Inventory of Biophysical Features and
Off-highway Vehicle Trails in Three Parks
in the Peace River Corridor
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative
Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
25% Post Consumer Fibre
When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable
Inventory of Biophysical Features and Off‐highway Vehicle Trails in Three Parks in the Peace River Corridor Ryan Hermanutz and Robb B. Stavne Alberta Conservation Association Bag 900‐26 Peace River, Alberta, Canada T8S 1T4 Report Editors DOUG MANZER KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres NW Box 1139 Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Blairmore, AB T0K 0E0 Conservation Report Series Type Technical ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐8680‐7 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐8681‐4 Publication No.: T/217 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Hermanutz, R., and R.B. Stavne. 2009. Inventory of biophysical features and off‐
highway vehicle trails in three parks in the Peace River Corridor. Technical Report, T‐2009‐003, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 39 pp + App. Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101 ‐ 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1999 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We inventoried the vegetative community composition, occurrence of invasive species, and agricultural infringement within three parks in the lower Peace River corridor: Peace River Wildland Provincial Park (PRWPP), Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park (DWWPP), and Greene Valley Provincial Park (GVPP). Habitat along the Peace River is highly valued by ungulates at all times of the year and, in particular, during winter and when calving. Disturbance from off‐highway vehicles (OHVs) has been shown to alter the distribution and movement of ungulates and may heighten the mortality risk from predators that use them as travel routes. We used information from the literature to estimate the potential zone of disturbance associated with OHV use and applied buffers around OHV trails that we delineated in the three parks. We were particularly interested in areas where the OHV zone of disturbance overlapped with key ungulate range. We identified nine broad vegetative community types within the three parks with trembling aspen being the most prevalent by an order of magnitude. We detected invasive plant species at 51 locations through incidental sightings. We commonly found these species in grassland areas and along OHV trails where we spent the greatest portion of our survey effort. We used a geographic information system (GIS) to detect 134 locations where agricultural activities infringed into park boundaries accounting for a total area of 299.32 ha. We delineated 264 km of OHV trails and ranked these based on perceived use ranging from low to very high. Trail width ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 m suggesting that a variety of vehicle types use these parks from motorcycles to full‐size four‐wheel drive vehicles. The highest density of trails was found in PRWPP (0.65 km/km²), followed by DWWPP (0.35 km/km²) and GVPP (0.25 km/km²). We used a 100‐m buffer on each side of a trail to define the disturbance zone for ungulates. The aggregate area of this disturbance zone ranged from 5% in GVPP to 11% in PRWPP. However, the zone of disturbance was a much greater proportion of the area regarded to be important ungulate range within the three parks, ranging from 69% in DWWPP to 98% in PRWPP. The literature suggests that ungulate response to OHV disturbance will vary depending on species and possibly season. In general, wildlife respond negatively to disturbance from OHVs ii
and this effect may be particularly important during key life stages. For ungulates, late winter and the birthing periods are key life stages because they contribute greatly to the overall condition of local populations. We did not know the location of ungulate calving and fawning locations within the three parks, but future research on OHV use in these parks should consider the effect on these areas, once identified. Key words: vegetative community, invasive species, agricultural infringement, off‐
highway vehicle, OHV access, zone of disturbance, elk. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the following individuals and agencies for their contributions and assistance in delivering the project. Field work assistance was provided by Nathan Carruthers, Amanda Nunn, and Cynthia Jones (Alberta Conservation Association), as well as Donald Spencer (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation). Funding, planning, and reporting advice was provided by Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Donna Rystephanuk (Alberta Conservation Association) aided with vegetative community delineation through imagery interpretation. Other geographic information system support was graciously provided by Chad Sherburne and Robin Barnes of Alberta Sustainable Resources Development – Resource Information Unit. Ken Wright (Alberta Conservation Association) contributed input and direction during study design and reviewed an earlier draft of this report. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... viii
1.0
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
1.1
General introduction .................................................................................................1
1.2
Study rationale ...........................................................................................................2
1.3
Study objectives .........................................................................................................2
2.0
STUDY AREA.................................................................................................................3
2.1
Description .................................................................................................................3
2.2
Ecoregions, topography and soils ...........................................................................5
2.3
Plant communities .....................................................................................................6
2.4
Animal communities.................................................................................................6
3.0
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................8
3.1
Vegetative community inventory............................................................................8
3.2
Invasive weed species occurrence.........................................................................10
3.3
Agricultural infringement ......................................................................................11
3.4 Off‐highway vehicle trail inventory .....................................................................11
4.0
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................14
4.1
Vegetative community assessment .......................................................................14
4.2
Invasive plant species occurrence .........................................................................21
4.3
Agricultural infringement ......................................................................................23
4.4
Off‐highway vehicle trail inventory .....................................................................24
4.5
Off‐highway vehicle zones of disturbance...........................................................25
5.0
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................26
5.1
Vegetative community inventory..........................................................................26
5.2
Areas of concern ......................................................................................................28
5.3
Wildlife response to disturbance...........................................................................29
5.4
Management implications ......................................................................................32
6.0
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................35
7.0
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................40
v
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.
Location of Greene Valley Provincial Park, Peace River Wildland Provincial Park, and Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park in Alberta. ................... 4
Figure 2.
Composition of broad vegetative community types in Greene Valley Provincial Park...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.
Composition of broad vegetative community types in Peace River Wildland Provincial Park...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4.
Composition of broad vegetative community types in Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park. ................................................................................... 20
Figure 5.
Example of a 100 m zone of disturbance applied to off‐highway vehicle trails in three parks in northwestern Alberta. .................................................. 27
vi
LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
Definitions of broad vegetative community types used to classify polygons through satellite imagery interpretation and ground‐truthing in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. .................................................. 9
Table 2.
Definitions of trail use index values assigned to each trail segment in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. ................................................ 12
Table 3.
Broad vegetative community type, number, area, and average area of interpreted polygons in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta.
................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4.
Reference community types detected within broad vegetative communities in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta................................... 16
Table 5.
Classification accuracy of broad vegetative community types through imagery interpretation in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta.................................................................................................................... 17
Table 6.
Weed species found in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta and provincial classification................................................................................ 22
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1.
Provincial and federal status of animal species found in the Peace River region................................................................................................. 40
Appendix 2.
Examples of trail use categories. .............................................................. 43
Appendix 3.
Examples of reference communities. ....................................................... 46
Appendix 4.
Vegetative community maps ......................... see compact disk enclosed
Appendix 5.
Off‐highway vehicle trail maps ...................... see compact disk enclosed
Appendix 6.
Agricultural infringement maps..................... see compact disk enclosed
Appendix 7.
Wildlife features maps ..................................... see compact disk enclosed
viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General introduction In Alberta, wildland provincial parks and provincial parks represent a large component of the protected areas network, accounting for nearly two million hectares of wilderness. The goal of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation (ATPR) is to preserve the natural landscapes, features and processes that represent the province’s environmental diversity, and to provide social and economic benefits from protected areas. Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation supports sustainable and wise use of park resources including compatible recreational activities. With this in mind, this study provides an inventory of biophysical features and recreational trails within three parks to assist with future management decisions in these protected areas. A biophysical and off‐highway vehicle (OHV) trail inventory was initiated in 2005 as a partnership between ATPR and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) to catalogue these features and to identify wildlife and habitat features that may be at risk from OHV activity within three parks in the Peace River corridor: Peace River Wildland Provincial Park (PRWPP), Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park (DWWPP), and Greene Valley Provincial Park (GVPP). We conducted inventories of dominant vegetative communities, noxious and nuisance weed species, and agricultural land‐use infringements within the borders of these parks. We also mapped the extent of OHV trails within the parks and used information from the literature to guide our definition of the zone near trails where ungulates are likely to be disturbed by OHV activity. We used information about disturbance of elk (Cervus elaphus) by OHVs to define these buffers, although mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), moose (Alces alces), black bear (Ursus americanus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and many other species found in these parks may be affected by OHV use in different ways. We provide a list of wildlife species thought to occur in these parks whose populations have been provincially designated as “At Risk”, “May Be at Risk” or “Sensitive” (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005). 1
1.2 Study rationale Although some documentation exists regarding vegetative communities in the Peace River corridor, the types of vegetative communities and their arrangement in the three parks has not been documented. The presence of noxious and nuisance weeds, as well as the infringement of agricultural land, may also be occurring within park boundaries. In this study, we inventoried the vegetative community composition, occurrence of invasive species, and agricultural infringement within the three parks to better understand areas of management concern. Anecdotal information suggests that OHV activity is increasing within park boundaries, although the extent of OHV trails and their potential influence on wildlife has not been clarified. As such, it is important to better understand how OHV activity may affect the distribution and movement of wildlife and, where possible, identify areas where heightened conflict may occur. Ungulates are highly valued by hunters and non‐consumptive park users, and therefore are desired species within these three parks. We used elk as our focal species for assessing the potential impact of OHV activity on wildlife, but recognize that other species (flora or fauna) may be affected as well. 1.3 Study objectives This multifaceted study will be used to guide management decisions for the three parks. Information from this study will serve as a benchmark of the current vegetation, wildlife and abiotic features for reference in the future. Our approach may also act as a framework to assess the potential impact of OHV activity in other protected areas. We inventoried and prioritized spatial areas of potential conflict through six overall project objectives including: i.
