the BEVERLY

and QAMANIRJUAQ

CARIBOU

MANAGEMENT

BOARD

MANAGEMENT REPORT1

Fire Management

Recommendations

for Forested

Range of the

Beverly and

Qamanirjuaq

Herds of Caribou

1 9 9 4

This report was prepared under the authority of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board with funds provided by the

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), the Minister of the Environment (Canada), the Minister of Natural Resources

(Manitoba), the Minister of Environment and Resource Management(Saskatchewan), and the Minister of Renewable Resources (Northwest

Territories).

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Beverly

Qamanirjua Caribou Management Board. All data contained herein is current to 1989.

1

1 Introduction

This brief management report containsa summary of information in a detailed firemanagement technical report (Beverly andQamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board,1994a). It contains seven recommendationsto attain fire management goals. It also pro-vides an overview for aboriginal people,wildlife managers, land-use planners, and firemanagers.

The need for fire management within tra-ditional hunting areas is supported by theeconomic, cultural, and social values of the two herds numbering 400-600 thousand cari-bou. These herds are used by 12,000-15,000people in 19 settlements (A1). The annual killis 14,000-18,000 caribou but 26,000-33,000caribou would be used if the herds were fullyaccessible to all communities in any oneyear. Future needs for caribou will increasebecause populations in user communities aredoubling in 16-20 years. Roads into the rangepotentially will expose the herds to morehunters.

The herds have great economic value.In Manitoba, the average harvest is worth

$1.9-2.4 million annually in replacementvalue of red meat and the potential harvest(accessible caribou) is valued at $5.5-6.8 mil-lion. Corresponding numbers for Saskatche-wan are $2.5-3.1 million and $6.5-8.1 million;for the NWT $7.6-9.5 million and $10.2-12.9million. This resource is sustainable witheffective caribou and land management.Other economic and cultural activities suchas trapping and fishing are closely linked tocaribou hunting. Earlier economic evaluationsof $13.5 million annually were reported forthe two herds (Beverly and Kaminuriak Cari-bou Management Board, 1986 & 1987).

The cultural and social value of thecaribou in the two herds cannot be calculat-ed but it is immense. Fire managers areasked to place great weight on these values. The herds also have intrinsic value to allCanadians and others.

The objectives, goals, and principlesof fire management are spelled out in thedetailed technical report. They include greaterparticipation by local resource users at allstages of fire management. They also reflectthe realization that fire is necessary to sustainthe existing ecosystem. In the long term, firecan only be modified slightly by human inter-

Post-calving aggregations are a spectacular sight with up to 30,000 caribou in one compact group.

vention in remote, “fire-driven” or fire-dependentforests. A system of priorities is necessary tofocus fire management activities.

These recommendations for fire man-agement apply only in priority zones estab-lished by hunters in the aboriginal communi-ties (Dantouze 1991 & 1992). Their zoneselection was based on traditional use andrecent hunting success.

No action is required now to safeguardwinter range for the conservation (preservationand wise use) of the herds. That could changeif the amount of winter range shrinks or theherds are intensively managed to supply ahigher sustained yield of caribou.

The Snowdrift River Valley above SiltazaLake is designated a Special Fire Manage-ment Area because of intensive use by cari-bou as a travel and feeding corridor. Theabundant white spruce in the valley bottom isan additional feature.

2Fire ManagementRecommendations

Recommendation 1. That fire manage-ment agencies in each jurisdictionattempt to meet goals for productivecaribou range within community priorityzones.

Community priority zones for caribouhunting were established by caribou users ineach community (see technical report). Themaps for 13 communities were simplified to onemap (A2) by removing overlapping zones;deleting A, B, and C letters from numbers;and accepting the highest rating for any area.

The occurrence of burns varies greatlyacross the forested winter ranges of the twoherds. Consequently, fire cycles of threelengths were mapped (A3) to take these differ-ences into account. The fire cycles or inter-vals between fires are viewed as average,long-term (centuries) ecological changes andcannot be interpreted with recent burn data.

Fire management goals were established foreach priority rating (A4). These goals are pro-portions of productive range for caribou feed-ing herein shortened to “productive caribourange” and defined as forests older than 50years. The goals for priority rank 3 within firemanagement zones were pegged at the esti-mated natural proportions of forests older than50 years in each fire cycle zone. Then goalswere increased by 5% for priority rank 2 and10% for priority rank 1.

