BC Grasslands · the development of recreational properties, ranchettes, resorts or other tourism develop-ments, and roads will continue to impact grasslands. Significant portions

GrasslandsBC

“The voice for grasslands in British Columbia” MARCH 2004

Grassland Monitoring: From Theory to Practice

GrasslandsBC

As I write this it is a dreary day herein the Rocky Mountain Trench. We’rein the winter doldrums. A grey sky,temperature kind of neutral, no whis-per of a breeze. My preference is sun-shine and that has been in short sup-ply for a few days. The gloominess was

getting me down. But I got cheered up last night. I talkedwith a rancher friend and the conversation came aroundto the weather, especially the recent cold spell that lastedall of five days.“A lot of people talk and complain aboutthe weather,” he said,“but the way I look at it the weatheris always good.” And that is indeed a good way to look atweather and a lot of other things besides.

So with some renewed energy I tackled a questionthat had also been getting me down: How does a conser-vationist, and I include myself in that group, construct alife in today’s world without losing heart? The one thingabove all else that appeals to me about British Columbiaand the West in general is space: wide open landscapes. Iwant that space for myself and I want it for future gener-ations. Find me large, intact pieces of open country andI’m in heaven. Is this something that speaks to ourinherited memory, our instincts; or is it simply some-thing I picked up from reading Away In the Wildernesswhen I was a kid? If it was the latter then I guess Ihaven’t grown up yet, but I think most of us have a long-ing to be, at least once in awhile, in a place where we canfeel like the first person in the middle of creation, prefer-ably a grassland.

But if we look at the range of issues that put BC’sgrasslands and those open spaces at risk and if we aresensible about what we can do to change that, it is agiven that the totality of grasslands in the province willbe less at the end of 2004 than at the beginning. It’s hardto imagine a different outcome. For example, the humanpopulation in the Okanagan Basin is predicted to doublein the next fifty years and that growth is underway now.I wonder what the municipal officials there have in theirminds as they contemplate this. My guess is there issome rejoicing at the perceived benefits of this kind of“growth.” I’d like to be able to say to those communities:“Fine, grow another hundred thousand but you can’tgrow beyond existing boundaries because you will bedepleting grassland capital assets from the provincialaccount.” This is a kind of dream I have once in awhile, agreat gesture to mock conventional ideas of inevitability.It is hard to accept, but BC’s grasslands are still inretreat.

The response to the question I posed at the beginningis action, and as the Council moves into the new year,action is precisely what the GCC’s attention will befocused on. Pursuing our vision is a great challenge but Itake inspiration from J. Goethe: “Whatever you can do ordream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power andmagic in it. Begin it now.” And I am going to keep myfriend’s outlook in mind as the winter slides away. Theweather is always good.

This has been an incredible year forthe GCC. We started the year by pre-senting an ambitious five-year visionand strategic plan. The 2003–2008Strategic Plan presents clear goals andobjectives for GCC activities whileestablishing the means for the GCC to

evaluate its progress at the end of five years. Within thefirst year of this plan, the GCC has taken some boldsteps. I would like to profile two key initiatives for you.

Significant changes have transpired in BC regardingthe management of the province’s natural resources.There is no question that business and profit are drivingland use planning and decision-making in BC; this poli-cy stems from a “what is good for business and develop-ment is good for BC” motto. The GCC and other conser-

vation organizations must take action now to mitigatefuture loss and degradation of BC’s endangered grass-lands. Although there are regional efforts to protectgrassland landscapes and endangered habitats, BritishColumbia needs a strategy that will ensure the conserva-tion of grasslands throughout the province.

Identifying Priority Grasslands—Working Towards a Provincial GrasslandsConservation StrategyOver the past four years, the GCC completed a compre-hensive provincial Geographic Information System (GIS)that identifies the abundance, distribution and status ofBritish Columbia’s grasslands. We have taken an impor-tant step in establishing the most thorough source ofinformation and data, including maps, for all grasslandsin BC. However, we are still a step away from being able

The Grasslands ConservationCouncil of British Columbia

Established as a society in August1999 and subsequently as a regis-tered charity on December 21,2001, the Grasslands Conserva-tion Council of British Columbia(GCC) is a strategic alliance oforganizations and individuals,including government, rangemanagement specialists, ranch-ers, agrologists, grassland ecolo-gists, First Nations, environmentalgroups, recreationists and grass-land enthusiasts. This diversegroup shares a common commit-ment to education, conservationand stewardship of BritishColumbia’s grasslands.

The GCC Mission is to:

• Foster greater understanding andappreciation for the ecological,social, economic and culturalimportance of grasslandsthroughout BC;

• Promote stewardship and sustain-able management practices thatwill ensure the long-term healthof BC’s grasslands;

• Promote the conservation of rep-resentative grassland ecosystems,species at risk and their habitats.

GCC Board of Directors

EXECUTIVE

Maurice Hansen, KimberleyCHAIR

Kristi Iverson, Lac la HachePAST CHAIR

Ordell Steen, Williams LakeVICE CHAIR

Bob Scheer, KamloopsSECRETARY

Judy Guichon, QuilchenaTREASURER

Ian Barnett, KamloopsWendy Gardner, KamloopsCindy Haddow, VictoriaDennis Lloyd, KamloopsJim White, Knutsford

BOARD

Leanne Colombo, CranbrookMike Duffy, 108 Mile RanchAllen Eagle, Dawson CreekKatherine Gizikoff, MerrittBob Peart, SidneyDarrell Smith, InvermereGreg Tegart, ColdstreamGary Tipper, KimberleyNichola Walkden, VictoriaDave Zehnder, Invermere

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Bruno Delesalle, Kamloops

LARGE COVER PHOTO:Salt Lake in the Okanagan by Larry HalversonINSET LEFT: Paul SanbornINSET RIGHT: Bruno Delesalle

Message from the ChairMaurice Hansen

Message from the Executive DirectorBruno Delesalle

to inform government on priority grasslands for conservation and stewardship.Building on the provincial grasslands GIS, the GCC is initiating a process that will iden-

tify high value, priority grassland areas across the province. This process will be based onvalue criteria such as ecological condition, integrity of ecosystems, species diversity, con-nectivity, and threats to the ecosystem. The criteria will be used to identify importantgrassland sites in each region.

Based on this collaborative process, the GCC will recommend appropriate conservationaction for high priority areas, including designation of protected areas, special manage-ment zones on provincial Crown and federal land, acquisition of properties, establishmentof covenants on private land, and priority areas for stewardship on private and FirstNations lands. The identification of priority grasslands and ‘core’ conservation areas is acritical step towards developing and implementing a provincial grassland conservationstrategy.

Mitigating Fragmentation and Development of BC’s GrasslandsThe second initiative I would like to profile dovetails with the priority grasslands process.Over the past two years, it has become increasingly apparent that fragmentation, urbaniza-tion and development of grasslands throughout the Central and Southern Interior are oneof the most significant threats to BC’s grasslands. Consider the following:• Over 55% of the native grasslands in the Central Okanagan and 40% in the Southern

Okanagan Highland (Boundary Country) have been lost.• An additional 70,000 people will move into the Central Okanagan over the next 20 years.• Steady growth is predicted for the North Okanagan, Thompson and Nicola regions as

well.Cities such as Vernon, Kamloops and Penticton will continue to grow, expanding their

boundaries into the grasslands and further encroaching on already endangered habitat.Urban sprawl is only part of the problem. Incremental fragmentation of grasslands for

the development of recreational properties, ranchettes, resorts or other tourism develop-ments, and roads will continue to impact grasslands. Significant portions of our grass-lands are privately owned; for example, 58% of the grasslands in the North Okanagan and71% of the grasslands in Nicola Valley–Douglas Plateau region are held privately. Now con-sider that most of this area is ranchland. Combine this fact with the reality that manyranchers are reaching the age of retirement, and that younger generations are not neces-sarily interested in ranching. Add to this that the value of land for development in theCentral and Southern Interior has increased to the point where it exceeds the agriculturalproduction value of the land. In the USA, there are examples where land values for devel-opment exceed the agricultural values by 30 to 100 times. British Columbia is not farbehind this trend. These factors in combination do not paint a promising picture for BC’sgrasslands.

This province presently has few widely accepted tools, incentives, or programs that willensure that working ranches are kept intact and that existing grasslands are not lost toother forms of land use. Current government policy and simple economics will suggestthat other forms of land use are more profitable, and consequently more appealing, todevelopment interests.

Clearly, these are complex issues. The lack of information and the inability to strategi-cally and collaboratively develop solutions to address the fragmentation and developmentissue has motivated the GCC to take a leadership role.

Mitigating the Fragmentation and Development of BC’s Grasslands is a two-year initia-tive that will bring stakeholders to the table in order to develop a strategy and forge solu-tions to this complex problem. The GCC will:• Plan and organize a workshop to scope and prioritize the issues;

In This Issue4 BC Grasslands Reflections: 1920 to 2004

Bert Brink

6 Grassland monitoring: The great adventureDon Gayton

PERSPECTIVES

8 The Rancher’s RoleDuncan Barnett

9 Learning from our Neighbours: Lessons from the United StatesDavid A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick

10 The Government’s Role in Grassland MonitoringFred Marshall

14 Alberta implements a new system of rangeland health assessmentBarry W. Adams

12 Profile of a Grassland Aficionado: Edwin W. TisdaleSarah McNeil

13 Extension Note—Photopoint monitoring: A useful tool for ranchersJim White

16 FLORA: Pseudo What? Bluebunch WheatgrassShawna Sangster

17 FAUNA: Curlew and Grouse Conservation:A dichotomy?Ernest Leupin

18 Members’ Corner

20 Conservation partner profile: Habitat Conservation Trust FundBrian Spriginotic

21 Across the Province

22 GCC Project Updates

28 In the next issue

3 www.bcgrasslands.org…continued on page 27

My first awareness of grasslands came about the timethe 1914–1918 war was ending; it is a bit fuzzy. Mymother, I recall, was driving a one-horse buckboard andwe were passing a field being ploughed and a sloughfrom which waterfowl were rising. With emotion shesaid,“Where will the birds go and what will the Indiansdo?” I recall that she fed starving Indians who came toour back door. She had lived to see the great ploughingof the grasslands and the advent of barbed wire. Someyears later I realized that she was echoing the sadnessportrayed in Charlie Russell’s famous pencil sketch of acowboy mounted on a horse with drooping head stand-ing on prairie sod criss-crossed with trails, looking at aploughed grassland. So little natural grassland remainstoday and all of it is fenced.

In the early 1930’s I took a course in paleontologyfrom Dr. M.Y. Williams at UBC. He spoke of the extinc-tion of the dinosaurs in the late Cretaceous period, theelevation of the continents and the evolution of theworld’s grasslands. Coincidentally Professor JohnDavidson gave me free rein of his herbarium and askedme to construct a key for the identification of BC grass-es. And I read essays by the geographer Carl Sauer aboutthe world’s grasslands, their great magnitude and signif-icance.

In 1935 I was offered a graduate position at the newlyformed Kamloops range station. T.P. Mackenzie was the“super” and E.W. Tisdale, to whom I was assigned, wasthe botanist. Ranchers, along with interest from the

Dominion and provincialgovernments and from theFaculty of Agriculture atUBC, had urged the estab-lishment of the station. Withfew exceptions, the grass-lands of BC were in terribleshape. The war had broughthigh prices for horses, redmeat and cereals. After thewar the overstocked grass-lands were plagued bydroughts, grasshoppers, and

cropland with cereal rusts and smuts. There is no exag-geration: in summer the grasslands about Lac du Bois,Riske Creek, and the Nicola Commonages were so muchdust. Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” was beingenacted before our eyes.

The programs and impacts of the first range stationwere vast: to show the value of reducing rancher

dependence on low elevation grassland in favour ofmore use of open forest and alpine meadow, and toencourage growth of remnant perennial grasses onabused grasslands by rest, rotation, and avoidance ofcontinuous grazing. There were reseeding trials; crestedwheatgrass was first introduced for dryland seeding inSaskatchewan and BC. Weight gains and losses for cattleon different kinds of range were determined; methods toassess carrying capacity of different range classes weregiven consideration; economic surveys were undertakento assess operation costs such as fencing. Sounds famil-iar, but not so then. Ranchers themselves became thebest advocates of range management.

Putting the work done in the 1920s and 1930s intocontext is important for today. Interior forestry had bare-ly started and much of our work was done from horse-back. The highways of today did not exist or were simplygravel or soil. Plant identifications were made from theinadequate Henry’s Flora of BC and Rydberg’s Flora ofthe Rocky Mountains (from Utah). We charted hundredsor thousands of so-called metre square quadtracts; onour knees we came to know the grasslands of BC verywell.

Well before the clouds of war gathered over Europe in1939 the first range station closed, leaving a firm foot-print on BC’s grasslands.

Very soon after the war, ranchers, scientists and tech-nicians recognized a need for a technical organizationthat would foster better management of rangelands andgrasslands. Americans and Canadians initiated theorganization. Subsequently it was joined by others frommany countries and international congresses have beenheld. The significance of world and regional grasslandsbegan to be appreciated. Today there are few countrieswithout vibrant organizations addressing problems ofthe world’s ranges.

Universities and colleges in many countries offercourses, and some have entire departments teachingmanagement of rangelands and grasslands. On myreturn as an instructor to UBC in 1939, I was asked tostart a course in plant ecology, given the designation of“Range Management” or “Range Ecology.” The courserecognized the diversity of wildlife as well as domesticanimal users of grasslands. The only other courses ofsimilar content were those taught by Dr. Sampson inCalifornia and Dr. Stoddart in Utah.

