Norway pharmacy online: Kjøp av viagra uten resept i Norge på nett.

Jeg har selv prøvd dette kamagra Det er billig og fungerer egentlig, jeg likte det) kjøp propecia Ikke prøvd, men du kan eksperimentere med... Hvordan føler du deg, følsomhet etter konsumere piller?.

Microsoft word - 2 kin_arr reveg mp - annual report - final.doc

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan

Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation
Management Plan
Monitoring Program and Physical Works
Annual Report: 2012
Implementation Period: February 2011 to January 2012

CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and
Vegetation Composition Analysis
CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources
CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket
Reservoir
CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife
Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir
CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and
Vegetation Composition Analysis
CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area
CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources
CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation
CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works
CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works
Conditional Water Licences for Kinbasket storage (27068 and 39432), Mica
diversion (39431), Revelstoke diversion and storage (47215), and Arrow storage
(27066)

February 29, 2012
Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 BC Hydro Columbia River Project Water Use Plan
Kinbasket & Arrow Reservoir Revegetation Management Plan
Annual Report: 2012
1 Introduction
This document represents a summary of the status and the results of monitoring programs and physical works under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) to January 31, 2012, as per the Columbia River Order under the Water Act, dated January 26, 2007. There are eight monitoring programs and two physical works included within this Management Plan:  CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and  CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources  CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket  CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir  CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and  CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area  CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources  CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation  CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works  CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works 2 Background
The water use planning process for BC Hydro’s Columbia River project was initiated in August 2000 and completed in June 2004. The conditions proposed in the WUP for the operation of the project reflect the June 2004 consensus recommendations of the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee (CC). In July 2006, the Columbia River Draft WUP was submitted to the Comptroller of Water Rights (CWR). The draft WUP was sent out to regulatory agencies, First Nations and interested stakeholders for review. In January 2007, the CWR approved the final WUP and issued an Order to BC Hydro to implement the conditions proposed in the Columbia River WUP and prepare the monitoring programs and physical works Terms of Reference (TOR). Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 An addendum to the Columbia River WUP was submitted to the CWR in July 2007 after an Environmental Assessment Certificate was issued for the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project. The addendum proposes additional terms and conditions for the Columbia River WUP, as recommended by the Revelstoke Unit 5 Core Committee in December 2006, to address incremental impacts of the operation of the fifth generating unit at Revelstoke Dam. In August 2007, the CWR accepted the Columbia River Project WUP Addendum resulting from the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project, and issued amendments to the Columbia River Implementation Order to include the commitments made by BC Hydro to undertake additional monitoring programs and physical works associated with the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project. An addendum to the Columbia River WUP was submitted to the CWR in April 2010 resulting from Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6. Environmental assessment certificates were issued for the addition of the two units. In August 2010, the CWR accepted the Columbia River Project WUP Addendum resulting from the Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6, and issued amendments to the Columbia River Implementation Order to include the commitments made by BC Hydro to undertake additional monitoring programs associated with the Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6. The following terms of reference related to these amendments will be submitted in 2012: CLBMON-57 (an addendum to extend CLBMON 10 an additional year). The following table outlines the dates that Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan TOR have been submitted to, and approved by the CWR. Most Recent ToR
Original ToR Submission
Resubmission
Monitoring Program TOR
Order Clause
Submitted
Approved
Submitted
Approved
CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Most Recent ToR
Original ToR Submission
Resubmission
Monitoring Program TOR
Order Clause
Submitted
Approved
Submitted
Approved
As outlined in the Columbia River WUP, the Consultative Committee recommended a full review of the Columbia River Water Use Plan 13 years after implementation, unless results of the monitoring program suggest an earlier review is appropriate or significant risks are identified that could result in a recommendation to change operations. BC Hydro will convene a multi-party panel five years after commencing the implementation of this WUP to evaluate the effectiveness of operations and physical works in meeting the stated objectives for Arrow Lakes Reservoir and the lower Columbia River. The outcomes from this process will be used to assess any potential need to review the Arrow Lakes Reservoir component of this WUP. If a replacement Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA) is negotiated within this 5-year period, it is also recommended that agreement provisions and implications be reported out through this panel. Signing of a new NTSA is not a trigger for panel evaluation or a review of this Water Use Plan recommendation to change operations. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 The following table (Table 3-1) outlines the schedule for implementing the monitoring programs and physical works being delivered under the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan. Table 3-1:
Status and Schedule of Columbia River WUP Monitoring Programs and Physical
Works Implementation under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs
Revegetation Management Plan

Monitoring Programs
CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectivenss Monitoring of CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectivenss Monitoring of Revegetation in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response Physical Works
CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation = Program to be undertaken/initiated in identified year = Program started, but encountered operational or hydrological delays Columbia River Project WUP Monitoring Programs - Kinbasket & Arrow
Lakes Revegetation Management Plan

This section summarizes the status of the monitoring programs being implemented under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan, as per the Order under the Water Act, dated January 26, 2007. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and
Vegetation Composition Analysis

