Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides): management plan 2025

Official title: Management Plan for the Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in Canada

Species at Risk Act
Management Plan Series
Adopted under Section 69 of SARA

2025

Part 1 – Federal Addition to the Management Plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in British Columbia, prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)^{Footnote 2} provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of management plans for listed species of special concern and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is the competent minister under SARA for the Mountain Crab-eye and has prepared the federal component of this management plan (Part 1), as per section 65 of SARA. To the extent possible, it has been prepared in cooperation with the Province of British Columbia as per section 66(1) of SARA. SARA section 69 allows the competent minister to adopt all or part of an existing plan for the species if the competent minister is of the opinion that an existing plan relating to wildlife species includes adequate measures for the conservation of the species. The Province of British Columbia provided the attached management plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Part 2) as science advice to the jurisdictions responsible for managing the species in British Columbia. It was prepared in cooperation with Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Success in the conservation of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this plan and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada or any other jurisdiction alone. All members of the public are invited to join in supporting and implementing this plan for the benefit of the Mountain Crab-eye and Canadian society as a whole.

Implementation of this management plan is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

Additions and modifications to the adopted document

The following sections have been included to address specific requirements of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) that are not addressed in the Management Plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in British Columbia (Part 2 of this document, referred to henceforth as “the provincial management plan”) and/or to provide updated or additional information.

Under SARA, prohibitions regarding the protection of species and their habitat do not apply to species of special concern. Conservation measures in the provincial management plan dealing with the protection of individuals and their habitat are still adopted to guide conservation efforts but would not result in federal legal protection.

1. Species information

1.1 Populations and distribution

This section replaces Section 3.2 of Part 2, the provincial management plan for Mountain Crab-eye. Since the publication of the provincial management plan in 2021, five (5) new occurrences of the species have been located and verified on Vancouver Island.

Mountain Crab-eye is distributed widely worldwide; however, in North America, it is found only in southeast Alaska and Washington State in the United States, and only in British Columbia in Canada. The distribution in British Columbia (Figure 1) is on Vancouver Island and along the Coast Mountains, from Kingcome Inlet northward to Kitsault, near the southeastern border of Alaska.

Mountain Crab-eye occurs in both the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) and the Mountain Hemlock (MH) biogeoclimatic zones in British Columbia. There are thirteen occurrences of Mountain Crab-eye in British Columbia (Table 1). Of these thirteen occurrences, four inhabit the CWHws2 (montane variant of the wet submaritime subzone), and one occurs in the CWHvm² (montane variant of the very wet maritime subzone). The other eight inhabit the MHmm1 (moist maritime subzone; COSEWIC 2016).

Figure 1. Mountain Crab-eye occurrences in British Columbia and corresponding element occurrence numbers in Table 1 (B.C. CDC 2023 and iNaturalist 2023)

2. Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals ^{Footnote 3}. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’s (FSDS)^{Footnote 4} goals and targets.

Conservation planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that implementation of management plans may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the management plan itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

The provincial management plan for the Mountain Crab-eye contains a section describing the effects of management activities on other species (that is, Section 8). Environment and Climate Change Canada adopts this section of the provincial management plan as the statement on effects of management activities on the environment and other species. Management planning activities for the Mountain Crab‑eye will be implemented with consideration for all co-occurring species at risk, such that any potential negative impacts to these species or their habitats are mitigated or avoided. Some management actions for the Mountain Crab-eye (for example, inventory and habitat protection) may promote the conservation of other species at risk that overlap in distribution and rely on similar habitat attributes.

3. References

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2023. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Min. Environment, Victoria, BC. <http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/> [Accessed April 21, 2023]

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the mountain crab-eye Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 58 pp. <https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Mountain%20Crab-eye_2016_e.pdf>

iNaturalist 2023, via GBIF.org GBIF.org (13 February 2023) GBIF Occurrence Download <https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.ck475y>

NatureServe. 2002. Element occurrence data standard 2002. <http://downloads.natureserve.org/conservation_tools/element_occurence_data_standard.pdf> [Accessed November 16, 2017]

Part 2 – Management Plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in British Columbia, prepared by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Management Plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in British Columbia
Prepared by B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy
January 2021

About the British Columbia management plan series

This series presents the management plans that are prepared as advice to the Province of British Columbia. The Province prepares management plans for species that may be at risk of becoming endangered or threatened due to sensitivity to human activities or natural events.

