Yalakom Mt.

Mountain goat survey in the Yalakom area, subzone 3-32D, Thompson region, , July 2008

Prepared for:

Doug Jury British Columbia Ministry of Environment Thompson Region 1259 Dalhousie Drive Kamloops, BC V2C 5Z5

Prepared by:

Kim G. Poole Aurora Wildlife Research 2305 Annable Road, Nelson BC V1L 6K4 Tele. (250) 825-4063; e-mail: [email protected]

September 2008 Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 ii

ABSTRACT Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are managed as a big game species in British Columbia, and as such aerial surveys are conducted periodically to document population trend and productivity, and to establish hunting quotas. As a result of suspected declines in the population and a high proportion of females in the harvest, a survey was conducted to determine the numbers and distribution of goats in subzone 3-32D in the Camelsfoot Range of the northwest of , southeastern British Columbia, in July 2008. Standard survey techniques were followed using a Bell 206B helicopter. We used 5.4 hrs of helicopter time, including 5.0 hrs on survey, and surveyed a 140-km2 census zone of potential goat habitat under good survey conditions. Overall survey effort averaged 2.2 min/km2. We observed 20 goats (16 adults, 4 kids) in 10 groups, a kid to adult ratio of 25:100 (20% of total goats). Groups were distributed from 3,400 to 6,600 feet (1,040–2,010 m) elevation. I applied a sightability correction factor of 50% to derive an estimate of approximately 40 goats for the census zone (density of 0.29 goats/km2). Two groups of California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) totalling 19 animals were also observed (primarily ewes, young rams, and lambs). The last complete summer survey within subzone 3-32D was conducted in 1990, when 82 goats were counted. The survey in 2008 covered all areas where goats have been observed in previous years. It appears unlikely that we missed significant numbers of goats within the census zone. These results suggest that the population has declined considerably in the past 18 years. The causes of this decline are unknown, but overharvest, with a high proportion of females killed, may have contributed. An average of 3.5 goats were harvested annually between 1989 and 1999, with females comprising approximately half of the harvest. Since 2000 the average annual harvest has dropped to 1.0 goats, with females comprising 63% of the harvest. Predation may also factor in the decline. Based on the low numbers of goats estimated for the area, I suggest that hunting be eliminated until such point as the population is shown to be larger. The subzone should be resurveyed at 3–5 year intervals to monitor population change. Hunter and guide education on identification of mountain goat sex would likely reduce the proportion of females in any future harvest.

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...... ii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 STUDY AREA ...... 1 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY...... 3 RESULTS ...... 3 DISCUSSION...... 4 Population estimate...... 4 Management recommendations ...... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 6 LITERATURE CITED ...... 6

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 1

INTRODUCTION Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are an important species in British Columbia, with over half of the world population occurring in the province. Mountain goats are found in eastern and western sections of the Thompson Region (Region 3) of southern British Columbia (Shackleton 1999), with roughly 6% of the provincial total (Hatter 2005b). All goat hunting within the region is controlled on a permit system, based on estimated population size, with 196 resident goat permits and an average of 16 non-resident permits currently allocated annually. There is a perception of population declines across much of the region (Lemke 2005, D. Jury, Ministry of Environment [MoE], Kamloops, personal communication), but limited surveys have been conducted from the late 1980s to mid 2000s to substantiate this trend (Poole 2007a). Periodic surveys are required to update population estimates to ensure that harvests are sustainable. This survey focussed on subzone 3-32D in the Camelsfoot Range northwest of Lillooet and north and east of the Yalakom and Bridge rivers (hereafter known as the Yalakom area; Fig. 1). The last complete survey of this area occurred in late July 1990 when 82 goats were observed within the subzone (MoE, Victoria, unpublished data). The number of resident Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) permits allocated annually within the subzone has decreased from 8 annually prior to 2000 to 1 permit in 2008. Only 3 goats were reported killed by residents from 1999 to 2007 (compulsory inspection reports, MoE, Victoria; D. Jury, MoE, Kamloops, unpublished data). Resident hunter effort within the subzone (i.e., whether a permitted hunter actually hunts) is unknown. Four non-resident permits were allocated to the one guide outfitter assigned the subzone for the 6-year period ending in 2008 (0.67 permits/year), and 1 permit was proposed for the 3-year period beginning in 2009 (0.3 permits/year). The impetus for this survey was the long period since the last inventory, recent low hunter success, and a high proportion of females in the harvest, resulting in a suspicion that goat numbers were reduced in the area (D. Jury, MoE, Kamloops, personal communication). The objectives of this survey were to determine the number and distribution of mountain goats within the subzone, and to compare survey results with historic data. Data obtained will be used to support current harvest management strategies.

