The voice for grasslands in British Columbia

BC GRASSLANDSMAGAZINE OF THE GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Spring 2006

FRAGMENTATIONAND DEVELOPMENTOF BCS GRASSLANDS

FRAGMENTATIONAND DEVELOPMENTOF BCS GRASSLANDS

BC GRASSLANDS

The DreamI recently received an e-mail message from Bruno Delesalle,regarding charitable donations, in which Eleanor Roosevelt wasquoted as saying,The future belongs to those who believe in thebeauty of their dreams.

It seems that everyone is having those dreams. In the May2005 issue of this magazine, our previous Chair, Maurice Hansen,wondered if he were just a dreamer to hope for a wide-spreadland conservation ethic for motor-powered recreationists bornfrom the energy that flows from and through the soils, plants andanimals. Maurice obviously believes that the purifying influenceof natural landscapes and pristine grasslands eventually speaksto all users of our grasslands. He further challenged all GCCmembers to introduce this dream until it bears fruit.

Personally, I am convinced that the GCC dream is bearingfruit. In only a short time since our inception (germination,Maurice?) we have achieved a great deal of success at bringingpeople together to achieve significant grassland conservation andstewardship goals:

We have completed a Provincial inventory of grasslands; We have prepared an analysis to mitigate the subdivision,

fragmentation and development of BCs grasslands; We have contributed to the Best Management Practices for

Commercial Recreation; We have partnered and helped to lead the coalition for licens-

ing and registration of off-road vehicles; and, We have contributed to the stewardship and sustainability of

working ranches, including the production of an easy-to-useGrassland Assessment Manual for BC ranchers.I believe that we have achieved this success primarily because

we are dreamers. Although most of us when awake are managers,or scientists, or bureaucrats, or technicians, or consultants, we alldream of a better and more secure future for our grasslands. Thisis why we belong to the GCC, and this is why we contribute ourenergy and our passion. Thad Box, in his Listening to the Landfeature in the February 2006 of Rangelands, suggested that howwe treat the land is largely determined by our understanding of

Planning for the Future The issues resulting from growth, development and fragmenta-tion are complex. The solutions are far from simple. The GCC istrying to ensure that BCs most rare and endangered grasslandhabitats are not fragmented, degraded or altogether lost due toincremental subdivision and development. The already dwin-dling native forage base is being erodeda forage base criticalto sustaining wildlife species and the ranching industry. Both theGCC and the BC Government are wrestling with these problems.

In the absence of a detailed inventory and classification sys-tem, grassland habitats throughout BC are being fragmented,degraded and lost. There is no full understanding of what hasbeen lost or what the long-term implications might be. Many ofthe provinces rare grassland communities are not represented inBCs protected area system. As an example, only 2.6 percent ofthe North Okanagan basin grasslands are represented in protect-ed areas or parks. Within the same basin, 58 percent of the grass-lands are privately owned presenting a very significant challengefor conservation and stewardship.

Much of BCs grassland is being lost to urban developmentand intensive agriculture. Acreage development and golf coursesare second and third respectively.

Without appropriate information, effective planning, partner-ships and collaboration between provincial, regional, local, andFirst Nations governments, grasslands will continue to be lost atan unsustainable rate.

As an example, I was recently informed of a proposal in theKootenays for development of a mine or quarry on crown land.The proposal was approved against professional and ministryadvice that suggested the proposal would negatively affect valuedgrassland, forage land and wildlife habitat. Not to mention that

the land was within the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is myunderstanding that concerns raised by agrologists and govern-ment staff over the potential loss of grasslands fell on deaf ears.

Ironically, over the past five years various groups have lobbiedgovernment to secure resources to restore grassland and range-land in the Columbia valley. A significant portion of the foragebase in the Kootenays has been lost to forest in-growth andencroachment, creating a significant problem for the ranchingindustry and for wildlife populations. Grasslands and forage are

Message from the ChairMichael Pitt

Message from the Executive DirectorBruno Delesalle

continued on page 33

continued on page 28

With 50 percent of BCs grasslands privately owned and landvalues of over $100,000 per acre, grasslands are underpressure

BC GRASSLANDS 1

BC GRASSLANDSMAGAZINE OF THE GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Spring 2006

In This Issue

FEATURES

4 Getting From A to B A Study in Fragmentation Ecology Cameron Carlyle

9 Sizing Up the Suburbs Don Gayton

14 The Agricultural Land Reserve: Sacred Cow or Cash Cow? Larry Pynn

PERSPECTIVES

7 The Real Price of Growth Darrell Smith

13 The Cost of Urban Sprawl George Will

18 Protecting Our Natural Heritage for Future Generations Sheila Harrington

21 A New Look at Conservation Planning Tools: The Green Infrastructure Model Bylaws Package Jan Kirkby

26 The South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program Rick McKelvey

OTHER

2 GCC Project Updates

11 Fauna: Western Rattlers + Development Sadie Cox

17 Flora: Big Sagebrush Wendy Gardner

20 Conservation Partner Profile: The South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program Rick McKelvey

23 Going, going... GCC Staff

25 Fauna: Yellow-Breasted Chat Dick Cannings

30 Members Corner: TRU Range Club Terri France and Morgan Rankin

The Grasslands Conservation Councilof British Columbia

Established as a society in August1999 and subsequently as aregistered charity on December 21,2001, the Grasslands ConservationCouncil of British Columbia (GCC) isa strategic alliance of organizationsand individuals, includinggovernment, range managementspecialists, ranchers, agrologists,grassland ecologists, First Nations,environmental groups, recreationistsand grassland enthusiasts. Thisdiverse group shares a commoncommitment to education,conservation and stewardship ofBritish Columbias grasslands.

The GCC Mission is to: Foster greater understanding and

appreciation for the ecological,social, economic and cultural impor-tance of grasslands throughout BC;

Promote stewardship andsustainable management practicesthat will ensure the long-term healthof BCs grasslands;

Promote the conservation ofrepresentative grassland ecosystems,species at risk and their habitats.

GCC Board of DirectorsEXECUTIVE

Michael Pitt, Pender IslandCHAIR

Michael Kennedy, LillooetVICE CHAIR

Maurice Hansen, KimberleyPAST CHAIR

Cindy Haddow, VictoriaINTERIM SECRETARY

Bill HenwoodTREASURER

Wendy Gardner, KamloopsDennis Lloyd, KamloopsMark Quaedvlieg, KeremeosOrdell Steen, Williams LakeDave Zirnhelt, Big Lake RanchBOARD

Art Anthony, ChaseBrad Arner, KamloopsBarry Booth, Prince GeorgeLeanne Colombo, CranbrookMike Duffy, 108 Mile RanchLauchlan Fraser, KamloopsKristi Iverson, Lac la Hache Ken MacKenzie, Lac la Hache Francis Njenga, KamloopsBob Peart, SidneyGreg Tegart, VernonDave Whiting, KamloopsHONORARY BOARD MEMBER

Bob Peart, SidneyEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Bruno Delesalle, Kamloops

2 BC GRASSLANDS

GCC Project Updates

BC Grasslands WebsiteOur website, www.bcgrasslands.org, is a greatplace to learn about the threatened grasslandlandscapes of British Columbia and the speciesthat depend upon them. You can find informa-tion on all GCC programs and projects, as well asupdates on other grassland conservation initia-tives around the province. The website alsoincludes Understanding Grasslands, an educa-

tional site focusing on grassland ecology.WhereAre BCs Grasslands, is an interactive mappingcomponent that was developed during the BCGrasslands Mapping Project. During the comingyears, the GCC will continue to build andimprove the site and incorporate new informa-tion, including regional grassland maps for theentire Province. The Priority GrasslandsInitiative including maps, data and associated

planning tools is now on-line.Fragmentation andDevelopment of BCGrasslands and a new page,ORV Management Strategyfocused on responsible recre-ation in BCs grasslands withbest management practicesfor motorized and non-motorized recreation is alsoavailable.

BC Grasslands MagazineAfter a hiatus, BC Grasslands magazine is back.BC Grasslands is a bi-annual publication intend-ed to provide a forum for discussion on grass-land ecology, range management, grassland con-servation, and grassland stewardship, while serv-ing as a platform for informing readers aboutGCC activities and other grassland programsfrom across BC, Canada, and the world. TheSpring 2006 issue is focused on the fragmenta-tion and development of BCs grasslands.Grasslands are under increasing pressure fromurban sprawl and the fragmentation of rurallandscapes. The subdivision of large tracts ofrangeland, along with the intensive altering ofnative grasslands through development, has ledto unprecedented losses. Complex factors rang-ing from environmental issues to socio-econom-ic pressures to entangled land use policies andregulations are driving this process, and thisissue of BC Grasslands will examine these driv-ing forces and begin to look for solutions.

Education and Outreach Program

Grassland Stewardship and Sustainable Ranching ProgramCoalition for Licensing andRegistration of Off-Road VehiclesAfter three years of incredible hard work, dedica-tion and collaboration, the Coalition forLicensing and Registration of Off-Road Vehicleshas reached the significant milestone of produc-ing 47 recommendations for the licensing, regis-tration and management of off-road vehicles(ORVs) in British Columbia. Working togetherwith the help of consultants Terje Vold andGeorge Sranko, the Coalition drafted the recom-mendations at a workshop in the fall of 2005,then fine-tuned the recommendations over thenext few months. Ultimately, ten of the elevengroups that form the ORV Coalition approved therecommendations, and all groups involvedendorsed the principle. The final document,Solutions for a Sustainable Future: FinalRecommendations for the Licensing, Registrationand Management of Off-Road Vehicles in BritishColumbia, was presented in January 2006 to aspecially formed provincial government ORVCommittee, which has representatives fromeleven ministries and agencies, including:Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts;Ministry of Environment; Ministry ofAgriculture and Lands; Ministry of Forest and

Range; Ministry of Transportation; Ministry ofSmall Business and Revenue; Ministry ofAttorney General; Ministry of Public Safety andSolicitor General; Insurance Corporation of BC;Conservation Officer Service; and the IntegratedLand Management Bureau. The FinalRecommendations encompass legislation, regis-tration, development of a trust fund, education,safety, trails, enforcement and conservation.These recommendations are available online atwww.orvcoalitionbc.org/8428.html. The govern-ments ORV Committee is currently reviewingthe recommendations, and plans to respond byJune 2006.

The deal, however, is notdone yet. The ORV Coalitionwill continue to work proac-tively with the government toensure the success of thisimportant initiative, but itneeds support from localorganizations and individualsto help these recommenda-tions become a reality. If youwould like to support thecoalitions recommendations,please download a

Memorandum of Support from the ORV website(www.orvcoalitionbc.org/36301.html), sign it,and fax or mail it back to the location providedon the form. This is a tremendous step towardsbetter ORV management in BC, and benefitsboth society and the environment in many ways.

Mitigating the Fragmentation andDevelopment of BCs GrasslandsThe GCC produced an extraordinary documentin 2005 that will set the path for grassland stew-ardship for the next several years. TheMitigating Fragmentation and Development of

continued on page 33

continued on page 32B

OB

SC

HE

ER

BC GRASSLANDS 3

Priority Grassland InitiativeOver the last year the Grassland ConservationCouncil of BC (GCC) has made great strides indeveloping an analytical and scientific assess-ment of grasslands in the province. This projectis known as the Priority Grassland Initiative. Themain objective of the initiative has been to devel-op a GIS analysis and techniques to identify pri-ority grasslands for conservation and steward-ship, as well as extension of this information toappropriate land use planners.

Working with a provincial technical advisorycommittee the GCC has developed a preliminaryPilot analysis over the Kamloops region. The goalof the Pilot is to develop methodologies thatidentify ecological significance of grasslands inrelation to threats they are facing and subse-quently use this information to determine priori-ty grasslands. This important pilot analysis stephas helped the initiative produce a process whichhas achievable results as well as developed amethodology that accomplishes the objectivesfor the project.Pilot Results Many important results have beenproduced to assess and map both ecological sig-nificance and threats to grasslands. More specifi-cally, ecological results include mapping ofspecies at risk habitat, locations of rare grasslandecosystems, regions where grasslands conserva-tion is not sufficient and critical habitat forungulates or waterfowl. On the opposing end ofthe spectrum, threats identified and spatiallymapped include risk of grasslands being usedfor acreage or urban development, risk of areasbeing converted to intensive agriculture, amountof grasslands lost to development over the last 15years and identification of recreation activitiesoccurring on grasslands.Future Steps As these methodologies are fur-ther developed and more analysis results becomeavailable, the pieces of the priority grasslandpuzzle continue to fall into place. Two key areasfor future refinement and improvement in thisprocess are species at risk locations and identifi-cation of their critical habitat, as well as deter-mining what constitutes a rare, scarce or goodcondition grassland ecosystem and where theseimportant grasslands are located.

With the experiences and methodologiesdeveloped from the pilot analysis, the PriorityGrassland Initiative is going to be in an excellentposition to keep moving forward. The Pilotanalysis is scheduled for completion in spring of2006 and will provide a final methodology that

can be used elsewhere in the province to deter-mine priority grasslands. Analysis and field workfor North Okanagan and the remainingThompson-Nicola region is scheduled for com-pletion in winter 2006.

The need for the priority grassland analysishas never been greater as more grassland is con-verted to housing developments, hobby farms orgolf courses every year. Some of these grasslands

envisioned for development in coming yearscould be priority grasslands. Having the infor-mation in place from this initiative will allow forbetter planning, conservation, stewardship andlong-term sustainability of grasslands in BritishColumbia.

For more information on the PriorityGrassland Initiative, contact Graham MacGregor,GIS Co-ordinator at (250) 371-5296

Conservation of Grassland Ecosystems Program

Grasslands in British Columbia

Call for ArtistsAs the GCC continues to grow, there is an ever-present need for

grassland artwork for our publications and communications

projects. Images can be drawings, photos or paintings of your

favourite grassland landscapes or species. For all you ranchers

out there, wed love to see some of your artwork portraying

working grassland landscapes. Please contact the GCC with your

offerings, ideas and inspiration at 250-374-5787 or

gcc@bcgrasslands.org.

4 BC GRASSLANDS

Pick a line between two points on a map of yourneighbourhood, the first point A, being your frontdoor and the second B, being some place outside oftown. Now, see if you can walk from A to B in astraight line. If you live in a town or city this mightprove difficult. In my case, the line crosses a road, ayard, a fence, a house, another road, more houses,parking lots, buildings, theThompson River, more roads,a mobile home park beforeeventually reaching forestand grassland. Ill bet thatyour path is similar to mineanything but straight.Now, imagine the same pathfrom as seen from above. Theline will cross a patchwork ofsites dedicated to human use,most of which are nowunavailable to native plant and animal populationsbut some pockets remain. Movement from point topoint is difficult for us but possible. But for naturalplant and animal populations the distances havebecome insurmountable. Pockets of plants and ani-mals are isolated from each other. We have frag-mented the landscapedestroying some parts, con-verting some to other uses and bisecting the restwith roads and fences.

Fragmentation of habitat has been identified asone of the major contributors to species extinction,

the other three being overkill, introduction of inva-sive species and chains-of-extinction (when one ormore species was dependent on one that hasbecome extinct). The relation of fragmentation tospecies loss has been well-studied in Europeangrasslands where there is a long history of habitatdestruction through agricultural conversion.

Estonian grasslands, calledalvars, exhibit a pattern calledextinction debt. Fragmentationof the alvars has been severebut due to the long life cycles ofalvar plants it will take decadesfor the full decline in plantspecies diversity to be appar-ent. This lag time has implica-tions for conservation planningand impacts our currentunderstanding of the detri-

mental effects of fragmentation. In Finland, plantspecies diversity declined by 25% in grasslands over25 years when many rangelands were converted toagricultural crops. As the area of grazed grasslandsdecreased, the pastures became more isolated fromeach other. However, a program initiated by theEuropean Union in 1995 to recover natural grass-land by restoring cultivated land to rangelandreversed the trend of species loss in some Finishgrasslands.

The ultimate problem associated with fragmenta-

Getting From A to B

A Study in Fragmentation Ecology Cameron Carlyle, Ph.D candidate in the Botany Department at UBC

Fragmentation ofhabitat has beenidentified as oneof the majorcontributors tospecies extinction

BC GRASSLANDS 5

Conserving and restoring habitat is a good first stepbut alone it is not enough. There needs to be athoughtful process that incorporates our knowledgeof how species interact with the landscape.

PHOTO GEORGE WILL

Feature

6 BC GRASSLANDS

tion is that it makespopulations smaller.This means that thereare fewer individualscapable of reproduc-ing, and to act aseither predator or

prey. Also, as a population gets smaller it becomes more suscep-tible to random events and loss of genetic variation. If a ran-dom event, such as a flood or fire kills ten individuals of a pop-ulation of ten thousand it is unlikely to have a long term nega-tive impact on the population. However, if ten individuals of apopulation of one hundred are killed, the result can be cata-strophic.

As land is converted to human use, the resources which wereavailable to the plants and animals living on it are reduced orlost. For predators this may mean be a reduction in the amountof food available. For birds, there may be fewer suitable nestinglocations. For plants it could be the direct loss of suitable habi-tat and their disappearance. Loss of any resource can reduce apopulations ability to survive. For example, in a 70 year study ofshrub-dependent sparrow and lark species in Idaho the birdswere more likely to be found in larger patches of shrub andwere rarely observed in smaller shrub patches. The lack ofresources, in this case suitable nesting sites, contributed to thedecline of a variety of bird species.

As natural pockets become smaller, populations become pro-portionally more susceptible to edge effects. Disturbances, suchas noise or predatory species that live on the edge of habitats,will only travel so far into a patch. This means that a single 100hectare area will have more suitable habitat than four 25 hectareareas. By reducing the size of the habitat a larger portion of theoverall habitat is potentially accessible and the area suitable forsome species is reduced. For example, an edge predator, such asthe domestic cat can have a serious impact on a small naturalpocket. Cats may be reluctant to venture more than 100 metresinto grasslands but if they have access to all sides of the 100hectare parcel that means that at least the interior 64 hectares ofthe grasslands are relatively safe for nesting birds. But, if thatsame grassland is divided into 4 smaller sections by roads orright-of-ways, the cats have greater access and only 20 hectareswill be safe for birds.