The composite map of priority areas ofthe communities (A2) was modified into firemanagement zones with the following steps:(1) adding fire cycle boundaries (A3); (2) addingjurisdictional boundaries; (3) including only

2

Managing fires with cultural and ecological factors in mind will go far toward improving productive caribou range.

3

areas within the limit of continuous forest or “forest limit” (not the limit of trees or “treeline”); (4) two large priority zones were divid-ed into subzones (NWT A & B and NWT C &G); (5) small zones were grouped into largerzones and the priorities averaged; and (6)small zones created by changes in the firecycle were removed and included in the adja-cent larger area (A5).

Thus, the fire management goals are cul-turally and ecologically based. The reason forecosystem-related fire management is theview that any attempt to greatly modify firecycles would be prohibitively expensive andperhaps counter productive.

The forest limit was based on a smoothline joining the approximate outer limits ofcontinuous forest as shown on revised (metric)1:250 000 topographic maps and modifiedslightly by LANDSAT black and white scenesin November, February, and March; by theline showing the 1:1 ratio of forest to tundrain Timoney et al. (1992); by maps in Dredge(1992) and Dredge and Nixon (1992); and byfield observations.

Decisions on whether fires should besuppressed depends on the present (P) pro-portion of productive caribou range relative to fire management goals (G) for a particularpriority zone. These proportions, as percent-ages (A6), are placed within each priorityzone on the simplified priority map (A5). Forexample, the notation “30P/70G” in a fire man-agement zone means that 30% of the rangewas productive foraging habitat for caribou in1989 and the goal was 70%. In theory, all fireswould be suppressed in that zone. A notationof 80P/70G means that goals are exceededand no action is required. The fire manage-ment zones, the crude calculations of the pro-portion of productive caribou range as of late1989, and the fire management goals are onthe burn map (A7).

The proportion of productive caribouhabitat in 1989 is a first approximation. (Onlyburns up to 1989 are included in the calcula-tions.) The Board is attempting to completethe burn history and to update it. This task isnecessary before the proportions of productivecaribou range can be calculated for some of the fire management areas in Manitoba.Calculated range proportions do not include

large (>10 km2) lakes. Accurate calculationsshould be made using a Geographical Infor-mation System (GIS).

The calculations of areas occupied byburns is based on burn periphery mappingand are not adjusted for small lakes andunburned patches (inclusions) within burns.Inclusions are estimated to average 10% ofburned areas. Such inclusions are little usedby large groups of caribou but they can sup-port small bands of mature bulls. Mature bullstend to winter around the western and south-ern periphery of the main aggregations ofcows, calves and young bulls.

Recommendation 2. That fire manage-ment agencies attempt to meet goalswithin caribou habitat priority zones,beyond those defined by the commu-nities, if new data indicates the need.

In future, the Board may recommend awidening of fire management beyond thecommunity priority zones as: (1) herd sizeincreases naturally or is actively increasedthrough reduced predation or hunting; or (2)new data indicates overuse of winter rangeby caribou. The priority zones are mapped in the technical report. The goals for produc-tive caribou habitat within each priority ratingare the same as for the community priorityzones (A4).

A simplified fire suppression prioritymap was made by classifying the deviationsof productive caribou habitat from the goalsfor such habitat (AB)

Recommendation 3. That fire manage-ment agencies develop jurisdictionalstructures that will permit cooperativeand cross jurisdictional fire manage-ment operations.

Agreements should be establishedbetween and among jurisdictions such thatdetection and suppression operations areshared. For example, reciprocal agreementscould mean that suppression costs by onejurisdiction in another would be repaid in kindat another time. Any support programs fund-ed by the federal government should be, asmuch as possible, jurisdictional free.

Recommendation 4. That fire manage-ment agencies enhance resource userparticipation in fire management.

Greater participation by caribou users isrequested for all stages of fire managementwithin the caribou range. Enhanced rolesinclude the setting of priority areas, other plan-ning, suppression strategies, training of crews,and management. Experienced crews trainedin initial attack should be available in each largecommunity. Such crews should be able toaction fires within hours of their detection.

Recommendation 5. That fire manage-ment agencies obtain burn maps annu-ally and that the fire history be updatedperiodically in the Geographic Informa-tion System in the central depositoryfor the Board, the NWT Centre forRemote Sensing, Yellowknife.

