Mt goat habitat at headwaters of Vigue Ck

Mountain goat survey in the Monashee Range, Management Units 8-23 and 4-32 and Kootenay regions, , September 2008

Prepared for:

Irene Teske / Brian Harris British Columbia Ministry of Environment Kootenay and Okanagan Regions

Prepared by: Richard Klafki PO Box 317 Golden, BC V0A 1H0 e-mail: [email protected]

and

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

December 2008 ii Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

ABSTRACT

Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are managed as a big game species in British Columbia, and as such aerial surveys are conducted periodically to document population trend and productivity, and to establish hunting quotas. As a result of suspected declines in the Management Unit (MU) 8-23 population and a never surveyed goat population in adjacent MU 4-32, a survey was conducted to determine the numbers and distribution of goats in the Monashee Mountain range of the west of , southeastern British Columbia, in late September 2008. Standard survey techniques were followed using a Bell 206B helicopter. We used 22.3 hrs of helicopter time, including 15.9 hrs on survey, and surveyed a 505-km2 census zone of potential goat habitat under good survey conditions. Overall survey effort averaged 1.9 min/km2. We observed 61 goats (50 adults, 11 kids) in 35 groups. Kids comprised 18% of total goats (22 kids:100 adults [non-kids]). Groups were distributed from 3,700 to 7,800 feet (1,125 – 2,375 m) elevation. Other wildlife observed included 5 black bears (Ursus americanus) and 10 grizzly bears (U. arctos). We applied a sightability correction factor of 60% to derive an estimate of 102 goats within the census zone (density of 0.20 goats/km2). We applied this density to an unsurveyed 141 km2 area in the middle of the study area to derive an estimate of 130 goats within MUs 8-23 and 4-32, with an equal number (65 animals) within each MU. Estimated density for the region suggests that goats are distributed in low numbers across broad geographic areas. Snowpacks in the Monashee Mountains are locally deep and highly variable with winter severity and spring snowpack known to affect kid production and recruitment. Based on current Ministry of Environment recommendations on sustainable mountain goat hunting, populations of <50 animals should not be hunted. Although we estimate 65 goats for each MU, and undoubtedly there is movement of animals across the MU boundary, groupings of animals were so spread out such that no single area appeared to have sufficient numbers of goats to sustain annual hunting harvest within the respective Regions. Until there is evidence that more goats inhabit the 2 MUs, we recommend that all resident and non-resident goat hunting in MU 8- 23 continue to be suspended and in MU 4-32 be drastically reduced, or even possibly eliminated. To monitor population status and refine population units we recommend that both MUs be re- surveyed at 3–5 year intervals.

Aurora Wildlife Research iii Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 STUDY AREA ...... 1 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3 RESULTS ...... 3 DISCUSSION ...... 5 Population units ...... 6 Elevation ...... 6 Kid ratios ...... 7 Management recommendations ...... 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 9 LITERATURE CITED ...... 10

Aurora Wildlife Research 1 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

INTRODUCTION Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are managed as a big game species in British Columbia (BC), and as such, aerial surveys are conducted periodically to document population trend and productivity, and to establish hunting quotas. In southcentral BC, mountain goats live on both the east and west flanks of the Monashee Mountains, and this divide forms part of the boundary between the Okanagan (Region 8) and Kootenay (Region 4) regions. In the Okanagan region, aerial surveys conducted between 2003 and 2006 found low numbers of goats on the west slopes of the Monashee range and hunting was closed in Management Unit (MU) 8-23 in 2007 (Gyug 2006, Wilson and Morley 2007). No systematic aerial surveys have been conducted in MU 4-32 on the east slopes of the Monashees, but provincial wildlife biologists estimate the goat population at 50 animals (I. Teske, personal communication). The number of resident Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) permits available for MU 4-32 was reduced in 2007 in response to concerns of declining goat populations in MU 8-23. Subsequently, the non-resident hunting quota was also reduced. The objectives of this study were to determine the number and distribution of mountain goats within these 2 adjacent MUs (8-23 and 4-32), and to provide baseline population data. Data obtained will be used to refine current harvest management strategies.

