south okanagan - lower similkameen - ubc scarp · pdf filerepresenting the sylix speaking...

SOUTH OKANAGAN -

LOWER SIMILKAMEEN

NATIONAL PARK RESERVE PROPOSAL

POLICY ANALYSIS, NOVEMBER 2015 - PREPARED FOR TIM MCDANIELS, PLAN 525

EMILY GRAY, JESSICA HAYES, PAUL HILLSDON, ALLISON LASOCHA, DUSTIN LUPICK

ABSTRACT THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY ANALYSIS IS TO IDENTIFY LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SOUTH

OKANAGAN REGION. SINCE 2002, A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN CREATED, INCLUDING

SOME THAT WISH TO DESIGNATE PARTS OF THE AREA AS NATIONAL PARK. THIS HAS BEEN A CON-

TROVERSIAL PROCESS, INVOLVING MANY STAKEHOLDERS WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES. CURRENT-

LY IN A STALEMATE, A FORMAL PROCESS IS NEEDED TO CREATE A STRUCTURED DECISION FRAME-

WORK. THIS CASE USES STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING TO OUTLINE HOW THIS QUESTION MIGHT

BE ANSWERED. STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS INVOLVING FRAMING

THE DECISION CONTEXT AND CREATING OBJECTIVES; THEN FORMULATING ACTIONS AND ALTER-

NATIVES. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY EXAMINING CONSEQUENCES AND TRADEOFFS, LEADING TO A

RECOMMENDATION BEING MADE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE PROCESS. FIVE FUNDAMENTAL

OBJECTIVES ARE IDENTIFIED AND THE CASE EXAMINES FOUR ALTERNATIVES, RANGING FROM CRE-

ATING A NATIONAL PARK, TO MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. THE ALTERNATIVES ARE EXAMINED IN

RELATION TO HOW THEY INFLUENCE THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES. WITH THIS INFORMATION,

A RECOMMENDATION CAN BE PUT FORWARD. BASED ON THE RESEARCH, A SMALLER NATIONAL

PARK IS VIEWED AS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT BEST MEETS THE OBJECTIVES.

WHAT IS THE BEST LAND

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

FOR THE SOUTH OKANAGAN?

PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal2

Introduction and History

Stakeholder Table (Figure 1)

Draft Park Concept 2006, 2010 (Figures 2, 3)

Influences

Influence Diagram (Figure 4)

Objectives and Evaluation Criteria

Means-Ends Diagram (Figure 5)

Actions and Alternatives

Strategy Table (Figure 6)

Consequences

Consequence Table (Figure 7)

Conclusions and Reflections

Bibliography

Content

4 - 5

5

12 - 13

6

6

7 - 9

8

10 - 11

11

12 - 13

13

14

15

INTRODUCTION & HISTORY As Parks Canada states: “identifying, selecting,

and establishing new national parks can be a long and

complex process” (2009., Introduction). The action of set-

ting aside a large tract of land for conservation involves

not only environmental considerations, but also those

within the economic, social, and cultural spheres (Kopas,

2007). Restricting development, recreation, agricultural,

and other such uses significantly impacts the economy,

society, and identity of a region. Further, as with any com-

plex planning problem, it stimulates both public support

and opposition. There are “landscapes, species, ecosys-

tems, livelihoods, and communities at stake” (Kreitzman,

2015). For these reasons, the proposal for establishment

of a national park in the South Okanagan-Lower Similka-

meen (SOLS) region of British Columbia (BC) can be con-

sidered an important planning problem, highly relevant

to planning and policy analysis in contemporary contexts.

In a Canadian context, national parks have a

prominent and important place in history. Parks Canada,

previously the Dominion Parks Branch, is considered the

world’s first national park service and has been instrumen-

tal in shaping the place of nature within Canadian identity

(Campbell, 2011). Additionally, contemporary concerns

for environmental conservation lend themselves to sup-

port the setting aside of land through park establishment

for such purposes (Kopas, 2007, p. 30). Yet, as mentioned

above, park establishment impacts not only the environ-

ment but also the society, economy, culture, and identity

of a region. This warrants the use of a decision making

process with the capacity to actively and equally consid-

er the impacts to all parties involved. Thus, based on the

structured decision making (SDM) framework proposed

by Gregory et al. in their book, Structured Decision Mak-

ing, and online through www.strucutreddecisionmaking.

org, this project sought to address the question: What

is the best alternative regarding the South Okanagan -

Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve proposal?

