State of the Crown of The Continent EcosystemFires and floods still renew its landscape. To administer it, we have fragmented this puzzle into a myriad of jurisdictions. Putting its

State of the

Crown of TheContinent Ecosystem:Transboundary Bioregion

State of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: Transboundary Bioregion

IIIII

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

- DRAFT -

Flathead Transboundary NetworkJanuary 1999

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

Miistakis Institute for the Rockiesc/o Biological SciencesUniversity of Calgary

2500 University Drive NWCalgary, 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, orotherwise, without the prior written permission of a copyright holder.


IIIIIIIIII

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/ CastleTransboundary Region (Draft). Calgary: Miistakis Institute for the Rockies.


IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: A transboundary ecosystem...............1a) Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1The political context: .............................................................................................................................. 1An information-based approach: This State of the Ecosystem Report .............................................. 2Scope of this report: .............................................................................................................................. 2

b) Geographic Context ................................................................................................... 4Location: ................................................................................................................................................ 4Landscape and Geology: ..................................................................................................................... 4Climate .................................................................................................................................................. 6Ecozones: .............................................................................................................................................. 6

c) Administrative Context: .............................................................................................. 9Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................................................... 9Land Use Zones ....................................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: General Human History....................17Native Peoples .............................................................................................................. 17Non-native settlement ..................................................................................................18

Part A: North Fork — Flathead ..................... 21Chapter 3 — Ecological Components of the

North Fork of the Flathead ............................... 21Ecological Processes .....................................................................................................21Fire ........................................................................................................................................................ 21Disease ................................................................................................................................................ 23

Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 23Historic content and distribution ........................................................................................................ 24Present content, distribution............................................................................................................... 24

Focal species ................................................................................................................ 26Old growth forest ................................................................................................................................ 28Trends in Forest Composition and Structure ...................................................................................... 29


IVIVIVIVIV

Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................31 Historic content ................................................................................................................................... 31Present content ................................................................................................................................... 32Protected status .................................................................................................................................. 34Habitat hotspots .................................................................................................................................. 35Focal Species ....................................................................................................................................... 35

Aquatics (quality/species) ........................................................................................... 39Water Quality — Present Status: ........................................................................................................ 40Water Quality Monitoring Framework................................................................................................ 43Indicators of Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 43Focal Species ................................................................................................................ 46

Chapter 4 — One Century of Human Activity inthe North Fork...................................................49

Forestry Practices ......................................................................................................... 49Past (British Columbia) ........................................................................................................................ 49Past (Montana) .................................................................................................................................... 50Current (Montana)................................................................................................................................ 51Current (British Columbia)................................................................................................................... 52

Petroleum Extraction .................................................................................................... 57Past (British Columbia) ........................................................................................................................ 57Past (Montana) .................................................................................................................................... 57Current (BC and Montana) ................................................................................................................. 57Mining ........................................................................................................................... 58Past (British Columbia) ........................................................................................................................ 58Past (Montana) .................................................................................................................................... 58Current (BC and Montana) ................................................................................................................. 58

Recreational Activities .................................................................................................. 60Past Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting (B.C. and Montana) ................................................................... 60Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Fishing/ Outfitting (B.C.) ........................................................................ 60Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting (Montana) .............................................................................. 61Current Camping/ Hiking/ General sightseeing (Montana and B.C.): ............................................. 61Current Commercial River Usage (Montana) .................................................................................... 62Current motorized recreation — snowmobiles, 4 wheelers, dirt bikes (Montana and BC) ........... 63

Land development ....................................................................................................... 64Current (B.C. and Montana) ............................................................................................................... 64


VVVVV

Ranching Practices ....................................................................................................... 65Current (B.C. and Montana) ............................................................................................................... 65Road Development ...................................................................................................... 65Road profiles: ...................................................................................................................................... 67

Part B: Castle Drainage ............................... 75

Chapter 5 — Ecological Components of theCastle Drainage ............................................... 75

Ecological Processes (fire, flood, disease) .................................................................. 75Fire ....................................................................................................................................................... 75Flood .................................................................................................................................................... 76Disease/ Insects .................................................................................................................................. 76

Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 77 Historic content, distribution .............................................................................................................. 77Present content, distribution............................................................................................................... 79Focal species — pockets of endemism.............................................................................................. 81Old-growth forest ................................................................................................................................. 81Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................. 83

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 83Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... 84Mule and White-tailed Deer ............................................................................................................... 88Elk ......................................................................................................................................................... 89Moose................................................................................................................................................... 91Bighorn Sheep ..................................................................................................................................... 92Mountain Goats .................................................................................................................................. 92Wolf ...................................................................................................................................................... 94Grizzly Bear ......................................................................................................................................... 96Mesopredators (Lynx, Wolverine, Marten and Fisher) ...................................................................... 99Birds .................................................................................................................................................... 101Habitat Hot Spots ............................................................................................................................... 102

Aquatics ...................................................................................................................... 104Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 104Fish ...................................................................................................................................................... 105


VIVIVIVIVI

Chapter 6 — One Century of Human Activity inthe Castle ....................................................... 107

Forestry Practices ........................................................................................................107Historic ................................................................................................................................................ 107Current ................................................................................................................................................ 108

Agriculture .................................................................................................................. 109Historic ................................................................................................................................................ 109Current ................................................................................................................................................ 110

Mining Practices .......................................................................................................... 110Historic ................................................................................................................................................ 110Current ................................................................................................................................................ 113

Petroleum Exploration/ Extraction .............................................................................. 113Historic ................................................................................................................................................ 113Current ................................................................................................................................................ 113Past ..................................................................................................................................................... 114

Hunting, Trapping and Outfitting Practices ................................................................ 114Current ................................................................................................................................................ 115Recreation Activity ....................................................................................................... 115Current Road Status ........................................................................................................................... 116

Chapter 7: An integrated approach ................. 119Ecosystem Based Management: ............................................................................... 119Overview............................................................................................................................................. 119Ecosystem Wide Trends .............................................................................................. 121Human Based Management .................................................................................... 128A Process for the future ............................................................................................. 129

Appendix I: Processes to build upon .................... iReferences ..........................................................xiiiPersonal Communications .......................................................................................... xiiiBibliography ................................................................................................................. xiii


11111

a) Introduction

Where the Continental Divide transects the

49th parallel, water flows amidst limestone

peaks to nurture a remarkable ecosystem. Prai-

rie grasses, pacific flowers and alpine wildlife

intermingle in one of the most biodiverse places

on the continent. From here, grizzlies and

wolves repopulate the northern U.S. Rivers

flow to two opposing oceans. Fires and floods

still renew its landscape. To administer it, we

have fragmented this puzzle into a myriad of

jurisdictions. Putting its pieces back together

is the focus of this report.

The political context:

Landscape management fads change from

decade to decade. Biosphere reserves and envi-

ronmental assessment in the 1970s gave way

to integrated resource plans, national forest/

parks planning and ecosystem management in

the 1980s. In the 1990s we undertook cumula-

tive effects analysis and large scale land-use

planning exercises such as CORE in BC, Spe-

cial Places 2000 in Alberta and various attempts

at designating federal wilderness in Montana.

Despite some jurisdictional successes in these

fields, as we head into a new millennium we still

have difficulties conceptualizing across organi-

zational and political boundaries. We collect in-

formation based upon our particular mandates.

Ecological landscapes reflect our cognitive maps

instead of the other way around.

When Fording Coal Inc. announced plans in late

1997 to drill exploratory sites for coal reserves in

the headwaters of the Flathead River, memories

of an international dispute surfaced. In the late

1970s and early 1980s, Rio Algom and its sub-

sidiary, Sage Creek Coal, announced plans for an

open pit mine in B.C. just 6 miles north of the in-

ternational border. As the mine was proposed in

tributaries of the transboundary North Fork of the

Flathead and would affect key bull trout spawn-

ing streams, that project

was ultimately referred to

the International Joint

Commission (IJC) under

the Boundary Waters

Treaty of 1909. In its 1988

report, the IJC recom-

mended that:

“The mine proposal

not receive regulatory

approval in the future

unless and until it can

be demonstrated that...

the potential transboundary impacts... have

been determined with reasonable certainty

and would constitute a level of risk acceptable

to both governments and... governments

consider, with the appropriate jurisdictions,

opportunities for defining and implementing

compatible, equitable and sustainable devel-

opment activities and management strategies

in the upper Flathead River basin.”

Chapter 1: A transboundary ecosystem


22222

Furthermore, the IJC prescribed “the identi-

fication and formulation of creative, binational

approaches” to studies, fact finding and plan-

ning in this watershed.

Various government agencies and conserva-

tion groups convened in Whitefish, MT on Janu-

ary 31st 1998, catalyzed by the Fording proposal.

Participants recognized that this proposal rep-

resented only one of many developments in the

region and that, despite the IJC recommenda-

tions and many follow-up studies in the inter-

vening 15 years, there is still no co-operative,

international or interagency management plan

that looks at the region as a single ecological

unit. There is no mechanism to effectively as-

sess and deal with cumulative impacts and no

single, broadly accepted set of ecosystem stand-

ards for what is sustainable in terms of water

quality, fish and wildlife habitat, resource man-

agement, and recreation. In short, despite the

best intentions of policy makers promoting eco-

system management in each province and state,

structural realities have thwarted this approach.

An information-based approach: This

State of the Ecosystem Report

Agreement on interjurisdictional management

of an ecosystem cannot proceed without agree-

ment upon what it is comprised of and what is

of issue. At a follow-up meeting in April 1998,

the Flathead Transboundary Network recognized

that a first step in realizing an ecosystem-wide

management structure would be to create a ho-

listic snapshot of the area.

This State of the Ecosystem Report represents

a first cut at describing the ecological compo-

nents of this area, including human activity. The

document makes no appraisal of impacts and

undertakes no evaluation of issues. This is only

intended to be descriptive.

Recognizing that we do not have all experts

around the table, this draft report is being dis-

tributed to various First Nations peoples, scien-

tists and agency managers with an invitation to

build upon it. We hope that a common under-

standing of baseline information will proactively

lead to agreement on transboundary issues and

the eventual approaches to deal with them.

Scope of this report:

This report focusses on the Flathead/ Castle

Transboundary bioregion of the greater Crown

of the Continent Ecosystem (see Map A). As eco-

system boundaries do not follow political

boundaries and are ill-defined, watershed

boundaries are often used as surrogates. Origi-

nally, the watershed boundaries of the North Fork

of the Flathead River were used to bound our

study. However, the source of many of the cumu-

lative effects on this ecosystem’s components lies

across the Continental Divide in Alberta. There-

fore, we have extended its scope (cont’d p4)

This is a living document. We invite you toreflect upon how it captures your particularunderstanding of this ecosystem and howyou might contribute to improve upon it. Weare soliciting comments into the spring of1999. Please refer to the contact informationon the introductory page.


33333


44444

to include the Castle River drainage and have left

open the option of including other watersheds if

expert review shows that to be desirable.

The report covers the ecological components

(ecological processes, vegetation, wildlife, aquat-

ics) and human activities occurring within these

watersheds. Wherever possible, we present both

historic (baseline) and current details with an

analysis of apparent trends.

b) Geographic Context

Location:

The Transboundary Bioregion (Map B) occu-

pies two watersheds of the greater Crown of the

Continent Ecosystem. The Crown of the Conti-

nent is centred on the Waterton-Glacier Interna-

tional Peace Park and stretches along the axis of

the Rocky Mountains between the Canadian Cen-

tral Rockies (Banff-Yoho-Kootenay complex) and

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

These two watersheds abut Waterton and

Glacier National Parks respectively. The Castle

River originates in Alberta, north of Waterton,

and flows in a north-easterly manner into the

Crowsnest then the Oldman and eventually the

Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers. The North

Fork of the Flathead River originates in south-

eastern British Columbia, adjacent to Waterton

and flows in a southerly direction (forming

Glacier’s western boundary) into Flathead Lake,

the Clark Fork River, then the Pend D’Oreille

River and finally into the Columbia.

This bioregion encompasses roughly 5088

km2 (1964 mi2). The Castle drainage in Al-

berta covers about 970 km 2 (374 mi 2)

whereas the North Fork of the Flathead drain-

age covers 4118 km2. (1617 mi2) in BC and

Montana. Of the latter, the North Fork drains

1575 km2 (608 mi2) over its 50 km (31 mi)

extent in BC and drains 2543 km2 (982 mi2)

over its 75 km (47mi) extent in Montana.

Landscape and Geology:

The topography of this ecosystem is com-

plex, ranging from rolling prairie to steep

mountain walls to a wide glaciated valley.

Viewed from the north-east, it begins with prai-

rie (1475m/4839ft) intruding into the deep east-

west aligned Front Range canyons of Alberta.

The mountains of the Castle region rise dra-

matically, without any intermediary foothills.

Proceeding west over the ends of these box can-

yons, three north - south valleys are split by

Windsor and Barnaby Ridges respectively.

These valleys, Mill, South Castle and West

Castle, segment the ecosystem east of the Divide.

Crossing over the Continental Divide (2400m

- 2755m or 7874ft - 9039ft), a myriad of

headwater streams cut valleys down to the

North Fork of the Flathead River (1300m/

4265ft). The terrain opens up here, as the river

is surrounded by a series of flat benches and

rolling hills bordered by subranges of the Rocky

The two watersheds are presentedseparately to facilitate review. A decision onintegrating them in the next iteration hingesupon reader feedback.


55555

Mountains. Travelling south into Montana, the

Clark range gives way to the Livingstone

Range on the east side of the Flathead and

the Macdonald Range becomes the Whitefish

Range on the west side. The highest peaks

bordering the valley reach 3040m (9974 ft),

however, most mountains are between 2200m

(7218 ft) and 2900m (9514 ft).

This transboundary bioregion is

topographically defined by the Lewis Thrust - an

orogenic event that took place over 65 million

years ago. Base materials were deposited in sev-

eral sedimentary se-quences. Red and green

argillites, mudstones and limestones originated

in a shallow inland sea between 900 and 1500

million years ago (Mesoproterozoic to

Neoproterozoic Rodinia). A second sedimentary

period, when this region formed an offshore

continental shelf, began about 525 million

years ago (Middle Cambrian to Permian). As

the ocean alternately retreated and covered this

shelf, vegetation grew and decayed resulting

in oil and gas deposits sandwiched between

layers of limestone, dolomite and shale. Finally,

between 5 and 140 million years ago, various

inland seas and rivers eroded newly formed

mountains to create sandstone, shales, and con-

glomerate. Through parts of this period, much

of the North Fork was muddy swampland re-

ceiving river-borne sediment. The rich coal de-

posits now found near the surface here owe

their origins to this Cretaceous bog.

Tectonic plate collisions initiated mountain-

building in western North America about 175

million yeas ago. By 140 million years ago the

westernmost Rockies had formed. A ‘stall’ then

allowed these rocks to erode before increased

activity built the front ranges. In the Waterton-

Glacier region, this activity was manifested as

a uniquely clean event - the Lewis Overthrust.

Beginning 85 million years ago, material from

the first sedimentary period sheared off from the

harder basement granite and slid cleanly over

younger material from the third and second pe-

riods. Material originating west of the present

Flathead Valley moved 60-70 km (37-44 mi) east

to create dramatic mountains with minimal fold-

ing and no foothills.

Next, between 24 and

40 million years ago, tec-

tonic movements pulled

apart the result of the

Lewis Overthrust. This

Flathead Fault created a

broad valley, exposed the

younger rocks below and

collected new sedimen-

tary material in a series of

alluvial fans. This con-

glomerate of sands and

gravel (a continuation of

the ‘third sedimentary

period’) make up the

surficial material of the North Fork.

Finally, over the last 400 000 years, a series of

glaciation events have sculpted the landscape. Ice

sheets spreading out from the continental divide

covered all but sporadic mountains (nunatuks).

Although the last sheets retreated over 10 000

years ago, the resulting glaciers, lakes, hanging

valleys, cirques and hills/ drumlins/ moraines in

the region bear testament to their flow.


66666

Climate

The climate of the ecosystem is highly vari-

able. Washington’s Columbia Plateau presents

little barrier to storm systems moving in from

the southwest resulting in heavy precipitation

in this portion of the Continental Divide. More

moisture precipitates out as storms gain altitude

towards the northwest in Glacier National Park

and BC. Although the bulk of precipitation falls

out on the west side of the Divide, low moun-

tain passes still permit substantial moisture

to pass through. Generally speaking, the

region’s cl imate is

characterized by short,

cool, moist summers and

long cold winters with

heavy snowfall.

Beginning with the

southwest, the Whitefish

Range receives annual

precipitation averaging

203 cm (81 inches) while

the Livingston Range ac-

cumulates annual aver-

ages of 305 cm (122

inches). In between, the

valley floor at Polebridge

receives 57 cm (23 inches) with moisture rising

to nearly 75 cm (30 inches) at the junction with

the Middle Fork on the south. Moving into BC,

the Corbin weather station at the northern end

of the drainage records a mean annual rainfall

of 430mm (17 inches) and a mean annual snow-

fall of 390cm (153 inches). Across the Divide,

annual precipitation in the Castle Valley amounts

to 86.6 cm (34 inches). This region is the wet-

test in Alberta with the deepest provincial

snowpacks occurring in the upper Southcastle

and Westcastle valleys (Perraton 1994).

In Alberta, the greatest winter snowpack oc-

curs in the subalpine region and progressively

decreases through the montane region. Due to

the steep rock faces and exposed slopes in the

alpine region snow accumulation in this area is

minimal. Because of the combination of a high

winter snowpack and high spring rainfall, south-

western Alberta is subject to severe flooding.

In winter, Pacific storm systems vie with the

Arctic Front, which sweeps down the Rocky

Mountain Trench and Eastern Slopes. With the

flex of the continental jet stream, warm masses

of air are alternatively drawn in or forced out of

this area, resulting in unstable weather patterns

west of the Divide and the windy chinook

phenomenon to the east.

Ecozones:

Ecozones divide up the landscape into combi-

nations of climate, topography and/ or vegetation.

Demarchi and Lea’s (1992) delineation was the

first attempt to classify this ecosystem across bor-

ders. Based upon physiography, they break the

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (also

known as the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem)

into the Border Ranges Ecosection (BRR) and

Crown of the Continent Ecosection (COC). The

Border Ranges Ecosection extends from

Whitefish, Montana north into BC (cont’d p9)

across the Flathead. In BC, this ecosection is char-

acterized by wide valleys, subdued mountains and

occasional steep, rugged ridges (EKLUP 1994).

The Crown of the Continent Ecosection is a


88888

blank - backside


99999

(cont’d p9) rugged mountainous area that rises

abruptly from the Interior Plains in Alberta and

Montana to the east and from the Flathead Basin

to the west (EKLUP 1994).

Each jurisdiction has also classified its

landscapes into re lat ively comparable

ecozones. Each generally divides the ecosys-

tem into low elevation mountainous grass-

land (montane), mid-elevation coniferous

forest (subalpine) and high elevation tundra

with subdivisions based on moisture.

For instance, the U.S. Forest Service sub-

classifies its ecoregions into age classes and

cover types. As a result , they l is t 13

Terrestrial Community Types based on veg-

etation communities. These range from

Early Seral Lower Montane at low elevations

to Mid-Seral Subalpine at the upper margins.

In addition, they list 35 cover types for the

region, from Broadleaf Forest, Lodgepole

Pine, and Mesic Upland Shrubland, to

Subalpine Fir and Barren Tundra.

In BC, the Ministry of Forests biogeoclimatic

classification system separates the drainage into

4 subzones:

Montane Spruce (dry cool), MSdk

Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (dry cool),

ESSFdk

Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (dry cool

park), ESSFdkp

Alpine Tundra, AT

In Alberta there are two systems of eco-

logically based land classifications. These

differ in purpose (i.e. intended use) and,

therefore, in criteria used for development.

These two classifications include the Natural

Regions of Alberta developed by Peter Achuff

(1992) and the Ecoregions of Alberta devel-

oped by Strong and Leggat (1992). Achuff

divides the Rocky Mountain Natural Region

into general montane, subalpine and alpine

subregions. Strong and Leggat also subdivide,

fortuitously, the Cordilleran eco-province into

montane, subalpine and alpine ecoregions.

The two classifications overlap in the Castle

region. The Castle area also consists of small

amounts of grassland

and aspen parkland

ecoregions, however the

most predominant

ecoregion is the sub-

alpine zone, which occu-

pies approximately 50%

of the region (Gibbard

and Sheppard, 1992).

More information on

ecoregions and

vegetation communities

can be found in chapters

three and five respec-

tively.

c) Administrative Context:

Jurisdictions

Approximately twenty percent of the study area

falls within Alberta, thirty percent in B.C. and fifty

percent in Montana. The Alberta portion is part of

the Bow-Crow Forest Reserve. Predominantly


1010101010

administered by Alberta Environmental Protection,

the area has two private holdings around Castle

Mountain - 82 acres (33ha) owned by the Westcastle

Development Authority and 57.5 acres (23ha)

owned by Castle Mountain Resort (Gilmar 1998).

Supervision of development on these private lands

is governed by the Municipal District of Pincher

Creek. Four provincial camp-grounds operate in

the area managed by the Alberta Parks Service

(Kehr 1998, pers. comm.). These include Lynx

Creek, Castle Falls, Castle Bridge and Beaver

Mines Lake. As part of the Special Places 2000

process, a Wetland Ecological Reserve (2 km2/

.77 mi2) has been estab-

lished in the West Castle

Valley. The management

of this reserve is still to be

determined.

In British Columbia,

the Flathead is provincial

Crown land administered

by the BC Ministry of

Forests, save for

Akamina Kishenena

Provincial Park (BC

Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks) and

several small areas which are privately owned

(197acres/80ha and 370acres/150ha respec-

tively). The old Flathead townsite in the Upper

Flathead (LU17 - 2400 acres/971ha) is owned

by Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI).

In Montana, federal and state public lands

predominate. West of the river, the area includes

approximately 535,000 acres (216 500ha) with

93.5% in public ownership (Flathead National

When Alberta became a province in

1905, the federal government retained

control over natural resources, including

the forested lands of the eastern slopes of

the Rocky Mountains. From 1914 until

1921 a large part of the Castle area lay

within Waterton Lakes National Park.

This included the Castle region up to the

Carbondale River from North Kootenay

Pass to its junction with the Castle

River. After the boundaries were

decreased in 1921, the Castle area

returned to being part of the federal

Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. In

1930 control was passed over to the

Alberta provincial government which

continued to treat the land that was

formerly within the park boundary as a

game preserve. Under this status hunt-

ing was illegal but logging and grazing

were acceptable practices (Gerrand et

al, undated). This game preserve status

remained until 1954 when the area was

once again opened up for hunting.

Forest), 3.8% owned by the State of Montana,

and the remaining 2.7% privately owned (Na-

ture Conservancy, 1994). East of the river, with a

few small exceptions (private in-holdings), the

area is administered by Glacier National Park.

Two federally administered National Parks

abut the Flathead/ Castle system. Waterton

Lakes National Park is administered by Parks

Canada while Glacier National Park is adminis-


1111111111

tered through the U.S. National Parks Service.

The two combined to form the world’s first In-

ternational Peace Park on June 30th, 1932. In

1976, Glacier National Park was designated a

UNESCO Biosphere Reserve followed by

Waterton Lakes National Park in 1979.

Waterton-Glacier was designated a World Her-

itage Site in 1996. None of these designations

carry formalized administrative obligations.

The Flathead River was designated a Wild

and Scenic River in Montana under federal

legislation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,

Public Law 90-542, in 1976. The Flathead

River in Canada currently has no special des-

ignation although its international status

places it under the direction of the federal

government (British North America Act, 1867).

Because of the s igni f icance of th is

transboundary watershed, elements of its

management come under the purview of the

International Joint Commission.

Land Use Zones

Management agencies designate land use

zones for resource management planning and

fish/ wildlife management zones for setting hunt-

ing/ angling quotas. In Alberta, the Eastern

Slopes Policy (1984) creates a broad framework

for integrated resource management. Flowing

out of this, the Castle River Subregional Inte-

grated Resource Plan, divides the area into 8

different land use zones (see Table 1). Prime pro-

tection and critical wildlife zones typically cover

off high elevation lands while riparian corridors

are designated as various Resource Manage-

ment zones. In the Castle, the bulk of the West

Castle, South Castle and Carbondale valleys are

allocated for Multiple Use. As a result, grazing,

petroleum extraction, forestry and tourism ac-

tivities are allocated here on separate leases

referring to the same land base.

Table 1. Management Categories and Land

Use Zones for the Eastern Slopes of Alberta.

* Not applied in the Castle River

tnemeganaMseirogetaC

senoZesUdnaL

noitcetorPnoitcetorPemirP.1

efildliWlacitirC.2

ecruoseRtnemeganaM

esUlaicepS.3

noitaerceRlareneG.4

esUelpitluM.5

*erutlucirgA.6

tnempoleveD*lairtsudnI.7

ytilicaF.8

The Castle region falls under wildlife manage-

ment units (WMU’s) 400, 300 and 302. The bulk

of the area is within WMU 400, which includes

the Bow-Crow Forest Reserve from Highway #3

to Waterton Lakes National Park. Only small

portions along the eastern boundary of the re-

gion fall into WMUs 300 and 302.

British Columbia divides provincial lands

into management and landscape units for plan-

ning purposes. The North Fork of the Flathead

is defined as Management Unit 4-01 and land-

scape units (LU) 16, 17, and 18. Landscape

units are areas of land and water for planning

resource management activities over the long


1212121212

term. They are delineated on the basis of

topographic or geographic features. Water-

sheds are one of the main criteria for land-

scape unit definition; boundaries follow

heights of land. Administrative boundaries

and existing road networks are also used

to determine landscape unit boundaries in

areas with less complex topography i f

ecological values are not compromised.

LUs are important for designing strate-

gies and patterns with respect to land-

s c a p e l e v e l b i o d i v e r s i t y a n d t h e

management of other

forest resources and

may be used to estab-

lish objectives.

The Kootenay

Boundary Land-Use

Plan (KBLUP), estab-

lished through CORE,

recently introduced a

separate p lann ing

framework. The plan

assigns four designa-

tions to the North Fork

(Map C):

1) Protected area (Akamina-Kishinena Provin-

cial park) (22,193 hectares/54,839 acres)

2) Special Resource Management Zone (SMZ)

(46,919 ha/115,936 acres)

3) Integrated Resource Management Zone

(IMZ) (71,549 ha/176,797 acres)

4) Enhanced Resource Management Zone

(EMZ) (3,140ha/7,759acres)

The riparian valley of the North Fork of the

Flathead is designated a Special Resource

Management Zone and Integrated and En-

hanced pockets exist. The Enhanced zone is

found near Kisoo Pass, to the North of Piaysoo

Ridge and to the west of the confluence of

Harvey Creek and the Flathead River. So des-

ignated, the area is slated for industrial ac-

tivity - mining of rich coal deposits, petroleum

extraction and logging (EKLUP 1994).

The newly protected Akamina-Kishinena

provincial park, is regarded in the plan as “a

core area of critical importance as a connec-

tor between Waterton Lakes NP and Glacier

NP...the management emphasis will be on con-

servation” (KBLUP 1997).

Other protective designations exist in BC un-

der a variety of administrative tools. The min-

eral lick in McClatchie Creek and Ptolemy

Plateau is proposed to be designated as a sensi-

tive area under the Forest Practices Code. As

outlined in the implementation strategy of the

KBLUP, the Upper Flathead should be managed

for high biodiversity emphasis and the east and

west Flathead area should be managed for me-

dium biodiversity. There is a small area north of

Mt. Yarrell which is classified as a Rare Old-

Growth area, as well as another Rare Old-

Growth area in South Lodgepole Creek. There

is a small (<5km2/2mi2) McDougall Wildlife

sanctuary, which is located in the eastern por-

tion of the drainage near Sage Creek. The North

Fork has also been designated Grizzly Bear

Priority I as well as important winter range for

ungulates (KBLUP 1997).


1313131313

Similarly, on the U.S. side, virtually the

entire North Fork is designated as Manage-

ment Situation 1 (MS-1) for grizzlies, mean-

ing that their needs are supposed to prevail

when conflicts with other land uses occur.

Exceptions to MS-1 are the Polebridge

Townsite, Polebridge Ranger Station, devel-

oped campgrounds at Quartz and Logging

Creeks, Bowman and Kintla Lakes, and two

small inholdings, all of which are MS-3.

We currently report in differing levels ofdetai l concerning land use zones inMontana, BC and Alberta. How does theFlathead National Forest zone its land?What areas in Alberta and Montanareceive special designation congruent withcounter-parts described in BC?


1414141414


1616161616

blank - backside


1717171717

Native Peoples

Piikani legend holds that Napi (Old Man)

looked down upon a world of water from

Ninastakis (Chief Mountain on the Alberta/ Mon-

tana border). He created the prairie first, followed

by a mountain backbone (Miistakis) as places for

his animals to dwell. People then were crafted

from clay to populate the land (Reeves 1997).

Eleven thousand years ago, geologists believe

glaciers were receding from the prairie, leaving

large meltwater lakes and rivers behind. The

Flathead was inundated by Glacial Lake

Missoula which suddenly drained when it broke

through its morainal dam. Recollection of this

catastrophic flood is catalogued in Ktunaxa lore

(Reeves 1997). Archaeologists have recorded

evidence of native presence in this ecosystem

since that time (Gerrand et al, 1992).

The ecosystem was peopled by the Ktunaxa

(also known as Kutenai or Kootenay) on both

sides of the Divide. Their territory was centred

on the Kootenay River, extending north and west

into the main stem of the Columbia, east onto the

prairies and south into the United States (EKLUP

1994). As the primary band in the area, they trav-

elled widely through the region, moving up and

down the mountains throughout the year in or-

der to take advantage of the resources available

at different places and during different seasons.

The North Fork and the Castle region were,

therefore, major transportation corridors, for trav-

elling south to lands in present-day Montana, east

to the prairies, or west back to the Kootenay river.

Beginning in spring, the Ktunaxa used the

Flathead mainstem, tributaries and, to a lesser

extent, Castle valleys for food gathering. Berry

gathering started at lower elevations and moved

higher with the passage of summer. Edible green

shoots such as balsamroot in the early spring and

biscuitroot, water parsnip and nodding onion later

in the season were gathered. Summer gathering

began with bitterroot, camas and Oregon grape

and moved to serviceberries (saskatoons), straw-

berries, huckleberries,

soapberries and raspber-

ries. In the fall, the

Ktunaxa gathered cran-

berries, rose hips and

kinnikinnick berries

(EKLUP 1994). They

hunted and fished to

round out their diet. The

Ktunaxa relied heavily on

caribou as well as fish for

their staples and ranged to

deer, elk, moose, moun-

tain goats and sheep when

available. In winter, they pastured their horses

on the Tobacco Plains in Montana. Using snow-

shoes instead, they crossed Akamina, Middle

and South Kootenay and Sage Passes to hunt

bison on the prairie. (Reeves 1979).

As the 18th century dawned, the Blackfoot

tribe of eastern Alberta and Montana expanded

their range westward. The Ktunuxa probably

numbered about 1000 people at this time (Reeves

Chapter 2: General Human History


1818181818

1997). Outbreaks of smallpox in 1730 and

1781 decimated their numbers, increasing

their vulnerability to the Blackfoot (Gibbard

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

Blackfoot Confederacy (composed of Peigan,

Blood, Blackfoot, Gros Ventre and Athapascan-

speaking Sarcee) had control of the prairie lands

of Southwestern Alberta (MacDonald 1992). The

Blackfoot sought to isolate the Ktunaxa, who

now resided primarily on the western slopes of

the mountains, from the first fur traders arriv-

ing in the southern Rockies. In 1810 a dispute

between the Peigan and Ktunaxa caused the

former to close all mountain passes between

the Castle and Flathead which they enforced

until the 1850s (Gerrand et al, undated). The

fur trade also had difficulty establishing a foot-

hold on Blackfoot lands (MacDonald 1992) al-

though the people of the Blackfoot Confederacy

were still involved in trading hides and furs

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

The Ktunaxa, a culturally and linguistically

unique people (EKLUP 1994), gave aboriginal

names to the tributaries in the North Fork such

as the Akamina and the Kishinena. The Ktunaxa

still use the North Fork, whether it be through

fishing, trapping or using the historical trails

which still exist today. They no longer travel to

the Castle area which are still used by the Peigan

(Piikani). The latter use the region for hunting

and collecting ceremonial paint and special

plants from the upper section of the Castle River

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

Non-native settlement

The ranching industry launched in southern

Alberta in 1874 when 235 head of cattle were

driven west from Manitoba. By the 1880s, large

herds of cattle were driven north from Fort

Benton, MT to stock expansive ranch leases in

the foothills. This increasing non-native settle-

ment, along with the near extinction of the bi-

son, led the Blackfoot to turn to agriculture as

a new way of life (MacDonald 1992). In 1876

the signing of Treaty Number 7 moved the

Peigans to their present day reserve at Brocket

(Pincher Creek Historical Society 1974). The

town of Pincher Creek originated in 1882 as a

Northwest Mounted Police Post horse ranch.

By 1910 the Castle River, lower Carbondale,

Screwdriver Creek, Beaver Mines Creek and the

Gladstone Valley were homesteaded (Pincher

Creek Historical Society 1974).

Across the Divide, settlers first reached the

main Flathead Valley with its superior access

and soils, while homesteading, farming, and

ranching in the inaccessible North Fork had to

wait until the late 1890s and early 1900s. The

What is the Ktunaxa legend of origin in thisecosys tem? Have we captured yourhistory correctly?

Have we captured the Piikani and Bloodhistory correctly? How was your use ofthe Castle different ia ted? What havewe missed?


1919191919

first road up the North Fork was built in 1901,

not to further settlement, but to reach a hoped

for oil strike on the shores of Kintla Lake. It

remains today as the “Inside North Fork Road”

in Glacier National Park.

In 1904, Bill Adair built a log mercantile and

boarding house in present day Sullivan Meadow to

serve the increasing flow of freighters, homestead-

ers, trappers, and early tourists visiting or living in

the valley. This business was relocated west of the

river to Polebridge, once lands on the east side be-

came part of Glacier National Park in 1910. The

Forest Homestead Act of 1906 opened up agricul-

tural land in the National Forest Reserves for set-

tlement and much of today’s private land along

the river corridor traces its origins back to this

time period. In the early years homesteads sprang

up in the Trail Creek and Red Meadow drainages

as well as in the vicinity of Polebridge.

In 1910, Chauncey ‘Chance’ Beebe and Charlie

Wise crossed north of the international border to

homestead in the BC North Fork. Charlie

homesteaded a ¼ section in BC, working as a trap-

per, prospector, guide and for several years a U.S.

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

homesteaded there. In 1912, his father worked

on the construction of the first graded trail, a Tote

road into the BC North Fork valley.

Because of the North Fork’s isolation, homestead-

ers had to support themselves in a variety of ways.

A number raised livestock, hay, oats and other feed

grains, as well as vegetables, fruits, and berries for

home and commercial purposes. As noted by McKay,

early homesteaders were attracted not only by the

land itself, but by timber, wildlife, and the possibil-

ity of coal, oil, and railroad development. In addi-

tion, many homesteaders worked in the logging

industry or for Great Northern Railway, the Forest

Service, or Park Service. Some also held seasonal

jobs building roads or guiding tourists or sports-

men. By the early 1920s, Montana’s North Fork con-

tained over 150 homesteads and a substantial

number of trappers remained into the 30s and 40s

(pers. comm. Wilson and Downes 1998).

Across the border, settlement grew much

slower. As of 1937, according to Frank Goble,

the only inhabitants were Joe McDougal in the

main valley, Charlie Wise on Nettie Creek, Andy

Anderson on Sage Creek, Levi Ashman and the

Riviere brothers trapping the Kishenina Valley,

Ktunaxa aboriginal peoples in the summer and

fall west of the river, and a couple of other trap-

pers up the Flathead mainstem. Access to the

BC portion remained via foot or saddlehorse

trail only (Goble 1996).

How many of these early settlers are stillliving or have left behind recorded historyin the form of journals or diaries? Theirtest imony is invaluable for providinganswers to ‘base-l ine information’questions posed in later chapters.


2020202020


2121212121

Ecological Processes

Ecological processes ‘knit’ an ecosystem

together as both landscape altering events or

ongoing interactions between ecosystem com-

ponents. Humans have used these processes

for centuries as natives staged periodic burns

to maintain wildlife habitat. Today these proc-

esses continue, some altered by human activ-

ity, in the North Fork of the Flathead.

This iteration considers fire and disease —

two processes which influence forest structure

and composition. Although floods, predation

and herbivory are not treated here, they shall

be included in the final report.

Fire

The North Fork of the Flathead is a forested

ecosystem that experiences frequent summer

lightning, contiguous extents of forest fuels, and

periodic spells of hot dry conditions. Historically,

this mix produced frequent understory burns

coupled with occasional stand-replacing events.

The fires produced a mosaic landscape with

small patches of mature forest interspersed

between large patches of even-aged regenerat-

ing stands. No fire study has looked at the wa-

tershed as a unit, therefore, we present what is

known in each province/ state.

BC’s North Fork experienced frequent wildfires that

ranged in size

from small

spot fires to

very large

ones. Natural

burns usually

missed some

Part A: North Fork — Flathead

The North Fork of the Flathead river drains

4118 km2 (1617mi) of forested mountains

into a broad valley just west of the

Continental Divide. This section describes

the ecological components and human

activity of this watershed. We recognize

this to be only a foundation to build upon

and hope for aid from co-operators in British

Columbia and Montana to flesh it out.

General readers may be hampered by the

way information is divided by

jurisdiction, however, at this stage, it

facilitates agency review (by isolating

material for reviewers).

Chapter 3 — Ecological Components of theNorth Fork of the Flathead


2222222222

patches of mature forest. Consequently, these fires

produced a landscape mosaic of even-aged regen-

erating stands ranging in size from a few thousands

of hectares and usually containing mature forest

remnants (MOF 1995). The region is classified as

Natural Disturbance Type 3 (NDT3) — an ecosys-

tem with frequent stand-initiating fire events.

BC’s historic fire record here begins in 1919 when

major fires burned the southern quarter of the val-

ley and some northern sections as well (Young

1987). A decade later, major fires burned the south

and central parts of the valley and in 1934, a major

fire burned the area from Sage Creek to the Alberta

border (Goble 1996). The Butts fire of 1936 left the

biggest impact on the valley, taking a crew of 100

men working all summer on 50km (31mi) of con-

trol lines to finally quell the blaze. By then, over

30,000 hectares (74 000acres) of spruce and pine

had burned (Young 1987). The last serious BC fire

occurred in 1945 in Commerce Creek (Young 1987).

Montana’s North Fork fire history has been

analyzed by Barrett (1983) who studied lands east

of the river in Glacier National Park. Covering

60,000 acres (24 200ha) from just south of Log-

ging Creek to just north of Kintla Creek, it reveals

an overall picture of frequent and sometimes ex-

tensive underburns followed by occasional, severe

stand-replacing fires. Large fires of 1000-10 000

acres (400—

4000ha) oc-

curred on

a v e r a g e

about every

16-23 years,

while major

fires exceed-

ing 10 000 acres occurred about every 39 years.

In total, there were 66 fire years from 1470-

1960, while the period of relatively continuous

data from 1655 to the onset of efficient fire

suppression in 1926 shows 55 fire years. Since

1885, there have been 8 major fires however,

until 1926, several were still underburns.

Fire frequency dropped off substantially

when effective suppression began, however the

North Fork has seen several significant fires

in recent years. This included the Red Bench

Burn of 37,000 acres/ 14, 973 ha (1988), the

Starvation Fire at 5000 acres/ 2023 ha (1992),

and the Howling Fire which affected 14,000

acres/ 5, 665 ha (1994) (Jack Potter pers. comm).

In addition, with the exception of the

1988 Red Bench Fire which was a stand

replacing fire, very few acres have experi-

enced a serious burn in the North Fork

since approximately 1930. However, nearly

90% of the area has exper ienced an

underburn in the last 56-95 years, and most

stands are approaching the maximum fire

intervals that existed in pre-settlement

times. Appraisals suggest that fuel build-

ups are still not unusually large (Barrett

1983). Therefore, while the fire frequency

has been interrupted, fire suppression has

apparently not influenced succession in

most GNP study stands. The mountain pine

beetle outbreak of the late 1970s may yet

provide the catalyst for fuel build-ups.

Outside GNP, fire suppression in National

Forest Service lands has had a marked ef-

fect (see Table 2). To date we lack data on

fuel build-ups in this area.


2323232323

Table 2. Fires west of the North Fork River

on U.S. Forest Service lands (Amendment

21, 1998)

edaceD sercAeriFdnaldliW

9191-0191 000,27

9291-0291 005,67

9391-0391 002

9491-0491 005

9591-0591 002

9691-0691 003

9791-0791 000,2

9891-0891 001,01

tneserp-0991 001,1

latoT )serca( 009,261

Disease

Widespread infestation by insects and dis-

ease commenced in the North Fork midway

through this century. Mature spruce stands

and mixed spruce stands in the Montana por-

tion were severely infested with spruce bark

beetle beginning in the 1950s. White pine blis-

ter rust spread through the entire North Fork

in the 1960s and mountain pine beetle spread

into both lodgepole and whitebark pines dur-

ing the 1970s and 1980s.

Vegetation

Vegetation is described differently accord-

ing to the occupation and training of the as-

sessor. A forester is primarily concerned with

overstory — studying stand structure and for-

est composition. An ecologist may study plant

communities — the relationships between dif-

ferent species and their environment. A wildlife

biologist is interested in forage and how wildlife

distribution follows various cover types.

What is the historic flood frequency in theNorth Fork and which events stand out inthe last century? How have predator-preyrelationships changed with alterations inwildlife composition and distribution? Hasa change in ungulate numbers affectedvegetation structure in this ecosystem? Whatis the historic flood frequency in the NorthFork and which events stand out in the lastcentury? How have predator-preyrelationships changed with alterations inwildlife composition and distribution? Hasa change in ungulate numbers affectedvegetation structure in this ecosystem?

What was the extent of the spread of eachof these infestations? Where did they arrivefrom and what is their current status?

What is the state of current fuel build-ups inthe Flathead National Forest, MT and the BCportion of this drainage? How did firehistorically influence forest compositionthroughout the North Fork (including shruband grassland communities)?


2424242424

Our description draws from all of these back-

grounds. This report describes both present and

historic appearance, focal species, the status

of ‘old growth’ and trends in composition and

structure.

Historic content and distribution

Prior to this century, the North Fork was pre-

dominantly a mature spruce-fir system intermin-

gled with regenerating lodgepole pine and larch

(Wilson and Downes pers. comm.). Coniferous spe-

cies, with the exception of lodgepole pine, were

generally aged. Expansive montane grasslands

were maintained by fire at lower elevations (Ayres

1899).

Present content, distribution

Today, vegetation throughout the North Fork is

a mixture of coniferous forests, wetlands, and

grasslands. Lodgepole pine, larch, Engelmann

Spruce, Douglas-fir and subalpine fir dominate co-

niferous forests whereas western white pine, hem-

lock, western red cedar, and whitebark pine occur

to a lesser degree Wetlands consists of a variety of

forbs, sedges, and rushes with shrubs scattered

throughout the area. Subalpine meadows are struc-

turally diverse components of the grass/ forb com-

munities found in the Rocky Mountains.

BC’s North Fork can be described using the

Ecozone Classification described in chapter one.

