PROGRESS REPORT - YEAR 3 - 1984WORKING PLAN - YEAR 4 - 1985

COASTAL GRIZZLY RESEARCH PROJECT

W.R. Archibald

A.N. Hamilton

Eo Lofroth

A Cooperative Project Between the Ministries ofEnvironment and Forests

1'111 dl He BranchMinistry of Environment

Victori a, B. C.

Research BranchMinistry of Forests

Victoria, B.C.

Wildlife Working Report No. WR-17Wildlife Habitat Research Report No. WHR-22

October 1985

i i

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes information gathered to date in the coastalgrizzly study and presents the working plan for 1985. Ecological units havebeen amalgamated into bear habitat units (BHU's) and cross-referenced toforest cover units. Preliminary data on grizzly use of these BHU's ispresented. Informati on on gri zzly beddi ng. marki ng. feedi ng. and cover isoutl i ned and di scussed. Home range informati on on 12 radi 0 marked bears ispresented. Preliminary results of the effects of forest practices ongrizzlies are presented and discussed. Grizzlies were found to avoid a zonedefined by the extent of logging truck noise during logging. Experiments totest the importance of security cover and thermal cover are discussed. Wenow believe that grizzlies do not necessarily select mature conifers to meetthermal requi rements during inclement weather on the floodplain. A projectwas initiated that will allow us to monitor the production of berries in aclear cut and the effects of herbicide application on berry production.Details of this project are presented. Draft project products are presentedand discussed. The three products are: a strategic planning guide forgrizzly bears; a habitat suitability index model; and a forestry handbook forthe management of grizzly bear habitat. The 1985 working plan outlines fieldobjecti ves for 1985. states hypotheses to be tested and presents a dataanalysis strategy and reporting schedule.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

ABSTRACT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• e- ••••••• ii

L1ST OF TABLES " ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '.0 ••••••••••••••••••••• iv

L1ST OF FIGURES • to •••••••••••••••••• to ~ •••••• to vi

1.0 BACKGROUND · . 1

2.0 OBJECTIVES · . 1

· .

..........................

......................

· .

1

4444455

182325252530303434424244444547

·....

·....

·....·...

·...

· .

· .· .· .

. .

••••••••••

. .

.. .·..... ,

. .. ... .. .

· .

· .

..........

· .

· .

· .

·...

. .

................. .................

.................

........ .............

...........

· .

· .· .

.....

.....................................

• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

· .

........

.........................

.......................

4.4

4.2

STUDY AREA

4.3

PROGRESS MADE IN 1984-854.1 Habitat use ••••••••

4.1.1 Introduction4.1.2 Methods4.1.3 Results and discussion4.1.3.1 Activity and location4.1.3.2 Bedding4.1.3.3 Feeding4.1.3.4 Marking .4.1.3.5 CoverHome range analysis4.2.1 Introduction4.2.2 Methods4.2.3 Results and Discussion •••••••••Impacts of logging ......•....•.••....4.3.1 Logging activity4.3.2 Habitat alteration4.3.3 Berry production and use .,.Draft project products4.4.1 Product 14.4.2 Product 24.4.3 Product 3

3.0

4.0

· .· .

· .

· . 494949494953545760

·....·....· ... .· .

. .

.................

........· .......................................

5.3

1985-86 WORKING PLAN5.1 Field objectives5.2 Fi e1d methods

5.2.1 Collar replacement5.2.2 Security cover experiment ••••••.••••••••5.2.3 Marking assessment5.2.4 Effects of logging5.2.5 Schedule of field workData analysis and reporting schedule ••••••••••

5.0

6.0 REFERENCES AND PROJECT REPORTS · . 61

iv

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1. Table of activity records by bear for 1983 and 1984from site investigation data ' 0 6

Tab1e 2. nef; ni ti ons of bear seasons 7

Table 3. Bear habitat units (BHU's) for the Kimsquit studyarea 8

Table 4. Number of records of activities investigated perseason for all bears, 1983 and 1984 ••••.••••••••••••.•.•••••• 10

Table 5. Frequency of activity by ecosystem variation forShelly and Marsha combined for 1983 and 1984 ••••••••••••••••• 11

Table 6. Frequency of activity by ecosystem association forShelly and Marsha combined for 1983 and 1984 •••••.••••••.••.• 12

Table 7. Frequencies of location of Shelly and Marsha byecosystem unit and season for 1983 and 1984 •••...••••••••••.. 13

Table 8. Frequency of location of five upper valleygrizzlies by ecosystem association, 1982-84 data ••••.•••••••• 14

Table 9. Percent bear days by bear habitat unit and seasonfor Shelly, 1982-84 data ..•••••.••.••...••••••••••••••••••••• 15

Table 10. Percent bear days by bear habitat unit and seasonfor tr1arsha, 1982-84 data 16

Table 11. Frequency of location of five upper valley grizzliesby bear habitat unit, 1982-84 data 17

Table 12. Frequency of bedding by soil/landform type forShelly and Marsha, 1983-84 19

Table 13. Frequency of bedding by soil texture for Shelly andMarsha, 1983-84 .....•..•..................••.. 0.0 •• 0.•••••••••• 20

Table 14. Verified grizzly food plants in the Kimsquitvalley .................................•..................... 21

Table 15. Seasonal frequency of use of food species for Shellyand Marsha based on site investigations ••.•••.••••••••••••••• 22

Table 16. Salmon escapement estimates, timing of the runs, andperi ods of gri zzly use 24

Table 17. Mark tree statistics recorded in 1983 and 1984 .•..••••.••.•.• 24

Table 18. Distance to opening (summary for all activities) forShelly and Marsha, 1983-84 data •...••••••••••.•..•.••..•••..• 26

v

LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)

PageTable 19. Distance to security cover (summary for all

activities) for Shelly and Marsha, 1983-84 data .••••••••••••• 27

Table 20. Security cover value by activity for Shelly andMarsha, 1983-84 data 0· •••••• f .••••••••• 28

Table 21. Security cover value by season for Shelly andMarsha, 198.3-84 data 29

Table 22. Home range data summary for all radio-collaredbears, based on verified and aerial locations,1982-84 31

Table 23. Annual differences in home ranges for Marsha andShelly based on 1983 and 1984 verified and aeriallocations o •••••••••••• I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31

Table 24. Differences in seasonal home ranges for Marsha andShelly, based on 1983 and 1984 verified and aerial1oeat; ons 32

Table 25. Comparative seasonal home range sizes for Shellyand Marsha, based on 1983 and 1984 verified andaerial locations 33

Table 26. Annual harmonic mean centre locations for Marshaand Shelly 33

Table 27. Decibel readings (d8(C)) of 18 transects at 25 mintervals perpendicular to the road ..•••••••••••••••••••••••• 38

Table 28. Verified locations of Shelly and Marsha with respectto the zone of hauling activity, during and notduri n9 1oggi n9 40

Table 29. Activity schedule for the coastal grizzly projectsin 1985/86 58

vi

LIST OF FIGURESPage

Fi gure 1. Locati on of study area ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2. Map of forested biogeoclimatic subzones of theKimsquit River Valley 3

Figure 3. Zone of hauling activity and the approximate 90%annua1 home ranges of two adult female gri zzl i es •••••••••.• 39

Figure 4. Security cover experiment area •.••••••• ; 51

1

1.0 BACKGROUND

The coastal forests of mainland British Columbia support some of thehighest grizzly bear densities in the province. It appears that logging inthese forests results in declines in grizzly numbers (Archibald 1983). Theoperati ve factor in these popu1 ati on dec1 i nes is unknown. The provi nci a1Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, thinks that grizzlynumbers must be maintained in coastal forests to achieve managementobjectives. To do so the historical pattern of logging coastal forests withsUbsequent declines in grizzlies must be broken.

A research project designed to provide the information necessary toaddress the long-term welfare of coastal grizzlies was initiated in April,1982. This project is cooperatively funded and administered by theMinistries of Environment and Forests. Project planning documents (Archibald1983; Archibald and Hamilton 1983) and first and second year progress reports(Hamilton 1984; Hamilton and Archibald 1984) have been previously prepared.

This report summarizes project progress to date, and outlines draftproject products. The 1985 working plan is also included.

We would like to acknowledge the financial contribution of the CanadianWildlife Federation to this project. We would also like to acknowledge thefollowing forest companies of B.C. for their project support and assistance:Doman Forest Products, and MacMillan Bloedel. Valuable field assistance wasprovided by regional staff from the Ministries of Environment and Forests, aswell as volunteer assistants from the University of British Columbia.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

Project objectives are:

1) to identify seasonal habitat requirements of coastal grizzlies.

2) to determine the impacts of timber harvest on coastal grizzly bearsin the absence of hunting.

3) to determine baseline popUlation characteristics of coastalgrizzlies. Data collection during the 1984 field season focusedprimarily on objective 2 above.

3.0 STUDY AREA

The study is located in the Kimsquit watershed, located approximately500 km northwest of Vancouver (Figure 1). A detailed description of the areais provided by Hamilton (1984).

The Kimsquit was partitioned into intensive and extensive areas of studybased on the opportunities for data collection. The intensive study area islocated in the southern portion of the valley and roughly follows theboundary of the CWHh3 outlined in Figure 2. Ground access through this areais provided by 25 km of logging roads and the navigable river. The

2

KIMSQUIT

•.

~.: ~(j

fl· <l' tGorTlsb Il (j~\.

v~ Crawford:v~PiI.t SI!!OIl ~

~~ TWEEDSMUIR~

PROVINCIAL~6 }So\~ PARK

( r~ ()

~ \q//&/qJ 1~Cr. \~

"'0Cr. \

'0<:5'//0

~~.

'"nice G>

Gal 19.(}' "

~\~ S~~

~~

tMilu f b::::I \:;;;;;;;;I Y

Kliometrui !::+4 ........ ?

Figure I. LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

3

l'N

IT=>__c=.._==<='?~~~~~..iYMil&$',=,"''''3=",...,"=,Qk~~..j Kilomll\lrs

93 E/3

LEGEND

CWH - Coastal Western Hemlock ZoneCWHh - Mid Coast Drier Transitional SubzoneCWHi - Wetter Maritime SubzoneMH - Mountoin Hemlock ZoneMHd - Coastal Forested SubzoneMHe - Transitional Forested Subzone

MHe 930/15

Figure 2. MAP OF FORESTED BIOGEOCLIMATIC SUBZONES OF THE KIMSQUIT RIVER VALLEY

4

historical and current logging activity in this area is outlined in Hamilton(1984). The remainder of the watershed is the extensive area of study.There has been no development in the extensive area.

4.0 PROGRESS MADE IN 1984-85

4.1 Habitat Use

4.1.1 Introduction

To achieve project objective 1 requires an understanding of howgrizzlies use their habitat on a daily, seasonal, and annual basis. Hamiltonand Archiba1 d (1984) presented pre1 iminary information on the pattern ofgrizzly habitat use within the intensive study area. This section presentsadditional information on habitat use gathered in 1984, and discusses theimplications of these findings to date.

4.1.2 Methods

Information on grizzly habitat use patterns was gathered during siteinvestigations conducted in areas of recent grizzly activity. Sitesidentified for investigation were selected on the basis of ground radiorelocations of transmittered bears, through direct observation of grizzlies,or were located in known areas of traditional gri zzly use. Further detail sof the site investigation process are outlined in Hamilton and Archibald(1984) .

"Habi tat types" (ecosystem associ ations or vari ations; Banner 1985;Clement 1984a, 1984b) were assigned to each grizzly activity site and aeriallocation. For aerial locations, only the suspected habitat type of thecentre point of the assigned uncertainty area was used for these pre1 iminaryanalyses. Habitat types have been grouped into more general bear habitatunits (BHU's) based on their physiographic location, sera1 stage, anddominant vegetati ve cover. BHU I S were developed primari 1y to enable extra­polation of project results to other watersheds where detailed ecosystematicmapping may not be available. t40st of these units can be identified onstandard B.C. Government 1 :20 000 black and white aerial photographs, andre1 ate to observed seasonal gri zzly habitat se1 ection. BHU' shave a1 so beencross-referenced to the forest cover classification system used by theMinistry of Forests.

4.1.3 Results and Discussion

In 1984, a total of 172 grizzly activity sites were located, verified,and described between April 12 and October 16, yielding a total of 318records of activity. Sixty records of activity were a1 so collected at 41sites first catalogued in 1983 and reused in 1984. The site investigationfile now contains 786 records of activity collected at 406 sites for at least13 different grizzlies (Table 1).

The 1984 dates of the grizzly seasons as defined by Hamilton andArchibald (1984) differed from 1983 (Table 2); chute use (Season 3) wasdelayed because of a late snowmelt on the upper elevation avalanche chutes.