4.1.1 Management
Questions
The management questions for this monitoring program address the intra-community response of existing vegetation in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir to the continued implementation of the operating regime at the local (site) level. For re-vegetated areas, the management questions will address whether the continued implementation of the current reservoir operating regime allows for the establishment and expansion of vegetation at site level through a revegetation program in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. 4.1.2 Existing
Vegetation
Primary management questions for existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate1) are:  What is the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone?  What is the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone?  How does the current operating regime affect the within-community quality and quantity (i.e., species cover, abundance, biomass, diversity and distribution within existing communities) of existing vegetation?  Is there a shift in community structure (e.g., species dominance) or a potential loss of existing vegetated communities that is attributable to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation)?  What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of existing plant species to inundation)?  What recommendations can be made to more effectively maintain existing vegetation at the site level in the future? 4.1.3 Re-vegetated
Primary management questions for re-vegetated areas are in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate):  What is the quality and quantity of vegetation in re-vegetated areas between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate) compared to untreated areas, based on an assessment of species distribution, diversity, vigour, abundance, biomass and cover? 1 Locations suitable for successful establishment and development of vegetation communities are tied to the average reservoir level and currently occupy a zone in the upper elevations of the reservoir, above 741 m. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012  What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of re-vegetated plant communities to inundation timing, frequency, duration and depth)?  What environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation), may limit or improve the restoration and expansion of vegetation communities in the drawdown zone?  What is the relative effectiveness of the different revegetation treatments, as applied through CLBWORKS-1, at increasing the quality and quantity of vegetation in the drawdown zone?  Does implementation of the revegetation program result in greater benefits (e.g., larger vegetated areas, more productive vegetation) than those that could be achieved through natural colonization alone?  Is there an opportunity to modify operations to more effectively maintain re- vegetated communities at the landscape and site level in the future? 4.1.4 Overview
The Columbia River Project WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to ensure that the revegetation efforts were providing the intended environmental and social benefits over the long term. Given the considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of inundation on riparian and wetland environments, the WUP CC recognized that a monitoring program would be required to assess selected treatment techniques applied under the revegetation program, and to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation efforts. The monitoring program was to focus on those components of the operating regime assumed to drive vegetation establishment (i.e., inundation depth, duration and timing) by imposing wet stress or dry stress over a defined period of time. This monitoring program focuses on monitoring existing vegetation and revegetated areas at the site (local) scale. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) Define and map the boundaries of the study area and define the biophysical and management strata that will structure the sampling methodology and analysis strategy for monitoring existing vegetation communities. 2) Document within-community responses (through monitoring of species cover, distribution, diversity, vigour, biomass and abundance) of existing vegetation communities to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime, through a plot-based assessment. 3) Assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program at expanding the quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) and quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) of vegetation in the drawdown zone under the current operating conditions (i.e., timing, frequency, depth and duration of inundation) over a 10-year period. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 4) Assess the response of revegetated communities and their species assemblages to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., inundation timing, frequency, depth and duration) through plot-based monitoring at the site level over a 10-year period. 5) Maintain a data collection and management database for the period of the These objectives will be addressed by assessing the specified response variables at sample sites, stratified by primary topographic and biophysical criteria, under the various treatment options relative to control sites (areas of naturally established vegetation and barren sites). Vegetation responses will be monitored over a range of geographic areas within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir based on locations selected for treatment and control under the Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program. 1) Determining the species composition (i.e., diversity, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities to identify species that have been successfully surviving long-term inundation; 2) Evaluating the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone; 3) Monitoring the response of existing vegetation communities at the local (site) level to the continued implementation of the operating regime for Kinbasket Reservoir and other environmental variables; 4) Assessing the long-term effectiveness of the revegetation program at expanding the quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) and quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) of vegetation in the drawdown zone for ecological and social benefits; and, 5) Assessing the costs and benefits of the revegetation prescriptions applied under the Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program by monitoring the response of revegetated communities to different treatments in the drawdown zone of the reservoir. 4.1.5 Status
This monitoring program was initiated in April 2008 and is being carried out bi-annually over 10 years from 2008 until 2017; 2011 was the third year of field work. The draft report was submitted in December 2011. 4.1.6 Interpretation of Data
CLBMON-9 consists of two components: the "existing vegetation" component is designed to monitor changes in local plant communities in the existing drawdown zone. The “revegetation monitoring” component tests hypotheses about the effectiveness of revegetation efforts being implemented under the revegetation Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 program (CLBWORKS -1). The study collects a time series of observations, and strong inferences will only be made after several years of data collection. Although the existing vegetation was assessed, the third year of the study focused mostly on assessing the effectiveness of revegetation efforts. Existing Vegetation. Most combinations of geographic region, elevation, vegetation
community types and revegetation prescriptions in the north and south ends of the
reservoir were sampled in 2011. The 753-754 m elevation band was inundated
during 22% of the growing season in 2011; this is the second longest duration of
inundation in that band since 1999 (2007 being the longest, at 30%). There is not
enough data to link any effect of reservoir operations to any change in vegetation
communities in the drawdown zone.
There was little or no change in vegetation characteristics (species richness, diversity, cover) over the last four years (2008-2011). As was the case in 2008, plots in the south end of the reservoir had a slightly higher average total cover than plots in the central and north portions of the reservoir. Species richness, diversity, and evenness did not differ among the three regions. There was no detectable effect of elevation on vegetation characteristics. Revegetated Areas. There were no effects of revegetation treatments, as neither
per cent cover of vegetation, plant species diversity, nor plant species richness
differed significantly from control sites. Treated plots experienced large-scale
mortality over the first two years following planting, with fewer than 40 per cent of
sedge plugs alive after two growing seasons. This could not be attributed to any
effect of soil or nutrients, as analyses did not show any differences between
treatment and control plots. These results indicate that thus far CLBWORKS-1 is
failing to meet the stated objectives, and corrective action is referenced in
Section 5.1.2.
CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources
4.2.1 Management
Questions
The primary management questions to be addressed by the Kinbasket Reservoir Vegetation Inventory program are:  What are the existing riparian and wetland vegetation communities in the Kinbasket Reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate2)?  What are the spatial extents, structure and composition (i.e., relative distribution and diversity) of these communities within the drawdown zone between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate2)?  How do spatial extent, structure and composition of vegetation communities relate to reservoir elevation and topo-edaphic site conditions (aspect, slope, soil moisture, etc.)? 2 Locations suitable for successful establishment and development of vegetation communities are tied to the average reservoir level and currently occupy a zone in the upper elevations of the reservoir, above 741 m. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012  Does the current operating regime of Kinbasket Reservoir maintain the spatial extent, structure and composition of existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone?  Are there operational changes that can be implemented to maintain existing vegetation communities at the landscape scale more effectively? If results of the monitoring indicate that the operating regime does not adequately maintain the vegetation communities and their associated fauna at the landscape level, future decisions regarding reservoir operations may be affected, because of the high value placed on vegetated shorelines by many interest groups. The information gained through the inventory is also intended to assist in determining the scope of the KIN Revegetation Program Physical Works (CLBWORKS-1) by informing on whether existing vegetated areas can be enhanced and expanded under the present operating regime. 4.2.2 Overview
During the Columbia WUP process, the WUP CC made several assumptions regarding vegetation tolerances to inundation and responses to changes in the hydrologic pattern, based on information gained from studies in Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Given differences in the elevation, climate and operating regime of the two reservoirs, the WUP CC recognized the inherent uncertainties of any assumptions related to the response of vegetation to reservoir operating conditions, and acknowledged the importance of long-term data collection for assessing the effects of the operating regime on vegetation at different spatial scales. The Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources monitoring program will address key uncertainties related to the relative contribution and importance of the current reservoir operating regime (i.e., timing, duration and depth of inundation, and multi-year stresses) on the maintenance of existing vegetation communities delineated at the landscape scale. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) Identify and spatially delineate existing riparian and wetland vegetation 2) Measure the spatial extent, structure and composition (i.e. distribution and diversity) of the communities in the drawdown zone at repeated time intervals over a 10-year period; 3) Assess whether there are changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone over the monitoring period; 4) Assess whether observed changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition are attributable to the current operating regime of the reservoir; and, Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 5) Provide information on the effectiveness of the current operating regime at maintaining the existing spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone. These objectives will be addressed through a landscape level analysis of vegetation community changes over time in response to the current operating regime of Kinbasket Reservoir. This monitoring program involves evaluating changes in the existing vegetation communities in the reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 741 m and 754 m, using a combination of aerial photographic interpretation at 1:5,000 scale, and field measurements of biomonitoring transects. 4.2.3 Status
This monitoring program was initiated in June 2007 and commenced bi-annual implementation in 2008. The study implemented its third year of monitoring in April 2010, and the last annual program report was delivered in December 2010. The study will commence its fourth year of monitoring in April 2012, and the next program report is expected in December 2012. 4.2.4 Interpretation of Data
There are no additional data to interpret at this time. CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket
Reservoir