STUDY AREA The Monashee Mountain study area is located in the Columbia Mountain range (Fig. 1). The study area is limited to the east by the and , to the west by , to the north by Highway 1 where it crosses between Revelstoke and , and Highway 6 limits the south end. It occurs in the Central Columbia Mountain ecosection and the rugged terrain reflects past periods of active glaciation as evidenced by steep sided valleys, glaciers, headwalls, moraine deposits, cirques, tarns and hanging valleys. The climate of the Monashee Mountains is typical of the Interior Wet Belt with relatively long snowy winters, late springs and cool, wet summers. July and January mean temperatures for Nakusp, on the eastern edge of the study area, are 18.3ºC and –3.0ºC, respectively (Environment Canada climate normals, unpublished data). Nakusp receives an average of 650 mm of precipitation including 192 cm of snowfall annually. Climate within the study area varies considerably, with cooler temperatures and deeper snowfalls at higher elevations and on north and east-facing slopes. The Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) zone occupies valley bottoms and lower slopes. Potential goat habitat in the study area primarily is made up of 2 biogeoclimatic zones: the Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone and the Alpine Tundra (AT) zone above tree line. The AT starts at lower elevations and is more widespread in the wet climatic region and the tree line is generally located at 1,675-1,830 m (5,500-6,000 ft). High on the valley sides, hybrid white-Engelmann spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) dominate, with scattered stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) on drier sites (Braumandl and Curran 2002). Census zones of potential goat habitat were surveyed, which generally included steep or cliff habitat above 5,000 feet (1,500 m) elevation in most areas. (Feet are included as the unit of measure because the helicopter’s altimeter was in feet).

Aurora Wildlife Research 2 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Figure 1. Location and number of mountain goats observed in surveyed areas of the Monashee Mountains 23, 28, and 29 September 2008. Orange lines and black numbers refer to survey blocks (Table 1). Number of goats observed shown by red dots scaled to number of animals in the group.

Aurora Wildlife Research 3 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Study design and methodology generally followed RISC standards (RISC 2002, Poole 2007), and consisted of a total count survey, with sightability correction subjectively applied afterwards. We used a Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter with pilot, navigator, and 2 observers. The helicopter was equipped with bubble windows in the rear, and sliding windows in the front. All occupants participated in locating mountain goats, and all had extensive experience at aerial surveys. We surveyed all alpine, open subalpine, and forested cliff habitats. We flew roughly 150–200 m (500–650 foot) contour lines at 80–120 km/hr, 75–100 m out from the hillsides. We rarely used >10 minutes between adjacent contour flights to minimize the potential for excessive vertical movement of goats between passes. We mapped approximate flight lines and survey coverage on 1:50,000 scale topographical maps and calculated the census zone from the maps based on the area surveyed. For each goat sighting, we also recorded broad habitat type, and elevation from the helicopter’s altimeter (estimated to the nearest 100 feet). Goat locations (corrected to the location of the group relative to the helicopter) and helicopter flight tracks were recorded with a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit, which was later downloaded to a computer. We classified goats only into kids and non-kids (yearlings and older; hereafter called adults) based on body size (Smith 1988) to reduce survey time, to minimize harassment (Côté 1996), and because researchers familiar with classification from aircraft agree more detailed age and sex classification is not reliable (Houston et al. 1986, Stevens and Houston 1989, Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001). Incidental wildlife sightings were also recorded. Historic aerial survey (MU 8-23) and harvest data (MU 8-23 and MU 4-32) locations were obtained from BC Ministry of Environment before commencement of the September 2008 survey, which helped define survey blocks.

RESULTS The census was conducted over 3 survey days on 23, 28, and 29 September 2008. The survey was delayed due to weather after the initial survey day, which had some cloud and light snow cover over 7,000 ft resulting in poor coverage of some high elevation areas in the north end of the study area. Survey conditions and lighting were good with clear skies for the remainder of the survey. Surveys were conducted between 7:00 and 14:00 hrs with temperatures ranging from –4ºC to 12ºC at survey time, warming as the survey went on. We used 22.3 hrs of helicopter time, including 15.9 hrs on survey and surveyed a census zone of 505 km2 (Table 1). Overall survey effort averaged 1.9 min/km2 (range among blocks 1.2–2.4 min/km2; Table 1). Due to budget and time constraints, 141 km2 of potential goat habitat went unsurveyed in the central portion of the study area (Fig. 1). We observed 61 goats in 35 groups (Fig. 1), for an average observed density of 0.12 goats/km2. Group size ranged from 1 to 9 goats and averaged 1.74 0.27 ( x SE). Sixty-six percent of goat groups consisted of a single animal with only 2 groups exceeding 6 animals. The largest group observed was 9 animals in the headwaters of the north fork of Vigue Creek. Overall we counted 11 kids [18% of total goats (CI 95% = 10–30%)] for a 22 kids:100 adults ratio.

