Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the ...€¦ · Land use, climate change and...

Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North

1 Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment



Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North Saskatchewan and

Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment

Dan Farr, Colleen Mortimer, Faye Wyatt, Andrew Braid, Charlie Loewen, Craig Emmerton, Simon Slater

Cover photo: Wayne Crocker

This publication can be found at: open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697.

Comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may be directed to:

Ministry of Environment and Parks, Environmental Monitoring and Science Division

10th Floor, 9888 Jasper Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 5C6

Tel: 780-229-7200

Toll Free: 1-844-323-6372

Fax: 780-702-0169

Email: [email protected]

Media Inquiries: [email protected]

Website: environmentalmonitoring.alberta.ca

Recommended citation:

Farr. D., Mortimer, C., Wyatt, F., Braid, A., Loewen, C., Emmerton, C., and Slater, S. 2018. Land use, climate change and ecological

responses in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment. Government of Alberta, Ministry

of Environment and Parks. ISBN 978-1-4601-4069-7. Available at: open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Alberta Environment and Parks, 2018.

This publication is issued under the Open Government Licence - Alberta open.alberta.ca/licence.

Published September 2018

ISBN 978-1-4601-4069-7

https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://environmentalmonitoring.alberta.ca/


http://open.alberta.ca/licence


Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment 3

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the external reviewers for providing their technical reviews and

feedback, which have enhanced this work.

Reviewer 1 holds a Ph.D. in Geography with a specialization in alpine snow hydrology and

climatology, and has over 35 years of experience examining Arctic systems and their role in climate,

including the role of major circumpolar river systems, particularly those originating in western

Canada. The reviewer has held senior scientific positions with a federal department and jointly

through a research chair position, with a Canadian university. The reviewer has co-authored

international scientific assessments focused on cold regions, including for the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, for which the reviewer was jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Reviewer 2 holds a M.Sc. and Ph.D. in fire history and fire regime research. The reviewer has 27

years of experience in this field and specializes in mountain and foothills landscapes of western

Canada, general fire ecology, as well as the effect of topography on forest survivorship to fire.

Reviewer 3 holds a Ph.D. in Conservation Biology and has considerable research and publication

experience in landscape ecology, climate change risk assessments, and species habitat suitability

studies, with particular focus on North America and western Canada.

Reviewer 4 holds a Ph.D. in ecology and has worked in management and research of terrestrial

mammals for over 30 years. The reviewer’s management focus has been in population

management of hunted and trapped mammals and their research has focused mainly on carnivore

ecology in western Canada.

Reviewer 5 holds a M.Sc. in Ecology and a B.Sc. in Wildlife Biology. The reviewer has substantial

experience in biometrics including mark-recapture estimation, habitat modelling, and spatial mark-

recapture methods. The reviewer has an extensive record of publication with an emphasis on

estimation of the application of modern statistical methods to carnivore and ungulate conservation.

Reviewer 6 holds a Ph.D. in forest ecology with nearly 20 years experience in fire ecology and

ecosystem change dynamics.



Executive summary The Eastern Slopes of Canada’s Rocky Mountains have been managed for headwater protection,

natural resource production, recreation, and other land uses for over a century. To inform future

land use planning in the Eastern Slopes of west-central Alberta, a review was conducted of key

land use stressors and expected ecological responses. Altered fire regimes, forest harvesting, and

linear disturbances are key stressors that, along with climate, and other environmental drivers,

affect wildlife, hydrology, and other valued ecosystem attributes. The current status of each stressor

in the study area was characterized from geospatial and other environmental datasets, expected

ecological responses were summarized from reviews of the published literature, and future

research and monitoring priorities were identified.

Changes to the historical fire regime in the study area were assessed by examining provincial fire

records and published sources to describe fire regime characteristics such as frequency and cause.

Forest harvest areas were delineated from provincial government records, and linear disturbances

were compiled from a variety of provincial and other sources. The area of interior habitat remaining

in each of the 96 watersheds in the study area was calculated by buffering linear disturbances,

forest harvest areas, and other anthropogenic disturbances. The influence of regional climate

variability and change was assessed by examining changes in temperature and precipitation in the

study area since 1951 using the ClimateNA software. Because the study area is highly valued as

a source of drinking water for numerous communities, and is important habitat for key riverine

species, an analysis of streamflow during each month of the open water season (April-October) for

the period 1984-2013 was also conducted.

While there are substantial gaps in the documentation of historical fire regimes in the study area,

there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the historical fire regime has changed since the

cessation of traditional burning by Indigenous peoples in the late 19th century and the

implementation of modern fire suppression efforts in the middle of the 20th century. Over the past

several decades, both the frequency and spatial extent of fire have declined compared to historical

conditions. This altered fire regime has numerous implications for wildlife and other ecosystem

attributes, including:

encroachment of trees and shrubs into non-forest areas such as montane grasslands

limited creation of post-fire conditions suitable for germination and growth of pioneer and

early seral plants

increased area of mature and old forest through succession of younger seral stage stands

limited post-fire alteration of stream and riverine ecosystems (flow regime, temperature,

nutrients, sediments and biota)

increased likelihood of future wildfire



Within the Foothills Natural Region (47% of the study area), forest harvesting has replaced wildfire

as the dominant stand-replacing disturbance over the past several decades. While forest harvesting

and fire bear some similarities (e.g., both clearcutting and high-severity fires significantly alter forest

structure and composition, and create a dominant cohort of trees), there are significant differences

between the two disturbance regimes. Expected ecological responses to forest harvesting in the

study area stem from the following:

establishment of young forest stands

reduced area of mature and old forest

post-harvest alteration of stream ecosystems

While the western half of the study area (west of Forestry Trunk Road 734) is relatively free of linear

disturbances, most watersheds in the eastern half of the study area are heavily dissected by roads,

seismic lines, trails, and other linear disturbances associated with the energy, forestry, and

agricultural sectors. Only the western half of this landscape can be considered remote; the area of

interior habitat exceeds 80% in most western watersheds. In contrast, interior habitat comprises

less than 50% of most eastern watersheds. Expected ecological responses to high densities of

linear disturbances include:

altered wildlife behaviour and increased risk of human-caused wildlife mortality

creation of conditions suitable for the establishment of disturbance-adapted plants

potential alteration of stream and river water quality from increased sediment inputs at

stream crossings

While most of the evidence available to assess ecological responses to linear disturbances comes

from studies of road effects, most linear disturbances in the study area are trails rather than roads.

Additional studies are needed to characterize the ecological impacts of roads compared to trails,

and to understand the influence of associated human use. The frequency, timing, and type (e.g.,

motorized vs non-motorized) of human activity is likely to have an incremental effect on many

ecological responses.

Regional climate variability and change are expected to have far-reaching effects on wildlife and

other ecosystem attributes in the Eastern Slopes. Changes in the study area’s climate since 1951

include higher air temperatures, especially during the winter, and reduced snowfall. Projected future

changes include higher mean annual air temperature, increased total annual precipitation, and

decreased snowfall. Potential ecological responses to these climatic changes include:

Shifting and altered vegetation communities (e.g., upslope movement of treeline,

expansion of montane grasslands, transition from coniferous to deciduous forest, changes

in vegetation community composition)



Altered streamflow and increased water temperature

Analysis of open water season streamflow records in the study area indicate that June streamflow

has increased over the past few decades. Changes in the timing of peak flow has implications for

the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems and downstream communities. Projected

increases in stream and river water temperature and changing river ice conditions would also affect

cold-water fish species such as bull trout and their associated food webs.

While much is known about the ecological and anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem response in the

Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River basins, additional research and monitoring

are needed to inform evidence-based regional land use planning. Three research priorities would

address key knowledge gaps:

reconstruction of historical fire regimes

integrated assessment of environmental drivers affecting hydrological and water quality

regimes

systematic reviews of ecological response to land use

Improved monitoring is also needed to assess the effectiveness of current and proposed

environmental management strategies implemented in the study area, including the single and

cumulative effects of:

prescribed burns

forest harvesting

post-fire harvest and silviculture treatments

linear disturbance regulation

conservation areas



Table of Contents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Study area ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Land use, climate change, and streamflow ............................................................................... 16

Ecological responses ................................................................................................................. 16

Overview of key land use stressors ................................................................................................ 18

Altered fire regimes .................................................................................................................... 18

Historical fire regime ............................................................................................................... 18

Recent fire regime .................................................................................................................. 20

Future fire regime ................................................................................................................... 23

Forest harvesting ....................................................................................................................... 24

Linear disturbances .................................................................................................................... 27

Overview of climate and streamflow ............................................................................................... 32

Climate variability and change ................................................................................................... 32

Streamflow ................................................................................................................................. 33

Future climate and streamflow ................................................................................................... 34

Potential ecological responses to land use stressors ..................................................................... 36

Altered fire regimes .................................................................................................................... 36



Altered wildlife habitat use and population dynamics............................................................. 41

Establishment of disturbance-adapted plants ........................................................................ 43

Alteration of stream and river water quality ............................................................................ 43

Potential ecological responses to climate variability and change .................................................. 47

Priority research and monitoring needs .......................................................................................... 49

Applied research priorities ......................................................................................................... 50

Improved reconstruction of historical fire regimes .................................................................. 50



Integrated assessment of environmental drivers affecting hydrological and water quality

regimes ................................................................................................................................... 51

Systematic reviews of ecological response to land use ......................................................... 52

Monitoring the effectiveness of land use plans .......................................................................... 53

Prescribed burns .................................................................................................................... 54

Forest harvesting .................................................................................................................... 54

Post-fire harvest and silvicultural treatments ......................................................................... 55

Linear disturbance regulation ................................................................................................. 55

Conservation areas ................................................................................................................ 56

Literature cited ................................................................................................................................ 58

Appendix A. Data sources and analyses ........................................................................................ 81

Wildfire ....................................................................................................................................... 81



Interior habitat ............................................................................................................................ 83

Climate change .......................................................................................................................... 88

Streamflow ................................................................................................................................. 94

Methods .................................................................................................................................. 94

Results .................................................................................................................................... 94

Literature cited ......................................................................................................................... 106

Appendix B. Systematic mapping of published evidence for land use-species relationships ...... 108

Objective .................................................................................................................................. 108

Search strategy ........................................................................................................................ 108

Search string ............................................................................................................................ 108

Article screening ....................................................................................................................... 109

Data extraction ......................................................................................................................... 109

Synthesis .................................................................................................................................. 110

Report ...................................................................................................................................... 110

Results ..................................................................................................................................... 110

Literature cited ......................................................................................................................... 111



List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of the historical fire regime in the study area, based on sources listed in

the text. ............................................................................................................................ 20

Table 2. Summary of the recent fire regime in the study area, modified from Alberta

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (2012), Rogeau (2009),

Stockdale (2011) and Andison (2011). ............................................................................ 22

Table 3. Area burned (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017b) and harvested (Forest

Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

2018) in each Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). .......................... 24

Table 4. Summary of recent (since ~1950) trends in climate parameters in the Eastern

Slopes. Sources are listed in text. ................................................................................... 33

Table 5. Summary of potential ecological responses of selected species to land use and

climate change in the study area. Supporting evidence for each entry is presented in

the text. + Positive response; - Negative response; + - Both positive and negative

response; 0 Response is indirect or unlikely. ................................................................ 39

Table A1. Buffer distances assigned to linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan

and Upper Red Deer River Basins for the calculation of interior habitat. See text for

details. ............................................................................................................................. 84

Table A2. Buffer distances assigned to forest harvest areas in the Upper North

Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins for the calculation of interior habitat.

See text for details. .......................................................................................................... 84

Table A3. Buffer distances assigned to features in the 2016 Human Footprint Inventory

(Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2018) for the calculation of interior habitat. .... 85

Table A4. Annual climate variables for the period 1951-1980 for the study area. Source:

ClimateNA (Wang et al. 2016) ......................................................................................... 90

Table A5. Annual climate variables for the period 1981-2010 for the study area. Source:


Table A6. Annual climate variables for the period 2081-2100 for the study area, RCP4.5


Table A7. Annual climate variables for the period 2081-2100 for the study area, RCP8.5


Table B1. Key findings of articles retrieved using the systematic mapping protocol. Source

documentation available at open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697. ................. 112



List of Figures Figure 1. A) Map of the study area. B) Location of the study area in Alberta at the

headwaters of the North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River basins. C) Public Land

Use Zones comprising the Bighorn Backcountry. Data Sources Alberta ....................... 15

Figure 2. Wildfire extent (a) and occurrence (b) in the study area. Wildfire extent for 1941-

2016 and wildfire occurrence for 1961-2016 obtained from Alberta Agriculture and

Forestry’s wildfire perimeter dataset (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017c) and

historic wildfire dataset (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017b), respectively. Only

wildfires >200 ha (Class E) are displayed in (a). ............................................................ 21

Figure 3. Cumulative area of disturbance by fire and forest harvesting in each Natural

Subregion in the study area since 1961. Sources: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry

(2017b), Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer

River Basins (2018). ........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4. Forest harvest areas in the study area, 1961-2016. Source: Forest Harvest Areas

in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018). .............. 26

Figure 5. Roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in the study area. Source: Linear

disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

(2018). ............................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 6. Density of roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in study area watersheds.

Source: Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer

River Basins (2018). See Appendix A for watershed boundaries ................................... 29

Figure 7. Distribution of the density of roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in the study

area. Source: Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red

Deer River Basins (2018). ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 8. Interior habitat in study area watersheds. Sources: Linear disturbances in the

Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018). Linear

disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

(2018), Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer

River Basins (2018), 2016 Human Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring

Institute 2018). See Appendix A for watershed boundaries. .......................................... 31

Figure 9. Streamflow trends in the study area, 1984-2013, based on hydrometric data for

seventeen stations in the study area. Source: Environment and Climate Change

Canada (2018). See Appendix A for a description of methods. ..................................... 35

Figure 10. Grizzly bear density (a, b), habitat value (c), and mortality risk (d) in the study

area. Density estimates (Boulanger et al. 2018) are based on population inventories

conducted in Bear Management Area (BMA) 3 (Yellowhead) in 2004 (Boulanger et al.

2005a) and BMA 4 (Clearwater) in 2005 (Boulanger et al 2005b), and are shown here



for sampling grid centroids. Grizzly bear habitat value and mortality risk are modelled

for 2015 conditions (Source: fRI Research Grizzly Bear Program). ............................... 44

Figure 11. The number of studies meeting the systematic mapping inclusion criteria, which

describe evidence of ecological response to land use and associated stressors by each

species. Note that multiple studies may be reported for single research articles when

multiple stressors or species were described. See Appendix B for a description of

methods. .......................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 12. Historic and current adult bull trout density in the study area. Density ranks were

assigned to each HUC 8 watershed based on naïve occupancy (proportion of sites

were bull trout were detected) supplemented by angler catch rates and expert opinion.

Data source: Alberta Environment and Parks (2018b) ................................................... 46

Figure A1. Interior habitat in the study area based on buffers on linear and non-linear

disturbances of (a) 50 m and (b) 200 m. Sources: Linear disturbances in the Upper

North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), Forest Harvest Areas in

the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), 2016 Human

Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2018). .............................. 86

Figure A2. Watersheds used as the unit of analysis for spatial summaries. Data source:

Alberta Environment and Parks (2017a). ........................................................................ 87

Figure A3. Hydrometric gauging stations (non-regulated) in the study area. Source:

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). ........................................................ 95

Figure A4. 1984-2013 average daily discharge (m³/s) for each month during the open water

season (April-October). Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). .... 96

Figure A5. Annual hydrographs for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) for

the period 1984-2013. Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). ...... 97

Figure A6: April daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3)

having data in at least 27 of the 30 years during 1984-2013. Source: Environment and

Climate Change Canada (2018). .................................................................................... 99

Figure A7: May daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3)


Climate Change Canada (2018). .................................................................................. 100

Figure A8: June daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig.

A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years during 1984-2013. Source: Environment

and Climate Change Canada (2018). ........................................................................... 101

Figure A9: July daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3)


Climate Change Canada (2018). .................................................................................. 102



Figure A10: August daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig.

A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years during 1984-2013. Source: Environment

and Climate Change Canada (2018). ........................................................................... 103

Figure A11: September daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area

(Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years during 1984-2013. Source:

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). ...................................................... 104

Figure A12: October daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area

(Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years during 1984-2013. Source:

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). ...................................................... 105



Introduction The Eastern Slopes of Canada’s Rocky Mountains have long been valued as a source of water for

the three Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba), and have been managed by federal

and provincial governments for over a century to protect this ecosystem service (Murphy 1985).

However, this iconic landscape produces more than water. Much of Alberta’s commercial lumber

and pulp production occurs in the Eastern Slopes, supporting forestry-based communities and

employment. The region’s natural gas reserves contribute to the provincial economy through

royalties and taxes, with additional economic contributions through direct and indirect employment.

As an expanse of public land that is easily accessible to Alberta’s growing population, the Eastern

Slopes are also a destination for outdoor recreation, fishing, hunting, trapping, and a variety of

traditional land use activities.

Provincial government policy is intended to support natural resource development and a range of

other land uses in the Eastern Slopes without compromising source water production, wildlife, and

other ecosystem services (Government of Alberta 1984). Policy updates are ongoing, most recently

under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (2013), which directs regional land use planning

throughout the Province. A regional plan for the South Saskatchewan watershed has been

completed (Government of Alberta 2018b), and a plan for the North Saskatchewan watershed was

initiated in 2014 (Government of Alberta 2014).

Evaluating the potential impacts of land use on regional environmental outcomes is challenging

because many outcomes are affected by factors such as industrial development that government

can regulate at the regional level, and factors such as climate change that cannot be regulated at

the regional scale. Identifying these factors, and understanding how they affect ecosystems, is

essential for land use planners aiming to achieve desired outcomes while minimizing the risk of

unintended consequences.

Among the many drivers of ecosystem dynamics in the Eastern Slopes, four were selected that are

particularly relevant to land use planning: altered fire regimes, forest harvesting, linear

disturbances, and regional climate variability and change. Understanding these factors, and how

species and other ecosystem attributes may respond to them, can support evidence-based land

use planning. The purpose of this report is to characterize each stressor, summarize expected

ecological responses base on a review of the scientific literature, and identify future research and

monitoring priorities.



Study area The study area is in west-central Alberta, extending from the continental divide to the eastern limit

of the Foothills Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The study area encompasses

the Upper North Saskatchewan River Basin and part of the adjacent Upper Red Deer River Basin

(Fig. 1), a total area of 24,677 km2. It includes parts of two National Parks (Banff and Jasper), two

Provincial Wilderness Areas (Whitegoat and Siffleur), several Public Land Use Zones comprising

the Bighorn Backcountry, additional public lands in Alberta’s Green Area, and private land on the

eastern edge of the study area.

The study area is approximately equally divided between the Rocky Mountain (47%) and Foothills

Natural Regions (50%), with a small proportion of Boreal Forest (3%) east of the Foothills (Natural

Regions Committee 2006). The study area contains 24% and 18% of the provincial extent of Rocky

Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions, respectively. A short growing season and frost-free period

limits plant growth, especially in the Alpine and Subalpine Natural Subregions in the western part

of the study area. Frequent erosion and deposition events such as avalanches and landslides

disrupt soil formation at higher elevations. In the Foothills, soils are predominantly luvisols and

brunisols (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017a). Vegetation cover is dominated by coniferous

forest, with smaller proportions of mixedwood forest and non-forest vegetation (Castilla et al. 2014).

The study area is located within a larger continental cordilleran ecosystem that has a west-to-east

hydro-climatic and related biogeographical transition from mountains to foothills and supports a

terrestrial and aquatic animal, plant and wildlife species complex that are part of larger regional

populations and communities that extend along the Eastern Slopes of the continental divide.

Watersheds in the mountain headwaters of Banff and Jasper National Parks are connected

hydrologically to the Foothills and beyond through two major river systems (North Saskatchewan

and Red Deer, Fig. 1). Flow regimes are spring snowmelt dominated and related water quality

characteristics of the watersheds represent an interplay of regional geology, climatology and land

use. Stream and river flows peak in the late spring during snowmelt and associated rainfall events,

declines over the summer-autumn period, and is low during winter when precipitation is stored as

snow, particularly at higher elevations.

Alberta’s Eastern Slopes represent an important biocultural landscape where inextricably linked

biological and cultural systems have co-evolved (Bridgewater and Arico 2002, Plumwood 2006).

For centuries, the region has been the permanent or seasonal home of many Indigenous

peoples. Today, the Ĩyãħé Nakota, also known as the Stoney Nakota Nation, as well as the

Sunchild First Nation, O’Chiese First Nation, and Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation, along with

other Indigenous peoples, continue to maintain cultural and spiritual relationships with their

traditional territories in the area.



Figure 1. A) Map of the study area. B) Location of the study area in Alberta at the headwaters of

the North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River basins. C) Public Land Use Zones comprising the

Bighorn Backcountry. Data Sources Alberta Environment and Parks 2004a, 2004b, 2010, 2016,

2017a, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e, 2018a, 2018d.



The Indigenous peoples’ way of life in the region depends upon resilience of the area’s biocultural

landscape, including cultural keystone species (Garibaldi and Taylor 2004) in the face of growing

environmental pressures. Consequently, the ongoing development of a comprehensive

understanding of past, current and future states of this region will require the application of a

Multiple Evidence Based (MEB) approach (after Tengö et al. 2014) that considers best available

information that comes from both Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge systems.

Methods

Land use, climate change, and streamflow

A list and description of all data sources and processing methods are available in Appendix A. A

variety of sources were used to characterize fire regimes, forest harvesting, linear disturbances,

and regional climate variability and change in the study area. Alterations in the fire regime were

assessed by examining provincial fire records and published sources that characterized historical

and current fire patterns. Changes in the magnitude and spatial extent of forest harvesting and

linear disturbances were examined using provincial maps and geospatial analyses. Linear

disturbances, defined as straight or curved movement corridors created by people, were mapped

from Alberta Provincial Base Features, supplemented with additional information on pipelines and

trails. This linear disturbance dataset, combined with a map of forest harvest areas and other

disturbance types, was used to calculate the area of interior habitat remaining in the 96 watersheds

in the study area. Interior habitat is defined as habitat that is beyond a defined buffer distance from

anthropogenic disturbances. Buffer distances used to delineate interior habitat vary by disturbance

type, ranging from 20 m to 200 m. The influence of regional climate variability and change was

assessed by examining changes (since 1951) in temperature and precipitation in the study area

using the ClimateNA software, which provides downscaled climate grids based on historic and

present-day weather station observations and future climate model projections. Because the study

area is also highly valued as a source of drinking water for numerous communities and is important

habitat for key riverine species, an analysis of streamflow during each month of the open water

season (April-October) for the period 1984-2013 was performed.

Ecological responses

Published studies of ecological response to altered fire regimes, forest harvesting, linear

disturbances, and climate variability and change were reviewed, building on a previous review of

ecological responses to human activities in southwestern Alberta (Farr et al. 2017). Because



responses to land use are species-specific, several species were selected to provide specific

examples of ecological responses to land use and climate change. They were selected from

candidate species identified by government biologists and an Indigenous expert familiar with the

study area. Government biologists identified potential “landscape species” (Sanderson et al. 2002,

Coppolillo et al. 2004), and the Indigenous expert helped identify species of cultural significance.

The focal species are bison (Bison bison), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces alces),

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and two species of five-

needled pines (whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis)). These focal

species are used to provide examples of ecological responses to land use stressors, and are not

assumed to be representative, or indicators, of larger functional or taxonomic groups.

To characterize the availability of scientific evidence for ecological response of each species to

land use stressors, a systematic literature mapping protocol (James et al. 2016) was developed

and applied. Predefined search terms were used to query the ISI Web of Knowledge database and

retrieve sources that included at least one stressor-related keyword and one species-related

keyword. To constrain the scope of the search, stressor keywords were limited to those related to

fire, forest harvesting, linear disturbances, and a small number of additional stressors. Retrieved

sources were screened for relevance to the Rocky Mountains of Canada and the United States. A

detailed description of the systematic mapping protocol and the key findings of retrieved sources

are provided in Appendix B.

While the systematic literature mapping protocol enabled a transparent and repeatable assessment

of relevant scientific literature, the review presented in this report also considered additional

sources beyond those retrieved via the mapping protocol. A fully systematic review (e.g., Jackson

et al. 2016) of ecological responses was beyond the scope of this report.



Overview of key land use stressors

Altered fire regimes

Historical fire regime

Because fire has long been a dominant disturbance agent in the Eastern Slopes (Stocks et al.

2002), changes in the fire regime can lead to changes in vegetation, wildlife, hydrology, and other

ecosystem parameters. A fire regime is defined as the interaction of fires with the environment in

space and time (Morgan et al. 2001), and is the type of fire activity or pattern of fire that generally

characterizes a given area (Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre 2003). A fire regime has five

major characteristics (Stockdale 2017): cause, frequency, timing (seasonality), extent (size), and

magnitude (intensity/severity). Because these characteristics interact with one another, they are

generally described in combination rather than separately.

Understanding changes in fire regimes is challenging because they are highly variable in time and

space (Lertzman et al. 1998, White and Jentsch 2001). Moreover, only the most recent fires in a

landscape can be quantified because vegetation succession, land clearing, and recent fires erase

much of the evidence of preceding historical fires. Therefore, complete assessments of historical

fire regimes are unavailable. However, because key factors that drive fire behavior (ignition, spread,

fuel) have been altered, there is broad agreement that fire regimes in the Eastern Slopes have

changed (Rogeau et al. 2016, Stockdale 2017), even though the nature of that change is unclear.

In this report, historical fire regime is defined as the fire regime operating in the study area before

20th century land use change, industrial development, and fire suppression. Information on the

historical fire regime in the study area is available from fire history investigations (Rogeau 2009,

2010a), a state-of-knowledge report on fire regimes and disturbance (Stockdale 2011), and a

technical report defining historical and recent disturbance regimes (Andison 2011). Because areas

of similar topography, vegetation and climate share certain fire regime characteristics, it is also

possible to draw from research completed elsewhere in the Eastern Slopes (Andison 1998,

Amoroso et al. 2011, Andison and McCleary 2014, Rogeau et al. 2016, Stockdale 2017, Chavardès

and Daniels 2016).

