Crown land file #4406427

BC Government - Applications, Comments & Reasons for Decision

Comment by December 3, 2023

https://comment.nrs.gov.bc.ca/applications?clidDtid=4406427&id=6529b28b646c73002270b4ab#details

The Issue:
Environmentally valuable and irreplaceable rangeland and grassland in the East Kootenay Trench is once again under threat from major development.

A company wants to develop utility-scale solar power plants on ecologically productive grassland and rangeland home to the threatened Long-billed Curlew, Lewis’ Woodpecker, the endangered Williamson’s Sapsucker, and American Badger.

Almost 5,000 hectares throughout the Kootenay River valley are being sought.  That’s the same area as over half of what will be flooded by the Site C dam.  The East Kootenay has already lost significant tracts of land to dam building.
 
For now, the developer wants only to measure the amount of sunlight, termed solar irradiance, to see if there is enough for industrial-scale solar farms.  But this information is already available and can be measured from satellites so there is no real need.

Similar tenures, requested in 2016, were rejected by the Province of BC and not supported by the Regional District of East Kootenay after many groups and individuals submitted comments.  The reasons the Government gave for not allowing the tenures included the following:

“The area selected is within an endangered grassland ecosystem which is being actively managed and restored.  This ecosystem provides critical habitat for ungulates (primarily elk) and species at risk and is an important cattle grazing area”

“…any future solar energy facility would be incompatible with protecting the grassland due to the need to fence off the facility”

“This project poses an unacceptable risk to an already endangered ecosystem”
 

The Problem:

Solar power is seen as one of the cleanest ways to produce energy.  Developing it can help us manage our climate crisis and that’s a good thing – we must do it.  But we have roof tops, gravel pits, old mine sites, and waste fields that can be used for solar farms; using grassland and rangeland is not necessary.

What’s wrong with a few panels out in a field?  Well, this wouldn’t be a few panels, it would be hundreds of them covering many hectares. They would shade the native grassland plants, adapted to full sunlight, and they would die.

Preventing invasive plants from taking over under the panels would require great care and maybe lots of chemicals.  Sulphur cinquefoil, knapweed, and cheatgrass are already a major problem on our native grasslands.

The solar farms would need to be fenced off for security and fire protection.  This means:

• Loss of winter ungulate range for the elk and deer
• Loss of high-value rangeland from local cattle ranches
• Loss of habitat for species at risk that are dependent on grassland and open pine forest
• Severe costs to protecting those facilities from wildfires and prescribed burning done for ecological restoration

These are just some of the impacts.

The Province of BC still does not have any policies or guidelines for large-scale solar farm developments.

The loss of temperate grassland continues.  In 2021, almost 650 thousand hectares (1.6 million acres) were converted to row crops in the US and Canada, according to the World Wildlife Fund (Plow Report 2023).

Fortunately, we have managed to protect some of the little bits of grassland and rangeland we have left here, so far, and ecological restoration work continues.
 

Why are grasslands so important?

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) expresses this very well; they say:

“Grasslands are essential to people, nature and climate.  They hold approximately one-third of global terrestrial carbon stocks and provide critical resilience in the face of climate change, including drought, heat and wildfire.”

They hold carbon, filter water, provide breaks between forest stands, grow things where trees can’t grow, help increase biodiversity, provide natural food for deer and elk, to name a few benefits.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources describes temperate grasslands as the world’s most endangered ecosystem – more endangered that tropical reefs or the Amazon Rainforest.  

The WWF says that more than 70% of America’s prairies have been destroyed.

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative, in their "State of Canada's Birds, 2019, reports that grassland birds have declined by 87% and 300 million birds have disappeared since 1970, or 2 out of every 3 birds.

 
Skookumchuck Prairie KBA

The fields between Lantz’s farm and Skookumchuck don’t really look like much to us, especially at this time of year – all just a pale, wind-swept yellow grey.

But from early spring to autumn, its a busy place.  Native bees and other pollinators, feral domestic bees, untold numbers and species of butterflies and insects, the usual chipmunks and squirrels, and thousands of birds from a dozen different species all buzzing and singing and mating and incubating and raising their young, frantically trying to get the job done before the snow flies again.

Most bird species in the grassland are the colour of last year’s dried grass still sticking up between the new green stems.  You don’t see them much, because they don’t want to be seen – it’s safer that way for them; but you can sure hear them (at the right time of year).

Dozens of Western Meadowlark and Vesper Sparrow males singing their little hearts out filling the air with their bubbly little songs and flitting between this place and that, catching bugs.

And one of the weirdest birds you might spot is the Long-billed Curlew (Threatened, SARA) (Threatened, Blue, BC), presiding quietly over all the activity.

Yes, they are cousins with the other shorebird species you might be familiar with, like Killdeer, or Avocets; and they do look like just a big sandpiper – but with a very long bill and they're a shorebird ... in the grass ... no beaches or shores in sight.

In the winter, and in the summer between incubating or guarding their chicks, they DO hang-out on the shore, and riverbanks, mud flats, and agriculture fields.

In the winter, the birds from Skookumchuck Prairie fly down to central and southern California – which we know from having put solar-powered satellite transmitters on a half dozen of them and following their movements.  Very cool.

And over against the hillside, where millions of dollars worth of ecosystem restoration work has taken place over the past 35 years, dozens of rosy-breasted woodpeckers make their summer homes.

This is likely Canada’s densest breeding population of Lewis’ Woodpecker (Threatened, SARA) (Threatened, Blue, BC).  I have found dozens of nests and identified almost four dozen nesting trees on the edge of the Prairie over the past 9 years.  They have benefited greatly from the restoration work done here.

There are American Kestrels – our smallest falcon, also nesting in cavities in old trees, sometimes in the same tree as a Lewis’; and Common Nighthawks (Threatened, COSEWIC) (Secure, BC) nesting on the ground, their two little speckled eggs in just a shallow hollow where the parents may have bothered to move a pebble or bark chip out of the way.  And Mountain Bluebirds, and dozens of other species of birds.  It’s a busy place.

Inches deep, all over the fields, there are elk droppings, evidence of their substantial use of the area on long winter nights.  This is what natural diversity looks and sounds like.

Skookumchuck Prairie Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) is recognized internationally as critical to restoring the biodiversity and health of the global ecosystem.  It is one of the few pockets of grassland not privately owned.  The KBA programme was developed by Bird Life International and is administered by BC Nature in British Columbia.  Some countries have incorporated these areas into their conservation protection laws.  Unfortunately, Canada is not one of them, yet.
 

Summary

In the developer’s application for crown land, they claim this land “has previously been disrupted by forest activities or consists of low-lying scrubland” but that is not true.  It’s not scrubland – it’s grassland, rangeland, and winter ungulate range.  It wasn’t disrupted by forest activities – it was healed so that many of our grassland-dependent species once again have homes and feeding areas.

There are so many other places better suited to solar panels:

• reclaimed mine and industrial sites
• roof tops on malls, garages, houses
• over parking lots
• on waste-water reservoirs, and so on
• places we’ve already altered which can’t be reclaimed

So, if covering over critical and ecologically sensitive rangeland and grassland with solar panels doesn’t make much sense to you either, please be sure to make your thoughts known.  Comment on this tenure application and urge the government to implement clear guidelines so renewable energy companies can pursue projects that are ecologically profitable, too.

Please search for or go to the following link by December 3, 2023 to submit a comment and/or write to your government representatives:
​
British Columbia Applications Comments & Reasons for Decisions
Crown land application file number #4406427 at:

https://comment.nrs.gov.bc.ca/applications?clidDtid=4406427&id=6529b28b646c73002270b4ab#details

List of representatives responsible:

Federal, Provincial, and Regional Government Contacts:
Honourable Josie Osborne, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation
[email protected]

Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy
[email protected]
 
Honourable Bruce Ralston, Minister of Forests
[email protected]
 
Honourable Nathan Cullen, Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
[email protected]
 
Doug Clovechock, Columbia River Revelstoke
[email protected]

Tom Shypitka, Kootenay East
[email protected]
 
Rob Morrison MP Kootenay-Columbia
[email protected]

Sonia Furstenau, MLA Cowichan Valley
[email protected]
 
Rep Jane Walter, Electoral Area E, RDEK
[email protected]
 
Rep Rob Gay, Electoral Area C, RDEK
[email protected]
 
Rep Stan Doehle, Electoral Area B, RDEK
[email protected]
 

Summary of reasons to reject / disallow this crown land tenure application:

We strongly support the development of solar power as a renewable energy source to off-set the effects of climate change and global warming.  But rather than large-scale utilities, we believe a decentralized approach with small-scale installments would better fit our priorities of maintaining natural areas and increasing biodiversity.

