South Selkirk grizzly bear habitat assessment and security enhancement project

Year 1 reporting period, April, 2009 – April 2010

Michael Proctor

FWCP Annual report

Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project

April 2010

1

Project Description This project is necessary to facilitate full recovery of the threatened South Selkirk (SS) grizzly

bear population unit. The bears in the SS Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) are at the southern edge of their North American distribution in this region (Fig. 1). Recent research has unveiled the conservation status of the S Selkirk grizzly bears (summarized below). This project plans to research, develop, and implement workable management plans to recover the SS population of bears to self-sustaining and potentially huntable status if warranted.

The SS bears have suffered isolation from their immediate neighbours that has resulted in a 15% loss of genetic diversity (Proctor et al. 2005). A recent population survey estimated the Canadian population at 58 animals (95% CI 50-70; Proctor et al. 2007) and the entire ecosystem, including the US, is estimated to be ~75 animals. Small isolated populations with fewer than 100 animals have a serious conservation risk (IUCN 2003). BC Ministry of Environment (MoE) considers this a threatened population and estimates that there are less than half the number of bears than the habitat could support (Hamilton et al. 2004). The US considers this a federally listed “threatened” population under their Endangered Species Act.

The isolation is a serious factor in the conservation status of this population and has been largely caused by human settlement patterns over the past decades (Proctor 2003). Human development along the corridor between Castlegar and Balfour (West Arm of Kootenay Lake) through Nelson has created a fracture, isolating the SS grizzly bears from those in the Central Selkirks immediately north of the Kootenay River (Fig 2). Hydroelectric development between Nelson and Castlegar and its associated development likely have contributed to this situation.

The cornerstones of grizzly bear recovery management -- mortality reduction, improved habitat security, and recovered inter-population connectivity -- should be applied to the SS grizzly bears. In fact, the Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project (TBGBP – authors of this proposal) was started to initiate research and implement these actions. Efforts to reduce human caused mortality in the core of the SS system and along its periphery are underway with cooperation between the TBGBP, BC Bear Aware, and the BC MoE. The project proposed here concentrates on providing adequate habitat security sufficient to reduce mortality risk, maximize reproductive capacity, and enhance inter-population connectivity.

Habitat Security We are approaching habitat security by using GPS radio telemetry on bears to understand habitat

use and quality across the ecosystem. We see a need to identify the areas of the highest quality grizzly bear habitat across the SS GBPU and translate this information into specific management plans that will provide for adequate habitat security for grizzly bears while providing for sufficient economic activity in the area, thereby optimizing the ability of humans and grizzly bears to prosper and coexist in this area. A portion of the SS ecosystem has experienced access management within the Darkwoods property and the new owners, the Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC), are interested in research that would inform their future land use planning in this regard.

Inter-population movement Given the isolated status of the SS grizzly bears, what is needed is an effort to identify specific

linkage habitat that can be translated into workable connectivity management plans designed to improve the survival of bears that move between adjacent areas. The TBGBP started work in the SS Mts. in 2005 doing a rigorous DNA-based population estimate (Proctor et al. 2007) and began a GPS radio telemetry effort in 2007-2008. Results from this preliminary work suggest that one of the better options for inter-population connectivity with a neighbouring area is across the Creston Valley that contains the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (CVWMA) owned and managed by BC Hydro.

2

The Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project has been doing just this type of work on habitat security and linkage across Hwy 3 in the South Purcell Mts. immediately to the east of the SS system since 2004. There we have identified areas of high quality grizzly bear habitat using validated data-derived predictive models, producing specific habitat polygons now being considered by several working groups for access management. TBGBP has also identified several linkage zones where special management is being initiated, including conservation land purchase. While this habitat and linkage research has already begun in the S Selkirks, it needs to continue with rigorous sample sizes to allow solid and informed management plans.