Montane Spruce (MSdk) communities occur

through roughly 20% of the system in low eleva-

tions (1110-1650m / 3640-5413ft)(see Table 3).

This subzone encompasses the North Fork’s val-

ley bottom where many small grasslands and

riparian areas can be found. It consists of climax

forests of white spruce-Englemann spruce hy-

brids and seral forests dominated by lodgepole

pine and western larch; whitebark pine, Doug-

las-fir and trembling aspen also occur. The

understory commonly consists of both shrubs

(false azalea, Utah honeysicle, and buffaloberry)

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-

dian extent of the North Fork of the Flathead

enoZCGBFOMaerAlatoT

mk( 2)

,)loocyrd(ecurpSenatnoMkdSM

48.803

eniplabuS-ecurpSnnamelgnE,)loocyrd(riF kdFSSE

63.6311

eniplabuS-ecurpSnnamelgnE,)tsiommraw(riF mwFSSE

21.2

,ardnuTeniplA TA 40.821

aerAlatoT:)noitrop.C.B( mk 2

63.5751

Did forest composition vary historicallyfrom the north end to the south endof the watershed?


2525252525

As the forests climb the valley slopes, the

Montane Spruce zone gives way to the Engelmann

Spruce/ Subalpine Fir zone (ESSFdk). The larg-

est subzone of the B.C. North Fork, it usually oc-

curs at elevations of 1550 to 2100m

(5085-6890ft). The ESSFdk is often located on

the mountain sides of the drainage and, there-

fore, contains many snow chutes or avalanche

tracts. These climax forests which are comprised

of mixtures of spruce hybrids and subalpine fir

respond to short, cool and moist summers and

cold winters with heavy snowfalls. Shrub

understories are dominated by false alzalea, but

globe huckleberry and black gooseberry are also

common. Grouseberry, low bilberry, arnica, west-

ern meadowrue, and one-leafed foam flower are

frequent herbs. Its warm, moist counterpart, the

ESSFwm subzone, occurs very infrequently and

resembles the ESSFdk in most characteristics.

Its understory adds white-flowered rhododendron

and the herb, oak fern (Hovey and Teske 1993).

At upper tree line, the hardy miniature veg-

etation of the Alpine Tundra begins to dominate

the mountain landscape. Alpine Tundra is defined

as a high elevation area (>2100m/6890ft) that is

sparsely vegetated with short grasses and forbs,

dominated by rock, and bordered by stunted coni-

fer kruppelholz. This zone has the coldest cli-

mate and heaviest snowfalls of any in the North

Fork (Hovey and Teske 1993).

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

lodgepole pine and western larch. Engelmann

spruce and Subalpine fir systems still range

widely but there is less alpine coverage than

north of the border. The results on individual

species are assessed by cover type by the

Flathead National Forest (Table 4).

Table 4: Forest composition by cover type

extent in the U.S. Forest Service’s Glacier

View Ranger District: NOTE : The below list

does not include mixed cover types containing

several of the above species, and containing

substantial acreage — e.g. Douglas fir/

Lodgepole pine, 15,202 ac.

epyTrevoC sercA

wodaeMeniplA 194

nepsA 260,2

ardnuTnerraB 651

tseroFfaeldaorB 446,4

riFsalguoD 963,92

ecurpSnnamlegnE 001,14

riFdnarG 633

eniPrebmiL 148

eniPelopegdoL 061,96

riFeniplabuS 394,52

kcolmeHnretseW 591

hcraLnretseW 318,81

radeCdeRnretseW 837,2

The forest structure in Montana’s North

Fork is dominated by medium size trees in

multi story complexes (Table 5).


2626262626

Table 5: Forest Structure extent in the U.S. Forest

Service’s Glacier View Ranger District:

erutcurtSdnatS sercA

gnilpaS/gnildeeS 393,121

rebmiTeloP 519,19

yrotselgniS/ezismuideM 644,99

yrots-itluM/ezismuideM 049,791

yrots-itluM/ezisegraL 821,45

tseroF-noN 418,74

Focal species

Focal species change depending upon one’s con-

cern. For a forester, timber species are a primary

focus. For an

ecologist or

wildlife biolo-

gist, key-

stone plants

or important

forage species are much more important. This

report focusses on the occurrence of rare flora.

The North Fork’s climactic regime and geo-

graphical location results in a relatively high

number of rare plant species. Conservation

Data Centres in each jurisdiction typically cata-

logue known occurrences as reported by ama-

teur naturalists and scientists. These

occurrences may be mapped for use in deci-

sion-making. Tables six through eight list the

species which have been identified in the North

Fork by the BC Conservation Data Centre, Mon-

tana Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Na-

tional Forest Service. Species occurring in one

jurisdiction may suggest as-of-yet unidentified

species occurring in the other.

Table Six: Rare and threatened plant

species occurring within the Canadian

drainage of the North Fork of the Flathead

detsil-deR :)erar(

deewrettuBeniplAhgiH sunimretnocoiceneS

deewrettuBhsraM-teewSravsuditeofoiceneS

suditeof

aillekcirBderewolF-egraL arolfidnargaillekcirB

ahtnatpyrCerucsbO augibmaahtnatpyrC

rupskraLmilSmuinihpleD

mutarepuaped

trowlliuQs'llewoH iillewohseteosI

suhtnaniLnrehtroN silanoirtnetpessuhtnaniL

aidnesnwoTs'yrraP iyrrapaidnesnwoT

What is the forest structure in B.C.’s portionof the North Fork? How do Montana’svegetation communities now differ fromB.C.s? Has structure and compositionchanged over this century in eachjurisdiction? Why?


2727272727

Table Seven: Sensitive Species and Species of

Special Concern in the U.S. portion of the

North Fork of the Flathead (U.S. Forest

Service)

seicepSevitisneS)emaNnommoC( emaNnitaLnrefdooWdetserC atatsircsiretpoyrD

trownooMetalunerC mutalunercmuihcyrtoB

trownooMnretseW muirepsehmuihcyrtoB

trownooMdnalsInagniM esnenagnimmuihcyrtoB

trownooMniatnuoM munatnommuihcyrtoB

trownooMrailuceP muxodarapmuihcyrtoB

egdeSelaP adivilxeraC

egdeSrooP alucrepuapxeraC

ssargnottoCdeleek-neerG murohpoirEmutaniracidiriv

hsurbulCretaW silanimretbussupricS

reppils-s'ydaLwolleYllamS suloeclacmuidepirpyC

enirobelleHtnaiG aetnagigsitcapipE

ssargdoP sirtsulapairezhcuehcS

seicepSanatnoM :nrecnoClaicepSfo

nrefdrowSs'grebkcurK iigrebekcurkmuhcitsyloP

eugnoTs'reddA mullisupmussolgoihpO

leruaLelaP silatnediccoaimlaK

reviRaibmuloCdeewyzarC sirtsepmacsiportyxO

naitneGderrupS axelfedainelaH

egdestalFdetoor-deR sozihrorhtyresurepyC

hsurbulCdetfuT susotipsecsupricS

detsil-eulB :)denetaerht(

trowguMnretseWanaicivodulaisimetrA

atpmocnirav

sliat-nettiKgnimoyW sisnegnimoywayesseB

trownooMtsaeL xelpmismuihcyrtoB

xaW-hguorohTnaciremA munaciremamuruelpuB

egdeSs'resyeG ireyegxeraC

egdeSs'nosyaP sinosyapxeraC

hsurbtniaPrednelS amillicargajellitsaC

nreFecaL amillicargsehtnaliehC

eltsihTklE musoiracsmuisriC

ytuaebgnirpSeniplAazihragemainotyalC

azihragemrav

rupskraLanatnoM rolocibmuinihpleD

abarDs'llattuN ailofisnedabarD

brehwolliWderewolf-llamS mupracotpelmuibolipE

taehwkcuBecasordnA muecasordnamunogoirE

taehwkcuBderewolF-weF ravmurolficuapmunogoirE

naitneGgoBniatnuoM asocylacanaitneG

deeskcitSgnidaerpS asuffidailekcaH

yelsraPtreseDs'grebdnaS iigrebnasmuitamoL

ssargnoinOelpruP silibatcepsacileM

trowdnaSniatnuoMykcoR anatnomortsuaaitrauniM

alihpomeNnisaBtaerG arolfiverbalihpomeN

yppoPfrawD muniplarevapaP

ailecahPs'llayL iillaylailecahP

dopniwTnommoC ravapracomydidairasyhP

deewtonKs'nitsuAiisalguodmunogyloP

eainitsuapss

deewtonKs'nnamlegnE iinnamlegnemunogyloP

liofeuqniCpeehS anivoallitnetoP

lesdnuorGdedaeH-egraL sulahpecagemoiceneS

trowratSdelapes-tnulB asutboairalletS

eurwodaeMelpruP mupracysadmurtcilahT


2828282828

Table Eight: Additional North Fork Species

of Special Concern as listed by the Montana

Natural Heritage Program

emaNnommoC emaNnitaL

deboLdrawpUtrownooM

snednecsamuihcyrtoB

trownooMnretseW muirepsehmuihcyrtoB

deewyzarCaibmuloC sirtsepmacsiportyxO

egdeSgnipeerC azihrrodrohcxeraC

egdeSdekaeB atartsorxeraC

derewolf-weFdeewrettuB

surolficuapoiceneS

emannommocoN elartnecmungahpS

emannommocoN mucinallegammungahpS

ssargnottoCrednelS elicargmurohpoirE

devael-etamlaPtoofstloC

silavin.ravsudigirfsetisateP

trownooMyvaW mutalunercmuihcyrtoB

nreFrelkcuB atatsircsiretpoyrD

naitneGderrupS axelfedainelaH

egdeSderewolf-nihT arolfiunetxeraC

leruaLelaP ailofilopaimlaK

defael-yendiKteloiVetihW

ailofineraloiV

ekanselttaRnrehtroNniatnalP

sneperareydooG

pucrettuBenilrebmiT sudnucerevsulucnunaR

ggEs'worrapSreppilSydaL

muniressapmuidepirpyC

Old growth forest

The North Fork’s frequent stand replacing fires

historically limited old growth potential in much

of the system. Mature trees likely occurred more

often in cool, moist spruce-fir forests then in

montane larch-pine. Today old growth is still

found throughout the system however its distri-

bution has likely changed.

B.C.’s portion of the North Fork contains two

small Rare Old-Growth areas: one, north of Mt.

Yarrell and the other in South Lodgepole Creek.

The BC Ministry of Forests defines old-growth dif-

ferently in each ecozone. In the Montane Spruce

system, trees are considered mature when they

reach 100 yrs and old when they reach 140yrs. In

the Engelmann spruce-Subalpine fir subzones,

trees are mature at 120yrs of age and old at 140yrs.

In B.C., old growth is now predominantly

found in dry, cool Engelmann spruce —

Subalpine fir forests (Table Nine). When adjusted

for coverage, 16% of the current ESSFdk

subzone is old-growth compared to 6% of MSdk

(Tables Three and Nine). Although its extent has

been mapped at 1:20 000 by the Ministry of For-

ests, no ground truthing has been done.

Where are high pockets of endemism asderived from cluster analysis ofoccurrences provided by the ConservationData Centres? Do any studies of rarevegetation exist for the North Fork? Arethere notable focal species besides theabove which we have failed to consider?


2929292929

Table Nine: Extent of mature and old-growth

forest by landscape unit, North Fork of the

Flathead in hectares (Source: BC Forestry

1998 bio-seral stage distribution report)

61UL

gnitsixEerutaM

)ah(dlO&dlOgnitsixE

)ah(

8991,1.naJ 8991,1.naJ

-kdFSSE 4.1707 0.1896

p-kdFSSE 7.377 4.377

p-mwFSSE 3.0 3.0

kd-SM 1.553 6.812

71UL

gnitsixE&erutaM)ah(dlO

dlOgnitsixE)ah(

8991,1.naJ 8991,1.naJ

kdFSSE 3793 7773

p-kdFSSE 702 291

mwFSSE 61 0

p-mwFSSE 5 5

kd-SM 964 854

81UL

gnitsixE&erutaM)ah(dlO

dlOgnitsixE)ah(

8991,1.naJ 8991,1.naJ

kdFSSE 4.6768 9.2947

p-kdFSSE 6.968 2.638

kd-SM 3.6823 9.3521

Montana’s portion of the North Fork contains

a different distribution of old growth. Although

the bulk of mature and ageing trees are found at

low elevations (Table Ten), more is currently

found in montane zones (7%) than subalpine ones

(4-5%)(see Table Eleven, next section). Old growth

has been listed in surveys conducted by Ayres

(1899) and the USFS (1916, 1930s, 1950s). Of-

ten the mapping criteria, minimum map unit size,

and forest attributes differed between surveys

making direct comparisons problematic.

Table Ten: Mature and Old Growth by eleva-

tion in the Flathead National Forest (source:

USFS A21)

epyThtworGdlOdlOtnecreP

htworG

tnecrePdnaerutaMhtworGdlO

.dom,noitavelewoLyrddnamraw %92 %74

looc,noitavele-diMtsiomdna %8 %63

,noitavelehgiHyrd.domdnadloc %0 %9

Trends in Forest Composition and

Structure

Logging, fire suppression and disease have all

contributed to altering the forest structure of the

North Fork. At low elevations, a predominantly

spruce-fir forest has given way in the past fifty

Have old growth stands been mapped ineach jurisdiction?


3030303030

years to a mosaic of young, lodgepole pine, im-

mature western larch, Douglas fir and spruce.

Low-gradient riparian areas, marshes and dry

meadows still persist, however conifers continue

to encroach upon grasslands in the absence of

fire. In the mountainous areas, forests contain

mixtures of spruce, Douglas and subalpine fir,

whitebark pine, and subalpine larch (McLellan and

Hovey 1996). Whitebark pine has declined with

the invasion of whitepine blister rust.

Old growth forests of Engelmann spruce,

Douglas fir, and western larch have been altered

by timber extraction (Yanishevsky 1987, FTC

1992). Prior to commer-

cial logging, approxi-

mately 28% of the spruce/

fir stands in the North

Fork were old growth

(Hart and Lesica, 1993).

Today, Yanishevsky

(1987) estimates about

9% of the forests are in an

old growth condition and

much of those are at high

elevations and widely dis-

persed. This contradicts

USFS figures which place

old-growth at primarily lower elevations (see Ta-

ble Nine). In her ground surveys, Yanishevsky

(1987, 1992) found 24 stands greater than 200

acres of old growth and mature forest, with no

grove entirely at low elevation (< 5000'). Discrep-

ancies may be attributable to separate definitions

of what constitutes old-growth.

Overall, the U.S.F.S estimates current old

growth levels at roughly 50% of historic lev-

Old-growth stands are important to a wide

variety of species, as shown by the following

USFS list of Old Growth Dependent

Species (1998):

Threatened Status:Bald Eagle

Lynx

Sensitive Status:Harlequin Duck

Flammulated OwlBoreal Owl

Black-backed WoodpeckerFisher

No Special Status:Northern Goshawk

Tailed FrogVaux’s Swift

Pileated WoodpeckerLewis’ WoodpeckerHairy Woodpecker

Three-toed WoodpeckerHammond’s Flycatcher

Chestnut-backed ChickadeeRed-breasted Nuthatch

Pygmy NuthatchWhite-breasted Nuthatch

Brown Creeper|Winter Wren

Golden-crowned KingletHermit ThrushVaried Thrush

Swainson’s ThrushTownsend’s Warbler

Pine GrosbeakSilver-haired Bat

Northern Flying SquirrelSouthern Red-backed Vole

American Marten

Extirpated - Montana:Woodland Caribou


3131313131

els in Montana’s North Fork region (see Table

Eleven). This conflicts with Hart and Lesica

(1993), whose higher historical estimates im-

ply a greater reduction this century (to less

than 25% of former levels).

Table Eleven: Trends in Old Growth by

Ecoregion in the North Fork of the Flathead

drainage (source: USFS A21)

enoZefiLdlOcirotsiH

htworGdlOtnerruC

htworG

eniplabuS %11-01 %5-4

enatnoM %02-01 %7

enatnoMrewoL %5-1 %2-0

Wildlife

Information on wildlife is often heavily weighted

towards large carnivores and ungulates which

function as ‘game’ species. Historic records on

trapping yield data on smaller mammals however

these are more difficult to obtain. Invariably, small

animals, songbirds, amphibians and invertebrates

‘fall through the cracks’ in ecosystem wide stud-

ies due to a simple dearth of information.

This report is no different. Our reporting on

historic and present content, trends, protected

status, habitat hotspots and focal species

focusses mainly upon the larger animals. We will

try to fill the gaps as much as possible in the

final version if aided by reviewers.

Historic content

Estimating ‘baseline’ numbers and distribu-

tions of wildlife is a difficult feat. Historical books

contain photos of fishermen with 50-fish string-

ers, or meat poles filled with deer. Historical ac-

counts portray an abundance of wildlife. However

populations are difficult to

quantify without carefully

recording. Our best source

of historical information on

the North Fork is traditional

ecological knowledge from

the Ktunaxa and ‘old-time’

resident accounts.

In Montana, our sur-

veys in the North Fork are

limited. We know deer and

moose were plentiful his-

torically, but elk were prac-

tically non-existent

(Downes and Wilson, pers. comm). Elk were

“planted” here in 1928, coming from Yellowstone

(Downes from Thayer) and were more commonly

seen by the 1950s and 60s. Bighorn sheep and

mountain goats were more common in the North

Fork in the 1940s and 50s. Woodland Caribou

persisted here until about 1936, when large fires

swept through north of the border. Caribou are de-

pendent upon old growth which has been reduced

How extensive is conifer encroachment onhistorical grassland? What are trends inaspen (an important winter foragingspecies)? What other trends in vegetationare evident? Why do reports vary widelywith historic locations and amounts of oldgrowth? Can this be resolved?


3232323232

this century. One was shot by mistake in 1944

around Big Creek, and a solitary animal showed up

at Tom Laddenburg’s in 1979, but these were prob-

ably isolated survivors rather than elements of a

resident population (Downes and Wilson pers. comm.).

Bull trout were common in the 40s and 50s and

“easy to catch”, according to both Downes and

Wilson. Fish averaged 5-6 pounds but could reach

10-15 pounds and 30 inches. These trout were

found in both Flathead Lake (adfluvial) and the

North Fork (fluvial). Wilson wasn’t aware of any

evidence of grizzlies feeding on bull trout, but

Downes mentioned that he once found several

partially eaten remains along Coal Creek and

grizzly tracks at the scene.

Present content

As Canada and the United States have been set-

tled, very few ecosystems spanning the border have

been able to retain their full suite of biodiversity.

The North Fork comes close. Grizzlies thrive here

as nowhere else in the interior. When wolves re-

colonized the U.S. Rockies for the first time in

50 years,

they came

through the

North Fork

from British

C o l u m b i a .

Over 6000

bald and

golden eagles stream north and south twice a

year above these valleys. In fact, the species

diversity of large mammals in the Flathead

is among the highest on the continent

(Hovey and Teske 1993). The only wildlife

species the area is known to have lost in

the last 400 years, is the woodland caribou.

The North Fork contains populations of

eight species of large carnivores: black bears

(Ursus Americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus

arctos), bobcats (Felis rufus), lynx (F. lynx),

cougars (F. concolor), coyotes (Canis

latrans), wolves (C. lupus), wolverine (Gulo

gulo) and six species of ungulates: elk

(Cervus elaphus), mountain goats (Oreamnos

americanus), moose (Alces Alces), mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O.

virginianus), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis) (Hovey et al. 1993,

McLellan 1989, Basaraba 1977).

Ungulates are very important and abundant

in the North Fork, providing food for preda-

tors. The four most significant prey species

are now white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and

moose. These differ considerably in their dis-

tribution in the North Fork. A large number

of white-tailed deer, elk and moose inhabit the

lowland areas of the North Fork. At slightly

higher elevations, mule deer are found and

mountain goats and mountain sheep occupy

even higher elevations. McLellan and Hovey

(1995) found that moose, mountain goats and

some elk occurred in the North Fork through-

out the year, whereas white-tail deer, mule

deer and most elk appeared to migrate into

the valley in spring but wintered elsewhere.

What historic wildlife records/ accounts areavailable for B.C.?


3333333333

Moose populations in the North Fork are of the

Yellowstone or Wyoming subspecies and represent

the only occurrence of this race in B.C. (MOELP

1984). Moose generally concentrate in riparian

areas where willow is abundant. Moose are con-

sidered a generalist herbivore but choose energy

rich foods that are easily digested. Preferred foods

include willow, mountain maple, and red-osier dog-

wood, and their diet may also include coniferous

and deciduous trees, forbs and grasses. Moose

may be migratory (migrate seasonally) or non-

migratory (use the same habitat year-round). These

two distinct types are both found in the Flathead.

Migratory cows in the Flathead returned to the

same general areas for both summer and winter

range. (Langley 1993). Annual home ranges of non-

migratory cows were generally at low elevation

with gradual east facing slopes, few primary roads,

and the expected amounts of permanent and in-

termittent water (Langley 1993). In the winter,

migratory moose used low elevations with flat and

south facing slopes and in the summer, higher el-

evations are selected with fairly steep south and

northeast slopes (Langley 1993).

The Elk and Flathead valleys combined contain

four species of shrew, three species of bats, two

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),

concluded that floodplain habitats were highly pro-

ductive for small mammals. The most abundant

was the deer mouse. The habitat identified for adult

deer mice were open gravel-sand areas in early sum-

mer and for immature deer mice, old-age cottonwood

stands in late summer (Key 1979). The long-tailed

meadow mouse, western jumping mouse, meadow

mouse and heather vole (in order of decreasing abun-

dance) are also found in the North Fork. Red-backed

mice were found only in spruce but were relatively

abundant. Shrews were found primarily in spruce

habitats; roughly 75% of the shrews captured in

Key’s study were vagrant shrews and 25% were

masked shrews (Key 1979). One pygmy shrew was

captured in riparian habitat, making this the first

record for Glacier National Park (Key 1979). Other

rodents in the North Fork include the hoary mar-

mot and pika (Polster 1977).

The yellow pine chipmunk was commonly

found in all habitats except spruce. The northern

flying squirrel, Columbian ground squirrel, red

squirrel (abundant in spruce) and the northern

pocket gopher were also identified (Key 1979).

The yellow badger has been observed in the

Flathead valley (MOE 1984) as well as the red

tailed chipmunk, a red-listed species, but to date,

no studies have been done on either of these spe-

cies. Key also identified high winter use of the

Flathead by coyotes, beaver, mountain lion, short-

tailed weasels and mink. Snowshoe hares, river

otters, lynx, marten, long-tailed weasels were

also found in the winter (Key 1979).

What is known about waterfowl andsongbirds in the North Fork? Haveinvertebrates ever been studied here? Asidefrom the carnivores listed under focalspecies (below), what else is known aboutthis guild, i.e. cougar, bobcat, lynx?


3434343434

Protected status

The difference in protective status between the

U.S. and Canada is one of the greatest potential

sources of wildlife conflicts between the two na-

tions. The U.S. federal government has listed griz-

zly bear, bald eagle and bull trout as “threatened”

and wolf and peregrine falcon as “endangered”

under its Endangered Species legislation, making

it illegal to shoot or destroy habitat for any of these

species (lynx and westslope cutthroat trout are

also being considered). Although Canada’s British

North America Act places responsibility over

transboundary resources in the federal realm, the

legality of harm to downstream populations from

‘upstream sources’ has never been tested. As the

Flathead serves as an upstream source for each of

the mentioned transboundary species, it poses a

potentially unique testing ground.

Although Canadian governments currently lack

Endangered Species legislation, the B.C. Forest

Practices Code contains a mechanism to protect

biodiversity. Work is underway under this Identi-

fied Wildlife Management Strategy to list wildlife,

wildlife habitat areas and associated landscape

units. “Identified Wildlife” is defined under the

Code to mean species or plant communities that

are considered to be sensitive to habitat alteration

associated with forest and range practices. For the

most part, these species and plant communities

are considered to be at risk (e.g. Endangered,

threatened, vulnerable or sensitive) and require

management of critical habitats in order to main-

tain populations and/ or distributions (Ministry Of

Forests, 1997). A general list is available for south-

eastern B.C. (Table Twelve), however species/ habi-

tat occurrences have not yet been mapped in the

North Fork. Listings are differentiated as follows:

♦ Red-listed: being considered for the more

formal designation of either extirpated,

endangered or threatened, are likely to

become endangered if limiting factors are

not reversed

♦ Blue-listed: any species considered to be

vulnerable, or a species of special concern

because of characteristics that make them

particularly sensitive to human activities or

natural events (Steeger and Machmer 1993,

MOF, 1997).

Table Twelve: Species list for the North Fork

in South-eastern British Columbia

:detsiL-deR

knumpihCdeliat-deRniatnuoMykcoR

noclaFeiriarP )aeraehtniyllaitnetop(

:detsil-eulB

raeBylzzirG

peehSnrohgiBniatnuoMykcoR

kwahsoGnrehtroN

erutluVyekruT

rekcepdooW'siweL

gorFdeliaT

gorFdrapoeLnrehtroN)aeraehtniyllaitnetop(

tuorTlluB

niplucSdelttoM


3535353535

More detail on grizzly bear, tailed frog and

bull trout is found in the Focal Species section.

Habitat hotspots

On a continental scale, the entire North Fork

is a biodiversity hotspot with a range of impor-

tant habitats. Locally, although a great deal of

information has been accumulated on individual

species (deer, bull trout, wolves) and, in some

cases, guilds (carnivores or cavity nesters), lit-

tle of this watershed’s priority habitat has been

mapped. Riparian areas, flood plains and ava-

lanche chutes are important foraging areas for

grizzly bear. Montane grasslands and forest are

important over-wintering habitat for deer, and

elk. Old-growth conifers support

mesopredators such as fisher and pine marten.

Mature conifers and wetlands are important for

moose. Particular locations such as traditional

elk calving grounds and waterfowl migratory

staging areas have yet to be identified.

In general, Species of Special Concern

maps from the Montana Natural Heritage

Program, Ministry of Environment Biophysi-

cal classification maps and Conservation

Data Center datasets show that a high per-

centage of species locations tend to be asso-

ciated with perennial streams, waterbodies,

and their shoreline habitats, particularly

where those occur at low elevations.

Focal Species

We have chosen to focus upon grizzly bear,

wolf and eagles due to their transboundary na-

ture and upon mesopredators for their particu-

lar habitat needs. Carnivores are umbrella

species which represent important ecological

processes (predation, herbivory) that influence

other components, such as vegetation. This list

is expandable for the final report.

Grizzly Bear

Grizzly status in Canada and the U.S. differs

widely. British Columbia maintains a hunting

season on grizzly bears as it has an abundant

population. In the U.S., the grizzly was afforded

legislated protection when listed as “Threatened”

in 1975, and currently exists in 5-6 isolated

ecosystems in the lower 48 states. Populations

are notoriously difficult to estimate, however,

scientists generally peg the entire population at

between 800 and1000 individuals with fully half

of these occurring within the Crown of the

Continent or Northern Continental Divide

Ecosystem (NCDE) around Glacier National Park.

In BC, the grizzly bear is blue-listed. The North

Fork has the highest density of non-coastal grizzly

bears in North America and acts as a source

population for surrounding areas in Alberta, BC and

M o n t a n a

(Hovey &

Teske 1993).

The linkage

zone in

s o u t h e r n

Canada is,

therefore, vi-

What ecologically significant areas existwhere for the North Fork?


3636363636

tal to the long-term health of the Crown

of the Continent populations in Mon-

tana. Grizzly bears occur naturally at

low densities and need to move freely

among valued habitats without being re-

stricted by human-caused blockages,

accessed by roads or being attracted to

mortality sinks around human settle-

ments. The BC Ministry of Forests esti-

mates that 20,000 to 50,000 km2 of

connected habitat is required to ensure

the long term survival of the species in

this region (MOF 1997).

Studies in the North Fork provide

important findings on grizzlies where

they have been monitored intensively

for 14 years. McLellan (1989b) esti-

mated that the grizzly bear density in

the 134km2 core study area in 1986

was 8.0 bears/100km2 (1 bear/4.75

mi2) and that the population had

grown from 5.7 bears/100km2 (1bear/

6.77mi2) in 1981 with an observed an-

nual rate of increase of 0.07.

The 4-10km wide North Fork valley

contains extensive riparian areas with

important bear food. Flood plains with

their abundance of early spring and late

autumn foods are important to grizzlies

for the short periods when the remain-

der of grizzly range is still snow-covered

or frozen. In addition the area is equally

important for its travel corridors, feed-

ing and denning areas which are impor-

tant to grizzlies at particular times of the

year (Jonkel & McLellan 1979).

Bear Management in the Flathead National Forest

The USFS has recognized that access management is of

primary concern to maintain grizzly habitat effec-

tiveness. For management and recovery purposes, the

U.S. North Fork has been divided into two Bear

Management Units (BMU): the Upper and Lower

North Fork Flathead. West of the river, the Forest

Service has further divided these into 13 BMU Sub-

units, each intended to approximate the home range

requirements of a female grizzly bear. Under

Amendment 19 to the Flathead National Forest

Plan, the Forest Service adopted Access Manage-

ment Standards for each Sub-unit dealing with

allowable Open Road Density (ORD), Total

Road Density (TRD), and percent Core security

habitat. The goal is to bring the USFS access

route densities into accord with the best available

science on grizzly bear needs. The following stand-

ards must be met by 2005:

ORD : No more than 19% of a Sub-unit to exceed

1mi./sq.mi. of Open Roads.

TRD : No more than 19% of a Sub-unit to exceed 2

mi./sq.mi. of Total Roads.

Core : 68% of each Sub-unit to be comprised of

security habitat > 500 meters from roads;

minimum Core size of 2500 acres.

To date, 4 of 13 Sub-units meet ORD standards, 5 of

13 reach TRD levels, and 5 of 13 meet Core require-

ments. Three years into the program, about 10% of

the required closures have taken place forest-wide.

However, significant road closures are planned

around the Hornet-Wedge timber sale currently

underway in the North Fork.


3737373737

Avalanche chutes have the highest value as a

producer of grizzly foods (Basaraba 1977). A re-

cent study by Bergenske (1997) identifies ava-

lanche chutes and their importance for grizzlies

in the North Fork. Horsetails, cow-parsnip leaves

and stalks, graminoid foliage and glacier lily bulbs

were found in riparian and snow-chutes habitats

(McLellan and Hovey 1995). Soopolallie

(buffaloberry) can be found in burns.

Huckleberries occur at different elevations and

under conifer canopy at different densities

(McLellan and Hovey 1995). McLellan has postu-

lated that the quantity and diversity of food in

the North Fork permits the grizzly bear popula-

tion to prosper (McLellan and Hovey 1995).

In the Montana portion of the North Fork, griz-

zlies exist as similar densities as BC (1 bear/4

mi2 or 10bears/100km2). They use similar habi-

tats however habitat effectiveness is limited in

some places by the growth in home development

in riparian corridors. Although there are only

15,000 private acres in the U.S. North Fork, nearly

all are very close to the river, which is critical

low elevation spring habitat for grizzlies. The cu-

mulative effects of subdivision and other human

activities north of the border on grizzly habitat

effectiveness have not been studied.

Wolf

As with grizzly bear, protected status varies

widely between Crown of the Continent jurisdic-

tions. Whereas packs occupying NW Montana en-

joy legislated protection as “Endangered” under

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), they are sub-

ject to a hunting season in BC’s North Fork and to

completely unregulated hunting in the Castle.

The first documented breeding by wolves in the

Northern U.S. Rockies in half a century occurred

in 1986 when the Magic Pack produced a litter

south of the border in Glacier National Park. Since

then, their offspring plus additional dispersers from

Canada have fuelled a recolonization that includes

a pack in the Ninemile valley near Missoula, an

alpha male in Central Idaho and a wolf that was

illegally shot south of Yellowstone in 1992. As

noted by Ream et al (1991), in the early years of

this recolonization, several pack territories rou-

tinely straddled the international border. Packs

moved freely back and forth, sending off

“dispersers” both north

and south. By 1997, a to-

tal of 10 breeding pair

(packs) and perhaps 85 in-

dividuals occupied North-

west Montana. However, a

program of removals as

part of livestock depreda-

tion control by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) has since lowered

those numbers to 6-7

packs (5 breeding) and

about 50 individuals. In the

North Fork, approximately 31 wolves comprised

4 packs in the early 90s but that number may have

dropped to 2 packs of unknown size today (Jack

Potter pers. comm.).

The North Fork maintains the highest density

of wolf denning sites anywhere in south-western

BC (Paquet, unpublished data). As a main source,

it therefore fuels natural recolonization in both

Montana and Alberta. Wolves use mainly the val-


3838383838

ley bottom of the North Fork in travelling consid-

erable distances up and down its international

extent. Grassy open meadows, marshes and ripar-

ian habitats make up an important portion of the

wolf locations (Boyd 1996). Wolf locations and

populations are positively correlated with that of

their prey. In the North Fork, deer and elk

populations appear to be declining, and moose

populations seem to be stable (Kunkel 1992). This

lowers the carrying capacity for this animal which

tends then to switch to livestock.

Although wolves are considerably more adapt-

able to humans than are grizzlies, they have

shown an almost identical sensitivity to high road

densities. As with bears, this occurs not because

of the road itself, but because roads provide ac-

cess to hunters and poachers. They have diffi-

culty persisting where vehicle access routes

exceed 1mi./mi2 (61km/100km2).

Mesopredators

In contrast to the larger “charismatic carni-

vores,” comparatively little is known about lynx,

fisher, marten and wolverine. While marten are

considered moderately common in many North

Fork areas, fisher, lynx, and wolverine are gener-

ally thought to be uncommon to rare. The fisher,

wolverine and badger are blue-listed in B.C. and

the lynx may soon be listed under the U.S.

Endangered Species Act.

Our knowledge of these species is lacking1.

Generally, all require the presence of sub-

stantial mature — old growth forests for key

Yellowstone wolves and the importance

of natural reintroduction

Beginning in early 1995, thirty-five wolves

were flown from Canada as an

‘experimental’ population reintroduced to

Yellowstone National Park. The wolves

were remarkably successful— their num-

bers had grown to 150 by the summer of

1998. Success, however, brought attention

and the American Farm Bureau and the

Sierra Legal Defense Fund challenged the

‘experimental’ reintroduction, albeit, on

very different grounds.

In September 1998, Judge William

Downes’ ruled in Farm Bureau vs. Bruce

Babbitt that all non-native wolves and

their offspring were to be removed from

Yellowstone National Park and central

Idaho. It also deemed the reintroduction

program invalid as ‘experimental’

populations diminish the intent of the

Endangered Species Act. In essence, he

made a case for preferring natural reintro-

duction over ‘experimental’ translocation.

This decision indirectly heightens the

significance of the Flathead. North Fork

wolves have travelled to Central Idaho and

back in less than 18 months (Boyd 1997).

The area still functions as a conduit for the

natural relocation of wolves into Montana

and beyond, and, as such, is a keystone

ecosystem worthy of international

cooperative management.1 Glacier National Park has just received

funding for a substantial lynx study.


3939393939

portions of their life cycle. The U.S. Forest

Service classifies the marten as a Manage-

ment Indicator Species and sets aside MIS

blocks of 2000 acres with 25-50% old growth

where available (Rivera pers. comm.). All of

these species are also sensitive to roads which

potentially improve access for trappers.

Eagles

Both bald and golden eagles use extensive

flyways over the North Fork of the Flathead. In

biannual migrations between Canada’s

Mackenzie River Basin and the Intermountain

Region of the western U.S. they follow paths

down the eastern and western slopes of the Con-

tinental Divide. Several studies of eagle migra-

tion centring around Glacier National Park have

been conducted by NPS staff since 1977 and

have continued to the present day.

Bald Eagles assemble each fall around high

concentrations of spawning kokanee salmon in

Lower McDonald Creek. Eagle numbers peaked

around 1981 at 639 then declined rapidly to 25 by

1989, when the introduction of Mysis shrimp into

the Flathead system resulted in a crash in salmon

numbers. (McClelland et al. 1994). Over the course

of one study, researchers captured and leg banded

303 bald eagles; of these, 66 were radio tagged

and 121 received patagial markers. Marker

sightings came back from 9 western states and

Canada, while 38 to 40 radio tagged eagles win-

tered within the Intermountain region (east of the

Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges and

west of the Continental Divide). During spring

migration radio-tagged birds followed routes which

converged on Glacier and its vicinity with adults

continuing north on a narrow corridor through the

Castle and the south-eastern slopes of the Rockies,

gradually diverging to summering areas. Thirty

tagged eagles summered in the Mackenzie River

Basin: 21 in the Northwest Territories, 5 in Alberta,

and 4 in Saskatchewan.

An additional study by Yates and McClelland

(1996) also documented large number of golden

eagles migrating through Glacier. They noted

that, “The entire park appears to be part of a

migration corridor that is analogous to a large,

braided river of birds flowing in main channels

with connecting side channels.” From 1994-96,

golden eagles comprised over 80% of all raptors

and 92% of all eagles seen at the Lake

McDonald observation point. During one Octo-

ber 1996 day, 137 eagles were counted in a sin-

gle hour. Total eagles counted in autumn over

three years were: 2237 (1994), 2038 (1995),

and 2667 (1996). Spring totals were as follows:

870 (1995), and 904 (1996).

Aquatics (quality/species)

The broad flood plains which comprise much

of the North Fork’s riparian area form the body

of its aquatic component. Creeks and rivers drain

down into this plain from numerable side-

What other focal species should beincluded? What are typical wolf and grizzlymovement corridors? What are grizzly andwolf mortality numbers for B.C.’s NorthFork? How are these system’s grizzlypopulations genetically linked?


4040404040

channels. Water and species flow uninhibited

from the B.C. headwaters to Montana’s Flathead

Lake. This section addresses water quality

throughout the North Fork and presents the sta-

tus of three focal species: bull trout, westslope

cutthroat trout and tailed frog.

Water Quality — Present Status:

As part of the Flathead Basin Commission

(FBC) process, there has been a co-operative

effort to monitor water quality from a number

of headwaters lakes and streams since 1994.

This effort has been co-directed by the Flathead

National Forest, Glacier

National Park, and the

University of Montana’s

Flathead Biological Sta-

tion at Yellow Bay in the

U.S. B.C. Environment

and Environment

Canada have jointly

monitored water quality

on the Flathead River

near the International

Boundary from 1985 to

1990. The sampling con-

tinued until 1995, how-

ever, because updated plots from the border site

did not show any environmentally significant

trends, no new report has been written (the

most current report is February 1994.) There

is presently no water quality monitoring tak-

ing place in the Canadian portion of the drain-

age.

In B.C., the Canada-British Columbia water

quality monitoring agreement triggered weekly

sampling for 27 variables, intending to capture

possible short-term variations or cycles in water

quality. Data analysis had two goals:

1) comparison of the data against established

water quality objectives and criteria

2) assessment of the data for any long-term

trends, and exposition of the sources,

whether hydrological, meteorological, eco-

logical or anthropogenic, of those trends

(Shaw and Taylor 1994)

Established water quality objectives, criteria

or guidelines were compared against:

1) Site-specific criteria or objectives for the

Flathead River, as given in recent Water

Quality Assessment and Objectives reports

(Swain 1985, 1990; Zeman 1990) or provided

by the Flathead River International Study

(Valiela et al., 1987);

2) General criteria for the Province of B.C., as

given in Pommen (1989);

3) Canadian Water Quality guidelines, as given

in CCREM (1987);

4) General American Water Quality criteria, as

given in USEPA (1986).

The variables selected included those for

which site specific objectives exist, and those that

are of particular ecological importance or that ex-

hibited a conspicuous trend in time-series plots:


4141414141

erutarepmetretaW cinesrA

ytidibruT muimdaC

cificepSecnatcudnoC muimorhC

Hp reppoC

edinayC norI

suorohpsohPlatoT daeL

devlossiDlatoTsuorohpsohP esenagnaM

negortiN-ainommA yrucreM

N-)3ON+2ON( lekciN

devlossiDlatoTnegortiN muineleS

smrofiloClaceF cniZ

Water quality in the North Fork is clear and

clean (except during spring freshet) and has been

characterized as oligotrophic. The river water is

basic (pH 8.2-8.6) and well-buffered (alkalinity

60-130 mg/L), with calcium and bicarbonate as

dominant ions (Martin et al. 1987). Total dissolved

solids range from 100-200 mg/L at the Interna-

tional Boundary. Water tends to be cool (0-19C),

well-oxygenated and low in nutrients and most

metals (Shaw and Taylor 1994).

In Montana, three monitoring sites have

been established on the North, South and Lower

Forks of Coal Creek since 1994. This drainage

is largely under the management of the

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and

Conservation and has had timber harvested on

approximately 20-30% of the watershed.

According to the FBC report (1996), the pur-

pose of the headwaters monitoring is:

(1) to establish an array of headwater sites that

represented different geologic-geomorphic

regions of the basin;

(2) to select watersheds that had distinctly

different levels of forest mgmt. activity, thus

allowing land-use comparisons; and

(3) to establish baseline data for long term

monitoring.

Monitoring of headwater streams has focused

primarily on sediment, phosphorous (P), and

nitrogen (N). Fine sediment directly affects fish

reproduction by filling spawning gravels and

cobble. Nitrogen and phosphorous, in addition to

being vital for plant growth, can, at high

concentrations, cause blooms of algae and

bacteria which deplete dissolved oxygen in

streams and lakes (FBC 1996).

Sedimentation

High sediment concentrations can come from

natural and human-made sources such as

streambank erosion, slumping, or runoff from

roads, logging operations, home development,

and mines. Such fine sediments can also affect

water clarity and nutrient loads far downstream.

Native spawning fish such as the westslope cut-

throat trout and the bull trout, are susceptible.

FBC 1995-96 notes that fine particles trans-

ported by streams and known as total suspended

solids (TSS) are closely correlated with level of

stream discharge. For example, in 1994 the peak

spring runoff was less than half that of 1995 or

1996 and corresponding TSS levels reflected this.

Interestingly, the same flushing flows which in-

crease TSS also tend to remove fine sediment that


4242424242

has been deposited in streambed gravels, where

it would have interfered with spawning trout.

Hence sampling showed that in 1991, fine sedi-

ment levels decreased from those of 1989 in Big

Creek and main Coal Creek, apparently as a re-

sult of strong spring flows.

At the same time, they found high sediment

supplies stored behind debris dams in the upper

Big Creek Basin and behind beaver dams in the

South Fork of Coal Creek apparently related to

timber activities dating from the 1950s. Similar

sediment sources from past forest management

were noted in the North Fork of Coal Creek, al-

though fine materials in the streambed signifi-

cantly decreased from 1989-90, becoming

relatively stable since then. When these dams

eventually fail, this fine material will likely im-

pact downstream spawning gravels.

Phosphorus

Unlike TSS, soluble reactive phosphorous

(SRP) concentrations in Lower Coal Creek did not

vary significantly with increasing discharge, re-

maining instead between 0.7 and 2.1 mg/L.

Nitrogen

Nitrate flows also seem unrelated to stream

discharge levels. In fact, nitrate levels were rela-

tively high during the rise in spring runoff, de-

creased during peak runoff and, as water levels

declined, increased again during base flows. This

pattern is apparently characteristic of

groundwater effects during the spring cycle.

A second study on North Fork water qual-

ity spun off the Cabin Creek mine debate.