The updating interval for fire history willdepend on discussion and negotiation amongthe fire management agencies. The updatingof present proportions of productive caribourange could range from one to 10 years. Firemapping and adjustment of fire managementareas at decade intervals has merit. The exactyear of past burns would not matter if decadeclasses were used and the workload wouldbe reduced. LANDSAT or other suitableimagery would be obtained in years 2000,2010, etc. and all burns since the previousreview would be mapped and placed in the

previous decade. If NOAA “Geocomp” data areused, the composite imagery must beobtained every two or three years.

Jurisdictions are encouraged to map allfires >1000 ha visually or photographicallyusing aircraft. All burns >1000 ha should belogged on “master” sets of maps at scales of1:250 000 and 1:1 million. The Board mayrequest summary maps from the jurisdictionsfrom time to time. An update of the rate of burn-ing should be available from analysis of areasburned annually within each jurisdiction.

A uniform format and method of elec-tronic data storage of burn characteristicsand statistics should be adopted with refer-ence systems that include the 1:250 000map sheet, a UTM, and a latitude-longitude.

Recommendation 6. That field checksbe made to establish ages of all burnsof unknown age that are mapped orrecognizable on LANDSAT imageryand that attempts be made to classifymature (51-100 yr), old (101-200), andancient (>200 yr) forests.

Additional burn mapping must be donein Manitoba north of 58°N and by year 2000 it should be extended south to 57°N or theChurchill River in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.Age verification is needed for many mappedburns (Beverly and Qamanirjuaq CaribouManagement Board, 1994: 1:1 million &

1:250 000 burn maps) inSaskatchewan and Mani-toba and for some in theNWT. Burns in the past50 years can be detectedusing LANDSAT imageryor by aerial reconnais-sance. The ages of forestsolder than 50 years canbe estimated into the three categories from theappearance of the oldesttrees in the stand, exclud-ing survivors from anearlier burn. This can bedone from aircraft afterobserver training.

4

Caribou hunters and biologists, here working together to learn more about theBeverly caribou herd.

5

Recommendation 7. That for all largefires (>10 000 ha), data be obtained on:(1) percentage of burn in unburnedinclusions (upland and lowland); (2)age distribution of forest that burned;(3) percentage of upland and lowlandthat burned; (4) average fire severityindices; (5) forest characteristics atpoint of fire origin; (6) rate of spread;and (7) fuel-weather-fire relationships.

Such data are needed for caribou and firemanagement, e.g., to determine fire suscepti-bility with age of forest stand and other char-acteristics, to test fire models, and to learnmore about fire behavior in the transitional-forest ecosystem.

Acknowledgements

The Board thanks the following peoplefor major contributions to the technical andmanagement reports: Bob Bailey (Director)and Rick Lanoville, Forest Fire Management,NWT Department of Renewable Resources,Fort Smith; Gus MacAuley (Director) and PaulMaczek (Resource Officer), Forest Fire Man-agement Branch, Saskatchewan Environmentand Resource Management, Prince Albert;Bill Medd (Superintendent) and Wayne Fisher(Director), Fire Program, Manitoba NaturalResources; John McQueen, Bill De Groot,Dick Smith, Kerry Anderson, and KelvinHirsch, Canadian Forest Service, Winnipegand Edmonton; Norm Olsen, Alberta ForestProtection Branch, Environmental Protection,Edmonton; Don Thomas (draft reports) andHarry Armbruster (assisted in many ways),Sam Barry (calculated negative eponential),Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton; PaulPanegyuk, NWT Renewable Resources (cal-culated burn and lake areas while with CWSin Edmonton); and Tim Trottier (Biologist),Saskatchewan Environment and ResourceManagement.

Literature Cited

Beverly and Kaminuriak Caribou Manage-ment Board. 1986. Executive summaryof the long-term management plan forthe Beverly and Kaminuriak caribouherds. The Secretariat, 3565 RevelstokeDrive, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7B9.

Beverly and Kaminuriak Caribou Manage-ment Board. 1987. Draft ManagementPlan for the Beverly and Kaminuriakherds. The Secretariat, 3565 RevelstokeDrive, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7B9.

Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Manage-ment Board. 1994a. Fire managementfor the forested range of the Beverly andQamanirjuaq caribou herds: A technicalreport. The Secretariat, 3565 RevelstokeDrive, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7B9.

Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Manage-ment Board. 1994b. Fire maps at scale1:1 million of the winter range of theBeverly and Qamanirjuaq herds of cari-bou. The Secretariat, 3565 RevelstokeDrive, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7B9.

Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Manage-ment Board. 1994c. Fire maps at scale1:250 000 of the winter range of theBeverly and Qamanirjuaq herds of cari-bou. The Secretariat, 3565 RevelstokeDrive, Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7B9.

Dantouze, J. 1991. Community survey report:Fire-caribou relationship—environmentcommunity survey on the winter rangeof the Beverly and Kaminuriak herd.Contract from Beverly and KaminuriakCaribou Management Board to PrinceAlbert Tribal Council, Prince Albert, Sask.Text + Maps (Sask. and Man. communities).

Dantouze, J. 1992. Community survey report:Fire-caribou relationship—environmentcommunity survey on the winter rangeof the Beverly and Kaminuriak herd.Contract from Beverly and KaminuriakCaribou Management Board to PrinceAlbert Tribal Council, Prince Albert,Sask. Text + Maps (NWT communities).

Dredge, L.A. 1992. Field guide to theChurchill Region, Manitoba. GeologicalSurvey of Canada, Misc. Rep. 53. 52pp.

Dredge, L.A., and F.M. Nixon. 1992. Glacialand environmental geology of northeast-ern Manitoba. Geological Survey ofCanada, Memoir 432.

Timoney, K.P., G.H. LaRoi, S.C. Zoltai, andA.L. Robinson. 1992. The High Subarc-tic forest-tundra of northwestern Cana-da: position, width, and vegetation gradi-ents in relation to climate. Arctic 45:1-9.

A p p e n d i c e s

6

55°

60°

65°

120° 110° 100° 90°

55°

60°

65°

110° 100°

Wager Bay

Repulse Bay

Chesterfield InletRankin Inlet

Whale Cove

Uranium City Camsell Portage

Reliance

Great Slave Lake

•

• Fort Resolution

Fort Smith•

Fort ChipewyanLake Athabasca

•

Stony Rapids

Black Lake

••

Wollaston Lake

••

• • •• •

Kinoosao

Brochet

Tadoule Lake

• Hudson Bay

Arviat•••

•

•

•

•

0 80 160km

ALTA SASK MAN

•••

Beverly Range

Yellowknife

Fond du Lac

Lac Brochet

Churchill

Lutsel K'e

Baker Lake

•NWT

NUNAVUT

Qamanirjuaq Range

� � � � ��

��

� � �

�

� � � ��

��

��

��

�

� � � � ��

�

� � � ��

� � � �

�

� �

��

�

� � � � � � � � � � � �

CoralHarbour

Limit of Continuous Forest

�

LEGEND

Qamanirjuaq Herd Range

Beverly Herd Range

Nunavut Boundary

Limit of Continuous Forest

Calving Grounds

� � � � � � � � � � �

Appendix 1. Ranges of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds of caribou and caribou-using communities.

7

A p p e n d i c e s

0ki

lom

etre

s20

0

ALBERTASASKATCHEWAN

N.W

.T.

MA

NIT

OB

A.

Art

iller

yLa

ke

Rel

ian

ceY

ello

wkn

ife

Thel

on

G

ame

San

ctu

ary

Wo

od

Bu

ffal

o N

atio

nal

Pa

rk

Ran

kin

Inle

t

Arv

iat

Gre

at S

lave

Lak

e

Fo

rtR

eso

luti

on

Fort

Sm

ith

Ura

niu

m

Cit

y

Sto

ny

Rap

ids

Wo

llast

on

Lak

eB

roch

et

Tad

ou

leLa

ke

Lake

Ath

abas

ca

Snow

drif

tRi

ver

Luts

el K

’e

No

nac

ho

Lake

TaltsonR.

Ha

nb

ury

R.

Clarke

R.

Wh

itef

ish

Lake

Mo

squ

ito

Lake

Ren

nie

Lake

Tho

aR

iver

Tazi

n L

.

AthabascaRiver

Lake

Cla

ire

Slave

River

Slave River

Bla

ck L

.

Cre

eLa

keR

ein

dee

rLa

ke

Wo

llast

on

Lake

Fon

ddu

Lac

Cochrane R.

Selw

ynL.

Kas

ba

L

ake

Nu

elti

nLa

ke

Enn

adai

Lake

Sno

wb

ird

Lake

Wh

old

aia

La

ke

KazanR.