Edge effects have been observed for many species. Manyinsects show low populations numbers at the edges of grass-lands but have increasing numbers the deeper in one goes. TheFlorida Grasshopper Sparrow, requires at least 400 metres ofbuffer between nesting sites and edges to maintain a healthypopulation.

A meta-population is a group of smaller populations whichtogether make a larger one. Some of the groups in the largermeta-population may be sources which produce more individ-uals than they can support and individuals emigrate from thispopulation. On the other hand, some of the populations mightbe sinks which means that on their own they cannot sustain a

population over time, they are dependent on outside sources. Ina fragmented landscape it is more difficult for source popula-tions to supply sink populations with emigrants because con-nectivity between populations is reduced. The consequence formeta-populations in a fragmented landscape is that sink popu-lations may be lost causing extirpation at a local scale whichjeopardizes the species and hinders conservation efforts.

Fragmentation has been recognized as an important consid-eration in the conservation of many endangered species.However, it has led to one of the largest ecological debatesSLOSS (Single Large Or Several Small). Is it better to create alarge reserve or many smaller reserves when trying to conservespecies diversity or even a single species? Conservation fundingis limited so it is a critical question to address when planningreserves. Larger areas generally contain more species thansmaller areas. Of course, a reserve needs to be large enough tomaintain viable species populations; however, many smallerreserves may be able to protect more species that an equivalentsingle reserve if the smaller reserves contain non-overlappingspecies. So, despite the problems associated with fragmentation,smaller reserves may be beneficial. Yet, the critical problem isone of connectivity. Wildlife corridors, strips of vegetationbetween reserves (or fragments) can allow populations to move.However, the appropriate size of corridors for most animals isunknown and their utility for plant species is questionablebecause their usefulness is dependent on the type of habitatselected for the corridor.

Although the implications of fragmentation are generallyaccepted by ecologists the solution to the problem is not asclear. Conserving and restoring habitat is a good first step butalone it is not enough. There needs to be a thoughtful processthat incorporates our knowledge of how species interact withthe landscape. Unfortunately, for many species we lack thisinformation. Baseline studies on many species are neededbefore we can come up with a strategy to counteract the effectsof fragmentation. That journey from A to B is getting harderand harder.

The endangeredBurrowing Owl GCC FILE PHOTO

As land is converted tohuman use, the resourceswhich were available to theplants and animals living on it are reduced or lost

BC GRASSLANDS 7

Perspectives

We are always told by various levels of government that growthand development are needed to keep the economy going. Ifgrowth is so good why do property taxes always keep rising?Perhaps we should be considering the capital value of so-calledundeveloped land? Such land may have more value left as isthan we have been led to believe.

Research in the last few years is starting to reveal some inter-esting numbersmany residential developments cost more to service than the taxes they generate. For example, in SkagitCounty, Washington, an hour north of Seattle, researchers foundthat for every dollar residential property owners paid in taxes,$1.47 was required in services. It was further found that agri-cultural land and open spaces only required 51 cents for everydollar paid in taxes. The same was found to be true in BanderaCounty west of San Antonio, Texas. Researchers found residen-tial service costs were $1.10 while agriculture was only 26 cents.

Canadian research found the same trend. In Halifax, NovaScotia, the actual costs of servicing two-acre lots was over$5,000 per year and suburban areas was in excess of $3500 peryear, whereas in an area of mixed residential and commercialwith a variety of densities, service came in at $1,400 per year.

Undeniably, we need houses to live in. However, can commu-nities afford to sprawl outwards and continue to eat up a land-scape that generates less in tax revenue than is required to serv-ice it? Many places in North America are finding that land usepatterns of the last 40 years are no longer practicalsocially,environmentally or economically. A new philosophy towardsdevelopment is beginning to emerge.Keeping the city in the

city and country in the country is catching on in many regions.Compact communities with a smaller footprint on the land,fewer roads and less infrastructure are cost-effective in the longterm. They also respect the value of the landscape surroundingthem because thats where the clean air, drinkable water, openspaces and food they consume come from.

The East Kootenay Conservation Program (a partnership of40 organizations working to increase private land conservationand stewardship) is facilitating dialogue with local municipali-ties and regional districts to look at the various tools that mightbe implemented to assist in long-term planning that would seea more sustainable approach taken. Tools such as CommunityViz, Metro Quest and Smart Growth principles have been show-cased that engage the greater public to look at how to best bal-ance social, environmental and economic values at the local andregional level.

Residential sprawl is a drain on the social, environmentaland economic bottom line. Changing our thinking regardingfuture development is essential. With only 0.8% of the land basein BC as grasslands, can society afford to continue to subsidizesubdivision development on these precious assets?

The EKCP supports environmental stewardship on private landwith the goal of maintaining the rich biological, economic, andsocial heritage of the East Kootenay. For more information on theEKCP, its initiatives and its partners, please contact Darrell Smithat 250-342-3655 or ekcp@cyberlink.bc.ca

The Real Price of GrowthDarrell Smith, Program Manager, East Kootenay Conservation Program

GC

CFI

LEP

HO

TO

8 BC GRASSLANDS

Kamloops, BC PHOTO GEORGE WILL

BC GRASSLANDS 9

Feature

To gain a deeper understanding of the grasslands, one mightdelve into soil science, plant physiology, or even climatology.I, on the other hand, have been immersing myself in urbanplanning. In the great circle of consciousness, grasslands andurban planning are two subjects so far removed from eachother that they have met on the back side. What is the connec-tion? I suspect you have guessed already; it is the suburb.Suburbanization, a potent and driving force in contemporarysociety, largely takes place on our grasslands, meadows andopen forests. In fact, one wag defined suburbia as the placewhere developers bulldoze the local flora and fauna, and thenname the streets after them. Suburbia is the consumptive,grassland-gobbling lifestyle that we all love to hate.

So I did put aside ecology for a time, and looked deep intothe heart of suburbia, that politely derogatory term thatdescribes where most of us live, because it has such an impacton grasslands. The roots of suburbia harken all the way back tothe 1870s, when the American landscape architect FrederickLaw Olmsted (1822-1903) articulated the importance of recon-necting the urban industrial worker with nature. So he pro-posed suburban garden cities for workers, who could comehome to green and pastoral settings after a long day in the fac-tory. The notion of suburbia percolated for some time, but thenabsolutely exploded during the affluent postwar 1950s.Suburbanization has been the dominant North Americangrowth pattern ever since, and it shows no signs of slowingdown.

My newly adopted home in the South Okanagan is in thepowerful grip of suburbanization, so my studies are no longeracademic. I can see active suburbanization happening on thebunchgrass and pine-clad hillsides as I look out the windows ofmy house (which, I hasten to add, is in an urban neighbour-hood).

Our suburban lifestyle has been built on the backs of cheapoil, and grasslands. Cheap oil allowed us to widely disperse ourwork, play, shopping and living places, and then reconnect themby means of the private automobile. Grasslands have generouslyprovided us with the low elevation, easily developable groundon which to put our roads, parking lots, strip malls, subdivi-sions and gas stations. Cheap oil also meant that we could getour beef from Brazil and our carrots from Mexico, so there wasno point in maintaining those problematic small farms andranches on the outskirts of our cities. The highest and bestuse of their land has gradually shifted from food production toparking lots. There has been little to stand in the way of grass-land conversions, other than a few cranky ranchers and natural-ists. And indeed, many of the suburban grasslands in questionwere in such poor condition that there was little there to save.

As I drive through the suburban grasslands of the SouthernInterior, I often see these orphaned grassland parcels.Surrounded on two or three sides by development, they have aforlorn look about them. The fences are down, the vegetation ismostly knapweed, and someone has dumped an old refrigera-tor. Dirt bike trails crisscross the land, and plastic grocery bagsflutter, like flags of abandonment. Real estate signs trumpetprime retail or residential potential. Who would want to defenda grassland like this? It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is,until you dig up a shovelful of soil, and see the magnificentblack, brown or chestnut chernozemic A horizon, the patientproduct of ten thousand years of bunchgrasses.

We all know what suburbia is, but it is hard to define. AuthorJames Kunstler had a caustic definition for it in his book TheGeography of Nowhere. Originally conceived as a return tonature, suburbia and its constant companions, the shoppingmall and the golf course, have unwittingly become destroyers ofgrassland nature. Frederick Law Olmsted, who should be a hero

Sizing Up the SuburbsDon Gayton, M.Sc, P.Ag., FORREX

10 BC GRASSLANDS

of mine since he championed the need for humans to connectregularly with nature, is actually in my bad books because heinvented the suburb.

The classic definition of suburbia is the bedroom for an adja-cent city, but even that notion is changing. Suburbia is evolvinginto what is now called the edge city, where in addition to resi-dences, you have suburban banking, shopping, entertainmentand, increasingly, work. Anyone who has approached Vancouveron Highway One between 3pm and 6pm has experienced thephenomenon known as the reverse rush hour, the eveningtraffic jam going into the city. This is composed of commuterswho live in the downtown core and commute out to the suburbsto work. This reverse commute trend will continue, and contin-ue to put pressure on suburban grasslands, as businesses fleethe high rents, taxes and social problems of downtown cores.

