Moose Winter Range Identification - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r16192/2818002Kit...Moose Winter Range Identification: Western Portions of the Kitimat River

Moose Winter Range Identification:

Western Portions of the Kitimat River Area of TFL #41

Contract: GS-Mcelhanney-08-01

Prepared for: Lance Loggin, R.P.F. West Fraser Mills Ltd.

5330 Highway 16 West, Terrace, BC

V8G 4A3

April 2009

Prepared By: Brad T. Pollard, R.P.Bio. # 751 and

Tosha Casper, B.Sc. McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd.

Suite # 1 – 5008 Pohle Ave. Terrace BC

Moose Winter Range Identification Western Kitimat River Study Area

i

Executive Summary McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. was contracted by British Colombia Timber Sales (BCTS) and West Fraser Mills Ltd. (Skeena Sawmills) to identify moose (Alces alces) winter range in several watersheds flowing into the Kitimat River and the Douglas Channel (Western Kitimat River study area). The purpose of this project was to use existing local and biophysical information, supplemented with field surveys, to identify and map Moose Winter Range (MWR) habitat. This project was completed concurrently with a grizzly bear habitat assessment, results of which are provided in a separate report. Moose winter range within the Western Kitimat River study area was assessed using ground, aerial and remote survey methods. Initially, potentially high value areas were identified by orthophotographs followed by field verification. Those polygons not seen from the air or on the ground were examined in detail on orthophotographs, within the context of field visits, and characteristics and ratings were assigned. Areas suspected or known for low snow depths were then considered with the forage suitability and capability values to delineate MWR. A total of 3207 individual stands with potential moose values were identified on 1:20,000 orthophotographs during initial planning stages. A subset of these polygons was selected for aerial and ground assessments with the remainder differentiated by remote methods. This led to the identification of over 1173 polygons with moderate, high, or very high values for moose winter forage production. Local information was then used to identify areas with lower snow depths. The low snow areas and high value browse areas were used as the basis for delineating the 543 polygons within proposed MWR on the final product. Moderate to high value moose winter forage areas in the study area are primarily associated with wetlands and floodplain sites. Of the areas examined with greater than average forage production, by count wetlands represented 20.5%, forested wetlands 8.5%, floodplain sites 44%, nutrient-rich receiving slopes 20%, and assorted other types 7%. Snow depths in the study area vary significantly by elevation, valley side, distance from Douglas Channel and topographic features. In general, winter precipitation declines moving south to north and west to east within the Kitimat River Valley. Proposed MWR within the study area was located along the low elevations of most of the major watersheds. Management of these areas is highly dependent on site specific characteristics given that the study area crosses three subzones of the coastal western hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. Both primary winter range productivity and snow depths vary within each subzone. In general, less snow interception and more browse management is required on the coast versus more interior sites. The submission package for the Western Kitimat River study area includes this report, hardcopy and digital map coverage of proposed moose winter range, a complete photo log, field data in Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) format and VENUS, and accompanying digital attributes database.


ii

Acknowledgements Identifying and mapping moose winter range in the Western Kitimat River study area was an objective consistent among Ministry of Environment (MoE) staff and stakeholders. This general interest allowed us to solicit valuable input, feedback and participation from a variety of individuals. A special thanks to Chris Broster, Ecosystem Specialist Ministry of Environment, who acted as the contract monitor on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. He also assisted with field work and provided positive support and feedback throughout the project. Thanks are also in order to a variety of participants and stakeholders who provided invaluable information on local moose winter use of this area. William Renwick from the Haisla First Nation provided valuable local knowledge as well as participating in field work. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the dedicated support of the McElhanney project team including Patty Burt and Kate Dillon, and Jim Knox of Magellen Digital Mapping. We would also like to thank Quantum Helicopters for consistently transporting us safely to all weather and in all terrain. This project was funded by the forest licencee Forest Investment Account (FIA) through the coordination of Gail Campbell of BCTS, with Lance Loggin of Skeena Sawmills (a Division of West Fraser Mills Ltd.) overseeing contract administration.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... II

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 3

HISTORIC AND REGIONAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 3

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 4

Human Settlement, Private Land and Recreation Areas ....................................................... 4

MOOSE SPECIES ACCOUNT - WINTER HABITAT SELECTION .......................................................... 4

METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 6

BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................... 6

TARGET POLYGON SELECTION ................................................................................................... 6

GROUND ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 8

PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................................................... 9

AERIAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 9

REMOTE (ORTHOPHOTOGRAPH) ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 9

DATA ENTRY AND MAPPING ........................................................................................................ 9

Database .............................................................................................................................. 9

Mapping .............................................................................................................................. 10

DELINEATION OF WINTER RANGE AREAS .................................................................................. 10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 10

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................ 10

REPRESENTATION BY SURVEY METHOD .................................................................................... 11

DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH VALUE FORAGE BY BGC ZONE, TEM TYPE AND AGE .............................. 12

SNOW CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 14

MOOSE WINTER RANGE ........................................................................................................... 14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 16

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 18


iv

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 38

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Ecosystem types targeted for assessment of MWR. ...................................................... 7

Table 2: Distribution of polygons by survey method. .................................................................. 12

Table 3: Distribution of moderate to high value moose winter range habitat by BGC zone and

TEM type identified in the Western Kitimat River study area. ............................................. 13

Table 4: Distribution of moderate to very high value moose winter range habitat by age class

identified in the Western Kitimat River study area............................................................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2: Western Kitimat River study area orthophoto base, showing polygons identified and

assessed for moose habitat values (approximately 1:400,000). Polygons identified in red,

orange, yellow, and green represents very high, high, moderate, and other valued polygons,

respectively. ....................................................................................................................... 15

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Select Field Photographs from the Western Kitimat River Study Area ....................... 39�

Appendix II: Maps of Candidate Security MWR Polygons for the Western Kitimat River study

area ..................................................................................................................................................... 44�

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Gravel bar on the Little Wedeene River (2060 20081001 02.jpg). ................ Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Photograph 2: Low-bench floodplain on the Little Wedeene River (2082 20081001 02.jpg). .... 40

Photograph 3: High quality mid-Bench floodplain on the Kitimat River (1792 20081001 01.jpg).