Implementation Experience around the world has taught us that recovering threatened grizzly bear populations is

possible and that it requires concerted, enhanced, sustained, and informed management. It is the intention of the TBGBP to carry out rigourous scientific research to inform, develop, and implement workable management plans with cooperation from the Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, BC MoE, BC Hydro, the NCC, Darkwoods Timber Co, other timber companies, hunters, recreationists, and the general public. Objectives

This is a multi-year project (5 years). Therefore we will present overall objectives and annual objectives.

The overall project objective is to research, develop, and implement workable management plans to complete the recovery process of the SS population grizzly bears to self-sustaining and potentially huntable status if warranted.

Specifically, the project objectives are to GPS radio collar 20-25 grizzly bears across the SS GBPU to identify habitat use, areas of high quality habitat (core) and linkage habitat with adjacent areas. These data will then be used to develop habitat models that can be applied across the ecosystem and partition the area into a spectrum of categories of habitat quality for grizzly bears. These models will then be the basis for developing land use management plans that would consider access management, recreational development, timber harvest, etc. optimized to higher quality grizzly bear habitat and human use requirements.

Another objective is to use these habitat models to identify linkage habitat with adjacent areas that will allow the development and implementation of linkage management plans.

Year 1, field work completed The objective for year 1 (2009) was to radio collar 4-6 grizzly bears in the S Selkirk Mts. and we

collared 7 (6 females and 1 male) (to add to our 7 bears we have radio collared in the Selkirks currently in the eastern area), monitor these bears, and remotely download the data periodically. In year 1 we concentrated in the northeast/central portion of the ecosystem (Apex Cr, Clearwater, Wildhorse Cr. Upper Seaman Cr.).

Years 2 and 3 will be similar to Year 1. The objective will be to improve spatial representation of GPS telemetry data across the

ecosystem by collaring 6-7 bears in the north and south central area in Year 2 and 4-6 bears in the south and western portion in Year 3. Another objective for Year 2 is to complete habitat modeling in the eastern portion of the ecosystem and use the results to develop a linkage management plan for the S Selkirk – S Purcell linkage area across the Creston Valley. Our radio collaring effort is further along in this area – 7 collared bears prior to 2009 and a few of the 7 2009 bears that will use habitat in the eastern

3

portion of the system - in the SS adjacent to the Creston Valley plus the data from 8 bears immediately east of the Creston Valley collected as part of our S Purcell work.

Years 4 & 5 The objectives for years 4 and 5 will be to carry out the habitat use analysis of the entire SS

GBPU, develop resulting management plans and begin the process of integrating them into receptive agencies, NCC, communities, and private companies. Specifically we will carry out the analysis that will yield the fine-scale habitat mapping, translation of these models into management plans for the GBPU. These management plans will include optional access management plans that will be the basis of a community wide discussion (including BC MoE, MoF, NCC, timber companies, hunters, recreationists, and the TBGBP). A partnership with the NCC will be one vehicle to bring our results to the larger community. Linkage plans will also be developed for Highways 3, 3A and 6 and will be available to inform land use decisions that may affect grizzly bear’s ability to cross these human corridors. DESCRIPTION OF WORK - METHODS

Radio collaring Radio collaring grizzly bears entails live capture and fitting of radio collars, and is described at

the end of this section (includes a section on safe and humane handling methods). We plan to radio collar bears of both sexes with good spatial representation across the area. We are striving for good spatial representation of radio collared bears across the SS area. We have collared 14 bears in the SS over the past 2 years (7 prior to this funding cycle, and 7 Year 1 of this project in 2009). In Year 2 we will be using a helicopter to access high quality trapping location in the northernmost portion of the ecosystem. This are is otherwise inaccessible for bear trapping by road.

Radio collars take locations from satellites every hour (or 2 hrs) during the non-denning season and typically remain on the bear for 2 seasons. Collars have an automatic drop-off mechanism and a cotton “rot-off” as a back up to ensure removal from the bear. We remotely upload the data from an aircraft at least twice a season and retrieve the collar after it comes off the bear. Other flights during the year are for determining collar locations after falling off bears, den locations in winter, and cub production in spring.

