Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife · 2013-05-09 · Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation PREPARED

Habitat Attribute Targets forRed and Blue Listed Wildlife

Species and PlantCommunity Conservation

PREPARED BY

John M. Cooper1

Chris Steeger2

Suzanne M. Beauchesne1

Marlene Machmer2

Lynne Atwood3

E. Todd Manning1

1 Manning, Cooper and AssociatesErrington, BC

2 Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.Nelson, BC

3 Genoa Environmental Consulting LtdCobble Hill, BC

July 2004

Columbia BasinFish & WildlifeCompensationProgram

ii

Habitat Attribute Targets forRed and Blue Listed WildlifeSpecies and PlantCommunity Conservation

Written by

John M. Cooper, Suzanne M. Beauchesne, and Todd Manning

Manning, Cooper and AssociatesBox 646, Errington, BC

V0R 1V0

Marlene Machmer and Chris Steeger

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd532 Park Street, Nelson, BC

V1L 2G9

Lynne Atwood

Genoa Environmental Consulting Ltd3845 Lefran Road

Cobble Hill, BCV0R 1L0

ForColumbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

Nelson, BC

July 2004

iii

Executive Summary

Dry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) andPonderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide criticalhabitat for a diversity of species. Several Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plantcommunities may occur within treatment units considered for habitat restoration. It is theintent of CBFWCP and MWLAP to consider all Red and Blue-listed species andcommunities when planning restoration so as to prevent conducting treatments for onespecies/community to the detriment of another.

Nine wildlife species (Lewis’s Woodpecker, Williamson Sapsucker, White-headedWoodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Long Billed Curlew, Sharp-tailed Grouse, NorthernGoshawk) and seven plant communities (Douglas-fir/snowberry/ balsamroot, Antelope-brush /bluebunch wheatgrass, Western snowberry-Idaho fescue, Bluebunch wheatgrass -junegrass, Douglas-fir – western larch - spruce /pinegrass, Ponderosa pine-tremblingaspen/rose [Solomon's seal], Ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass-silky lupine) wereconsidered.

We used these UTM locations to map the known occurrences of the focal species withinrange and pasture units of the plan area, to provide a spatial context for the species-specific prescription guidelines compiled in this report.

For each wildlife species and plant community, information on restoration objectives,BEC zone, subzones and variants, restoration techniques, best management practices andsilvicultural practices useful for restoration were summarized from available publishedand technical literature.

Specific recommendations for each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plantcommunity were developed from the available literature, combined with our professionalopinion. Recommendations for each species and plant community were made, whereapplicable, for tree stocking densities, range of canopy closure, preferred residual treespecies, preferred spatial configuration, wildlife tree stocking density, provision forfuture wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover density and height, and herb cover.

Recommendations for treatment techniques and estimates of restoration successprobability are made. Relevant background information on each wildlife and plantcommunity is also provided.

iv

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 12. Methods................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Mapping component ........................................................................................32.2 Wildlife species habitat and plant community restoration information..............5

3. Mapping Results .................................................................................... 64. Wildlife Species Habitat Restoration Information .................................. 9

4.1 Restoration techniques .....................................................................................94.2 Lewis’s Woodpecker ..................................................................................... 104.3 White-headed Woodpecker ............................................................................ 134.4 Williamson’s Sapsucker................................................................................. 154.5 Flammulated Owl .......................................................................................... 174.6 “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse.................................................................. 204.7 Long-billed Curlew........................................................................................ 234.8 Northern Goshawk......................................................................................... 254.9 Badger ........................................................................................................... 284.10 Bighorn Sheep ............................................................................................... 304.11 Relative potential for success of restoration ................................................... 33

5. Plant Communities Habitat Restoration Information ............................ 445.1 Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot................................................................ 445.2 Antelope Brush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass ......................................................... 455.3 Western Snowberry-Idaho Fescue.................................................................. 475.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass/Junegrass................................................................... 485.5 Douglas-fir-Western Larch-Spruce/Pinegrass................................................. 505.6 Ponderosa Pine-Trembling Aspen/Rose [Solomon’s Seal] ............................. 515.7 Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass-Silky Lupine .................................... 52

6. Discussion ........................................................................................... 547. Recommendations................................................................................ 558. Acknowledgements.............................................................................. 569. Literature Cited.................................................................................... 5710. Other literature consulted..................................................................... 65

List of Figures

Figure 1. Study area: Natural Disturbance Type 4 in the East Kootenay Trench…..…..4

Figure 2. Pasture units known to contain 0-4 listed wildlife species ………..………….7

Figure 3. Occurrences of rare wildlife (e.g., Badger) by pasture unit in the NDT4 ofthe East Kootenay Trench …………….………………………………………………...8

v

List of Tables

Table 1. Species and plant communities at-risk addressed in this report ……………..……2

Table 2. Relative impact on Red and Blue-listed wildlife species from restoration ofNDT4 conditions in the EKT. (X=highly beneficial, x=beneficial,blank=negligible impact)………………………………………………………...33

Table 3. Stocking targets, wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover targets and herb covertargets for rare wildlife habitat in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench………………………….….34

Table 4. Stocking targets for rare plant communities in open grasslands (range), openforest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench…………………..38

Table 5. Habitat types and expected feasibility of success of restoration treatmentsfor Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the East KootenayTrench……………………………………………………………….…………...41

Table 6. Restoration techniques recommended for Red and Blue wildlife and plantcommunities in open grassland and open forest habitats in the East KootenayTrench……………………………………………………………………………42

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Map of occurrences for six Red and Blue-listed wildlife species in the EastKootenay Trench.

Appendix 2. Pasture unit names, numbers, size, and occurrence of listed wildlife species.

Appendix 3. Scientific names of wildlife and plants mentioned in text.

Appendix 4. KBLUP management guidelines for NDT4 systems.

Appendix 5. List of contacts and information sources.

1

1. IntroductionDry low elevation grasslands and open forests within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) andPonderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zones of the East Kootenay Trench provide criticalhabitat for a diversity of species (Machmer 2001). The East Kootenay Trench containsan estimated 135,000 ha of NDT4 Ponderosa Pine (PP) and Interior Douglas-fir (IDF)ecosystems that are considered for restoration treatments (Figure 1). The East KootenayTrench is a narrow flat glacial plain with a distinctive rain shadow that lies in thesouthern portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from about Golden south to the borderwith the USA.

These ecosystems are characterized by frequent, low intensity fires which promote openstands of mature trees with sparse regeneration, a vigorous understory of bunchgrasses,shrubs and forbs, and a low incidence of insects and diseases (Arno et al. 1995; Daigle1996; Gayton 1998).

Successful fire suppression has led to forest ingrowth and encroachment, and resulted inlarge-scale conversion of native grasslands and open forests to a closed forest condition(Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000). Effects ofthis conversion include the loss and degradation of critical wildlife habitat andbiodiversity, reduction in forage values, establishment and spread of noxious weeds,decreased forest health, and increased risk of catastrophic wildfire (Daigle 1996; Gayton1998; Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000; Holt2001). Cumulative impacts of fire suppression, human settlement, reservoir creation andindustrial development in the Trench are exerting increasing pressure on remaining seralgrasslands and open forests and the species that depend on them.

A multi-agency team has been collaborating to restore dry fire-maintained ecosystems inthe Trench using a combination of treatments: slashing, pre-commercial and commercialthinning, prescribed burning, weed control, pruning, etc. (Rocky Mountain TrenchEcosystem Restoration Steering Committee 2000). The Columbia Basin Fish & WildlifeProgram (CBFWCP) has actively participated in this process by identifying anddelivering restoration projects in recent years (e.g., Page and Machmer 2003).

To date, the development of restoration prescriptions (i.e., Stand ManagementPrescriptions [SMPs], Silvicultural prescriptions [SPs], and Burn Plans) has been guidedby the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan (KBLUP), supplemented with professionalopinion from foresters, agrologists, biologists, and the public. The KBLUPImplementation Strategy (Ministry of Forests 1997) addresses a range of restorationobjectives under a set of guidelines for the NDT-4 (NDT-4 guidelines). These includethe retention of veteran and large trees and snags; the conservation of wildlife habitat,biodiversity and red- and blue-listed species and communities; optimization of forageproduction; minimization of weed occurrence; and protection of ecosystem health(review in Machmer et al. 2002). The strategy provides general direction on suitabletarget distributions and stocking levels for the restoration of open forest and grasslandcomponents, however operational detail and direction concerning the sizes, condition,

2

density, distribution and spatial configuration of residual trees and provisions for wildlifetree retention/recruitment and other essential habitat elements are lacking (Machmer2001, 2002; Machmer et al. 2002).

Red- and blue-listed elements most relevant for consideration during ecosystemrestoration treatments are wildlife-tree dependent species, grassland-dependent speciesand dry ecosystem-adapted plant communities. Specific species and plant communitiesconsidered in this project, their respective BC and COSEWIC conservation status, andimportant habitat attributes are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Species and plant communities at-risk addressed in this report.

Species BCConservationStatus

COSEWICStatus

Habitat Attributes

Lewis’s Woodpecker Blue Special Concern Wildlife treesFlammulated Owl Blue Special Concern Wildlife trees, thicketsBadger Red Endangered Prey abundanceBighorn Sheep Blue none Herbaceous forage, treesLong Billed Curlew Blue Special Concern Tree abundanceWilliamson Sapsucker Red none Deciduous, Wildlife treesWhite-headedWoodpecker

Red Endangered Wildlife trees

Northern Goshawk Yellow none Nest sites, dense matureforest

Sharp-tailed Grouse Blue none Grasslands, deciduous cover

Plant Communities Site SeriesDouglas-fir / snowberry/ balsamroot

Red S2 IDFdm2/03

Antelope-brush /bluebunch wheatgrass

Red S2 IDFdm2/02; PPdh2/00

Western snowberry -Idaho fescue

Red S2 IDFdm2/00

Bluebunch wheatgrass -junegrass

Red S2 PPdh2/02aPPdh2/02b

Douglas-fir - westernlarch - spruce /pinegrass

Blue S3 IDFdm2/04

Ponderosa pine -trembling aspen / rose [Solomon's seal ]

Red S1 PPdh2/03

Ponderosa pine /bluebunch wheatgrass –silky lupine

Red S2 PPdh2/01

3

The CBFWCP has identified range units with good potential for restoration success and,within those, has focused on pasture units that so far have not required logging treatments(i.e., only thinning, brushing with subsequent burning). SMPs have been developed forsome pasture units (e.g., Ashfire, CBFWCP 2001). To expand the emphasis of theecosystem restoration program, this report provides stand management and silviculturalprescription information that specifically addresses the conservation of habitat forselected listed species and plant communities.

The objective of this project is to develop targets for distribution, species, size, anddensity of wildlife trees to maintain or restore key habitat attributes for the species/plantcommunities listed in Table 1 in the EKT (Figure 1). Invertebrates and rare plants are notconsidered in this report.

2. Methods

2.1 Mapping component

As part of species-specific research or inventory projects in the plan area, GPS locationsof observed individuals or nest sites have previously been determined and reported indocuments or through personal communications (Ian Adams; Addision & Christie 2002;Ted Antifeau; Irene Manley; Nancy Newhouse; Penny Ohanjanian; and Kari Stuart-Smith). We used these UTM locations to map the known occurrences of the focal specieswithin range and pasture units of the plan area, to provide a spatial context for thespecies-specific prescription guidelines compiled in this report. We chose to map thelocations by pasture unit polygons, as they are typically the operational units used in theplanning and implementation of the units for NDT4 restoration efforts. The maps wereproduced on the basis of the following methodology.

1. All available UTMs were obtained for reported occurrences of the focal species.Data used for the final maps were obtained during different years for differentspecies: Northern Goshawk: 1998-2002, Flammulated Owl: 2001 and 2003,Long-billed Curlew: 2003, Lewis’s Woodpecker: 1999, and American Badger:2002 (badger locations prior to 2002 were available but not used due to thelimited scope of the mapping component).

2. For Sharp-tailed Grouse, no GPS-based occurrence data were available. However,general descriptions of known grouse locations were sufficiently exact to placethem into individual or groups of pasture units.

3. For bighorn sheep, location data were obtained via the Internet from theinteractive maps of the Columbia Basin Biodiversity Atlas(http://www.biodiversityatlas.org/maps/index.php).

KASLOSILVERTON

Slocan

GOLDEN

UN

CA

N

Duncan

Lake

INVERMEREK

OO

TE

NA

Y

RI

VE

R

CO

LU

MB

IA

R

R

CASTLEGAR

NELSON

ELKFORD

SPARWOOD

FERNIE

KIMBERLY

CRANBROOK

CRESTON

Kootenay

Lake

Lake

Koocanusa

R

MO

YI

E

EL

KR

MONTANA (USA)

YOHO

NAT PARK

KOOTENAY

NAT

PARKM

T ASSINIBOINE

PARK

DENVERNEW

Figure 1: Study Area - Natural Disturbance Type 4 in the East Kootenay Trench

0 10 20 30 405Kilometers

Red and Blue Listed Species Project

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

Natural Disturbance Type 4

Provincial Park

Protected Area

National Parks

5

4. No occurrence data were available for White-headed Woodpecker andWilliamson’s Sapsucker. The available anecdotal information for these twospecies was not sufficient to create occurrence maps.

5. In order to place species occurrence data into pasture unit polygons, UTMslocations were assigned to pasture units by using physical maps and draftingequipment. Again, the limited scope of the mapping component did not justifymore elaborate GIS methods. In cases were the inevitable inaccuracies of thismethod did not allow exact identification of individual pasture units, neighboringunits were included. Considering that all focal species of this project are mobilewithin ranges of different sizes, it is reasonable to expect that their occurrencesextend into nearby polygons, especially if the reported UTMs are near the borderof one or more polygons.

6. CBFWCP GIS technologist Amy Waterhouse produced the final maps of reportedspecies occurrences by pasture unit. A spatial layer exists in the CBFWCP datawarehouse, stored as ESRI coverage. The coverage is projected to Albers EqualArea Conic, with parameters of:

• Central meridian: -126.0 (126:00:00 West longitude)* Latitude of projection origin: 45.0 (45:00:00 North latitude)* First standard parallel: 50.0 (50:00:00 North latitude)* Second standard parallel: 58.5 (58:30:00 North latitude)* False easting: 1000000.0 (one million metres)* False northing: 0.0The datum is NAD83, based on the GRS80 ellipsoid.

2.2 Wildlife species habitat and plant community restorationinformation

For each wildlife species and plant community, information on restoration objectives,BEC zone, subzones and variants, restoration techniques, best management practices andsilvicultural practices useful for restoration was summarized from available publishedand technical literature.

Specific recommendations for each Red and Blue-listed wildlife species and plantcommunity for each relevant habitat type (grassland, open forest and closed forest) in theEast Kootenay Trench were developed from the available literature combined with ourprofessional opinion. Recommendations for each species and plant community weremade where applicable for tree stocking densities, range of canopy closure, preferred

6

residual tree species, preferred spatial configuration, Wildlife Tree stocking density andprovision for future WT recruitment, shrub cover density and height, and herb cover.

An estimate of the feasibility of successful restoration, based on professional opinion,was made for each wildlife species and plant community. Feasible restoration techniqueswere also identified for each.

Background ecological information on each wildlife species and plant community wassummarized from available literature to provide context for recommended restorationtargets and techniques.

3. Mapping Results

Of about 350 pasture units, one is occupied by four listed species, 38 are occupied by twolisted species and 133 are occupied by one listed species (Figure 2; Appendix 1, 2). Theremaining pasture units have no records of occurrence of listed species. We consideredall nine vertebrate wildlife species for mapping of the distribution of reported occurrences(Table 1). Information regarding occurrences of Williamson’s Sapsucker and White-headed Woodpecker in the EKT was too anecdotal for distribution mapping. Oneexample of a species occurrence map is provided in print form (Figure 3) but pastureunits cannot be read on the map. The digital Adobe images of these maps, which arecontained in the digital version of this report (see CBFWCP web site) show the individualpasture unit numbers, which can be read via the zoom-in tool. For detailed maps see thedigitial version of the report at the CBFWCP website http://www.cbfishwildlife.org/.

The mapped polygons are shown in the context of the NDT4 landscape and the locationsof protected areas and wildlife management areas. The spatial scale of pasture units is thebest approximation to the scale at which restoration treatment prescriptions aredeveloped. The species maps could therefore be used to identify priority areas where ourhabitat attribute targets and prescriptions recommendations may be applied. Treatmentprescriptions for areas occupied by multiple listed species, or potentially occupied bymore than one listed species or plant community will need to integrate habitat attributetargets for two or more species or communities.

KASLOSILVERTON

GOLDEN

CA

N

Duncan

Lake

INVERMERE

KO

OT

EN

AY

RI

VE

R

CO

LU

MB

IA

R

R

CASTLEGAR

NELSON

ELKFORD

SPARWOOD

FERNIE

KIMBERLY

CRANBROOK

CRESTON

Kootenay

Lake

Lake

Koocanusa

R

MO

YI

E

EL

KR

MONTANA (USA)

NAT PARK

KOOTENAY

NAT

PARKM

T ASSINIBOINE

PARK

DENVERNEW

177

54

249

76

335

32

218

385

165

140

245

385

372

395

275

35

221

318

289

14

210

92

354

9

53

348

295

362

49

113

17

72

77

25

65

185

332

251

13

198

31

11

362

45

99

234

232

12

330

155

368

154

303

235

307

8

228

7

20

195

164

116

236

346

39

224

311

202

85

239

85

304

259

223

226

216

253

204

270

21

46

240

37

100

313

227

277

123

186

231

302

121

133

131

5

310

283

50

153

276

273

104

200

159

258

124

120

83

199

357

250

262

192

74

320

225

47

238

346

93

18

297

188

101

401

10

167

196

52

7

219

213

214

7

242

221

110

81

166

175

61

274

62

388

208

16

272

209

207

27

89

181

117

26

282

305

161

86

43

180

79

73

126

399

127

294

163

30

151

23 22

7

64

381

257

252

172

290

118

168

15

317

29

189

55

138

247

390

44

306

360

36

183

328

94

263

376

157

203

146

269

57

48

222

193

279

179

261

205

107

394

152

190

160

58

170

280

115

91

80

338

220

19

71

368

364

51

293

365

344

358

70

134

320

309

386

233

106

337

400

301

383

82

69

145

147

182

139108

130

373

59

38

265

142

378

37

323

28

132

393

229

374

2

322

361

287

122

325

285

56

40

327

41

105

319

300

334

78

315

109

331324

34

352

347

351

197

158

141

67

345

42

359 243

174

264

102

382

384

24

377

60

13

342

248

128

350

281

3

90

129

340

268

288

375

308

63

326

136

191

264

137

135

187

119

355

296

292

26

184

23

396

284

387

95

356

217

162

392

66

266

371379

149

96

312

299

271

291

7

338

389

255

370

321

150

211

176

206

230

369

237

314

397

68

398

267

114

298

343

194

367

201

333

212

112

13

329

280

37

206

97

154

103

37

363

341

338

33

330

256

228

125

54

242242

385

25

385

Figure 2: Number of Red & Blue Listed Species known to Occur in Each Pasture Unit



0

1

2

4

Note: View in electronic format to read Pasture Unit labels


Provincial Park

Protected Area

National Parks

KASLOSILVERTON

GOLDEN

CA

N

Duncan

Lake

INVERMERE

KO

OT

EN

AY

RI

VE

R

CO

LU

MB

IA

R

R

CASTLEGAR

NELSON

ELKFORD

SPARWOOD

FERNIE

KIMBERLY

CRANBROOK

CRESTON

Kootenay

Lake

Lake

Koocanusa

R

MO

YI

E

EL

KR

MONTANA (USA)

NAT PARK

KOOTENAY

NAT

PARKM

T ASSINIBOINE

PARK

DENVERNEW

177

54

249

76

335

32

218

385

165

140

245

385

372

395

275

35

221

318

289

14

210

92

354

9

53

348

295

362

49

113

17

72

77

25

65

185

332

251

13

198

31

11

362

45

99

234

232

12

330

155

368

154

303

235

307

8

228

7

20

195

164

116

236

346

39

224

311

202

85

239

85

304

259

223

226

216

253

204

270

21

46

240

37

100

313

227

277

123

186

231

302

121

133

131

5

310

283

50

153

276

273

104

200

159

258

124

120

83

199

357

250

262

192

74

320

225

47

238

346

93

18

297

188

101

401

10

167

196

52

7

219

213

214

7

242

221

110

81

166

175

61

274

62

388

208

16

272

209

207

27

89

181

117

26

282305

161

86

43

180

79

73

126

399

127

294

163

30

151

23 22

7

64

381

257

252

172

290

118

168

15

317

29

189

55

138

247

390

44

306

360

36

183

328

94

263

376

157

203

146

269

57

48

222

193

279

179

261

205

107

394

152

190

160

58

170

280

115

91

80

338

220

19

71

368

364

51

293

365

344

358

70

134

320

309

386

233

106

337

400

301

383

82

69

145

147

182

139108

130

373

59

38

265

142

378

37

323

28

132

393

229

374

2

322

361

287

122

325

285

56

40

327

41

105

319

300

334

78

315

109

331324

34

352

347

351

197

158

141

67

345

42

359 243

174

264

102

382

384

24

377

60

13

342

248

128

350

281

3

90

129

340

268

288

375

308

63

326

136

191

264

137

135

187

119

355

296

292

26

184

23

396

284

387

95

356

217

162

392

66

266

371379

149

96

312

299

271

291

7

338

389

255

370

321

150

211

176

206

230

369

237

314

397

68

398

267

114

343

194

201

333

212

112

13

329

280

37

206

97

103

37

341

338

33

330

256

228

125

54

242

385

25

385

Reported Species: Badger Occurrences by Pasture Unit in the NDT4of the East Kootenay Trench



Note: View in electronic format to read Pasture Unit labels


OIC Ecological Reserve

Protected Area

Provincial Park

Badger

National Parks

Figure 3:

9

4. Wildlife Species Habitat Restoration Information

This section contains a range of information on the wildlife species that are the focus ofthis report. Information includes summaries of status, ecology, populations, habitat,restoration objectives, restoration techniques and best management practices. The mostimportant points for restoration are further summarized in Table 3. Feasibility ofrestoration for wildlife species is summarized in Table 5.