While there are gaps in the documentation of the historical fire regime in the study area, these

studies suggest the following (see also Table 1):

The Montane fire regime was dominated by frequent, small, low-severity fires ignited by

both people and lightning. Andison (2011) suggested that the Montane experienced a high-

severity fire every 60-80 years, and a low- to moderate-severity fire every 15-30 years;



Fires in the Subalpine were infrequent; occasional large high-severity fires account for most

of the burned area;

Infrequent medium- to high-severity fires caused most of the burned area in the Upper and

Lower Foothills; although the extent of mixed-severity fires is unclear, it is likely more

prevalent than previously thought.

Valley orientation, topography, and elevation are important variables affecting fire regimes

throughout the study area (Rogeau 2009). The role of Indigenous peoples in historical fire regimes

has been studied extensively in Montane areas of the Rocky Mountains (Tande 1979, White et al.

2003, Rogeau et al. 2016, Stockdale 2017, Chavardès et al. 2018). These studies, combined with

oral accounts (Taylor and Dempsey 1999, Snow 2005), indicate that prior to the late 19th century,

traditional burning in these areas by Indigenous peoples was a common practice (Snow 2005).

Spring burning in montane valleys was used to limit the encroachment of woody vegetation and

improve forage availability for culturally valuable wildlife such as bison (White et al. 2003, Taylor

and Dempsey 1999). Additional evidence points to the traditional burning of forest beyond montane

valleys (Rogeau et al. 2016). This was likely intended to open up dense stands for easier travel

and promote culturally important plants such as berry-producing shrubs (Barrett and Arno 1982,

Lewis and Ferguson 1988).



Table 1. Summary of the historical fire regime in the study area, based on sources listed in the text.

Fire regime characteristic

Description

Cause

While both lightning and people started fires, human-caused fires were more common in the Montane compared to other parts of the study area. Lightning-caused fires were likely less common in the Subalpine portion of the study area compared to the more easterly Foothills because the continental divide casts a lightning shadow (Wierzchowski et al. 2002) and subalpine vegetation is generally less flammable and less continuous compared to areas further east.

Frequency

Historical fire frequency1 in the study area is not well documented. The greatest amount of burning likely occurred in the Montane and the least amount in the Subalpine. Extensive areas in the Subalpine part of the study area have no evidence of fire before 1800. Andison (2011) estimated the pre-industrial fire cycle2 to be 15-80 years in the Montane, 50-200 years in the Subalpine and 40-110 years in the Upper and Lower Foothills.

Timing (seasonality) Peak fire seasons were likely spring and fall in the Montane, and summer through fall in the Subalpine.

Extent (size) The historical range of fire size in the study area is not known. More continuous fuels in the Foothills likely enabled larger fires compared to the Subalpine where complex topography and treeline create fuel discontinuities.

Magnitude (intensity/ severity)

Fires in the Montane were likely low severity, constrained by a shortage of fuel buildup due to frequent burning and limited tree cover. Fires elsewhere in the study area were moderate- to high-severity. Mixed (moderate and high) severity fires in the Foothills were likely more prevalent than previously thought.

1 Fire frequency is a measure of the rate at which fires occur on the landscape (Stockdale 2017) 2 Fire cycle is the length of time required to burn an area equivalent to 100% of the study area (Stockdale 2017)

Recent fire regime

The recent fire regime in the study area is better known than the historical regime because the

location, perimeter, and other properties of a fire can be characterized shortly after it occurs. While

the perimeter of all fires that burned since 1961, and large (>200 ha) fires that burned since 1941,

are available in government databases (Fig. 2), the relatively short duration of these records (60

years) limits the extent to which they fully characterize the fire regime. Based on this information,

the recent (20th century) fire regime in the study area is summarized in Table 2.



Figure 2. Wildfire extent (a) and occurrence (b) in the study area. Wildfire extent for 1941-2016 and wildfire occurrence for 1961-2016

obtained from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s wildfire perimeter dataset (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017c) and historic wildfire

dataset (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017b), respectively. Only wildfires >200 ha (Class E) are displayed in (a).



The main difference between historical and recent fire regimes in the study area is a decreased fire

frequency; specifically, a longer fire cycle (Rogeau 2010b, Stockdale 2011). This is consistent with

findings elsewhere in the Eastern Slopes (White et al. 2003, Van Wagner et al. 2006, Rogeau et

al. 2016, Chavardès et al. 2018). Factors that may contribute to this change in fire regime include

the cessation of traditional burning by Indigenous peoples in the late 19th century and fire

suppression several decades later (Cumming et al. 2005). Intentional (or escaped) burning by

Indigenous peoples in the study area largely ceased in the late 19th century after Indigenous

peoples were relocated from their traditional lands (Schaffer 1908, Whyte 1985, Price 1999). Active

suppression of human-caused and lightning-caused fires began around 1947 with the formation of

the Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board (Tunstell 1962) and the construction of ranger

stations, lookout towers, and fire roads (Murphy 1985) including Forestry Trunk Road 734 through

Table 2. Summary of the recent fire regime in the study area, modified from Alberta

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (2012), Rogeau (2009), Stockdale

(2011) and Andison (2011).

Fire regime characteristic

Description

Cause

Most (68%) fires in the study area are caused by people rather than lightning, especially in the Montane near Highway 11 and Ya Ha Tinda. Anthropogenic causes account for most of the area burned in the Montane and Lower Foothills.

Frequency

Very few fires occur in the Subalpine whereas numerous fires occur in the Montane. Infrequent large fires in the Foothills burn the majority of area. Andison (2011) estimated the current fire cycle to be 200-400 years in the Montane and 300-600 years in the Subalpine, Upper Foothills, and Lower Foothills.

Timing (seasonality) Montane fires occur in any month, however, more area burns later in summer. Summer fires dominate in the Subalpine while fires in the Foothills occur from May through August.

Extent (size)

The Montane is dominated by small fires. Small- to medium-sized fires account for most of the area burned elsewhere in the study area. Infrequent large fires in the Subalpine burn the majority of the area. Spread of fires in the Subalpine and Upper Foothills is constrained by proximity to mountainous terrain.

Magnitude (intensity/ severity)

Low-severity fires dominate the Montane. Moderate- and high-severity fires dominate elsewhere in the study area.



Nordegg (Fig. 1). Andison (2011) noted that fire control is more effective at eliminating low- to

moderate-severity fires, and less effective at controlling high-severity fires.

The potential role of climate as a factor influencing fire regime change is unclear. Warmer

temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt observed in the study area since 1951 (see “Overview

of climate and streamflow”) have likely improved burning conditions, leading to an increase, rather

than decrease, in fire frequency. As noted previously, limited knowledge of historical fire regimes

and complex interactions among drivers of fire behavior, such as ignition and spread probabilities,

make it challenging to identify causes of change (Lertzman et al. 1998).

Future fire regime

The frequency, severity, and size of wildfires in the Eastern Slopes is likely to increase due to a

combination of increasing fuel loads in older forest stands (Keane 2002, Gallant et al. 2003,

Stephens et al. 2014, Parks et al. 2015) and climate change (Flannigan et al. 2001, Schoennagel

et al. 2017). Climate-related influences include increasing frequency of extreme fire weather (Wang

et al. 2015), a longer fire season (Riley and Loehman 2016), and increasing rate of fire ignition.



Forest harvesting

From 1961 to 2016, 2,230 km2 of forest was harvested in the study area, which is over four times

the area burned during the same period (Table 3, Fig. 3). Almost all (96%) of the forest harvesting

in the study area has occurred in the Foothills Natural Region, mainly east of Forestry Trunk Road

734 (Fig. 4). Approximately 18% (2,230 km2) of this Natural Region was harvested during this 55-

year period, while less than 2% (199 km2) of this same area burned (Table 3).

Table 3. Area burned (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017b) and harvested

(Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer

River Basins 2018) in each Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee

2006).

Natural Subregion Total area

(km2)

Area burned 1961-2016

(km²)

Area harvested 1961-2016

(km²)

Alpine 5,646 2 0

Subalpine 5,554 149 79

Montane 446 122 3

Upper Foothills 5,885 41 1,138

Lower Foothills 6,342 158 1,092

Central & Dry Mixedwood 804 10 1

All Natural Subregions 24,677 483 2,313



Figure 3. Cumulative area of disturbance by fire and forest harvesting in each Natural Subregion

in the study area since 1961. Sources: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (2017b), Forest Harvest

Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018).



Figure 4. Forest harvest areas in the study area, 1961-2016. Source: Forest Harvest Areas in the

Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018).



Linear disturbances

While the western half of the study area (west of Forestry Trunk Road 734) is relatively free of linear

disturbances, most watersheds in the eastern half of the study area are heavily dissected by roads,

seismic lines, trails, and other linear disturbances associated with the energy, forestry, and

agricultural sectors (Figs. 5, 6, 7). The combined density of all linear disturbances ranges from 0 to

6.4 km/km2, with the highest densities along the eastern margin of the study area (Figs. 6, 7). Only

the western half of this landscape can be considered remote with an area of interior habitat

exceeding 80% in most western watersheds (including the Bighorn Backcountry). In contrast,

interior habitat comprises less than 50% of most eastern watersheds (Fig. 8).

While human use is likely a significant driver of many ecological responses to linear disturbances,

limited information on the frequency, timing, and type (e.g., motorized versus non-motorized) of

human use is available in the study area. Within the National Parks, Provincial Wilderness Areas,

and Public Land Use Zones comprising the Bighorn Backcountry, vehicle use is highly regulated.

Within the Bighorn Backcountry, recreational use of trails (including off-highway vehicle use) is

regulated to restrict access to designated trails and seasons (Government of Alberta 2018a). Off-

highway vehicle use is permitted on most public lands east of Forestry Trunk Road 734.



Figure 5. Roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in the study area. Source: Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and

Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018).



Figure 6. Density of roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in study area watersheds. Source: Linear disturbances in the Upper North

Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018). See Appendix A for watershed boundaries.



Figure 7. Distribution of the density of roads (a) and all linear disturbances (b) in the study area.

Source: Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

(2018).

b)

a)

Bighorn Backcountry

Parks and Prov. Wilderness Areas

Rest of the Study Area



Figure 8. Interior habitat in study area watersheds. Sources: Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer

River Basins (2018). Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), Forest Harvest

Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), 2016 Human Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity

Monitoring Institute 2018). See Appendix A for watershed boundaries.

b)

Bighorn Backcountry

Parks and Prov. Wilderness Areas

Rest of the Study Area



Overview of climate and streamflow

Climate variability and change

Temperatures along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains have been increasing over the

last century, with winter warming faster than summer (Vincent et al. 2015, O’Neil et al. 2017a). The

number of extreme cold days has decreased while the number of heatwaves (defined as 6 or more

consecutive days during which the maximum temperature exceeds the 90th percentile) has

increased (Kienzle et al. 2017). Although total annual precipitation has changed very little, there

has been a significant decrease in both winter precipitation and in the proportion of the annual

precipitation falling as snow (Vincent et al. 2015, DeBeer et al. 2016, Kienzle et al. 2017, O’Neil et

al. 2017a). In concert with higher average winter and spring temperatures there has been an earlier

spring snowmelt, a shorter snow-cover season (Brown and Braaten 1998, DeBeer et al. 2016), an

increase in winter melt events as well as rain-on-snow events, and less water stored in the spring

snowpack (Vincent et al. 2015, MacDonald et al. 2012, O’Neil et al. 2017a).

Changes in the study area’s climate during the recent past (since 1951), generated using the

ClimateNA software tool (http://www.climatewna.com; Wang et al. 2016), are consistent with the

above findings reported for the Eastern Slopes (Table 4). These estimates show a large increase

in winter (December-February) temperatures, and smaller increases in average annual

temperature (Tables A1-A2). This analysis further indicates very little change in total annual

precipitation during this period, however, it shows a reduction in snowfall. Accuracy of the modelled

temperature estimates is higher than estimates of precipitation (Mbogga 2009). In addition, annual

averages (e.g., mean annual air temperature) are more accurate than seasonal values and derived

climate variables (e.g., frost-free period, precipitation as snow) are less accurate than observed

variables (Wang et al. 2006, Mbogga et al. 2009, Wang et al. 2012).

http://www.climatewna.com/



Table 4. Summary of recent (since ~1950) trends in climate parameters in the Eastern Slopes. Sources are listed in text.

Climate parameter Trend in the Eastern Slopes

Temperature

Annual temperature Higher

Winter temperature Higher

Summer temperature Higher

Extreme cold days Less frequent

Heatwaves More frequent

Winter melt events More frequent

Precipitation-related

Total annual precipitation Little change

Snowfall Less

Proportion of precipitation falling as snow Less

Timing of snowmelt Earlier

Snow-cover season Shorter

Snowline Higher elevation

Streamflow

The Eastern Slopes have long been valued as source headwaters for major river systems in the

Prairie Provinces. Changes in temperature and precipitation, along with related changes in

snowmelt, river ice and glacier water export, have altered streamflow regimes in the Eastern Slopes

(Schindler and Donahue 2006). Multiple studies point to earlier spring peak streamflow and river

ice breakup (Zhang et al. 2001, Nemeth et al. 2012, Bawden et al. 2015, Vincent et al. 2015),

although trends in other streamflow parameters in the Eastern Slopes are highly variable (e.g.,

Zhang et al. 2001, Rood et al. 2008, Nemeth 2012, Bawden 2014, DeBeer et al. 2016).



Snowmelt is a key driver of streamflow in the Eastern Slopes because the depth of the spring

snowpack strongly influences the timing and magnitude of the spring freshet (Barnett et al. 2005).

More winter melt events and rain-on-snow events alter both the properties of the snowpack and the

amount of water contained in the snowpack, which ultimately affect the timing and magnitude of

spring and early summer streamflow (Barnett et al. 2005). Because the timing of river ice formation

and breakup is strongly correlated with air temperature, higher temperatures have led to earlier

river ice breakup in the spring breakup (Zhang et al. 2001, Bawden et al. 2015, Vincent et al. 2015).

Finally, while glacier meltwater accounts for 1-5% of the annual discharge for rivers exiting the

Eastern Slopes (Marshall et al. 2011), the glacial meltwater contribution to individual streams and

rivers depends on the glacier volume and other land cover types in the contributing watershed.

Rapidly shrinking glaciers (Demuth and Keller 2006, World Glacier Monitoring Service 2017) are

expected to reduce the contribution of glacial melt to stream and river flows throughout the Eastern

Slopes (Demuth and Pietroniro 2003, Marshall et al. 2011, DeBeer et al. 2016, Luce 2018). For

example, runoff from the Columbia Icefield (which feeds the North Saskatchewan River) may have

already attained its maximum meltwater contribution, also referred to as ‘peak water’ (Huss and

Hock 2018).

Analysis of trends in streamflow (daily discharge, m³/s) during each month of the open water season

(April-October) for the period 1984-2013 showed significant (p<0.1) increases in streamflow during

the early part of the season (May and June) and significant (p<0.1) decreases in the latter part of

the season (August and September). No statistically significant changes in April, July, or October

streamflow were observed in the streamflow record (Fig. 9). The largest and most spatially

consistent trends in streamflow were observed in June when 13 of the 17 stations had a statistically

significant increase in streamflow (between 0.02 and 2.1 m³/s/year); these stations are located in

the central and eastern parts of the study area. In May, statistically significant increases in

streamflow were observed at two stations in the eastern part of study area. In August and

September, statistically significant decreases in streamflow were observed at four and two gauging

stations, respectively, all located in the central part of the study area.

Future climate and streamflow

Observed changes in the climate of the Eastern Slopes are expected to accelerate over the next

several decades (Field et al. 2008, IPCC 2013). To evaluate potential changes in future climate of

the study area, climate variables were projected for the period 2071-2100 under two different

greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5, see Appendix A). This analysis suggested

that mean annual air temperatures are likely to increase by 3-5°C by the end of the century

(depending on the global emissions scenario) compared to the 1980-2010 climate normal period

(Tables A3-A4). Total annual precipitation is projected to increase, and snowfall is expected to

decrease (Tables A3-A4).



Figure 9. Streamflow trends in the study area, 1984-2013, based on hydrometric data for

seventeen stations in the study area. Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018).

See Appendix A for a description of methods.



Higher air temperatures along the Eastern Slopes are expected to result in an upward shift in the

snowline, an earlier and more rapid spring snowmelt and a decrease in snow water storage during

summer (Kienzle et al. 2012, MacDonald et al. 2012, Dibike et al. 2018). When considering future

climate projections it is important to note that, while there is some inherent uncertainty in the climate

models, there is a much larger amount of uncertainty around emissions scenarios which is difficult

to quantify (IPCC 2013 Chapter 12, Knutti and Sedláček 2013). The spread in predictions of future

climate depends largely on the choice of emissions scenario which describes future atmospheric

carbon rates and is difficult to predict with a high degree of certainty (IPCC 2013 Chapter 12, Knutti

and Sedláček 2013) (see Appendix A for further discussion of uncertainty).

Projected increases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, associated changes in snowpack, river

ice, and shrinking glaciers have important implications for future streamflow in the Eastern Slopes.

Simulations of streamflow for the Cline River watersheds in the westernmost part of the study area

suggested that streamflow is likely to increase during winter and spring (Kienzle et al. 2012).

Although streamflow predictions in snow-dominated and glacier-fed watersheds, such as those in

the study area for this report, are highly uncertain (Kerkhoven and Gan 2011, DeBeer et al. 2016),

a continued trend towards an earlier spring freshet and an increase in mid-winter melt events, both

of which affect streamflow, are expected (O’Neil et al. 2017b). Additionally, higher winter

temperatures may increase the likelihood of mid-winter river ice breakup events which are already

occurring at lower elevations in western Canada (Newton et al. 2017, Rokaya et al. 2018).

Potential ecological responses to land use stressors

Altered fire regimes

The ecological influence of fire in conifer forests of western and northern North America was

summarized by Heinselman and Wright (1973 in Tymstra 2005). Fire alters the physical-chemical

environment, regulates dry-matter accumulation, controls plant species and communities,

determines wildlife habitat patterns and populations, controls forest insects, parasites, fungi and

other pathogens, and controls major ecosystem processes and characteristics.

Expected ecological responses to the altered fire regime in the study area stem from the following

factors (Table 5):

Limited creation of post-fire conditions suitable for germination and growth of pioneer and

early seral plants



Increased area of mature and old forest through succession of younger seral stages

Encroachment of trees and shrubs into non-forest areas such as montane grasslands

Limited post-fire alteration of stream and riverine ecosystems (flow regime, temperature,

nutrients, sediments and biota)

Increased likelihood of future wildfire

Because fire is a key driver of vegetation disturbance and succession in the Eastern Slopes, an

altered fire regime has implications for forest ecosystems. Much of the even-aged forest created

by high-severity forest fires during previous centuries has not been replaced by more recent fires,

leading to homogenization of the forest landscape (Tymstra et al. 2005). A reduced frequency of

low- and moderate-severity fires that alter stand structure and composition without completely

replacing the dominant cohort of trees (Amoroso et al. 2018) has likely also altered stand structure

and composition. Overall, an altered fire regime has likely reduced the extent of early successional

post-fire vegetation communities, increased the area of mature and old forest, and reduced the

diversity of seral stages across the landscape.

While species that occupy mature and older seral stages of forest would benefit from such changes,

species that use post-fire vegetation communities, and those with large home ranges that use a

diversity of seral stages, would not benefit (Table 5). For example, increases in canopy closure as

forest stands mature may limit understory food resources for moose and other ungulates (Telfer

1970, Peek 1974, Proulx and Kariz 2005, Street et al. 2015). Conversely, tree mortality and canopy

gap formation in older stands may increase food availability and habitat quality for such species

(Osko et al. 2004). Moose populations in the study area have likely declined in recent years (R.

Corrigan personal communication May 31, 2018), although the relative contributions of habitat

change, human-caused mortality, and other factors are unclear. Grizzly bears are an example of a

species with a large home range that uses a diversity of seral stages (Hamer and Herrero 1987);

an altered fire regime has likely reduced the overall value of the landscape for this species

(McLellan and Hovey 2001). Finally, whitebark pine and limber pine are examples of species that

colonize post-fire habitats (Webster and Johnson 2000, Kendall and Keane 2001, Campbell and

Antos 2003); their response to reduced fire frequency is likely negative due to the encroachment

of other tree species, such as spruce, in the absence of fire (Murray et al. 1998, Shepherd et al.

2018).

The encroachment of trees and shrubs into montane grasslands has been observed in Jasper

(Tande 1979, Rhemtulla et al. 2002) and Banff (White et al. 2012) National Parks. Grazing

mammals, such as bison and bighorn sheep, likely respond negatively to such changes in both

montane and subalpine areas (Demarchi et al. 2000, Sachro et al. 2005). Browsing mammals, such

as moose, may respond positively to the encroachment of woody plant species (Krefting et al. 1974)

in the Montane Natural Subregion.



The cessation of traditional burning by Indigenous peoples in the late 19th century was coincident

with the loss of another form of disturbance (bison grazing) in the Montane. Bison were historically

abundant on a seasonal basis in montane areas of the North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River

valleys (Kay et al. 1999, Heitzmann 2009) and their extirpation during the late 1800’s (Notzke 1985,

Archer 1994) may contribute to increasing tree cover in formerly grazed habitats (Campbell et al.

1994). A herd of 16 bison was re-introduced near the headwaters of the Red Deer River in Banff

National Park in 2017 (Parks Canada 2017).

An altered fire regime has likely also reduced the frequency of events that alter stream and riverine

ecosystems in the study area. The response of rivers and streams to wildfire varies according to

the properties of a given fire event (size, intensity), and the topography, surficial materials, and

vegetation of the contributing watershed (Neary et al. 2005). For example, hydrological and other

measurements after the 22,000 ha 2003 Lost Creek Fire in southwestern Alberta (Silins et al. 2016)

point to wildfire-caused changes in streamflow, water temperature, nutrient and sediment

concentration, and the structure, function, and composition of biotic communities (Silins et al. 2008,

2009, 2014). Importantly, although the duration of altered streamflow was relatively short (less than

a decade), changes to water quality can be long-lasting. For example, elevated (but variable)

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads were observed more than a decade after the Lost Creek

Fire (Silins et al. 2016). By reducing the frequency of such stream-altering events, an altered fire

regime in the study area has likely reduced the biological diversity of stream environments.

Finally, while the altered fire regime has likely contributed to a reduction in post-fire vegetation and

fire-altered streams, the increased risk of future wildfire (Flannigan et al. 2001) could lead to a

range of responses, depending on the frequency, size, and severity of future fires. Fire size and

severity have important implications for many species. For example, while five-needled pines are

known to colonize post-fire habitats, large, intense wildfires could kill mature, cone-producing trees,

with negative population impacts (Alberta Whitebark and Limber Pine Recovery Team 2014a,

2014b). In addition, post-fire management of future fires (e.g., salvage logging) also affects post-

fire ecological responses (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, Silins et al. 2009, 2014).



Table 5. Summary of potential ecological responses of selected species to land use and climate change in the study area. Supporting evidence for each entry is presented in the text. + Positive response; - Negative response; + - Both positive and negative response; 0 Response is indirect or unlikely.

Bis

on

Big

ho

rn

Sh

eep

Mo

os

e

Gri

zzly

Bear

Bu

ll T

rou

t

5-n

eed

led

pin

es

Altered fire regime

Encroachment of trees and shrubs into non-forest areas such as montane grasslands

- - + - 0 -

Limited creation of post-fire conditions suitable for germination & growth of pioneer and early seral plants

- - + - - 0 -

Increased area of mature and old forest through succession of younger seral stages

0 0 0 0 0 0

Limited post-fire alteration of stream and riverine ecosystems (flow regime, temperature, nutrients, sediments, and biota)

0 0 0 0 + - 0

Increased likelihood of future wildfire + + + - + + - +

Forest harvesting

Creates conditions suitable for germination & growth of early seral plants 0 0 + + 0 0

Reduced area of mature and old forest 0 0 + + 0 0

Post-harvest alteration of stream and riverine ecosystems (flow regime, temperature, nutrients, sediments, and biota)

0 0 0 0 + - 0

Linear disturbances

May alter behaviour and increase risk of human-caused wildlife mortality, depending on type and level of human use

0 - - - - 0

Creation of conditions suitable for establishment of disturbance-adapted plants (e.g., higher incidence of invasive species)

+ + - + + 0 0

Potential alteration of stream and river water quality from increased sediment inputs at stream crossings

0 0 0 0 - 0

Climate change

Shifting and altered vegetation communities (upslope movement of treeline, expansion of montane grasslands, transition from coniferous to deciduous forest, and changes in community composition)

+ + - + + - 0 + -

Altered streamflow and increased water temperature 0 0 0 0 - 0



Forest harvesting

Commercial forest harvesting, which occurs mainly in the Foothills Natural Region east of Forestry

Trunk Road 734 within the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins, may partly

offset the positive and negative responses to an altered fire regime. However, while forest

harvesting and fire bear some similarities (e.g., both clearcutting and high-severity fires significantly

alter forest structure and composition and create a dominant cohort of trees), there are significant

differences between the two disturbance regimes (Bergeron et al. 1999, 2002). While forest

harvesting emulates some characteristics of a fire regime, it is far less variable in frequency, size,

and severity (Stockwell et al. 2017).

Expected responses to forest harvesting in the study area stem from the following (Table 5):

Establishment of young forest stands

Reduced area of mature and old forest

Post-harvest alteration of stream and riverine ecosystems

Forest harvesting has increased the extent of early successional (post-harvest) communities,

decreased the area of mature and old forest, and increased the diversity of seral stages across the

Foothills Natural Region portion of the study area. While species that occupy mature and older

seral stages of forest do not benefit from such changes, species that use post-harvest vegetation

communities, and those with large home ranges that use a diversity of seral stages, would likely

benefit (Table 5). For example, moose and deer likely respond positively to increased food

availability in stands regenerating after forest harvesting (Proulx and Kariz 2005, Anderson et al.

2018). Grizzly bears may also benefit from increased food availability in recently harvested stands

(Nielsen et al. 2004a, 2004b), although they are rarely observed in the eastern portion of the study

area where forest harvesting occurs (Fig. 10).