5

Analys i s of habi tat sel ecti on data supported the defi ni ti ons of seasons 2through 6: they reflected significant shifts in movement, activity, habitatselection, and food resources. Because collecting location and activityinformation immediately pre- and post-denning was difficult, patterns areless clearly defined for seasons 1 and 7, respectively. Den entry andemergence dates appeared to vary si gni fi cantly among bears and from year toyear (Table 2).

The prel iminary rules for amal gamating ecosystem and forest cover unitsinto BHU's are presented in Table 3. These rules are currently beingrefi ned.

4.1.3.1 Activity and Location

Tables 4 to 11 present the grizzly location and activity information.Table 4 summarizes the grizzly activity information for each season for 1983and 1984. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the activities for two intensivelymonitored female grizzlies (Shelly (25), Marsha (08)) by ecosystem variationand the broader ecosystem associations, respectively. Table 7, whichincludes aerial relocation data, gives a seasonal breakdown of locationfrequency by zone, subzone, vari ant, and associ ati on for the same two bears.Due to the inaccuracy of the aerial relocations and the lower reliability ofhigher elevation mapping, no attempt is made to present these data at thevariation level. Table 8 gives the locations of grizzlies in the extensivestudy area by ecosystem association.

Location frequency is not a reliable indicator of habitat value withoutcons i derati on of the differences in the abil ity to determi ne bear locati onamong units. Primarily because of ground telemetry and access limitations,and also because bear sign is not uniformly observable among units, thefrequency of location of the intensively monitored grizzlies is biased to thefloodplain of the lower Kimsquit. When bears are off the floodplain, theyare located less frequently, less precisely, and less accurately. To presenta more representative picture of habitat use, we calculated percent bear daysfor each season and each BHU for the two intensively studied bears (Tables 9,10) and annually for all grizzlies in the extensive study area (Table 11).

Tables 9 and 10 reveal that few BHU's were used intensively while mostwere used lightly. Floodplain seral BHU was important to both bears duringthe active seasons (2-7). Shelly (08) denned in the SUbalpine Forest BHUeach year of study (Table 9) whereas the pattern of denning by Marsha is lessclear (Table 10).

Tab le 11 presents the percent bear days for each BHU for gri zzl i esmonitored in the extensive study area. The sample sizes in Table 11 aresmaller than the home range data indicate because these bears left the mappedarea several times. Despite the smaller sample sizes and the inherenthabitat assignment error from aerial locations, there appears to be a signif­icant difference in use of BHU's between the upper and lower valley bears.

4.1.3.2 Bedding

Data on bedding were recorded at 206 sites.those beds with clearly defined edges are length:

The average di mens ions of106 cm, width: 92 cm, and

6

Table 1. Table of activity records by bear for 1983 and 1984 from siteinvestigation data.

Activi tyBear Name Bedding Feeding Mark Tree Mark Trail Travel Other Total

Marsha 49 53 8 6 54 3 173

Shelly 53 63 0 0 57 2 175

Large male 8 9 3 4 15 0 39

Heather 5 5 1 0 8 0 19

Siblings 4 5 0 0 7 2 182-1/2 yrs.

Shelly & 4 ·8 3 2 6 0 23male

Female 1 2 0 0 4 0 7with COya

Unknown 1 5 0 0 9 0 15sub-adul t

Unknown 68 59 42 32 79 2 282grizzly

Henry 13 9 0 0 13 0 35

TOTAL 206 218 57 44 252 9 786

a cUbs-of-the-year

Table 2. Definitions of bear seasons

7

Year Start End Season Code Description

1982 ? ? One 1 Emergence to valley floor leaf flush1983 16/04? 21/041984 01/04? 04/04

1982 ? ? Two 2 Valley floor leaf flush to avalanchechute green-up

1983 22/04 15/051984 05/04 21/05

1982 16/05 30/06 Three 3 Avalanche chute green-up to berryproduction

1983 16/05 15/061984 22/05 21/06

1982 01/07 27/07 Four 4 Berry production - no salmon1983 16/06 27/071984 22/06 27/07

1982 28/07 31/08 Five 5 Berry production and salmonavail abil ity

1983 28/07 31/081984 28/07 05/09

1982 01/09 15/10 Six 6 Salmon availability - no berries1983 01/09 15/101984 06/09 08/10

1982 16/10 31/10 Seven 7 Post salmon availability -pre-denning

1983 16/10 23/101984 09/10 25/10

1982 01/11 15/04 Eight 8 Denning1983 24/10 31/031984 26/10 15/03

8

Table 3. Bear habitat units (BHU's) for the Kimsquit stu~ area.

BHU Acronym Ecosystem Unftsa Forest Cover Unitsb

Sidehill SB CWHh30lA See sidehill andand Bench CWHh30lC * (C4) bench oldgrowth: IfSeral CWHh30lE age less than or

CWHh303A equal to class 5 (81CWHh303B -100 yrs) then typeCWHh303C equals SB.CWHh303ECWHh304ACWHh304C * (C2l if not over Fl or F2CWHh304ECWHh305BCWHh305C * (C7) if not overCWHh305D * (05) Fl crF2CWHh3D5E * (EI, E4)CWHi30lACWHi30lCCWHi30lDCWHi302ACWHi302CCWHi304BCWHi3D5ACWHi305C

Si dehi 11 SO CWHh30lF * (Fl, F2, F3) BaHwCw HwBaFdCwand Bench CWHh30lG * (Gl, G2) BaSsHw HwBaSsClimax and CWHh30lH CwSs HwCwOldgrowth CWHh304F if not over Fl or F2 CwHw HwCwBa

CWHh304G CwSsHw HwCwSsCWHh305F FdBaHw HwFdBaCWHh30SG if not over Fl or F2 FdCwSs HwFdCwBaCWHh305H FdHwBa HwSsCWHi30lF FdHwSs HwSsBaCWHi30lG Hw HwSsCwCWHi305F HwBa (on G or Msite)CWHi305G HwBaCw HwSsCwFd

HwBaFd SsBaHwSsHwCw SsCwHw

SUbalpine SA MHd02A A Forparkland MHd02C

MHd02FMHd02GMHd02HMHd03GMHdpOlAMHdpOlGMHdp03BMHdp03GMHdOlAMHdOlCMHdpOlA

subalpine MH MHdOlF BaForest MHdOlG BaHw

MHdpOlG HwBa (on L or P sitel

Dry Shore PL CWHh302A FdHwPl P1FdPine CWHh302B FdPl P1Hw

CWHh302C FdP1Cw P1HwFdCWHh302F FdPlHwCWHh302G HwPl

Pl

9

Table 3. Cont'd.

Type Acronym Ecosystem Units Forest Cover Units

Submesic SM CWHh303F CwHwFd FdHwCw These units 1n SMno Ba CWHh303G Fd HwCwFd only if on L or P

CWHh302F FdCw HwFd sites. If on M orCWHi302G FdCwHw HwFdCw G they are in SO.

FdHw

Avalanche AC CWHh309B NPBr on sidehil1s.Chute CWHh309C

CWHi30BACWHi3088CWHi308CMHdOSAMHd05BMhd05C

Tundra TV MHdp02G AMHdp02H

Swamps SS. CWHh307E * (EI)CWHh307FCWHh307GCHWh307G

Sedge SF CWHi309B Swamp SymbolFen MHd04B

CWHh308G

Logged LG CWHh3 CL None on Kimsquit Map.

Fl oodp 1a1 n FS CWHh306A * (AB) DrSeral CWHh306B * (B8) OrAc

CWHh306C * (C7,C8) OrAcSsCWHh3060 * (05,06,09,OI0) AcCWHh306E * (EI,E2,E3,E4) AcOrCWHh304A AcHwCWHh304C * (C2)} if over FI AcSsCWHh304E or F2 AcSsCwCWHh305BCWHh305C * (cn Iif over FICWHh3050 * (05) or F2CWHh305E * (E1,E4)

Floodplain FO CWHh306F * (FI) Ss If age classCl imax and CWHh306G SsHw greater than or01d9rowth CWHh306H SsHwAc equal to class 6.

CWHh304F(Gil}

if over SsAc (101-120). IfCWHh304G * FI Or F2 SsAcHw 1ess than typeCWHh305F } SsDr equals FS.CWHh305G if overCWHh305H FI or F2

Estuary Ey CWHh310 No label on Kimsquit Map.

a See Banner (1985) and Clement (1984a and b) for unit names and descriptions.bForest Cover Units - dominant species as follows:

A-A For ­Ac -Ba -Cw -Dr -Fd -Hw ­NPBr ­PI -Ss -

AlpineAlpine ForestBlack CottonwoodPacific Silver FirWestern Red CedarRed AlderDouglas FirWestern HemlockNon-productive BrushLodgepole PineSitka Spruce

* Unit has variations - these are listed inside brackets.

10

Table 4. Number of records of activities investigated per season for allbears, 1983 and 1984.

Season

Activity Two Three Four Five Six Seven

Beddi ng 12 11 17 63 93 10

Feeding 20 21 56 56 58 7

Mark tree 6 10 15 6 18 2

Mark trail 2 9 9 8 14 2

Travel 17 16 52 59 96 12

Other 3 1 1 1 2 1

Total 60 68 150 193 281 34

11

Table 5. Frequency of activity by ecosystem variation and seral stage for Shellyand Marsha for 1983 and 1984. a

Eco- ActivitySystemUnit Bedding Feeding Mark tree Mark trail Travel Other Total Percent

CWHh301CL 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.6CWHh301E 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3CWHh301F 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.3CWHh301G 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3CWHh301H 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3CWHh303G 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.9CWHh304F 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 2.1CWHh305CL 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.6CWHh305D 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.6CWHh305El 6 5 0 1 0 0 12 3.6CWHh305E2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3CWHh305E4 5 1 0 0 1 0 7 2.1CWHh305F 6 7 1 1 4 1 20 5.9CWHh305G 2 2 3 1 2 0 10 3.0CWHh306A8 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 1.5CWHh306B8 3 2 0 0 7 0 12 3.6CWHh306C8 6 5 0 0 14 1 26 7.7CWHh306D5 13 15 0 1 10 1 40 11.9CWHh306D6 3 2 0 0 4 0 9 2.7CWHh306D9 6 4 0 0 3 0 13 3.9CWHh306E1 6 10 1 0 12 1 30 8.9CWHh306E2 2 7 0 0 7 0 16 4.7CWHH306E3 10 6 0 0 6 0 22 6.5CWHh306E4 7 11 0 0 8 0 26 7.7CWHh306F 5 1 1 1 2 0 10 3.0CWHh306H 6 7 0 0 4 0 17 5.0CWHh307E 0 4 0 0 3 0 7 2.1CWHh307F 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0.9CWHh307G 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 1.2CWHh308G 1 7 0 0 5 0 13 3.9CWHh309C 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0.6Estuary 0 6 0 0 3 0 9 2.7Road 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.6

a From site investigations only - does not include aerial locationhabitat use data.

12

Table 6. Frequency of activity by ecosystem association for Shelly and Marshacombined for 1983 and 1984. a

Activi tyEcosystem

Unit Bedding Feeding t~ark tree Mark trail Travel Other Total Percent

CWHh301C (logged) 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 .6CWHh301E 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3CWHh301F 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3CWHh301G 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3CWHh301H 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3CWHh303G 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 .9CWHh304F 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 2.1CWHh305C (Logged) 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 .6CWHh305D 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 .6CWHh305E 12 6 0 1 1 0 20 5.9CWHh305F 6 7 1 1 4 1 20 5.9CWHh305G 2 2 3 1 2 0 10 3.0CWHh306A 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 1.5CWHh306B 3 :1 0 0 7 0 12 3.6CWHh306C 6 5 0 0 14 1 26 7.7CWHh306D 22 21 0 1 17 1 62 18.4CWHh306E 25 34 1 0 33 1 94 28.0CWHh306F 5 1 1 1 2 0 10 3.0CWHh306H 6 7 0 0 4 0 17 5.0CWHh307E 0 4 0 0 3 0 7 2.1CWHh307F 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 .9CWHh307G 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 1.2CWHh308G 1 7 0 0 5 0 13 3.9CWHh309C 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 .6Estuary 0 6 0 0 3 0 9 2.7Road 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 .6

a From site investigations only - does not include aerial locationhabitat use data.

13

Table 7. Frequencies of location of Shelly and Marsha by ecosystemunit and season for 1983 and 1984.

