January 17, 1998 To: The Honorable Cathy McGregor ... · continuing government support for an...

January 17, 1998

To: The Honorable Cathy McGregor, Minister of Environment Lands & Parks The Honorable Corky Evans, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food The Honorable David Zirnhelt, Minister of Forests Re: Final Report and Recommendations of the East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee The East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee, which your predecessors initiated in July of 1990, is pleased to provide its Final Report and Recommendations. These are the culmination of a multi-sectoral project aimed at identifying, designing and implementing a range of activities to reduce the conflict between the ranching community and wildlife interest groups in the East Kootenay. While the human elements of the conflict have been significantly reduced, several key conflict areas require further action by the Provincial Government in order to resolve them, namely: a) the competing mandates of your Ministries need to be integrated into a joint strategy outlined in an interagency MOU to firmly commit to addressing our recommendations; b) the Crown rangelands of the East Kootenay Trench need to be managed in accordance with the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy; c) the cooperative and constructive relationship forged between the staff of your Ministries and the resource user groups in the "Trench" area needs to be sustained by continuing government support for an organization such as the Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society, to coordinate the resource user group and public interest group's interaction with the Province; d) the essential need to have adequate, reliable information concerning natural resources on Crown rangeland in the Trench, particularly their condition, is the key to managing them wisely. If the Province makes a sincere and firm commitment to carry out these actions and implement our recommendations, then our Committee is confident our future vision will be realized: • Wildlife and ranching industries flourishing and fully integrated with forestry and other resource interests • Forage is planned for, managed and enhanced in a manner that perpetuates the resource and provides the quality and quantity of forage and ecosystem diversity the landbase is capable of. • Systems of administration and management, together with the interactions between user groups and Government agencies, are organized to produce these outcomes. We, the undersigned members of the Committee, are grateful to have had the opportunity to serve on this important initiative. We trust that you will demonstrate the leadership and courage to respond favorably to our recommendations and thus usher in a new and positive era in the management of the Rocky Mountain Trench that we care so deeply for.

East Kootenay Trench Agriculture Wildlife Committee Final Report

Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Brian Baehr, Regional Director Ministry of Agriculture/Fisheries/Food _______________________________ Glynn Killins East Kootenay Wildlife Assn. _______________________________ Andy McDonald Kootenay Livestock Assn. _______________________________ Dennis McDonald, Regional Manager Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks _______________________________ Elliott Pighin Kootenay Livestock Assn. _______________________________ Brodie Swan Independent rancher representative _______________________________ Ross Tozer, Regional Manager Ministry of Forests _______________________________ Ray Wilson, Committee Chair East Kootenay Hunters Assn. _______________________________ Mildred White Rocky Mountain Naturalists Society/ East Kootenay Environmental Society


EAST KOOTENAY TRENCH AGRICULTURE WILDLIFE

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

January, 1998


1. COMMITTEE MANDATE AND STRUCTURE1

On July 30, 1990, the Government of British Columbia, acting through the Ministers of Agriculture, Environment, and Forests, created an agriculture/wildlife project in the "Trench" area of the East Kootenays, with a mandate to "work with local interest groups to implement a strategy for reducing wildlife and livestock conflicts." Further, the project was to "develop an action plan to protect property and agricultural values, maintain wildlife and habitat, and manage Crown rangelands for the benefit of all users."

From this mandate the East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee was formed, composed of representatives of the following organizations:

* East Kootenay Wildlife Association * Kootenay Livestock Association (Representing B.C. Wildlife Federation) * Southern Guide Outfitters Association * East Kootenay Hunter's Association * Ministry of Env., Lands and Parks * Rocky Mountain Naturalists Society/ * Ministry of Forests East Kootenay Environmental Society * Independent ranchers epresentative * Ministry of Economic Development * Representative from public at large * Regional District of East Kootenay * Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council * Ministry of Agric., Fisheries and Food

The Committee conducted a problem analysis. Based on the results of that analysis, the following objectives were established:

* Collect more reliable data on populations of both wild and domestic ungulates, and their impact on Crown rangeland vegetation * Recommend an equitable forage allocation process for livestock and wildlife on Crown rangelands * Document the nature and extent of wildlife damage on private ranches and recommend solutions * Investigate impacts of uncontrolled forest ingrowth on Crown rangeland forage resources * Investigate and implement methods of enhancing forage availability for livestock and wildlife on Crown rangelands * Encourage integrated resource management planning in the project area * Provide a forum for dialogue and conflict resolution

1 Full document: Final Report, East Kootenay Trench Agriculture Wildlife Committee, Ministry of Forests, Nelson, 1998


* Provide objective, reliable biological and resource management information to user groups 2. VISION STATEMENT The Committee's vision of the future is an environment where: * Wildlife and ranching interests are flourishing and fully integrated with forestry and other resource sectors. * Forage is planned for, managed and enhanced in a manner that perpetuates the resource and provides the quality and quantity of forage and ecosystem diversity the landbase is capable of. * Systems of administration and management, together with the interactions between user groups and government agencies, are organized to produce these outcomes. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE In order of priority, the Committee's recommendations are: Recommendation 1: Increase available forage to match or exceed safe level of combined livestock and wildlife use on Crown rangelands in the Trench. Recommendation 2: Recognizing appropriate sections of the Forest Practices Code and the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, establish an interagency Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests, to accomplish Recommendation #1. The MOU would address: a) Bringing wild and domestic ungulate grazing levels to within the limits of the sustainable carrying capacity of Crown rangelands. b) A recognition of the legitimate forage requirements of both wildlife and livestock. c) A strategy for the management of any additional forage generated. d) A strategy to adjust grazing levels when necessary. e) A modified planning process for the Landscape Units within the dry, low elevation NDT4 Crown forests and rangelands that gives parity to wildlife, livestock, timber and ecological interests. Recommendation 3: Implement Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Guidelines as outlined in Section 3.10 of the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy. Ecosystem restoration will involve combinations of commercial and pre-commercial thinning, underburning and timber harvesting to achieve a healthier balance of trees, shrubs and grasses on Crown rangelands in the Trench. Base capability restoration area targets as quoted in Guidelines should be met as a minimum, with the majority of treated areas coming from the Open Range and Open Forest categories.


Recommendation 4: Acknowledge government's mandate to manage the overlap ranges within their long-term sustainable carrying capacity. To do so, resources must be dedicated to periodic vegetation monitoring on representative overlap range sites in the Trench, to a practical level of replication, that yields reliable information regarding: total seasonal forage production, combined total forage consumption, livestock consumption and wildlife consumption. These data should be integrated with ongoing plant community inventory and cover estimates required for Existing, Desired and Potential Natural Community determinations. Recommendation 5: Gather reliable elk population data on an ongoing basis in the Trench area. Recommendation 6: Develop strategically-located intercept range enhancements on Crown rangelands that work in conjunction with broad-scale ecosystem restoration enhancements to improve wild ungulate distribution, provide additional forage and reduce private land damage User group and non-government organization involvement in the planning, financing and maintenance of these enhancements is essential. Recommendation 7: Address wildlife damage to private haylands primarily by providing high quality, well-managed Crown forage resources in areas adjacent to damage-prone private lands. Crown forage may be enhanced by a combination of: restoration of fire maintained ecosystems, intercept range enhancements, and the renovation and judicious development of cultivated pastures. Recommendation 8: Ensure resources are available for periodic renovation of existing Crown range cultivated pastures, as they supply substantial forage to both livestock and wildlife. Recommendation 9: Create a collaborative extension effort directed at government personnel, user groups and the interested public, to provide opportunities to learn the technical and biological aspects of resource management in the Trench, as well as current land management "best practices." These Recommendations contain a range of initiatives that, if implemented, have the potential to significantly reduce this chronic and destructive conflict, over the long term. 5. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Stage One: Prompt review of highest priority Recommendations by regional and district staff of Ministry of Forests, BC Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, tenure holders, Forest Industry, and other resource user groups. Stakeholders work with government agencies to identify executive approvals required, resources required, sourcing of additional resources, and task assignments.


Stage Two: Priority Recommendations to be implemented as follows: PRIORITY COMPONENTS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE 1. Increase forage

see below

see below

see below

2. Memorandum of Understanding

Draft, negotiate, sign and implement.

MOF2, MOELP

1998: Draft, negotiate & sign 1999: Implement

3. Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Program implementation

Site selection Pre-operational planning Operational planning Execute

MOF, MOELP, MOAFF, FRBC, GEF, CBT, CBFWCP, RMTNRS, Forest Industry, Resource User Groups

1998: begin implementation at “breakeven” level, with bulk of operations in “Open Range” and “Open Forest” types.

4. Vegetation Monitoring

Select sites. Choose monitoring methodology. Dedicate resources. Implement.

MOF, MOELP

1998: Plan 1999: implement pilot 2000: expand to Trench on 3-year rotating basis

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Points 6.1 through 6.8 summarize the various activities and projects the Committee undertook. More detailed descriptions may be found in the Final Report. 6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF TRUST AMONG USER GROUPS Prior to the formation of the Committee, relationships between the user groups, particularly between ranchers and hunters, were bitter and rancorous. Wildlife advocates accused ranchers of overutilzing forage on Crown range: livestock owners complained that burgeoning elk herds were destroying private land hay crops. Debates were frequently carried out in the pages of local newspapers, and rare face-to-face meetings frequently degenerated into shouting matches. Little or no reliable data was available. 2MOF: Ministry of Forests. MOELP: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. MOAFF: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. FRBC: Forest Renewal BC. GEF: Grazing Enhancement Fund. CBT: Columbia Basin Trust. CBFWCP: Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. RMTNRS: Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society.


Two major initiatives were undertaken to combat the attitude of mistrust: a),the generation of objective data on ungulate population and forage consumption, and b), the establishment of an informal, consensus-based forum where user groups could meet extensively, explore each other's positions, and find areas of common interest. Results: * Level of disagreement reduced. * Debate between groups has shifted away from points of disagreement toward points of agreement. * Significant collaboration between wildlife and ranching groups on forest ingrowth issue * Recognition of value of objective, reliable resource data as basis for discussions. 6.2 VEGETATION MONITORING PROJECT The purpose of this project was to provide vegetation data for range management that would dovetail with elk population and distribution data collection. Accordingly, four project sites were chosen and the data collection methodology, based on "The Effects of Wildlife-Livestock Forage Use on Crown Range in the East Kootenay, Proposed Working Plan" (Pitt and Simpson, 1989) and "Vegetation Monitoring Working Plan" (Ross and Wikeem, 1991) was approved by the Technical Advisory Committee. The four sites chosen for the project, Skookumchuck Prairie, Premier Ridge, Peckhams Lake and Pickering Hills, are critical areas, characterized by their wildlife winter and spring range importance while supporting permitted cattle grazing. The objectives for the project were: • At all sites determine deer, elk, and cattle diets during all respective grazing

periods. • At Skookumchuk Prairie determine the long term differential impact of cattle,

wildlife and the two combined on range plant communities • At all sites, document actual forage and browse use by cattle and wildlife • At Premier Ridge, Peckhams Lake and Pickering Hills, document the relative

temporal forage demands of cattle and wildlife To meet these objectives the following data were collected at the four sites. 1) Monthly elk, deer and cattle diets when animals present 2) Percent plant species cover and frequency 3) Annual production, seasonal production, and percent use of herbaceous forage by cattle and wildlife 4) Annual production, seasonal production and percent use of the key shrubs Saskatoon and bitterbrush


Plant cover information was collected from 1991 to 1994. Dietary, production and use data was collected in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and analyzed with respect to the objectives.3 Results: • Combined (livestock and wildlife) consumption found to be at dangerously high levels on native range sites. • Elk, deer and cattle have specific dietary preferences that vary by season. • A few key forage and browse species are sought out by both wildlife and livestock. • There is a high degree of dietary overlap between elk and cattle. • Cultivated pastures on Crown range provide substantial forage to both livestock and wildlife. • Once key forage species are depleted, it takes several years of reduced grazing pressure before they can recover. 6.3 ELK CENSUS AND RADIOCOLLARING PROJECTS Six projects were funded, to provide data on wildlife populations and their distribution: 1) Simpson, K. 1991. Elk Winter Range Census in MU 420, 421 and 422. 2) Simpson, K. 1992. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench, 3) Simpson, K. 1993. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench MU 403, 1993.

4) Jamieson, B. and K. Hebert. 1993. Elk Capture and Monitoring in the East Kootenay Trench: 1991-1993.

5) Jalkotzy, M. 1994 Elk in the East Kootenay Trench: an Analysis of Radio Telemetry Data, 1986-1993. 6) Hatter, et al (1994) A Population Assessment of Rocky Mountain Elk in the East Kootenay Trench, 1980-1992 (and 1995 Addendum). Winter range censuses were completed for 1991, 1992 and 1993 employing methods developed in Idaho. Elk sightability was measured by recording sightings and misses of radio collared elk known to be present in the survey area. Large variations in repeat counts of the same area suggest that elk move unpredictably between adjacent blocks and that large areas should be sampled to provide accurate estimates. 11,038 elk were estimated to occupy the survey area. This census method was deemed not economically feasible for the entire Trench. In the winter of 1991-92, 42 elk were trapped and collared. In conjunction with 7 elk collared in previous years, these elk were utilized in the census project and their movements tracked for over two years (April 1991 to June 1993). Results: • Areas of high, medium and low elk density were determined, providing a basis for locating elk forage enhancements which will provide the greatest impact.

3Ross, T. (1997) Vegetation Monitoring Program Final Report, Ministry of Forests Research Br., Kamloops


• Home ranges and migrational patterns were established for the various Trench elk herds, providing key data for more precise herd management. • A ratio between "homesteader" and migratory elk was established. • Some preliminary patterns of habitat preference were established. 6.4 PRIVATE LAND DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECTS Wildlife, particularly the elk herds that overwinter in the Trench, are attracted to stored hay in winter and private cropland in spring and fall, causing varying amounts of economic loss and annoyance to land owners. Conflict centers on responsibility for damages and the nature and extent of the problem. Furthermore, the utilization of Crown range by cattle has been claimed to be detrimental to elk winter feed prospects. A multi-sectoral subcommittee, the Resource User's Group (RUG), was given responsibility for this issue. The RUG undertook the following projects: * A detailed rancher opinion survey (the Gaube Report) to estimate nature and extent of private land damage, and to propose solutions * A fenced 96 ha multi-purpose "intercept range" (the Buck Lake seeding) designed to attract wildlife and reduce the amount of time spent on private land and to reduce elk grazing pressure on adjacent rangeland. * Assisting in the completion of an elk-proof fence already partially constructed by a rancher (Marcer Ranch mitigation fence). * Dilts ranch mitigation logging: timber harvesting to create an open buffer strip to discourage elk movement from forested Crown land onto private hayland. Results: • Gaube report documented rancher concerns about substantial economic losses resulting from elk depredation on private hayfields. • Mitigation, in the form of intercept ranges, ecosystem restoration and other enhancements, was identified as the preferred option over monetary compensation for damage. 6.5 PASTURE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS A number of cultivated pastures had been established by Forest District staff in key Crown overlap range areas, to provide additional forage for livestock and wildlife, and to reduce wildlife damage on adjacent farmlands. The vegetation monitoring project confirmed the heavy use made of these pastures by both livestock and wildlife. Results: • The Committee funded a series of projects designed to create new cultivated pastures, and to rejuvenate existing pastures by fencing, fertilization, reseeding and water development.


6.6 FOREST INGROWTH AND RESTORATION HARVESTING PROJECTS The dry, low-elevation open forest and grassland stands of the Trench are defined by the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook as "characterized by frequent stand-maintaining fires." These stands include the Biogeoclimatic zones Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) and Ponderosa pine (PP) and are referred to in the Guidebook as "Natural Disturbance Type 4" (NDT4). Low-intensity surface fires, occurring roughly every 5 to 20 years, are part of the natural function of these ecosystems, maintaining a mosaic of grassland and open forest, while at the same time favoring the regeneration of the fire-tolerant Ponderosa pine and Western larch. The Crown forest portion of the Trench, from the Montana border to Golden, contains approximately 250,000 hectares of land deemed to be fire-maintained. Several decades of active fire suppression in the NDT4 has resulted in excessive tree regeneration ("ingrowth"). A consequence of this is poor forest health and degraded rangeland values. The impact of forest ingrowth on forage production was investigated, and found to be substantial: over 3000 hectares per year were being converted from grassland to forest, with a consequent loss of some 5000 Animal Unit Months of forage per year. Results: In collaboration with both Forest Districts and Crestbrook Forest Industries, the Committee initiated two pilot projects to test methods of reversing forest ingrowth: * Pump Pasture (Invermere District): 121 ha stand of Douglas-fir, lodgepole and Ponderosa pine, which had experienced substantial ingrowth, was targetted for an experimental thinning project, aimed at enhancing forage values. An innovative prescription was developed, to remove most of the juvenile understory, plus selected overstory trees that were malformed, too close together, or off-type. * Rat Lakes (Cranbrook District): semi-open 156 ha stand of larch, Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Again, harvesting was specifically targetted to removal of juvenile understory plus occasional sawlogs. 6.7 CHARLESWORTH GRAZING PERMIT INCREASE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROJECT The ultimate goal of the steering committee was to resolve conflict between wildlife and agricultural interests. This conflict was exemplified in 1991 by the application of Newgate rancher, Brader Charlesworth, for the addition of 180 animal unit months to his existing Crown grazing permit. The increase was favored by the approval authority, Ministry of Forests, but rejected on referral by


the Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch. With the approval of the Charlesworth Ranch and the two Ministries, the Resource Users Group launched a negotiation process with the assistance of a mediator and outside technical advice. The Resource Users had successfully negotiated the Private Land Mitigation proposal using principled negotiation guidelines and believed the method could be successful in other conflicts. Once underway, the use of a negotiation process was disliked by participants on either side of the issue. However since agreement was gridlocked in the existing referral system, there seemed to be merit in trying a different approach. The primary purpose of the process was to identify conflict issues contributing to the original gridlock. An agreement to grant the increase was achieved conditional upon establishing a forage monitoring system, completion of fencing and agreement on a new grazing plan. The latter agreement was not achieved. The Ministry of Forests granted the increase in accord with the other conditions but with the existing grazing plan. Results: The Resource Users Group subsequently analyzed the process and provided recommendations to the Ministry of Forests. The recommendations have not been acted on to date. 6.8 PUBLIC OUTREACH PROJECTS In keeping with its strategy to extend information to user groups and the interested public, the Committee undertook a number of extension events and participated in others. Results: The activities consisted of two open houses, ten field tours and nine presentations at conferences. In addition, three information bulletins were published. 7. PROJECT EXPENDITURES A wide range of projects were undertaken or commissioned by the Committee in reaching its objectives and fulfilling its mandate. Funding for the first three and one-half years was provided by the Sustainable Environment Fund; an additional two years' funding was received from the Federal/Provincial Forest Resources Development Agreement, which extended the term to March 31, 1996. Total expenditures were 1.4 million dollars.

COMPONENT PROJECT DOLLAR AMOUNT

EXPENDED


Construction of one major and three satellite grazing exclosures to assess impact of livestock and wildlife grazing

$108,000

Lab analysis of elk, deer and livestock fecal samples, to determine plant species preference and amount of dietary overlap. Four sites, four years.

68,000

Salary costs for Vegetation Monitoring Project. Project design, data collection (plant cover and frequency, productivity and removal, shrub productivity and removal, fecal collection), data analysis and final report, four sites, 1991-1995

569,000

Two fixed-wing elk censuses; radiocollaring, of 45 elk, followed by helicopter tracking, 1991-1993

256,000

Administration: salary for Program Manager and part-time secretary, office rental, Committee travel expenses, utilities, communications and supplies

210,000

Contract Private Land Damage Survey (Gaube Report)

30,000

Buck Lake/Marcer Ranch elk Damage Mitigation Projects

34,000

Crown land Pasture Enhancement Projects

113,000

Extension/Public Relations 10,000 Miscellaneous 2,000 Total Expenditures $1,400,000


FINAL REPORT

EAST KOOTENAY TRENCH AGRICULTURE WILDLIFE

COMMITTEE

January, 1998


FINAL REPORT

OF THE

EAST KOOTENAY AGRICULTURE/WILDLIFE COMMITTEE

Prepared on behalf of the Committee by:

Don Gayton Ministry of Forests

Nelson

Maurice Hansen Rocky Mountain Natural Resources Society

Kimberley

January, 1998


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A long-term, multifaceted and successful Project such as this requires the help and goodwill of a host of individuals. Besides offering heartfelt thanks to those legions of ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, government employees, contractors and timber company personnel who contributed their labor over the seven years of this project, the Committee would like to specifically thank the following individuals: • Ex-Committee Chair John Murray, whose enthusiasm and drive helped get the Project started. A serious accident prevented John from continuing his work with the Committee, but his contributions have been invaluable; • Verdun Casselman. Although is no longer with us, Verd’s extensive knowledge of local history and broad perspective were invaluable to the Committee; • The Resource User Group, consisting of April Beckley, Evelyn Fahselt, Dave White, Ron Skiber, Andy McDonald, Brodie Swann, Maurice Hansen and Ray Wilson, who wrestled with the thorny issues of private land damage mitigation and the Newgate increase; • Al Eimer of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, who provided the Committee with excellent financial guidance; • Tim Ross and Brian Wikeem, who conceived and executed the massive Vegetation Monitoring Project; • Don Gayton and Maurice Hansen, both veterans of the Committee, who undertook the arduous task of writing this Report.


page 1. GEOGRAPHICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING 1 2. WILDLIFE AND RANCHING: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE 5 3. HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT PRIOR TO 1990 10 4. MANDATE AND FORMATION OF COMMITTEE 16 5. DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS 21 6. VEGETATION MONITORING PROJECT 22 7. WILDLIFE DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS 39 8. PRIVATE LAND DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT 44 9. NEWGATE INCREASE PROJECT 49 10. BUCK LAKE INTERCEPT RANGE PROJECT 60 11. PASTURE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS 62 12. PRELIMINARY FOREST INGROWTH ANALYSIS 64 13. RESTORATION HARVESTING PROJECTS 73 14. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 76 15. BRIDGE CREEK (OREGON) FACT-FINDING TOUR 77 16. PARALLEL INITIATIVES 78 17. DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS 81 18. ANALYSIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY 92

APPENDIX


1

1. GEOGRAPHICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING The Rocky Mountain Trench is a narrow, 5 to 25 kilometre wide glaciated valley stretching from the Yukon to Montana. In British Columbia, the East Kootenay sub region encompasses that part of the Trench from the Big Bend of the Columbia River south to the Montana border. The Trench separates two major mountain ranges, the Rockies to the east and the Purcell Mountains to the west. The area of concern to the EKTAWC is from approximately Radium in the north to Newgate at the US border (see map). The southern two-thirds of the area is drained by the Kootenay River. The lower part of the Kootenay is now a reservoir since the imposition of the Libby Dam in Montana in the 1970's. The upper third of the area is drained by the Columbia river. The Trench was heavily influenced by the most recent (Fraser) glaciation, when the main valley and side drainages were buried under 1000 meters of ice. The complex topography of the Trench can be interpreted through the multiple advances and retreats of the ice sheet, as well as the erosion, ponding, scouring and outwashing that occurred as the huge volume of ice melted. Soils on the glacial flood plains and upland terraces were developed on strongly calcareous gravelly river deposits that are overlain by deposits of silty and fine sandy materials. Climate in the Trench is considered Continental, although winter minimum temperatures are not as cold as in the prairies east of the Rockies. Precipitation at the Cranbrook airport, roughly in the center of the area, is 366mm (14 1/2") per year. Annual precipitation has two peaks, one in November- January as snow, and a second one in May-June as rain. Mean maximum temperature for August is 32.2o C and mean minimum for January is -26.3o C. Frost-free season is approximately 110 days, and there is an average of 2206 sunshine hours per year. "The Trench" has been defined bioregionally as the main valley and the side valleys that lie below 1525 meters, or 4500 feet. The area is largely forested, with the bottom of the valley and the lower south to Southwest-facing slopes covered with a mosaic of open forest and grassland. Much of the bottom of the valley is a patchwork of communities, farms and rural residences that abut Crown land. The vegetation within the Trench is broken into three main Biogeoclimatic subzones/variants4:

Subzone/variant Abbrev. Leading Tree species Elevation Range Dry Cool Montane Spruce

MSdk Engelmann spruce, Subalpine fir

1200-1650m south aspect 1100-1550m north aspect

Kootenay Dry Mild Interior Douglas-fir Variant

IDFdm2 Douglas-fir 800-1200m south aspect 800-1100m north aspect

Kootenay Dry Hot PPdh2 Ponderosa pine, 700-950m south aspect

4It is also referred to as the "East Kootenay Trench" in the Ecosection classification


2

Ponderosa Pine Variant Douglas-fir The agriculture/wildlife conflict is associated with the open forests, grasslands and private cropland within the IDFdm2 and PPdh2. The region supports the greatest diversity of wild ungulates (seven species) and large carnivores in North America. The vast majority of the province's elk and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep live in the East Kootenays. The four main overlap range areas, used by wildlife in winter/spring, and by livestock in summer and fall, are Newgate, Pickering Hills, Skookumchuk Prairie and Premier Ridge. Economy The area contains approximately 37,000 people. The economy is relatively diversified, between forestry, mining, agriculture, tourism, government, service industries and light industrial. Livestock Sector There are approximately 150 ranches in the Trench that utilize Crown range (almost exclusively cow-calf operations) with some 8,500 head. Total Crown land grazing amounts to some 47,000 AUMs. Gross livestock production receipts on these ranches is in the order of 5 to 6 million dollars annually, the bulk of which is spent locally. This figure does not account for the entire livestock sector, since it is estimated that an additional 4,000 head are present in the Trench that do not access Crown range. Wildlife Sector The average 1991/95 East Kootenay elk and deer hunter population was approximately 20,000 individuals, of which two thirds were local residents, and the remaining third from outside the area. This has been calculated to generate economic activity of nearly 8 million dollars per year (MOELP, 1996). In addition, approximately 4 million dollars of activity is estimated to be generated by wildlife viewing activities, primarily with moose, elk and deer (Reid, 1986). Timber Sector Total employment income for forestry in the East Kootenays is approximately 147 million dollars annually (CORE, 1994). The area of concern to this analysis however--the bottom and side valleys of the Trench--represents about twenty percent of the Crown forested land, therefore contributing roughly 30 million to total employment income. Governmental Structures Forest Service jurisdiction over the Trench area is within the Nelson Forest Region and is divided into two Districts: Invermere and Cranbrook, with District offices in each community. Range staff are present in the two District offices as well as the Regional office. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks services the Trench from their offices in Cranbrook, with a


3

Regional office in Nelson. Fish and Wildlife staff are present in both offices. Fish and Wildlife staff have further subdivided the Trench into seven Wildlife Management Units5. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also maintains an office in Cranbrook, with a Regional office in Kelowna. The Regional District of East Kootenay office is located in Cranbrook. Resource User and other Non-Governmental Organizations The livestock sector is represented in the Trench by the Kootenay Livestock Association, The Ta Ta Creek Farmers Institute, The Waldo Stockbreeders Association and the Windermere Farmers Institute. The wildlife sector is represented by the East Kootenay Wildlife Association, affiliated with the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, and the independent East Kootenay Hunters Association. The Southern BC Guide Outfitters Association are affiliated with the B.C. Guide Outfitters Association. The environmental sector is represented by the East Kootenay Environmental Society, which maintains an office in Kimberley, and the Rocky Mountain Naturalists. The Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society is a broad-based organization that has representation from most of the above sectors. First Nations interests are represented by the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council. Other non-governmental organizations of interest are the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Office in Nelson, Forest Renewal B.C., which has a branch office in Cranbrook, and the newly-formed Columbia Basin Trust, based in Nakusp. 2. WILDLIFE AND RANCHING: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Evolution of the Trench Landscape Grass, shrubs and forbs are the primary inputs for both the livestock and wildlife industries in the Trench. This range resource has been part of the natural history of the area since after the last Ice Age. This was confirmed by finding bones of the bison, a quintessential grazing animal, in an ancient aboriginal campsite near Fort Steele. Evidence of cyclical populations of elk and Bighorn sheep, both primarily grazers, is also found in the historical records. More recently, reports from the 1800's noted the number and good quality of horses possessed by the native people, more evidence of the historical presence of ample forage. The first cattle arrived in the region during the Wildhorse goldrush in 1867. Michael Phillips, Hudson's Bay Co. Factor at Tobacco Plains, and the first white man through the Crowsnest Pass, noted cattle on East Kootenay ranges in 1872. In 1886, Supt. Sam Steele of the Northwest Mounted Police remarked on the quality of the bunchgrasses here and estimated the region could support a livestock industry of 8000 head. At that time the upper Kootenay native people owned 2000 horses and 500 cattle, according to Steele. All this is evidence that a substantial and high quality forage resource was a historic feature of the Trench. David Thompson was the first person who recorded what the Trench landscape looked like. Listen to how he describes the approaches to Columbia Lake, south of Invermere, in 1808: 5M.U.'s 402, 403, 420, 421, 422, 425, and 426.


