Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Columbia Basin Species and Plant Fish & Wildlife Community Conservation Compensation Program
PREPARED BY
John M. Cooper1 Chris Steeger2 Suzanne M. Beauchesne1 Marlene Machmer2 Lynne Atwood3 E. Todd Manning1
1 Manning, Cooper and Associates Errington, BC
2 Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. Nelson, BC
3 Genoa Environmental Consulting Ltd Cobble Hill, BC
July 2004 Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation
Written by
John M. Cooper, Suzanne M. Beauchesne, and Todd Manning
Manning, Cooper and Associates Box 646, Errington, BC V0R 1V0
Marlene Machmer and Chris Steeger
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd 532 Park Street, Nelson, BC V1L 2G9
Lynne Atwood
Genoa Environmental Consulting Ltd 3845 Lefran Road Cobble Hill, BC V0R 1L0
For Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Nelson, BC
July 2004
ii Executive Summary
Dry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) and Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide critical habitat for a diversity of species. Several Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plant communities may occur within treatment units considered for habitat restoration. It is the intent of CBFWCP and MWLAP to consider all Red and Blue-listed species and communities when planning restoration so as to prevent conducting treatments for one species/community to the detriment of another.
Nine wildlife species (Lewis’s Woodpecker, Williamson Sapsucker, White-headed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Long Billed Curlew, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Northern Goshawk) and seven plant communities (Douglas-fir/snowberry/ balsamroot, Antelope- brush /bluebunch wheatgrass, Western snowberry-Idaho fescue, Bluebunch wheatgrass - junegrass, Douglas-fir – western larch - spruce /pinegrass, Ponderosa pine-trembling aspen/rose [Solomon's seal], Ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass-silky lupine) were considered.
We used these UTM locations to map the known occurrences of the focal species within range and pasture units of the plan area, to provide a spatial context for the species- specific prescription guidelines compiled in this report.
For each wildlife species and plant community, information on restoration objectives, BEC zone, subzones and variants, restoration techniques, best management practices and silvicultural practices useful for restoration were summarized from available published and technical literature.
Specific recommendations for each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plant community were developed from the available literature, combined with our professional opinion. Recommendations for each species and plant community were made, where applicable, for tree stocking densities, range of canopy closure, preferred residual tree species, preferred spatial configuration, wildlife tree stocking density, provision for future wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover density and height, and herb cover.
Recommendations for treatment techniques and estimates of restoration success probability are made. Relevant background information on each wildlife and plant community is also provided.
iii Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Methods...... 3 2.1 Mapping component ...... 3 2.2 Wildlife species habitat and plant community restoration information...... 5 3. Mapping Results...... 6 4. Wildlife Species Habitat Restoration Information ...... 9 4.1 Restoration techniques...... 9 4.2 Lewis’s Woodpecker ...... 10 4.3 White-headed Woodpecker...... 13 4.4 Williamson’s Sapsucker...... 15 4.5 Flammulated Owl ...... 17 4.6 “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse...... 20 4.7 Long-billed Curlew...... 23 4.8 Northern Goshawk...... 25 4.9 Badger ...... 28 4.10 Bighorn Sheep ...... 30 4.11 Relative potential for success of restoration ...... 33 5. Plant Communities Habitat Restoration Information...... 44 5.1 Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot...... 44 5.2 Antelope Brush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass ...... 45 5.3 Western Snowberry-Idaho Fescue...... 47 5.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass/Junegrass...... 48 5.5 Douglas-fir-Western Larch-Spruce/Pinegrass...... 50 5.6 Ponderosa Pine-Trembling Aspen/Rose [Solomon’s Seal] ...... 51 5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass-Silky Lupine ...... 52 6. Discussion ...... 54 7. Recommendations...... 55 8. Acknowledgements...... 56 9. Literature Cited...... 57 10. Other literature consulted...... 65
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study area: Natural Disturbance Type 4 in the East Kootenay Trench…..…..4
Figure 2. Pasture units known to contain 0-4 listed wildlife species ………..………….7
Figure 3. Occurrences of rare wildlife (e.g., Badger) by pasture unit in the NDT4 of the East Kootenay Trench …………….………………………………………………...8
iv List of Tables
Table 1. Species and plant communities at-risk addressed in this report ……………..……2
Table 2. Relative impact on Red and Blue-listed wildlife species from restoration of NDT4 conditions in the EKT. (X=highly beneficial, x=beneficial, blank=negligible impact)………………………………………………………...33
Table 3. Stocking targets, wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover targets and herb cover targets for rare wildlife habitat in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench………………………….….34
Table 4. Stocking targets for rare plant communities in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench…………………..38
Table 5. Habitat types and expected feasibility of success of restoration treatments for Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the East Kootenay Trench……………………………………………………………….…………...41
Table 6. Restoration techniques recommended for Red and Blue wildlife and plant communities in open grassland and open forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench……………………………………………………………………………42
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Map of occurrences for six Red and Blue-listed wildlife species in the East Kootenay Trench.
Appendix 2. Pasture unit names, numbers, size, and occurrence of listed wildlife species.
Appendix 3. Scientific names of wildlife and plants mentioned in text.
Appendix 4. KBLUP management guidelines for NDT4 systems.
Appendix 5. List of contacts and information sources.
v 1. Introduction Dry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) and Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide critical habitat for a diversity of species (Machmer 2001). The East Kootenay Trench contains an estimated 135,000 ha of NDT4 Ponderosa Pine (PP) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) ecosystems that are considered for restoration treatments (Figure 1). The East Kootenay Trench is a narrow flat glacial plain with a distinctive rain shadow that lies in the southern portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from about Golden south to the border with the USA.
These ecosystems are characterized by frequent, low intensity fires which promote open stands of mature trees with sparse regeneration, a vigorous understory of bunchgrasses, shrubs and forbs, and a low incidence of insects and diseases (Arno et al. 1995; Daigle 1996; Gayton 1998).
Successful fire suppression has led to forest ingrowth and encroachment, and resulted in large-scale conversion of native grasslands and open forests to a closed forest condition (Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000). Effects of this conversion include the loss and degradation of critical wildlife habitat and biodiversity, reduction in forage values, establishment and spread of noxious weeds, decreased forest health, and increased risk of catastrophic wildfire (Daigle 1996; Gayton 1998; Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000; Holt 2001). Cumulative impacts of fire suppression, human settlement, reservoir creation and industrial development in the Trench are exerting increasing pressure on remaining seral grasslands and open forests and the species that depend on them.
A multi-agency team has been collaborating to restore dry fire-maintained ecosystems in the Trench using a combination of treatments: slashing, pre-commercial and commercial thinning, prescribed burning, weed control, pruning, etc. (Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000). The Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program (CBFWCP) has actively participated in this process by identifying and delivering restoration projects in recent years (e.g., Page and Machmer 2003).
To date, the development of restoration prescriptions (i.e., Stand Management Prescriptions [SMPs], Silvicultural prescriptions [SPs], and Burn Plans) has been guided by the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan (KBLUP), supplemented with professional opinion from foresters, agrologists, biologists, and the public. The KBLUP Implementation Strategy (Ministry of Forests 1997) addresses a range of restoration objectives under a set of guidelines for the NDT-4 (NDT-4 guidelines). These include the retention of veteran and large trees and snags; the conservation of wildlife habitat, biodiversity and red- and blue-listed species and communities; optimization of forage production; minimization of weed occurrence; and protection of ecosystem health (review in Machmer et al. 2002). The strategy provides general direction on suitable target distributions and stocking levels for the restoration of open forest and grassland components, however operational detail and direction concerning the sizes, condition,
1 density, distribution and spatial configuration of residual trees and provisions for wildlife tree retention/recruitment and other essential habitat elements are lacking (Machmer 2001, 2002; Machmer et al. 2002).
Red- and blue-listed elements most relevant for consideration during ecosystem restoration treatments are wildlife-tree dependent species, grassland-dependent species and dry ecosystem-adapted plant communities. Specific species and plant communities considered in this project, their respective BC and COSEWIC conservation status, and important habitat attributes are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Species and plant communities at-risk addressed in this report.
Species BC COSEWIC Habitat Attributes Conservation Status Status Lewis’s Woodpecker Blue Special Concern Wildlife trees Flammulated Owl Blue Special Concern Wildlife trees, thickets Badger Red Endangered Prey abundance Bighorn Sheep Blue none Herbaceous forage, trees Long Billed Curlew Blue Special Concern Tree abundance Williamson Sapsucker Red none Deciduous, Wildlife trees White-headed Red Endangered Wildlife trees Woodpecker Northern Goshawk Yellow none Nest sites, dense mature forest Sharp-tailed Grouse Blue none Grasslands, deciduous cover
Plant Communities Site Series Douglas-fir / snowberry Red S2 IDFdm2/03 / balsamroot Antelope-brush / Red S2 IDFdm2/02; PPdh2/00 bluebunch wheatgrass Western snowberry - Red S2 IDFdm2/00 Idaho fescue Bluebunch wheatgrass - Red S2 PPdh2/02a junegrass PPdh2/02b
Douglas-fir - western Blue S3 IDFdm2/04 larch - spruce / pinegrass Ponderosa pine - Red S1 PPdh2/03 trembling aspen / rose [ Solomon's seal ] Ponderosa pine / Red S2 PPdh2/01 bluebunch wheatgrass – silky lupine
2 The CBFWCP has identified range units with good potential for restoration success and, within those, has focused on pasture units that so far have not required logging treatments (i.e., only thinning, brushing with subsequent burning). SMPs have been developed for some pasture units (e.g., Ashfire, CBFWCP 2001). To expand the emphasis of the ecosystem restoration program, this report provides stand management and silvicultural prescription information that specifically addresses the conservation of habitat for selected listed species and plant communities.
The objective of this project is to develop targets for distribution, species, size, and density of wildlife trees to maintain or restore key habitat attributes for the species/plant communities listed in Table 1 in the EKT (Figure 1). Invertebrates and rare plants are not considered in this report.
2. Methods
2.1 Mapping component
As part of species-specific research or inventory projects in the plan area, GPS locations of observed individuals or nest sites have previously been determined and reported in documents or through personal communications (Ian Adams; Addision & Christie 2002; Ted Antifeau; Irene Manley; Nancy Newhouse; Penny Ohanjanian; and Kari Stuart- Smith). We used these UTM locations to map the known occurrences of the focal species within range and pasture units of the plan area, to provide a spatial context for the species-specific prescription guidelines compiled in this report. We chose to map the locations by pasture unit polygons, as they are typically the operational units used in the planning and implementation of the units for NDT4 restoration efforts. The maps were produced on the basis of the following methodology.
1. All available UTMs were obtained for reported occurrences of the focal species. Data used for the final maps were obtained during different years for different species: Northern Goshawk: 1998-2002, Flammulated Owl: 2001 and 2003, Long-billed Curlew: 2003, Lewis’s Woodpecker: 1999, and American Badger: 2002 (badger locations prior to 2002 were available but not used due to the limited scope of the mapping component).
2. For Sharp-tailed Grouse, no GPS-based occurrence data were available. However, general descriptions of known grouse locations were sufficiently exact to place them into individual or groups of pasture units.
3. For bighorn sheep, location data were obtained via the Internet from the interactive maps of the Columbia Basin Biodiversity Atlas (http://www.biodiversityatlas.org/maps/index.php).
3 Figure 1: Study Area - Natural YOHO Disturbance Type 4 in the East Kootenay Trench Red and Blue Listed Species Project
RK NAT PA Natural Disturbance Type 4 Provincial Park Y OOTENA C K Protected Area OLDEN G O National Parks
L Kilometers U 0 5 10 20 30 40 M NAT B I A
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program PARK U M T N P A K A S R S C O K IN IB O A O IN R E N T E
R N A
Y
can RE Dun INVERME
Lake
D ELKFOR
NEW DENVER R
VERTON SIL KASLO WOOD R SPAR Slocan Kootenay I LY V K KIMBER E L R E FERNIE
OOK CRANBR
Lake NELSON R Lake
AR CASTLEG E I ocanusa Y Ko
O
M
ESTON CR A (USA) MONTAN 4. No occurrence data were available for White-headed Woodpecker and Williamson’s Sapsucker. The available anecdotal information for these two species was not sufficient to create occurrence maps.
5. In order to place species occurrence data into pasture unit polygons, UTMs locations were assigned to pasture units by using physical maps and drafting equipment. Again, the limited scope of the mapping component did not justify more elaborate GIS methods. In cases were the inevitable inaccuracies of this method did not allow exact identification of individual pasture units, neighboring units were included. Considering that all focal species of this project are mobile within ranges of different sizes, it is reasonable to expect that their occurrences extend into nearby polygons, especially if the reported UTMs are near the border of one or more polygons.
6. CBFWCP GIS technologist Amy Waterhouse produced the final maps of reported species occurrences by pasture unit. A spatial layer exists in the CBFWCP data warehouse, stored as ESRI coverage. The coverage is projected to Albers Equal Area Conic, with parameters of:
• Central meridian: -126.0 (126:00:00 West longitude) * Latitude of projection origin: 45.0 (45:00:00 North latitude) * First standard parallel: 50.0 (50:00:00 North latitude) * Second standard parallel: 58.5 (58:30:00 North latitude) * False easting: 1000000.0 (one million metres) * False northing: 0.0 The datum is NAD83, based on the GRS80 ellipsoid.
2.2 Wildlife species habitat and plant community restoration information
For each wildlife species and plant community, information on restoration objectives, BEC zone, subzones and variants, restoration techniques, best management practices and silvicultural practices useful for restoration was summarized from available published and technical literature.
Specific recommendations for each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plant community for each relevant habitat type (grassland, open forest and closed forest) in the East Kootenay Trench were developed from the available literature combined with our professional opinion. Recommendations for each species and plant community were made where applicable for tree stocking densities, range of canopy closure, preferred
5 residual tree species, preferred spatial configuration, Wildlife Tree stocking density and provision for future WT recruitment, shrub cover density and height, and herb cover.
An estimate of the feasibility of successful restoration, based on professional opinion, was made for each wildlife species and plant community. Feasible restoration techniques were also identified for each.
Background ecological information on each wildlife species and plant community was summarized from available literature to provide context for recommended restoration targets and techniques.
3. Mapping Results
Of about 350 pasture units, one is occupied by four listed species, 38 are occupied by two listed species and 133 are occupied by one listed species (Figure 2; Appendix 1, 2). The remaining pasture units have no records of occurrence of listed species. We considered all nine vertebrate wildlife species for mapping of the distribution of reported occurrences (Table 1). Information regarding occurrences of Williamson’s Sapsucker and White- headed Woodpecker in the EKT was too anecdotal for distribution mapping. One example of a species occurrence map is provided in print form (Figure 3) but pasture units cannot be read on the map. The digital Adobe images of these maps, which are contained in the digital version of this report (see CBFWCP web site) show the individual pasture unit numbers, which can be read via the zoom-in tool. For detailed maps see the digitial version of the report at the CBFWCP website http://www.cbfishwildlife.org/.
The mapped polygons are shown in the context of the NDT4 landscape and the locations of protected areas and wildlife management areas. The spatial scale of pasture units is the best approximation to the scale at which restoration treatment prescriptions are developed. The species maps could therefore be used to identify priority areas where our habitat attribute targets and prescriptions recommendations may be applied. Treatment prescriptions for areas occupied by multiple listed species, or potentially occupied by more than one listed species or plant community will need to integrate habitat attribute targets for two or more species or communities.
6 Figure 2: Number of Red & Blue Listed Species known to Occur in Each Pasture Unit RK NAT PA Red and Blue Listed Species Project
0 Provincial Park AY KOOTEN C Protected Area DEN 1 GOL O 330 150 National Parks L 330 2 3U46 T 4 M348 NA 368 B384 Kilometers 362 I 354 0 5 10 20 30 40 368 A 362 346 Note: View in electronic format to 394 395 PARK read Pasture Unit labels 5 M 9 30 13 T 10 385 13 K P A 18 A S 20 R S 13 23 C O K IN 385 385 19 IB 17 23 25 22 O A 29 O IN Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program 25 R E N 24 385 27 T 21
338 11 16 E 14 338 12
217 253 164 N R 206 205 208 209 338 197 193 206 204 A 199 19426 202 272 279
210 259 270 Y 255
271 284 264
264 26 37 37 275
249 261 258 Duncan RMERE 37 INVE 229
37
234
235 227 Lake 231 223
220
232 245
230 207 214 262
247 224 195 237 216 222 240 242228 242 233 248 242 257 280 226 265 290 281 239
283 269 267 251 263 280 218 125 250 166 LKFORD 228 E 189
196 192 190161 200 297 183
203 167 172 176 W 142 138 NE 121 185 113 157 135 130 149 R R 158 E 146 134 V 152 N 145 E 141 D 163 151 92 159 168 160 129 180 184147 153 186 155 174154 181 198 VERTON 94 SIL ASLO 101 K 140 136 D 221 131 124 OO 154 W 104 R 126 R SPA 118 132 119 127 112 117 120 116 219 108 139 114 115 y I128 100 179 a 122 n 34 82 68 e 86 t 78 107 oo 80 K 38 110 71 66 57 64 70 V 85 K 81 LY 15 347 177 BER 397 KIM 382 369 381 367 L 175 E 370375 364 358 365 376 378 379 398 396 392 393 85 399 401 371 387 321 322 312 386 317 E 390 319 R315 372 332 309 359 243 E 344 I 307 340 N 331 311 R 334 327 343 306 E 324 337 329 F 342 328 323 325 345 326 299 301 320 305 293 300 268 285 266 282 296 273 277 298 302 318 320 291288308 287 294 103 96 K 105 83 95 99 90 O 93 89 RO 102 B 350 N 289 A 39 R 33 36 46 C 335 41 74 303 91 32 28 73 55 56 51 53 35 59 52 42 50 48 44 400 Lake 49 69 97 47 40 106 58 45 72 61 109 62 63 221 60 43 65 2 N 3 252 LSO 7 E 201 N 211 212 R 314 77 123 8 31 67 54 76 137 ak1e62 79 L 133 187 182 191 170 7
188 213 256 225
274 238 54 292 276 236 GAR 333341 LE E 310 7 CAST 313 304 351 352 355 356 I 7 363 165 a 357 s 361 nu 360 a 373 Kooc 7 Y 374 377 295 383 388 O 389
M
ESTON CR A (USA) MONTAN Figure 3: Reported Species: Badger Occurrences by Pasture Unit in the NDT4 of the East Kootenay Trench PARK NAT Red and Blue Listed Species Project Badger Y OOTENA C K OIC Ecological Reserve LDEN GO O 330 150 Protected Area L 330 3U46 Provincial Park T M348 NA 368 384 B National Parks 362 I 354 Kilometers 368 A 362 0 5 10 20 30 40 346
394 395 PARK Note: View in electronic format to 5 M 9 T 30 13 10 385 read Pasture Unit labels 13 K P A 18 A S 20 R S 13 23 C O K IN 385 385 19 IB 23 25 17 22 O A 29 O IN 25 R E Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program N 24 385 27 21 T
338 11 16 E 14 338 12 217 253 164 N R 206 208 209 205 338 197 193 206 204 A 199 194 26 202 272 279 210 259 270 Y 255
271 284 264
264 26 37 37 275 249 261 258 Duncan RMERE 37 INVE 229
37 234
235 227 Lake 231 223
220
232 245 230 207 214 262
247 224 195 228237 222 240 216 242 233 248 242 257 280 226 265 290 281 239 283 269 267 251 263 280 218 125 250 166 LKFORD 228 E 189
196 192 190161 200 297 183
203 167 172 176 W 142 138 NE 121 185 113 157 135 130 149 R ER 158 V 152 146 134 N 145 DE 141 163 159 168151 92 160 129 180 184 147 186 153 155 174 181 198 VERTON 94 SIL ASLO 101 K 140 136 D 221 131 124 OO 154 W 104 R 126 R SPA 118 119 132 112 117 127 116 120 219 139 114 108 115 ay I128 100 179 en 34 122 82 68 t 78 86 oo 80 107 K 38 110 71 66 57 64 70 V 85 K 81 LY 15 347 177 BER 397 KIM 382 369 L 175 E 381 370 375 358 364376 365 379 398 378 85 399 401 371 392 393 396387 322 321 E 319 312 386 317 390 R315 372 332 309 340 359 243 E 344 I 307 N 331 311 343 ER 324 334337 327 306 329 F 328 323 342 326 345 325 299 301 320 293 300 305 268 285 296 266 282 273 277 302 318 308 291288 287 294 320 103 96 105 K 83 95 99 90 O 93 89 BRO 102 AN 289 350 R 36 39 46 C 335 33 41 303 91 74 32 28 73 55 56 53 51 59 35 52 42 50 48 44 400 Lake 49 97 47 69 40 106 58 72 45 61 109 62 63 221 60 43 65 N 2 O 3 252 ELS 7 N 201 R 211 212 314 77 123 8 31 67 54 76 137 k16e2 79 La133 187 182 191 170 7
188 256 225 213
274 238 54 292 276 236 GAR 333341 TLE E 310 7 CAS 313 304 351 352 355 I 356 7 165 a 361 357 nus 360 ca 373 Koo Y 374 7 377 295 383 388 O 389
M
ESTON CR A (USA) MONTAN 4. Wildlife Species Habitat Restoration Information
This section contains a range of information on the wildlife species that are the focus of this report. Information includes summaries of status, ecology, populations, habitat, restoration objectives, restoration techniques and best management practices. The most important points for restoration are further summarized in Table 3. Feasibility of restoration for wildlife species is summarized in Table 5.
