A Framework For Monitoring The Effectiveness Of Habitat
Management For Mountain Caribou
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1July 2006
Framework for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Forest Habitat
Management for Mountain Caribou
DRAFT
Version 1.1
Prepared for:
Ministry of Forest and Range,
Forest Practices Branch
272 Fisgard Street
Victoria, BC V8W 1R8
Prepared by:
Christoph Steeger, R.P. Bio.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
532 Park Street, Nelson, BC V1L 2G9
&
Steven F. Wilson, R.P. Bio.
EcoLogic Research
406 Hemlock Avenue, Gabriola Island, BC V0R 1X1
July 2006
Executive Summary
The mountain caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, is an ecotype
of the woodland caribou subspecies that almost exclusively resides
in the mountainous region of south-central British Columbia. In
recent years, provincial mountain caribou populations have declined
dramatically, partly due to a number of factors resulting from
human-related activities within their range, including habitat loss
from forest harvesting, displacement by motorized recreation,
increasing predation due to changes in the predator-prey system,
and other threats and stressors that effect their populations and
habitats (e.g., historic hunting, road-kill and possibly climate
change). In response to the continuing decline and threats to the
remaining subpopulations, the provincial and federal governments
have listed mountain caribou as endangered (by the BC Conservation
Data Centre) and threatened (by the Species at Risk Act),
respectively. Currently, the BC Species at Risk Coordination Office
is in the process of developing recovery options and related
management actions for mountain caribou.
Currently, management direction for mountain caribou is provided
through approved regional Higher Level Plans and Land and Resource
Management Plans and through provisions under the provincial Forest
and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and interagency agreements. Since
the adoption of a results-based forest practices regime in
association with FRPA, land management measures are now implemented
under an adaptive management principle which requires monitoring
and evaluation of management results and subsequent verification or
modification of management measures, where appropriate. To this
end, the Ministry of Forests and Range, in partnership with the
Ministry of Environment, established the FRPA Resource Evaluation
Program. The program is a long-term commitment by government to
evaluate the effectiveness of FRPA in achieving the stewardship of
identified resource values, in this case mountain caribou. The
monitoring approach for conducting these evaluations includes
developing key monitoring objectives, questions, indicators and
monitoring protocols.
This monitoring framework represents the first step in the
development of a comprehensive effectiveness monitoring methodology
to assess the effectiveness of FRPA polices, practices and
legislation pertaining to the management of mountain caribou
habitat. Our focus at this stage is on identifying monitoring
questions and indicators. We address the essential ecological
characteristics of, and current threats to, caribou habitat in
relation to the support that Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas may provide in maintaining caribou habitat across the
forest landscape. We also include identification of knowledge gaps,
potential methods for monitoring indicators at different spatial
scales, and recommendation for habitat management activities.
Table of Contents
2Executive Summary
3Table of Contents
4List of Tables
4List of Figures
4Appendices
4Acknowledgements
5Introduction
6Objectives
6Approach
7Conservation Status & Situation Analysis
7Conservation Status and Demography
8Life History & Habitat Use
9Population & Habitat Threats
12Habitat Management & Recovery Planning
12Statutory Authority
14Ungulate Winter Ranges
15Wildlife Habitat Areas
17Relationship between FRPA / Higher Level Plan Habitat
Management Tools & Recovery Planning / Implementation for
Species at Risk
17Monitoring the Effectiveness of Forest Management for Mountain
Caribou
17Key Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
18Effectiveness Indicators
21Knowledge Gaps
23Recommendations
24Literature Cited
List of Tables
13Table 1. Current approaches to mountain caribou habitat
management under established Land Use Plans and Land & Resource
Management Plans (based on Cichowski et al. 2004).
19Table 2. Recommended indicators by level of intensity, desired
conditions and monitoring frequency for assessing the effectiveness
of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas established
for mountain caribou in BC.
21Table 3. General methodological considerations for monitoring
effectiveness indicators of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou in BC.
21Table 4. Knowledge gaps related to mountain caribou ecology
and relevant to the key effectiveness monitoring questions.
List of Figures
8Figure 1. Estimated historic range and current home range of
mountain caribou populations in British Columbia (SARCO 2005).
Appendices
27Appendix 1. Approved Ungulate Winter Ranges for Mountain
Caribou, as of March 31, 2006.
28Appendix 2. Approved Wildlife Habitat Areas for Mountain
Caribou, as of March 31, 2006.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by Ministry of Forest and Range, Forest
Practices Branch. We thank Wayne Erickson (BC Ministry of Forests,
Victoria) for administering this project. Dennis Hamilton (Nanuq
Consulting, Nelson) reviewed an earlier draft of the report and
improved the document. Technical input and advise was also provided
by Rodger Stewart (Ministry of Environment, Williams Lake), and
Jeff Hoyt (Ministry of Environment, Victoria).
Introduction
The caribou species, Rangifer tarandus, consists of several
subspecies, including the woodland caribou (R. t. caribou) whose
range includes British Columbia. The mountain caribou, the focus of
this effectiveness monitoring framework, is an ecotype of the
woodland caribou that inhabits mountainous terrain of southeastern
and central British Columbia. In recent decades, the remaining
subpopulations of mountain caribou have experienced declines in
distribution and abundance, triggering concerns about their
conservation (review in MCTAC 2002). Population recovery efforts
are currently underway to ensure the persistence of the woodland
caribou in British Columbia (SaRCO 2005).
Aside from recovery efforts, management direction for mountain
caribou is provided through approved regional Higher Level Plans
and Land and Resource Management Plans, provisions under the
provincial Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), and interagency
agreements (e.g., August 2003 UWR Memorandum of Understanding
between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Ministry of
Forests, and Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy - IWMS). In some portions
of the province, Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) and Ungulate Winter
Ranges (UWRs) have been established to protect important caribou
habitat under the FRPA and Government Actions Regulations. In other
areas, Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) Section 7
Notices were issued by government that requires the Holder of an
Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) to specify a Result or Strategy to
meet the Objective outlined in the Notice. FSP Holders may become
exempt from the Notice if the objective is addressed by a WHA, UWR,
General Wildlife Measure (GWM) or Wildlife Habitat Feature (WHF);
however WHF are generally focused on specific habitat elements
(i.e., nest trees, dens) and therefore do not generally address the
broader landscape habitat requirements of caribou.
FPPR Section 7 Species at Risk Notices for mountain caribou have
been issued in the Prince George and Headwaters Forest Districts
and as an UWR Notice in the Morice Timber Supply Area (TSA). There
are also two mountain caribou UWRs in the Omenica Region and 30
WHAs in the Cariboo Region approved for mountain caribou through
government orders. In addition, the Kootenay-Boundary HLPO,
Revelstoke Minister Advisory Committee plan, LRMPs in Prince
George, Robson Valley, Kamloops, Okanagan-Shuswap and the
Cariboo-Chilcotin LUP outline plan-specific management strategies
for mountain caribou.
Since the adoption of a results-based forest practices regime in
association with FRPA, land management measures are now implemented
under an adaptive management principle which requires monitoring
and evaluation of management results and subsequent verification or
modification of management measures, where appropriate. To this
end, the Ministry of Forests and Range, in partnership with the
Ministry of Environment, established the FRPA Resource Evaluation
Program which “works to assess the effectiveness of various
management activities at maintaining biodiversity through the
development of a program to address specific questions (objectives)
and associated indicators” (Ministry of Forests and Range 2006).