4

"As one approaches the lake, the woods of this almost impenetrable forest become gradually less close, and about 25 miles below the lake, begins to show small meadows, and soon becomes an open clear ground for Horses, bearing plenty of good grass with straggling hemlock. All the rest of the country to the spectator appears as a thick forest, but as he advances, he constantly finds the same open meadows, which become more and more spacious, as one proceeds southward, the red deer and small chevreuil become more and more plenty." (Nisbet, 1994) Fifty years later, the geologist James Hector had this to say about the Trench: "If they had only had enough food, they would have enjoyed riding through what, apart from the dusty ground and sparse bunchgrass, seemed almost like the open glades of a deer park." The Wildhorse Goldrush in the 1860's put East Kootenay on the road to "development." The building of the Crowsnest Pass Railway in 1898 opened the area to industrial exploitation of the forest resource. From the late 1800's through to the 1930's the floor of the Trench was logged relentlessly. An early rancher, Doyle Reay of Jaffray, tells of the landscape of the lower reaches of the Bull River valley looking like the foothills of Alberta, a paradise of grass. The wide-open forest stands contained mature, large-diameter fir, larch and pine that were in great demand for railroad ties and mine timbers. Historical photos of the period show three logs constituted a full load for the teams of draft horses that sledded the logs out of the bush. The result of this logging activity was a dramatic decrease in the amount of land under forest cover: by the 1920's the bottom of the Trench was fairly well denuded of trees. Subsequent large forest fires, enhanced by drought conditions, then burned throughout the area in the 1930's. The result was a conversion from a forest/grassland mosaic to largely grassland on the floor of the Trench and the larger side valleys. This condition, as will be shown later, was not to last. Evolution of Livestock Ranching and Big Game Hunting It is interesting to consider and imagine the development of hunting and livestock herding from their earliest beginnings. Livestock herding probably developed because hunting was such a hard and dangerous business. Paleontologists, examining the injuries evident in the bones of ancient man, conclude they are very similar to the types of injuries sustained by modern rodeo rough-stock riders. In any event, both hunting and herding have long standing in the East Kootenay. Both have played significant roles in the economic, cultural and social makeup of the region. According to Verdun Casselman, Fort Steele area rancher, poet, and independent ranching representative on the steering committee, the ranching industry became established around the turn of the century. At that time there were few elk in the lower elevations of the Kootenay valley. However, deer and bighorn sheep were plentiful, and F.P. Norbury in his letters home, (around 1890) spoke of shooting both species for meat (Casselman, 1990). At this point (late 19th century) the fates of wildlife and cattle become intertwined with the logging industry, and they have never been separated since. In the early days, the logging industry was the major market for the products of local ranches--beef and draft horses. Peter Woods' grandfather, also Peter Woods, rode into the area in the twenties with a saddle horse, a


5

frying pan and fifty cents. Woods built up a ranch at Mather (Cherry) Creek, producing Percheron horses and beef to supply the Staples Lumber Company. According to early accounts, no elk were seen west of the Kootenay River until after the late 1940's, although they had been present historically in varying numbers. The Woods' of Cherry Creek first saw elk there about 1948. On the grasslands of the Trench, now expanded by logging, three main users were flourishing, feral horses, elk, and cattle. Elk had established the very sensible habit of spending summers in the high country and winters in the Trench. Horses had been present in the Trench since the late 1700's when the native people had acquired them. The horse population, grazing the ranges of the East Kootenay year round, likely increased from the time of David Thompson through to this century. With the advent of powered farm and logging equipment in the 1940's and 1950's, and the departure of local farmers to the war, many of these horses were simply turned free and survived without human attention. During the late 40's and 50's Forest Service policy directed removal of about 5000 horses from the range, due to concerns about overgrazing. Some were captured, some quietly recovered by their owners, and others were shot (under what was jokingly known as "Section 30-30" of the Grazing Act). By the late 1950's the condition of the range and the problems of uninvited wildlife use of cropland and stored feed were beginning to become public issues in the East Kootenay. It was obvious that elk, sheep and deer were in competition for the same forage resource that cattle utilized. Some wildlife proponents argued that since cows ate forage supplies that could otherwise provide for wintering wildlife, wildlife's use of rancher feed resources was only fair. The character of both wildlife and ranching pursuits also changed in the 1950's. What had been a diversified agricultural industry of grain, dairy, market gardening and beef shifted to a ranching industry specializing in supplying feeder cattle for export to Alberta's expanding feedlot industry. Economies of scale elsewhere made local food production uncompetitive. Recreational hunting--both local, provincial and guide-outfitting--was becoming a major resource player. Public pressure to better manage range was emerging as values evolved and awareness grew. Forest Service policy began to reflect these changes. Guide/outfitting got its start in the Canadian Rockies after the railroad opened the West to tourism. In East Kootenay, Guide/Outfitting began at the turn of the century and was the first area in B.C. where guided hunting took place. However for local residents, hunting was as much a necessity as a sport. Beginning also in the 1950's and progressing through to the 1970's, the East Kootenay economy became more industrialized. Mining, which was present in the Trench from the time of the Wildhorse Gold Rush, has grown steadily. The Sullivan Mine in Kimberley, touted as the largest lead/zinc mine in the world, supported the entire town. Strip mining of coal in the Elk valley employed hundreds. The forest resource saw major expansions. The pulp mill at Skookumchuk was built. Modern sawmills manufactured dimension lumber. One company alone needed one hundred loads of logs a day to keep its mills operating.


6

The outcome of the Columbia River Treaty was the flooding of the lower Kootenay river from the US border to Wardner. The loss of wildlife habitat and high quality farmland dealt significant blows to these interests. As a consequence of this industrial coming-of-age, together with Crown land alienation, urban and rural housing development and more recreational use of public land, an enormous burden was placed on the spaces and habitats of the Trench. Current Situation Today both hunting and livestock ranching interests are feeling beleaguered as the traditions and values by which they function are less and less understood by people living in large cities. Increasing urban populations, development, changing values and urban-based recreational demand threaten the capability of public land to provide the large undisturbed tracts of open country that wildlife and ranching require. Recreational Hunting Recreational and meat hunting is a passion throughout the Trench. A large number of East Kootenay men and some women simply live to hunt. Figures provided by Fish and Wildlife Branch show that one-third of the 37,000 Trench residents (population estimate of the EKTAWC study area) are hunters. Spending on hunting equipment and supplies is enormous, over 7 million dollars on elk and deer alone. The East Kootenay is also used by many B.C. hunters from out of the region. The 1991/95 average number of elk hunters in the East Kootenay was 6,747 individuals, the average number of deer hunters was 13,895 for a total average hunter population of 20,632 individuals. Fish and Wildlife branch believe hunter activity will increase in the East Kootenay because of changing demographics and opportunity reductions elsewhere. Non-Hunting Wildlife Use Indirect, non-hunting values for wildlife have been calculated for the East Kootenay (Reid, 1986.). This report indicates 84% of Kootenay residents watch wildlife and value the experience. The species group of most interest to residents was deer, elk and moose (25% of residents). In 1983, the indirect value of wildlife in the East Kootenay was $4,122,000. Fish and Wildlife Branch believes this value has increased an unknown amount since 1983. Cattle Ranching East Kootenay cattle enterprises support some 12,000 animals in their basic herds. This population bulges to approximately 24,000 in the spring to fall period when calves are at their mother's side. The majority of enterprises are commercial cow-calf operations with a smaller number of purebred operations producing high quality seed stock for the industry. Marketings produced farm gate income of 7 million dollars in 1995 according to Statistics Canada. The nature and scope of these enterprises varies widely which is typical of the industry throughout North America. Most are family operations ranging from small hobby operations to larger commercial operations. Intensively managed farmland has doubled in the last thirty years to provide private pasture and winter forage supplies. Numbers of cattle on crown land decreased


7

sharply and then stabilized after the Columbia River Treaty disruptions caused by the Libby Dam flooding. Total numbers of cattle in the region have remained fairly constant since the early 1980's. Guide-Outfitting Approximately 36 Guide/Outfitters operate in the entire region, employing 200 part time guides and take out 625 paying clients. Revenue is about 4.5 million per year. Approximately two-thirds of these Guide/Outfitters have interests in the Trench. Except for spring bear, the hunting season is a two month period in the fall. Some outfitters operate in July and August providing wilderness pack trips and/or base lodge accommodation, an activity that is expanding.


8

Hunting and Ranching: Future Prospects Activities that tend to benefit one relatively small enterprise, but require large areas of public land, come under pressure because of their perceived low return to the "public good." This presents a problem for both ranching and guide-outfitting. Recreational hunters represent a large public sector with potentially more political influence than ranching or guide outfitting. However, anti-hunting groups have currently targetted all hunters and are attempting to sway public opinion against hunting. There is no active anti-livestock lobby in the Trench, but anti-livestock sentiments are heard occasionally across the Province. Some issues that are of mutual concern to both the ranching and wildlife sectors: * forest ingrowth * excessive landscape fragmentation through new subdivisions and ranchettes * excessive roading and ORV activity * maintenance of viable ranch units, as a bulwark against rural subdivision development. * keeping an increasingly urbanized public informed and sympathetic to rural and natural resource management issues Over the short term, commercial and recreational hunting, guiding and ranching will continue. Over the long term, the survival of these sectors depends on their ability to come to terms with changing social pressures, public misconceptions, dedicated antagonists and the decline of the forage resource. Perhaps the most important issue governing the survival of these sectors is their willingness to improve the conditions of debate, dialogue and persuasion. This needs to first occur within each group and secondly between the groups, government and the public so that learning can occur. From learning, there is the potential for mutual support and guaranteed long-term survival for both sectors. There is reason for cautious optimism. Given the duration and intensity of resource conflict in the Trench, some learning may have occurred among resource interests. The opportunity to do so has been greater here than elsewhere. If so, then the improved conditions for debate, dialogue and persuasion may be utilized to the advantage of the resource. The rangelands of this bioregion currently function far below their potential. If the will can be found to act on the issues that will release this potential, then future prospects for forage resources for wildlife and ranching are good.


9

3. HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE/WILDLIFE CONFLICT PRIOR TO 1990 The hunters of prehistoric times who domesticated the first cattle would certainly have been surprised, could they have traveled forward in time, to learn that hunting and cattle herding would battle for supremacy on the North American continent. Moving to the present century, S. Omar Barker, an early cowboy poet, obviously knew the character of cattle herders and reached back to biblical times for a reference: "Since the days when Lot and Abraham split the Jordan range in half, Just to fix it so their punchers wouldn't fight And ol' Jacob skinned his dad-in-law of six years' crop of calves And hit the trail for Jordan in the night There has been a taste for battle 'mongst the men who follow cattle." That taste for battle is also found among the men and women who hunt the mighty Wapiti, it should be added. The agriculture/wildlife conflict in the Trench has a long history. In 1956, J.E. Fry, Secretary of the B.C. Beef Cattle Growers' Association (Presently the B.C. Cattlemens' Association), obviously writing from experience, said: "The East Kootenay is probably the hardest place in B.C. to arrive at a measure of co-existence between these two groups" (hunters and ranchers). The 1957 Nelson Forest District Grazing Annual Report had this to say: "A certain amount of blame for range deterioration can probably be laid to both livestock and big game. As we see it, the problem of hunter-farmer relations will always be with us and is particularly acute in a land of plentiful game and scattered ranch holdings." (MOF, 1957). Even in those early days, conflict between wildlife and livestock interests found expression in derogatory and vociferous ways. Newspaper space in the form of editorials, letters and headlined articles carried the debate. Rancher's cows and horses were blamed for snatching survival from the mouths of wildlife. Ranchers in turn became enraged when game ate their stored hay during the winter and then grazed the tender new shoots on their hayfields in the spring. The aggressiveness of wildlife advocacy was upsetting to cattlemen as they felt they were losing the public opinion race. Wildlife advocates had become numerous, dedicated and determined in promoting their interests. Cattlemen accused them of using unfair means to achieve their ends, particularly belittling the worth of the cattle industry. Ranchers using Crown land grazing possessed authorized statutory grazing permits, which wildlife proponents envied. However, ranching was actually laboring under the same fundamental problem as the wildlife sector, the inability to meaningfully influence land use decisions that affected their own interests.


10

Ray Demarchi clearly enunciated the issue of lack of control from wildlife's perspective to the Waldo Stockbreeders' Association in 1970: "The problems faced by the wildlife manager stem from the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Branch has never had the formal opportunity to enter into the decision-making processes involved in allocating resource lands." Regarding the use of newspapers to influence public opinion, Demarchi had this to say: "Since there has been no formal way for the Fish and Wildlife branch to enter into the decision-making processes of the use and allocation of land through the usual government channels, we have attempted to create a public awareness of the social and economic benefits of wildlife so that public opinion will correct this situation. In so doing we have not deliberately attempted to undermine (other) interests. There has been considerable over-reaction and misunderstanding of our intent..." (Demarchi, 1970) Ted Berry, District Agriculturist with the Ministry of Agriculture, spoke to the Cranbrook Rotary Club in defense of agriculture in the early 1970's. He said agriculture enterprises actually brought substantial cash into the region and were a positive influence to the local economy. The claim by wildlife proponents that ranching resulted in an economic drain on the region was simply not supported by the facts. Berry also argued that the problems wildlife were experiencing could not entirely be laid at the door of current cattle grazing but comprised many factors of which forest ingrowth was a major one. Early Studies of the Conflict In the late 1960's, Don Sherling, then President of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association, provided the leadership that launched a study called "Project Grass Roots." Besides the Wildlife Association, the study was supported by: B.C. Beef Cattle Growers Association B.C. Wildlife Federation Columbia Valley Guides Association Cranbrook Farmer's Institute Cranbrook Rod and Gun Club Ta-Ta Creek Farmer's Institute Waldo Stock Breeders Association Windermere Farmers Institute This consortium, known as the Selkirk Conservation Association, sponsored the study, conducted by Howard Paish & Associates. The study was entirely funded by the constituent groups and cost about 6,000 dollars. The study was intended to provide conclusions pertaining to range use policies and practices with emphasis on integrated use, that could be of practical value to the sponsors of the project in dealing with government agencies on land use problems. Here are some selected portions of the Study's conclusions:


11

"It has become apparent during the course of the study that the range lands under consideration are really the product of human activity and that human activity will be needed to maintain them." "A decision has to be made either to follow an "evolutionary" concept of land management and permit the region to return to mature forest with the subsequent loss of range land values and their associated benefits, or to follow an "era" concept of land management and, through vegetation control, maintain ranges at an agreed level of forest succession and range productivity." "It goes without saying that if any of the ideas covered in the foregoing conclusions are to be implemented, that there will be a need for a better level of technical, legislative and administrative accommodation for integrated resource use." "We believe that the problem of competition between range users (In the East Kootenay) has been overstated, but that the more serious problem of range losses through forest regeneration .... needs urgent attention." The study also noted the polarization between government departments involved in the grazing resource. "Better coordination between organizations with established specific objectives may bring about levels of compromise that enable such groups to "get along with one another." This statement concluded the report: "We believe that provided there is a willingness to recognize that the integrated use of a natural resource involves major technical, administrative and possibly legislative inputs, rather than a verbal statement of an objective, at both the provincial and local level, the range use conflict in the East Kootenay can be resolved and that a distinct increase in the total productivity of the range lands for all uses can be achieved" (Paish, 1970). In 1973 the Purcell Study addressed integrated resource management for the Purcell Mountains. Regarding the range resource the report said: "The competition between beef cattle and wild ungulates for available forage on the lower slopes of the Purcells will be dealt with by regional resource managers on a multi-disciplinary basis. The strategy will undoubtedly include retarding succession of low elevation shrubland plus selective acquisition of marginal farm units for management on a multi-purpose basis (Env. & Land Use Comm., 1973)." In 1974, a report called "The Grazing Question in British Columbia" was published by R. Hudson, V. Brink and W. Kitts. They said: "Two major institutional problems have been uncovered in the current grazing controversy; the first is the polarization of the resource agencies and second the paternalistic attitude of the resource agencies to the public"


12

"Resource managers have demonstrated amazing insensitivity to the problems faced by one another and lack of respect for one another's specialized knowledge and experience." "The problem of livestock versus wildlife has plagued land managers and administrators for many years. However in spite of considerable research effort, today we seem no closer to a solution" (Hudson et al, 1974). Coordinated Resource Management Planning and ARDA In 1974, B.C.'s Chief Forester, Bill Young, apparently responding to the chronic agriculture/wildlife conflict in the East Kootenay, contracted with E. William Anderson, Range Management consultant from Portland, Oregon, to lead the establishment of Coordinated Resource Management planning (CRMP) in the East Kootenay Region. These plans had been successfully pioneered in Oregon by Anderson and R. J. Scherzinger. The Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement (ARDA), a Federal/Provincial fund, financed the works required to implement the plans to be developed through Mr. Anderson's leadership. Between late 1974 and 1983 the majority of range units providing livestock grazing had CRMP's completed. 692 kilometres of fence were built under the program and rotational grazing systems established. $2,980,745 was the total ARDA investment (Sasaki et al, 1984). The assumptions generated by the CRMP's and the ARDA expenditures was that better management would result in benefits to both ranchers and wildlife interests. Ranchers expected to be able to run more cattle at lower cost and wildlife interests expected a secure supply of forage for game. The prevailing mood among range interests at this time was very optimistic. Most ranchers and wildlife proponents participated enthusiastically in the program. It seemed that a long term resolution to this age-old issue had been created. Contrary to rancher's expectations, the benefits to the industry from the ARDA expenditures were hard to discern. No additional grazing privileges directly attributable to CRMP's and ARDA were granted. The widespread adoption of deferred rotation grazing management was believed responsible for reduced calf weights, the result of turning stock into mature forage late in the season. Wildlife (particularly elk) increased in number, and ranchers attributed the increase to the range improvement resulting from new management practices and capital expenditures. Wildlife interests were resistant to the notion of more cattle on the range. The CRMP forum, intended by its designers (Anderson and Scherzinger) to support good dialogue, communication and joint operational decision making in the context of agreed-to objectives, had devolved to a mere reporting forum.


13

Farm Purchases The acquisition of farms recommended in the Purcell study of 1973 was carried out with the purchase by government of seven properties using money from the "Green Belt Fund". These properties were: Three Sons ranch - Wasa Zirnhelt Ranch - Fort Steele Steeples ranch - Fort Steele Lost Creek ranch - Fort Steele G. Earle ranch - Newgate Monroe ranch - Newgate Administration was split between Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch with three properties, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Property Management Branch with four. The Steeples ranch, Lost Creek ranch and Point Vee Bar ranch were administered by the latter and generated the most public interest because of the high degree of wildlife use supported by them. The B.C. Land Commission, a newly created entity responsible for preserving agricultural land in B.C., hired Pearse Bowden Economic consultants to provide recommendations on land use options and management for these three properties. A report was produced in March of 1975 recommending use of the properties for relief pasture for livestock (Pearse Bowden, 1975). Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) and capital projects on range units funded by the Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement (ARDA) were underway at this time. Following the Pearse Bowden recommendations the three ranches were utilized as relief pasture for cattle from those range units deemed to be overcommitted and subject to capital improvements directed by CRMP's and funded by ARDA. A period of rest from cattle grazing on these range units in conjunction with improved management following their return was the strategy adopted in expectation of long term benefits to the resource. This arrangement continued until 1980. In 1980 a change in government, combined with the ever present pressure to reduce expenditures resulted in the leasing of the three ranches to private interests. Wildlife proponents bitterly opposed this turn of events, and ranching interests supported it. The Steeples and Lost Creek ranches were eventually sold to private interests and the Point Vee Bar continues to be leased. The severe winter of 1976 prompted Wildlife Branch to begin a feeding program for elk that was later discontinued. Ranchers claimed this domesticated the elk and attracted even more to their private forage supplies. Wycliffe rancher, Vern Kuntz, killed an elk at his haystack as a public gesture of his frustration with the situation. The K2 ranch based in Canal Flats and Invermere sued the Provincial Government for damages and losses by wildlife. Kuntz was found guilty of hunting out of season and the K2 lost its case. However, the presiding judge did express sympathy for the K2's situation.


14

The Ombudsman's Report In 1979 the B.C. ombudsman, Karl Friedmann, responding to submissions by ranchers, investigated the conflict and published a Report on the issue. His conclusions are paraphrased here: "I had not expected to find so many problems, so strongly expressed, from a relatively small area of the province. The problems were clearly not new. In an environment characterized by conflict between growing demands and exacerbated by poor or non-existent management a concept such as CRMP can serve as a very useful tool. I understand CRMP was greeted with initial enthusiasm, later to be replaced by disillusionment for many. In 1979 I could see many examples of actual or potential administrative injustices connected to resource allocation policies of the various agencies. The intervening period has witnessed improvement in many of these problems with more needed but projects are underway to supply the needed changes and I have faith the Ministries will carry out these projects. CRMP has been in place for five years but it has taken this long to obtain genuine commitment to the concept on the part of the Ministries. The conversion is not complete but for the most part the Ministries are moving in the direction of long term commitment to the concept" (Friedman, 1979). Wildlife biologist Valerius Geist, hired by Friedman to analyze the situation had this to say: "The central problem in the East Kootenay agriculture/wildlife conflict..... is a shrinking forage resource (due to) forest encroachment". "All measures to resolve conflict between ranching and wildlife are of necessity palliative, a cure for symptoms unless forest encroachment is rolled back"(ibid, 1979). The conflict continued into the 1980's with a problem analysis (Pitt, 1982), studies on "homesteader" elk, (Simpson, 1988) and assessments of wildlife damage (Kluge & Weber, 1988). The latest livestock/wildlife conflict remediation venture is the subject of this Report: the East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Project.


15

4. FORMATION AND MANDATE OF THE EAST KOOTENAY TRENCH AGRICULTURE/WILDLIFE COMMITTEE The Closkey Report The story of the Trench Committee actually began on October 2nd of 1988. On that day, three Ministers of the B.C. Government, Howard Dirks (Crown Lands), Bruce Strachan, (Environment), and John Savage (Agriculture) announced that consultant Dan Closkey was being appointed to develop an implementation strategy for solutions to the agriculture/wildlife conflict in East Kootenay. "The technical studies on the nature and scope of the problem have been completed, and Cabinet recognizes there is an urgent need to implement solutions," said Dirks. A period of heavy weather in the relations between livestock and wildlife interests had preceded this announcement. Two studies (Simpson 1988; Kluge & Weber 1988) on the number of so called "homesteader elk" and their use of private land forage had recently been released. These two studies added to the already impressive number of analyses of the East Kootenay agriculture/wildlife problem6. There was an embarrassing contrast between the volume of words and intentions and the volume of action on the problem. The Closkey Report was released in early 1989 and was in broad circulation by February of that year. It contained seventeen recommendations, including the proposal to implement Dr. Mike Pitt's proposal to study the interactions between cattle, wildlife and forage production (Closkey, 1989). Other than that recommendation, the linkage between Closkey's recommendations and the implementation theme announced by Dirks is hard to find when read today. Closkey's recommendations were liked better by wildlife interests, who urged its implementation, than by cattlemen, because he recommended the purchase of two ranches and the establishment of five wildlife management areas. The Kootenay Livestock Association apparently did not consider the range improvement and wildlife compensation recommendations to be sufficiently offsetting. In March of 1989 they published a response to the Closkey report suggesting it was biased and of limited value and the recommendations not acceptable. At a meeting in May of 1990 the new Environment Minister, John Reynolds, was exposed to the intensity of feeling East Kootenay wildlifers have towards their interests. This meeting was about limited entry hunting for moose, however the agenda spilled over into the agriculture/wildlife conflict and Reynolds promised to do something about it. Meanwhile the MLA for East Kootenay/Revelstoke, Duane Crandall had been getting an earful from both his ranching and wildlife constituents for and against the Closkey report. As a consequence of the Closkey Report and the public pressure on elected officials, staff within the Range Branch of Ministry of Forests and the Fish & Wildlife Branch of Ministry of Environment began laying plans for the creation of a multi-sectoral committee to tackle the agriculture/wildlife problem. Announcement of the Committee

6John Murray, Chairman, estimated that two million dollars had been expended on such studies.