Aurora Wildlife Research 4 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Table 1. Mountain goats observed by survey block, Monashee Mountains, (MUs 8-23 and 4-32) 23, 28, and 29 September 2008. “Adults” refers to non-kids (yearlings and older). Time on Survey Survey Block survey area effort Density Date no. Name (min) (km2) (min/km2) Total Adults Kids (goats/km2) 23-Sep-08 1 Begbie 129 71.1 1.8 7 7 0 0.10 23-Sep-08 2 Davis 105 57.6 1.8 5 4 1 0.09 23-Sep-08 3 Blanket 110 55.0 2.0 4 4 0 0.07 28-Sep-08 4 Vidler 37 21.0 1.8 8 7 1 0.38 28-Sep-08 5 Pinnacles 190 87.8 2.2 13 10 3 0.15 28-Sep-08 6 Saddle 15 10.0 1.5 0 0 0 0.00 28-Sep-08 7 Ingersoll 36 28.9 1.2 0 0 0 0.00 28-Sep-08 8 Whatshan 6 4.5 1.3 0 0 0 0.00 28-Sep-08 9 Sitkum-Sugar 49 20.6 2.4 5 3 2 0.24 29-Sep-08 10 Goat 73 33.4 2.2 1 1 0 0.03 29-Sep-08 11 South Twin Lakes 24 15.7 1.5 0 0 0 0.00 29-Sep-08 12 Mount Fosthall 29 14.6 2.0 7 5 2 0.48 29-Sep-08 13 Slate 45 19.2 2.3 0 0 0 0.00 29-Sep-08 14 Ledge 51 26.4 1.9 1 1 0 0.04 29-Sep-08 15 Bearpaw 37 27.4 1.4 0 0 0 0.00 29-Sep-08 16 Vigue 16 11.4 1.4 10 8 2 0.88 Total 952 504.6 1.9 61 50 11 0.12

Based on other research (Poole 2007) and considering survey effort, weather conditions, and differential sightability by terrain and vegetation, we applied a sightability correction factor of 60% to derive an estimate of 102 goats in the census zone (density of 0.20 goats/km2). This sightability correction factor is consistent with previous surveys conducted in other areas of the Columbia Mountains (Poole and Adams 2002, Poole 2003, Poole and Klafki 2005). Applying the estimated goat density for the Monashee Mountains of 0.20 goats/km2 to the remaining unsurveyed area (141 km2) provides an additional 28 goats to the survey estimate. Combining the estimated goat population of 102 goats in the census zone with an estimated 28 goats assigned in the unsurveyed portion of the study area results in a population estimate of 130 goats for the combined MUs of 8-23 and 4-32. The proportions of goats counted in MUs were 55% (33 goats) for MU 8-23 and 46% (28 goats) for MU 4-32. The proportion of unsurveyed area is 35% (49 km2) in MU 8-23 and 65% (92 km2) in MU 4-32. Applying the estimated 28 goats to the same proportion of potential goat habitat results in assigning 10 goats to MU 8-23 and 18 goats to MU 4-32, which results in a population estimate of 65 goats in MU 8-23 and 65 goats in MU 4-32. Goat groups were distributed from 3,700 to 7,800 feet (1,125 – 2,375 m); median 6,250 feet (1,900 m), with 71% of the groups observed between 5,100 and 7,000 feet (1,550 – 2,150 m)(Fig.2). We observed 43% of goat groups in broken cliff in timber. Other habitats used included broken cliff (20%), scree/talus (11%), steep cliff (9 %), alpine heath meadows (9%), cliff in forest (6%), and alder slide (2%).

Aurora Wildlife Research 5 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Figure 2. Elevation distribution of mountain goats observed during survey of Monashee Mountains (n=35 groups). Elevations were estimated based on the helicopters' altimeter.