A short section on the restoration techniques mentioned in the report is presented first, in order to inform the reader, in a brief way, about the scope of each technique (Table 6). 4.1 Restoration techniques
Several restoration techniques are mentioned in this report. A brief description of each is presented here.
Prescribed burn: Small fires are deliberately set in treatment areas when conditions are suitable for a controlled burn that will achieve the desired effect. Prescribed burns are often used to reduce fuel loads to prevent catastrophic fires, to remove encroaching forest from grassland, to open up more closed forest, to improve habitat for target wildlife species, to remove invasive species, and other reasons.
Commercial thinning: A percentage of a forest stand may be harvested for commercial purposes, leaving behind a more open stand that will have higher wildlife values than a more closed stand. Higher value trees for wildlife can be retained, lower value trees harvested.
Thinning: Same as above except usually during younger forest age stages where trees are left on the ground, or piled and burned later.
Slashing: In younger stands, saplings are cut and left on the ground, or piled and burned later.
Mowing: grasslands, shrublands or young forest stands can be mowed with a mechanical mower which cuts vegetation off just above the ground.
Tree planting: trees of desired species can be planted at desired densities and in desired locations.
Shrub/herb planting: same as for trees
Grass seeding: seeding of treatment areas with native and desired grass mixtures, by mechanical or physical methods depending on scale of treatment area, can quick start desired grassland community establishment and reduce invasive species establishment
9 Fertilization: judicious use of fertilizers can speed forest growth and attainment of certain desired structural features.
Noxious weed control: mechanical or physical removal of invasive species, herbicides, or biological controls may be necessary to reduce and eradicate invasive plants
Livestock grazing: in most cases, livestock grazing is likely detrimental to most wildlife values. In most cases, managing grazing will reduce impacts on sensitive species and communities. Some species may benefit from more intensive grazing.
Coarse woody debris (CWD): Provision of CWD is useful to maintain some grassland and forest characteristics essential for some wildlife species.
4.2 Lewis’s Woodpecker
Status There are no recognized subspecies of the Lewis’s Woodpecker, however in British Columbia, two separate populations are recognized by the Conservation Data Center (CDC): the Georgia Basin population is Red-listed and considered extirpated from that region whereas the interior population is Blue-listed (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has designated the Lewis’s Woodpecker as a Species of Special Concern in Canada (Velland and Connolly 1999).
Lewis’s Woodpeckers are Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Ranges Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Gebauer 2004). This strategy contains specific management practices (General Wildlife Measures (GWMs)) that outline allowable forest practices within Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) designated as Lewis’s Woodpecker conservation areas.
Population Eighty-five breeding pairs were counted during an inventory of the East Kootenay Trench in 1998 (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). It is estimated, that up to 120 pairs may nest in the region. Inventory work in the region has not been continued, therefore there is no information on population trend for the EKT. A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
Breeding habitat Lewis’s Woodpeckers are birds of very open forest or grassland with scattered trees Sousa 1983; Tobalske 1997; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Trees are required for perching and for nesting. Large open areas are necessary for foraging.
The Lewis’s Woodpecker is considered a primary excavator although it typically reuses an existing cavity for its nest sites (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). The cavity may have
10 been excavated by a conspecific, Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) or Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus), or it may have been naturally created (Bock 1970; Vierling 1997; Linder and Anderson 1998; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). The Lewis’s Woodpecker is a “weak” excavator; therefore, to create a new nest cavity, it requires a weak entry point such as a delimbed site with exposed heart rot or a very decayed or burnt snag (Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes). A suitable cavity is therefore a critical habitat feature for this species. The majority of nest sites documented in the East Kootenay trench were found in: a burnt snag from large intense fires; a large veteran ponderosa pine with existing cavities; large cottonwood in riparian situations adjacent to agricultural areas or other very open habitats; or a man made structure (e.g., utility pole).
During the breeding season, Lewis’s Woodpeckers primarily forage by hawking flying insects. Hunting techniques include both extended feeding flights with complicated aerial maneuvers or short sallies from a prominent perch within an open area. Structures used for hunting perches include snags or dead topped trees and man-made structures such as telephone poles and fence posts. Insects taken include flying beetles, moths and butterflies (Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes).
Lewis’s Woodpeckers will also glean insects from tree trunks, branches, bushes and the ground (Bock 1970; Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes). This feeding technique may provide an important alternate food source when weather limits flying insect availability. Berries and other fruit are also taken, particularly late in the nesting season as fruit ripens (Cannings et al. 1987; Tobalske 1997; JMC unpublished notes). Ideal Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat therefore has a heterogeneous herb and shrub layer that supplies a diverse population of insects and a late summer fruit crop.
In the East Kootenay Trench, Lewis’s Woodpeckers are found nesting in four habitat types: • burned coniferous forest which had suffered stand destroying fire • open ponderosa pine forest with an obvious history of frequent fire • grassland with isolated large veteran trees • and riparian cottonwood stands adjacent to openings (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000).
Habitats created by intense, stand-destroying fire are suitable for a relatively short time. In the East Kootenay Trench, high concentrations of nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers were found in burns that were 13 to 28 years old (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Some delay in use is inevitable, before dispersing birds are able to locate and colonize newly created habitat. Burns become unsuitable for foraging once regenerating forest has filled in the open space (Cooper and Gilles 2000). Burnt snags also tend to be fragile: several nest snags at Newgate have fallen or have been knocked over by cattle or bears since 1997 (S.M. Beauchesne unpublished notes).
In contrast, occasional fire benefits this species by providing large, landscape-level habitat areas (Cooper and Gilles 2000). Fire reduces forest encroachment in open areas by killing the shrub and seedling layer and also helps promote decay of larger trees (Saab
11 and Dudley 1998). Large veteran ponderosa pines subjected to smaller fires should survive for many years. Nest cavities in these trees are therefore likely to be available for longer period of time. Lewis’s Woodpeckers use fire-maintained open ponderosa pine forest in the East Kootenay Trench, although relatively little of this type of habitat is available (Cooper and Gillies 2000).
Restoration objectives To maintain existing breeding habitat capability and to increase breeding habitat suitability in open range and open forest areas of the EKT. Lewis’s Woodpeckers require wildlife trees for nesting and open areas for foraging. Suitable habitat can be restored in open grasslands and very open parts of open forests (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Gebauer 2004a) IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm, dm1, dm2, dw, mw1, mw2, un, xh1a, xh2a, xm, xw, xw2 PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2
EKT IDF: dm2 PP: dh2
Primary restoration techniques
• In open grasslands and open forests use prescribed burns to prevent conifer regeneration. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history. Decayed wildlife trees must be protected from burning. • Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation, other structures, or wildlife trees), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt to mimic the effect of fire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers. • In Py stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning, manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning, brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand. • Create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops off to encourage decay, by topping > 3m above ground (high cut stubs), or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay. Also may plant suitable snags with an excavator. Planted snags may be used by woodpeckers almost immediately after planting (Manning et al. 2002) and have proven to provide useful woodpecker habitat. On Vancouver Island, >95% of snags planted by excavators remained standing after 10 years (Cooper et al. 2004).
Prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth, heavy thinning of ponderosa pine stands that have heavy ingrowth of other conifers, provision of wildlife trees suitable for nesting are the most effective restoration treatments.
12 Best management practices
• Retain (e.g., protect from burning) all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) >30 cm dbh and all old growth live Py as recruitment wildlife trees within open grasslands. • Retain all trees with existing cavities. • Retain all riparian deciduous trees > 30 cm dbh in open grasslands and open forest. • Manage grazing in treatment areas to provide for high quality herb and shrub layers for high insect production. • Do not concentrate livestock in treatment areas as concentrations of cattle may destroy some decayed wildlife trees suitable for nesting. • Discourage firewood collecting. • Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat. • Provide recruitment wildlife trees
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Silvicultural systems that may be applicable for creating Lewis’s Woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat within forested landscapes include: variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems.
4.3 White-headed Woodpecker
Status The White-headed Woodpecker is on the provincial red-list (Fraser 1999; CDC 2004) and is ranked by COSEWIC as Threatened in Canada (COSEWIC 2004). The White-headed Woodpecker is also listed as Identified Wildlife under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Gebauer 2004).
Population The White-headed Woodpecker is reported occasionally but not annually from the Kootenays (Campbell et al. 1990), indicating that if a resident population does occur, it is extremely small.
13 Breeding habitat This species is associated with mature and old growth ponderosa pine forests with a high density of snags (Cannings 1995; Buchanan et al. 2003). Nest trees are typically >60cm diameter at breast height, dead or dying ponderosa pines (Campbell et al. 1990; Frederick and Moore 1991). The seeds of pine cones provide an important food source in the late summer and fall, therefore mature (>60 years old) live pines are required for cone production (Bull et al. 1986).
Restoration objectives To increase breeding habitat capability in open forest areas of the EKT. White-headed Woodpeckers require wildlife trees for nesting and stands of mature and old Py for foraging. Suitable habitat can be restored in open forests in the PP and IDF zones but populations are unlikely to respond due to the extreme peripheral nature of the species’ range in British Columbia (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Gebauer 2004b) IDF: dk, dm, xh, xm, xw PP: xh
EKT (hypothetical) IDF:dm2 PP:, dh2
Primary restoration techniques
• In open Py leading forests use prescribed burns to reduce conifer (Fd) regeneration and maintain stand openness. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history. • Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation or other structures), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt to mimic the effect of fire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers. • In Py stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning, manually remove conifer (mainly Fd) ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning, brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand. • If necessary, create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops off to encourage decay, by topping > 3m above ground (high cut stubs), or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay.
Prescribed burns and stand thinning are the best restoration techniques for White-headed Woodpecker.
14 Best management practices
• Retain (e.g., protect from burning) all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) >30 cm dbh and all live Py > 50 cm dbh as recruitment wildlife trees within open forest. • Retain all trees with existing cavities. • Provide for recruitment Py throughout treatment area • Do not concentrate livestock in treatment areas as concentrations of cattle may destroy some decayed wildlife trees suitable for nesting. • Discourage firewood collecting. • Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
In Oregon, White-headed Woodpecker used partial removal and uncut stands slightly more frequently than shelterwood and precommercial thinning treatments. In general, use occurred in treatment areas in which large diameter trees were retained and structure most resembled old-growth (Raphael et al. 1987; Marshal 1997). In the Sierra Nevada, thinned conifer stands were used more often than unthinned stands (Siegel and DeSante 2003).
4.4 Williamson’s Sapsucker
Status The “Rocky Mountain” Williamson’s Sapsucker (subspecies nataliae), which occurs in the East Kootenay, is on the provincial Red List in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004). The “Western” Williamson’s Sapsucker (subspecies thyroideus), which occurs in the Similkameen to Boundary region, is on the provincial Blue List. (Fraser et al. 1999; BC Species Explorer 2004). The status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker in Canada has not been determined (COSEWIC 2004). The Williamson’s Sapsucker is also listed as Identified Wildlife under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Cooper and Manning 2004).
Population The Williamson’s Sapsucker is the least abundant of the 4 sapsucker species in British Columbia, but population estimates are unavailable (Cooper 1995). Populations of the “Western” subspecies are apparently much higher than for the “Rocky Mountain” subspecies. There are very few records of the “Rocky Mountain” subspecies in the East Kootenay from the last 5 decades (Cooper 1995; Cannings 1996), although there are occasional reports of nesting (e.g., Campbell et al. 2000). It is likely that populations are localized in areas with high habitat suitability.
15 Breeding habitat Mixed western larch, interior Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine forests are important nesting habitats. In British Columbia, nests have largely been found in coniferous trees, particularly western larch, but also in ponderosa pine (especially near Princeton), Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, white spruce, paper birch, and black cottonwood (Cannings et al. 1987; Morgan et al. 1989; Campbell et al. 1990; Cooper 1995; Manning and Cooper 1996; Gyug 1997, 1999). In the East Kootenay, and the Southern Okanagan Highland, it is usually associated with mixed coniferous forests with stands of mature western larch.
Restoration objectives To increase breeding habitat suitability in relatively closed portions of open forest areas of the EKT. Williamson’s Sapsuckers require wildlife trees for nesting and stands of young to old conifers and deciduous trees for foraging. Suitable habitat can be restored in open forests at higher elevations in the IDF. Populations of Williamson’s Sapsucker in the East Kootenay are very sparse even with extensive amounts of suitable habitat in the upper IDF and MS zones, so response to habitat restoration will likely be slow (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Cooper and Manning 2004) IDF: dk1, dk1a, dk2, dm, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2, un, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xw PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a
EKT IDF: dm2
Primary restoration techniques
• Thin treatment stands so that canopy closure is 40-70% • Retain all Lw, Fd, Py veterans Wildlife Tree Classes 2-4 > 80 cm dbh and some live trees of the same > 60 cm dbh as recruitment nest trees. • Create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops off to encourage decay, or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay.
Retention of veteran larch with structural defects and decay, combined with thinning of closed stands, are the most efficient methods of providing nesting habitat.
16 Best management practices
• Employ silvicultural stand tending practices to promote semi-open stands (<70% canopy crown closure) containing trees with suitable habitat attributes for Williamson’s Sapsucker. Variable density planting and spacing treatments, and prescribed understorey burning can produce these conditions. • Retain all trees with existing cavities. • Provide for recruitment of Lw veterans throughout treatment area • Discourage firewood collecting.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Use partial cutting silvicultural systems to maintain habitat attributes suitable for Williamson’s Sapsuckers in areas scheduled for harvesting. These can include silvicultural systems that employ some type of patch retention or other partial cutting system that retains scattered trees with suitable habitat attributes. In areas scheduled for harvesting, regardless of the silvicultural system chosen, retain all veteran western larch and ponderosa pine as wildlife trees.
4.5 Flammulated Owl
Status The Flammulated Owl is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Cannings and van Woudenberg 2004). Flammulated Owls were reassessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2001 and their status as a Species of Special Concern (van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999) was maintained (COSEWIC 2004).
Population Provincial population estimates range from 600 to 750 breeding pairs, with addition non- breeding individuals (van Woudenberg 1999; Fraser et al. 1999). The population likely fluctuates with budworm outbreaks (Roberts and Roberts 1996; van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999).
There are no estimates available for the East Kootenay Trench population, however, a small number probably breed from the US border, as far north as Radium Hot Springs in a thin band of appropriate habitat, primarily on the eastern side of the valley (van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999; Fraser et al. 1999; van Woudenberg et al. 2000; Addison and Christie 2002). Four breeding sites have been reported for the EKT (T. Antifeau pers. comm.). A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
17 Breeding habitat In British Columbia, Flammulated Owls breed in dry, open Douglas fir forests (Cannings and van Woudenberg 2004). Ponderosa pine may also be present (Howie and Ritcey 1987), although to date it has not been found in pure ponderosa pine stands in this province. Forest structure is usually heterogeneous, with multiple canopy layers.
Flammulated Owls are secondary cavity nester, using old woodpecker holes (usually Pileated Woodpecker or Northern Flicker ) or natural cavities in decayed or dead trees (van Woudenberg 1999). Availability of suitable nest cavities is therefore a critical habitat feature. This insectivorous owl gleans prey from vegetation or hawks flying insects (McCallum 1994). In British Columbia, the most important foraging habitat is a small forest opening adjacent to a dense thicket of regenerating Douglas fir (van Woudenberg 1999). During the nesting period, the male delivers a single prey item per trip to the nest, therefore proximity of nest site to foraging opportunities is critical (Linkhart et al. 1998). Thickets are also important for roosting and security cover (Howie and Ritcey 1987; van Woudenberg 1999).
Forests with some old growth characteristics are favoured because: • cavities are more common in the dead and decaying or damaged veteran trees that occur in old forests (Illg and Illg 1994) • the heterogeneous structure in old forests provides shelter and day roost opportunities (McCallum et al. 1994).
Restoration objectives To maintain existing breeding habitat capability and to increase breeding habitat capability in dry Douglas-fir open forest areas of the EKT. Flammulated Owls require woodpecker-excavated cavities in wildlife trees for nesting, conifer thickets for security cover and grass and shrubby openings for foraging. Suitable habitat can be best restored in more closed parts of the open forest (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Cannings and van Woudenberg 2004) IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, km, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2, un, xh1, xh1a, xh1b, xh2, xh2a, xh2b, xm, xw, xw2 PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2
East Kootenay Trench (van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999; van Woudenberg et al. 2000) IDF: dm2, un
Management objectives
To restore and maintain open, dry Douglas-fir forest habitat with approximate characteristics:
18 • stems per hectare: 100-1000 • preferred residual tree: Douglas fir • preferred spatial configuration of residual trees: patches • canopy closure: 35-65% • shrub cover: patchy
Primary restoration techniques
• Use small, cool prescribed burns to reduce conifer regeneration in open Fd leading forests. If controlled burns are used, ensure that some conifer regen thickets are spared and protect all large > 50 cm dbh wildlife trees. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history. • In Fd stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning, manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning, brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand; but leave patches. • Create wildlife trees, if lacking in treatment area, by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops off to encourage decay, or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay. • In areas where potential nest trees (Class 2-4 Wildlife Tree) are scarce, nest boxes may be provided as an alternative to natural cavities, although to date success with nest boxes has been limited.
Provision of wildlife trees with woodpecker cavities, and a mosaic of thickets of regenerating conifer and open grasslands within an overall moderate canopy closure of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir provides good habitat for Flammulated Owls.
