State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

State of the Crown of The Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

STATE OF THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT ECOSYSTEM: Flathead/Castle Transboundary Bioregion

- DRAFT -

Flathead Transboundary Network January 1999

For additional copies of this report, comments or review, please contact:

Miistakis Institute for the Rockies c/o Biological Sciences University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada Phone: 403/220-8968 Email: [email protected] Also available online at: http://www.rockies.ca

Copyright (c) 1998 Flathead Transboundary Network. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of a copyright holder.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

I This work is a collaborative effort of members of the Flathead Transboundary Network. Founded in January 1998, the FTN is a network of government agencies, scientists and NGOs seeking innovative ecosystem-based solutions to transboundary issues in the Rocky Mountain region of Montana, B.C. and Alberta

Authors: Erica Konrad, Brian Peck, Andrea Stewart, Craig Stewart General Editor: Craig Stewart Maps: Andrew Harries

This work has been generously funded by the Kendall Foundation, the Fanwood Foundation and the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network

CITATION: Flathead Transboundary Network. 1999. State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Flathead/ Castle Transboundary Region (Draft). Calgary: Miistakis Institute for the Rockies.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

II Table of Contents

Chapter 1: A transboundary ecosystem...... 1 a) Introduction ...... 1 The political context: ...... 1 An information-based approach: This State of the Ecosystem Report ...... 2 Scope of this report: ...... 2 b) Geographic Context...... 4 Location: ...... 4 Landscape and Geology: ...... 4 Climate ...... 6 Ecozones: ...... 6 c) Administrative Context: ...... 9 Jurisdictions ...... 9 Land Use Zones ...... 11 Chapter 2: General Human History...... 17 Native Peoples ...... 17 Non-native settlement ...... 18 Part A: North Fork — Flathead ...... 21 Chapter 3 — Ecological Components of the North Fork of the Flathead ...... 21 Ecological Processes...... 21 Fire ...... 21 Disease ...... 23 Vegetation ...... 23 Historic content and distribution ...... 24 Present content, distribution...... 24 Focal species ...... 26 Old growth forest ...... 28 Trends in Forest Composition and Structure...... 29

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

III Wildlife ...... 31 Historic content ...... 31 Present content ...... 32 Protected status ...... 34 Habitat hotspots...... 35 Focal Species ...... 35 Aquatics (quality/species) ...... 39 Water Quality — Present Status: ...... 40 Water Quality Monitoring Framework...... 43 Indicators of Water Quality ...... 43 Focal Species...... 46 Chapter 4 — One Century of Human Activity in the North Fork...... 49 Forestry Practices ...... 49 Past (British Columbia) ...... 49 Past (Montana) ...... 50 Current (Montana)...... 51 Current (British Columbia)...... 52 Petroleum Extraction ...... 57 Past (British Columbia) ...... 57 Past (Montana) ...... 57 Current (BC and Montana) ...... 57 Mining...... 58 Past (British Columbia) ...... 58 Past (Montana) ...... 58 Current (BC and Montana) ...... 58 Recreational Activities ...... 60 Past Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting (B.C. and Montana) ...... 60 Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Fishing/ Outfitting (B.C.)...... 60 Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting (Montana) ...... 61 Current Camping/ Hiking/ General sightseeing (Montana and B.C.): ...... 61 Current Commercial River Usage (Montana) ...... 62 Current motorized recreation — snowmobiles, 4 wheelers, dirt bikes (Montana and BC) ...... 63 Land development ...... 64 Current (B.C. and Montana) ...... 64

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

IV Ranching Practices...... 65 Current (B.C. and Montana) ...... 65 Road Development ...... 65 Road profiles: ...... 67 Part B: Castle Drainage ...... 75 Chapter 5 — Ecological Components of the Castle Drainage ...... 75 Ecological Processes (fire, flood, disease) ...... 75 Fire ...... 75 Flood ...... 76 Disease/ Insects...... 76 Vegetation ...... 77 Historic content, distribution ...... 77 Present content, distribution...... 79 Focal species — pockets of endemism...... 81 Old-growth forest ...... 81 Invasive Species ...... 83 Wildlife ...... 83 Distribution ...... 84 Mule and White-tailed Deer ...... 88 Elk...... 89 Moose...... 91 Bighorn Sheep ...... 92 Mountain Goats ...... 92 Wolf ...... 94 Grizzly Bear ...... 96 Mesopredators (Lynx, Wolverine, Marten and Fisher) ...... 99 Birds ...... 101 Habitat Hot Spots ...... 102 Aquatics...... 104 Water Quality...... 104 Fish ...... 105

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

V Chapter 6 — One Century of Human Activity in the Castle ...... 107 Forestry Practices ...... 107 Historic ...... 107 Current ...... 108 Agriculture ...... 109 Historic ...... 109 Current ...... 110 Mining Practices ...... 110 Historic ...... 110 Current ...... 113 Petroleum Exploration/ Extraction...... 113 Historic ...... 113 Current ...... 113 Past ...... 114 Hunting, Trapping and Outfitting Practices...... 114 Current ...... 115 Recreation Activity ...... 115 Current Road Status ...... 116 Chapter 7: An integrated approach ...... 119 Ecosystem Based Management: ...... 119 Overview...... 119 Ecosystem Wide Trends ...... 121 Human Based Management ...... 128 A Process for the future ...... 129 Appendix I: Processes to build upon...... i References ...... xiii Personal Communications ...... xiii Bibliography ...... xiii

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

VI Chapter 1: A transboundary ecosystem a) Introduction When Fording Coal Inc. announced plans in late Where the Continental Divide transects the 1997 to drill exploratory sites for coal reserves in 49th parallel, water flows amidst limestone the headwaters of the Flathead River, memories peaks to nurture a remarkable ecosystem. Prai- of an international dispute surfaced. In the late rie grasses, pacific flowers and alpine wildlife 1970s and early 1980s, Rio Algom and its sub- intermingle in one of the most biodiverse places sidiary, Sage Creek Coal, announced plans for an on the continent. From here, grizzlies and open pit mine in B.C. just 6 miles north of the in- wolves repopulate the northern U.S. Rivers ternational border. As the mine was proposed in flow to two opposing oceans. Fires and floods tributaries of the transboundary North Fork of the still renew its landscape. To administer it, we Flathead and would affect key bull trout spawn- have fragmented this puzzle into a myriad of ing streams, that project jurisdictions. Putting its pieces back together was ultimately referred to is the focus of this report. the International Joint Commission (IJC) under The political context: the Boundary Waters Landscape management fads change from Treaty of 1909. In its 1988 decade to decade. Biosphere reserves and envi- report, the IJC recom- ronmental assessment in the 1970s gave way mended that: to integrated resource plans, national forest/ parks planning and ecosystem management in “The mine proposal the 1980s. In the 1990s we undertook cumula- not receive regulatory tive effects analysis and large scale land-use approval in the future planning exercises such as CORE in BC, Spe- unless and until it can cial Places 2000 in Alberta and various attempts be demonstrated that... at designating federal wilderness in Montana. the potential transboundary impacts... have Despite some jurisdictional successes in these been determined with reasonable certainty fields, as we head into a new millennium we still and would constitute a level of risk acceptable have difficulties conceptualizing across organi- to both governments and... governments zational and political boundaries. We collect in- consider, with the appropriate jurisdictions, formation based upon our particular mandates. opportunities for defining and implementing Ecological landscapes reflect our cognitive maps compatible, equitable and sustainable devel- instead of the other way around. opment activities and management strategies in the upper Flathead River basin.”

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

1 Furthermore, the IJC prescribed “the identi- nents of this area, including human activity. The fication and formulation of creative, binational document makes no appraisal of impacts and approaches” to studies, fact finding and plan- undertakes no evaluation of issues. This is only ning in this watershed. intended to be descriptive. Various government agencies and conserva- Recognizing that we do not have all experts tion groups convened in Whitefish, MT on Janu- around the table, this draft report is being dis- ary 31st 1998, catalyzed by the Fording proposal. tributed to various First Nations peoples, scien- Participants recognized that this proposal rep- tists and agency managers with an invitation to resented only one of many developments in the build upon it. We hope that a common under- region and that, despite the IJC recommenda- standing of baseline information will proactively tions and many follow-up studies in the inter- lead to agreement on transboundary issues and vening 15 years, there is still no co-operative, the eventual approaches to deal with them. international or interagency management plan that looks at the region as a single ecological This is a living document. We invite you to unit. There is no mechanism to effectively as- reflect upon how it captures your particular sess and deal with cumulative impacts and no understanding of this ecosystem and how single, broadly accepted set of ecosystem stand- you might contribute to improve upon it. We ards for what is sustainable in terms of water are soliciting comments into the spring of quality, fish and wildlife habitat, resource man- 1999. Please refer to the contact information agement, and recreation. In short, despite the on the introductory page. best intentions of policy makers promoting ecosystem management in each province and state, structural realities have thwarted this approach. Scope of this report: An information-based approach: This This report focusses on the Flathead/ Castle State of the Ecosystem Report Transboundary bioregion of the greater Crown Agreement on interjurisdictional management of the Continent Ecosystem (see Map A). As eco- of an ecosystem cannot proceed without agree- system boundaries do not follow political ment upon what it is comprised of and what is boundaries and are ill-defined, watershed of issue. At a follow-up meeting in April 1998, boundaries are often used as surrogates. Origi- the Flathead Transboundary Network recognized nally, the watershed boundaries of the North Fork that a first step in realizing an ecosystem-wide of the Flathead River were used to bound our management structure would be to create a ho- study. However, the source of many of the cumu- listic snapshot of the area. lative effects on this ecosystem’s components lies This State of the Ecosystem Report represents across the Continental Divide in Alberta. There- a first cut at describing the ecological compo- fore, we have extended its scope (cont’d p4)

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

2 State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

3 to include the Castle River drainage and have left eastern British Columbia, adjacent to Waterton open the option of including other watersheds if and flows in a southerly direction (forming expert review shows that to be desirable. Glacier’s western boundary) into Flathead Lake, The report covers the ecological components the Clark Fork River, then the Pend D’Oreille (ecological processes, vegetation, wildlife, aquat- River and finally into the Columbia. ics) and human activities occurring within these This bioregion encompasses roughly 5088 watersheds. Wherever possible, we present both km2 (1964 mi2). The Castle drainage in Al- historic (baseline) and current details with an berta covers about 970 km2 (374 mi2) analysis of apparent trends. whereas the North Fork of the Flathead drainage covers 4118 km2. (1617 mi2) in BC and Montana. Of the latter, the North Fork drains The two watersheds are presented 1575 km2 (608 mi2) over its 50 km (31 mi) separately to facilitate review. A decision on extent in BC and drains 2543 km2 (982 mi2) integrating them in the next iteration hinges over its 75 km (47mi) extent in Montana. upon reader feedback. Landscape and Geology: The topography of this ecosystem is complex, ranging from rolling prairie to steep b) Geographic Context mountain walls to a wide glaciated valley. Viewed from the north-east, it begins with prai- Location: rie (1475m/4839ft) intruding into the deep east- The Transboundary Bioregion (Map B) occu- west aligned Front Range canyons of Alberta. pies two watersheds of the greater Crown of the The mountains of the Castle region rise dra- Continent Ecosystem. The Crown of the Conti- matically, without any intermediary foothills. nent is centred on the Waterton-Glacier Interna- Proceeding west over the ends of these box can- tional Peace Park and stretches along the axis of yons, three north - south valleys are split by the Rocky Mountains between the Canadian Cen- Windsor and Barnaby Ridges respectively. tral Rockies (Banff-Yoho-Kootenay complex) and These valleys, Mill, South Castle and West the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Castle, segment the ecosystem east of the Divide. These two watersheds abut Waterton and Crossing over the Continental Divide (2400m Glacier National Parks respectively. The Castle - 2755m or 7874ft - 9039ft), a myriad of River originates in Alberta, north of Waterton, headwater streams cut valleys down to the and flows in a north-easterly manner into the North Fork of the Flathead River (1300m/ Crowsnest then the Oldman and eventually the 4265ft). The terrain opens up here, as the river Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers. The North is surrounded by a series of flat benches and Fork of the Flathead River originates in south- rolling hills bordered by subranges of the Rocky

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

4 Mountains. Travelling south into Montana, the allowed these rocks to erode before increased Clark range gives way to the Livingstone activity built the front ranges. In the Waterton- Range on the east side of the Flathead and Glacier region, this activity was manifested as the Macdonald Range becomes the Whitefish a uniquely clean event - the Lewis Overthrust. Range on the west side. The highest peaks Beginning 85 million years ago, material from bordering the valley reach 3040m (9974 ft), the first sedimentary period sheared off from the however, most mountains are between 2200m harder basement granite and slid cleanly over (7218 ft) and 2900m (9514 ft). younger material from the third and second pe- This transboundary bioregion is riods. Material originating west of the present topographically defined by the Lewis Thrust - an Flathead Valley moved 60-70 km (37-44 mi) east orogenic event that took place over 65 million to create dramatic mountains with minimal fold- years ago. Base materials were deposited in sev- ing and no foothills. eral sedimentary se-quences. Red and green Next, between 24 and argillites, mudstones and limestones originated 40 million years ago, tec- in a shallow inland sea between 900 and 1500 tonic movements pulled million years ago (Mesoproterozoic to apart the result of the Neoproterozoic Rodinia). A second sedimentary Lewis Overthrust. This period, when this region formed an offshore Flathead Fault created a continental shelf, began about 525 million broad valley, exposed the years ago (Middle Cambrian to Permian). As younger rocks below and the ocean alternately retreated and covered this collected new sedimen- shelf, vegetation grew and decayed resulting tary material in a series of in oil and gas deposits sandwiched between alluvial fans. This con- layers of limestone, dolomite and shale. Finally, glomerate of sands and between 5 and 140 million years ago, various gravel (a continuation of inland seas and rivers eroded newly formed the ‘third sedimentary mountains to create sandstone, shales, and con- period’) make up the glomerate. Through parts of this period, much surficial material of the North Fork. of the North Fork was muddy swampland re- Finally, over the last 400 000 years, a series of ceiving river-borne sediment. The rich coal de- glaciation events have sculpted the landscape. Ice posits now found near the surface here owe sheets spreading out from the continental divide their origins to this Cretaceous bog. covered all but sporadic mountains (nunatuks). Tectonic plate collisions initiated mountain- Although the last sheets retreated over 10 000 building in western North America about 175 years ago, the resulting glaciers, lakes, hanging million yeas ago. By 140 million years ago the valleys, cirques and hills/ drumlins/ moraines in westernmost Rockies had formed. A ‘stall’ then the region bear testament to their flow.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

5 Climate test in Alberta with the deepest provincial The climate of the ecosystem is highly vari- snowpacks occurring in the upper Southcastle able. Washington’s Columbia Plateau presents and Westcastle valleys (Perraton 1994). little barrier to storm systems moving in from In Alberta, the greatest winter snowpack oc- the southwest resulting in heavy precipitation curs in the subalpine region and progressively in this portion of the Continental Divide. More decreases through the montane region. Due to moisture precipitates out as storms gain altitude the steep rock faces and exposed slopes in the towards the northwest in Glacier National Park alpine region snow accumulation in this area is and BC. Although the bulk of precipitation falls minimal. Because of the combination of a high out on the west side of the Divide, low moun- winter snowpack and high spring rainfall, south- tain passes still permit substantial moisture western Alberta is subject to severe flooding. to pass through. Generally speaking, the In winter, Pacific storm systems vie with the region’s climate is Arctic Front, which sweeps down the Rocky characterized by short, Mountain Trench and Eastern Slopes. With the cool, moist summers and flex of the continental jet stream, warm masses long cold winters with of air are alternatively drawn in or forced out of heavy snowfall. this area, resulting in unstable weather patterns Beginning with the west of the Divide and the windy chinook southwest, the Whitefish phenomenon to the east. Range receives annual precipitation averaging Ecozones: 203 cm (81 inches) while Ecozones divide up the landscape into combi- the Livingston Range ac- nations of climate, topography and/ or vegetation. cumulates annual aver- Demarchi and Lea’s (1992) delineation was the ages of 305 cm (122 first attempt to classify this ecosystem across bor- inches). In between, the ders. Based upon physiography, they break the valley floor at Polebridge Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (also receives 57 cm (23 inches) with moisture rising known as the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem) to nearly 75 cm (30 inches) at the junction with into the Border Ranges Ecosection (BRR) and the Middle Fork on the south. Moving into BC, Crown of the Continent Ecosection (COC). The the Corbin weather station at the northern end Border Ranges Ecosection extends from of the drainage records a mean annual rainfall Whitefish, Montana north into BC (cont’d p9) of 430mm (17 inches) and a mean annual snow- across the Flathead. In BC, this ecosection is char- fall of 390cm (153 inches). Across the Divide, acterized by wide valleys, subdued mountains and annual precipitation in the Castle Valley amounts occasional steep, rugged ridges (EKLUP 1994). to 86.6 cm (34 inches). This region is the wet- The Crown of the Continent Ecosection is a

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

6 blank - backside

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

8 (cont’d p9) rugged mountainous area that rises therefore, in criteria used for development. abruptly from the Interior Plains in Alberta and These two classifications include the Natural Montana to the east and from the Flathead Basin Regions of Alberta developed by Peter Achuff to the west (EKLUP 1994). (1992) and the Ecoregions of Alberta devel- Each jurisdiction has also classified its oped by Strong and Leggat (1992). Achuff landscapes into relatively comparable divides the Rocky Mountain Natural Region ecozones. Each generally divides the ecosys- into general montane, subalpine and alpine tem into low elevation mountainous grass- subregions. Strong and Leggat also subdivide, land (montane), mid-elevation coniferous fortuitously, the Cordilleran eco-province into forest (subalpine) and high elevation tundra montane, subalpine and alpine ecoregions. with subdivisions based on moisture. The two classifications overlap in the Castle For instance, the U.S. Forest Service subregion. The Castle area also consists of small classifies its ecoregions into age classes and amounts of grassland cover types. As a result, they list 13 and aspen parkland Terrestrial Community Types based on veg- ecoregions, however the etation communities. These range from most predominant Early Seral Lower Montane at low elevations ecoregion is the sub- to Mid-Seral Subalpine at the upper margins. alpine zone, which occu- In addition, they list 35 cover types for the pies approximately 50% region, from Broadleaf Forest, Lodgepole of the region (Gibbard Pine, and Mesic Upland Shrubland, to and Sheppard, 1992). Subalpine Fir and Barren Tundra. More information on In BC, the Ministry of Forests biogeoclimatic ecoregions and classification system separates the drainage into vegetation communities 4 subzones: can be found in chapters three and five respec- Montane Spruce (dry cool), MSdk tively. Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (dry cool), ESSFdk Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (dry cool c) Administrative Context: park), ESSFdkp Jurisdictions Alpine Tundra, AT Approximately twenty percent of the study area In Alberta there are two systems of eco- falls within Alberta, thirty percent in B.C. and fifty logically based land classifications. These percent in Montana. The Alberta portion is part of differ in purpose (i.e. intended use) and, the Bow-Crow Forest Reserve. Predominantly

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

9 administered by Alberta Environmental Protection, the area has two private holdings around Castle When Alberta became a province in Mountain - 82 acres (33ha) owned by the Westcastle 1905, the federal government retained Development Authority and 57.5 acres (23ha) control over natural resources, including owned by Castle Mountain Resort (Gilmar 1998). the forested lands of the eastern slopes of Supervision of development on these private lands the Rocky Mountains. From 1914 until is governed by the Municipal District of Pincher 1921 a large part of the Castle area lay Creek. Four provincial camp-grounds operate in within Waterton Lakes National Park. the area managed by the Alberta Parks Service This included the Castle region up to the (Kehr 1998, pers. comm.). These include Lynx Carbondale River from North Kootenay Creek, Castle Falls, Castle Bridge and Beaver Pass to its junction with the Castle Mines Lake. As part of the Special Places 2000 River. After the boundaries were process, a Wetland Ecological Reserve (2 km2/ decreased in 1921, the Castle area .77 mi2) has been estab- returned to being part of the federal lished in the West Castle Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. In Valley. The management 1930 control was passed over to the of this reserve is still to be Alberta provincial government which determined. continued to treat the land that was In British Columbia, formerly within the park boundary as a the Flathead is provincial game preserve. Under this status hunt- Crown land administered ing was illegal but logging and grazing by the BC Ministry of were acceptable practices (Gerrand et Forests, save for al, undated). This game preserve status Akamina Kishenena remained until 1954 when the area was Provincial Park (BC once again opened up for hunting. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks) and several small areas which are privately owned Forest), 3.8% owned by the State of Montana, (197acres/80ha and 370acres/150ha respec- and the remaining 2.7% privately owned (Na- tively). The old Flathead townsite in the Upper ture Conservancy, 1994). East of the river, with a Flathead (LU17 - 2400 acres/971ha) is owned few small exceptions (private in-holdings), the by Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI). area is administered by Glacier National Park. In Montana, federal and state public lands Two federally administered National Parks predominate. West of the river, the area includes abut the Flathead/ Castle system. Waterton approximately 535,000 acres (216 500ha) with Lakes National Park is administered by Parks 93.5% in public ownership (Flathead National Canada while Glacier National Park is adminis-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

10 tered through the U.S. National Parks Service. Castle, South Castle and Carbondale valleys are The two combined to form the world’s first In- allocated for Multiple Use. As a result, grazing, ternational Peace Park on June 30th, 1932. In petroleum extraction, forestry and tourism ac- 1976, Glacier National Park was designated a tivities are allocated here on separate leases UNESCO Biosphere Reserve followed by referring to the same land base. Waterton Lakes National Park in 1979. Waterton-Glacier was designated a World Her- Table 1. Management Categories and Land itage Site in 1996. None of these designations Use Zones for the Eastern Slopes of Alberta. carry formalized administrative obligations. * Not applied in the Castle River The Flathead River was designated a Wild and Scenic River in Montana under federal Management Land Use Zones legislation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Categories Public Law 90-542, in 1976. The Flathead 1. Prime Protection Protection River in Canada currently has no special des- 2. Critical Wildlife ignation although its international status 3. Special Use places it under the direction of the federal Resource 4. General Recreation government (British North America Act, 1867). Management 5. Multiple Use Because of the significance of this 6. Agriculture* transboundary watershed, elements of its 7. Industrial* Development management come under the purview of the 8. Facility International Joint Commission.

Land Use Zones The Castle region falls under wildlife manage- Management agencies designate land use ment units (WMU’s) 400, 300 and 302. The bulk zones for resource management planning and of the area is within WMU 400, which includes fish/ wildlife management zones for setting hunt- the Bow-Crow Forest Reserve from Highway #3 ing/ angling quotas. In Alberta, the Eastern to Waterton Lakes National Park. Only small Slopes Policy (1984) creates a broad framework portions along the eastern boundary of the re- for integrated resource management. Flowing gion fall into WMUs 300 and 302. out of this, the Castle River Subregional Inte- British Columbia divides provincial lands grated Resource Plan, divides the area into 8 into management and landscape units for plan- different land use zones (see Table 1). Prime pro- ning purposes. The North Fork of the Flathead tection and critical wildlife zones typically cover is defined as Management Unit 4-01 and land- off high elevation lands while riparian corridors scape units (LU) 16, 17, and 18. Landscape are designated as various Resource Manage- units are areas of land and water for planning ment zones. In the Castle, the bulk of the West resource management activities over the long

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

11 term. They are delineated on the basis of The riparian valley of the North Fork of the topographic or geographic features. Water- Flathead is designated a Special Resource sheds are one of the main criteria for land- Management Zone and Integrated and En- scape unit definition; boundaries follow hanced pockets exist. The Enhanced zone is heights of land. Administrative boundaries found near Kisoo Pass, to the North of Piaysoo and existing road networks are also used Ridge and to the west of the confluence of to determine landscape unit boundaries in Harvey Creek and the Flathead River. So des- areas with less complex topography if ignated, the area is slated for industrial ac- ecological values are not compromised. tivity - mining of rich coal deposits, petroleum LUs are important for designing strate- extraction and logging (EKLUP 1994). gies and patterns with respect to land- The newly protected Akamina-Kishinena scape level biodiversity and the provincial park, is regarded in the plan as “a management of other core area of critical importance as a connec- forest resources and tor between Waterton Lakes NP and Glacier may be used to estab- NP...the management emphasis will be on con- lish objectives. servation” (KBLUP 1997). The Kootenay Other protective designations exist in BC un- Boundary Land-Use der a variety of administrative tools. The min- Plan (KBLUP), estab- eral lick in McClatchie Creek and Ptolemy lished through CORE, Plateau is proposed to be designated as a sensi- recently introduced a tive area under the Forest Practices Code. As separate planning outlined in the implementation strategy of the framework. The plan KBLUP, the Upper Flathead should be managed assigns four designa- for high biodiversity emphasis and the east and tions to the North Fork west Flathead area should be managed for me- (Map C): dium biodiversity. There is a small area north of Mt. Yarrell which is classified as a Rare Old- 1) Protected area (Akamina-Kishinena Provin- Growth area, as well as another Rare Old- cial park) (22,193 hectares/54,839 acres) Growth area in South Lodgepole Creek. There 2) Special Resource Management Zone (SMZ) is a small (<5km2/2mi2) McDougall Wildlife (46,919 ha/115,936 acres) sanctuary, which is located in the eastern por- 3) Integrated Resource Management Zone tion of the drainage near Sage Creek. The North (IMZ) (71,549 ha/176,797 acres) Fork has also been designated Grizzly Bear 4) Enhanced Resource Management Zone Priority I as well as important winter range for (EMZ) (3,140ha/7,759acres) ungulates (KBLUP 1997).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

12 Similarly, on the U.S. side, virtually the entire North Fork is designated as Manage- We currently report in differing levels of ment Situation 1 (MS-1) for grizzlies, mean- detail concerning land use zones in ing that their needs are supposed to prevail Montana, BC and Alberta. How does the when conflicts with other land uses occur. Flathead National Forest zone its land? Exceptions to MS-1 are the Polebridge What areas in Alberta and Montana Townsite, Polebridge Ranger Station, devel- receive special designation congruent with oped campgrounds at Quartz and Logging counter-parts described in BC? Creeks, Bowman and Kintla Lakes, and two small inholdings, all of which are MS-3.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

13 State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

14 blank - backside

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

16 Chapter 2: General Human History

Native Peoples Beginning in spring, the Ktunaxa used the Piikani legend holds that Napi (Old Man) Flathead mainstem, tributaries and, to a lesser looked down upon a world of water from extent, Castle valleys for food gathering. Berry Ninastakis (Chief Mountain on the Alberta/ Mon- gathering started at lower elevations and moved tana border). He created the prairie first, followed higher with the passage of summer. Edible green by a mountain backbone (Miistakis) as places for shoots such as balsamroot in the early spring and his animals to dwell. People then were crafted biscuitroot, water parsnip and nodding onion later from clay to populate the land (Reeves 1997). in the season were gathered. Summer gathering Eleven thousand years ago, geologists believe began with bitterroot, camas and Oregon grape glaciers were receding from the prairie, leaving and moved to serviceberries (saskatoons), straw- large meltwater lakes and rivers behind. The berries, huckleberries, Flathead was inundated by Glacial Lake soapberries and raspber- Missoula which suddenly drained when it broke ries. In the fall, the through its morainal dam. Recollection of this Ktunaxa gathered cran- catastrophic flood is catalogued in Ktunaxa lore berries, rose hips and (Reeves 1997). Archaeologists have recorded kinnikinnick berries evidence of native presence in this ecosystem (EKLUP 1994). They since that time (Gerrand et al, 1992). hunted and fished to The ecosystem was peopled by the Ktunaxa round out their diet. The (also known as Kutenai or Kootenay) on both Ktunaxa relied heavily on sides of the Divide. Their territory was centred caribou as well as fish for on the Kootenay River, extending north and west their staples and ranged to into the main stem of the Columbia, east onto the deer, elk, moose, moun- prairies and south into the United States (EKLUP tain goats and sheep when 1994). As the primary band in the area, they trav- available. In winter, they pastured their horses elled widely through the region, moving up and on the Tobacco Plains in Montana. Using snow- down the mountains throughout the year in or- shoes instead, they crossed Akamina, Middle der to take advantage of the resources available and South Kootenay and Sage Passes to hunt at different places and during different seasons. bison on the prairie. (Reeves 1979). The North Fork and the Castle region were, As the 18th century dawned, the Blackfoot therefore, major transportation corridors, for trav- tribe of eastern Alberta and Montana expanded elling south to lands in present-day Montana, east their range westward. The Ktunuxa probably to the prairies, or west back to the Kootenay river. numbered about 1000 people at this time (Reeves

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

17 1997). Outbreaks of smallpox in 1730 and What is the Ktunaxa legend of origin in this 1781 decimated their numbers, increasing ecosystem? Have we captured your their vulnerability to the Blackfoot (Gibbard history correctly? and Sheppard 1992). As the latter acquired horses and guns, they expanded their zone of influence (MacDonald 1992). From the late 1700s to the 1860s the Have we captured the Piikani and Blood Blackfoot Confederacy (composed of Peigan, history correctly? How was your use of Blood, Blackfoot, Gros Ventre and Athapascan- the Castle differentiated? What have speaking Sarcee) had control of the prairie lands we missed? of Southwestern Alberta (MacDonald 1992). The Blackfoot sought to isolate the Ktunaxa, who now resided primarily on the western slopes of Non-native settlement the mountains, from the first fur traders arriv- The ranching industry launched in southern ing in the southern Rockies. In 1810 a dispute Alberta in 1874 when 235 head of cattle were between the Peigan and Ktunaxa caused the driven west from Manitoba. By the 1880s, large former to close all mountain passes between herds of cattle were driven north from Fort the Castle and Flathead which they enforced Benton, MT to stock expansive ranch leases in until the 1850s (Gerrand et al, undated). The the foothills. This increasing non-native settle- fur trade also had difficulty establishing a foot- ment, along with the near extinction of the bi- hold on Blackfoot lands (MacDonald 1992) al- son, led the Blackfoot to turn to agriculture as though the people of the Blackfoot Confederacy a new way of life (MacDonald 1992). In 1876 were still involved in trading hides and furs the signing of Treaty Number 7 moved the (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Peigans to their present day reserve at Brocket The Ktunaxa, a culturally and linguistically (Pincher Creek Historical Society 1974). The unique people (EKLUP 1994), gave aboriginal town of Pincher Creek originated in 1882 as a names to the tributaries in the North Fork such Northwest Mounted Police Post horse ranch. as the Akamina and the Kishinena. The Ktunaxa By 1910 the Castle River, lower Carbondale, still use the North Fork, whether it be through Screwdriver Creek, Beaver Mines Creek and the fishing, trapping or using the historical trails Gladstone Valley were homesteaded (Pincher which still exist today. They no longer travel to Creek Historical Society 1974). the Castle area which are still used by the Peigan Across the Divide, settlers first reached the (Piikani). The latter use the region for hunting main Flathead Valley with its superior access and collecting ceremonial paint and special and soils, while homesteading, farming, and plants from the upper section of the Castle River ranching in the inaccessible North Fork had to (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). wait until the late 1890s and early 1900s. The

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

18 first road up the North Fork was built in 1901, grains, as well as vegetables, fruits, and berries for not to further settlement, but to reach a hoped home and commercial purposes. As noted by McKay, for oil strike on the shores of Kintla Lake. It early homesteaders were attracted not only by the remains today as the “Inside North Fork Road” land itself, but by timber, wildlife, and the possibil- in Glacier National Park. ity of coal, oil, and railroad development. In addi- In 1904, Bill Adair built a log mercantile and tion, many homesteaders worked in the logging boarding house in present day Sullivan Meadow to industry or for Great Northern Railway, the Forest serve the increasing flow of freighters, homestead- Service, or Park Service. Some also held seasonal ers, trappers, and early tourists visiting or living in jobs building roads or guiding tourists or sports- the valley. This business was relocated west of the men. By the early 1920s, Montana’s North Fork con- river to Polebridge, once lands on the east side be- tained over 150 homesteads and a substantial came part of Glacier National Park in 1910. The number of trappers remained into the 30s and 40s Forest Homestead Act of 1906 opened up agricul- (pers. comm. Wilson and Downes 1998). tural land in the National Forest Reserves for set- Across the border, settlement grew much tlement and much of today’s private land along slower. As of 1937, according to Frank Goble, the river corridor traces its origins back to this the only inhabitants were Joe McDougal in the time period. In the early years homesteads sprang main valley, Charlie Wise on Nettie Creek, Andy up in the Trail Creek and Red Meadow drainages Anderson on Sage Creek, Levi Ashman and the as well as in the vicinity of Polebridge. Riviere brothers trapping the Kishenina Valley, In 1910, Chauncey ‘Chance’ Beebe and Charlie Ktunaxa aboriginal peoples in the summer and Wise crossed north of the international border to fall west of the river, and a couple of other trap- homestead in the BC North Fork. Charlie pers up the Flathead mainstem. Access to the homesteaded a ¼ section in BC, working as a trap- BC portion remained via foot or saddlehorse per, prospector, guide and for several years a U.S. trail only (Goble 1996). Government predator control officer. Joe McDougal, a trapper and hunting guide in the Sage Creek Valley and surrounding area visited this BC valley in the summer of 1907 and later How many of these early settlers are still homesteaded there. In 1912, his father worked living or have left behind recorded history on the construction of the first graded trail, a Tote in the form of journals or diaries? Their road into the BC North Fork valley. testimony is invaluable for providing Because of the North Fork’s isolation, homestead- answers to ‘base-line information’ ers had to support themselves in a variety of ways. questions posed in later chapters. A number raised livestock, hay, oats and other feed

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

19 State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

20 Part A: North Fork — Flathead

The North Fork of the Flathead river drains and hope for aid from co-operators in British 4118 km2 (1617mi) of forested mountains Columbia and Montana to flesh it out. into a broad valley just west of the General readers may be hampered by the Continental Divide. This section describes way information is divided by the ecological components and human jurisdiction, however, at this stage, it activity of this watershed. We recognize facilitates agency review (by isolating this to be only a foundation to build upon material for reviewers).

Chapter 3 — Ecological Components of the North Fork of the Flathead

Ecological Processes lightning, contiguous extents of forest fuels, and Ecological processes ‘knit’ an ecosystem periodic spells of hot dry conditions. Historically, together as both landscape altering events or this mix produced frequent understory burns ongoing interactions between ecosystem com- coupled with occasional stand-replacing events. ponents. Humans have used these processes The fires produced a mosaic landscape with for centuries as natives staged periodic burns small patches of mature forest interspersed to maintain wildlife habitat. Today these proc- between large patches of even-aged regenerat- esses continue, some altered by human activ- ing stands. No fire study has looked at the wa- ity, in the North Fork of the Flathead. tershed as a unit, therefore, we present what is This iteration considers fire and disease — known in each province/ state. two processes which influence forest structure BC’s North Fork experienced frequent wildfires that and composition. Although floods, predation ranged in size and herbivory are not treated here, they shall from small be included in the final report. spot fires to very large Fire ones. Natural The North Fork of the Flathead is a forested burns usually ecosystem that experiences frequent summer missed some

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

21 patches of mature forest. Consequently, these fires ing 10 000 acres occurred about every 39 years. produced a landscape mosaic of even-aged regen- In total, there were 66 fire years from 1470- erating stands ranging in size from a few thousands 1960, while the period of relatively continuous of hectares and usually containing mature forest data from 1655 to the onset of efficient fire remnants (MOF 1995). The region is classified as suppression in 1926 shows 55 fire years. Since Natural Disturbance Type 3 (NDT3) — an ecosys- 1885, there have been 8 major fires however, tem with frequent stand-initiating fire events. until 1926, several were still underburns. BC’s historic fire record here begins in 1919 when Fire frequency dropped off substantially major fires burned the southern quarter of the val- when effective suppression began, however the ley and some northern sections as well (Young North Fork has seen several significant fires 1987). A decade later, major fires burned the south in recent years. This included the Red Bench and central parts of the valley and in 1934, a major Burn of 37,000 acres/ 14, 973 ha (1988), the fire burned the area from Sage Creek to the Alberta Starvation Fire at 5000 acres/ 2023 ha (1992), border (Goble 1996). The Butts fire of 1936 left the and the Howling Fire which affected 14,000 biggest impact on the valley, taking a crew of 100 acres/ 5, 665 ha (1994) (Jack Potter pers. comm). men working all summer on 50km (31mi) of con- In addition, with the exception of the trol lines to finally quell the blaze. By then, over 1988 Red Bench Fire which was a stand 30,000 hectares (74 000acres) of spruce and pine replacing fire, very few acres have experi- had burned (Young 1987). The last serious BC fire enced a serious burn in the North Fork occurred in 1945 in Commerce Creek (Young 1987). since approximately 1930. However, nearly Montana’s North Fork fire history has been 90% of the area has experienced an analyzed by Barrett (1983) who studied lands east underburn in the last 56-95 years, and most of the river in Glacier National Park. Covering stands are approaching the maximum fire 60,000 acres (24 200ha) from just south of Log- intervals that existed in pre-settlement ging Creek to just north of Kintla Creek, it reveals times. Appraisals suggest that fuel build- an overall picture of frequent and sometimes ex- ups are still not unusually large (Barrett tensive underburns followed by occasional, severe 1983). Therefore, while the fire frequency stand-replacing fires. Large fires of 1000-10 000 has been interrupted, fire suppression has acres (400— apparently not influenced succession in 4000ha) oc- most GNP study stands. The mountain pine curred on beetle outbreak of the late 1970s may yet average provide the catalyst for fuel build-ups. about every Outside GNP, fire suppression in National 16-23 years, Forest Service lands has had a marked ef- while major fect (see Table 2). To date we lack data on fires exceed- fuel build-ups in this area.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

22 Table 2. Fires west of the North Fork River What is the state of current fuel build-ups in on U.S. Forest Service lands (Amendment the Flathead National Forest, MT and the BC 21, 1998) portion of this drainage? How did fire historically influence forest composition Decade Wildland Fire Acres throughout the North Fork (including shrub 10910-1919 72,00 and grassland communities)? 10920-1929 76,50 10930-1939 20 10940-1949 50 What is the historic flood frequency in the 10950-1959 20 North Fork and which events stand out in 10960-1969 30 the last century? How have predator-prey 10970-1979 2,00 relationships changed with alterations in wildlife composition and distribution? Has 10980-1989 10,10 a change in ungulate numbers affected 10990-present 1,10 vegetation structure in this ecosystem? What T)otal (acres 162,900 is the historic flood frequency in the North Fork and which events stand out in the last century? How have predator-prey relationships changed with alterations in What was the extent of the spread of each wildlife composition and distribution? Has of these infestations? Where did they arrive a change in ungulate numbers affected from and what is their current status? vegetation structure in this ecosystem?

Disease Vegetation Widespread infestation by insects and dis- Vegetation is described differently accord- ease commenced in the North Fork midway ing to the occupation and training of the as- through this century. Mature spruce stands sessor. A forester is primarily concerned with and mixed spruce stands in the Montana por- overstory — studying stand structure and for- tion were severely infested with spruce bark est composition. An ecologist may study plant beetle beginning in the 1950s. White pine blis- communities — the relationships between dif- ter rust spread through the entire North Fork ferent species and their environment. A wildlife in the 1960s and mountain pine beetle spread biologist is interested in forage and how wildlife into both lodgepole and whitebark pines dur- distribution follows various cover types. ing the 1970s and 1980s.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

23 Our description draws from all of these back- turally diverse components of the grass/ forb com- grounds. This report describes both present and munities found in the Rocky Mountains. historic appearance, focal species, the status BC’s North Fork can be described using the of ‘old growth’ and trends in composition and Ecozone Classification described in chapter one. structure. Montane Spruce (MSdk) communities occur through roughly 20% of the system in low elevations (1110-1650m / 3640-5413ft)(see Table 3). This subzone encompasses the North Fork’s val- Historic content and distribution ley bottom where many small grasslands and Prior to this century, the North Fork was pre- riparian areas can be found. It consists of climax dominantly a mature spruce-fir system intermin- forests of white spruce-Englemann spruce hy- gled with regenerating lodgepole pine and larch brids and seral forests dominated by lodgepole (Wilson and Downes pers. comm.). Coniferous spe- pine and western larch; whitebark pine, Doug- cies, with the exception of lodgepole pine, were las-fir and trembling aspen also occur. The generally aged. Expansive montane grasslands understory commonly consists of both shrubs were maintained by fire at lower elevations (Ayres (false azalea, Utah honeysicle, and buffaloberry) 1899). and herbs (grouseberry, twinflower, heart-leafed arnica and pine grass). Vegetation responds to warm, dry summers and cold winters.

Table 3: Biogeoclimactic zones of the Cana- Did forest composition vary historically dian extent of the North Fork of the Flathead from the north end to the south end of the watershed? Total Area MOF BGC Zone (km2) Montane Spruce (dry cool), Present content, distribution 308.84 MSdk Today, vegetation throughout the North Fork is Englemann Spruce-Subalpine a mixture of coniferous forests, wetlands, and 1136.36 Fir (dry cool), ESSFdk grasslands. Lodgepole pine, larch, Engelmann Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Spruce, Douglas-fir and subalpine fir dominate co- 2.12 niferous forests whereas western white pine, hem- Fir (warm moist), ESSFwm lock, western red cedar, and whitebark pine occur Alpine Tundra, AT 128.04 to a lesser degree Wetlands consists of a variety of Total Area 1575.36 forbs, sedges, and rushes with shrubs scattered (B.C. portion): km2 throughout the area. Subalpine meadows are struc-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

24 As the forests climb the valley slopes, the widely but there is less alpine coverage than Montane Spruce zone gives way to the Engelmann north of the border. The results on individual Spruce/ Subalpine Fir zone (ESSFdk). The larg- species are assessed by cover type by the est subzone of the B.C. North Fork, it usually oc- Flathead National Forest (Table 4). curs at elevations of 1550 to 2100m (5085-6890ft). The ESSFdk is often located on Table 4: Forest composition by cover type the mountain sides of the drainage and, there- extent in the U.S. Forest Service’s Glacier fore, contains many snow chutes or avalanche View Ranger District: NOTE : The below list tracts. These climax forests which are comprised does not include mixed cover types containing of mixtures of spruce hybrids and subalpine fir several of the above species, and containing respond to short, cool and moist summers and substantial acreage — e.g. Douglas fir/ cold winters with heavy snowfalls. Shrub Lodgepole pine, 15,202 ac. understories are dominated by false alzalea, but globe huckleberry and black gooseberry are also common. Grouseberry, low bilberry, arnica, west- Cover Type Acres ern meadowrue, and one-leafed foam flower are frequent herbs. Its warm, moist counterpart, the A1lpine Meadow 49 ESSFwm subzone, occurs very infrequently and A2spen 2,06 resembles the ESSFdk in most characteristics. B6arren Tundra 15 Its understory adds white-flowered rhododendron B4roadleaf Forest 4,64 Hovey and Teske 1993 and the herb, oak fern ( ). D9ouglas Fir 29,36 At upper tree line, the hardy miniature veg- E0ngelmann Spruce 41,10 etation of the Alpine Tundra begins to dominate G6rand Fir 33 the mountain landscape. Alpine Tundra is defined as a high elevation area (>2100m/6890ft) that is L1imber Pine 84 sparsely vegetated with short grasses and forbs, L0odgepole Pine 69,16 dominated by rock, and bordered by stunted coni- S3ubalpine Fir 25,49 fer kruppelholz. This zone has the coldest cli- W5estern Hemlock 19 mate and heaviest snowfalls of any in the North W3estern Larch 18,81 Fork (Hovey and Teske 1993). W8estern Red Cedar 2,73 Montana’s forest composition is relatively similar to BC’s in the North Fork. A higher percentage of low elevation lands allows for a greater extent of montane species such as The forest structure in Montana’s North lodgepole pine and western larch. Engelmann Fork is dominated by medium size trees in spruce and Subalpine fir systems still range multi story complexes (Table 5).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

25 Table 5: Forest Structure extent in the U.S. Forest forage species are much more important. This Service’s Glacier View Ranger District: report focusses on the occurrence of rare flora. The North Fork’s climactic regime and geo- graphical location results in a relatively high Stand Structure Acres number of rare plant species. Conservation S3eedling/Sapling 121,39 Data Centres in each jurisdiction typically cata- logue known occurrences as reported by ama- P5ole Timber 91,91 teur naturalists and scientists. These M6edium size/Single story 99,44 occurrences may be mapped for use in decision-making. Tables six through eight list the M0edium size/Multi-story 197,94 species which have been identified in the North L8arge size/Multi-story 54,12 Fork by the BC Conservation Data Centre, Mon- tana Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Na- N4on-Forest 47,81 tional Forest Service. Species occurring in one jurisdiction may suggest as-of-yet unidentified species occurring in the other. What is the forest structure in B.C.’s portion of the North Fork? How do Montana’s Table Six: Rare and threatened plant vegetation communities now differ from species occurring within the Canadian B.C.s? Has structure and composition drainage of the North Fork of the Flathead changed over this century in each jurisdiction? Why? Red-listed (rare):

High Alpine Butterweed Senecio conterminus Senecio foetidus var Focal species Sweet-Marsh Butterweed foetidus Focal species change depending upon one’s con- Large-Flowered Brickellia Brickellia grandiflora cern. For a forester, timber species are a primary Obscure Cryptantha Cryptantha ambigua focus. For an Delphinium ecologist or Slim Larkspur depauperatum wildlife biolo- Howell's Quillwort Isoetes howellii gist, key- Northern Linanthus Linanthus septentrionalis stone plants Parry's Townsendia Townsendia parryi or important

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

26 Blue-listed (threatened): Artemisia ludoviciana Western Mugwort var incompta Table Seven: Sensitive Species and Species of Wyoming Kitten-tails Besseya wyomingensis Special Concern in the U.S. portion of the Least Moonwort Botrychium simplex North Fork of the Flathead (U.S. Forest American Thorough-Wax Bupleurum americanum Service) Geyser's Sedge Carex geyeri

Payson's Sedge Carex paysonis

Slender Paintbrush Castilleja gracillima

Lace Fern Cheilanthes gracillima Sensitive Species (Common Name) Latin Name Elk Thistle Cirsium scariosum Crested Woodfern Dryopteris cristata Claytonia megarhiza Alpine Springbeauty var megarhiza Crenulate Moonwort Botrychium crenulatum

Montana Larkspur Delphinium bicolor Western Moonwort Botrychium hesperium

Nuttall's Draba Draba densifolia Mingan Island Moonwort Botrychium minganense

Small-flowered Willowherb Epilobium leptocarpum Mountain Moonwort Botrychium montanum

Androsace Buckwheat Eriogonum androsaceum Peculiar Moonwort Botrychium paradoxum

Few-Flowered Buckwheat Eriogonum pauciflorum var Pale Sedge Carex livida

Mountain Bog Gentian Gentiana calycosa Poor Sedge Carex paupercula Eriophorum Spreading Stickseed Hackelia diffusa Green-keeled Cottongrass viridicarinatum Sandberg's Desert Parsley Lomatium sanbergii Water Clubrush Scirpus subterminalis Purple Oniongrass Melica spectabilis Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium calceolus Rocky Mountain Sandwort Minuartia austromontana Giant Helleborine Epipactis gigantea Great Basin Nemophila Nemophila breviflora Podgrass Scheuchzeria palustris Dwarf Poppy Papaver alpinum Lyall's Phacelia Phacelia lyallii Montana Species of Special Concern : Common Twinpod Physaria didymocarpa var Kruckberg's Swordfern Polystichum kruckebergii Polygonum douglasii Austin's Knotweed Adder's Tongue Ophioglossum pusillum ssp austiniae Pale Laurel Kalmia occidentalis Engelmann's Knotweed Polygonum engelmannii Columbia River Oxytropis campestris Sheep Cinquefoil Potentilla ovina Crazyweed

Large-Headed Groundsel Senecio megacephalus Spurred Gentian Halenia deflexa

Blunt-sepaled Starwort Stellaria obtusa Red-rooted Flatsedge Cyperus erythrorhizos

Purple Meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum Tufted Clubrush Scirpus cespitosus

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

27 Where are high pockets of endemism as derived from cluster analysis of occurrences provided by the Conservation Table Eight: Additional North Fork Species Data Centres? Do any studies of rare of Special Concern as listed by the Montana vegetation exist for the North Fork? Are Natural Heritage Program there notable focal species besides the above which we have failed to consider?

Common Name Latin Name Old growth forest Upward Lobed Botrychium ascendens Moonwort The North Fork’s frequent stand replacing fires Western Moonwort Botrychium hesperium historically limited old growth potential in much Columbia Crazyweed Oxytropis campestris of the system. Mature trees likely occurred more Creeping Sedge Carex chordorrhiza often in cool, moist spruce-fir forests then in Beaked Sedge Carex rostrata montane larch-pine. Today old growth is still Few-flowered found throughout the system however its distri- Senecio pauciflorus Butterweed bution has likely changed. No common name Sphagnum centrale B.C.’s portion of the North Fork contains two No common name Sphagnum magellanicum small Rare Old-Growth areas: one, north of Mt. Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile Yarrell and the other in South Lodgepole Creek. Palmate-leaved Petasites frigidus var. nivalis The BC Ministry of Forests defines old-growth dif- Coltsfoot ferently in each ecozone. In the Montane Spruce Wavy Moonwort Botrychium crenulatum system, trees are considered mature when they Buckler Fern Dryopteris cristata reach 100 yrs and old when they reach 140yrs. In Spurred Gentian Halenia deflexa the Engelmann spruce-Subalpine fir subzones, Thin-flowered Sedge Carex tenuiflora trees are mature at 120yrs of age and old at 140yrs. Pale Laurel Kalmia polifolia In B.C., old growth is now predominantly Kidney-leafed Viola renifolia found in dry, cool Engelmann spruce — White Violet Subalpine fir forests (Table Nine). When adjusted Northern Rattlesnake Goodyera repens Plantain for coverage, 16% of the current ESSFdk Timberline Buttercup Ranunculus verecundus subzone is old-growth compared to 6% of MSdk Sparrow's Egg (Tables Three and Nine). Although its extent has Cypripedium passerinum Lady Slipper been mapped at 1:20 000 by the Ministry of For- ests, no ground truthing has been done.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

28 Table Nine: Extent of mature and old-growth Montana’s portion of the North Fork contains forest by landscape unit, North Fork of the a different distribution of old growth. Although Flathead in hectares (Source: BC Forestry the bulk of mature and ageing trees are found at 1998 bio-seral stage distribution report) low elevations (Table Ten), more is currently found in montane zones (7%) than subalpine ones Existing (4-5%)(see Table Eleven, next section). Old growth Mature Existing Old has been listed in surveys conducted by Ayres LU 16 & Old (ha) (ha) (1899) and the USFS (1916, 1930s, 1950s). Of- Jan.1, 1998 Jan.1, 1998 ten the mapping criteria, minimum map unit size, E4SSFdk- 70071. 6981. and forest attributes differed between surveys E7SSFdk- p 7473. 773. making direct comparisons problematic. E3SSFwm-p 03. 0. Table Ten: Mature and Old Growth by eleva- M1S-dk 3655. 218. tion in the Flathead National Forest (source: USFS A21) Existing Mature & Existing Old Percent LU 17 Old (ha) (ha) Percent Old Mature and Old Growth Type Growth Old Growth Jan.1, 1998 Jan.1, 1998 Low elevation, mod. E3SSFdk 3797 377 warm and dry 2%9% 47 E7SSFdk-p 220 19 Mid-elevation, cool and moist 8%% 36 E6SSFwm 10 High elevation, E55SSFwm-p cold and mod. dry 0%% 9 M9S- dk 486 45

Trends in Forest Composition and Structure Existing Mature & Existing Old Logging, fire suppression and disease have all LU 18 Old (ha) (ha) contributed to altering the forest structure of the Jan. 1, 1998 Jan.1, 1998 North Fork. At low elevations, a predominantly E4SSFdk 89676. 7492. spruce-fir forest has given way in the past fifty E6SSFdk-p 8269. 836. Have old growth stands been mapped in M3S-dk 39286. 1253. each jurisdiction?

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

29 years to a mosaic of young, lodgepole pine, im- Old-growth stands are important to a wide mature western larch, Douglas fir and spruce. variety of species, as shown by the following Low-gradient riparian areas, marshes and dry USFS list of Old Growth Dependent meadows still persist, however conifers continue Species (1998): to encroach upon grasslands in the absence of Threatened Status: fire. In the mountainous areas, forests contain Bald Eagle mixtures of spruce, Douglas and subalpine fir, Lynx whitebark pine, and subalpine larch (McLellan and Sensitive Status: Hovey 1996). Whitebark pine has declined with Harlequin Duck the invasion of whitepine blister rust. Flammulated Owl Old growth forests of Engelmann spruce, Boreal Owl Douglas fir, and western larch have been altered Black-backed Woodpecker Fisher by timber extraction (Yanishevsky 1987, FTC 1992). Prior to commer- No Special Status: cial logging, approxi- Northern Goshawk mately 28% of the spruce/ Tailed Frog Vaux’s Swift fir stands in the North Pileated Woodpecker Fork were old growth Lewis’ Woodpecker (Hart and Lesica, 1993). Hairy Woodpecker Today, Yanishevsky Three-toed Woodpecker Hammond’s Flycatcher 1987 ( ) estimates about Chestnut-backed Chickadee 9% of the forests are in an Red-breasted Nuthatch old growth condition and Pygmy Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch much of those are at high Brown Creeper| elevations and widely dis- Winter Wren persed. This contradicts Golden-crowned Kinglet USFS figures which place Hermit Thrush Varied Thrush see Ta- old-growth at primarily lower elevations ( Swainson’s Thrush ble Nine). In her ground surveys, Yanishevsky Townsend’s Warbler (1987, 1992) found 24 stands greater than 200 Pine Grosbeak Silver-haired Bat acres of old growth and mature forest, with no Northern Flying Squirrel grove entirely at low elevation (< 5000'). Discrep- Southern Red-backed Vole ancies may be attributable to separate definitions American Marten of what constitutes old-growth. Overall, the U.S.F.S estimates current old Extirpated - Montana: Woodland Caribou growth levels at roughly 50% of historic lev-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

30 els in Montana’s North Fork region (see Table This report is no different. Our reporting on Eleven). This conflicts with Hart and Lesica historic and present content, trends, protected (1993), whose higher historical estimates im- status, habitat hotspots and focal species ply a greater reduction this century (to less focusses mainly upon the larger animals. We will than 25% of former levels). try to fill the gaps as much as possible in the final version if aided by reviewers. Table Eleven: Trends in Old Growth by Ecoregion in the North Fork of the Flathead Historic content drainage (source: USFS A21) Estimating ‘baseline’ numbers and distributions of wildlife is a difficult feat. Historical books Historic Old Current Old contain photos of fishermen with 50-fish string- Life Zone Growth Growth ers, or meat poles filled with deer. Historical ac- Subalpine 1%0-11% 4-5 counts portray an abundance of wildlife. However Montane 1%0-20% 7 populations are difficult to Lower Montane 1%-5% 0-2 quantify without carefully recording. Our best source of historical information on Wildlife the North Fork is traditional ecological knowledge from Information on wildlife is often heavily weighted the Ktunaxa and ‘old-time’ towards large carnivores and ungulates which resident accounts. function as ‘game’ species. Historic records on In Montana, our sur- trapping yield data on smaller mammals however veys in the North Fork are these are more difficult to obtain. Invariably, small limited. We know deer and animals, songbirds, amphibians and invertebrates moose were plentiful his- ‘fall through the cracks’ in ecosystem wide stud- torically, but elk were prac- ies due to a simple dearth of information. tically non-existent (Downes and Wilson, pers. comm). Elk were How extensive is conifer encroachment on “planted” here in 1928, coming from Yellowstone historical grassland? What are trends in (Downes from Thayer) and were more commonly aspen (an important winter foraging seen by the 1950s and 60s. Bighorn sheep and species)? What other trends in vegetation mountain goats were more common in the North are evident? Why do reports vary widely Fork in the 1940s and 50s. Woodland Caribou with historic locations and amounts of old persisted here until about 1936, when large fires growth? Can this be resolved? swept through north of the border. Caribou are dependent upon old growth which has been reduced

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

31 this century. One was shot by mistake in 1944 golden eagles stream north and south twice a around Big Creek, and a solitary animal showed up year above these valleys. In fact, the species at Tom Laddenburg’s in 1979, but these were prob- diversity of large mammals in the Flathead ably isolated survivors rather than elements of a is among the highest on the continent resident population (Downes and Wilson pers. comm.). (Hovey and Teske 1993). The only wildlife Bull trout were common in the 40s and 50s and species the area is known to have lost in “easy to catch”, according to both Downes and the last 400 years, is the woodland caribou. Wilson. Fish averaged 5-6 pounds but could reach The North Fork contains populations of 10-15 pounds and 30 inches. These trout were eight species of large carnivores: black bears found in both Flathead Lake (adfluvial) and the (Ursus Americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus North Fork (fluvial). Wilson wasn’t aware of any arctos), bobcats (Felis rufus), lynx (F. lynx), evidence of grizzlies feeding on bull trout, but cougars (F. concolor), coyotes (Canis Downes mentioned that he once found several latrans), wolves (C. lupus), wolverine (Gulo partially eaten remains along Coal Creek and gulo) and six species of ungulates: elk grizzly tracks at the scene. (Cervus elaphus), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), moose (Alces Alces), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep What historic wildlife records/ accounts are (Ovis canadensis) (Hovey et al. 1993, available for B.C.? McLellan 1989, Basaraba 1977). Ungulates are very important and abundant Present content in the North Fork, providing food for preda- As Canada and the United States have been set- tors. The four most significant prey species tled, very few ecosystems spanning the border have are now white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and been able to retain their full suite of biodiversity. moose. These differ considerably in their dis- The North Fork comes close. Grizzlies thrive here tribution in the North Fork. A large number as nowhere else in the interior. When wolves re- of white-tailed deer, elk and moose inhabit the colonized the U.S. Rockies for the first time in lowland areas of the North Fork. At slightly 50 years, higher elevations, mule deer are found and they came mountain goats and mountain sheep occupy through the even higher elevations. McLellan and Hovey North Fork (1995) found that moose, mountain goats and from British some elk occurred in the North Fork through- Columbia. out the year, whereas white-tail deer, mule Over 6000 deer and most elk appeared to migrate into bald and the valley in spring but wintered elsewhere.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

32 Moose populations in the North Fork are of the meadow mouse, western jumping mouse, meadow Yellowstone or Wyoming subspecies and represent mouse and heather vole (in order of decreasing abun- the only occurrence of this race in B.C. (MOELP dance) are also found in the North Fork. Red-backed 1984). Moose generally concentrate in riparian mice were found only in spruce but were relatively areas where willow is abundant. Moose are con- abundant. Shrews were found primarily in spruce sidered a generalist herbivore but choose energy habitats; roughly 75% of the shrews captured in rich foods that are easily digested. Preferred foods Key’s study were vagrant shrews and 25% were include willow, mountain maple, and red-osier dog- masked shrews (Key 1979). One pygmy shrew was wood, and their diet may also include coniferous captured in riparian habitat, making this the first and deciduous trees, forbs and grasses. Moose record for Glacier National Park (Key 1979). Other may be migratory (migrate seasonally) or non- rodents in the North Fork include the hoary mar- migratory (use the same habitat year-round). These mot and pika (Polster 1977). two distinct types are both found in the Flathead. The yellow pine chipmunk was commonly Migratory cows in the Flathead returned to the found in all habitats except spruce. The northern same general areas for both summer and winter flying squirrel, Columbian ground squirrel, red range. (Langley 1993). Annual home ranges of non- squirrel (abundant in spruce) and the northern migratory cows were generally at low elevation pocket gopher were also identified (Key 1979). with gradual east facing slopes, few primary roads, The yellow badger has been observed in the and the expected amounts of permanent and in- Flathead valley (MOE 1984) as well as the red termittent water (Langley 1993). In the winter, tailed chipmunk, a red-listed species, but to date, migratory moose used low elevations with flat and no studies have been done on either of these spe- south facing slopes and in the summer, higher el- cies. Key also identified high winter use of the evations are selected with fairly steep south and Flathead by coyotes, beaver, mountain lion, short- northeast slopes (Langley 1993). tailed weasels and mink. Snowshoe hares, river The Elk and Flathead valleys combined contain otters, lynx, marten, long-tailed weasels were four species of shrew, three species of bats, two also found in the winter (Key 1979). species of lagomorphs, and nineteen rodent species (MOE 1984). A study by Carl Key, on the species and density of small mammals in the North Fork (which focused mostly on the US side of the valley), What is known about waterfowl and concluded that floodplain habitats were highly pro- songbirds in the North Fork? Have ductive for small mammals. The most abundant invertebrates ever been studied here? Aside was the deer mouse. The habitat identified for adult from the carnivores listed under focal deer mice were open gravel-sand areas in early sum- species (below), what else is known about mer and for immature deer mice, old-age cottonwood this guild, i.e. cougar, bobcat, lynx? stands in late summer (Key 1979). The long-tailed

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

33 Protected status tat occurrences have not yet been mapped in the The difference in protective status between the North Fork. Listings are differentiated as follows: U.S. and Canada is one of the greatest potential ♦ Red-listed: being considered for the more sources of wildlife conflicts between the two na- formal designation of either extirpated, tions. The U.S. federal government has listed griz- endangered or threatened, are likely to zly bear, bald eagle and bull trout as “threatened” become endangered if limiting factors are and wolf and peregrine falcon as “endangered” not reversed under its Endangered Species legislation, making ♦ Blue-listed: any species considered to be it illegal to shoot or destroy habitat for any of these vulnerable, or a species of special concern species (lynx and westslope cutthroat trout are because of characteristics that make them also being considered). Although Canada’s British particularly sensitive to human activities or North America Act places responsibility over natural events (Steeger and Machmer 1993, transboundary resources in the federal realm, the MOF, 1997). legality of harm to downstream populations from ‘upstream sources’ has never been tested. As the Table Twelve: Species list for the North Fork Flathead serves as an upstream source for each of in South-eastern British Columbia the mentioned transboundary species, it poses a potentially unique testing ground. Red-Listed: Although Canadian governments currently lack Endangered Species legislation, the B.C. Forest Rocky Mountain Red-tailed Chipmunk Practices Code contains a mechanism to protect Prairie Falcon (potentially in the area) biodiversity. Work is underway under this Identi- fied Wildlife Management Strategy to list wildlife, Blue-listed: wildlife habitat areas and associated landscape Grizzly Bear units. “Identified Wildlife” is defined under the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Code to mean species or plant communities that Northern Goshawk are considered to be sensitive to habitat alteration associated with forest and range practices. For the Turkey Vulture most part, these species and plant communities Lewis' Woodpecker are considered to be at risk (e.g. Endangered, Tailed Frog threatened, vulnerable or sensitive) and require Northern Leopard Frog management of critical habitats in order to main- (potentially in the area) tain populations and/ or distributions (Ministry Of Bull Trout Forests, 1997). A general list is available for southeastern B.C. (Table Twelve), however species/ habi- Mottled Sculpin

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

34 More detail on grizzly bear, tailed frog and Focal Species bull trout is found in the Focal Species section. We have chosen to focus upon grizzly bear, wolf and eagles due to their transboundary na- Habitat hotspots ture and upon mesopredators for their particu- On a continental scale, the entire North Fork lar habitat needs. Carnivores are umbrella is a biodiversity hotspot with a range of impor- species which represent important ecological tant habitats. Locally, although a great deal of processes (predation, herbivory) that influence information has been accumulated on individual other components, such as vegetation. This list species (deer, bull trout, wolves) and, in some is expandable for the final report. cases, guilds (carnivores or cavity nesters), little of this watershed’s priority habitat has been Grizzly Bear mapped. Riparian areas, flood plains and ava- Grizzly status in Canada and the U.S. differs lanche chutes are important foraging areas for widely. British Columbia maintains a hunting grizzly bear. Montane grasslands and forest are season on grizzly bears as it has an abundant important over-wintering habitat for deer, and population. In the U.S., the grizzly was afforded elk. Old-growth conifers support legislated protection when listed as “Threatened” mesopredators such as fisher and pine marten. in 1975, and currently exists in 5-6 isolated Mature conifers and wetlands are important for ecosystems in the lower 48 states. Populations moose. Particular locations such as traditional are notoriously difficult to estimate, however, elk calving grounds and waterfowl migratory scientists generally peg the entire population at staging areas have yet to be identified. between 800 and1000 individuals with fully half In general, Species of Special Concern of these occurring within the Crown of the maps from the Montana Natural Heritage Continent or Northern Continental Divide Program, Ministry of Environment Biophysi- Ecosystem (NCDE) around Glacier National Park. cal classification maps and Conservation In BC, the grizzly bear is blue-listed. The North Data Center datasets show that a high per- Fork has the highest density of non-coastal grizzly centage of species locations tend to be asso- bears in North America and acts as a source ciated with perennial streams, waterbodies, population for surrounding areas in Alberta, BC and and their shoreline habitats, particularly Montana where those occur at low elevations. (Hovey & Teske 1993). The linkage zone in What ecologically significant areas exist southern where for the North Fork? Canada is, therefore, vi-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

35 tal to the long-term health of the Crown of the Continent populations in Mon- Bear Management in the Flathead National Forest tana. Grizzly bears occur naturally at low densities and need to move freely The USFS has recognized that access management is of among valued habitats without being re- primary concern to maintain grizzly habitat effec- stricted by human-caused blockages, tiveness. For management and recovery purposes, the accessed by roads or being attracted to U.S. North Fork has been divided into two Bear mortality sinks around human settle- Management Units (BMU): the Upper and Lower ments. The BC Ministry of Forests esti- North Fork Flathead. West of the river, the Forest mates that 20,000 to 50,000 km2 of Service has further divided these into 13 BMU Sub- connected habitat is required to ensure units, each intended to approximate the home range the long term survival of the species in requirements of a female grizzly bear. Under this region (MOF 1997). Amendment 19 to the Flathead National Forest Studies in the North Fork provide Plan, the Forest Service adopted Access Manage- important findings on grizzlies where ment Standards for each Sub-unit dealing with they have been monitored intensively allowable Open Road Density (ORD), Total for 14 years. McLellan (1989b) esti- Road Density (TRD), and percent Core security mated that the grizzly bear density in habitat. The goal is to bring the USFS access the 134km2 core study area in 1986 route densities into accord with the best available was 8.0 bears/100km2 (1 bear/4.75 science on grizzly bear needs. The following stand- mi2) and that the population had ards must be met by 2005: grown from 5.7 bears/100km2 (1bear/ ORD : No more than 19% of a Sub-unit to exceed 6.77mi2) in 1981 with an observed an- 1mi./sq.mi. of Open Roads. nual rate of increase of 0.07. TRD : No more than 19% of a Sub-unit to exceed 2 The 4-10km wide North Fork valley mi./sq.mi. of Total Roads. contains extensive riparian areas with Core : 68% of each Sub-unit to be comprised of important bear food. Flood plains with security habitat > 500 meters from roads; their abundance of early spring and late minimum Core size of 2500 acres. autumn foods are important to grizzlies To date, 4 of 13 Sub-units meet ORD standards, 5 of for the short periods when the remain- 13 reach TRD levels, and 5 of 13 meet Core require- der of grizzly range is still snow-covered ments. Three years into the program, about 10% of or frozen. In addition the area is equally the required closures have taken place forest-wide. important for its travel corridors, feed- However, significant road closures are planned ing and denning areas which are impor- around the Hornet-Wedge timber sale currently tant to grizzlies at particular times of the underway in the North Fork. year (Jonkel & McLellan 1979).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

36 Avalanche chutes have the highest value as a The first documented breeding by wolves in the producer of grizzly foods (Basaraba 1977). A re- Northern U.S. Rockies in half a century occurred cent study by Bergenske (1997) identifies ava- in 1986 when the Magic Pack produced a litter lanche chutes and their importance for grizzlies south of the border in Glacier National Park. Since in the North Fork. Horsetails, cow-parsnip leaves then, their offspring plus additional dispersers from and stalks, graminoid foliage and glacier lily bulbs Canada have fuelled a recolonization that includes were found in riparian and snow-chutes habitats a pack in the Ninemile valley near Missoula, an (McLellan and Hovey 1995). Soopolallie alpha male in Central Idaho and a wolf that was (buffaloberry) can be found in burns. illegally shot south of Yellowstone in 1992. As Huckleberries occur at different elevations and noted by Ream et al (1991), in the early years of under conifer canopy at different densities this recolonization, several pack territories rou- (McLellan and Hovey 1995). McLellan has postu- tinely straddled the international border. Packs lated that the quantity and diversity of food in moved freely back and forth, sending off the North Fork permits the grizzly bear popula- “dispersers” both north tion to prosper (McLellan and Hovey 1995). and south. By 1997, a to- In the Montana portion of the North Fork, griz- tal of 10 breeding pair zlies exist as similar densities as BC (1 bear/4 (packs) and perhaps 85 in- mi2 or 10bears/100km2). They use similar habi- dividuals occupied North- tats however habitat effectiveness is limited in west Montana. However, a some places by the growth in home development program of removals as in riparian corridors. Although there are only part of livestock depreda- 15,000 private acres in the U.S. North Fork, nearly tion control by the U.S. all are very close to the river, which is critical Fish and Wildlife Service low elevation spring habitat for grizzlies. The cu- (FWS) has since lowered mulative effects of subdivision and other human those numbers to 6-7 activities north of the border on grizzly habitat packs (5 breeding) and effectiveness have not been studied. about 50 individuals. In the North Fork, approximately 31 wolves comprised Wolf 4 packs in the early 90s but that number may have As with grizzly bear, protected status varies dropped to 2 packs of unknown size today (Jack widely between Crown of the Continent jurisdic- Potter pers. comm.). tions. Whereas packs occupying NW Montana en- The North Fork maintains the highest density joy legislated protection as “Endangered” under of wolf denning sites anywhere in south-western the Endangered Species Act (ESA), they are sub- BC (Paquet, unpublished data). As a main source, ject to a hunting season in BC’s North Fork and to it therefore fuels natural recolonization in both completely unregulated hunting in the Castle. Montana and Alberta. Wolves use mainly the val-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

37 ley bottom of the North Fork in travelling considerable distances up and down its international Yellowstone wolves and the importance extent. Grassy open meadows, marshes and ripar- of natural reintroduction ian habitats make up an important portion of the wolf locations (Boyd 1996). Wolf locations and Beginning in early 1995, thirty-five wolves populations are positively correlated with that of were flown from Canada as an their prey. In the North Fork, deer and elk ‘experimental’ population reintroduced to populations appear to be declining, and moose Yellowstone National Park. The wolves populations seem to be stable (Kunkel 1992). This were remarkably successful— their num- lowers the carrying capacity for this animal which bers had grown to 150 by the summer of tends then to switch to livestock. 1998. Success, however, brought attention Although wolves are considerably more adapt- and the American Farm Bureau and the able to humans than are grizzlies, they have Sierra Legal Defense Fund challenged the shown an almost identical sensitivity to high road ‘experimental’ reintroduction, albeit, on densities. As with bears, this occurs not because very different grounds. of the road itself, but because roads provide ac- In September 1998, Judge William cess to hunters and poachers. They have diffi- Downes’ ruled in Farm Bureau vs. Bruce culty persisting where vehicle access routes Babbitt that all non-native wolves and exceed 1mi./mi2 (61km/100km2). their offspring were to be removed from Yellowstone National Park and central Mesopredators Idaho. It also deemed the reintroduction In contrast to the larger “charismatic carni- program invalid as ‘experimental’ vores,” comparatively little is known about lynx, populations diminish the intent of the fisher, marten and wolverine. While marten are Endangered Species Act. In essence, he considered moderately common in many North made a case for preferring natural reintro- Fork areas, fisher, lynx, and wolverine are gener- duction over ‘experimental’ translocation. ally thought to be uncommon to rare. The fisher, This decision indirectly heightens the wolverine and badger are blue-listed in B.C. and significance of the Flathead. North Fork the lynx may soon be listed under the U.S. wolves have travelled to Central Idaho and Endangered Species Act. back in less than 18 months (Boyd 1997). Our knowledge of these species is lacking1. The area still functions as a conduit for the Generally, all require the presence of sub- natural relocation of wolves into Montana stantial mature — old growth forests for key and beyond, and, as such, is a keystone ecosystem worthy of international 1 Glacier National Park has just received cooperative management. funding for a substantial lynx study.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

38 portions of their life cycle. The U.S. Forest continuing north on a narrow corridor through the Service classifies the marten as a Manage- Castle and the south-eastern slopes of the Rockies, ment Indicator Species and sets aside MIS gradually diverging to summering areas. Thirty blocks of 2000 acres with 25-50% old growth tagged eagles summered in the Mackenzie River where available (Rivera pers. comm.). All of Basin: 21 in the Northwest Territories, 5 in Alberta, these species are also sensitive to roads which and 4 in Saskatchewan. potentially improve access for trappers. An additional study by Yates and McClelland (1996) also documented large number of golden Eagles eagles migrating through Glacier. They noted Both bald and golden eagles use extensive that, “The entire park appears to be part of a flyways over the North Fork of the Flathead. In migration corridor that is analogous to a large, biannual migrations between Canada’s braided river of birds flowing in main channels Mackenzie River Basin and the Intermountain with connecting side channels.” From 1994-96, Region of the western U.S. they follow paths golden eagles comprised over 80% of all raptors down the eastern and western slopes of the Con- and 92% of all eagles seen at the Lake tinental Divide. Several studies of eagle migra- McDonald observation point. During one Octo- tion centring around Glacier National Park have ber 1996 day, 137 eagles were counted in a sin- been conducted by NPS staff since 1977 and gle hour. Total eagles counted in autumn over have continued to the present day. three years were: 2237 (1994), 2038 (1995), Bald Eagles assemble each fall around high and 2667 (1996). Spring totals were as follows: concentrations of spawning kokanee salmon in 870 (1995), and 904 (1996). Lower McDonald Creek. Eagle numbers peaked around 1981 at 639 then declined rapidly to 25 by What other focal species should be 1989, when the introduction of Mysis shrimp into included? What are typical wolf and grizzly the Flathead system resulted in a crash in salmon movement corridors? What are grizzly and numbers. (McClelland et al. 1994). Over the course wolf mortality numbers for B.C.’s North of one study, researchers captured and leg banded Fork? How are these system’s grizzly 303 bald eagles; of these, 66 were radio tagged populations genetically linked? and 121 received patagial markers. Marker sightings came back from 9 western states and Canada, while 38 to 40 radio tagged eagles wintered within the Intermountain region (east of the Aquatics (quality/species) Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges and The broad flood plains which comprise much west of the Continental Divide). During spring of the North Fork’s riparian area form the body migration radio-tagged birds followed routes which of its aquatic component. Creeks and rivers drain converged on Glacier and its vicinity with adults down into this plain from numerable side-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

39 channels. Water and species flow uninhibited In B.C., the Canada-British Columbia water from the B.C. headwaters to Montana’s Flathead quality monitoring agreement triggered weekly Lake. This section addresses water quality sampling for 27 variables, intending to capture throughout the North Fork and presents the sta- possible short-term variations or cycles in water tus of three focal species: bull trout, westslope quality. Data analysis had two goals: cutthroat trout and tailed frog. 1) comparison of the data against established Water Quality — Present Status: water quality objectives and criteria As part of the Flathead Basin Commission 2) assessment of the data for any long-term (FBC) process, there has been a co-operative trends, and exposition of the sources, effort to monitor water quality from a number whether hydrological, meteorological, eco- of headwaters lakes and streams since 1994. logical or anthropogenic, of those trends This effort has been co-directed by the Flathead (Shaw and Taylor 1994) National Forest, Glacier National Park, and the Established water quality objectives, criteria University of Montana’s or guidelines were compared against: Flathead Biological Sta- tion at Yellow Bay in the 1) Site-specific criteria or objectives for the U.S. B.C. Environment Flathead River, as given in recent Water and Environment Quality Assessment and Objectives reports Canada have jointly (Swain 1985, 1990; Zeman 1990) or provided monitored water quality by the Flathead River International Study on the Flathead River (Valiela et al., 1987); near the International 2) General criteria for the Province of B.C., as Boundary from 1985 to given in Pommen (1989); 1990. The sampling con- 3) Canadian Water Quality guidelines, as given tinued until 1995, how- in CCREM (1987); ever, because updated plots from the border site 4) General American Water Quality criteria, as did not show any environmentally significant given in USEPA (1986). trends, no new report has been written (the most current report is February 1994.) There The variables selected included those for is presently no water quality monitoring tak- which site specific objectives exist, and those that ing place in the Canadian portion of the drain- are of particular ecological importance or that ex- age. hibited a conspicuous trend in time-series plots:

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

40 Wcater temperature Arseni (1) to establish an array of headwater sites that Tmurbidity Cadmiu represented different geologic-geomorphic regions of the basin; Specific Chromium Conductance (2) to select watersheds that had distinctly different levels of forest mgmt. activity, thus prH Coppe allowing land-use comparisons; and Cnyanide Iro (3) to establish baseline data for long term Tdotal Phosphorous Lea monitoring. Total Dissolved Manganese Phosphorous Monitoring of headwater streams has focused Aymmonia-Nitrogen Mercur primarily on sediment, phosphorous (P), and nitrogen (N). Fine sediment directly affects fish (lNO2 + NO3) - N Nicke reproduction by filling spawning gravels and Total Dissolved Selenium cobble. Nitrogen and phosphorous, in addition to Nitrogen being vital for plant growth, can, at high Fcecal Coliforms Zin concentrations, cause blooms of algae and bacteria which deplete dissolved oxygen in Water quality in the North Fork is clear and streams and lakes (FBC 1996). clean (except during spring freshet) and has been characterized as oligotrophic. The river water is Sedimentation basic (pH 8.2-8.6) and well-buffered (alkalinity High sediment concentrations can come from 60-130 mg/L), with calcium and bicarbonate as natural and human-made sources such as dominant ions (Martin et al. 1987). Total dissolved streambank erosion, slumping, or runoff from solids range from 100-200 mg/L at the Interna- roads, logging operations, home development, tional Boundary. Water tends to be cool (0-19C), and mines. Such fine sediments can also affect well-oxygenated and low in nutrients and most water clarity and nutrient loads far downstream. metals (Shaw and Taylor 1994). Native spawning fish such as the westslope cut- In Montana, three monitoring sites have throat trout and the bull trout, are susceptible. been established on the North, South and Lower FBC 1995-96 notes that fine particles trans- Forks of Coal Creek since 1994. This drainage ported by streams and known as total suspended is largely under the management of the solids (TSS) are closely correlated with level of Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and stream discharge. For example, in 1994 the peak Conservation and has had timber harvested on spring runoff was less than half that of 1995 or approximately 20-30% of the watershed. 1996 and corresponding TSS levels reflected this. According to the FBC report (1996), the pur- Interestingly, the same flushing flows which in- pose of the headwaters monitoring is: crease TSS also tend to remove fine sediment that

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

41 has been deposited in streambed gravels, where According to the Montana Bureau of Mines it would have interfered with spawning trout. and Geology (1990): Hence sampling showed that in 1991, fine sediment levels decreased from those of 1989 in Big ♦ Maximum total suspended solids (TSS) were Creek and main Coal Creek, apparently as a re- encountered at the North Fork Station (575 sult of strong spring flows. mg/L) followed by the Cabin Creek Station At the same time, they found high sediment (432 mg/L) and Howell (upper) and Tuchuck supplies stored behind debris dams in the upper stations showing similar levels (128 and 165 Big Creek Basin and behind beaver dams in the mg/L respectively). South Fork of Coal Creek apparently related to ♦ The Cabin Creek Station recorded the highest timber activities dating from the 1950s. Similar total phosphorous (TP) level (401µg/L) with sediment sources from past forest management the North Fork, Howell, and Tuchuck were noted in the North Fork of Coal Creek, al- stations peaking at similar levels (151, 121, though fine materials in the streambed signifi- and 106 µg/L respectively). Soluble phospho- cantly decreased from 1989-90, becoming rous (SP) and soluble reactive phosphorous relatively stable since then. When these dams (SRP) followed similar trends, and nitrogen eventually fail, this fine material will likely im- results were highly variable. pact downstream spawning gravels. ♦ The basic water chemistry of this watershed consists of a calcium, magnesium, Phosphorus bicarbonate matrix with subtle variations Unlike TSS, soluble reactive phosphorous unique to each drainage. (SRP) concentrations in Lower Coal Creek did not ♦ The Cabin Creek Station has high TSS and vary significantly with increasing discharge, re- TP with large spring diurnal variations in maining instead between 0.7 and 2.1 mg/L. discharge and TSS. ♦ The Howell (upper) Creek Station has much Nitrogen lower TSS and TP concentrations than Nitrate flows also seem unrelated to stream Cabin Creek and diurnal variations in discharge levels. In fact, nitrate levels were rela- discharge are minimal, but diurnal tively high during the rise in spring runoff, de- variations in TSS can be significant. creased during peak runoff and, as water levels ♦ The North Fork Flathead River carries high declined, increased again during base flows. This loads of TSS during spring runoff. Nutrient pattern is apparently characteristic of concentrations are moderate, and a groundwater effects during the spring cycle. complex but significant TSS diurnal A second study on North Fork water qual- variation was observed. Low water TSS is ity spun off the Cabin Creek mine debate. dominated by the International slump 3 miles north of the border.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

42 ♦ Tuchuck Creek is a high quality creek with Objective B, and 19 sites for Objective C. Assist- low dissolved solids, TSS and nutrients. ing the Commission in this regard are representa- ♦ The North Fork drainage suspended tives of the U.S. Forest Service, Glacier National sediments appear to be under saturated with Park, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana respect to phosphorous and therefore should Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, and play an important role in the transformation the Volunteer Monitoring Program. (SP to TP) and transport of phosphorous. ♦ During baseflow, approximately 10% of the Indicators of Water Quality surface water flow of the North Fork Bio-indicators of water quality, also known Flathead River is lost to groundwater along as ecological indicators hold considerable the last 2 kilometres of the river bed before promise as sensitive early signals of subtle or entering Montana and crosses the Interna- long-term changes in status of river ecosystems tional Border as subsurface flow. (Shaw and Taylor 1994). Three main classes of ♦ Initially, the leachate from mine spoils (Cabin ecological indicators are: Creek) would be a sodium sulfate type water in contrast to the calcium carbonate type 1) presence of sensitive species and structure now present in the alluvial aquifers. of biotic communities; this includes indicator species, diversity and biotic indices, commu- Water Quality Monitoring Framework nity structure comparisons and simple meas- Although water quality monitoring does not ures of the numbers of species or individuals continue in Canada, the Flathead Basin 2) ecological processes; commonly measured Commission continues its work in Montana. processes are (algal) productivity, photo- The FBC’s monitoring program is built around synthesis, respiration, decomposition and the following objectives : nutrient dynamics 3) toxicity or stress effects; based on (A) Monitoring the water quality, quantity mortality, growth inhibition or other and aquatic life of Flathead Lake and its phsyiological dysfunctions of test major tributaries; organisms exposed to water or sediments (B) Monitoring the water quality, quantity, from the environment in question, but and aquatic life from representative includes measures of deformities in resi- catchments of the upper basin; dent organisms (Shaw and Taylor 1994). (C) Monitoring bull trout populations and habitat in the basin. Shaw and Taylor proposed a monitoring program for the North Fork (B.C.) for ecological in- Commission goals are accomplished by moni- dicators but the program was never implemented. toring 12 sites to address Objective A, 34 sites for The program had two parts (cont’d p46):

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

43 Contrasting water policy in Canada and the U.S.

In general, Canada differs from the US in that Act (regulates development activities taking Canada does not have statutes for the receiving place in streams and lakeshores). environment, i.e. Clean Water Act, but rather ♦ Public Water Supply Law (regulates logging has laws controlling human activities that and other activities with respect to their may impact water quality. In the U.S., laws impact on water quality in watersheds used establish water quality standards which must for public water supply). be met. In Canada, there are receiving water ♦ Sanitation in Subdivisions Act and Subdivi- quality guidelines (a.k.a. criteria) or site- sion and Planning Act (provide for state and specific objectives for various contaminants. local review of subdivisions). These guideline values are much lower than ♦ Shoreline Protection Ordinance (regulates their counterpart U.S. certain structures, dredging, and filling below standards but have no the high water mark on Flathead Lake and basis in law. They form the Flathead River and its major tributaries water quality “goalposts” within the Flathead Indian Reservation). that guide water quality ♦ Streamside Management Zone Law (regu- management. Gross lates timber harvesting activities adjacent to exceedances of guidelines streams). may result in tighter restrictions on waste Canada (Federal) discharge permit limits or ♦ Canada Fisheries Act enforced in salmon result in changes to the bearing waters by Fisheries and Oceans land management prac- Canada. Inland waters are enforced by the tice contributing to the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands condition. & Parks (cases usually handled by Conserva- The differences in legal approaches to tion Officer Service with technical assistance water quality issues can be observed from Pollution Prevention and/or Fisheries through an overview of relevant legislation Branch). Primary regulations attend Section in each jurisdiction: 35: Harmful alteration of fish habitat, and Section 36: Release of a deleterious substance U.S. into fish bearing waters. ♦ Federal Clean Water Act and Montana ♦ Canadian Environmental Protection Act Water Quality Act. (CEPA) — controls the release of toxic ♦ Natural Streambed and Land Preservation substances into the environment (including

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

44 the air), e.g. dioxins and furans. Also have contaminant limits that are back- controls ocean dumping. calculated from levels in the receiving ♦ Canada Water Act — covers the authoriza- stream that meet the current edition of the tion of waste discharge to water and appears, provincial Approved and Working Criteria at first, to be a duplication of the authority for Water Quality in B.C. or a site-specific under the B.C. Waste Management Act. The WQ objective if one has been developed. act lays out the framework for federal/provin- ♦ Water Act — covers licensed withdrawals cial agreements to eliminate government and work in-and-about a stream or water- duplication in provinces with strong waste way. Logging road bridges and culverts management legislation but provides this must have approvals to be constructed, function in other provinces (e.g. Maritimes). habitat biologists are consulted in advance. ♦ International Boundary Waters Treaty Act ♦ Forest Practices Code — not a statute. In- — this is the act governing the International tended to reduce damage to streams resulting Joint Commission that was set up by the from forest harvesting and related activities. treaty between the U.S. and Canada in ♦ Health Act — Through regional Medical 1909. This is potentially a very important Health Officers, ensures safe drinking statute for the Flathead. The IJC becomes water in community watersheds and where involved with a river flowing across the water is provided commercially ie. restau- border if there are compelling environmen- rants. To determine “safe” the Canadian tal issues and/or strong public concern. Drinking Water Guidelines, developed and routinely updated by Health & Welfare Provincial laws (B.C.) include: Canada, are used. Logging camp water ♦ Waste Management Act — governs all waste supplies would fall under this Act. discharges to the environment through per- ♦ Environmental Management Act — allows mits, approvals and regulations. There are no the Minister of Environment to declare an permitted discharges to the Flathead River environmental emergency (toxic spills, but there have been some historic approvals fires, etc.) and thus access broad powers. (camp incinerators and landfills) which are Not often used but it could for something for 15 months max and are non-renewable. like a large cyanide spill into a river. Numerous regulations, including the Special ♦ Water Protection Act — not often encoun- Waste Regulation and the Contaminated tered but covers the export of quantities of Sites Regulation. The new Oil & Gas Com- water (greater than 20 liters are prohib- mission Act over-rides the Waste Manage- ited). It has not been tested yet in courts and ment Act for oil and gas development and may be subject to challenge under NAFTA transmission. Permits under this act often (L. McDonald, pers. comm. 1998).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

45 1) field sampling of benthic invertebrates (Peden in MELP 1998). The mottled sculpin is and periphyton found in Commerce Creek, Cabin Creek, Howell, 2) laboratory toxicity tests of benthic sediments Creek, Burham Creek, Sage Creek, Kishenena Creek, Flathead River (Middlepass Creek, Fish were excluded from the recommended Flathead Road, at bridge to Sage Creek, Couldrey monitoring program in favour of benthic animals Creek and US border). and algae. Bull trout and tailed frogs, both The Mountain Whitefish is the most abundant present in the North Fork, have also been iden- fish species in the North Fork and its tributaries. tified as an indicator species of ecosystem health A significant over-wintering site for whitefish in because they are sensitive to water tempera- the Canadian portion of the drainage is located in tures, have highly specialized habitat require- the reach of river downstream from Howell Creek. ments and are extremely sensitive to habitat Marnell (1997) identified five amphibian spe- degradation (Ministry of Forests 1997, Dupuis cies in Glacier (four in the North Fork), and three 1997). In this report, we have omitted benthic reptiles. The North Fork amphibians include long- animals and algae due to a lack of available in- toed salamander, tailed frog, boreal toad and formation. However, we do treat bull trout and Columbia spotted frog, while the reptiles were tailed frog as focal species. painted turtle, wandering garter snake and common garter snake. The northern leopard frog, which is red-listed in B.C. is potentially in the Focal Species North Fork but no studies have been undertaken The Flathead Lake/ River system supports 24 to determine if this is the case. species of fish, 10 of that are native. The bull trout, Due to their rare status and potential as indi- westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, cator species, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout mottled and slimy sculpin, and large-scale sucker and tailed frog are selected here as focal species. are the most common native fish in the Flathead River system above Flathead Lake (FRIS, BRC Bull trout 1987). Tributary streams of the Flathead River in The bull trout is the largest fish native to the Canada are important spawning and rearing Flathead drainage. A blue-listed species in B.C., habitats for many of these species. it has recently received threatened status under The mottled sculpin is blue-listed and is of the Endangered Species Act in the United States. special concern in the North Fork because of its Bull trout originate from Flathead Lake and use limited distribution and importance as forage fish the North Fork of the Flathead River and other in many streams. Although the mottled sculpin tributaries for spawning and rearing. They spend is found in other drainages in BC, those may have their adult life in Flathead Lake in Montana and interbred with other species and only the North swim upriver to spawn in Howell Creek, Cabin Fork populations is thought to be a pure strain Creek, Kishinena and the mainstem of the

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

46 Flathead in Canada, as well as most of its tribu- (FWP), which sets fishing regulations, has con- taries in Montana (G.J.Mann). Eggs and fry typi- ducted long term population monitoring in con- cally remain in the gravel of spawning streams junction with other state and federal agencies. from September or October until April of the fol- Prior to the species listing as threatened in June lowing year. Juveniles rear mostly in tributaries 1998, the state had already designated NW (some rear in the river) for one to three years Montana as a bull trout catch and release zone, before migrating to the lake (FRIS, BRC 1987). with the exception of Swan Lake where one fish The species is widespread in the North Fork. could be kept. BC has also set a catch and re- Sixteen tributaries supported between 33 and 61% lease policy for its portion of the drainage. of the entire basin’s spawning run (average of 48%) over a seven year survey (FWP 1998)2. A third of Westslope Cutthroat Trout this activity occurs in seven B.C. tributaries. The The westslope cutthroat trout is a species of Biological Resources Committee, states that the special concern in Montana because of reductions long upriver and down river migration route (up to in the abundance and distribution of genetically 250 km/155 miles each way) coupled with the high pure populations. It has been proposed recently visibility of adults in spawning streams, make the for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. bull trout that use Canadian waters extremely vul- Westslope cutthroat trout in the Flathead drain- nerable to fishing pressure. age exhibit three life history patterns: resident, flu- Throughout the 1980s, redd counts in four vial, and adfluvial. Resident fish remain in their Montana index streams (Big, Coal, Whale, and natal streams throughout their lives. Fluvial trout Trail Creeks) averaged 231. However, with the reside in the mainstem as adults and spawn in the expansion of exotic Mysis shrimp and lake trout tributaries. Adfluvial cutthroat spend one to three populations around 1991, those numbers dropped years in the tributaries before emigrating to to an average of 62. Basin-wide counts for the Flathead Lake where they mature. They then mi- same time periods ranged from 564-1156 pre- grate to the tributaries to spawn before returning Mysis, to 291 and 236 post-Mysis. Surveyors re- once more to the lake. All cutthroat are sensitive corded a historic low 44 redds in the North Fork to environmental disturbances that affect spawn- in 1997 and 101 redds in 1998 (FWP 1998). ing, rearing and over-wintering capability, and adult Bull trout are being monitored currently by habitat (FRIS, BRC, 1987). several agencies. Glacier National Park is exam- Between 1990 and 1996, Montana Fish, ining bull trout DNA and the distribution of bull Wildlife and Parks (FWP) conducted three years trout and non-native trout populations in North of monitoring surveys centered around the old Fork lakes. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Ford Ranger Station. During that period, cutthroat numbers dropped from 282 per km to 164 2 The rest spawned in 14 tributaries of the per km, and finally to 96 per km. Small fish (254 Middle Fork of the Flathead. mm/10") comprised 94% of the sample, with mid-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

47 size (254-305 mm/10-12") at 5%, and large fish dominated by non-predatory species(cutthroat (>305 mm/12") representing 1%. Cutthroat suffer trout for example) (Marnell 1997). from many of the same problems as bull trout, in- In B.C. Ascaphus truei is blue-listed. It oc- cluding predation by lake trout, food web disrup- curs predominantly along the Coast Range save tion by Mysis shrimp, and interbreeding with for a small population in the East Kootenay’s rainbows and Yellowstone Cutthroats. The harvest Moyie and Flathead drainages. In the province’s for cutthroat in the mainstem North Fork in B.C. is North Fork, it is identified in six discrete loca- limited to one trout over 30cm. In 1998, the FWP tions. DNA analyses suggest that the genetic established catch and release regulations in Mon- make-up of the interior population differs from tana’s North Fork. that of the coastal population (Dupuis 1997) making the latter population most vulnerable Tailed frog (Steeger and Machmer 1993). The tailed frog occurs in cold turbulent In Montana, Marnell (1997) reports that headwater streams with cobble substrates. The the tailed frog occurs intermittently in the most primitive frog in the world, it is the longest North Fork as part of an apparent disjunct lived of all North American frogs and the only population. As tailed frogs are primarily stream dwelling frog in Canada. Fine sediment lev- nocturnal and Marnell’s surveys were mainly els and creek size influence its viability, therefore, diurnal, his study’s range maps may under- it is susceptible to mining and logging activity represent the frog’s distribution. (Dupuis 1997). Little is understood about the impact of sport fish reintroduction on the frog however they can successfully co-exist with fish in What is the status of westslope cutthroat streams where abundant escape cover exists and trout in B.C.? What fishing limits apply? the fishery is primarily lacustrine adapted or is

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

48 Chapter 4 — One Century of Human Activity in the North Fork serious in a series of outbreaks that occurred si- multaneously in both Canada and the US (MOF Although native peoples have occupied 1988). The mountain pine beetle infestation at- this area from the beginning of their recorded tacked 20,600 hectares (50,800 acres) of mature time, the advent of Europeans marked a pine (MOF 1988). The Forest Service were rap- change in the amount and type of use occur- idly losing merchantable timber and sought to ring in the North Fork. That change has only salvage as much wood as possible. occurred over the past 100 years as forestry, Logging continued all winter in 1978 as Crows mining, petroleum exploration and tourism Nest logged 190,968 cubic metres of wood out of joined trapping and subsistence hunting and the North Fork. In 1979, the figure dropped to gathering as uses of this landscape. 164,000 m3, peaked at Today, primary land uses in Montana include 217,871m3 in 1980, then logging, recreation and residential development. dropped to 109,821m3 in Primary land uses in British Columbia are logging, 1981 (Young 1987). Due road construction and recreation. The increase to a sense of urgency with in roads in the North Fork has led to an overall the bark beetle outbreak increase in recreation but statistics are only avail- it was inevitable that some able for a portion of these users. Recreation in- things wouldn’t go accord- cludes hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, ing to plan, and there were snowmobiling, canoeing, kayaking, hiking, bik- occasional difficulties ing, sightseeing and berry picking. with sub-standard roads, hillside scarring and erosion, streamside damage, Forestry Practices and improper bridge construction (MOF 1988). The Ministry of Forests Past (British Columbia) concluded that emergency logging operations, by From the late 1950s to the 1960s, most of the their very nature, can pose a definite risk to the side drainages in the BC Flathead experienced long-term well being of the forest environment. timber harvests. The largest timber extraction Nonetheless it is assumed that the benefits from in the drainage, however, resulted from salvage salvage logging far outweigh their disadvantages; logging of mountain pine beetle killed lodgepole that allowing an infestation to run its course is pine between 1976 and 1986 (McLellan and unacceptable (MOF 1988). The same beetle in- Shackleton 1989). This outbreak was the most festation hit both Waterton and Glacier National

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

49 Park where no beetle-killed pine was removed included mostly western white pine, cedar, and from the two parks. The affected areas are all some ponderosa, while you “couldn’t give spruce- greening up under the grey stags, with former fir away” (Wilson and Downes pers. comm.). This lodgepole pine now succeeding to Douglas fir changed apparently when a new market opened (Kevin Van Tighem, pers. comm.). up for spruce-fir studs and plywood and the Replanting in the North Fork was undertaken spruce bark beetle started killing trees. in the 1970s and early 1980s to promote the The mountain pine beetle outbreak, which ran growth of a mixed crop of trees, such as western from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, had larch and Douglas fir. As a result, every seral a significant impact on both lodgepole and stage for both deciduous and coniferous species whitebark pine stands and resulted directly in the are found in the watershed. commercial harvesting of about 13,000 acres of forest during that period. Overall, harvesting Past (Montana) peaked at about 26,000 acres (10,500ha) in the Although the North Fork has extensive forests 1970s and has fallen to less than 3000 acres and, therefore, a substantial timber supply, it was (1200 ha) this decade (Table Thirteen): largely overlooked from the late 1800s until the middle of this century because access to large Table Thirteen: Harvest by method on USFS stands by road, rail, and water was much better lands, North Fork of the Flathead, Montana in the Flathead Valley proper. However, that (A21 1998)* changed in the 1950s as these sources were Salvage/ Total depleted and insect outbreaks in the North Regeneration Intermediate Selection Harvest by Fork killed large numbers of trees. Harvest Harvest Harvest Decade Decade (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Most harvest in the 1950s-1960s was 10950s 94,03 20488 11,91 focused on mature spruce stands and mixed 14960s 194,37 4800 114 18,53 stands containing spruce at mid to upper 15970s 193,47 1042,41 25,89 12980s 42,40 901,53 16,82 drainage levels where spruce bark beetle 16990s 18,46 16,30 502,83 was occurring. Harvest generally involved Total by 42,747 30,152 204 75,990 clearcutting and overstory removal. Since method acres acres acres acres the 1960s, timber harvest has been focused on white pine salvage (blister rust mortality), blowdowns, fire/ insect/ disease salvage, in- According to McKay (1997) Engelmann spruce sect outbreak reduction, and general timber in the North Fork represented 12 percent of the production (A21 1998). Timber was also har- total spruce available in the state of Montana in vested on private and State lands over the last the 50s. Forest management activities have gen- 50 years primarily using regeneration methods erally shifted the forest from spruce/ fir to (most or all trees removed). Harvested species lodgepole pine (Wilson and Downes pers. comm.).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

50 How do harvesting methods differ As of early 1999 three timber sales are either Dave Ondov (regeneration vs. salvage vs. selection)? underway or in the planning stages ( pers. comm. How have logging patterns differed in ). The Hornet-Wedge timber sale in the BC vs. Alberta vs. Montana? Can Whale Creek drainage is now underway. The sale caribou decline be correlated with involves approximately 600 acres harvested prima- logging intensity and patterns? What rily by clearcut as well as selection and shelterwood are the traditional post-logging methods. About 4 miles of new roads would be con- treatment methods in each jurisdiction? structed and 2 miles reconstructed to accomplish the work although 34 miles on-site and 18 miles off-site would ultimately be closed. The Dead Current (Montana) Horse Creek sale in the Coal Creek drainage is in Flathead National Forest (U.S.) the early planning stages. It proposes some level During the last decade, commercial tim- of timber harvest and includes prescribed burns ber operations on the entire Flathead Na- to benefit whitebark pine. Finally, the Big Creek tional Forest have declined steadily from Geographic Unit Assessment has just entered the nearly 120 mmbf. to about 20 mmbf. This National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) proc- change has been reflected in the North Fork ess. It includes moderate harvest, stream resto- portion where logging operations have been ration, and road closures to meet Amendment 19 in-fluenced by concerns over grizzlies, wa- road density standards for grizzly bears. ter quality, and bull trout. The USFS states that “Priorities for veg- Mt. Department of Natural Resources & etation throughout the subbasin include res- Conservation (DNRC) toration of whitebark pine stands that have The DNRC has substantial land holdings in the been heavily impacted by white pine blister vicinity of Coal Creek and recently released a rust, conservation of large multistory Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for stands, and prescribed burning on elk and the Cyclone/ Coal Timber Sale. Depending on the deer winter ranges. Bark beetle risk is con- action alternative chosen, this project would har- sidered moderate in the Coal Creek, Werner vest between 8.9 and 10.6 mmbf on between 699 Creek, and Big Creek drainages; risk in and 1226 other drainages of this subbasin are cur- acres, with rently rated as low” (A21 1998). the majority (57-88%) clearcut1. 1 This translates to between 21,446m3 and 25,542m3 of timber extracted from 283 to 496ha. of land.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

51 The Cyclone/ Coal (U.S.) Timber harvest would take place in Management Situation 1 Forestry Approval Processes (MS-1) grizzly habitat at the junction of both an E-W and a N-S movement corridor. The project Administration of forestry activities differ would apparently create less than a mile of new widely on either side of the 49th parallel: roads. None of the alternatives proposes road closures once harvest is complete. United States When conducting projects on federally Private Lands managed public land, the appropriate Recent, smaller-scale logging has recently agency(s) ordinarily develops either an taken place on private lands. For example, Lee Environmental Assessment (EA) for Downes extracts timber on his own property while projects with fewer anticipated impacts, or Larry Wilson maintains a small crew selectively an Environmental Impact Statement thinning lodgepole on 160 acres of the Marx prop- (EIS) where projects are large or impacts erty. Similar small scale operations are being con- likely to be significant. When an EA is the ducted by BS Logging and Tim Smart. chosen route, it could either result in a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Current (British Columbia) Impact), or a decision to go to a full EIS. Crestbrook Forest Industries (Can.) For the purpose of this example, we’re going Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI)2 is one of to assume that the EIS route is chosen. B.C.’s major forestry companies. The North Fork Once the government decides to offer a has been designated by CFI for timber extraction hypothetical 1000 acres for a timber sale, and they will be concentrating their cut there for this process is followed: the next 5-10 years. (Ken Streloff, pers. comm.). CFI holds the timber rights and the coal rights ♦ Appropriate federal agency announces on the property adjacent to the Lodgepole site the proposed project and calls for public and has recently acquired the Flathead townsite Issues Scoping. (2400 acres/971 hectares) in a land swap. ♦ 30 day public comment period (comment Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI)’s five year periods often extended 30-60 days) Forest Development Plan (FDP) has recently ♦ Agency calls for public Alternatives been approved with the exception of a few blocks Scoping. between Nettie and Elder Creek (Map D). With ♦ 30 day public comment period. the input of Bruce McLellan, a (cont’d p54) ♦ Agency considers public issues/ alternatives comments and prepares a Draft 2 Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI) is majority owned by Honshu and Mitsibushi of Japan.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

52 Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) within a Timber Supply area (TSA) under including usually 3-5 alternatives, and cutting permits. The FL typically is a 15 picking one as the “preferred alternative.” year term which is replaceable every five ♦ 30-60 day public comment period. years. ♦ Agency considers public comments on Recent changes to the Forest Practices Code, DEIS, prepares and issues a Final while reducing the number of operational Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) plans required and reducing the number of and picks an alternative. plans that require government approval, has ♦ 30-60 day public comment period. also removed many of the opportunities that ♦ Record of Decision (ROD) issued authoriz- the general public has to become involved in ing the project to proceed. the forest planning decision-making process. Under the Forest Practices Code, after the Assuming that the project wasn’t appealed to forest companies develop their Forest Devel- the Regional Forester or litigated, the opment Plans (FDP) for a district, they agency would then put the project out to must: bids from interested timber companies. Lest the above sound too orderly or reasonable, 1) publish a notice in the newspaper of the be assured that it is accompanied by media public review and comment period (which is campaigns, alerts, lobbying, political deal usually 60 days) making and arm twisting on a fairly 2) supply an address for where to provide impressive scale, often followed by comments litigation if the issues are significant. 3) review the comments they receive and, 4) make the revisions they “consider Canada: appropriate” The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is set through the Timber Supply Review by the Once a Forest Development Plan is approved Ministry of Forests and each forest district is by the District Manager (Ministry of For- allotted a certain amount of timber to be cut. ests), it is difficult, under the Forest Prac- Forest companies own tenures to Crown tices Code, to overturn the decision. (public) land through forest licenses (TFLs, FL). Crestbrook owns a forest license (FL) in the North Fork which means they have the right to harvest an annual volume of timber

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

53 prominant grizzly biologist, CFI is in the process situated in Elder, Nettie, Sage, Commerce, West of a creating a preliminary landscape level de- Proctor, Grizzly Gulch, Akamina, Bighorn (Celes- sign which will address the impact on Flathead tial), and South Lodgepole Creeks (FDP 1998). grizzly bears over the next 20-25 years. The There are no cutblocks planned for the upper creation of this preliminary plan identifies and Flathead (LU17) for the next five years. includes values other than timber, including: CFI is tackling the mid-seral trees and will be using a combination of seed tree, partial cut and 1) managing for huckleberries clearcut for the logging, with the majority seed 2) proper harvesting in avalanche chutes tree or clearcut (Streloff, pers.comm). CFI has re- 3) identification of priority areas in the riparian built 18km (11mi) of roads in the Flathead to ac- zone (floodplain, movement corridors) cess the areas slated for logging (Nettie and Elder 4) recruitment areas (mature and old-growth) Creek) but no new road construction is currently 5) block re-design in some areas (e.g. Nettie/ taking place (Streloff pers comm). CFIs access Elder- shape and size) management plans for the Flathead include road 6) access management (closures, new roads closures once the harvesting is completed. Clo- gated and/ or bermed) sures vary from gates to berms/ unspecified. 7) order of development through the Flathead (which areas should be logged first to lessen Small Business Program the impact on grizzlies) The Ministry of Forests small business program receives an allocation of wood based upon This plan does not limit the cut but rather the Annual Allowable Cut in the forest dis- prioritizes areas to be harvested and identifies trict. This is set aside for small business log- critical habitat for wildlife, specifically grizzly gers. Contracts, similar to cutting permits, are bears. The plan will only be implemented if CFI offered to tender and the highest bidder can meet their budgets (Streloff, pers. comm.). purchases it. Even though it is not a tenure Under the approved FDPs, CFI has estimated (because it is not a forest license), small busi- 1500 hectares (3810 acres) will be cut, result- ness loggers must adhere to the same regu- ing in 330,000 cubic metres (137 mmbf) ex- lations that the bigger companies do. tracted over the next five years in the North Under the small business program, two par- Fork’s LU zones 16 and 18. Seventeen blocks cels in the North Fork are currently for sale. The exceed 40 hectares (100acres), the largest one blocks are lodgepole pine dominated stands on being 220.9 ha (546 acres). the west side of the North Fork, south of Clear-cutting continues to be the most com- Couldrey Creek. The first parcel (72.3 ha/178 mon silviculture technique used in the BC por- acres), which will produce 16,668m3 (7 mmbf), tion of the North Fork (Langley 1993). The has been sold to J.R. Blackmore and Sons. approved cutblocks in the Flathead (LU16/17) are Logging is underway. The second (cont’d p56)

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

56 parcel (29.1ha/72acres), which will produce not be possible. Another well near Ford Creek in 8,874m3 (3.7mmbf), will be tendered shortly. present day Glacier National Park also failed No other small business parcels are planned (Jack Potter, GNP, pers. comm.) for the North Fork for the next five to ten years. In the mid-1970’s the Texas Pacific Oil Company sought permission from the U.S. Forest Service and Montana Department of State Lands to build a seis- Petroleum Extraction mic line over the top of the Whitefish Range. The project was drop-ped, hindered by logistics and Past (British Columbia) multiple jurisdictions (Brace Hayden, pers. comm.). Oil exploration first began in BC’s Flathead In the late 1980s, Tom Laddenburg mounted valley in 1906 and continued on a small scale an exploration effort on his property south of through to the 1930s. Flathead townsite, now Polebridge. While this drilling with Cenex created known as the Lilyburt property (Map D), was controversy with many North Fork residents, it surveyed in the 1920s in the expectation of struck only water, no commercial quantities of oil an oil boom. The boom never occurred and the were found, and the effort was shut down. Sub- town was never built (Young 1987). A gas stantial portions of the North Fork were leased for pipeline, built in the 1970s, transects the ex- oil and gas during this time, but interest waned treme northwest headwaters of the river after the Cenex failure. The leases have since (Shaw et al. 1991). In the late 1980s, Shell lapsed. Oil and gas may exist in scattered “domes” Canada Resources Ltd. carried out seismic at 8-11,000 feet; Cenex only drilled as deep as exploration and test drilling east of the river 6000 feet (Larry Wilson pers. comm.). to evaluate the occurrence of carbon dioxide which could be piped to Alberta to enhance Current (BC and Montana) oil recovery (FRISB 1986). There is no oil and gas activity now in the North Fork, however exploration roads still ex- Past (Montana) ist. The Geological Survey of Canada has identi- In 1892, Montana’s first oil claims were fied the potential for 420 billion cubic feet of filed along the shores of Kintla Lake in present natural gas and 88 million barrels of oil, con- day Glacier National Park. Initial development centrated in was delayed due to inadequate capital and the the Elk and financial crash of 1893, but interest resumed Flathead in 1900. The Butte Oil Company built the valleys area’s first road from Belton (West Glacier) to ( EKLUP Kintla Lake in 1901. For a short time a small 1994). They oil boom ensued, but it collapsed when it be- have also came clear that commercial production would identified the

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

57 potential for 21 trillion cubic feet of coal bed me- They searched the mainstem, Sage Creek, Com- thane in these drainages (EKLUP 1994). Coal merce Creek and the Castle River (Alberta) area bed methane extraction typically requires a without any luck (Goble 1996). high density of roads and wellsites because In the early 1980s, Sage Creek Coal Ltd pro- the gas is under low pressure. posed a coal mine , encompassing 2085ha (5150 acres) at the confluence of Howell Creek and Cabin Creek. A drop in coal prices and rejection How have seismic lines from past exploration by an International Joint Commission Study nul- been treated? Are they overgrown or usable lified the company’s plans. now as motorized trails? Past (Montana) During the same time period that investors Mining were eyeing the Kintla oil fields, there was similar interest in the development of coal depos- Past (British Columbia) its further down valley. In 1891, the Columbia The Lost Lemon (Lehman) Mine is a legendary Falls townsite company bought claims on the gold mine that may have existed in the Canadian coal banks and placer grounds near present day side of the Flathead. The mine location was sup- Coal Creek (approximately 26 miles north of posed to be on the seventh creek on the east side town). Testing of samples showed that the coal of the Flathead Valley, according to Charlie Wise was of low grade quality, making development who received the information from Black Jack commercially unprofitable, although the own- Lehman’s brother-in-law who heard it from Black ers did find a small and temporary market for Jack Lehman himself, one of the original discover- heating fuel in the 1940s. ers. Other stories have the location as being north of the Crowsnest Pass (Goble 1996). Jack Hazzard Current (BC and Montana) who built and operated the first hotel and dining Fording Coal Ltd.3, Canada’s largest coal min- room in the Waterton townsite was also a part- ing company, currently operates three out of five time prospector. Hazzard started the gold rush in open-pit coal mines in the Elk Valley, directly Grizzly Gulch during the winter of 1931-1932 that north of the Flathead/ Castle region. Fording owns lasted for a few years, when the creek and the three properties in the North Fork with associ- Gulch were staked for 7 miles. The rush petered ated coal licenses which allow for exploration out when no one found any indication of either activities: Lodgepole, Lillyburt and Harvey Creek placer or hard-rock gold (Goble 1996). The Sage (see map D) (Duncan 1997). Lillyburt, Lodgepole Creek Valley was named for two old-time prospec- tors, brothers Frank and Joe, who moved here in 3 Fording is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 1890s hunting for the fabled Lehman Mine. Canadian Pacific.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

58 Why the concern over coal mining?

Recent battles over the Cabin Creek Mine and that water can move freely through the the Cheviot mine near Jasper have elevated structure and prevent saturation of soil the profile of coal mines in the public eye. leading to unstable conditions. While this Why the fuss? The environmental impacts does allow the stream to flow and eventu- associated with coal mines are, to a certain ally ‘surface’ downstream from the rock extent, specific to the individual mine, but drain, it destroys fish and fish habitat. there are certain commonalties worth ♦ Drainage patterns of slopes can be dis- mentioning. These include: rupted and change flows in streams. ♦ Water quality can be impacted by sedi- Landscape impacts: mentation if sufficient safeguards are not ♦ Open-pit coal mines require enormous in place to prevent fine materials from amounts of land. entering streams. ♦ Large volumes of rock are moved through ♦ Minerals, such as selenium, may poten- blasting and transportation by trucks. tially leach from waste rocks. ♦ Waste is stored in large structures called ♦ Chemical contamination can occur waste dumps or spoils. through the introduction of nitrates (from ♦ Shapes of mountains are changed and explosives) and from petroleum products. valleys can be filled in, which has a dramatic impact on wildlife habitat, migra- Air Quality: tion corridors and wildlife stress levels. ♦ Fine particles of coal dust raised through the blasting and hauling operations can Water resources: affect ambient air quality. ♦ Construction of rock drains adversely affect ♦ Inadequate maintenance of tailings ponds streams. Rock drains are formed by filling can lead to the dusting of the fines from in the head of a valley with waste rock so the ponds. (Duncan 1997).

and McEvoy Creek hold major deposits estimated verse circulation holes totalling 817 metres to contain over 300 million tonnes of combined (Wilton 1997) to test the quality and geometry of coal reserves (EKLUP 1994). the resource. The deposit type is organic and is a Fording has conducted exploration activities thermal coal resource (Wilton 1997). on its Lodgepole coal licenses since they were In Sept 1998, Fording Coal stated they will acquired in 1997. The company drilled nine re- not be renewing some of their coal licenses

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

59 on the west side of the Flathead River (Lynn ing of both carnivores and ungulates is permitted Sam, pers.comm.). Although Fording has not in the North Fork, but regulations vary among disclosed its general North Fork plans, the years. Grizzly bears can be legally hunted in deposit is likely viewed as a long-term Canada, yet poaching still occurs (McLellan 1989b). successor to the company’s Coal Mountain In Canada, hunters require a hunter’s license as thermal coal operation (Wilton 1997). well as a species license for certain animals. Besides Fording, Sage Creek Resources Ltd. In B.C., grizzly bears are pursued with a limited still owns some licenses in the Sage Creek region. entry hunting (LEH) permit in contrast to an open season for black bears. Grizzly and moose are both Has the ecological impacts of coal mining on the LEH system in the North Fork. LEH is used in the Elk Valley been monitored? What to closely regulate the number of hunters operating studies are available? How would coal in a specific area, the numbers of animals killed and mining affect other uses of the area? the kind of animals they may take in terms of sex and age. After the last day of their hunt, deer, moose and elk hunters are contacted by mail with a voluntary questionnaire which, if completed, provides in- Recreational Activities formation for wildlife managers of indications of population size, age/ sex structure and distribution. Past Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting The results show the species and hunter success rate (B.C. and Montana) for the B.C. portion of the North Fork (see Table 14). The hunting conducted by the Ktunaxa and trapping initiated by “old-timers” were ways of Table 14: Kill and success rates by species in life rather than recreational activities. Their ac- the North Fork of the Flathead, B.C. tivities have been profiled in chapter two. We cur- Whitetailed Deer rently lack detail on the extent of hunting and Year Hunters Buck Kill Anterless % Overall trapping activity prior to this decade (i.e. number Kill Success of traplines, number of hunting licences issued). 13987 308 71112 19988 358 83152 Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Fishing/ 17989 336 58222 Outfitting (B.C.) 16990 338 84303 11991 216 49132 Hunting occurs throughout the BC North Fork 14992 225 72273 save in McDougall Wildlife Sanctuary which is 19993 267 32653 closed to hunting year round. Four guide outfit- 14994 222 28413 ters and six licensed trappers operate here in Man- 17995 283 3902 agement Unit 4-1 and may be active in adjacent 19996 133 13191 areas (MU 4-23, 4-02) (Davidson, pers.comm). Hunt- 14997 1646 121

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

60 Success rates have dropped since 1994 for deer and requiring hunters to stop and provide informa- elk but improved for moose. tion at game check stations in HD (Hunting Anglers are not surveyed like hunters in the District) 110, officials can determine kill and B.C. North Fork. As a result, it is nearly impossi- success rates per species (see Table 15). ble to gauge either angler numbers, species Generally, success rates for all species have caught or numbers caught. Anglers can reach the remained stable, unlike B.C. river from a variety of locations on public land and those floating the river can fish anywhere Why have deer and elk hunter success they choose. In both countries fishing for bull rates fallen this decade? Why are there trout is catch and release only. In B.C., westslope less animals? How does this measure cutthroat trout limits are set to 1 fish over 30cm. up between jurisdictions, given There is a bait ban from June 15th to October predator trends? How are ‘bag limits’ 31st and anglers are restricted to single hook all set in each jurisdiction? year. An added regulation in North Fork tributaries prohibits fishing from September 1st to Octo- ber 31st to protect spawning bull trout. Current Camping/ Hiking/ General sightseeing (Montana and B.C.): Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting Camping and hiking are growing in popularity (Montana) on both Forest Service and Provincial/ National Hunting occurs in Montana’s North Fork Park lands. We have few statistics on users as outside Glacier National Park. Outfitters are they are simply not recorded. Both BC Ministry excluded from the Flathead National Forest. By of Forests and BC Parks maintain recreation sites

Elk Moose Year Hunters Bull Kill Anterless %Overall Anterless % Overall Kill Success Year Hunters Bull Kill Kill Success 15986 694 74261 10986 295 49172 12987 685 88281 16987 205 45112 17988 683 81271 16988 109 4002 17989 611 63241 19989 221 53103 14990 545 59131 14990 137 2881 12991 486 48261 17991 494194 12992 347 42151 10992 7516144 17993 321 3001 19993 8421193 17994 311 4551 11994 6123165 14995 374 3931 11995 7512183 18996 198 1111 16996 5020145

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

61 here. Although numbers for the former are not Camping is provided at designated sites and collected, Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park backcountry use is recorded. Park usage via the recorded 336 campers and 3177 day users from Polebridge Entrance Station has generally stabi- June 30 to September 30, 1998. Park officials lized this decade (Table Seventeen). guestimate that this captures 5% of the entire North Fork usage for this period. Current Commercial River Usage In Montana individuals are free to camp any- (Montana) where on USFS lands they choose save for set- There are three commercial outfitters who backs from water bodies and site specific provide float trips on the North Fork — closures. Overall use is not recorded however Glacier Raft, Wild River Adventures, and some accomodation use is. USFS cabin use has Glacier Wilderness Guides. risen quickly through the 1990s (Table Sixteen). Glacier Raft — User days per year, Range = 12 Flathead National Forest also maintains over (1981) to 311 (1992), Average = 147. 216 miles of hiking and motorized trails in the Wild River Adventures — User days per year, Glacier View District. Usage is primarily by foot Range =33 (1997) to 163 (1966), Avg = 103. (Bob Keebler, pers. comm.) Glacier Wilderness Guides — User days/year, Glacier National Park can be accessed from Range = 12 (1982) to 498 (1994), Avg =187. several locations around the park boundary.

Table 15: Kill and success rates by species in the North Fork of the Flathead, Montana. NOTE : The winter of 1996 brought the heaviest snowfalls on record, concentrating deer and perhaps accounting partially for the higher success rate. At the same time, the severity of the winter caused an unusually high winter- kill, resulting in the success drop-off of 1997.

Wrhitetailed Dee Elk Year Hunters Kill Success % Year Hunters Kill % Success 878 2865 656 2 13986 1672 194 859 2987 764 2 13987 1783 183 950 2840 662 2 19988 1180 172 941 2419 693 2 17989 1696 150 972 2254 640 2 17990 1861 170 913 2124 492 1 19991 1563 182 984 1099 412 2 11992 1677 85 925 1575 441 2 10993 1360 85 976 1366 511 3 18994 1930 65 927 1171 256 1 12995 1420 65

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

62 Table Sixteen: USFS Rustic Cabin Use Table Seventeen: Numbers of Visitors enter- 1995-1997 ing GNP via Polebridge Entrance Station 1995 1996 1997 Year No. of Visitors (April-Nov.) B-2en Rover Cabin 244 54 17994 43,90 F--8ord Cabin 16 H6ornet Lookout 241 179 21 14995 42,45 N7inko Cabin 82130 8 14996 35,02 S7chnaus Cabin 594 756 82 17997 37,22 Z-3ip's Cabin 257 42 (April-Sept. Total: 850 1580 2262 14998 40,62 only)

Current motorized recreation — Little pattern exists in river usage as good and snowmobiles, 4 wheelers, dirt bikes bad years occur randomly. On average, about 400 (Montana and BC) people use commercial outfitters here annually. If we assume, conservatively, that for every com- During the past several decades the number mercial rafter there’s a private rafter/ canoeist/ and variety of vehicles available for off-road kayaker, we arrive at a yearly total of 800 travel on land has steadily increased. These individuals floating the North Fork (Craig Lang, vehicles are termed off-road vehicles (ORVs) or pers. comm). all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Generally, they allow access to unroaded landscapes via old roads, cutlines, seismic lines Moose or trails. Given the number of roads Year Permits Hunters Kill % Success in the North Fork, it is generally 10984 2028109 easy to access much of the land- 10985 2028109 10986 2029159 Mountain Lion/ Cougar 10987 20202010 Year Quota Hunters Kill 10988 2913186 14989 27 15989 2522288 166990 37 10990 3038239 188991 38 10991 3036278 186992 521 10992 30303010 10993 19401 10993 3928279 10994 18301 15994 3538208 10995 10301 10995 4939247 13996 1?01 15996 2523229 13997 1?31

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

63 scape with either snowmobiles, off road vehicles, though some are more suited to 4 wheel drives. four wheelers or dirt bikes. Usage is not moni- Data from the USFS roads inventory for the tored by either government. Glacier View Ranger District indicates that approximately 280 miles of roads are open season- Snowmobiles ally or yearlong for motorized use. Because they Snowmobile usage of the North Fork is gener- connect to the Upper Flathead Valley to the west, ally unrestricted in BC and Alberta save for an the roads at Trail and Red Meadow Creeks re- exclusion throughout Glacier National Park and ceive greater use than some others, although Big periodic closures in the Flathead National For- Creek is popular year round. These road networks est. The USFS closes the Whale, Red Meadow, currently do not comply with road density stand- Upper Coal and portions of Red Creek Valleys ards in Amendment 19 to the Forest Plan de- as well as lands north of Tuchuck Mt. from April signed to enhance grizzly bear security. There 30 to Nov 30 to protect grizzly bears. Trails con- are currently no areas designated for ATV use, necting Upper Big Creek although popular areas frequently have “rogue to Canyon are restricted riders” who ride where they choose, regardless from April 1 — June 1 for of closures or regulations. Similarly, in B.C., every the same purpose. Year- major drainage is accessible to ATVs. Legal clo- round closures occur from sures are in place during the hunting season on just south of the Big Creek certain roads4. The North Fork is attractive to both entrance, north along the B.C. and Alberta riders because of the terrain and Demers Ridge winter the high number of roads in the area. range, and around the Big Mountain ski area. Cur- How do guidelines for use of off- rent maps are available at road vehicles vary from B.C. to the Glacier View/ Hungry Montana to Alberta? Horse Ranger Station. In Montana, snow- mobilers most commonly ride out of trailheads Land development at Canyon Creek, Big Creek, Hay Creek, and Red Meadow Creek. Moose, Whale, and Trail Creeks Current (B.C. and Montana) see substantial use as well. Only 83 people live in the U.S. portion of the North Fork year-round, although the sum- Four wheel drives, passenger vehicles, dirt bikes mer population numbers around 250 (Nature Once the winter snowpack has melted, every major drainage west of the North Fork Road is 4 See Vehicle Access Hunting Closures (VAHC) accessible to passenger and off-road vehicles al- in the Roads section, below.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

64 Conservancy, 1994). According to the 1996 Ranching Practices Census, there are no year round residents in the Canadian portion of the drainage. This makes Current (B.C. and Montana) the area southern Canada’s largest unsettled There has been no recent agricultural activity drainage occurring outside a park (Hovey and B.C.’s North Fork. A 1980 proposal to allow cattle Teske 1993), with the nearest permanent settle- grazing was rejected after review by B.C.’s Fish and ment more than 50km. from the northern edge Wildlife Branch Officers recommended that impair- of the valley. Although most of the North Fork is ment of riparian habitat as a result of uncontrolled Crown land (owned by the province), there is cattle grazing would result in serious declines in the currently 192 acres (78 ha) of private property abundance of fish and wildlife throughout the for sale for $429,000 U.S. The property has ¾ transboundary watershed. (BC Fish & Wildlife 1981). mile of river frontage and is located between Tom Laddenburg currently grazes animals in Mon- Sage Creek and the Flathead River. tana’s North Fork, running both cattle and horses on Figures reported by the Nature Conservancy his lands. In addition, according to Deb Manley of show that, in 1986, there were 616 tracts mak- USFS, Moran Allotment has historically had a permit ing up 17,000 acres/6880ha of private land. By for 14 cow/ calf pairs totalling 180 AUMs (Animal 1992, that had changed to 727 tracts on 15,000 Unit Months.) This allotment is currently undergoing acres/6070ha — more parcels on fewer acres. an Environmental Assessment. While there has been very little change in the number of parcels greater than 40 acres and a decline above 160 acres, tracts of 5-10 acres Road Development (+18%), 10-20 acres (+19%), and 20-40 acres Roads were first built in the U.S. between 1906 (+72%) have steadily increased. and the 1930s for oil exploration. With the advent of Private lands only comprise about 2.7% of logging in the 1950s in both jurisdictions, these road the North Fork in the U.S. or 15,000 acres. networks spread. (McLellan and Shackelton, 1988). However, because the vast majority of these By 1986, B.C.’s North Fork alone contained approxi- lands occur along or adjacent to a low eleva- mately 250 roads where roughly only a dozen had tion riparian corridor, they can impede wild- existed before the salvage logging of the area (MOF life movements between Canadian and 1988). In the American habitat patches. early 1970s, even before How is land zoning handled in northern many of the Montana? Are there any plans which current roads guide subdivision? Do they consider were con- environmental concerns? structed, the

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

65 growth of vehicular access in the North Fork Why be concerned about roads? prompted the Fernie Ranger District to create a road access plan (Young 1987). Roads cause fragmentation of habitat and reduce adjacent cover for wildlife making In Montana, every major drainage west of the them more vulnerable to human activi- river (State and U.S. Forest Service side) contains ties. Access into the North Fork, with its a dirt/ gravel road, as do a number of minor network of resource development roads, is drainages. The “Outside North Fork Road” also par- one of the main concerns for the excep- allels the river’s west side at varying distances from tional wildlife populations in the area. near Columbia Falls to the Canadian border. East Conservation biologists find that, to persist, of the river (Glacier National Park), the “Inside large mammals, particularly carnivores, North Fork Road” parallels the river from Anaconda require large, contiguous areas of wilder- Creek in the south, to Kintla Lake in the north. In ness (Noss et al. 1996). With increased addition, Bowman Lake is accessed by a 6 mile dirt development and the construction of road. Both sides of the North Fork contain numer- roads, a large carnivore’s habitat can be ous trails, perhaps a dozen on the west (USFS) and compromised — although it still exists, it twice that many on the east (NPS). is not as effective. When carnivores are The USFS inventory indicates a total of 650 miles alienated from prime habitat, their use of (1048 km) of roads in its Glacier View District an area becomes fragmented. The (North Fork) with approximately 280 miles (451 km) Flathead River drainage supports one of being open seasonally, or yearlong. Another 254 the most diverse large mammal predator- miles (409 km) are shown as “closed to vehicles prey systems spanning the international year long”, most frequently with a gate. boundary. Nearly all of the predators are In B.C., every major drainage west and east of solitary (except wolves), have large home the river contains a dirt/ gravel road, as do many ranges, and are widely dispersed. By side drainages. The main Flathead road runs paral- fragmenting habitat, we potentially lel to the river and once crossed the U.S. border. encourage the development of island That changed in 1995 when a flood washed it out populations thereby decreasing the gene — the border station is now closed. roads in the North Fork that the Forest Service Including is responsible for. An additional 33mi (53km) this main ar- of permit roads are slated for the next 5 years. tery, there These figures do not completely represent all are 208 miles access in the North Fork because there are no (335.6 km) of numbers available for non-status roads.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

66 pool and making predators more susceptible ♦ increased poaching as access becomes to extirpation after large scale disturbances. available to larger areas, making enforce- The grizzly can be used to illustrate the effects ment of game laws even more difficult. of this sort of fragmentation. At the heart of ♦ disturbance of wildlife during critical its problem is increased mortality from road seasons (winter, breeding season) causing access AND the loss of habitat effectiveness increased stress which in turn weakens due to alienation. First, motorized vehicle the animal, diminishing reproductive access increases grizzly vulnerability to both capability and heightening susceptibility legal and illegal hunting. Hunter success to predation and, therefore, grizzly mortality, goes up ♦ the destruction of lichen communities due when one can drive to the bear (McLellan to ORV misuse. Misused ORVs can also and Shackleton 1989). Secondly, studies compact trails through bogs thereby have shown that adult male grizzlies tend to altering drainage, crushing plants and avoid roads in general (McLellan and causing erosion of stream banks Shackleton 1988). As choice grizzly habitat (Wilshire et al. 1978). includes riparian areas favoured by road ♦ increased destruction of spawning habi- surveyors, habitat loss inevitably occurs. To tat through increased siltation as well as date, grizzlies have lost 8.7% of their North destruction of fish eggs (CNF 1980). Fork habitat for this reason (McLellan and Shackleton 1988). When combined, in- The Nature Conservancy (1994) reports creased mortality and loss of habitat affects that, “Residential development and roads grizzly bear distribution and viability. clearly stand out as the most significant Besides direct use, roads can lead to indi- source of stresses in the North Fork. Both rect consequences for all wildlife. They roads and development can result in loss improve access to recreational off-road of habitat, habitat degradation, decrease vehicles which have further implications. in water quality and increased movement Adverse effects include: disruption and wildlife/ human conflicts.”

Road profiles: In a recent report on wildlife mortality associ- Highway 3 (Canada) ated with Highway 3, Clayton Apps identified the Highway 3 parallels the Elk River, just north highway as a potential source of large-scale and of the Flathead valley. The highway is a major permanent disturbance to the movements of wide- transportation route which connects the Elk ranging species. Apps speculates this could re- Valley (B.C.) and the Crowsnest Pass (Alberta). sult in fragmented populations, perhaps

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

67 increasing vulnerability to localized and eventu- Because of its proximity to all three forks of the ally regional extirpation (Apps 1998). This heav- Flathead, Highway 2 has had an effect on the ily travelled human corridor has the potential to movement of wildlife and the connectivity of block off wildlife populations in the Flathead and populations, both E-W along the Middle Fork, Castle areas that are migrating north through the and N-S joining the North Fork to both the Swan Upper Elk valley and Crowsnest Pass area to and main Flathead Valleys. Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (AB). Apps has The highway affects large, “road sensitive” outlined potential wildlife linkage corridors carnivores most. The potential fracture zone cre- that would connect wildlife populations from ated by the highway continues east all the way to one side of the highway to the other. These cor- East Glacier, cutting the NCDE grizzly recovery ridors encompass the area from Morrissey to area in half and dividing Glacier National Park Lizard Creek, Hosmer to the edge of Sparwood grizzlies from those in the Great Bear and Bob and the Crowsnest Pass (Apps 1998). B.C.’s Marshall Wilderness complexes. In so doing, it Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, potentially creates an artificial barrier to North Alberta Environmental Protection and the Fork bears attempting to move south, just as Nature Conservancy of Canada have prioritized Canadian Highway 3 does to the north. Thus both this corridor for habitat protection. genetic and demographic exchange may be stalled. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has Highway 2 (U.S.) just begun a three year study to get a better pic- Between Columbia Falls and West Glacier, ture of the habitat connectivity for grizzlies at- Montana, U.S. Highway 2 parallels the riparian tempting to move between habitats on either side corridor of the main Flathead River (as does the of this highway. Beginning in 1999, a sample of Burlington Northern railroad). It then cuts across bears will receive Global Positioning Satellite the South Fork of the Flathead, and passes 0.5 (GPS) collars in an effort to determine whether miles south of the junction formed by the North bears still cross the road, and if so, where. and Middle Forks of the Flathead. The route is Newmark (1995) found that no national parks immediately adjacent to the southern terminus in the lower 48 states were large enough, by them- of the Apgar Mountains. Two miles north is selves, to ensure the survival of their large carni- Huckleberry Mtn. one of the most “grizzly dense” vores in the long term (several hundred years). If regions of the North Fork in autumn. Highways 2 and 3 cut bears (and other carnivores) Numerous studies over the last several dec- off on the north and south, and Highways 89 and ades have clearly documented the importance of 93 accomplish the same thing to the east and west, such riparian corridors to numerous species of they will have turned Waterton-Glacier Interna- wildlife. Although they often make up as little as tional Peace Park into one habitat “island” and the 5% of many Rocky Mountain States, they Bob Marshall complex into another. The smaller frequently are used by over 75% of the wildlife. effective populations of grizzlies in each of those

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

68 islands will be far more vulnerable to extinction when several alternatives were offered in 1982, than the current, much larger, “metapopulation” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a “Jeopardy that remains connected through the region. Opinion,” essentially saying that the preferred alternative would jeopardize the continued exist- Inside and Outside North Fork Roads ence of grizzlies and wolves. FWS also found that For most of its length in the U.S., the North two other alternatives (D & E), which involved Fork flows southward between two primarily gravelling and less realignment, would not jeop- gravel roads, the (Outside) North Fork Rd. west ardize the two species. In each case, the area to of the river on USFS and private lands, and the be reconstructed ran from Canyon Creek, just Inside North Fork Rd. east of the river in Glacier north of Columbia Falls, to the Camas Road junc- National Park. The outside road parallels the river tion, approximately 12 miles north. at varying distances (100 feet to .25 miles) for Specifically, FWS reached the following nearly 55 miles, with the Inside road doing the conclusions : same for perhaps 40 miles. The outside route is a county road, which runs 1. a differential rate of development and all the way to the Canadian border and carries growth can be expected between the paving the vast majority of North Fork visitors, and all and non-paving alternatives, with the paving of its residents, both permanent and seasonal. In alternative resulting in greatly increased all likelihood, nearly all of the 35,000-43,000 visi- rates of growth. tors that pass through the Polebridge entrance 2. development of lands under private station come up the outside road. Although use ownership will physically remove and pre- of the road would appear light by city standards, clude grizzly use of significant portions of it is substantial for a wildland still housing all of the North Fork bottom land/ floodplain. its native predators, and that use has grown sub- 3. the expected growth and development stantially over the last decade. Periodically, there under Alternative C, if uncontrolled and is renewed interest in paving the outside road, non-regulated, will result in man-caused which is quite rough year-round and very dusty mortalities that, cumulative with the during the snow free months. This would present known level of annual mortality, heighten use and could be expected to increase will exceed the theoretical tolerance limits the area’s appeal, both to developers and those for the NCDGBE population. interested in buying, continuing the area’s frag- 4. under present state and local government mentation into relatively small (ecologically regulations governing subdivisions, no speaking) “wilderness ranchettes.” planning process exists for directing and In 1980, when the Federal Highway regulating growth and development in a Administration (FHWA) proposed upgrading and manner that assures compatibility with paving portions of the lower North Fork, and again grizzly/ wolf conservation and recovery.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

69 5. Forest Service mitigation measures for their began. A Coordinated Access Management Plan activities will not compensate the losses to (CAMP) was completed in 1982 and received a the grizzly/ wolf populations sustained as a wide degree of public support. The CAMP led to result of paving nor replace the loss of griz- many of the area’s secondary and tertiary roads zly/ wolf habitat on the North Fork bottom being blocked by ditches and dirt mounds that land/ floodplain. act as physical deterrents to cars and trucks, however, ORVs and dirtbikes still access the area. The inside road is generally open only between There is still a dense network of roads in the mid-June and late October, weather permitting. Flathead (Map D2). According to the CAMP, roads It is very rough when open and barely two cars number between 350 to 400. There are 335.6 km wide in most spots. It also penetrates some of of Forest Service roads in the Canadian North the wildest wildlife habitat in the lower 48, mostly Fork but this figure does not include road-use in, or adjacent to, low elevation riparian zones. permit roads and non-status roads. Two small campgrounds (Quartz and Logging In 1996, Crestbrook Forest Industries initi- Creeks) totalling less than 20 sites occur six or ated a Level I road assessment funded by the seven miles south of Polebridge, as does the Log- Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Re- ging Creek Ranger Station. Just north of the newal B.C. The project assessed watershed deg- Polebridge Ranger Station a gravel road travels radation due to deteriorating roads from past 6 miles to Bowman Lake and its campground of logging activities and the 1995 flood. The study about 50 sites. The road also continues 15 miles concentrated on the south-east portion of the north of the ranger station where it terminates North Fork in Canada, assessing 152 roads at Kintla Lake and another 15+ campsites. It is equalling approximately 209 kilometres (Sage these several destinations that the previously Creek to Kishinena Creek) (CES 1997). Lower mentioned 35-43,000 visitors are coming to see/ Sage Creek sub-basin contains 32 roads with the use. In addition, some unknown number of visi- total length equalling 30.359km. There were 14 tors, enter the road to the south at Fish Creek roads (10.711km) in the lower Nettie and Elder Campground and reach these destinations with- Creeks sub-basin and 27 roads (28.705 km) in out passing through, and being counted by, the the upper Nettie and Elder (CES 1997). Polebridge Entrance Station. None of the above Level II outlined specific prescriptions for road figures include those individuals using roads west deactivation and repair. Due to financial con- of the river to access private or public lands. straints, not all roads identified at the Level I stage were surveyed in the Level II assessment. Level Canadian forest road networks II deleted industrial roads accessing blocks con- As previously mentioned, in 1986, the Flathead taining active cutting permits (Interior Reforestation contained approximately 250 roads where roughly 1997). Although some of the roads were deacti- only twelve had existed before salvage logging vated by means of a kelly hump or berm, we do

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

70 not know the extent of the rehabilitation and restriction. VAHCs are enforceable by conserva- complete deactivation of these roads. tion officers (CO) under the Wildlife Act There is presently little in place in the North Fork to deal with access management and U.S. Forest Service road networks restrictions on road use. Available legislative As stated previously, the USFS inventory indicates tools include: a total of 650 miles (1048 km) of roads in its Glacier View District (North Fork). The 1993 Grizzly Bear 1) Ministry of Forests Section 105C Motor- Recovery Plan notes that roads pose perhaps the ized Vehicle Access Closure; a forest most imminent threat to grizzly bear recovery. There- operation code under the Forest Practices fore, on Flathead National Forest lands west of the Code which gives the District Manager the river, all Bear Management Units (BMU) are required discretion to close a road by 2005 to meet road density standards detailed in 2) Forest Practices Code (FPC) Operational Amendment 19 to the Forest Plan. These standards, Planning Regulations sections 61,62, based on female grizzly home ranges in the South Access Management Plans Fork Study, say that no more than 19% of a sub-unit 3) FPC Section 55.2, Non-Industrial Use of can have Open Road Densities (ORD) greater than Roads Regulation 1mi./sq.mi. or Total Road Densities (TRD) greater 4) Wildlife Act than 2 mi./sq.mi. Currently, of 19 total sub-units, only 5) Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 4 currently meet the ORD standard, and 4 the TRD Vehicle Access Hunting Closures standard. East of the river in Glacier National there are very few roads and it appears that all BMU’s The only closures that presently exist in the would meet the 19% standard if it applied to the park. North Fork are Vehicle Access Hunting Clo- At the same time it should be noted that the rela- sures (VAHCs) during hunting period only. The tively few park roads are mostly in the riparian cor- roads with VAHCs are the Akamina and ridor and all visitor motorized access (37,277 vehicles Kishinena Creek watershed upstream from the in 1997 at Polebridge entrance ) is concentrated on 94km marker on the Akamina/ Kishinena Rd., them. These figures do not reflect the visitors who Middlepass Creek watershed and the Sage used an entrance other than Polebridge, and accessed Creek watershed from 2.5km upstream of the North Roche Creek. These roads are closed for the Fork up the hunting season and are subsequently open be- Inside North tween March 1-31 and July 1-August 31. They Fork Road are not gated, rather, an information sign may from Fish be posted. If there is no sign, it is the hunters’ Creek. responsibility to recognize closures (MELP 1997-98). Trappers are exempt from this VAHC

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

71 State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

74 Part B: Castle Drainage

The Castle drains 970km2/374mi2 in activity east of the Divide. Presented southwestern Alberta through the separately for reviewers who are familiar Carbondale, West Castle and South Castle only with this system, we plan to integrate Rivers. This chapter focusses on the it with North Fork information for the ecological components and human final version.

Chapter 5 — Ecological Components of the Castle Drainage

Ecological Processes (fire, flood, disease) between the mid-1700s and mid-1800s during the Fire peak of the Little Ice Age. Following the establishment of the Forest The fire frequency rose Reserve in 1910 and continuing to the present once again following this day, a major focus of the Forest Service has been period with a warming and fire suppression (Hanson 1973). There is one fire drying of the landscape. lookout tower in the Castle area located on With European- Carbondale Hill, which allows the Forest Service American expansion in to react quickly to any ignitions that occur. Fire southwest Alberta, coin- suppression also leads to a change in the natural ciding with severe processes of the ecosystem, thus creating a droughts, fires became different floral and faunal composition. For more extensive. There were approximately 18 example, aspen poplar and conifers begin to in- fires in WLNP between 1902 and 1940. Prior vade previously unforested areas, with a result- to this, Indians throughout the west used fire ant decrease in grasslands. to restore forage, drive game, warfare and en- Fire frequency, prior to fire control efforts, was tertainment. These frequent fires on the prai- high in southwestern Alberta with approximately ries and adjacent forests produced a more 46 fires occurring between 1633 and 1940 in complex vegetation composition, with higher Waterton Lakes National Park (Barrett 1996). landscape diversity than exists today in the Fire activity in the region declined substantially densely stocked, single aged stands of the area

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

75 (Barrett 1996). Due to the uniform height and berry patches and open shrublands provide habi- density of current stands the likely fire regime of tat for grizzly, elk, moose and other animals. the area will be stand replacement (Barrett 1996). Barrett (1996) states that humans almost cer- Flood tainly caused many of the pre-1900 fires. Light- Floods play many ecological roles in riparian ning ignitions are typically infrequent on the areas. They maintain a mosaic of habitats on eastern slopes of the Continental Divide because floodplains, creating complex niches for vegeta- most of the strikes occur in the Alpine region tion and aquatic species. They scour out fish which is composed of a significant amount of rock habitat and deposit large woody debris. Finally, and ice (Franklin, 1986). In WLNP, lightning floods trigger migratory movements by bull trout caused 22% of fires in the park and 78% were and other species (Kevin Van Tighem, pers. comm.). human caused (Barrett 1996). Since 1900 heavy flooding has occurred at ap- In 1934 a major fire burned some of the Front proximately 11-year intervals in the Castle region Range valleys and the middle and lower sections (AENR 1985). The last major flood occurred in of the South Castle Valley (Brodersen, 1996). The June 1995 and was rated at more than one in three last large fire which burned in the Castle area, hundred years (Castle Local Committee 1997). and perhaps one of the most devastating fires in This flood had significant impacts on the land- southern Alberta’s history, occurred in 1936 (see scape, its roads and watercourses. Butts fire of 1936, chapter 3). The burn started in the Flathead area of British Columbia on July Disease/ Insects 17, 1936 and was attributed to careless camping Two major tree mortality agents that have had (Crowsnest Pass Historical Society). It entered an affect on vegetation in the Castle region are Alberta over Middle Kootenay Pass on July 23, whitebark pine blister rust, which affects both 1936 and continued to burn on and off until whitebark pine and limber pine, and the moun- Nov.18. The fire frontage was estimated at 25 tain pine beetle, that, in the past, has had a seri- miles and was headed for Beaver and Mill Creeks ous impact on pine stands. (Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, 1979). This Limber pine and whitebark pine are both highly fire burned much of the West Castle, Castle and susceptible to white pine blister rust (Kendall et Carbondale valleys and resulted in a large amount al. 1996). This disease is a concern for south- of old-growth forest/ valuable commercial timber western Alberta, which has the largest stands of area being burned (Gerrand et al. 1992). Exten- whitebark pine in the province. In the early 1970s sive salvage logging operations occurred follow- whitebark pine blister rust had infected many lim- ing these fires. In many cases present tree ber pine stands, although not to the extent that regeneration on the high elevation burns is virtu- whitebark pine had been infected. Recent stud- ally non-existent (Anderson, 1978) but excellent ies in northwest Montana have attributed the de-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

76 cline in the whitebark pine population to competition and successional replacement by Bad for some, good for others? Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir (Stuart- Pine beetle infestations are not all-negative Smith et al). Fire suppression and mortality of events. They result in increased populations of whitebark pine from whitebark pine blister rust three-toed woodpecker among other species. and mountain pine beetle infestation (Stuart- Subsequent blowdowns create productive habitat Smith et al, Nutcracker Notes) have facilitated for red-backed vole and its primary predator, the this replacement. The latter spreads upwards marten. High fuel loadings result from tree from the lower elevation lodgepole pine. mortality and create conditions conducive to Limber pine has suffered extensive, heavy intense stand replacing fires. mortality and blister rust infection in southern Alberta. A 1995-1996 study concluded that, on average, greater than one-third are dead, (216.4mmbf) of infested merchantable timber had approximately 75% live trees are infected and been salvage logged (AENR 1985). 30% of those have crown kill (Kendall et al 1996a). These rates are lower further north in To what degree does whitebark pine serve the Porcupine Hills. A similar study in as a foodsource for grizzlies and other Waterton Lakes National Park on whitebark creatures? In what season? How has its pine found that the species has suffered se- decline affected their foraging patterns? rious declines with a mean mortality of 26%, definite infection of 44% and a probable infection (probable + definite) of 47% among Vegetation the trees studied (Kendall et al, 1996b). Mountain pine beetle has also had a signifi- Historic content, distribution cant impact on the pine species in southwestern Alberta. Limber and whitebark pine have There appears to be little information avail- been affected by this disease as it is spread able on the historic content of vegetation in the upwards from the lower elevation lodgepole Castle area. It is likely that it was similar to pine. In 1981 salvage logging operations due the present to severe mountain pine beetle infestation pro- with respect hibited the calculation of annual allowable cuts to species by the Forest Service in the Castle area (AENR composition 1985). By the mid-1980s the mountain pine but that the beetle had attacked all pine stands at or near abundance rotation age. By 1985 a total of 521 450 m3 and distribu-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

77 tion of various species may be changing due to hu- sent. The logging companies reseed the man presence and their influence on the landscape. clearcut areas to lodgepole pine because it The typical climax forest type in the Castle area is a shade-intolerant species and grows well is dominated by Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine in open areas. Schneider (pers.comm.) states fir. The mature forest consisted of spruce that was that it is also the most natural species to 100 to 300 years old dominating the stand with seed with because it would also be the spe- most of the fir old or dead. Lodgepole pine was cies that regenerates following fire. One very infrequent (Cormack 1956, cited in Anderson could argue that the area might have a 1978). Dominant understory plants in this forest greater percentage of lodgepole pine in the include false azalea, white rhododendron, moun- region under a logging regime than it would tain bilberry and false box. Other characteristic under a fire regime because logging is on- plants included lady fern, fragile fern, feather going and fire is more periodic. mosses and Mnium mosses. Over the last 130 years the landscape However, due to recent fires and present log- of the grasslands has also shifted from ging in the region relatively few of these climax what was once a heterogeneous mostly- stands exist. This forest type was recently fescue prairie to a more diverse landscape present in the Carbondale headwaters but including limber pine and aspen and shrub extensive logging has occurred over the past few communities. With fire suppression and years and depleted it. the near extinction of the bison, the domi- The absence of fire in an area increases closed nant ecological processes that once influ- canopy forests due to the unimpeded succession of enced this region are absent. This forests and the encroachment of trees into absence has allowed for the encroachment shrubfields (Zager 1980). In the absence of fire, of tree and shrub species into the timber harvest, if managed carefully, may provide grasslands (Ayers et al, Nutcracker Notes). similar seral vegetation communities to a post-fire Cattle grazing can change the species com- environment (Peek et al 1997). In the Castle region position of an area in a negative manner if not fire is absent and logging is on-going but it is un- managed properly. Timothy and bluegrass are certain as to how close the balance is and how invader forage species that have replaced na- similar the tive forage species, primarily rough fescue, in habitat would some areas of the Castle where cattle grazing be to the cur- occurs. Kentucky bluegrass replaces fescue rent composi- when grazing is intense. This is a concern tion with fire because bluegrass is not an effective winter present and food resource for wildlife (Ernst 1996). In- logging ab- tense grazing also degrades the understory

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

78 vigour, which decreases the ability of understory plants in Alberta the number of species present species to compete and allows conifers to en- in the Castle is disproportionately high. Even so, croach on meadows (Ernst 1996). these valleys have not been extensively studied The timing of the grazing is as important as botanically and therefore a greater number of rare its intensity. Bison typically grazed here in fall species could be present. Kuijt (1993) states that and winter, allowing native grasses to flourish the “Castle River drainage basin is the most during the growing season. Cattle are normally poorly explored biological area in the southern pastured here in spring in summer, impacting half of Alberta”. Therefore, the following account native species when they are most vulnerable. is a more general statement of the vegetation in In these seasons, they deplete ground fuels the area based on similar ecoregions in Alberta when fire is most likely to start, thereby also with some specific vegetation types added in. The altering the fire regime. Therefore cattle graz- information is primarily based on the work of ing, if not managed properly, has the potential Achuff (1992) and Strong (1992). to alter the species composition in the sur- The Montane occupies a small area of Alberta rounding area (Van Tighem, pers. comm.) along lower elevation river valleys in the mountains and patches in the western foothills. This Present content, distribution region is important winter range for ungulates The Castle has a considerable diversity of veg- because it is intermittently snow-free in the win- etation due to its diverse climate and topogra- ter. The landscape itself is characterized by a phy. Within its small area there is an elevation pattern of open forests and grasslands. Species range from the high plains at 1220m/4000ft to that are characteristic of the southwestern alpine peaks at approximately 2755 metres/9038 montane include Douglas fir and limber pine but ft (Anderson 1978). This allows for a broad range these species are often less abundant than of montane, subalpine and alpine species to ex- lodgepole pine, white spruce and aspen poplar. ist. The West Castle and South Castle valleys Douglas fir occurs mainly on north and east constitute one of the richest areas in Alberta in aspects of exposed ridges in the southern part of terms of rare plant species with the exception of the montane (due to higher moisture). Some of Waterton Lakes National Park, which may have the understory species in closed Douglas fir for- the highest biodiversity of plant species in all of ests include pine grass, hairy wild rye, bearberry Canada (Kuijt 1993). The Castle area itself has a and junipers. Important Douglas-fir understory high proportion of rare plant species relative to species present in Waterton Lakes N.P. include its size (see Table 18, next section). Of the 824 Oregon grape, ninebark, Rocky Mountain maple, vascular plant species found in the Castle region purple clematis and bluebunch wheat grass. Lim- 75 species are considered rare (HBT Agra 1992). ber pine forests occur mainly on exposed rock Considering there are approximately 360 rare outcrops and gravel flats at lower elevations and

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

79 are open in nature. Common understory species ize the lower subalpine areas. However, the ex- include bearberry, junipers, bluebunch wheat tensive logging, which focusses on the subalpine, grass, Idaho fescue, northern bedstraw, mouse- will have altered the proportion of each species ear chickweed and crested beard-tongue. (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Logging and sub- Lodgepole pine forests occur on upland sites sequent reseeding with lodgepole pine will likely with buffaloberry, pine grass and hairy wild rye have increased the proportion of this species rela- as important understory species. White spruce tive to the climax species. At lower elevations, forests typically occur on mesic sites along in undisturbed areas, white and Engelmann streams. Aspen forests occur on fluvial fans and spruce are often present in a hybrid form. As terraces and are abundant near forest-grassland elevation increases Engelmann spruce replaces transitions. Black cottonwood is mostly confined white spruce and subalpine fir becomes more to stream margins (Anderson 1978). frequent. In lower elevation lodgepole pine for- Grass and sedge meadows occur in some ests common understory species include of the main valleys adjacent to lakes and riv- buffaloberry, hairy wild rye, showy aster, bear- ers. Common species include Kentucky berry, junipers, twinflower and bunchberry. At bluegrass, smooth brome and sedges higher elevations, false azalea and grouseberry (Anderson 1978). Willows are also present in are more predominant. In Engelmann spruce- low-lying areas. Grasslands are common on subalpine fir forests, which occur on moister south and west exposures of slopes (Anderson sites than lodgepole pine forests, the 1978). Bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, understory species include false azalea, Lab- spear grasses, northern bedstraw, fleabanes rador tea, huckleberry, white-flowered rhodo- and oatgrasses dominate these grasslands. In dendron, grouseberry, one-sided wintergreen, areas where overgrazing by cattle has oc- one-flowered wintergreen and bunchberry. curred timothy and bluegrass may have re- Older, mesic forests have a thick carpet of placed the native forage species (Ernst 1996). mosses and lichens. The subalpine region is located between el- Certain species reach the northern limit of their evations of approximately 1525m-2150m (5000ft- range in the southwestern corner of Alberta. 7050ft). It has the highest precipitation, lowest These include beargrass, thimbleberry, Piper’s evaporation and accumulates the majority of the wood rush, foamflower and mountain lover. winter snowpack resulting in subsequent spring As elevation increases in the upper subalpine, streamflow (Anderson 1978). These characteris- the vegetation shifts from closed spruce-fir for- tics also influence the existing vegetation in this ests to open forests near treeline. The open na- area. The subalpine is important summer range ture of the forest is due to increasing moisture for both ungulates and grizzly bears. stress from higher winds and the high intensity Closed forests of lodgepole pine, white and of the sun’s rays. In these areas whitebark pine Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir characteris present intermixed with the other tree spe-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

80 cies as well as in open park-like stands at 1986). This community also consists of a number timberline (Anderson 1978). The Castle- of other rare plant species, including creeping Waterton region has the largest stands of mahonia, mariposa lily and snowbrush (AENR whitebark pine in the province (AENR 1985). 1985). This area was nominated as a candidate Alpine larch may also occur on sheltered slopes natural Area under the natural Areas Program at treeline. As the subalpine zone grades into of Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife (Fairbarns the alpine, tree formation becomes stunted and 1986). However the recent recommendations by is referred to as kruppelholz or krummholz. the Castle Local Committee for Special Places Several different plant communities, none 2000 concluded that it did not require its own of which occupy very extensive areas, char- special designation because it falls under zone 1 acterize the alpine region. Higher wind and Zone 2, which are already managed for pro- speeds in this area, leading to increased cool- tection (Castle Local Committee 1997). ing and evapotranspiration rates, along with The Castle has a high degree of endemism low soil nutrients, makes this a harsh envi- with thirty-eight provincially and nationally ronment for plant survival. rare species (Table Eighteen). Thirteen spe- Microclimatic variations in the area, as well cies are considered critically imperilled from as environmental factors such as aspect, wind a provincial perspective and two are consid- exposure, soil moisture and snow depth, influ- ered nationally at risk. The Alberta Natural ence the vegetation communities. Black alpine Heritage Information Center maintains loca- sedge communities dominate late-melting snow tions for each of these plants. areas. Paintbrushes, buttercups and grouseberry occupy moderate snow areas. Shallow snow ar- Old-growth forest eas on exposed sites are dominated by communi- Old growth forests in the Castle region sup- ties of white mountain avens, snow willow and port a large number of plant and animal species moss campion. The highest elevation communi- due to their high degree of spatial heterogeneity. ties consist mainly of lichens on rocks and shal- These forests take close to 200 years to grow low soil. Beargrass meadows occur in some low and evolve. They are characterized by trees of a elevation alpine areas. Willow dominated variety of age classes — ranging up to hundreds shrublands are also present. of years — along with fallen logs, snags (standing dead trees), a diversity of shrubs and herba- Focal species — pockets of endemism ceous plants in the understory and soils rich in Along the steep southwest-facing slope of the nutrients and nutrient-cycling organisms (Parks south Castle Valley is a provincially rare floral Canada 1995). A planted monoculture and community that consists of the largest stand of short rotation forestry practices cannot re- big sagebrush in Alberta (AENR 1985, Fairbarns place the structure and function of an old-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

81 Table Eighteen: Vascular Plants of the Castle Watershed that are Nationally and Provincially Rare growth forest. Logging of these forests beyond Common Name Scientific Name Status Alberta Canada threshold levels represents a Dwarf alpine poppy Papaver pygmaeum S12 P Senecio cymbalaria loss of habitat to species that Groundsel (S. conterminus) S12 P Dwarf fleabane Erigeron radicatus S22 P depend on them, such as Geyer's wild onion Allium geyeri S22 P Canada lynx, marten and a Lyall's scorpionweed Phacelia lyallii S22 P number of forest interior bird Wolf's trisetum Trisetum wolfii S21 P Cushion townsendia Townsendia condensata S31 P species (see sidebar, p.27). Lyall's beardtongue Penstemon lyallii S32S3 P In the Castle region, old- Sandberg's wild parsley Lomatium sandbergii S32S3 P Two-leaved bedstraw Galium bifolium S31 P growth forest is primarily Umbellate chickweed Stellaria umbellata S31 P comprised of Engelmann White lettuce Prenanthes sagittata S32 P spruce-subalpine fir forest, Yellow angelica Angelica dawsonii S33 P Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax —4P along with whitebark pine in the Blue beardtongue Penstemon albertinus S42S3 P South and West Castle Valleys. Buttercup Ranunculus verecundus S42 P However, the specific composi- Dense-leaved whitlowcress Draba densifolia S41 P Dwarf bitterroot Lewisia pygmaea S41S2 P tion of the forest may be differ- Dwarf lupine Lupinus lepidus S42 P ent depending on where it is Geyer's sedge Carex geyeri —4P Hitchcock's woodruch Luzula hitchcockii S43 P growing, with respect to loca- Mariposa lily Calochortus apiculatus —4P tion, slope and elevation. At Meadow chickweed Stellaria obtusa S41 P lower elevations aspen and Mountain hollyhock Iliamna rivularis S42 P Nevada ruch Juncus nevadensis S41 P lodgepole pine may be inter- Nuttall's sandwort Minuartia nuttallii S43 P mixed with the spruce and fir Payson's sedge Carex paysonis S42 P Purple onion grass Melica spectabilis S41 P trees (Coleman 1996). The large Slender knotweed Polygonum engelmannii S41 P forest fires of the 1930’s along Small baby-blue-eyes Nemophila breviflora S42 P with past and present logging Sweet cicely Osmorhiza occidentalis S43 P Thistle Cirsium scariosum S42 P has led to a reduction in old- Western hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis S42 P growth in the Castle region. To- Willowherb Epilobium glaberrimum S41 P Yellow alpine fleabane Erigeron ochroleucus S42 P day only 9% of the forest cover Alpine groundsel Senecio cymbalaroides S41 P in the Castle area is composed Crested beardtongue Penstemon eriantherus —5P of old-growth (Gibbard and Groundsmoke Gayophytum racemosum S51 P Jones' columbine Azuilegia jonesii S52 P Sheppard 1992). Alberta Land Large-flowered ragwort Senecio megacephalus —5P and Forest Service guidelines do Long-leaved arnica Arnica longifolia S52 P not permit logging on slopes Marsh butterweed Senecio foetidus —5P Regel's rush Juncus regelii S51 P steeper than 45 degrees (except · Pmrovincial d=esignation (fro Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre): S1 critically imperilled, extremely rare; S2= imperilled, very rare; S3=rare-uncommon under “special circumstances”) · National Designation (from Argus and Pryer, 1990): P1=narrowest distribution with fewest known locations, imperilled and at greatest risk in Canada; P5=rare, not greatly at risk therefore old-growth on these

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

82 Does old-growth still comprise 9% of forest Where are the primary areas of cover in 1999? Can it be mapped? How concern for invasives in the Castle? does vegetation structure/ composition How are they being treated? compare/ contrast under a logging regime vs. a fire regime? How is the C5 forest strategy (a.k.a Olson 1998) addressing this? (Alexander 1998). Other weeds that are of concern in the area include blueweed, knapweed, toadflax and scentless chamomile. slopes should not be disturbed (ALFS 1994). Stream Cattle grazing can also facilitate the inva- buffers, which may consist of old-growth trees, sion of non-native species if not managed prop- are also maintained during logging. The Land erly. Timothy and bluegrass are invader forage and Forest Service that administers the Castle species that replace native forage species, pri- area aims to protect 10% of the forest cover in marily rough fescue, in most areas of the Cas- old growth (Schneider, pers. comm.), however there tle where cattle grazing occurs. Kentucky is no legislation in place for this protection. Once bluegrass replaces fescue when cattle graze in stands have reached maturity and some of the spring and early summer. This is a concern trees begin to die and fall over, the Land and because bluegrass is not an effective winter Forest Service re-fer to the stand as “decadent”. food resource for wildlife (Ernst 1996). From the perspective of the Forest Service, decadent stands have a higher susceptibility Wildlife to disease in addition to contributing fuel for The Castle area is characterized by a diverse potential forest fires and therefore it is more landscape, which provides a variety of habitats. economical-ly feasible to harvest them (Schnei- The region provides important habitat for grizzly der, pers. comm.). Fallen logs provide dens for and black bears, wolves, cougar, lynx, wolverine, hibernating bears, homes for red-back vole and mule and white-tailed deer, elk, mountain goats, marten, and stream debris for fish habitat. bighorn sheep and a number of smaller creatures. In all, the Castle is home to close to 60 species of Invasive Species mammals (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The only Roads are primary conduits for the transmis- one it is known to have lost since human prehis- sion of weeds. Containment of weed infestations tory is the bison. There are no records of caribou occurred in the South Castle and West Castle val- or pronghorn antelope in the Castle. leys in 1997 along with some work to control weeds along major roads and in the Front Range Is there any knowledge of caribou or Canyons. The most troublesome noxious weeds pronghorn ever inhabiting the Castle? Have encountered in 1997 included ox-eye daisy, tall there been recent sightings of river otter? buttercup, houndstongue and Canada thistle

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

83 Two species of reptiles are present in the Table Nineteen (following 3 pages): Alberta Castle — the wandering garter snake and the Species at Risk occurring within the Castle — plains garter snake — both of which are “Yel- As listed in Alberta Environmental Protec- low A listed” in Alberta, indicating concern for tion (1996): long-term population declines (AEP 1996). The Castle is home to the northern Leopard Frog Red List: Current knowledge suggests that these species — a “red listed” species in Alberta, the “blue are at risk. listed” spotted frog and the yellow listed long- Blue List: Current knowledge suggests that these species toed salamander. There is also high avifaunal may be at risk. diversity. The bird species consist of birds of Yellow List: Sensitive species not currently believed to be prey, waterbirds, songbirds, woodpeckers, at risk, but may require special management to kingfishers and upland birds. Various species address concerns. This list is subdivided into: of fish are present in waterways although (a) Yellow A - concern expressed over long-term overfishing, habitat degradation and stocking declines in their numbers. with non-native game species have had a detri- (b) Yellow B - species that are naturally rare, have mental effect on some of the native populations. clumped breeding distributions or are associated with A number of species in the Castle area are on specific habitats (e.g. old-growth forests) which are, or Alberta’s red and blue lists and others are fed- may be, deteriorating. erally listed by COSEWIC (see Table Nineteen). Some are on both. Although these animals are listed there is no legislation for their protection. The provincial list is intended primarily Distribution as a guide for prioritizing management activi- A comparison of the wildlife in southwestern ties and determining which species are in need Alberta between the mid-1800s and the present of more detailed evaluations. Following such time would show a lot of changes in species dis- evaluation, the species may be assigned as a tribution and abundance. One of the more pre- candidate species for vulnerable, threatened or dominant of these is the bison. Studies from endangered designation used by COSEWIC excavated sites in the Waterton area indicate that (Alberta Environmental Protection 1996). bison were the ecologically dominant ungulate from at least 5500 B.C. until their extermination The following sections of this report will cover in the latter half of the 19th century. Kootenai the historical and present status of selected Brown wrote in his travels, that “ The prairie as wildlife species in the Castle as well as a far as we could see east, north and west, was more detailed account of specific focal species. one living mass of buffalo.” (Rodney 1996). Most used the foothills and lower mountain (cont’d p82)

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

84 Common Name Scientific Name Status Comments Amphibians Northern Leopard Rana pipiens Red Has declined severely in recent years. Frog Protection of remnant breeding areas essential. Population status unknown. Spotted Frog Rana Pretiosa Blue Extremely limited distribution. Isolated populations focused in mountain pass Long-toed Ambystoma riparian areas. Vulnerable to habitat Yellow B Salamander macrodactylum destruction/alteration associated with industrial/recreational development. Reptiles Common but localized. Public perception of long Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix Yellow A term declines. Wandering Garter Thamnophis elegans Yellow A Common but localized. Snake Least abundant garter snake. Birds Dramatic population declines in this native Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii Blue grassland-dependent species. Causes of population decline unknown. Relies on Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue edges of larger wetland habitat. Designated as vulnerable by COSEWIC. Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Blue Critical shortage of key winter habitat limiting p.opulation growth Bartramia Population unknown. Populations probably have Upland Sandpiper Yellow A declined with loss of native prairie grassland longicauda nesting areas. Botaurus Population unknown. Relies on permanent to American Bittern Yellow A semi-permanent wetlands with well-developed lentiginosus emergent vegetation. Sharp declines in prairie populations over last Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Yellow A decade. Dependent on healthy ground squirrel populations. Breeding and foraging habitats deteriorating. Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Yellow A Relies on maintenance of edges of larger wetland habitats. Histrionicus Population unknown. Restricted distributions. Harlequin Duck Yellow A Declines noted. Possible conflicts with histrionicus recreational activities. Designated as threatened by COSEWIC. Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Yellow A Conservation of prairie shrub nesting habitat necessary. Pedioecetes Population is dependent on open Sharp-tailed Grouse phasianellus Yellow A grassland/shrubland during breeding season. Clay-colored Breeding Bird Survey data indicate significant Spizella pallida Yellow A declines in recent years. Research needed to Sparrow address causes. Very local and disjunct range (from West Troglodytes Castle area and Winefred Lake). Prefers Winter Wren troglodytes Yellow B mature moist coniferous forest, especially along streams and lakes.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

85 Common Name Scientific Name Status Comments Birds (cont'd) Golden-crowned Zontrichia No current threats to habitat. Restricted Yellow B Sparrow atricapilla distribution is primary reason for status. Designated vulnerable by COSEWIC. Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Yellow B Further clearing of parkland aspen bluffs threatens nesting habitat. Population unknown. Maintenance of mature Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Yellow B forest breeding habitat needs to be incorporated into forest planning. Very low, stable population spread over broad Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yellow B areas. Site-specific nest site protection is appropriate. Stable population. Management of key habitats Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Yellow B and protection from human disturbance is essential. Relies on mature woodlands for nesting. Forest Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris Yellow B management should provide for nesting and foraging needs. Extremely rare summer resident. Nesting habitat Black Swift Cypseloides niger Yellow B vulnerable to disturbance. Restricted to old-growth coniferous forest in the Townsend's Warbler Dendroica towsendi Yellow B east slopes. Maintenance of breeding habitat required. Dolichonyx Small numbers. Very local in distribution. Bobolink oryzivorus Yellow B Dependent on tall-grass meadows. Pileated Dryocopus pileatus Yellow B Probably stable. Maintenance of mature to Woodpecker old-growth trees required for nesting. Relative rarity and restricted distribution in Western Flycatcher Empidonax diffcilis Yellow B Alberta responsible for status. Haliaetus Populations recovering over most of its range. Bald Eagle Yellow B Low density in Alberta. Nests vulnerable to leucocephalus human disturbance. Black-backed Population unknown. Snags required for nesting. Picoides arcticus Yellow B Maintenance of mature coniferous forests Woodpecker important. Population unknown. Prefers old coniferous and Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Yellow B mixed-wood forest. Obligate neotropical migrant. Nucifraga Population stable. Found only in mountain Clark's Nutcracker columbiana Yellow B habitats. Very local in distribution. Alberta has about 30% Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus Yellow B of Canadian distribution. Habitats presently secure. Population decline suspected. Prairie population Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breseri Yellow B relies on natural sagebrush ecosystems. Designated vulnerable by COSEWIC. Naturally Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Yellow B scarce species. Requires mature forest for nesting. valley grasslands in fall and winter, then migrated by 1874 has been attributed to disease, severe onto the open plains in spring and summer (Van winters and overhunting. (WLNP 1984). Bison Tighem pers. comm.) The dramatic decline of bison were still present in some quantities (cont’d p 84)

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

86 Common Name Scientific Name Status Comments Mammals Endangered animal. Less than Bison bison 70 free-ranging animals in Alberta. Wood Bison athabascae Red Restoration depends on resolution of disease concerns in northern Canada. Designated vulnerable by COSEWIC. Wolverine Gulo gulo Blue Requires large tracts of undisturbed wilderness. Population unknown. Northern Long- Myotis Poorly known species that relies on very old trees Blue eared Bat septentrionalis for roosting. Very uncommon over known range. Designated vulnerable by COSEWIC. Greatest threat is loss and degradation of wilderness Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Blue habitats through resource extraction and recreational development. Disappearing from some habitats. Habitat lost Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Yellow A through some agricultural activities. Effective poisoning campaigns and habitat Richardson's Spermophilus alteration continues to erode populations. Yellow A Ground Squirrel richardsonii Important prey species for several listed raptor species. Thirteen-lined Spermophilus Population unknown. Some consensus in natural Yellow A Ground Squirrel tridecemlineatus history community that species has declined. Varying opinions as to population trends. Badger Taxidea taxus Yellow A Dependent on ground squirrel populations. Primarily in southern mountains and foothills, Cougar Felis concolor Yellow B but occasionally range into other areas. Population appears stable. Northern Flying Population unknown. Largely dependent on Glaucomy sabrinus Yellow B old-growth forest and cavity excavators like Squirrel Pileated Woodpecker. Cyclic population. Population decreasing in recent Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Yellow B years and some concern exists over habitat loss. Harvest very low but populations presumed Bobcat Lynx rufus Yellow B to be stable. At northern limit of range in southern Alberta. Relatively small populations and limited Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Yellow B distribution. Habitats currently secure. Harvest has continued to decline since 1985. Fisher Martes pennanti Yellow B Population status is unknown. Microtus Extremely restricted range with most records Water Vole Yellow B from Bow River to Turner Valley and the richardsoni Waterton area. Trend unknown. Recent past numbers dwindled due to poor Oreamnos population recruitment and overhunting. Mountain Goat americanus Yellow B Gradual recovery expected with closure of hunting seasons. Extremely rare. Population size unknown. Wandering Shrew Sorex vagrans Yellow B Known from only seven verified records in the West Castle area.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

87 near Fort MacLeod in 1874 (Ogilvie, 1979), but deer to surviving in agricultural areas of the were considered scarce in southern Alberta by foothills and perhaps their increase is related the late 1870s and virtually gone by 1880. to the decline of the bison in this area. As the twentieth century opened the skeletal Both deer and elk herds have been shifting remains of bison remained on the land but no their distributions eastward, into the foothills living ones were to be found (Pincher Creek and out of the forested area, since 1950 (Kerr Historical Society 1974). 1979). This could be a response to a loss of post-fire vegetation, which they prefer as a food Mule and White-tailed Deer source. Agricultural areas provide high quality Historic forage such as alfalfa and barley, attracting deer, Mule deer populations were extremely rare at which now compete with livestock. the turn of the century (Crowsnest Pass Historical Old-time residents of the Castle area gener- Society 1979). They began to recover and were ally agree on the historic population patterns back to common numbers of deer in the region. They recall mule deer by 1930 (Gibbard and being common in the early to mid 1900s but Sheppard 1992). Their make little mention of white-tailed deer (Judd; numbers have fluctuated Ecklund; Bonertz, 1992). Stan Judd (1992) through history due to states that there has been an increase in white- severe winters and tailed deer in recent years and Frank Jones overhunting. The provin- (1992) recalls seeing both mule and white- cial population peaked in tailed deer between 1949 and 1953. the 1950s at 150,000 but declined due to difficult Current winters in the late 1960s In the Castle region mule deer have a summer to less than 60,000. distribution along all but the highest elevations White-tailed deer are a whereas white-tailed deer tend to stick more to more recent resident to lower elevation habitat (Gibbard and Sheppard southwestern Alberta although they have been 1992). The south and south-west facing grassy present in the province since the late 1800s. They slopes and flats along the Castle River provide key have significantly increased in both numbers and foraging habitat for mule deer in summer as does distribution over the past century (WLNP 1984). the subalpine region along the Continental Divide White-tailed deer did not actually become es- (AENR 1985). This species’ wintering areas con- tablished in the Crowsnest Pass area until the sist of Carbondale Hill, Maverick Hill, Hastings 1950s although they were first recorded in Ridge, the mouths of Pincher and Yarrow Canyons Waterton Lakes N.P. in 1924 (Kerr 1979; WLNP in addition to the aspen parkland and low foothills 1984). This species is better adapted than mule to the east of the Forest Reserve (AENR 1985;

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

88 Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Logging within the grazing can reduce feed quality for deer to approxi- Forest Reserve may offset food losses attributable mately 10% of that present under light to moder- to conifer encroachment. However, logging is also ate grazing pressure (Jaques 1980, cited in associated with increased human access that Environmental Protection 1995). renders the animals more vulnerable to hunting The white-tailed deer population in Deer and human disturbance. Management Area 3, which includes Kananaskis The pre-hunting population estimate for mule Country south through the Castle area, is rated as deer in 1986 was 900-1500 in WMU 400, which stable with low productivity (Environmental Pro- had decreased to 600 animals by 1992 (AFLW tection 1995). These characteristics are associ- 1989; AFLW 1992). In the adjacent WMU 302, ated with moderate vehicular access and hunting there was an estimated 2000 mule deer in 1992. pressure. As of September 1991 this population The combined hunter kill for WMUs 302 and 400 was estimated at 3000 animals or 2% of the pro- declined between 1987 and 1991(Gibbard and vincial population (Environmental Protection 1995). Sheppard 1992). The 1996 population estimate The population of white-tails in the Castle region for the entire Castle area was 2200 (Doell 1997). is considered to be on the rise in recent years. Alberta Fish and Wildlife reported the mule deer There was an estimated combined population of population in the Castle as healthy in 1997, hav- 2000 animals in WMUs 302 and 400 in 1992 ing bounced back quickly from the harsh winter (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The 1996 estimate of 1995/96 (Clark and Norstrom 1998). for the Castle area was 3700 deer (Doell 1997). In Alberta, white-tailed deer are most abundant The deer experienced a high mortality rate during in the prairie and parkland regions, southwestern the cold winter of 1995/96 but have recovered rap- foothills and the boreal forest-agricultural ecotone idly (Clark and Norstrom 1998). (Environmental Protection 1995). Their populations tend to fluctuate on a yearly basis as a function of winter severity (Environmental Protection 1995). What is the correlation between wolf and The opening up of forested land for pasture or from deer populations? small clearcut logging operations provides suitable habitat for this species. White-tails tend to summer at lower elevations in the Castle area, Elk along rivers and streams and in the Beaver Mines Historic Lake-Mill Creek area and spend their winters out- Elk have likely been present in the Castle area side of the Forest Reserve, in the aspen parkland for a long time. Prior to 1870 early foothills set- and cultivated fields to the east (Gibbard and tlers claimed that elk were common. However in Sheppard 1992). The white-tailed deer has been the late 1870s they suffered a severe die-off, likely able to successfully coexist with a certain degree from a transmitted cattle-borne bacteria which of agriculture however heavy domestic livestock they were previously unexposed to (Kerr 1979).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

89 In 1882 Andy Russell’s grandfather came from detailed account of ranges, refer to the “Habitat Brandon and saw lots of diseased elk on his way Hot Spots” section). Two other elk herds are (Andy Russell 1992). In 1886/1887 a rough winter present in the area but make little use of the further depleted numbers (Van Tighem pers. comm.). Castle. The Beauvais Lake herd spends the Therefore, between disease, hard winters and over- summer and winter primarily in Beauvais Lake hunting the elk population was so depleted in the Provincial Park and on the surrounding pri- region in that it was close to being extirpated by vate and lease lands. Some summer move- the 1900s (Gerrand et al. 1992). ment may occur into the Whitney, Mill and Elk reappeared in the Castle region by the late Gladstone Creek areas of the Castle 1920s (AWA, 1976). Due to the Game Preserve (Morgantini 1992). The Waterton Oil Basin- status of the forest reserve, they could not be Horseshoe Basin Herd spends the summer hunted and their numbers grew. The fire of 1936 and fall outside of Waterton Park and moves provided an abundance of post-fire elk forage. By into the park in early winter. Some animals 1940, their population was estimated at approxi- use Yarrow Canyon in summer but use is lim- mately 3000 in the Castle area (Frank McLaughlin, ited. (Van Tighem pers. comm.). It is impor- 1992). Hunters and ranchers successfully pres- tant to note that herd composition is fluid — sured Alberta Forestry to drop the game Preserve individual elk may move between herds de- status hunting commenced in 1954. On the open- pending on variables such as food supply, ing day of the hunt some 600 elk were killed. Ed winter snow conditions and hunting pressure and Shirley Mitchell recall 20-30 bulls being shot (Morgantini 1992). on opening day in Yarrow Canyon alone (1992). The Castle-Carbondale herd was comprised Nevertheless, numbers stayed high through the of 650-700 animals in 1992 (Gibbard and 1970s before they declined (Mitchell 1992; Judd Sheppard 1992). This herd suffered a slight 1992; Riviere 1992; Marr 1992; McLaughlin 1992). decline in 1993 (Sheppard 1994) and by 1994 was estimated at 500 animals (Fischbuch and Current Gerrand 1995). The number for the Castle area The main elk population of the Castle area is in 1997 was estimated at 700 (Norstrom 1998). referred to as the Castle-Carbondale Herd. This The Beauvais Lake Herd has dealt with more herd spends “management” actions than the Castle- both the win- Carbondale herd due its presence on private ter and summer mostly within the What is the correlation between wolf and Forest Re- elk populations? Why did elk decline serve (for a after the 1970s?

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

90 lands, leading to competition with cattle for for- ing road/ ORV use may also be having an effect. age. The population estimate for 1992 was Since elk are considered one of the most sensitive 200-250 animals (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). species to human disturbance (Sheridan 1979) an This continued to increase through 1993, which increase in human presence through multiple use pressured Alberta Fish and Wildlife to imple- of this land will likely erode the potential for the ment a reduction program with an aim of re- Castle to reattain its historical carrying capacity. ducing the herd to 200 (Sheppard 1994). The herd was subsequently reduced from 280-300 Moose in 1994 (Fischbuch and Gerrand 1995) to 180- Historic 200 in 1995 (Fischbuch and Brodersen 1996). Prior to settlement in southwestern Alberta, An intercept-feeding program was initiated in moose were numerous, however by 1900 they had 1995 to keep elk (and deer) from feeding on disappeared from the southern foothills (Gibbard rangeland and feed stacks, thus keeping and Sheppard 1992). By the 1930s a few had re- conflicts to a minimum. This program was turned but were rare. In the early 40s post-fire carried out successfully in 1996 and 1997 regrowth provided suitable cover and they in- however a lack of funding in 1998 precluded creased substantially in the Forest Reserve (Kerr it from continuing (Norstrom 1998). 1979). Subsequent to 1955, their distribution be- The Waterton Oil Basin-Horseshoe Basin gan to change — they shifted from mountainous herd is small and consisted of approxi- forest to foothills (Kerr 1979). mately 130 animals in 1992 (Gibbard and Old-time residents of the Castle region reinforce Sheppard 1992). that there are more moose now in the area than Considering that elk numbered approxi- there were in the past (Mitchell; Kubasek; Marr; mately 3000 in 1953 in the Castle region (Art Michalsky; Bonertz, 1992). Sandford, Judge McLachlan, AWA files 1982) and today number just over 1000 in all three herds What is the current status of moose? combined, it appears that this species is not being managed to its full potential with respect to the actual carrying capacity of the habitat in the area. Elk populations in southwestern Alberta are limited by habitat loss and hunting pressures (AFLW 1991). Sheppard and Gerrand (1992) state that elk management in this area is a trade-off between rancher and hunting interests. Habitat loss due to forest in-growth in the absence of fire and increas-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

91 Bighorn Sheep Where was historic sheep habitat? Can Historic theslow recovery be attributed to habitat Southwestern Alberta, specifically the eastern loss as well as a low lamb to ewe canyons of the front ranges, provides some of the ratio?Why is this ratio low? best bighorn sheep range in North America (AENR 1985). Although they have suffered periodic die-offs over the last century due to severe winters and dis- Alberta Fish and Wildlife counted 238 big- ease, bighorn sheep have likely been present in the horn sheep wintering in the Castle area area for centuries (Gerrand et al 1992). Severe win- (Gudmundson 1988). They were present in ters had a negative impact on numbers during the various numbers on their three known win- winters of 1886, 1888, 1926-27, 1947, 1950 and tering grounds — the Front Ranges, Table 1974-75. Major epidemics of bacterial pneumonia Mountain-Castle Mountain area and Barnaby occurred in 1937 and again in 1982-1983 (WLNP Ridge. An aerial survey in 1993 indicated that Files 1992). The sheep populations in the Castle area the population had still not rebounded com- are still recovering from this most recent outbreak, pletely from the die-off of 1982-83 for un- which dropped their numbers from 389 in 1979 to known reasons (Sheppard 1994). In 1995 the 123 in 1983 (Gudmundson 1988). Domestic sheep biannual sheep survey indicated a decline in grazing in the area introduced the bacterial pneumo- numbers to a total of 214 animals, about a 5% nia along with a parasitic lungworm. decrease from 1993 (Fischbuch and Brodersen The old time residents of the area remember see- 1996). In 1997, the aerial survey estimated ing lots of sheep in the past except for the periodic 250-300 sheep in the Castle region, a signifi- decreases due to disease (Michalsky 1992; Kubasek cant increase from 1995 (Gilmar 1998). 1992; Ecklund 1992). Some of them believe there Fire plays an important role in the mainte- are fewer today than in the past due, primarily, to nance of high quality bighorn range (WLNP the most recent lungworm infection (Judd 1992; Files 1992). Ongoing fire suppression in the Bonertz 1992). Others blame the loss of big rams Castle area could lead to the encroachment of due to overhunting for trophies (Riviere 1992). Pos- forests on primary sheep habitat. sibly, forest regrowth in the absence of fire has had an effect on their habitat. Mountain Goats Historic Current Very little is known about early mountain The bighorn has recovered slower than ex- goat numbers. Alberta Fish and Wildlife per- pected after the bacterial pneumonia outbreak formed the first aerial survey for the species in wiped out 60% of their population. This may be southwestern Alberta in 1979. Apparently, the attributable to a low lamb to ewe ratio (Norstrom lungworm/ pneumonia epidemic, which took a 1998). An aerial survey conducted in 1988 by toll on bighorn sheep populations in 1937, also

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

92 had an effect on mountain goats in the area Mountain goat hunting season was closed in Al- (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Mountain goats berta in 1969 due to a decline in numbers but was also appeared to suffer from overhunting when open again temporarily in 1986 and 1987. The sea- the game preserve status of the area was re- son has been closed since then. moved. James Riviere (1992) recalls that there An aerial survey performed along the Continen- were “lots of goats in the front ranges until they tal Divide in 1980 counted a total of 188 mountain opened hunting....They were all cleaned out goats, including both the Alberta and B.C. sides of when they opened hunting season.” The hunt- the divide (Gudmundson 1980). Aerial surveys in ing season for goats ceased in Alberta in 1969 1990 found 128 along the Continental Divide (in- due to a decline in numbers. They have since cluding Alberta and B.C. sides), however this did been making a slow recovery. not include the Mt. Darrah population of 40, which Among other old-time residents, Bill was subsequently found in a special survey in 1992 Michalsky and Jules Verquin recall seeing (Gudmundson 1990, 1992). The slight decrease in lots of goats in the past but believe there numbers from 1980 may be attributed to popula- are very few left now (1992). tion declines caused by the pneumonia/ lungworm outbreak in 1982-1983. In 1993 the aerial survey Current counted 131 goats, indicating that the population In the Castle, goats inhabit rocky alpine appeared stable but not yet back to the peak number and cliff habitats, primarily on the higher of 1980 (Sheppard 1994). By 1995, the survey had mountains of the Continental Divide, includ- indicated an increase in the population to 155 ing Mt. Haig, Mt. Matkin, Syncline Mountain (Fischbuch and Brodersen 1995). The highest popu- and Mt. Darrah. Mountain goats are tradi- lation recorded since 1980 occurred in 1997, with tional in their habits, however they will cross a population estimate of 180 goats (Gilmar 1998). the Continental Divide and range into B.C. Once goats have abandoned or been eliminated (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). They are also from an area, it takes them a long time to natu- known to inhabit the peaks of the Clark rally recolonize. Mountain goats were historically Range, along Font, Jutland and Scarpe present on Barnaby Ridge but haven’t existed there Mountains in the South Castle Valley (AWA for approximately 15-20 years (Fischbuch and 1976; Perraton 1994). Mountain Goats tend Brodersen to remain in approximately the same area year 1995). This round, rarely travelling any greater than 15 prompted miles in a horizontal direction (Nielson 1973). Alberta Fish Mountain goats were downlisted in Alberta and Wildlife from the “blue list” in 1991 to the “green list” to transplant in 1996, indicating that their populations are and radio- stable and they are not at risk (AEP 1996). collar 6

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

93 mountain goats from B.C. to Barnaby Ridge in Growers Association. By the early 1900s wolf the Castle in an attempt at re-populating this populations had severely declined in the south- area. The transplant was unsuccessful as 4 of ern section of the province (Alberta Environmen- them moved (of which 2 subsequently died) and tal Protection 1995). From 1899-1907 the total one collar quit transmitting, leaving one on number of wolves bountied south of the main Barnaby Ridge by 1996 (Doell 1996). It was line of the Canadian Pacific Railway was 2849 hoped that another 12 would be transported to (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). Through the Castle by 1998 but a lack of funding (and these years the number of wolves submitted for reluctance by B.C. to provide stock) prevented payment declined, demonstrating the gradual it from occurring (Gilmar 1998). extermination of the species in southern Alberta. In 1922, wolves were exterminated in Waterton Wolf Lakes National Park because of livestock dep- Historic redation (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). As far back as the 18th century, wolves were As big game populations increased in the prov- abundant in Alberta and were found in associa- ince and the market value of wolf pelts dropped tion with bison herds (Alberta Environmental through the 1930s and 1940s, the abundance and Protection 1995). They subsisted in plentiful num- distribution of wolves increased once again (For- bers in prairie and foothill habitats through to the estry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). In 1943 lone mid-to-late 1800s when their populations took a wolves were spotted in Waterton Lakes National turn for the worse. Their demise began with Eu- Park (Brooks 1997). However, throughout the ropean settlement in the 1860s and 1870s, which late 1940s and 1950s concern increased that lead to the slaughter of the bison herds and the wolves were affecting big game populations. decimation of other ungulate species (Alberta Predator control resumed. Further declines Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). With a reduc- occurred between 1952 and 1956 when a wolf tion in prey species and severe winters, wolves rabies scare initiated a poisoning campaign; preyed heavily on domestic cattle and horses, thousands died and the Alberta wolf popula- especially during the period when open range tion hit an all time low (Alberta Environmental grazing was the norm. Protection 1995). Since this poisoning cam- Humans began killing wolves using strych- paign the numbers of wolves in southwest Al- nine poisoning at carcasses, which became an berta have slowly increased (Gibbard and easy way to take wolves for their pelts (Alberta Sheppard 1992) but with frequent setbacks pri- Environmental Protection 1995). As cattle be- marily due to suspected livestock depredation. came more established in the area, concern over With respect to old-time residents few of them wolf depredation led to a southern Alberta wolf recall ever seeing many wolves in the area bounty in 1899 offered by the Western Stock (Verquin 1992; Bonertz 1992; Jones 1992).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

94 Current Pack. Within a year, 40 to 44 wolves were killed Recently, wolves have attempted to re-estab- in the region as a result of shooting and/ or poi- lish in Southwestern Alberta following new hu- soning by ranchers, hunters and trappers (Brooks man attempts to eradicate them this decade. 1997). The population in 1996 was estimated at Their numbers have fluctuated through the 1990s 15-20 wolves in the entire Oldman River Drain- but have never reached a point anywhere close age. In the spring of 1997, a local rancher and a to the goal set by the Wolf Management Plan for local hunting guide shot the alpha male and the Alberta. This plan aims at maintaining a winter pregnant female of the Waterton Pack (Brooks wolf population of 4000 in Alberta of which 50 1997). The most recent estimate of wolves in the are slated for the southern region (Forestry, Lands region is one pack of 3-6 individuals residing in and Wildlife 1991). The goal for the area south of the Castle area and another two packs moving the Oldman River is approximately 40 (Norstrom through the area at various times (Gilmar 1998). 1998). The Management Plan also states that Wolves have proven unable to establish a vi- “Permanent, unmanipulated populations of able population in southwestern Alberta due to wolves should be encouraged in Waterton Lakes liberal hunting, shooting and trapping regulations National Park and the adjacent provincial in the region. The hunting season for wolves is forests” (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). long — lasting 9 months, from September until However, many wolves that seek to establish May. Prior to 1981 resident wolf hunters required themselves in southwestern Alberta are killed a big game license to hunt wolves during the hunt- under the current regulatory regime. ing season on public lands but in 1987, license In 1992, Alberta Fish and Wildlife had recorded requirements for resident wolf hunting were the presence of 4-5 wolves in the South and West dropped (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). Reg- Castle valleys (Gerrand et al. 1992). No sightings istration of kills is not required and there is no of wolves were recorded in 1993, however a pack limit to the number of wolves residents may take. of 6 wolves had become established in Waterton This makes it difficult to document mortality and Lakes National Park. The collared female of this estimate population numbers. pack had moved into the area from the North Fork With respect to private lands landowners may of the Flathead (Sheppard 1993). The wolf popu- shoot wolves at any time of year without a license. lation estimate for the summer of 1994 was 35 As well, those who own private land or are author- south of Highway #3 and another 25 north of High- ized to maintain livestock on public lands are per- way #3 for a total of around 60 wolves in south- mitted to shoot wolves within 8 km. (5mi) of the western Alberta (Van Tighem and Fox 1997, cited private or grazing leased lands (Forestry, Lands and in Brooks 1997). Three packs of wolves were dis- Wildlife 1991). The Alberta Conservation Asso- tinguished south of Highway #3: the Belly River ciation presently funds a predator compensation Pack, the Beauvais Lake Pack and the Carbondale program. It provides 85% of the current com-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

95 Where are wolves re-establishing from — hunting rose. Humans hunted grizzlies for their Glacier N.P., the North Fork or Kananaskis? hides, for sport amnd to reduce perceived danger (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). As settlement, ranching and farming increased on mercial market value for a confirmed predator the prairies, grizzly habitat began to decline. (wolves, grizzly or black bears or cougar) kill and Grizzly bears were extirpated from the prairies 50% for a probable kill (Brooks 1997). by the 1880s (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). Realizing the difficulty in attaining the popu- By the twentieth century the grizzly had disap- lation goals for wolves in the region as set out peared from a large part of Alberta. As they killed in the “Management Plan for Wolves in Alberta” livestock they were afforded little protection and the regional Fish and Wildlife offices have rec- ranchers often destroyed them. Around Pincher ommended changes to the plan over the past Creek, an “open season (was placed) on all spe- couple of years. They attempted in 1996 to make cies of bear, irrespective of sex or age” (AFLW amendments including compulsory registration 1990) in 1928 to protect livestock. By 1936 all of kills; a decrease in the hunting season to 6 areas of the province, except southwestern Alberta, months; implementation of a quota program protected grizzlies somewhat through bag limits. whereby the season would close once the quota The 1948 Annual Report of the Department of was reached; and re-establishment of a license Agriculture states how grizzly bears were handled requirement for the hunting season (Quinlan south of the Crowsnest Pass: 1997). These recommendations were not implemented. No legislative changes were made “Grizzly Bear is still considered to be a in 1997. In 1998 recommendations for compul- predatory animal in some parts of the sory registration of kills and a license require- Province.... Grizzly Bear may be shot at ment were rejected once again (Norstrom 1998). any time and without a license, the reason being that this area is mainly a Grizzly Bear farming and livestock area and the year- Historic around open season is necessary for the In the 1700s the grizzly bear was abundant protection of livestock. In addition to this in the prairie region of Alberta, especially where regulation the Department employs rivers provided an abundance of berries, roots special hunters to kill any grizzly Bear in and small mammals (Alberta Environmental Pro- the Forest Reserves and the Waterton- tection 1997). Religious taboos and the inher- Carbondale (Castle area) game ent danger of the grizzly limited natives’ ability Preserves.” (as quoted in AFLW 1990) to hunt them (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). During the 1800s, as European settlement Through the 1950s and 1960s their numbers brought more sophisticated weapons, grizzly continued to decline due to overhunting and the

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

96 rabies poisoning campaign that was directed at tiguous wilderness habitat with minimal human wolves and coyotes but affected all large preda- disturbance (Weaver et al., 1996). The Southern tors (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Concern for Bow-Crow forest, of which the Castle is a part, is declining grizzly populations in the province the narrowest strip of forest land along the Rocky increased through the 1960s and, in response, Mountains, being only 15-35 km in width the fall hunting season for grizzly bear was (Environment Canada 1993). The West Castle and closed in 1970, leaving only a spring hunt. South Castle valleys along with the Flathead During the late 1970s hunters, trappers, ranch- River Valley in B.C., are the sole north-south run- ers and hikers reported increasing sign and ning valleys contained wholly within these south- observations of grizzly bears indicating that ern Rocky Mountains. These corridors are crucial populations were on the rise (AFLW 1990). for large carnivore movement between the United The majority of long time Castle area residents States and Canada. Fragmentation of these pas- interviewed believe that there are fewer grizzlies sages could lead not only to fractured habitat today than when they were younger (Gerrand et within the Castle but also to the isolation of the al, 1992). Some of them even recall killing bears Crown of the Continent Ecosystem grizzly popu- themselves or knowing others that did (Judd, lation in Montana from other populations in 1992; McLaughlin 1992; Riviere 1992). Canada (WCEC 1993). Possible extirpation of this isolated population could occur as it has been Current stated that “the most critical habitat for the long In 1991 the grizzly bear was uplisted from term persistence of the grizzly bear in the U.S. ‘vulnerable’ in Canada by COSEWIC (Committee may occur in Canada” (McLellan 1991). on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) In 1997, researchers estimated 25 bears ex- and it is on the ‘blue’ list in Alberta, meaning it isted per 1000 square kilometres in the Castle may be at risk. In Alberta, grizzly hunting has and Waterton areas (Gilmar 1998). A recent DNA been restricted to a spring season since 1970. analysis identified 36 distinct patterns from hair A 1990 COSEWIC status review of grizzly bear receptacles and extrapolated that between 48 and habitat in Canada showed that of the remaining 84 grizzly bears roamed the reason in the region habitat, greater than 60% is vulnerable or threat- between Waterton Lakes N.P. to the south and ened and all is considered at risk (Ministry of Chain Lakes to the north (Russell 1998). Female Environment, Lands and Parks 1995). grizzlies are known to have a low reproductive In the 1930s, 40s and 50s it was common to capacity. They produce two to three cubs about spot grizzly bear in the Screwdriver Creek-Beaver once every three years after reaching a late Mines-lower Castle River area in the spring but maturity age of 4-5 years old and sometimes not they are rarely seen in this area today (CCWC conceiving successfully until 6.5 years of age 1993). Grizzly bears require large tracts of con- (Brooks 1997). Castle and Flathead grizzlies

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

97 may be the most productive in North America, Alberta Grizzly Strategy at the end of 1997. This with conception occurring at as young as three management strategy was designed to main- years old. (Titus 1991). tain long-term grizzly populations while pro- The maximum total human-caused mortality for tecting property owners in the area from grizzly bears in Alberta, according to the livestock losses due to grizzly depredation. The Management Plan for Grizzly Bears should be 5- strategy focuses primarily on the co-existence 6.5% (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). The U.S. of grizzly bears and cows but makes some men- grizzly bear recovery plan states that a population tion of improving habitat, where feasible, in low is considered viable if its annual total mortality depredation areas. The strategy directs that: does not exceed 3% of the population (Horejsi 1986). However, in southwestern Alberta between 1. Limited entry hunting will continue in 1974 and 1991 an average of 16.7% of an esti- WMUs 300-302-400. A new WMU will be mated population of 34 bears was either shot or created in the Crowsnest Pass in which translocated per year (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). grizzly hunting will not be permitted. In 1997 alone there were 15 grizzly bear 2. Grizzly habitat improvement will take translocations in southwestern Alberta due to sus- place in high elevation, low-depredation pected livestock depredation (Gilmar 1998). The areas and access closure will be pursued in sex ratio of the removal is also important because grizzly use areas. a disproportionate loss of females depletes the 3. Sows, cubs and subadults will be breeding stock and often leads to a decline in the translocated within local area with first population (Primm 1996). In 1997, two-thirds of depredation occurrence and to northern the bears translocated were female. The persist- Alberta with second occurrence. Adult boars ence of the grizzly in the Castle may be attributed will undergo long distance translocation with to the productivity of the North Fork’s population first occurrence. Success of translocations (Van Tighem pers. comm.). will be monitored with radio-telemetry. The Castle region has been considered the last 4. Negative conditioning techniques such as secure habitat for grizzly bears in southwestern scare devices and Karelian bear dogs will be Alberta, excluding Waterton Lakes National Park. used to deal with problem bears. However, judging from the removal rates over the 5. Increased use of preventative measures past few years, others may classify it as a mor- (e.g. electric fencing, removal of attract- tality sink. A main goal of the Management Plan ants) will be encouraged. for Grizzly Bears in Alberta is “to ensure the pro- 6. A carcass redistribution program will be vincial grizzly bear resource is protected from ir- initiated whereby bears are kept at high reversible decline” (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife elevations until spring green-up by 1990). This goal may have prompted Alberta Fish providing them with road-killed wildlife and Wildlife to develop the new Southwestern carcasses in these areas.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

98 7. An educational program on minimizing Public perception holds that bear numbers human/ bear conflicts will be initiated in are increasing however it may be possible 1998. that they are being more and more displaced from secure habitat in remote Managers hope that this moderate human-bear areas. What is the trend in sightings in the 1996 conflicts. Mattson et al. ( ) point out that: “If West Castle and South Castle valleys? grizzly bears are resented and consistently held in lower regard than other resources that we demand from their remaining habitat, the wild grizzly bears in the southern Rocky Mountains will almost certainly disappear.” 1953 when he was the chief ranger at the Castle Mesopredators (Lynx, Wolverine, River Ranger Station Game Preserve. Marten and Fisher) Wolverines are a true wilderness animal and Historic therefore it is difficult to determine their distri- Little is known about the historical distribution bution and abundance. They are rarely seen and and abundance of these forest carnivores in south- tend to avoid any area where humans frequent. western Alberta. It might be assumed, due to the Wolverine populations in the National Parks in nature of their habitat preferences, that these spe- Canada were affected by the poisoning campaigns cies have suffered population declines to various of the 1880s and 1920s — few or no wolverines degrees in the Castle area. All four of these species could be found in the parks by the early 1930s require densely forested areas for survival. With (Hummel & Pettigrew 1991). Therefore, it appears the multiple uses of land occurring in the Castle that wolverines may have been affected by in- area, from resource extraction to off-road vehicle creasing settlement at the turn of the century. use the amount of undisturbed, mature forested Frank Jones (1992) also recalls seeing areas is in decline. However we simply do not know wolverine in the Castle area during his time as if this is having an effect on mesopredators. Chief Ranger in 1949-1953. Ed and Shirley Lynx populations are cyclic in nature, depend- Mitchell (1992) believe there are more ing on the abundance of snowshoe hares. How- wolverines now than in the past because trap- ever, in the southern Canadian Rockies these pers are getting more. James Riviere (1992) re- cycles tend to be less defined than those further calls wolverine being present only in the north (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Lynx have Flathead when he was young. He also states always been present in the area (Kerr 1979). that they declined about twenty (now twenty- Frank Jones (1992) recalls seeing lynx and snow- five) years ago in the Castle area but have in- shoe hares in fair numbers between 1949 and creased again since then judging by their tracks.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

99 Marten have been fairly abundant in the past The lynx is rated as uncommon to rare in (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992) however we have Waterton Lakes National Park (WLNP 1989). little knowledge of actual numbers. Alberta has listed it as ‘Yellow B’ indicating that Fishers have been extirpated from much of the the species is naturally rare, has clumped breed- southern part of their range in Alberta since Eu- ing distributions or is associated with a habitat ropean settlement (Sheppard 1994). A severe (i.e. old-growth forest) that is in decline (Alberta decrease in their numbers could be attributed to Environmental Protection 1996). Lynx were last excessive trapping and habitat destruction by log- examined by COSEWIC in 1989 and designated ging as this is what caused the fisher to verge on ‘not at risk’ (COSEWIC 1998). The trapping extirpation through most of its U.S. range by the harvest peaked at 17 in 1985 with a sub- 1930’s (Ruggiero 1994). The fisher is rarely seen sequent decline (Table 20). This could be so it is difficult to estimate its viability. attributed to the lower end of a lynx-snowshoe hare population cycle or it may indicate a dif- Current ferent impact affecting the species such as The best estimates available for the trends in habitat loss or human disturbance. these populations come from trapping statistics The wolverine is one of the rarest carnivores in the Castle area. However, even these must be in Alberta (WLNP 1989). It is very rare in interpreted with caution because there are years Waterton Lakes N.P. (WLNP 1989) and is on when some of the traplines are not even used Alberta’s ‘Blue List’ indicating that it may be at (Clark, pers. comm.). Table 20 shows the trapline risk (Alberta Environmental Protection 1996). harvest from the Castle area from 1986 to 1991 COSEWIC has listed the eastern population of and from 1994 to 1998 for these four species. wolverines in Canada as endangered and the western population as vulnerable (COSEWIC Table 20: Trapping harvest for selected 1998). Scientists believe that Montana wolver- mesopredators in the Castle region ines, extirpated by the 1920s, have since become (Source: compiled from AFWD re-established from Canadian populations(NRCB 1986,1992, cited in Gibbard and 1993). The species is trapped in Alberta. Local Sheppard 1992, Jim Clark, pers.comm.) trapping statistics (Table 20) show a minimal harvest during the late 1980s and mid-1990s. Six out of the SPECIES HARVEST IN SEASON ENDING 1998 TOTAL* ten years experienced a harvest 876 8889809194959697989 of zero. However, during a L52012255340ynx 29 bighorn sheep study on Prairie Wolverine 00 100 1200 1 1 6 Bluff in the Front Range Fisher 00000000000 0 M3arten 616533463340513262636 549 Canyons during similar years * (excluding 92 & 93) (1986-1990), 7 wolverine

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

100 sightings were recorded, involving at least 5 valley (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). In 1992, a different individuals (Morgantini 1991). This fisher was sighted in the Scarpe Creek area, along was followed in 1992 with another two rare the South Castle valley (Sheppard 1993). Recently, sightings of wolverines in the region — one in they’ve also been sighted in Waterton Lakes N.P. the high alpine along Yarrow Creek and (Van Tighem, pers. comm.). another near the summit of Table Mountain Of all the above-mentioned forest carnivores, (Gerrand and Sheppard 1992). The status of marten appear to be the species faring the best in this species in the Castle is difficult to southwestern Alberta. Recent winter track sur- evaluate, as it is a true wilderness animal. A veys performed in the West Castle area (Hornbeck decline in the amount of undisturbed land area et al. 1992, cited in HBT AGRA Limited 1992) along in the Castle may be negatively affecting the with the fur harvest (Table 20) indicate that the population status of this species as they are marten is relatively abundant in the Castle area. believed to be “unusually sensitive to human Loss of its preferred mature forest habitat through intrusion into their habitat” (NRCB 1993). logging remains a concern. The status of fisher populations in Alberta is estimated at approximately 10,000 pairs, prima- How do numbers trapped correlate with the rily distributed in the northern part of the prov- number of traplines set in any given year? ince (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The fisher is Can trends in numbers be correlated with listed on Alberta’s ‘Yellow B’ list. The fisher trends in habitat effectiveness? has disappeared from the majority of its range in southern Alberta. Its largest threats have been overtrapping and habitat loss from logging, throughout its range in Canada and the U.S. Birds (Powell and Zielinski 1994). In the Castle area Historic trapping efforts for fisher were unsuccessful Old-timers’ concern over birds focussed on the through the 1980s and 1990s. Fishers are blue grouse, bald eagle and golden eagle. They known to be easy to trap (Powell and Zielinski have sensed a decline in these species in the area 1994) and therefore a harvest rate of zero over over the years. Frank McLaughlin recalls see- 10 years would likely indicate that the fisher is ing lots of present in extremely low numbers in the area. eagles and However, fisher sightings have occurred in blue grouse the Castle region in the 1990s indicating that in the early they do exist there. In 1991, biologists work- days but being on an environmental inventory for the pro- lieves there posed West Castle expansion sighted fisher are far fewer tracks, possibly from a pair, in the West Castle today (1992).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

101 Winona Bonertz also recalls seeing more bald and of the Front Ranges. Class 1W lands are winter golden eagles along rivers and lakes in the past ranges that have “no significant limitations to elk, but sees very few now (1992). Many others share moose and deer” and include the Castle and lower the same feelings (Judd 1992; Mitchell 1992; Carbondale River valleys. Class 2 lands have very Riviere 1992). Michalsky states that there was slight limitations for deer, elk and mountain an increase in blue grouse following the fires in sheep. Class 2 lands in the Castle area include 1936 but with fire suppression there has been a Whistler Mountain. With respect to land and cli- decrease in this type of habitat for the species. matic factors these are the regions classified with He also believes that eagles have declined in the the highest capability for ungulates. However, area due to an increase in pesticide use in the as Morgantini (1991) pointed out in his study of surrounding region. Others attribute declines in elk distribution and movement, the seasonal pat- eagles to the increase in power lines in the area terns of movement and level of use in the Castle (McLaughlin 1992) and to in-growth of meadows area may also be affected by resource extraction due to fire suppression. activities, secondary road access, hunting pres- According to Alberta Recreation, Parks and sure, forage availability and cattle grazing. Wildlife (1992) the bald eagle has suffered from direct persecution, loss of habitat and pesticide Elk use in the past. The golden eagle’s decline in the Elk wintered on Whistler mountain in the early 1900s is attributed primarily to eradication past (1951-52) however few or no elk winter programs implemented by government agencies there today (CCWC 1993). During his time as and ranchers. The same author states that there Chief Ranger at the Castlemount ranger sta- have not been any major changes in the histori- tion Frank Jones recorded in his diaries an cal range of blue grouse in Alberta. abundance of elk in the Front Range canyons in the early 1950s. This use appears to have declined since then as few elk are now seen Where are significant nesting sites for using these canyons (Perraton 1994). waterfowl and species at risk in the Castle? The Castle-Carbondale elk herd (approximately 350 animals) winters mostly on the hills of the Castle and lower Carbondale Rivers Habitat Hot Spots (Morgantini 1992). These hills, including The Castle River Ecological Land Classifica- Carbondale Hill, Maverick Hill and Hastings tion outlines the land capability for ungulates (in- Ridge, provide key winter range for over one-third cluding deer, elk, mountain goat, moose and of the elk population within the Castle River area bighorn sheep) in the Castle region (Anderson (AENR 1985). The Castle-Carbondale herd is 1978). Class 1 lands have “no significant limita- highly migratory with animals moving in sum- tions to ungulates” and include the alpine region mer to range the headwaters of the Carbondale

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

102 River, Lynx Creek, Lost Creek and the Flathead Castle sheep range west into B.C. across the Valley in B.C. (Morgantini 1993). Elk calve on Continental Divide and north into the Crowsnest transitional ranges between their summer and Pass area. A study of bighorn sheep on Prairie winter ranges (NRCB 1993). Bluff during the drilling of new gas wells by Shell The Castle-Beaver Mines herd (approximately determined that the sheep were quite tolerant of 150-200 animals) consists of one local and two this activity (Morgantini 1991). migratory segments. One of the migratory segments summers in the upper South Castle region, Grizzly possibly moving into B.C. and the other summers The South Castle and West Castle valleys serve in the upper West Castle River (Morgantini 1993). as important movement corridors for grizzly bears Evidence suggests that elk movements may oc- between Glacier National Park in Montana, the cur over Middle Kootenay Pass (Morgantini 1993). Flathead Valley in B.C., and northern populations Recently elk have increased their winter and sum- in Kananaskis and Banff National Park. East- mer use of habitat east of the Forest Reserve west movements between B.C. and Alberta oc- (CCWC 1993). This is partly due to a loss of cur over Middle Kootenay Pass and North effective habitat for elk in the area attributed to Kootenay Pass (NRCB 1993). Bears that were an increase in access roads and subsequent mo- radio-collared in the West Castle Valley moved torized vehicle use. Elk avoid roads and the habi- into Waterton and Glacier National Parks and the tat adjacent to them (Lyons 1979; Perry and Overly Flathead Valley. Within the West Castle Valley 1976; Pederson 1986). their main movement corridor consisted of the lower slopes of Barnaby Ridge (NRCB 1993). In Sheep the decision report for the proposed West Castle The Castle-Waterton area possesses some of expansion (see Past Processes) the Natural Re- the best bighorn sheep range in North America sources Conservation Board concluded that (AENR 1985). The main wintering areas for “grizzly bear subpopulations in the U.S. and bighorn sheep in the region include the Front southern Canadian Rocky Mountains are too Range (Prairie Bluff to Yarrow Canyon), Windsor Ridge (Castle Mountain-Table Mountain area) and Barnaby Ridge (Perraton 1994 , Gibbard and Historically, what was prime wildlife Sheppard 1992). Syncline Mountain is also win- habitat, what were wildlife populations ter range (Morgantini 1993). The Front Ranges andhow werethey distributed? Are there provide excellent winter range because the south- historical accounts from early settlers. facing slopes are often snow-free in winter. This What do the Ktunaxa elders, the Peigan area supports the bulk of the wintering popula- and the Blood elders recount with tion in the region (Gudmundson 1988a). regards to wildlife generally? Morgantini (1993) noted that in the summer

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

103 small for long-term sustainability without ex- Gravenstafel Brook and Syncline Brook in changes between them, and between them and 1978, 1991 and 1992. These studies found that subpopulations to the north” (NRCB 1993). Thus these waters were alkaline with a pH of 8.0 to these corridors appear essential for long-term 8.6, moderately soft (61-120mg/L CaCO3), had survival of grizzly bear populations in the Crown low turbidity and low bacteria counts (HBT of the Continent ecosystem. AGRA 1992). The temperature of the water is cool with high dissolved oxygen concentrations, due to the turbulent flow, and a low nu- Aquatics trient supply (HBT AGRA 1992). There is little variation in the water quality seasonally Water Quality or yearly (i.e. from 1978-1992). Pesticide and There is currently no consistent water quality herbicide concentrations were found to be be- monitoring framework present in the Castle area. low detection limits (NRCB 1993). The closest long-term monitoring stations are on Alberta Environmental Protection sampled the Oldman River and consist of two sites that are water further downstream at the Castle River sampled monthly on a long-term basis. Alberta Recreation Area in 1994 and 1996. The water Water Resources samples in the Castle sporadically was alkaline with a pH of 7.92 to 8.12. It had a on certain watercourses that may be negatively im- hardness of 120 mg/L CaCO3., which falls at the pacted from current or proposed developments or upper end of the moderately soft range. The fecal activities (Tchir 1998, pers.comm.). For example, coliform levels were measured to be 24.33/100mL water quality sampling in the past has been done in 1996, an increase from 5.33/100mL in 1994. upstream and downstream of the Shell Waterton Both of these numbers are greater than the Plant to detect potential changes in water quality numbers found in the West Castle River in 1992, and along the West Castle River to assess potential which were measured at less than 1/100mL. The effects from the ski hill development. temperature of the water was cool with high Waters along the Continental Divide are dissolved oxygen concentrations. generally of low biological productivity because of the nature of the regional geology. Alberta Environmen- What activities might account for the tal Protection difference in fecal coliform levels and HBT between the West Castle and Castle Agra sam- Rivers and between 1994 and 1996? Is pled water on this difference significant, i.e. what the West range is considered ‘normal’? Castle River,

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

104 Fish non-natives is the greatest problem to date for Historical Status the survival of native fish stocks. Lakes and streams in the Castle area are some Westslope cutthroat trout has also suffered of the best trout-producing and, therefore, fish- from serious declines throughout its native range ing waters in Alberta (AENR 1985). The through recent history (Fernet 1993). This trout headwater streams of the Castle area were origi- was once a dominant species across its range, nally composed primarily of cutthroat trout and including southwestern Alberta. It has been es- bull trout with mountain whitefish in the lower timated that approximately 99% of the original reaches (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). populations of Westslope cutthroat have been lost Bull trout have two life strategies in Alberta in the last 100 years (Behnke 1972 in Fernet 1993). — a migratory form and a resident form. The The reasons for the loss are similar to that of the former rears itself in headwater streams and bull trout — vulnerability to angling pressure, subsequently moves downstream into a larger habitat degradation and hybridization with exotic river or lake. The resident form lives out its species. Mayhood (1996) states that intro- life cycle in the headwater streams. Headwater gressive hybridization of westslope cutthroat streams in the Castle began to be heavily trout with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and stocked in the 1920s and 1930s, primarily with rainbow trout could lead to the permanent loss Rainbow trout, then brook trout (Crowsnest Pass of native genotypes in this species. Historical Society 1979). During the 1930s to Hybridization is far more significant with 1950s bull trout were purposely removed to westslope cutthroats than with bull trout. reduce predation upon introduced fish species Some old-timer residents of the Castle recall (Alberta Environmental Protection 1994). lots of bull and cutthroat trout in the past but far From the 1950s through the1980s bull trout less now (Riviere 1992; Verquin 1992). Doris were affected by logging and recreational activ- Burton (1992) can remember a time in the 1920s ity. Bull trout are highly sensitive timber harvest when there was a limit of 25 trout per person per along drainages, which may increase sedimenta- day and this limit was easy to obtain. They con- tion of streams. Sedimentation also increases cur that the fish are much smaller now as well. when off-road vehicle users repeatedly ford streams where bull trout spawning beds may be Present Status present. These trout are also voracious eaters, Currently the Castle aquatic system is much easy to catch and are, therefore, susceptible to more biodiverse than in the past. Species that are overfishing. Introduced non-native trout species present in the Castle area include brook trout, not only compete with the bull trout but also hy- bull trout, cutthroat trout (Westslope and bridize with them thus depleting the pure genetic Yellowstone subspecies), golden trout, rainbow stock. Schindler (1998) states the stocking of trout and rainbow/ cutthroat hybrids. Present

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

105 non-trout species include mountain whitefish, Table 21: Current Bull Trout Distribution in longnose sucker, mountain sucker, white sucker, the Castle Area (from Fitch 1994) longnose dace, river shiner and burbot (Gibbard Resident Fluvial Drainage and Sheppard 1992). Form Form Fitch (1994) concluded that bull trout are Pincher Creek noo n present today in only 31% of their historic native Drywood Creek yoes n distribution in southwestern Alberta streams. The Yarrow Creek yoes n Castle drainage is in the best shape with bull trout Spionkop Creek noo n yes still being present in 95% of its native range. Bull yes Castle River (reduced) trout existed here from 1900-1970 in a total of South Castle River 210km of streams (Fitch, 1994). From 1970-1994, (includes Scarpe, Font Creeks ynes unknow and Beaver Mines Lake) it was present in 199 km, a much smaller decrease yes West Castle River yes than found in both the Belly River and Oldman (reduced) drainages (Fitch 1994). Fitch concluded that bull Carbondale River yses ye Lost Creek yaes n/ trout are presently extirpated from Spionkop and Gardiner Creek yaes n/ Pincher Creeks and that in most of the rivers and Lynx Creek yaes n/ streams there appears to be a decline in the flu- Mill Creek (includes yses ye vial (migratory) form of the species along with a Whitney and Gladstone) general size reduction in catches (Fitch, 1994). This decline is of concern as it represents a loss of adaptive capability in an unstable environment Westslope Cutthroat trout left in Alberta and Wig (Fitch, 1994). A study of bull trout redds (i.e. (1998, pers.comm.) states that loss of genotypes spawning beds) in the Oldman drainage detected in bull trout due to hybridization is a concern. over 75% of the redds in three of seven streams: Specific management actions are being taken Mill Creek, Hidden Creek and Lost Creek (Gerrand for protection of the bull trout, which appears to et al, 1995) (Table 21). get much more attention than the Westslope Similarly, Boag and McCart (1993) in Fernet cutthroat trout. In 1991 a bait ban was imple- (1993) state the West Castle has one of the bet- mented in Alberta due to the susceptibility of bull ter westslope cutthroat trout fisheries in Alberta. trout to angling with bait (Byrne 1993). Alberta The Castle is primarily a cutthroat trout fishery Fish and Wildlife initiated a moratorium in 1994 (Wig 1998, pers.comm.). According to Fernet on killing bull trout and implemented catch and (1993) there are very few pure stocks of release program (Fischbuch et al, 1995).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

106 Chapter 6 — One Century of Human Activity in the Castle valley, Lynx Creek, lower Lost Creek, Gardiner Creek and the Carbondale Hill/ Mount Backus/ Just over a century ago, ranchers drove the Beaver Mines Lake area following the 1934/1936 first cattle into southwestern Alberta and fires (Perraton, 1994; Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). trappers moved into the Castle to obtain furs Logging in the headwaters of the Castle River be- first hand. Today, hunting, trapping and graz- gan in the early 1960s (Castle Local Committee ing continue alongside petroleum explora- 1997). An outbreak of spruce bark beetle during tion, logging and a variety of recreation uses. the 1970s triggered extensive salvage logging in The patterns of these activities lend insight the upper reaches of the West Castle. This was to future trends in the Castle. followed in the 1980s by salvage logging of lodgepole pine in the upper reaches of the South Forestry Practices Castle, Gladstone Creek and Table Mountain trig- Historic gered by a mountain The federal government first issued timber- pine beetle infestation cutting rights in present-day Alberta in 1879 (AWA, 1986). The areas (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The first sawmill logged in the 1970s and in the Castle area was established near the mouth 1980s include the West of Mill Creek in that same year (Pincher Creek Castle, Gladstone Creek, Historical Society 1974). This mill was sold to Table Mountain, Upper Peter McLaren in 1881. Before the turn of the South Castle, Font century the McLaren Lumber Company and Creek and Windsor Canadian Pacific Railway were logging in the Ridge (Brodersen 1996). vicinity to provide building logs for the Peigan Since 1966 the C3 For- Reserve, Fort MacLeod and the growing town est Management Unit (now C5) has been man- of Pincher Creek (AWA, undated). Selective log- aged to provide commercial needs and to meet ging and small-scale clearcutting in Mill Creek local demand. This is done through two conifer- continued through the turn of the century ous timber quotas and a miscellaneous Timber (Landals 1974). This marked the beginning of Use area respectively (AENR 1985). The initial the forest industry in the Castle region. 15 year quota term lasting from 1966 to 1981 Extensive salvage operations for timber allowed for a combined annual allowable cut of occurred in the West Castle valley, South Castle 65 720 cubic meters (27.3 mmbf) and the miscel-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

107 laneous Timber Use area an annual allowable year to year based on the amount of timber cut of 4000 cubic meters (1.66 mmbf) (AENR available in the district and how much can be 1985). However, in 1981 the mountain pine bee- harvested on a sustained yield basis (Schneider tle outbreak mentioned above prevented the cal- 1998, pers. comm.). In the end, the AAC should culation of a new annual allowable cut for the average out over a five-year term. next 15 year quota term because emphasis was According to the resource management placed on salvage logging operations of all dead objectives of the IRP, the long term goal with or dying pine stands (AENR 1985). respect to timber in the Castle is “to manage the forest land base to provide a supply of tim- Current ber on a sustained-yield basis to meet indus- The long-term tenure quota system was re- trial and local requirements” (AENR 1985. newed for the Castle area in 1986 following the p19). With the exception of steep slopes, salvage logging operations from the mountain stream buffers and the prime protection zone, pine beetle infestation. The Subregional Inte- the entire Castle area is open to logging. grated Resource Plan (IRP) for the Castle River Between May 1, 1997 and April 30, 1998, 20 states that harvest in the Castle area will be de- 200 m3 /8.4mmbf of green timber and 1171m3/ pressed over the next 40-50 years (from 1985) .48mmbf of dry timber was logged in the Castle as the only harvestable timber will come from (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.).Atlas focussed its decadent (i.e. old-growth) spruce reserves and a extraction upon Lynx Creek and Goat Creek. small amount of marginally merchantable pine Although their license in the latter expires in stands (AENR 1985). The present quota term is 1999, they will be going back into Goat Creek 20 years and is committed to Atlas Lumber of in 2000 (Atlas Lumber 1998, pers. comm.). Prior Coleman (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). to logging, Goat Creek consisted of Engelmann The annual allowable cut (AAC) for Atlas Spruce trees of 200-250 years old (Gibbard and within the C5 management unit is 90 505 m3 / Sheppard 1992). Atlas also logged in 37.6mmbf (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). This Snowshoe Creek in winter 1998/99 and will covers a variety of licenses, including the Castle start logging Gorge Creek in the near future and others north of Highway #3 in the Porcupine (Atlas Lumber 1998, pers. comm.). Hills region. There are also miscellaneous tim- Logging companies are required to follow the ber permits active in the Mill Creek and Byron guidelines in “Timber Harvest Planning and Creek areas of the Castle. These permits belong Operating Ground Rules” put out by the Alberta to local companies and are sold yearly based on Land and Forest Service in 1994. The standard a competitive bid (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). harvesting method used in Alberta is clearcutting The AAC is set for the C5 management unit over because it is efficient, well suited to heavy a 20 year period. However, the amount logged machinery and creates favourable conditions for in a given area (i.e. the Castle) changes from the regeneration of shade-intolerant species

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

108 Renewable Resources Sub-Committee 1989 ( ). The How does the annual allowable cut by companies have two years to treat the block watershed area compare to B.C. and after which two surveys are done by the AFS Montana? How does it compare by at 6-8 years and again at 14 years to ensure subalpine extent? the cutblock is regenerating to at least 80% of the stocking rate (ALFS 1994). In the Castle area the blocks are seeded primarily to lodgepole pine because it is a more successful may not be used by wildlife due to the lack of avail- regenerating species following clearcutting able cover. Providing clumps of cover within the than spruce which requires shelter for growth. cutting unit may increase the amount of clearing that Tree planting has proven unsuccessful in this will be used, for some species (PRISM Environmen- area (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). With re- tal Management Consultants 1982). spect to post-logging management the AFS promotes spreading slash on site to speed up decomposition, along with leaving some piles Agriculture to serve as habitat for small mammals. Burn- ing of slash is a concern because of the fire Historic hazard it poses (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). At the time the ranching industry launched in The operating ground rules require that southern Alberta (1874) the area was considered where pine comprises 40% or more of the open range (MacDonald 1992). Cattle grazing be- merchantable timber volume, cutblocks may be gan in the South Castle at the turn of the century up to 100 ha/247acres in area but with an aver- and regulation and charging for grazing started in age area no greater than 60 ha/148 acres (ALFS 1910 (AWA, undated). When the Castle area was 1994). With spruce, cutblocks can be up to 24 under federal jurisdiction as part of Waterton Lakes ha/59 acres in patches or a maximum of 32 ha/ National Park from 1914 to 1921, cattle grazing 79 acres in strips where no part of the cutblock was still permitted (Castle Local Committee 1997). is further than 150m/492ft from a seed source Grazing continued during the period the area was (ALFS 1994). An analysis of vegetation inven- provincially managed as a game preserve as cattle tory data in the Castle region revealed cutblocks were present which range in size from .74 ha to 166 ha (2.5 to at the time of 544 acres) in the South Castle, .56 to 60 ha (1.8 the 1936 fire to 148 acres) in the West Castle and .15 ha to ( Kovach 262 ha (.5 to 860 acres) in the Carbondale 1979). Horse (Stewart et al 1998) (Map E). Some of these and sheep cutblocks are quite a bit larger than suggested grazing took in the guidelines. If cutblocks are too large they place in the

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

109 Castle region during the Second World War but Coalition’s volunteer stewards have noted dam- too much competition with wildlife for forage led age to vegetation in some alpine areas caused by to their discontinuation. Sheep grazing ended in cattle (Gerrand and Sheppard 1992). Management 1954 and horse grazing in 1956 (AWA 1986). action has been taken by the Alberta Forest Service There are no grazing leases in the Castle. Live- in Yarrow Canyon in fencing the upper canyon area stock owners obtain annual grazing permits. In to prevent cattle from entering. The ALFS has the past the Castle contained 5 grazing allotments also constructed a livestock exclosure plot in the however the Gladstone Creek is no longer in use. South Castle to compare grazed land with non- A maximum number of cattle is permitted to graze grazed land. This study is currently underway. on each allotment, which is determined by a 5 According to Ernst (1996), there is little left of the year management plan (Kehr 1998, pers.comm.). native forage in parts of the South Castle. Between the years of 1962 and 1982 the grazing usage of the Castle River area on the four allot- Are riparian impacts from grazing ments decreased from 5 569 animal unit months managed actively in the Castle? Is grazing to 4 073 animal unit months1 (AUM) (AENR dropping due to lack of demand or lack of 1985). Use stabilized and 4130 AUMs were stocked in 1993 (Gerrand and Sheppard 1993). This is due to brush encroachment and other land- Mining Practices use developments on the primary rangeland. Historic Current Coal mining began following the construction Four current allotments support grazing: Cas- of the Canadian Pacific Railway through tle River, Southend (Front Range Canyons), the Crowsnest Pass in 1897-1898. The first mines Mill Creek and Jackson Creek. The boundaries operated in Crowsnest Pass just north of the of these allotments do not change and the Castle area in 1902 and east of the Castle in permittees generally stay the same year after year Beaver Mines in 1907 (Crowsnest Pass Historical (Alexander 1998, pers. comm.). The preferred Society 1979). This new industry brought more stocking capacity has decreased to 2330 AUMs residents to the area and likely served to in- although, in 1998, the actual stocking capacity crease the recreational use of the Castle. Since was 2240 AUMs which equates to approximately then coal has been extracted along Adanac 500 animals (Alexander 1998, pers. comm.). Pass, Gladstone Creek, near Beauvais Lake The Land and Forest Service attempts to keep Provincial Park and in the Beaver Mines area cattle out of the prime protection zone, which typically consists of alpine vegetation that is very 1 An AUM is defined as the “measure of forage or sensitive to trampling (Kehr 1998, pers. comm). feed required to maintain one animal unit (i.e. a Over the years the Castle Crown Wilderness mature cow of 455 kg) for 30 days” (AENR 1985).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

110

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

112 (AENR). Coal was extracted along Adanac was discovered (AENR 1985). Shell drilled its Pass from 1942-1962 (AENR 1985). first successful Waterton Field well in 1957. A The Castle region’s quarriable and metallic second well, which is still producing, was drilled minerals are generally not deemed significant in 1958 and is located near the mouth of South (AENR 1985). However certain sections, such Drywood Canyon. The majority of gas wells in as the Front Range canyons, the South Castle and the Castle area exist in the Front Range Canyons. West Castle areas, are part of the Grinnell for- Shell’s Waterton Processing Plant started pro- mation which is a premier site for mineralization ducing in 1962. As of 1992, three Shell wells in Alberta (Perraton 1994). In the early 1970s have run dry and been reclaimed in North there was an interest in extracting copper-bear- Kootenay Pass, Middle Kootenay Pass and Bea- ing ore from the mouth of Yarrow Canyon ver Mines Creek (Shell Canada Aerial Mosaic Map (Landals 1974). A quartz mineral lease on 1992). Spionkop Ridge was recently terminated in the Early seismic exploration involved cutting late 1980s following exploration and the Alberta roads up all the major drainages in the Castle Forest Service reclaimed it in 1989 (Regional area with no requirement to reclaim them (Gibbard Resource Management Committee 1990). and Sheppard 1992). This contributed to the extensive road network we see in the area today. What is the status of diamond exploration Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife has since in the Castle? required that seismic activity occur along existing roads or by helicopter (Evans 1992).

Current Current There are no active mineral leases in the Cas- Natural gas or petroleum and natural gas tle area at the present time. Coal leases exist leases cover most of the land base in the Castle on Hastings Ridge and Maverick Hill (Gibbard region (Landals 1974). Shell currently holds 10 and Sheppard 1992). Coal, and possibly gold, active natural gas leases and 12 other petroleum leases are held for Willoughby Ridge (Kehr 1998, and natural gas leases that are subject to five- pers. comm.). None are active. year terms (Fischbuch and Gerrand 1994). Impe- rial Oil holds one other natural gas lease in the area. Approximately 75 natural gas wells are Petroleum Exploration/ Extraction presently located in or near the Castle region, primarily within the Front Ranges. Each one of Historic these canyons — from Pincher Creek to Yarrow Seismic exploration began in the Castle region Creek — has a well-maintained gravel road down in the early 1900s but was relatively inactive un- the valley with a number of gas wells and flare til 1948 when gas in the Pincher Creek gas field stacks along it. Gas wells are also present on

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

113 Prairie Bluff, along Mill Creek and Whitney Creek and Brodersen 1995). Future Shell plans include drill- and to the north, on Maverick Hill. Although Shell ing two new wells in 1999 just east of the Carbondale has conducted seismic exploration in the South area, outside of the forest reserve. One of these is a Castle and West Castle valleys there are no wells step-out well on an existing lease and the other in- there (Perraton 1994). Shell has relinquished their volves a new lease (Mulzet 1998, pers. comm.). rights for oil and gas exploration in these two valleys but may reacquire them if the government puts What other companies are now active in/ them up for sale in the future (Perraton 1994). near the Castle? Canadian 88? What is the The gas wells in the Front Range Canyons are extent of their operations? expected to be depleted over the next 5-10 years, however additional drilling to deepen wells or horizontal step-out drilling to find additional re- Hunting, Trapping and Outfitting Practices serves could extend this period (Perraton 1994). After the wells dry up, which will take at least Past another 15 years, Shell Canada plans to reclaim Hunting in the Castle area likely dates back the area following standards set out by the pro- to when humans first arrived in the area approxi- vincial government (Martens 1998, pers. comm.). mately 11 000 years ago. The Ktunaxa, being The Land and Forest Service decides whether mountain hunters, probably made the most use to reclaim roads depending upon their potential of the area for hunting mountain sheep, deer and alternative uses (Martens 1998, pers. comm.). If elk. With the arrival of the horse and gun in south- the roads are to remain open then Shell is no western Alberta, sometime after 1750, hunting longer responsible for maintenance or reclama- as we know it today began. Animals could be tion; if they are to be reclaimed, it is Shell’s killed more efficiently which may have led to a responsibility to do so. The Castle Access Man- changing attitude among native people. As agement Plan (see Appendix 1) closes most in- Johnson (1969, cited in MacDonald 1992) states: dustrial roads to recreational traffic. Shell conducted heliportable seismic exploration “Even bears, who already seemed a little less in the Castle-Carbondale area in 1992, which required awesome, because of their vulnerability to surveying and cutting by hand 685km2/264mi2 of bullets, the Indians began to regard not so narrow seismic lines (Gerrand and Sheppard 1992). much as reverenced fellow beings, but more as The seismic activity explored Mill Creek, Table wearers of hides for which the traders might Mountain, Beaver Mines Creek, Mount Backus and give good exchange.” (pg 25) Maverick Hill. Shell also completed a new 35km/22mi pipeline linking wells in the lower Carbondale to the The Government of Alberta ceased the legal Shell Waterton Plant in 1995. One to two km of this hunting of grizzly bears south of the Bow River pipeline falls within the Castle boundary (Fischbuch in 1969. This lasted for 13 years when, in 1982,

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

114 the hunt reopened around Waterton Lakes Castle include badger, beaver, bobcat, lynx, National Park (Horejsi 1986). coyote, marten, mink, muskrat, squirrel, wea- Trapping became a predominant activity in sel, wolverine and gray wolf. There have not southwestern Alberta during the 1800s with the been any studies done on the effects of trapping coming of the fur trade. The Blackfoot commenced on furbearer populations in the Castle region. trapping within the lands they controlled on the Currently four outfitters are active in the Castle east side of the Continental Divide (MacDonald region. Prior to 1995 a foreign resident was 1992). These lands likely included parts of the required to hunt with a guide and outfitter. Castle. Beaver, weasel and muskrat were the main However, the guide license regulations were species trapped during the fur trade years. Trap- revised in 1995 so that now any Alberta resident ping in the Castle has continued through the 20th with a class C license can guide a foreign resident century (Clark 1998, pers.comm.). (Fischbuch and Brodersen 1995).

Current Hunting is a popular sport in the Castle area. Recreation Activity The area has numerous roads for access and The Castle region pro- permits off-road vehicle use, thereby allowing vides a variety of recrea- hunter access into remote regions. Huners pur- tional opportunities year sue big game species including mule deer, white- round, including consump- tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, cougar, tive, non-consumptive and black bear and grizzly bear. Approximately motorized activities. 4,400 hunters secure WMU 400 tags during the These activities include fall hunting season (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife fishing, hunting, hiking, 1992). The spring hunt for black bear, grizzly camping, backpacking, bear and cougar augments this number. The fall horseback riding, cross- hunting season lasts, on average, 78 days in- country and downhill ski- cluding bowhunting season. In total WMU 400 ing, snowmobiling and has 21,430 hunter days during the fall hunt off-road vehicle use. (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). The Forest Service permits random camping Trapping in the Castle occurs on seven regis- throughout the Castle region in addition to the fee tered traplines that are located, at least partially, camping in the four provincial campgrounds. Most within the Forest Reserve (Clark 1998, of these campsites are located along main access pers.comm.). These traplines see fluctuating routes and close to watercourses. There are ap- use; there are years when some trappers may proximately 265 established random camping not even set their traps (Clark 1998, sites within the Castle area that are used by ap- pers.comm.). Species that are trapped in the proximately 3000 persons during the camping

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

115 season (Alberta Forest Service 1992, cited in use of the roads by off-road vehicles (Forestry, Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). With random Lands and Wildlife 1992). Major access routes camping the maintenance of the sites is the re- in the area include the recently rebuilt Lynx sponsibility of the user. Garbage disposal can be a Creek Road, Adanac road, Carbondale and Lost problem. The Crowsnest Stewardship Society and Creek haul roads, O’Hagan Road, South Castle the Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition stewards haul road, Secondary Road 774 (to Castle take part in a clean up effort every year. Parks Mountain Resort) and the complex of industrial Service staff voluntarily play a maintenance role. roads surrounding the Front Ranges. Along Off-road vehicle (ORV) use is a popular rec- with these are the lesser maintained road and reational activity in the Castle area. It is likely trail networks that have been used by off-road gaining popularity in southern Alberta because vehicle enthusiasts over the years. most of Kananaskis Country to the north, with With respect to forestry trunk roads, the the exception of McLean Creek, has been closed Alberta Land and Forest Service requires that to ORVs. In 1992 there were approximately 1,645 logging companies “scarify out” roads when registered off-highway vehicles in the southern they are finished in an area, unless the roads region, the majority of which were snowmobiles are considered “traditional” (i.e. they have been (57%) followed by all-terrain vehicles (32%) there for several years and are used for other (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). purposes) (Schneider 1998, pers.comm.). If The Castle region has many abandoned Atlas will log an area in the future it may leave seismic lines and logging roads that are ideal roads open or reclaim them to a lesser degree for the sport. There are also volunteered trails so it will be easier to restore them if necessary visible in the area that are not part of the trail (Schneider 1998, pers.comm.). system (Andrea Stewart pers. obs.). An Access A road study was performed in the Castle re- Management Plan has recently been developed gion in the summer of 1998. The objective of the to outline permitted ORV use on winter and sum- study was to document the location, degree of mer use trails (see Appendix 1). The frequent use and extent of erosion present on the roads usage of the area by ORV’s restricts the use of throughout the Castle region. A report of the road the area by hikers and backpackers who prefer study and accompanying maps will be available more solitude for their activities. in early 1999. What is the actual extent of ‘used’ roads/ Current Road Status trails in the Castle? How does this The number of Castle roads has increased compare with the Castle Access significantly since the early 1950s (Map F). This Management Plan? How much activity is has resulted largely from an increase in industrial there over the Middle and North Kootenay activity (logging, seismic exploration, natural gas Passes into B.C.? What is the extent of production) through the years and the subsequent snowmobile activity in the Castle?

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

116

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

118 Chapter 7: An integrated approach

Ecosystem Based Management: then be safely eradicated. The grazing function of bison could be replaced using cattle. Overview Odum’s own brother opposed him. Eugene Odum Ecosystem research has evolved consider- (1971) argued that ecosystems were too complex ably over the past sixty years. In 1934, Arthur to justify simple replacements. Natural carbon Tansley argued that various natural compo- sources, such as trees, cannot be eliminated to make nents, such as plants, fauna, soil and climate, way for industrial carbon emissions in the global act together in a holistic system to maintain balance. He foresaw technocratic strategies leading local equilibrium, resisting disintegrative forces to pervasive disturbance, instability and general (Bocking 1994). He coined the term ‘ecosys- disequilibrium. This tension between the Odum tem’ to describe his paradigm. Eight years later, brothers encapsulates differing approaches to eco- Raymond Lindeman (1942) advanced Tansley’s system management today. theory. He shifted his focus from individual Our institutional memory is often short. We in- components to ecosystem processes as the herit practices from our predecessors without fully means of energy flow through a system. understanding why they were implemented and in- Lindeman felt ecosystem balance was not terpret change without reference to past trends or maintained so much through retaining species to complexity. We do not realize that, for fifty years, as by retaining processes such as trophic we have operated implicitly from a technocratic ap- flows. Evelyn Hutchison (1948) then extended proach. A population crash of elk becomes blamed Lindeman’s theories to encompass living and on the reintroduction of wolves, rather than recog- non-living components (biotic/ abiotic), nition that human hunting, increased roads, habi- thereby clearing the way for physiochemical tat changes from logging and dams, climate change research into carbon flows and phosphorus ac- and other ecological modifications incrementally cumulation. When Howard Odum (1959) ar- have changed the natural systems that produce elk gued that human-nature ecosystems could be — and of which elk in turn are structural elements. designed to promote human interests, ecosys- Our scope is also limited by jurisdictional bounda- tem management was born (Bocking 1994). ries. A grizzly Odum and other technocrats believed that counted in humans could replace certain ecological com- Alberta is ponents and processes. Fires could be sup- also counted pressed then emulated with logging activity. in B.C. When Predation by human hunters could substitute two provin- for predation by other animals, which might cial agencies

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

119 set hunting quotas, that bear is allocated twice. Natural catastrophe Annual allowable timber cuts are set based upon and the role of connectivity ‘ecosystem’ capacity while ignoring what is being allocated across the Divide or downstream Ecosystems may disintegrate without and without factoring in the dynamic, sometimes human intrusion. Scientists have only catastrophic, changes that take place naturally recently studied the role of catastrophes. over time in forest ecosystems. System equilibrium can be upset by This State of the Ecosystem reporting proc- large scale natural disturbances such as ess strives to overcome our spatial and temporal massive floods, intense firestorms or ‘blinders’ to depict: volcanic eruptions. A caribou population may perish from fire; a) the pre-industrial equilibrium of the disease may annihilate a herd of sheep. Flathead/ Castle system (with the aid of Both catastrophes may induce ripple traditional ecological knowledge) effects through trophic systems. b) the current equilibrium of the system with functional replacements In these cases, ecosystem integrity relies c) the trends resulting from our technocratic upon landscape connectivity. The approach emerging science of conservation biology studies how regional populations rely Analysis should not be taken to imply judg- upon landscape linkages to recover after ment. Socio-economic realities will affect man- catastrophic events. Caribou can return agers as much or more than ecological ones. to a system as long as there is another Socio-economic realities are, of course, simply the population nearby to provide migrants, conditions that motivate and control a keystone there are corridors that these migrants species in the ecosystem — the human being. A may return through, and there is habitat more holistic knowledge base about that ecosys- to sustain them when they return. If tem, however, can at least provide a better con- human activity or other natural text for decisions by and about that keystone disruption has negated any of these species. When people are explicitly aware of our conditions, localized extinction occurs. technocratic strategies, then they can also On a continental scale, if anticipate and plan for their repercussions. metapopulations become too fragmented, Ecosystem managers, as they become more aware restoration becomes impossible and a of complexity and connectedness, increasingly series of localized catastrophes can result emphasize the need to focus more on managing in species extinction. ourselves rather than managing ecosystems.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

120 Ecosystem Wide Trends Mountain pine beetle invaded the Flathead/ In this iteration, many pieces of the puzzle are Castle systems in the 1970s spreading through- still missing. The integration below represents a out stands of lodgepole pine, limber pine and first cut at presenting an ecosystem wide view, whitebark pine. The extent of infestation is not however many holes are identified which remain known. to be filled. Diseased stands that have not been logged are currently being succeeded by Engelmann spruce Ecological Processes and subalpine fir. Fire: Throughout the Flathead/ Castle system, fire was a frequent event. Lightning triggered the Ecological Components majority of fires west of the Divide while natives Vegetation: The ecosystem has similar ignited most fires east of the Divide. Stand initi- ecozones throughout its extent with montane for- ating events occurred more frequently in the up- ests and grasslands giving way to subalpine per North Fork than in the lower or in the Castle spruce-fir forests then alpine tundra as altitude however the resulting landscape was similar increases. Historically, the transboundary throughout: mature remnants amidst large bioregion was a mature spruce-fir system with patches of regenerating forest. The last large fire patches of lodgepole pine and western larch re- in the ecosystem was the stand replacing Red generating from fire. Montane grasslands are Bench fire of 1988 in Montana. Stand replacing more common in the southern portion of the fires have been suppressed throughout the Flathead than the northern portion due to Canadian portion of the ecosystem since the Butts elevational differences. Lodgepole pine once oc- fire (1936) which burned over 100 000acres/40 curred more frequently west of the Divide than 000ha on both sides of the Divide. This figure is east of it. Limber pine and now aspen occur more an estimate as its extent in the Castle is unknown. frequently in montane areas to the east. Disease: Spruce bark beetle infested Today, fire has been suppressed which has Montana stands in the 1950s — its extent in resulted in conifer encroachment on grasslands. Canada is unknown. Whitebark pine blister rust Timber extraction from old-growth spruce-fir infested limber pine and whitebark pine in forests has allowed lodgepole pine and western Montana’s North Fork in the 1960s spreading larch to co-dominate the system. Seeding of into B.C. and Castle by the 1970s. In the Castle, monoculture lodgepole following logging has em- two thirds of limber pine have now been in- phasized this transition. Grazing is most predomi- fected including a third killed. In Waterton nant in the Castle where grassland fescue is being Lakes National Park, ¼ of whitebark pine have replaced by invasives such as Kentucky bluegrass. been killed — half are infested. Is this repre- Conifer encroachment is also emphasized where sentative of the rest of the system? grazing has reduced understory vigour.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

121 Trophic Cascades (condensed from herring throughout the 1970s. Herring and Estes et al.1998) perch are much more nutritious than Emerging studies on predator-prey relation- pollock and are a staple of Stellar sea lions ships are revealing just how complex and harbour seals (pinnipeds). When the ecosystem dynamics can be. Early this former declined, the latter crashed in the century, sea otters off the coast of Alaska 80s. Without pinnipeds as their primary were hunted near to extinction. When food source, killer whales turned to... otters. human predation was banned, they The cascade will likely continue. Otters are a rebounded until the 1990s. Between 1990 keystone species of kelp ‘forest’ ecosystems. and 1993, half their population As the solitary predator of sea urchins, disappeared. This mysterious decline which prey on kelp, they keep the system in surprised scientist who had no ready equilibrium. When otters are removed, answers. By 1997, 90% of the entire urchins have no other predators, Aleutian otter population, over a 500 mile proliferating and feeding on kelp without stretch of ocean, had disappeared. check. Invertebrates and fish that depend U.C. Santa Barbara scientists discovered the upon kelp for habitat will be affected solution in 1998. Killer whales, which had adversely, as will the species that depend coexisted peacefully with otters throughout upon them. this century, had suddenly turned to them Trophic cascades focus on the importance of as prey. To explain the reasons for this, Dr. the top predator in the food chain. In the Jim Estes elaborated upon a complex case of kelp forests, that predator is otter. trophic cascade. In the case of baleen - zooplankton Baleen whales have fed historically on relationships, that predator is human. zooplankton, limiting their abundance. Links are complex and difficult to predict. When human predation reduced Terrestrial ecosystems function similarly. humpback, blue and gray whales this When humans remove wolves and grizzly, century, zooplankton increased. An mesopredators and large ungulates omnivorous fish, pollock, thrived with an flourish. In turn, small mammals and increase in part of its food supply. forage species, such as aspen suffer. When Increased pollock predation combined with fire suppression supports conifer, aspen also overfishing and global warming severely decline and a positive feedback loop ensues depleted Pacific stocks of ocean perch and (White et al. 1995).

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

122 In Montana’s North Fork, 7% of the montane along. Numbers are increasing throughout the and 4-5% of the subalpine is considered old- system. Like elk, deer are moving out of the growth. In B.C, 6% of the Montane and 16% of Castle onto the prairie. the subalpine is considered old-growth. Old Sheep and goats thrived throughout the growth remains in 9% of the Castle but this is ecosystem. Recently, along with elk, they have not broken down by ecoregion. Estimates on declined. Disease is the probable cause however historical composition vary. In Montana between a very slow recovery may imply other factors. 10 and 28% of the subalpine and 10-20% of the Goats are now stabilizing in the Castle. montane was old. These might be considered Wolves have been extirpated three times this benchmarks for the system. Definitions for what century from the Castle and at least twice from constitutes old-growth may vary in each system Montana’s North Fork. B.C.’s statistics are, as of and should be compared. yet, unavailable. Wolves were exterminated in the Wildlife: The North Fork historically contained Castle at the turn of the century and throughout plenty of deer and moose but few elk. The Castle the ecosystem in the 1950s. Recovery in both has historically contained plenty of elk and moose Montana and Alberta occurred strongly through but few deer. This discrepancy may be due to our the 1990s until 1996-97 when they were reduced reporting period — elk thrived in the Castle until from 4 packs to 2 in the southern North Fork and 1870 when disease almost extirpated them. The from about 60 individuals to about 6 in southwest- lack of recorded elk in the North Fork may sim- ern Alberta. The persistence of this species seems ply be due to a lack of recorded presence — the to hinge on the strength of the B.C. population and Ktunaxa might verify that many once existed. a persistent prey population of deer and elk. Elk were reintroduced in the 1920s and pros- Grizzly bear was abundant throughout this pered until the 1970s. The population with- ecosystem until the 1950s when declines were stood heavy hunting in the 1950s (in the recorded in the Castle. Increases were recorded Castle), likely because human predation was in both the North Fork and the Castle through replacing wolf predation at that time. Popula- the 1970s/ 80s and heightened mortality/ trans- tion declines have occurred throughout the location in the 90s in the Castle has not appeared Transboundary ecosystem since 1970. Reasons to affect the population. Strong linkages with are not clear however a shift in Castle distri- source populations in the Flathead may be allevi- bution eastwards suggests habitat degradation. ating heavy Alberta ‘predation’. Mule deer may have existed in the Castle prior Wildlife Habitat: The decline of climax forest to 1900 as reports conflict. They are recorded has likely had an affect on old-growth dependent in the North Fork. Conversely, white tailed deer species such as cavity nesters and mesopredators moved into the Castle after bison disappeared. (see North Fork — Old Growth). Fire suppression As bison were never present in the North Fork, is reducing montane grasslands used by ungu- white tailed deer may have existed there all lates for winter forage. Conifer dependent spe-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

123 cies, especially those attending lodgepole pine (9mmbf) slated for removal from 970km2 and larch, are increasing. Connective corridors, (3.735m3/km2). Montana’s North Fork (of which through mountain passes and riparian areas of half is National Park) has about 12450m3 the North Fork are still intact. (30mmbf) allocated throughout its 4118km2 extent (3.02m3/km2). Montana’s figures are sig- Cumulative effects of human activity nificantly lower if its cited cuts are total, not Cumulative effects analysis (CEA) looks at yearly, allocations. the accumulation of impacts from human activ- Petroleum Extraction: Although oil, gas and ity across a landscape, over time. Often, these coal bed methane potential exists throughout are refined to one industry (Creasey 1998) or one the system, current extraction occurs only at species (Herrero et al. 1996). However, ideally, the Shell Waterton Field in Alberta. Down- CEA would look at the total role of the keystone stream effects from particulate discharge into species (humans) as it functions within the en- the atmosphere and recreational impacts from tire system. Barriers (and reasons for limited employees are of regional concern. Other im- scoping) often result from organizational man- pacts are localized to the Castle. dates, jurisdictional boundaries, lack of time/ Mining: Coal and some mineral potential ex- money and lack of information. ists throughout the system. Although no mining A state of the ecosystem report can provide is currently underway, a mine on a Fording lease the knowledge base across jurisdictional bounda- would be the largest single impact in the system. ries. Maps D2 and F can be combined to portray Hunting/ Trapping: Hunter success rates for deer a more complete picture of our activity on a land- and elk have declined over the past decade in both scape (Map H). This combined assessment of hu- Montana and B.C. but have increased for moose. man development provides the first step in Generally, fewer and fewer hunters are having less assembling such a knowledge base. success. Figures are unavailable for the Castle. Forestry: An annual allowable cut of Whereas most human activities affect habitat 69mmbf is expected throughout the ecosystem and ecosystem processes, hunting and trapping over the 5 years (assuming the Montana involve direct human predation. As long as habi- numbers are annual, not total allocations). tat effectiveness and linkage zones persists, Montana’s focus is changing from spruce-fir for- overhunting can be regarded as a catastrophic est to lodgepole pine, likely due to availability. event, mitigable by influx from other populations. This may be the trend throughout the system. For instance, the taking of 600 elk out of a popu- Extraction is heaviest in B.C.’s North Fork lation of 3000 on a single day in 1956 could have where an average of 12201m3 (29.4mmbf) is been catastrophic if perpetuated, However elk slated to be removed over its 1575km2 extent would likely have returned to the Castle, as (7.885m3/km2). The Castle has roughly 3735m3 wolves have, since herds exist in Waterton and in the North Fork.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

124

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

126 Direct human predation must occur, there- road availability, an area attracts more hunters, fore, within a context of habitat and linkage leveraging pressure on accessed areas. zone effectiveness if we wish to maintain equilibrium. Ideally, it takes an ecosystem wide Relative effects analysis view to avoid duplication. Bag limits are usu- Relative effects analysis evaluates which ally set after fish and wildlife officers conduct human activities have the most disruptive effect wildlife surveys. If a sheep moves from Alberta on an ecosystem and strives to address them first. to B.C. between respective surveying periods, Such effects can then be compared to their socio- she inflates one of the population estimates. economic benefit. Often, low impact activities Improved communication and management sys- may yield high benefits and vice versa. Roads, tems could curtail such duplication. which tend to have pervasive impacts on various Roads: Road use has grown throughout the levels, might be eliminated with little socio- ecosystem with the improved access offered by economic repercussions. Conversely, selective 4-wheel drive and off-road vehicles (passenger logging and some petroleum exploration might and ATVs). Seismic and forestry cutlines from the be conducted with little consequence to ecosys- 1950s still offer motorized access today. The de- tem components and processes. gree of use remains to be studied. Much of the Relative effects analysis realizes that in a state use in B.C.’s North Fork is staged from the Castle of equilibrium, everything is a tradeoff. If all hu- — recreational users flow over the Continental man activities are maintained, then the weight of Divide using the same passes as wildlife (Map H). this keystone species will unbalance the system. A total of 488mi/785km of roads lace the North Fork with a further 370mi/595km either closed Perceptual impacts or used only sporadically in the Flathead National Perceptual impacts are the externalized con- Forest. Motorized access in the Castle is more sequences of maintaining our fragmented views extensive however has not been measured. of the world. For instance, provincial and national Roads have three ecological implications. They boundaries, which are invisible on the ground, fragment habitat if they are surveyed through can result in incomplete analyses, restricted man- sensitive areas or are subject to heavy use. They agement, and, possibly, system breakdown. Cog- can cut off linkage zones, such as the Crowsnest nitive fragmentation of a landscape can translate Pass, if they are used heavily or encourage road- directly to habitat fragmentation if an ecosystem side development. Finally, they increase human is only managed in its perceived pieces. predation in a positive feedback loop. Humans Sediments from B.C. flow into Montana Wild and are more effective predators when they can drive Scenic Rivers where sediment loading does not to prey. When local success rates increase with necessarily take into account what already ac-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

127 crued upstream. The greatest impacts of petro- habitat and connectivity issues together. Al- leum exploration in Alberta may be borne in B.C.’s though they are not yet addressing cumulative North Fork when hundreds of well paid motor- or relative effects, they are creating the knowl- ized employees drive vehicles over the Divide for edge base from which to do so. recreation. Perceptual impacts are addressed by Human-based management takes ecosystem- managing from a complete world. based management one step further. It realizes that humans, as a keystone species, respond to socio-economic systems of their own devising as Human Based Management much as ecological systems. Nevertheless, they Human-based management is ecosystem man- still function as a species in a complex system. agement made politically and socio-economically Using the human-based management approach, relevant. It focuses on one of the most important the RMGBCP would seek to understand the role keystone species. We have the power to unilater- of the grizzly as a large carnivore in a complex ally disrupt the equilibrium of the Castle/ Flathead system. They would seek to understand how hu- system. If we are to maintain it, we need to clarify man activity has altered the equilibrium of the our value systems (what ‘balance’ we wish to system which produced the grizzly to potentially achieve) then manage ourselves to get there. endanger it. Avalanche chutes still persist, as do The Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bear Planning fields of glacier lilies, however what is the im- Committee is an example of integrated ecosys- pact of a decline of ungulates from habitat loss/ tem-based management. The RMGBPC includes hunting, a decline of small mammals due to loss representatives of the wildlife agencies in of climax forest and a loss of habitat effective- Montana, B.C., Alberta, Parks Canada, USNPS ness in floodplains due to roads? Are human func- and USFWS who share responsibility for bears. tional replacements working? Where are they They are jointly mapping grizzly habitat, grizzly failing? Human-based management then looks at mortality sinks, etc. and pooling data on the socio-economic system which motivates our mortalities, management removals etc. to ensure behaviour, undertakes relative impact analysis to that the regional grizzly bear population is man- select a ‘Pareto’ solution, then implements by aged as one population rather than having B.C., managing humans, not the grizzly. Alberta and Parks Canada, for example, all count In other words, when wildlife officers is- each bear separately and pretend that no bears sue hunting tags and forestry officials estab- ever die outside their own jurisdiction. lish access management plans, they are The RMGBPC are overcoming perceptual im- managing humans, not elk, not ecosystems pacts by looking at grizzly bears as a popula- and not even roads. Human-based manage- tion. They are addressing human predation, ment accounts for this explicitly.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

128 A Process for the future purpose. It may or may not meet the needs of all individuals who need to be involved. We do not The RMGBPC works because concerned man- hold a monopoly on transboundary cooperation agers and scientists have taken the first step. in this region; we present this work only to They have created the forum and the communi- catalyze discussion. The Flathead/ Castle system cations structure through which they can address could be a model for ‘ecosystem/ human man- grizzly bear issues on a transboundary scale. agement’ across international borders. For the Flathead/ Castle system to be administered holistically, a similar device must be constructed. The Flathead Transboundary Network Your feedback is appreciated. was established in January 1998 to achieve this

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

129 State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

130 Appendix I: Processes to build upon

The Flathead/ Castle Transboundary Eco- Creeks. In late 1984 and early 1985 responding to system has been and increasingly is impacted increasing pressure from many quarters, the gov- by resource extraction activities, development ernments of Canada and the United States requested and recreational use. However, as noted by that an International Joint Commission “examine the Flathead Transboundary Council, as a and report on the water quality and quantity of the whole, the North Fork is in better condition Flathead River, with respect to the transboundary than any other transboundary riverine system water quality and quantity implications of the pro- in North America (Servheen 1992, May, 1993 posed coal mine on Cabin Creek.” Impacts to both cited in FTCSC 1993). According to a report recreation and fisheries were to be included. Rec- by Hovey and Teske (1993), the North Fork of ommendations have been discussed in the water the Flathead is one of the most intensively quality section (pp35-37) and throughout this re- studied areas on the continent, with over 340 port. They provide the baseline from which different animals representing seven of the transboundary planning could start. large mammal species having been radio-collared and studied. In addition, the majority of North Fork of Flathead River Conceptual these studies have been long-term. The Strategy/ Flathead Basin Commission numerous research projects and several The final recommendation by the International councils and committees formed to address Joint Commission in deciding against the Cabin wildlife and fisheries issues in the Castle/ Creek mine suggested that, “The governments Flathead region, clearly indicate the biologi- consider, with the appropriate jurisdictions, cal and political importance of the area. opportunities for defining and implementing compatible, equitable and sustainable development activities and management strategies in the International Approaches upper Flathead River basin.” In 1991, then Governor Stephens asked the International Joint Commission Flathead Basin Commission to initiate a process An International Joint Commission was es- directed at tablished to make recommendations on the ap- the above proval of a mine proposed by Rio Algom Ltd. goals. FBC In the late 1970’s Rio Algom Ltd. and its sub- organized a sidiary Sage Creek announced plans for a large Steering open pit mine approximately six miles north of Committee the U.S./ Canadian border on Howell and Cabin and Core

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

i Group consisting of major private landowner The mission of the Flathead Transboundary groups, federal, state, and local land manag- Council was: ers, as well as conservation and industry interests. After nine meetings plus a public to create an international umbrella of meeting in the North Fork, the Final Strategy protection that maintains the natural was adopted by consensus in September 1992. integrity of the Canadian B.C. and U.S. Principle goals were: North Fork portions of the Flathead River Basin. This wild and biologically diverse ♦ Preserve and if necessary restore water and region is of global significance. We air quality to sustain the environment for advocate an integrated, scientific and fish, wildlife, and people. ecosystem-based approach to management ♦ Preserve and if necessary restore the eco- established by international treaty. The logical integrity and biodiversity of the best opportunity for accomplishing this drainage including, but not limited to, the goal includes, but is not limited to, the many special designations including Glacier designation of an International National Park, Wild and Scenic River, Conservation Reserve (ICR). (FTC 1992). International Biosphere Reserve, and the habitat necessary to sustain endangered Such a plan would manage the entire North species (gray wolf, grizzly, and bald eagle) Fork as an ecological unit, working co-operatively and species of special concern such as bull with all transboundary agencies. trout and cutthroat trout. In a 1992 press release, the scientists on ♦ Provide for sustainable, multiple resource the Flathead Transboundary Council Science uses that meet the above goals. Committee explained the need for an Interna- tional Conservation Reserve: To date, the strategy has been endorsed by It is apparent to us that current management Glacier National Park, the U.S. Forest Service, is not focussing on conservation of the ecosys- DNRC, and private land groups. B.C. has not tem as a whole. Attention is focused on discrete, yet endorsed the plan. often politically polarized issues such as timber production and single-species management. Flathead Transboundary Council: Agencies guard their bureaucracies and budgets, The Flathead Transboundary Council was often ignoring the biological requirements of a formed in 1992 by North Fork landowners, healthy ecosystem. The result is a steady ero- individuals and conservation groups to develop sion of the ecosystem’s integrity. and promote the idea of an International Conser- The FTC proposed rehabilitation through re- vation Reserve for the upper Flathead drainage. forestation, reduced road density, stream bed im-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

ii provement, exotic plant control and other meth- Part I: North Fork of the Flathead (U.S.) Lands ods that reconnect natural ecosystem features. and Rehabilitation was to follow specific adaptive Part II: North Fork of the Flathead (Can.) Lands plans for each major sub-basin, with priority given to the most fragmented of drainages, such as Part I which was completed but never imple- Whale, Coal, Big, Cabin and Howell Creeks. (FTC mented included designating the perimeter of the 1992). According to the science advisory board, Flathead Transboundary Ecosystem and devel- the plans will enhance and restore: oping management standards for U.S. Federal and Montana State lands. Part II which was never 1) wildlife and fisheries habitat effectiveness completed was to develop management standards 2) water quality for the British Columbia portion of the North Fork. 3) sustained yield of forest products and jobs The ecological reserve design included an for forest workers ecosystem grounded management scheme which 4) recreational opportunities was based on the development of management 5) connectivity of landscape units within standards for 3 quantitative measures of eco- altitudinal continua and system health: old-growth forests; bull trout; and 6) rare species and outstanding natural areas roadless lands (FTC 1992). such as wetlands and floodplain Key features of the ecosystem plan (Part I: A plan which included public involvement, U.S.) were to: transboundary co-operation and public consulta- √ protect likely wildlife movement corridors tion with agencies has already been set in mo- between the “North Fork” and Glacier Park tion. Any future strategy should take this into and Canada account and work jointly to complement work √ protect riparian zones and headwater previously undertaken. As of this writing, it is streams unclear as to what level of activity exists with- √ restore low elevation clearcut areas to pro- in the Flathead Transboundary Council and the vide continuity or connectivity Scientific Advisory Committee. √ protect all remaining old-growth/ mature forests Flathead International Conservation √ establish connectivity among the largest old- Reserve Plan growth blocks The International Conservation Reserve Plan √ protect all remaining roadless areas was designed by the science advisory board of √ close all nonessential transportation roads the Flathead Transboundary Council. This plan √ protect and restore rare species and their consisted of two parts: habitat

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

iii The quantitative measures included the produce highly abnormal water and sedi- following: ment yields (the primary point source pollutant in the ecosystem). · percentage of old Big and Coal Creeks: (Zone 1b) Intensively growth above and below 5,000' estimated rehabilitate to reconnect ecosystem at- Old Growth: tributes along the altitudinal gradient. · percentage of pre- settlement old growth Reduce road density. Identify major sediment sources and rehabilitate. Reduce fines · percentage of drainage in Roadless: from 40% to 10%. Attempt to accelerate roadless condition growth to reduce habitat fragmentation. Consult on state of the art management Bsull trout: · redd and juvenile count practices for rehabilitation. · percentage of logging and Other Subbasins: (Zone 2) Individual manage- roading across the ment plans will be developed for each altitudinal gradient subbasin. The same attributes of old · size distribution and Fragmentation: connectivity of old growth/ bull trout/ roadless areas and growth stands concepts of re-establishment of altitudinal connectivity will be used. · number of intact old growth groves River Corridor: (Zone 3*) This zone is delineated on the working ICR map (US portion). Habitat · total road density The corridor includes potential nodes of high effectiveness: (miles/square miles) diversity identified by J. Stanford. No log- Rare, endangered, sensitive plant ging, road building or dwelling construction. · quantify and animal occurrences: Restoration may be necessary. Outstanding Natural Areas: (Zone 4) Areas that Oyutstanding Natural Areas: · quantif exhibit natural features or biological communities which contribute disproportionately to the biological diversity of the catchment Areas within the transboundary ecosystem basin. No development. Restoration may be were divided into zones and each zone included necessary (FTC 1992). standards as per the following: This was the beginning of an International Whale Creek: (Zone 1a) Cease logging and Conservation Reserve for the North Fork, yet close all roads after brief intensive reha- U.S. implementation did not occur and part II bilitation of slumps, roads and other (Canada) was never completed. localized areas of severe degradation that

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

iv Montana/ U.S. approaches Fork and its wildlife populations. One of the most important events of recent decades therefore, is Amendment 19 Road Closures and the approval by North Fork residents, and the pas- Restoration sage by Flathead County Commissioners, of a zon- As detailed above, Amendment 19 to the ing district to begin addressing this problem. Flathead National Forest Plan requires road clo- Residents of the North Fork are a diverse lot, and sures between 1995 and 2005 totally about 650 legendary for their independence, but co-operative miles, including many in the North Fork. The work and dedication by many over a 14 year pe- standards of A19 are based on actual female griz- riod, has resulted in the following clear standards; zly home ranges from the South Fork, and have set precedents that are being adopted by other 1. Minimum lot size for any new subdivisions forests and grizzly recovery areas. Implementa- shall be 20 acres. (Note -an 8/97 survey tion of the amendment could have far reaching found that 77.8% of respondents were op- and positive benefits for numerous species. A posed to new subdivisions). sample would include: 2. Establishes a minimum setback of 150 feet for new buildings from the high-water mark ♦ Improves water quality by lowering runoff of any year-round stream, river, or lake. from roads and sediments available to 3. Establishes a minimum setback from all streams. other public right-of-ways at 100 feet. ♦ Benefits bull and cutthroat trout by lessening 4. Permits businesses to erect advertising siltation of spawning beds. signs on-site, but prohibits off-site signs ♦ Improves habitat security/ effectiveness and except directional signs to a specific busi- lowers mortality risk for grizzlies and ness. These must be on private property and wolves, thereby promoting recovery. no larger than 4 sq.ft. ♦ Improves habitat security for elk, especially big bulls, increasing their numbers, and The above regulations should lessen the ap- improving overall demographics and vigour. peal of the area to developers since it prohibits ♦ Promotes habitat connectivity and core area the kind of lucrative, small lot subdivisions that stability benefitting species generally. completely fragment habitat. The stream setbacks will also buffer important riparian habi- North Fork Land Use Planning: tat and wildlife movement corridors. However, Development Code it must be noted that the above 20 acre mini- Many groups and individuals have noted that mum will slow, not stop, land conversion, and a unrestricted development and subdivision is one North Fork with too many 20 acre parcels could of the greatest threats to the integrity of the North still be significantly fragmented.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

v Nature Conservancy Planning Efforts essentially designated the North Fork as an Not only has Nature Conservancy played a key area where more primitive, less intensely de- role in the above planning regulations, and veloped recreation experiences would be avail- worked with the Flathead Basin Commission, it able. Second, the GMP can breathe new life into has also developed its own important Strategic the concept of managing the area as a single Plan for the North Fork. As mentioned several ecological unit, rather than a series of frag- times, if we are to safeguard the integrity of the mented jurisdictions and landscapes. region, it must be done co-operatively and com- prehensively throughout the drainage. The TNC plan seeks to do that, identifies threats, opportu- British Columbia Approaches nities and priorities, and lays out clear objectives: CORE/ Special Resource Management * Maintain the quality and integrity of riparian Zone: woodland/ wetland habitats. The Flathead River corridor has been desig- * Maintain the natural hydrologic regime and nated a Special Resource Management Zone existing high water quality. (SRMZ) under the Kootenay Boundary Land Use * Maintain the existing large mammal predator/ Plan, which came out of the CORE process. The prey relationships. British Columbia legislature created CORE (the * Maintain the complex of habitats that support Commissioner on Resources and Environment large mammals and other key species by Act) by statute in July 1992 to deal with land use protecting critical linkage zones. issues for the creation of a sustainable provincial land use strategy. At the heart of CORE would To accomplish these objectives, TNC is active be the development of comprehensive land use on both sides of the International Border. and resource management plans throughout the province, at the regional and community levels Glacier National Park General (CORE 1994). Management Plan The Special Management designation is In autumn,1998, Glacier has released the first applied in areas where there is concentration of update of its General Management Plan (GMP) special values such as fish and wildlife habitat, since 1977. The GMP is a critical document since biodiversity corridors, viewscapes, cultural and it will lay out the overall philosophy and guide- heritage values, backcountry recreation and lines for park management over the next 20 years. community watersheds; with the management The GMP provides a couple of key opportu- emphasis on conservation (CORE 1994). At the nities. First, it can build upon and expand CORE table, it was agreed that the Flathead is protections contained in the 1991 Environ- important wildland and the recommendation mental Assessment for the North Fork. The EA under CORE was to “maintain habitat in this area

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

vi for grizzly, wolf, large ungulates, and bull trout” Areas provide a valuable tool to help manage im- and to “maintain the integrity of the Flathead portant fish and wildlife habitat. The purpose of ecosystem as a priority” (CORE 1994). a WMA is “to encourage appreciation of the di- To date ‘Special Management’ has not been verse values of wildlife while ensuring the prov- defined. The Flathead is an area, which might ince’s wildlife heritage is passed on in deserve high priority when it comes to implement- undiminished splendour and value to future gen- ing the KBLUP and the guidelines that come with erations” (MELP no date). Under the authority the plan. The guidelines under the KBLUP pro- provided by the Wildlife Act, Wildlife Management vide a mechanism to protect key wildlife values Areas may be established where conservation and such as grizzly bear feeding and denning areas, management measures are considered essential migration routes, and fish habitat. An opportu- to the continued well being of resident or migra- nity exists at the provincial SRMZ committee tory wildlife that are of regional, national or glo- level to use the North Fork as a showcase exam- bal significance (MELP no date). ple of what ‘special management’ means. WMAs can encompass entire ecosystems, so as to include the range of habitats required by a Forest Practices Code: particular species or they may be limited to ar- There is an opportunity under the Forest eas that are essential to a species during a criti- Practices Code, a statute law, for planning at the cal life cycle phase (eg. spawning, rearing, landscape unit level. This act establishes a for- calving, denning or nesting). The designation may estry planning structure. Currently, the North be used to secure migration routes, critical win- Fork (LU16,17,18) has been identified as a third ter feeding areas, important habitat for endan- priority by the Ministry of Forests for this exer- gered, threatened, sensitive or vulnerable species, cise. As previously mentioned, a regional land- or areas of especially productive habitat and high scape unit plan has been completed at the species richness (MELP no date). If the Flathead regional level, which resulted in the Kootenay- were designated a WMA, wildlife would be given Boundary Land-Use Plan under CORE. A more top priority, but other activities could also be ac- detailed planning exercise within each landscape commodated if they were compatible with, or unit is required to identify the specific issues on manageable in terms of, wildlife objectives. the land. Preliminary landscape unit planning has very recently begun for landscape unit 18. Alberta Approaches: B.C. Wildlife Management Area The Castle area is currently managed by the On the B.C. side of the drainage, the North Fork Forest Service and the M.D. of Pincher Creek. might be an excellent candidate for a wildlife The planning documents which provide the guide- management area (WMA). Wildlife Management lines to these management agencies are:

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

vii a) A Policy for Resource Management of the The Eastern Slopes Policy consists of three Eastern Slopes (revised 1984) and broad management categories within which there b) Castle River Subregional Integrated Re- are eight defined land use zones. The regional source Plan land use zones are used to specify intents and c) Castle Access Management Plan objectives for each unit of land in the area (Gov- ernment of Alberta 1984). The relationship be- In addition, two past planning processes es- tween the two is outlined in Table 1 in Chapter 1. tablished recommendations that can illuminate Refer to this table for an outline of compatible future planning. activities in each land use zone. d) Natural Resources Conservation Board Castle River Subregional Integrated report on Westcastle Resort Resource Plan e) Special Places 2000 process The Castle River Subregional Integrated Re- source Plan was approved by the Alberta Cabi- A Policy for Resource Management of net and released in 1985. It serves to complement the Eastern Slopes the Eastern Slopes Policy and refines the regional The majority of the eastern slopes, of which zoning to the specific context of the Castle area, the Castle area is a part, is located in the ‘green using the same eight land use zones as defined area’ which consists of land that has been within the regional plan. The subregional integrated drawn from settlement (Government of Alberta resource plan takes precedence over the regional 1984). The Eastern Slopes Policy was released plan for management decisions in the Castle by the Alberta government in 1977 and revised region (AENR 1985). This plan is intended as a in 1984. The 1977 document excluded indus- guide rather than a regulatory mechanism and trial activity in all of the South Castle and West “is sufficiently flexible so that all future propos- Castle valleys (AWA, undated). The revised 1984 als for land use and development may be con- policy consists of less protective measures and sidered” (AENR 1985). The emphasis of the plan more emphasis on resource development. This is on watershed protection, recreation and tour- included permission for “restricted” oil and gas ism but it also provides guidance for the man- exploration and development in areas that were agement of timber, range, mineral and heritage previously slated for protection. The objective resources (AENR 1985). of the new policy is “...to ensure that all public The Integrated Resource Plan defines specific lands and resources in the Eastern Slopes are resource management objectives and applies protected, managed or developed according to them to five Resource Management Areas a philosophy of integrated resource manage- (RMA’s) in the Castle River subregion. These ment” (Government of Alberta 1984). areas and objectives are as follows:

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

viii Area A: Carbondale River-Lynx Creek These intent statements provide an overview The primary intent of this area is to allow for of the management emphasis for each area. De- utilization of the full range of available spite the fact that an area is zoned in a specific resources within a multiple-use context. category, activities that are not compatible in that zone may, at the discretion of the Minister, be Area B: O’Hagan-Adanac considered (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). This The primary intent of this area is to protect occurred on Prairie Bluff in 1988. This area in critical wildlife habitat. the Front Ranges was located in the prime protection zone. However, natural gas wells were Area C: Castle-Carbondale Corridor drilled there in 1988, an activity which is not con- The primary intent of this area is to pro- sidered “compatible” in this zone. vide for a diverse range of tourism and The Integrated Resource Plan is supposed to intensive recreation opportunities that are be reviewed annually by the Southern Region consistent with the maintenance of the Regional Resource Management Committee and natural environment. Intensive recreation a major plan review is to occur at five-year inter- is defined as high-density recreational use vals by the same committee (AENR 1985). The such as developed campgrounds, ski hills, Castle IRP is slated for review in 1999. golf courses and other sites requiring recreation management and services to main- Castle River Access Management Plan tain the recreation opportunities. The Castle River Access Management Plan (AMP) was initiated as a result of the subregional Area D: Castle-Front Range Headwaters integrated resource plan. In considering the man- The primary intent of this area is to provide agement of the area on an integrated basis one of for a wide range of extensive recreation op- the main issues raised by the public and provin- portunities. Extensive recreation is defined cial government was motorized recreational ac- as the recreational use of trails, natural lakes, cess (Rose et al 1988). The concerns with respect rivers and generally undeveloped or mini- to this use include impacts on other recreational mally developed areas. It includes activities use and wildlife, soil erosion, stream siltation and such as hiking, backpacking, cross-country degradation of aesthetics. Therefore the Castle skiing, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling. River AMP was developed to try to strike a balance between the use of the area by motorized Area E: Castle Foothills recreational vehicles and resource protection The primary intent of this area is to (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). This plan was maintain and manage the forage resource voluntary up until 1997 when the recommenda- for use by domestic livestock and wildlife. tions of the Castle Local Committee advised that (AENR 1985) the plan should be enforced.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

ix The Castle River AMP provides direction to 1993). Projects that are subject to review may on and off-highway vehicle users on the manage- not commence unless the NRCB has granted ment of their activity in the Castle region. This approval with the authorization of Cabinet. is done through the provision of a series of maps The Board concluded that the development that show the trails and roads on which this ac- could proceed, with some modification of its origi- tivity is permitted. A summer map indicates the nal plans, only if an area referred to as the trails that off-road vehicles may use and a winter Waterton-Castle Wildland Recreation Area map outlines snowmobile trails. The trails them- (WCWRA) was designated as a special area in selves are marked with symbols indicating return. The WCWRA would consist of 739 square whether it is a summer, winter or all-year round kilometres of land, within which there would be trail. Trails that are not marked are off limits to a small (56 km2) recreation area and a smaller (5 motorized recreational vehicles. km2) resort area where the development would occur. The Board stated that without protec- The West Castle Expansion and the tion of this special area the four-season resort NRCB Report would not be in the public interest as it would In 1992 Vacation Alberta Corporation, with the lead to severe degradation of a vulnerable area support of the Westcastle Development Authority (NRCB 1993). Activities such as logging, live- submitted an application to expand the stock grazing and off-road vehicle use would not Westcastle Park ski area, located in the West be permitted in the WCWRA. Castle Valley, into a four-season resort complex. The Board was concerned about the current The proposed Westcastle expansion included the pattern of land use in the Castle area and stated creation of new ski runs with four new lifts, that “the ecological resources of the area may snowmaking equipment, new day lodge facilities, not be sustainable even with existing use” (NRCB two 100-room hotels, condominium complexes, 1993). This also led them to conclude that if this staff-housing units and two golf courses (NRCB level of use continues to increase it could put the 1993). The application was submitted to the entire Crown of the Continent Ecosystem at risk Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)for of further deterioration. The Board also believed review. This board is established by the NRCB that “the general Waterton-Castle area is an area Act and is set up to “...provide for an impartial of very special value in terms of scenic beauty process to review projects that will or may af- and ecological importance for fish, wildlife, wa- fect the natural resources of Alberta in order ter and rare plants...and that Alberta could have to determine whether...the projects are in the a “superior product” to offer for tourism and rec- public interest, having regard to the social and reation development if such resources were pro- economic effects of the projects and the effect tected and managed wisely”. For these reasons of the projects on the environment.” (NRCB the Board’s decision included a further recom-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

x mendation that the proposed WCWRA be estab- lagoon and has recently purchased 20 additional lished and protected regardless of whether or not acres of land at the base of the ski hill from the the resort complex was developed (NRCB 1993). Westcastle Development Authority (Gilmar 1998). The government of Alberta accepted the recommendations put forth by the NRCB but vari- Special Places 2000 ous groups and individuals within the local Special Places 2000 was released in March communities found it unacceptable (Castle Local 1995 as Alberta’s Natural Heritage Policy. Committee 1997). The provincial government re- The vision of Special Places 2000 consists of acted by establishing the 14-member Castle River establishing a comprehensive network of pro- Consultation Group (CRCG) who would work to tected areas in Alberta that, together, achieve the reach a consensus as to how the NRCB decision goals of: protection of species and ecosystems, could be implemented in a way that satisfied the outdoor recreation, heritage appreciation and local communities. Consensus was reached on a tourism (Government of Alberta 1992). It aims to number of issues, however some members thought have this network in place in Alberta by the year logging should continue at the current levels and 2000. A protected area in this sense would be off-road vehicle use should be permitted as out- one that is legislated and managed to protect Al- lined in the Access Management Plan (Fischbuch berta’s heritage (Government of Alberta 1992). and Brodersen 1995). The NRCB felt that these Although the provincial government consid- activities were not compatible uses of a protected ers the Rocky Mountain Natural Region as fully area. This led four members to leave the commit- represented in protected areas, the Provincial tee and the government eventually abandoned the Coordinating Committee for Special Places was process (Fischbuch and Broderson 1995). given the task of addressing “hot spots” within Since this time piecemeal approval of various this natural region for consideration (Castle deve· · lopment components has been granted by Local Committee 1997). The Castle area was cho- the M.D. of Pincher Creek. The development plan sen as one of these hot spots. This led to the for 1996-2002 includes 150 residential lots, a new establishment of a Local Committee, chaired by ski rental shop, ski school and management of- the M.D. of Pincher Creek, who would make rec- fices, renovations to the existing day lodge, a 25- ommendations on the boundary, designation, ac- vehicle RV park, staff housing for 20, 100-room tivities and guidelines for the region to the overnight skier accommodation, food and bever- Minister of Environmental Protection. The Lo- age outlets and a new design for waterworks cal Committee consisted of 9 individuals from the (Mercon Engineering 1998). There have already surrounding area, none of who had any previous been 55 residential lots sold and a further 33 ap- involvement in trying to gain protective status proved (Wendy Francis, pers. comm.). CMR is also for the Castle area. This committee met over a in the process of securing approval for a sewage six-month period to discuss information pre-

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xi sented to them from the public, government offi- it is already located in Zones 1 and 2 and cials and industry followed by the development should therefore achieve proper manage- of draft recommendations for public review. ment through the IRP. However, the incor- A summary of the recommendations for the poration of preservation objectives in Zones Castle Candidate Area follows: 1 and 2 does not override any permitted uses or conditions under the IRP. i) Designation of the West Castle Wetlands as vi) Land management responsibility for the an ecological reserve with limited develop- area should remain with the Land and ment for interpretive\educational purposes Forest Service. and managed by the Land and Forest Serv- vii) The Castle Access Management Plan ice. should be adhered to and an adequate ii) Protection of two small areas within the budget for education, implementation, Asaani and Table Mountain nominations engineering (e.g. trail closures) and moni- through the land reservation system to toring concerns must be put in place. protect aboriginal values. viii) All motorized access in the Front Range iii) Designation of the area as the Castle canyons should be closed, with the exception Special Management Area (SMA) to be of South Drywood Canyon, which would stay managed as a multiple use area as set out in open from May to September. Where access the Castle River Subregional Integrated is required for industry in the closed Resource Plan (i.e. as it has been in the canyons, it should be gated. All existing past) with the implementation of the Castle industrial access not specified in the Castle Access Management Plan through a Forest AMP within the SMA should also be gated Land Use Zone regulation. for service vehicle use only. iv) The Castle River Subregional IRP must be ix) Industrial and commercial development updated to incorporate the Committee should be regulated by strict guidelines recommendations and this plan must be that minimize impact on terrain and kept current. sensitive areas. v) Existing Zone 1 (Prime Protection) and Zone 2 (Critical Wildlife) objectives should incorporate the goal of preservation in Moving Forward addition to watershed protection and critical These processes have created fodder for co- wildlife habitat. The committee makes no operative planning across provincial/ state recommendation for special designation of boundaries. They may provide guidance for next the Big Sage candidate natural area because steps taken after completion of this report.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xii References

Personal Communications Marr, Rey. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personal communication with A.Harris. Alexander, Mike. 1998. Alberta Forest Service. Martens, Warner. 1998. Shell Canada. Personal Personal communication with A.Stewart. communication with A.Stewart. Atlas Lumber. 1998. Personal Communication with Mitchell, Ed and Shirley. 1992. Castle Area Resi- A.Stewart. dents. Personal communication with M. Gerrand. Bonertz, Winona. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Mulzet, Glen. 1998. Shell Canada. Personal commu- Personal Communication with A.Harris. nication with A.Stewart. Clark, Jim. 1998. Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Personal Norstrom, Wayne. 1998. Alberta Environmental communication with A.Stewart. Protection Fish and Wildlife Division. Personal Clark, Jim and Wayne Norstrom. 1998. Alberta communication with A.Stewart. Environmental Protection Fish and Wildlife Potter, Jack. 1998. Chief Ranger, Glacier National Division. Personal communication with J. Gilmar. Park. Personal communication with B. Peck. Davidson Peter. 1998. Forest Ecosystem Riviere, James. 1992. Outfitter. Personal communica- Specialist,Ministry of Environment, Lands and tion with A.Harris. Parks. Personal communication with E. Konrad Russell, Andy. 1992. Author and outfitter. Personal Downes, Lee. 1998. Long time North Fork resident, communication with M.Gerrand. Montana. Personal communication with B. Peck. Schneider, Ken. 1998. Alberta Forest Service. Per- Ecklund, Jack. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personal sonal communication with A.Stewart. communication with A. Harris. Streloff, Ken. 1998. Planner, Crestbrook Forest Indus- Evans, Art. 1992. Chief Ranger, Alberta Forest tries. Personal communication with E. Konrad Service, Blairmore. Personal communication with Tchir, Ron. 1998. Alberta Environmental Protection M. Gibbard and D. Sheppard Environmental Services. Personal communication Francis, Wendy. 1998. Canadian Parks and Wilder- with A.Stewart. ness Society. Personal communication with Van Tighem, Kevin. 1998. Conservation Biologist, A.Stewart. Waterton Lakes National Park. Personal communi- Grieve Dave. 1998. Mineral Lands Planner, Ministry cation with C.Stewart. of Employment and Investment. Personal commu- Westover Bill. 1998. Fisheries Biologist, Ministry of nication with E. Konrad. Environment, Lands and Parks. Personal communi- Hayden, Brace. 1998. Ecosystem Specialist, cation with E. Konrad Glacier National Park. Personal communica- Wig, Daryl. 1998. Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Personal tion with B. Peck. communication with A.Stewart. Jones, Frank. 1992. Chief Ranger at Castle River Wilson, Larry. 1998. Long time North Fork resident, Ranger Station (1949-1953). Personal communica- Montana. Personal communication with B. Peck. tion with A.Harris. Judd, Stan. 1992. Outfitter. Personal communication Bibliography with A.Harris. Kehr, Morgan. 1998. Alberta Forest Service. Personal Achuff, Peter. 1992. Natural Regions and Subregions communication with A.Stewart. of Alberta. A Revised Classification for Protected Kubasek, Steve. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personal Areas Management. Canmore, AB. communication with A.Harris. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources (AENR). McDonald Les. 1998. Senior Impact Assessment 1985. Castle River Sub-Regional Integrated Re- Biologist, Ministry of Environment, source Plan. AENR, Resource Evaluation and Lands and Parks. Personal communication with E. Planning Division, Edmonton, AB. 113pp. Konrad Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). 1994. McLaughlin, Frank.1992. Rancher and Stock Rider Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating in Pincher Creek area. Personal communication Ground Rules. Land and Forest Service, Edmon- with A.Harris. ton, AB. 70pp. McLellan Bruce. 1998. Bear Biologist, Ministry of Forests. Personal communication with E. Konrad

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xiii AEP. 1994. Alberta’s Threatened Wildlife - Bull Anderson, Howard. 1978. Biophysical Analysis and Trout (Information Brochure). Alberta Fish and Evaluation of Capability - Castle River Area. Wildlife Services, Edmonton, AB. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. 72pp. AEP. 1995. Wolves in Alberta - Their Characteristics, Appleman, Richard A., Noble, Roger A. et al. 1990. History, Prey Relationships and Management. AEP, Baseline Water-Quality Conditions for the North Edmonton, AB. Fork Flathead River, British Columbia and Mon- AEP. 1995. Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in tana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geologym, Alberta. Natural Resources Service, Edmonton, AB. Open-File Report 233. 69 pp. AEP. 1996. The Status of Alberta Wildlife. AEP, Apps, C. 1996. Bobcat (Lynx rufus) habitat selection Natural Resources Service, Edmonton, AB. 44pp. and suitability assessment in southeast British AEP. 1997. Bears in Alberta - Their Characteristics, Columbia. M.S. Thesis. University of Calgary, History, Behaviour and Management. AEP, Ed- Calgary, Alberta. monton, AB. Ayers, Dayna. Undated. The Rocky Mountain Front: Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (AFWD). 1986. A Landscape in Transition in Nutcracker Notes Summary of Resident and Registered Trapline fur (http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/ Harvests for the Southern Region. AFWD, number7.html). USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Lethbridge. 14pp + appendix (with 1992 update). Montana. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife (AFLW). 1989. Barrett, Stephen W. 1996. Historic Role of Fire in Management Plan for Mule Deer in Alberta. Fish Waterton Lakes National Park. and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. 141pp. Basaraba, Rhonda. 1977. Grizzly Bear Management AFLW. 1990. Management Plan for Grizzly Bears in in the Flathead Region of British Columbia. Alberta. Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Beaty, C.B. 1975. The Landscapes of Southern AB. 164pp. Alberta: A Regional Geomorphology. Univ. AFLW. 1991(a). Management Plan for Wolves in Lethbridge Printing Services, Lethbridge. 95pp. Alberta. Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Behnke, R.J. 1972. The rationale of preserving AB. 89pp. genetic diversity: examples of the utilization of AFLW. 1991(b). The Status of Alberta Wildlife. Fish intraspecific races of salmonid fishes in fisheries and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. management. Proceedings of the Annual confer- AFLW. 1992. Southern Region Recommended 1992/ ence Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 93 Big Game numbers: Special Licences and Agencies 52:559-561. Authorizations. Fish and Wildlife Division, Berglund, Doug. 1997. Comparison of the Departure Lethbridge, AB. 13pp. of Current Vegetation Conditions From Historical Alberta Forest Service. 1992. Castle River Access Vegetation Conditions. Flathead National Forest Management Plan for Motorized Recreational Note No. 11, 9pp. Access. Project Summary Document - Final Bishop, Frank. 1995. Presentation made to the Castle Draft. 26pp. River Consultative Group: A Summary of East Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. 1992. Atlas Slope Stream Management (Southern Region). of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Alberta Fish and Wildlife, Lethbridge, AB. Naturalists. Boag, T.D. and P.J. McCart. 1993. Baseline studeis of Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA). Undated (a). bull and cutthroat trout in the West Castle River, Wildlands for Recreation - 9 Areas on Alberta’s Alberta. Prepared for Vacation Alberta Corpora- East Slope. Alberta Wilderness Association, tion and HBT-AGRA Ltd. 52pp + appendices. Calgary, AB. 123pp. Border Grizzly Technical Committee. Grizzly Studies, AWA. Undated (b). Saving the South Castle and North Fork of the Flathead River. Protecting Waterton Park - The Struggle Through Boyd, Diane K., Ream, Robert R., et al. 1994. Prey the Decades. AWA, Calgary, AB. 5pp. Taken by Colonizing Wolves and Hunters in the AWA. 1982. Interviews with Art Sandford and Judge Glacier National Park Area. J. Wildlife Manage. McLaughlin. AWA Files. Calgary, AB. 58(2):289-295. AWA. 1986. Eastern Slopes Wildlands - Our Living Boyd, Diane. 1982. Coyote Wolf Interactions with Heritage. AWA, Calgary, AB. 119pp. regard to Food Habits and Movements in the North Alley, N.F. 1973. Glacial stratigraphy and the limits Fork Flatheaad Drainage. of the Rocky Mountain and Laurentide ice sheets Broderson, Louise. 1996. The Impact of Logging on in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Bull. Can. Pet. Soils in the Castle Wilderness. Castle-Crown Geol. 21(2): 153-177. Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xiv Brooks, Lynn. 1997. The Wolf in Southwestern Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Water Alberta: Valued Predator or Vermin? Castle- Quality for the Future of the Flathead - North Fork Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB. Baseline. Flathead Drainage 208 Project. 33 pp. Bucholtz, C.W. 1993. Man in Glacier. Glacier Natural Ernst, Reg. 1996. Livestock Grazing as a Disturbance History Association, West Glacier, Montana. 88 pp. in the South Castle Region of Alberta. Special Byrne, Ray. 1993. Castle Drainage Creel Survey. Publication No. 9 of the Castle-Crown Wilderness Castle Local Committee. 1997. “A Living Document”. Coalition. 14pp. Recommendations of the Castle Local Committee to Espeseth, K.J. 1979. The Proposed Cabin Creek Coal the Minister of Environmental Protection on the Development: the Social Impact for the North Fork Castle Candidate Area. 18pp. of the Flathead River. M.S. thesis. University of Castle Crown Wilderness Coalition. 1993. Submis- Montana, Missoula. 366 pp. sion of the Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition in Estes, J.A, Tinker M.T., WIlliams T.M. Doak D.F. Intervention Submission of West Castle Ecosystem 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters link- Coalition Re Application #9201 by Vacation Al- ing oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science berta Corporation. Calgary, AB. 282: 369-580 Caton, Elaine L. 1996. Effects of Fire and Salvage Fairbarns, Matt. 1986. Conservation Values and Logging on the Cavity-nesting Bird Community in Management Concerns in the Candidate South Northwestern Montana. Phd. thesis, University of Castle Natural Area. AFLW Public Lands Divi- Montana, Missoula. 115 pp. sion, Edmonton, AB. 79pp. Caw, G.B. 1976. B.C. Fish & Wildlife. An Inventory of Fernet, David A. 1993. Significant Fisheries Issues the Flathead River and tributaries. Stream Inven- Associated with the West Castle Expansion. EMA tory, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. 207 pgs. Environmental Management Associates Ltd., Coleman, Ben. 1996. Old Growth and the Castle Calgary, AB. Wilderness. Discussion Paper #5. Castle-Crown Finklin. 1986. A climatic handbook for Glacier Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB. National Park - with data for Waterton Lakes Cormack, R.G.H. 1956. Spruce-fir climax vegetation in National Park. USDA Forest Service, Colorado. southwestern Alberta. For. Chron. 32(3): 346-349. Fischbuch, C. and L. Broderson. 1996. State of the COSEWIC. 1998. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Castle Wilderness. Fourth Annual Report 1995. Crowsnest Pass Historical Society. 1979. Crowsnest Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, and its People. Friesen Printers, Calgary, AB. 914pp. AB. 15pp. Demarchi, R.A., B.N. McLellan, A.D. Martin, J.D. Fischbuch, C. and M. Gerrand. 1995. State of the Martin. July 1981. The B.C. Fish and Wildlife Castle Wilderness. Third Annual Report 1994. Branchís Position on Cattle Grazing in the Flathead Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, Watershed. A report prepared for the British AB. 15pp. Columbia Ministry of Forests. Fitch, Lorne. 1994. Bull trout in southwestern Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Alberta: Notes on Historical and Current Distri- Montana. August 1998. Draft Environmental bution. AEP Fish and Wildlife Services, Impact Statement, Cyclone/ Coal Timber Harvest. Lethbridge, AB. 163 pp. plus appendices. Flathead Basin Commission. 1998. Flathead Lake Doell, Alison. 1997. State of the Castle Wilderness. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), Recom- Fifth Annual Report. Castle-Crown Wilderness mended Water Quality Targets and Load Reduc- Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB. 17pp. tion, 2/18/98. Dupuis, Linda A. April 1997. Status and Distribution Flathead Basin Commission. July 1996. Draft Coop- of the Tailed Frog in British Columbia. Centre for eration Agreement Between the Province of British Applied Conservation Biology, Faculty of Forestry. Columbia and the State of Montana. 2 pp. (Not University of British Columbia. enacted.) Environmental Management Associates. Assessment Flathead Basin Commission. 1995-1996 Biennial of Federal-Provincial Water Quality Data for the Report. 54 pp Flathead and Simikameen Rivers. February 1994. Flathead Basin Commission. 1993-1994 Biennial Prepared for the coordinating committee of the Report. 48 pp. Canada-B.C. Water Quality Monitoring Agreement Flathead Basin Commission. 1991-1992 Biennial by Environmental Management Associates. 123pp. Report. 78 pp.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xv Flathead Basin Commission. June 1991. Flathead Gerrand, Michael and Dave Sheppard. 1993. State Basin Forest Practices, Water Quality and Fisheries of the Castle Wilderness. First Annual Report Cooperative Program - Final Report. 215 pp 1992. Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality and Pincher Creek, AB. Fisheries Cooperative. 1991. Final Report: Gerrand, Michael, Ardell Harris and Dave Sheppard. Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality and Undated. History of the Castle Wilderness. Spe- Fisheries Cooperative. cial Publication #5. Castle-Crown Wilderness Flathead Basin Commission. 1989-1990 Biennial Coaltion, Pincher Creek, AB. Report. 51 pp. Gibbard, Marianne J. and David H. Sheppard. 1992. Flathead Basin Commission. 1988. Biennial Report. Castle Wilderness Environmental Inventory. 100+ pp. Special Publication No.1, Castle-Crown Wilderness Flathead Basin Commission. April 25-26, 1988. Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB. 168pp. Conference, Our Clean Water - Flathead’s Resource Gilmar Jeff. 1998. State of the Castle Wilderness. for the Future. 226 pp. Sixth Annual Report 1997. Castle-Crown Wilder- Flathead Basin Commission . 1985. Biennial Re- ness Coalition. 25pp. port. 47 pp. Glacier National Park. 1991. Management Plan Flathead Lake Monitor, Newsletter of the Flathead Environmental Assessment - North Fork Study Lakers. Spring 1998. 8 pp. Area. 90 pp. Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study - Glacier National Park. Avifauna of the North Fork of Final Report. June 1983. 184 pp. the Flathead River Flodd Plain, Glacier National Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Mine Park 1976 Progress Report. Development Committee, Flathead River Interna- Government of Alberta. 1984. A Policy for Resource tional Study Board, December 1986. Management of the Eastern Slopes, Revised. Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Water Edmonton, AB. Quality Criteria Subcommittee Technical Report. Government of Alberta. 1992. Special Places 2000: May 1987. Alberta’s Natural Heritage. Completing Alberta’s Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Board Endangered Spaces Network. Draft. Report. July 1988. Gudmundson, L. 1980. Region 1 Summer Goat Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Water Survey (Continental Divide - South #3 Highway). Quality and Quantity Committee Technical Report. AFWD, Lethbridge, AB. August 1987. Gudmundson, L. 1988. Southern Region Bighorn Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Biological Sheep Survey. AFLW Fish and Wildlife Division. Resources Committee, Technical Report. 1987. Gudmundson, L. 1990. Southern Continental Divide Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Water Goat Survey (Waterton Lakes National Park to Uses Committee Technical Report. Dec. 1987. Crowsnest Pass). AFWD, Lethbridge, AB. Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Gudmundson, L. 1992. Southern Continental Divide Limnology Task Force Report on Flathead Lake, Goat Survey (WLNP to Crowsnest Pass). AFWD, MT. Dec. 1986. Lethbridge, AB. Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) Board Hanson, W.R. 1973. Forest Utilization and Its Envi- Supplementary Report. June 30, 1988. ronmental Effects in Alberta. Alberta Environ- Flathead River International Study Board, Biological ment Conservation Authority, Edmonton. 66pp. Resources Committee. 1987. Predicted Impacts of HBT AGRA Limited. 1992. West Castle Expansion the Proposed Sage Creek Coal Limited Mine on the Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 1. Aquatic and HBT HBT AGRA Limited, Calgary, AB. Hubbard, W.F. 1975. Preliminary Assessment and Horejsi, Brian L. 1986. Status of the Grizzly Bear in Analysis of Vegetation and Wildlife within the the South Castle - Waterton Lakes National Park Howell Creek - Cabin Creek Coal Mining Area, Region of Alberta. Report. Flathead Valley. (Victoria) Hornbeck, G.E., P. Balagus and R. Lauzon. 1992. Flathead Transboundary Council Science Committee. Wildlife Track Counts in the West Castle Wildlife 1993. Flathead International Conservation Reserve Study Area, December, 1991. Technical Report to Plan, Part I - North Fork of the Flathead (U.S.) the EIA for the proposed West Castle Four Season Lands. 13 pp. Resort Development. Delta Environmental Man- agement Group Ltd., Calgary, AB. 16pp.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xvi Hovey, F. and B.N. McLellan. Draft 1994. Estimating Kootenay Boundary Land-Use Plan. June 1997. Population Growth of Grizzly Bears from the KBLUP Implementation Strategy: Appendix 3 - Flathead River Drainage using computer Land and Resource Management Direction within simulations of reproductive and survival rates. the Cranbrook Forest District. Hovey, F. and B.N. McLellan. Final 1995. Estimating Kovach, J. 1979. Holocaust on the Castle River in Population Growth of Grizzly Bears from the 1936 in Crowsnest and Its People. Crowsnest Pass Flathead River Drainage using computer Historical Society, Coleman, AB. pp. 352-354. simulations of reproductive and survival rates. Kuijt, Job. 1993. Report on the Rare Plants of the Hummel, M. and S. Pettigrew. 1991. Wild Hunters: West Castle Area in Connection with Vacation Predators in Peril. Key Porter Books, Ltd., To- Alberta Application #9201 in Intervention Submis- ronto, Ontario. 244pp. sion of West Castle Ecosystem Coalition re: Appli- International Joint Commission. 1988. Impacts of a cation #9201 by Vacation Alberta Corportation. Proposed Coal Mine in the Flathead River Basin. Calgary, AB. 24pp. International Joint Commission. June 1985. Reference Kunkel, Kyran E. 1997. Predation by Wolves and Documents, Flathead River Reference. Other Large Carnivores in Northwestern Montana Jaques, D. 1980. Ecological analysis of wildlife and Southeastern British Columbia. Phd. thesis. habitat in Red Deer County, Alberta. Kan. Centre University of Montana, Missoula. 272 pp. for Envir. Res., Univ. of Calgary. Kunkel, Kyran E. and Daniel H. Pletscher. 1995. Johnson, Olga W. 1969. Flathead and Kootenay, The Cervid-wolf relationships in the North Fork of Rivers, The Tribes and the Region’s Traders. the Flathead River: progress report July 1993- Glendale. June 1994. Jonkel, C., Bumgarner T. and L.C. Lee. 1981. Grizzly Kunkel, Kyran E. and Daniel H. Pletscher. 1995. Final Bears and the North Fork of the Flathead River Report: Cervid-wolf relationships in the North Flood Plain. Fork of the Flathead River, Part II: Elk. Jonkel, C. and B.N. McLellan. 1979. Grizzly Bear Landals, Maureen. 1974. Castle-Crowsnest - A Study Status Report, Flathead Area, B.C. Survey of Park Potential. Alberta Department of Kendall, Katherine, David Schirokauer, Erin Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. Shanahan, Rob Watt, Dan Reinhart, Roy Renkin, Langley, Margaret A. 1993. Habitat Selection, Steve Cain and Gerry Green. 1996a. Whitebark Mortality and Population Monitoring of Shiras pine health in Northern Rockies National Park Moose in the North Fork of the Flathead River Ecosystems in Nutcracker Notes (http:// Valley, Montana. www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier /number7html). Lyon, Jack L. 1979. Influences of timber harvesting Missoula, MT. and residue management on big game in Environ- Kendall, Katherine, Dayna Ayers and David mental Consequences of Timber Harvesting, Symp. Schirokauer. 1996b. Limber Pine Status from Proc. Missoula, Montana. pp. 441-447. Alberta and Wyoming in Nutcracker Notes (http:// Lea, E.C., B.L. Fuhr and L.E.H. Lacelle. December www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/number7.html). 1988. Grizzly bear habitat of the Flathead River Missoula, MT. area: expanded legend. 24 pgs. Kerr, G.R. 1979. Flora and fauna of the Crowsnest Lesica, P. 1996. Using Fire History Models to Esti- River Drainage in Crowsnest and Its People. mate Proportions of Old Growth Forest in North- Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, Coleman, AB. west Montana, USA. Biological Conservation pp. 20-23. 77:33-39. Ketter, D. 1980. Cambium feeding on forest trees by Lloyd, K. Results of Field Trip to Game Management bears in the Upper Flathead River Drainage of Area 5-1 (Flathead) Southeastern British Columbia. MacDonald, D.D. July 24-25, 1985. Proceedings of Key, Carl. 1979. Small Mammal Utilization of the FRB Bull trout biology and population dynam- Floodplain Habitats along the North Fork Flathead ics modelling information exchange. River. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univer- MacDonald Graham A. 1992. Where the Moun- sity of Montana, Missoula. tains Meet the Prairies: A History of Waterton Kootenay Boundary Land-Use Plan. 1997. KBLUP Lakes National Park. Environment Canada Parks Implementation Strategy. Service. 165pp. MacLeod, Norm. 1983. Framework for Planning Access: the Flathead, Cranbrook Forest District.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xvii Mattson, David J., Stephen Herrero, R. Gerald Wright McLellan, B.N. 1980. Akamina-Kishinena Grizzly and Craig M. Pease. 1996. Science and Manage- Project Progress Report. B.C. Fish and Wildlife ment of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears. Conserva- Branch, Carnbrook. Rept 49pp. tion Biology. 10:1013-1025. McLellan, B.N. 1981. Flathead grizzly Project May, A.C. 1993. Protection of Predator/ Prey Diver- Progress Report. Report to contributors. 81pp. sity in the North Fork Valley of the Flathead River: Draft. Cranbrook. a Case Study for Land Use Planning. M.S. thesis. McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Grizzly bears University of Montana, Missoula. 84 pp. plus and resource-extraction industries: Effects of Roads appendices. on Behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal Mayhood, David W. 1996. Historical Transformation of Applied Ecology (1988) 25, 451-460 of the Fish fauna of the Central Canadian Rockies McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Grizzly bears in Research Links - A Forum for Natural, Cultural and resource-extraction industries: Habitat Dis- and Social Studies. Parks Canada, Alberta and placement in Response to Seismic Exploration, Pacific-Yukon Regions. Timber Harvesting and Road Maintenance. Jour- Mayhood, Dave, Rob Ament, Rich Walker and Bill nal of Applied Ecology (1989) 26, 371-380 Haskins. 1998. Selected Fishes of Yellowstone to McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. A Comparison Yukon: Distribution and Status in A Sense of Place of grizzly bear harvest data from Montana and - Issues, Attitudes and Resources in the Southeastern British Columbia. Wildl.Soc. Bull. Yellowstone to Yukon Ecoregion, Canmore, AB. 16:371-375, 1988. McDonald, J. and N.M. Strosher. 1986. Mine Devel- McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Immediate opment Committee Report Proposed Sage Creek reactions of Grizzly bears to human activities. Coal Limited Mine Signed Copy (Dec. 1986). Wildl.Soc.Bull. 17:269-274, 1989. Flathead River International Study. Mann, G.J. 1976. Fisheries Investigations in the McLellan, B.N. Habitat Selection by Ungulates Flathead River Drainage, B.C.: A Preliminary Data Wintering in the Flathead River Drainage, BC. Report for Sage Creek Coal Ltd. and Rio Algom Ltd. McLellan, Bruce N. 1991. Relationships between Mantas, Maria. 1998. Vascular Flora of the Flathead resource extraction industries and grizzly bears in National Forest, USFS, 29 pp. the Flathead River drainage in McCann, R.K. Marnell, Leo F. 1997. Herpetofauna of Glacier Na- Grizzly Bear Management Workshop Proceedings, tional Park. Reprinted from Northwestern Natural- Revelstoke, B.C. ist, Vol. 78, No. 1, Spring 1997. 33 pp. McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula- Matteson, M. 1993. Denning ecology of wolves in tion during a period of industrial resource extrac- northwest Montana and southern Canadian tion. I. Density and age-sex composition. Depart- Rockies. MS Thesis, University of Montana, ment of Animal Science, University of British Missoula. 63pp. Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A2, McKay, Katheryn L. 1997. Looking Back : A pictorial received April 22, 1988. History of the Flathead Valley, Montana. North- McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula- west Montana Historical Society. 224 pp. tion during a period of industrial resource extrac- Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1997- tion. II. Mortality rates and causes of death. 1998. Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Department of Animal Science, University of British Columbia. British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. 2A2, received April 22, 1988. Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia. McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula- Background Report. Ministry of Environment, tion during a period of industrial resource extrac- Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. tion. III. Natality and rate of increase. Department Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Elk- of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, Flathead Operational Wildlife Management Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A2, received April Plan. 1987 22, 1988. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Densities McLellan, B.N. Relationships between human of Wintering Ungulates in the Flathead Watershed. indsutrial activity and grizzly bears. Flathead Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. May Grizzly Project, Box 700, Marysville, British 1984. Elk - Flathead Strategic Environmental Columbia, Canada, V0B 1Z0 Management Plan.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xviii Ministry of Forests. 1988. Coming of Age in the North Fork Land Use Planning Committee. Summer Flathead: How the British Columbia Forest Service 1986, Amended 1992. North Fork Flathead River contended with the Mountain Pine Beetle Infesta- Valley Land Use Plan, Camas Creek to Canadian tion of Southeastern British Columbia 1976-1985. Border. 63 pp. Pest Management Report Number 10. Parks Canada. 1995. Guidelines for Old Forest Ministry of Forests. Cooperative Study of Multiple Management in Elk Island, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay Use of Natural Resources of the North Fork of the and Waterton Lakes National Parks. Flathead Valley. 1960. Peden A.E. and G.W. Hughes. 1982. Status report of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. Update, 10/ the shorthead sculpin in the Flathead River, British 22/98, Bull Trout Counts Up in the Flathead, Swan. Columbia. B.C. Prov. Museum, Victoria. 82pp. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. Harvest data, Pederson, Richard J. 1986. Management and impacts 1987-1997 for White-tailed and Mule Deer, Elk, of roads in relation to elk populations in USDA Moose, Mountain Lion, and Black Bear, HD 110. Forest Service, Recreational Impact on Wildlands: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. October Conference Proceedings, Seattle, Washington. update on status and trend of westslope cutthroat Peek, J.M., M.R.Pelton, H.D.Picton, J.W.Schoen and populations in the North Fork of the Flathead. Peter Zager. 1987. Grizzly bear conservation and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1982. Fish and management: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Habitat Inventory of the Streams in the North Fork 15:160-169. of the Flathead River. Sponsored by Environmental Perraton, Dave. 1994. Submission to the Castle River Protection Agency. 181 pp. Consultative Group. Alberta Parks Service, Montana Interagency Wolf Working Group. 1990. Lethbridge. Annual Report. 28 PP. Perry, Charles and Robert Overly. 1976. Impact of Montana Natural Heritage Program. 11/10/98. roads on big game distribution in a portion of the Species of Special Concern : North Fork Flathead Blue Mountains of Washington. Proc. Elk-Logging- Watershed, Latalong 02, Quarters B & D. Roads Symp., Univ. Idaho, pp. 62-68. Morgantini Luigi E. 1991. Prairie Bluff Bighorn Pincher Creek Historical Society. 1974. Prairie Grass Sheep Study Final Report. Wildlife to Mountain Pass. History of the Pioneers of Resources Consulting Ltd. Edmonton, AB. 33pp. Pincher Creek and District. Pincher Creek Histori- Morgantini Luigi E. 1992. Movements and Distribu- cal Society, Pincher Creek, AB. 867pp. tion of Elk Southwest of Pincher Creek. Project Pletscher, Daniel H., Ream, Robert R. et al. 1996. Update. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 7pp. Population Dynamics of a Recolonizing Wolf Morgantini, Luigi E. 1993. The West Castle River Population. In Press, J. of Wildlife Mgmt. 23 pp. Valley: Ecology, Distribution and Movements of Pletscher, D.H., Ream, R.R. et al. 1991. Managing Elk, Bighorn Sheep, Moose and Other Ungulates Wolf and Ungulate Populations in an International and the Potential Impact of the Proposed Four Ecosystem. N. Am. Wildland Nat. Res. Conf. : 56. Season Resort in Intervention Submission of West Pletscher, Daniel. 1990 Annual Report: Gray Wolf Castle Ecosystem Coalition re: Application #9201 Prey Base Ecology in the North Fork of the by Vacation Alberta Corporation, Calgary, AB. Flathead River Drainage. Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). 1993. Powell, Roger A. and William J. Zielinski. 1994. Application to Construct Recreational and Tourism Fisher in American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Facilities in the West Castle Valley, near Pincher Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Creek, Alberta. Decision Report. Natural Re- Forest Service, Colorado. pp. 38-73 sources Conservation Board, Edmonton, AB. Primm, Steven A. 1996. A pragmatic approach to Nature Conservancy. 1994. Five Year Strategic Plan grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology. for the North Fork of the Flathead River. 52 pp. 10: 1026-1035. Nielson, P.L. 1973. Mammals of Waterton Lakes PRISM Environmental Management Consultants. National Park. CWS, Edmonton, AB. 176pp. 1982. A Review of Petroleum Industry Operations North Fork Community and Friends. 1996. The and Other Land Use Activities Affecting Wildlife. North Fork : Living With Wildlife. 13 pp. Canadian Petroleum Producers. Edmonton, AB. North Fork Land Use Planning Committee. 1998. Quinlan, Richard. 1997. Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Survey Regarding Draft Regulations and North Personal communication with A. Doell. Fork Land Development Code - Draft #1. 2 pp.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xix Rachael,J. S. 1992. Mortality and Seasonal Distribu- Reeves, Brian. 1979. Prehistoric Peoples of the tion of White-tailed Deer in an Area Recently Crowsnest Pass in Crowsnest and Its People. Recolonized by Wolves. M.S. thesis. University of Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, Coleman, AB. Montana, Missoula. 115 pp. pp.13-19. Rasker, R. and A. Hackman 1996. Economic Develop- Regional Resource Management Committee. 1990. ment and the Conservation of Large Carnivores. Castle River Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Conservation Biology. Vol.10, No. August 1996. Planning Annual Report 1989/1990. AFLW, pgs.991-1002. Southern Region, Lethbridge. 29pp. Ream, R., R. Harris, J. Smith and D. Boyd. 1985. Renewable Resources Sub-Committee. 1989. A Place Movement patterns of a lone wolf in unoccupied for Wildlife. Environment Council of Alberta, wolf range, southeastern British Columbia. Cana- Edmonton, AB. 39pp. dian Field Naturalist 99(2):234-239. Rennie, Jim and Garry Szabo. 1993. Regional Ream, Robert R., Fairchild, Michael W. et al. 1991. Sportfishing Issues Associated with the West Castle Population Dynamics and Home Range Changes Expansion in Intervention Submisssion of West in a Colonizing Wolf Population, p: 349-366 in Castle Ecosystem Coalition re: Application #9201 The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - Redefining by Vacation Alberta Corporation. Calgary, AB. America’s Wilderness Heritage by Robert Keiter Ringstad, N.R. and R.A. Demarchi. 1976. North and Mark Boyce. Fork of the Flathead: A Canadian View. Western Ream, Robert R., Pletscher, D.H., Boyd, D.K., Wildlands. Spring 1976. Fairchild, M.W. 1991. Population Dynamics and Rodney, William. 1996. Kootenai Brown: Canada’s Movements of Recolonizing Wolves in the Glacier Unknown Frontiersman. Heritage House Publish- National Park Area. Annual Report, 1 September ing Company Ltd, Surrey, B.C. 256pp. 1990 - 31 August 1991. School of Forestry, Univ. of Rose, C.D., D.E. Wig and V.C. Craig. 1988. Castle River Montana. 21 PP. Sub-region Access Management Plan Background Ream, R.R., Pletscher, D.H., et al. 1990. Population Paper. Department of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Dynamics and Movements of Recolonizing Wolves Ruth, Toni K., Jonkel, Jamie J. et al. 1994. Mountain in the Glacier National Park Area. Annual Report, Lion-Wolf Interaction in the North Fork of the 1 October 1989 - 31 August 1990. School of For- Flathead River, Montana. Progress Report, August estry, Univ. of Montana. 28 PP. 1994. 25 PP. Ream R.R., Pletscher, D.H. et al. 1988. Population Schindler D.W. 1998. Aquatic Issues in the Dynamics and Movements of Recolonizing Wolves Yellowstone to Yukon in A Sense of Place - Issues, in the Glacier National Park Area. Annual Report, Attitudes and Resources in the Yellowstone to 1 July 1987 - 30 September 1988. School of For- Yukon Ecoregion. Canmore, AB. estry, Univ. of Montana. 24 PP. Sheehan, S.W., G.L. Ennis and R.L. Hallam. 1980 Ream, Bob, Pletscher, Dan et al. 22 January 1987. A Water Quality study of the Flathead River basin in Prospectus for Wolf Monitoring and Research in B.C. prior to proposed coal mining. Montana. Wolf Studies Task Force, Univ. of Mon- Shell Canada. 1992. Aerial Mosaic Map of the Shell tana, Mt. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Waterton Field. Fish and Wildlife Service, Glacier National Park, Sheppard, B. 1982 Flathead River Fisheries Study. USDA Forest Service. 60 PP. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Ream, Robert R., Fairchild, Michael W., et al. 1987. Parks. 82pp. Wolf Monitoring and Research in and Adjacent to Sheppard, Dave. 1994. State of the Castle Wilderness. Glacier National Park. Section 6, Final Report Second Annual Report 1993. Castle-Crown Wil- (1984-87). School of Forestry and Mt. Cooperative derness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB. Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. of Montana. 45 PP. Sheridan, David. 1979. Off-road Vehicles on Public Ream, Robert R, Fairchild, Michael W., and Boyd, Land. Council on Environmental Quality. Washing- Diane K. 1986. Wolf Ecology Project Progress ton, D.C. Report, July 1985 - June 1986. School of Forestry Singer, Francis J. 1978. Seasonal Concentrations of and Mt. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 29 PP. Grizzly Bears, North Fork of the Flathead River, Ream, R. R. Harris, J. Smith, and D. Boyd. 1985. Montana. Can. Field Nat. 92:283-286. Movement Patterns of a Lone Wolf, Canis Singleton, P. 1996. Winter habitat selection by wolves lupus in Unoccupied Wolf Range, Southeastern in the North Fork of the Flathead River Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist Montana and British Columbia. MS Thesis, Uni- 99(2) : 234-239. versity of Montana, Missoula. 116pp.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xx Stace-Smith, Richard. 1975. The Misuse of U.S. Forest Service. 1995-1997. Recreation Lodging Snowmobiles Against Wildlife in Canada. Nature Reports. Glacier View/ Hungry Horse Ranger Canada 4 (4)3-8. Districts. 3 PP. Stanford, J.A., Stuart, T.J. and B.K. Ellis. 1983. U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Decision Notice and Find- Limnology of Flathead Lake : Final Report. Yellow ing of No Significant Impact - Hornet Wedge Bay Biological Station. Sponsored by Flathead Timber Sale. 48 pp. River Basin Environmental Impact Study. 101 pp. U.S. Forest Service. February 1995. Amendment 19 to State of Montana, Office of the Governor. May 13, the Flathead National Forest Plan, plus Biological 1982. Formal response of the State of Montana Opinion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. to the Sage Creek Coal Company Stage II appli- U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Flathead Wild and Scenic cation. 9 pp. River - Recreation Management Direction. 131 pp. Stevens, W.W. Reconnaissance of Flathead River. 1922 plus appendices. Stewart, Andrea D. 1998. Threats and Opportunities: U.S. Forest Service. 1972. Water Yield Increase Due to the elk and grizzly of the Castle region, south- Vegetation Removal on the Glacier View Ranger western Alberta. Miistakis Institute for the District, USFS Hydrologist Robert Delk. Rockies, Calgary, AB. 33pp. Van Tighem, Kevin and E. Fox. 1997. Wolves in Strong, W.L. 1992. Ecoregions and Ecodistricts of Waterton - Adaptive ecosystem Management: a Alberta. Volume 1. Ecological Land Surveys, Ltd. problem definition case history. Waterton Lakes Edmonton, AB. National Park. Stuart-Smith, G. Jon and S. Ellen MacDonald. Un- Walker, R. and L. Craighead. Analyzing wildlife dated. Population Genetics of Whitebark Pine in movement corridors in Montana using GIS. the Canadian Rockies in Nutcracker Notes (http:/ American Wildlands. Paper presented at 17th www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/number7.html). Annual Environmental Systems Research Institute Univ.of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Users Conference. Report Number 11, May 6, 1997. Sutherland, Ronald J. 1982. Recreation and Preserva- Water Quality in Region I, the Flathead River tion Valuation Estimates for the Flathead River & Basin. 1976. Lake System. Sponsored by Flathead River Basin Water Quality in the Elk and Flathead River Environmental Impact Study. 81 pp. Basins. 1978. Titus, Kimberly. 1991. Forest management and Waterton Lakes National Park (WLNP). 1984. Re- brown bear ecology in southeast Alaska in source Description and Analysis, Volume 1. Parks McCann, R.K. Grizzly Bear Management Work- Canada, Western Region, Calgary, AB. 454pp. shop Proceedings, Revelstoke, B.C. WLNP. 1989. Background Information: Waterton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Biological Lakes National Park Management Plan Review. Opinion to Federal Highway Administration Canadian Parks Service. 277pp. regarding upgrades to North Fork Road. WLNP Files 1992. Elk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Biological WLNP Files. 1992. Bighorn Sheep. opinion to Federal Highway Administration regard- Weaver, John L., Paul C. Paquet and Leonard F. ing paving of North Fork Road. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and Conservation of U.S. Forest Service. September 1998. Final Envi- Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conser- ronmental Impact Statement, Amentment 21 to vation Biology. 10: 964-976. the Flathead National Forest Plan. 176 pp. plus Wilson, David Jr. 1984. Cabin Creek and Interna- appendices. tional Law - An Overview in The Public Land Law U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Glacier View Ranger Dis- Review, Vol. 5, Spring 1984, pages 110-127. trict/ Species With Special Status, printout, 4 pages. Wilton, P.H. Exploration and Development Highlights U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printouts of North Fork Kootenay Region - 1997. for Ministry of Employ- Cover Types,Structure Classes, Terrestrial Commu- ment and Investment, Energy and Minerals Divi- nities, and Physiographic Types, 4 pp. sion, Mines Branch. U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printout of North Fork Road Zager, Peter. 1980. The influence of logging and Miles ans Access Status. 1 pp. by John Ganiere. wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printout of Trails on Montana. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Montana, Glacier View Ranger District, Flathead National Missoula MT. 131pp. Forest. 4 pp. U.S. Forest Service. 1997. Flathead Wild and Scenic River System Monitoring Report. 11 pp.

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

xxi