Parcels requested in this tenure application were previously disallowed.

Parcels requested in this tenure application are:

• within an endangered grassland ecosystem which is being actively managed and restored.  These areas provide critical habitat for ungulates and species at risk and are important for cattle grazing.
• internationally recognized as a Key Biodiversity Area, critical for maintaining or increasing global biodiversity as defined by Bird Life International.

Reasons for concern and protection of these parcels:

• The need for fencing of any future utility-scale solar infrastructure would remove critical habitat, fragment the grassland ecosystem further, and increase challenges for wildfire control, habitat restoration, and invasive plant species management.
• Utility-scale solar plants are an industrial use incompatible with our objectives for managing our agricultural rangelands and natural ecosystems.
• Temperate grassland, of which parcels of this tenure are comprised, is the world’s most endangered ecosystem according to The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
• Parcels requested in this tenure application contain Canada’s densest breeding population of the threatened Lewis’ Woodpecker, and impacts would be difficult to impossible to mitigate.

We urge the BC Government to develop and implement policies, guidelines, and procedures for the responsible de-centralized development of solar power in British Columbia so that

• the challenges of climate change and global warming are not exacerbated by the removal of naturally functioning and critical ecosystems
• so that developers can have greater confidence in planning and implementing their projects
• so that energy users can be confident they are minimizing their global warming emissions without avoidable increase in harm to the global ecosystem

​

Following is the 2020 report we received from the Southern Interior Bluebird Trail Society - who collates all the bluebird box nesting data from the southern interior.  So many birds! .... and monitors!  Good job!  Thanks everyone!

How did efforts to build up populations of cavity-nesting birds fare around British Columbia in 2020?
 
Thanks to SIBTS Nestbox Data Coordinator Kathy N., who compiled reports from monitors around the province. Here’s a summary, by geographical area.
 
Some areas normally have some of each bluebird species, Western (WEBL) and Mountain (MOBL). Other areas have only one species. Many areas also welcome Tree Swallows (TRES).
 
Cariboo Region
Sandy and Rita P. in Empire Valley had 103 MOBL nestings. There were 280 nestlings and 252 fledglings, a nice 90% success rate. TRES nested 33 times and had 113 nestlings with 90 fledging for a rate of 79.6%.
 
Sandy writes: “Wet, late spring resulted in a late start for season, but the Bluebirds had a pretty good year except not a lot of second broods because of the late spring.  Tree Swallows did not fair very well, we had a lot of heavy prolonged rains.  Not good conditions for Swallows.  Bear problem was not as bad this year as last but did lose 8 Bluebird and 2 Swallow nests due to bear.”
 
Castlegar Area
Paula N. in Upper Ootishenia had 6 MOBL nestings that gave 27 nestlings, all of which fledged, i.e. 100%. She also had one nesting of TRES that was 100% successful with 5 fledging.
 
Cranbrook Area
The Rocky Mountain Naturalists have many members monitoring trails throughout the area, with 344 boxes used. Collectively they had 145 WEBL nestings with 639 hatchings that produced 578 fledglings, a 90.5% success rate.
For MOBL, 89 nestings with 386 hatchlings and 345 fledglings, a 89.4% success rate.
TRES had 159 nestings, 757 hatchlings and 531 fledglings; 70.1%.
 
Greenwood Area
Ray and Judy F. found one MOBL nesting. It was 100% successful, producing 5 fledglings.
 
They also report that a House Wren built an entire nest late in the season but never laid any eggs.
“On another note, we had erected an outhouse near the garden last year but hadn't yet screened in the space under the back of the roof.  A pair of Pacific-slope flycatchers decided that a short 2x4 shelf beside the door was a good place for a nest.  They raised 5 young ones, and we opened the door enough when they were large enough so that the babies would not have to fly up to the roof opening when it came time to leave the nest.   Now we can use the outhouse again, and it will get fully screened before next spring!”
 
Kelowna Area
At Black Mountain, Carol M. reported 4 WEBL nestings that had 20 nestlings, but only 10 fledglings, a 50% rate. One MOBL nesting was 100% successful with 6 fledged. Three TRES nestings produced only 5 fledglings from 11 hatchlings, a low 45.5% rate.
 
Carol writes: "With 15 boxes monitored, the results are disappointing.  Especially, the number of bluebirds ready to fledge and then all be found dead in their nests.  At least the cattle were out of the park so none of the boxes were knocked off their posts.  At first we thought the unusual wet weather this year might have created a blowfly situation as one group of dead Western Bluebirds had maggots on them.  However, after reading an article in the North American Bluebird Society summer 2020 journal, I wonder if the lack of insects was the cause of the deaths.  Most of the deaths happened just before fledging, so perhaps the adults were unable to keep up with the hungry mouths.  We saw adults around while the bluebirds were alive.  It is possible that the adults died or abandoned the nests for lack of food.

The article I refer to is “Insect Populations Continue to Plummet – What Does This Mean for Bluebirds?” by Bernie Daniel, Ph.D.  After sharing the recent drastic fall of populations of insects worldwide, a few possible causes are suspected:
--Intensification of agriculture (in our case the decimation of grassland just to the west of the bluebird trail).
--Development of newer generations of pesticides which are a little too effective on insects (phenylpyrazoles and neonicotinoids in particular).
--Biological factors such as pathogens introduced by species from other continents.
--Unfavourable conditions brought on by climate change.
“Next year we plan to remove boxes 7-12 which have not been productive for a few years, and put them and some extra boxes we have along the Gopher Creek fence line.  We will do this and clean out the boxes in the fall.  Maybe, we’ll have to start providing meal worms for the bluebirds!!!  How will we do that?”
 
On the Gallagher’s Canyon and Mission Greenway trails, Rick G. had 4 WEBL nestings producing 16 nestlings and 13 fledglings for a rate of 81.3%. He also had 7 TRES nestings with 19 nestlings that gave 12 fledglings, a 63.2% rate.
 
At UBCO, Hamilton reported 13 nestings of WEBL with 62 hatchlings and 62 fledglings, a 100% success story.
 
Lake Country Area
On the Beaver Lake Trail, Stu W. and Ann G. had 1 WEBL nesting that had no fledglings. MOBL were a bit better with 4 nestings, 12 nestlings and 4 fledglings, a 33.3% success rate. TRES had 11 nestings, 20 nestlings, 8 fledglings and a 40% rate.
 
Stu adds: “Nest Boxes available – I have 31 boxes on my trail, however, an interloper has installed 11 + new boxes between mine, in no particular order.  One of our club members, in early May, opened each of the 11 boxes and found evidence of occupation: MTBL, WEBL, HOWR, TRSW, including nests, eggs and sitting birds.  These boxes were not monitored further.”
 
Lillooet Area
Lillooet Naturalists’ Club members look after trails Diamond S Ranch, OK Ranch and Kelly Lake. They enjoyed 58 MOBL nestings that gave 248 nestlings and 212 fledglings, a rate of 85.5%. There were also 52 TRES nestings, 162 nestlings, 118 fledglings, for a rate of 72.8%.
 
Logan Lake Area
Ray T. looks after many boxes. 114 nestings of MOBL resulted in 449 nestlings and 412 fledglings, a rate of 91.8%. From 200 TRES nestings there were 798 nestlings and 660 fledging; 82.7%.
 
Osoyoos Area
At the Desert Centre, Leor O. reported 13 WEBL nestings, resulting in 59 hatchlings and 34 fledglings, for a disappointing 57.6% success rate. One TRES nesting produced a 100% success rate with 4 young fledging.
 
