characterization of high elevation grasslands in...

EBA File No. 5330005

CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGH ELEVATION

GRASSLANDS IN THE UPPER ELK VALLEY

March 2005

Submitted to

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Creating and Delivering Better Solutions

Riverbend Atrium One, #115, 200 Rivercrest Drive SE, Calgary, Alberta T2C 2X5

Tel: (403) 203-3355 - Fax: (403) 203-3301 Internet:[email protected] - Web Site: www.eba.ca

CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGH ELEVATION GRASSLANDS IN THE

UPPER ELK VALLEY

Project No.: 0335-5330005

MARCH 2005

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Creating and Delivering Better Solutions

Riverbend Atrium One, #115, 200 Rivercrest Drive SE, Calgary, Alberta T2C 2X5

Tel: (403) 203-3355 - Fax: (403) 203-3301 Internet:[email protected] - Web Site: www.eba.ca

CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGH ELEVATION GRASSLANDS IN THE

UPPER ELK VALLEY

Submitted to:

TEMBEC British Columbia Division

220 Cranbrook Street North P.O. Box 4600

Cranbrook, BC V1C 4J7

Prepared by:

EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD. Calgary, Alberta

Project No.: 0335-5330005

MARCH 2005

0335-5330005 - 1 - March 2005

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High elevation grasslands in the upper Elk River and Fording River valleys are considered to be unique in the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains in the East Kootenays. TEMBEC identified these areas as having high conservation value and proposed a literature review and mapping study. The objectives of the study were as follows:

1. identification and digital delineation of grasslands in the Fording and Elk River watersheds north of Highway 3 and east of the Elk River;

2. a literature review and summary of biological information on the plants, vertebrates and

invertebrates in the study area; and

3. the development of a plant and butterfly sampling program.

The results of the literature and mapping exercise are summarized below.

• Preliminary grassland mapping resulted in the creation of 613 grassland or grassland/shrubland/herb polygons with a total area of 4,792.13 and a mean area of 7.82. A total of 64 grassland polygons are, or potentially will be, affected by industrial activities in the upper Elk River and Fording River valleys.

• Based on the review of the ecological data for the study area, none of the correlated or

non-correlated site series currently listed for ESSFdk, ESSFdkw, ESSFdkp and ATun subzones in the Southeast Kootenays characterize adequately the high elevation grassland ecosystems within the study area.

• Because most of the studies have been conducted in support of coal mine development,

very little sampling has been completed in grassland ecosystems associated with calcareous parent materials or that are unrelated to mining activities.

• The impacts of forestry activities on grassland ecosystems in the study area are unknown

at this time. However, approved or proposed forest harvest activities in the study area may result in greater forest harvesting related influences in the future.

• A review of the published literature as well as a several internet searches revealed that

there is inadequate autecological information available for several of the species present within the high elevation grasslands of the study area.

• No evidence of forest species encroachment or weedy species ingress into the subalpine

grasslands was recorded in the previous studies documented in this report.

0335-5330005 - 2 - March 2005


• The grasslands within the study area may be classified as rare or uncommon

(21 to 100 occurrences) or frequent to common (> 100 occurrences). Based on limited data, Idaho Fescue and herb/grass ecosystems are relatively common within the study area but rough fescue dominated grasslands appear to be restricted in their distribution.

• Four vulnerable wildlife species, one mustelid (American badger), one large carnivore

(grizzly bear), one raptor (Swainson’s hawk) and one ungulate (bighorn sheep) utilize grassland habitats within the study area. Two vulnerable plant species (Wyoming besseya and elk thistle), both forbs, are present or potentially present within grassland ecosystems as well.

• Little or no knowledge of butterfly occurrences has been documented for the study area. • Knowledge of the impacts of resource extraction industries on high elevation grasslands

is well documented for the mining industry, is limited for the forest industry and is poorly documented for recreational users such as hunters and guide outfitters.

Several recommendations are proposed as a result of the literature review and mapping activities. Further field sampling that employs a stratified sampling design should be conducted to better characterise the high elevation grassland ecosystems within the study area. As well, the existing sensitive ecosystem mapping should be updated based on field sampling and improvements in polygon delineation. Additional studies include an assessment of grassland ecosystem viability, woody forest species encroachment and weedy species ingress into subalpine grasslands, species at risk (SAR) distribution mapping, plant autecological studies, butterfly sampling and an impact assessment of industrial activities on grassland ecosystems in the study area.

0335-5330005 - 3 - March 2005


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this report acknowledge the assistance of Kari Stuart-Smith and Marcie Belcher of TEMBEC in the preparation of the report. The report also benefited greatly from the review comments of Mark Hall of Majestic Resource Consulting.

0335-5330005 - 4 - March 2005


DISCLAIMER

The grassland mapping provided in this report should be considered preliminary because of incomplete air photo coverage and inadequate polygon ground-truthing. Only the minimum coding and map attribute file information portions of the draft Sensitive Ecosystems Mapping protocol were applied.

0335-5330005 - 5 - March 2005


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................2 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................2

3.1 Literature Review..................................................................................................2 3.2 Analysis of Existing Grassland Data ....................................................................3 3.3 Ecosystem Mapping..............................................................................................4

4.0 HISTORY OF MAPPING IN THE STUDY AREA........................................................4 5.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................5

5.1 Climate..................................................................................................................5 5.2 Bedrock Geology ..................................................................................................6 5.3 Surficial Geology..................................................................................................6 5.4 Soils.......................................................................................................................7 5.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................................7

5.5.1 Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir...........................................................7 5.5.2 Alpine Tundra ...........................................................................................8

5.6 Wildlife (Invertebrates and Vertebrates) ..............................................................9

5.6.1 Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir...........................................................9 5.6.2 Alpine Tundra ...........................................................................................9

6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................9

6.1 Grassland Species Autecology and Perturbation Response..................................9 6.2 Vegetation – Environment Relationships ...........................................................10 6.3 Grassland Phytosociology...................................................................................11

6.3.1 Plant Community Type Classification ....................................................11 6.3.2 Plant Community Type / Site Series Comparison ..................................18

0335-5330005 - 6 - March 2005


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

6.4 Grassland Ecosystem Responses to Perturbation and Forest Ingress .................18 6.5 Wildlife (Invertebrates and Vertebrates) Habitat Interactions............................19

6.5.1 Ungulates ................................................................................................19 6.5.2 Bears .......................................................................................................20 6.5.3 Birds........................................................................................................21 6.5.4 Butterflies................................................................................................21

6.6 Grassland Ecosystem Mapping...........................................................................22 6.7 Species At Risk Element Occurrences and Ecosystem Conservation Status .....24

6.7.1 Plants.......................................................................................................24 6.7.2 Wildlife ...................................................................................................25 6.7.3 Conservation Status ................................................................................25

7.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM DESIGN................................................................................25

7.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................................26 7.2 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................28

7.2.1 Butterfly Sampling Program...................................................................28 7.2.2 Vertebrates (Mammals and Birds) Sampling Program...........................29

8.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................30 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................32 10.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................34

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Plant Species List Appendix B – Study Area Aerial Photographs Appendix C – Grassland Species Autecology Appendix D – Animal Species List Appendix E – Butterfly Species List Appendix F – Grassland Maps Appendix G – Wildlife Inventory Methods

0335-5330005 - 7 - March 2005


TABLE OF CONTENTS continued

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Elk and Fording River Valley Literature Review Information and Data Sources........3 Table 2 – Grasslands Mapped as Sensitive Ecosystems.............................................................23 Table 3 – Grasslands Affected by Industrial Activities ..............................................................24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Mean Monthly Air Temperatures at the Sparwood and Fording River Climate Stations .........................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 – Mean Monthly Precipitation at the Sparwood and Fording River Climate Stations...6 Figure 3 – Canonical Correlation Biplot.....................................................................................11 Figure 4 – Cluster Analysis Dendrogram ...................................................................................15 Figure 5 – Mean Percent Total Cover Comparison Between Plant Community Types .............16 Figure 6 – Mean Species Richness Comparison Between Plant Community Types..................16 Figure 7 – Shannon’s Diversity Index Comparison Between Plant Community Types.............17 Figure 8 – Evenness Index Comparison Between Plant Community Types ..............................17

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1 – AT grassland......................................................................................................13 Photograph 2 – ESSFdkp grassland............................................................................................13 Photograph 3 – ESSFdk grassland..............................................................................................14

0305-5330005 - 1 - March 2005


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Grasslands are ecosystems where the vegetation physiognomy is dominated by graminoids (i.e., grasses and sedges). Where present in the Rocky Mountains, these ecosystems may represent climax stands that are controlled by drought, may represent seral ecosystems that are disturbance-maintained by fire and/or animals, or may represent topoedaphic climax stands that are the result of landscape features such as steep slopes or thin soils (Peet 2000). The distribution and development of mid-elevation to high-elevation grassland/steppe ecosystems are considered distinct from the plains or prairies because of the greater continentality and negative growing soil season soil moisture indices associated with ecoclimatic region (Scott 1995, Sims and Risser 2000). While negative soil moisture indices are common to prairie and mountainous grasslands, the significance of topographic and soil-related influences are more subtle in prairie grasslands. Grassland distribution is also known to be dynamic. For example, the grasslands within British Columbia are thought to have reached their maximum extent during a warm, dry period about 6,000 years to 10,000 years ago when temperatures were thought to be 1.5oC to 2.0oC warmer. At that time, lowland grasslands may have been connected with alpine meadows in very arid parts of the Columbia Basin, especially on south-facing slopes (Hebda 1982). However, since that time, the grassland/forest boundary has retreated to lower elevations as the climate has become cooler and moister (Pitt and Hooper 1994). Climate stations near Cranbrook report a warming of 1oC in the last 80 years with largest increases in late spring and summer. Precipitation has increased about 30% over that time, mainly in late spring and summer (Mote 2003). Gayton (2003a) has suggested that warmer summers and winters are expected to cause an expansion in the geographical extent of biogeoclimatic subzones that contain grasslands and dry forests in the Ponderosa Pine (PP) and Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) subzones of the Rocky Mountain Trench but it is not known what the impacts of climate change will be on the grassland ecosystems of the upper Elk River valley. High elevation grasslands in the upper Elk River and the Fording River valleys are considered to be unique in the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains in the East Kootenays (Martin 2005, Forbes 2005, Neil 2005 cited in request for proposal) and current as well as proposed logging and mining activities in these valleys may have important impacts on these ecosystems. Potential impacts include reduced ecological integrity and functioning of grassland stands, altered wildlife habitat capability and/or suitability, and damage to or a reduction in the viability of species at risk (SAR) populations and habitats. Consequently, attention has been directed towards these high elevation grasslands recently to better understand their sensitivity to perturbation, their importance as habitat for insect fauna and their significance to regional biodiversity (Royal British Columbia Museum 2004).

0305-5330005 - 2 - March 2005


TEMBEC has identified grassland ecosystems as having high conservation value and proposed the following study. The scope and purpose of this study was to provide forest managers and government regulators with information that can be used to develop conservation and harvesting guidelines.

2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES

As outlined in the tender package provided by TEMBEC, the project has as objectives the following:

• identification and digital delineation of grasslands in the Fording and Elk River watersheds north of Highway 3 and east of the Elk River;

• a literature review and summary of biological information on the plants, vertebrates and invertebrates in the study area; and

• the development of a plant and butterfly sampling program. 3.0 METHODS 3.1 Literature Review

A review of grey literature (non-refereed articles and consulting reports), journals and textbooks published on high-elevation grassland plant species, plant communities, invertebrates and vertebrates within the Elk River, Fording River valleys and similar habitats was conducted and summarized. Autecological data that describes response to perturbation was compiled and tabulated for grassland species in the area. Potential species at risk (SAR) occurrences were identified by reviewing published literature and by accessing the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre web site (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre 2004). A review of sampling methodologies for plants and animals was completed and a sampling program for plants and butterflies was prepared. Where appropriate, sampling methods for additional organisms are proposed. Sampling methods followed Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) protocols, if available, or accepted scientific inquiry methods. The methods and protocols are described in the appropriate sections of the report. Two approaches were followed in reviewing grassland ecosystem descriptions: (1) the raw data available from previous reports (Table 1) were analyzed, and (2) species lists and environment descriptions were compared to the Provincial Site Series Mapping Codes (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2003). The plant species list compiled from the available data and reports is provided in Appendix A.

0305-5330005 - 3 - March 2005


Table 1 Elk and Fording River Valley literature review information and data sources.

Description References

Ecosystem data sources Bell and Smyth (1988); NORECOL (1983); NORECOL (1990); Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations (1996); Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations (1996); Smyth and Poriz (1999a, 1999b); Smyth et al. (1999); Smyth and Paton (2001, 2003); Smyth (2000, 2002, 2004); Smyth et al. (2003a, 2003b).

Ecosystem information BC Research (1977, 1980); Kaiser Resources Limited (1980, 1981a, 1981b); NORECOL (1983); Fraser (1983); Westar Mining Limited (1984a, 1984b); TAESCO (1985a); Bell and Smyth (1988); NORECOL (1982); NORECOL (1990); Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations (1996); Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations (1996); Smyth and Poriz (1999a, 1999b); Smyth et al. (1999); Smyth and Paton (2001, 2003a, 2003b); Smyth (2000, 2002, 2004).

Wildlife habitat use information

BC Research (1977, 1980); Kaiser Resources Limited (1980, 1981a, 1981b); NORECOL (1983); Fraser (1983); Westar Mining Limited (1984a, 1984b, 1987); TAESCO (1985a, 1985b, 1985c, 1985d); Provo et al. (1986); NORECOL (1990); Saunders (1994); Saunders (1995); Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations (1996); Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations (1996); Smyth and Poriz (1999a, 1999b); Smyth et al. (1999); Smyth and Paton (2001, 2003); Smyth (2000, 2002, 2004); Hall (2003a, 2003b); Smyth et al. (2003a, 2003b).

Note: Full citations are provided in the reference section of the report.

3.2 Analysis of Existing Grassland Data The ecosystem data analysis component involved the analysis of data and synthesis of information collected previously as part of academic research studies, baseline and impact assessment projects, or monitoring programs within the Elk and Fording River valleys. The majority of the data was obtained from complete community type tables in the appendices of the public documents cited in Table 1. Additional personal data was made available by the senior author of the report. Only the data provided by the senior author was available in digital format. The high-elevation areas sampled previously include Sheep Mountain, Mount Lyall, Mount Michael, Mount Banner, Mount Erris, Imperial Ridge, Todhunter Ridge, Mount Lyall, Beehive Mountain, Mount Gass, Castle Mountain, Greenhills Range, Eagle Mountain, Turnbull Mountain, and Henretta Ridge. In general, the plot data consisted of plant species percent cover estimates by layer as well as environmental data (i.e., latitude, longitude, slope, aspect, exposure, elevation, mesoslope position, ecological moisture regime, soil nutrient regime successional status, structural stage and surface substrate). Detailed soil profile and parent material descriptions were available for only a few plots.

0305-5330005 - 4 - March 2005


Due to changes in plant taxonomy, sample plot species lists were edited prior to data entry. Floristic and site description data for each sample plot were entered into VENUS 5.0 (Province of British Columbia 2005), exported to Microsoft Office 2003 Excel workbook files, converted into Lotus 123 WK1 files and analyzed with the PC-ORD ecological software program (McCune and Mefford 1999). The analytical modules within the PC-ORD software that were used were Cluster Analysis, Indicator Species Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis (CANOCO). SYSTAT 11.0 software was used for graphical presentation of the data (SYSTAT 2004). Cluster analysis and Indicator Species Analysis were selected for plant community type analysis rather than the more traditional Two-Way Species Indicator Analysis (TWINSPAN) because the latter technique performs poorly with more than one important gradient (McCune and Grace 2002). CANOCO was used to examine how plant community structure is related to the measured environmental variables (McCune and Grace 2002).

3.3 Ecosystem Mapping Contour maps generated from TRIM data and 1:30,000 scale color aerial photography were provided by TEMBEC. Coverage for the entire study area was made available except for portions of the western side of the Elk River Valley and the Erickson Ridge area east of the Elk Valley Coal Corporation – Elkview Operations mine. The list of aerial photographs is provided in Appendix B. The air photos were interpreted using a stereoscope and the grassland line work generated by this process were transferred to hard copy contour maps generated with the TRIM data. A digital layer of the linework was created using ArcGIS 9.2 and polygon attributes were then assigned to each of the grassland polygons. Polygon attribute coding followed, for the most part, the requirements outlined by the Resources Information Standards Committee (2005). The minimum requirements for polygon attribute coding for sensitive ecosystem mapping were met by the mapping process; however, the sampling requirements and field protocols were not satisfied. The digital map data was converted from Arc GIS 9.2 to ArcInfo e00 format for delivery to TEMBEC.