According to the Montana Bureau of Mines

and Geology (1990):

♦ Maximum total suspended solids (TSS) were

encountered at the North Fork Station (575

mg/L) followed by the Cabin Creek Station

(432 mg/L) and Howell (upper) and Tuchuck

stations showing similar levels (128 and 165

mg/L respectively).

♦ The Cabin Creek Station recorded the highest

total phosphorous (TP) level (401µg/L) with

the North Fork, Howell, and Tuchuck

stations peaking at similar levels (151, 121,

and 106 µg/L respectively). Soluble phospho-

rous (SP) and soluble reactive phosphorous

(SRP) followed similar trends, and nitrogen

results were highly variable.

♦ The basic water chemistry of this watershed

consists of a calcium, magnesium,

bicarbonate matrix with subtle variations

unique to each drainage.

♦ The Cabin Creek Station has high TSS and

TP with large spring diurnal variations in

discharge and TSS.

♦ The Howell (upper) Creek Station has much

lower TSS and TP concentrations than

Cabin Creek and diurnal variations in

discharge are minimal, but diurnal

variations in TSS can be significant.

♦ The North Fork Flathead River carries high

loads of TSS during spring runoff. Nutrient

concentrations are moderate, and a

complex but significant TSS diurnal

variation was observed. Low water TSS is

dominated by the International slump 3

miles north of the border.


4343434343

♦ Tuchuck Creek is a high quality creek with

low dissolved solids, TSS and nutrients.

♦ The North Fork drainage suspended

sediments appear to be under saturated with

respect to phosphorous and therefore should

play an important role in the transformation

(SP to TP) and transport of phosphorous.

♦ During baseflow, approximately 10% of the

surface water flow of the North Fork

Flathead River is lost to groundwater along

the last 2 kilometres of the river bed before

entering Montana and crosses the Interna-

tional Border as subsurface flow.

♦ Initially, the leachate from mine spoils (Cabin

Creek) would be a sodium sulfate type water

in contrast to the calcium carbonate type

now present in the alluvial aquifers.

Water Quality Monitoring Framework

Although water quality monitoring does not

continue in Canada, the Flathead Basin

Commission continues its work in Montana.

The FBC’s monitoring program is built around

the following objectives :

(A) Monitoring the water quality, quantity

and aquatic life of Flathead Lake and its

major tributaries;

(B) Monitoring the water quality, quantity,

and aquatic life from representative

catchments of the upper basin;

(C) Monitoring bull trout populations and

habitat in the basin.

Commission goals are accomplished by moni-

toring 12 sites to address Objective A, 34 sites for

Objective B, and 19 sites for Objective C. Assist-

ing the Commission in this regard are representa-

tives of the U.S. Forest Service, Glacier National

Park, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana

Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, and

the Volunteer Monitoring Program.

Indicators of Water Quality

Bio-indicators of water quality, also known

as ecological indicators hold considerable

promise as sensitive early signals of subtle or

long-term changes in status of river ecosystems

(Shaw and Taylor 1994). Three main classes of

ecological indicators are:

1) presence of sensitive species and structure

of biotic communities; this includes indicator

species, diversity and biotic indices, commu-

nity structure comparisons and simple meas-

ures of the numbers of species or individuals

2) ecological processes; commonly measured

processes are (algal) productivity, photo-

synthesis, respiration, decomposition and

nutrient dynamics

3) toxicity or stress effects; based on

mortality, growth inhibition or other

phsyiological dysfunctions of test

organisms exposed to water or sediments

from the environment in question, but

includes measures of deformities in resi-

dent organisms (Shaw and Taylor 1994).

Shaw and Taylor proposed a monitoring pro-

gram for the North Fork (B.C.) for ecological in-

dicators but the program was never implemented.

The program had two parts (cont’d p46):


4444444444

In general, Canada differs from the US in that

Canada does not have statutes for the receiving

environment, i.e. Clean Water Act, but rather

has laws controlling human activities that

may impact water quality. In the U.S., laws

establish water quality standards which must

be met. In Canada, there are receiving water

quality guidelines (a.k.a. criteria) or site-

specific objectives for various contaminants.

These guideline values are much lower than

their counterpart U.S.

standards but have no

basis in law. They form

water quality “goalposts”

that guide water quality

management. Gross

exceedances of guidelines

may result in tighter

restrictions on waste

discharge permit limits or

result in changes to the

land management prac-

tice contributing to the

condition.

The differences in legal approaches to

water quality issues can be observed

through an overview of relevant legislation

in each jurisdiction:

U.S.

♦ Federal Clean Water Act and Montana

Water Quality Act.

♦ Natural Streambed and Land Preservation

Act (regulates development activities taking

place in streams and lakeshores).

♦ Public Water Supply Law (regulates logging

and other activities with respect to their

impact on water quality in watersheds used

for public water supply).

♦ Sanitation in Subdivisions Act and Subdivi-

sion and Planning Act (provide for state and

local review of subdivisions).

♦ Shoreline Protection Ordinance (regulates

certain structures, dredging, and filling below

the high water mark on Flathead Lake and

the Flathead River and its major tributaries

within the Flathead Indian Reservation).

♦ Streamside Management Zone Law (regu-

lates timber harvesting activities adjacent to

streams).

Canada (Federal)

♦ Canada Fisheries Act enforced in salmon

bearing waters by Fisheries and Oceans

Canada. Inland waters are enforced by the

provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands

& Parks (cases usually handled by Conserva-

tion Officer Service with technical assistance

from Pollution Prevention and/or Fisheries

Branch). Primary regulations attend Section

35: Harmful alteration of fish habitat, and

Section 36: Release of a deleterious substance

into fish bearing waters.

♦ Canadian Environmental Protection Act

(CEPA) — controls the release of toxic

substances into the environment (including

Contrasting water policy in Canada and the U.S.


4545454545

the air), e.g. dioxins and furans. Also

controls ocean dumping.

♦ Canada Water Act — covers the authoriza-

tion of waste discharge to water and appears,

at first, to be a duplication of the authority

under the B.C. Waste Management Act. The

act lays out the framework for federal/provin-

cial agreements to eliminate government

duplication in provinces with strong waste

management legislation but provides this

function in other provinces (e.g. Maritimes).

♦ International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

— this is the act governing the International

Joint Commission that was set up by the

treaty between the U.S. and Canada in

1909. This is potentially a very important

statute for the Flathead. The IJC becomes

involved with a river flowing across the

border if there are compelling environmen-

tal issues and/or strong public concern.

Provincial laws (B.C.) include:

♦ Waste Management Act — governs all waste

discharges to the environment through per-

mits, approvals and regulations. There are no

permitted discharges to the Flathead River

but there have been some historic approvals

(camp incinerators and landfills) which are

for 15 months max and are non-renewable.

Numerous regulations, including the Special

Waste Regulation and the Contaminated

Sites Regulation. The new Oil & Gas Com-

mission Act over-rides the Waste Manage-

ment Act for oil and gas development and

transmission. Permits under this act often

have contaminant limits that are back-

calculated from levels in the receiving

stream that meet the current edition of the

provincial Approved and Working Criteria

for Water Quality in B.C. or a site-specific

WQ objective if one has been developed.

♦ Water Act — covers licensed withdrawals

and work in-and-about a stream or water-

way. Logging road bridges and culverts

must have approvals to be constructed,

habitat biologists are consulted in advance.

♦ Forest Practices Code — not a statute. In-

tended to reduce damage to streams resulting

from forest harvesting and related activities.

♦ Health Act — Through regional Medical

Health Officers, ensures safe drinking

water in community watersheds and where

water is provided commercially ie. restau-

rants. To determine “safe” the Canadian

Drinking Water Guidelines, developed and

routinely updated by Health & Welfare

Canada, are used. Logging camp water

supplies would fall under this Act.

♦ Environmental Management Act — allows

the Minister of Environment to declare an

environmental emergency (toxic spills,

fires, etc.) and thus access broad powers.

Not often used but it could for something

like a large cyanide spill into a river.

♦ Water Protection Act — not often encoun-

tered but covers the export of quantities of

water (greater than 20 liters are prohib-

ited). It has not been tested yet in courts and

may be subject to challenge under NAFTA

(L. McDonald, pers. comm. 1998).


4646464646

1) field sampling of benthic invertebrates

and periphyton

2) laboratory toxicity tests of benthic sediments

Fish were excluded from the recommended

monitoring program in favour of benthic animals

and algae. Bull trout and tailed frogs, both

present in the North Fork, have also been iden-

tified as an indicator species of ecosystem health

because they are sensitive to water tempera-

tures, have highly specialized habitat require-

ments and are extremely sensitive to habitat

degradation (Ministry of Forests 1997, Dupuis

1997). In this report, we have omitted benthic

animals and algae due to a lack of available in-

formation. However, we do treat bull trout and

tailed frog as focal species.

Focal Species

The Flathead Lake/ River system supports 24

species of fish, 10 of that are native. The bull trout,

westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish,

mottled and slimy sculpin, and large-scale sucker

are the most common native fish in the Flathead

River system above Flathead Lake (FRIS, BRC

1987). Tributary streams of the Flathead River in

Canada are important spawning and rearing

habitats for many of these species.

The mottled sculpin is blue-listed and is of

special concern in the North Fork because of its

limited distribution and importance as forage fish

in many streams. Although the mottled sculpin

is found in other drainages in BC, those may have

interbred with other species and only the North

Fork populations is thought to be a pure strain

(Peden in MELP 1998). The mottled sculpin is

found in Commerce Creek, Cabin Creek, Howell,

Creek, Burham Creek, Sage Creek, Kishenena

Creek, Flathead River (Middlepass Creek,

Flathead Road, at bridge to Sage Creek, Couldrey

Creek and US border).

The Mountain Whitefish is the most abundant

fish species in the North Fork and its tributaries.

A significant over-wintering site for whitefish in

the Canadian portion of the drainage is located in

the reach of river downstream from Howell Creek.

Marnell (1997) identified five amphibian spe-

cies in Glacier (four in the North Fork), and three

reptiles. The North Fork amphibians include long-

toed salamander, tailed frog, boreal toad and

Columbia spotted frog, while the reptiles were

painted turtle, wandering garter snake and

common garter snake. The northern leopard frog,

which is red-listed in B.C. is potentially in the

North Fork but no studies have been undertaken

to determine if this is the case.

Due to their rare status and potential as indi-

cator species, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout

and tailed frog are selected here as focal species.

Bull trout

The bull trout is the largest fish native to the

Flathead drainage. A blue-listed species in B.C.,

it has recently received threatened status under

the Endangered Species Act in the United States.

Bull trout originate from Flathead Lake and use

the North Fork of the Flathead River and other

tributaries for spawning and rearing. They spend

their adult life in Flathead Lake in Montana and

swim upriver to spawn in Howell Creek, Cabin

Creek, Kishinena and the mainstem of the


4747474747

Flathead in Canada, as well as most of its tribu-

taries in Montana (G.J.Mann). Eggs and fry typi-

cally remain in the gravel of spawning streams

from September or October until April of the fol-

lowing year. Juveniles rear mostly in tributaries

(some rear in the river) for one to three years

before migrating to the lake (FRIS, BRC 1987).

The species is widespread in the North Fork.

Sixteen tributaries supported between 33 and 61%

of the entire basin’s spawning run (average of 48%)

over a seven year survey (FWP 1998)2. A third of

this activity occurs in seven B.C. tributaries. The

Biological Resources Committee, states that the

long upriver and down river migration route (up to

250 km/155 miles each way) coupled with the high

visibility of adults in spawning streams, make the

bull trout that use Canadian waters extremely vul-

nerable to fishing pressure.

Throughout the 1980s, redd counts in four

Montana index streams (Big, Coal, Whale, and

Trail Creeks) averaged 231. However, with the

expansion of exotic Mysis shrimp and lake trout

populations around 1991, those numbers dropped

to an average of 62. Basin-wide counts for the

same time periods ranged from 564-1156 pre-

Mysis, to 291 and 236 post-Mysis. Surveyors re-

corded a historic low 44 redds in the North Fork

in 1997 and 101 redds in 1998 (FWP 1998).

Bull trout are being monitored currently by

several agencies. Glacier National Park is exam-

ining bull trout DNA and the distribution of bull

trout and non-native trout populations in North

Fork lakes. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

(FWP), which sets fishing regulations, has con-

ducted long term population monitoring in con-

junction with other state and federal agencies.

Prior to the species listing as threatened in June

1998, the state had already designated NW

Montana as a bull trout catch and release zone,

with the exception of Swan Lake where one fish

could be kept. BC has also set a catch and re-

lease policy for its portion of the drainage.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

The westslope cutthroat trout is a species of

special concern in Montana because of reductions

in the abundance and distribution of genetically

pure populations. It has been proposed recently

for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Westslope cutthroat trout in the Flathead drain-

age exhibit three life history patterns: resident, flu-

vial, and adfluvial. Resident fish remain in their

natal streams throughout their lives. Fluvial trout

reside in the mainstem as adults and spawn in the

tributaries. Adfluvial cutthroat spend one to three

years in the tributaries before emigrating to

Flathead Lake where they mature. They then mi-

grate to the tributaries to spawn before returning

once more to the lake. All cutthroat are sensitive

to environmental disturbances that affect spawn-

ing, rearing and over-wintering capability, and adult

habitat (FRIS, BRC, 1987).

Between 1990 and 1996, Montana Fish,

Wildlife and Parks (FWP) conducted three years

of monitoring surveys centered around the old

Ford Ranger Station. During that period, cut-

throat numbers dropped from 282 per km to 164

per km, and finally to 96 per km. Small fish (254

mm/10") comprised 94% of the sample, with mid-

2 The rest spawned in 14 tributaries of the

Middle Fork of the Flathead.


4848484848

size (254-305 mm/10-12") at 5%, and large fish

(>305 mm/12") representing 1%. Cutthroat suffer

from many of the same problems as bull trout, in-

cluding predation by lake trout, food web disrup-

tion by Mysis shrimp, and interbreeding with

rainbows and Yellowstone Cutthroats. The harvest

for cutthroat in the mainstem North Fork in B.C. is

limited to one trout over 30cm. In 1998, the FWP

established catch and release regulations in Mon-

tana’s North Fork.

Tailed frog

The tailed frog occurs in cold turbulent

headwater streams with cobble substrates. The

most primitive frog in the world, it is the longest

lived of all North American frogs and the only

stream dwelling frog in Canada. Fine sediment lev-

els and creek size influence its viability, therefore,

it is susceptible to mining and logging activity

(Dupuis 1997). Little is understood about the im-

pact of sport fish reintroduction on the frog how-

ever they can successfully co-exist with fish in

streams where abundant escape cover exists and

the fishery is primarily lacustrine adapted or is

dominated by non-predatory species(cutthroat

trout for example) (Marnell 1997).

In B.C. Ascaphus truei is blue-listed. It oc-

curs predominantly along the Coast Range save

for a small population in the East Kootenay’s

Moyie and Flathead drainages. In the province’s

North Fork, it is identified in six discrete loca-

tions. DNA analyses suggest that the genetic

make-up of the interior population differs from

that of the coastal population (Dupuis 1997)

making the latter population most vulnerable

(Steeger and Machmer 1993).

In Montana, Marnell (1997) reports that

the tailed frog occurs intermittently in the

North Fork as part of an apparent disjunct

population. As tailed frogs are primarily

nocturnal and Marnell’s surveys were mainly

diurnal, his study’s range maps may under-

represent the frog’s distribution.

What is the status of westslope cutthroattrout in B.C.? What fishing limits apply?


4949494949

Although native peoples have occupied

this area from the beginning of their recorded

time, the advent of Europeans marked a

change in the amount and type of use occur-

ring in the North Fork. That change has only

occurred over the past 100 years as forestry,

mining, petroleum exploration and tourism

joined trapping and subsistence hunting and

gathering as uses of this landscape.

Today, primary land uses in Montana include

logging, recreation and residential development.

Primary land uses in British Columbia are logging,

road construction and recreation. The increase

in roads in the North Fork has led to an overall

increase in recreation but statistics are only avail-

able for a portion of these users. Recreation in-

cludes hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use,

snowmobiling, canoeing, kayaking, hiking, bik-

ing, sightseeing and berry picking.

Forestry Practices

Past (British Columbia)

From the late 1950s to the 1960s, most of the

side drainages in the BC Flathead experienced

timber harvests. The largest timber extraction

in the drainage, however, resulted from salvage

logging of mountain pine beetle killed lodgepole

pine between 1976 and 1986 (McLellan and

Shackleton 1989). This outbreak was the most

serious in a series of outbreaks that occurred si-

multaneously in both Canada and the US (MOF

1988). The mountain pine beetle infestation at-

tacked 20,600 hectares (50,800 acres) of mature

pine (MOF 1988). The Forest Service were rap-

idly losing merchantable timber and sought to

salvage as much wood as possible.

Logging continued all winter in 1978 as Crows

Nest logged 190,968 cubic metres of wood out of

the North Fork. In 1979, the figure dropped to

164,000 m3, peaked at

217,871m3 in 1980, then

dropped to 109,821m3 in

1981 (Young 1987). Due

to a sense of urgency with

the bark beetle outbreak

it was inevitable that some

things wouldn’t go accord-

ing to plan, and there were

occasional difficulties

with sub-standard roads,

hillside scarring and ero-

sion, streamside damage,

and improper bridge con-

struction (MOF 1988). The Ministry of Forests

concluded that emergency logging operations, by

their very nature, can pose a definite risk to the

long-term well being of the forest environment.

Nonetheless it is assumed that the benefits from

salvage logging far outweigh their disadvantages;

that allowing an infestation to run its course is

unacceptable (MOF 1988). The same beetle in-

festation hit both Waterton and Glacier National

Chapter 4 — One Century of Human Activity inthe North Fork


5050505050

Park where no beetle-killed pine was removed

from the two parks. The affected areas are all

greening up under the grey stags, with former

lodgepole pine now succeeding to Douglas fir

(Kevin Van Tighem, pers. comm.).

Replanting in the North Fork was undertaken

in the 1970s and early 1980s to promote the

growth of a mixed crop of trees, such as western

larch and Douglas fir. As a result, every seral

stage for both deciduous and coniferous species

are found in the watershed.

Past (Montana)

Although the North Fork has extensive forests

and, therefore, a substantial timber supply, it was

largely overlooked from the late 1800s until the

middle of this century because access to large

stands by road, rail, and water was much better

in the Flathead Valley proper. However, that

changed in the 1950s as these sources were

depleted and insect outbreaks in the North

Fork killed large numbers of trees.

Most harvest in the 1950s-1960s was

focused on mature spruce stands and mixed

stands containing spruce at mid to upper

drainage levels where spruce bark beetle

was occurring. Harvest generally involved

clearcutting and overstory removal. Since

the 1960s, timber harvest has been focused

on white pine salvage (blister rust mortal-

ity), blowdowns, fire/ insect/ disease salvage, in-

sect outbreak reduction, and general timber

production (A21 1998). Timber was also har-

vested on private and State lands over the last

50 years primarily using regeneration methods

(most or all trees removed). Harvested species

included mostly western white pine, cedar, and

some ponderosa, while you “couldn’t give spruce-

fir away” (Wilson and Downes pers. comm.). This

changed apparently when a new market opened

up for spruce-fir studs and plywood and the

spruce bark beetle started killing trees.

The mountain pine beetle outbreak, which ran

from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, had

a significant impact on both lodgepole and

whitebark pine stands and resulted directly in the

commercial harvesting of about 13,000 acres of

forest during that period. Overall, harvesting

peaked at about 26,000 acres (10,500ha) in the

1970s and has fallen to less than 3000 acres

(1200 ha) this decade (Table Thirteen):

Table Thirteen: Harvest by method on USFS

lands, North Fork of the Flathead, Montana

(A21 1998)*

According to McKay (1997) Engelmann spruce

in the North Fork represented 12 percent of the

total spruce available in the state of Montana in

the 50s. Forest management activities have gen-

erally shifted the forest from spruce/ fir to

lodgepole pine (Wilson and Downes pers. comm.).

edaceD

noitarenegeRtsevraH

( serca )

/egavlaSetaidemretnI

tsevraH( serca )

noitceleStsevraH

( serca )

latoTybtsevraH

edaceD( serca )

s0591 030,9 4882 0 419,11s0691 473,41 9004 841 135,81s0791 574,31 914,21 0 498,52s0891 204,4 235,9 0 128,61s0991 664,1 803,1 65 038,2

yblatoTdohtem

747,24serca

251,03serca

402serca

099,57serca


5151515151

Current (Montana)

Flathead National Forest (U.S.)

During the last decade, commercial tim-

ber operations on the entire Flathead Na-

tional Forest have declined steadily from

nearly 120 mmbf. to about 20 mmbf. This

change has been reflected in the North Fork

portion where logging operations have been

in-fluenced by concerns over grizzlies, wa-

ter quality, and bull trout.

The USFS states that “Priorities for veg-

etation throughout the subbasin include res-

toration of whitebark pine stands that have

been heavily impacted by white pine blister

rust, conservation of large multistory

stands, and prescribed burning on elk and

deer winter ranges. Bark beetle risk is con-

sidered moderate in the Coal Creek, Werner

Creek, and Big Creek drainages; risk in

other drainages of this subbasin are cur-

rently rated as low” (A21 1998).

As of early 1999 three timber sales are either

underway or in the planning stages (Dave Ondov

pers. comm.). The Hornet-Wedge timber sale in the

Whale Creek drainage is now underway. The sale

involves approximately 600 acres harvested prima-

rily by clearcut as well as selection and shelterwood

methods. About 4 miles of new roads would be con-

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

Horse Creek sale in the Coal Creek drainage is in

the early planning stages. It proposes some level

of timber harvest and includes prescribed burns

to benefit whitebark pine. Finally, the Big Creek

Geographic Unit Assessment has just entered the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) proc-

ess. It includes moderate harvest, stream resto-

ration, and road closures to meet Amendment 19

road density standards for grizzly bears.

Mt. Department of Natural Resources &

Conservation (DNRC)

The DNRC has substantial land holdings in the

vicinity of Coal Creek and recently released a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for

the Cyclone/ Coal Timber Sale. Depending on the

action alternative chosen, this project would har-

vest between 8.9 and 10.6 mmbf on between 699

and 1226

acres, with

the majority

( 5 7 - 8 8 % )

clearcut1.

1 This translates to between 21,446m3

and 25,542m3 of timber extracted from

283 to 496ha. of land.

How do harvesting methods differ(regeneration vs. salvage vs. selection)?How have logging patterns differed inBC vs. Alberta vs. Montana? Cancaribou decline be correlated withlogging intensity and patterns? Whatare the tradit ional post-loggingtreatment methods in each jurisdiction?


5252525252

The Cyclone/ Coal (U.S.) Timber harvest

would take place in Management Situation 1

(MS-1) grizzly habitat at the junction of both an

E-W and a N-S movement corridor. The project

would apparently create less than a mile of new

roads. None of the alternatives proposes road

closures once harvest is complete.

Private Lands

Recent, smaller-scale logging has recently

taken place on private lands. For example, Lee

Downes extracts timber on his own property while

Larry Wilson maintains a small crew selectively

thinning lodgepole on 160 acres of the Marx prop-

erty. Similar small scale operations are being con-

ducted by BS Logging and Tim Smart.

Current (British Columbia)

Crestbrook Forest Industries (Can.)

Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI)2 is one of

B.C.’s major forestry companies. The North Fork

has been designated by CFI for timber extraction

and they will be concentrating their cut there for

the next 5-10 years. (Ken Streloff, pers. comm.).

CFI holds the timber rights and the coal rights

on the property adjacent to the Lodgepole site

and has recently acquired the Flathead townsite

(2400 acres/971 hectares) in a land swap.

Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI)’s five year

Forest Development Plan (FDP) has recently

been approved with the exception of a few blocks

between Nettie and Elder Creek (Map D). With

the input of Bruce McLellan, a (cont’d p54)

Administration of forestry activities differ

widely on either side of the 49th parallel:

United States

When conducting projects on federally

managed public land, the appropriate

agency(s) ordinarily develops either an

Environmental Assessment (EA) for

projects with fewer anticipated impacts, or

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) where projects are large or impacts

likely to be significant. When an EA is the

chosen route, it could either result in a

FONSI (Finding of No Significant

Impact), or a decision to go to a full EIS.

For the purpose of this example, we’re going

to assume that the EIS route is chosen.

Once the government decides to offer a

hypothetical 1000 acres for a timber sale,

this process is followed:

♦ Appropriate federal agency announces

the proposed project and calls for public

Issues Scoping.

♦ 30 day public comment period (comment

periods often extended 30-60 days)

♦ Agency calls for public Alternatives

Scoping.

♦ 30 day public comment period.

♦ Agency considers public issues/ alternatives

comments and prepares a Draft

2 Crestbrook Forest Industries (CFI) is majority

owned by Honshu and Mitsibushi of Japan.

Forestry Approval Processes


5353535353

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

including usually 3-5 alternatives, and

picking one as the “preferred alternative.”

♦ 30-60 day public comment period.

♦ Agency considers public comments on

DEIS, prepares and issues a Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

and picks an alternative.

♦ 30-60 day public comment period.

♦ Record of Decision (ROD) issued authoriz-

ing the project to proceed.

Assuming that the project wasn’t appealed to

the Regional Forester or litigated, the

agency would then put the project out to

bids from interested timber companies. Lest

the above sound too orderly or reasonable,

be assured that it is accompanied by media

campaigns, alerts, lobbying, political deal

making and arm twisting on a fairly

impressive scale, often followed by

litigation if the issues are significant.

Canada:

The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is set

through the Timber Supply Review by the

Ministry of Forests and each forest district is

allotted a certain amount of timber to be cut.

Forest companies own tenures to Crown

(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

within a Timber Supply area (TSA) under

cutting permits. The FL typically is a 15

year term which is replaceable every five

years.

Recent changes to the Forest Practices Code,

while reducing the number of operational

plans required and reducing the number of

plans that require government approval, has

also removed many of the opportunities that

the general public has to become involved in

the forest planning decision-making process.

Under the Forest Practices Code, after the

forest companies develop their Forest Devel-

opment Plans (FDP) for a district, they

must:

1) publish a notice in the newspaper of the

public review and comment period (which is

usually 60 days)

2) supply an address for where to provide

comments

3) review the comments they receive and,

4) make the revisions they “consider

appropriate”

Once a Forest Development Plan is approved

by the District Manager (Ministry of For-

ests), it is difficult, under the Forest Prac-

tices Code, to overturn the decision.


5454545454

prominant grizzly biologist, CFI is in the process

of a creating a preliminary landscape level de-

sign which will address the impact on Flathead

grizzly bears over the next 20-25 years. The

creation of this preliminary plan identifies and

includes values other than timber, including:

1) managing for huckleberries

2) proper harvesting in avalanche chutes

3) identification of priority areas in the riparian

zone (floodplain, movement corridors)

4) recruitment areas (mature and old-growth)

5) block re-design in some areas (e.g. Nettie/

Elder- shape and size)

6) access management (closures, new roads

gated and/ or bermed)

7) order of development through the Flathead

(which areas should be logged first to lessen

the impact on grizzlies)

This plan does not limit the cut but rather

prioritizes areas to be harvested and identifies

critical habitat for wildlife, specifically grizzly

bears. The plan will only be implemented if CFI

can meet their budgets (Streloff, pers. comm.).

Under the approved FDPs, CFI has estimated

1500 hectares (3810 acres) will be cut, result-

ing in 330,000 cubic metres (137 mmbf) ex-

tracted over the next five years in the North

Fork’s LU zones 16 and 18. Seventeen blocks

exceed 40 hectares (100acres), the largest one

being 220.9 ha (546 acres).

Clear-cutting continues to be the most com-

mon silviculture technique used in the BC por-

tion of the North Fork (Langley 1993). The

approved cutblocks in the Flathead (LU16/17) are

situated in Elder, Nettie, Sage, Commerce, West

Proctor, Grizzly Gulch, Akamina, Bighorn (Celes-

tial), and South Lodgepole Creeks (FDP 1998).

There are no cutblocks planned for the upper

Flathead (LU17) for the next five years.

CFI is tackling the mid-seral trees and will be

using a combination of seed tree, partial cut and

clearcut for the logging, with the majority seed

tree or clearcut (Streloff, pers.comm). CFI has re-

built 18km (11mi) of roads in the Flathead to ac-

cess the areas slated for logging (Nettie and Elder

Creek) but no new road construction is currently

taking place (Streloff pers comm). CFIs access

management plans for the Flathead include road

closures once the harvesting is completed. Clo-

sures vary from gates to berms/ unspecified.

Small Business Program

The Ministry of Forests small business pro-

gram receives an allocation of wood based upon

the Annual Allowable Cut in the forest dis-

trict. This is set aside for small business log-

gers. Contracts, similar to cutting permits, are

offered to tender and the highest bidder

purchases it. Even though it is not a tenure

(because it is not a forest license), small busi-

ness loggers must adhere to the same regu-

lations that the bigger companies do.

Under the small business program, two par-

cels in the North Fork are currently for sale. The

blocks are lodgepole pine dominated stands on

the west side of the North Fork, south of

Couldrey Creek. The first parcel (72.3 ha/178

acres), which will produce 16,668m3 (7 mmbf),

has been sold to J.R. Blackmore and Sons.

Logging is underway. The second (cont’d p56)


5656565656


5757575757

parcel (29.1ha/72acres), which will produce

8,874m3 (3.7mmbf), will be tendered shortly.

No other small business parcels are planned

for the North Fork for the next five to ten years.

Petroleum Extraction


Oil exploration first began in BC’s Flathead

valley in 1906 and continued on a small scale

through to the 1930s. Flathead townsite, now

known as the Lilyburt property (Map D), was

surveyed in the 1920s in the expectation of

an oil boom. The boom never occurred and the

town was never built (Young 1987). A gas

pipeline, built in the 1970s, transects the ex-

treme northwest headwaters of the river

(Shaw et al. 1991). In the late 1980s, Shell

Canada Resources Ltd. carried out seismic

exploration and test drilling east of the river

to evaluate the occurrence of carbon dioxide

which could be piped to Alberta to enhance

oil recovery (FRISB 1986).

Past (Montana)

In 1892, Montana’s first oil claims were

filed along the shores of Kintla Lake in present

day Glacier National Park. Initial development

was delayed due to inadequate capital and the

financial crash of 1893, but interest resumed

in 1900. The Butte Oil Company built the

area’s first road from Belton (West Glacier) to

Kintla Lake in 1901. For a short time a small

oil boom ensued, but it collapsed when it be-

came clear that commercial production would

not be possible. Another well near Ford Creek in

present day Glacier National Park also failed

(Jack Potter, GNP, pers. comm.)

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-

mic line over the top of the Whitefish Range. The

project was drop-ped, hindered by logistics and

multiple jurisdictions (Brace Hayden, pers. comm.).

In the late 1980s, Tom Laddenburg mounted

an exploration effort on his property south of

Polebridge. While this drilling with Cenex created

controversy with many North Fork residents, it

struck only water, no commercial quantities of oil

were found, and the effort was shut down. Sub-

stantial portions of the North Fork were leased for

oil and gas during this time, but interest waned

after the Cenex failure. The leases have since

lapsed. Oil and gas may exist in scattered “domes”

at 8-11,000 feet; Cenex only drilled as deep as

6000 feet (Larry Wilson pers. comm.).

Current (BC and Montana)

There is no oil and gas activity now in the

North Fork, however exploration roads still ex-

ist. The Geological Survey of Canada has identi-

fied the potential for 420 billion cubic feet of

natural gas and 88 million barrels of oil, con-

centrated in

the Elk and

F l a t h e a d

v a l l e y s

( E K L U P

1994). They

have also

identified the


5858585858

potential for 21 trillion cubic feet of coal bed me-

thane in these drainages (EKLUP 1994). Coal

bed methane extraction typically requires a

high density of roads and wellsites because

the gas is under low pressure.

Mining


The Lost Lemon (Lehman) Mine is a legendary

gold mine that may have existed in the Canadian

side of the Flathead. The mine location was sup-

posed to be on the seventh creek on the east side

of the Flathead Valley, according to Charlie Wise

who received the information from Black Jack

Lehman’s brother-in-law who heard it from Black

Jack Lehman himself, one of the original discover-

ers. Other stories have the location as being north

of the Crowsnest Pass (Goble 1996). Jack Hazzard

who built and operated the first hotel and dining

room in the Waterton townsite was also a part-

time prospector. Hazzard started the gold rush in

Grizzly Gulch during the winter of 1931-1932 that

lasted for a few years, when the creek and the

Gulch were staked for 7 miles. The rush petered

out when no one found any indication of either

placer or hard-rock gold (Goble 1996). The Sage

Creek Valley was named for two old-time prospec-

tors, brothers Frank and Joe, who moved here in

the 1890s hunting for the fabled Lehman Mine.

They searched the mainstem, Sage Creek, Com-

merce Creek and the Castle River (Alberta) area

without any luck (Goble 1996).

In the early 1980s, Sage Creek Coal Ltd pro-

posed a coal mine , encompassing 2085ha (5150

acres) at the confluence of Howell Creek and

Cabin Creek. A drop in coal prices and rejection

by an International Joint Commission Study nul-

lified the company’s plans.

Past (Montana)

During the same time period that investors

were eyeing the Kintla oil fields, there was simi-

lar interest in the development of coal depos-

its further down valley. In 1891, the Columbia

Falls townsite company bought claims on the

coal banks and placer grounds near present day

Coal Creek (approximately 26 miles north of

town). Testing of samples showed that the coal

was of low grade quality, making development

commercially unprofitable, although the own-

ers did find a small and temporary market for

heating fuel in the 1940s.

Current (BC and Montana)

Fording Coal Ltd.3, Canada’s largest coal min-

ing company, currently operates three out of five

open-pit coal mines in the Elk Valley, directly

north of the Flathead/ Castle region. Fording owns

three properties in the North Fork with associ-

ated coal licenses which allow for exploration

activities: Lodgepole, Lillyburt and Harvey Creek

(see map D) (Duncan 1997). Lillyburt, Lodgepole

3 Fording is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Canadian Pacific.

How have seismic lines from past explorationbeen treated? Are they overgrown or usablenow as motorized trails?


5959595959

Recent battles over the Cabin Creek Mine and

the Cheviot mine near Jasper have elevated

the profile of coal mines in the public eye.

Why the fuss? The environmental impacts

associated with coal mines are, to a certain

extent, specific to the individual mine, but

there are certain commonalties worth

mentioning. These include:

Landscape impacts:

♦ Open-pit coal mines require enormous

amounts of land.

♦ Large volumes of rock are moved through

blasting and transportation by trucks.

♦ Waste is stored in large structures called

waste dumps or spoils.

♦ Shapes of mountains are changed and

valleys can be filled in, which has a dra-

matic impact on wildlife habitat, migra-

tion corridors and wildlife stress levels.

Water resources:

♦ Construction of rock drains adversely affect

streams. Rock drains are formed by filling

in the head of a valley with waste rock so

Why the concern over coal mining?

that water can move freely through the

structure and prevent saturation of soil

leading to unstable conditions. While this

does allow the stream to flow and eventu-

ally ‘surface’ downstream from the rock

drain, it destroys fish and fish habitat.

♦ Drainage patterns of slopes can be dis-

rupted and change flows in streams.

♦ Water quality can be impacted by sedi-

mentation if sufficient safeguards are not

in place to prevent fine materials from

entering streams.

♦ Minerals, such as selenium, may poten-

tially leach from waste rocks.

♦ Chemical contamination can occur

through the introduction of nitrates (from

explosives) and from petroleum products.

Air Quality:

♦ Fine particles of coal dust raised through

the blasting and hauling operations can

affect ambient air quality.

♦ Inadequate maintenance of tailings ponds

can lead to the dusting of the fines from

the ponds. (Duncan 1997).

and McEvoy Creek hold major deposits estimated

to contain over 300 million tonnes of combined

coal reserves (EKLUP 1994).

Fording has conducted exploration activities

on its Lodgepole coal licenses since they were

acquired in 1997. The company drilled nine re-

verse circulation holes totalling 817 metres

(Wilton 1997) to test the quality and geometry of

the resource. The deposit type is organic and is a

thermal coal resource (Wilton 1997).

In Sept 1998, Fording Coal stated they will

not be renewing some of their coal licenses


6060606060

on the west side of the Flathead River (Lynn

Sam, pers.comm.). Although Fording has not

disclosed its general North Fork plans, the

deposit is likely viewed as a long-term

successor to the company’s Coal Mountain

thermal coal operation (Wilton 1997).

Besides Fording, Sage Creek Resources Ltd.

still owns some licenses in the Sage Creek region.

Recreational Activities

Past Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting

(B.C. and Montana)

The hunting conducted by the Ktunaxa and

trapping initiated by “old-timers” were ways of

life rather than recreational activities. Their ac-

tivities have been profiled in chapter two. We cur-

rently lack detail on the extent of hunting and

trapping activity prior to this decade (i.e. number

of traplines, number of hunting licences issued).

Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Fishing/

Outfitting (B.C.)

Hunting occurs throughout the BC North Fork

save in McDougall Wildlife Sanctuary which is

closed to hunting year round. Four guide outfit-

ters and six licensed trappers operate here in Man-

agement Unit 4-1 and may be active in adjacent

areas (MU 4-23, 4-02) (Davidson, pers.comm). Hunt-

ing of both carnivores and ungulates is permitted

in the North Fork, but regulations vary among

years. Grizzly bears can be legally hunted in

Canada, yet poaching still occurs (McLellan 1989b).

In Canada, hunters require a hunter’s license as

well as a species license for certain animals.

In B.C., grizzly bears are pursued with a limited

entry hunting (LEH) permit in contrast to an open

season for black bears. Grizzly and moose are both

on the LEH system in the North Fork. LEH is used

to closely regulate the number of hunters operating

in a specific area, the numbers of animals killed and

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 volun-

tary questionnaire which, if completed, provides in-

formation for wildlife managers of indications of

population size, age/ sex structure and distribution.

The results show the species and hunter success rate

for the B.C. portion of the North Fork (see Table 14).

Table 14: Kill and success rates by species in

the North Fork of the Flathead, B.C.

reeDdeliatetihW

raeY sretnuH lliKkcuB sselretnAlliK

llarevO%sseccuS

7891 383 07 11 128891 983 58 31 529891 763 35 82 220991 683 38 43 031991 162 14 91 322991 452 27 22 733991 972 63 26 534991 422 22 84 135991 732 83 9 026991 931 31 31 917991 461 6 41 21

Has the ecological impacts of coal miningin the Elk Valley been monitored? Whatstudies are available? How would coalmining affect other uses of the area?


6161616161

Success rates have dropped since 1994 for deer and

elk but improved for moose.

Anglers are not surveyed like hunters in the

B.C. North Fork. As a result, it is nearly impossi-

ble to gauge either angler numbers, species

caught or numbers caught. Anglers can reach the

river from a variety of locations on public land

and those floating the river can fish anywhere

they choose. In both countries fishing for bull

trout is catch and release only. In B.C., westslope

cutthroat trout limits are set to 1 fish over 30cm.

There is a bait ban from June 15th to October

31st and anglers are restricted to single hook all

year. An added regulation in North Fork tributar-

ies prohibits fishing from September 1st to Octo-

ber 31st to protect spawning bull trout.

Current Hunting/ Trapping/ Outfitting

(Montana)

Hunting occurs in Montana’s North Fork

outside Glacier National Park. Outfitters are

excluded from the Flathead National Forest. By

requiring hunters to stop and provide informa-

tion at game check stations in HD (Hunting

District) 110, officials can determine kill and

success rates per species (see Table 15).

Generally, success rates for all species have

remained stable, unlike B.C.

Current Camping/ Hiking/ General

sightseeing (Montana and B.C.):

Camping and hiking are growing in popularity

on both Forest Service and Provincial/ National

Park lands. We have few statistics on users as

they are simply not recorded. Both BC Ministry

of Forests and BC Parks maintain recreation sites

klE

raeY sretnuH lliKlluB sselretnAlliK

llarevO%sseccuS

6891 546 97 42 617891 256 88 82 818891 736 88 12 719891 716 16 32 410991 455 45 91 311991 264 84 82 612991 273 44 21 513991 713 23 0 014991 713 14 5 515991 443 73 9 316991 881 91 1 11

esooM

raeY sretnuH lliKlluB sselretnAlliK

llarevO%sseccuS

6891 052 94 91 727891 652 04 51 128891 691 04 0 029891 912 25 31 030991 471 32 8 811991 74 9 41 942991 07 51 61 443991 98 42 11 934991 16 12 31 655991 17 51 21 836991 65 02 01 45

Why have deer and elk hunter successrates fallen this decade? Why are thereless animals? How does this measureup between jur isd ic t ions, g ivenpredator trends? How are ‘bag limits’set in each jurisdiction?


6262626262

here. Although numbers for the former are not

collected, Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park

recorded 336 campers and 3177 day users from

June 30 to September 30, 1998. Park officials

guestimate that this captures 5% of the entire

North Fork usage for this period.

In Montana individuals are free to camp any-

where on USFS lands they choose save for set-

backs from water bodies and site specific

closures. Overall use is not recorded however

some accomodation use is. USFS cabin use has

risen quickly through the 1990s (Table Sixteen).

Flathead National Forest also maintains over

216 miles of hiking and motorized trails in the

Glacier View District. Usage is primarily by foot

(Bob Keebler, pers. comm.)

Glacier National Park can be accessed from

several locations around the park boundary.

Camping is provided at designated sites and

backcountry use is recorded. Park usage via the

Polebridge Entrance Station has generally stabi-

lized this decade (Table Seventeen).

Current Commercial River Usage

(Montana)

There are three commercial outfitters who

provide float trips on the North Fork —

Glacier Raft, Wild River Adventures, and

Glacier Wilderness Guides.

Glacier Raft — User days per year, Range = 12

(1981) to 311 (1992), Average = 147.

Wild River Adventures — User days per year,

Range =33 (1997) to 163 (1966), Avg = 103.

Glacier Wilderness Guides — User days/year,

Range = 12 (1982) to 498 (1994), Avg =187.

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.

deliatetihW reeDraeY sretnuH lliK %sseccuS

88 7562 866 5298 5782 947 6209 5042 826 6219 4912 436 9229 7452 206 4239 1422 124 9149 8991 024 1259 2571 514 4269 7661 315 1379 2171 162 51

klEraeY sretnuH lliK sseccuS%6891 3271 641 97891 3381 731 88891 9081 121 79891 7691 601 50991 7161 801 71991 9361 521 82991 1771 68 53991 0061 38 54991 8031 96 55991 2021 46 5


6363636363

Little pattern exists in river usage as good and

bad years occur randomly. On average, about 400

people use commercial outfitters here annually.

If we assume, conservatively, that for every com-

mercial rafter there’s a private rafter/ canoeist/

kayaker, we arrive at a yearly total of 800

individuals floating the North Fork (Craig Lang,pers. comm).