Bob S. writes: “This is a quick summary for 2020 of 8 bluebird boxes on the road up to Mount Kobau. I submitted a report form last year where the boxes did produce some successes. Not so for 2020, so no completed form.
“Out of a total of 4 boxes (2 with 6 chicks and 2 with 5), no young survived to fledge. By our best guesses, a bear destroyed one box, probably the mother was killed or abandoned another nest as the young were found dead and dessicated, and the two remaining nests were probably predated by snakes or weasels as evidenced by eggshell fragments (prior to hatching).
“With so much predator loss in a relatively wild area, the decision was made to retire the boxes from the Mount Kobau Road area and not attempt efforts there in the future.”
 
Penticton Area
On the West Bench, above Sage Mesa, Myrna B. reported that there were 9 WEBL nestings, 46 hatchlings and 36 fledglings; 78.3%. MOBL had 2 nestings, 10 hatchlings and 10 fledging; 100%.
 
Myrna adds: “Some eggs and chicks lost to snakes, I’m assuming Gopher snakes.  Nests clean and no other disturbance.”
 
Quesnel Area
The Quesnel Trail & Nature Club looks after trails at Dragon Lake and West Fraser. Combined, these locations produced 14 MOBL nestings with 43 nestlings and 38 fledglings, for a rate of 88.4%. TRES had 15 nestings producing 68 hatchlings and 57 fledglings; 83.8%.
 
Vernon Area
The North Okanagan Naturalists’ Club had many active trails with a total of 302 nest boxes used.
There were 90 nesting of WEBL resulting in 377 hatchlings. 290 fledged, a 76.9% success rate. MOBL had 12 nestings with a 100% success rate for 54 hatchlings. Meanwhile TRES had 176 nestings, producing 678 nestlings and 406 fledging for a low rate of 60%.
 
White Lake/Willowbrook Area
Audrey M. had 5 nestings of WEBL, resulting in 20 hatchlings and 20 fledglings, 100% successful. MOBL had 3 nestings, 12 nestlings and 12 fledglings, 100%. Then there were 3 TRES nestings, 100% successful with 15 nestlings and fledglings.
 
Province-wide our reporters had a total of 1,884 nest boxes available, with 1,328 being used, a 70.5% occupancy which is lower than normal. The overall successful fledging rate was 84.2% for WEBL, 89.7% for MOBL and a low 72.2% for TRES.
 
Other cavity nesters that were reported in smaller numbers were House Wrens, Black-capped and Mountain Chickadees, European Starlings, Pygmy Nuthatches, White-breasted Nuthatches and House Sparrows. Monitors also found some mammals in boxes: Red Squirrel, Chipmunk and mice.
 
No reports were received for nest box trails in and around Kamloops, Trail, Kilpoola-Osoyoos, Summerland (Bald Range), other trails at White Lake, Williams Lake, or Bulkley Valley. If any monitors in these areas, or other non-reporting areas, have data or anecdotes to share, please send them in even now to Kathy.

What a year it’s been!  As so many have already said, 2020 was a year like no other.  The COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives in many ways, not least of which were the ways Rocky Mountain Naturalists adapted to a province-wide lockdown and varying levels of restriction while still trying to keep our membership active and engaged.
 
The year began with our AGM in January.  Our Executive changed somewhat, with Rob stepping down from his position as BC Nature Rep after a two-year term.  Wendy stepped down from her position as Member-at-Large and was elected as the new BC Nature Rep, while Janice was elected to the now-vacant Member-at-Large position.  Gretchen was elected to a second term as Treasurer and the remaining Executive members continued into the second year of their respective terms.
 
We had an encouraging increase in memberships in 2020.  We currently have 93 memberships and 141 individual members.  Sue R. managed our membership records for several years, but has recently moved out of the area, leaving this position vacant.  We would like to extend our appreciation and thanks to Sue for her dedication to the Rocky Mountain Naturalists over the past three decades and we wish her well in her new home.  Hasi has graciously volunteered to take over the management of our membership records.
 
Your Executive had many discussions in 2020 about what kinds of activities would be safe to offer and protocols for participation were developed.  In the spring we cancelled all activities from late March until early June, when strict provincial health orders were in place, and we did so again in November.  The most recent restrictions are ongoing and will continue until infection rates drop and provincial orders are eased or lifted.  This has affected many of our activities and has forced us to become creative in how we approach this “new normal”.
 
In order to comply with provincial public health orders and out of an abundance of caution, only four of our six usual bi-monthly meetings were held.  The March and May meetings were cancelled.  When COVID numbers went down over the summer, we were able to hold our July meeting at Reade Lake again, using protocols such as social distancing, a contact list and an RSVP required for participants, prior to attending.  In September we once again held an outdoor meeting at Idlewild Park in Cranbrook, utilizing the same protocols.  By November, infection rates were rising again but we were able to have a virtual membership meeting using ZOOM for the first time.
 
Communications and Outreach
 
Susan W. continues to be the editor for our quarterly newsletter.  Four excellent issues of The Kestrel were published online, with reports on outings and articles on a variety of subjects.  Sincere thanks to Susan for the time and effort she puts into every issue and a big thank-you also to the many contributors of articles and photos.  We have an interesting and informative newsletter that we can all be proud of!
 
The Rocky Mountain Naturalists Facebook page has grown a little more since last year, with 215 members.  Dianne continues in her role as Administrator of this closed group and the page is active, with members adding photos and articles of interest as well as ongoing online conversations about a variety of subjects.
 
Dianne is also the Administrator of the Rocky Mountain Naturalists website, which can be visited by both members and non-members.  Forms on the website have been used for inquiries and comments, dues payments and registration for events such as the Christmas Bird Count.  Thank-you, Dianne, for your expertise and your time and effort spent on keeping both the website and Facebook page up to date.
 
We have had a number of queries and proposals from individuals and organizations over the past year.  These include subjects such as:

• Dark Sky Initiative
• Logging on private land
• Fossil Repository at Cranbrook History Centre
• Kootenay Dirt Bike Association proposal for trail development at Ta Ta Creek
• Requests for support of individual projects

 
The Executive has discussed and responded to all inquiries.  A letter was sent to Premier John Horgan supporting the designation of a Fossil Repository at the Cranbrook History Centre.  A detailed response to a proposal by the Kootenay Dirt Bike Association was sent to the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development and the RDEK.
 
Birding
 
RMN birders were out all year, in groups and individually, while still adhering to public health orders.
 
Early Morning Birding was in full swing from early January to the end of March, when this activity was temporarily suspended.   Birding continued on Wednesday mornings in early June and was suspended again in November.  Thank-you to Jim, who is responsible for organizing the group’s outings and reporting results.
 
For the first time in many years, we were not able to hold Little Big Day as a competitive team event.  A small group of birders worked together to create a new COVID version of LBD, the “Rocky Mountain Bird Blitz (LBD 2020)”, where individuals and small family groups or buddies could bird within the East Kootenay boundaries within a 24-hour window on May 23rd.  All the lists were counted and totalled to try and match or beat the totals of previous years and, although there was no count-up potluck, a good time was had by all.  Thanks to Greg for coordinating this event.
 
RMN birders were invited to participate in the Kootenay Bank Swallow Survey.  Birders made a number of observations over the spring and summer months, which were forwarded to the project coordinator, who added them to the Survey’s database.
 
Our annual Christmas Bird Counts required some changes in procedure to comply with the current COVID restrictions.  Cranbrook and Kimberley counts both had good turnouts.  Cranbrook’s CBC was held on December 26th and attracted 19 field counters and 13 feeder counters.  Kimberley’s CBC was held January 3rd and had 15 field counters and 8 feeder counters.  Other details can be found on our website.  Thank-you to Dianne, who organized and reported on these events.
 
Marianne coordinated activities involving our Bluebird Trail project, with 23 active routes and 30 volunteer monitors.  Our Club holds a membership in the Southern Interior Bluebird Trail Society.
 
Dianne monitors the Skookumchuk Prairie IBA (Important Bird & Biodiversity Area).
 
Projects and Special Events
 
Our annual Winter Social was held on February 23rd.  Twenty-three hardy RMNs participated in a hike up Wycliffe’s Lone Pine Butte followed by a pot-luck dinner attended by 31 naturalists and graciously hosted by Sandy and Hasi.
 
Responsibility for organizing the 2020 Baynes Lake bat count passed to residents of the area.  Several RMNs joined in the June count, which reported 472 bats.  Thanks to Scott for reporting on this count.
 