“One objective of this program is to develop monitoring approaches
and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of management practices
directed at managing wildlife. The monitoring approach for
conducting these evaluations includes developing key monitoring
objectives, questions, indicators and monitoring protocols for
testing in pilot projects” (Erickson et al. 2005).
This monitoring framework represents the first step in the
development of a comprehensive effectiveness monitoring methodology
for the management of mountain caribou habitat. Our focus at this
stage is on identifying monitoring questions and indicators. We
primarily address the essential ecological characteristics of, and
current threats to, caribou habitat, and the roles that UWRs and
WHAs play in maintaining caribou habitat across the landscape. We
also address Higher Level Plan provisions that apply to habitat
management for mountain caribou.
Objectives
The objectives of this project were to:
1. Review information on conservation status and habitat
requirements of mountain caribou;
2. Describe natural and human-related stressors that potentially
affect mountain caribou populations;
3. Identify key effectiveness monitoring questions related to
the development of the monitoring frameworks;
4. Identify effectiveness indicators for the habitat,
demographics and conservation of mountain caribou; and
5. Identify knowledge gaps and provide recommendations with
respect to FRPA land use planning, habitat conservation/management
and associated effectiveness monitoring for mountain caribou.
Approach
In developing this monitoring framework, we considered the
approach outlined by the FRPA Evaluation Program (Province of BC
2004, Erickson et al. 2005) and included the following steps:
1. Summary of conservation status and situation analysis;
2. Identification of habitats and habitat attributes that are
critical for meeting the life requisites of mountain caribou;
3. Description of habitat management tools for caribou currently
applied under FRPA and higher level plans;
4. Development of key monitoring questions at small, medium and
large spatial scales;
5. Summary of population and habitat monitoring methods;
6. Selection of indicators based on criteria that address (i)
different levels of monitoring intensity, (ii) desired outcomes in
relation to the recovery goals set by the Province (SaRCO 2005);
and (iii) required frequency of measurements;
7. Identification of knowledge gaps; and
8. Recommendations for implementing an effectiveness monitoring
program for mountain caribou.
Conservation Status & Situation AnalysisConservation Status
and Demography
In 1993, the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) placed mountain
caribou on the provincial Blue List (vulnerable or sensitive
status). In 2000, the CDC raised this taxon to the Red List
(threatened or endangered status) because of continued declines in
abundance and current threats. In May 2002, the National Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated
the Southern Mountains National Ecological Area (SMNEA) population
of the woodland caribou as threatened. The population is currently
listed on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Due
to these status designations, a National Recovery Plan for woodland
caribou is being developed under the requirements of SARA. National
recovery plans consist of two parts: a national recovery strategy
and local, population-specific recovery action plans.
A"Strategy for the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British
Columbia" (MCTAC 2002) provides an evaluation of population status
and recovery goals and objectives at the provincial level. At the
regional level, three local recovery action plans have also been
drafted for subpopulations inhabiting the North Kootenays (Hamilton
et al. 2003), South Kootenays (Steeger et al. 2003) and Hart and
Cariboo Mountains (Recovery Implementation Group 2004). Mountain
caribou are one of three priority taxa involving recovery planning
responsibility of the newly formed provincial Species at Risk
Coordination Office (SaRCO).
MCTAC (2002) recognized 13 subpopulations of mountain caribou
BC, with an estimated total population of about 1700 animals. Six
of these subpopulations now consist of 50 or fewer individuals and
all populations, with the exception of the Hart Ranges
subpopulation, are currently declining (SaRCO 2005). The current
provincial mountain caribou metapopulation is estimated to be
approximately 1900 animals (Hatter in review). The range and
general abundance of mountain caribou is shown in Figure 1.
Mountain caribou likely ranged south through forested portion of
Idaho and west of the continental divide in Montana. Their range
likely also extended farther west into the Okanagan Highlands
Currently, their range is largely fragmented at its southern limits
but more continuous in the north (SARCO 2005).
Figure 1. Estimated historic range and current home range of
mountain caribou populations in British Columbia (SARCO 2005).
Life History & Habitat Use
In this section we focus on the life history traits and habitat
use of mountain caribou. We also emphasizes behavioural aspects
that are most affected by the main stressors to individuals and
populations.
Food habits - The winter food habits of mountain caribou are
unique in the deer family in that their foraging during late winter
is limited almost exclusively to arboreal lichens (Alectoria
sarmentosa and Bryoria spp.). During early winter, falsebox
(Pachistima myrsinites) and arboreal lichen (found on broken
branches and blowdown) are important ground food sources. Other
shrubs such as willows (Salix spp.) and Vaccinium spp. may be used
during early winter, but to a lesser extent. During other the
seasons, mountain caribou feed extensively on a variety of foods
including grasses, sedges, horsetails, flowering plants and leaves
of numerous shrubs (MCTAC 2002 and references therein).
Predation – The main predators of mountain caribou are grey wolf
(Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), black bear (U.
americanus), cougar (Puma concolor), and wolverine (Gulo gulo)
(Thomas and Gray 2002, Kinley and Apps 2001, Seip and Cichowski
1996). The anti-predator strategies or adaptations of mountain
caribou include maintaining spatial segregation from other ungulate
species and their predators in high-elevation forest patches, their
unique adaptations to deep snow conditions, and their general use
of habitats that are usually avoided by predators (e.g., Bergerud
et al. 1984, Seip 1992).
Home range and seasonal movement patterns - Minimum convex
polygon home ranges of 150–600 km2 are typical for mountain
caribou, but vary from <100 to >800 km2 (Cichowski et al.
2004). Within their range, mountain caribou activity is mainly
concentrated in high elevation forests at approximately 1500 - 2100
m; however, elevation shifts are common but vary by local
population, year, season and individual. During late winter,
mountain caribou prefer open forest stands of the ESSF (Engelmann
Spruce-Subalpine Fir) and ATp (Alpine Tundra parkland) ecosystem
where they feed exclusively on arboreal lichen and are relatively
safe from predators. In spring, lower elevation, early snow-free
areas are sought but by June the pregnant females migrate to higher
elevations, in search of safety found in often exposed and rugged
areas to calve. Summer and fall habitat consists primarily of upper
ESSF and ATp ecosystems, although lower ESSF habitats are used
periodically. Early winter movements to lower ESSF and ICH
(Interior Cedar Hemlock) forests are common while snow at higher
elevations is accumulating but remains unconsolidated. Snow
accumulation and snow consolidation are needed to elevate and
enable the animals to reach and feed on the hair lichens in the
trees. Lichens are typically absent from the lowermost branches
(between 1.5m to 2.5m above the ground) due primarily to
physiological sensitivity to prolonged exposure to snow (Goward
1998).