Like fire, forest harvesting may alter the hydrological regime of stream and riverine ecosystems by

changing the structure and composition of vegetation in a watershed (Zhang et al. 2017). However,

the range of variability in many fire regime characteristics (e.g., frequency, size, and severity) make

it difficult to formulate an overall assessment of differences between ecological responses to forest

harvesting versus fire. For example, the hydrological response (streamflow, water quality) to forest

harvesting in a watershed is likely greater than the hydrological response to a small, low-intensity

fire, but less than a large, high-intensity fire in the same watershed. In general, forest harvesting

likely invokes a narrower range of hydrological and ecological responses, stemming from the lower

variability in the frequency, size, and severity of forest harvesting events compared to fire events

(McRae et al. 2001).



Studies further suggest the intensity and duration of hydrological responses to forest harvesting

varies depending on climate, topography, time since harvesting, and the proportion of area in a

watershed that is harvested (Buttle 2011, Zhang et al. 2017, Li et al. 2018). The removal of trees

may increase shallow subsurface flow and surface runoff to hydrologically connected streams via

increased snow depth and decreased evapotranspiration in harvested areas (Guillemette et al.

2005, Zhang et al. 2017). These mechanisms may explain the altered seasonal timing and

magnitude of streamflow after harvesting in southwestern Alberta (Pomeroy et al. 2012, Harder et

al. 2015, Rothwell et al. 2016), central British Columbia (Winkler et al. 2017), and southeastern

British Columbia (Whitaker et al. 2002). The magnitude of such responses is expected to decline

as tree cover and biomass increases in harvested areas (Zhang et al. 2017).

Linear disturbances

As noted previously, while the western half of the study area is relatively free of linear disturbances,

most watersheds in the eastern half of the study area are heavily dissected by roads, seismic lines,

trails, and other linear disturbances (Figs. 6, 7, 8). Expected responses to linear disturbances in

the study area stem from the following (Table 5):

Altered wildlife behaviour and increased risk of human-caused wildlife mortality

Creation of conditions suitable for establishment of disturbance-adapted plants (e.g.,

higher incidence of invasive species)

Potential alteration of stream and river water quality from increased sediment inputs at

stream crossings

Altered wildlife habitat use and population dynamics

Several syntheses of evidence for wildlife response to roads, trails, and other linear disturbances

have been completed (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gaines et al. 2003, Ouren et al. 2007, Brady

and Richardson 2017, Farr et al. 2017). While responses vary widely among the hundreds of

studies reviewed in these syntheses, key findings include behavioural responses such as altered

movements, reduced habitat use, and connectivity and population responses such as decreased

productivity and increased mortality. Potential responses to linear disturbances have been studied

in all focal wildlife species considered in this report, including bison (Bruggeman et al. 2006),

bighorn sheep (Papouchis et al. 2001), grizzly bears (Lamb et al. 2018), moose (Canfield et al.

1999), and bull trout (Ripley et al. 2005); see Appendix B for additional examples.

The ecological response of grizzly bears to land use has been studied more extensively than other

species included in the systematic literature map (Fig. 11), and the strong negative relationship

between grizzly bears and linear disturbances is well-documented (McLellan and Shackleton et al.

1988, Nielsen et al. 2004c, Boulanger et al. 2013, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014, McLellan 2015;



see also Proctor et al. 2018). Negative encounters with people are a significant cause of grizzly

bear mortality, and most human-caused grizzly bear deaths occur within 500 m of linear

disturbances (Benn 1998, Benn and Herrero 2002, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014, McLellan

2015). Ironically, some grizzly bears may be attracted to certain types of linear disturbances, likely

because of increased food availability along habitat edges (Graham et al. 2010). Other grizzly bears

avoid linear disturbances, especially when traffic volume is high (Northrup et al. 2012), possibly

because they perceive increased risk of negative encounters with people (Mace and Waller 1996,

Roever et al. 2010). Traffic avoidance in the study area along Highway 11 has altered grizzly bear

movements and created two genetically distinct subpopulations north and south of the highway

(Proctor et al. 2012).

Multiple studies suggest that grizzly bear populations may not be viable in areas where open road

density exceeds approximately 0.6 km/km2 (Mace et al. 1996, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014,

Lamb et al. 2017). Most watersheds in the eastern part of the study area exceed this threshold (Fig.

7). Therefore, although suitable habitat is present throughout the study area (Fig. 10c), high

mortality risk associated with human activity in these eastern watersheds (Fig. 10d) may partly

explain why grizzly bears are found mainly west of Forestry Trunk Road 734 (Figs. 10a, 10b). Low

densities east of the trunk road may also be a legacy of historical range contraction and population

decline caused by overexploitation, population control, and land use change since the 1800s

(Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1990). While repeated population inventories point to an increase

in grizzly bear populations in part of the study area (Boulanger et al. 2005a, Stenhouse et al. 2015),

the highest densities remain west of Forestry Trunk Road 734 (Figs. 10a, 10b).

Most studies of grizzly bear responses to human use of linear disturbances have focused primarily

on roads. While there is evidence for combined effects of roads and trails on grizzly bear mortality

risk and behaviour (Nielsen et al. 2004c, Johnson et al. 2005), the specific contributions of trails

versus roads is unclear (Linke et al. 2005).

Negative relationships to linear disturbance have also been observed for bull trout, although

evidence for an ecological threshold (as seems possible for grizzly bears) is lacking. While bull trout

populations have declined over most watersheds in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer

River Basins (Fig. 12), the role of linear disturbances relative to other potential causes such as

angling mortality and competition with introduced fish species (Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development 2012) is unclear. Previous studies have found that linear disturbance density may be

negatively correlated with bull trout occurrence (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Rieman et al. 1997,

Dunham and Reiman 1999), abundance (Scrimgeour et al. 2003, Ripley et al. 2005), and

reproduction (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Baxter and McPhail 1999, Baxter et al. 1999). Potential

mechanisms include local extirpation of reaches upstream of culverts that limit fish passage

(MacPherson et al. 2012, Maitland et al. 2016), increased angler-caused mortality from easier



access by anglers to otherwise remote stream reaches (Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development 2012), and sedimentation of gravel spawning beds downstream of watercourse

crossings (McCaffery et al. 2007).

Establishment of disturbance-adapted plants

Surface disturbance by motorized and non-motorized travel along trails and other linear

disturbances may facilitate the establishment of disturbance-adapted plants in landscapes where

such species are otherwise rare (Parendes and Jones 2000, Hansen and Clevenger 2005, Rooney

2005, Nepal and Way 2007). Range expansions of both terrestrial (Rooney 2005) and aquatic

(Waterkeyn et al. 2010, Banha et al. 2014) invasive species via linear disturbances have been

documented in other areas. Such findings suggest that invasive species may be more common in

the eastern part of the study area where linear disturbances and other activities are concentrated,

however, specific information on invasive species was not obtained for this report.

Alteration of stream and river water quality

Linear disturbances that cross streams and rivers in the study area are potential sources of

sediment that could potentially impact stream and river water quality. While there are numerous

linear disturbance crossings in the study area, their influence on stream water quality is not known.

All types of linear disturbances are potential sources of sediment input, including roads, trails used

by off-highway vehicles, (Chin et al. 2004, Marion et al. 2014), and trails used only for non-

motorized travel (Adams 1998). The extent and magnitude of such impacts are strongly influenced

by the composition of surface materials, slope, climate, and other environmental factors (Ouren et

al. 2007). Additional variability stems from variation in the frequency, timing, and type of human

use of linear disturbances.



Figure 10. Grizzly bear density (a, b), habitat value (c), and mortality risk (d) in the study area.

Density estimates (Boulanger et al. 2018) are based on population inventories conducted in Bear

Management Area (BMA) 3 (Yellowhead) in 2004 (Boulanger et al. 2005a) and BMA 4 (Clearwater)

in 2005 (Boulanger et al 2005b), and are shown here for sampling grid centroids. Grizzly bear

habitat value and mortality risk are modelled for 2015 conditions (Source: fRI Research Grizzly

Bear Program).



Figure 11. The number of studies meeting the systematic mapping inclusion criteria, which

describe evidence of ecological response to land use and associated stressors by each species.

Note that multiple studies may be reported for single research articles when multiple stressors or

species were described. See Appendix B for a description of methods.



Figure 12. Historic and current adult bull trout density in the study area. Density ranks were assigned to each HUC 8 watershed based

on naïve occupancy (proportion of sites were bull trout were detected) supplemented by angler catch rates and expert opinion. Data

source: Alberta Environment and Parks (2018b).



Potential ecological responses to climate variability and change Climate regulates the function, structure and composition of ecosystems, and ongoing climate

change is expected to have far-reaching effects on ecosystem properties throughout the study

area. As summarized above, the study area is predicted to become warmer, especially in winter,

with increasing annual precipitation and a decline in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow.

Ecological responses to climate change are difficult to predict because relevant biotic and abiotic

interactions are complex and poorly understood (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). However, responses

likely stem from the following:

Shifting and altered vegetation communities (e.g., upslope movement of treeline,

expansion of montane grasslands, transition from coniferous to deciduous forest, changes

in vegetation community composition)

Altered streamflow and increased water temperature

Because vegetation communities are strongly influenced by climate, shifting climatic conditions are

expected to be accompanied by shifts in vegetation communities. However, differences in the

response of individual species are also likely to cause changes in the composition of vegetation

communities. In addition, many long-lived species such as trees may persist even as climate

changes (Schneider et al. 2016), further complicating predictions of vegetation response. Fire may

enable climate-induced shifts in vegetation by removing dominant tree species (Stralberg et al.

2018).

Upslope movement of treeline may negatively affect species whose range is associated with this

zone (Aitken et al. 2008). For example, a bioclimatic model developed for western North America

predicted declines in suitable whitebark pine habitat of 70% by 2030 (Warwell et al. 2007). Limber

pine occurs at lower elevations than whitebark pine and may therefore have greater potential to

shift upslope, although this could be limited by unsuitable soils or unfavourable terrain (Maher and

Germino 2006).

Expansion of climate conditions suited to montane grasslands (Schneider 2013, Schneider and

Bayne 2015) may increase the availability of winter range for grazing mammals such as bison and

bighorn sheep. Winter range availability is a limiting factor for both bison (DelGiudice et al. 1994)

and bighorn sheep populations (Demarchi et al. 2000). This potentially beneficial impact of climate

change could be offset by reduced forage quality from the spread of invasive plants (Dekker 2009).



Additional climate-induced shifts in vegetation communities relevant to the study area are

uncertain. A longer growing season may favour the establishment of deciduous trees at the

expense of coniferous species (Barnett et al. 2005, Landhäusser et al. 2010), although the rate of

this transition likely depends strongly on future fire frequency (Rocca et al. 2014, Stralberg et al.

2018). Increased cover of aspen, willow, and other deciduous forage species would likely benefit

browsing mammals such as moose.

Species-specific responses to climate change are expected that are not directly related to shifts in

vegetation communities. For example, moose may benefit from reduced snow depths expected in

the Eastern Slopes (Luckman 1998, MacDonald et al. 2012, Pomeroy et al. 2015, Dibike et al.

2018) by reducing the energy required for movement, and improving predator avoidance (Nelson

and Mech 1986). Conversely, moose may be subject to increased incidence of heat stress due to

higher daytime temperatures in winter and summer (Renecker and Hudson 1986, Murray et al.

2006). Moose may also be subject to increased frequency and severity of pathogens and parasites

such as winter ticks (Samuel 2007). Climate-induced population expansion of white-tailed deer

(Dawe and Boutin 2016), which are alternate hosts for parasites such as liver flukes and meningeal

worms (Whitlaw and Lankester 1994, Murray et al. 2006), could also negatively affect moose

populations by increasing parasite-related physiological stress and mortality.

Additional species-specific responses include those of grizzly bears; while they may prove to be

relatively resilient to the ecological effects of climate change given their phenotypic plasticity,

several potential climate-related impacts have been identified. Climate change is expected to cause

shifts in the ranges of key grizzly bear foods, including alpine sweetvetch (Hedysarum alpinum;

Roberts et al. 2014) and other food plants in subalpine meadows that may transition to vegetation

communities dominated by trees and shrubs. Phenological shifts in key foods such as fruiting plant

species may also change the probability of human-bear conflicts (Deacy et al. 2017), as could a

decrease in the length of the overwinter denning period (Pigeon et al. 2016).

Within stream and riverine environments, higher water temperatures, that are likely to accompany

increasing air temperature, could affect cold-water fish species such as bull trout through a range

of mechanisms including habitat loss, range contraction, decreased viability of eggs and fry (Eby

et al. 2014). Elevated stream temperatures may also increase competition and hybridization with

invasive species such as brook trout, brown trout, and lake trout, which prefer warmer water

(McMahon et al. 2007, Muhlfeld et al. 2014, Muhlfeld et al. 2017). However, recent modeling of

stream warming rates and climate velocities suggest that mountain stream environments may be

highly resistant to temperature increases and could act as important refugia for cold-water species

such as bull trout in the coming century (Isaak et al. 2016). Reduced winter streamflow would likely

negatively affect movements of bull trout and other fish species in the region, although interactions

between winter flow and ice cover are uncertain (Brown 1999).



Priority research and monitoring needs While much is known about the ecological and anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem responses in

the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River basins, there are also significant knowledge

gaps as demonstrated in this report.

Key findings from the overview of land use stressors, climate variability and change, streamflow,

and ecological responses include:

Although there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of the historical fire regime, elements

of the fire regime in the study area have likely been altered by a combination of factors,

including the cessation of traditional burning by Indigenous peoples and fire suppression.

Expected responses to reduced fire frequency and smaller burned area include shifts in

the distribution and composition of vegetation communities, and concomitant changes in

wildlife populations. The likelihood of fire is probably increasing due to increasing fuel load,

increasing ignitions, and warmer, drier fire seasons.

Forest harvesting has replaced wildfire as the dominant stand-replacing disturbance in the

Foothills part of the study area over the past several decades. While forest harvesting and

fire bear some similarities, there are significant differences between the two disturbance

regimes. Like high-severity fires, forest harvesting establishes young forest stands,

reduces the area of mature forest, and potentially alters the hydrological dynamics of

stream and riverine ecosystems by changing the structure and composition of vegetation

in a watershed. Major differences between historical fire regimes and forest harvesting

include the mechanism of disturbance (fire versus mechanical), and the lower range of

variability in the frequency, size, and severity of forest harvesting events compared to

historical fire regimes.

Linear disturbances, forest harvest areas, and other anthropogenic disturbances in the

study area are concentrated east of Forestry Trunk Road 734. Interior habitat comprises

less than 50% of most eastern watersheds while most western watersheds have relatively

high levels of interior habitat. Expected ecological responses to high densities of linear

disturbances include altered wildlife behaviour and increased mortality risk, establishment

of disturbance-adapted plants, and potential alteration of stream and river water quality

from increased sediment inputs at stream crossings.

Regional climate variability and change are expected to have far-reaching effects on wildlife

and other ecosystem attributes in the study area. Potential responses to climate change

stem from shifting vegetation communities, altered community composition, and changing

streamflow regimes. Analysis of open water season streamflow records in the study area

indicate that June streamflow has increased over the past few decades which,



accompanied by additional changes in hydrological regimes, has implications for the

structure and function of aquatic ecosystems and downstream communities.

Two types of investigation would address priority knowledge gaps constraining more informed

decisions on land use and human activities in the study area. First, there is a need for applied

research to increase the knowledge available to develop evidence-based land use policies and

plans. Second, there is a need for targeted monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of current and

future land use policies and plans against stated environmental outcomes. While these two types

of investigation (applied research and effectiveness monitoring) are conceptually similar,

effectiveness monitoring (the use of scientific methods to address specific questions about the

effectiveness of management) generally involves active collaboration between scientists and

managers (Lindenmayer and Likens 2009). While applied research projects benefit from such

collaborations, the active participation of managers may be limited.

Applied research priorities

Among the many knowledge gaps constraining the development of evidence-based land use plans

in the study area, three stand out: historical fire regimes, environmental drivers of hydrological and

water quality regimes, and ecological response to land use. New and ongoing applied research is

needed to address these gaps.

Improved reconstruction of historical fire regimes

Fire history studies are needed to better characterize key elements of the historical fire regime

(cause, frequency, timing, extent, and magnitude) in the study area. This would further increase

the base of evidence available to develop land use strategies for prescribed burns, wildfire

management, and forest harvesting, all of which draw from knowledge of historical fire regimes.

For example, evidence for spatial variability in historical fire frequency (Rogeau 2009, 2010a,

2010b) was used by regional fire managers to identify and prioritize locations for prescribed burns

(Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2012). This applied research has

proven exceptionally valuable and could be extended to additional parts of the study area. It is also

somewhat time-sensitive because evidence of past fires is being erased by vegetation succession,

the mortality and decomposition of fire-scarred trees, and land clearing for forest harvesting and

other land uses.

Additional fire history studies are also needed to better understand the frequency and extent of

mixed severity fires (low-, moderate-, and high-severity fires) in the Eastern Slopes (Amoroso et al.

2011). This would inform fire management and forest harvest approaches designed to emulate

historical fire regimes through prescribed burns, wildfire and forest harvesting (Stockwell et al.

2016). For example, because the historical fire regime of the Eastern Slopes was characterized by



a wide range of fire intensity and severity, implementing a range of harvest treatments (selective

harvesting, structural retention, clearcutting) would contribute to fire regime emulation (Gustafsson

et al. 2012, Huggard et al. 2014).

Additional fire history studies are also needed to better characterize within-fire variability in fire

intensity and severity. Previous studies in the Eastern Slopes suggest that the perimeter of a fire

and the location of island remnants within a fire are related to variation in topography and vegetation

(Andison and McCleary 2014). Additional studies of historical photos and field observations would

further inform both prescribed burns and forest harvesting. Finally, planners would also benefit from

further studies of repeat oblique photography to characterize vegetation change in montane and

subalpine areas, as has been completed elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains (Rhemtulla et al. 2002,

Stockdale 2017).

Opportunities to advance the above applied research priorities are available through collaborative

initiatives that address similar questions. Two examples of such initiatives are the Healthy

Landscapes program (friresearch.ca/program/healthy-landscapes-program) led by fRI Research

and Landscapes in Motion (www.landscapesinmotion.ca).

Integrated assessment of environmental drivers affecting

hydrological and water quality regimes

Watershed research studies highlighted in this report point to climate, topography, and land cover

as key drivers of hydrological regimes in the Eastern Slopes. These studies provide evidence

relevant to the development of policies and plans designed to protect sensitive hydrological process

from disruption by human activities such as forest harvesting. However, as suggested by a

preliminary analysis of streamflow from hydrometric stations in the study area (Fig. 9), annual

streamflow is highly variable among watersheds within the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper

Red Deer River basins. This environmental variability makes it challenging to assess the potential

contribution of land cover change in the region caused by forest harvesting, other anthropogenic

disturbances, prescribed burns, and wildfire. Land use planning in the region would likely benefit

from additional monitoring at new hydrometric stations that cover the range of environmental

(climate, topography, land cover) conditions occurring within the region. In addition to ground-based

monitoring, remotely-sensed data and other geospatial datasets are available and can be used to

assess the relative influences of variables such as topography, climate, and land cover on

streamflow variability among instrumented watersheds in the basin. In this report, trends in

streamflow were analysed, while the causes of observed changes were not. Integration of ground-

based and remotely-sensed data is needed to evaluate the relative influence of climate change and

land cover change (e.g., Wei and Zhang 2010, Eum et al. 2016, 2017) on streamflow along the

Eastern Slopes.

https://friresearch.ca/program/healthy-landscapes-program



Compared to streamflow, water quality is monitored at relatively few stations in the basin, and a

comprehensive understanding of input, transport, and fate of constituents such as nitrogen,

phosphorus, and sediment, is lacking. As noted previously in this report, water quality may be

altered by forest harvesting, prescribed burns, wildfire, and post-fire harvest and silvicultural

treatments. Published hydrological studies from Lost Creek in southwestern Alberta point to

significant effects of wildfire and salvage logging on water quality, while publications from Marmot

Creek suggest relatively rapid hydrological recovery after forest harvesting (Rothwell et al. 2016).

However, as with streamflow, increased understanding of the role of topography, land cover, and

climate would support planners and managers in minimizing the potential impacts of land use on

water quality.

Opportunities to advance the above applied research priorities are available through collaborative

initiatives that address similar questions. One example of such an initiative is the Changing Cold

Regions Network (ccrnetwork.ca).

Systematic reviews of ecological response to land use

Because this report is intended to support regional land use planning that addresses multiple land

use and climate change impacts on a range of ecological responses, a comprehensive, systematic

review and synthesis of applicable literature (e.g., Smith et al. 2015, Jackson et al. 2016) was

beyond its scope. However, a systematic map was completed (Appendix B), which is an important

early stage in the systematic review process (James et al. 2016). Systematic mapping is a scientific

method for summarizing the state of literature and permitting collection of relevant information on

broad and open-ended research questions (Centre for Environmental Evidence 2013, James et al.

2016). Mapping protocols with clearly defined search, screening, extraction, and reporting

strategies, impart critical transparency and repeatability to the process of assembling scientific

literature. An important caveat is that the choice of search terms and screening procedures is a

qualitative process that may result in systematic maps that do not fully capture all of the potentially

relevant information or existing knowledge gaps in the scientific literature.

While systematic mapping does not provide a quantitative synthesis or evaluation of data, it is

useful for describing the distribution of available information, including clusters and potential gaps,

as well as informing more narrowly defined research questions appropriate for full systematic

review (e.g., detailed meta-analysis of specific species-stressor relationships). For example, the

systematic map presented in Appendix B pointed to a disproportionately high number of studies of

grizzly bear responses to linear disturbances and other stressors (Fig. 12), which is unsurprising

given their conservation designation (threatened in Alberta) and their iconic status as a symbol of

wilderness. There is ample evidence suggesting that grizzly bears respond negatively to human

activity along linear disturbances, with some understanding of variability in responses among

demographic groups. Both the direct (reduced survival) and indirect (displacement and modified



behaviour) impacts of human activity on linear disturbances on grizzly bears have been well

documented. Given this relatively large amount of evidence, there may be opportunities for formal

syntheses to reveal specific factors contributing to the observed heterogeneities in grizzly bear

response to various human activities. For instance, it may be feasible to calculate standardized

effect sizes from individual studies and evaluate them to detect generalities using meta-analytic

models (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2013).

Building on the systematic map completed in this report (Appendix B) multiple fully systematic

reviews of ecological responses to land use could be completed using guidelines provided by the

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013). These guidelines include seven steps:

1. Question setting: outlines evidence needs and helps define the scope.

2. Protocol: outlines the steps that will be taken (typically peer-reviewed).

3. Searching: repeatable search strategy tailored to the question and likely evidence sources

is employed to conduct a systematic search.

4. Article screening: articles identified during the systematic search are screened based on a

priori inclusion criteria.

5. Critical appraisal and data extraction: screened studies are assessed for design, reporting

standards, potential for bias and the validity of their study question. Where appropriate,

data are extracted.

6. Data synthesis: extracted data are synthesized to form a summary of evidence available

to answer the systematic reviews overarching question. Syntheses can take narrative,

quantitative, and/or qualitative forms.

7. Reporting and review: high reporting standards and peer review ensure transparency and

repeatability.

Monitoring the effectiveness of land use plans

Numerous policies, regulations and plans are in place to achieve desired environmental outcomes

in the Upper North Saskatchewan River Basin. These include the Eastern Slopes Policy

(Government of Alberta 1984), Subregional Integrated Resource Plans, the Public Lands

Administration Regulation, Forest Management Plans, Recovery Plans for species at risk, and

Wildlife Management Plans. The North Saskatchewan Regional Plan would potentially replace

some elements of these policies and plans, to reflect increased pressures from ecological drivers

such as climate change and anthropogenic factors such as increasing demand for recreation

opportunities (Government of Alberta 2014).

While land use plans often articulate desired environmental outcomes, a shortage of resources for

monitoring makes it difficult to evaluate whether the management actions implemented within a

plan are effective. This is a chronic problem in jurisdictions around the world (Lindenmayer and



Likens 2009), requiring deliberate efforts to address. Effectiveness monitoring is the use of scientific

methods to address specific questions about the effectiveness of land use policies, plans, and

management actions to mitigate or enhance environmental outcomes. The purpose of this section

is to identify questions relevant to the effectiveness of land use regulations and management

approaches in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River basins and suggest how

they could be addressed.

Prescribed burns

Prescribed burns in the National Parks and on Provincial lands are used to restore elements of the

historical fire regime and manage fire-related risks to communities and ecosystems (Banff National

Park 2010, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2012). Monitoring

responses of wildlife, streams, and other ecosystem properties to alternative fire prescriptions

(location, season, weather, control measures) would support post-fire evaluations of success and

guide the development of improved prescriptions for use in the future (e.g., Sachro et al. 2005).

Because prescribed burns are planned events, it is possible to obtain baseline ecological

measurements before and after the event within treatment and control areas. Prescribed burns are

therefore an opportunity to implement a Before-After-Control-Impact sampling design (Underwood

1994, Bêche et al. 2005).

Forest harvesting

Forest management plans in this region and elsewhere in Alberta are intended to support multiple

outcomes beyond wood production, including watershed protection, wildfire risk mitigation, and

wildlife habitat (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2006). In the Foothills Natural Region,

forest harvesting has replaced wildfire as the dominant forest stand-replacing disturbance over the

past several decades (Fig. 3). Forest harvest treatments that emulate at least some elements of

the historical fire regime are likely to benefit species and ecosystem attributes that may be adapted

to that regime (Stockdale et al. 2016). The response of wildlife to various harvest treatments have

been evaluated elsewhere in Alberta (e.g., Pengelly and Cartar 2010, Kishchuk et al. 2014).

Because environmental drivers such as topography and climate that influence ecological responses

vary among locations, some findings cannot be reliably extrapolated. Therefore, additional studies

in the Eastern Slopes would help forest managers understand variability in responses among

alternative forest harvest treatments such as clearcutting, selective harvest, and patch retention.

As variations in climatic and topographic drivers make it difficult to estimate the contribution of forest

harvesting to stream flow and water quality, additional monitoring of hydrological response would

enable scientists and managers to evaluate the extent to which findings in southwestern Alberta

(Pomeroy et al. 2012, Rothwell et al. 2016, Silins et al. 2016) are applicable elsewhere the Eastern



Slopes. Because forest harvesting treatments can be controlled and replicated, it is possible to

implement experimental designs that enable reliable inference.