It is tempting for us British Columbians to say that subur-banization is someone elses problem. The Crown holds a hugepercentage of the provinces land base on our behalf, so its(mostly) safe from suburban development, right? But we needto remind ourselves that much of our southern grasslands fallin the private slice of British Columbias land pie.

Where does the suburbanization process end? Im honestly

not sure. Some suggest that weve hit peak oil, and as energyprices begin their inevitable climb, suburban development willbegin to lose its appeal. But the suburban engine has been run-ning at full throttle for six decades now; it will take a lot to shutit off, or even get it to idle.

Is sprawl inevitable? Is it in our genes? I dont think so. Infact, much of western culture and innovation has originatedfrom dense, vibrant cities surrounded by narrow belts of inten-sive agriculture. Hopefully the era of suburban sprawl will be aminor blip in our cultural history.

Sociologists say the suburban movement has been accompa-nied by an unhealthy shift in our social lives, from a public ori-entation based around community, church, and civic politics, toa private orientation of atomistic families and individual pur-suits. Even though the suburban trend is going to continue,perhaps we can build a new sense of community, one based onthe local ecology. A larger community in which the hillside ofbunchgrass and pine, the wetland full of cattails, or even thedegraded field full of knapweed, have some standing.

Don Gayton is an ecologist with FORREX. He can be reached atd.gayton@forrex.org

Kamloops, BC PHOTO GEORGE WILL

BC GRASSLANDS 11

Fauna

WesternRattlers vs.DevelopmentSadie Cox, Student, Thompson Rivers University

According to Ministry of Environment wildlife biologist Doug Juryif theden site is on Crown land then anyone wanting to develop in that areawould not be able to damage it. The Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA)protects such features.

Rattlesnakes are protected under the Canadian Species At Risk Act, buton private land it is really unclear what the federal government can do,said Jury. He said in a situation when an area is of made up different landtenures, each one must be treated differently. Plus, there are no municipalbylaws that effectively protect snake habitat, only rezoning.

Jury said that the first step towards determining whether an area shouldbe rezoned as an ecological reserve is a species assessment by the Ministryof Environment.We wouldnt undertake that research unless we wereworking towards some sort of wildlife management or ecological reservedesignation, mainly because we are so short-staffed.

Jury said that assessment would involve making comparisons with theoverall habitat value of other adjacent sites.If it turned out that the sitewas highly valuable or unique, then we would pursue protecting it, but if itturned out to have almost the same value of other numerous sites then wewould just rely on the current protection provided under the Wildlife Act.

There is new residential development slated for the northern BatchelorHeights area in the near future. That development would lead to thedestruction of a known rattlesnake den. The current zoning will permit theconstruction of single-family dwellings and gravel extraction. According toAndrew Swetlishoff, planning and development manager with the City ofKamloops, the area would have to be identified as ecologically sensitiveunder the official community plan to be excluded from development. Sofar, that hasnt happened.

Lita Gomez, a University of Victoria Masters student in biology is study-ing the effect of urban development on rattlesnake populations.I wouldsay that the biggest threat to those snakes is that humans are getting closerand closer to their habitat.

Snakes and humans generally dont mix well, said Falsetta. He saidpeople are scared of them and perceive them as a threat, especially whenthey find them in their yards. The snakes lose.

Its not very hard for developers to get rezoning approval to build bigsubdivisions. They do it before people are paying attention and then peopledont know whats going on until the construction starts, said Falsetta, whohas been a Batchelor Heights resident for 15 years.

John Surgenor, a provincial Ministry of Environment wildlife biologistwho works mostly with species at risk said that Kamloops is growing andthe city needs to accommodate the growth. According to Venture Kamloopsthe growth rate was 1.2 per cent in 20032004 and the projected growthrate for 2005 is 3.8 per cent.What can you do to stop it? asks Surgenor.The Ministry of Environment is trying to keep the city informed aboutsuitable den sites and has hopes that those areas will be maintained.Theres not really any legislation that we can use, city bylaws dictate whathappens on that land base.

The city deals with each conservation or environmental situation as itarises, but will not take steps to protect an area unless there is an environ-mental assessment that recommends it. This assessment has to be initiatedby a private party, interested developers, independent organizations or theMinistry of Environment.

The low elevation grasslands that rattlesnakes depend on are also oftenthe flattest, thus making them desirable from a development perspective.

GC

CFI

LEP

HO

TO

Western rattlesnakes are being seriously threatened by increasingdevelopment in the Souther Interior of BC. These grassland dependentsnakes are already listed by the provincial government as a threatenedspecies. One rattlesnake den in North Kamloops is protected as it isinside the Lac du Bois Provincial Park boundaries. But other den sitesare not so lucky.

12 BC GRASSLANDS

There are quite a few den sites at low elevation in areas that the city willbe looking to develop, said Surgenor.Its challenging because theres not alot of flat ground in Kamloops.

Another rattlesnake den by Ord road is close to a site where there is anapplication to the provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines for a gravelquarry. Residents of a nearby trailer park are protesting this application onthe basis that that type of activity will increase noise and traffic in the area.

The den is on private land and theres no legislation that lets us dictatewhat can happen on private land, said Surgenor.The viability of that denis pretty low. Surgenor said that the landowner has tentatively agreed tonot have any activity in that area until the snakes emerge from the den.The Ministry of Environment says there is no other way to protect the densite and the rattlesnake population there.We are looking at the potential of moving them or the slight potential of creating an artificial den forthem, said Surgenor.

Lac du Bois Provincial Park is one of only three parks in BritishColumbia to protect a substantial area of grasslands. The total park area is15,207 hectares and encompasses low-, mid- and high elevation grasslandsas well as forests.Most people dont even realize that the grassland is anecosystem and that it all needs protecting, said Tasha Sargent, stewardshipprogram co-ordinator with the Grasslands Conservation Council of BC.They just see dirt and grass and sage. But grasslands are vital and are oneof the most threatened and fragile ecosystems.

The lower grassland area outside of provincial park boundaries was designated as an environmentally sensitive area in Kamplan 2004.Kamplan 2004 is the City of Kamloops official community plan from20042036. There is recognition in Kamplan 2004 that the designation ofan area as environmentally sensitive provides no real protection from theeffects of urban development in the area. The designation is only recogni-tion of the areas ecological significance.

Included in the plan are provisions to extend Grasslands Boulevard inBatchelor Heights with McQueen Drive in Westsyde and the connection ofSingh Street to north Batchelor Heights. Both of these extensions wouldincrease road traffic, which is already a main threat to rattlesnakes.Thearea needs to be made into an ecological reserve to be protected, saidFalsetta,the public needs to put pressure on the city to change the zoningand protect this area from development.

Falsetta said that developers just come into the area and do whateverthey want.They dont care about anything else. The city is definitely pro-development. If someone comes in and wants to rezone, it probablywouldnt be that hard, not as hard as it would be if it was identified as anecologically sensitive area.

The only way to protect municipal grasslands is through rezoning, saidSargent. She said that one of the goals of the Grasslands ConservationCouncil is to make local governments more aware of grassland value, to

provide them with the administrative and planning tools to plan aroundareas.Public awareness about issues is the best tool, especially at schoolsin communities within grassland areas, said Sargent.

Falsetta and Gomez echo these sentimentsthat if there is understand-ing, then the public will feel a greater need to protect the snakes habitat.Educating residents about snakes would help them appreciate their valueinstead of perceiving the snakes as a threat.

The need to be aware that every development request ultimately reducesand fragments grassland ecosystems is acknowledged in the Kamplan.Expansion of natural areas is listed in the plan as being a planning priority.This includes acquiring unique areas and a proposed addition to the Lacdu Bois Grasslands Provincial Park.

The Grasslands Conservation Council is just completing a qualitativeassessment of the grasslands.We are trying to grapple with whats occur-ring out there and the conditions of the grasslands, said MacGregor, who isheading the assessment. The assessment is an attempt to determine wherethe threat to grasslands is the greatest, and where the ecological and socio-economic values are. He said that maintaining a connection between habi-tats is important to the overall survival of a species. Habitat requirementschange with the seasons and species require the ability to access differentresources found in these different habitats.

The Kamplan contains a commitment by the city to work with variousinstitutions and organizations, including the Thompson Nicola RegionalDistrict, to minimize development in the grasslands. The intent is to pro-vide transition from developed city lands to the park boundary. Part of thisarea is designated as a future park and will be managed as passive openspace. This means that no facilities would be built on this land..No base-ball diamonds or arenas, it would just basically be left as open space. If youwanted to go hike there you are welcome to, but there would be no formal-ized recreational activity there, said Swetlishoff.

Getting back to the North Kamloops den sites, Surgenor is optimisticthat city planning officials will be willing to consider what it takes to main-tain them but when asked if the city would be willing to take the steps nec-essary to maintain these den sites Swetlishoff said,good question, I reallydont know. The Ministry of Environment is the designated authority forthreatened species and we have the policy in Kamplan that says we aregoing to honour and respect grassland areas, but we havent gotten as far asplanning for the management of those areas, said Swetlishoff.

Ultimately the fate of many rattlesnakes in the district lies with theMinistry of Environment. Unfortunately, by the time they undertake thenecessary studies and make their recommendations it will probably be toolate.