Best management practices
• Retain all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) and all old live Py and Fd trees (>50cm dbh) within open forest treatment areas. • Retain all trees with existing cavities in the treatment area. • Retain riparian deciduous forest (riparian thickets adjacent to more open forest may provide foraging habitat). • Maintain small natural openings in open forest by brushing conifer regen. • Manage grazing in treatment areas to provide for high quality herb and shrub layers for high insect production (grazing has been reported to eliminate foraging habitat for this species, presumably due to reduction in prey, and trampling of thickets may reduce foraging and security habitat). • Discourage firewood collecting. • Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat
19 Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Most of the original nesting sites in BC were found in areas that had been selectively logged >20 years earlier (Howie and Ritcey 1987). Therefore, variable retention logging may be compatible with this owl’s habitat requirements provided a heterogeneous forest structures with sufficient nest sites are maintained.
4.6 “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse
Status The “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Ritcey and Jury 2004). Its status in Canada had yet to be determined (COSEWIC 2004).
Population The provincial population estimate is about 10,000 birds, with most of those occurring in the Central Interior. About 600-1200 are estimated to occur in the Southern Interior (Ritcey and Jury 2004). In the EKT, prior to the mid 1970’s, the Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse was a regularly occurring resident bird in the East Kootenay Trench (Campbell et al. 1990b; Ohanjanian 1990). Historically, numbers in the EKT were reported to fluctuate a number of times from “low” to “plentiful” from about 1905 through the 1950s (Ritcey 1995). Hunting seasons were closed in 1974 after it was recognized that populations were declining and conservation measures were needed. The EKT population was declared extirpated by the mid 1990s (Ohanjanian 1996, 1997), but small numbers have been recently reported from near Newgate (T. Antifeau pers. comm.). A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
Habitat In British Columbia, the Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse is dependent upon a variety of habitats throughout the course of the year. Most habitats occupied consist of open grasslands that are adjacent to brushy or scattered open woodlands (Campbell et al. 1990). Sharp-tailed Grouse generally prefer flatter terrain and usually avoid steep slopes except as local feeding areas (Ritcey 1995). In the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine and grassland phases of the Interior Douglas-fir zone, climax grasslands are used for breeding (Ritcey 1995).
During the winter, Sharp-tailed Grouse feed on buds and catkins of deciduous trees or shrubs, berries and grain where available (Ritcey 1990). During periods of deep snow they may use a variety of broad habitat types which include marshes, shrub fens, shrub swamps, trembling aspen forests and spruce-cottonwood riparian areas as well as early successional stages of other forested habitats (Ritcey 1995).
20 Scrub birch is a key winter food species for Sharp-tailed Grouse throughout much of their range (Ritcey 1995). Other important food sources are water birch, trembling aspen, saskatoon, willow, chokecherry and bittercherry (Ritcey 1995). Sharp-tailed Grouse use snow burrows in shrublands, marshes and sedge-meadows for night roosts as burrows provide good thermoregulation and close proximity to feeding sites (Ritcey 1995).
Suspected causes of the decline and eventual extirpation in the EKT focus on forest ingrowth and loss of grasslands due to intensive fire suppression throughout the 1900s as the most important cause. Loss of grasslands has also occurred from reservoir creation at Lake Koocanusa, residential development near Wycliffe, and intensifying agricultural practices along the valley bottom of the EKT. Grasslands that remain tend to be overgrazed by livestock in many areas which limit suitability for Sharp-tailed Grouse (Ohanjanian 1996, 1997). These factors, in combination, among others (e.g., predators, weather, pesticides), were reiterated by Ritcey (1995) as likely causes of declines of Sharp-tailed Grouse in grassland areas throughout southern British Columbia.
It is likely that humans may have initially enhanced Sharp-tailed Grouse habitat by providing more food during early farming days (Hays et al. 1998) and by removing herbivores (e.g., bison) from the landscape during early settlement which allowed grasslands to recover (Bergerud 1988). Subsequent larger scale land conversions and hunting pressure likely led to lower populations, before the onset of effects from fire suppression and even more intensive farming, grazing and settlement.
Introductions and translocations in the USA have met with success in many locations. Minimum area needed for successful reintroductions is about 30 km2, with 33% in undisturbed shrub-steppe and the remainder in croplands, pasture and grazed uplands (Connelly et al. 1998).
Restoration objectives To increase quality and quantity of open grasslands and open forest in the EKT. Sharp- tailed Grouse require extensive areas of grassland with sufficient herb layer cover for nesting and suitable sites for leks. Nearby riparian areas, forest edges, and shrublands are required for foraging and wintering habitat. Suitable habitat can be restored in open grasslands and the more open parts of the open forest (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Ritcey and Jury 2004) IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2, mw2a, un, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xh2b, xm, xw, xw2 PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a
East Kootenay Trench PP: dh
21 IDF: dm2, un
Primary restoration techniques
• In open grasslands and open forests use prescribed burns to prevent conifer regeneration. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history. • Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation or other structures), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt to mimic the effect of fire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers. • Control invasive plants and seed treatment areas with native grasses. • In grasslands manage grazing, through pasture rotation and prescribed grazing, to maintain residual grass cover to a minimum height of 40 cm in 50% of grass stands; 20 cm minimum elsewhere. • In Py and Fd stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning, manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning, brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand.
Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment, control of invasive plants on grasslands, and conservation of deciduous shrublands and riparian habitats are critical to restoration of habitat.
Best Management Practices
• Retain aspen, birch and willow when thinning and weeding • Protect water sources for deciduous vegetation • Maintain deciduous shrub and tree components in riparian areas. A maximum removal from livestock grazing of 10% of annual growth of woody vegetation <2 m is recommended. • Do not place livestock attractants within the treatment area. • Do not construct fences or place livestock oilers in treatment areas. • Do not herd large numbers of livestock through the treatment area 15 April to 30 June. • Graze to an average of no greater than 30% use. • Do not graze during the nesting or early rearing season (i.e., 1 April to 31 May). • Do not hay or mow grasslands until after August 15. • Discourage use by ATVs and other off-road vehicle use • Maintain natural openings in open forest • Avoid trenching > 20 cm and other mechanical site prep that result in deep depressions.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration Any silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating Sharp- tailed Grouse habitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems.
22 4.7 Long-billed Curlew
Status The Long-billed Curlew is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is designated as a Species of Special Concern in Canada (COSEWIC 2004). Long-billed Curlews are Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Ranges Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Ohanjanian 2004).
Population An estimated 40-50 pairs breed in the East Kootenays (Cannings 1999). This population has increased since the 1970’s (Ohanjanian 2004). A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
Breeding habitat The Long-billed Curlew requires large contiguous tracts of grassland. They show a preference for areas with a slight slope (Hooper and Pitt 1996). Although size of grasslands used varies, 250m was the narrowest width of habitat used for nesting at Skookumchuck (Ohanjanian 2004). Large areas of open habitat probably aid in predator detection (Dugger and Dugger 2002).
Curlews use herb structural stage only (Ohanjanian 2004). Early in the breeding season (April) vegetation <10cm high is preferred; later in the season higher vegetation is acceptable and may provide shade and hiding places for chicks (Ohanjanian 2004). Areas with trees or high shrub density are usually avoided (Campbell et al. 1990; Dugger and Dugger 2002).
Some grazing may benefit curlews by keeping the ground cover short and open which aids in predator detection and chick mobility (Hooper and Pitt 1996). However, grazing during the breeding season increases the risk of trampling, and predation of nests if the adults are frequently flushed by grazing animals.
Fire suppression has a negative effect on breeding habitat due to forest encroachment (Cannings 1999). Post-burn plant succession can be rapid, so fire, in combination with grazing, may be required (Dugger and Dugger 2002).
Restoration objectives
To increase quality and quantity of open grasslands in the EKT. Long-billed Curlews favour extensive areas of open grassland with relatively short herb layers, good visibility, no trees and relatively few shrubs. Suitable habitat can be restored relatively easily in open range habitat (Table 6).
23 BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Ohanjanian 2004) IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm2, mw1, mw2, mw2a, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xm, xw PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2, xh2a
EKT IDF: dm2 PP: dh2
Primary restoration techniques
• In open grasslands use prescribed burns to prevent conifer regeneration. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history. Do not use fire in nesting areas during egg-laying or brood-rearing times. • Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation or other structures), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt to mimic the effect of fire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers. • Slash and burn dense conifer ingrowth in areas adjacent to open grasslands to expand size of open area. • Control invasive plants and seed treatment areas with native grasses. • Graze livestock to maintain grass cover in nesting areas that is on average <10 cm in height by April each year.
Prescribed burns, logging of ingrowth and slashing are the best methods of preventing forest encroachment and opening up areas that have suffered ingrowth in the past. Logged areas will need considerable effort to restore former grassland conditions (e.g., stumps should be removed or burned away, and native grassland restored).
Best Management Practices
• Unlike all other wildlife species in this document, moderate to heavy grazing by livestock creates grassland plant structure that is favourable to Long-billed Curlews. Junegrass-dominated grasslands have naturally lower height structure than other grasslands; therefore less grazing by livestock may provide more suitable habitat for curlews. • Rotate livestock grazing so grazing occurs outside the breeding season (1 May-31 July). • Do not place livestock attractants within the treatment area. • Do not construct fences or place livestock salt blocks or water troughs in treatment areas. Place salt and water troughs in treed areas wherever possible to prevent livestock concentrations in the open where nests may occur • Do not herd large numbers of livestock through the treatment area 15 April to 30 June.
24 • Do not hay or mow grasslands until after 31 July. • Discourage use by ATVs and other off-road vehicle use • Discourage conversion of open rangeland to cultivated crops. • Do not use pesticides during breeding season
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Clear cutting of conifer ingrowth can provide opportunities to restore habitat. Additional measure including burning, and seeding with native grasses would be required following clear cutting.
4.8 Northern Goshawk
Status Two subspecies of Northern Goshawk occur in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990). The coastal subspecies A. g. laingi, is Red-listed in British Columbia (Cooper and Chytyk 2001; CDC 2004) and is considered Threatened by COSEWIC (Cooper and Chytyk 2001; COSEWIC 2004); whereas the interior subspecies A. g. atricapillus is considered to be not at risk.
Population The Northern Goshawk breeds at low densities over most of British Columbia. Population estimates are not available. Relatively few Northern Goshawks breed in the East Kootenay Trench as this raptor breeds in mature close-canopied forests, a forest type that is relatively rare in the EKT. Seven nests are known from the IDF dm2 subzone in the EKT. A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
Breeding habitat Northern Goshawks inhabit mature to old forests throughout their range (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Pure coniferous, pure deciduous, and mixed forest are used. Within mature and older forests goshawks breed in a variety of habitat types, although, these forests share common characteristics. Goshawks build large stick nests within larger trees in the stand or in trees with deformations that create ideal nest platforms such as forks, broken tops, and mistletoe. As well, goshawks nest in forests with relatively closed canopies (>50%) and open understories (Squires and Reynolds 1997; Daw et al. 1998; Ethier 1999).
At larger scales, goshawks breed in landscapes with varying degrees of forest fragmentation and configurations around nest stands. Because goshawks forage outside their nest stands and often great distances away from their nest stands, the configuration of foraging habitat surrounding nest stands likely influences the energetic abilities for goshawks to raise young. Goshawks tend to nest away from edges, therefore forest operations that encroach on breeding territories likely impact breeding success.
25 Restoration objectives To maintain existing breeding habitat capability in localized areas of the PP and IDF where Northern Goshawks breed. Target an overall stand matrix with raised coniferous canopies, low to moderate understory vegetation and fairly high stem densities. Within these stands, create or maintain some diverse openings for shrubs and single trees or variable patches of hardwoods to create and or maintain goshawk prey population niches. Note that habitat objectives for Northern Goshawks vary considerably from wildlife species that prefer open grassland and open forest habitats and goshawk habitat should not be a priority except where breeding is known to occur. If a nest is found in a restoration site, extreme caution or deferment should be applied to restoration actions within the Nest Area (defined as a 12 ha core area around a nest). Restoration prescriptions could be applied to areas outside the 12 ha core, which would need to defined by a biologist with substantial expertise on Northern Goshawk breeding habitat. Feasibility of restoring habitat in closed forest is low as large areas of treatment are needed and this species is not recommended as a focal species in the East Kootenay Trench (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDF: dm2
Primary restoration techniques
• Thin and space early seral stands to reduce successional time for a stand to exhibit mature and old forest characteristics with high canopy closure (60-90%), multi- layered canopies, canopy gaps, low to moderate levels of ground vegetation cover (< 40%), and relatively open understories. Scale of treatments should be > 10 ha. • Implement juvenile spacing programs to ensure an even distribution of crop trees and even rapid crown closure occurs. Opportunities to initiate stem decay for snag recruitment and CWD requirements should be considered during spacing operations (e.g., girdling or fungal inoculation of existing green trees). • In healthy second growth conifer stands, consider fungal inoculation of some larger diameter (> 30 cm dbh) live individual leave trees (Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine recommended) with endemic heart rot fungi (Phellinus pini recommended) to create heart rot decay. These trees should be retained for the length of the rotation or several rotations (> 80 years), to accelerate wildlife tree recruitment and thereby increase habitat supply for the goshawk prey base. • Establish plantations on a uniform pattern to encourage earlier crown closure. Plantation management should strive to develop a closed canopy matrix containing some gaps with little understory vegetation (except in the gaps) as rapidly as possible.
26 • In stands treated for nesting habitat allow for some tree species mixes by planting or natural ingress, singly or in patches, as well as scattered brushy openings and hardwood components. • Fertilize at an early seral stage (usually at the time of, or after, spacing or commercial thinning) to reduce successional time for a stand to achieve crown closure, self-pruning and understory brush suppression.
Thinning of stands to achieve suitable canopy closure, flight corridors through the forest, and prey base are the best restoration techniques.
Best management practices
• Maintain and or recruit mature and old forest canopy characteristics (e.g., a single-storied main canopy with a high overall canopy closure (60-90%); canopy gaps; areas with multi-layered canopies; some dispersed single or imbedded patches of hardwood components (e.g., trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and average main canopy tree height > 20 m. • Maintain and or recruit forest structure (e.g., snags, wildlife tree patches (WTPs) and coarse woody debris (CWD)) in harvested areas for immediate foraging habitat (up to 15-20 years post-harvesting) and future foraging habitat (after regenerated stands begin to self-thin). • Maintain and or recruit forest buffers around and corridors in between: riparian areas, areas of significant forest structure, and topographical features such as gullies and rocky outcroppings. • Implement partial cutting and retention strategies that create a mosaic of accessible, semi-open foraging habitats and to enhance the growth of larger diameter trees. • On slopes, give priority to habitat enhancements located on slope benches. • Early plantation brush treatments will release and manage distribution, future stem density and tree species composition. Early brush treatments will have little direct influence on actual understory brush densities at the time of goshawk use (later in the rotation). However, these treatments will create or maintain some brushy openings in a stand as habitat for passerine bird prey species and grouse habitat. • Maintain, through brushing treatments, low to moderate levels of ground vegetation cover (< 40%), and relatively open understories. • Maintain some open grown areas with brush, hardwood components or other prey species (e.g., passerine birds and grouse) habitat for future maintenance within an otherwise densely managed coniferous stand. • Maintain low levels of competing vegetation through the establishment phase by manual treatments (ensure adequate buffers adjacent to nesting areas). Other opportunities that may be available through the establishment phase that can coincide with brushing treatments include girdling of retained green wildlife trees to initiate stem decay for snag recruitment and future CWD.
27 • Maintain some unburned slash piles to create goshawk prey habitat (e.g., small mammals and birds) within the future stand. • Maintain large CWD and slash accumulations, non-catastrophic blowdown, and insect or disease pockets to achieve similar results.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Silvicultural systems that may be applicable for maintaining Northern Goshawk nesting and foraging habitat include: variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems. Landscape level management objectives such as connectivity, patch size distribution and seral stage targets for goshawk should be described in higher level plans and sustainable forest management plans. This should include providing a mosaic of mature or old forest reserves and forested corridors that provide habitat and habitat connectivity across landscapes. It is important to link higher level plan objectives such as mature/old forest targets and old growth management areas (OGMAs) for a landscape unit or other planning area, with specific practices implemented at the stand level.
4.9 Badger
Status The Badger is Red-listed in British Columbia (Cannings et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Adams and Kinley 2004). In Canada, the Badger is listed as Endangered (COSEWIC 2004). Badgers are at risk in British Columbia because populations are small and declining, habitat is fragmented, limited in distribution and reduced in area through forest ingrowth, habitat quality has declined as grasslands are overgrazed and developed for agricultural purposes, rodent prey is reduced through poisoning, and there is unsustainable mortality due to vehicle collisions (Rahme et al. 1995; Newhouse and Kinley 2000; Adams et al. 2002).
Population Provincial population estimates include 300-1000 (Rahme et al. 1995), 250-600 (Newhouse and Kinley 2000), and <200 (Adams et al. 2002). The East Kootenay Trench contains the majority of the provincial population. A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Figure 3.
Habitat Badgers are medium-sized carnivores that mainly inhabit grasslands and open forests of drier parts of southern interior British Columbia (Rahme et al. 1995). The highest quality badger habitats occur in Natural Disturbance Type 4 (NDT4). Sites are characterized by frequent, stand-maintaining fires, generally open grassland or sparsely treed areas, high densities of prey populations, and fine sandy loam soils (Adams and Kinley 2004).
28 In the East Kootenay, badgers occur most commonly in the PP and IDF zones in the EKT but occasionally range upslope out of the EKT into the MS, ESSF and AT zones (Apps et al. 2001). Badgers are adapted to hunting fossorial prey but they are also opportunistic feeders and eat a wide variety of mammals, birds, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants (Messick 1987). Primary prey species in the EKT are Columbian ground squirrels and northern pocket gopher.
Restoration objectives To maintain, restore and increase open grassland and open forest habitat suitable for Badgers. Open forest habitat should have as few stems/ha as possible. Enhancing grassland quality by removal of invasive plants and increasing rodent prey are very beneficial. Restoration of habitat in open range and open forests is very feasible (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Province wide (Adams and Kinley 2004) IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dm1, dm2, mw, mw1, mw2, un, xh1, xh2, xm, xw, xw2 PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2
East Kootenay Trench PP: dh2 IDF: dm2, un
Primary restoration techniques
• Use prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth in grasslands. • Harvest, thin and brush open forest treatment sites to reduce stocking densities to 20 stems/ha. • Increase productivity of grasslands to support mammalian prey by removing invasive weeds. • Seed treatment sites with native grasses where necessary. • Manage livestock grazing to maintain a range of seral and structural range conditions as suitable habitat for prey species.
Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment, thinning and slashing of open stands to increase openness, and restoration on native grasslands to increase mammalian prey abundance are the best restoration methods.
Best Management Practices
• For natal dens follow provisions in the IWMS (Adams and Kinley 2004) or MCA (2004)
29 • Maintain important habitat features including open or non-forested land, sufficient structure/litter to provide hiding cover, grasslands in a range of seral stages, friable soils, and prey. • Maintain a one tree length radius buffer around burrows to prevent den destruction from mechanical operations. • Harvest to reduce stem densities in open forest to < 75 stems/ha. • Leave a selection of live and dead trees to maintain site ecology. • Do not concentrate livestock by locating water troughs, salt licks, etc. < 200 m from dens. • Locate all new roads >300 m from natal dens. • Do not apply rodenticides within the reserve area and tolerate reasonable populations of ground squirrels and other burrowing mammals that are important prey species for badgers. • Maintain foraging burrows within the reserve area as they act as important shelter. • Tolerate the digging associated with badgers or relocate animals with assistance of Conservation Officers.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Any silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating Badger habitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems.
Reduce stocking densities in key badger habitats to 20 stems/ha in open forest, and < 20 stems/ha in open range.