Several of our most popular annual activities were suspended in 2020 because of COVID restrictions.  Turtle Day, Club Camp and our summer social all had to be cancelled.
 
The turtle monitoring project at Elizabeth Lake continues under the stewardship of Greg and Katrin, who have done an excellent job repairing fences, constructing and placing cages to prevent predation, rototilling and weeding the beds and monitoring the nests.  Two groups of RMN members spent two days removing invasive weeds from the area.
 
The recipient of the $1000 Mildred White Scholarship was Adelina Morello.  There was no formal presentation at the College of the Rockies, due to the COVID restrictions.
 
Elizabeth Lake
 
The Elizabeth Lake Committee had a number of meetings and conference calls with Chris New, Director of Community Services for the City of Cranbrook, to discuss plans for future improvements at Elizabeth Lake.  Chris submitted applications for funding in the fall of 2020 but there has been no confirmation of grant money at the time of this report.  Chris retired at the end of the year, so we will continue our discussions with his replacement.
 
The Elizabeth Lake Committee was contacted by Ariana McKay, Terrestrial Habitat Biologist with the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development, regarding remediation and possible improvements to the contaminated Chevron/Parkland site adjacent to Elizabeth Lake and Jim Smith Creek.  Your Executive has agreed to a limited partnership with the Ministry, Ducks Unlimited and the BC Wildlife Federation to provide feedback on Ms. McKay’s plan for habitat improvement and a possible small wetland to be created on the site.  There will likely be no further activity for the next year or two, as the site will be monitored for contaminants.
 
 
Outings
 
Compared with 2019, our scheduled outings were far fewer in 2020.  There were 9 outings last year in addition to Early Morning Birding, the winter social hike and two weed pulls.  Reports on those outings can be found on our website.  Hopefully, when restrictions ease, we will once again be able to join our fellow naturalists in exploring our beautiful region.
 
In conclusion
 
I will be stepping down now from my position as President to become Past President.  I would like to thank my fellow Directors for their support, initiative, hard work and willingness to take on sometimes difficult issues, especially in such a challenging year.  It has been my privilege and honour to work with such an exceptional group of people during my term.  Thank-you also to the members, whose interest, knowledge and engagement have made it so much fun to be a part of this Club.  I look forward to many more years of learning and making new friends.
 
Two of our Executive members will also be stepping down at this time and I would like to acknowledge them.  Virginia, our Past President, and Jim, our Secretary, will complete their terms today.  Thank-you, Virginia and Jim, for your leadership, your candid and honest feedback on a range of issues, your dedication and the time you’ve spent on your Executive duties.  It has been a joy to work with you both and I will miss you at our Executive meetings.
 
As we begin a new year, we look forward to returning to a less restricted way of doing things and to new adventures with our fellow naturalists.  I will leave it to your incoming President to lead us into 2021.
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted by
Helga Knote
 
20 January 2021

RMN 2020 Activites:
Following is a summary of our work and involvement in nature and environmental issues as reported at our Annual General Meeting January 2021:
 
Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Collaborative - representative/member: Emma.  The UCBEC is an independent committee made up of representatives from several environmental groups. Its objective is to ensure ecosystems are considered in operations and mitigations of all upper Columbia hydroelectric dams and in the Columbia River Treaty.  This is accomplished by providing knowledge, technical support, comments, and support of public involvement in Treaty discussions.
 
Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resource Society - representative/member: Jo Ellen.  The Trench society is a non-profit made up of nine other East Kootenay environmental societies.  They oversee the restoration of grasslands through partnerships with government, industry, First Nations and other non-government agencies.  Restoration work last year was at the Old Kimberley Airport, Hidden Valley/Silver Springs, Hatchery Ridge, and Sheep Mountain.
 
Early Morning Birding - a regular Wednesday morning field trip dedicated to birdwatching.  The skill of the birders varies from beginner through expert level. This year (2020) some of the more interesting outings involved hiking into McGinty Lake, hiking along the bootleg hoodoos trail, and through the Moyie Lake narrows by canoe or kayak. Two most notable events this year were on March 18th, while near Jaffray, a golden eagle attacked a Canadian goose close by.  Then near Wasa we witnessed a juvenile cowbird being fed by a junco and later by another adoptive mother of a different species.  This activity is co-ordinated under and adheres to club’s new Covid19 guidelines.
 
Kootenay Community Bat Project - RMN co-ordinator: Scott.  We assist other groups and conduct counts of bats and build and maintain bat boxes.  Members assisted the Baynes Lake Community in setting up and conducting a bat count on 12 June 2020 where we counted a total of 472 bats.  Hopefully the RMN will have our own count location for 2021.

Bat Project Website: bcbats.ca/regions/kootenays/

 
Elizabeth Lake Western Painted Turtle Nest Monitoring - RMN co-ordinator: Greg.  We monitor and maintain a turtle nesting area at Elizabeth Lake, Cranbrook under the auspices of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.
 
2019 / 2020 nesting year - eggs laid early in the year may hatch before winter, eggs laid in the fall will overwinter and the hatchlings emerge the next spring
 
100                                  nests found
952                                  total number of eggs found
333                                  dead eggs
223                                  dead turtle hatchlings found in the nests
69                                    live turtle hatchlings in nests
124                                  hatchlings that must have emerged on their own
193                                  Total hatchlings
50%                                 predation rate of turtle nests
 
In April/May of 2020, while repairing minor problems with the turtle fence, it was discovered that there was a major problem at the north end of bed A. There was essentially a ‘skunk highway’ from a downed tree over the fence. Thanks to Helga and Andy for delimbing the tree and removing the branches. The fence was repaired, and a cross fence was added to prevent skunk movement onto the beds. All the other minor breaks in the fence were repaired and the fenceline was brushed, to assist future monitoring. 
 
In 2020, there were 94 nests laid. So far, we have had no predation of the nests. In fact, there were no signs of skunks at all on the beds throughout the summer after the fence was repaired.
 
The weeds have been getting worse and worse over the years and it has become physically impossible to maintain weeding by hand. This year, 2 beds (beds C and D) were rotatilled and raked in the narrow window between fledging and nesting (2nd week of May) and it was a success. Thanks also to the Rocky Mountain Naturalist Volunteers that came to help weed out the invasive weeds in and around the beds. The invasive weeds are also on the increase in this area and will require constant monitoring.

Turtle radio media:
www.thedrivefm.ca/2020/08/19/fwcp-reports-improved-western-painted-turtle-hatchling-survival-rate-at-elizabeth-lake/


 
Bluebird Trails - RMN co-ordinator Marianne.  Nest boxes for cavity nesting birds are built, distributed, maintained and checked by many of our members.  We had 23 active routes this year with 22 providing data for the 2020 summary.  This involved about 30 dedicated volunteer monitors, most of them Rocky Mountain Naturalist members. The data is sent to the Southern Interior Bluebird Trail Society (SIBTS) to be included in their annual data collection.
 
There was an 89% occupancy rate in the total number of boxes.  Mountain and Western Bluebirds use a little over half the boxes followed by Tree Swallows.
 
This year the success rate of both Western and Mountain Bluebird from hatchlings to fledglings was lower by about 10% compared to 2019.  There were 485 Western Bluebird fledglings and 314 Mountain Bluebird fledglings.  Tree Swallow success was lower by about 15%.  One possibility for mortality, often at about one week to two weeks of age, was cool, wetter conditions in late June and early to mid July.  447 Tree Swallows fledged.  Interestingly, the only ‘other’ bird species reported nesting in the boxes were House Wrens.  They used 4 boxes and also had a lower success rate than usual with 14 fledging out of 21 hatchlings.
 
Christmas Bird Count - RMN co-ordinator: Dianne.  The #121 count, our 23rd officially, was conducted successfully in both Cranbrook and Kimberley following public heath regulations and recommendations.  Cranbrook was 26 Dec 2020 and Kimberley was 3 Jan 2021.  The weather was warm for both; roads were clear for Cranbrook but icy for Kimberley.
 
No new species were seen.  Cranbrook recorded 47 species which was an average number with the highlight being a "Woodpecker Grand Slam".  Kimberley recorded 51 species - a new record for number of species.  The number of individual birds counted was Cranbrook 3,424 - which is low, average 2640 - and Kimberley was very low: 1,284 - average 2,405.  Participation was about average with 19 field observers and 13 feeder watchers for Cranbrook and 15 field counters and 8 feeder watchers for Kimberley.