Inventory the dominant vegetative communities; ii.
Identify the location of noxious and nuisance weeds; iii.
Identify areas where agricultural lands infringe within park boundaries; 2
iv.
Identify the location and extent of use by OHVs; v.
Apply information from the literature to identify areas of potential conflict between OHV activity and ungulates; and vi.
Provide a comprehensive collection of maps to document those features described in objectives 1 through 5. 2.0 STUDY AREA 2.1 Description The three parks are located in the Peace River corridor of northwestern Alberta (Figure 1). Greene Valley Provincial Park is approximately 3,189 ha within the Heart River valley. Peace River Wildland Provincial Park is 24,472 ha and is composed of two large portions of land (east and west) adjacent to the Peace River (Figure 1). A 30‐km section of the Smoky River is also included in the east portion of PRWPP. Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park covers a total of 21,030 ha and is fragmented into 11 different sections (Figure 1). Much of DWWPP is adjacent to the Peace River. However, due to its fragmented nature, some portions of DWWPP are located along other tributaries. All area measurements were based upon geographic information system (GIS) layers that were current to 1 December 2006. 3
Figure 1. Location of Greene Valley Provincial Park, Peace River Wildland Provincial Park, and Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park in Alberta. 4
2.2 Ecoregions, topography and soils The three parks are situated primarily within the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion as defined by the Natural Regions Committee (2006). This subregion is the second largest in the province and is made up of two climatically distinct areas known as 1) Peace River and 2) Southern. The three parks are found in the Peace River climatic zone. A small area in the northernmost reach of PRWPP belongs to the Peace River Parkland natural subregion. This subregion is the smallest of all subregions in the province and is located considerably north of all other parkland subregions. Differing from the Dry Mixedwood subregion, this subregion is slightly drier and warmer (Natural Regions Committee 2006), which is typical of the south and west‐facing slopes that are commonly found within this subregion. Many vegetative components of the Peace River Dry Mixedwood natural subregion unit resemble that of the Peace River Parkland natural subregion. However, a portion the three parks are within the southern valley of the Peace River, and therefore more closely reflect the biological structure of the Dry Mixedwood subregion. Although pockets of parkland are known to occur, they are too small to map at a provincial scale (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Topography in this area is characterized by steep river valleys that plunge to flood plains in the valley floor with common elevation changes of 200 – 300 m. Much of this rugged terrain is difficult to access by grazing livestock or recreational uses. Although river and creek valleys are common features, some flat upland benches exist. The Peace River corridor contains most of the soil orders found in the Canadian system of soils classification (Young et al. 2004). Soils most common across the three parks are gray luvisols in the uplands, and gleysols and organic soils in the wetland portions (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Chernozemic soils also occur on dry, steep, south and west‐facing upper slopes. Wilkinson and Johnson (1983) have documented isolated regional pockets of solonetzic soils which occupy very small portions of PRWPP and DWWPP. 5
2.3 Plant communities Vegetative communities within the Dry Mixedwood subregion of the three parks are characterized primarily by deciduous‐dominated forests interspersed with shrub, wetland and grassland components that exist in response to small‐scale variability in site characteristics (i.e., slope, aspect, drainage, etc.). In deciduous forests, trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) accounts for nearly the entire canopy cover with only small patches of balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Aspen cover allows for light penetration sufficient for the growth of a diverse understory consisting of numerous shrub, forb and grass species. Patches of mixedwood and coniferous forest also occupy the parks and contain a mixture of coniferous species including white spruce (Picea glauca), jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and deciduous tree species. Mixedwood and coniferous understory composition consists of reduced shrub, forb and grass layers, and a more prominent representation of moss species in comparison to deciduous communities. The majority of the small portion of PRWPP included in the Peace River Parkland subregion is made up of grassland and shrub communities, yet some of this area is forested. The majority of grasslands and shrublands in the study areas exist due to the occurrence of dry, south, east and west‐facing open slopes along the Peace and Smoky rivers. Grasslands across the three parks, while mainly included in the Dry Mixedwood subregion, closely resemble communities of the Peace River Parkland subregion. Although much of the range of grassland communities in the region has been converted to agriculture, those that remain are considered ‛relic’ and are notable for species occurrences that are geographically‐isolated from their more southerly core ranges (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). 2.4 Animal communities The diversity of habitat in the three parks provides homes for a wide range of wildlife (Pattie and Fisher 1999). Valleys provide natural corridors to enhance movement of individuals and genetic flow among populations. As well, the relatively large tracts of protected land within the parks offer sanctuary from much of the anthropogenic activities outside park boundaries. 6
Moose, white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer, elk and black bear are the most commonly occurring large mammals in the parks, although infrequent grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and cougar (Puma concolor) sightings occur. The two Wildland Provincial Parks are widely used for hunting in the spring (e.g., black bear) and fall (e.g., moose, elk, white‐tailed and mule deer) seasons. Given the variety of habitat types and topographic features, many other mammal species are also found in the parks throughout the year. Both migratory and non‐migratory birds use the mix of habitat types in each of the parks, resulting in a high diversity of species (Fisher and Acorn 1998). Many of these are considered game species (e.g., ruffed grouse) and offer a range of recreational opportunities, both consumptive and non‐consumptive. The Peace River is the major waterway within this region and runs along the northern boundary of DWWPP. Peace River Wildland Provincial Park is also adjacent to the Peace River throughout the majority of its range. A number of additional prominent river systems are found in one or more of these parks including the Pouce Coupe, Saddle, Smoky and Heart rivers. These rivers host a number of sport and non‐sport fish species (Joynt and Sullivan 2003) and are visited regularly by anglers who often travel the shallow waters by way of jet boat and other small watercraft. Baker (2005) documented the occurrence of butterfly and moth species in the Peace region and detected 39 and 56 species of butterflies and moths, respectively, some of which occupy the northern parkland habitat as geographically‐isolated populations. Recent confirmation of long‐toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) breeding sites within 5 km of PRWPP and DWWPP represents an important component of this species’ overall distribution (Augustyn 2001). Both wandering (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) and red‐sided (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) garter snakes have been observed in the Peace River valley. A number of species at risk may also occur in the study areas (Alberta Sustainable Resources Development 2005; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2007; Appendix 1). 7
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Vegetative community inventory Our inventory of vegetation delineates and quantifies broad‐scale vegetative communities and describes reference features within each community’s natural range of variability. This inventory does not provide a measure of biodiversity, such as species richness, nor does it place reference communities in spatially‐explicit locations. We delineated broad vegetative community types based on high resolution satellite imagery (1999 Valtus, 1 m orthographic) using a GIS and verified these classifications with ground‐truthing. Polygons were created digitally using ArcMap 9.2 software (ESRI 2007) to outline the broad vegetative community types defined in Table 1. The area of each polygon was calculated and used to determine the proportion of area within the entire park of each broad community type: POCC = [( ∑ATYPE ) / ATOT ] x 100% where, POCC is the per cent of broad community type occupying the entire park, ATYPE is the area of specific broad community type, and ATOT is the total park area. 8
Table 1. Definitions of broad vegetative community types used to classify polygons through satellite imagery interpretation and ground‐truthing in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. Broad community type Trembling aspen Definition ≥ 80% deciduous tree species in the overstory; trembling aspen is dominant. Balsam poplar ≥ 80% deciduous tree species in the overstory; balsam poplar is dominant. Mixedwood Mixture of deciduous and coniferous tree species in the overstory. Coniferous species accounting for between 20% and 80% of the overstory. Coniferous ≥ 80% coniferous tree species in the overstory; white spruce, jack pine, and/or lodgepole pine are dominant. Black spruce Areas containing only coniferous tree species in the overstory; black spruce is dominant. Wetland/stream Areas of poor drainage containing no trees; a mixture of sedges, rushes, and/or grasses dominate. Also includes ephemeral and permanent streams. Shrubland Areas containing no trees and > 10% shrub cover. Grassland Areas containing no trees and < 10% shrub cover. Generally south or west‐facing open slopes along rivers and tributaries. Other Includes areas other than main community types: clearings, cliffs/slumps, cropland, cutblock, active leases, abandoned leases and roads. We surveyed randomly chosen sites within each community type to validate remotely‐