Post-fire harvest and silvicultural treatments

Because wildfires have been relatively rare in the Eastern Slopes during the past several decades,

there have been few opportunities to study ecological responses to the region’s dominant

disturbance regime. Future wildfires can be viewed as opportunities to evaluate the response of

wildlife and other ecosystem attributes to post-fire harvest treatments implemented to salvage

merchantable wood fibre, and post-fire silvicultural treatments intended to re-establish trees for

future harvest. Watershed studies have shown that salvage logging following the Lost Creek Fire

caused increased concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment compared to watersheds

in which timber was not salvaged (Silins et al. 2009, 2014). However, the magnitude and duration

of this impact likely varies considerably with topography, ground and surface water dynamics, soil,

and vegetation. By varying the timing, method, and proportion of available wood recovered during

post-fire harvest treatments, site preparation, and other silvicultural treatments, and monitoring

ecological responses to such treatments, managers would be able to better evaluate key

environmental outcomes of alternative treatments.

Linear disturbance regulation

Concerns over the negative environmental impacts of recreational use of trails and other linear

disturbances elsewhere in the Eastern Slopes have led to the implementation of plans intended

specifically to manage linear footprints and recreational use (Alberta Environment and Parks

2017b, 2018c). If similar plans were developed and implemented in the Upper North Saskatchewan

and Upper Red Deer River basins, they could be accompanied by a monitoring plan to assess their

effectiveness. New regulations that alter the frequency, timing, and type of human activity on trails

could be an excellent opportunity to evaluate the ecological response of wildlife, stream water

quality, and other ecosystem properties. Monitoring of human use and ecological responses would

be especially useful if it began before regulatory treatments were implemented, thereby allowing

before-and-after comparisons in treatment and control areas. Suitable monitoring designs are

required in which both human use (Beeco et al. 2014, Olson et al. 2017) and ecological response

are monitored over appropriate spatial extents and durations. Off-highway vehicle use has been

monitored on selected trails in the Upper North Saskatchewan River basin using magnetic field and

infrared counters (Alberta Environment and Parks 2018f, Nichols and Wilson 2012), providing an

excellent foundation for expanded monitoring. Additional approaches for monitoring human use in

remote areas include the use of global positioning systems and smart phones, including those for

which locations are uploaded to social media applications such as Strava (Hallo et al. 2012, Korpilo

et al. 2017, Meijles et al. 2014, D’Antonio et al. 2010). Also available for remote-area monitoring



are new wildlife monitoring technologies such as remote cameras (Steenweg et al. 2017), acoustic

recording units (Shonfield and Bayne 2017), and non-invasive sampling of genetic material (Flasko

et al. 2017) and hormone concentrations (Bourbonnais et al. 2014) from hair and scat.

While numerous previous studies have demonstrated negative ecological responses to roads

(Forman and Alexander 1998, Daigle 2010), most linear disturbances in the Eastern Slopes are

trails rather than roads. Roads and trails differ in their physical attributes and, more importantly, the

frequency, type, and timing of human activity. Studies of ecological response to roads may not be

directly applicable to landscapes where trails, rather than roads, are the dominant linear

disturbance, and where motorized vehicles travel on roads and some (unknown) proportion of trails.

New plans to manage recreational use of trails in the Eastern Slopes would benefit from targeted

monitoring to evaluate their effectiveness. Key ecological response variables include wildlife

behavior and populations, and parameters characterizing the input, transport, and fate of sediments

in streams crossed by (or adjacent to) linear disturbances.

Conservation areas

The effectiveness of conservation areas for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem integrity has

been studied extensively at regional and national scales (Leverington et al. 2010). However,

conservation areas are not a significant part of the environmental management regime in Alberta’s

Foothills Natural Region. Less than 2% of this Natural Region is designated as parks or protected

areas, compared to 60% of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region and 15% of the provincial land

base (Alberta Environment and Parks 2018e). Target 1 of the Canadian Biodiversity 2020 Targets

and Aichi Target 11 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity stipulates a target

of ensuring at least 17% in terrestrial protected area networks by 2020 (Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). Because forest companies and other industrial operators

in the Foothills Natural Region are important drivers of regional and provincial economic

development, the expansion of parks and protected areas in this natural region (e.g., to address

shortfalls in ecological representation) would likely have negative economic impacts.

Given the challenges of establishing new parks and protected areas in the Foothills Natural Region,

environmental management approaches in the multi-use landscape (outside protected areas) are

needed to support the achievement of desired outcomes for wildlife populations, water quality and

quantity, and other parameters. Effectiveness monitoring is needed to assess the effectiveness of

management approaches intended to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem integrity outside of

protected areas, compared to management approaches within protected areas. Because

opportunities to monitor in protected areas are constrained due their limited aerial extent, it may be

necessary to consider protected area surrogates (areas in a multi-use landscape with limited

industrial activity in which ecosystem composition, structure and function are expected to be similar

to protected areas). For example, several of the 96 watersheds in the Foothills Natural Region



portion of the study area contain high levels of interior habitat (Fig. 8). These watersheds could be

considered for inclusion as protected area surrogates in monitoring studies designed to assess the

effectiveness of land use regimes outside protected areas for achieving desired environmental

outcomes. If additional protected areas are established in the study area or elsewhere in the

Eastern Slopes, there may also be opportunities for effectiveness monitoring in one or more

treatment and control areas, with the treatment being a change in land use designation (e.g., from

Public Land Use Zone to protected area).



Literature cited Adams, J. 1998. Treadmarks on the virgin land: the appropriate role of off-road vehicles in

national forests. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Retrieved from: http://

scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6827&context=etd

Aitken, S.N., Yeaman, S., Holliday, J.A., Wang, T., Curtis-McLane, S. 2008. Adaptation,

migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary

Applications 1(1):95-111.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017a. Derived Ecosite Phase [Vector digital data].

Government of Alberta: Edmonton AB. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geo

portal/catalog/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7B689DA246-15B9-4547-

A755-A9C19E5BBD23%7D (Accessed February 2018).

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017b. Historical wildfire database [computer file]. Last

updated April 2017. Retrieved from: http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-

data/historical-wildfire-database.aspx (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017c. Historical wildfire perimeter spatial data [computer

file]. Last Updated April 2017. Retrieved from: http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/

historical-data/spatial-wildfire-data.aspx (Accessed December 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2004a. Base waterbody polygon arc - Alberta Watercourses

1:1,000,000 scale. [Vector digital data: BASEFEAT.BF_HYDRO_POLYGON]. Alberta Base

Features. Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta: Edmonton AB. Retrieved

from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%

7BA2216D84-77AB-4F65-AB34-03434442CF32%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2004b. Base waterbody polygon - Alberta Waterbodies

1:1,000,000 scale. [Vector digital data: BASEFEAT.BF_HYDRO_POLYGON]. Alberta Base

Features. Government of Alberta: Edmonton AB. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.

ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B7674069D-F980-4B03-9B6E-

1B33A6DE97C9%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2010. ATS v4.1 Alberta provincial boundary. [Vector digital data].

Alberta Base Features. Government of Alberta: Edmonton AB. Retrieved from: https://geodis

cover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BAC2C86A0-

E7D5-4E90-9E5B-F8A32B957563%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2016. Indian Reserve. [Vector digital data:

BASEFEAT.BF_GEO_INDIAN_RES_ POLYGON]. Alberta Base Features. Government of

Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/

catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BD393ED1C-39C9-4304-AD4E-

15C6790382DC%7D (Accessed November 2017).

http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6827&context=etd

http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6827&context=etd

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7B689DA246-15B9-4547-A755-A9C19E5BBD23%7D



http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/historical-wildfire-database.aspx


http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/spatial-wildfire-data.aspx


https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BA2216D84-77AB-4F65-AB34-03434442CF32%7D

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BA2216D84-77AB-4F65-AB34-03434442CF32%7D

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B7674069D-F980-4B03-9B6E-1B33A6DE97C9%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BAC2C86A0-E7D5-4E90-9E5B-F8A32B957563%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BD393ED1C-39C9-4304-AD4E-15C6790382DC%7D





Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017a. Hydrologic Unit Code Watersheds of Alberta. [Vector

digital data]. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alb

erta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B017387ED-2EB1-4D16-

868E-B019E3DA12E5%7D (Accessed February 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017b. Livingstone-Porcupine Hills Recreation Management

Plan. Government of Alberta. ISBN No. 978-1-4601-3967-7. Retrieved from: https://open.

alberta.ca/publications/9781460139684

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017c. National Park. [Vector digital data:

BASEFEAT.BF_GEAO_NATIONAL_ PARK_POLYGON]. Alberta Base Features.

Government of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/

geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BE08A3661-C16D-48CA-A14A-

1D772B798510%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017d. Public Land Use Zone. [Vector digital data]. Government

of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/

catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BB41734F5-3A63-41FD-AF6F-

FE599059B043%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017e. Wildland Park. [Vector digital data]. Government of

Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/cata

log/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7B7373EFF0-6D95-4E4F-A6E6-

55EC99C15C73%7D (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018a. Access and Facility Roads [Vector digital data]. Alberta

Base Features. Government of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscov

er.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BCE523E2B-A368-

440D-B87C-E662DC8B0AEA%7D (Accessed March 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018b. Bull Trout Fish Sustainability Index [Vector digital data].

Government of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta (Accessed March 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018c. Livingstone-Porcupine Hills Land Footprint

Management Plan. Government of Alberta. ISBN No. 978-1-4601-3965-3. Retrieved

from: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460139660

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018d. Population Centres point features - communities as

points. [Vector digital data]. Alberta Base Features. Government of Alberta: Edmonton,

Alberta. (Accessed March 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018e. Progress summary of ecological representation

(Natural Landscape Types) by Natural Region and Subregion within protected areas in

Alberta. Updated July 4, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/

6262166/alberta-s-network-of-protected-areas-progress-toward-achieving-natural-

landscape-targets.pdf

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B017387ED-2EB1-4D16-868E-B019E3DA12E5%7D





https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BE08A3661-C16D-48CA-A14A-1D772B798510%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BB41734F5-3A63-41FD-AF6F-FE599059B043%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7B7373EFF0-6D95-4E4F-A6E6-55EC99C15C73%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BCE523E2B-A368-440D-B87C-E662DC8B0AEA%7D




https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/6262166/alberta-s-network-of-protected-areas-progress-toward-achieving-natural-landscape-targets.pdf





Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018f. Trail usage counter graphs. Retrieved from:

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/bighorn-

backcountry/monitoring/trail-usage-counter-graphs.aspx (Accessed August 2, 2018).

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. R11 Forest

Management Plan: Five-Year Stewardship Report. Forestry Division, Clearwater Forest

Area, Rocky Mountain House, AB. Retrieved from: https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/

$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15765/$file/FMU-R11-FMP5yrStewardshipRpt-

Dec2012.pdf?OpenElement

Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. 1990. Management plan for grizzly bears in Alberta.

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 2. Forestry, Lands, and Wildlife Division,

Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife. 164 pp.

Alberta Land Stewardship Act. 2013. Statutes of Alberta, 2009. Chapter A-26.8 Current as of

December 2013. Alberta Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: http://www.

qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A26P8.pdf

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2006. Alberta Forest Management Planning

Standard. Version 4.1. Forest Management Branch, Edmonton Alberta. Retrieved from:

https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15749/$FILE/ForestMana

gementPlanningStandard-2006.pdf

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in

Alberta: update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Wildlife Status Report No.

37 (Update 2010). Edmonton, AB. 44 pp. Retrieved from: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/

species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/mammals/documents/ SAR-

StatusGrizzlyBearAlbertaUpdate2010-Feb2010.pdf

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Bull Trout Conservation Management

Plan 2012 - 2017. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Species at Risk

Conservation Management Plan No. 8. Edmonton, AB, 90 pp. Retrieved from: http://aep.

alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/fish/

documents/SAR-BullTroutConservationManagementPlan.pdf

Alberta Whitebark and Limber Pine Recovery Team. 2014a. Alberta whitebark pine recovery

plan 2013-2018 (Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 34). Edmonton, AB. 63 pp.

Retrieved from: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460111000

Alberta Whitebark and Limber Pine Recovery Team. 2014b. Alberta limber pine recovery plan

2014-2019 (Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 35). Edmonton, AB. Retrieved


Amoroso, M.M., Daniels, L.D., Bataineh, M., Andison, D.W. 2011. Evidence of mixed-severity

fires in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains of west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest

Ecology and Management 262(12):2240-2249.

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/bighorn-backcountry/monitoring/trail-usage-counter-graphs.aspx

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/bighorn-backcountry/monitoring/trail-usage-counter-graphs.aspx

https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15765/$file/FMU-R11-FMP5yrStewardshipRpt-Dec2012.pdf?OpenElement



http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A26P8.pdf

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A26P8.pdf

https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15749/$FILE/ForestManagementPlanningStandard-2006.pdf

https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15749/$FILE/ForestManagementPlanningStandard-2006.pdf

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/mammals/documents/SAR-StatusGrizzlyBearAlbertaUpdate2010-Feb2010.pdf



http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/fish/documents/SAR-BullTroutConservationManagementPlan.pdf







Anderson, M., McLellan, B.N., Serrouya, R. 2018. Moose response to high-elevation forestry:

implications for apparent competition with endangered caribou. The Journal of Wildlife

Management 82(2):299-309.

Andison, D.W. 1998. Temporal patterns of age-class distributions on foothills landscapes in

Alberta. Ecography 21(5):543-550.

Andison, D.W. 2011. Defining pre-industrial and current disturbance regime parameters for

the North Saskatchewan regional planning area: a technical report prepared for the

Alberta Government in support of the North Saskatchewan land use planning process.

Foothills Research Institute, Hinton AB. Retrieved from: https://friresearch.ca/sites/

default/files/null/HLP_2011_06_Rpt_DefiningPreIndustrialCurrentDisturbanceRegimePar

ametersNSRP.pdf

Andison, D.W., McCleary, K. 2014. Detecting regional differences in within-wildfire burn

patterns in western boreal Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 90(1):59-69.

Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas:

rates, patterns and proximate cause. In Vavra, M., Laylock, W., & Pieper, R.D. (eds.),

Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range

Management, Denver, pp 13-69.

Banff National Park. 2010. Banff National Park of Canada: Management plan. 190 pp.

Retrieved from: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/docs2bi

Banha, F., Marques M., Anastácio, P.M. 2014. Dispersal of two freshwater invasive

macroinvertebrates, Procambarus clarkii and Physella acuta, by off-road vehicles.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24(5):582-591.

Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C., Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate on

water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438(7066):303-309.

Barrett, S.W., Arno, S.F. 1982. Indian fires as an ecological influence in the northern Rockies.

Journal of Forestry 80(10):647-651.

Bawden, A.J., Linton, H.C., Burn, D.H., Prowse, T.D. 2014. A spatiotemporal analysis of

hydrological trends and variability in the Athabasca River region, Canada. Journal of

Hydrology 509(13):333-342.

Bawden, A.J., Burn, D.H., Prowse, T.D. 2015. Recent changes in patterns of western

Canadian river flow and association with climatic drivers. Hydrology Research 46(4):551-

565.

Baxter, C.V., Frissell, C.A., Hauer, F.R. 1999. Geomorphology, logging roads, and the

distribution of bull trout spawning in a forested river basin: implications for management

and conservation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128(5):854-867.

Baxter, J.S., McPhail, J.D. 1999. The influence of redd site selection, groundwater upwelling

and over-winter incubation temperature on survival of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

from egg to alevin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77(8):1233-1239.

https://friresearch.ca/sites/default/files/null/HLP_2011_06_Rpt_DefiningPreIndustrialCurrentDisturbanceRegimeParametersNSRP.pdf



https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/docs2bi



Bêche, L.A., Stephens, S.L. Resh, V.H., 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada

(California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218(1-

3):37-59.

Beeco, J.A., Hallo, J.C., Brownlee, M.T.J. 2014. GPS Visitor tracking and recreation

suitability mapping: tools for understanding and managing visitor use. Landscape Urban

Planning 127:136-145.

Benn, B. 1998. Grizzly bear mortality in the central Rockies ecosystem, Canada. MSc Thesis,

Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, University of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

209 pp. Retrieved from: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/26290

Benn, B., Herrero, S. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho

National Parks, 1971-98. Ursus 13:213-221.

Bergeron, Y., Harvey, B., Leduc, A.L.P., Gauthier, S. 1999. Forest management guidelines

based on natural disturbance dynamics: stand- and forest-level considerations. The

Forestry Chronicle 75(1):49-54.

Bergeron, Y., Leduc, A., Harvey, B.D., Gauthier, S. 2002. Natural fire regime: a guide for

sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva fennica, 36(1):81-95.

Bladon, K.D., Emelko, M.B., Silins, U., Stone, M. 2014. Wildfire and the future of water

supply. Environmental Science & Technology 48(16):8936-8943.

Boulanger J., Stenhouse G., Proctor M., Himmer S., Paetkau D., Cranston J. 2005a. 2004

Population inventory and density estimates for the Alberta 3B and 4B Grizzly Bear

Management Area. Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development. Edmonton, Alberta. 28 pp. Retrieved from: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-

wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bear-recovery-plan/documents/GrizzlyBear-2004-

DNAPopulationEst-2005.pdf

Boulanger J., Stenhouse G., MacHutchon G., Proctor M., Himmer S., Paetkau D., Cranston

J. 2005b. Grizzly bear population and density estimates for the 2005 Alberta (Proposed)

Unit 4 Management Area Inventory. Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. 31 pp. Retrieved from: http://aep.alberta.ca/

fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bear-recovery-plan/documents/GrizzlyBear-

2005-DNAPopulationEst-2005.pdf

Boulanger, J., Cattet, M., Nielsen, S.E., Stenhouse, G., Cranston, J. 2013. Use of multistate

models to explore relationships between changes in body condition, habitat, and survival

of grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis. Wildlife Biology 19(3):274-288.

Boulanger, J., Nielsen, S.E., Stenhouse, G.B. 2018. Using spatial mark-recapture for

conservation monitoring of grizzly bear populations in Alberta. Scientific Reports 8(5204).

Boulanger, J., Stenhouse, G. 2014. The impact of roads on the demography of grizzly bears

in Alberta. PLoS ONE 9(12):e115535.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/26290

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bear-recovery-plan/documents/GrizzlyBear-2004-DNAPopulationEst-2005.pdf








Bourbonnais, M.L., Nelson, T.A., Cattet, M.R., Darimont, C.T., Stenhouse, G.B., Janz, D.M.,

2014. Environmental factors and habitat use influence body condition of individuals in a

species at risk, the grizzly bear. Conservation Physiology 2(1):cou043.

Brady, S.P., Richardson, J.L. 2017. Road ecology: shifting gears toward evolutionary

perspectives. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15(2):91-98.

Bridgewater, P.B., Arico, S. 2002. Conserving and managing biodiversity sustainably: the

roles of science and society. Natural Resources Forum 26(3):245-248.

Brown, R.D., Braaten, R.O. 1998. Spatial and temporal variability of Canadian monthly snow

depths, 1946-1995. Atmosphere-Ocean 36(1):37-54.

Brown, R.S. 1999. Fall and early winter movements of cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki, in

relation to water temperature and ice conditions in Dutch Creek, Alberta. Environmental

Biology of Fishes 55(4):359-368.

Bruggeman, J.E., Garrott, R.A., Bjornlie, D.D., White, P.J., Watson, F.G.R., Borkowski, J. 2006.

Temporal variability in winter travel patterns of Yellowstone bison: the effects of road

grooming. Ecological Applications 16(4):1539-1554.

Buttle, J.M. 2011. The effects of forest harvesting on forest hydrology and biogeochemistry.

Chapter 3 in D.F. Levia et al. (eds.) Forest hydrology and biogeochemistry: synthesis of past

research and future directions. Ecological Studies 216.

Campbell, E.M, Antos, J. 2003. Postfire succession in Pinus albicaulis - Abies lasiocarpa

forests of southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany 81(4):383-397.

Campbell, C., Campbell, I.D., Blyth, C.B., McAndrews, J.H. 1994. Bison extirpation may have

caused aspen expansion in Western Canada. Ecography 17(4):360-362.

Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre 2003. 2003 Glossary of Forest Fire Management

Terms. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Retrieved from: http://www.salmonarmmuseum.org/docs/

2003_fire_glossary.pdf

Canfield, J.E., Lyon, L.J., Hillis, J.M., Thompson, M.J. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1-6.25 in G.

Joslin and H. Youmans (coordinators) Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a

review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of

the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. Retrieved from: https://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/

Ungulates.pdf

Castilla, G., Hird, J., Hall, R.J., Schieck, J., McDermid, G.J. 2014. Completion and updating

of a Landsat-based land cover polygon layer for Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of

Remote Sensing 40(2):92-109.

Chavardès, R.D., Daniels, L.D. 2016. Altered mixed-severity fire regime has homogenized

montane forests of Jasper National Park. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25(4):433-

444.

http://www.salmonarmmuseum.org/docs/2003_fire_glossary.pdf

http://www.salmonarmmuseum.org/docs/2003_fire_glossary.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/Ungulates.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/Ungulates.pdf



Chavardès, R.D., Daniels, L.D., Gedalof, Z.E., Andison, D.W. 2018. Human influences

superseded climate to disrupt the 20th century fire regime in Jasper National Park,

Canada. Dendrochronologia 48:10-19.

Chin, A., Rohrer, D.M., Marion, D.A., Clingenpeel, J.A., 2004. Effects of all-terrain vehicles on

stream dynamics. General Technical Report. SRS-74: Southern Research Station, Forest

Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Asheville, NC. pp. 292-296. Retrieved

from: https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs074/gtr_srs074-chin001.pdf

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2013. Guidelines for systematic review and

evidence synthesis in environmental management, Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence.

Retrieved from: www.environmentalevidence.org\Documents\Guidelines\Guidelines

4.2.pdf

Coppolillo, P., Gomez, H., Maisels, F., Wallace, R. 2004. Selection criteria for suites of

landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biological Conservation

15(3):419-430.

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Limber Pine Pinus flexilis

in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 49

pp. Retrieved from: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/

sr_Limber%20Pine_2014_e.pdf

Cumming, S.G. 2005. Effective fire suppression in boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 35(4):772-786.

D’Antonio, A., Monz, C., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Pettebone, P., Courtemanche A. 2010.

GPS-based measurements of backcountry visitors in parks and protected areas:

examples of methods and applications from three case studies. Journal of Parks and

Recreation Administration 28(3):42-60.

Daigle, P. 2010. A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses,

and research gaps: a literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management

10(3):65-89.

Dawe, K.L., Boutin, S. 2016. Climate change is the primary driver of white‐tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) range expansion at the northern extent of its range; land use is

secondary. Ecology and Evolution 6(18):6435-6451.

Deacy, W.W., Armstrong, J.B., Leacock, W.B., Robbins, C.T., Gustine, D.D., Ward, E.J.,

Erlenbach, J.A., Stanford, J.A. 2017. Phenological synchronization disrupts trophic

interactions between Kodiak brown bears and salmon. PNAS 114(39):10432-10437.

DeBeer, C.M., Wheater, H.S., Carey, S.K., Chun, K.P. 2016. Recent climatic, cryospheric,

and hydrological changes over the interior of western Canada: a review and

synthesis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20(4):1573-1598.

DeHaan, P.W., Bernall, S.R., Dos Santos, J.M., Lockard, L.L., Ardren, W.R. 2011. Use of

genetic markers to aid in re-establishing migratory connectivity in a fragmented

https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs074/gtr_srs074-chin001.pdf

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf

http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Limber%20Pine_2014_e.pdf

http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Limber%20Pine_2014_e.pdf



metapopulation of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 68(11):1952-1969.

Dekker, D. 2009. Declines of Bighorn Sheep, Ovis canadensis, on deteriorating winter range

in Jasper National Park, Alberta, 1981-2010. Canadian Field Naturalist 123(2):157-164.

DelGiudice, G.D., Singer, F.J., Seal, U.S., Bowser, G. 1994. Physiological responses of

Yellowstone bison to winter nutritional deprivation. The Journal of Wildlife Management

58(1):24-34.

Demarchi, R.A., Hartwig, C.L., Demarchi, D.A. 2000. Status of the Rocky Mountain bighorn

sheep in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch,

Victoria, BC. Wildlife Bulletin No B-99. x + 56 pp. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semantic

scholar.org/b77c/366694a2685b1a368197e901ca0c6ebda64c.pdf

Demuth, M.N., Pietroniro, A. 2003. The impact of climate change on the glaciers of the

Canadian Rocky Mountain eastern slopes and implications for water resource-related

adaptation in the Canadian prairies. Geological Survey of Canada Open File #4322. xv +

96 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.parc.ca/pdf/research_publications/water1.pdf

Demuth, M.N., Keller, R. 2006. An assessment of the mass balance of Peyto Glacier (1966-

1995) and its relation to recent and past-century climatic variability. In Demuth M.N.,

Munro, D.S., Young, G.J. (eds.) Peyto Glacier: one century of science. National

Hydrology Research Institute Science Report Series #8. pp. 83-132.

Dibike, Y., Eum, H.I., Prowse, T. 2018. Modelling the Athabasca watershed snow response to

a changing climate. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 15:134-148.

Dunham, J.B., Rieman, B.E. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of

physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications

9(2):642-655.

Eby, L.A., Helmy, O., Holsinger, L.M., Young, M.K. 2014. Evidence of Climate-Induced

Range Contractions in Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus in a Rocky Mountain Watershed,

U.S.A. PLoS ONE 9(6):e98812.

Eum, H., Dibike, Y., Prowse, T. 2016. Comparative evaluation of the effects of climate and

land-cover changes on hydrologic responses of the Muskeg River, Alberta, Canada.

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 8:198-221.

Eum, H., Dibike, Y.B. 2017. Climate-induced alteration of hydrologic indicators in the

Athabasca River Basin, Alberta, Canada. Journal of Hydrology 544:327-342.

