Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project

Note: The full text of this paper is displayed below. You also have the option of downloading a PDF version.

EASTERN SLOPES GRIZZLY BEAR PROJECT: A progress report for 1997

Prepared for the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Steering Committee

This paper contains preliminary results of an on-going study and should not be cited without permission from the authors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Project Background

Project Origins

Project Organization and Budget

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

STUDY AREA

METHODS

RESULTS

Population Studies

Capture

Telemetry Data Set

Population Demographics

Population Estimate

Critique

LITERATURE CITED

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Grizzly bear capture data in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997

Table 2. Grizzly bear trapping success in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997.

Table 3. Status of all grizzly bears captured in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, as of December 1997.

Table 4. Unduplicated grizzly bear females with cubs of the year in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

Table 5. Reproductive status of known female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997.

Table 6. Summary of grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

Table 7. Summary of grizzly bear translocations in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

INTRODUCTION

Project Background

Several hundred years ago grizzly bears lived throughout much of what is now the province of Alberta. Today a historically estimated population of approximately 6000 individuals (Herrero unpublished data), has decreased to an estimated 600 grizzly bears on provincial land and another 200 within federal national parks (Nagy and Gunson 1990). Grizzly bears have declined in Alberta because of mortality in excess of recruitment and because people have occupied and developed land which once supported the bears and less industrialized people.

Grizzly bears are recognized in Alberta as one of the principle species that indicates wilderness --large scale landscapes in a relatively natural state, the raw material out of which our culture was, and is still being created. Now, however, the last remaining unprotected wildland areas in Alberta are being modified by industrial and recreational activity. Because Albertans value nature and wildlife in addition to economic development, there is an urgent need to understand the impacts of human-caused mortality and land use on grizzly bears, and to target mortality rates and habitat protection and management that will allow for grizzly bear persistence. This direction is supported by the Grizzly Bear Management Plan of Alberta which states that the provincial population will be increased to 1000 (Nagy and Gunson 1990). It is also consistent with National Park management objectives for ecological integrity as set by the National Parks Act and Policy (1988).

On the Eastern Slopes in Alberta grizzly bears occur at relatively low population densities, only one bear for each 60-100 km^2. Male grizzlies have lifetime home ranges of approximately 1000-2000 km ² (Russell et al. 1979, Carr 1989).  Females do not begin breeding until they are 4-7 years old and then they produce significantly less than one cub per year. Because of these biological characteristics grizzly bears recover slowly if at all from population declines, and only if negative mortality factors have been brought under control (Mattson et al. 1996).  These and other biological characteristics are part of the reason why human activities can have such a significant impact on grizzly bears.

Alberta has an expanding economy based significantly on the development of natural resources such as agriculture, oil and gas, forestry, and nature-based tourism. Individual grizzly bears, owing to their large home ranges, may come into contact with all of these activities. Research based in Yoho and Kootenay national parks showed that individual grizzly bears may enter four different management jurisdictions in a year (Raine and Riddell 1991). Whether land is managed as parks, commercial  forests, or privately, management practices must respond to the grizzlies needs if these bears are to survive. There is an urgent need for scientific data on grizzly bears to help land managers better understand the affects of human activities on grizzly bears.

Project Origins (this section is quoted extensively from Herrero et al. (In Press)

The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) formally began in May 1994. Neither the project, nor its membership, were formally designated by any group or agency. The Project and its members evolved from a number of different origins. An understanding of these helps in defining the nature of the Project.

First, were changes in legislation and policy at both the Federal and the Provincial levels. In 1988 the Government of Canada amended the National Parks Act. Changes included a recognition that ecological integrity was the primary objective of national park management. In this context, the grizzly bear is recognized as one of the most sensitive ecosystem elements, meaning they are difficult to maintain in landscapes that have a lot of human activities. Where grizzly bears exist, they are an indicator of ecological integrity. Parks Canada thus had new reason to be concerned about the status of grizzly bears, especially in national parks such as Banff which is part of one of the most developed landscapes where grizzly bears still survive. This legislative change was reflected in a re-written Parks Canada policy document that recognized the need for multi-agency approaches to parks management. Again, the grizzly bear with its wide-ranging movements across jurisdictional borders, became a focal species in trying to address multi-agency dimensions of parks management.

In 1992 the Federal government enacted the Canadain Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) which broadened the scope of traditional environmental assessment to consider the cumulative effects of developments at a landscape scale. The following year (1993) the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) passed which also included a provision for assessing the cumulative impacts of development proposals. The need to consider cumulative effects in evaluating development proposals has been highlighted in the review of several major project proposals for the Eastern Slopes of Alberta: the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)(now the Energy and Utilities Board - EUB) highlighted the need for cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in its review of AMOCO’s proposal to drill an exploratory well in the Whaleback region (ERCB 1994); the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) which was established to function similarly to the ERCB, but with regard to large, proposed recreational developments, indicated the need for CEA in its review of the Three Sisters Resort Proposal and the Westcastle Resort Proposal (NRCB 1993a, 1993b). In all these reviews grizzly bears, because of their regional movements and ecological relationships, and because of their sensitivity to development, became a focal species for cumulative effects assessment.