A short section on the restoration techniques mentioned in the report is presented first, inorder to inform the reader, in a brief way, about the scope of each technique (Table 6).

4.1 Restoration techniques

Several restoration techniques are mentioned in this report. A brief description of each ispresented here.

Prescribed burn: Small fires are deliberately set in treatment areas when conditions aresuitable for a controlled burn that will achieve the desired effect. Prescribed burns areoften used to reduce fuel loads to prevent catastrophic fires, to remove encroaching forestfrom grassland, to open up more closed forest, to improve habitat for target wildlifespecies, to remove invasive species, and other reasons.

Commercial thinning: A percentage of a forest stand may be harvested for commercialpurposes, leaving behind a more open stand that will have higher wildlife values than amore closed stand. Higher value trees for wildlife can be retained, lower value treesharvested.

Thinning: Same as above except usually during younger forest age stages where trees areleft on the ground, or piled and burned later.

Slashing: In younger stands, saplings are cut and left on the ground, or piled and burnedlater.

Mowing: grasslands, shrublands or young forest stands can be mowed with a mechanicalmower which cuts vegetation off just above the ground.

Tree planting: trees of desired species can be planted at desired densities and in desiredlocations.

Shrub/herb planting: same as for trees

Grass seeding: seeding of treatment areas with native and desired grass mixtures, bymechanical or physical methods depending on scale of treatment area, can quick startdesired grassland community establishment and reduce invasive species establishment

10

Fertilization: judicious use of fertilizers can speed forest growth and attainment of certaindesired structural features.

Noxious weed control: mechanical or physical removal of invasive species, herbicides, orbiological controls may be necessary to reduce and eradicate invasive plants

Livestock grazing: in most cases, livestock grazing is likely detrimental to most wildlifevalues. In most cases, managing grazing will reduce impacts on sensitive species andcommunities. Some species may benefit from more intensive grazing.

Coarse woody debris (CWD): Provision of CWD is useful to maintain some grasslandand forest characteristics essential for some wildlife species.

4.2 Lewis’s Woodpecker

StatusThere are no recognized subspecies of the Lewis’s Woodpecker, however in BritishColumbia, two separate populations are recognized by the Conservation Data Center(CDC): the Georgia Basin population is Red-listed and considered extirpated from thatregion whereas the interior population is Blue-listed (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004). TheCommittee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has designatedthe Lewis’s Woodpecker as a Species of Special Concern in Canada (Velland andConnolly 1999).

Lewis’s Woodpeckers are Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and RangesPractices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Gebauer 2004). This strategycontains specific management practices (General Wildlife Measures (GWMs)) thatoutline allowable forest practices within Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) designated asLewis’s Woodpecker conservation areas.

PopulationEighty-five breeding pairs were counted during an inventory of the East Kootenay Trenchin 1998 (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). It is estimated, that up to 120 pairs may nest inthe region. Inventory work in the region has not been continued, therefore there is noinformation on population trend for the EKT. A map of occurrence in the East KootenayTrench is found in Appendix 1.

Breeding habitatLewis’s Woodpeckers are birds of very open forest or grassland with scattered treesSousa 1983; Tobalske 1997; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Trees are required forperching and for nesting. Large open areas are necessary for foraging.

The Lewis’s Woodpecker is considered a primary excavator although it typically reusesan existing cavity for its nest sites (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). The cavity may have

11

been excavated by a conspecific, Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) or HairyWoodpecker (Picoides villosus), or it may have been naturally created (Bock 1970;Vierling 1997; Linder and Anderson 1998; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). The Lewis’sWoodpecker is a “weak” excavator; therefore, to create a new nest cavity, it requires aweak entry point such as a delimbed site with exposed heart rot or a very decayed orburnt snag (Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes). A suitable cavity is therefore acritical habitat feature for this species. The majority of nest sites documented in the EastKootenay trench were found in: a burnt snag from large intense fires; a large veteranponderosa pine with existing cavities; large cottonwood in riparian situations adjacent toagricultural areas or other very open habitats; or a man made structure (e.g., utility pole).

During the breeding season, Lewis’s Woodpeckers primarily forage by hawking flyinginsects. Hunting techniques include both extended feeding flights with complicated aerialmaneuvers or short sallies from a prominent perch within an open area. Structures usedfor hunting perches include snags or dead topped trees and man-made structures such astelephone poles and fence posts. Insects taken include flying beetles, moths andbutterflies (Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes).

Lewis’s Woodpeckers will also glean insects from tree trunks, branches, bushes and theground (Bock 1970; Tobalske 1997; SMB unpublished notes). This feeding techniquemay provide an important alternate food source when weather limits flying insectavailability. Berries and other fruit are also taken, particularly late in the nesting seasonas fruit ripens (Cannings et al. 1987; Tobalske 1997; JMC unpublished notes). IdealLewis’s Woodpecker habitat therefore has a heterogeneous herb and shrub layer thatsupplies a diverse population of insects and a late summer fruit crop.

In the East Kootenay Trench, Lewis’s Woodpeckers are found nesting in four habitattypes:

• burned coniferous forest which had suffered stand destroying fire• open ponderosa pine forest with an obvious history of frequent fire• grassland with isolated large veteran trees• and riparian cottonwood stands adjacent to openings (Cooper and Beauchesne

2000).

Habitats created by intense, stand-destroying fire are suitable for a relatively short time.In the East Kootenay Trench, high concentrations of nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers werefound in burns that were 13 to 28 years old (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000). Some delayin use is inevitable, before dispersing birds are able to locate and colonize newly createdhabitat. Burns become unsuitable for foraging once regenerating forest has filled in theopen space (Cooper and Gilles 2000). Burnt snags also tend to be fragile: several nestsnags at Newgate have fallen or have been knocked over by cattle or bears since 1997(S.M. Beauchesne unpublished notes).

In contrast, occasional fire benefits this species by providing large, landscape-levelhabitat areas (Cooper and Gilles 2000). Fire reduces forest encroachment in open areasby killing the shrub and seedling layer and also helps promote decay of larger trees (Saab

12

and Dudley 1998). Large veteran ponderosa pines subjected to smaller fires shouldsurvive for many years. Nest cavities in these trees are therefore likely to be available forlonger period of time. Lewis’s Woodpeckers use fire-maintained open ponderosa pineforest in the East Kootenay Trench, although relatively little of this type of habitat isavailable (Cooper and Gillies 2000).

Restoration objectivesTo maintain existing breeding habitat capability and to increase breeding habitatsuitability in open range and open forest areas of the EKT. Lewis’s Woodpeckers requirewildlife trees for nesting and open areas for foraging. Suitable habitat can be restored inopen grasslands and very open parts of open forests (Table 6).

BEC Subzone variants used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pinezones

Province wide (Gebauer 2004a)IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm, dm1, dm2, dw, mw1,mw2, un, xh1a, xh2a, xm, xw, xw2PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2

EKTIDF: dm2PP: dh2

Primary restoration techniques

• In open grasslands and open forests use prescribed burns to prevent coniferregeneration. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history.Decayed wildlife trees must be protected from burning.

• Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation, otherstructures, or wildlife trees), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt tomimic the effect of fire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers.

• In Py stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning,manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning,brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand.

• Create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops offto encourage decay, by topping > 3m above ground (high cut stubs), or inoculatestem with fungus to create decay. Also may plant suitable snags with anexcavator. Planted snags may be used by woodpeckers almost immediately afterplanting (Manning et al. 2002) and have proven to provide useful woodpeckerhabitat. On Vancouver Island, >95% of snags planted by excavators remainedstanding after 10 years (Cooper et al. 2004).

Prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth, heavy thinning of ponderosa pine stands thathave heavy ingrowth of other conifers, provision of wildlife trees suitable for nesting arethe most effective restoration treatments.

13

Best management practices

• Retain (e.g., protect from burning) all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with somedecay) >30 cm dbh and all old growth live Py as recruitment wildlife trees withinopen grasslands.

• Retain all trees with existing cavities.• Retain all riparian deciduous trees > 30 cm dbh in open grasslands and open

forest.• Manage grazing in treatment areas to provide for high quality herb and shrub

layers for high insect production.• Do not concentrate livestock in treatment areas as concentrations of cattle may

destroy some decayed wildlife trees suitable for nesting.• Discourage firewood collecting.• Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat.• Provide recruitment wildlife trees

Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restoration

Silvicultural systems that may be applicable for creating Lewis’s Woodpecker nestingand foraging habitat within forested landscapes include: variable retention cut, seed tree,and shelterwood systems.

4.3 White-headed Woodpecker

StatusThe White-headed Woodpecker is on the provincial red-list (Fraser 1999; CDC 2004) andis ranked by COSEWIC as Threatened in Canada (COSEWIC 2004). The White-headedWoodpecker is also listed as Identified Wildlife under the BC Forest and Range PracticesAct Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Gebauer 2004).

PopulationThe White-headed Woodpecker is reported occasionally but not annually from theKootenays (Campbell et al. 1990), indicating that if a resident population does occur, it isextremely small.

14

Breeding habitatThis species is associated with mature and old growth ponderosa pine forests with a highdensity of snags (Cannings 1995; Buchanan et al. 2003). Nest trees are typically >60cmdiameter at breast height, dead or dying ponderosa pines (Campbell et al. 1990; Frederickand Moore 1991). The seeds of pine cones provide an important food source in the latesummer and fall, therefore mature (>60 years old) live pines are required for coneproduction (Bull et al. 1986).

Restoration objectivesTo increase breeding habitat capability in open forest areas of the EKT. White-headedWoodpeckers require wildlife trees for nesting and stands of mature and old Py forforaging. Suitable habitat can be restored in open forests in the PP and IDF zones butpopulations are unlikely to respond due to the extreme peripheral nature of the species’range in British Columbia (Table 6).


Province wide (Gebauer 2004b)IDF: dk, dm, xh, xm, xwPP: xh

EKT (hypothetical)IDF:dm2PP:, dh2


• In open Py leading forests use prescribed burns to reduce conifer (Fd)regeneration and maintain stand openness. Burns should occur periodicallyaccording to site fire history.

• Where controlled burns are not practical (i.e., near human habitation or otherstructures), brushing or mowing may be used in an attempt to mimic the effect offire, by removing the majority of regenerating conifers.

• In Py stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning,manually remove conifer (mainly Fd) ingrowth (commercial or non-commercialthinning, brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand.

• If necessary, create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs orblowing tops off to encourage decay, by topping > 3m above ground (high cutstubs), or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay.

Prescribed burns and stand thinning are the best restoration techniques for White-headedWoodpecker.

15


• Retain (e.g., protect from burning) all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with somedecay) >30 cm dbh and all live Py > 50 cm dbh as recruitment wildlife treeswithin open forest.

• Retain all trees with existing cavities.• Provide for recruitment Py throughout treatment area• Do not concentrate livestock in treatment areas as concentrations of cattle may

destroy some decayed wildlife trees suitable for nesting.• Discourage firewood collecting.• Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat.


In Oregon, White-headed Woodpecker used partial removal and uncut stands slightlymore frequently than shelterwood and precommercial thinning treatments. In general, useoccurred in treatment areas in which large diameter trees were retained and structure mostresembled old-growth (Raphael et al. 1987; Marshal 1997). In the Sierra Nevada, thinnedconifer stands were used more often than unthinned stands (Siegel and DeSante 2003).

4.4 Williamson’s Sapsucker

StatusThe “Rocky Mountain” Williamson’s Sapsucker (subspecies nataliae), which occurs inthe East Kootenay, is on the provincial Red List in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999;CDC 2004). The “Western” Williamson’s Sapsucker (subspecies thyroideus), whichoccurs in the Similkameen to Boundary region, is on the provincial Blue List. (Fraser etal. 1999; BC Species Explorer 2004). The status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker inCanada has not been determined (COSEWIC 2004). The Williamson’s Sapsucker is alsolisted as Identified Wildlife under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act IdentifiedWildlife Management Strategy (Cooper and Manning 2004).

PopulationThe Williamson’s Sapsucker is the least abundant of the 4 sapsucker species in BritishColumbia, but population estimates are unavailable (Cooper 1995). Populations of the“Western” subspecies are apparently much higher than for the “Rocky Mountain”subspecies. There are very few records of the “Rocky Mountain” subspecies in the EastKootenay from the last 5 decades (Cooper 1995; Cannings 1996), although there areoccasional reports of nesting (e.g., Campbell et al. 2000). It is likely that populations arelocalized in areas with high habitat suitability.

16

Breeding habitatMixed western larch, interior Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine forests are importantnesting habitats. In British Columbia, nests have largely been found in coniferous trees,particularly western larch, but also in ponderosa pine (especially near Princeton),Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, white spruce, paper birch, and blackcottonwood (Cannings et al. 1987; Morgan et al. 1989; Campbell et al. 1990; Cooper1995; Manning and Cooper 1996; Gyug 1997, 1999). In the East Kootenay, and theSouthern Okanagan Highland, it is usually associated with mixed coniferous forests withstands of mature western larch.

Restoration objectivesTo increase breeding habitat suitability in relatively closed portions of open forest areasof the EKT. Williamson’s Sapsuckers require wildlife trees for nesting and stands ofyoung to old conifers and deciduous trees for foraging. Suitable habitat can be restored inopen forests at higher elevations in the IDF. Populations of Williamson’s Sapsucker inthe East Kootenay are very sparse even with extensive amounts of suitable habitat in theupper IDF and MS zones, so response to habitat restoration will likely be slow (Table 6).


Province wide (Cooper and Manning 2004)IDF: dk1, dk1a, dk2, dm, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2,un, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xwPP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a

EKTIDF: dm2


• Thin treatment stands so that canopy closure is 40-70%• Retain all Lw, Fd, Py veterans Wildlife Tree Classes 2-4 > 80 cm dbh and some

live trees of the same > 60 cm dbh as recruitment nest trees.• Create wildlife trees by killing trees directly, by cutting limbs or blowing tops off

to encourage decay, or inoculate stem with fungus to create decay.

Retention of veteran larch with structural defects and decay, combined with thinning ofclosed stands, are the most efficient methods of providing nesting habitat.

17


• Employ silvicultural stand tending practices to promote semi-open stands (<70%canopy crown closure) containing trees with suitable habitat attributes forWilliamson’s Sapsucker. Variable density planting and spacing treatments, andprescribed understorey burning can produce these conditions.

• Retain all trees with existing cavities.• Provide for recruitment of Lw veterans throughout treatment area• Discourage firewood collecting.


Use partial cutting silvicultural systems to maintain habitat attributes suitable forWilliamson’s Sapsuckers in areas scheduled for harvesting. These can includesilvicultural systems that employ some type of patch retention or other partial cuttingsystem that retains scattered trees with suitable habitat attributes. In areas scheduled forharvesting, regardless of the silvicultural system chosen, retain all veteran western larchand ponderosa pine as wildlife trees.

4.5 Flammulated Owl

StatusThe Flammulated Owl is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC 2004)and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices ActIdentified Wildlife Management Strategy (Cannings and van Woudenberg 2004).Flammulated Owls were reassessed by the Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2001 and their status as a Species of Special Concern(van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999) was maintained (COSEWIC 2004).

PopulationProvincial population estimates range from 600 to 750 breeding pairs, with addition non-breeding individuals (van Woudenberg 1999; Fraser et al. 1999). The population likelyfluctuates with budworm outbreaks (Roberts and Roberts 1996; van Woudenberg andKirk 1999).

There are no estimates available for the East Kootenay Trench population, however, asmall number probably breed from the US border, as far north as Radium Hot Springs ina thin band of appropriate habitat, primarily on the eastern side of the valley (vanWoudenberg and Kirk 1999; Fraser et al. 1999; van Woudenberg et al. 2000; Addisonand Christie 2002). Four breeding sites have been reported for the EKT (T. Antifeau pers.comm.). A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.

18

Breeding habitatIn British Columbia, Flammulated Owls breed in dry, open Douglas fir forests (Canningsand van Woudenberg 2004). Ponderosa pine may also be present (Howie and Ritcey1987), although to date it has not been found in pure ponderosa pine stands in thisprovince. Forest structure is usually heterogeneous, with multiple canopy layers.

Flammulated Owls are secondary cavity nester, using old woodpecker holes (usuallyPileated Woodpecker or Northern Flicker ) or natural cavities in decayed or dead trees(van Woudenberg 1999). Availability of suitable nest cavities is therefore a criticalhabitat feature. This insectivorous owl gleans prey from vegetation or hawks flyinginsects (McCallum 1994). In British Columbia, the most important foraging habitat is asmall forest opening adjacent to a dense thicket of regenerating Douglas fir (vanWoudenberg 1999). During the nesting period, the male delivers a single prey item pertrip to the nest, therefore proximity of nest site to foraging opportunities is critical(Linkhart et al. 1998). Thickets are also important for roosting and security cover (Howieand Ritcey 1987; van Woudenberg 1999).

Forests with some old growth characteristics are favoured because:• cavities are more common in the dead and decaying or damaged veteran trees

that occur in old forests (Illg and Illg 1994)• the heterogeneous structure in old forests provides shelter and day roost

opportunities (McCallum et al. 1994).

Restoration objectivesTo maintain existing breeding habitat capability and to increase breeding habitatcapability in dry Douglas-fir open forest areas of the EKT. Flammulated Owls requirewoodpecker-excavated cavities in wildlife trees for nesting, conifer thickets for securitycover and grass and shrubby openings for foraging. Suitable habitat can be best restoredin more closed parts of the open forest (Table 6).


Province wide (Cannings and van Woudenberg 2004)IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, km, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2, un, xh1, xh1a, xh1b, xh2, xh2a,xh2b, xm, xw, xw2PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2

East Kootenay Trench (van Woudenberg and Kirk 1999; van Woudenberg et al. 2000)IDF: dm2, un

Management objectives

To restore and maintain open, dry Douglas-fir forest habitat with approximatecharacteristics:

19

• stems per hectare: 100-1000• preferred residual tree: Douglas fir• preferred spatial configuration of residual trees: patches• canopy closure: 35-65%• shrub cover: patchy


• Use small, cool prescribed burns to reduce conifer regeneration in open Fdleading forests. If controlled burns are used, ensure that some conifer regenthickets are spared and protect all large > 50 cm dbh wildlife trees. Burns shouldoccur periodically according to site fire history.

• In Fd stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning,manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning,brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand; but leave patches.

• Create wildlife trees, if lacking in treatment area, by killing trees directly, bycutting limbs or blowing tops off to encourage decay, or inoculate stem withfungus to create decay.

• In areas where potential nest trees (Class 2-4 Wildlife Tree) are scarce, nest boxesmay be provided as an alternative to natural cavities, although to date successwith nest boxes has been limited.

Provision of wildlife trees with woodpecker cavities, and a mosaic of thickets ofregenerating conifer and open grasslands within an overall moderate canopy closure ofponderosa pine and Douglas-fir provides good habitat for Flammulated Owls.


• Retain all wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) and all old live Pyand Fd trees (>50cm dbh) within open forest treatment areas.

• Retain all trees with existing cavities in the treatment area.• Retain riparian deciduous forest (riparian thickets adjacent to more open forest

may provide foraging habitat).• Maintain small natural openings in open forest by brushing conifer regen.• Manage grazing in treatment areas to provide for high quality herb and shrub

layers for high insect production (grazing has been reported to eliminate foraginghabitat for this species, presumably due to reduction in prey, and trampling ofthickets may reduce foraging and security habitat).