STUDY AREA The Yalakom study area is located in the Chilcotin Ranges of the , in the dry climatic moisture regime of the (former) Kamloops Forest Region (Lloyd et al. 1990). Potential goat habitat in the study area primarily is made up of 2 biogeoclimatic zones: the Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone and the Alpine Tundra (AT) zone above tree line. Tree line is generally located between 1,800–2,000 m (5,900–6,550 ft) (Lloyd et al. 1990); there is little open alpine in this area. July and January mean temperatures for Lillooet, 20 km southeast of the study area, are 21.4ºC and –3.6ºC, respectively (Environment Canada climate normals, unpublished data). Lillooet receives an average of 330 mm of precipitation including 32 cm of snowfall annually. Climate varies within the study area, with cooler temperatures and deeper snowfalls at higher elevations and on north and east- facing slopes. High on the valley sides, hybrid white-Engelmann spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) dominate, with scattered stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) on drier sites (Lloyd et al. 1990, Parish et al. 1996). A census zone of potential goat habitat was surveyed, which generally included steep or cliff habitat above 5,500 feet (1,700 m) elevation in most areas, but as low as 3,300 feet (1,000 m) in some areas. (Feet are included as the unit of measure because the helicopter’s altimeter was in feet). This lower elevation was selected because of a number of goat sightings in low-elevation habitat during summer. Potential goat habitat was patchy in distribution, with areas of cliffs of varying degrees (sheer cliffs, broken cliffs, steep scree and talus slopes, all often intermingled with open to closed conifer stands), interspersed in the forested matrix.

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 2

Figure 1. Location and number of mountain goats and California bighorn sheep observed during the survey of subzone 3-32D, 19–20 July 2008. The orange polygon approximates the census zone, which covers potential goat habitat.

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 3

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Study design and methodology generally followed RISC standards (RISC 2002, Poole 2007b), and consisted of a total count survey, with sightability correction subjectively applied afterwards. The study area was comparatively small, and thus the area was not divided into survey blocks. We used a Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter with pilot, navigator, and 2 observers. The helicopter was equipped with bubble windows in the rear, and sliding windows in the front. All occupants participated in locating mountain goats, and all had extensive experience at aerial surveys. We surveyed all alpine, open subalpine, and forested cliff habitats. We flew roughly 150–200 m (500– 650 foot) contour lines at 80–120 km/hr, 75–100 m out from the hillsides. We rarely used >10 minutes between adjacent contour flights to minimize the potential for excessive vertical movement of goats between passes. We mapped approximate flight lines and survey coverage on 1:50,000 scale topographical maps and calculated the census zone from the maps based on the area surveyed. For each goat sighting we also recorded broad habitat type, and elevation from the helicopter’s altimeter (estimated to the nearest 100 feet). Goat locations (corrected to the location of the group relative to the helicopter) and helicopter flight tracks were recorded with a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit, which was later downloaded to a computer. We classified goats only into kids and non-kid (yearlings and older; hereafter called adults) based on body size (Smith 1988) to reduce survey time, to minimize harassment (Côté 1996), and because researchers familiar with classification from aircraft agree more detailed age and sex classification is not reliable (Houston et al. 1986, Stevens and Houston 1989, Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001, S. Côté, Université de Sherbrooke, personal communication). Incidental wildlife sightings were also recorded. Harvest data were obtained from MoE compulsory inspection (CI) files to 2005, updated with data obtained from Doug Jury (MoE, Kamloops, unpublished data) for 2006 and 2007. The subzone designations in the CI database are not always complete or accurate; therefore I used the UTM location to determine harvest within the subzone.