sensed classifications and to develop a more detailed description of reference community types. Assessments were done in 2006 and 2007, primarily by a single observer, during the growing season (June – August) when plants were most reliably identified. The number of sample sites visited for each community type depended on the representation of that community type within a park. For example, if only a very small portion of a study area consisted of a given community type, we chose fewer sample sites within that community. This method allowed effort to be focused in areas 9
that accounted for a larger portion of a park’s total area. We measured site characteristics and estimated per cent cover for vegetation classes within the sample area (approximately 100 m radius or the entire polygon, whichever area was smaller) to help identify reference community types. Where the classification of broad community types was less obvious, increased sampling effort was used and more species composition and per cent cover measurements were taken. We evaluated Kappa (K) statistics to provide estimates of classification error and agreement among digital and ground‐truthed data. Maps of broad‐scale vegetative community polygons were created for the three parks. We classified reference community types using keys provided in Beckingham and Archibald (1996), Willoughby et al. (2006), and Stone et al. (2007). Resources used to identify plant species included Johnson et al. (1995), Stone and Lawrence (2000), and Tannans (2004a, b). In addition to GIS delineation and ground‐truthing of vegetative communities, we integrated information provided by the Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC) into our vegetative community inventory. The Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre develops tracking lists of elements of biodiversity that are considered of high priority because they are rare or special in some way (Allen 2007). Two elements included in the tracking lists are natural plant communities and plant species. Those communities and species that were found in the study areas during sampling and were present on the tracking list were recorded and included in our results. 3.2 Invasive weed species occurrence We inventoried incidental sightings of restricted, noxious or nuisance weeds (Alberta Weed Control Act, Queen’s Printer 2007a) during the ground‐truthing portion of the vegetative community inventory, as well as during the OHV trail inventory in 2005, 2006 and 2007. We also noted weeds of concern that were not specifically listed in the Alberta Weed Control Act (e.g., goat’s beard, Tragopogon dubius). We identified weed species with the help of current field guides (e.g., Bubar et al. 2000) and mapped their occurrence. 10
3.3 Agricultural infringement All three parks are largely bordered by privately‐owned agricultural land, which creates potential for infringement within park boundaries. Such infringement may heighten the risk of invasive species, as well as reduce native habitat within the parks. We used satellite imagery to detect areas where protected land was deliberately or unintentionally being used for agricultural purposes (1999 Valtus, 1 m orthographic) and included these polygons in the final mapping product. 3.4 Off‐highway vehicle trail inventory We identified OHV trails and defined the extent of their use within the three parks. We used estimates of trail density and intensity of use to identify areas of concern for management action. We contacted local people to gain insight into the location of trails and their use, including feedback from government staff, park managers, local residents, landowners adjacent to the study areas, and recreational users. We also identified potential trails with satellite imagery (1999 Valtus, 1 m orthographic) and verified these with ground‐truthing. This overall approach may have missed OHV trails that were difficult to detect with a GIS and that may not have been known or revealed by the people we contacted. The identification of trails with satellite imagery is likely biased against a variety of landcover types, such as those with dense crown closure. As such, we consider our estimates of trail density as minimums. We conducted a physical inventory of OHV trails and roads in the summer and fall months of 2005, 2006 and 2007. We mapped trails in their entirety using hand‐held Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Garmin Etrex Legend), with their spatial error ranging from 5 to 12 m. We recorded trails either on foot or with a four‐wheel drive OHV, depending on safety of the terrain. Trail delineations were mapped using ArcMap 9.2 GIS software. Trail sampling involved partitioning unique trail segments based on the condition and characteristics of the segment. We used a suite of parameters to describe the condition and probable use of trails, including average width, trail class (e.g., truck, walking, motorbike), topography, per cent of exposed soil, number of exposed tracks and the per 11
cent of the total trail length on which exposed tracks occur, main use of trail, presence of obstacles, erosion (the relative amount of rutting and striping of topsoil), and the presence of signs or maps. Similar descriptive parameters were used by Quinn and Duke (2003) in a study in southwestern Alberta. These parameters were used collectively to assign a trail use index value of low, medium, high or very high to each trail segment (Table 2). Parameters were measured once every 70 – 100 m to represent the overall condition of the trail segment. Each unique trail segment was classified and described separately to reflect any variance in both the degree of use and subsequent impact on soil and vegetation. Trail segments were partitioned as the index value changed. We recorded and mapped the presence of campsites, permanent and semi‐
permanent structures, and other disturbances we located. We took photographs to provide visual examples of trail use index values (Appendix 2). All trails were added to maps of the three parks and the density of trails was calculated as: DTRAIL = ∑ SL / ATOT where, DTRAIL is trail density, SL is trail segment length and ATOT is the total park area. Table 2. Definitions of trail use index values assigned to each trail segment in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. Use index value Definition Low Erosion is low or none; exposed soil is usually minimal; 0 – 2 exposed tracks; vegetation is present but trampled. Medium Erosion is medium; exposed soil is common; 1 – 2 exposed tracks; vegetation is usually present in middle of trail. High Erosion is high; exposed soil occurs throughout majority or entire trail; ≥ 1 exposed track; vegetation is only present in small patches. Very High Erosion is very high; exposed soil occurs throughout entire trail; ≥ 1 exposed track; vegetation is not present. The Peace River corridor parks are important to a variety of wildlife, as well as many recreational users (consumptive and non‐consumptive). If left unchecked, the extent of OHV activity will likely increase over time as the human population in Alberta increases. Therefore, we explored the potential impact of OHV activity on wildlife 12
distribution and identified areas of concern. Given logistical constraints, we did not directly assess OHV activity on wildlife, but instead used inferences from the literature to postulate these relationships. We reviewed literature that directly relates wildlife response to OHV trail use and found that trail creation and use by recreationists can cause edge effects, enhanced travel by predators, reduced success of nesting birds, and displacement of interior forest species (James and Stuart‐Smith 2000; Barton and Holmes 2007). A study by Wisdom et al. (2004) was the only one that evaluated the effects of OHV activities on ungulates in a comparative and experimental manner. We opted to examine potential effects of OHV trail use on ungulates, because of the availability of published data on flight responses of ungulates to OHV trail use and the importance of ungulates to users of the Peace corridor parks. Resulting information was used to spatially identify and predict areas of current and future concern (e.g., displacement of ungulates from breeding areas, foraging areas and movement corridors) where specific mitigation efforts may be necessary. We created ‛zones of disturbance’ adjacent to OHV trails to provide an estimate of the proportion of each park where ungulate displacement is likely when trails are used by OHVs (Taylor and Knight 2003). In this study, we use predicted displacement by elk to generalize potential disturbance of all ungulates occurring in the study area to OHV trail use. In Wisdom et al.’s (2004) study, probability of flight response (rapid movement away from perceived danger) by elk was very low within 2,000 m of active trails, but increased to 43% within 500 m, and 62% within 100 m. We applied a buffer distance of 100 m to all roads and OHV trails to represent the total area in which elk are likely to be displaced by trail users. From the 100 m buffer zone applied to OHV trails, we calculated the total area of disturbance to elk of each OHV trail segment as: SADELK = BDELK x 2 x SL where, SADELK represents the segment area of disturbance, specific to elk, BDELK is the buffer distance, and SL is the trail segment length. 13