4.3.1 Management
Questions
This monitoring program is designed to address key management questions relating to the effectiveness of the revegetation program at improving wildlife habitat in the Kinbasket Reservoir. To assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program at meeting the CC wildlife objectives, this monitoring study will focus on how effectively the revegetation program enhances amphibian habitat, bird habitat, small mammal habitat, and ungulate habitat. In addition, this monitoring program will assess the impact of revegetation efforts on the abundance of arthropods, which are a fundamental component of the food chain, particularly for birds, amphibians, and several species of small mammals The primary management questions to be addressed by the monitoring program are:  How effective is the revegetation program at enhancing and increasing the utilization of habitat in the drawdown zone by wildlife such as amphibians, birds, small mammals, and ungulates?  To what extent does revegetation increase the availability of invertebrate prey (e.g., arthropods) in the food chain for birds, amphibians and small mammals? Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012  Are revegetation efforts negatively impacting wildlife in the drawdown zone? For example, does revegetation increase the incidence of nest mortality in birds or create sink habitat for amphibians?  Which methods of revegetation are most effective at enhancing and increasing the utilization of wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone? 4.3.2 Overview
The WUP CC supported reservoir-wide revegetation in the Kinbasket Reservoir to increase vegetation growth in the drawdown zones in lieu of maintaining lower reservoir levels. One of the primary objectives of the revegetation program is to provide benefits to wildlife through increased habitat diversity. In association with the revegetation program, the WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to ensure that the revegetation program provides the intended environmental benefits. The rationale for the monitoring program is to assess the effectiveness of revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir at enhancing wildlife habitat by monitoring wildlife utilization patterns of revegetated habitats in the drawdown zone. The CC recommended collection of baseline data in Years 1 and 2, followed by monitoring every other year. In Years 5 and 10, results from this study will be evaluated to assess how effectively the revegetation program is enhancing wildlife habitat. 1) Develop an effectiveness monitoring program to assess the success of revegetation program in Kinbasket Reservoir at increasing wildlife utilization of the drawdown zone and assess the potential effects of revegetation on wildlife populations. 2) Monitor wildlife indicator taxa to assess the effects of revegetating the drawdown zone on those taxa and their utilization of drawdown habitat in Kinbasket Reservoir. The proposed monitoring indicators3 include: d. Avian nest mortality e. Amphibian and reptiles 3) Assess how effective the revegetation efforts are at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone between 741 m and 754 m elevation. 3 d and e are monitored separately under CLBMON-36: Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Nest Mortality of Migratory Birds and CLBMON-37: Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 4) Report and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of the revegetation program at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone in Years 5 and 10 (2012 and 2018, respectively). 4.3.3 Status
This monitoring program was initiated in May 2008 and will be carried out over 11 years. Sampling occurred for the third year from June through July, 2010. A draft report was produced in April 2011. The final report was provided in June 2011. Due to remissions cap constraints in CY2012, this monitoring program is not implementing in 2012, pending approval from the Water Comptroller. 4.3.4 Interpretation of Data
Sites were sampled in two regions of Kinbasket Reservoir: Canoe Reach and Bush Arm. At each site, sampling was conducted along three transects (treatment, control and local reference). Data were collected on seasonal ungulate use (pellet surveys), small mammal abundance and diversity (mark recapture), and terrestrial arthropod biomass, abundance and diversity (Malaise traps). As in 2010, ungulates were more abundant in Bush Arm than in Canoe Reach (based on pellet counts) and they used the drawdown zone differentially: moose preferred the area above the drawdown zone whereas deer pellets were more common in reference transects adjacent to and above the drawdown zone. There were eight species of small mammals caught, the most abundant species of which was deer mice (95% of captures), as in the previous year. There was a slight trend for them to be more abundant in treatment transects. Terrestrial arthropods biomass was generally higher in control than in treatment transects, and highest in the upper portion of the drawdown zone. It is not yet possible to make any conclusions about the effectiveness of the revegetation program in enhancing wildlife habitats in the drawdown zone. There were however some positive signs: small mammal captures increased in revegetated transects, moose and deer pellets were observed for the first time in treatment transects in Bush Arm, and arthropod biomass was highest in drawdown zone transects containing the most vegetation. CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife
Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir

4.4.1 Management
Questions
This monitoring program is designed to assess the effectiveness of enhancing wildlife habitat through the revegetation program and wildlife physical works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The monitoring program will evaluate the response of several wildlife taxa and habitat elements to wildlife habitat enhancements. The findings of this study will help improve the effectiveness of revegetation and physical Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 works projects through an adaptive management approach. The primary management questions to be addressed by the monitoring program are:  Are the revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects effective at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone? o To what extent do the revegetation program and the wildlife physical works projects increase the productivity of habitat in the drawdown zone for wildlife? o Are some methods or techniques more effective than others at enhancing 4.4.2 Overview
The WUP CC supported reservoir-wide revegetation and wildlife physical works to enhance wildlife habitat in drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In association with these programs, the WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation and wildlife physical works in Arrow Lakes Reservoir by monitoring wildlife utilization patterns of revegetated and enhanced habitats in the drawdown zone. The CC recommended collection of baseline data in Years 1 and 2, followed by monitoring every other year. In Years 5 and 10, results from this study and related studies will be evaluated to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program. 1) Develop an effectiveness monitoring program to assess the success of the revegetation and wildlife physical works programs in Arrow Lakes Reservoir at increasing wildlife utilization of the drawdown zone and assess the potential effects of revegetation on wildlife populations. 2) Monitor wildlife indicator taxa to assess the effects of the revegetation and the wildlife physical works on those taxa and their utilization of drawdown zone habitat in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. 3) Report and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of the revegetation and wildlife physical works at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone in Years 5 and 10. CLBMON-11B seeks to assess (i) the effectiveness of the revegetation program (CLBWORKS-2) at improving habitat for wildlife, (ii) the effectiveness of wildlife physical works in Revelstoke Reach, and (iii) the effectiveness of wildlife physical works in the mid and lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir. As these programs are being implemented at different temporal and spatial scales and may target different suites of species, CLBMON-11B is being delivered as four separate monitoring programs (CLBMON-11B1, 11B2, 11B3 and 11B4). In addition to these monitoring programs, the effectiveness monitoring of the revegetation and wildlife physical works has also been incorporated into some of the wildlife monitoring programs currently underway, Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 including CLBMON-36, CLBMON-37 and CLBMON-40. These monitoring programs, as well as the four studies discussed under CLBMON-11B, will provide recommendations for improving habitat enhancement efforts and may identify additional opportunities for revegetation and wildlife physical works to enhance wildlife habitat. 4.4.3 Status
CLBMON-11B is being delivered under the following four monitoring studies. 1) CLBMON11-B1 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for the Lower and Mid Arrow Lakes Reservoir. This monitoring program was initiated in May 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. Fieldwork was carried out between April and September, 2010. Aerial ungulate surveys were completed in February 2011. The draft report was submitted in March 2011. A sampling protocol detailing the sampling methodology was prepared in June 2009 and was updated in 2010. The preparation of wildlife enhancement treatment options under CLBWORKS-29B was incorporated into the delivery of this project (CLBMON-11B1). Several potential projects identified in the annual report have been presented to BC Hydro, the Ministry of Environment (MoE), and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) for preliminary input. 2) CLBMON-11B2 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works on Spring Migrants in Revelstoke Reach. This monitoring program was initiated in May 2009 and will be carried out over 10 years. Field work was conducted between April and June, 2010. An annual progress report was received in November 2011. A sampling protocol detailing the sampling methodology was prepared in October 2009 and updated in 2010. 3) CLBMON-11B3: Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Western Painted Turtles in This monitoring program was initiated in the fall of 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. Thompson Rivers University carried out a two-year preliminary assessment of the painted turtle population in Revelstoke Reach, involving identification of opportunities for enhancing painted turtles habitat, and design of a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of habitat enhancement for painted turtles. A sampling protocol was completed in March 2010 and a literature review completed in April 2010. 4) CLBMON-11B4 Wetland Effectiveness Monitoring for Wildlife Physical Works This monitoring program was initiated in June 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. A biophysical reconnaissance of proposed project sites was conducted in May and June 2010 and a draft of a monitoring plan was provided in December 2010. The monitoring plan was finalized in April 2011. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 4.4.4 Interpretation of Data
1) CLBMON-11B1 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for the lower and mid Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In 2009, a multi-year study was initiated to:  Identify wildlife habitat for potential enhancement or protection in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir;  Monitor the effectiveness of the revegetation program (CLBWORKS-2) in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir;  Establish baseline monitoring to monitor the effectiveness of the wildlife physical works (CLBWORKS-30) in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Following the sampling plan developed in 2009, field surveys of songbirds, terrestrial arthropods and mammals were first conducted in 2010. The 2011 field season is thus the second full year of monitoring. Options for wildlife enhancement strategies (CLBWORKS-29B) were also submitted as a stand-alone report in 2011; that report provides prescriptions to improve wildlife habitat in and immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone of mid- and lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The field work was conducted between May and September, 2011. Sites were categorized as treatment (revegetation prescriptions), reference (drawdown zone, untreated) and control (upland). Mean temperatures were similar to those of 2010, but precipitations were lower. Reservoir elevations were on average 20 cm higher than in 2010. Arthropods were sampled with Malaise traps, light and primarily with pitfall traps. Their diversity was highest in reference sites but their overall abundance did not differ between drawdown and upland sites. Arthropod biomass in 2011 was slightly lower than in 2010. There were more songbird detections and species recorded in 2011 than in previous years (5,000 vs. 3800 in 2010; 121 species vs.116 in 2010), for the same effort than in 2010. The species assemblages were similar to 2010 and were associated with either the drawdown zone or upland reference habitats. There was no relationship between the biomass of arthropods or the relative abundance of songbirds and revegetation prescriptions in the drawdown zone. Terrestrial mammal signs from 10 species were documented in 2011, as compared to 16 in 2010. As in the previous year, the most commonly encountered signs were from White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Elk (Cervus canadensis) and Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Ungulate use of the drawdown zone was not related to revegetated areas. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Bat detections (using ultrasonic bat detectors) resulted in ten species records (there were nine in 2010).There were no relation between bat detections and revegetation prescriptions. Physical works will be carried at three sites under CLBWORKS-30 and enhancement prescriptions will follow those presented in CLBWORKS-29B. 2) CLBMON-11B2 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works on Spring Migrants in Revelstoke Reach. In 2009, BC Hydro initiated CLBMON-11B2 to monitor effectiveness of revegetation and wildlife physical works (CLBWORKS-2 and CLBWORKS-30) in Revelstoke Reach to improve riparian habitat for spring migrants. The program is designed to monitor the effectiveness of the above physical works with respect to their success in improving spring habitat for migrant songbirds in Revelstoke Reach. Although the projects currently planned (CLBWORKS-29B) are not specifically designed to enhance habitat for songbirds, revegetation should provide benefits to migrating birds, and direction was provided in the WUP to enhance riparian habitat for these birds. This year (2011) was the third year of monitoring. Spring migrant birds were surveyed weekly for seven consecutive weeks at fixed 2500 m2 plots in revegetation treatment and random plots. At the wildlife physical works Site WPW-6A near Machete Island, a project designed to control the erosion of wetland and grass meadow habitat, 186 birds from seven species were detected from four permanent plots (compared to 125 birds and 24 species in 2010). The results to date suggest that habitat manipulations at WPW6A is unlikely to have significant negative effects on migrating songbirds . At the wildlife physical works site WPW-14 and WPW-15A in Cartier Bay, 997 birds from two species were detected (compared to174 birds from nine species in 2010). American pipit (99%) and savannah sparrow (1%) were the most common species, as in the previous year. Reservoir operations had no influence on bird use in 2011. There was evidence that migrating songbirds may have been selecting treated plots over control plots. Shrub and tree habitats were used more than unvegetated and grassland plots; wetland habitats received intermediate levels of use. The 2011 season was the last year that spring migration monitoring in Revelstoke Reach was conducted under CLBMON-11B. Spring migration monitoring in Revelstoke Reach will continue as part of the CLBMON-39 project, which will monitor songbird migrations in both spring and fall. Western Painted Turtles are the only native freshwater turtle in British Columbia. The species is provincially blue listed and is a SARA Schedule 1 Species of Special Concern. A northern population of Western Painted Turtles resides in the Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Upper Arrow Lakes Reservoir, near Revelstoke, British Columbia. In 2009, a Painted Turtle study was initiated to assess the effects of reservoir operations on painted turtles and monitor the effectiveness of revegetation and wildlife physical works. The study was delivered by Thompson Rivers University in 2010 and 2011. A number of techniques were employed including visual surveys, mark-recapture, radio telemetry, and environmental monitoring (e.g., temperature) to determine turtles distribution, abundance, productivity, population demographics, and habitat use. A total of 203 individual turtles (all age classes and sizes) were captured alive during the pilot project, providing a population estimate of 242 turtles in the study area. Adult females were over-represented in both 2010 and 2011 samples. This bias may be an effect caused by hand captures, although female biased populations have been observed elsewhere. Six nesting locations were identified: Airport, Firebase, along the road at Montana Slough and Nichol Road, Williamson Lake and Turtle Pond. All nesting locations identified to date are located above the drawdown zone of the reservoir and all sites are anthropogenic in origin. A total of 41 turtles (29 female, 10 males, 1 female juvenile, and 1 unknown juvenile) were outfitted with VHF radio transmitters during the two years. Telemetry revealed that turtles moved between the two principal study sites in the reservoir, and between ponds upland of the reservoir. At least one turtle moved as far south as 12 km south, along the west side of reservoir. Public sightings also suggest that turtles can on occasion be found as far north as the town of Revelstoke. Results to date suggest that amplitude and frequency of movements may be related to water levels, which may influence habitat and food availability. The data from 2010 and 2011 will provide a framework for turtle monitoring and potential habitat enhancement opportunities for the next nine years. This project is being undertaken to: 1) develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of wildlife physical works projects at enhancing wetland and riparian habitat in Revelstoke Reach (CLBWORKS-30); 2) monitor the appropriate physical parameters and biological response variables to assess the effectiveness of the wildlife physical works projects; and 3) provide recommendations based on the results of the monitoring program to improve wetland enhancement techniques. In 2010, a biophysical reconnaissance was conducted in Airport Marsh, Montana Slough and Cartier Bay and a draft monitoring and sampling protocol was developed. The 2010 pilot study results were applied in 2011 and baseline data were collected on wetland vegetation and invertebrate communities. Four sites were sampled for macrophytes, terrestrial vegetation and invertebrates in spring and late summer: Airport Marsh (reference site), Cartier Bay (two sites) and Montana Slough. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 The 2011 surveys indicated that the three study sites differ from each other ecologically. Cartier Bay was characterized by a high biomass of aquatic macrophytes, particularly Common Hornwort and Stonewort, but had relatively low macrophyte diversity. Montana Slough was characterized by low densities and diversities of aquatic macrophytes and invertebrates. Pelagic invertebrates were particularly scarce at this site. Montana Slough receives direct input of clear, cold, oligotrophic water from Montana Creek throughout the year, which likely prevents the establishment of diverse and abundant ecological communities. The ecological communities at Airport Marsh were much more developed and diverse than those at either Cartier Bay or Montana Slough, presumably due to the high elevation of the wetland and relatively infrequent and short-term inundation by the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Macrophyte diversity was higher at Airport Marsh than at any of the other sites. The surveys provided good baseline data of pre-works conditions to assess the efficacy of the proposed works, slated to begin in 2012. CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and
Vegetation Composition Analysis