Capture protocol and standards of care for live capture We will be capturing wild grizzly bears to fit with radio collars. Capture is by the commonly

used Aldridge foot snare at baited sites. This method of capture has been safely used for over 30 years. Bears are anesthetized with the drug combination Telazol and Xylazine a common anaesthetic used to immobilize grizzly bears. During the procedure we fit and put on a radio collar, take a DNA sample (hand pulled hair from the torso), put on ear tags, pull a tooth for ageing, weigh, and measure the animal for various characteristics. Non-target animals (black bears) must be immobilized to be released. These handling procedures follow the protocols established in: 'A Manual for handling Bears for Managers and Researchers', J.J. Jonkel, 1993; 'Handbook for Wildlife Chemical Immobilization', T.J. Kreeger, 1997. These procedures were also scrutinized by the University of Alberta and required to meet the standards of the Canada Council on Animal Care Standards. I have had a provincial permit to live capture bears in the region since 2004. I was trained over a period of 4 years by an individual with over 25 years experience in trapping grizzly bears, and attend an annual refresher workshop on bear capture and handling led by a USFWS veterinarian.

Suitably safe capture sites are pre-chosen based on safety to the bears and humans. Safe sites have good visibility for approach, are situated alone to eliminate snared bears from getting tangled with

4

other vegetation, and require adequate shade to keep animals cool. A team of 2 people checks traps daily, first thing in the morning. On hot days we will check some traps 2 or more times per day to minimize potential heat exposure.

A weight estimate guides the drug dose which is administered intramuscularly by a dart gun (Pneu-Dart system) at a distance of 10-30m. Pneu-Dart rifles allow very precise dart velocity control and all side-port darts are shot with a minimum of power to reduce injection site injury. A loaded shotgun remains within arm’s reach during handling.

The bear’s level of anaesthesia is constantly monitored. During handling the snare is moved to a different foot and the bear is placed sternal, slightly downhill, with their arms pulled beside their head to ensure comfortable breathing. We give a physical exam to look for injuries, monitor their temperature constantly, apply non-steriod eye-lubricating ointment and close and cover the eyes, apply bottled oxygen through the nose, and attach a pulse-oxymeter to the tongue that measures heart rate and the amount of dissolved oxygen in the blood. We also monitor the position of the eyes every 5 minutes or when other physiological signs suggest a change in the level of anaesthesia is occurring. We periodically check for capillary refill time to assess the circulator system function. We also keep thermal insulation and water available in case warmth or cooling is required during handling. We weigh the bear using a weighing blanket to minimize any internal body stress during lifting.

Habitat modeling Our primary goal is to use our GPS data to predict areas of high quality grizzly bear habitat,

“core areas” and areas where high quality habitat bridges core areas through human environments, “linkage areas”. Our resulting habitat maps will allow us to partition habitat into a spectrum of categories to be paired with appropriate management. For instance, areas of high quality core habitat might be candidates for access management consideration, while linkage habitat might be a candidate for conservation land purchase if appropriate. Other habitat quality categories may be appropriate for recreation development which our mapping products can inform so as to not compromise areas of high habitat values. These products will be taken to a group of stakeholders (timber industry, hunters, recreationists, potential developers, and government) to begin a community-wide discussion on optimal areas for special management.

To categorize grizzly bear habitat, we developed Resource Selection Function (RSF) models (Boyce and McDonald 1999; Manly et al. 2002; Nielsen, et al. 2002) from our GPS telemetry data. When data accumulates, we will develop season- and sex-specific models. For now, we have pooled our 7 bear’s location data. Bears are known to select habitat at multiple scales (Mace et al.1996, Apps et al. 2004, Proctor et al.2008) and we will therefore carry out a hierarchical analysis. We will start at the scale of home range selection to determine what attributes bears are selecting for their home ranges. Next, we will explore the composite home ranges of the collared bears, and test how bears select habitat at this medium scale (what we have done for this preliminary analysis). Finally we will look at habitat selection within the individual home ranges of each bear. We combine the predictions of habitat quality into a composite model used to detail a set of categorized habitat quality polygons where, appropriate management can be considered.

