Download A Framework For Monitoring The Effectiveness Of Habitat

Framework for Monitoring the Effectiveness of
Forest Habitat Management for Mountain Caribou
DRAFT
Version 1.1
Prepared for:
Ministry of Forest and Range,
Forest Practices Branch
272 Fisgard Street
Victoria, BC V8W 1R8
Prepared by:
Christoph Steeger, R.P. Bio.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
532 Park Street, Nelson, BC V1L 2G9
&
Steven F. Wilson, R.P. Bio.
EcoLogic Research
406 Hemlock Avenue, Gabriola Island, BC V0R 1X1
July 2006
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Executive Summary
The mountain caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, is an ecotype of the woodland caribou
subspecies that almost exclusively resides in the mountainous region of south-central British
Columbia. In recent years, provincial mountain caribou populations have declined dramatically,
partly due to a number of factors resulting from human-related activities within their range,
including habitat loss from forest harvesting, displacement by motorized recreation, increasing
predation due to changes in the predator-prey system, and other threats and stressors that effect their
populations and habitats (e.g., historic hunting, road-kill and possibly climate change). In response
to the continuing decline and threats to the remaining subpopulations, the provincial and federal
governments have listed mountain caribou as endangered (by the BC Conservation Data Centre)
and threatened (by the Species at Risk Act), respectively. Currently, the BC Species at Risk
Coordination Office is in the process of developing recovery options and related management
actions for mountain caribou.
Currently, management direction for mountain caribou is provided through approved regional
Higher Level Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans and through provisions under the
provincial Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and interagency agreements. Since the adoption
of a results-based forest practices regime in association with FRPA, land management measures are
now implemented under an adaptive management principle which requires monitoring and
evaluation of management results and subsequent verification or modification of management
measures, where appropriate. To this end, the Ministry of Forests and Range, in partnership with
the Ministry of Environment, established the FRPA Resource Evaluation Program. The program is
a long-term commitment by government to evaluate the effectiveness of FRPA in achieving the
stewardship of identified resource values, in this case mountain caribou. The monitoring approach
for conducting these evaluations includes developing key monitoring objectives, questions,
indicators and monitoring protocols.
This monitoring framework represents the first step in the development of a comprehensive
effectiveness monitoring methodology to assess the effectiveness of FRPA polices, practices and
legislation pertaining to the management of mountain caribou habitat. Our focus at this stage is on
identifying monitoring questions and indicators. We address the essential ecological characteristics
of, and current threats to, caribou habitat in relation to the support that Ungulate Winter Ranges and
Wildlife Habitat Areas may provide in maintaining caribou habitat across the forest landscape. We
also include identification of knowledge gaps, potential methods for monitoring indicators at
different spatial scales, and recommendation for habitat management activities.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 2
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 3
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Conservation Status & Situation Analysis........................................................................................... 7
Conservation Status and Demography ............................................................................................ 7
Life History & Habitat Use ............................................................................................................. 8
Population & Habitat Threats .......................................................................................................... 9
Habitat Management & Recovery Planning .................................................................................. 12
Statutory Authority ........................................................................................................................ 12
Ungulate Winter Ranges................................................................................................................ 14
Wildlife Habitat Areas ................................................................................................................... 15
Relationship between FRPA / Higher Level Plan Habitat Management Tools & Recovery
Planning / Implementation for Species at Risk ............................................................................. 17
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Forest Management for Mountain Caribou ................................... 17
Key Effectiveness Monitoring Questions ...................................................................................... 17
Effectiveness Indicators................................................................................................................. 18
Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................................... 21
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 23
Literature Cited.................................................................................................................................. 24
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 3
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
List of Tables
Table 1. Current approaches to mountain caribou habitat management under established Land Use
Plans and Land & Resource Management Plans (based on Cichowski et al. 2004).......................... 13
Table 2. Recommended indicators by level of intensity, desired conditions and monitoring
frequency for assessing the effectiveness of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas
established for mountain caribou in BC. ........................................................................................... 19
Table 3. General methodological considerations for monitoring effectiveness indicators of Ungulate
Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou in BC. ...................... 21
Table 4. Knowledge gaps related to mountain caribou ecology and relevant to the key effectiveness
monitoring questions. ........................................................................................................................ 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Estimated historic range and current home range of mountain caribou populations in
British Columbia (SARCO 2005). ...................................................................................................... 8
Appendices
Appendix 1. Approved Ungulate Winter Ranges for Mountain Caribou, as of March 31, 2006. ..... 27
Appendix 2. Approved Wildlife Habitat Areas for Mountain Caribou, as of March 31, 2006. ........ 28
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by Ministry of Forest and
Range, Forest Practices Branch. We thank Wayne
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 4
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Erickson (BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria) for
administering this project. Dennis Hamilton (Nanuq
Consulting, Nelson) reviewed an earlier draft of the
report and improved the document. Technical input
and advise was also provided by Rodger Stewart
(Ministry of Environment, Williams Lake), and Jeff
Hoyt (Ministry of Environment, Victoria).Introduction
The caribou species, Rangifer tarandus, consists of several subspecies, including the woodland
caribou (R. t. caribou) whose range includes British Columbia. The mountain caribou, the focus of
this effectiveness monitoring framework, is an ecotype of the woodland caribou that inhabits
mountainous terrain of southeastern and central British Columbia. In recent decades, the remaining
subpopulations of mountain caribou have experienced declines in distribution and abundance,
triggering concerns about their conservation (review in MCTAC 2002). Population recovery efforts
are currently underway to ensure the persistence of the woodland caribou in British Columbia
(SaRCO 2005).
Aside from recovery efforts, management direction for mountain caribou is provided through
approved regional Higher Level Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans, provisions under
the provincial Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), and interagency agreements (e.g., August
2003 UWR Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks, Ministry of Forests, and Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Identified
Wildlife Management Strategy - IWMS). In some portions of the province, Wildlife Habitat Areas
(WHAs) and Ungulate Winter Ranges (UWRs) have been established to protect important caribou
habitat under the FRPA and Government Actions Regulations. In other areas, Forest Planning and
Practices Regulation (FPPR) Section 7 Notices were issued by government that requires the Holder
of an Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) to specify a Result or Strategy to meet the Objective outlined
in the Notice. FSP Holders may become exempt from the Notice if the objective is addressed by a
WHA, UWR, General Wildlife Measure (GWM) or Wildlife Habitat Feature (WHF); however
WHF are generally focused on specific habitat elements (i.e., nest trees, dens) and therefore do not
generally address the broader landscape habitat requirements of caribou.
FPPR Section 7 Species at Risk Notices for mountain caribou have been issued in the Prince
George and Headwaters Forest Districts and as an UWR Notice in the Morice Timber Supply Area
(TSA). There are also two mountain caribou UWRs in the Omenica Region and 30 WHAs in the
Cariboo Region approved for mountain caribou through government orders. In addition, the
Kootenay-Boundary HLPO, Revelstoke Minister Advisory Committee plan, LRMPs in Prince
George, Robson Valley, Kamloops, Okanagan-Shuswap and the Cariboo-Chilcotin LUP outline
plan-specific management strategies for mountain caribou.
Since the adoption of a results-based forest practices regime in association with FRPA, land
management measures are now implemented under an adaptive management principle which
requires monitoring and evaluation of management results and subsequent verification or
modification of management measures, where appropriate. To this end, the Ministry of Forests and
Range, in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, established the FRPA Resource