Kam

iluku

ok L.

DubawntRiver

Tule

mat

uLa

ke

Yo

thke

d

Lak

e

Mag

use

Lak

e

Kam

ino

kLa

ke

Sou

th H

enik

La

ke

Nej

anili

ni

Lake

Sou

ther

nIn

dia

nLa

ke

Wh

arto

nLa

ke

Qam

anir

juaq

Lake

Du

baw

nt

Lake

YellowknifeR.

�

��

��

�� �

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� � ���

� ��� �

��

�

� ��

� � �

��

��

��

�

�

�����

� ��

��

��

���

�

� ��

��

��

�� � �

�

��

��

�

� � � �

��

��

��

��

Wh

ale

Co

ve

Ch

urc

hill

Churchill

River

Seal

Riv

e

r

Carib

ou

River

Rive

rTha-

an

ne

R.

Kaza

nR

.

Taltson R .

Ru

tled

geR.

Fon

d-d

u-L

ac

Fort

Ch

ipew

yan

Co

chra

ne

R.

62°

60°

58°

58°

60°

62°

110°

115°

105°

100°

95°

95°

100°

105°

110°

��

��

��

�

���

����

�

��

��

���

��

�����

��

�

��

��

�

� � � ��

� � � � ��

��

��

�

��

�

� � ��

� ���

��

� �

�

� � �

��

� � ��

�

��

��

2

22

2

22

2

21

1

1 2

1

211

11

3

3

3 33

3

3

3

4

��

��

�

LEG

END

Ran

kin

g o

f p

rio

riti

es f

or

cari

bo

u h

un

tin

g

Prio

rity

zo

ne

Fire

cyc

le z

on

e

Lim

it o

f tr

ees

1-4

Thi

ewia

za

Cam

sell

Port

age

Lac

B

roch

et

�

Ap

pen

dix

2.

Co

mb

ined

pri

ori

ty z

ones o

f all

co

mm

unitie

s f

or

cari

bo

u h

unting w

ithin

the “lim

it o

f tr

ees” (“tr

ee lin

e”),

the t

hre

e f

ire c

ycle

zo

nes, and

go

als

fo

r p

rod

uctive c

ari

bo

u r

ange in e

ach f

ire m

anagem

ent

zo

ne.

A p p e n d i c e s

8

62°

60°

58°

62°

60°

58°

110° 105° 100°

110° 105° 100°

0 kilometres 200

ALB

ERTA

SASK

ATC

HEW

AN

N.W.T.MANITOBA.

Limito f trees Artillery

Lake

Reliance

Yellowknife

Thelon GameSanctuary

Wood Buffalo National Park

Great SlaveLake

FortResolution

Fort Smith

FortChipewyan

Camsell PortageUranium City

Fond-du-LacStony Rapids

Wollaston Lake

Brochet

Lake

Athabasca

SnowdriftRiver

Lutsel K’e

NonachoLake

Rutledge R.

Talt

son

R.

H anburyR. Clarke

R.

WhitefishLake Mosquito

Lake

RennieLake

Tho aRiver

TazinR

. Tazin L.

Ath

abas

caR

iver

LakeClaire

Slav e

River

SlaveR

iver

Taltson

R.

Black L.

CreeLake

ReindeerLake

WollastonLake

Lac Brochet

Fond duLac

Coch

rane

R.

Cochrane

R.

SelwynL.

Kasba Lake Nueltin

Lake

EnnadaiLakeSnowbird

LakeWholdaia

Lake

Kaz

an

R.

KamilukuakL.

Dub

awnt

Ri

ver

TulemaluLake Dubawnt

Lake

Yel

low

knif

eR.

SHORTFIRE

CYCLE

SHORTFIRE CYCLE

MEDIUM FIRE CYCLE

LONG FIRE CYCLE

SHORT FIRE CYCLE

Appendix 3. Zones of short (<81 years), medium (81-140 years), and long (>140 years)fire cycles on the winter range of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds ofcaribou.

9

Appendix 4. Goals for the proportion of the forest older than 50 years since fire(productive caribou range), by priority zone for caribou hunting andby length of the fire cycle.