We used a GIS to avoid duplication of area calculations where zones of disturbance might overlap. Segment areas were summed and the percentage of each park in which elk were affected by OHV activity was calculated as: PIELK = [( ∑ SADELK ) / ATOT ] x 100% where, PIELK is the per cent of park area impacted by OHV activity, specific to elk. Information and maps outlining critical ungulate winter range (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007) in the study areas were incorporated to reveal potential OHV trail‐ungulate use conflict areas. The proportion of each park’s total area of disturbance from OHV trail use that fell within critical ungulate winter range was calculated as: PACUWR = [(∑ SADCUWR ) / SADELK ] x 100% where, PACUWR is the per cent of OHV trail area of disturbance within critical ungulate winter range, and SADCUWR represents the segment area of disturbance within critical ungulate winter range. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Vegetative community assessment We delineated nine broad vegetative community types with satellite imagery interpretation (Table 1); ground‐truthing confirmed the accuracy of these classifications while allowing for further refinement. In total, 5,706 community polygons were identified and distributed among the broad community types (Table 3). Polygons for broad vegetative communities ranged in size from 0.01 ha to 3,953.64 ha, while the mean polygon area for each broad community type ranged from 1.15 ha to 223.32 ha. 14
Table 3. Broad vegetative community type, number, area, and average area of interpreted polygons in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. Number of interpreted polygons 465 Total area (ha) 35872.79 Average area (ha) 77.15 Balsam poplar 20 329.14 16.46 Mixedwood 252 2975.39 11.81 Coniferous 12 82.17 6.85 Black spruce 1 223.32 223.32 Wetland/stream 245 1466.93 5.99 Shrubland 2379 4765.05 2.00 Grassland 2005 2300.11 1.15 Other 327 720.09 2.20 Broad community type Trembling aspen Within the broad vegetative community types, 22 reference communities were identified (Table 4; Appendix 3). As described above, the range of reference communities displays the response of broad vegetative communities to changes that exist in small‐scale variability of site characteristics. A total of 57 randomly‐selected sites were visited to identify reference communities throughout GVPP, PRWPP and DWWPP. 15
Table 4. Reference community types detected within broad vegetative communities in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. Adapted from Stone et al. (2007). Broad community type n Reference communities Trembling aspen 12 Aspen/Canada buffaloberry Aspen/Saskatoon Aspen/rose/tall forb Aspen/rose/low forb Balsam poplar 4 Poplar‐aspen/red osier dogwood Poplar‐aspen/willow Mixedwood 9 Aspen‐white spruce/rose/marsh reed grass White spruce‐aspen/low bush cranberry White spruce‐poplar/red osier dogwood Coniferous 4 White spruce/moss White spruce/horsetail Black spruce 3 Black spruce‐tamarack/Labrador tea/moss Wetland/stream 3 Sedge meadow Bullrush‐cattail Shrubland 10 Snowberry‐Saskatoon/sedge Saskatoon‐rose/sedge Silverberry‐Saskatoon/sedge Shrub/western porcupine grass‐sedge Grassland 12 Western porcupine grass‐sedge Northern wheat grass‐June grass‐sedge/fringed sage Sedge‐wheat grass‐June grass June grass‐sedge/pasture sagewort 16
We sampled broad vegetative community types at 71 locations to measure the classification accuracy of remotely‐sensed delineations. Comparing remotely‐sensed and ground‐truthed data revealed that the largest error existed when delineating trembling aspen (84.5% agreement among sites; K = 0.60) and mixedwood (84.5% agreement among sites; K = 0.64) communities (Table 5). Broad vegetative community type classifications for the remaining types were more accurate (per cent agreement ranged from 98.6 to 100; K = 0.90 – 1). Broad community types included in the ‘other’ category were excluded from statistical analysis because this category consisted of multiple types. Table 5. Classification accuracy of broad vegetative community types through imagery interpretation in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta. Kappa statistic 0.60 Confidence interval (± 95%) 0.20 Standard error 0.10 Per cent agreement 84.5 Balsam poplar 1.00 0 0 100 Mixedwood 0.64 0.19 0.10 84.5 Coniferous 0.90 0.19 0.10 98.6 Black spruce 1.00 0 0 100 Wetland/stream 1.00 0 0 100 Shrubland 0.94 0.10 0.06 98.6 Grassland 1.00 0 0 100 Cropland 1.00 0 0 100 Broad community type Trembling aspen 4.1.1 Greene Valley Provincial Park The broad vegetative community composition of GVPP was dominated by the trembling aspen community type, with 76% of the park’s area consisting of this community (Figure 2). We detected four reference communities within this broad community type, with aspen/rose/tall forb being the most common (Table 4). In addition to the dominant trembling aspen community, mixedwood, coniferous, wetland, shrubland, and grassland communities were present as sub‐dominant communities (Appendix 4). We delineated 33 mixedwood polygons that contained two 17
reference communities, which were most commonly classified as white spruce‐
aspen/low bush cranberry. Mixedwood communities accounted for 9% of GVPP’s total area. We delineated eight coniferous communities in GVPP, whose total area made up 1% of the park, and closely resembled the white spruce/moss reference community. Shrubland communities were relatively large in number (n = 175), but small in size (average area = 1.31 ha), and accounted for 7% of the park’s area. Shrublands contained a mosaic of shrub and forb species, and shared many characteristics of all shrubland reference communities (Stone et al. 2007). Grassland communities were also numerous (n = 167); they covered 3% of GVPP’s total area and averaged only 0.50 ha in size. We found the collection of native grasses and forbs in these communities to be fairly consistent throughout the park and similar to those found in the western porcupine grass‐sedge community described by Stone et al. (2007). Wetland/stream communities (n = 24) consisted of sedge meadow, bullrush‐cattail communities (Stone et al. 2007) and various streams. The average area of wetland/stream communities was 4.98 ha and this community type accounted for 4% of the total park area. Other broad communities made up < 1% (0.4%) of GVPP’s total area. Wetland/Stream
4%
Other
0%
Coniferous
1%
Grassland
3%
Mixedwood
9%
Trembling Aspen
76%
Shrubland
7%
Figure 2. Composition of broad vegetative community types in Greene Valley Provincial Park. 18
4.1.2 Peace River Wildland Provincial Park Peace River Wildland Provincial Park consisted mainly of the trembling aspen community type (73% of total area) (Figure 3). This broad community type was frequently interspersed with shrubland (11% of total area) and, less frequently, grassland communities (2% of total area; Figure 3; Appendix 4). Interestingly, some of the grassland communities in PRWPP contained brittle prickly pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis); the northernmost range of cactus in the world. The four selected grassland reference communities (Table 4) are capable of showing subtle changes in species composition and disturbance levels. The balsam poplar community type, where aspen dominance is replaced by balsam poplar, exists in isolated floodplain areas of PRWPP (n = 20; 1% of total area). The species composition of this broad community type is most accurately characterized by the poplar‐aspen/red osier dogwood reference community. In total, we detected 72 mixedwood communities within PRWPP, accounting for 7% of the park’s area. A black spruce community, the only one occurring in all of the three parks, covered 223.32 ha or approximately 1% of the PRWPP’s total area and represents the unique black‐spruce‐tamarack/labrador tea/moss reference community. Other
1%
Wetland/Stream
4%
Balsam Poplar
Black Spruce
1%
Grassland
1%
2%
Mixedwood
7%
Shrubland
11%
Trembling Aspen
73%
Figure 3. Composition of broad vegetative community types in Peace River Wildland Provincial Park. 19
4.1.3 Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park Broad vegetative communities in DWWPP were similar to those found in the other two parks. The majority of the area within DWWPP was composed of the trembling aspen community (75% of total area; Figure 4; Appendix 4). Grassland communities (n = 1,013) accounted for 8% of the study area and averaged 1.65 ha in area. Mixedwood communities represented 5% of the total area, whereas wetlands/streams made up a relatively smaller portion of the total area (1%). Mixedwood stands in DWWPP differed from the other parks due to the occurrence of lodgepole pine, which is typical in this region because of its western location. An invasion of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) has occurred in DWWPP wherever lodgepole pine is present. Within the infested areas, significant mortality has occurred among susceptible trees and stand dynamics have been greatly affected. Other
2%
Wetland/Stream
1%
Coniferous
0%
Grassland
8%
Mixedwood
5%
Shrubland
9%
Trembling Aspen
75%
Figure 4. Composition of broad vegetative community types in Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park. 20