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 5
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Evaluation Program which “works to assess the effectiveness of various management activities at
maintaining biodiversity through the development of a program to address specific questions
(objectives) and associated indicators” (Ministry of Forests and Range 2006). “One objective of this
program is to develop monitoring approaches and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of
management practices directed at managing wildlife. The monitoring approach for conducting these
evaluations includes developing key monitoring objectives, questions, indicators and monitoring
protocols for testing in pilot projects” (Erickson et al. 2005).
This monitoring framework represents the first step in the development of a comprehensive
effectiveness monitoring methodology for the management of mountain caribou habitat. Our focus
at this stage is on identifying monitoring questions and indicators. We primarily address the
essential ecological characteristics of, and current threats to, caribou habitat, and the roles that
UWRs and WHAs play in maintaining caribou habitat across the landscape. We also address
Higher Level Plan provisions that apply to habitat management for mountain caribou.
Objectives
The objectives of this project were to:
1. Review information on conservation status and habitat requirements of mountain caribou;
2. Describe natural and human-related stressors that potentially affect mountain caribou
populations;
3. Identify key effectiveness monitoring questions related to the development of the
monitoring frameworks;
4. Identify effectiveness indicators for the habitat, demographics and conservation of
mountain caribou; and
5. Identify knowledge gaps and provide recommendations with respect to FRPA land use
planning, habitat conservation/management and associated effectiveness monitoring for
mountain caribou.
Approach
In developing this monitoring framework, we considered the approach outlined by the FRPA
Evaluation Program (Province of BC 2004, Erickson et al. 2005) and included the following steps:
1. Summary of conservation status and situation analysis;
2. Identification of habitats and habitat attributes that are critical for meeting the life requisites
of mountain caribou;
3. Description of habitat management tools for caribou currently applied under FRPA and
higher level plans;
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 6
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
4. Development of key monitoring questions at small, medium and large spatial scales;
5. Summary of population and habitat monitoring methods;
6. Selection of indicators based on criteria that address (i) different levels of monitoring
intensity, (ii) desired outcomes in relation to the recovery goals set by the Province
(SaRCO 2005); and (iii) required frequency of measurements;
7. Identification of knowledge gaps; and
8. Recommendations for implementing an effectiveness monitoring program for mountain
caribou.
Conservation Status & Situation Analysis
Conservation Status and Demography
In 1993, the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) placed mountain caribou on the provincial Blue
List (vulnerable or sensitive status). In 2000, the CDC raised this taxon to the Red List (threatened
or endangered status) because of continued declines in abundance and current threats. In May 2002,
the National Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated
the Southern Mountains National Ecological Area (SMNEA) population of the woodland caribou as
threatened. The population is currently listed on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act
(SARA). Due to these status designations, a National Recovery Plan for woodland caribou is being
developed under the requirements of SARA. National recovery plans consist of two parts: a
national recovery strategy and local, population-specific recovery action plans.
A"Strategy for the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia" (MCTAC 2002) provides
an evaluation of population status and recovery goals and objectives at the provincial level. At the
regional level, three local recovery action plans have also been drafted for subpopulations
inhabiting the North Kootenays (Hamilton et al. 2003), South Kootenays (Steeger et al. 2003) and
Hart and Cariboo Mountains (Recovery Implementation Group 2004). Mountain caribou are one of
three priority taxa involving recovery planning responsibility of the newly formed provincial
Species at Risk Coordination Office (SaRCO).
MCTAC (2002) recognized 13 subpopulations of mountain caribou BC, with an estimated total
population of about 1700 animals. Six of these subpopulations now consist of 50 or fewer
individuals and all populations, with the exception of the Hart Ranges subpopulation, are currently
declining (SaRCO 2005). The current provincial mountain caribou metapopulation is estimated to
be approximately 1900 animals (Hatter in review). The range and general abundance of mountain
caribou is shown in Figure 1. Mountain caribou likely ranged south through forested portion of
Idaho and west of the continental divide in Montana. Their range likely also extended farther west
into the Okanagan Highlands Currently, their range is largely fragmented at its southern limits but
more continuous in the north (SARCO 2005).
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 7
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Figure 1. Estimated historic range and current home range of mountain caribou
populations in British Columbia (SARCO 2005).
Life History & Habitat Use
In this section we focus on the life history traits and habitat use of mountain caribou. We also
emphasizes behavioural aspects that are most affected by the main stressors to individuals and
populations.
Food habits - The winter food habits of mountain caribou are unique in the deer family in that their
foraging during late winter is limited almost exclusively to arboreal lichens (Alectoria sarmentosa
and Bryoria spp.). During early winter, falsebox (Pachistima myrsinites) and arboreal lichen (found
on broken branches and blowdown) are important ground food sources. Other shrubs such as
willows (Salix spp.) and Vaccinium spp. may be used during early winter, but to a lesser extent.
During other the seasons, mountain caribou feed extensively on a variety of foods including
grasses, sedges, horsetails, flowering plants and leaves of numerous shrubs (MCTAC 2002 and
references therein).
Predation – The main predators of mountain caribou are grey wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos), black bear (U. americanus), cougar (Puma concolor), and wolverine (Gulo gulo)
(Thomas and Gray 2002, Kinley and Apps 2001, Seip and Cichowski 1996). The anti-predator
strategies or adaptations of mountain caribou include maintaining spatial segregation from other
ungulate species and their predators in high-elevation forest patches, their unique adaptations to
deep snow conditions, and their general use of habitats that are usually avoided by predators (e.g.,
Bergerud et al. 1984, Seip 1992).
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 8
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Home range and seasonal movement patterns - Minimum convex polygon home ranges of 150–600
km2 are typical for mountain caribou, but vary from <100 to >800 km2 (Cichowski et al. 2004).
Within their range, mountain caribou activity is mainly concentrated in high elevation forests at
approximately 1500 - 2100 m; however, elevation shifts are common but vary by local population,
year, season and individual. During late winter, mountain caribou prefer open forest stands of the
ESSF (Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir) and ATp (Alpine Tundra parkland) ecosystem where they
feed exclusively on arboreal lichen and are relatively safe from predators. In spring, lower
elevation, early snow-free areas are sought but by June the pregnant females migrate to higher
elevations, in search of safety found in often exposed and rugged areas to calve. Summer and fall
habitat consists primarily of upper ESSF and ATp ecosystems, although lower ESSF habitats are
used periodically. Early winter movements to lower ESSF and ICH (Interior Cedar Hemlock)
forests are common while snow at higher elevations is accumulating but remains unconsolidated.
Snow accumulation and snow consolidation are needed to elevate and enable the animals to reach
and feed on the hair lichens in the trees. Lichens are typically absent from the lowermost branches
(between 1.5m to 2.5m above the ground) due primarily to physiological sensitivity to prolonged
exposure to snow (Goward 1998).
Important habitats and habitat elements – Mountain caribou habitat requires consideration at the
landscape scale (distribution in relatively low numbers over large areas), forest stand (forest
structure, canopy openings, snow interception) and individual tree (patchiness, clumps of trees,
foliated and defoliated branches). At the landscape scale, mountain caribou require large,
contiguous patches of mature/old forests, preferably on moderate to gentle slopes, to provide cover
and feeding habitat and to ensure spatial segregation from predators during all seasons. Forested
ridgelines provide migration corridos between seasonal habitats. Undisturbed high-elevation,
forested habitats are also used as late winter and calving ranges. At the scale of forest stands or
specific sites, habitat elements most important for meeting the caribou’s life requisites include
forest stand structure and habitat elements that support abundant arboreal lichens for early and late
winter foraging, lush and succulent forage sites for feeding in early spring and mineral licks during
spring (Cichowski et al. 2004). Hot springs are used as mineral licks by caribou throughout the year
(D. Hamilton, pers. comm.).
Population & Habitat Threats
Major threats to the habitat and subpopulations of mountain caribou include both natural and
human-related factors, as well as the interactions among them. Most relevant to this monitoring
framework are those threats that are created as a result to the activities of forest and range
developments under FRPA; that is, those activities that affect the important habitats and habitat
elements of mountain caribou. Other threats (e.g., hydro-electric developments, linear corridors
created by highways, railways, or pipelines, natural high mortality and low fecundity, past overhunting, and unfavourable climatic conditions) are likely cumulative to those posed by forestry
activities. The following provides a summary of the main threats that have been identified to date.
Forestry – Forest harvesting and silviculture activities and associated infrastructure have several
effects on mountain caribou and their habitat:

Reduction in the amount of foraging habitat (i.e., lichen) - It is believed that, in general,
this habitat change does not have a strong effect on food availability for the small caribou
herds currently present in the BC landscape (SaRCO 2005). However, both small and larger
herds may experience increased need to travel among patches, thereby increasing energy
expenditure and exposure to predators, humans, and avalanche-prone areas that may lead to
increased mortality. While some of the current herds may still have sufficient lichen
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 9
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
resources, it is questionable whether future lichen supply (that primarily exists in mature
and old forests) will be sufficient for the increased herd sizes required to achieve selfsustaining populations.

Increased populations of primary prey and associated predation pressures in caribou
habitat – Evidence suggests that conversion of old forest to regenerating stands has
increased caribou mortality through natural predation (Wittmer et al. 2005). Due to the
increased abundance of high-elevation cutblocks, ungulate species such as deer, elk, and
moose experience increased habitat suitability in caribou habitats, thereby drawing
predators into these areas where they incidentally prey on caribou. A second factor may be
the high productivity of other ungulates and their predators in low elevation habitats, which
has been facilitated through landscape changes (e.g., agriculture) and wildlife and habitat
management policies. Predators experiencing high population levels at lower elevations
may spread into caribou habitat. It is likely that both high and lower elevation habitat
changes are indirectly increasing predation pressures on mountain caribou.

Logging roads and other linear corridors – This habitat change has been shown to increase
predation on caribou in other areas by facilitating predator access (e.g., James and StuartSmith 2000, Dyer et al. 2002). Roads and linear corridors also facilitate human access into
high-elevation habitats, leading to higher levels of disturbance and displacement of caribou
from preferred patches (CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000, Appendix 6 and
references therein).
Commercial Recreation Tenures – Evidence suggests that motorized winter recreation activities
such as snowmobiling, heli-skiing, and snowcat skiing can disturb caribou (Kinley 2003, Wilson &
Hamilton 2003, Powell et al. 2004). When these activities are conducted via commercial
enterprises, they become systematic, usually wide-spread, and potentially high-volume activities
(Kinley 2003). Non-motorized commercial activities (e.g., ski-touring, hiking, mountain biking)
may have less disturbance impacts on caribou; although evidence is scarce with respects to such
activities.
Non-commercial Recreation – The popularity of backcountry snowmobiling and ski-touring has
generally increased among the public in recent years. This trend may have become another factor in
the decline of caribou populations, although available evidence of long-term disturbance and/or
displacement of caribou is more anecdotal and qualitative rather than supported by quantitative
statistics.
Predation – Predation has been shown to be the main proximate cause of the recent decline of
caribou (Wittmer et al. 2005). However, it is unclear how various factors have interacted to lead to
predation rates that are sufficiently high to cause population declines. The predator-prey system
within and adjacent to mountain caribou habitat includes several ungulate and predator species and
is naturally complex and dynamic. Human-caused changes to this system have been equally
complex, including both changes to habitat conditions in and adjacent to caribou range, as well as
direct changes to predator and prey populations through hunting management.
Human-Caused Mortality – Human-related factors known to cause direct caribou mortality include
accidental hunting (legal hunting was stopped province-wide in 1998), poaching, and road kill.
Historically, mountain caribou were likely over-hunted (SaRCO 2005).
Population Size and Isolation – Some mountain caribou subpopulations (e.g., South Selkirks, South
Purcells, Monashee) are so small (< 50 animals) and/or isolated from the larger metapopulation (by
large distances or semi-permeable barriers such as highways and hydro-electric reservoirs) that their
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 10
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
viability is now threatened by factors such as population isolation, loss of genetic variability and
stochastic events.
Other threats which are more difficult to predict and quantify include climate change (e.g., less or
more variable snow pack in caribou winter range), wildfires (which may become more catastrophic
as systematic fire suppression increases fuel loads across the landscape), and insect (e.g., bark
beetle) epidemics. While such stressors may negatively affect caribou over time, it is forest
harvesting that is currently of particular concern because it affects habitat suitability both directly
through removal and fragmentation of late-seral forests (including timber salvage operations) and
indirectly through facilitating increased predation and human-caused disturbance.
In summary, the factors associated with the threats to the subpopulations’ habitat, as described by
SaRCO (2005), are:
Demography
 Subpopulation size (probability of extirpation due to stochastic events, genetic
factors, etc.)
 Isolation (due to distances) from other subpopulations
Habitat (Direct)
 Winter forage (arboreal lichen) availability
 Non-winter forage availability
 Calving areas availability
Habitat (Indirect)