Proportion of forest >50 years (%)

Community Short fire cycle Medium fire cycle Long fire cycle priority zone (<81 years) (81-140 years) (>140 years)

1 35 60 852 30 55 803 25 50 75

Note: based on total area excluding large lakes and on areas within burn peripheries.Note: “<” is symbol for “less than” and “>” is symbol for “more than”.Note: these proportions are actually for forests older than 70 years based on recent calculations of the negativeexponential distribution (revised Table 3 of the Technical Report). Goals are subject to change in the next revisionand will relate to forests older than 50 years.

A p p e n d i c e s

Lichen (above) are the staple food supply of caribou in winter. Once destroyed by fire, lichens preferred bycaribou take at least 50 years to grow back.

10

0ki

lom

etre

s20

0

ALBERTASASKATCHEWAN

N.W

.T.

MA

NIT

OB

A.

Art

iller

yLa

ke

Rel

ian

ceY

ello

wkn

ife

Thel

on

G

ame

San

ctu

ary

Wo

od

Bu

ffal

o N

atio

nal

Pa

rk

Ran

kin

Inle

t

Arv

iat

Gre

at S

lave

Lak

e

Fo

rtR

eso

luti

on

Fort

Sm

ith

Ura

niu

m C

ity

Sto

ny

Rap

ids

Wo

llast

on

Lak

eB

roch

et

Lake

Ath

abas

ca

No

nac

ho

Lake

TaltsonR.

Ha

nb

ury

R.

Clarke

R.

Wh

itef

ish

Lake

Mo

squ

ito

Lake

Ren

nie

Lake

Tho

aR

iver

Tazi

n L

.

AthabascaRiver

Lake

Cla

ire

Slave

River

Slave River

Bla

ck L

.

Cre

eLa

keR

ein

dee

rLa

ke

Wo

llast

on

Lake

Lac

B

roch

et

Fon

ddu

Lac

Cochrane R.

Co

chra

ne

R.

Selw

ynL.

Kas

ba

Lak

e

Nu

elti

nLa

ke

Enn

adai

Lake

Sno

wb

ird

Lake

Wh

old

aia

La

ke

KazanR.

Kam

iluku

ok L.

DubawntRiver

Tule

mat

uLa

ke

Yo

thke

d

Lak

e

Mo

gu

seLa

ke

Kam

ino

kLa

ke

Sou

th H

enik

La

ke

Nej

anili

ni

Lake

Sou

ther

nIn

dia

nLa

ke

Wh

arto

nLa

ke

Qam

anir

juaq

Lake

Du

baw

nt

Lake

YellowknifeR.

Wh

ale

Co

ve

Ch

urc

hill

Churchill

River

Seal

River

Carib

ou

River

Thie

wia

za

Rive

rTha-

an

ne

R.

Kaza

nR

.

Fort

Ch

ipew

yanLu

tsel

K’e

Taltson R.

Ru

tled

ge

R.

Cam

sell

Port

age

Fon

d-d

u-L

ac

62°

60°

58°

58°

60°

62°

110°

115°

105°

100°

95°

95°

100°

105°

110°

57P

30G

86P

50G

33P

35G

73P

60G

77P

75G

K 2

L 3

J 1 14

P30

G66

P55

G

I 2

H 2

G 1

43P

60GC 1

87P

85G

B 1

85P

85G

66P

60G

49P

55G

60P

60G

A 1

50P

85G

P80

GO

2N

1

P80

G45

P85

GD

2

B 1

A 1

A 1

C 2

E 1

52P

60G

G 1

22P

50G

F 3

25P

30G

H-J

2

21P

30G

D 2

42P

50G

P55

G

P60

G

P85

GP

85G

P80

G

P50

G

63P

60G

B 3

C 2

F 1

G 1

H 2

80P

80G

D 2

84P

85G

87P

75G

F 1

E 3

M 3

E 3

I 1

��

��

�

LEG

END

Are

a co

de

and

pri

ori

ty%

fo

rest

>50

yr

in 1

989

Go

al f

or

% f

ore

st >

50 y

r

Fire

man

agem

ent

zon

e

Fore

st li

mit

A 1 25

P50

G

Exam

ple

: A1

25P/

50G

ind

icat

es t

hat

in z

on

e A

1 th

e cu

rren

t p

rop

ort

ion

of

pro

du

ctiv

e ca

rib

ou

ran

ge

is

25%

an

d t

he

go

al f

or

pro

du

ctiv

e ca

rib

ou

ran

ge

is

50%

. Fir

e p

rote

ctio

n is

rec

om

men

ded

bec

ause

P is

le

ss t

han

th

e g

oal

.