Out of the Navy after the war, Wilf Pendray returnedto head up the Grazing Division of the BC Forest Service.Among many items, he addressed “the tragedy of the

BC Grasslands Reflections: 1920 to 2004 Dr. Bert Brink, Federation of British Columbia Naturalists

GrasslandsBC

The author at a rangesurvey camp at Pass Lake,1936. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE

AUTHOR

Nicola Commons” by assigning welfare of their parts toindividual ranches. He reduced the number of semi-feralhorses and introduced new techniques in assessing the carrying capacity of crown ranges. Tom (T.W.) Willis re-established the Canada Range Research Station inKamloops with buildings, a field facility and a laboratoryfacility, this despite post-war shortages; I once found himretrieving nails from old planks so that a building couldproceed.

When I was young most people in Canada could fairly betermed rural. Today, depending on definition, probably lessthan five percent, or by some definitions only two percent,are rural. Through 1950 into the present there has beenrapid population growth; and with it a loss of grasslandand farmland, variously estimated but probably over 50%,in favour of housing, industry, transportation, and commu-nication facilities. By 1972 arable land was being alienatedby about 10,000 acres per annum.

How little remains of BC’s natural grasslands! That is aretrospection of a life ofmore than 90 years, born inAlberta but lived in BC. Theretrospection is paralleledby an awareness of the rap-idly growing population,largely of newcomers urbanand suburban, with an insatiable demand for accommoda-tion and the facilities of infrastructure; a population notantagonistic to, but largely unaware of, the significance ofopen grassland to them and to the well-being of ourprovince. It is not easy to convey to them the values of theopen space, the diversity of plants, animals and soils it con-tains, its climates and recreational features, or of the natureand character of the ranching community it supports. Somuch of the value is intangible; political decision-makersburdened with problems they deem to be larger pay scantattention to those of the grasslands.

What are the policies that might support grasslands and

their communities? To this point the community has prid-ed its independence but can that position be maintained?Europe subsidizes its agriculture, no matter how you readit, with subsidies three times those of Canada, America byat least twice. Is the field of play level? That is questionable.There are some pluses: Land and Resource ManagementPlan processes provide some useful boundaries. TheNature Trust of BC has purchased grasslands and, workingwith local ranchers, established two sizeable, biodiversity-producing ranches. The Land Conservancy of BritishColumbia and the Nature Conservancy of Canada havepurchased significant grasslands. Good enough, but notenough.

One thing that is very clear to this elderly aficionado of

BC grasslands—all environmentalists, wildlife harvesters,recreationists, ranchers, and local politicians must work inconcert to inform the larger community of BC of the valuesof our grasslands. We must continue in as many ways as wecan to devise our own stewardship of a most preciousasset.

Signing off with my family cattle brand assigned in 1885under Northwest Territories of Canada.

Dr. Bert Brink is a long time grassland enthusiast, and hasbeen a respected member of the Grasslands ConservationCouncil since its inception at Big Bar Ranch in 1996.

The author working on a tree reproduction study atWatching Creek in 1935.

5 www.bcgrasslands.org

How little remains of BC’s natural grasslands!

That is a retrospection of a life of more than 90 years.

B

GrasslandsBC

The time: seven am on a lovely Julymorning. The place: a native grass-land in the Southern Interior. Thepurpose: to remeasure a vegetationmonitoring plot I had put in fiveyears before. Now fast-forward tolate afternoon; it hasn’t been a goodday. The metal plot marker pins I putin five years ago are now impossiblyhard to find, buried by overactivepocket gophers. Fortunately, I hadput wooden stakes next to the metalpins to make them easier to find.Unfortunately, cows and deer haveknocked most of the stakes over.

Then to top it off, the little aluminum tags used to num-ber the plots have been stolen by magpies. After painful-ly reconstructing the plots from my notes, I begin to rackmy brain: did I start monitoring on the left side, or theright side of the plot? Is my ability to estimate plantcover similar to what it was then? Is the Columbianeedlegrass I identified then actually the annoyinglysimilar stiff needlegrass I am looking at, or has the onedropped out and the other taken its place? After a fullday of those kinds of questions, the hot summer suntakes its toll. Drops of sweat fall on my data recordingsheet, smearing the numbers. I keep losing my pencil inthe tall grass, and my water bottle is empty. There is norhyme or reason to the vegetation; it varies every metre.I have no idea if the plant community changes I’m see-ing over the span of five years are due to weather, man-agement, measurement error, or space aliens.

Relax, this story is fictitious. All of these things havehappened to me in twenty years of grassland monitor-ing; they just haven’t all happened at the same place andtime. But the story does serve as a good introduction tothe challenging but fascinating task of monitoring BCgrasslands.

I start from the premise that we can’t manage ecosys-tems or natural resources unless we monitor them. Withgrasslands, this is a statement of faith, since we know solittle about how grassland ecosystems work, and how tomonitor them effectively. But, rather than wringing ourhands in despair over our ignorance, we can all bravelysay,“There’s no time like the present,” and “Learn bydoing,” and blunder cheerfully into the swamp.

I’m going to talk about vegetation monitoring.

Certainly there are a host of other grassland organismsworthy of monitoring, from cicadas to Herefords to sagethrashers, but they are all held within – and are totallydependent on – the lovely green matrix of grasses andforbs.

Good inventory and good monitoring go hand-in-hand. Inventory tells you what vegetation is growingwhere, on a landscape scale. Monitoring chooses one ofthose vegetation types (which might be contiguous, ormore likely, scattered in separate chunks across the land-scape) and tells you in detail what’s happening withinthat vegetation type. Baseline monitoring is just that; it’sa single snapshot. Condition and trend monitoring, orrepeat monitoring, is the moving picture. That’s whenyou go back to your original monitoring site after a sea-son, or a year, or five years, remonitor, and compare theoriginal baseline data to the current data. As you makethis comparison you ask,“Is the plant communitychanging, and if so, what is causing that change? If thereare changes, are they positive, negative or neutral, froman ecological standpoint? From an economic stand-point?” At this point you will probably also ask yourself,“O Lord, why me?”

Grassland monitoring has two different tribes; there isthe cowboy tribe, and the lab-coat tribe. These tribes aresymbolic of a fundamental paradox in the systematicmonitoring of grasslands. Observations that are broadenough to have useful application in the management ofgrasslands (cowboy monitoring) rarely meet the level ofstatistical validity. Conversely, statistically valid observa-tions of grasslands (lab-coat monitoring) are by theirvery nature so narrow and site-specific that they have lit-tle relevance to the management of grasslands. Withinthe lab-coat monitoring tribe there are separate clans,which feud mightily over methodology and statistics.

What can I say? Embrace the paradox, the tribes, thefeuds and the triangle.

I think of grassland monitoring as a triangle, sittingon a table. The table represents a foundation of good,solid biogeoclimatic inventory. The wide base of the tri-angle represents a large amount of informal, observa-tional and semi-quantitative monitoring. The middle ofthe triangle represents a smaller amount of replicated,quantitative monitoring done by observers with sometraining. The apex of the triangle represents a very smallamount of research-grade, heavily replicated monitor-ing, done by trained researchers at semi-permanent

The author using aDaubenmire frame. PHOTO BY DON GAYTON

Grassland monitoring: The great adventureDon Gayton, M.Sc., P.Ag., Forest Research Extension Partnership


research sites. The key thing is that each level of the moni-toring triangle supports and informs the other. Now if I cantake my geometry analogy further and introduce thedimension of time, we transform our triangle into a prismshape, where the same three interrelated levels of monitor-ing are repeated over time to give us condition and trenddata. With this arrangement we now have continuous andreliable data flowing out of the prism like rainbow colors oflight, illuminating the lives of grassland users and grass-land policymakers. But I digress.

No matter where you go in grasslands, all quantitativemonitoring boils down to one or more of four key parame-ters: floristic composition, plant cover estimates, plant pop-ulation estimates, or plant weight (dry matter production)estimates. Floristic composition is simply a fancy term foridentifying the plants on a site. You might ask where rangereadiness and grazing utilization checks fit in: they aregrass height measurements, but the height measurement isreally just a surrogate for plant weight.

A lot of my work has revolved around the use of theDaubenmire frame, a simple, traditional device for estimat-ing plant cover. It is a portable, rectangular metal framethat creates an opening 20 cm by 50 cm wide, which isplaced over the grass canopy. The observer then identifieseach species within the frame and estimates what percentof the space inside the frame the leaves and stems of thosespecies occupy.“Daubie” frames are simple to make; awelding shop can put one together for a few bucks. I thinkeveryone with even a passing interest in grassland moni-toring should spend a few hours looking through RexfordDaubenmire’s little metal window, in the company ofsomeone who knows their plants.

There are several variations of the Daubenmire method-ology that one should be aware of before embarking onprojects using the device. Point intercept is an alternateplant cover monitoring methodology that in someinstances can give more precise, less subjective data. Lineintercept is a third variant which works well for grasslandshrubs and trees. Plant cover methodologies can also beused to estimate amounts of other grassland elements,such as plant litter, mosses, lichens, bare soil, feces, etc.

Photography is also used extensively in grassland moni-toring, but one must remember that photographs are notquantitative, and a photo represents a single replicate. Ihave taken and retaken close-up grassland photoplots foryears and find the photos to be of limited value. I findmedium distance and landscape photographs to be moreuseful, particularly for seeing gross changes in shrub andtree cover. Photographs really come into their own asadjuncts to the presentation of data. A graph, together witha photo, is worth far more than a thousand words.

A typical chunk of British Columbia native grasslandwill contain 20 to 50 vascular plant species, putting it at thevery high end of the BC biodiversity scale. Typical too isthe rule of “few common, many rare.” In other words, most

of the plant cover (and biomass) on a grassland site willcome from three to six dominant species, while the covervalues of all the rest of the species will range from minor tominute. The few common, many rare feature has two impli-cations for us: firstly, it makes it possible to crudely charac-terize a grassland by simply identifying and ranking thoseleading species; secondly, if we want to monitor threatenedor rare plant species, it means we have to do a lot of obser-vations—many looks through Daubenmire’s window—inorder to get reliable data.

One of the real deterrents to grassland monitoring isgrass plant identification, which normal people put in thesame category as root canal work. Grass identification isdifficult, humbling, and necessary. Over time, it comes.British Columbia now has some good grass taxonomybooks and, probably more importantly, good grassland tax-onomists. Seek them both out.

While on the subject of hum-bling, seasonal and between-yearweather effects on grasslandplant cover and biomass willalmost always be greater thanthe effects of our grassland man-agement. Repeat remonitoring a single site can help “smoothout” weather-related variation in our data sets.

For additional detail and monitoring references, my 2003publication British ColumbiaGrasslands: Monitoring Vegeta-tion Change, is available from the Forest ResearchExtension Partnership (FORREX), or downloadable fromour website (www.forrex.org).

Parting advice? To monitor is good; to remonitor isdivine. We are really proficient at establishing new moni-toring plots, but not so good at the unromantic grunt workof finding old data sets, relocating the plots they camefrom, resampling them, and making sense of the trends.There are literally hundreds of existing grassland monitor-ing plots, transects and exclosures in this province, patient-ly waiting to confess their ecological secrets to the rightperson. It could be you.

At the risk of sounding New Age flaky, monitoring nativegrasslands can be a personal transformative experience. Inthe process, the grasslands will give far more to you thanyou will ever give back to them.

Don Gayton, M. Sc, P. Ag, is with the Forest ResearchExtension Partnership—FORREX, in Nelson. His monitor-ing experience includes working as range management spe-cialist for the government of Saskatchewan, and participat-ing in the now-cancelled Rangeland Reference Areas pro-gram in BC. He nurses an enduring grudge against pocketgophers.

Grassland monitoring has two

different tribes; there is the cowboy

tribe, and the lab-coat tribe.

These tribes are symbolic of a

fundamental paradox in the

systematic monitoring of grasslands.

A P E R S P E C T I V E

The new Forest and Range Practices Act came into force on January 31,2004. The legislation and regulations are the primary part of a results-based framework, but they are not the only component. Policy, proceduresand best management practices—collectively referred to as guidelines —support the legislation and regulations. A well-understood, agreed-uponset of guidelines which includes monitoring details, has yet to be put inplace.

The new Act and regulations were developed in order to promote inno-vation and provide for balance and flexibility in managing the province’sforest and range resources. Flexibility is found in the fact that rancherscan choose between a relatively prescriptive Range Use Plan and theinnovation enabled by a Range Stewardship Plan. How the new legislationwill impact range monitoring for ranchers on the ground will depend onthe plan chosen.

Under a basic Range Use Plan, one can expect monitoring to be focusedon following the grazing schedule. The schedule should ensure that posi-tive results are achieved. In those plans, where results such as plant com-munity descriptions, range readiness criteria, stubble heights or browseutilization levels are specified, the rancher will want to record someobservations and measurements. When thresholds are reached, appropri-ate action must be taken.

Ranchers with a Range Stewardship Plan are required to develop aprocess for monitoring and evaluating the consistency of their range

practices with objectives set by government for soils, forage, water, fish,wildlife and biodiversity. This will necessitate assessments for litter andcover, species composition, productivity, proper functioning condition,and so on. The stewardship plan may also include utilization criteria,either in the form of results specified by the Minister, or alternativeresults and strategies proposed by the rancher. Monitoring will be neces-sary in either case, and plans that propose alternatives must contain aprocess for monitoring and evaluating these results or strategies.

Regardless of the plan chosen, the rancher’s role will be to collect credi-ble data and evaluate it accurately. They must do their best to comply withall practice requirements. Monitoring techniques will be more complicat-ed, and the interpretation of findings more complex, for the RangeStewardship Plan than the basic Range Use Plan.

Transition provisions give range tenure holders until December 31,2005 to move from plans authorized under the old Forest Practices Codeto new results-based plans. This means stakeholders have less than twoyears to agree on what will be monitored, the techniques that may beused, and how findings will be interpreted and applied.

In order to have an effective, comprehensive, province-wide approachto grassland monitoring and range management, all stakeholders mustfirst agree on the purpose. Monitoring solely for the purposes of compli-

ance and enforcement will never get buy-in from the ranching communi-ty.

Monitoring should be for the purpose of maintaining or improvingrangeland health. As part of the plan-monitor-control-replan adaptivemanagement system, monitoring leads to improved results—both fromthe perspective of range practices and ranch production.