Farr, D., Braid, A., Janz, A., Sarchuk, B., Slater, S., Sztaba, A., Barrett, D., Stenhouse, G.,

Morehouse, A., Wheatley, M. 2017. Ecological response to human activities in

southwestern Alberta: scientific assessment and synthesis. Alberta Environment and

Parks, Government of Alberta. ISBN No. 978-1-4601-3540-2. Retrieved from: https://

open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460135402

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b77c/366694a2685b1a368197e901ca0c6ebda64c.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b77c/366694a2685b1a368197e901ca0c6ebda64c.pdf

http://www.parc.ca/pdf/research_publications/water1.pdf





Field, C.B., Mortsch, L.D., Brklacich, M., Forbes, D.L., Kovacs, P., Patz, J.A., Running, S.W.,

Scott, M.J. 2008. North America. Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and

vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P.,

van der Linden, P.J., C.E. Hanson, C.E. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK. pp. 617-652. Retrieved from: https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-

chapter14.pdf

Flannigan, M. D., Campbell, I., Wotton, M., Carcaillet, C., Richard, P., Bergeron, Y. 2001.

Future fire in Canada’s boreal forest: paleoecology results and general circulation model -

regional climate model simulations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(5):854-864.

Flasko, A., Manseau, M., Mastromonaco, G., Bradley, M., Neufeld, L., Wilson, P. 2017. Fecal

DNA, hormones, and pellet morphometrics as a noninvasive method to estimate age

class: an application to wild populations of Central Mountain and Boreal woodland

caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Canadian Journal of Zoology 95(5), pp.311-321.

Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins.

2018. [computer file]. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of

Alberta. Available from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/

details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D

Forman, R.T., Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

Gaines, W.L., Singleton, P.H., Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

US Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Government.

Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr586.pdf

Gallant, A.L., Hansen, A.J., Councilman, J.S., Monte, D.K., Betz, D.W. 2003. Vegetation

dynamics under fire exclusion and logging in a Rocky Mountain watershed, 1856-1996.

Ecological Applications 13(2):385-403.

Gardner, J. 1970. Geomorphic significance of avalanches in the Lake Louise area, Alberta,

Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research 2(2):135-144.

Garibaldi, A., Taylor, N. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological

conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1. Retrieved from: https://www.

ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1

Government of Alberta. 1984. A policy for resource management of the Eastern Slopes,

Revised 1984. Government of Alberta, Edmonton AB. ISBN: 0-86499-067-7. Retrieved


Government of Alberta. 2014. Terms of reference for developing the North Saskatchewan

Regional Plan. ISBN 978-1-4601-1717-0. Retrieved from: https://landuse.alberta.ca/

LandUse%20Documents/Terms%20of%20Reference%20for%20Developing%20the%20

North%20Saskatchewan%20Region%20-%202014-05.pdf

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/%20details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/%20details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr586.pdf

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1


https://landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/Terms%20of%20Reference%20for%20Developing%20the%20North%20Saskatchewan%20Region%20-%202014-05.pdf





Government of Alberta. 2018a. Bighorn Backcountry. ISBN No. 978-1-4601-3754-3.

Retrieved from: http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-

land/bighorn-backcountry/documents/BighornBackcountryBrochure-Mar2018.pdf

Government of Alberta. 2018b. South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014 - 2024. Amended

May 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/

South%20Saskatchewan%20Regional%20Plan%202014-2024%20-%20May%202018.

pdf

Graham, K., Boulanger, J., Duval, J., Stenhouse, G. 2010. Spatial and temporal use of roads

by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta. Ursus 21(1):43-56.

Guillemette, F., Plamondon, A.P., Prévost, M., Lévesque, D. 2005. Rainfall generated

stormflow response to clearcutting a boreal forest: peak flow comparison with 50 world-

wide basin studies. Journal of Hydrology 302(1-4):137-153.

Gustafsson, L., Baker, S.C., Bauhus, J., Beese, W.J., Brodie, A., Kouki, J., Lindenmayer,

D.B., Lõhmus, A., Pastur, G.M., Messier, C. Neyland, M., 2012. Retention forestry to

maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience, 62(7):633-645.

Hallo, J.C., Beeco, J.A., Goetcheus, C., McGee, J., McGehee, N.C., Norman, W.C. 2012.

GPS as a method for assessing spatial and temporal use distribution of nature-based

tourists. Journal of Travel Research 51(5):591-606.

Hansen, M.J., Clevenger, A.P. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the

presence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation

125(2):249-259.

Harder, P., Pomeroy, J.W., Westbrook, C.J. 2015. Hydrological resilience of a Canadian

Rockies headwaters basin subject to changing climate, extreme weather, and forest

management. Hydrological Processes 29(18):3905-3924.

Hamer, D., Herrero, S. 1987. Grizzly bear food and habitat in the front ranges of Banff

National Park, Alberta. Bears: Their Biology and Management 7:199-213.

Heitzmann, R.J. 2009. Hunter-gatherer settlement and land use in the Central Canadian

Rockies, AD 800-1800. Ph.D Thesis, University of Leicester, UK. xiii + 400 pp.

Heller, N.E., Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a

review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142(1):14-32.

Huggard, D.J., Grover, B.E., Dzus, E., Smith, M., Schieck, J. 2014. Effectiveness monitoring

for biodiversity: comparing 15 year old structural retention harvest areas to fires in boreal

aspen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 45(2):153-161.

Huss, M., Hock, R. 2018. Global-scale hydrological response to future glacier mass loss.

Nature Climate Change 8:135-140.

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group

I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/bighorn-backcountry/documents/BighornBackcountryBrochure-Mar2018.pdf

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/bighorn-backcountry/documents/BighornBackcountryBrochure-Mar2018.pdf

https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/South%20Saskatchewan%20Regional%20Plan%202014-2024%20-%20May%202018.pdf





Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A.,

Xia, Y., Bex V., Midgley, P.M. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK & New

York, USA. 1535 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/

WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

Isaak, D.J., Luce, C.H., Rieman, B.E., Nagel, D.E., Peterson, E.E., Horan, D.L., Parkes, S.,

Chandler, G.L. 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and

salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications 20(5):1350-

1371.

Isaak, D.J., Young, M.K., Luce, C.H., Hostetler, S.W., Wenger, S.J., Peterson, E.E., Ver Hoef,

J.M., Groce, M.C., Horan, D.L., Nagel, D.E. 2016. Slow climate velocities of mountain stream

portend their role as refugia for cold-water biodiversity. PNAS 113(16):4374-4379.

ISI Web of Knowledge. 2018. Computer database. https://webofknowledge.com (Accessed

March 8, 2018).

Jackson, M.C., Loewen, C.J.G., Vinebrooke, R.D., Chimimba, C.T. 2016. Net effects of

multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology,

22(1):180-189.

James, K.L., Randall, N.P., Haddaway, N.R. 2016. A methodology for systematic mapping in

environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence 5(7):1-13.

Kay, C.E., White, C.A., Patton, B. 1999. Long-term ecosystem states and processes in Banff

National Park and the Central Canadian Rockies (Occasional Paper No. 9). Parks

Canada. ISBN 0-662-26800-8. Retrieved from: http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/op/

banff-rockies-ecosystems.pdf

Keane, R.E., Ryan, K.C., Velben, T.T., Allen, C.D., Logan, J., Hawkes, B. 2002. Cascading

effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review (RMRS-GTR-

91). Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp.

Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr091.pdf

Kendall, K.C., Keane, R.E. 2001. Whitebark pine decline: infection, mortality, and population

trends. Pp. 221-242 in Tomback, D.F., Arno, S.F., Keane, R.E. (eds.) Whitebark pine

communities: ecology and restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 440 pp.

Kerkhoven, E., Gan, T.Y. 2011. Unconditional uncertainties of historical and simulated river

flows subjected to climate change. Journal of Hydrology 396(1-2):113-127.

Kienzle, S.W., Nemeth, M.W., Byrne, J.M., MacDonald, R.J. 2012. Simulating the

hydrological impacts of climate change in the upper North Saskatchewan River basin,

Alberta, Canada. Journal of Hydrology 412-413:76-89.

Kienzle, S.W. 2017. Has it become warmer in Alberta? Mapping temperature changes for the

period 1950-2010 across Alberta, Canada. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe

canadien 62(2):144-162.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

https://webofknowledge.com/

http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/op/banff-rockies-ecosystems.pdf

http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/op/banff-rockies-ecosystems.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr091.pdf



Kishchuk, B.E., Quideau, S., Wang, Y., Prescott, C. 2014. Long-term soil response to

variable-retention harvesting in the EMEND (Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural

Disturbance) experiment, northwestern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science

94(3):263-279.

Knutti, R., Sedláček, J. 2013. Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model

projections. Nature Climate Change 3(4):369-373.

Korpilo, S., Virtanen, T., Lehvavirta, S. 2017. Smartphone GPS tracking - Inexpensive and

efficient data collection on recreation movement. Landscape and Urban Planning

157:608-617.

Krefting, L.W. 1974. Moose distribution and habitat selection in north central North America. Le

Naturaliste Canadien 101:81-100.

Lamb, C.T., Mowat, G., Reid, A., Smit, L., Proctor, M., McLellan, B.N., Nielsen, S.E., Boutin,

S. 2018. Effects of habitat quality and access management on the density of a recovering

grizzly bear population. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(3):1-12.

Landhäusser, S.M., Deshaies, D., Lieffers, V.J. 2010. Disturbance facilitates rapid range

expansion of aspen into higher elevations of the Rocky Mountains under a warming

climate. Journal of Biogeography 37(1):68-76.

Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Hockings, M. 2010. A global analysis of

protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5):685-698.

Lewis, H.T., Ferguson, T.A. 1988. Yards, corridors, and mosaics: how to burn a boreal forest.

Human Ecology 16(1):57-77.

Lertzman, K., Fall, J., Dorner, B. 1998. Three kinds of heterogeneity in fire regimes: at the

crossroads of fire history and landscape ecology. Northwest Science 72:4-23.

Li, Q., Wei, X., Zhang, M., Liu, W., Giles-Hansen, K., Wang, Y. 2018. The cumulative effects

of forest disturbance and climate variability on streamflow components in a large forest-

dominated watershed. Journal of Hydrology 557:448-459.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Burton, P., Franklin, J.F. 2008. Salvage logging and its ecological

consequences. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 246 pp.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Likens, G.E. 2009. Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term

research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9):482-486.

Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins.

2018. [computer file]. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of

Alberta. Available from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/

details.page?uuid=%7B81711249-952A-4258-B73A-EA10A3472AD8%7D

Linke, J., Franklin, S.E., Huettmann, F., Stenhouse, G.B. 2005. Seismic cutlines, changing

landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape use in Alberta. Landscape Ecology

20(7):811-826.

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B81711249-952A-4258-B73A-EA10A3472AD8%7D




Luce C.H. 2018. Effects of climate change on snowpack, glaciers, and water resources in the

Northern Rockies. Pp. 25-36 in Halofsky, J., Peterson, D. (eds.) Climate Change and

Rocky Mountain Ecosystems. Advances in Global Change Research, Volume 63.

Springer Nature, Cham, CH. 236 pp. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_

series/rmrs/gtr/rmrs_gtr374/rmrs_gtr374_048_086.pdf

Luckman, B.H. 1998. Landscape and climate change in the Central Canadian Rockies during

the 20th century. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 42(4):319-36.

MacDonald, R.J., Byrne, J.M., Boon, S., Kienzle, S.W. 2012. Modelling the potential impacts

of climate change on snowpack in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, Alberta.

Water Resources Management 26(11):3053-3076.

Mace, R.D., Waller, J.S. 1996. Grizzly bear distribution and human conflicts in Jewel Basin

Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(3):461-467.

Mace, R.D., Waller, J.S., Manley, T.L., Lyon, L.J., Zuuring, H. 1996. Relationships among

grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan Mountains Montana. Journal of Applied

Ecology 33(6):1395-1404.

MacPherson, L.M., Sullivan, M.G., Foote, A.L., Stevens, C.E. 2012. Effects of Culverts on

Stream Fish Assemblages in the Alberta Foothills. North American Journal of Fisheries


Maher, E.L, Germino, M.J. 2006. Microsite differentiation among conifer species during

seedling establishment at alpine treeline. Écoscience 13(3):334-341.

Maitland, B.M., Poesch, M., Anderson, A.E., Pandit, S.N. 2016. Industrial road crossings

drive changes in community structure and instream habitat for freshwater fishes in the

boreal forest. Freshwater Biology 61(1):1-18.

Marion, D.A., Phillips, J.D., Yocum, C., Mehlhope, S.H. 2014. Stream channel responses and

soil loss at off-highway vehicle stream crossings in the Ouachita National Forest.

Geomorphology 216:40-52.

Marshall, S.J., White, E.C., Demuth, M.N., Bolch, T., Wheate, R., Menounos, B., Beedle,

M.J., Shea, J.M. 2011. Glacier water resources on the Eastern Slopes of the Canadian

Rocky Mountains. Canadian Water Resources Journal 36(2):109-134.

Mbogga, M.S., Hamann, A., Wang, T. 2009. Historical and projected climate data for natural

resource management in western Canada. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149:881-

890.

McCaffery, M., Switalski, T.A., Eby, L. 2007. Effects of Road Decommissioning on Stream

Habitat Characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 136(3):553-561.

McLellan, B.N. 2015. Some mechanisms underlying variation in vital rates of grizzly bears on

a multiple use landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(5):749-765.

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_series/rmrs/gtr/rmrs_gtr374/rmrs_gtr374_048_086.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_series/rmrs/gtr/rmrs_gtr374/rmrs_gtr374_048_086.pdf



McLellan, B.N., Hovey, F.W. 2001. Habitats selected by grizzly bears in a multiple use

landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1):92-99.

McLellan, B.N., Shackleton, D.M. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries:

effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology

25(2):451-460.

McMahon, T.E., Zale, A.V., Barrows, F.T., Selong, J.H., Danehy, R.J. 2007. Temperature and

competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(5):1313-1326.

McRae, D.J., Duchesne, L.C., Freedman, B., Lynham, T.J., Woodley, S. 2001. Comparisons

between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in forest management.

Environmental Reviews 9(4):223-260.

Meijles, E.W., de Bakker, M., Groote, P.D., Barske, R. 2014. Analysing hiker movement

patterns using GPS data: implications for park management. Computers, Environment

and Urban Systems 47:44-57.

Morgan, P., Hardy, C.C., Swetnam, T.W., Rollins, M.G., Long, D.G. 2001. Mapping fire

regimes across time and space: understanding coarse and fine-scale patterns.

International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:329-342.

Muhlfeld, C.C., Kovach, R.P., Jones, L.A., Al-Chokhachy, R., Boyer, M.C., Leary, R.F., Lowe,

W.H., Luikart, G., Allendorf, F.W. 2014. Invasive hybridization in a threatened species is

accelerated by climate change. Nature Climate Change 4:620-624.

Muhlfeld, C.C., Kovach, R.P., Al-Chokhachy, R., Amish, S.J., Kershner, J.L., Leary, R.F.,

Lowe, W.H., Luikart, G., Matson, P., Schmetterling, D.A., Shepard, B.B., Westley, P.A.H,,

Whited, D., Whiteley, A., Allendorf, F.W. 2017. Legacy introductions and climatic variation

explain spatiotemporal patterns of invasive hybridization in a native trout. Global Change

Biology 23(11):4663-4674.

Murphy, P.J. 1985. History of forest and prairie control policy in Alberta. Department of

Energy and Natural Resources Report No. T/77. Forest Service, Alberta Energy and

Natural Resource Development, Edmonton, AB. 408 pp. Retrieved from: http://alberta

foresthistory.ca/docs/historic_docs/Murphy1985_20160924.pdf

Murray, M.P., Bunting, S.C., Morgan, P. 1998. Fire history of an isolated subalpine mountain

range of the intermountain region, United States. Journal of Biogeography 25(6):1071-

1080.

Murray, D.L., Cox, E.W., Ballard, W.B., Whitlaw, H.A., Lenarz, M.S., Custer, T.W., Barnett, T.,

Fuller, T.K. 2006. Pathogens, nutritional deficiency, and climate influences on a declining

moose population. Wildlife Monographs 166:1-30.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by

Downing, D.J., Pettapiece, W.W. Government of Alberta Publication No. T/852. Edmonton,

AB. 254 pp. Retrieved from: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778545725

http://albertaforesthistory.ca/docs/historic_docs/Murphy1985_20160924.pdf

http://albertaforesthistory.ca/docs/historic_docs/Murphy1985_20160924.pdf




Neary, D.G., Ryan, K.C., DeBano, L.F. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils

and water. General Technical Report (RMRS-GTR-42 Volume 4). Rocky Mountain Research

Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 262 pp. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.

us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf

Nelson, M.E., Mech, D.L. 1986. Relationship between snow depth and gray wolf predation on

white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50(3):471-474.

Nemeth, M.W., Kienzle, S.W., Byrne, J.M. 2012. Multi-variable verification of hydrological

processes in the upper North Saskatchewan River basin, Alberta, Canada. Hydrological

Sciences Journal, 57(1):84-102.

Nepal, S.K., Way, P. 2007. Comparison of vegetation conditions along two backcountry trails

in Mount Robson Provincial Park, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Environmental


Newton, B.W., Prowse, T.D., de Rham, L.P. 2017. Hydro-climatic drivers of mid-winter break-

up of river ice in western Canada and Alaska. Hydrology Research 48(4):945-956.

Nichols, S., Wilson, M. 2012. Monitoring of recreation uses and impacts in Bighorn Wildland,

Alberta: 2012 Report. Bighorn Wildland Recreation Monitoring Project, Alberta

Wilderness Association. Retrieved from: https://albertawilderness.ca/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/20120727_doc_2012_bmp_report.pdf

Nielsen, S.E., Munro, R.H.M., Bainbridge, E.L., Stenhouse, G.B., Boyce, M.S. 2004a. Grizzly

bears and forestry I. Selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta,

Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199(1):51-65.

Nielsen, S.E., Munro, R.H.M., Bainbridge, E.L., Stenhouse, G.B., Boyce, M.S. 2004b. Grizzly

bears and forestry II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta,

Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199(1):67-82.

Nielsen, S.E., Herrero, S., Boyce, M.S., Benn, B., Mace, R.D., Gibeau, M.L., Jevons, S.

2004c. Modelling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the

Central Rockies Ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation 120(1):101-113.

Northrup, J.M., Pitt, J., Muhly, T.B., Stenhouse, G.B., Musiani, M., Boyce, M.S. 2012. Vehicle

traffic shapes grizzly bear behaviour on a multiple-use landscape. Journal of Applied

Ecology 49(5):1159-1167.

Notzke, C. 1985. Indian reserves in Canada: development problems of the Stoney and

Peigan Reserves in Alberta (Marburger Geographische Schriften Heft 97). Im

Selbstverlag des Geographischen Instituts der Universität Marburg. 113 pp.

Olson, L.E., Squires, J.R., Roberts, E.K., Miller, A.D., Ivan, J.S., Hebblewhite, M. 2017.

Modeling large-scale winter recreation terrain selection with implications for recreation

management and wildlife. Applied Geography 86:66-91.

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf

https://albertawilderness.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20120727_doc_2012_bmp_report.pdf

https://albertawilderness.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20120727_doc_2012_bmp_report.pdf



O’Neil, H.C.L., Prowse, T.D., Bonsal, B.R., Dibike, Y.B. 2017a. Spatial and temporal

characteristics in streamflow-related hydroclimatic variables over western Canada. Part

1: 1950-2010. Hydrology Research 48(4):915-931.

O’Neil, H.C.L., Prowse, T.D., Bonsal, B.R., Dibike, Y.B. 2017b. Spatial and temporal

characteristics in streamflow-related hydroclimatic variables over western Canada. Part

2: future projections. Hydrology Research 48(4):932-944.

Osko, T.J., Hiltz, M.N., Hudson, R.J., Wasel, S.M. 2004. Moose habitat preferences in

response to changing availability. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):576-584.

Ouren, D.S., Haas, C., Melcher, C.P, Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, L.,

Fancher, T., Bowen, Z.H. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau

of Land Management lands: a literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive

bibliographies, and internet resources. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-

1353. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. xvi + 225 pp. Retrieved from: https://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2007/1353/report.pdf

Papouchis, C.M., Singer, F.J., Sloan, W.B. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to

Increased Human Recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):573-582.

Parendes, L., Jones, J.A. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion

along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation

Biology 14(1):64-75.

Parks Canada. 2017. Plain bison reintroduction. Banff National Park. Retrieved from: https://

www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison (Accessed: March 19,

2018).

Parks, S.A., Miller, C., Parisien, M.-A., Holsinger, L.M., Dobrowski, S.Z., Abatzoglou, J. 2015.

Wildland fire deficit and surplus in the western United States, 1984-2012. Ecosphere

6(12):1-13.

Peek, J.M. 1974. Initial response of moose to a forest fire in northeastern Minnesota. The

American Midland Naturalist Journal 91(2):435-438.

Pengelly, C.J., Cartar, R.V. 2010. Effects of variable retention logging in the boreal forest on

the bumble bee-influenced pollination community, evaluated 8-9 years post-logging.

Forest Ecology and Management 260(6):994-1002.

Pigeon, K.E., Stenhouse, G.B., and Côté, S.D. 2016. Drivers of hibernation: linking food and

weather to denning behaviour of grizzly bears. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

70(10):1745-1754.

Plumwood, V. 2006. The concept of a cultural landscape: nature, culture and agency of the

land. Ethics & the Environment 11(2):115-150.

Pomeroy, J.W., Fang, X., Ellis, C. 2012. Sensitivity of snowmelt hydrology in Marmot Creek,

Alberta, to forest cover disturbance. Hydrological Processes 26(12):1891-1904.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1353/report.pdf

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1353/report.pdf

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison



Pomeroy, J.W., Fang, X., Rasouli, K. 2015. Sensitivity of snow processes to warming in the

Canadian Rockies. Pp. 22-33 in Proceedings of the 72nd Eastern Snow Conference,

Sherbrook, QC. Retrieved from: https://www.usask.ca/hydrology/papers/Pomeroy_et_al_

2015_3.pdf

Price, R. (Ed).1999. Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties. University of Alberta Press,

Edmonton, AB. ISBN 0-8886-327-6. 213 pp.

Proctor, M.F., Paetkau, D., McLellan, B.N., Stenhouse, G.B., Kendall, K.C., Mace, R.D.,

Kasworm, W.F., Servheen, C., Lausen, C.L., Gibeau, M L., et al. 2012. Population

fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in Western Canada and

the Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs, 180(1):1-46.

Proctor, M.F., McLellan, B.N., Stenhouse, G.B., Mowat, G, Lamb, C.T., and Boyce, M.S.

2018. Resource roads and grizzly bears in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada.

Canadian Grizzly Bear Management Series, Resource Road Management. Trans-border

Grizzly Bear Project. Kaslo, BC. Retrieved from: http://transbordergrizzlybearproject.ca/

research/publications.html

Proulx, G., Kariz, R.M. 2005. Winter habitat use by moose, Alces alces, in central interior

British Columbia. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 119(2):186-191.

Quigley, T.M., Arbelbide, S.J. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (PNW-GTR-405 Volume

3). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 22 pp.

Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr405/pnw_gtr405_53.pdf

Renecker, L.A., Hudson, R.J. 1986. Seasonal energy expenditures and thermoregulatory

response of moose. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64(2):322-327.

Rhemtulla, J.M., Hall, R.J, Higgs, E.S., Macdonald, S.E. 2002. Eighty years of change:

vegetation in the montane ecoregion of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research 32(11):2010-2021.

Rieman, B.E., Lee, D.C., Thurow, R.F. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of

bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River Basins. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 17:1111-1125.

Riley, K.L., Loehman, R.A. 2016. Mid-21st-century climate changes increase predicted fire

occurrence and fire season length, Northern Rocky Mountains, United States. Ecosphere

7(11):e01543.

Ripley, T., Scrimgeour, G., Boyce, M.S. 2005. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occurrence

and abundance influence by cumulative industrial developments in a Canadian boreal

forest watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(11):2431-

2442.

https://www.usask.ca/hydrology/papers/Pomeroy_et_al_%202015_3.pdf

https://www.usask.ca/hydrology/papers/Pomeroy_et_al_%202015_3.pdf

http://transbordergrizzlybearproject.ca/research/publications.html

http://transbordergrizzlybearproject.ca/research/publications.html

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr405/pnw_gtr405_53.pdf



Roberts, D.R., Nielsen, S.E., Stenhouse, G.B. 2014. Idiosyncratic responses of grizzly bear

habitat to climate change based on projected food resource changes. Ecological

Applications 24(5):1144-1154.

Rocca, M.E., Brown, P.M., MacDonald, L.H., Carrico, C.M. 2014. Climate change impacts on

fire regimes and key ecosystem services in Rocky Mountain forests. Forest Ecology and

Management 327:290-305.

Roever, C.L., Boyce, M.S., Stenhouse, G.B. 2010. Grizzly bear movements relative to roads:

application of step selection functions. Ecography 33(6):1-10.

Rogeau, M.P. 2009. Fire regime study: FMU R11, Alberta. Part I. Contract report prepared for

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Rogeau, M.P. 2010a. Part II: fire history study 2009 field results: FMU R11, Alberta. Contract

report prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Rogeau, M.P. 2010b. Part III: fire regime departure. R11 FMU, Alberta. Contract report

prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Rogeau, M.P., Flannigan, M.D., Hawkes, B.C., Parisien, M.-A., Arthur, R. 2016. Spatial and

temporal variations of fire regimes in the Canadian Rocky Mountains and Foothills of

southern Alberta. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25(11):1117-1130.

Rokaya, P., Budhathoki, S., Lindenschmidt, K-E. 2018. Trends in the timing and magnitude of

ice-jam floods in Canada. Scientific Reports, 8(1):5834.

Rood, S.B., Pan, J., Gill, K.M., Franks, C.G., Samuelson, G.M., Shepherd, A. 2008. Declining

summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: changing seasonal hydrology and probable

impacts on floodplain forests. Journal of Hydrology 349(3-4):397-410.

Rooney, T.P. 2005. Distribution of ecologically-invasive plants along off-road vehicle trails in

the Chequamegon National Forest, Wisconsin. The Michigan Botanist 44(4):178-182.

Rothwell, R., Hillman, G., Pomeroy, J.W. 2016. Marmot Creek Experimental Watershed

Study. The Forestry Chronicle 92(1):32-36.

