South Selkirk grizzly bear habitat assessment and
security enhancement project
Year 2 reporting period, April, 2010 – April 2011
Michael Proctor
FWCP Annual report
Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project
April 2011
1
Project Location
The project area consists of the South Selkirk Grizzly Bear Population Unit, bordered by the west arm of
Kootenay Lake (KL) and Highway 3A in the north, the south arm of KL and the Creston Valley to the
east, Castlegar BC to the west, and the US border in the south.
Figure 1. a) South Selkirk Grizzly Bear Population Unit in context of remnant peninsular grizzly bear
distribution (shaded area) and b) South Selkirk GBPU (our study area) on a 1:250,000 topographic map.
a
b
Project Description and Rationale
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 selfsustaining 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 approximately 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
2
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
important 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 interpopulation 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.
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.
3
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, 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.).
Year 2 , the subject of this report
The objective was to improve spatial representation of GPS telemetry data across the ecosystem
by collaring 6-7 bears in the north and south central area. We collared 6 grizzly bears this season. We
also collected data from these 2010 bears and those collared in previous years that still carried their
collars during the 2010 season. We also have collected all collars that have come off bears in this past
season. See cumulative telemetry data set Figure 2.
Another objective for this year was to use our cumulative telemetry dataset to complete habitat
modeling designed to develop a linkage management plan for the S Selkirk – S Purcell linkage area
across the Creston Valley. Including the bears we collared in 2010, and the data collected already from
those bears, we have a cumulative dataset that includes 28 bears, 14 from the South Purcells and 14 from
the S Selkirks. We used this data set to finalize our linkage modeling designed to identify linkage zones
that span the Creston Valley linking the Purcell and Selkirk ranges.
This effort is being documented in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. The first draft of this
publication is completed and co-authors are currently reviewed and editing (see Figure excerpts in
Appendix I). It will be ready for submission in the next few months. These results and information have
also been incorporated into our regional Linkage Management Plan that also included previous similar
work across Hwy 3 in the Purcell Mts (Proctor et al. 2011). We have also begun the implementation of
these linkage management options designed to enhance inter mountain movement of grizzly bears.
Year 3
Or objectives for year 3 are to radio collar 4-6 bears in the south and western portion of the S
Selkirk ecosystem. These new data will inform our habtat security objectives. We will also continue to
implement management to realize our linkage enhancement goals.
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
4
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
There are 4 basic activities comprising this project: radio collaring and data collection, GPS
habitat modeling with the resulting location data, management plan development, and implementation of
those plans.
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 have collared 18 bears in
the SS over the past 3 years.
Radio collars take locations from satellites every hour (or 2 hrs) during the non-denning season
and typically remain on the bear for 2-3 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.
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 will develop Resource Selection Function (RSF) models
(Boyce and McDonald 1999; Manly et al. 2002; Nielsen, et al. 2002) from our radio telemetry data. We
will develop season- and sex-specific models. 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. 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
5
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. (which
worked well) was to begin a dialog with stakeholders groups throughout the years of our data collection,
building trust and a 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 will be 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 are
digitized from 1:50k topographic maps and ortho photos, greenness is derived from Landsat imagery
using a TassleCap transformation (Crist and Ciccone 1984), and slope, solar radiation, and terrain
ruggedness are derived from a digital elevation model. Data will be 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).
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 using our cumulative dataset, including data from the
Purcell Mts.
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
6
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
(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).
The two goals of our modeling effort are to predict habitat use for linkage management (see
below) and potential access management. To do this, we eliminate the influence of roads in our
predictive models to better allow the identification of currently roaded habitats that might otherwise be
good grizzly bear habitat.
Linkage management plans
The products from RSF modeling will be used to identify core grizzly bear areas (areas of high
quality habitat), and linkage habitat (areas where reasonable habitat bridges core areas across human
environments). These products will be used the same way they were used in our work in the S Purcells.
After identifying linkage habitat, we did a landownership analysis and identified properties that might
benefit from direct purchase. Through a partnership with Harvey Locke of Y2Y we raised the funds and
to date have purchased or made agreements to purchase ~ $1 million worth of property for linkage
management. We also have integrated special management within these linkage zones with Tembec
Enterprises, the local timber company, using our management recommendations for linkage
enhancement. Our ultimate goal is to work research-directed grizzly-bear-friendly management into the
everyday way we live and work in these ecosystems.
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
other vegetation, and require adequate shade to keep animals cool. A team of 2 people checks traps
7
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.
Measures of success
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. Our first two years of radio collaring have been
completed successfully. In Year 1 we collared 6 research bears in the SS and 1 management bear
(Salmo area) that is fitted with a GPS collar. In year 2 we radio collared 6 grizzly bears. See cumulative
regional telemetry dataset Figure 2.
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 were combined in a
predictive habitat model to identify linkage habitat in the Creston Valley in year 2. This measure has
been completed successfully.
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. This goal has also been
completed (Proctor e al. 2011). Also the linkage analysis is being prepared for publication in a peer
reviewed scientific publication (see Figure excerpts in Appendix I). Our first draft is complete and
submission will occur within a few months. In fact our local success has inspired the US Fish and
Wildlife Service to requested that our project extend out analysis into the US to predict linkage across
several fragmenting highways, including US Hwys 2, 200, and 95 in northern Montana and Idaho. Our
linkage paper will include these areas, making this effort a truly regional in scope.