Current motorized recreation —

snowmobiles, 4 wheelers, dirt bikes

(Montana and BC)

During the past several decades the number

and variety of vehicles available for off-road

travel on land has steadily increased. These

vehicles are termed off-road vehicles (ORVs) or

all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Generally, they al-

low access to unroaded landscapes

via old roads, cutlines, seismic lines

or trails. Given the number of roads

in the North Fork, it is generally

easy to access much of the land-

esooMraeY stimreP sretnuH lliK sseccuS%4891 02 02 81 095891 02 02 81 096891 02 02 91 597891 02 02 02 0018891 02 91 31 869891 52 52 22 880991 03 03 82 391991 03 03 62 782991 03 03 03 0013991 03 92 82 794991 53 53 82 085991 04 93 92 476991 52 52 32 29

raguoC/noiLniatnuoMraeY atouQ sretnuH lliK9891 42 70991 6 63 71991 8 83 82991 8 65 213991 01 94 014991 01 83 015991 01 03 016991 31 ? 017991 31 ? 31

Table Sixteen: USFS Rustic Cabin Use

1995-1997

5991 6991 7991nibaCrevoRneB - 242 445

nibaCdroF - - 861tuokooLtenroH 612 491 712

nibaCokniN 78 201 38nibaCsuanhcS 745 967 528

nibaCs'piZ - 372 524:latoT 058 0851 2622

Table Seventeen: Numbers of Visitors enter-

ing GNP via Polebridge Entrance Station

raeY ).voN-lirpA(srotisiVfo.oN

4991 709,34

5991 454,24

6991 420,53

7991 722,73

8991 426,04 .tpeS-lirpA()ylno


6464646464

scape with either snowmobiles, off road vehicles,

four wheelers or dirt bikes. Usage is not moni-

tored by either government.

Snowmobiles

Snowmobile usage of the North Fork is gener-

ally unrestricted in BC and Alberta save for an

exclusion throughout Glacier National Park and

periodic closures in the Flathead National For-

est. The USFS closes the Whale, Red Meadow,

Upper Coal and portions of Red Creek Valleys

as well as lands north of Tuchuck Mt. from April

30 to Nov 30 to protect grizzly bears. Trails con-

necting Upper Big Creek

to Canyon are restricted

from April 1 — June 1 for

the same purpose. Year-

round closures occur from

just south of the Big Creek

entrance, north along the

Demers Ridge winter

range, and around the Big

Mountain ski area. Cur-

rent maps are available at

the Glacier View/ Hungry

Horse Ranger Station.

In Montana, snow-

mobilers most commonly ride out of trailheads

at Canyon Creek, Big Creek, Hay Creek, and Red

Meadow Creek. Moose, Whale, and Trail Creeks

see substantial use as well.

Four wheel drives, passenger vehicles, dirt bikes

Once the winter snowpack has melted, every

major drainage west of the North Fork Road is

accessible to passenger and off-road vehicles al-

though some are more suited to 4 wheel drives.

Data from the USFS roads inventory for the

Glacier View Ranger District indicates that ap-

proximately 280 miles of roads are open season-

ally or yearlong for motorized use. Because they

connect to the Upper Flathead Valley to the west,

the roads at Trail and Red Meadow Creeks re-

ceive greater use than some others, although Big

Creek is popular year round. These road networks

currently do not comply with road density stand-

ards in Amendment 19 to the Forest Plan de-

signed to enhance grizzly bear security. There

are currently no areas designated for ATV use,

although popular areas frequently have “rogue

riders” who ride where they choose, regardless

of closures or regulations. Similarly, in B.C., every

major drainage is accessible to ATVs. Legal clo-

sures are in place during the hunting season on

certain roads4. The North Fork is attractive to both

B.C. and Alberta riders because of the terrain and

the high number of roads in the area.

Land development

Current (B.C. and Montana)

Only 83 people live in the U.S. portion of

the North Fork year-round, although the sum-

mer population numbers around 250 (Nature

4 See Vehicle Access Hunting Closures (VAHC)

in the Roads section, below.

How do guidel ines for use of of f -r o a d v e h i c l e s v a r y f r o m B . C . t oMontana to Alberta?


6565656565

Conservancy, 1994). According to the 1996

Census, there are no year round residents in the

Canadian portion of the drainage. This makes

the area southern Canada’s largest unsettled

drainage occurring outside a park (Hovey and

Teske 1993), with the nearest permanent settle-

ment more than 50km. from the northern edge

of the valley. Although most of the North Fork is

Crown land (owned by the province), there is

currently 192 acres (78 ha) of private property

for sale for $429,000 U.S. The property has ¾

mile of river frontage and is located between

Sage Creek and the Flathead River.

Figures reported by the Nature Conservancy

show that, in 1986, there were 616 tracts mak-

ing up 17,000 acres/6880ha of private land. By

1992, that had changed to 727 tracts on 15,000

acres/6070ha — more parcels on fewer acres.

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

(+18%), 10-20 acres (+19%), and 20-40 acres

(+72%) have steadily increased.

Private lands only comprise about 2.7% of

the North Fork in the U.S. or 15,000 acres.

However, because the vast majority of these

lands occur along or adjacent to a low eleva-

tion riparian corridor, they can impede wild-

life movements between Canadian and

American habitat patches.

Ranching Practices

Current (B.C. and Montana)

There has been no recent agricultural activity

B.C.’s North Fork. A 1980 proposal to allow cattle

grazing was rejected after review by B.C.’s Fish and

Wildlife Branch Officers recommended that impair-

ment of riparian habitat as a result of uncontrolled

cattle grazing would result in serious declines in the

abundance of fish and wildlife throughout the

transboundary watershed. (BC Fish & Wildlife 1981).

Tom Laddenburg currently grazes animals in Mon-

tana’s North Fork, running both cattle and horses on

his lands. In addition, according to Deb Manley of

USFS, Moran Allotment has historically had a permit

for 14 cow/ calf pairs totalling 180 AUMs (Animal

Unit Months.) This allotment is currently undergoing

an Environmental Assessment.

Road Development

Roads were first built in the U.S. between 1906

and the 1930s for oil exploration. With the advent of

logging in the 1950s in both jurisdictions, these road

networks spread. (McLellan and Shackelton, 1988).

By 1986, B.C.’s North Fork alone contained approxi-

mately 250 roads where roughly only a dozen had

existed before the salvage logging of the area (MOF

1988). In the

early 1970s,

even before

many of the

current roads

were con-

structed, the

How is land zoning handled in northernMontana? Are there any plans whichguide subdivision? Do they considerenvironmental concerns?


6666666666

growth of vehicular access in the North Fork

prompted the Fernie Ranger District to create a road

access plan (Young 1987).

In Montana, every major drainage west of the

river (State and U.S. Forest Service side) contains

a dirt/ gravel road, as do a number of minor

drainages. The “Outside North Fork Road” also par-

allels the river’s west side at varying distances from

near Columbia Falls to the Canadian border. East

of the river (Glacier National Park), the “Inside

North Fork Road” parallels the river from Anaconda

Creek in the south, to Kintla Lake in the north. In

addition, Bowman Lake is accessed by a 6 mile dirt

road. Both sides of the North Fork contain numer-

ous trails, perhaps a dozen on the west (USFS) and

twice that many on the east (NPS).

The USFS inventory indicates a total of 650 miles

(1048 km) of roads in its Glacier View District

(North Fork) with approximately 280 miles (451 km)

being open seasonally, or yearlong. Another 254

miles (409 km) are shown as “closed to vehicles

year long”, most frequently with a gate.

In B.C., every major drainage west and east of

the river contains a dirt/ gravel road, as do many

side drainages. The main Flathead road runs paral-

lel to the river and once crossed the U.S. border.

That changed in 1995 when a flood washed it out

— the border

station is

now closed.

I n c l u d i n g

this main ar-

tery, there

are 208 miles

(335.6 km) of

Roads cause fragmentation of habitat and

reduce adjacent cover for wildlife making

them more vulnerable to human activi-

ties. Access into the North Fork, with its

network of resource development roads, is

one of the main concerns for the excep-

tional wildlife populations in the area.

Conservation biologists find that, to persist,

large mammals, particularly carnivores,

require large, contiguous areas of wilder-

ness (Noss et al. 1996). With increased

development and the construction of

roads, a large carnivore’s habitat can be

compromised — although it still exists, it

is not as effective. When carnivores are

alienated from prime habitat, their use of

an area becomes fragmented. The

Flathead River drainage supports one of

the most diverse large mammal predator-

prey systems spanning the international

boundary. Nearly all of the predators are

solitary (except wolves), have large home

ranges, and are widely dispersed. By

fragmenting habitat, we potentially

encourage the development of island

populations thereby decreasing the gene

Why be concerned about roads?

roads in the North Fork that the Forest Service

is responsible for. An additional 33mi (53km)

of permit roads are slated for the next 5 years.

These figures do not completely represent all

access in the North Fork because there are no

numbers available for non-status roads.


6767676767

pool and making predators more susceptible

to extirpation after large scale disturbances.

The grizzly can be used to illustrate the effects

of this sort of fragmentation. At the heart of

its problem is increased mortality from road

access AND the loss of habitat effectiveness

due to alienation. First, motorized vehicle

access increases grizzly vulnerability to both

legal and illegal hunting. Hunter success

and, therefore, grizzly mortality, goes up

when one can drive to the bear (McLellan

and Shackleton 1989). Secondly, studies

have shown that adult male grizzlies tend to

avoid roads in general (McLellan and

Shackleton 1988). As choice grizzly habitat

includes riparian areas favoured by road

surveyors, habitat loss inevitably occurs. To

date, grizzlies have lost 8.7% of their North

Fork habitat for this reason (McLellan and

Shackleton 1988). When combined, in-

creased mortality and loss of habitat affects

grizzly bear distribution and viability.

Besides direct use, roads can lead to indi-

rect consequences for all wildlife. They

improve access to recreational off-road

vehicles which have further implications.

Adverse effects include:

♦ increased poaching as access becomes

available to larger areas, making enforce-

ment of game laws even more difficult.

♦ disturbance of wildlife during critical

seasons (winter, breeding season) causing

increased stress which in turn weakens

the animal, diminishing reproductive

capability and heightening susceptibility

to predation

♦ the destruction of lichen communities due

to ORV misuse. Misused ORVs can also

compact trails through bogs thereby

altering drainage, crushing plants and

causing erosion of stream banks

(Wilshire et al. 1978).

♦ increased destruction of spawning habi-

tat through increased siltation as well as

destruction of fish eggs (CNF 1980).

The Nature Conservancy (1994) reports

that, “Residential development and roads

clearly stand out as the most significant

source of stresses in the North Fork. Both

roads and development can result in loss

of habitat, habitat degradation, decrease

in water quality and increased movement

disruption and wildlife/ human conflicts.”

Road profiles:

Highway 3 (Canada)

Highway 3 parallels the Elk River, just north

of the Flathead valley. The highway is a major

transportation route which connects the Elk

Valley (B.C.) and the Crowsnest Pass (Alberta).

In a recent report on wildlife mortality associ-

ated with Highway 3, Clayton Apps identified the

highway as a potential source of large-scale and

permanent disturbance to the movements of wide-

ranging species. Apps speculates this could re-

sult in fragmented populations, perhaps


6868686868

increasing vulnerability to localized and eventu-

ally regional extirpation (Apps 1998). This heav-

ily travelled human corridor has the potential to

block off wildlife populations in the Flathead and

Castle areas that are migrating north through the

Upper Elk valley and Crowsnest Pass area to

Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (AB). Apps has

outlined potential wildlife linkage corridors

that would connect wildlife populations from

one side of the highway to the other. These cor-

ridors encompass the area from Morrissey to

Lizard Creek, Hosmer to the edge of Sparwood

and the Crowsnest Pass (Apps 1998). B.C.’s

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,

Alberta Environmental Protection and the

Nature Conservancy of Canada have prioritized

this corridor for habitat protection.

Highway 2 (U.S.)

Between Columbia Falls and West Glacier,

Montana, U.S. Highway 2 parallels the riparian

corridor of the main Flathead River (as does the

Burlington Northern railroad). It then cuts across

the South Fork of the Flathead, and passes 0.5

miles south of the junction formed by the North

and Middle Forks of the Flathead. The route is

immediately adjacent to the southern terminus

of the Apgar Mountains. Two miles north is

Huckleberry Mtn. one of the most “grizzly dense”

regions of the North Fork in autumn.

Numerous studies over the last several dec-

ades have clearly documented the importance of

such riparian corridors to numerous species of

wildlife. Although they often make up as little as

5% of many Rocky Mountain States, they

frequently are used by over 75% of the wildlife.

Because of its proximity to all three forks of the

Flathead, Highway 2 has had an effect on the

movement of wildlife and the connectivity of

populations, both E-W along the Middle Fork,

and N-S joining the North Fork to both the Swan

and main Flathead Valleys.

The highway affects large, “road sensitive”

carnivores most. The potential fracture zone cre-

ated by the highway continues east all the way to

East Glacier, cutting the NCDE grizzly recovery

area in half and dividing Glacier National Park

grizzlies from those in the Great Bear and Bob

Marshall Wilderness complexes. In so doing, it

potentially creates an artificial barrier to North

Fork bears attempting to move south, just as

Canadian Highway 3 does to the north. Thus both

genetic and demographic exchange may be

stalled. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has

just begun a three year study to get a better pic-

ture of the habitat connectivity for grizzlies at-

tempting to move between habitats on either side

of this highway. Beginning in 1999, a sample of

bears will receive Global Positioning Satellite

(GPS) collars in an effort to determine whether

bears still cross the road, and if so, where.

Newmark (1995) found that no national parks

in the lower 48 states were large enough, by them-

selves, to ensure the survival of their large carni-

vores in the long term (several hundred years). If

Highways 2 and 3 cut bears (and other carnivores)

off on the north and south, and Highways 89 and

93 accomplish the same thing to the east and west,

they will have turned Waterton-Glacier Interna-

tional Peace Park into one habitat “island” and the

Bob Marshall complex into another. The smaller

effective populations of grizzlies in each of those


6969696969

islands will be far more vulnerable to extinction

than the current, much larger, “metapopulation”

that remains connected through the region.

Inside and Outside North Fork Roads

For most of its length in the U.S., the North

Fork flows southward between two primarily

gravel roads, the (Outside) North Fork Rd. west

of the river on USFS and private lands, and the

Inside North Fork Rd. east of the river in Glacier

National Park. The outside road parallels the river

at varying distances (100 feet to .25 miles) for

nearly 55 miles, with the Inside road doing the

same for perhaps 40 miles.

The outside route is a county road, which runs

all the way to the Canadian border and carries

the vast majority of North Fork visitors, and all

of its residents, both permanent and seasonal. In

all likelihood, nearly all of the 35,000-43,000 visi-

tors that pass through the Polebridge entrance

station come up the outside road. Although use

of the road would appear light by city standards,

it is substantial for a wildland still housing all of

its native predators, and that use has grown sub-

stantially over the last decade. Periodically, there

is renewed interest in paving the outside road,

which is quite rough year-round and very dusty

during the snow free months. This would

heighten use and could be expected to increase

the area’s appeal, both to developers and those

interested in buying, continuing the area’s frag-

mentation into relatively small (ecologically

speaking) “wilderness ranchettes.”

In 1980, when the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) proposed upgrading and

paving portions of the lower North Fork, and again

when several alternatives were offered in 1982,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a “Jeopardy

Opinion,” essentially saying that the preferred al-

ternative would jeopardize the continued exist-

ence of grizzlies and wolves. FWS also found that

two other alternatives (D & E), which involved

gravelling and less realignment, would not jeop-

ardize the two species. In each case, the area to

be reconstructed ran from Canyon Creek, just

north of Columbia Falls, to the Camas Road junc-

tion, approximately 12 miles north.

Specifically, FWS reached the following

conclusions :

1. a differential rate of development and

growth can be expected between the paving

and non-paving alternatives, with the paving

alternative resulting in greatly increased

rates of growth.

2. development of lands under private

ownership will physically remove and pre-

clude grizzly use of significant portions of

the North Fork bottom land/ floodplain.

3. the expected growth and development

under Alternative C, if uncontrolled and

non-regulated, will result in man-caused

mortalities that, cumulative with the

present known level of annual mortality,

will exceed the theoretical tolerance limits

for the NCDGBE population.

4. under present state and local government

regulations governing subdivisions, no

planning process exists for directing and

regulating growth and development in a

manner that assures compatibility with

grizzly/ wolf conservation and recovery.


7070707070

5. Forest Service mitigation measures for their

activities will not compensate the losses to

the grizzly/ wolf populations sustained as a

result of paving nor replace the loss of griz-

zly/ wolf habitat on the North Fork bottom

land/ floodplain.

The inside road is generally open only between

mid-June and late October, weather permitting.

It is very rough when open and barely two cars

wide in most spots. It also penetrates some of

the wildest wildlife habitat in the lower 48, mostly

in, or adjacent to, low elevation riparian zones.

Two small campgrounds (Quartz and Logging

Creeks) totalling less than 20 sites occur six or

seven miles south of Polebridge, as does the Log-

ging Creek Ranger Station. Just north of the

Polebridge Ranger Station a gravel road travels

6 miles to Bowman Lake and its campground of

about 50 sites. The road also continues 15 miles

north of the ranger station where it terminates

at Kintla Lake and another 15+ campsites. It is

these several destinations that the previously

mentioned 35-43,000 visitors are coming to see/

use. In addition, some unknown number of visi-

tors, enter the road to the south at Fish Creek

Campground and reach these destinations with-

out passing through, and being counted by, the

Polebridge Entrance Station. None of the above

figures include those individuals using roads west

of the river to access private or public lands.

Canadian forest road networks

As previously mentioned, in 1986, the Flathead

contained approximately 250 roads where roughly

only twelve had existed before salvage logging

began. A Coordinated Access Management Plan

(CAMP) was completed in 1982 and received a

wide degree of public support. The CAMP led to

many of the area’s secondary and tertiary roads

being blocked by ditches and dirt mounds that

act as physical deterrents to cars and trucks, how-

ever, ORVs and dirtbikes still access the area.

There is still a dense network of roads in the

Flathead (Map D2). According to the CAMP, roads

number between 350 to 400. There are 335.6 km

of Forest Service roads in the Canadian North

Fork but this figure does not include road-use

permit roads and non-status roads.

In 1996, Crestbrook Forest Industries initi-

ated a Level I road assessment funded by the

Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Re-

newal B.C. The project assessed watershed deg-

radation due to deteriorating roads from past

logging activities and the 1995 flood. The study

concentrated on the south-east portion of the

North Fork in Canada, assessing 152 roads

equalling approximately 209 kilometres (Sage

Creek to Kishinena Creek) (CES 1997). Lower

Sage Creek sub-basin contains 32 roads with the

total length equalling 30.359km. There were 14

roads (10.711km) in the lower Nettie and Elder

Creeks sub-basin and 27 roads (28.705 km) in

the upper Nettie and Elder (CES 1997).

Level II outlined specific prescriptions for road

deactivation and repair. Due to financial con-

straints, not all roads identified at the Level I stage

were surveyed in the Level II assessment. Level

II deleted industrial roads accessing blocks con-

taining active cutting permits (Interior Reforestation

1997). Although some of the roads were deacti-

vated by means of a kelly hump or berm, we do


7171717171

not know the extent of the rehabilitation and

complete deactivation of these roads.

There is presently little in place in the North

Fork to deal with access management and

restrictions on road use. Available legislative

tools include:

1) Ministry of Forests Section 105C Motor-

ized Vehicle Access Closure; a forest

operation code under the Forest Practices

Code which gives the District Manager the

discretion to close a road

2) Forest Practices Code (FPC) Operational

Planning Regulations sections 61,62,

Access Management Plans

3) FPC Section 55.2, Non-Industrial Use of

Roads Regulation

4) Wildlife Act

5) Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Vehicle Access Hunting Closures

The only closures that presently exist in the

North Fork are Vehicle Access Hunting Clo-

sures (VAHCs) during hunting period only. The

roads with VAHCs are the Akamina and

Kishinena Creek watershed upstream from the

94km marker on the Akamina/ Kishinena Rd.,

Middlepass Creek watershed and the Sage

Creek watershed from 2.5km upstream of

Roche Creek. These roads are closed for the

hunting season and are subsequently open be-

tween March 1-31 and July 1-August 31. They

are not gated, rather, an information sign may

be posted. If there is no sign, it is the hunters’

responsibility to recognize closures (MELP

1997-98). Trappers are exempt from this VAHC

restriction. VAHCs are enforceable by conserva-

tion officers (CO) under the Wildlife Act

U.S. Forest Service road networks

As stated previously, the USFS inventory indicates

a total of 650 miles (1048 km) of roads in its Glacier

View District (North Fork). The 1993 Grizzly Bear

Recovery Plan notes that roads pose perhaps the

most imminent threat to grizzly bear recovery. There-

fore, on Flathead National Forest lands west of the

river, all Bear Management Units (BMU) are required

by 2005 to meet road density standards detailed in

Amendment 19 to the Forest Plan. These standards,

based on female grizzly home ranges in the South

Fork Study, say that no more than 19% of a sub-unit

can have Open Road Densities (ORD) greater than

1mi./sq.mi. or Total Road Densities (TRD) greater

than 2 mi./sq.mi. Currently, of 19 total sub-units, only

4 currently meet the ORD standard, and 4 the TRD

standard. East of the river in Glacier National there

are very few roads and it appears that all BMU’s

would meet the 19% standard if it applied to the park.

At the same time it should be noted that the rela-

tively few park roads are mostly in the riparian cor-

ridor and all visitor motorized access (37,277 vehicles

in 1997 at Polebridge entrance ) is concentrated on

them. These figures do not reflect the visitors who

used an entrance other than Polebridge, and accessed

the North

Fork up the

Inside North

Fork Road

from Fish

Creek.


7272727272


7474747474


7575757575

Ecological Processes (fire, flood, disease)

Fire

Following the establishment of the Forest

Reserve in 1910 and continuing to the present

day, a major focus of the Forest Service has been

fire suppression (Hanson 1973). There is one fire

lookout tower in the Castle area located on

Carbondale Hill, which allows the Forest Service

to react quickly to any ignitions that occur. Fire

suppression also leads to a change in the natural

processes of the ecosystem, thus creating a

different floral and faunal composition. For

example, aspen poplar and conifers begin to in-

vade previously unforested areas, with a result-

ant decrease in grasslands.

Fire frequency, prior to fire control efforts, was

high in southwestern Alberta with approximately

46 fires occurring between 1633 and 1940 in

Waterton Lakes National Park (Barrett 1996).

Fire activity in the region declined substantially

between the mid-1700s

and mid-1800s during the

peak of the Little Ice Age.

The fire frequency rose

once again following this

period with a warming and

drying of the landscape.

With European-

American expansion in

southwest Alberta, coin-

ciding with severe

droughts, fires became

more extensive. There were approximately 18

fires in WLNP between 1902 and 1940. Prior

to this, Indians throughout the west used fire

to restore forage, drive game, warfare and en-

tertainment. These frequent fires on the prai-

ries and adjacent forests produced a more

complex vegetation composition, with higher

landscape diversity than exists today in the

densely stocked, single aged stands of the area

Part B: Castle Drainage

The Castle drains 970km2/374mi2 in

southwestern Alberta through the

Carbondale, West Castle and South Castle

Rivers. This chapter focusses on the

ecological components and human

activity east of the Divide. Presented

separately for reviewers who are familiar

only with this system, we plan to integrate

it with North Fork information for the

final version.

Chapter 5 — Ecological Components of theCastle Drainage


7676767676

(Barrett 1996). Due to the uniform height and

density of current stands the likely fire regime of

the area will be stand replacement (Barrett 1996).

Barrett (1996) states that humans almost cer-

tainly caused many of the pre-1900 fires. Light-

ning ignitions are typically infrequent on the

eastern slopes of the Continental Divide because

most of the strikes occur in the Alpine region

which is composed of a significant amount of rock

and ice (Franklin, 1986). In WLNP, lightning

caused 22% of fires in the park and 78% were

human caused (Barrett 1996).

In 1934 a major fire burned some of the Front

Range valleys and the middle and lower sections

of the South Castle Valley (Brodersen, 1996). The

last large fire which burned in the Castle area,

and perhaps one of the most devastating fires in

southern Alberta’s history, occurred in 1936 (see

Butts fire of 1936, chapter 3). The burn started

in the Flathead area of British Columbia on July

17, 1936 and was attributed to careless camping

(Crowsnest Pass Historical Society). It entered

Alberta over Middle Kootenay Pass on July 23,

1936 and continued to burn on and off until

Nov.18. The fire frontage was estimated at 25

miles and was headed for Beaver and Mill Creeks

(Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, 1979). This

fire burned much of the West Castle, Castle and

Carbondale valleys and resulted in a large amount

of old-growth forest/ valuable commercial timber

area being burned (Gerrand et al. 1992). Exten-

sive salvage logging operations occurred follow-

ing these fires. In many cases present tree

regeneration on the high elevation burns is virtu-

ally non-existent (Anderson, 1978) but excellent

berry patches and open shrublands provide habi-

tat for grizzly, elk, moose and other animals.

Flood

Floods play many ecological roles in riparian

areas. They maintain a mosaic of habitats on

floodplains, creating complex niches for vegeta-

tion and aquatic species. They scour out fish

habitat and deposit large woody debris. Finally,

floods trigger migratory movements by bull trout

and other species (Kevin Van Tighem, pers. comm.).

Since 1900 heavy flooding has occurred at ap-

proximately 11-year intervals in the Castle region

(AENR 1985). The last major flood occurred in

June 1995 and was rated at more than one in three

hundred years (Castle Local Committee 1997).

This flood had significant impacts on the land-

scape, its roads and watercourses.

Disease/ Insects

Two major tree mortality agents that have had

an affect on vegetation in the Castle region are

whitebark pine blister rust, which affects both

whitebark pine and limber pine, and the moun-

tain pine beetle, that, in the past, has had a seri-

ous impact on pine stands.

Limber pine and whitebark pine are both highly

susceptible to white pine blister rust (Kendall et

al. 1996). This disease is a concern for south-

western Alberta, which has the largest stands of

whitebark pine in the province. In the early 1970s

whitebark pine blister rust had infected many lim-

ber pine stands, although not to the extent that

whitebark pine had been infected. Recent stud-

ies in northwest Montana have attributed the de-


7777777777

cline in the whitebark pine population to com-

petition and successional replacement by

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir (Stuart-

Smith et al). Fire suppression and mortality of

whitebark pine from whitebark pine blister rust

and mountain pine beetle infestation (Stuart-

Smith et al, Nutcracker Notes) have facilitated

this replacement. The latter spreads upwards

from the lower elevation lodgepole pine.

Limber pine has suffered extensive, heavy

mortality and blister rust infection in southern

Alberta. A 1995-1996 study concluded that,

on average, greater than one-third are dead,

approximately 75% live trees are infected and

30% of those have crown kill (Kendall et al

1996a). These rates are lower further north in

the Porcupine Hills. A similar study in

Waterton Lakes National Park on whitebark

pine found that the species has suffered se-

rious declines with a mean mortality of 26%,

definite infection of 44% and a probable in-

fection (probable + definite) of 47% among

the trees studied (Kendall et al, 1996b).

Mountain pine beetle has also had a signifi-

cant impact on the pine species in southwest-

ern Alberta. Limber and whitebark pine have

been affected by this disease as it is spread

upwards from the lower elevation lodgepole

pine. In 1981 salvage logging operations due

to severe mountain pine beetle infestation pro-

hibited the calculation of annual allowable cuts

by the Forest Service in the Castle area (AENR

1985). By the mid-1980s the mountain pine

beetle had attacked all pine stands at or near

rotation age. By 1985 a total of 521 450 m3

(216.4mmbf) of infested merchantable timber had

been salvage logged (AENR 1985).

Vegetation

Historic content, distribution

There appears to be little information avail-

able on the historic content of vegetation in the

Castle area. It is likely that it was similar to

the present

with respect

to species

composition

but that the

abundance

and distribu-

Bad for some, good for others?

Pine beetle infestations are not all-negative

events. They result in increased populations of

three-toed woodpecker among other species.

Subsequent blowdowns create productive habitat

for red-backed vole and its primary predator, the

marten. High fuel loadings result from tree

mortality and create conditions conducive to

intense stand replacing fires.

To what degree does whitebark pine serveas a foodsource for grizzlies and othercreatures? In what season? How has itsdecline affected their foraging patterns?


7878787878

tion of various species may be changing due to hu-

man presence and their influence on the landscape.

The typical climax forest type in the Castle area

is dominated by Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine

fir. The mature forest consisted of spruce that was

100 to 300 years old dominating the stand with

most of the fir old or dead. Lodgepole pine was

very infrequent (Cormack 1956, cited in Anderson

1978). Dominant understory plants in this forest

include false azalea, white rhododendron, moun-

tain bilberry and false box. Other characteristic

plants included lady fern, fragile fern, feather

mosses and Mnium mosses.

However, due to recent fires and present log-

ging in the region relatively few of these climax

stands exist. This forest type was recently

present in the Carbondale headwaters but

extensive logging has occurred over the past few

years and depleted it.

The absence of fire in an area increases closed

canopy forests due to the unimpeded succession of

forests and the encroachment of trees into

shrubfields (Zager 1980). In the absence of fire,

timber harvest, if managed carefully, may provide

similar seral vegetation communities to a post-fire

environment (Peek et al 1997). In the Castle region

fire is absent and logging is on-going but it is un-

certain as to how close the balance is and how

similar the

habitat would

be to the cur-

rent composi-

tion with fire

present and

logging ab-

sent. The logging companies reseed the

clearcut areas to lodgepole pine because it

is a shade-intolerant species and grows well

in open areas. Schneider (pers.comm.) states

that it is also the most natural species to

seed with because it would also be the spe-

cies that regenerates following fire. One

could argue that the area might have a

greater percentage of lodgepole pine in the

region under a logging regime than it would

under a fire regime because logging is on-

going and fire is more periodic.

Over the last 130 years the landscape

of the grasslands has also shifted from

what was once a heterogeneous mostly-

fescue prairie to a more diverse landscape

including limber pine and aspen and shrub

communities. With fire suppression and

the near extinction of the bison, the domi-

nant ecological processes that once influ-

enced th is reg ion are absent . Th is

absence has allowed for the encroachment

o f t ree and shrub spec ies in to the

grasslands (Ayers et al, Nutcracker Notes).

Cattle grazing can change the species com-

position of an area in a negative manner if not

managed properly. Timothy and bluegrass are

invader forage species that have replaced na-

tive forage species, primarily rough fescue, in

some areas of the Castle where cattle grazing

occurs. Kentucky bluegrass replaces fescue

when grazing is intense. This is a concern

because bluegrass is not an effective winter

food resource for wildlife (Ernst 1996). In-

tense grazing also degrades the understory


7979797979

vigour, which decreases the ability of understory

species to compete and allows conifers to en-

croach on meadows (Ernst 1996).

The timing of the grazing is as important as

its intensity. Bison typically grazed here in fall

and winter, allowing native grasses to flourish

during the growing season. Cattle are normally

pastured here in spring in summer, impacting

native species when they are most vulnerable.

In these seasons, they deplete ground fuels

when fire is most likely to start, thereby also

altering the fire regime. Therefore cattle graz-

ing, if not managed properly, has the potential

to alter the species composition in the sur-

rounding area (Van Tighem, pers. comm.)

Present content, distribution

The Castle has a considerable diversity of veg-

etation due to its diverse climate and topogra-

phy. Within its small area there is an elevation

range from the high plains at 1220m/4000ft to

alpine peaks at approximately 2755 metres/9038

ft (Anderson 1978). This allows for a broad range

of montane, subalpine and alpine species to ex-

ist. The West Castle and South Castle valleys

constitute one of the richest areas in Alberta in

terms of rare plant species with the exception of

Waterton Lakes National Park, which may have

the highest biodiversity of plant species in all of

Canada (Kuijt 1993). The Castle area itself has a

high proportion of rare plant species relative to

its size (see Table 18, next section). Of the 824

vascular plant species found in the Castle region

75 species are considered rare (HBT Agra 1992).

Considering there are approximately 360 rare

plants in Alberta the number of species present

in the Castle is disproportionately high. Even so,

these valleys have not been extensively studied

botanically and therefore a greater number of rare

species could be present. Kuijt (1993) states that

the “Castle River drainage basin is the most

poorly explored biological area in the southern

half of Alberta”. Therefore, the following account

is a more general statement of the vegetation in

the area based on similar ecoregions in Alberta

with some specific vegetation types added in. The

information is primarily based on the work of

Achuff (1992) and Strong (1992).

The Montane occupies a small area of Alberta

along lower elevation river valleys in the moun-

tains and patches in the western foothills. This

region is important winter range for ungulates

because it is intermittently snow-free in the win-

ter. The landscape itself is characterized by a

pattern of open forests and grasslands. Species

that are characteristic of the southwestern

montane include Douglas fir and limber pine but

these species are often less abundant than

lodgepole pine, white spruce and aspen poplar.

Douglas fir occurs mainly on north and east

aspects of exposed ridges in the southern part of

the montane (due to higher moisture). Some of

the understory species in closed Douglas fir for-

ests include pine grass, hairy wild rye, bearberry

and junipers. Important Douglas-fir understory

species present in Waterton Lakes N.P. include

Oregon grape, ninebark, Rocky Mountain maple,

purple clematis and bluebunch wheat grass. Lim-

ber pine forests occur mainly on exposed rock

outcrops and gravel flats at lower elevations and


8080808080

are open in nature. Common understory species

include bearberry, junipers, bluebunch wheat

grass, Idaho fescue, northern bedstraw, mouse-

ear chickweed and crested beard-tongue.

Lodgepole pine forests occur on upland sites

with buffaloberry, pine grass and hairy wild rye

as important understory species. White spruce

forests typically occur on mesic sites along

streams. Aspen forests occur on fluvial fans and

terraces and are abundant near forest-grassland

transitions. Black cottonwood is mostly confined

to stream margins (Anderson 1978).

Grass and sedge meadows occur in some

of the main valleys adjacent to lakes and riv-

ers. Common species include Kentucky

bluegrass, smooth brome and sedges

(Anderson 1978). Willows are also present in

low-lying areas. Grasslands are common on

south and west exposures of slopes (Anderson

1978). Bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue,

spear grasses, northern bedstraw, fleabanes

and oatgrasses dominate these grasslands. In

areas where overgrazing by cattle has oc-

curred timothy and bluegrass may have re-

placed the native forage species (Ernst 1996).

The subalpine region is located between el-

evations of approximately 1525m-2150m (5000ft-

7050ft). It has the highest precipitation, lowest

evaporation and accumulates the majority of the

winter snowpack resulting in subsequent spring

streamflow (Anderson 1978). These characteris-

tics also influence the existing vegetation in this

area. The subalpine is important summer range

for both ungulates and grizzly bears.

Closed forests of lodgepole pine, white and

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir character-

ize the lower subalpine areas. However, the ex-

tensive logging, which focusses on the subalpine,

will have altered the proportion of each species

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Logging and sub-

sequent reseeding with lodgepole pine will likely

have increased the proportion of this species rela-

tive to the climax species. At lower elevations,

in undisturbed areas, white and Engelmann

spruce are often present in a hybrid form. As

elevation increases Engelmann spruce replaces

white spruce and subalpine fir becomes more

frequent. In lower elevation lodgepole pine for-

ests common understory species include

buffaloberry, hairy wild rye, showy aster, bear-

berry, junipers, twinflower and bunchberry. At

higher elevations, false azalea and grouseberry

are more predominant. In Engelmann spruce-

subalpine fir forests, which occur on moister

sites than lodgepole pine forests, the

understory species include false azalea, Lab-

rador tea, huckleberry, white-flowered rhodo-

dendron, grouseberry, one-sided wintergreen,

one-flowered wintergreen and bunchberry.

Older, mesic forests have a thick carpet of

mosses and lichens.

Certain species reach the northern limit of their

range in the southwestern corner of Alberta.

These include beargrass, thimbleberry, Piper’s

wood rush, foamflower and mountain lover.

As elevation increases in the upper subalpine,

the vegetation shifts from closed spruce-fir for-

ests to open forests near treeline. The open na-

ture of the forest is due to increasing moisture

stress from higher winds and the high intensity

of the sun’s rays. In these areas whitebark pine

is present intermixed with the other tree spe-


8181818181

cies as well as in open park-like stands at

timberline (Anderson 1978). The Castle-

Waterton region has the largest stands of

whitebark pine in the province (AENR 1985).

Alpine larch may also occur on sheltered slopes

at treeline. As the subalpine zone grades into

the alpine, tree formation becomes stunted and

is referred to as kruppelholz or krummholz.

Several different plant communities, none

of which occupy very extensive areas, char-

acterize the alpine region. Higher wind

speeds in this area, leading to increased cool-

ing and evapotranspiration rates, along with

low soil nutrients, makes this a harsh envi-

ronment for plant survival.

Microclimatic variations in the area, as well

as environmental factors such as aspect, wind

exposure, soil moisture and snow depth, influ-

ence the vegetation communities. Black alpine

sedge communities dominate late-melting snow

areas. Paintbrushes, buttercups and grouseberry

occupy moderate snow areas. Shallow snow ar-

eas on exposed sites are dominated by communi-

ties of white mountain avens, snow willow and

moss campion. The highest elevation communi-

ties consist mainly of lichens on rocks and shal-

low soil. Beargrass meadows occur in some low

elevation alpine areas. Willow dominated

shrublands are also present.

Focal species — pockets of endemism

Along the steep southwest-facing slope of the

south Castle Valley is a provincially rare floral

community that consists of the largest stand of

big sagebrush in Alberta (AENR 1985, Fairbarns

1986). This community also consists of a number

of other rare plant species, including creeping

mahonia, mariposa lily and snowbrush (AENR

1985). This area was nominated as a candidate

natural Area under the natural Areas Program

of Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife (Fairbarns

1986). However the recent recommendations by

the Castle Local Committee for Special Places

2000 concluded that it did not require its own

special designation because it falls under zone 1

and Zone 2, which are already managed for pro-

tection (Castle Local Committee 1997).

The Castle has a high degree of endemism

with thirty-eight provincially and nationally

rare species (Table Eighteen). Thirteen spe-

cies are considered critically imperilled from

a provincial perspective and two are consid-

ered nationally at risk. The Alberta Natural

Heritage Information Center maintains loca-

tions for each of these plants.

Old-growth forest

Old growth forests in the Castle region sup-

port a large number of plant and animal species

due to their high degree of spatial heterogeneity.

These forests take close to 200 years to grow

and evolve. They are characterized by trees of a

variety of age classes — ranging up to hundreds

of years — along with fallen logs, snags (stand-

ing dead trees), a diversity of shrubs and herba-

ceous plants in the understory and soils rich in

nutrients and nutrient-cycling organisms (Parks

Canada 1995). A planted monoculture and

short rotation forestry practices cannot re-

place the structure and function of an old-


8282828282

eratahtdehsretaWeltsaCehtfostnalPralucsaV:neethgiEelbaTeraRyllaicnivorPdnayllanoitaN

emaNnommoC emaNcifitneicS sutatSatreblA adanaC

yppopeniplafrawD mueamgyprevapaP 2S 1P

lesdnuorG airalabmycoiceneS)sunimretnoc.S( 2S 1P

enabaelffrawD sutacidarnoregirE 2S 2Pnoinodliws'reyeG ireyegmuillA 2S 2Pdeewnoiprocss'llayL iillaylailecahP 2S 2P

mutesirts'floW iiflowmutesirT 1S 2PaidnesnwotnoihsuC atasnednocaidnesnwoT 1S 3Peugnotdraebs'llayL iillaylnometsneP 3S2S 3Pyelsrapdliws'grebdnaS iigrebdnasmuitamoL 3S2S 3P

wartsdebdevael-owT muilofibmuilaG 1S 3PdeewkcihcetallebmU atallebmuairalletS 1S 3PecutteletihW atattigassehtnanerP 2S 3PacilegnawolleY iinoswadacilegnA 3S 3PssargraeB xanetmullyhporeX — 4PeugnotdraebeulB sunitreblanometsneP 3S2S 4PpucrettuB sudnucerevsulucnunaR 2S 4Pssercwoltihwdevael-esneD ailofisnedabarD 1S 4PtoorrettibfrawD aeamgypaisiweL 2S1S 4PenipulfrawD sudipelsunipuL 2S 4Pegdess'reyeG ireyegxeraC — 4Phcurdoows'kcochctiH iikcochctihaluzuL 3S 4PylilasopiraM sutalucipasutrohcolaC — 4PdeewkcihcwodaeM asutboairalletS 1S 4PkcohyllohniatnuoM siraluviranmailI 2S 4PhcuradaveN sisnedavensucnuJ 1S 4Ptrowdnass'llattuN iillattunaitrauniM 3S 4Pegdess'nosyaP sinosyapxeraC 2S 4PssargnoinoelpruP silibatcepsacileM 1S 4PdeewtonkrednelS iinnamlegnemunogyloP 1S 4Pseye-eulb-ybabllamS arolfiverbalihpomeN 2S 4PylecicteewS silatnediccoazihromsO 3S 4PeltsihT musoiracsmuisriC 2S 4PdraebskwahnretseW silatnediccosiperC 2S 4PbrehwolliW mumirrebalgmuibolipE 1S 4PenabaelfeniplawolleY sucuelorhconoregirE 2S 4PlesdnuorgeniplA sedioralabmycoiceneS 1S 4P

eugnotdraebdetserC surehtnairenometsneP — 5PekomsdnuorG musomecarmutyhpoyaG 1S 5Penibmuloc'senoJ iisenojaigeliuzA 2S 5Ptrowgarderewolf-egraL sulahpecagemoiceneS — 5Pacinradevael-gnoL ailofignolacinrA 2S 5PdeewrettubhsraM suditeofoiceneS — 5Phsurs'legeR iilegersucnuJ 1S 5P

· laicnivorP morf(noitangised =1S:)ertneCnoitamrofnIegatireHlarutaNatreblAnommocnu-erar=3S;eraryrev,dellirepmi=2S;erarylemertxe,dellirepmiyllacitirc

· tsewefhtiwnoitubirtsidtseworran=1P:)0991,reyrPdnasugrAmorf(noitangiseDlanoitaNksirtayltaergton,erar=5P;adanaCniksirtsetaergtadnadellirepmi,snoitacolnwonk

growth forest. Logging of

these forests beyond

threshold levels represents a

loss of habitat to species that

depend on them, such as

Canada lynx, marten and a

number of forest interior bird

species (see sidebar, p.27).

In the Castle region, old-

growth forest is primarily

comprised of Engelmann

spruce-subalpine fir forest,

along with whitebark pine in the

South and West Castle Valleys.

However, the specific composi-

tion of the forest may be differ-

ent depending on where it is

growing, with respect to loca-

tion, slope and elevation. At

lower elevations aspen and

lodgepole pine may be inter-

mixed with the spruce and fir

trees (Coleman 1996). The large

forest fires of the 1930’s along

with past and present logging

has led to a reduction in old-

growth in the Castle region. To-

day only 9% of the forest cover

in the Castle area is composed

of old-growth (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). Alberta Land

and Forest Service guidelines do

not permit logging on slopes

steeper than 45 degrees (except

under “special circumstances”)

therefore old-growth on these


8383838383

slopes should not be disturbed (ALFS 1994). Stream

buffers, which may consist of old-growth trees,

are also maintained during logging. The Land

and Forest Service that administers the Castle

area aims to protect 10% of the forest cover in

old growth (Schneider, pers. comm.), however there

is no legislation in place for this protection. Once

stands have reached maturity and some of the

trees begin to die and fall over, the Land and

Forest Service re-fer to the stand as “decadent”.

From the perspective of the Forest Service,

decadent stands have a higher susceptibility

to disease in addition to contributing fuel for

potential forest fires and therefore it is more

economical-ly feasible to harvest them (Schnei-

der, pers. comm.). Fallen logs provide dens for

hibernating bears, homes for red-back vole and

marten, and stream debris for fish habitat.

