ISBN: 978-1-4601-2625-7 (Printed Version) · Regions Committee 2006). The terrain within the RMFR is mostly mountainous, but gradually The terrain within the RMFR is mostly mountainous,

ISBN: 978-1-4601-2625-7 (Printed Version) 978-1-4601-2604-2 (Online Version) Printed December 2015

i

Table of Contents1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 History ............................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Description and History of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve ............................... 2 2.2 Description and History of the Castle River Allotment and Lower Castle Distribution Unit ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Castle River Range Reference Area .........................................................................11 2.4 Description and History of the Castle River Range Reference Area ....................... 12

3.0 Methods of Sampling ......................................................................................................14

4.0 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................17

4.1 Plant Ecology ........................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Range Health ........................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Production ................................................................................................................ 26

5.0 Ten Year Recommendations.......................................................................................... 29

6.0 References ...................................................................................................................... 30

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 33

Appendix 1. Reports developed from the Castle River Range Reference Area data ................ 33 Appendix 2. Castle Allotment annual stocking rates* ................................................................ 35 Appendix 3. Lower Castle Distribution Unit stocking rates*....................................................... 37 Appendix 4. Soils survey information for the Castle River Range Reference Area. .................. 38 Appendix 5. Timeline of events at the Castle River Range Reference Area. ............................ 40

List of Figures

Figure 1. ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Castle River Range Reference Area in 1953

Figure 2. The location of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve in south western Alberta and the Castle River Allotment ............................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 3. Areas and years of significant fires within the Castle River allotment. (ASRD 2012) .................. 8

History and Description of the Castle River Range Reference Area

ii

Figure 4. The Castle Allotment and its nine Distribution Units .................................................................. 10

Figure 5. The topographic location of the Castle River Range Reference Area within the Lower Castle Distribution Unit of the Castle River Allotment.................................................................11

Figure 6. Contrasting landscapes of the Lower Castle distribution unit forests between 1949 and 2006.................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 7. Location and orientation of the Castle River Range Reference Area ........................................ 14

Figure 8 (a) and (b). Schematic of the Cluster and Transect configuration used in Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve Range Reference Area sampling ................................................................................ 16

Figure 9. Percent composition of Kentucky bluegrass throughout the lifetime of the Castle Range Reference Area.......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 10. Theorized state and transition model for the cc Ecological site in the Montane subregion ....... 20

Figure 11. The Montane subregion edatopic grid with Castle River Range Reference Area placement .... 24

Figure 12. Annual forage production (line) and April – September (bar) precipitation from the Beaver Mines climate station..................................................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1. Differences between the Cattle exclosure and the Cattle and Wildlife Exclosure for 1986 (the year the Cattle and Wildlife Exclosure was built) and 2007 ............................................... 21

Table 2. Species composition differences in the cattle exclosure from its first sampling to 2007 ........... 22

Table3. Species composition differences outside all exclosures from the first sampling to 2007 .......... 23

Table 4. 10 years of forage production at the Castle River Range Reference Area ............................... 27

1

1.0 IntroductionThe Alberta Range Reference Area (RRA) Program began in 1949 in the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. Its original purpose was to provide range managers with plant community benchmarks that could assist in judging range condition and trend (Weerstra 1989). This was accomplished by excluding livestock from a site and measuring the changes in vegetation. The science of range management has evolved since the program’s inception, but the importance of these reference areas remains. The program has expanded to encompass all areas within the province that provide rangelands for grazing animals. Presently, there are just under 250 sites province-wide. Current objectives of the program are to:

• Monitor rangeland health and long-term range trend based on species composition and productivity

• Monitor the effects of grazing by both livestock and wildlife on plant community production and plant species composition

• Assist in further understanding plant community succession, with both the presence and absence of disturbance

• Provide visual demonstration sites for both Government staff and stake holders

The Castle River Range Reference Area (RRA) is one of 47 reference areas currently part of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve portion of the Range Reference Area Program in Alberta. It began as a single transect in 1953 and an exclosure was constructed in 1962. It has been sampled by evolving range survey techniques, but the main purpose has stayed the same: to measure the successional recovery of once overgrazed land.

Generally paired transects, one grazed and un-grazed, are located at each range reference area, with transects close enough to have the same biophysical properties. The un-grazed transect is protected inside the exclosure, while the grazed transect represents the stocking rate prescribed outside the exclosure for that field unit. Although complete removal of all grazing is not representative of the natural state of Alberta’s rangelands, which were historically grazed by wild herbivores for several millennia (Weerstra 1986), this is nonetheless a valuable method for measuring successional trends and rangeland recovery (Blackmore 1983).

A number of reports have been developed from data derived from the Castle RRA including two reports compiled specifically for the Castle River RRA (Weerstra 1990 and Willoughby 1997). Data collected from this RRA has also been used in the development of numerous other reports (see Appendix 1). This discussion builds upon these reports and continues analysis to present. These documents, along with a master’s thesis that utilized the Castle River RRA as a sample location (Weerstra 1986), are often referred to throughout this report, as they relay the history of the Castle River Allotment within the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve and the events leading to the construction of this exclosure, including management changes that may have affected the reference area through its lifetime. Measurement methodologies, their changes through time, and a synopsis of this information is provided along with recommendations for the next 10 years.


2

2.0 HistoryThe Castle River RRA is located on a flat bench above its namesake, the Castle River, within the Castle River grazing allotment of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve.

An allotment (originally known as a grazing district) is a grazing management unit established in the early days of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve’s inception. It is usually defined by watersheds that separate it from other allotments through heights of land, drift fences, and other geographic features. Individual producers obtain and hold the rights to graze livestock on a forest reserve allotment through a forest reserve preference quota and the associated grazing permit issued by the Provincial Government. Livestock grazing on an allotment is managed either through a stock association, or in some cases, by an individual permit holder.

2.1 Description and History of the Rocky Mountain Forest ReserveThe Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve (RMFR) is a large tract of provincial crown land in south western Alberta (Figure 2). The bulk of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains are contained within the RMFR and National Parks. The RMFR accounts for most of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region within Alberta as well as some of the Foothills Natural Region to the north (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The terrain within the RMFR is mostly mountainous, but gradually changes into rolling hills as it meets the prairie grasslands. The highly variable topography is dominated by coniferous forests with grassland, shrublands and deciduous forest occurring to lesser extents on valley bottoms and southern aspects. This area contains many of Alberta’s headwaters that ultimately drain through southern portions of the Prairie Provinces and out to Hudson Bay.

The following history of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve is summarized mostly from Bryne Weerstra’s master’s thesis (1986), entitled the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve: Livestock Grazing History and Festuca scabrella Torr. Range Recovery, unless otherwise noted.

The Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains have been grazed seasonally by large herbivores for several millennia. Archeological records indicate bison were the dominant ungulate species on the plains, foothills and mountains up until fire, disease, and excessive hunting extirpated them from the landscape. Records indicate that, along with seasonal migrations onto the plains in the spring, large bison herds moved through the mountain valleys in the summers utilizing the south facing slope grasslands. Bison would then return to the foothills in winter.

Figure 1. Castle River Range Reference Area in 1953

3

Figure 2. The location of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve in south western Alberta and the Castle River Allotment.


4

Cattle were introduced into south western Alberta in 1873, and the cattle industry rapidly developed throughout the area by 1879. The main focus of development was from the lower portions of the foothills to the east. Here, large tracts of land were bound to 21 year leases and grazed by large cattle herds. Ranges soon became overcrowded and attempts were made to set stocking rates on these lease lands. These stocking rates were set with single numbers across the landscape, with no attempt to discern productive and unproductive land. Settlement pressing from the east put further pressures on the landscape, thereby reducing and fragmenting these large leases. In 1896, the lease system was terminated, but ranchers continued to graze the ever lessening tracts of Crown lands now primarily in the Cypress Hills, Porcupine Hills, and valleys abutting the Rocky Mountains.

Along with the cattle industry, resource conservation was brought to the forefront in the last decade of the 19th century. In 1887, federal forest reserves were created on the eastern slopes; the first located in the area now known as Banff National Park, and later in 1895 another located in the area now known as Waterton Lakes National Park. Also in this period the Foothills Reserve was created, which is located in the vast area of the eastern slopes from the Bow River south to the international border. Settlement, sale, lease and licences were all excluded from these areas in order to maintain control of the forests and headwaters of the major watersheds of the Prairie Provinces.

In 1899, the importance of forest and watershed preservation in these areas was recognized for the developing prairie communities downstream and, as such, forest management plans were implemented. These ultimately evolved into the Forest Reserve Act in 1906, with the primary purpose of ensuring the Crown’s continued title to the lands, and the long-term protection of timber and water supplies.