We intend to work with stakeholders on developing workable management plans where appropriate and feasible. For instance, NCC is interested in these results for their land use planning as they consider a range of ecological values (i.e. multiple species and ecosystem-based management), and as a consideration for their access management plans. With the partnership of the NCC, we also will attempt to bring together a broad consortium of stakeholders in the S Selkirk system to discuss the possibility of using the habitat data for land use decisions. Our strategy in the S Purcell Mts. was to begin a dialog with stakeholders groups throughout the years of our data collection, building trust and a

5

sense of common purpose that became a bridge to consideration and realization of improved on-the-ground management actions.

RSF modeling details RSF models involve spatially-explicit multiple logistic regression predictions applied in a GIS

environment (Manly et al. 2002; Nielsen et al. 2002). They associate grizzly bear habitat use, as determined through GPS radio-telemetry locations, with ecological, terrain, forest cover, and human-use variables (Table 1), and predict grizzly bear habitat use across the whole study area (Nielsen et al. 2002). Variable data was obtained from a variety of sources, including BC government TRIM (Terrain Resource Information Management), BTM (Baseline Thematic Mapping), and VRI (Vegetation Resource Inventory data) layers. The highway and human occurrence points (developments) layers were digitized from 1:50k topographic maps and ortho photos, greenness was derived from Landsat imagery using a TassleCap transformation (Crist and Ciccone 1984), and slope, solar radiation, and terrain ruggedness were derived from a digital elevation model. Data was modeled at the 100m x 100m pixel size.

Alpine, avalanche, burn and riparian habitats have been demonstrated to be important habitat types that attract grizzly bears because they contain a variety of food resources (Mace et al. 1996; McLellan and Hovey 1995; McLellan and Hovey 2001). Greenness, an index of leafy green productivity, likely correlates with a diverse set of bear food resources and is often found to be a good predictor of grizzly bear habitat use (Mace et al. 1996, Nielsen et al. 2002). Forest cover variables have been found to influence habitat selection (Apps et al. 2004). Ecological variables such as curvature index which identifies wet areas, terrain ruggedness which measures topographic complexity, and solar radiation, an index to vegetative productivity, all have the potential to influence habitat selection. Human-use variables have been repeatedly demonstrated to influence habitat selection (Mace et al 1996, 1999; Nielsen et al. 2002; Apps et al. 2004).

When our data set is complete, we will also explore road avoidance within the S Selkirk system, if our data allows. Darkwoods has had partial access management (and no hunting) across most of its land-base and this policy may be continued for the duration of our research by NCC. We may be able to carry out a comparison of habitat selection across different management strategies.

Model validation will be done by using 80% of the location data to develop models with the remaining 20% used to validate models (Hosmer and Lemshaw 1989; Boyce et al. 2002; Nielsen et al. 2002). RSF scores for each dataset (80% and 20%) are ranked, binned into 10 categories, and tested for their predictive abilities. We further tested for model predictability by scoring models for classification accuracy. Classification accuracy represents the proportion of correctly classified bear locations that have RSF scores higher than an optimized cut point. The cut point is the optimization of sensitivity and specificity curves (Hosmer and Lemshaw 1989) and loosely represents RSF scores above which the model predicts bear occurrence.

In all of our models we compare grizzly bear telemetry locations (Use) to an equal number of random locations (Availability) derived from the appropriate areas for each scale. Model development followed protocols in Hosmer and Lemshaw (1989). First, all variables are tested for pairwise correlations and variables with a correlation index >0.7 are excluded from use within the same model. Second, all variables are run in a uni-variate logistic regression and ranked for their significance and explanatory power (R2). Then models are built by adding variables in a step-wise fashion starting with the most influential variables (higher to lower R2). Models are compared sequentially after each variable addition; variable significance, explanatory power (R2), and likelihood are used to compare models and decide if a variable improves model predictability. Best models are the most parsimonious

6

(fewest variables) providing the optimal predictability. Logistic regression modeling is done within the statistical software package STATA (Intercooled 9.2, College Station, Texas).

