Comparative Analysis of Ecological and Cultural Protection Schemes within a Transboundary Complex: The Crown of the Continent
A thesis submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Community Planning
In the School of Planning
of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
by
Keysha Fontaine
B.S. University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2013
Committee Chair: Craig M. Vogel, MID
Committee Advisor: Danilo Palazzo, Ph.D, M.Arch
ABSTRACT
Protected areas are critical elements in restoring historical wildlife migration routes, as well as, maintaining historical cultural practices and traditions. The designations created for protected areas represent a cultural and/or natural aspect of the land. However, designations for the protection of these resources fail to include measures to take into account the ecological processes needed to sustain them. Ecological processes are vital elements in sustaining cultural resources, because most cultural resources are the derivatives of the interactions with natural resources. In order to sustain natural resources, especially wildlife, the processes of fluctuating habitat change and migration are pivotal in maintaining genetic diversity to maintain healthy populations with the fittest surviving. The survival of the fittest species allow populations to have greater adaptability in the face of climate change. Currently in the Crown of the Continent
(COC), several non-profit organizations are collaborating under an umbrella initiative, the
Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, to restore historical migration routes. The collaborators of this initiative performed ecological planning of the entire Yellowstone to Yukon region to identify impediments that may hinder wildlife movements. They also furthered their efforts by participating in public forums held by land management entities and local communities that may permit activities that can restrain movements. Because of the multitude of jurisdictions within the
COC, land management practices drastically vary, reflecting polarized views between state/provincial and federal levels.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| i
This thesis attempts to understand the integration of ecological and cultural resources by addressing the following questions:
1. What are the ecological and cultural resources within the COC?
2. How are these resources protected in the COC?
3. How are the protection designations managed and financed?
4. How is transboundary coordination addressed?
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| ii
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY KEYSHA FONTAINE © 2016
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES ...... v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Problem Statement ...... 6 Research Questions ...... 8 Objectives ...... 9 Methodology ...... 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY ...... 35 CHAPTER 4: DATA ...... 44 Designation within the Crown of the Continent...... 44 Designations within Canada ...... 44 Canadian Federal Government ...... 46 Province of Alberta ...... 49 Province of British Columbia ...... 55 Designations within US ...... 61 Federal Government of United States ...... 61 State of Montana ...... 71 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS ...... 79 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 88 GLOSSARY ...... 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 93 APPENDIX 1 ...... 98 APPENDIX 2 ...... 99 APPENDIX 3 ...... 102
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| iv
LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Case study Approach ...... 11 Figure 1.2 Formulation of Institutional Arrangements ...... 16 Figure 4.6 The Number of Designations Within in Each Jurisdiction in the COC ...... 76 Figure 4.2 Matrix of Designation Comparison in Protecting of Cultural and Ecological Resources ...... 77
MAPS
MAP 1.1: Location of the Crown of the Continent within the Y2Y Region ...... 4 MAP 1.2: The Region Yellowstone to Yukon Encompasses ...... 5 MAP 3.1: Political Boundaries delineated within COC ...... 42 MAP 3.2: Protected Areas within the Crown of the Continent ...... 43 MAP 4.1 British Columbia and Alberta Canada Designations ...... 60 MAP 4.2 US Forest Reserve Designations ...... 68 MAP 4.3 US Wilderness Designations ...... 69 MAP 4.4 US National Wildlife Refuge Designations ...... 70
TABLES
Table 1.1: Goal and Objectives of this thesis ...... 9 Table 1.2: Targets and activities to meet the desired goals and objectives ...... 9 Table 1.2 Layout of information on institutional arrangements and funding of designations...... 15 Table 4.1 Canadian Federal Government Designations and Institutional Arrangements Operating in COC ...... 45 Table 4.2 Alberta Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent ...... 49 Table 4.3 British Columbia Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in COC ...... 55 Table 4.4. United States’ Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent ...... 61 Table 4.5 State of Montana Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent ...... 71 Table 5.1 Similarities in Management ...... 90 Table 5.2 Wildlife Officers ...... 91
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Yellowstone to Yukon Transboundary Approach
Yellowstone to Yukon region, see Map 1.2 (p. 8), is a focus area for ecological planning inclusive of transboundary efforts. This region is identified by the Yellowstone to Yukon
Initiative (Y2Y) as a critical element in restoring historical migration routes of the bison herds and grizzly bear populations. These wildlife populations have been isolated to protected areas due to mismatch in wildlife management between different jurisdictions and land use activities bordering protected area boundaries. Wildlife are further restrained to certain parts of the protected areas due to human activity such as energy development causing noise disturbance affecting wildlife movements. To restore their historical migrations the Yellowstone to Yukon
Initiative created a plan specifying the wildlife habitat demands particularly along the continental divide of North America. Collaborators identified impediments that restrain wildlife movements and devised a plan of approach in addressing the issue.
This region is composed of several ecoregions spanning from the Yukon Territories in northern Canada to the northwestern corner of Wyoming, United States (US). These regions encompass the Eagle Plains in Canada, along the Mackenzie Mountains; and following south along the Laird River watershed, expanding further south along the Skeena Mountains into
Canadian Rockies Mountains. This area expands even further south into two transboundary complexes known as the Cabinet Purcell Mountains, bordering British Columbia (BC) and down into Idaho, US, as well as, the Crown of the Continent, bordering BC, Alberta, and Montana. In addition, the region includes the US’s Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, located in northwestern
Wyoming, Idaho, and southwestern Montana.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 1
The region retains some of the last predators that represent North American wildlife.
These predators are the wolves, grizzly bears, Canada lynx, Mountain lions, Bobcats, and wolverines. The last of the ungulates, such as the bison, elk, moose, Bighorn sheep, Mountain goats and pronghorn, are present throughout the region, but many no longer constitute a free-
roaming species. Most such as bison and elk are completely restricted within protected areas, due
to the fencing structures. Arguments hold that this is needed to prevent the spread of disease such
as brucellosis to neighboring grazing allotments or livestock ranches bordering the boundaries.
Moreover, predators are limited to park boundaries due to state/provincial intensive eradication
programs. In response to the scale of these issues, the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, created
by local research institutions (the University of Bozeman, Montana and the University of
Calgary, Alberta), provides support and funding for local non-profit organizations to participate
in advocating for land management conversion to protect and facilitate wildlife movements.
Subnational and national approaches to conservation efforts and land management
practices drastically vary, reflecting the polarized views between State and Federal management.
Land management decisions are often weighed on bureaucratic interests, impingement of private
property rights, the availability of economically beneficial natural resource, and funding. In the
past, governance institutions largely dictated how land management institutions managed
resources, but now management has shifted towards co-management approaches. Co-
management serves to support an array of diverse groups of people with interest in resources
within the protected areas. Areas that are dissected by international borders tend to be
unregulated because of no clear distinction of the boundaries that exist. For this study, the focus
of this thesis will be on the Crown of the Continent, illustrated in Map 1.2 (p.4), to illustrate the
contrast between jurisdictions in ecological and cultural protection schemes amongst
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 2
state/provincial and federal. This accounts for 13 designations each with its own unique
protection scheme. These protection schemes are designed to designate land that holds some
aspect of cultural and ecological resources. These designations include the following: Heritage
Rangelands, Natural Areas, Wildlands, Wilderness, Provincial-State Parks, Wildlife
Management Areas, State Trust Lands, National Parks, Forest Reserves, and National Wildlife
Refuge, see Figure 4.1 (p.53). There are five provincial designations (two in Alberta, and three in
British Columbia). In Montana State, there are Wildlife Management Areas, State Trust Lands, and Natural Area designation. At the federal level, there are two National Parks: US-National
Park and Canadian National Park, five US National Wildlife Refuges, six US Wilderness designations and five US Forest Reserves. Only two of these designations are designed to protect ecological resources, but as a whole unit, the transboundary complex with all the designation is able to fit together to protect ecological resources. The remaining designations within this study were designed to protect natural resources, as well as the cultural resources associated with them.
This is illustrated in Figure 4.2 (p.88). Although US and Canadian protection schemes are similar in language structure and managing institutions, vast differences exist, and these will be discussed further.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 3
MAP 1.1: Location of the Crown of the Continent within the Y2Y Region
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 4
MAP 1.2: The Region Yellowstone to Yukon Encompasses
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 5
Problem Statement
Protected areas are critical elements in restoring historical wildlife migration routes, as
well as, maintaining historical cultural practices and traditions. The designations created for
protected areas represent a cultural and/or natural aspect of the land. However, designations for
the protection of these resources fail to include measures to take into account the ecological
processes. Ecological processes are vital elements in sustaining cultural resources, because most cultural resources are the derivatives of the interactions with natural resources. In order to sustain
natural resources, especially wildlife, the processes of fluctuating habitat change and migration
are pivotal in maintaining genetic diversity to maintain healthy populations with the fittest
surviving. The survival of the fittest species allow populations to have greater adaptability in the
face of climate change. Currently in the Crown of the Continent (COC), several non-profit organizations are collaborating under an umbrella initiative, the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, to restore historical migration routes. The collaborators of this initiative performed ecological planning of the entire Yellowstone to Yukon region to identify impediments that may hinder wildlife movements. They also further their efforts by participating in public forums held by land management entities and local communities that may permit activities that can restrain movements. Because of the multitude of jurisdictions within the COC, land management practices drastically vary, reflecting polarized views between state/provincial and federal levels.
While property in the United States (US) is managed solely by the land owners with little oversight from county or state planning departments, this alone forces mismatch in land use activities. The US embedded private property rights into the constitution, giving land use a strong hold at the landowner discretion. Unless the activities is declared as a nuisance by county/ state/ federal officials or judicial ruling, the US landowners have a right to tear down entire COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 6
forest to create an agriculture field. Canada and the provinces have a strong planning ethic. Land
use activities are planned regional. Professor Eran Kaplinsky states, “A regional plan may restrict a landowner’s right to use or develop land” (p.6). Private property rights are not embedded in the Constitution of Canada. Private property rights have been adopted into provincial policies. Therefore, this gives the government oversight in land use activities and provides opportunity to plan for wildlife corridors than the US.
This study will discuss the details in institutional design of the protected areas and will take into account the language of the protection schemes in protecting ecological and cultural resources, as well as, any transboundary efforts. The transboundary complex encompasses two federal jurisdictions, the US and Canada, as well as, three subnations, the State of Montana and
British Columbia and Alberta Province, Canada. Understanding the language of various protection schemes within a transboundary complex will provide insight into whether designations are complementary entities in facilitating wildlife movements. The analysis will also demonstrate where protection schemes may favor cultural over natural without taking into consideration that protecting ecological resources will sustain both. Favoring cultural over natural will cause a mismatch in transboundary design. In addition, the analysis will highlight any existing transboundary coordination efforts as a means of building cohesive resource management. To do this, a single case study of a transboundary complex, the Crown of the
Continent, is evaluated based on the language of protection scheme, management, and finances.
These arrangements essentially designed, established, and maintained specific designations to protect various resources. The analysis will be set up for each country within the COC separately.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 7
Research Questions
This thesis attempts to understand the integration of ecological and cultural resources by addressing the following questions:
1. What are the ecological and cultural resources within the COC?
2. How are these resources protected in the COC?
3. How are the protection designations managed and financed?
4. How is transboundary coordination addressed?
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 8
Objectives
The following Tables illustrate the overall goal and objectives as well as the targets and activities to achieve this.
Table 1.1: Goal and Objectives of this thesis
Goal 1 Describe and Evaluate the Model of the Transboundary Complex within the COC
Objective 1 To understand how cultural and ecological resources are integrated in protection schemes in the COC
Objective 2 To understand how a transboundary scheme worked or did not work
Table 1.2: Targets and activities to meet the desired goals and objectives
1: Determine designations and Target 2: Transboundary Mechanism institutions within the Crown of the Continent 1: Identify existing designations 1: Identify any existing coordination a) Produce a diagram
2: Identify ecological and cultural Activities aspects within protection schemes
3: Analyze financial opportunities
4: Analyze management
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 9
Methodology
A case study is an empirical inquiry that addresses research questions on present events
without the ability to control behavior. According to Yin (2009) the purpose of this inquiry is to
a) investigate a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when
b) the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (p.18).
A case study is important for examining examples of real-life components within the present conditions. The case for this analysis will focus on the Crown of the Continent as a successful model of a transboundary complex. This analysis will use a single case study in presenting the
Transboundary Model and will use a multi-case approach in distinguishing how cultural and ecological resources are integrated within the protection schemes for designations, see Figure
1.1. The comparison of the multi-cases will be between Canada and the United States (US).
Multiple cases studies are needed to make the analysis more compelling and robust (Yin, 2003, p. 4). A case study can contain qualitative and quantitative data; this study will focus on the qualitative as a means of a social inquiry for present designations within the Crown of the
Continent.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 10
Figure 1.1 Case study Approach
A case study applies to two situations: 1) when the questions posed are descriptive, as in asking “what”, or 2) explanatory, as in asking “why” or “how” (Yin, 2004, pg. 3). This research is both descriptive and explanatory. Descriptive sections are the embedded units because I pose questions such as, what are the ecological and cultural resources documented within the protection schemes for each designation within the Crown of the Continent (COC). This assessment will be done by researching the legislative structure that created the designation, as well as, from my personal experience living on the Blackfeet reservation. These answers will further support the explanatory questions as to Why the COC is a successful transboundary model. Another question that will support the model is, How does transboundary coordination take place?