Between 1894 and 1909 a number of federally administered parks and forest reserves were established in western Canada, including an extension of the Rocky Mountains Park (Banff) and an additional area now known as Jasper National Park. In 1910, the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve was established, and joined Banff, Jasper, and Waterton Lakes National Parks as a management area for timber and watershed resources in the timbered region adjacent to the prairies. In 1911, the Forest Reserve Act was changed into the Forest Reserves and Parks Act, to address the differences between parks and the Forest Reserve. Parks were considered to be places reserved for tourism, whereas the primary focus of the Forest Reserve was watershed conservation and timber production.

Grazing in all of the forest reserves was prohibited by the Forest Reserve Act in 1906, but boundary surveying issues and an ever shrinking grazing land base outside the reserve led to common problems with livestock trespassing. Extreme winters in 1906 and 1907 limited available pasture and forced ranchers to reduce the number of range cattle by 50 per cent. This led to the sale of deeded lands and a shortage of beef in the area. Since livestock production was a primary industry of the area, demands increased to utilize forage within the Forest Reserve to help bolster the economy and combat the increasing settlement pressures. Grazing was also being considered as a means to reduce fuel loads and control wildfires.

5

Discussions were initiated to allow grazing in the Forest Reserve for 3 to 5 months in the summer to help with fire suppression and provide management flexibility to the agriculture communities residing near the reserve. Regulations were developed in 1913 with the following concepts emphasised:

• Annual permits with a fixed charge per head were selected, rather than term leases, to allow flexibility if conditions change

• Holders of small farms were encouraged to apply and grazing units were determined by estimating the stock that could be maintained on a homestead or small ranch during the winter months - permits were issued based on these units

• Grazing districts (now called allotments) were established and given maximum stocking rates

In 1914 the first year of legitimate livestock grazing occurred in the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. Until 1930, grazing permits were administered by the Interior’s Dominion Forestry Branch, under the authority of the Federal Government, at that time known as the Dominion of Canada. In 1930 the Alberta Natural Resources Act was passed, after which the administration was transferred over to the Province. This enabled Alberta’s Legislative Assembly to pass the Alberta Forest Reserves Act.

Under the Alberta Forest Reserves Act, the majority of grazing permits were issued in the southern areas of the Forest Reserve with only a few in the northern Clearwater area. Stocking numbers were increased over the years and some areas became overgrazed due to stocking rate increases, annual weather extremes, and inadequate range surveillance. High fire frequency in the 1930’s, coupled with annual reports citing inadequacies with Alberta’s forest protection program and its effects on the Prairie Provinces’ watersheds prompted the establishment of a joint board between the Province of Alberta and the Dominion of Canada Government. This ultimately led to a Memorandum of Agreement between governments, the passing of the Forest Conservation Act in 1947, and the creation of the Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board.

The Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board employed Wally Hanson as Assistant to the Chief Forester. Although his position entailed a much broader focus, his background was in range management and with his leadership the board placed a strong emphasis on range monitoring and management (Jacobs 1986). Inspections in 1947 noted excessive grazing had resulted in detrimental effects on vegetation and increased erosion along stream banks, particularly in valley bottoms. In 1948, further surveys were completed in the southern portion of the forest reserve that concluded that, although extensive overgrazing didn’t exist, there were areas of both over utilization and underutilization. Therefore, it was concluded that improper livestock distribution was more the issue than overstocking. Pre 1947 timber policy was found partially responsible because livestock numbers were determined to ensure the removal of deemed fires hazards. However, these stocking numbers were considered too high when the diverse landscape was taken into account.


6

More detailed range management plans were instituted for each grazing district (allotment). To inform these plans, range condition surveys and a number of studies were initiated in 1949 to better understand the resource. One of these studies involved permanent range exclosures that were designed to provide benchmarks to aid in measuring livestock grazing effects on different rangelands.

Over time range management plans became more concise. Grazing records were kept in greater detail and more thorough land surveys were conducted. A system for periodic inspections was also created to monitor range condition. Animal numbers were subsequently reduced by almost 25 per cent. Other changes occurred through the years as more rangelands in the Forest Reserve became accessible, particularly in the north. Entry dates were changed to better coincide with vegetation requirements in high elevation ranges.

Cattle numbers have increased slightly through the years; however, livestock animal classes have changed and animal unit months1 have been reduced. This is primarily due to reductions in sheep and horse numbers. Sheep were excluded entirely in 1970 and horse grazing beyond horses used to manage cattle is now limited to one allotment (Pers. Comm. Mike Alexander 2012).

2.2 Description and History of the Castle River Allotment and Lower Castle Distribution UnitThe Castle River Allotment is located in the south west portion of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve (Figure 2). It accounts for a substantial portion (72,894 ha) of the Forest Reserve south of the Crowsnest Pass. It is part of the headwaters of the Upper Oldman Sub-Basin and is bounded by the British Columbia provincial boundary to the east and Waterton Lakes National Park to the south. The Forest Reserve boundary and a number of smaller allotments border the north and east portions.

The Castle River Allotment falls entirely within the Rocky Mountain Natural Region. The allotment’s mountainous landscape includes three natural subregions due to elevation differences. The valley bottoms along the major rivers in the eastern portion are part of the Montane Subregion. The Subalpine Subregion begins upslope from the Montane valleys and comprises the majority of the allotment. Nearing the top of the higher elevation mountain peaks are pockets of the Alpine Subregion. The Rocky Mountain Natural Region has on average the coolest winters, shortest growing season, and highest precipitation of all natural regions in Alberta; however, there is variability between the subregions. The Alpine and Subalpine have high rainfall and snowfall accumulations and colder temperatures whereas the Montane has significantly less annual precipitation and a milder climate. Topographically the Alpine is characteristic of extreme slopes, while the Subalpine and Montane are characterized by more rolling terrain (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

1 Refer to Appendix 2 for definition and calculation of the animal unit month (AUM)

7

The vegetation in the Castle River Allotment is indicative of climatic conditions in these three subregions. Presently, it is mostly forested with small openings of grasslands in the Montane valleys and on the Alpine mountain tops. In the Subalpine, grasslands occur on moderate to steep south facing slopes and willow meadows are common at water receiving areas. The forests are mainly subalpine and dominated by lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir, with white spruce found areas with characterized by more moisture. There are limited amounts of Douglas-fir growing within the Montane forest-grassland mosaic of this allotment.

The Castle River Allotment has had a significant fire history. The area is not prone to lightning strikes and fires have occurred mainly due to human causes (Rogeau 2012). Before 1930 significant fire return intervals were estimated at 55 years in the mountainous landscape and 23 years where the mountains open up to the foothills (Rogeau 2012). In 1934 and 1936 in particular, two large fires swept through the area and burned the southern two thirds of the allotment. The effects of these fires, as well as aggressive logging efforts soon after, significantly reduced forest cover and opened up the landscape (Rogeau 2012). Since that time successful wildfire suppression efforts have increased the fire return intervals and allowed for the establishment of forested stands. The next significant fire did not occur until almost 70 years later when, in 2003, the Lost Creek Fire burned the northern third of the allotment; an area untouched by the 1934 and 1936 burns (Figure 3).

There are many other land uses that have occurred and are presently occurring within the Castle Allotment. Timber harvesting has been common due to the early mandate of the Forest Reserve Act for timber supply, as well as the proximity of the Castle Allotment to settled areas. Particularly after the 1930s fires, efforts to salvage wood occurred in all areas accessible by truck. The increased access also facilitated the logging of mature live timber. Areas that did not burn were eventually logged in the 1970s (Rogeau 2012). This network of trails was further built upon by mining exploration, some trails even reaching mountain summits (Rogeau 2012). This accessibility has created an attraction for a number of recreational pursuits in the area including random camping, snow mobile and OHV trails, and a ski resort.

Although anecdotal evidence suggests the Castle River area was grazed soon after the introduction of cattle in the 1870’s, legitimate grazing began in the Forest Reserve in 1914. Records indicate that the Castle River Allotment was established and grazed by a group known as the Pincher Creek Stock Association soon after in 1922 (GOA 2011). The allotment was one of the first to have a range management plan created in 1951 (Weerstra 1990).


8

Figure 3. Areas and years of significant fires within the Castle River allotment. (ASRD 2012)

9

The Castle allotment is divided into 9 grazing management areas called Distribution Units (DU’s) (Figure 4). The division of distribution units is usually based on topographic features; ridges or other natural barriers often contain cattle. Fences are also used in areas where containment is an issue. Animals are rotated through these DU’s throughout the grazing season to control the seasonality of grazing, to promote better livestock distribution, and provide periods of rest for plant communities to recover (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007).