16

On a fine, sunny, day (July 30, 1990), a small crowd gathered on Eager Hill near Cranbrook, an area of typical East Kootenay rangeland. At this event, called the "Closkey Report Implementation News Conference," Environment Minister John Reynolds was the leadoff speaker, followed by Howard Dirks, Minister for Crown Lands. They were introduced by Columbia River MLA Duane Crandall although he was slightly outside his riding boundary. MLA for the riding, Anne Edwards, a member of the opposition, was also in attendance. A press release was handed out, bearing the headline "East Kootenay Wildlife/Livestock Conflicts to be Resolved." According to the press release, a steering committee would be struck to coordinate various projects that Ministries would undertake to resolve the conflict. The Ministry of Environment's responsibilities were to: * estimate number, species and distribution of wildlife using conflict areas and * set population control levels * control elk, deer and bighorn sheep numbers through hunting regulations and permits to minimize damage to private and public rangelands * enhance critical winter ranges on Crown lands to attract wildlife away from private property Ministry of Forests activities were to concentrate on: * tending selected, low-elevation forest stands to promote forage production * use prescribed fires to treat sites to enhance the production of better quality forage for livestock and wildlife * construct fences and implement other range improvements to rehabilitate Crown rangelands damaged through overgrazing * monitor forage use by elk and livestock to improve the long term management of the Crown forage base Ministry of Agriculture was to: * fence chronic problem areas on private land * plant special crops to lure animals away from grains and forage planted by farmers * do detailed investigations to assess the extent of damages on ranches Reynolds concluded this list with the cryptic comment, "and many other things." Communication with the public and solicitation of public input was to be actively pursued and encouraged. The press release (Province of BC, 1990) further stated that the steering committee, made up of representatives from regional Ministries, wildlife and livestock associations, and a local resident, was to direct this endeavor. John Murray, a retired forest company executive with a reputation for successful integrated management performance, was appointed chairman. Monies in the amount of 350 thousand dollars per year for three years were committed to carry out "comprehensive workable solutions, protect property and agriculture values, maintain wildlife habitat and manage crown land for the benefit of all users." An implementation committee was


17

to be struck consisting of district agency operational personnel to oversee the operational activities expected to be generated by this project. John Murray was asked how he felt about his appointment as chair of the group. He said, "Any resource manager would give his eye teeth for an opportunity like this." According to Dirks these efforts were all in accord with Ministry of Forests integrated resource management mandate, "where decisions are made only after the needs of all resource users are recognized." Also according to Dirks, this was to be a "classic example of co-operation and teamwork of government ministries to resolve a problem for the benefit of B.C." A meeting on July 30, 19907, the same day as the Eager Hill event, seemed to contradict the classic cooperation ideal mentioned by Dirks. At this meeting a temporary implementation committee, composed of John Murray and district and regional agency personnel, agreed to divide the first year budget so that MOF received $200,000, MOELP $100,000, and MOAFF $50,000. As yet no other stakeholders were involved. The committee appointments were yet to be confirmed although solicitations were being made to the East Kootenay Wildlife Association (EKWA) and Kootenay Livestock Association (KLA). Dr. Michael Pitt, University of British Columbia Range Professor and co-author (with Keith Simpson) of "The Effects of Wildlife-Livestock Forage Use on Crown Range in the East Kootenay (proposed working plan)" attended this meeting and the first discussions on implementing this plan were held. This plan had been touted since its completion as the blueprint for a myth-dispelling information gathering system. On August 3/90 another meeting with John Murray, Dennis McDonald and Ross Tozer was held. At this time the name of the group was to be "Rocky Mountain Trench Wildlife/Livestock Rangelands Steering Committee." Membership at this time was to be six total; Dennis McDonald, Regional Manager, Ministry of Environment Ross Tozer, Regional Director, Ministry of Forests Brian Baehr, Regional Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Wally Penner, Regional Manager, Ministry of Regional and Economic Development A representative from the Kootenay Livestock Association A representative of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association Duane Crandall, the MLA for Columbia River, the local MLA in the governing party, had recommended to John Murray that an independent rancher and a representative of the public at large also be chosen. The draft terms of reference of the Steering Committee were developed at this meeting. The draft roles and responsibilities of the Chairman, the Implementation Committee and the Steering Committee were established.

7Sources of information on committee meetings are from recorded minutes (on file at MOF Regional Office, Nelson).


18

On August 8/90 a meeting of the implementation committee was held. The focus of this group was the range enhancement budget. Proposed enhancements were to be circulated prior to the next meeting, set for Aug. 22/90. A field tour was set for Aug. 23. The priority was to view the Ta Ta/Skook range unit and discuss suitability for locating the operational monitoring site. Committee membership selections were completed and a final name for the group, "East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee," was selected. On the 23rd of August the Minister of Environment announced to the news media the appointments to the "East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee." Columbia River MLA Duane Crandall said: "Through the committee, public agencies will work hand in hand with the ranching community and wildlife groups to ensure that everyone's concerns are met." The full committee met for the first time on this day, a get acquainted and orientation meeting. Chairman John Murray brought a guest to this meeting, Swedish forester Sven Osberg who taught at a school of forestry and agriculture. He spoke eloquently and with obvious knowledge of integrated resource management. His advice was to proceed on the basis of knowledge and to create new knowledge. Only by the strict adherence to this rule could the group expect success. Duane Crandall visited the group via speaker-phone and his advice to the group was to not feel restricted by the terms of reference and the current plans. In other words the group could exercise its creativity. The committee met next on Aug. 27th. The purpose of this meeting was to determine the member's view of priorities and problems. A list of fifteen priorities and eight basic problems was compiled. Looking at the list today, it's easy to see the fragmented situation the group was in at that time. The priorities ranged from a demand for a cessation of political lobbying to increased range enhancement. The problems ranged from lack of a land use plan to pulmonary emphysema in cattle. A field trip the next day, August 28th, took the group, along with MLA's Crandall and Edwards, to sites in the Peckhams Lake, Pickering Hills and Skookumchuk areas. The latter was proposed as a site for a vegetation monitoring project based on the Pitt/Simpson proposed working plan. A photo of the committee in the Sept. 4th Kootenay Advertiser shows a resolute group.


19

East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee

Committee Membership and Alternates

Committee member Alternate Affiliation John Murray, RPF Steering Committee Chair Dennis McDonald Rick Morley Ministry of Environment Dave Phelps Lands & Parks Ross Tozer Terry Peter

Don Gayton Ministry of Forests

Brian Baehr Ted Berry (to1992)/Mike Malmberg

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Wally Penner Tim Barry Ministry of Regional Economic Development

Kathy Gilbert Bob Whetham Regional District of East Kootenay

Dave White Ron Skiber/Glynn Killins

East Kootenay Wildlife Association

Wally Maluta Ray Wilson East Kootenay Hunters Association

Andy McDonald Faye Street Kootenay Livestock Association Maurice Hansen (To July 1992) Kootenay Livestock Association Eliott Pighin (From July 1992) Kootenay Livestock April Beckley Evelyne Fahselt Southern B.C. Guide Outfitters

Association Mildred White Carol Hartwig Rocky Mountain Naturalists/East

Kootenay Environmental Society Lexine Cayenne (to Nov. '92)/Allan Hunter/Hugh Taylor

Wayne Choquette Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council

Verdun Casselman (to Nov. '90)/Wilbur Hannah (from Nov. '90)

Brodie Swan Independent Ranchers

Committee Projects This concludes the chapter on the formation of the Committee. The next several chapters contain details of the Committee projects. For a continuation of the Committee Chronology, see Appendix 1.


20

5. DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS A major friction point between resource managers of Ministry of Forests, Range Branch and Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch was how to manage forage supplies for wildlife and livestock. Range argued that without knowledge of where, when and how much forage was required by wildlife, it was impossible to manage effectively. And since managing wildlife was a Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, the Range Branch felt it was their responsibility to supply this information. Fish and Wildlife staff argued they did not possess reliable data and lacked funding to obtain it. In the absence of reliable data, resource managers argued that management decisions related to these issues could be likened to a coin toss. Conversely, with data in hand, decisions could proceed on the basis of knowledge. The Committee proceeded on the assumption that elk population data (how many, where, how long) in conjunction with data on actual forage consumption (how much, what kind, when, which herbivore) would provide an information framework upon which to build a cattle/elk/forage management strategy. It was further assumed that management would entail both population and habitat manipulation.


21

6. VEGETATION MONITORING PROJECT The purpose of this project was to separate and quantify the impacts of livestock and wildlife on range vegetation. Then, by linking the vegetation monitoring data to existing livestock population data and to the elk census project data, local resource managers would have a basis for making more informed range and ungulate management decisions at the operational level. Accordingly, four project sites were chosen and the data collection methodology, based on "The Effects of Wildlife-Livestock Forage Use on Crown Range in the East Kootenay, Proposed Working Plan" (Pitt and Simpson, 1989) and "Vegetation Monitoring Working Plan" (Ross and Wikeem, 1991), was reviewed and formally adopted by the Committee. The four sites chosen for the project, Skookumchuk Prairie, Premier Ridge, Peckhams Lake and Pickering Hills, represent examples of the critical "overlap" ranges of the Trench. They share common characteristics of low elevation, relatively open, grass and shrub-dominated stands that experience wildlife use from late fall to early spring and subsequent livestock use in the spring or fall. Vegetation Monitoring Project Site Summary: SITE NAME ELEV. (m) BIOGEOCLI-

MATIC UNIT DESCRIPTION

Skookumchuk Prairie

825 PPdh2 Level river terrace: open grassland with groves of ponderosa pine and trembling aspen interspersed.

Premier Ridge

1035 IDFdm2 Southwest-facing hillside: grass/shrub community interspersed with Douglas-fir stands

Pickering Hills 1025 IDFdm2 Southwest-facing hillside: grass/shrub community interspersed with Douglas-fir stands

Peckhams Lake 915 IDFdm2 Level site: seeded pasture within stagnated Douglas-fir stands. "Old Seeding" planted 1986; "New Seeding" planted 1991

A large 3 way exclosure was constructed at the main study site at Skookumchuk Prairie. This consisted of a 65 ha Cattle Only area enclosed by a 9 ft fence. The Cattle Only area became a "mini-pasture" and livestock were introduced into it at times and at stocking rates similar to the existing rotation in the Range Unit. An additional 65 ha area, the Wildlife Only area, was fenced with conventional 4 ft. livestock fence. Cattle were not permitted in this area but wildlife moved freely in and out of this exclosure. A small 1 hectare Ungulate Exclosure excluded all grazing (cattle, elk and deer), and finally, the adjacent unfenced Combined Use area acted as the control.


22

At the secondary sites (Premier Ridge, Peckhams Lake, Pickering Hills) small 0.7 ha grazing exclosures were established, and all use was excluded. Objectives of the Vegetation Monitoring Project • Determine the nature and extent of dietary overlap (the use of the same forage species by

different ungulate species) between elk, deer8 and cattle diets during all respective grazing periods. This was accomplished by monthly collection and analysis of fecal samples of all three ungulates to determine plant species consumed and their proportions.

• Determine the long term differential impact of cattle, wildlife and the two combined on range

plant communities. This was done by establishing permanent transects within each of the treatment areas and taking repeated measurements of foliar cover by plant species.

• Document amount and timing of forage use by cattle and wildlife This was done by

determining annual and seasonal production and percent use of herbaceous forage by cattle and by wildlife, using portable grazing cages. In a separate exercise, production and percent use of two key browse species, Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) was also monitored.

Exclosures were constructed and permanent transects were established in 1991. Foliar cover and frequency data were collected from 1991 to 1994: forage production and use and fecal analysis data were collected from 1992 to 1994. All data, including dietary overlap, foliar cover, forage production and forage use was analyzed using recognized statistical techniques. Full details of the Vegetation Monitoring Project design, results and analysis are found in Ross (1997).

8Both whitetail and mule deer used the site; results represent the combined use of both species.


23

Documentation of Livestock Use at Project Sites Livestock use at Premier Ridge, Peckhams Lake and Pickering Hills was as per the normal operational rotations and stocking rates for the respective Range Units. At Skookumchuk Prairie, livestock grazing in the Combined Use area was as per the normal rotation. Cattle were introduced into the Cattle Only area at approximately the same stocking rate and duration experienced in the Combined Use area. YEAR SITE DATES CATTLE NUMBERS AUMs 1992 Skookumchuk Prairie Cattle Only Jun 15-Jul 15 35 c/c pairs, 2 bulls 38 Combined Use Jun 15-Jul 15 65 heifers 48 Premier Ridge May 1-Jun 15 80 c/c pairs 104 Peckhams Lake May 23-Jun 15 207 c/c pairs 152 Pickering Hills Aug 11-Sep 4 270 c/c pairs 199 1993 Skookumchuk Prairie Cattle Only Sep 1-Sep 30 24 c/c pairs, 17 yrlngs 38 Combined Use Sep 1-Sep 30 35 c/c pairs 38 Premier Ridge Aug 1-Aug 22 80 c/c pairs 60 Peckhams Lake Aug 15-Sep 15 207 c/c pairs 207 Pickering Hills Jul 10-Aug 10 270 c/c pairs 270 1994 Skookumchuk Prairie Cattle Only Jul 10-Aug 10 37 c/c pairs, 2 bulls 43 Combined Use Jul 10-Aug 30 40 c/c pairs, 2 bulls 72 Premier Ridge May 15-Jun 19 80 c/c pairs 91 Peckhams Lake Jun 25-Jul 10 207 c/c pairs 110 Pickering Hills Jul 26-Aug 25 270 270


24

Documentation of Wildlife Use at Project Sites Wildlife use is more difficult to quantify. However, Jamieson and Hebert (1993), using telemetry data from radio-collared elk, determined that three different elk herds make use of the monitoring sites, namely: The Bull River herd, which winters at Peckhams Lake and Pickering Hills The Premier herd, which winters at Premier Ridge the Skookumchuk herd, which winters at Skookumchuk Based on the radiocollaring data, these elk herds were shown to arrive in the Trench (from higher elevation summer ranges) in late November and depart again in early to mid-May, which translates to a 160-200 day residence time on the winter ranges (ibid, 1993). Growing Conditions Precipitation regime for the Cranbrook Airport (roughly centrally located between the four sites) for the years of the study are as follows:

YEAR TOTAL PPTN., mm

% of 1955-92 Average

APR-OCT. PPTN., mm

% of 1955-92 Average

1955-92 366 (100%) 222 (100%) 1992 360 98% 252 113% 1993 487 133% 378 170% 1994 328 90% 220 99% Results: Dietary Studies Cattle, deer and elk diets were quite broad over the course of the 3 year study, with a maximum of 61 different plant species being utilized. The following tables give a general picture of the leading species utilized by the three different classes of animals. Top Five Forage/Browse Species for Elk in the Wildlife-Only Area, Skookumchuk Exclosure, 1992 (in descending order of importance). JAN FEB MAR APR MAY NOV DEC 1 Poa spp.*

Berberis repens

Poa spp. Festuca scabrella

Festuca scabrella

Festuca scabrella

Shepherdia canadensis

2 Festuca idahoensis

Festuca scabrella

Festuca idahoensis

Stipa spp. Festuca idahoensis

Berberis repens

Pseudotsuga menziesii

3 Festuca scabrella

Penstemon procerus

Penstemon procerus

Penstemon procerus


Poa spp. Agropyron spp.

4 Berberis repens

Poa spp Festuca scabrella

Agropyron spp.

Poa spp. Festuca idahoensis

Amelanchier alnifolia

5 Stipa spp. Festuca idahoensis

Stipa spp. Poa spp. Stipa spp. Stipa spp. Pinus ponderosa

*Fecal analysis did not distinguish to the species level for the grass genera Agropyron, Poa and Stipa. Of interest here is the heavy reliance by elk on grasses through fall, winter and spring, especially on the two fescues, rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis),


25

which together composed roughly half the diet in May and November. In some cases, grass and grasslike species composed up to 90% of elk diets. Alfalfa/clover was found in both elk and deer diets at all sites but most commonly in spring (March-May) and fall (October). Data from the other sites showed that elk browse choices were very site-specific; at Peckhams Lake, for instance, Douglas-fir was a favored winter browse species; at Pickering Hills, low Oregon grape (Berberis repens) was preferred throughout the year. Top Five Forage/Browse Species for Deer in the Wildlife-Only Area, Skookumchuk Exclosure, 1992 (in descending order of importance). JAN FEB MAR APR NOV 1 Purshia

tridentata Pseudotsuga menziesii

Penstemon procerus

Purshia tridentata

Purshia tridentata

2 Ceanothus velutinus

Purshia tridentata

Ceanothus velutinus


Ceanothus velutinus

3 Penstemon procerus

Pinus ponderosa




4 Festuca scabrella


Festuca scabrella

Penstemon procerus


5 Pseudotsuga menziesii

Ceanothus velutinus


Ceanothus velutinus


Deer made heavy use of shrubs such as bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) and Soopolallie (Shepherdia canadensis) as well as the trees Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Deer diet was dominated by browse in all periods of the study, although forbs and grasses made up nearly half the diet in the transitional months of March and April. Bitterbrush appeared to be an important browse species for deer, but was of minimal importance for elk or cattle. Ceanothus is relatively rare on Skookumchuk prairie. Either it was highly selected for, or the actual consumption was occurring offsite. Top Five Forage/Browse Species for Cattle in the Cattle-Only Area, Skookumchuk Exclosure, 1992 (in descending order of importance). JUN JUL 1 Festuca idahoensis Agropyron spp. 2 Agropyron spp. Poa spp. 3 Poa spp. Festuca scabrella 4 Stipa spp. Bromus tectorum 5 Festuca scabrella Stipa spp. At Skookumchuk Prairie in the summer of 1992, the top five species selected by cattle were all grasses.


26

Approximately fourteen forage and browse species were found to be the major contributors to all ungulate's diet, namely alfalfa/clover, bluegrasses, bluebunch wheatgrass, buckbrush, bromegrass, Douglas-fir, rough fescue, Idaho fescue, low Oregon grape, needlegrasses, orchardgrass, Saskatoon, small-flowered penstemon and soopolallie. Deer, elk and cattle have specific dietary preferences, and these preferences vary consistently by year, season and site. Each ungulate species chooses a small number of key forage and browse species, and these make up the bulk of their diet. Both cattle and elk were primarily grazers, with grass making up as much as 90% of their diet. Elk tend to shift to a mixture of grasses and shrubs in fall and winter. Deer were primarily browsers. Dietary Overlap The results show dietary overlap (the use of the same forage or browse species by more than one type of animal) between ungulate species does occur in the Trench, and thus dietary competition can occur if those preferred species are in short supply. Indirect competition, where use of a particular forage species by one ungulate species affects the availability of that forage species for another class of ungulates at a later time, appears to be a greater issue than direct competition, i.e, grazing of the same species by two or more ungulate species simultaneously. The greatest potential for indirect competition appears to be between cattle and elk. Winter elk diets were frequently positively correlated with summer cattle diets at all sites. Elk and cattle diets are more likely to overlap when there is a shorter interval between the grazing periods of the two ungulate species. Direct and indirect dietary competition between deer and cattle is minimal. The net effect of dietary overlap between cattle and elk is, in the case of the key winter ranges, sequential grazing of key forage species, thus leading to a weakening of the productive capacity of those species. This effect was seen at the Premier Ridge site in 1992, where substantial wildlife grazing in early spring was followed immediately by livestock grazing in June. Forage production figures for May 15-June 15, the active growth period, were far below normal. At Skookumchuk Prairie, wildlife showed a decided preference for grazing the Wildlife-Only area over the Combined Use area during the winter, in all years. This reflects elk's preference for winter grazing of the standing dead grass litter that is found in higher amounts in the Wildlife-Only area than in the Combined Use area. Elk preference for the Wildlife-Only area extended to the spring grazing period as well for the years 1992 and 1993. However, by 1994, elk spring grazing preference had switched to the Combined Use area. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that during winter, elk prefer the available standing dead forage of the ungrazed or lightly grazed areas, but in spring, large accumulations of standing dead litter prevent access to new, green growth, and elk preference shifts to recently grazed sites. This phenomenon, along with forage preconditioning (Anderson and Scherzinger, 1975) are two examples of how livestock grazing can be used as a tool to enhance elk habitat.


27

Results: Forage and Shrub Production Studies Two measures of forage production were used. Annual Standing Crop (ASC) is the year's growth (grasses and forbs), including fall growth, measured on an ungrazed plot. Total Standing Crop (TSC) is the amount of forage (grasses and forbs) produced from spring greenup to the end of the first grazing period together with regrowth produced in each subsequent grazing (or rest) period. This recognizes the contribution post-grazing regrowth makes to available forage. ASC and TSC are likely to be significantly different when there is a combination of grazing during the growing period and available soil moisture for regrowth. Averaged over the three year sampling period, the three native range sites, Skookumchuk, Premier and Pickering Hills, produced a TSC of approximately 950 kg/ha. The two Peckhams Lake sites, seeded to domestic species, over the same period produced a TSC of 2500 kg/ha. Production varied according to growing conditions at all sites. TSC varied from a high of 4500 kg/ha at Peckhams Lake new seeding in 1993, a year with exceptionally high growing season precipitation, to a low of 1100 kg/ha in the subsequent year. Midsummer regrowth after grazing was a significant component of the yield at Peckhams Lake. Bitterbrush and Saskatoon are dominant shrubs at Skookumchuk Prairie, Premier Ridge and Pickering Hills. The annual growth of leaf and twig browse production and the annual use of these shrubs was monitored. In some instances, available browse was greater than available forage on a site. As an example, combined bitterbrush/Saskatoon production at Premier Ridge was approximately 3350 kg/ha in 1993, whereas forage production at that same site was only 1175 kg/ha TSC. Browse production is correlated with the density of browse plants on the site. Skookumchuk Prairie had the lowest shrub density, and thus the lowest browse production, of the three native range sites.


28

Results: Forage Utilization Studies In this study, total use of forage (grasses and forbs) by wildlife and cattle combined, exceeded the 50% "rule of thumb" safe use level for native range at all sites in all years (see Table). Forage Production and Consumption by Livestock and Wildlife at Three Native Range Sites in the Rocky Mountain Trench, 1992-1994 Total

Standing Crop, kg/ha.

Total Forage Use, kg/ha.

Combined Use, %

Livestock Use, %

Wildlife Use, %

Skookumchuk Prairie 1992

689 416 61 39 22


935 508 54 17 37


891 585 66 34 31

Premier Ridge 1992

829 411 50 19 31

Premier Ridge 1993

1172 731 62 29 33

Premier Ridge 1994

864 437 51 20 30

Pickering Hills 1992

841 613 73 23 38


1113 625 56 34 22


1136 627 55 28 27

Avg. 941 Avg. 59% Avg. 28% Avg. 31% At Skookumchuk Prairie, winter wildlife use was higher in the Wildlife-Only than in the Combined Use area for 1993 and 1994. The Pickering Hills site received less spring wildlife use than other sites: it is most consistently used as a winter range. Premier Ridge does not have excessive use in any one period but the site is subjected to continuous use during plant dormancy as well as from green-up to mid-June if cattle are turned out in May. Combined (livestock and wildlife) level of forage use at Peckhams Lake was higher at 73% than on the three native range sites, which averaged 59%.


29

Results: Browse Use Studies Douglas-fir, Saskatoon, bitterbrush, buckbrush, soopolallie and Oregon grape were the preferred browse species on the native range sites. Saskatoon was used more consistently, and to a higher degree, than bitterbrush--in all grazing periods and all sites--by wildlife and by cattle, despite bitterbrush's much higher density. Saskatoon was frequently eaten in excess of 50% of its available browse, during all grazing periods. Averaged over the three native sites for all grazing periods(1992-94), wildlife used 46% of Saskatoon production and 30% of bitterbrush production on sampled shrubs. Cattle use of the same plants was slightly less--33% of Saskatoon production and 26% of bitterbrush production--however cattle only have access to these plants for a portion of the year. Saskatoon was often eaten in excess of 50% of available browse in all grazing periods. Results: Plant Cover and Frequency Studies Plant cover and frequency were monitored in the grazed and ungrazed areas of all four exclosure sites from 1991 to 1994, with the exception of Peckhams New Seeding, which was begun in 1992. In general, no dramatic shifts in composition were seen during the course of the study. The general trend inside the grazing exclosures was an increase in the amount of cover of the species already present. Skookumchuk Prairie: plant communities in the Wildlife Only, Cattle Only and Combined Use areas were statistically similar9 in 1991 and 1994 (p<0.05). The Ungulate (total) Exclosure and Wildlife Only areas were not statistically similar to each other in 1991, but became similar by 1994 due to increases in rough fescue, junegrass and yarrow in the Ungulate Exclosure. Premier Ridge: relative to each other, Grazed and Ungrazed Areas were similar in both 1991 and 1994. In the Ungrazed Area, grazing exclusion resulted in the 1994 cover values being different from the 1991 Grazed and Ungrazed values, due to increases in cover of the existing species (in particular, Kentucky bluegrass, needlegrasses, bitterbrush, Saskatoon, rose, snowberry and soopolallie). Pickering Hills Grazed and Ungrazed Areas were statistically similar to each other in 1991 and in 1994. A small historical exclosure near the site was also sampled, and it was different from both the Grazed and Ungrazed areas in 1991, having a larger shrub and smaller grass component. However, it is interesting to note that by 1994, all three areas had become statistically similar. Peckhams Lake Old Seeding (seeded in 1986): Grazed and Ungrazed cover were statistically similar to each other in 1991 and 1994. The same was true for the New Seeding (seeded in 1991); Grazed and Ungrazed were statistically similar when they were sampled in 1992, and again in 1994. It appears that combined grazing by both cattle and wildlife did not significantly change the species composition of the plant communities in either the Old or New Seeding. However, decreases in orchardgrass and clover were evident in the Grazed treatments of both the

9Cover data was compared by Spearman's Rank Correlation, which yields a correlation coefficient ranging in value from +1 to -1, and a probability. Positive correlations indicate plant communities are significantly similar: negative correlations indicate they are significantly different. See Ross (1997).


30

New and Old Seedings. Re-invasion by native species, such as pinegrass, Idaho fescue, Richardson's needlegrass and small-flowered penstemon was evident in the New Seeding between 1992 and 1994. Native re-invasion was also occurring in the Old Seeding between 1991 and 1994, with Nuttall's pussytoes, strawberry, Idaho fescue and small-flowered penstemon all showing cover increases. The following Tables provide a composite snapshot of the major plant species at each site in August 1991, when the project began. Since at that time the various exclosures were too recent to have any effect, Grazed and Ungrazed data were pooled to provide a larger sample size for these Tables. For complete vegetation data on each site, treatment and year, see Ross (1997). Leading Species at Skookumchuk Exclosure in August 1991 (average of Wildlife Only/ Cattle Only/Combined Use)10 SPECIES COMMON NAME COVER, % TREES Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine 3 Total trees: 3% SHRUBS Purshia tridentata bitterbrush 9 Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon 2 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick 2 Rosa spp. Rose 1 Total shrubs: 13% GRASSES Agropyron spicatum bluebunch wheatgrasss 11 Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 5 Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 3 Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 2 Koeleria cristata Junegrass 2 Festuca scabrella Rough fescue 2 Stipa richardsonii Richardson's needlegrass 1 Stipa occidentalis Western needlegrass 1 Total grasses: 29% FORBS Astragalus miser Timber milkvetch 3 Chrysopsis villosa Hairy goldenaster 2 Achillea millefolium Yarrow 1 Total forbs: 12%

10Daubenmire Cover Class data. Only those species ≥ 1% cover are listed, but totals are for all species. Balance of cover composed of bryophytes, litter, rock and bare soil.


31

Leading Species at Premier Ridge in August 1991 (average of Grazed/Ungrazed)11 SPECIES COMMON NAME COVER, % TREES none Total trees: 0% SHRUBS Purshia tridentata bitterbrush 22 Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon 4 Symphoricarpos albus snowberry 4 Total shrubs: 32% GRASSES Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 17 Stipa occidentalis Western fescue 9 Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 3 Koeleria cristata Junegrass 2 Total grasses: 31% FORBS Apocynum androsaemifolium

Spreading dogbane 2

Total forbs: 10% BRYOPHYTES unidentified mosses & lichens Total bryophytes: 17%



32

Leading Species at Pickering Hills in August 1991 (average of Grazed/Ungrazed)12 SPECIES COMMON NAME COVER, % TREES none Total trees: 0% SHRUBS Purshia tridentata bitterbrush 17 Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon 7 Rosa spp. Rose 2 Ceanothus velutinus Buckbrush 2 Berberis repens Low Oregon grape 1 Spirea betulifolia Shiny-leaf spirea 1 Total shrubs: 32% GRASSES Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 20 Stipa occidentalis Western needlegrass 11 Stipa columbiana Columbia needlegrass 2 Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass 2 Koeleria cristata Junegrass 2 Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 1 Total grasses: 39% FORBS Cerastium arvense Chickweed 7 Androsace septentrionalis Fairy candelabra 4 Apocynum androsaemifolium

Spreading dogbane 2

Taraxacum officinale Dandelion 2 Potentilla hippiana Wooly potentilla 1 Calochortus macrocarpum Sagebrush mariposa 1 Total forbs: 19%



33

Leading Species at Peckhams Lake New seeding in June, 1992 (average of Grazed/Ungrazed) SPECIES COMMON NAME COVER, % GRASSES Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass 18 Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass 2 Total grasses: 24% FORBS Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover 11 Medicago sativa Alfalfa 1 Total forbs: 29% Leading Species at Peckhams Lake Old Seeding in August 1991 (average of Grazed/Ungrazed)13 SPECIES COMMON NAME COVER, % GRASSES Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass 12 Agropyron trachycaulum Slender wheatgrass 8 Bromus inermis Smooth brome 4 Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass 2 Calamagrostis rubescens Pinegrass 1 Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 1 Total grasses: 29% FORBS Antennaria parvifolia Nuttall's pussytoes 4 Fragaria virginiana Strawberry 2 Achillea millefolium Yarrow 1 Medicago sativa Alfalfa 1 Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover 1 Total forbs: 15% Condition Assessment Potential Natural Communities14 have not yet been defined for any of the four sites. From the traditional range condition perspective, Skookumchuk Prairie would probably have been classed in fair to good condition in 1992. Premier Ridge and Pickering Hills would be considered in poor to fair condition and recovery potential may be limited because bitterbrush claims much of available resources.

13Daubenmire Cover Class data. Only those species ≥ 1% cover are listed, but totals are for all species. Balance of cover composed of bryophytes, litter, rock and bare soil. 14Calculation of PNC is set out in the FPC Range Management Guidebook, MOF/MOELP, 1995; PNC criteria are set out in the FPC Biodiversity Guidebook (ibid, 1995).


34

The Skookumchuk Historical Exclosure Roughly two kilometers from the current Skookumchuk Prairie site is the Skookumchuk Historical Exclosure, otherwise known as "The McLean Exclosure," established in 1951. Data were collected from permanent plots within the Historical Exclosure and grazed areas adjacent to it for the period 1961 to 1994. These data indicated no statistical differences in the grazed plant community for the 1961 to 1994 period. The ungrazed plant community within the exclosure showed statistically significant improvement in range condition in almost every ten year interval over the same period. The Historical Exclosure data also showed it takes longer to improve from poor to fair condition than from fair to good condition. Another significant trend within the ungrazed site is the recent development of an understory of young ponderosa pine seedlings. Cover of ponderosa pine was 0% in 1982, climbed to 2.5% in 1991, and by 1994, had increased to 13%. This type of increase was not seen outside the exclosure.


35

Vegetation Monitoring Project Conclusions and Recommendations The Project was a large and unprecedented undertaking, and further interpretation of the large amount of data produced will be necessary. However, based on current assessment, a number of conclusions and recommendations can be made that will strengthen the ability of resource managers to manage the overlap range areas effectively and sustainably. Natural resource managers are often forced to make decisions based on incomplete information, and the managers of the overlap ranges of the Trench are no exception. In making these difficult decisions, they will have to bridge the gap between practical observations and analytical data, between forage cover and forage production, and between the needs of wildlife and of livestock. In short, there will be lots of room to exercise the "art" as well as the science of range management. The new regulations and guidelines of the Forest Practices Code were brought in subsequent to the launching of the Project, as was the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, so an attempt is made to place the recommendations in the current context of those two documents. 1. The dietary analysis work showed each class of ungulate--deer, elk and cattle--have predictable forage preferences based on site and season, and that it is possible to identify and manage for a small number of key forage and browse species that will represent the majority of each ungulate's selected diet. 2. Potential Natural Community estimates have not been made for the three native range sites, but the vegetation cover and frequency data suggest that the Skookumchuk Prairie site would meet current PNC criteria but the Premier Ridge and Pickering Hills sites would not. 3. Observations at the three native range sites plus the Skookumchuk Historical Exclosure suggest that statistically significant improvements in PNC (or range condition) will not occur for at least four years after a management change, even when that change means total exclusion of all grazing. An increase of 25% of PNC (or a full range condition class) would require ten years or more. Sites starting at higher PNC levels will improve more quickly than those at lower PNC. Sites at higher PNC provide more management options, including short periods of intensive use, than do sites at lower PNC. 4. Ecological steady states, or "plateaus," where percent of PNC will not change no matter how current management is modified, may exist on the East Kootenay overlap ranges, particularly in the absence of fire. The abundant bitterbrush and suppressed grass/forb populations of Pickering Hills and Premier Ridge may represent one of those steady states, which may require the application of fire or other external inputs before improvement occurs. 5. Dietary data show that deer are primarily browsers, and their diets do not overlap significantly with either elk or cattle. Elk tend to concentrate on grasses in the spring, and then supplement their diet with shrubs when grasses become less available in the fall and winter. Cattle concentrate primarily on the grasses when they are on the overlap ranges during the spring, summer, and/or fall period. Direct dietary overlap does not appear to be a factor in the Trench,


36

but a very significant indirect overlap occurs between winter/spring elk grazing and livestock spring/summer/fall grazing. The Fescues, Poas, Stipas and Agropyrons were all highly preferred species for elk at the three native range sites from November to May; these same species were highly preferred by livestock during their grazing periods from May to September. Deer dietary data also indicated high preference for Festuca scabrella in spring. 6. Sustained, virtually year-around grazing pressure on the native grasses has been shown to cause forage yield reductions, will prevent range managers from meeting PNC criteria, is likely contributing to the vigor of the shrub layer and may be providing opportunities for noxious weed invasion. The grazing pressure on these native grasses is being enhanced by forest ingrowth, which tends to concentrate grazing animal populations on the few remaining open grassland areas. Measures to reduce this pressure include modification of cattle grazing schedules; manipulation of habitat to disperse elk and deer and the creation of specific forage enhancements. 7. Forage production (Total Standing Crop) on the native range sites varied between 700 and 1200 kg/ha, and was highly dependent on seasonal rainfall. Regrowth after grazing events was minimal, except in 1993, when summer precipitation was well above average. Because of variability, production estimates for management use should be conservative, based on long term averages. 8. Total Standing crop on the cultivated pasture at Peckham's Lake varied between 1100 and 4250 kg/ha, and regrowth after grazing events formed a significant part of production. The value of these strategically located, ecologically appropriate cultivated pastures becomes obvious when production and use figures are compared: forage production at Peckhams Lake was 2.5 times higher and combined forage use was 10% higher than on the native range sites. Plant cover data showed that some reinvasion of desirable native species was taking place at Peckham's Lake. 9. Combined (wildlife and livestock) consumption of forage met or exceeded the 50% "safe use" rule of thumb at all native range sites for all years. Highest level of consumption was 73% and the cumulative average was 59%. Consumption was evenly split between livestock and wildlife. Combined with the effects of the elk/cattle dietary overlap on grasses and the effects of forest ingrowth, these levels of forage use may jeopardize the achievement of PNC targets and the maintenance of current cattle and elk herd numbers. Over the short term, livestock managers should consider the revision of grazing schedules to avoid May turnout, introduce rest where appropriate, and avoid late fall grazing on critical native range overlap areas. It should be noted that this is a strictly biological recommendation, based on observation of the plant community. Policy makers may wish to find and implement more equitable long term solutions. 10. Shrub production is substantial on certain native range sites, and in cases exceeds the volume of forage production on the same site. Shrubs form a substantial portion of deer diets, and lesser portions of elk and cattle diets. Saskatoon is preferred over bitterbrush, but is far less common. Bitterbrush may be acting as an "increaser" under current conditions, pre-empting soil resources from grasses and forbs. Range managers should include the browse component in their assessments of forage availability.


37

11. Analysis of elk and cattle forage use patterns suggest that livestock grazing can be manipulated to maximize previously ungrazed or lightly grazed standing grass litter in areas where elk congregate in fall and winter, and to provide previously grazed areas where elk tend to feed in the spring. The objective should be to create a mosaic of winter/spring elk grazing environments. 12. Current carrying capacity estimates should be modified to include the two variables of seasonality and dietary preference. This "effective seasonal carrying capacity" will allow more precise management of the overlap ranges. 13. The key measurements of plant cover/frequency, total and seasonal standing crop, and partitioned (wildlife/livestock) forage use should be continued on an intermittent basis at the Project sites and extended to appropriate Range Reference Area sites. A 3-5 year cycle of remeasurement is probably adequate, and monitoring should be done to statistically valid levels. 14. The current method of assessing range readiness based on grass height criteria should be replaced with a system based on grass developmental stage (phenology). 15. The bottom of the Trench is a fire-maintained ecosystem, that historically supported a mosaic of grassland an open forest maintained by periodic, light surface fires. Appropriate range plant communities can be defined by setting PNC's, but these communities cannot be realized without ungulate grazing management and control of the forest ingrowth that has occurred since the advent of fire suppression. Ingrowth must be recognized and dealt with in higher level and landscape level plans; otherwise range managers will be unable to meet criteria set out in the Biodiversity Field Guide, and will face a continually deteriorating forage resource. 16. Rangeland ecosystem values, as well as wildlife and livestock population objectives and grazing plans, should be incorporated into the appropriate Landscape Unit Plans. Seasonal forage use objectives should be set, using Seasonal Standing Crop and Total Standing Crop parameters. Livestock and wildlife population objectives should be made dependent on the ecosystem parameters of forage production and Potential Natural Community.


38

7. WILDLIFE DATA COLLECTION PROJECTS A total of six projects funded by the EKTAWC were administered by the Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks during the term of the Committee. These projects were conducted to respond to information requirements thought to be necessary to the resolution of problems identified by the Committee. In order of chronology, the projects are described as follows: 1) Simpson, K. 1991. Elk Winter Range Census in MU 420, 421 and 422. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. 2) Wildlife Branch/Ministry of Forests. 1991. Intercept Range Enhancement. EKTAWC Project Description, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. 3) Simpson, K. 1992. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench, 1992. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. 4) Simpson, K. 1993. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench MU 403, 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. 5) Jamieson, B. and K. Hebert. 1993. Elk Capture and Monitoring in the East Kootenay Trench: 1991 to 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. 6) Jalkotzy, M. 1994. Elk in the East Kootenay Trench: An Analysis of Radio Telemetry Data 1986 - 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. A summary of the results of these projects is as follows: 1) Simpson, K. 1991. Elk Winter Range Census in MU 420, 421 and 422. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. Winter range censuses were completed for elk in Management Unit 422 in 1987 and 1988. Population estimates derived from these surveys were 1969 ± 439 and 1722 ± 436 (90% confidence intervals), respectively. A more intensive survey was carried out in 1991 in MU’s 420, 421 and 422 employing census methods developed in Idaho. Elk sightability was measured by recording sightings and misses of radio collared elk known to be present in the survey area. Because the density of cover in the study area was deemed to be greater than in Idaho, search times were longer than the one hour window recommended by the Idaho census method. Sightability estimates were obtained by locating collared elk prior to the survey and relocating any collars missed during the census. Calf population numbers were similar to previous estimates. Bull counts were higher than anticipated, primarily because more extensive surveying was conducted on peripheral ranges. Bulls tended to be in small groups in dense cover and would normally be underestimated without extensive sampling. Application of the census technique suggested that population estimates derived from traditional inventory methods for MU’s 420/421 should be increased by 63% to 2251 ± animals. The estimate for elk in MU 422 should be increased by 61% to 2185 ± animals.


39

2) Wildlife Branch/Ministry of Forests. 1991. Intercept Range Enhancement. EKTAWC Project Description, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. Prescribed burns were proposed by the Wildlife Branch for application to approximately 1500 ha. of late fall/winter/early spring range on the Lizard Range east of Pickering Hills. The objective of these fire treatments was to rejuvenate browse, reduce conifer ingrowth and reduce forest canopy closure in order to encourage a greater amount of foraging by elk and deer. This in turn was expected to reduce forage pressure from wildlife and domestic livestock on the Pickering Hills and Colvalli North range units. This proposal called for prescribed burns to be implemented in 1992 after merchantable timber had been removed and fireguards constructed. Permanent monitoring plots were established and two burn plans developed and approved. Some fireguard construction was conducted before funding was terminated. The project was not completed. 3) Simpson, K. 1992. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench, 1992. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. A stratified block count of elk was conducted in the East Kootenay Trench, covering portions of MU's 402, 403, 404, 420, 422, 424, 425, and 426. Initially, the area was divided into 148 blocks that were categorized into high, moderate, and low for expected elk density. Seventy-eight randomly selected blocks were searched with a Bell 206B helicopter. Sightability corrections were calculated for each block surveyed and averages for the three density categories (high: 133, moderate: 55, low: 23) were assigned to the blocks not surveyed. Results were summarized in tables and figures. The highest counts for single blocks were 669 and 688 near Gold Creek and east of Columbia Lake, respectively. Large variation for repeated counts of the same area suggest that elk move unpredictably between adjacent blocks and that large areas should be sampled to provide accurate population estimates. The population estimate was 8941± 714 elk (90% confidence intervals)) in the survey area. Some significant concentrations of elk, notably in the upper Kootenay River and St. Mary’s River, were outside the survey area. Management Unit 4-22 (Pickering Hills) was surveyed in 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1992. Corresponding elk population estimates were 1969, 1722, 2185 and 1897, respectively. Details of block counts, classifications, estimates and variability were tabulated and appended. 4) Simpson, K. 1993. Elk Inventory in the East Kootenay Trench MU 403, 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. An inventory of the elk population in part of the East Kootenay Trench surveyed in 1992 (MU 403) was repeated in 1993. Methods used were identical to those used in 1992. Small portions of MU’s 420 and 404 surveyed in the 1992 census were also included in this survey as elk distribution is continuous across the study area. The survey area was expanded slightly from the 1992 survey to 580 sq. km. Accumulated snow was much deeper in open shrublands than in 1992 and elk were more widely dispersed, in smaller groups and more frequently found in forested habitats than in 1992.


40

A total of 33 survey blocks were identified including 7 where expected numbers of elk were high, 10 moderate and 16 low. All of the high strata blocks were surveyed, as were 7 mediums and 6 lows. Total population and sex/age composition was estimated using an elk survey model developed in Idaho. The total elk population for the study area was estimated at 1755 ± 365 (mean ± 90% confidence intervals). An estimate for 1992 (2023 ± 328) was calculated based on the sample of 15/32 blocks within the study area. The proportion of calves per 100 cows in 1993 (22.4 ± 7.1) appeared lower than in 1992 (30.7 +- 4.2) and may have been related to cold weather and deeper snow in core valley bottom habitats in 1993. The number of bulls per 100 cows (24.7 ± 15.4) was similar to 1992 (24.0 ± 14.4). estimates and confidence limits calculated for 1992 are only approximate since sampling in MU 403 was allocated within 145 blocks identified in the whole East Kootenay Trench, not just within MU 403, as in 1993. 5) Jamieson, B. and K. Hebert. 1993. Elk Capture and Monitoring in the East Kootenay Trench: 1991 to 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. A portable metal frame trap was used in the winter of 1991-92 to capture and collar elk. A total of 77 elk were captured; 40 cows and 2 bulls were collared. The movements of these elk were monitored for over two years (April 1991 to June 1993) in association with 7 elk collared in previous years. Some individual elk moved up to 110 km. from winter ranges to summer habitat, although the great majority did not migrate further than 10 to 30 km. Collared elk were located in all available habitat types during the winter, but preference was shown for Interior Douglas Fir and Lodgepole Pine forest types. Elk made relatively little use of riparian habitats, selective logging areas, open shrub or grassland areas. Few collared elk were observed on private hay lands. It must be acknowledged however, that aerial census methodology can only monitor daytime activity, and wild ungulates often forage in the early morning hours. Daytime census may be more accurate in predicting resting and/or security habitat than foraging habitat. Elk departed for summer ranges progressively from March to early May and returned to winter ranges during the October-November period. There were significant differences between winter ranges in terms of total time period spent on winter ranges. Skookumchuk area elk spent 203.5 days on the winter range whereas Premier Ridge elk spent 177.0 days on the winter range and Pickering Hills/Colvalli area elk spent only 157.0 days on the winter range.


41

The large differences in the periods of use on different winter ranges would suggest that the development of spring transition ranges could be a very important tool for reducing grazing impacts by elk on these winter ranges. Tracking data suggest that it is possible to look for such sites at some distance from the winter ranges. 6) Jalkotzy, M. 1994. Elk in the East Kootenay Trench: An Analysis of Radio Telemetry Data 1986 - 1993. Unpublished report, EKTAWC, Cranbrook, B.C. This report consolidates the results of previous elk radio telemetry studies conducted in the East Kootenay Trench. Movement patterns and summer, winter and non-migratory home ranges are determined. Habitat use in the Trench by radio collared elk are analyzed for trends. Mortality data are summarized. Recommendations regarding the future collection of field data are presented. Sixty-nine elk were radio collared between 1986 and 1991. The majority of these were cows; just four bulls were radio collared. Of the 66 elk that were tracked for more than a month, 53 (80%) were classified as migratory and 11 (17%) were classified as non-migratory. However, the radio collared sample was biased toward non-migratory elk because of capture techniques and their proportion in the population was probably less than 15%. Most migratory radio collared elk were part of three wintering groups: Those wintering in the Colvalli/Pickering Hills/Tie Lake (Bull River) area, those in the Lower Lussier/Premier Ridge/Skookumchuk area and those around lower Skookumchuk Creek/Echo Lake/Tamarack Lake/west Kootenay River. Elk of the Bull River area utilized a summer range some 17 times larger than their winter range. Summer ranges for the Skookumchuk East and West wintering groups are 7 and 2 times larger than their respective winter ranges. Non-migratory elk home ranges were located throughout the study area, in several cases overlapping those of wintering migratory elk. Population estimates for each wintering group were: Bull River - 949, Skookumchuk East - 606, Skookumchuk West - 424. The largest herd, the Bull River group, occupied the smallest winter range and the largest summer range. Conversely, Skookumchuk West, the smallest herd, had the largest winter range and the smallest summer range. The average and maximum migratory distances of the three wintering groups in the East Kootenay Trench were 12 to 49 km. and 24 to 81 km., respectively. Elk from the Bull River wintering group left their winter range about a week earlier than their Skookumchuk East counterparts, and at least a month earlier than Skookumchuk West elk. Bull River elk also returned at least a week later than Skookumchuk East elk, and more than a month later than Skookumchuk West elk. Radio telemetry data suggested that agricultural fields, native prairie and other open habitat types were used very little by elk. Use of agricultural land by radio collared elk was under-estimated because elk left the fields before dawn and most locations were recorded after daylight. The use of coniferous forest types (particularly mature Douglas Fir) was consistently high throughout the year by both migratory and non-migratory elk in the East Kootenay Trench, but this finding must be interpreted with caution because of the time of day of the telemetry census.


42

Further studies should include 24-hour tracking of representative animals. In addition, any quantitative analysis of the habitat use of radio collared elk in the Trench would require habitat availability data to be meaningful. Sixteen of 69 (23%) elk radio collared between 1986 and 1992 died during the course of the study. Man-caused mortality accounted for 12 deaths: legal hunting - 7; poaching or suspected poaching - 2; probable capture related - 2; train collision - 1. Three elk died of natural causes and the cause of death of one could not be determined. All four bulls collared in the study were killed, while 12 of the 65 (19%) radio collared females died. Planning of telemetry projects should provide more effective methodologies for the collection of field data to reduce the number of errors in data collection. Data collection should be standardized before collection begins. Identification numbers, not radio frequencies, should be used when animal locations are recorded. Data should be reviewed soon after it is collected. The contract supervisor should keep a copy of all data collected. Geographic positioning system (GPS) technology should be used in future radio telemetry projects since GPS will greatly reduce the level of error inherent to the collection of radio telemetry data. Elk Monitoring Report Recommendations Note: these recommendations are advice only and were not necessarily endorsed by the Committee. Recommendation #1 Develop population objectives for the East Kootenay Trench Elk population. These should include target postseason elk numbers, adult sex ratios and recruitment. Recommendation #2 Implement an East Kootenay Trench elk population monitoring strategy. Specifically: a. survey absolute abundance and sex/age composition on select winter ranges every 3-5 years b. maintain and monitor a pool of 25 - 50 radio-collared elk for documenting sightability bias and seasonal movement patterns c. Perform 24-hour telemetry monitoring of representative animals to determine circadian habitat use patterns.


43

8. PRIVATE LAND DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT Wildlife, particularly elk herds that overwinter in the Trench, are attracted to stored hay in winter and private cropland in spring and fall. Severe winters exacerbate the problem as elk look for the easiest way to make a living. These visitations cause varying amounts of economic loss and annoyance to land owners. Contention centers on responsibility for damages and the nature and extent of the problem. Furthermore, the utilization of Crown range by cattle has been claimed as detrimental to elk winter feed prospects. Spring utilization of Crown range by wildlife has been claimed as the cause of delayed cattle turnout. The Private Land Mitigation (PLM) task group was established in November of 1990. The task group membership consisted of steering committee representatives from: 1) Southern Guide Outfitters 2) East Kootenay Wildlife Assoc. 3) East Kootenay Hunters Assoc. 4) Tribal Council (after February, 1992) 5) Kootenay Livestock Assoc. 6) Windermere Farmers Institute 7) East Kootenay Environmental Society/Rocky Mountain Naturalists (after February 1992) The Resource Users Group (RUG) and the PLM task group eventually became indistinguishable, constituting all the non-government members of the steering committee with Chairman Murray as ex-officio member. The group utilized the principles for multi-party interaction modelled by the Oregon Water Improvement Coalition. These principles were adopted by the steering committee and were later published in the committee's brochure. As the PLM task group worked on the PLM issue, a high level of collaboration was achieved. The PLM task group mandate was to "Document the nature and extent of wildlife damage on private ranches and recommend mitigation strategies." The steering committee, acting on the recommendation of the PLM task group, commissioned an assessment of the problem (Gaube & Associates, 1991, "Wildlife depredation on private agricultural lands in the East Kootenay Trench"). According to this assessment economic losses per year were estimated by the affected ranchers at $256,000. Furthermore, Gaube said, despite the conflict between wildlife and livestock interests engendered by this issue, much common ground existed. Generally, ranchers accepted wildlife use of their resources to a point. Beyond that point advantage was being taken. Wildlife interests were sympathetic to legitimate private land problems and were interested in finding solutions. The reliability of the $256,000 estimate for wildlife losses by ranchers was disputed by Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch. The figure was obtained from the survey questionnaire developed by Gaube and Associates and is a total of the yearly loss estimates provided by those ranchers answering the questionnaire. The confidence limits of this number cannot be statistically analyzed. The PLM task group judged that the figure was useful for practical purposes. Gaube reported, and the task group accepted the statement: "There is ample evidence to conclude wildlife depredation on private land is a significant and on-going problem that causes economic loss and inconvenience to some landowners in the East Kootenay."


44

Utilizing the Gaube report, submissions from government steering committee members, members' constituencies, and after extensive internal negotiation, the task group produced a report, the "East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee Private Land Mitigation/Compensation Proposal" (EKTAWC, 1993) The report recommended that a two year pilot project be implemented to reduce or eliminate wildlife depredation on private land in the Trench. The project should be managed and coordinated by a group of key resource users and be approached holistically. Compensation was not ruled out but considered a last resort and should be subject to stringent conditions. A fund would be required to finance long term mitigation measures. Several strategies were suggested for mitigating private land wildlife problems by interventions on adjacent Crown land. Range enhancements and forage allocation procedures held the possibility of relieving private land problems if well planned. The first step to implement the pilot project was to identify problem ranches and choose a limited number, in an unbiased manner, on which to develop mitigation strategies. Accordingly, on May 17, 1994, the PLM task group met and developed an application form to be made available to the ranching community. An advertisement was placed in the local media stating: "The East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee is accepting applications from ranchers to participate in a pilot mitigation program to reduce wildlife damage on ranches." Twenty-two applications were received. The selection committee consisted of two ranchers and two hunters from the PLM task group. The successful application was from Doyle Reay and Sons, Dennis Dilts and Marcer Ranching of the Gold Creek/Plumbob Grazing Association, a combined proposal. The Gold Creek/Plumbob range unit escaped Coordinated Resource Management Planning during the ARDA/ARDSA era. The PLM task group stipulated the pilot project be integrated with a CRMP. The Gold Creek/Plumbob Grazing Association agreed to this condition. Chairman Murray inquired of the District Manager, Ministry of Forests, as to the possibility of plan development. The District Manager responded that the intention was to commence the process either late 1994 or 1995. This did not occur and to date, the Gold Creek/Plumbob grazing unit is without a CRMP. Three projects were subsequently planned: 1) Buck Lake seeding 2) Marcer Ranch mitigation fence 3) Dilts mitigation logging and seeding. Buck Lake Seeding The site was chosen for its potential lure crop and intercepts range function in relieving depredation on nearby croplands belonging to Reays and Dilts. This site, which had been


45

logged, would be cleared and seeded to domestic forage species. The budget for the project was $31,000. This project was completed and the seeding successfully established. A detailed description of the project's outcomes and subsequent management issues is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. Marcer Ranch Mitigation Fence Croplands on this ranch were already game fenced on three sides. The fourth side fronted on the Libby reservoir and the fluctuating water levels and the swimming skills of elk eliminated the benefit of the existing fence, already a substantial investment by the ranch. Materials for completion of the perimeter fence were supplied by the committee and the ranch owners supplied equipment and supervision. Installation of the fence would be done by a Ministry of Forests training crew. The budget for the project was $2,500. The project was completed and effectively fences out wildlife. Dilts' Mitigation Logging and Seeding Crestbrook Forest Industries, (CFI) forest tenure holder on the Crown land adjacent to Dilts' property, expressed interest in working with the steering committee. A plan was developed to log a buffer strip to the Southwest of Dilts' property. Logging would be conducted to encourage both timber and forage growth. CFI would apply to change the logging plan cutting permit from 1997 to 1994 with the logging planned for August. Seeding would be done by Ministry of Forests. This project would be a stand alone logging operation and seed costs would be borne by Ministry of Forests, thus no costs would be incurred by the committee. This project has not been completed to date. The logging is currently scheduled for winter 1997. Summary Enhancement of forage quantity and quality on Crown range was the method most favored for addressing private land problems. Through implementing forage enhancements and learning from the results, the hope was that reduction in wildlife depredation on private land could be achieved. There was anticipation that an improved forage management strategy for wildlife and livestock would contribute to resolving the issue. The need for a secure source of funding for enhancements was identified. In certain cases, fencing would be an appropriate measure. The PLM task group achieved a measure of completion on three mitigation measures: 1) Buck Lake seeding 2) Marcer fence 3) Rat Lakes restoration logging. The assessment and review of the Buck Lake seeding indicates the benefit of this project is difficult to measure. The seeding does contribute to the total forage supply in the area. Fertilization will be required to maintain the stand. The Waldo Stockbreeders Association notified the steering committee that some of their members experienced severe problems in conjunction with the seeding as a result of no defined accountability for fence maintenance. This situation was so upsetting that no further support for such projects would be forthcoming from the Waldo Stockbreeders until the problems were rectified. This issue remains unresolved. Opinions between stakeholders vary as to the effectiveness of the seeding in reducing private


46

land problems. In any event, the seeding is in place and heavy wildlife use has been apparent so the appropriate task seems to be to make the best use of it. Re-fertilization of the seeding is planned for spring of 1997. The Marcer fence was a complete success. The Rat Lakes restoration logging project is adjacent to the Buck Lake seeding. Fifty per cent of the merchantable timber was removed from 156 hectares. Anecdotal opinion is that this type of project is the most effective means of improving forage values. All disturbed ground was seeded to domestic species and wildlife use is heavy. The long term problem will be maintaining the open nature of the site as regeneration is already occurring as well as rapid growth on the smaller trees remaining after the logging. Establishing a fund for mitigation projects was never pursued. There has been little public indication of private land wildlife depredation since 1992. However, a reading of the history of the conflict suggests private land wildlife problems have been chronic since the 1950's, although cycling between high and low intensity periods. Private cropland in the East Kootenay remains situated, for the most part, amidst large expanses of public land frequented by wildlife. There is no reason to believe that private land wildlife depredation will not peak again in the future. Wildlife management strategy is now directed at increasing elk populations with potential increases in private land problems assuming forage resource management is maintained at the status quo. More optimistically, the data generated from the steering committee's monitoring projects in conjunction with the recommendations in this report hold the potential for feasible solutions, acceptable to the stakeholders. Aldo Leopold, in A Sand County Almanac, states: " Recognize the landowner as the custodian from the irresponsible shooter, and compensate him for putting his land in productive condition. Compensate him either publicly or privately, with either cash, service or protection, for the use of his land and labor, on condition that he preserves the game seed and otherwise safeguards the public interest. In short, make game management a partnership enterprise" (Leopold, 1949)


47

Private Land Damage Mitigation Recommendations Note: these recommendations are advice only and were not necessarily endorsed by the Committee. Recommendation #1 Address private land wildlife problems when locating and planning Trench restoration/range enhancement activities. Rationale Efforts to create attractive forage options to more widely disperse game are likely to be effective in alleviating private land problems. Recommendation #2 Consider private land wildlife problems when planning improved forage allocation procedures. Rationale Planning grazing for specific wildlife objectives as well as livestock could be an effective means of distributing wildlife away from private land. Recommendation #3 Encourage a "good neighbor" philosophy between ranching and wildlife interests. Rationale There are potential benefits to both interests if a mutually beneficial, open and honest relationship can be established. Recommendation #4 Explore the potential of conservation easements for rural properties as practiced in the US. Rationale Ranchers, as owners of extensive rural property contribute to maintaining the open space resource that livestock and wildlife interests, naturalists and others value. Preservation of rural private property from subdivision and housing developments contributes to maintenance of wildlife and livestock interests on public land by preserving open space.