Invasive Species

Roads are primary conduits for the transmis-

sion of weeds. Containment of weed infestations

occurred in the South Castle and West Castle val-

leys in 1997 along with some work to control

weeds along major roads and in the Front Range

Canyons. The most troublesome noxious weeds

encountered in 1997 included ox-eye daisy, tall

buttercup, houndstongue and Canada thistle

(Alexander 1998). Other weeds that are of con-

cern in the area include blueweed, knapweed,

toadflax and scentless chamomile.

Cattle grazing can also facilitate the inva-

sion of non-native species if not managed prop-

erly. Timothy and bluegrass are invader forage

species that replace native forage species, pri-

marily rough fescue, in most areas of the Cas-

tle where cattle grazing occurs. Kentucky

bluegrass replaces fescue when cattle graze in

spring and early summer. This is a concern

because bluegrass is not an effective winter

food resource for wildlife (Ernst 1996).

Wildlife

The Castle area is characterized by a diverse

landscape, which provides a variety of habitats.

The region provides important habitat for grizzly

and black bears, wolves, cougar, lynx, wolverine,

mule and white-tailed deer, elk, mountain goats,

bighorn sheep and a number of smaller creatures.

In all, the Castle is home to close to 60 species of

mammals (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The only

one it is known to have lost since human prehis-

tory is the bison. There are no records of caribou

or pronghorn antelope in the Castle.

Does old-growth still comprise 9% of forestcover in 1999? Can it be mapped? Howdoes vegetation structure/ compositioncompare/ contrast under a logging regimevs. a fire regime? How is the C5 foreststrategy (a.k.a Olson 1998) addressing this?

Where are the pr imary areas o fconcern for invasives in the Castle?How are they being treated?

Is there any knowledge of caribou orpronghorn ever inhabiting the Castle? Havethere been recent sightings of river otter?


8484848484

Two species of reptiles are present in the

Castle — the wandering garter snake and the

plains garter snake — both of which are “Yel-

low A listed” in Alberta, indicating concern for

long-term population declines (AEP 1996). The

Castle is home to the northern Leopard Frog

— a “red listed” species in Alberta, the “blue

listed” spotted frog and the yellow listed long-

toed salamander. There is also high avifaunal

diversity. The bird species consist of birds of

prey, waterbirds, songbirds, woodpeckers,

kingfishers and upland birds. Various species

of fish are present in waterways although

overfishing, habitat degradation and stocking

with non-native game species have had a detri-

mental effect on some of the native populations.

A number of species in the Castle area are on

Alberta’s red and blue lists and others are fed-

erally listed by COSEWIC (see Table Nineteen).

Some are on both. Although these animals are

listed there is no legislation for their protec-

tion. The provincial list is intended primarily

as a guide for prioritizing management activi-

ties and determining which species are in need

of more detailed evaluations. Following such

evaluation, the species may be assigned as a

candidate species for vulnerable, threatened or

endangered designation used by COSEWIC

(Alberta Environmental Protection 1996).

The following sections of this report will cover

the historical and present status of selected

wildlife species in the Castle as well as a

more detailed account of specific focal species.

Distribution

A comparison of the wildlife in southwestern

Alberta between the mid-1800s and the present

time would show a lot of changes in species dis-

tribution and abundance. One of the more pre-

dominant of these is the bison. Studies from

excavated sites in the Waterton area indicate that

bison were the ecologically dominant ungulate

from at least 5500 B.C. until their extermination

in the latter half of the 19th century. Kootenai

Brown wrote in his travels, that “ The prairie as

far as we could see east, north and west, was

one living mass of buffalo.” (Rodney 1996). Most

used the foothills and lower mountain (cont’d p82)

Table Nineteen (following 3 pages): Alberta

Species at Risk occurring within the Castle —

As listed in Alberta Environmental Protec-

tion (1996):

Red List: Current knowledge suggests that these species

are at risk.

Blue List: Current knowledge suggests that these species

may be at risk.

Yellow List: Sensitive species not currently believed to be

at risk, but may require special management to

address concerns. This list is subdivided into:

(a) Yellow A - concern expressed over long-term

declines in their numbers.

(b) Yellow B - species that are naturally rare, have

clumped breeding distributions or are associated with

specific habitats (e.g. old-growth forests) which are, or

may be, deteriorating.


8585858585

emaNnommoC emaNcifitneicS sutatS stnemmoCsnaibihpmA

drapoeLnrehtroNgorF

sneipipanaR deR .sraeytnecerniylerevesdenilcedsaH.laitnessesaeragnideerbtnanmerfonoitcetorP

gorFdettopS asoiterPanaR eulB .nwonknusutatsnoitalupoP.noitubirtsiddetimilylemertxE

deot-gnoLrednamalaS

amotsybmAmulytcadorcam BwolleY

ssapniatnuomnidesucofsnoitalupopdetalosItatibahotelbarenluV.saeranairapirhtiwdetaicossanoitaretla/noitcurtsed

.tnempolevedlanoitaercer/lairtsudni

selitpeR

ekanSretraGsnialP xidarsihponmahT AwolleY gnolfonoitpecrepcilbuP.dezilacoltubnommoC.senilcedmret

retraGgnirednaWekanS

snagelesihponmahT AwolleY .dezilacoltubnommoC.ekansretragtnadnubatsaeL

sdriB

tipiPs'eugarpS iieugarpssuhtnA eulB evitansihtnisenilcednoitalupopcitamarD.seicepstnedneped-dnalssarg

lwOderae-trohS suemmalfoisA eulB noseileR.nwonknuenilcednoitalupopfosesuaC.tatibahdnaltewregralfosegde

nawSretepmurT rotaniccubsungyC eulB.CIWESOCybelbarenluvsadetangiseD

gnitimiltatibahretniwyekfoegatrohslacitirChtworgnoitalupop .

repipdnaSdnalpU aimartraBaduacignol AwolleY

evahylbaborpsnoitalupoP.nwonknunoitalupoPdnalssargeiriarpevitanfossolhtiwdenilced

.saeragnitsen

nrettiBnaciremA suruatoBsusonigitnel AwolleY

ottnenamrepnoseileR.nwonknunoitalupoPdepoleved-llewhtiwsdnaltewtnenamrep-imes

.noitategevtnegreme

kwaHs'nosniawS inosniawsoetuB AwolleYtsalrevosnoitalupopeiriarpnisenilcedprahSlerriuqsdnuorgyhtlaehnotnednepeD.edaced

.snoitalupop

reirraHnrehtroN suenaycsucriC AwolleY.gnitaroiretedstatibahgnigarofdnagnideerB

dnaltewregralfosegdefoecnanetniamnoseileR.statibah

kcuDniuqelraH sucinoirtsiHsucinoirtsih AwolleY

.snoitubirtsiddetcirtseR.nwonknunoitalupoPhtiwstcilfnocelbissoP.detonsenilceD

.seitivitcalanoitaercer

ekirhSdaehreggoL sunaicivodulsuinaL AwolleY.CIWESOCybdenetaerhtsadetangiseD

tatibahgnitsenburhseiriarpfonoitavresnoC.yrassecen

esuorGdeliat-prahS seteceoidePsullenaisahp AwolleY neponotnednepedsinoitalupoP

.nosaesgnideerbgniruddnalburhs/dnalssarg

deroloc-yalCworrapS

adillapallezipS AwolleYtnacifingisetacidniatadyevruSdriBgnideerB

otdedeenhcraeseR.sraeytnecernisenilced.sesuacsserdda

nerWretniW setydolgorTsetydolgort BwolleY

tseWmorf(egnartcnujsiddnalacolyreVsreferP.)ekaLderfeniWdnaaeraeltsaC

yllaicepse,tserofsuorefinoctsiomerutam.sekaldnasmaertsgnola


8686868686

valley grasslands in fall and winter, then migrated

onto the open plains in spring and summer (Van

Tighem pers. comm.) The dramatic decline of bison

emaNnommoC emaNcifitneicS sutatS stnemmoC)d'tnoc(sdriB

denworc-nedloGworrapS

aihcirtnoZallipacirta BwolleY detcirtseR.tatibahotstaerhttnerrucoN

.sutatsrofnosaeryramirpsinoitubirtsid

kwaHs'repooC iirepoocretipiccA BwolleY.CIWESOCybelbarenluvdetangiseD

sffulbnepsadnalkrapfogniraelcrehtruF.tatibahgnitsensnetaerht

kwahsoGnrehtroN silitnegretipiccA BwolleYerutamfoecnanetniaM.nwonknunoitalupoP

detaroprocniebotsdeentatibahgnideerbtserof.gninnalptserofotni

elgaEnedloG soteasyrhcaliuqA BwolleYdaorbrevodaerpsnoitalupopelbats,wolyreV

sinoitcetorpetistsencificeps-etiS.saera.etairporppa

noreHeulBtaerG saidorehaedrA BwolleYstatibahyekfotnemeganaM.noitalupopelbatS

siecnabrutsidnamuhmorfnoitcetorpdna.laitnesse

repeerCnworB sirailimafaihtreC BwolleYtseroF.gnitsenrofsdnaldoowerutamnoseileR

dnagnitsenrofedivorpdluohstnemeganam.sdeengnigarof

tfiwSkcalB reginsediolespyC BwolleY tatibahgnitseN.tnediserremmuserarylemertxE.ecnabrutsidotelbarenluv

relbraWs'dnesnwoT idneswotaciordneD BwolleYehtnitserofsuorefinochtworg-dlootdetcirtseR

tatibahgnideerbfoecnanetniaM.sepolstsae.deriuqer

kniloboB xynohciloDsurovizyro BwolleY .noitubirtsidnilacolyreV.srebmunllamS

.swodaemssarg-llatnotnednepeD

detaeliPrekcepdooW

sutaelipsupocoyrD BwolleY oterutamfoecnanetniaM.elbatsylbaborP.gnitsenrofderiuqerseerthtworg-dlo

rehctacylFnretseW silicffidxanodipmE BwolleY ninoitubirtsiddetcirtserdnaytirarevitaleR.sutatsrofelbisnopseratreblA

elgaEdlaB suteailaHsulahpecocuel BwolleY

.egnarstifotsomrevognirevocersnoitalupoPotelbarenluvstseN.atreblAniytisnedwoL

.ecnabrutsidnamuh

dekcab-kcalBrekcepdooW

sucitcrasediociP BwolleY.gnitsenrofderiuqersganS.nwonknunoitalupoP

stserofsuorefinocerutamfoecnanetniaM.tnatropmi

reganaTnretseW anaicivodulagnariP BwolleY dnasuorefinocdlosreferP.nwonknunoitalupoP.tnargimlaciportoenetagilbO.tserofdoow-dexim

rekcarctuNs'kralC agarficuNanaibmuloc BwolleY niatnuomniylnodnuoF.elbatsnoitalupoP

.statibah

nerWkcoR sutelosbosetcniplaS BwolleY%03tuobasahatreblA.noitubirtsidnilacolyreV

yltneserpstatibaH.noitubirtsidnaidanaCfo.eruces

worrapSs'rewerB ireserballezipS BwolleY noitalupopeiriarP.detcepsusenilcednoitalupoP.smetsysocehsurbegaslarutannoseiler

lwOyarGtaerG asolubenxirtS BwolleY yllarutaN.CIWESOCybelbarenluvdetangiseD.gnitsenroftseroferutamseriuqeR.seicepsecracs

by 1874 has been attributed to disease, severe

winters and overhunting. (WLNP 1984). Bison

were still present in some quantities (cont’d p 84)


8787878787

emaNnommoC emaNcifitneicS sutatS stnemmoCslammaM

nosiBdooW nosibnosiBeacsabahta deR

nahtsseL.laminaderegnadnE.atreblAnislaminagnignar-eerf07

esaesidfonoitulosernosdnepednoitarotseR.adanaCnrehtronnisnrecnoc

enirevloW olugoluG eulB.CIWESOCybelbarenluvdetangiseD

.ssenredliwdebrutsidnufostcartegralseriuqeR.nwonknunoitalupoP

-gnoLnrehtroNtaBderae

sitoyMsilanoirtnetpes eulB seertdloyrevnoseilertahtseicepsnwonkylrooP

.egnarnwonkrevonommocnuyreV.gnitsoorrof

raeBylzzirG sotcrasusrU eulBtsetaerG.CIWESOCybelbarenluvdetangiseD

ssenredliwfonoitadargeddnassolsitaerhtdnanoitcartxeecruoserhguorhtstatibah

.tnempolevedlanoitaercer

lesaeWdeliat-gnoL atanerfaletsuM AwolleY tsoltatibaH.statibahemosmorfgniraeppasiD.seitivitcalarutlucirgaemoshguorht

s'nosdrahciRlerriuqSdnuorG

sulihpomrepSiinosdrahcir AwolleY

tatibahdnasngiapmacgninosiopevitceffE.snoitalupopedoreotseunitnocnoitaretla

detsillarevesrofseicepsyerptnatropmI.seicepsrotpar

denil-neetrihTlerriuqSdnuorG

sulihpomrepSsutaenilmecedirt AwolleY larutannisusnesnocemoS.nwonknunoitalupoP

.denilcedsahseicepstahtytinummocyrotsih

regdaB suxataedixaT AwolleY .sdnertnoitalupopotsasnoinipogniyraV.snoitalupoplerriuqsdnuorgnotnednepeD

raguoC rolocnocsileF BwolleY,sllihtoofdnasniatnuomnrehtuosniyliramirP

.saerarehtootniegnaryllanoisaccotub.elbatssraeppanoitalupoP

gniylFnrehtroNlerriuqS

sunirbasymocualG BwolleYnotnednepedylegraL.nwonknunoitalupoPekilsrotavacxeytivacdnatserofhtworg-dlo

.rekcepdooWdetaeliP

xnyLadanaC sisnedanacxnyL BwolleY tnecernignisaercednoitalupoP.noitalupopcilcyC.ssoltatibahrevostsixenrecnocemosdnasraey

tacboB sufurxnyL BwolleYdemuserpsnoitalupoptubwolyrevtsevraH

niegnarfotimilnrehtrontA.elbatsebot.atreblAnrehtuos

tomraMyraoH atagilacatomraM BwolleY detimildnasnoitalupopllamsylevitaleR.erucesyltnerrucstatibaH.noitubirtsid

rehsiF itnannepsetraM BwolleY .5891ecnisenilcedotdeunitnocsahtsevraH.nwonknusisutatsnoitalupoP

eloVretaW sutorciMinosdrahcir BwolleY

sdrocertsomhtiwegnardetcirtserylemertxEehtdnayellaVrenruTotreviRwoBmorf

.nwonknudnerT.aeranotretaW

taoGniatnuoM sonmaerOsunacirema BwolleY

roopoteuddeldniwdsrebmuntsaptneceR.gnitnuhrevodnatnemtiurcernoitalupopfoerusolchtiwdetcepxeyrevocerlaudarG

.snosaesgnitnuh

werhSgnirednaW snargavxeroS BwolleY.nwonknuezisnoitalupoP.erarylemertxE

ehtnisdrocerdeifirevnevesylnomorfnwonK.aeraeltsaCtseW


8888888888

near Fort MacLeod in 1874 (Ogilvie, 1979), but

were considered scarce in southern Alberta by

the late 1870s and virtually gone by 1880.

As the twentieth century opened the skeletal

remains of bison remained on the land but no

living ones were to be found (Pincher Creek

Historical Society 1974).

Mule and White-tailed Deer

Historic

Mule deer populations were extremely rare at

the turn of the century (Crowsnest Pass Historical

Society 1979). They began to recover and were

back to common numbers

by 1930 (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). Their

numbers have fluctuated

through history due to

severe winters and

overhunting. The provin-

cial population peaked in

the 1950s at 150,000 but

declined due to difficult

winters in the late 1960s

to less than 60,000.

White-tailed deer are a

more recent resident to

southwestern Alberta although they have been

present in the province since the late 1800s. They

have significantly increased in both numbers and

distribution over the past century (WLNP 1984).

White-tailed deer did not actually become es-

tablished in the Crowsnest Pass area until the

1950s although they were first recorded in

Waterton Lakes N.P. in 1924 (Kerr 1979; WLNP

1984). This species is better adapted than mule

deer to surviving in agricultural areas of the

foothills and perhaps their increase is related

to the decline of the bison in this area.

Both deer and elk herds have been shifting

their distributions eastward, into the foothills

and out of the forested area, since 1950 (Kerr

1979). This could be a response to a loss of

post-fire vegetation, which they prefer as a food

source. Agricultural areas provide high quality

forage such as alfalfa and barley, attracting deer,

which now compete with livestock.

Old-time residents of the Castle area gener-

ally agree on the historic population patterns

of deer in the region. They recall mule deer

being common in the early to mid 1900s but

make little mention of white-tailed deer (Judd;

Ecklund; Bonertz, 1992). Stan Judd (1992)

states that there has been an increase in white-

tailed deer in recent years and Frank Jones

(1992) recalls seeing both mule and white-

tailed deer between 1949 and 1953.

Current

In the Castle region mule deer have a summer

distribution along all but the highest elevations

whereas white-tailed deer tend to stick more to

lower elevation habitat (Gibbard and Sheppard

1992). The south and south-west facing grassy

slopes and flats along the Castle River provide key

foraging habitat for mule deer in summer as does

the subalpine region along the Continental Divide

(AENR 1985). This species’ wintering areas con-

sist of Carbondale Hill, Maverick Hill, Hastings

Ridge, the mouths of Pincher and Yarrow Canyons

in addition to the aspen parkland and low foothills

to the east of the Forest Reserve (AENR 1985;


8989898989

Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Logging within the

Forest Reserve may offset food losses attributable

to conifer encroachment. However, logging is also

associated with increased human access that

renders the animals more vulnerable to hunting

and human disturbance.

The pre-hunting population estimate for mule

deer in 1986 was 900-1500 in WMU 400, which

had decreased to 600 animals by 1992 (AFLW

1989; AFLW 1992). In the adjacent WMU 302,

there was an estimated 2000 mule deer in 1992.

The combined hunter kill for WMUs 302 and 400

declined between 1987 and 1991(Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). The 1996 population estimate

for the entire Castle area was 2200 (Doell 1997).

Alberta Fish and Wildlife reported the mule deer

population in the Castle as healthy in 1997, hav-

ing bounced back quickly from the harsh winter

of 1995/96 (Clark and Norstrom 1998).

In Alberta, white-tailed deer are most abundant

in the prairie and parkland regions, southwestern

foothills and the boreal forest-agricultural ecotone

(Environmental Protection 1995). Their populations

tend to fluctuate on a yearly basis as a function of

winter severity (Environmental Protection 1995).

The opening up of forested land for pasture or from

small clearcut logging operations provides suit-

able habitat for this species. White-tails tend to

summer at lower elevations in the Castle area,

along rivers and streams and in the Beaver Mines

Lake-Mill Creek area and spend their winters out-

side of the Forest Reserve, in the aspen parkland

and cultivated fields to the east (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). The white-tailed deer has been

able to successfully coexist with a certain degree

of agriculture however heavy domestic livestock

grazing can reduce feed quality for deer to approxi-

mately 10% of that present under light to moder-

ate grazing pressure (Jaques 1980, cited in

Environmental Protection 1995).

The white-tailed deer population in Deer

Management Area 3, which includes Kananaskis

Country south through the Castle area, is rated as

stable with low productivity (Environmental Pro-

tection 1995). These characteristics are associ-

ated with moderate vehicular access and hunting

pressure. As of September 1991 this population

was estimated at 3000 animals or 2% of the pro-

vincial population (Environmental Protection 1995).

The population of white-tails in the Castle region

is considered to be on the rise in recent years.

There was an estimated combined population of

2000 animals in WMUs 302 and 400 in 1992

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The 1996 estimate

for the Castle area was 3700 deer (Doell 1997).

The deer experienced a high mortality rate during

the cold winter of 1995/96 but have recovered rap-

idly (Clark and Norstrom 1998).

Elk

Historic

Elk have likely been present in the Castle area

for a long time. Prior to 1870 early foothills set-

tlers claimed that elk were common. However in

the late 1870s they suffered a severe die-off, likely

from a transmitted cattle-borne bacteria which

they were previously unexposed to (Kerr 1979).

What is the correlation between wolf anddeer populations?


9090909090

In 1882 Andy Russell’s grandfather came from

Brandon and saw lots of diseased elk on his way

(Andy Russell 1992). In 1886/1887 a rough winter

further depleted numbers (Van Tighem pers. comm.).

Therefore, between disease, hard winters and over-

hunting the elk population was so depleted in the

region in that it was close to being extirpated by

the 1900s (Gerrand et al. 1992).

Elk reappeared in the Castle region by the late

1920s (AWA, 1976). Due to the Game Preserve

status of the forest reserve, they could not be

hunted and their numbers grew. The fire of 1936

provided an abundance of post-fire elk forage. By

1940, their population was estimated at approxi-

mately 3000 in the Castle area (Frank McLaughlin,

1992). Hunters and ranchers successfully pres-

sured Alberta Forestry to drop the game Preserve

status hunting commenced in 1954. On the open-

ing day of the hunt some 600 elk were killed. Ed

and Shirley Mitchell recall 20-30 bulls being shot

on opening day in Yarrow Canyon alone (1992).

Nevertheless, numbers stayed high through the

1970s before they declined (Mitchell 1992; Judd

1992; Riviere 1992; Marr 1992; McLaughlin 1992).

Current

The main elk population of the Castle area is

referred to as the Castle-Carbondale Herd. This

herd spends

both the win-

ter and sum-

mer mostly

within the

Forest Re-

serve (for a

detailed account of ranges, refer to the “Habitat

Hot Spots” section). Two other elk herds are

present in the area but make little use of the

Castle. The Beauvais Lake herd spends the

summer and winter primarily in Beauvais Lake

Provincial Park and on the surrounding pri-

vate and lease lands. Some summer move-

ment may occur into the Whitney, Mill and

Gladstone Creek areas of the Castle

(Morgantini 1992). The Waterton Oil Basin-

Horseshoe Basin Herd spends the summer

and fall outside of Waterton Park and moves

into the park in early winter. Some animals

use Yarrow Canyon in summer but use is lim-

ited. (Van Tighem pers. comm.). It is impor-

tant to note that herd composition is fluid —

individual elk may move between herds de-

pending on variables such as food supply,

winter snow conditions and hunting pressure

(Morgantini 1992).

The Castle-Carbondale herd was comprised

of 650-700 animals in 1992 (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). This herd suffered a slight

decline in 1993 (Sheppard 1994) and by 1994

was estimated at 500 animals (Fischbuch and

Gerrand 1995). The number for the Castle area

in 1997 was estimated at 700 (Norstrom 1998).

The Beauvais Lake Herd has dealt with more

“management” actions than the Castle-

Carbondale herd due its presence on private

What is the correlation between wolf andelk populations? Why did elk declineafter the 1970s?


9191919191

lands, leading to competition with cattle for for-

age. The population estimate for 1992 was

200-250 animals (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

This continued to increase through 1993, which

pressured Alberta Fish and Wildlife to imple-

ment a reduction program with an aim of re-

ducing the herd to 200 (Sheppard 1994). The

herd was subsequently reduced from 280-300

in 1994 (Fischbuch and Gerrand 1995) to 180-

200 in 1995 (Fischbuch and Brodersen 1996).

An intercept-feeding program was initiated in

1995 to keep elk (and deer) from feeding on

rangeland and feed stacks, thus keeping

conflicts to a minimum. This program was

carried out successfully in 1996 and 1997

however a lack of funding in 1998 precluded

it from continuing (Norstrom 1998).

The Waterton Oil Basin-Horseshoe Basin

herd is small and consisted of approxi-

mately 130 animals in 1992 (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992).

Considering that elk numbered approxi-

mately 3000 in 1953 in the Castle region (Art

Sandford, Judge McLachlan, AWA files 1982) and

today number just over 1000 in all three herds

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 hunt-

ing 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-

ing road/ ORV use may also be having an effect.

Since elk are considered one of the most sensitive

species to human disturbance (Sheridan 1979) an

increase in human presence through multiple use

of this land will likely erode the potential for the

Castle to reattain its historical carrying capacity.

Moose

Historic

Prior to settlement in southwestern Alberta,

moose were numerous, however by 1900 they had

disappeared from the southern foothills (Gibbard

and Sheppard 1992). By the 1930s a few had re-

turned but were rare. In the early 40s post-fire

regrowth provided suitable cover and they in-

creased substantially in the Forest Reserve (Kerr

1979). Subsequent to 1955, their distribution be-

gan to change — they shifted from mountainous

forest to foothills (Kerr 1979).

Old-time residents of the Castle region reinforce

that there are more moose now in the area than

there were in the past (Mitchell; Kubasek; Marr;

Michalsky; Bonertz, 1992).

What is the current status of moose?


9292929292

Bighorn Sheep

Historic

Southwestern Alberta, specifically the eastern

canyons of the front ranges, provides some of the

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-

ease, bighorn sheep have likely been present in the

area for centuries (Gerrand et al 1992). Severe win-

ters had a negative impact on numbers during the

winters of 1886, 1888, 1926-27, 1947, 1950 and

1974-75. Major epidemics of bacterial pneumonia

occurred in 1937 and again in 1982-1983 (WLNP

Files 1992). The sheep populations in the Castle area

are still recovering from this most recent outbreak,

which dropped their numbers from 389 in 1979 to

123 in 1983 (Gudmundson 1988). Domestic sheep

grazing in the area introduced the bacterial pneumo-

nia along with a parasitic lungworm.

The old time residents of the area remember see-

ing lots of sheep in the past except for the periodic

decreases due to disease (Michalsky 1992; Kubasek

1992; Ecklund 1992). Some of them believe there

are fewer today than in the past due, primarily, to

the most recent lungworm infection (Judd 1992;

Bonertz 1992). Others blame the loss of big rams

due to overhunting for trophies (Riviere 1992). Pos-

sibly, forest regrowth in the absence of fire has had

an effect on their habitat.

Current

The bighorn has recovered slower than ex-

pected after the bacterial pneumonia outbreak

wiped out 60% of their population. This may be

attributable to a low lamb to ewe ratio (Norstrom

1998). An aerial survey conducted in 1988 by

Alberta Fish and Wildlife counted 238 big-

horn sheep wintering in the Castle area

(Gudmundson 1988). They were present in

various numbers on their three known win-

tering grounds — the Front Ranges, Table

Mountain-Castle Mountain area and Barnaby

Ridge. An aerial survey in 1993 indicated that

the population had still not rebounded com-

pletely from the die-off of 1982-83 for un-

known reasons (Sheppard 1994). In 1995 the

biannual sheep survey indicated a decline in

numbers to a total of 214 animals, about a 5%

decrease from 1993 (Fischbuch and Brodersen

1996). In 1997, the aerial survey estimated

250-300 sheep in the Castle region, a signifi-

cant increase from 1995 (Gilmar 1998).

Fire plays an important role in the mainte-

nance of high quality bighorn range (WLNP

Files 1992). Ongoing fire suppression in the

Castle area could lead to the encroachment of

forests on primary sheep habitat.

Mountain Goats

Historic

Very little is known about early mountain

goat numbers. Alberta Fish and Wildlife per-

formed the first aerial survey for the species in

southwestern Alberta in 1979. Apparently, the

lungworm/ pneumonia epidemic, which took a

toll on bighorn sheep populations in 1937, also

Where was historic sheep habitat? Cantheslow recovery be attributed to habitatloss as well as a low lamb to eweratio?Why is this ratio low?


9393939393

had an effect on mountain goats in the area

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Mountain goats

also appeared to suffer from overhunting when

the game preserve status of the area was re-

moved. James Riviere (1992) recalls that there

were “lots of goats in the front ranges until they

opened hunting....They were all cleaned out

when they opened hunting season.” The hunt-

ing season for goats ceased in Alberta in 1969

due to a decline in numbers. They have since

been making a slow recovery.

Among other old-time residents, Bill

Michalsky and Jules Verquin recall seeing

lots of goats in the past but believe there

are very few left now (1992).

Current

In the Castle, goats inhabit rocky alpine

and cliff habitats, primarily on the higher

mountains of the Continental Divide, includ-

ing Mt. Haig, Mt. Matkin, Syncline Mountain

and Mt. Darrah. Mountain goats are tradi-

tional in their habits, however they will cross

the Continental Divide and range into B.C.

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). They are also

known to inhabit the peaks of the Clark

Range, along Font, Jutland and Scarpe

Mountains in the South Castle Valley (AWA

1976; Perraton 1994). Mountain Goats tend

to remain in approximately the same area year

round, rarely travelling any greater than 15

miles in a horizontal direction (Nielson 1973).

Mountain goats were downlisted in Alberta

from the “blue list” in 1991 to the “green list”

in 1996, indicating that their populations are

stable and they are not at risk (AEP 1996).

Mountain goat hunting season was closed in Al-

berta in 1969 due to a decline in numbers but was

open again temporarily in 1986 and 1987. The sea-

son has been closed since then.

An aerial survey performed along the Continen-

tal Divide in 1980 counted a total of 188 mountain

goats, including both the Alberta and B.C. sides of

the divide (Gudmundson 1980). Aerial surveys in

1990 found 128 along the Continental Divide (in-

cluding Alberta and B.C. sides), however this did

not include the Mt. Darrah population of 40, which

was subsequently found in a special survey in 1992

(Gudmundson 1990, 1992). The slight decrease in

numbers from 1980 may be attributed to popula-

tion declines caused by the pneumonia/ lungworm

outbreak in 1982-1983. In 1993 the aerial survey

counted 131 goats, indicating that the population

appeared stable but not yet back to the peak number

of 1980 (Sheppard 1994). By 1995, the survey had

indicated an increase in the population to 155

(Fischbuch and Brodersen 1995). The highest popu-

lation recorded since 1980 occurred in 1997, with

a population estimate of 180 goats (Gilmar 1998).

Once goats have abandoned or been eliminated

from an area, it takes them a long time to natu-

rally recolonize. Mountain goats were historically

present on Barnaby Ridge but haven’t existed there

for approximately 15-20 years (Fischbuch and

B r o d e r s e n

1995). This

p r o m p t e d

Alberta Fish

and Wildlife

to transplant

and radio-

collar 6


9494949494

mountain goats from B.C. to Barnaby Ridge in

the Castle in an attempt at re-populating this

area. The transplant was unsuccessful as 4 of

them moved (of which 2 subsequently died) and

one collar quit transmitting, leaving one on

Barnaby Ridge by 1996 (Doell 1996). It was

hoped that another 12 would be transported to

the Castle by 1998 but a lack of funding (and

reluctance by B.C. to provide stock) prevented

it from occurring (Gilmar 1998).

Wolf

Historic

As far back as the 18th century, wolves were

abundant in Alberta and were found in associa-

tion with bison herds (Alberta Environmental

Protection 1995). They subsisted in plentiful num-

bers in prairie and foothill habitats through to the

mid-to-late 1800s when their populations took a

turn for the worse. Their demise began with Eu-

ropean settlement in the 1860s and 1870s, which

lead to the slaughter of the bison herds and the

decimation of other ungulate species (Alberta

Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). With a reduc-

tion in prey species and severe winters, wolves

preyed heavily on domestic cattle and horses,

especially during the period when open range

grazing was the norm.

Humans began killing wolves using strych-

nine poisoning at carcasses, which became an

easy way to take wolves for their pelts (Alberta

Environmental Protection 1995). As cattle be-

came more established in the area, concern over

wolf depredation led to a southern Alberta wolf

bounty in 1899 offered by the Western Stock

Growers Association. By the early 1900s wolf

populations had severely declined in the south-

ern section of the province (Alberta Environmen-

tal Protection 1995). From 1899-1907 the total

number of wolves bountied south of the main

line of the Canadian Pacific Railway was 2849

(Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). Through

these years the number of wolves submitted for

payment declined, demonstrating the gradual

extermination of the species in southern Alberta.

In 1922, wolves were exterminated in Waterton

Lakes National Park because of livestock dep-

redation (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991).

As big game populations increased in the prov-

ince and the market value of wolf pelts dropped

through the 1930s and 1940s, the abundance and

distribution of wolves increased once again (For-

estry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). In 1943 lone

wolves were spotted in Waterton Lakes National

Park (Brooks 1997). However, throughout the

late 1940s and 1950s concern increased that

wolves were affecting big game populations.

Predator control resumed. Further declines

occurred between 1952 and 1956 when a wolf

rabies scare initiated a poisoning campaign;

thousands died and the Alberta wolf popula-

tion hit an all time low (Alberta Environmental

Protection 1995). Since this poisoning cam-

paign the numbers of wolves in southwest Al-

berta have slowly increased (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992) but with frequent setbacks pri-

marily due to suspected livestock depredation.

With respect to old-time residents few of them

recall ever seeing many wolves in the area

(Verquin 1992; Bonertz 1992; Jones 1992).


9595959595

Current

Recently, wolves have attempted to re-estab-

lish in Southwestern Alberta following new hu-

man attempts to eradicate them this decade.

Their numbers have fluctuated through the 1990s

but have never reached a point anywhere close

to the goal set by the Wolf Management Plan for

Alberta. This plan aims at maintaining a winter

wolf population of 4000 in Alberta of which 50

are slated for the southern region (Forestry, Lands

and Wildlife 1991). The goal for the area south of

the Oldman River is approximately 40 (Norstrom

1998). The Management Plan also states that

“Permanent, unmanipulated populations of

wolves should be encouraged in Waterton Lakes

National Park and the adjacent provincial

forests” (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991).

However, many wolves that seek to establish

themselves in southwestern Alberta are killed

under the current regulatory regime.

In 1992, Alberta Fish and Wildlife had recorded

the presence of 4-5 wolves in the South and West

Castle valleys (Gerrand et al. 1992). No sightings

of wolves were recorded in 1993, however a pack

of 6 wolves had become established in Waterton

Lakes National Park. The collared female of this

pack had moved into the area from the North Fork

of the Flathead (Sheppard 1993). The wolf popu-

lation estimate for the summer of 1994 was 35

south of Highway #3 and another 25 north of High-

way #3 for a total of around 60 wolves in south-

western Alberta (Van Tighem and Fox 1997, cited

in Brooks 1997). Three packs of wolves were dis-

tinguished south of Highway #3: the Belly River

Pack, the Beauvais Lake Pack and the Carbondale

Pack. Within a year, 40 to 44 wolves were killed

in the region as a result of shooting and/ or poi-

soning by ranchers, hunters and trappers (Brooks

1997). The population in 1996 was estimated at

15-20 wolves in the entire Oldman River Drain-

age. In the spring of 1997, a local rancher and a

local hunting guide shot the alpha male and the

pregnant female of the Waterton Pack (Brooks

1997). The most recent estimate of wolves in the

region is one pack of 3-6 individuals residing in

the Castle area and another two packs moving

through the area at various times (Gilmar 1998).

Wolves have proven unable to establish a vi-

able population in southwestern Alberta due to

liberal hunting, shooting and trapping regulations

in the region. The hunting season for wolves is

long — lasting 9 months, from September until

May. Prior to 1981 resident wolf hunters required

a big game license to hunt wolves during the hunt-

ing season on public lands but in 1987, license

requirements for resident wolf hunting were

dropped (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1991). Reg-

istration of kills is not required and there is no

limit to the number of wolves residents may take.

This makes it difficult to document mortality and

estimate population numbers.

With respect to private lands landowners may

shoot wolves at any time of year without a license.

As well, those who own private land or are author-

ized to maintain livestock on public lands are per-

mitted to shoot wolves within 8 km. (5mi) of the

private or grazing leased lands (Forestry, Lands and

Wildlife 1991). The Alberta Conservation Asso-

ciation presently funds a predator compensation

program. It provides 85% of the current com-


9696969696

mercial market value for a confirmed predator

(wolves, grizzly or black bears or cougar) kill and

50% for a probable kill (Brooks 1997).

Realizing the difficulty in attaining the popu-

lation goals for wolves in the region as set out

in the “Management Plan for Wolves in Alberta”

the regional Fish and Wildlife offices have rec-

ommended changes to the plan over the past

couple of years. They attempted in 1996 to make

amendments including compulsory registration

of kills; a decrease in the hunting season to 6

months; implementation of a quota program

whereby the season would close once the quota

was reached; and re-establishment of a license

requirement for the hunting season (Quinlan

1997). These recommendations were not im-

plemented. No legislative changes were made

in 1997. In 1998 recommendations for compul-

sory registration of kills and a license require-

ment were rejected once again (Norstrom 1998).

Grizzly Bear

Historic

In the 1700s the grizzly bear was abundant

in the prairie region of Alberta, especially where

rivers provided an abundance of berries, roots

and small mammals (Alberta Environmental Pro-

tection 1997). Religious taboos and the inher-

ent danger of the grizzly limited natives’ ability

to hunt them (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990).

During the 1800s, as European settlement

brought more sophisticated weapons, grizzly

hunting rose. Humans hunted grizzlies for their

hides, for sport amnd to reduce perceived dan-

ger (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). As

settlement, ranching and farming increased on

the prairies, grizzly habitat began to decline.

Grizzly bears were extirpated from the prairies

by the 1880s (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990).

By the twentieth century the grizzly had disap-

peared from a large part of Alberta. As they killed

livestock they were afforded little protection and

ranchers often destroyed them. Around Pincher

Creek, an “open season (was placed) on all spe-

cies of bear, irrespective of sex or age” (AFLW

1990) in 1928 to protect livestock. By 1936 all

areas of the province, except southwestern Alberta,

protected grizzlies somewhat through bag limits.

The 1948 Annual Report of the Department of

Agriculture states how grizzly bears were handled

south of the Crowsnest Pass:

“Grizzly Bear is still considered to be a

predatory animal in some parts of the

Province.... Grizzly Bear may be shot at

any time and without a license, the

reason being that this area is mainly a

farming and livestock area and the year-

around open season is necessary for the

protection of livestock. In addition to this

regulation the Department employs

special hunters to kill any grizzly Bear in

the Forest Reserves and the Waterton-

Carbondale (Castle area) game

Preserves.” (as quoted in AFLW 1990)

Through the 1950s and 1960s their numbers

continued to decline due to overhunting and the

Where are wolves re-establishing from —Glacier N.P., the North Fork or Kananaskis?


9797979797

rabies poisoning campaign that was directed at

wolves and coyotes but affected all large preda-

tors (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Concern for

declining grizzly populations in the province

increased through the 1960s and, in response,

the fall hunting season for grizzly bear was

closed in 1970, leaving only a spring hunt.

During the late 1970s hunters, trappers, ranch-

ers and hikers reported increasing sign and

observations of grizzly bears indicating that

populations were on the rise (AFLW 1990).

The majority of long time Castle area residents

interviewed believe that there are fewer grizzlies

today than when they were younger (Gerrand et

al, 1992). Some of them even recall killing bears

themselves or knowing others that did (Judd,

1992; McLaughlin 1992; Riviere 1992).

Current

In 1991 the grizzly bear was uplisted from

‘vulnerable’ in Canada by COSEWIC (Committee

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)

and it is on the ‘blue’ list in Alberta, meaning it

may be at risk. In Alberta, grizzly hunting has

been restricted to a spring season since 1970.

A 1990 COSEWIC status review of grizzly bear

habitat in Canada showed that of the remaining

habitat, greater than 60% is vulnerable or threat-

ened and all is considered at risk (Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks 1995).

In the 1930s, 40s and 50s it was common to

spot grizzly bear in the Screwdriver Creek-Beaver

Mines-lower Castle River area in the spring but

they are rarely seen in this area today (CCWC

1993). Grizzly bears require large tracts of con-

tiguous wilderness habitat with minimal human

disturbance (Weaver et al., 1996). The Southern

Bow-Crow forest, of which the Castle is a part, is

the narrowest strip of forest land along the Rocky

Mountains, being only 15-35 km in width

(Environment Canada 1993). The West Castle and

South Castle valleys along with the Flathead

River Valley in B.C., are the sole north-south run-

ning valleys contained wholly within these south-

ern Rocky Mountains. These corridors are crucial

for large carnivore movement between the United

States and Canada. Fragmentation of these pas-

sages could lead not only to fractured habitat

within the Castle but also to the isolation of the

Crown of the Continent Ecosystem grizzly popu-

lation in Montana from other populations in

Canada (WCEC 1993). Possible extirpation of this

isolated population could occur as it has been

stated that “the most critical habitat for the long

term persistence of the grizzly bear in the U.S.

may occur in Canada” (McLellan 1991).

In 1997, researchers estimated 25 bears ex-

isted per 1000 square kilometres in the Castle

and Waterton areas (Gilmar 1998). A recent DNA

analysis identified 36 distinct patterns from hair

receptacles and extrapolated that between 48 and

84 grizzly bears roamed the reason in the region

between Waterton Lakes N.P. to the south and

Chain Lakes to the north (Russell 1998). Female

grizzlies are known to have a low reproductive

capacity. They produce two to three cubs about

once every three years after reaching a late

maturity age of 4-5 years old and sometimes not

conceiving successfully until 6.5 years of age

(Brooks 1997). Castle and Flathead grizzlies


9898989898

may be the most productive in North America,

with conception occurring at as young as three

years old. (Titus 1991).

The maximum total human-caused mortality for

grizzly bears in Alberta, according to the

Management Plan for Grizzly Bears should be 5-

6.5% (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). The U.S.

grizzly bear recovery plan states that a population

is considered viable if its annual total mortality

does not exceed 3% of the population (Horejsi

1986). However, in southwestern Alberta between

1974 and 1991 an average of 16.7% of an esti-

mated population of 34 bears was either shot or

translocated per year (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

In 1997 alone there were 15 grizzly bear

translocations in southwestern Alberta due to sus-

pected livestock depredation (Gilmar 1998). The

sex ratio of the removal is also important because

a disproportionate loss of females depletes the

breeding stock and often leads to a decline in the

population (Primm 1996). In 1997, two-thirds of

the bears translocated were female. The persist-

ence of the grizzly in the Castle may be attributed

to the productivity of the North Fork’s population

(Van Tighem pers. comm.).

The Castle region has been considered the last

secure habitat for grizzly bears in southwestern

Alberta, excluding Waterton Lakes National Park.

However, judging from the removal rates over the

past few years, others may classify it as a mor-

tality sink. A main goal of the Management Plan

for Grizzly Bears in Alberta is “to ensure the pro-

vincial grizzly bear resource is protected from ir-

reversible decline” (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife

1990). This goal may have prompted Alberta Fish

and Wildlife to develop the new Southwestern

Alberta Grizzly Strategy at the end of 1997. This

management strategy was designed to main-

tain long-term grizzly populations while pro-

tecting property owners in the area from

livestock losses due to grizzly depredation. The

strategy focuses primarily on the co-existence

of grizzly bears and cows but makes some men-

tion of improving habitat, where feasible, in low

depredation areas. The strategy directs that:

1. Limited entry hunting will continue in

WMUs 300-302-400. A new WMU will be

created in the Crowsnest Pass in which

grizzly hunting will not be permitted.

2. Grizzly habitat improvement will take

place in high elevation, low-depredation

areas and access closure will be pursued in

grizzly use areas.

3. Sows, cubs and subadults will be

translocated within local area with first

depredation occurrence and to northern

Alberta with second occurrence. Adult boars

will undergo long distance translocation with

first occurrence. Success of translocations

will be monitored with radio-telemetry.

4. Negative conditioning techniques such as

scare devices and Karelian bear dogs will be

used to deal with problem bears.

