A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Bulletin 2 – Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Protection for the Castle: A Special Place
The newly proposed Castle Protected Areas are cherished by First Nations and Albertans as a vital source of
water and a landscape of unparalleled recreational, natural, historical, and cultural value. The Castle provides
one third of the annual water flow for the Oldman River Basin. It is also one of Alberta’s most biodiverse areas,
providing critical habitat for over 200 different species at risk. The Castle is a diverse summer and winter
recreational playground filled with beautiful hikes, inspiring fishing, and a vast network of multi-use motorized
trails.
Effective protection of the Castle is challenging given its long history and high demand for multiple uses,
including commercial forestry operations, oil and gas development, grazing, and recreation. There has been
extensive disturbance and fragmentation of ecosystems. As a management plan for these new protected areas is
crafted, the Government of Alberta is considering further allowance of off-highway vehicles.
Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) conducted initial analysis of linear disturbance and implications for
grizzly bears in the Castle in 2010. In 2016, GFWC conducted analyses to update disturbance and intactness
information that can be applied to the current management planning processes. GFWC is publishing a series of
three bulletins on key facets of disturbance in the area; this second bulletin describes the high resolution analysis
applied by GFWC to describe updated levels of linear disturbance in the Castle.
Executive Summary of Bulletin 2
This second bulletin examines the human footprint in the Castle proposed protected areas (the Castle) through
a high resolution analysis of linear disturbance. Using a refined dataset derived from official road and trails
datasets, extracted features from an Alberta dataset, and digitized features from high resolution (0.5 m) aerial
photographs, Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) provides a series of maps showcasing the extent of linear
disturbances across the newly proposed protected areas.
The key findings in this Bulletin are:
There were 1,822.6 km of linear features (roads, trails, seismic lines, transmission line corridors, and
pipeline right of ways) in the Castle proposed protected areas as of 2012.
The high resolution (0.5 m) aerial photography provided a linear disturbance footprint much higher
than GFWC mapped in 2010; aerial photographs yielded an additional 703 km of linear features.
Although there are only 130 km of official roads, GFWC has identified at least 301 km of features in
the Castle that may function as roads.
The density of linear disturbances for the entire Castle proposed protected areas is 1.76 km/km2. The
proposed Provincial Park is much more fragmented with a density over 3.5 km/km2, while the
Wildland Provincial Park is just over 1 km/km2.
The widespread existence and use of many of the linear disturbances beyond the official roads and
designated trails underlines the importance of addressing off-highway vehicle use in the Castle.
Further fieldwork to assess linear feature type and volume of use would enrich the dataset and make
it more useful for management planning and monitoring purposes.
As part of our commitment to open data, GFWC is making its linear disturbances dataset available
via our website for others to use.
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 1
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Introduction
The Castle area has a long history of multiple human uses that have resulted in a series of cumulative effects on
overall ecosystem health; there have long been calls protection and restoration of the Castle (e.g. Weaver 2013;
CSCPI 2009; Horejsi 2004; Sheppard et al. 2002). Based on the Government of Alberta’s announcement of
protection and its consideration of different land uses in the area, Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) conducted
analysis to update information on the extent of anthropogenic disturbance (the human footprint) and intactness of
ecosystems in the Castle. The first bulletin focused on the overall footprint of industrial activities (Smith and Cheng
2016). This second bulletin describes the linear disturbance footprint and their density within the proposed protected
areas. The third bulletin will discuss the implication of linear disturbance density for threatened trout and grizzly
bear populations in the Castle.
Habitat fragmentation often occurs due to anthropogenic activities such infrastructure, forestry operations, and oil
and gas developments. A high density of linear features can have various implications for wildlife and habitat (see
summary in Weaver 2013). Part of the controversy with addressing linear disturbance in this kind of multi-use
landscape is the variety of definitions used in past analyses. In this report and in Bulletin 3, linear disturbance refers
to all human-caused disturbances of a linear nature in the Castle (i.e., roads, trails, and seismic lines). This is not to
be confused with open-road density, which includes only those roads accessible to and used by on-highway vehicle;
this definition is used in all Government of Alberta metrics of disturbance, such as the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan (AEP 2016a). The challenge with open-road density that is of particular significance in the Castle, is that it does
not include trails open to motorized recreation (e.g., quads and dirt bikes). In the previous Alberta Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan 2008 – 2013 (ASRD 2008), the Alberta Government recommended using the concept of open route
(roads without restrictions on motorized use) densities as a surrogate for amount of human disturbance. The Castle
is partly known for its motorized recreation opportunities, therefore only accounting for open-road density would
grossly underestimate potential impact.