The second major element in the origin of the ESGBP was new information regarding the status of grizzly bears in the Canadian Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in Alberta. In 1990 the province of Alberta released its grizzly bear management plan (Nagy and Gunson 1990). This document clearly showed not only historic declines of grizzly bears in the province, but major over hunting, especially during 1980-1988. This launched the province into a limited entry system for managing hunting. It revealed how subject grizzly bear populations are to excessive mortality, not just from hunting but from all sources. This documented excessive mortality, combined with rapid expansion in resource harvesting activities in the province, was important in raising Alberta Fish and Wildlife’s concern for grizzly bears.

In the national parks new information also clearly documented the need for interagency management of grizzly bears. Research had shown that grizzly bears in the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks moved freely and extensively across park borders and that mortality outside of park borders was a significant issue (Russell et al. 1979, Raine and Riddell 1991). Herrero (1995) showed that Canadian National Park grizzly bear populations by themselves were probably all too small for a high probability of long term persistence, and therefore integrated management with surrounding provincial or territorial lands would be required. Within the boundaries of Banff , Yoho and Kootenay National Parks research by Gibeau (In press) showed that habitat effectiveness was significantly compromised by development. More recent research documents that grizzly bear populations in Banff Park have suffered exceptionally high mortality for a national park (Gibeau et al. 1996).

The third factor that led to formation of the ESGBP was growing awareness of the discipline of conservation biology. This is a discipline with the objective of using scientific information to help maintain biological diversity. Many of the principles of conservation biology focus on the design of systems of environmental reserves along ecological boundaries that most often cross jurisdictional divisions (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).  Within conservation biology large-bodied mammalian carnivores such as the grizzly bear are often used as indicator and umbrella species (see August 1996 issue of the journal Conservation Biology). By maintaining the large carnivores we will also maintain a significant degree of terrestrial regional ecological integrity.

The ESGBP was a product of the foregoing series of societal level influences plus many others that have not been mentioned. Like most projects this one responded to a need perceived by many different individuals and institutions, sometimes for different reasons. By joining in a cooperative endeavor and pooling resources a major project was launched.

Project Organization and Budget

The ESBGP is an informal association of participants organized into a steering committee whose objectives are to: 1) review and suggest strategic direction for research and encourage a research-based understanding of grizzly bear biology and ecology in selected portions of the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta, 2) help focus research efforts on the cumulative effects of regional land use and mortality factors on grizzly bears, 3) provide a forum for various stakeholders to discuss land use planning issues as they relate to grizzly bears, 4) help secure funding and other forms of agency support, 5) coordinate public outreach initiatives and 6) contribute to the conservation of grizzly bear populations and their habitat in the Eastern Slopes.

All steering committee participants contribute either money, time or both toward the objectives. The group, meets about 4 times a year. It has a chair who was elected from a core organizing group. Membership currently consists of a selection of representatives from various groups that have either jurisdiction, resource harvest activities or potential, or other interests regarding occupied grizzly bear habitat in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. The principal participants are Parks Canada, the Province of Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board, Fish and Wildlife Division, Lands and Forest Service, and Kananaskis Country), the University of Calgary, conservation groups, the oil and gas industry, the forest products industry, the land development industry and the cattle industry. There are numerous minor supporters as well, but most do not have direct representation on the Steering Committee.

During meetings research findings and strategic directions are discussed along with budget needs to further the committees objectives. The group serves as a focal point for fund raising activities to support the Project. Significant development proposals and activities are discussed in light of their potential cumulative effects regarding grizzly bears and their habitat.

During the period of 1994-1997 the ESGBP was been successful in raising over $1,450,000 to support the research. Sources for this funding have been: Parks Canada 46%, oil and gas industry 34%, Alberta Government 11%, other research grants 4%, forest industry 3%, conservation groups 1%, and land development industry (Herrero and Herrero 1996). Contributions to this project are tax deductible because they go to support independent research by the University of Calgary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A very successful forth field season would not have been possible without the dedication of field biologists B. Benn, M. Jalkotzy, C. Mamo, C. Mueller, J. Paczkowski, I. Ross, J. Saher, S. Stevens, S. Stotyn, and M. Urquhart. Their efforts were augmented through the largely volunteer support of C. Campbell, P. Hoffer, and M. Morrow. Assistance in coordination of field staff was provided by A. Dibb, S. Donelon and T. Hurd. Trapping was conducted by R. Leblanc, C. Mamo, and I. Ross. Veterinary care was provided by Dr. Todd Shury. Several Alberta Fish and Wildlife Officers, Banff National Park Wardens and Peter Lougheed Park Rangers all provided invaluable safety backup and field assistance during trapping. The Banff Park Warden Service and Kananaskis Country Park Rangers provided logistical support through all stages of monitoring. Exemplary flying skills were provided by Alpine Helicopters of Canmore and fixed wing pilot M. Dupuis of Westpoint Aviation.