This policy analysis paper summarizes that process.

The SOLS is located within the Interior Dry Pla-

teau, one of 39 landscapes designated by Parks Canada

to guide park development goals in Canada (Parks Can-

ada, n.d., Introduction). It is one of Canada’s richest areas

of biodiversity, hosting 55 endangered and threatened

species, and acting as an important wildlife conduit be-

tween the northern grasslands and the American deserts

(Echeverri, McGlenn, Mill, and Wong, 2015; Environment

Canada, 2000). The need for formal conservation of this

region was first articulated by local community members

and the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) in response to

their perception of “encroachment by people who have

a different view of utilizing the land and the resources”

(Sylix Working Group, 2012, Foreword). The ONA is a gov-

ernment body comprised of eight member communities

representing the Sylix speaking peoples of the Okana-

gan, and is one of the key stakeholders in this issue (see

Figure 1).

In 2002, the ONA and some local concern was

enough to convince then Prime Minister, Jean Chretien,

of the need for a national park. Consequently, in 2004,

Parks Canada initiated an “iterative process of con-

sultation, design, evaluation, and refinement of a park

concept” to assess the feasibility of creating a national

park in the SOLS (Parks Canada, 2011, p.6). In 2006, this

feasibility report released the first draft national park

concept for the SOLS. The concept included 650 km2

of parkland contained in three distinct areas, centered

in the north around Vaseux Lake, the east around the

South Okanagan Grasslands, and in the west, encom-

passing and expanding upon Cathedral Lakes Provincial

Park, termed the Snowy Protected Area (see Figure 2,

p.12). Resoundingly, this draft was rejected by the locals

concerned about the impacts on sheep and wilderness

hunting in the Snowy Protected Area. The Lower Similka-

meen Indian Band also opposed the draft boundaries

citing inadequate consultation, fears of increased traffic

through reserve lands for park access, and restrictions

on their traditional use of the lands (Echeverri, McGlenn,

Mill, and Wong, 2015; Parks Canada, 2011). Following this,


Parks Canada initiated a socio-economic assessment

and committed to more intensive collaboration with the

ONA and with local communities hoping to resolve the

boundary issue (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen and

Cyr, 2015). In 2010, a new park concept was released,

scaled down to 284 km2 by entirely eliminating the con-

troversial Snowy Protected Area to the west (see Figure

3, p.13). The Parks Canada Feasibility Assessment was re-

leased in 2011, endorsing this revised concept alongside

a commitment to continuing collaboration with the ONA

and an adaptive management plan for ranching in the

park, which included provisions for some continued graz-

ing within the new boundaries. This was followed in 2012

by the release of the ONA’s own feasibility assessment,

which reached conclusions in favour of the revised na-

tional park, finding that the establishment contributed to

the protection of lands and cultural values, would not di-

minish Sylix title and rights, and supported collaborative

and consensus-based management by the Sylix people

and Parks Canada (Sylix Working Group).

Since the release of these assessments, there

has been much advocacy both for the establishment of a

national park and against it. Citing concerns over poten-

tial negative impacts on agriculture, hunting, and off-road

vehicle access, local resistance to the park has been out-

spoken, resulting in the perception that the majority of lo-

cals in the SOLS region oppose the park (Kreitzman, Ka-

plan-Hallam, Cohen and Cyr, 2015). Despite the fact that

opinion polls indicate that this is not the case (surveys

conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2015 indicate that support

has grown from 2:1 to 3:1 since 2008), Parks Canada has

been forced to postpone the park pending a provincial

review (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen and Cyr, 2015).

Currently, the issue is in the hands of B.C. Parks, who are

reviewing public input and will be posting a Consultation

Report in early 2016 (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2015).

