 30 grizzly bears” (Page 9, Draft recovery plan), 17 grizzly bears in the taskforce presentation of Aug. 8, 02, (enclosed), 25 bears (executive summary of the Draft recovery plan) and 30 to 35 grizzly bears (#4 Team responses). If 17 grizzly bears have a “threatened” status one has to wonder whether twice that many should have the same status. I emphasize this because it became clear through the Taskforce meetings that this status, without scientific justification, is a contributing factor restricting investment in the resource rich North Cascades and its local communities. Recommendation #2: Continue the current efforts to conserve the existing grizzly bear population in the North Cascades. These efforts include anti- poaching laws, conservative hunting regulations, and education of the Public. Rationale: The grizzly bear population in the North Cascades is stable according to our resource person and #1 of the Team responses. The area has been closed to hunting as part of the cooperative Grizzly Bear management and recovery efforts which have been ongoing with the various State and Federal wildlife agencies in the USA for more than 30 years. Recommendation #3: Discard the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the North Cascades of British Columbia (January 19, 2001) My rationale for saying this includes, but is not limited to, the following: 3 Rationale#1: “some common sense points need to be kept in mind… These include: the fact that grizzly bears continue to occupy 89% of their historic range in the province and this range has not changed noticeably in the last 30 years…human population density and the associated impacts” is a factor “explaining why grizzly bears are no longer found in some areas”1 Rationale#2: The Draft recovery plan supposes2 to a time when grizzly bears didn’t have to compete with the surging populations of the Twenty-first century. It wants to recover closer to the assumed2 historic highs of yesteryear through the introduction from other, remote grizzly bear populations, providing habitat, and managing bear/human conflicts. The Draft recovery plan says in its executive summary: “Avoiding grizzly bear/human conflicts will be critical to the success of the Recovery Plan.” The North Cascades is situated between the two largest population centers in the province (Okanagan and the lower mainland). It seems a poor location, given the fact there are more remote areas in the province with the same “threatened” status as the North Cascades, to try this Pilot Project. Peer comments are basis for skepticism of the viability of the Draft recovery plan; especially with respect to this large human population. 9 “opportunities (for recovery) are limited because of their use as livestock range, heavy use for back country recreation and their close proximity to settlement”3 9 “human caused mortalities of grizzly bears increase with higher levels of human settlement”4 Rationale #3: Translocations and/or introduction of grizzly bears to augment the population are the basis of the Draft recovery plan. This may have a negative impact on the existing population in the North Cascades (i.e.: mortalities, territory, and genetics). It will certainly influence the source population (where the introduced bear(s) came from) in the annual harvest or it’s conservation status. The Draft recovery plan, team responses and the resource person are all vague on which Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) to use as the source population. 1 Matt Austin in his letter of January 28, 2002 to Dave Fraser, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Scientific Authority (BC) Endangered Species Specialist 2 Clare Hewson B.Sc. Forestry Registered Professional Forester 1973-2000 Re: North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Program- Justification of Program Doubtful 3 Demarchi M.Sc. R.P. Bio., Halliday M.SC. R.P. Bio., and Munro M.Sc. R.P. Bio. Re: Grizzly Bear Harvest Management in BC 4 Dr B. N. McLellan, on behalf of BC’s Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee from Matt Austin’s letter of January 28, 2002 to Dave Fraser, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Scientific Authority (BC) Endangered Species Specialist 4 Rationale #4: The US issue must be considered. Not enough research was done on the legal aspects with regard to the State of Washington (RCW 77.12.035) or the US Federal Government, which