Other wildlife observed included 5 black bears (Ursus americanus) and 10 grizzly bears (U. arctos) scattered throughout the census zone. Seven of the grizzly bears (including one sow with two 2-yr old cubs) were observed in the Lindmark Creek and Cranberry Creek drainages within 1 hour of survey time on 23 September 2008. Another grizzly was spotted north of Greenbush Lake on the same day with the other 2 single grizzly bear sightings coming from the Pinnacles and Pillar Pass near Goat Mountain on the other 2 consecutive days. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were observed sparsely throughout the survey and accounted for 29 individuals in 15 groups, mostly in alpine heath meadows and old burns. We observed several Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) throughout the survey. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) tracks on high elevation snow packs in the vicinities of the Pinnacle Range and were noted on several occasions but not recorded.

DISCUSSION Our survey suggests that the overall mountain goat population within the census zone of MUs 8- 23 and 4-32 numbers approximately 130 animals, with an equal number (65 animals) allotted to each MU. Estimated density for the study area (0.20 goats/km2) suggests that goats are distributed in low and patchy numbers across broad geographic areas (Table 1). This density estimate for the survey is similar to previous estimates of 0.20–0.22 goats/km2 from other areas within the Columbia Mountains further north in Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks (McCrory 1979). Within the Rocky and of the East Kootenay, densities within census zones generally average 1.7 and 0.7 goats/km2, respectively (Poole 2006b). Our extrapolation of goat density into the unsurveyed area is roughly supported by historic goat surveys conducted in MU 8-23 during 2002, 2003, and 2005, which resulted in an average of 3 goats counted in Gates Creek and 3 goats in Vanwyk Creek for 6 goats/survey in these drainages. Applying 60% sightability estimate to these historic surveys results in an estimated 10 goats for these drainages. These two MU 8-23 drainages (~49 km2) were assigned an estimated 10 goats based on our calculations.

Aurora Wildlife Research 6 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Population units Based on historic surveys, this recent survey, and Compulsory Inspection harvest data, there appears to be 3 population units of mountain goats in the study area with suspected limited exchange between them (Fig. 3): 1) north of Spectrum-Ledge Creeks, 2) Sitkum-Vidler-Fosthall complex, and 3) Pinnacle-Ingersoll. These population units are similar as reported in Wilson and Morley (2007), who used 5 km circular buffers on previous survey data and landscape features to map population units. Using principles suggested by Wilson and Morley, movements of local populations are probably best characterized by the home ranges of adult females during the summer (as opposed to winter when movements are usually limited by snow conditions). Although information is limited, reported home ranges of adult females in summer are in the range of 22-25 km2 (Ridout 1977, Festa-Bianchet and Côté 2008). Principles also suggested by the authors include the influence of landscape characteristics resulting in home ranges as long as 10 km on one axis. They also acknowledge that long distance movements between these population units probably occur but are usually associated with either dispersal of young males, or possibly with mature billies seeking females during the rut. Extensive movements can also be associated with travelling among seasonal ranges (Pinnacles-Ingersoll corridor) or moving seasonally to low-elevation mineral licks (Shackleton 1999). These proposed units provide ecologically defensible population boundaries that can be used for mountain goat management. Mountain goats observed >12 km to the north of Sitkum Creek in population unit 1 were not considered part of the Sitkum population unit (population unit 2) and further surveys may establish evidence of a continuous distribution or if they should be treated as separate units that shares Region 8 and 4 (Wilson and Morley 2007). Dividing the study area into these 3 population units results in an estimated 73 goats north of Spectrum-Ledge Cks (MUs 8-23 and 4-32; unit 1); 35 goats in the Sitkum-Vidler-Fosthall complex (MU 8-23; unit 2); and 22 goats in the Pinnacle-Ingersoll corridor (MU 4-32; unit 3). Management of goat populations is problematic using boundaries of current wildlife management units, which use drainages and height-of-land for boundaries, whereas goat populations inhabiting mountain ranges use mountain blocks and are not restricted to drainages. Possible management actions to better delineate population units within this area include capturing several mountain goats and monitoring their movements via radio telemetry, which could establish the size and distribution of population units and help guide future hunting and habitat management decisions in this area (Harris 2008).

