IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
18-April-2017 Honourable Shannon Phillips Minister of Environment and Parks, and Minister Responsible for the Climate Change Office Government of Alberta 208 Legislature Building, 10800 – 97 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 2B6 Mr. Roger Ramcharita Director, South Saskatchewan Region Alberta Environment and Parks, 2938 11th St NE, Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7 Dear Minister Phillips and Mr. Ramcharita: Re: Science, wildlife, and cumulative effects of development in the Bow Valley, Alberta With a rapidly growing number of new residential and industrial development proposals in the Bow Valley, Alberta – a region with exceptionally high ecological values – there is an urgent need for a systematic approach to science-based leadership that will help inform land-use planning. We are wildlife ecologists who have been conducting research in the Bow Valley for a combined 30+ years, including close to 7000 citations of our peer-reviewed work. We are familiar with the availability of data, analytical techniques, and management solutions that can help resolve some of the most pressing challenges in this region. Specifically, and over the past four years, we have worked with stakeholders on all sides of development planning in the Bow Valley, including emails, letters (e.g., see Appendix 1, attached), phone calls, and meetings with: Dr. Kyle Knopff, Senior Scientist, Golder and Assoc. working for QuantumPlace Developments Ltd; Jessica Karpat, Principal–Planning, QuantumPlace Developments Ltd.; Karsten Heuer, Steph Legault, Dr. Hilary Young, Dr. Aerin Jacob, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative; Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group (including Parks Canada Agency and the Town of Canmore planning staff); Government of Alberta officials (including Brett Boukall, Henri.Soulodre, and Melanie Percy, Alberta Environment and Parks); and, Dr. Matthew Wheatley, Senior Scientist, Fiera Biological, reviewer for Town of Canmore. The high degree of engagement between the research and stakeholder community demonstrates that all parties share common values when it comes to the role that evidence plays in making sound decisions. However, this engagement is a by-product of the personnel involved. Surprisingly, there is no formal mechanism in place to bring the best available science to bear on regional planning in the Bow Valley.
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
In our opinion, this ad hoc approach needs to change quickly: the pace of development proposals and many of the questions these plans trigger by stakeholders, is proceeding faster than the speed at which science can provide answers. This discordance between evidence and decision is putting both wildlife and the local economy at risk. To address these issues, we strongly recommend that the Government of Alberta: (1) conduct a cumulative effects assessment in the Bow Valley; (2) postpone development approvals in the Bow Valley until such an assessment is complete; and, (3) bring world-class science and policy tools to bear on issues of land-use planning and wildlife connectivity as part of the Bow Valley cumulative effects assessment. Our rationale for these recommendations arises from issues we have observed with: (1) the pace of science versus the pace of development; (2) process, precedent, and uncertainty in environmental assessments; (3) an understanding that where habitat is located, not just the amount of habitat, matters; (4) the need for greater optimism of science in decision making. (1) Science and the Pace of Development: Access to data, data-cleaning, model design, model runs, validation, interpretation of results, maintaining open communication with stakeholders – these are the critical steps required to provide unbiased research products. These steps can take a lot of time to complete and that schedule of completion may not match development plans. We have resisted the release of ‘partial results’ or interim findings, which can do more to confuse and impede decision making if revisions change our interpretation of what the data show us. We advocate for more patience in this process to allow evidence to accumulate and to be communicated to, and understood by all, stakeholders. As one example of the discordance between science and development, in 2014 we began working on an analysis to assess how development in the Three Sisters Mountain Village (TSMV) area of the Bow Valley could affect wildlife movement in the region. Still in progress, we have assembled monitoring datasets dating back to the mid-1990s and are using the most current analytical techniques to measure connectivity. Since the start of this research, there have been at least two additional proposed developments in the region (expansion of Dead Man’s Flats and the expansion of the Silvertip Resort). There has not been enough time to complete our research in the narrow window between the release of development plans to the public and the closing period for public comment on development plans. Moreover, each of these projects has potential to reduce the viability of wildlife populations and increase human-wildlife conflict in the Bow Valley. The cumulative impact of these projects, cast over the next 100 years, along with other unforeseen development plans potentially coming on board, means that we have no idea how close we are to a collapse in ecosystem function. While the pace of science may not be ideal from a developer’s perspective, we note that the schedule for development projects appears not to be based on an economic calculation, nor on the accumulation of evidence, but on a short-term political window of opportunity (e.g., the timing of municipal elections in Canmore). We hope that the Government of Alberta will consider our recommendations as a means to shift the use science from a reactive and crisisoriented tool (which it is not well designed for) to an anticipatory and strategic tool. Rather than be subject to the irruptive schedule of project proponents, a strategic application of