Early estimates of range use prior to the 1950’s indicate that over 1800 head of cattle and 200 horses utilized the area that included the Castle Allotment (File Report 1951) probably due to the relatively open landscape resulting from the 1930’s fires. However, annual records were not available until 1947. Range condition surveys in 1949 indicated the allotment to be satisfactory overall, but some areas had a downward trend due to distribution problems.

The first management plan (1951) was developed based on these surveys and recommended delaying grazing within the allotment until June 1, and July 1 for higher elevation subalpine meadows and grasslands. Livestock numbers were limited to 1000 head of cattle for 4.5 months (4,500 animal unit months) and horse grazing was completely removed.

The management plan was re-developed in 1960 and the permitted animal unit months (AUMs) were further reduced by approximately 1500 AUM’s (Appendix 2) to 3074 AUM’s. The stocking rate suggested within the 1960 plan was 550 yearlings and 300 cows to utilize the nine distribution units from June 1 to October 15, except for higher elevation DU’s where access was delayed until July.

Stocking numbers stayed relatively consistent until the next management plan was developed in 1975. This plan noted a decreasing amount of grasslands due to forest encroachment in the absence of the historic fire interval. The limited grasslands in the valley bottoms were being over-utilized, and were deteriorating in condition. Overall, season of use was delayed to June 15th, and the carrying capacity was reduced to 2210 AUM (589 Animal Units from June 15th to October 7th).

Although the last management plan was written in 1975, carrying capacity adjustments have occurred since. In 2005, the Forest Reserve Animal Unit Equivalency (AUE) was adjusted from 1 to 1.18 AUE. This adjustment translated into an increase in carrying capacity as the actual number of cattle grazing in the allotment did not change, but the adjustment to the AUE resulted in an 18 per cent increase in AUMs, and accounted for the previous overages in stocking rates reported on the annual stocking reports (File Report 2011). The stocking rates since 1975 had exceeded those recommended over 50 per cent of the time, although recent audits have approved rate adjustments above those originally prescribed (Mike Alexander 2012).


10

Figure 4. The Castle Allotment and its nine Distribution Units.

11

2.3 Castle River Range Reference Area The Castle River RRA is located within the Lower Castle Distribution Unit (DU). This DU has been considered a management area since the first management plan in 1951. The unit boundary is defined by the Castle River drainage below the ranger station and west of the river (Figure 5). It falls entirely within the Montane Sub-region, the lowest elevation sub-region in the allotment. The DU is presently composed of a large forested southeast facing slope to the west and grassland benches adjacent to the river.

Figure 5. The topographic location of the Castle River Range Reference Area within the Lower Castle Distribution Unit of the Castle River Allotment.

This DU has had range condition issues for many years. The 1951 management plan described the lower grasslands along the road in this DU as having special management problems due to overgrazing. In 1960, the DU was considered to have improved significantly with the exception of some grassland flats along the river that were still in poor condition. The 1975 plan was far less optimistic however, citing heavy elk and cattle use and the notion that this DU was historically substantially overstocked.

This DU was substantially affected by the 1930s fires and subsequent logging practices. These events created temporary primary range, on which some of the livestock grazing capacity at the


12

time was based. As Figure 6 indicates, there has been much re-establishment of forested areas in the years since and productive primary range has been substantially reduced. In fact, the 1975 range plan reduced the stocking rate by two thirds (Appendix 3).

The last range management plan was completed in 1975, as previously mentioned, and the recommended stocking rate for this DU has stayed much the same to present. Stock returns suggest wide variability in the actual stocking rates from 0 to over 500 AUM, although the stock returns may not be completely accurate for this DU as many years of grazing data are unavailable due to boundary discrepancies. Grazing in this DU has often been early and season long, although all three range management plans recommended it be used as a late season pasture to give the rough fescue grasslands a chance to recover from winter elk grazing, and because it is a convenient location for fall round-up.

Recently, recreational use has become a concern in this DU. Random camping occurs on many of the grassland flats along the river during the grazing season. Random camping and associated ATV use can have adverse impacts on the production and health of native plant communities. Also, increased human presence affects livestock distribution and further concentrates animals at other locations.

2.4 Description and History of the Castle River Range Reference Area The Castle River RRA falls within the Montane Sub-region and is characterised by a mosaic of grassland flats and deciduous and coniferous forests occurring along the benches of the Castle River (Figure 6). This plant community mosaic is indicative of the Montane Sub-region where climatic conditions allow opportunities for both grassland and forest advancement depending on site factors (such as slope and aspect) and natural disturbances.

Figure 6. Contrasting landscapes of the Lower Castle distribution unit forests between 1949 and 2006.

13

Annual precipitation for this zone ranges from 308 to 1279 mm with two peaks (May-June and August-September). Warmer valleys are characteristic of the Montane Sub-region, as these valleys are commonly exposed to winter Chinook winds funnelled through valleys from the mountains (Willoughby et al. 2008).

The Castle RRA has been classified using the Montane Range Plant Community Guide within the ‘cc’ ecological site (Willoughby et al. 2008). This ecological site is characterized by Chernozemic soils with level to moderately sloping rough fescue grassland vegetation.

The Castle River RRA was established in 1953. The area was considered important winter and spring range for elk, so cattle numbers were reduced and winter horse grazing was terminated in 1950 (GOA 1953). The RRA site was established soon after to monitor range condition, as this location was considered less heavily grazed than other potential sites and, although significantly reduced, desirable native species still persisted (GOA 1953). Initially, only a single research plot was established, which became the outside research area when the exclosure was constructed in 1962 (GOA 1962). In 1986 the exclosure was rebuilt to accommodate a large wildlife exclusion area (Weerstra 1990). The east half of the exclosure was fenced using barbed wire whereas the west half utilized 8 foot page wire (Figure 7).

The exclosure has been well maintained since its establishment. Maintenance issues have been brought forward and dealt with quickly due to the site’s high profile location. There have been some significant modifications, however. In 1981 the exclosure was deliberately burned to reduce litter build up and mimic succession in a more natural system (GOA 1977).

In 2005 and 2006, the area was mistakenly used as a test site for aerial application of fire retardant. The exclosure was not directly treated, but the overall study area was impacted. Fire retardant has high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, which presumably affected species composition and plant productivity levels. Since then, the area around the exclosure has been invaded by agronomic species, particularly from the road side, fire retardant site, and recreational trails.


14

Figure 7. Location and orientation of the Castle River Range Reference Area.

15

3.0 Methods of SamplingMost of the Reference Areas constructed early on in the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve have a common construction strategy. The exclosures were constructed to exclude a 100 foot cluster (now a 30.48m transect) from cattle grazing as well as provide a buffered area to minimize outside influences that may affect the sampled vegetation. Standard methodology recommended building the exclosure as large as possible within a uniform area. This area must also accommodate an outside transect that is paired with the inside transect in all respects except for grazing intensity (Blackmore 1983). Locating exclosures near salt grounds or within 100 feet of another fence was avoided. It was also preferable that the exclosures be greater than 1000 feet from, but within 1 mile of, a livestock watering location (Willoughby 1992). Exclosures located in areas of poor range condition that had potential to recover were usually built to be reference locations. Once grazing was excluded, trends in succession back towards a stable climax community could be measured and better understood.

In earlier years of the reference area program the Parker’s loop method (Parker 1951) was used to measure range condition and trend. This method measured plant composition of a ‘cluster’ that was composed of four 25 foot transects in a linear row (Figure 8a). One cluster was located inside the exclosure and one outside. Measurements were taken with a ¾ inch ring placed along the line every 4 inches. If one or more plant root crowns occupied the ring it was recorded, otherwise moss, litter, rock, or bare ground were recorded. This resulted in 100 observations per transect. These transects were then summarized with the number of hits per 100 observations for each species and surface substrate. The frequencies were then averaged over the four transects to achieve the cluster’s plant species composition (Blackmore 1983). The sampling frequency was not established, and sampling occurred in sporadic fashion.

In 1983, the exclosure sampling methodology was re-examined (Blackmore 1983). After this review, the Parker Loop methodology discontinued and the Canopy Coverage method was chosen for data collection into the future. The Canopy Coverage method (Daubenmire 1959) utilized the cluster established for the Parker Loop method. However, instead of being four 25 foot transects, data was measured along one 30 meter transect . (Figure 8b).


16

Figure 8 (a) and (b). Schematic of the Cluster and Transect configuration used in Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve Range Reference Area sampling.

