South Selkirk grizzly bear habitat assessment and security enhancement project Annual Report, Year 4 of 5

FWCP Year 4 Annual Report Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project Michael Proctor April 2013 South Selkirk grizzly bear habitat assessment and security enhancement project Annual Report, Year 4 of 5 Executive Summary This project is designed to facilitate recovery of the threatened South Selkirk (SS) Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU). This subpopulation is at the southern edge of their North American distribution in this region. Recent research has revealed the conservation status of the SS grizzly bears as small, genetically and demographically isolated from its neighbours, but with a positive growth trend 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 first three years of this project we radio collared bears across the ecosystem (we currently have data for 23 grizzly bears in the S Selkirks and 56 bears including the adjacent Purcell Mts). In an effort to repair fragmentation we also completed a linkage area identification analysis and have been implementing connectivity management across the Creston Valley, in an effort the reestablish movements between the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. We completed our goals for this past year (Year 4 of 5). We radio collared 14 grizzly bears, 12 with good data, including 5 females. We continued to implement our Linkage Management Plan to enhance intermountain movements of grizzly bears between the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. across the Creston valley. This effort was highlighted by the finalized purchase of an important linkage property in the Duck Lake Linkage Area of the Creston Valley (306 acres, $1,200,000). This property was identified by our work in this project and was purchased by the Nature Conservancy Canada at our recommendation. We provided the scientific and conservation justification and helped fund raise (as did the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative). We initiated a 50% cost share electric fencing program for farms in the Creston valley that have grizzly bear attractant issues and fenced 8 farms. And, we continued our program to teach the BC Conservation Officers to apply non-lethal management of potential problem grizzly bears. We also completed a region wide pedigree analysis or 303 bears in the region in an attempt to estimate the reproductive output of our radio collared adult females and began a home range selection analysis to determine the effect of habitat security (road density) on reproductive success. We are testing the hypothesis that habitat security improves grizzly bears reproductive output and/or survival, 2 metrics that are important for recovering threatened populations. The upcoming year will finalize this habitat security analysis comparing road response across 3 GBPUs including a fine scale seasonspecific habitat use analysis. All these results will be published in the primary peer-reviewed scientific literature and translated into a habitat management plan, for the South Selkirk bears. 1

Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 List of Figures 2 Introduction 3 Goals and Objectives 6 Study Area 7 Methods 7 Results 9 Discussion 11 Recommendations 12 Acknowledgements 12 References 13 List of Figures Figure 1 Study area maps 3 Figure 2 Genetic evidence of fragmentation of South Selkirk grizzly bear 4 Figure 3 Fragmentation status of grizzly bear subpopulations and identified linkage areas 5 Figure 4 GPS telemetry locations for mas and female grizzly bears 9 Figure 5 Frog Bear Connectivity property 10 Figure 6 Example of female grizzly bear and habitat model and core habitat 11 2

Introduction 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 revealed the conservation status of the SS 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 (Fig. 2) 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 83 animals (Proctor et al. 2012). Long-term telemetry monitoring indicates this population is likely increasing at 1.8% annually (Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004). 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 (Hamilton et al. 2004). The US also considers this a federally listed threatened population under their Endangered Species Act. 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 et al. 2012). 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 and security, and recovered inter-population connectivity need to be applied to the SS grizzly bears. In fact, the Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project (TBGBP authors of this proposal) was started to research and initiate implementation of 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, BC Conservation Officer Service, and the BC MoE. The project proposed here concentrates on providing adequate habitat security sufficient to reduce mortality risk, maximize reproductive capacity, and enhanced inter-population connectivity. 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 3