What is a management plan?

A management plan identifies a set of coordinated conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that the target species does not become threatened or endangered. A management plan summarizes the best available science-based information on biology and threats to inform the development of a management framework. Management plans set goals and objectives, and recommend approaches appropriate for species or ecosystem conservation.

What’s next?

Direction set in the management plan provides valuable information on threats and direction on conservation measures that may be used by individuals, communities, land users, conservationists, academics, and governments interested in species and ecosystem conservation.

For more information

To learn more about species at risk recovery planning in British Columbia, please visit the B.C. Recovery Planning webpage at:
< http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/recovery-planning>

Recommended citation

B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 2021. Management plan for Mountain Crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Victoria, BC. 30 pp.

Cover illustration/photograph

Paula Bartemucci

Additional copies

Additional copies can be downloaded from the B.C. Recovery Planning webpage at:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/recovery-planning/recovery-planning-documents

Disclaimer

The B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy has prepared this management plan as advice to the responsible jurisdictions and organizations that may be involved in managing the species.

This document identifies the management actions that are deemed necessary, based on the best available scientific and traditional information, to prevent mountain crab-eye populations in British Columbia from becoming endangered or threatened. Management actions to achieve the goals and objectives identified herein are subject to the priorities and budgetary constraints of participatory agencies and organizations. These goals, objectives, and management approaches may be modified in the future to accommodate new objectives and findings.

The responsible jurisdictions have had an opportunity to review this document. However, this document does not necessarily represent the official positions of the agencies.

Success in the conservation of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that may be involved in implementing the directions set out in this management plan. The B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy encourages all British Columbians to participate in the conservation of mountain crab-eye.

Acknowledgements

This management plan was prepared by Brenda Costanzo (B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy [ENV]). Paula Bartemucci (consultant), Jim Pojar (consultant), Dave Fraser (ENV), David Richardson, Isabelle Duclos, Ruben Boles (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]), Diana Ghikas, and Julie Perrault (COSEWIC secretariat) participated in the May 2015 COSEWIC threats assessment. Paula Bartemucci, Kendra Bennett [B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRORD)], Brenda Costanzo, Darwyn Coxson (University of Northern B.C.), Kim Dohms (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre [ECCC-CWS-Pacific]), Dave Fraser (consultant; facilitator), Chris Lewis (FLNRORD), Alanah Nasadyk (ENV), Jenifer Penny (ENV), and Jim Pojar (consultant) participated in the July 23, 2020, IUCN threats assessment.

Paula Bartemucci; Karen Stefanyk (ENV); Chris Lewis and Grant Bracher (FLNRORD); Jared Maida and Kim Dohms (ECCC-CWS-Pacific); Gina Schalk, Thomas Calteau, Meg Harrison, and Emma Pascoe (ECC-CWS-National Capital Region); and Lindi Anderson and Scott Cutler (B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation) all provided review comments.

Don Phillips (ENV, Knowledge Management Branch) prepared the distribution map.

Executive summary

Mountain crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) is a yellowish to light-gray cushion-forming lichen with tufts of erect coral-like branches 15–20 mm long and 2 mm wide. Fruiting bodies are black, approximately 1 mm wide, and sunken in the tips of the fertile branches. Mountain crab-eye attaches itself by basal holdfasts to wood or acidic rock (Goward 1999).

Mountain crab-eye was designated as a Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 2016 due to only eight known occurrences in Canada within a very restricted climatic zone. Occurrences are from the Coastal Western Hemlock and Mountain Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones. The total estimated population size is less than 250 colonies within the Coast Mountains in wetland complexes (sparsely treed peatlands, fens, or bog complexes), subalpine forest, and subalpine parkland. Mountain crab-eye has been found on dead branches, on dead tops of mountain hemlock trees, and on yellow-cedar and Sitka spruce. In two instances in British Columbia, it has been found on rocks. The species is listed as a Special Concern in Canada in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). In British Columbia, mountain crab-eye is ranked S2 (imperiled) by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. Threats to the species include development pressures (roads, pipelines, hydroelectricity, mining, and forestry) and climate change, which threaten the hydrological regime and microclimatic conditions required by this species at many of the known sites.