Extent of range (for predator avoidance)
Fragmentation (reduced range effectiveness)
Isolation (due to poor habitat) from other subpopulations
Suitability for alternative prey within and near caribou range
Predation (Direct)
 Predator species and density within ranges that overlap caribou
Predation (Indirect)
 Alternate prey densities within and adjacent to caribou range
Disturbance (Direct)
 Human-caused mortalities (collisions, poaching)
Disturbance (Indirect)
 Displacement from preferred habitats by commercial tenured recreation (heliskiing, snowcats, snowmobiles)
 Displacement from preferred habitats by recreationists (principally snowmobiles
but also expanding summer activities such as heli-hiking/biking and high-elevation
all-terrain vehicle use)
These factors pose varying degrees of potential risk to the viability of subpopulations and have
different ease of mitigation associated with them. How they relate to the establishment of UWRs
and WHAs is discussed below.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 11
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Habitat Management & Recovery Planning
Habitat management – Prior to recovery planning, mountain caribou habitat was managed primarily
through the provincial laws and regulations, policies, and guidelines set by government. Caribou
habitat mapping and management objectives have been implemented via regional Land & Resource
Management Plans and Land Use Plans and primarily involved maintaining networks of “core
areas” (areas of no timber harvest to maintain arboreal lichens and limit access), “caribou
management emphasis” and/or “buffer zones” around core areas, including areas of selection
logging and extended rotations, and sometimes “linkages” or movement corridors between core
areas. In some cases, caribou habitat management prescriptions included a high-elevation noharvest zone, which, in most areas, corresponded approximately to the forest harvesting
“operability line” (Simpson et al. 1997).
Recovery Planning – Following the 2002 COSEWIC designation of “threatened” status for the
woodland caribou in the Southern Mountains National Ecological Area, a strategy for the recovery
of mountain caribou was released by the Province (MCTAC 2002). Several local recovery
action/implementation groups were also established in the South Kootenay, North Kootenay, and
Cariboo and Hart Mountains (see above). These planning efforts coincided with significant declines
in the southernmost mountain caribou populations. Subsequently, the Forest Practices Board of BC
released a special report in September 2004 emphasizing the urgent need to launch into a concerted
recovery initiative, to prevent further declines of mountain caribou populations (Forest Practice
Board 2004). One consequence of this report was the establishment of the BC Species at Risk
Coordination Office and the subsequent provincially-led recovery planning effort.
Statutory Authority
Higher Level Plans (HLPs) are government-approved regional plans that contain legislated
requirements for management of specific resource values, such as mountain caribou. The caribou
component of these plans are the negotiated result of public process.
Land Use Plans (LUPs) are strategic regional planning tools that set broad objectives for different
zones with respect to habitat protection and management as well as resource development options.
Some LUPs contain spatially-explicit objectives while others are qualitative and as yet non-spatial.
Approved LUPs take precedence over other resource objectives. Not all current LUPs have been
approved as Higher Level Plans and therefore do not contain legislated requirements.
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) are sub-regional integrated resource plans,
designed to create a vision for use and management of public provincial lands and resources.
LRMPs also contain spatially-explicit, broad land use zones, objectives that guide management of
natural resources in each zone, and strategies for achieving the objectives. Most provisions in
LRMPs are not legislated requirements but rather policy direction.
Several LUPs and LRMPs exist that include objectives and management prescriptions for mountain
caribou (Table 1). While the general approach is similar among regions, the plans differ with
respect to their stage of completion and official approval. Those management directions that have
legal status within Higher Level Plans maintain this status under FRPA while policy directions and
guidelines are to be considered in Forest Stewardship Plans, at which time they become legal
requirements.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 12
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Table 1. Current approaches to mountain caribou habitat management under established
Land Use Plans and Land & Resource Management Plans (based on Cichowski et al.
2004).
LUP/LRMP
Approach
Cariboo-Chilcotin
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped.
Kootenay-Boundary
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped.
Prince George
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped (but
no-harvest zones may become available for modified harvest, pending
results in areas now designated for modified harvest).
Robson Valley
No-harvest and modified-harvest zones, each of which is mapped (but
no-harvest zones may become available for modified harvest, pending
results in areas now designated for modified harvest).
Kamloops
Similar to Kootenay/Boundary but based on the retention of old-growth
attributes, not old-growth forests per se, and partial cutting is preferred
but not required in non-reserve areas.
Okanagan-Shuswap
Identifies OGMAs to be maintained as reserves and also identifies
research areas, which may later become reserves, conventional harvest
areas, or modified-harvest areas, pending research results.
Revelstoke
No harvest zones and modified harvest zones, each of which is mapped
but not approved.
Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) – Under Section 149 of the FRPA, the Lieutenant
Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing objectives for a number of resource values
(e.g., wildlife). Under Section 149.1, the Lieutenant Governor may make regulations authorizing
the Minister of Environment to establish UWR and WHA objectives and GWM applied thereto.
Forest Planning and Practices Regulations (FPPR) – Under Section 7 of the FPPR, a Notice can be
issued by government that require the Holder of a Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) to develop and
incorporate into their FSP specific measurable or verifiable operational Results (i.e., outcomes) or
Strategies (i.e., practices) for management of amount and distribution of habitat required for a
specified ungulate winter range or species at risk. Specific habitat requirements and habitat areas
are part of the Notice itself, and often accompanied by reference to the IWMS or additional
supporting information provided by the Ministry of Environment. Section 7 Notices are not issued
in areas where caribou management falls under approved HLPs and eligibility for FSP Holder
exemptions may occur through the establishment of a WHA, GWM, and/or WHF.
Government Actions Regulation (GAR) – Under Section 10(1) of the GAR, the minister responsible
for the Wildlife Act may establish by order an area as a WHA and set objectives for species at risk
or regionally important wildlife. The minister may also identify a localized WHF to which special
forest or range management practices are applied that have not been otherwise provided for under
GAR or another enactment.
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy – The IWMS is an initiative by the Ministry of
Environment in partnership with the Ministry of Forests that provides direction, policy, procedures
and guidelines for managing Identified Wildlife. The goals of the IWMS are to minimize the effects
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 13
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
of forest and range practices on Identified Wildlife found on Crown land and to maintain their
limiting habitats throughout their current ranges and, where appropriate, their historic ranges. In
some cases, this will require restoration of previously occupied habitats, particularly for those
species most at risk. Identified Wildlife are managed through the establishment of Wildlife Habitat
Areas and the implementation of General Wildlife Measures (GWMs) and Wildlife Habitat Area
objectives, or through other management practices specified in strategic or landscape level plans
(Ministry of Environment 2006b).
The term Identified Wildlife refers to those Species at Risk and Regionally Important Wildlife that
the Minister of Environment designates as requiring special management attention under FRPA.
Species at Risk includes endangered, threatened, or vulnerable species of vertebrates and
invertebrates, and endangered or threatened plants and plant communities that are negatively
affected by forest or range management on Crown land and are not adequately protected by other
mechanisms. Regionally Important Wildlife includes species that are considered important to a
region of British Columbia, rely on habitats that are not otherwise protected under FRPA and may
be adversely impacted by forest or range practices.
Statutory authority for the IWMS is provided under provisions of the Forest Practices Code of
British Columbia Act and Regulations and under the Forest Range and Practices Act and
Regulations. Two companion documents address the management of Identified Wildlife: (i)
Procedures for Managing Identified Wildlife describe the procedures for establishing, modifying or
rescinding a WHA, and for implementing strategic and landscape planning recommendations and
(ii) Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife summarizes the life history,
distribution, habitat and status of Identified Wildlife, including specific habitat management
guidelines. Implementation of the IWMS, including establishment of WHAs and GWMs, must be
consistent with existing higher-level plans or sustainable resource management plans and within
policy limits for timber supply impacts.
In summary, the types of legislated measures that currently exist in BC to protect and manage
mountain caribou habitat are: Ungulate Winter Ranges, Wildlife Habitat Areas, and some parts of
regional Land Use Plans and Land & Resource Management Plans. In addition (but de-emphasized
in this monitoring framework) are provisions under the provincial Wildlife Act that allow for
vehicular access and area closures in important wildlife habitats and, through a recent amendment,
designations of a “residence” for a species-at-risk.
Ungulate Winter Ranges
UWR management has been ongoing for over 20 years in some portions of the province. Formal
legal establishment of UWRs and associated objectives began under the Forest Practices Code and
continues under FRPA. An UWR is defined as an “area that contains habitat that is necessary to
meet the winter habitat requirements of an ungulate species”. UWRs are based on our current
understanding of ungulate winter habitat requirements, as interpreted by the Ministry of
Environment (MOE) regional staff from current scientific and management literature, local
knowledge, and other local expertise. Sections 7, 10 and 11 of the Government Actions Regulation
(BC Reg. 17/04) of the FRPA describe the formal legislative basis for establishing UWR” (Ministry
of Environment 2006a).
Currently, two approved mountain caribou UWR have been established for the Hart Ranges
subpopulation (Appendix 2; http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/uwr/ungulate_app.html): Omineca
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 14
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Region UWR ID U-7-001 (Kennedy Siding; Mackenzie Forest District) and UWR ID U-7-003
(Omineca; Fort St. James, Prince George, and Headwaters Forest Districts), which are 2,893 ha and
803,306 ha in size, respectively. Both of these UWR were established in 2003.
The management objectives for U-7-001 are:

prevention or avoidance of predation,

maintenance of habitat conditions,

minimization of disturbance to caribou and their food resources,

access management, and

reduction or prevention of conflicts between caribou and livestock.
The management objectives for U-7-003 are:

maintenance of caribou habitat corridors,

maintenance of old forests that provide arboreal lichens in high suitability habitat, and

maintenance of habitat values in medium suitability habitat.
The intention of establishing UWR is to provide suitable habitat for ungulates during the season
most demanding on the animals’ physical condition. While the elevation of suitable winter range
does not differ much during winter seasons for most ungulates, there may be considerable
differences between early and late winter ranges for mountain caribou. During early winter, caribou
often descend to lower elevation ICH and ICH/ESSF transition forests in response to deep, soft
snow conditions at higher elevations that create poor mobility and limit food availability. The
animals will remain at lower elevations, often in close proximity to other winter ungulates and their
predators, until snow depths accumulate and consolidate sufficiently to enable the animals to reascend to late-winter upper ESSF and ATp forested parkland habitats. The late winter habitat only
becomes usable when the appropriate snow conditions allow the animals to walk on the snow
surface and be lifted by the snow to reach the arboreal lichen food found only above the snowline
on trees. Differences in elevation may span several hundred meters between November and March,
usually between 1500 and 2000 m in the Cariboo Region (CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee
2000 and references therein). These elevation shifts may differ among individuals, herds, and years,
and primarily depend on the topography of their range and snow conditions and associated ease of
movement and access to food (Seip 1990, Young and Roorda 2000). Effective UWR design for
mountain caribou have to take such regional differences into account.
Wildlife Habitat Areas
Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) are a component of the provincial IWMS and WHAs and WHA
objectives can be established under regulations provided under FRPA and GAR. The document
titled Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife (Ministry of Environment 2004)
contains an account for mountain caribou where the goal for WHAs and proposed GWMs are
outlined. In some cases, because WHAs are being used to implement the intent of LUPs and
LRMPs, the design and GWMs established for the WHAs may not necessarily reflect those outlined
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 15
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
in the species account; rather, they may reflect language consistent with the direction of the LRMP
or LUP. In all cases, the resulting protection should be the same (Jeff Hoyt, pers. comm.).
Currently, 30 approved mountain caribou WHAs (WHAs #5-088 to 5-117) exist in BC (Appendix
3). These were established for the Wells Gray North, Wells Gray South, North Cariboo Mountains,
and Barkerville subpopulations (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cgibin/apps/faw/wharesult.cgi?search=show_approved) and range from 51 – 62,669 ha in size. These
WHAs were established in 2004 and the associated GWMs were established in 2005.
The purpose of these GWMs is to maintain caribou habitat values within the polygons specified in
the Order (Section 9(2) of the Government Actions Regulation (B.C. Reg. 582/2004), consistent
with the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan. The two main measures are (i) No Harvest in WHAs #
5-096 to 5-101, 5-106 to 5-108, 5-110, and 5-117 and (ii) Modified Harvest in WHAs 5-088 to 5095, 5-102 to 5-105, 5-109, 5-111 to 5-116.
In the case of WHAs #5-088 to 5-117, the GWMs are not independent of the Cariboo-Chilcotin
Land Use Plan, which called for an integrated approach to caribou habitat management with
consideration of CCLUP timber targets, among other objectives (CCLUP Caribou Strategy
Committee 2000 Appendix 1). The CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee recognized that mountain
caribou habitat and subpopulations can only be maintained if (i) suitable habitat is maintained
within the populations range, (ii) road access and motorized recreation in caribou habitat is limited
and regulated, and (iii) predation levels on caribou are managed. The Committee recommended a
combination of “no harvest” and consolidated “modified harvest” areas and that the resulting large
area of “modified harvest” between Cariboo Mountains Park and Quesnel Lake would “serve as the
major test area to insure the ‘modified harvest’ prescription provides caribou habitat over the long
term.” The confounding factor of motorized recreation was to be carefully regulated or eliminated,
to ensure the potential success of this test. The methods recommended for the “modified harvest”
areas was a combination of group and single-tree selection silvicultural system, with 33% timber
removal every 80 years (CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000). The linked objectives of the
CCLUP and the WHAs will need to be reflected in an effectiveness monitoring plan for these
habitat management measures.
With respect to management objectives in general, the principal difference between UWR and
WHA is that the concern for UWR is limited to habitat conditions on winter range while that of the
WHA addresses all life history requirements of the target species. Management prescriptions
however do not differ much between the two management tools: both range from prohibiting
further approval of harvesting and road building to modified harvesting prescriptions that include
specifications of volume or area removal, rotation length, limits on opening sizes and patterns,
forest health provisions and access limitations, among others. Although UWR is intended to address
only habitat required for the winter survival of ungulates, the Omineca UWR 7-003 aside from
winter range, includes caribou movement corridors, calving and rutting areas, and the forest matrix
surrounding these habitat features. This is largely because the UWR was to capture the intent of the
regional LRMP, which did not distinguish between winter habitat and other required habitat
components. General Wildlife Measures currently apply to WHAs and the Ministry of Environment
intends to replace objectives that were established for UWRs with GWMs in the near future (Jeff
Hoyt, pers. comm.). The same sets of effectiveness monitoring questions and indicators can
therefore be used for both types of habitat protection tools (see below).
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 16
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Relationship between FRPA / Higher Level Plan Habitat
Management Tools & Recovery Planning / Implementation for
Species at Risk
Land management tools (UWR, WHA, GWM, WHF and HLP/LUP/LRMP objectives and forest
management guidelines/strategies) available under the Forest Practices Code, FRPA, FPPR, GAR,
approved HLPs, and the BC Land Act and Wildlife Act will likely be the primary tools by which
recovery for mountain caribou will be implemented (Jeff Hoyt, Wayne Erickson, pers. comm.).
Should government determine that these tools are not adequate to meet recovery goals and
objectives for mountain caribou, then government could choose to alter policy and replace or
amend regulations, accordingly.
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Forest Management
for Mountain Caribou
How does effectiveness monitoring fit into the current situation of habitat management for
mountain caribou? - The fact that most caribou subpopulations have been declining under current
planning and management initiatives may be due, to some extent, to demographic factors and
stressors not directly related to habitat management necessitates a two-pronged effectiveness
monitoring approach that addresses: (i) the direct consequences of the prescribed forest practices
with respect to landscape and stand composition, structure and function, and, (ii) the indirect
consequences of the prescribed forest practices with respect to increased predation and humanrelated activity in the backcountry. In addition, the forthcoming mountain caribou recovery options
and management actions may change the caribou habitat management regime, which could
potentially confound the effects of the current set of FRPA and HLP-based management practices.
The effectiveness monitoring indicators, described below are therefore preliminary and should be
adjusted as caribou habitat management under different policy tools becomes more integrated.
Key Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
The following are key monitoring questions related to assessing the effectiveness of Ungulate
Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou under FRPA. We focus
on UWRs and WHAs as these are the most relevant management tools under FRPA.
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
1. Does the UWR/WHA provide the essential forest habitat structure and habitat
elements for which it was established?
2. Is the UWR/WHA receiving sustained use by mountain caribou?
3. Are predation events occurring within the UWR/WHA?
4. Are human-related activities affecting use of the UWR/WHA by mountain caribou?
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 17
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Medium Scale (Mountain Caribou Subpopulation Level)
5. Is the distribution and abundance of individual UWR/WHA units in relation to
other areas (e.g., protected areas, higher-level plan habitat objectives/practices)
sufficient to sustain the amount and distribution of habitat for identified
subpopulations of mountain caribou?
6. Are there barriers outside of the UWR/WHA that prevent or reduce use of
WHA/UWR by caribou?
Large Scale (Mountain Caribou Population)
7. Is the amount and distribution of UWR/WHA units in relation to other managed
and unmanaged areas sufficient to allow regular movement of individuals between
subpopulations, thereby ensuring the health of the meta-population?
Effectiveness Indicators
Indicators can measure the function (e.g., snow depth, forage accessibility), forest stand structure
(e.g., forest canopy characteristics) or caribou use (e.g., direct inventory) of Ungulate Winter
Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas. Indicators should be/have:

Focused on specific evaluation question;

Supported by scientific research and literature and/or peer reviewed;

Available baseline data;

Measurable (accuracy and precision);

Cost-effective to monitor; and

Sensitive to forest and range management or stressor change.
Different indicators require different levels of resources to measure and monitor. Indicators can be
broadly classified as:

Routine: Generally measured through office procedures involving available data collected
for other purposes (e.g., map interpretation);

Extensive: Requires low-intensity qualitative or quantitative field assessments (e.g.,
wildfire assessments, habitat supply evaluation, forest structural conditions); and,

Intensive: Requires detailed, quantitative fieldwork (e.g., population inventory, habitat
attributes and elements).
Assessing the effectiveness of forest habitat management at medium and large spatial scales
requires evaluation in relation to broad management objectives:

Population maintenance: Maintain the current habitat occupancy (medium scale) and
abundance and distribution (large scale) of mountain caribou. Use currently occupied
habitat and indices of abundance as the basis for defining desired forest habitat conditions.
Note however that it will be difficult to relate abundance and distribution of caribou
directly to the extent and condition of habitat as potentially confounding factors such as
predation, displacement by humans, or stochastic events could mask any inferred causal
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 18
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
relationships. Controlled management regimes such as in the indended Cariboo Mountains
Park - Quesnel Lake test area (CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee 2000) will be required
to minimize non-forestry related factors.