Elevation Despite the lower tree line in the Monashees, goats were found at lower elevations than other recent surveys in the Thompson Region, Purcell Mountains, and Rocky Mountains (Poole and Klafki 2005, Poole 2006b, 2008) with 43% of observations in broken cliff – forested habitats. The differences may be attributed to goats gradually shifting to their seasonal ranges as survey timing progressed towards October. Another factor that may have contributed to the wide range in elevational distribution of goats may have included seasonal and local phenology related to weather and forage quality, which may have influenced goat distribution and behaviour (Poole 2003). Based on observations and local knowledge there is evidence to suggest that some goats in the Sitkum Creek drainage inhabit the low elevation bluffs that extend into the ICH zone year- round. Further work, including radio-collaring mountain goats would be needed to determine winter and summer distribution, and if goats only seasonally use these bluffs.

Aurora Wildlife Research 7 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Kid ratios The overall kids:adults ratio was 22:100 or 18% and is consistent with other areas in the Columbia Mountains (Poole 2006a), which may be related to mountain ranges receiving high and variable amounts of snowfall. Kid production appears to be negatively associated with winter severity during pregnancy (Smith 1977, Adams and Bailey 1982, Swenson 1985) and April–May snowfall and snow depth (Thompson 1980, Hopkins et al. 1992). Since much kid mortality can occur over winter and goats from native populations generally do not reproduce until at least 3–4 years of age, moderate to high kid ratios can provide an expectation of some recruitment, but are limited in their utility to predict population change (Festa-Bianchet and Côté 2008). Alternatively, low kid ratios may still result in increased populations if yearling and older mortality is low; if adult mortality is high, then higher recruitment is required to maintain a population.

Aurora Wildlife Research 8 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Figure 3. Map of proposed population units derived from historic harvest and survey data in addition to the 2008 aerial survey. Saddle Mountain goats likely originated from the Pinnacles-Ingersoll area.

Aurora Wildlife Research 9 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

Management recommendations Historically mountain goats have been harvested during late fall/early winter in the Mount Ingersoll area and no goats were observed in the area during the September 2008 survey. Mount Ingersoll experienced a severe wildfire in 2003 and it is unknown if goats perished in the fire or if goats avoid the area during the warm summer and early fall months due to the current habitat conditions. Sightings of small groups of goat inhabiting the slopes were reported in early winter 2007 (K. Robbins, personal communication), and it appears that Mount Ingersoll’s low elevation south-facing slopes still contribute as valuable winter range for mountain goats in the region. Future surveys to monitor seasonal goat use and habitat conditions are recommended. Continued monitoring may indicate that only a small number of goats are using the site seasonally. Augmentation of goats into the site may be feasible when resident goats are present during winter so that the herd can seasonally migrate together to suspected summer ranges on the Pinnacles. Based on current Ministry of Environment recommendations on sustainable mountain goat hunting, populations of <50 animals should not be hunted (Hatter 2005). A similar recommendation was made for goat populations in Alberta (Hamel et al. 2006). Although we estimated 65 goats for each MU and undoubtedly there is movement of animals across the MU boundary, groupings of animals were so spread out such that no single area appeared to have sufficient numbers of goats to sustain annual hunting harvest within the respective Regions. Until there is evidence that more goats inhabit the 2 MUs, we recommend that all resident and non- resident goat hunting in MU 8-23 continue to be suspended and hunting in MU 4-32 be drastically reduced, or even possibly eliminated. Standardized surveys have greater utility in being used as indicators of broad population trend over time, rather than absolute estimates of population size (Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001, Poole 2007). Smaller unsystematic surveys that were limited by use of the height-of-land between MUs 8-23 and 4-32 as a boundary, and a lack of aerial surveys conducted in MU 4-32 are insufficient to provide trend information on populations and enable timely management reactions to changing estimates. To monitor population status we recommend that MUs 8-23 and 4-32 be re- surveyed at 3–5 year intervals, and that surveys include both MUs at the same time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment and funds were provided by the BC Ministry of Environment Wildlife Inventory Fund. Buffalo Air provided the 206B helicopter, with expert piloting conducted by S. Lenarduzzi. A. Reid, C. Legebokow, S. McKenzie, and I. Teske were observers during the survey, and we thank them for their enthusiasm and assistance. We would also like to thank B. Robertson, K. Wilson, B. Smith, S. McKenzie, R. Watt, K. Robbins, and P. Seaton for providing valuable local advice on goat distributions. This report was improved by reviews from B. Harris, I. Teske, and G. Mowat. Thanks to B. Harris and I. Teske for the opportunity to conduct this survey.