recently re-evaluated a decision [Federal Register: June 22, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 121)] to introduce grizzly bears into an area because of a lawsuit filed by the State of Idaho (DOCSSC1:280172.3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION). It would be prudent to err on the side of caution and diplomacy rather than to find ourselves in litigation because the BC Government has introduced grizzly bears into Washington State to accommodate a special interest group. Rationale #5: Peer reviews of the Draft recovery plan questions its credibility in certain areas. ” The attitude in the Draft plan that all uses that are going on now, and more that will yet come, can be “stuffed” into the existing landscape and still fit within “current management practices” is naïve…” 5 “Most translocations fail. I strongly urge you to develop a rigorous design for your project that considers all the pertinent variables prior to initiation”6 “The potential capability of the ”spine” to support 199 bears seems unrealistically high…” 7 “promoting negative silviculture practices…at the expense of the citizens of British Columbia”8 Different stakeholder groups (#107 of Public Input) also question the credibility of the draft recovery plan. Rationale #6: The prevailing comments of the Draft recovery plan are “human/ bear conflicts” and “access management”. The North Cascades of BC is a resource extraction area, which will be affected by restrictions on access. This will have an economic impact on stakeholders and, in turn, a social impact on the local populations. The Draft recovery plan does not adequately cover this. These same prevailing comments in the plan are going to impact recreation in the North Cascades. Rationale #7: There are far too many revisions in the responses by the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team for the taskforce to distinguish from the Draft 5 Dr. Brian L Horejsi, May, 2001 Comments on the draft recovery plan 6 Rich Reading Ph.D. Conservation Biology Director, Denver Zoological Foundation. Letter to Matt Austin re: draft recovery plan 7 North Cascades Ecosystem Subcommittee-Grizzly Bear Technical Team Comments on the draft recovery plan May 16, 2001 8 Clare Hewson B.Sc. Forestry Registered Professional Forester 1973-2000 Re: Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades Lack of Knowledge of Habitat Effectiveness 5 recovery plan it was mandated to make recommendations on.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Points of Service
    CLARK FREIGHTWAYS POINTS OF SERVICE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE REVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 21 100 MILE HOUSE COBBLE HILL GRAND FORKS MCBRIDE QUADRA ISLAND TA TA CREEK 108 MILE HOUSE COLDSTREAM GRAY CREEK MCLEESE LAKE QUALICUM BEACH TABOUR MOUNTAIN 150 MILE HOUSE COLWOOD GREENWOOD MCGUIRE QUATHIASKI COVE TADANAC AINSWORTH COMOX GRINDROD MCLEOD LAKE QUEENS BAY TAGHUM ALERT BAY COOMBS HAGENSBORG MCLURE QUESNEL TAPPEN ALEXIS CREEK CORDOVA BAY HALFMOON BAY MCMURPHY QUILCHENA TARRY'S ALICE LAKE CORTES ISLAND HARMAC MERRITT RADIUM HOT SPRINGS TATLA LAKE ALPINE MEADOWS COURTENAY HARROP MERVILLE RAYLEIGH TAYLOR ANAHIM LAKE COWICHAN BAY HAZELTON METCHOSIN RED ROCK TELEGRAPH CREEK ANGELMONT CRAIGELLA CHIE HEDLEY MEZIADIN LAKE REDSTONE TELKWA APPLEDALE CRANBERRY HEFFLEY CREEK MIDDLEPOINT REVELSTOKE TERRACE ARMSTRONG CRANBROOK HELLS GATE MIDWAY RIDLEY ISLAND TETE JAUNE CACHE ASHCROFT CRAWFORD BAY HERIOT BAY MILL BAY RISKE CREEK THORNHILL ASPEN GROVE CRESCENT VALLEY HIXON MIRROR LAKE ROBERTS CREEK THREE VALLEY GAP ATHALMER CRESTON HORNBY ISLAND MOBERLY LAKE ROBSON THRUMS AVOLA CROFTON HOSMER MONTE CREEK ROCK CREEK TILLICUM BALFOUR CUMBERLAND HOUSTON MONTNEY ROCKY POINT TLELL BARNHARTVALE DALLAS HUDSONS HOPE MONTROSE ROSEBERRY TOFINO BARRIERE DARFIELD IVERMERE MORICETOWN ROSSLAND TOTOGGA LAKE BEAR LAKE DAVIS BAY ISKUT MOYIE ROYSTON TRAIL BEAVER COVE DAWSON CREEK JAFFARY NAKUSP RUBY LAKE TRIUMPH BAY BELLA COOLA DEASE LAKE JUSKATLA NANAIMO RUTLAND TROUT CREEK BIRCH ISLAND DECKER LAKE KALEDEN NANOOSE BAY SAANICH TULAMEEN BLACK CREEK DENMAN ISLAND
    [Show full text]
  • Special Meeting Agenda