Ecosystem SeasonUnit Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Total Percent

CAMP a 1 a a a a a 1 0.28MHd alA a 1 a a a a a 1 0.28MHd 01G a a a a a a 4 4 1.13MHd 05C a a 1 a a a a 1 0.28CWHh301C a a 1 1 a a a 2 0.57CWHh301E a 2 a a a a a 2 0.57CWHh301F 1 a a a a a a 1 0.28CWHh301G 3 1 1 a 2 a 1 8 2.27CWHh301H 1 a a a a a a 1 0.28CWHh302G a a a a a 1 a 1 0.28CWHh303F a a a 1 1 a a 2 0.57CWHh303G 7 1 2 a 1 a 1 12 3.40CWHh304F 1 1 2 2 a 1 a 6 1. 70CWHh305C a a 2 2 a a a 4 1.13CWHh305D a a 2 1 a a a 3 0.85CWHh305E a 1 5 6 6 2 a 20 5.67CWHh305F 1 3 5 3 3 1 a 16 4.53CWHh305G 2 1 2 a 1 a a 6 1. 70CWHh305C a a 2 2 a a a 4 1.13CWHh305D a a 2 1. a a a 3 0.85CWHh305E a 1 5 6 6 2 a 20 5.67CWHh305F 1 3 5 3 3 1 a 16 4.53CWHh305G 2 1 2 a 1 a a 6 1.70CWHh306A 1 a a 1 1 a a 3 0.85CWHh306B a a a 2 5 1 a 8 2.27CWHh306C a 2 3 10 8 1 a 24 6.80CWHh306D 3 2 5 18 15 a a 43 12.18CWHh306E 2 4 34 28 26 7 a 101 28.61CWHh306F a a 2 2 3 a a 7 1.98CWHh306H a a 9 3 1 a a 13 3.68CWHh307E 2 1 1 a 1 a a 5 1.42CWHh307F 1 1 a a a a a 2 0.57CWHh307G a 1 1 a a a a 2 0.57CWHh308G 4 1 a 2 a a a 7 1.98CWHh309C 1 a 1 a 1 a a 3 0.85Estuary a 8 1 a a a a 9 2.55CWHi301A a 1 a a a a a 1 0.28CWHi301F a a 1 a a a a 1 0.28CWHi301G 1 3 a a a a 2 6 1. 70CWHi302G 1 2 a a a a a 3 0.85CWHi308A a 2 a a a a a 2 0.57CWHi308B a a 1 a a a a 1 0.28CWHi308 4 6 5 a a a a 15 4.25ROAD 1 2 2 2 2 a a 6 1. 70

14

Table 8. Frequency of location of five upper valley grizzlies by ecosystemassociation, 1982-84 data.

EcosystemUnit

MHd 01GMHd 02FMHd 02GMHd 05CMHdp 02Gt4He 01AMHe 01GCWHh301GCWHc301CCWHi301HCWHi301GCWHi302FCWHi302GCWHi305CCWHi305GCWHi306ACWHi 306CCWHi306DCWHi306ECWHi306GCWHi308ACWHi308CCWHi 309E

TOTAL

Frequency

3224111161

344411111

1915

2191

125

Percent

2.41.61.63.20.80.80.80.84.80.8

27.23.23.20.80.80.80.80.8

15.212.0

1.615.20.8

100.

15

Table 9. Percent bear daysa by bear habitat unit (BHU) and season for Shelly,1982 -84 data

SeasonBHU 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Estuary 0 11.1 2.0 0 0 0 0Avalanche Chute 23.5 17.4 10.0 0 1.2 0 0Floodplain Seral 10.1 9.7 54.0 72.6 91.4 59.8 0Roads 0 1.4 0 0 1.6 0 0Logged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Submesic NoBa 14.1 2.8 5.5 2.6 0 0 0Sidehill Oldgrowth 35.6 9.0 9.0 0 0 33.0 0Floodplain Oldgrowth 4.0 8.3 16.5 22.2 4.1 7.2 0Dry Shore Pi ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SUbalpine Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0Swamps 12.7 7.6 3.0 2.6 1.6 0 0SUbalpine Parkland 0 9.0 0 0 0 0 0Si dehill Seral 0 23.6 0 0 0 0 0

Number of locations 24.0 23.0 50.0 38.0 38.0 8.0 4

Days Moni tored (i. e. Daysin Season used for %calculation) 74.5 72.0 100.5 117.0 121.5 48.5 309.0

a Percent Bear Days = No. of bear days per BHU by season X 100No. of days monitored during that season

16

Table 10. Percent bear days by bear habitat unit and season for Marsha, 1982-84data.

SeasonBHU 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Estuary 0 7.4 0 0 0 0 0

Avalanche Chute 24.1 40.9 27.4 0 0 0 0

Floodplain Seral 10.3 14.4 47.8 81.9 69.0 63.2 0Roads 1.0 6.0 1.0 0 0 0 0Logged 0 0 1.5 1.3 0 0 0Submes i c NoBa 46.2 14.4 0 0 2.4 32.6 25.7Sidehill Oldgrowth 12.3 12.1 6.0 3.8 24.2 0 53.4Floodplain Oldgrowth 0 1.9 13.4 12.2 4.4 0 0Dry Shore Pi ne 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 0

Subalpine Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.9Swamps 6.2 2.8 3.0 .8 0 0 0

Number of 1ocati ons 15.0 25.0 39.0 44.0 38.0 7.0 6

Days monitored (1. e. daysin season used for %calculation 97.5 107.5 100.5 118.5 124.0 47.5 289.5

17

Table 11. Frequency of location of five upper valley grizzlies by bearhabitat unit, 1982-85 data.

BHU Frequency Percent

Sidehi11 01dgrowth 54a 43.2Floodplain Sera1 22 17.6Floodplain 01dgrowth 15 12.0Avalanche Chutes 25 20.0Si dehi 11 Sera1 7 5.6Sedge Fen 1 0.8Tundra 1 0.8

Total 125

a This frequency includes locations at the upper Kimsquit "salmon falls".

18

depth: 23 cm (n=156). Several frequently used bedding areas identified in1983 were re-used in 1984. Often we encountered five or more beds of variousages wi thi none 20 by 20 m plot in these areas. As shown in Tables 5 and 6,most of Shelly and Marsha's beds were found in the pole sapling-young seraland mature seral variations of the h305 and h306 ecosystem associations(Banner 1985). These units are dominated by deciduous trees and typicallyprovide thick security cover and lots of shade. Analysis of beddingfrequency by total tree and shrub coverage across seasons suggests only one

/••.•.IF

major di fference in sel ection requi rements. It appears that for season 5 and. especially 6, beds are frequently located in habitats with lower tree and

shrub coverage.

In 1983, grizzl ies apparently selected the bases of mature conifers forbedding during heavy rain. Further investigation and analysi s during 1984suggested that bears frequently bed in seral areas - with and withoutconifers - during rain. Some wet weather daybeds have al so been locatedunder younger conifers that because of wi de spacing, have 1arge branchesclose to the ground. A few beds were al so found on top of stumps in the65-year-old logged areas. We now think that bears do not necessarily selectmature conifers in rainy weather.

Season 2 sidehill bedding was documented in 1984. Preliminary summariessuggested that sidehill and submesic habitats, e.g. h301G and h303G, may beused extensively at this time of year. Due to the inaccuracy of thetelemetry on the sidehills and the apparently lethargic state of the bears,the sample size was small. Located beds each had large scat piles,suggesting that bears remained in one bed for some time.

Shelly and Marsha appeared to bed in certain types of substrates (Tables12 and 13). Ninety-two (or 90%) of 102 beds located for Shelly and Marshawere in habitat types with fluvial substrates (Table 12), and were mostcommonly excavated in loamy sand or sandy soils (Table 13).

4.1.3.3 Feeding

Gri zzl i es in the Kimsquit feed on a wi de vari ety of vegetati on. Twenty­three different plants have been verified as grizzly food (Table 14). Table15 presents a food speci es summary for Shelly and Marsha for 1983 and 1984,based on observed use at site investigations. Fresh salmon and devil' s club(berri es, shoots) were the species most commonly consumed whereas skunkcabbage was apparently the only species used regularily across all seasons.Diet composition will be determined by pooling these data with the results ofthe analyses of the known age grizzly scats.

Nutri ent analyses (crude protei n, energy, and aci d detergent fibre) werecompleted for 349 food pl ant samples collected at use sites and seasonally at18 permanent phenology plots. These data wi 11 be summari zed in futurereports, along with the results of the scat analyses.

Food plant phenology data collected during habitat classification (Banner1985), site investigations, and at the permanent plots were analyzed but weredifficult to summarize. Up to 358 records of both generative and vegetative

19

Table 12. Frequency of bedding by soil/landform type for Shelly and Marsha,1983-84

Code Soil landform No. of beds %

C2 Rubb1y, bou1dery colluvium 5 5.0

C3 Cobb1y colluvium 2 2.0

Fl Active fluvial (level) 66 64.0

F2 Inactive fluvial (level) 19 19.0

F3 Inactive Fluvial Fans 7 7.0

M1 r~orai na1 2 2.0

R1 Exposed bedrock, and fo1iso1s over rock 1 1.0

Total 102 100.0

20

Table 13. Frequency of bedding by soil texture for Shelly and Marsha, 1983-84.

Code Texture No. of beds %

Missing 5 5

LS LoalllY sand 21 20

S Sand 27 26

Si Silt 2 2

SiC Sil ty cl ay 3 3

SiCL Silty clay loam 3 3

SiL Silty loam 15 15

SL Sandy loam 11 11

CL Clay loam 1 1

GLS Gravelly loalllY sand 3 3

GS Gravelly sand 8 8

GSL Gravelly sanelY loam 1 1

L Loam 2 2T1J2 IOlJ

21

Table 14. Verified grizzly food plants in the Kimsquit valley.

Latin Name Common Name Parts Consumed

Angelica genuflexa White angelica Roots, stems and leavesAthyrium felix-femina Ladyfern PinnaeCarex sitchensis BladesCicuta douglasii Water hemlock Stems and leavesCornu s seri cea Red-osier dogwood BerriesEquisetum spp. Horsetail All?Heracleum sphondylium Cow parsnip AllLonicera involucrata Twinberry BerriesLupinus nootkatensis Lupine RootsLysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage Roots (some leaves)Op lopanax horri dus Devil's cl ub Leaf stems and berriesOsmorhiza chilensis Mountain sweet cicely RootsPoaceae Grasses BladesRibes bracteosum Stink currant BerriesRubus i daeus Raspberry BerriesRubus spectabilis Sa1monberry Shoots, leaves and berriesSambucus racemosa Red elderberry BerriesScirpus microcarpus Smallfruited bulrush BladesSedges (unknown) BladesStreptopus roseus Twisted stalk BerriesVaccinium spp. Blue/huckleberries BerriesVeratrum viride Green false hellebore StemsViburnum edule Highbush cranberry Berries

22

Table 15. Seasonal frequency of use of food speci es for Shellyand Marshabased on site investigations.

SeasonFood Two Three Tour ~e Six lofa:!

Angelica genuflexa 3 3

Athyrium fel ix-femina 2 2 2 1 7Carex sitchensis 3 3Cicuta douglasii 1 1 2Cornus seri cea 2 2Equi setum spp. 2 2Heracleum sphondylium 4 4 8Insects 1 1 1 3Lonicera involucrata 3 1 4Lysichiton americanum 7 6 2 2 4 21

Oplopanax horridus 3 2 17 2 24Osmorhiza chilensis 3 3 6Ribes bracteosum 1 1Rubus idaeus 1 1Rubus spectabilis 3 3 5 11

Salmon (fresh) 12 13 25Salmon (rotten) 10 10Sambucus racemosa 16 2 18Scirpus microcarpus 5 1 3 3 1 13Sedge (unknown spp.) 1 1Vaccinium spp. 4 4Vi burnum edul e 1 1

- - - - - - - - -Total 25 27 59 30 29 170a

a Does not include period when Shelly was accompanied by large male inJune-July, 1983.

23

phenology for each of 24 species were separated into 14 two-week blocks.Frequency summaries of phenological stage by block were completed. Althoughberry abundance data were not analyzed completely, sa1monberries and, to alesser extent, devi1's club berries were significantly less available tobears in 1984 than in 1983. The apparent salmonberry "failure", probably dueto late spring frost, was reflected in the fewer observations of feeding onsalmonberries in 1984. It was difficult to find enough sa1monberries for afew nutrient analysis samples although this species is very common in thelower valley.

Salmon play an important-role in the annual cycle of grizzlies in theKimsquit, especi ally pi nks, chum, and spckeye, the most abundant speci es(Table 16). The first ev'idence of sa1inon (chum) feeding in the intensivestudy area was recorded on July 28th in both 1983 and 1984. Salmon firstbecame available to grizzlies in the intensive area at a location where theriver is heavily braided, approximately 6 km upstream from tidewater (firstcritical area). Grizzlies concentrated use at this area. As salmon began toestablish redds elsewhere, grizzly use of spawning salmon became lessconcentrated.

Flooding as a result of summer rain storms had a very significant effecton bear use of salmon by increasing turbidity that reduced visibility of thefish and by re-distributing both live and dead salmon. As the water receded,the spawning fi sh were restricted to shallow pool s where they were easytargets for bears. In late September and October of both years, grizzliesexcavated post-flood debris piles to locate rotting carcasses.