Important habitats and habitat elements – Mountain caribou
habitat requires consideration at the landscape scale (distribution
in relatively low numbers over large areas), forest stand (forest
structure, canopy openings, snow interception) and individual tree
(patchiness, clumps of trees, foliated and defoliated branches). At
the landscape scale, mountain caribou require large, contiguous
patches of mature/old forests, preferably on moderate to gentle
slopes, to provide cover and feeding habitat and to ensure spatial
segregation from predators during all seasons. Forested ridgelines
provide migration corridos between seasonal habitats. Undisturbed
high-elevation, forested habitats are also used as late winter and
calving ranges. At the scale of forest stands or specific sites,
habitat elements most important for meeting the caribou’s life
requisites include forest stand structure and habitat elements that
support abundant arboreal lichens for early and late winter
foraging, lush and succulent forage sites for feeding in early
spring and mineral licks during spring (Cichowski et al. 2004). Hot
springs are used as mineral licks by caribou throughout the year
(D. Hamilton, pers. comm.).
Population & Habitat Threats
Major threats to the habitat and subpopulations of mountain
caribou include both natural and human-related factors, as well as
the interactions among them. Most relevant to this monitoring
framework are those threats that are created as a result to the
activities of forest and range developments under FRPA; that is,
those activities that affect the important habitats and habitat
elements of mountain caribou. Other threats (e.g., hydro-electric
developments, linear corridors created by highways, railways, or
pipelines, natural high mortality and low fecundity, past
over-hunting, and unfavourable climatic conditions) are likely
cumulative to those posed by forestry activities. The following
provides a summary of the main threats that have been identified to
date.
Forestry – Forest harvesting and silviculture activities and
associated infrastructure have several effects on mountain caribou
and their habitat:
· Reduction in the amount of foraging habitat (i.e., lichen) -
It is believed that, in general, this habitat change does not have
a strong effect on food availability for the small caribou herds
currently present in the BC landscape (SaRCO 2005). However, both
small and larger herds may experience increased need to travel
among patches, thereby increasing energy expenditure and exposure
to predators, humans, and avalanche-prone areas that may lead to
increased mortality. While some of the current herds may still have
sufficient lichen resources, it is questionable whether future
lichen supply (that primarily exists in mature and old forests)
will be sufficient for the increased herd sizes required to achieve
self-sustaining populations.
· Increased populations of primary prey and associated predation
pressures in caribou habitat – Evidence suggests that conversion of
old forest to regenerating stands has increased caribou mortality
through natural predation (Wittmer et al. 2005). Due to the
increased abundance of high-elevation cutblocks, ungulate species
such as deer, elk, and moose experience increased habitat
suitability in caribou habitats, thereby drawing predators into
these areas where they incidentally prey on caribou. A second
factor may be the high productivity of other ungulates and their
predators in low elevation habitats, which has been facilitated
through landscape changes (e.g., agriculture) and wildlife and
habitat management policies. Predators experiencing high population
levels at lower elevations may spread into caribou habitat. It is
likely that both high and lower elevation habitat changes are
indirectly increasing predation pressures on mountain caribou.
· Logging roads and other linear corridors – This habitat change
has been shown to increase predation on caribou in other areas by
facilitating predator access (e.g., James and Stuart-Smith 2000,
Dyer et al. 2002). Roads and linear corridors also facilitate human
access into high-elevation habitats, leading to higher levels of
disturbance and displacement of caribou from preferred patches
(CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000, Appendix 6 and references
therein).
Commercial Recreation Tenures – Evidence suggests that motorized
winter recreation activities such as snowmobiling, heli-skiing, and
snowcat skiing can disturb caribou (Kinley 2003, Wilson &
Hamilton 2003, Powell et al. 2004). When these activities are
conducted via commercial enterprises, they become systematic,
usually wide-spread, and potentially high-volume activities (Kinley
2003). Non-motorized commercial activities (e.g., ski-touring,
hiking, mountain biking) may have less disturbance impacts on
caribou; although evidence is scarce with respects to such
activities.
Non-commercial Recreation – The popularity of backcountry
snowmobiling and ski-touring has generally increased among the
public in recent years. This trend may have become another factor
in the decline of caribou populations, although available evidence
of long-term disturbance and/or displacement of caribou is more
anecdotal and qualitative rather than supported by quantitative
statistics.
Predation – Predation has been shown to be the main proximate
cause of the recent decline of caribou (Wittmer et al. 2005).
However, it is unclear how various factors have interacted to lead
to predation rates that are sufficiently high to cause population
declines. The predator-prey system within and adjacent to mountain
caribou habitat includes several ungulate and predator species and
is naturally complex and dynamic. Human-caused changes to this
system have been equally complex, including both changes to habitat
conditions in and adjacent to caribou range, as well as direct
changes to predator and prey populations through hunting
management.
Human-Caused Mortality – Human-related factors known to cause
direct caribou mortality include accidental hunting (legal hunting
was stopped province-wide in 1998), poaching, and road kill.
Historically, mountain caribou were likely over-hunted (SaRCO
2005).
Population Size and Isolation – Some mountain caribou
subpopulations (e.g., South Selkirks, South Purcells, Monashee) are
so small (< 50 animals) and/or isolated from the larger
metapopulation (by large distances or semi-permeable barriers such
as highways and hydro-electric reservoirs) that their viability is
now threatened by factors such as population isolation, loss of
genetic variability and stochastic events.
Other threats which are more difficult to predict and quantify
include climate change (e.g., less or more variable snow pack in
caribou winter range), wildfires (which may become more
catastrophic as systematic fire suppression increases fuel loads
across the landscape), and insect (e.g., bark beetle) epidemics.
While such stressors may negatively affect caribou over time, it is
forest harvesting that is currently of particular concern because
it affects habitat suitability both directly through removal and
fragmentation of late-seral forests (including timber salvage
operations) and indirectly through facilitating increased predation
and human-caused disturbance.
In summary, the factors associated with the threats to the
subpopulations’ habitat, as described by SaRCO (2005), are:
Demography
· Subpopulation size (probability of extirpation due to
stochastic events, genetic factors, etc.)
· Isolation (due to distances) from other subpopulations
Habitat (Direct)
· Winter forage (arboreal lichen) availability
· Non-winter forage availability
· Calving areas availability
Habitat (Indirect)
· Extent of range (for predator avoidance)
· Fragmentation (reduced range effectiveness)
· Isolation (due to poor habitat) from other subpopulations
· Suitability for alternative prey within and near caribou
range
Predation (Direct)
· Predator species and density within ranges that overlap
caribou
Predation (Indirect)
· Alternate prey densities within and adjacent to caribou
range
Disturbance (Direct)
· Human-caused mortalities (collisions, poaching)
Disturbance (Indirect)
· Displacement from preferred habitats by commercial tenured
recreation (heli-skiing, snowcats, snowmobiles)
· Displacement from preferred habitats by recreationists
(principally snowmobiles but also expanding summer activities such
as heli-hiking/biking and high-elevation all-terrain vehicle
use)
These factors pose varying degrees of potential risk to the
viability of subpopulations and have different ease of mitigation
associated with them. How they relate to the establishment of UWRs
and WHAs is discussed below.
Habitat Management & Recovery Planning
Habitat management – Prior to recovery planning, mountain
caribou habitat was managed primarily through the provincial laws
and regulations, policies, and guidelines set by government.