*

* *

��

��

��

�

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

����

��

��

�

��

��

����

��

��

��

�

��

���������

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

������

��

�

��

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

���

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

�

Snow

dri

ftRi

ver

Tad

ou

leLa

ke

�

Ap

pen

dix

5.

Co

ded

(A

, B

, etc

.) s

imp

lifie

d f

ire m

anagem

ent

zo

nes b

ased

on p

rio

rity

(1, 2, etc

.) z

ones o

f co

mm

uni-

ties, fire

cycle

zo

nes, ju

risd

ictio

nal b

ound

ari

es, fo

rest

limits, and

min

or

zo

ne a

dju

stm

ents

; and

each

co

nta

inin

g c

rud

e e

stim

ate

s (%

) o

f p

rod

uctive (>50 y

ear

fore

sts

) cari

bo

u r

ange in 1

989 (P

), a

nd

go

als

(G

)fo

r p

rod

uctive c

ari

bo

u r

ange.

11

Appendix 6. Crude estimates of areas of large lakes and forests younger and olderthan 50 years in 1989, the present (1989) proportion of productivecaribou range within fire management zones (grouped communitypriority zones), and the goals for productive caribou habitat in thosezones.

General Area (km2)

Zone code/ location Large burns forests Proportion (%) >50 yrb

Priority FCLa (map sheet) lakes <50 yr >50 yearsa Total Present Goal

NWT A (1) L Whold/Kasbad 4 027 1 680 9 480 15 187 85 85NWT B (1) L Abitau/Rennied 1 920 2 013 13 187 17 120 87 85NWT C (1) M Hill Islandd 387 3 253 2 440 6 080 43 60NWT D (2) L Hill/McCann 467 600 2 400 3 467 80 80NWT E (3) L McCann/Rennie 373 413 2 827 3 613 87 75NWT F (1) L McCann/Reliance 1 107 960 5 160 7 227 84 85NWT G (1) M Nonachod 2 173 4 133 11 347 17 653 73 60NWT H (2) M Hill Island 187 920 1 760 2 867 66 55NWT I (2) S Fort Smith 667 4 667 760 6 093 14 30NWT J (1) S Taltson Lake 680 3 307 1 627 5 614 33 35NWT K (2) S Resolution 187 400 533 1 120 57 30NWT L (3) M Snowdrift 1 680 307 1 853 3 840 86 50NWT M (3) L Walmsley 133 240 800 1 173 77 75NWT N (1) L Ennadai Lake 387 1 067 1 067 2 520 50 85NWT O (2) L Ennadai/Nueltin Incomplete burn dataSask A (1) M Phelps Lake 1 160 2 667 5 187 9 013 66 60Sask B (3) M Wollaston Lake 1 840 2 827 2 080 6 747 42 50Sask C (2) M Stony Rapids 1 280 4 080 3 853 9 213 49 55Sask D (2) S Pasfield Lake 1 280 11 880 3 093 16 307 21 30Sask E (1) M Fond du Lac 693 1 493 2 280 4 467 60 60Sask F (3) M Fond du Lace 40 1 293 360 1 693 22 50Sask G (1) M Tazin Lake 733 2 267 2 467 5 467 52 60 Sask H (2) S Livingstonef 253 6 987 2 280 9 520 25 30 Man A (1) M South Kasmere Lake 427 1 600 2 773 4 800 63 60Man B (1) L North Kasmere Lake 347 1 387 1 173 2 907 46 85Man C (2) M Whiskey Jack Lake Incomplete burn data 55Man D (2) L Munroe Lake ditto 80Man E (3) M Tadoule Lake ditto 50Man F (1) M Tadoule Lake ditto 60Man G (1) L Tadoule Lake ditto 85Man H (2) L Nejanilini Lake ditto 80Man I (2) L Shethanei Lake ditto 85

aFCL = fire cycle length: L = long, M = medium, and S = short (A3).bForests >50 years are considered to be usable for feeding by caribou.cProportion = Area forests >50 yr/(area forests >50 yr + area forests <50 yr). Large lakes are excludedfrom the calculation.

dLarge Priority Zone 1 areas were divided into NWT A & B and NWT C & G.eThree small zones were combined into one zone (Sask F).fSask. zones H-J were combined and given an average priority rating of 2.