The use of ANHIC’s community tracking list revealed a total of four high priority natural communities present within the three parks. These included balsam poplar/river alder – red‐osier dogwood/meadow horsetail community, aspen/prickly rose/spreading dogbane community, silverberry riparian shrubland community, and western porcupine grass – green needle grass – sedge species community. Although only four communities from ANHIC’s community tracking list were detected during vegetative community assessments, others have been observed in the Peace region in earlier studies (Baker 2005). These primarily include grassland communities, which are far more numerous and larger in the northern valley of the Peace River compared to the southern valley, which contains the three parks. In addition to the previously detected communities (ANHIC data) which were not found in the parks during sampling, other natural plant communities found on ANHIC’s tracking list likely occur to some degree in the parks. Regardless, the four community types detected in the parks have been assigned a provincial conservation status ranking that reflects each community’s frequency of occurrence and range characteristics (Allen 2007). None of the plant species on ANHIC’s plant tracking list were found in the parks; however, Baker (2005) recently observed five plant species from the list in the Peace region. In consideration of the close proximity of Baker’s study area to PRWPP and similarities in site conditions, such species are possibly present. 4.2 Invasive plant species occurrence Nine weed species listed as either noxious or nuisance (Queen’s Printer 2007a) were found in the three parks (Table 6). In addition, two weed species not designated as noxious or nuisance (Queen’s Printer 2007a) were detected. Weeds were most frequently observed in grassland communities; however, they were also common in areas that were recently disturbed, primarily from slumping of hillsides or riverbanks. In total, 51 incidental sightings of weeds were recorded during vegetative community assessments and OHV trail assessments (Appendix 5), of which 28 were noxious species, five were nuisance species, and 18 were species not listed in the Alberta Weed Control Act (Queen’s Printer 2007a). 21
Table 6. Weed species found in three protected area parks in northwestern Alberta and their provincial classification. Classifications are from the Alberta Weed Control Act (Queen’s Printer 2007a). Common name Taxonomic name Classification Bluebur Lappula squarrosa Nuisance Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Noxious Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Noxious Goat’s beard Tragopogon dubius Not listed Mouse‐eared chickweed Cerastium vulgatum Nuisance Ox‐eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Noxious Perennial sow‐thistle Sonchus arvensis Noxious Scentless chamomile Matricaria perforata Noxious Smooth brome Bromus inermis Not listed Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium Noxious Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Noxious Spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium) was widespread in all three of the parks and commonly found in trembling aspen and shrubland communities. Goat’s beard (Tragopogon dubius), considered a weed by Bubar et al. (2000) but not listed in the Alberta Weed Control Act (Queen’s Printer 2007a), was also present in all of the parks and detected in grassland communities only. Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) was a common invader of grassland slopes and was present in dense patches. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforate), mouse‐eared chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum), bluebur (Lappula squarrosa), perennial sow‐thistle (Sonchus arvensis), ox‐eyed daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) were detected in scattered locations. The following sections describe invasive species occurrences in each of the three parks in more detail. 4.2.1 Greene Valley Provincial Park Occurrences of weeds in GVPP (n = 28) included seven species (Appendix 5), of which four were noxious, one was nuisance, and two were listed as weeds by Bubar et al. (2000), but were not included in the Alberta Weed Control Act (Queen’s Printer 2007a). 22
The most commonly occurring weed in GVPP was dandelion, which was present in eight locations. Noxious weeds found in GVPP included dandelion, Canada thistle, spreading dogbane and yellow toadflax. A disturbed area near the northern border and Highway 2 contained a significant amount of Canada thistle. However, this area was outside of the park. 4.2.2 Peace River Wildland Provincial Park A total of 17 incidental invasive species observations were recorded in PRWPP. The most commonly occurring weeds in PRWPP were goat’s beard and yellow toadflax, which were found in five locations each (Appendix 5). See Appendix 3 for an example of a yellow toadflax infestation in a grassland community. A significant infestation of bluebur was detected in PRWPP near the Peace‐Smoky confluence, locally referred to as ‛the point’, in an area used by motorbikes. Other weeds recorded were spreading dogbane, Canada thistle, perennial sow‐thistle, mouse‐eared chickweed and dandelion. 4.2.3 Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park In comparison to GVPP and PRWPP, fewer incidental weed observations were recorded in DWWPP (n = 6; Appendix 5). Scentless chamomile was detected at three sites in DWWPP, each in a riverbed. Goat’s beard was also detected at three sites. 4.3 Agricultural infringement Agricultural infringement occurred in each of the three parks. We detected a total of 134 agricultural infringements, accounting for 299.32 ha of land, through GIS analysis (Appendix 6). Sizes of encroachment ranged from 0.04 ha to 13.63 ha; the mean size was 2.23 ha. In GVPP, 16 agricultural infringements (15.24 ha total) were detected, PRWPP contained 52 infringements (119.61 ha total) and DWWPP contained 66 infringements (164.47 ha total). In all cases, the agricultural sections of land bordering the study areas have expanded to include portions of the parks. Farmable areas, which were flat enough to allow crop and hay production and accommodate grazing cattle, were typically the areas where encroachment occurred. 23
4.4 Off‐highway vehicle trail inventory All of the three parks contained OHV and walking trails, and DWWPP and PRWPP also had trails used by trucks. The majority of trails were primarily used by OHVs; most (81% of trails) were in the low‐use category. The OHV trail network was comprised of narrow (0.5 m) motorcycle trails to wide (4 m) trails used by trucks. The average width for all trails was 1.5 m. Peace River Wildland Provincial Park contained the highest density of trails at 0.62 km/km², whereas GVPP contained the lowest density of trails at 0.25 km/km². The following sections describe trail characteristics and use in each of the three parks in more detail. Campsites and firepits were present in each of the three parks. Permanent and semi‐
permanent shelters, ranging from log cabins to decrepit shelters constructed from a variety of materials, also existed. 4.4.1 Greene Valley Provincial Park Greene Valley Provincial Park contained 8.07 km of trails comprised of 15 unique trail segments (Appendix 5). The density of trails in GVPP was 0.25 km/km². Trails averaged 0.54 km in length and 0.85 m in width. We categorized 80% of the trails as low use and 20% as medium use. None of the trails in GVPP were categorized as high or very high use. The majority of OHV activity, while quite limited, occurred in the southern portion of the park. Two walking trails existed in the northern portion of the park; one was used to access a geocache where a flag and a small container were present. We did not find current or recently used campsites in GVPP, although an abandoned campsite and firepit were recorded. 4.4.2 Peace River Wildland Provincial Park Peace River Wildland Provincial Park contained 159.37 km of trails comprised of 132 unique trail segments (Appendix 5). The density of trails in PRWPP was 0.65 km/km². Trails averaged 1.21 km in length and 1.76 m in width. We categorized 83% of the trails 24
as low use, 11% as medium use, and 4% as high use. Only two trails (2% of total) were categorized as very high use and displayed heavy rutting and widening in wet areas. The eastern portion of the park contained the majority of trails. Motorcycle‐sized trails were prominent in the Peace/Smoky confluence area locally referred to as ‛the point’. Two campsites and two firepits were present in PRWPP. Two usable cabins, one small unusable cabin, and one burned down cabin were present as well. 4.4.3 Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park Dunvegan West Wildland Provincial Park contained 73.28 km of trails comprised of 63 unique trail segments (Appendix 5). The density of trails in DWWPP was 0.35 km/km². The average length of trail was 1.16 km and the average width was 1.64 m. We categorized 76% of the trails as low use, 10% as medium use, and 14% as high use. High use trails existed near the Cotillion Municipal Recreation Area. None of the trails were assigned a value of very high use. Three trails that originated at the top of the valley continued to the river; one of them went through the Silver Valley Ecological Reserve, which contained two trails in total. No trails showed significant motorcycle use, while truck use occurred on 12 trails. One trail was recently cleared with a bulldozer. Three firepits and one small cabin were found. In addition, we found a dilapidated shelter constructed out of black plastic (which has spread throughout the surrounding forest) and a fallen‐down, decomposing wall tent roughly 50 m outside of the park. 4.5 Off‐highway vehicle zones of disturbance Using a 100 m buffer to identify the area of disturbance of OHV activity on elk, we estimated approximately 147 ha of area (representing 5% of the total area) within GVPP where elk were likely to be displaced (Appendix 7). The increased network of trails in PRWPP and DWWPP resulted in larger estimates of area that elk might avoid. Trails within PRWPP accounted for a total area of disturbance of 2,802 ha (11% of total area) and trails in DWWPP yielded 1,302 ha (6% of total area) where elk were likely to be displaced. 25