4.0 HISTORY OF MAPPING IN THE STUDY AREA Several inventories and mapping projects have been completed in the general area previously. At a broad scale, description and classification of vegetation, physical and climatic units were completed by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment who mapped biophysical forest regions, zones and subzones (Lea 1984) and by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests who mapped biogeoclimatic units (Braumandl and Curran 1992). Demarchi (1986) also mapped wildlife habitat capability. Mapping undertaken as part of mine development activities (Kaiser Resources Limited 1981b; Westar Mining Limited 1984b; BC Research 1977; NORECOL 1983; TAESCO 1985a; Provo et al. 1986, NORECOL 1990) vary in the level of detail mapped, and are only available as hard copies. Recent mapping activities (Fording Coal Limited –

0305-5330005 - 5 - March 2005


Greenhills Operations 1996; Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations 1996; Smyth 1999, Smyth and Poriz 1999a, Smyth et al. 2003a, 2003b, Hall 2003a, 2003b), are project specific and therefore do not cover the study area adequately. Grasslands, because of their small size, were mapped as part of complex polygons within the previous mapping projects.

5.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

5.1 Climate The climate of the Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone is characterized by a cold, moist and snowy continental climate. In general, the growing seasons are cool and short while winters are long and cold (Coupé et al. 1991). Within the study area, mean annual temperatures, based on a 30-year recording period, range from +1.8oC at the Fording River Cominco station (ESSFdk) to +4.4oC at the Sparwood station (MSdk). Mean monthly temperatures are below 0oC for 5 months to 6 months of the year and exceed 10oC for only 2 months to 3 months (Figure 1). Mean annual precipitation ranges from 569.2 mm at the Fording River Cominco station to 571.7 mm at the Sparwood station. Precipitation is highest in June and lowest in February at the Sparwood station and highest in December and lowest in October at the Fording River station (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Mean Monthly Air Temperature at the Sparwood and Fording River Climate Stations

Jan Feb MarApr

May Jun JulAug

Sep Oct NovDec

Month

-20

-10

0

10

20

Tem

pera

ture

(oC

)

SparwoodCominco Fording River

Location

0305-5330005 - 6 - March 2005


Figure 2 Mean Monthly Precipitation at the Sparwood and Fording River Climate Stations

Jan Feb MarApr

May Jun JulAug

Sep Oct NovDec

Month

0

20

40

60

80

100Pr

ecip

itatio

n (m

m)

SparwoodFording River (Cominco)

Location

5.2 Bedrock Geology

The study area lies within the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains. In general, the region is characterized by a strong north-south alignment of major ridges parallel to the strike of westward-slipping thrust faults and sedimentary strata (Holland 1976). Carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks of the Devonian to Cretaceous ages underlie the study area. The Mist Mountain Formation is the coal-bearing structure. The major structure of the Elk Valley is the north-northwest trending asymmetric Alexander Creek syncline. Thrust faults, including the Ewin Pass fault, are more common on the east limb. Other major structures include the Greenhills syncline, a structure separated from the Alexander Creek syncline to the east by the west-dipping Erickson normal fault, and the Bourgeau thrust fault on the western boundary of the northern edge of the coal field (Grieve 1993).

5.3 Surficial Geology The structurally controlled ridges of the study area have been dissected and modified by weathering and erosion. Streams occupy deep, narrow valleys that trend obliquely across the ranges. Since deglaciation, snow avalanches and other forms of mass movement have modified the mountainsides. The result has been an accumulation of colluvium at the base of slopes (Ryder 1981). Morainal materials (glacial till) were deposited directly by glaciers and are frequently compact, non-sorted and non-stratified and contain a wide range of particle sizes in a matrix of silt or clay. The morainal deposits occur primarily on the gently to steeply

0305-5330005 - 7 - March 2005


sloping areas. Surface expression is variable, ranging from undulating to a blanket or veneer of unconsolidated till overlaying consolidated materials (Kaiser Resources Limited 1981b). Colluvial materials occur on steep upper slopes. Colluvial deposits result from mass wasting and generally occur as a veneer or blanket overlying competent or incompetent bedrock. The texture of the material is generally gravel-sized, rubbly, angular, or subangular clasts (Ryder 1978).

5.4 Soils The soils in the study area are influenced strongly by topographic relief (altitude, aspect, slope steepness), parent materials (texture, permeability, CaCO3 content, soil reaction), local climate and vegetation. The grasslands and open meadows of the ESSF dk subalpine zone are dominantly lithic soils. Orthic Humic Regosols and Orthic Regosols dominate the soil landscape at higher elevations. However, these soil map units are dissected by Eutric and Dystric Brunisols where there are different parent materials and different thicknesses of parent materials. Soil parent materials for these soils consists of rubbly colluvium of varying depths and morainal veneers. Surface and subsurface soil horizons are disturbed as a result of mass wasting and cryoturbation. Regosols occur on shallow lithic soils at high elevations

5.5 Vegetation The vegetation of the study area is floristically diverse. The variety of community types and their distribution reflects the diversity in topography, relief, landforms, geological formations, surficial materials, climatic patterns and disturbances that influence the area. Slope, aspect, parent materials, snow patterns, soil moisture, wind speeds and cold air drainage vary considerably between sites at any given elevation resulting in a diversity of plant community types. The high species diversity is in part due to the location of the study area between the prairies and the Columbia River Trench in the northward extension of the western Cordillera (Ogilvie 1978). Slope, aspect, parent materials, snow patterns, soil moisture, wind speeds and cold air drainage vary considerably between sites at any given elevation resulting in many different plant communities. Grasslands in the study area occur within the Montane Spruce (MS), Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF), and Alpine Tundra (AT) biogeoclimatic zones. General descriptions of these zones are provided in the following text. 5.5.1 Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, dry cool (ESSFdk) zone occurs on the upper slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The terrain is mountainous and often steep and rugged.

0305-5330005 - 8 - March 2005


The elevation range is between 1,650 m and 2,100 m on south aspects and between 1,550 m and 2,100 m on north aspects (Braumandl and Curran 1992). The vegetation within the ESSF is characterized by climax vegetation on zonal sites but vegetation composition and structure varies with environmental conditions (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1998a). Ecosystem units within each zone are assigned site series codes. The site series classification groups ecosystems within a subzone based on similarities in environmental properties and in late seral or climax vegetation attributes. Subzones have a characteristic site series sequence that is determined typically on the basis of relative scales of soil moisture and soil nutrients. The ESSF zone typically has closed canopy forests at lower elevations (ESSFdk) and open canopy forests (ESSdkw) and subalpine parklands (ESSFdkp) at higher elevations. The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir woodland (ESSFdkw) is common at higher elevations in the East Kootenays. The subalpine parkland is characterised by clumps of trees that have established in favourable microsites. Overall, subalpine grasslands in the ESSF are thought to be associated with steep, south-facing slopes (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1998b). The prominent species in these ecosystems are rough fescue (Festuca campestris Rydb.), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer), interior bluegrass (Poa interior Rydb.), diverse-leaved cinquefoil (Potentilla diversifolia Lehm.) and yellow beard-tongue (Penstemon confertus Dougl.). 5.5.2 Alpine Tundra The Alpine Tundra (AT) zone occurs above the ESSF zone in the East Kootenays (Pojar and Stewart 1991). The climate associated with this zone is cold, windy and snowy. Growing season temperatures are low and the frost-free period is short. The vegetation of the alpine zone is typically treeless although stunted or krummholz forms of subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, white spruce and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) are common. Most of the alpine landscape lacks vegetation, but where present, the vegetation is dominated by shrubs, herbs, bryophytes and lichens (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1998b). The vegetation typically occurs as a complex mosaic of dwarf shrub, herbaceous, graminoid and sparsely vegetated plant communities. Alpine grasslands are prominent on south-facing slopes or convex, windswept ridges. The dominant grass species are rough fescue, alpine fescue (Festuca brachyphylla Schult.), timber oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia Vasey.) and alpine bluegrass (Poa alpine L.). The dominant sedge and rush species are black and white sedge (Carex albonigra Mack.), dunhead sedge (Carex phaeocephala Piper), spikenard sedge (Carex nardina Fries) and spiked wood-rush (Luzula spicata [L.] DC). Alpine scrub or shrub vegetation is common at lower elevations within the zone but also forms part of the grass/forb/shrub mosaic at higher elevations. The common species are arctic willow (Salix arctica Pall.) and snow willow (Salix nivalis Hook.). Dwarf scrub

0305-5330005 - 9 - March 2005


consists of prostrate shrubs such as white mountain avens (Dryas octopetala L.), and bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva ursi Sprengl.).

5.6 Wildlife (Invertebrates and Vertebrates) 5.6.1 Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir The grasslands and meadows associated with the ESSF biogeoclimatic zone provide are know to provide valuable forage for Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus), Rocky mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus Rafinesque), moose (Alces alces Linnaeus), black bear (Ursus americanus Pallas) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus). Several rodents, mustelids, raptors, passerines and gallinaceous birds inhabit the ESSF biogeoclimatic zone as well (Coupé et al. 1991). 5.6.2 Alpine Tundra Rocky mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus Blainville) winter on vegetated steep, south-facing slopes or windswept ridges. Mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, grizzly bear and black use alpine krummholz and meadow habitats during the summer and fall. Other species known to use alpine habitats include ground squirrels, large carnivores and a variety of birds.

6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Grassland Species Autecology and Perturbation Response The autecology of selected plant species known to occur in the Upper Elk River valley is provided in Appendix C. A list of the plant species known to occur within the grassland ecosystems of the Upper Elk River valley is provided in Appendix A. The information provided was obtained from Hardy BBT Limited (1989) and the Fire Effects Information Service (2003). Autecological information was not available for all the species known to occur in the grassland ecosystems of the Elk River and Fording River valley drainages; however, information was available for the most important species. All of the plants listed in Appendix B are perennials. The majority of the plants have low nutrient demands but drought tolerance is highly variable. Many of the shrubs have low relative growth rates and are limited in their ability to colonize gaps or spaces when available. Most the woody species are only able to colonize disturbances via sexual reproduction. Herbaceous species such as common yarrow (Achillea millefolium L), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana Duchesne) and alpine pussy toes (Antennaria alpina [L.] Gaertn.) are able to exploit disturbance gaps when in close proximity.

0305-5330005 - 10 - March 2005


Sexual reproduction is common for most species but important grass species such as rough fescue are known to be inconsistent seed producers and so do not respond favourably to disturbance. Seed production is often episodic at high elevations (Gayton 2003b). Seed dispersal is short (< 5m) for most of the species listed; therefore, the ability of donor populations to colonize disturbance patch interiors is limited. The seed banking capability of many of the species is unknown. Depending on the severity of disturbance (i.e., primary versus secondary), propagules such as tillers and seeds may persist and become early seral dominants. Plant response to grazing varies between species. Several of the graminoids and some the forbs and shrubs are important forage species. Therefore, grazers and browsers have an important impact on the reproductive success of several of these species. In the presence of high grazing pressure, selection will favour the less palatable species. For example, species such as rough fescue (Cory 2003) and Idaho fescue (Harrison 2003) are late seral or climax species that are slow-growing, produce seeds only sporadically and do not tolerate heavy ungulate grazing whereas species such as common yarrow and wild strawberry respond effectively to grazing pressure and reproduce vegetatively.

6.2 Vegetation – Environment Relationships Grasslands within the ESSF are associated with south-facing slopes or ridge crests. In the subalpine parklands that occur at higher elevations, the landscape is dotted with scattered islands of fir trees mixed with areas of heath, meadow and grassland (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1998b). However, aspect or topographic influences alone cannot explain the complex occurrence of grasslands in mountainous areas. Shallow depth to lithic contact (Daubenmire 1968, Peet 1981), high winds (Root and Habeck 1972) and fire history (Pitt and Hooper 1994) are important determinants of montane grassland distribution. Vegetation environment relationships were examined within the study area using the unpublished data. The preliminary results of the canonical correlation analysis revealed that the vegetation within the study area is controlled by three dominant variables (Figure 3). The biplot superimposes color-themed sample plot distributions (biogeoclimatic subzones) over the first two axes in multidimensional space and relates the distribution of the samples to three environmental variables. Intra-set correlations of vegetation and environmental variables showed that altitude (R = 0.95 on axis 1), slope (R = 0.86 on axis 2) and surface substrate (R = 0.76 on axis 3) were the main discriminating environmental variables sampled. Aspect was only a secondary discriminating variable because most of samples were derived from ecosystems on southeast- to southwest-aspects.

0305-5330005 - 11 - March 2005


Figure 3 Canonical Correlation Biplot

BE1

BE2 BE3

BE4

BE7BE9BR39

BR47

BR59CN15

CN5

CR1

CR20

CR22

CR4

CR5

CR8

FE37

FE65

FE66FE67

FE68

FE69

FE70

FE71

FE74

FE81FG21

FG37

FG42

FG48

FG49

FG71

HR1

TN54

TN55

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

WS22

WS27

WS29

Altitude

Slope

Surface

Axis 1

Axis 2 Biogeoclimatic Zone

ESSFdk

ESSFdkw

ESSFdkp

ATun

6.3 Grassland Phytosociology 6.3.1 Plant Community Type Classification Three plant community types were classified based on 43 samples collected as part of previous studies. The studies are listed in Table 1. Representative pictures are provided in Photograph 1 to Photograph 3. The classification dendrogram is illustrated on Figure 4. The plant communities are similar to the grasslands described by TAESCO (1985a), Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations (1996) and Smyth et al. (1999). The Western Needlegrass/Pinegrass – White Thistle Community Type (CT1) is the most common of the three types sampled and occurs in all of the ESSFdk subzones. Aspects range from southeast to west. This type occurs on a variety of slope angles and mesoslope positions. Ecological moisture regime ranges from dry (xeric) to fresh (mesic) while soil nutrient regime ranges from very poor (oligotrophic) to medium (mesotrophic). Soils are derived from carbonaceous shales and sandstones and are typically well drained. Western needlegrass (Stipa occidentalis Thurb.), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens Buckl.) are the dominant grasses while white thistle (Cirsium hookerianum Nutt.), Holboell’s rockcress (Arabis holboellii Hornem.) and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggars). Sidewalk moss (Tortula ruralis Hedw.Gaertn., Meyer and

0305-5330005 - 12 - March 2005


Scherb), and awned hair-cap moss (Polytrichum piliferum Hedw.) are the prominent bryophytes. The seral stages are highly variable in species composition. The Rough Fescue/Dunhead Sedge – Diverse-leaved Community Type (CT2) occurs on moderate slopes and mid-slope to crest mesoslope positions. Aspects range from southeast to southwest. This type typically occurs in the ESSFdkp subzone and occasionally in the ESSFdkw subzone and AT zone. Ecological moisture regime ranges from dry (xeric) to moderately fresh (submesic) while soil nutrient regime ranges from poor (submesotrophic) to medium (mesotrophic). Parent materials are colluvial carbonaceous shales and sandstones. The soils are typically fine-textured, contain a lower percentage of rocks and are moderately pervious. Rough fescue and dunhead sedge are the dominant graminoids while diverse-leaved potentilla, alpine forget-me-not (Myosotis sylvatica Hoff.) and alpine pussy toes are the common forbs. Sidewalk moss (Tortula ruralis Hedw. Gaertn. Meyer and Scherb) is the prominent bryophyte. The seral stage is maturing edaphic climax or edaphic climax. The Idaho Fescue/Rocky Mountain Fescue – Parry’s Campion Community Type (CT3) occurs on moderately steep southwest-facing slopes. This community type occurs primarily within the ESSFdk subzone. The soils are well drained. The ecological moisture regime ranges from very dry (very xeric) to moderately dry (subxeric). Soil nutrient regime ranges from poor (submesotrophic) to medium (mesotrophic). The dominant grass species are Idaho fescue, Rocky Mountain fescue and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda Vasey). The forbs present include Parry’s campion (Silene parryi L.), common yarrow, round-leaf alum root (Heuchera cylindrica Dougl.), compact selaginella (Selaginella densa Rydb.), and stonecrop (Sedum lanceolatum Torr.). Shrubs such as (Shepherdia canadensis [L.] Nutt.) and bearberry are present at lower elevations. TAESCO (1985a) considered this ecosystem to represent a young seral stage maintained by fire. Total cover is highest in Rough Fescue/Dunhead Sedge – Diverse-leaved Community Type (CT2) and lowest in the Idaho Fescue/Rocky Mountain Fescue – Parry’s Campion Community Type (CT3) (Figure 5). Species richness is highest in the Idaho Fescue/Rocky Mountain Fescue – Parry’s Campion Community Type (CT3) (Figure 6) Calculation of the Shannon’s Diversity index revealed that the plant community types are similar in terms of species richness and distribution of abundance (Figure 7). Evenness was also similar between the three plant communities (Figure 8). The Western Needlegrass/Pinegrass – White Thistle Community Type (CT1) tends to have species that dominate the plant community more than the other two plant communities described.

0305-5330005 - 13 - March 2005


Photograph 1 AT grassland

Photograph. 2

ESSFdkp Grassland

0305-5330005 - 14 - March 2005


Photograph 3 ESSFdk Grassland

0305-5330005 - 15 - March 2005


Figure 4 Cluster Analysis Dendrogram.