4.5.1 Management
Questions
The management questions for this monitoring program address the intra-community response of existing and treated vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir (including Revelstoke Reach) to the continued implementation of the soft constraints operating regime at the local (site) level. For re-vegetated areas, the management questions specifically address whether the continued implementation of the soft constraints allows for the establishment and expansion of vegetation at site level through a revegetation program in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. 4.5.2 Existing
Vegetation
Primary management questions for existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir between elevations 434 m to 440 m are:  What is the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone?  What is the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone?  How does the current operating regime affect the within-community quality and quantity (i.e., species cover, abundance, biomass, diversity and distribution within existing communities) of existing vegetation?  Is there a shift in community structure (e.g., species dominance) or a potential loss of existing vegetated communities that is attributable to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation)? Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012  What are species-specific survival rates under soft constraints operating regime (i.e., what are the tolerances of existing plant species to inundation)?  What recommendations can be made to more effectively maintain existing vegetation at the site level in the future? 4.5.3 Re-vegetated
Primary management questions for re-vegetated areas in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir between elevations 434 m to 440 m are:  What is the quality and quantity of vegetation in re-vegetated areas between elevations 434 m to 440 m compared to untreated areas, based on an assessment of species distribution, diversity, vigour, abundance, biomass and cover?  What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of re-vegetated plant communities to inundation timing, frequency, duration and depth)?  What environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e. timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation), may limit or improve the restoration and expansion of vegetation communities in the drawdown zone?  What is the relative effectiveness of the different revegetation treatments, as applied through CLBWORKS-2, at increasing the quality and quantity of vegetation in the drawdown zone?  Does implementation of the revegetation program result in greater benefits (e.g., larger vegetated areas, more productive vegetation) than those that could be achieved through natural colonization alone?  Is there an opportunity to modify operations to more effectively maintain re- vegetated communities at the landscape and site level in the future? 4.5.4 Overview
The final decision of the WUP CC to support a revegetation program for the mid Columbia River (Revelstoke Reach) and the Arrow Lakes Reservoir was based on the assumption that the soft operational constraints would be effective in maintaining current levels of vegetation, and that revegetation activities would be a more cost-effective means of restoring and expanding vegetation cover for ecological and social benefits than imposing hard constraints on operation of the reservoir. In accepting soft constraints for Arrow Lakes Reservoir, the WUP CC recognized that the uncertainty associated with the response of vegetation communities to flexible operations on a yearly basis needed to be addressed, and consequently recommended a monitoring approach comprised of a series of interlinked studies at different spatial scales to investigate the effects of the operating regime on riparian and wetland vegetation at the landscape, site and organism level. This monitoring Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 program focuses on monitoring existing vegetation and revegetated areas at the site (local) scale. This is Year 3 of a six-year project running from 2008 through 2017. Sampling has thus far occurred in 2008, 2009 and 2011. The next sampling event is due in 2013 (Table 3-1). Its main objectives are to a) monitor Arrow Lakes Reservoir drawdown zone existing vegetation communities responses to the soft constraints operating regime and assess whether the soft constraint regime allows for establishment and expansion of vegetation, and b) assess the effectiveness of revegetation treatments carried out under CLBWORKS-2. The interpretation of potential effects of REV5 operations on vegetation was added in Year 3. The formal objectives of this monitoring program are to:
 Determine the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities) to identify species that have been successfully surviving long-term inundation;  Evaluate the abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone;  Monitor the response of existing vegetation communities at the local (site) level to the continued implementation of the soft constraints operating regime and other environmental variables;  Assess the long-term effectiveness of the revegetation program at restoring and expanding the quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) and quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) of vegetation in the drawdown zone for ecological and social benefits; and,  Assess the costs and benefits of the recommended revegetation prescriptions applied under the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program) by monitoring the response of revegetated communities to different treatments in the drawdown zones of the reservoir. These objectives are being addressed by assessing the specified response variables at sample sites, stratified by primary topographic and biophysical criteria, under the various treatment options relative to control sites (areas of naturally established vegetation and barren reference sites). Vegetation responses will be monitored over a range of geographic areas within the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, based on locations selected for treatment under the Revegetation Program. 4.5.5 Status
This monitoring program was initiated in April 2008, and is being carried out bi-annually over 10 years. The study finished its third year of monitoring in July 2011, and the first draft of the report was delivered in January 2012. The next field season will happen in 2013, and the program report is expected in December, 2013. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 4.5.6 Interpretation of Data
CLBMON-12 is a site-specific extension of the landscape level analysis of vegetation changes in the reservoir (CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources). This program uses the same classification system as CLBMON-33, similar elevation zones and mapped distribution of types, but is more detailed and takes place at a larger scale. CLBMON-12 assesses the effects of CLBWORKS-2 revegetation treatments on vegetation composition. In 2008, a baseline monitoring study was laid out for comparisons over time between three main elevation classes, between vegetation community types, and between treatments in the reservoir to enhance vegetation cover and diversity. In 2009, additional plots were established to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting changes in vegetation community types in response to the soft constraints operating regime. This is the second year that revegetation treatment data were collected in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The interpretation of potential effects of REV5 operations on vegetation was added in 2011. Species distribution within the existing vegetation communities of Arrow Lakes Reservoir showed similar patterns in relation to elevation than in previous years. The most dominant species have not significantly changed over the 2008 to 2011 period. The vegetation is dominated by few very abundant and common species such as reed canary grass, horsetail spp. (Equisetum spp.), lake sedge (Carex aquatilis), Columbia sedge (C. aperta), Canada bluegrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and several species of very common ditch and wetland plants. The reservoir has a large diversity of plants (191 species) that contribute to its biodiversity, even though they often have relatively low cover and heights. These species vary in response to the exposure of the substrate and location within the reservoir. There was no clear relationship between days of inundation and any of the measurement variables, although there was a tendency toward higher variation during the shortest durations of inundation and for some of the vegetation to be negatively affected by long-term inundation. Trees and shrubs, woodland and upland perennial and annual herbs continuously attempt to establish as seedlings in the lower elevations of the drawdown zone, but do not survive. Annuals persist by invading new sites, and have not declined overall. It is still too early in the revegetation assessment period to detect a difference in plant community diversity, abundance, biomass, cover, and distribution in response to treatments. There are currently no significant differences in vegetation between treatment and control plots, except that vegetation in stake planted stands was taller. The lowest survival of stakes occurred in the mid to low elevation, silt-dominated substrates occupied by the Reed Canary Grass vegetation community. In the first year of operation of REV 5, there was no obvious trend in the effects of REV 5 on the vegetation of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Vegetation tended to grow at lower heights at low elevations and at higher heights at high elevations, but this pattern has been observed since 2007. REV 5 has only been operational for one growing season, and the effects of turbulence and scouring may not yet be distinguishable from baseline scouring, deposition and turbulence. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area
4.6.1 Management
Questions
This study is designed to address the following management questions as they pertain to mosquito production in the Revelstoke area: 1) Does operation of Revelstoke Dam and Arrow Lakes Reservoir influence mosquito production through flooding/reflooding of habitats within the drawdown zone? 2) Are there opportunities to minimize nuisance and potential WNv vector mosquito populations through modifying operations of Revelstoke Dam or Arrow Lakes Reservoir? 3) Are there areas where revegetation (CLBWORKS-2) or wildlife physical work (CLBWORKS-29/30) of the drawdown zone would exacerbate mosquito production? 4.6.2 Overview