Sachro, L.L., Strong, W.L., Gates, C.C. 2005. Prescribed burning effects on summer elk

forage availability in the subalpine zone, Banff National Park, Canada. Journal of

Environmental Management 77(3):183-193.

Samuel, W.M. 2007. Factors affecting epizootics of winter ticks and mortality of moose. Alces

43:39-48.

Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Vedder, A., Coppolillo, P.B., Ward, S.E. 2002. A conceptual

model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape

and Urban Planning 58(1):41-56.

Schaffer, M.T.S. 1908. Among the sources of the Saskatchewan and Athabasca Rivers.

Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Philadelphia 6(3):48-61.



Schindler, D.W., Donahue, W.F. 2006. An impending water crisis in Canada’s western prairie

provinces. PNAS 103(19):7210-7216.

Schneider, R.R. 2013. Alberta’s natural Subregions under a changing climate: past, present,

and future. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Edmonton, AB. x + 86 pp. Retrieved

from: http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Schneider_

2013_AlbertaNaturalSubregionsUnderaChangingClimate.pdf

Schneider, R.R., Bayne, E.M. 2015. Reserve design under climate change: from land facets

back to ecosystem representation. PLoS One 10(5):e0126918.

Schneider, R.R., Devito, K., Kettridge, N., Bayne, E. 2016. Moving beyond bioclimatic

envelope models: integrating upland forest and peatland processes to predict ecosystem

transitions under climate change in the western Canadian boreal plain. Ecohydrology

9(6):899-908.

Schoennagel, T., Balch, J.K., Brenkert-Smith, H., Dennison, P.E., Harvey, B.J., Krawchuk,

M.A., Mietkiewicz, N., Morgan, P., Moritz, M.A., Rasker, R., Turner, M.G., Whitlock, C.,

Turner, M.G. 2017. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate

changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(18):4582-4590.

Scrimgeour, G.J., Hvenegaard, P., Tchir, J., Kendall, S., Wildeman, A. 2003. Stream fish

management: cumulative effects of watershed disturbances on stream fish communities

in the Kakwa and Simonette River Basins, Alberta. Report produced by the Alberta

Conservation Association (Peace River) and the Alberta Research Council (Vegreville)

for the Northern Watershed Project Final Report No. 3. Alberta Research Council,

Vegreville, Alberta. 126 pp.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity

2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Retrieved from: https://cbd.int/doc/

strategic-plan/targets/T11-quick-guide-en.pdf

Shepherd, B., Jones, B., Sissons, R., Cochrane, J., Park, J., Smith, C.M., Stafl, N. 2018. Ten

Years of Monitoring Illustrates a Cascade of Effects of White Pine Blister Rust and

Focuses Whitebark Pine Restoration in the Canadian Rocky and Columbia Mountains.

Forests 9(3):138.

Shonfield, J., Bayne, E., 2017. Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research:

current use and future applications. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 12(1):14.

Silins, U., Anderson, A., Bladon, K.D., Emelko M.B., Stone, M., Spencer, S.A., Williams,

C.H.S., Wagner, M.J., Martens, A.M., Hawthorn, K. 2016. Southern Rockies Watershed

Project. The Forestry Chronicle 92(1):39-42.

Silins, U., Bladon, K.D., Kelly, E.N., Esch, E., Spence, J.R., Stone, M., Emelko, M.B., Boon,

S., Wagner, M.J., Williams, C.H.S., Tichkowsky, I. 2014. Five‐year legacy of wildfire and

salvage logging impacts on nutrient runoff and aquatic plant, invertebrate, and fish

productivity. Ecohydrology 7(6):1508-1523.

http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Schneider_2013_AlbertaNaturalSubregionsUnderaChangingClimate.pdf

http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Schneider_2013_AlbertaNaturalSubregionsUnderaChangingClimate.pdf

https://cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/T11-quick-guide-en.pdf

https://cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/T11-quick-guide-en.pdf



Silins, U., Stone, M., Emelko, M.B., Bladon, K.D. 2009. Sediment production following severe

wildfire and post-fire salvage logging in the Rocky Mountain headwaters of the Oldman

River Basin, Alberta. Catena 79(3):189-197.

Silins, U., Wagner, M.J., Stone, M., Emelko, M.B., Mendoza, C.A., Devito, K.J., Boon, S.,

Bladon, K.D. 2008. Wildfire impacts on nitrogen concentration and production from

headwater streams in southern Alberta's Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 38(9):2359-2371.

Smith, S.D.P., McIntyre, P.B., Halpern, B.S., Cooke, R.M., Marino, A.L., Boyer, G.L.,

Buchsbaum, A., Burton, G.A., Campbell, L.M., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Doran, P.J., Infante,

D.M., Johnson, L.B., Read, J.G., Rose, J.B., Rutherford, E.S., Steinman, A.D., Allan, J.D.

2015. Rating impacts in a multi-stressor world: a quantitative assessment of 50 stressors

affecting the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications 25(3):717-728.

Snow, J. 2005. These Mountains are our sacred places: the story of the Stoney people (5th

Edition). Fifth House Publishers, Markham, ON. ISBN 1-894856-79-1. 272 pp.

Steenweg, R., Hebblewhite, M., Kays, R., Ahumada, J., Fisher, J.T., Burton, C., Townsend,

S.E., Carbone, C., Rowcliffe, J.M., Whittington, J. Brodie, J. 2017. Scaling‐up camera

traps: monitoring the planet's biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 15(1):26-34.

Stenhouse, G.B., Boulanger, J., Efford, M., Rovang, S., McKay, T., Sorensen, A., Graham, K.

2015. Estimates of Grizzly Bear Population Size and Density for the 2014 Alberta

Yellowhead Population Unit (BMA 3) and South Jasper National Park Inventory Project.

fRI Research Grizzly Bear Program Report. fRI Research, Hinton, Alberta. 64 pp.

Retrieved from: https://friresearch.ca/sites/default/files/GBP_2015_10_Report_

PopulationSize.pdf

Stephens, S.L., Burrows, N., Buyantuyev, A., Gray, R.W., Keane, R.E., Kubian, R., Liu, S.,

Seijo, F., Shu, L., Tolhurst, K.G., Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2014. Temperate and boreal

forest mega‐fires: characteristics and challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment 12(2):115-122.

Stockdale, C. 2011. Disturbance regimes of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan Area: a

state-of-knowledge report on fire regimes and disturbance of forests, grasslands, and

ecotones. Burning EcoLogic. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from: https://friresearch.ca/sites

/default/files/null/HLP_2011_05_Rpt_DisturbanceRegimesNorthSaskatchewanPlanArea.

pdf

Stockdale, C., Flannigan, M., Macdonald, E. 2016. Is the END (emulation of natural

disturbance) a new beginning? A critical analysis of the use of fire regimes as the basis of

forest ecosystem management with examples from the Canadian western Cordillera.

Environmental Reviews 24(3):233-243.

Stockdale, C.A. 2017. A century of landscape change in the southern Rocky Mountains and

Foothills of Alberta: using historical photography to quantify ecological change. Ph.D.

https://friresearch.ca/sites/default/files/GBP_2015_10_Report_PopulationSize.pdf

https://friresearch.ca/sites/default/files/GBP_2015_10_Report_PopulationSize.pdf

https://friresearch.ca/sites/default/files/null/HLP_2011_05_Rpt_DisturbanceRegimesNorthSaskatchewanPlanArea.pdf





Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 191 pp. Retrieved from: https://era.library.

ualberta.ca/items/f8ba21e4-fe4d-4950-93f0-9cd568f08fb1/view/ ee557f76-98bb-48df-

aea3-3c9c7b5a2f98/Stockdale_Christopher_A_201701_PhD.pdf

Stocks, B.J, Mason, J.A., Todd, J.B., Bosch, E.M., Wotton, B.M., Amiro, B.D., Flannigan,

M.D., Hirsch, K.G., Logan, K.A., Martell, D.L., Skinner, W.R. 2002. Large forest fires in

Canada, 1959-1997. Journal of Geophysical Research 107:8149.

Stralberg, D., Wang, X., Parisien, M.-A., Robinne, F.-N., Solymos, P., Mahon, C.L., Nielsen,

S.E., Bayne, E.M. 2018. Wildfire-mediated vegetation change in boreal forest of Alberta,

Canada. Ecosphere 9(3):e02156.

Street, G.M., Vander Vennen, L.M., Avgar, T., Mosser, A., Anderson, M.L., Rodgers, A.R.,

Fryxell, and J.M. 2015. Habitat selection following recent disturbance: model

transferability with implications for management and conservation of moose (Alces

alces). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 93(11):813-821.

Tande, G.F. 1979. Fire history and vegetation patterns of coniferous forests in Jasper

National Park, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 57(18):1912-1931.

Taylor, C.F., Dempsey, H.A. 1999. With Eagle Tail: Arnold Lupson and 30 Years among the

Sarcee, Blackfoot and Stoney Indians on the North American Plains. Vega Books. 128

pp.

Telfer, E.S. 1970. Winter habitat selection by moose and white-tailed deer. The Journal of

Wildlife Management 34(3):553-559.

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M. 2014. Connecting

diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence

base approach. AMBIO 43(5):579-591.

Trombulak, S.C., Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and

aquatic communities. Journal of Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

Tunstell, G. 1962. Watershed management by the Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation

Board. The Forestry Chronicle 38(1):86-93.

Tymstra, C., Wang, D., Rogeau M.P. 2005. Alberta Wildfire Regime Analysis. Wildfire

Science and Technology Report PFFC-01-05. Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development, Edmonton, AB. 171 pages. Retrieved from: https://openlibrary.org/works

/OL17329374W/Alberta_wildfire_regime_analysis

Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect

environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4(1):3-15.

Van Wagner, C.E., Finney, M.A., Heathcott, M. 2006. Historical fire cycles in the Canadian

Rocky Mountain Parks. Forest Science 52(6):704-717.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/f8ba21e4-fe4d-4950-93f0-9cd568f08fb1/view/ee557f76-98bb-48df-aea3-3c9c7b5a2f98/Stockdale_Christopher_A_201701_PhD.pdf



https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17329374W/Alberta_wildfire_regime_analysis

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17329374W/Alberta_wildfire_regime_analysis



Vincent, L.A., Zhang, X., Brown, R.D., Feng, Y., Mekis, E., Milewska, E.J., Wan, H., Wang,

X.L. 2015. Observed trends in Canada’s climate and influence of low-frequency variability

modes. Journal of Climate 28(11):4545-4560.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Splittlehouse, D.L., Aitken, S.N. 2006. Development of scale-free

climate data for western Canada for use in resource management. International Journal

of Climatology 26:383-397.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D.L., Murdoch, T.Q. 2012. ClimateWNA - High-

resolution spatial climate data for western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology

and Climatology 51:16-29.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., Carroll, C. 2016. Locally downscaled and spatially

customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS One

11(6):e0156720.

Wang, X., Thompson, D.K., Marshall, G.A., Tymstra, C., Carr, R., Flannigan, M.D. 2015.

Increasing frequency of extreme fire weather in Canada with climate change. Climatic

Change 130(4):573-586.

Warwell, M.V., Rehfeldt, G.E., Crookston, N.L. 2007. Modelling contemporary climate profiles

of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and predicting response to global warming. Pp. 139-

142 in Goheen, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the conference Whitebark Pine: a Pacific Coast

perspective (R6-NR-FHP-2007-01). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Fort Collins, CO. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_

2006_warwell_m001.pdf

Waterkeyn, A., Vanschoenwinkel, B., Elsen, S., Anton-Pardo, M., Grillas, P., Brendonck, L.

2010. Unintentional dispersal of aquatic invertebrates via footwear and motor vehicles in

a Mediterranean wetland area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems 20(5):580-587.

Weaver, J.L. 2017. Bighorn Backcountry of Alberta: protecting vulnerable wildlife and

precious waters. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada Conservation Report No. 10.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 141 pp. Retrieved from: https://www.wcscanada.org/Portals/

96/Documents/news_release/Bighorn-CR10-web.pdf?ver=2017-06-14-091303-903

Webster, K.L., Johnson, E.A. 2000. The importance of regional dynamics in local populations

of limber pine (Pinus flexilis). Ecoscience 7(2):175:182.

Wei, X., Zhang, M. 2010. Quantifying streamflow change caused by forest disturbance at a

large spatial scale: a single watershed study. Water Resources Research

46(12):W12525.

White, C.A., Pengelly, I.R., Zell, D., Rogeau, M.P. 2003. Landscape fire regimes and

vegetation restoration in Banff National Park, Alberta. Parks Canada Occasional Paper

BNP-2003-01. Parks Canada, Banff, AB.

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2006_warwell_m001.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2006_warwell_m001.pdf

https://www.wcscanada.org/Portals/96/Documents/news_release/Bighorn-CR10-web.pdf?ver=2017-06-14-091303-903

https://www.wcscanada.org/Portals/96/Documents/news_release/Bighorn-CR10-web.pdf?ver=2017-06-14-091303-903



White, C.A., Perrakis, D.D., Kafka, V.G., Ennis, T. 2012. Burning at the edge: integrating

biophysical and eco-cultural fire processes in Canada’s parks and protected areas. Fire

Ecology 7:74-106.

White, P.S., Jentsch, A. 2001. The search for generality in studies of disturbance and

ecosystem dynamics. Pp. 399-450 in Esser, K., Luttge, U., Kadereit, J.W., Beyschlag, W.

(eds.) Progress in Botany (Volume 62). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 480 pp. Retrieved

from: http://labs.bio.unc.edu/white/Reprints/White_and_Jentsch_2001.pdf

Whitaker, A., Alila, Y.M., Beckers, J. 2002. Evaluating peak flow sensitivity to clear-cutting in

different elevation bands of a snowmelt-dominated mountainous catchment. Water

Resources Research 38(9):11-1-11-17.

Whitlaw, H.A., Lankester, M.W. 1994. The co-occurrence of moose, white-tailed deer and

Parelaphostrongylus tenuis in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72(5):819-825.

Whyte, J. 1985. Indians in the Rockies. Altitude Publishing, Banff, AB. ISBN 0-919381-15-4.

128 pp.

Wierzchowski, J.L., Heathcott, M., Flannigan, M.D. 2002. Lightning and lightning fire, Central

Cordillera, Canada. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1):41-51.

Heinselman, M.L., Wright, H.E. 1973. The ecological role of fire in natural conifer forests of

western and northern North America. Quaternary Research 3:319-328.

Winkler, R., Spittlehouse, D., Boon, S. 2017. Streamflow response to clear-cut logging on

British Columbia’s Okanagan Plateau. Ecohydrology 10(2):10-15.

World Glacier Monitoring Service. 2017. Peyto, CA (WGMS_IS: 57). WGMS FoG database

version 2017-10-04. doi: 10.5904/wgms-fog-2017-10. Latest observer M. Demuth.

Retrieved from: http://www.wgms.ch/data/min-data-graphs/57_MB_ann.png and

http://www.wgms.ch/data/min-data-graphs/57_FV_cum.png (Accessed February 2018).

Zhang, M.F., Liu, N., Harper, R., Li, Q., Liu, K., Wei, X., Ning, D., Hou, Y., Liu, S. 2017. A global

review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: importance

of scale, climate, forest type, and hydrological regime. Journal of Hydrology. 546:44-59.

Zhang, X., Harvey, K.D., Hogg, W.D., Yuzyk, T.R. 2001. Trends in Canadian streamflow. Water

Resources Research 37(4):987-998.

http://labs.bio.unc.edu/white/Reprints/White_and_Jentsch_2001.pdf

http://www.wgms.ch/data/min-data-graphs/57_MB_ann.png

http://www.wgms.ch/data/min-data-graphs/57_FV_cum.png



Appendix A. Data sources and analyses

Wildfire

Historical wildfire occurrence records (1961-2016) were obtained from Alberta Agriculture and

Forestry’s Historical wildfire database (http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/historical-

wildfire-database.aspx (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017c)). The spatial extent of fires (1931-

2016) were obtained from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s Historical wildfire perimeter spatial

data (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017d).

Because the classification of human-caused fires in the available record changed during the period

from 1961-2016, all human-related ignition causes (Forest Industry, Incendiary, Other Industry,

Public Project, Railroad, Recreation, Resident (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017c)) were

aggregated into a single category. Fires with ignition causes classified as ‘unknown’ or ‘under-

investigation’ were grouped into a single category ‘Unknown’. Changes in fire observation

techniques and reporting procedures may have introduced additional uncertainty in the temporal

trends of these data (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017c). Specifically, in 1995 the minimum

reported fire size increased from 0.1 to 0.01 ha and in 2003 the provincial wildfire reporting

procedure was changed to include OTR and XA fires. The latter changed led to a spike in the

number of reported wildfires after 2003.

Forest harvesting

Forest harvest areas in the study area were calculated using three data sources obtained by

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry; the AVI (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017a), the Post

Inventory Final Cutblocks layer (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2017b) and Regional Forestry

Cutblock data (obtained from Andrew Lansink at Alberta Agriculture and Forestry on March 9,

2018). To calculate the total forest harvest areas in the study area since 1961, a compiled Forest

Harvest Areas dataset was created. First, the three datasets were clipped to the study area

boundary. All cutblock records were extracted from the Extended Alberta Vegetation Inventory

(AVIE) dataset by selecting any records with a modification code of ‘CC’ for clear cut. Both the

Regional Forestry Cutblock dataset and the Post Inventory Final Cutblocks dataset had an

attribute field called Harvest Year which represents the date of harvest. For extracted records

from the AVIE dataset, the Harvest Year was calculated as the modification year. Where no date

was available in the modification year the Harvest Year was calculated as the origin year, where

origin year >= 1980. Otherwise the Harvest Year was calculated as the understory origin year.





For the records where the origin year was <1980 and no understory origin year was recorded, the

Harvest year was calculated as the Photography year if the Seral stage was either Regen or

Young, else it was calculated as Origin year. A source field was added to each of the three

datasets, and calculated as the name of the dataset. The three forest harvest inventories were

then merged, keeping only the Source and Harvest Year fields. The final step in creating a

compiled Forest Harvest dataset was to remove any records older than 1961, and to dissolve by

both Source and Age fields (Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper

Red Deer River Basins 2018).

Linear disturbances

The location and type of linear disturbances such as roads and trails in the study area were based

primarily on the Alberta Base Features (AB BF) dataset (Alberta Environment and Parks 2018). At

the time of writing, this dataset represented the most up-to-date representation of known access

features within the province (personal communication: AHFMP technical committee 2017).

However, this dataset does not capture all recreational trails or 3D seismic lines, nor does it include

pipelines. As such, the true linear disturbance density likely exceeds that reported in this

assessment. The AB BF data were supplemented with four additional datasets: 2017 Red Deer -

North Saskatchewan Trail data (courtesy of Ryan Jillard, RDNS RIU, Alberta Environment and

Parks; obtained 23 November 2017), 2017 Pipelines data (courtesy of Don Page, Biodiversity,

Ecosystem Services and Science Section, Alberta Environment and Parks; obtained 16 March

2018), Jasper National Park Official Trials, and Banff National Park Official Trials. Trail data for the

National Parks were obtained from the geomatics coordinators for each both Banff and Jasper

National Park (July 2018) and are available through the Government of Canada Open data license

agreement.

Four datasets from the Alberta Base Features were used to calculate linear disturbance density:

Roads, Railway, Powerline, and Cutline trails. Using the Roads dataset, three linear disturbance

categories were derived by splitting roads into three category types: Paved, Gravel and

Unimproved/Unclassified/Truck trails. The paved roads class includes the subcategories: divided

paved roads, 1, 2, and 4-lane undivided paved roads, and interchange ramps. The gravel roads

class includes the subcategories 1 and 2 lane gravel roads. The unimproved/unclassified/truck

trails category includes the subcategories: unimproved roads, truck/trails, winter roads and

ford/winter crossings, and driveways. Power lines were merged into a single feature class with the

2017 pipelines dataset and dissolved to remove duplicate features. A new cutline/trails class was

created by consolidating the Cutline/Trails category from the AB BF data with the 2017 recreational

trails data obtained for the Red Deer - North Saskatchewan region as well as the Banff and Jasper

National Parks Official Trails. To ensure no duplicate lines were retained, the recreational trails

layer was first erased by the cutline trails layer and then again by the roads layer using a 30 m



cluster tolerance. The twice-erased recreational trails layer was then merged with the original AB

BF cutline/trails layer and dissolved to remove any remaining duplicate features to create the final

‘cutline/trails’ layer. The inclusion of the 2017 Recreational Trails dataset, following the removal of

duplicate features, resulted in an additional 2072.31 kilometers of linear disturbance in the study

area.

Interior habitat

The area of interior habitat was calculated by buffering all linear disturbances, forest harvest areas,

and other human footprints in the study area, following the approach described by Huggard and

Kremsater (2015). Three datasets were used to create the buffers:

Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

(2018)

Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins

(2018)

2016 Alberta Human Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2018)

The three datasets were combined by removing features from the 2016 Human Footprint Inventory

that were represented in either the Linear Disturbance or Forest Harvest datasets. Linear

disturbances were buffered by a feature width (Table A1) to convert from polyline to polygon data.

Buffer areas were delineated separately for Forested (Alberta Green Area and National Parks) and

Non-Forested (Alberta White Area) areas. Buffers within the Forested area were delineated using

two sets of buffer widths (narrow and wide), while buffers within the Non-Forested area were

delineated using a single set of buffer widths (Tables A1, A2, A3). The use of two buffer widths in

the Forested area was based on the range of reported edge effects (Huggard and Kremsater 2015).

Buffers delineated adjacent to forest harvest areas were proportional to the number of years since

harvesting (Table A2). Buffers on older harvest areas were narrower than younger harvest areas

to account for decreasing edge contrast as tree height increases. Two buffer layers (narrow and

wide) were then created for the study area by merging the Non-Forested area buffer layer with

each of the two Forested area buffer layers. Finally, two interior habitat layers were created from

the inverse of the buffers. Each interior habitat layer was mapped for display purposes (Fig. A1).

Each of the two interior habitat layers (narrow and wide) was intersected with the watershed

boundaries (Hydrologic Unit Code Watersheds 2017a, Fig. A2) to calculate the area of interior

habitat (narrow and wide) in each watershed. The area of interior habitat calculated from narrow

and wide buffers was averaged to give a single value for each watershed, which is reported in Fig.

8.



Table A1. Buffer distances assigned to linear disturbances in the Upper North

Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins for the calculation of interior habitat. See

text for details.

Linear Disturbance Type Feature Width

(m)

Forested Area Narrow buffers

(m)

Forested Area Wide buffers

(m)

Non-forested Area buffers

(m)

Paved road 20 50 200 150

Gravel Road 15 50 200 50

Unimproved/ Unclassified/ Truck trails

10 40 175 60

Railway 10 50 200 150

Powerlines/Pipelines 10 50 200 110

Cutlines/Trails 3 20 80 25

Table A2. Buffer distances assigned to forest harvest areas in the Upper North

Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins for the calculation of interior habitat. See

text for details.

Feature Type Forested Area Narrow

buffer (m)

Forested Area Wide

buffer (m)

Non-forested Area

buffer (m)

Harvest Area 50 x (1- age/60) 200 x (1- age/60) 150 x (1- age/60)



Table A3. Buffer distances assigned to features in the 2016 Human Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2018)

for the calculation of interior habitat.

Feature Type Forested Area

Narrow buffer (m)

Forested Area

Wide buffer (m)

Non-forested

Area buffers (m) Feature Type

Forested Area

Narrow buffer (m)

Forested Area

Wide buffer (m)

Non-forested

Area buffers (m)

Airp-runway 50 200 200 Oil-gas-plant 50 200 200

Borrowpit-dry 50 200 50 Open-pit-mine 50 200 200

Borrowpits 50 200 50 Peat 50 200 200

Borrowpit-wet 50 200 50 Recreation 50 200 100

Campground 50 200 200 Reservoir 50 200 100

Camp-industrial 50 200 200 Residence_clearing 50 200 200

Canal 50 200 100 Ris-airp-runway 50 200 200

CFO 50 200 200 Ris-borrowpits 50 200 200

Clearing-unknown 50 200 50 Ris-camp-industrial 50 200 200

Clearing-wellpad-unconfirmed 50 200 50 Ris-clearing-unknown 50 200 200

Country-residence 50 200 200 Ris-drainage 50 200 200

Crop 50 200 200 Ris-facility-operations 50 200 200

Cultivation_abandoned 50 200 200 Ris-facility-unknown 50 200 200

Dugout 50 200 100 Ris-mines-oilsands 50 200 200

Facility-other 50 200 50 Ris-oilsands-rms 50 200 200

Facility-unknown 50 200 50 Ris-overburden-dump 50 200 200

Fruit-vegetables 50 200 200 Ris-plant 50 200 200

Golfcourse 50 200 200 Ris-reclaimed-certified 50 200 200

Greenspace 50 200 50 Ris-reclaimed-permanent 50 200 200

Grvl-sand-pit 50 200 100 Ris-reclaimed-temp 50 200 200

Lagoon 50 200 100 Ris-reclaim-ready 50 200 200

Landfill 50 200 200 Ris-soil-replaced 50 200 200

Mill 50 200 200 Ris-soil-salvaged 50 200 200

Mines-coal 50 200 200 Ris-tailing-pond 50 200 200

Mines-oilsands 50 200 200 Ris-tank-farm 50 200 200

Mines-pitlake 50 200 200 Ris-utilities 50 200 200

Misc-oil-gas-facility 50 200 200 Ris-waste 50 200 200

Rural-residence 50 200 200 Well-abandoned 50 200 50

Sump 50 200 100 Well-bit 50 200 50

Surrounding-veg 50 200 50 Well-cased 50 200 50

Tailing-pile 50 200 200 Well-cleared-drilled 50 200 50

Tailing-pond 50 200 200 Well-cleared-not-confirmed 50 200 50

Transfer_station 50 200 200 Well-gas 50 200 100

Urban-industrial 50 200 200 Well-oil 50 200 100

Urban-residence 50 200 200 Well-other 50 200 100

Vegetated-edge-railways 50 200 0 Windmills 50 200 100

Vegetated-edge-roads 50 200 0 Well-abandoned 50 200 50

Well-drilled-other 50 200 50



Figure A1. Interior habitat in the study area based on buffers on linear and non-linear disturbances of (a) 50 m and (b) 200 m. Sources: Linear

disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North

Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins (2018), 2016 Human Footprint Inventory (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2018).