In 2002, Sheppard et al. (2002) reported a road density of 1.1 km/km2 and possibly higher in the Castle and noted
that 24 of 26 major subdrainages had some form of motorized access. Horejsi (2004) found a density of linear
features of 0.75 km/km2. During 2010, GFWC conducted an analysis of anthropogenic linear disturbances within
the Castle Area Forest Land Use Zone and found a linear density of 1.3 km/km2 from a total length of linear features
of 1,283 km (Lee and Hanneman 2010).
This bulletin contributes to the literature on linear
disturbances in the Castle by creating a new
dataset of linear features based on a combination
of official datasets and digitized features from
high resolution aerial photography from 2012.
GFWC also refined the dataset by adding details
regarding roads that were not categorized as such
in official datasets. Using this newly created
dataset, we also calculated the density of linear
disturbances for the Castle, including using a
threshold of 0.6 km/km2, a commonly applied
threshold that is explored further in Bulletin 3.
Road in the proposed Castle Provincial Park. Photo: GFWC
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 2
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Methods
Creation of a linear disturbance dataset
GFWC used various existing datasets and remote sensing imagery to create a consolidated linear disturbance dataset
current as of 2012. We used an updated National Roads Network (NRN) for Alberta (Natural Resources Canada
2015), the Government of Alberta’s Designated Trails of the Castle pre-flood 2013 (AEP 2016b), and our own 2010
linear disturbance dataset (Lee and Hanneman 2010). We added those datasets to the Alberta Biodiversity
Monitoring Institute (ABMI) Human Footprint 2012 dataset (ABMI 2015), which captures numerous linear features
in a polygon form. This dataset is based on a combination of ancillary datasets and digitizing from SPOT 2.5 m
resolution imagery. To refine resolution, we also included 2012 aerial photography from the Municipal District of
Pincher Creek and a small area of Cardston County, which were obtained from the Government of Alberta (Southern
Alberta Municipal Districts and Counties 2012)1 and had a resolution of 0.5 meters.2
To create the updated, higher resolution vector linear disturbance dataset we:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Combined and eliminated overlap between the two existing vector datasets (the NRN and the Designated
Trails network), to create an initial linear disturbance layer consisting of roads and trails.
Converted ABMI (2015) seismic polygon linear features using a “polygon to centreline” extraction tool3 to
create a vector file of seismic lines.
Digitized transmission line corridors and pipeline right of ways using the ABMI dataset.
Added any linear features from our own 2010 linear disturbance dataset if they were not already contained
in other datasets (and added via steps 1-3) and were visible on the 2012 aerial photographs.
Digitized linear features that were not present in any of the datasets but were visible on the high resolution
2012 aerial photographs at a 1:2,000 scale. We did not assign feature type, such as trail or road to these
features at this juncture; all of these features were defined as “other linear disturbance”.
To refine the dataset, GFWC reviewed all linear disturbances and assigned them categories, where possible, based
on:
1)
2)
3)
Existing data sets: All linear features from the NRN roads dataset retained their original classification as
either paved or unpaved roads. This step was necessary to eliminate overlap as some had been assigned as
designated trails during the creation of the new dataset.4
Results from field visits (August 28-September 2, 2016, and October 2010): Any linear feature that GFWC
verified as drivable by an on-highway vehicle, by driving on them ourselves, or based on the presence of
vehicles, trailers, and/or tire tracks during field visits. Our fieldwork helped identify as roads some
disturbances that were either not previously classified as roads or even previously mapped. We then
determined the actual extent of the road feature by re-examining the 2012 aerial photographs.
Data sources: Linear features were defined as roads if they were visible on the 2012 aerial photographs at a
1:5,000 scale and were connected to a known road, were at least 4 meters in width, had the appearance of a
hard surface, and resembled other features known to be roads.
1
Data available upon request from: http://www.mdwillowcreek.com/html/aerialintro.html or
[email protected]. All 2012 photographs were accessed on July 3, 2016.
2
The website notes that the accuracy of the files is good but there is no guarantee made that the accuracy meets any particular
specification and may be lower than the pixel size.
3
Dilts, TE. 2015. Polygon to Centerline Tool for ArcGIS. Available at:
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=bc642731870740aabf48134f90aa6165.
4
GFWC also used information on trails rehabilitated or upgraded by the Government of Alberta since the 2013 floods to
investigate the status of the trails as a final check on trail status and quality. However, new features were not added to the 2012
dataset to ensure all data pertained to the same time period.
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 3
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Analyses of density of linear disturbances
We used the dataset of linear disturbances to calculate density by square kilometer. We report the density of linear
features per square kilometer in the two parks and the entire proposed protected area based on all existing
disturbances and against the threshold of 0.6 km/km2 (density is explored further in Bulletin 3).
However, traffic volumes on linear disturbances can be a
greater influence on wildlife movement and habitat quality
than the mere presence of the linear feature itself. Several
linear disturbances within the study area are trails designated
for motorized recreation, but many more linear disturbances
are used for motorized recreation and not designated for this
purpose. Accounting for this discrepancy is crucial to
understanding the impact of linear disturbances on the
landscape. However, there are no current accurate measures
of which linear features are being used recreationally in the
Castle. Thus, to estimate use, we used a feature’s proximity
to roads and designated trails. We analyzed how many
features were found within 100 m and 500 m of roads and
designated trails in the various datasets and used those
percentages to calculate other densities for comparison
purposes. We did this to account for a lack of data pertaining
to actual human use levels of non-designated trails and help
determine potential extents of motorized recreation
An example of a designated trail in the Castle. Photo: GFWC
across the landscape.
Results and Implications
Linear disturbances in the Castle
The total length of linear disturbances in the Castle as of 2012, based on GFWC’s new dataset, was 1,822.56 km
(Map 1; Table 1). Just over 1,065 km, or 58%, of these features were in the proposed Castle Provincial Park, while
757 km, or almost 42%, were in the Wildland Provincial Park.
These linear features consist of roads, official and unofficial trails, pipelines, transmission corridors, and seismic
lines. There are 476 km of trails (motorized and non-motorized) in the Designated Trails dataset. The NRN includes
approximately 130 km of roads within the Castle area, but 58 km of these also are designated trails. The two datasets
thus account for a total of 522.7 km of roads and (mostly) motorized trails. Seismic lines, pipelines, and transmission
line corridors account for 557.89 km. The GFWC 2010 dataset accounts for 13.2 km of unlabeled linear features and
the linear features digitized from the 2012 aerial photographs account for the other 703.08 km of non-specified linear
features.
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 4
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Map 1. All linear disturbance features in the Castle as of 2012
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 5
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Table 1. Linear disturbance in the proposed parks, as of 2012
Linear feature
Length in Provincial
Park (km)
Length in Wildland
Provincial Park (km)
250.25
1.24
200.32
24.46
450.57
25.70
48.26
23.90
72.17
299.16
258.73
557.89
12.43
0.72
13.15
453.95
249.13
703.08
1,065.29
757.26
1,822.56
Designated trails - motorized
Designated trails - hiking
NRN roads (not already included in the
Designated Trails dataset)
ABMI dataset (seismic lines, pipelines,
and transmission corridors)
GFWC digitized disturbances (2010)
GFWC digitized disturbances based on
2012 aerial photographs
Total linear features (km)
Length in Both
Parks (km)
This total measure of linear disturbance cannot be directly compared to the 1,184 km that GFWC mapped in 2009
(Lee and Hanneman 2010) due to changes in the study area dimensions and boundaries. In 2009, GWFC used the
boundaries of the Castle Forest Land Use Zone, which was slightly smaller than the boundaries of the proposed
protected areas. Examining the overlap of the two study areas (973 km2), however, shows a 578.39 km difference
between the 2009 and 2012 linear features, as there were 1,184.12 km in 2009 and 1762.51 km in 2012. This is
likely, at least in part, due to working with higher resolution data that was able to account for more linear disturbances
than previous efforts. Comparing disturbances mapped at different dates by different datasets indicates not all of
these differences are due to new linear disturbances being created in the Castle since 2009 (Figure 1).