The provincial government has thus been charged with

the responsibility of deciding whether the park will pro-

ceed, as Parks Canada will not continue without the sup-

port of the province (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen

and Cyr, 2015). Notably, local newspapers have also been

reporting that Premier Christy Clark will not support the

park unless local Members of the Legislative Assembly,

Linda Larson and Dan Ashton, do so (see Figure 1, Stake-

holders) (McGuire, 2015).

Figure 1. South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen Park proposal stakeholders.

Pro-Park Anti-Park Undeclared

Parks Canada Ranching community (South-ern Interior Stockmen’s As-sociation)

B.C. government

Okanagan Nation Alliance Hunting community MLAs (Linda Larson and Dan Ashton)

Mayor of Osoyoos Mayor of Penticton Towns of Oliver, Kere-meos, Cawston

Local majority (3:1)* (led by the “SOLS National Park Network”)

Local minority (led by the “Grassland and Park Review Coalition”)

Canadian Parks and Wilder-ness Society

Thompson Okanagan Tour-ism Association

*Source: McAllister Opinion Research Poll 2015

To assist in defining the objectives for the

decision in question and to better understand the

possible effects of a South Okanagan Lower Si-

milkameen national park, an influence diagram has

been created (see Figure 4). The influence diagram

shows the expected relationships, causes, and ef-

fects (Gregory, Failing, Harstone, Long, McDaniels,

& Ohlson, 2012) of the introduction of a national

park. As shown in the above diagram, a national

park has the potential to create new land uses, af-

fect existing land uses, as well as impact the natural

habitat and traditional Aboriginal uses of the land,

including activities such as fishing, hunting and

preservation of cultural sites.

In terms of new land uses, a national park

would likely affect permitted recreational use of the

area as well as create new related developments,

such as an educational centre or commercial land

uses. These might, in turn, boost the local tourism

industry and create new local jobs. The creation of

a national park may also affect existing land uses,

including ranches and the helicopter training facil-

ity. Changes to these existing land uses would also

affect local jobs and thus, the local and regional

economy.

Further, the creation of a national park

would be expected to have a significant effect on

the region’s natural habitat and ecosystem, pro-

tecting it from development. This would likely

increase biodiversity and protect endangered

species. However, it is worth noting that climate

change, an outside influence, may also significantly

affect these dynamics. Lastly, the creation of a na-

tional park may influence traditional Aboriginal uses

of the land, which is tied to the natural habitat and

Aboriginal rights.

The influence diagram results in four key is-

sues being identified for consideration in the next

step, identifying objectives. These considerations

include the desire to expand recreational activities,

promote economic benefits, protect ecosystem

health, and promote Aboriginal values.

INFLUENCES

Figure 4. Influence Diagram


OBJECTIVES & EVALUATION Based on the influence diagram shown in the previous section, five main objectives are

outlined regarding the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park. Objectives are used

to outline what is considered salient in the decision process, therefore these should not be ambigu-

ous. Objectives are the foundation for the formulation of strong alternatives and recommendations

(Gregory, Failing, Harstone, Long, McDaniels, & Ohlson, 2012). Without the inclusion of defined objec-

tives, the decision may ignore aspects of the question, which will cause concerns in the future. The

objectives and evaluating criteria are as follows:

1. Promote Aboriginal Values:

Maintaining a collaborative relationship with the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) and First

Nations communities is a key objective regarding the park proposal. The ONA were the first group to

bring forward a proposal regarding protection of the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area, and

their involvement as well as the promotion of their values, is crucial to a successful recommendation.

The evaluation criteria for Aboriginal values are defined as protecting Aboriginal cultural sites and

traditional activities, as well as respecting the land title rights in the area, along with future title rights.

This protection of future title rights remains integral in regards to promoting Aboriginal values. With-

out confirmation regarding the respect of future title rights, the ONA will not move forward with any

proposal. Parks Canada has stated that “traditional activities and the use of traditional knowledge will

be included in park planning and management” (Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee for

Ministerial Approval, 2011, 4). This objective has been separated from ‘Promote Community well-be-

ing’, because under this decision context the ONA community will have different interests and values

than the larger community which composes the entire region.