The results of this master thesis are based on the following methods that were used for data collection:
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 11
The most important data sources are public documents of federal, state, and provincial legislation, as well as amendments, judicial opinions, and executive orders. Access to these public documents through agency websites was accomplished by internet and journal research.
This method was selected because the language within these statutes indicate the primary reason for creating the designation and in doing so, creates the primary directives in management of protected areas. At the time of inception, these statutes represented a particular group’s values, beliefs, and traditions. Other public documents such as amendments, judicial opinions, and policies that defined the language further are representations of other group of peoples’ values, traditions, and practices interested in resources within the protected areas. This study does not take into account the values and beliefs of people. I will not analyze the values associated to these resources, assuming the values have been integrated into the protection scheme by sheer establishment of the designation for the purpose of protecting cultural and ecological resources and later defined by judicial opinions and amendments. This study merely presents which cultural practices and traditions are represented in each protection scheme and how they interact within a transboundary complex.
As a number of designations are being used throughout the world to protect vast areas of land it is difficult to design them to fit the management goals and objectives of neighboring protected area complexes to build cohesive resource management. Every designation’s protection scheme accounts for traditions, values, and opinions through informal arrangements that created the legal binding designations through formal arrangements. Figure 1.2 (pg. 20) illustrates this connectivity through formal and informal arrangements in creating protected areas. This connectivity through arrangements established within the language of the protection scheme, an embedded human interaction in the language. This sets a criterion in the directives of
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 12
management by the allocated institution. This criterion sets a precedent in management objectives until further amendments, judicial opinions, and other statutes state otherwise. The allowable human interactions provides funding opportunities to support the management and sustainment of the designation.
This study is an inquiry into the protection schemes of the designations in protecting ecological and cultural resources within an international transboundary complex, the Crown of the Continent (COC). The transboundary complex encompasses two federal jurisdictions, the
United States (US) and Canada, as well as two subnations, the State of Montana and the Alberta
Province. Understanding the different jurisdictions’ protection schemes will provide insight to where the protection schemes’ fit together to build complementary entities in protecting larger designations. The analysis will also demonstrate that disjunction in management objectives cause a mismatch in transboundary design. In addition, the analysis will highlight any existing transboundary coordination efforts as a means of building cohesive resource management. A single case study of a transboundary complex using embedded units to compare the language of the protection schemes in protecting natural or cultural resources. This illustrates how protection of resources with neighboring designations vary between states, provinces, and nations. To do this, I am evaluating the arrangements i.e. governance, management, and enforcement authorities to determine the conservation goal of the designation, as well as, the finance that maintains the implementation of the goal. The analysis is designed to analyze each designation within each country within the COC separately.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 13
The study is split into four sections; see Table 1.2 (p.15): designations, management, and finance. In addition, Transboundary efforts will be discussed throughout the paper.
♦ Designations: This section will provide the protection schemes of the designation
stipulating the human embeddedness, as well as the ecological resources the designation
is directed to protect. This will provide information in the directives of management
objectives.
♦ Management: This section will provide the levels of power as well as their directives in
management of the designations.
♦ Finance: This section will provide insight to funding opportunities for the management
directives of the protection scheme. This in turn will provide information about how
designations maintain and sustain operations.
♦ Transboundary efforts: This will be included throughout the paper to illustrate many
types of coordination efforts through various networks.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 14
Table 1.2 Layout of information on institutional arrangements and funding of designations.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 15
Figure 1.2 Formulation of Institutional Arrangements
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Ecological resources
Ecological resources are the natural resources, i.e. water, forest, wildlife, and minerals, as
well as the ecological processes that are needed to sustain the natural resources to maintain a
fully functional ecosystem. The ecological processes are the natural disturbances, hydrology,
nutrient cycling, biotic interactions, population dynamics, and evolutionary processes (United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA )1999). A natural disturbance can be a forest fire causing a forest to undergo transitional successional stage that allow cycles of different species of vegetation and wildlife to thrive within the ecological community. Hydrology patterns seasonal rains needed to sustain all living things. Population dynamics such as predator-prey relationships induce survival mechanisms of species. Animal migrations are the catalyst in the
evolutionary process for genetic exchange. For example, climate change is causing many season
to be longer, warmer, and intense. Buffalo in Canada endure harsh winter events, but now in the
twenty first century, there weather patterns are getting warmer as well. If these two buffalo
populations were allowed to undergo their historical migrations, they would be able to reconnect
and allowing genetic transfer. This gene transfer provides new born buffalo the ability to adapt to
changing climates. These processes are very important because they “determine the species
composition, habitat structure, and ecological health of every site and landscape” (USEPA).
However, in the past, these processes were not heavily regarded in associating cultural
sustainment nor in protection schemes.
Within the twenty-first century, protected areas are facing challenges from external
threats. These external threats are forcing agencies and governments to look beyond their
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 17
boundaries at the entire ecosystem the protected area is located within. Ecosystem management is being adopted by Canada and United States (US). In the US, protected areas have now endorsed an ecosystem approach in managing protected areas inclusive of both cultural and ecological resources in ecosystem management. A wildlife biologist, Edward Grumbine states,
“humans are fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes and are in turn affected
by them.” Ecosystem management entails managing based on ecological boundaries that cross
multi-jurisdictions. Management of ecosystems requires interagency cooperation and working
through legal mandates. The protected areas within the US ecosystem management guidelines
are as follows:
Ecosystem Management
Edward Grumbine (1997) identified ten common themes that land managers have found to be
significant:
1. Hierarchical Context. Focuses on systems thinking, that expands throughout many levels of biodiversity from genes, species, populations, ecosystems, and landscapes. He emphasizes that a manager must identify the connections between all these levels in order to manage for biodiversity. 2. Ecological Boundaries. Must identify appropriate scales to which managers can maintain habitat requirements for large mammal movements. 3. Ecological Integrity. The maintaining of viable populations on native species, natural disturbance regimes, restoration of native habitat representation of ecosystems across natural ranges. 4. Data Collection. The ability to collect data and share data nationally and internationally. 5. Monitoring. National accepted monitoring protocols. 6. Adaptive Management. 7. Interagency Cooperation. 8. Organizational Change. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 18
9. Humans embedded in Nature. Recognize that humans interact with the land differently. 10. Values. In Canada, ecosystem management guidelines are as follows:
1. Ecological integrity should be assessed with an understanding of the regional evolutionary and historic context that has shaped the system. For example, past occupation of the land by Aboriginal People should be taken into account when managing for ecological integrity of a national park;
2. Because ecosystems are constantly changing, conservation strategies should maintain or restore key ecological processes that reflect their natural condition. For example, prescribed burning is used as a way to reintroduce fire in national parks;
3. National parks are part of larger ecosystems and must be managed in that context; Parks Canada recognizes the need to integrate parks into their surrounding landscape so that parks do not function as isolated islands;
4. Populations of species should be managed to levels that have a high likelihood of maintaining themselves;
5. Ecosystems have characteristic rates of change. Understanding rates and direction are critical to understanding the system. For example, Parks Canada is studying the impacts of climate change on national parks to anticipate the effects that it may have on their ecological integrity;
6. Parks have a limited capacity to withstand use. Visitors are welcome to visit them and human use and facilities should be compatible with park ecosystem protection in type, amount and timing;
7. Ecological integrity must be assessed and understood at a landscape scale. While ecological integrity cannot be assessed at the scale of a single forest stand, campground, or parking lot, it can be impacted at any scale;
8. The goal of conserving ecological integrity is best addressed by maintaining or restoring the diversity of genes, species and communities’ native to the region. It is simply consistent with the vision of integrity, which is "wholeness" - if parts are missing, the ecosystem is not whole. (Parks Canada).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 19
Cultural Resources
Cultural resource is the connection that a human has to nature. The relationship can be derived by knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, including behavioral traits that are expressed through emotional and mental attachments. Similar behaviors are often reflected within groups and communities as well as states-provinces and nationalities. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural (UNESCO) organization defines culture as a “set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group” that encompass a range of “art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.”
(UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2002). These behaviors often influence political and social settings. Maintaining a culture has become a right and often is represented as such in political settings. This can be seen in designations that justify the protections for a piece of land for “public use and enjoyment.” The right has become embedded in the language of protection schemes regardless of their potential to negatively impact resources.
Culture influences people’s perception on ecological resources. Culture a learned behavior from friends, family, communities, and nationalities shape individuals’ knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Interactions with nature can form a “pattern of behaviors associated with a way of life” (NPS-28). These patterns form a cultural practice or a system that, in turn, forms a culture. Practices widely recognized are ranching and farming practices, hunting and fishing, mineral extractions, as well as non-consumptive practices such as spiritual interface, recreational uses such as kayaking, hiking, and wildlife observation and photography. In North America, the
European settlers settling the unbridled west driving cattle out to the unclaimed lands to stake as their own. Practices such as breaking horses and driving cattle became the “cowboy way of life.”
This way of life has been adopted by many North America Indiana tribes. The majority of the
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 20
landscape of the Blackfeet reservation is a cattle range. The Tribe in Browning, Montana host annually rodeo events with activities such as bull riding and mutton-busting.
However, although interactions with nature create a culture, it does not necessarily mean that individuals will develop a conservation ethic. An example of this interaction without developing a conservation ethic are mining communities. Coal extraction, a highly sought after mineral used in the creation of energy, entails stripping entire mountain tops or removing vast areas of wetlands. This interaction with nature has a long standing in Canada and United States
(US). The activity of coal mining has been adopted by families and communities as part of their culture. The culture of coal mining has been passed on from generation to generation. For many families and communities, mineral extraction is all they know or care to know about. For some small town rural communities, coal extraction is the only major economic activity. Many coal miners cannot imagine doing anything different, therefore, embedding this practice as their right to continue.
Rights are created within similar cultures because they have to recognize by society to be enforced. Arild Vatn 2005 states that a right “is an institution offering individuals or collectives an assurance that other people will behave in a specific way towards them” (p.254). Although this has partial validity, the right will either constrain or enhance the individuals’ behavior.
However, a right does not necessarily define how an individual will react towards another individual. That is why similar cultures tend to group together to formulate their right. It does not always force collective action to support that right. This is the leading cause of conflicts with resource management because what one person may value as his right may not be recognized by another. When collective action amongst cultures build capacity to influence resource decision to enforce their right is when change occurs. Hence, is the catalyst for associations i.e. Livestock COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 21
Association to support farmers and ranchers, Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative to support
cohesive management of large mammals, Snowmobile Associations for snowmobile tour guides,
and Mining Associations, etc.
The development of property rights is formed in the same manner and undergo the same
issues in resource rights. John Locke claimed that “private property is inherently a social
institution: it arises, not when an individual in isolation asserts a claim of ownership, but only
when other people agree to respect that claim” (Freyfogle 2004, 246). Land ownership both
adopted in US and Canada through varies institutional arrangements have also influenced
agrarian practices through settlement patterns. Canadian settlement patterns tends to be
concentrated. This is because European settlers’ devised a survey system that divided the land to
be farmed into narrow strips where the width was very narrow. As opposed to Americans that
divided private property into 40 acre square blocks. The block system, that is still maintained
today, consumes more acreage because the width is larger.
Most countries that adopted the legal system have also adopted the property laws laid out by common law. The common law systems is a socio-political process that defines and defends an individual’s right through legislation, policies, and regulations. It provides an external formal arrangement that supports the legality of ownership of land. Informal arrangement can also support property rights through traditions and customs though collective groups of people. An example of these informal arrangements on property rights can be most clearly seen in territorial demarcation of indigenous tribes. One tribe will defend their territory, primarily for control over access to resources.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 22
Institutional arrangements supporting property rights create property regimes. These institutions are usually setup by formal arrangements. Property regimes define the access to the land and the method to utilize its encompassing resources. Property regimes can be setup and maintained through informal and formal arrangements. The literature differentiates between four property regimes:
1. Private property; 2. Common property; 3. State (public) property; 4. Open access
Although “private property is normally thought as an individual common property is likewise private property for a group of co-owners” (Bromley, 1991; Vatn 2005, 256). State property is property owned by Federal, state-province, and local levels of government for the public. Protected areas are considered common property. Resource regimes, either through formal or informal arrangements whether it is a village council or state parliament, are “limited to their geographical jurisdiction” (Vatn 2005, 257). “The issues surrounding governance and scale are particularly acute at the site of international borders, where national and state-provincial laws and policies terminate. Oftentimes, this permits unsustainable resource use one side of the border that adversely affects resource use in neighboring states” (Griffin 1999, 2).
Issues arise with management of protected areas because there is a mismatch between human action and ecological systems. The definition of landscape alone is problematic in defining the spatial and temporal scale when trying to designate areas to be protected. A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 23
“problem of fit involving human institutions that do not map coherently on to the biogeophysical
scale of resource either in space or time” (Gibson et al 2000; Young 2003).
Landscape
Landscape is an ambiguous term used to define the scale at which people view the land.
It is often referenced as scenic view, but the word is growing to expand vast areas that represent
ecoregions or areas where the presence of man exists. Landscape used for referencing ecoregions
is being used by United States (US) agencies and organizations for large landscape conservation
efforts such as Y2Y. Planning at a large landscape scale is also known as bioregional planning.