It should be noted that the variables we use are not necessarily primary functional factors that drive grizzly bear habitat use, but are likely correlates to those variables. Grizzly bears likely respond to seasonal food supplies, social requirements, security needs, and human influence, however, we do not have map products that directly depict all of these across regions. Therefore we use the multi-variate analyses with a variety of habitat and human-influence variables to model where bears are likely to occur. The input variables we use for modeling are very similar to other efforts of this type (Mace et al. 1996; Nielsen et al. 2002; Apps et al. 2004). Table 1. Predictor variables used in Resource Selection Function modeling. Variables Variables Land cover Ecological Alpine Elevation Avalanche Curvature Index (wet areas) Barren Terrain ruggedness Burn Greenness Riparian Slope Forest cover Solar radiation Forest age Human % crown closure Human developments Old forest Highway Young forest Roads Recently logged Parks Cedar – Hemlock Spruce - Sub alpine fir Douglas Fir Lodgepole pine White pine Deciduous

RESULTS FOR YEAR 1

The proposed deliverables for our first year were to deploy GPS radio collars on 4-6 bears in the S Selkirk ecosystem. We put out 7 radio collars during the summer field season (1 male and 6 females). We trapped the road system to the east of Hwy 6, between Ymir and Nelson. We captured and radio collared 1 bear in Apex Cr, 4 bears in upper Wildhorse Cr (Ymir), 1 bear in upper Seaman Cr, and 1 management bear in Salmo (that is currently living west of Hwy 6). This brings our total number of radio collared bears in the SS to 13 grizzlies (4 males, 9 females). Our radio collars are designed to stay on for either 2 or 3 seasons. In the fall we retrieved several collars that came off bears collared in previous years. One collar we put on an adult male this June has come of the bear. This large male’s neck was 3 inches larger than his head, so keeping a collar on this particular bear was challenging. However, this bear was collared for 4-6 weeks and made some very interesting movements in the short time he was monitored. After being collared he moved relatively directly for the Creston dump. This is the second collared bear we have found to visit the Creston dump, which is supposed to be bear-proof. With the Creston Conservation Officers we used the data from both these bears to stimulate Creston and Regional District officials to electrifying their waste facility. The new electric fence will be up and

7

running by May 2010. This will help with long-term connectivity between the S Selkirk and Purcell Mts, as likely fewer bears will be attracted out into the human settled portions of the Creston Valley (near the dump) where mortality risk is elevated.

We also provided the NCC with a progress report including a comprehensive overview of our cumulative research to date (Figure 1) and a set of recommendations (to the limit of our current data) to contribute to their upcoming management/stewardship plan relative to access, timber harvest, and hunting policy concerning their new ownership of the Darkwoods property (APPENDIX I). Grizzly bear management is one of the focal species used by the NCC to shape their short and long-term land use management plans. Beyond management of the Darkwoods property, the NCC has committed to playing a role in the enhancement of intermountain connectivity between the SS and the S Purcell Mts. through the Duck Lake area. During our field season we took the NCC officials (Dave Hillary and others) on a field trip throughout the Creston Valley and discussed the importance of the Duck Lake area to the regional connectivity of threatened grizzly bear populations. The NCC has now made connectivity to the SS a high priority for strategic land purchases. On another front, the Minister of Environment is considering the creation of a small (450 km2) provincial park upland and east of Duck Lake focusing on several amphibians, the threatened Townsends bat, and grizzly bear connectivity. We provided an overview of the results and implications of our research to date (1998 – to present). This proposed park is centered within our highest priority identified Linkage Zone in the Duck Lake area (Fig. 1).and as such would be a welcome addition to providing protection for what could prove to be an important area that helps expand the biological continuity created by the Creston Wildlife Management Area, east-west across the Creston Valley.