........................................................................................................................................... 40

Photograph 4: High-bench floodplain site on Jesse Creek. Evidence of high use included tracks,

trails, fecees and foraging (722 20080930 02.jpg). ............................................................. 41

Photograph 5: Moose rubbing on alder located on a high use gravel bar on Hirsch Creek.

Evidence of use included tracks, trails, fecees and foraging (2844 20081002 03.jpg). Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Photograph 6: Moose bed located within high-bench floodplain on Hirsch Creek 503 20081002

02.jpg). ............................................................................................................................... 41

Photograph 7: High quality wetland bog located next to a swamp forest and fen on the

Wedeene River (1691 20081001 01.jpg). ........................................................................... 42


v

Photograph 8: High quality wetland fen located next to a swamp forest and bog on the

Wedeene River (1690A 20081001 01.jpg). ......................................................................... 42

Photograph 9: Very rich receiving site in the Emsley Creek watershed (598 20080930 05.jpg). 43

Photograph 10: Old growth mesic forest located in Aveling Creek watershed. Evidence of use

included feces, tracks and trails (1416 20081001 01.jpg). .................................................. 43

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment I: Digital Deliverables


1

Introduction McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. (MCSL) was retained by West Fraser Mills Ltd. to identify and map moose (Alces alces) winter range habitat within western portions of Tree Farm Licence #41 (TFL #41) (Western Kitimat River study area). Ungulate winter range, as defined by the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), is part of overall biodiversity management approach by the provincial government. Once identified, areas are taken through a process of review before they are submitted for a legal order. The legal order states the spatial locations and management regimes to be applied for forestry operations within them. The purpose of this project was to use existing biophysical information, supplemented with field surveys, to locate and map Moose Winter Range (MWR) habitat within the 14 full or partial 1:20,000 map sheets covering the majority of operable areas within the study area not previously mapped. The project set out to:

• review and record local moose use and habitat information, • identify and select priority areas for evaluation of winter range habitat, • conduct field assessments to verify winter habitat values and use, • map and rank habitat according to their importance to moose within the context of

Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) standards indicated in the Request for Proposal, and

• provide information required for future establishment of Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) for moose.

The resulting product will be used to facilitate the delineation of MWR as described under Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) in the FRPA. It is outside the scope of this project to determine impacts to the timber supply resulting from the identification and management of MWR.

Study Area This report provides results for MWR habitat assessments for 14 partial 1:20,000 mapsheets covering primarily western portions of Tree Farm Licence #41. The study area encompasses an ‘F’ shape of land, reaching from the Douglas Channel north, to Coldwater Creek and east, to the Chist Creek drainage. The central portion of the ‘F’ reaches from the Upper Little Wedeene River to the lower reaches of the Hirsch Creek watershed. See Figure 1 for the boundaries of the study area. The study area is located within the Coast and Mountain Ecoregion and is contained exclusively within the Kitimat Range Ecosection (KIR). Mountains in the KIR are characteristically monolithic granite, nearly devoid of small-scale jointing, round-topped and dome-like with cirques on their north and north eastern sides. Matterhorns protrude above the mostly uniform summit elevations. The heart of the range has been penetrated by fjords and there are fewer glaciers than mountain ranges north and south of the project area. Additionally, no extensive ice fields remain. Long straight valleys or channels, the alignment of short valleys in a straight line comprise north-easterly trending lineament (Holland 1976).


2

Figure 1: Study area map showing the Western Kitimat River study area investigated as part of this

assessment (outlined in red).


3

The study area is dominated by the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. The very wet hypermaritime subzone (CWHvh) covers the outer coastal lowlands. At low elevations with less of a coastal influence, the very wet maritime subzone (CWHvm) covers the valley bottoms. Further upslope this subzone feathers into the submontane variant (CWHws1) between 10 and 400m and the montane variant (CWHws2) between 600 and 1000m of the wet submaritime subzone. Ecological boundaries are associated with a reduction in precipitation and reduction in annual growing days at higher elevations. At higher elevations, several different variants occur including both the windward and leeward variants of the moist maritime subzone of the Mountain Hemlock zone (MHmm1 and MHmm2). Parkland (MHmmP) ecosystems are uncommon but they do occur in the upper Wedeene River and Little Wedeene watersheds, and in isolated areas across the study area. Alpine ecologies dominate the highest elevations. Watersheds within the study area include Aveling Creek, Jesse Creek, Coldwater Creek, Chist Creek, Bish Creek, Hirsch Creek, and the Wedeene and Little Wedeene Rivers; all draining predominately south into the Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel.

Background

Historic and Regional Context Moose are an important sport hunting and sustenance species in British Columbia. Throughout the year they are widely dispersed through the landscape, but in the winter they tend to concentrate in areas of low snow depths and ample shrub vegetation. Management of their winter range was first required under the Forest Practices Act (FPA), but is now enshrined within the FRPA. Ungulate winter range is defined as an area that contains habitat necessary to meet the winter habitat requirements of an ungulate species. Moose are relative new comers south of the Ningunsaw Pass although an antler from a Telkwa bog suggests they did occupy the area 5000 years ago (L. Vanderstar, pers. comm.). Recent historic records indicate that the sub-species andersonii has moved west from the Alberta Plateau Ecoregion into the study area over the last 200 years. MacKenzie recorded moose in the Peace River valley in 1793, but not west of the Rocky Mountains (Petticrew and Munro 1979). Evidence from explorers in the early nineteenth century indicates that moose were scarce in the Peace, Parsnip, McGregor, and Fraser Rivers (Ritcey undated). First Nations in this area reported knowing the animal but seldom encountered it (Rich 1955, in Halter 1988). Moose were first identified at the mouth of the Stikine in the 1830’s and later confirmed in the 1870’s (LeResche et al. 1974). Several authors associate the expansion of the range of moose with the progressive land development of early settlers (Ritcey undated; Kelsall and Tefler 1974; and Petticrew and Munro 1979), but Hatler (1988) proposes that a general warming trend in global climate has also had an influence on available habitat. Moose moved west along river bottoms into the Coast Range from the Prince George area (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). High elevation passes and difficult terrain along the Boundary Ranges limited potential southward expansion from the Stikine and Alsek River (sub-species gigas) groups. Banfield (1987) indicates that moose reached the Coast Range Mountains in the 1920’s. In 1922 and 1924, the first moose were identified in Houston and Telkwa, respectively (Hatler 1988). Continuing along the Bulkley and Skeena drainages, or through the Telkwa Pass, moose