The WUP CC recommended that studies be undertaken to gain a better understanding of the life history and habitat requirements of mosquito species occupying habitats in the Revelstoke area to determine potential effects of dam discharge and reservoir operations on mosquito levels in the area. The WUP CC recommended studies to address uncertainties related to:  The species of mosquito that inhabit the Revelstoke area, and which species are likely to be a nuisance to humans/livestock;  Habitat and vegetation types occupied by mosquitoes in relation to the zone of  Areas that constitute prime mosquito breeding grounds;  Critical discharges and durations of flooding at which mosquito hatching occurs;  Environmental and biotic factors affecting egg hatching and larval survival (e.g., seasonal temperatures, precipitation, predators);  Effects of vegetation management and wildlife physical works in the drawdown zone on mosquito production (species and abundance); and  The risk of potential mosquito vectors for West Nile virus (WNv) in the Revelstoke Given the interrelation of the four mosquito studies recommended by the WUP CC, these were combined into a single program to ensure integration of study results. The key objective of the study is to determine whether there are water management strategies and operating alternatives that could be implemented to minimize potential impacts on mosquito production in the Revelstoke area. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 a. Mosquito larvae and pupae presence, abundance, and distribution b. The presence, abundance, and distribution of adult mosquitoes including those species most likely to be vectors of WNv This study entails mosquito larval and pupal dip-net sampling, trapping of adult mosquitoes using light, gravid, and emergence traps, and monitoring water levels and temperatures in the drawdown zone. The study will also compile historical climate data, document evidence of mosquito nuisance, and map potential breeding grounds for different mosquito species. 4.6.3 Status
This project has been completed. A final report was received in February 2010. No additional monitoring was deemed necessary at this time. 4.6.4 Interpretation of Data
CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources
4.7.1 Management
Questions
The primary management questions to be addressed by the Vegetation Inventory Monitoring program are:  What are the existing riparian and wetland vegetation communities in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir drawdown zone between 440 m to 430 m (approximate4)?  What are the spatial extents, structure and composition (i.e., relative distribution and diversity) of these communities within the drawdown zone between 440 m to 430 m (approximate2)?  How spatial limits, structure and composition of vegetation communities relate to reservoir elevation and topo-edaphic site conditions (aspect, slope, soil moisture, etc.)?  Does the soft constraints operating regime of Arrow Lakes Reservoir maintain vegetation spatial limits, structure and composition of existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone?  Are there operational changes that can be implemented to maintain existing vegetation communities at the landscape scale more effectively? 4 It should be noted that it may not be possible to implement an inventory and/or long-term monitoring in the lower elevations of the drawdown zone across all water years due to BC Hydro’s obligations under the Columbia River Treaty, weather variability in the Columbia basin and load requirements. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012  Is the current distribution of vegetation communities in Revelstoke Reach representative of conditions in the remainder of the reservoir? Information collected in the vegetation inventory will be used during the five-year review of Arrow operations to evaluate potential benefits and risks of the soft operational constraints in maintaining existing vegetation at the landscape level and supporting newly vegetated areas, as well as to inform on selection and effectiveness of a new operating regime, if deemed necessary. If results of the monitoring indicate that the operating regime does not adequately maintain the vegetation communities and their associated fauna at the landscape level, future decisions regarding reservoir operations may be affected, because of the high value placed on vegetated shorelines by many interest groups. The information gained through the inventory is also intended to assist in determining the scope of the Mid Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works (CLBWORKS-2) by informing on whether existing vegetated areas can be enhanced or expanded under the present operating regime. In addition, inventory results will help to identify sites with potential for wildlife habitat enhancement through vegetation management. 4.7.2 Overview
During the Columbia River project WUP process, the WUP CC made several assumptions regarding vegetation tolerances to inundation and responses to changes in the hydrologic pattern, based on information gained from studies in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Given differences in the elevation, climate and operating regime of the two reservoirs, the WUP CC recognized the inherent uncertainties of any assumptions related to the response of vegetation to reservoir operating conditions, and acknowledged the importance of long-term data collection for assessing the effects of the operating regime on vegetation at different spatial scales. The Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources monitoring program will address key uncertainties related to the relative contribution and importance of the soft constraints reservoir operating regime (i.e., timing, duration and depth of inundation, and multi-year stresses) on the maintenance of existing vegetation communities delineated at the landscape scale. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) Identify and spatially delineate existing riparian and wetland vegetation 2) Measure the spatial extent, structure and composition (i.e., distribution and diversity) of the communities in the drawdown zone at repeated time intervals over a 10-year period; 3) Assess whether there are changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone over the monitoring period; Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 4) Assess whether observed changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition are attributable to the soft constraints operating regime of the reservoir; and, 5) Provide information on the effectiveness of the soft constraints operating regime at maintaining the existing spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone. These objectives will be addressed through a landscape-level analysis of vegetation community changes over time in response to the soft constraints operating regime. This monitoring program involves evaluating changes in the existing vegetation communities in the reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 434 m and 440 m, using a combination of aerial photographic interpretation at 1:5,000 scale and field measurements at biomonitoring plots. 4.7.3 Status
This monitoring program was initiated in June 2007 and commenced bi-annual implementation in 2008. The study implemented its third year of monitoring in April 2010, and the annual program report was delivered in December 2010. The next field season will commence in the spring of 2012. 4.7.4 Interpretation of Data
There are no data to report at this time. CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation
4.8.1 Management
Questions
The management questions to be addressed by this monitoring program are:  How are individual riparian and wetland plant species affected by the soft constraints operating regime with respect to timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation?  How different are the responses of the different plant species to the operating  How do the responses of plant species to the operating regime interact with other factors (e.g., substrate, climate, presence of other plant species)?  Are there potential opportunities to modify operations to better maintain the existing condition of riparian and wetland plant species plants at the scale of the organism?  What recommendations can be made to more effectively maintain existing vegetation at the site level in the future? Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 To resolve key uncertainties regarding the influence of operating conditions of Arrow Lakes Reservoir on vegetation status, results from this monitoring program will be integrated with findings from two other vegetation monitoring programs, CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resource and CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition analysis. A full synthesis of study results across the three monitoring program and integration of results will be carried out by BC Hydro in Years 5 and 10 of program implementation. 4.8.2 Overview
From 1991 to 1993, wetland trials were conducted in the Revelstoke Reach portion of Arrow Lakes Reservoir to examine the feasibility of establishing a perennial cover of native wetland species for dust control in the drawdown zone. Long-term monitoring of the survival of these species and monitoring of permanent plots yielded valuable information regarding individual species tolerances to water level fluctuations as a result of the reservoir operating regime. However, these plots did not span the full range of elevations now occupied by natural vegetation within the drawdown zone (approximately 440 m to 430 m), and there was no subsequent testing of the absolute limits of plant endurance or which aspects of the reservoir operating regime (i.e., inundation timing, frequency, depth or duration) are the most significant for plant survival. This lack of specific information hindered the WUP CC’s ability to assess the performance of operating alternatives for Arrow Lakes Reservoir on existing vegetation communities. Numerous assumptions were built into the vegetation performance measures, which needed to be tested to improve future decision making regarding reservoir management. This monitoring program will be implemented at the scale of the individual organism (plant spatial scale) to document the responses of individual plants to the stresses imposed by the soft constraints operating regime. The program will address existing uncertainties regarding the relative contribution and importance of timing, frequency, depth and duration of inundation on plant survival at different sizes and ages, and the effect of multi-year stresses on trends in plant viability. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) evaluate the responses of plants of different species and ages to timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation; and, 2) provide organism-level information required to link the effects of reservoir operations to larger-scale trends in vegetation composition, structure and spatial extent. These objectives will be addressed through an experimental approach involving both reciprocal field transplants and greenhouse culture to determine the relative importance of timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation to survival of plants of different species and ages (seedlings and mature plants). This monitoring program involves a 5-year field program to investigate the effects of variable water levels encountered during these years under the soft constraints operating regime. In addition, greenhouse experiments will be implemented for four Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 successive years to allow for controlled experimental testing of a range of inundation conditions imposed by the operating regime and/or to test alternate species 4.8.3 Status
This monitoring program has not yet been initiated. Work was scheduled to commence in April 2011 and be carried out over five years; however, due to internal resources constraints which are affecting program delivery, this program has been postponed. A resubmission for any changes to direct management costs and study implementation costs will be submitted in 2012. 4.8.4 Interpretation of Data
At this time, there are no data to interpret for this monitoring program. Columbia River Project WUP Physical Works - Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes
Revegetation Management Plan

