Management and Conservation of Mountain Caribou Habitat in the Cariboo Region

Summary Report
FPB/SIR/09S
March 2002

The Board initiated this special investigation to address concerns identified during the Board's investigation of a public complaint about forest development plan (FDP) consistency with the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP). The complainant in that case believed that several approved operational plans would result in damage to habitat used by caribou in early winter. This special investigation looks at the approval of two operational plans: 1) an amendment to West Fraser Mills Ltd.'s 1999-2003 FDP (forest licence A20021) for the area of cutting permit 61, block 1 (CP 61-1), and 2) the silviculture prescription for CP 61-1.

There are presently about 2,500 mountain caribou in the province and about 200-300 inhabit the mature forests and alpine areas in the eastern portion of the Cariboo Forest Region. The CCLUP states that these caribou are at risk and that the regional population is of considerable provincial significance and a high provincial wildlife priority. The CCLUP provides some general direction for management of caribou habitat.

Proposals affecting 1,400 hectares of forest used by some caribou in early winter were submitted for approval in FDPs, including CP 61-1. The district manager and the designated environment official approved CP 61-1 in the licensee's 1998-2002 FDP (FDPs for that area required joint approval by the district manager and the designated environment official). The plan proposed evenly distributed small clearcuts of two to five hectares.

The licensee found a similar approach, used nearby, was uneconomical, and proposed an amendment in 1999 to clearcut the area and leave a reserve. That request was rejected, as it did not provide for caribou habitat.

The licensee then proposed an amendment that would retain, or potentially retain, additional standing timber in CP 61-1. The amendment affected 256 hectares, consisting of a large clearcut unit, two partial harvest (variable retention) units and a wildlife tree patch. The amendment allowed for more harvesting and larger openings within CP 61-1 than did the 1998 FDP. However, the amendment provided for retaining poor quality trees within the clearcut "where suited." This was described as a "wildlife tree in flux" concept to give the licensee discretion to retain additional wildlife tree patches in the clearcut unit, depending on operational considerations. The amendment allowed for a broad range of potential outcomes.

The district manager approved the silviculture prescription for CP 61-1 in May 1999 (he had sole authority to approve the silviculture prescription). The silviculture prescription was consistent with the amendment, but did not specify a minimum level of retention or characteristics of retained trees. The district manager made his approval subject to conditions, which were intended to ensure adequate retention in the stands. The licensee began harvesting shortly thereafter, and completed harvesting in the fall of 1999.

Of the total area of 256 hectares, 57 percent was clearcut. The licensee completely harvested the clearcut unit, and did not retain additional patches of poor quality trees. The district manager and the designated environment official were both dissatisfied with the result, as the original objective of retaining poor quality trees for caribou habitat was not met. In contrast, the licensee believes the result was consistent with the amendment and silviculture prescription, which provided flexibility depending on operational considerations.

The Board found that the operational plans complied with the Code's requirements for managing wildlife habitat areas and ungulate winter ranges because no such areas had been designated for the vicinity of CP 61-1. The Board did not come to consensus on whether the plans were consistent with the CCLUP objective of maintaining habitat values for mountain caribou within the region.

The Board also did not reach consensus on whether it was appropriate for the statutory decision makers to be satisfied that the amendment to the FDP adequately managed and conserved caribou habitat values. However, all Board members agreed that, because the FDP allowed for a wide range of outcomes, it was important for the silviculture prescription to address the needs of caribou by clearly stating the desired end result.

The Board found that it was inappropriate for the district manager to be satisfied that the silviculture prescription would adequately manage and conserve caribou habitat values. The Code does not allow the district manager to attach conditions to a silviculture prescription, and the silviculture prescription did not ensure poor quality trees would be retained in the clearcut.

The failure to achieve the decision-makers' intended end result, and disagreement about whether the end result is in fact a failure, demonstrate the importance of clearly stating expected results in operational plans. It is essential that a results-based approach to operational plans express desired outcomes in practical and measurable terms that relate to the resource being conserved. That is especially important when dealing with special resource values, such as wildlife species at risk.

The Board makes a number of recommendations in the report including:
To ensure that intended end results are achieved, the Board recommends that licensees clearly specify in their operational plans the desired end result in practical and measurable terms and the measures necessary to achieve those results.