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
science would focus on the systematic accumulation of evidence as the basis with which to schedule decisions. (2) Process, precedent, and uncertainty: Our recommendations are based on recognition of three major limitations in current decision-making in the Bow Valley. First, the ‘best available science’ – a tenet of environmental assessment – is not being used to assess how developments will impact the Bow Valley. For example, in public forums or in impact assessments for the TSMV and Silvertip projects, proponents allegedly have not explicitly addressed the impact of projects’ on the movement of animals. Animal movement is the critical ecological process underlying the functionality of the designated wildlife corridors that surround Canmore. Animals must move through a corridor in order for it to be effective. Without addressing this process explicitly, it is difficult to conclude that the best available science is being used in decision-making. Second, our recommendations are consistent with 1992 report by the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). For example, in Section 10.5.2, NRCB (1992) states: “The Board believes that regional management should take into account cumulative effects of existing and foreseeable developments, the key areas and the corridors linking them which should be preserved for ecosystem health, the types and extent of programs to control human access to such key areas and corridors and the types and frequency of monitoring programs to assist in ongoing management decisions. The Board considers that the appropriate region to be considered would include Banff National Park, the Bow Corridor, the Spray Valley and the Kananaskis Valley.” The Alberta Government’s long-standing position on development in the Bow Valley has taken shape from the precedent established by the NRCB (1992) report. In our opinion, greater attention should be paid to the details of this report, and the development of a systematic, science-based cumulative effects assessment. As in 1992, there is a high degree of public concern over the potential impact of development on wildlife movement in the Bow Valley. However, 25 years later, we now have the tools and data to evaluate and minimize the impact of development on wildlife. We need time and leadership to see this science come to the fore and inform development in the Bow Valley. Third, a recent literature review found striking patterns in the extent to which residential development influences animal movement (i.e., the ‘zone of influence’). Summarized in Appendix 2 (attached), this research looked at published (peer-reviewed) models of how black bears, cougars, grizzly bears, and wolves use space, including at least 1500 collared animals from across North America. We found that most studies – especially for grizzly bears and cougars – showed an aversion to development. This signal was not unanimous, as seasonality, sex/age of the animal, and other factors shaped the magnitude and direction of the zone of influence. Given that (1) most studies found that wildlife avoided residential development, and (2) the contingency in the response of some species; we clearly need to develop a ‘made in the Bow Valley science solution’ to understand if, when, and where, development will impact wildlife. Our three recommendations listed above speak to this solution.
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
(3) Where habitat is located matters: Scientists are developing new tools to better understand how animals move through and use habitat, and what the implications of movement are for populations, gene flow, predator-prey interactions, and human-wildlife conflict. The theory underlying this science is that some areas of the landscape confer a disproportionate amount of movement to the rest of the region. These so-called ‘bottlenecks’ are the Achilles heel of regional ecosystem flows: essentially, if these small areas are disturbed, it is likely that much larger areas will experience lower-than-expected animal movement. Currently, we do not know where these bottlenecks are located in the Bow Valley, how secure they are (in terms of jurisdiction, management, and /or tenure), or if current or future development plans will affect their function. The cumulative effects assessment would help fill this critical gap in knowledge. (4) Optimism for science in decision making: Unlike many other areas in Alberta where challenging environmental decisions are required, the Bow Valley has some of the beststudied wildlife populations in North America, as well municipalities with a long history of coexisting with wildlife (e.g., from bear management programs to legally-designated corridors). As such, there is tremendous opportunity to harness this scientific knowledge and community support to make decisions that are both transparent and evidence-based. The ongoing uncertainty around approval of the TSMV, and likely forthcoming challenges to the Silvertip and other proposals, only hampers economic development, protracts debate in the community, and ties up stakeholder resources on a resolvable problem. Science can help expedite this solution. We urge you to consider our recommendations and to help facilitate further engagement between the research and stakeholder community. Thank you for reviewing this letter, please feel free to contact us with further questions. We are at your service. Sincerely,
Adam T. Ford, PhD Canada Research Chair in Wildlife Restoration Ecology, Assistant Professor Department of Biology The University of British Columbia - Okanagan Campus Kelowna, BC adam.ford@ubc.ca 250-807-9773
Encl.