The overall goal is to maintain the presence and abundance of the species at each extant site as well as for any populations that are found in the future by managing any human-caused threats to the species.

The following are the management objectives that will guide work in the near term for mountain crab-eye:

1. to protect ^{Footnote 5} known populations of mountain crab-eye throughout the British Columbia range by managing any human-caused threats to the species
2. to confirm the distribution of mountain crab-eye, including new locations, by inventorying suitable habitat for additional populations for the purpose of preventing the inadvertent loss of not-yet-discovered populations; and
3. to monitor trends in population size and distribution in all known populations for the purpose of collecting additional ecological data, including information on population numbers and recruitment

1 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Species assessment information

Assessment summary: May 2016

Common name: Mountain crab-eye

Scientific name: Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides

Status:  Special Concern

Reason for Designation: This charismatic lichen forms pale-gray to yellow-gray coral-like cushions. It is globally rare, and there are only eight known occurrences in Canada. All are within British Columbia in a very restricted climatic zone, which lies between the hypermaritime conditions found on the outer coast and the continental climate of the interior. There is a low IAO of 32 km² and the total estimated population for this lichen is less than 250 colonies. However, this lichen occurs in remote, inaccessible sites within the rugged Coast Mountains, and additional new occurrences are likely to be discovered. In Canada, it is found primarily on dead Mountain Hemlock snags in patterned fen or bog complexes. Development pressures (roads, pipeline, hydroelectricity, mining and forestry) and climate change threaten hydrological regime and microclimatic conditions required by this species at many of the known sites.

Occurrence: British Columbia

Status history: Designated Special Concern April 2016

* Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

^a Common and scientific name reported in this recovery plan follow the naming conventions of the B.C. Conservation Data Centre, which may be different from names reported by COSEWIC.

^b See COSEWIC quantitative criteria and guidelines for the status assessment of wildlife species (Table 2 of the COSEWIC assessment process guidelines: http://cosewic.ca/index.php/en-ca/assessment-process/wildlife-species-assessment-process-categories-guidelines/quantitative-criteria

2 Species status information

Mountain crab-eye^a

• Legal designation:
  • FRPA:^b No
  • OGAA:^b No
  • B.C. Wildlife Act:^c No
  • SARA:^d Schedule 1 – Special Concern (2019)
• Conservation status^e
  • B.C. List: Red B.C. Rank: S2 (2019) National Rank: N2 (2013) Global Rank: GNR
  • Other Subnational Ranks:^f AK (SNR), WA (S1)

^a Data source: B.C. Conservation Data Centre (2020) unless otherwise noted.

^b No = not listed in one of the categories of wildlife that requires special management attention to address the impacts of forestry and range activities on Crown land under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA; Province of British Columbia 2002) and/or the impacts of oil and gas activities on Crown land under the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA; Province of British Columbia 2008).

^c No = not designated as wildlife under the B.C. Wildlife Act (Province of British Columbia 1982).

^dSchedule 1 = found on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk under the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada 2002).

^e Red = includes any native species or subspecies that have, or are candidates for, Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened status in British Columbia. Extirpated taxa no longer exist in the wild in British Columbia but do occur elsewhere. Endangered taxa are facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened taxa are likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Not all Red-listed taxa will necessarily become formally designated. Placing taxa on these lists flags them as being at risk and requiring investigation.; S = subnational; N = national; G = global; 1 = critically imperilled; NR = unranked;

^f Data source: NatureServe (2017). AK = Arkansas; WA = Washington State.