To be effective, a monitoring program must balance range science withpracticality. How large a sample size is needed to measure stubble height?Techniques must be easily accessible to ranchers. Pictures and photopoints are a good example. Simple measurements increase the likelihoodof getting useful and relevant information. Make it too complicated, andthe data may become meaningless. The plant community description fora Chilcotin hay meadow before and after harvesting—“same only short-er”—comes to mind.

A comprehensive monitoring program must encompass not just grass-lands, but rangelands in general. Monitoring cannot be limited only tolivestock grazing impacts. It must address impacts from wildlife, recre-ation and invasive plants, forest encroachment and ingrowth, and urbanencroachment. The various pressures on resources and the natural diver-sity of our province make the task of monitoring more complicated in BCthan in other jurisdictions.

A province-wide approach to monitoring requires agreement betweenall stakeholders including ranchers, conservationists, and at least four

government ministries. The monitoringprogram equivalent of GenerallyAccepted Accounting Principles is need-ed. Generally accepted monitoring prin-ciples should include the what, where,when and how of measurement. Perhapsmost importantly, there must be agree-

ment on how to interpret findings. The ranching community is greatlyconcerned about the effects of uncontrollable variables such as weather,and the use of point-in-time measurements that fail to convey overalltrends.

Extension is needed to communicate what is learned through monitor-ing, as well as through research and inventory activities. An ongoingforum to discuss application of theory to practice, problems with tech-niques or interpretations, and possible solutions, would be useful. Weshould also continue to look at examples of monitoring programs fromother jurisdictions.

Like many things in life, range management is part science and partintuition. Done well, it becomes an art. The range is the artist’s medium.To increase the pleasure derived by creatures great and small who experi-ence this art, we need to ensure that data collected by monitoring pro-vides useful information, which in turn translates into knowledge thatimproves the skill of our artists.

Duncan Barnett divides his time between family, ranching, consulting andlocal government duties. Duncan and his wife, Jane, along with their threedaughters, own and operate the family ranch at Miocene, near WilliamsLake, BC.

The Rancher’s RoleDuncan Barnett, Rancher and Consultant

GrasslandsBC

Like many things in life, range management is part science and part intuition.

Done well, it becomes an art.


Concepts and practices of rangeland evaluation have evolved with time.Twenty-five years ago, if evaluations even were mentioned in textbooks,the focus was on upland areas, ignoring wetlands and any transitionalareas associated with streams and lakes. Evaluations emphasized invento-ries of biological and physical characteristics of upland units, and deter-mined status and trends of these characteristics as a surrogate for the sta-tus and trends of rangelands as a whole. Evaluations of rangeland status,referred to as rangeland condition, relied heavily on measurements of thevariety of vascular plants present, and a comparisons of these measure-ments against a standard amount or proportion of these plants.

In recent times, we continue efforts to determine the status of range-lands and evaluate any changes in a plant community relative to a stan-dard. However, the traditional approaches no longer meet the needs ofrangeland managers. New tools are being developed to address threeissues: (1) increased demand for indicators that reflect ecosystem func-tion and that are relevant to multiple uses and values in upland systems,(2) increased importance of wetland, riparian, and aquatic communitiesas integral parts of rangeland ecosystems, and (3) the need for quantita-tive, consistent national and regional evaluations that effectively addressboth of the first two issues.

25 Years of ChangeAn ongoing debate continues about the use of traditional measures ofrangeland condition and trend for upland areas. Rangeland managershave noted international examples of the failure of the rangeland succes-sion model used in the traditional condition classification. Often the fail-ures were recorded in arid and semiarid environments. The removal oflivestock grazing alone was frequently insufficient to allow vegetation suc-cession to proceed as predicted within typical management time frames.

The use of indicators in rangeland evaluation has been a recurrenttheme. The trend has been to move from one or two indicators to a suiteof indicators. Pellant and coauthors in 2000 developed a qualitative tech-nique called Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health that currently isbeing applied by the Bureau of Land Management and Natural ResourcesConservation Service. This approach uses 17 indicators to rate a site inthree attributes or criteria, soil and site stability, hydrological function,and biotic integrity. Soil and site stability describes a location’s ability tolimit soil erosion to the normal amount expected for the location.Hydrologic function is the ability of the location to capture, store, andsafely release water while biotic integrity is the capacity of a location toresist the loss of biological functions and be resilient enough for the bio-logical organisms to recover from disturbance. Thus instead of one over-all rating of rangeland status, a manager obtains three separate ratingsgiving a more specific description of the status of the land than a singlerating. Pyke and co-authors in 2002 modified the standard for compari-

son by de-emphasizing the need for reference areas and advocating thereliance on a written description of the range of values expected for eachindicator on an ecological site. They also proposed a series of quantitativetechniques that could be used to monitor many of the indicators, butapplications of these techniques have not been formally reported.

Future Rangelands EvaluationsAlthough remote sensing technology has been with us for the last25 years, we believe that it has only recently become a useful tool and onethat shows additional promise as we learn how to apply it appropriatelyand how to link it to land-based techniques in a cost-effective manner.

Remote sensing technology combined with Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) are providing us with tools to examine how rangelandsthat are isolated by development, invasive species or changes in land usesmay impact wildlife species that requires large expanses of undevelopedland. Pyke and Knick in 2003 discussed how these tools could provide uswith a mechanism for prioritizing our restoration and improvementefforts. Using GIS technology, we can simultaneously evaluate soils,potential productivity, climate, and vegetation communities. Thisimproves our ability to develop predictive models useful in designingeffective restoration plans and reconnecting fragmented habits.

Future national and international policies may dictate a need for newrangeland evaluations. One function of rangelands that is poised forincorporation in evaluations is carbon storage. If nations begin to negoti-ate carbon credits, as is currently being discussed, it is within the realm ofpossibility that management changes will need to be evaluated relative totheir impact on carbon storage. This may lead to new techniques formonitoring carbon within ecosystems.

Rest assured, changes in rangeland evaluations will continue. Weshould not halt or resist this progress, but rather should enthusiasticallyencourage new developments and thoroughly test them. That said, asevaluation techniques change, we should strive to incorporate and usethem along with older techniques to provide some periods of continuityas we adjust to improved methods. We can apply a useful approach fromthe soil science community. That approach is the understanding that aswe learn more and improve methods, we will change how we measureand evaluate rangelands. Thus each new approach becomes a newapproximation or versions of our knowledge of rangeland evaluations.We should anticipate at least as many new developments in the next 25 years as we had in the last 25 years.

The above is an excerpt from “Transitions in Rangeland Evaluations, areview of the major transitions in rangeland evaluations during the last 25years and speculation about future evaluations” by David A. Pyke andJeffrey E. Herrick, and was reprinted with permission from Rangelands.

Learning from our Neighbours: Lessons from the United StatesExcerpts from Transitions in Rangeland EvaluationsPyke, USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center and Herrick, USDA and New Mexico State University


GrasslandsBC

Discussion and Background“Utilization of the resources—land, vegetation,animals, water, air—is basic to life itself. There isno alternative to use. Resource conservation, bydefinition and fact, implies the rational use ofresources for man’s benefit with a minimum ofenvironmental impairment. Use with preserva-tion, not use versus preservation, is the real chal-lenge. At the same time, natural areas preservedin perpetuity for various valid reasons obviouslyare needed by today’s world.” 1

The government of British Columbia has theresponsibility to manage its resources for thelong-term benefit of the people of BC and, in abroader perspective, for the benefit of all mem-bers of the world society. This responsibilitymust meet the parameters as stated above; thatis, rational use—for man’s benefit, with mini-mal environmental impairment and—use withpreservation.

Range management has been the formalresponsibility of the provincial governmentsince the first Grazing Act was passed in 1919;the terms and conditions of this responsibilitywere enhanced on January 1, 1979 with the pas-sage of the Range Act. This act introduced anew form of range tenure, the Grazing License,which complemented the Grazing Permit.2 Thisact formally vested responsibility for rangemanagement in the Ministry of Forests. Thisresponsibility was further defined by the ForestPractices Code Act in 19953, which involved sev-eral guidebooks and required the developmentof a Range Use Plan for both the Grazing Permitand License.

The new Forest and Range Practices Act(FRPA) and accompanying regulations are stillunder development. Indications are that respon-sibility for preparation of the Range Use Planswill devolve to the range tenure holder, whilethe Ministry of Forests will be responsible forapproving, monitoring, and enforcing saidplans.

The range tenure holder will be expected todevelop his respective Range Use Plans at hisown expense, as opposed to forest tenure hold-ers who are most often fully compensated fortheir planning costs under the TimberAppraisal system.

Although range use and management havebeen around for a relatively long time, it is onlywithin the past 10 years that the intrinsic, orinherent, values of BC’s native grasslands havebeen more fully recognized and understood.These values recognize not only that the grass-lands are essential to the success of the BC cat-tle industry, but also that the grasslands areincredibly important for many other reasons,some of which we are not yet even aware.Recognition of these different values has engen-dered the need and responsibility to measureand monitor grasslands and their associatedvalues so that they can be better understoodand managed.

Grassland MonitoringAs is obvious by the above discussion, grasslandmonitoring would appear to be the ultimateresponsibility of the Ministry of Forests; and, bytheir very nature of being government, thisresponsibility extends to all resource valuespresent on the grasslands. This responsibilityalso extends beyond BC to the broader globalcommunity.

The provincial government has three types ofresponsibility relative to grasslands monitoring:legal; implied; and moral, ethical, professionaland personal.

1. Legal responsibility of the government:

Notwithstanding the above mentioned laws,regulations and guidebooks, there is virtuallyno legal obligation for the government toundertake or carry out grassland monitoring onBC’s range or grasslands and none is expectedin the new legislation. This contrasts signifi-cantly with timber or forest resources as thegovernment is legally bound to conduct a for-mal Timber Supply Review of every TimberSupply Area (and Industry for every Tree FarmLicense) in BC every five years unless formallywaived by the Minister of Forests. All forestedareas are therefore formally reinventoried everyfive years and a new annual allowable cut deter-mined for them.2. Implied: Under FRPA the licensees will pre-pare their Range Use Plans; the Ministry ofForests Range Officer will make the decisionswhether or not to approve them. The RangeOfficer must have some range and resourceinformation on which to base this decision.Similarly, when a new Range Tenure becomesavailable or an old one comes up for renewal,the Range Officer must determine appropriateanimal unit months or carrying capacity for theparticular range area. Some fairly extensiveknowledge about the particular range area mustbe held by the Range Officer to enable him to

The Government’s Role in Grassland MonitoringFred Marshall, R.P.F., P.Ag.

Beautiful Swan Lake in the Princeton Basin. PHOTO BY BRUNO DELESALLE



make a responsible decision. Such knowledgecan only be gained through some form of rangeor grasslands monitoring system or protocol.

While there are several ways the RangeOfficer can do this relative to grasslands, thethree most common are:A.The use of range reference points with per-

manent sample plots or areas;B. Photo comparisons: comparing old photos

versus new photos, particularly with respectto the types and extent of vegetative cover oneach;

C. Field inspections: generally a combination ofa drive and walk through the range area withan evaluation being made of the state of thevarious range areas and associated resources

3. Moral, ethical, professional and

personal: The degree to which the impliednature of the government employees’ responsi-bilities is achieved depends on their individualmoral, ethical, professional and personalintegrity. To measure or fairly evaluate thedegree to which these implied responsibilitiesare achieved is subjective, and, in mostinstances, virtually impossible.

The provincial government must fully con-sider all aspects of grassland values. All govern-ment employees are bound by their GuidingPrinciples, which commit them to,“…advocatefor the wise and balanced use and protection ofall forest values.” Again, the only way one canmeet such responsibilities is through the gath-ering of sound resource information and thewise application of same.

Those who belong to professional associa-tions are also bound by their respective Codesof Ethics which commit them to,“manage orperform services consistent with the higheststandards of quality, integrity, and with respectfor the rangeland plant, soil, water, air and ani-mal resources, the employer, and the public”4

or to “discharge any duties and obligations tothe public, employers and clients with fidelity,fairness and impartiality”5 or to “…advocateand practice good stewardship of forest landbased on sound ecological principles to sustainits ability to provide those values that have beenassigned by society.” 6

The degree to which resource professionalsuphold their respective Codes of Ethics is, forthe most part, up to their particular associationand the members thereof.

What’s expected under FRPAThe Ministry of Forests will develop resourceobjectives for relatively broad range areas.These objectives will be related to: soil; water;timber; fish and wildlife; biodiversity; resourcefeatures; visual quality objectives; forage andassociated plant community; and cultural andheritage resources.

The Licensee ResponsibilityThe licensee will develop Range Use Plans thatdemonstrate how these objectives will be met,and monitor and report on progress beingmade on reaching the objectives.

The Government ResponsibilityThe government will monitor licensee’s per-formance (including livestock numbers, move-ment, etc. ), and evaluate licensee progresstowards meeting stated objectives.7

CommentaryThe provincial government should:A.Undertake a provincial grasslands/range

inventory. This should be a legal obligationwith reinventories required every 10 years.

B. Develop an appropriate retinue of representa-tive grassland protected areas across BC.

C. Establish a provincial network of permanentrange reference areas so that accurate com-parisons of range condition and trend can bemade. The requirement to establish, maintainand monitor these areas should be a legalone.

D. Request the Forest Practices Board toincrease its independent audits of rangepractices throughout BC.

E. Provide financial assistance to rangelicensees, both direct payments, for their timeand travel expenses (or that of consultants),and indirect, for formal training programs toprovide them with the capacity to develop therequired Range Use Plans. The forestlicensees are funded for such work; the rangelicensees should be similarly funded.

F. Provide extensive training to their own staffso that they have the capacity to fulfill theirresponsibilities to the resources, their clientsand the public.