5. Increased use of preventative measures

(e.g. electric fencing, removal of attract-

ants) will be encouraged.

6. A carcass redistribution program will be

initiated whereby bears are kept at high

elevations until spring green-up by

providing them with road-killed wildlife

carcasses in these areas.


9999999999

7. An educational program on minimizing

human/ bear conflicts will be initiated in

1998.

Managers hope that this moderate human-bear

conflicts. Mattson et al. (1996) point out that: “If

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.”

Mesopredators (Lynx, Wolverine,

Marten and Fisher)

Historic

Little is known about the historical distribution

and abundance of these forest carnivores in south-

western Alberta. It might be assumed, due to the

nature of their habitat preferences, that these spe-

cies have suffered population declines to various

degrees in the Castle area. All four of these species

require densely forested areas for survival. With

the multiple uses of land occurring in the Castle

area, from resource extraction to off-road vehicle

use the amount of undisturbed, mature forested

areas is in decline. However we simply do not know

if this is having an effect on mesopredators.

Lynx populations are cyclic in nature, depend-

ing on the abundance of snowshoe hares. How-

ever, in the southern Canadian Rockies these

cycles tend to be less defined than those further

north (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). Lynx have

always been present in the area (Kerr 1979).

Frank Jones (1992) recalls seeing lynx and snow-

shoe hares in fair numbers between 1949 and

1953 when he was the chief ranger at the Castle

River Ranger Station Game Preserve.

Wolverines are a true wilderness animal and

therefore it is difficult to determine their distri-

bution and abundance. They are rarely seen and

tend to avoid any area where humans frequent.

Wolverine populations in the National Parks in

Canada were affected by the poisoning campaigns

of the 1880s and 1920s — few or no wolverines

could be found in the parks by the early 1930s

(Hummel & Pettigrew 1991). Therefore, it appears

that wolverines may have been affected by in-

creasing settlement at the turn of the century.

Frank Jones (1992) also recalls seeing

wolverine in the Castle area during his time as

Chief Ranger in 1949-1953. Ed and Shirley

Mitchell (1992) believe there are more

wolverines now than in the past because trap-

pers are getting more. James Riviere (1992) re-

calls wolverine being present only in the

Flathead when he was young. He also states

that they declined about twenty (now twenty-

five) years ago in the Castle area but have in-

creased again since then judging by their tracks.

Public perception holds that bear numbersare increasing however it may be possiblethat they are being more and moredisplaced from secure habitat in remoteareas. What is the trend in sightings in theWest Castle and South Castle valleys?


100100100100100

Marten have been fairly abundant in the past

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992) however we have

little knowledge of actual numbers.

Fishers have been extirpated from much of the

southern part of their range in Alberta since Eu-

ropean settlement (Sheppard 1994). A severe

decrease in their numbers could be attributed to

excessive trapping and habitat destruction by log-

ging as this is what caused the fisher to verge on

extirpation through most of its U.S. range by the

1930’s (Ruggiero 1994). The fisher is rarely seen

so it is difficult to estimate its viability.

Current

The best estimates available for the trends in

these populations come from trapping statistics

in the Castle area. However, even these must be

interpreted with caution because there are years

when some of the traplines are not even used

(Clark, pers. comm.). Table 20 shows the trapline

harvest from the Castle area from 1986 to 1991

and from 1994 to 1998 for these four species.

Table 20: Trapping harvest for selected

mesopredators in the Castle region

(Source: compiled from AFWD

1986,1992, cited in Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992, Jim Clark, pers.comm.)

The lynx is rated as uncommon to rare in

Waterton Lakes National Park (WLNP 1989).

Alberta has listed it as ‘Yellow B’ indicating that

the species is naturally rare, has clumped breed-

ing distributions or is associated with a habitat

(i.e. old-growth forest) that is in decline (Alberta

Environmental Protection 1996). Lynx were last

examined by COSEWIC in 1989 and designated

‘not at risk’ (COSEWIC 1998). The trapping

harvest peaked at 17 in 1985 with a sub-

sequent decline (Table 20). This could be

attributed to the lower end of a lynx-snowshoe

hare population cycle or it may indicate a dif-

ferent impact affecting the species such as

habitat loss or human disturbance.

The wolverine is one of the rarest carnivores

in Alberta (WLNP 1989). It is very rare in

Waterton Lakes N.P. (WLNP 1989) and is on

Alberta’s ‘Blue List’ indicating that it may be at

risk (Alberta Environmental Protection 1996).

COSEWIC has listed the eastern population of

wolverines in Canada as endangered and the

western population as vulnerable (COSEWIC

1998). Scientists believe that Montana wolver-

ines, extirpated by the 1920s, have since become

re-established from Canadian populations(NRCB

1993). The species is trapped in Alberta. Local

trapping statistics (Table 20) show a minimal

harvest during the late 1980s

and mid-1990s. Six out of the

ten years experienced a harvest

of zero. However, during a

bighorn sheep study on Prairie

Bluff in the Front Range

Canyons during similar years

(1986-1990), 7 wolverine

SEICEPS 8991GNIDNENOSAESNITSEVRAH LATOT *

68 78 88 98 09 19 49 59 69 79 89xnyL 5 2 0 1 2 2 5 5 3 4 0 92

enirevloW 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 6rehsiF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0netraM 36 16 53 34 63 34 05 13 26 26 36 945

* )39&29gnidulcxe(


101101101101101

sightings were recorded, involving at least 5

different individuals (Morgantini 1991). This

was followed in 1992 with another two rare

sightings of wolverines in the region — one in

the high alpine along Yarrow Creek and

another near the summit of Table Mountain

(Gerrand and Sheppard 1992). The status of

this species in the Castle is difficult to

evaluate, as it is a true wilderness animal. A

decline in the amount of undisturbed land area

in the Castle may be negatively affecting the

population status of this species as they are

believed to be “unusually sensitive to human

intrusion into their habitat” (NRCB 1993).

The status of fisher populations in Alberta is

estimated at approximately 10,000 pairs, prima-

rily distributed in the northern part of the prov-

ince (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The fisher is

listed on Alberta’s ‘Yellow B’ list. The fisher

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.

(Powell and Zielinski 1994). In the Castle area

trapping efforts for fisher were unsuccessful

through the 1980s and 1990s. Fishers are

known to be easy to trap (Powell and Zielinski

1994) and therefore a harvest rate of zero over

10 years would likely indicate that the fisher is

present in extremely low numbers in the area.

However, fisher sightings have occurred in

the Castle region in the 1990s indicating that

they do exist there. In 1991, biologists work-

ing on an environmental inventory for the pro-

posed West Castle expansion sighted fisher

tracks, possibly from a pair, in the West Castle

valley (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). In 1992, a

fisher was sighted in the Scarpe Creek area, along

the South Castle valley (Sheppard 1993). Recently,

they’ve also been sighted in Waterton Lakes N.P.

(Van Tighem, pers. comm.).

Of all the above-mentioned forest carnivores,

marten appear to be the species faring the best in

southwestern Alberta. Recent winter track sur-

veys performed in the West Castle area (Hornbeck

et al. 1992, cited in HBT AGRA Limited 1992) along

with the fur harvest (Table 20) indicate that the

marten is relatively abundant in the Castle area.

Loss of its preferred mature forest habitat through

logging remains a concern.

Birds

Historic

Old-timers’ concern over birds focussed on the

blue grouse, bald eagle and golden eagle. They

have sensed a decline in these species in the area

over the years. Frank McLaughlin recalls see-

ing lots of

eagles and

blue grouse

in the early

days but be-

lieves there

are far fewer

today (1992).

How do numbers trapped correlate with thenumber of traplines set in any given year?Can trends in numbers be correlated withtrends in habitat effectiveness?


102102102102102

Winona Bonertz also recalls seeing more bald and

golden eagles along rivers and lakes in the past

but sees very few now (1992). Many others share

the same feelings (Judd 1992; Mitchell 1992;

Riviere 1992). Michalsky states that there was

an increase in blue grouse following the fires in

1936 but with fire suppression there has been a

decrease in this type of habitat for the species.

He also believes that eagles have declined in the

area due to an increase in pesticide use in the

surrounding region. Others attribute declines in

eagles to the increase in power lines in the area

(McLaughlin 1992) and to in-growth of meadows

due to fire suppression.

According to Alberta Recreation, Parks and

Wildlife (1992) the bald eagle has suffered from

direct persecution, loss of habitat and pesticide

use in the past. The golden eagle’s decline in the

early 1900s is attributed primarily to eradication

programs implemented by government agencies

and ranchers. The same author states that there

have not been any major changes in the histori-

cal range of blue grouse in Alberta.

Habitat Hot Spots

The Castle River Ecological Land Classifica-

tion outlines the land capability for ungulates (in-

cluding deer, elk, mountain goat, moose and

bighorn sheep) in the Castle region (Anderson

1978). Class 1 lands have “no significant limita-

tions to ungulates” and include the alpine region

of the Front Ranges. Class 1W lands are winter

ranges that have “no significant limitations to elk,

moose and deer” and include the Castle and lower

Carbondale River valleys. Class 2 lands have very

slight limitations for deer, elk and mountain

sheep. Class 2 lands in the Castle area include

Whistler Mountain. With respect to land and cli-

matic factors these are the regions classified with

the highest capability for ungulates. However,

as Morgantini (1991) pointed out in his study of

elk distribution and movement, the seasonal pat-

terns of movement and level of use in the Castle

area may also be affected by resource extraction

activities, secondary road access, hunting pres-

sure, forage availability and cattle grazing.

Elk

Elk wintered on Whistler mountain in the

past (1951-52) however few or no elk winter

there today (CCWC 1993). During his time as

Chief Ranger at the Castlemount ranger sta-

tion Frank Jones recorded in his diaries an

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

using these canyons (Perraton 1994).

The Castle-Carbondale elk herd (approxi-

mately 350 animals) winters mostly on the hills

of the Castle and lower Carbondale Rivers

(Morgantini 1992). These hills, including

Carbondale Hill, Maverick Hill and Hastings

Ridge, provide key winter range for over one-third

of the elk population within the Castle River area

(AENR 1985). The Castle-Carbondale herd is

highly migratory with animals moving in sum-

mer to range the headwaters of the Carbondale

Where are significant nesting sites forwaterfowl and species at risk in the Castle?


103103103103103

River, Lynx Creek, Lost Creek and the Flathead

Valley in B.C. (Morgantini 1993). Elk calve on

transitional ranges between their summer and

winter ranges (NRCB 1993).

The Castle-Beaver Mines herd (approximately

150-200 animals) consists of one local and two

migratory segments. One of the migratory seg-

ments summers in the upper South Castle region,

possibly moving into B.C. and the other summers

in the upper West Castle River (Morgantini 1993).

Evidence suggests that elk movements may oc-

cur over Middle Kootenay Pass (Morgantini 1993).

Recently elk have increased their winter and sum-

mer use of habitat east of the Forest Reserve

(CCWC 1993). This is partly due to a loss of

effective habitat for elk in the area attributed to

an increase in access roads and subsequent mo-

torized vehicle use. Elk avoid roads and the habi-

tat adjacent to them (Lyons 1979; Perry and Overly

1976; Pederson 1986).

Sheep

The Castle-Waterton area possesses some of

the best bighorn sheep range in North America

(AENR 1985). The main wintering areas for

bighorn sheep in the region include the Front

Range (Prairie Bluff to Yarrow Canyon), Windsor

Ridge (Castle Mountain-Table Mountain area) and

Barnaby Ridge (Perraton 1994 , Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). Syncline Mountain is also win-

ter range (Morgantini 1993). The Front Ranges

provide excellent winter range because the south-

facing slopes are often snow-free in winter. This

area supports the bulk of the wintering popula-

tion in the region (Gudmundson 1988a).

Morgantini (1993) noted that in the summer

Castle sheep range west into B.C. across the

Continental Divide and north into the Crowsnest

Pass area. A study of bighorn sheep on Prairie

Bluff during the drilling of new gas wells by Shell

determined that the sheep were quite tolerant of

this activity (Morgantini 1991).

Grizzly

The South Castle and West Castle valleys serve

as important movement corridors for grizzly bears

between Glacier National Park in Montana, the

Flathead Valley in B.C., and northern populations

in Kananaskis and Banff National Park. East-

west movements between B.C. and Alberta oc-

cur over Middle Kootenay Pass and North

Kootenay Pass (NRCB 1993). Bears that were

radio-collared in the West Castle Valley moved

into Waterton and Glacier National Parks and the

Flathead Valley. Within the West Castle Valley

their main movement corridor consisted of the

lower slopes of Barnaby Ridge (NRCB 1993). In

the decision report for the proposed West Castle

expansion (see Past Processes) the Natural Re-

sources Conservation Board concluded that

“grizzly bear subpopulations in the U.S. and

southern Canadian Rocky Mountains are too

Historically, what was prime wildlifehabitat, what were wildlife populationsandhow werethey distributed? Are therehistorical accounts from early settlers.What do the Ktunaxa elders, the Peiganand the Blood elders recount withregards to wildlife generally?


104104104104104

small for long-term sustainability without ex-

changes between them, and between them and

subpopulations to the north” (NRCB 1993). Thus

these corridors appear essential for long-term

survival of grizzly bear populations in the Crown

of the Continent ecosystem.

Aquatics

Water Quality

There is currently no consistent water quality

monitoring framework present in the Castle area.

The closest long-term monitoring stations are on

the Oldman River and consist of two sites that are

sampled monthly on a long-term basis. Alberta

Water Resources samples in the Castle sporadically

on certain watercourses that may be negatively im-

pacted from current or proposed developments or

activities (Tchir 1998, pers.comm.). For example,

water quality sampling in the past has been done

upstream and downstream of the Shell Waterton

Plant to detect potential changes in water quality

and along the West Castle River to assess potential

effects from the ski hill development.

Waters along the Continental Divide are

generally of low biological productivity because

of the nature of the regional geology. Alberta

Environmen-

tal Protection

and HBT

Agra sam-

pled water on

the West

Castle River,

Gravenstafel Brook and Syncline Brook in

1978, 1991 and 1992. These studies found that

these waters were alkaline with a pH of 8.0 to

8.6, moderately soft (61-120mg/L CaCO3), had

low turbidity and low bacteria counts (HBT

AGRA 1992). The temperature of the water

is cool with high dissolved oxygen concentra-

tions, due to the turbulent flow, and a low nu-

trient supply (HBT AGRA 1992). There is

little variation in the water quality seasonally

or yearly (i.e. from 1978-1992). Pesticide and

herbicide concentrations were found to be be-

low detection limits (NRCB 1993).

Alberta Environmental Protection sampled

water further downstream at the Castle River

Recreation Area in 1994 and 1996. The water

was alkaline with a pH of 7.92 to 8.12. It had a

hardness of 120 mg/L CaCO3., which falls at the

upper end of the moderately soft range. The fecal

coliform levels were measured to be 24.33/100mL

in 1996, an increase from 5.33/100mL in 1994.

Both of these numbers are greater than the

numbers found in the West Castle River in 1992,

which were measured at less than 1/100mL. The

temperature of the water was cool with high

dissolved oxygen concentrations.

What activities might account for thedifference in fecal coliform levelsbetween the West Castle and CastleRivers and between 1994 and 1996? Isthis difference significant, i.e. whatrange is considered ‘normal’?


105105105105105

Fish

Historical Status

Lakes and streams in the Castle area are some

of the best trout-producing and, therefore, fish-

ing waters in Alberta (AENR 1985). The

headwater streams of the Castle area were origi-

nally composed primarily of cutthroat trout and

bull trout with mountain whitefish in the lower

reaches (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

Bull trout have two life strategies in Alberta

— a migratory form and a resident form. The

former rears itself in headwater streams and

subsequently moves downstream into a larger

river or lake. The resident form lives out its

life cycle in the headwater streams. Headwater

streams in the Castle began to be heavily

stocked in the 1920s and 1930s, primarily with

Rainbow trout, then brook trout (Crowsnest Pass

Historical Society 1979). During the 1930s to

1950s bull trout were purposely removed to

reduce predation upon introduced fish species

(Alberta Environmental Protection 1994).

From the 1950s through the1980s bull trout

were affected by logging and recreational activ-

ity. Bull trout are highly sensitive timber harvest

along drainages, which may increase sedimenta-

tion of streams. Sedimentation also increases

when off-road vehicle users repeatedly ford

streams where bull trout spawning beds may be

present. These trout are also voracious eaters,

easy to catch and are, therefore, susceptible to

overfishing. Introduced non-native trout species

not only compete with the bull trout but also hy-

bridize with them thus depleting the pure genetic

stock. Schindler (1998) states the stocking of

non-natives is the greatest problem to date for

the survival of native fish stocks.

Westslope cutthroat trout has also suffered

from serious declines throughout its native range

through recent history (Fernet 1993). This trout

was once a dominant species across its range,

including southwestern Alberta. It has been es-

timated that approximately 99% of the original

populations of Westslope cutthroat have been lost

in the last 100 years (Behnke 1972 in Fernet 1993).

The reasons for the loss are similar to that of the

bull trout — vulnerability to angling pressure,

habitat degradation and hybridization with exotic

species. Mayhood (1996) states that intro-

gressive hybridization of westslope cutthroat

trout with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and

rainbow trout could lead to the permanent loss

of native genotypes in this species.

Hybridization is far more significant with

westslope cutthroats than with bull trout.

Some old-timer residents of the Castle recall

lots of bull and cutthroat trout in the past but far

less now (Riviere 1992; Verquin 1992). Doris

Burton (1992) can remember a time in the 1920s

when there was a limit of 25 trout per person per

day and this limit was easy to obtain. They con-

cur that the fish are much smaller now as well.

Present Status

Currently the Castle aquatic system is much

more biodiverse than in the past. Species that are

present in the Castle area include brook trout,

bull trout, cutthroat trout (Westslope and

Yellowstone subspecies), golden trout, rainbow

trout and rainbow/ cutthroat hybrids. Present


106106106106106

non-trout species include mountain whitefish,

longnose sucker, mountain sucker, white sucker,

longnose dace, river shiner and burbot (Gibbard

and Sheppard 1992).

Fitch (1994) concluded that bull trout are

present today in only 31% of their historic native

distribution in southwestern Alberta streams. The

Castle drainage is in the best shape with bull trout

still being present in 95% of its native range. Bull

trout existed here from 1900-1970 in a total of

210km of streams (Fitch, 1994). From 1970-1994,

it was present in 199 km, a much smaller decrease

than found in both the Belly River and Oldman

drainages (Fitch 1994). Fitch concluded that bull

trout are presently extirpated from Spionkop and

Pincher Creeks and that in most of the rivers and

streams there appears to be a decline in the flu-

vial (migratory) form of the species along with a

general size reduction in catches (Fitch, 1994).

This decline is of concern as it represents a loss

of adaptive capability in an unstable environment

(Fitch, 1994). A study of bull trout redds (i.e.

spawning beds) in the Oldman drainage detected

over 75% of the redds in three of seven streams:

Mill Creek, Hidden Creek and Lost Creek (Gerrand

et al, 1995) (Table 21).

Similarly, Boag and McCart (1993) in Fernet

(1993) state the West Castle has one of the bet-

ter westslope cutthroat trout fisheries in Alberta.

The Castle is primarily a cutthroat trout fishery

(Wig 1998, pers.comm.). According to Fernet

(1993) there are very few pure stocks of

Westslope Cutthroat trout left in Alberta and Wig

(1998, pers.comm.) states that loss of genotypes

in bull trout due to hybridization is a concern.

Specific management actions are being taken

for protection of the bull trout, which appears to

get much more attention than the Westslope

cutthroat trout. In 1991 a bait ban was imple-

mented in Alberta due to the susceptibility of bull

trout to angling with bait (Byrne 1993). Alberta

Fish and Wildlife initiated a moratorium in 1994

on killing bull trout and implemented catch and

release program (Fischbuch et al, 1995).

eganiarD tnediseRmroF

laivulFmroF

keerCrehcniP on on

keerCdoowyrD sey on

keerCworraY sey on

keerCpoknoipS on on

reviReltsaC sey sey)decuder(

reviReltsaChtuoSskeerCtnoF,epracSsedulcni()ekaLseniMrevaeBdna

sey nwonknu

reviReltsaCtseW sey sey)decuder(

reviReladnobraC sey sey

keerCtsoL sey a/n

keerCrenidraG sey a/n

keerCxnyL sey a/n

keerClliM sedulcni(enotsdalGdnayentihW ) sey sey

Table 21: Current Bull Trout Distribution in

the Castle Area (from Fitch 1994)


107107107107107

Just over a century ago, ranchers drove the

first cattle into southwestern Alberta and

trappers moved into the Castle to obtain furs

first hand. Today, hunting, trapping and graz-

ing continue alongside petroleum explora-

tion, logging and a variety of recreation uses.

The patterns of these activities lend insight

to future trends in the Castle.

Forestry Practices

Historic

The federal government first issued timber-

cutting rights in present-day Alberta in 1879

(Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). The first sawmill

in the Castle area was established near the mouth

of Mill Creek in that same year (Pincher Creek

Historical Society 1974). This mill was sold to

Peter McLaren in 1881. Before the turn of the

century the McLaren Lumber Company and

Canadian Pacific Railway were logging in the

vicinity to provide building logs for the Peigan

Reserve, Fort MacLeod and the growing town

of Pincher Creek (AWA, undated). Selective log-

ging and small-scale clearcutting in Mill Creek

continued through the turn of the century

(Landals 1974). This marked the beginning of

the forest industry in the Castle region.

Extensive salvage operations for timber

occurred in the West Castle valley, South Castle

valley, Lynx Creek, lower Lost Creek, Gardiner

Creek and the Carbondale Hill/ Mount Backus/

Beaver Mines Lake area following the 1934/1936

fires (Perraton, 1994; Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

Logging in the headwaters of the Castle River be-

gan in the early 1960s (Castle Local Committee

1997). An outbreak of spruce bark beetle during

the 1970s triggered extensive salvage logging in

the upper reaches of the West Castle. This was

followed in the 1980s by salvage logging of

lodgepole pine in the up-

per reaches of the South

Castle, Gladstone Creek

and Table Mountain trig-

gered by a mountain

pine beetle infestation

(AWA, 1986). The areas

logged in the 1970s and

1980s include the West

Castle, Gladstone Creek,

Table Mountain, Upper

South Castle, Font

Creek and Windsor

Ridge (Brodersen 1996).

Since 1966 the C3 For-

est Management Unit (now C5) has been man-

aged to provide commercial needs and to meet

local demand. This is done through two conifer-

ous timber quotas and a miscellaneous Timber

Use area respectively (AENR 1985). The initial

15 year quota term lasting from 1966 to 1981

allowed for a combined annual allowable cut of

65 720 cubic meters (27.3 mmbf) and the miscel-

Chapter 6 — One Century of Human Activity inthe Castle


108108108108108

laneous Timber Use area an annual allowable

cut of 4000 cubic meters (1.66 mmbf) (AENR

1985). However, in 1981 the mountain pine bee-

tle outbreak mentioned above prevented the cal-

culation of a new annual allowable cut for the

next 15 year quota term because emphasis was

placed on salvage logging operations of all dead

or dying pine stands (AENR 1985).

Current

The long-term tenure quota system was re-

newed for the Castle area in 1986 following the

salvage logging operations from the mountain

pine beetle infestation. The Subregional Inte-

grated Resource Plan (IRP) for the Castle River

states that harvest in the Castle area will be de-

pressed over the next 40-50 years (from 1985)

as the only harvestable timber will come from

decadent (i.e. old-growth) spruce reserves and a

small amount of marginally merchantable pine

stands (AENR 1985). The present quota term is

20 years and is committed to Atlas Lumber of

Coleman (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992).

The annual allowable cut (AAC) for Atlas

within the C5 management unit is 90 505 m3 /

37.6mmbf (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). This

covers a variety of licenses, including the Castle

and others north of Highway #3 in the Porcupine

Hills region. There are also miscellaneous tim-

ber permits active in the Mill Creek and Byron

Creek areas of the Castle. These permits belong

to local companies and are sold yearly based on

a competitive bid (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.).

The AAC is set for the C5 management unit over

a 20 year period. However, the amount logged

in a given area (i.e. the Castle) changes from

year to year based on the amount of timber

available in the district and how much can be

harvested on a sustained yield basis (Schneider

1998, pers. comm.). In the end, the AAC should

average out over a five-year term.

According to the resource management

objectives of the IRP, the long term goal with

respect to timber in the Castle is “to manage

the forest land base to provide a supply of tim-

ber on a sustained-yield basis to meet indus-

trial and local requirements” (AENR 1985.

p19). With the exception of steep slopes,

stream buffers and the prime protection zone,

the entire Castle area is open to logging.

Between May 1, 1997 and April 30, 1998, 20

200 m3 /8.4mmbf of green timber and 1171m3/

.48mmbf of dry timber was logged in the Castle

(Schneider 1998, pers. comm.).Atlas focussed its

extraction upon Lynx Creek and Goat Creek.

Although their license in the latter expires in

1999, they will be going back into Goat Creek

in 2000 (Atlas Lumber 1998, pers. comm.). Prior

to logging, Goat Creek consisted of Engelmann

Spruce trees of 200-250 years old (Gibbard and

Sheppard 1992). At las a lso logged in

Snowshoe Creek in winter 1998/99 and will

start logging Gorge Creek in the near future

(Atlas Lumber 1998, pers. comm.).

Logging companies are required to follow the

guidelines in “Timber Harvest Planning and

Operating Ground Rules” put out by the Alberta

Land and Forest Service in 1994. The standard

harvesting method used in Alberta is clearcutting

because it is efficient, well suited to heavy

machinery and creates favourable conditions for

the regeneration of shade-intolerant species


109109109109109

(Renewable Resources Sub-Committee 1989). The

companies have two years to treat the block

after which two surveys are done by the AFS

at 6-8 years and again at 14 years to ensure

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

regenerating species following clearcutting

than spruce which requires shelter for growth.

Tree planting has proven unsuccessful in this

area (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.). With re-

spect to post-logging management the AFS pro-

motes spreading slash on site to speed up

decomposition, along with leaving some piles

to serve as habitat for small mammals. Burn-

ing of slash is a concern because of the fire

hazard it poses (Schneider 1998, pers. comm.).

The operating ground rules require that

where pine comprises 40% or more of the

merchantable timber volume, cutblocks may be

up to 100 ha/247acres in area but with an aver-

age area no greater than 60 ha/148 acres (ALFS

1994). With spruce, cutblocks can be up to 24

ha/59 acres in patches or a maximum of 32 ha/

79 acres in strips where no part of the cutblock

is further than 150m/492ft from a seed source

(ALFS 1994). An analysis of vegetation inven-

tory data in the Castle region revealed cutblocks

which range in size from .74 ha to 166 ha (2.5 to

544 acres) in the South Castle, .56 to 60 ha (1.8

to 148 acres) in the West Castle and .15 ha to

262 ha (.5 to 860 acres) in the Carbondale

(Stewart et al 1998) (Map E). Some of these

cutblocks are quite a bit larger than suggested

in the guidelines. If cutblocks are too large they

may not be used by wildlife due to the lack of avail-

able cover. Providing clumps of cover within the

cutting unit may increase the amount of clearing that

will be used, for some species (PRISM Environmen-

tal Management Consultants 1982).

Agriculture

Historic

At the time the ranching industry launched in

southern Alberta (1874) the area was considered

open range (MacDonald 1992). Cattle grazing be-

gan in the South Castle at the turn of the century

and regulation and charging for grazing started in

1910 (AWA, undated). When the Castle area was

under federal jurisdiction as part of Waterton Lakes

National Park from 1914 to 1921, cattle grazing

was still permitted (Castle Local Committee 1997).

Grazing continued during the period the area was

provincially managed as a game preserve as cattle

were present

at the time of

the 1936 fire

( K o v a c h

1979). Horse

and sheep

grazing took

place in the

How does the annual allowable cut bywatershed area compare to B.C. andMontana? How does i t compare bysubalpine extent?


110110110110110

Castle region during the Second World War but

too much competition with wildlife for forage led

to their discontinuation. Sheep grazing ended in

1954 and horse grazing in 1956 (AWA 1986).

There are no grazing leases in the Castle. Live-

stock owners obtain annual grazing permits. In

the past the Castle contained 5 grazing allotments

however the Gladstone Creek is no longer in use.

A maximum number of cattle is permitted to graze

on each allotment, which is determined by a 5

year management plan (Kehr 1998, pers.comm.).

Between the years of 1962 and 1982 the grazing

usage of the Castle River area on the four allot-

ments decreased from 5 569 animal unit months

to 4 073 animal unit months1 (AUM) (AENR

1985). Use stabilized and 4130 AUMs were

stocked in 1993 (Gerrand and Sheppard 1993).

This is due to brush encroachment and other land-

use developments on the primary rangeland.

Current

Four current allotments support grazing: Cas-

tle River, Southend (Front Range Canyons), the

Mill Creek and Jackson Creek. The boundaries

of these allotments do not change and the

permittees generally stay the same year after year

(Alexander 1998, pers. comm.). The preferred

stocking capacity has decreased to 2330 AUMs

although, in 1998, the actual stocking capacity

was 2240 AUMs which equates to approximately

500 animals (Alexander 1998, pers. comm.).

The Land and Forest Service attempts to keep

cattle out of the prime protection zone, which typi-

cally consists of alpine vegetation that is very

sensitive to trampling (Kehr 1998, pers. comm).

Over the years the Castle Crown Wilderness

Coalition’s volunteer stewards have noted dam-

age to vegetation in some alpine areas caused by

cattle (Gerrand and Sheppard 1992). Management

action has been taken by the Alberta Forest Service

in Yarrow Canyon in fencing the upper canyon area

to prevent cattle from entering. The ALFS has

also constructed a livestock exclosure plot in the

South Castle to compare grazed land with non-

grazed land. This study is currently underway.

According to Ernst (1996), there is little left of the

native forage in parts of the South Castle.

Mining Practices

Historic

Coal mining began following the construction

of the Canadian Pacific Railway through

Crowsnest Pass in 1897-1898. The first mines

operated in Crowsnest Pass just north of the

Castle area in 1902 and east of the Castle in

Beaver Mines in 1907 (Crowsnest Pass Historical

Society 1979). This new industry brought more

residents to the area and likely served to in-

crease the recreational use of the Castle. Since

then coal has been extracted along Adanac

Pass, Gladstone Creek, near Beauvais Lake

Provincial Park and in the Beaver Mines area

1 An AUM is defined as the “measure of forage or

feed required to maintain one animal unit (i.e. a

mature cow of 455 kg) for 30 days” (AENR 1985).

Are riparian impacts from grazingmanaged actively in the Castle? Is grazingdropping due to lack of demand or lack of


112112112112112


113113113113113

(AENR). Coal was extracted along Adanac

Pass from 1942-1962 (AENR 1985).

The Castle region’s quarriable and metallic

minerals are generally not deemed significant

(AENR 1985). However certain sections, such

as the Front Range canyons, the South Castle and

West Castle areas, are part of the Grinnell for-

mation which is a premier site for mineralization

in Alberta (Perraton 1994). In the early 1970s

there was an interest in extracting copper-bear-

ing ore from the mouth of Yarrow Canyon

(Landals 1974). A quartz mineral lease on

Spionkop Ridge was recently terminated in the

late 1980s following exploration and the Alberta

Forest Service reclaimed it in 1989 (Regional

Resource Management Committee 1990).

Current

There are no active mineral leases in the Cas-

tle area at the present time. Coal leases exist

on Hastings Ridge and Maverick Hill (Gibbard

and Sheppard 1992). Coal, and possibly gold,

leases are held for Willoughby Ridge (Kehr 1998,

pers. comm.). None are active.

Petroleum Exploration/ Extraction

Historic

Seismic exploration began in the Castle region

in the early 1900s but was relatively inactive un-

til 1948 when gas in the Pincher Creek gas field

was discovered (AENR 1985). Shell drilled its

first successful Waterton Field well in 1957. A

second well, which is still producing, was drilled

in 1958 and is located near the mouth of South

Drywood Canyon. The majority of gas wells in

the Castle area exist in the Front Range Canyons.

Shell’s Waterton Processing Plant started pro-

ducing in 1962. As of 1992, three Shell wells

have run dry and been reclaimed in North

Kootenay Pass, Middle Kootenay Pass and Bea-

ver Mines Creek (Shell Canada Aerial Mosaic Map

1992).

Early seismic exploration involved cutting

roads up all the major drainages in the Castle

area with no requirement to reclaim them (Gibbard

and Sheppard 1992). This contributed to the ex-

tensive road network we see in the area today.

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife has since

required that seismic activity occur along exist-

ing roads or by helicopter (Evans 1992).

Current

Natural gas or petroleum and natural gas

leases cover most of the land base in the Castle

region (Landals 1974). Shell currently holds 10

active natural gas leases and 12 other petroleum

and natural gas leases that are subject to five-

year terms (Fischbuch and Gerrand 1994). Impe-

rial Oil holds one other natural gas lease in the

area. Approximately 75 natural gas wells are

presently located in or near the Castle region,

primarily within the Front Ranges. Each one of

these canyons — from Pincher Creek to Yarrow

Creek — has a well-maintained gravel road down

the valley with a number of gas wells and flare

stacks along it. Gas wells are also present on

What is the status of diamond explorationin the Castle?


114114114114114

Prairie Bluff, along Mill Creek and Whitney Creek

and to the north, on Maverick Hill. Although Shell

has conducted seismic exploration in the South

Castle and West Castle valleys there are no wells

there (Perraton 1994). Shell has relinquished their

rights for oil and gas exploration in these two val-

leys but may reacquire them if the government puts

them up for sale in the future (Perraton 1994).

The gas wells in the Front Range Canyons are

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-

serves could extend this period (Perraton 1994).

After the wells dry up, which will take at least

another 15 years, Shell Canada plans to reclaim

the area following standards set out by the pro-

vincial government (Martens 1998, pers. comm.).

The Land and Forest Service decides whether

to reclaim roads depending upon their potential

alternative uses (Martens 1998, pers. comm.). If

the roads are to remain open then Shell is no

longer responsible for maintenance or reclama-

tion; if they are to be reclaimed, it is Shell’s

responsibility to do so. The Castle Access Man-

agement Plan (see Appendix 1) closes most in-

dustrial roads to recreational traffic.

Shell conducted heliportable seismic exploration

in the Castle-Carbondale area in 1992, which required

surveying and cutting by hand 685km2/264mi2 of

narrow seismic lines (Gerrand and Sheppard 1992).

The seismic activity explored Mill Creek, Table

Mountain, Beaver Mines Creek, Mount Backus and

Maverick Hill. Shell also completed a new 35km/22mi

pipeline linking wells in the lower Carbondale to the

Shell Waterton Plant in 1995. One to two km of this

pipeline falls within the Castle boundary (Fischbuch

and Brodersen 1995). Future Shell plans include drill-

ing two new wells in 1999 just east of the Carbondale

area, outside of the forest reserve. One of these is a

step-out well on an existing lease and the other in-

volves a new lease (Mulzet 1998, pers. comm.).

Past

Hunting in the Castle area likely dates back

to when humans first arrived in the area approxi-

mately 11 000 years ago. The Ktunaxa, being

mountain hunters, probably made the most use

of the area for hunting mountain sheep, deer and

elk. With the arrival of the horse and gun in south-

western Alberta, sometime after 1750, hunting

as we know it today began. Animals could be

killed more efficiently which may have led to a

changing attitude among native people. As

Johnson (1969, cited in MacDonald 1992) states:

“Even bears, who already seemed a little less

awesome, because of their vulnerability to

bullets, the Indians began to regard not so

much as reverenced fellow beings, but more as

wearers of hides for which the traders might

give good exchange.” (pg 25)

The Government of Alberta ceased the legal

hunting of grizzly bears south of the Bow River

in 1969. This lasted for 13 years when, in 1982,

Hunting, Trapping and Outfitting Practices

What other companies are now active in/near the Castle? Canadian 88? What is theextent of their operations?


115115115115115

the hunt reopened around Waterton Lakes

National Park (Horejsi 1986).

Trapping became a predominant activity in

southwestern Alberta during the 1800s with the

coming of the fur trade. The Blackfoot commenced

trapping within the lands they controlled on the

east side of the Continental Divide (MacDonald

1992). These lands likely included parts of the

Castle. Beaver, weasel and muskrat were the main

species trapped during the fur trade years. Trap-

ping in the Castle has continued through the 20th

century (Clark 1998, pers.comm.).

Current

Hunting is a popular sport in the Castle area.

The area has numerous roads for access and

permits off-road vehicle use, thereby allowing

hunter access into remote regions. Huners pur-

sue big game species including mule deer, white-

tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, cougar,

black bear and grizzly bear. Approximately

4,400 hunters secure WMU 400 tags during the

fall hunting season (Forestry, Lands and Wildlife

1992). The spring hunt for black bear, grizzly

bear and cougar augments this number. The fall

hunting season lasts, on average, 78 days in-

cluding bowhunting season. In total WMU 400

has 21,430 hunter days during the fall hunt

(Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992).

Trapping in the Castle occurs on seven regis-

tered traplines that are located, at least partially,

within the Forest Reserve (Clark 1998,

pers.comm.). These traplines see fluctuating

use; there are years when some trappers may

not even set their traps (Clark 1998,

pers.comm.). Species that are trapped in the

Castle include badger, beaver, bobcat, lynx,

coyote, marten, mink, muskrat, squirrel, wea-

sel, wolverine and gray wolf. There have not

been any studies done on the effects of trapping

on furbearer populations in the Castle region.

Currently four outfitters are active in the Castle

region. Prior to 1995 a foreign resident was

required to hunt with a guide and outfitter.

However, the guide license regulations were

revised in 1995 so that now any Alberta resident

with a class C license can guide a foreign resident

(Fischbuch and Brodersen 1995).

Recreation Activity

The Castle region pro-

vides a variety of recrea-

tional opportunities year

round, including consump-

tive, non-consumptive and

motorized activities.

These activities include

fishing, hunting, hiking,

camping, backpacking,

horseback riding, cross-

country and downhill ski-

ing, snowmobiling and

off-road vehicle use.

The Forest Service permits random camping

throughout the Castle region in addition to the fee

camping in the four provincial campgrounds. Most

of these campsites are located along main access

routes and close to watercourses. There are ap-

proximately 265 established random camping

sites within the Castle area that are used by ap-

proximately 3000 persons during the camping


116116116116116

season (Alberta Forest Service 1992, cited in

Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). With random

camping the maintenance of the sites is the re-

sponsibility of the user. Garbage disposal can be a

problem. The Crowsnest Stewardship Society and

the Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition stewards

take part in a clean up effort every year. Parks

Service staff voluntarily play a maintenance role.

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use is a popular rec-

reational activity in the Castle area. It is likely

gaining popularity in southern Alberta because

most of Kananaskis Country to the north, with

the exception of McLean Creek, has been closed

to ORVs. In 1992 there were approximately 1,645

registered off-highway vehicles in the southern

region, the majority of which were snowmobiles

(57%) followed by all-terrain vehicles (32%)

(Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992).

The Castle region has many abandoned

seismic lines and logging roads that are ideal

for the sport. There are also volunteered trails

visible in the area that are not part of the trail

system (Andrea Stewart pers. obs.). An Access

Management Plan has recently been developed

to outline permitted ORV use on winter and sum-

mer use trails (see Appendix 1). The frequent

usage of the area by ORV’s restricts the use of

the area by hikers and backpackers who prefer

more solitude for their activities.

Current Road Status

The number of Castle roads has increased

significantly since the early 1950s (Map F). This

has resulted largely from an increase in industrial

activity (logging, seismic exploration, natural gas

production) through the years and the subsequent

use of the roads by off-road vehicles (Forestry,

Lands and Wildlife 1992). Major access routes

in the area include the recently rebuilt Lynx

Creek Road, Adanac road, Carbondale and Lost

Creek haul roads, O’Hagan Road, South Castle

haul road, Secondary Road 774 (to Castle

Mountain Resort) and the complex of industrial

roads surrounding the Front Ranges. Along

with these are the lesser maintained road and

trail networks that have been used by off-road

vehicle enthusiasts over the years.

With respect to forestry trunk roads, the

Alberta Land and Forest Service requires that

logging companies “scarify out” roads when

they are finished in an area, unless the roads

are considered “traditional” (i.e. they have been

there for several years and are used for other

purposes) (Schneider 1998, pers.comm.). If

Atlas will log an area in the future it may leave

roads open or reclaim them to a lesser degree

so it will be easier to restore them if necessary

(Schneider 1998, pers.comm.).

A road study was performed in the Castle re-

gion in the summer of 1998. The objective of the

study was to document the location, degree of

use and extent of erosion present on the roads

throughout the Castle region. A report of the road

study and accompanying maps will be available

in early

1999. What is the actual extent of ‘used’ roads/trai ls in the Castle? How does thiscompare with the Castle AccessManagement Plan? How much activity isthere over the Middle and North KootenayPasses into B.C.? What is the extent ofsnowmobile activity in the Castle?


118118118118118


119119119119119

Ecosystem Based Management:

Overview

Ecosystem research has evolved consider-

ably over the past sixty years. In 1934, Arthur

Tansley argued that various natural compo-

nents, such as plants, fauna, soil and climate,

act together in a holistic system to maintain

local equilibrium, resisting disintegrative forces

(Bocking 1994). He coined the term ‘ecosys-

tem’ to describe his paradigm. Eight years later,

Raymond Lindeman (1942) advanced Tansley’s

theory. He shifted his focus from individual

components to ecosystem processes as the

means of energy flow through a system.

Lindeman felt ecosystem balance was not

maintained so much through retaining species

as by retaining processes such as trophic

flows. Evelyn Hutchison (1948) then extended

Lindeman’s theories to encompass living and

non-living components (biotic/ abiotic),

thereby clearing the way for physiochemical

research into carbon flows and phosphorus ac-

cumulation. When Howard Odum (1959) ar-

gued that human-nature ecosystems could be

designed to promote human interests, ecosys-

tem management was born (Bocking 1994).

Odum and other technocrats believed that

humans could replace certain ecological com-

ponents and processes. Fires could be sup-

pressed then emulated with logging activity.

Predation by human hunters could substitute

for predation by other animals, which might

then be safely eradicated. The grazing function of

bison could be replaced using cattle.

Odum’s own brother opposed him. Eugene Odum

(1971) argued that ecosystems were too complex

to justify simple replacements. Natural carbon

sources, such as trees, cannot be eliminated to make

way for industrial carbon emissions in the global

balance. He foresaw technocratic strategies leading

to pervasive disturbance, instability and general

disequilibrium. This tension between the Odum

brothers encapsulates differing approaches to eco-

system management today.

Our institutional memory is often short. We in-

herit practices from our predecessors without fully

understanding why they were implemented and in-

terpret change without reference to past trends or

to complexity. We do not realize that, for fifty years,

we have operated implicitly from a technocratic ap-

proach. A population crash of elk becomes blamed

on the reintroduction of wolves, rather than recog-

nition that human hunting, increased roads, habi-

tat changes from logging and dams, climate change

and other ecological modifications incrementally

have changed the natural systems that produce elk

— and of which elk in turn are structural elements.

Our scope is also limited by jurisdictional bounda-

ries. A grizzly

counted in

Alberta is

also counted

in B.C. When

two provin-

cial agencies

Chapter 7: An integrated approach


120120120120120

set hunting quotas, that bear is allocated twice.

