4105.p65 ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 REA ET AL. - MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT 161 CONSIDERATIONS FOR NATURAL MINERAL LICKS USED BY MOOSE IN LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Roy V. Rea1, Dexter P. Hodder2, and Kenneth N. Child3 1Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9, email: reav@unbc.ca; 2John Prince Research Forest, P.O. Box 2378, Fort St. James, BC, Canada VOJ 1PO, email: hodderd@unbc.ca; 3Systems North, 6372 Cornell Place, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 2N7, email:kchild@shaw.ca ABSTRACT: Despite an increasing body of knowledge about the predictable use and functional role of naturally occurring mineral licks in the ecology of ungulates such as moose (Alces alces), no documents have been published that discuss the importance of implementing management guidelines aimed to protect these habitat features. We reviewed the literature on the biophysical attributes of mineral lick sites and their use by moose to illustrate the importance of licks and outline criteria that may serve to help in the development of guidelines to protect these land features. We canvassed the provinces and territories of Canada to ascertain whether any regulatory framework for identifying, classifying, and protecting mineral licks existed. Despite appeals for lick protection from several authors, few jurisdictions recognize mineral licks as a special habitat feature and none appear to base their guidelines for protecting licks on ecological principles. We also found no evidence for the existence of a set of standardized guidelines that can be used by planners and managers to ensure the protection of licks. We incorporated ecological and biophysical aspects of mineral licks into a field checklist to identify and classify mineral licks used by moose, and developed a preliminary draft of a management procedure to enable their protection. ALCES VOL. 40: 161-167 (2004) Key words: Alces alces, development, forestry, habitat feature, mineral pool, mineral spring, moose, reserve, resource use, salt lick, sodium hunger, ungulate Mineral licks are unique and important habitat features important in the ecology of moose (Alces alces) and other ungulates (Ayeni 1971, Kreulen 1985, Klaus and Schmid 1998). Unlike dry earth exposures and rock face mineral licks that are used commonly by goats (Oreamnos sp.) and sheep (Ovis spp.), mineral licks used by moose are generally characterized by well worn trails leading to wet muddy springs or seepage areas that contain dense track concentrations (Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Jones and Hanson 1985). These areas, also referred to as muck licks, are also used by deer (Odocoileus spp.) and elk (Cervus sp.) and are thought to be extremely sensitive to impacts from land d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s ( W e e k s a n d Kirkpatrick 1976, Reger 1987, Bechtold 1996, Dormaar and Walker 1996). How- ever, standardized guidelines for field iden- tification, rating the ecological importance of licks, and establishing protective meas- ures for these sites remain uncirculated. We reviewed the literature to summa- rize use patterns of mineral licks by moose and to ascertain the importance of mineral licks in the ecology of moose. We also reviewed the works of authors appealing for lick protection and canvassed the prov- inces and territories of Canada to determine the current policies and guidelines used for MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT – REA ET AL. ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 162 protecting mineral licks. Our objectives were to determine if such a framework existed and identify those criteria required to construct a rating system to facilitate field identification and classification of min- eral licks for purposes of protection. ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF LICKS Much speculation exists as to why moose and other animals use mineral licks (Kreulen 1985, Dormaar and Walker 1996, Klaus and Schmid 1998). It is believed that animals visit licks for, among other things, mineral supplementation, soils to aid digestion, and water and social gathering (Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Jones and Hanson 1985, Risenhoover and Peterson 1986, Couturier and Barrette 1988, Heimer 1988). Licks are used by moose predominantly from dusk until dawn (Fraser and Reardon 1980, Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Couturier and Barrette 1988), most often in late spring (Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Couturier and Barrette 1988, Filus 2002) and mid-winter (Rea, Hodder and Child, unpublished data), and to lesser degrees at other times of the year. Moose use mineral licks in a predictable pattern, obtaining resources from the soil and water of these features. Mineral licks and other sources of concentrated sodium may influence the spatial and temporal struc- ture of moose populations (Panichev et al. 2002). The health of some moose herds has been reported to be dependent on the pres- ence of and regular access to mineral licks (Best et al. 1977). Since land management activities may disrupt the integrity of min- eral licks and possibly impact ungulate populations (Weeks and Kirkpatrick 1976, Dormaar and Walker 1996), several au- thors have recommended protective meas- ures for licks be integrated into land use policy (Best et al. 1977, Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Reger 1987, Bechtold 1996, Dormaar and Walker 1996, Klaus and Schmid 1998). REGULATORY STATUS IN CANADA No