Caribou habitat mapping and management objectives have been
implemented via regional Land & Resource Management Plans and
Land Use Plans and primarily involved maintaining networks of “core
areas” (areas of no timber harvest to maintain arboreal lichens and
limit access), “caribou management emphasis” and/or “buffer zones”
around core areas, including areas of selection logging and
extended rotations, and sometimes “linkages” or movement corridors
between core areas. In some cases, caribou habitat management
prescriptions included a high-elevation no-harvest zone, which, in
most areas, corresponded approximately to the forest harvesting
“operability line” (Simpson et al. 1997).
Recovery Planning – Following the 2002 COSEWIC designation of
“threatened” status for the woodland caribou in the Southern
Mountains National Ecological Area, a strategy for the recovery of
mountain caribou was released by the Province (MCTAC 2002). Several
local recovery action/implementation groups were also established
in the South Kootenay, North Kootenay, and Cariboo and Hart
Mountains (see above). These planning efforts coincided with
significant declines in the southernmost mountain caribou
populations. Subsequently, the Forest Practices Board of BC
released a special report in September 2004 emphasizing the urgent
need to launch into a concerted recovery initiative, to prevent
further declines of mountain caribou populations (Forest Practice
Board 2004). One consequence of this report was the establishment
of the BC Species at Risk Coordination Office and the subsequent
provincially-led recovery planning effort.
Statutory Authority
Higher Level Plans (HLPs) are government-approved regional plans
that contain legislated requirements for management of specific
resource values, such as mountain caribou. The caribou component of
these plans are the negotiated result of public process.
Land Use Plans (LUPs) are strategic regional planning tools that
set broad objectives for different zones with respect to habitat
protection and management as well as resource development options.
Some LUPs contain spatially-explicit objectives while others are
qualitative and as yet non-spatial. Approved LUPs take precedence
over other resource objectives. Not all current LUPs have been
approved as Higher Level Plans and therefore do not contain
legislated requirements.
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) are sub-regional
integrated resource plans, designed to create a vision for use and
management of public provincial lands and resources. LRMPs also
contain spatially-explicit, broad land use zones, objectives that
guide management of natural resources in each zone, and strategies
for achieving the objectives. Most provisions in LRMPs are not
legislated requirements but rather policy direction.
Several LUPs and LRMPs exist that include objectives and
management prescriptions for mountain caribou (Table 1). While the
general approach is similar among regions, the plans differ with
respect to their stage of completion and official approval. Those
management directions that have legal status within Higher Level
Plans maintain this status under FRPA while policy directions and
guidelines are to be considered in Forest Stewardship Plans, at
which time they become legal requirements.
Table 1. Current approaches to mountain caribou habitat
management under established Land Use Plans and Land & Resource
Management Plans (based on Cichowski et al. 2004).
LUP/LRMP
Approach
Cariboo-Chilcotin
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is
mapped.
Kootenay-Boundary
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is
mapped.
Prince George
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped
(but no-harvest zones may become available for modified harvest,
pending results in areas now designated for modified harvest).
Robson Valley
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped
(but no-harvest zones may become available for modified harvest,
pending results in areas now designated for modified harvest).
Kamloops
Similar to Kootenay/Boundary but based on the retention of
old-growth attributes, not old-growth forests per se, and partial
cutting is preferred but not required in non-reserve areas.
Okanagan-Shuswap
Identifies OGMAs to be maintained as reserves and also
identifies research areas, which may later become reserves,
conventional harvest areas, or modified-harvest areas, pending
research results.
Revelstoke
No harvest zones and modified harvest zones, each of which is
mapped but not approved.
Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) – Under Section 149 of the
FRPA, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
prescribing objectives for a number of resource values (e.g.,
wildlife). Under Section 149.1, the Lieutenant Governor may make
regulations authorizing the Minister of Environment to establish
UWR and WHA objectives and GWM applied thereto.
Forest Planning and Practices Regulations (FPPR) – Under Section
7 of the FPPR, a Notice can be issued by government that require
the Holder of a Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) to develop and
incorporate into their FSP specific measurable or verifiable
operational Results (i.e., outcomes) or Strategies (i.e.,
practices) for management of amount and distribution of habitat
required for a specified ungulate winter range or species at risk.
Specific habitat requirements and habitat areas are part of the
Notice itself, and often accompanied by reference to the IWMS or
additional supporting information provided by the Ministry of
Environment. Section 7 Notices are not issued in areas where
caribou management falls under approved HLPs and eligibility for
FSP Holder exemptions may occur through the establishment of a WHA,
GWM, and/or WHF.
Government Actions Regulation (GAR) – Under Section 10(1) of the
GAR, the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act may establish by
order an area as a WHA and set objectives for species at risk or
regionally important wildlife. The minister may also identify a
localized WHF to which special forest or range management practices
are applied that have not been otherwise provided for under GAR or
another enactment.
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy – The IWMS is an
initiative by the Ministry of Environment in partnership with the
Ministry of Forests that provides direction, policy, procedures and
guidelines for managing Identified Wildlife. The goals of the IWMS
are to minimize the effects of forest and range practices on
Identified Wildlife found on Crown land and to maintain their
limiting habitats throughout their current ranges and, where
appropriate, their historic ranges. In some cases, this will
require restoration of previously occupied habitats, particularly
for those species most at risk. Identified Wildlife are managed
through the establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas and the
implementation of General Wildlife Measures (GWMs) and Wildlife
Habitat Area objectives, or through other management practices
specified in strategic or landscape level plans (Ministry of
Environment 2006b).
The term Identified Wildlife refers to those Species at Risk and
Regionally Important Wildlife that the Minister of Environment
designates as requiring special management attention under FRPA.
Species at Risk includes endangered, threatened, or vulnerable
species of vertebrates and invertebrates, and endangered or
threatened plants and plant communities that are negatively
affected by forest or range management on Crown land and are not
adequately protected by other mechanisms. Regionally Important
Wildlife includes species that are considered important to a region
of British Columbia, rely on habitats that are not otherwise
protected under FRPA and may be adversely impacted by forest or
range practices.
Statutory authority for the IWMS is provided under provisions of
the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and Regulations
and under the Forest Range and Practices Act and Regulations. Two
companion documents address the management of Identified Wildlife:
(i) Procedures for Managing Identified Wildlife describe the
procedures for establishing, modifying or rescinding a WHA, and for
implementing strategic and landscape planning recommendations and
(ii) Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife
summarizes the life history, distribution, habitat and status of
Identified Wildlife, including specific habitat management
guidelines. Implementation of the IWMS, including establishment of
WHAs and GWMs, must be consistent with existing higher-level plans
or sustainable resource management plans and within policy limits
for timber supply impacts.
In summary, the types of legislated measures that currently
exist in BC to protect and manage mountain caribou habitat are:
Ungulate Winter Ranges, Wildlife Habitat Areas, and some parts of
regional Land Use Plans and Land & Resource Management Plans.
In addition (but de-emphasized in this monitoring framework) are
provisions under the provincial Wildlife Act that allow for
vehicular access and area closures in important wildlife habitats
and, through a recent amendment, designations of a “residence” for
a species-at-risk.