• Discourage firewood collecting.• Do not use insecticides near nesting habitat

20


Most of the original nesting sites in BC were found in areas that had been selectivelylogged >20 years earlier (Howie and Ritcey 1987). Therefore, variable retention loggingmay be compatible with this owl’s habitat requirements provided a heterogeneous foreststructures with sufficient nest sites are maintained.

4.6 “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse

StatusThe “Columbian” Sharp-tailed Grouse is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al.1999; CDC 2004) and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and RangePractices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Ritcey and Jury 2004). Its statusin Canada had yet to be determined (COSEWIC 2004).

PopulationThe provincial population estimate is about 10,000 birds, with most of those occurring inthe Central Interior. About 600-1200 are estimated to occur in the Southern Interior(Ritcey and Jury 2004). In the EKT, prior to the mid 1970’s, the Columbia Sharp-tailedGrouse was a regularly occurring resident bird in the East Kootenay Trench (Campbell etal. 1990b; Ohanjanian 1990). Historically, numbers in the EKT were reported to fluctuatea number of times from “low” to “plentiful” from about 1905 through the 1950s (Ritcey1995). Hunting seasons were closed in 1974 after it was recognized that populations weredeclining and conservation measures were needed. The EKT population was declaredextirpated by the mid 1990s (Ohanjanian 1996, 1997), but small numbers have beenrecently reported from near Newgate (T. Antifeau pers. comm.). A map of occurrence inthe East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.

HabitatIn British Columbia, the Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse is dependent upon a variety ofhabitats throughout the course of the year. Most habitats occupied consist of opengrasslands that are adjacent to brushy or scattered open woodlands (Campbell et al.1990). Sharp-tailed Grouse generally prefer flatter terrain and usually avoid steep slopesexcept as local feeding areas (Ritcey 1995). In the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine andgrassland phases of the Interior Douglas-fir zone, climax grasslands are used for breeding(Ritcey 1995).

During the winter, Sharp-tailed Grouse feed on buds and catkins of deciduous trees orshrubs, berries and grain where available (Ritcey 1990). During periods of deep snowthey may use a variety of broad habitat types which include marshes, shrub fens, shrubswamps, trembling aspen forests and spruce-cottonwood riparian areas as well as earlysuccessional stages of other forested habitats (Ritcey 1995).

21

Scrub birch is a key winter food species for Sharp-tailed Grouse throughout much of theirrange (Ritcey 1995). Other important food sources are water birch, trembling aspen,saskatoon, willow, chokecherry and bittercherry (Ritcey 1995). Sharp-tailed Grouse usesnow burrows in shrublands, marshes and sedge-meadows for night roosts as burrowsprovide good thermoregulation and close proximity to feeding sites (Ritcey 1995).

Suspected causes of the decline and eventual extirpation in the EKT focus on forestingrowth and loss of grasslands due to intensive fire suppression throughout the 1900s asthe most important cause. Loss of grasslands has also occurred from reservoir creation atLake Koocanusa, residential development near Wycliffe, and intensifying agriculturalpractices along the valley bottom of the EKT. Grasslands that remain tend to beovergrazed by livestock in many areas which limit suitability for Sharp-tailed Grouse(Ohanjanian 1996, 1997). These factors, in combination, among others (e.g., predators,weather, pesticides), were reiterated by Ritcey (1995) as likely causes of declines ofSharp-tailed Grouse in grassland areas throughout southern British Columbia.

It is likely that humans may have initially enhanced Sharp-tailed Grouse habitat byproviding more food during early farming days (Hays et al. 1998) and by removingherbivores (e.g., bison) from the landscape during early settlement which allowedgrasslands to recover (Bergerud 1988). Subsequent larger scale land conversions andhunting pressure likely led to lower populations, before the onset of effects from firesuppression and even more intensive farming, grazing and settlement.

Introductions and translocations in the USA have met with success in many locations.Minimum area needed for successful reintroductions is about 30 km2, with 33% inundisturbed shrub-steppe and the remainder in croplands, pasture and grazed uplands(Connelly et al. 1998).

Restoration objectivesTo increase quality and quantity of open grasslands and open forest in the EKT. Sharp-tailed Grouse require extensive areas of grassland with sufficient herb layer cover fornesting and suitable sites for leks. Nearby riparian areas, forest edges, and shrublands arerequired for foraging and wintering habitat. Suitable habitat can be restored in opengrasslands and the more open parts of the open forest (Table 6).


Province wide (Ritcey and Jury 2004)IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm1, dm2, mw1, mw2,mw2a, un, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xh2b, xm,xw, xw2PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a

East Kootenay TrenchPP: dh

22

IDF: dm2, un


• In open grasslands and open forests use prescribed burns to prevent coniferregeneration. Burns should occur periodically according to site fire history.


• Control invasive plants and seed treatment areas with native grasses.• In grasslands manage grazing, through pasture rotation and prescribed grazing, to

maintain residual grass cover to a minimum height of 40 cm in 50% of grassstands; 20 cm minimum elsewhere.

• In Py and Fd stands that have too much ingrowth to allow for prescribed burning,manually remove conifer ingrowth (commercial or non-commercial thinning,brushing, pruning lower branches) to open up stand.

Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment, control of invasive plants on grasslands,and conservation of deciduous shrublands and riparian habitats are critical to restorationof habitat.

Best Management Practices

• Retain aspen, birch and willow when thinning and weeding• Protect water sources for deciduous vegetation• Maintain deciduous shrub and tree components in riparian areas. A maximum

removal from livestock grazing of 10% of annual growth of woody vegetation <2m is recommended.

• Do not place livestock attractants within the treatment area.• Do not construct fences or place livestock oilers in treatment areas.• Do not herd large numbers of livestock through the treatment area 15 April to 30

June.• Graze to an average of no greater than 30% use.• Do not graze during the nesting or early rearing season (i.e., 1 April to 31 May).• Do not hay or mow grasslands until after August 15.• Discourage use by ATVs and other off-road vehicle use• Maintain natural openings in open forest• Avoid trenching > 20 cm and other mechanical site prep that result in deep

depressions.

Silvicultural systems useful for habitat restorationAny silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating Sharp-tailed Grouse habitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, andshelterwood systems.

23

4.7 Long-billed Curlew

StatusThe Long-billed Curlew is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Fraser et al. 1999; CDC2004) and is designated as a Species of Special Concern in Canada (COSEWIC 2004).Long-billed Curlews are Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and RangesPractices Act Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Ohanjanian 2004).

PopulationAn estimated 40-50 pairs breed in the East Kootenays (Cannings 1999). This populationhas increased since the 1970’s (Ohanjanian 2004). A map of occurrence in the EastKootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.

Breeding habitatThe Long-billed Curlew requires large contiguous tracts of grassland. They show apreference for areas with a slight slope (Hooper and Pitt 1996). Although size ofgrasslands used varies, 250m was the narrowest width of habitat used for nesting atSkookumchuck (Ohanjanian 2004). Large areas of open habitat probably aid in predatordetection (Dugger and Dugger 2002).

Curlews use herb structural stage only (Ohanjanian 2004). Early in the breeding season(April) vegetation <10cm high is preferred; later in the season higher vegetation isacceptable and may provide shade and hiding places for chicks (Ohanjanian 2004). Areaswith trees or high shrub density are usually avoided (Campbell et al. 1990; Dugger andDugger 2002).

Some grazing may benefit curlews by keeping the ground cover short and open whichaids in predator detection and chick mobility (Hooper and Pitt 1996). However, grazingduring the breeding season increases the risk of trampling, and predation of nests if theadults are frequently flushed by grazing animals.

Fire suppression has a negative effect on breeding habitat due to forest encroachment(Cannings 1999). Post-burn plant succession can be rapid, so fire, in combination withgrazing, may be required (Dugger and Dugger 2002).

Restoration objectives

To increase quality and quantity of open grasslands in the EKT. Long-billed Curlewsfavour extensive areas of open grassland with relatively short herb layers, good visibility,no trees and relatively few shrubs. Suitable habitat can be restored relatively easily inopen range habitat (Table 6).

24


Province wide (Ohanjanian 2004)IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dk4, dm2, mw1, mw2, mw2a, xh1, xh1a, xh2, xh2a, xm, xwPP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2, xh2a

EKTIDF: dm2PP: dh2


• In open grasslands use prescribed burns to prevent conifer regeneration. Burnsshould occur periodically according to site fire history. Do not use fire in nestingareas during egg-laying or brood-rearing times.


• Slash and burn dense conifer ingrowth in areas adjacent to open grasslands toexpand size of open area.

• Control invasive plants and seed treatment areas with native grasses.• Graze livestock to maintain grass cover in nesting areas that is on average <10 cm

in height by April each year.

Prescribed burns, logging of ingrowth and slashing are the best methods of preventingforest encroachment and opening up areas that have suffered ingrowth in the past.Logged areas will need considerable effort to restore former grassland conditions(e.g., stumps should be removed or burned away, and native grassland restored).


• Unlike all other wildlife species in this document, moderate to heavy grazing bylivestock creates grassland plant structure that is favourable to Long-billedCurlews. Junegrass-dominated grasslands have naturally lower height structurethan other grasslands; therefore less grazing by livestock may provide moresuitable habitat for curlews.

• Rotate livestock grazing so grazing occurs outside the breeding season (1 May-31July).

• Do not place livestock attractants within the treatment area.• Do not construct fences or place livestock salt blocks or water troughs in

treatment areas. Place salt and water troughs in treed areas wherever possible toprevent livestock concentrations in the open where nests may occur

• Do not herd large numbers of livestock through the treatment area 15 April to 30June.

25

• Do not hay or mow grasslands until after 31 July.• Discourage use by ATVs and other off-road vehicle use• Discourage conversion of open rangeland to cultivated crops.• Do not use pesticides during breeding season


Clear cutting of conifer ingrowth can provide opportunities to restore habitat. Additionalmeasure including burning, and seeding with native grasses would be required followingclear cutting.

4.8 Northern Goshawk

StatusTwo subspecies of Northern Goshawk occur in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990).The coastal subspecies A. g. laingi, is Red-listed in British Columbia (Cooper and Chytyk2001; CDC 2004) and is considered Threatened by COSEWIC (Cooper and Chytyk2001; COSEWIC 2004); whereas the interior subspecies A. g. atricapillus is consideredto be not at risk.

PopulationThe Northern Goshawk breeds at low densities over most of British Columbia.Population estimates are not available. Relatively few Northern Goshawks breed in theEast Kootenay Trench as this raptor breeds in mature close-canopied forests, a forest typethat is relatively rare in the EKT. Seven nests are known from the IDF dm2 subzone inthe EKT. A map of occurrence in the East Kootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.

Breeding habitatNorthern Goshawks inhabit mature to old forests throughout their range (Squires andReynolds 1997). Pure coniferous, pure deciduous, and mixed forest are used. Withinmature and older forests goshawks breed in a variety of habitat types, although, theseforests share common characteristics. Goshawks build large stick nests within larger treesin the stand or in trees with deformations that create ideal nest platforms such as forks,broken tops, and mistletoe. As well, goshawks nest in forests with relatively closedcanopies (>50%) and open understories (Squires and Reynolds 1997; Daw et al. 1998;Ethier 1999).

At larger scales, goshawks breed in landscapes with varying degrees of forestfragmentation and configurations around nest stands. Because goshawks forage outsidetheir nest stands and often great distances away from their nest stands, the configurationof foraging habitat surrounding nest stands likely influences the energetic abilities forgoshawks to raise young. Goshawks tend to nest away from edges, therefore forestoperations that encroach on breeding territories likely impact breeding success.

26

Restoration objectivesTo maintain existing breeding habitat capability in localized areas of the PP and IDFwhere Northern Goshawks breed. Target an overall stand matrix with raised coniferouscanopies, low to moderate understory vegetation and fairly high stem densities. Withinthese stands, create or maintain some diverse openings for shrubs and single trees orvariable patches of hardwoods to create and or maintain goshawk prey population niches.Note that habitat objectives for Northern Goshawks vary considerably from wildlifespecies that prefer open grassland and open forest habitats and goshawk habitat shouldnot be a priority except where breeding is known to occur. If a nest is found in arestoration site, extreme caution or deferment should be applied to restoration actionswithin the Nest Area (defined as a 12 ha core area around a nest). Restorationprescriptions could be applied to areas outside the 12 ha core, which would need todefined by a biologist with substantial expertise on Northern Goshawk breeding habitat.Feasibility of restoring habitat in closed forest is low as large areas of treatment areneeded and this species is not recommended as a focal species in the East KootenayTrench (Table 6).


EKTIDF: dm2


• Thin and space early seral stands to reduce successional time for a stand to exhibitmature and old forest characteristics with high canopy closure (60-90%), multi-layered canopies, canopy gaps, low to moderate levels of ground vegetation cover(< 40%), and relatively open understories. Scale of treatments should be > 10 ha.

• Implement juvenile spacing programs to ensure an even distribution of crop treesand even rapid crown closure occurs. Opportunities to initiate stem decay for snagrecruitment and CWD requirements should be considered during spacingoperations (e.g., girdling or fungal inoculation of existing green trees).

• In healthy second growth conifer stands, consider fungal inoculation of somelarger diameter (> 30 cm dbh) live individual leave trees (Douglas-fir, westernlarch and ponderosa pine recommended) with endemic heart rot fungi (Phellinuspini recommended) to create heart rot decay. These trees should be retained forthe length of the rotation or several rotations (> 80 years), to accelerate wildlifetree recruitment and thereby increase habitat supply for the goshawk prey base.

• Establish plantations on a uniform pattern to encourage earlier crown closure.Plantation management should strive to develop a closed canopy matrixcontaining some gaps with little understory vegetation (except in the gaps) asrapidly as possible.

27

• In stands treated for nesting habitat allow for some tree species mixes by plantingor natural ingress, singly or in patches, as well as scattered brushy openings andhardwood components.

• Fertilize at an early seral stage (usually at the time of, or after, spacing orcommercial thinning) to reduce successional time for a stand to achieve crownclosure, self-pruning and understory brush suppression.

Thinning of stands to achieve suitable canopy closure, flight corridors through the forest,and prey base are the best restoration techniques.


• Maintain and or recruit mature and old forest canopy characteristics (e.g., asingle-storied main canopy with a high overall canopy closure (60-90%); canopygaps; areas with multi-layered canopies; some dispersed single or imbeddedpatches of hardwood components (e.g., trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides)and average main canopy tree height > 20 m.

• Maintain and or recruit forest structure (e.g., snags, wildlife tree patches (WTPs)and coarse woody debris (CWD)) in harvested areas for immediate foraginghabitat (up to 15-20 years post-harvesting) and future foraging habitat (afterregenerated stands begin to self-thin).

• Maintain and or recruit forest buffers around and corridors in between: riparianareas, areas of significant forest structure, and topographical features such asgullies and rocky outcroppings.

• Implement partial cutting and retention strategies that create a mosaic ofaccessible, semi-open foraging habitats and to enhance the growth of largerdiameter trees.

• On slopes, give priority to habitat enhancements located on slope benches.• Early plantation brush treatments will release and manage distribution, future

stem density and tree species composition. Early brush treatments will have littledirect influence on actual understory brush densities at the time of goshawk use(later in the rotation). However, these treatments will create or maintain somebrushy openings in a stand as habitat for passerine bird prey species and grousehabitat.

• Maintain, through brushing treatments, low to moderate levels of groundvegetation cover (< 40%), and relatively open understories.

• Maintain some open grown areas with brush, hardwood components or other preyspecies (e.g., passerine birds and grouse) habitat for future maintenance within anotherwise densely managed coniferous stand.

• Maintain low levels of competing vegetation through the establishment phase bymanual treatments (ensure adequate buffers adjacent to nesting areas). Otheropportunities that may be available through the establishment phase that cancoincide with brushing treatments include girdling of retained green wildlife treesto initiate stem decay for snag recruitment and future CWD.

28

• Maintain some unburned slash piles to create goshawk prey habitat (e.g., smallmammals and birds) within the future stand.

• Maintain large CWD and slash accumulations, non-catastrophic blowdown, andinsect or disease pockets to achieve similar results.


Silvicultural systems that may be applicable for maintaining Northern Goshawk nestingand foraging habitat include: variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems.Landscape level management objectives such as connectivity, patch size distribution andseral stage targets for goshawk should be described in higher level plans and sustainableforest management plans. This should include providing a mosaic of mature or old forestreserves and forested corridors that provide habitat and habitat connectivity acrosslandscapes. It is important to link higher level plan objectives such as mature/old foresttargets and old growth management areas (OGMAs) for a landscape unit or otherplanning area, with specific practices implemented at the stand level.

4.9 Badger

StatusThe Badger is Red-listed in British Columbia (Cannings et al. 1999; CDC 2004) and is anIdentified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act IdentifiedWildlife Management Strategy (Adams and Kinley 2004). In Canada, the Badger is listedas Endangered (COSEWIC 2004). Badgers are at risk in British Columbia becausepopulations are small and declining, habitat is fragmented, limited in distribution andreduced in area through forest ingrowth, habitat quality has declined as grasslands areovergrazed and developed for agricultural purposes, rodent prey is reduced throughpoisoning, and there is unsustainable mortality due to vehicle collisions (Rahme et al.1995; Newhouse and Kinley 2000; Adams et al. 2002).

PopulationProvincial population estimates include 300-1000 (Rahme et al. 1995), 250-600(Newhouse and Kinley 2000), and <200 (Adams et al. 2002). The East Kootenay Trenchcontains the majority of the provincial population. A map of occurrence in the EastKootenay Trench is found in Figure 3.

HabitatBadgers are medium-sized carnivores that mainly inhabit grasslands and open forests ofdrier parts of southern interior British Columbia (Rahme et al. 1995). The highest qualitybadger habitats occur in Natural Disturbance Type 4 (NDT4). Sites are characterizedby frequent, stand-maintaining fires, generally open grassland or sparsely treed areas,high densities of prey populations, and fine sandy loam soils (Adams and Kinley 2004).

29

In the East Kootenay, badgers occur most commonly in the PP and IDF zones in the EKTbut occasionally range upslope out of the EKT into the MS, ESSF and AT zones (Apps etal. 2001). Badgers are adapted to hunting fossorial prey but they are also opportunisticfeeders and eat a wide variety of mammals, birds, eggs, reptiles, amphibians,invertebrates and plants (Messick 1987). Primary prey species in the EKT are Columbianground squirrels and northern pocket gopher.

Restoration objectivesTo maintain, restore and increase open grassland and open forest habitat suitable forBadgers. Open forest habitat should have as few stems/ha as possible. Enhancinggrassland quality by removal of invasive plants and increasing rodent prey are verybeneficial. Restoration of habitat in open range and open forests is very feasible (Table6).


Province wide (Adams and Kinley 2004)IDF: dk1, dk2, dk3, dm1, dm2, mw, mw1, mw2, un, xh1, xh2, xm, xw, xw2PP: dh1, dh2, xh1, xh2

East Kootenay TrenchPP: dh2IDF: dm2, un


• Use prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth in grasslands.• Harvest, thin and brush open forest treatment sites to reduce stocking densities to

20 stems/ha.• Increase productivity of grasslands to support mammalian prey by removing

invasive weeds.• Seed treatment sites with native grasses where necessary.• Manage livestock grazing to maintain a range of seral and structural range

conditions as suitable habitat for prey species.

Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment, thinning and slashing of open stands toincrease openness, and restoration on native grasslands to increase mammalian preyabundance are the best restoration methods.


• For natal dens follow provisions in the IWMS (Adams and Kinley 2004) or MCA(2004)

30

• Maintain important habitat features including open or non-forested land, sufficientstructure/litter to provide hiding cover, grasslands in a range of seral stages,friable soils, and prey.

• Maintain a one tree length radius buffer around burrows to prevent dendestruction from mechanical operations.

• Harvest to reduce stem densities in open forest to < 75 stems/ha.• Leave a selection of live and dead trees to maintain site ecology.• Do not concentrate livestock by locating water troughs, salt licks, etc. < 200 m

from dens.• Locate all new roads >300 m from natal dens.• Do not apply rodenticides within the reserve area and tolerate reasonable

populations of ground squirrels and other burrowing mammals that are importantprey species for badgers.

• Maintain foraging burrows within the reserve area as they act as important shelter.• Tolerate the digging associated with badgers or relocate animals with assistance

of Conservation Officers.


Any silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating Badgerhabitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwood systems.

Reduce stocking densities in key badger habitats to 20 stems/ha in open forest, and < 20stems/ha in open range.