We identified many features (171.77 km) that
were being used as roads, but which were not
classified as such in the datasets or which had not
even been previously captured as disturbances
prior to our mapping (Table 2; Map 2). Our
analysis estimated at least 301 km of roads in the
proposed protected areas, which represents 16% of
all linear features in the 2012 dataset. This amount
is significantly higher than the 129.81 km included
in the NRN dataset, which therefore underestimates the extent of roads by over 50%. If all
remaining designated motorized trails are included
as “roads”, the total length of roads becomes
almost 594 km, or 32.6% of all linear features.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate examples of linear
disturbances that GFWC has categorized as roads
based on fieldwork and assessment of the aerial
photographs.
Motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles are common
sights in the Castle. Photo: GFWC
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 6
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Figure 1. Aerial photograph comparison of GFWC 2010, GFWC 2012, and ABMI-derived data
Table 2. Road extent in the Castle proposed protected areas (other linear features such as seismic lines and trails
were not included in this summary)
Provincial Park
Wildland Provincial Park Both Protected Areas
Road Class
length % of linear length
% of linear
length
% of linear
(km)
features
(km)
features
(km)
features
NRN Roads
94.52
8.87
35.29
4.66
129.81
7.12
GFWC labelled roads
94.75
77.21
171.96
Total Roads
Remaining designated
motorized trails
Potential "Roads" if include
Designated Motorized Trails
189.27
112.50
301.77
150.57
14.13
141.36
18.67
291.92
16.02
339.84
31.90
253.86
33.52
593.70
32.57
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 7
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Map 2. Extent of Roads in the Castle, as revised by GFWC
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 8
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Figure 2. Linear features labelled as roads based on field checks and aerial photographs
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 9
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Figure 3. Second example of linear features that were roads
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 10
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Figure 4: Linear features labeled as roads in the Beaver Mines Lake area
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 11
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Analyses of linear disturbance density and potential use
The 1,822 km of linear disturbances represents a density of 1.76 km/km2 for the entire Castle proposed protected
areas. The density of linear features in the proposed Provincial Park is much higher at over 3.5 km/km2 compared to
the proposed Wildland Provincial Park at just over 1 km/km2. Only 9 km2 (3%) of the proposed Provincial Park and
almost 490 km2 (67%) of the Wildland Provincial Park is under the threshold of 0.6 km/km2 (Table 3; Map 3).
Table 3. Linear disturbance threshold of 0.6 km/km2 based on all disturbances
Density category
No disturbance
0 – 0.6 km/km2
≥0.6 km/km2
Total Area
Provincial Park
km2
%
1.03
0.34
8.05
2.67
293.67
97.33
301.72
100
Wildland Provincial Park
km2
%
133.86
356.39
380.07
736.46
18.18
48.39
51.61
100
There are just over 269 km (20.7%) of non-road and designated trails linear features within 100 m and 806.7 km
(62.1%) within 500 m of all roads and designated trails (Table 4). GFWC rounded these percentages to 20% and
60% and used these as estimates for linear features more likely in use by either on-highway or off-highway vehicles.
The resulting density values are 0.81 km/km2 within 100 m of roads and designated trails and 1.28 km/km2 within
500 m of roads and designated trails, for the entire Castle (Table 5). By contrast, designated trails and roads (NRN
and GFWC roads) provide a density value of 0.57 km/km2, which is the only calculation to fall below the 0.6 km/km2
threshold. While these analyses of density based on categories and percentages of linear disturbances may help
estimate use of linear disturbance for recreation purposes, further study is required to have a more accurate
assessment of the trails being used for motorized recreation and the volume of use.5
Table 4. Linear disturbances (excluding NRN roads & designated trails) in proximity to roads & designated trails
Linear Features
Within 100 m of NRN Roads
Provincial Park
km
%
Wildland Provincial Park
km
%
Both parks
km
%
77.51
10.11
27.63
5.18
105.14
8.09
Within 100 m of Designated Trails
Within 100 m of both NRN and
Designated Trails
140.32
18.30
65.54
12.29
205.86
15.84
184.30
24.04
85.10
15.96
269.39
20.73
Within 500 m of NRN Roads
229.96
29.99
82.90
15.55
312.86
24.07
Within 500 m of Designated Trails
Within 500 m of both NRN and
Designated Trails
476.72
62.17
221.33
41.52
698.05
53.70
544.49
71.01
262.24
49.20
806.73
62.06
Total Linear Features
766.78
533.04
1,299.82
5
We did not factor into these analyses Government investments in rehabilitating and building new trails after the 2013
floods; 63.7 km of trails have been upgraded or created in the provincial park and 28.53 km in the wildland provincial park.