Ungulate Winter Ranges
UWR management has been ongoing for over 20 years in some
portions of the province. Formal legal establishment of UWRs and
associated objectives began under the Forest Practices Code and
continues under FRPA. An UWR is defined as an “area that contains
habitat that is necessary to meet the winter habitat requirements
of an ungulate species”. UWRs are based on our current
understanding of ungulate winter habitat requirements, as
interpreted by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) regional staff
from current scientific and management literature, local knowledge,
and other local expertise. Sections 7, 10 and 11 of the Government
Actions Regulation (BC Reg. 17/04) of the FRPA describe the formal
legislative basis for establishing UWR” (Ministry of Environment
2006a).
Currently, two approved mountain caribou UWR have been
established for the Hart Ranges subpopulation (Appendix 2;
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/uwr/ungulate_app.html): Omineca Region
UWR ID U-7-001 (Kennedy Siding; Mackenzie Forest District) and UWR
ID U-7-003 (Omineca; Fort St. James, Prince George, and Headwaters
Forest Districts), which are 2,893 ha and 803,306 ha in size,
respectively. Both of these UWR were established in 2003.
The management objectives for U-7-001 are:
· prevention or avoidance of predation,
· maintenance of habitat conditions,
· minimization of disturbance to caribou and their food
resources,
· access management, and
· reduction or prevention of conflicts between caribou and
livestock.
The management objectives for U-7-003 are:
· maintenance of caribou habitat corridors,
· maintenance of old forests that provide arboreal lichens in
high suitability habitat, and
· maintenance of habitat values in medium suitability
habitat.
The intention of establishing UWR is to provide suitable habitat
for ungulates during the season most demanding on the animals’
physical condition. While the elevation of suitable winter range
does not differ much during winter seasons for most ungulates,
there may be considerable differences between early and late winter
ranges for mountain caribou. During early winter, caribou often
descend to lower elevation ICH and ICH/ESSF transition forests in
response to deep, soft snow conditions at higher elevations that
create poor mobility and limit food availability. The animals will
remain at lower elevations, often in close proximity to other
winter ungulates and their predators, until snow depths accumulate
and consolidate sufficiently to enable the animals to re-ascend to
late-winter upper ESSF and ATp forested parkland habitats. The late
winter habitat only becomes usable when the appropriate snow
conditions allow the animals to walk on the snow surface and be
lifted by the snow to reach the arboreal lichen food found only
above the snowline on trees. Differences in elevation may span
several hundred meters between November and March, usually between
1500 and 2000 m in the Cariboo Region (CCLUP Caribou Strategy
Committee 2000 and references therein). These elevation shifts may
differ among individuals, herds, and years, and primarily depend on
the topography of their range and snow conditions and associated
ease of movement and access to food (Seip 1990, Young and Roorda
2000). Effective UWR design for mountain caribou have to take such
regional differences into account.
Wildlife Habitat Areas
Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) are a component of the provincial
IWMS and WHAs and WHA objectives can be established under
regulations provided under FRPA and GAR. The document titled
Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife (Ministry of
Environment 2004) contains an account for mountain caribou where
the goal for WHAs and proposed GWMs are outlined. In some cases,
because WHAs are being used to implement the intent of LUPs and
LRMPs, the design and GWMs established for the WHAs may not
necessarily reflect those outlined in the species account; rather,
they may reflect language consistent with the direction of the LRMP
or LUP. In all cases, the resulting protection should be the same
(Jeff Hoyt, pers. comm.).
Currently, 30 approved mountain caribou WHAs (WHAs #5-088 to
5-117) exist in BC (Appendix 3). These were established for the
Wells Gray North, Wells Gray South, North Cariboo Mountains, and
Barkerville subpopulations
(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/apps/faw/wharesult.cgi?search=show_approved)
and range from 51 – 62,669 ha in size. These WHAs were established
in 2004 and the associated GWMs were established in 2005.
The purpose of these GWMs is to maintain caribou habitat values
within the polygons specified in the Order (Section 9(2) of the
Government Actions Regulation (B.C. Reg. 582/2004), consistent with
the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan. The two main measures are (i)
No Harvest in WHAs # 5-096 to 5-101, 5-106 to 5-108, 5-110, and
5-117 and (ii) Modified Harvest in WHAs 5-088 to 5-095, 5-102 to
5-105, 5-109, 5-111 to 5-116.
In the case of WHAs #5-088 to 5-117, the GWMs are not
independent of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan, which called
for an integrated approach to caribou habitat management with
consideration of CCLUP timber targets, among other objectives
(CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000 Appendix 1). The CCLUP
Caribou Strategy Committee recognized that mountain caribou habitat
and subpopulations can only be maintained if (i) suitable habitat
is maintained within the populations range, (ii) road access and
motorized recreation in caribou habitat is limited and regulated,
and (iii) predation levels on caribou are managed. The Committee
recommended a combination of “no harvest” and consolidated
“modified harvest” areas and that the resulting large area of
“modified harvest” between Cariboo Mountains Park and Quesnel Lake
would “serve as the major test area to insure the ‘modified
harvest’ prescription provides caribou habitat over the long term.”
The confounding factor of motorized recreation was to be carefully
regulated or eliminated, to ensure the potential success of this
test. The methods recommended for the “modified harvest” areas was
a combination of group and single-tree selection silvicultural
system, with 33% timber removal every 80 years (CCLUP Caribou
Strategy Committee 2000). The linked objectives of the CCLUP and
the WHAs will need to be reflected in an effectiveness monitoring
plan for these habitat management measures.
With respect to management objectives in general, the principal
difference between UWR and WHA is that the concern for UWR is
limited to habitat conditions on winter range while that of the WHA
addresses all life history requirements of the target species.
Management prescriptions however do not differ much between the two
management tools: both range from prohibiting further approval of
harvesting and road building to modified harvesting prescriptions
that include specifications of volume or area removal, rotation
length, limits on opening sizes and patterns, forest health
provisions and access limitations, among others. Although UWR is
intended to address only habitat required for the winter survival
of ungulates, the Omineca UWR 7-003 aside from winter range,
includes caribou movement corridors, calving and rutting areas, and
the forest matrix surrounding these habitat features. This is
largely because the UWR was to capture the intent of the regional
LRMP, which did not distinguish between winter habitat and other
required habitat components. General Wildlife Measures currently
apply to WHAs and the Ministry of Environment intends to replace
objectives that were established for UWRs with GWMs in the near
future (Jeff Hoyt, pers. comm.). The same sets of effectiveness
monitoring questions and indicators can therefore be used for both
types of habitat protection tools (see below).
Relationship between FRPA / Higher Level Plan Habitat Management
Tools & Recovery Planning / Implementation for Species at
Risk
Land management tools (UWR, WHA, GWM, WHF and HLP/LUP/LRMP
objectives and forest management guidelines/strategies) available
under the Forest Practices Code, FRPA, FPPR, GAR, approved HLPs,
and the BC Land Act and Wildlife Act will likely be the primary
tools by which recovery for mountain caribou will be implemented
(Jeff Hoyt, Wayne Erickson, pers. comm.). Should government
determine that these tools are not adequate to meet recovery goals
and objectives for mountain caribou, then government could choose
to alter policy and replace or amend regulations, accordingly.