4.10 Bighorn Sheep

StatusThe Bighorn Sheep is Blue-listed in British Columbia (Cannings et al. 1999; CDC 2004)and is an Identified Wildlife species under the BC Forest and Range Practices ActIdentified Wildlife Management Strategy (Demarchi 2004). Two ecotypes are managed inBritish Columbia: California Bighorn Sheep occur in the Okanagan and Cariboo regions,Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep occur in the East Kootenay and several other local areasin British Columbia where they were introduced. Bighorn Sheep are at risk in BritishColumbia because populations are small, numbers are lower than in pre-settlement times,habitat is becoming increasingly fragmented and has been reduced through forestingrowth, mine development, and agriculture, populations are susceptible to cyclic die-offs, and several subpopulations have fewer individuals than required for a viablepopulation (Berger 1990; Cannings et al. 1999; Demarchi 2004).

PopulationProvincial population estimates are about 3,000 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep(estimated in 1996; Demarchi 2004). These numbers are the largest on record, although it

31

is assumed that former populations were higher. A map of occurrence in the EastKootenay Trench is found in Appendix 1.

HabitatBighorn Sheep use a variety of habitat types within their home ranges including opengrasslands, alpine, subalpine, shrub-steppe, rock outcrops, cliffs, meadows, moist draws,riparian areas, talus slopes, plateaus, deciduous forest, clearcut or burned forest, andconifer forest. Almost all habitat use is on moderately steep to steep slopes. Use of habitatvaries daily and seasonally with changes in requirements for food, rest, safety, thermalcover, rutting, and lambing (Demarchi 2004).

In the EKT, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep winter on low elevation, southerly exposedslopes close to rocky escarpments or talus slopes (Shackleton 1973; Demarchi 1986).Grasslands, seral shrublands and open forests provide forage mainly from bunchgrassessuch as wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), fescues (Festuca spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), andneedle grasses (Stipa spp.), and various forbs and shrubs (Davidson 1991).

Habitat loss continues to be a major issue. Significant amounts of critical winter range forRocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep habitat has been permanently lost in the EKT throughurban development at Radium Hotsprings, Fairmont Hotsprings, Elko and other areas.Acreages and subdivisions between Fairmont Hotsprings and Brisco also have thepotential to disrupt north–south migration of Bighorn Sheep along the western edge of theRocky Mountains (Davidson 1991). Approximately 25% of the winter range for BighornSheep in the upper Columbia River area has been subdivided and developed for housingand industry since the 1940s (Davidson 1991).

Restoration objectivesTo maintain, restore and increase open grassland and open forest habitat suitable forBighorn Sheep winter range. Winter ranges have declined by as much as 75% in someareas (e.g., Radium-Stoddart area). Open forest habitat should have as few stems/ha aspossible. Enhancing grassland quality by removal of invasive plants and restoring nativeplant communities, especially sheep forage plants is very beneficial. Restoration ofhabitat is feasible in all habitats in the East Kootenay Trench (Table 6).


Rocky Mountain ecotype only (Demarchi 2004)IDF: dk1, dk2, dm2, un, xh2PP: dh2, xh2

East Kootenay TrenchPP: dh2IDF: dm2, un

32


• Use prescribed burns to prevent forest ingrowth in grasslands and to remove treesfrom grasslands that are now forested.

• Harvest, thin and brush open forest treatment sites to reduce stocking densities topromote forage plant development.

• Increase productivity of grasslands by removing invasive weeds and restoringnative plant communities, especially sheep forage plant species.

• Seed treatment sites with native grasses where necessary.• Manage livestock grazing to remove < 10% of annual browse on Bighorn Sheep

winter ranges.• Maintain at least 50% of each Bighorn Sheep winter range in late seral/climax

condition bunchgrass dominated communities with abundant, tall grass for winterforage (Demarchi 2004).

Prescribed burns to prevent forest encroachment and to increase open range and openforest, restoration of native grasslands and shrublands, and thinning of more closed standson winter range are the best restoration methods.


• Reduce and eliminate contact with domestic sheep and goats (Demarchi 2004)• Develop and implement road access plans• Maintain travel corridors that connect summer and winter ranges• Minimize human disturbances through recreation or other activities during

lambing and rutting periods in critical habitats• Avoid helicopter flyovers in critical lambing, rutting, movement corridors and

wintering areas at appropriate times• Plan cattle grazing to maintain desired native shrub and grass structure in core

areas.• Control cattle grazing to prevent excess soil disturbance and the introduction of

invasive species.• Minimize cattle use of mineral licks and watering holes in core areas.• Do not locate salt or mineral licks, watering troughs, or other range developments

in core areas.• Do not apply pesticides.


Any silvicultural system that reduces forest cover may be applicable for creating BighornSheep habitat including: clear cutting, variable retention cut, seed tree, and shelterwoodsystems. Harvesting or intensive silviculture in core lambing, rutting, movement corridorsor winter range areas should only be done to improve habitat features for Bighorn Sheep.

33

No harvesting or silvicultural activities should occur in core areas during lambing orrutting periods (Demarchi 2004).

4.11 Relative potential for success of restoration

Some wildlife species will be more positively impacted than others by restoring NDT4conditions to open grasslands, open forest and closed forest (Table 2). Restoration effortsin each of these habitat types should concentrate on species with the highest positiveimpact.

Table 2. Relative impact on Red and Blue-listed wildlife species from restoration ofNDT4 conditions in the EKT. (X=highly beneficial, x=beneficial, blank=negligibleimpact)

Open range Open forest Closed forestLewis’s Woodpecker X XWhite-headed Woodpecker x xWilliamson’s Sapsucker xFlammulated Owl X xLong-billed Curlew XSharp-tailed Grouse X xNorthern Goshawk xBadger X X xBighorn Sheep X X x

34

Table 3. Stocking targets, wildlife tree recruitment, shrub cover targets and herb cover targets for rare wildlife habitat in opengrasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in the East Kootenay Trench (Py=ponderosa pine, Fd=Douglas-fir,Lw=western larch, At=trembling aspen, Pl=lodgepole pine, Sx=willow).

Species/community

HabitatType

LifeRequisite

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)

SpeciesPreference forResidual Trees

SpatialConfiguration

of ResidualTrees

Wildlife TreeStocking(WT/ha)

Provision forWildlife TreeRecruitment

Shrubcover%/ht (cm)

HerbCover%/ ht (cm)

Comments

Opengrassland

Breedingand

foraging

1-10 <5 Py 100% Scattered 1-2Prefer >40cm

dbhWildlife Tree

Class 2-4

Leave patches orsingle Py & Atwith >30cm dbh

or the largestregenerating Py

available

5-25/NA

>50/ NA Singleisolated treesused fornesting

Openforest

Breedingand

foraging

5-25 <25 Py 80%Fd 20%

Patches orscattered

3-5 Wildlife Tree

Class 2-4 >40 cm dbh

Leave 5-10stems/ha of

largestregenerating

Py/Fd available& patches of At

> 30 cm dbh

5-25/NA

>50/ >20 cm

Limb lowerbranches toopen up stand

Lewis’sWoodpecker

Closedforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not useclosed forest

Opengrassland

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not useopen range

Openforest

Breedingand

foraging

200-400 20-40 Py 90%Fd 10%

dbh>30 cm

Scattered 3-5 Wildlife Tree


Leave 5-10stems/ha of the

largestregenerating

Py/Fd available

>30 NA Need matureponderosapine, wildlifetrees

White-headedWoodpecker

Closedforest

Breedingand

foraging

200-400 30-50 Py 90%Fd 10%

dbh>30 cm

Scattered 3-5 Wildlife Tree


Leave 5-10stems/ha of the

largestregenerating

Py/Fd available

>30 NA Need matureponderosapine, wildlifetrees

35

Species/community

HabitatType

LifeRequisite

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)



of ResidualTrees

Wildlife TreeStocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht (cm)

HerbCover%/ht(cm)

Comments

Opengrassland


Openforest

Breedingand

foraging

100-200 25-50 Natural mixes ofLw, Fd, Py, At,

spruces

Patches 5-10, WildlifeTree Class 2-4> 40 cm dbh

Retain patches of>50 cm dbh Lw,Fd, Py, or largestavailable; retainpatches > 30 cm

dbh At

NA NA Need wildlifetrees fornesting

Williamson’sSapsucker

Closedforest

Breedingand

foraging

100-400 25-50 Natural mixes ofLw, Fd, Py, At,

spruces

Patches 5-10, WildlifeTree Class 2-4> 40 cm dbh

Retain patches of>50 cm dbh Lw,Fd, Py, or largestavailable; retainpatches > 30 cm

dbh At

NA NA Prefer moreopen standswith wildlifetrees fornesting

Opengrassland

Breedingand

foraging

0 0 NA NA NA NA 0-10/ < 20 cm

25-75/ < 10 cm

Open areasand lowheight herblayer arerequired

Openforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not useopen forest

Long-billedCurlew

Closedforest


Opengrassland

All 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0-10/<25 cm

>50/<25 cm

Opengrasslandswith lowvegetationheight neededfor lek sites

Openforest

All 25-50 20-40 Conifersappropriate for

site. Ep 50%, At50%

Patches orriparian

NA NA 10-50/<25 cm

>50/<25 cm

Riparianstands andshrublandspreferred

Sharp-tailedGrouse

Closedforest


36

Species/community

HabitatType

LifeRequisite

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)



of ResidualTrees

WildlifeTree

Stocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht (cm)

HerbCover%/ht (cm)

Comments

Opengrassland


Openforest

Breedingand

foraging

300-400 30-40 Fd 90%Py 10%

Patches of 10-15ha

3-5Wildlife

Tree Class2-4, >40cm dbh,and 5-10


Retain patchesof medium-sized

conifers

0-1000stems/ha/

NA

>50/> 30 cm

Nest treestypically inold treesclose tothickets ofregenerating Fd

Flammulated Owl

Closedforest

Breedingand

foraging

300-400 35-65 Fd 90%Py 10%

Patches of 10-15ha

3-5Wildlife

Tree Class2-4, >40cm dbh,and 5-10


Retain patchesof medium-sized

conifers

0-1000stems/ha/

NA

>50/> 30 cm

Nest treestypically inold treesclose tothickets ofregenerating Fd

Opengrassland


Openforest

Foraging NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No specificmanagement forNOGOneeded

NorthernGoshawk

Closedforest

Breedingand

foraging

400 40-70% Fd 80%, Py 10%, Lw 10%,

At> 30 cm dbh

Uniform 5-10/ Wildlife

Tree Class2-6 > 30cm dbh

Same asresidual,

maintain canopyclosure

37

Species/community

HabitatType

LifeRequisite

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)


SpatialConfiguration ofResidual

Trees

WildlifeTree

Stocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht (cm)

HerbCover%/ht (cm)

Comments

Opengrassland

All 0 0 NA NA NA NA 10-20%/25-100

cm

>75%/ 30-50 cm Rodentpreypopulationsare critical

Openforest

All 0-20 0-10 NA Patchesor

scattered

NA NA 10-20/25-100

cm

>75/30-50 cm

Badger

Closedforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Do not useclosedforestexcept,perhaps, fortraveling

Opengrassland

Foraging,winterrange

0 0 NA NA NA NA 10-20%/< 100 cm

>75%/ 30-50 cm Forestingrowthand invasiveplantsdegradehabitat

Openforest

Foraging,security,winterrange

5-25 <25 Fd 100% Scattered, patches

NA NA 10-20/< 100 cm

>75/30-50 cm

Bighorn Sheep

Closedforest

Security,thermal

>200 >40 Fd 100% Patches NA NA 10-20/< 100 cm

>75/30-50 cm

38

Table 4. Stocking targets for rare plant communities in open grasslands (range), open forest and closed forest habitats in theEast Kootenay Trench (Py=ponderosa pine, Fd=Douglas-fir, Lw=western larch, At=trembling aspen, Pl=lodgepole pine, Sx=willow sp.).

PlantCommunity

HabitatType

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)

Species %Preference

for ResidualTrees


of ResidualTrees

WildlifeTree

Stocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht

(cm)

HerbCover%/ht (cm)

Comments

Opengrassland

20-50 15-30 Fd 80%Py 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered NA NA 15 - 20/NA

> 50/NA

Frequent lowintensity fire history

Openforest

20-200 15-30 Fd 80%Py 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered NA Retain a fewyoung conifers

15 - 20/NA

> 50/NA


Douglas-fir/snowberry/balsamroot

Closedforest

50-200 30-50 Fd 100% Scattered NA NA 15 - 20/NA

> 50/NA


Opengrassland

0-5 < 15 Py 80%, Fd 20%

>30 cm dbh

NA NA NA 15-30antelope

brush/ NA

>15% each ofbluebunchwheatgrass, Idahofescue, Roughfescue or Arrow-leaf balsamroot

Frequent standmaintaining fires

Openforest

0-5 < 15 Py 80%, Fd 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered 1-2 Retain a fewyoung conifers

15-30antelope

brush/ NA

>15% each ofbluebunchwheatgrass, Idahofescue, Roughfescue or Arrow-leaf balsamroot

Frequent standmaintaining fires

Antelope brush/bluebunchwheatgrassWesternsnowberry-Idahofescue

Closedforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Opengrassland

0-5 <15 Fd 80%, Py 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered NA NA 30 20% grass80% forbs

Park -like savannah.

Openforest

0-5 <15 Fd 80%, Py 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered NA NA 30 20% grass80% forbs

Park -like savannah.

Westernsnowberry-Idahofescue

Closedforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

39

Plant Community HabitatType

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)

Species %Preference for

ResidualTrees

SpatialConfiguration of Residual

Trees

WildlifeTree

Stocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht

(cm)

HerbCover%/ht (cm)

Comments

Opengrassland

0-5 <10 Fd 50%, Py 50%

>30 cm dbh

NA NA NA <10 30-50 Frequent lowintensity fall fires

Openforest

0-5 <10 Fd 50%, Py 50%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered 1-2 Retain a fewyoung conifers

<10 30-50 Frequent lowintensity fall fires

Bluebunchwheatgrass-junegrass

Closedforest

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Opengrassland

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA, mature to oldforest

Openforest

100-200 >50 Fd 50%Lw 25%

Spruces/Pl25%, Sx

Uniform,clumped

5-10 Multi-storiedcanopy, variable-

-aged trees

>30 20 Very importantwildlife refuge area,rarely burns

Douglas-fir-westernlarch-spruce/pinegrass

Closedforest

100-400 >50 Fd 50%Lw 25%

Spruces/Pl25%, Sx

Uniform,clumped

5-10 Multi-storiedcanopy, variable-

-aged trees

>30 20 Very importantwildlife refuge area,rarely burns

Opengrassland

30-100 30 At 70%Py 30%>30

cm dbh

Scattered,clumped

1-5 Retain young Py,At

20-25 >50 Riparian community

Openforest

30-100 30 At 70%Py 30%> 30

cm dbh

Scattered,clumped

1-5 Retain young Py,At


Ponderosa pine-tremblingaspen/rose/Solomon’sseal

Closedforest

100-400 >30 Primary: Fd,Py, Sx

Tertiary: Lw,Pl

Uniform 1-5 Retain young Py,At


40

Plant Community HabitatType

TargetStocking

(Stems/ha)

CanopyClosure

(%)

Species %Preference for

ResidualTrees


of ResidualTrees

WildlifeTree

Stocking(WT/ha)


Shrubcover%/ht

(cm)

HerbCover%/ht

(cm)

Comments

Opengrassland

10-50 15-30% Py 80%, Fd 20%

>30 cm dbh

Scattered NA NA 15-20 > 50 Forms matrix thatlinks grasslands andsmaller patches ofmoist forests andriparian systems.

Openforest

10-50 15-30 Py 80%, Fd 20%

> 30 cm dbh

Scattered 1-5 Retain young Py 15-20 > 50% Forms matrix thatlinks grasslands andsmaller patches ofmoist forests andriparian systems.

Ponderosapine/bluebunchwheatgrass-lupine

Closedforest

100-400 >30 Primary: PySecondary Fd

PPdh2/02:Primary: Fd,

PyTertiary: Lw,

Pl

Uniform 1-5 Retain young Py 15-20 > 50% Forms matrix thatlinks grasslands andsmaller patches ofmoist forests andriparian systems.

41

Table 5. Habitat types and expected feasibility of success of restoration treatmentsfor Red and Blue listed wildlife and plant communities in the East KootenayTrench.

Habitats to be restoredSpecies/Community

Open range Open forest Closed forestFeasibility

Lewis’s Woodpecker Yes Yes No HighWhite-headedWoodpecker

No Yes Yes Low (habitat can berestored but population

unlikely to respond)Williamson’s Sapsucker No No Yes LowLong-billed Curlew Yes No No HighSharp-tailed Grouse Yes Yes No HighFlammulated Owl No No Yes HighNorthern Goshawk No No Yes LowBadger Yes Yes No HighBighorn Sheep Yes Yes Yes HighDouglas-fir/snowberry/balsamroot

Yes Yes No

Antelope brush/ bluebunchwheatgrass

Yes Yes No Moderate (intensivemanagement required toattain late seral condition

Western snowberry-Idahofescue

Yes Yes No Low (few locations,intensive management

required)Bluebunch wheatgrass-junegrass

Yes Yes No High (intensivemanagement required)

Douglas-fir-western larch-spruce/pinegrass

No No Yes Moderate

Ponderosa pine-tremblingaspen/rose/Solomon’s seal

Yes Yes No Low (valley bottomhabitats very threatened

by development/disturbances

Ponderosa pine/bluebunchwheatgrass-silky lupine

Yes Yes No High (intensivemanagement required)

42

Table 6. Restoration techniques recommended for Red and Blue wildlife and plant communities in open grassland, open forestand closed forest habitats in the EKT.

Prescribedburn

Commercialthinning

Thinning Slashing Mowing TreePlanting

Shrub/herbPlanting

GrassSeeding

Fertili-zation

NoxiousWeedcontrol

Livestockcontrol

CWD

Lewis’sWoodpecker

yes (cool) yes yes yes yes na no na na yes Moderategrazing

NA

White-headedWoodpecker

yes (cool) yes yes na na yes no na na na Moderategrazing

NA

Williamson’sSapsucker

no yes yes na na yes no na na na Minimizegrazing

NA

Long-billedCurlew

yes(cool/hot)

na na yes yes na no yes no yes Moderate-heavygrazing

no

Sharp-tailedGrouse

yes(cool/hot)

yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes Minimizegrazing

NA

FlammulatedOwl

no yes yes yes na yes no na yes yes Minimizegrazing

yes

NorthernGoshawk

no yes (partialonly)

yes yes no yes no na yes na Minimizegrazing

yes

Badger yes(cool/hot)

yes yes yes yes no no yes yes yes Minimizegrazing

yes

Bighorn Sheep yes (cool) yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes Minimizegrazing

no

43

Prescribedburn

Commercialthinning

Thinning Slashing Mowing TreePlanting

Shrub/herbPlanting

GrassSeeding

Fertili-zation

NoxiousWeedcontrol

Livestockcontrol

CWD

Douglas-fir/snowberry/balsamroot

Yes (cool) yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes yes

Antelope brush/bluebunchwheatgrass

Yes (cool) na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes na

Westernsnowberry-Idahofescue

No, Idahofescue notfire resistant

na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes na

Bluebunchwheatgrass-junegrass

Yes (cool) na na yes yes no yes yes na yes yes no

Douglas-fir-western larch-spruce/pinegrass

No, fireinterval 90-150 years

yes yes yes no yes yes yes na yes yes na

Ponderosa pine-tremblingaspen/rose/Solomon’s seal


Ponderosapine/bluebunchwheatgrass-lupine


44

5. Plant Communities Habitat Restoration Information

This section contains a range of information on the plant communities that are the focusof this report. Information includes summaries of status, ecology, restoration objectives,restoration techniques and best management practices. The most important points forrestoration are further summarized in Table 4.

5.1 Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot

Background information

The Douglas-fir/Snowberry/Balsamroot is a provincially Red-listed plant community(CDC 2004). The community is found between 700 and1500-m ASL in the southernregions of the lower Rocky Mountain Trench, occurring south of the Blaeberry River tothe international border (Erickson 2003a). Distribution is restricted to ridges and upper tomidslopes on warm aspects. It occurs on a variety of parent materials. Soils can vary, butare often loamy and classified into Chernozemic, Brunisolic or Luvisolic soil orders. Soilmoisture classes have been assigned as subxeric to submesic (Braumandl and Curran1992; Erickson 2003a).

This plant community is characterized by open or savannah type stands of Douglas-firand ponderosa pine, with a herb layer dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, arrow-leavedbalsamroot (0.5-45%) and Idaho fescue. On some sites there is pinegrass, usually wheretree cover is denser or in more protected positions. The shrub layer is generally sparseand may include snowberry, saskatoon, antelope-brush, kinnikinnick, common juniper,rocky mountain juniper, soopolallie, or rose.