    AGENDA Special Meeting 10:00 AM - Friday, March 20th, 2020 Council Chambers Page 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Coyne calls the Special meeting of Council to order. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 2.1 March 20th, 2020 Special meeting of Council Recommendation: THAT Council adopt the March 20th, 2020 Special Meeting of Council Agenda. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES-NONE 4. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS-NONE 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-NONE 6. STAFF REPORTS 6.1 Subdivision and Development Servicing Standards Bylaw 3 - 23 Recommendation: THAT Council approves the planning and consulting services of True Consulting to prepare a Subdivision and Development Servicing Standards Bylaw in the amount of $26,000.00 plus taxes. Report- Proposal Subdivision Bylaw Princeton-Subd Dev Serv Stds-Proposal-2020 03 12 7. COUNCIL REPORTS-NONE 8. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVE AND FILE-NONE 9. CORRESPONDENCE ACTION REQUESTED-NONE 10. BYLAWS AND RESOLUTIONS 10.1 2020 Fees and Charges Bylaw 25 - 45 Recommendation: THAT Town of Princeton Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 979, 2020 be adopted. 2020 Fees and Charges Bylaw Report - Adoption 2020 Fees and Charges Bylaw 11. NEW BUSINESS-NONE Page 1 of 45 Special Agenda March 20th, 2020 12. AGENDA CONCLUSION 12.1 Motion to Close Recommendation: THAT the meeting be closed to the public for the purposes of considering the following: • the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and • negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulameen Platinum Assessment Report, August 25, 2018
    ASSESSMENT REPORT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY on the TULAMEEN PLATINUM PROJECT Similkameen Mining Division Latitude: 49° 31’ 56’’ N; Longitude: 120° 53’ 31’’ W NTS 092H056 For NORTH BAY RESOURCES INC. PO Box 162, Skippack, PA 19474 USA By Dan V. Oancea PGeo August 25, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Summary Page 1 2 Conclusions Page 2 3 Recommendations Page 4 4 Introduction Page 4 4.1 Location, Access and Physiography Page 4 4.2 Mineral Claims Page 6 4.3 Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure Page 7 4.4 History and Development Page 8 5 Geology and Mineralization Page 8 5.1 Regional Setting Page 11 5.2 Mineralization and Deposits Page 12 5.3 Property Geology and Mineralization Page 16 6 Field Survey Page 24 6.1 Results Page 25 7 Discussion and Conclusions Page 26 7.1 Olivine Exploration Target Page 26 7.2 Olivine - Magnesium Raw Material Page 27 7.3 Olivine Industrial Mineral Page 31 7.4 CO2 Mineral Sequestration Page 35 7.5 PGM Potential Page 36 7.6 Base Metals Potential Page 36 7.7 Gold Potential Page 37 7.8 Final Conclusions Page 38 8 Recommended Work Page 39 9 Cost Statement Page 41 10 References Page 42 11 Statement of Qualifications Page 44 LIST OF FIGURES Fig 1 - Index Map After Page 4 Fig 2 - Access and Topo Map After Page 5 Fig 3 - Mineral Tenure Map After Page 7 Fig 4 - Unaltered Olivine Map Page 10 Fig 5 - Geological Map Page 14 Fig 6 - Sampling Map (1) After Page 25 Fig 7 - Sampling Map (2) After Page 25 Fig 8 - Magnesium Content in Minerals Page 27 Fig 9 - Olivine Acid Leaching Diagram Page 30 Fig 10 - Olivine Production by Country Page
    [Show full text]
  • Similkameen District
    SIMILKAM Published in the Interest of Princeton and Similkameen District. PRINCETON, JULY 13th, 1901. MR. MEIKLEJOHN'S VIEWS j Coal Around Princeton. LOCAL AND PERSONAL. POLICE COURT. 9 local Justices. Messrs. Thomas and ial correspondent of the Ross- Champagne Goodisson left for Ni© The Prospectors' Terms Advantageous Waterman, had a busy day Friday in con­ jn Wednesday. To the Investor—Ore and Ore-bod­ nection with the One Mile Road dispute ies Compare Favorably wit-b/ I Robt. Stevei »n visited his Kelly CM between E. E. Hardwick and Al. Oel- Other Countries, t /^ ^properties thii , |f Ben Baker is doing Mr. Oelrich was accused by Mr. Hard­ J his Stirling Creek property wick of assault.upon himself and wife, :h and Day are doing a when the former attempted to remove an obstruction which the complainant Hard- ictsof land covered I work I i their Kennedy Mount wick had jglaced upon~the road. Mr. tl basin of the Sim-1 erties. Waterman left the Bench, and the charge Messrs. Corrigan and Daly, of Ho pi if assault was dismissed by Mr. Thomas.. rea, probably six tc B.C., en route to the Boundary, spent ; interested in the de- ' A coupter charge was made by Mr. th. Within these lim 'few days in town. leading industry of j ; the complainant in the ong the rivers men Mining men point ' Messrs. Rogers and Gallinger are e: istmcting ,the One Mile ttha uining the showings in the Bouldi RQiid. The charge was dismissed, the side apita Creek Camp this week. refusi rendei idee ash.