Annual allowable timber cuts are set based upon

‘ecosystem’ capacity while ignoring what is be-

ing allocated across the Divide or downstream

and without factoring in the dynamic, sometimes

catastrophic, changes that take place naturally

over time in forest ecosystems.

This State of the Ecosystem reporting proc-

ess strives to overcome our spatial and temporal

‘blinders’ to depict:

a) the pre-industrial equilibrium of the

Flathead/ Castle system (with the aid of

traditional ecological knowledge)

b) the current equilibrium of the system with

functional replacements

c) the trends resulting from our technocratic

approach

Analysis should not be taken to imply judg-

ment. Socio-economic realities will affect man-

agers as much or more than ecological ones.

Socio-economic realities are, of course, simply the

conditions that motivate and control a keystone

species in the ecosystem — the human being. A

more holistic knowledge base about that ecosys-

tem, however, can at least provide a better con-

text for decisions by and about that keystone

species. When people are explicitly aware of our

technocratic strategies, then they can also

anticipate and plan for their repercussions.

Ecosystem managers, as they become more aware

of complexity and connectedness, increasingly

emphasize the need to focus more on managing

ourselves rather than managing ecosystems.

Natural catastrophe

and the role of connectivity

Ecosystems may disintegrate without

human intrusion. Scientists have only

recently studied the role of catastrophes.

System equilibrium can be upset by

large scale natural disturbances such as

massive floods, intense firestorms or

volcanic eruptions. A caribou

population may perish from fire;

disease may annihilate a herd of sheep.

Both catastrophes may induce ripple

effects through trophic systems.

In these cases, ecosystem integrity relies

upon landscape connectivity. The

emerging science of conservation biology

studies how regional populations rely

upon landscape linkages to recover after

catastrophic events. Caribou can return

to a system as long as there is another

population nearby to provide migrants,

there are corridors that these migrants

may return through, and there is habitat

to sustain them when they return. If

human activity or other natural

disruption has negated any of these

conditions, localized extinction occurs.

On a continental scale, if

metapopulations become too fragmented,

restoration becomes impossible and a

series of localized catastrophes can result

in species extinction.


121121121121121

Ecosystem Wide Trends

In this iteration, many pieces of the puzzle are

still missing. The integration below represents a

first cut at presenting an ecosystem wide view,

however many holes are identified which remain

to be filled.

Ecological Processes

Fire: Throughout the Flathead/ Castle system,

fire was a frequent event. Lightning triggered the

majority of fires west of the Divide while natives

ignited most fires east of the Divide. Stand initi-

ating events occurred more frequently in the up-

per North Fork than in the lower or in the Castle

however the resulting landscape was similar

throughout: mature remnants amidst large

patches of regenerating forest. The last large fire

in the ecosystem was the stand replacing Red

Bench fire of 1988 in Montana. Stand replacing

fires have been suppressed throughout the

Canadian portion of the ecosystem since the Butts

fire (1936) which burned over 100 000acres/40

000ha on both sides of the Divide. This figure is

an estimate as its extent in the Castle is unknown.

Disease: Spruce bark beetle infested

Montana stands in the 1950s — its extent in

Canada is unknown. Whitebark pine blister rust

infested limber pine and whitebark pine in

Montana’s North Fork in the 1960s spreading

into B.C. and Castle by the 1970s. In the Castle,

two thirds of limber pine have now been in-

fected including a third killed. In Waterton

Lakes National Park, ¼ of whitebark pine have

been killed — half are infested. Is this repre-

sentative of the rest of the system?

Mountain pine beetle invaded the Flathead/

Castle systems in the 1970s spreading through-

out stands of lodgepole pine, limber pine and

whitebark pine. The extent of infestation is not

known.

Diseased stands that have not been logged are

currently being succeeded by Engelmann spruce

and subalpine fir.

Ecological Components

Vegetation: The ecosystem has similar

ecozones throughout its extent with montane for-

ests and grasslands giving way to subalpine

spruce-fir forests then alpine tundra as altitude

increases. Historically, the transboundary

bioregion was a mature spruce-fir system with

patches of lodgepole pine and western larch re-

generating from fire. Montane grasslands are

more common in the southern portion of the

Flathead than the northern portion due to

elevational differences. Lodgepole pine once oc-

curred more frequently west of the Divide than

east of it. Limber pine and now aspen occur more

frequently in montane areas to the east.

Today, fire has been suppressed which has

resulted in conifer encroachment on grasslands.

Timber extraction from old-growth spruce-fir

forests has allowed lodgepole pine and western

larch to co-dominate the system. Seeding of

monoculture lodgepole following logging has em-

phasized this transition. Grazing is most predomi-

nant in the Castle where grassland fescue is being

replaced by invasives such as Kentucky bluegrass.

Conifer encroachment is also emphasized where

grazing has reduced understory vigour.


122122122122122

Trophic Cascades (condensed from

Estes et al.1998)

Emerging studies on predator-prey relation-

ships are revealing just how complex

ecosystem dynamics can be. Early this

century, sea otters off the coast of Alaska

were hunted near to extinction. When

human predation was banned, they

rebounded until the 1990s. Between 1990

and 1993, half their population

disappeared. This mysterious decline

surprised scientist who had no ready

answers. By 1997, 90% of the entire

Aleutian otter population, over a 500 mile

stretch of ocean, had disappeared.

U.C. Santa Barbara scientists discovered the

solution in 1998. Killer whales, which had

coexisted peacefully with otters throughout

this century, had suddenly turned to them

as prey. To explain the reasons for this, Dr.

Jim Estes elaborated upon a complex

trophic cascade.

Baleen whales have fed historically on

zooplankton, limiting their abundance.

When human predation reduced

humpback, blue and gray whales this

century, zooplankton increased. An

omnivorous fish, pollock, thrived with an

increase in part of its food supply.

Increased pollock predation combined with

overfishing and global warming severely

depleted Pacific stocks of ocean perch and

herring throughout the 1970s. Herring and

perch are much more nutritious than

pollock and are a staple of Stellar sea lions

and harbour seals (pinnipeds). When the

former declined, the latter crashed in the

80s. Without pinnipeds as their primary

food source, killer whales turned to... otters.

The cascade will likely continue. Otters are a

keystone species of kelp ‘forest’ ecosystems.

As the solitary predator of sea urchins,

which prey on kelp, they keep the system in

equilibrium. When otters are removed,

urchins have no other predators,

proliferating and feeding on kelp without

check. Invertebrates and fish that depend

upon kelp for habitat will be affected

adversely, as will the species that depend

upon them.

Trophic cascades focus on the importance of

the top predator in the food chain. In the

case of kelp forests, that predator is otter.

In the case of baleen - zooplankton

relationships, that predator is human.

Links are complex and difficult to predict.

Terrestrial ecosystems function similarly.

When humans remove wolves and grizzly,

mesopredators and large ungulates

flourish. In turn, small mammals and

forage species, such as aspen suffer. When

fire suppression supports conifer, aspen also

decline and a positive feedback loop ensues

(White et al. 1995).


123123123123123

In Montana’s North Fork, 7% of the montane

and 4-5% of the subalpine is considered old-

growth. In B.C, 6% of the Montane and 16% of

the subalpine is considered old-growth. Old

growth remains in 9% of the Castle but this is

not broken down by ecoregion. Estimates on

historical composition vary. In Montana between

10 and 28% of the subalpine and 10-20% of the

montane was old. These might be considered

benchmarks for the system. Definitions for what

constitutes old-growth may vary in each system

and should be compared.

Wildlife: The North Fork historically contained

plenty of deer and moose but few elk. The Castle

has historically contained plenty of elk and moose

but few deer. This discrepancy may be due to our

reporting period — elk thrived in the Castle until

1870 when disease almost extirpated them. The

lack of recorded elk in the North Fork may sim-

ply be due to a lack of recorded presence — the

Ktunaxa might verify that many once existed.

Elk were reintroduced in the 1920s and pros-

pered until the 1970s. The population with-

stood heavy hunting in the 1950s (in the

Castle), likely because human predation was

replacing wolf predation at that time. Popula-

tion declines have occurred throughout the

Transboundary ecosystem since 1970. Reasons

are not clear however a shift in Castle distri-

bution eastwards suggests habitat degradation.

Mule deer may have existed in the Castle prior

to 1900 as reports conflict. They are recorded

in the North Fork. Conversely, white tailed deer

moved into the Castle after bison disappeared.

As bison were never present in the North Fork,

white tailed deer may have existed there all

along. Numbers are increasing throughout the

system. Like elk, deer are moving out of the

Castle onto the prairie.

Sheep and goats thrived throughout the

ecosystem. Recently, along with elk, they have

declined. Disease is the probable cause however

a very slow recovery may imply other factors.

Goats are now stabilizing in the Castle.

Wolves have been extirpated three times this

century from the Castle and at least twice from

Montana’s North Fork. B.C.’s statistics are, as of

yet, unavailable. Wolves were exterminated in the

Castle at the turn of the century and throughout

the ecosystem in the 1950s. Recovery in both

Montana and Alberta occurred strongly through

the 1990s until 1996-97 when they were reduced

from 4 packs to 2 in the southern North Fork and

from about 60 individuals to about 6 in southwest-

ern Alberta. The persistence of this species seems

to hinge on the strength of the B.C. population and

a persistent prey population of deer and elk.

Grizzly bear was abundant throughout this

ecosystem until the 1950s when declines were

recorded in the Castle. Increases were recorded

in both the North Fork and the Castle through

the 1970s/ 80s and heightened mortality/ trans-

location in the 90s in the Castle has not appeared

to affect the population. Strong linkages with

source populations in the Flathead may be allevi-

ating heavy Alberta ‘predation’.

Wildlife Habitat: The decline of climax forest

has likely had an affect on old-growth dependent

species such as cavity nesters and mesopredators

(see North Fork — Old Growth). Fire suppression

is reducing montane grasslands used by ungu-

lates for winter forage. Conifer dependent spe-


124124124124124

cies, especially those attending lodgepole pine

and larch, are increasing. Connective corridors,

through mountain passes and riparian areas of

the North Fork are still intact.

Cumulative effects of human activity

Cumulative effects analysis (CEA) looks at

the accumulation of impacts from human activ-

ity across a landscape, over time. Often, these

are refined to one industry (Creasey 1998) or one

species (Herrero et al. 1996). However, ideally,

CEA would look at the total role of the keystone

species (humans) as it functions within the en-

tire system. Barriers (and reasons for limited

scoping) often result from organizational man-

dates, jurisdictional boundaries, lack of time/

money and lack of information.

A state of the ecosystem report can provide

the knowledge base across jurisdictional bounda-

ries. Maps D2 and F can be combined to portray

a more complete picture of our activity on a land-

scape (Map H). This combined assessment of hu-

man development provides the first step in

assembling such a knowledge base.

Forestry: An annual allowable cut of

69mmbf is expected throughout the ecosystem

over the 5 years (assuming the Montana

numbers are annual, not total allocations).

Montana’s focus is changing from spruce-fir for-

est to lodgepole pine, likely due to availability.

This may be the trend throughout the system.

Extraction is heaviest in B.C.’s North Fork

where an average of 12201m3 (29.4mmbf) is

slated to be removed over its 1575km2 extent

(7.885m3/km2). The Castle has roughly 3735m3

(9mmbf) slated for removal from 970km2

(3.735m3/km2). Montana’s North Fork (of which

half is National Park) has about 12450m3

(30mmbf) allocated throughout its 4118km2 ex-

tent (3.02m3/km2). Montana’s figures are sig-

nificantly lower if its cited cuts are total, not

yearly, allocations.

Petroleum Extraction: Although oil, gas and

coal bed methane potential exists throughout

the system, current extraction occurs only at

the Shell Waterton Field in Alberta. Down-

stream effects from particulate discharge into

the atmosphere and recreational impacts from

employees are of regional concern. Other im-

pacts are localized to the Castle.

Mining: Coal and some mineral potential ex-

ists throughout the system. Although no mining

is currently underway, a mine on a Fording lease

would be the largest single impact in the system.

Hunting/ Trapping: Hunter success rates for deer

and elk have declined over the past decade in both

Montana and B.C. but have increased for moose.

Generally, fewer and fewer hunters are having less

success. Figures are unavailable for the Castle.

Whereas most human activities affect habitat

and ecosystem processes, hunting and trapping

involve direct human predation. As long as habi-

tat effectiveness and linkage zones persists,

overhunting can be regarded as a catastrophic

event, mitigable by influx from other populations.

For instance, the taking of 600 elk out of a popu-

lation of 3000 on a single day in 1956 could have

been catastrophic if perpetuated, However elk

would likely have returned to the Castle, as

wolves have, since herds exist in Waterton and

in the North Fork.


126126126126126


127127127127127

Direct human predation must occur, there-

fore, within a context of habitat and linkage

zone effectiveness if we wish to maintain equi-

librium. Ideally, it takes an ecosystem wide

view to avoid duplication. Bag limits are usu-

ally set after fish and wildlife officers conduct

wildlife surveys. If a sheep moves from Alberta

to B.C. between respective surveying periods,

she inflates one of the population estimates.

Improved communication and management sys-

tems could curtail such duplication.

Roads: Road use has grown throughout the

ecosystem with the improved access offered by

4-wheel drive and off-road vehicles (passenger

and ATVs). Seismic and forestry cutlines from the

1950s still offer motorized access today. The de-

gree of use remains to be studied. Much of the

use in B.C.’s North Fork is staged from the Castle

— recreational users flow over the Continental

Divide using the same passes as wildlife (Map H).

A total of 488mi/785km of roads lace the North

Fork with a further 370mi/595km either closed

or used only sporadically in the Flathead National

Forest. Motorized access in the Castle is more

extensive however has not been measured.

Roads have three ecological implications. They

fragment habitat if they are surveyed through

sensitive areas or are subject to heavy use. They

can cut off linkage zones, such as the Crowsnest

Pass, if they are used heavily or encourage road-

side development. Finally, they increase human

predation in a positive feedback loop. Humans

are more effective predators when they can drive

to prey. When local success rates increase with

road availability, an area attracts more hunters,

leveraging pressure on accessed areas.

Relative effects analysis

Relative effects analysis evaluates which

human activities have the most disruptive effect

on an ecosystem and strives to address them first.

Such effects can then be compared to their socio-

economic benefit. Often, low impact activities

may yield high benefits and vice versa. Roads,

which tend to have pervasive impacts on various

levels, might be eliminated with little socio-

economic repercussions. Conversely, selective

logging and some petroleum exploration might

be conducted with little consequence to ecosys-

tem components and processes.

Relative effects analysis realizes that in a state

of equilibrium, everything is a tradeoff. If all hu-

man activities are maintained, then the weight of

this keystone species will unbalance the system.

Perceptual impacts

Perceptual impacts are the externalized con-

sequences of maintaining our fragmented views

of the world. For instance, provincial and national

boundaries, which are invisible on the ground,

can result in incomplete analyses, restricted man-

agement, and, possibly, system breakdown. Cog-

nitive fragmentation of a landscape can translate

directly to habitat fragmentation if an ecosystem

is only managed in its perceived pieces.

Sediments from B.C. flow into Montana Wild and

Scenic Rivers where sediment loading does not

necessarily take into account what already ac-


128128128128128

crued upstream. The greatest impacts of petro-

leum exploration in Alberta may be borne in B.C.’s

North Fork when hundreds of well paid motor-

ized employees drive vehicles over the Divide for

recreation. Perceptual impacts are addressed by

managing from a complete world.

Human Based Management

Human-based management is ecosystem man-

agement made politically and socio-economically

relevant. It focuses on one of the most important

keystone species. We have the power to unilater-

ally disrupt the equilibrium of the Castle/ Flathead

system. If we are to maintain it, we need to clarify

our value systems (what ‘balance’ we wish to

achieve) then manage ourselves to get there.

The Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bear Planning

Committee is an example of integrated ecosys-

tem-based management. The RMGBPC includes

representatives of the wildlife agencies in

Montana, B.C., Alberta, Parks Canada, USNPS

and USFWS who share responsibility for bears.

They are jointly mapping grizzly habitat, grizzly

mortality sinks, etc. and pooling data on

mortalities, management removals etc. to ensure

that the regional grizzly bear population is man-

aged as one population rather than having B.C.,

Alberta and Parks Canada, for example, all count

each bear separately and pretend that no bears

ever die outside their own jurisdiction.

The RMGBPC are overcoming perceptual im-

pacts by looking at grizzly bears as a popula-

tion. They are addressing human predation,

habitat and connectivity issues together. Al-

though they are not yet addressing cumulative

or relative effects, they are creating the knowl-

edge base from which to do so.

Human-based management takes ecosystem-

based management one step further. It realizes

that humans, as a keystone species, respond to

socio-economic systems of their own devising as

much as ecological systems. Nevertheless, they

still function as a species in a complex system.

Using the human-based management approach,

the RMGBCP would seek to understand the role

of the grizzly as a large carnivore in a complex

system. They would seek to understand how hu-

man activity has altered the equilibrium of the

system which produced the grizzly to potentially

endanger it. Avalanche chutes still persist, as do

fields of glacier lilies, however what is the im-

pact of a decline of ungulates from habitat loss/

hunting, a decline of small mammals due to loss

of climax forest and a loss of habitat effective-

ness in floodplains due to roads? Are human func-

tional replacements working? Where are they

failing? Human-based management then looks at

the socio-economic system which motivates our

behaviour, undertakes relative impact analysis to

select a ‘Pareto’ solution, then implements by

managing humans, not the grizzly.

In other words, when wildlife officers is-

sue hunting tags and forestry officials estab-

lish access management plans, they are

managing humans, not elk, not ecosystems

and not even roads. Human-based manage-

ment accounts for this explicitly.


129129129129129

A Process for the future

The RMGBPC works because concerned man-

agers and scientists have taken the first step.

They have created the forum and the communi-

cations structure through which they can address

grizzly bear issues on a transboundary scale.

For the Flathead/ Castle system to be admin-

istered holistically, a similar device must be con-

structed. The Flathead Transboundary Network

was established in January 1998 to achieve this

purpose. It may or may not meet the needs of all

individuals who need to be involved. We do not

hold a monopoly on transboundary cooperation

in this region; we present this work only to

catalyze discussion. The Flathead/ Castle system

could be a model for ‘ecosystem/ human man-

agement’ across international borders.

Your feedback is appreciated.


130130130130130


iiiii

The Flathead/ Castle Transboundary Eco-

system has been and increasingly is impacted

by resource extraction activities, development

and recreational use. However, as noted by

the Flathead Transboundary Council, as a

whole, the North Fork is in better condition

than any other transboundary riverine system

in North America (Servheen 1992, May, 1993

cited in FTCSC 1993). According to a report

by Hovey and Teske (1993), the North Fork of

the Flathead is one of the most intensively

studied areas on the continent, with over 340

different animals representing seven of the

large mammal species having been radio-col-

lared and studied. In addition, the majority of

these studies have been long-term. The

numerous research projects and several

councils and committees formed to address

wildlife and fisheries issues in the Castle/

Flathead region, clearly indicate the biologi-

cal and political importance of the area.

International Approaches

International Joint Commission

An International Joint Commission was es-

tablished to make recommendations on the ap-

proval of a mine proposed by Rio Algom Ltd.

In the late 1970’s Rio Algom Ltd. and its sub-

sidiary Sage Creek announced plans for a large

open pit mine approximately six miles north of

the U.S./ Canadian border on Howell and Cabin

Creeks. In late 1984 and early 1985 responding to

increasing pressure from many quarters, the gov-

ernments of Canada and the United States requested

that an International Joint Commission “examine

and report on the water quality and quantity of the

Flathead River, with respect to the transboundary

water quality and quantity implications of the pro-

posed coal mine on Cabin Creek.” Impacts to both

recreation and fisheries were to be included. Rec-

ommendations have been discussed in the water

quality section (pp35-37) and throughout this re-

port. They provide the baseline from which

transboundary planning could start.

North Fork of Flathead River Conceptual

Strategy/ Flathead Basin Commission

The final recommendation by the International

Joint Commission in deciding against the Cabin

Creek mine suggested that, “The governments

consider, with the appropriate jurisdictions,

opportunities for defining and implementing

compatible, equitable and sustainable develop-

ment activities and management strategies in the

upper Flathead River basin.”

In 1991, then Governor Stephens asked the

Flathead Basin Commission to initiate a process

directed at

the above

goals. FBC

organized a

S t e e r i n g

Commi t tee

and Core

Appendix I: Processes to build upon


iiiiiiiiii

Group consisting of major private landowner

groups, federal, state, and local land manag-

ers, as well as conservation and industry in-

terests. After nine meetings plus a public

meeting in the North Fork, the Final Strategy

was adopted by consensus in September 1992.

Principle goals were:

♦ Preserve and if necessary restore water and

air quality to sustain the environment for

fish, wildlife, and people.

♦ Preserve and if necessary restore the eco-

logical integrity and biodiversity of the

drainage including, but not limited to, the

many special designations including Glacier

National Park, Wild and Scenic River,

International Biosphere Reserve, and the

habitat necessary to sustain endangered

species (gray wolf, grizzly, and bald eagle)

and species of special concern such as bull

trout and cutthroat trout.

♦ Provide for sustainable, multiple resource

uses that meet the above goals.

To date, the strategy has been endorsed by

Glacier National Park, the U.S. Forest Service,

DNRC, and private land groups. B.C. has not

yet endorsed the plan.

Flathead Transboundary Council:

The Flathead Transboundary Council was

formed in 1992 by North Fork landowners,

individuals and conservation groups to develop

and promote the idea of an International Conser-

vation Reserve for the upper Flathead drainage.

The mission of the Flathead Transboundary

Council was:

to create an international umbrella of

protection that maintains the natural

integrity of the Canadian B.C. and U.S.

North Fork portions of the Flathead River

Basin. This wild and biologically diverse

region is of global significance. We

advocate an integrated, scientific and

ecosystem-based approach to management

established by international treaty. The

best opportunity for accomplishing this

goal includes, but is not limited to, the

designation of an International

Conservation Reserve (ICR). (FTC 1992).

Such a plan would manage the entire North

Fork as an ecological unit, working co-operatively

with all transboundary agencies.

In a 1992 press release, the scientists on

the Flathead Transboundary Council Science

Committee explained the need for an Interna-

tional Conservation Reserve:

It is apparent to us that current management

is not focussing on conservation of the ecosys-

tem as a whole. Attention is focused on discrete,

often politically polarized issues such as timber

production and single-species management.

Agencies guard their bureaucracies and budgets,

often ignoring the biological requirements of a

healthy ecosystem. The result is a steady ero-

sion of the ecosystem’s integrity.

The FTC proposed rehabilitation through re-

forestation, reduced road density, stream bed im-


iiiiiiiiiiiiiii

provement, exotic plant control and other meth-

ods that reconnect natural ecosystem features.

Rehabilitation was to follow specific adaptive

plans for each major sub-basin, with priority given

to the most fragmented of drainages, such as

Whale, Coal, Big, Cabin and Howell Creeks. (FTC

1992). According to the science advisory board,

the plans will enhance and restore:

1) wildlife and fisheries habitat effectiveness

2) water quality

3) sustained yield of forest products and jobs

for forest workers

4) recreational opportunities

5) connectivity of landscape units within

altitudinal continua and

6) rare species and outstanding natural areas

such as wetlands and floodplain

A plan which included public involvement,

transboundary co-operation and public consulta-

tion with agencies has already been set in mo-

tion. Any future strategy should take this into

account and work jointly to complement work

previously undertaken. As of this writing, it is

unclear as to what level of activity exists with-

in the Flathead Transboundary Council and the

Scientific Advisory Committee.

Flathead International Conservation

Reserve Plan

The International Conservation Reserve Plan

was designed by the science advisory board of

the Flathead Transboundary Council. This plan

consisted of two parts:

Part I: North Fork of the Flathead (U.S.) Lands

and

Part II: North Fork of the Flathead (Can.) Lands

Part I which was completed but never imple-

mented included designating the perimeter of the

Flathead Transboundary Ecosystem and devel-

oping management standards for U.S. Federal and

Montana State lands. Part II which was never

completed was to develop management standards

for the British Columbia portion of the North Fork.

The ecological reserve design included an

ecosystem grounded management scheme which

was based on the development of management

standards for 3 quantitative measures of eco-

system health: old-growth forests; bull trout; and

roadless lands (FTC 1992).

Key features of the ecosystem plan (Part I:

U.S.) were to:

√ protect likely wildlife movement corridors

between the “North Fork” and Glacier Park

and Canada

√ protect riparian zones and headwater

streams

√ restore low elevation clearcut areas to pro-

vide continuity or connectivity

√ protect all remaining old-growth/ mature

forests

√ establish connectivity among the largest old-

growth blocks

√ protect all remaining roadless areas

√ close all nonessential transportation roads

√ protect and restore rare species and their

habitat


iviviviviv

The quantitative measures included the

following:

:htworGdlO

dlofoegatnecrep·wolebdnaevobahtworgdetamitse'000,5

-erpfoegatnecrep·htworgdlotnemelttes

:sseldaoR nieganiardfoegatnecrep·noitidnocsseldaor

:tuortlluB stnuocelinevujdnadder·

:noitatnemgarF

dnagniggolfoegatnecrep·ehtssorcagnidaortneidarglanidutitla

dnanoitubirtsidezis·dlofoytivitcennocsdnatshtworg

dlotcatniforebmun·sevorghtworg

tatibaH:ssenevitceffe

ytisneddaorlatot·)selimerauqs/selim(

tnalpevitisnes,deregnadne,eraR:secnerruccolaminadna yfitnauq·

:saerAlarutaNgnidnatstuO yfitnauq·

Areas within the transboundary ecosystem

were divided into zones and each zone included

standards as per the following:

Whale Creek: (Zone 1a) Cease logging and

close all roads after brief intensive reha-

bilitation of slumps, roads and other

localized areas of severe degradation that

produce highly abnormal water and sedi-

ment yields (the primary point source

pollutant in the ecosystem).

Big and Coal Creeks: (Zone 1b) Intensively

rehabilitate to reconnect ecosystem at-

tributes along the altitudinal gradient.

Reduce road density. Identify major sedi-

ment sources and rehabilitate. Reduce fines

from 40% to 10%. Attempt to accelerate

growth to reduce habitat fragmentation.

Consult on state of the art management

practices for rehabilitation.

Other Subbasins: (Zone 2) Individual manage-

ment plans will be developed for each

subbasin. The same attributes of old

growth/ bull trout/ roadless areas and

concepts of re-establishment of altitudinal

connectivity will be used.

River Corridor: (Zone 3*) This zone is deline-

ated on the working ICR map (US portion).

The corridor includes potential nodes of high

diversity identified by J. Stanford. No log-

ging, road building or dwelling construction.

Restoration may be necessary.

Outstanding Natural Areas: (Zone 4) Areas that

exhibit natural features or biological commu-

nities which contribute disproportionately to

the biological diversity of the catchment

basin. No development. Restoration may be

necessary (FTC 1992).

This was the beginning of an International

Conservation Reserve for the North Fork, yet

U.S. implementation did not occur and part II

(Canada) was never completed.


vvvvv

Montana/ U.S. approaches

Amendment 19 Road Closures and

Restoration

As detailed above, Amendment 19 to the

Flathead National Forest Plan requires road clo-

sures between 1995 and 2005 totally about 650

miles, including many in the North Fork. The

standards of A19 are based on actual female griz-

zly home ranges from the South Fork, and have

set precedents that are being adopted by other

forests and grizzly recovery areas. Implementa-

tion of the amendment could have far reaching

and positive benefits for numerous species. A

sample would include:

♦ Improves water quality by lowering runoff

from roads and sediments available to

streams.

♦ Benefits bull and cutthroat trout by lessening

siltation of spawning beds.

♦ Improves habitat security/ effectiveness and

lowers mortality risk for grizzlies and

wolves, thereby promoting recovery.

♦ Improves habitat security for elk, especially

big bulls, increasing their numbers, and

improving overall demographics and vigour.

♦ Promotes habitat connectivity and core area

stability benefitting species generally.

North Fork Land Use Planning:

Development Code

Many groups and individuals have noted that

unrestricted development and subdivision is one

of the greatest threats to the integrity of the North

Fork and its wildlife populations. One of the most

important events of recent decades therefore, is

the approval by North Fork residents, and the pas-

sage by Flathead County Commissioners, of a zon-

ing district to begin addressing this problem.

Residents of the North Fork are a diverse lot, and

legendary for their independence, but co-operative

work and dedication by many over a 14 year pe-

riod, has resulted in the following clear standards;

1. Minimum lot size for any new subdivisions

shall be 20 acres. (Note -an 8/97 survey

found that 77.8% of respondents were op-

posed to new subdivisions).

2. Establishes a minimum setback of 150 feet

for new buildings from the high-water mark

of any year-round stream, river, or lake.

3. Establishes a minimum setback from all

other public right-of-ways at 100 feet.

4. Permits businesses to erect advertising

signs on-site, but prohibits off-site signs

except directional signs to a specific busi-

ness. These must be on private property and

no larger than 4 sq.ft.

The above regulations should lessen the ap-

peal of the area to developers since it prohibits

the kind of lucrative, small lot subdivisions that

completely fragment habitat. The stream set-

backs will also buffer important riparian habi-

tat and wildlife movement corridors. However,

it must be noted that the above 20 acre mini-

mum will slow, not stop, land conversion, and a

North Fork with too many 20 acre parcels could

still be significantly fragmented.


vivivivivi

Nature Conservancy Planning Efforts

Not only has Nature Conservancy played a key

role in the above planning regulations, and

worked with the Flathead Basin Commission, it

has also developed its own important Strategic

Plan for the North Fork. As mentioned several

times, if we are to safeguard the integrity of the

region, it must be done co-operatively and com-

prehensively throughout the drainage. The TNC

plan seeks to do that, identifies threats, opportu-

nities and priorities, and lays out clear objectives:

* Maintain the quality and integrity of riparian

woodland/ wetland habitats.

* Maintain the natural hydrologic regime and

existing high water quality.

* Maintain the existing large mammal predator/

prey relationships.

* Maintain the complex of habitats that support

large mammals and other key species by

protecting critical linkage zones.

To accomplish these objectives, TNC is active

on both sides of the International Border.

Glacier National Park General

Management Plan

In autumn,1998, Glacier has released the first

update of its General Management Plan (GMP)

since 1977. The GMP is a critical document since

it will lay out the overall philosophy and guide-

lines for park management over the next 20 years.

The GMP provides a couple of key opportu-

nities. First, it can build upon and expand

protections contained in the 1991 Environ-

mental Assessment for the North Fork. The EA

essentially designated the North Fork as an

area where more primitive, less intensely de-

veloped recreation experiences would be avail-

able. Second, the GMP can breathe new life into

the concept of managing the area as a single

ecological unit, rather than a series of frag-

mented jurisdictions and landscapes.

British Columbia Approaches

CORE/ Special Resource Management

Zone:

The Flathead River corridor has been desig-

nated a Special Resource Management Zone

(SRMZ) under the Kootenay Boundary Land Use

Plan, which came out of the CORE process. The

British Columbia legislature created CORE (the

Commissioner on Resources and Environment

Act) by statute in July 1992 to deal with land use

issues for the creation of a sustainable provin-

cial land use strategy. At the heart of CORE would

be the development of comprehensive land use

and resource management plans throughout the

province, at the regional and community levels

(CORE 1994).

The Special Management designation is

applied in areas where there is concentration of

special values such as fish and wildlife habitat,

biodiversity corridors, viewscapes, cultural and

heritage values, backcountry recreation and

community watersheds; with the management

emphasis on conservation (CORE 1994). At the

CORE table, it was agreed that the Flathead is

important wildland and the recommendation

under CORE was to “maintain habitat in this area


viiviiviiviivii

for grizzly, wolf, large ungulates, and bull trout”

and to “maintain the integrity of the Flathead

ecosystem as a priority” (CORE 1994).

To date ‘Special Management’ has not been

defined. The Flathead is an area, which might

deserve high priority when it comes to implement-

ing the KBLUP and the guidelines that come with

the plan. The guidelines under the KBLUP pro-

vide a mechanism to protect key wildlife values

such as grizzly bear feeding and denning areas,

migration routes, and fish habitat. An opportu-

nity exists at the provincial SRMZ committee

level to use the North Fork as a showcase exam-

ple of what ‘special management’ means.

Forest Practices Code:

There is an opportunity under the Forest

Practices Code, a statute law, for planning at the

landscape unit level. This act establishes a for-

estry planning structure. Currently, the North

Fork (LU16,17,18) has been identified as a third

priority by the Ministry of Forests for this exer-

cise. As previously mentioned, a regional land-

scape unit plan has been completed at the

regional level, which resulted in the Kootenay-

Boundary Land-Use Plan under CORE. A more

detailed planning exercise within each landscape

unit is required to identify the specific issues on

the land. Preliminary landscape unit planning has

very recently begun for landscape unit 18.

B.C. Wildlife Management Area

On the B.C. side of the drainage, the North Fork

might be an excellent candidate for a wildlife

management area (WMA). Wildlife Management

Areas provide a valuable tool to help manage im-

portant fish and wildlife habitat. The purpose of

a WMA is “to encourage appreciation of the di-

verse values of wildlife while ensuring the prov-

ince’s wildlife heritage is passed on in

undiminished splendour and value to future gen-

erations” (MELP no date). Under the authority

provided by the Wildlife Act, Wildlife Management

Areas may be established where conservation and

management measures are considered essential

to the continued well being of resident or migra-

tory wildlife that are of regional, national or glo-

bal significance (MELP no date).

WMAs can encompass entire ecosystems, so

as to include the range of habitats required by a

particular species or they may be limited to ar-

eas that are essential to a species during a criti-

cal life cycle phase (eg. spawning, rearing,

calving, denning or nesting). The designation may

be used to secure migration routes, critical win-

ter feeding areas, important habitat for endan-

gered, threatened, sensitive or vulnerable species,

or areas of especially productive habitat and high

species richness (MELP no date). If the Flathead

were designated a WMA, wildlife would be given

top priority, but other activities could also be ac-

commodated if they were compatible with, or

manageable in terms of, wildlife objectives.

Alberta Approaches:

The Castle area is currently managed by the

Forest Service and the M.D. of Pincher Creek.

The planning documents which provide the guide-

lines to these management agencies are:


viiiviiiviiiviiiviii

a) A Policy for Resource Management of the

Eastern Slopes (revised 1984) and

b) Castle River Subregional Integrated Re-

source Plan

c) Castle Access Management Plan

In addition, two past planning processes es-

tablished recommendations that can illuminate

future planning.

d) Natural Resources Conservation Board

report on Westcastle Resort

e) Special Places 2000 process

A Policy for Resource Management of

the Eastern Slopes

The majority of the eastern slopes, of which

the Castle area is a part, is located in the ‘green

area’ which consists of land that has been with-

drawn from settlement (Government of Alberta

1984). The Eastern Slopes Policy was released

by the Alberta government in 1977 and revised

in 1984. The 1977 document excluded indus-

trial activity in all of the South Castle and West

Castle valleys (AWA, undated). The revised 1984

policy consists of less protective measures and

more emphasis on resource development. This

included permission for “restricted” oil and gas

exploration and development in areas that were

previously slated for protection. The objective

of the new policy is “...to ensure that all public

lands and resources in the Eastern Slopes are

protected, managed or developed according to

a philosophy of integrated resource manage-

ment” (Government of Alberta 1984).

The Eastern Slopes Policy consists of three

broad management categories within which there

are eight defined land use zones. The regional

land use zones are used to specify intents and

objectives for each unit of land in the area (Gov-

ernment of Alberta 1984). The relationship be-

tween the two is outlined in Table 1 in Chapter 1.

Refer to this table for an outline of compatible

activities in each land use zone.

Castle River Subregional Integrated

Resource Plan

The Castle River Subregional Integrated Re-

source Plan was approved by the Alberta Cabi-

net and released in 1985. It serves to complement

the Eastern Slopes Policy and refines the regional

zoning to the specific context of the Castle area,

using the same eight land use zones as defined

in the regional plan. The subregional integrated

resource plan takes precedence over the regional

plan for management decisions in the Castle

region (AENR 1985). This plan is intended as a

guide rather than a regulatory mechanism and

“is sufficiently flexible so that all future propos-

als for land use and development may be con-

sidered” (AENR 1985). The emphasis of the plan

is on watershed protection, recreation and tour-

ism but it also provides guidance for the man-

agement of timber, range, mineral and heritage

resources (AENR 1985).

The Integrated Resource Plan defines specific

resource management objectives and applies

them to five Resource Management Areas

(RMA’s) in the Castle River subregion. These

areas and objectives are as follows:


ixixixixix

Area A: Carbondale River-Lynx Creek

The primary intent of this area is to allow for

utilization of the full range of available

resources within a multiple-use context.

Area B: O’Hagan-Adanac

The primary intent of this area is to protect

critical wildlife habitat.

Area C: Castle-Carbondale Corridor

The primary intent of this area is to pro-

vide for a diverse range of tourism and

intensive recreation opportunities that are

consistent with the maintenance of the

natural environment. Intensive recreation

is defined as high-density recreational use

such as developed campgrounds, ski hills,

golf courses and other sites requiring rec-

reation management and services to main-

tain the recreation opportunities.

Area D: Castle-Front Range Headwaters

The primary intent of this area is to provide

for a wide range of extensive recreation op-

portunities. Extensive recreation is defined

as the recreational use of trails, natural lakes,

rivers and generally undeveloped or mini-

mally developed areas. It includes activities

such as hiking, backpacking, cross-country

skiing, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling.

Area E: Castle Foothills

The primary intent of this area is to

maintain and manage the forage resource

for use by domestic livestock and wildlife.

(AENR 1985)

These intent statements provide an overview

of the management emphasis for each area. De-

spite the fact that an area is zoned in a specific

category, activities that are not compatible in that

zone may, at the discretion of the Minister, be

considered (Gibbard and Sheppard 1992). This

occurred on Prairie Bluff in 1988. This area in

the Front Ranges was located in the prime pro-

tection zone. However, natural gas wells were

drilled there in 1988, an activity which is not con-

sidered “compatible” in this zone.

The Integrated Resource Plan is supposed to

be reviewed annually by the Southern Region

Regional Resource Management Committee and

a major plan review is to occur at five-year inter-

vals by the same committee (AENR 1985). The

Castle IRP is slated for review in 1999.

Castle River Access Management Plan

The Castle River Access Management Plan

(AMP) was initiated as a result of the subregional

integrated resource plan. In considering the man-

agement of the area on an integrated basis one of

the main issues raised by the public and provin-

cial government was motorized recreational ac-

cess (Rose et al 1988). The concerns with respect

to this use include impacts on other recreational

use and wildlife, soil erosion, stream siltation and

degradation of aesthetics. Therefore the Castle

River AMP was developed to try to strike a bal-

ance between the use of the area by motorized

recreational vehicles and resource protection

(Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992). This plan was

voluntary up until 1997 when the recommenda-

tions of the Castle Local Committee advised that

the plan should be enforced.


xxxxx

The Castle River AMP provides direction to

on and off-highway vehicle users on the manage-

ment of their activity in the Castle region. This

is done through the provision of a series of maps

that show the trails and roads on which this ac-

tivity is permitted. A summer map indicates the

trails that off-road vehicles may use and a winter

map outlines snowmobile trails. The trails them-

selves are marked with symbols indicating

whether it is a summer, winter or all-year round

trail. Trails that are not marked are off limits to

motorized recreational vehicles.

The West Castle Expansion and the

NRCB Report

In 1992 Vacation Alberta Corporation, with the

support of the Westcastle Development Authority

submitted an application to expand the

Westcastle Park ski area, located in the West

Castle Valley, into a four-season resort complex.

The proposed Westcastle expansion included the

creation of new ski runs with four new lifts,

snowmaking equipment, new day lodge facilities,

two 100-room hotels, condominium complexes,

staff-housing units and two golf courses (NRCB

1993). The application was submitted to the

Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)for

review. This board is established by the NRCB

Act and is set up to “...provide for an impartial

process to review projects that will or may af-

fect the natural resources of Alberta in order

to determine whether...the projects are in the

public interest, having regard to the social and

economic effects of the projects and the effect

of the projects on the environment.” (NRCB

1993). Projects that are subject to review may

not commence unless the NRCB has granted

approval with the authorization of Cabinet.

The Board concluded that the development

could proceed, with some modification of its origi-

nal plans, only if an area referred to as the

Waterton-Castle Wildland Recreation Area

(WCWRA) was designated as a special area in

return. The WCWRA would consist of 739 square

kilometres of land, within which there would be

a small (56 km2) recreation area and a smaller (5

km2) resort area where the development would

occur. The Board stated that without protec-

tion of this special area the four-season resort

would not be in the public interest as it would

lead to severe degradation of a vulnerable area

(NRCB 1993). Activities such as logging, live-

stock grazing and off-road vehicle use would not

be permitted in the WCWRA.

The Board was concerned about the current

pattern of land use in the Castle area and stated

that “the ecological resources of the area may

not be sustainable even with existing use” (NRCB

1993). This also led them to conclude that if this

level of use continues to increase it could put the

entire Crown of the Continent Ecosystem at risk

of further deterioration. The Board also believed

that “the general Waterton-Castle area is an area

of very special value in terms of scenic beauty

and ecological importance for fish, wildlife, wa-

ter and rare plants...and that Alberta could have

a “superior product” to offer for tourism and rec-

reation development if such resources were pro-

tected and managed wisely”. For these reasons

the Board’s decision included a further recom-


xixixixixi

mendation that the proposed WCWRA be estab-

lished and protected regardless of whether or not

the resort complex was developed (NRCB 1993).

The government of Alberta accepted the rec-

ommendations put forth by the NRCB but vari-

ous groups and individuals within the local

communities found it unacceptable (Castle Local

Committee 1997). The provincial government re-

acted by establishing the 14-member Castle River

Consultation Group (CRCG) who would work to

reach a consensus as to how the NRCB decision

could be implemented in a way that satisfied the

local communities. Consensus was reached on a

number of issues, however some members thought

logging should continue at the current levels and

off-road vehicle use should be permitted as out-

lined in the Access Management Plan (Fischbuch

and Brodersen 1995). The NRCB felt that these

activities were not compatible uses of a protected

area. This led four members to leave the commit-

tee and the government eventually abandoned the

process (Fischbuch and Broderson 1995).

Since this time piecemeal approval of various

deve· · lopment components has been granted by

the M.D. of Pincher Creek. The development plan

for 1996-2002 includes 150 residential lots, a new

ski rental shop, ski school and management of-

fices, renovations to the existing day lodge, a 25-

vehicle RV park, staff housing for 20, 100-room

overnight skier accommodation, food and bever-

age outlets and a new design for waterworks

(Mercon Engineering 1998). There have already

been 55 residential lots sold and a further 33 ap-

proved (Wendy Francis, pers. comm.). CMR is also

in the process of securing approval for a sewage

lagoon and has recently purchased 20 additional

acres of land at the base of the ski hill from the

Westcastle Development Authority (Gilmar 1998).

Special Places 2000

Special Places 2000 was released in March

1995 as Alberta’s Natural Heritage Policy.

The vision of Special Places 2000 consists of

establishing a comprehensive network of pro-

tected areas in Alberta that, together, achieve the

goals of: protection of species and ecosystems,

outdoor recreation, heritage appreciation and

tourism (Government of Alberta 1992). It aims to

have this network in place in Alberta by the year

2000. A protected area in this sense would be

one that is legislated and managed to protect Al-

berta’s heritage (Government of Alberta 1992).