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 (successfully identified) and
core habitat will likely be in 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
8
researched system to look for workable land use patterns that will foster grizzly bear recovery and
persistence across this ecosystem. We have provided our linkage results to the NCC and they are
working to protect linkage habitat across the Creston Valley already.
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.
Figure 2. Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project cumulative GPS telemetry dataset set overlaying the DNA
survey derived core grizzly habitat for the South Selkirk GBPU.
Future work
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.
9
Future years’ budget and activities will be as follows:
Very detailed budgets for Years 1, 2, and 3 are available if required.
Year 2 - $30,000 – SEE ATTACHED BUDGET, activities very similar to year 1 with the addition of
linkage modeling in the eastern portion of the ecosystem – integrated with adjacent S Purcell models
that are already complete.
Year 3 - $30,000 – activities very similar to years 1 & 2
Year 4 - $30,000 – activities shift to analysis, GIS-based habitat modeling and management plan
development. Collars will still be coming off and field work will be at a lower level than previous years.
Year 5 - $30,000 – activities shift to implementation of management plans including integration with
stakeholders in the South Selkirk ecosystem, including NCC, BC MoE, BC MoF, local timber
companies, hunter groups, communities, and recreationists. For instance, we have agreements with NCC
to help integrate all stakeholders in this process and plan to work closely with their multi-species
ecosystem level effort to regional management. Other activities include fundraising for linkage property
purchase where appropriate. This year will also see increased effort put into outreach, including public
talks, and meetings with interested organizations. All funds for M. Proctor have not been secured for this
year, so part of the FWCP budget will go towards M. Proctor’s time in coordinating these activities.
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)
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
10
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.
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.
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.
11
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.
Proctor, M., S. Nielsen, W. Kasworm, C. Servheen and T. Radandt. 2011. Identification of linkage habitat using Resource
Selection Function modeling across 5 highway systems in the fragmented grizzly bear populations of the South
Selkirk, Purcell, and Cabinet Mountains of British Columbia, Montana and Idaho. In prep.
12
Budget This budget is for the Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project total income and expenses for the past
year.
PROJECT BUDGET
YEAR 2
Expenditures
Total $'s
Contracted Services (e.g. consultant)
Materials (list)
1
101,862
Telonics GPS radio collars 4@ 3750
7949
2 Supplies
7454
3 Vehicle
Equipment Rental
13100.34
aircraft, equipment
0
Travel
2274
Other (list)
Office expenses, DNA
lab costs, Ins
4756.34
TOTAL (A)
Other (Non FWCP) Cash Contributions
$137,396
Total $'s
Organizations / Individuals
1
Yellowstone to Yukon
0
2
Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation
22,000
3
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
30,000
4
Nature Conservancy Canada
10,000
5
Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation
6
US Fish & Wildlife Service
44000
0
TOTAL (B)
$106,000
Funding Recieved from the FWCP
Total $'s
TOTAL (C) (A - B)
$30,000
Applicants and/or Partners Contributions in Kind
Volunteer Labour
Hours
Parks Canada Warden trapping
Collar retrieval
Rate
Total $'s
240
25
6000
80
20
1600
Donated equipment
Other (specify)
collars (3)
(min wage)
radio
(Prevailing
rate)
6000
1 Trapping trailers - USFWS
2000
2 Camping trailer fees - CVWMA
2000
3
4 Scanning telemetry receiver - USFWS
5 Telemetry flights - USFWS
10000
TOTAL IN KIND (D)
13
500
$22,100
Appendix I. Excerpts of Figures from a soon to be submitted peer reviewed science publication of the
Linkage analysis completed this past winter.
Figure 3a) Trans-border regional grizzly bear distribution with occupied subpopulations as adapted from
Proctor et al. 2011, including the Bitteroot Recovery Zone. Numbers represent data based population
estimates for each subpopulation and b) close up of the focal study area around Highways 3, 3A, 2, 95,
and 200
a
b
14
Figure 4. GPS telemetry locations from 28 grizzly bears in the trans-border region of the Canada and the
US in southern British Columbia, northwest Montana, and northern Idaho. The green polygon, the transborder area, was where the model was developed The blue area, the Cabinets, and the red area, the US
Selkirks were extrapolation areas where the model was validated.
15
Figure 4. Resource Selection Function model applied over or entire study area. Green areas reflect RSF
scores above the cut point, 0.67, where the model predicts grizzly bear occurrence. Model development
area. Regional scale predictive variables were greenness (an index to leafy green deciduous vegetation),
canopy cover (open areas were selected for), alpine areas, riparian areas and elevation.
16
Figure 5. Green ovals indicate areas where 3 criteria, low settlement, high valley RSF scores and High
backcountry RSF scores overlap, combined to be a predictor of linkage habitat across highway corridors.
The 2 Highway (1 and 3) linkage validation ovals are where we compared our linkage predictions to indedpendent
prodcitions made by local researchers using local bear data. Our predictions matched very closely.
17