4.10 Bighorn Sheep
Status The Bighorn Sheep is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Cannings et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Demarchi 2004). Two ecotypes are managed in British Columbia: California Bighorn Sheep occur in the Okanagan and Cariboo regions, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep occur in the East Kootenay and several other local areas in British Columbia where they were introduced. Bighorn Sheep are at risk in British Columbia because populations are small, numbers are lower than in pre-settlement times, habitat is becoming increasingly fragmented and has been reduced through forest ingrowth, mine development, and agriculture, populations are susceptible to cyclic die- offs, and several subpopulations have fewer individuals than required for a viable population (Berger 1990; Cannings et al. 1999; Demarchi 2004).
Population Provincial population estimates are about 3,000 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (estimated in 1996; Demarchi 2004). These numbers are the largest on record, although it
30 is assumed that former populations were higher. A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.
Habitat Bighorn Sheep use a variety of habitat types within their home ranges including open grasslands, alpine, subalpine, shrub-steppe, rock outcrops, cliffs, meadows, moist draws, riparian areas, talus slopes, plateaus, deciduous forest, clearcut or burned forest, and conifer forest. Almost all habitat use is on moderately steep to steep slopes. Use of habitat varies daily and seasonally with changes in requirements for food, rest, safety, thermal cover, rutting, and lambing (Demarchi 2004).
In the EKT, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep winter on low elevation, southerly exposed slopes close to rocky escarpments or talus slopes (Shackleton 1973; Demarchi 1986). Grasslands, seral shrublands and open forests provide forage mainly from bunchgrasses such as wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), fescues (Festuca spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), and needle grasses (Stipa spp.), and various forbs and shrubs (Davidson 1991).
Habitat loss continues to be a major issue. Significant amounts of critical winter range for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep habitat has been permanently lost in the EKT through urban development at Radium Hotsprings, Fairmont Hotsprings, Elko and other areas. Acreages and subdivisions between Fairmont Hotsprings and Brisco also have the potential to disrupt north–south migration of Bighorn Sheep along the western edge of the Rocky Mountains (Davidson 1991). Approximately 25% of the winter range for Bighorn Sheep in the upper Columbia River area has been subdivided and developed for housing and industry since the 1940s (Davidson 1991).
Restoration objectives To maintain, restore and increase open grassland and open forest habitat suitable for Bighorn Sheep winter range. Winter ranges have declined by as much as 75% in some areas (e.g., Radium-Stoddart area). Open forest habitat should have as few stems/ha as possible. Enhancing grassland quality by removal of invasive plants and restoring native plant communities, especially sheep forage plants is very beneficial. Restoration of habitat is feasible in all habitats in the East Kootenay Trench (Table 6).
BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
Rocky Mountain ecotype only (Demarchi 2004) IDF: dk1, dk2, dm2, un, xh2 PP: dh2, xh2
East Kootenay Trench PP: dh2 IDF: dm2, un
31 Primary restoration techniques
• Use prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth in grasslands and to remove trees from grasslands that are now forested. • Harvest, thin and brush open forest treatment sites to reduce stocking densities to promote forage plant development. • Increase productivity of grasslands by removing invasive weeds and restoring native plant communities, especially sheep forage plant species. • Seed treatment sites with native grasses where necessary. • Manage livestock grazing to remove < 10% of annual browse on Bighorn Sheep winter ranges. • Maintain at least 50% of each Bighorn Sheep winter range in late seral/climax condition bunchgrass dominated communities with abundant, tall grass for winter forage (Demarchi 2004).
Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment and to increase open range and open forest, restoration of native grasslands and shrublands, and thinning of more closed stands on winter range are the best restoration methods.
Best Management Practices
• Reduce and eliminate contact with domestic sheep and goats (Demarchi 2004) • Develop and implement road access plans • Maintain travel corridors that connect summer and winter ranges • Minimize human disturbances through recreation or other activities during lambing and rutting periods in critical habitats • Avoid helicopter flyovers in critical lambing, rutting, movement corridors and wintering areas at appropriate times • Plan cattle grazing to maintain desired native shrub and grass structure in core areas. • Control cattle grazing to prevent excess soil disturbance and the introduction of invasive species. • Minimize cattle use of mineral licks and watering holes in core areas. • Do not locate salt or mineral licks, watering troughs, or other range developments in core areas. • Do not apply pesticides.
Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration
Any silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating Bighorn Sheep habitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems. Harvesting or intensive silviculture in core lambing, rutting, movement corridors or winter range areas should only be done to improve habitat features for Bighorn Sheep.
32 No harvesting or silvicultural activities should occur in core areas during lambing or rutting periods (Demarchi 2004).
4.11 Relative potential for success of restoration
Some wildlife species will be more positively impacted than others by restoring NDT4 conditions to open grasslands, open forest and closed forest (Table 2). Restoration efforts in each of these habitat types should concentrate on species with the highest positive impact.
Table 2. Relative impact on Red and Blue-listed wildlife species from restoration of NDT4 conditions in the EKT. (X=highly beneficial, x=beneficial, blank=negligible impact)
Open range Open forest Closed forest Lewis’s Woodpecker X X White-headed Woodpecker x x Williamson’s Sapsucker x Flammulated Owl X x Long-billed Curlew X Sharp-tailed Grouse X x Northern Goshawk x Badger X X x Bighorn Sheep X X x
33 Table 3. Stocking targets, wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover targets and herb cover targets for rare wildlife habitat in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench (Py=ponderosa pine, Fd=Douglas-fir, Lw=western larch, At=trembling aspen, Pl=lodgepole pine, Sx=willow).
Species/ Habitat Life Target Canopy Species Spatial Wildlife Tree Provision for Shrub Herb Comments community Type Requisite Stocking Closure Preference for Configuration Stocking Wildlife Tree cover%/ Cover% (Stems/ha) (%) Residual Trees of Residual (WT/ha) Recruitment ht (cm) / ht (cm) Trees Lewis’s Open Breeding 1-10 <5 Py 100% Scattered 1-2 Leave patches or 5-25/ >50/ NA Single Woodpecker grassland and Prefer >40cm single Py & At NA isolated trees foraging dbh with >30cm dbh used for Wildlife Tree or the largest nesting Class 2-4 regenerating Py available Open Breeding 5-25 <25 Py 80% Patches or 3-5 Leave 5-10 5-25/ >50/ > Limb lower forest and Fd 20% scattered Wildlife Tree stems/ha of NA 20 cm branches to foraging Class 2-4 > largest open up stand 40 cm dbh regenerating Py/Fd available & patches of At > 30 cm dbh Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use forest closed forest White-headed Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use Woodpecker grassland open range Open Breeding 200-400 20-40 Py 90% Scattered 3-5 Leave 5-10 >30 NA Need mature forest and Fd 10% Wildlife Tree stems/ha of the ponderosa foraging dbh>30 cm Class 2-4 > largest pine, wildlife 40 cm dbh regenerating trees Py/Fd available Closed Breeding 200-400 30-50 Py 90% Scattered 3-5 Leave 5-10 >30 NA Need mature forest and Fd 10% Wildlife Tree stems/ha of the ponderosa foraging dbh>30 cm Class 2-4 > largest pine, wildlife 40 cm dbh regenerating trees Py/Fd available
34 Species/ Habitat Life Target Canopy Species Spatial Wildlife Tree Provision for Shrub Herb Comments community Type Requisite Stocking Closure Preference for Configuration Stocking Wildlife Tree cover%/ Cover%/ht (Stems/ha) (%) Residual Trees of Residual (WT/ha) Recruitment ht (cm) (cm) Trees Williamson’s Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use Sapsucker grassland open range Open Breeding 100-200 25-50 Natural mixes of Patches 5-10, Wildlife Retain patches of NA NA Need wildlife forest and Lw, Fd, Py, At, Tree Class 2-4 >50 cm dbh Lw, trees for foraging spruces > 40 cm dbh Fd, Py, or largest nesting available; retain patches > 30 cm dbh At Closed Breeding 100-400 25-50 Natural mixes of Patches 5-10, Wildlife Retain patches of NA NA Prefer more forest and Lw, Fd, Py, At, Tree Class 2-4 >50 cm dbh Lw, open stands foraging spruces > 40 cm dbh Fd, Py, or largest with wildlife available; retain trees for patches > 30 cm nesting dbh At Long-billed Open Breeding 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0-10/ 25-75/ Open areas Curlew grassland and < 20 cm < 10 cm and low foraging height herb layer are required Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use forest open forest Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use forest closed forest Sharp-tailed Open All 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0-10/ >50/ Open Grouse grassland <25 cm <25 cm grasslands with low vegetation height needed for lek sites Open All 25-50 20-40 Conifers Patches or NA NA 10-50/ >50/ Riparian forest appropriate for riparian <25 cm <25 cm stands and site. Ep 50%, At shrublands 50% preferred Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use forest closed forest
35 Species/ Habitat Life Target Canopy Species Spatial Wildlife Provision for Shrub Herb Comments community Type Requisite Stocking Closure Preference for Configuration Tree Wildlife Tree cover%/ Cover% (Stems/ha) (%) Residual Trees of Residual Stocking Recruitment ht (cm) /ht (cm) Trees (WT/ha) Flammulated Owl Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use grassland open range Open Breeding 300-400 30-40 Fd 90% Patches of 10-15 3-5 Retain patches 0-1000 >50/ Nest trees forest and Py 10% ha Wildlife of medium-sized stems/ha/ > 30 cm typically in foraging Tree Class conifers NA old trees 2-4, >40 close to cm dbh, thickets of and 5-10 regeneratin Class 1-4 > g Fd 30 cm dbh
Closed Breeding 300-400 35-65 Fd 90% Patches of 10-15 3-5 Retain patches 0-1000 >50/ Nest trees forest and Py 10% ha Wildlife of medium-sized stems/ha/ > 30 cm typically in foraging Tree Class conifers NA old trees 2-4, >40 close to cm dbh, thickets of and 5-10 regeneratin Class 1-4 > g Fd 30 cm dbh
Northern Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use Goshawk grassland open range Open Foraging NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No specific forest manageme nt for NOGO needed Closed Breeding 400 40-70% Fd 80%, Py 10 Uniform 5-10/ Same as forest and %, Lw 10%, Wildlife residual, foraging At> 30 cm dbh Tree Class maintain canopy 2-6 > 30 closure cm dbh
36 Species/ Habitat Life Target Canopy Species Spatial Wildlife Provision for Shrub Herb Comments community Type Requisite Stocking Closure Preference for Configu Tree Wildlife Tree cover%/ Cover%/ht (cm) (Stems/ha) (%) Residual Trees ration of Stocking Recruitment ht (cm) Residual (WT/ha) Trees Badger Open All 0 0 NA NA NA NA 10-20%/ >75%/ 30-50 cm Rodent grassland 25-100 prey cm populations are critical Open All 0-20 0-10 NA Patches NA NA 10-20/ >75/ forest or 25-100 30-50 cm scattered cm Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not use forest closed forest except, perhaps, for traveling Bighorn Sheep Open Foraging, 0 0 NA NA NA NA 10-20%/ >75%/ 30-50 cm Forest grassland winter < 100 cm ingrowth range and invasive plants degrade habitat Open Foraging, 5-25 <25 Fd 100% Scattered NA NA 10-20/ >75/ forest security, , patches < 100 cm 30-50 cm winter range Closed Security, >200 >40 Fd 100% Patches NA NA 10-20/ >75/ forest thermal < 100 cm 30-50 cm
37 Table 4. Stocking targets for rare plant communities in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench (Py=ponderosa pine, Fd=Douglas-fir, Lw=western larch, At=trembling aspen, Pl=lodgepole pine, Sx=willow sp.).
Plant Habitat Target Canopy Species % Spatial Wildlife Provision for Shrub Herb Comments Community Type Stocking Closure Preference Configuration Tree Wildlife Tree cover%/ht Cover%/ht (cm) (Stems/ha) (%) for Residual of Residual Stocking Recruitment (cm) Trees Trees (WT/ha) Douglas- Open 20-50 15-30 Fd 80% Scattered NA NA 15 - 20/ > 50/ Frequent low fir/snowberry/ grassland Py 20% NA NA intensity fire history balsamroot >30 cm dbh Open 20-200 15-30 Fd 80% Scattered NA Retain a few 15 - 20/ > 50/ Frequent low forest Py 20% young conifers NA NA intensity fire history >30 cm dbh Closed 50-200 30-50 Fd 100% Scattered NA NA 15 - 20/ > 50/ Frequent low forest NA NA intensity fire history Antelope brush/ Open 0-5 < 15 Py 80%, NA NA NA 15-30 >15% each of Frequent stand bluebunch grassland Fd 20% antelope bluebunch maintaining fires wheatgrass >30 cm dbh brush/ NA wheatgrass, Idaho Western fescue, Rough snowberry-Idaho fescue or Arrow- fescue leaf balsamroot
Open 0-5 < 15 Py 80%, Scattered 1-2 Retain a few 15-30 >15% each of Frequent stand forest Fd 20% young conifers antelope bluebunch maintaining fires >30 cm dbh brush/ NA wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Rough fescue or Arrow- leaf balsamroot
Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA forest Western Open 0-5 <15 Fd 80%, Scattered NA NA 30 20% grass Park -like savannah. snowberry-Idaho grassland Py 20% 80% forbs fescue >30 cm dbh Open 0-5 <15 Fd 80%, Scattered NA NA 30 20% grass Park -like savannah. forest Py 20% 80% forbs >30 cm dbh Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA forest
38 Plant Community Habitat Target Canopy Species % Spatial Wildlife Provision for Shrub Herb Comments Type Stocking Closure Preference for Configuratio Tree Wildlife Tree cover%/ht Cover%/ht (cm) (Stems/ha) (%) Residual n of Residual Stocking Recruitment (cm) Trees Trees (WT/ha) Bluebunch Open 0-5 <10 Fd 50%, NA NA NA <10 30-50 Frequent low wheatgrass-junegrass grassland Py 50% intensity fall fires >30 cm dbh Open 0-5 <10 Fd 50%, Scattered 1-2 Retain a few <10 30-50 Frequent low forest Py 50% young conifers intensity fall fires >30 cm dbh Closed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA forest Douglas-fir-western Open NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA, mature to old larch- grassland forest spruce/pinegrass Open 100-200 >50 Fd 50% Uniform, 5-10 Multi-storied >30 20 Very important forest Lw 25% clumped canopy, variable- wildlife refuge area, Spruces/Pl -aged trees rarely burns 25%, Sx Closed 100-400 >50 Fd 50% Uniform, 5-10 Multi-storied >30 20 Very important forest Lw 25% clumped canopy, variable- wildlife refuge area, Spruces/Pl -aged trees rarely burns 25%, Sx Ponderosa pine- Open 30-100 30 At 70% Scattered, 1-5 Retain young Py, 20-25 >50 Riparian community trembling grassland Py 30%>30 clumped At aspen/rose/Solomon’s cm dbh seal Open 30-100 30 At 70% Scattered, 1-5 Retain young Py, 20-25 >50 Riparian community forest Py 30%> 30 clumped At cm dbh Closed 100-400 >30 Primary: Fd, Uniform 1-5 Retain young Py, 20-25 >50 Riparian community forest Py, Sx At Tertiary: Lw, Pl
39 Plant Community Habitat Target Canopy Species % Spatial Wildlife Provision for Shrub Herb Comments Type Stocking Closure Preference for Configuration Tree Wildlife Tree cover%/ht Cover%/ht (Stems/ha) (%) Residual of Residual Stocking Recruitment (cm) (cm) Trees Trees (WT/ha) Ponderosa Open 10-50 15-30% Py 80%, Scattered NA NA 15-20 > 50 Forms matrix that pine/bluebunch grassland Fd 20% links grasslands and wheatgrass-lupine >30 cm dbh smaller patches of moist forests and riparian systems.
Open 10-50 15-30 Py 80%, Scattered 1-5 Retain young Py 15-20 > 50% Forms matrix that forest Fd 20% links grasslands and > 30 cm dbh smaller patches of moist forests and riparian systems.
Closed 100-400 >30 Primary: Py Uniform 1-5 Retain young Py 15-20 > 50% Forms matrix that forest Secondary Fd links grasslands and PPdh2/02: smaller patches of Primary: Fd, moist forests and Py riparian systems. Tertiary: Lw, Pl
40 Table 5. Habitat types and expected feasibility of success of restoration treatments for Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the East Kootenay Trench.
Species/Community Habitats to be restored Feasibility Open range Open forest Closed forest Lewis’s Woodpecker Yes Yes No High White-headed No Yes Yes Low (habitat can be Woodpecker restored but population unlikely to respond) Williamson’s Sapsucker No No Yes Low Long-billed Curlew Yes No No High Sharp-tailed Grouse Yes Yes No High Flammulated Owl No No Yes High Northern Goshawk No No Yes Low Badger Yes Yes No High Bighorn Sheep Yes Yes Yes High Douglas-fir/snowberry/ Yes Yes No balsamroot Antelope brush/ bluebunch Yes Yes No Moderate (intensive wheatgrass management required to attain late seral condition Western snowberry-Idaho Yes Yes No Low (few locations, fescue intensive management required) Bluebunch wheatgrass- Yes Yes No High (intensive junegrass management required) Douglas-fir-western larch- No No Yes Moderate spruce/pinegrass Ponderosa pine-trembling Yes Yes No Low (valley bottom aspen/rose/Solomon’s seal habitats very threatened by development/ disturbances Ponderosa pine/bluebunch Yes Yes No High (intensive wheatgrass-silky lupine management required)
41 Table 6. Restoration techniques recommended for Red and Blue wildlife and plant communities in open grassland, open forest and closed forest habitats in the EKT.
Prescribed Commercial Thinning Slashing Mowing Tree Shrub/ Grass Fertili- Noxious Livestock CWD burn thinning Planting herb Seeding zation Weed control Planting control Lewis’s yes (cool) yes yes yes yes na no na na yes Moderate NA Woodpecker grazing White-headed yes (cool) yes yes na na yes no na na na Moderate NA Woodpecker grazing Williamson’s no yes yes na na yes no na na na Minimize NA Sapsucker grazing Long-billed yes na na yes yes na no yes no yes Moderate no Curlew (cool/hot) -heavy grazing Sharp-tailed yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes Minimize NA Grouse (cool/hot) grazing Flammulated no yes yes yes na yes no na yes yes Minimize yes Owl grazing Northern no yes (partial yes yes no yes no na yes na Minimize yes Goshawk only) grazing Badger yes yes yes yes yes no no yes yes yes Minimize yes (cool/hot) grazing Bighorn Sheep yes (cool) yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes Minimize no grazing
42 Prescribed Commercial Thinning Slashing Mowing Tree Shrub/ Grass Fertili- Noxious Livestock CWD burn thinning Planting herb Seeding zation Weed control Planting control Douglas- Yes (cool) yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes yes fir/snowberry/ balsamroot Antelope brush/ Yes (cool) na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes na bluebunch wheatgrass Western No, Idaho na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes na snowberry-Idaho fescue not fescue fire resistant Bluebunch Yes (cool) na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes no wheatgrass- junegrass Douglas-fir- No, fire yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes na western larch- interval 90- spruce/pinegrass 150 years Ponderosa pine- Yes (cool) yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes yes trembling aspen/rose/Solom on’s seal Ponderosa Yes (cool) yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes yes pine/bluebunch wheatgrass- lupine
43 5. Plant Communities Habitat Restoration Information
This section contains a range of information on the plant communities that are the focus of this report. Information includes summaries of status, ecology, restoration objectives, restoration techniques and best management practices. The most important points for restoration are further summarized in Table 4.