    [Show full text]
  • Serpentine) Complex, Southern British Columbia, Canada
    Davidsonia 14:4 121 A floristic and ecological analysis at the Tulameen ultramafic (serpentine) complex, southern British Columbia, Canada Abstract While distinct floristic and ecological patterns have been reported for ultramafic (serpentine) sites in California and Oregon, those of British Columbia are muted which is thought to be related to the moderating influence of increased precipitation, a short time since glaciation, and the presence of non-ultramafic glacial till over ultramafic sites. Despite these factors, we found clear floristic and ecological differences with respect to soil type at our study site on Grasshopper Mountain, part of the Tulameen ultramafic complex in southern British Columbia. Ultramafic soils support 28% of the local species richness and host more rare taxa than non-ultramafic soils. Many species show patterns of local restriction to or exclusion from ultramafic soil habitats. Patterns of plant family diversity also show differences between substrates. Introduction Ultramafic (serpentine) soils and the plants that they support have long been of interest to botanists (Whittaker 1954; Proctor and Woodell 1975; Brooks 1987). They frequently support vegetation that is distinct from surrounding areas in species composition and structure as well as high levels of plant endemism and diversity. For these reasons, and because of phenomena related to speciation and plant physiological response, Brooks (1987) and Proctor (1999) asserted that the biological importance of ultramafics far outweighs the less than one percent of the earth’s surface they occupy. The chemical and physical properties of ultramafic soils often have adverse effects on plant growth (termed the “serpentine effect”). These soils generally contain elevated concentrations of the heavy metals nickel, chromium, and cobalt, and high levels of magnesium, all potentially toxic to plants.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Similkameen Valley Travel Experience Guide
    Manning Park | Princeton | Tulameen | Coalmont | Hedley | Keremeos | Cawston Similkameen Valley Travel Experience Guide British Columbia | Canada SimilkameenValley.com SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY MUST DO LIST RUSTIC. REAL. Discover the allure of the Similkameen Valley where the opportunities for adventure are larger than you could imagine Taking a break from biking the KVR Trail near Tulameen 2 | SimilkameenValley.com #similkameen SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY MUST DO LIST SimilkameenValley.com #similkameen | 3 4 | SimilkameenValley.com #similkameen SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY CONTENTS Facebook: SimilkameenBC | Instagram: Similkameen What’s Inside 7 Our Story 12 Similkameen Must Do List 20 Map 26 Similkameen Life 28 Food + Wine to Savour 39 Events All photography by Darren Robinson © unless otherwise stated. Main image this page: Biking the KVR Trail near Princeton. Front cover main image: The Similkameen River outside Keremeos. Below: A delicious sip with a view at Clos Du SimilkameenValley.com Soliel, Keremeos. Copyright 2019 © Similkameen Valley Planning Society. A partnership of Black Press, Similkameen Valley Planning Society (SVPS) and Thompson Okanagan Tourism (TOTA). Project Management: Symphony Tourism Services of TOTA Princeton 169 Bridge Street, Princeton, BC | 250.295.0235 Design: Roger Handling terrafda.com Keremeos 417 – 7th Avenue, Keremeos, BC | 250.499.5225 Copywriting: Darcy Nybo alwayswrite.ca Advertising sales, ad design, printing and distribution by: Keremeos Review and Seasonal Information Booth Similkameen Spotlight, divisions of Black Press. Hedley 712 Daly Avenue, Hedley, BC | 250.292.8787 SUPER, NATURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA and VISITOR CENTRE and all associated logos are registered trademarks of [email protected] Destination BC. Printed in Canada SimilkameenValley.com #similkameen | 5 6 | SimilkameenValley.com #similkameen Our Story The Similkameen River is the heart of our Valley, here we offer something just a little different.