CBC #121 report:
www.rockymountainnaturalists.org/christmas-bird-counts.html

 
Skookumchuck Prairie Important Biodiversity Area - IBA Caretaker: Dianne.  All seemed well out on the prairie - no major habitat issues were noticed.  Long-billed Curlew and Lewis's Woodpecker were observed in their usual spots.  The annual field trips for Wings Over the Rockies did not happen due to public health measures.
 
Data from the 2018 and 2019 cavity nesting surveys for Lewis's Woodpecker and American Kestrel were submitted to the BC Species Inventory.  Lewis's Woodpecker nests were searched for on two days.  Major contributions to iNaturalist observations in Wasa Provincial Park were made by BC Parks consultants.
 
The RMN submitted a comment to Recreation Sites and Trails, Gov't of BC regarding a land use application made by the Kootenay Dirt Bike Association which would see them manage existing dirt bike / off road trails north of Ta Ta Creek and build a day use and camping area.  Most of the trails are within the IBA and some trails impact the western-most curlew nesting field and Wildlife Habitat Areas designated for antelope brush and bluebunch wheatgrass.  A decision on this land use has not been made at time of writing.
 
A crown land request for a log-sorting area within the IBA was not supported by the Regional District of East Kootenay; the RMN did not comment on this application.

iNaturalist Project for Skookumchuck Prairie IBA:
www.inaturalist.org/projects/skookumchuck-prairie-iba
 

East Kootenay Invasive Species Council - RMN representative: Frank.  The EKISC AGM Oct 7, 2020 - delayed from May 2020 due to Covid shutdown.  Inventories of invasive plants in the Upper Elk Valley and Wycliffe were started.
 
The 2020 Golden Shovel Award went to Pam Turyk of the Kootenay Livestock Assn. for her contribution to the board of directors over many years.  Dave Ralph of ISCBC was Keynote Speaker.  He talked about using herbicides in the Fall.
 
Elizabeth Lake Committee - RMN co-ordinator: Stewart.  Elizabeth Lake was the top birding hotspot in the East Kootenay with 167 species in 2020 according to eBird. In a year when Covid 19 affected all our lives, Elizabeth Lake proved to be a popular spot for birders including the EMB group, nature lovers, school groups at both the elementary and middle school level, people looking for a safe area to walk, as well as those who taking advantage of the picnic tables to enjoy a break. However, there was no Turtle Day for schools and the community in 2020 because of Covid, although Greg and Katrin continued to monitor the western painted turtle nesting areas on the W side of the lake.
 
Chris New, Director of Recreation and Culture with the City of Cranbrook, continued to liaise with the Elizabeth Lake group, consisting of Helga, Greg, George F. and Stewart, up until his retirement in December 2020. Prior to that Chris submitted a proposal for funding for an upgrade of outdoor amenities including the trail, which forms a loop between the Tourist Information and the Elizabeth Lake Lodge, as well as an upgrade of the parking area off Wattsville Road, which would include an outhouse. A wooden observation tower close to the concrete hide was also part of the proposal.
 
Thanks to those who volunteered their time to pull invasive weeds near the turtle nursery area.
 
Membership Committee - RMN co-ordinator: Hasi. Sue R., long time member of the Naturalists, managed our membership position for many years.  She collected the fees, made sure forms were complete and updated including waivers, as well as communicating with the Executive.  Sue then submitted this information to BC Nature, our umbrella organization, so that members receive the quarterly BC Nature Magazine.  Sue has now retired from this position.  Sue, thank you for the time and effort you spent keeping our membership records.
 
In 2020, the Rocky Mountain Naturalists had 85 memberships on our list – a combination of family and single. Many of those people have renewed their membership for 2021.  Thank you for your support. 
 
Other committees and work: nothing to report or no reports available
Club Camp - no camp in 2020
Cranbrook Community Forest Planning Team
Kootenay Conservation Program
Little Big Day - no LBD in 2020 - replaced with Regional District of East Kootenay Big Day

Field Trips of 2020:
Aug 5 - Birding - Irrigation Ponds - Attendance: 6
Aug 14 - Weed Pulling Turtle Beds, Elizabeth Lake - 10
Aug 19 - Birding - Stump Lake - 8
Aug 26 - Birding - Haha Creek Rd - 7
Sep 2 - Birding - Elizabeth Lake - 4
Sep 7 - McGinty Lake Hike - 10
Sep 8 - Moyie Narrows - Paddling, Birding - 6
Sep 23 - Idlewild Park - Bi-monthly Meeting - 15
Sep 23 - Birding - Irrigation Ponds - 6
Sep 30 - Birding - Wardner/Fish Hatchery - 4
Oct 7 - Birding - Fish Hatchery/Fort Steele Wardner Rd - 10
Oct 15 - Hike - Steeples - 10
Oct 17 - Birding - October Big Day - 7
Oct 21 - Birding - Moyie north - 8
Nov 4 - Birding - Wycliffe - 8

Limber Pine Recovery: A Challenging but Necessary Venture
 
Limber pine is an uncommon 5-needle pine tree, only known to occur in a small number of locations within British Columbia (BC), including a few stands in in the Crowsnest Pass Region, stands near Elko, a major population along Columbia Lake that extends north to the Radium area, and another large population in the Kicking Horse Canyon near Golden. Throughout its range in BC, limber pine is primarily found on warm aspects, calcareous soils, talus slopes, and limestone outcrops (Pigott and Moody, 2013).
 
Limber pine is a red-listed species in BC and is designated as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Limber pine is a conservation concern due to several factors, including (Pigott and Moody, 2013):

• White pine blister rust, a disease caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola, which enters through the needles of the tree, moving down the branch to the main stem where it girdles and slowly kills the tree;
• Mountain pine beetle;
• Fire suppression;
• Climate change; and
• Human development.

 
Several strategies are used to conserve and recover limber pine, one of which is planting. Planting is considered to be one of the more productive restoration activities (Pigott and Moody, 2013). On September 3, 2016, 11 members of the Rocky Mountain Naturalists (RMNats), 3 members of the Elk River Alliance, and a member of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), planted limber pine seedlings on south and west facing grassland slopes on Mount Broadwood, a conservation property managed and owned by NCC. A total of 1,180 seedlings were planted within approximately 6 hectares.
 
Two years following the planting, on September 8, 2018, 9 members of the RMNats and a member of NCC, returned to the site to assess survival success of the seedlings using randomly located 5.99 m radius plots within the 6 hectare planting site. Within each 5.99 m radius plot, the number of alive and dead seedlings found were to be recorded (Figure 1). From there, an average number of surviving seedlings per hectare could be calculated.
 
A total of 8 radius plots were conducted within the planting site (Figure 2). Unfortunately, no seedlings were found to be alive. The harsh conditions of the planting site as well as two consecutive drought years are suspected to have contributed to mortality. Summer drought is becoming more common and must be considered while planning recovery activities, such as planting. Although mortality was 100%, monitoring of the site was critical to discover the seedlings had died and also evaluate what may have contributed to their death. This information will inform future limber pine planting initiatives in the region.
 
A big thank you goes out to the RMNat members who participated in the 2016 planting and 2018 monitoring events. Your efforts are aiding in the recovery of the endangered limber pine tree in BC.
 
Reference:
Pigott, D. and R. Moody. 2013. The Loneliest Pine. Limber Pine in British Columbia, Factsheet 2. Forest Genetics Council of BC. Available at: http://www.fgcouncil.bc.ca/LimberPine-BC-Factsheet2-April2013.pdf.

Summary to Date
16 April 2017

By Dianne Cooper

Introduction

Since the spring of 2015, four renewable energy companies started working towards developing utility-scale solar electricity generation facilities on Crown land in the East Kootenay.