Originally published in Nature West, April 2006.

BC GRASSLANDS 13

Perspectives

The Cost of Urban SprawlGeorge Will, GCC Education and Outreach Co-ordinator

Here are some of the real costs of development:1. Loss of Rangeland Were chewing up farmsand ranches at an alarming rate to create newhighways, fringe industrial parks and sprawledhousing developments. This loss reduces our abil-ity to grow food, fiber and timber. In many areas,urban development pressure and increased prop-erty taxes are forcing ranchers and farmers out ofbusiness. They often sell their spreads for hous-ing developments to provide financial security fortheir retirement. When we no longer can produceour own food, we will be dependent on foreignproducers.2. Loss of Wildlife Habitat Wild forests, grass-lands, and wetlands are also disappearing,replaced by pavement, buildings and sterileurban landscaping. The remaining habitat issmaller, degraded and more fragmented, makingsurvival of certain wildlife species very difficultas they try to reach breeding ponds, hibernationsites, feeding locations, or to establish viable nest-ing areas. As for grasslands, BC has only about athird of its original grassland ecosystem remain-ing in a relatively intact condition, but much ofthis remnant acreage has been degraded to somedegree. Remember, we only started with less than1% of the total land base as grassland in the firstplace.3. Increased Tax Burden The costs of providingcommunity services have skyrocketed as homesand businesses spread further and further apart,and local governments are forced to provide forwidely spaced services. Owners of these dis-persed developments seldom pay the full govern-ment costs of serving them, forcing the rest of usto subsidize them with higher taxes at the local,provincial and federal levels.4. Increased Air Pollution Sprawl increases carand truck traffic, leading to major increases in airpollution and smog.Vehicles are the number onecause of air pollution in many urban areas, and athreat to public and wildlife health 5. Increased Water Use and Pollution Sprawlincreases air pollution, which falls out to becomewater pollution. In addition, urban activities cre-

ate water pollution directly through land run-offfrom construction sites, fuel spills, oil leaks, paintspills, lawn chemicals, pet wastes, etc. Sprawled,low-density development produces more than itsshare of this runoff. In addition, more water isconsumed for lawn watering and other landscapeactivities, straining local water supply systems.6. Increased Energy Consumption At a timewhen we desperately need to reduce our energyuse, sprawled developments increase our energyconsumption per person, for gasoline, home heat-ing, and electricity.7. Social Fragmentation Old-fashioned neigh-bourhoods with compact housing, front porches,a corner store, and a school two blocks away weremuch more conducive to social interaction. It waspossible to feel a sense of belonging and commu-nity. Now, in sprawled generic housing tracts,many people never meet their neighbours as theypass them in their cars. Its rare for neighbour-hood events to occur. Families are more isolatedand those living alone are marooned in a hostileenvironment.8. Loss of Time People are forced to spend moretime commuting longer distances to reach theirjobs, homes, schools and shopping areas. In acompact, efficient city these travel times are often

minimal, but sprawled cities take time to navi-gate. Suburban tract and country dwellers alsospend more time maintaining large, empty resi-dential properties: mowing the grass, plowinglong driveways, raking leaves, weeding, etc.9. Increased Private Costs and Risks Sprawlingbusiness and home owners often fail to realizethe long-term personal costs and risks of main-taining distant properties. As property taxes riseto cover service costs, and fuel costs increase fortravel and heating large buildings, the ownersbudgets may have trouble keeping up. Trans-portation costs for children and handicappedfamily members are much greater. As sprawledhomeowners age, their large properties become agreater burden to maintain. When they can nolonger drive their car, they are stranded. As baby-boomers age, large numbers of people will beforced to sell their suburban or country homes tomove into the city, creating displacements andpossibly lowering the value of expensive homes.10. Loss of Exercise Sprawled communitiesforce people to drive their cars to get groceries, goto school, or get to work. In the past, cities werestructured so many of these destinations werewithin walking distance. Now, many neighbour-

Im going to come right out and say it when everything is considered, suburbandevelopment can cost more than it is worth. The only reason that it is happening is that land in the hinterland is still relatively cheap and when sprawl started in the1950s, transportation was cheap as well. That was then...

continued on page 28

BR

IAN

WIK

EE

M

14 BC GRASSLANDS

Feature

There are growing concerns in British Columbia that theAgricultural Land Reserve has gone from a protector of agricul-ture for future generations to a source of relatively cheap landfor municipalities seeking immediate revenue and developersseeking to turn a tidy profit.

Introduced by Dave Barretts New Democratic Party govern-ment in 1973 as a way to arrest the loss of farmlandthen atthe rate of up to 6,000 hectares per yearthe land reserve iscoming under increasing public scrutiny as it attempts to bal-ance the opposing forces of preservation versus developmentaround the province.

Farmers initially howled with protest at the introduction ofthe land reserve, arguing the province had undercut their great-est financial asset, their land. Today, attitudes have dramaticallychanged.

The 12,000-member BC Agriculture Councils official posi-tion is that the land reserve provides food security, helps theenvironment, and provides economic benefit. The council alsocautions that not all land in the reserve is economic to farm,and emphasizes there is no point protecting the land unless youprotect the farmers ability to make a living.

Judging by farm-gate receipts, BC agriculture is booming.The industry generates direct annual farm sales of $2.4 billiondollars and 35,200 jobs.

The food-processing industry is worth another $6.1 billionand 31,000 jobs, with food wholesaling adding a whopping $8.6billion and 15,000-plus jobs.

Yet it remains a fragile industry. Only about one per cent of

BCs 944,735 square kilometres is prime farmlandclass oneto class three, capable of growing the widest range of crops.

And the places most suitable for farming are also fertileground for humanity. Two geographic trianglesthe FraserValley and southeastern Vancouver Island, and Kamloops-Shuswap south to Osoyooscomprise just 2.7 per cent of theprovincial land base, but four-fifths of both the provincial pop-ulation and annual gross farm receipts.

These are the areas at greatest risk. In the Regional District ofOkanagan-Similkameen, the land commission released 1,289.3hectares from the reserve in the past four years, refusing exclu-sion applications for just 145.7 hectares. Thats a ratio of almostnine-to-one in favor of land removal.

Grasslands are particularly at risk, representing only one percent of the provincial landscape, yet containing more than 30per cent of all threatened and endangered species in theprovince.

A 2004 report by the Grasslands Conservation Council of BCfound that almost 40,000 hectares of grassland have been lost toagricultural crops such as vineyards, orchards and cultivation inthe Okanaganthree times the amount lost to urban andindustrial development in the region.

Only one-third of the approximate 23,000 hectares of grass-land in the Okanagan today are within the land reserve.

BCs booming economy and growing population make thesituation all the more critical, generating calls for the provinceto reform the land-exclusion application process.

The New Democrats in 2000 scrapped the system by which

The Agricultural Land Reserve

Sacred Cow or Cash Cow?Larry Pynn, Environmental reporter, Vancouver Sun

BC GRASSLANDS 15

Six Mile Ranch subdivisiondevelopmentPHOTO GEORGE WILL

one provincial commission ruled on all exclusion applicationsand established three regional panels comprised of commis-sioners who did not live in the regions in which they ruled onapplications. Gordon Campbells Liberals fractured the systemfurther in 2002, introducing six panelsSouth Coast, North,Interior, Okanagan, Kootenay, and Islandeach with threecommissioners residing in the regions in which they make decisions.

There are two main views of the panel system: one, of a smallgroup of all-powerful individuals at risk of falling victim tolocal influence or political partisanship, the other a group thatis much more knowledgeable about local issues than under theold provincial commission system.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District has urged theprovince to at least refer regionally significant exclusion appli-cations to a full land commission.

The GVRDs agriculture committee chair is Harold Steves, aveteran Richmond councillor who runs 100 cows and calves on128 hectares of his own land and another 6,800 hectares ofCrown rangeland in the grasslands near the Deadman RiverValley, west of Kamloops.

Steves argues the land reserve was established to protect farm-land from development, not to provide municipalities with bar-gain-basement land for purposes such as industrial development.

Despite mounting concerns with the panel systemthe BCAgriculture Council has launched its own review of theprocessAgriculture and Lands Minister Pat Bell says it makessense to have local people addressing local issues.Do you want

someone from Prince George making decisions in the FraserValley? asks the Prince George North MLA and the owner oftwo Wendys fast-food restaurants.

Bell argued in the House that the rate of farmland exclusionhas slowed, from 17,433 hectares between 1996 and 2000 underthe NDP to 6,963 hectares in the past five years under theLiberals. He adds that the size of the Agricultural Land Reservehas actually increased over the years to more than 4.76 millionhectares, up from 4.72 million hectares in 1973.

The counter-argument is that with every year of additionalexclusions, the need to protect what remains grows more acute.

The David Suzuki Foundation also noted in a report releasedin April 2006 that 90 percent of the land added to the landreserve since its inception has been in the north, while 72 per-cent of the land lost has been in the fertile south. The founda-tion urged, in part, that the province give clear direction to theland commission to focus on the long term, while developingpolicies that support the viability of farming. Panel membersshould also be appointed by an independent agency, at armslength from politicians.

Fact is, politics have gone hand-and-hand with the commis-sion almost since the beginning.