2. EnhanceEconomicBenefits:

For a majority of the stakeholders, with the possible exception of environmental groups, enhancing economic

benefits is a foundational objective. The economic benefits will be evaluated in terms of GDP projections,

as well as jobs created. The below diagram (Figure 5) outlines the means and ends for economic benefit.

A means- ends diagram is used to demonstrate how a fundamental objective is decided (Gregory, Failing,

Harstone, Long, McDaniels, & Ohlson, 2012, 73). One way to enhance economic benefits will be to build new

tourist infrastructure. When new infrastructure is built, construction projects will have to be initiated, leading to

an increase in job opportunities in the area. The increase in job opportunities corresponds with the evaluation

criteria for enhancing economic benefit. Moreover, by increasing tourist infrastructure, more tourists will be

drawn to the area and become users of the new infrastructure, providing greater economic benefits. Increas-

ing tourist infrastructure would be considered a ‘means objective’, because it is the action taken to reach the

‘fundamental objective’, which in this case is the overall increase of economic benefit.

3. Preserve Ecosystem Health:

Part of Parks Canada’s mandate when proposing a new National Park is to protect biodiversity, and conserve land

(Canada Heritage, 1997). To differing degrees, this belief is held by all stakeholders involved in the decision process.

The health of the ecosystem will be evaluated by the hectares of land that will be placed under federal protec-

tion, as well as the number of species protected therein. Ecosystem health is a challenging objective because it

depends on the uncertainties of larger climate change issues. Going forward, the evaluation criteria may change as

the effects of climate change become more discernable and prevalent. Regardless of this, a fundamental concern

regarding the protection of the ecosystem is maintained in this context.

Figure 5. Means-Ends Diagram


4. Enhance Recreational Activity:

Presently, recreational opportunities in the region include hiking, camping, hunting, ATVing, and horseback riding,

among others. Depending on which alternative for land management is chosen, certain activities may be prohibited

in this area, while others may become more heavily promoted. Evaluation criteria that will be suggestive of a change

in recreational activity include the increase or decrease of trail networks inside the proposed park land, and future

potential for added recreation opportunities not currently offered in the region. Although the measurement of fu-

ture recreational activity is vague, with further examination of recreational trends at the regional and national level,

different activities that fit the geography and culture of the area may be introduced. Over the long term, these ac-

tivities will increase recreational activity as a whole. The recreational activities which will be introduced or removed

from the area is dependent upon which recommendation is chosen, because each alternative will have different

regulations regarding which recreational activities can take place in the area.

5. Promote Community Well Being:

Though difficult to measure, promoting community well-being is an essential independent objective. This is a sepa-

rate objective because there is the possibility for all other objectives to be met, while the community as a whole

remains unsatisfied. The communities affected by the proposed park are comparably small, and whichever decision

is made will change the community’s overall identity and makeup. For example, if economic benefits are observed,

but the community’s opinions are fragmented regarding how the economy is being affected, then this objective

will not be met. Community well-being could be quantified through a poll, asking citizens to vote on whether they

are happy with the decision that has been made. As well, post hoc, a second survey can be conducted to evaluate

whether the community has had positive lasting effects as a result of the chosen alternative. However, it is impor-

tant to recognize that community well-being will always remain difficult to evaluate, due to the fact that certain

community members will always be the most vocal in regards to their position, and that solicitation of an entire

community’s ‘well-being’ is difficult to quantify.

The Okanagan-Similkameen is a varied,

fascinating landscape. It holds 30 percent of

Canada’s endangered species, from burrowing

owls to badgers, as well as endangered desert

plants. The area around Vaseux Lake is the

farthest north extension of the Great Basin

Desert, a “pocket desert” unique to Canada.

- Seattle Post-Intelligencer

These actions were then grouped into four alternatives through the use of a strategy table: Largest

National Park (2006 Proposal), Smaller National Park (2011 Proposal), Ecological Policies, and Status Quo.

The third alternative, Ecological Policies, strives to achieve the main ecological goals of the national park

proposal through alternative legislative or policy tools.