jurisdictions are cited in the litera- ture as having management guidelines to safeguard mineral licks from land develop- ment activities. Despite a lack of such discussion in the literature, 4 of 13 jurisdic- tions that we contacted across Canada rec- ognize the importance of natural licks and have drafted guidelines to ensure mineral licks are considered in land management plans. Alberta recognizes mineral licks and provides management suggestions on how to treat these features. While emphasizing that a buffer zone is required, it is recom- mended that it be one “sight distance” (Gov- ernment of Alberta 1994). The definition of a site distance is subjective and open to interpretation, making field application dif- ficult. British Columbia identifies a “mineral lick” or “wallow” as a wildlife habitat fea- ture. Such features are protected to differ- ent degrees on a regional basis at the dis- cretion of the local environmental authori- ties (Government of British Columbia 2004). Ontario recommends a minimum buffer of 120 m around mineral licks for moose with the recognition that some development and/or extraction activities (i.e., forest har- vesting) may occur under special circum- stances within the buffer area. Unlike other jurisdictions, Ontario recommends a site- specific approach to establishing buffers around a lick site that considers the forest stand and other landscape characteristics (e.g., local hydrology and topography). This includes designing the shape and extent of the buffer zone to ensure the integrity of the site and safe access for moose (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1988). Quebec legislation defines a lick nar- rowly as a swamp, spring, or body of water ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 REA ET AL. - MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT 163 that contains mineral salts in concentrations greater than 3 parts per million of potassium and greater than 75 parts per million of sodium. Management guidelines dictate that these sites, regardless of site specific attributes, retain a 100 m wide undeveloped reserve zone around the lick (Government of Quebec 2004). No other jurisdictions in Canada appear to have formal management guidelines for considering mineral licks, although there may be uncirculated policies and proce- dures that exist for identification and pro- tection of these sites. Some jurisdictions have regulations for managing “habitat fea- tures” but are only legislated into manage- ment guidelines if the species(s) using that feature is threatened or endangered as in Saskatchewan (Government of Saskatch- ewan 2003), or special management recom- mendations are made on a case by case basis as in the Yukon Territory (Yukon Department of Renewable Resources 1996) and Nova Scotia (Anthony P. Duke, Man- ager Wildlife Resources, Nova Scotia De- partment of Natural Resources, personal communication). As a result, there appears to be no set of standardized, easy-to-imple- ment guidelines available for resource man- agers in Canada or elsewhere to use that would be helpful in delineating considera- tions for mineral licks in land use planning and development activities. CLASSIFYING MINERAL LICKS Although what constitutes a mineral lick is understood, a comprehensive under- standing of use by moose and a procedure to rank the importance of these areas to moose is less clear. Assessing certain attributes in the field should indicate whether a site is a functional mineral lick. The same attributes could also be used to determine and rank the relative importance of the site for moose. A site with well worn trails, denser track con- centrations, and a more extensive lick area, for example, is likely more important to animals than a small seepage area contain- ing few tracks and an inconspicuous trail network. One method that could be used to iden- tify and classify mineral licks could employ identification of site attributes. A field checklist could be used to identify and de- scribe site attributes commonly associated with mineral licks used by moose (Table 1). This procedure would include both quantita- tive and qualitative measurements, but would not be too complicated, onerous, or time- consuming for field crews. Importantly, certain of these attributes could also be used to assess the impact of any activity. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES There are at least three aspects to consider when managing or regulating dis- Table 1. Key site attributes for identifying, and developing a site identification/classification system for wet mineral licks used by moose. The degree to which site attributes are evident may vary seasonally (see text). Site Attribute Reference Wet muddy area or seepage Dormaar and Walker 1996 Animal sightings or sign (e.g. pellets, hedged browse, tree rubs, muddy vegetation, bed sites) Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Jones and Hanson 1985 Dense track concentrations Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Jones and Hanson 1985 Exposed mineral soils with clays or organic materials Chamberlin et al. 1977, Jones and Hanson 1985, Bechtold 1996 Trail convergence Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Jones and Hanson 1985 Trail use (i.e., wear or compaction) Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Tankersley and Gasaway 1983 Evidence of human activities (e.g., bullet casings, hunting blinds, animal remains, etc.) Observations by authors , MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT – REA ET AL. ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 164 turbance around mineral licks: (1) protec- tion of the mineral lick site; (2) maintaining the integrity and function of the hydrologi- cal system feeding the lick; and (3) minimiz- ing disturbance in surrounding areas during peak visitation times. Rating the impor- tance of the mineral lick for moose is the first in a series of steps that allows for its consideration in land development planning. How to best protect the site and maintain its integrity depends on several factors includ- ing the sensitivity of all species using the lick, the biophysical factors of the site, and the type of development planned for the area. Correctly identifying all species using the lick is important since misidentifying or neglecting to identify threatened species will influence protective measures neces- sary to mitigate disturbance impacts (Reger 1987). Reserve zones (buffers) or the like could be used to mitigate disturbance to licks and should be assigned in accordance with the importance of the lick to the wild- life species using the lick, the intensity of use, and the occurrence of similar features across the landscape. Lick protection guide- lines should also encompass lick site trail networks, hydrological features, nearby thermal and security cover, and adjacent foraging sites (Wiles and Weeks 1986). Although the relative importance of mineral licks to moose is known to wildlife managers, their value as a land feature may be less apparent to land use planners and developers. Therefore, conveying the eco- logical importance of mineral licks to land managers is key to developing and imple- menting guidelines for protecting mineral licks. Specifically, integrating ecological principles within a management framework (Table 2) could provide direction and flex- ibility when prescribing protective meas- ures for mineral licks. For example, devel- opment could occur in late fall or early spring when moose activity at mineral licks is minimal (Tankersley and Gasaway 1983, Couturier and Barrette 1988, Fraser and Hristienko 1981, Rea, Hodder and Child, unpublished data) and be carried out during mid-day hours since moose use mineral licks predominantly at night (Fraser and Reardon 1980, Tankersley and Gasaway 1 9 8 3 , C o u t u r i e r a n d B a r r e t t e 1 9 8 8 , Silverberg et al. 2002). Such strategies could reduce stress and unneeded energy expenditures for moose that are sensitive to disturbance (Couturier and Barrette 1988, Silverberg et al. 2002), especially during the winter months (Colescott and Gillingham 1998). An integrated management approach of this type would help ensure that the integrity of the feature is protected, that the ecological value of the site is maintained, and that land development proceeds in an appropriate fashion. The final step in this integrated man- agement process is to monitor the impact of prescriptions and subsequent development activity on the biophysical attributes of the Table 2. Management considerations related to the ecological characteristics and role of min- eral licks used by moose. Ecology M anagement Seasonal use A void seasonal act ivit y p eaks (documentat ion/observat ions) Daily use A void p eaks in daily use (observations) T olerance t o dist urbance G auge habit uation to human act ivit y (observat ions) T rail sy stem Prot ect : machine free z ones should include habit at /t rails Soils use and biop hy sical asp ects of lick function T est soils for suscep tibility t o disturbance, comp act ion, and erosion. Water sources of lick Prot ect : eart h moving activity should not disrup t hy drological flow of lick Veget ation cover requirement s M aint ain cover and vegetat ion p roximat e t o lick ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 REA ET AL. - MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT 165 site, site use, and activity patterns of moose. Monitoring and assessment are imperative in the continual process of developing and modifying guidelines, and allow for feed- back during the process (Fig. 1). Both site- specific and regional management ap- proaches will benefit from adequate as- sessment of management prescriptions de- veloped to protect mineral licks. SUMMARY We do not fully understand the impor- tance of mineral licks to moose or how land development may impact mineral lick func- tion or influence moose activity patterns at these features. Our findings indicate that a set of standardized guidelines for protecting licks is currently needed. Systematic iden- tification and classification of mineral licks using a field checklist would facilitate the development of an objective field proce- dure. Broad implementation and testing at several sites would help justify its applica- tion. Additionally, a set of draft procedures by which managers can start to consider and incorporate these data into manage- ment plans for prescribing appropriate lev- 1. I.D. site as a mineral lick 2. Describe site features (e.g., field card) 3. Rank importance of site to animals (using data/expert opinion) 4. Establish level of protection (e.g., buffer) 5. Proceed with land development 6. Monitor impacts 7. Adjust field card, ranking system or buffer assignments accordingly Fig. 1. Process recommended for determining and assigning the appropriate level of protection for mineral licks threatened by land development activity. els of protection for mineral licks is pre- sented. Finally, the adoption of an adaptive management style that allows for a fine- tuning of the management framework in response to monitoring and site assess- ments is advocated. We recommend that research focus on monitoring moose use of licks and measur- ing biophysical attributes at lick sites through- out the range of moose. These data could then be used to develop a standardized set of guidelines to help planners and managers implement needed mitigation measures for licks in areas where development is pro- posed. Until such a framework is devel- oped and our understanding of lick function is more complete, a conservative approach, which protects the integrity and security of lick sites for animals from human activities and development, is presently advisable (Bechtold 1996, Dormaar and Walker 1996). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all of those government personnel who went out of their way to help us establish what the regulatory status for considering mineral MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT – REA ET AL. ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 166 licks in the context of land development is across Canada. We also thank S. Grainger of the J. Prince Research Forest for re- viewing an earlier draft of this manuscript, and the UNBC Field Camp Class of 2004 and J. Black for research assistance. REFERENCES AYENI, J. S. O. 1971. Mineral licks: a literature review. Obeche 7:46-53. BECHTOLD, J. P. 1996. Chemical charac- terization of natural mineral springs in northern British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:649-654. BEST, D. A., G. M. LYNCH, and O. J. RONSTAD. 1977. Annual spring move- ments of moose to mineral licks in Swan Hills. Proceedings of the North Ameri- can Moose Conference and Workshop 13:215-228. CHAMBERLIN, L. C., H. R. TIMMERMANN, B. SNIDER, F. DIEKEN, B. L. LOESCHER, and D. FRASER. 1977. Physical and chemi- cal characteristics of some natural licks used by big game animals in northern Ontario. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 13:200-214. COLESCOTT, J. H., and M. P. GILLINGHAM. 1998. Reaction of moose to snowmobile traffic in the Greys River Valley, Wyo- ming. Alces 34:329-338. COUTURIER, S., and C. BARRETTE. 1988. The behaviour of moose at natural mineral springs in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:522-528. DORMAAR, J. F., and B. D. WALKER. 1996. Elemental content of animal licks along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Moun- tains in southern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76:509- 512. FILUS, I. A. 2002. Moose behavior at salt licks. Alces Supplement 2:49-51. FRASER, D., and H. HRISTIENKO. 1981. Ac- tivity of moose and white-tailed deer at mineral springs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1991-2000. _____, and E. REARDON. 1980. Attraction of wild ungulates to mineral-rich springs in central Canada. Holarctic Ecology 3:36-40. GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA. 1994. Alberta timber harvest planning and operating ground rules. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 2004. Forest and Range Practices Act – Gov- ernment Actions Regulation, Section 9(1)(c). Government of British Colum- bia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC. 2004. Regulation respecting wildlife habitats – An Act respecting the conservation and devel- opment of wildlife, Division 1 (11). Government of Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN. 2003. Saskatchewan activity restriction guide- lines for sensitive species in natural habitats. Government of Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. HEIMER, W. E. 1988. A magnesium-driven hypothesis of Dall Sheep mineral lick use: preliminary results and manage- ment relevance. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 6:269-279. JONES, R. L., and H. C. HANSON. 1985. Mineral Licks, Geophagy, and Biochem- istry of North American Ungulates. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA. KLAUS, G., and B. SCHMID. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks and mammal ecology: a review. Mammalia 62:481-497. KREULEN, D. A. 1985. Lick use by large herbivores: a review of benefits and banes of soil consumption. Mammal Review 15:107-123. ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1988. Timber management guidelines ALCES VOL. 40, 2004 REA ET AL. - MINERAL LICKS AND LAND MANAGEMENT 167 for the provision of moose habitat. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PANICHEV, A. M, O. Y. U. ZAUMYSLOVA, and V. V. ARAMILEV. 2002. The impor- tance of salt licks and other sources of sodium in the ecology of the Ussuri moose. Alces Supplement 2:99-103. REGER, R. D. 1987. Survey of minerals- related information for selected mineral licks, Matanuska Valley Moose Range, Alaska. Public Data File 87-9. Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. RISENHOOVER, K. L., and R. O. PETERSON. 1986. Mineral licks as a sodium source for Isle Royale moose. Oecologia 71:121-126. SILVERBERG, J. K., P. J. PEKINS, and R. A. ROBERTSON. 2002. Impacts of wildlife viewing on moose use of a roadside salt lick. Alces 38:205-211. TANKERSLEY, N. G., and W. C. GASAWAY. 1983. Mineral lick use by moose in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:2242-2249. WEEKS, H. P., and C. M. KIRKPATRICK. 1976. Adaptations of white-tailed deer to naturally occurring sodium deficien- cies. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:610-625. WILES, G. J., and H. P. WEEKS. 1986. Movements and use patterns of white- tailed deer visiting natural licks. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:487-496. YUKON DEPARTMENT OF RENEWABLE RE- SOURCES. 1996. Habitat protection guidelines for moose. Yukon Depart- m e n t o f R e n e w a b l e R e s o u r c e s , Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada.