Connecting the Upper Columbia Valley II:
Identifying Critical Areas for
Species at Risk Habitat Linkages
Prepared for:
Columbia Wetlands Stewardship Partners
Prepared by:
Ian Adams RPBio
Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd.
Environmental Sciences Section
4500 Mennie Rd
PO Box 874
Cranbrook, BC V1C 6J4
www.intref.bc.ca
March 2010
LAND RECLAMATION · NATURAL RESOURCES CONSULTING · AGRICULTURAL SEED and FERTILIZER
Box 874, 4500 Mennie Rd., Cranbrook, BC, Canada. V1C 4J6 · G.S.T.# R102506854
Phone: 250-426-5300 · Fax: 250-426-5311 · Web: www.intref.bc.ca
Critical Areas for Habitat Linkages in Upper Columbia Valley 2
Table of Contents
1 Background 4
2 Methods 4
2.1 Study Area 4
2.2 Approach 5
2.3 Land Use Blocks 6
3 Aquatic, Wetland & Riparian Habitats 9
3.1 Species of Concern 9
3.2 Columbia River Mainstem and Wetlands 10
3.2.1 Land Use Blocks 10
3.2.2 Summary of Issues & Management Options 10
3.3 Side Valley Tributaries 13
3.3.1 East Side 13
3.3.2 West Side 13
3.3.3 Summary of Issues & Management Options 14
3.4 Pothole Wetlands 14
3.5 Regional Issues beyond Study Area 14
4 Upland Terrestrial Habitats 15
4.1 Species of Concern 15
4.2 North-South Movements: West Side 17
4.2.1 Land Use Blocks 17
4.2.2 Summary of Issues & Management Options 18
4.3 North-South Movements: East Side 24
4.3.1 Land Use Blocks 24
4.3.2 Summary of Issues & Management Options 30
4.4 East-West Movements 32
4.4.1 Cross-valley Linkages 32
4.4.2 Summary of Issues & Management Options 36
4.5 Regional Issues beyond Study Area 37
5 Summary: Areas of Major Concern 37
6 Conclusion 43
7 Closure 43
8 Literature Cited 44
9 Appendices 45
9.1 Appendix 1: List of species of concern occurrences in each Land Use Block.. 45
9.2 Appendix 2: Summary of species of concern 49
9.3 Appendix 3: Summary of Land Use Block characteristics 49
9.4 Appendix 4: Potential Toby Canyon wildlife crossings 50
Tables
Table 1: Species of concern utilizing river, lake and wetland habitats in the Upper Columbia Valley 9
Table 2: Summary description of Columbia River mainstem reaches and associated wetlands with conservation issues and management options for each reach. 11
Table 3: Species of concern utilizing terrestrial habitats in the Upper Columbia Valley 15
Table 4: Summary of Issues and management options for each Land Use Block on the west side of the Trench 20
Table 5: Summary of Issues and management options for each Land Use Block on the east side of the Trench 27
Figures
Figure 1: Maps of study area showing Land Use Blocks identified for habitat linkage planning in Upper Columbia Valley. 7
Figure 2: Example of potential wildlife crossings (in yellow) of Toby Creek from two perspectives. 23
Figure 3: Environmentally Sensitive Development Permit Areas (DPAs; in purple). 24
Figure 4: Potential movement corridor (shaded gold) linking southwest corner of Shuswap Reservation through north Windermere to ranch lands (gold outlined polygon) east of Hwy 93/95. 32
Figure 5: Potential east-west movement corridor between Canal Flats and Columbia Lake (between gold lines). 34
Figure 6: Potential east-west movement corridor between Fairmont and Windermere Lake (between gold lines). 35
Figure 7: Potential east-west movement corridor from Columbia Wetlands WMA and Kootenay National Park via Dry Gulch Ck and Dry Gulch Provincial Park (between gold lines). 36
Figure 8: Conceptual corridor (in black) across Highway 93/95 in the Dry Gulch area. 37
Figure 6: Athalmer pinch point area with Land Use Block boundaries in red, block names in white. 40
Figure 7: Columbia River passing through Fairmont Hot Springs showing extent of riparian cover through the Riverside Golf Course area (right of airstrip). 41
Figure 8: The north end of Windermere and south end of Shuswap Land Use blocks represents the greatest barrier to north-south movement on the east side of the Upper Columbia Valley. 42
Figure 9: District of Invermere and Toby Creek combine with areas east of Windermere Lake (Figure 8) to present a challenge to north-south wildlife movements in the Upper Columbia Valley. 43
Acknowledgements
I thank Bob Jamieson, Executive Director of Columbia Wetlands Stewardship Partners, for his thoughts, patience and significant contributions to this report. Important contributions were also made by Derek Petersen (Parks Canada), Trevor Kinley (Sylvan Consulting) and Cam Gillies (Tierra Environmental Consulting). Funding was provided by Columbia Wetlands Stewardship Partners through a contribution agreement with Parks Canada. Darcy Hlushak (Interior Reforestation) very ably conducted all GIS aspects of this work.
Connecting the Upper Columbia Valley II:
Identifying Critical areas for Species at Risk Habitat Linkages
1 Background
Traditional definitions of wildlife corridor typically involve “linear strips of habitat that facilitate the movement of organisms through landscapes” (Chetkiewicz et al. 2006). Puth and Wilson (2001) define a corridor as “a structure that channelizes and directs the flow of organisms, materials, or energy between patches”. Often hailed as cornerstones of conservation planning, implementation of corridors that effectively connect patches of high quality habitat through patches of poor or limited quality habitat has proven difficult (Rosenberg et al. 1997).
Concerns have been raised in recent years around the maintenance of movement corridors for fish and wildlife in the Upper Columbia River drainage, specifically in the main valley along the Columbia River. (Jamieson et al. 2009, Kinley and Newhouse 2008; Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee 1997).
This report builds on initial work (Adams and Robinson 2009) which examined three baseline subjects specific to the Upper Columbia Valley:
· status and management planning of species at risk
· land use planning and zoning
· experience of conservation / corridor planning initiatives in similar situations
The main objective of this report is to identify key areas of concern or “pinch points” where topography, development and jurisdiction act alone or in combination to disrupt fish and wildlife movements. The focus here is on species that occupy the valley bottom, many of which are listed federally and/or provincially as at risk, and on large-scale movements. Site-specific details of habitat condition or requirements for individual species are not addressed.
Identification of these key “pinch points” is intended to provide advice on habitat connectivity issues to municipal and regional planners. This report identifies areas of concern and policy requirements to maintain options for fish and wildlife movement in the Upper Columbia Valley.
2 Methods
2.1 Study Area
The Upper Columbia Valley encompasses the Rocky Mountain Trench (hereafter, “the Trench”) from Canal Flats north to Kinbasket Reservoir. The mainstem of the Columbia River originates at Columbia Lake with inflow from Dutch Creek to the west and numerous small creeks and underground springs. The Trench is a major geological feature lying between the primarily sedimentary Rocky Mountains to the east and the much older intrusive and metamorphic Purcell Mountains to the west.
The study area for this report is the floodplain of the Columbia River and the adjacent low-elevation benches from Canal Flats at the south end of Columbia Lake north to Brisco, British Columbia. The benches on the east side of the Trench are relatively narrow and rise quickly and steeply to the Rocky Mountains. To the west, wider benches rise more slowly to the Purcell Mountains.
As defined by the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench Ecoregion (Demarchi 1996) the Trench is 7 km wide at Canal Flats. It starts to widen north of Lake Windermere, where benches reach further west. Steamboat Mountain is a major feature, rising to 1850 m west of the Columbia River between Edgewater and Brisco. The Trench bottom is relatively flat, with elevations dropping little between Columbia Lake at 825 m to approximately 790 m at Brisco. To the south, the Trench widens significantly to almost 30 km near the cities of Kimberley and Cranbrook. East-west study area boundaries are roughly 1200 to 1400 m elevation contours, 400 to 600 m higher than valley bottom.
The Upper Columbia Valley in this area is predominantly the very dry, cool Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxk) biogeoclimatic subzone at the valley bottom up to 900 to 1000 m, depending on aspect (Lloyd et al 2006). This subzone transitions into the Kootenay dry, mild IDF (IDFdm2) subzone upslope and also north of Edgewater. The Kootenay dry, cool Montane Spruce (MSdk2) subzone is found above 1100 to 1200 m. Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF) and Interior Mountain-heather Alpine (IMA) subzones occur at elevations beyond this study area. See Lloyd et al (2006) for a full description of biogeoclimatic subzones in the East Kootenay.
Significant urban and rural development has occurred in the Upper Columbia Valley. Major centres include Canal Flats, Fairmont Hot Springs, Invermere and Radium Hot Springs. Smaller communities include, Windermere, Edgewater and Brisco. Beyond Brisco, the Regional District of East Kootenay is responsible for land use planning as far north as Spillimacheen. The study area also includes two First Nation reserves: the Akisqnuk First Nation, part of the Ktunaxa Nation Council and the Shuswap Band, part of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council.
2.2 Approach
This report considers the following movement or connectivity criteria:
1. North-south[1] connectivity issues for riparian, wetland and aquatic species along the Columbia River.
2. Issues related to east-west movement for riparian, wetland and aquatic species along the major tributaries flowing into the Columbia River and movement among the pothole wetlands found primarily on the west side benches.