48

9. THE NEWGATE RANGE UNIT INCREASE PROJECT In 1990, Newgate rancher Brader Charlesworth applied for an increase to his allotment on the Newgate Range Unit. Because this Unit was a contentious area, important to both wildlife and livestock interests, the application experienced difficulties and delays. In 1992, the Resource User’s Group,the non-government members of the EKTAWC, volunteered to sponsor an experimental conflict resolution project aimed at resolving the impasse. The following documents are the fruits of the Resource User Group’s labors, namely, an agreement on the increase application, and a critique of the process.


49


50


51


52


53


54


55


56


57


58


59

10. BUCK LAKE INTERCEPT RANGE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT The Buck Lake intercept range enhancement project was launched on September 10, 1993. Objective of the project was twofold: 1) Provide a lure crop to reduce elk use of nearby private hayland especially in spring and fall, and to relieve elk grazing pressure on the nearby Buck Lake ridges. 2) Provide cattle grazing A budget of $31,000 was allotted for the project. $22,500 for clearing and ground preparation; $6000 for fencing and $2,500 for barricade tape and contingencies. The Private Land Mitigation project management committee selected the site as being most suitable for these reasons: 1) high wildlife use area 2) further from ranches than other proposed sites 3) ideal enhancement area (level ground and good soil) 4) Trench Plan forage leading polygon. The site consisted of three blocks totalling 70ha that had been previously harvested. On September 15, bids for brushing, piling and burning were called for based on the most hectares for $22,500. Bren Kar Logging bid 26 ha and was awarded the contract. Clearing work at the site began on September 29th. Seeding of the cleared ground was done by the involved ranchers using the Ministry of Forests range drill. One half of this site was seeded to MOF dry forest mix, one half to a custom mix designed by Tim Ross based on elk diet results from the vegetation monitoring data. The volunteer equipment and manpower contributions were recorded as follows: Equipment - 6 days (48 hrs.) tractor and post pounder Manpower - ranchers, 17 days (136 hrs.) fence construction Manpower - hunters, 10 days (80 hrs) fence construction An additional nine days was estimated to be required to install barricade tape and fence stays. The main objective of the project, the establishment of a lure crop, was realized. However, no monitoring of the adjacent private land or of the Buck Lake ridges was done, so it is not known whether the seeding was successful in reducing use of those areas. However the seeding was established successfully and visual reconnaissance indicates heavy use by wildlife. A long term management agreement between Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, and the ranchers is required to optimize the benefits of this development. Commercial fertilizer will be required to sustain the stand effectively.


60

Issues Arising From the Buck Lake Project: i) Possibility the seeding may attract more game from other areas and actually increase the use of adjacent private land. ii) Livestock use of the seeding was planned for but not specified. How can livestock use be integrated with standing crop objectives for wildlife? iii) Commercial fertilizer will be required to optimize life of the stand. iv) Eventually the site will need reseeding, who will be responsible? v) Relatively high level of management required: a management and maintenance protocol is needed. vi) Not enough up front planning. Management principles that should be considered when planning for intensive forage enhancements: i) Integrated with both livestock management in the corresponding Range Unit and wildlife management in the corresponding Management Unit. ii) Before and after monitoring. iii) Management and maintenance plan in place; i.e., fertilizer, livestock use, residual crop for wildlife, responsibility, accountability.


61

11. PASTURE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

Introduction Range staff in the Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts have long recognized the ongoing requirement to generate and enhance forage production through traditional agronomic means. At the same time, the Committee recognized that they could not confine their activities to simply studying the conflict between livestock and wildlife over forage resources, but that they needed to do their part to enhance forage resources as well. In the past, Forest Districts have been able to fund agronomic developments but, since 1991, those investments have declined steadily. Accordingly, proposals were solicited from District staff, in consultation with local MOELP-Fish and Wildlife staff. Approved projects were then implemented by staff from these agencies. A total of $112,837 was invested in forage enhancements. The accompanying table summarizes the projects. Pasture Seeding and Renovation Forest District staff have established a number of cultivated pastures in key low elevation areas adjacent to private farmlands. The purpose of these pastures is to provide additional forage for livestock and wildlife, and to reduce wildlife damage on adjacent private lands. The observation that wildlife make extensive use of these pastures was confirmed by EKTAWC vegetation monitoring on an existing cultivated pasture (Peckham's Lake), where wildlife consumption varied between one-third to one half of total consumption over three years. The Shoe North, Horseshoe and Purvis pasture projects were all cultivated pasture projects, either creating new pasture or renovating older, exhausted pastures. Pasture Fertilization Cultivated pastures in the overlap range area receive extremely heavy use. Total forage consumption on two cultivated pasture sites over three years of monitoring amounted to 70% of production, so it is to be expected that these pastures would deteriorate over time. The Little Shoe Pasture project was designed to measure the impact of fertilizing an existing older pasture dominated by crested wheatgrass. Based on soil analysis, 40 lb/ac of N and 10lb/ac of S were fall broadcast on to the 62 ha pasture in 1991. Plots were established and forage clips were done on fertilized and unfertilized areas in August, 1992. No significant differences were noted as a result of the fertilizer treatment. Problems in obtaining fertilizer spreading equipment meant a delay in application, and snow covered the ground at the time fertilizer was applied. Thus some of the N may have volatilized. Also, a dry spring in 1992 may have reduced the effectiveness of the fertilization (Ross, 1992). No monitoring was done beyond 1992, because of time limitations.


62

Other Enhancements The Eimer fence allowed for the creation of a new pasture, which enhanced livestock distribution and relieved grazing pressure on other parts of the Pickering Hills Range Unit. A windmill, an electric backup water pump, an 8,000 gallon holding tank and a trough were purchased to facilitate controlled livestock grazing within the Skookumchuk grazing exclosure (see Appendix, Committee Chronology). Several mid-elevation wildlife ranges were slated for burning as a joint MOELP-MOF project, but required climatic indices for spring burning never prevailed and the project did not go ahead. The establishment of a fireguard on Pickering Hills Range Unit, one of the key overlap range areas, was in aid of future burns to control forest ingrowth and thus enhance forage production. The fireguard has facilitated one burn in Jurik pasture, as of this writing.

SUMMARY OF EKTAWC FORAGE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST Shoe North Pasture Seeding

Peckham's Lake RU Renovate and reseed 100 ha of old pasture

5618

Horseshoe Pasture seeding

Peckham's Lake RU Convert 75 hectares decadent forest stand to improved pasture. 50/50 cost-shared with ranchers.

37509

Purvis Pasture Establishment

Peckham's Lake RU Convert 40 ha decadent forest stand to improved pasture. Cost-shared with ranchers.

20605

Little Shoe Pasture Fertilization

Peckham's Lake RU Fertilize 62 ha of old crested wheatgrass pasture, and monitor production

8337

Fireguard Construction Pickering Hills RU 16km fireguarding to facilitate future forage enhancement burns.

13889

Eimer Pasture Fence Pickering Hills RU Erect 4km of fence to create new pasture to better distribute livestock forage use.

11262

Buffalo Head Burn East of Pickering Hills RU

Develop mid-elevation intercept range for elk,deer and sheep by prescribed burning. Monitoring plots established but burns never achieved.

2947

Water Development TaTa Skookumchuk RU Purchase of windmill, pump, holding tank and trough to supply grazing exclosure.

12670

$112837 12. PRELIMINARY FOREST INGROWTH ANALYSIS


63

There is a growing recognition of the ecological role of fire in the forests of western North America. High-frequency, low-intensity natural fires are now recognized as a natural and historical component of certain low elevation, dry forest communities. In the Nelson Forest Region, large parts of the Ponderosa Pine (PP), Interior Douglas fir (IDF) and smaller amounts of the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) and Montane Spruce (MS) zones are seen to be affected by this fire regime. The historical presence of the high-frequency low-intensity fire regime in these communities is borne out by a number of fire history studies. Dorey (1979) documented historical fire periodicity15 in a mixed ponderosa pine-Douglas fir stand near Grasmere (Cranbrook District) to be every 6.4 years during the period 1813 to 1940. Beck (1984) determined the periodicity of a seral ponderosa pine stand in the ICHdw near Deer Park (Arrow District) to be 11.6 years in the period between 1762 and 1937. Stewart (pers comm.) analyzed a single fire-scarred veteran larch from an IDFdm2 subzone at Canal Flats (Invermere District), and found an average periodicity of 26 years, between 1589 and 1937. Parminter (1978), working in an open-grown Douglas fir/grassland type in the Chilcotin Region, found a 9.8 year average fire periodicity between the years 1759 and 1926. A study in the adjacent Kootenay National Forest in Montana estimates periodicity at between 12 and 27 years in ponderosa pine stands (George Curtis, pers. comm.). Another ponderosa pine stand in Eastern Washington had an 8-year historical fire periodicity (Weaver, 1974); the mixed pine/fir/larch stands of the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon, perhaps the most thoroughly researched in terms of fire impact, have a historical fire periodicity of 10 years (Hall, 1977). Natural fire occurrences in the drier forest subzones began sometime after the end of the last Wisconsin glaciation. The trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses, as well as the wildlife, insects and microorganisms of these subzones would have become adapted to fire over a period of at least eight to ten millennia, and the ecosystems they make up could now be considered to be fire-maintained. This fact is recognized in the current Biodiversity Field Guide of the new Forest Practices Code, which describes them as Natural Disturbance Type 4 (NDT4), "characterized by frequent, stand-maintaining fires." These stands include the biogeoclimatic subzones Ponderosa Pine (PP), the drier parts of the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), and the driest parts of the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH). The frequent low-intensity fires were part of the natural function of these forests, maintaining a mosaic of grassland and open forest, while at the same time favoring the regeneration of the fire-tolerant Ponderosa pine and Western larch. Lightning strikes would be a primary source of these frequent, stand-maintaining fires, but there is also ample evidence of landscape-level fire activities by pre-European contact aboriginal groups (MacCleery, 1994, Kay, 1994). The historical duration of these activities and the proportion of aboriginal-caused to lightning-caused fires is not yet clear.

15The length of time (as measured by tree growth-ring analysis) between fire events. Also called fire return interval.


64

If the long-standing natural regime of frequent, stand-maintaining fire is drastically altered through fire suppression, then certain ecosystem processes such as succession, stand development and nutrient cycling will be affected, leading to negative impacts on ecosystem health and economic values. This is, in fact, what has happened. Beginning in the late 1930's, the Ministry's fire suppression activities have substantially reduced the occurrence of all wildfire. Data from the Region is not currently available, but the statistics from an adjacent jurisdiction will serve to show this pattern. The graph below shows the acreage burned by wildfire in the National Forests of Washington, Idaho and Montana over a fifty-year period (Leege, 1968):

Systematic, long-term fire suppression has virtually eliminated fire from these ecological zones, and the result has been excess forest ingrowth.16 Many of these stands have not experienced fire for four, five and even six decades now, which means they have missed between two and four fire cycles. It is reasonable to expect the declining trend in the amount of forestland burnt by wildfire to eventually reverse itself, as fuel accumulation leads to more and more frequent stand-replacement-type fires. Douglas fir is often the primary agent of ingrowth in fire-maintained forests that have experienced fire exclusion (Arno et al, 1994); however lodgepole pine is a common dominant in those areas that experienced intense fires around the turn of the century. Although suppression of naturally-occurring fire in these zones has certainly provided initial gains in timber values and public safety, the losses, through deteriorating forest health, increased risk of catastrophic fire and degradation of understory forage and habitat, now appear to far outweigh the gains. This conclusion is supported by other groups working in fire-maintained ecosystems in northern Arizona (Covington and Moore, ibid), Western Montana (Arno et al, ibid), Eastern Oregon (Quigley, 1992), and Eastern Washington (Everett, et al, 1993).

16An increase in tree seedling recruitment, normally through the suppression of fire, beyond the level that a particular site can support. Also known as forest ingress.

ACREAGE BURNED BY WILDFIRE,PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS

012345

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959


65

The Crown forest portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from Montana to Golden, contains approximately 250,000 hectares of land considered to be fire-maintained. A preliminary analysis of rates of ingrowth in the Interior Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine zones of the Rocky Mountain Trench, from the Montana border to Golden, was undertaken by Don Gayton of MOF Regional Staff. Old and new airphotos were obtained from three representative sites in the area, and each set of photos was visually stratified into polygons representing four crown closure classes: Open Grassland (0-5% closure); Treed Grassland (6-15%), Open Forest (16-40%) and Closed Forest (> 40%). The percentage of the landbase within each closure class changed dramatically over the 38-year period, as shown below.

FOREST INGROWTH (1952-1990) IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRENCH (PPand IDF Zones).

CROWN CLASS

PERCEN

T O

F S

TU

DY A

REA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 (OpenGrassland)

1 (TreedGrassland)

2 (OpenForest)

3 (ClosedForest)

1952

1990

This shift, from open grasslands to treed grasslands, and from open forest to closed forest, has profound implications for forage production. There is an inverse linear relationship between understory forage production and forest ingrowth (as measured by canopy closure). Dodd, McLean and Brink (1971) documented this at various IDF and lodgepole pine sites in the Kamloops and southern Cariboo Regions. The graph below (an IDF site at 1100 meters, 22 km NW of Kamloops) is typical of their findings.


66

CROWN COVER AND FORAGE PRODUCTION

PERCENT TREE COVER

FO

RA

GE

KG

/H

A

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2 18 41 53 80

In going from an open parkland stand structure of under 30% crown closure to a closed forest structure of 70% or greater canopy, roughly 40% of the understory productivity is lost, through restricted sunlight and competition for moisture and nutrients. Preliminary analysis recently conducted in the East Kootenay Trench area, using the four crown closure categories described above, supports these conclusions. Rate of Ingrowth Calculation Areas sampled were Columbia Lake East, the Old Kimberley Airport and Baynes Lake. All three sites were entirely within either IDF or PP zones. Airphotos of the areas were obtained from 1952 and from 1990. Each set of photos was visually stratified into polygons representing the four crown closure classes. The polygons were then digitized and area calculations were performed. For this analysis, data from the three sites was averaged and the resulting percentage distribution by closure class was applied to the 250,000 hectares of PP and IDF in the Trench. The pooled area of the three sites is 29,500 ha, roughly ten percent of the area under study. The data shows substantial variation so any conclusions based on this analysis should be very preliminary.


67

Crown Closure Distribution at Three Sites in the Rocky Mtn. Trench. AREA

BAYNES LK 82G 14-25

OLD KIMBERLEY AIRPORT 82G 71, 72

COLUMBIA LAKE EAST 82J 21

ClOSURE CLASS

1952 %

1990 %

1952 %

1990%

1952% 1990 %

0 Open Grassland (0-5% cover)

8.28

2.25

22.09

2.14 21.29 12.03

1 Treed Grassland (6-15%)

40.77 10.46 29.28 8.74 18.88 18.76

2 Open Forest (16-40%)

27.14 21.63 37.97 58.44 25.62 32.77

3 Closed Forest (> 40%)

23.78 65.64 10.64 30.66 34.25 36.41

The change in the Trench forests over the 38 year period can be shown graphically by the changes in crown class distribution ("Average Old" and "Average New"):

FOREST INGROWTH (1952-1990) IN THE ROCKY

MTN. TRENCH (PP & IDF ZONES)

CROWN CLASS

PERCEN

T O

F L

AN

DBA

SE

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3

1952

1990


68

RATE OF INGROWTH CALCULATION The "Change" column in the Table below indicates what happens to each Class over a 38 year period. Based on this data, change over one year, e.g., 1990 to 1991, can be calculated. Rate of change calculation: if Class 0 decreases by 47,000 ha over 38 years, then 47.000/38 equals a 1237 ha or 0.31%, decrease per year17. Note that the cumulative loss from Classes 0 and 1 equals the cumulative gain in Classes 2 and 3.

COVER CLASS

1952 %, Ha

1990 %, Ha

CHANGE 1952-1990

%, Ha

CHANGE PER

YEAR %, Ha

LUMPED CHANGE

PER YEAR

0 Open Grassland (0-5% cover)

17.22

68880Ha

5.47

21880 Ha

- 68.23

- 47000 Ha

- 0.31%

- 1237 Ha

- 0.76%

1 Treed Grassland (6-15%)

29.64

118560

12.65

50610

- 57.32

- 67950

- 0.45%

- 1788 Ha

3025 Ha

2 Open Forest (16-40%)

30.24

120960

37.62

150480

+ 124.43

+ 29520

+ 0.19%

+ 777 Ha

+ 0.75%

3 Closed Forest (> 40%)

22.89

91560

44.24

176960

+ 193.27

+ 85400

+ 0.56

+ 2247 Ha

3025 Ha

CORRELATION OF OVERSTORY COVER TO FORAGE PRODUCTION Forage production clips were performed under each of the four crown closure classes at the Old Kimberley Airport site. Three 1 meter2 plots were clipped for each class, and averaged. Shrub biomass was included at 50% of actual weight, to account for perennial stems. Since the Airport site is acknowledged to have deep, nearly stone-free chernozemic soils, production figures for the Open Grassland and Treed Grassland were subsequently reduced by 50%, to bring them more in line with values obtained from more typical Trench sites.

17The actual rate of change would not be linear over time, but it is assumed to be for this exercise.


69

Understory Forage Production at Old Kimberley Airport Site

CLASS AVERAGE PRODUCTION G/M2 KG/HA

RANGE, KG/HA

O Open Grassland 50 500 250 - 750 1 Treed Grassland 100 1000 750 - 1250 2 Open Forest 25 250 150 - 350 3 Closed Forest 10 100 75 - 125 FORAGE LOSS CALCULATION For Animal Unit Month (AUM) calculations, the two upper and lower classes were averaged together; Classes 0 and 1: 500 + 1000 = 750 kg/ha Classes 2 and 3: 250 + 100 = 175 kg/ha Difference: 750 - 175 = 575 kg/ha According to the airphoto calculations above, 3025 hectares move from the Open Grassland/Treed Grassland classes to the Open Forest/Closed Forest classes every year. Thus: 3025ha x 575 kg/ha = 1739375 kg forage lost every year (1920 imperial tons). 1739375 kg / 360 kg per AUM18 = 4825 AUM per year. Using the standard value of a 1200 lb cow consuming 430 kg air-dry forage per month, and a mature cow elk consuming 135 kg this is the equivalent of: 1739375/430 = 810 beef cows grazing for five months or, 1739375/135 = 4290 elk grazing for three months. In actual practice, this annual loss is made up by overuse of the remaining Open and Treed Grassland areas. Dietary studies in the Trench (Ross, 1997) have shown that both elk and livestock exhibit a high degree of dietary preference for three bunchgrass species in particular, rough fescue (Festuca scabrella), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Elymus spicatum), all species of grassland and open, mature forest habitats. As grassland and forest stands close in from ingrowth, these three species tend to be replaced by the less-preferred, shade-tolerant pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), which typically has half to two-thirds the nutritional

18AUM = Animal Unit Month, one 1000-lb animal grazing for one month. Elk are rated at .38 AUM.


70

(protein) value of the bunchgrasses. Thus forage losses to ingrowth cannot be calculated on the basis of forage production alone. CONCLUSIONS Of the 250,000 hectares of PP and IDF in the Rocky Mountain Trench, 3000 hectares are converted from grassland to forest per year, as a preliminary estimate. The accompanying loss of forage production amounts to 4825 AUMs per year, which translates to 810 cows grazing for five months, or 4290 elk grazing for three months. In addition to a quantity loss, a dramatic forage quality loss also occurs. Under open-grown PP or IDF sites, the dominant forages are bunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue and needlegrass species. These bunchgrasses contain relatively high protein levels during the growing season, and because of their physiology, the protein "cures on the stem" and remains available through the fall and winter. In contrast, the understory forage in closed and ingrown sites is primarily the rhizomatous pinegrass, which contains lower levels of protein during the growing season and is worthless as winter forage. Fire exclusion converts open PP and IDF stands to closed stands through ingrowth. Fire exclusion also results in tree encroachment into open grasslands. This is evident in the small natural grassland openings that occur in the valley bottoms. Active encroachment by young Douglas fir and ponderosa pine seedlings can be seen in virtually all of these openings. As a result, livestock are restricted to smaller and smaller areas of productive forage, and overgrazing results. Movement between areas of productive forage also becomes restricted, since there are often dense thickets of ingrown forest (containing little or no forage) between these areas. This makes proper livestock rotation and distribution more difficult. A lowering of the water table has been noted in recent years, to the point that springs and small sloughs have dried up, further complicating livestock movement. There is a possibility that some of this reduction of the water table is due to forest ingrowth, although no research is available to confirm this. The grazing of livestock can work in tandem with prescribed fire in maintaining the proper balance between trees and forage understory. Moderate levels of grazing in grasslands and open forests prevents the excessive buildup of grass litter, which can insulate the soil and provide favorable conditions for tree seedling establishment. This process is visible at the McLean Range Exclosure near Skookumchuk, where total protection from grazing since 1951 has resulted in dramatic ponderosa pine ingrowth into what was previously a dry grassland site. The presence of a certain amount of fine or "flash" fuel (dry litter, grasses and forbs) is an integral part of the traditional fire-maintained forest since it is the major agent for fire spread. In the case of a candidate prescribed burn area, there is usually enough flexibility to exclude the area from grazing for a season to allow flash fuels to accumulate. Forest cutblock grazing has increased substantially in the Region over the past decade, to a certain degree in response to declining forage availability in ingrown forests and encroached grasslands. Cutblock grazing has generated a number of complex integrated resource management (IRM) issues that involve ranchers, forest companies, Silviculture staff and Range


71

staff. Excess ingrowth and the resulting decline in the traditional forage base has meant an increase in demand for cutblock grazing, inadequate resolution of the IRM issues, and the potential for management controversies in the cutblocks. Public and environmental group pressures to reduce or eliminate livestock grazing in sensitive sites such as alpine, riparian, and domestic watershed areas contributes to the urgency of resolving the forest ingrowth and encroachment problem. A number of wildlife species favor open habitats. Bighorn sheep and elk are dependent to a significant degree upon bunchgrasses during the winter. Bighorn sheep, mule deer, whitetailed deer and elk utilize a variety of succulent grasses and forbs during the growing season. Various shrub species such as bitterbrush, ceanothus, maple, Saskatoon and willow are important to deer throughout the year due to their high nutrient content and succulence. The availability of shrubs during periods of deep snow is also critically important to bighorn sheep and elk. Fire-adapted shrubs, grasses and forbs require periodic burning to reduce conifer competition, maintain availability and succulence, enhance resprouting and to recycle nutrients. Demarchi (1971) estimated that 58% of the area of productive seral (i.e, grass, forb and shrub) vegetation in the East Kootenay Trench had been eliminated by the unmanaged secondary forest succession brought on by the establishment of fire suppression beginning in the late 1930's. In addition to the more obvious ungulates, a range of other wildlife species are dependent upon grasslands and grass-shrublands. Prominent examples include the endangered or threatened horned lark and Vesper sparrow, the vulnerable or sensitive long-billed curlew and yellow badger; the Columbian sharptailed grouse, a grassland species, is believed to have been extirpated from the East Kootenay. It must be acknowledged that replacing all forested lands with seral grass-shrub communities will not serve the needs of wildlife. Forests provide thermal and hiding cover, as well as nesting, roosting, denning, breeding and feeding habitat for a broad range of wildlife species. A mosaic--over space and time--of seral grass-shrub openings, open-canopied forest and closed-canopied forest, presents the ideal situation for wildlife, as well as for many other interests.


72

13. RESTORATION HARVESTING PROJECTS Shortly after the steering committee's formation Chairman Murray began to promote the concept of forage enhancement through silviculture. A task group was established for the purpose of launching operations in this regard. A budget of $20,000.00 was allocated: $10,000.00 each from the Ministry of Forests regional office and the Committee. Subsequently, budget clawbacks and Chairman Murray's accident shut down the project until August 1994. At that time a combination of high lumber and pulp prices and the creation of Forest Renewal B.C. (A Crown corporation drawing income from stumpage surcharges and responsible for renewing the forest resource) created a new opportunity to proceed with the concept. In early August, 1994, Dennis Rounsville, Chief Forester, Crestbrook Forest Industries had notified Chairman Murray of Crestbrook's interest in developing a project in collaboration with the steering committee. Crestbrook had recently purchased a whole log chipper. They were interested in pursuing a project to explore commercial thinning to supply wood for the chipper while enhancing forage production. Chairman Murray and Ross Tozer, Bruce Fraser and Ivan Listar of the Nelson regional office of the Ministry of Forests and Dennis McDonald of Ministry of Environment regional office met on August 23, 1994 and conceptualized a project. Forest Renewal B.C. funding would be sought for the project. Ross Tozer, Regional Manager, Nelson Forest Region advised the steering committee of the August 23rd agreement and his executive approval to proceed with the forest ingrowth chipping project. A task group to be chaired by John Murray was formed.

