CLBMON-11A. Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Physical Works Trials in Kinbasket Reservoir

Author: C.M. Wood, N. Hentze, V.C. Hawkes, N. Johnston

The overarching goal of CLBMON-11A is to monitor wildlife utilization patterns in response to revegetation efforts in Kinbasket Reservoir. The objectives of this program include the design and implementation of an 11-year monitoring program for selected indicator taxa to facilitate the assessment of the treatments’ success and provide feedback on how to improve habitat for wildlife through adaptive management. To meet the objectives of the monitoring program, several key management questions were developed to help address both the management questions and the study objectives. The four management questions are: 1. How effective are the revegetation prescriptions at enhancing and increasing the drawdown zone habitat use by wildlife such as birds and amphibians? 2. To what extent does revegetation increase the availability of invertebrate prey (e.g. arthropods) in the food chain for birds and amphibians? 3. How do revegetation prescriptions affect the diversity and abundance for arthropods, amphibians, and birds? 4. Which revegetation method is the most effective at enhancing or increasing the utilization of wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?

– An increase in vegetation cover was measured at all treatment plots. Increases in vegetation cover were documented for both control and treatment plots. Likewise, changes in response metrics for birds and arthropods were observed in both treatment and control plots. Thus, we are unable to attribute these changes to a treatment effect. Vegetation and wildlife use in post-treatment years (2014-2017) may be related to lower maximum reservoir levels (<754 m) than in pre- treatment years (2012 and 2013; >754.6 m).
– Spider and beetle species assemblages are distinct between control and treatment plots at most sites and arthropod data shows assemblage turnover, but in both treatment and control areas. Open-habitat, bare-ground associated arthropods have declined in both treatment and control ]since implementation; species associated with higher levels of vegetation cover have increased in both treatment and control since implementation.
– Our data of ground-dwelling arthropods (spiders and beetles) show that abundance patterns are variable between years, sites, and treatments and seem less related to revegetation or physical works trials, since similar patterns were observed in controls.
– Some arthropod species (e.g., initial bare-ground colonising arthropod species, exotic species, wood-associated species) are expected to decline overtime in treatment plots but there are no suspected negative impacts to wildlife caused by treatment prescriptions. Evidence suggests that amphibians continually use the drawdown zone habitats (CLBMON-37) and breeding activity has been observed in wetlands cleared of wood debris (CLBWORKS-1). There is currently no evidence that revegetation or physical works treatments create sink habitat or increase nest mortality.
– Clearing ponds of wood debris in the drawdown zone improves breeding habitat suitability for amphibians (e.g., Western Toad; Hawkes 2017).
– Bird richness and diversity increased over time in both treatment and control transects.
– Control and treatment areas have similar levels of ungulate activity.
– Debris mounds have the potential for increase in wildlife populations (e.g., small mammal and mesocarnivore populations,
Sullivan et al. 2017).
– Overall, removal of wood debris from terrestrial and wetland habitats in the drawdown zone appears to have potential as a habitat enhancement technique. Natural vegetation has established and increased in cover in treatment areas cleared of wood debris and on constructed debris mounds. Increased amphibians activity was reported at the cleared ponds in Valemount Peatland and Bush Arm Causeway NW, in the first breeding season post-wood removal. Little evidence for changes in wildlife utilization at other treatment areas [Yellowjacket, Packsaddle, Bush Arm Causes (south)], thus treatment success is dependent on site characteristics.
– Preliminary data indicate that black cottonwood live stakes have greater survival rates if planted in the fall, compared to spring plantings (Hawkes 2017; fall = 93.5% survival versus spring = 20% survival).
– Revegetation prescriptions monitored prior to 2014 were largely unsuccessful (low survival). However, high survival of sedge plug treatments is documented from KM88. These plots will only have 1 year of wildlife monitoring (2018)

– An increase in vegetation cover was measured at all treatment plots. Increases in vegetation cover were documented for both control and treatment plots. Likewise, changes in response metrics for birds and arthropods were observed in both treatment and control plots. Thus, we are unable to attribute these changes to a treatment effect. Vegetation and wildlife use in post-treatment years (2014-2017) may be related to lower maximum reservoir levels (<754 m) than in pre- treatment years (2012 and 2013; >754.6 m).
– Spider and beetle species assemblages are distinct between control and treatment plots at most sites and arthropod data shows assemblage turnover, but in both treatment and control areas. Open-habitat, bare-ground associated arthropods have declined in both treatment and control ]since implementation; species associated with higher levels of vegetation cover have increased in both treatment and control since implementation.
– Our data of ground-dwelling arthropods (spiders and beetles) show that abundance patterns are variable between years, sites, and treatments and seem less related to revegetation or physical works trials, since similar patterns were observed in controls.
– Some arthropod species (e.g., initial bare-ground colonising arthropod species, exotic species, wood-associated species) are expected to decline overtime in treatment plots but there are no suspected negative impacts to wildlife caused by treatment prescriptions. Evidence suggests that amphibians continually use the drawdown zone habitats (CLBMON-37) and breeding activity has been observed in wetlands cleared of wood debris (CLBWORKS-1). There is currently no evidence that revegetation or physical works treatments create sink habitat or increase nest mortality.
– Clearing ponds of wood debris in the drawdown zone improves breeding habitat suitability for amphibians (e.g., Western Toad; Hawkes 2017).
– Bird richness and diversity increased over time in both treatment and control transects.
– Control and treatment areas have similar levels of ungulate activity.
– Debris mounds have the potential for increase in wildlife populations (e.g., small mammal and mesocarnivore populations,
Sullivan et al. 2017).
– Overall, removal of wood debris from terrestrial and wetland habitats in the drawdown zone appears to have potential as a habitat enhancement technique. Natural vegetation has established and increased in cover in treatment areas cleared of wood debris and on constructed debris mounds. Increased amphibians activity was reported at the cleared ponds in Valemount Peatland and Bush Arm Causeway NW, in the first breeding season post-wood removal. Little evidence for changes in wildlife utilization at other treatment areas [Yellowjacket, Packsaddle, Bush Arm Causes (south)], thus treatment success is dependent on site characteristics.
– Preliminary data indicate that black cottonwood live stakes have greater survival rates if planted in the fall, compared to spring plantings (Hawkes 2017; fall = 93.5% survival versus spring = 20% survival).
– Revegetation prescriptions monitored prior to 2014 were largely unsuccessful (low survival). However, high survival of sedge plug treatments is documented from KM88. These plots will only have 1 year of wildlife monitoring (2018)