As demonstrated in the strategy table below (see Figure 6), some alternatives, such as the status

quo or ecological policies, do not include actions to meet some of the objectives. For example, Ecological

Policies does not include any actions regarding aboriginal values, economic benefits, or recreational activi-

ties, as those are beyond the scope of the alternative and help indicate that while this alternative would

meet ecological objectives, it would not meet the other goals as outlined.

ACTIONS & ALTERNATIVES From the five main objectives, a variety of potential actions that could be taken to achieve these

objectives were defined. The list of potential actions was initially broad in scope, and narrowed down with a

focus on actions within the context of a national park. The final list is as follows: 1. Promote Aboriginal values

a. Expansion of Aboriginal tourismb. Co-management of landc. Avoid impacts to traditional uses

2. Enhanceeconomicbenefitsa. New tourism infrastructureb. Promotion of areac. Support resource industriesd. Support residential or commercial development

3. Preserve ecosystem healtha. Preservation of landb. Research on ecologyc. Raise community awarenessd. Restoration or enhancement projects

4. Enhance recreational activitiesa. Expand trailsb. Establish winter recreation opportunitiesc. Create new campgrounds

5. Promote community well-being a. Nurture community identity and prideb. Support community cohesion

c. Build a legacy for future generations


Strategy Table Aboriginal val-ues

Economic benefits

Ecosystem health

Recreational activities

Community well-being

Largest National Park

Expansion of Ab-original tourism

Co-management of land

Avoid impacts to traditional uses

New tourism infrastructure

Promotion of area

Support resource industries

Support residen-tial or commer-cial development

Preservation of land

Research on ecology

Raise community awareness

Restoration or enhancement projects

Expand trails

Establish winter recreation op-tions

Create new campgrounds

Nurture commu-nity identity and pride

Support commu-nity cohesion

Build a legacy for future genera-tions

Smaller National Park





Promotion of area




Research on ecology



Expand trails






Ecological Policies





Promotion of area




Research on ecology



Expand trails






Status Quo Expansion of Ab-original tourism




Promotion of area




Research on ecology



Expand trails






Figure 6. Strategy Table

Figure 2. Draft Park Concept Boundaries, 2006

The next step of the decision making process involves estimating the consequences of the

alternatives proposed in the previous section. This analytical step is important as it outlines how each

alternative is expected to influence the stated objectives; it is not a value-based judgement but one

of fact (Gregory et al., 2012). A simple consequence table is shown below (Figure 7), to provide a quick

overview of the expected trade-offs between the four proposed alternatives.

According to the consequence table, the smaller national park alternative is expected to be

the most positive in terms of the five stated objectives. The originally proposed larger national park

is the second most positive alternative, though it is expected to decrease community well-being and

Aboriginal values. Even though research has shown that the regional community is largely in favour

of a national park, the original proposal was poorly received by First Nations communities as well as

ranchers and thus would likely decrease the general “community well-being” category. On the other

hand, the smaller national park proposal is actively supported by First Nations communities as well as

the majority of the local community and thus would be expected to increase community well-being

(Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen & Cyr, 2015).

Going forward, a more detailed consequence table with numerical or scaling evaluations

would be useful. This would assist in differentiating the scale to which each alternative works towards

the stated objectives. For instance, both the smaller and larger national park alternative are expected

to increase economic benefits, ecosystem health and recreational activities, but the larger national

park may improve these objectives to a much greater extent than the smaller proposed park. Never-

theless, according to the consequence table, the smaller national park alternative is the most benefi-

cial in terms of the objectives.

CONSEQUENCES


Consequence Table

Aboriginal values

Economic benefits

Ecosystem health

Recreational activities

Community well-being

Larger Nation-al Park

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

Smaller Na-tional Park

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

Ecological Policies

IncreaseMaintainDecrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease

IncreaseMaintain

Decrease



Status Quo IncreaseMaintainDecrease





Figure 7. Consequence Table

Figure 3. Draft Park Concept

Boundaries, 2010

CONCLUSIONS & REFLECTIONS

What is the best alternative regarding the South Okanagan – Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve

proposal?