Because greenhouse gasses are not a by-product of solar power production, solar is seen as part of the solution to transition us from a carbon-based economy to a greener one and help us lessen the negative impacts we have had on our biosphere. There is much support for renewable clean energy.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) has granted three companies the use of about 5,600 hectares of Crown land, all in the valley bottom, to investigate the feasibility of solar utilities.  But the B. C. Government does not have any policies regarding solar power development; they are using the criteria for wind power to make decisions on requests for Crown land. Yet, solar array facilities have vastly different requirements and impacts than wind power. They are comparable to hydro reservoirs in their land requirement. The ones proposed here on Crown land would likely be completely fenced in, making the land unavailable for any other use.  Their footprint maybe larger than the fenced area if safety and security buffer zones are required.

First, the renewable energy companies plan on placing monitoring equipment on the land to measure sunlight (even though this can be measured via satellite). During this exploratory phase, according to their application documents, they will begin to look at the environmental, social, and cultural concerns of these developments.  This phase, aside from the business aspects, will test regulatory requirements and efficiency of the B. C. Government and Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK); and it will reveal the public sentiment on solar development in British Columbia. All of these companies have extensive experience building other renewable energy facilities such as wind and run-of-river projects.

Land Grant Size

Approximately 5,600 hectares (56 km2, 2.2 sq. mi) of valley bottom Crown lands have been granted. How much land is 5,600 hectares?

• about the size of Richmond, west of Hwy 99
• more than Kelowna and Okanagan Mission combined
• almost as much as Northeast Calgary to 64th Ave NE, not including the airport
• a six km strip in Ottawa from the airport to the Parliament Buildings
• a bit less than all of Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, and Saanich south of McKenzie Ave, (including Ten Mile Point)

Let’s look at the Site C dam for comparison:

• Site C will remove 2,775 ha (6,860 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (Wikipedia).
• the surface area of the reservoir will be 9,330 ha according to Wikipedia (corrected: previous stated that 5,500 ha of river valley would be flooded, according to a CBC News online article)
  
• It will generate enough electricity to power 400,000 homes (CBC online article).

What about Lake Koocanusa?  How big is that?

• I could not readily find online how much land in Canada was flooded by the Libby Dam
• 1,922 ha were flooded in the U.S. (Google Book results of a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers paper on the impacts of the Libby Dam, 1971)
• Keep in mind that the East Kootenay has already sacrificed much bottomlands for power production – and is still receiving benefits through the Columbia Basin Trust

Of course, they don’t plan on covering ALL that land with photovoltaic (PV) panels.  To make 1 megawatt of electricity, enough for 200 homes, the Sun Mine in Kimberley, uses 8 hectares. So if all the Crown land granted were used for PV panels, 140,000 homes could be powered.  (Note that solar is less efficient than hydro).

Significant Area

The problem is with the location and type of land being sought and granted.  Almost all of the land granted is NOT on brownfield, such as the Sun Mine, but on ecologically valuable land in the valley bottom.  This land contains native grassland, a continentally endangered, globally significant ecosystem critical for several species at risk and many other species. It is critical winter range for our abundant big game populations. Much of this land and its species have already benefitted from habitat restoration paid for by the B. C. Government and organizations. Also, much is open rangeland for cattle, a viable and esteemed industry in the area run by ranchers, trying to do so in an environmentally considerate way.

One notable grant of 2,500 ha of Crown land is in an area designated as an Important Bird/Biodiversity Area (IBA). Skookumchuck Prairie IBA contains one percent of Canada’s population of Long-billed Curlew (SARA Special Concern, BC Blue-listed). It was officially recognized for its importance to curlew in the early 2000s by Bird Life International and is the only IBA in the East Kootenay at present.

Bird Life International is a global partnership of conservation groups working from the local level to the global level to help sustain all life on Earth. The criteria and data used for declaring an area as an IBA are internationally recognized and rigorous.  The aim is to protect a carefully chosen network of sites that are most critical for the survival of species at risk. All the species dependent on that land will benefit as well. There are over 12,000 IBAs worldwide including marine areas, and 325 in Canada and 85 in B. C. BC Nature oversees the IBA programme in British Columbia and supports the network of IBA caretakers. I am the caretaker of Skookumchuck Prairie IBA.  

Most of the time, the main Prairie, in the northwest section of the IBA, sits quietly unnoticed by humans as they drive by on Hwy 93/95 heading for the pulp mill or going between communities nestled in the Trench.  We see the deer, elk, and cattle and understand these larger creatures’ need for easier forage.  But also living here at various times of the year are the Long-billed Curlew, American Badger (SARA Endangered, B.C. Red-listed), and the Lewis’s Woodpecker (SARA Threatened, B.C. Blue-listed), as well as myriad other birds, animals, and plants forming this grassland community.

Most of the curlew habitat is not part of a solar grant. Half of it is actually on private land, not Crown. But one 59 ha field is totally within a Crown grant. It is home to at least one and likely two pairs of Long-billed Curlew.  This field is also designated as a Wildlife Habitat Area for the curlew and for the antelope brush / bunch grass ecosystem.

Also included in a solar grant is 1,500 ha of habitat suitable for Lewis’s Woodpecker. Most of this habitat was recreated through restoration and enhancement work started in 1987. Most recently, this work has been carried out by the Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society at significant cost to the B. C. Government and other funders.

Some people would see this open pine grassland as mere scrubland. Some would see it as ungulate winter range. And some would also see it as valuable valley bottom habitat. It is constantly under threat of development because there’s so little of it left to begin with and it’s a hospitable and beautiful place for humans as well. To the Lewis’s Woodpecker, these open fields with small groves and plenty of snags are paradise! The woodpeckers have begun to recolonize the area. Last year, in just two hours of driving through a small section of the restored lands, I found FOUR Lewis’s Woodpecker nests.

It is difficult to understand how the MFLNRO could allow this land to be part of a grant for renewable energy exploration. The Canadian Wildlife Service policy is that IF utility-scale solar power facilities go ahead on any of these lands, mitigation measures MUST be carried out for “identified wildlife”.  That is good, IF it can be done. But better yet, why consider locating these facilities on ecologically valuable land in the first place?

Other Ways of Doing It

At a recent presentation to the Regional District of East Kootenay, Michel de Spot of EcoSmart said “you don’t have to use green virgin land”.  EcoSmart was a partner in developing the Sun Mine in Kimberley, which is on reclaimed brownfield, the site of the former Sullivan Mine’s Concentrator.  EcoSmart is also partnering with the only company proposing a solar array on similar brownfield, a gravel quarry near Fort Steele.

Mr. de Spot gave examples of alternative locations for solar arrays that would have potentially less environmental impacts: mountainsides, floating on reservoirs, on fish ponds, on agricultural fields planted with sun-sensitive crops. He pointed out that communities themselves, such as the T’Sou-ke First Nation, can develop their own solar facilities. But actually, the technology for solar power production gives us another option: a decentralized power grid.  Mr. de Spot stated that eventually it will be cheaper to put solar panels on your roof than to purchase electricity from B. C. Hydro.  While we are waiting for that to happen, rather than first using brownfields and the like, is it time already to sacrifice more ecologically valuable land?

The former Sullivan Mine Concentrator site still has 4,000 ha of land available for solar. With a full build of PV panels that would be enough to produce 12,000 megawatts, said Mr. de Spot.

Application Details Part 1

At the beginning of this article, I stated that FOUR renewable energy companies were working on developing solar power in the Kootenays and that THREE have been granted Crown land.  More specifically, a total of TEN separate applications have been submitted to date.

The first one, by Node Engineering, was for a gravel quarry between Cranbrook and Fort Steele. (I mention the company names so you can Google them to see how big they are and what other renewable energy projects they do.) It was supported by the RDEK and approved by the Land Office (MFLNRO). The next application received was for parcels on Skookumchuck Prairie and around Wasa and Ta Ta Creek. The ears of stakeholder groups, long-familiar with the constant vigilance and effort required to preserve the bottom lands of the Trench, began to perk up. We know we are the line of first defence for this finite resource.

Aside – All British Columbians

The recurring narrative of our economic system, our geography, and our society, of which we are all long-familiar with, seems likely to play out again: development directed by for-profit companies, the imbalance in the distribution of our population between the lower mainland and the rest of the province seemingly pitting us against each other, yet all needing the same thing really – enough resources to live and prosper and a healthy environment in which to do it.

We here in the East Kootenay come at this issue, not just from the perspective of wanting to preserve the valley for ourselves. We are ALL its caretakers, for all the creatures that live here and for ALL the people of the Province. We have choices to make. Let us all ensure this development is directed appropriately, in scope as well as location.