5.1 Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot
Background information
The Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot is a provincially Red-listed plant community (CDC 2004). The community is found between 700 and1500-m ASL in the southern regions of the lower Rocky Mountain Trench, occurring south of the Blaeberry River to the international border (Erickson 2003a). Distribution is restricted to ridges and upper to midslopes on warm aspects. It occurs on a variety of parent materials. Soils can vary, but are often loamy and classified into Chernozemic, Brunisolic or Luvisolic soil orders. Soil moisture classes have been assigned as subxeric to submesic (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Erickson 2003a).
This plant community is characterized by open or savannah type stands of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, with a herb layer dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, arrow-leaved balsamroot (0.5-45%) and Idaho fescue. On some sites there is pinegrass, usually where tree cover is denser or in more protected positions. The shrub layer is generally sparse and may include snowberry, saskatoon, antelope-brush, kinnikinnick, common juniper, rocky mountain juniper, soopolallie, or rose.
Herb layers may include a low cover of slender hawksbeard, dogbane, needlegrasses, fescues, timber milkvetch, rosy pussytoes, junegrass, yarrow, strawberry, fern-leaved desert parsley and nodding onion. Occasionally, moss and lichen cover is relatively well developed with Cladonia sp., Tortula ruralis, and Peltigera rufescens (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Erickson 2003a).
Forest encroachment and ingrowth due to fire suppression, livestock and wildlife grazing/ browsing impacts, spread of invasive species and harvesting of older stands threaten the long-term viability of this plant community. Habitat has been and continues to be lost to urbanization, impoundments, golf course development and intensive agriculture (Erickson 2003a).
Restoration objectives
This plant community should exhibit 15 - 30% cover of mature and old Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, 15 - 20% cover of shrubs such as snowberry, saskatoon, and kinnikinnick
44 and > 50% cover of forbs and herbs such as bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass, and arrow- leaved balsamroot.
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDFdm2/03
Primary restoration techniques
• Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles (14-32 years) • Minimize soil disturbance • Conserve soil organics • Control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical) • Plant bunchgrass plugs rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover • Re-establish moss and lichen layer onto bare soils • Retain a multi- story forest stand that contains a range of tree ages • Incorporate downed coarse woody debris into the community. • Protect from burning wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) >30 cm dbh and old growth live Fd and Py. • Preclude grazing for 2 years post treatment then minimize grazing
5.2 Antelope Brush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Background information
The antelope brush/ bluebunch wheatgrass plant community is on the provincial Red-list (CDC 2004). The plant community occurs in hot, dry regions from south of Canal Flats to Tobacco Plains at the US border; bounded by St. Mary River on the west and Baynes Lake in the east, at elevations of from 700-1200 m. Originally, this community occurred as patches of shrub-steppe habitat within open forests or grasslands (Erickson 2003b). There are 710 ha of this community mapped in Premier - Diorite project area. This community has also been mapped in Kikomun Creek Park, Premier Ridge and Sheep Mountain Wildlife Management Areas. Range reference areas with this community are: Skookumchuck, Old Premier Ridge, Gold Creek, Bagley's Pasture, Bull River. Early seral examples occur at Premier Ridge, Pickering Hills, and Standary Hill (Erickson 2003b).
It occurs on warm aspects on crests to upper slopes, and occasionally on level valley bottom sites (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Erickson 2003b). Other site characteristics include droughty, nutrient poor soils, limited organic matter, dry slopes susceptible to erosion. Excessive grazing on early seral sites converts community to pussytoe species, needlegrasses, weedy forbs, and invasive species, specifically cheatgrass (Mclean and
45 Marchand 1968). Old-growth antelope-brush is killed by fire. Droughty, nutrient poor soils increase recovery time of disturbed communities (Erickson 2003b; pers obs).
The dominant species of this plant association are antelope-brush, bluebunch wheatgrass, hairy golden aster, and stiff needlegrass. Associated species include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, saskatoon, Idaho fescue, arrow-leaved balsamroot, rough fescue, kinnikinnick, Columbia needlegrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, pasture sage, shining arnica, junegrass, slender hawksbeard, timber milkvetch, yarrow, death camas, old man's whiskers, graceful cinquefoil, fern-leaved desert parsley, brown-eyed susan, tufted phlox, mariposa lily, dwarf goldenrod.
Weedy species of concern include Kentucky bluegrass, diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, common toadflax, sulphur cinquefoil, hound's tongue, blueweed, cheatgrass (Val Miller pers. comm.; Anne Skinner pers. comm.)
Restoration objectives
This plant community should exhibit < 15% mature and/or old-growth conifer cover; 15- 30% antelope-brush cover, and > 15% cover of at least two primary herbs, such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, rough fescue or arrow-leaved balsamroot; also < 10% cover of each of other co-dominant species (e.g., saskatoon, pinegrass).
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDF: dm2/02 PP: dh2/00
Primary restoration techniques
• Maintain and restore cover of primary species • Restore natural frequent light-intensity fire cycle (5-25 years) • Maintain open, savannah structure • Minimize soil disturbance • Conserve soil organics • Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical) • Allow only light to medium grazing and browsing, particularly on coarse textured soils • plant bunchgrass plugs rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover • Re-establish moss and lichen layer onto bare soils
46 5.3 Western Snowberry-Idaho Fescue
Background information
The Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant community is on the provincial Red-list (CDC 2004). Known occurrences of this plant association are extremely rare and have only been documented for the Columbia Basin once (McLean and Holland 1958). The only recorded location was documented by A. McLean in 1958 (McLean and Holland 1958). Areas suitable for this plant community occur between 800 and 1200-m ASL in the Kootenay, dry, mild Interior Douglas-fir variant (IDFdm2), which is found between Golden and the International border and along the valleys of the Kootenay River, the St. Mary’s River, Wigwam River, and Findley Creek. Several Kootenay Ministry of Forests range reference areas, specifically Premier Ridge and Wigwam Flats may represent early seral stages of the Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant association (D. Gayton, pers. comm.).
The Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant community is associated with soils that remain moist throughout much of the growing season (mesic to subhygric). Level receiving sites, swales or slight depressions within grasslands or slight to moderate slopes bordering forestland are likely locations for the community (C. Cadmin pers. comm.; Erickson pers. comm.; D. Gayton, pers. comm.).
According to a similar vegetation community described for northern Washington, the western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant association was dominated by bunchgrasses, specifically Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and June grass, and a rich mix of broad-leaved forbs and low shrubs (Daubenmire 1970). In southern BC, species associated with younger seral stages appear to be western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry, saskatoon, green rabbitbrush, birch-leaved spirea and a small component of antelope-brush and common juniper. Grasses and forbs include rough fescue, stiff and Columbia needlegrass, Canada bluegrass, nodding onion, rosy and field pussytoes, graceful cinquefoil large-fruited desert parsley, yarrow, wild bergamot and hemp dogbane.
Kentucky bluegrass is particularly invasive in this community and other weedy species of concern include cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, and spotted knapweed.
Restoration objectives
This plant community is a park like savannah shrubby grassland, with only scattered and stunted Douglas-firs, and is very rare in BC. It is sometimes associated with a similar Douglas-fir/wheatgrass plant association which occurs in swales and draws (moister sites). A similar meadow steppe community identified in Washington suggests about 30% shrub cover (western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry), 20% grass cover (Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, Columbia needlegrass, 85% forb cover, and 15% non-vascular cover.
47 BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDF: dm2/00
Primary restoration techniques
• Find examples of the community and monitor species response to fire • Mature Idaho fescue is susceptible to fire so fire cycles need to be longer and intensities lower, although snowberry can be burned more often • Restore and maintain cover of primary species • Minimize soil disturbance • Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical) • Plant bunchgrass plugs, rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover and always plant plugs of Idaho fescue • Maintain and restore cover of primary species • Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to disturbed sites (Kentucky bluegrass is very invasive in moist areas and knapweeds and cheatgrass respond to fire by re-establishing quickly on the site)
5.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass/Junegrass
Background information
The Bluebunch wheatgrass – Junegrass plant association is a provincially Red-listed plant community (CDC 2004). Recorded locations occur between 500 and 1370-m ASL in the Ministry of Forests undifferentiated Interior Douglas-fir (Windermere Lake) unit (IDFuu/00), and the Kootenay dry, hot Ponderosa pine variant (PPdh2/02a and 02b). In the Rocky Mountain Trench, community occurrences have been reported on the valley floor and lower slopes between Windermere Lake and Canal Flats and on steep, middle to upper slopes between Skookumchuck Creek and the St. Mary’s River and Baynes Lake and Tobacco Plains. The Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grass plant association is also found in the Boundary region, at the south end of the Monashee Mountains and in the Kettle and Granby River drainages.
Environmental conditions of the Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grass grassland are variable. Although restricted to warm aspects, it has been found on dry, shallow, coarse textured soils as well as moist, deep, medium textured soils (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Ketcheson 1997). The dry, coarse textured soils that are common on steep slopes support a less diverse community than the deep, moist soils associated with the valley bottom. Steeply sloped areas contain a high cover of bluebunch wheatgrass and lesser amounts of June grass, shaggy fleabane, pasture sage, and saskatoon. Bluebunch wheatgrass also
48 dominates the moister, deep soils, however June grass cover increases in these areas and is accompanied by pasture sage, Prairie rose, saskatoon, yarrow, rosy pussytoes, and narrow-leaved desert parsley. Other species recorded in late seral bluebunch wheatgrass – junegrass communities include Idaho fescue, rough fescue, Rocky Mountain fescue, stiff needlegrass, Richardson’s needlegrass, few-flowered shooting star, umber pussytoes, and prairie crocus (Ketcheson 1997).
Noxious and invasive species threaten the Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grass community. The dry, coarse textured soils recover slowly from disturbance and the soils are highly susceptible to cheatgrass invasion, which can severely retard succession (Westoby et al. 1989; pers obs). Kentucky bluegrass increases on disturbed sites with deeper, moister soils. Other non-native species that pose risks to the community are spotted and diffuse knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, Hound’s tongue, Canada thistle and white sweet clover.
Restoration objectives
This plant community is an open grassland and should exhibit < 10% tree cover, < 10% shrub cover, and > 33% of total cover of herbs (e.g., bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass, Idaho fescue)
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDF: uu/00 PP: dh2/02a, PPdh2/02b
Primary restoration techniques
• Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles (6-8 years) • Restore and maintain cover of primary species • Minimize soil disturbance and conserve soil organics • Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical) • Plant bunchgrass plugs, rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover • Restore non-vascular species to bare soils • Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to a highly disturbed site (knapweeds and cheatgrass respond to fire by re-establishing quickly on the site) • limit livestock grazing until after second growing season • control weeds as necessary to reduce competition with native species
49 5.5 Douglas-fir-Western Larch-Spruce/Pinegrass
Background information
The Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrass plant community is on the Provincial Blue-list (CDC 2004). It is associated with the Ministry of Forests dry, mild Interior Douglas-fir variant in the Rocky Mountain Trench (IDFdm2 - Kootenay variant) and the Kettle valley (IDFdm1 - Kettle variant) between elevations of 500 and 1370-m. Within the Trench, large expanses of valley bottom between Golden and the International border and along major tributaries, such as the Kootenay River, St. Mary’s River, Wigwam River, and Findley Creek are suitable for this plant community. The mature and old forest structural stages of the Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrass community are rare and few undisturbed examples have been located.
The plant community typically occurs on deep, fine-textured soils in level, receiving sites. However, it is also associated with medium or coarse textured and occasionally shallow soils of active floodplains, alluvial fans, gullies and terraces (Kernaghan et al. 1999). Soil moisture ranges from subhygric to subxeric (moist, throughout most of the growing season to rapidly drained).
The tree and shrub layers in the Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrass plant association are well developed, while the herb – forb understory is diverse, but relatively sparse. Douglas-fir, hybrid white spruce, and trembling aspen dominate the tree layer along with lesser amounts of western larch, paper birch and the occasional lodgepole pine. Typical shrubs include common snowberry and tall Oregon-grape accompanied by saskatoon, soopolallie, birch-leaved spirea, red-osier dogwood and prickly rose. The understory is dominated by pinegrass with lesser amounts of showy aster, wild sarsaparilla, twinflower, and bunchberry. An understory of red-stemmed feather moss and step moss is common (Braumandl and Curran 1992). Younger plant communities will also include bluejoint and willow (Salix sp) (Kernaghan et al. 1999). Overgrazing, development and noxious and invasive weeds threaten this plant association.
Restoration objectives
This plant community is an old, structurally complex forest with canopy gaps that have well-developed understories. It should exhibit > 50% tree cover (Douglas-fir, white spruce, western larch), > 30% shrub cover (trembling aspen, Saskatoon, snowberry, prickly rose), and about 20% herb/forb cover (pinegrass, bluejoint).
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT IDF: dm2/04
50 Primary restoration techniques
• Maintain a multi-story forest stand with canopy gaps that contain well developed shrub and herb layers • Promote development of snags and CWD • Develop fire breaks by promoting deciduous tree communities on wet sites • Maintain a long fire cycle (>90 years)Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles (14-32 years) • Minimize soil disturbance • Conserve soil organics • Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical) • It will likely be necessary to brush around newly planted shrubs and trees during the first and possible the second growing season (trees and shrubs may be out competed by prolific seed banking species)
5.6 Ponderosa Pine-Trembling Aspen/Rose [Solomon’s Seal]
Background information
The Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal] is a provincially Red- listed plant community (CDC 2004). The community is found between 700 and 950-m ASL in the southern regions of the Rocky Mountain Trench, between Skookumchuck Creek and the St. Mary’s River and between Baynes Lake and Tobacco Plains (Braumandl and Curran 1992). The plant community typically occurs on fine-textured soils in depressional or level sites along the valley bottom. Soils are lacustrine or fluvial and are normally moist throughout the growing season (mesic to subhygric). Few examples of the mature or old forest stage of this plant community remain as it has been impacted by over-grazing, fire suppression, invasion by non-native species and the loss of floodplains through damning and flooding (CDC 2003).
The dominant species of the Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal] plant association are trembling aspen and Ponderosa pine and a well developed shrub layer of prickly and prairie rose, western snowberry, chokecherry, and small amounts of saskatoon. Pinegrass, northern bedstraw and star-flowered Solomon’s seal are found in the understory, however Kentucky bluegrass usually provides the most ground cover (Braumandl and Curran 1992). Other species that have been reported in the late seral stages of the Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal] community are lodgepole pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, tall Oregon-grape, wolf-willow), bluebunch wheatgrass and blue wildrye. In addition, earlier seral stages may contain black hawthorn, sweet-scented bedstraw, pearly everlasting and leafy aster (Ketcheson 1997; CDC 2003). The cover of Kentucky bluegrass increases with disturbance and the weedy
51 grass may be accompanied by other non-native species such as common dandelion, hound’s tongue, and Canada thistle.
Restoration objectives
This riparian plant community should exhibit about 30% tree cover (ponderosa pine, trembling aspen), 20-25% shrub cover (Rocky Mountain juniper, rose, snowberry, tall Oregon grape, wolf-willow and others) and 50% herb and forb cover (bluebunch wheatgrass, blue wildrye, pinegrass, star flowered Solomon’s seal and others)
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT PP: dh2/03
Primary restoration techniques
• Maintain a structurally complex community, with a fairly open forest canopy and a diverse shrub and herb / forb cover • Promote the development of snags and downed coarse woody debris • Minimize soil disturbance • Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical). • Brushing around newly planted shrubs and trees during the first and possible the second growing season will be necessary or trees and shrubs will be out competed by native seed banking species. • Prevent livestock grazing until after the second growing season • Permanent grazing restrictions should be put in place in this community (I.e. restrict access to waterways, prevent wallowing) • Restore low intensity burn cycles (7-10 years in aspen)
5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass-Silky Lupine
Background information
The Ponderosa pine / bluebunch wheatgrass - silky lupine plant community is on the provincial Red List in British Columbia (CDC 2004). The community is found between 500 and 950 m ASL in the southern regions of the Rocky Mountain Trench, between Skookumchuck Creek and the St. Mary River, and between Baynes Lake and Tobacco Plains (Pojar 2003). These forests occupy a variety of slope positions and aspects, on gentle to steep slopes. Parent materials can be glaciofluvial, colluvial, morainal, lacustrine, or aeolian in origin. Soils have mostly loamy or silty textures and moder or mull humus forms. The soil moisture regime is mesic to submesic, while the soil nutrient regime varies from poor to rich (Pojar 2003).
52 Forest is open with a canopy of ponderosa pine often mixed with Douglas-fir. The shrub layer is sparse, with Saskatoon, snowberry (PPdh1) and prairie rose (PPdh2). The herb layer is dominated by grasses, in particular bluebunch wheatgrass, with also junegrass fescues, and needlegrasses. With increased disturbance to the community, grasses such as cheatgrass may become dominant. This plant community also has a variety of forbs, but with low cover. Forbs include silky lupine, yarrow, rosy pussytoes, arrow-leaved balsamroot, nodding onion (PPdh1), and prairie crocus (PPdh2) (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Pojar 2003).
Only small amounts of this plant community remains in relatively undisturbed, old growth, high quality condition. It is in poor condition virtually over its entire range and there are very few high quality occurrences. It is expected to continue to decline due to fire prevention and suppression, forest harvesting, rural development, poor range practices, and the spread of invasive species (Pojar 2003).
Relatively undisturbed ecosystems are mostly small, fragmented and sparsely distributed. Connectivity of old forest habitat is a serious conservation issue, as are forest ingrowth, widespread overgrazing, and invasive species (Pojar 2003).
Restoration objectives
This plant community should exhibit 15- 0% cover of mature and old trees (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), 15-20% shrub cover (saskatoon, common snowberry, prairie rose and others), and > 50% herb and forb cover (bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass, needle grasses, fescues, silky lupine, yarrow, nodding onion, prairie crocus)
BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones
EKT PP: dh2/01
Primary restoration techniques • Re-establish periodic low intensity ground fires to control forest ingrowth • Limb area prior to burns to prevent crown fires • Maintain veteran (old-growth) ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir as well as a range of tree sized, large snags, and downed coarse woody debris • Prevent the establishment and spread of non-native invasive species • encourage the re-establishment of the microbiotic crust • Prevent soil disturbance • Restore and maintain an open interior forest condition with native grass dominated understory • manage grazing so that bluebunch stubble height is not less than 22 cm • Do not encourage recreational use of the area
53 • Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to a highly disturbed site. Knapweeds and cheatgrass respond to fire by re- establishing quickly on the site • Successive seedings or plantings of native grasses may be required if the community is severely disturbed • Control weeds as necessary and prevent livestock grazing until after the second growing season. • Expect browse, plant extra shrubs
6. Discussion
The interior Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine biogeoclimatic zones support a rich diversity of wildlife and plant communities, many of which are relatively rare in British Columbia. These wildlife and plant communities have adapted to frequent stand-maintaining fire rotations, typically of 5-25 years. However, for many decades, fire suppression and development of land for agriculture, ranching and urbanization have dramatically impacted these species and communities. As open forests have changed to higher density forests and much of the old-growth Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine have been harvested, forest stand features required by many wildlife species has declined. These changes have resulted in habitat with much lower biodiversity values than previously. Restoration of these habitats is badly needed.
Planning for ecosystem restoration occurs at two spatial scales: (i) the range unit level (1000s of ha), where the ecosystem units open range, open forest, and closed forest are themed out and assigned certain tree species composition and density targets (KBLUP, Ministry of Forests 1997) and (ii) the pasture unit level (smaller area, < 1000 ha), which has been the level for SMP, SP, and burn plan development (see Appendix 4). Most restoration treatments occur at the pasture unit level, within an overall plan for the range unit.