G.Develop a formal evaluation process to guideits staff to monitor the progress being madeby the range licensees at within least twoyears of initial approval of the Range UsePlans and to regularly monitor this progressat least every five years thereafter.

H.Improve the definitions of “ProperFunctioning Condition” and “PotentialNatural Community” and include these in thetraining sessions.The present and expected FRPA legislative

and administrative framework does not provideadequate direction or safeguards to ensure thatthe grasslands of BC are properly monitored,evaluated, or managed. The recommendationsincluded above address these deficiencies andshould be adopted by the provincial govern-ment.

Fred Marshall earned a B.Sc. from the Universityof Idaho and a Master's Degree in Foresty fromYale University. After ten years as Chief Foresterat Northwood Mills in BC’s Southern Interior, hetaught at both Malaspina and Selkirk Colleges.Now an independent consultant, he serves a vari-ety of clients with an emphasis on small wood-lands and woodlots. He and his wife own andoperate a small cattle ranch and woodlot in theKettle Valley.

Footnotes1 Planning the Use and Management of

Renewable Resources, by E. William Anderson.Rangeman’s Journal, Oct. 1977, Pg. 145:

2 The Grazing Permit has a variable term of 1-5years; the Grazing License has a 10 year termand is the predominate form of range tenure inBC.

3 And subsequent Amendments.4 Society for Range Management code of ethics.5 British Columbia of Agriculturist code of

ethics.6 Association of BC Forest Professionals code of

ethics.7 Some Ministry of Forests personnel believe

that under expected staffing levels, they willonly be able to monitor such progress for eachlicensee once every 10 years!

Dr. Edwin W. Tisdale is widely recognized as the pioneerof grassland classification in British Columbia. He wasborn on March 10, 1910 in Greenway, Manitoba. He wenton to study at the University of Manitoba and earned hisundergraduate degree in biological sciences in 1930. Helater attended the University of Minnesota, where heearned both a master’s degree and a doctorate.

While attending the University of Manitoba, Tisdalebegan working as a summer student at the DominionRange Experiment Station in Manyberries, Alberta. Aftergraduation in 1930, he entered the Canadian FederalService and remained with it until 1947. While with theFederal Service, he helped establish the range researchprograms in Kamloops, British Columbia and SwiftCurrent, Saskatchewan.

Tisdale’s contributions to grassland classification andmonitoring in BC are undeniable. His seminal work, firstpublished in 1947, defined three basic range types basedon elevations and is still valid today for regions such asthe Thompson-Nicola, Cariboo, and Okanagan. Tisdalewas something of a legend in the ranching communityaround Kamloops; he would show up in remote grass-land areas in his black hat and Model T, clipboard andplant press in hand.

After working as an agrologist for the CanadianDepartment of Agriculture from 1930 to 1947, he wasappointed Associate Professor of Range Management atthe University of Idaho in 1947. He became professorand Associate Director of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife andRange Experiment Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife

and Range Sciences, in 1953. He continued to serve inthis capacity, combining teaching, research and adminis-tration, until his retirement in 1975.

Tisdale, whose areas of specialization included vegeta-tion classification and vegetation habitat relationships,was the author or co-author of many studies of westernrange vegetation and habitat. He pioneered early studieson the sagebrush regions of Idaho, and had participatedin or initiated a number of studies of the canyon grass-lands of the middle Snake and lower Salmon River val-leys. After retirement, he continued to be activelyinvolved in research and working with graduate studentsat the University of Idaho.

Tisdale and his wife traveled extensively. In 1966, theyspent a sabbatical year in the Middle East, North andEast Africa, and Europe, where Tisdale studied rangeproblems and the effects of dryland grazing under theauspices of the Drylands Research Institute, Riverdale,California. They made two trips to Guatemala, where hedid consulting work for the Peace Corps in the 1970s.They also traveled extensively in New Zealand, Australia,Mexico, and the United States.

Tisdale’s professional memberships included theSociety for Range Management, of which he was one ofthe founding members. He helped found the Idaho sec-tion in 1950, served as its president in 1955, and servedas vice-president (1956), president (1957), and pastpresident (1958) of the national organization in theUnited States. He was also a member, consultant, andgood friend of the Idaho Field Office of the NatureConservancy.

Dr. Tisdale passed away on Friday, November 25, 1994,after a long illness; he was 84 years old. Although he isno longer with us, he left an irrefutable mark on BC’sgrasslands, the way they are studied, and the way theyare classified. Beyond his personal contributions, hepaved the way for future grassland experts in theprovince, such as Dr. Bert Brink, who worked underTisdale at the Range Research Station in Kamloops in1935. Tisdale was truly a pioneer of BC’s grasslands, agenuine grassland aficionado.

Sarah is the new Education and Outreach Co-ordinatorfor the Grasslands Conservation Council. For more infor-mation on Sarah, or the projects on which she is working,turn to page 22 .

Edwin W. TisdaleSarah McNeil, Education and Outreach Co-ordinator, Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia

Edwin Tisdale, a legendamong the rangemanagement community. PHOTO COURTESY OF

AGRICULTURE CANADA

P R O F I L E O F A G R A S S L A N D A F I C I O N A D O

GrasslandsBC


“Monitoring…who cares? I don’t have time for it.” Thatstatement could sum up the feelings of many of us –both rangeland specialists and ranchers. The tyranny ofthe urgent is a driving force for all of us. We keep finan-cial records, even though it is time consuming, and itmay not be our favourite job. However, we do it becauseit is less painful than the alternative. Perhaps trackingrangeland health should be viewed from a similar per-spective.

Monitoring, as I am using the term here, simplymeans periodically making objective observations on apiece of rangeland, and comparing those observationswith previous ones to help determine if the health andproductivity of the land is improving, remaining stable,or deteriorating.

“Why would I want to take the time to monitor? Timeis money, and I don’t have much of either these days.”Good point; however, a few reasons for monitoring mightinclude:• Because management (riding, salting, fence and water

development, maintenance) costs money and time. Itwould be good to confirm that our investment is pay-ing off.

• Because, as Gerard Guichon so aptly said,“My ranch ismy grass.” Grass is what makes a ranch viable. JackChristian often said,“When those cows are not on therange, they are costing me money.” Both of theseranchers had pretty sharp pencils. If we want goodgrass production, we want to maintain, or attain,healthy plant communities.

• Because the ‘new’ philosophy of the provincial govern-ment is to give users of Crown range much more free-dom, but demand more accountability. It appears thatranchers will be required to show that they are doing agood job of grazing management, which is fairly easyto do, but not without some objective information.And future government checks on rangeland use willoften be made by compliance and enforcement, andwildlife staff, rather than range staff.

• Because cattle grazing periodically comes underattack—especially grazing on Crown range. Often theattacks are based on bias, emotion, and irrelevant datafrom somewhere far away. However, defending yourmanagement practices is very hard to do withoutsome objective information that puts your attackersinformation to shame. Most Forest Service offices areno longer staffed to be able to help defend grazing onCrown range.

One might say that it is even more important to deter-mine the direction of trend in rangeland health than it isto quantify the state of health at any given time. If agrassland is currently healthy but deteriorating, it maybe a serious issue.

Historically in BC there has been little operationalmeasurement of trend in rangeland health. Objectivemeasurements have usually occurred only where somekind of rangeland research project was being done.Research level, quantifiable (e.g.: using numbers such aspercentage cover of certain plants) vegetation measure-ments repeated over time can be compared, and accurateconclusions drawn as to the trend in rangeland health.However, the techniques used in research tend to be slow(expensive), and require a fairamount of training (intimidat-ing to many of us) both to practice and to interpret.

Photopoint monitoring is auseful tool for three reasons:• It is much quicker, and there-

fore more affordable, thanmore detailed methods. Itrequires less training to getgood results.

• It yields photos of yourrange. In an argument withyour local spokesman for the ‘cattlefree’ movement, oreven your local Forest Service office, three sets of pic-tures taken at three to five year intervals that showmore desirable plants and fewer undesirable ones, andmore ground cover with less bare soil, are very hard toargue with. I have been in meetings where a few pic-tures brought a long-running argument to a suddenand final halt.

• It documents such things as tree encroachment andimpacts of recreation.Photopoint monitoring yields repeatable photos of a

site to track change, at an affordable time and dollarcost.

The objective of photo point monitoring is to visuallydocument the change in the major species and structureof vegetation over time and on sites representative oflarger areas.

Doing it consists of establishing permanent markers(often steel pegs of some sort, but it may be a rock orsomething similar) that will allow taking identical,repeated pictures of the same piece of grassland overtime. If pictures from five and ten years ago are com-

Extension NotePhotopoint monitoring: A useful tool for ranchersJim White, Principal, Rangeland Associates

The author making notes ata photopoint. PHOTO BY ROZ KEMPE

…continued on page 27

GrasslandsBC

Over the past four years, range managers in Alberta havebeen developing a new system of range health assess-ment for use by land management agencies, ranchers,wildlife managers and a wide spectrum of rangelandusers. Alberta’s first range condition guide was publishedin 1966. The range condition approach measured thealteration of plant species composition due to grazing orother disturbances relative to the climax plant commu-nity (the potential vegetation for the site). The “StockingGuide” was a very popular tool and widely used. For agiven set of soil and climate conditions, range site couldbe established and range condition applied to estimatean initial stocking rate, an important feature for estab-lishing sustainable grazing levels.

Though the approach worked well in semi-arid grass-lands, it had a number of shortcomings. The range con-dition concept assumed that all declines in range condi-tion were reversible; experience shows that this may notbe the case. Stable states in plant succession that are rel-atively resistant to change, even with decades of rest,may be established. This is particularly true in thoseplant communities that are invaded by non-nativespecies. Also, the concept of a single climax communitydoes not address the dynamic character of native plantcommunities where a number of successional outcomesare possible. The debate in the US also identified theneed to consider the management needs for soil whenmanagement practices lead to accelerated erosion. Newrange health tools needed to include indicators like sitestability to provide a more robust tool. Overall, resourcemanagers needed a more ecologically based approach toaddress many new issues, such as biodiversity mainte-nance and watershed protection, that the old approachdid not.

In 1999, a provincial working group in Alberta initiat-ed a new system for rating native range and tame pas-ture health for the province. Provincial specialists andranchers had followed the debate on approaches to rangecondition assessment over the previous decade. A num-ber of factors triggered the decision to move forwardafter considerable procrastination. First, our newfoundexperience with riparian health assessment illustratedthe value of using multiple indicators to key into practi-cal measures of ecosystem functions. From this it wasapparent that landowners found the approach to betransparent and useful. Second, Alberta was in the midstof reviewing grazing lease policy and we needed a con-

sistent method to evaluate rangeland stewardship. Priorto this we had multiple approaches depending on theagency and region of the province. Finally, the NaturalResource Conservation Service in the US published thenew Range and Pasture Handbook. This document pro-vided us the benefit of some new consensus on wherethe science was going and useful templates for definingour ecological site descriptions, the standards used inrange health assessment. Our group experimented with aprototype and then refined the method through fieldtesting and interaction with a host of clients and stake-holders. The results of this process were published in2003 as a field workbook and three abridged field work-sheets, all available on our website at: http://www3. gov.ab.ca/srd/land/publiclands/rangehealth.html

We use the term “range health” to mean the ability ofrangeland to perform certain functions. These functionsinclude: net primary production, maintenance ofsoil/site stability, capture and beneficial release of water,nutrient and energy cycling, and plant species functionaldiversity. The word “health” conveys the impression thatthings are working well, just as it would in the humanbody.

What are the main elements of the system and howdoes it work? The new methodology builds upon the tra-ditional range condition approach and continues to con-sider ecological status of a plant community, but addsfour more indicators of rangeland natural processes andfunctions. With background knowledge about the localsoils and vegetation, range health is rated for an ecologi-cal site type by scoring five questions that addressselected indicators of range health. These include:1) Integrity and Ecological Status – Is the plant commu-

nity native or modified to non-natives species, andwhat is the successional status of the plant communi-ty?

2) Plant Community Structure – Are the expected plantlayers present, or are any missing or significantlyreduced?

3) Hydrologic Function and Nutrient Cycling – Are theexpected amounts of organic residue present to safe-guard hydrologic processes and nutrient cycling?

4) Site Stability – Is the site subject to accelerated ero-sion?

5) Noxious Weeds – Are noxious weeds present on thesite?

Alberta implements a new system of rangeland health assessment

Barry W. Adams, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development



LEFT This healthy community of winterfat and northern wheatgrass, and needle and thread grass received a score of100% under Alberta’s new system for assessing rangeland health.

RIGHT This unhealthy community of blue grama received a score of only 36%.

PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR

The five indicators are weighted according to their rela-tive importance to rangeland health. When a site is rated,the combined score of all five indicators are expressed aspercent health score so that the site can be ranked ashealthy, healthy with problems, or unhealthy. The fieldworkbook is designed for application on native grassland,native forest and tame pasture, as well as modified range-lands where range plant communities have become invad-ed by non-native species like smooth brome and timothy.

We see the assessment method being applied in at leastthree ways: as an awareness tool, to tune the ranchers eyeto better recognize any key impacts to range health on theland; for rapid assessment purposes with appropriate studyand field training; and as a component of a detailed rangevegetation inventory carried out by field practitioners.

So what has been the uptake of the new system? To date,the response from agency staff, and the consulting andenvironmental communities has been positive and the newsystem is being adopted. Most importantly, ranchers havefound it to be very accessible, visual and applied. Whilespecies composition may take many years to influence,indicators like structure, organic residue and soil exposureare more readily observed, providing managers early warn-ing as to trend in health status. During the recent severedrought conditions, the question on evaluating residue waspopular at field days and workshops for monitoring

drought impacts and recovery. Wildlife managers have con-sidered using the tool as a coarse filter approach to recog-nize habitat quality for species like Sage Grouse.

One limiting factor in applying the method is the needfor information on ecological sites, successional pathwaysand the plant communities that are the product of variousdisturbance regimes, both natural and man-made. InAlberta, range plant community classification guides havebeen developed for each natural subregion of the province.These are derived from data from the 135 rangeland refer-ence areas in the province combined with vegetation inven-tory data. There is no question that a considerable moni-toring infrastructure is required to make the system work.