In 1983, an important salmon feeding site in the extensive study area wasidentified. A very short (200 m) section of river where the water takes asubstantial drop, just west of the mouth of Chatsquot Creek was dubbed the"salmon falls". This was the only location that we found where grizzlies hadaccess to sockeye as they moved between the ocean and Kimsquit Lake. As manyas seven different grizzlies (up to five collared bears) were located here atone time. Bears of all sex and age classes travelled long distances tocongregate at the fall s. Bear 47, Loui se, was located there on July 27thwith her three cubs-of-the-year. Bear 44, Sonny, travelled a 28 km straight­line distance in six days to make use of these sockeye.

Sockeye salmon provided food for grizzlies over the longest time (Table16). Grizzlies fed on migrating sockeye at the "salmon falls" for approx­imately three weeks from late July, then had access to sockeye during lateOctober - November. As well, spawned out sockeye froze into the lake and, asthe lake thawed in the spring, these carcasses were available to grizzlies.

4.1.3.4 Marking

We continued investigating marking behaviour by grizzlies. An additional12 mark trees were sampled in 1984. Amab il is fi r and Sitka spruce were themost commonly marked trees, and most trees were about 30 cm DBH (Table 17)[Re-use of five of these trees occurred in 1984].

24

Table 16. Salmon escapement estimates, timing of the runs, and periods ofgrizzly use.

SpeciesPink

Characteristic Chinook Coho Sockeye Even Odd Chum

5-season 140 2700 13,000 20,000 400 34,500average

arrival April a late Aug mid July early July mid JUly1ate June

period of Aug-Sep ? Sep-Nov Aug-Sep Aug-Sepbear use i nci dental i nci dental July 15-Aug.18 Aug-Oct Aug-Oct

NovApril-May

a Heavy chinook activity near estuary, perhaps in response to large eulachon run.

Table 17. Mark tree statisticsa recorded in 1983 and 1984.

Mean Mean Mean max ht.Speci es N D8H(cm) age marked! em)

Popu lu s balsamifera spp trichocarpa 2 11.5 191

Abies amabilis 27 29.3 63 207

Thuja plicata 2 16.5 38.5 200

Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 81

Tsuga heterophylla 5 31.8 97 169

Picea sitchensis 15 31.7 70 183

Alnus rubra 1 11 98

a Includes only those trees used by grizzlies in 1983 or 1984.

25

Trail marking was observed 44 times. We divided trails into two types,i.e. temporary foot pad trails such as at a feeding site, and permanenttrail s such as those found near the base of a mark tree. As reported inHamilton and Archibald (1984), further investigations into the frequency,seasonal timi ng, and site characteri stics of marki ng behaviour are requi red:these aspects will be addressed in 1985 (see p. 53).

4.1.3.5 Cover

Analyses of the measures of security cover at grizzly activity sites wereincomplete, but some preliminary trends did emerge. Apparently, whengri zzl i es were in cover , si gnifi cant differences in cover val ues ex i stedamong some seasons and some acti vi ti es (two-way unba1 anced ANOVA 's) . Covervalue summaries for 359 of 368 records of activity for Shelly and Marsha areshown in Tables 18 and 19. Distance-to-opening and distance-to-cover for thesame records are summarized in Tables 18 and 19. Seventy-four percent of allrecords of activity for these two bears occurred in cover1 and an additional8% are within 10 m of cover (Tab1e.20);

11 "Security cover val ue summari es for 359 of 368 records of acti vity for

Shelly and Marsha are shown in Tables 20 and 21. Feeding and beddingoccurred in all cover classes, including openings; marking occurred mostly inthe densest cover classes; and, travel occurred mostly in openings(Table 20).· The use of cover varied seasonally. As salmon became available(seasons fi ve and six), bears appeared to spend a greater proportion of theirtime in openings (Table 21). Further work on estimating average coverthroughout the study area will help determine whether or not grizzlies selectfor security cover.

4.2 Home Range Analysis

4.2.1 Introduction

Home range information is most useful as a comparative tool. It allowsresearchers to compare the movements of individual study animals amongseasons and years, as well as similar comparisons among different studyanimal s and study areas. In the present study, home range analyses will beused to compare seasonal habitat use patterns within and among seasons fortwo main purposes: to quantify the patterns of habitat use for radio-collaredbears; and, to assess the short-term impacts of forestry activity ongrizzlies by comparing home range data before and after logging.

Thi s section summari zes three years of home range data (1982 -84)collected to date.

1 Arbitrarily defined as those sites where the total, in metres, of thevisibility distance below 1 m above ground surface in the 4 cardinaldirections from plot centre is 100 m or less.

26

Table 18. Distance to openinga (summary for all activities) .forShelly and Marsha, 1983-84 data.

Distance to opening (m) Frequency

0 91 25.3

1-10 77 21.4

11-20 49 13.7

21-30 25 7.0

31-40 14 3.9

41-50 19 5.3

51-60 12 3.3

61-70 15 4.2

71-80 8 2.2

81-90 11 3.1

91-100 8 2.2

101-999 30 8.4

a Opening: arbitrarily defined as those sites where the total, in metres,of the visibility distance below 1 m above ground surface inthe 4 cardinal directions from plot centre is greater than100 m.

27

Table 19. Oi stance to security cover (summary for all activities) for Shellyand Marsha, 1983-84 data.

Oi stance to cover (m) Frequency

0 266 74.1

1-10 29 8.1

11-20 23 6.4

21-30 13 3.6

31-40 10 2.8

41-50 5 1.4

51-60 7 2.0

61-70 3 0.8

71-80 1 0.3

81-90 0 0

91-100 0 0

101-999 2 0.5

28

29

Table 21. Security cover value by season for Shelly and Marsha, 1983-84 data.

Cover Class Opening

SEASON I-25m 26-50 m 51-75 m 76-100m Greater than 100 m

TWO 0 8 15 3 5Row % 0 25.8 48.4 9.7 16.1

THREE 21 6 3 1 3Row% 61.8 17.7 8.8 2.9 8.8

FOUR 24 50 9 19Row % 22.8 47.6 8.6 2.9 18.1

FIVE 14 19 26 7 22Row % 15.9 21.6 29.6 7.9 25.0

SIX 2 25 19 9 38Row % 2.1 26.9 20.4 9.7 40.9

SEVEN 0 1 1 3 3Row % 0 12.5 12.5 37.5 37.5

30

4.2.2 Methods

Home range data were analyzed using the minimum convex polygon method(HOME program; Harestad 1981). The CENTRE program (Harestad 1981) was usedto determine harmonic mean centres of location data.

4.2.3 Results and Discussion

There were 45 days (of a total of 119) of the 1983 active monitoringperiod and 104 days (of a total of 196) of the 1984 active monitoring periodthat ground telemetry fixes were not recorded for Marsha (bear 08). Themaxi mum number of days between consecuti ve fi xes was 5 in 1983 and 33 in1984. Ground telemetry fixes were not recorded for Shelly (bear 25) for 57days of the 1983 period and 86 days of the 1984 period. The maximum numberof days between consecutive locations was 8 in 1983 and 17 in 1984. Severalcomparisons are possible with this data set.

We now have verified and aerial home range data for 12 bears (Table 22).Average home range size (~OO% of the locations) for four adult females (bears05,08,25,47) was 115.9 km. Average home range size (100% of the locations)for two upper valley adult females (bears 05,4H was 171 km and for twolower valley adult females (bears 08,25) was 59 krrf. No additional data werecollected for bear 05 in 1984. Thus lower valley adult females had smallerhome ranges than upper valley ones.

Home range size varied with age class. Average home range (100% of t~e

1ocat ions) for two upper valley subadu1t mal es (bears 41,46) was 462 km •For adult 2males (bears 01, 44), average home range (100% of the locations)was 396 km. No additional data were collected for bear 01 in 1984.

Home range size (verified and aerial locations) for the two lower valleyadult females differed between 1983 and 1984 (Table 23). The 100% home rangefor 1984 was smaller than that of 1983 for bear Marsha and larger for bearShelly. The 90% home range size for each bear in 1984 was about two-thirdsthat of the 90% home range sizes for 1983.

Seasonal home ranges (verified and aerial locations) for the two lowervalley adult females are summarized in Table 24. Home ranges of seasons 5and 6 !late berries/salmon and salmon) were much smaller than home ranges ofthe earlier seasons. Sample size for season 7 was too small to make anystatement about home range sizes. No seasonal home range contained more than64% of that bears' yearly home range, and home ranges for seasons 5 and 6encompassed small portions of the bears' annual home ranges (Table 25).

The harmonic mean centre locations for Marsha and Shelly are presentedin Table 26. The harmonic mean centre of Marsha remained the same between1983 and 1984 but the harmonic mean centre of Shelly's home range shiftedapproximately 1.4 km. between 1983 and 1984 (Table 26).

A number of problems associated with home range analysis were'identified.Due to the mountai nous topography, accurate ground telemetry was restrictedto the valley floor and the lower sidehills. Relocation frequency was muchlower when the bears use the side drainages and upper slopes of the valley

31

Table 22. Home range data summary for all radio-collared bears, based onverified and aerial locations, 1982-84.

Bearno.

Bearname

Age1984

No. of Max. straightlocations line distances

between consec.locations (km)

100%

Home range (km2)

90% 50%

Harmonicmean

distancedeviation

(m)

01 Jason 14 23 34.8 393 184 5 282402 Stanley 4 9 24.9 290 251 0 254305 Sandy 12 36 15.4 245 157 40 356808 Marsha 15 174 8.1 62 32 9 153011 Jenny 3 9 9.0 20 19 0 185025 Shelly 18 184 8.5 57 16 4 150541 Andy 27 25.9 369 101 12 306844 Sonny 14 40 23.1 399 346 44 344746 Amos 4 26 18.6 554 308 71 297747 Louise 11 40 11.3 96 67 27 245551 Heather 14 2.9 3 2 0 116053 Henry 27 4.0 13 4 1 1297

Table 23. Annual differences in home ranges for Marsha and Shelly based on1983 and 1984 verified and aerial locations.

Bear Year No. of Max. straight Home range (km2) Harmonicname locations 1i ne di stances mean

between consec. 100% 90% 50% distancelocations (km) deviation

Distance No. days (m)

Marsha 1983 90 6.4 3 50.5 36.5 2.8 1530

1984 62 7.7 2 36.2 24.4 3.4 1479

Shelly 1983 81 6.4 2 32.7 12.9 5.7 14481984 85 8.4 7 46.3 8.9 3.3 1456

32

"fable 24. Differences in seasonal home ranges for Marsha and ~he11y, based on1983 and 1984 verified and aerial locations.

Home range (km2)Bearno.

Bearname

No. oflocations Season

Max. straight1i ne di stancesbetween consec.locations (km)

100% 90% 50%

Harmonicmean di stance

deviation( m)

08 t4arsha 15 2 9.6 29.2 23.2 9.0 2355

25 3 8.1 29.6 26.2 2.3 2083

39 4 7.8 39.3 24.0 1.8 1536

44 5 4.6 4.1 3.3 0.6 118838 6 3.3 3.7 3.2 0.4 1161

7 7 6.4 6.1 0.9 0.1 1144

25 Shelly 24 2 8.4 13.9 2.3 0.3 1144

23 3 5.1 12.1 5.9 0.7 118050 4 6.5 35.5 15.1 1.6 1384

38 5 3.2 4.6 3.2 0.5 1224

38 6 2.9 4.6 3.2 0.5 1151

8 7 3.3 3.2 1.8 0.3 1266

33

Table 25. Comparative seasonal home range (HR) sizes for Shelly and Marsha,based on 1983 and 1984 verified and aerial locations.

Bearname Season

Seasonal100%

HRSiz2(km )

TotalHR

sizea( %)

Marsha 2 29.2 47.23 29.6 47.94 39.3 63.65 4.1 6.66 3.7 6.07 6.1 9.8

Shelly 2 13.9 24.53 12.1 21.34 35.5 62.65 4.6 8.16 4.6 8.17 3.2 5.6

a Total HR for Marsha was 62 km2; for. Shelly, 57 km2

Table 26. Annual harmonic mean centre locations for Marsha and Shelly.

Bear Bear 1983 Harmonic mean 1984 Harmonic meanno. name centre (UTM) centre (UTM)

X Y X YCoordinate Coordinate Coordinate Coordinate

08 Marsha 25000 66500 25000 66500

25 Shelly 26500 63500 27500 62500

34

(see habitat use section) . Consequently, locat.ion data were concentrated onthe vall ey floor.

Ground telemetry locations on the valley floor were often not independentof one another. In areas of g~od tel emetry, there were as many as fourlocations for the same bear in anyone day, all restricted to a small. area asopposed to long periods of time beWeen locations wtlen the bears were in theside valleys. This lack of independence confounded home range and harmonicmean centre analyses and made interpretation difficult.