Distance (Objective Function)

Information Remaining (%)

1.5E+01

100

5.2E+03

75

1E+04

50

1.6E+04

25

2.1E+04

0

BE1 BE3 BE2 BE4 TS1 TS2 TS3 BE7 FE70 FG49 BR39 FG71 BR47 FE74 FG37 FE37 FG42 BR59 CN15 CN5 HR1 CR4 CR1 CR20 WS27 WS29 FE68 CR22 CR5 CR8 WS22 BE9 FE65 FE66 FE71 FE69 TN54 FE81 FG21 FE67 TN55 FG48 TS4

Community Type CT1 CT2 CT3

0305-5330005 - 16 - March 2005


Figure 5 Mean Percent Total Cover Comparison Between Plant Community Types

CT1 CT2 CT3Community Type

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mea

n T o

tal P

erce

nt C

o ver

Figure 6 Mean Species Richness Comparison Between Plant Community Types


0

10

20

30

40

50

Mea

n Sp

ecie

s R

ichn

ess

0305-5330005 - 17 - March 2005


Figure 7 Shannon’s Diversity Index Comparison Between Plant Community Types


0

1

2

3

4

5

Shan

n ons

Div

ersi

ty H

Figure 8

Evenness Index Comparison Between Plant Community Types


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Even

ness

J

0305-5330005 - 18 - March 2005


6.3.2 Plant Community Type / Site Series Comparison The plant community types were compared to the current high-elevation ecosystem units proposed by the provincial ecologists (MRSM 2003). None of the site series currently listed for the southeast part of the province (formerly the Nelson Forest Region) are appropriate. However, the ecosystem classification for this part of the province is being revised (MacKenzie 2005), so new units may be available when the revisions are complete. Grasslands that occur within the lower elevation ESSFdk subzone were assigned to the graminoid structural stage of the Fd – Douglas Maple – Soopolallie (DM) site series. Grasslands within the ESSFdkw were best assigned to the graminoid structural stage of the Pa – Common Juniper (PJ) non-correlated unit while grasslands within the ESSFdkp subzone best fit the graminoid structural stage of the non-correlated Pa – Subalpine Fir (WF) unit.

6.4 Grassland Ecosystem Responses to Perturbation and Forest Ingress Forest encroachment is considered a major threat to grasslands, particularly at lower elevations (Kirby and Campbell 1999). Encroachment is defined as the establishment of trees on grasslands that were not recently forested (Parminter and Daigle 1997, Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia 2003a). While vegetation dynamics and disturbance regimes are unique, there are some commonalities in the successional dynamics between low elevation and high elevation grassland – forest interactions. Several disturbance types can initiate change in species composition and structure within subalpine forests, meadows and grasslands. Fire is an important disturbance type at high elevations (Agee and Smith 1984, Arno 2001) and the disturbance type most often cited as a causative agent. TAESCO (1985b) reported evidence of fire in some of their high elevation grassland plots on Mount Banner but, overall, evidence of fire influences on grasslands dynamics is limited in the data set available for the present study. Extended periods of low growing season moisture levels also result in conifer ingress into meadows and semi-arid grasslands, particularly at lower timberline (Franklin et al. 1971, Dunwiddie 1977). Peet (2000) has suggested that high grazing pressure is also and important factor. Uprooting and blowdown of subalpine trees by wind is also a major natural disturbance factor (Veblen et al. 1989). Partial cutting of spruce-fir forest that exposes remaining old trees to new wind stresses exacerbates blowdown or windthrow problems. Logging operations may also contribute to outbreaks of spruce beetles if downed trees are left on site or decked for periods of time since these insects prefer downed trees.

0305-5330005 - 19 - March 2005


Woody species (deciduous and coniferous) seedling recruitment is a critical stage in the succession of grassland to woodlands. The presence of a dense herbaceous layer may limit the establishment of seedlings of woody species that in turn may change the successional dynamics, limiting forest regeneration (Magee and Antos 1992). Peet (2000) suggested that the limited ability of woody plants to invade established mountain grassland swards helps maintain these ecosystems. Recruitment of woody species into herbaceous stands is dependent upon the presence of small gaps or biological space (Eagan et al. 2004). Vandik (2004) further suggested that gap size is not only important for initial colonization but also for species persistence in subalpine grasslands (Vandik 2004). As well, proximity to donor populations along the grassland-tree boundary is also and important variable determining seedling establishment (Wearne and Morgan 2001). Additional factors affecting woody species ingress include resource soil infertility, low relative growth rates, competition, seed predation and herbivory (Arno and Hammerly 1984, Pecháčková et al. 2003). The growth rates of the colonist species relative to the established species is especially important. Stahelin (1943) suggested that the slow recovery of coniferous species from disturbance is important in the maintenance of subalpine meadows and grasslands. No evidence of ingress by coniferous species into subalpine grasslands was recorded in the studies reviewed. Smyth and Kovach (2002) reported that ingress by native herbaceous species was high on exploration disturbances in the ESSFdkw and ESSFdkp after 20 years but woody species encroachment was minimal (Smyth and Kovach 2002).

6.5 Wildlife (Invertebrates and Vertebrates) Habitat Interactions

No invertebrate studies have been conducted within the study area. The wildlife known to inhabit the grasslands for at part of the year are listed in Appendix D. 6.5.1 Ungulates Elk Elk as a species are capable of utilizing a wide variety of habitats and therefore are widely distributed within the Elk and Fording River drainages. South-facing windswept grassland slopes at higher elevations and pioneer seral shrublands provide important winter range habitat in the study area (BC Research 1977, Kaiser Resources Limited 1981b, NORECOL 1983, 1990, Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations 1996, Smyth et al. 2003). Summer range is very extensive and consists of subalpine basins and avalanche chutes and floodplains. Fall and spring ranges for elk occur mainly on southerly and westerly facing slopes with nutritious forage. Grassland ecosystems on Mount Michael, Todhunter Ridge, Imperial Ridge, Castle Mountain, Turnbull Mountain

0305-5330005 - 20 - March 2005


and Henretta Ridge all provide important elk winter range habitat. Demarchi (1986) rated these areas as moderate to high elk winter and spring range capability. Ratings of moderate to high for grasslands are due to their open, exposed nature, southern aspect, steep slope and palatable forage species. Within the study area, elk from the lower Elk Valley winter ranges move to summer ranges in the vicinity of the Greenhills Range or move further along the Fording River Valley to eventually summer in the high elevation grasslands and meadows on Mount Tuxford. Mule Deer Mule deer are widely distributed and migratory within the area (BC Research 1977, Kaiser Resources Limited 1981b, NORECOL 1983, Smyth et al. 1999). Winter range traditionally consists of pioneer seral shrublands or forested areas with broken or steep terrain. Summer range consists of open montane forested habitats and subalpine or alpine north to east facing slopes. Spring and fall ranges occur mainly at mid-elevations to high-elevations in open shrublands on south and west-facing slopes. Grasslands are used more heavily when associated with shrublands. The west slopes of the Greenhills Range and Henretta Ridge are examples of these types of habitat associations. Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep use grasslands or alpine meadows and ridges with adjacent cliffs or rocky habitats as habitat. Rocky habitats are used as escape terrain (Demarchi 1986). Winter ranges include early seral stage habitats at low elevation on south-facing slopes with steep rocky habitats nearby, exposed south-facing grassland slopes at mid-elevations or wind swept, south-facing slopes at high elevations but move down into the subalpine forests for the summer and fall periods (NORECOL 1983, TAESCO 1985b, NORECOL 1990). Summer habitat consists of grass/forb and shrub communities in the alpine and subalpine and is typically close to winter range habitat. The Mount Banner / Ewin Ridge (Schuerholz 1982) and portions of the Turnbull Mountain (NORECOL 1983) and Henretta Ridge (NORECOL 1990) provide important winter range habitat. 6.5.2 Bears Black bear and grizzly bear are known to utilize upper elevations throughout the study area (BC Research 1977, Kaiser Resources Limited 1981b, NORECOL 1983, TAESCO 1985b, Smyth and Poriz 1999a, Smyth et al. 2003a, 2003b). Grizzly bears, in particular, are attracted to slide areas in the spring, to alpine sites with an abundance of herbaceous plants and to habitats that contain small mammals. Habitats that contain good berry crops are important in the fall (Kaiser Resources Limited 1981a, Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations 1996) are frequently in close proximity to grassland habitats. Bear diggings have been recorded in several high elevation grassland stands (Fording Coal

0305-5330005 - 21 - March 2005


Limited – Greenhills Operations 1996, Smyth 2000, Smyth and Paton 2001). Frequently, these bear digging sites are associated with the PaBl (WF) site series of the ESSFdkp. 6.5.3 Birds Based on a summary of the studies completed in the Elk and Fording River valleys (e.g., Fraser 1983, TAESCO 1985d, Saunders 1995, Smyth et al. 1999, Smyth and Paton 2003b, Smyth 2004). Bird communities found within high-elevation grasslands and the adjacent communities vary in composition depending on vegetation floristics and structure (e.g., alpine grasslands versus subalpine parkland meadows. In the grasslands that are dominated by grasses and shrubs such as buffaloberry, willows (Salix spp.) and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), the avifauna present include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos Linnaeus), mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides Bechstein), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri Gmelin), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus Say), white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus Richardson), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus Gmelin), American robin (Turdus migratorius Linnaeus), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina Bechstein), and fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca Merrem). Saunders (1995) also found yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata Linnaeus), orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata Say), and dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis Linnaeus) to be using these grasslands in the fall. Krummolz habitats, while having similar representative species as the adjacent grasslands, also contain common raven (Corvus corax Linnaeus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus Vieillot). Other adjacent coniferous communities contain Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana Wilson), pine siskin (Carduelis pinus Wilson), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa Lichtenstein), Townsend’s solitaire (Myadestes townsendi Audubon), yellow-rumped warbler, northern flicker (Colaptes auratus Linnaeus), and MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei Townsend) (Fraser 1983, NORECOL 1983, TAESCO 1985d, Saunders 1995, Smyth 2004, Smyth et al. 1999, Smyth and Paton 2003b, Smyth et al. 2003b). 6.5.4 Butterflies The literature review conducted revealed that there is an overall lack of literature/reports/research on butterflies in the Elk and Fording River valleys. Historically, the majority of butterfly research in British Columbia has focused on the west coast of British Columbia (Shepard 2000). The southeast portion of British Columbia has been identified as an area of butterfly conservation interest by Kondla (2000). The butterfly species list for the study area was compiled primarily through the examination of the distribution maps and habitat descriptions found within Scudder and Smith (1999) and Guppy and Shepard (2001). Inclusion of individual species within the study was not assumed based on the “range” of sightings; instead only actual sightings within the area were included. Therefore, due the lack of historical surveys in the region,

0305-5330005 - 22 - March 2005


it is possible that certain individuals may not be included in the attached species list. Conducting a field sampling program would “calibrate” the species list. Species names and status rankings were taken from both Guppy and Shepard (2001) and the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre’s BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer (2003). The listed larval food plants were derived from Guppy and Shepard (2001). Appendix E lists the butterfly species potentially present.

6.6 Grassland Ecosystem Mapping The study area is mapped at a scale of 1:50,000 and plotted on 25 individual map sheets (Appendix F). The preliminary grassland mapping process resulted in the creation of 613 grassland or grassland/shrubland/herb polygons (Table 2). The process is considered preliminary because air photo coverage was incomplete and because polygon attribution was based on inadequate ground-truthing. The total area of high elevation grasslands is estimated to be 4,792.13 ha with a mean polygon size of 7.82 ha ± 9.94 standard deviations. Polygons range in size from 0.2 to 98.2 ha. The number of grassland polygons is considered an over estimate because contiguous grasslands were subdivided by biogeoclimatic subzones lines and bioterrain units as part of the mapping process. The actual number of grassland elements within the study area landscape is closer to 300+ polygons. The mapped grasslands are associated primarily with steep (>25%) south- or southwest-facing aspects, although some of the grasslands in the alpine biogeoclimatic subzone are associated with more gentle slopes. The south-facing aspects within the ESSF subzones include broad open slopes as well as narrow linear landscape elements such as the south-facing aspects of draws and avalanche slopes. As well, some of the map units, particularly those on the west slopes of Greenhills Range, extend from the ESSFdkw subzone into the MSdk. Due to topographic features, these polygons tend to be funnel shaped. The Fd – Douglas maple – Soopolallie (DM) ecosystem was the most common ESSFdk site series assigned to the ESSFdk polygons, while the Pa – Common Juniper (PJ) was the common site series in the ESSFdkw and the PaBl (WF) was the common site series in the ESSFdkp subzone. Very few alpine grasslands were mapped because of the apparent limited number of these ecosystems within the study area. Due to the mapping scale used, the majority of the grassland polygons were mapped as complex units; grassland stands were combined most frequently with shrub stands containing trees and secondarily with herb meadows. A minimum decile value of 10% was used for the complex map units.

0305-5330005 - 23 - March 2005


Table 2

Grasslands mapped as sensitive ecosystems.

Bio

geoc

limat

ic Z

one

(sub

zone

)

Site Series

Sens

itive

Eco

syst

ems

Cla

sses

*

Num

ber

of P

olyg

ons

Tot

al A

rea

(ha)

Mea

n A

rea

(ha)

Ran

ge in

Siz

e (h

a)

MS dk Saskatoon – Bluebunch Wheatgrass (SW) GR:ss GR:sh HB 8 24.37 3.05 0.74 to 6.82 GR:ss 9 37.09 4.12 0.20 to 13.23 GR:ss HB 16 89.45 5.59 0.80 to 25.81 GR:ss GR:sh 20 105.30 5.27 0.83 to 14.02 GR:ss GR:sh HB 68 591.64 8.70 0.87 to 55.11 GR:ss HB GR:sh 54 457.25 8.47 0.63 to 98.15 HB GR:ss GR:sh 30 171.20 5.71 1.17 to 21.83

Fd – Douglas Maple – Soopolallie (DM)

GR:ss GR:sh SVgr 9 57.69 7.03 1.41 to 19.24 Subalpine Fir – Englemann Spruce (SE) HB GR:sh GR:ss 10 75.17 7.52 1.57 to 35.26

ESSF dk

Pa – Subalpine Fir (WF) GR:ss HB GR:sh 8 53.80 6.72 2.65 to 16.06 Bl – Englemann Spruce (FS) HB Gr:sh GR:ss 2 3.12 – 1.44 to 1.68 Bl Grouseberry (FG) HB Gr:sh GR:ss 2 73.96 – 19.32 to

54.64 GR:ss GR:sh 7 24.13 3.45 1.14 to 9.76 GR:ss GR:sh HB 37 279.25 7.55 0.62 to 46.19 GR:sh GR:ss HB 20 74.30 3.72 0.75 to 17.05 GR:ss HB GR:sh 55 370.49 6.74 0.47 to 53.40 HB GR:ss GR:sh 41 303.01 7.39 0.50 to 75.59 GR:sh GR:ss SV:gr 30 215.22 7.17 1.24 to 36.63 GR:sh GR:ss SV:cl 19 233.80 12.31 1.46 to 41.34

Pa – Common Juniper (PJ)

GR:ss SV:ro 5 55.20 11.04 3.35 to 18.53 Yellow Mountain Heather – Wooly Pussytoes (YW) GR:ss 1 1.14 – –

GR:ss HB SV:cl 3 29.84 9.95 4.58 to 18.92

ESSF dkw

Western Pasqueflower – Sitka Valerian (PV) HB GR:sh GR:ss 3 6.05 2.02 1.65 to 2.56 GR:sh HB GR:ss 19 125.99 6.63 0.74 to 27.27 GR:ss GR:sh HB 8 148.75 18.59 5.90 to 39.03 GR:sh GR:ss SV:cl/ro 10 94.22 9.42 1.91 to 28.84

Mountain Avens – Snow Willow (AW)

GR:sh GR:ss SV:gr 5 32.27 6.45 3.22 to 11.20 Subalpine Fir – Engelmann Spruce (FS) HB GR:sh GR:ss 4 17.53 4.38 2.18 to 6.37

GR:sh GR:ss HB 11 139.91 12.72 2.12 to 76.47 HB GR:sh GR:ss 15 64.55 4.30 0.87 to 14.10 GR:ss SV:gr 9 57.50 6.39 1.48 to 22.50

ESSF dkp

PaBl (WF)

GR:ss GR:sh SV:cl/ro 26 327.93 12.61 2.43 to 30.16 AP GR:ss 2 16.88 – 4.69 to 12.18 AT un Mountain Avens – Dwarf Willow (AW) GR:ss 3 27.75 9.25 4.12 to 13.31

* Sensitive ecosystem codes are ordered from right to left in increasing proportion. Key: GRss – grassland, GR:sh – shrubland, HB – herb, SV:cl/ro – sparse vegetation - cliff/rock outcrop, SVgr – sparsely vegetated shallow soil.

A total of 64 grassland polygons are, or potentially will be, affected by industrial activities in the upper Elk River and Fording River valleys (Table 3). Mining affects or potentially affects 325.51 ha of grasslands while existing clear cuts affect or potentially affect 39.37 ha. Approved or proposed forest harvesting activities will potentially affect

0305-5330005 - 24 - March 2005


224.85 ha of grasslands in the future. The ecological health of these ecosystems may be affected directly through physical disturbance or indirectly through increased access to grazing species and/or recreational users or through increased weedy species invasion. For example, forestry and mine exploration roads in the area provide linkages between forested ecosystems and open habitats such as grasslands while weedy species are present along road verges in the area. Many of the grasslands are small and interspersed among forest patches and may be susceptible to ingress by forest species.

Table 3 Grasslands affected by industrial activities.