3 Species information

3.1 Species description

Mountain crab-eye (Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides) is a yellowish to light-gray cushion-forming lichen with tufts of erect coral-like branches 15–20 mm long and 2 mm wide. The inside of the lichen is yellow to bright orange. Fruiting bodies are black, approximately 1 mm wide, and sunken in the tips of the fertile branches. The spores are dark brown, two-celled, and smooth on the surface. Mountain crab-eye attaches itself by basal holdfasts to wood or base-enriched rock (Goward 1999). The green unicellular alga Trebouxia may be its photosynthetic partner (COSEWIC 2016).

3.2 Populations and distribution

Mountain crab-eye is distributed widely worldwide (fewer than 12 locations worldwide [NatureServe 2020]); however, in North America, it is found only in southeast Alaska and Washington State in the United States, and only in British Columbia in Canada. The distribution in British Columbia (Figure 1) is along the Coast Mountains, from Kingcome Inlet northward to Kitsault, near the southeastern border of Alaska (COSEWIC 2016).

Mountain crab-eye occurs in both the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) and the Mountain Hemlock (MH) biogeoclimatic zones in British Columbia. There are eight occurrences of mountain crab-eye in British Columbia (Table 1). Of these eight occurrences, four inhabit the CWHws2 (montane variant of the wet submaritime subzone), and one occurs in the CWHvm² (montane variant of the very wet maritime subzone). The other three inhabit the MHmm1 (moist maritime subzone; COSEWIC 2016).

Figure 1. Mountain crab-eye distribution in British Columbia (B.C. CDC 2020).

3.3 Habitat and biological needs of Mountain Crab-eye

In Canada, the main habitat of mountain crab-eye is in wetland complexes (sparsely treed peatlands-patterned fens or bog complexes). This species has also been found in subalpine forest and subalpine parkland (EO5 and EO7, respectively). Two occurrences were on rocks (EO3 and EO6), all within sparsely treed peatlands (COSEWIC 2016).

Patterned fens have peat ridges and hollows on sloped terrain and are nutrient-medium habitats where the water table is close to the surface for most of the year (MacKenzie and Moran 2004). Associated plants are sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and cotton-grass (Eriophorum spp.), as well as aquatic plants that live in shallow depressions. Bog complexes include bogs, ponds, lakes, bog woodland, and shore fens and consist of plant species that are like those of fens.

Mountain crab-eye colonizes several tree species in Canada (dead branches or dead tops of trees), primarily mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and occasionally yellow-cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). The Satsalla River collection (EO7) was from a dead branch that was on the ground within a mature subalpine forest at 1,300 m. In this location, the subalpine forest consisted mainly of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). This location is a rare habitat worldwide for mountain crab-eye (COSEWIC 2016). One colony was found on a boulder at Europa Creek (EO3) within a patterned fen wetland (COSEWIC 2016). Additionally, in 1992, a specimen was collected from the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy area (EO6) on a subalpine rock face; however, this was not confirmed, as it was not relocated in the 2015 COSEWIC surveys.

A summary of essential functions, features, and attributes of mountain crab-eye habitat in British Columbia is included in Table 2.

3.4 Limiting factors

Limiting factors are generally not human induced and include characteristics that make the species less likely to respond to management and/or conservation efforts.

Mountain crab-eye is limited by poor dispersal capabilities, small population size, and habitat constraints (COSEWIC 2016).

4 Threats

Threats are defined as the proximate activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause in the future the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of the entity being assessed (population, species, community, or ecosystem) in the area of interest (global, national, or subnational; adapted from Salafsky et al. 2008). For purposes of threat assessment, only present and future threats are considered.^{Footnote 6} Threats presented here do not include limiting factors,^{Footnote 7} which are presented in Section 3.4.

For the most part, threats are related to human activities, but they can also be natural. The impact of human activity may be direct (e.g., destruction of habitat) or indirect (e.g., introduction of invasive species). Effects of natural phenomena (e.g., fire, flooding) may be especially important when the species is concentrated in one location or has few occurrences, which may be a result of human activity (Master et al. 2012). Accordingly, natural phenomena are included in the definition of a threat, though they should be considered cautiously. These stochastic events should be considered a threat only if a species or habitat is damaged from other threats and has lost its ability to recover. In such cases, the effect on the population would be disproportionately large compared with the effect experienced historically (Salafsky et al. 2008).