This section summarizes the status of the physical works being implemented under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan, as per the Order under the Water Act, dated January 26, 2007. CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Work
5.1.1 Overview
The Columbia River Project WUP CC recognized the value of vegetation for improving aesthetic quality, controlling dust, protecting cultural heritage sites from erosion and human access, and enhancing littoral productivity and wildlife habitat. Therefore, the WUP CC supported a reservoir-wide planting and enhancement program in lieu of operational changes during the growing season to maximize vegetation growth in the drawdown zone and to facilitate the development of long-term self-sustaining riparian vegetation. This program targets the upper elevations of the Kinbasket Reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 747 m and 754 m, and the feasibility of extending vegetation into lower portions of the drawdown zone to a lower limit of 741 m is examined. The objectives of this physical work are to: 1) maximize vegetation growth in the drawdown zone; 2) provide benefits to littoral productivity and wildlife habitat through increased plant 3) improve shoreline stability through targeted planting, where possible; 4) increase the species diversity of native plants, particularly those of interest to Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 5) provide increased protection for known archaeological sites, where possible. These objectives will be achieved through application of a variety of prescriptions in suitable sites that specifically target the above values. 5.1.2 Status
This physical work was initiated in June 2007 and was to be carried out over sequential years until 2015. The 2011 physical works report was received in January, 2012. Due to poor revegetation success (cf. Section 4.1.6), the probability of a surcharge in Kinbasket due to the Mica 5/6 GIS outage, and the remissible cap constraints the project is being deferred in 2012. Planting methods will be re-evaluated. We are in progress of identifying alternative planting projects for the nursery stock seedlings that were grown in 2011 for 2012. If no alternative project can be identified, a smaller-scale planting program may be employed in Bush Arm; BC Hydro will seek approval from the Water Comptroller to proceed with that alternative. 5.1.3 Interpretation of Data
The project completed its fourth year (2011) of revegetation treatments within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir, with a focus on Bush Arm. Activities were restricted to the planting of sedge, deciduous seedlings and live stakes, with follow-up monitoring of some previous work. Approximately 160,000 sedges were planted at two sites across 6.8 hectares, 2,200 deciduous seedlings at two sites across 0.59 hectares, and 980 black cottonwood live stakes in one site (1.1 hectares). Human disturbances were greater in Canoe Reach than in Bush Arm. Monitoring previously planted sedges showed that erosion, off-road vehicles, and debris management activities all negatively impacted sedge plantings. Survival of seedlings in all revegetated areas ranged from poor to non-existent in both Canoe Reach and Bush Arm. The success of revegetation prescriptions will continue to be monitored by the program CLBMON-9 (Kinbasket Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts; cf. Section 4.1). CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Work
5.2.1 Overview
The Columbia River Project WUP CC recognized the value of vegetation for improving aesthetic quality, controlling dust, protecting cultural heritage sites from erosion and human access, and enhancing littoral productivity and wildlife habitat. Based on the success of vegetation treatments for dust control in Revelstoke Reach (the mid Columbia River), the WUP CC agreed that establishing permanent vegetation cover in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Revelstoke Reach was the best option for achieving the multiple objectives set by the committee. This program targets the upper elevations of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 434 m and 440 m. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 The objectives of this physical work are to: 1) maximize vegetation growth in the drawdown zone; 2) provide benefits to littoral productivity and wildlife habitat through increased plant 3) improve shoreline stability through targeted planting, where possible; 4) increase the species diversity of native plants, particularly those of interest to 5) provide increased protection for known archaeological sites, where possible. These objectives will be achieved through application of a variety of prescriptions in suitable sites that specifically target the above values. 5.2.2 Status
This physical works was initiated in June 2007 and was originally scheduled to continue until late spring, 2010. The final two years of the revegetation program (Years 4 and 5) were to be implemented in conjunction with CLBWORKS-30 (Arrow Lakes Reservoir Wildlife Physical Works) to ensure that revegetation efforts were targeting areas where wildlife habitat benefits could be maximized. However, the implementation of CLBWORKS-30 has since been delayed, and an additional year of implementation of CLBWORKS-2 was added in 2011. Approval for this work was received from the Comptroller of Water Rights in October 2010. The 2011 planting was completed by late June, 2011, the draft report was received in January 2012 and the final report in March 2012. The project is now complete. 5.2.3 Interpretation of Data
The 2011 program planted approximately 266,000 sedge plugs, over 18,000 black cottonwood, 1,000 willow, and 1,000 dogwood seedlings, and 4,300 black cottonwood live stakes over 28.1 ha in nine different sites. It also monitored some previous treatments. Seedling were planted at higher densities than the prescribed maximum (2500/ha) due to contractor error. Live stakes densities were lower in 2011 (1125/ha) than in 2010 (1634/ha). The sedge seedlings were planted in the middle and high elevation bands (336-338 and 338-340 m, respectively). Seedling survival of previous prescriptions (2010) ranged from 0 to 58%, with survival higher in high elevation bands. Live stakes survival also varied much, from 30 to 80%. Rodent damage (girdling) was observed in some sites and may have accounted for some of the low survival rates. Live stakes higher survival rates were linked to machine planting instead of hand planting. The success of revegetation prescriptions will continue to be monitored by the program CLBMON-12 (Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts; cf. Section 4.5). Results thus far indicate no differences between treatment and control plots (Section 4.5.6, this report). Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Columbia River Project WUP Monitoring Programs and Physical Works
Costs