Our hope is that the new range health assessment systemprovides a common language for resource managers,ranchers and the public to come together on rangelandproblems and issues. If we can come to an early consensus,more time can be spent on developing solutions.

The Alberta Rangeland Health Working Group includes:Mike Willoughby, Barry Adams, Mike Alexander, AngelaBogen, Gerry Ehlert, Carcey Hincz, Donna Lawrence,Darlene Moisey and Colin Stone with the Public Lands andForests Division of Alberta Sustainable ResourceDevelopment.

GrasslandsBC

F L O R A

As we speak, plant taxonomists are likely put-ting a lot of love into the creation of a newtongue twister of a scientific name for thisperennial bunchgrass. But wait, one cannot for-get the skills of the unknown individual whocame up with its most commonly used pseudo-nym: bluebunch wheatgrass. So I ask,“What’s ina name?”

Can we relate its widely-used common nameto the visual, physical, or growth characteristicsof this native grass? Is it bluebunch wheatgrassbecause it bears its seeds singly on oppositesides of the stem, or is it because of its solitarygrowth habit where individual plants withstrong roots and multiple stems hold theirground in a close-knit tuft? Perhaps this impor-tant indicator species is aptly named for thefaint blue tinge that appears as a dust on theleaf blades and sheaths as the plant matures.Regardless, there is a lot to learn about the ecol-ogy and growth of this important forage speciesand why it is such a hot topic with rangelandmanagers and grassland enthusiasts today.

How Does your Garden Grow?

Bluebunch wheatgrass is a long-lived, cool sea-son perennial bunchgrass. This plant pays noattention to international borders; it spansnorth as far as Western Canada and southwardthrough the Central and Western United States.Although bluebunch wheatgrass prefers the drysoils of the grassland regions, it can be foundgrowing in a diversity of habitats ranging fromopen forests to mountain slopes to streambanks. When looking for bluebunch wheatgrassout in the field, one cannot miss the distinctivebunches of grass spikes. In healthy and maturegrasslands dominated by bluebunch, the dis-tinctive distances between the plants’ bunchescreate a maze or checkerboard of small pathways.

The reproduction of bluebunch wheatgrass isprimarily by seed and the production of newvegetative stems (tillers) within the bunch.Under rare conditions, often with higher mois-ture levels, bluebunch wheatgrass will repro-duce via rhizomes, an underground stem thatoffshoots from the mother cluster to create anew bunch.

Why is bluebunch wheatgrass important torangeland managers and grasslandenthusiasts?

Bluebunch wheatgrass is a key indicator specieswhose relative abundance in a grassland canhelp to indicate the current ecosystem conditionand health. In turn, knowledge of the currentplant community will aid in the development ofa management strategy or grazing regime thatwill improve or maintain ecosystem health. Thepresence and abundance of bluebunch wheat-grass should be managed for, as it produceshigh quality forage and provides habitat for adiversity of species. Bluebunch wheatgrass is adecreaser; species classified as decreasers havea high resource value yet decrease in abundanceand cover when exposed to poor managementpractices, including over-grazing and high dis-turbance levels. A decrease in desirable speciesleads to an increase in less productive, undesir-able species, including noxious weeds. Poormanagement of our grasslands can lead to adeterioration of ecosystem health and reducedprofit margins for cattle producers.

Monitoring and Managing for BluebunchWheatgrass to Sustain Healthy Grasslands

To ensure the long-term sustainability of blue-bunch ecosystems we must develop manage-ment practices that complement the plant’s nat-ural biology and monitor the changes in thegrassland ecosystem. It is important to bepatient with new management practices, as oneyear of a new strategy will not make up foryears of overgrazing or unsuccessful manage-ment techniques.

Managing for the biological requirements ofbluebunch wheatgrass and other indicatorspecies leads to increases in the production andhealth of all components of a grassland ecosys-tem. Land managers must therefore understandthe growth characteristics of bluebunch wheat-grass and other vegetation to develop a man-agement system that compliments the naturalecology of the desired species. The bluebunchwheatgrass growing season begins in earlyspring (April) before many other species initiategrowth. This early development of foliagemakes the plants susceptible to overgrazing by

cattle. The cattle are eager for the taste of freshgreen grass, but can cause significant damage tobunchgrass populations if they graze too earlyin the growing season. One way of reducing theimpact of spring grazing is to keep the cattle offof the range until it has reached “range readi-ness” (reached when bluebunch wheatgrass hasgrown to a minimum of 10 cm tall). Other man-agement strategies include rest rotation systemsor deferral.

Monitoring a pasture or landbase is as easyas visual inspections of bluebunch wheatgrassplants on a seasonal and annual basis. Othersimple methods of monitoring changes in vege-tation include photo plots and hoola hoop vege-tation plots that record vegetation in the samelocation over time. Don’t worry: the hoola-hoopis on the ground as a boundary for your vegeta-tion plot, not around your waist! Those inti-mately familiar with the land will notice subtlechanges on a daily basis. Keeping a daily journalof management practices, plant growth, wildlifesightings, and any significant changes to theland will help determine what managementchanges (if any) should take place. Don’t beblue; remember that positive change throughmanagement is a long-term commitment!

Shawna Sangster, who currently resides in SorrentoBC, received a Bachelor of Natural ResourceScience from the University College of the Caribooand a diploma in Ecosystems Management fromSir Sandford Fleming College. Her interests includesharing and gaining information on native plantecology, and rangeland management.

Bluebunch Wheatgrass: Pseudoroegneria spicata

Pseudo what? Shawna Sangster, B.Sc. Natural Resource Management

Bluebunch Wheatgrass

ILLUSTRATION

BY NICOLE BRAND


The Long-billed Curlew and the Sharp-tailed Grouse

Curlew and grouse conservation: A dichotomy?Ernest Leupin, M.Sc., RPBio, Ecoscape Biological Consulting

F A U N A

In recent years, there has been increased inter-est in BC’s grasslands. One reason for this is thefact that over one-third of BC’s species at riskrely on grasslands for their survival. As a result,a large number of single-species conservationefforts have emerged.

However, this approach to conservation canoften bring confusion and frustration to many.Take for example two of BC’s grasslands speciesat risk: the resident Columbian Sharp-tailedGrouse and the migratory Long-billed Curlew.These two species occur simultaneously in ourgrasslands during the breeding season but areassociated with habitat types at nearly oppositeends of the spectrum. Sharptails require talland dense grass and shrub cover while curlewsare associated mostly with areas dominated bysparse and low vegetation (see August 2002 andFebruary 2003 issues of BC Grasslands). Withthis in mind, imagine a well-intentionedlandowner trying to incorporate wildlife habitatneeds into their already burdensome grazingplans: graze too little, impact curlews; graze toomuch, impact sharptails. Enter frustration.

The reality of the matter is that managing forany single species is not desirable (except underexceptional circumstances where a species ishighly endangered). Rather, we must strive todevelop an ecosystem approach to species con-servation. Management should be conductedover sufficiently large areas in order to be effec-tive. Within the identified area, the key is tomaintain habitat diversity across time andspace. Grasslands are dynamic, and are morethan just grass. They are a mosaic of habitatsincluding deciduous and evergreen stands,shrubby areas, wetlands, stream corridors, andof course grass stands of various heights anddensities. By maintaining such diversity ingrasslands, we can ensure that habitats will beavailable to Sharp-tailed Grouse, curlews, andother grassland species that depend on one ormore grassland habitat types.

With this said, if most conservation biologistsrecognize the general wisdom of focusing onecosystem conservation, why is there still a ten-dency to favour the single species conservation

approach? The reason is that most people find itmuch easier to identify with species than withecosystems. As a result, biologists often use asingle species as an umbrella or flagship speciesto get public support that can be translated intoprotection for the ecosystem. While it is truethat a single species project is likely to placemore emphasis on critical habitats that arerequired by one particular species, collectivelythese projects have the potential to provide pro-tection of the entire grassland ecosystem.

However, we still have the issue of landownerfrustration. Each year, landowners are inundat-ed with requests to participate in wildlife-relat-ed projects. In some cases, projects may seem toconflict with one another, while others appearto duplicate efforts. This not only results inlandowner frustration and to possible indiffer-ence towards important projects, but also leadsto a loss of credibility towards the biologicalfield. Given that the success of any project with-in grasslands relies heavily on landowner par-ticipation, there is a great need to develop aclear strategy and plan for coordination, partic-ularly as it pertains to landowner contact pro-grams and implementation of single speciesprojects and recovery efforts.

Ernest completed his MSc (UBC) on songbirdsand their responses to alternative harvestingmethods and has run a biological consultingbusiness in Kamloops, BC since 1997. He is cur-rently a lead biologist for the Sharp-tailed GrouseStewardship Program.

The at-risk Sharp-tailedGrouse makes its home inBC’s grasslands. PHOTO BY

BOB SCHEER

GrasslandsBC

Jim was raised on a ranch where he first startedto develop the interests that came to be a lovefor grasslands. He is now ‘semi-retired,’ andlives just south of Kamloops.

Jim continues to spend a lot of time on thegrasslands,“on a good horse whenever possi-ble,” as principal of Rangelands Associates, aconsulting firm in Kamloops that works prima-rily in the fields of rangeland inventory, moni-toring and planning. He presents training work-shops on applied grassland ecology, designsgrazing systems that meet current environmen-tal specifications, and has prepared prescribedburn plans to restore open forest ecosystems.Jim holds a degree in Rangeland Management,is a Professional Agrologist and CertifiedProfessional in Rangeland Management. Jim hasbeen active with the Grasslands ConservationCouncil for some years, serving on the Board ofDirectors and numerous committees, acting asformer vice-chair, and often assisting with theorganization of field workshops.

“That the GCC has become such a positiveand dynamic influence for the integrated, wise

use of our grasslands in such a short time isamazing,” says Jim.“Focusing equally on theconcerns of ranchers and of conservationists isfundamental to the GCC’s strength.‘KeepingWorking Ranches Working’ remains a key phi-losophy behind GCC initiatives. Dealing effec-tively with complex issues such as: the licensingof off-road vehicles, weed invasion, forestingrowth and encroachment, and especially theconversion of grassland ranches to rural subdi-visions are some critical focal points for theCouncil at present. Unprecedented progress isbeing made on some of these issues; a solidfoundation is being laid to deal with the others.Significant input is being made to high levels ofgovernment. These are impressive accomplish-ments for such a young organization. Suchprogress has been made possible by the ener-getic, positive and visionary staff and boardmembers.”

Prior to starting Rangelands Associates, Jim’scareer was with the BC Forest Service. He spentthe last 19 years in the Kamloops Forest Districtas Range Officer. In that position he managed

four to five staff, interacted with many of the200 ranchers who grazed about 30,000 cattle onCrown range, and helped ensure integration ofgrazing with wildlife, silviculture, recreationand natural values.

Jim and his wife Marilyn, who teachesNursing at the University College of theCariboo, recently celebrated their 35th anniver-sary. Jim and Marilyn try to spend a fairamount of time canoe-tripping and enjoyingother outdoor activities. They are teaching theirgrandson about the outdoors and ranching, andenjoy their involvement with the Alpha coursein Kamloops.

Jim White

Profile of a GCC Director

GCC welcomes a new Board memberThe GCC is happy to welcome Allen Eagle as our newestmember of the GCC Board of Directors. Allen joined theGCC Board in October 2003, and brings with him valu-able expertise. As the District Manager for Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada in Dawson Creek, Allen has beeninvolved in land stewardship issues for many years. Heworks in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administrationarea and develops, implements, and oversees stewardship

initiatives in his region. Mr. Eagle is also involved with the BC Institute ofAgrologists, as a Professional Agrologist, and the Director for the South PeaceRiver region. The GCC staff and Board of Directors look forward to working theinsight he will bring as we look to secure the sustainability of BC’s grasslands.

M E M B E R S C O R N E R

Jim White working on the range, GPS in hand.PHOTO BY ROZ KEMPE

Call for MembersHappy New Year to all our valued GCC Members! It

is to you, the members, we owe much of our success

in 2003, and for that we thank you!

A great number of memberships were due for

renewal at the start of the New Year, and we are

confident that we can rely on your continued

assistance in our mission to conserve BC’s precious

grassland ecosystems. Our membership nearly

doubled in 2003, and we hope to continue our

relationship with our loyal members, as well as to

welcome many new grassland enthusiasts to our

growing base of support. Please use the enclosed

membership form to support the GCC and do your

part to promote the stewardship of BC’s grasslands.

Society for Range Management AGMThe 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management was held thisyear in Salt Lake City, Utah, and was attended by several GCC Directors, includ-ing Wendy Gardner and Greg Tegart. The focus of this year’s meeting was,Rangelands in Transition, a particularly timely topic as population growth, tech-nology, and changes in stewardship philosophies shape the way we manage ourrangeland.

For more information on this year’s meeting, or on the Society for RangeManagement, please refer to www.rangelands.org.


The second annual University College of the Cariboo Range Club has beenformed. Its members consist of instructors Wendy Gardner and PeggyBroad and students: Shawna Sangster, Peter Holub, Paul Bray, AllisonMcDonald and Greg Hodson. The club has been actively involved infundraising efforts including ongoing t-shirt sales, bottle drives and volun-teer work throughout the community. The students raised money to attendthe 2004 Society for Range Management Conference in Salt Lake City, Utahat the end of January, where they competed in a plant identification compe-tition, and represented the Kamloops region and BC in general.

Congratulations to the club on their achievements.

UCC Range ClubGreg Hodson

This year, the GCC will be celebrating its fifth anniversary since inceptionin 1999. We have many Directors who have been with us since our found-ing, and whose support has been absolutely invaluable in the developmentof the GCC. As the Board turns over this year, there will be opportunitiesfor people with a passion for grassland stewardship to take on a leadershiprole in the conservation of BC’s grasslands. The GCC is actively seekingDirectors from the business and professional community to assist us in ourgrowth and development. Additionally, the GCC is seeking representationin the South and North Okanagan. If you are interested in joining the GCCBoard of Directors, please contact us at [email protected] or call(250) 374-5787.