4.1 Threat assessment

The threat classification below is based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP) unified threats classification system and is consistent with methods used by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. For a detailed description of the threat classification system, see the Open Standards website (Open Standards 2014). Threats may be observed, inferred, or projected to occur in the near term. Threats are characterized here in terms of scope, severity, and timing. Threat “impact” is calculated from scope and severity. For information on how the values are assigned, see Master et al. (2012) and table footnotes for details. Generation time for this species is thought to be 30 years (COSEWIC 2016).

4.2 Description of threats

The overall province-wide threat impact for this species is High^{Footnote 8} (COSEWIC 2016). This overall threat considers the cumulative impacts of multiple threats. The primary threats include logging and wood harvesting (5.3), fire and fire suppression (7.2), other ecosystem modifications (7.3), air-borne pollutants (9.5), habitat shifting and alteration (11.1), droughts (11.2), and storms and flooding (11.4; Table 3). Details are discussed in Section 4.2.1 below, under the level 1 headings.

4.2.1 Threats with impacts to Mountain Crab-eye

IUCN-CMP Threat 4. Transportation and service corridors (impact: Low)

4.1 Roads and railroads (impact: low)

Habitat loss and degradation are associated with roads constructed for logging, mining, and the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline construction. Changes in hydrology could occur from alterations in topography in adjacent areas, thereby reducing the wetlands where mountain crab-eye occurs.

There may also be associated dust from roadbuilding, which is scored in Section 9.5.

4.2 Utility and service lines (impact: low)

The Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline from Dawson Creek to Kitimat is undergoing construction in 2020, and a looping project was proposed near the Williams Creek (EO2) location. The looping project was a twinning project called the Pacific Northern Gas (PNG) Looping Project (LNG in B.C. 2016) that was to follow the existing PNG natural gas pipeline from Summit Lake to Kitimat (Douglas Channel). This looping project has been delayed as of April 2020 (Province of British Columbia 2020a).

Current B.C. Hydro transmission line projects (e.g., the Prince George to Terrace Capacitors Project) are not known to intersect with any recorded lichen occurrences. B.C. Hydro can include mountain crab-eye in environmental reviews of transmission line projects that are in the general area of known occurrences (Cutler, pers. comm., 2020).

However, it is likely that unknown occurrences of mountain crab-eye have been removed due to impacts to wetlands from pipeline construction (Pojar, pers. comm., 2020). The Coastal GasLink project was halted in July 2020 by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office due to non-compliance in wetland protection measures (The Narwhal 2020; Province of British Columbia 2020a), in part because the company did not conduct “preconstruction surveys at specific wetland locations” (Province of British Columbia 2020b).

IUCN-CMP Threat 5. Biological resource use (impact: High to Low)

5.3 Logging and wood harvesting (impact: high to low)

Logging has previously occurred near two occurrences at Williams Creek (EO 1 and EO 2) (COSEWIC 2016). Since the status report was written, wood harvesting of hemlock has begun in the Terrace region, which previously had not been occurring (Coxson, pers. comm., 2020). As the Williams Creek (EO2) location is near Terrace, this area could be harvested due to its proximity to the mill (Pojar, pers. comm., 2020). As the potential to harvest these areas depends on the market demand for wood as well as whether the mills are operational in the region, the scope and severity scores were given broad ranges due to the uncertainty of this threat.

IUCN-CMP Threat 6. Human intrusion and disturbance (impact: Low)

6.1 Recreational activities (impact: low)

The access of recreational all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) into habitat supporting mountain crab-eye could be increased through the building of roads for forestry, mining, and pipelines. The Patsy Lake (Kitsault; EO5) and Williams Creek (EO2) locations are the only two locations accessible by roads that could be used by ATV users. Recreational ATV use is an indirect threat from both logging and pipeline construction (COSEWIC 2016), as both habitat loss and hydrological changes could occur and negatively impact mountain crab-eye occurrences. There has been damage in wetlands from ATVs around the Williams Creek Ecological Reserve (EO1; COSEWIC 2016), but no effect has yet been seen to the hydrological regime in the Williams Creek Ecological Reserve (EO1; Bartemucci, pers. comm., 2020).