Mark Hebblewhite, PhD Associate Professor, Wildlife Biology Program Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation University of Montana Missoula, MT mark.hebblewhite@umontana.edu 406-243-6675
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
Appendix 1. Letter sent by Adam Ford and Tony Clevenger to stakeholders, July 2016
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
Appendix 1 cont. Letter sent by Adam Ford and Tony Clevenger to stakeholders, July 2016
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
Appendix 1 cont. Letter sent by Adam Ford and Tony Clevenger to stakeholders, July 2016
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
Appendix 2. Review of residential development effects on the spatial response of carnivores Adam Ford, Canada Research Chair in Wildlife Restoration Ecology, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, The University of British Columbia - Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC
I reviewed peer-reviewed scientific papers addressing the impact of residential areas on habitat selection, occupancy, habitat use, mortality, occurrence, or frequency of interactions with people. I focused on studies conducted within Canada and the United States and on four species of carnivore: black bears, cougars, grizzly bears, and wolves. I excluded other forms of disturbance (e.g., roads, campgrounds, exurban, agriculture, resource extraction, trails, seismic lines). This dataset includes 25 studies of at least 1579 individual animals (i.e., via telemetry). Some studies measured space use by unmarked animals (i.e., via camera traps or tracks) and were not included in this number of individuals measured but were included in the dataset. I documented a surprisingly low number of studies on the two species (wolves and grizzly bears) that are of greatest concern to stakeholders in the Canadian Rockies (two studies on wolves, five studies on grizzly bears). This low number indicates that we have inadequate knowledge of how some of the most valued wildlife in the Bow Valley respond to residential development. Most studies showed that urban development negatively affected how these four carnivore species used space (Table 1), especially for cougars (84% of 13 studies) and grizzly bears (100% of four studies). Between 7-46% of studies on cougars and black bears described more than one response to urban development; for example, if males avoided towns but females did not. This literature review suggests that urban areas commonly, but not universally, have negative effects on space use of large carnivores. Understanding the local context in which some species, or individuals within a population, avoid urban areas and at what distance is key to understanding the impact of development on wildlife in the Rocky Mountains. Table 1. Summary of spatial responses to development by four large carnivores (references below). Positive responses indicates selection for residential areas, negative indicates avoidance of residential areas. There can be more than one response or species documented in a single study. Number Minimum Studies with >1 Species of studies number of animals Positive Negative Neutral directional effect 13 409 6 9 3 6 Black bear 13 474 2 11 0 1 Cougar 2 24 1 0 1 0 Gray wolf 597 0 4 0 0 Grizzly bear 5 33 1504 10 (24%) 24 (65%) 4 (11%) 7 (21%) Total
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
References used in compilation of Table 1. Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, J. G. Woods, and M. F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating grizzly bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:138-152. Baruch-Mordo, S., K. R. Wilson, D. L. Lewis, J. Broderick, J. S. Mao, and S. W. Breck. 2014. Stochasticity in Natural Forage Production Affects Use of Urban Areas by Black Bears: Implications to Management of Human-Bear Conflicts. Plos One 9:10. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. Benson, J. F., J. A. Sikich, and S. P. D. Riley. 2016. Individual and Population Level Resource Selection Patterns of Mountain Lions Preying on Mule Deer along an Urban-Wildland Gradient. Plos One 11:16. Bettigole, C. A., T. M. Donovan, R. Manning, J. Austin, and R. Long. 2014. Acceptability of residential development in a regional landscape: Potential effects on wildlife occupancy patterns. Biological Conservation 169:401-409. Burdett, C. L., K. R. Crooks, D. M. Theobald, K. R. Wilson, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. N. Fisher, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, and W. M. Boyce. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere 1:21. Carter, N. H., D. G. Brown, D. R. Etter, and L. G. Visser. 2010. American black bear habitat selection in northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan, USA, using discrete-choice modeling. Ursus 21:57-71. Craighead, F. C., and J. J. Craighead. 