4

were first seen around Terrace in the early 1940’s (Petticrew and Munro 1979). Further information on their dispersal into the study area is ambiguous, but several residents reported moose along the Skeena floodplain in the late 1950’s. Because dispersal rates for moose, when accompanied by increasing density, can exceed 10 km/year (LaResche 1974), it is assumed that the majority of the study area has been exposed to moose immigration in the last 30 years. While forest harvesting, road construction and trapping have occurred in the study area over the last 100 years, large scale land clearing, in the form of forest harvesting, was not initiated until the late 1950’s. It is assumed that the supportive capability of the landscape was increased substantially at that time, although self regenerating disturbed areas, such as floodplains and avalanche chutes, likely provided some habitat prior to development. Recent reports by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) suggest population numbers have declined in recent years in areas south of the Nass River. While no population count is available for the study area, moose populations appear healthy based on local reports and concurrent field work. During a project in the winter 1998 (Pollard), multiple flights over the lower Kitimat valley tracked the use of different habitats by wintering moose. While not initially part of the project, data collected led to a preliminary designation of moose winter range for several areas within the current study area. With the advent of the UWR guidelines through the FPC, additional areal surveys were used to redefine boundaries also in the lower Kitimat. The result was the designation of 5 separate moose winter range units in the area, primarily divided by land ownership.

Assumptions and Limitations

Human Settlement, Private Land and Recreation Areas The establishment of MWR as a moose conservation measure does not apply to areas in proximity to human settlement or high use recreation sites (MSRM 2002). The City of Kitimat is located in the central portion of the Kitimat valley but was excluded from the study area. Additionally, the Kitimat District Municipality is located in the southern portion of the study area but is managed under TFL #41 and was evaluted. Several other seasonal float camps occur on a regular basis in the study area but are not considered permanent habitation. There is no commercial camping in the area, but there are several wilderness parks and Forest Service Recreation sites. In addition, while owners of private land have no legal obligation to manage for MWR on their property, the delineation of MWR in this project does not differentiate between land owners. The only areas of private land identified within the study area are in Indian Reserves.

Moose Species Account - Winter Habitat Selection Winter is the most difficult season for ungulates because their energy costs are greater than other seasons and forage resources are more limited (Safford, 2004). As a result, during winter ungulates select forest and terrain features that minimize energy costs. Literature indicates that the best winter habitats are primarily low elevation riparian communities, especially along dynamic riverine systems where much of the riparian vegetation is in a sub-climax seral stage


5

(LaResche et al. 1974). Even when suitable feeding sites are available adjacent to the riparian zone, the riparian area is still used more heavily (Doerr 1983, Schwab 1985, and Hundertmark et al. 1990). A habitat assessment in the Nass Wildlife Area (NWA) also determined that the best winter habitat for moose was confined to valley bottoms near main watercourses which included mostly riparian forests (Yazvenko et al. 2002). Work conducted by the North Coast Forest District in 2002 concluded that in landscapes with limited fire history, areas of self-perpetuating shrub communities were the primary winter foraging areas (Pollard 2002). Preferred winter food species for moose vary from ecosystem to ecosystem because of their adaptability to new food sources (Kelsall and Prescott 1971). Moose occupying western ranges show a preference for willows (Salix spp.) while those in more continental environments prefer paper birch (Betula papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), and balsam fir (Abies amablis) (Peek 1974). More specifically, a food preference list for British Columbia identifies willow, falsebox (Pachistima myrsinites), balsam (Abies spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), paper birch, and mountain ash (Sorbus spp.) as the preferred winter browse species (Singleton 1976). Information developed from studies in similar ecosystems in Alaska indicate that willow still occupies the most preferred food category, with cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), paper birch, and aspen, making up 95% of the winter diet (Peek 1974). Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), highbush-cranberry (Viburnum edule), and Vaccinium spp. are also noted as important winter food sources (Ritcey undated, Peek 1974, Petticrew and Munro 1979, and pers. observation). Use of any particular browse species, however, is contingent on the density of moose populations, the abundance and distribution of preferred browse species, and seasonality. In the study area, it is assumed that during the winter; willow, red-osier dogwood, aspen, cottonwood, highbush-cranberry, Vaccinium spp. and balsam regeneration are the selected foods in order of preference. Geist suggests that moose range can be split into either permanent or transient habitats (1966 cited in Hatler 1988). Permanent habitats, also known as primary winter range, are shrub communities that are perpetuated within a landscape due to continuous and predictable disturbances. Examples of primary habitats include riparian habitats and avalanche tracks. Transient communities, or secondary winter range, are those shrub communities that exist temporarily within a landscape due to non-continuous and random disturbances such as fire or forest harvesting. Within the study area, large primary winter range habitats are relatively common, and include floodplains on the Wedeene River, Little Wedeene River, Kitimat River, Bish Creek, Jesse Creek, Chist Creek and Gilttoyees River. Smaller primary ranges are plentiful and well distributed through the landscape, generally associated with smaller floodplains and the edges of wetlands. Secondary winter range habitat in the area is almost exclusively limited to avalanche tracks and forest harvesting activities. Fire has influenced some stands, but few remain in a structural stage that provides notable forage. The importance of snow interception and vertical cover in MWR is a complex issue still much in debate. Several authors have suggested that as long as food is abundant, the need for cover is unnecessary (Kelsall and Prescott 1971, McNicol and Gilbert 1980, and Risenhoover 1986). Demarchi found that food availability was a better predictor of habitat preference than was the