In summary, we accomplished all our stated goals for the year so far. We have also planned and scouted our 2010 trapping season. We are planning to use a helicopter for 10 days of trapping in the northern sections of the SS where the grizzly bear habitat is very good and the road access is nonexistent. We anticipate that this effort will pay off by bringing us to some very good habitat where we will be able to capture otherwise inaccessible bears for radio collaring. We are also planning to trap from a vehicle in several roaded drainages in the Salmo area.

Preliminary habitat modeling We have data from 7 grizzly bears to date, (collars are still out on several bears from 2009 trapping). We have used this data for 2 preliminary analyses. First we have run preliminary Resource Selection Function (RSF, Manley et al 2002) models for the S Selkirk area that has been covered by telemetry data. Second, we have combined our Selkirk telemetry data with that from the Purcell Mts. and run some region-wide RSF models to identify linkage habitat between the Mt. ranges. Because these models are preliminary, we have not put them through extensive validation procedures. However, here we describe the habitat modeling process. Our expanded telemetry data base and associated RSF habitat modeling is also being used to identify core and linkage habitat in NW Montana and N Idaho for the purposes of a similar strategic linkage land purchase program across US Hwy 2, 95, and 200. The success of our Canadian work has stimulated the US Fish & Wildlife Service to request we apply our method for them in the US. This expanded effort will be a benefit to regional wildlife populations that will have positive implication on the S Selkirk grizzly bear.

8

Table 2. Local S Selkirk multi-variate model results, + signs indicate habitat selection, - indicates avoidance. Solar radiation + Alpine + Avalanche + Greenness + Wet areas + Backcountry roads - Regional Selkirk/Purcell multi-variate model result, + signs indicate habitat selection, - indicates avoidance. Greenness + Ruggedness + Alpine + Spruce Sub-alpine forests + Highways -

9

Figure. 1 a) Core grizzly bear habitat (green area) in the South Selkirk Natural Area as identified using the 2005 grizzly bear DNA survey results and probability of occurrence modeling (Proctor et al. 2007) in relation to the Nature Conservancy property and protected areas and b) core grizzly habitat with independently collected GPS telemetry locations (preliminary data, more to come). Also note the plethora of grizzly bear activity in the Duck Lake area. a b

10

Figure 2a) Preliminary Resource Selection Function (fine scale habitat) map of the South Selkirk Mt region. Green shading depicts areas of higher quality grizzly bear habitat. b) RSF map with grizzly bear GPS locations that were used to develop the RSF model.

a b

11

Figure 3a. Preliminary Linkage Zone predictions in the Creston Valley area. Red shading depicts fractured areas. Green is better grizzly bear habitat. Note the area near Duck Lake as the narrowest fracture area between the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. b) LZ predictions with GPS telemetry paths for 3 grizzly bears (2M, 1F) who have used the Duck Lake LZ. a b Measures of success will be incremental and sequential.

The first 3 years’ successes will be measured in the number of radio collared bears (4-6/yr) we have with the intended spatial representation. In Year 1 we collared 6 research bears in the SS and 1 management bear (Salmo area) that is fitted with a GPS collar

Second will be the development of rigorous RSF models that are validated and predictive of grizzly bear habitat values. The first model will be using bears in the SS areas integrated with the 15 bears we have GPS radio collar data for in the adjacent S Purcell Mts. These data will be combined in a predictive model to identify linkage habitat in the Creston Valley in year 2.

Third will be the successful translation of these models into a linkage / core habitat management plan across the Creston Valley linking the S Purcell and S Selkirk Mts.

Fourth will be the ecosystem-wide habitat models used to predict core and linkage habitat within the S Selkirk system. Here linkage habitat will be across Hwys 6 and 3 and core habitat will likely be in

12

the backcountry. Core habitat will be used to identify the higher quality grizzly bear habitat for potential special management such as access management.

