TESTING FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION OF LINEAR FEATURES PHASE IIA PROGRESS REPORT WITHIN BOREAL CARIBOU RANGE

Transcription

1 TESTING FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION OF LINEAR FEATURES WITHIN BOREAL CARIBOU RANGE PHASE IIA PROGRESS REPORT Craig DeMars, Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, and Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute Antje Bohm, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta March 2018

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Summary... 2 Phase Objectives... 2 Progress to Date... 2 Update After Initiation of Field Work... 5 Financials... 9 Discussion Going Forward Literature Cited... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Estimated budget (from project proposal) and accrued costs to date. Accrued costs in brackets have been covered by the provincial government LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Distribution of treatment, control and back-up seismic lines within boreal caribou range and habitat core areas in northeastern British Columbia... 4 Figure 2: Deployment of tree-hinging and tree-falling on a seismic line in northeastern British Columbia. Top picture is the initial deployment while the bottom picture shows the seismic line after increasing treatment intensity Figure 3: Seismic line traversing through a sparsely treed bog. In this case, treatment involved hauling trees from the surrounding forest to block the line Figure 4: Examples of regeneration on seismic lines. In the top picture, the line is still clearly visible and thus likely facilitates animal movement on the line compared to travelling in the surrounding forest. In the bottom picture, the line is becoming obscured and movement down this line may not be advantageous as compared to travelling off the line.... 8

3 PROJECT SUMMARY Linear features such as seismic lines (SLs) and pipelines are believed to be a contributing factor to population declines of boreal caribou, an ecotype of woodland caribou currently listed as Threatened under the Species at Risk Act and Red-Listed in British Columbia. Linear features are thought to increase predator (e.g., wolves and bears) movement rates and assist their movement into caribou habitat, leading to more caribou-predator encounters and increasing rates of caribou predation. This project will use an innovative control-treatment design to test whether tree-hinging and/or treebending can reduce linear feature use by predators. For each treated line, a lure or bait is placed in the center of two treated line segments (~ m in length). Three remote cameras are then deployed: one at the bait station and the other two within each treated line segment. The center camera records whether a predator reaches the bait station while the other two cameras record whether the animal used the linear feature to reach the bait station. This three-camera and bait design is repeated at untreated sites. If line treatments are effective, predator line use at treated sites should be much lower than at untreated sites. During the project s initial phase, we conducted an aerial survey to identify and select 61 candidate seismic lines (SLs) for inclusion in the study. A majority of the lines were clustered around all-season roads in the Clarke habitat core (Snake-Sahtaneh caribou range) and the western part of the Kiwigana habitat core (Maxhamish caribou range). In this report, we detail activities undertaken to prepare for the field work portion of the project, which is slated to begin during the last week of March PHASE OBJECTIVES For this phase of the project, our objectives were to coordinate permitting, contracting, and field work logistics to facilitate the deployment of SL treatments starting the last week of March PROGRESS TO DATE Since the last progress report, we focused on securing the necessary field equipment and permits as well as finalizing a contract with Fort Nelson First Nations to perform the tree-hinging and tree-felling treatments on the selected SLs. Below, we outline progress on these key aspects of the project. 1. Remote cameras The ordering and purchase of 120 remote cameras was handled by the BC government via its contract bidding process. In mid-january 2018, the order was placed and an initial shipment of 114 cameras arrived in the third week of February The remaining six cameras arrived on March 14. Associated memory cards and batteries were ordered in mid-march and most of these arrived prior to the last week of March except for one last shipment of batteries. This last shipment should arrive during the first week of April and is not expected to cause any delays. 2. Lure for camera sites In February, we purchased wolf lure (a mixture of wolf urine and wolf gland) from a local trapper. This same lure was used successfully on a remote camera project in northeast BC three years ago. 2

4 3. Securing a contractor for treatment deployments Chris Ritchie of BC FLNRORD led contract negotiations between the provincial government and Fort Nelson First Nations (FNFN), who provided a budget in October of last year and indicated that they had the capacity to perform the work. The contract was finalized and executed on March 23, Permitting a. License to Cut Jeanine Hudson of BC FLNRORD led the consultation process to obtain a License to Cut, which is necessary for felling trees along the selected SLs. The License to Cut was issued to FNFN on March 26, 2018, after the contract for FNFN to do the restoration work had been executed. b. Migratory Songbirds As discussed at the last steering committee meeting, Environment Canada and Climate Change cannot issue permits or exemptions to the Migratory Songbird Act. We have therefore scheduled treatment deployments to begin during the last week of March without a projected finish by the end of April. This window should minimize any impacts on migratory songbirds, which begin arriving toward the end of April and first part of May, and increases the probability of trees surviving after hinging (compared to mid-winter). 5. Selection of treatment and control SLs Once the License to Cut permit was issued, we assigned 20 SLs as treatments and 20 SLs as controls. Assignment was a random selection process with the following caveats: i) we excluded three SLs from the pool of available SLs when assigning treatments as these SLs were requested to not be treated during the consultation process; and, ii) for logistical reasons (e.g. long travel distances from Fort Nelson), we excluded those SLs not located in the Kiwigana, Fort Nelson or Clark habitat cores. Figure 1 shows the distribution of treatment and control lines. Because onthe-ground investigations may dictate that a selected SL be excluded from the study, we also selected a set of reserve or back-up SLs to use as potential replacements. 3