3. North-south connectivity for terrestrial species along the west benches of the Trench.
4. North-south connectivity for terrestrial species along the east benches of the Trench.
5. East-west connectivity across the Trench, for species occurring both mainly in the valley bottom and mainly at higher elevations (e.g. grizzly bear) that occasionally disperse across the valley bottom between the Purcell and Rocky Mountains.
In each case specific land use blocks (see Section 2.3 below) are examined and issues pertaining to each block discussed in an attempt to identify the critical pinch point in each of the five connectivity criteria identified above. Recommendations for specific actions at these pinch points are provided for land use managers in the various agencies and groups responsible. At the end of each section on aquatic and terrestrial habitats there is a brief discussion of “Regional Issues” section that touches on aspects of connectivity beyond the study area boundaries.
The species at risk in the Upper Columbia Valley were described in detail in Phase I of this habitat planning process (Adams & Robinson 2009). Species at risk occurring in the Upper Columbia were identified through searches of the BC Conservation Data Centre’s online application, Species and Ecosystem Explorer (available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/). In addition to species at risk (e.g. Northern Leopard Frog, Lewis’s Woodpecker, American Badger), numerous wide ranging carnivores (e.g. Northern Goshawk, cougar, wolf) and other species of significant public interest (e.g. elk, deer) are species that merit consideration for habitat linkage planning in the Upper Columbia Valley region.
Many of the species considered here have very specific habitat requirements (e.g. western painted turtle’s reliance on shallow ponds with good basking logs and adjacent sandy nesting areas). Amphibian and reptile species in particular have very low mobility and limited capacity to disperse through inhospitable habitats. For these and other species with similar movement restrictions, identifying contiguous natural corridors is critical to the corridors’ effectiveness. In many cases, such continuity will require coordinated efforts across jurisdictional boundaries. Identifying such corridors and assessing the status of the habitat is beyond the scope of this report (though some specific corridors are recommended below).
The species considered are listed by broad habitat association in each section below and their occurrence on each block is summarized in Appendix 1. A full list of species considered for this study is found in Appendix 2. Detailed descriptions of these species, their status and related management information are provided in recent documents (Adams and Robinson 2009; Jamieson et al. 2009; Ferguson 2004 and references therein).
2.3 Land Use Blocks
The study area was divided into 27 land use blocks, which included 22 primarily terrestrial blocks; 2 lake blocks and 3 Columbia Wetland Wildlife Management Area (CWWMA) blocks. Block boundaries are based on a combination of natural landscape features (e.g. rivers, heights-of-land; elevation contours), jurisdictional borders (e.g. municipal districts, Official Community Plan boundaries, First Nation reserves, etc.), divisions between primarily private and crown land, and subjective decisions to create logical planning units.
The majority of the eastern boundary is along the 1400-m elevation contour. Eastward incursions at this elevation up the major valleys (e.g. Windermere, Shuswap and Kindersley Creeks) were excluded. The western boundary of the study area varies. From Findlay Creek at the south end of the study area, the western boundary follows the height of land between Columbia and Whitetail Lakes north to Dutch Creek. From Dutch Creek, it includes private lands to the 1400 m elevation contour near the western boundary of the Lake Windermere OCP. North of Toby Creek, it follows the Toby Creek Land Use Strategy boundary, then the 1200 m contour to the north end of the study area west of Brisco. The lower 1200 m contour was selected in this area because higher elevation increases into the Purcells moves further west.
Summaries for each block including types of development, transportation infrastructure, jurisdiction and planning guidance documents are found in Appendix 3.
Overleaf:
Figure 1: Maps of study area showing Land Use Blocks identified for habitat linkage planning in Upper Columbia Valley. A: South, B: North
A: South
B: North
Table 1: Species of concern utilizing river, lake and wetland habitats in the Upper Columbia Valley
White Sturgeon
(Columbia River Population) / Mainstem* / none above Mica Dam.
Westslope Cutthroat Trout / Mainstem*, Tributaries, / fish passage concerns
Bull Trout / Mainstem*, Tributaries / fish passage concerns
Chinook Salmon
(Columbia River Population) / Mainstem* / extirpated; fish passage concerns at lower reaches of Columbia R.
Kokanee / Mainstem*, Tributaries / fish passage concerns
Burbot / Mainstem*, Tributaries / fish passage concerns
River Otter / Mainstem*, Tributaries / minor
Freshwater mussels / Mainstem* / yes: low mobility of species
Northern Leopard Frog / wetlands / yes; extirpated
Western Painted Turtle / wetlands / yes
Horned Grebe / wetlands / no
Great Blue Heron / wetlands / no
American Bittern / wetlands / no
* includes mainstem of Columbia River, plus Columbia and Windermere Lakes.