Gary Runka, a professional agrologist, served as chairman ofthe commission between 1973 and 1978, when he resigned toprotest a decision by Bill Bennetts Social Credit government toexclude 250 hectares of farmland in north Aldergrove for theGloucester Industrial Park.

Two decades later, in 1998, Glen Clarks NDP government

16 BC GRASSLANDS

invoked for the first time a provincial interestclause allowing a 400-hectare resort with housing,hotels, marina and heritage theme park at Six MileRanch on Kamloops Lake. Despite assertions at thetime that Six Mile was vital to Kamloops economy,the site sat idle for almost eight years. Only now isdevelopment underway on a golf course and salesoffice, long after Kamloops fortunes improved ontheir own.

Today, the sense of political meddling extends not just to the panel system or the commissionsconflicted mandateprotect farmland, while con-sidering community needsbut on the individualswho get appointed to the six regional panels.

The Opposition had a field day in May with theappointment of John Tomlinson, an insurance agentand ex-president of the Fort Langley-Aldergrove BCLiberals riding association, to the land commissionsSouth Panel. One day later, Bell was forced to rescindthe appointment of a second South Coast panelmember, Bill Jones, a director on the RichmondFarmers Institute, because he had spoken publicly infavor of the removal of the Garden City lands inRichmond from the land reserve at a land commis-

sion meeting in Richmondtwo days after he wasappointed to the South Coast panel. (Panel membersbiographies can be viewed at: www.alc.gov.bc.ca/commission/commissioners.htm)

Cheryle Huscroft is a Creston-area resident andformer cattle rancher who served on the full landcommission in the mid-1990s under the NDP andwho is just wrapping up three years on the KootenayPanel under the Liberals. The biggest benefit of thepanel system, she says, is it allows commissioners toget out and see properties that are the subject ofexclusion applications.

We can stand on the land, really get a feel for it.The downside is that the province routinelyappoints panel members who are not farmers.Youneed people who completely understand agricul-ture, Huscroft argues.If theyre not there, thosepanel systems arent going to work.

Is the province listening? Bell is open to consider-ing the idea of larger panels and a better definitionof community need, but isnt making any promises,saying hes generally happy with the land reservesystem.We think its worked very well. I dont thinktheres an appetite to make significant changes.

Gilpin grasslandsPHOTO BRIAN WIKEEM

BC GRASSLANDS 17

Flora

Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) is anative, evergreen, perennial, aromatic shrub witha short branched, woody trunk that averagesaround two meters in height but can grow aslarge as six meters on favourable sites (2,5). Bigsagebrush leaves are wedge shaped and generallyare three-lobed at the tips, hence the name tri-dentata (2,3,5). This plant is strongly aromaticand in late summer has small, yellow flowers(2,3,5). Big sagebrush propagates by seed and isconsidered a good seed producer howeverseedling vigour is rated as low (5). Plants canproduce up to 500,000 seeds and the seeds aremainly wind dispersed (7) but can also bespread by water and animals (1).

A member of the Aster (Asteraceae) family,big sagebrush has three subspecies: basin bigsagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata),Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp.wyomingensis) and mountain big sagebrush (A.tridentata ssp. vaseyana). These subspecies areadapted to different climate and moistureregimes giving big sagebrush a wide ecologicalamplitude (1).

In the Southern Interior of BC, big sagebrushis widespread at low to mid elevations of theFraser, Thompson and Okanagan basins andsouthern Rocky Mountain Trench, and in aridgrasslands (2). In North America it is found inBC and mainly throughout the western UnitedStates (3,5). It is drought tolerant and is foundpredominately on well drained, gravely or rockysoils but does not grow well on alkaline soils(2,3,5).

Big sagebrush leaves are high in protein but

also contain volatile oils that make themunpalatable to cattle and can cause problems inthe rumen (3,5). However, domestic sheep willgraze big sagebrush but prefer young plants andnew growth (5). Big sagebrush is considered tohave good value for wildlife on winter range (3).Antelope will use this plant year long while muledeer will limit use to late fall, winter and spring(5). In the U.S. sagebrush is the key species forsage grouse and acts as their main food source,providing up to 70 to 75% of their diet, as well asproviding nesting cover and escape cover (5).Heavy wildlife use has been shown to reduce bigsagebrush numbers and in areas such asYellowstone Park in the U.S. this decrease is evi-dent in many of the winter range sites frequent-ed by antelope, elk and mule deer (6).

However, when it comes to livestock, big sage-brush is considered an increaser, meaning that itincreases with moderate overuse but willdecrease with continued heavy overuse. Becauseof this it is considered weedy or invasive in someareas (5). An abundance of big sagebrush canindicate overgrazing or lack of regular fire dis-turbance. In the Southern Interior big sagebrushhas increased from pre-European settlement lev-els due to overgrazing by domestic livestock (2).

Fire can lead to a decrease in big sagebrush ina community as big sagebrush is easily killedwhen above ground parts are charred and it doesnot resprout after fire (4). Therefore, it must re-establish on a site from seed. As seed is generallydamaged by fire, this new seed source mustcome from off site seed or seed remaining inunburned patches (4).

In general most studies have looked at meth-ods to decrease big sagebrush, but in some areasre-establishment is becoming a priority (1,6).For example, the Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental Quality is now requiring reestab-lishment of big sagebrush on disturbed minesites due to its ability to prevent erosion, providewildlife habitat and forage and improve range-land aesthetics (1).

Big sagebrush also has many historical andmedicinal uses. Native people in the southerninterior made teas for colds from its leaves andbranches and used the leaves for a fumigant andas a smudge (2). The wood was also used forthatch and firewood (3) and the bark was woveninto mats, bags and clothing (2).

References1 Maier, A.M., Perryman, B.L., Olson, R.A. and Hild, A. 2001.

Climatic influences on recruitment of 3 subspecies ofArtemesia tridentata. Journal of Range Management54(6), pg. 699-702.

2 Parish, R., Coupe, R. and Lloyd, D. 1996. Plants ofSouthern Interior British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing.Vancouver, BC. Pp. 67.

3 Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S.L. and Landholt, L.M. 2003.North American Wildland Plants: a field guide. Universityof Nebraska Press. Nebraska, USA. Pp. 241.

4 US Federal Fire Database. Fire effects on Artemisia triden-tata. Federal fire databasehttp://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/arttrit/fire_effects.html

5 USDA, NRDS. 2004. The Plants Database, Version 3.5(http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, BatonRouge, USA.

6 Wambolt, C.L. and Sherwood, H.W. 1999. Sagebrushresponse to ungulate browsing in Yellowstone. Journal ofRange Management 52(4) pg. 363-369.

7 Welch, B. 2004. Artemisia tridentata Nutt. [Article, USFederal Database, accessed online 17 March 2006]http://www.fs.fed.us

Big SagebrushDr. Wendy Gardner, Professor of Range Ecology, Thompson Rivers University

North of Savona PHOTO GEORGE WILL

ILLUSTRATION PEGGY JO BRAND

18 BC GRASSLANDS

Perspectives

Streams, farms and ranches, parks, forests,grasslandsfor more than twenty years, landtrusts have been working with their communi-ties to protect areas with significant natural andcultural features.

Many people are unfamiliar with the work ofland trusts and conservancies. Some may beconfused because the phrase land trust is occasionally also used to refer to a number ofdifferent forms of collective land ownership.Arrangements similar to housing co-ops,co-housing, or ecovillages can sometimes bereferred to as land trusts.

Most land trusts in BritishColumbia are focused on the long-term protection of habitats or her-itage sites for future generations,thus the words land trust and con-servancy are synonymous. Landtrusts usually work on lands thatare privately held, as opposed toadvocating on larger Crown landissues and policies. They are inde-pendent charities that work inpartnership with landowners,other organizations, governmentsand business. The oldest land trustin BC is Ducks Unlimited (DU)founded in 1938. Like DU, TheNature Conservancy of Canada,The Land Conservancy of BC (TLC), and TheNature Trust of BC work province-wide. Anotherthirty local land trusts have been formed in thelast fifteen years that work within distinct com-munities, including such groups as the NorthOkanagan Parks and Wildlife Trust, the KootenayLand Trust Society, the Fraser Valley Land Trust,and many more.

The most visible activity of land trusts is thedirect acquisition of land, such as The LandConservancys purchase of Talking Mountainranch near Clinton. This 1000 acre cattle ranch,next to 7500 acres of Crown rangeland, is leasedto a ranching family. As a majority of grasslandareas in this province are privately held (espe-cially low elevation and riparian sites) theopportunity for public access to research orinventory these areas is rare. Associated specieson the ranch include the common poorwill,Lewis woodpecker, prairie falcon, western rat-

tlesnake, pallid bat, mule deer, grizzly bear andcougar. The backdrop of towering hoodoos, lime-stone sinkholes and imposing canyons increasesthe allure of the area. This ranch serves as anexample of how ranching and conservation arenot the mutually exclusive activities that manyperceive them to be.