5 Figure 1: Distribution of treatment, control and back-up seismic lines within boreal caribou range and habitat core areas in northeastern British Columbia. 4

6 UPDATE AFTER INITIATION OF FIELD WORK Deployment of cameras and SL treatments began on March 28, In general, deployments have been running as planned although a few issues have arisen: 1. Intensity of treatments Treatment intensity is a key variable in this project. At this point (two SLs treated), we are encouraging crews to err on the side of high treatment intensity (Fig. 2). In this pilot project, we are testing whether these techniques can prevent animal use of SLs. If treatment is too light and we do not have animals excluded from SLs, then it becomes difficult to disentangle whether the treatment technique is ineffective or if the intensity was not sufficient. We can consider varying treatment intensity on subsequent lines, but we suggest that this be done if time and funding permits and that only two levels of intensity be considered (high and medium). 2. Blocking SLs where adjacent timber supply is limited On one of the SLs, the 400-m long site traversed an area where available timber was sparse (Fig. 3). To effectively block the SL, the crew brought in trees located away from the SL, which increases deployment time and costs. 3. Snow depths The Fort Nelson area still has a considerable snow pack, which affects current camera placement and how treatments are placed. We will likely need to return in May to re-assess whether the cameras still effectively capture animal movement on the line and treatment efficacy. At this time, lures will be replenished. 4. Line regeneration On some of the selected SLs, there is noticeable regeneration (Fig. 4). At this time, crews are making a subjective assessment as to whether the SL should still be included in the project. This assessment is based on whether the SL is still clearly visible (form the perspective of a wolf) and whether it facilitates movement on it compared to the surrounding forest. 5

7 Figure 2: Deployment of tree-hinging and tree-falling on a seismic line in northeastern British Columbia. Top picture is the initial deployment while the bottom picture shows the seismic line after increasing treatment intensity. 6

8 Figure 3: Seismic line traversing through a sparsely treed bog. In this case, treatment involved hauling trees from the surrounding forest to block the line. 7

9 Figure 4: Examples of regeneration on seismic lines. In the top picture, the line is still clearly visible and thus likely facilitates animal movement on the line compared to travelling in the surrounding forest. In the bottom picture, the line is becoming obscured and movement down this line may not be advantageous as compared to travelling off the line. 8

10 FINANCIALS At this point in the project, the majority of expenses has been covered by the provincial government with only minor expenses incurred by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI; Table 1). Going forward, treatment deployment costs will covered by the provincial government while all other costs will be incurred by ABMI. Table 1: Estimated budget (from project proposal) and accrued costs to date. Accrued costs in brackets have been covered by the provincial government. Cost Description Equipment Item Budgeted Cost Accrued Costs to Date Remote cameras (purchased by BC $96,000 government) SD cards and batteries (purchased by BC $6,000 government) Lure or bait $5,000 $250 Flight costs Recon flight for site selection $12,000 (paid for by BC government) Travel / Accommodations Trucks (1 per week) $9,600 - Mileage (per km) $4,650 - Housing (per day) $18,000 - Meals (per day) $4,050 - Labour Tree-hinging labour & associated costs (per km) $120,000 - (BC government) Research technician (per month) $37,500 $1,040 Project manager (per year) $20,000 $5740 First Nations monitor (per day) $48,000 - Subtotal $380,000 - Contingency 10% of total $38,080 4,885 * Total $418,880 $418,880 * Travel and accommodation costs incurred during site selection survey in October

11 DISCUSSION The past five months have been devoted to acquiring the necessary resources and paperwork necessary to execute the project. Thanks to hard work by many individuals in the provincial government, we were able to finalize all logistics to allow for the deployment of cameras and SL treatments during the last week of March, which was our target time period. Initial reports from the on-going field work suggest that SL treatments are being successfully implemented with only a few issues, which are not unexpected given that this work is considered a pilot project. These issues include quantifying treatment intensity, sufficiently treating SLs when adjacent timber supply is sparse, addressing regeneration on candidate SLs, and a high snow pack. At this point, we have suggested erring on the side of high treatment intensity, dragging felled trees onto SLs in areas that are sparsely treed, removing SLs from the study where regeneration subjectively impairs movement and vision down the SL, and rechecking site conditions after snow melt. These issues, however, will be reviewed and discussed at the next steering committee meeting in early April. We restricted the final selection of SLs to the Clarke, Kiwigana and Fort Nelson habitat cores for logistical reasons. From Fort Nelson, driving to potential SLs in the Fortune and Capot Blanc cores would be a two-hour drive each way, which would impact the time available to deploy treatments and incur added expenses. The distribution of the selected SLs should allow for the testing of SL treatments in the territories of at least three wolf packs. GOING FORWARD The deployment of cameras and SL treatments will continue during the month of April and will hopefully be completed in the next 3-4 weeks. After the completion of this work, we will issue another progress report. In May, we anticipate another 1-2 weeks of field work to replenish lures and evaluate treatments and camera positions after snow melt. At the end of August, data cards from cameras will be retrieved followed by data analysis and preparation of the final report in the fall of this year. 10