25 feet

30.48 metres

Clu

ster

Tran

sect

Tran

sect

(a) Parker Loop Cluster

(100 observations per transect)

(b) Canopy Coverage Transect

(15 frames read per transect)

1m

1m

20 x 50 cm

17

The Canopy Coverage method (Daubenmire 1959) is a quadrat method where a 1 meter by 1 meter frame is sampled along a transect. In this case a quadrat is placed every 2 meters along the transect for a total of 15 frames. Ocular canopy cover is estimated within frames as the percent cover of individual species, as well as moss, soil, and litter. The cover of shrubs is measured directly in the 1 meter frame, whereas a smaller nested 20x50 cm frame is used to measure the forbs, grasses, and surface substrates. Within the quadrat, ocular canopy cover estimates are made of the percent coverage of individual species, as well as moss, soil, and litter. The original measurements were taken in classes that were ranges of percent (i.e., Class 3 = 25-50 per cent). These classes were then changed to the class midpoint for analysis (i.e., Class 3 midpoint = 37.5 per cent). In the early 1990s, these classes were replaced by actual estimates for a more precise representation of the sample plot.

The Parker’s loop data could be converted by a regression equation developed by the direct comparison (Willoughby 1997).

Along with the methodology change, a regimented sampling regime was implemented on a three year cycle. Three area divisions of RRAs within Alberta were created, organized by Forest Districts of that time. These were: Division 1 (Blairmore District), Division 2 (Turner Valley and Elbow Districts), Division 3 (Ghost District, Sundre District, and the Clearwater Forest Region) (Willoughby 1992).

The Castle River RRA was included in the Division 1 exclosures. It has three transects (clusters) corresponding to the three treatments: the outside transect, the cattle exclosure transect, and cattle/wildlife exclosure, with measurements of each treatment commencing in 1953, 1962, and 1986, respectively. All transects are orientated in the same Northwest direction (323°) (Figure 7). Parker-loop methodology was used for plant cover analysis until 1980; whereas both Parker- loop and Daubenmire plot frames were used up to 1992. From 1995 onward, only the Daubenmire canopy coverage method has been used.

4.0 Results and Discussion

4.1 Plant EcologyThe original purpose of the Castle River RRA’s establishment was to monitor the range condition and trend of the site once excessive grazing pressure was removed. Since that time range science has evolved and efforts have been made to understand how the site has advanced successionally to a relatively stable state. Willoughby (1997) used ordinations, a statistical multivariate analysis, to measure changes in species composition within the exclosure since its creation until 1995. The exclosed area was originally dominated by Idaho fescue and oat grass, which was typed as an Idaho fescue – California oat grass community. This later converted to a rough fescue dominated community. These results were consistent with previous studies; by Moss and Campbell (1947) and Willoughby (1992), who found that rough fescue grows almost to the exclusion of other plants in the absence of disturbance.


18

Willoughby (1997), however, noted that since 1989 there was a significant increase in Kentucky bluegrass in the exclosure. Kentucky bluegrass was always present in minor amounts, especially outside the exclosure, but has slowly become a more significant and consistent part of the plant species composition, both in the grazed and ungrazed areas (Figure 9). Outside, grazing and the other noted disturbances have played a role in providing Kentucky bluegrass a competitive advantage. The exclosure itself was burned deliberately in 1981 to remove excess litter (GOA 1977). As Kentucky bluegrass was already present, this treatment may have reduced all plants and provided a nutrient flush that allowed further invasion within the exclosure. Regardless of the reason, it seems that Kentucky bluegrass has established as a sub-dominant species on the entire site. Yearly precipitation variation seems to affect the extent off bluegrass cover. Both direct transect measurements and visual estimates have measured the Kentucky bluegrass fluctuating from less than 5 per cent to 20 per cent. This follows the state and transition model theory (Laycock 1991), where a plant community will stabilize with the non-native species and never fully return to its original climax state.

Figure 9. Percent composition of Kentucky bluegrass throughout the lifetime of the Castle Range Reference Area.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

53 57 59 62 76 78 79 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10

Year

Prop

ortio

n of

Com

posi

tion

Cattle Exclosure - Ungrazed Outside Exclosure - Grazed

19

Range plant community and carrying capacity guide books have been created for the Montane since Willoughby’s last report of the Castle River RRA. Figure 10 shows a diagram of the theorized state and transition model for the Montane ‘cc’ rough fescue grassland ecological site using current communities from the Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Montane Subregion of Alberta (Willoughby et al. 2008).

Similar to Willoughby’s (1997) analysis, both the cattle and cattle /wildlife exclosed areas have succeeded from an [C1] Idaho fescue – Parry oat grass seral community type toward a [B1] Rough fescue – Idaho fescue – Parry oat grass reference community (Figure 10, community phase pathway 1.2a). The cattle exclosure and the cattle / wildlife exclosure constructed later were originally enclosed together until 1986. The two transects were quite similar in 1986 with less than 10 per cent difference in most of the composition. This is still true given that there is still less than 10 per cent difference in cover for all species except rough fescue, which is higher in the cattle exclosure (Table 1). Rough fescue has increased on both of the exclosed transects to as much as 40 per cent (Tables 1 & 2). This amount of rough fescue cover is comparable to the levels of a [B1] Rough fescue – Idaho fescue – Parry oat grass reference community type for the ‘cc’ Montane eco-site. Kentucky bluegrass, however, has stabilized on the site, thereby changing the community to a [C9] rough fescue – Kentucky bluegrass community (Figure 10, transition T1A). Note that there is no route back from a Kentucky bluegrass invaded site in this diagram). Even with complete removal from disturbance, Kentucky bluegrass will not fully disappear from the exclosure community.

The transect outside the exclosure has been measured over the longest period in time. In 1953 very little rough fescue was present, and the site was dominated by oat grasses and Idaho fescue. As with the exclosed area, it would have been classified as a [C1] Idaho fescue – Parry oat grass sedge community type. The stocking rate of the Lower Castle DU has been reduced since 1953 and rough fescue has responded positively, increasing to 10 per cent of the canopy composition (Table 3). Kentucky bluegrass has also increased steadily to 20 per cent of the composition. This is partially due to grazing, but may also be due to other factors previously mentioned, such as increased road use, recreation, and the accidental application of fire retardant. The disturbances and invasion of Kentucky bluegrass pushed the site further over the threshold to a [C3] Kentucky bluegrass – rough fescue community type (Figure 10, phase pathway 4.1a). There are locations close to the road by the RRA that are at risk of being pushed over another threshold to a modified state (Figure 10, transition T4A). This modified state would always be dominated by non-native species.


20

Figure 10. Theorized state and transition model for the cc Ecological site in the Montane subregion.

1.1 Rough fescue - Idaho fescue - Parry oatgrass [B1]

1.0 Reference State 1.3 Fd/Idaho Fescue - Rough Fescue [B8] (Up

Slope)

2.0 Pine/Douglas-fire Forested State

1.4 Fd/Idaho Fescue - Sandberg bluegrass [B9]

(Up Slope)

1.5 Aw/Strawberry/Rough Fescue [B10] (Down

Slope)

1.2 Idaho fescue - Parry oatgrass - sedge [C1] (at Risk)

3.0 Aspen Forested State

1.1a 1.2a

1.1b

1.3a

1.1c

1.5a

T1B

T2A

T1C

T3A

4.1 Rough fescue - Kentucky bluegrass [C9]

4.0 KBG Invasion State

4.2 Kentucky bluegrass - Rough fescue [C3] (at Risk)

4.1a 4.2a

*5.1a Kentucky Bluegrass - Timothy - Dandelion [C4] - or - *5.1b Smooth Brome - Kentucky Bluegrass [C5] - or - *5.1c Creeping Red Fescue - Dandelion - Clover [C7]

5.0 Modified State

5.2 Weeds - Bare Ground ([C18]

5.1a 5.2aT4A

* Dependent on the introduced forage species that has established (creeping red fescue, smooth brome, or timothy)

Transition

T1A - Introduction of non native invasive species T1B - Establishment of coniferous tree species T1C - Establishment of deciduous tree species T2A - Ecological Restoration (may include cutting, burning, seeding T3A - Ecological Restoration (may include cutting, burning, seeding T4A - Excessive orvergrazing for a period of years + introduction of non-native forage grasses

Community Phase Pathway

1.1a - Moderate to heavy grazing 1.1b - Encroachment of coniferous species 1.1c - Enroachment of deciduous species 1.2a - Light grazing or rest 1.3a,- Reintroduction of historic natural disturbances 1.5a (i.e., fire, grazing) 4.1a - Moderate to heavy grazing 4.2a - Light grazing or rest 5.1a - Continued excessive overgrazing 5.2a - Rest

21

Table 1. Differences between the cattle exclosure and the cattle and wildlife exclosure for 1986 (the year the cattle and wildlife exclosure was built) and 2007.