Outright purchase, however, is an expensiveway to protect land, so land trusts use othertools. A land owner can willingly work with aland trust to have a conservation covenant regis-tered on title to their land. This will be trans-

ferred to future owners, and it may protect all orpart of the land. The conservation covenantallows continued human use of the land, and italso provides perpetual legal protection for someof the ecological or heritage features. Before1994, conservation covenants were only held bygovernment agencies. However, due to financialand staff requirements, many of these agenciesfound it difficult if not impossible to bear thecosts of annual monitoring or ultimate enforce-ment should the terms of the covenant bebreached.

As with regulation, covenants and easementsrequire the holder to make a substantial commit-ment to monitoring and enforcement. An advantage of covenants over regulation is thatcovenants can include positive restorativeactions and they can be designed for the uniquefeatures of each piece of land rather than the onesize fits all quality of regulation.

A covenant example from one of the earliestperiods when the Land Title Act was changed toallow non-government organizations to holdcovenants is from the Silva Forest Foundation.They hold a covenant near Grand Forks on a 121hectare property located along the Kettle River.Approximately half of the property is in the agri-cultural land reserve and is for agricultural useunder organic certification. The remainder of theproperty is zoned for forestry and buildings. Theforested part of the property has been logged atvarious times over the past 80 years and there

are few old trees. The purpose ofthe covenant is to protect waterquantity and quality, preserve andenhance wildlife habitat, andwithin the forested area, the goalis restoration.

Another example of a covenantis a 24 hectare site registered in2001. The covenants main pur-pose is to protect Species andRisk and some grassland areas.The property is situated on theToby Benches a rolling 35square km plateau which lies atthe foot of the Purcell Mountains,near Invermere, BC. Since firesuppression has been in generalpractice for the last half of the

century, there has been a general trend towardforest in-growth on sites that were formerlygrassland, grass-shrublands and open forest.Two unconnected ponds lie within the covenantarea and together with the forested areas, pro-vide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Thisproperty provides an important corridor forwildlife and refuge for wild plant species. It hasbeen protected by the owner because of her lovefor elk.

There is one limitation to having conservationcovenants registered on ALR lands. Thesecovenants must receive approval from theAgricultural Land Commission. In some cases,the Commission has turned down covenants onALR lands, due to their strict agricultural focus.However, the Land Trust Alliance of BritishColumbia (LTABC) and some of our memberland trusts are currently working to ensure thatthe process of approval is more transparent, and

Protecting Our Natural Heritage for Sheila Harrington, Executive Director, Land Trust Alliance of BC

BR

UN

OD

ELE

SA

LLE

BC GRASSLANDS 19

Future Generationsthat the benefits of conservation covenants canbe understood and accepted more generally.

Land trusts also encourage voluntary landstewardship and sometimes engage in restora-tion or educational projects in co-operation withother stewardship organizations. These pro-grams can be as simple as offering public pre-sentations or workshops, or meeting withlandowners and developing plans for restorationor invasive species control.

Land trusts preserve or restore habitat,species, and streamside areas within existingfarms, ranches or forests. Often these land usesrequire extensive areas that are difficult for a sin-gle landowner to buy, manage or maintain.Consequently, Land Trusts can help preserve sus-tainable range, food and forest lands by working

in partnership with the land owners to protecthabitat values at the same time as restrictingdevelopment or practices which would damagethe natural or cultural features of the land.

Much of the important wildlife habitat inBritish Columbia is on private property so thework of land trusts is vital in protecting our nat-ural heritage. Land owners, farmers and ranch-ers, and other organizations can become familiarwith the work of their local land trust so thatwhen an ecologically important property comeson the market or is threatened with develop-ment, these community land trusts are familiarand available to help.

The LTABC is a province-wide association ofall of BCs land trusts. Formed in 1997. It cur-rently has 82 members. We provide training pro-

grams, resources, research and networkingamong the many land trusts, and with the widerCanadian Land Trust Alliance now in formation.The best single source of information about thework of land trusts and protected lands inBritish Columbia is the Land Trust Allianceresource centre at 250-538-0112,info@landtrustalliance.bc.ca or the Land TrustAlliance website at www.landtrustalliance.bc.ca.We also have an on-line Registry of ProtectedLands at www.landtrustalliance.bc.ca/registry.

British Columbians are fortunate to live in anarea containing incredible beauty, significanthabitat, and the countrys highest level of biodi-versity. Working with Land Trusts, we still havetime to preserve and restore this heritage for thebenefit of our children and all other creatures.

Call for Members

The GCC has enjoyed a busy and productive year.

It is to you, the members, we owe much of our

success in 2005-2006, and for that we thank you!

A great number of memberships are due for

renewal in the coming months, and we are

confident that we can rely on your continued

assistance in our mission to conserve BCs

precious grassland ecosystems.

Our membership is growing, and we hope to

continue our relations with our loyal members even

as we welcome many new grassland enthusiasts to

our growing base of support. Please use the

enclosed membership form to support the GCC

and do your part to promote the stewardship of

BCs grasslands.

BCs grasslands are disappearing at an alarming rate. Why? Weare better informed than ever before about the natural values ofgrasslands, the critical habitat and ecosystem services they pro-vide, the current status of, threats to, and need to conserve theseecosystems. Yet fragmentation, degradation, and loss of thesefragile ecosystems continue despite heroic efforts by groups,individuals, and all levels of government to protect the little thatremains of BCs once rich and diverse grasslands.

Mapping currently underway by the Grasslands ConservationCouncil will show the location and extent of remaining prioritygrassland areas. Another mapping project just being completedby the BC Ministry of Environment shows the change in extentof interior grassland ecosystems from the 1800s to 1938 to2001. The extensive losses shown on the maps are disturbing,but provide a compelling argument for protection of remaininggrasslands.

What can we do to protect and restore our grasslands andother at-risk ecosystems? Development pressure on remainingnatural ecosystems is intense and increasing. The majority ofland use decisions in areas of human settlement are made at thelocal government level, and local governments have beenempowered in recent years to enact legislation to protect sensi-tive ecosystems within their jurisdictions. However, local gov-ernments are struggling to find a balance between managinggrowth and protecting natural values. Official CommunityPlans, growth strategies, and associated bylaws often do noteffectively utilize the full suite of existing legislative tools toensure protection of remaining natural ecosystems.

The Green Infrastructure Model Bylaws PackageHow can we help? One thing we can do is to make sure thatwere making optimum use of existing tools, legislation andincentives that promote the conservation of remaining grass-lands. To that end, the multi-agency Wetland StewardshipPartnership has partnered with the University of VictoriaEnvironmental Law Centre Clinic (lawyers Deborah Curran,Calvin Sandborn and UVic law students) to develop The GreenInfrastructure Model Bylaws Package, a set of model local gov-ernment bylaws that can provide comprehensive protection forgrasslands, wetlands and other sensitive ecosystems.

The Green Infrastructure Model Bylaws Packageprovides: Integrated bylaw provisions that maintain the green infra-

structure and protect ecologically sensitive areas; Materials that include model provisions for Regional Growth

Strategies, Official Community Plans, Development PermitAreas, Zoning, Tax Exemptions, Environmental Assessment,Stormwater Management and other regulatory tools;

Provisions designed so that local governments can eitherdevelop a comprehensive bylaw package, or choose applicableportions when considering revisions to a particular type ofbylaw.

Each local government can tailor the sample wording providedin the Model Bylaws Package to its own administrative and site-specific context.

The bylaw examples in the package are not theoretical. Mosthave already been implemented by at least one BC jurisdiction.Different local governments are doing different things well, andthe Model Bylaws Package picks out the best provisions andputs them all together as examples of the variety of ways localgovernments are protecting their green infrastructure. In addi-tion, the team developed two publications designed for localgovernments that explain why they should move quickly to pro-tect wetlands and grasslandsWetlands Protection: A Primerfor Local Governments and Grasslands Protection: A Primer forLocal Governments.

Advantages to Local GovernmentsThe key benefit of the Model Bylaws Package is its comprehen-sive, integrated approach. Much of the work done in planningoffices is by necessity site-specific and reactive, for example,responding to development applications. Many local govern-ments enact conservation bylaws either because of provincialregulations or in response to a specific local issue, such as thecost of providing services to new development. However, mostmunicipal and regional governments acknowledge the need forstrategic, landscape-level land use planning. The Model BylawsPackage demonstrates the possibility of developing integratedconservation tools.

Local governments can move beyond reacting to specificissues, regulatory or other, by ensuring that the systems are inplace that enable a proactive approach to managing the entiregreen infrastructure. This integrated approach will also assistmunicipalities to put into place systems and best practices thatwill anticipate future senior government regulatory require-ments. Finally, this proactive approach will help communitiesprotect their valuable natural areasand realize the multitudeof economic, social and environmental benefits that a commu-nity enjoys when it does so.

A NEW LOOK AT CONSERVATION PLANNING TOOLS

The Green Infrastructure Model Jan Kirkby, Landscape Ecologist, Canadian Wildlife Service

20 BC GRASSLANDS

Bylaws Package

BC GRASSLANDS 21

The Species at Risk ActThe Model Bylaws Package will assist local governments tocomply with the provisions of the Species at Risk Act. Protectionof wetlands, grasslands and other sensitive ecosystems is a nec-essary component of any strategy to protect species at risk,because the majority of species at risk depend on sensitiveecosystems for all or part of their life cycle. Proactive localaction to protect these areas will reduce the need for less effec-tiveand more costlyrecovery plans for such species. Localcommunities can avoid being caught unaware by potential newspecies at risk legal requirements by taking the initiative now.