Figure A2. Watersheds used as the unit of analysis for spatial summaries. Data source: Alberta

Environment and Parks (2017a).



Climate change

Gridded climate data were generated using the freely available ClimateNA software package

(http://www.climatewna.com) which provides locally-downscaled historical and future monthly and

annual climate data (Wang et al. 2012, 2016). The model uses an ‘anomaly approach’, where

historical and future climate surfaces are estimated relative to the 1961-90 baseline period to obtain

a suite of directly calculated and derived climate variables (Mitchell and Jones 2005, Wang et al.

2006, Mbogga et al. 2009). Wang et al. (2006) outlines the precise equations used to compute

each climate variable.

Comparison of model output with weather station data found the climate model was able to

represent temperature variables with a high level of accuracy (R2 > 0.95 for mean annual

temperature). Model accuracy is lower for monthly and seasonal variables as compared to annual

variables and for shorter time periods (e.g. years or decades versus climate normal periods)

(Mbogga et al. 2009). In addition, the accuracy of precipitation variables is lower compared to

temperature (R2 between ~0.82 and 0.97 during the period considered in this analysis). This is not

surprising, given the highly stochastic nature of precipitation (Bonsal et al. 2003). Because of the

use of monthly data as input to the model there is additional uncertainty for climate variables which

are typically calculated from daily data (e.g. degree-days, extreme minimum temperature, frost-free

period and associated dates, precipitation as snow; see Table 1 in Wang et al. 2006). Important

limitations of this gridded climate dataset include the inability of the model to capture temperature

inversions and other microclimatic variability that is common in mountain environments.

Temperature and precipitation were computed for the 1951-1980 (Table A4) and 1981-2010 (Table

A5) climate normal periods. The 1981-2010 period was used to describe the current climate in the

study area. Comparisons between the 1981-2010 period and the previous 30 year period were

used to provide an indication of recent changes in climate. Future conditions were simulated for the

2071-2100 period from an ensemble of 15 GCMs for two greenhouse gas ‘Representative

Concentration Pathways’ (RCPs) - RCP 4.5 (Table A6) and RCP 8.5 (Table A7). RCP 4.5 is a

midrange mitigation emissions scenario where emissions peak in 2040 and decline thereafter while

RCP 8.5 is a high emissions scenario where emissions continue to increase throughout the 21st

century (Taylor et al. 2012).

In addition to differing accuracies in observed and derived climate variables generated by the

ClimateNA software for both historical and future conditions (Mbogga et al. 2009), there is additional

uncertainty surrounding future climate projections. Uncertainties in future projections arise from,

but are not limited to, uncertainty surrounding global emissions scenarios, an incomplete

understanding of the complex processes and feedbacks in the climate system and how these are

http://www.climatewna.com/



represented in the models and that arising from internal climate variability (van Vuuren et al. 2011,

IPCC 2013 Chapter 12, Knutti and Sedláček 2013). As knowledge of the climate system has

improved, so too has our ability to develop computer models of the climate system and current

climate models are fairly robust (Knutti and Sedláček 2013). The larger uncertainty in predictions

of future climate lies in our depiction of future atmospheric carbon concentrations, modeled as

RCPs (IPCC 2013 Chapter 12, Knutti and Sedláček 2013). RCPs describe likely atmospheric

carbon concentrations arising from different combinations of socioeconomic, technological and

institutional outcomes (van Vuuren et al. 2011), conditions which are difficult to predict with a high

degree of certainty.

Finally, elevation data for the study area, required to run the model, were obtained from the

Canadian Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 1:25K (Natural Resources Canada 2017), resampled to a

500 m spatial resolution. The centroid of each (500 m2) pixel was extracted from the DEM and used

as input to the ClimateNA model. Output points were then converted to raster data.



Table A4. Annual climate variables for the period 1951-1980 for the study area. Source: ClimateNA

(Wang et al. 2016)

Study area

Alpine Subalpine Montane Upper

Foothills Lower

Foothills Cent.

Mixwd. Dry

Mixed

Mean annual temperature (°C) -0.1 -3.0 -1.1 0.2 0.9 2.0 2.2 2.2

Mean January temperature (°C) -14.1 -15.3 -14.4 -13.7 -13.6 -13.5 -14.2 -13.2

Mean July temperature (°C) 12.0 8.8 10.9 12.2 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.8

Extreme minimum temperature over 30 yrs

-43.8 -45.2 -44.4 -43.6 -43.3 -42.8 -42.9 -43.0

Extreme maximum temperature over 30 yrs

29.7 26.5 28.4 30.4 30.8 32.3 32.2 32.7

Temperature difference (°C) between MWMT and MCMT, or continentality.

26.2 24.1 25.3 25.9 26.7 28.1 29.7 28.0

Degree-days below 0°C, chilling degree days

1614.2 2049.1 1737.8 1512.6 1434.7 1330.9 1392.8 1294.9

Degree-days above 5°C, growing degree-days

749.4 346.4 566.6 739.2 866.3 1109.5 1244.9 1152.8

Degree-days below 18°C 6601.7 7626.4 6968.0 6488.7 6233.1 5825.8 5741.3 5735.9

Degree-days above 18°C 10.1 1.6 4.2 7.4 10.5 21.1 30.3 23.4

Number of frost-free days (No. days) 76.2 90.8 110.8 118.1 128.9 143.1 153.5 144.0

Frost-free period (No. days) 102.1 55.3 68.2 68.3 81.9 94.8 108.0 94.8

Day of year on which frost free period begins

165.8 176 171 171 164 155 146 155

Day of year on which frost free period ends

242.1 232 239 239 246 250 254 250

Mean annual precipitation (mm) 855.7 1391.5 898.9 620.6 642.2 592.3 571.2 544.3

May-September precipitation (mm) 445.5 554.2 432.7 312.7 408.2 410.7 403.3 383.5

Precipitation as snow (mm) 424.3 952.0 488.3 294.1 210.3 142.5 127.7 118.8

Mean annual relative humidity (%) 58.1 63.5 60.2 56.0 55.4 54.7 56.9 53.8

Hargreaves reference evaporation (mm)

443.3 315.7 383.5 466.0 493.4 546.7 549.2 562.8

Hargreaves climate moisture deficit (mm)

40.8 1.3 14.4 115.7 42.5 82.1 95.0 122.4

Annual heat-moisture index (MAT+10)/(MAP/1000)

13.8 5.3 10.3 17.0 17.1 20.3 21.4 22.6

Summer heat-moisture index (MWMT/(MSP/1000)

28.4 16.6 25.7 39.3 32.2 35.6 38.4 38.7

Mean annual solar radiation (MJ m-2 d-1) 10.9 13.5 7.2 -32.7 12.9 12.6 12.3 12.9



Table A5. Annual climate variables for the period 1981-2010 for the study area. Source: ClimateNA

(Wang et al. 2016)

Study area Alpine Subalpine Montane Upper

Foothills Lower

Foothills Cent.

Mixwd. Dry

Mixed

Mean annual temperature (°C) 0.6 -2.3 -0.5 0.8 1.6 2.8 3.0 3.0




-44.7 -46.4 -45.3 -44.4 -44.1 -43.3 -43.3 -43.5


30.2 26.8 28.9 30.7 31.4 32.8 33.0 33.4


22.8 21.5 22.3 22.4 23.0 24.1 25.5 24.0


1392.5 1836.1 1522.4 1305.6 1209.3 1103.0 1150.8 1066.4


773.1 361.0 587.1 762.5 891.5 1139.4 1281.6 1179.3






167.4 178 172 171 166 157 148 157


242.1 232 239 239 245 250 254 249






449.7 313.6 388.9 475.0 508.2 552.3 556.3 570.3


31.8 0.4 7.0 93.8 30.1 68.6 78.2 112.0


14.9 6.1 11.4 18.5 18.2 21.4 22.7 24.0


26.5 15.4 23.8 36.1 30.0 33.5 36.7 36.5




Table A6. Annual climate variables for the period 2081-2100 for the study area, RCP4.5 ClimateNA

(Wang et al. 2016)

Study area Alpine Subalpine Montane

Upper Foothills

Lower Foothills

Cent. Mixwd.

Dry Mixed

Mean annual temperature (°C) 3.5 0.6 2.4 3.7 4.5 5.7 6.0 6.0



Extreme minimum temperature over 30 yrs -40.6 -42.3 -41.3 -40.4 -40.0 -39.2 -39.0 -39.1

Extreme maximum temperature over 30 yrs 33.8 30.6 32.4 34.3 34.9 36.5 36.5 37.2

Temperature difference (°C) between MWMT and MCMT, or continentality. 24.7 23.1 24.0 24.6 25.2 26.2 27.5 26.1

Degree-days below 0°C, chilling degree days 1018.2 1359.9 1124.2 957.5 875.9 791.0 832.9 756.3

Degree-days above 5°C, growing degree-days 1300.4 762.6 1077.8 1309.2 1464.5 1753.8 1899.2 1815.4





Day of year on which frost free period begins 143.1 158.8 148.4 144.3 138.7 130.2 123.3 129.4

Day of year on which frost free period ends 259.4 250.0 256.7 257.5 262.8 266.4 270.0 266.0





Hargreaves reference evaporation (mm) 544.7 406.9 494.5 564.6 587.4 653.9 653.2 675.0

Hargreaves climate moisture deficit (mm) 71.8 5.7 35.5 167.2 82.9 131.0 146.7 189.0

Annual heat-moisture index (MAT+10)/(MAP/1000) 17.7 7.6 13.6 21.7 21.5 25.0 26.1 28.1

Summer heat-moisture index (MWMT/(MSP/1000) 35.2 22.7 32.8 48.9 39.3 42.4 45.1 46.5




Table A7. Annual climate variables for the period 2081-2100 for the study area, RCP8.5 ClimateNA

(Wang et al. 2016)

Study area Alpine Subalpine Montane Upper

Foothills Lower

Foothills Cent.

Mixwd. Dry

Mixed

Mean annual temperature (°C) 5.7 2.8 4.7 6.0 7.9 6.7 8.2 8.2




-36.9 -38.7 -37.6 -36.7 -35.3 -36.4 -35.0 -35.2


37.0 33.9 35.6 37.4 39.5 38.0 39.5 40.3


25.5 23.9 24.8 25.4 26.9 25.8 28.1 26.9


754.8 1041.9 845.4 699.7 563.8 634.2 601.0 535.0


1741.9 1138.1 1499.5 1760.2 2242.9 1927.8 2391.7 2316.7






130.7 145.3 135.3 130.5 119.1 126.5 113.6 118.3


272.3 263.8 269.7 270.9 278.5 275.4 281.0 278.6






609.8 473.5 551.6 633.0 715.5 661.9 711.8 739.7


109.6 19.3 71.2 217.6 179.9 130.7 196.3 241.0


20.1 8.8 15.6 24.7 28.2 24.4 29.5 31.7


42.5 28.4 40.1 58.8 50.2 46.9 53.2 55.0




Streamflow

Methods

Trends in river discharge (streamflow) were assed for hydrometric gauging stations within the study area

(Fig. A3). Mean daily discharge (m³/s) for each month was obtained from the Government of Canada’s

Historical Hydrometric Data (https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/historical_data_inde x_e.html, June

2018). There are twenty gauging stations within the study area of which three have some form of flow

regulation and were excluded from subsequent analysis. Nine of the remaining seventeen stations monitor

flow year round (continuous monitoring), the other eight stations record discharge only during the open

water season, typically 1 March - 31 October (Fig. A3). Most watercourses within the study area are ice-

covered during winter. This ice covered season extends well into March, during which month there is limited

discharge data. As such, the open water season used for this study is April-October.

The direction and magnitude of a trend is highly influenced by the time period of investigation. To ensure

consistency across stations a single time period was used in all analyses of river discharge. Specifically,

analyses were conducted for the period 1984-2013 because, during this 30-year, period all seventeen

stations were actively recording discharge (streamflow) during the open water season.

A statistical trend analysis was conducted to assess whether, and to what degree, there has been a

significant change in the daily discharge during each month for the period 1984-2013. Data were

prewhitened to remove effects of serial autocorrelation (Yue 2002, Zhang 2000), and a Mann-Kendall

(Mann 1945, Kendall 1975) rank trend test was applied to assess the presence of a significant trend. For

this analysis, trends at the 90% confidence level were deemed to be significant. The magnitude and

direction of trends were determined by the Sen’s slope estimator on the non-prewhitened data (Sen 1968).

Analysis was conducted using the ‘Zhang + Yue-Pilon trends’ package (Bronaugh and Werner 2013) in R

(R core Team 2013). Trends were computed for months having at least 27 of a possible 30 years of

observations which limited the April analysis to only 13 of a possible 17 stations.

Results

Annual hydrographs

The annual hydrographs of the gauged watercourses are characterized by very low monthly flows beginning

in late fall and extending until April (Figs. A4, A5). Daily discharge starts to increase in May and reaches a

peak in June and July. Following this peak, total monthly flows decline from August until the low flow period.

https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/historical_data_index_e.html



Figure A3. Hydrometric gauging stations (non-regulated) in the study area. Source: Environment

and Climate Change Canada (2018).



Figure A4. 1984-2013 average daily discharge (m³/s) for each month during the open water season

(April-October). Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018).



Figure A5. Annual hydrographs for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) for the period 1984-2013. Source: Environment

and Climate Change Canada (2018).



Temporal trends: 1984-2013

Analysis of temporal trends in April-October streamflow for the period 1984-2013 (Fig. 9) found

statistically significant (p<0.1) increases in June streamflow at thirteen of the seventeen gauging

stations; all but one of which was significant at the 95% confidence level. Stations with statistically

significant increases in June streamflow are located in the central and eastern portion of the study

area. In May, statistically significant increases were observed at two stations in the eastern part of

the study area. In contrast, in August statistically significant decreases in discharge were observed

at four gauging stations in the central part of the study area. No statistically significant changes

were observed in April, July, or October. There is a large amount of variability in the daily discharge

from one year to the next (Figs. A6-A12).

Analysis of daily discharge averaged across all months during the open water season (April-

October, not shown) identified statistically significant increases in streamflow at two locations (Red

Deer River above Panther River and Baptiste River near the mouth). All other stations experienced

increases in daily discharge, but these trends were not statistically significant. Comparison of daily

discharge during each month and over the full open water season (April-October) suggests the bulk

of observed increases in open water season discharge occurred during the early part of the season

(May and June).

Future analyses

This analysis has identified spatial and temporal trends in stream flow in the study area. While

temporal trends (increases) were observed at five gauging stations in the study area, the causes

of these trends were not investigated. It is recommended that future work examining the drivers of

the observed increases in stream flow and its influence on downstream systems be conducted. In

particular investigating the influence of changes in snow pack, glacier extent, climate and land use

on stream hydrographs would allow for the improved management of these streams, and

predictions of changing water supply into the future. Additionally, while this report presents a

preliminary investigation of the state of water quantity in the study area, the state of water quality

was not investigated; this knowledge gap remains and should be addressed in future work. Finally,

the influence of changing land use, climate, and water availability on water quality also warrants

investigation.



Figure A6: April daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years

during 1984-2013. Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018).



Figure A7: May daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years




Figure A8: June daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years




Figure A9: July daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30 years




Figure A10: August daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30

years during 1984-2013. Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018).



Figure A11: September daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30




Figure A12: October daily discharge (m³/s) for each hydrometric station in the study area (Fig. A3) having data in at least 27 of the 30




Literature cited

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017a. Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI). [Vector digital data]. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover. alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B3DBCFA02-E97A-4059-9414-1ED8E0700E80%7D (Accessed March 1, 2018)

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017b. Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) Post inventory cutblocks. Vector digital data. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/full Metadata.page?uuid=%7BF660E31D-DDCE-4277-9CD5-2C110B99B1F5%7D (Accessed March 1, 2018).

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017c. Historical wildfire database [computer file]. Last updated April 2017. Retrieved from: http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/historical-wildfire-database.aspx (Accessed November 2017).

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2017d. Historical wildfire perimeter spatial data [computer file]. Last Updated April 2017. Retrieved from: http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/ historical-data/spatial-wildfire-data.aspx (Accessed December 2017).

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2018. Human Footprint Inventory [computer file]. Last updated June 2018. Retrieved from: http://abmi.ca/home/data-analytics/da-top/da-product-overview/GIS-Land-Surface/HF-inventory.html (Accessed June 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2017a. Hydrologic Unit Code Watersheds of Alberta. [Vector digital data]. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodiscover. alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B017387ED-2EB1-4D16-868E-B019E3DA12E5%7D (Accessed February 2018).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018. Access and Facility Roads [Vector digital data]. Alberta Base Features. Government of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from: https://geodis cover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BCE523E2B-A368-440D-B87C-E662DC8B0AEA%7D (Accessed March 2018).

Bonsal, B.P., Prowse, T.D., Pietroniro, A. 2003. An assessment of global climate model-simulated climate for the western cordillera of Canada (1961-90). Hydrological Processes 17(18):3703-3716.

Bronaugh, D., Werner, A. 2013. Zhang + Yue trends. R package. Version 0.10-1.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Canada. 2018. Historical hydrometric data for Alberta. Retrieved from the Environment and Climate Change Canada Historical Hydrometric Data web site: https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/ historical_data_index_ e.html (Accessed March 2018).

Forest Harvest Areas in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins. 2018. [computer file]. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta. Available from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/ details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D

Huggard, D., Kremsater, L. 2015. Recommendations for habitat interior and old-forest indicators for the Biodiversity Management Framework. Prepared for the Science

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B3DBCFA02-E97A-4059-9414-1ED8E0700E80%7D



https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7BF660E31D-DDCE-4277-9CD5-2C110B99B1F5%7D%20

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/fullMetadata.page?uuid=%7BF660E31D-DDCE-4277-9CD5-2C110B99B1F5%7D%20





http://abmi.ca/home/data-analytics/da-top/da-product-overview/GIS-Land-Surface/HF-inventory.html

http://abmi.ca/home/data-analytics/da-top/da-product-overview/GIS-Land-Surface/HF-inventory.html









https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D

https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BE08A1962-F11A-4737-99CB-8288119B5CAA%7D



Technical Committee for the Biodiversity Management Framework. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton.

Kendall, M.G. 1975. Rank Correlation methods 4th edition. Charles Griffin, London UK, 272pp.

Knutti, R., Sedláček, J. 2013. Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nature Climate Change 3(4):369.

Linear disturbances in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Upper Red Deer River Basins. 2018. [computer file]. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta. Available from: https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/ details.page?uuid=%7B81711249-952A-4258-B73A-EA10A3472AD8%7D

Mann, H.B. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 245-59.

Mbogga, M.S., Hamann, A., Wang, T. 2009. Historical and projected climate data for natural resource management in western Canada. Agricultural Forest Meteorology 149(5):881-890.

Mitchell, T.D., Jones, P.D. 2005. An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. International Journal of Climatology 25(6):693-712.

Natural Resources Canada. 2017. Canadian Digital Elevation Model. [Raster digital data]. Retrieved from: http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/elevation/cdem_mnec (Accessed November 2017).

R Core Team. 2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org

Sen, P.K. 1968. Estimates of the Regression Coefficient Based on Kendall’s Tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association 63(324):1379-89.

Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., Meehl, G.A. 2012. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 9(4):485-98.

van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G.C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.F., Masui, T. 2011. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climate Change 109(1-2):5.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Splittlehouse, D.L., Aitken, S.N. 2006. Development of scale-free climate data for western Canada for use in resource management. International Journal of Climatology 26(3):383-397.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D.L., Murdoch, T.Q. 2012. ClimateWNA - High-resolution spatial climate data for western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51(3):16-29.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., Carroll, C. 2016. Locally Downscaled and Spatially Customizable Climate Data for Historical and Future Periods for North America. PLoS One 11(6):e0156720.

Yue, S., Pilon, P.J., Phinney, B., Cavadia, G. 2002. The influence of autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series. Hydrological Processes 16(9):1807-1829.

Zhang, X., Vincent L.A., Hogg, W.D., Niitsoo, A. 2000. Temperature and precipitation trends in Canada during the 20th century. Atmosphere-Ocean 38(3):395-429.



http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/elevation/cdem_mnec

http://www.r-project.org/



Appendix B. Systematic mapping of published evidence for land use-species relationships

Objective

To summarize the availability of published scientific evidence for relationships between species

and land use.

Search strategy

A documented and repeatable search strategy was implemented to survey available evidence for

ecological impacts of land use on species. For the purposes of this study, relevant land uses

included forestry, oil and gas exploration/energy production, wind energy production, hydroelectric

energy production/flood protection, nuclear energy production, mineral extraction,

recreation/tourism, and wildlife harvesting. Focal species were selected from candidates identified

by government biologists and an Indigenous expert familiar with the area. To identify pertinent

materials in the primary and secondary (peer-reviewed) literatures, the ISI Web of Knowledge

database (https://webofknowledge.com) was searched on March 8, 2018, for articles with topics

matching each key land use-species combination (Table B1).

Search string

("industr*" or "forestry" or "oil" or "gas" or "wind power" or "hydropower" or "hydro power" or

"hydroelectric*" or "mining" or "mine" or "coal" or "recreation" or "ski*" or "hik*" or "bik*" or "trail" or

"OHV" or "touris*" or "harvest*" or "clearing" or "cutting" or "deforestation" or "linear feature" or

"seismic" or "transmission" or "turbine" or "culvert" or "bridge" or "watercourse crossing" or

"contamina*" or "pollut*" or "construction" or "noise" or "impoundment" or "dam" or "erosion" or

"sedimen*" or "soil compaction" or "flow regulation" or "hydrological regulation" or "wildfire" or

"forest fire" or "water withdrawal" or "well site" or "wellsite" or "pipeline" or "silverculture" or

"clearcut*" or "natural resource management" or "resource extraction" or "forest management" or

"hunt*" or "angl*" or "fish*" or "trap*") and ("bull trout" or "Salvelinus confluentus" or "mountain

whitefish" or "Prosopium williamsoni" or "grizzly" or "Ursus arctos horribilis" or "bighorn sheep" or

"Ovis canadensis" or "wolverine" or "Gulo gulo" or "Gulo luscus" or "moose" or "Alces alces" or

"whitebark" or "Pinus albicaulis" or "limber pine" or "Pinus flexilis" or "elk" or "Cervus canadensis"

or "hoary bat" or "Lasiurus cinereus" or "silver-haired bat" or "Lasionycteris noctivagans" or "little

https://webofknowledge.com/



brown bat" or "Myotis lucifugus" or "long-eared bat" or "Myotis evotis" or "harlequin duck " or

"Histrionicus histrionicus" or "bison" or "bison bison")

Article screening

Search results were screened to evaluate their relevance and reject articles not meeting the

inclusion criteria. First, to prioritize regional research evidence, articles must have referenced a

geographic location within the Rocky Mountain area (i.e. Rockies, Rocky Mountain, Alberta, British

Columbia, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, or New Mexico). Second, articles must have

provided scientific evidence of a land use impact on one or more selected species. Study topics

were assessed using article titles, followed by abstracts where appropriate, and the articles rejected

at each stage were recorded.

Data extraction

Research articles meeting the above inclusion criteria were catalogued to obtain meta-data and

details of land use impacts. Cataloguing was based on abstract content, rather than full texts, to

balance comprehensive coverage with practical constraints. Due to the vast number of articles that

met the inclusion criteria, data relating to wildlife harvesting (i.e. hunting, angling, and trapping)

were not extracted. Also, while 14 species were included in the search string (above), articles were

extracted for only 7 species deemed to be most relevant to land use planning in the region.

Variables catalogued for systematic mapping of screened articles include:

Authors;

Title;

Journal or publisher;

Year of publication;

Digital object identifier (DOI; if applicable);

Data source (primary or secondary);

Study country and region;

Study design (experimental, observational, theoretical/simulation, or review);

Comparator/reference condition (spatial, temporal, biological, or not applicable);

Stressor (altered disturbance regime - fire, altered disturbance regime - forestry,

contaminant release, impoundment/hydrological change, land clearing/habitat loss, linear

disturbances, noise/wildlife disturbance, or various);

Associated land use(s), if identified (forestry, oil and gas exploration/energy production,

wind energy production, hydroelectric energy production/flood protection, mineral

extraction, nuclear energy production, recreation/tourism, multiuse);



Focal species (bison [Bison bison], bull trout [Salvelinus confluentus], grizzly bear [Ursus

arctos horribilis], bighorn sheep [Ovis canadensis], moose [Alces alces], whitebark pine

[Pinus albicaulis], limber pine [Pinus flexilis];

Response metric (survival, growth/size, condition, reproduction, behaviour/distribution, or

biomass/abundance); and

Summary of key findings relevant to the (formulated) question above (one-two sentences).

Synthesis

The state of available scientific knowledge (e.g. number of studies on different land uses and

species) was described; however, findings reported from individual studies should be interpreted

with caution, as critical appraisal or formal synthesis of research evidence was not conducted.

Report

Systematic mapping outputs include:

Catalogue of all search results, indicating those articles retained following title and abstract

screening are available at environmentalmonitoring.ab.ca;

Catalogue of retained research articles and their extracted data (including categorical

variables and key scientific findings) (Table B1);

Text for inclusion in the main report describing the approach used for searching available

research evidence, screening articles for inclusion, and extracting applicable data, and the

state of available scientific knowledge, including any identified clusters that may provide a

basis for more targeted meta-analytic reviews in future assessments.

Results

After screening for geographic relevance to the Rocky Mountains, the systematic map included 36

studies of the relationship between species and altered disturbance regimes, including 10 studies

related to wildfire and 26 studies related to forest harvesting (Fig. 12). A total of 49 studies of

relationships to linear disturbance were found, most of which (34) studied grizzly bears (Fig. 14).

For comparison purposes, studies of the response of focal species to several additional stressors

(land clearing/habitat loss, contaminant release, water impoundment/hydrological change, and

noise/wildlife disturbance) were also included. A total of 63 studies were found that addressed the

relationship of one or more focal species to these additional stressors, of which 34 addressed the

response of grizzly bears to these additional stressors. Key findings of extracted articles are

summarized in Table B1.



Literature cited

James, K.L., Randall, N.P., Haddaway, N.R. 2016. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence 5(7):1-13.