For the US, the Fish and Wildlife (FWS) under the direction of Department of Interior conduct
large landscape scale planning. For Canada, the Environment Canada. The FWS define landscape-scale conservation as an area “over large geographic scales…to account for natural ecological boundaries” (Draft Technical Guidance 2014, 45). The use of this definition of landscape is associated to their Landscape Scale Cooperatives (LCCs) program to demonstrate that “landscapes are connected mosaics of lands and waters with similar characters that form the geographic basis for biological planning and conservation design” that “encompass ecological processes” needed to maintain that region such as a watershed. The Yellowstone to Yukon
Initiative (Y2Y), representing both Canada and US non-government organizations, adopted this term as well for landscape scale conservation planning efforts. However, because Y2Y is not constrained by political forces, they are able to expand their conservation planning efforts beyond the borders of states-provinces and nationalities. Their efforts are made by networking with similar organizations and establishing partnership.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 24
The word landscape is also used with the National Park Service (NPS) and Parks Canada
(PC). They use the term to describe areas “where man and nature interact” (Man and Biosphere).
The NPS and PC, resource institutions, have adopted the word landscape into their designations
to protect the presence of humans and the connection that humans have to the land. These
designations are as follows cultural landscape, ethnographic landscapes, and historic landscapes.
The NPS describes a cultural landscape as
“a geographic area including both natural and cultural resources, associated with a historic event, activity, or person” (NPS 28). NPS recognize four different types of landscapes.
These are as follows:
1. Historic designed landscapes are deliberate artistic creations reflecting recognized styles, such as the twelve-acre Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C., with its French and Italian Renaissance garden features. Designed landscapes also include those associated with important persons, trends, or events in the history of landscape architecture, such as Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site and the Blue Ridge Parkway.
2. Historic vernacular landscapes illustrate peoples' values and attitudes toward the land and reflect patterns of settlement, use, and development over time. Vernacular landscapes are found in large rural areas and small suburban and urban districts. Agricultural areas, fishing villages, mining districts, and homesteads are examples. The 17,400-acre rural landscape of Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve represents a continuum of land use spanning more than a century. It has been continually reshaped by its inhabitants, yet the historic mix of farm, forest, village, and shoreline remains.
3. Historic sites are significant for their associations with important events, activities, and persons. Battlefields and presidential homes are prominent examples. At these areas, existing features and conditions are defined and interpreted primarily in terms of what happened there at particular times in the past.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 25
4. Ethnographic landscapes are associated with contemporary groups and typically are used or valued in traditional ways. In the expansive Alaska parks, Native Alaskans hunt, fish, trap, and gather and imbue features with spiritual meanings. Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve illustrates the strong interrelationship between the dynamic natural system of the Delta region and several cultural groups through many generations. Numerous cultural centers maintain ties to distinctive, long established groups with ethnic identities
PC defines a cultural landscape as “a geographical area that has been modified, influenced, or given special cultural meaning” (Parks Canada, 1994a: 119).
Parks Canada identifies three types of landscapes:
1. Landscapes designed and intentionally created. A Canadian example is Mount Royal Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, in Montréal. 2. Organically evolved landscapes, sometimes known as vernacular landscapes. These can be either relict, in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, or continuing. An example of a continuing evolved landscape is the fishing settlement of Grates Cove, Newfoundland, with its harbour, village, and walled landscape. 3. Associative cultural landscapes. This category includes places characterized by "powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent." An example from the World Heritage List is Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Australia.
Cultural landscapes are natural settings that have been or were utilized by humans for some purpose. They reveal fundamental ties between people and the land. These connections are based human migrations, settlement patterns, practices and traditions associated to the land.
These evolving landscapes reveal history patterns of humans and are very important when designing landscape conservation efforts. They range from formal gardens to cattle ranches, from cemeteries and pilgrimage routes to village squares. Traditions and practices derived from these
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 26
interactions are a cultural resource. Cultural resource is generally thought of as any tangible
entity that is valued by human relations but can also be considered any cultural practice that has
evolved through a cultural system. A “cultural system [is] a group’s interrelated set of learned
behavioral , knowledge, and belief patterns in addition to social, economic, spiritual, and
political arrangements for adapting to a particular natural and social settings” (NPS-28,
Appendix A, Egan 2003, 260). Cultural systems that have adapted to ecological resources within a particular landscape are considered ethnographic landscape. Where “resources acquire meaning according to the different cultural constructs of a particular group, they become “associated with contemporary groups and typically are used or valued in traditional ways. In the expansive
Alaska parks, Native Alaskans hunt, fish, trap, and gather and imbue features with spiritual meanings” (NPS-28). In addition, migratory trails of human settlements have been recognized as an ethnographic landscape.
Protected Areas
Protected areas are defined by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as
“an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other
effective means.” Protection, maintenance, and legal means are important terms in this
definition. A prospective area will, usually by a legal framework (acts, legislation, mandates), be
granted a designation. The designation implies that a “clear criteria” for management purposes.
In the US and Canada, a designation of Wilderness implies a criteria of intact forest with little or
no human modification. Paul Selman (2009) posits that the criterion for each designation “is
likely to reflect national significance, intrinsic quality, integrity, evocative qualities, condition, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 27
extent, and the defensibility of boundaries” (Selman 2009, S143). This means that every area that
receives a designation is created by collective behaviors and actions of citizens. The initiation of
the designation sets off an array of arrangements that are put in place to ensure current and future
protections and utilization of the resources within and surrounding the protected area. The
arrangements are a form of governance, management, and enforcement authorities.
Protected areas (PA) are vital components in transboundary initiatives because of their
designation status with a conservation goal. Zbicz (1997) identified 169 cases of transboundary
complexes that contained 406 individual PAs in 98 countries, totaling 112 international
boundaries. Within ten years’ transboundary initiatives have risen to 196. Although
transboundary protected area initiatives have doubled within the last century, the growing need
of community based resource management, instead of agencies managing protected areas, is likely to increase twofold because of the clash of cultural demands and globalization of goods.
Transboundary
Transboundary is a newly emerging concept to tackle management of resources that have
been truncated by political boundaries. However, defining transboundary has become
problematic. Trans – meaning on or to the other side: across or beyond (Merriam-Webster).
Boundary – meaning something (such as a river, a fence, or an imaginary line) that shows where
an area ends and another area begins (Merriam-Webster). Based off these two definitions one
can assume that transboundary is an area of land. However, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources states that transboundary is defined within the
“context of international cooperation” (IUCN). Cooperation being the operative word and is seen
throughout the literature to represent an aspect of the term transboundary. However,
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 28
transboundary cannot exist without a “geographical entity representing the area to be managed”
(Griffin 2009, 2). Cooperation is generally between two or more protected areas that have, through legal mechanisms, been assigned a conservation designation. These protected areas are often referred to as Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPA), or Transboundary Conservation
Areas and also, Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs). In the literature, the terms boundary
and frontier are synonymous, but John Griffin (2009) suggests that the “difference is that frontier
can also mean the outer limits of knowledge or achievement” (Griffin 2009, 2). This definition
suggests “a broader cooperation beyond the boundaries of the formal protected areas” largely
due to the associated large mammal migratory movements (International Conference 1997, 8).
This can be seen in the case of Gemsbok National Park in Botswana and the Kalahari Gemsbok
National Park in South Africa, later formalized Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, where
management staff of the parks collaborated to conduct census data on the migratory movements
of elephants beyond park boundaries (Griffin 2009, 71).
But, defining cross communication is dependent on current perceptions of protected
areas. The International Union for Conservation of Nature summaries, for clarification, four
types of transboundary practices:
1. Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPAs) “An area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more borders between states, sub-national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limit of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed co-operatively through legal or other effective means” (Sandwith et all. 2001, 9); A few examples Kgaladi Transfrontier Park in Botswana and South Africa
2. Parks for Peace
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 29
“Transboundary protected areas that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and to the promotion of peace and co-operation” (Sandwith et all 2001, 9) For example, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in USA and Canada
3. Transboundary Conservation and Development Areas “Areas of land and/or sea that straddle one or more borders between states, sub- national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limit of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts form a matrix that contributes to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, as well as the promotion of social and economic development, and which are managed co- operatively through legal or other effective means” (Sandwith et all 2006, 9);
Examples: Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area in Lesotho and South Africa Pfõlzerwald – Vosges du Nord in France and Germany
4. Transboundary Migratory Corridors “Areas of land and/or sea in two or more countries, which are not necessarily contiguous, but are required to sustain a biological migratory pathway, and where co-operative management has been secured through legal or other effective means” (Sandwith et all 2006, 9).
Examples: European Green Belt and Meso-American Biological Corridor
Regional management of resources and sustainable use of shared resources pose a major challenge to existing transboundary areas. Initiatives to address these issues have catalyzed transboundary landscape approaches. One example of these initiatives is the
Southern African Development Community, a treaty between signatory states (South Africa,
Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana, Angola, Swaziland) that provides protocols on shared resources. Although this treaty has no legal authority, it provides a basis for any organization or group to initiate TBNRM by making reference to the provisions of the treaties. The
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 30
policies provide support in establishing and managing transboundary initiatives, but do not address implementation.
Transboundary Legal Mechanisms for establishment and management
Although there are no legal definitions for transboundary practices, all transboundary resource management “will be subjected to relevant legislation of the country concerned” (Shrine 2009, 38). There are several international legal regimes that provide a legal framework for cooperation and management of transboundary resources. The international frameworks such as the IUCN’s Man and Biosphere, aka Biosphere reserve, and the World Heritage designation, provide recommendations on zonation for specific human use. These frameworks are a set of soft laws that designs the protected areas with catagorical zones. These zones are based on goals of preservation as the centroid and preservation of cultural practices within transitional zones. There is no form of funding for the adoption of the schemes, nor is there enforcement offered. However, adoption of these frameworks provides international support for continued protection of areas of high biodiversity value.
Moreover, adoption takes place by incorporating guidelines set out by the scheme and implementing them to the best of the managing institutions into the current policy framework for the existing protected area. These protected areas have been compiled by IUCN to represent the various protections schemes seen throughout the world.
The vital components necessary for transboundary natural resource management are
“authority, right, and powers to enter into transboundary agreements and implement actions”
(Griffin 1990, 43). These components throughout the world is least complicated with neighboring states that have abutting designations with conservation goals (Griffin 1990).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 31
Kgalagai TFCA involving Botswana and South Africa where Botswana wardens granted
some South African counterparts (game warden and staff) honorary rangers in Botswana.
This action facilitated easier access into Botswana Park and joint activities on anti-poaching
and game census data collection. These efforts were the catalysts for the transboundary
initiative with the Kgaladi Transfrontier Park. The transfer of authority over management of
the protected areas provided active anti-poaching efforts. Although the agreements generally
stipulate that authority remains within the state, the mutual efforts also provided a
harmonization to facilitate tourist movements between the two countries. This can be seen
with Waterton-Glacier National Peace Park and Kgaladi Transfrontier Park.
1. Bi-lateral Agreement and/or Record of Understanding 2. Management Committee 3. Joint management Plan 4. Establish foundation (non-legally binding but generally oversees funding distribution) (Griffin, 1999)
John Griffin (1999) suggests that factors that may encourage or impede establishment of transboundary arrangements:
Encourage Success 1. Political support and political will 2. Sustained funding 3. Involvement of international agencies
Failure 1. Lack of political will and sustained funding 2. Unequal management capacity among neighbors 3. Different resource management regimes 4. Attitudes and perceptions of local communities are not supportive of conservation efforts.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 32
Transboundary Management
Narrowing down terminology is pertinent to understanding institutional arrangement of protected areas and the scale of approach. Both Transboundary Protected Area Management
(TBPAM) and Transboundary Natural Resource Management (TBNRM) are two widely accepted terms in analyzing management of transboundary resources. Although Transboundary
Protected Area Management is defined as “joint governance of adjunct protected areas across boundaries between sovereign countries” (Petursson et al 2013). In 1997, Dorothy Zbicz and
Green (1997) identified over 136 cases of transboundary complexes that contained 406 individual Protected Areas in 98 countries, totaling 112 international boundaries1. As of 2003,
Zbic discovered 166 cases of transboundary complexes. Transboundary Natural Resource
Management defined by John Griffin as “any process of cooperation across boundaries that facilitates or improves that management of natural resources to the benefit of all parties in the area concerned” (Griffin et al 1999). This definition may or may not include protected areas but constitutes all resources both wildlife and natural resources in a given area. Therefore, TBPAM will be used with areas that have some form of cooperation in management between protected areas that are formulized with designations and TBNRM will be referred to management of migrating resources within a region.
TBPAM/TBNRM poses major challenges to institutional design and implementation.
Instead of focusing on “local level institutions in management, it focuses on institutions at regional and international levels to advance protected areas governance” (Petursson et al 2013).
This need comes at a time when Elinor Ostrum research emphasizes the need of greater authority over natural resources be devolved to local level communities. This owes to the new approach of resource management that encourages greater participation from local communities members in
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 33
hopes to promote better conservation constraints. In some cases, these could be plausible, however, this theory assumes a community to be in a harmonious cohesion with sustainment of that resource for future needs, but this is not always the case. Globalization of resources has diminished the innate behavior to sustain the resource for consumption of local needs of families and communities. Resources that are harvested elsewhere and shipped to the consumer, relinquishes the consumer responsibilities to conserve that resource. Arun Agrawal (2000)
suggests “communities are not similar fixed harmonious collections of agents with similar goals.
Rights over [consumption and extraction] will always be limited to those governing the
resources. The rich will always exercise greater control than the poor” (Agrawall 1999; Agrawall
2000, 327). Therefore, there is a need to have checks and balances in management to hold those accountable to the depletion of the resource.
Communities will always be a valuable asset in management of resources. Local members are usually the first to know when the local waters are polluted, when forests are overharvested, or when animals never return to their feeding grounds. Ostrom (1990) argues that when multiple appropriators are dependent on a given [resource] as a source of economic activity, they are jointly affected by almost everything they do.” (p.38). Therefore, holding that stakeholder engagement is necessary in resource management, given the interconnectedness of the use and values. Moreover, stakeholder engagement in the extraction and consumption ensures that local are involved in the decision making. This levels the playing field so that the needs of local communities and ecosystems are met before out-sourcing to corporate entities begins.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 34
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY: ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES
The intent of this chapter is to provide overview of the cultural and ecological protection
schemes within the Crown of the Continent (COC). Analysis of each designation found within
the COC, between United States (US) and Canada, will provide insight on cultural and natural
aspects incorporated in the designation protection scheme, including whether the preservation of
the ecological process was included. This will provide a basis for future ecological planning
using designations as a means of protecting wildlife movements. Further details are discussed
throughout Chapter 4 as they relate to specific protection schemes for protecting ecological and
cultural resources.
The Crown of the Continent
The COC encompasses portions of the eastern side of the Northern Rocky Mountain
Range, situated between Montana, US, and British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. The
ecosystems within the COC are characterized by glaciated mountains with steep ridges, where
Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) roam, skirted below the steep ridges fall into the coniferous forests, and then rolling down into prairie. The area contains populations of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), bison (Bison bison), wolverines (Gulo gulo), Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), Mountain goats (Oreamnos
americanus) and Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The COC represents one of the last remaining intact ecosystems that represent pre-European settlement due to the early establishment of protection designations. On the US side, these designations are the Glacier
National Park (1910) and Forest Reserve (early 1900’s), surrounded by the Blackfeet
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 35
Reservation to the east and on the west the Flathead Reservation. On the Canadian side,
Waterton National Park created in 1895, is surrounded by Crown lands, see Map 3.2 (p.42).
Wildlife populations once roamed from the Northern Yukon Territories in Canada to the
grasslands of South Dakota though the mountain ranges of Montana and Wyoming. Close to
extinction, many of these animals are restricted to small ranges that are confined to protected area boundaries. Now, populations have to be actively managed to meet the carry capacity of the protected areas. Because of these restrictions, wildlife populations can no longer perpetuate their long migration routes from winter ranges in grassland prairies to their summer ranges found high into the mountains. Wildlife are confined to the very borders that were set up to protect them.
Even within these borders, their livelihoods are jeopardized. In the twenty first century, land
managers of protected areas are pressured to maintain cultural practices and traditions as well as
maintain the ecological resources that these practices stem from, but no one designation is
representative of an functioning ecosystem to meet the demands of migratory wildlife. However,
the layout of National Forest and other protected areas surrounding National Parks within Crown
of the Continent (COC) serves as a model in protecting large regions in order to protect
movements for grizzly bears and other predators.
The COC is a transboundary area that is dissected by the international border of Canada
and the United States (US) located, more broadly located within the Yellowstone to Yukon region. Crown of the Continent is representative of the culture of the Western range bridled by the cowboy clashing with the untamed wilderness of buffalo herds, large predators, and copious amounts of furbearing creatures. However, the repercussion of man conquering nature has driven several legislative authorities to create designations to protect and conserve areas of interest to be set aside for public use. Public use activities consists of recreational, on-foot access or motorized COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 36
vehicles use, oil and gas development, grazing, water uses, hunting, and conservation.
Intensifying concerns over migratory wildlife, increasing recreational use, and international
conflict over the impact of resource extraction, have prompted people to take action.
In the US, the designations are created by acts of Congress. In Canada, the designations are created by acts of the Parliament. In the US, these designations are the National Parks and
Reserves, Wilderness, Forest Reserves, public lands, and Refuges. Canada has three designations
National Park, Wildlife Reserves, and Heritage Areas. However, Canada’s Crown, i.e. public
lands, are governed by the encompassing province. The lands are open lands that are leased to
citizens by the province. Both the US and Canadian economies stem from ranching practices
and hunting and fur trapping traditions, and have gone so far as to maintain these practices
within protected areas. Public ranching practices are maintained within the protected areas on the
Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) public lands and the US Forest Service’s (USFS) Forest
Reserves. In Canada, the Crown lands are leased for ranching and Alberta has created a heritage
rangeland designation to maintain this. However, the costs and benefits of maintaining these
traditions are presenting themselves in the twenty-first century.
In addition to being a transboundary model, the COC is a cultural landscape where man
and nature interact within a mountainous landscape. As a cultural landscape, inhabitants include
European settlers, as well as Salish, Kootenai, and Black feet tribes located within the Blackfeet
Reservation east of Glacier National Park and the Flathead Reservation west of Glacier National
Park. Many Native Americans rely on the protected areas for subsidence hunting and for
ranching practices. European settlers and Natives are now competing for the use of protected
areas for cattle grazing. Inhabitants living within this landscape have adapted to its inclement
weather, predatory wildlife, and diverse biomes that include woody mountainous forest to prairie COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 37
grasslands. Within the twenty-first century, an ever-increasing population is demanding more resource use and extraction. This is causing loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity; increasing water demands are causing free flowing rivers to be diverted and dammed; mineral extractions are causing sinkholes, and stripping off mountaintops further exacerbating habitat loss; housing developments and infrastructure have created barriers for wildlife movements causing wildlife populations to be isolated.
The Crown of the Continent within the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) region is an area of
significance for its ecological resources. On the US side, the Crown of the Continent is
composed of several state and federal conservation designations: Glacier National Park, Bob
Marshall Wilderness, several Federal Refuges. These designations serve to protecting wildlife
habitat. All these designations have different management objectives. The US Fish and
Wildlife’s National Refuge systems serve specifically to protect wildlife populations. The
National Bison Range on the Flathead Reservation is dedicated to protecting the last remnants of
the Kootenai Bison herd. Many of the wilderness designations used to designate lands in the US
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (i.e. US public lands), are used to protect areas
of intact forest to maintain critical habitat for grizzly bears, wolverines, and wolves. The
mountainous ecosystem is comprised on steep cliffs with boulder fields that make it treacherous
to hike but for the Mountain goat and Bighorn sheep steep cliffs serves as a means to escape
predation. The canyon’s bowls collect snow runoff forming pristine lakes. The Crown of the
Continent is recognized as one of the “last remaining intact ecosystems” (Biosphere
Association).
The COC serves as a model of a Transboundary Complex and represents a cultural
landscape where man and nature interact. Straddled between the US and Canada, these two COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 38
countries coordinate cultural and ecological resource management across jurisdictional
boundaries by the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Treaty created in 1932. This agreement
was adopted by two federal land management agencies the US National Park Service overseeing
Glacier National Park and the Parks Canada Service overseeing Waterton National Park. The
agreement established transboundary coordination that transcended political boundaries to
promote coordination and collaboration in “improved research related to both natural and
cultural resources, more expedient search and rescue, enhanced visitor services, wildlife
management, and wildfire management. (Arthur, 2008, p. 183). This model of a transboundary
complex is a highly sought out initiative throughout the world.
This international peace agreement has been functioning for over 84 years between the
two agencies, even when international fears pervaded during the September 2011 (9/11) terrorist attacks on the US. This agreement serves one aspect of transboundary coordination. However, transboundary coordination poses major challenges to institutional design and implementation.
Ranching/Hunting in North America
Public land ranching and hunting is popularly perceived as “historical and cultural institution” (Donahue 1999 Pg10). The era of the colonization of the Western Range in North
America represents a time when resources were plentiful. The Homestead Act of 1862 was the impetus for settler expansion into Wild West. The homestead law provided 160 acres to settlers.
Additional amendments later provided additional 640 acres to livestock owners. At the time of these enactments, livestock owners in Texas continued pastoralist practices by driving cattle from their winter range in Texas up to their summer range in Montana. Most of this range consists of deserts and semi desert environments. The continued expansion of the homesteaders
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 39
clashed with the historical cattle drives. Homesteaders fenced off their acreage with barb-wired fencing or used the non-native Russian thorn brush that grew like a barricade, thick and intertwined. At the time the landscape was being fragmented by fencing, public demand to set
land aside to be protected, further impeded cattle drives.
This was the catalyst for the Taylor Grazing Act of 1933 that permitted the cattle drives
and the continued use of public lands for livestock foraging but a ruling from Public Lands
Council vs. Department of the Interior, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 court case,
stipulated that the Department of Interior shall divide the public lands into grazing districts,
charge a reasonable fee, and gave preference to “base property.” Base property represented
ranches currently abutting the public lands. This preferential treatment and the ability to renewal
permits ever 10 years, gave the ranches “another stick to their bundle of rights.” This is how the
mentality of public land ownership derived. By 1996, Dahahue notes that “grazing was allowed
on national wildlife refuges administered by the US Fish and Wildlife, and twelve units on the
National Parks.” In contrast, Alberta Province developed a ranching conservation designation
within the designations of ecological areas, which permits cattle on these designations.
The 1990’s public lands became known as the tragedy of the commons. In addition to
livestock competing with wildlife on food, water, and shelter, livestock also degraded the
vegetation and eroded watershed. The mechanism to confine livestock to allotments further
fragmented the landscape causing impediments in animal movements. In addition, wildlife
populations were being decimated by large numbers, the tragic slaughter of thousands of buffalo
along the Great Plains from revered Buffalo Bill. Homesteaders, livestock owners, and even land
managers of public lands fueled by Anti-Predator Law were wiping out entire populations of
predator, i.e. wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, to secure and increase game populations, i.e. elk, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 40
deer, and moose. Aldo Leopold was one man who wrote about his days as a National Park
Ranger ordered to kill an entire pack of wolves.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 41
MAP 3.1: Political Boundaries delineated within COC
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 42
MAP 3.2: Protected Areas within the Crown of the Continent
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 43
CHAPTER 4: DATA
Designation within the Crown of the Continent The designations found within the Crown of the Continent (COC) are straddled
between Canada and the United States (US). On the Canadian side, the COC is located between
Alberta (p. 49) and British Columbia (p. 55). On the US side, the COC is located within the state
of Montana (p.71). Designations found in these locations within the borders of COC will be
discussed below.
Designations within Canada The description of the designations that will be described, located on the Canadian
side, will include the Federal jurisdiction of Canada, and two provinces, Alberta and British
Columbia. The designations consist of one National Park within the Canadian Federal jurisdiction, see Table 4.1 (p.45), the Provincial Parks, Wildlands, Natural Areas, and Heritage
Rangelands of Alberta, see Table 4.2 (p. 49), and the Provincial Parks of British Columbia, see
Table 4.3 (p.55).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 44
Table 4.1 Canadian Federal Government Designations and Institutional Arrangements Operating in COC
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 45
Canadian Federal Government
Canada’s National Protected Area System
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in Canada, within the Federal jurisdictions will be discussed referencing Table 4.1 (p.43). The designation that will be discussed is the National Park. The information is separated into three categories: Designation,
Management, and Finance.
DESIGNATION
These designations will be discussed below to highlight 1) the embedded human interaction in the protection scheme 2) any ecological resources, and 3) funding opportunities
that maintain and sustain the designations. The National Park designation, see Map 3.2 (p. 43),
within the COC are discussed below:
1) National Park Designation
The National Park Designation is based off special interest or resources in an area of
land that represent for the “benefit, education and enjoyment of people [and holds] that
maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through protection of natural resources and
natural processes, shall be of first priority” (Canada National Park Act). Authority over
management of the parks is given to the Ministry of Environment, which is also the Director of
Parks Canada. Park management is directed by zoning tools. Guiding Principles and Operational
Polices for Parks Canada permit five zoning protocols: special preservation, wilderness, natural
environment, outdoor recreation, and park services, see Appendix 2 for zoning definitions.
Activities permitted are recreation activities such as hiking, backcountry hiking, and camping as
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 46
well as traditional hunting and motorized vehicle use on permitted roads. The following national
park designation, see Map 3.2 (p.43), is the following:
A. Glacier National Park, created in 1895, encompasses (130, 019 acres)
The park is managed for preservation and recreational usage. Due to the World
Heritage Designation, management activities is overseen by officials within Parks Canada under
the direction of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The site is also designated as Biosphere
Reserve under the Man and Biosphere Program. This designation prompted a steering committee
composed of park officials, ranchers, and locals to “strengthen the biosphere reserve functions
over a broad area,” called the Waterton Biosphere Reserve Association (Biosphere Association).
This association is currently collaborating with Nature Conservancy of Canada on providing
conservation land easements for local private land owners. The easements are efforts to provide a
protection buffer around park boundaries. They are also working on carnivore-livestock mitigation efforts for surrounding communities and ranches.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 47
MANAGEMENT
The administration of Canada’s National Protected Area System comprises the three
following government institutions, illustrated in Table 4.1 (p.55):
1) Ministry of the Environment
2) Department of Canadian Heritage
a) Parks Canada
The institutions manage the following designations: National Parks, National Marine
Conservation Areas, National Historic Sites, and National Landmarks.
FINANCE
Parks Canada's Departmental Performance Report 2013-14 reports fees are collected from entry, back country and front camping, lockage, heritage presentation special programs, pool entry, hot spring entry, and other activities. Note that the fees represent collections from all
National Parks throughout Canada. The information is for the sole purpose of illustrating potential revenue sources with the designation’s protection scheme.
Entry Fees $54,953,329
Camping Fees $20,725,140
Backcountry $2,146,192
Front $18,578,948
Heritage Programs $667,774
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 48
Province of Alberta
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in Canada, within the province of
Alberta, will be discussed referencing Table 4.2 (p.49). The designations that will be discussed are the Provincial Parks, Wildlands, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands. Map 4.1 (p.60) illustrates the location of these designations. The information for the Province of Alberta is separated into three categories: Management, Designations, and Finance.
Table 4.2 Alberta Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 49
Alberta’s Provincial Protected Area System
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in Canada, within the Alberta
Province, will be discussed referencing Table 4.2 (p.49). The designation that will be discussed is the National Park. The information is separated into three categories: Designation,
Management, and Finance.
DESIGNATIONS
These designations will be discussed below to highlight 1) the embedded human interaction in the protection scheme 2) any ecological resources, and 3) funding opportunities that maintain and sustain the designations. The designations within the COC are discussed below:
1) Wildland Provincial Park Designation
Wildlands are designated under the Provincial Parks Act. The wildland protection scheme focuses on areas that are considered an “undeveloped natural landscape that retains its primeval character” (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 1997). The primeval character directs management to manage the land with minimal human disturbance of the landscape to retain its wilderness character. The wildlands protection scheme allows backcountry hiking and camping, minimum human development, and motorized vehicle usage (Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development 1997). The Wildlands Designation embedded within the Provincial Park protection scheme permits human development and motorized vehicle access into the wilderness area. Wildland Park, see Map 4.1 (p. 60), within the COC includes the following:
A. Bob Creek Wildland Provincial Park (51,341 acres) B. Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial Park (20, 1600 acres)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 50
C. Don Getty Wildland Provincial Park
2) Provincial Park Designation
Provincial Parks are designated under the Provincial Park Act. The Provincial Park
protection scheme focuses on lands with “natural, historical and cultural landscapes and
features” (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 1997). Allowable uses are “recreational
and educational activities such as guided hikes or self-guided interpretative trails” (Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development 1997). The Provincial park protection scheme directs management to manage for recreational activities such as swimming, kayaking, hiking, and camping. Management of recreational activities requires management of amenities such as bathroom houses, pools, docks and piers, visitor access accommodations, and maintenance of hiking trails. Provincial Parks with COC include the following:
A. Beauvais Lake Provincial Park (2,841 acres) B. Sheep River Provincial Park (acres unknown)
3) Natural Area Designation
The Natural Area Designation is designated under the Wilderness Areas, Ecological
Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (WERNA). The Natural Area protection scheme stipulates that the area must be “to protect sensitive or scenic public land or natural features on public land from disturbance” (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 1997).
The protection scheme permits the designation to be managed for conservation, nature appreciation, low-intensity outdoor recreation and education (Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development 1997). The Natural Area Designation is used as a zoning tool within other designations to limit human activities. Under Alberta’s Special Places Initiative, under the
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 51
Special Places Act, will permit economic development, including oil and gas, timber, recreation, and grazing disposition in any provincially designation. The areas within COC are the following:
A. Beehive Natural Area (16,640 acres) B. Mt. Livingstone Natural Area (1,321 acres)
4) Heritage Rangeland Natural Area Designation
The Heritage Rangelands designation is managed under the Rangeland Management
Branch within the ESRD. Heritage Rangelands Designation is designated under the Wilderness
Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act. The designation is used for areas where the vegetation is primarily grassland prairies. The designation structure permits grazing allotments for the “preservation and protection using grazing to maintain the grassland ecology” (Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangeland Act,
2000, pg. 5). An amendment, the Black Creek Heritage Rangeland Trails Act, permits vehicle usage on Black Creek to access Bob Creek Wildland. (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation
2011, 7). Heritage Rangelands with COC include the following:
A. Black Creek Heritage Rangeland Natural Area (19,108 acres) B. Twin River Heritage Rangeland Natural Area (40,016 acres)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 52
MANAGEMENT
The administration of Alberta’s Provincial Protected Area System comprises the four following government institutions, illustrated in Table 4.2 (p.49):
1. Environment and Sustainable Resource Sustainable Development (ESRD)
a) Lands Division
i) Alberta Community Development Parks and Protected Areas
b) Rangeland Management Division
The Environment and Resource Sustainable Development (ESRD) oversee division of air, minerals, forest, wildlife, public lands, and waste management. Two divisions within the
ESRD manage public lands: Lands Division and Rangeland Management Division. The Lands
Division is subdivided into the parks division called Alberta Community Development Parks and
Protected Areas (ACDPPA). The ACDPPA oversee management of provincial lands and report to ESRD-Lands Division. The Rangeland Management Division manages lands assigned for grazing allotments on the Crown Lands as well as the Heritage Rangeland Natural Area designations. Rangeland Management Division report directly to the ESRD. Management of designations are determined on the following enacting legislation: Wilderness Areas, Ecological
Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (WERNA), the Public Lands Act, the
Provincially Parks Act, the Willmore Wilderness Park Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Forest Act.
These legislative tools provide the justification for the designations and, therein, embeds the human interaction to the landscape. The protection scheme directs management activities with a set criterion based on the landscape’s natural state and provides allowable uses that, in turn, creates funding sources.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 53
Alberta Community Development Parks and Protected Areas oversees management of
the following designations within the COC: wildland parks, provincial parks, and natural areas.
The Rangeland Management Division under ESRD manages the Rangeland Heritage Natural
Area Designation.
FINANCE
The government of Alberta and the managing institutions directly profit from the
resources located within the protected areas. Revenues are directly put into revolving funds to meet the parks and protected areas systems management goals and objectives. Parks collect fees from campground use, park facilities and lands, heritage appreciation services providing interpretive bus tours, as well as levy fees. Fees collected from “park facilities and programs are
directly used for park infrastructure” (Tourism, Parks and Recreation, 2014, p.58). For 2015
timber royalties and fees from timber extraction generated $57,341 in profits. Grazing allotments managed by the Rangeland Division generated $34,083. The revenue circulates back into the
ESRD funds.
Tourism, Parks and Recreation Operations Annual Report 2013/2014 report: Premium Fees and Licenses Camping Fees $11,582 Lands and Grazing Fees $1,821 Other $1,329
Expenses Operations of Parks $71,883
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 54
Province of British Columbia
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in Canada, within the province of
British Columbia, will be discussed referencing Table 4.3 (p.55). The designations that will be discussed are the Provincial Parks and Conservancy. Map 4.1 (p. 60) illustrates the location of the designation under study. The information for the Province of Alberta is separated into three categories: Designations, Management, and Finance.
Table 4.3 British Columbia Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in COC
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 55
British Columbia’s Provincial Protected Area System
DESIGNATIONS
These designations will be discussed below to highlight 1) the embedded human interaction in the protection scheme 2) any ecological resources, and 3) funding opportunities
that maintain and sustain the designations. The designations within the COC are discussed
below:
1) Provincial Park Designation
BC Provincial Parks is designated under the Parks Act. The protection scheme is
designed on specifications within a classification system and further zoned to meet different
resource management needs. The classification system is divided up into Class A, Class B or
Class C, conservancy, recreation or ecological reserve (Parks Act 1996 sec.5). The classification
system directly provides the justification for the designation. BC parks (2015) report the
classifications as follows:
Class A Provincial Park In a Class A park, no interest in land may be granted or sold and no natural resource may be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited unless authorized by a valid park use permit. The Minister may not issue a park use permit unless, in the opinion of the minister, “to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved” (pg. 5).
Class B Provincial Park In a Class B park, the Minister must not issue a park use permit respecting an interest in land or use of natural resources unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved. Accordingly, Class B parks may permit a broader range of activities and uses than a Class A park (pg. 5).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 56
Class C Provincial Park A Class C park must be managed by a Board appointed by the Minister. The Board is responsible for determining allowable uses in a Class C park. The Board must adhere to the requirements of the Park Act in doing so, which are identical to those for Class A parks with respect to restricting the alienation of interests and protecting natural resources (pg. 5).
2) Conservancy
The conservancy designation to recognize the importance of some natural areas to First Nations for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the river projects, are prohibited in a conservancy. Other activities must be assessed to determine whether they would hinder, restrict prevent or inhibit the development, improvement or use of the conservancy for: a) the protection and maintenance of its biological diversity and natural environments; b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of first nations; c) the protection and maintenance of its recreational values; and
Zoning tools are used within the designation to direct “the park’s management objectives based on natural, cultural and recreational values” (Kootenai District 1999, 11). The zoning tools are as follows: Intensive Recreation, Natural Environment, Special Feature, Wilderness
Recreation and Wilderness Conservation, see Appendix 1 (p.96). The Provincial Park designations, see Map 4.1 (p. 60), within the COC are the following:
1. Akamina-Kishinena, which abuts Waterton Lakes (26, 986 acres), is categorized as Class A. 2. Elk Lakes Provincial Park (42, 811 acres) 3. Mt. Fernie Provincial Park (640 acres)
The management direction for Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park states that “British Columbia recognizes Akamina-Kishinenna for its importance as a corridor for the Yellowstone to Yukon
Initiative, as well as its significance as a Kootenai buffalo route over South Kootenai Pass, mineral, oil and gas exploration, backcountry values, and high conservation values for international important grizzly bear and wolf populations” (Kootenai District 1999, 11).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 57
MANAGEMENT
The administration of British Columbia’s Provincial Protected Area System comprises the two following government institutions, illustrated in Table 4.3 (p. 55):
1. Ministry of Environment
a. British Columbia Parks
The management and operations of the parks are subcontracted to Park Facility Operators (PFO).
Operators are usually local community members within close proximity to the protected area but some are managed by other entities such as corporations. The protected areas are fully protected under the Park Act. The PFOs enter into a legal agreement with the British Columbia Parks (BC
Parks) to maintain and manage day-to-day operations of the protected areas. The BC parks role is to oversee that protected areas are “managed in compliance with the Park Act and to establish provincial standards” (BC Parks).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 58
FINANCE
The protected area system of BC parks established two fee strategies: Park Use Permits
and Recreational User Fees. Park Use Permit fees are generated from commercial activities, land
use occupancy, and research permits. The revenue is circulated into the government’s consulted
revenue fund. Recreational User Fees are retained by the Park Facility Operators. These fees are
generated from Big Game Hunting Fees, Angle Guiding fees, associated transportation, special
events, and accommodations. The British Columbia Parks Annual Reports 2013/2014 reported
that park use permit fees generated 1.6 million. The Recreation User Fees retained by PFOs generated 16.9 million (BC Parks, 2014, p.36).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 59
MAP 4.1 British Columbia and Alberta Canada Designations
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 60
Designations within US
Federal Government of United States
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in the United States will be discussed referencing Table 4.4 (p.61). The designations that will be discussed are the State
Parks and Wildlife Management Areas. The information for the State of Montana is separated into three categories: Designations, Management, and Finance.
Table 4.4. United States’ Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 61
United States’ National Protected Area System\
These designations will be discussed below to highlight 1) the embedded human interaction in the protection scheme 2) any ecological resources, and 3) funding opportunities that maintain and sustain the designations. The designations within the COC are discussed below:
DESIGNATIONS
1) National Park Designation
The National Park Designation is designated under the National Park Service Organic
Act of 1988. The National Park System is managed by the National Park Service under the direction of the US Department of Interior. The areas to be designated with a National Park status is decided by US Congress, see Appendix 3. Managerial decisions, other than those made on federally listed species, regarding ecological and culture resources are at the discretion of the
Superintendent, also referred to as the Land Manager. The goal of the National Park designation is to “preserve unimpaired natural and cultural resources and values … for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” The National Park designations, see
Map 4.2 (p.68), is the following:
A. Glacier Nation Park (1,013,571 acres) that is managed as mostly wilderness except for “169 ha of private property, which were in private hands before the park was created including several roads.” (Long 2007, pg31).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 62
2) National Wildlife Refuge Designation
Refuges are managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Department under the direction of the
Department of Interior. The refuge systems is directed to manage for “maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health,” as well as “wildlife recreational dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation” (Public Law 105-57, October 9, 1997, (111 Stat. 1253). Waterfowl protection areas are open for hunting. The ability to hunt and trap on Wildlife Refuges is dependent on whether the designation was created to maintain a Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened
Species. The following National Wildlife Refuge designation, see Map 3.6 (p.72), are within the
COC borders:
A. National Bison Range (18,310 acres) B. Pablo (2,372 acres) C. Ninepipes (825 ha) D. Swan River Refuge (1,549 acres)
The designations are located within Flathead Reservation. As of May 2014, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) were in an Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) with the
Department of the Interior, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, for management operations on the
National Bison Range located within the Flathead Indian Reservation, but a court order has rescinded this agreement until the US Fish and Wildlife Service conducts an environmental assessment.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 63
3) National Forest Reserve Designation
The Forest Reserve Designation is designated under the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. The
National Forest designation is managed by the US Forest Service under the direction of the
Department of Agriculture. The activities managed on the Forest Reserve directed by several mandates such as Multiple Use and Sustainable Yield Act and the National Forest Management
Act for economic activities such as timber extraction and mineral extraction, as well as recreation purposes. The Taylor Grazing Act directs management on grazing allotments on
Forest Service Land. The Forest Reserve designations, see Map 3.4 (p.70), within the COC are the following:
A. Flathead B. Lolo C. Lewis & Clark D. Kootenai E. Helena
4) National Wilderness Designation
The National Wilderness Designation is designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The Wilderness designation is used as a zoning tool within other federal designations such as
National Parks, Forest Reserves, National Wildlife Refuge, and the Bureau of Land Management lands. Management of the wilderness are at the discretion of the jurisdictional federal agency.
This can be the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management or the National Park
Service. The agency can nominate parcels of primitive forest that are essentially roadless. The
Wilderness Preservation System, enacted by the Wilderness Act, holds that areas designated as wilderness “must appear affected by natural forces, with little imprint of man, a place where man COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 64
seeks solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” (Wilderness Act of 1964). All
wilderness areas within the COC are managed by the US Forest Service. Although many extraction and vehicular uses in wilderness designations are prohibited in the original language of the wilderness protection scheme, many areas that were used for vehicle access, mining
access, and grazing prior to designation status have been grandfathered into the designation with
amendment to the act. The wilderness areas within COC, see Map 3.5 (p.71), are as follows:
A. Bob Marshall B. Great Bear C. Scapegoat D. Cabinet Mountains E. Mission Mountains F. Rattlesnak
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 65
MANAGEMENT
The administration of United States’ National Protected Area System comprises the
following five government institutions, illustrated in Table 4.4 (p.61):
1) Department of Interior
a) National Park Service
b) National Wildlife Refuge
2) Department of Agriculture
a) Forest Service
The institutions manage the following designations: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuge,
Forest Reserves and Wilderness. The protection scheme of the designation stipulates the justification, which is the embedded human interaction to the landscape. The interaction directs management activities, which further permits allowable uses that provide funding sources to maintain the designation.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 66
FINANCE
The Federal Lands Recreation Act signed by George W. Bush permitted federal lands to start a recreation fee program. This program allowed federal agency to charge user fees with day use fees or annual passes this fee paid for maintaining amenities such as picnic tables, trash collection, toilets, parking and interpretative programs. This program was further expanded for expanded amenity fees that charged fees for campgrounds, cabins, boat launches, and other services such as camper hookups, dump stations, special tours with transportation and reservation systems. Special Recreation Permits are available to charge for shooting ranges, special events, and special trail system. The US Forest Service reported revenue for Fiscal Year
2005 as the following:
Forest Reserve FY 2005 Revenue Expenditures Annual Operation Visitation
Flathead 200, 998 174, 168 33, 859 1, 314, 000
Kootenai 131, 465 119, 855 24, 326 1, 337, 000
Lewis & Clark 306, 907 339, 281 29, 030 557, 000
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 67
MAP 4.2 US Forest Reserve Designations
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 68
MAP 4.3 US Wilderness Designations
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 69
MAP 4.4 US National Wildlife Refuge Designations
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 70
State of Montana
The details of the Crown of the Continent complex in the United States, within the
State of Montana, will be discussed referencing Table 4.5 (p.71). The designations that will be discussed are the State Parks and Wildlife Management Areas. The information for the State of
Montana is separated into three categories: Designations, Management, and Finance.
Table 4.5 State of Montana Designations and Institutional arrangements operating in Crown of the Continent
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 71
Montana State’s Protected Area System
These designations will be discussed below to highlight 1) the embedded human interaction in the protection scheme, 2) any ecological resources, and 3) funding opportunities
that maintain and sustain the designations. The designations within the COC are discussed
below:
DESIGNATIONS
1) State Park Designation
The State of Montana has several designations to “conserve the scenic, historic,
archaeologic, scientific, and recreational resources of the state for their use and enjoyment, and
for which contribute to the cultural, recreational, and economic life of the people and their
health” (State Parks. Montana Code Annotated. 2012). The designations are categorized into four
districts. Each district includes a State Park and Recreation Board, and Fish and Wildlife
Commission overseeing pertinent regulations to the management of the designations. Montana
State Parks and Recreation Board members are appointed by the governor.
1) Flathead Lake State Park 2) Wild Horse Island State Park (840 acres) is a primitive park due to its “unique and primarily undeveloped character” and, therefore, prohibits any new construction of roads, buildings, or infrastructure (Montana Primitive Parks Act, sec 23-1-116).
2) Wildlife Management Areas Designation (WMA)
The WMA protection scheme focuses on areas that are populated with wildlife that
represent a valuable biological and cultural resource. They are managed by the Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks Department for recreational activities such as hunting and trapping, as well as COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 72
fishing opportunities of a variety of animals. Hunting activities usually occur on the animals such
as Bighorn Sheep, Wolves, Black Bear, Blue Grouse, elk, Mountain Lion, Mule deer, Pine
Marten, Ruffed Grouse, as well as fishing. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission
promulgate rules and regulations.
These areas are:
1. West Kootenai near Eureaka (1,383 acres) 2. Ray Khuns near Kalispell (1,581 acres) 3. Ninepipes Waterfowl Production Area near Mission Valley (3,879 acres) 4. Pablo north of Pablo National Wildlife Refuge (415 acres) 5. Kootenai/Woods Ranch Wildlife Management Area (1,415 acres) (US-Canada border)
3) State Forest Designation
Montana State Forest Reserves are held as state trust land. State Trust Land designation is synonymous with State Forest Reserve designation and are used interchangeable.
State Land Trust are often sold and leased for economic use such as agriculture, grazing, forestry, and mineral extraction. All activities must purchase a permit before activities can commence. However, the state forest can still be used for recreational purposes such as hunting, trapping, hiking, and horseback riding. State Trust Lands are public lands that use money from licenses to fund public schools.
1. Coal Creek State Forest (14,826 acres) on North Fork Flathead 2. Stillwater Forest (88,957 acres) 3. Swan River State Forest (237,221 acres)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 73
4) Natural Area Designation
The natural areas are designated under the Montana Natural Areas Act of 1974. The protection scheme focuses on landscapes that have been “shaped by the forces of nature with
visual aspects of human intrusion not dominant, and also must have one of the following: an
outstanding mixture or variety of vegetation, wildlife, water resources, landscape and scenic
values or important or rare ecological or geological features or other rare or significant natural
features worthy of preservation for scientific, educational or ecological processes” (Montana
Secretary of State). Management as a Natural Area maintains natural wildlife and aquatic life habitat, protects wildlife and aquatic life from human disturbance, enhances. This designation is the only protection scheme documented within the State of Montana’s protected area system that permits management activities to be outsourced by local communities.
1. Owen Sowerine Natural Area (442 acres) located at the confluence of Stillwater and Flathead Rivers and is managed by the Audubon Society.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 74
MANAGEMENT
The administration of Montana State’s Park System comprises the three following institutions, illustrated in Table 4.5 (p. 71):
1) State Parks and Recreation Board
2) Fish and Wildlife Commission
a) Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks
The institutions manage the following designations: State Park, Wildlife Management Areas,
Forest Reserve and Natural Area. The protection scheme of the designation stipulates the justification, which is the embedded human interaction to the landscape. The interaction directs management activities, which further permits allowable uses that provide funding sources to maintain the designation. The designation within the COC are the following: State Park,
Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), State Forest, and Natural Areas.
FINANCE
The Parks Division, under the direction of Montana Fish, Parks, and Wildlife
Department, generates revenue from entrance park fees, special use fees, and vehicle registration fees. The Fish and Wildlife Division generates funds through Hunting and Fishing Licenses. The
Montana Fish, Parks, and Wildlife Department reported for Fiscal year 2011, hunting and fishing licenses generated $58,730. Statutory fees generated $89,746,053 in funds. From the licenses and stator fees, the Fish and Wildlife Division received 69.2% of those funds and the Parks Division received 13.8% (p.19).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 75
Figure 4.6 The Number of Designations Within in Each Jurisdiction in the COC
Alberta British Canada Gov’t Montana US Gov’t Columbia Heritage Provincial Park National Park Natural Area (1) Forest Reserve Rangeland (2) (3) (1) (5)
Natural Areas State Trust Wilderness (6) (3) Lands (3)
Wildland (3) Wildlife National Management Wildlife Refuge Areas (5) (5)
Provincial Park State Parks (2) National Park (2) (1)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 76
Figure 4.2 Matrix of Designation Comparison in Protecting of Cultural and Ecological Resources
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 77
Resource Cultural/Natural Ecological Resources Designation
Maintenance of ecological National Park-Canada integrity through protection of natural resources and natural processes (Canada National Park Act) Worthy of preservation for Natural Area - Montana ecological processes (Montana Natural Areas Act of 1974) imprint to serve solitude or Wilderness-US primitive unconfined recreation for humans (Wilderness Act of 1964) unimpaired natural and National Park-US cultural resource (The Organic Act of 1964)
natural and cultural resource National Wildlife Refuge - US
recreation and economic State Trust lands - Montana value and Crown Lands - Alberta
Conserve scenic, historic, and Provincial Parks – Alberta, recreation values BC, and State Parks - Montana preservation and protection Heritage Rangeland - Alberta using grazing to maintain the grassland ecology(Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangeland Act, 2000) Protect valuable biological Wildlife Management Areas- and cultural resource, Montana specifically for wildlife dependent uses
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 78
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS
The COC is bisected by two nations: the United States (US) and Canada. Within in these
nations there are three subnations: Alberta Province and British Columbia (BC) Province,
Canada, and the State of Montana, US. This study accounts for 13 designations each with its own unique protection scheme. These protection schemes are designed to designate land that holds some aspect of cultural and ecological resources. These designations include the following:
Heritage Rangelands, Natural Areas, Wildlands, Wilderness, Provincial-State Parks, Wildlife
Management Areas, State Trust Lands, National Parks, Forest Reserves, and National Wildlife
Refuge, see Figure 4.2 (p.77). There are five provincial designations (two in Alberta, and three in
British Columbia). In Montana State, there are Wildlife Management Areas, State Trust Lands, and Natural Area designation. At the federal level, there are two National Parks: US-National
Park and Canadian National Park, five US National Wildlife Refuges, six US Wilderness designations and five US Forest Reserves. Only two of these designations are designed to protect ecological resources, but as a whole unit, the transboundary complex with all the designation is able to fit together to protect ecological resources. The remaining designations within this study were designed to protect natural resources, as well as the cultural resources associated with them.
This is illustrated in Figure 4.6 (p.76). Although US and Canadian protection schemes are similar in language structure and managing institutions, vast differences exist, and these will be discussed further.
Ecological Resources-Transboundary COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 79
Within this study, the two designations that were designed to protect ecological processes
are the Canadian National Park and the Natural Area designation in Montana. The Canadian
National Park explicitly addresses “protecting natural resources and the natural processes”
(Canada National Park Act). The protection scheme for the Natural Area designation in Montana
states that these areas are “worthy of preservation for the ecological processes” (Montana Natural
Areas Act of 1974). The Akamina-Kishinena Conversancy Provincial Park recognized the
importance of this park within the guiding management plan. The plan stipulated that “British
Columbia recognizes Akamina-Kishinenna for its importance as a corridor for the Yellowstone
to Yukon Initiative, as well as its significance as a Kootenai buffalo route over South Kootenai
Pass, mineral, oil and gas exploration, backcountry values, and high conservation values for
international important grizzly bear and wolf populations” (Kootenai District 1999, p.11). The
rest of the designations were designed to protect the natural resources that support the cultural
resources associated to them. The rest of this analysis will discuss the integration of cultural and
natural protection schemes, that by shear adoption of a designation establishes some protections
of ecological processes.
Cultural Resources – Natural Resources
The protection schemes that specifically protect natural resources, (i.e. water, forest, grasslands, and wildlife), in order to support the cultural aspects associated with them, are the
State-Provincial Parks, Wildlife Management Areas, US-National Wildlife Refuge, US-Forest
Service, Heritage Rangelands, State Trust Lands, and Wilderness designation. For example, the
US National Wildlife Refuge designations are designed specifically to protect wildlife for wildlife dependent activities. These activities are what US Fish and Wildlife Service call the
“Big 6 recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 80
education and interpretation”. The Wildlife Management Area designation in Montana is
designed using the same language as the refuge system. Wildlife populations within the refuge
system and state managed lands are managed by Montana officials, unless listed as an
Endangered Species and therefore, falls under the jurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife.
The design of the protection schemes between the Provinces of Alberta and British
Columbia (BC) are uniquely different for neighboring provinces. The BC government
determines the area to be protected based on the lands’ encompassing ecological and cultural
resources and further divides them into zones to meet objectives. The present or potential
resource determines the category of either conservancy, wildland, or recreation for the BC
provincial park system. The designations are further subdivided into zones that meet natural,
cultural, and recreational values. The zones are as follows: Intensive Recreation, Natural
Environment, Special Feature, Wilderness Recreation and Wilderness Conservation, see
Appendix 1 (p. 98). Alberta’s provincial protected areas are determined on case-by-case basis,
directing the management objectives of a whole complex. These designations are Provincial
Park, Wildlands, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangeland. The Heritage Rangelands focuses on
grassland prairies for ranching activities. The Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural
Areas, and Heritage Rangeland Act of 2000 stipulates that the designation be used as a tool for
the “preservation and protection [of] using grazing to maintain the grassland ecology” (p. 5).
While Wildlands focus on backcountry recreational values and cultures, largely due to intact
forest by stipulating the areas retain its primitive character, they were designed specifically for
back country recreational values with minimal human development. The minimum human
development requires some maintenance costs. The costs are associated to maintaining
development, such as bathrooms and access roads.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 81
Management - Finance
In addition to the different protection schemes, between Alberta and BC, the management
of the day-to-day operations is allocated differently between the provinces. Similar to the US,
Alberta’s institutional design is structured so that the government funds and operates, BC
subcontracts management of the protected areas to local communities and corporate entities. BC
Parks provide the legal framework for the designation status and oversee the management
standards, but they subcontract the actual day-to-day operations and management decision
making to Park Facility Operators (PFO). Revenue activities, such as commercial activities, land
use occupancy, and research permits, are circulated through BC’s consulted revenue funds, but
recreational fees are retained by the PFOs. Recreational fees are generated from Big Game
Hunting Fees, Angle Guiding fees, and associated transportation, special events, and
accommodations. In 2014, BC Parks reported that PFOs, throughout the province, generated
$16.9 million, as opposed to Alberta, which generated around $100, 000 for 2013/14 from fees and permits collected from camping, grazing, and other user fees (BC Parks, 2014, p.36).
The State of Montana has one designation similar to the subcontracted management in
BC. The Owen Sowerin Natural Area, approximately 500 acres, was bought by the Audubon
Society and is managed by the local chapter of the Audubon society in that area. The State of
Montana provides the legal status of Natural Area designation but has no involvement with its management. Although Alberta has a Natural Area designation, it is not subcontracted out to be managed by another entity. Moreover, this does not reduce the importance of this designation to local citizens of Alberta. As of 2000, the Government of Alberta passed the Special Places Act.
The language of this statute is geared towards protecting the rights to continue historical cultural practices within the designations. The historical cultural practices are oil and gas exploration and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 82
extraction, timber harvesting, recreational activities (such as vehicle use), and grazing within any
provincially designated area, except within the Natural Area designation. That is because this
designation was designed to be used as a zoning tool. This zoning tool is structured “to protect
sensitive or scenic public lands or natural features on public land from disturbance” (Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development, 1997, p.2). An example of this designation is the Beehive
Natural Area within the Don Getty Wildlands. The zoning tool of the protection scheme is
similar to the US Wilderness designation designated with US Forest Reserves and that of the
Wildland designation in British Columbia.
An Integrated Cultural Landscape
The protection scheme of the US Wilderness Designation is designed to protect primitive
areas where man’s footprint is to be limited. However, through judicial proceedings and
amendments, cultural practices, such as grazing and mining that occurred before the designation
status, are determined historical and therefore, permitted to continue (Gorte, 2011). In the US,
the National Parks (NP), National Forest (NF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) are permitted to use the Wilderness designation. The Glacier
National Park, bordering the Lewis and Clark National Forest, is not designated as wilderness nor are any of the areas bordering the park. The nearest wilderness designation is the Great Bear
Wilderness, approximately 50 miles south from Glacier National Park, see Map 4.3 (p. 69). A small section within the borders of Waterton National Park in Canada at the northwest section of the park is zoned as wilderness. Glacier is said to be managed as wilderness except for some historical mining activities that are permitted to continue (Long 2007, p.31). If Glacier National
Park was designated as wilderness, the activities would not impact the designation status nor halt
mining operations. The Wilderness Designation still permits historical cultural practices such as COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 83
grazing, mining, the use of vehicles, motorboats, and snowmobiles if they were present at the
time of the designation (Gorte, 2011). Therefore, the Wilderness Designation would not affect
the National Park Designation either way.
However, Wilderness designation can be an effective tool in eliminating timber
harvesting (Gorte, 2011, p.8). Within the COC, there are six areas within the Forest Reserves
that are designated as Wilderness. This is especially important because the Forest Reserves were
set aside specifically for their lumber value and use for timber harvesting. The Wilderness designations are set to expand in this area. According to US Fish and Wildlife’s proposal to delist the grizzly bears off the US Endangered Species Act, they evaluated the Crown of the
Continent specifically for prime grizzly bear habitat and plan to coordinate efforts to reserve more areas as wilderness in order to protect wildlife habitat. These areas are Lewis and Clark
National Forest, serving as a buffer for Glacier National Park as well as in the Kootenai National
Forest, see Map 4.2 (p. 68) for the locations of Wilderness designations and Map 4.3 (p. 69) for the locations of National Forest designations.
Alberta has a Wildlands designation that is used as an official protected area designation geared towards protecting areas of primitive forest. The Special Places Act permits economic activities in these areas as well. The British Columbia’s Wildlands designation is used as a zoning tool. The BC Parks Act stipulates that the Wildland designation should be used for areas that are “roadless in a park, conservancy or recreation area that [has] retained [the] natural condition for the preservation of its ecological environment and scenic features” (Sec.5). The
Wildlands and Wilderness are designed specifically for backcountry and camping values. These
designations are ideal for generating revenue from these activities. Park Canada reported for
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 84
fiscal year 2013-2014, that backcountry fees generated $2,146,192, and front camping fees generated $18,578,948, totaling $20,725,140 for the year alone.
The US Forest Service and the Alberta’s Heritage Rangeland designation integrate cultural practices which focus on maintaining ranching and farming cultures specifically. These permit cattle grazing and sometimes, sheep. In the US, livestock grazing is permitted through the
Taylor Grazing Act, which allows neighboring ranches to have access rights and priority over the permits. In Alberta, designations were designed specifically for grazing purposes; however, these designations are problematic because it keeps a steady demand of grazing without any rotational efforts to preserve intact vegetation which stabilizes the soil. This will cause the area to become overgrazed and more susceptible to erosion issues. The Black Creek Heritage Rangeland abutting the Bob Creek Wildlands designation will face these issues. Contrary to this design, the
US Forest Service, actively manages the grazing allotments and implements rotations of the allotments in order to sustain growth of vegetation. This management practice depends on monitoring the ecological health.
Transboundary
Many state-provincial designations serve as buffers for federally protected lands.
Montana state parks and wildlife management areas surround the more robust federally protected lands, (see Map 3.2 p.43). This gives direct access from state lands to federal lands for hunting and hiking. This is extremely important to sustain hunting practices in the US. Private ownership in the US gives landowners the right to forbade access to enter on their property for hunting or hiking. The vast areas occupied by private ownership abutting federal and state lands, illustrated in Map 3.1 (p.42). Private lands occupy about 20%. This is extremely problematic for hunting
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 85
practices and traditions. Hunters are required to research the ownership jurisdiction before the
hunt. The reason for this is that if a hunter shoots a deer and it runs onto private property and the
hunter tries to retrieve it without getting permission of the owner, that hunter can be fined for trespassing charges.
In Canada, most lands are Crownlands, which is considered public domain held in the trust of the Provinces. The provinces have the right to sell or lease the land. This is similar to
Montana’s State Trust Lands. On Crownlands, hunting is permitted anywhere, even on private land because the private land is leased from the province, which keeps it accessible to the public.
This is why Canadians invest more in anti-poaching efforts and therefore, create opportunities
for transboundary coordination. “The officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Conservation offices, and Forest Officers, upon approval, are considered wildlife officers in
charge of enforcing hunting, fishing, and trapping regulations” (Province of Alberta Wildlife Act
2000). Contrary to Canada, the US has established conservation officers funded by the state.
These officers are held accountable for regions composed of five to fifteen counties. There is one
wildlife officer for Forest Service and usually one for the refuge system. However, in the case of
the COC, on the US side, there is one Forest Service officer and two state supported
Conservation Officers, as opposed to the Canada, where over 10 to 15 officers are responsible
for investigating wildlife crimes, see Table 5.2 Wildlife Officers (pg. 90).
Other
Other designations, such as State and Provincial parks, as well as the US Forest Reserve and National Wildlife Refuge, are directed to protect natural resources. The forest reserves COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 86
oversee forested areas and some grasslands. The US Fish and Wildlife’s National Bison Range is
approximately 8,000 acres dedicated to protecting the Kootenai Bison herd. The area is located
within the grasslands of the Flathead Reservation. This range is the bison’s winter range. When
the snow recedes in the spring, the herd would naturally move northward into the mountains to
feed on the newly emerging vegetation. Although there are protected areas, such as Forest
Reserve surrounding the Flathead Reservation, the herd is contained within fences to keep them
within the borders of the refuge in order to minimize the risk of spreading diseases to
neighboring cattle allotments. Due to this confinement, active management of the bison herd
requires an extensive funding source. In order to maintain these population, land managers must
cull (i.e. kill) some of the bison herd members in order keep the numbers within the carry capacity of the refuge borders. In order to cull the population, cattle chutes are needed to restrain
them as they are vaccinated or euthanized. Chutes run anywhere from $1,500 to $3,500.
Firearms, or other methods of euthanasia is needed. Tractors are also needed to carry the dead
carcasses away to be burned. Tractors cost about $10, 000 and demand annual maintenance
costs. During winter months, supplement feeding occurs due to lack of vegetation in times of
harsh winters. Round bales of hay can cost between $50 to $150 depending on drought
conditions and are needed at least twice a month. Vehicles and maintenance crews are required as well as biologist with animal husbandry techniques. Human-wildlife conflicts are quintessential problems that impede designations.
Most predators, especially those that can be elusive to human sight such as wolverines, wolves, and mountain lions, are able to roam freely between designations. Grizzly and Black bears find it difficult to roam where human activities are present, especially when garbage and other food sources are concentrated. This is also a place that is highly likely to succumb to
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 87
human-wildlife conflicts. Mining activities also interrupt their migrations due intensive activities
on the mining roads that bears will often use as an easy means of traversing. The US are the
National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Parks including the Wilderness designation. The
Wilderness designation protects habitat, but because of the integration of livestock grazing
allotments makes these areas problematic for livestock predation. Therefore, these areas in turn,
will make wildlife more susceptible to human-wildlife conflicts. Institutions that permit livestock on public grazing allotments demand another institution called Wildlife Services within
Department of Interior, to eradicate predators causing harm to livestock on public lands. These predators are typically coyotes, wolverines, bobcats, mountain lions, and black bears.
In Canada, the National park zoning structure actually impedes most animal movements due to the size of the wilderness designation in proportion to the actual park size. It is relatively nominal. Alberta’s wildland and natural area designation can be conducive. The National Parks were originally created for their scenic and recreational value but later, through new policy development emphasized their importance in protecting representations of ecosystems. However,
representations of an entire mountainous ecosystem is still relatively a nominal aspect of a fully
functioning ecosystem that maintains all wildlife species and their movements.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The aim of this thesis is to analyze the model of a transboundary complex inclusive of
ecological and cultural protection schemes. The purpose of this analysis is to understand how
designations fit together to build a conducive wildlife corridors and identify possible
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 88
impediments and derive conclusions and recommendations for further pursuit on this topic.
Although the role of the International Peace Park between Glacier National Park and Waterton
National Park supports coordination on wildlife management, it serves little outside the borders.
The Waterton Biosphere Reserve Association representing the internationally recognized
Biosphere Reserve designation, for both Waterton National Park and Glacier National Park, was
impetus for approaching regional planning beyond the borders of Waterton National Park,
Canada, see Appendix 4. The association is a non-profit organization, largely funded by
donations. They have done considerable work in educating ranchers in carnivore conflicts
surrounding the park.
On the US side, Grizzly bears were listed as threaten with extinction in 1975. US Fish
and Wildlife is currently removing them from the Endangered Species List. In the removal
proposal, the Crown of the Continent is listed as priority habitat to facilitate their movements to
Canada. US Forest Service is in the process of designating more of the forest reserves
surrounding Glacier National Park as Wilderness. However, increasing wilderness designation
will not mitigate bear conflicts. To reiterate prior land uses on wilderness designations could be
rendered as historic and thus will be permitted to continue activities. Even if such land uses such
as livestock grazing may pose serious threats to bears by increased livestock depredation this could cause increased management actions with bear removals.
Designations created to protect historic objects and activities are becoming extremely popular. If the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative is seeking protective designations for areas not currently designated, I would recommend that the file for a cultural landscape designation or an ethnographic designation with the National Park Service. They can argue that Yellowstone to
Yukon region, primarily on the United States side, is a historical migration route for bison. Bison COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 89
are important in indigenous societies. This designation might not completely prohibit
incompatible land use activities with wildlife movements, but it will force any activities that may
hinder movements to undergo the National Environmental Policy Act process. This will force
any activity within counties and states to recognize any impacts that may hinder wildlife
movements.
In addition, privation of protected areas in British Columbia may provide economic
means for local communities by allowing them to profit off Trophy hunting, however, now most
of these areas are experiencing over extraction of the fittest animals. Therefore, exacerbating
issues surrounding wildlife sustainment in the face of climate change. The next step to support
this study would be to analyze the effectiveness of the designations that are designed to protect
ecological processes. This can be done by looking at incompatible land use activities where
human-wildlife conflicts exist. In addition, permitting human encroachment actually imposes
more costs to society associated to managing wildlife-human conflicts. I would further this study by assessing the effectiveness of wildlife management by using a categorical scheme.
MANAGEMENT
Table 5.1 Similarities in Management
Grazing Mining Hunting/Habitat Preservation/Recreation
Canada/Province Crown Lands Crown Lands Crown Lands National Park-Canada of Alberta and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 90
British Heritage Provincial Parks Wildlands-Alberta Columbia Rangelands- Province Alberta United Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness States/State of Montana State Trust Glacier Refuge system National Park Lands - National Park Montana State Trust Natural Area-Montana Lands State Trust State Parks Lands State Parks
Wildlife Management Areas
Table 5.2 Wildlife Officers
Wildlife Officers Location Canada Royal Canadian Mounted Many throughout Alberta and Police British Columbia
Conservation Officers Cities
Forest Officers Crown Lands United States Conservation Officers (1 per 5 counties in Montana)
Forest Service Officer Throughout Forest Service Lands US Fish and Wildlife Officer (For endangered Species One per state
FINANCE
Unfortunately, I cannot accurately assess finance for individual designations for state/province and federal. Both Alberta, and federal designations of Canada and the United
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 91
States, receive appropriations from the government for public use. Appropriations are not
necessarily for operational costs, they are for certain programs to encourage managers to support
habitat for monarchs or bears. For example, hunting programs geared towards disabled hunters
support operational costs for the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge systems. The monetary value of a
permit to hunt on a refuge costs anywhere from $100 to $250. This money will go to operational
costs of workers’ salaries. A larger complex does not necessarily mean more funding. Many
designations receive more funding from US Fish and Wildlife’s ecological service, a separate
branch from the refuge system, for how many endangered species inhabit the designations.