Development of management prescriptions that favour the elements listed in this report need to consider other land and resource management and social objectives such as (i) ungulate winter range guidelines (KBLUP, Ministry of Forests 1997), (ii) strategic tree species composition and stocking targets (Ministry of Forests 1997), and (iii) wildlife tree retention regulations (especially those concerning worker safety standards; Wildlife Tree Committee of British Columbia 2001).
The feasibility of biological restoration is often constrained by political and economic factors. Resource managers must work together with all stakeholder groups to successfully restore habitats needed by rare wildlife species and rare plant communities.
54 7. Recommendations
Restoration of habitat for Red and Blue-listed wildlife species is an important component in the recovery of species at risk. Information presented in this report should help guide restoration efforts for each species while pointing out areas of conflicts with other species or plant communities. The following recommendations are suggested when planning restoration:
Inventory proposed treatment units for Red and Blue-listed plant communities prior to treatment. Note that some plant communities are less resistant to fire than others (e.g., western snowberry-Idaho fescue). Attempt to restore NDT4 conditions to open range and open forest habitats through methods suggested in Table 6, but Wildlife Trees in treatment units that may contain Lewis’s Woodpeckers or Flammulated Owls may need protection from prescribed burns. Burning of these potential nest trees may be detrimental to the species. When restoring habitat in treatment units, assess positive and negative effects on each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species that may be present. Defer to more conservative actions if impacts are uncertain, or defer to habitat preferences for Red-listed species over Blue-listed species if probable impacts are known. At this time, do not consider habitat needs for White-headed Woodpecker or Williamson’s Sapsuckers, at the expense of other species or the restoration of NDT4 habitat features. Occurrence of these species in the EKT is less a function of habitat conditions in the EKT than on their habitat preferences and existing range.
Regarding mapping and GIS analysis for listed species in NDT4 ecosystem restoration (and other applications); the following recommendations could be considered.
Use GIS (rather than mechanical) techniques to produce mapping layers of UTM- based species occurrence records. Map the reported occurrences of listed plants communities. Combine the pasture unit maps with GIS layers of, for example, BEC variants, to explore the ecological basis for the observed species distributions. Conduct a “gap analysis” to determine why potentially suitable habitats are not occupied by certain species. Given adequate species inventory coverage, assess the current suitability of capable habitats, potentially using existing PEM information for habitat structure and site series. Extend the species list to include other species of management concern. Translate maps into an Interactive Map Format for possible inclusion in the Biodiversity Atlas Project.
55 Evaluate the practicality of using pasture units as the mapping polygons, considering the range/territory requirements of some species. Extend the mapping to other NDT4 areas of the Columbia Basin
A strategy or plan to educate resource managers and users, the general public, and the general professional biological community is needed to foster conservation of habitat and populations of the species and communities discussed in this report. Some suggestions include:
Direct discussion and workshops with range managers and users Provision of this report to range managers and users Encouragement to include BMPs and other ideas presented in this report in SMPs, range use plans, and other development plans Additional inventory of species and plant communities of concern Public meetings and workshops with the general public re conservation of species and plant communities of concern
Some restoration techniques will work better than others for more species. Research on which techniques are most beneficial to species or plant communities is needed.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Krebs of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program for initiating and managing this project. Ted Antifeau of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection provided considerable information on Red and Blue-listed species in the EKT. Amy Waterhouse of CBFWCP developed the GIS maps for the report. John Krebs and Doug Adama provided extensive advice and comments on earlier drafts which greatly improved the document. Beth Woodbridge managed the contract.
The Conservation Data Centre provided a summary of occurrences of Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the EKT. Special thanks to the many people who provided information to us during this project (see Appendix 5). Dianne Cooper extracted information on Red and Blue-listed wildlife from the Mildred White diaries.
56 9. Literature Cited
Adams, I., T. Antifeau, M. Badry, L. Campbell, A. Dibb, O. Dyer, W. Erickson, C. Hoodicoff, L. Ingham, A. Jackson, K. Larsen, T. Munson, N. Newhouse, B. Persello, J. Surgenor, K. Sutherland, J. Steciw, and R. Weir. 2002. Draft national recovery strategy for American Badger, jeffersonii subspecies, (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii). Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildl., Ottawa, Ont.
Adams, I. and T. Kinley. 2004. Badger. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Pp. 333-342.
Addison, C. and D. Christie. 2002. Final Report Year 2: 2001 Flammulated Owl Inventory of the Rocky Mountain Trench
Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse and T.A. Kinley. 2001. Habitat associations of American badger in southeast British Columbia. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation program, Nelson, BC. 35 pp.
Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse, and T.A. Kinley. 2002. Habitat associations of American badgers in southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 80:1228–1239.
Arno, S.F., J.H. Scott, and M.G. Hartwell. 1995. Age class structure of old-growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire. USDA For. Serv. Res. Rep. INT-481.
Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behaviour of the Lewis’ Woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of California Publications in Zoology. 92: 1-100
Braumandl T.F. and M.P. Curran. 1992. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Victoria, BC.
Buchanan, J.B., R.E. Rogers, D.J. Pierce and J.E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest-site habitat use by White-headed Woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 84:119-128.
Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Services, Research Note PNW- 444. 19 pp.
Bull, E.L., E.L. Wright, and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Nesting habitat of Flammulated Owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 24: 52-55.
57 Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 2, Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal B.C. Mus. in association with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 636pp
Campbell, R.W., A.R. Norris, M.L. Funk, and J.V. Kimm. 2000. British Columbia nest record scheme. 45th annual report–1999 nesting season. Wild Bird Trust of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Wildl. Rep. 6.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, B.C. 420 p.
Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the White-headed Woodpecker in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-80. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC.
Cannings, R.J. 1999. Status of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Paper No. WR- 96. 20 pp.
Cannings, R.J. 1996. Williamson’s Sapsucker surveys in the east Kootenay region. Report for B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Unpubl. 29 p.
Cannings, R.J. and A. van Woudenberg. 2004. Flammulated Owl. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 254-261.
Cannings, S.G., Ramsay, L.R., Fraser, D.F., and Fraker, M.A. 1999. Rare amphibians, reptiles and mammals of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 190 pp.
CDC (Conservation Data Centre). 2003. [Pinus ponderosa – Populus tremuloides / Rosa woodsii Ponderosa pine – trembling aspen / prairie rose]. Plant Community Account Summary [C1A9BPPPT1]. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, BC. 1pp.
CDC (Conservation Data Centre). 2004. BC Species Explorer. http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca//apps/eswp/
Cooper, J.M. 1995. Status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C. WR–69.
Cooper, J.M., and S. Beauchesne. 2000. Inventory of Lewis's Woodpecker Breeding Population and Habitat in the East Kootenay. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Working Rep. WR-100. 38pp.
58 Cooper, J.M., E.T. Manning, P.A. Chytyk and M.G. Shepard. 2004. 2003 Forest songbird monitoring of Canfor TFL 37, Woss, British Columbia. Manning, Cooper and Associates report for Canfor Ltd., Woss, BC. 60 pp.
Cooper, J.M. and E.T. Manning. 2004. Williamson’s Sapsucker. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 309-317.
COSEWIC. 2000. Canadian Species at Risk, May 2000. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
(COSEWIC) 2004. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca.
Daigle, P. 1996. Fire in the dry interior forests of British Columbia. Extension Note 8, BC Min. of Forests Research Program, Victoria, B.C. 5 pp.
Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Washington Agriculture Experimental Station. Technical Bulletin. 60. 104 pp.
Davidson, P.W. 1991. East Kootenay Bighorn Sheep enhancement project: completion report. BC Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. Unpubl. report. 183 pp.
Daw, S. K., DeStefano, S. and R. J. Steidl. 1998. Does survey method bias the description of northern goshawk nest-site structure? Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1379-1384.
Demarchi, R.A. 1986. Biophysical resources of the East Kootenay Area: wildlife. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 22. 134 p.
Demarchi, R.A. 2004. Bighorn Sheep. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 391-409.
Dobbs, R.C., T.E. Martin, and C.J. Conway. 1997. Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus). In Birds of North America, No. 285. A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). Acad. Natl. Sci., Philadelphia, Penn., and Am. Ornith. Union, Washington, D.C.
Dugger, B.D., and K.M. Dugger. 2002. Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 628 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
59 Erickson, W.R. 2003a. Douglas-fir/ Snowberry/ Balsamroot Pseudotsuga menziesii / Symphoricarpus albus / Balsamorhiza sagittata. In Plant Community Accounts, April 2003. Unpublished Draft. P. 12-19.
Erickson, W.R. 2003b. Antelope-brush / Bluebunch wheatgrass Purshia tridentata / Pseudoroegneria spicata. In Plant Community Accounts, April 2003. Unpublished Draft. P. 4 – 11.
Ethier, T. 1999. Breeding habitat of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis laingi) on Vancouver Island: a hierarchical approach. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria, BC.
Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. 244pp.
Frederick, B.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of White-headed Woodpeckers in west-central Idaho. Payette National Forest, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 51pp.
Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 252 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Gayton, D. 1998. The nature and restoration of fire-maintained ecosystems in the Rocky Mountain Trench. p. 228 In B. Egan (ed.), Conference Proceedings: Helping Heal the Land: Ecological Restoration in British Columbia, November 5-8, 1998, Victoria, B.C.
Gebauer, M. 2004a. Lewis’s Woodpecker. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 318-328.
Gebauer, M. 2004b. White-headed Woodpecker. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 347-356.
Gyug, L.W. 1997. Forest development plan, Red- and Blue-listed species inventory for woodpeckers in 1997: Lewis’s Woodpecker, White-headed Woodpecker and Williamson’s Sapsucker. Report for B.C. Environment, Penticton, BC. Unpubl.
Gyug, L.W. 1999. Inventory for Northern Goshawk and Williamson’s Sapsucker, Boundary Forest District. Report for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Penticton, BC. Unpubl.
60 Hadow, H.H. 1973. Winter ecology of migrant and resident Lewis’ Woodpeckers in southeastern Colorado. Condor 75: 210-224. Hays, D., M. Tirhi and D. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the Sharp- tailed Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Holt, R.F. 2001. A strategic ecological restoration assessment (SERA) in the forest regions of British Columbia. Pandion Ecological Research Limited report for Forest renewal BC, Habitat Branch, Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, Victoria, BC. 30 pp.
Hooper, T.D., and M.D. Pitt. 1996. Breeding bird communities and habitat associations in the grasslands of the Chilcotin region, British Columbia. Environment Canada, Canadian Forest Services and BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. FRDA Report No. 243.
Howie, R.R. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Distribution, habitat selection and densities of Flammulated Owls in British Columbia. Pages 249-254. in R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, eds. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. Proceedings of the Symposium February 3-7, 1987, Winnipeg, MB. United States Forest Service General Technical Report RM 142.
Illg, C. and G. Illg. 1994. The ponderosa and the Flammulated Owl. American Forests Vol. 100: Issue _, p. 36.
IWMS (Identified Wildlife Management Strategy). 2004. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 391-409 in Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
Ketcheson, M. 1997. Wasa Provincial Park ecosystem mapping report, expanded map legend and interpretations. Review Draft. 74 pp.
Kernaghan, G., K. Lessard, B. Sinclair, R. McKay, G. Burns, and M. Ketcheson. 1999. TFL 14 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (T.E.M.) Project. Volume 1: Expanded Legend to Ecosystem Units. 265 pp.
Linder, K.A. and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers in southeastern Wyoming. J. Field Ornithology 69(1): 109-116.
Linkhart, B.D., R.T. Reynolds, and R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat of breeding Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 110(3): 342-351.
Machmer. M.M. 2001. Development and testing of fine-filter prescriptions for listed and fire-adapted species in conjunction with NDT4 ecosystem restoration: Literature search and work plan. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and Forest Renewal BC. 91 pp.
61 Machmer, M.M. 2002. Baseline biodiversity inventory and evaluation of NDT4 ecosystem restoration for the Cherry Creek property. Report to The Nature Trust of BC, Vancouver, B.C.
Machmer, M.M., H.N. Page and C. Steeger. 2002. East Kootenay Trench Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. Report prepared by Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. for the Habitat Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Forest Renewal B.C. Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration Program, Victoria, B.C. 50 pp.
Manning, E.T. and J.M. Cooper. 1996. An assessment of woodpecker foraging, home range and patch utilization at Wallace Creek, British Columbia. Report prepared for BC Environment, Penticton, B.C.
Manning, E.T., J.M. Cooper and S. Beauchesne. 2002. Bird monitoring and habitat mitigation along BC Hydro right of ways. Final report. Manning, Cooper and Associates unpub. report for BC Hydro, Burnaby BC.
Marshall, D.B. 1997. Status of the White-headed Woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Report prepared for the Audubon Society of Portland, Portland OR.
McCallum, D, A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
McCallum, D.A., P. Morgan, J. Verner, and G.D. Hayward. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment (G.D. Hayward, ed.). U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM 253.
McLean, A., and W.D. Holland. 1958. Vegetation zones and their relationship to soils and climate of the upper Columbia Valley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 38:328-345
Mclean, A. and L. Marchand. 1968. Grassland ranges in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication 1319. 28 pp.
Messick, J.P. 1987. North American badger. Pages 586-597 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario.
Ministry of Forests. 1997. Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy. Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee, Nelson, BC.
Morgan, K.H., S.P. Wetmore, G.E.J. Smith, and R.A. Keller. 1989. Relationships between logging methods, habitat structure and bird communities of dry interior
62 Douglas-fir ponderosa pine forests of British Columbia. Can. Wildl. Serv., Delta, B.C. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 71.
Morrison, M.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.C. Heald. 1983.The use of high-cut stumps by cavity-nesting birds. In Snag habitat management: Symposium Proceedings. J.W. Davis, G.A. Goodwin and R.A. Ockenfels (editors). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Services, General Technical Report RM-99, pp. 73-79.
MSRM (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management). Undated. Sharp-tailed Grouse account, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management website: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ecology/tem/warehouse/ex_spp_index.html#churn
MWLAP (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 2001. Ashfire stand management prescription, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Nelson BC. 13 pp.
Newhouse, N. and T. Kinley. 2000. Update COSEWIC status report on the American badger Taxidea taxus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 26 pp.
Ohanjanian, P. 1990. The Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse in the east Kootenay: a report on their status and options for reintroduction. Report for the Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cranbrook, BC. 55 pp.
Ohanjanian, P. 1996. The Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse in the east Kootenay. Report for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 19 pp.
Ohanjanian, P. 1997. Sharp-tailed Grouse inventory. Report for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 20 pp.
Ohanjanian, L.A. 2004. Long-billed Curlew. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 246-253.
Page, H. and M.M. Machmer 2003. Monitoring Ecosystem Restoration Treatments in the Rocky Mountain Trench. Report for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 34 pp.
Page, H, and M.M. Machmer. 2003. Monitoring ecosystem restoration treatments in the Rocky Mountain Trench: site establishment report. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson. 28 pp.
Pojar, J. 2003. Ponderosa Pine/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass - Silky Lupine. Draft account for Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
63 Poole, K., G. Mowat, and M. Machmer. 2002. West Kootenay Prescribed Burns Evaluation. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Nelson, B.C.
Rahme, A.H., A.S. Harestad and F.L. Bunnell. 1995. Status of the Badger in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-72. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 51 pp.
Raphael, M.G., M.L. Morrison, and M.P. Yoder-Williams. 1987. Breeding bird populations during twenty-five years of postfire succession in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 89: 614-626.
Ritcey, R.W. 1990. Report of a survey of wintering Sharp-tailed Grouse in forested habitats near Williams Lake, B.C. Feb./Mar. 90. Report to Oregon Nature Conservancy. Unpubl. 10 pp.
Ritcey, R.W. 1995. Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse in British Columbia (columbianus subspecies). Wildlife Working Report WR-70, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 40 pp.
Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee. 2000. Fire- maintained ecosystem restoration in the Trench: a blueprint for action. February 2000. 16 pp.
Shackleton, D.M. 1973. Population quality and Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis Shaw). Ph.D. thesis. Univ. Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands. Wilson Bulletin 115:155-165.
Saab, V.A., and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand- replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT: USDA, USFS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17p.
Sousa, P.J. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Lewis’ Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 14 pp.
Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In The Birds of North America, No. 298 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
64 van Woudenberg, A.M. 1999. Status of the Flammulated Owl in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-95. 48pp. van Woudenberg, A., D. Christie, and D. Erickson. 2000. Flammulated Owl Inventory of the Rocky Mountain Trench. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, Region 4.
Velland, M. and V. Connolly. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the Lewis’ Woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 16 + ix pp.
Vierling, K.T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis’ Woodpecker in southeastern Colorado. Wilson Bull. 109: 121-130.
Westoby, M.B., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. 42 (4). P. 266-274.
Wildlife Tree Committee of BC. 2001. Wildlife/Danger Tree Assessor’s Course Workbook. B.C. Workers’ Compensation Board, Min. of Forests, and Min. of water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
10. Other literature consulted
Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465.
Arno, S.F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120.
Atwood, L. B. 2000. Monitoring restoration of the Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area following pipeline construction. In L. M. Darling (ed). Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. Kamloops, BC. Feb 15 – 19, 1999. Volume Two. BC. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC p. 815 – 819.
Baker, F.S. 1925. Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain region. Department Bulletin No. 1291. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 47 p.
BIOB Beat. 2003. Bighorn in our backyard project. Issue #3, Osprey Communications, Invermere, BC. 4 pp.
65 Bunnell, F.L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology. 9(3): 636-644.
Connelly, J.W., M.W. Gratson and K.P. Reese. 1998. Sharp-tailed Grouse. The Birds of North America, No. 354 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Demarchi, R.A., C.L. Hartwig and D.A. Demarchi. 2000. Status of the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-99. 56 pp.
Dorey, R.J. 1979. A fire history investigation and the effects of fire exclusion on a ponderosa pine forest in southeastern British Columbia. B.Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry.
East Kootenay Conservation Program. No date. Conserving working landscapes. The Rockies Network. 12 pp.
Gayton, D. 1997. Calculation of forest ingrowth and resulting forage impact in BC’s Rocky Mountain Trench. FORREX, Nelson, BC. 5 pp.
Grasslands Conservation Council of BC. 2001. Grasslands under siege-the weed invasion. BC Grasslands, April 2001. Kamloops, BC.
Gray, R.W., E. Riccius, and C. Wong. 2001. Comparison of current and historical stand structure in 2 interior Douglas-fir sites in the Rocky Mountain Trench, British Columbia, Canada. Pages 000-000 in R.T. Engstrom and W.J. de Groot, (eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Temperate, Boreal, and Montane Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahasee, Fl.
Gray, R.W. 2001. Maintenance strategies for fire scarred Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Prescribed fire research notes. Squamish Forest District. Small Business Program. Unpublished. 3 pp.
Gruell, G.E.; Brown, J.K.; Bushey, C.L. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by Douglas-fir: state-of-the-art guidelines. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-198. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 19 pp.
Kernaghan, G., K. Lessary, and M.V. Ketcheson. 2000. Premier Ridge – Diorite Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (T.E.M.) Project. Volume 1. Unpublished. 32 pp.
Kilgore, B.M. 1981. Fire in ecosystem distribution and structure: western forests and scrublands. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and
66 others], technical coordinators. Proceedings of the conference: Fire regimes and ecosystem properties; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO- 26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 58-89.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. No date. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse. Kamloops, BC. 6 pp.
Ommundsen, P. 1983. Management guidelines for ungulate winter range at Lower Arrow Lake, British Columbia: Broadwater to Robson. Department of Environmental Science, Selkirk College. Castlegar, B.C. 142 pp.
Province of British Columbia. 1998. Field manual for describing terrestrial ecosystems. Land Management Handbook 25. Resources Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and Research Branch, Ministry of Forests: Victoria, BC.
Province of British Columbia. 2000. Bighorn Sheep in British Columbia: ecology, conservation and management. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. 6 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire science laboratory. Fire effects information system. [Online]. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. February 2004. van Woudenberg, A. 1997. Grazing impacts on the biodiversity of grassland ecosystems: phase 1. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, Victoria, BC. 87 pp.
Weddell, B.J. and J. Lichthardt. 2000. Restoration of Palouse and Canyon Grasslands: A review. In Restoring Palouse and Canyon grasslands: putting back the missing pieces. B.J. Weddell (ed). USDA Bureau of Land Management. P 1 – 11. http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/01_15/part1.pdf
Weddell, B.J. 2001. Fire in steppe vegetation of the northern intermountain region. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Cottonwood District. http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/01_14/sec1.pdf
67 Appendix 1. Map of occurrences for six Red and Blue-listed wildlife species in the East Kootenay Trench. (Maps not included in print version. For maps see digital version of the report on the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program website: http://www.cbfishwildlife.org/. Use the zoom tool to read pasture units).
68 Appendix 2. Pasture unit names, numbers, size, and occurrence of listed wildlife species.
PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 332 Alkali Lakes Alkali Lakes 2537.9 x 1 318 Baker Baker 4511.1 x 1 20 Bryanton Creek Bryanton Creek 1196.4 x 1 Bugaboo- 395 Spillimacheen Bugaboo-Spillimacheen 4961.2 x 1 243 Bull River Bull River 202.6 35 Burton Lake Burton Lake 3160.3 229 Camp 6 North Camp 6 North 320.1 261 Camp 6 North South 523.4 235 Camp 6 South Camp 6 South 1940.0 x 1 119 Cherry - Ta Ta Cherry - Ta Ta 127.5 x 1 82 Cherry - Ta Ta Steer 267.2 108 Cherry - Ta Ta China North 373.4 x 1 139 Cherry - Ta Ta China South 392.3 118 Cherry - Ta Ta Lost Dog 617.4 127 Cherry - Ta Ta Airport 694.5 x 1 126 Cherry - Ta Ta Rock Lake 700.9 x 1 117 Cherry - Ta Ta Highway North 773.8 x 1 131 Cherry - Ta Ta Lost Spring 1187.1 x 1 116 Cherry - Ta Ta Highway South 1705.6 x 1 140 Cherry - Ta Ta Beacon 6148.0 x 1 Chipka Rocky 32 Creek Chipka Rocky Creek 5592.0 x 1 56 Colvalli North Brush West 195.5 28 Colvalli North Loop 226.0 59 Colvalli North Horseshoe 243.6 91 Colvalli North Frenchman's 315.4 36 Colvalli North Hardtop 387.7 55 Colvalli North Colvalli 399.0 73 Colvalli North Brush East 471.2 x 1
69 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 74 Colvalli North Wapiti Lake 659.7 x 1 Cranbrook Fort 312 Steele River Bottom South 91.9 Cranbrook Fort 379 Steele River Bottom North 96.5 Cranbrook Fort 371 Steele River Bottom Middle 97.4 Cranbrook Fort 331 Steele City Fields 254.3 x 1 Cranbrook Fort 319 Steele Highway Lake 285.6 Cranbrook Fort 322 Steele Tule 300.0 Cranbrook Fort 309 Steele Rampart Prairie 418.8 x 1 Cranbrook Fort 358 Steele North 600 424.6 Cranbrook Fort 364 Steele Gravel Pit 444.1 Cranbrook Fort 376 Steele East West Strip 563.3 x 1 Cranbrook Fort 390 Steele M M 20 593.8 Cranbrook Fort 399 Steele Lake 698.5 Cranbrook Fort 401 Steele City Fields 934.1 x 1 Dutch-findlay 247 Creek Thunder 595.6 x 1 Dutch-findlay 262 Creek Sun 1005.7 x x 2 Dutch-findlay 227 Creek Dutch 1263.1 Dutch-findlay 223 Creek Spur 1435.9 x 1
70 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC Dutch-Findlay 232 Creek Dutch-Findlay Creek 2245.1 x x 2 265 Findlay Basin Findlay Basin 354.6 280 Findlay Basin Findlay Basin 497.5 290 Findlay Basin Findlay 621.9 283 Findlay Basin Lavington 1152.0 216 Findlay Basin Stinky 1418.7 x x 2 226 Findlay Basin Saddle 1433.7 239 Findlay Basin Whitetail 1495.8 x 1 Forster-Horsethief 194 Creek Forster 46.3 Forster-Horsethief 206 Creek Baltic 93.6 Forster-Horsethief 197 Creek Barbour 228.2 Forster-Horsethief 193 Creek Broken Tree 529.6 x 1 Forster-Horsethief 209 Creek Bextram 801.5 Forster-Horsethief 208 Creek Forster-Horsethief Creek 807.2 x 1 Forster-Horsethief 204 Creek Forster-Horsethief Creek 1386.2 217 Frances Creek Arvid 107.3 24 Frances Creek Frances Creek 129.4 205 Frances Creek Frances Creek 521.7 x 1 27 Frances Creek Brady 528.8 16 Frances Creek Frances Creek 537.2 x 1 253 Frances Creek Height of Land 1395.6 12 Frances Creek Elliot 1491.4 11 Frances Creek Brady 1588.3 25 Frances Creek Hidden Valley 1796.6 14 Frances Creek Franz 2700.5
71 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 54 Gold - Plumbob Gold - Plumbob 22752.8 x 1 292 Grasmere Mojak's Seeding 123.5 374 Grasmere Bagley's Seeding 312.8 x 1 182 Grasmere Bridge 392.6 x 1 79 Grasmere Canyon 472.7 x 1 170 Grasmere Phillip's 477.5 388 Grasmere A.I. 827.6 274 Grasmere Poacher's 836.0 213 Grasmere Dump 916.3 188 Grasmere Corral Lake 949.4 238 Grasmere Western Pine 968.6 225 Grasmere Elk Mouth 986.0 357 Grasmere Bagley's 1030.4 276 Grasmere Loon Lake 1130.1 310 Grasmere Adolf's 1165.0 313 Grasmere Flagstone 1287.4 x 1 7 Grasmere Grasmere 1449.4 x 1 184 Lewis - Wolf Creek Lazy Lake 120.7 x 1 94 Lewis - Wolf Creek Leask 377.2 x 1 147 Lewis - Wolf Creek Lewis - Wolf Creek 393.2 x 1 181 Lewis - Wolf Creek Big Burn 781.3 x 1 198 Lewis - Wolf Creek C. T. P. 2396.7 x 1 29 Luxor Luxor 400.0 22 Luxor South 429.4 384 McMurdo Bench McKeeman 197.9 348 McMurdo Bench McMurdo Bench 3372.4 x x 2 231 Moyie Lake Moyie Lake 1214.8 x 1 303 Moyie Lake Moyie Lake 1946.7 x 1 389 Newgate Butt's 83.0 356 Newgate Alkali 112.4 x 1 377 Newgate Demars 185.6 x 1 351 Newgate Home Ranch 230.8 x 1
72 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 352 Newgate North Fork 251.2 x 1 361 Newgate Ash Fire 299.5 x x 2 373 Newgate Sharptail 372.2 x x 2 383 Newgate Rocks 406.8 x 1 360 Newgate Burlott's 583.6 x x 2 295 Newgate Sink 3354.0 307 Pattons Lake Pattons Lake 1926.9 335 Peavine Peavine 9621.1 x 1 367 Peckhams Lake Shoe North Seeding 41.7 398 Peckhams Lake Misery 61.1 321 Peckhams Lake Peckham's Prairie 77.8 370 Peckhams Lake Middle Shoe Seeding 81.0 392 Peckhams Lake Wallcam 103.0 Little Shoe South 387 Peckhams Lake Seeding 117.8 396 Peckhams Lake Little Shoe North Seeding 118.8 296 Peckhams Lake Hatchery 124.4 x 1 375 Peckhams Lake Shoe South Seeding 145.3 382 Peckhams Lake Outwash 199.2 315 Peckhams Lake Mallard 266.9 300 Peckhams Lake Kiek 285.2 327 Peckhams Lake Purvis 287.7 393 Peckhams Lake Tamarack 324.5 386 Peckhams Lake Cultus 417.2 344 Peckhams Lake Garbutt's 424.6 365 Peckhams Lake Horseshoe 437.9 x 1 328 Peckhams Lake Alkaline 567.6 81 Peckhams Lake Wildhorse 582.2 317 Peckhams Lake Norbury 600.2 x 1 381 Peckhams Lake Mistle Toe 633.8 305 Peckhams Lake Big Hill 757.2 x 1 85 Peckhams Lake Mause Creek 1972.9 x 1
73 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 372 Perry Perry 5201.2 x 1 90 Pickering Hills Tie Lake Seeding 112.1 285 Pickering Hills Narrow Gauge 296.2 x 1 301 Pickering Hills Riddell 408.7 x 1 89 Pickering Hills Eimer 526.6 93 Pickering Hills Jurik 643.5 x 1 294 Pickering Hills Bronze Lake 691.9 x 1 39 Pickering Hills Relief Camp 1064.9 x 1 302 Pickering Hills Pickering 1212.3 320 Pickering Hills Long Lake 1407.5 99 Pickering Hills Tie Lake 1539.9 343 Power Plant Petarbrooke 47.6 298 Power Plant Whitetail 48.1 x x 2 266 Power Plant Big Bull 99.1 x x 2 326 Power Plant Bighorn 138.5 x 1 268 Power Plant Little Bull 147.6 x 1 325 Power Plant Fontaine South 296.4 x x 2 323 Power Plant Power Plant Pasture 339.3 x 1 306 Power Plant Fontaine North 586.4 x 1 299 Rampart - Mayook Creelman Flats 90.4 340 Rampart - Mayook Butte 158.8 342 Rampart - Mayook City 181.4 359 Rampart - Mayook Birdstone 206.5 345 Rampart - Mayook Whiskey Cr. North 209.1 324 Rampart - Mayook Ox Bow 253.4 334 Rampart - Mayook Whiskey Cr. South 271.7 273 Rampart - Mayook Crested Wheat Seeding 1128.7 x 1 289 Rosen Lake Rosen Lake 4112.5 x 1 135 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 131.5 x 1 281 Sheep Creek North Canal 173.7 x 1 248 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 180.9 142 Sheep Creek North Skookumchuck 351.3 x 1
74 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 203 Sheep Creek North Johnson Lake 558.7 x 1 183 Sheep Creek North Pump 573.2 138 Sheep Creek North Springbrook 597.9 189 Sheep Creek North Larsen Lake 599.3 172 Sheep Creek North Canal 625.4 x 1 161 Sheep Creek North Kootenay 721.8 x 1 166 Sheep Creek North Ridge 862.6 x 1 242 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 886.3 x 1 167 Sheep Creek North Dry Gulch 931.3 x x 2 192 Sheep Creek North New Pasture 993.3 x 1 200 Sheep Creek North Central 1100.1 x x 2 228 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 1823.5 x x 2 251 Sheep Creek North Lussier 2434.6 218 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 8340.8 x x 2 394 Spillimacheen North South 502.5 x 1 368 Spillimacheen North Lyle 2532.8 346 Spillimacheen North Spillimacheen North 2625.2 362 Spillimacheen North North 5694.6 x 1 369 St. Marys Prairie St. Marys Prairie 69.0 x 1 34 St. Marys Prairie McGinty 168.0 x 1 78 St. Marys Prairie Meadow 180.8 x 1 38 St. Marys Prairie Luke West 239.8 347 St. Marys Prairie Indian South 251.0 70 St. Marys Prairie Indian North 281.5 122 St. Marys Prairie Cherry North 296.6 71 St. Marys Prairie Dry Lake 301.3 80 St. Marys Prairie Cherry South 310.5 x 1 57 St. Marys Prairie Sheep Camp 368.5 15 St. Marys Prairie Deep Springs 409.7 64 St. Marys Prairie Artesian 423.1 175 St. Marys Prairie St. Marys Prairie 852.2 21 Steamboat Red Rock 899.4
75 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 17 Steamboat Tea Kettle 1883.1 Sunny Bench- Fish 23 Lakes Templeton/ Clealand 515.4 Sunny Bench- Fish 10 Lakes Sunny Bench- Fish Lakes 621.5 Sunny Bench- Fish 9 Lakes Botts 1152.6 Sunny Bench- Fish Bugaboo-langs/ Twin 13 Lakes Lakes 1763.3 x 1 141 Ta Ta-skookumchuk River 216.7 x x 2 158 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 222.9 x 1 145 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Pulpmill 393.7 160 Ta Ta-skookumchuk 42 Pasture 480.9 152 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Plot 500.3 x 1 157 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 559.8 x 1 101 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Dune 943.5 x 1 159 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Echo 1085.7 x 1 153 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 1132.7 x x 2 186 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Reed 1220.4 x x 2 155 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Camp 2115.8 92 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Skook 2490.1 255 Toby- Horsethief Fifth Pasture 81.5 279 Toby- Horsethief Upper Enid 524.3 272 Toby- Horsethief Toby- Horsethief 803.4 x 1 199 Toby- Horsethief Poplar 1037.8 x 1 270 Toby- Horsethief Young 1373.6 x 1 259 Toby- Horsethief Barbour Rock 1441.7 x 1 202 Toby- Horsethief Lower Enid 1515.4 96 Tokay Hills Golf Course North 61.6 95 Tokay Hills Golf Course South 77.9 291 Tokay Hills Anderson 89.4 x 1 308 Tokay Hills Pipe 144.6 288 Tokay Hills Schoolhouse 146.0 x x 2
76 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 105 Tokay Hills Tokay 285.9 287 Tokay Hills Tank 297.5 x 1 83 Tokay Hills Blacktail 692.8 x 1 267 Torrent Torrent 53.0 149 Torrent Torrent 94.2 190 Torrent Torrent 486.9 269 Torrent North 555.0 263 Torrent North 564.7 257 Torrent Allen Creek 628.4 x 1 196 Torrent Middle 930.9 250 Torrent Sheep Camp 1009.7 113 Torrent South 2934.7 x 1 103 No Data No Data 16.2 112 No Data No Data 32.7 212 No Data No Data 38.4 201 No Data No Data 41.0 x 1 114 No Data No Data 48.5 211 No Data No Data 73.8 60 No Data No Data 121.7 x 1 355 No Data No Data 126.7 187 No Data No Data 128.8 137 No Data No Data 132.7 136 No Data No Data 137.5 67 No Data No Data 139.7 x 1 129 No Data No Data 165.7 x x 2 128 No Data No Data 179.4 x 1 41 No Data No Data 190.8 40 No Data No Data 194.7 174 No Data No Data 202.5 x 1 378 No Data No Data 346.0 337 No Data No Data 410.5 293 No Data No Data 439.0 x 1
77 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 338 No Data No Data 546.3 x 1 282 No Data No Data 767.6 46 No Data No Data 890.0 277 No Data No Data 1227.2 x x 2 311 No Data No Data 1540.6 x x 2 53 No Data No Data 2007.7 x 1 221 No Data No Data 5458.2 x x 2 165 No Data No Data 7631.9 x x 2 76 No Data No Data 8048.9 x 1 177 No Data No Data 40116.8 x x x x 4 397 No Data No Data 63.9 237 No Data No Data 68.3 176 No Data No Data 72.5 150 No Data No Data 75.8 400 No Data No Data 409.5 30 No Data No Data 446.4 26 No Data No Data 594.4 x 1 219 No Data No Data 919.4 37 No Data No Data 1117.9 330 No Data No Data 2223.9 354 No Data No Data 3605.6 x 1 102 Upper Joseph Creek Upper Joseph Creek 199.5 350 Upper Sand Creek Upper Sand Creek 176.6 97 Waldo Sheep Mountain North 13.6 2 Waldo Labb 102.8 42 Waldo North Star 138.0 51 Waldo Hotel 292.7 58 Waldo Pipeline 319.3 48 Waldo Mud Creek North 364.8 44 Waldo Colvalli 394.7 106 Waldo Forestry 416.3 x 1 43 Waldo Kootenay 476.8 x 1
78 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 62 Waldo Sheep Mountain North 556.8 x 1 61 Waldo Airport 561.8 x 1 52 Waldo East Kootenay 617.5 252 Waldo Cemetery Hills 627.4 47 Waldo Munson Slough 655.5 50 Waldo Elmers 764.2 133 Waldo Burnt Bottom / Baynes Lake 1188.4 x x 2 123 Waldo Duck 1226.7 45 Waldo Rock Lake 1559.4 x 1 31 Waldo Sheep Mountain South 1592.9 x x 2 65 Waldo Fusee Lake 1792.0 72 Waldo Clear Lake 1852.0 x 1 49 Waldo Manistee 2198.6 230 Watson Watson 71.8 220 Watson 9 Mile 454.8 x 1 222 Watson Home 547.1 214 Watson Whitetail 912.7 x x 2 240 Watson Mud 1331.0 224 Watson Mud 1564.6 x 1 195 Watson Camp 14 1763.4 x x 2 271 Westside Upper Pasture 89.9 284 Westside Lower Pasture 118.6 249 Westside Westside 13778.7 x x 2 234 White River South White River South 2291.4 x 1 63 Wigwam Wigwam 95.3 Wildhorse - Lewis 68 Creek King 41.5 Wildhorse - Lewis 66 Creek Innis Seeding 68.0 x 1 Wildhorse - Lewis 132 Creek Big Hill 330.3 x 1 Wildhorse - Lewis 115 Creek Four Mile 473.1
79 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC Wildhorse - Lewis 86 Creek Campbellmeyer 480.0 x x 2 Wildhorse - Lewis 107 Creek Wildhorse - Lewis Creek 507.7 x x 2 Wildhorse - Lewis 179 Creek Upper Brewery 523.8 x 1 Wildhorse - Lewis Wildlife Lease (Bummers 110 Creek Flats) 879.9 x x 2 Wildhorse - Lewis 120 Creek Smith's Prairie 1041.3 Wildhorse - Lewis 124 Creek Rock 1050.7 x x 2 Wildhorse - Lewis 104 Creek Jeffrey Lake 1126.7 Wildhorse - Lewis 100 Creek Lower Brewery 1246.5 x 1 Wildhorse - Lewis 154 Creek Lakit Mountain 1985.8 x x 2 Windermere- 264 Fairmont North 335.0 Windermere- 258 Fairmont South 1072.2 Windermere- 275 Fairmont Windermere-Fairmont 4791.2 x 1 130 Wolf-Sheep Creek Elk 373.1 x 1 134 Wolf-Sheep Creek Sheep 420.9 x 1 146 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf-Sheep Creek 556.2 x 1 168 Wolf-Sheep Creek Gina 616.1 x x 2 151 Wolf-Sheep Creek Quartz 656.8 x 1 163 Wolf-Sheep Creek Alkali 672.9 x 1 180 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf 713.5 x x 2 121 Wolf-Sheep Creek 3 Mile 1193.8 x 1 185 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf-Sheep Creek 2600.6 x 1 329 No Data No Data 24.8 333 No Data No Data 38.5 3 No Data No Data 56.7
80 PASTURE TAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC 314 No Data No Data 67.5 162 No Data No Data 107.2 191 No Data No Data 134.4 109 No Data No Data 261.5 69 No Data No Data 264.1 x 1 19 No Data No Data 302.4 x 1 5 No Data No Data 389.6 233 No Data No Data 416.4 x 1 8 No Data No Data 628.6 x x 2 18 No Data No Data 639.1 207 No Data No Data 800.4 x 1 297 No Data No Data 952.1 x 1 304 No Data No Data 1461.7 236 No Data No Data 1695.1 x 1 164 No Data No Data 1741.8 x 1 77 No Data No Data 1814.0 x x 2 210 No Data No Data 3862.0 x x 2 245 No Data No Data 5982.1 x x 2 385 No Data No Data 14052.3 x 1