Table B1. Key findings of articles retrieved using the systematic mapping protocol. Source documentation available at

open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697.

Stressor(s) Species Region Summary Source

Altered disturbance regime

(fire)

Bighorn

sheep WY

Sheep increased their home range sizes and use of burned areas,

but did not select for fire-treated habitats. Prescribed burns under

favourable conditions may induce greater survival, but drought

conditions limit vegetation response of burns and reduce sheep

survival.

Clapp and

Beck 2016


(fire)

Bighorn

sheep CA

Sheep with winter ranges in burned areas ate more forbs than those

in less burned areas. Burned areas may also increase visibility and

decrease predation risk.

Greene et al.

2012


(fire) Bull trout MT

Bull trout site abandonment probability was greater at low elevations

with higher temperatures; however, presence of wildfire was not

linked to changes in occupancy.

Eby et al. 2014


(fire) Bull trout MT

Post-fire declines in bull trout density were less than those for

cutthroat trout, and invasion by non-native brook trout was

negligible.

Sestrich et al.

2011


(fire)

Grizzly

bear WY

Fire did not impact the denning, range or movements of grizzly post

fire, but did increase availability of ungulate carcasses.

Blanchard and

Knight 1990


(fire)

Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears used recently burned areas, more so than unburned

areas, to dig and obtain Hedysarum roots food sources. Hamer 1999






(fire)

Pine

(limber) AB

Limber pine abundance showed little response to local extinction

following wildfire, but quickly recovered thereafter due to seed-

dispersing birds.

Webster and

Johnson 2000


(fire)

Pine

(whitebark) BC

Post wildfire, Pinus albicaulis establishment was widespread and

was tolerant of other faster growing species during forest recovery,

suggesting it is a pioneer species in boreal forests.

Campbell and

Antos 2003


(forestry) Bison AB

Clearcutting increased the availability, but not nutrition, of forage for

bison. The abundance of forage decreased with time relative to the

year of clear cutting.

Redburn et al.

2008


(forestry) Elk OR; WA

Elk digestible energy intake rate was double in early seral forest

stands (e.g. recent forest harvest area) compared to later stage

closed-canopy forests.

Cook et al.

2016


(forestry) Elk AB

Simulated timber harvest scenarios indicated that an "even-flow"

cutting regime resulted in favourable elk forage conditions relative to

a "pulsed" regime, where certain cohorts are permitted to age.

Visscher and

Merrill 2009


(forestry) Elk OR

Timber harvest did not affect the distribution of elk, rather increased

success of hunters.

Wisdom et al.

2004


(forestry)

Grizzly

bear AB

Land clearance method and history, as well as terrain and

landscape metrics were important factors determining grizzly bear

use of previously clear-cut patches.

Nielsen et al.

2004





(forestry)

Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears selected for riparian areas in harvested areas while

avoiding them in non-harvested forests during summer, suggesting

that riparian buffers provide valuable habitats.

Phoebus et al.

2017


(forestry)

Grizzly

bear BC

Grizzly bear use of avalanche chutes was not strongly affected by

forested buffer width or area of forest harvesting; however, forest

harvesting did reduce bear use of the larger and higher quality

chutes.

Serrouya et al.

2011


(forestry) Moose BC

Moose selected for cutblocks more with increasing elevation, though

they still spent most of their time at high elevation in old-growth

forest.

Anderson et al.

2018


(forestry) Moose BC

Moose were more abundant in late winter in early successional

stands, than mature stands, and therefore likely not impacted by

harvesting of pine beetle-infected mature forests.

Proulx and

Kariz 2005


(forestry) & Altered

disturbance regime (fire)

Bighorn

sheep UT

Prescribed burning and forest harvest treatments of a forest resulted

in significant increases in sheep use of forest harvest areas and

burned areas, relative to untreated areas.

Smith et al.

1999


(forestry) & Altered

disturbance regime (fire)

Elk; Moose AB Ungulates (including elk and moose) generally avoided post-fire

logged areas due to greater wolf predation risk.

Hebblewhite et

al. 2009


(forestry) & Contaminant

release

Elk; Moose AB Plot herbicide treatment on ungulate forage showed decreases in

elk forage but increases in moose summer forage.

Strong and

Gates 2006





(forestry) & Impoundment /

hydrological change

Bull trout ID

A 25% peak flow increase and a shorter return interval for a

particular rain-on-snow event were predicted in a basin with

extensive timber harvest relative to a minimally disturbed basin.

Greater discharge was predicted to increase streambed scour and

increase mortality of bull trout embryos by 15%.

Tonina et al.

2008


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Bull trout AB

The occurrence and abundance of bull trout were negatively

affected by increasing fine sediments, stream width, road density

and area deforested.

Ripley et al.

2005


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Elk NE Elk selected for areas near edge of cover and showed minor road

avoidance during spring and fall.

Baasch et al.

2010


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Elk ID

Radio collared elk used habitat with greater canopy cover in areas

with roads while older bulls and females used open timber habitats

in roadless areas.

Unsworth et al.

1998


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear ID; MT

Modelled movement of bears in response to proposed forest

harvesting densities showed only moderate increases in total

movements, but increased substantially with road access. Total

disturbance to grizzlies would decline if roads were closed after

harvest.

Boone and

Hunter 1996


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bear body condition was greater for individuals using

regenerating forests (post-harvest) than older forests; however,

survival was reduced by road density, which was also associated

with regenerating forests.

Boulanger et al.

2013





(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear BC

Grizzly females from a forested plateau that was consistently

harvested chose dens further from roads and in older forest

patches, possibly to avoid disturbance.

Ciarniello et al.

2005


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear BC

Using telemetry, collared bears lived at lower densities in areas with

recent harvesting compared to bears in undisturbed mountain

areas.

Ciarniello et al.

2007


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear BC

Female body condition was greater in area with extensive forestry;

however, subadult survival was lower owing to human caused

mortality.

Ciarniello et al.

2009


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Projected grizzly bear habitat quality and mortality over 100 years

indicated that habitat quality and carrying capacities gains from

natural disturbance-based forestry practices would be completely

offset by associated human-caused morality.

Nielsen et al.

2008


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Step selection was greater near roads, but step length increased

near roads with greater traffic (indicating faster movement). Step

selection for roads was consistent, but selection for intermediate

age forest stands was greater during night and dawn while older

forests were selected during the day.

Roever et al.

2010


(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Grizzly

bear BC Tracked bears selected against forests with open roads present.

Wielgus and

Vernier 2003





(forestry) & Linear

disturbances

Moose BC

Moose kill sites were farther from patches than telemetry locations

and road density was negatively associated with kill sites. However,

forest harvest activities did not apparently affect the vulnerability of

moose to wolf kills.

Kunkel and

Pletscher 2000


(forestry), Land clearing /

habitat loss, & Linear

disturbances

Bull trout AB

Occurrence of bull trout was negatively associated with percent

industrial disturbance, while mountain whitefish were associated

with percent industrial disturbance and road density. Impaired sites

generally had lower densities of bull trout, mountain whitefish, and

rainbow trout, and higher densities of Arctic grayling, than reference

sites.

Scrimgeour et

al. 2008




disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bear body condition was greater for individuals using areas

with more forest harvest, oil and gas sites, and regenerating

coniferous forest; however, condition was negatively associated with

use of habitat in close proximity to roads.

Bourbonnais et

al. 2014




disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Population growth was largely regulated by an interaction between

bear density and huckleberry production over time, rather than

industrial development.

McLellan 2015




disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Proportions of new forest harvest and road development were

similar among home-range zones over time, but new well sites were

more prevalent in contraction than stability zones; suggests

anthropogenic disturbances do not sufficiently account for annual

variations.

Sorensen et al.

2015







disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears selected for edge habitat, especially in the fall.

Females selected for road edges and pipelines more than males.

Stewart et al.

2013

Various Moose AB

Moose declined in response to incremental land cover changes of

up to 43% as wolf density increased; however, moose occurrence

increased (and wolves declined) where land cover changes were

greater than 43%.

Stewart and

Komers 2017




disturbances

Moose AB Moose avoided linear features and primary roads, but generally

selected for forage over security.

Wasser et al.

2011


(forestry), Linear disturbances

& Noise / wildlife disturbances

Elk OR

When tracking elk movement before and after a 35% closure of

roads in a region, authors found elk increasingly used open foraging

habitat, but continued to not use land <150m from roads. Use of

forest harvest areas was more than expected.

Cole et al. 2004

Contaminant release Bull trout ID

Evidence of sediment-driven and food chain mediated exposure to

elevated arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in bull trout from

a watershed with historical mining. Impacts to bull trout livers were

noted.

Kiser et al.

2010

Contaminant release Bull trout BC Selenium accumulation in muscle tissue downstream of mining

activities was similar among multiple fish species, but greater than

in lower trophic levels. Fish biomass was significantly related to

Kuchapski and

Rasmussen

2015




selenium concentrations in muscle tissues of rainbow trout only (not

bull trout).

Contaminant release Bull trout BC High concentration of selenium in fish tissues in lakes versus rivers

likely due to enhanced detrital recycling in lake bed sediments. Orr et al. 2006

Contaminant release Bull trout AB

Muscle biopsies from bull trout inhabiting rivers downstream of coal

mining operations showed Se concentrations expected to impair

recruitment.

Palace et al.

2004

Contaminant release Elk NM

Elk tissue collected within Los Alamos grounds had radionuclide

concentrations below detection or near those of elk tissues from

background regions, with cancer risk factors for humans below EPA

guidelines.

Fresquez et al.

1999

Contaminant release Grizzly

bear BC

When comparing N and C isotopes between bears consuming a

terrestrial diet versus those eating fish, found that piscivorous bears

were more exposed to bioaccumulative persistent organic pollutants

than bears with primarily terrestrial diets.

Christensen et

al. 2005

Contaminant release Grizzly

bear BC

Persistent organic pollutants concentrated in bear fat during

hibernation compared to active periods in the fall. This was related

to biomass concentration of the substances because they are not

excreted during hibernation.

Christensen et

al. 2007

Contaminant release Moose AB

Moose (and wolf) scat samples collected nearer to oil sands

operations showed elevated levels of petrogenic PAHs relative to

more distant areas and scat samples from caribou, which showed

elevated levels of pyrogenic PAHs.

Lundin et al.

2015




Impoundment / hydrological

change Bull trout ID; MT

Bull trout manually transported upstream of a dam barrier had

similar reproductive success and behaviour as those already

occupying the same upstream tributaries.

DeHaan and

Bernall 2013


change Bull trout ID; MT

Bull trout manually transported upstream of a barrier dam were later

detected downstream, indicating that manual transport re-

established connectivity in the system.

DeHaan et al.

2011


change Bull trout BC

Use of dam forebay was limited for both bull trout and burbot;

however, use and rates of entrainment were greater for bull trout,

which were more vulnerable in the fall and winter.

Martins et al.

2013


change Bull trout MT

Critical swimming speeds for bull trout were determined

experimentally in a laboratory with implications for fish passage

structures and water velocities.

Mesa et al.

2004


change Bull trout AB

Tagged fish showed movement from upstream to downstream of a

dam but pre-spawning periods (during dam closure) showed dam

impediment to fish movement.

Mogen et al.

2005



Bull trout night time use of shallow, low-velocity shoreline habitats

was sensitive to flow fluctuations. Late summer flow enhancements

also exceed natural discharge rates and reduce habitat availability.

Muhlfeld et al.

2011


change Bull trout CA

Transplanting trout species, that typically did not spawn downstream

of a dam, to upstream areas, resulted in improved spawning

success.

Schmetterling

2003






Four fish were tracked using telemetry and found that 2 remained

upstream of a dam and possibly spawned, while 2 travelled

downstream of the dam and attempted to migrate back upstream.

Swanberg 1997


change Bull trout BC

Odds of bull trout movement decreased during times of greater

discharge, and increased with warmer temperatures in a

hydropeaking reach of the Columbia River. No evidence of

discharge associated downstream displacement was found, and

movement direction was unpredictable.

Taylor et al.

2014


change Bull trout WA

The genetic code of bull trout in a dammed river was unique relative

to control rivers.

Winans et al.

2008

Land clearing / habitat loss Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bear diets on reclaimed mine sites were less carnivorous

than those on neighbouring Rocky Mountain and foothill sites,

highlighting adaptability to available food resources.

Cristescu et al.

2015

Land clearing / habitat loss Moose BC

Upon tracking moose movement and habitat use in a copper mining

landscape, authors showed browse availability among habitat types

influenced moose distribution more than disturbed areas.

Westworth et

al. 1989

Land clearing / habitat loss &

Linear disturbances Elk WY

Elk habitat use shifted to areas with greater escape cover, terrain

ruggedness, and distance from roads following regional coal bed

natural gas development. Distributional changes resulted in 43.1%

and 50.2% losses of high-use areas in summer and winter periods,

respectively.

Buchanan et al.

2014





Linear disturbances Elk WY

Elk harvest efficiency by hunters was positively associated with the

occurrence of oil and gas wells.

Dorning et al.

2017

Land clearing / habitat loss,

Linear disturbances, & Noise /

wildlife disturbances

Elk CO

Elk showed individual variation for selection / avoidance that was

amplified in developed areas; and human factors were more

influential than maternal status on resource use.

Dzialak et al.

2011


Linear disturbances Elk

Not

available

GPS-collared elk showed consistent activity at least 50 m from

anthropogenic linear clearings. Frair et al. 2005


Linear disturbances Elk CO

Female elk resource selection varied among years, but individuals

generally avoided roads and wellsites. Elk within gas fields also

selected for greater security cover, slopes, and distance to edge

habitats.

Harju et al.

2011


Linear disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Resource selection functions for grizzly bears indicated selection for

habitat with lower road densities in the spring.

Chetkiewicz

and Boyce

2009


Linear disturbances

Grizzly

bear AB

Analysis of GPS cluster data indicated that grizzly bears modified

their behaviour moving through human-altered landscapes,

including reclaimed open-pit mines.

Cristescu et al.

2015


Linear disturbances

Grizzly

bear

AB; BC;

YT

Grizzly bear subpopulations showed greater genetic distances

across developed valleys and roadways. Bears moved at reduced

rates with greater development and road traffic.

Proctor et al.

2012


Linear disturbances Moose AB

Moose predation rates by wolf increased near mines and at low

densities of linear features.

Neilson and

Boutin 2017





Noise / wildlife disturbances

Bighorn

sheep BC

Bighorn sheep winter use of mine areas varied seasonally, from 10-

20% in November-April to 60-65% in September-October.

Poole et al.

2016


Noise / wildlife disturbances Elk CO

Elk were less active and occurred less in more developed areas

along an exurban development gradient.

Goad et al.

2014



Compared to predevelopment behaviour, elk use decreased 30%

where ski-related human activity was high. Elk use was 4% of

predevelopment levels where ski hill development was intense on

an areal basis.

Morrison et al.

1995



Elk showed adaptability by eventually exploiting enhanced forage

opportunities in experimental cut blocks adjacent to oil and gas

facilities.

Van Dyke et al.

2012


Noise / wildlife disturbances Elk MT

Comparison of pre and post drilling and installation of oil wells

showed little effects on elk social stability. Elk did respond to drilling

by changing ranges and centers of activity within the habitat.

vanDyke and

Klein 1996



Grizzly

bear AB

Male and solitary female grizzly bears avoided active mining

activities and selected for extraction areas after closure; however,

females with cubs selected for mineral surface leases regardless of

their activity.

Cristescu et al.

2016



Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears had less home range overlap with mining areas while

they were active, with the exception of females with cubs. Both

males and females with cubs made more use of mines following

their closure and reclamation.

Cristescu et al.

2016





Linear disturbances & Noise /


Grizzly

bear MT

Male bears generally inhabited lands closer to linear features than

females. However, females were more likely to select habitat closer

to human settlements than males. Human avoidance by bears was

more important than consuming high quality food closer to human

activity.

Gibeau et al.

2002




Elk CO; NM

Elk in proximity to gas fields had smaller home ranges and travelled

greater distances over more complex paths. Elk within gas fields

showed difference space use and movement than elk outside of the

fields, depending on amount of human activity.

Webb et al.

2011




Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bear selection for areas in relation to oil and gas features

varied by season and sex. Active wellsites were avoided in the fall,

and roads were a greater deterrent than pipelines.

Laberee et al.

2014




Grizzly

bear AB

Female grizzly bears with cubs used wellsites more than single

females or males; however, use was greater at wellsites with less

surrounding disturbance.

Mckay et al.

2014

Linear disturbances Bison MT; WY

Upon tracking bison during winter in regions with active road

grooming during a nine-year period, results showed no preferential

use of groomed roads by bison. Roads did not affect general bison

ecology or spatial distribution.

Bruggeman et

al. 2006

Linear disturbances Bull trout MT Decommissioning of roads resulted in less fine sediment within

streams.

McCaffery et al.

2007




Linear disturbances Elk AB; BC

Peak elk activity at wildlife crossing structures over a highway in

Banff differed from backcountry sites in BC. Specific factors of

wildlife crossing structures (e.g. age or type) had variable effects on

the different carnivore and ungulate species studied.

Barrueto et al.

2014

Linear disturbances Elk SD Elk selected parturition sites in areas with lower road densities at

broad scales, and farther from roads at smaller scales.

Lehman et al.

2016

Linear disturbances Elk AB

Elk avoided roads at all times of the day, but avoidance was

greatest at twilight (and least during the day). Elk also selected for

greater cover and moved more when near roads, and generally

avoided road crossings.

Prokopenko et

al. 2017

Linear disturbances Elk AB

Elk avoided roads during fall migration and throughout the winter

season; however, avoidance of lesser used roads decreased as

road density increased.

Prokopenko et

al. 2017

Linear disturbances Elk OR

Selection of habitat by elk increased with increasing distance from

open roads. This selection varied between seasons but not between

years and not among different individuals.

Rowland et al.

2000

Linear disturbances

Elk;

Bighorn

sheep

AB

Proximity of ungulate kill sites to roadways in Banff did not change

after the installation of wildlife crossing structures, suggesting they

do not represent a prey-trap.

Ford and

Clevenger

2010

Linear disturbances Grizzly

bear AB Grizzly bear population trends were related to road density, and

lower road densities were needed to ensure population stability

Boulanger and

Stenhouse

2014




when accounting for differing survival rates based on bear

reproductive state.


bear AB

Female grizzly bears crossed roads more frequently than males and

individuals with cubs were in close proximity to roads more

frequently than expected. Crossings were most common at narrow,

unpaved roads near creeks and open areas.

Graham et al.

2010


bear AK

Locations of bear crossings over a busy highway were clustered in

space and crossings occurred more frequently at night.

Observations of greater speeds crossing the roads compared to

before or after crossing were made.

Graves et al.

2006


bear MT

Using radio collar telemetry, this study found grizzly bear avoidance

of active trails and roads compared to areas without roads or areas

with seasonally-accessible roads.

Kasworm and

Manley 1990


bear AB

GPS-collared bears increased use of landscapes with larger mean

patch sizes, while closed forest conditions were used less by the

bears.

Linke et al.

2005


bear MT

Grizzly bears selected for areas with no roads or roads with fewer

than 10 vehicle uses per day. Higher bear use in higher use road

areas occurred in spring only.

Mace et al.

1996


bear AB

Grizzly bears crossed roads and used adjacent habitat more often

during the night, when traffic was reduced. Bears also avoided

roads with moderate (20-100 vehicles per day) and high (>100

vehicles per day) traffic.

Northrup et al.

2012





bear AB

At local spatial scales, grizzly bears selected for winter hibernation

den locations with low adjacent road density.

Pigeon et al.

2014


bear AB

Grizzly bears selected for areas next to roads (disturbed) more often

in spring and early summer; and natural road-like habitats in late

summer and fall.

Roever et al.

2008


bear Various

Tracking bear habitat selection across three road types showed

inconsistencies with the hypothesis that bears select against a

gradient of open, restricted and closed roads.

Wielgus et al.

2002

Linear disturbances Moose AB

Moose needed 140 cm clearance to pass under pipelines

associated with in situ oil sands development; and crossing

structures were used more than elevated sections of pipeline.

Dunne and

Quinn 2009

Linear disturbances Moose BC

Moose selected for regrowth of roadside vegetation cut later during

the growing season (August and September) over plants cuts earlier

(June and July).

Rea et al. 2010

Linear disturbances Moose BC

Moose-vehicle collisions are more likely when roadside mineral licks

are present and when roads cut through black spruce forest-

sphagnum bog habitats.

Rea et al. 2014



Bighorn

sheep UT

Distance of pronghorn groups from recreational trails decreased

substantially after trails were open for recreational use. Smaller

groups of pronghorn were further from open recreational trails than

larger groups.

Fairbanks and

Tullous 2002






Bighorn

sheep UT

Upon comparing low-use to high-use visitor years in a Utah park,

sheep largely avoided roads in busy years, though some individuals

became human habituated.

Papouchis et

al. 2001


wildlife disturbances Bison UT

By examining the flight response of bison to hiking and biking, there

was a 70% probability of flight within 100 m of an actively used trail.

Increasing body size increased the risk of flight due to disturbance.

Taylor and

Knight 2003


wildlife disturbances Elk AB

Elk decreased feeding time near roads, and switched to more

vigilant behaviour when road use was at least one vehicle every two

hours. Summertime vigilance was greater on public lands with

hunting and motorized recreation than national parks.

Ciuti et al. 2012


wildlife disturbances Elk OR

Elk increased their travel times more in response to ATV exposure

than mountain biking, hiking, or horseback riding. ATV exposure

was associated with reduced feeding time, while mountain biking

and hiking were associated with reduced resting time.

Naylor et al.

2009



Using elk enclosures and various OHV distances to elk, flight

probability increased when OHVs were even at long distances

away, and also increased when elk position was closer to OHV

routes, regardless of OHV presence.

Preisler et al.

2006



Experimental disturbances indicated that elk avoided all-terrain

vehicles at up to 1 km, mountain bikers at up to 500 m, and hikers

and horseback riders at up to 200 m.

Preisler et al.

2013






Grizzly

bear AB

This study tracks the use of newly constructed road crossing

structures by grizzly and found that lack of human activity promoted

crossing use. Different crossing types also selected for use by

different animals.

Clevenger and

Waltho 2005



Grizzly

bear AB

Bears avoided human interactions by bedding at day and selecting

for cover far from trails during the summer when recreation use was

highest, trading optimal food resources for security from humans.

Cristescu et al.

2013



Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears selected habitats at higher elevation and farther from

roads than black bears; and showed reduced use of sites with

motorized recreation.

Ladle et al.

2018



Grizzly

bear MT

Tracked grizzly bears showed avoidance of roads and trails during

seasons of heavier human use. Bears selected open habitat versus

forested where trails typically were located.

Mace and

Waller 1996



Grizzly

bear MT

Habitat selection by grizzly was negatively associated with densities

of roads and other human activity variables in spring and summer.

Mace et al.

1999



Grizzly

bear AK

Radio collared bears were associated with low human densities and

roads; high densities were related to riparian areas close to cover.

Suring et al.

2006


wildlife disturbances Moose WY

Moose bedding and feeding patterns within 150 m of passing

snowmobiles caused moose to move away from the disturbance

throughout the day. However, snowmobile activity did not affect the

number of active moose in the disturbed area.

Colescott and

Gillingham

1998




Noise / wildlife disturbances Bighorn

sheep ID

Overflights of military jets did not change the foraging behavior of

bighorn sheep compared to a control herd.

Bernatas et al.

1998

Noise / wildlife disturbances Elk ID

When simulating mining activities, disturbed elk calves moved

greater distances throughout the forest and abandoned tradition

calving grounds compared to undisturbed calves.

Kuck et al.

1985


A treatment-control experiment consisting of 1 pre treatment year

and 2 post-treatment years showed intentional disturbance and

displacement of elk during calving season decreased survivability of

calves compared to control elk.

Phillips and

Alldredge 2000


Treatment elk subjected to recreational activity had lower

productivity compared to control subjects exposed to less human

disturbance.

Shively et al.

2005

Noise / wildlife disturbances Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bears were 0.35 times less likely to be within 200 m of

backcountry campsites when occupied, but 2.11 times more likely

when campsite occupancy was ignored.

Coleman et al.

2013


bear BC

Integration of results from empirical studies indicates that brown

bears are more exposed to recreation in coastal areas (photography

and bear-viewing) than interior areas (camping and hiking), and that

bears are primarily affected by greater energy expenditure and less

nutritional input as a result of spatial and temporal displacement.

Fortin et al.

2016





bear AK

Found individual variation of grizzly bear tolerance to boat-based

wildlife viewing, highlighting importance of behavioural recognition

to avoid displacement.

Sarah and

Shultis 2015

Various Elk CO

Elk occurrence was driven by both habitat selection and avoidance

of human activity; however, mortality risk was primarily linked to

industrial development.

Dzialak et al.

2011

Various Elk Various Review indicates ungulates (including elk) generally show short-

term behavioural changes associated with human disturbance.

Polfus and

Krausman

2012

Various Elk Various

Study reviews literature assessing impacts of natural resource

development on various terrestrial endpoints across the boreal

region of Canada.

Venier et al.

2014

Various Elk CO

The most significant source of elk mortality was hunter harvest;

however, annual and harvest season survival probabilities were

both influenced by extent of human footprint/activity.

Webb et al.

2011

Various Grizzly

bear AB; BC

Using a cumulative effects model, incremental human development

has alienated grizzly from core refugia areas that are considered

only moderately productive habitat.

Gibeau 1998

Various Grizzly

bear AB

Grizzly bear abundance was greatest in areas with greater distance

from new disturbance, lower adjacent disturbance density, and

greater availability of regenerating forests. Grizzly absence was also

more likely in areas further from protected areas.

Linke et al.

2013




Various Grizzly

bear MT

Mortality rates of bears were greater in human-use areas compared

to multiple-use areas, which were source areas for the population.

Mace and

Waller 1998

Various Grizzly

bear AB; BC

By linking location of bear mortalities with human activities and

landscape types, this study found that human access was the main

predictor of grizzly mortality, rather than landscape types.

Nielsen et al.

2004

Various Grizzly

bear Various

Review paper on large carnivore resilience to environmental

disturbances.

Weaver et al.

1996

Date post:	01-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times