Other problems existed. For example, the minimum convex polygon (MCP)home range analysi s method restricted the shape of the animal's home range tothe minimum convex polygon containing that animal's locations. In attemptingto outline home ranges that contain less than 100% of an animal's locations(a common technique for nullifying the effect of "outlier locations" on homerange si ze and shape), the rel atively high frequency of locations on thevalley floor caused locations from the side drainages to be excluded.Another problem was that due to the shape restriction, home ranges tended toinclude unusable habitat (i.e. icefields) and presumably other unused areas,leading to an overinflated estimate of home range size. As well, the MCPmethod was shown to produce home range si zes that were corre1 ated with thenumber of locations on which they were based.

A number of methods have been proposed for future analysi s in an attemptto overcome the above obstac les. Two improvements are pl anned for the MCPmethod. The home range outl i ne percentages wi 11 be adjusted based on aninterpretation of the effect of sample size on home range size. The other isto account for non-independence of locations by introducing restrictions onthe frequency of relocation.

Other home. range techni ques used to analyze gri zzly home range data willbe examined. These include ellipsoid home ranges, space utilizationdistributions using three dimensional histograms, and a home range analysismethod that allows for multiple activity nuclei (centres of biologicalattraction). In spite of all these current problems in home range analysis,similar constraints and restrictions apply to the home range data for allbears. As a result, we are still able to make relative (if not absolute)comparisons among bears, years, and seasons.

4.3 Impacts of Logging

The effects of logging on grizzlies in coastal forests can be broken intotwo categories: those associ atedwith logging activity; and, thoseassociated with habitat alteration, either temporary or permanent. Theprimary obj ecti ve for the 1984 fi el d season was to assess the impacts oflogging activity. on grizzlies and to prepare for habitat manipulation toassess the impacts of habitat alteration.

4.3.1 Logging activity

The available literature on this topic suggests that grizzlies avoidareas of human activity. Harding and Nagy (1977) reported that 16 of 17tracked gri zzl ies ventured no closer than 1 km from a petrol eum exploration

35

camp. Tracey (1977) found that gri zzl ies avoi ded the area adjacent to theroad in McKinley Park. Zager and Jonkel (1983) also reported that grizzliesavoided areas where roads were used.

The response of gri zzl i es to 1oggi ng activi ty is central to eval uati ngthe total impacts of logging on grizzlies in coastal B.C. Coastal watershedsare typified by narrow productive floodplains bordered by precipitousmountains. Since logging activity occurs primarily within this floodplain,as does the majority of grizzly activity on an annual basis, the potentialfor confl i ct is great. If gri zzl i es are ali enated from porti ons of thei rannual home range because of logging activity, this may result in a cost tofitness.

4.3.1.1 Hypotheses

The foll owi ng three hypotheses and associ ated rejecti on criteri a weredeveloped to assess the impacts of logging activity on grizzlies.

1. There will be no increase in the seasonal home range size or harmonicmean centres during disturbance of the two intensively studied adultfemales.

The hypothesis will be rejected if:

i) the seasonal centres of activity have shifted outside of thezone of hauling activity (z.h.a.) between years for eitherbear;

i 1) there is a 50% reducti on in the number of rel ocati ons wi thi nthe z.h.a. during logging between years;

iii) there is a 50% increase in the average minimum distance betweenconsecutive locations from within the z.h.a. to without;

iv) seasonal home range sizes increase by 50% of the extent of thez.h.a. within the home range;

v) shifts occur in the seasonal centres of activity that are thesame width as the z.h.a.;

vi) there is a 50% increase in the average mi nimum di stance tohuman acti vi ty.

2. There will be no difference in grizzly activity patterns of the adultfemales within the zone of logging activity during and not duringdisturbance.

The hypothesis will be rejected if:

1) there is a 50% change in the number of activities within thez.h.a. between years;

36

ii) there is a 25% change in the proportions of activities(bedding, feeding, and travel) within the z.h.a. betweenyears;

iiil there is a 50% difference in the number of activities withinthe z.h.a. during and not during logging;

iv) there is a 25% change in the. proportions of activities withinthe z.h.a. during and not during logging;

3. There will be no difference in grizzly activity patterns within thezone of hauling activity during disturbance between areas withdifferent vegetati ve screen types and between areas with and withoutvi sua1 screens.

The hypothesis wi 11 be rejected if:

il there is a difference in the number and proporti on of gri zzlyactivities within the z.h.a. at different noise levels;

ill grizzlies use areas within the z.h.a. with visual screens andavoid other similar areas with the same noise levels but novisual screens.

4.3.1.2 Methods

The noise associated with. hauling was used to assess the impact oflogging activity on grizzlies because: the road bisected a portion of thehome ranges of both intensively studied adult females; the duration andintensity (number of trucks per day) of hauling was easily and accuratelydetermined; and, we felt that the impacts of hauling on grizzlies would bethe most significant of all logging activities in the Kimsquit.

Ei ghteen transects were run perpendi cul ar to the road, scattered alongits length in areas with and without cover. Sound level readings (dB(C))were recorded with a Bruel and Kjaer (Type 2205) sound meter at 25 minterval s from 0-200 m on these transects. Initi ally all recorded noi selevels were of logging trucks. Duplicate data were collected at 25 locationsusing a project vehicle, and a linear regression was performed to test forthe accuracy of using this vehicle 2to predict logging truck noise levels(y= 47.58 + (1.08x);. SE=2.18). An R value of .98 permitted us to use theproject vehicle and enabled more rapid data collection.

Li near regressi ons were run on each sound transect to determi ne thedi stance from the road along each transect that the foll owi ng noi se level soccurred: 80dB(C), 70dB(C), and 60dB(C). Noise levels below 60dB(C) were notconsidered relevant because they were quite often masked by ambient noise.Noi se level contours were then drawn around the road at the 80, 70, and 60dB(C) level. The accuracy of this mapped zone of logging activity (z.l.a.)was tested with 28 recorded sound levels at known locations

Data collection and analysis paralleled that of 1983 (Hamilton andArchi bal d 1984). Tel emetry sampl i ng occurred approximately every si x hourson a 24 h basi s as manpower permitted once bears became estab1i shed on the

37

floodplain. The target was to obtain four fixes per bear per day, two duringlogging and two post-logging.

HOME and CENTRE programs were used to determi ne the seasonal home rangesizes and harmonic mean centres prior to and during logging. Computerseasonal home range plots of verifi ed 1ocati ons only were overl ai n on thez.l.a. map to determine bear location with respect to the z.l.a.

4.3.1.3 Results

Table 27 outlines the dB(C) readings, for each of the 18 transects, usedto develop the z.h.a. map. The accuracy of predicting in which sound levelcontour the known location, known sound level points occurred was 93% (26 of28) using a 20dB(C) interval. Consequently, the z.h.a. map used for analysishad two bands on each si de of the road, 60 to 80 dB( C) and greater than 80dB(C) (Figure 3).

Hauling began on May 31 and continued until after our departure from campon October 18, with the exception of July 30 to August 8 inclusive when thecamp was shut down due to fire hazard. Normal hours of logging operationwere from 0700 to 2100 h. Exceptions to this were: 13-17 June, 21-23 June,and 25-29 July when the operating times were from 0400-1300 h, again becauseof fire hazard. On July 24, hauling was restricted to the hours 0700 to1300.

Logging camp records indicate that the average number of loads hauled perday over the active season was 14. The most ever hauled during the day was27. These figures indicated that logging trucks were moving along the mainhaul line at 30-minute intervals on average and, during peak haulingactivity, at 15-minute intervals.

Tabl e 28 presents the data for Shelly and Marsha duri ng active 1oggi ngand when logging had stopped. Unverified ground telemetry locations are notincluded in this table. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were rejected, based on theinformation presented in Table 28. Only twice during hauling were the studyanimals located within the z.h.a. Both locations were within the 60-80 dB(C)band. Thus we rejected hypothesis 1 based on rejection criterion number 2,and hypothesis 2 based on all rejection criteria. Hypothesis 3 was supportedin that neither rejection criteria were met.

The implications of these findings are that grizzlies avoided the z.h.a.during hauling, independent of the presence of visual screens. The operativefactor for thi s behavi our appears to be the noi se associ ated wi th thehaul i ng. The response of the bears appeared to be independent of noi se1eve1•

A number of independent measures support this thesis. In 1983, grizzlieswere observed 67 times from the road. In 1984, 16 grizzly sightings weremade from the road, only two of whi ch occurred duri ng haul i ng hours. Moresignificantly, grizzlies were observed feeding on salmon in the firstcritical area 41 times in 1983 and not at all in 1984.

38

Table 27. Decibel readings ( dB( C)) of 18 transects at 25 metre intervalsperpendicular to the road.

Decibel readings atperpendicular distances (m) from road

Transect no. 0 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 200

1 98 79 73 68 64 62 61 59 61

2 97 72 69 66 62 59 59 57 55

3 95 76 70 68 63 61 58 56 564 97 78 70 67 64 62 59 57 56

5 97 76 69 67 63 62 59 59 59

6 97 72 69 67 64 61 62 59 57

7 102 80 70 68 66 69 65 62

8 100 86 82 78 66 74 74 65 72

9 106 86 75 65 67 69 64 65 55

10 97 75 68 63 61 59 57 56 55

11 98 73 69 6812 97 75 69 66 62 59 59 58 56

13 96 80 70 65 62 59 5814 97 70 65 63 59 57 55 54 5315 98 70 69 65 61

16 95 78 73 69 64 59 59 58 59

17 95 70 70 66 65 64 61 59 55

18 96 76 71 66 65 62 61 58 57

I--_BEAR 8

,\---BEAR 25

39

Zone of hauling activity andthe approximate 90.% annualhome ranges of two adultfemale grizzlies

SCALE 1, 40 000

Figure 3.

40

Table 28. Verified locations of Shelly and Marsha with respect to the zoneof hauling activity, during and not during logging.

198ja 1984

Not during logging Not during logging Ouri ng 1ogg i ngShelly Marsha Shelly Marsha Shelly Marsha

Season in out in out fn()Ut in out in out in out

2 0 4 0 3 4 14 3 9 0 0 0 03 3 11 3 16 0 2 0 4 1 6 0 24 8 20 4 24 2 7 1 4 0 13 0 65 6 15 5 21 1 9 4 9 0 7 0 56 6 22 1 26 1 3 1 5 0 6 0 57 0 3 0 4 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2

- - - - - - - - - - - -Totals 23 75 13 94 8 37 9 32 2 34 0 20

In :outratio 1:3 1:7 1:5 1:4 1: 17 1:00

a includes 1982 aerial fixes.

41

On September 8, a 1arge adult mal e gri zzly was observed fi shi ng forsalmon within the z.h.a. during the two hour dinner break. This bear movedrapidly into the channel, caught a salmon, and retreated away from the roadinto heavy cover. Thi s pattern was repeated twi ce over a peri od of fi veminutes.

On the morning of September 9, prior to logging start-up, this grizzlywas again observed fishing in the same side channel. While this bear wasbeing observed a logging truck began to move up the valley. The bear'sinitial response to the noise was one of agitation; it became increasinglymore agitated as the truck neared. Approximately two minutes before thetruck came into view, the bear moved quickly across the spawning channel awayfrom the road and into the cover.

The minimum number of times that the study animal s crossed the road canalso be used to support the contention that grizzlies avoid the z.h.a.Excl udi ng non-verifi ed ground tel emetry locations, between 1983 and 1984,there was a 33% decline in the number of times Shelly crossed the road (21versus 14) and a 39% decl ine in the number of times 14arsha crossed the road(18 versus 11).

There is also statistical support for this thesis (Table 28). Based onthe number of verified locations, the study animals used the areas within andoUiside of the z.h.a. similarily between years when there was no logging(x =.198, P=.6434). Conversely, there was a significa~t difference in theway the stuqy animals used these areas during logging (X =7.548, P=.006).

4.3.1.4 Discussion

Logging activity in the study area between 1979 and 1982 was limited toconstructing a dry land sort, the camp, and 25 km of access roads and loggingapproximately 170 ha from four cut blocks. Thus, we assumed the studyanimals were unconditioned to human activity. Also, although these bears mayhave been hunted in the past, it was further assumed that hunting activitywas not a significant factor in altering the behaviour of these bears. Thebehaviour of these bears, therefore, should reflect that of undisturbed andunhunted grizzlies.

We predicted that the initial response of grizzlies to logging activitywould be as described previously and we fully expected that the bears wouldquickly adapt to the activity and resume the same pattern of behaviourobserved pre-logging. We were surprised at the magnitude of the response ofthe grizzlies to logging activity. Disturbance may, therefore, be far moreimportant than originally thought.