Consultation to Refine the Green InfrastructureModel Bylaws PackageThe Model Bylaws Package was well-received at the Union of BCMunicipalities (UBCM) 2005 annual meeting, and the stage hasnow been set for the reform of bylaws across the province. Thenext step in the development of the model bylaw document isconsultation with an expert focus group of local governmentstaff and political leaders. An invitation will be extended toselected local government staff and officials who have workedon protective and related bylaws to assist in refining and elabo-rating the bylaw package. Participants will be asked to suggestchanges to improve both the bylaw package and its presenta-tion. Perhaps most importantly, they will be asked to describetheir own governments experiences with the legal tools thathave been proposed.

The focus group will add their experiences in working withparticular legal provisions that are recommended in the ModelBylaws Package. This will demonstrate the scope of each tool,and relevant issues about its utility, administration and enforce-ment. The intention is to include case studies of local govern-ment experiences as sidebars in the final document to provideother local governments with information on the advantagesand difficulties of using each of the major bylaw provisions.

The format of the document will be refined to make it easierto navigate, and a matrix will be added at the beginning thatoutlines what each tool can and cannot do. A final version of theModel Bylaws Package will then be produced and distributed toall local governments.

Building Capacity with Local Government to Begin Bylaw ChangesThe next step will be to provide outreach and information sessions, and to create partnerships that will facilitate imple-mentation of the Green Infrastructure Model Bylaws Package.This will include presentations at regional local governmentannual meetings, tailored workshops for interested local gov-ernments, and responsive strategic legal advice.

Regional Biodiversity Conservation StrategiesIn order to successfully promote strategic, landscape-level,conservation-based land use planning, regional biodiversityconservation strategies are being developed and implementedin the Greater Vancouver Region, the Islands Trust Area, and inthe Comox Valley on Vancouver Island. It is hoped that thesebiodiversity conservation strategies and tools such as the GreenInfrastructure Model Bylaws Package will provide models foruse in other regions, and will promote a more strategic, proac-tive approach to biodiversity conservation. Time is of theessencewe owe our grandchildren much more than just stories about what used to be.

Thanks to Deborah Curran and Calvin Sandborn for contribu-tions to this article.

Grasslands in BCPHOTO TERRY JACKSON

22 BC GRASSLANDS

Over the past 10 years alone, an

alarming number of grasslands

have been lost or degraded by

development and fragmentation.

Local and regional planners have

not had the information and

expertise necessary to plan for

sensitive ecosystems, such as

grasslands. Subsequently, they

have been unable to develop

community plans that consider

grassland values.

Above left is a photo of the

future site of the Valleyview truck

stop taken in 1994.

Below left, the same site in

2004. The area was once

grassland.

SOUTH THOMPSON RIVER EAST OF KAMLOOPS

Going, In the absence of a detailed inventory andclassification system, grassland habitatsthroughout BC are being fragmented,degraded and lost. Bruno Delesalle

BC GRASSLANDS 23

The GCC is tackling this

problem head on with an

initiative: Planning for Change:

Preventing the Fragmentation and

Development of Priority

Grasslands in BC.

Working with the data collected

within the Priority Grasslands

Initiative, the GCC and its

partners will collaborate to work

with planners in local, regional

and First Nations governments to

recognize and protect grasslands

and other sensitive ecosystems

when planning for development.

Above right, Osoyoos grasslands

in 1994.

Below right, the same site in

2004. The area was once

grassland.

OSOYOOS GRASSLANDS

going...

24 BC GRASSLANDS

Fauna

Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens auricollis)Dick Cannings, Consulting Biologist

DescriptionThe Yellow-breasted Chat is a large warbler that is about thesame size as an oriole. It is bright yellow on the throat andbreast, white on the belly and olive green on the back. The birdhas white markings or spectacles on the side of its blue-greyhead. Its song is a loud series of clear whistles and harshernotes.

Distribution and PopulationThe Yellow-breasted Chat breeds from southern Canada southto central Mexico and winters from southern Texas and Floridasouth to western Panama. In Canada, the species in found inthree areas. One subspecies (I .v. auricollis) occurs in bothBritish Columbia and the southern parts of Alberta andSaskatchewan. These two populations are referred to as theBritish Columbia population and the prairie population respec-tively. They are treated separately for the purposes of assigningstatus because they inhabit separate geographic areas. Theother subspecies of Yellow-breasted Chat (I. v. virens) occurs inCanada in southwestern Ontario (eastern population). The estimate available in 2001 for the British Columbia populationcounted fewer than 50 pairs of the species.

HabitatThe Yellow-breasted Chat breeds in dense thickets around woodedges, riparian areas, and in overgrown clearings. Western pop-ulations are more or less confined to riparian environments,particularly thickets of wild rose and willow along streams andriver oxbows. Although the species breeding habitat in BritishColumbia has been affected by development in the last 50 years,very little has been lost in the last decade.

BiologyThis species is a neotropical migrant that is territorial andforms monogamous pairs. It leaves Canada in early fall andreturns in the spring (mid-May in British Columbia). Femaleslay three to five eggs per clutch, and both males and femalesfeed the young. In British Columbia, some birds attempt twobroods per season. Very little is known about nesting success.The species primary diet during the breeding season consists of insects, but it feeds on large numbers of berries in the latesummer.

ThreatsHabitat availability is the primary limiting factor for the Yellow-breasted Chat in British Columbia. Removal of riparian (river-side) forest along the Okanagan River channel, and conversionof this land to agriculture, has severely reduced the amount ofsuitable breeding habitat for the species

ProtectionThe Yellow-breasted Chat auricollis subspecies British Columbiapopulation is protected under the federal Species at Risk Act(SARA).

The British Columbia population of the Yellow-breasted Chatauricollis subspecies is protected by the federal Migratory BirdsConvention Act. Under this Act, it is prohibited to kill, harm, orcollect adults, young, and eggs. It is also protected under theBritish Columbia Wildlife Act, which additionally preventsdestruction of active nest sites.

Riparian habitat used by the British Columbia population ofthe Yellow-breasted Chat auricollis subspecies is being restoredand protected through a variety of projects, but it is also beinglost in places to new development. With only about 50 pairs inBritish Columbia, this population remains vulnerable to extir-pation.

Most of the Yellow-breasted Chats population in the southOkanagan and Similkameen valleys is monitored by govern-ment and First Nations researchers.

Ongoing research projects have continually fine-tuned ourunderstanding of what constitutes suitable habitat for this pop-ulation of Yellow-breasted Chat. This knowledge has been usedto identify all potentially suitable breeding habitat remaining inthe south Okanagan and Similkameen valleys. An improvedunderstanding of habitat requirements has also helped therecovery team prioritize sites for habitat restoration.

More than half of Yellow-breasted Chat habitat in BritishColumbia is on Indian Reserves and the rest is on private,provincial Crown and conservation lands. Suitable protectedareas and Crown land in the south Okanagan include theVaseuxBighorn National Wildlife Area, South OkanaganWildlife Management Area and Inkaneep Provincial Park.

The South Okanagan Wildlife Management Area was desig-nated in 1993 by the provincial government to protect riparianhabitat that is important to Yellow-breasted Chats and many

BC GRASSLANDS 25

other species at risk while allowing cattle grazing and hay crop-ping to continue.

Habitat restoration projects have been conducted on privatelands, Indian Reserves and conservation lands in the SouthOkanagan and Similkameen valleys. Riparian habitat has beenrestored by fencing some riparian woodlands to exclude live-stock and by re-flooding to restore some water flow to themarshes and oxbows. Fence maintenance is ongoing, as is con-trol of invasive plants. The effectiveness of fencing at improvinghabitat quality for Yellow-breasted Chats has been confirmed bymonitoring all fenced sites since 2001.

In 2002, the Osoyoos Indian Band began implementation of arange restoration plan in which riparian areas on reserve landwill be protected and forage quality should improve throughrange rotations for cattle. This range plan benefits Yellow-breasted Chats by reducing grazing in a riparian zone wherechats have been known to establish breeding territories.

In 2003 a significant riparian habitat restoration project wasinitiated in VaseuxBighorn National Wildlife Area. The goal isto restore the north end meadow (16 hectares) to riparian low-land forest by breaching the Okanagan River dike and restoringwater flow to the area, creating habitat for up to 30 new chat territories.

In 2004, the provincial government created 11 Yellow-breast-ed Chat wildlife habitat areas, each one between 1.1 and 1.5hectares. These sites were identified as having high qualitynesting habitat and are protected through limiting livestockwithin the wildlife habitat area.

The Land Conservancy of BC (TLC), in partnership with theEnOwkin Centre (a non-profit First Nations educational organi-zation), is attempting to acquire a long-term lease over 72 acresalong the Okanagan River channel, a property that is home tothe Yellow-breasted Chat. The lands are currently held by FirstNations families in a form of land tenure called Locatee. TLCaims to protect and restore the habitat on this important prop-erty, as well as provide an interpretive and educational programthat teaches about the areas ecology, provides opportunities forinvolvement in habitat restoration, and also focuses on aborigi-nal use of the lands resources.

Stewardship by private landowners is