Polygons

Forestry Cutblock Mapsheet

Existing Approved Proposed Mining Disturbance

F-1 – – – – F-2 – – – – F-3 – – – – F-4 – – – – F-5 – – – – F-6 – – – – F-7 – – – – F-8 – – – –

F-9 27 – 26 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 113, 146, 147, 333, 334, 528

F-10 – – – –

F-11 75, 76, 77, 192, 223, 613 – – –

F-12 – – 81, 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 372, 380, 381, 382, 546, 547

–

F-13 – – – –

F-14 78, 420 – –

156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399

F-15 – – – – F-16 – – – –

F-17 – 486, 487 – 277, 453, 454, 455, 465, 457, 459, 579, 581, 591

F-18 – – – – F-19 – – – – F-20 – – – – F-21 – – – – F-22 – – – – F-23 – – – – F-24 – – – – F-25 – – – –

Total Number 9 2 12 41 Total Area 39.37 13.01 211.84 325.51

6.7 Species At Risk Element Occurrences and Ecosystem Conservation Status

6.7.1 Plants Two vulnerable species, Wyoming besseya (Besseya wyomingensis A. Nels.) [G5 S2S3 Blue] and Bourgeau’s milkvetch (Astragalus bourgovii Gray) [G5 S3 Red] are present in

0305-5330005 - 25 - March 2005


the study area. Wyoming besseya occurs in upper elevation grasslands while Bourgeau’s milkvetch occurs on mesic to submesic ridges in subalpine meadows often in at the fringe of grassland habitats. Vulnerable species potentially present include bent-flowered milkvetch (Astragalus vexilliflexus var. vexilliflexus Barneby) [G4TNR S2S3] and elk thistle (Cirsium scariosum Nutt.) [G5 S2]. Wyoming besseya is an obligate grassland species while bent-flowered milkvetch and elk thistle are facultative grassland species. 6.7.2 Wildlife Four vulnerable species have been recorded within the study area and potentially use grassland habitats within the study area: American badger (Taxidea taxus Schreber) [G5 S1], Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii Bonaparte) [G5 S2BS2N Red], bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw) [G4 S2S3 Blue], and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus) [G4 S3 Blue]. Wolverine (Gulo gulo Linnaeus) [G4T4 S3 Blue] may be present based on habitat descriptions. Bighorn sheep are thought to be the only obligate high elevation grassland species listed. 6.7.3 Conservation Status Based on RISC (2005) criteria, the grasslands within the study area may be classified as rare or uncommon (21-100 occurrences) or frequent to common (> 100 occurrences). An element occurrence ranking and assessment of viability (RISC 2005) was not performed because the results of the process would have been arbitrary due to inadequate field data. However, based on the ecological integrity assessment components of landscape context, size and condition, many of the elements would be considered sensitive due to landscape pattern, connectivity, patch size and patch shape. Within a landscape ecology context, many of the grassland patches are small, linear elements embedded within a forested matrix. Most of the grasslands mapped would be considered in good condition but several (see Table 3) would be considered marginal or poor. Knowledge of the impacts of resource extraction industries on high elevation grasslands is well documented for the mining industry, is limited for the forest industry but is poorly documented for recreational users. All of these users have a potential impact on the viability and conservation status of the high elevation grassland ecosystems.

7.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM DESIGN An environmental baseline is important in determining the ecological health and loss of grassland habitats (Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia 2003b). The following text describes a proposed baseline and monitoring program for high elevations in the Elk and Fording River valleys.

0305-5330005 - 26 - March 2005


7.1 Vegetation There are three objectives for the proposed vegetation sampling program:

• to develop a more accurate classification of the ecosystems; • to increase the level of understanding of the ecology of the grassland ecosystems

in the study area; • to fill in the gaps in the spatial distribution of grassland units within the study area

and to the improve the map polygon attribute information accuracy of the maps; • to provide adequate information for a proper conservation assessment of the

grasslands in the area; and • to provide habitat information for the butterfly sampling program and other

wildlife species. The majority of the current high-elevation grassland data is limited to areas around existing or proposed mining activities. Further sampling is required in non-mining affected areas. Stratification of sampling should be based on (1) biogeoclimatic subzone, (2) topoedaphic features (slope, aspect and parent materials), (3) polygon attributes (size, shape, connectivity or isolation), (4) distribution within study area, (5) potential plant species composition and structure within the polygon and (6) proximity to industrial disturbances. Potential species composition and vegetation structure are important criteria in the sampling program design because these attributes are thought to be important determinants of butterfly habitat use. The table provided in Appendix E will be used for this purpose. Several locations appear to be candidates for an expanded sampling program: (1) Mount Domke (2) Erickson Ridge, (3) Mount Salter, (4) Mount Banner (i.e., Long Ridge, Pine Ridge and Wilson Ridge) (5) Imperial Ridge, (6) Todhunter Ridge, (7) Chauncey Creek (Bare Mountain), (8) Castle Mountain, (9) Mount Tuxford, (10) Weary Ridge, (11) Mount Bleasdale and (12) Mount Shankland. Additional areas on the west side of the Elk River valley associated with drainages such as Cummings Creek, Nordstrum Creek, Weigert Creek and Brule Creek and areas south of Highway 3 on Sparwood Ridge should be incorporated into the proposed sampling program if future air photo interpretation reveals these areas contain high elevation grasslands. Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RIC) protocols for Standard Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) are proposed for both the increased understanding of the grassland ecology in the area and improved grassland map reliability and accuracy.

0305-5330005 - 27 - March 2005


Based on the 613 polygons mapped currently and map polygon revisions as a result of further air photo interpretation, a survey intensity level 4 sampling program with a 15% to 25% polygon inspection rate and a ratio of 5 full, 25 ground inspections (GIFs) and 75 visual inspections (Visuals) would be required to complete the TEM/sensitive ecosystem mapping process (RIC 1998, RISC 2005). Unlike a typical TEM mapping study, the additional criteria of polygon attributes (size, shape and connectivity/isolation), proximity to disturbances and butterfly habitat requirements would be used in the selection process. As well, a greater number of full plots would be required to better describe ecosystem – environment relationships. A minimum number of three replicates is proposed as part of each factor in the sampling design (e.g., polygon size/shape, parent material, etc.). Each of the locations (mountains and ridges) identified previously as potential sample sites contain multiple polygons in which data could be collected. A matrix of criteria and polygons would be developed as part of the work plan for the sampling program. The matrix is not provided here because the complete number of polygons present in the study area has yet to be determined through air photo interpretation and permission to re-locate many of the existing sample plots has not been obtained. Sample transects will be located subjectively within homogeneous areas. Ocular estimation of percent cover, percent seed head production, plant vigour, percent grazing or browse utilisation and plant vigour will be collected at each full and GIF sample site. A thirty metre transect will be established parallel to the slope angle. Each transect will be assigned a unique hyphenated, alphanumeric code that consisting of a two-letter abbreviation for the mountain or ridge followed by a two-digit replicate number. Herbaceous vegetation will be sampled within 10 microplots placed systematically (2m intervals) along each transects. At each microplot location, a 20cm by 50cm microplot or Daubenmire sample frame (Daubenmire 1959) will be used for collecting percent cover data for grasses and forbs. Line intercept sampling will be used along the transect to obtain percent cover data for shrubs (Bonham 1989) while a 10m by 10m or larger macroplot will be used to estimate tree cover. If the sites are made part of a monitoring program, transect ends will be marked with metal pins to facilitate future re-location. Environmental data, e.g., transect number, date, northing, easting, longitude, elevation (m), aspect (o), slope (%), macro-slope and meso-slope position, ecological moisture and nutrient regime, successional status and structural stage, surface substrate (bedrock, rocks, mineral soil, wood, organic matter and water), litter layer depth, exposure, flooding hazard, soil drainage and perviousness, will be recorded as well. Soil profile data will be collected only at the full sample locations. Each site or polygon will be assessed qualitatively for ecosystem health and ecological integrity using criteria such as increaser-decreaser cover and weed species presence, forest species ingress and wildlife habitat use. The criteria will be applied to the within-polygon habitat as well as to the surrounding polygon in-context.

0305-5330005 - 28 - March 2005


The data collected will be subjected to a quality assurance/quality control review and entered into VENUS 5.0. The data will be combined with previous data and exported to MS-Excel and classified using cluster analysis and indicator species analysis. Categorical data such as ecosystem health and ecological integrity will be summarized in tabular or graphical format. Several diversity indices will be calculated as well. The grassland – forest interface will be explored qualitatively by assessing each sample location (polygon) for forest ingress related to forest operability line or forest edges. If the preliminary assessment reveals issues related to ingress into the grasslands by trees, transects will be established in forest–grassland ecotones as part of future studies. Although not part of the proposed sampling program objectives, existing and proposed sample plots could be combined to develop a long-term monitoring program. Gayton (2003b) provided and excellent summary of grassland vegetation monitoring. Repeat photography based on the procedures outlined by Hall (2001) will be undertaken to augment the transect sampling. A series of photographs will be taken from permanently marked photopoints at each transect. A digital camera with a standard 50 mm lens setting will be used and the photographs archived for future monitoring.

7.2 Wildlife 7.2.1 Butterfly Sampling Program The goal of the butterfly sampling program for the high elevation grasslands of the upper Elk River valley will be to list the butterfly species present in these ecosystems and document butterfly species richness. Richness is considered a valuable index for incorporating native species “values” into land-use planning (Treweek 1999). Species richness data especially relevant when data and resources for detailed studies are limited. In such instances, planners must rely upon dependable first principles that relate available or easily measured data to the biological phenomena of interest, as provided by indices like species richness (Hanski 1999 and Hobbs 1999 cited in Fleishman et al. 2000). The most cited references for butterfly sampling methods include both Pollard (1977) and Pollard and Yates (1993). The Pollard-Yates method is very similar to line transect sampling (Buckland et al. 1993) but survey lines are placed subjectively by the observer rather than using a randomized design. The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (BMS) uses the sampling method developed by Pollard and Yates (1993). In addition to richness estimates, the Pollard-Yates index does provide a relative measure of abundance but the vegetation characteristics of the sites being compared need to be considered due to site-detectability issues (Brown and Boyce 1998). If unbiased estimates of relative abundance or density, regardless of vegetation structure, are deemed necessary, the program would have to be modified. Brown and Boyce (1998) modified the Pollard-Yates method to allow for an unbiased estimate of local site-densities by using distance sampling methods (Buckland et al. 1993). This included a stratified sampling design

0305-5330005 - 29 - March 2005


with line transects assigned randomly. However, for this proposed sampling program Brown and Boyce’s (1998) method will not be used since the goal is to record species presence and counts and sampling occurs in areas of similar vegetation structure. The sampling program proposed involves the stratification of the various grassland ecosystems based on the factors described in Section 7.1 of this report. This method of stratification was originally suggested by Thomas (1983) as a modification of the Pollard-Yates method (Pollard and Yates 1993). Based on the proposed sampling system described in the vegetation sampling section above, a subset of ecosystem types would be selected for sampling that covers the environmental and ecological variability within the high elevation grasslands of the study area. To ensure that most larval food plants are included within the classification scheme, sites selected for surveys would need to be corrected based on the plant community structure. Surveys would be completed at predetermined intervals during the summer so that the flight season of the majority of the species would be encompassed (to be determined). Surveys would have to be limited to weather conditions that are favourable for flight (i.e., no rain, wind gusts). Within each selected polygon, transects would be walked at a constant pace and the presence of all butterfly species seen would be recorded. The survey would be designed such that the sampling effort would be equal per unit area. These standard techniques for surveying butterflies would reliably detect species presence and permit assessment of distributional trends across space and time (MacNally et al. 2003). Following compilation of all survey results, the data would be analysed to examine species diversity relationships between the various factors used to describe the high elevation grasslands within the study area. Diversity indices appropriate for the data will be calculated. 7.2.2 Vertebrates (Mammals and Birds) Sampling Program Appendix G provides a summary of inventory methods described by the Resource Inventory (RIC) and Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) and the British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MRSM) for mammal and bird species found in the Elk River valley study area. For the purposes of this report, inventory methods are described for only presence/not detected (possible) surveys. The objective of these surveys will be to determine whether a species is present and to describe species diversity within the study area. Presence/not detected surveys do not provide an indication of abundance or yield data of statistical value unless they are replicated (Southwood and Henderson 2000). For most of the surveys mentioned in Appendix G, there are similar procedures that need to be undertaken during the preliminary set-up of the surveys, including reviewing the appropriate RISC methods. All inventory methods assume an initial review and

0305-5330005 - 30 - March 2005


understanding of the Species Inventory Fundamentals Version 2.0 (MELP 1998a). Spatial information is crucial for all methods and consequently all appropriate maps for the project area (e.g., 1:50,000 air photo maps, 1:20,000 forest cover maps, 1:20,000 TRIM maps, 1:50,000 NTS topographic maps) should be obtained. Typically, the Biogeoclimatic zones and subzones, Ecoregion, Ecosection, and Broad Ecosystem Units would be determined for the project area. In the case of this project, this has already been completed. The use of systematic sampling is recommended so that sampling effort can be replicated (MSRM 2001). Currently, only the collection of anecdotal observation for ungulate and large carnivores is proposed. If desired, more rigorous sampling such as pellet group sampling for ungulates would be applied.

8.0 SUMMARY The results of the literature and mapping exercise are summarized in point form below. The summary should be considered a preliminary assessment that requires further refinements in data collection and mapping.

• Preliminary grassland mapping resulted in the creation of 613 grassland or grassland/shrubland/herb polygons with a total area of 4,792.13 and a mean area of 7.82. Polygons range in size from 0.2 to 98.2. A total of 64 grassland polygons are, or potentially will be, affected by industrial activities in the upper Elk River and Fording River valleys. Mining affects or potentially affects 325.51 ha of grasslands while existing forest harvest affect or potentially affect 39.37 ha. Approved or proposed forest harvesting activities will potentially affect 224.85 ha of grasslands.

• Based on the review of the ecological data for the study area, none of the site

series currently listed for ESSFdk, ESSFdkw, ESSFdkp and ATun subzones in the Southeast Kootenays characterize adequately the high elevation grassland ecosystems within the study area. As well, there is limited knowledge of the variability in grassland ecosystems within the study area. Only those grasslands sampled as part of baseline studies for mining developments in the study area have been sampled. However, preliminary results suggest that the grasslands within the subalpine ESSFdk, ESSFdkw and ESSFdkp are topoedaphic climaxes, or in some cases seral grasslands, while it is uncertain what the environmental relationships and successional dynamics of grasslands are within the ATun subzone.

• Because most of the studies have been conducted in support of coal mine

development, very little sampling has been completed in grassland ecosystems associated with calcareous parent materials. The majority of the dolomite bedrock formations are on the eastern edge of the study area towards the

0305-5330005 - 31 - March 2005


Continental Divide. Grasslands that have developed on calcareous parent materials are expected to be very different floristically from those that have developed on non-calcareous parent materials. While high elevation grassland ecosystems that have developed on calcareous parent materials will not be affected directly by coal mining activities they may be affected by forest harvesting where merchantable timber is present at higher elevations. Forest harvesting may make these areas more accessible to recreational users or increase the potential for weedy species invasion. Access management and weed eradication programs may be important management tools for these activities. High country horseback use by hunters and guide outfitters may also have impacts on high elevation grasslands in the area but the impacts are not known currently.

• A review of the published literature as well as a several internet searches revealed

that there is inadequate autecological information available for several of the species present within the high elevation grasslands of the study area.

• No evidence of forest species encroachment or weedy species ingress into the

subalpine grasslands was recorded in the previous studies documented in this report. However, the studies reviewed did not have variables representing these factors as data collection requirements.

• The grasslands within the study area may be classified as rare or uncommon

(21 occurences to 100 occurrences) or frequent to common (> 100 occurrences). An element occurrence ranking and assessment of viability was not performed because the results of the process would have been arbitrary due to inadequate field data. However, based on the ecological integrity assessment components of landscape context, size and condition, many of the elements would be considered sensitive due to landscape pattern, connectivity, patch size and patch shape. Idaho Fescue and herb/grass ecosystems are relatively common within the study area but rough fescue dominated grasslands appear to be limited in their distribution. Most of the grasslands sampled are considered in good condition but several are considered marginal or poor. More fieldwork is required to assess adequately the significance of these and their susceptibility to disturbance.

• Four vulnerable wildlife species, one mustelid (American badger), one large

carnivore (grizzly bear), one raptor (Swainson’s hawk) and one ungulate (bighorn sheep) utilize grassland habitats within the study area. Two vulnerable plant species (Wyoming besseya and elk thistle), both forbs, are present or potentially present within grassland ecosystems as well.

• Little or no knowledge of butterfly occurrences has been documented for the

study area even though the southeast portion of British Columbia has been identified as an area of butterfly conservation interest.

0305-5330005 - 32 - March 2005


• Knowledge of the impacts of resource extraction industries on high elevation grasslands is well documented for the mining industry, is limited for the forest industry but is poorly documented for recreational users.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations are proposed as a result of the literature review and mapping activities.

• Further field sampling that employs the proposed stratified sampling program

should be conducted to better characterise the high elevation grassland ecosystems within the study area. Recent photography for the entire area should be obtained and interpreted to permit complete coverage of the study area. The objective should be to develop site series and seral stage descriptions relevant for grasslands in the biogeoclimatic subzones of the study area. Collection of the data would enable the more reliable mapping to be completed and would also facilitate ecological health and integrity mapping as well.