Our data clearly showed that the z.h.a. was alienated from grizzliesduring hauling, and that this zone was used by grizzlies post logging. Aportion of the home range of the affected griz:;:lies was unavailable to them14 h each day. In situations where bears had other options for feeding,this exclusion may not be a problem. However, in areas where grinlies havesmall home ranges or in areas where area-concentrated food sources of limiteddistribution are within the z.h.a., this exclusion could limit access toimportant food sources. If there is a survival cost in avoiding the z.l.a.,

42

gri zzlfes wi 11 probably move i,nto thi s zone and become "habituated" to thedisturbance. Then these bears would no longer behave like "wild" bears, andtheir probability for survival would likely be reduced because of increasedvulnerability to legal and illegal hunting.

4.3.2 Habitat Alteration

4.3.2.1 Security Cover Removal

To test the importance of security cover, all cover was removed from ahigh-use, salmon-feeding area. Approximately 2 ha, consisting almostexclusively of pole-sapling alder, was felled but not cleaned up. Due to anumber of factors, thi s treatment area was not used by the three coll aredstudy animals in 1984. As the area still provided the best opportunity foraddressing this question, it will be cleaned up and expanded. in May, 1985(see p. 49).

4.3.2.2 Thermal cover removal

To test the importance of old growth in supplying thermal cover forgrizzlies, a high-use, bedding area adjacent to the first critical area wasselected for removal. Permission to log this area was granted fromDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans and the District MOF office.Unfortunately, grizzlies. did not use this area in 1984, rendering itunsuitable for experimental manipulation. A suggested reason for this changein behaviour is that this area is within the z.h.a. Evaluation of grizzlybedding requirements as recorded during site investigations (see p. 5),suggests that adequate thermal cover is provided by a wide range of ages andspecies of trees. Consequently, this experiment is no longer necessary.

4.3.3 Berry Production and Use

The effect of clearcut logging on bear food production and use wasinvestigated in Cutblock 2 in the lower Kimsquit valley in 1984. Threequarters of this 55 ha floodplain unit was harvested in 1980 while theremainder was removed in 1984. The berry-producing shrub cover andproductivity in Cutblock 2 were considerable. This unit was within the homeranges of both i ntens i vely moni to red adul t femal es, and other gri zzl i es,marked and unmarked, were al so observed or located there. Conifer seedl ingplanting programs were conducted in the harvested portion of the cutblock inthe fall of 1982 and the spring of 1983. To reduce deciduous tree and shrubcompetition with these seedlings (primarily Sitka spruce), Doman ForestProducts applied for and received permission for ground application of theglyphosphate herbicide Roundup® in August 1985. We plan to monitor theresults of this herbicide application since the widespread usage of Roundupis expected in coastal forests where shrub competition is severe.

In June and July of 1984, a berry-monitoring program was initiated. Asampling grid, with stations every 100 m, was established along set compassbearings. Each of the 51 stations was permanently marked with a brightlypai nted, wooden stake, ass i gned a gri d pos i t ion, and gi ven a plot number.Once established, each station was visited twice. To stratify the sampling,the plots were rated high, medium, or low for ground coverage of logging

43

debris, exposed mineral soil (primarily alluvial gravel and rocks), and berryspecies. Plots were also classified as either new (1984) or old (1981)logging.

The stratification revealed a number of attributes of the cutblock:

1) There was extreme variability in composition cover, distribution, andproductivity of berry shrub species across the unit.

2) The berry shrub species composition, cover, and distribution did notreflect any of the "natural" ecosystems in the lower Kimsquit.(el derberry - Sambucus racemosa, raspberry - Rubus i daeus andsalmonberry - Rubus spectabilis were the dominant shrubs). The shadetolerant species (e.g. devil's club) appear to have been replacedafter timber harvest by more shade intolerant ones.

3) Although data were not yet sufficient to confirm this, berries seemedto ripen sooner in the cutting unit than in most other habitattypes.

With the overall objective of developing an appropriate estimate of berrybiomass per unit area, and charting this estimate over time (i .e. post­herbicide), ten plots were randomly selected for a second visit. Plotboundaries were outlined by rot~ting a rope around the painted stake. Ther2pe was 564 cm long for a 100 m plot, with a knot at 178 cm to define a 10m plot. Due to annual variabil ity in berry production, we al so consideredshrub biomass • It was assumed that regardless of annual variation,i ncreasi ng shrub bi omass woul d transl ate into increasi ng berry bi omass (an~

thus bear food value). By picking and weighing all berries in the 100 mplot

2(by species) and measuring basal stem diameters of berry shrubs in the

10 m plot we hoped that two regressions could be developed:

1) between basal stem di ameter and shrub bi omass in the 10m2

plot (there are some equations in the literature availablefor this); and

2) between2

berry bi omass in the 100m2 plot and shrub bi omass inthe 10m plot.

Several problems were encountered due to the variability of the cover andspecies composition of the unit. Often, berries were found in the outerplot that did not occur in the inner. Of the ten plots sampled, no two werealike. We revised this methodology because, to reduce the variation, wewould have to increase the sample size to include at least all the plotslocated in the 1980 logged area. As each plot could take up to three hours,we decided that the time required did not justify the results. An alternatestrategy was developed. We revisited each station, recorded %cover (visualestimate), distribution, phenology, and estimated berry abundance as is donein the site investigation process. These data will provide a comparativebasis for further study of Cutblock 2 over time.

Gri zzl ies were observed usi ng Cutblock 2 on four occasi ons. Subsequentsite investigations on two of these visuals verified berry feeding.

44

4.4 Draft Project Products

We pr\lsent1y foresee three level sof management products emerging fromthis project. Outline drafts of these products are presented at this time toprovi dewi1 d1 ife and forestry managers ample opportunity to comment on thei rstructure and utility.

4.4.1 Product 1. Strategic Planning Guide for Grizzly Bears in CoastalB.C.

MOF planning l\lvel

Responsibility

forest management planning

1. to establish Annual Allowable Cut (A.A.C.)2. to identify 20-year supply areas.

Product objective

To provide MOF forest management planners with a list of coastalwatersheds in each Timber Supply Area (T.S.A.) outlining for each: grizzlyval ues, gri zzly management obj ecti ves, and general options for watersheddevelopment a19ng with an as.sociated cost to grizzlies.

Rationale

1. It is important that MOF planners recognize that not all coastalwatersheds will be subject to the same leVel of management scrutiny forgrizzly bears.

2. It is important that these hi gh val ue watersheds are f1 agged at thi sscale of planning.

Strategy

All coastal watersheds will be stratified on the basis of salmonabundance (DFO escapement figures). Watersheds with high salmon values forthose species important to grizzlies (sockeye, chum, pink) will be flagged ashigh val ue. A synopti c survey wi 11 verify thi s process and he1 p defi ne whatconstitutes high salmon values (relationship between salmon abundance andgrizzly density).

Workshops will be conducted with regional Wildlife staff to establishwatershed specifi c management obj ectives for gri zzl i es, forest developmentoptions, and the cost of each option to grizzlies. Logging history of eachwatershed will be obtained through a workshop with regional staff fromWildlife and Forests.

Product outline

Watershed *ManagementStatement

Gri zzlyValues

LoggingHistory

Gri zzlyInformation

* based on management opportunity as defi ned by current use and ease ofenforcement.

45

4.4.2 Product 2 Habitat Suitability Model for Coastal Grizzly Bears

MOF Planning level

Responsibi 1ity

local resource use planning

1. to establish integrated resource managementguidelines within TSA.

2. to plan a period 5-20 years at a scale of1:20 000

Product Objective

To provi de wil d1 ife and forestry p1 anners wi th a tool to determi ne thecarryi ng capaci ty of coastal watersheds for gri zzl i es and to assess theimpact of forestry development on coastal grizzlies.

Rationale

1. Logging and related forestry activities will have the greatest impact ongrizzly habitat in coastal watersheds in the future.

2. Providing management with a tool for assessing the impacts of differentlogging scenarios on coastal grizzlies will allow for true integratedresource management.

Strategy

A habitat suitabil i ty index (HSI) model will be buil t for gri zzl i es incoastal B.C. This model will be flexible enough to allow for the full rangeof eco1 ogi cal condi tions throughout the gri zzly' s range in coastal B.C. Atfirst, the model will be a paper and pencil one, but it will eventually beput on a computer and 1inked to a computer-mappi ng system that wi 11 beavailable to wildlife and forestry planners.

The information used to build the model was gathered from 1982-84 in theKimsquit watershed in conjunction with the coastal grizzly project. It willbe verified for the Kimsquit during the 1985 field season. Then the generalapplicability of this model to coastal B.C. will be determined during anumber of synoptic surveys of coastal watersheds, planned for 1986.

4.4.2.1 Model details

Assumptions

1. There is a direct linear relationship between the habitat suitabilityindex (HSI) and carrying capacity.

2. Thi s model is based on "wil d" (undi sturbed, unhunted) gri zzl ies and thatthe objecti ve is to mai ntai n "wil d" popu1 ati ons of gri zzl i es, given thereduced life expectancy of "habituated" bears.

3. Given the small home ranges of coastal grizzlies, the mobility of thespecies, and the physiography of coastal watersheds, all cover types are

46

avail abl e to gri zzl i es simultaneously. The observed seasonal pattern 'ofuse for each cover type is proportional to its suitability. ~

4. Adult female grizzlies are the most sensitive and important component ofcoastal grizzly populations. An HSI model built for this sex/age classwill meet the requirements of all other sex/age classes.

5. The life requisites of water, reproduction, and denning have no specificrequirements in coastal valleys, or meeting these requirements will notbe a problem, even in the presence of logging activity. Travel will alsonot be a problem unless there is a return to historic practices thatresulted in tidewater to mountain-top clear cuts.

6. Bedding was not included in this preliminary model even though grizzliessel ect specifi c habi tat el ements for thi s activity. We assume thatbedding requirements will be met under curent coastal logging practices.This life requisite may be included in future versions of the model.

Geographic Area

Thi s model appl i es to the i ntensi ve study area of the Kimsqui t Ri vervalley in coastal B.C.

Season

This model evaluates the habitats used by grizzlies during the periodfrom den emergence to den entrance.

Bear habitat units (BHU's)

BHU's, described earlier (see p. 4), will be the habitat units for theHSI model. BHU's development is continuing.

Life Requ is ites

Food and marking will be considered for each active season.

4.4.2.2 The Model

Strategy

For each season, all BHU's will be evaluated for their ability to providefood and marking substrate. Ratings (and associated numerical value) areexcellent (highest availability = 1.00), good (.75), average (.50), poor(.25), and, N/A (0), and are based on the observed pattern of use.

An HSI value is then generated for each BHU by combining the values in afashion that represents the relative importance of each activity for thatseason. For example, for season 1, the formula for combining activity valuesfor each BHU may be:

4F + .5M = HSI value4.5

where: F= feeding, M=marking

47

This formula suggests that feeding is eight times as important asmarking. The value of the denominator is such that the HSI will always fallbetween a and 1.0.

The seasonal HSI values for each BHU are then used to generate annualHSI values. This is done by combining all seasonal values for each BHU andagain applying a weighing factor that will allow for the relative importanceof each season. As before, the denominator is such that the HSI value fallsbetween a and 1.0.

4.4.2.3 Model application

To apply the model, the following steps would be taken:

1. The total area of each BHU would be determined from digitized forestcover maps (where available) or aerial photographs.

2. The mi nimum area (thresho 1d) of each BHU requi red to support theperceived density of grizzlies in the watershed must be estimated. Asignificant reduction in the area of a particular BHU may result inno carrying capacity reduction for grizzlies if the BHU threshold isstill available.

3. Values for each BHU are then calculated by multiplying the HSI valuefor each BHU by the BHU area (or threshold, whichever is less). Thewatershed capability will be the summation of the BHU values.

4. To evaluate the effects of logging this watershed on grizzlies, theareas of BHU's would be changed to reflect different loggingscenarios and the resultant watershed capabi1itry calculationscompared to the original.

5. The final model will consider impacts on grizzlies other than thoseassociated with habitat alteration (e.g. disturbance).

4.4.3 Product 3. A Forestry Handbook for the Management of Grizzly BearHabitat.

MOF Planning Level

Responsibility

Product Objective

resource development planning

to detail logistics for forestry development (sitespecific)

To provide managers and resource users with a handbook on how to considergrizzly values in coastal watersheds.

48

Rationale

1. Some 1oggi ng activiti es wi 11 have negative impacts on gri zzly bears.

2. These impacts can be reduced by timing windows of activity, site specifictreatments, and timber deferrals, all Of .whichwill be Outlined in thishandbook.

3. Thi s product wi 11 facil itate the site inspection process currentlYemployed by MOF.

4. Distribution of this handbook to the forest industry will permit resourceusers to recognize the role that they can play in protecting bearvalues.