IUCN–CMP Threat 7. Natural system modifications (impact: High to Low)

7.1. Fire and fire suppression (impact: medium to low)

Wildfires are a threat to mountain crab-eye and have occurred near two occurrences, Europa Lake Conservancy (EO3) and Kitlope Heritage Conservancy (EO6), in 2015 (COSEWIC 2016). Occurrences near towns, Williams Creek Ecological Reserve (EO1) and Williams Creek (EO2), may have a higher fire risk and increased fire frequency due to climate change (COSEWIC 2016). Frequent storms could add to wildfire ignition, leading to long-term degradation of habitat. Increased drought can also lead to higher fire frequency (COSEWIC 2016). Mountain crab-eye lichen are unable to survive fires with a high enough intensity to destroy dead parts of their host trees, thereby hindering re-establishment by reducing available substrate.

7.3 Ecosystem modifications (impact: high to low)

The hydrological regime of the habitat (fens and bogs) and the relative humidity that supports the micro-climate that is essential for the survival of lichens can be altered by wood harvesting and pipeline corridor development, due to the reduction or removal of host trees (COSEWIC 2016). Lichens absorb water from the humidity in the air (Brodo et al. 2001), which is used in photosynthesis and reproduction. Wood harvesting also contributes to changes in exposure and wind, which may blow over dead-standing host trees or dry out the branches on which mountain crab-eye live. Both the scope and severity of this threat were scored over broad ranges due to the uncertainty of this threat, in particular the unknown levels of wood harvesting and pipeline corridor development that may occur.

IUCN-CMP Threat 9. Pollution (impact: medium to low)

9.5 Air-borne pollutants (impact: medium to low)

Lichen can be sensitive to air pollution (e.g., sulphur dioxide, hydrogen fluoride, ozone, oxides of nitrogen). Mountain crab-eye’s sensitivity to air pollution is unknown (COSEWIC 2016).

Additionally, development of natural gas export facilities may add to nitrogen and sulphur dioxide levels and could affect three locations (Williams Creek Ecological Reserve [EO1], Williams Creek [EO2], and Patsy Lake [EO5]) of mountain crab-eye (COSEWIC 2016).

Road building or pipeline construction could add to an increase in dust that could drift into mountain crab-eye habitat and a reduction in relative ambient humidity (COSEWIC 2016). Dust can coat the surface of mountain crab-eye, thereby reducing its photosynthetic ability, reproductive capacity, and vigour.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11. Climate change and severe weather (impact: medium to low)

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration (impact: medium to low)

The CWH zone is projected to increase in distribution due to climate change (Wilson and Hebda 2008; COSEWIC 2016), whereas the MH zone is projected to decrease in distribution (Hamman and Wang 2006). The subzones’ mountain crab-eye inhabits may become hypermaritime with increased precipitation and warmer conditions. As a result, mountain crab-eye may be outcompeted by other epiphytes (COSEWIC 2016) and be less effective in establishment due to this competition from other lichens and bryophytes under the altered conditions.

11.2 Droughts (impact: medium to low)

Changes in hydrology due to climate change can alter or decrease wetland habitats (fens and bogs become drier), which support mountain crab-eye (Gayton 2008). Additionally, fires may become more frequent due to summer droughts and lightning strikes from increased storm activity (COSEWIC 2016). Fire frequency is addressed in 7.3, including taking into account the increasing probability of fire as a result of climate change and drought.

11.4 Storms and flooding (impact: medium to low)

Frequent storms could lead to an increase in windthrow of host trees, as well as flooding that would remove host trees, leading to long-term degradation of habitat (COSEWIC 2016). Refer to Section 7.1, Fires and fire suppression, for fire ignition as a result of storm events.

4.2.2. Threats not scored for Mountain Crab-eye in the IUCN threats assessment

IUCN-CMP Threat 3. Energy production and mining (not scored)

3.2 Mining and quarrying (not scored)

The redevelopment of the molybdenum mine near Kitsault could affect two colonies from the Patsy Lake (EO5) occurrence that are approximately 1 km from the project site (COSEWIC 2016). There could also be further unknown occurrences within the mine’s footprint (COSEWIC 2016). Habitat and vegetation could be indirectly affected by the reopening of this mine (COSEWIC 2016) due to an increase in dust and air-borne pollutants. Direct threats to the species due to road widening and maintenance and removal of host trees could also occur (COSEWIC 2016). Road dust is scored in Section 9.5.