The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Steering Committee helped implement and guided this research. All steering committee participants contribute either money, time or both toward the objectives. Through the Steering Committee, governments, industry, business and conservation groups work together to support this project. The supporters include:

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Prior to the ESGBP, little research has focused on the effects of non-motorized tourism oriented activities on bears. One of our principle research questions is how do grizzly bear's spatial and temporal use patterns differ in areas of high human presence compared to areas with low human presence in a landscape, some of which is dominated by tourism activities? Our situation is unique in that few other grizzly bear study areas in North America have both a high volume transcontentinal highway and railway bisecting occupied grizzly bear habitat along with intensive tourism. Analysis has never been done on the effects of such levels of human presence on grizzly bears. One important question is the extent to which the Bow River Valley continues to function as a major movement corridor for bears providing connectivity between habitats. Unregulated human access and development within bear habitat can contribute to increased bear mortality and affect grizzly bear use of existing habitat.

The overall goal of this research is to understand how developments and human-induced mortality impact grizzly bears. Specific research objectives include:

STUDY AREA

The area of interest remains unchanged from year 1 with the Bow River Watershed, from its headwaters to approximately where it meets the prairies, as the core study area. The Bow River drainage system is approximately 11,400 km². The greater study area defined by the movement of radio-collared bears is about 22,000 km² or roughly twice the size of the core study area.

METHODS

Methods for both the capture and monitoring of bears remain unchanged from the detailed description found in the year 1 progress report (Gibeau and Herrero 1995). Approximately 25 grizzly bears per year have active radio-collars. These bears are monitored from air and ground wherever they go and our budget permits. Aerial monitoring gives infrequent, but relatively unbiased data regarding location. This facilitates understanding of home range, movements and habitat use. Ground-based research allows intensive monitoring of grizzly bear activities related to development features such as towns, highways, campgrounds and trails. Mortality is monitored using both aerial and ground-based telemetry, and by accessing and creating broader mortality data bases related to hunting and other human-induced mortality sources. The radio-telemetry monitoring area includes lands under several different jurisdictions. In the British Columbia portion of these lands, where some of our radio-collared grizzly bears are found, there is a Western Slopes Bear Research Project (Woods pers. comm.) which provides complementary data and will allow a broader ecosystem versus provincial boundary-based understanding of grizzly bears in what has been called the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995).

RESULTS

Population Studies

Capture

In 1997 emphasis was placed on recapturing bears whose transmitters were due for replacement. We recaptured six previously captured bears as well as 12 new bears (Table 1). Trap success was high averaging 7.2 site nights per capture (Table 2).

Since the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project began in May of 1994, we have captured 25 male and 28 female grizzly bears. Currently, 26 bears are radio-instrumented including 8 males, 18 females (Table 3). Of the remainder, 10 bears have died, 14 have dropped collars or stopped transmitting, 1 was removed from the system, and 2 were never collared initially.

Table 1. Grizzly bear capture data in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997.

* certainty code a= +/- 0 years, b= +/- 1-2 years, c= +/- 2-3 years

Table 2. Grizzly bear trapping success in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997.

^a 14 snare captures, 3 culvert trap captures and 1 free roaming

Table 3. Status of all grizzly bears captured in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, as of December 1997.

* certainty code a= +/- 0 years, b= +/- 1-2 years, c= +/- 2-3 years

Telemetry Data Set

Aerial and ground monitoring from the mid-March until the first week of December produced 1571 point locations for the 1997 field season. Of these 404 (25%) were from the air and 1167 (75%) from ground monitoring. Aerial locations were biased toward early morning hours. One hundred and seventy eight aerial locations were visual observations. Sightability was higher from the air (44%) than from the ground (9%). Table 3 outlines the number of telemetry points for each individual from project initiation to December 1997.

Population Demographics

Observations from the research team as well as records from Banff National Park, Kananaskis Country Rangers and Alberta Fish and Wildlife Services established a minimum unduplicated count of 2 females with cubs of the year for 1997 in the study area (Table 4). No radio-collared females had cubs of the year during 1997. Over time, a minimum count of sows with cubs can be established and used as a trend indicator (Knight et al. 1995).