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Forest Management for Mountain
Caribou
How does effectiveness monitoring fit into the current situation
of habitat management for mountain caribou? - The fact that most
caribou subpopulations have been declining under current planning
and management initiatives may be due, to some extent, to
demographic factors and stressors not directly related to habitat
management necessitates a two-pronged effectiveness monitoring
approach that addresses: (i) the direct consequences of the
prescribed forest practices with respect to landscape and stand
composition, structure and function, and, (ii) the indirect
consequences of the prescribed forest practices with respect to
increased predation and human-related activity in the backcountry.
In addition, the forthcoming mountain caribou recovery options and
management actions may change the caribou habitat management
regime, which could potentially confound the effects of the current
set of FRPA and HLP-based management practices. The effectiveness
monitoring indicators, described below are therefore preliminary
and should be adjusted as caribou habitat management under
different policy tools becomes more integrated.
Key Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
The following are key monitoring questions related to assessing
the effectiveness of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat
Areas established for mountain caribou under FRPA. We focus on UWRs
and WHAs as these are the most relevant management tools under
FRPA.
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas)
1. Does the UWR/WHA provide the essential forest habitat
structure and habitat elements for which it was established?
2. Is the UWR/WHA receiving sustained use by mountain
caribou?
3. Are predation events occurring within the UWR/WHA?
4. Are human-related activities affecting use of the UWR/WHA by
mountain caribou?
Medium Scale (Mountain Caribou Subpopulation Level)
5. Is the distribution and abundance of individual UWR/WHA units
in relation to other areas (e.g., protected areas, higher-level
plan habitat objectives/practices) sufficient to sustain the amount
and distribution of habitat for identified subpopulations of
mountain caribou?
6. Are there barriers outside of the UWR/WHA that prevent or
reduce use of WHA/UWR by caribou?
Large Scale (Mountain Caribou Population)
7. Is the amount and distribution of UWR/WHA units in relation
to other managed and unmanaged areas sufficient to allow regular
movement of individuals between subpopulations, thereby ensuring
the health of the meta-population?
Effectiveness Indicators
Indicators can measure the function (e.g., snow depth, forage
accessibility), forest stand structure (e.g., forest canopy
characteristics) or caribou use (e.g., direct inventory) of
Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas. Indicators
should be/have:
· Focused on specific evaluation question;
· Supported by scientific research and literature and/or peer
reviewed;
· Available baseline data;
· Measurable (accuracy and precision);
· Cost-effective to monitor; and
· Sensitive to forest and range management or stressor
change.
Different indicators require different levels of resources to
measure and monitor. Indicators can be broadly classified as:
· Routine: Generally measured through office procedures
involving available data collected for other purposes (e.g., map
interpretation);
· Extensive: Requires low-intensity qualitative or quantitative
field assessments (e.g., wildfire assessments, habitat supply
evaluation, forest structural conditions); and,
· Intensive: Requires detailed, quantitative fieldwork (e.g.,
population inventory, habitat attributes and elements).
Assessing the effectiveness of forest habitat management at
medium and large spatial scales requires evaluation in relation to
broad management objectives:
· Population maintenance: Maintain the current habitat occupancy
(medium scale) and abundance and distribution (large scale) of
mountain caribou. Use currently occupied habitat and indices of
abundance as the basis for defining desired forest habitat
conditions. Note however that it will be difficult to relate
abundance and distribution of caribou directly to the extent and
condition of habitat as potentially confounding factors such as
predation, displacement by humans, or stochastic events could mask
any inferred causal relationships. Controlled management regimes
such as in the indended Cariboo Mountains Park - Quesnel Lake test
area (CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000) will be required to
minimize non-forestry related factors.
· Population recovery: Increase rates of occupancy of suitable
habitat and increase the abundance and possibly the regional
distribution of mountain caribou. Use habitat capability and
recovery objectives related to abundance and distribution as the
basis for defining desired forest habitat conditions.
Considering the current declining population trends, we
anticipate that population recovery objectives will be emphasized
in future management approaches.
Recommended indicators and general methodological considerations
are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Considerable
differences exist in the amount of time and resources required to
monitor these indicators and in the strength and conclusiveness of
evidence they may provide related to the effectiveness of habitat
management. As a result, adaptive management based on monitoring
outcomes will require an assessment of general trends among a
number of indicators, rather than on definitive cause-and-effect
studies. Because the system is complex, professional judgement will
be required to interpret ambivalent or contradictory evidence.
Table 2. Recommended indicators by level of intensity, desired
conditions and monitoring frequency for assessing the effectiveness
of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas established
for mountain caribou in BC.
Indicator
Level of Intensity
Desired Condition/Result
Minimum Monitoring Frequency
Rationale and Comments
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas)
Forest cover characteristics
Extensive
Forest habitat characteristics consistent with UWR/WHA
objectives (will vary depending on geographic area).
Every 3-5 years
Aerial and ground-based assessments are required to assess
results of any allowable harvest, blow-down, and forest health
treatments. For comparative purposes, monitor both ‘no-harvest’ and
‘modified harvest’ areas consistently. Could be combined with
‘evidence of use’ surveys.
Forage availability
Extensive
Abundant and available arboreal forage and litterfall
Every 3-5 years
Requires qualitative ground assessments. Forage availability is
influenced by a variety of site characteristics (e.g., tree
species, stand age, disturbance agents, forest canopy
characteristics, slope and aspect, snowfall regime). Quantitative
forage assessments could also be considered.
Evidence of sustained use by caribou
Extensive
tracks, direct observations
Every 2-3 years
Requires aerial (winter) and ground (altered forest stands)
surveys.
Predation rates
Intensive
Rates sufficiently low to ensure positive population growth rate
(lambda)
In cooperation with research efforts
Predation rates can only be determined with confidence through
intensive monitoring of radio-collard individuals.
Primary prey population levels
Extensive
Low occurrence of primary prey in caribou habitat
Annually
Requires aerial surveys. Recommended by CCLUP Caribou
Strategy.
Motorized Recreation
Extensive
Motorized recreation sufficiently low to prevent disturbance and
displacement of caribou
Annually
Requires regular aerial surveys or other assessment methods.
High levels of compliance with regulations may require enforcement.
Consider both winter and summer surveys.
Movement patterns
Intensive
Exchange of caribou between subpopulations
In cooperation with research efforts
Tracking of radio-collared individuals.
Medium Scale (Mountain Caribou Subpopulation Level)
Landscape characteristics
Routine
Stable or decreasing indices of habitat alteration and
fragmentation
Every 5 years
Habitat continuity, isolation, and fragmentation can be tracked
and mapped through GIS.
Road density
Routine
No net increase or decrease in road access to caribou
habitats
Annually
The amount of usable access roads can be tracked and mapped
through GIS.
Also track amount of road area (km) rehabilitated.
Large Scale (Mountain Caribou Population Level)
Proportion of area in established UWR/WHA and other protected
areas relative to available suitable winter range and other
seasonal habitats
Routine
All suitable winter ranges and other important habitats are
under management
Once when winter ranges and WHAs are being legally
established
Additional habitat will be required if population recovery
rather than maintenance is an objective. In some areas, critical
habitats are also found outside the Crown Forest Land Base on
private land. Its contribution and security should be considered in
the examination of this indicator.