6

availability of cover (2000). Other authors suggest that snow cover is a vital part of winter habitat (Thompson and Vukelich 1981, Doerr 1983, Eastman and Ritcey 1987, and Hundertmark et al. 1990). Most authors agree that snow interception’s importance increases as the depth of snow increases. Kelsall and Prescott (1971) suggest that winter cover only provides important habitat after snow depths start to restrict moose movement. This limiting depth is generally considered to be between 70 and 100 cm, but largely depends on snow hardness (Coady 1974, Kelsall and Prescott 1971, and Doerr 1983). In coastal areas the snow saturation and lack of significant duration freezes rarely produces a crust that will support adult moose (pers. observ.). Studies in similar climatic systems suggest that the most effective snow interception areas have low elevations, southern exposures, and a minimum of 65% crown closure (Nyberg 1990). However, crown closure also influences the amount of light that penetrates through to the forest floor and subsequently, the relative productivity of the stand for moose browse. Therefore, stands with good snow interception are poor browse producers. This results in a direct trade-off between the reduced snow depth and the food supply. Thompson and Vukelich (1981) indicate that moose movement away from cover decreases as snow depths increase, from 27 m to an average of 12 m when snow depths increased from 30 cm to 60 cm. However, Hamilton et al. (1980), suggests that as snow depths increase, moose density in covered areas increases, which causes browsing pressure to increase in a larger radius from the cover. Hamilton et al. (1980) also suggest that most browsing takes place within 80 m of snow shelter under heavy snow conditions.

Methods

Background Data Collection Background information on moose winter use in the study area was polled from a range of knowledgeable people. Interviews were conducted prior to field assessments with local First Nations, guides and outfitters, resource professionals and government biologists. Areas of known winter use were identified on 1:50,000 National Topographic Series (NTS) maps. Participants were asked to recommend additional local information sources to ensure that the background review process was as inclusive as possible. The information collected was primarily used to identify areas of high use and helped focus field assessments. Additionally, work done in 1998 used a series of winter flights to map areas adjacent to the Kitimat River with the highest moose use between December and March (Pollard, 1998). This information, plus additional flights in 2005, resulted in the designation of 5 units in the lower Kitimat valley. These were not considered in the habitat mapping for this project. However, the results of the proposed MWR mapping have been amalgamated with the existing MWR mapping from previous years.

Target Polygon Selection In order to select appropriate field sites, a thorough review and analysis of existing historical, anecdotal and ecological information was completed. The background review was a small component of this process. The larger portion of planning involved discussions with ministry staff and a detailed analysis of orthophotographs. This process resulted in a selection of target polygons for assessment based on Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) type, structural stage,


7

location, slope position, aspect, and landscape features known to influence MWR capability. Other factors that influenced selection of priority field sites included accessibility and discussions with MoE biologists and people familiar with the area. The major polygon types targeted for assessment are shown in Table 1. Following target polygon identification, MWR habitat was identified through three different approaches: ground, aerial and remote survey (orthophotograph interpretation). An attempt was made to focus ground and aerial surveys on the highest priority polygons in order to maintain the highest level of confidence in results. The field examination of these areas helped calibrate the qualitative identification techniques used during the remote assessment of the polygons.

Table 1: Ecosystem types targeted for assessment of MWR.

Biogeoclimatic Zone (BGC)* Type** Ecosystem Name** Structural

Stage**

CWHvh1

SD Western redcedar – Sitka Spruce 2-7 RC Cedar Spruce – Skunk Cabbage 2-7 LS Pine – Sphagnum 2-7 SP High tidal influence 2, 3 SE Sedge- adjacent to estuaries 2, 3 SL High Bench Floodplain 1-7 ST Mid-bench Floodplain 1-7 AL Lower Bench Floodplain 2-5 Wm, Wf, Wb, and Ws

Non Forested Wetlands - marshes, fens, bogs and swamps 2, 3

SA Avalanche track 2, 3

CWHvm1 / CWHvm2

AD Amablis Cedar – Devil’s Club 2-7 RC Cedar Spruce – Skunk Cabbage 2-7 LS Pine – Sphagnum 2-7 SP Sitka spruce – Pacific crabapple; estuarine site 2,3 SE High tidal influence 2-3 SS High Bench Floodplain 1-7 CD Mid-bench Floodplain 1-7 CW Lower Bench Floodplain 2-5 Wm, Wf, Wb, and Ws


SL Avalanche track 2, 3 IF Herb Dominated Avalanche track 2, 3

CWHws1 / CWHws2

AD Amablis Cedar – Devil’s Club 2-7 RC Cedar Spruce – Skunk Cabbage 2-7 LS Pine – Sphagnum 2-7 SS High Bench Floodplain 1-7 CD Mid-bench Floodplain 1-7 CW Lower Bench Floodplain 2-5 Wm, Wf, Wb, and Ws


SL Avalanche track 2, 3 IF Herb Dominated Avalanche track 2, 3

*Describing Ecosystems in the Field. (MoE Manual 11) (1990).

**Source: Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia (1998) and Wetlands of BC (2004).


8

Ground Assessment Priority polygons identified during the planning stage were delineated and labelled on laminated orthophotographs for field reference. Field work was completed from September 30 to October 2, 2008. All sample sites were visited by one of three crews over a total of 23 man-days. Sites were accessed exclusively by helicopter. A moose habitat evaluation field card was developed to record site information and evidence of use for each polygon. These field cards were initially developed using RIC standards as a basis and then adjusted to ensure that the data necessary was highlighted and optional data removed. The standards used included Wildlife Habitat Assessment, Describing Ecosystems in the Field (1990), site description forms and Wildlife Use Forms. In addition to the field forms, data was collected such that it could easily be converted to RIC standards even though a methodology for identifying MWR is not currently available. Prior to starting field work, all individuals working on this project, including First Nations and MoE, were field trained by the project biologist to ensure that everyone was familiar with identifying evidence of use, vegetation communities and values for moose, and to improve the accuracy and consistency of data collected. During ground-based field work, the following information was recorded for each plot:

• crew, date, time, weather, field site number, associated site number, • biogeoclimatic zone, TEM type, landscape unit, mapsheet number, • slope position, structural stage, soil moisture regime, nutrient regime, • potential moose use, evidence of use, photographs, • suitability and capability, and, • over-all qualitative assessment of habitat.