1986 Cattle Cattle & Wildlife DifferenceForbAchillea millefolium 5.2 7.8 2.7Agoseris glauca 0.9 1.4 -Antennaria lanata 1.6 0.7 -Dodecatheon conjugens 2.5 2.0 -Galium boreale 2.5 12.6 10.2Geranium viscosissimum 1.3 0.0 -1.3Geum triflorum 2.5 3.8 1.3Lupinus sericeus 26.2 13.7 -12.6Penstemon confertus 0.4 1.4 -Solidago missouriensis 0.9 2.0 1.2GrassCarex obtusata 3.1 3.6 -Danthonia intermedia 3.1 0.9 -2.3Danthonia parryi 1.6 0.2 -1.4Festuca idahoensis 3.6 1.0 -2.6Festuca scabrella 37.4 36.7 -Poa pratensis 4.7 9.0 4.32010ForbAchillea millefolium 6.6 6.3 -Agoseris glauca 3.9 2.5 -1.3Antennaria lanata 1.2 1.6 -Galium boreale 4.4 9.2 4.8Geum triflorum 1.1 7.3 6.3Lupinus sericeus 1.3 2.1 -Penstemon confertus 15.5 12.9 -2.6Thalictrum venulosum 0.0 1.2 1.2Vicia Americana 1.8 4.8 3.0Viola adunca 0.5 0.1 -GrassCarex obtusata 2.8 0.7 -2.1Carex preslii 1.6 3.8 2.2Danthonia intermedia 0.0 1.0 1.0Festuca campestris 41.3 28.8 -12.4Festuca idahoensis 1.1 4.5 3.4Poa pratensis 12.5 8.8 -3.7


22

Cattle Exclosure 1962 2010 Difference*ForbAchillea millefolium 2.6 6.6 3.9Agoseris glauca 0.0 3.9 3.9Allium cernuum 2.4 0.0 -2.4Androsace occidentalis 0.0 0.2 -Antennaria lanata 0.0 1.2 1.2Arnica fulgens 0.0 0.8 -Campanula rotundifolia 0.0 0.6 -Cerastium arvense 0.0 0.2 -Galium boreale 2.8 4.4 1.7Geum triflorum 2.4 1.1 -1.4Linum lewisii 0.0 0.2 -Lomatium triternatum 0.0 0.2 -Lupinus sericeus 3.6 1.3 -2.3Penstemon confertus 5.4 15.5 10.2Potentilla gracilis 0.0 0.6 -Potentilla pensylvanica 2.8 0.0 -2.8Taraxacum officinale 2.6 0.8 -1.8Vicia americana 0.0 1.8 1.8Viola adunca 0.0 0.5 -GrassAgropyron trachycaulum 0.0 0.2 -Bromus ciliatus 2.0 0.0 -2.0Carex obtusata 13.4 2.8 -10.6Carex preslii 0.0 1.6 1.6Danthonia intermedia 14.5 0.0 -14.5Festuca idahoensis 13.7 1.1 -12.7Festuca campestris 5.4 41.3 35.9Juncus balticus 2.4 0.6 -1.9Koeleria macrantha 5.7 0.0 -5.7Poa pratensis 10.8 12.5 1.7Stipa richardsonii 7.5 0.0 -7.5ShrubRosa acicularis 0.0 0.2 -

Table 2. Species composition differences in the cattle exclosure from its first sampling to 2007.

23

Table 3. Species composition differences outside all exclosures from the first sampling to 2007.

Outside Exclosure - Grazed 1953 2010 Difference*ForbAchillea millefolium 3.3 6.0 2.7Agoseris glauca 0.0 0.1 -Antennaria lanata 2.5 0.0 -2.5Arnica fulgens 0.0 1.7 1.7Campanula rotundifolia 0.0 1.7 1.7Cerastium arvense 0.0 1.6 1.6Dodecatheon conjugens 0.0 0.6 -Fragaria virginiana 0.0 0.5 -Galium boreale 5.2 10.6 5.4Geum triflorum 6.2 10.8 4.6Lomatium triternatum 0.0 1.4 1.4Lupinus sericeus 0.0 6.1 6.1Penstemon confertus 0.0 2.8 2.8Potentilla gracilis 0.0 2.0 2.0Solidago missouriensis 3.1 0.0 -3.1Stellaria longifolia 0.0 0.2 -Taraxacum officinale 2.5 1.2 -1.3Vicia americana 0.0 1.3 1.3GrassesAgropyron trachycaulum 3.3 0.3 -3.0Carex obtusata 20.0 0.4 -19.6Carex preslii 0.0 1.2 1.2Danthonia intermedia 16.3 0.2 -16.1Festuca idahoensis 8.9 7.9Festuca campestris 4.3 10.2 5.9Juncus balticus 3.3 2.5 -Koeleria macrantha 4.7 0.5 -4.2Phleum pratense 0.0 3.7 3.7Poa pratensis 3.1 22.9 19.8Stipa richardsonii 13.4 1.7 -11.7Rosa arkansana 0.0 0.3 -


24

4.2 SoilsThe Castle RRA is located on a bench above the Castle River. It is a fluvial terrace with loam to clay loam textured soils. Gravelly fluvial material may occur below the top veneer. The site has a well-drained Orthic Black Chernozem soil with a 20+cm Ah horizon and a depth of roughly 50cm to the c horizon.

The RRA has had two soil surveys completed in 1981 and 2010. The 1981 project’s purpose was to describe the soils of the active range reference areas. The 2010 soil analysis defined the moisture and nutrient boundaries of the ‘cc’ Ecological Site on the edatopic grid. The Castle RRA was measured to be Mesic Permesotrophic (McNeil 2011). This is at the moister, richer end of the current boundaries of the ‘cc’ Ecological Site. The Castle ranked 3rd on a relative moisture and richness scale comparing all exclosures within the ‘cc’ (Figure 11). This could account for the susceptibility of the site to Kentucky bluegrass invasion and establishment, as this invasive grass thrives in moist, rich conditions. Refer to appendix 4 for the full soil survey completed on the Castle RRA for this project and a comparison to the 1981 data.

Figure 11. The Montane subregion edatopic grid with Castle River Range Reference Area placement.

Xeric 2

Subxeric 3

Submesic 4

Mesic 5

Subhygric 6

Hygric 7

Subhydric 8

Hydric 9

Moi

stur

e R

egim

e

Nutrient RegimeVeryPoor

A

Very Rich

EMed.

CRich

DPoor

B

aa a

b c c c

ed

fg

h

i

j

Castle RRA

25

4.3 Range HealthRange Health builds upon the traditional range condition concept and is a measurement of plant community alteration from its potential climax community due to disturbance (Adams et. al. 2009). Over the years, shortcomings to this concept have been highlighted. Specifically, range condition assessments assume that all perturbations are reversible. State and transition theories indicate that due to outside influences a site may succeed to a stable plant community that does not fully resemble the potential climax community. The range condition measure has also been criticized for not considering management needs of the soil and indicators of excessive erosion that put a site at risk. Since 1999 an Alberta Range Health Task Group has developed an assessment protocol that measures a site by comparing to its potential as the range condition concept does, but also addresses key ecological functions that were missed (Adams et al. 2009). The new rangeland health assessment protocol measure 5 indicators to give an overall measure of health. These are integrity and ecological status, plant community structure, hydrologic function, site stability, and the presence of noxious weeds (Adams et al. 2009).

Range health inside the Castle River RRA cattle exclosure was measured in 2002. At that time it scored 100 per cent or healthy, although comments noted a potentially lower rating due to excessive litter build-up, and it was estimated that 10 per cent of the plant composition was Kentucky bluegrass. Both these measurements can affect the integrity and ecological status score. Integrity and ecological status hinges on plant species composition and rates the species currently present to what species should be at the site. This is very similar to range condition climax community comparisons. Kentucky bluegrass is an invasive species that can replace native plants once it enters a native ecosystem. A healthy and resilient plant community can resist Kentucky bluegrass invasion by outcompeting it through a diversity of layers and life forms. However, once the community is compromised, Kentucky bluegrass can invade through gaps within the community. This may have occurred in 1981 at the Castle River RRA as a result of the prescribed burn, but may also be due to excessive litter build up. Previous studies have shown that excessive litter amounts change the moisture and soil temperatures from natural levels (Johnston 1961), which may have given Kentucky bluegrass the competitive advantage it needed to invade the site. Since 1980, Kentucky bluegrass composition has been quite variable, varying from 1-15 per cent. At 1 per cent, it could be argued that it is not affecting ecological functions but at 15 per cent it cannot be ignored, and the integrity and ecological status score should be reduced.