Call for Board Members

I N M E M O R I A M

Derek BostockDerek Bostock recently passed away in a tragic car accident inAlberta. Derek was one of five students who founded theUniversity College of the Cariboo Range Club in 2002. The clubattended the Society of Range Management Conference lastFebruary in Casper, Wyoming, setting the stage for future competi-tion to be attended by the club. Derek was actively involved inrange and agrology, having recently graduated with his Bachelor ofNatural Resource Science degree. Derek will be sadly missed by allwho had the pleasure of knowing him. Donations towards a schol-arship in Derek’s name can be made to the UCC Foundation, Box3010, Kamloops, BC, V2C 5N3

George Haywood-FarmerGeorge Haywood-Farmer, who passed away inOctober of 2003 left behind a legacy, both onthe land that he worked and with the peoplehe inspired. Mr. Haywood-Farmer was a pio-neer of our local ranching industry. He oper-ated the Indian Gardens Ranch, located inSavona, BC and was also very involved in hiscommunity. He was a long-time leader in BC4-H, and served on the Board of the BCCattlemen’s Association for many years. AgnesJackson, president of the BC Cattlemen’sAssociation remembers Mr. Haywood-Farmer as a neighbor and 4-H leader and an original steward of the land. Through hisinvolvement in BC 4-H, he played an important role in the lives ofchildren and youth in his community.“He took this responsibilityvery seriously,” says Jackson,“he was a man with a lot of integritywho believed in leading by example.” According to Jackson,“hebelieved that the better you treat the land, the better it will treatyou,” and he instilled this value in his own children, and others inthe community. Mr. Haywood-Farmer will be sadly missed.

N O T I C E

2004 Annual GeneralMeeting and Field Tour

The GCC Annual General Meeting and field tour is being held

on June 19, 2004. The GCC AGM, social, and tour will follow the

Society for Range Management (SRM) workshop ‘An Introduction

to Rangeland Health’ to be held on June 17 and 18 in Merritt, BC.

GCC EVENT

Evening Social – Friday June 18

AGM and Directors’ Meeting – morning of Saturday June 19

Field Tour – afternoon of Saturday June 19

Further details on both the SRM workshop and the GCC

AGM and field tour will be sent out in April and posted on the

GCC and SRM website.

For more information about the GCC AGM,

call Sarah McNeil at 250-374-5787.

For more information about the SRM workshop,

call Darren Bruhjell at 250-371-6058.

The GCC would like to acknowledge the support of all our

current corporate members for their generous donations:

• Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter

• Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society

• Central Okanagan Naturalists Club

• Chutter Ranch

• City of Kamloops

• Donna M. Iverson Personal Law Corporation

• Douglas Lake Cattle Company

• Ducks Unlimited Canada – Interior Field Office

• Federation of BC Naturalists

• Iverson & MacKenzie Biological Consulting

• Land Conservancy of British Columbia

• Lillooet Livestock Association

• Tembec Industries Inc.

• Terasen Pipelines

• Thompson-Nicola Regional District

• Uplands Birds Society

PHOTO COURTESY OF BC

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

GrasslandsBC

Habitat Conservation Trust Fund:Investing in Conservation AcrossBritish Columbia

The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

(HCTF) is a rare statutory purpose trust. It

was established in 1996 under the

authority of the Wildlife Act. The purpose

of the HCTF is to invest in scientifically-

based enhancement and restoration

projects for native fish and wildlife

species and their habitats, and to invest

in land acquisition and education projects

in support of fish and wildlife across BC.

Fund revenue comes primarily from

surcharges on fishing, hunting, guiding

and trapping licenses, as well as from

court awards, donations and partnerships

with individuals, non-government

organizations, and corporations. Since

1981, the Fund has invested over $70

million in enhancement and education

projects and a further $12 million to

acquire key habitats throughout British

Columbia. Annual surcharge revenue to

the HCTF is approximately $5 million.

Mission of the Trust Fund

The mission of the Habitat Conservation

Trust Fund is to provide funds to

proponents to assist in maintaining the

health of natural ecosystems and the

productivity and richness of species

within these ecosystems, by preventing

and mitigating the loss of habitat and

native species of freshwater fish and

wildlife in BC, for the benefits of all.

The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

funds the acquisition of land and water

rights, and supports projects not eligible

for support from existing research funds

or not within routine government

responsibilities. Projects supported by the

Trust Fund improve the management of

species and habitats by improving

knowledge, restoring or managing

habitats appropriate to planning and

landscape contexts, and enabling

stewardship.

The uniqueness of the Habitat Conserva-

tion Trust Fund comes from its:

• dedicated funding sources: angling,

hunting, trapping and guiding licence

surcharge;

• provincial scope;

• accessibility to all committed

conservationists in BC;

• ability to fund acquisition of key habitats,

and;

• ability to fund up to 100% of the cost of

a project.

HCTF and Grasslands

Over the past 15 years, HCTF has invested

about $4. 7 million in land acquisition,

conservation, restoration and

enhancement projects related to

grasslands across British Columbia. The

Trust Fund was one of the founding

partners in the South Okanagan

Similkameen Conservation Program as

well as one of the founders of the South

Okanagan Biodiversity Ranch programs.

In addition, the Trust Fund has made

significant investments in land acquisition

and habitat restoration efforts in the

Thompson-Nicola region and the East

Kootenay Trench.

Trust Fund investments in grassland

related projects in 2003/04 include:

• BC Grasslands Conservation Risk

Assessment – Funds to compile existing

information from around the province to

assess the status of BC’s grasslands and

their resident wildlife: $25,300.

• BC Grasslands Communication and

Extension Project – Funds to develop

several key grassland conservation

communication and extension initiatives,

such as the GCC website and

BC Grasslands magazine: $15,000.

• East Kootenay Grassland Ecosystem

Restoration – Support for slashing and

prescribed burns in fire-maintained

ecosystems in the East Kootenay to

enhance ungulate winter range

characteristics and restore overall

ecosystem function: $10,000.

• Operation and Maintenance – Continued

funding for activities, such as weed

control and fencing, on special

conservation lands set aside for wildlife

in the East Kootenay: $35,530.

• South Okanagan Ranch Land

Conservation Project – Support for

implementing management plans on two

biodiversity ranches in the south

Okanagan near Okanagan Falls: $12,000.

• South Okanagan Similkameen

Conservation Program Habitat

Stewardship – Continued support to

encourage habitat conservation,

restoration, enhancement and securement

on private land in the south Okanagan

and lower Similkameen area through

landowner contact: $65,000.

Grassland ecosystems play a critical role

in maintaining the diversity of wildlife in

British Columbia. The Habitat

Conservation Trust Fund has a long

history of investing in our grasslands, and

the Fund will continue to support sound,

well planned projects which sustain

grassland ecosystems and species.

For more information, visit us on the web

at www.hctf.ca or call 1-800-387-9853.

Conservation partner profile: Habitat Conservation Trust FundBrian Spriginotic, Habitat Conservation Trust Fund


A C R O S S T H E P R O V I N C E

South OkanaganProposed National Park Reserve in South OKOn October 2, 2003, the federal and provincial government signed amemorandum of understanding (MOU) that paves the way for the cre-ation of a new national park reserve in the South Okanagan. The MOUsupports the Government of Canada’s Action Plan to create ten newnational parks and five new national marine conservation areas by 2008.Under the MOU, Canada and BC have agreed to work cooperatively toassess the feasibility of establishing a new national park reserve in theSouth Okanagan.

One of the first tasks of the feasibility study will be to define the areaof interest for a possible new national park reserve in the SouthOkanagan, and the study area for the feasibility study. Preliminary dis-cussions between Canada and British Columbia have focussed on thearea from the Canada–United States border north to and encompassingthe new protected areas established under the Okanagan–Shuswap Landand Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as well as existing protectedareas, possibly as far north as Vaseaux Lake.

For more information about the proposed national park reserve, con-tact: Kevin McNamee, Parks Canada, at (819) 997-4908 or [email protected]

The GCC recently held a full day workshop for board members and staff todevelop a GCC policy on the proposed national park reserve. The meetingwas very successful and a draft position statement was developed. TheGCC Board of Directors is currently refining the position and it will befinalized this spring. Upon completion, the position statement will be post-ed on the GCC website.

Species of the Month Series kicked off in January 2004A brand new program dedicated to highlighting some of the importantspecies at risk within the South Okanagan & Similkameen started in2004. The project is called the Species of the Month Series and it willfeature different species throughout the year that need the public’s help tosurvive in the wild. More information is available from the ECOmmunityNetwork and the South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program.You will find us in our upcoming website (www.soscp.org) and refur-bished resource centre on Front Street in Penticton.

How can you get involved? For every animal or plant featured, theECOmmunity Network will have a host of educational presentations,exhibits, workshops, field trips and fun activities to help you learn moreabout these endangered and threatened critters and how you can helpthem. For more information, contact Peter Ord, the ECOmmunity Co-ordinator, at (250) 490-8286 or email [email protected]

CaribooJunction Sheep Range Provincial Park and Area GrasslandsThe Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society (CCCS), whom the GCCproudly counts as a corporate member, has been actively involved in theJunction Sheep Range Provincial Park (JSRP) management planningprocess. Originally designated as a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in1975, it was created through an exchange of land with Riske CreekRanching. In 1995 the Junction Sheep Range was legislated as a Class AProvincial Park.

The focus of CCCS is on parks and protected areas, and concernsregarding grasslands have been established as a high priority. Withfunding set aside for signage the CCCS, in cooperation with the GCC;Upland Birds Society; BC Wildlife Federation; Wilderness Watch; BCParks; Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; Williams Lake FieldNaturalists; Wild Sheep Society of BC; Williams Lake Sportsman’sAssociation; Riske Creek Ranching; and Ducks Unlimited Canada, haveestablished a public information site on the JSRP.

A hand out brochure developed by CCCS complements the signageand helps to keep the public informed of the fragility of the grasslands.The CCCS would like to thank all the volunteers from the above groupswho distribute brochures at the site. As well, the CCCS produces anannual publication, the Visitors Guide to BC Parks, Trails & Sites ofInterest in the Cariboo Chilcotin and Coast. Included in this guide ismore information on the Junction Sheep Range Provincial Park.

The GCC and CCCS have also collaborated on the following projects:two Arts Council Concerts in Williams Lake; the Williams Lake PublicLibrary Display; Our Parks Our Heritage Art, Photography and WritingExhibit; and Community Information Session SARA, City CouncilChambers. For more information please visit the new CCCS website atwww.ccconserv.org.

East Kootenay TrenchEast Kootenay Conservation ProgramThe East Kootenay Conservation Program (EKCP) is a partnership-driv-en private land stewardship initiative that currently has 34 partners. Thenewest partner is the City of Fernie, welcome aboard!

The EKCP hosted a one-day workshop in Fernie on November 15,2003; the workshop was a great success as over 60 participants cametogether in Fernie. The morning speakers showed the attendees whatsome communities are doing for conservation in and around theirtowns. William Pearse from the Town of Okotoks, Alberta, gave an eye-opening presentation on how a community embraced conservation andsustainability in 1997 and the results they have achieved seven years

Educational signsat the JunctionSheep RangeProvincial Park.PHOTO BY

WAYNE BIFFERT

…continued on page 27

G C C P R O J E C T U P D A T E S

New Education and Outreach Co-ordinator

In November 2003, Sarah McNeil joined theGCC team as Education and Outreach Co-ordi-nator, taking over from Taylor Zeeg who is nowheading-up the Grassland Stewardship andSustainable Ranching Program. Sarah graduat-ed from the University of British Columbia’snew Agroecology program, and feels the skillsacquired through her education, and later whileworking at the Ministry of Agriculture, Foodand Fisheries, will serve her well at the GCC.Originally from 100 Mile House, Sarah spentfive years attending school and working in theLower Mainland, and is enjoying being back inBC’s Interior. We look forward to working withSarah to develop new ideas and expand on theprojects currently underway in the GCC’sEducation and Outreach Program.

You can reach Sarah at 250-374-5787 [email protected]

BC Grasslands WebsiteThe BC Grasslands website is growing!“Understanding Grasslands,” an ecologicaloverview of the grasslands of BC designed toeducate and inform visitors to the GCC website,is almost complete and will be launched inMarch. Visitors will find information on the var-ious grasslands communities in BC, the ecologi-cal processes that are involved in maintainingtheir health, and the plants and animals thatrely on them for survival. There will be a specialsection dedicated to species at risk in BC’sgrasslands, as well as links to other grassland-related sites on the web. Also upcoming on theBC Grasslands website is “Sustainable RangeManagement,” a new area providing informa-tion on issues relating to range management inBC. Additionally,“Where are BC’s Grasslands?”is being updated and expanded, so keep check-ing www.bcgrasslands.org for exciting addi-tions.

Thank you to the following partners for sup-porting the GCC Website development: BCCattle Industry Development Fund; Ministry ofWater, Land and Air Protection; Ministry ofSustainable Resource Management; Ministry ofForests; Conservation Data Centre; and HabitatConservation Trust Fund.

BC Grasslands Public ServiceAnnouncementsThe Grasslands Conservation Council is cur-rently working to develop public serviceannouncements (PSAs) for airing on televisionsacross British Columbia. The initial PSA,“A BCMoment” focussing on the beauty and value ofBC’s grasslands, will air on The KnowledgeNetwork. Also planned is a series of announce-ments featuring the cow and the curlew,designed to bring to light the ecological andcultural value of BC’s grasslands. Tune in toyour favourite stations this year to catch aglimpse.

The BC Grasslands PSA project is funded bythe Grazing Enhancement Fund.