Overlaying critical ungulate winter range data onto area of disturbance maps revealed potential conflicts resulting from OHV activity in the parks (Figure 5). Since the majority of these protected areas have been identified as critical ungulate winter range (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007), a large proportion of the identified areas of disturbance occurred in the parks. In DWWPP, 900 ha (69% of total area of disturbance) of area where elk might be displaced falls within critical ungulate winter range. In PRWPP, 2,745 ha of influenced area (98% of total area of disturbance) overlapped with critical ungulate winter range. In GVPP, 132 ha (90% of total area of disturbance) of critical ungulate winter range was potentially impacted by OHV use. 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Vegetative community inventory Satellite imagery interpretation enabled comprehensive identification of broad vegetative community polygons over the three parks. The lag in time between when the imagery layers were produced (1999) and our physical inventory (2006, 2007) may have resulted in some degree of inaccuracy in our classification of vegetation, trails and agricultural features. Classification error could also have resulted from error in imagery interpretation. However, we used ground‐truthing to quantify this type of error and made adjustments, as required. For example, many of the grassland communities were slightly smaller than preliminary delineation suggested and, in many cases, shrubland communities had a tendency to border grassland communities to a greater extent than imagery interpretation alone indicated. To form a more detailed account of vegetative communities in the three parks, we identified and described 22 reference communities. Previous work done by Stone et al. (2007) was supportive in providing comprehensive information on local vegetative communities. Despite our detection of 22 reference community types, other types may exist within the three parks since the ground‐based vegetative surveys did not cover the entire area of the three parks. 26
Figure 5. Example of a 100 m zone of disturbance applied to off‐highway vehicle trails in three parks in northwestern Alberta. 27
5.2 Areas of concern Topography in the three parks is probably a large factor in the location and activity level of OHV trails. We commonly observed trails in flat areas, while approximately 10% provided access to the Peace River and other tributaries. In such cases, as well as other scenarios where steep hills are present on the trails, increased erosion was evident. In all areas, natural erosion can be compounded significantly by spinning OHV tires and wet conditions. While management may focus on flat areas where trail density is high, it may be important to monitor and control activity in the few steep areas and where trails access the river. Some steep areas, such as the portion of DWWPP that runs north and west, contain no trails and may be of low management concern because of their extreme topographic relief and rugged terrain (Appendix 5). We recorded the majority of invasive plant species occurrences (55%) in GVPP where many of the vegetative community assessments were done and where OHV trails were most commonly assessed by walking. However, the northern portion of PRWPP is perhaps the most concerning and deserving of further analysis. This area experiences high OHV disturbance and contains large patches of weeds relative to other sites. The most commonly occurring invasive plant species in each of the three study areas were goat’s beard (not listed) and yellow toadflax (noxious). We found that grassland communities within each of the parks contained invasive weeds, which may be due to two factors: 1) the exposed soil and frequent disturbance of grassland sites promote the occurrence of weeds; or 2) the ability to detect weed species is greater in these areas. On river beds and crossings where seed transport is frequent and more likely, we commonly detected invasive plant species. These areas may be explored to promote control measures. The spread of noxious and nuisance weed species may deserve attention. Control measures, such as spraying and addressing weed issues on adjacent private and public lands, may be necessary to help reduce the propagation of these undesired plants (Vold and Sranko 2005). The spread of seeds through increased disturbance and seed transport by OHVs may result in encroachment on native communities, most noticeably grasslands. Subsequent competition may limit the growth and reproductive capabilities of native species. By recording incidental sightings of invasive weeds, we 28
enhanced knowledge of the types of weed species present in the three parks and their locations. However, since all observations were incidental and sampling was not exhaustive, we could not draw significant conclusions regarding the distribution and level of infestation of weed species. Some follow‐up work may be necessary to determine the level of effort required for control measures. The preservation of native grassland communities may require management treatments as disturbance plays a very important role in their short and long‐term viability. Fire is an important component of maintenance of grasslands, and fire regime should be maintained at a consistent rate if the intention is to promote grassland health and reduce shrub and tree encroachment. In many areas, the slope gradient and topographic position and aspect of hillsides helps preserve grassland communities. In such areas, shrub and tree growth is inhibited due to rapid soil drainage. Trails occurring in grassland communities often contain steep portions, which contribute to erosion and degradation of topsoil. This type of disturbance may contribute to the spread of noxious weeds as ‛thrill‐seekers’ often use these areas for extreme riding and motorbike use. Notably, the northernmost area of PRWPP, referred to as ‛the point’, experiences the highest motorbike use and coincidentally contains a relatively large amount of noxious and nuisance weeds. Specific control measures may be necessary in this area to help reduce the impact on native grasslands occurring here. To aid in the identification of areas that are at high risk of potential environmental and ecological damage, it may be useful for future research to measure impacts associated with the use of OHVs in a cumulative manner. By utilizing a risk matrix approach, impact variables could be quantified simultaneously to derive an overall risk value that could be applied at various spatial scales. The structure of a risk matrix allows for scoring of individual variables that are used to derive a total risk score for a given area. Such a tool also might allow for accurate and consistent comparison of OHV use in separate study areas. 5.3 Wildlife response to disturbance Recreational trail use has a high potential to disturb wildlife and may result in negative consequences on an animal’s energy and nutritional budget (Taylor and Knight 2003). 29
Different forms of recreation have unique and specific effects on wildlife species and populations ranging from direct mortality to habitat alteration. Off‐highway vehicle activity, in many cases, has been shown to have the greatest effect (Wisdom et al. 2004), although threshold levels have not been determined. For elk and mule deer, response to OHV use has been estimated in past research (Wisdom et al. 2004). As movement and flight response rates dictate energetic costs (Johnson et al. 2004), elevated rates may have a direct impact on the survival of an animal and its subsequent reproductive ability and contribution to recruitment rates. Johnson et al. (2004) explained the potential of human activity to affect both energy acquisition (feeding) and energy conservation (resting), thereby resulting in overall energetic costs. Energy reserves are needed in winter when foraging opportunities are limited, while summer stores are necessary for lactation and rebuilding body mass following winter (Cook et al. 2004). Over time, as the three parks potentially face increased OHV use, effects may be noticeable at the population level. Monitoring movements and habitat selection of individuals and populations within the parks will be important in detecting these effects. In 2007, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development developed guidelines for the management of land‐use activities in the Smoky Management Area (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007). Focusing on wildlife, these guidelines identified ungulate winter ranges – areas that are considered critical to ungulate populations. Winter ranges offer abundant high quality forage, lower snowfall accumulation or duration, and good escape cover (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007). By identifying these areas and incorporating the locations of OHV trails, we determined explicit spatial areas of conflict. A total of 3,777 ha of critical ungulate winter range was perceived to be affected by OHV use in the three parks. Off‐
highway vehicle activities occurring in winter, such as snowmobiling, may have a significant impact on ungulate movements and may alter the use patterns of important wintering habitat. In addition to the identified critical winter range, areas of important habitat during other times of the year (i.e., calving grounds) may be present, but remain largely unidentified in the three parks. Delineating these calving and fawning areas will be 30
important for managing OHV trail use in spring and early summer. Moreover, species that exhibit certain behavioural and social organization characteristics, such as colonial behaviour (e.g., sharp‐tailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus, leks), unique breeding patterns (e.g., red‐sided garter snake), restricted distribution (e.g., long‐toed salamander), or rigid habitat requirements (e.g., peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus), are of concern as these species’ populations may be much more sensitive to activity (Boyle and Samson 1985). Impacts to non‐game species of wildlife have also been revealed through research efforts. In a review of past studies investigating the effects of non‐consumptive recreation on wildlife, Boyle and Samson (1985) provide a summary of positive, negative and undetermined impacts of a variety of recreation types on different taxonomic groups. Negative OHV impacts on birds, mammals and herpetofauna existed in all studies included (n = 24). Newmann and Merriam (1972) concluded that snowshoe hares avoided areas within 76 m of repeatedly‐used trails, while the opposite was true for red foxes as they tended to use trails which facilitated increased mobility due to compaction. Barton and Holmes (2007) observed higher rates of songbird nest desertion and abandonment within 100 m of active OHV trails. However, nest predation rates of songbird nests built in shrubs were reduced when nests were within 100 m of trails (Barton and Holmes 2007). A negative correlation between wolf presence and road density was observed in northwest Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). Although valuable work has provided evidence of human‐wildlife conflicts, knowledge gaps continue to exist. With a large variety of factors to consider, as well as the tendency for natural variation within wildlife populations on various temporal scales, associations with OHV and other recreational uses are difficult to predict. A number of issues associated with recreational use, such as tendency of habituation, site‐specific effects, and surrounding habitat viability, are not well understood. Wildlife species may react differently in certain areas and may show behavioural responses that are specific to a region or geographical area. For example, populations that are not hunted (i.e., fall within restricted hunting zones) may demonstrate different behaviours relative to hunted populations. Results are only suggestive in many cases, and do not show definitive negative relationships between OHV use and wildlife. Future studies should continue to explore various behavioural responses to OHV use at different spatial 31