RESULTS We censused subzone 3-32D on 19 and 20 July 2008. Survey conditions and lighting were generally good with clear skies and calm winds. Surveys were conducted between 5:15 am and 9:00 am. Temperatures within the census zone ranged from 7–8ºC at survey time. We used 5.4 hrs of helicopter time, including 5.1 hrs on survey, and surveyed a census zone of 139.6 km2. Survey intensity averaged 2.2 min/km2. We observed 20 goats (16 adults, 4 kids) in 10 groups (Fig. 1), for an average observed density of 0.14 goats/km2. Group size ranged from 1 to 7 and averaged 2.0 ± 0.61 ( x ± SE). “Typical” group size, an animal-centred measure of the group size within which the average animal finds itself (Jarman 1974, Heard 1992), was 3.7 (± 0.59). The kid to adult ratio was 25:100 (20% of total goats). Based on past experience and other research (summarized in Poole 2007b), I applied a sightability correction factor of 50% to derive an estimate of approximately 40 goats for the census zone (density of 0.29 goats/km2). Most of the goats were found in the southeastern portion of the subzone, east of Antoine Creek (Fig. 1). Goat groups were distributed relatively evenly from 3,400 to 6,600 feet (1,040–2,010 m), although 4 of the groups, including all of the groups with >1 individual, were found at ≤4,100 feet (1,250 m). Almost all goat groups were in habitat with at least some tree cover present; most were in broken cliffs with varying degrees of timber, and a few were on less timbered ridgelines.

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 4

The only other wildlife observed during the survey was 19 California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) in 2 groups at 7,500–7,700 feet (2,300–2,350 m) elevation on Yalakom Mountain (Fig. 1). No classification of these groups of ewes, young rams and lambs was conducted. Data obtained from the compulsory inspection reports indicate that 51 goats have been harvested from this subzone since 1982 (Fig. 2). The greatest numbers were taken between 1989 and 1999 ( x = 3.5 goats/year). Of the 49 goats where sex was recorded, 26 (53%) were females. Non- resident (guided) hunters shot 19 females and 15 males during this period. From 1999 to 2005, residents harvested only 1 of 8 animals killed, but in 2006 and 2007 harvested 2 of 4 animals taken (all females).

5

4

3 Male Female 2

harvested goats of No. 1

0

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Figure 2. Mountain goat harvest from management subunit 3-32D, 1982–2007, based on locations of compulsory inspection data. One goat of unknown sex was harvested in each of 1986 and 1994.

DISCUSSION

Population estimate Weather conditions and visibility during the survey were good. Although the weather was slightly above seasonal norms, overnight temperatures were cool, and the temperature at survey elevation averaged 7–8ºC. We had no indication that the goats were hiding in cliffs or forests to escape the heat. Survey effort (2.2 min/km2) was slightly higher than effort generally used for goat surveys in the Kootenay Region (Poole and Klafki 2005, Poole 2006a, 2007b) and in the North Thompson (Poole 2006b)(range 1.8–2.1 min/km2). Much of potential goat habitat was associated with partially timbered habitat, affecting sightability; therefore, we flew these areas at greater effort than normally used for more open habitat. To verify and recheck sightings, we flew portions of a couple of areas on both days. I applied a sightability correction of 50% to the number of observed animals to obtain an estimate for the population. In most surveys conducted in the East Kootenay, a sightability correction of

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 5

60–65% has been applied (Poole 2007a, 2007b). The lower sightability in the Yalakom area was a result of the higher proportion of timbered habitat present. Although it is certain that we missed some animals, it is unlikely that we failed to detect a substantial number of goats within the census zone. Our survey coverage corresponded with all areas where goats have been sighted on past surveys or have been harvested, and extra effort was applied in areas known to harbour goats in more recent years. The number of mountain goats observed in 2008 (20 goats) was <25% of the number observed in 1990 (82 goats) when the last complete survey was conducted. Potential causes for a decline in a goat numbers include habitat change (e.g., as a result of fire suppression), weather (especially severe winter and spring conditions), increased disturbance, predation, and overharvest. General increases in predator numbers, or a few individual predators specializing on goats, could reduce numbers and kid survival. Although it is speculative, harvest data suggest that excessive harvest, especially focussed on females, may have contributed to the observed decline. Data from Alberta suggest that kid production peaks for females 6–9 years of age, and survival of females >5 year old has the greatest potential to influence population changes (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2001, Hamel et al. 2006). Excessive harvest of females in this subzone likely has reduced kid production and recruitment, which would have decreased the sustainable harvest. Therefore, the intervening 10 years since the 1990 survey corresponded with a relatively high annual harvest, half of which was composed of females. Although the harvest declined subsequent to 2000, the proportion of females in the harvest increased even more. This in all likelihood contributed to the decline in numbers since 1990. Although a small sample, the 4 kids observed out of 20 goats suggest that kid production and survival are moderate for this time of year.