7.2 Dams and water management/use (not scored)

A run-of-river hydroelectric project was planned in the Europa Lake Conservancy (EO3) by Alterra. This proposal has since been withdrawn from the Environmental Assessment process (PennWell Corporation 2017) by the proponent. Any future hydroelectric project could alter the hydrological regime in peatlands where mountain crab-eye occurs (COSEWIC 2016). No B.C. Hydro dam infrastructure is known to be within close proximity of the recorded occurrences of mountain crab-eye (Cutler, pers. comm., 2020).

11.3 Temperature extremes (not scored)

Long-term degradation of habitat and changes to hydrology in peatlands may occur due to lower summer soil moisture and a reduction in snowpack from higher-than-normal temperatures. Fires may also be more prevalent due to drought and more frequent storms, which could cause lightning-induced fires (COSEWIC 2016; see Section 7.1, Fires and fire suppression).

5 Management goal and objectives

5.1 Management goal

The management goal is to maintain the presence and abundance of all known extant populations and any future populations of mountain crab-eye that may be found in British Columbia by managing any human-caused threats to the species.

5.2 Rationale for the management goal

The overall goal is to maintain the presence and abundance of the species at each extant site as well as for any populations that are found in the future. No quantitative management goal is possible for mountain crab-eye, as basic population demographics and trends are unknown for all populations. As with many other rare plant species, we lack adequate information about the historical distribution of mountain crab-eye.

Therefore, to prevent mountain crab-eye from becoming threatened or endangered, the presence and abundance of all known extant populations and any future populations should be maintained. Once the knowledge gaps have been fulfilled, the goal can be refined.

5.3 Management objectives

The following are the management objectives for mountain crab-eye:

1. to protect^{Footnote 9} known populations of mountain crab-eye throughout the British Columbia range by managing any human-caused threats to the species
2. to confirm the distribution of mountain crab-eye, including new locations, by inventorying suitable habitat for additional populations for the purpose of preventing inadvertent loss of not-yet-discovered populations; and
3. to monitor trends in population size and distribution in all known populations for the purpose of collecting additional ecological data, including information on population numbers and recruitment

6 Approaches to meet objectives

6.1 Actions already completed or underway

Actions have been categorized according to the IUCN-CMP Conservation Actions Classification (CMP 2016), and a list of existing mechanisms that afford habitat protection for mountain crab-eye has been provided (Table 4).

C. Enabling condition actions

Action 6. Conservation designation and planning

• Protected areas designation and/or acquisition (complete)

Action 8. Research and monitoring

Action 8.1 Basic research and status monitoring

• COSEWIC status report completed (COSEWIC 2016)
• Inventory (2015) for status report completed
• Management Plan completed (2021)

6.2 Recommended management actions

The recommended management actions to meet the objective for mountain crab-eye recovery are listed below in Table 5.

Table 5. Recommended management actions for mountain crab-eye.

7 Measuring progress

The following performance measures provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the management goal and objectives. Performance measures are listed below for each objective, with the target of achieving each stated measurable within the next five years (2021–2026).

Measurable(s) for objective 1

• At least five locations have stewardship agreements established for protection
• All parks have site-specific management plans in place for this species

Measurable(s) for objective 2

• Confirmed distribution of mountain crab-eye within its range in British Columbia

Measurable(s) for objective 3

• Extant locations have been inventoried and monitored for population size and trend, preferably twice, at least two to five years apart

8 Effects on other species

Management activities for mountain crab-eye will be implemented with consideration for all co-occurring species at risk, such that there are no negative impacts to these species or their habitats.