The following table summarizes the approved costs of the monitoring programs and physical works under the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River WUP, as well as the Actual Costs to January 31, 2012. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Table 6-1: Columbia River WUP Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Costs
Total Forecast
(Life to Date

Costs approved Actuals and
Variance Total to
Monitoring Programs
Activity
Forecast)
Approved
Explanation
Corrective Action
Kinbasket and Arrow Reservoirs Revegetation
Annual Report
CLBMON#9 KIN MONITORING OF REVEGETATION
CLBMON#10 KIN INVENTORY OF VEGETATION
RESOURCES
CLBMON#11a KIN REVEGETATION WILDLIFE
EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING OF REVEGETATION
CLBMON#11b ARROW REVEGETATION & WILDLIFE
PHYSICAL WORKS
CLBMON#12 OR ARROW REVEGETATION
MONITORING AND VEGETATION COMPOSITION

ANALYSIS
CLBMON#12 ONR ARROW REVEGETATION
MONITORING AND VEGETATION COMPOSITION

ANALYSIS
CLBMON#13 MID COL MONITORING: MOSQUITO
POPULATIONS

CLBMON#33 OR ARROW INVENTORY VEGETATION
CLBMON#33 ONR ARROW INVENTORY VEGETATION
CLBMON#33 Direct Management ONR 001 REV 5 CLBMON#35 ARROW PLANT RESPONSE TO
INUNDATION
Planting in 2012 has been cancelled due to low survival of CLBWORKS#1 KINBASKET: REVEGETATION
1800/1500
CLBWORKS#2 ARR & MID COL: REVEGETATION -
Phase 1

CLBWORKS#2 ARR & MID COL: REVEGETATION -
Phase 2

CLBWORKS#2 ARR & MID COL: REVEGETATION -
OR - Ordered Remissible
ONR - Ordered Non-Remissible

* Red values in parentheses denote overage.

Source: http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/wup/southern_interior/2012q1/clb_mp2_annual_report.pdf

dccode.elaws.us

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY. CHAPTER 8. PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS IN INFANTS. 2001 Edition DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE CHAPTER 8. PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS IN INFANTS. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 8. PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS IN INFANTS. § 7-801. PROPHYLACTIC SOLUTION TO BE ADMINISTERED. The Mayor may, upon the advice of the

Teasing, rejection, and violence: case studies of the school shootings

Teasing, Rejection, and Violence: Case Studies of the School Shootings Mark R. Leary*1 Robin M. Kowalski,2 Laura Smith,1 and Stephen Phillips1 1Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina2Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :Media commentators have suggested that recent school shootings were precipitated by socia

Copyright © 2010-2014 Drug Shortages pdf