Aurora Wildlife Research 10 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008

LITERATURE CITED Adams, L.A., and J.A. Bailey. 1982. Population dynamics of mountain goats in the Sawatch Range, Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1003–1009. 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 Branch. Victoria, BC. Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:681–685. Festa-Bianchet, M., and Côté, S.D. 2008. Ecology, behaviour, and conservation of an alpine ungulate. , DC. Island Press. Gonzalez-Voyer, A., K.G. Smith, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2001. Efficiency of aerial surveys of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:140–144. Gyug, L. 2006. Mountain goat population and harvest assessment in the Okanagan Region. Unpublished report, Ministry of Environment, , B.C. Hamel, S., S.D. Côté, K.G. Smith, and M Festa-Bianchet. 2006. Population dynamics and harvest potential of mountain goat herds in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1044–1053. Harris, B. 2008. Action plan for mountain goat recovery in Region 8 (Okanagan). Unpublished report, Ministry of Environment, Penticton, BC. Hatter, I. 2005. Guidelines for determining sustainable harvest of mountain goats. Presented at the 1st BC Mountain Goat Workshop, Prince George, BC, March 2005. Hopkins, A., J.P. Fitzgerald, A. Chappell, and G. Byrne. 1992. Population dynamics and behavior of mountain goats using Elliot Ridge, Gore Range, Colorado. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 8:340–356. Houston, D.B., B.B. Moorhead, and R.W. Olson. 1986. An aerial census of mountain goats in the Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. Northwest Scientist 60:131–136. McCrory, W.P. 1979. An inventory of the mountain goats of Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks, British Columbia. Unpublished report, Parks Canada, Western Region, Glacier National Park, Revelstoke, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2003. Mountain goat monitoring in Mountain Holidays’ Bobbie Burns summer operating area, East Kootenay, September 2003. Unpublished report for Canadian Mountain Holidays, Cranbrook, British Columbia. Poole, K. 2004. Mountain goat survey in Management Units 4-22 and 4-26, East Kootenay, British Columbia, August 2004. Unpublished report for Water, Land and Air Protection, Cranbrook, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2006a. A population review of mountain goats in the Kootenay Region. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia. Poole, K.G. 2006b. Mountain goat survey in Management Unit 3-44, Thompson region, British Columbia, September 2006. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Aurora Wildlife Research 11 Monashee mountain goat survey, September 2008 Poole, K.G. 2007. Does survey effort influence sightability of mountain goats during aerial surveys? Wildlife Biology 13:113–119. Poole, K.G. 2008. Mountain goat survey in the Cayoosh area, management unit 3-16, Thompson region, British Columbia, July 2008. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia. Poole, K.G., and I. Adams. 2002. Mountain goat monitoring in Canadian Mountain Holidays’ Bugaboo and Bobbie Burns heli-hiking areas, East Kootenay, September 2002. Unpublished report prepared for Canadian Mountain Holidays, Cranbrook, B.C. Poole, K.G., and R. Klafki. 2005. Mountain goat survey in the East Kootenay, British Columbia, August 2005. Unpublished report for British Columbia Conservation Foundation, Surrey, and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia. Ridout, C.B. 1977. Mountain goat home ranges in the Sapphire Mountains of Montana. Pages 201-211 in W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor, editors. Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium. BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria. RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee). 2002. Aerial-based inventory methods for selected ungulates: bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose, elk, deer and caribou. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 32. Version 2.0. Resources Information Standards Committee, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia. Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed mammals of British Columbia. The Mammals of British Columbia, Volume 3. Royal British Columbia Museum and UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Smith, B.L. 1977. Influence of snow condition on winter distribution, habitat use, and group size of mountain goats. Pages 174–189 in W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor, editors. Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Kalispell, Montana. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. Smith, B.L. 1988. Criteria for determining age and sex of American mountain goats in the field. Journal of Mammalogy 69:395–402. Stevens, V., and D.B. Houston. 1989. Reliability of age determination of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:72–74. Swenson, J.E. 1985. Compensatory reproduction in an introduced mountain goat population in the Absaroka Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:837–843. Thompson, R.W. 1980. Population dynamics, habitat utilization, recreational impacts and trapping of introduced Rocky Mountain goats in the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, Colorado. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 2:459–462. Wilson, S.F., and R.L. Morley. 2007. Mountain Goat Management and Population Restoration Plan for the Okanagan Region. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment, Penticton, B.C.

Aurora Wildlife Research