• The existing sensitive ecosystem mapping should be updated based on the

additional field sampling and improvements in polygon delineation.

• An element occurrence ranking and assessment of viability should be completed for the grasslands in the study area. Completion of the assessment would enable an evaluation of the ecological integrity of grasslands within the landscape that, when combined with the other recommendations, would permit the development of management appropriate management objectives for the study area.

• Woody forest species encroachment and weedy species ingress into subalpine

grasslands should be examined. • The field studies should document and map the geographic distribution of the

identified at risk plant and animal species.

• Research that provides autecological information for the species in the study area would be valuable in understanding the response of the individual species to disturbance. This information would also be useful for evaluating the sensitivity of these ecosystems to perturbation and assist in assigning conservation status.

• The southeast part of British Columbia has been identified as having important

butterfly conservation interest but little data has been collected for the area. Therefore, a butterfly sampling program should be undertaken.

• The mountains further to the west should be studied to provide a better

understanding of the spatial distribution and ecosystem dynamics of the high

0305-5330005 - 33 - March 2005


elevation grasslands and a more complete picture of the regional significance of these ecosystems. Although beyond the scope of the study proposed, consideration should be given to an examination of the floristic similarities of high elevation grasslands in the montane and subalpine natural subregions of southwestern Alberta with the grasslands in the upper Elk Valley. This information may be of value in understanding the origin and dynamics of the study area grasslands in the study area. Choquette (2005) suggested that the high elevation grasslands of southeastern British Columbia may be relicts or remnants of the foothills fescue ecoregion east into Alberta and therefore there may be a strong east – west affinity both floristically and ecologically.

• The impacts of the various industrial and recreational activities on high elevation

grasslands in the study area should be examined.

0305-5330005 - 34 - March 2005


10.0 REFERENCES The reference list that follows contains publications that have been cited in the report not only as part of the text but also as part of the tables and appendices. Agee, J.K. and L. Smith. (1984). Subalpine tree re-establishment after fire in the

Olympic Mountains, Washington. Ecology, 65, 3, 810-819. Arno, S.F. (2001). Community types and natural disturbance processes. Whitebark Pine

Communities, Ecology and Restoration. (D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno and R.E. Keane, Editors). Island Press, Washington DC. pp. 74-88.

Arno S.F. and R.P. Hammerly. (1984). Timberline, Mountain and Arctic Forest

Frontiers. The Mountaineers, Seattle. 304 pp. BC Research. (1977). Stage 2 Environmental Study of the Line Creek Project. Prepared

for Crows Nest Industries by BC Research, Vancouver. 205 pp. BC Research. (1980). Report on Aerial Wildlife Surveys Conducted in the Fording Coal

Area, February and April, 1980. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited by BC Research, Vancouver. 17 pp.

Bell, M.A.M. and C.R. Smyth. (1988). Native Legume Species for High Elevation

Revegetation in the Rockies of British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Science Council by the Biology Department of the University of Victoria, Research Contract Numbers 80RC-11, 80RC-13, 80RC-15. Vancouver. 261 pp.

Bonham, C.D. (1989). Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. John Wiley and Sons,

New York. 338 pp. Braumandl, T.F. and M. Curran. (Editors). (1992). A Field Guide for Site Identification

and Interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. (1996 Reprint). Research Program, Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 311 pp.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. (2004). BC Species and Ecosystems

Explorer. British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/ Accessed February 23, 2005.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (1998a). The Ecology of the Alpine Tundra Zone.

Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 5 pp.

0305-5330005 - 35 - March 2005


British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (1998b). The Ecology of the Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Zone. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 6 pp.

Brown, J.A. and M.S. Boyce. (1998). Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies

(Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 5, 81-91. Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham and J.L. Laake. (1993). Distance

Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall Publishers, London. 446 pp.

Choquette, W. (2005). Personal Communication. Consulting Archaeologist, Yahk. Cory, J. (2003). Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper, Festuca campestris Rydb. Plant

Sciences Department, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/classes/range/festuca.html. Accessed February 15, 2005.

Coupé, R. A.C. Stewart and B.M. Wikeem. (1991). Chapter 15. Engelmann Spruce –

Subalpine Fir Zone. Ecosystems of British Columbia. (D.V. Meidinger and J. Pojar, Editors). Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. pp. 223-236.

Daubenmire, R. (1959). A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest

Science, 33, 1, 43-64. Daubenmire, R. (1968). Soil moisture in relation to vegetation distribution in the

mountains of northern Idaho. Ecology, 49, 431-438. Demarchi, D.A. (1986). Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Study Area.

Wildlife. MOE Technical Report 22. Terrestrial Studies Section, Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch, Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 131 pp.

Dunwiddie, P.W. (1977). Recent tree invasion of subalpine meadows in the Wind River

Mountains, Wyoming. Arctic and Alpine Research, 9, 393-399. Eagan, S., P. Newman, S. Fritzke and L. Johnson. (2004). Subalpine meadow

restoration in Yosemite National Park. Ecological Restoration, 22, 1, 24-29. Fire Effects Information Service. (2003). Fire Effects Information. United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

0305-5330005 - 36 - March 2005


Fleishman, E., J.P. Fay and D.D. Murphy. (2000). Upsides and downsides: contrasting topographic gradients in species richness and associated scenarios for climate change. Journal of Biogeography 27, 1209 to 1219.

Forbes, B. (2005). Personal Communication. Nature Conservancy of Canada,

Cranbrook. Fording Coal Limited, Greenhills Operations. (1996). Cougar South / Main Pits and

West Spoil Development. Environmental Impact Assessment for Soils, Vegetation and Wildlife. Volume 1. Text. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited - Greenhills Operations by J.A. Poriz (Environmental Insight), C.R. Smyth (Myosotis Ecological Consulting) and C.M. Gibson, Wildlife Biologist, Blairmore. 98 pp.

Fording Coal Limited, Fording River Operations. (1996). Henretta Ridge Pit – Section

10 Permit Application. Submitted by Fording Coal Limited, May 1996. Prepared by the Environmental Department at Fording River Operations by Environmental Insight and Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Elkford. 106 pp.

Franklin, J.F., W.H. Moir, G.W. Douglas and C. Wiberg. (1971). Invasion of subalpine

meadows by trees in the Cascade Range, Washington and Oregon. Arctic and Alpine Research, 3, 215-224.

Fraser, D.F. (1983). An Annotated Checklist to the Birds of the Elk Valley – with Special

Reference to Westar Mining Property. Environmental Services, Westar Mining, Sparwood. 39 pp.

Gayton, D. (2003a). Predictions on potential impacts of climate change on the

grasslands of the Columbia Basin. Climate Change in the Columbia Basin. Conference Convened on January 17-18, 2003, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada. Columbia Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke. pp. 29-31.

Gayton, D. (2003b). British Columbia Grasslands: Monitoring Vegetation Change.

FORREX Series 7. FORREX - Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops. 48 pp.

Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. (2003a). Changes in the

Grassland-Forest Interface. A BC Grasslands Conservation Risk Assessment Communication Tool. The Grasslands Conservation Council, Kamloops. 18 pp.

Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. (2003b). BC Grasslands

Mapping Project: A Conservation Risk Assessment. Final Report. The Grasslands Conservation Council, Kamloops. 108 pp.

0305-5330005 - 37 - March 2005


Grieve, D.A. (1993). Geology and Rank Distribution of the Elk Valley Coalfield, Southeastern British Columbia. (82G/15, 82J 2,6,7,10,11). Bulletin 82. Mineral Resources Division, Geological Survey Branch, Victoria. 179 pp.

Guppy, C.S. and J.H. Shepard. (2001). Butterflies of British Columbia. Royal British

Columbia Museum, Victoria. 414 pp. Gyug, L. (1988). Furbearer Habitat Inventory of the Manning Provincial Park Area.

Unpublished Report. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. 38 pp.

Hall, F.C. (2001). Ground-based Photographic Monitoring. General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-503. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland. 340 pp.

Hall, M. (2003a). A Preliminary Assessment of the Feasibility of Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Enhancement Opportunities on Sheep and Salter Mountains in the Elk River Valley. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection by Majestic Consulting Limited, Jaffray. 10 pp.

Hall, M. (2003b). A Preliminary Assessment of the Feasibility of Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Enhancement Opportunities on the North Ewin Creek Ridge. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection by Majestic Consulting Limited, Jaffray. 12 pp.

Hamski, J. (1999). Meta Population Ecology Oxford University Press, New York,

324 pp. Hardy BBT Limited. (1989). Manual of Plant Species Suitability for Reclamation in

Alberta – 2nd Edition. Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Queen’s Printer, Edmonton. 436 pp.

Harrison, S. (2003). Festuca idahoensis Elmer. Plant Sciences Department, University

of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/classes/range/festuca.html. Accessed February 15, 2005.

Hebda, R.J. (1982). Postglacial history of grasslands of southern British Columbia and

adjacent regions. Grassland Ecology and Classification Symposium Proceedings. R28-82060. (A.C. Nicholson, A. McLean and T.E. Baker, Editors). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. pp. 157-191.

Hobbs, N.T. (1999). Seven habits for successful collaboration with local governments.

Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter, 6, 4, 1-2.

0305-5330005 - 38 - March 2005


Holland, S.S. (1976). Landforms of British Columbia. A Physiographic Outline.

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

Kaiser Resources Limited. (1980). Greenhills Coal Project Stage I. Environmental

Assessment. Prepared for Kaiser Resources by B.C. Research. Sparwood. 176 pp.

Kaiser Resources Limited. (1981a). Greenhills Surface Coal Mining Project. Stage II.

Environmental Assessment. Volume II. Appendices. Prepared for Kaiser Resources by B.C. Research. Sparwood. 297 pp.

Kaiser Resources Limited. (1981b). Greenhills Surface Coal Mining Project. Stage II.

Environmental Assessment. Volume III. Appendices. Prepared for Kaiser Resources by B.C. Research. Sparwood. 200 pp.

Kirby, J. and D.Campbell. (1999). Forest Ingrowth and Encroachment: A Provincial

Overview from a Range Management Perspective. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 16 pp.

Kondla, N.G. (2000). Butterflies of conservation interest in Alberta, British Columbia

and Yukon. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15 – 19, February, 1999. Volume 1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, and the College of the Cariboo, Kamloops. pp. 95-100.

Lacelle, L.E.H. (1990). Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Soils.

Wildlife Technical Monograph TM-1. Report No. 20. British Columbia Soil Survey. British Columbia Soil Survey. Habitat Inventory Section, Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 359 pp.

Lea, E.C. (1984). Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Vegetation.

Volume 1. MOE Technical Report 5, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 75 pp.

MacKenzie, W. (2005). Personal Communication. British Columbia Ministry of

Forests, Smithers. MacNally, R., E. Fleishman, J.P. Fay, and D.D. Murphy. (2003). Modeling butterfly

species richness using mesoscale environmental variables: model construction and validation for mountain ranges in the Great Basin of western North America. Biological Conservation, 110, 21-31.

0305-5330005 - 39 - March 2005


Magee, T. and J.A. Antos. (1992). Tree invasion into a mountain-top meadow in the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science, 3, 485-494.

Martin, K.M. (2001). Wildlife in alpine and sub-alpine habitats. Wildlife-Habitat

Relationships in Oregon and Washington. (D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, Managing Directors). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. pp. 285-310.

Martin, D. (2005). Personal Communication. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Lands and

Air Protection, Cranbrook. McCune, B. and M.J. Mefford. (1999). PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological

Data, Version 4.0. User’s Guide. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach. 237 pp.

McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. (2002). PC-ORD. Analysis of Ecological Communities.

MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach. 300 pp. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998a).

Species Inventory Fundamentals. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 1. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 133 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998b).

Ground-based Inventory Methods for Selected Ungulates: Moose, Elk and Deer. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 33. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 59 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998c).

Inventory Methods for Bears. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 21. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 79 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998d).

Inventory Methods for Marten and Weasels. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 24. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 70 pp.

0305-5330005 - 40 - March 2005


Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998e). Inventory Methods for Pikas and Sciurids: Pikas, Marmots, Woodchuck, Chipmunks and Squirrels. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 29. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 82 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1998f).

Inventory Methods for Small Mammals: Shrews, Voles, Mice and Rats. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 31. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 103 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1999a).

Inventory Methods for Medium-sized Territorial Carnivores: Coyote, Red Fox, Lynx, Bobcat, Wolverine, Fisher and Badger. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 25. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 72 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch. (1999b).

Inventory Methods for Forest and Grassland Songbirds. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 15. Version 2.0. Prepared for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch, Victoria. 49 pp.

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Environment Inventory Branch. (2001).

Inventory Methods for Raptors. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 11. Version 2.0. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Environment Inventory Branch for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria. 145 pp.

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Terrestrial Information Branch for the

Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee. (2002). The Vertebrates of British Columbia: Scientific and English Names. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 2. Version 3.0. Published by the Resources Inventory Committee for the Province of British Columbia, Victoria. 234 pp.

0305-5330005 - 41 - March 2005


Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (MRSM). (2003). Provincial Site Series Mapping Codes. ftp://ftp.env.gov.bc.ca/dist/wis/tem/mapcodes_jan2003.xls. Accessed February 23rd, 2005.

Mote, P. (2003). El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Climate Change in the

Columbia Basin. Conference Convened on January 17-18, 2003, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada. Columbia Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke. pp. 27-28.

Neil, R. (2005). Personal Communication. Nature Trust, Cranbrook. NORECOL Environmental Consultants Limited. (NORECOL). (1983). Eagle

Mountain Project, Environmental Assessment Phase 2 Study, Volume II Appendices. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited by NORECOL Environmental Consultants Limited, Vancouver. 260 pp.

NORECOL Environmental Consultants Limited. (NORECOL). (1990). Henretta

Dragline Project Stage I Report. Mine Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 1 – Text. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited, Fording River Mine by NORECOL Environmental Consultants Limited, Vancouver. 276 pp.

Ogilvie, R.T. (1978a). The alpine and subalpine in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.

Proceedings: Workshop on Alpine and Subalpine Environments, Victoria B.C., April 28-30, 1976. (H.A. Luttmerding and J.A. Shields, Compilers). Resource Analysis Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. pp. 33-48.

Parminter, J. and P. Daigle. (1997). Fire in the Dry Interior Forests of British Columbia.

Draft Report. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 6 pp.

Pecháčková, S., M. Albrechtová, V. Hadincová, F. Krahulec and T. Herben. (2003).

Horizontal and vertical distribution of root absorption zones of four common grass species in a mountain grassland. New Phytologist, 161, 303-312.

Peet, R.K. (1981). Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front Range: composition and

dynamics. Vegetatio, 45, 3-75. Peet, R.K. (2000). Forests and meadows of the Rocky Mountains. North American

Terrestrial Vegetation. Second Edition. (M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings, Editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 75-122.

Pitt, M. and T.D. Hooper. (1994). Chapter 20. Threats to biodiversity of grasslands in

British Columbia. Biodiversity in British Columbia. Our Changing Environment.

0305-5330005 - 42 - March 2005


(L.E. Harding and E. McCullum, Editors). Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa. pp. 279-292

Pojar, J. and A.C. Stewart. (1991). Chapter 18. Alpine Tundra Zone. Ecosystems of

British Columbia. (D.V. Meidinger and J. Pojar, Editors). Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. pp. 263-274.

Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies.

Biological Conservation, 12, 115-124. Pollard, E. and T.J. Yates. (1993). Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and

Conservation: The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. Published in Association with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Natural Environment Research Council) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Conservation Biology Series. Chapman and Hall Publishers, London. 274 pp.

Prach, K., J. Lepš and J. Michálek. (1966). Establishment of Picea abies seedlings in a

central European mountain grassland: an experimental study. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7, 681684.

Province of British Columbia. (2005). VENUS 5.0: Vegetation and Environment

NexUS, Data-entry, Reporting, and Analysis Ttool (software package). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria, British Columbia. (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/research/venus).

Provo, B., E. Dobyns and M. MacCartney. (1986). Biophysical Habitat Mapping for the

Lower Western Slopes of the Greenhills Range. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment by the Environmental Services Department of Westar Mining Limited, Sparwood. 59 pp.

Resources Inventory Committee. (RIC). (1998). Ground-based Inventory Methods for

Selected Ungulates: Moose, Elk and Deer. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 33. Version 2. Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Victoria. 59 pp.

Resources Information Standards Committee (RISC). (2005). Standards and Methods

for Sensitive Ecosystems Mapping. January 2005 Draft. Resources Inventory Committee and the Conservation Data Centre, Victoria. 85 pp.

Resources Inventory Committee. (RIC). (1998). Standards for Terrestrial Ecosystem

Mapping in British Columbia. Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Victoria. 100 pp.

0305-5330005 - 43 - March 2005


Root, R.A. and J.R. Habeck. (1972). A study of high elevation grassland communities in

western Montana. American Midland Naturalist, 87, 109-121. Royal British Columbia Museum. (2004). Living Landscapes. Natural History: A

Compendium of Environmental and Resource Information, Grassland Ecosystems. http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/cbasin/history/grasslandsecosystems.htm. Accessed February 15, 2005.

Ryder, J.M. (1978). Geomorphic processes and landforms of alpine and subalpine

environments. Proceedings: Workshop on Alpine and Subalpine Environments, Victoria B.C., April 28-30, 1976. (H.A. Luttmerding and J.A. Shields, Compilers). Resource Analysis Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. pp. 21-32.