Herb layers may include a low cover of slender hawksbeard, dogbane, needlegrasses,fescues, timber milkvetch, rosy pussytoes, junegrass, yarrow, strawberry, fern-leaveddesert parsley and nodding onion. Occasionally, moss and lichen cover is relatively welldeveloped with Cladonia sp., Tortula ruralis, and Peltigera rufescens (Braumandl andCurran 1992; Erickson 2003a).

Forest encroachment and ingrowth due to fire suppression, livestock and wildlife grazing/browsing impacts, spread of invasive species and harvesting of older stands threaten thelong-term viability of this plant community. Habitat has been and continues to be lost tourbanization, impoundments, golf course development and intensive agriculture(Erickson 2003a).


This plant community should exhibit 15 - 30% cover of mature and old Douglas-fir andponderosa pine, 15 - 20% cover of shrubs such as snowberry, saskatoon, and kinnikinnick

45

and > 50% cover of forbs and herbs such as bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass, and arrow-leaved balsamroot.

BEC Subzones used within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones

EKTIDFdm2/03


• Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles (14-32 years)• Minimize soil disturbance• Conserve soil organics• Control weeds prior to burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical)• Plant bunchgrass plugs rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover• Re-establish moss and lichen layer onto bare soils• Retain a multi- story forest stand that contains a range of tree ages• Incorporate downed coarse woody debris into the community.• Protect from burning wildlife trees (snags or live trees with some decay) >30 cm

dbh and old growth live Fd and Py.• Preclude grazing for 2 years post treatment then minimize grazing

5.2 Antelope Brush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass


The antelope brush/ bluebunch wheatgrass plant community is on the provincial Red-list(CDC 2004). The plant community occurs in hot, dry regions from south of Canal Flats toTobacco Plains at the US border; bounded by St. Mary River on the west and BaynesLake in the east, at elevations of from 700-1200 m. Originally, this community occurredas patches of shrub-steppe habitat within open forests or grasslands (Erickson 2003b).There are 710 ha of this community mapped in Premier - Diorite project area. Thiscommunity has also been mapped in Kikomun Creek Park, Premier Ridge and SheepMountain Wildlife Management Areas. Range reference areas with this community are:Skookumchuck, Old Premier Ridge, Gold Creek, Bagley's Pasture, Bull River. Earlyseral examples occur at Premier Ridge, Pickering Hills, and Standary Hill (Erickson2003b).

It occurs on warm aspects on crests to upper slopes, and occasionally on level valleybottom sites (Braumandl and Curran 1992; Erickson 2003b). Other site characteristicsinclude droughty, nutrient poor soils, limited organic matter, dry slopes susceptible toerosion. Excessive grazing on early seral sites converts community to pussytoe species,needlegrasses, weedy forbs, and invasive species, specifically cheatgrass (Mclean and

46

Marchand 1968). Old-growth antelope-brush is killed by fire. Droughty, nutrient poorsoils increase recovery time of disturbed communities (Erickson 2003b; pers obs).

The dominant species of this plant association are antelope-brush, bluebunch wheatgrass,hairy golden aster, and stiff needlegrass. Associated species include ponderosa pine,Douglas-fir, saskatoon, Idaho fescue, arrow-leaved balsamroot, rough fescue,kinnikinnick, Columbia needlegrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, pasture sage, shining arnica,junegrass, slender hawksbeard, timber milkvetch, yarrow, death camas, old man'swhiskers, graceful cinquefoil, fern-leaved desert parsley, brown-eyed susan, tufted phlox,mariposa lily, dwarf goldenrod.

Weedy species of concern include Kentucky bluegrass, diffuse knapweed, spottedknapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, common toadflax, sulphur cinquefoil, hound's tongue,blueweed, cheatgrass (Val Miller pers. comm.; Anne Skinner pers. comm.)


This plant community should exhibit < 15% mature and/or old-growth conifer cover; 15-30% antelope-brush cover, and > 15% cover of at least two primary herbs, such asbluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, rough fescue or arrow-leaved balsamroot; also <10% cover of each of other co-dominant species (e.g., saskatoon, pinegrass).


EKTIDF: dm2/02PP: dh2/00


• Maintain and restore cover of primary species• Restore natural frequent light-intensity fire cycle (5-25 years)• Maintain open, savannah structure• Minimize soil disturbance• Conserve soil organics• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to

burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical)• Allow only light to medium grazing and browsing, particularly on coarse textured

soils• plant bunchgrass plugs rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover• Re-establish moss and lichen layer onto bare soils

47

5.3 Western Snowberry-Idaho Fescue


The Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant community is on the provincial Red-list(CDC 2004). Known occurrences of this plant association are extremely rare and haveonly been documented for the Columbia Basin once (McLean and Holland 1958). Theonly recorded location was documented by A. McLean in 1958 (McLean and Holland1958). Areas suitable for this plant community occur between 800 and 1200-m ASL inthe Kootenay, dry, mild Interior Douglas-fir variant (IDFdm2), which is found betweenGolden and the International border and along the valleys of the Kootenay River, the St.Mary’s River, Wigwam River, and Findley Creek. Several Kootenay Ministry of Forestsrange reference areas, specifically Premier Ridge and Wigwam Flats may represent earlyseral stages of the Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant association (D. Gayton, pers.comm.).

The Western snowberry – Idaho fescue plant community is associated with soils thatremain moist throughout much of the growing season (mesic to subhygric). Levelreceiving sites, swales or slight depressions within grasslands or slight to moderate slopesbordering forestland are likely locations for the community (C. Cadmin pers. comm.;Erickson pers. comm.; D. Gayton, pers. comm.).

According to a similar vegetation community described for northern Washington, thewestern snowberry – Idaho fescue plant association was dominated by bunchgrasses,specifically Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and June grass,and a rich mix of broad-leaved forbs and low shrubs (Daubenmire 1970). In southernBC, species associated with younger seral stages appear to be western snowberry, pricklyrose, chokecherry, saskatoon, green rabbitbrush, birch-leaved spirea and a smallcomponent of antelope-brush and common juniper. Grasses and forbs include roughfescue, stiff and Columbia needlegrass, Canada bluegrass, nodding onion, rosy and fieldpussytoes, graceful cinquefoil large-fruited desert parsley, yarrow, wild bergamot andhemp dogbane.

Kentucky bluegrass is particularly invasive in this community and other weedy species ofconcern include cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, and spotted knapweed.


This plant community is a park like savannah shrubby grassland, with only scattered andstunted Douglas-firs, and is very rare in BC. It is sometimes associated with a similarDouglas-fir/wheatgrass plant association which occurs in swales and draws (moistersites). A similar meadow steppe community identified in Washington suggests about 30%shrub cover (western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry), 20% grass cover (Idahofescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, Columbia needlegrass, 85% forb cover, and15% non-vascular cover.

48


EKTIDF: dm2/00


• Find examples of the community and monitor species response to fire• Mature Idaho fescue is susceptible to fire so fire cycles need to be longer and

intensities lower, although snowberry can be burned more often• Restore and maintain cover of primary species• Minimize soil disturbance• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to

burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical)• Plant bunchgrass plugs, rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover and

always plant plugs of Idaho fescue• Maintain and restore cover of primary species• Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to

disturbed sites (Kentucky bluegrass is very invasive in moist areas and knapweedsand cheatgrass respond to fire by re-establishing quickly on the site)

5.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass/Junegrass


The Bluebunch wheatgrass – Junegrass plant association is a provincially Red-listedplant community (CDC 2004). Recorded locations occur between 500 and 1370-m ASLin the Ministry of Forests undifferentiated Interior Douglas-fir (Windermere Lake) unit(IDFuu/00), and the Kootenay dry, hot Ponderosa pine variant (PPdh2/02a and 02b). Inthe Rocky Mountain Trench, community occurrences have been reported on the valleyfloor and lower slopes between Windermere Lake and Canal Flats and on steep, middle toupper slopes between Skookumchuck Creek and the St. Mary’s River and Baynes Lakeand Tobacco Plains. The Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grass plant association is alsofound in the Boundary region, at the south end of the Monashee Mountains and in theKettle and Granby River drainages.

Environmental conditions of the Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grass grassland arevariable. Although restricted to warm aspects, it has been found on dry, shallow, coarsetextured soils as well as moist, deep, medium textured soils (Braumandl and Curran 1992;Ketcheson 1997). The dry, coarse textured soils that are common on steep slopes supporta less diverse community than the deep, moist soils associated with the valley bottom.Steeply sloped areas contain a high cover of bluebunch wheatgrass and lesser amounts ofJune grass, shaggy fleabane, pasture sage, and saskatoon. Bluebunch wheatgrass also

49

dominates the moister, deep soils, however June grass cover increases in these areas andis accompanied by pasture sage, Prairie rose, saskatoon, yarrow, rosy pussytoes, andnarrow-leaved desert parsley. Other species recorded in late seral bluebunch wheatgrass –junegrass communities include Idaho fescue, rough fescue, Rocky Mountain fescue, stiffneedlegrass, Richardson’s needlegrass, few-flowered shooting star, umber pussytoes, andprairie crocus (Ketcheson 1997).

Noxious and invasive species threaten the Bluebunch wheatgrass – June grasscommunity. The dry, coarse textured soils recover slowly from disturbance and the soilsare highly susceptible to cheatgrass invasion, which can severely retard succession(Westoby et al. 1989; pers obs). Kentucky bluegrass increases on disturbed sites withdeeper, moister soils. Other non-native species that pose risks to the community arespotted and diffuse knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, Hound’s tongue, Canada thistle andwhite sweet clover.


This plant community is an open grassland and should exhibit < 10% tree cover, < 10%shrub cover, and > 33% of total cover of herbs (e.g., bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass,Idaho fescue)


EKTIDF: uu/00PP: dh2/02a, PPdh2/02b


• Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles (6-8 years)• Restore and maintain cover of primary species• Minimize soil disturbance and conserve soil organics• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to

burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical)• Plant bunchgrass plugs, rather than seed in areas with high cheatgrass cover• Restore non-vascular species to bare soils• Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to a

highly disturbed site (knapweeds and cheatgrass respond to fire by re-establishingquickly on the site)

• limit livestock grazing until after second growing season• control weeds as necessary to reduce competition with native species

50

5.5 Douglas-fir-Western Larch-Spruce/Pinegrass


The Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrass plant community is on theProvincial Blue-list (CDC 2004). It is associated with the Ministry of Forests dry, mildInterior Douglas-fir variant in the Rocky Mountain Trench (IDFdm2 - Kootenay variant)and the Kettle valley (IDFdm1 - Kettle variant) between elevations of 500 and 1370-m.Within the Trench, large expanses of valley bottom between Golden and the Internationalborder and along major tributaries, such as the Kootenay River, St. Mary’s River,Wigwam River, and Findley Creek are suitable for this plant community. The matureand old forest structural stages of the Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrasscommunity are rare and few undisturbed examples have been located.

The plant community typically occurs on deep, fine-textured soils in level, receivingsites. However, it is also associated with medium or coarse textured and occasionallyshallow soils of active floodplains, alluvial fans, gullies and terraces (Kernaghan et al.1999). Soil moisture ranges from subhygric to subxeric (moist, throughout most of thegrowing season to rapidly drained).

The tree and shrub layers in the Douglas-fir, Western Larch – Spruce / Pinegrass plantassociation are well developed, while the herb – forb understory is diverse, but relativelysparse. Douglas-fir, hybrid white spruce, and trembling aspen dominate the tree layeralong with lesser amounts of western larch, paper birch and the occasional lodgepolepine. Typical shrubs include common snowberry and tall Oregon-grape accompanied bysaskatoon, soopolallie, birch-leaved spirea, red-osier dogwood and prickly rose. Theunderstory is dominated by pinegrass with lesser amounts of showy aster, wildsarsaparilla, twinflower, and bunchberry. An understory of red-stemmed feather moss andstep moss is common (Braumandl and Curran 1992). Younger plant communities willalso include bluejoint and willow (Salix sp) (Kernaghan et al. 1999). Overgrazing,development and noxious and invasive weeds threaten this plant association.


This plant community is an old, structurally complex forest with canopy gaps that havewell-developed understories. It should exhibit > 50% tree cover (Douglas-fir, whitespruce, western larch), > 30% shrub cover (trembling aspen, Saskatoon, snowberry,prickly rose), and about 20% herb/forb cover (pinegrass, bluejoint).


EKTIDF: dm2/04

51


• Maintain a multi-story forest stand with canopy gaps that contain well developedshrub and herb layers

• Promote development of snags and CWD• Develop fire breaks by promoting deciduous tree communities on wet sites• Maintain a long fire cycle (>90 years)Restore frequent low intensity burn cycles

(14-32 years)• Minimize soil disturbance• Conserve soil organics• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to

burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical)• It will likely be necessary to brush around newly planted shrubs and trees during

the first and possible the second growing season (trees and shrubs may be outcompeted by prolific seed banking species)

5.6 Ponderosa Pine-Trembling Aspen/Rose [Solomon’s Seal]


The Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal] is a provincially Red-listed plant community (CDC 2004). The community is found between 700 and 950-mASL in the southern regions of the Rocky Mountain Trench, between SkookumchuckCreek and the St. Mary’s River and between Baynes Lake and Tobacco Plains(Braumandl and Curran 1992). The plant community typically occurs on fine-texturedsoils in depressional or level sites along the valley bottom. Soils are lacustrine or fluvialand are normally moist throughout the growing season (mesic to subhygric). Fewexamples of the mature or old forest stage of this plant community remain as it has beenimpacted by over-grazing, fire suppression, invasion by non-native species and the loss offloodplains through damning and flooding (CDC 2003).

The dominant species of the Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal]plant association are trembling aspen and Ponderosa pine and a well developed shrublayer of prickly and prairie rose, western snowberry, chokecherry, and small amounts ofsaskatoon. Pinegrass, northern bedstraw and star-flowered Solomon’s seal are found inthe understory, however Kentucky bluegrass usually provides the most ground cover(Braumandl and Curran 1992). Other species that have been reported in the late seralstages of the Ponderosa pine – Trembling aspen / Rose [Solomon’s seal] community arelodgepole pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, tall Oregon-grape, wolf-willow), bluebunchwheatgrass and blue wildrye. In addition, earlier seral stages may contain blackhawthorn, sweet-scented bedstraw, pearly everlasting and leafy aster (Ketcheson 1997;CDC 2003). The cover of Kentucky bluegrass increases with disturbance and the weedy

52

grass may be accompanied by other non-native species such as common dandelion,hound’s tongue, and Canada thistle.


This riparian plant community should exhibit about 30% tree cover (ponderosa pine,trembling aspen), 20-25% shrub cover (Rocky Mountain juniper, rose, snowberry, tallOregon grape, wolf-willow and others) and 50% herb and forb cover (bluebunchwheatgrass, blue wildrye, pinegrass, star flowered Solomon’s seal and others)


EKTPP: dh2/03


• Maintain a structurally complex community, with a fairly open forest canopy anda diverse shrub and herb / forb cover

• Promote the development of snags and downed coarse woody debris• Minimize soil disturbance• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species - control weeds prior to

burning, seeding or planting (mechanical or chemical).• Brushing around newly planted shrubs and trees during the first and possible the

second growing season will be necessary or trees and shrubs will be out competedby native seed banking species.

• Prevent livestock grazing until after the second growing season• Permanent grazing restrictions should be put in place in this community (I.e.

restrict access to waterways, prevent wallowing)• Restore low intensity burn cycles (7-10 years in aspen)

5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass-Silky Lupine


The Ponderosa pine / bluebunch wheatgrass - silky lupine plant community is on theprovincial Red List in British Columbia (CDC 2004). The community is found between500 and 950 m ASL in the southern regions of the Rocky Mountain Trench, betweenSkookumchuck Creek and the St. Mary River, and between Baynes Lake and TobaccoPlains (Pojar 2003). These forests occupy a variety of slope positions and aspects, ongentle to steep slopes. Parent materials can be glaciofluvial, colluvial, morainal,lacustrine, or aeolian in origin. Soils have mostly loamy or silty textures and moder ormull humus forms. The soil moisture regime is mesic to submesic, while the soil nutrientregime varies from poor to rich (Pojar 2003).

53

Forest is open with a canopy of ponderosa pine often mixed with Douglas-fir. The shrublayer is sparse, with Saskatoon, snowberry (PPdh1) and prairie rose (PPdh2). The herblayer is dominated by grasses, in particular bluebunch wheatgrass, with also junegrassfescues, and needlegrasses. With increased disturbance to the community, grasses such ascheatgrass may become dominant. This plant community also has a variety of forbs, butwith low cover. Forbs include silky lupine, yarrow, rosy pussytoes, arrow-leavedbalsamroot, nodding onion (PPdh1), and prairie crocus (PPdh2) (Braumandl and Curran1992; Pojar 2003).

Only small amounts of this plant community remains in relatively undisturbed, oldgrowth, high quality condition. It is in poor condition virtually over its entire range andthere are very few high quality occurrences. It is expected to continue to decline due tofire prevention and suppression, forest harvesting, rural development, poor rangepractices, and the spread of invasive species (Pojar 2003).

Relatively undisturbed ecosystems are mostly small, fragmented and sparsely distributed.Connectivity of old forest habitat is a serious conservation issue, as are forest ingrowth,widespread overgrazing, and invasive species (Pojar 2003).


This plant community should exhibit 15- 0% cover of mature and old trees (ponderosapine and Douglas-fir), 15-20% shrub cover (saskatoon, common snowberry, prairie roseand others), and > 50% herb and forb cover (bluebunch wheatgrass, junegrass, needlegrasses, fescues, silky lupine, yarrow, nodding onion, prairie crocus)


EKTPP: dh2/01

Primary restoration techniques• Re-establish periodic low intensity ground fires to control forest ingrowth• Limb area prior to burns to prevent crown fires• Maintain veteran (old-growth) ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir as well as a range

of tree sized, large snags, and downed coarse woody debris• Prevent the establishment and spread of non-native invasive species• encourage the re-establishment of the microbiotic crust• Prevent soil disturbance• Restore and maintain an open interior forest condition with native grass

dominated understory• manage grazing so that bluebunch stubble height is not less than 22 cm• Do not encourage recreational use of the area

54

• Intensive weed management will be needed if restoring the native grasses to ahighly disturbed site. Knapweeds and cheatgrass respond to fire by re-establishing quickly on the site

• Successive seedings or plantings of native grasses may be required if thecommunity is severely disturbed

• Control weeds as necessary and prevent livestock grazing until after the secondgrowing season.

• Expect browse, plant extra shrubs

6. Discussion

The interior Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine biogeoclimatic zones support a rich diversityof wildlife and plant communities, many of which are relatively rare in British Columbia.These wildlife and plant communities have adapted to frequent stand-maintaining firerotations, typically of 5-25 years. However, for many decades, fire suppression anddevelopment of land for agriculture, ranching and urbanization have dramaticallyimpacted these species and communities. As open forests have changed to higher densityforests and much of the old-growth Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine have been harvested,forest stand features required by many wildlife species has declined. These changes haveresulted in habitat with much lower biodiversity values than previously. Restoration ofthese habitats is badly needed.

Planning for ecosystem restoration occurs at two spatial scales: (i) the range unit level(1000s of ha), where the ecosystem units open range, open forest, and closed forest arethemed out and assigned certain tree species composition and density targets (KBLUP,Ministry of Forests 1997) and (ii) the pasture unit level (smaller area, < 1000 ha), whichhas been the level for SMP, SP, and burn plan development (see Appendix 4). Mostrestoration treatments occur at the pasture unit level, within an overall plan for the rangeunit.

Development of management prescriptions that favour the elements listed in this reportneed to consider other land and resource management and social objectives such as (i)ungulate winter range guidelines (KBLUP, Ministry of Forests 1997), (ii) strategic treespecies composition and stocking targets (Ministry of Forests 1997), and (iii) wildlife treeretention regulations (especially those concerning worker safety standards; Wildlife TreeCommittee of British Columbia 2001).

The feasibility of biological restoration is often constrained by political and economicfactors. Resource managers must work together with all stakeholder groups tosuccessfully restore habitats needed by rare wildlife species and rare plant communities.

55

7. Recommendations

Restoration of habitat for Red and Blue-listed wildlife species is an important componentin the recovery of species at risk. Information presented in this report should help guiderestoration efforts for each species while pointing out areas of conflicts with other speciesor plant communities. The following recommendations are suggested when planningrestoration:

Inventory proposed treatment units for Red and Blue-listed plant communitiesprior to treatment. Note that some plant communities are less resistant to fire thanothers (e.g., western snowberry-Idaho fescue).