Range health just outside the Range Reference Area was also assessed in 2002. It was scored at 70 per cent with reductions in both integrity and ecological status and plant community structure. The integrity and ecological status score was reduced due to high amounts of agronomic species, Kentucky bluegrass (30 per cent) and timothy (5 per cent), that displaced native species which would have otherwise contributed to the site’s natural ecological processes. Plant community structure was reduced due to the mid grasses being significantly reduced by non-native species.


26

4.4 ProductionThe ‘cc’ Ecological Site is an important site for the Montane Subregion as it contains most of the primary grasslands and represents areas with productive Chernozemic soils. These grasslands provide both primary range for livestock grazing as well as important wildlife habitat, such as winter elk range. It is therefore important to understand the productivity of these grasslands. The Castle River RRA was chosen as a representative location to measure forage production through the variable annual weather patterns of the Montane Subregion. It has been clipped for annual forage production from 2002 to present. Five, 1.5m x 1.5m forage cages are randomly placed outside the exclosure to protect that season’s forage from being grazed. A 0.5m² frame is clipped within each cage near the end of the growing season, along with five 0.5m² frames clipped within the exclosure. Only the cattle exclosure was sampled for this trial.

The average of ten years of production data resulted in 2696 Kg/Ha inside the exclosure and 3486 Kg/Ha outside. The inside value falls within the production ranges set for the [B1] Rough Fescue – Idaho fescue – Parry oat grass or [C9] rough fescue – Kentucky bluegrass grasslands (Table 4) but is well above the averages. This may be explained by the sites relatively moist location on the edatopic grid (Figure 11). All other factors being equal, production generally increases with moisture (Resource Data Branch 2003). The outside transect at the Castle River RRA is more productive than the inside by almost 800 kg/ha. This is indicative of the seral communities of the ‘cc’ Ecological Site as the [C3] Kentucky bluegrass – rough fescue community has typically higher production values than the reference community due to the production of non-native forage species. However, an issue has arisen at this site; visual assessments in the past few years indicate that the clipped area is becoming very high in invasive forage species due to cage movements away from the exclosure and potentially into the 2005 / 2006 fire retardant application area. These clips are no longer representative of the outside transect and are closer to a [C4] Kentucky bluegrass – timothy – dandelion community that has an even higher average forage production value and greater variation (Willoughby et al. 2008).

There is high variability between years of clipping, ranging from 1504 to 3995 Kg/Ha inside the exclosure and 2186 to 5336 Kg/Ha outside. The Rocky Mountain Subregions’ annual precipitation variability is quite high (Natural Regions Committee 2006) which can account for the some yearly production differences. Figure 12 compares annual production to the April to September precipitation. Outside the exclosure the production is more variable than inside and more closely tied to annual precipitation (outside correlation r=0.47 / inside correlation r=0.14). This may be indicative of the amount on non-native forage species outside the exclosure. Tame forage species are reliant on consistent moisture, and will fluctuate greatly with precipitation differences. Native rangeland grasses have evolved for thousands of years in this environment and the heterogeneity of life forms in the community allow a more consistent annual production. For example, if one species is doing poorly due to dry / moist conditions, another species within the community may thrive.

27

Table 4. 10 years of forage production at the Castle River Range Reference Area

Cattle Exclosure Outside Exclosure2002 2186.42003 1682.8 2661.22004 2561.2 3880.82005 3541.2 5336.82006 2563.2 35282007 2696 2727.22008 3995.6 3680.82009 2682.4 3245.22010 2443.5 3232.82011 3293.2 4352.4

Avg 2696.35 3483.16Min 1504.4 2186.4Max 3995.6 5336.8

Montane Guide Production [B1]/[C9] [C3]

Avg 1963/1612 2383Min 304/418 118Max 7446/3512 7018


28

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002 200 3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20 10 2 011

Fora

ge P

rodu

ctio

n (K

g/Ha

)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000M

onthly Precipitation (mm

)

Year

0

Apr Ma y Jun Ju l Au g SepIN OUT

Figure 12. Annual forage production (line) and April – September (bar) precipitation from the Beaver Mines climate station.

29

5.0 Ten Year RecommendationsThe Castle River RRA should continue to remain as a primary site for the Division 1 Rocky Mountain Range Reference Area Program. The value of this site is increasing due to public awareness of the Castle Mountain area, as well as it is a very useful benchmark for the ‘cc’ Ecological Site. Also, it is a convenient and informative teaching location for rangeland functions, due to the documented history of the allotment and the reference area, and its easy access. There are a number of suggestions to maintain or increase the RRAs’ value for the next 10 years:

• Continue annual maintenance of the Cattle and Cattle/Wildlife fences. Although there is not a significant difference between the Cattle and Wildlife areas, the cost of up-keep of the two sites is minimal and does not pose a large issue continuing on into the future.

• Continue sampling the three transects: Cattle, Cattle/Wildlife, and outside the exclosure on a 3 year cycle with the Division 1 Range Reference Area Program.

• Require more detailed records of the Lower Castle DU’s stocking rates. The area outside the exclosure is undergoing change, mainly due to the invasion of tame forage species. Many factors are putting pressures on the grassland benches of the Castle River, including cattle grazing, wildlife grazing, fire suppression, recreation, and higher traffic use. Measurements of variables that can be controlled such as stocking rates need to be consistent in order to further understand Montane grassland succession.

• Complete Range Health Surveys every three years along with the Divisional transect readings. This site generates much discussion due to the ebbs and flows of Kentucky bluegrass within the exclosure. This variation may be due to the litter accumulations from lack of grazing. These Kentucky bluegrass variations affect the health score particularly in relation to question 1 – The ecological integrity of the site. Measuring heath through time would help quantify how this variation directly affects the overall score.

• Continue the forage clipping trial into the foreseeable future; however, the cages should be moved to the north side of the outside transect to better represent the transect plant community. This move must be documented and most likely treated as a new trial. The clipping trial should be halted if any adverse effects either inside or outside the exclosure are noted.

• Continue to monitor litter levels along with clipping. Treatment options may need to be explored if it is concluded that litter adversely affects the plant community within the exclosure. This site may be a candidate for a three year surface moisture / temperature monitoring study between high and low litter areas.


30

6.0 References(Adams et al. 2009) Adams, B.W., G. Ehlert, C. Stone, M. Alexander, D. Lawrence, M.

Willoughby, D. Moisey, C. Hincz, A. Burkinshaw, Jennifer Carlson and Kevin France. 2009. Range Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest, and Tame Pasture. Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. No. T/044.

(Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007) Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, 2007. Grazing Lease Stewardship Code of Practice. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development December 14, 2007. http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/GrazingRangeManagement/GrazingLeaseStewardshipCodeOfPractice.aspx

(Blackmore 1983) Blackmore, D.G. 1983. Rangeland exclosures, reference areas, and vegetation sampling methods. A literature review with recommendations for the Alberta Forest Service Exclosure Program. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Forest Service. Edmonton, Alberta.

(Daubenmire 1959) Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science. 33(1):43-61.

(File Report 1951) Government of Alberta. 1951. Range Management Plan, Management Unit Castle River. File Report.

(GOA 1953) Government of Alberta. 1953. Range Transect Information: Cluster CC5. File Report

(GOA 1960) Government of Alberta 1960. Range Management Plant, Castle River Allotment, Castle Ranger District. File Report.

(GOA 1962) Government of Alberta. 1962. Report on range condition and trend – Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve – 1962. File Report

(GOA 1975) Government of Alberta. 1975. Range Management Plan, Castle River Range Allotment, Bow/Crow Forest. File Report.

(GOA 1977) Government of Alberta. 1977. Reading of transects in and out of Permanent Exclosures. Summer 1976. File Report.

(GOA 2011) Government of Alberta. 2011. Range management plan for the Castle River Allotment. PNT940206. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Pincher Creek, AB. (In Press)

(Jacobs 1986) Jacobs, Frank. 1986. Heritage Voices featuring Wally Hanson. Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation. Video, Calgary Alberta.

31

(Johnston 1961) Johnston, Alexander. 1961. Comparison of lightly grazed and ungrazed range in the fescue grasslands of southwestern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:615-622.

(Laycock 1991) Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands – a viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 45:427-433

(McNeil 2011) McNeil, Ron. 2011. Analysis of the moisture and nutrient regime in the rough fescue range plant community, Montane natural subregion of southwestern Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lands Division. Final Report.