Although the provincial government consid-

ers the Rocky Mountain Natural Region as fully

represented in protected areas, the Provincial

Coordinating Committee for Special Places was

given the task of addressing “hot spots” within

this natural region for consideration (Castle

Local Committee 1997). The Castle area was cho-

sen as one of these hot spots. This led to the

establishment of a Local Committee, chaired by

the M.D. of Pincher Creek, who would make rec-

ommendations on the boundary, designation, ac-

tivities and guidelines for the region to the

Minister of Environmental Protection. The Lo-

cal Committee consisted of 9 individuals from the

surrounding area, none of who had any previous

involvement in trying to gain protective status

for the Castle area. This committee met over a

six-month period to discuss information pre-


xiixiixiixiixii

sented to them from the public, government offi-

cials and industry followed by the development

of draft recommendations for public review.

A summary of the recommendations for the

Castle Candidate Area follows:

i) Designation of the West Castle Wetlands as

an ecological reserve with limited develop-

ment for interpretive\educational purposes

and managed by the Land and Forest Serv-

ice.

ii) Protection of two small areas within the

Asaani and Table Mountain nominations

through the land reservation system to

protect aboriginal values.

iii) Designation of the area as the Castle

Special Management Area (SMA) to be

managed as a multiple use area as set out in

the Castle River Subregional Integrated

Resource Plan (i.e. as it has been in the

past) with the implementation of the Castle

Access Management Plan through a Forest

Land Use Zone regulation.

iv) The Castle River Subregional IRP must be

updated to incorporate the Committee

recommendations and this plan must be

kept current.

v) Existing Zone 1 (Prime Protection) and

Zone 2 (Critical Wildlife) objectives should

incorporate the goal of preservation in

addition to watershed protection and critical

wildlife habitat. The committee makes no

recommendation for special designation of

the Big Sage candidate natural area because

it is already located in Zones 1 and 2 and

should therefore achieve proper manage-

ment through the IRP. However, the incor-

poration of preservation objectives in Zones

1 and 2 does not override any permitted

uses or conditions under the IRP.

vi) Land management responsibility for the

area should remain with the Land and

Forest Service.

vii) The Castle Access Management Plan

should be adhered to and an adequate

budget for education, implementation,

engineering (e.g. trail closures) and moni-

toring concerns must be put in place.

viii) All motorized access in the Front Range

canyons should be closed, with the exception

of South Drywood Canyon, which would stay

open from May to September. Where access

is required for industry in the closed

canyons, it should be gated. All existing

industrial access not specified in the Castle

AMP within the SMA should also be gated

for service vehicle use only.

ix) Industrial and commercial development

should be regulated by strict guidelines

that minimize impact on terrain and

sensitive areas.

Moving Forward

These processes have created fodder for co-

operative planning across provincial/ state

boundaries. They may provide guidance for next

steps taken after completion of this report.


xiiixiiixiiixiiixiii

Personal Communications

Alexander, Mike. 1998. Alberta Forest Service.Personal communication with A.Stewart.

Atlas Lumber. 1998. Personal Communication withA.Stewart.

Bonertz, Winona. 1992. Castle Area Resident.Personal Communication with A.Harris.

Clark, Jim. 1998. Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Personalcommunication with A.Stewart.

Clark, Jim and Wayne Norstrom. 1998. AlbertaEnvironmental Protection Fish and WildlifeDivision. Personal communication with J. Gilmar.

Davidson Peter. 1998. Forest EcosystemSpecialist,Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks. Personal communication with E. Konrad

Downes, Lee. 1998. Long time North Fork resident,Montana. Personal communication with B. Peck.

Ecklund, Jack. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personalcommunication with A. Harris.

Evans, Art. 1992. Chief Ranger, Alberta ForestService, Blairmore. Personal communication withM. Gibbard and D. Sheppard

Francis, Wendy. 1998. Canadian Parks and Wilder-ness Society. Personal communication withA.Stewart.

Grieve Dave. 1998. Mineral Lands Planner, Ministryof Employment and Investment. Personal commu-nication with E. Konrad.

Hayden, Brace. 1998. Ecosystem Specialist,Glacier National Park. Personal communica-tion with B. Peck.

Jones, Frank. 1992. Chief Ranger at Castle RiverRanger Station (1949-1953). Personal communica-tion with A.Harris.

Judd, Stan. 1992. Outfitter. Personal communicationwith A.Harris.

Kehr, Morgan. 1998. Alberta Forest Service. Personalcommunication with A.Stewart.

Kubasek, Steve. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personalcommunication with A.Harris.

McDonald Les. 1998. Senior Impact AssessmentBiologist, Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks. Personal communication with E.Konrad

McLaughlin, Frank.1992. Rancher and Stock Riderin Pincher Creek area. Personal communicationwith A.Harris.

McLellan Bruce. 1998. Bear Biologist, Ministry ofForests. Personal communication with E. Konrad

Marr, Rey. 1992. Castle Area Resident. Personalcommunication with A.Harris.

Martens, Warner. 1998. Shell Canada. Personalcommunication with A.Stewart.

Mitchell, Ed and Shirley. 1992. Castle Area Resi-dents. Personal communication with M. Gerrand.

Mulzet, Glen. 1998. Shell Canada. Personal commu-nication with A.Stewart.

Norstrom, Wayne. 1998. Alberta EnvironmentalProtection Fish and Wildlife Division. Personalcommunication with A.Stewart.

Potter, Jack. 1998. Chief Ranger, Glacier NationalPark. Personal communication with B. Peck.

Riviere, James. 1992. Outfitter. Personal communica-tion with A.Harris.

Russell, Andy. 1992. Author and outfitter. Personalcommunication with M.Gerrand.

Schneider, Ken. 1998. Alberta Forest Service. Per-sonal communication with A.Stewart.

Streloff, Ken. 1998. Planner, Crestbrook Forest Indus-tries. Personal communication with E. Konrad

Tchir, Ron. 1998. Alberta Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Services. Personal communicationwith A.Stewart.

Van Tighem, Kevin. 1998. Conservation Biologist,Waterton Lakes National Park. Personal communi-cation with C.Stewart.

Westover Bill. 1998. Fisheries Biologist, Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks. Personal communi-cation with E. Konrad

Wig, Daryl. 1998. Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Personalcommunication with A.Stewart.

Wilson, Larry. 1998. Long time North Fork resident,Montana. Personal communication with B. Peck.

BibliographyAchuff, Peter. 1992. Natural Regions and Subregions

of Alberta. A Revised Classification for ProtectedAreas Management. Canmore, AB.

Alberta Energy and Natural Resources (AENR).1985. Castle River Sub-Regional Integrated Re-source Plan. AENR, Resource Evaluation andPlanning Division, Edmonton, AB. 113pp.

Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). 1994.Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and OperatingGround Rules. Land and Forest Service, Edmon-ton, AB. 70pp.

References


xivxivxivxivxiv

AEP. 1994. Alberta’s Threatened Wildlife - BullTrout (Information Brochure). Alberta Fish andWildlife Services, Edmonton, AB.

AEP. 1995. Wolves in Alberta - Their Characteristics,History, Prey Relationships and Management. AEP,Edmonton, AB.

AEP. 1995. Management Plan for White-tailed Deer inAlberta. Natural Resources Service, Edmonton, AB.

AEP. 1996. The Status of Alberta Wildlife. AEP,Natural Resources Service, Edmonton, AB. 44pp.

AEP. 1997. Bears in Alberta - Their Characteristics,History, Behaviour and Management. AEP, Ed-monton, AB.

Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (AFWD). 1986.Summary of Resident and Registered Trapline furHarvests for the Southern Region. AFWD,Lethbridge. 14pp + appendix (with 1992 update).

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife (AFLW). 1989.Management Plan for Mule Deer in Alberta. Fishand Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. 141pp.

AFLW. 1990. Management Plan for Grizzly Bears inAlberta. Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton,AB. 164pp.

AFLW. 1991(a). Management Plan for Wolves inAlberta. Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton,AB. 89pp.

AFLW. 1991(b). The Status of Alberta Wildlife. Fishand Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB.

AFLW. 1992. Southern Region Recommended 1992/93 Big Game numbers: Special Licences andAuthorizations. Fish and Wildlife Division,Lethbridge, AB. 13pp.

Alberta Forest Service. 1992. Castle River AccessManagement Plan for Motorized RecreationalAccess. Project Summary Document - FinalDraft. 26pp.

Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. 1992. Atlasof Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of AlbertaNaturalists.

Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA). Undated (a).Wildlands for Recreation - 9 Areas on Alberta’sEast Slope. Alberta Wilderness Association,Calgary, AB. 123pp.

AWA. Undated (b). Saving the South Castle andProtecting Waterton Park - The Struggle Throughthe Decades. AWA, Calgary, AB. 5pp.

AWA. 1982. Interviews with Art Sandford and JudgeMcLaughlin. AWA Files. Calgary, AB.

AWA. 1986. Eastern Slopes Wildlands - Our LivingHeritage. AWA, Calgary, AB. 119pp.

Alley, N.F. 1973. Glacial stratigraphy and the limitsof the Rocky Mountain and Laurentide ice sheetsin southwestern Alberta, Canada. Bull. Can. Pet.Geol. 21(2): 153-177.

Anderson, Howard. 1978. Biophysical Analysis andEvaluation of Capability - Castle River Area.Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. 72pp.

Appleman, Richard A., Noble, Roger A. et al. 1990.Baseline Water-Quality Conditions for the NorthFork Flathead River, British Columbia and Mon-tana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geologym,Open-File Report 233. 69 pp.

Apps, C. 1996. Bobcat (Lynx rufus) habitat selectionand suitability assessment in southeast BritishColumbia. M.S. Thesis. University of Calgary,Calgary, Alberta.

Ayers, Dayna. Undated. The Rocky Mountain Front:A Landscape in Transition in Nutcracker Notes(http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/number7.html). USDA Forest Service, Missoula,Montana.

Barrett, Stephen W. 1996. Historic Role of Fire inWaterton Lakes National Park.

Basaraba, Rhonda. 1977. Grizzly Bear Managementin the Flathead Region of British Columbia.

Beaty, C.B. 1975. The Landscapes of SouthernAlberta: A Regional Geomorphology. Univ.Lethbridge Printing Services, Lethbridge. 95pp.

Behnke, R.J. 1972. The rationale of preservinggenetic diversity: examples of the utilization ofintraspecific races of salmonid fishes in fisheriesmanagement. Proceedings of the Annual confer-ence Western Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies 52:559-561.

Berglund, Doug. 1997. Comparison of the Departureof Current Vegetation Conditions From HistoricalVegetation Conditions. Flathead National ForestNote No. 11, 9pp.

Bishop, Frank. 1995. Presentation made to the CastleRiver Consultative Group: A Summary of EastSlope Stream Management (Southern Region).Alberta Fish and Wildlife, Lethbridge, AB.

Boag, T.D. and P.J. McCart. 1993. Baseline studeis ofbull and cutthroat trout in the West Castle River,Alberta. Prepared for Vacation Alberta Corpora-tion and HBT-AGRA Ltd. 52pp + appendices.

Border Grizzly Technical Committee. Grizzly Studies,North Fork of the Flathead River.

Boyd, Diane K., Ream, Robert R., et al. 1994. PreyTaken by Colonizing Wolves and Hunters in theGlacier National Park Area. J. Wildlife Manage.58(2):289-295.

Boyd, Diane. 1982. Coyote Wolf Interactions withregard to Food Habits and Movements in the NorthFork Flatheaad Drainage.

Broderson, Louise. 1996. The Impact of Logging onSoils in the Castle Wilderness. Castle-CrownWilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB.


xvxvxvxvxv

Brooks, Lynn. 1997. The Wolf in SouthwesternAlberta: Valued Predator or Vermin? Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB.

Bucholtz, C.W. 1993. Man in Glacier. Glacier NaturalHistory Association, West Glacier, Montana. 88 pp.

Byrne, Ray. 1993. Castle Drainage Creel Survey.Castle Local Committee. 1997. “A Living Document”.

Recommendations of the Castle Local Committee tothe Minister of Environmental Protection on theCastle Candidate Area. 18pp.

Castle Crown Wilderness Coalition. 1993. Submis-sion of the Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition inIntervention Submission of West Castle EcosystemCoalition Re Application #9201 by Vacation Al-berta Corporation. Calgary, AB.

Caton, Elaine L. 1996. Effects of Fire and SalvageLogging on the Cavity-nesting Bird Community inNorthwestern Montana. Phd. thesis, University ofMontana, Missoula. 115 pp.

Caw, G.B. 1976. B.C. Fish & Wildlife. An Inventory ofthe Flathead River and tributaries. Stream Inven-tory, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. 207 pgs.

Coleman, Ben. 1996. Old Growth and the CastleWilderness. Discussion Paper #5. Castle-CrownWilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB.

Cormack, R.G.H. 1956. Spruce-fir climax vegetation insouthwestern Alberta. For. Chron. 32(3): 346-349.

COSEWIC. 1998. http://www.cosewic.gc.caCrowsnest Pass Historical Society. 1979. Crowsnest

and its People. Friesen Printers, Calgary, AB. 914pp.Demarchi, R.A., B.N. McLellan, A.D. Martin, J.D.

Martin. July 1981. The B.C. Fish and WildlifeBranchís Position on Cattle Grazing in the FlatheadWatershed. A report prepared for the BritishColumbia Ministry of Forests.

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,Montana. August 1998. Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement, Cyclone/ Coal Timber Harvest.163 pp. plus appendices.

Doell, Alison. 1997. State of the Castle Wilderness.Fifth Annual Report. Castle-Crown WildernessCoalition, Pincher Creek, AB. 17pp.

Dupuis, Linda A. April 1997. Status and Distributionof the Tailed Frog in British Columbia. Centre forApplied Conservation Biology, Faculty of Forestry.University of British Columbia.

Environmental Management Associates. Assessmentof Federal-Provincial Water Quality Data for theFlathead and Simikameen Rivers. February 1994.Prepared for the coordinating committee of theCanada-B.C. Water Quality Monitoring Agreementby Environmental Management Associates. 123pp.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. WaterQuality for the Future of the Flathead - North ForkBaseline. Flathead Drainage 208 Project. 33 pp.

Ernst, Reg. 1996. Livestock Grazing as a Disturbancein the South Castle Region of Alberta. SpecialPublication No. 9 of the Castle-Crown WildernessCoalition. 14pp.

Espeseth, K.J. 1979. The Proposed Cabin Creek CoalDevelopment: the Social Impact for the North Forkof the Flathead River. M.S. thesis. University ofMontana, Missoula. 366 pp.

Estes, J.A, Tinker M.T., WIlliams T.M. Doak D.F.1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters link-ing oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science282: 369-580

Fairbarns, Matt. 1986. Conservation Values andManagement Concerns in the Candidate SouthCastle Natural Area. AFLW Public Lands Divi-sion, Edmonton, AB. 79pp.

Fernet, David A. 1993. Significant Fisheries IssuesAssociated with the West Castle Expansion. EMAEnvironmental Management Associates Ltd.,Calgary, AB.

Finklin. 1986. A climatic handbook for GlacierNational Park - with data for Waterton LakesNational Park. USDA Forest Service, Colorado.

Fischbuch, C. and L. Broderson. 1996. State of theCastle Wilderness. Fourth Annual Report 1995.Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek,AB. 15pp.

Fischbuch, C. and M. Gerrand. 1995. State of theCastle Wilderness. Third Annual Report 1994.Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Pincher Creek,AB. 15pp.

Fitch, Lorne. 1994. Bull trout in southwesternAlberta: Notes on Historical and Current Distri-bution. AEP Fish and Wildlife Services,Lethbridge, AB.

Flathead Basin Commission. 1998. Flathead LakeTotal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), Recom-mended Water Quality Targets and Load Reduc-tion, 2/18/98.

Flathead Basin Commission. July 1996. Draft Coop-eration Agreement Between the Province of BritishColumbia and the State of Montana. 2 pp. (Notenacted.)

Flathead Basin Commission. 1995-1996 BiennialReport. 54 pp

Flathead Basin Commission. 1993-1994 BiennialReport. 48 pp.



xvixvixvixvixvi

Flathead Basin Commission. June 1991. FlatheadBasin Forest Practices, Water Quality and FisheriesCooperative Program - Final Report. 215 pp

Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality andFisheries Cooperative. 1991. Final Report:Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality andFisheries Cooperative.


Flathead Basin Commission. 1988. Biennial Report.100+ pp.

Flathead Basin Commission. April 25-26, 1988.Conference, Our Clean Water - Flathead’s Resourcefor the Future. 226 pp.

Flathead Basin Commission . 1985. Biennial Re-port. 47 pp.

Flathead Lake Monitor, Newsletter of the FlatheadLakers. Spring 1998. 8 pp.

Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study -Final Report. June 1983. 184 pp.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) MineDevelopment Committee, Flathead River Interna-tional Study Board, December 1986.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) WaterQuality Criteria Subcommittee Technical Report.May 1987.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) BoardReport. July 1988.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) WaterQuality and Quantity Committee Technical Report.August 1987.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) BiologicalResources Committee, Technical Report. 1987.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) WaterUses Committee Technical Report. Dec. 1987.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS)Limnology Task Force Report on Flathead Lake,MT. Dec. 1986.

Flathead River International Study, (FRIS) BoardSupplementary Report. June 30, 1988.

Flathead River International Study Board, BiologicalResources Committee. 1987. Predicted Impacts ofthe Proposed Sage Creek Coal Limited Mine on theAquatic and

Hubbard, W.F. 1975. Preliminary Assessment andAnalysis of Vegetation and Wildlife within theHowell Creek - Cabin Creek Coal Mining Area,Flathead Valley. (Victoria)

Flathead Transboundary Council Science Committee.1993. Flathead International Conservation ReservePlan, Part I - North Fork of the Flathead (U.S.)Lands. 13 pp.

Gerrand, Michael and Dave Sheppard. 1993. Stateof the Castle Wilderness. First Annual Report1992. Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition,Pincher Creek, AB.

Gerrand, Michael, Ardell Harris and Dave Sheppard.Undated. History of the Castle Wilderness. Spe-cial Publication #5. Castle-Crown WildernessCoaltion, Pincher Creek, AB.

Gibbard, Marianne J. and David H. Sheppard. 1992.Castle Wilderness Environmental Inventory.Special Publication No.1, Castle-Crown WildernessCoalition, Pincher Creek, AB. 168pp.

Gilmar Jeff. 1998. State of the Castle Wilderness.Sixth Annual Report 1997. Castle-Crown Wilder-ness Coalition. 25pp.

Glacier National Park. 1991. Management PlanEnvironmental Assessment - North Fork StudyArea. 90 pp.

Glacier National Park. Avifauna of the North Fork ofthe Flathead River Flodd Plain, Glacier NationalPark 1976 Progress Report.

Government of Alberta. 1984. A Policy for ResourceManagement of the Eastern Slopes, Revised.Edmonton, AB.

Government of Alberta. 1992. Special Places 2000:Alberta’s Natural Heritage. Completing Alberta’sEndangered Spaces Network. Draft.

Gudmundson, L. 1980. Region 1 Summer GoatSurvey (Continental Divide - South #3 Highway).AFWD, Lethbridge, AB.

Gudmundson, L. 1988. Southern Region BighornSheep Survey. AFLW Fish and Wildlife Division.

Gudmundson, L. 1990. Southern Continental DivideGoat Survey (Waterton Lakes National Park toCrowsnest Pass). AFWD, Lethbridge, AB.

Gudmundson, L. 1992. Southern Continental DivideGoat Survey (WLNP to Crowsnest Pass). AFWD,Lethbridge, AB.

Hanson, W.R. 1973. Forest Utilization and Its Envi-ronmental Effects in Alberta. Alberta Environ-ment Conservation Authority, Edmonton. 66pp.

HBT AGRA Limited. 1992. West Castle ExpansionEnvironmental Impact Assessment. Volume 1.HBT HBT AGRA Limited, Calgary, AB.

Horejsi, Brian L. 1986. Status of the Grizzly Bear inthe South Castle - Waterton Lakes National ParkRegion of Alberta. Report.

Hornbeck, G.E., P. Balagus and R. Lauzon. 1992.Wildlife Track Counts in the West Castle WildlifeStudy Area, December, 1991. Technical Report tothe EIA for the proposed West Castle Four SeasonResort Development. Delta Environmental Man-agement Group Ltd., Calgary, AB. 16pp.


xviixviixviixviixvii

Hovey, F. and B.N. McLellan. Draft 1994. EstimatingPopulation Growth of Grizzly Bears from theFlathead River Drainage using computersimulations of reproductive and survival rates.

Hovey, F. and B.N. McLellan. Final 1995. EstimatingPopulation Growth of Grizzly Bears from theFlathead River Drainage using computersimulations of reproductive and survival rates.

Hummel, M. and S. Pettigrew. 1991. Wild Hunters:Predators in Peril. Key Porter Books, Ltd., To-ronto, Ontario. 244pp.

International Joint Commission. 1988. Impacts of aProposed Coal Mine in the Flathead River Basin.

International Joint Commission. June 1985. ReferenceDocuments, Flathead River Reference.

Jaques, D. 1980. Ecological analysis of wildlifehabitat in Red Deer County, Alberta. Kan. Centrefor Envir. Res., Univ. of Calgary.

Johnson, Olga W. 1969. Flathead and Kootenay, TheRivers, The Tribes and the Region’s Traders.Glendale.

Jonkel, C., Bumgarner T. and L.C. Lee. 1981. GrizzlyBears and the North Fork of the Flathead RiverFlood Plain.

Jonkel, C. and B.N. McLellan. 1979. Grizzly BearStudy Status Report, Flathead Area, B.C.

Kendall, Katherine, David Schirokauer, ErinShanahan, Rob Watt, Dan Reinhart, Roy Renkin,Steve Cain and Gerry Green. 1996a. Whitebarkpine health in Northern Rockies National ParkEcosystems in Nutcracker Notes (http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier /number7html).Missoula, MT.

Kendall, Katherine, Dayna Ayers and DavidSchirokauer. 1996b. Limber Pine Status fromAlberta and Wyoming in Nutcracker Notes (http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/number7.html).Missoula, MT.

Kerr, G.R. 1979. Flora and fauna of the CrowsnestRiver Drainage in Crowsnest and Its People.Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, Coleman, AB.pp. 20-23.

Ketter, D. 1980. Cambium feeding on forest trees bybears in the Upper Flathead River Drainage ofSoutheastern British Columbia.

Key, Carl. 1979. Small Mammal Utilization ofFloodplain Habitats along the North Fork FlatheadRiver. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univer-sity of Montana, Missoula.

Kootenay Boundary Land-Use Plan. 1997. KBLUPImplementation Strategy.

Kootenay Boundary Land-Use Plan. June 1997.KBLUP Implementation Strategy: Appendix 3 -Land and Resource Management Direction withinthe Cranbrook Forest District.

Kovach, J. 1979. Holocaust on the Castle River in1936 in Crowsnest and Its People. Crowsnest PassHistorical Society, Coleman, AB. pp. 352-354.

Kuijt, Job. 1993. Report on the Rare Plants of theWest Castle Area in Connection with VacationAlberta Application #9201 in Intervention Submis-sion of West Castle Ecosystem Coalition re: Appli-cation #9201 by Vacation Alberta Corportation.Calgary, AB. 24pp.

Kunkel, Kyran E. 1997. Predation by Wolves andOther Large Carnivores in Northwestern Montanaand Southeastern British Columbia. Phd. thesis.University of Montana, Missoula. 272 pp.

Kunkel, Kyran E. and Daniel H. Pletscher. 1995.Cervid-wolf relationships in the North Fork ofthe Flathead River: progress report July 1993-June 1994.

Kunkel, Kyran E. and Daniel H. Pletscher. 1995. FinalReport: Cervid-wolf relationships in the NorthFork of the Flathead River, Part II: Elk.

Landals, Maureen. 1974. Castle-Crowsnest - ASurvey of Park Potential. Alberta Department ofRecreation, Parks and Wildlife.

Langley, Margaret A. 1993. Habitat Selection,Mortality and Population Monitoring of ShirasMoose in the North Fork of the Flathead RiverValley, Montana.

Lyon, Jack L. 1979. Influences of timber harvestingand residue management on big game in Environ-mental Consequences of Timber Harvesting, Symp.Proc. Missoula, Montana. pp. 441-447.

Lea, E.C., B.L. Fuhr and L.E.H. Lacelle. December1988. Grizzly bear habitat of the Flathead Riverarea: expanded legend. 24 pgs.

Lesica, P. 1996. Using Fire History Models to Esti-mate Proportions of Old Growth Forest in North-west Montana, USA. Biological Conservation77:33-39.

Lloyd, K. Results of Field Trip to Game ManagementArea 5-1 (Flathead)

MacDonald, D.D. July 24-25, 1985. Proceedings ofthe FRB Bull trout biology and population dynam-ics modelling information exchange.

MacDonald Graham A. 1992. Where the Moun-tains Meet the Prairies: A History of WatertonLakes National Park. Environment Canada ParksService. 165pp.

MacLeod, Norm. 1983. Framework for PlanningAccess: the Flathead, Cranbrook Forest District.


xviiixviiixviiixviiixviii

Mattson, David J., Stephen Herrero, R. Gerald Wrightand Craig M. Pease. 1996. Science and Manage-ment of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears. Conserva-tion Biology. 10:1013-1025.

May, A.C. 1993. Protection of Predator/ Prey Diver-sity in the North Fork Valley of the Flathead River:a Case Study for Land Use Planning. M.S. thesis.University of Montana, Missoula. 84 pp. plusappendices.

Mayhood, David W. 1996. Historical Transformationof the Fish fauna of the Central Canadian Rockiesin Research Links - A Forum for Natural, Culturaland Social Studies. Parks Canada, Alberta andPacific-Yukon Regions.

Mayhood, Dave, Rob Ament, Rich Walker and BillHaskins. 1998. Selected Fishes of Yellowstone toYukon: Distribution and Status in A Sense of Place- Issues, Attitudes and Resources in theYellowstone to Yukon Ecoregion, Canmore, AB.

McDonald, J. and N.M. Strosher. 1986. Mine Devel-opment Committee Report Proposed Sage CreekCoal Limited Mine Signed Copy (Dec. 1986).Flathead River International Study.

McLellan, B.N. Habitat Selection by UngulatesWintering in the Flathead River Drainage, BC.

McLellan, Bruce N. 1991. Relationships betweenresource extraction industries and grizzly bears inthe Flathead River drainage in McCann, R.K.Grizzly Bear Management Workshop Proceedings,Revelstoke, B.C.

McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula-tion during a period of industrial resource extrac-tion. I. Density and age-sex composition. Depart-ment of Animal Science, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A2,received April 22, 1988.

McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula-tion during a period of industrial resource extrac-tion. II. Mortality rates and causes of death.Department of Animal Science, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T2A2, received April 22, 1988.

McLellan, B.N. Dynamics of a grizzly bear popula-tion during a period of industrial resource extrac-tion. III. Natality and rate of increase. Departmentof Animal Science, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A2, received April22, 1988.

McLellan, B.N. Relationships between humanindsutrial activity and grizzly bears. FlatheadGrizzly Project, Box 700, Marysville, BritishColumbia, Canada, V0B 1Z0

McLellan, B.N. 1980. Akamina-Kishinena GrizzlyProject Progress Report. B.C. Fish and WildlifeBranch, Carnbrook. Rept 49pp.

McLellan, B.N. 1981. Flathead grizzly ProjectProgress Report. Report to contributors. 81pp.Draft. Cranbrook.

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Grizzly bearsand resource-extraction industries: Effects of Roadson Behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journalof Applied Ecology (1988) 25, 451-460

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Grizzly bearsand resource-extraction industries: Habitat Dis-placement in Response to Seismic Exploration,Timber Harvesting and Road Maintenance. Jour-nal of Applied Ecology (1989) 26, 371-380

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. A Comparisonof grizzly bear harvest data from Montana andSoutheastern British Columbia. Wildl.Soc. Bull.16:371-375, 1988.

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton: Immediatereactions of Grizzly bears to human activities.Wildl.Soc.Bull. 17:269-274, 1989.

Mann, G.J. 1976. Fisheries Investigations in theFlathead River Drainage, B.C.: A Preliminary DataReport for Sage Creek Coal Ltd. and Rio Algom Ltd.

Mantas, Maria. 1998. Vascular Flora of the FlatheadNational Forest, USFS, 29 pp.

Marnell, Leo F. 1997. Herpetofauna of Glacier Na-tional Park. Reprinted from Northwestern Natural-ist, Vol. 78, No. 1, Spring 1997. 33 pp.

Matteson, M. 1993. Denning ecology of wolves innorthwest Montana and southern CanadianRockies. MS Thesis, University of Montana,Missoula. 63pp.

McKay, Katheryn L. 1997. Looking Back : A pictorialHistory of the Flathead Valley, Montana. North-west Montana Historical Society. 224 pp.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1997-1998. Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis.British Columbia.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995.Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia.Background Report. Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Elk-Flathead Operational Wildlife ManagementPlan. 1987

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Densitiesof Wintering Ungulates in the Flathead Watershed.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. May1984. Elk - Flathead Strategic EnvironmentalManagement Plan.


xixxixxixxixxix

Ministry of Forests. 1988. Coming of Age in theFlathead: How the British Columbia Forest Servicecontended with the Mountain Pine Beetle Infesta-tion of Southeastern British Columbia 1976-1985.Pest Management Report Number 10.

Ministry of Forests. Cooperative Study of MultipleUse of Natural Resources of the North Fork of theFlathead Valley. 1960.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. Update, 10/22/98, Bull Trout Counts Up in the Flathead, Swan.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. Harvest data,1987-1997 for White-tailed and Mule Deer, Elk,Moose, Mountain Lion, and Black Bear, HD 110.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1998. Octoberupdate on status and trend of westslope cutthroatpopulations in the North Fork of the Flathead.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1982. Fish andHabitat Inventory of the Streams in the North Forkof the Flathead River. Sponsored by EnvironmentalProtection Agency. 181 pp.

Montana Interagency Wolf Working Group. 1990.Annual Report. 28 PP.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 11/10/98.Species of Special Concern : North Fork FlatheadWatershed, Latalong 02, Quarters B & D.

Morgantini Luigi E. 1991. Prairie Bluff BighornSheep Study Final Report. Wildlife

Resources Consulting Ltd. Edmonton, AB. 33pp.Morgantini Luigi E. 1992. Movements and Distribu-

tion of Elk Southwest of Pincher Creek. ProjectUpdate. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 7pp.

Morgantini, Luigi E. 1993. The West Castle RiverValley: Ecology, Distribution and Movements ofElk, Bighorn Sheep, Moose and Other Ungulatesand the Potential Impact of the Proposed FourSeason Resort in Intervention Submission of WestCastle Ecosystem Coalition re: Application #9201by Vacation Alberta Corporation, Calgary, AB.

Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). 1993.Application to Construct Recreational and TourismFacilities in the West Castle Valley, near PincherCreek, Alberta. Decision Report. Natural Re-sources Conservation Board, Edmonton, AB.

Nature Conservancy. 1994. Five Year Strategic Planfor the North Fork of the Flathead River. 52 pp.

Nielson, P.L. 1973. Mammals of Waterton LakesNational Park. CWS, Edmonton, AB. 176pp.

North Fork Community and Friends. 1996. TheNorth Fork : Living With Wildlife. 13 pp.

North Fork Land Use Planning Committee. 1998.Survey Regarding Draft Regulations and NorthFork Land Development Code - Draft #1. 2 pp.

North Fork Land Use Planning Committee. Summer1986, Amended 1992. North Fork Flathead RiverValley Land Use Plan, Camas Creek to CanadianBorder. 63 pp.

Parks Canada. 1995. Guidelines for Old ForestManagement in Elk Island, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenayand Waterton Lakes National Parks.

Peden A.E. and G.W. Hughes. 1982. Status report ofthe shorthead sculpin in the Flathead River, BritishColumbia. B.C. Prov. Museum, Victoria. 82pp.

Pederson, Richard J. 1986. Management and impactsof roads in relation to elk populations in USDAForest Service, Recreational Impact on Wildlands:Conference Proceedings, Seattle, Washington.

Peek, J.M., M.R.Pelton, H.D.Picton, J.W.Schoen andPeter Zager. 1987. Grizzly bear conservation andmanagement: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin.15:160-169.

Perraton, Dave. 1994. Submission to the Castle RiverConsultative Group. Alberta Parks Service,Lethbridge.

Perry, Charles and Robert Overly. 1976. Impact ofroads on big game distribution in a portion of theBlue Mountains of Washington. Proc. Elk-Logging-Roads Symp., Univ. Idaho, pp. 62-68.

Pincher Creek Historical Society. 1974. Prairie Grassto Mountain Pass. History of the Pioneers ofPincher Creek and District. Pincher Creek Histori-cal Society, Pincher Creek, AB. 867pp.

Pletscher, Daniel H., Ream, Robert R. et al. 1996.Population Dynamics of a Recolonizing WolfPopulation. In Press, J. of Wildlife Mgmt. 23 pp.

Pletscher, D.H., Ream, R.R. et al. 1991. ManagingWolf and Ungulate Populations in an InternationalEcosystem. N. Am. Wildland Nat. Res. Conf. : 56.

Pletscher, Daniel. 1990 Annual Report: Gray WolfPrey Base Ecology in the North Fork of theFlathead River Drainage.

Powell, Roger A. and William J. Zielinski. 1994.Fisher in American Marten, Fisher, Lynx andWolverine in the Western United States. USDAForest Service, Colorado. pp. 38-73

Primm, Steven A. 1996. A pragmatic approach togrizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology.10: 1026-1035.

PRISM Environmental Management Consultants.1982. A Review of Petroleum Industry Operationsand Other Land Use Activities Affecting Wildlife.Canadian Petroleum Producers. Edmonton, AB.

Quinlan, Richard. 1997. Alberta Fish and Wildlife.Personal communication with A. Doell.


xxxxxxxxxx

Rachael,J. S. 1992. Mortality and Seasonal Distribu-tion of White-tailed Deer in an Area RecentlyRecolonized by Wolves. M.S. thesis. University ofMontana, Missoula. 115 pp.

Rasker, R. and A. Hackman 1996. Economic Develop-ment and the Conservation of Large Carnivores.Conservation Biology. Vol.10, No. August 1996.pgs.991-1002.

Ream, R., R. Harris, J. Smith and D. Boyd. 1985.Movement patterns of a lone wolf in unoccupiedwolf range, southeastern British Columbia. Cana-dian Field Naturalist 99(2):234-239.

Ream, Robert R., Fairchild, Michael W. et al. 1991.Population Dynamics and Home Range Changesin a Colonizing Wolf Population, p: 349-366 inThe Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - RedefiningAmerica’s Wilderness Heritage by Robert Keiterand Mark Boyce.

Ream, Robert R., Pletscher, D.H., Boyd, D.K.,Fairchild, M.W. 1991. Population Dynamics andMovements of Recolonizing Wolves in the GlacierNational Park Area. Annual Report, 1 September1990 - 31 August 1991. School of Forestry, Univ. ofMontana. 21 PP.

Ream, R.R., Pletscher, D.H., et al. 1990. PopulationDynamics and Movements of Recolonizing Wolvesin the Glacier National Park Area. Annual Report,1 October 1989 - 31 August 1990. School of For-estry, Univ. of Montana. 28 PP.

Ream R.R., Pletscher, D.H. et al. 1988. PopulationDynamics and Movements of Recolonizing Wolvesin the Glacier National Park Area. Annual Report,1 July 1987 - 30 September 1988. School of For-estry, Univ. of Montana. 24 PP.

Ream, Bob, Pletscher, Dan et al. 22 January 1987. AProspectus for Wolf Monitoring and Research inMontana. Wolf Studies Task Force, Univ. of Mon-tana, Mt. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Glacier National Park,USDA Forest Service. 60 PP.

Ream, Robert R., Fairchild, Michael W., et al. 1987.Wolf Monitoring and Research in and Adjacent toGlacier National Park. Section 6, Final Report(1984-87). School of Forestry and Mt. CooperativeWildlife Research Unit, Univ. of Montana. 45 PP.

Ream, Robert R, Fairchild, Michael W., and Boyd,Diane K. 1986. Wolf Ecology Project ProgressReport, July 1985 - June 1986. School of Forestryand Mt. Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 29 PP.

Ream, R. R. Harris, J. Smith, and D. Boyd. 1985.Movement Patterns of a Lone Wolf, Canislupus in Unoccupied Wolf Range, SoutheasternBritish Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist99(2) : 234-239.

Reeves, Brian. 1979. Prehistoric Peoples of theCrowsnest Pass in Crowsnest and Its People.Crowsnest Pass Historical Society, Coleman, AB.pp.13-19.

Regional Resource Management Committee. 1990.Castle River Sub-Regional Integrated ResourcePlanning Annual Report 1989/1990. AFLW,Southern Region, Lethbridge. 29pp.

Renewable Resources Sub-Committee. 1989. A Placefor Wildlife. Environment Council of Alberta,Edmonton, AB. 39pp.

Rennie, Jim and Garry Szabo. 1993. RegionalSportfishing Issues Associated with the West CastleExpansion in Intervention Submisssion of WestCastle Ecosystem Coalition re: Application #9201by Vacation Alberta Corporation. Calgary, AB.

Ringstad, N.R. and R.A. Demarchi. 1976. NorthFork of the Flathead: A Canadian View. WesternWildlands. Spring 1976.

Rodney, William. 1996. Kootenai Brown: Canada’sUnknown Frontiersman. Heritage House Publish-ing Company Ltd, Surrey, B.C. 256pp.

Rose, C.D., D.E. Wig and V.C. Craig. 1988. Castle RiverSub-region Access Management Plan BackgroundPaper. Department of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife.

Ruth, Toni K., Jonkel, Jamie J. et al. 1994. MountainLion-Wolf Interaction in the North Fork of theFlathead River, Montana. Progress Report, August1994. 25 PP.

Schindler D.W. 1998. Aquatic Issues in theYellowstone to Yukon in A Sense of Place - Issues,Attitudes and Resources in the Yellowstone toYukon Ecoregion. Canmore, AB.

Sheehan, S.W., G.L. Ennis and R.L. Hallam. 1980Water Quality study of the Flathead River basin inB.C. prior to proposed coal mining.

Shell Canada. 1992. Aerial Mosaic Map of the ShellWaterton Field.

Sheppard, B. 1982 Flathead River Fisheries Study.Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife andParks. 82pp.

Sheppard, Dave. 1994. State of the Castle Wilderness.Second Annual Report 1993. Castle-Crown Wil-derness Coalition, Pincher Creek, AB.

Sheridan, David. 1979. Off-road Vehicles on PublicLand. Council on Environmental Quality. Washing-ton, D.C.

Singer, Francis J. 1978. Seasonal Concentrations ofGrizzly Bears, North Fork of the Flathead River,Montana. Can. Field Nat. 92:283-286.

Singleton, P. 1996. Winter habitat selection by wolvesin the North Fork of the Flathead River Basin,Montana and British Columbia. MS Thesis, Uni-versity of Montana, Missoula. 116pp.


xxixxixxixxixxi

Stace-Smith, Richard. 1975. The Misuse ofSnowmobiles Against Wildlife in Canada. NatureCanada 4 (4)3-8.

Stanford, J.A., Stuart, T.J. and B.K. Ellis. 1983.Limnology of Flathead Lake : Final Report. YellowBay Biological Station. Sponsored by FlatheadRiver Basin Environmental Impact Study. 101 pp.

State of Montana, Office of the Governor. May 13,1982. Formal response of the State of Montanato the Sage Creek Coal Company Stage II appli-cation. 9 pp.

Stevens, W.W. Reconnaissance of Flathead River. 1922Stewart, Andrea D. 1998. Threats and Opportunities:

the elk and grizzly of the Castle region, south-western Alberta. Miistakis Institute for theRockies, Calgary, AB. 33pp.

Strong, W.L. 1992. Ecoregions and Ecodistricts ofAlberta. Volume 1. Ecological Land Surveys, Ltd.Edmonton, AB.

Stuart-Smith, G. Jon and S. Ellen MacDonald. Un-dated. Population Genetics of Whitebark Pine inthe Canadian Rockies in Nutcracker Notes (http:/www.mesc.usgs.gov/glacier/number7.html).Univ.of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Sutherland, Ronald J. 1982. Recreation and Preserva-tion Valuation Estimates for the Flathead River &Lake System. Sponsored by Flathead River BasinEnvironmental Impact Study. 81 pp.

Titus, Kimberly. 1991. Forest management andbrown bear ecology in southeast Alaska inMcCann, R.K. Grizzly Bear Management Work-shop Proceedings, Revelstoke, B.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. BiologicalOpinion to Federal Highway Administrationregarding upgrades to North Fork Road.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Biologicalopinion to Federal Highway Administration regard-ing paving of North Fork Road.

U.S. Forest Service. September 1998. Final Envi-ronmental Impact Statement, Amentment 21 tothe Flathead National Forest Plan. 176 pp. plusappendices.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Glacier View Ranger Dis-trict/ Species With Special Status, printout, 4 pages.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printouts of North ForkCover Types,Structure Classes, Terrestrial Commu-nities, and Physiographic Types, 4 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printout of North Fork RoadMiles ans Access Status. 1 pp. by John Ganiere.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Printout of Trails onGlacier View Ranger District, Flathead NationalForest. 4 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1997. Flathead Wild and ScenicRiver System Monitoring Report. 11 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1995-1997. Recreation LodgingReports. Glacier View/ Hungry Horse RangerDistricts. 3 PP.

U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Decision Notice and Find-ing of No Significant Impact - Hornet WedgeTimber Sale. 48 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. February 1995. Amendment 19 tothe Flathead National Forest Plan, plus BiologicalOpinion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Flathead Wild and ScenicRiver - Recreation Management Direction. 131 pp.plus appendices.

U.S. Forest Service. 1972. Water Yield Increase Due toVegetation Removal on the Glacier View RangerDistrict, USFS Hydrologist Robert Delk.

Van Tighem, Kevin and E. Fox. 1997. Wolves inWaterton - Adaptive ecosystem Management: aproblem definition case history. Waterton LakesNational Park.

Walker, R. and L. Craighead. Analyzing wildlifemovement corridors in Montana using GIS.American Wildlands. Paper presented at 17thAnnual Environmental Systems Research InstituteUsers Conference. Report Number 11, May 6, 1997.

Water Quality in Region I, the Flathead RiverBasin. 1976.

Water Quality in the Elk and Flathead RiverBasins. 1978.

Waterton Lakes National Park (WLNP). 1984. Re-source Description and Analysis, Volume 1. ParksCanada, Western Region, Calgary, AB. 454pp.

WLNP. 1989. Background Information: WatertonLakes National Park Management Plan Review.Canadian Parks Service. 277pp.

WLNP Files 1992. Elk.WLNP Files. 1992. Bighorn Sheep.Weaver, John L., Paul C. Paquet and Leonard F.

Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and Conservation ofLarge Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conser-vation Biology. 10: 964-976.

Wilson, David Jr. 1984. Cabin Creek and Interna-tional Law - An Overview in The Public Land LawReview, Vol. 5, Spring 1984, pages 110-127.

Wilton, P.H. Exploration and Development HighlightsKootenay Region - 1997. for Ministry of Employ-ment and Investment, Energy and Minerals Divi-sion, Mines Branch.

Zager, Peter. 1980. The influence of logging andwildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwesternMontana. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Montana,Missoula MT. 131pp.