Attempt to restore NDT4 conditions to open range and open forest habitatsthrough methods suggested in Table 6, but Wildlife Trees in treatment units thatmay contain Lewis’s Woodpeckers or Flammulated Owls may need protectionfrom prescribed burns. Burning of these potential nest trees may be detrimental tothe species.

When restoring habitat in treatment units, assess positive and negative effects oneach Red and Blue-listed wildlife species that may be present. Defer to moreconservative actions if impacts are uncertain, or defer to habitat preferences forRed-listed species over Blue-listed species if probable impacts are known.

At this time, do not consider habitat needs for White-headed Woodpecker orWilliamson’s Sapsuckers, at the expense of other species or the restoration ofNDT4 habitat features. Occurrence of these species in the EKT is less a functionof habitat conditions in the EKT than on their habitat preferences and existingrange.

Regarding mapping and GIS analysis for listed species in NDT4 ecosystem restoration(and other applications); the following recommendations could be considered.

Use GIS (rather than mechanical) techniques to produce mapping layers of UTM-based species occurrence records.

Map the reported occurrences of listed plants communities. Combine the pasture unit maps with GIS layers of, for example, BEC variants, to

explore the ecological basis for the observed species distributions. Conduct a “gapanalysis” to determine why potentially suitable habitats are not occupied bycertain species. Given adequate species inventory coverage, assess the currentsuitability of capable habitats, potentially using existing PEM information forhabitat structure and site series.

Extend the species list to include other species of management concern. Translate maps into an Interactive Map Format for possible inclusion in the

Biodiversity Atlas Project.

56

Evaluate the practicality of using pasture units as the mapping polygons,considering the range/territory requirements of some species.

Extend the mapping to other NDT4 areas of the Columbia Basin

A strategy or plan to educate resource managers and users, the general public, and thegeneral professional biological community is needed to foster conservation of habitat andpopulations of the species and communities discussed in this report. Some suggestionsinclude:

Direct discussion and workshops with range managers and users Provision of this report to range managers and users Encouragement to include BMPs and other ideas presented in this report in SMPs,

range use plans, and other development plans Additional inventory of species and plant communities of concern Public meetings and workshops with the general public re conservation of species

and plant communities of concern

Some restoration techniques will work better than others for more species. Research onwhich techniques are most beneficial to species or plant communities is needed.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank John Krebs of the Columbia Basin Fish and WildlifeCompensation Program for initiating and managing this project. Ted Antifeau of theMinistry of Water, Land and Air Protection provided considerable information on Redand Blue-listed species in the EKT. Amy Waterhouse of CBFWCP developed the GISmaps for the report. John Krebs and Doug Adama provided extensive advice andcomments on earlier drafts which greatly improved the document. Beth Woodbridgemanaged the contract.

The Conservation Data Centre provided a summary of occurrences of Red and Blue listedwildlife and plant communities in the EKT. Special thanks to the many people whoprovided information to us during this project (see Appendix 5). Dianne Cooper extractedinformation on Red and Blue-listed wildlife from the Mildred White diaries.

57

9. Literature Cited

Adams, I., T. Antifeau, M. Badry, L. Campbell, A. Dibb, O. Dyer, W. Erickson, C.Hoodicoff, L. Ingham, A. Jackson, K. Larsen, T. Munson, N. Newhouse, B.Persello, J. Surgenor, K. Sutherland, J. Steciw, and R. Weir. 2002. Draft nationalrecovery strategy for American Badger, jeffersonii subspecies, (Taxidea taxusjeffersonii). Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildl., Ottawa, Ont.

Adams, I. and T. Kinley. 2004. Badger. Accounts and Measures for Managing IdentifiedWildlife, Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.Pp. 333-342.

Addison, C. and D. Christie. 2002. Final Report Year 2: 2001 Flammulated OwlInventory of the Rocky Mountain Trench

Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse and T.A. Kinley. 2001. Habitat associations of Americanbadger in southeast British Columbia. Columbia Basin Fish and WildlifeCompensation program, Nelson, BC. 35 pp.

Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse, and T.A. Kinley. 2002. Habitat associations of Americanbadgers in southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 80:1228–1239.

Arno, S.F., J.H. Scott, and M.G. Hartwell. 1995. Age class structure of old-growthponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire. USDA For. Serv.Res. Rep. INT-481.

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behaviour of the Lewis’ Woodpecker (Asyndesmuslewis). University of California Publications in Zoology. 92: 1-100

Braumandl T.F. and M.P. Curran. 1992. A field guide for site identification andinterpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. Ministry of Forests ResearchProgram. Victoria, BC.

Buchanan, J.B., R.E. Rogers, D.J. Pierce and J.E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest-site habitat use byWhite-headed Woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington.Northwestern Naturalist 84:119-128.

Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning amongwoodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Services, Research Note PNW-444. 19 pp.

Bull, E.L., E.L. Wright, and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Nesting habitat of Flammulated Owlsin Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 24: 52-55.

58

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, and M.C.E.McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 2, Nonpasserines: DiurnalBirds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal B.C. Mus. in association withEnviron. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 636pp

Campbell, R.W., A.R. Norris, M.L. Funk, and J.V. Kimm. 2000. British Columbia nestrecord scheme. 45th annual report–1999 nesting season. Wild Bird Trust ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Wildl. Rep. 6.

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley,British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, B.C. 420 p.

Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the White-headed Woodpecker in British Columbia.Wildlife Bulletin No. B-80. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, WildlifeBranch, Victoria, BC.

Cannings, R.J. 1999. Status of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Paper No. WR-96. 20 pp.

Cannings, R.J. 1996. Williamson’s Sapsucker surveys in the east Kootenay region.Report for B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Unpubl. 29 p.

Cannings, R.J. and A. van Woudenberg. 2004. Flammulated Owl. In Identified WildlifeStrategy: Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004.Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 254-261.

Cannings, S.G., Ramsay, L.R., Fraser, D.F., and Fraker, M.A. 1999. Rare amphibians,reptiles and mammals of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 190 pp.

CDC (Conservation Data Centre). 2003. [Pinus ponderosa – Populus tremuloides / Rosawoodsii Ponderosa pine – trembling aspen / prairie rose]. Plant CommunityAccount Summary [C1A9BPPPT1]. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable ResourceManagement, Victoria, BC. 1pp.

CDC (Conservation Data Centre). 2004. BC Species Explorer.http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca//apps/eswp/

Cooper, J.M. 1995. Status of the Williamson’s Sapsucker in British Columbia. B.C. Min.Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Br., Victoria, B.C. WR–69.

Cooper, J.M., and S. Beauchesne. 2000. Inventory of Lewis's Woodpecker BreedingPopulation and Habitat in the East Kootenay. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks, Wildlife Branch. Working Rep. WR-100. 38pp.

59

Cooper, J.M., E.T. Manning, P.A. Chytyk and M.G. Shepard. 2004. 2003 Forest songbirdmonitoring of Canfor TFL 37, Woss, British Columbia. Manning, Cooper andAssociates report for Canfor Ltd., Woss, BC. 60 pp.

Cooper, J.M. and E.T. Manning. 2004. Williamson’s Sapsucker. Accounts and Measuresfor Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection, Victoria, BC. pp. 309-317.

COSEWIC. 2000. Canadian Species at Risk, May 2000. Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.

(COSEWIC) 2004. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.http://www.cosewic.gc.ca.

Daigle, P. 1996. Fire in the dry interior forests of British Columbia. Extension Note 8,BC Min. of Forests Research Program, Victoria, B.C. 5 pp.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Washington AgricultureExperimental Station. Technical Bulletin. 60. 104 pp.

Davidson, P.W. 1991. East Kootenay Bighorn Sheep enhancement project: completionreport. BC Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. Unpubl.report. 183 pp.

Daw, S. K., DeStefano, S. and R. J. Steidl. 1998. Does survey method bias thedescription of northern goshawk nest-site structure? Journal of WildlifeManagement 62:1379-1384.

Demarchi, R.A. 1986. Biophysical resources of the East Kootenay Area: wildlife. B.C.Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 22. 134 p.

Demarchi, R.A. 2004. Bighorn Sheep. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts andMeasures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Landand Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 391-409.

Dobbs, R.C., T.E. Martin, and C.J. Conway. 1997. Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicusthyroideus). In Birds of North America, No. 285. A. Poole and F. Gill (editors).Acad. Natl. Sci., Philadelphia, Penn., and Am. Ornith. Union, Washington, D.C.

Dugger, B.D., and K.M. Dugger. 2002. Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). InThe Birds of North America, No. 628 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds ofNorth America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

60

Erickson, W.R. 2003a. Douglas-fir/ Snowberry/ Balsamroot Pseudotsuga menziesii /Symphoricarpus albus / Balsamorhiza sagittata. In Plant Community Accounts,April 2003. Unpublished Draft. P. 12-19.

Erickson, W.R. 2003b. Antelope-brush / Bluebunch wheatgrass Purshia tridentata /Pseudoroegneria spicata. In Plant Community Accounts, April 2003.Unpublished Draft. P. 4 – 11.

Ethier, T. 1999. Breeding habitat of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis laingi) onVancouver Island: a hierarchical approach. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria,BC.

Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of BritishColumbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. 244pp.

Frederick, B.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of White-headedWoodpeckers in west-central Idaho. Payette National Forest, Idaho Department ofFish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 51pp.

Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker(Picoides albolarvatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 252 (A. Poole and F.Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the AmericanOrnithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Gayton, D. 1998. The nature and restoration of fire-maintained ecosystems in the RockyMountain Trench. p. 228 In B. Egan (ed.), Conference Proceedings: Helping Healthe Land: Ecological Restoration in British Columbia, November 5-8, 1998,Victoria, B.C.

Gebauer, M. 2004a. Lewis’s Woodpecker. In Identified Wildlife Strategy: Accounts andMeasures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Landand Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 318-328.

Gebauer, M. 2004b. White-headed Woodpecker. In Identified Wildlife Strategy:Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministryof Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. pp. 347-356.

Gyug, L.W. 1997. Forest development plan, Red- and Blue-listed species inventory forwoodpeckers in 1997: Lewis’s Woodpecker, White-headed Woodpecker andWilliamson’s Sapsucker. Report for B.C. Environment, Penticton, BC. Unpubl.

Gyug, L.W. 1999. Inventory for Northern Goshawk and Williamson’s Sapsucker,Boundary Forest District. Report for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,Penticton, BC. Unpubl.

61

Hadow, H.H. 1973. Winter ecology of migrant and resident Lewis’ Woodpeckers insoutheastern Colorado. Condor 75: 210-224.

Hays, D., M. Tirhi and D. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the Sharp-tailed Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Holt, R.F. 2001. A strategic ecological restoration assessment (SERA) in the forestregions of British Columbia. Pandion Ecological Research Limited report forForest renewal BC, Habitat Branch, Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks,Victoria, BC. 30 pp.

Hooper, T.D., and M.D. Pitt. 1996. Breeding bird communities and habitat associations inthe grasslands of the Chilcotin region, British Columbia. Environment Canada,Canadian Forest Services and BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. FRDA ReportNo. 243.

Howie, R.R. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Distribution, habitat selection and densities ofFlammulated Owls in British Columbia. Pages 249-254. in R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark,R.J. Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, eds. Biology and conservation of northern forestowls. Proceedings of the Symposium February 3-7, 1987, Winnipeg, MB. UnitedStates Forest Service General Technical Report RM 142.

Illg, C. and G. Illg. 1994. The ponderosa and the Flammulated Owl. American ForestsVol. 100: Issue _, p. 36.

IWMS (Identified Wildlife Management Strategy). 2004. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 391-409in Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife, Version 2004.Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Ketcheson, M. 1997. Wasa Provincial Park ecosystem mapping report, expanded maplegend and interpretations. Review Draft. 74 pp.

Kernaghan, G., K. Lessard, B. Sinclair, R. McKay, G. Burns, and M. Ketcheson. 1999.TFL 14 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (T.E.M.) Project. Volume 1: ExpandedLegend to Ecosystem Units. 265 pp.

Linder, K.A. and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers insoutheastern Wyoming. J. Field Ornithology 69(1): 109-116.

Linkhart, B.D., R.T. Reynolds, and R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat ofbreeding Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 110(3): 342-351.

Machmer. M.M. 2001. Development and testing of fine-filter prescriptions for listed andfire-adapted species in conjunction with NDT4 ecosystem restoration: Literaturesearch and work plan. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and Forest Renewal BC.91 pp.

62

Machmer, M.M. 2002. Baseline biodiversity inventory and evaluation of NDT4ecosystem restoration for the Cherry Creek property. Report to The Nature Trustof BC, Vancouver, B.C.

Machmer, M.M., H.N. Page and C. Steeger. 2002. East Kootenay Trench RestorationEffectiveness Monitoring Plan. Report prepared by Pandion Ecological ResearchLtd. for the Habitat Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection andForest Renewal B.C. Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration Program, Victoria, B.C.50 pp.

Manning, E.T. and J.M. Cooper. 1996. An assessment of woodpecker foraging, homerange and patch utilization at Wallace Creek, British Columbia. Report preparedfor BC Environment, Penticton, B.C.

Manning, E.T., J.M. Cooper and S. Beauchesne. 2002. Bird monitoring and habitatmitigation along BC Hydro right of ways. Final report. Manning, Cooper andAssociates unpub. report for BC Hydro, Burnaby BC.

Marshall, D.B. 1997. Status of the White-headed Woodpecker in Oregon andWashington. Report prepared for the Audubon Society of Portland, Portland OR.

McCallum, D, A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 93 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of NaturalSciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

McCallum, D.A., P. Morgan, J. Verner, and G.D. Hayward. 1994. Flammulated, Borealand Great Gray Owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment(G.D. Hayward, ed.). U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM 253.

McLean, A., and W.D. Holland. 1958. Vegetation zones and their relationship to soilsand climate of the upper Columbia Valley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 38:328-345

Mclean, A. and L. Marchand. 1968. Grassland ranges in the Southern Interior of BritishColumbia. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication 1319. 28 pp.

Messick, J.P. 1987. North American badger. Pages 586-597 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservationin North America. Ontario Trappers Association, and Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, Toronto, Ontario.

Ministry of Forests. 1997. Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy.Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee, Nelson, BC.

Morgan, K.H., S.P. Wetmore, G.E.J. Smith, and R.A. Keller. 1989. Relationshipsbetween logging methods, habitat structure and bird communities of dry interior

63

Douglas-fir ponderosa pine forests of British Columbia. Can. Wildl. Serv., Delta,B.C. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 71.

Morrison, M.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.C. Heald. 1983.The use of high-cut stumps bycavity-nesting birds. In Snag habitat management: Symposium Proceedings. J.W.Davis, G.A. Goodwin and R.A. Ockenfels (editors). U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Services, General Technical Report RM-99, pp. 73-79.

MSRM (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management). Undated. Sharp-tailed Grouseaccount, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Ministry of Sustainable ResourceManagement website:http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ecology/tem/warehouse/ex_spp_index.html#churn

MWLAP (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 2001. Ashfire stand managementprescription, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Nelson BC. 13 pp.

Newhouse, N. and T. Kinley. 2000. Update COSEWIC status report on the Americanbadger Taxidea taxus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlifein Canada, Ottawa. 26 pp.

Ohanjanian, P. 1990. The Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse in the east Kootenay: a report ontheir status and options for reintroduction. Report for the Wildlife Branch,Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cranbrook, BC. 55 pp.

Ohanjanian, P. 1996. The Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse in the east Kootenay. Report forthe Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 19pp.

Ohanjanian, P. 1997. Sharp-tailed Grouse inventory. Report for the Columbia Basin Fishand Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 20 pp.

Ohanjanian, L.A. 2004. Long-billed Curlew. Accounts and Measures for ManagingIdentified Wildlife. Version 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection,Victoria, BC. pp. 246-253.

Page, H. and M.M. Machmer 2003. Monitoring Ecosystem Restoration Treatments in theRocky Mountain Trench. Report for the Columbia Basin Fish and WildlifeCompensation Program, Nelson, BC. 34 pp.

Page, H, and M.M. Machmer. 2003. Monitoring ecosystem restoration treatments in theRocky Mountain Trench: site establishment report. Columbia Basin Fish &Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson. 28 pp.

Pojar, J. 2003. Ponderosa Pine/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass - Silky Lupine. Draft account forIdentified Wildlife Management Strategy, Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection, Victoria, BC.

64

Poole, K., G. Mowat, and M. Machmer. 2002. West Kootenay Prescribed BurnsEvaluation. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Nelson, B.C.

Rahme, A.H., A.S. Harestad and F.L. Bunnell. 1995. Status of the Badger in BritishColumbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-72. Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks, Victoria, BC. 51 pp.

Raphael, M.G., M.L. Morrison, and M.P. Yoder-Williams. 1987. Breeding birdpopulations during twenty-five years of postfire succession in the Sierra Nevada.Condor 89: 614-626.

Ritcey, R.W. 1990. Report of a survey of wintering Sharp-tailed Grouse in forestedhabitats near Williams Lake, B.C. Feb./Mar. 90. Report to Oregon NatureConservancy. Unpubl. 10 pp.

Ritcey, R.W. 1995. Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse in British Columbia (columbianussubspecies). Wildlife Working Report WR-70, Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 40 pp.

Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee. 2000. Fire-maintained ecosystem restoration in the Trench: a blueprint for action. February2000. 16 pp.

Shackleton, D.M. 1973. Population quality and Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensiscanadensis Shaw). Ph.D. thesis. Univ. Calgary, Calgary, Alta.

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in thinned versus unthinnedSierran mixed conifer stands. Wilson Bulletin 115:155-165.

Saab, V.A., and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests ofsouthwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT: USDA, USFS, RockyMountain Research Station. 17p.

Sousa, P.J. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Lewis’ Woodpecker. US Fish andWildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 14 pp.

Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In TheBirds of North America, No. 298 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy ofNatural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union,Washington, D.C.

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences,Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

65

van Woudenberg, A.M. 1999. Status of the Flammulated Owl in British Columbia. B.C.Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-95. 48pp.

van Woudenberg, A., D. Christie, and D. Erickson. 2000. Flammulated Owl Inventory ofthe Rocky Mountain Trench. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, Region 4.

Velland, M. and V. Connolly. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the Lewis’ Woodpecker,Melanerpes lewis. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 16 +ix pp.

Vierling, K.T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis’ Woodpecker in southeastern Colorado.Wilson Bull. 109: 121-130.

Westoby, M.B., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management forrangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. 42 (4). P. 266-274.

Wildlife Tree Committee of BC. 2001. Wildlife/Danger Tree Assessor’s CourseWorkbook. B.C. Workers’ Compensation Board, Min. of Forests, and Min. ofwater, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

10. Other literature consulted

Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8):460-465.

Arno, S.F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, JaneKapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep.RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120.

Atwood, L. B. 2000. Monitoring restoration of the Vaseux-Bighorn National WildlifeArea following pipeline construction. In L. M. Darling (ed). Proceedings of aconference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk.Kamloops, BC. Feb 15 – 19, 1999. Volume Two. BC. Ministry of Environment,Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops,BC p. 815 – 819.

Baker, F.S. 1925. Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain region. Department Bulletin No.1291. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 47 p.

BIOB Beat. 2003. Bighorn in our backyard project. Issue #3, Osprey Communications,Invermere, BC. 4 pp.

66

Bunnell, F.L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in BritishColumbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology.9(3): 636-644.

Connelly, J.W., M.W. Gratson and K.P. Reese. 1998. Sharp-tailed Grouse. The Birds ofNorth America, No. 354 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of NaturalSciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union,Washington, D.C.

Demarchi, R.A., C.L. Hartwig and D.A. Demarchi. 2000. Status of the Rocky MountainBighorn Sheep in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks,Victoria, BC. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-99. 56 pp.

Dorey, R.J. 1979. A fire history investigation and the effects of fire exclusion on aponderosa pine forest in southeastern British Columbia. B.Sc. Thesis. Universityof British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry.

East Kootenay Conservation Program. No date. Conserving working landscapes. TheRockies Network. 12 pp.

Gayton, D. 1997. Calculation of forest ingrowth and resulting forage impact in BC’sRocky Mountain Trench. FORREX, Nelson, BC. 5 pp.

Grasslands Conservation Council of BC. 2001. Grasslands under siege-the weedinvasion. BC Grasslands, April 2001. Kamloops, BC.

Gray, R.W., E. Riccius, and C. Wong. 2001. Comparison of current and historical standstructure in 2 interior Douglas-fir sites in the Rocky Mountain Trench, BritishColumbia, Canada. Pages 000-000 in R.T. Engstrom and W.J. de Groot, (eds.).Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire inTemperate, Boreal, and Montane Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station,Tallahasee, Fl.