Habitat suitability can be defined as the ability of a habitat, in its’ current state, to support a given number of animals of a specific species. The capability of a habitat is defined by the ability of a habitat, in its’ optimal successional stage, to support a given number of animals of a specific species (MoE, 1990). Potential site use included foraging, resting, travelling (movement corridors) and use for thermal cover. Actual evidence of use included observation of tracks, trails, foraging activity (browse), antler sheds and droppings. The qualitative assessment of habitat value was based on the evidence of use, and the juxtaposition of local forage and snow interception attributes. The rating system used was based on a scale of 1 to 10 with higher value habitats having a higher number. A formula was used to convert these ratings to the RIC standard of 1 through 6 after data collection. Comments were recorded at each site. Field photographs were taken of each field site for evidence of use and wildlife habitat features in adjacent security habitats. Photographs were downloaded and labelled with the site number immediately following field assessment. A selection of site photographs are included in Appendix I and a complete digital photograph log with each photograph labelled by site number has been attached as part of the digital deliverables.


9

Photographs Field photographs were taken at all ground sites highlighting evidence of use (browsing, scat) and wildlife habitat features in adjacent security habitats (trails, mark trees, daybed sites). Aerial photographs were also taken to capture larger avalanche and valley bottom wetland complexes. Photographs were downloaded and labelled with the date and site number immediately following field assessment. A selection of site photos from the study area is provided at the end of the report (Appendix I) and a complete digital photograph log has been included as part of the digital deliverables.

Aerial Assessment An aerial survey sheet was developed to record assessment information consistently during helicopter-based assessments. A two person crew was required for aerial assessments, one acting as observer and one as note taker. Aerial surveys allowed for a substantial increase in the density of sites seen in the field, with a minor loss of accuracy relative to ground based assessments. Information collected during aerial assessments was limited to data available from very low elevation (less than 50 m) overview flights. It was possible to establish TEM type and age class within a limited range of error. Dominant shrub and herbaceous vegetation was either directly apparent or visible through the canopy in most cases. Moisture and nutrient regime were established relative to the broader hillslope position and associated site characteristics. Structural stage was more difficult to establish during aerial surveys, however estimates were expected to be within one structural stage deviation. Information on potential use and evidence of use, such as the presence of high quality forage, visible trails or actual evidence of foraging were noted. Evidence of use in adjacent forests however, was not generally possible from aerial surveys.

Remote (Orthophotograph) Assessment The project involved a large study area and resources to conduct comprehensive ground and aerial assessments were limited. Costs associated with helicopter time in particular restricted the amount of field work possible. In order to identify potential high value moose polygons that field and aerial surveys were not able to capture, a detailed map and orthophotograph assessment was conducted. This was completed primarily by the project biologist following ground and aerial surveys. Experience gained during field work, overflights and familiarity with the study area increased confidence in the accuracy of remote assessment for MWR. Data collected for this level of intensity included only TEM type, structural stage, and moose habitat assessment.

Data Entry and Mapping

Database A database was developed for the project to capture pre-field information and results from ground, aerial and remote assessments. This database included planning information as well as


10

data collected at the three levels of survey intensity. Each polygon was originally identified with a unique number assigned by the mapping technician. In the field, if new polygons were identified directly adjacent to existing polygons, they were identified by the known polygon with a modifier for direction to the new polygon. Similarly, if a new polygon was identified from the air, it was sketched onto the field maps and assigned a number. When field work was completed, these areas were re-digitized and assigned a new number. This new number was then transferred back onto the field cards for reference. Finally, the data base was sorted and cleaned to ensure accuracy.

Mapping Magellan Digital Mapping, under separate contract, worked cooperatively with MCSL to link the database to the digital map files, add winter range line work, and convert the information into a Ministry standard GIS product. Digital mapping was initiated on an orthophotograph base and completed according to MoE spatial data deliverables. High value polygons were digitized from field results and tied by polygon identifier to the relational database. Hardcopy maps are in Appendix III and as digital deliverables provided as an Attachment.

Delineation of Winter Range Areas Once the habitat values from the database and the mapped polygons were coordinated, a draft map showing the orthophotograph background with the polygons was printed. The value of individual polygons was identified by colour with red representing the highest value, orange representing the high value and yellow the lowest value. Using this product, and known snow depths in the area, moderate (6), high (7 and 8), and very high (9 and 10) value polygons were collected within MWR units. The low snow areas identified were then overlaid on the existing habitat values map to establish which areas provided the least restrictive snow conditions in combination with perpetually high forage values. Usually, 50 to 100 m of forested habitat adjacent to high value forage areas were included to ensure snow interception adjacent to high forage value sites. In some cases, to ensure contiguous areas, areas previously harvested were included. This is not to suggest that these areas currently contain thermal cover or forage production. They were included more to ensure that further stand treatments in these areas consider the production of snow interception as one of its management directives.