GCC Submission to Firestorm 2003Provincial Review In the wake of last summer’s devastating fires,the GCC forged a position on the use of pre-scribed fire for restoration and maintenance ofgrasslands, as well as a position on methodsused to control fires in grasslands. These issuesare critical to achieving conservation, restora-tion and responsible management of BC’s grass-land ecosystems. See submission on the GCCwebsite.

UPDATE: Education and Outreach Program

Sarah McNeil is the GCC's new Education andOutreach Co-ordinator.

GCC Directors take thefield in PrincetonThe GCC Board of Directors held their fallmeeting in Princeton this past October, takingtime out to learn about local grassland issues.After business matters had been set aside, thedirectors and members of the local communitydove into discussions on recreational abuse,weeds, and forest encroachment on Princetongrasslands. The afternoon session was dedicat-ed to the role of fire in grassland ecosystems, asthe GCC strives toward a consensus-based poli-cy on this issue.

The following day, it was time for the fieldtours! A beautiful fall morning was spent southof town learning about local ranching culturefrom the Willis family. What a privilege it was to

have this lesson outside among the toweringponderosa pines and healthy bunchgrasses ofthe Willis range. Next was a tour of the SwanLake grasslands guided by the Vermillion ForksField Naturalists. The Naturalists are workinghard to restore this rare and unique grassland,and are making efforts to educate and informschoolchildren and the local public. Sandwichesand cookies beside the peaceful Swan Lake wascertainly a highlight of this tour. To end off theday, the group headed to the upper grasslandsof the August Lake area, one of the last sizablepieces of Crown grassland in the Princeton Basin.Here, the Forest Service and other governmentagencies described their plans to conduct pre-scribed burns for the benefit of wildlife habitatas well as to gain insight on fire behaviour.

Learning about local issues is important for

the GCC as it gives us the opportunity to meetthe people, see the grasslands, and most of all,get out of the boardroom!

Thank you to the Willis Family, theVermillion Forks Field Naturalists, Ministry ofForests, and the Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection for making this tour possible.

GCC Directors in discussion at the Willis Ranch.PHOTO BRUNO DELESALLE

GrasslandsBC


Hamilton Commonage: Great strides forGrassland Monitoring in BCWhile many techniques have been used forresearch, inventory and monitoring of range-lands in British Columbia, none have gaineduniversal acceptance. In addition, virtually all ofthe monitoring methods previously used in BCwere considered unsuitable for operationalmonitoring because they were complicated,time consuming and not accessible to ranchers.

From a grassland stewardship perspective,this presents a significant problem. BritishColumbia needs a standardized, qualitativemonitoring procedure for ranchers to assessrange condition. In recognition of this problem,the GCC initiated a process to bring stakehold-ers together to develop a qualitative method forassessing grassland ecological condition thatwill be appropriate for ranchers and consistentwith government standards and requirements.

A Technical Advisory Committee was estab-lished, holding its first meeting on January 22,2004. The committee will build on work com-peted by the GCC over the past 18 months todevelop and test a qualitative approach formonitoring ecological condition and trend ongrasslands.

Building Consensus

Building consensus on a qualitative approachfor grassland monitoring for ranchers mayseem daunting. However, the first TechnicalAdvisory Committee meeting yielded veryencouraging results. There is general agreementthat BC needs a qualitative approach for grass-land monitoring. Furthermore, the methodolo-gy should:• Build on the successes of the Alberta

“Rangeland Health Assessment forGrassland.”

• Be practical, simple and easy to use in thefield by ranchers and range managers.

• Be rigorous enough to evaluate environmen-tal change at an acceptable level of accuracyand be repeatable over time.

• Yield useful results and be relevant to neededmanagement decisions on the range.

• Be based on indicators relevant to BC’s grass-lands that enable assessment of conditionand trend.

• Be consistent with government standards andrequirements.

Over the past 18 months, some importantgroundwork was completed. The project teamexamined and analyzed current approaches toqualitative monitoring, identified somestrengths and weaknesses, and determinedwhich approaches were most appropriate forBritish Columbia. Through this process theproject team selected vegetative (biotic), soiland hydrological indicators that are relevant tolocal ecological conditions on the HamiltonCommonage grasslands, the site where initialtesting will be conducted.

Building on the completed analysis, the proj-ect team collected information in the field usingthe selected vegetative (biotic), soil and hydro-logical indicators (the qualitative approach) andcompare this information against the data col-lected using the canopy coverage method (thequantitative approach) to evaluate relative accu-racy in assessing each indicator. The first yearof field work and its findings will assist theTechnical Advisory Committee in defining aqualitative methodology, as well as assess itsability to describe overall ecological conditionand trend over time.

A Learning Process

The learning process is just beginning. Weanticipate several months of hard work ahead

with the newly formed Technical AdvisoryCommittee to select appropriate indicators forthe monitoring procedure, define thresholdsand benchmarks, and develop or adopt a scor-ing procedure. This process will rely on theknowledge gained from the work completed todate, and build on the Rangeland HealthAssessment for Grasslands procedures developedin Alberta. We expect this process to:• Produce draft monitoring forms.• Develop a draft monitoring manual that

describes basic terminology and methods forconducting qualitative assessments.

• Test the manual and forms with ranchers inthe Thompson-Nicola Region (the pilot proj-ects).The use of pilot projects will allow us to eval-

uate and adjust the methodology, includingindicators, scoring procedures, format andusability of the manual and forms based onrancher input. It is important to note that theTechnical Advisory Committee is seeking strongrepresentation from the ranching community todevelop the procedures and to test the method-ology in the field.

For more information about this project,please refer to: “Developing a QualitativeApproach for Assessing Grassland Ecological

Developing a Qualitative Monitoring

Tool to Assess Grassland Ecological

Condition and Trend

Objectives:

• To develop and test a method for grassland monitoring that is

suitable and practical for the ranching community, and consistent

with government standards.

• To conduct two to three pilot projects to test and refine the

methodology further with ranchers, as well as test the

methodology in other regions.

• To develop a qualitative grassland-monitoring manual for BC.

• Develop materials for training workshops.

• To develop support materials and conduct training workshops for

ranchers and range managers on assessing grassland ecological

condition and trend.

UPDATE: Grassland Stewardship and Sustainable Ranching Program

For more information on GCC projects, p ease contact us at (250)374 5787 or e mai : gcc@bcgrass ands.org

GrasslandsBC

G C C P R O J E C T U P D A T E S

Grassland monitoring is a necessary tool to assess grassland ecological condition and trend, as well asto ensure sustainable range management practices. The above photos illustrate grassland conditionranging from early seral (1), mid seral (2), to late climax condition (3). PHOTOS BY BRIAN WIKEEM

Condition: A Tool for BC Ranchers” January2004 (Summary Document) on the GCC web-site: www.bcgrasslands.org

The Hamilton Commonage GrasslandMonitoring Project is funded by:• The McLean Foundation• Agriculture Environment Initiatives • BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection• Grazing Enhancement Program• The Brink/McLean Grassland Conservation

Fund • Beef Cattle Industry Development Council

A sincere thank you to the Gerard GuichonRanch for their commitment to this project andfor their stewardship ethic.

Coalition for Licensing and Registrationof Off Road VehiclesWe are making tremendous progress on thisimportant conservation initiative. The GCC isthe co-ordinating organization for the Coalition,yet only one player in a diverse team that isdeveloping a management strategy for off roadvehicles (ORVs) that will include vehicle licens-ing and registration.

The Coalition now has active representationfrom:• The Grasslands Conservation Council of BC• Quad Riders Association of BC• Federation of BC Naturalists• Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC • Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection• Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries• Ministry of Forests• Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management• Outdoor Recreation Council of BC • Greater Kamloops Motorcycle Association• BC Cattlemen’s Association• Trails BC

• Kelowna Dirt Bike Club• BC Wildlife Federation

Combined, the Coalition membershipincludes over 150,000 British Columbians andbroad representation from all four corners ofthe province.

Over the next few months, the Coalition willbe developing and presenting a draft strategy togovernment that details options for implement-ing a management strategy for ORVs, includinglicensing and registration. The Coalition willcontinue to garner support from the BritishColumbia public; municipal, regional andprovincial governments; and recreation andconservation groups.

Conservation interests have been calling forlicensing and registration of ORVs for over thir-ty years, so the Coalition’s gains in such a shorttime are commendable.

Best Management Practices forRecreational Activities on Grasslands inthe Thompson and Okanagan BasinsThe GCC, in partnership with the Ministry ofWater, Land and Air Protection, have developedstewardship guidelines for recreational activi-ties in BC’s interior grasslands. These guidelines—also known as best management practices orBMPs—identify ways in which recreationalusers can help to sustain healthy grasslandswhile continuing to enjoy their activities.

The purpose of the BMP document is to pro-vide stewardship guidelines for recreationalactivities in BC’s interior grasslands so thatdamage to sensitive grassland habitats, and thespecies that inhabit them, is minimized or pre-vented.

The success of the BMPs is dependent onstrong partnerships between recreationists andorganizations dedicated to promoting conserva-tion and stewardship values. The BMP docu-

ment was developed with input and carefulreview from over 40 organizations, resulting ina comprehensive code of practice developed bythe user, for the user.

Taking ownership of the best managementpractices document is the starting point. Thisdocument is intended to be the backbone of avision predicated on voluntary stewardship. Inorder for the BMP document to be effective onthe ground, recreation groups and other organi-zations will voluntarily use this document as atool to develop more focused information andeducational brochures that are activity-specific.The success of the BMP document will requirepro-active involvement from the clubs andorganizations that participated in its develop-ment.

Over the next few months, the GCC intends tofund raise to further develop the BMP docu-ment. This will entail working with recreationinterests to develop educational pamphlets foreach activity type (ie. motorized recreation,mountain biking).

For a downloadable, PDF-version of the BMPdocument visit http://www.bcgrasslands.org/conservationcampaigns/bmp.htm or contact

1 2 3

Consultant Judith Cullington facilitatesdiscussion at the Best Management PracticesWorkshop held at Quilchena Ranch inSeptember 2003. PHOTO BY BEVERLY FELSKE


For more information on GCC projects, p ease contact us at (250)374 5787 or e mai : gcc@bcgrass ands.org

UPDATE: Development and Capacity BuildingA New Development Officer

The GCC welcomes Jessica Robertson to theteam as our new Development Officer. Her goalas part of the GCC team is to increase our fund-ing base to enable effective administration ofprograms and continued growth. Jessica is arecent graduate of the University of BritishColumbia’s Agroecology program and is cur-rently an Articling Agrologist with the BCInstitute of Agrologists. Jessica brings with hera great interest in the growing movement backto sustainable agriculture and feels she hasfound the perfect place in which to explore herinterests and apply her skills. Jessica has beenwith the GCC since November 2003, and hasalready run several fundraising campaigns inher role as Development Officer. She looks for-ward to many challenges and successes in 2004.

MembershipMembers form the backbone of our organiza-tion. Our members bring to us financial supportin the form of donations and, equally impor-tant, they bring varied backgrounds, expertiseand interest in achieving our common goal ofconserving BC’s grasslands. We would like tothank all our members for your involvement in2003 and welcome your continued support andinput in 2004. We are confident that the GCCwill meet its membership goal – to exceed 300members – over the coming year, as we contin-ue to serve as the outstanding voice for grass-land conservation in BC!

Mitigating the Fragmentation andDevelopment of BC’s GrasslandsMany of you will have received, and graciouslyresponded to, an appeal for assistance as weattempt to address the problem of fragmenta-tion and development of BC’s grasslands. Thispressing issue has become the focus of ourfundraising efforts over the last few months.The fragmentation of BC’s grasslands is a com-plex issue that does not have easy solutions. TheGCC, in partnership with government, conser-vation groups and interested individuals, hasembarked on a plan to get to the root of theproblem. Once the problem is clearly identified,we will collaborate to find practical solutions,with the ultimate goal of preserving the eco-nomic, social, and ecological sustainability ofgrasslands. This on-going campaign has beenextremely successful and we thank all of you foryour continued support.

Holiday SpiritThe recent holiday season saw the launch of theGCC’s annual Christmas Gift Campaign. Wewould like to thank everyone who bought GCCmemberships for loved ones who are interestedin our work. We would also like to welcome ournew members to the GCC community. OurChristmas campaign this year was a big successand, thanks to your support, exceeded theambitious campaign goals set out.

Changes to the WebsiteOver the coming months, keep an eye out formany changes to the GCC website. The educa-tional content of the website continues to grow,but also of note are changes to the “GetInvolved” section of the website. We would liketo make it as easy as possible for people to getinvolved with the GCC and are tailoring thewebsite to your needs. We are currently develop-ing a form that will allow you to give gift mem-berships through the website. We hope that youfind the changes easy to navigate and welcomeany feedback.

Fundraising committeeThe GCC is beginning the process of puttingtogether a fundraising committee for our 2004campaign. We extend the invitation to grass-lands enthusiasts all over BC who would like tolearn about fundraising. Bring your energy,optimism and creativity to our team and helpthe GCC conserve BC’s grasslands.

If you are interested in volunteering, pleasecontact Jessica Robertson at [email protected]

Jessica Robertson, the GCC's new DevelopmentOfficer. PHOTO BY BARB DECOOK

Taylor Zeeg, Stewardship Program Co-ordinatorat taylor. [email protected].

The GCC appreciates the support from theMinistry of Land, Water and Air Protection forthis initiative.

Fragmentation and DevelopmentStrategic Directions ProjectThere is a lack of clear information and knowl-edge about the social, economic, political, andecological forces influencing the fragmentationand development of grasslands in BC. This lackof knowledge and information is hindering theability of government, non-government organi-zations, and industry to strategically and effec-tively address this looming threat to BC’s grass-

lands. In response to this, the GCC is initiating aprovincial analysis based on the consensusamongst many interested parties that there is aneed for clarification of information and a needto take action on this emerging and growingproblem. The GCC is in a good position to facil-itate the process and bring people together tosolve the problem of fragmentation and devel-opment of BC’s grasslands.

The GCC is organizing a stakeholder work-shop for early spring 2004. The workshop willbring together experts and key stakeholders tobring clarity to the fragmentation and develop-ment issue. Based on the results, the GCC willwork with a broad range of interests to develop

strategic recommendations for government andthe NGO sector to adopt to mitigate the loss ofgrasslands to rural fragmentation and urbanencroachment. The strategic directions projectwill culminate in a provincial conference tenta-tively planned for Fall 2005.

For more information on the upcomingworkshop, or strategy development, please con-tact Taylor Zeeg, Stewardship Program Co-ordi-nator at taylor. [email protected].

Thank you to the following partners for sup-porting this initiative: McLean Foundation;Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection;Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund; andAgriculture Environment Initiative.

G C C P R O J E C T U P D A T E SG C C P R O J E C T U P D A T E S

GrasslandsBC

BC Grasslands Mapping Project – A Conservation Risk AssessmentThe last six months have been incredibly pro-ductive as Ryan Holmes and Bruce Rea havecompleted a number of key GIS deliverables forthe project. The most notable of these deliver-ables are the weed, fragmentation, and speciesat risk maps.

With guidance from the Technical ReviewCommittee and regional weed experts, the GCChas mapped grassland areas at low, mediumand high risk to heavy infestations of DiffuseKnapweed, Spotted Knapweed, SulphurCinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflaxand Hound’s-tongue. These GIS layers areimportant in understanding the threat posed bydifferent weeds in different grassland areas ofthe province.

The fragmentation maps, which identify lin-ear developments, industrial sites and built-upareas, serve a dual purpose. First, they help todefine where human activities are disturbingthe landscape; areas where weeds often crop upand spread to surrounding grasslands. Let’s faceit, everywhere there are people, there are weeds.Mapping of roads, railways, urban areas andindustrial sites serves the second purpose ofevaluating the degree of fragmentation acrossgrassland landscapes. For example, the degreeof grassland fragmentation in the Okanagan ismany times greater than the degree of fragmen-tation in the Cariboo. This has implications forpriority grassland area planning in terms ofmitigating the threat posed by human distur-bance and development.

Grassland species at risk mapping representsthe third key GIS deliverable completed by theprogram. Nearly 10,000 rare and endangeredspecies locations have been compiled from theConservation Data Centre and various otheraccredited sources in the development of a“grassland species sightings” dataset. This com-prehensive dataset will prove highly valuable asthe GCC identifies priority habitat areas forspecies at risk and continues to draw the linkbetween BC’s grasslands and imperilled crea-tures.

In addition to completing GCC deliverables,the GIS section has also assisted partner organ-izations, such as the Ministry of Water, Landand Air Protection, in their operations. The GCC

has supplied each ministry region with maps ofsmall wetlands less than 3 hectares in size com-pletely surrounded by native grasslands. TheMinistry used these maps to conduct rangecompliance monitoring on specific wetlandsunder Crown control. This is just one of themany examples where grassland ecosystemmapping and land statusing have proven effec-tive for planning and operations on the ground.

Another important product of the program isthe communication tool that describes forestencroachment, forest ingrowth and otherchanges in the grassland–forest interface. Thereport is a compilation and synthesis of existingmapping and forest encroachment research,complete with aerial photo comparisons thatillustrate changes in the interface over time.With encroachment and ingrowth being suchcomplex issues, this report clarifies the threat tograsslands and provides some important rec-ommendations.

For the months ahead, the main focus is onthe development of the priority grasslandsmapping procedure. The ultimate goal here is tohave a process that identifies high value grass-land conservation areas in each region. Using alllayers of the grasslands GIS in conjunction withexpert knowledge, the plan is to pinpoint the“jewels” of the landscape that are highly valued,yet highly threatened. Identifying these jewels,or core conservation areas, is but one compo-nent of an overall grassland ecosystem manage-ment plan. To complete the plan, the GCC andits partners must design a system of core bufferzones, special management areas and landscapelinkages in a Biosphere Reserve Model that willachieve regional and provincial goals of grass-lands conservation.

Employing Strategic Tools for GrasslandsConservation and Sustainable Land UseEmploying the GIS tools and associated prod-ucts of the Risk Assessment is a primary goal ofthis program. Equipped with the grasslandsdatabase, maps, information, analyses andreports, the GCC is now in a solid position toprovide direction on land-use planning, deci-sion making processes and policy initiatives ongrassland. The GCC proposes to strategicallyextend products, information, knowledge, andrecommendations derived from the Risk

Assessment to key government agencies, crowncorporations, and non government organiza-tions that have jurisdiction over criticallythreatened grassland areas. The effective exten-sion of mapping and associated products to tar-get organizations will ensure that the GCC real-izes the full potential of the BC GrasslandsConservation Risk Assessment.

In addition to reaching planners and decisionmakers, extension will also focus on the generalpublic, with detailed maps and informationavailable on the GCC website (www.bcgrass-lands.org) as well as the BC Grasslands Atlas onthe Community Mapping Network(www.cmnbc.ca). The Education and Outreachand Conservation program areas will worktogether to deliver user friendly products tolandowners, educators, grassland enthusiasts,and the general public.

Characterization of BC’s GrasslandsThe comprehensive report characterizing thegrasslands of British Columbia is in the finalstages of review and will be complete by March2004. A consolidated ecological description forall the grasslands and associated communitiesof the province, this 400 page report is the cul-mination of a tremendous amount of work byBrian and Sandra Wikeem of Solterra ResourcesInc. The characterization report is the “one-stop” source for grasslands information in BC.

The GCC would like to thank the following part-ners for their support of the Conservation ofGrassland Ecosystems Program:• Ministry of Forests• Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management• Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection• Habitat Conservation Trust Fund• Vancouver Foundation• Wildlife Habitat Canada• Real Estate Foundation of BC• Columbia Basin Trust• The Nature Trust of BC• Lignum• Environment Canada

UPDATE: Conservation of Grassland Ecosystems Program

BC Grasslands Magazine

ISSN 1496-7839©Grasslands Conservation Council of

British Columbia

BC Grasslands is a bi-annualpublication of the GrasslandsConservation Council of BritishColumbia (GCC). BC Grasslands isintended to serve as a platform for informing readers about GCCactivities and other grasslandprograms across BC and Canada,as well as providing a forum ongrassland ecology, rangemanagement, grasslandconservation and stewardship.

BC Grasslands and the GCCwelcome submissions of letters,articles, story ideas, artwork andphotographs for each issue.Articles should be no longer than600 words (300 words for letters to the editor) and submitted aselectronic files (preferably MS Word 95 or newer).

BC Grasslands reserves theright to edit submissions for clarity and length. However, everyeffort will be made to work withcontributors to ensure contentremains unchanged. Deadline forsubmissions for the next issue of BC Grasslands is May 31, 2004.

Contributions, comments and inquiries can be made to:BC GrasslandsGrasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia954A Laval CrescentKamloops, BC V2C 5P5Tel: (250) 374-5787 Fax: (250) 374-6287 E-mail: [email protected]

Magazine ProductionBruno DelesallePUBLISHER

Sarah McNeilWRITER/EDITOR

Taylor ZeegMANAGING EDITOR

Funding

Funding for this issue ofBC Grasslands has been made possible through the generous support of the following organiza-tions:

• Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection

• Vancouver Foundation• The Real Estate Foundation of BC• Ministry of Forests• Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

Executive Directorfrom page 3

Whitefrom page 13

pared with the current photos, one can get a very goodimpression of changes that are occurring on the land-scape. The value of the photos is increased by a briefwrite-up made when the pictures are taken. A usefulwrite-up lists:• the major plants • relevant information about the site (‘has been grazed

every fall since 1996; prior to that was used for breed-ing in June’)

• current conditions (‘last year was the hottest, driestgrowing season I can remember, followed by littlesnow; but there were two really good rains this year inMay)

• specifics about the camera, film, etc, (‘pictures weretaken with Kodak 400 Max film, in a camera with a55mm lens’).Ideally the only variable you want to capture on suc-

cessive sets of photos is the change in the plant commu-nity and soils—not changes in film characteristics, orstage of plant growth. The number of photos taken on agiven site may vary from one to eight. Three pictures,

one up close, one a bit further away, and one more dis-tant, is often a good starting point.

Photopoints are not the only tool that can be used formonitoring changes in rangeland health. But they areone of the most time (dollar) efficient, both for learningthe technique and using it. And they yield very ‘visible’results—both to the land user and to potential antago-nists.“A picture is worth a thousand words” is so verytrue.

The downside of monitoring trend of rangelandhealth is one of timing: when one has a specific need forinformation, the process needs to have begun five or tenyears earlier. I’ve never heard anyone say,“I wish I hadnever bothered putting in those photopoints.”Conversely, many times it has been said,“I sure wish wehad started photopoints 10 years ago.” In times such asthese, maybe we need to “just do it.”

Jim White can be contacted at 250-372-5349, [email protected]

• Complete an analysis and strategic document that will provide clear recommendations for action for NGOs, gov-ernment and industry; and

• Plan and organize a provincial conference that will focus on implementation and action plans for the strategy.Identifying priority grasslands and mitigating fragmentation and development of grasslands are important initia-

tives that the GCC will spearhead over the next two years; both are bold steps towards developing a provincial grass-land conservation strategy and ensuring healthy grasslands into the future.

later—it was almost unbelievable but it did show howachievable this goal is. The afternoon speakers focusedon wildfires and interface concerns. The speakers werevery passionate about this topic and Bob Mutch fromMissoula, Montana gave us Canadians some good ideasto ponder from his experiences in the United States andAustralia. The end result of the workshop was the forma-tion of a small EKCP working group that will put togeth-er a synopsis of the current status in the East Kootenaywith respect to minimizing fire risk.

The EKCP partners are actively working together onmany securement and stewardship initiatives and proj-ects.• Nature Trust of BC has purchased almost 5,000

hectares of exceptional wildlife habitat south ofInvermere.

• Nature Conservancy of Canada and Tembec, havesigned a landmark conservation agreement coveringalmost 40,000 hectares in the Elk Valley.

• The Land Conservancy of BC has completed Phase3 of the Wycliffe purchase, near Kimberley, home toone of the best examples of grasslands in the EastKootenay.Stay tuned as more great results come in from the East

Kootenay! For more information on the EKCP, pleasecontact Darrell Smith, Program Manager, at 250-342-3655 or at [email protected]

Across the Provincefrom page 21

Artists’ Corner Thank YouThe GCC would like to thank the following funders fortheir generous support for the 2003–2004 fiscal year.

Program Funders* Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund; Ministry ofWater, Land and Air Protection; Ministry ofSustainable Resource Management; GrazingEnhancement Program; Habitat Conservation TrustFund; Ministry of Forests; The Real EstateFoundation of BC; Vancouver Foundation;The McLean Foundation; The Bullitt Foundation;Brink McLean Grassland Conservation Fund;Parks Canada; Quad Riders Association of BC;Regional District East Kootenay; Thompson NicolaRegional District; Brainerd Foundation;Conservation Data Centre; Agriculture EnvironmentPartnership Initiative; BC Cattlemen’s Association;West Coast Environmental Law Association; TheNature Trust of British Columbia; Lignum Ltd.;Canadian ATV Manufacturers Association; andCariboo Regional District.

* All grants and project sponsors over $1000.

And Special Thanks to…• All GCC members and donors, whose continued

support has helped make our programs a success• Ducks Unlimited for its generosity in providing

affordable office space and giving the GCC anopportunity to continue its growth and develop-ment

• Our many dedicated and hardworking volunteerswho have donated their time and energy to helpthe GCC grow and prosper.

In the next issue of BC Grasslands…Finding Common Ground: The Role of Fire inManaging Healthy Grasslands

The August 2004 issue is especially timely in the wake of

the 2003 summer fires. This issue will examine the role

of fire in sustaining grasslands and ecological integrity.

There is no question that this issue is polarized and, at

times, contentious. The goal of this issue is to tease out

the issues and arguments about the role of fire in

sustaining healthy grasslands. This issue of BC Grasslands

will touch on such issues as prescribed burns,

monitoring, re-seeding versus natural recovery, fire

research, fire ecology, and community safety. We

encourage submissions of both articles and photos.

The submissions deadline is May 31, 2004.

For more information, please contact Sarah McNeil at

[email protected]

Please send your submissions to: BC Grasslands,

954 A Laval Crescent

Kamloops, BC V2C 5P5

Tel: 250 374-5787

Fax:250 374-6287

Working

together for the

conservation of

BC’s grasslands

Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection

Thank you to the following sponsors for

helping the GCC deliver this important issue:

Nicole M. Brand Nicole M. Brand is an ecologist who hasbeen working in the Kamloops area since1994. She has been a part of numerousprojects involving ecosystem classification,silviculture research, and various wildlifestudies. In her spare time she enjoys dab-bling in the arts.“I love to mix the naturalworld with drawing, painting and pottery.A close look always reveals the incredibledetail, diversity and unique beauty thatnature has to offer.”

Larry Halverson Larry Halverson is a Naturalist who hasbeen working in Kootenay National Parksince 1972. He sits on a number of educa-tion and conservation boards including theCanadian Intermountain Joint Venture, andthe IUCN Grassland Protected Areas Task

Force. Larry has always liked the outdoorsand is often found with binoculars andcamera in hand. His photographs haveappeared in numerous national and inter-national publications.

Call for ArtistsAs the GCC continues to grow, there is anever-present need for grassland artwork forour publications and communications proj-ects. Images can be drawings, photos orpaintings of your favourite grassland land-scapes or species. For all you ranchers outthere, we’d love to see some of your artworkportraying working grassland landscapes.Please contact Sarah McNeil, our Educationand Outreach Co-ordinator, with yourofferings, ideas and inspiration at (250) 374-5787 or [email protected]

Documents

BC Grasslands · the development of recreational properties, ranchettes, resorts or other tourism develop-ments, and roads will continue to impact grasslands. Significant portions