The ultimate measure of success will be the successful integration of our data into management plans that become real working documents guiding land use decisions and on-the-ground activities. The NCC, the new owners of the Darkwoods property, is poised to be a partner in this effort, supportive of using scientific research to apply management to their property, as well as the entire ecosystem. They will partner with us in bringing the many stakeholders to the table to use a well documented and researched system to look for workable land use patterns that will foster grizzly bear recovery and persistence across this ecosystem.

The ultimate evaluation of our success will be in the long-term improvement of the conservation status of this population unit. Outside of this proposal, we are planning another DNA-survey population estimate for the South Selkirk ecosystem, in conjunction with the BC MoE, sometime in the next decade. This survey will provide valuable population level monitoring and feedback and contribute to our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of any management action resulting for our efforts.

Grizzly bear research, by definition, is a multiple year endeavor. This project is proposed to extend for 5 years: 3 years of radio collaring, 1 year of analysis, management plan development, and scientific manuscript writing, and 1 year of implementation efforts. In reality we will be working on implementation during the entire project by sharing data as it accumulates and initiating discussions with and integrating suggestions from relevant stakeholders. The TBGBP is committed to working in the international arena across the Canada-US border on the S Selkirk and S Purcell grizzly bear populations until they are well on the road to recovery, and our recommendations are integrated into the fabric of society.

Public Participation/Partners The trans-border Grizzly Bear project is a cooperative effort that includes Canadian biologist Dr.

Michael Proctor – the author of this proposal and lead biologist in the Canadian portion of the effort. Other partners are Dr. Chris Servheen, grizzly bear Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish & Wildlife Service who is responsible for grizzly bear recovery in the entire conterminous USA, Wayne Kasworm, USFWS lead recovery biologist for the US Cabinet/Yaak ecosystem, and Wayne Wakkinen from Idaho Fish & Game, grizzly bear biologist responsible for the S Selkirk ecosystem in the US. This international partnership began in 2004 and has extended what was a US effort for recovery of these threatened trans-border populations into Canada. The prognosis for success has constantly increased as we are now working towards conservation solutions across entire threatened ecosystems within both countries.

M. Proctor’s salary, expenses, and research budget comes from a consortium of organizations including.:

BC Habitat Conservation Trust Fund – Canadian ongoing $ Wilberforce Foundation – US-based ongoing $ Tembec Enterprises – Canadian ongoing $

Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation on going $ Alberta Ingenuity Post Doctoral Fellowship – Canadian concluded $ National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – US based ongoing $ Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative – Canadian ongoing $ BC Parks – Canadian concluded $ Parks Canada – Canadian ongoing (in kind trapping assistance)

13

BC MoE / MoF – in kind assistance, bait storage, use of quads Nature Conservancy Canada – beginning $ - in kind cooperative implementation work Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area – in kind assistance, facilities use BC Bear Aware – the TBGBP fund raises for a grizzly Bear Aware specialist annually We anticipate that many of the above mentioned organizations will also be involved in our

management plan and implementation phases. Playing a significant role in implementation will be the Nature Conservancy Canada. We have agreements to fully cooperate in data sharing, management plan development, and in the challenging task of integrating all stakeholders in the S Selkirk ecosystem. Their intention is to invest significant resources into this effort.

Grizzly bear research is inherently dangerous (for obvious reasons) and therefore only trained individuals take part in bear capture and radio collaring. We also realize that grizzly bear management involves the active participation of a broad range of stakeholders and we include them throughout our work where feasible (and safe to do so). Radio collar retrieval is an activity that lends itself well to the assistance of community volunteers. This is an excellent way to build bridges between various stakeholders. We regularly bring a variety of people on these outings. Otherwise we have an ongoing program to meet with stakeholders annually to share results, concerns, and ideas. Furthermore, I give annual talks in many of the communities in the area. In many cases our results are translated into management action in a timely manner before projects are officially complete and reports are written. Budget Full project budget accounting.