Strategy

A pocket-sized, loose-leaf handbook will beseasonal habitat use patterns and requi rements.rel i ance on graphics. Management prescriptions will

Product

developed that detailsThere will be a heavy

be outlined.

a) Stratification - will be the same as for levels 1 and 2.

b) Seasonal patterns of habitat use for each season

i) a cross-section of a coastal valley showing patterns of grizzlyuse.

i 1) how to identify seasonal areas of hi gh gri zzly use and estimatedens i ty.

i i 1) management prescri pti ons for each 1ife requi site (feedi ng,bedding, marking).

iv) species identification.

49

5.0 1985-86 WORKING PLAN

The purpose of this working plan is to outl ine the objectives andactivities for 1985, including both the fourth field season and office work;and, to describe the methods that will be employed to address each objective.For previous working plans see Archibald and Hamilton (1983) and Hamilton andArchibald (1984).

5.1 Field Objectives

Objectives for the field season are:

1. to recollar intensively monitored grizzlies and attempt to captureand collar an unknown adult male grizzly in the intensive studyarea.

2. to assess the importance of cover for gri zzl ies in hi gh use feedingareas.

3. to assess the importance of marking behaviour of coastal grizzlies.

4. to continue to monitor the effects of logging on grizzlies.

5.2 Field Methods

5.2.1 Collar replacement

Gri zzl i es will be trapped, immobil i zed, and re- fitted wi th new radi 0collars, using previously described procedures (Archibald and Hamilton 1983).Trapping will commence in early April and proceed until the objective ofre-collaring all intensively monitored grizzlies is achieved. Previouslyuntrapped adult grizzlies will be collared opportunistically.

5.2.2 Security cover experiment

In our study, cover is defined as any feature that inhibits visualcontact of bears. A bear is in cover if the total of the sight distances atbear height in the four cardinal directions of a point is less than 100 m.

5.2.2.1 Forestry application

Our data suggest that grizzlies in coastal forests prefer to be in cover.It is unclear, however, if grizzlies are selecting cover or if the observedpattern of use simply reflects the low availability of openings in the studyarea. If cover is a prerequisite for grizzly use, then appropriate forestrymanagement prescripti ons woul d be requi red in areas of hi gh gri zzly use.Cover can be coniferous or deciduous trees or shrubs.

5.2.2.2 Strategy

Cover associated with a high use area will be removed to assess itsimportance. A salmon feedi ng site was sel ected for thi s treatment becausesalmon feeding has been the most predictable grizzly activity and providesthe best pre-treatment data base.

50

During late July, salmon first become available to grizzlies at the firstcritical area (see p. 23). This feeding site consists of a series of braidedchannel s and consequently affords little cover. As salmon become avail ableelsewhere, grizzlies appear to select areas for feeding which have a highavailability and abundance of salmon and associated cover. Cover will beremoved from one of the sites (Cornice) and the effect of this treatment ongrizzlies will be monitored. Figure 4 outlines the treatment area.

5.2.2.3 Hypotheses

The general null hypothesis is that removal of associated cover from ahi gh use area wi 11 have no effect on gri zzly bears I use of that area.Specifically, this implies that:

1. There will be no post-treatment change in the pattern and extent ofuse of the treatment area by the intensively monitored grizzlies.

2. There will be no post-treatment shift of the intensively monitoredgrizzlies to a new salmon feeding area with adjacent security COver.

Hypothesis testing - Methods, measures and analyses

i) The treatment area identified in the 1984 working plan will becleaned up and expanded. All cover will be removed. This area hasbeen regularily used during salmon season by one of our intensivelymonitored female grizzlies (08) since 1982. As well, information wasgathered in 1984 on use of this area by an additional two collaredgrizzlies. This information will be used as pre-treatment data.

ii) The location of all collared grizzlies will be determined on a 24 hbasis during salmon seasons. There will be four sampling periodseach day, two during logging and two after logging. Siteinvestigations will be conducted and all site characteristics;habitat characteristics such as type, polygon, cover value, % stratacoverage, and traffic; all activity characteristics; and, alldistance measures will be measured.

The following table will be used to present the data relating to thistreatment.

Bear Habitat Pre-treatmentUnit Treated Untreated

%area %use %area %use

A1 treatmentarea

A2 similarunits

A3 withinseasonal

A4 home range

Post-treatmentTreated Untreated

%area %use %area % use

"

51

' ... "

" "4' ••

CORNICE

"

BEAVER CHANNEL

Figure 4. CORNICE TREATMENT AREA

ISLAND

LEGEND

~ COVER REMOVAL AREA,.~i? GRAVEL BARS

52

iii) The treatment area will be visited weekly to monitor for grizzly use.An adjacent, untreated search area twice the treatment area will befl agged and searched systemati cally at the same time. All evi denceof grizzly activity will be recorded (e.g. number of carcasses, beds,thrashed vegetation).

iv) A tree blind wi 11 be estab1ished near the treatment area to permitobservation. Observation trials, both in daylight and at night (withni ght scope), will be made to determi ne if gri zzli es fi sh and/or eatsalmon withi n the treatment area. Informati on will al so be recordedon time of use, weather, distances and bear description (ifunknown).

Rejection criteria

Hypothesis 1 will be rejected if:

i) there is a 75% reduction in the number of times that female;.Q8 usesthe treatment area, compared to the 1984 data;

ii) weekly inspections of the treatment area indicate a 75% totalreduction in grizzly use;

iii) there is a 75% increase in the amount of grizzly activity within theuntreated portion of the experimental area.

Hypothesis 2 will be rejected if:

iv) female. 08 shifts to another salmon feeding area that has adjacentsecurity cover.

Confounding factors

i) If grizzlies have no other options but to use the treatment area,they may continue to use this area but at some cost to their fitness.This cost will be difficult to quantify and evaluate.

ii) Salmon availability in the treatment area may change due to rivercourse changes, or to the size of the run. Both of thesepossibilities are unlikely, based on our previous experience.

iii) Grizzlies may be displaced to an area where telemetry is unreliable.(Further testing of the accuracy and precision of the groundtelemetry system will be conducted in 1985. Testing will be done tobetter outline areas of ground telemetry "shadow". Such testing isrequired to adequately address this and other hypotheses.)

iv) There may be observer effect. Weekly reconnaissance of the treatmentarea and visits to the tree blind will have to be planned to avoidimpacting bear activity.

v) Felled brush in the treatment area during the salmon seasons in 1984may have changed the pattern of use of this area. Monitoring of thistreatment may have to continue in 1986 if results in 1985 areinconclusive.

53

5.2.3 Marking assessment

5.2.3.1 Forestry application

In coastal B.C., grizzlies frequently mark trails and trees. Thesetraditi onal marki ng sites are generally associ ated with hi gh-use areas, thatis, along travel corri dors or trail s near concentrated food resources oflimited distribution.

We believe that marking in these high-use areas is a behaviouralmechanism evolved to temporally separate bears. Bears probably communicatein this way because the dense understory, the noise associated with rivers,and the unpredictability of winds in coastal valleys prevent their relianceon sound and odor, the traditional means of communication. If mark trees areunavail ab 11\ in these hi gh-use feedi ng areas, i ntra-specifi c confrontati onsmay increa e, potentially reducing individual and population fitness.

If mar trees are essential in high-use areas, then this need will likelybe reflected in recommended prescriptions for forestry management .

•5.2.3.2 Strategy

To examine the importance of marking, two activities will be undertaken:documenting the location and frequency of marking, and conducting ,anexperiment to test the importance of marking.

Frequency of marking

Six mark trees will be selected for investigation - two associated withtravel corridors and four associated with concentrated food resources of1imited di stributi on. Unscented dental floss will be darkened and fastenedaround these mark trees, and other suitab1e but presently unmarked trees.These trees will then be vi sited weekly to see if the floss is broken. Aswell, a photographic r,ecord of all damage to the trees will be made. Thesedata will indicate marking frequency and allow correlation between thisbehaviour and other aspects of bear activity.

Marki ng experiment

Hypotheses

The general null hypothesis is that marking by coastal grizzlies israndom in space and in time, and thus has no si gnifi cance as a means oftemporally spacing grizzlies, The specific hypotheses are:

1. There is no relationship between mark trees and the distance tohigh-use feeding sites.

2. There is no relationship between the frequency of feeding and thefrequency of marking at these sites.

3. If traditional mark trees in high use feeding areas are removed,other suitable trees in the immediate vicinity will not become marktrees.

54

Hypothesis testing - Methods, measures, and analyses

i) All known mark trees will be categorized as being either associatedwith travel or with feeding

ii) For each mark tree associated with area-concentrated food resources,the di stance from the mark tree to the centre of the feeding ortravel activity will be measured.

iii) All mark trees associated with three feeding areas will be remo~ed.

After removal, the .area will be checked regularily for evidence ofnew marki ng. New mark trees wi 11 al so be removed. If new marki ngoccurs, informati on regarding tree speci es sel ection and di stancefrom the original mark tree will be recorded.

Rejection criteria

Hypothesi s 1 willhigh-use feeding areasmean).

be rejected if the minimum distance from marking tois not consistent between sites (standard deviation>,

Hypothesis 2 will be rejected if no correlations between the frequency offeedi ng at hi gh-use areas and the frequency of marki ng adjacent to them canbe found.

Hypothesis 3 will be rejected if marking re-occurs in the immediatevicinity where a mark tree has been removed.

Confounding factors

i) If grizzlies do not re-mark an area there may be a survival cost thatwould be impossible to measure.

i i) Gri zzl i es may abandon.areas that have had thei I' mark trees rem~lVed.

Thi s may resul t in a type 2 error. To guard against thi s, thesehigh-use areas will have to be closely monitored for signs of grizzlyactivity in a standardized fashion. Weekly trips will be made toeach removal area to search for evidence of feeding.

iii) There may be an investigator effect. The problem of contaminatingthe site with human scent is unlikely because of the high frequencyof rain in the stuqy area.

iv) It may be difficult to distinguish between some forms of tree markingby grizzlies and black bears. This difficulty wtll be minimized byexamining spacing of claw marks, tracks at the tree, and bycollecting hairs from the mark tree.

5.2.4 Effects of logging

The effects of logging on coastal grizzly bears will be continued alongtwo fronts in 1985:. monitoring of haUling activity begun in 1984 andassessing clearcut logging on food production and grizzly bear use.

55

5.2.4.1. Effects of logging activity

Forestry application

The 1984 data indicated that grizzlies avoided areas of active hauling.This suggests that, to minimize logging impacts on grizzlies, haulingactivity in high-use grizzly areas should be scheduled to avoid conflict withgrizzlies. Alternatively, suitable buffer strips could be left between thehauling activity and high-use grizzly areas.

Objecti ves

The obj ecti ves for 1985 are:

1. to determine the width of the disturbance band, and;2. to determine if habituation to hauling is occurring.

Strategy

1. Disturbance band width

Collared grizzl ies in the intensive study area will be monitored on a24-h basis during seasons 4, 5, and 6. Site investigations will be conductedon as many relocations as possible, based on the following priority forselection:

1. Shelly or Marsha within the zone of logging activity (z.h.a.).

2. other collared grizzlies within z.h.a.

3. Shelly or Marsha outside z.h.a. in area of reliable telemetry.

4. other collared grizzlies outside z.h.a. in area of reliabletelemetry.

5. known grizzlies outside the area of reliable ground telemetry.

Site investi gati ons will include the same information coll ected to testthe security cover hypotheses (Section 2.2).

Grizzly locations outside of the z.h.a. during logging will be used todefi ne the wi dth of the di sturbance zone. If an avoi dance response to thedaily start up of haulin9 is noted, "flight distance" will be measured asaccurately as possible. These data will also help to define zone width.

2. Habituation response

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis will be that grizzly bears will not habituate tologging activity by the end of 1985.

56

Hypothesis testing

The width of the zone alienated from grizzlies by logging truck trafficwill be determined for seasons 4, 5, and 6 for all collared grizzlies in 1984and 19R5.

Rejection criteria

The hypothesis will be rejected if:

i) during logging, the average distance to the road significantlydecreases (a = .10) between consecutive seasons for either 1984 or1985;

ii) the average distance to the road during logging significantlydecreases (a = .10) between 1984 and 1985.

5.2.4.2 Cut block food production and grizzly use

Forestry application

Clear cutting will change the composition and productivity of berryproducing shrubs. If berry productivity in the original forest wassuppressed, clear cutting would result in an increase in berry productivity.There are two likely responses of grizzlies to this new food source. If bearuse increases as berry biomass increases, the result may be an increase incarryi ng capaci ty .for gri zzli es. A1 ternati ve1y, gri zzli es may avoi dc1earcuts because of lack of cover.

Another aspect of this issue is the impact of broad1eaf herbicidecontrol. This si1vicu1tura1 treatment may reduce carrying capacity bye1 imi nati ng criti ca1 feedi ng areas and cover. The key issues of berryabundance and. availability to grizzlies in c1earcuts and the extent andduration of herbicide control on berry- producing shrubs could both bereflected in recommended forestry management prescriptions.