Gray, R.W. 2001. Maintenance strategies for fire scarred Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir.Prescribed fire research notes. Squamish Forest District. Small Business Program.Unpublished. 3 pp.

Gruell, G.E.; Brown, J.K.; Bushey, C.L. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslandsinvaded by Douglas-fir: state-of-the-art guidelines. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-198.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station. 19 pp.

Kernaghan, G., K. Lessary, and M.V. Ketcheson. 2000. Premier Ridge – DioriteTerrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (T.E.M.) Project. Volume 1. Unpublished. 32 pp.

Kilgore, B.M. 1981. Fire in ecosystem distribution and structure: western forests andscrublands. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and

67

others], technical coordinators. Proceedings of the conference: Fire regimes andecosystem properties; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 58-89.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry ofForests. Victoria, BC.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. No date. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse.Kamloops, BC. 6 pp.

Ommundsen, P. 1983. Management guidelines for ungulate winter range at Lower ArrowLake, British Columbia: Broadwater to Robson. Department of EnvironmentalScience, Selkirk College. Castlegar, B.C. 142 pp.

Province of British Columbia. 1998. Field manual for describing terrestrial ecosystems.Land Management Handbook 25. Resources Inventory Branch, Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands, and Parks and Research Branch, Ministry of Forests:Victoria, BC.

Province of British Columbia. 2000. Bighorn Sheep in British Columbia: ecology,conservation and management. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks,Victoria, BC. 6 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Firescience laboratory. Fire effects information system. [Online].http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. February 2004.

van Woudenberg, A. 1997. Grazing impacts on the biodiversity of grassland ecosystems:phase 1. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, and Habitat ConservationTrust Fund, Victoria, BC. 87 pp.

Weddell, B.J. and J. Lichthardt. 2000. Restoration of Palouse and Canyon Grasslands: Areview. In Restoring Palouse and Canyon grasslands: putting back the missingpieces. B.J. Weddell (ed). USDA Bureau of Land Management. P 1 – 11.http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/01_15/part1.pdf

Weddell, B.J. 2001. Fire in steppe vegetation of the northern intermountain region.Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Cottonwood District.http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/01_14/sec1.pdf

68

Appendix 1. Map of occurrences for six Red and Blue-listed wildlife species in theEast Kootenay Trench. (Maps not included in print version. For maps see digitalversion of the report on the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife CompensationProgram website: http://www.cbfishwildlife.org/. Use the zoom tool to read pastureunits).

69

Appendix 2. Pasture unit names, numbers, size, and occurrence of listed wildlife species.

PASTURETAG RANGENAME PASTURENAME HECTARES NOGO FLOW LBCU LEWO STGR BHSHEEP BADGER #SPEC

332 Alkali Lakes Alkali Lakes 2537.9 x 1318 Baker Baker 4511.1 x 120 Bryanton Creek Bryanton Creek 1196.4 x 1

395Bugaboo-Spillimacheen Bugaboo-Spillimacheen 4961.2 x 1

243 Bull River Bull River 202.635 Burton Lake Burton Lake 3160.3

229 Camp 6 North Camp 6 North 320.1261 Camp 6 North South 523.4235 Camp 6 South Camp 6 South 1940.0 x 1119 Cherry - Ta Ta Cherry - Ta Ta 127.5 x 182 Cherry - Ta Ta Steer 267.2

108 Cherry - Ta Ta China North 373.4 x 1139 Cherry - Ta Ta China South 392.3118 Cherry - Ta Ta Lost Dog 617.4127 Cherry - Ta Ta Airport 694.5 x 1126 Cherry - Ta Ta Rock Lake 700.9 x 1117 Cherry - Ta Ta Highway North 773.8 x 1131 Cherry - Ta Ta Lost Spring 1187.1 x 1116 Cherry - Ta Ta Highway South 1705.6 x 1140 Cherry - Ta Ta Beacon 6148.0 x 1

32Chipka RockyCreek Chipka Rocky Creek 5592.0 x 1

56 Colvalli North Brush West 195.528 Colvalli North Loop 226.059 Colvalli North Horseshoe 243.691 Colvalli North Frenchman's 315.436 Colvalli North Hardtop 387.755 Colvalli North Colvalli 399.073 Colvalli North Brush East 471.2 x 1

70


74 Colvalli North Wapiti Lake 659.7 x 1

312Cranbrook FortSteele River Bottom South 91.9

379Cranbrook FortSteele River Bottom North 96.5

371Cranbrook FortSteele River Bottom Middle 97.4

331Cranbrook FortSteele City Fields 254.3 x 1

319Cranbrook FortSteele Highway Lake 285.6

322Cranbrook FortSteele Tule 300.0

309Cranbrook FortSteele Rampart Prairie 418.8 x 1

358Cranbrook FortSteele North 600 424.6

364Cranbrook FortSteele Gravel Pit 444.1

376Cranbrook FortSteele East West Strip 563.3 x 1

390Cranbrook FortSteele M M 20 593.8

399Cranbrook FortSteele Lake 698.5

401Cranbrook FortSteele City Fields 934.1 x 1

247Dutch-findlayCreek Thunder 595.6 x 1

262Dutch-findlayCreek Sun 1005.7 x x 2

227Dutch-findlayCreek Dutch 1263.1

223Dutch-findlayCreek Spur 1435.9 x 1

71


232Dutch-FindlayCreek Dutch-Findlay Creek 2245.1 x x 2

265 Findlay Basin Findlay Basin 354.6280 Findlay Basin Findlay Basin 497.5290 Findlay Basin Findlay 621.9283 Findlay Basin Lavington 1152.0216 Findlay Basin Stinky 1418.7 x x 2226 Findlay Basin Saddle 1433.7239 Findlay Basin Whitetail 1495.8 x 1

194Forster-HorsethiefCreek Forster 46.3

206Forster-HorsethiefCreek Baltic 93.6

197Forster-HorsethiefCreek Barbour 228.2

193Forster-HorsethiefCreek Broken Tree 529.6 x 1

209Forster-HorsethiefCreek Bextram 801.5

208Forster-HorsethiefCreek Forster-Horsethief Creek 807.2 x 1

204Forster-HorsethiefCreek Forster-Horsethief Creek 1386.2

217 Frances Creek Arvid 107.324 Frances Creek Frances Creek 129.4

205 Frances Creek Frances Creek 521.7 x 127 Frances Creek Brady 528.816 Frances Creek Frances Creek 537.2 x 1

253 Frances Creek Height of Land 1395.612 Frances Creek Elliot 1491.411 Frances Creek Brady 1588.325 Frances Creek Hidden Valley 1796.614 Frances Creek Franz 2700.5

72


54 Gold - Plumbob Gold - Plumbob 22752.8 x 1292 Grasmere Mojak's Seeding 123.5374 Grasmere Bagley's Seeding 312.8 x 1182 Grasmere Bridge 392.6 x 179 Grasmere Canyon 472.7 x 1

170 Grasmere Phillip's 477.5388 Grasmere A.I. 827.6274 Grasmere Poacher's 836.0213 Grasmere Dump 916.3188 Grasmere Corral Lake 949.4238 Grasmere Western Pine 968.6225 Grasmere Elk Mouth 986.0357 Grasmere Bagley's 1030.4276 Grasmere Loon Lake 1130.1310 Grasmere Adolf's 1165.0313 Grasmere Flagstone 1287.4 x 1

7 Grasmere Grasmere 1449.4 x 1184 Lewis - Wolf Creek Lazy Lake 120.7 x 194 Lewis - Wolf Creek Leask 377.2 x 1

147 Lewis - Wolf Creek Lewis - Wolf Creek 393.2 x 1181 Lewis - Wolf Creek Big Burn 781.3 x 1198 Lewis - Wolf Creek C. T. P. 2396.7 x 129 Luxor Luxor 400.022 Luxor South 429.4

384 McMurdo Bench McKeeman 197.9348 McMurdo Bench McMurdo Bench 3372.4 x x 2231 Moyie Lake Moyie Lake 1214.8 x 1303 Moyie Lake Moyie Lake 1946.7 x 1389 Newgate Butt's 83.0356 Newgate Alkali 112.4 x 1377 Newgate Demars 185.6 x 1351 Newgate Home Ranch 230.8 x 1

73


352 Newgate North Fork 251.2 x 1361 Newgate Ash Fire 299.5 x x 2373 Newgate Sharptail 372.2 x x 2383 Newgate Rocks 406.8 x 1360 Newgate Burlott's 583.6 x x 2295 Newgate Sink 3354.0307 Pattons Lake Pattons Lake 1926.9335 Peavine Peavine 9621.1 x 1367 Peckhams Lake Shoe North Seeding 41.7398 Peckhams Lake Misery 61.1321 Peckhams Lake Peckham's Prairie 77.8370 Peckhams Lake Middle Shoe Seeding 81.0392 Peckhams Lake Wallcam 103.0

387 Peckhams LakeLittle Shoe SouthSeeding 117.8

396 Peckhams Lake Little Shoe North Seeding 118.8296 Peckhams Lake Hatchery 124.4 x 1375 Peckhams Lake Shoe South Seeding 145.3382 Peckhams Lake Outwash 199.2315 Peckhams Lake Mallard 266.9300 Peckhams Lake Kiek 285.2327 Peckhams Lake Purvis 287.7393 Peckhams Lake Tamarack 324.5386 Peckhams Lake Cultus 417.2344 Peckhams Lake Garbutt's 424.6365 Peckhams Lake Horseshoe 437.9 x 1328 Peckhams Lake Alkaline 567.681 Peckhams Lake Wildhorse 582.2

317 Peckhams Lake Norbury 600.2 x 1381 Peckhams Lake Mistle Toe 633.8305 Peckhams Lake Big Hill 757.2 x 185 Peckhams Lake Mause Creek 1972.9 x 1

74


372 Perry Perry 5201.2 x 190 Pickering Hills Tie Lake Seeding 112.1

285 Pickering Hills Narrow Gauge 296.2 x 1301 Pickering Hills Riddell 408.7 x 189 Pickering Hills Eimer 526.693 Pickering Hills Jurik 643.5 x 1

294 Pickering Hills Bronze Lake 691.9 x 139 Pickering Hills Relief Camp 1064.9 x 1

302 Pickering Hills Pickering 1212.3320 Pickering Hills Long Lake 1407.599 Pickering Hills Tie Lake 1539.9

343 Power Plant Petarbrooke 47.6298 Power Plant Whitetail 48.1 x x 2266 Power Plant Big Bull 99.1 x x 2326 Power Plant Bighorn 138.5 x 1268 Power Plant Little Bull 147.6 x 1325 Power Plant Fontaine South 296.4 x x 2323 Power Plant Power Plant Pasture 339.3 x 1306 Power Plant Fontaine North 586.4 x 1299 Rampart - Mayook Creelman Flats 90.4340 Rampart - Mayook Butte 158.8342 Rampart - Mayook City 181.4359 Rampart - Mayook Birdstone 206.5345 Rampart - Mayook Whiskey Cr. North 209.1324 Rampart - Mayook Ox Bow 253.4334 Rampart - Mayook Whiskey Cr. South 271.7273 Rampart - Mayook Crested Wheat Seeding 1128.7 x 1289 Rosen Lake Rosen Lake 4112.5 x 1135 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 131.5 x 1281 Sheep Creek North Canal 173.7 x 1248 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 180.9142 Sheep Creek North Skookumchuck 351.3 x 1

75


203 Sheep Creek North Johnson Lake 558.7 x 1183 Sheep Creek North Pump 573.2138 Sheep Creek North Springbrook 597.9189 Sheep Creek North Larsen Lake 599.3172 Sheep Creek North Canal 625.4 x 1161 Sheep Creek North Kootenay 721.8 x 1166 Sheep Creek North Ridge 862.6 x 1242 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 886.3 x 1167 Sheep Creek North Dry Gulch 931.3 x x 2192 Sheep Creek North New Pasture 993.3 x 1200 Sheep Creek North Central 1100.1 x x 2228 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 1823.5 x x 2251 Sheep Creek North Lussier 2434.6218 Sheep Creek North Sheep Creek North 8340.8 x x 2394 Spillimacheen North South 502.5 x 1368 Spillimacheen North Lyle 2532.8346 Spillimacheen North Spillimacheen North 2625.2362 Spillimacheen North North 5694.6 x 1369 St. Marys Prairie St. Marys Prairie 69.0 x 134 St. Marys Prairie McGinty 168.0 x 178 St. Marys Prairie Meadow 180.8 x 138 St. Marys Prairie Luke West 239.8

347 St. Marys Prairie Indian South 251.070 St. Marys Prairie Indian North 281.5

122 St. Marys Prairie Cherry North 296.671 St. Marys Prairie Dry Lake 301.380 St. Marys Prairie Cherry South 310.5 x 157 St. Marys Prairie Sheep Camp 368.515 St. Marys Prairie Deep Springs 409.764 St. Marys Prairie Artesian 423.1

175 St. Marys Prairie St. Marys Prairie 852.221 Steamboat Red Rock 899.4

76


17 Steamboat Tea Kettle 1883.1

23Sunny Bench- FishLakes Templeton/ Clealand 515.4

10Sunny Bench- FishLakes Sunny Bench- Fish Lakes 621.5

9Sunny Bench- FishLakes Botts 1152.6

13Sunny Bench- FishLakes

Bugaboo-langs/ TwinLakes 1763.3 x 1

141 Ta Ta-skookumchuk River 216.7 x x 2158 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 222.9 x 1145 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Pulpmill 393.7160 Ta Ta-skookumchuk 42 Pasture 480.9152 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Plot 500.3 x 1157 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 559.8 x 1101 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Dune 943.5 x 1159 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Echo 1085.7 x 1153 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Ta Ta-skookumchuk 1132.7 x x 2186 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Reed 1220.4 x x 2155 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Camp 2115.892 Ta Ta-skookumchuk Skook 2490.1

255 Toby- Horsethief Fifth Pasture 81.5279 Toby- Horsethief Upper Enid 524.3272 Toby- Horsethief Toby- Horsethief 803.4 x 1199 Toby- Horsethief Poplar 1037.8 x 1270 Toby- Horsethief Young 1373.6 x 1259 Toby- Horsethief Barbour Rock 1441.7 x 1202 Toby- Horsethief Lower Enid 1515.496 Tokay Hills Golf Course North 61.695 Tokay Hills Golf Course South 77.9

291 Tokay Hills Anderson 89.4 x 1308 Tokay Hills Pipe 144.6288 Tokay Hills Schoolhouse 146.0 x x 2

77


105 Tokay Hills Tokay 285.9287 Tokay Hills Tank 297.5 x 183 Tokay Hills Blacktail 692.8 x 1

267 Torrent Torrent 53.0149 Torrent Torrent 94.2190 Torrent Torrent 486.9269 Torrent North 555.0263 Torrent North 564.7257 Torrent Allen Creek 628.4 x 1196 Torrent Middle 930.9250 Torrent Sheep Camp 1009.7113 Torrent South 2934.7 x 1103 No Data No Data 16.2112 No Data No Data 32.7212 No Data No Data 38.4201 No Data No Data 41.0 x 1114 No Data No Data 48.5211 No Data No Data 73.860 No Data No Data 121.7 x 1

355 No Data No Data 126.7187 No Data No Data 128.8137 No Data No Data 132.7136 No Data No Data 137.567 No Data No Data 139.7 x 1

129 No Data No Data 165.7 x x 2128 No Data No Data 179.4 x 141 No Data No Data 190.840 No Data No Data 194.7

174 No Data No Data 202.5 x 1378 No Data No Data 346.0337 No Data No Data 410.5293 No Data No Data 439.0 x 1

78


338 No Data No Data 546.3 x 1282 No Data No Data 767.646 No Data No Data 890.0

277 No Data No Data 1227.2 x x 2311 No Data No Data 1540.6 x x 253 No Data No Data 2007.7 x 1


177 No Data No Data 40116.8 x x x x 4397 No Data No Data 63.9237 No Data No Data 68.3176 No Data No Data 72.5150 No Data No Data 75.8400 No Data No Data 409.530 No Data No Data 446.426 No Data No Data 594.4 x 1

219 No Data No Data 919.437 No Data No Data 1117.9

330 No Data No Data 2223.9354 No Data No Data 3605.6 x 1102 Upper Joseph Creek Upper Joseph Creek 199.5350 Upper Sand Creek Upper Sand Creek 176.697 Waldo Sheep Mountain North 13.6

2 Waldo Labb 102.842 Waldo North Star 138.051 Waldo Hotel 292.758 Waldo Pipeline 319.348 Waldo Mud Creek North 364.844 Waldo Colvalli 394.7

106 Waldo Forestry 416.3 x 143 Waldo Kootenay 476.8 x 1

79


62 Waldo Sheep Mountain North 556.8 x 161 Waldo Airport 561.8 x 152 Waldo East Kootenay 617.5

252 Waldo Cemetery Hills 627.447 Waldo Munson Slough 655.550 Waldo Elmers 764.2

133 Waldo Burnt Bottom / Baynes Lake 1188.4 x x 2123 Waldo Duck 1226.745 Waldo Rock Lake 1559.4 x 131 Waldo Sheep Mountain South 1592.9 x x 265 Waldo Fusee Lake 1792.072 Waldo Clear Lake 1852.0 x 149 Waldo Manistee 2198.6

230 Watson Watson 71.8220 Watson 9 Mile 454.8 x 1222 Watson Home 547.1214 Watson Whitetail 912.7 x x 2240 Watson Mud 1331.0224 Watson Mud 1564.6 x 1195 Watson Camp 14 1763.4 x x 2271 Westside Upper Pasture 89.9284 Westside Lower Pasture 118.6249 Westside Westside 13778.7 x x 2234 White River South White River South 2291.4 x 163 Wigwam Wigwam 95.3

68Wildhorse - LewisCreek King 41.5

66Wildhorse - LewisCreek Innis Seeding 68.0 x 1

132Wildhorse - LewisCreek Big Hill 330.3 x 1

115Wildhorse - LewisCreek Four Mile 473.1

80


86Wildhorse - LewisCreek Campbellmeyer 480.0 x x 2

107Wildhorse - LewisCreek Wildhorse - Lewis Creek 507.7 x x 2

179Wildhorse - LewisCreek Upper Brewery 523.8 x 1

110Wildhorse - LewisCreek

Wildlife Lease (BummersFlats) 879.9 x x 2

120Wildhorse - LewisCreek Smith's Prairie 1041.3

124Wildhorse - LewisCreek Rock 1050.7 x x 2

104Wildhorse - LewisCreek Jeffrey Lake 1126.7

100Wildhorse - LewisCreek Lower Brewery 1246.5 x 1

154Wildhorse - LewisCreek Lakit Mountain 1985.8 x x 2

264Windermere-Fairmont North 335.0

258Windermere-Fairmont South 1072.2

275Windermere-Fairmont Windermere-Fairmont 4791.2 x 1

130 Wolf-Sheep Creek Elk 373.1 x 1134 Wolf-Sheep Creek Sheep 420.9 x 1146 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf-Sheep Creek 556.2 x 1168 Wolf-Sheep Creek Gina 616.1 x x 2151 Wolf-Sheep Creek Quartz 656.8 x 1163 Wolf-Sheep Creek Alkali 672.9 x 1180 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf 713.5 x x 2121 Wolf-Sheep Creek 3 Mile 1193.8 x 1185 Wolf-Sheep Creek Wolf-Sheep Creek 2600.6 x 1329 No Data No Data 24.8333 No Data No Data 38.5

3 No Data No Data 56.7

81


314 No Data No Data 67.5162 No Data No Data 107.2191 No Data No Data 134.4109 No Data No Data 261.569 No Data No Data 264.1 x 119 No Data No Data 302.4 x 1

5 No Data No Data 389.6233 No Data No Data 416.4 x 1

8 No Data No Data 628.6 x x 218 No Data No Data 639.1

207 No Data No Data 800.4 x 1297 No Data No Data 952.1 x 1304 No Data No Data 1461.7236 No Data No Data 1695.1 x 1164 No Data No Data 1741.8 x 177 No Data No Data 1814.0 x x 2


82

Appendix 3. Scientific names of wildlife and plants mentioned in text.

Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewisWhite-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatusWilliamson’s Sapsucker (nataliae ssp) Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliaeLong-billed Curlew Numenius americanusSharp-tailed Grouse (columbianus spp) Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianusFlammulated Owl Otus flammeolusNorthern Goshawk Accipiter gentilisBadger Taxidea taxusBighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesiiArrow-leaved balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittataAntelope-brush Purshia tridentataBluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicataWestern snowberry Symphoricarpus albusIdaho fescue Festuca idahoensisJunegrass Koeleria macranthaWestern larch Larix occidentalisPinegrass Calamagrostis rubescensHybrid white spruce Picea glauca x engelmanniiPonderosa pine Pinus ponderosaTrembling aspen Populus tremuloidesPaper birch Betula papyriferaSolomon’s seal Maianthemum stellatum]lodgepole pine Pinus contortaSilky lupine Lupinus sericeusshaggy fleabane Erigeron pumilus var. intermediuspasture sage Artemisia frigidasaskatoon Amelanchier alnifoliaPrairie rose Rosa woodsiiyarrow Achillea millefoliumrosy pussytoes Antennaria roseanarrow-leaved desert parsley Lomatium triternatumRough fescue Festuca campestrisRocky Mountain fescue Festuca saximontanaStiff needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale ssp. pubescensRichardson’s needlegrass Achnatherum richardsoniifew-flowered shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellumumber pussytoes Antennaria umbrinellaPrairie crocus Anemone patens ssp. multifida)Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis ssp. pratensisspotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

83

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusaDalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia spp. DalmaticaHound’s tongue Cynoglossum officinaleCanada thistle Cirsium arvensewhite sweet clover Melilotus albacommon snowberry Symphoricarpus albustall Oregon-grape Mahonia aquifoliumsoopolallie Shepherdia canadensisbirch-leaved spirea Spiraea betulifoliared-osier dogwood Cornus stoloniferaprickly rose Rosa acicularisshowy aster Aster conspicuouswild sarsaparilla s Aralia nudicaulitwinflower Linaea borealisbunchberry Cornus canadensisred-stemmed feather moss Pleurozium schreberistep moss Hylocomium splendensbluejoint Calamagrostis canadensiswillow Salix spwestern snowberry Symphoricarpus occidentalischokecherry Prunus virginiananorthern bedstraw Galium borealeRocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorumwolf-willow Elaeagnus commutatablue wildrye Elymus glaucusblack hawthorn Crataegus douglasiisweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorumpearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacealeafy aster Aster foliaceuscommon dandelion Taraxacum officinaleSandberg’s bluegrass Poa sandbergiigreen rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidifloruscommon juniper Juniperus communisColumbia needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii,Canada bluegrass Poa compressafield pussytoes Antennaria neglectagraceful cinquefoil Potentilla gracilislarge-fruited desert parsley Lomatium macrocarpumwild bergamot Monarda fistulosahemp dogbane Apocynan cannabinumkinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursiOld man’s whiskers Geum triflorumHairy golden-aster Heterotheca villosaSlender hawksbeard Crepis atrabarbaTimber milkvetch Astragalus miser

84

Death camas Zigadenus venenosusBrown-eyed susan Gaillardia aristataTufted phlox Phlox caespitozaMariposa lily Calochortus macrocarpusgoldenrod Solidago spp

85

Appendix 4. KBLUP management guidelines for NDT4 systems.3.10 Management Guidelines for Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration

3.10.1 Introduction

(a) Intent of Guidelines

To improve the productivity and health of fire-maintained forests and rangelands byrestoring stand structure and species composition, through modern methods of timberharvesting, thinning, and prescribed burning. Restoration will improve forest stand vigor,reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and rejuvenate bunchgrass communities.

(b) Fire Maintained Ecosystems and Origin of Ingrowth

The dry, low-elevation open forest and grassland stands of British Columbia's southerninterior are defined by the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook as NaturalDisturbance Type 4 (NDT4), characterized by "frequent, stand-maintaining fires." Thesestands include the Biogeoclimatic Zones Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), Ponderosa Pine (PP),and dry variants of the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH). Low-intensity surface fires,occurring on a 5 to 20 year cycle, are part of the natural function of these ecosystems,maintaining a mosaic of grassland and open forest, while at the same time promoting thedevelopment of fire-tolerant overstories of mature ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir andWestern larch. Several decades of active fire suppression in the NDT4 has resulted in treeestablishment in previously treeless openings (encroachment) and excessive treerecruitment in open forests (ingrowth) beyond the level these sites can support. Theprimary tree species responsible for both processes is Douglas-fir. The consequences ofingrowth and encroachment are poor forest health, poor timber quality and degradedrangeland values.

(c) General Management Approach

Restoration and management activities will be incorporated into appropriate LandscapeUnit and operational plans, and will generally consist of:

1. inventories that designate areas based on a spectrum of ecosystem componentseach with an appropriate mix of timber and rangeland values;

2. development of harvesting and management objectives for these areas, includingranges of locally appropriate stem density, canopy closure and age-classdistribution, as well as Potential and Desired Plant Communities for the rangelandunderstory;

3. identification and removal of any administrative obstacles to the implementationof these management objectives, and;

4. prompt implementation of Restoration work, using an adaptive managementapproach to fine-tune objectives and improve performance

86

Sample Restoration guidelines are shown on Tables 1 and 2. It is important to note thatthese are preliminary guidelines, intended to be modified through operational experience,the development of local inventories, and a better understanding of fire-maintainedecosystems.

Table 1. Kootenay/Boundary Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Componentsand Targets (based on 340,000 ha NDT4)

EcosystemComponent

IntendedCharacteristics

% ofMaximum

TimberBenefits

% ofMaximum

ForageBenefits

Current(1992)

Distributionof Crown

NDT4

Ha

%

InitialTarget

Ha

%

(range)

FinalTarget

Ha

%

(range)

Shrublands Normallyoccurring areas

of , non-productive

forest, wetlandsand brush

0 100 18,000

5%

18,000

5%

18,000

5%

OpenRange*

Landsdominated by

opengrass/forb/shrub

communitiesand managedprimarily by

manipulation ofnatural

processes

10

(0-20)

90

(80-100)

34,000

10%**

51,000***

15%

(12-18%)

78,000***

23%

(20-26%)

OpenForest*

Lands withsignificant

rangeland andsignificant

timber values

50

(40-60)

50

(40-60)

288,000

85%**

131,000***

39%

(34-44%)

105,000***

31%

(26-36%)

ManagedForest*

Lands providingrangeland

values for 1-2decades duringthe regenerationphase of timbermanagement.

During thebalance of

90 10 mostlyoverstocked

140,000*** 140,000***

87

(includeschristmastreepermits)

decades duringthe regenerationphase of timbermanagement.

During thebalance of

rotation, areaswill be expected

to provideungulate

security/snowinterception

cover

(80-100) (0-20) 41%

(36-46%)

41%

(36-46%)

• Retention Forest and Old Growth Management Areas (as defined in BiodiversityGuidebook); distributed across these ecosystem components.

• * Old growth status currently 26% > 100 years, 1% > 250 years

• **Old growth status: initial/final targets: 17% >100 years, 13% >250 years (lowemphasis); 34%>100 years, 13%>250 years (intermediate emphasis)

Given the breadth and importance of the Restoration initiative, a multi-agency oversightbody, such as the Interagency Management Committee (IAMC) should take overallresponsibility for its implementation and conduct periodic reviews. Dedicated resourceswill be required at the Forest District level, for planning and implementation ofRestoration work. The involvement of non-government interests and resources is essentialto the implementation of Restoration.

(d) Spatial Application of Guidelines

The Crown forest portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from the Montana border toGolden, contains approximately 250,000 hectares of land deemed to be fire-maintained.This land falls within the Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts. In the BoundaryDistrict, the lower parts of the Kettle and Granby river valleys from Grand Forks to RockCreek contain roughly 90,000 hectares of Crown NDT4. Lesser amounts occur in theArrow Forest District, along the east side of Lower Arrow Lake and the north side of thePend d’Oreille River. In Kootenay Lake Forest District, NDT4 lands are found along thesouth end of Kootenay Lake,(1) and the Lower Goat River. Cumulatively, the Kootenay-Boundary Region contains a total of roughly 340,000 hectares of fire-maintainedecosystems, identified on map 3.10. The dry phases of certain other Biogeoclimaticvariants in NDT3 and NDT5 may also be considered to be fire-maintained.

3.10.2 Operational Guidelines for Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration

(a) Ecosystem Components

88

Four ecosystem components of the NDT4 are recognized for the purpose of theseGuidelines: Shrublands, Open Range, Open Forest and Managed Forest(2). Eachcomponent has a unique mix of resource values. summarized in Table 1. The Table alsoshows current ecosystem component distribution, as well as initial and final targets.Targets are tentative and will be refined over the next eighteen months as a result ofresearch, operational realities and social objectives. The Cranbrook and InvermereDistricts are currently prepared to implement Restoration. The Arrow, Boundary andKootenay Lake Districts will require additional inventory and planning concurrent with orprior to Restoration.

(b) Planning and Inventory

Each of the five participating Districts will include Fire-Maintained EcosystemRestoration and management objectives as a component of Landscape Unit and lowerlevel plans that include Crown NDT4 lands. Restoration planning must recognize theunique, multi-resource nature of the NDT4, where wildlife (both hunting and viewing),ranching, timber, environmental, christmas tree, recreational, access and fire protectioninterests coincide. Existing sources of Restoration planning information includeBiogeoclimatic data, Forest cover maps, paired historical/modern photographcomparisons, and average weighted crown closure maps. The Invermere EncroachmentStrategy should be consulted for that District, as should the Problem Forest TypesAnalysis for the Cranbrook District. The Trench Integrated Renewable ResourceManagement Plan ("The Trench Plan"), although no longer a current plan, does include apriorization of ingrowth treatment areas in the two Districts.

(c) Restoration Operations

Restoration prescriptions will vary from site to site, but will generally target the removalof excess immature and off-site understory trees. Table 2 proposes guidelines, to berefined as site-specific data becomes available, for each landscape component. Restorationtreatments will attempt to create a complex, ecologically appropriate mosaic of habitatsacross the landscape, emphasizing rangeland values on poor soils and south/southwest-facing slopes, forest values on the richer sites and north-facing slopes, and a mix of thetwo on the balance of the landscape. Clustering of crop trees in the moistest micrositeswill allow for more open canopy conditions between clusters. Treatments in the OpenRange and Open Forest ecosystem types will emphasize retention of the oldest or largesttrees. The bulk of Ecosystem Restoration will occur within these two ecosystemcomponents; the Managed Forest component largely defaults to current timber harvestingpractices.

In the Open Range and Open Forest ecosystem components, a harvesting pass can meettarget stocking initially, but unless further measures are undertaken, targets will beexceeded again after a short time. Subsequent prescribed burns will normally be required,to reduce numbers of new tree seedlings, rejuvenate the forage and browse understory,and recycle nutrients. Alternative treatments, such as mechanical thinning or spacing, maybe used as a partial replacement for fire effects. All treatments subsequent to meetingmodified stocking standards would be considered incremental, and would not beconsidered a Licensee responsibility unless by mutual agreement. Special and non-governmental funds can potentially be accessed to finance these incremental treatments.

89

modified stocking standards would be considered incremental, and would not beconsidered a Licensee responsibility unless by mutual agreement. Special and non-governmental funds can potentially be accessed to finance these incremental treatments.

If burning is prescribed, it should normally follow a harvesting pass that reduces initialfuel loading and laddering. Harvest slash volumes and distribution should be managed tofacilitate subsequent low-temperature, ground-oriented burns. Measures must be taken toensure post-burn survival of appropriate numbers of tree recruits. Once stands have had aninitial Restoration treatment, they should become components of a long-term, landscape-level cycle of harvesting, thinning and prescribed burning entries that optimize resourceflow and ecosystem health.

The following wildlife related issues will be acknowledged in arranging Restorationoperations across the landscape: wildlife trees, movement and connectivity corridors,security and snow interception cover, and the need for occasional large, connected blocksof open range/open forest. In the absence of Landscape Unit Plan objectives, planning forindividual entries (harvest or restoration) should examine the surrounding 250-2500 haarea to ensure connectivity and interaction with old growth, ungulate winter range andrecreation guidelines are achieved. Good opportunities exist for merging Restorationobjectives with Red- and Blue- listed species management objectives, includingreintroductions. The proposed sharptail grouse reintroduction in the extreme southern partof the Trench is a good example.

Table 2. Kootenay-Boundary Fire Maintained Ecosystem (NDT4) ManagementGuidelines

Ecosystem

Component

PrimaryBGC

Variant/Site Series

Targetted

GeneralManage

mentSystem

Proposed*

Connectivity

Requirement

TargetStockin

gStandar

ds

(Stems/Ha)**

Minimum

Stocking

Standard

(Stems/ha)

Maximum

Stocking

Standard

(Stems/ha)

Free-Growing

Window

Crown

Closure

Threshold

TriggeringRe-

entry

Responsibility for

Implementation(Leatagencyitalicized***)

Shrublands

Various

IDFdm2/6

IDFxh1/9

PPdh1/6

PPdh2/4

Inventory and

periodicburns

none n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ministryof Forests

(MOF)

BCEnvironment (BCE)

UserGroups

90

Groups

FundingAgencies

OpenRange

PPdh1/2,3

PPdh2/2a,2b

IDFdm1/2

IDFdm2/2

IDFxh1/2

IDFun (s.facingslopes)

Periodicharvesti

ng,prescrib

edburningand/or

thinningto

maintainopenrange

condition,

enhancing

existingor

potentialbunchgrass sites.

Maintain

connectivity of

rangelands

20 of thelargest1/3 of

existingdiameter

range

0 75 2-5 yr 10%

max

MOF,Range

BCE,MOAFF,

Forestlicensees

(Whereharvestingoccurs),RangeTenureholders,

UserGroups,

FundingAgencies

OpenForest

PPdh1/1,4,5

PPdh2/1,3

IDFdm1/3,4,1

IDFdm2/3,1

IDFxh1/3,1,4,5

IDFun(subxericto mesic)

Periodicentries

ofburning,thinning

andpartialcutting

tomaintain

openforest

conditions and

rangeland values

Provideconnecti

vitybetweenadjacent

OpenRangeareas.

Provideungulate

travelcorridor

sbetweenwinterrangeand

winterforestcover.

250

(50 ofthe

largest1/3 of

existingdiameter

rangeplus 200

well-spaced)

76

(30 ofthe

largest1/3 of

existing

diameter

rangeplus46

well-spaced

)

400 2-5 yr 40%

max.

MOF

BCE,MOAFF,

Forestlicensees

(whereharvestingoccurs),

UserGroups,

FundingAgencies

91

cover.

Managed

Forest

IDFdm1/1,4,5,6,7

IDFdm2/1,4,5,6,7

IDFxh1/6,7,8

IDFun(seepage

sites)

Rotational

harvestentriesusing

clear-cutor light-overstor

yshelterw

ood.Manage

fortimber,

ungulatewinterrangeand

approximately

twodecades

ofinterim

rangeland values

perrotation.

Maintain

connectivity of

retention forest

andOGMA'

sthroughmanaged forest

andopenforest

ecosystems.

Providewinterforestcover

forungulate

s

1000 400-700

5000 12-20yr

80%

max.

MOF

BCE

ForestLicensees

FundingAgencies

• These management systems would not generally apply to retention forest and oldgrowth management areas.

• * Stems/ha=/> 0.5m as per Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook.

• ** Lead Agency responsible for strategic planning and approvals; operationsconducted cooperatively by all listed groups, subject to funding and resources.

Restoration is not expected to conflict with Visual Quality Guidelines, since treatmentswill emulate natural landscapes, or with Ungulate Winter Range Guidelines, which willprimarily apply in the Managed Forest Ecosystem Component. In instances whereconflicts arise between these Guidelines and either the Ungulate Winter Range Guidelinesor Visual Quality Guidelines, resolution will be attempted at the local planning level.Where resolution is not possible, these Guidelines will take precedence.

92

(d) Rate of Restoration Treatments and Socioeconomic Considerations

Treatment should start at a “break-even” level that offsets the current rate of ingrowth.Over a five-year period, treatment will ramp up to full implementation, stay at that levelfor 20 years, and then ramp down over five years so that, after a thirty-year period,implementation targets are met (see Table 3 for an example). Applying this strategyregionally will eliminate sudden changes in employment and wood supply levels, andallow for local variation to meet socioeconomic needs.

Table 3. Restoration Schedule, Using Combined Projections from the Cranbrookand Invermere Forest Districts as an Example

TREATMENT BASE CAPABILITY

(assumes no increasedresources)

HA/YR

ENHANCED CAPABILITY TO STABILIZEINGRESS AND TREAT BACKLOG

(assumes increased resources)

HA/YR

BURN 1000 2000

SPACE 700 1000

PARTIALCUT

700 4000

CLEAR CUT 200 1000

CHIPPING 0 800

TOTAL 2600 8800

93

(e) Research and Monitoring

Work should be promptly undertaken to 1) confirm initial/final target proportions ofShrubland, Open Range, Open Forest and Managed Forest or to provide a rational basisfor altering those proportions; 2) review appropriateness of Biogeoclimatic siteseries/variants; 3) finalize Stocking Standards for the four ecosystem components, and 4),develop canopy closure and age-class distribution criteria for each ecosystem component,based on monitoring and operational experience. These four elements of the Guidelinesare interim; finalization is a priority, and should be completed within the first 18 monthsof operation. Other work should be undertaken to more precisely define timber and foragebenefits/disbenefits at varying levels of stem density or cover. Relevant research, as wellas operational experience, should be subsequently reviewed on a regular basis to ensurethat these Guidelines are meeting their stated objectives, and to facilitate the adaptivemanagement process.

3.10.3 Administration

(a) Changes Required to Facilitate Guidelines

Modified, ecologically appropriate Stocking Standards should be set for the Open Rangeand Open Forest components of the NDT4, in line with target stocking rates in Table 2.This modification is viewed as crucial to the efficient long-term management of NDT4stands. It is recognized that Operational Planning Regulation requirements for block sizeand adjacency are superseded by these Guidelines, applied consistent with BiodiversityGuidebook recommendations for NDT4 patch size and rangeland seral stage.Modifications to current cruising standards should also be considered for these dry, lowsite-index areas, to bring cruising costs more in line with timber yields, and to adjustsampling intensity to capture differences in very low stocking rates. With currentmethodology, differences between stocking rates (between Open Range and Open Forest,for example) are undetectable. Government may also consider modified stumpageappraisal allowances or other fiscal incentives to encourage restoration harvesting in lowsite-index NDT4 sites and to accommodate treatments that incorporate rangeland as wellas timber objectives. Some form of Annual Allowable Cut partitioning, directing apercentage of the cut to the problem forest types within the NDT4, should be considered.An equitable distribution of opportunities between the major forest companies and smallbusiness should be struck. Ministry of Forests silvicultural record-keeping systems need tobe reviewed to ensure that unique NDT4 stocking standards and prescriptions can beaccommodated. Special and non-governmental funds should be sought where shortfalls inRestoration-related research, inventory, planning or operations occur.

94

Appendix 5. List of contacts and information sources

Name Affiliation Phone/Email InfoResources

Contacted Replied

Kari Stuart-Smith

TEMBEC [email protected]

NOGOlocations;PEM;ungulatewinter rangeguidelines

yes yes

OliverThomae

Consultant [email protected]

UWRguidelines

yes yes

Ted Lea MWLAP,Victoria

[email protected] Rare plantcommunities

yes yes

WayneErickson

MOF,Victoria

387- [email protected]

Rare plantcomm..account forRockspasture,other rareplantcommunities

yes yes

CarminCadrin

CDC-MSRM

Carmen.Cadrin@ gems3.gov.bc.ca Rare plantcommunities

yes yes

DianneCooper

[email protected] MildredWhite’s birdsightings

yes yes

PeterHolmes

MWLAP,Invermere

[email protected]

PEM datafor NDT4;documentre. fieldvalidation ofPEM

yes yes

TedAntifeau

MWLAP,Nelson

354-6163 GPS data ofrare plantcommunities

yes yes

PennyOhanjanian

Consultant 427-5262 GPS data forFLOW;reports onLBCU;general info

yes yes

IreneManley

Consultant ? FLOW info yes yes

Ian Adams Consultant [email protected]

BadgerRecoveryStrategy

yes

Don Gayton FORREX [email protected]

Grasslandreport

yes yes

Jared Hobbs MWLAP,Victoria

? WISA –WHA sitesin EK

yes yes

95

in EKAmyWaterhouse

CBFWCP 352-6874 GIS yes yes

John Krebs CBFWCP 352-6874 Badger GISdata, other

yes yes

Hillary Page Consultant Local experton rare plantcommunities

yes yes

Astrid vanWoudenberg

Consultant FLOWreportsGPS data

yes yes

PeterDavidson

MWLAP,Cranbrook

489-8535 Local expert yes

RegNewman

[email protected] Rare plantcommunities

yes yes

Val Miller RangeAgrologistMOF

Rare plantcommunities

yes yes

AnneSkinner

RangeAgrologistMOF

Rare plantcommunities

yes yes

Documents

Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife · 2013-05-09 · Habitat Attribute Targets for Red and Blue Listed Wildlife Species and Plant Community Conservation PREPARED