Comparison of both suitable and capable habitats for all seasons
would be valuable.
(Sub)population levels
Intensive
Overall positive meta and sub-population trend
Annually
Involves a sufficient number of census flights to meet
appropriate confidence levels in (sub)population estimates.
Table 3. General methodological considerations for monitoring
effectiveness indicators of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou in BC.
Indicator
General Methodological Considerations
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas)
Forest cover characteristics
GIS office procedures
Forage availability
RISC standard habitat plots and Lichen Handbook (Armleder et al.
1992)
Evidence of sustained use by caribou
RISC standard wildlife inventory
Predation events
Incidental
Motorized Recreation
Aerial surveys, questionnaires. No standard methods are
available to assess snowmobiling intensity, and accurately
quantifying use spatially and temporally can be difficult. Current
methods are restricted to periodic aerial surveys or questioning
the public on their frequency of use of different areas.
Predator and alternate prey populations
RISC standard wildlife inventory
Medium Scale (Watershed or Management Unit)
Movement patters
GPS telemetry
Road density
GIS office procedures
Large Scale (Subregional or Regional Populations)
Proportion of area in established UWR/WHA relative to available
suitable/capable habitats
GIS office procedures
(Sub)population levels
RISC standard wildlife inventory
Calf survival
RISC standard wildlife inventory
Knowledge Gaps
While mountain caribou have become a much-studied wildlife
species in BC, many knowledge gaps remain due to the complex
interrelations of ecological factors and stressors. Many knowledge
gaps related to the key monitoring questions are best addressed
through adaptive management trials (Table 2). Filling some of the
knowledge gaps may require long-term research or intensive
monitoring projects.
Table 4. Knowledge gaps related to mountain caribou ecology and
relevant to the key effectiveness monitoring questions.
Monitoring Question
Knowledge Gaps
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife
Habitat Areas)
Does the UWR/WHA provide the habitat structure and elements
required to fulfil the life requisites of wintering mountain
caribou?
- While essential habitat elements such as lichen and favourable
forest structural conditions may be retained in selectively
harvested stands, it is unclear how these stands affect caribou
foraging efficiency and use.
Is the UWR/WHA receiving sustained use by mountain caribou?
- none
Are predation events occurring within the UWR/WHA?
- When predation occurs, the question remains whether altered
caribou behaviour (e.g., increased movements into less suitable
areas due to disturbance) or habitat changes (e.g., early-seral
patches in caribou habitats attracting alternate prey and
predators) are responsible for undesired predation rates.
Is human-related disturbance affecting use of the UWR/WHA?
- While evidence suggests that snowmobiles and helicopters can
result in short-term changes to caribou behaviour, the magnitude of
longer-term behavioural changes by caribou (e.g., permanent or
semi-permanent range displacements, demographic effects) is less
clear. Questions also remain regarding the impacts of snow-cat
operations and non-motorized backcountry recreation, and the role
of disturbance factors during non-winter seasons.
Medium Scale (Watershed or Management Unit)
Are caribou using the UWR/WHA identified as habitat
corridors?
- Since portions of established caribou corridors are part of
managed landscapes, it is questionable whether caribou realize
adequate foraging efficiencies and survival rates within these
corridors. The combination of population censuses, ground-based
track/use surveys and mortality assessments would increase
knowledge of the effectiveness of corridors.
Are caribou mixing among the regional sub-populations and is the
health of the meta-population ensured?
- Ultimately, isolation of herds or individual groups within a
herd has to be eliminated and mixing of genes among subpopulations
needs to occur to recover caribou populations. Documented mixing of
herds would increase confidence that subpopulations are part of
metapopulation dynamics.
Are there barriers outside of the UWR/WHA that prevent or reduce
the potential use of the UWR/WHA?
- Analyses of the landscape surrounding UWR/WHA with respect to
habitat suitability and barriers such as terrain ruggedness, roads,
hydro, seismic or gas line corridors, and water reservoirs is
needed to address the factors facilitating or preventing habitat
use.
Is the distribution and abundance of individual UWR/WHA units
established for mountain caribou sufficient to ensure over-winter
survival in typical and severe winters?
- Relationship between habitat fragmentation and habitat
effectiveness is poorly characterized.
- How much of the landscape can be managed under ‘modified
harvest’ without negatively affecting caribou is currently
unknown.
- Questions remain regarding the influence of snow conditions on
seasonal elevation shifts of herds (CCPLU Caribou Strategy
Committee 2000).
Is the location of individual UWR/WHA units established for
mountain caribou adequate to ensure successful calving events?
- Surveys are required to locate a maximum of calving areas.
Current calf survival rates need to be established. Additional
measures to protect calving females are considered as part of
recovery implementation (SaRCO 2005); any such new measures have to
be considered in evaluating the effectiveness of UWR/WHA units.
Has access management resulted in no-change or reduction of road
densities in the UWR/WHA?
- none
Large Scale (Subregional or Regional Populations)
Is the distribution and abundance of UWR/WHA established for
mountain caribou sufficient to sustain/recover the regional
subpopulations and meta-population?
- Critical habitat identification and habitat suitability,
population viability and other analyses are ongoing as part of
recovery planning and need to be integrated with UWR and WHA
management.
Recommendations
1. The management objective of the UWRs is to maintain the
caribou within the identified UWRs. Similarly, the expressed
purpose of the General Wildlife Measures is to “maintain caribou
habitat values within the polygons specified in the Order …” (Order
– General Wildlife Measures; Wildlife Habitat Areas #5-088 to
5-117). However, the caribou subpopulations currently existing in
BC are endangered and have shown dramatic recent declines in
numbers. Some are considered to be below viable population size and
require immediate recovery actions (SaRCO 2005). The management
objectives, as described in the UWR and WHA orders, may not be
sufficient on their own to maintain mountain caribou within the
identified polygons. A comprehensive effectiveness monitoring
program for caribou habitat management needs to address the broader
context of FRPA-related management actions in relation to mountain
caribou recovery planning and higher-level plan objectives.
2. We recommend an approach be developed that creates a clear
distinction in the goals and objectives related to mountain caribou
UWRs and WHAs and those of negotiated land use or resource
management plans. We recommend a system which addresses all
mountain caribou life requisites, including winter range
requirements. Re-evaluating the concept of UWR for mountain caribou
may be appropriate because (i) early and late winter range
requirements may differ considerably among areas (depending on
topography) and years (depending on snow conditions) and (ii)
winter range requirements for caribou are different form those of
the other ungulates.
3. Monitoring the effectiveness of UWR and WHA management for
mountain caribou should involve the following components:
· Establishing subpopulation (recovery) targets through SaRCO,
HLPs, or REP measures against predetermined baselines;
· Implementing procedures to collect, warehouse and analyze
routine indicator data;
· Allocating resources to collect extensive indicator data in
areas of greatest management concern; and,
· Collaborating with other agencies and researchers to collect
intensive indicator data and to address knowledge gaps.
Literature Cited
Armleder, H.M., S.K. Sevenson, and S.D. Walker. 1992. Estimating
the abundance of arboreal lichens. Land Management Handbook Field
Guide Insert 7. BC Ministry of Forests Research Program, Victoria,
B.C.