(Moss and Campbell 1947) Moss, E.H. and J.A. Campbell. 1947. The fescue grassland of Alberta. Can. J. Res. 25:209-227.

(Parker 1951) Parker, K.W. 1951. A method for measuring trend in range condition on national forest ranges. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

(Natural Regions Committee 2006) Natural Regions Committee 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.

(Range Management Branch 2004) Rangeland Management Branch. 2004. Rangeland Reference Area Program for the Province of Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Public Lands and Forest Division. Pub No. I/196.

(Resource Data Branch 2003) Resource Data Branch. 2003. Ecological land survey site description manual (2nd edition). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Strategic Corporate Services Division, Edmonton, AB. Pub No.: T/036.

(Rogeau 2012) Rogeau, Marie-Pierre. 2012. Fire history study: Castle River watershed, Alberta. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Calgary, AB (In Press)

(Weerstra 1986) Weersta, Bryne Glen. 1986. Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve: Livestock grazing history and Festuca scabrella Torr. range recovery. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

(Weerstra 1989) Weerstra B.G. 1989. Rangeland reference areas of the Alberta Forest Service. (Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve). Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Forest Service. Edmonton, Alberta.

(Weerstra 1990) Weerstra, B.G. 1990. Castle River Rangeland Reference Area. Range use history, condition and trend. Alberta Forest Service, Forest Land Use Branch, Range Management Section, Edmonton, AB.

(Willoughby 1992) Willoughby, Michael. 1992. Range reference areas. Plant communities, ecology and response to grazing in Division 1. Blairmore Forest District. Alberta Forestry, Lands, and Wildlife, Forest Service. Edmonton, Alberta.


32

(Willoughby 1997) Willoughby, Michael G. 1997. Rangeland Reference Areas: Castle River range condition and trend from 1953 – 1995. Alberta Environmental Protection, Land and Forest Services, Edmonton, AB. Pub No.: T/358.

(Willoughby et al. 2008) Willoughby, Michael G., Michael J. Alexander, and Barry W. Adams. 2008. Range plant community types and carrying capacity for the Montane Subregion. Seventh Approximation. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Pub. No. T/136.

33

Appendices

Appendix 1. Reports developed from the Castle River Range Reference Area dataAlexander, M.J., Willoughby, M.G., 2008. Rangeland Health for Native and Modified Plant

Communities in the Rough Fescue Ecological Site of the Montane Subregion. Society for Range Management 62 Annual Meeting.

Edward Bork, Walter Willms, Steven Tannas, and Mike Alexander, 2012. Seasonal Patterns of Forage Availability in the Fescue Grasslands Under Contrasting Grazing Histories. Rangeland Ecol Manage 65:47–55.

McNeil, Ron. 2011. Analysis of the moisture and nutrient regime in the rough fescue range plant community, Montane natural subregion of southwestern Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lands Division. Final Report.

Weersta, Bryne Glen. 1986. Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve: Livestock grazing history and Festuca scabrella Torr. range recovery. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Weerstra B.G. 1989. Rangeland reference areas of the Alberta Forest Service. (Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve). Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Forest Service. Edmonton, Alberta.

Willoughby, M.G. and M.A. Alexander. 2007. Rangeland Health for Native and Modified plant communities in the Rough fescue ecological site of the Montane subregion, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Lands Division Edmonton, AB. Pub. No. t/150. 15pp.

Willoughby, M.G. and M.J. Alexander. 2005. Long-term Trends in Rangeland Health of the Rough Fescue Ecological Site in the Montane Subregion. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Public Lands and Forests Division. Edmonton. AB. Pub. No. T/069. 20pp.

Willoughby,M.G. and M.J. Alexander. 2000. A Range Condition Dilemma. Rangelands. 22(1) 23-26.

Willoughby, M.G., M.J. Alexander, B.D. Irving and O. Angeles. 1998. How Should Foothills Rough Fescue be Assessed? A Range Condition Dilemma. 51st Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Guadalajara, Mexico, Feb 8-12.

Willoughby, M.G. 1997. Rangeland Reference Areas, Castle River, Range condition and trend from 1953-1995. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alta. Pub. No. T/358. 22pp.


34

Willoughby,M.G., and M.L. Anderson. 1994. Rangeland reference Areas on Alberta’s Eastern slopes: Plant communities, their ecology and response to grazing, Proceedings 1st interprovincial Range Confrence in Western Canada. Saskatoon, SK. Jan 17-20 1993. Pp 182-191.

Willoughby, M.G. 1992. Rangeland Reference Areas; Plant communities, ecology and response to grazing in division 1 Blairmore Forest District. Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Edmonton, Alta. Pub. No. T/266.

Willoughby, Michael G., Michael J. Alexander, and Barry W. Adams. 2008. Range plant community types and carrying capacity for the Montane Subregion. Seventh Approximation. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Pub. No. T/136.

35

Appendix 2. Castle Allotment annual stocking rates*

Year Yearlings Mature Horses Total Season ActualAUMS

RecommendedAUMS

1947 208 1080 Jun 1 - Oct 15 57961948 58 1180 Jun 1 - Oct 15 55711949 74 928 Jun 1 - Oct 15 45091950 78 963 Jun 1 - Oct 15 46841951 73 960 Jun 1 - Oct 15 4648 45001952 770 280 25 1075 Jun 1 - Oct 15 4675 45001953 781 351 35 1167 Jun 1 - Oct 15 4100 45001954 644 371 35 1050 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3700 45001955 815 209 20 1044 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3708 45001956 472 567 15 1054 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3129 45001957 720 208 928 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3200 45001958 676 198 874 Jun 1 - Oct 15 2964 45001959 641 356 997 Jun 1 - Oct 15 2863 45001960 503 431 934 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3060 30741961 541 440 981 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3060 30741962 383 449 832 Jun 1 - Oct 15 2893 30741963 462 467 30 959 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3147 30741964 425 543 968 Jun 1 - Oct 15 3247 30741965 451 379 830 Jun 11 - Oct 15 2803 30741966 476 634 1110 Jun 9 - Oct 15 3066 30741967 448 529 977 Jun 14 - Oct 7 2768 30741968 487 472 959 Jun 15 - Oct 7 2950 30741969 422 467 889 Jun 14 - Oct 7 2655 30741970 384 503 887 Jun 15 - Oct 7 2717 30741971 318 608 926 Jun 14 - Oct 7 2854 28301972 288 640 928 Jun 15 - Oct 7 2859 28301973 340 669 1009 Jun 16 - Oct 7 2875 28301974 382 549 931 Jun 14 - Oct 7 2889 28301975 276 462 738 Jun 13 - Oct 6 2260 22101976 326 387 713 Jun 14 - Oct 10 2182 22101977 312 434 746 Jun 14 - Oct 10 2320 22101978 344 415 759 Jun 15 - Oct 9 2299 22101979 306 467 773 Jun 13 - Oct 7 2230 22101980 307 401 708 Jun 12 - Oct 11 2232 22101981 307 399 706 Jun 14 - Oct 11 2232 22101982 314 462 776 Jun 13 - Oct 1 2268 22101983 360 433 793 Jun 13 - Oct 1 2122 2210


36

Year Yearlings Mature Horses Total Season Actual AUMS

Recommended AUMS

1984 353 441 794 Jun 13 - Oct 8 2274 22101985 354 439 793 Jun 15 - Oct 10 2244 22101986 332 374 706 Jun 16 - Oct 10 2164 22101987 442 348 790 Jun 15 - Oct 15 2300 22101988 368 435 803 Jun 15 - Oct 15 2499 22101989 311 448 759 Jun 15 - Oct 15 2516 22101990 261 459 720 Jun 15 - Oct 15 2238 22101991 292 435 727 Jun 13 - Oct 8 2321 22101992 301 377 678 Jun 10 - Oct 12 2044 22101993 198 506 704 Jun 11 - Oct 12 2203 22101994 255 451 706 Jun 15 - Oct 10 2280 22101995 328 512 840 Jun 15 - Oct 15 2061 22101996 318 509 827 Jun 14 - Oct 7 2226 22101997 306 428 734 Jun 16 - Oct 6 2221 22101998 317 440 757 Jun 15 - Oct 7 2082 22101999 496 327 823 Jun 15 - Oct 4 2168 22102000 482 327 809 Jun 15 - Oct 9 2337 22102001 480 369 849 Jun 14 - Oct 8 2520 22102002 517 330 847 Jun 25 - Oct 7 2228 22102003 522 352 874 Jun 15 - Oct 6 2514 22102004 422 408 830 Jun 15 - Oct 3 2126 22102005 422 408 830 Jun 15 - Oct 3 2501** 22102006 502 373 875 Jun 15 - Nov 7 2822 22102007 150 569 719 Jun 14 - Oct 1 2712 22562008 106 693 799 Jun 15 - Oct 4 2947 22562009 117 588 705 Jun 15 - Oct 5 2807 22562010 118 596 714 Jun 14 - Oct 4 2782 2256

* 1947 - 1990 data from previous summaries, 1991 on compiled through actual stock returns.