1972. Grizzly bear prehibernation and denning activities as determined by radiotracking. Wildlife Monographs 32:3-35. Evans, M. J., J. E. Hawley, P. W. Rego, and T. A. G. Rittenhouse. 2014. Exurban Land Use Facilitates HumanBlack Bear Conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1477-1485. Fecske, D. M., R. E. Barry, F. L. Precht, H. B. Quigley, S. L. Bittner, and T. Webster. 2002. Habitat use by female black bears in western Maryland. Southeastern Naturalist 1:77-92. Frakes, R. A., R. C. Belden, B. E. Wood, and F. E. James. 2015. Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. Plos One 10:18. Heilhecker, E., R. P. Thiel, and W. Hall. 2007. Wolf, Canis lupus, Behavior in Areas of Frequent Human Activity. Canadian Field-Naturalist 121:256-260. Hiller, T. L., J. L. Belant, J. Beringer, and A. J. Tyre. 2015. Resource selection by recolonizing American black bears in a fragmented forest landscape. Ursus 26:116-128. Jennings, M. K., R. L. Lewison, T. W. Vickers, and W. M. Boyce. 2016. Puma response to the effects of fire and urbanization. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:221-234. Johnson, H. E., S. W. Breck, S. Baruch-Mordo, D. L. Lewis, C. W. Lackey, K. R. Wilson, J. Broderick, J. S. Mao, and J. P. Beckmann. 2015. Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: Dynamic selection for human development by black bears in the western United States. Biological Conservation 187:164-172. Karelus, D. L., J. W. McCown, B. K. Scheick, M. van de Kerk, and M. K. Oli. 2016. Home Ranges and Habitat Selection by Black Bears in a Newly Colonized Population in Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 15:346-364. Kertson, B. N., R. D. Spencer, and C. E. Grue. 2013. Demographic influences on cougar residential use and interactions with people in western Washington. Journal of Mammalogy 94:269-281. Kertson, B. N., R. D. Spencer, J. M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, and C. E. Grue. 2011. Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications 21:28662881.
IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences 1177 Research Road University of British Columbia Kelowna, BC, Canada,V1V 1V7 Phone: 250 807 9773
Knopff, A. A., K. H. Knopff, M. S. Boyce, and C. C. St Clair. 2014. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 178:136-145. Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, and R. Andersen. 2001. Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation 4:345-349. Merkle, J. A., P. R. Krausman, N. J. Decesare, and J. J. Jonkel. 2011. Predicting Spatial Distribution of HumanBlack Bear Interactions in Urban Areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1121-1127. Moss, W. E., M. W. Alldredge, and J. N. Pauli. 2016. Quantifying risk and resource use for a large carnivore in an expanding urban-wildland interface. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:371-378. Nicholson, K. L., P. R. Krausman, T. Smith, W. B. Ballard, and T. McKinney. 2014. Mountain lion habitat selection in arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 59:372-380. Schwartz, C. C., S. L. Cain, S. Podruzny, S. Cherry, and L. Frattaroli. 2010. Contrasting Activity Patterns of Sympatric and Allopatric Black and Grizzly Bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1628-1638. Schwartz, C. C., M. A. Haroldson, and G. C. White. 2010. Hazards Affecting Grizzly Bear Survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:654-667. Simek, S. L., J. L. Belant, Z. F. Fan, B. W. Young, B. D. Leopold, J. Fleming, and B. Waller. 2015. Source populations and roads affect American black bear recolonization. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61:583-590. Smith, J. A., Y. W. Wang, and C. C. Wilmers. 2015. Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human-induced fear. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 282:6. Suring, L. H., and G. Del Frate. 2002. Spatial analysis of locations of brown bears killed in defense of life or property on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Ursus 13:237-245. Tri, A. N., J. W. Edwards, M. P. Strager, J. T. Petty, C. W. Ryan, C. P. Carpenter, M. A. Ternent, and P. C. Carr. 2016. Habitat use by American black bears in the urban-wildland interface of the Mid-Atlantic, USA. Ursus 27:45-56. Wilmers, C. C., Y. W. Wang, B. Nickel, P. Houghtaling, Y. Shakeri, M. L. Allen, J. Kermish-Wells, V. Yovovich, and T. Williams. 2013. Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma. Plos One 8:11. Zeller, K. A., K. McGarigal, P. Beier, S. A. Cushman, T. W. Vickers, and W. M. Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology 29:541-557. Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, F. V. Schlexer, L. A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407.