Results and Discussion A total of 3 new winter range areas were identified in the study area covering approximately 18,500 ha of the landbase. Within these areas, 3168.1 ha include areas identified as moderate, high and very high. These winter range units have been designed as either stand alone areas or as additional components and improvements to existing moose winter range polygons previously identified in the Kitimat valley

General Observations The distribution of primary MWR (self-perpetuating shrub communities) in the study area shows similarities within all the CWH biogeoclimatic subzones with the highest consistent density of


11

preferred browse species on active floodplains and at the edges, primarily the run out areas, of avalanche tracts. These highly productive sites rapidly produce shrub vegetation in a regular and predictable way. Additionally, these sites represent linear corridors from upper elevation summer range to lower elevation winter range. Wetlands and disturbed forests, on the other hand, show significant variation in browse production within the same three CWH subzones. There are several other differences in moose winter habitat features that run in a gradient between the very wet hyper-maritime subzone and the wet submaritime subzone. In the wettest subzone (CWHvh), the browse production anywhere but floodplain and avalanche sites is limited. The most productive wetland ecosystems are fens due to the isolated shrub vegetation that occurs along the margins or in raises islands. Bogs rarely include a component of the shrub vegetation identified as a preferred moose winter food although their submergent vegetation may be important for summer habitat. The high visibility in larger bogs likely also offers some security habitat in winter. Preferred browse species occurring within forest stands are also limited with few suitable shrubs and herbaceous vegetation with the exception of Vaccinium spp. Snow interception is high with higher crown closures in most mesic forests and older stands near the valley bottom. However, snow depths increase rapidly as you increase in elevation above the ocean because there is less snow and more rain in these areas. Finally, browse production in disturbed areas is much reduced with little birch, aspen, cottonwood or deciduous shrub species (besides alder) occurring in the regenerating stands, regardless of the ecosystem type. Based on field evidence, moose are currently wintering in this subzone but it appears that the majority of this area will have a marginal capability in the long run. Additionally, competition for shrubs and forbs with the black-tailed tail deer, which are better suited to the dense salal, suggests that this subzone will remain as marginal habitat with low wintering moose densities regardless of management regime. At the other extreme, the wet submaritime subzone (CWHws) provides browse production in most ecosystems and structural stages. All wetlands provide some winter shrub production although the fens and bogs generally have the highest densities of suitable forage. Marshes, while very productive, rarely have significant shrub production except directly along their margins. In mature and older stands, high bush cranberry, Vaccinium spp. and balsam regeneration provide a low density but consistently available winter food source with richer ecosystems producing higher volumes. Disturbed stands produce very high densities of browse, especially toe-of-slope ecosystems in a shrub seral stage. While these rich ecosystems product the highest densities, even mesic stands provide some forage between the herb stage and the pole/sapling seral stage. These areas have lower precipitation rates in the winter but all almost all of it falls as snow. As a result snow depths are higher at the valley bottom but are relatively consistent at most low elevations. The implications for this are that snow interception has a higher importance throughout wintering areas in this subzone. Being between these two extremes, the CWHvm subzone represents a transition with values somewhere in between.

Representation by Survey Method A total of 3207 polygons were assessed in the Western Kitimat River study area, resulting in the identification of approximately 1173 polygons which were rated as moderate, high, or very high. A break-down of results by survey method is provided in Table 2. The original target of 150 ground plots and 750 aerial plots was based on completing 5% ground plots and 25% aerial calls on an estimated 3000 remote polygons over the 14 map sheets. This estimate was based on work in the southern portions of TLF #41. However, the estimate was


12

low with over 3200 high value polygons identified. This resulted in a smaller percentage of ground and aerial plots, even though a higher number of ground plots were actually completed. Given the increase accuracy of the ground plots, this is considered an appropriate trade off. Note that plot density was not designed for statistic analysis, only to calibrate aerial and remote polygon classifications.

Table 2: Distribution of polygons by survey method.

Western Kitimat River Study Area Total Survey Method

Ground Aerial Remote

Total Polygons Identified 3207 159 (5%) 575 (18%) 2472 (77%)

Polygons Identified within Proposed Moose Winter Range

543 23 (4.2%) 126 (23.2%) 394 (72.6%)

Distribution of High Value Forage by BGC Zone, TEM Type and Age Without consideration of snow levels, most of the moderate to very high value forage was identified in CWHws and CWHvm subzones as would be expected by the requirement for low elevation sites and rich forage production. The occurrence of 4.8% of the high value polygons occurring in upper elevation biogeoclimatic zones is largely a reflection of local ecology. Table 3 details the complete break down of high value polygons identified by biogeoclimatic zones and habitat types. Exclusive of biogeoclimatic zone, TEM type, and age class, moderate, high and very high moose winter habitat are distributed among general habitat categories of floodplains (60%), wetlands (19.5%), nutrient rich, receiving sites (14.4%), forested wetlands (8.5%), with other habitats (0.7%). Note that a complete database is included as a digital deliverable. The largest proportion of moderate to high valued forage occurs in the pole sapling stage (44.4%) followed by the sparse structural stage. See Table 4 for a summary of high value forage polygons by age class. The intermediate structural stages reflect the higher valuations of mixed age floodplains for moose wintering. In most site series, this structural stage has little available forage due to canopy competition. However, due to constant disturbance and the predominance of deciduous species, browse species are still highly available in these structural stages on floodplain sites. Note that the sparse and herb structural stages include almost exclusively gravel bars that were given high values due to their association with adjacent high value forage areas.


13

Table 3: Distribution of moderate to high value moose winter range habitat by BGC zone and TEM type identified in the Western Kitimat River study area.

Biogeoclimatic Zone Habitat Type Percent of Moderate to High Value Polygons

by Habitat Type

Percent of Moderate to High Value Polygons Represented in MWR

CWHvh

Wetlands 9.8% 0% Forested Wetlands 10% 0%

Floodplains / Estuary 25% 0% Mesic / Dry 0% 0%

Nutrient rich, receiving site 94.3% 0% Avalanche 54.2% 0%

Other 0% 0%

CWHvm

Wetlands 51.7% 19.8% Forested Wetlands 51.6% 21.7%

Floodplains / Estuary 89% 63.9% Mesic / Dry 14.3% 0%

Nutrient rich, receiving site 64% 28.7% Avalanche 7.8% 0%

Other 0% 0%

CWHws

Wetlands 57.8% 38.8% Forested Wetlands 45.6% 27.9%

Floodplains 88.4% 34.8% Mesic / Dry 46.7% 13.3%

Nutrient rich, receiving site 67.6% 20.4% Avalanche 9.5% 0%

Other 0% 0%

Table 4: Distribution of moderate to very high value moose winter range habitat by age class identified in the Western Kitimat River study area.