FRP Proposal Task Group Member Affiliation Title John Murray EKTAWC Task Group Chair Brodie Swan EKTAWC Ranching Rep. Glynn Killins EKTAWC Hunting Rep. Tim Ross EKTAWC Vegetation

Monitoring Dennis Rounsville

Crestbrook F.I. Chief Forester

Dave Phelps Fish & Wildlife Br. Land Mgmt. Biologist

Ivan Listar Nelson Forest Region Incremental Silviculturist

Don Gayton Nelson Forest Region Range Ecologist Dennis Petryshen Cranbrook Forest

District Incremental Silviculturist

Dave White Invermere Forest District

Incremental Silviculturist


73

The chipping project task group undertook and completed two projects: 1) 121 hectare site located in Pump Pasture in the Invermere Forest District 2) 156 hectare site located near Rat Lakes in the Cranbrook Forest District Lumber, pulp and post material prices supported the cost of these projects thus no funding was required from Forest Renewal B.C. The Pump Pasture site was harvested in February of 1995, the Rat Lakes site in July of 1995. The original proposal (Ross Tozer letter August 29, 1994) was to design a pilot project for early implementation to test operational feasibility and cost. Subject to the results of the pilot, the group was then to develop a much more comprehensive and longer term proposal which was to include strategic and operational planning requirements, research needs, policy issues, timber administration issues, and forest worker training needs. The comprehensive proposal was not developed. Wood fiber prices dropped substantially in late 1995, lowering the commercial attractiveness of these projects. As well Chairman Murray relinquished the chair of the Committee for health reasons in Dec. 1995. The purpose of these projects as described in the Silviculture Prescriptions was to enhance forage production for wildlife and livestock. Underburning to control tree regeneration was mentioned as a possible future treatment. Visually, the results of these projects for enhanced forage were very satisfying to observers (Field trips April 1995, Sept 1995). The planning requirements for these projects are high compared to sites with higher timber values. (K. Streloff pers. comm) However they are close to mills and access and working conditions are good. Silviculture obligations were exempted in the Rat Lakes site and partially exempted at Pump Pasture. Pump Pasture harvesting statistics are not available

Rat Lakes Harvesting Statistics Area 156Ha. Harvested volume 4,311m3 Volume/Hectare 29.0m3 Average Piece Size .17 to .23 m3/tree Dead Useless Snags 3% Average Slope 10% Partial Cut 50% Harvest Method Feller Buncher/Grapple Skidder

& Processor Log Transportation Highway Haul


74

Rat Lakes Appraised & Actual Costs Cost Item Appraised Cost Actual Cost Development: (Construction/Deactivation)

$3.74m3 $6.01m3

Harvesting $18.63m3 $36.67m3 Log Transport $5.41m3 $6.41m3 Silviculture Nil Nil Stumpage $9.14m3 Cruising $2.20m3 Total $60.43


75

14. PUBLIC CONSULTATION In keeping with its strategy to extend information to user groups and the interested public, the Committee undertook a number of events and participated in others, as follows: EKTAWC Open Houses: Cranbrook, Oct. 1991 Cranbrook, March, 1996 Field Tours: Range Sampling Field Day, Skookumchuk, summer 1991 Regional Research Tour, August 1992 SISCO, Cranbrook area, summer 1992 Newgate Range Unit tour (Charlesworth Project) September, 1992 Botany BC Tour, summer 1994 Kootenay-Boundary Chapter, BC Institute of Agrologists tour, summer 1994 Tour with the Hon Dave Zirnhelt, Minister of Agriculture, and MLA Jim Doyle, June 1994 Society For Range Management (PNW Section) Summer tour, Wasa, June 1995 Pump Pasture (forest ingrowth control) April, 1995 Rat Lakes (forest ingrowth control) July, 1995 Presentations: Presentation to Ta Ta Creek Farmers Institute, Feb. 1992 (Ross and Wilbur Hannah present slides and discussion) Presentation to Rocky Mtn. Naturalists Oct. 1992 (Hansen gives general description of EKTAWC projects) Repeat presentation Ta Ta Creek Farmers Inst. spring 1994 (Ross presents summary of Year 1 vegetation data) Booth and talk (John Murray and Tim Ross) at the BC Cattlemen's Annual Meeting, Cranbrook, May 1991 Presentation to MOF-Range and MOE-Fish and Wildlife, Balfour, fall, 1994 Conferences: Society for Range Management Annual Meeting, Spokane, Wash. Feb. 1992 (Ross, Wikeem, Gayton and Murray present poster session on vegetation monitoring work) Society for Range Management (PNW Section) Winter meeting, Penticton, Oct. 1993 (Ross presents summary of year 1 vegetation data) Society for Range Management Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 1995 (Ross and Wikeem present technical paper on dietary overlap) Interprovincial Rangeland Conference, Saskatoon, Jan. 1994 (Gayton and Hansen present paper on strategies for working with user groups) Publications: Committee Mission Statement Committee Fact Sheet Carrying Capacity Bulletin


76

15. BRIDGE CREEK (OREGON) FACT-FINDING TOUR The following Committee members and government staff met with local experts and toured Bridge Creek June 6 & 7, 1991: Russ Greenfield, Don Gayton, Carl Withler, Don Hendren, Serg Pereverzoff, Tom Blom, John Murray, Tim Ross, Maurice Hansen, April Beckley, Andy McDonald, Ted Barry, Glynn Killins, Gary Tipper, Ray Wilson, Wilbur Hanna and Graham Strachan. The Bridge Creek Wildlife management area operates to keep the local wintering elk herd off private property. Grazing by wildlife and cattle keeps the range suitable for this purpose. This project encompasses over 5000 hectares. Elk use has increased nearly sixteen times the level occurring in 1960 while cattle use has declined slightly. Early in the project cattle were excluded but the managers soon realized that cows were a useful tool to condition the range and remove old "wolfy" plant material. Once a proper cattle grazing rotation was set up the range improved with an increase in elk numbers. The total number of elk in the management area has not changed significantly. However the elk no longer spend much time on private property, instead they feed on the high quality range on the management area. Careful attention to the plant community provides the key to the grazing of cattle. Spring turnout starts when the forage reaches a predetermined height rather than by the calendar. No grazing occurs from August 1 to October 1. Every third year a pasture has a rest from cattle grazing. Cattle are fenced out of the riparian areas of the project to prevent damage. The EKTAWC felt many of the ideas utilized at Bridge Creek were applicable to the East Kootenay situation.


77

16. PARALLEL INITIATIVES

Introduction A number of new and existing programs and initiatives relate directly to the recommendations of the Trench Committee. These are briefly described, along with possible future directions. Forest Practices Code (FPC) Enacted in 1995, the FPC and its accompanying Guidebooks affect the agriculture/wildlife conflict in several ways, namely: * The requirement that every livestock tenure on Crown land have a Range Use Plan, which addresses, among other things, the type and condition of native vegetation, and wildlife concerns * The designation of forest and grassland landscapes by natural disturbance regimes (Biodiversity Guidebook). The Trench is considered Natural Disturbance Type 4-- characterized by frequent, low intensity fires * The establishment of grassland and open forest "potential natural community" and seral stage guidelines, a replacement for the traditional range condition concept. Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan (KBLUP) This Plan, growing out of the East and West Kootenay CORE (Commission on Resources and Environment) Tables, is in the final stages of completion at this writing. The KBLUP is a "higher-level plan," which means that Forest District staff must take its principles and guidelines into account when developing "lower level plans" such as Five-Year Development Plans, Silvicultural Plans, Local Resource Use Plans, and Range Use Plans. The most significant element of KBLUP for the agriculture/wildlife conflict is the Section on Fire-Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Guidelines. Trench Committee members played an active part in developing and providing feedback on the Guidelines as they were being developed. It is the opinion of the Committee that full implementation of these Guidelines is the best and most lasting solution to the agriculture/wildlife conflict in the Trench. Other parts of KBLUP that relate to the conflict are: * Principles of sustainable use of native forage * Ungulate Winter Range guidelines * Enhanced grassland seral stage guidelines for Protected Areas and Biodiversity Corridors * Enhanced forage production in unalienated Agricultural Land Reserve lands Grazing Enhancement Fund (GEF)


78

Designed as a Fund to offset the negative impact on the ranching industry by the approval of the KBLUP, the GEF became operational in mid-1996, and is managed by an independent committee of user group representatives, with administrative support from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The GEF will consider various types of range and riparian enhancements on Crown land that will improve livestock management and reduce the negative impact of new KBLUP guidelines. Trench Integrated Renewable Resource Management Plan (TIRRMP) The TIRRMP, better known as "The Trench Plan," was a cooperative effort between the Ministries of Environment and Forests, which assigned land use priorities between timber, wildlife, and livestock in the lower elevations of the Trench. The Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts each signed off similar but separate plans in 1991. Since that time, the Trench Plan guidelines have been consulted only occasionally and implemented rarely. However, substantial use of the Trench Plan was made in the formulation of the KBLUP Fire Maintained Ecosystem Guidelines. As of this writing, the Trench Plan is considered by the Forest Districts as no longer an operative document, since it did not go to public review, and only considered the three resources of timber, wildlife and livestock. Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) CRMP's were introduced into the Trench in the mid-1970's, to aid in local, multisectoral, operational planning. A typical CRMP covered one or two Range Units, and consisted of a day-long meeting each winter, attended by Forest Service representatives (Range, Silviculture, Timber and other Sections on occasion), Fish and Wildlife representatives, range permittees, and representatives of hunter groups. The activities of the upcoming season would be discussed, livestock rotations, timber harvesting, hunting regulations etc. Summer tours of the Unit would be held occasionally, and every five years, a master planning document would be updated. With the advent of the FPC and new planning structures, and increasing Ministry workloads, CRMP's are in limbo. Neither the Code nor the Planning Guidebook make any mention of CRMP's. It appears that this level of local, multisectoral operational planning is in jeopardy, and that is of some concern to the Committee, since many aspects of the agriculture/wildlife conflict can be worked out at this level. Ecosystem Maintenance Burning Evaluation and Research (EMBER) The project (Gayton et al, 1995), a Nelson Forest Region initiative, was started in 1993 to: * plan, assist in the execution, and evaluate pilot burns in the Cranbrook, Invermere, Arrow and Boundary Districts * Coordinate with the Research Branch and the Canadian Forestry Service in conducting relevant fire research projects * Document any technical or administrative obstacles to achieving successful ecosystem maintenance burns, and make recommendations for removing those obstacles Three monitored burns were done in 1994 and 1995; Findlay Basin, Dry Gulch (near Skookumchuk), and Picture Valley, south of Fort Steele. Data was collected on pre- and post-fire vegetation, as well as fire and smoke characteristics. Post-fire data collection is ongoing.


79

Due to the additional workload imposed on the Forest Service by the Forest Practices Code and the Land Use Plan, no new EMBER burns have been done and, other than post-fire monitoring of the three existing sites, the EMBER project has gone dormant. Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society This organization was formed in February of 1996. Its purpose is to encourage and promote a better balance between the forage and timber resources in the Trench. The means proposed to accomplish this purpose is a continuation and expansion of ecosystem restoration activities exemplified by, but not limited to, the restoration logging projects described in section .13 of this report. Membership in the Society is open to any organization with an interest in the natural resources of the Trench. Present membership: * Rocky Mountain Naturalists Association * Waldo Stockbreeders Association * East Kootenay Wildlife Association * Kootenay Livestock Association * Cranbrook Archery Club * East Kootenay Environmental Society * Windermere Farmer's Institute * East Kootenay Hunters Association Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program After the Columbia River Treaty dam construction, B.C. Hydro established a fund in perpetuity for the purpose of mitigating the consequences of loss of wildlife habitat from the flooding of river bottoms. This fund finances habitat related projects throughout the East and West Kootenay region.


80

17. DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS Here is a summary of the Committee's major conclusions and recommendations, keyed to the original Objectives: Collect data on wild and domestic ungulates, and their impact on Crown range. Background: The Committee determined that the most limiting resource for both livestock and native ungulates (elk and deer) are the low elevation "overlap ranges" in the bottom of the Rocky Mountain Trench. The forage and browse of these open and semi-open ranges (roughly corresponding to the Ponderosa Pine and dry Interior Douglas-fir subzones) is used by wild ungulates in late winter and early spring, and used by livestock in late spring and fall. Because they are the most limiting resource, the forage and browse of the overlap ranges are at the core of the agriculture/wildlife conflict. Actions: The Committee commissioned a detailed, 3-year Vegetation Monitoring Project, to assess forage dynamics and grazing impact on the overlap ranges. The Committee also commissioned an Elk Radiocollaring Project, and two separate Elk Censuses, covering six key Management Units in the Trench. Conclusions: Vegetation Monitoring Project data showed that total combined (livestock + wild ungulate) forage consumption in three selected sites in the overlap ranges exceeded the safe level of use (more than 50% of total seasonal dry matter production) in 1992, 1993 and 1994, and that consumption was roughly equally split between livestock and wild ungulates. Prolonged forage consumption above the safe level of use has been shown to cause a deterioration of range condition and forage productivity, and an increased risk of weed invasion. In addition, the timing of usage can be critical, such as spring livestock use immediately following winter/early spring wildlife use. The Project determined that a) to be used properly, forage production data should be modified by dietary preference and b), local allocation problems can potentially be alleviated by improving distribution of both wildlife and livestock. The Elk Radiocollaring Project determined that a) elk in the Trench tend to maintain separate, geographically distinct herds, b), extensive seasonal migrations occur, but a percentage of animals do not migrate out of the Trench, and c) the timing and routes of migrations are fairly predictable. The Elk Census results showed that in midwinter 1993, there were 18,160 elk in the Trench, between the Montana border and Radium. The Census also pinpointed areas of very high elk density. Because of improvements to the methodology, this is considered the first accurate estimate of elk numbers, but comparisons to previous censuses cannot be made. An estimate of total elk numbers in the Trench was not attempted, as it was deemed not technically possible to do so, but the perception is that numbers are in decline.


81

Livestock numbers on Crown range were found to be stable in the Trench over the past ten years, but the average size of livestock appears to be increasing, and therefore the amount of forage each animal requires is assumed to be greater. The livestock size/consumption factor needs to be documented and taken into account in grazing management planning. Recommendation: Government acknowledge its mandate to manage the overlap ranges within their long-term sustainable carrying capacity (see Forest Practices Code Act Preamble, plus Sect. 45 & 52). In order to do so, resources must be dedicated to periodic vegetation monitoring on representative overlap range sites in the Trench, to a practical level of replication, that provides the following data: total seasonal forage production, combined total forage consumption, livestock consumption and wildlife consumption. Forage consumption data should be modified by ungulate species preference for the key native forage species. Recommendation: Conduct periodic surveys to provide elk population trend and density data.


82

Recommend an equitable forage allocation process. Background: Livestock and wildlife both utilize the limited forage resource on overlap ranges, so the development of an equitable strategy for altering this utilization was required. Actions: The Committee discussed this issue extensively. Part of the rationale for establishing the two data collection projects was to provide a basis for rational forage allocation. Conclusions: based on discussions and the determination that overgrazing is occurring, the Committee determined that Government has three forage allocation options: A. reduce the number of grazing animals B. alter timing and distribution of current grazing regimes C. increase forage availability to match or exceed safe use Option A, a reduction in the number of livestock and wildlife, would be difficult to implement fairly, and would be extremely divisive to the community. Only very limited local gains can be made through option B. A major obstacle to sustainable management of the overlap ranges is the problem of split government mandates. Fish and Wildlife Branch has a mandate to manage wildlife population size; Range Branch has a mandate to manage livestock population size plus provide habitat for both livestock and wildlife. No protocol, either formal or informal, currently exists to bring these two mandates into concert with each other. Recommendation: increase forage availability to match or exceed safe use (Option C) Recommendation: Establish a binding Memorandum of Understanding between the Regional Offices of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Ministry of Forests, would address: A) Bringing wild and domestic ungulate population sizes to within the limits of the sustainable carrying capacity of the overlap ranges of the Trench, B) A recognition of the legitimate forage requirements of both wildlife and livestock. C) A strategy for the management of any additional forage generated. D) A strategy to adjust grazing levels when necessary. E) A modified planning process for the Landscape Units within the dry, low elevation NDT4 Crown forests and rangelands that gives parity to wildlife, livestock, timber and ecological interests.


83

Document nature and extent of wildlife damage on private ranches. Background: Elk and deer make use of private land hayfields and stored feed supplies during winter and early spring. Currently no mechanisms are in place to mitigate or compensate for this damage. The resulting economic loss and frustration is a component of the agriculture/wildlife conflict. Actions: A subcommittee of hunters and producers investigated the problem. As a result of the subcommittee's recommendations, an extensive producer damage survey was conducted in 1991, and a trial intercept range enhancement project (the Buck Lake Intercept Range Project) was undertaken in 1994. Addressing private land hayfield damage through compensation was also explored. $25,000 was expended on the survey. Conclusions: The producer opinion survey put the damage estimate at $256,000 per year in the Trench. Previous studies on four impacted ranches showed actual average hay crop losses of 28%, with a range of 17 to 45%. Producers indicated that they would tolerate a certain level of damage, but once a threshold was exceeded, they felt action should be taken. Although it is offered in some US jurisdictions, financial compensation presented the following challenges: a) securing a stable funding base, b) creating a local program to address a problem that also exists in other parts of the Province, c) high administrative costs and d), difficulty of assessing claims. In-kind compensation for damage, through lease rebates, easements, etc., may be possible in certain specific situations. Reducing hayfield damage through various forms of mitigation was agreed to be the most acceptable approach, especially "intercept range" enhancement. The Buck Lake Project, despite problems, was generally accepted as a positive influence. Recommendation: develop strategically-located intercept range enhancements, similar to the Buck Lake project, that work in conjunction with broad-scale ecosystem restoration enhancements (see below). User group and non-government organization involvement in the planning, financing and maintenance of these enhancements is essential. Recommendation: Address wildlife damage to private haylands primarily by providing high quality, well-managed Crown forage resources in areas adjacent to damage-prone private lands. Crown forage may be enhanced by a combination of restoration of fire maintained ecosystems, intercept range enhancements, and the renovation and judicious development of cultivated pastures.


84

Investigate impacts of uncontrolled forest ingrowth. Background: The Committee recognized that the root of the agriculture/wildlife problem was the accelerating loss of high-quality forage production due to uncontrolled forest ingrowth on the overlap ranges. This fact is corroborated by several earlier studies. Actions: The Committee achieved a general understanding of the complex ingrowth problem, and was instrumental in the development of two experimental underthinning projects, both designed to enhance forage production, provide fibre yield and improve forest stand health. Conclusions: Reclamation of the forage resource lost to ingrowth is the single most effective resource tool for the resolution of the agriculture/wildlife conflict. Most of the overlap range in the Trench consists of fire-maintained grasslands and open forests that historically experienced fire every 5 to 25 years. Sixty years of active fire suppression has resulted in tree densities far in excess of what these dry sites can productively support, along with reductions of understory forage and browse production. Loss of forage due to ingrowth is estimated at 6,000 to 8,000 AUMs per year. If left unchecked, ingrowth will force the imposition of Option A) above, the reduction in the number of grazing animals. Recommendation: Early implementation of fire-maintained ecosystem restoration work, similar to the program outlined in the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan. Ecosystem restoration will generally involve combinations of commercial and pre-commercial thinning, prescribed underburning and selective harvesting to achieve a healthier balance of trees, shrubs and grasses. Investigate and implement agronomic methods of enhancing forage availability for livestock and wildlife. Background: Traditional agronomic enhancements, such as cultivation, seeding, fertilizing and fencing have been a component of Crown range management in the Trench, although the funding available for these activities is declining. Actions: The Committee funded $113,000 worth of forage enhancements, including a forage fertilization project. Conclusions: Traditional forage enhancements do contribute to the overall forage supply, as shown by the Vegetation Monitoring Project. The forage fertilization project was monitored; no yield increases resulted, but the timing of fertilizer application may have been at fault. Recommendation: Forest ingrowth control and the development of effective intercept ranges should provide the bulk of forage enhancement. However, existing cultivated pastures do supply substantial forage to both livestock and wildlife, and should be renovated periodically to stay productive. Provide an independent forum for dialogue and conflict resolution.


85

Background: The agriculture/wildlife conflict in the Trench is characterized by a long history of animosity and mistrust among the various groups involved. Actions: Committee members agreed to operate according to the following working philosophy: * Participants will accept where we are without blame, * Develop confidence and trust in each other through communication and cooperation, * Implement "win/win" solutions to conflicts where possible, * Seek factual information to provide an objective basis for management decisions, * Support integrated land use planning and management, * Optimize livestock, wildlife and other legitimate resource uses, within the context of sustainable ecosystem management. Conclusions: The Committee determined that human behaviour was the primary root cause of the agriculture/wildlife conflict, not the distribution of natural resources. Fear of loss of privilege or livelihood, aggravated by lack of trust, has led to destructive behavior among user groups and government ministries alike. Recommendation: Ensure opportunities for on-going communication between resource users and agency personnel, together with meaningful participation in the development and refinement of policies and programs that are vital to resource user interests. Resource users should meet with District Managers to mutually determine the most appropriate issues to undertake, and most effective forum for communication. The inevitable differences of opinion can be contained within the bounds of ethical behavior by agreeing to rules similar to the working philosophy above. Encourage integrated resource management planning. Background: Integrated resource management (IRM) has been accepted by Government agencies and resource users in the Trench since the mid-1970's, and the Ministry of Forests Act clearly spells out the IRM mandate. Coordinated Resource Management Planning and the CORE/Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan are specific processes that espouse IRM. Actions: The Committee sponsored two IRM-type projects, the Charlesworth pilot and Private Land Damage Mitigation. Both required multi-sectoral representation, and both were successful. Conclusions: In spite of the mandate, true IRM has had limited application in the Trench, due to a shortage of manpower and money for implementation, and to Government's heavy program emphasis on the timber resource. However, the successful Committee-sponsored IRM projects are evidence of the ability and willingness of local user groups to handle IRM issues and resolve conflicts. The region of the Trench is ideally suited for the development of new approaches to IRM, since a roughly even split of resources exists, with no single resource economically dominant. Although


86

many of these resources face serious difficulties, none of them are exhausted, and potential exists for enhancement in every case. Resource user groups in the Trench are generally active and informed. Successful growth and development of IRM can stabilize and optimize existing resource use, but it can also point to new economic uses of natural resources. Recommendation: Ensure an effective IRM planning mechanism that optimizes the integration of wildlife, livestock, timber, recreational and ecological needs of the overlap ranges of the Rocky Mountain Trench. The mechanism should be local and involve A), a clear definition of the mandate of each Ministry and user group participant, B) periodic exchange of information and current plans for the local area, and C), principled negotiation, within the limits of the mandate of each Ministry and user group, leading to the maximization of each mandate, the "best fit" of mandates, and finally, continuous improvement of that best fit over time. Local, operational-type issues should be the primary focus of this IRM mechanism. Provide biological and management information to user groups. Background: A keystone of successful IRM are informed user groups and an informed public. Actions: Members of the Committee made substantial efforts to learn the biological and technical background to agriculture/wildlife issues, and then to relay that information back to their user group constituents. Conclusions: information exchange and informal learning played a significant role in the successful outcome of the Agriculture/Wildlife project. Recommendation: Create a collaborative extension effort directed at agency personnel, user groups and the interested public, that provides opportunities for these groups to learn biological and technical aspects of resource management in the Trench, as well as current land management "best practices."


87

RECOMMENDATIONS IN ORDER OF PRIORITY Recommendation 1: Increase available forage to match or exceed safe level of combined livestock and wildlife use on Crown rangelands in the Trench. Recommendation 2: Recognizing appropriate sections of the Forest Practices Code and the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, establish an interagency Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests, to accomplish Recommendation #1. The MOU would address: a) Bringing wild and domestic ungulate grazing levels to within the limits of the sustainable carrying capacity of Crown rangelands. b) A recognition of the legitimate forage requirements of both wildlife and livestock. c) A strategy for the management of any additional forage generated. d) A strategy to adjust grazing levels when necessary. e) A modified planning process for the Landscape Units within the dry, low elevation NDT4 Crown forests and rangelands that gives parity to wildlife, livestock, timber and ecological interests. Recommendation 3: Implement Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Guidelines as outlined in Section 3.10 of the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy. Ecosystem restoration will involve combinations of commercial and pre-commercial thinning, underburning and timber harvesting to achieve a healthier balance of trees, shrubs and grasses on Crown rangelands in the Trench. Base capability restoration area targets as quoted in Guidelines should be met as a minimum, with the majority of treated areas coming from the Open Range and Open Forest categories. Recommendation 4: Acknowledge government's mandate to manage the overlap ranges within their long-term sustainable carrying capacity. To do so, resources must be dedicated to periodic vegetation monitoring on representative overlap range sites in the Trench, to a practical level of replication, that yields reliable information regarding: total seasonal forage production, combined total forage consumption, livestock consumption and wildlife consumption. These data should be integrated with ongoing plant community inventory and cover estimates required for Existing, Desired and Potential Natural Community determinations. Recommendation 5: Gather reliable elk population data on an ongoing basis in the Trench area.


88

Recommendation 6: Develop strategically-located intercept range enhancements on Crown rangelands that work in conjunction with broad-scale ecosystem restoration enhancements to improve wild ungulate distribution, provide additional forage and reduce private land damage User group and non-government organization involvement in the planning, financing and maintenance of these enhancements is essential. Recommendation 7: Address wildlife damage to private haylands primarily by providing high quality, well-managed Crown forage resources in areas adjacent to damage-prone private lands. Crown forage may be enhanced by a combination of: restoration of fire maintained ecosystems, intercept range enhancements, and the renovation and judicious development of cultivated pastures. Recommendation 8: Ensure resources are available for periodic renovation of existing Crown range cultivated pastures, as they supply substantial forage to both livestock and wildlife. Recommendation 9: Create a collaborative extension effort directed at government personnel, user groups and the interested public, to provide opportunities to learn the technical and biological aspects of resource management in the Trench, as well as current land management "best practices."


89

18. ANALYSIS OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS The work of the Committee can be analyzed based on a theoretical framework used by several contemporary experts in management as it applies to natural resources.19 The East Kootenay Agriculture/Wildlife conflict is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" conflict, which has two main conditions: (1) A "commons," that is, a natural resource shared among a group of people. (2) Individual users of the common, who are intent on achieving short-term individual gains. The commons seems unlimited at first but is either nonrenewable or else takes a great deal of time and effort to replenish. Eventually the benefit to each individual user begins to decline and the effort required for each to sustain a diminishing share escalates, and conflicts arise. The problems causing the decline in benefits cannot be solved individually, in isolation from fellow competitors. If, however, antagonists can be persuaded to seek solutions collectively, disputes over process and equity are very likely to occur. The suspicion is that by agreeing on common goals, the individual competitor is being snared into consent for unpleasant realities which lurk out of sight. Most would support a decision which might produce a public good, with some value to each party, but there may not be enough value to warrant the risk of being put at a disadvantage by one's adversaries. Political gamesmanship, strategizing, lobbying, personal attacks and attempts to capture favorable public opinion are familiar tactics when commons conflicts are at their worst. Amazingly, this kind of behaviour from the individual commons user is rational because he or she will receive no benefit from voluntarily and unilaterally giving up a use. The space vacated will be captured by a competing user resulting in a loss of privilege with no guarantee of offsetting gain (i.e. improvement to the long term prospects of the common resource). The typical and familiar outcome of a commons dispute is chronic conflict, sustained by the hope of a preemptive win. One user or sectoral group of users may be dominate the field, maintaining an imperial relationship with the less dominant users. Government often contributes to commons conflicts. Its mandate to act in the public interest is contradicted when one or more governmental agencies are in competition. Often there are accusations of "primary client" favoritism by agencies. When contending parties in polarized conflicts make all alternatives politically punishing, a government

19The material for this analysis is from: Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, K. Lee (Island Press, 1993); The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, P. Senge; (Doubleday, 1990) and The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Senge, Kliener, Ross, Roberts, Smith (Doubleday, 1994)


90

agency can be paralyzed because none of the management alternatives is preferable to continued delay and inaction. Solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons The tragedy of the commons can be avoided by changing the relationships among people, government, and natural resources, so that what becomes rational for an individual is also sensible for the natural system and the human community. This change is possible by improving the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion. However, a major obstacle to this improvement is the established order of competing resource management agencies, their existing systems of operation and their "client" groups. In the absence of a suitable social structure, inquiry foreshortens into intelligence gathering and decisions are simply the residue of conflict. Knowledge degenerates into advocacy and any learning is accidental. Hard-won lessons cannot become the shared property of disputants. A shift in the functioning of the established order is required, and that is a framework for continuing negotiation between competing interests. The framework shift is an assembly of information and analytic skills that can describe the world shared by the parties and that can predict consequences. Within this framework would also be embedded the social mechanisms for exploring common objectives and the means to reach joint commitments. Comparison and Conclusion In Recommendation #3 (implementing programs to control forest ingrowth), the Committee has identified a key process that is eroding the supply of forage resource, but they also recognized that simply providing an enhanced resource alone will not eliminate the conflict. In Recommendations 2 (creating an MOU between the Ministry of Forests and Fish and Wildlife) and Recommendation 2e (a modified resource planning system), the Committee has proposed an appropriate social framework for exploring common interests and developing joint commitments. Recommendation 4 (enhanced collection of resource information) provides the basis for informed management decisions and for feedback on the results of those decisions.