These numbers are drawn from data collected from the interactive map available at
https://maps.srd.alberta.ca/FloodRecovery.
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 12
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Map 3. Density of all linear disturbances in the Castle
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 13
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Table 5. Density of linear disturbances based on potential levels of motorized use
Linear disturbances
Provincial Park
Wildland
Provincial Park
(km/km2)
(km/km2)
Both Parks
(km/km2)
NRN and GFWC classified roads and
designated trails
1.13
0.34
0.57
Plus 20% of other linear disturbances
1.61
0.48
0.81
Plus 60% of other linear disturbances
2.57
0.75
1.28
100% of all linear disturbances
3.53
1.03
1.76
Conclusion
This second bulletin on the Castle provides an update on the amount of linear disturbance in the Castle proposed
protected areas in Alberta. GFWC’s update is derived from a combination of official government datasets (NRN and
Designated Trails), the ABMI human footprint dataset, and further digitizing based on high resolution 2012 aerial
photographs.
GFWC mapped 1,822 km of linear disturbances for 2012. These disturbances include roads, designated trails, and
many other features that are not officially designated as roads or off-highway trails. GFWC mapped over 700 km
of linear disturbances that were not previously in existing digital datasets and identified 301 km of all linear
disturbances as roads, or likely being used as roads. In addition, most the linear disturbances are located near roads
and designated trails. Just over 20% of GFWC unclassified linear disturbances are found within 100 m of roads and
designated trails, while 62% are found within a 500 m distance. These analyses indicate that in addition to the 593
km of road and designated trails, it is likely that another 269 km to 806 km of trails are accessible and experience
some level of motorized use.
The density of all linear disturbances in the two proposed protected areas is of 1.76 km/km2. The Provincial Park
has a linear density of 3.5 km/km2, more than three times that found in the Wildland Provincial Park, which has a
density of 1 km/km2. Using 20% of the other linear disturbance densities in combination with the roads and
designated motorized trails solicits a linear disturbance density of 0.81 km/km2 in these proposed protected areas
while a 60% calculation results in a density of 1.28 km/km2. All of these are much higher than previously acceptable
thresholds of 0.6 km/km2 to minimize impacts to ecosystems and species and is evidentiary of the restoration required
in parts of the Castle. The minimum density of motorized vehicles (on and off-highway) across the two proposed
protected areas, assuming that motorized access is limited to roads and designated motorized trails and GFWC
classified roads is 0.57 km/km2, which is roughly the same value as the 2010 GFWC report and would be just below
acceptable thresholds. However, evidence from the field indicates far more linear features are in use by recreational
motorized vehicles.
Further research is required to verify the status of backcountry linear disturbances in terms of their type (that is
whether they are roads, trails, seismic lines etc.) and continued existence (GFWC has not been able to visit and verify
the nature and/or potential regeneration of backcountry disturbances such as seismic lines). This step is important
given the most recent imagery used to map disturbances is from 2012. Also, data on volume of use is required to
explore the potential impacts of all of these features on key species. As part of its commitment to open data principles,
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 14
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
GFWC is making its dataset of linear disturbances available for use by all. Input on refining the dataset further is
welcome.
The overall amount of disturbance in the Castle, and the density, regardless of the disturbances included in the
calculation, indicate that there is much restoration work required to ensure this area retains its important role for
biodiversity and other ecosystem values.
Recommended Citation
Smith, W. and R. Cheng. 2016. Bulletin 2. Linear Disturbance in the Castle. A Special Series on the Castle proposed
protected areas. Ottawa: Global Forest Watch Canada.