Ryder, J.M. (1981). Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Terrain. APD

Bulletin 7. Terrestrial Studies Branch, Assessment and Planning Division, Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 153 pp.

Saunders, E.J. (1994). Bird Inventory – Bodie Creek Basin. Prepared for Elkview Coal

Corporation by Sandpiper Environmental Consultants, Lethbridge. 25 pp. Saunders, E.J. (1995). Bird Inventory, Cougar South/Main Pits and West Spoil

Development. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Mine by Sandpiper Environmental Consultants, Lethbridge. 29 pp.

Savage, M., M. Reid and T.T. Veblen. (1992). Diversity and disturbance in a Colorado

subalpine forest. Physical Geography, 13, 240. Schuerholz, G. (1982). An Ecological Survey of the Ewin Sheep Population Based on a

One Year Field Program between December 1980 and December 1981. Prepared for Crows Nest Resources Limited by TAESCO Consulting, Duncan. 164 pp.

Scott, G.A.J. (1995). Canada’s Vegetation, A World Perspective. McGill-Queen’s

University Press, Montreal. 361 pp. Scudder, G.G.E. and I.M. Smith. (1999). Assessment of Species Diversity in the

Montane Cordillera Ecozone. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada, Ottawa. http://naturewatch.ca/eman/reports/publications/99_montane/intro.html.

0305-5330005 - 44 - March 2005


Shepard, J.H. (2000). Status of Five Butterflies and Skippers in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch and Resource Inventory Branch, Victoria. 27 pp.

Sims, P.L. and P.G. Risser. (2000). Grasslands. North American Terrestrial Vegetation.

Second Edition. (M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings, Editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 323-356.

Smyth, C.R. (2000). Wildlife Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for the Henretta

East, Turn Creek and Turnbull South Areas 1999 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Blairmore. 68 pp.

Smyth, C.R. (2002). Wildlife Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for the Henretta

East, Turn Creek and Turnbull South Areas 2001 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Calgary. 85 pp.

Smyth, C.R. (2004). Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for the

Henretta East, Turn Creek and Turnbull South Areas 2003 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Calgary. 85 pp.

Smyth, C.R., D. Ebner, S. Wegner and D.G. Paton. (2003a). Wildlife Habitat

Assessment for the Henretta Pushback. Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corporation – Fording River Operations by EBA Engineering Consultants Limited, Calgary. 31 pp.

Smyth, C.R., D. Ebner, S. Wegner and D.G. Paton. (2003b). Wildlife Habitat

Assessment for the Turnbull South Expansion. Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corporation – Fording River Operations by EBA Engineering Consultants Limited, Calgary. 41 pp.

Smyth, C.R. and W. Kovach. (2002). Long-term monitoring of permanent reclamation

plots on high-elevation disturbances at the Line Creek Mine. High Elevation Mine Reclamation. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium, Convened at the George Dawson Inn, Dawson Creek, British Columbia, September 9-13, 2002. Organized by the British Columbia Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation and the Canadian Land Reclamation Association, Victoria. pp. 61-70.

0305-5330005 - 45 - March 2005


Smyth, C.R. and D.G. Paton. (2001). Wildlife Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for the North Greenhills/Britt Creek Areas – 2000 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Blairmore. 80 pp.

Smyth, C.R. and D.G. Paton. (2003). Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Brownie Spoil

Expansion. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by EBA Engineering Consultants Limited, Calgary. 41 pp.

Smyth, C.R. and D.G. Paton. (2003). Wildlife Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for

the North Greenhills/Britt Creek Areas – 2002 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by EBA Engineering Consultants Limited, Calgary. 83 pp.

Smyth, C.R. and J.A. Poriz. (1999a). Biophysical Inventory of the Cougar Extension

Study Area. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Mine by Myosotis Ecological Consulting and Environmental Insight, Blairmore. 86 pp.

Smyth, C.R. and J.A. Poriz. (1999b). Wildlife Mitigation Burn Monitoring Program for

the North Greenhills/Britt Creek Areas – 1998 Assessments. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Fording River Operations by Myosotis Ecological Consulting and Environmental Insight, Blairmore. 75 pp.

Smyth, C.R., J.A. Poriz and D.G. Paton. (1999). Biophysical Inventory of the Crow

Ridge Area. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Mine by Myosotis Ecological Consulting and Environmental Insight, Blairmore. 109 pp.

Southwood, T.R.E. and P.A. Henderson. (2000). Ecological Methods. Third Edition.

Blackwell Science Publishers, Malden. 590 pp. Stahelin, P. (1943). Factors influencing the natural restocking of high altitude burns by

coniferous trees in the central Rocky Mountains. Ecology, 24, 19-30. SYSTAT Software Incorporated. (2004). SYSTAT 11 Graphics. SYSTAT Software

Incorporated, Richmond. 458 pp. TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd. (TAESCO). (1985a). Line Creek Biophysical

Inventories. Volume 2. Vegetation. Prepared for Crowsnest Resources Limited by TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd., Duncan. 112 pp.

TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd. (TAESCO). (1985b). Line Creek

Biophysical Inventories. Volume 3. Wildlife. Prepared for Crows Nest Resources Ltd. by TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd., Duncan. 263 pp.

0305-5330005 - 46 - March 2005


TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd. (TAESCO). (1985d). Line Creek Biophysical Inventories. Volume 3. Wildlife – Addendum IV: Birds. Prepared for Crows Nest Resources Ltd. by TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd., Duncan. 48 pp + Appendices.

TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd. (TAESCO). (1985c). Line Creek Biophysical

Inventories. Volume 3. Wildlife – Addendum III: Furbearers. Prepared for Crows Nest Resources Ltd. by TAESCO Environmental Consultants Ltd., Duncan. 33 pp + Appendices.

Thomas, J.A. (1983). A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys.

Biological Conservation, 27, 195-211. Treweek, J. (1999). Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science Publishers,

Malden. 364 pp. Vandik, V. (2004). Gap dynamics in perennial subalpine grasslands: trends and

processes change during secondary succession. Journal of Ecology, 92, 1, 86-96. Veblen, T.T., K.S. Hadley, M.S. Reid and A.J. Rebertus. (1989). Blowdown and stand

development in a Colorado subalpine forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19, 1218-1225.

Wearne, L.J. and J.W. Morgan. (2001). Recent forest encroachment into subalpine

grasslandsnear Mount Hotham, Victoria, Australia. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 33, 3, 369-382.

Westar Mining Limited. (1984a). Volume III – Environmental Assessment, Expected

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for A-Seam Development. Prepared by Environmental Services, Westar Mining Limited, Sparwood. 151 pp.

Westar Mining Limited. (1984b). Volume IV – Environmental Impact Assessment.

Appendices for the A-Seam Development. Prepared by Environmental Services, Westar Mining Limited, Sparwood. 190 pp.

Westar Mining Limited. (1987). Greenhills Mine Stage I Environmental Assessment

Falcon Pit Expansion to Existing Mine Operations. Prepared by Environmental Services, Westar Mining Limited, Sparwood. 148 pp.

Wittneben, U. and L. Lacelle. (1978). The Columbia Mountains and Southern Rockies.

The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia. (K.W.G. Valentine, P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Lavkulich, Editors). Resources Analysis Branch, Ministry of Environment, Victoria. pp. 135-148.

0305-5330005 - 47 - March 2005


Zielinski, W.J., and Truex. (1995). Distinguishing tracks of closely-related species: marten and fisher. Journal of Wildlife Management, 59, 571-579.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF STUDY AREA AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX A STUDY AREA AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo No. Number of Photos Missing Photos Duplicated Photos

30BCC94153 109-130 22 117 and 12430BCC94129 30-041 and 043 13 042 and 044 3530BCC94129 118-130 13 30BCC94129 048-055 and 057-059 11 5630BCC94019 005-018 1430BCC94129 131-149 1930BCC94021 057-074 1830BCC94021 114-122 and 124/125 and 127/128 13 123 and 12630BCC94021 132 and 134-145 and 147 14 133 and 14630BCC94021 183-195 and 197 14 19630BCC94022 001-016 1630BCC94022 049-065 1730BCC94022 066-078 1330BCC94022 100-110 1130BCC94022 111/112 and 115-125 13 113 and 11430BCC94022 142-162 2130BCC94022 165-175 11 2030BCC94135 015-030 1630BCC94027 010-025 1630BCC94027 026-040 15 6530BCC94027 061-072 12 8530BCC94027 075-084 and 086-088 13 1630BCC94130 009-021 13Total 338 11 6

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 A01 T01

APPENDIX B

GRASSLAND SPECIES AUTECOLOGY

APPENDIX BGRASSLAND SPECIES AUTECOLOGY

Scientific Name

Grow

th Form

Grow

th Habit

Longevity

Drought T

olerance

Nutrient

Requirem

ent

Successional Status

Disturbance R

esponse

Palatability

Brow

se Tolerance

Sexual Reproduction

Fecundity

Seed Dispersal

Seedbank

Asexual

Reproduction

Cupressaceae (Cypress Family)

Juniperus communis L. shrub prostrate, clumps perennial medium low YS medium low medium √ high unknown unknown common

Pinaceae (Pine Family)

Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. tree small or medium tree perennial low low MS medium medium medium √ medium unknown unknown rarePinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm. tree narrow crown perennial high low PS good medium medium √ high unknown unknown absent

Salicaceae (Willow Family)

Populus tremuloides Michx. tree medium-sized deciduous perennial medium low PS good high high √ medium high unknown commonSalix scouleriana Barratt shrub fast-growing shrub perennial medium medium YS good high very high √ high unknown unknown common

Betulaceae (Birch Family)

Alnus crispa ssp. crispa (Ait.) Pursh shrub deciduous, dense thickets perennial low low YS good medium medium √ medium good unknown absent

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family)

Polygonum douglasii Greene forb highly variable perennial low medium YS unknown medium unknown √ medium unknown unknown commonPolygonum viviparum L. forb highly variable perennial low medium YS unknown medium unknown √ medium unknown unknown common

Grossulariaceae (Currant Family)

Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poir. shrub deciduous, trailing (shade) or erect perennial low high MS medium medium medium √ medium short unknown rare

Rosaceae (Rose Family)

Amelanchier alnifolia (Nutt.) shrub low, spreading, deciduous perennial high medium MS good high medium √ high short unknown commonDryas octopetala L. shrub small dense mats perennial high low YS good medium none √ high intermediate unknown common

Fragaria virginiana Duchesne ssp. glauca (S. Wats.) Staudt. forb prostrate, trailing perennial medium low PS - C good medium medium √ medium long unknown common

Potentilla glandulosa Lindl. forb highly variable, pubescent perennial medium medium YS good medium high √ high short yes rareRosa acicularis Lindl. shrub low bushy perennial medium low S - C good high medium √ high unknown unknown commonRubus idaeus L. shrub bushy deciduous perennial high low YS or PS good medium medium √ high unknown unknown commonRubus parviflorus Nutt. shrub scrambling or erect deciduous perennial medium low S good medium medium √ high unknown unknown common

Spirea betulifolia Pall. shrub low deciduous perennial low low C good low medium √ medium unknown unknown common

Fabaceae [Leguminosae] (Pea Family)

Astragalus alpinus L. forb spreading perennial medium low PS good medium medium √ medium short yes yesAstragalus bourgovii Gray forb bunch growth with stems perennial medium low PS - YS good medium medium √ high intermediate yes absentAstragalus vexilliflexus var. vexilliflexus Barneby forb spreading perennial high low PS good medium medium √ high short unknown absent

Hedysarum sulphurescens Rydb. forb bunch growth perennial medium low YS - C good medium low √ high intermediate unknown absent

Lupinus sericeus Pursh forb bunch growth perennial high low YS , LS, C good medium medium √ high short unknown commonOxytropis campestris (L.) DC. forb bunch without stems perennial high low PS good low medium √ high unknown unknown absentOxytropis deflexa (Pallas) DC. var deflexa forb bunch without stems perennial high low PS good low medium √ high unknown unknown absentOxytropis podocarpa A. Gray forb clump forming perennial medium low PS - YS good low medium √ high unknown unknown absentOxytropis sericea Nutt. forb bunch without stems perennial medium low YS good low medim √ high short yes absentOxytropis splendens Dougl. forb bunch without stems perennial high low PS good low medium √ high unknown unknown absentVicia americana Muhl. forb trailing or climbing perennial low medium YS good high low √ high unknown unknown common

Eleagnaceae (Oleaster Family)

Shepherdia canadensis (L.) Nutt. shrub prostrate, clumps perennial medium low MS medium low medium √ high unknown unknown common

Onagraceae (Evening-Primrose Family)

Epilobium angustifolium L. forb erect or decumbent perennial medium low PS good medium low √ high airborne short-lived common

Cornaceae (Dogwood Family)

Cornus canadensis L. forb low , erect subshrub perennial low low MS medium high low √ mediumdispersed by animals and

birdsyes common

Ericaceae (Heath Family)

Arctostaphylos uva ursi Sprengl shrub prostrate, trailing perennial high low PS - C good medium medium √ medium animal dispersal yes common

Vaccinium caespitosum Michx. shrub low, spreading, mat-forming perennial low low S - C medium high low √ high animal dispersal unknown common

Vaccinium scoparium Leiberg shrub low, matted, deciduous perennial low low S - C poor high low √ high animal dispersal unknown common

Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family)

Castilleja miniata Dougl. ex Hook forb erect, decumbent perennial low medium YS - MS low medium low √ medium short uknown infrequentCastilleja occidentalis Torr. forb erect, decumbent perennial low medium MS low medium low √ medium short uknown infrequent

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle Family)

Linnaea borealis L. forb creeping, trailing perennial medium medium S - C unknown unknown unknown √ high animal dispersal no common

Lonicera utahensis Wats. shrub deciduous, clumps perennial low unknown S - C medium medium unknown √ medium animal dispersal uknown common

Asteraceae (Aster Family)

Achillea millefolium L. ssp. lanulosa (Nutt.) Piper forb tetraploid, extensive rhizomes perennial high low PS good medium unknown √ high short distance by wind unknown common

Antennaria microphylla Rydb. forb mat-forming perennial high medium S or C good medium high √ high wind-dispersed no commonAntennaria racemosa Hook. forb creeping, leafy stolons perennial unknown medium PS - MS unknown medium high √ high wind-dispersed no commonAntennaria rosea Greene forb mat-forming perennial high medium S - C unknown medium unknown √ high wind-dispersed no commonArnica cordifolia Hook. forb upright perennial unknown unknown MS - C poor medium unknown √ medium wind-dispersed no commonAster conspicuus Lindl. in Hook. forb upright perennial low medium LS medium high low √ medium wind-dispersed yes common

Balsamorhiza sagittata (Pursh.) Nutt. forb upright, spreading perennial low medium YS, MS and C unknown low - medium low √ high dispersed by wind and animal no absent

Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers forb low, erect, caespitose perennial high low PS good high high √ high travel far by parachuting yes common

Poaceae (Grass Family)

Bromus inermis ssp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon grass sod-forming perennial high low PS good very high high √ high short unknown commonDanthonia intermedia Vasey. grass strongly caespitose bunchgrass perennial low medium S - C medium medium high √ medium short unknown commonElymus glaucus Buckl. grass erect bunchgrass perennial medium low YS good high medium √ high short yes commonElymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould in Shinners grass tufted bunchgrass perennial medium medium YS - C good medium medium √ high short unknown rareFestuca campestris Torr. (Festuca scabrella Torr.) grass densely tufted perennial medium medium C fair high medium √ low short unknown absent

Festuca idahoensis Elmer grass densely tufted perennial high low C good high low √ medium immediate vicinity yes common

Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) Schultes grass tufted bunchgrass perennial high low S - C good high medium √ high short infrequent absent

Leymus innovatus (Beal) Pilger grass sod-forming perennial low low EC good medium medium √ highaided by wind,

gravity and animals

unknown common

Phleum alpinum L. grass bunchgrass perennial high low YS good high high √ medium short unknown absentPoa alpina L. grass tufted bunchgrass perennial medium low PS good high high √ medium short unknown absentPoa cusickii Vasey grass dense, large tufts perennial high medium C medium medium low √ high short yes commonPseudoroegneria spicata ( Pursh.) A. Love ssp. spicata grass bunch grass perennial high low PS medium high low √ low short unknown rareTrisetum spicatum (L.) Richt. grass tufted bunchgrass perennial very high medium YS good high very high √ medium short unknown rare

Liliaceae (Lily Family)

Erythronium grandiflorum Pursh forb elongate, deep-seated corm perennial low high PS - LS good high high √ low wind and animals unknown common

Information Sources: Hardy BBT (1989), Cory (2003), Harrison (2003), Fire Effects Information Service (2003)

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 B01 T01

APPENDIX C

PLANT SPECIES LIST

APPENDIX CPLANT SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name G Rank S Rank COSEWIC BC Status Present Potentially Present

Non-Vascular Plants

Mosses (Class Musci)

Brachythecium hylotapetum Hedw. Woodsy Ragged Moss - - - - √Brachythecium salebrosum (Web. & Mohr.) B.S.G. Golden Ragged Moss - - - - √Bryum caespiticium Hedw. Thread Moss - - - - √Distichium capillaceum (Hedw.) B.S.G. Erect-Fruited Iris Moss - - - - √Distichium flexicaule (Schwaeger.) Hampe Slender-Stemmed Hair Moss - - - - √Drepanocladus uncinatus (Hedw.) Warnst. Sickle Moss - - - - √Encalypta procera Bruch - - - - - √Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw. Juniper Hair-Cap Moss - - - - √Polytrichum piliferum Hedw. Awned Hair-Cap Moss - - - - √Racomitrium heterostichum (Hedw.) Brid. Yellow-Green Rock Moss - - - - √Racomitrium lanuginosum (Hedw.) Brid. Hoary Rock Moss - - - - √Racomitrium sudeticum (Funck) B. & S. in B.S.G. Black Moss - - - - √Rhytidiopsis robusta (Hedw.) Broth. Pipecleaner Moss - - - - √Tortula ruralis (Hedw.) Gaertn., Meyer & Scherb. Sidewalk Moss - - - - √

Liverworts (Class Hepaticae)

Porella cordaeana (Hueb.) Moore Dull Scale Feather Wort - - - - √

Lichens

Cetraria ericetorum Opiz. Iceland Moss - - - - √Cetraria islandica (L.) Ach. Iceland Moss - - - - √Cladonia pocillum (Ach.) O. Rich. Carpeted Pixie-Cup - - - - √Cladonia pyxidata (L.) Hoffm. Brown Pixie-Cup - - - - √Peltigera canina (L.) Willd. Dog Lichen - - - - √Peltigera rufescens (Weiss) Humb Felt Pelt - - - - √Psora decipiens (Hedw.) Hoffm. Sockeye Psora - - - - √Stereocaulon alpinum Funck Alpine Coral - - - - √Stereocaulon tomentosum Fr. Wooly Coral - - - - √

Vascular Plants

Selaginellaceae (Selaginella Family)

Selaginella densa Rydb. Compact Selaginella - - - - √

Polypodiaceae (Common Fern Family)

Cryptogramma crispa (L.) R.Br. Parsley-Fern - - - - √Woodsia scopulina D.C. Eat. Rocky Mountain Woodsia - - - - √

Cupressaceae (Cypress Family)

Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper - - - - √Juniperus scopulorum Sarg. Rocky Mountain Juniper - - - - √

Pinaceae (Pine Family)

Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. Subalpine Fir - - - - √Picea engelmannii Parry Engelmann Spruce - - - - √Pinus albicaulis Engelm. Whitebark Pine - - - - √Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm. Lodgepole Pine - - - - √Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissen.) Franco Douglas Fir - - - - √

Salicaceae (Willow Family)

Populus tremuloides Michx. Trembling Aspen - - - - √Salix scouleriana Barratt Scouler's Willow - - - - √

Betulaceae (Birch Family)

Alnus crispa ssp. crispa (Ait.) Pursh Green Alder - - - - √

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family)

Eriogonum ovalifolium Nutt. Cushion Buckwheat - - - - √Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. Sulphur-Flowered Umbrella Plant - - - - √Polygonum douglasii Greene Douglas’ Knotweed - - - - √

Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family)

Arenaria capillaris Poir. Thread-Leaved Sandwort - - - - √Arenaria nuttallii Pax Nuttall’s Sandwort - - - - √Arenaria rubella (Wahlenb.) J.E. Smith Boreal Sandwort - - - - √Cerastium arvense L. Field Chickweed - - - - √Cerastium beeringianum Cham & Schlecht. Alpine Chickweed - - - - √Silene parryi L. Parry’s Campion - - - - √Stellaria calycantha (Ledeb.) Bong Northern Starwort - - - - √Stellaria longipes Goldie Long-Stalk Starwort - - - - √

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 C01 T01



Ranunculaceae (Buttercup Family)

Anemone multifida Poir. Cut-Leaved Anemone - - - - √Anemone occidentalis Wats. Mountain Pasqueflower - - - - √Anemone patens L. Prairie Crocus - - - - √Ranunculus glaberrimus Nutt. Sagebrush Buttercup - - - - √ √Thalictrum alpinum L. Alpine Meadow Rue - - - - √Thalictrum occidentale A. Gray Western Meadow Rue - - - - √

Brassicaceae [Cruciferae] (Mustard Family)

Arabis drummondii Gray Drummond’s Rockcress - - - - √Arabis holboellii Hornem. Holboell's Rockcress - - - - √Draba lanceolata auct. Lance-Leaved Whitlow-grass - - - - √Smelowskia calycina var. americana (Steph.) C.A. Mey. Alpine Smelowskia - - - - √

Crassulaceae (Stonecrop or Orpine Family)

Sedum lanceolatum Torr. Common Stonecrop - - - - √Sedum stenopetalum Pursh. Worm-Leaf Stonecrop - - - - CM, EM, TM √

Saxifragaceae (Saxifrage Family)

Heuchera cylindrica Dougl. Round-Leaf Alumroot - - - - √Saxifraga bronchialis L. Spotted Saxifrage - - - - √Saxifraga caespitosa L. Tufted Saxifrage - - - - √

Grossulariaceae (Currant Family)

Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poir. Swamp Currant - - - - √

Rosaceae (Rose Family)

Amelanchier alnifolia (Nutt.) Common Saskatoon - - - - √Dryas octopetala L. White Mountain Avens - - - - √Fragaria virginiana Duchesne ssp. glauca (S. Wats.) Staudt. Wild Strawberry - - - - √Potentilla diversifolia Lehm. Diverse-Leaved Cinquefoil - - - - √Potentilla gracilis Dougl ex Hook. Graceful Cinquefoil - - - - √Potentilla pennsylvanica L. Prairie Cinquefoil - - - - √Potentilla villosa Pall. Villous Cinquefoil - - - - √Prunus virginiana L. Chokecherry - - - - √Rosa acicularis Lindl. Prickly Rose - - - - √Rubus parviflorus Nutt. Western Thimbleberry - - - - √Spirea betulifolia Pall. Birch-Leaved Spirea - - - - √

Fabaceae [Leguminosae] (Pea Family)

Astragalus alpinus L. Alpine Milkvetch - - - - √Astragalus bourgovii Gray Bourgeau’s Milkvetch G5 S3 - Red √Astragalus robbinsii var. minor (Hook.) Barneby Robbins' Milkvetch - - - - √Astragalus vexilliflexus var. vexilliflexus Barneby Bent-Flowered Milkvetch G4TNR S2S3 - Blue √Astragalus vexilliflexus var. nubilus Barneby Bent-Flowered Milkvetch - - - - √Hedysarum sulphurescens Rydb. Sulphur-Flowered Hedysarum - - - - √Lupinus sericeus Pursh Silky Lupine - - - - √Oxytropis podocarpa A. Gray Stalked-pod Crazyweed - - - - √Oxytropis sericea Nutt. Silky Locoweed - - - - √Vicia americana Muhl. American Vetch - - - - √

Geraniaceae (Geranium Family)

Geranium viscossimum Fisch. & Mey. Sticky Purple Geranium - - - - √

Empetraceae (Crowberry Family)

Empetrum nigrum L. Crowberry - - - - √

Aceraceae (Maple Family)

Acer glabrum Torr. Douglas' Maple - - - - √

Violaceae (Violet Family)

Viola adunca Sm. Early Blue Violet - - - - √Viola orbiculata Geyer ex W.J. Hooker Round-Leaved Violet - - - - √

Onagraceae (Evening-Primrose Family)

Epilobium angustifolium L. Fireweed - - - - √Gayophytum diffusum T. & G. Spreading Groundsmoke - - - - √

Apiacea [Umbelliferae] (Parsley Family)

Lomatium dissectum (Nutt.) Mathias & Constance Fern-Leaved Parsley - - - - √Lomatium triternatum (Pursh) Coult. & Rose Narrow-Leaved Desert Parsley - - - - √Lomatium utriculatum (Nutt. Ex. Torrey & Gray) Coulter & Ross Fine-Leaved Lomatium - - - - √

Cornaceae (Dogwood Family)

Cornus canadensis L. Bunchberry - - - - √




Ericaceae (Heath Family)

Arctostaphylos uva ursi Sprengl Bearberry - - - - √Vaccinium caespitosum Michx. Dwarf Huckleberry - - - - √Vaccinium myrtillus L. Low Bilberry - - - - √Vaccinium scoparium Leiberg Grouseberry - - - - √

Polemoniaceae (Phlox Family)

Collomia linearis Nutt. Narrow-leaved Collomia - - - - √Polemonium acutiflorum L. Tall Jacob's Ladder - - - - √Polemonium pulcherrimum Hook. Showy Jacob's Ladder - - - - √

Primulaceae (Primula Family)

Androsace lehmanniana Spreng. Sweet-flowered Androsace - - - - √Androsace septentrionalis L. Northern Fairy Candelabra - - - - √Dodecatheon pulchellum (Raf.) Merrill Few-Flowered Shooting Star - - - - √

Gentianaceae (Gentian Family)

Gentianella amarella L. Northern Gentian - - - - √Gentiana calycosa Griseb. Mountain Bog Gentian - - - - √

Hydrophyllaceae (Waterleaf Family)

Phacelia hastata Dougl. Silverleaf Phacelia - - - - √Phacelia sericea (Graham) A. Gray Scorpion Weed - - - - √

Boraginaceae (Borage Family)

Myosotis sylvatica Hoff. Wood Forget-Me-Not - - - - √

Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family)

Besseya wyomingensis (A. Nels.) Rydb. Wyoming Besseya G5 S2S3 - Blue √Castilleja miniata Dougl. ex Hook. Common Red Paintbrush - - - - √Castilleja occidentalis Torr. Lance-Leaved Paintbrush - - - - √Castilleja rhexifolia Rydb. Rhexia-Leaved Paintbrush - - - - √Collinsia parviflora Dougl ex Lindl. Small-Flowered Blue-Eyed Mary - - - - √Penstemon albertinus Greene Alberta Penstemon - - - - √Penstemon confertus Dougl. Yellow Beard-Tongue - - - - √Penstemon davidsonii Greene Davidson's Penstemon - - - - √Penstemon fruticosus (Pursh) Greene Shrubby Penstemon - - - - √Penstemon procerus Dougl. Slender Blue Penstemon - - - - √

Rubiaceae (Madder Family)

Galium boreale L. Northern Bedstraw - - - - √

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle Family)

Linnaea borealis L. Northern Twinflower - - - - √Lonicera utahensis Wats. Utah Honeysuckle - - - - √Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake Common Snowberry - - - - √

Valerianaceae (Valerian Family)

Valeriana dioica L. Northern Marsh Valerian - - - - √Valeriana sitchensis Bong. Sitka Valerian - - - - √

Campanulaceae (Harebell Family)

Campanula rotundifolia L. Common Harebell - - - - √

Asteraceae (Aster Family)

Achillea millefolium L. ssp. lanulosa (Nutt.) Piper Common Yarrow - - - - √Agoseris aurantiaca (Hook.) Greene Orange False Dandelion - - - - √Agoseris glauca (Pursh) Raf. Pale Agoseris - - - - √Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) Bent. & Hool. Common Pearly Everlasting - - - - √Antennaria alpina (L.) Gaertn. Alpine Pussy-Toes - - - - √Antennaria microphylla Rydb. Rosy Pussy-Toes - - - - √Antennaria neglecta Greene Field Pussy-Toes - - - - √Antennaria racemosa Hook. Raceme Pussy-Toes - - - - √Antennaria umbrinella Rydb. Umber Pussy-Toes - - - - √Arnica cordifolia Hook. Heart-Leaved Arnica - - - - √Arnica latifolia Bong. Mountain Arnica - - - - √Artemisia campestris L. (Artemisia borealis Pallas.) Wormwood - - - - √Artemisia frigida Willd. Pasture Sage - - - - √Aster alpinus L. Alpine Aster - - - - √Aster ciliolatus Lindl. Fringed Aster - - - - √Aster conspicuus Lindl. in Hook. Showy Aster - - - - √Aster engelmannii (Eat.) Gray Engelmann's Aster - - - - √Aster foliaceus Lindl. in DC. Leafy Aster - - - - √Aster subspicatus Nees Douglas' Aster - - - - √Balsamorhiza sagittata (Pursh.) Nutt. Arrow-Leaved Balsam Root - - - - √Cirsium hookerianum Nutt. White Thistle - - - - √Cirsium scariosum Nutt. Elk Thistle G5 S2S3 - Blue √Erigeron acris L. Bitter Fleabane - - - - √Erigeron aureus Greene Golden Fleabane - - - - √Erigeron compositus Pursh var. glabratus Macoun Cut-Leaved Fleabane - - - - √




Erigeron peregrinus (Pursh) Green Subalpine Daisy - - - - √Haplopappus lyallii A. Gray Lyall's Goldenrod - - - - √Heterotheca villosa (Pursh) Nutt. Hairy Golden Aster - - - - √Hieracium scouleri Hook. Scouler’s Hawkweed - - - - √Hieracium umbellatum L. Narrow-Leaved Hawkweed - - - - √Senecio canus Hook. Wooly Groundsel - - - - √Senecio integerrimus Nutt. Western Grounsel - - - - √Solidago multiradiata Ait. Northern Goldenrod - - - - √Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers Common Dandelion - - - - √

Juncaeae (Rush Family)

Luzula spicata (L.) DC. Spiked Wood-Rush - - - - √

Cyperaceae (Sedge Family)

Carex albonigra Mack. Black-and-White-Scaled Sedge - - - - √Carex hoodii Boott. Hood's Sedge - - - - √Carex nardina Fries. Spikenard Sedge - - - - √Carex phaeocephala Piper Dunhead Sedge - - - - √Carex rupestris All. Curly Sedge - - - - √

Poaceae (Grass Family)

Agrostis scabra Willd. Rough Hair-Grass - - - - √Bromus inermis ssp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon Pumpelly Brome - - - - √Calamagrostis purpurascens R. Br. Purple Reedgrass - - - - √Calamagrostis rubescens Buckl. Pine Grass - - - - √Danthonia intermedia Vasey. Timber Oatgrass - - - - √Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey (Sitanion hystrix [Nutt.] Smith) Squirreltail Grass - - - - √Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould in Shinners Slender Wheatgrass - - - - √Elymus innovatus Beal Hairy Wild Rye - - - - √Festuca brachyphylla Schult. Alpine Fescue - - - - √Festuca campestris Torr. (Festuca scabrella Torr.) Rough Fescue - - - - √Festuca idahoensis Elmer Idaho Fescue - - - - √Festuca saximontana Rydb. Rocky Mountain Sheep’s Fescue - - - - √Koeleria cristata Pers. Junegrass - - - - √Phleum alpinum L. Alpine Timothy - - - - √Poa alpina L. Alpine Timothy - - - - √Poa arctica Brown Arctic Bluegrass - - - - √Poa cusickii Vasey Cusick’s Bluegrass - - - - √Poa glauca Vahl (Poa pattersonii Vasey) Timberline Bluegrass - - - - √Poa grayana Vasey Gray's Bluegrass - - - - √Poa interior Rydb. Inland Bluegrass - - - - √Poa rupicola Nash Timberline Bluegrass - - - - √Poa secunda Vasey Sandberg's Bluegrass - - - - √Stipa occidentalis Thurb. Western Needlegrass - - - - √Trisetum spicatum (L.) Richt. Spike Trisetum - - - - √

Liliaceae (Lily Family)

Allium cernuum Roth. Nodding Onion - - - - √Erythronium grandiflorum Pursh Yellow Glacier Lily - - - - √Smilacina stellata (L.) Desf. Star-Flowered Solomon's Seal - - - - √Stenathium occidentale Gray. Mountainbells - - - - √Zigadenus venenosus Wats. Meadow Death-Camas - - - - √


APPENDIX D

ANIMAL SPECIES LIST

APPENDIX DANIMAL SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name Present Potentially Present

Class: Aves (Birds)

Order: Falconiformes (Diurnal Birds of Prey)

Family: Accipitridae (Osprey, Eagles and Hawks)Accipiter cooperii (Bonaparte) Cooper’s Hawk √Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus) Northern Goshawk √Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus) Golden Eagle √ Buteo jamaicensis (Gmelin) Red-tailed Hawk √

Family: Falconidae (Falcons)Falco columbarius Linnaeus Merlin √ Falco peregrinus Tunstall Peregrine Falcon √Falco sparverius Linnaeus American Kestrel √

Order: Galliformes (Gallinaceous Birds)

Family: Phasianidae (Partridge, Grouse, Ptarmigan, Turkey and Quail)Dendragapus obscurus (Say) Blue Grouse √Lagopus leucurus (Richardson) White-tailed Ptarmigan √

Order: Apodoiformes (Swifts and Hummingbirds)

Family: Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)Selasphorus rufus (Gmelin) Rufous Hummingbird √

Order: Piciformes (Woodpeckers and Allies)

Family: Picidae (Woodpeckers)Colaptes auratus Linnaeus Northern Flicker √Picoides pubescens (Linnaeus) Downy Woodpecker √ Sphyrapicus ruber (Gmelin) Red-breasted Sapsucker √

Order: Passeriformes (Passerine Birds)

Family: Corvidae (Jays, Magpies and Crows)Corvus corax Linnaeus Common Raven √Cyanocitta stelleri (Gmelin) Steller’s Jay √Nucifraga columbiana (Wilson) Clark’s Nutcracker

Family: Paridae (Titmice)Poecile gambeli Ridgway Mountain Chickadee √

Family: Sittidae (Nuthatches)Sitta canadensis Linnaeus Red-breasted Nuthatch √

Family: Muscicapidae (Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes and Allies)Myadestes townsendi (Audubon) Townsend’s Solitaire √Regulus calendula (Linnaeus) Ruby-crowned Kinglet √Regulus satrapa Lichtenstein Golden-crowned Kinglet √Sialia currucoides (Bechstein) Mountain Bluebird √Turdus migratorius Linnaeus American Robin √

Family: Parulidae (Wood Warblers)Dendroica coronata (Linnaeus) Yellow-rumped Warbler √Vermivora celata (Say) Orange-crowned Warbler √

Family: Emberizidae (Buntings and New World Sparrows)Junco hyemalis (Linnaeus) Dark-eyed Junco √Passerella iliaca (Merrem) Fox Sparrow √ Spizella passerina (Bechstein) Chipping Sparrow √

Family: Fringillidae (Finches)Carduelis pinus (Wilson) Pine Siskin √

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 D01 T01

APPENDIX DANIMAL SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name Present Potentially Present

Class: Mammalia (Mammals)

Order: Rodentia (Rodents)

Family: Cricetids (Cricetids)Neotoma cinerea (Ord) Bushy-tailed Wood Rat √

Family: Sciuridae (Squirrels)Spermophilus columbianus (Ord) Columbian Ground Squirrel √Spermophilus lateralis (Say) Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel √

Order: Carnivora (Carnivores)

Family: Canidae (Canids)Canis latrans Say Coyote √

Family: Mustelidae (Mustelids)Gulo gulo (Linnaeus) Wolverine √ Taxidea taxus Schreber American Badger √

Family: Ursidae (Bears)Ursus americanus Pallas Black Bear √Ursus arctos Linnaeus Grizzly Bear √

Order: Artiodactyla (Even-toed Ungulates)

Family: Bovidae (Bovids)Ovis canadensis Shaw Bighorn Sheep √

Family: Cervidae (Cervids)Alces alces (Linnaeus) Moose √

Cervus elaphus Linnaeus Elk √Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque) Mule Deer √

Spec ies nomenclature follows MSRM (2002).