The recommended next steps in the planning process based on the results and findings of this study sug-

gests that the draft park concept proposed in 2011 with the smaller park boundaries appears to be the most

favourable option. This recommendation isl based on the fact that this alternative has best met each criterion

when evaluated through a Structured Decision Making (SDM) framework.

Though this case study has provided sufficient information to gain insight into the tradeoffs and decisions to

be made, there remains the need for analysts and stakeholder to carry things further in the next round of work.

For example, although the smaller national park option appears to be more suitable in comparison to the other

three alternatives, there remains the possibility for boundaries to be negotiated and revised if ever the national

park option were to move forward.

Given time and information constraints, this analysis offers a responsible overview of the key issues at stake in

this decision. However, due to the highly contentious nature of the numerous proposals and reports brought

forward over the years, it is of utmost importance and consideration that future decision makers take into

account the interdependencies of the human inhabitants of this land, their culture and histories, the area’s

resident wildlife and species at risk, as well as the sensitive and unique grassland ecosystem that these com-

munities occupy. The resulting complexity that arises from the interactions between each of these important

facets of the land will require further analysis, perhaps through a formalized SDM process.

Future decision-makers should remember that certain voices are often heard the loudest when it comes to

public consultation, and in many ways this has been the South Okanagan – Lower Similkameen National Park

Reserve’s greatest challenge to date. One must consider whether the costs of putting restrictions on certain

hunting and recreation activities through the establishment of a national park would necessarily outweigh

the other benefits brought to the region as a result of park implementation, such as jobs, tourism, community

pride, and ecological protection.


B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2015). Public comment invited on South Okanagan protected areas. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/

releases/2015ENV0052-001276

Campbell, C. (2011). A century of Parks Canada, 1911-2011. Retrieved from http://deslibris.ca/ID/443719

Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee for Ministerial Approval. (2011) Proposed National Park Reserve for the Okanagan-Lower Si-

milkameen: Overview of Findings and Outcomes (Feasibility Assessment). Parks Canada

Canada Heritage. (1997) The National Parks System Plan, 3rd Edition. Parks Canada

Echeverri, A., McGlenn, S., Mill, S., and J. Wong. (2015). Ecosystem services in the proposed National Park Reserve for the South Okanagan-

Lower Similkameen region. Retrieved from http://conciseresearch.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/07/ES-in-SOLS-NPR-final-version-1.pdf

Environment Canada. (2000). South Okanagan-Similkameen conservation program: A prospectus. Retrieved from http://www.soscp.org/

wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ SOSCP-Prospectus-Final2.pdf

Gregory, R., Failing, I., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental

management choices. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kopas, P. (2007). Taking the air: Ideas and change in Canada’s National Parks. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press.

Kreitzman, M. (2015). Not a walk in the park: Understanding parks, impacts, and creation process. Retrieved from http://chanslabviews.

blogspot.ca/2015/06/not-walk-in-park-we-learn-about.html

Kreitzman, M., Kaplan-Hallam, M., Cohen, Y., and A. Cyr. (2015). The South Okanagan-Similkameen Park proposal through an SES lens. Re-

trieved from http://concisere search.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/06/SOS-report-MM.pdf

McAllister Opinion Research. (2015). Public opinion study: Support for a National Park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen 2015. Retrieved

November 10 from https:// sosnationalpark.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/poll-briefing-note-final-2015-study.pdf

McGuire, R. (2015, June 24). Premier Clark gets earful on national park. Osoyoos Times. Retrieved from http://www.osoyoostimes.com/

premier-clark-gets-earful-on-national-park/

Parks Canada. (2009). Introduction. In National Parks System Plan. (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/nation/

nation1.aspx

Parks Canada. (2011). Proposed National Park Reserve for the Southern Okanagan-Lower Similkameen feasibility assessment: Overview

of findings and outcomes. Retrieved from http://cpawsbc.org/upload/South_Okanagan Similkameen_National_Park_Feasibility_Study.pdf

Sylix Working Group. (2012). Building a Sylix vision for protection: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.soscp.org/wp-content/up-

loads/2013/02/Assessing-Feasibility-Syilx-Final-Report.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY

south okanagan - lower similkameen - ubc scarp · pdf filerepresenting the sylix speaking...

Documents