Population recovery: Increase rates of occupancy of suitable habitat and increase the
abundance and possibly the regional distribution of mountain caribou. Use habitat
capability and recovery objectives related to abundance and distribution as the basis for
defining desired forest habitat conditions.
Considering the current declining population trends, we anticipate that population recovery
objectives will be emphasized in future management approaches.
Recommended indicators and general methodological considerations are presented in Tables 2 and
3, respectively. Considerable differences exist in the amount of time and resources required to
monitor these indicators and in the strength and conclusiveness of evidence they may provide
related to the effectiveness of habitat management. As a result, adaptive management based on
monitoring outcomes will require an assessment of general trends among a number of indicators,
rather than on definitive cause-and-effect studies. Because the system is complex, professional
judgement will be required to interpret ambivalent or contradictory evidence.
Table 2. Recommended indicators by level of intensity, desired conditions and
monitoring frequency for assessing the effectiveness of Ungulate Winter Ranges and
Wildlife Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou in BC.
Minimum
Level of
Desired
Monitoring
Indicator
Intensity
Condition/Result
Frequency
Rationale and Comments
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
Forest cover
Extensive Forest habitat
Every 3-5
Aerial and ground-based
characteristics
characteristics
years
assessments are required to
consistent with
assess results of any allowable
UWR/WHA
harvest, blow-down, and forest
objectives (will
health treatments. For
vary depending on
comparative purposes, monitor
geographic area).
both ‘no-harvest’ and ‘modified
harvest’ areas consistently.
Could be combined with
‘evidence of use’ surveys.
Forage
Extensive Abundant and
Every 3-5
Requires qualitative ground
availability
available arboreal
years
assessments. Forage availability
forage and litterfall
is influenced by a variety of site
characteristics (e.g., tree species,
stand age, disturbance agents,
forest canopy characteristics,
slope and aspect, snowfall
regime). Quantitative forage
assessments could also be
considered.
Evidence of
Extensive tracks, direct
Every 2-3
Requires aerial (winter) and
sustained use by
observations
years
ground (altered forest stands)
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 19
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Indicator
caribou
Predation rates
Level of
Intensity
Desired
Condition/Result
Intensive
Rates sufficiently
low to ensure
positive population
growth rate
(lambda)
Low occurrence of
primary prey in
caribou habitat
Motorized
recreation
sufficiently low to
prevent disturbance
and displacement of
caribou
Exchange of
caribou between
subpopulations
Primary prey
population levels
Extensive
Motorized
Recreation
Extensive
Movement
patterns
Intensive
Version 1.1
Minimum
Monitoring
Frequency
In cooperation
with research
efforts
Annually
Annually
In cooperation
with research
efforts
Medium Scale (Mountain Caribou Subpopulation Level)
Landscape
Routine
Stable or decreasing Every 5 years
characteristics
indices of habitat
alteration and
fragmentation
Road density
Routine
No net increase or
Annually
decrease in road
access to caribou
habitats
Large Scale (Mountain Caribou Population Level)
Proportion of area
Routine
All suitable winter
in established
ranges and other
UWR/WHA and
important habitats
other protected
are under
areas relative to
management
available suitable
winter range and
other seasonal
habitats
(Sub)population
levels
Intensive
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Overall positive
meta and subpopulation trend
Once when
winter ranges
and WHAs
are being
legally
established
Annually
July 2006
Rationale and Comments
surveys.
Predation rates can only be
determined with confidence
through intensive monitoring of
radio-collard individuals.
Requires aerial surveys.
Recommended by CCLUP
Caribou Strategy.
Requires regular aerial surveys
or other assessment methods.
High levels of compliance with
regulations may require
enforcement. Consider both
winter and summer surveys.
Tracking of radio-collared
individuals.
Habitat continuity, isolation, and
fragmentation can be tracked and
mapped through GIS.
The amount of usable access
roads can be tracked and mapped
through GIS.
Also track amount of road area
(km) rehabilitated.
Additional habitat will be
required if population recovery
rather than maintenance is an
objective. In some areas, critical
habitats are also found outside
the Crown Forest Land Base on
private land. Its contribution and
security should be considered in
the examination of this indicator.
Comparison of both suitable and
capable habitats for all seasons
would be valuable.
Involves a sufficient number of
census flights to meet
appropriate confidence levels in
(sub)population estimates.
Page 20
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Table 3. General methodological considerations for monitoring effectiveness indicators
of Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas established for mountain caribou
in BC.
Indicator
General Methodological Considerations
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
Forest cover
GIS office procedures
characteristics
Forage
RISC standard habitat plots and Lichen Handbook (Armleder et al. 1992)
availability
Evidence of
RISC standard wildlife inventory
sustained use by
caribou
Predation events
Incidental
Motorized
Aerial surveys, questionnaires. No standard methods are available to assess
Recreation
snowmobiling intensity, and accurately quantifying use spatially and temporally can
be difficult. Current methods are restricted to periodic aerial surveys or questioning
the public on their frequency of use of different areas.
Predator and
RISC standard wildlife inventory
alternate prey
populations
Medium Scale (Watershed or Management Unit)
Movement patters GPS telemetry
Road density
GIS office procedures
Large Scale (Subregional or Regional Populations)
Proportion of area GIS office procedures
in established
UWR/WHA
relative to
available
suitable/capable
habitats
(Sub)population
RISC standard wildlife inventory
levels
Calf survival
RISC standard wildlife inventory
Knowledge Gaps
While mountain caribou have become a much-studied wildlife species in BC, many knowledge
gaps remain due to the complex interrelations of ecological factors and stressors. Many knowledge
gaps related to the key monitoring questions are best addressed through adaptive management trials
(Table 2). Filling some of the knowledge gaps may require long-term research or intensive
monitoring projects.
Table 4. Knowledge gaps related to mountain caribou ecology and relevant to the key
effectiveness monitoring questions.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 21
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Monitoring Question
Version 1.1
July 2006
Knowledge Gaps
Small Scale (Individual Ungulate Winter Ranges and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
Does the UWR/WHA provide the habitat structure
and elements required to fulfil the life requisites of
wintering mountain caribou?
- While essential habitat elements such as lichen and
favourable forest structural conditions may be
retained in selectively harvested stands, it is unclear
how these stands affect caribou foraging efficiency
and use.
Is the UWR/WHA receiving sustained use by
mountain caribou?
- none
Are predation events occurring within the
UWR/WHA?
- When predation occurs, the question remains
whether altered caribou behaviour (e.g., increased
movements into less suitable areas due to
disturbance) or habitat changes (e.g., early-seral
patches in caribou habitats attracting alternate prey
and predators) are responsible for undesired
predation rates.
Is human-related disturbance affecting use of the
UWR/WHA?
- While evidence suggests that snowmobiles and
helicopters can result in short-term changes to
caribou behaviour, the magnitude of longer-term
behavioural changes by caribou (e.g., permanent or
semi-permanent range displacements, demographic
effects) is less clear. Questions also remain
regarding the impacts of snow-cat operations and
non-motorized backcountry recreation, and the role
of disturbance factors during non-winter seasons.
Medium Scale (Watershed or Management Unit)
Are caribou using the UWR/WHA identified as
habitat corridors?
- Since portions of established caribou corridors are
part of managed landscapes, it is questionable
whether caribou realize adequate foraging
efficiencies and survival rates within these corridors.
The combination of population censuses, groundbased track/use surveys and mortality assessments
would increase knowledge of the effectiveness of
corridors.
Are caribou mixing among the regional subpopulations and is the health of the meta-population
ensured?
- Ultimately, isolation of herds or individual groups
within a herd has to be eliminated and mixing of
genes among subpopulations needs to occur to
recover caribou populations. Documented mixing of
herds would increase confidence that subpopulations
are part of metapopulation dynamics.
Are there barriers outside of the UWR/WHA that
prevent or reduce the potential use of the
UWR/WHA?
- Analyses of the landscape surrounding
UWR/WHA with respect to habitat suitability and
barriers such as terrain ruggedness, roads, hydro,
seismic or gas line corridors, and water reservoirs is
needed to address the factors facilitating or
preventing habitat use.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 22
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Monitoring Question
Knowledge Gaps
Is the distribution and abundance of individual
UWR/WHA units established for mountain caribou
sufficient to ensure over-winter survival in typical
and severe winters?
- Relationship between habitat fragmentation and
habitat effectiveness is poorly characterized.
- How much of the landscape can be managed under
‘modified harvest’ without negatively affecting
caribou is currently unknown.
- Questions remain regarding the influence of snow
conditions on seasonal elevation shifts of herds
(CCPLU Caribou Strategy Committee 2000).
Is the location of individual UWR/WHA units
established for mountain caribou adequate to ensure
successful calving events?
- Surveys are required to locate a maximum of
calving areas. Current calf survival rates need to be
established. Additional measures to protect calving
females are considered as part of recovery
implementation (SaRCO 2005); any such new
measures have to be considered in evaluating the
effectiveness of UWR/WHA units.
Has access management resulted in no-change or
reduction of road densities in the UWR/WHA?
- none
Large Scale (Subregional or Regional Populations)
Is the distribution and abundance of UWR/WHA
established for mountain caribou sufficient to
sustain/recover the regional subpopulations and
meta-population?
- Critical habitat identification and habitat
suitability, population viability and other analyses
are ongoing as part of recovery planning and need to
be integrated with UWR and WHA management.
Recommendations
1. The management objective of the UWRs is to maintain the caribou within the identified
UWRs. Similarly, the expressed purpose of the General Wildlife Measures is to “maintain
caribou habitat values within the polygons specified in the Order …” (Order – General
Wildlife Measures; Wildlife Habitat Areas #5-088 to 5-117). However, the caribou
subpopulations currently existing in BC are endangered and have shown dramatic recent
declines in numbers. Some are considered to be below viable population size and require
immediate recovery actions (SaRCO 2005). The management objectives, as described in
the UWR and WHA orders, may not be sufficient on their own to maintain mountain
caribou within the identified polygons. A comprehensive effectiveness monitoring program
for caribou habitat management needs to address the broader context of FRPA-related
management actions in relation to mountain caribou recovery planning and higher-level
plan objectives.
2. We recommend an approach be developed that creates a clear distinction in the goals and
objectives related to mountain caribou UWRs and WHAs and those of negotiated land use
or resource management plans. We recommend a system which addresses all mountain
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 23
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
caribou life requisites, including winter range requirements. Re-evaluating the concept of
UWR for mountain caribou may be appropriate because (i) early and late winter range
requirements may differ considerably among areas (depending on topography) and years
(depending on snow conditions) and (ii) winter range requirements for caribou are different
form those of the other ungulates.
3. Monitoring the effectiveness of UWR and WHA management for mountain caribou should
involve the following components:

Establishing subpopulation (recovery) targets through SaRCO, HLPs, or REP
measures against predetermined baselines;

Implementing procedures to collect, warehouse and analyze routine indicator data;

Allocating resources to collect extensive indicator data in areas of greatest
management concern; and,

Collaborating with other agencies and researchers to collect intensive indicator data
and to address knowledge gaps.
Literature Cited
Armleder, H.M., S.K. Sevenson, and S.D. Walker. 1992. Estimating the abundance of arboreal
lichens. Land Management Handbook Field Guide Insert 7. BC Ministry of Forests Research
Program, Victoria, B.C.
Bergerud, A.T., H.E. Butler, and D.R. Miller. 1984. Antipredator tactics of calving caribou:
dispersion in mountains. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62:1566-1575.
CCLUP Caribou Strategy Committee. 2000. Mountain Caribou Strategy. Cariboo Mid-Coast InterAgency Management Committee. Williams Lake, B.C.
Cichowski, D., T. Kinley and B. Churchill. 2004. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified
Wildlife (Caribou). Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C.
Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'Neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and
seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can. J. Zool.
80: 839–845.
Erickson, W. R., K. Paige, R. Thompson, L. Blight. 2005. Effectiveness evaluation for wildlife in
British Columbia under the Forest and Range Practices Act (Draft). Ministry of Forests and
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C.
Forest Practices Board. 2004. BC’s Mountain Caribou: Last Chance for Conservation? Special
Report. Forest Practices Board, Victoria, B.C.
Goward, T. 1998. Observations on the ecology of the lichen genus Bryoria in high elevation conifer
forests. Canadian Field Naturalist 112.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson, C. Steeger, R. Serrouya, and B. Herbison. 2003. Recovery Action Plan
for the North Kootenay Mountain Caribou Populations. Prepared for Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 24
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Hart and Cariboo Mountains Recovery Implementation Group. 2004. Recovery implementation
plan for threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Hart and Cariboo
Mountains Recovery Area, British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Prince George.
James, A.R.D. and K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in Relation to Linear
Corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1): 154-159.
Kinley, T. 2003. Snowmobile – Mountain Caribou Interactions: A Summary of Perceptions and an
Analysis of Trends in Caribou Distribution. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection, Victoria.
Kinley, T.A. and C.D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain
caribou. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:158–164.
Ministry of Environment 2006a. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/uwr/index.html. Accessed
March 22, 2006.
Ministry of Environment. 2006b. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/identified/index.html.
Accessed March 22, 2006.
Ministry of Forests & Range. 2006. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/2_biodiversity.html.
Accessed March 22, 2006.
MCTAC (Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee) 2002. A Strategy for the Recovery of
Mountain Caribou in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria,
B.C.
Powell T., T. Jung, M. Festa-Bianchet. 2004. Behavioural Response of Woodland Caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) to Snowmobile Disturbance in an Alpine Environment. MSc
Thesis Faculté des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke.
Province of British Columbia 2004. FRPA Resource Evaluation Program–Wildlife. Evaluation
concepts and terminology. The FRPA Evaluator. Technical note #2. Ministry of Forests,
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.
Victoria, B.C
SaRCO (Species at Risk Coordinatin Office) 2005. Mountain Caribou Situation Analysis. Ministry
of Agriculture, Integrated Land Management Agency, Victoria, B.C.
Seip, D.R. 1990. Ecology of woodland caribou in Wells Gray Provincial Park. BC Ministry of
Environment. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-68. 43 pp.
Seip, D.R. 1992. Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with
wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:14941503.
Seip, D.R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer
Spec. Issue No. 9:73–80.
Simpson, K., E. Terry and D. Hamilton, 1997. Towards a mountain caribou management strategy
for British Columbia – habitat requirements and subpopulation status. Wildlife Working Report
No. WR-90. MELP, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C.
Simpson, K., and E. Terry. 2000. Impacts of Backcountry Recreation Activities on Mountain
Caribou. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-99. 12pp.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 25
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Steeger, C., S. F. Wilson, T. Kinley and D.Hamilton. 2003. Recovery Action Plan for the South
Purcells and South Selkirks Mountain Caribou Populations. Prepared for Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C.
Thomas, D.C., and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou
Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the
Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-98 pp.
Wilson, S.F. and D. Hamilton. 2003. Cumulative Effects of Habitat Change and Backcountry
Recreation on Mountain Caribou in the Central Selkirk Mountains. Prepared for BC Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection, Pope and Talbot Ltd, and Canadian Mountain Holidays.
Wittmer, H.U., B. N. McLellan, D.R. Seip, J.A. Young, T.A. Kinley, G.S. Watts, and D. Hamilton.
Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 83: 407–418.
Young, J.A. and L.M. Roorda, 2000. Towards Integrated Management Solutions: The Quesnel
Highland Caribou Project (Radio-telemetry progress report, 1993 –1999). MELP, Williams
Lake, BC.
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Page 26
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Appendix 1. Approved Ungulate Winter Ranges for Mountain Caribou, as of March 31,
2006.
MOE
Region
UWR.ID
Species
Name TFL,
TSA,
District,
etc.
Forest District
SDM /DDM
Decision
date
(d/m/y)
Date of
Publication
in
BC Gazette
(d/m/y)
Date of
posting on
Website
(d/m/y)
Omineca
U-7-001
Mountain
Caribou
Omineca
U-7-003
Mountain
Caribou
Kennedy
Siding
Mackenzie
07/04/2003
30/10/2003
30/10/2003
FPC
Grandparented
2,893
PDF
(81.1KB)
FTP
Omineca
Prince George
/ Fort St.
James /
Headwaters
06/10/2003
20/11/2003
20/11/2003
FPC
Grandparented
803,306
PDF
(92.7KB)
FTP
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Date Order
takes Effect
(d/m/y)
Total Hectares
Amendment
Date (d/m/y)
Approved
Objectives
/ General
Wildlife
Measures
Approved Boundaries
Page 27
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
July 2006
Appendix 2. Approved Wildlife Habitat Areas for Mountain Caribou, as of March 31,
2006.
WHA
Number
Species
Forest District
Name
5-088
Mountain
Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-088
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-089
Mountain
Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-089
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-090
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-090
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-091
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-091
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-092
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-092
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-093
Mountain
Central
Caribou Cariboo/Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-093
Mountain
Central
Caribou Cariboo/Quesnel
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-094
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-094
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-095
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
SDM/DDM
Date of
Date of Date
Total
Mature
Decision Publication Posting Order Hectares THLB
Date
in BC
on
takes
Equival.
Gazette
Website Effect
(Ha)
767
29-Jul05
4073
29-Jul05
1765
29-Jul05
441
29-Jul05
525
29-Jul05
14880
29-Jul05
976
29-Jul05
600
Approved Approved
Orders / Boundaries
General
Wildlife
Measures
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
Page 28
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
5-095
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-096
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-096
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-097
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-097
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-098
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-098
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-099
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-099
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-100
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-100
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-101
Mountain
Caribou
Quesnel
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-101
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Quesnel
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-102
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-102
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-103
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-103
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-104
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
29-Jul05
820
29-Jul05
5773
29-Jul05
3275
29-Jul05
2558
29-Jul05
19584
29-Jul05
213
29-Jul05
1259
29-Jul05
727
29-Jul05
610
July 2006
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
Page 29
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
5-104
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-105
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-105
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-106
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-106
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-107
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-107
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-108
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-108
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-109
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-109
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-110
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-110
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-111
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-111
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-112
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-112
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-113
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
29-Jul05
170
29-Jul05
62669
29-Jul05
51
29-Jul05
749
29-Jul05
50125
29-Jul05
1261
29-Jul05
1629
29-Jul05
5075
29-Jul05
4428
July 2006
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
Page 30
Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Framework for Mountain Caribou
Version 1.1
5-113
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-114
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-114
Mountain Central Cariboo
Caribou
(GWM)
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-115
Mountain
Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-115
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-116
Mountain
Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-116
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
5-117
Mountain
Caribou
Chilcotin
13-Dec-04
23-Dec-04
23-Dec2304
Dec-04
5-117
Mountain
Caribou
(GWM)
Chilcotin
20-Jul-05
28-Jul-05
29-Jul05
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
29-Jul05
3567
29-Jul05
2726
29-Jul05
821
29-Jul05
29-Jul05
43224
July 2006
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
0
Order
(PDF)
FTP
Page 31