scales, as well as the role of topography, habitat and other site‐specific landscape features. It is also important to direct further attention to how different levels of use affect wildlife, because little research has been undertaken and OHV activity is expected to increase. The significance and magnitude of any effect are related to the extensiveness, intensity and timing of the activity (Cole and Landres 1995). Researching threshold levels of use is extremely important to help determine how to protect wildlife populations and make management decisions. In the meantime, it may be important to consider possible management strategies that use a cautious approach. 5.4 Management implications Recreational activities and modes of transportation have changed a great deal in the Peace region over the past 50 years. The rising human population in Alberta places heightened demands on wild spaces, while economic prosperity has made OHVs accessible to many residents. Feedback from local farmers, landowners, area land managers and park visitors indicates that demands from recreationists have increased in the lower Peace River corridor. Historically, many trails were used for horseback riding and other non‐motorized recreation, while currently OHVs are overwhelmingly dominant as the vehicle of choice on Peace River corridor park trails. Many local residents expressed concern over the apparent increase in OHV activity in this area and the negative impacts this may have on the environment in general. This assessment provides baseline data on existing vegetative communities, invasive plant species occurrence, and OHV trail locations. Continued monitoring, including summer and winter use of trails, will be important to assess changes in OHV use (e.g., increases) over time, along with the creation of new trails. An excellent example of monitoring is the Bighorn Wildland Recreation Monitoring Project in southwestern Alberta (Alberta Wilderness Association 2007), which included measuring trends in motorized vehicle activity over a two year time period with the use of digital traffic counters. The Alberta Wilderness Association (2007) also used traffic counters to investigate motorized vehicle use in non‐designated areas throughout the year. Legislation is important when considering management efforts related to OHV activity. Section 27(1) of the Provincial Parks Act (Queen’s Printer 2007b) states that operation of 32
an OHV is only permitted in provincial parks (e.g., GVPP) on designated, identified trails only, but is allowed throughout all areas within wildland provincial parks (e.g., PRWPP, DWWPP). However, special circumstances do exist in some wildland provincial parks. Areas that have experienced a high level of OHV use or a large increase in OHV use have led to management actions, such as the designation of trails and zoning. Examples of such trail designations include Bow Valley Wildland Provincial Park where only non‐motorized access is currently allowed, and Kakwa Wildland Provincial Park where OHV use is allowed on designated trails only. Vold and Sranko (2005) present valuable information for the management of off‐road vehicle trail use in British Columbia including recommendations for legislation, enforcement, compliance, education, conservation, and responsible trail development, maintenance, and use. Evidence of a high level of OHV use in some areas of these three parks suggests that trail designation may be necessary in the future to minimize soil erosion, stream and wetland damage, and wildlife disturbance. If managing use based on trail density and levels of use, focus can be directed towards those areas where public access to the parks is available. These areas tend to attract the most users and may be good areas to provide information and awareness on trail management. The concept of sustainable OHV use has garnered much attention in recent times, and a multitude of resources exist for those seeking more ecologically‐responsible methods of trail use. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development has produced a number of informative pamphlets promoting environmentally‐wise and respectable OHV use. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides a fact sheet on OHV riding and reducing the impacts on fish habitat, and OHV and recreation organizations populate their websites with helpful tips on how to minimize environmental damage (Alberta Off‐Highway Vehicle Association 2007; Canadian Off‐Highway Vehicle Distributors Council 2007). These type of resources serve as a source of public information and fundamental tips that help promote sustainability of OHV riding in Alberta and should continue to be promoted. Additional information should also be provided through public education and consultation to help develop an understanding of problems and impacts associated with OHV use in the Peace region. In consideration of the multiple mandates of recreational users, it is key that management objectives that aim to minimize environmental and user conflicts be 33
balanced with other goals. For example, some areas may remain available to OHV users, whereas others may be designated as ‘foot access only’ to provide opportunities for those seeking non‐motorized forms of wildland recreation. All forms of human recreation may have impacts on the ecosystem (OHV, bicycle, snowmobile, snowshoeing, skiing, hiking), so a balanced assessment is warranted to better understand the tradeoffs associated with managing recreational access. Strategies will likely require modification over time as monitoring efforts provide feedback on the relationships between recreational users and the environment. 34
6.0 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Environmental Protection. 1997. The parkland natural region of Alberta: one of a series of reports prepared for the Special Places 2000 Provincial Coordinating Committee. Recreation and Protected Areas Division, Natural Heritage Planning and Evaluation Branch. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 110 pp. Alberta Off‐Highway Vehicle Association. 2007. AOHV Resources. Available online: http://www.aohva.com/resources.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005. The general status of Alberta wild species 2005. Available online: http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/wildspecies. Accessed 14 July 2007. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2007. Wildlife guidelines for land use activities in the Smoky area. Unpublished data. Smoky Area, Alberta, Canada. 22 pp. Alberta Wilderness Association. 2007. The Bighorn Wildland recreation monitoring project: an interim research summary from 2004 – 2006. Unpublished data. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 76 pp. Allen, L. 2007. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre preliminary ecological community tracking list. Pub. No. T/527, Alberta Community Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 116 pp. Augustyn, T. 2001. Long‐toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) monitoring in the Peace Region of Alberta. Report prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. 18 pp. Baker, A. 2005. A synthesis of 2001 – 2004 Peace native grasslands program. Technical Report (T‐2004‐002) produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 70 pp. 35
Barton, D.C., and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off‐highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1617‐
1620. Beckingham, J.D., and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field guide to ecosites of northern Alberta. Special Report 5. Canadian Forest Services, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 515 pp. Bubar, C.J., S.J. McColl, and L.M. Hall. 2000. Weeds of the prairies. Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 266 pp. Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non‐consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110‐116. Canadian Off‐Highway Vehicle Distributors Council. 2007. ATV Naturewatch. http://www.cohv.ca/CATVnw.html. Accessed 12 July 2007. Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183‐202. In: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. Canadian species at risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, September 2007. 84 pp. Cook, J.G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L.D. Bryant, and L.L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer‐autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monographs 155: 58‐61. ESRI. 2007. Getting started with ArcGIS. ESRI, Redlands, California, USA. 265 pp. Fisher, C., and J. Acorn. 1998. Birds of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 384 pp. 36