Structural Stage (SS)

Spa

rse

(S

S 1

)

Her

b

(SS

2)

Shr

ub

(SS

3)

Pol

e/S

aplin

g (S

S4)

You

ng

Fore

st (S

S 5

)

Mat

ure

Fore

st (S

S 6

)

Old

For

est

(SS

7)

Total Number of Polygons 69 436 1606 261 257 169 409

Percent of Polygons Rated Moderate to Very High within MWR

27.5% 8.0% 10.3% 44.4% 26.5% 21.9% 25%

Table 4 highlights the total number of polygons identified within each structural stage and then the total number of polygons rate moderate to very high value identified within proposed MWR in each structural stage. This can be somewhat misleading because it is not a summary of area of land, rather it is a numbers based table. Consequently, since floodplains are a significant portion of moose winter range, but generally occur as many smaller polygons, it is not unexpected that the sparse structural stage is as high as it appears. The same applies to the pole/sapling structural stage.


14

Snow Conditions Snow depth in this study area can limit movement with more than 5 m falling between October and March in the average year in Kitimat (Environment Canada, 2009). Snow depths vary by latitude, elevation and topographic features but the precipitation trend is generally highest in the western areas close to Douglas Channel and lowest in more northern areas near Chist Creek. In low elevations in the southwest, much of the precipitation occurs as rain but in most other areas it falls as snow. Based on field review, the least restrictive snow conditions appear to occur in low elevations areas near the Kitimat River where the snow is lighter and reduced due to the low elevation.

Moose Winter Range In total, 3 separate new areas were identified. These areas showed the lowest snow depths, the highest occurrence of winter use evidence, and the highest concentrations of high value forage. In addition, lower snow conditions, when compared to adjacent areas, are suspected to occur in these areas allowing higher winter survival. See Figure 2 for the proposed MWR map with the forage quality identified by color. A full size map is included as Appendix 2 and both a pdf file and the GIS shape files are included with the digital deliverables.


15

Figure 2: Western Kitimat River study area orthophoto base, showing polygons identified and assessed for moose habitat values (approximately 1:400,000). Polygons identified in red, orange, yellow, and green

represents very high, high, moderate, and other valued polygons, respectively.


16

Conclusions and Recommendations The areas selected by moose to survive winter conditions must provide adequate forage to limit weight loss and maintain micronutrient needs, and it must provide snow conditions such that access to that forage is available. The Western Kitimat River study area provided the best winter forage production along large floodplains in the major valleys outside of the CWHvh subzone. Isolated areas with a high water table adjacent to rich forests, primarily in low elevation areas, also provide important wintering areas. With the exception of the large flat valley bottoms of the lower Wedeene River, Kitimat River, and Hirsch Creek, it is suspected that the bulk of wintering moose will occur within 200 m of major tributaries. Snow interception, as discussed in the life history, appears to have a lesser impact on habitat selection when forage is plentiful. Moose use in the study area reflects this in lower snow areas. However, the presences of large amounts of browse that remains untouched in higher areas suggests that deep snow is at least partially limiting. This may be a reflection of the recent immigration to the area or even the habitual use of travel corridors identified in other studies While further investigations may conclude alternate management regimes, the following recommendations should apply in the CWH vm and ws subzones until a more detailed winter range management plan is available for individual units.

1. It is recommended that moose winter range management plans be prepared for each of the winter ranges identified. These winter range plans should include a monitoring component to ensure adaptive management can correct any errors in MWR placement or the management regime.

2. It is recommended that forest management within the identified winter ranges address the importance of snow interception adjacent to primary foraging sites such as floodplains including:

a. Buffers 50 -100m wide containing at least 40% of original snow interception of initial stand. Specific management will depend on topography and forest type but could include small patch cuts, single tree selection, or shelter wood harvesting. In addition, snow interception properties should be enhanced or managed in areas with historic large scale harvesting has resulted in less than 40% of the original forest cover. The intent of these buffers it to provide security cover and snow interception adjacent to foraging areas. These buffers may incorporate other important values, such as riparian management areas, to reduce the overall impact and provide an integrated approach to fine filter management.

b. Other areas not identified as moderate, high or very high within the identified moose winter range should retain 20-30% mature and old forest cover throughout the rotation. This cover can be provided by connected


17

riparian buffers or through partial cutting. The retention of large blocks of old growth is not considered important to protecting MWR.

c. Harvesting in identified moose winter range should focus on small blocks (5-15 ha) or alternative harvesting methods to ensure that forage production during early seral stages will be available to moose wintering in adjacent snow interception areas. The target should be that no more that 20% of the block is more than 100 m from adjacent forest cover with snow interception.

3. Moose winter range management plans should address both the risk of disturbance and methods for limiting access into MWR during the winter period (November 1 to May 1). The high snow depths in the area suggest that disturbances would have a much higher impact on energetic costs than in other winter ranges were snow is less limiting.

4. Roads within identified winter range should be designed for deactivation and access restriction as soon as harvesting is finished. In the case of a mainline, access restrictions (a gate locked daily) should be placed on all active mainlines during seasonal restrictions.

5. Stand management within identified moose winter range should consider forage productivity for moose including management for a lower stocking in rich and wet areas, especially subhydric to subhygric micro-sites.

6. No forage management outside of proposed winter range need be considered as standard harvesting practices, in combination with long free-to-grow periods, provides high forage values for extended periods without specific management regimes in most site series.


18

References Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto University Press.

Toronto. 437 pp. Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste Can.

101:417-436. Demarchi, Mike W. 2000. Moose in the Nass Wildlife Area. Final Report prepared

for Forest Renewal BC by Nisga’s Tribal Council, New Aiyanch, B.C. and LGL Limited, Sidney, B.C. 66pp.