    [Show full text]
  • RCMP Regional Operations Fact Sheet
    REGIONAL DISTRICT OF OKANAGAN-SIMILKAMEEN RCMP Regional Operations January 2020 Fact Sheet RCMP in Canada The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the national police force in Canada. The RCMP is organized under the authority of the RCMP Act and is headed by the Commissioner, who, under the direction of the Minister of Public Safety Canada, has the control and management of the Force and all public safety matters. The RCMP mandate is multifaceted and includes preventing and investigating crime, maintaining peace and order, and enforcing laws. Regional Policing The Province of British Columbia has entered into an agreement with Canada for the RCMP to serve as both the provincial police force and municipal police force. The costs of contract policing are shared in recognition of the mutual benefits of this policing model. Regional Districts and municipalities under 5,000 persons fall under the Provincial Policing contract. Under the BC Police Act, municipalities over 5,000 persons are responsible for their own policing and may choose to form their own independent municipal police department, contract with an existing police department, or contract with the provincial government for RCMP municipal police services. While the Regional District can lobby for a specific number of Provincial police officers, the Province determines the appropriate number assigned to each detachment. The Regional District funds a Crime Stoppers/Community Policing officer working out of the Penticton RCMP detachment. The Regional District provides subsidies for Victim Services programs. The Officer in Charge (OIC) of Penticton South Okanagan Similkameen regional detachment reports to the RDOS Board of Directors on a quarterly basis, and provides feedback and input on areas of interest in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson Okanagan COLUMBIA Edmonton Thompson Calgary Okanagan
    BRITISH ALBERTA COLUMBIA Edmonton Thompson Calgary Thompson Okanagan Okanagan Vancouver Victoria PACIFIC OCEAN Seattle U. S. A. MT TO PRINCE ROBSON 3954 m GEORGE TO EDMONTON RESPLENDENT 40 MTN 40 Sandy L Mt Robson 3426 Jasper Croydon Station BRITISH Upper Whitehorse Ghost Raush PA MT Wildland COLUMBIA 4 W TERRY FOX Park R e HE A D L Y E L L OW h R Tete Jaune Cach e Cariboo 2650 Yellowhead Pass e l Mitchell a Mount 16 1066 CANADA wi D u R. Cariboo r B . C . N. f iv L sh Terry Fox C t e Mountains Brazeau CARIBOO River Park per MTN Park Jas Park MT PIERRE Mount 1933 Cr R Valemount r ELLIOT TRUDEAU e Robson R 2637 at Park National rw TO CALGARY MT a a le SIR gar MT WATT C A MT 2519 ia WILFRID LAURIER 93 ALBERTA STEVENSON N 3505 BRITISH ALBERTA BRITISH er 2243 North SIMON PK Edmonton 3322 Edmonton COLUMBIA Likely North Maligne COLUMBIA L UESNEL Arm Q Atha R T Calgary Calgary LAKE Thompson KINBASKE C Park basca Thompson r Thompson Hobson R A re r L Okanagan Okanagan u B L C z E A RT Allan BC A Hugh 93 Azure Hamber Horsefly rk This mapVancouver is for reference only. Vancouver D a YELLOWHEA P Big Lake L L R Ranch Wells For more detailed information, Horsefly R 5 R Victoria Victoria MT B.C. LAKE visit our website: PERSEUS d MT AZURE MTN HALLAM o PACIFIC PACIFIC 2537 CLEMENCEAU Gray Y PK Wo Seattle Crooked 2495 3668 Seattle U.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda for the Special Meeting of Council to Be Held in the Town of Princeton on Tuesday, February 11Th, 2014 at 4:00 Pm at the Princeton Town Hall Boardroom
    AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL TO BE HELD IN THE TOWN OF PRINCETON ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11TH, 2014 AT 4:00 PM AT THE PRINCETON TOWN HALL BOARDROOM Page 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Recommendation: THAT Council adopt the February 11th, 2014 Special Meeting of Council Agenda. 2. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 3-253-253-253-25 2.1 Conservation Officer Service/Ministry of Environment Sgt. Jim Beck and Inspector Barbara E. Leslie provide information regarding the conservation services in Princeton. 3. STAFF REPORTS 27-4227-4227-4227-42 3.1 Development Variance Permit for 147 Tulameen Trail Recommendation: THAT Council issue Development Variance Permit # DVP 01-14 to Kevin Kelbert for property at 147 Tulameen Trail legally described: Lot 4, Plan KAP36588, District Lot 277, Yale Division Yale District PID : 003-999-769 to vary the following: 0.647m (2.1 feet) inside a statutory right (R.O.W) of way for a sewer utility; AND THAT if access to the R.O.W., for repairs to the sewer line results in damage to the foundation or structure within the R.O.W. the costs of repair will be the sole responsibility of the property owner. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. AGENDA ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 42 Page 2 of 42 AgendaItem#2.1 Conservation Officer Service 1905 to 2014 1 Conservation Officer Page 3 of 42 Service/Ministry of Service/Ministry of Conservation Officer COS Mandate Enforcing natural resource laws and responding to wildlife conflicts in order to protect human health and safety, the environment, personal and public property, and government revenues AgendaItem#2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades of British Columbia
    RECOVERY PLAN FOR GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE NORTH CASCADES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1, 2004 North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Cascades area contains one of the most imperiled grizzly bear populations in British Columbia with an estimate of fewer than 25 animals remaining in an area of 9 807 km2. This population has been designated as “Threatened” under the provincial Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy and is shared with Washington State where it is listed as “Threatened” under the United States’ federal Endangered Species Act. The primary factors that are believed to have caused the decline of the North Cascades grizzly bear population date back to the mid-19th century when there were high numbers of grizzly bears commercially trapped and destroyed through persecution and fear over potential conflicts. In the approximately 150 years since this population “bottleneck” the remnant population has not recovered. The recovery planning process has been initiated under the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy to ensure that Threatened populations are not lost. Recovery plans are not land use plans. Existing or future approved strategic land use plans take precedence over recovery plans. Recovery plans are intended to be revised every five years based on any additional information available including the experience gained through Recovery Plan implementation. The goal of this Recovery Plan is to restore the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Population Unit to Viable status. The Recovery Plan includes the following objectives to achieve this goal: 1. Provide habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to support a Viable population. 2. Prevent population fragmentation and maintain genetic diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Skagit River Watershed