91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, E.W. and R.J. Scherzinger (1975) Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management, 28:120-125

Arno, S.F. 1988. Fire ecology and its management implications in ponderosa pine forests. In Arno, S.F., J. H. Scott and M. G. Hartwell. 1994. Age-class Structure of Old Growth Ponderosa Pine/Douglas fir stands and its Relationship to Fire History. USDA Forest Service, Intemtn. Research Sta. Research Paper # INT-000

Beck, Jim, Fire History and Range Enhancement Study for the Cayuse Creek Area. Selkirk College Library, Castlegar, B.C., 1984. Braumandl, T. and Curran, M. 1992. A Field Guide for Site Identification and Interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Nelson Region Casselman, V. (1990) History of the Agriculture/Wildlife Problem in the East Kootenay. Report prepared for EKTAWC, Cranbrook Chambers, A (1973) The Purcell Range Study. Environment and Land Use Comm., Victoria Closkey, D. (1988) A Review of Ranching/Wildlife Conflicts in the East Kootenay Region of BC. Provice of BC, Minister of State, Kootenay Region. CORE (1994) East Kootenay Land Use Plan. Commission on Resources and Environment, Victoria. Covington, W. and Moore, M. 1994 Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes since Euro-American Settlement. Jour. Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 1, Jan., 1994 Curtis, George. personal comment. Kutenai National Forest, Eureka, Mont. 1993 Demarchi, R.A. (1970) in The Courier, Cranbrook, Monday, March 2. Demarchi, R. A. 1971. Wild Ungulate Requirements and Land Use Conflicts in the Rocky Mountain Trench of the East Kootenay. Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Rept. Dodd, C.J.H, A. McLean and V.C. Brink, 1972. Grazing Values as Related to Tree-Crown Covers. Can. Jour. Forest Research, 2: 185-190 Dorey, R.J. 1979. A fire history investigation and the effects of fire exclusion on a ponderosa pine forest in southeastern British Columbia. Unpubl. BSc.F. thesis, Univ. of B.C., Vancouver.


92

Everett, R., P. Hessburg, M. Jensen and B. Bormann. 1993. Eastside Ecosystem Health Assessment. USDA Forest Service Research, Wenatchee, Wash. Friedman, Karl (1981) East Kootenay Range Issues: Public Report #1. Ombudsman of British Columbia, Victoria. Gaube and Assoc. (1991) Wildlife Depredation on Private Agricultural Lands in the East Kootenay Trench. Report prepared for EKTAWC, Cranbrook.

Gayton, D. et al (1995) EMBER Problem Analysis and Working Plans. MOF, Nelson Region Hall, F.C. 1977. Ecology of Natural Underburning in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, Portland, Ore.

Hudson, R.J. et al (1972) Habitat Utilization by Wildlife and Livestock in the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench of British Columbia.

Kay, Charles et al (1994) Assessment of Long-Term Terrestrial Ecosystem States and Processes in Banff National Park and the Central Canadian Rockies. Banff Nat'l Park, Alta. Kluge, H and Weber, W (1988) Assessment of Elk and Deer Damage to Standing Forage Crops in the Cranbrook Area, British Columbia. MOAFF, Victoria. Leopold, Aldo (1949) A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press

MacCleery, D. 1994. Understanding the Role the Human Dimension has had in Shaping America's Forest and Grassland Landscapes. Eco-watch, Feb. 10, 1994

McLean, H. 1993. The Boise quickstep. American Forests. January/February 1993. pp. 11-14. MOELP (1996) Summary Statistics Database, Fish and Wildlife Br., Victoria MOF (1957) Annual Report, Ministry of Forests, Nelson Region. Paish, H (1970) Project Grassroots: A Report on the Examination of Past and Present Land Use Policy and Practice on Range Lands of the East Kootenay. Project Grassroots, Burnaby. Parminter, J.V. 1978 Forest Encroachment upon Grassland Range in the Chilcotin Region of BC. MSc. Thesis, Univ. of British Columbia Pearse Bowden Consultants, Inc. (1975) Land Use Options and Interim Management Recommendations for the Steeples, Lost Creek and Point Vee Bar Ranches, East Kootenay Region. BC Land Commission, Victoria. Pitt, M. and Simpson, K. (1989) The Effects of Wildlife-Livestock Forage Use on Crown Range in the East Kootenay: Proposed Working Plan. Ministry of Forests, Victoria.


93

Quigley, T. 1992 Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: Social and Economic Perspectives. USDA/FS PNW Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-296 Reid, Roger et al (1983) Report on BC Survey of Non-hunting and Other Wildlife Activities for 1983. Wildlife Br., MOELP, Victoria. Ross, T. (1992) Little Shoe Pasture Fertilization Study. Report for EKTAWC, Cranbrook. Ross, T (1997) Vegetation Monitoring Final Report. Report prepared for EKTAWC, Cranbrook. Sasaki, H. et al (1984) An Evaluation of the ARDA and ARDSA Range Improvement Program in the East Kootenays. MOAFF, Victoria Stewart, Rick 1994. personal communication. Forest Health Officer, Nelson Region. Streloff, Ken (1996) personal communication. Crestbrook Forest Industries. Weaver, H. 1974 in Fire And Ecosystems, T.T. Kozlowski and C.E. Ahlgren, eds. Academic Press


94

APPENDIX 1 AGRICULTURE/WILDLIFE COMMITTEE

CHRONOLOGICAL REVIEW - 1990 TO 1996

At the Committee's first business meeting in mid September, 1990, Chairman John Murray emphasized the direction Minister Reynolds had given: this was to be an integrated use action committee and Reynolds wanted quick progress. Murray wanted an additional priority, forage enhancement through silviculture, to be added to the priority list. He saw this as the most significant means to enhance grazing values by improving forage values in the vast area of overstocked immature timber on the floor and lower slopes of the trench. The top priority however was the development of a Long Term Management and Working Plan. Reynold's desire for rapid action was met through the approval of projects already developed and proposed by MOE and MOF. These projects were "shelf-ready" and brought before the Committee for approval. Chairman Murray implemented a number of task groups to act on the list of priorities. Oct. 1990 The implementation committee, now called the technical advisory Committee (TAC), was considering how to implement Pitt's vegetation monitoring work plan. Brian Wikeem, from the Research Branch of the Ministry of Forests was approached and expressed willingness to take responsibility for the project but could only commit 10% of his time. Thus an on-site project person would be needed. The Committee approved this arrangement. At the Oct. 14th meeting, Ross Tozer emphasized that it was imperative the Steering Committee and resource agencies endorse the findings of the vegetation monitoring project and not challenge it once finalized. The data from this project carried a heavy expectation; the production of hard data upon which to determine how to allocate forage between livestock and wildlife. This was, at the time, and continues to be, a point of some confusion. One view is the data will provide a remedy to the competition for forage. The other is that it will provide site specific data and may be helpful in centering discussion and dialogue on how best to manage the forage resource overall. As Brain Wikeem pointed out in the beginning and to quote Pitt/Simpson: "Although research, monitoring, inventory, and historical summaries can provide information that facilitates integrated management of cattle and wildlife in the East Kootenay Region, several aspects of the current controversy are not solvable directly with more data and information. Indeed, the central issue of this controversy embraces economic, political, and social policies rather than mere biological constraints and conflicts." If Wikeem and Pitt/Simpson were correct the data collection by the vegetation monitoring project would not of itself be the magic bullet that would neatly solve the allocation issue. A project to determine accurate elk population estimates was proposed by Fish and Wildlife Branch. The methodology to be used was a system developed in Idaho involving a combination of counting elk from a helicopter, estimating the sightability of the animals depending on the characteristics of the block or polygon being counted, and analyzing the data with a related computer programme. The end result was to be an elk population estimate ninety five percent accurate nine times out of ten. At the end of three years the number of elk would be known on each management unit in the Trench and what habitats they were in (R. Demarchi Dec. 13/90). Once accurate elk populations were known along with the amount of forage consumed, guidelines could be developed to resolve the conflict according to the technical advisory committee. In conjunction with estimating elk populations, a program to capture, radiocollar and monitor forty elk was also proposed. The number of radiocollared elk sighted from a helicopter compared to the number actually collared was part of the Idaho system. The data on movement between summer and winter ranges would also be useful in estimating the duration of stay on winter range.


95

The committee's goal statement was approved at the October meeting. It stated: "The East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee Goal is to attempt to resolve the conflicts between livestock and wildlife for the use of forage on the private agricultural land and Crown range land in the East Kootenay Trench, with forest enhancement being utilized as a tool to improve Crown range." A proposal to establish a resource user group as a task force was tabled. Concern was expressed about another task group given the number already established. The user representatives and chairman Murray would meet to consider the proposal. A related project sponsored by the Ministry of Forests was underway during September, 1990. Bill Anderson, Range Management Consultant from Oregon, facilitated the renewal of the Pickering Hills Co-ordinated Resource Management Plan. This comprehensive process updated the objectives and management plans for the Pickering Hills range unit. The Pickering Hills is an important wildlife winter range as well as having permitted cattle grazing. Data collection on this site, one of four, was part of the vegetation monitoring project undertaken by the committee. Tom Volkers, Ministry of Forests district planner advised in a letter to Chairman Murray: "The team agreed to recognize and manage a core critical wildlife winter habitat area for big game. Widespread public awareness of this initiative will foster trust and respect between wildlife and ranching interests and demonstrate their mutual interest in the resources and their ability to work together." Volkers asked, on behalf of the Pickering Hills CRMP team, that the steering committee consider a proposal to hire a professional writer to develop public awareness of the Pickering Hills integrated management success and the aspirations of the EKTAWC. The committee did not act on this proposal. Bill Anderson also conducted workshops for agency operations personnel on how to do coordinated resource management planning. Bill invited the committee, through John Murray, to visit the Bridge Creek and Starkey projects in Northeast Oregon. Bridge Creek was a success story for the integration of wildlife and livestock grazing and Starkey was a large study on elk behaviour. In November the private land mitigation task group began to function. The objective was to address the agriculture/wildlife conflicts on private land by identifying the scope and magnitude of the problem and recommend solutions. The instructions from Reynolds on this matter had to do with fencing, lure crops and assessment of wildlife damage to private land. This issue had created the most intensity in the conflict leading up to the formation of the committee. The perplexing issue of forage allocation still troubled members of both the technical and steering committees. The suggestion was floated that development of the allocation vehicle and methodology should begin immediately so as to be ready when data became available. An assumption was that part of the forage allocation process would be controlling livestock and wildlife populations. This meant that the vegetation monitoring data would have some authority with respect to numbers of cattle and wildlife and their relationship to range carrying capacity. Carrying capacity would be indicated apparently from the vegetation monitoring data (Technical Advisory Committee meeting Dec. 13/90). In any event, whatever the allocation process might be, it was urged that the committee undertake work on the problem. (Gayton Nov/90) This did not happen. At the Nov. 15 meeting, John Murray advised, as a consequence of his efforts, that the Forestry Engineering Institute of Canada (F.E.R.I.C.) was ready to go ahead with a commercial thinning project in conjunction with a forest company. He was to contact the Ministry of Forests in Victoria to determine interest in doing a silviculture/range project. At the Technical Advisory Committee meeting of Dec. 12, R. Demarchi said that by using modern methods, wildlife population, distribution and duration could be documented to a level of 10-15% accuracy. Ministry of Environment was very confident of present monitoring data as it referred to the entire elk population in the Trench but less sure of small areas such as range units. A. Wolterson presented an elk inventory seminar. At the Dec. 13th meeting, Chairman Murray reported on the commercial thinning proposal. The Chief Forester, responding to Chairman Murray's proposal, fully endorsed a strategy to deal with overstocked areas of the Trench. Chairman Murray's idea was to concentrate on the trench side slopes


96

based on the notion that improved forage values in these areas would intercept wildlife, provide livestock grazing, and mitigate private land problems. The death of Verdun Casselman, independent ranching representative, occurred in November. Chairman Murray, expressing the feeling of the committee, said that Verd had been an outstanding, knowledgeable, team player and would be sadly missed. 1991 By January, deep snow lay on the floor of the trench and elk were being drawn to cattle feed grounds and stored hay supplies. John Murray was receiving an extraordinary number of calls from ranchers about this. The private land mitigation task group had met and action was underway to carry out the groups' objectives; "To determine the nature and extent of wildlife damage on private land and recommend mitigation strategies." The task group decided it needed an information package from which to make recommendations. Gaube & Associates from Lumsden, Saskatchewan were hired to collect this material. The forage allocation issue was discussed again. The technical advisory committee was designated as the entity most appropriate to identify allocation problems and develop solutions. Furthermore, according to the steering committee, the technical advisors should be sources of technical information, not politicians. In February the technical advisory committee indicated that due to the heavy workload they wanted to delay tackling the forage allocation issue by one month. As instructed, Brian Wikeem and Don Gayton had hired a vegetation monitoring project coordinator. Tim Ross was to begin work March 1st. 1991. The level of friction and mistrust between members of the technical committee and to a lesser extent the Steering committee prompted Chairman Murray to note in a memo that "There is no trust of anyone in the Trench." The Technical advisory committee members were concerned and slightly offended that they had not reviewed the proposal to hire Gaube and Associates for the private land survey contract. The chair of the PLM task group questioned why it was necessary to consult with them. Ross Tozer perceived a lack of trust in the expertise of the civil servants by non-government steering committee members. Furthermore, the technical advisory committee felt disconnected and frustrated by the lack of steering committee direction. The regional directors were instructing the technical advisory committee to behave in the full teamwork mode. At the same time, the view was expressed that full consensus was unrealistic on the committee, rather substantial consensus should be acceptable. Chairman Murray promised to have a game-plan draft available for the March meeting. A private land mitigation progress report on the activities of Gaube and Associates was presented. Dennis McDonald, reflecting the Technical committee's discomfort, expressed concern over the lack of technical review preceeding the project. John Murray pointed out that the number of calls he had received on wildlife damage were so great that to not take quick action was unthinkable. Concerns on the thoroughness of the work being done were somewhat mollified by testimonials by new independent rancher representative, Wilbur Hannah. The contract to capture and radio collar up to sixty elk was underway. On February 28, a press tour was conducted to the elk capture site near Tie Lake. Several elk had been trapped that morning and the press and some committee members observed the radio collaring process. The private land mitigation surveys were nearing completion with the report from Gaube & Associates anticipated but not yet subject to a deadline. The severe winter had ended early with a major thaw which had relieved the wildlife pressure on rancher's stored feed but at the same time made it more difficult to entice elk into a trap. By March 21, thirty-seven elk had been collared which was considered a success given weather conditions. Censusing was underway with four blocks yet to be completed. Preliminary results suggested the current elk population may have been somewhat overestimated.


97

On March 21st chairman Murray and Dennis McDonald prepared a "Program Strategy Draft" for the Committee. Chairman Murray's goal was for the committee to consider this draft for fine tuning and further development as a blueprint for operations. Government Objective Maintaining a viable livestock industry and wildlife based recreation and commercial opportunities in the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench through Integrated Management of Crown Lands and mitigation of wildlife damage to Private Lands. Committee Goal: To implement a short term (3-4 years) program designed to address the following problem elements: 1. To protect the Crown Rangelands base against overgrazing by wildlife and livestock. 2. Protect private ranches from significant wildlife damage. 3. To establish an appropriate balance in Crown Rangelands Forage Allocation. 4. To enhance the carrying capacity of Crown Rangelands for livestock/wildlife. 5. To resolve existing disagreements between Resource Users to achieve broad based public support for the Government's Range Management Program. 6. To maintain a sufficiently large Crown Rangelands base to meet the Government's objective. On March 25th chairman Murray met in Victoria with Environment Minister Cliff Serwa and provided a Committee Progress Report. He concluded his presentation with a quote from East Kootenay Problem Analysis - Ministry of Forests - February 1982. "Natural forest succession has resulted in many stagnated stands with little current or future economic value even for commercial interests. Planned, controlled, openings of this stagnated forest canopy can produce benefits for all resource users, including domestic livestock, wildlife, woodfibre, hunters and non-consumptive recreationalists". The Resource Users Group, which consisted of all the non-government members of the committee plus Chairman Murray was now established and had met earlier. At the April steering committee meeting, April Beckley, co-ordinator for the users group, handed out a "mission statement and range use guidelines" developed at the meeting. The group was prepared to abandon fault and blame exercises and wanted to achieve optimum potential of the forage resource using the TIRRMP (Trench Integrated Renewable Resource Management Plan) as guidance. This plan consisted of polygons mapped according to the biophysical capability for various resources. Basic resource values and management considerations were listed for each polygon. The plan was a joint project of the Ministries of Forests, Agriculture and Environment. Operations that would achieve the objectives of the Trench Plan would concurrently achieve the aspirations of the users group; i.e, the needs of wildlife and livestock interests met on the land base. The means proposed for doing this was to identify range units with insufficient carrying capacity and then proceed with action plans to increase capacity. To aid collaboration, the approach this group was taking was based on a paper by W.C. Krueger, Oregon State University, called "Managing Rangeland Resource Interactions". John Murray reported that the forest grazing enhancement through silviculture task group was in place. Next, the group would be drafting a goal/strategy/implementation outline for discussion. Both the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Kootenay Livestock Association Land Use Committee had rippled the waters. A resolution passed at the BC Wildlife Federation annual meeting for introduction of elk into the Cariboo which had gained the attention of cattlemen there. A proposal by Ministry of Environment to establish a Wildlife Management Area on Sheep Mountain near Elko had generated a sharp reaction from local cattlemen. The vegetation monitoring coordinator, Tim Ross was now on site and the field season underway. Gaube and Associates were writing the private land mitigation report for delivery in September. The steering committee's budget had been cut to $195,000. Keith Hebert reported on the results of the elk capture and monitoring. The trip to Bridge Creek to view what was touted as a successful cattle/elk management scenario was set for early June. The information folder that the public relations task group


98

had produced in the fall was to be supplemented by a brochure. It would also contain the group's mission statement, working philosophy, objectives and three year work plan. The trip to Bridge Creek Oregon, hosted by Bill Anderson of CRMP fame, and Jack Melland, Oregon Fish & Game, proceeded as planned. The story of this wildlife management area contained a compelling message for resource managers. Cattle had been removed initially from the area, then brought back into the management plan because without them the elk were leaving also. The notion that cattle and elk needed each other ran counter to conventional wisdom. This was not the first pilgrimage to Bridge Creek. During the development of coordinated resource management planning in the Trench in the mid 1970's, led by Anderson, another group of ranchers and wildlifers had trooped off to Oregon and came back converted to the management system at work their. The Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement money that funded the fence building and other capital projects during the CRMP development in the Trench was intended to provide the infrastructure for such management schemes. However, this type of management has never been implemented. One of the problems was how to adapt and implement this type of management in the Trench given the existing administrative structures. One difference between Bridge Creek and the public land range units in the Trench was its status as a Wildlife Management Area, purchased by Oregon Fish and Game from private owners. To implement a management plan on Bridge Creek, Oregon Fish & Game had only to consult with itself. Later that month, Dave Phelps, BC Environment Cranbrook, presented the Sheep Mountain Wildlife Management Area proposal to the committee. Predictably, the reaction to this proposal was split along party lines, ranchers opposing, wildlifers proposing. Subsequently, because of its divisive nature, this proposal was shelved pending the conclusion of the committee's mandate. On the Skookumchuk Prairie, construction of the three way exclosure set up was underway. The fence was to be eight feet high using twelve foot posts. Setting the posts in the tightly packed river rock that passed for subsoil on the prairie was heavy going. The forest/forage enhancement through silviculture initiative had reached the "problem analysis" stage. Stewart and Ewing, a consulting firm, were to undertake this project using $10,000.00 each from the Trench Committee and Ministry of Forests Nelson Region. A joint proposal from the Windermere Farmer's Institute and the Windermere Rod and Gun club was presented by Brodie Swan. This proposal was for a range enhancement project on Steamboat Mountain. It was endorsed in principle by the steering committee and referred to the forest/forage enhancement through silviculture task group. Despite being a re-occurring agenda item, in the end this project did not go forward. In September, Gaube and Assoc. presented the Private Land Mitigation report and led the committee through the material. The report recommended a private land mitigation pilot program be implemented, funding be secured, and the Trench Plan be implemented using the steering committee as a resource. The range management guidelines created by the resource users group in February were revisited and recommended for endorsement by the committee. These guidelines described the user groups desire to sustain optimum populations of wild and domestic ungulates, identify, for the purpose of enhancement, ranges with carrying capacity deficiencies and to share forage equitably on the basis of guidelines to be developed. The EKTAWC brochure had been published. The committee believed the signing of the mission statement in the brochure was a precedent setting resource agreement for B.C. Tim Ross and Brian Wikeem reported a successful season with 99 percent of objectives met. Fencing was complete for the three-way exclosure. All transects were in place and four hundred moveable cages had been constructed and set out according to the work plan. Future use of the monitoring infrastructure was discussed. Chairman Murray advised that based on phone calls he was receiving, constituency communication was not working. Chairman Murray called for budget provision to enhance forage on crown range to reduce the negative economic impact of wildlife on some ranches.


99

Concern over the weighting of the committee's focus on private land issues was expressed. Dave White, East Kootenay Wildlife Assoc. representative, felt there should be parity of expenditures between wildlife and cattle interests. Provincial elections resulted in a change in governing party. The Social Credit government was defeated by the New Democratic Party. The new environment minister was John Cashore. Duane Crandall, former Social Credit MLA for Columbia River and a participant in the formation of the Trench Committee was defeated by New Democrat Jim Doyle. Anne Edwards remained as New Democrat MLA for Kootenay East. Keith Simpson, elk censusing contractor, gave a presentation on the elk project at the Nov. 28th meeting. Simpson described some technical details of the censusing method. He advised the scope of this project was not sufficient to estimate elk populations of the entire Trench. A census every five years, however, should be sufficient to maintain a handle on population trends. Wally Penner emphasized the objective was an estimate of elk numbers in conflict areas of sufficient confidence to be useful for management purposes. Simpson said no valid comparisons could be made between this new data, which shows a decline when compared to previous estimates, and previous population estimates because of fundamental differences in methodology. A. Wolterson said that Fish and Wildlife Branch is confident that an actual decline in elk population had occurred. Simpson was questioned if the population data collected by this project is of sufficient confidence to manage populations. He replied that it was. An unresolved problem around the elk population project was the issue of comparison between Simpson's and previous Fish and Wildlife estimates. The differences in methodology apparently invalidated any comparison according to Simpson. At the same time Fish and Wildlife branch personnel believed an actual population decline had occurred. The utility of the population estimate arrived at by the K. Simpson project with regard to resolving agriculture/wildlife conflict was not determined. At this point in the steering committee's term, the data collection information was destined for a void. A system or strategy for incorporating the expected data into management plans did not exist although suggestions had been made that such a scheme should be developed. The open house in October had gone well with about 175 people attending. Chairman Murray reiterated the high priority of completing the long-term planning document. T. Volkers had offered to brief the Committee on the TIIRMP at the next meeting. The technical advisory committee met on Dec. 5th. Information on the project proposal by Windermere Farmer's Institute and Windermere Rod and Gun Club was requested. The Steering Committee had acknowledged the proposal but so far had taken no action. The possibility of funding the project from Mica Pondage compensation money was mentioned. The elk census results reported by Keith Simpson earlier showed that 750 elk were on Pickering Hills range unit and 450 were on Ta Ta-Skookumchuck. The technical advisory committee agreed this information when coupled with the radiocollaring data would be very useful to range managers for estimating how much forage a range unit will have to supply. Fish and Wildlife Branch were anxious to secure funding from the committee for the next year of elk censusing, 1992 - 1993. A complete winter census from Steamboat Mountain to the U.S. border was estimated to cost $100,000. In December the provincial government realized it was suffering another bout of cash shortage. The committee was directed to resubmit new budget estimates to the end of the fiscal year with reduced expenditure scenarios. Concern existed over the uncoordinated approach to forage enhancements. Well planned and coordinated forage enhancements carried the expectation of providing forage in those areas where it was currently in short supply and therefore exacerbating the wildlife/agriculture conflict. A story in the Dec. 24 issue of the Kootenay Advertiser, which came as a surprise to the committee, proclaimed: "$90,000 SURVEY SHOWS ELK NUMBERS DOWN". Referring to the Simpson elk census project, the story ended with the comment from the regional wildlife biologist that "the study shows a decline in elk population that we have suspected since 1984. Now we have a job to do to build up the elk population to that 1984 level - about 28,000 strong in the East Kootenay."