Another factor is how many trophy game species inhabit the area. This will dictate how many
trophy game permits the area supports. I know this from experience. I worked for US Fish and
Wildlife on and off for 10 years. Therefore, I feel that I cannot accurately give an estimation of
the costs associated to management and operations per designation. In trying to do so, will
misrepresent the valuation of the designation.
GLOSSARY
Cultural resource – any tangible entity or any practice or system people have created to a natural resource.
Cultural system – An interaction with the land that produced a way of life, traditions and customs or practices amongst groups of people. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 92
Ecological resources - are the natural resources, i.e. water, forest, wildlife, and minerals, as well as the ecological processes that are needed to maintain a fully functional ecosystem.
Ecological processes - are the natural disturbances, hydrology, nutrient cycling, biotic interactions, and population dynamics, and evolutionary processes (EPA 1999).
Protected Area – an area of land that has been set aside to be protected through a legal framework with a designation.
Transboundary - broader efforts to coordinate and cooperate in protecting and managing resources beyond political boundaries (Griffin 1999).
Transboundary Protected Area Management – coordination on management of resources through protected areas that have been designated and managed by a resource institution.
Governance - “policy making and design of institutions to guide interactions with resources at stake” (Petursson et al. 2013).
Interplay – “addresses the interaction between specific institutional arrangements and regimes” (Vatn 2005).
Fit – “demands specifying which aspects of the resources and their dynamic are considered important (Petursson et al. 2013).
Actors – Protected area authorities and organizations
Institutions – “structures that actors shape and are shaped by to create desired outcomes through influencing performance and facilitate coordination and interactions with the environment” (Vatn 2005).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alberta Government. 2013. Handbook of Instruments Pursuant to Public Lands Act and Public Lands Administration Regulation February 26, 2013, prepared by Project Management Branch Integrated Resource Management Planning Division Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Accessed September 24, 2014 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 93
http//esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/public-lands-administration- regulation/documents/PLARHandbookInstruments-Feb19-2014.pdf.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 1997. About Public Lands. Accessed September 24, 2014 http//esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps- services/directives/documents/PublicLands-Sep-1997.pdf
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2011. Management Plan: Bob Creek Wildland Black Creek Heritage Rangeland July 2011. Accessed on September 24, 2014 /www.albertaparks.ca/media/3331519/bcbc_final_web.pdf.
Canada National Parks Act S.C. 2000, c.32. Accessed September 24, 2014 http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-14.01.pdf
BC Parks. Appendix B: BC Parks Zoning Policy and Descriptions. Accessed February 27 2016. http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/9_resources/prov_files/prov%20appendices%20(parks).p df
BC Parks (Province of British Columbia). 2015. BC Parks: Summary of Protected Areas Designations and Activities. Accessed February 26, 2016. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/aboutBCParks/summary-of-pa-designations- activities.pdf
BC Parks (Province of British Columbia). 2014. BC Parks 2013/14 Annual Report. Accessed February 19, 2016. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/research/year_end_report/bc- parks-annual-report-13-14.pdf?v=1455901951609.
Environment & Sustainable Resource Development. Annual Report 2014-2015. Alberta Government. Accessed February 16 2014. http://esrd.alberta.ca/about-us/corporate- documents/documents/ESRD-AnnualReport-2014-2015.pdf
Egan, Dave. 2003. Defining cultural and ethnographic landscapes. Ecological Restoration 21 (4): 258-60.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Griffin, J., Cumming, D., Metcalfe, S., t’Sas-Rolfes, M., Singh, J., Chonguica, E., Rowen, M., and J. Oglethorpe. 1999. Study on the development of Transboundary Natural
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 94
Resource Management Areas in South America. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Grumbine, R.E. 1997. Reflections on “what is ecosystem management?.” Conservation Biology 11(1): 41-7.
Kaplinsky, Eran, and David Percy. A Guide to Property Rights in Alberta. University of Alberta: Alberta Land Institute. Acessed July 9, 2016. http://propertyrightsguide.ca/assets/a-guide-to-property-rights-in-alberta.pdf
Keiter, Robert B., and Harvey Locke. 1996. Law and large carnivore conservation in the rocky mountains of the U.S. and Canada. Conservation Biology 10 (4): 1003-12.
Kootenay District. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks BC Parks Division. 1999. Management Direction Statement for Akamina-Kishenina Provincial Park. Accessed September 24, 2014 www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/akamina/akamina.pdf.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990. Continental divide: The values and institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
Long, Ben. 2007. “Sustaining Rocky Mountain Landscapes: Science, Policy, and Management of the Continent Ecosystem.” The Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Profile of a Treasured Landscape, edited by Tony Prato and Dan Fagre, 17-35. Washington D.C. Resources of the Future
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.2011. Re-Discover Montana’s Outdoors: 2011 Annual Report. Accessed February 19 2016. http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/reports/annualReport.
Montana Primitive Parks Act.1993. Montana Code Annotated 2013. En. Sec. 2, Ch. 501, L. Accessed September 25, 2014 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/23/1/23-1-116.htm.
Montana Secretary of State.1974. Rule 36.27.201. “Land Administration.” Administrative Rules of Montana. Accessed September 26, 2014. http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=36.27.201
National Park Service. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guide. Accessed: August 14, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/nps28/28chap1.htm.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 95
Park Act, (RSBC 1996), chap. 344, sec. 5 (British Columbia, Canada). Accessed September 25, 2014 http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96344_01#section5.
Parks Canada. 2014. Park Canada’s Departmental Performance Report 2013/14; Section III: Supplementary Information 2014. Accessed February 19 2016. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/rpts/rmr-dpr/03312014/Section03/ts-st.aspx#ufr.
Parks Canada. Archeology: Archeology Glossary. Accessed December 9, 2015. http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/arch/page2/doc2.aspx
Pahre, Robert. "International Cooperation as Interagency Cooperation: Examples from Wildlife and Habitat Preservation." Perspectives on Politics 7.4 (2009): 883-99. Print.
Parliament of Canada. 2001. The Species At Risk Act of 2002. Bill C-5. Prepared by Kristen Douglas, Law and Government Division (2001).
Petursson, JG, P. Vedeld, and A. Vatn. 2013. Going transboundary? An institutional analysis of transboundary protected area management challenges at Mt Elgon, east Africa. Ecology and Society 18 (4): 357-73.
Pierce, John C. 2000. Political culture and public policy in Canada and the United States: Only a border apart?. Vol. 22. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Province of Alberta Wildlife Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, chap. W-10, sec.1.1-1.2.
Powell, Robert, B. 2010. Developing Institutions to Overcome Governance Barriers to Ecoregional Conservation. Landscape-scale Conservation Planning. Chapter 4.
Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamiliton, L. and Sheppard, D. 2001. “Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation”. Quoted in IUCN: Initiating Effective Transboundary Conservation IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Sandwith, T., Lockwood, M. and Gurung, C. 2006. “Linking the Landscape.” In: Lockwood, M., Worboys, G. and Kothari, A. (Eds). Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. Quoted in IUCN: Initiating Effective Transboundary Conservation. UK and USA: Earthscan.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 96
Schlager, Edella, and Elinor Ostrom. 1992. “Property-rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis”. Land Economics 68 (3). [Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, University of Wisconsin Press]: 249–62. doi:10.2307/3146375.
Selman, Paul. 2009. Conservation designations-Are they fit for purpose in the 21st century?. Land Use Policy 26S, S142-S153.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
State Parks. Montana Code Annotated. 2012. Title 23, Parks, Recreation, Sports, and Gambling.
Tourism, Parks and Recreation (Alberta Government).2014. Annual Report 2013-2014. Accessed February 19 2016. http://culture.alberta.ca/about/annual- report/2014/TPR/AnnualReport-with-statements.pdf.
Westing, Arthur.H., and Saleem, Ali.H. 2008. Peace parks: Conservation and conflict resolution. Environmental Conservation 35 (1): 91
Wilderness Act of 1964. Public Law 88-577. US Statutes at Large 78 (1964); 890-896. Codified at US Code 16 § 1131 et seq.
US. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Federal Activities. 1999. Considering Ecological Processes in Environmental Impact Assessments. Accessed: August 10, 2014 http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/ecological- processes-eia-pg.pdf
US Forest Service. 2006. “FY 2005 Forest Service Revenue, Expenses, and Cost of Collections.” Accessed February 21 2016. http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/docs/accomps/wo-rpt-congress/fy05-financial- data.pdf
Vatn, Arild. 2005. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics 55 (2): 203-17. Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangeland Act.2000. Revised Statutes of Alberta. § 4.01, Ch.W-9.
Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 97
Zbicz, Dorothy C. 2003. Imposing transboundary conservation: Cooperation between internationally adjoining protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17 (1): 21-.
GIS Data:
Crown Managers Partnership. Crown of the Continent Boundary. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalogMaps/mapping/ows/560af53ae4b058f706e53883?servic e=wms&request=getcapabilities&version=1.3.0
Crown Managers Partnership. Jurisdictions in the Crown of the Continent. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalogMaps/mapping/ows/565f35c1e4b071e7ea54 451d?service=wms&request=getcapabilities&version=1.3.0
Crown Managers Partnerships. Land Use & Land Cover in the Crown of Continent Ecosystem. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalogMaps/mapping/ows/565f3b40e4b071e7ea54453e?servic e=wms&request=getcapabilities&version=1.3.0
APPENDIX 1
British Columbia Provincial Park Zoning Management Tools (BC Parks Zoning Policy Appendix B).
Intensive Recreation COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 98
To provide for a variety of readily accessible, facility-oriented outdoor recreation opportunities.
Special Feature
To protect and present significant natural or cultural resources, features or processes because of their special character, fragility and heritage values.
Wilderness Recreation Zone
To protect a remote, undisturbed natural landscape and to provide backcountry recreation
opportunities dependent on a pristine environment where air access may be permitted to designated sites.
Wilderness Conservation
To protect a remote, undisturbed natural landscape and to provide unassisted backcountry recreation opportunities dependent on a pristine environment where no motorized activities will be allowed.
Natural Environment Zone
The objective of this zone is to provide for a variety of recreational activities in a largely undisturbed natural environment. The intent is to ensure that the activities and facilities do not dominate the natural setting and to provide for a higher level of recreation use than is provided for in the Wilderness Recreation Zone.
APPENDIX 2
Canadian National Park Zoning Management Tools
Zone I - Special Preservation
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 99
Specific areas or features which deserve special preservation because they contain or support unique, threatened or endangered natural or cultural features, or are among the best examples of the features that represent a natural region. Preservation is the key consideration. Motorized access and circulation will not be permitted. In cases where the fragility of the area precludes any public access, every effort will be made to provide park visitors with appropriate off-site programs and exhibits interpreting the special characteristics of the zone.
Zone II - Wilderness
Extensive areas which are good representations of a natural region and which will be conserved in a wilderness state. The perpetuation of ecosystems with minimal human interference is the key consideration. Zones I and II will together constitute the majority of the area of all but the smallest national parks, and will make the greatest contribution toward the conservation of ecosystem integrity.
Zone II areas offer opportunities for visitors to experience, first hand, a park's natural and cultural heritage values through outdoor recreation activities which are dependent upon and within the capacity of the park's ecosystems, and which require few, if any, rudimentary services and facilities. Where the area is large enough, visitors will also have the opportunity to experience remoteness and solitude. Opportunities for outdoor recreation activities will be encouraged only when they do not conflict with maintaining the wilderness itself. For this reason, motorized access and circulation will not be permitted, with the possible exception of strictly controlled air access in remote northern parks, as specified in 4.4.3.
Zone III - Natural Environment
Areas which are managed as natural environments, and which provide opportunities for visitors to experience a park's natural and cultural heritage values through outdoor recreation activities requiring minimal services and facilities of a rustic nature. While motorized access may be allowed, it will be controlled. Public transit that facilitates heritage appreciation will be preferred. Park management plans may define provisions for terminating or limiting private motorized access.
Zone IV - Outdoor Recreation
Limited areas which are capable of accommodating a broad range of opportunities for understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the park's heritage values and related essential services and facilities, in ways that impact the ecological integrity of the park to the smallest extent possible, and whose defining feature is direct access by motorized vehicles. Park management plans may define provisions for limiting private motorized access and circulation. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 100
Zone V - Park Services
Communities in existing national parks which contain a concentration of visitor services and support facilities. Specific activities, services and facilities in this zone will be defined and directed by the community planning process. Major park operation and administrative functions may also be accommodated in this zone. Wherever possible, Parks Canada will locate these functions to maintain regional ecological integrity.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 101
APPENDIX 3
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 102
APPENDIX 4
Coordination efforts between various government agencies and non-profit organizations COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTION SCHEMES WITHIN A TRANSBOUNDARY COMPLEX: THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT / KEYSHA FONTAINE / PAGE| 103