Bergerud, A.T., H.E. Butler, and D.R. Miller. 1984. Antipredator
tactics of calving caribou: dispersion in mountains. Canadian
Journal of Zoology. 62:1566-1575.
CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee. 2000. Mountain Caribou
Strategy. Cariboo Mid-Coast Inter-Agency Management Committee.
Williams Lake, B.C.
Cichowski, D., T. Kinley and B. Churchill. 2004. Accounts and
Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife (Caribou). Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C.
Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'Neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002.
Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements
of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can. J. Zool.
80: 839–845.
Erickson, W. R., K. Paige, R. Thompson, L. Blight. 2005.
Effectiveness evaluation for wildlife in British Columbia under the
Forest and Range Practices Act (Draft). Ministry of Forests and
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C.
Forest Practices Board. 2004. BC’s Mountain Caribou: Last Chance
for Conservation? Special Report. Forest Practices Board, Victoria,
B.C.
Goward, T. 1998. Observations on the ecology of the lichen genus
Bryoria in high elevation conifer forests. Canadian Field
Naturalist 112.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson, C. Steeger, R. Serrouya, and B.
Herbison. 2003. Recovery Action Plan for the North Kootenay
Mountain Caribou Populations. Prepared for Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C.
Hart and Cariboo Mountains Recovery Implementation Group. 2004.
Recovery implementation plan for threatened woodland caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Hart and Cariboo Mountains
Recovery Area, British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Prince
George.
James, A.R.D. and K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou
and Wolves in Relation to Linear Corridors. Journal of Wildlife
Management 64(1): 154-159.
Kinley, T. 2003. Snowmobile – Mountain Caribou Interactions: A
Summary of Perceptions and an Analysis of Trends in Caribou
Distribution. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection, Victoria.
Kinley, T.A. and C.D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a
subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
29:158–164.
Ministry of Environment 2006a. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/uwr/index.html. Accessed March 22,
2006.
Ministry of Environment. 2006b. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/identified/index.html. Accessed March
22, 2006.
Ministry of Forests & Range. 2006. Website:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/2_biodiversity.html. Accessed
March 22, 2006.
MCTAC (Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee) 2002. A
Strategy for the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Powell T., T. Jung, M. Festa-Bianchet. 2004. Behavioural
Response of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to
Snowmobile Disturbance in an Alpine Environment. MSc Thesis Faculté
des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke.
Province of British Columbia 2004. FRPA Resource Evaluation
Program–Wildlife. Evaluation concepts and terminology. The FRPA
Evaluator. Technical note #2. Ministry of Forests, Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection and Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management. Victoria, B.C
SaRCO (Species at Risk Coordinatin Office) 2005. Mountain
Caribou Situation Analysis. Ministry of Agriculture, Integrated
Land Management Agency, Victoria, B.C.
Seip, D.R. 1990. Ecology of woodland caribou in Wells Gray
Provincial Park. BC Ministry of Environment. Wildlife Bulletin No.
B-68. 43 pp.
Seip, D.R. 1992. Factors limiting woodland caribou populations
and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern
British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:1494-1503.
Seip, D.R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of
caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer Spec. Issue No. 9:73–80.
Simpson, K., E. Terry and D. Hamilton, 1997. Towards a mountain
caribou management strategy for British Columbia – habitat
requirements and subpopulation status. Wildlife Working Report No.
WR-90. MELP, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C.
Simpson, K., and E. Terry. 2000. Impacts of Backcountry
Recreation Activities on Mountain Caribou. B.C. Minist. Environ.,
Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-99. 12pp.
Steeger, C., S. F. Wilson, T. Kinley and D.Hamilton. 2003.
Recovery Action Plan for the South Purcells and South Selkirks
Mountain Caribou Populations. Prepared for Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C.
Thomas, D.C., and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report
on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in
COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou
Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-98 pp.
Wilson, S.F. and D. Hamilton. 2003. Cumulative Effects of
Habitat Change and Backcountry Recreation on Mountain Caribou in
the Central Selkirk Mountains. Prepared for BC Ministry of Water,
Land and Air Protection, Pope and Talbot Ltd, and Canadian Mountain
Holidays.
Wittmer, H.U., B. N. McLellan, D.R. Seip, J.A. Young, T.A.
Kinley, G.S. Watts, and D. Hamilton. Population dynamics of the
endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 83:
407–418.
Young, J.A. and L.M. Roorda, 2000. Towards Integrated Management
Solutions: The Quesnel Highland Caribou Project (Radio-telemetry
progress report, 1993 –1999). MELP, Williams Lake, BC.
Appendix 1. Approved Ungulate Winter Ranges for Mountain
Caribou, as of March 31, 2006.
MOE Region
UWR.ID
Species
Name TFL, TSA,District, etc.
Forest District
SDM /DDM Decision date (d/m/y)
Date of Publication in BC Gazette (d/m/y)
Date of posting onWebsite (d/m/y)
Date Order takes Effect (d/m/y)
Total Hectares
Amendment Date (d/m/y)
Approved Objectives / General Wildlife Measures
Approved Boundaries
Omineca
U-7-001
Mountain Caribou
Kennedy Siding
Mackenzie
07/04/2003
30/10/2003
30/10/2003
FPC Grandparented
2,893
PDF(81.1KB)
FTP
Omineca
U-7-003
Mountain Caribou
Omineca
Prince George / Fort St. James / Headwaters
06/10/2003
20/11/2003
20/11/2003
FPC Grandparented
803,306
PDF(92.7KB)
FTP
Appendix 2. Approved Wildlife Habitat Areas for Mountain
Caribou, as of March 31, 2006.
WHA Number
Species
Forest District Name
SDM/DDM Decision Date
Date of Publication in BC Gazette
Date of Posting on Website
Date Order takes Effect
Total Hectares
Mature THLB Equival. (Ha)
Approved Orders / General Wildlife Measures
Approved Boundaries
5-088
Mountain Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
767
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-088
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-089
Mountain Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
4073
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-089
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-090
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
1765
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-090
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-091
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
441
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-091
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-092
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
525
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-092
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-093
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo/Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
14880
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-093
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo/Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-094
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
976
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-094
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-095
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
600
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-095
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-096
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
820
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-096
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-097
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
5773
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-097
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-098
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
3275
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-098
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-099
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
2558
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-099
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-100
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
19584
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-100
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-101
Mountain Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
213
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-101
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-102
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
1259
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-102
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-103
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
727
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-103
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-104
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
610
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-104
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-105
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
170
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-105
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-106
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
62669
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-106
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-107
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
51
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-107
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-108
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
749
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-108
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-109
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
50125
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-109
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-110
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
1261
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-110
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-111
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
1629
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-111
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-112
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
5075
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-112
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-113
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
4428
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-113
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-114
Mountain Caribou
Central Cariboo
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
3567
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-114
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Central Cariboo
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-115
Mountain Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
2726
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-115
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-116
Mountain Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
821
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-116
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-117
Mountain Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
43224
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
5-117
Mountain Caribou (GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
29-Jul-05
0
Order (PDF)
FTP
PAGE
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 31