100

1992 The Technical Advisory Committee met on Jan. 9. The Vegetation Monitoring Project was reviewed with reference to summer help and work plans. Comments from the technical advisory committee, regarding the vegetation monitoring project, to Ross and Wikeem were solicited with a Jan. 31 deadline. Budget reductions were a concern. The Simpson elk census project report was reviewed. Census blocks and range units were not always compatible. Simpson was expected to correct this. The discrepancy between Simpson and Fish and Wildlife numbers was attributed to: 1) Fish and Wildlife overestimation 2) Overharvest 3) Migration of herd beyond study boundaries. Fish and Wildlife Branch would ideally prefer three years of elk census data. The ultimate goal was to have the whole Trench completed one time. Once this was accomplished, it would then be possible to treat the Trench as a unit. The Steering Committee also met on Jan. 9, 1992. Tom Volkers briefed the committee on the Trench Plan. The Trench Integrated Renewable Resource Management Plan (TIRRMP) is a broad level strategic plan developed to help resolve range/forestry issues. Primary resource uses are set out for mapped areas according to capability estimates. These areas, called polygons, vary in size and represent a location with more or less similar biological, geographic and climatic characteristics. The plan was a consensus project of the Planning, Timber, Range and Wildlife agency personnel plus field technicians. Companion to the plan was an agreement that no changes will be made to the plan except by consensus. The plan is on a geographical information system (GIS) database which maps coincident wildlife/livestock areas and may be used as a planning tool to assist in mitigating conflicts. Three meetings of the private land mitigation task group had been held. A draft proposal had been produced for the steering committee. This draft was to be referred to all constuencies for review and a strategy was to be developed to implement a mitigation program next fiscal year on a pilot basis. This strategy was to take into account the expected input from member constuencies. Continuation of the elk census project budget of $90,000 was approved. The Steamboat Mtn. project proposal from the Windermere Farmer's Institute and Windermere Rod and Gun club was to be reviewed by the technical advisory committee. Chairman Murray was to meet with Don Hendren and Brodie Swan on the matter. The steering committee fully supported the proposal. The importance of firm recommendations to the Minister (of environment) prior to the end of the program was stressed. On Jan. 17, Chairman Murray gave his annual report on Trench Committee activities to the Minister of Environment, John Cashore, in Victoria. The Minister was particularly interested in the Trench Plan and was anxious to have a further briefing on it when in Cranbrook. Chairman Murray and Deputy Minister Jim Walker encouraged the minister to have the Land Use Commissioner, Steven Owen, visit the Kootenay's and be familiarized with the plan prior to beginning land use planning initiatives. The Minister wished to see the local Tribal Council become members of the committee. At the Feb. 27 meeting the East Kootenay Environmental Society and Rocky Mountain Naturalists, pursuing steering committee membership, gave a slide presentation on the importance of biodiversity and maintaining species other than for their economic value. One representative from these two organizations and one from the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council were invited to become members. The new representatives were Mildred White of the Naturalists Association and Lexine Cayenne of the Tribal Council. The private land mitigation task group presented draft number seven of their proposal. In January the resource users group had created an "Interim Management Guidelines Proposal." The main points were that animal unit months for both livestock and wildlife be held at 1990 levels until completion of committee deliberations except in the case of transitional livestock grazing in clearcuts. Range units with insufficient carrying capacity would be targets for enhancements to improve carrying capacity. Guidelines for allocating any surplus forage would be developed by the committee. The Sheep Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA) proposal, first brought before the steering committee in June, 1991, was again the subject of contention. Ron Skiber, East Kootenay Wildlife Assoc. alternate representative, was upset over how the committee had dealt with the issue. The Wildlife Association were ready to proceed alone to achieve this WMA. This situation exposed the lack of effective means for integration of livestock and wildlife management and the still contentious


101

relationship between wildlife and livestock interests. The potential for this issue to disrupt the committee was high. The Ministers of Environment, Forests and Agriculture had committed to signing a letter of support for the committee. This letter and the mission statement were to be circulated to all constuencies and general knowledge of the letter and mission statement was to be disseminated. The issue of a grazing allotment increase for Newgate rancher B. Charlesworth was before the Ministry of Forests regional manager, Ross Tozer, for decision. Ross Tozer asked the committee if he could have consensus to go ahead with the increase. Ron Skiber countered that the Ministry of Forests had refused to allow a sheep transplant when there was lots of forage. Suggestions were to treat the Charlesworth as a special case scenario, to verify the availability of forage for the increase, and try and decide the increase through the CRMP process. The resource users group was to review the matter at their next meeting and be provided with the previous numbers freeze agreement from Ministry of Forests. The Steamboat Mountain proposal from the Windermere groups was endorsed again and was to be sent to the TAC for review and recommendations for implementation. A March press release on the 1992 elk census had been distributed to all East and West Kootenay newspapers. Chairman Murray was quoted as saying "Our goal is to match the optimum number of wildlife and livestock to the annual carrying capacity on a given area of range...... we can ensure that healthy livestock and wildlife populations can co-exist in the Trench". The resource users group reviewed the proposal for a cap on elk and cattle numbers on Crown Range and the Charlesworth ranch application for more grazing. The conclusion was that a mechanism was required to deal with the current impasse caused by the fear of one interest outmaneuvering the other. The action proposed by the task group was to utilize the CRMP format and the principles for rangeland interaction used by a group called the Oregon Water Improvement Coalition. This group had created an award-winning multi-interest forum to deal with water issues in Eastern Oregon. Adapting from this model the users group proposed all stakeholders would be involved and Dr. Michael. Pitt would be invited as expert help. Resolution of the problem was targetted for April 30. The chair of the Technical Advisory Committee suggested an in-house planning session was in order to determine how results of projects would address the agriculture/wildlife conflict. The suggested topics were: - How the elk census and veg. mon. work relates to forage allocation - A strategy for Forage Allocation - Private land damage mitigation/compensation - MoF/MELP population agreement - MoF/MELP co-management strategies Chairman Murray strongly supported the suggestion and committed to work on a proposal for such a session for review at the next meeting of the steering committee. At the April 9 meeting R. Demarchi reported he felt the apparent decrease in elk population has been caused by overharvest and that the data showed that Fish and Wildlife branch can actually manage population size through hunter harvest. The proposal for a planning meeting was discussed but no action was decided. There were eleven months remaining in the committee's term. A tentative meeting was set for May. Draft number eight of the Private Land Mitigation proposal was presented. This draft was being circulated to the livestock and wildlife associations. The committee approved in principle the PLM report. Ross Tozer and Dennis McDonald urged the task group to determine support for the draft proposal from the Minister of Environment, a task which was never completed. A proposal for dealing with the Charlesworth allocation issue, developed by the PLM/Resource Users Group was presented. Discussions had been held with district MOF operations manager D. Hendren to explore feasibility and further discussions with MOF and MOE were planned. B. Swan felt this approach to allocation should only be used for highly contentious issues.


102

A memo from Dennis McDonald informed the committee that the Sheep Mountain WMA proposal was on hold pending completion of the steering committee work and/or the Commission on Resources and Environment land use plan. Later in April Chairman Murray suffered a severe and disabling accident that entailed a long hospitalization and extensive rehabilitation until February 1993. A steering committee conference call was held on May 28. The resource users group had discussed possible co-management alternatives on Sheep Mtn. There was concern that the East Kootenay Wildlife Assoc. had withdrawn from the committee as a result of the Sheep Mtn. Wildlife Management Area issue. Interim management for the steering committee was discussed. A sub-committee was to address the matter and report back. The Chair was to rotate among the members in chairman Murray's absence. At the June meeting the steering committee engaged M. Hansen and P. Cowtan as co-managers for the committee on a two month contract. The East Kootenay Wildlife Assoc. confirmed it would continue to participate. The Wildlife Association had been advised that the Sheep Mtn. area was to be considered under the Protected Area Strategy, part of the land use planning initiative of the Provincial Government connected to the Commission on Resources and Environment. (CORE) The Resource Users had received approval from the Charlesworths, MOF and MOE districts and region to proceed with the conflict resolution proposal for the B. Charlesworth allocation issue. In July the first recommendations for the final report were presented from the Resource User's Group. Solicitation of funds for the second phase of EKTAWC was a priority. The steering committee approved the hiring of Mike Pitt and a trained facilitator for the Charlesworth project. Comment was made that the Charleworth's were waiting a long time for a decision. Elliot Pighin bluntly stated that with a few hundred dollars of brush clearing, range could be enhanced to carry the extra cows without engaging in more talk shops. Current funding for the steering committee would end on March 31, 1993. The vegetation monitoring project would only have one years' data by then. Two was deemed essential and five ideal. The Minister of Environment was to be informed of the committee achievements and rough budget requirements with a copy to Local MLA's. Letters of support from all interests should be solicited. Refinement work on the draft recommendations continued. A field trip to the Newgate range unit, in regard to the Charlesworth allocation, was held on Sept. 16, Dr. Mike Pitt and stakeholders were in attendance. This was an excellent information sharing session with agreement on the issue was almost reached that day. On Sept. 29th the first facilitated meeting on this matter was held. Some progress was made but at least one more meeting would be necessary. A central issue for some of the participants was that this process not be imposed as a means of deciding other disputes. Since agreement was gridlocked in the existing referral system there was merit in trying new methods. Some forage quantity information was required before proceeding and would be collected by T. Ross. The next meeting on the issue was set for late November. The original completion date, now long past, was April 30th. Dr. Pitt and facilitator G. Mamen were providing their services free at the next meeting. Chairman Murray's rehabilitation was estimated to continue for several months making the date for his return to full duty uncertain. Cowtan and Hansen were contracted to continue as managers to March 31/93 Chairman Murray, still recovering from his accident, attended the Nov. 25 meeting. The forage production data collection for the Charlesworth allocation process was abandoned after consultation with Pitt, Ross, Wikeem, and district agency personnel. It was decided the information could be misleading. The next and hopefully final meeting was scheduled for Dec. 16. A submission to cabinet for funding from the Sustainable Environment Fund (SEF) through to 1995 had been prepared. The final report would be completed by March 31/93 and be a stand alone document regardless of the outcome of further funding. Chairman Murray inquired as to the status of the Steamboat Mtn. proposal from the Windermere groups. At a meeting in August the resource user group had been unable to determine how to proceed.


103

Current committee funding was tied up in existing projects and other priorities restricted the time availability for funding application to other sources. The Private Land Mitigation proposal draft was to be reworked to be consistent with the SEF funding request. The current budget was short $10,000 and money from both the vegetation monitoring and elk census projects was requested. The meeting on Dec. 16 to address the Newgate/Charlesworth allocation process still did not conclude an agreement. At least one more meeting would be needed. 1993 The group dealing with the Newgate range allocation issue met again on January 13 and concluded an agreement granting the additional AUM's to the Charlesworth Ranch. The agreement was conditional on a monitoring system and grazing rotation agreement being agreed to and fence construction completed before livestock turnout in the spring. Reaching this point was much more difficult than the resource user group had anticipated. Signing of the agreement was begun at this meeting. Altogether there were fifteen signatories to the agreement. At the January steering committee meeting a Kootenay Livestock Association letter was read welcoming Chairman Murray back and describing their extreme dissatisfaction over the length of time the Charlesworth process had taken and the lack of progress the steering committee was making. In this connection the Resource User Group was to critique the Newgate allocation exercise and provide recommendations to the steering committee. The steering committee accepted the Charlesworth agreement and directed that it be forwarded to the district manager, MOF and the regional manager, MOE, when signed. The Resource User Group agreed that development of recommendations for the interim report was to be handled by a task group including government agency personnel. This would be recommended to the steering committee. On March 25th EKTAWC personnel attended a seminar on wildlife/agriculture conflict solving organized by Richard Hallman, District Horticulturist, in Creston. Expert knowledge on the issue was provided by Dr. Paul Curtis and Dr. Robert Schmidt from the U.S. The committee's private land mitigation proposal was discussed with these men who suggested a "good neighbor" relationship between agriculture and wildlife interests was central to resolving problems. This was an interesting insight but a recipe for creating this relationship was not provided. The steering committed approved a seven member task group to develop final report recommendations by March 17th. $15,000 was approved to continue the elk census. News was receive that a former steering committee participant, Ted Berry, alternate to Brian Baehr had passed away. His valuable contribution to the committee was recognized and condolences forwarded to the family. The state of the Steamboat Mountain proposal from the Windermere groups was again discussed. Tim Ross reported that the Vegetation Monitoring was on time and on budget. All field work objectives had been met and data analysis and report writing were in progress. On February 2nd the Resource User Group met and discussed the removal of the compensation recommendation in the private land mitigation proposal. This proposal called for a pilot project to be implemented with the objective of mitigating and or compensating for wildlife depredation on selected private land. (Mitigation was defined as a measure to reduce or eliminate wildlife depredation on private land) Many ranchers were not in favor of compensation according to the agriculture representatives. It was agreed these representatives would propose to their constuencies that a two year mitigation pilot program be undertaken. Under this program a method would be developed to choose a limited number of ranches to participate in mitigation. Funding would hopefully be obtained for the projects, results assessed and future needs determined including the need for compensation. On March 12 the recommendations task group met and developed the first draft of recommendations for the final report. The status of the funding application to the Sustainable Environment Fund was unknown.


104

On March 17 the steering committee was updated on the Charlesworth agreement re: monitoring and grazing system agreement. The monitoring was agreed to but the grazing rotation agreement had reached an impasse over the issue of rest-rotation as opposed to deferred-rotation. The district manager had accepted the agreement of January 13. When the grazing system impasse occurred MOF made the decision to continue with the existing deferred rotation and implement the remainder of agreement as it stood. The Wildlife Association was upset that the District Manager had chosen to make this decision and felt that with a little more time, consensus agreement on the grazing rotation could have been reached. The issue of wildlife monitoring on the Newgate range was raised. Dave Phelps said that wildlife population data was available for Newgate but would not assist range management. Rather the effect that wildlife have on habitat is what should be measured. The critique of the Newgate allotment process was reviewed and amended. Draft #10 of the private land mitigation proposal was reviewed. Pamela Cowtan and Maurice Hansen, on behalf of the steering committee, travelled to Victoria for the annual meeting with the Minister of Environment, John Cashore. The committee's activities were described. In response to the funding application made earlier, the Minister advised that $200,000 from the Sustainable Environment Fund would be provided for the 93/94 fiscal year but that no further funding could be expected. Contracts with co-managers Cowtan and Hansen expired March 31. The final report, now called the interim report, was near completion. The primary recommendations were to continue the vegetation monitoring to the extent that confidence in the data would be adequate. Communication, understanding and coordination between ministries and resource interests also needed improvement. Overall management of the land base was a priority with emphasis on enhancing the forage resource by dealing with unmanaged forest ingrowth. The report was finalized in late May. With the funding secured, the vegetation monitoring project continued and the private land mitigation proposal went ahead. A task group was immediately formed to develop and carry out the intent of the private land mitigation proposal from the interim report. In this connection the ranching community was offered the opportunity to apply for mitigation assistance. Applicants were selected by the task group according to criteria agreed to by the steering committee. Two applicants were successful, the Gold Creek/Plumb Bob grazing association (Doyle Reay & Sons and Dennis Dilts and the Marcer Ranch). The task group and these ranchers developed three projects; The Buck Lake seeding, the Marcer ranch game fence and the Dilts ranch perimeter logging. The purpose of the seeding was to intercept wildlife and reduce depredation on the adjacent cropland owned by the Gold Creek/Plumb Bob ranchers. The Marcer ranch fencing was to complete the fourth side of a game proof fence around the ranch's hayfields. The logging around the boundary of the Dilts' ranch was intended to provide more forage and less cover and thus make the ranchs' hayfields less attractive to elk. Except for the logging these projects went ahead quickly. In the case of the Buck Lake seeding, the required fencing was not completed and created cattle trespass problems for the permittees. A later assessment of the Buck Lake project determined the seeding was very successful and is a net benefit to the forage supply in the area but future management is uncoordinated and fertilizer will be needed to sustain it. Game use of the seeding has been heavy but no one is really sure if the seeding has reduced wildlife use of adjacent cropland. An estimated 40Ha's was cleared and seeded. The proposed logging adjacent to the Dilts property was rescheduled to winter 1997. The need for the entire project to be part of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan was communicated to the District Manager, Cranbrook Forest District by letter from the steering committee. There is currently no CRMP on this range unit. A carrying capacity bulletin was developed by Don Gayton with printing funded by the steering committeee. Tim Ross presented the first findings of the vegetation monitoring project to the October meeting of the Society for Range Management in Penticton.


105

The Ministry of Forests advised that commitments to the Newgate range Charlesworth allocation agreement regarding monitoring and fencing had been met. An application to the Federal/Provincial Forest Resources Development Agreement (FRDA II) for steering committee funding was being developed. If funding for one more year could be located, primarily to continue the vegetation monitoring project the confidence of the data would be enhanced and several loose ends tidied up. A project to assemble and analyze all elk census information in the Trench was being conducted led by Ian Hatter, wildlife biologist with Ministry of Environment. A contract to review and summarize the elk radio telemetry data had been let with $5000 from EKTAWC and $1000 from Ministry of Environment. 1994 The Ministry of Forests was reorganizing and as a consequence the fate of the committee's funding request to FRDA II was not readily known. Don Gayton noted the preliminary vegetation monitoring data showed combined consumption by elk and cattle exceeded safe use. Increases in numbers of ungulates would accelerate the decline of the forage resource. This would have implications for the Kootenay Hunting Opportunity Committee. The decisions of this committee indirectly involved the range resource but range issues were not included in KHOC deliberations. Consequently their aspirations and those of the Trench Committee were disconnected and potentially conflicting. The committee determined elk population objectives and short and long term goals should be addressed in the EKTAWC final report. The Commission on Resources and Environment land use planning process was approaching the April 1/94 closure date. This exercise had significant implications for the range resource with the potential for restrictions and increased management, new protected areas, etc. and therefore was of interest to the steering committee. The Ministry of Forests provided 1993 livestock consumption monitoring data from four pastures according to the Newgate Range/Charlesworth agreement. Utilization in one pasture was 16%, in the other three about 35%. In response to the steering committee's inquiry regarding the possibility of CRMP development on the Gold Creek/Plumb Bob range unit, the Ministry of Forests District Manager in Cranbrook advised the intention to commence the process either late 1994 or early 1995. Early in April the committee was advised $200,000 had been procured from FRDA II for continuation of the committee's projects. The committee had expended $950,000 to April 1, 1994. In May a joint meeting of Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests district and regional range and wildlife personnel was held in Cranbrook. Examples of multi-agency resource management were reviewed by the group. i.e. Fleecer Mtn. in Montana. The group determined the central issue was how to achieve healthy rangeland ecosystems. The planning system to achieve this was discussed. A working group was formed to revisit the TIIRMP and recommend a forage allocation process. A contract was to be let to document and quantify forest ingrowth. MOE and MOF were to develop a joint proposal for ingrowth reversal and present the proposal to EKTAWC. In June a windmill and water storage system was installed in the cattle only exclosure at Skookumchuck. Stock watering problems had plagued the project from the beginning. The windmill system would pump into the storage system and gravity feed to stock tanks and required no electricity. Dave Phelps questioned whether Skookumchuck Range unit is understocked relative to other units and asked that this information be documented in the final report. Chairman Murray was to write Forest Renewal B.C. to describe how agriculture/wildlife and the ingrowth issue will fit with FRBC's mandate. The steering committee passed a motion in support of the concept of creating a pilot land management unit, similar to projects in Oregon and Montana, that would be co-managed by a consensus of agencies and users and that would strive for balance. Communication with constuencies continued to be a problem according to Chairman Murray. A monitoring system for the


106

Buck Lake seeding had been designed by Tim Ross and installation was to be completed by the 17th of July. A tour of the seeding took place on July 19 In August, Dennis Rounsville, chief forester for Crestbrook Forest Industries wrote the steering committee expressing the company's interest in recovering additional pulpwood during commercial thinning type activities and improving the forage resource at the same time. CFI were interested in pursuing this with the committee and Forest Renewal. The committee was enthusiastic and discussed rejuvenating the Steamboat Mtn proposal from the Windermere groups. The pilot land management idea needed to focus on principles before deciding location. An options paper was to be produced for the next meeting. A task group was formed to implement the project. A pilot would first be implemented and depending on results, a comprehensive long term proposal would be developed. Planning for the pilot was to be completed by Nov. 15. with the long term proposal to follow immediately. The sites for the forest ingrowth pilot project were chosen, one near Premier Ridge in the Sheep Creek North range unit and one in the Gold Creek/Plumb Bob range unit at the junction of Purcell and Linklater creeks. This latter site was later changed to Rat Lakes. Operations were to be carried out in Feb./March 1995. The end of the committee's term was in sight and the matter of the final report was raised. A discussion paper on the pilot co-land management area was presented by Don Gayton. In December, Chairman Murray relinquished his duties temporarily for health reasons. On the recommendation of Chairman Murray, Ray Wilson, East Kootenay Hunter's Assoc. member, was appointed acting chairman. At this time the committee was jolted by the notification that a technical review of the vegetation monitoring project was to be conducted at the request of the FRDA management committee and the Chief Forester. This review was to be conducted by Dr. James Peek from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho. The steering committee quickly agreed that the information request for the material Peek would need would be preceded by 1) Determining the usefulness of the exercise at this late date 2) Technical presentation to the steering committee if a review was deemed necessary 3) Committee involvement in the design of the review. 4) Any information release would be at the discretion of the committee. According to a Dec. 7 memo Victoria headquarters staff of Ministry of Environment had approached the Chief Forester expressing concerns regarding the adequacy of the methodology employed in collecting data. The Chief Forester apparently felt it necessary to assuage the Ministry of Environment concerns and ordered the audit. This memo stated that D. MacDonald and B. Baehr, EKTAWC members had reviewed and concurred with the audit terms of reference. This was apparently erroneous since on Dec.19 D. MacDonald advised that contrary to the memo, he had not reviewed the terms of reference and was only recently aware of what was intended. Focusing on the vegetation monitoring component had the potential to reopen dissension between livestock and wildlife interests. (The EKTAWC Technical Advisory Committee meeting of March 21, 1991 describes the development of the monitoring methodology.) After a robust exchange of memos and letters between the steering committee and others, on Dec. 21 the Chief Forester wrote Chairman Wilson advising that his understanding was that any technical review would have involved the steering committee from the beginning and endorsement by members would be essential. Therefore the matter of a technical evaluation should be turned over to the Committee for its assessment and management. 1995 In February Chairman Murray returned to work. The addendum to the elk inventory was completed by Ian Hatter, Anna Fontana and Keith Simpson. Ian Hatter of wildlife branch, Victoria presented this report to the steering committee. The necessity for this addendum was driven by revisions to the Idaho Model which meant that the previous estimates were less accurate. For management units 2, 5, 20, 22, 24 and 26 population estimates were revised upwards to 9,694 from 8,941. (This number was later revised upward to 11,038 animals) The range was set at 8,950 - 10,500. It was noted that elk managers in Idaho have higher budgets, different helicopters and more management input and they monitor vegetation also.


107

The analysis of elk population data in selected areas of the Trench indicated a decline. This analysis helped place in perspective the elk numbers situation and the contribution the steering committee funds had made to the elk enumeration task. The original expectation was that an accurate estimate of elk numbers in the entire trench would be achieved and elk management by range unit in conjunction with cattle management would be possible. The experience of using the Idaho model indicated achieving that level of information would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, elk move unpredictably between ranges which is problematic for decision making on range units. The committee had been invited to make a submission to the government mediator, Grant Scott, who was in the area to resolve the CORE dispute. The CORE consensus process had degenerated into a publicity battle delaying finalizing of the East Kootenay Land Use Plan. Brian Wikeem had moved to the job of Provincial Weed Coordinator and George Powell had replaced Brian. However Brian would still be involved with vegetation monitoring data interpretation and report writing. Dave White, incremental silviculturist from Invermere and a member of the ingrowth project task group, reported that operations were to begin on Feb. 5 on the Sheep Creek North forest ingrowth logging, an area of 121Ha in Pump Pasture. The price of wood being very high, the operation would be self funding and not require FRBC funding. Elliot Pighin wanted to expand this program quickly. Don Hendren was supportive but wanted to see how the pilots worked out first. According to Dave White, post harvest monitoring of the Pump Pasture site was included in the budget. The analysis of the vegetation monitoring technical review indicated that the request had come from Ray Demarchi, Chief of Wildlife Management in Victoria. Gayton contacted Demarchi and determined that he was forwarding concerns about experimental design voiced by Matt Fairbarns of the Range Section. Fairbarns was concerned about the way the Skookumchuk site was stratified, since it contained both forest and grassland sites. Fairbairns concerns were met through discussion with Brian Wikeem. The committee passed a motion that no technical audit of the Vegetation Monitoring program would be conducted. Chairman Wilson and Tim Ross presented their independent submission on the CORE report to Grant Scott. Concern was expressed over apparent management restrictions on special management areas, the implication was these areas should receive more care. Instead of more care, CORE appeared to be imposing more restrictions. They advised Scott the committee had spent four years focused on the issue of multi-use forage management. Their approach was to collect data and then make decisions. In the case of the CORE report significant decisions seemed to have been made on unverified assumptions. The forest ingrowth issue in the Trench was described. Scott was very interested in the ingrowth logging and wanted to know if the committee was prepared to recommend areas to begin this program at an operational level. The reply was yes. The Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan was tabled to the public in March. Of significance to the committee was the announcement of a Grazing Enhancement Fund of $750,000 a year for three years. A study was to proceed to examine the feasibility of the East Kootenay Trench Plan for forested rangelands and to recommend a process for improving their productivity for both forest and range production. This study would focus on a 400,000Ha site in the trench and include a proposal from EKTAWC for pilot project thinning, fuel modification and pre-burn stand preparation. This was to improve wildlife habitat and create jobs. The Pump Pasture ingrowth logging was completed and a field tour of the site was held in April. The tour group were nearly unanimous that the results were excellent. The need to monitor results of this treatment for forage release was a concern but no action was outlined. Further projects of 500Ha each in Cranbrook and Invermere Forest Districts were to be pursued by Crestbrook Forest Industries. The Rat Lakes forest ingrowth logging was scheduled to get underway after breakup. Forage allocation was again discussed. Brian Wikeem had commented earlier on this issue: "Forage allocation means to divide the pie. The terminology is divisive. Our discussions should center around how to provide forage rather than concentrate on dividing what there is." The members were to self-educate themselves on the issue.


108

A proposal for Trench rehabilitation was developed by Don Gayton. Peter Davidson presented a proposal for a historical stand reconstruction study. Such information would support the trench restoration concept. An anticipated decrease in annual allowable cut of 28% was motivating Ministry of Forests to reclaim the trench for forest production which would have implications for the committee's aspirations. John Murray was unable to continue as chairman for health reasons. Ray Wilson was appointed Chairman for the duration of the committee's term. Ministry of Forests Research Branch in Nelson proposed to make an FRBC application for a project named " Desirable Plant Communities, East Kootenay Trench". The purpose of the project was to determine desirable plant communities and management regimes required to attain those communities in the Trench. The Rat Lakes ingrowth logging was completed in July. Both Pump Pasture and Rat Lakes projects were reviewed. The former produced sawlogs, post and pulp material totalling 80 cubic meters per hectare, the latter 26 cubic meters per hectare. Both projects were stand alone regarding costs although CFI was not overjoyed with the costs at Rat Lakes which was considered a worst case scenario. No silvicultural obligations apply in either case. The notion of a resource users group was being explored by Maurice Hansen and Ray Wilson. The purpose of this group would be trench rehabilitation. The group would probably organize as a non-profit society and accept membership from other local resource organizations. A society could function effectively as a "prime contractor" and facilitator to pull together resources and expertise to deal with forest ingrowth in conjunction with government agencies. Numerous initiatives for improving management and restoration in the trench were being pursued with little coordination. 1996 The final report was targeted for completion by March 31, 1996 which coincided with the end of FRDA II funding. The vegetation monitoring project report being prepared by Tim Ross was the cornerstone of the committee's information gathering projects and crucial to the complete final report. Work on the balance of the report began in January. Recommendation themes were decided by the committee and a format for the complete report established. Preparation of the vegetation monitoring report, from the enormous amount of data collected, was a considerable task and as March 31, 1996, approached it became obvious that this report could not be completed by that deadline. Application for wrap-up funding was applied for and received from FRDA II. The final draft of the vegetation monitoring report was completed in June. Preparation of the Final Report commenced in September, 1996, with completion in May of 1997.

January 17, 1998 To: The Honorable Cathy McGregor ... · continuing government support for an...

Documents

Transcript of January 17, 1998 To: The Honorable Cathy McGregor ... · continuing government support for an...