This project component is viewed as a pilot project only for thisimportant issue. Preliminary plans are being made within MOF to address theimpact of herbicides as a major research initiative.

Strategy

The effect of c1earcut logging on the production of berries in cutblock 2will continue to be monitored in 1985. Each of the 51 permanent stationswill be re-visited in late June or early July to assess berry productivityusing the same methods as in 1984. Percent cover estimates ofberry-produci ng shrubs will be recorded. To determi ne the activi ti es ofbears, site investigations will be made on all acceptable telemetry-basedlocations within cutb10ck 2.

Roundup®, a systemic herbicide, will be applied over 30 ha of the 55 haunit during August 1985. Further monitoring of berry productivity will occurafter the berries ripen in 1986. As well, grizzly response to the Rounduptreatment wi 11 be assessed by compari ng use of the area before and aftertreatment. These data will permi t pre1 imi nary quantifi cation of the effects

57

of herbicide application on berry production and a measure of bear response.Monitoring of grizzly activity in this area in 1986 will probably be assumedby regional staff or other interested parties.

Confounding factors

1. The vari abil ity of bear food abundance between years may confoundresults. The seasonal avail abil ity and abundance of bear food betweenyears will be compared to check for this bias.

2. Truck traffic intensity may vary between years and thus affect bear useof the cutb lock. The frequency of truck traffi c during 1985 wil berecorded and compared to that of 1984 to evaluate this factor.

5.2.5 Schedule of field work for 1985/86 (Table 29).

1. Field work will commence April 10 and proceed until the target bears havebeen captured or recaptured.

2. Fi el d work will recommence prior to the onset of season 4. The coverremoval experiment area will be cl eaned up and expanded, and the marktree removal treatment conducted.

3. Monitoring of the mark trees and removal treatment will beginimmediately and continue weekly for the duration of the field season.More frequent investi gati on of the marki ng frequency experiment may benecessary.

4. Di sturbance response monitoring will begin at the onset of season 4 andcontinue through until the end of salmon availability. Radio telemetrywi 11 proceed on a 24-h basis and wi 11 be followed by abbrevi ated siteinvestigations on a priori zed basis.

5. Cornice treatment monitoring will begin at the onset of season 5 andcontinue until the end of season 6. During seasons 5 and 6, the priorityfor searching for activity sites will be as follows:

a. 8ears 08/25 within z.h.a.Bear 08 within Cornice treatment area.

b. Known grizzlies within z.h.a.Known grizzlies within Cornice treatment area.

c. Bears 08/25 outside of the z.h.a. within area of reliabletelemetry. Bear 08 outside of Cornice treatment area and withinarea of reliable telemetry.

d. Known grizzlies outside the z.h.a. in area of reliabletelemetry. Known grizzlies outside of the Cornice treatment, inareas of good telemetry.

e. Known grizzlies outside area of reliable telemetry.

58

Table 29. Activity schedule for the coastal grizzly project in 1985/86.

Activity

No.of Schedulestaff

/weeks Apr/May Jun/Jul Aug/Sep Oct/Nov Dec/Jan Feb/Mar

4/15

Collar replacement 3/6

Testing securitycover- site preparation 6/2- monitoring 4/9

Herbicide effect- berry monitoring 1/1- herbicide application- post-treatment

survey

Marking- site location and 1/1

preparation- treatment and 1/4

monitoring

Disturbance effect- monitoring/site

inspections

Data analysis- 1985 data entry

and editing- analys is of above

data-sets- edit of all files

Report writing- progress report- IBA food paper- IBA disturbance

paper- ANH thesis- 1986/87 W.P.

Development- GRDCON evaluation- use/availability- habitat

selection

-.------------

59

Table 29. Activity schedule for the coastal grizzly project in 1985/86, continued

Activity

Meetings- IBA, Virginia- GRIZRAC- Border grizzly- Alaska

No.of Schedulestaff

/weeks Apr/May Jun/Jul Aug/Sep Oct/Nov Dec/Jan Feb/Mar

Product development- completion of draft

product 2- product workshop

60

5.3 . Data Analysis and Reporti ng ScheduIe

Data ana lysi s will recommence in October 1985. Pri ority wi 11 be gi ven todata specific to the aforementioned hypotheses regarding the importance' ofcover, marking behaviour, and the potential habituation of grizzlies to'logging truck traffi c. Thi s pri ority means immedi ate data-entry and anal'ySi,sof the 1985 ground and aerial relocation and: site investigation riles, andtheir comparison to data from previous years.

Special provisions will be made to investigate the nature and extent ofground tel emetry bi as and its influence on our data sets. Non- independentrelocation and site investigation data will be extracted from the masterrelocation and activity site files.

Fu rther anal ys is of data from the nutri ent, berry abundance, pheno logy,and feeding site activities are being conducted and should be completed byNovember 1985. These data will be written up for Hamilton's Haster's Thesisand for the I nternati onal Bear Associ ati on, Conference in ViTgi ni a to be hel din February 1986 (if abstract is accepted). Another abstract on the effectsof truck traffic has al so been submitted to thi s conference.

A high priority w,ill be placed on use/availability analyses during thefall of 1985. A number of traditional and new techniques are being·i nvesti gated.

The management products discussed in section 4 of this report will bedeveloped further. The HSI model will be compl'eted and' presented at aworkshop. in November to research and management staff. Another workshop is,planned for February 1986 with management staff from HOE and MOF. Theobjectives of this meeting will be to present, the HSI model to management andcollect the information required to complete product No.1 (see p. 44).

A progress report summarizing and interpreting all data col.lected will' beprepared by 1986 February 28. In March, planning will begin for the nextphase of the project. This phase will be. designed to test the applicabilityof the Kimsquit results to other watersheds in coastal B.C. Specificobjectives will be:

1) to assess the appHcabHity of the Kimsquit HSI model;

2) to assess the influence of logging (past and present) on grizzlies incoastal B.C., and

3) to assess the current status of grizzlies on the coast.

Computeri zedProceedings,and Wil dli fe

61

6.0 REFERENCES AND PROJECT REPORTS

Archibald, W.R. 1983. Problem analysis: grizzly bears and coastaldevelopment with particular reference to intensive forestry. B.C.Ministry of Environ., Fish and Wildl. Bull. No. B-26. and B.C. Ministryof For., Wildl. Hab. Res. No. WHR-13. 24pp.

, and A. Edie. 1982. Preliminary habitat protection----:g=-u7i7de~lni-=n-=e=-s for coastal grizzlies. Unpubl. rep, B.C. Ministry of

Envi ron., Fi sh and Wi 1dl. Branch, Vi ctori a.

__---::=::-::-:=---::' and A.N. Hamilton. 1983. Working plan. Coastal grizzlyresearch project. B.C. Ministry of Environ., Fish and Wildl. Branch,Victoria. 33pp.

__--,~~~___::' R.E. Page, A.N. Hamilton, and A.E. Derocher. 1984. A mobiletracking system for radio collared animals. B.C. Ministry of Environ.,Fish and Wildl. Branch, Victoria. 7pp.

,M. Sondheim, and A.N. Hamilton. In press.---:m7:a-=p""pTin=-g=--=a-=s an aid to grizzly bear habitat definition. In:

64th Annual Conference of the Western Associ ation of FfSliAgencies; 1984 July 17-19; Victoria, British Columbia.

Banner, A. 1985. Ecosystem classification and mapping in the coastalWestern Hemlock Zone, Mid-Coast Drier Transitional Subzone (CWHh),Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of For. Res.Sec., Smithers.

,J. Pojar, R. Trowbridge, and A.N. Hamilton. In press.--'G"'r""i-=zz='lr:-y.,......rbear habitat in the Kimsquit river valley, coastal British

Columbia: classification, description, and mapping. In: Proceedings,Grizzly bear habitat symposium. 1985 April 30-May 2, Missoula, Montana.

Clement, C. 1984a. Habitat types of the Kimsquit river estuary. B.C.Ministry of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-4, and B.C. Ministry ofFor., Wildl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-12, Victoria. 18pp•

• 1984b. Biogeoclimatic units and ecosystem associations of-----:it"'h-=e07KT.im:::s=-=q=-uit drainage. B.C. Ministry of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep.

No. WR-5 and B.C. Ministry of For., Wildl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-13,Victoria. 89pp.

Derocher, A. 1984. Telemetry. Comments and suggesti ons from the coastalgrizzly project. B.C. Ministry of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-3and B.C. Ministry of For•• Wildl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-ll, Victoria.14pp.

Hamilton, A.N., 1984. Progress report. Coastal grizzly research project,year 1. B.C. Ministry of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-1 and B.C.Ministry of For., Wildl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-9, Victoria. 43pp.

J

1984. Progress report. Coastal grizzlyMinistry of Environ., Wi1d1. Working Rep.For., Wi1dl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-IO,

Reaction of wildlife to human activity along MountPark Road. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks.

62

Hamilton, A.N., and W.R. Archibald.research project, year 2. B.C.No. WR-2 and B.C. Ministry ofVictoria. 27pp.

-~n-__.,.,...,-' and W.R. Archibald. In press. Grizzly bear habitat in thekimsquit river valley, coastal British Columbia; evaluation. In:Proceedi ngs, Gri zzly bear habitat symposium. 1985 April 30 - May2;Missoula, Montana.

Harding, L., and J.A. Nagy. 1980. Responses of grizzly bears to hydrocarbonexploration on Richards Island, N.W.T., Canada. Pages 227-280 inC.J. McArthur, and K.L. McArthur, eds. Bears - their biology anamanagement. Bear Bio1. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No.3.

Harestad, A.S. 1981. Computer analysis of home range data. B.C. Ministryof Environ., Fish and Wi1d1. Bull. No. B-ll. 25pp.

Tracey, D.M. 1977.McKinley National260pp.

Zager, P.E., and C.J. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in thenorthern Rocky Mountains. J. For. Aug: 524-527.

- -------- ----------

1

WR-1

Wildlife Working Reports should not be cited because of theprel iminary nature of the data they contain

Progress report - coastal grizzly research project: Year 1.Hamilton. First printed October 1984. revised October 1985.(A1so pri nted as WHR-9).

A.N.32pp.

WR-2 Progress report - year 2 - 1983. working pl an - year 3 - 1984.Coastal grizzly research project. A.N. Hamilton and W.R. Archibald.First printed October 1984. revised October 1985. 32pp. (Alsoprinted as WHR-10).

WR-3 Telemetry: Comments and suggestions from the coastal grizzly project1983. A.E. Derocher. October 1984. (Also printed as WHR-11).

WR-4 Habitat types of the Kimsquit River estuary. C. Cl ement. October1984. 27pp. (Also printed as WHR-12).

WR-5 Biogeocl imatic unitsdra i nage. C. Cl ement.13) •

and ecosystem associations of the KimsquitOctober 1984. 93pp. (Al so printed as WHR-

WR-6 Kechika Enhancement Project of northeastern B.C.: Wol f/ungul atemanagement. 1983-84 annual report. J.P. Elliott. October 1984.25pp.

WR-7 Muskwa Project working plan. J.P. Elliott. December 1984. 32pp.

WR-8 Muskwa Wol f Management Project of northeastern B.C. 1983~84 annualreport. J.P. Elliott. December 1984. 23pp.

WR-9 Kechika Enhancement Project of northeastern B.C. Revised working planfor 1984-87. J.P. Elliott. December 1984. 12pp.

WR-lO

WR-ll

WR-12

WR-13

WR-14

WR-15

Home on the range: how to cook an urban goos. W.T. Munro. ~~

Sterl ing. and M.D. Noble. February 1985. 19pp.

Effect of wolf control on black-tailed deer in the Nimpkish Valley onVancouver Island. Progress report - 1983 August 21 to 1984 August 31.K. Atkinson and D. Janz. March 1985. 22pp.

1983 southeastern Skeena regional moose abundance and compositionsurvey. B. van Drimmelen. June 1985. 47pp.

Kechika Enhancement Project of northeastern B.C.: wolf/ungulatemanagement. 1984-85 annual report. J.P. Ell iott. September 1985.28pp.

Muskwa Wol f Management Project of northeastern B.C. 1984-85 annualreport. J.P. Elliott. September 1985. 44pp.

Caribou habitat use on the Level Mountain and Horseranch ranges.British Columbia. M.A. Fenger. D.S. Eastman. C.J. Clement. and R.E.Page. In prep.

(Continued on bach cover)

---------~------------------------~--~~ ---

(Continued from inside bock cover)

WR-16

WR-17

Working plan .. coastal grizzly research project. W.R. Archibald andA.N. Hamilton. October 1985. 27pp. (f,lso printed as WHR-21).

Progress report - year 3 - 1984, working pl an - year 4 - 1985.Coastal grizzly research projact. W.R Archibald, A.N. Hamilton. andE. Lofroth. October 1985. 62pp. (Also printed as WHR-22).

Queen's Printer for British Columbia ©Victoria, 1985