** 2005 Stocking rates and Carry capacity increased due to AUE adjustment

** An Animal Unit (A.U.) is considered 1 mature cow. The 1975 calculation would then estimate a yearling at 2/3 A.U.’s, and a bull at 1.5 A.U.’s. These calculations were increased in the forest reserve in 2005 as the average cow size has increased over time. These values are now 1.18 for a mature cow, .78 for a yearling, and 1.7 for a bull.

37

Appendix 3. Lower Castle Distribution Unit stocking rates*

Year Actual AUMS**

Recommended AUMS

Season of Use

1947 N/A 7501948 N/A 7501949 N/A 7501950 N/A 7501951 N/A 7501952 N/A 7501953 N/A 7501954 N/A 7501955 N/A 7501956 N/A 7501957 N/A 7501958 N/A 7501959 N/A 7501960 N/A 3501961 N/A 3501962 N/A 3501963 N/A 3501964 N/A 3501965 N/A 3501966 344 350 Season Long1967 610 350 Autumn1968 466 350 Season Long1969 408 350 Season Long1970 386 350 Season Long1971 517 540 Season Long1972 382 540 Season Long1973 443 540 Season Long1974 267 540 Season Long1975 210 540 Autumn1976 334 180 Autumn1977 135 180 Autumn1978 124 180 Autumn1979 253 180 Autumn1980 110 180 Autumn1981 N/A 180 N/A1982 N/A 180 N/A1983 N/A 180 N/A

Year Actual AUMS**

Recommended AUMS

Season of Use

1984 N/A 180 N/A1985 117 180 Autumn1986 164 180 Season Long1987 204 180 Season Long1988 565 180 Autumn and

Season long1989 444 180 Autumn and

Season long1990 95 180 Season Long1991 96 180 Season Long1992 99 180 Season Long1993 96 180 Season Long1994 143 180 Season Long1995 N/A 180 N/A1996 N/A 180 N/A1997 N/A 180 N/A1998 N/A 180 N/A1999 N/A 180 N/A2000 N/A 180 N/A2001 N/A 180 N/A2002 N/A 180 N/A2003 400 180 Season Long2004 N/A 180 N/A2005 N/A 180 N/A2006 N/A 180 N/A2007 255 170 Season Long2008 N/A 170 N/A2009 N/A 170 N/A2010 N/A 170 N/A

* 1947 - 1994 provided by Willoughby (1997), 1993, and 1995 were compiled through stock return information.


38

Year

Sa

mpl

edSo

il Su

bgro

upSo

il G

reat

G

roup

Soil

Ord

erH

umus

Fo

rm C

lass

Pare

nt

Mat

eria

l and

La

ndfo

rm

PM T

extu

reM

oist

ure

Dra

inag

eSl

ope

2010

Orth

icB

lack

Che

rnoz

emic

R.M

UFl

uvia

l Te

rrac

eC

lay

Loam

to L

oam

Mes

icW

ell

1%

1981

Orth

icB

lack

Che

rnoz

emic

N/A

Gla

ciofl

uvia

l Te

rrac

eS

ilt L

oam

to C

lay

Loam

ven

eer o

ver

very

gra

velly

fluv

ial

mat

eria

l

Sub

H

umic

Wel

lLe

vel t

o 1%

Year

Hor

izon

Dep

thH

oriz

on

Thic

knes

sH

oriz

on B

ound

ary

Text

ure

Coa

rse

Frag

men

tsEf

ferv

esce

nce

From

ToM

inM

axD

istin

ctne

ssFo

rm%

Vol

20

10

F6

05

9C

lear

Sm

ooth

Loam

Non

eN

one

Ah

023

2124

Cle

arW

avy

Loam

-Cla

y Lo

am1%

Gra

vel

Non

e

Bm

2341

1420

Gra

dual

Wav

yC

lay

Loam

4% G

rave

lN

one

BC

4154

1015

Gra

dual

Wav

yC

lay

Loam

5% G

rave

l, 2%

Cob

ble

Non

eII

C54

64+

--

--

Loam

7% G

rave

l, 5%

Cob

ble

Non

e19

81

F-H

30

59

Sm

ooth

Org

anic

mat

Non

eN

/AA

h0

2021

24C

lear

Wav

yS

ilt L

oam

5% R

ound

edN

/AB

m20

5314

20C

lear

Wav

yC

lay

Loam

20%

Rou

nded

N/A

C53

+-

--

-C

lay

Loam

Very

Gra

velly

N/A

Ap

pen

dix

4.

So

ils s

urve

y in

form

atio

n fo

r th

e C

astle

Riv

er R

ang

e R

efer

ence

Are

a.

39

Year

Hor

izon

Stru

ctur

eC

onsi

sten

ceR

oots

Col

our 1

(Mat

rix)

Gra

deC

lass

Kin

d

Abu

ndan

ceS

ize

Orie

ntat

ion

Dis

t.A

spec

tH

ueVa

lue

and

Chr

oma

2010

F

Loos

e (d

)A

bund

ant

Varia

ble

Ran

dom

Mat

rixD

10Y

R4/

3A

hM

oder

ate

Med

ium

- C

oars

eS

uban

gula

r B

lock

yS

oft (

d)P

lent

iful

Fine

Verti

cal

Inpe

dD

10Y

R3/

2

Bm

Mod

erat

eM

ediu

m -

Coa

rse

Sub

angu

lar

Blo

cky

Slig

htly

Har

d (d

)Fe

wFi

neR

ando

mIn

ped

D10

YR

4.5/

3

BC

Mod

erat

eM

edP

rism

atic

Fria

ble

(m)

Very

few

Very

Fi

neR

ando

mIn

ped

M10

YR

4/3.

5

II C

S

truct

urel

ess

Mas

sive

Fr

iabl

e (m

)Ve

ry fe

wVe

ry

Fine

Ran

dom

Mat

rixM

10Y

R3.

5/3

1981

F-H

-

D10

YR

3/2

- 2/2

Ah

Wea

kFi

neG

ranu

lar

Fria

ble

(m),

Slig

htly

har

d (d

)

Ple

ntifu

lVe

ry

Fine

Ran

dom

N/A

D5Y

R2.

5/1

- 2.

5/2

Bm

Wea

k to

M

oder

ate

Fine

Sub

angu

lar

Blo

cky

Fria

ble

(m),

Har

d (d

)Fe

wFi

neR

ando

mN

/AD

7.5Y

R3/

2 (m

)

C-

--

--

--

--

--


40

Appendix 5. Timeline of events at the Castle River Range Reference Area.

Year Month Record1951 First Range Management Plan; change in prescribed stocking rate1953

- July

Transect established for Range Condition and Trend Monitoring (CC3, CC4)Outside transect read using Parker’s Loop

1957 July Outside transect read using Parker’s Loop1959 July Outside transect read using Parker’s Loop1960 Range Management Plan written; change in prescribed stocking rate1962

-July

Exclosure builtInside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop

1975 Range Management Plan written; change in prescribed stocking rate1976 June Inside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop1978 June Inside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop1979 June Inside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop1980 June Inside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop, and Daubenmire plot frame1981

April-

Exclosure burnedSpecies productivity inside and outside measured

1982 - Species productivity inside and outside measured1983

June-

Inside and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop, and Daubenmire plot frameSpecies productivity inside and outside measured

1986

-June

Exclosure rebuilt incorporated a Wildlife (elk) exclusion areaCattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop, and Daubenmire plot frame

1989 June Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop, and Daubenmire plot frame1992 June Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Parker’s Loop, and Daubenmire plot frame1995 June Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Daubenmire plot frame1998 June Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Daubenmire plot frame2001 June Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Daubenmire plot frame2002 August Commencement of Long term forage production study2003 August Forage Production Clipping2004

JulyAugust

Cattle, wildlife and outside transect read using Daubenmire plot frameForage Production Clipping

2005 August Forage Production Clipping2006 August Forage Production Clipping2007

JulyAugust


2008 August Forage Production Clipping2009 August Forage Production Clipping2010

JulyAugust


2011 August Forage Production Clipping2012 August Forage Production Clipping

Documents

ISBN: 978-1-4601-2625-7 (Printed Version) · Regions Committee 2006). The terrain within the RMFR is mostly mountainous, but gradually The terrain within the RMFR is mostly mountainous,