Management recommendations Our survey indicates that the mountain goat population likely numbers approximately 40 animals within subzone 3-32D. Based on currently Ministry of Environment recommendations on sustainable mountain goat hunting, populations of <50 animals should not be hunted (Hatter 2005a). A similar recommendation was made for goat populations in Alberta (Hamel et al. 2006). Until there is evidence that more goats inhabit the subzone, I recommend that all resident and non-resident goat hunting be eliminated. To monitor population status I recommend that the subzone be re-surveyed at 3–5 year intervals. Native goat populations do not tend to increase rapidly (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003), thus it may be a number of years before the population could increase to the level to allow a limited harvest. I suggest that the local outfitter and knowledgeable residents be interviewed prior to the survey to ensure that all areas where goats are thought to occur are surveyed. Participation in the survey by an interested and experienced local resident, outfitter, or conservation officer would enhance the value of the exercise in the eyes of users. The proportion of female mountain goats in the harvest has been uncomfortably high, and likely contributed to the decline in the population. Although guide/outfitters typically harvest fewer females in their harvests than residents (Poole 2007a), this does not appear to be the case in this subzone. Increased hunter education and goat identification efforts since 2000 appear to have paid off in many areas of the province (e.g., Poole 2006a). I suggest that if goat harvest is allowed in the future, all guides and residents are provided with a goat identification DVD (Duncan Gilchrist; www.wildramhunters.net).

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This survey was funded by British Columbia Ministry of Environment. S. Taylor and A. Toombs, C C Helicopters Ltd., Lillooet, provided expert piloting. D. Jury and G. Kuzyk, BC Ministry of Environment, and B. Ambler (Guide Outfitter for the area) were observers during the survey, and I thank them for their enthusiasm and assistance. C. Ens, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Land, provided background GIS base data, and S. Poole calculated the census zone from topographic maps. Thanks to D. Jury for the opportunity to conduct this survey. D. Jury provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this report.

LITERATURE CITED Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:681– 685. Côté, S.D., and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Mountain goat. Pages 1061–1075 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. G.A. Feldhamer, B. Thompson, and J. Chapman, editors. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Gonzalez-Voyer, A., K.G. Smith, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2001. Efficiency of aerial surveys of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:140–144. Hamel, S., S. D. Côté, K.G. Smith, and M Festa-Bianchet. 2006. Population dynamics and harvest potential of mountain goat herds in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1044–1053. Hatter, I. 2005a. Guidelines for determining sustainable harvest of mountain goats. Presented at the 1st BC Mountain Goat Workshop, Prince George, BC, March 2005. Hatter, I. 2005b. Mountain goat status and inventory needs in British Columbia. Presented at the 1st BC Mountain Goat Workshop, Prince George, BC, March 2005. Houston, D.B., B.B. Moorhead, and R.W. Olson. 1986. An aerial census of mountain goats in the Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. Northwest Scientist 60:131–136. Lemke, S. 2005. Mountain goat population inventory, Thompson region, management units 3-43 and 3-44. Ursus Ecological Consulting, Kamloops. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia. Lloyd, D., K. Angove, G. Hope, and C. Thompson. 1990. A guide to site identification and interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Land Management Handbook no. 23, Victoria, British Columbia. Parish, R., R. Coupé, and D. Lloyd (Editors). 1996. Plants of southern interior British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2006a. A population review of mountain goats in the Kootenay Region. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2006b. Mountain goat survey in Management Unit 3-44, Thompson region, British Columbia, September 2006. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2007a. A population review of mountain goats in the Thompson Region. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2007b. Does survey effort influence sightability of mountain goats during aerial surveys? Wildlife Biology 13:113–119.

Aurora Wildlife Research Yalakom mountain goat survey, July 2008 7

Poole, K.G., and R. Klafki. 2005. Mountain goat survey in the East Kootenay, British Columbia, August 2005. Unpublished report for British Columbia Conservation Foundation, Surrey, and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia. RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee). 2002. Aerial-based inventory methods for selected ungulates: bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose, elk, deer and caribou. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 32. Version 2.0. Resources Information Standards Committee, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia. Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed mammals of British Columbia. The Mammals of British Columbia, Volume 3, Royal British Columbia Museum. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Smith, B.L. 1988. Criteria for determining age and sex of American mountain goats in the field. Journal of Mammalogy 69:395–402. Stevens, V., and D.B. Houston. 1989. Reliability of age determination of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:72–74.

Aurora Wildlife Research