PROJECT BUDGET YEAR 1

Expenditures Total $'s

Contracted Services (e.g. consultant) 79,608

Materials (list) 1 Telonics GPS radio collars 4@ 3750 24800

2 Trapping materials 4148

3

4

5

Equipment Rental aircraft, equipment 0

Travel 21054

Other (list)

Office expenses, DNA lab costs, Ins

10738

TOTAL (A) $140,348

Other (Non FWCP) Cash Contributions Total $'s

Organizations / Individuals

1 Yellowstone to Yukon

22,000

2 Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation 22,000

3 National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 32,000

14

4 Nature Conservancy Canada 10,000

5 Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation 22000

6

US Fish & Wildlife Service 3000

TOTAL (B) $111,000

Funding Recieved from the FWCP

Total $'s

TOTAL (C) (A - B) $29,260

Applicants and/or Partners Contributions in Kind

Volunteer Labour Hours Rate Total $'s

Parks Canada Warden trapping 240 25 6000

Collar retrieval 80 20 1600

Donated equipment (min wage)

Other (specify) 1 (Prevailing rate)

1 Trapping trailers - USFWS 2000

2 Camping trailer fees - CVWMA 2000

3

4 Scanning telemetry reciever - USFWS 1000

5 Telemetry flights - USFWS 10000

TOTAL IN KIND (D) $22,600

Literature Cited Apps, C., B. McLellan, R. Serrouya, and G. Pavan. 2008. Evaluating and refining grizzly bear habitat management guidelines

specific to forested buffer. Elk/Flathead study area. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Revelstoke, BC. Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, J.G. Woods, and M. Proctor. 2004. Distribution of a grizzly bear population relative to habitat

and human influence in southeastern British Columbia. 2001. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:138-152. Boulanger, J. 2005. Demography of Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bears: 1999-2003. In, Foothills Model Forest grizzly

bear research program, 1999-2003 final report. Eds. G. Stenhouse, and K. Graham. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton Alberta.

Boyce, M.S. and L.L. McDonald. 1999. Relating populations to habitat using resource selection functions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 14:268-272

Boyce, M.S., P.B. Vernier, S.N. Nielsen, F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 157:281-300.

Crist, E.P. and R.C. Ciccone. 1984. Application of the tasseled cap concept to simulate thematic mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50: 343-352.

15

Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard, and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Population estimate 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, B.C.

Hosmer, D.W., Jr. and S. Lemshaw. 1989. Applied Logisitic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels. Version 3.0. IUCN Species

Survival Commission. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in

Western Montana. Conservation Biology 13:367-377. Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat

use in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404. Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas. T.L. McDonald, and W.P. Erickson. 2002. Resource Selection by Animals.

Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston. 221 pp. McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior,

habitat use, and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:451-46 McLellan, B.N. and F. Hovey. 1995. The diet of grizzly bears in the Flathead drainage of southeastern British Columbia.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:704-712. McLellan, B.N. and F. W. Hovey. 2001. Habitats selected by grizzly bears in multiple use landscapes. Journal of Wildlife

Management 65:92-99. Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse, and R.H.M. Munro. 2002. Modeling grizzly bear habitats in the Yellowhead

ecosystem of Alberta: taking autocorrelation seriously. Ursus 13:45-56. Proctor, M.F. 2003. Genetic analysis of movement, dispersal, and population fragmentation of grizzly bears in southwestern

Canada. PhD Thesis. University of Calgary. 154 pp. Proctor, M., B.N. McLellan, C. Strobeck, and R. Barclay. 2005. Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of

grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London. 272:2409-2416. Proctor, M., J. Boulanger, S. Nielson, W. Kasworm, C. Servheen, T. Radandt, And D Paetkau. 2007 Abundance and density

of Central Purcell, South Purcell and Yahk Grizzly Bear Population Units in southeast British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment. Nelson BC.

Proctor, M., C. Servheen, W. Kasworm, and T. Radandt. 2008. Habitat security for grizzly bears in the Yahk Grizzly Bear Population Unit of the south Purcell Mts. of southeast British Columbia. Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project report. Tembec Enterprises. Cranbrook BC.

Michael Proctor The Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project.

16