James, A.R.C, and A.K. Stuart‐Smith. 2000. Disturbance of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 154‐159. Johnson, B.K., A.A. Ager, J.H. Noyes, and N. Cimon. 2004. Elk and mule deer responses to variation in hunting pressures. Pages 625‐640. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Johnson, D., L. Kershaw, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1995. Plants of the western boreal forest and aspen parkland. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 392 pp. Joynt, A., and M.G. Sullivan. 2003. Fish of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 176 pp. Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta, Pub. No. 1/005, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 254 pp. Newmann, P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. The Canadian Field‐Naturalist 86: 207‐212. Mech, D.L., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 85‐87. Pattie, D., and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 240 pp. Queen’s Printer. 2007a. Weed Control Act. Alberta Queen’s Printer, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Queen’s Printer. 2007b. Provincial Parks Act. Alberta Queen’s Printer, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 37
Quinn, M., and D. Duke. 2003. Recreation and wildlife in the Rockies of southwestern Alberta; 2003 field report. Unpublished data. Miistakis Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 31 pp. Stone, C., and D. Lawrence. 2000. Northern range plants. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 206 pp. Stone, C., M. Willoughby, and A. Rosendal. 2007. Guide to range plant community types and carrying capacity for the Peace River parkland subregion in Alberta. First Approximation. Pub. No. T/143, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 134 pp. Tannans, K. 2004a. Common plants of the western rangelands, volume 1 – grasses and grass‐like species. Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 356 pp. Tannans, K. 2004b. Common plants of the western rangelands, volume 3 – forbs. Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 505 pp. Taylor, A.R., and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications 13: 951‐963. Vold, T., and G. Sranko. 2005. Solutions for a sustainable future: final recommendations for registration, licensing, and management of off‐road vehicles in British Columbia. Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. 76 pp. Willoughby, M.G., C. Stone, C. Hincz, D. Moisey, G. Ehlert, and D. Lawrence. 2006. Guide to range plant community types and carrying capacity for the dry and central mixedwood subregions in Alberta, 6th approximation. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Public Lands and Forests Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 242 pp. 38
Wilkinson, K., and E.A. Johnson. 1983. Distribution of prairies and solonetzic soils in the Peace River district, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany 61: 1851‐1860. Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of off‐
road recreation on mule deer and elk. Pages 531‐550. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Young, J., A.S. Azofeifa, and L. Murphy. 2004. Peace River lowland conservation plan. Prepared for Nature Conservancy Canada, Alberta Region by Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 83 pp. 39
7.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Provincial and federal status of animal species found in the Peace River region. Species included are listed as “At Risk”, “May Be at Risk” or “Sensitive” by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (2005). Federal status from Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2007). Summary does not include bivalves, gastropods and odonates due to lack of distribution data. Provincial status Federal status Common name Taxonomic name Amphibians Boreal toad Bufo boreas Sensitive Special concern Long‐toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Sensitive Not at risk Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Sensitive Not assessed American green‐winged teal Anas crecca Sensitive Not assessed Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive Not at risk Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula Sensitive Not assessed Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Sensitive Not assessed Barred owl Strix varia Sensitive Not assessed Bay‐breasted warbler Dendroica castanea Sensitive Not assessed Black tern Chlidonias niger Sensitive Not at risk Black‐backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus Sensitive Not assessed Black‐throated green warbler Dendroica virens Sensitive Not assessed Brown creeper Certhia americana Sensitive Not assessed Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Sensitive Not assessed Cape‐may warbler Dendroica tigrina Sensitive Not assessed Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Sensitive Threatened Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Sensitive Not assessed Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Sensitive Not assessed Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Sensitive Not at risk Great blue heron Ardea herodias Sensitive Not assessed Great gray owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive Not at risk Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Sensitive Not assessed 40
Appendix 1. Continued. Provincial status Federal status Common name Taxonomic name Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus Sensitive Not assessed Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Sensitive Not assessed Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus Sensitive Not at Risk Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Sensitive Not at Risk Northern hawk owl Surnia ulula Sensitive Not at Risk Northern pintail Anas acuta Sensitive Not assessed Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma Sensitive Not assessed Osprey Pandion haliaetus Sensitive Not assessed Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum At Risk Special Concern Pied‐billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Sensitive Not assessed Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Sensitive Not assessed Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Sensitive Not at Risk Red knot Calidris canutus rufa May Be at Risk Endangered Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Sensitive Special Concern Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Sensitive Not assessed Sharp‐tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Sensitive Not assessed Short‐eared owl Asio flammeus May Be at Risk Special Concern Sora Porzana carolina Sensitive Not assessed Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator At Risk Not at Risk Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Sensitive Not assessed Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Sensitive Not assessed White‐winged scoter Melanitta fusca Sensitive Not assessed Butterflies Alberta arctic Oeneis alberta Sensitive Not assessed Gorgone checkerspot Chlosyne gorgone Sensitive Not assessed Gray copper Lycaena dione Sensitive Not assessed Old world swallowtail Papilio machaon Sensitive Not assessed Fish Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Sensitive Not assessed Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Sensitive Not assessed Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Sensitive Not assessed Northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Sensitive Not assessed Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos Sensitive Not assessed 41
Appendix 1. Continued. Provincial status Federal status Common name Taxonomic name Mammals Fisher Martes pennanti Sensitive Not assessed Grizzly bear Ursus arctos May Be at Risk Special Concern Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive Long‐tailed weasel Mustela frenata May Be at Risk Not at Risk Northern long‐eared bat Myotis septentrionalis May Be at Risk Not assessed Silver‐haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Sensitive Wolverine Gulo gulo May Be at Risk Special Concern Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus At Risk Threatened Reptiles Red‐sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Sensitive Not assessed Wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans Sensitive Not assessed 42
Not assessed Not assessed Appendix 2. Examples of trail use categories. Low use Medium use 43
Appendix 2. Continued. High use 44
Appendix 2. Continued. Very high use 45
Appendix 3. Examples of reference communities. Community descriptions adapted from Stone et al. (2007). Community type: Trembling Aspen 46
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Trembling Aspen 47
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Balsam Poplar 48
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Balsam Poplar 49
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Mixedwood 50
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Mixedwood 51
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Coniferous 52
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Coniferous 53
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Black Spruce 54
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Black Spruce 55
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Wetland/Stream 56
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Wetland/Stream 57
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Shrubland 58
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Shrubland 59
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Grassland 60
Appendix 3. Continued. Community type: Grassland 61
Appendix 4. Vegetative community maps: see compact disk enclosed. Appendix 5. Off‐highway vehicle trail maps: see compact disk enclosed. Appendix 6. Agricultural infringement maps: see compact disk enclosed. Appendix 7. Wildlife features maps: see compact disk enclosed. 62
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
Alberta
Conservation Association
The The
Alberta
Conservation
Associationacknowledges
acknowledges
for their
their generous
support
of of
following
partner for
the the
following
partner
generous
support
this project
this project