9 References

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2019. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. <http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/> [Accessed November 15, 2019]

B.C. Gov News. 2013. Factsheet: Permit amendment for Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat smelter. <https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-permit-amendment-for-rio-tinto-alcan-kitimat-smelter> [Accessed November 15, 2017]

Brodo, I. M., S.D. Sharnoff, and S. Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 795 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the mountain crab-eye Acroscyphus sphaerophoroides in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 58 pp. <https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Mountain%20Crab-eye_2016_e.pdf>

Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2016. Classification of Conservation Actions and Threats. Version 2.0. <https://cmp-openstandards.org/library-item/threats-and-actions-taxonomies/> [Accessed March 4, 2020]

Gayton, D.V. 2008. Impacts of climate change on British Columbia’s biodiversity: a literature review. FORREX. Forest Research Extension Society. Kamloops, BC.

Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act [S.C. 2002] c. 29. Justice Laws Website. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/page-1.html> [Accessed March 9, 2018]

Goward, Trevor. 1999. The lichens of British Columbia illustrated keys part 2 – fruticose species. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Special Report Series #9. Victoria, BC. 319 pp.

Hamman, A., and T. Wang. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution in British Columbia. Ecol. 87:2773–2786.

LNG in Northern B.C. Pacific Northern Gas Looping Project. 2016. <http://lnginnorthernbc.ca/index.php/proposed-projects/pacific-northern-gas-looping-project/> [Accessed October 5, 2020]

MacKenzie, W. and K. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to identification. Res. Br., B.C. Min. For., Victoria, BC. Land Manage. Handb. No. 52.

Master, L.L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G.A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe conservation status assessments: factors for evaluating species and ecosystems at risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. <http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserveconservationstatusfactors_apr12_1.pdf> [Accessed November 16, 2017]

NatureServe. 2002. Element occurrence data standard 2002. <http://downloads.natureserve.org/conservation_tools/element_occurence_data_standard.pdf> [Accessed November 16, 2017]

Open Standards. 2014. Threats taxonomy. <http://cmp-openstandards.org/using-os/tools/threats-taxonomy/> [Accessed November 15, 2017]

PennWell Corporation, Generation Hubs. 2017. Alterra drops environmental review for 1,027 MW hydro project. <https://www.hubs.com/power/explore/2016/05/alterra-drops-environmental-review-for-1-027-mw-hydro-project> [Accessed June 22, 2020]

Province of British Columbia. 1982. Wildlife Act [RSBC 1996] c. 488. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01> [Accessed November 15, 2017]

Province of British Columbia. 1992. Land Act [RSBC 1996] c. 245. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <https://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/91consol15/91consol15/79214> [Accessed October 5, 2020]

Province of British Columbia. 2002. Forest and Range Practices Act [RSBC 2002] c. 69. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02069_01> [Accessed November 15, 2017]

Province of British Columbia. 2008. Oil and Gas Activities Act [SBC 2008] c. 36. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_08036_01> [Accessed November 15, 2017]

Province of British Columbia. 2020a. BC Environmental Assessment Office. Pacific Northern Natural Gas Pipeline Looping. <https://www.projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/588511dbaaecd9001b826d20/documents> [Accessed June 22, 2020]

Province of British Columbia. 2020b. B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. Coastal GasLink Project. June 22, 2020. <https://www.projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/588511c4aaecd9001b825604/project-details;currentPage=1;pageSize=10;sortBy=-datePosted;ms=1595956095250> [Accessed July 28, 2020]

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, S. O’Connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22(4):897–911.

The Narwhal. 2020, July 7. B.C. orders Coastal GasLink to stop pipeline construction near protected wetlands. <https://thenarwhal.ca/coastal-gaslink-stop-work-order-protected-wetlands/> [Accessed July 28, 2020]

Wilson, S.J., and R.J. Hebda. 2008. Mitigating and adapting to climate change through the conservation of nature. The Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia.

Personal communications

Darwyn Coxson, Professor, University of Northern B.C., Ecosystem Science and Management Program, and member of the COSEWIC Mosses and Lichens Specialist Subcommittee, Prince George, BC.

Scott Cutler, Senior Economist, B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, Electricity and Alternative Energy Division, Electricity Policy Branch, Victoria, BC.

Jim Pojar, Forest Ecologist and Consultant, Smithers, BC.