    Skagit River Watershed BACKGROUND REPORT Prepared for: Ministry of Environment 10470 152nd Street Surrey, BC V3R 0Y3 Prepared by: TerraPath Consulting C.V. Armstrong 6432 Wilson Road Agassiz, BC VOM 1A1 March 19, 2007 Skagit River Watershed BACKGROUND REPORT * Photos: C.Armstrong TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Cultural and Historical Values 4 2.1 First Nations 4 2.2 Early Development 4 2.3 History of Protection 5 3.0 Natural Values 7 3.1 Physiography, Geology and Soils 7 3.2 Climate 8 3.3 Hydrology 8 3.4 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification 10 3.5 Vegetation 11 3.6 Wildlife 13 3.7 Species at Risk 14 3.7.1 Grizzly Bear 14 3.7.2 Spotted Owl 15 3.7.3 Bull Trout 15 4.0 Tenures, Occupancy Rights and Jurisdiction 16 4.1 Ministry of Environment / BC Parks 16 4.2 Gibson Pass Resorts 16 4.3 Ministry of Forests 16 4.4 Ministry of Transportation 18 4.5 Fraser Valley Regional District 18 4.6 Mineral Claims and Inholdings 20 4.7 Trapping 23 4.8 Guide Outfitting 23 5.0 Recreation and Tourism Values 24 5.1 Recreation 24 5.2 Tourism 26 6.0 Inventories and Research 27 7.0 Management Issues 29 7.1 Coordinated Land Use Planning 29 7.2 Ross Lake Reservoir 29 7.3 Natural Factors 30 7.3.1 Fire 30 7.3.2 Species At Risk 30 7.3.3 Invasive Species 31 , 7.3.4 Pine Beetle 31 7.3.5 Climate Change 32 7.3.6 West NileVirus 33 7.4 Adjacent Land Uses 33 7.5 Conservation 34 8.0 Communications 35 9.0 References 36 ii 10.0 Appendices 40 Appendix 1: Mammal species known to occur in E.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a – Climatic Data Design Temperature Degree 15 One Day Annual Moist
    Appendix A – Climatic Data Design Temperature Degree 15 One day Annual Moist. Annual Driving Rain Ground Hourly wind Frost Days min rain, Rain, Index Total Wind Snow Load, pressure Depth Below rain, 1/50, mm Pressure, kPa, 1/50 Prec. Location Elevation 18°C mm mm Pa, 1/5 January July 2.5% Ss Sr 1/10 1/50 2.5% 1% Dry Wet Town of Osoyoos 285 m -14 -17 35 21 3100 10 48 275 0.28 310 60 1.1 0.1 0.31 0.4 600 mm Vaseux, Oliver , Up to 500 m -16 -18 33 20 3250 10 48 275 0.28 310 60 1.1 0.1 0.31 0.5 600 mm Osoyoos, Anarchist Richter Pass Vaseux, Oliver, 500-750 m -16 -18 33 20 3900 10 48 275 0.28 310 60 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 600 mm Osoyoos, Anarchist Richter Pass Vaseux, Oliver, -19 -22 30 20 4400 10 50 320 0.36 500 70 2.9 0.3 0.31 0.4 600 mm Osoyoos, Anarchist 750-1000 m Richter Pass Vaseux, Oliver, Over 1000 m -20 -22 29 18 4900 10 50 320 0.36 510 70 4.1 0.3 0.31 0.4 600 mm* Osoyoos, Anarchist Richter Pass City of Penticton 350 -15 -17 33 20 3350 10 48 275 0.28 300 60 1.3 0.1 0.35 0.45 600 mm OK Falls, Kaleden & Up to 600 m -16 -18 33 20 3500 10 48 275 0.28 300 60 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.59 600 mm Skaha Lake OK Falls, Kaleden & Over 600 m -16 -18 33 20 3800 10 48 275 0.28 300 60 2.0 0.1 0.4 0.59 600 mm Skaha Lake West Bench/Sage Up to 600 m -16 -18 33 20 3500 10 48 275 0.28 300 60 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.59 600 mm Mesa/Husula Carmi, Falconridge Up to 800 m -20 -22 31 19 4000 10 50 280 .28 390 60 2.4 0.2 0.35 0.45 600 mm & Twin Lakes Carmi, Falconridge Over 800 m -24 -26 30 19 4350 10 50 280 0.28 430 60 3.1 0.2 0.35 0.45 600 mm & Twin Lakes Apex 1840 m -25 -28 25 19 5850 10 49 200 0.24 580 60 5.5 0.3 0.31 0.40 1200 mm Naramata, Up to 600 m -18 -20 31 19 3700 10 48 275 0.28 300 60 2.0 0.2 0.34 0.45 600 mm Summerland North & Faulder Design Temperature Degree 15 One day Annual Moist.
    [Show full text]