The FIRST guideline for placement of solar arrays, recognized globally, is: avoid ecologically valuable land. The valley bottom is ecologically valuable. There are many other places to put PV panels. Do that first before gobbling up perfectly good land.

Application Details Part 2

But back to the Crown Land applications in the East Kootenay.
That second application, by Company 0885781 (Mark Green), the one on the IBA, started raising flags, not just perking ears, for local groups and their provincial associations. Comments expressing concern started to flow in. Some of them were from BC Nature, the Rocky Mountain Naturalists, the Kootenay Livestock Association and private individuals. Despite the land requested being on an Important Bird/Biodiversity Area, this grant was also supported by the RDEK and approved by the Lands Office.

The next five applications, from Innergex, were also supported and approved. But later, the Land Office realized overlapping grants were not allowed so Innergex voluntarily withdrew ONE of its applications with a parcel on the IBA. Another of its grants still has a parcel on the IBA.

Next, three more requests for Crown Land were made. These ones were by SB Holding Companies (01), (02), and (03), subsidiaries of Sea Breeze Power Corporation. One request was discovered to be for private land, so it was withdrawn. The other two requests triggered many more comments because of their location and size – over 2,000 ha each, again on ecologically valuable land and again on land with investments in habitat restoration and enhancement, just like Skookumchuck Prairie IBA. They were also closer to more populated areas and encompassed significant rangeland for cattle.

Commenters on these Sea Breeze applications were cattle ranchers, BC Nature, Kootenay Livestock Association, BC Back Country Hunters and Anglers, Wildsight, and individuals. Recipients of the comments were the Land Office, MFLNRO, B. C. Government Ministers, the Premier, local MLAs, and the RDEK.

Comments and Their Effect

What happens when people make comments? Who reads them? What are some of the results?

The Land Office says all comments are passed on to each proponent and they mush address each concern and issue raised.

Because there is no provincial policy regarding the development of solar arrays in B. C., the Land Office formed a Working Group to process the volume of comments and to interpret and modify the Wind Power policy and criteria (what they have to work with), for solar applications.  Guidelines they develop will not be official policy, said Land Officer Jessie Lunan, who also gave a presentation at the RDEK meeting (right after Mr. de Spot).
The Land Office has also made online access to solar applications easier by adding a category for solar in their database listing.

Ministry biologists created a checklist of environmental aspects to be addressed should these projects move to the next phase of development –  installing utility-scale solar power generating arrays. This checklist was passed on to the approved proponents so they are aware of some of the assessments and mitigations to be required.

The most significant apparent effect of the latest comments submitted was that the RDEK has reweighed the pros and cons of supporting utility-scale solar arrays on Crown Land in the East Kootenay. In their vote whether or not to support the Sea Breeze applications, the board was split 50/50 with no deciding voice.  As a result, and with refined consideration of the environmental and other impacts, the Land Office disallowed the Sea Breeze applications. In their “Reason for Decision” document, they said “The area selected is within an endangered grassland ecosystem which is being actively managed and restored”. They recognize it is critical habitat and an endangered ecosystem and that the need to fence off the facility would remove the land from wildlife use. And because any future solar energy facility would be “incompatible with protecting the grassland”, the project “is disallowed at this earliest stage”.

This decision is a positive sign that sensibility may prevail.

Education and Questions

In Penticton on 22 April 2017, a free symposium on alternate energy is being hosted by First Things First – Okanagan. http://firstthingsfirstokanagan.com/events/register/
Sessions on solar power focus on small-scale installations such as on existing or new buildings. Utility-scale solar development is not in the list of topics. Aside: One topic is “Harnessing Okanagan’s Wind Power” given by Gordon Muir who lists in his CV his experience with the Cape Scott wind farm, developed by Sea Breeze.

Small-scale solar seems to be gaining traction. But perhaps a lot of people don’t want to bother putting solar panels on their houses. It cost money, there are engineering and maintenance concerns, and what would be the benefit really? Electricity is still relatively cheap. Why not let commercial companies do the work, building arrays, maintaining them, negotiating with BC Hydro, and what not? What’s wrong with a few investors making some money? That’s how things work. Let them deal with the headaches, I just want to flick a switch and have my light bulbs light up.

And IS solar really that green? It seems greener than coal-generated electricity, but what if also factored in were the ecological footprint of extracting the materials for PV panels, manufacturing them, and transporting them to point of use? And what if the complete environmental cost of the solar farms themselves were factored in?  These costs would include habitat loss, mitigating impacts, to reclamation at the end of their life-span? Would solar still be profitable?

And look at all those wind farms being built. They have environmental impacts, too. Why shouldn’t we let solar come in too? Isn’t solar better than even hydro dams? It appears Site C, and maybe even Site E, will be built though the debate has been ongoing for decades. How successful are we likely to be redirecting a few PV panels away from good land?

What are the environmental impacts of solar arrays, anyway? How bad could they be? See a brief list of impacts and considerations below this article.
The whole valley bottom is American Badger habitat. It’s impossible to do anything without causing some effect on them.

And what is the big deal with 10 applications? Hundreds are in the works across the country.  Globally, 30,000 PV panels are being installed every hour, says the International Energy Agency, a collective, of which Canada is a member, working to “ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy” for its 29 country members.

Bottom Lines

It’s enough to drive one batty! Each of us must research and consider the answers for themselves. It seems obvious to me that there ARE more sensible places to put PV panels than on good land and we should do that first.

Even if we can’t or won’t, if we give these companies even just a millimetre, they’ll take a mile. This is demonstrated by the sequence of Crown land applications: first a small one on brownfield, second on an Important Bird/Biodiversity area and enhanced lands (ears perked), then a set of five on the IBA and other parcels of enhanced lands (red flag raised), then three requesting vast swaths of enhanced and ecologically sensitive lands (big “whoa” on that). Each request getting larger, impacting more of the ecologically valuable valley bottom ecosystem. They are exploring the limits of our tolerance for solar arrays on Crown land and the strength of our will to protect it, I believe. Their primary concern is profits, naturally, for themselves and their investors.

In our system, our culture, we still DO NOT account for all the environment costs of the products we consume nor of our activities. If we did, I believe considering ecologically valuable land for solar power production would be unimaginable. Let’s pretend “as if” we do! Let’s keep telling them where they can and cannot put solar arrays. Let’s see what happens.

We, here in the East Kootenay, have made a tiny but good start toward directing this technology appropriately.  There will be more applications coming though, no doubt, and in other parts of the province as well. Any British Columbian can submit comments, and KEEP submitting comments! … to Land Office, MFLNRO, the appropriate government Ministers and the Premier, local MLAs, the regional districts, and municipalities. Consider asking them to:

• identify places where solar arrays would have the least environmental impact
• Place a moratorium on solar array development until policies are developed
• Review the six Crown land grants already approved in the East Kootenay and consider rescinding them or modifying them based on the decision to disallow the Wycliffe and Galloway applications.
• Exclude the Skookumchuck Prairie IBA, endangered habitat, critical areas for species at risk, and restored or enhanced lands from investigations into the feasibility of solar power generation and any similar and further development proposals.

 
Some Environmental Impacts and Their Causes:
Causes:

• Clearing land and enclosing it with fences
• Access roads and power line construction and year-round usage of roads
• Position of this land relative to actively managed areas

Physical and Logistical concerns:

• Changes to runoff, snow regimes, spring melt, wind patterns, and temperatures
• Soil compaction and erosion
• Reflection off panels and noise from inverter cabins
• Further alteration of natural wildfire regimes
• Impediment of prescribed burning used for habitat enhancement in adjacent lands
• Invasive plant monitoring and control
• Fire protection in outlying areas

Impacts

• Removal of and damage to the endangered grassland ecosystem impacting all species living there
• Further fragmentation of American Badger (SARA Endangered, BC Red-listed) habitat
• Further damage to the dry grasslands’ microbiotic crust, which takes decades to regrow
• Removal of ungulate winter range impacting their populations
• Population changes of riparian insects attracted by polarized light with further impacts to their fish prey
• Loss of open rangeland impacting cattle ranchers’ livelihood

2016 Bluebird Nesting Results - Marianne Nahm
Nestboxes available - 320 boxes
Nestboxes used -  286 boxes
Used by Western Bluebirds - 153 boxes, 977 eggs, 791 hatched, 711 fledged
Used by Mountain Bluebirds - 55 boxes, 304 eggs , 199 hatched, 184 fledged
Used by Tree Swallows - 104 boxes, 587 eggs, 526 hatched, 425 fledged
Used by House Wrens - 1 box, 6 eggs, 4 hatched, 4 fledged
Used by Mtn. Chickadees - 2 boxes, 13 eggs, 12 hatched, 12 fledged

This year we had 16 active routes with 20 + active volunteer monitors.
 