Glossary
Aerial photographs: An aerial photograph is a photographic image of a portion of the earth's surface taken with a
camera mounted in a fixed-wing aircraft. Scale and resolution can vary.
Anthropogenic disturbances: All changes or disturbances caused by humans, including (but not limited to):
clearcut logging, salvage logging in burned areas, road building, reservoir construction, agricultural clearing, and
petroleum and natural gas exploration and development.
Linear disturbances: All anthropogenic disturbances that are represented as lines. These include, but are not limited
to: roads, trails, seismic lines, pipelines and transmission corridors.
Linear density: The length of linear disturbance divided by the landscape area (kilometers per square kilometer).
Restoration: Activities carried out to restore damaged ecosystems is returning them its original state.
SPOT imagery: SPOT (Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre) is a high-resolution (2.5 m pixel) commercial
satellite.
Acronyms
ABMI – Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
FLUZ – Castle Forest Land Use Zone
GFWC – Global Forest Watch Canada
KM/KM2 – kilometer per square kilometer
NRN – National Road Network
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 15
A Special Series on the Castle proposed protected areas:
Bulletin 2 of 3. Linear Disturbance in the Castle
Acknowledgements
GFWC would like to thank the Wilburforce Foundation for funding that enabled us to undertake this study. GFWC
sent out a draft report for review and would like to thank those who provided feedback: the Alberta Wilderness
Association, Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, CPAWS Southern Alberta, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation
Initiative, Barrie Gilbert, Brian Horejsi, David Mayhood, and Sarah Elmeligi. GFWC has tried to address all
comments and suggested revisions; the constructive feedback has allowed us to improve our analysis, results, and
discussion. Any errors are ours alone. GFWC also thanks Sarah Elmeligi for insightful edits on this bulletin.
References
AEP. 2016a. Alberta Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Recovery Plan: Draft. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan
No. 38. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment and Parks.
AEP. 2016b. Castle Special Management Area designated trails pre-2013 flood. Government of Alberta.
ABMI (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute). 2015. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute Human
Footprint Inventory for 2012 conditions (Version 3). Available at: http://www.abmi.ca/home/data/gisdata/human-footprint-download.html?scroll=true. Accessed March 2016.
ASRD. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish
and Wildlife Division. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.
CSPCI (Castle Special Place Citizens’ Initiative). 2009. Conceptual Proposal for Legislated Protected Areas.
Castle Special Place Citizens’ Initiative. Available at: https://albertawilderness.ca/2009-10-castle-specialplace-conceptual-proposal. Accessed July 2016.
Horejsi, B.L. 2004. Grizzly Bears in southwest Alberta: A vision and plan for population and habitat recovery.
Calgary AB: Western Wildlife Environment Consulting Ltd.
Lee, P.G. and M. Hanneman. 2010. Castle Area Forest Land Use Zone (Alberta) – Linear disturbances, access
densities, and Grizzly Bear Core Security Areas. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada 10th
Anniversary Publication #9. 64 pp. + Appendix: Photographs from October 5-6 2010 Field Check 44 pp.
Natural Resources Canada. 2015. National Road Network. Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
Earth Sciences Sector. Available at http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/52392a44-75f5-4b08a835-79f4ccabe7e8.html
Sheppard, D.H., G. Parkstrom, and J.C. Taylor. 2002. Bringing it Back: A Restoration Framework for the Castle
Wilderness Area. Castle-Crown-Wilderness Coalition: Pincher Creek, AB.
Southern Alberta Municipal Districts and Counties. 2012. Southern Alberta 2012 Aerial Survey Project.
Photographs available from: http://www.mdwillowcreek.com/html/aerialintro.html
Smith, W. and R. Cheng. 2016. Bulletin 1. Anthropogenic Disturbance and Intactness in the Castle. A Special
Series on the Castle proposed protected areas. Ottawa: Global Forest Watch Canada.
Weaver, J.L. 2013. Protecting and Connecting Headwater Havens: Vital Landscapes for Vulnerable Fish and
Wildlife, Southern Canadian Rockies of Canada. Toronto, ON: Wildlife Conservation Society Report No. 7.
A Global Forest Watch Canada Bulletin by Wynet Smith and Ryan Cheng (Ottawa, Ontario), September 2016
p. 16