Doerr, J.G. 1983. Home range size, movement and habitat use in two moose,

Alces alces, populations in southeastern Alaska. Canadien Field-Naturalist 97(1):79-88. Eastman, D.S., and R. Ritcey. 1987. Moose habitat relationships and

management in British Columbia. Swedish Wildl. Res. Suppl. 1:101-117. Geist, V. 1966. On the behavior of North American moose (Alces alces andersoni

Peterson 1950) in British Columbia. Behavior 20:377-416. Hamilton, G.D., P.D. Drysdale, and D.L. Euler. 1980. Moose winter browsing

patterns on clear-cuttings in northern Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 58:1412-1416. Hatler, D.F., 1988. History and importance of wildlife in Northern British

Columbia. in The Wildlife of Northern British Columbia. Rosemary J. Fox. (ed) Spatsizi Association for Biological Research, Smithers B.C..pgs. 10-11.

Holland, Stuart S. 1976. Landforms of British Columbia: a physiographic outline.

Bulletin 48. British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Province of British Columbia, Victoria. 138 pp.

Hundertmark, K.J., W.L. Eberhardt, and E.B. Ball. 1990. Winter use by moose in

southeastern Alaska: implications for forestry management. Alces 26:108-114 Kelsall. J.P., and W. Prescott. 1971. Moose and deer behavior in snow.

Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series – Number 15. 25 pp. Kelsall, J.P. and E.S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular

reference to western North America. Naturaliste Can., 101:117-130. LeResche, R.E., R.H. Bishop, and J.W. Coady. 1974. Distribution and habitats of

moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Can. 101:143-178. MacKenzie, W.H, and J.R. Moran. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to

identification. Resource Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 52


19

McNicol, J.G., and F.F. Gilbert. 1980. Late winter use of upland cutovers by moose. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(2):363-371.

Nyberg, J.B. 1990. Interactions of timber management with deer and elk. in Deer

and Elk Habitats in Coastal Forests of Southern British Columbia. J.B. Nyberg and DW. Janz (eds.). Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, 310 pp.

Peek, J.M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North America.

Naturaliste Can. 101:195-215. Petticrew, P.S., and W.T. Munro. 1979. Preliminary moose management plan for

British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia. 29 pp. Pollard, B.T. 1998. Moose Damage Management in the Kitimat Provincial Forest.

Report completed for the Ministry of Forests. 32 pg. Pollard, B.T. 2002. Moose winter range in the North Coast Forest District.

Contracted report for the Land Use Coordination Office, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, 45 pg.

Province of British Columbia. 1990. Describing ecosystems in the field. B.C.

Ministry of Environment and B.C. Ministry of Forests (MoE Manual 11). Luttmerding, H.A., Demarchi, D. A., Lea, E.C., Meidinger, D.V., and T.Vold (eds.). Victoria, BC.

Province of British Columbia. 1998. Standard for terrestrial ecosystem mapping

in British Columbia. Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee. Victoria, BC. 100 pp.

Rich, E.E. (ed). 1955. Black’s Rocky Mountain Journal 1824. The Hudson’s Bay

Record Society, London. 260 pp. Risenhoover, K.L. 1986. Winter activity patterns of moose in interior Alaska. J.

Wildl. Manage. 50(4):727-734. Ritcey, R.W. undated. Moose in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment Lands

and Parks fact sheet. Province of British Columbia. Victoria, 4 pp. Safford, Kirk R. 2004. Modelling critical winter habitat of four ungulate species in

the Robson Valley, British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4(2), http://www.forrex.org/jem/2004/col4/no2/art9.pdf.

Schwab, F.E. 1985. Moose habitat selection in relation to forest cutting practices

in northcentral British Columbia. Masters Thesis, University of British Columbia. 166 pgs. Singleton, J. 1976. Food habits of wild ungulates in British Columbia:

bibliography and plant synopsis. Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, Department of Environment, Victoria, B.C. pg. 4-9.

Thompson, I.D., and M.F. Vukelich. 1981. Use of logged habitats by moose cows

and calves in northeastern Ontario. Can J. Zool. 59:2103-2114.


20

Yarzvenko, S., G.F. Searing, and M. W. Demarchi. 2002. Wildlife habitat assessment in the Nass Wildlife Area. Revised Final Report prepared for Forest Renewal BC by Nisga’s Tribal Council, New Aiyansh, B.C., and LGL Limited, Sidney, B.C. 94pp.


38

Appendices


39

Appendix I: Select Field Photographs from the Western Kitimat River Study Area


40

Photograph 1: Low-bench floodplain on the Little Wedeene River (2082 20081001 02.jpg).

Photograph 2: High quality mid-Bench floodplain on the Kitimat River (1792 20081001 01.jpg).


41

Photograph 3: High-bench floodplain site on Jesse Creek. Evidence of high use included tracks, trails, feces and foraging (722 20080930 02.jpg).

Photograph 4: Moose bed located within high-bench floodplain on Hirsch Creek (503 20081002 02.jpg).


42

Photograph 5: Wetland bog located next to a swamp forest on the Wedeene River provides good security habitat for winter range (1691 20081001 01.jpg).

Photograph 6: Wetland fen located next to a swamp forest on the Wedeene River provides good security habitat for winter range (3234 20081001 01.jpg).


43

Photograph 7: Very rich, old growth receiving site in the Emsley Creek watershed adjacent to an estuary. Evidence of use includes trails, browse and feces

(598 20080930 05.jpg).

Photograph 8: Old growth mesic forest adjacent to Aveling Creek and a nearby slide. Evidence of use included feces, tracks and trails (1416 20081001 01.jpg).


44

Appendix II: Maps of Candidate Security MWR Polygons for the Western Kitimat River study area

Documents

Moose Winter Range Identification - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r16192/2818002Kit...Moose Winter Range Identification: Western Portions of the Kitimat River