There are several long routes that I am splitting into smaller sections so that there is less of a time commitment and more people can become involved. Please let me know if you are interested in a route so that we could go out together several times to get you started. It is a very interesting, rewarding activity which involves a box check and clean-out in early April with the first monitoring beginning about the third week in May. It is necessary to go out every one and a half to two weeks until the beginning of August to monitor and record observations.
Please contact me if you are interested in learning more about this opportunity. Marianne Nahm (via Comments below) 


2016 Membership Report - Susan Ross
At the end of 2015 there were; 37 single 26 family = 63 total memberships.
At the end of 2016 there were; 39 single 45 family = 84 total memberships.
2017 Rocky Mountain Naturalists memberships are now due;
$20.00 Single
$25.00 Family
Of last year’s members we have had 40 pay their 2017 membership dues.
Memberships can be paid at the next Rocky Mountain Naturalists meeting on January 18th. *Along with the signed waiver form.
Or sent to;
​Rocky Mountain Naturalists PO Box 791
Cranbrook, B.C.
V1C 4J5 


Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society Report
January 2017 - Jo Ellen Floer
Two regular meetings and one field day meeting were held in 2017.
One of the main discussion topics at the November 18th meeting were the solar panel applications. The majority of the proposals are on lands already treated for ecosystem restoration through the Society. As the Trench society is made up of member organizations, each organization was encouraged to comment on the proposals rather than just submit input from the Society. Dianne Cooper submitted a report on behalf of the Naturalists.
The Society is pushing the RDEK to start enforcing the Weed Control Act on Private land. The RDEK is going to develop an enforcement policy matrix and provide information on approaches to enforcement. That has not been provided to the Trench Society yet but the RDEK has replied with “Please direct any inquiries or report properties of concern to Jamie Davies, Recreation and Control Services Supervisor. He can be reached at 250-489-2791 or by email at [email protected] “. Consider this approach if you know of lands with weed concerns.
The Society also met with two representatives of the BC Wildfire Service (formerly BC Wildfire Management Branch) to discuss issues around prescribed burning and how to have more burns in the trench. They are aware that a ‘natural’ state is a more resilient state. While there is funding and the ability to carry out the initial treatments, the maintenance is not being done. The society has requested that the maintenance be written into the original prescriptions so treatment areas remain in a ‘natural’ state.


2015 / 2016 - Turtle Monitoring Report - Greg Ross
2015
Nests found during monitoring = 58 Nests found in the Spring = 4
Total nests recorded = 62

Spring of 2016
Total eggs laid in 2015 = 718
Dead Eggs = 137
Dead Turtles – 49
Live Turtles in nest = 111
Turtles that emerged on their own = 421
Total live hatched turtles in 2016 = 532

2016
Nests found during monitoring = 83
Nests on top on previous nest = 2
Fall Emergent Nests found = 4
Total nests recorded = 89

Spring of 2017
Total eggs laid in 2016 = ?
Dead Eggs = ?
Dead Turtles = ?
Live Turtles in nest =
Turtles that emerged on their own = ?
Total live hatched turtles in 2017 = ? 

ELIZABETH LAKE REPORT - Stewart Wilson
1.  The City of Cranbrook upgraded washrooms at Visitor Centre during summer.
2.  300 metres of trails were added during summer. Volunteers prepared posts (360 posts cost $3000), and Bottle Bar Contracting carried out trail work at cost of $9000. 
3.  There is a grant of $2500 to use for signs. Daryl and the Sign Committee are working on having signs ready for spring 2017.
4.  Volunteers did weed pull by the trails in August.
5.  Volunteers tidied up or removed old posts by trails in the fall. 
6.  Katrin devised a trail survey to provide feedback from public and received 10 responses.
7.  Following the November meeting Myra spoke to an interested group about a proposed project to determine how terrestrial area of Elizabeth Lake can be restored and enhanced. Plan is to apply for Eco-Action funding in 2017.
8.  Greg continued to monitor turtles.
9. In April there was a successful Turtle Day. RMN members were in attendance.
10. Elizabeth Lake proved popular with classes from Gordon Terrace,TM Roberts and Parkland.
11.  Birders spent many Wednesday mornings at Elizabeth Lake.


​RMN Christmas Bird Counts report - Dianne Cooper
The 117th annual Christmas Bird Counts were conducted successfully on 28 December for Cranbrook and 4 January for Kimberley.  Dianne assumed organizing and compiling from Greg and Sue Ross.  The Ross’ took over from Anni Coulter and Mildred White in 1991 (I believe), initiating the count as an official Audubon Christmas Bird Count. Thank you for enthusiastically doing such a great job for 25 years, promoting the count, encouraging people to participate, hosting the count up many times, and much more.
Field observers numbered 15 for each count – not the same people – with some coming from Fernie and Wardner.  Cranbrook had 10 feeder counters and Kimberley had 6.
Each count had enough people this year to divide into the usual 4 teams to cover each of the four usual quadrants of the 24 km-in-diameter circle. Cranbrook sectors are Town-New Lake, Mission Wycliffe, Gold Creek, and Lumberton-Moyie.  Kimberley’s sectors are Town, the Northwest-Meadowbrook, Wasa and Wycliffe.
Cranbrook got 42 species on count day which was average; and Kimberley got 43 species which was above average for Kimberley. The highlights for the Cranbrook count include the following: the first record on a CBC for Northern Shoveler – four had been at the sewage lagoon since at least the end of October.  The highest number of Mallards ever were counted – the City ban on feeding them at the Mall seems to have had the opposite effect on their population or at least made them more visible on count day.  This year saw a flip in the ratio of American Crow to Common Raven in Cranbrook – usually there are more Ravens than Crows, but the opposite was recorded this year.  It was disappointing to miss Pine Grosbeak and White-winged Crossbill on the count after last year’s higher numbers for them.
The highlights for the Kimberley count include the following:  everyone survived the -32 C starting temperature.  Eurasian Collared-Dove numbers are increasing slowly since their first appearance in the area around 6 years ago – 18 were recorded.  Bald Eagles, Pileated Woodpecker and House Finches were at an all-time high.  A good number of American Goldfinch were recorded.
Both counts got good numbers of chickadees, except Chestnut-backed, perhaps the lower temperatures make them more evident at feeders.
Count week species – seen three days before, or three days after count day – turned up some very nice species: Varied Thrush, Pygmy Nuthatch, and a Common Redpoll for Cranbrook.  Yes, it was an off-year for most of the “winter finch” species, except for House Finch.

With the aid of money raised from the spring Little Big Day birding competition in 2015, members of the Rocky Mountain Naturalists were able to build two multi-chamber (nursery) bat boxes to be placed at Elizabeth Lake. 

At the same time we were able to build boxes for ourselves to be placed in our own neighbourhoods in early spring.  With great cooperation, and a great shop, thanks to Ron and Leslia, we were able to complete sixteen boxes over the weekend.

The decision to build these boxes came after an enlightening presentation by Cathy Conroy (Kootenay Community Bat Project) at one of our meetings.
"From horror movies to health warnings, societal attitudes about bats are typically extremely negative. Many people view bats as being ugly, scary, nasty little creatures that are harmful blood-sucking pests.
Both this type of public attitude, and limited available habitat that is under threat in BC, have contributed to the general decline of bat populations around the world. Subsequently many of our bat species are listed as vulnerable or threatened (Red- and Blue-listed)."
There are 16 species of bats in BC.

There are thought to be 11 species of bats in the East Kootenay including:
Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Silver-haired bat
Yuma bat
California bat
Little brown myotis
Northern myotis
Long-legged bat
Townsend's big-eared bat
Long-eared bat
Fringed bat