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 D01 T01

APPENDIX E

BUTTERFLY SPECIES LIST

APPENDIX EBUTTERFLY SPECIES LIST

Scientific Name Common Name G Rank Provinicial BC Status Plant Species (Larval Foodplant)Aglais milberti (Godart) 4 Milbert's Tortoise Shell G5 S5 Yellow Urtica dioicaAnthocharis stella (W. H. Edwards) 2 Stella's Orangetip G5 S5 Yellow Arabis sp.Carterocephalus palaemon (Pallas) 2 Arctic Skipper G5 S5 Yellow Calamagrostis purpurascens , Bromus spp. (in Europe)Celastrina echo (W. H. Edwards) 2 Western Spring Azure G5 S5 Yellow Ceanothus sp.Cercyonis oetus (Boisduval) 1 Dark Wood Nymph G5 S5 Yellow grasses (Poa spp.)Cercyonis pegala (Fabricius) 1 Common Wood Nymph G5 S5 Yellow grasses, sedgesCharidryas palla (Boisduval) 4 Northern Checkerspot G5 S5 Yellow Aster spp.Clossiana chariclea (Schneider) 2 Arctic Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Salix spp.Clossiana freija (Thunberg) 4 Freija Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Vaccinium caespitosumCoenonympha california benjamini Westwood 1 Common Ringlet, benjamini subspecies G5T5 S3 Blue grasses, sedgesCoenonympha california columbiana Westwood 1 Common Ringlet, columbiana subspecies G5T4 S5 Yellow grasses, sedgesColias eurytheme (Boisduval) 4 Alfalfa Sulphur G5 SZB Yellow Medicago sativaColias interior (Scudder) 2 Pink-edged Sulphur G5 S5 Yellow Vaccinium spp. (Vaccinium myrtilloides , Vaccinium caespitosum )Colias philodice Godart 1 Clouded Sulphur G5 S5 Yellow Trifolium pratense , Trifolium repens , Medicago sativaErebia epipsodea Butler 1 Common Alpine G5 S5 Yellow grasses (Poa spp.), sedgesErynnis icelus (Scudder & Burgess) 2 Dreamy Dusky Wing G5 S5 Yellow Salix spp., Populus spp.Euchloe ausonides (Lucas) 4 Large Marble G5 S4S5 Yellow Arabis spp.Euphydryas anicia (Doubleday) 2 Anicia Checkerspot G5T5 S5 Yellow Symphoricarpos spp., Penstemon spp.Euphydryas editha (Boisduval) 4 Edith's Checkerspot G5 S5 Yellow Plantago spp.Euphydryas gillettii (Barnes) 2 Gillette's Checkerspot G2G3 S2S3 Blue Lonicera involucrataEuptoieta claudia (Cramer) 2 Variegated Fritillary G5 SA Accidental garden pansies (Viola spp.)Everes amyntula (Boisduval) 2 Western Tailed Blue G5 S5 Yellow Vicia americana , Lathyrus nevadensis var. nuttallii ; Astragalus spp., Lathyrus spp.Glaucopsyche lygdamus (Doubleday) 2 Silvery Blue G5 S5 Yellow Lupines (Lupinus spp.)Hesperia comma (Linnaeus) 2 Common Branded Skipper G5 S5 Yellow Festuca spp., Carex spp.Hesperia nevada (Scudder) 2 Nevada Skipper G5 S4 Yellow Stipa spp., Festuca spp.Icaricia acmon (Westwood & Hewitson) 2 Acmon Blue - - - Eriogonum spp.Icaricia icarioides (Boisduval) 2 Icarioides Blue G5 S5 Yellow Lupinus spp. Incisalia eryphon (Boisduval) 2 Western Pine Elfin G5 S5 Yellow Pinus contorta

Limenitis lorquini (Boisduval) 2 Lorquin's Admiral G5 S5 YellowPopulus balsamifera , Populus tremuloides , Salix spp., Amelanchier alnifolia , Prunus virginiana

Lycaeides idas (Linnaeus) 2 Northern Blue G5 S5 Yellow Vaccinium caespitosumLycaena helloides (Boisduval) 2 Purplish Copper G5 S5 Yellow Polygonum spp.Lycaena mariposa (Reakirt) 4 Reakirt's Copper G5 S5 Yellow Vaccinium caespitosumNymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus) 4 Mourning Cloak G5 S5 Yellow Populus balsamifera , Populus tremuloides , Salix spp.Oarisma garita (Reakirt) 2 Garita Skipperling G5 S4 Yellow Poa pratensisOchlodes sylvanoides (Boisduval) 2 Woodland Skipper G5 S5 Yellow garden composites (especially marigolds)Oeneis chryxus (Doubleday) 3 Chryxus Arctic G5 S5 Yellow Festuca idahoensis , Carex spp., other grassesPapilio canadensis Rothschild & Jordan 2 Canadian Swallowtail G5 S5 Yellow Populus balsamifera , Populus tremuloides , Salix spp., Alnus spp.Papilio zelicaon Lucas 3 Anise Swallowtail G5 S5 Yellow Lomatium spp., Heracleum maximumParnassius smintheus Doubleday 2 Phoebus' Parnassian G5 S5 Yellow Sedum lanceolatum , Sedum stenopetalum , Sedum integrifoliumPhyciodes pratensis (Behr) 2 Field Crescent G5 S5 Yellow Aster spp.Phyciodes tharos (Drury) 2 Pearl Crescent - - - Aster spp.Pieris marginalis Scudder 4 Mustard White / Margined White G5 S5 Yellow Brassicaceae (Arabis spp. and Dentaria spp.)Pieris rapae (Linnaeus) 4 Cabbage Butterfly G5 SE Introduced BrassicaceaePlebejus saepiolus (Boisduval) 2 Greenish Blue G5 S5 Yellow Trifolium spp.Polites mystic (W. H. Edwards) 2 Long Dash G5 S4 Yellow Poa spp.Polygonia faunus (W. H. Edwards) 2 Green Comma G5 S5 Yellow Betula spp., Salix spp.Polygonia oreas (Cramer) 3 Oreas Anglewing G5 S4 Yellow Ribes spp.Polygonia satyrus (W. H. Edwards) 2 Satyr Anglewing G5 S5 Yellow Urtica dioica , Humulus lupulusPolygonia zephyrus (W. H. Edwards) 2 Zephyr G5T5 S5 Yellow Ribes spp. and Rhododendron albiflorumPontia occidentalis (Reakirt) 3 Western White G5 S5 Yellow BrassicaceaePontia protodice (Boisduval & LeConte) 2 Checkered White G4 SAB Accidental Arabis spp.Pyrgus ruralis (Boisduval) 4 Two-banded Checkered Skipper G5 S5 Yellow Fragaria spp.Roddia l-album Esper 2 Compton Tortoiseshell - - - Betula occidentalis , Betula papyriferaSatyrium sylvinum (Boisduval) 2 Sylvan Hairstreak G5 S5 Yellow Salix spp.Speyeria aphrodite manitoba (F. & R. Chermock) 3 Aphrodite Fritillary, manitoba subspecies G5T5 S3 Blue Viola spp.Speyeria callippe (Boisduval) 2 Callippe Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Viola spp., Artemisia spp.Speyeria hesperis (W.H. Edwards) 2 Atlantis Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Viola spp.Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval) 2 Hydaspe Fritillary G4G5 S4S5 Yellow Viola spp.Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval) 4 Mormon Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Viola spp.Speyeria zerene (Boisduval) 2 Zerene Fritillary G5 S5 Yellow Viola spp.Thorybes pylades (Scudder) 2 Northern Cloudy Wing G5 S5 Yellow Trifolium pratense , Trifolium repens , Lespedeza capitata , Lespedeza hirtaNotes:1 - in region (correct habitat), 2 - in region (not correct habitat), 3 - close to region (correct habitat), 4 - close to region (not correct habitat)

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 E01 T01

APPENDIX F

GRASSLAND MAPS

APPENDIX G

WILDLIFE INVENTORY METHODS

APPENDIX G WILDLIFE INVENTORY METHODS

Q:\Secretary\0335\Projects\5330005\R01 G01 T01

Summary of Inventory Methods for Determining Presence/ Not Detected of Potential Vertebrate Species Groups Found in High-Elevation Grasslands and Adjacent

Communities in the Elk and Fording River Valleys. Species Group Species of Interest Inventory Method Inventory Description Information Source

Ungulates Elk Moose Bighorn Sheep Mule Deer

Aerial-based Inventory Encounter Transect • Flown by either fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter. • All visible animals are counted and classified. • Systematically spaced lines throughout survey area

are recommended.

MSRM (2002)

Ground-based Inventory (for Moose, Elk and Deer)

• Relative abundance (differs in approach from other methods listed – not just Presence/Not detected)

MELP (1998b)

Bear Family (Ursidae)

Grizzly Bear Black Bear

Bear Sign and Sightings Office Procedures • Determine/evaluate historic and current bear

distribution in project area. • Establish use of data and probable density of bears

in order to determine level of effort and specific survey protocol (three possible scenarios).

• Obtain habitat maps and rate habitats for potential to support bears.

• Review additional literature (e.g., sign identification).

• See above for further details.

(MELP 1998c)

Sampling Design • All presence/not detected sign or sighting surveys

should be systematic and replicated. • Consists of either complete surveys (i.e., small study

areas) or surveys which stratify various habitats and use transects (i.e., large study areas).

• Provide estimation of probabilities of detection.

Sampling Effort • Time required will depend on size of study area(s),

intensity of sampling and suspected density of bears in area.



Species Group Species of Interest Inventory Method Inventory Description Information Source

Other Mammals Including Furbearers

Long-tailed Weasel Short-tailed Weasel

Detection Devices Office Procedures – see above for further details. (MELP (1998c) Gyug (1988) Zielinski and Truex (1995).

Sampling Design • Ensure study area(s) adequately represent habitats of

interest. • Study area should be 4.0 km square. • Each study area should contain 6-12 track-plate

stations and two remote cameras at specified distances from each other.

• Different study area shapes will require changes to station spacing.

• Surveys conducted in late winter to early spring.

Sampling Effort • Surveys conducted until target species detected for a

minimum of 12 nights. • Track-plates should be checked every other day and

baits renewed. • Surveys begin second night after devices deployed.

Equipment and Field Installation and Procedures • Further information can be found in MELP (1998d).

Snow Tracking Office Procedures • Locate and draw transect lines on study area map in

habitats of interest. • Transect lines are selected to compare/sample

different habitats. • Time of survey should be pre-planned and allow for

flexibility. • Needs to occur approximately three days after fresh

snow. • See above for further details.




Sampling Design • Transects should be laid out systematically. • Transect length may be variable or uniform in

length.

Sampling Effort • Intensive sampling is recommended during a short

period (one to two weeks) (Gyug 1988 cited in MELP 1998d).

• Try to set a minimum distance for each habitat type of 10 km-days (distance surveyed in km x days since last snowfall).

Bobcat Lynx Wolverine Badger

Preliminary Surveys Harvest Records (Wild Fur Data System) – does not include badger

• Identify registered trap lines and request required data.

• Determine if species was trapped and in what year. • Analyze data using appropriate statistical methods.

MELP (1999a)

Hunter Records – only for Wolverine, Lynx and Bobcat • Information from Wildlife Branch includes location,

date and sex of animal killed. • Records can be assigned to trap lines and combined

with trapping data.

BC Annual Trapper Questionnaire • Designed to get impressions of trappers regarding

trends of furbearer abundance, influence of habitat and food sources, and to measure trapper effort and catch per unit effort.

• Reports available from Wildlife Branch.

Questionnaires and Public Appeals • Involves developing questionnaires and interviews

for specific groups (including First Nations people) within project area.

• Focus on (1) location, dates and numbers of animals sighted and (2) location and details of sign observed.




Snow Tracking (not for Badgers) Office Procedures • Overlay grid on each study area to delineate sample

units (grid cell size will vary for each species). • Local, draw and label transect lines on project area

map. • Length of transect in area, grid cell size and habitat

dependent. • Survey should be 24 hours after snowfall. • Time of survey should be pre-planned and allow for

flexibility • Aerial surveys could be conducted for track surveys

of wolverines (due to home range size). • See above for further details.

Sampling Design • Use systematic sampling (transects) stratified by

habitat type. • Only survey best habitat sites.

Sampling Effort • Effort depends on study objectives. • In some cases, large areas need to be sampled

intensively.

Field Procedures • Tracking should begin in early winter as soon as

sufficient snow is available and in appropriate light. • Tracking by snowmobile or truck should be slow to

avoid missing tracks. • Records tracks by species and their location (GPS).

Data Analysis • If presence is goal, only need to display species in

study area by habitat (no statistical analysis necessary).

• Produce map showing where surveyed and location of sightings and sign.




Den Search (for Badgers) Office Procedures • Overlay grid onto the study area and use grid cells

as sample units (50 km2). • Mark areas to be searched on map or air photo. • Distance between transects function of terrain. • See above further details.

Sampling Design • Use systematic sampling within identified denning

habitat.

Sampling Effort • Function of number of sample units that must be

search and animal abundance. • Ground searches can be intensive.

Field Procedure • Surveys can be conducted at any time but avoid

December through March. • Avoid motorized vehicles, horseback recommended. • Records locations of confirmed dens.

Data Analysis • Provide maps of grid cells searched and transects

used. • Report locations of confirmed dens.

Ground Squirrel ( ) Direct Observation and Sign Sampling

Office Procedures • See above further details.

MELP (1998e)

Sampling Design • Involves of stratified systematic sampling units or

point count stations • Transects either fixed-width or linear (straight or

meandering). • Point counts for presence/not detected should

optimally be concentrated in the best habitats. • Survey design depends on the size of the area.




Sampling Effort • Depends on project objectives, density of animals in

study area, and other factors. • Long term sampling requirements not required.

Timing of Sampling • If sampling for vocalizations should be conducted

during the breeding season and in the early morning. • Sampling physical sign less constrained.

Field Procedures • Use of acoustic-cue for evoking vocal response

increase probability of detection. • Indicate transects on map of study area. • Transect or point-count surveys focus in appropriate

habitat and record both visual and auditory signs.

Birds Simple Points Counts along Encounter Transect Use of encounter transects are not appropriate for all raptors. Additional procedures for raptor surveys can be found in MSRM (2001).

Office Procedures • Complete list of all potential songbirds, raptors, etc.

for the study area. • See above further details.

(MELP 1999b) (MSRM 2001)

Sampling Design • Stratify habitat according to study objectives. • Systematically sample within strata using transects

and points counts. • For raptors, encounter transects can be performed

using aerial, roadside or foot surveys.

Sampling Effort • Graph number of species versus number of point

counts and/or distance travelled along transect to determine whether enough effort spent (use preliminary sampling).

• Surveys should be conducted the first three to four hours after sunrise for breeding bird surveys.




Field Procedures • Record species, activity, sex, age, nest, etc. • For encounter transects identify transects on map. • Along transects walk slowly, stopping to identify

birds (note distance travelled along transect). • Point count stations along transect at a minimum of

200 m apart. • Count detected birds for a set period of time at

stations. • Radius of detection for presence / not detected

surveys is unlimited.

characterization of high elevation grasslands in...

Documents