81 Appendix 3. Scientific names of wildlife and plants mentioned in text.
Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Williamson’s Sapsucker (nataliae ssp) Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Sharp-tailed Grouse (columbianus spp) Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Badger Taxidea taxus Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis
Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Arrow-leaved balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata Antelope-brush Purshia tridentata Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Western snowberry Symphoricarpus albus Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Junegrass Koeleria macrantha Western larch Larix occidentalis Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens Hybrid white spruce Picea glauca x engelmannii Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides Paper birch Betula papyrifera Solomon’s seal Maianthemum stellatum] lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus shaggy fleabane Erigeron pumilus var. intermedius pasture sage Artemisia frigida saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Prairie rose Rosa woodsii yarrow Achillea millefolium rosy pussytoes Antennaria rosea narrow-leaved desert parsley Lomatium triternatum Rough fescue Festuca campestris Rocky Mountain fescue Festuca saximontana Stiff needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale ssp. pubescens Richardson’s needlegrass Achnatherum richardsonii few-flowered shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum umber pussytoes Antennaria umbrinella Prairie crocus Anemone patens ssp. multifida) Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa
82 diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia spp. Dalmatica Hound’s tongue Cynoglossum officinale Canada thistle Cirsium arvense white sweet clover Melilotus alba common snowberry Symphoricarpus albus tall Oregon-grape Mahonia aquifolium soopolallie Shepherdia canadensis birch-leaved spirea Spiraea betulifolia red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera prickly rose Rosa acicularis showy aster Aster conspicuous wild sarsaparilla s Aralia nudicauli twinflower Linaea borealis bunchberry Cornus canadensis red-stemmed feather moss Pleurozium schreberi step moss Hylocomium splendens bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis willow Salix sp western snowberry Symphoricarpus occidentalis chokecherry Prunus virginiana northern bedstraw Galium boreale Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum wolf-willow Elaeagnus commutata blue wildrye Elymus glaucus black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea leafy aster Aster foliaceus common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa sandbergii green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus common juniper Juniperus communis Columbia needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii, Canada bluegrass Poa compressa field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta graceful cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis large-fruited desert parsley Lomatium macrocarpum wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa hemp dogbane Apocynan cannabinum kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Old man’s whiskers Geum triflorum Hairy golden-aster Heterotheca villosa Slender hawksbeard Crepis atrabarba Timber milkvetch Astragalus miser
83 Death camas Zigadenus venenosus Brown-eyed susan Gaillardia aristata Tufted phlox Phlox caespitoza Mariposa lily Calochortus macrocarpus goldenrod Solidago spp
84 Appendix 4. KBLUP management guidelines for NDT4 systems. 3.10 Management Guidelines for Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration 3.10.1 Introduction
(a) Intent of Guidelines To improve the productivity and health of fire-maintained forests and rangelands by restoring stand structure and species composition, through modern methods of timber harvesting, thinning, and prescribed burning. Restoration will improve forest stand vigor, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and rejuvenate bunchgrass communities. (b) Fire Maintained Ecosystems and Origin of Ingrowth The dry, low-elevation open forest and grassland stands of British Columbia's southern interior are defined by the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook as Natural Disturbance Type 4 (NDT4), characterized by "frequent, stand-maintaining fires." These stands include the Biogeoclimatic Zones Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), Ponderosa Pine (PP), and dry variants of the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH). Low-intensity surface fires, occurring on a 5 to 20 year cycle, are part of the natural function of these ecosystems, maintaining a mosaic of grassland and open forest, while at the same time promoting the development of fire-tolerant overstories of mature ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and Western larch. Several decades of active fire suppression in the NDT4 has resulted in tree establishment in previously treeless openings (encroachment) and excessive tree recruitment in open forests (ingrowth) beyond the level these sites can support. The primary tree species responsible for both processes is Douglas-fir. The consequences of ingrowth and encroachment are poor forest health, poor timber quality and degraded rangeland values.
(c) General Management Approach Restoration and management activities will be incorporated into appropriate Landscape Unit and operational plans, and will generally consist of: 1. inventories that designate areas based on a spectrum of ecosystem components each with an appropriate mix of timber and rangeland values; 2. development of harvesting and management objectives for these areas, including ranges of locally appropriate stem density, canopy closure and age-class distribution, as well as Potential and Desired Plant Communities for the rangeland understory; 3. identification and removal of any administrative obstacles to the implementation of these management objectives, and; 4. prompt implementation of Restoration work, using an adaptive management approach to fine-tune objectives and improve performance
85 Sample Restoration guidelines are shown on Tables 1 and 2. It is important to note that these are preliminary guidelines, intended to be modified through operational experience, the development of local inventories, and a better understanding of fire-maintained ecosystems. Table 1. Kootenay/Boundary Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Components and Targets (based on 340,000 ha NDT4)
Ecosystem Intended % of % of Current Initial Final Component Characteristics Maximum Maximum (1992) Target Target Timber Forage Benefits Benefits Distribution Ha Ha of Crown NDT4 % % Ha (range) (range) %
Shrublands Normally 0 100 18,000 18,000 18,000 occurring areas of , non- 5% 5% 5% productive forest, wetlands and brush
Open Lands 10 90 34,000 51,000*** 78,000*** Range* dominated by open (0-20) (80-100) 10%** 15% 23% grass/forb/shrub (12-18%) (20-26%) communities and managed primarily by manipulation of natural processes
Open Lands with 50 50 288,000 131,000*** 105,000*** Forest* significant rangeland and (40-60) (40-60) 85%** 39% 31% significant (34-44%) (26-36%) timber values
Managed Lands providing 90 10 mostly 140,000*** 140,000*** Forest* rangeland overstocked values for 1-2 decades during the regeneration phase of timber 86 management. During the balance of (includes decades during (80-100) (0-20) 41% 41% christmas the regeneration tree phase of timber (36-46%) (36-46%) permits) management. During the balance of rotation, areas will be expected to provide ungulate security/snow interception cover
• Retention Forest and Old Growth Management Areas (as defined in Biodiversity Guidebook); distributed across these ecosystem components.
• * Old growth status currently 26% > 100 years, 1% > 250 years
• **Old growth status: initial/final targets: 17% >100 years, 13% >250 years (low emphasis); 34%>100 years, 13%>250 years (intermediate emphasis) Given the breadth and importance of the Restoration initiative, a multi-agency oversight body, such as the Interagency Management Committee (IAMC) should take overall responsibility for its implementation and conduct periodic reviews. Dedicated resources will be required at the Forest District level, for planning and implementation of Restoration work. The involvement of non-government interests and resources is essential to the implementation of Restoration.
(d) Spatial Application of Guidelines The Crown forest portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from the Montana border to Golden, contains approximately 250,000 hectares of land deemed to be fire-maintained. This land falls within the Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts. In the Boundary District, the lower parts of the Kettle and Granby river valleys from Grand Forks to Rock Creek contain roughly 90,000 hectares of Crown NDT4. Lesser amounts occur in the Arrow Forest District, along the east side of Lower Arrow Lake and the north side of the Pend d’Oreille River. In Kootenay Lake Forest District, NDT4 lands are found along the south end of Kootenay Lake,(1) and the Lower Goat River. Cumulatively, the Kootenay- Boundary Region contains a total of roughly 340,000 hectares of fire-maintained ecosystems, identified on map 3.10. The dry phases of certain other Biogeoclimatic variants in NDT3 and NDT5 may also be considered to be fire-maintained. 3.10.2 Operational Guidelines for Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration
(a) Ecosystem Components
87 Four ecosystem components of the NDT4 are recognized for the purpose of these Guidelines: Shrublands, Open Range, Open Forest and Managed Forest(2). Each component has a unique mix of resource values. summarized in Table 1. The Table also shows current ecosystem component distribution, as well as initial and final targets. Targets are tentative and will be refined over the next eighteen months as a result of research, operational realities and social objectives. The Cranbrook and Invermere Districts are currently prepared to implement Restoration. The Arrow, Boundary and Kootenay Lake Districts will require additional inventory and planning concurrent with or prior to Restoration.
(b) Planning and Inventory Each of the five participating Districts will include Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration and management objectives as a component of Landscape Unit and lower level plans that include Crown NDT4 lands. Restoration planning must recognize the unique, multi-resource nature of the NDT4, where wildlife (both hunting and viewing), ranching, timber, environmental, christmas tree, recreational, access and fire protection interests coincide. Existing sources of Restoration planning information include Biogeoclimatic data, Forest cover maps, paired historical/modern photograph comparisons, and average weighted crown closure maps. The Invermere Encroachment Strategy should be consulted for that District, as should the Problem Forest Types Analysis for the Cranbrook District. The Trench Integrated Renewable Resource Management Plan ("The Trench Plan"), although no longer a current plan, does include a priorization of ingrowth treatment areas in the two Districts.
(c) Restoration Operations Restoration prescriptions will vary from site to site, but will generally target the removal of excess immature and off-site understory trees. Table 2 proposes guidelines, to be refined as site-specific data becomes available, for each landscape component. Restoration treatments will attempt to create a complex, ecologically appropriate mosaic of habitats across the landscape, emphasizing rangeland values on poor soils and south/southwest- facing slopes, forest values on the richer sites and north-facing slopes, and a mix of the two on the balance of the landscape. Clustering of crop trees in the moistest microsites will allow for more open canopy conditions between clusters. Treatments in the Open Range and Open Forest ecosystem types will emphasize retention of the oldest or largest trees. The bulk of Ecosystem Restoration will occur within these two ecosystem components; the Managed Forest component largely defaults to current timber harvesting practices. In the Open Range and Open Forest ecosystem components, a harvesting pass can meet target stocking initially, but unless further measures are undertaken, targets will be exceeded again after a short time. Subsequent prescribed burns will normally be required, to reduce numbers of new tree seedlings, rejuvenate the forage and browse understory, and recycle nutrients. Alternative treatments, such as mechanical thinning or spacing, may be used as a partial replacement for fire effects. All treatments subsequent to meeting modified stocking standards would be considered incremental, and would not be considered a Licensee responsibility unless by mutual agreement. Special and non- governmental funds can potentially be accessed to finance these incremental treatments. 88 modified stocking standards would be considered incremental, and would not be considered a Licensee responsibility unless by mutual agreement. Special and non- governmental funds can potentially be accessed to finance these incremental treatments. If burning is prescribed, it should normally follow a harvesting pass that reduces initial fuel loading and laddering. Harvest slash volumes and distribution should be managed to facilitate subsequent low-temperature, ground-oriented burns. Measures must be taken to ensure post-burn survival of appropriate numbers of tree recruits. Once stands have had an initial Restoration treatment, they should become components of a long-term, landscape- level cycle of harvesting, thinning and prescribed burning entries that optimize resource flow and ecosystem health. The following wildlife related issues will be acknowledged in arranging Restoration operations across the landscape: wildlife trees, movement and connectivity corridors, security and snow interception cover, and the need for occasional large, connected blocks of open range/open forest. In the absence of Landscape Unit Plan objectives, planning for individual entries (harvest or restoration) should examine the surrounding 250-2500 ha area to ensure connectivity and interaction with old growth, ungulate winter range and recreation guidelines are achieved. Good opportunities exist for merging Restoration objectives with Red- and Blue- listed species management objectives, including reintroductions. The proposed sharptail grouse reintroduction in the extreme southern part of the Trench is a good example. Table 2. Kootenay-Boundary Fire Maintained Ecosystem (NDT4) Management Guidelines
Ecosyst Primary General Connec Target Minim Maxi Free- Crow Responsi em BGC Manage tivity Stockin um mum Gro n bility for Compo Variant/Si ment Require g Stocki Stocki wing Closur nent te Series System ment Standar ng ng e Implemen Targetted Propose ds Stand Stand Wind Thres tation d* ard ard ow hold (Leat (Stems/ Trigge agency Ha)** (Stems (Stems ring italicized* /ha) /ha) Re- **) entry
Shrubl Various Inventor none n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ministry ands y and of Forests IDFdm2/6 periodic (MOF) burns IDFxh1/9 BC Environm PPdh1/6 ent (BCE) PPdh2/4 User Groups
89 Groups Funding Agencies
Open PPdh1/2,3 Periodic Maintai 20 of the 0 75 2-5 yr 10% MOF, Range harvesti n largest Range PPdh2/2a, ng, connecti 1/3 of max 2b prescrib vity of existing BCE, ed rangelan diameter MOAFF, IDFdm1/2 burning ds range Forest and/or IDFdm2/2 licensees thinning IDFxh1/2 to (Where maintain harvesting IDFun (s. open occurs), facing range Range slopes) conditio Tenure n, holders, enhancin g User existing Groups, or potential Funding bunchgr Agencies ass sites.
Open PPdh1/1,4, Periodic Provide 250 76 400 2-5 yr 40% MOF Forest 5 entries connecti of vity (50 of (30 of max. BCE, PPdh2/1,3 burning, between the the MOAFF, thinning adjacent largest largest IDFdm1/3, Forest and Open 1/3 of 1/3 of 4,1 licensees partial Range existing existin diameter g IDFdm2/3, cutting areas. (where range diamet 1 to Provide harvesting plus 200 er maintain ungulate occurs), IDFxh1/3, open travel well- range 1,4,5 forest corridor spaced) plus User conditio s 46 Groups, IDFun ns and between well- (subxeric rangelan winter spaced Funding to mesic) d values range ) Agencies and winter forest cover.
90 cover.
Manag IDFdm1/1, Rotation Maintai 1000 400- 5000 12-20 80% MOF ed 4,5,6,7 al n 700 yr Forest harvest connecti max. BCE IDFdm2/1, entries vity of 4,5,6,7 Forest using retentio Licensees clear-cut n forest IDFxh1/6, 7,8 or light- and Funding overstor OGMA' Agencies IDFun y s (seepage shelterw through sites) ood. manage Manage d forest for and timber, open ungulate forest winter ecosyste range ms. and Provide approxi winter mately forest two cover decades for of ungulate interim s rangelan d values per rotation.
• These management systems would not generally apply to retention forest and old growth management areas.
• * Stems/ha=/> 0.5m as per Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook.
• ** Lead Agency responsible for strategic planning and approvals; operations conducted cooperatively by all listed groups, subject to funding and resources. Restoration is not expected to conflict with Visual Quality Guidelines, since treatments will emulate natural landscapes, or with Ungulate Winter Range Guidelines, which will primarily apply in the Managed Forest Ecosystem Component. In instances where conflicts arise between these Guidelines and either the Ungulate Winter Range Guidelines or Visual Quality Guidelines, resolution will be attempted at the local planning level. Where resolution is not possible, these Guidelines will take precedence.
91 (d) Rate of Restoration Treatments and Socioeconomic Considerations Treatment should start at a “break-even” level that offsets the current rate of ingrowth. Over a five-year period, treatment will ramp up to full implementation, stay at that level for 20 years, and then ramp down over five years so that, after a thirty-year period, implementation targets are met (see Table 3 for an example). Applying this strategy regionally will eliminate sudden changes in employment and wood supply levels, and allow for local variation to meet socioeconomic needs. Table 3. Restoration Schedule, Using Combined Projections from the Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts as an Example
TREATMENT BASE CAPABILITY ENHANCED CAPABILITY TO STABILIZE INGRESS AND TREAT BACKLOG (assumes no increased resources) (assumes increased resources) HA/YR HA/YR
BURN 1000 2000
SPACE 700 1000
PARTIAL 700 4000 CUT
CLEAR CUT 200 1000
CHIPPING 0 800
TOTAL 2600 8800
92 (e) Research and Monitoring Work should be promptly undertaken to 1) confirm initial/final target proportions of Shrubland, Open Range, Open Forest and Managed Forest or to provide a rational basis for altering those proportions; 2) review appropriateness of Biogeoclimatic site series/variants; 3) finalize Stocking Standards for the four ecosystem components, and 4), develop canopy closure and age-class distribution criteria for each ecosystem component, based on monitoring and operational experience. These four elements of the Guidelines are interim; finalization is a priority, and should be completed within the first 18 months of operation. Other work should be undertaken to more precisely define timber and forage benefits/disbenefits at varying levels of stem density or cover. Relevant research, as well as operational experience, should be subsequently reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that these Guidelines are meeting their stated objectives, and to facilitate the adaptive management process.
3.10.3 Administration (a) Changes Required to Facilitate Guidelines Modified, ecologically appropriate Stocking Standards should be set for the Open Range and Open Forest components of the NDT4, in line with target stocking rates in Table 2. This modification is viewed as crucial to the efficient long-term management of NDT4 stands. It is recognized that Operational Planning Regulation requirements for block size and adjacency are superseded by these Guidelines, applied consistent with Biodiversity Guidebook recommendations for NDT4 patch size and rangeland seral stage. Modifications to current cruising standards should also be considered for these dry, low site-index areas, to bring cruising costs more in line with timber yields, and to adjust sampling intensity to capture differences in very low stocking rates. With current methodology, differences between stocking rates (between Open Range and Open Forest, for example) are undetectable. Government may also consider modified stumpage appraisal allowances or other fiscal incentives to encourage restoration harvesting in low site-index NDT4 sites and to accommodate treatments that incorporate rangeland as well as timber objectives. Some form of Annual Allowable Cut partitioning, directing a percentage of the cut to the problem forest types within the NDT4, should be considered. An equitable distribution of opportunities between the major forest companies and small business should be struck. Ministry of Forests silvicultural record-keeping systems need to be reviewed to ensure that unique NDT4 stocking standards and prescriptions can be accommodated. Special and non-governmental funds should be sought where shortfalls in Restoration-related research, inventory, planning or operations occur.
93 Appendix 5. List of contacts and information sources
Name Affiliation Phone/Email Info Contacted Replied Resources Kari Stuart- TEMBEC 426-9380 NOGO yes yes Smith [email protected] locations; PEM; ungulate winter range guidelines Oliver Consultant 426-3122 UWR yes yes Thomae [email protected] guidelines Ted Lea MWLAP, [email protected] Rare plant yes yes Victoria communities Wayne MOF, 387- 3886 Rare plant yes yes Erickson Victoria [email protected] comm.. account for Rocks pasture, other rare plant communities Carmin CDC- Carmen.Cadrin@ gems3.gov.bc.ca Rare plant yes yes Cadrin MSRM communities Dianne [email protected] Mildred yes yes Cooper White’s bird sightings Peter MWLAP, 342-4269 PEM data yes yes Holmes Invermere [email protected] for NDT4; document re. field validation of PEM Ted MWLAP, 354-6163 GPS data of yes yes Antifeau Nelson rare plant communities Penny Consultant 427-5262 GPS data for yes yes Ohanjanian FLOW; reports on LBCU; general info Irene Consultant ? FLOW info yes yes Manley Ian Adams Consultant 426-7185 Badger yes [email protected] Recovery Strategy Don Gayton FORREX 354-6244 Grassland yes yes [email protected] report Jared Hobbs MWLAP, ? WISA – yes yes Victoria WHA sites in EK
94 in EK Amy CBFWCP 352-6874 GIS yes yes Waterhouse John Krebs CBFWCP 352-6874 Badger GIS yes yes data, other Hillary Page Consultant Local expert yes yes on rare plant communities Astrid van Consultant FLOW yes yes Woudenberg reports GPS data Peter MWLAP, 489-8535 Local expert yes Davidson Cranbrook Reg [email protected] Rare plant yes yes Newman communities Val Miller Range Rare plant yes yes Agrologist communities MOF Anne Range Rare plant yes yes Skinner Agrologist communities MOF
95