Table 4. Unduplicated grizzly bear females with cubs of the year in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

Reproductive success of radio collared females was determined through visual observation during the spring and summer of 1997 (Table 5). Reproductive data from collared females will eventually be used to construct an estimate of whether the sample population is increasing or decreasing. Before this can be done, data on at least 100 female reproductive years will be needed. Cub mortalities for the year are recorded in the comments. Year to year cub survivorship can be tracked by referring to tables from previous years and the reproductive status of any given female.

Table 5. Reproductive status of known female grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1997.

There were 3 known mortalities within the study area in 1997 (Table 6). One was an unmarked bear that was found many months after death, while the other 2 were radio collared study bears.

Table 6. Summary of grizzly bear mortalities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

^a Registration or file number

^b Wildlife Management Unit

^c PW=problem wildlife, AC=accidental, LH=legal hunter, SD=self defense, NA=natural, TI=treaty Indian, IL=Illegal

Translocations accounted for removal of 1 bear from the study area in 1997 (Table 7). This bear was removed as a result of human food conditioning and associated public safety concerns. Shortly after translocation the bear began frequenting a campground in Jasper National Park and was subsequently destroyed.

Table 7. Summary of grizzly bear translocations in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, 1993 through 1997.

^aOccurance number

^bWildlife Management Unit

Population Estimate

Mike Proctor undertook the analysis and reporting of our 1996 DNA hair sampling for population estimation. His report follows:

In an effort to estimate the density of grizzly bears in the East Slopes study area a DNA-based population estimate was undertaken in 1996. Details of this effort may be found in Sherry (1996) and entailed using microsatellite genotyping of individual bears as "marks" in a mark-recapture population estimate. Radio-collared bears, with known genotypes and known to be in the DNA study area, were considered marked animals and DNA sampling sessions were undertaken in an attempt to "recapture" these animals. Individual genotypes were generated from hair collected at remote sampling stations using barbed wire. During June and July 1996, the East Slopes team systematically collected bear hairs at 40 sampling stations over 4000km² (2000km² north of Hwy 1 in Banff National Park and 2000 km² south of Hwy 1 in Kananaskis Country). Sampling stations were set 1 per cell (1 cell = 10km x 10km). Three consecutive sampling sessions were run for approximately 10 days each and the hair trap sites were moved each session within each cell. In 1296 active days of sampling 250 samples were collected of which 75 were grizzly bear. Fifty of these samples produced a usable DNA genotype identifying 15 different grizzlies. Twelve of these bears were new individuals and 3 were known as radio-collared bears. Of the 15 "DNA captured " bears 5 were male, 5 female and 5 undetermined sex. Dr. Curtis Strobeck’s population genetics laboratory at the University of Alberta carried out the DNA analysis. While data was too sparse to generate a reliable precise estimate, a density of 1.4 grizzly bears/100 km2 was estimated based on Program NOREMARK (White 1995).

One of the biggest problems in mark-recapture experiments applied to bear studies is most population estimators require the assumption of closure during the sampling. Meeting this assumption is difficult because bears have relatively large movement patterns and will move in and out of the sampling area. Important in any mark-recapture effort is that animals have an equal probability of being captured and recaptured in subsequent sampling sessions. When a "marked" individual leaves the area during one of the sessions, it has no chance of being recaptured, thus introducing a positive bias or an overestimate of the population. This is because the estimators use the ratio of marked to unmarked animals caught in any session as the basis for the population estimate.

The use of radio-telemetry has potential to compensate for this lack of closure. Several methods have been described in the literature (Eberhardt 1990, Garshelis 1992, Miller et al. 1997). These methods require larger sample sizes than attained in this effort in the number of bears marked and recaptured. One estimator, the joint hypergeometric estimator (JHE) within program NOREMARK, is designed to incorporate telemetry data to compensate for lack of geographic closure. The JHE is a maximum likelihood estimator designed for mark - resight population estimates. A number of animals are "marked", released, and several "resight" sessions follow. In the East Slopes case, the "marked" animals are the radio-collared animals known to be in the sampling area during each of 3 "resight" sessions. The subsequent hair-DNA capture sessions constitute these "resight" sessions.

The value of using the radio-collared bears for the marked sample is that only those bears known to be in the sampling area during each of 3 sessions are counted as the marked sample. This greatly reduces the positive bias associated with "edge effects" due to closure violations as only those marked animals available for resight are included in the calculations of the population estimate. Each of the 3 DNA sampling sessions has a set of marked animals even though the 3 sets may contain different combinations of radio-collared animals.

While 16 radio-collared bears frequented the area during this period, radio-locations determined that 12 individuals were in the sampling area during sessions 1 and 2, and 11 during session 3. The DNA "capture" results are summarized in Table 1. The NOREMARK population estimate is 57 animals in the 4000 km² area which is a density of 1.4 bears per 100 km². (Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of grizzly bear hair-DNA captures for 1996.