Log likelihood of assignment to the CS Log likelihood of assignment to FHW Figure 2. Genetic evidence (population assignments of DNA fingerprints) of fragmentation across the Highway 3A corridor separating the a) South Selkirk and central Selkirk grizzly bears. b) Bears east and west of the large unsettled Flathead Valley in southeast BC provided for comparison. From Proctor et al. (2005) a. b. 0 0-5 -5-10 -10-15 -20 SS CS -15 FHE FHW -25-20 -30-25 -35-35 -30-25 -20-15 -10-5 0 Log likelihood of assignment to the SS -30-30 -25-20 -15-10 -5 0 Log likelihood of assignment to FHE Habitat Security In the mountainous regions of western North America there is growing documentation of the relationship between grizzly bears and motorized human access. Grizzly bears have been shown to avoid open traveled roads in the backcountry using VHF telemetry (Mace et al. 1996, 1999; McLellan and Shackleton 1988) and more recently with GPS telemetry (Apps et al. 2008; Proctor et al. 2008, Roever et al. 2008a). Furthermore, there is evidence linking increased densities of open roads with lower survival rates (Mace et al. 1996; Boulanger 2005, Schwartz et al. 2010, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2010), a parameter associated with grizzly bears ability to prosper on a landscape. Recovery biologists and managers in the USA (which have succeeded in several ecosystems) consider their access management program essential to grizzly bear population recovery. A portion of the SS ecosystem has experienced access management for the past 30 years 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. It is our hypothesis that the Darkwood s access management, that has occurred in some of the best grizzly bear habitat in the South Selkirks, has played a role in the positive trend of the SS grizzly bears. When combined with data from the adjacent Purcell Mts. a comparative analysis presents itself. We see a need to explore the relationship between open road densities, home range selection, habitat use, and positive trend, and ultimately identify the areas of the highest quality grizzly bear habitat across the SS GBPU. If warranted, we will translate our research 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 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 (Proctor et al. 2012). 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. Results from this preliminary work suggest that one of the better options for inter-population connectivity 4

with a neighbouring area is across the Creston Valley that contains the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (CVWMA) owned and managed by BC Hydro. Our recent research has resulted in 2 works that detail the regional fragmentation problem (Fig. 3a, Proctor et al. 2012), and its solution inter-area connectivity (Proctor et al. 2013a). This 2 nd paper has resulted partially from the work done within this project so far. One of our goals was to identify specific linkage habitat across the Creston Valley and Proctor et al. (2013a) identifies that and also across every major highway and settlement corridor between Missoula Montana and Revelstoke, BC (Fig. 3b). Another of our goals is work to implement appropriate connectivity management, and we have been working to do that. There is a regional, provincial, and international urgency to complete the process of population recovery due to its small and isolated status and enhance the survival of the extensively fragmented system of bear subpopulations in the region (Fig. 3a, Proctor et al. 2012). Failure to accomplish these goals may allow a northern migration of the North American grizzly bear extinction line into the S Selkirks ecosystem. There is also an opportunity to capitalize on the interest and investment the US Fish & Wildlife Service is willing to expend over the next 10-15 years. I, M. Proctor, have a working partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to jointly work on the recovery of the S Selkirk (and Yahk south Purcell Mts) population. This project is a part of that larger coordinated effort for recovery of these two threatened trans-border populations. 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 rigorous 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. Figure 3a. Adapted from Proctor et al. (2012), a map depicting the fragmentation status of the regions grizzly bears. Dotted yellow lines represent fractures and numbers within subpopulations are data based populations estimates for each subpopulations where they are known, and b) Green polygons represent linkage habitat across fractures, determined through GPS telemetry and habitat modeling (adapted from Proctor et al. 2013a). Data from this project went into both these papers. a. b. 5

Goals and Objectives This is a multi-year project (5 years), therefore we 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 South Selkirk population of grizzly bears to self-sustaining and potentially huntable status if warranted. Specifically, our project objectives were 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 a composite (all bears in one model) habitat model to identify linkage habitat with adjacent areas that will allow the development and implementation of linkage management plans. Linkage management plans will detail solution oriented conservation actions to take place within linkage habitat including strategic private land purchase, education and assistance for landowners to bear-proof their properties to reduce bear mortalities, and appropriate management actions on appropriate Provincial lands. The research component of this objective is complete, and peer reviewed manuscript has been submitted (Proctor et al. 2013a). A management plan has been written and we are in the implementation phase. Years 1, 2, & 3 field work and linkage connectivity analysis completed, objectives met The objective for years 1-3 was to radio collar 20-25 grizzly bears in the S Selkirk Mts. and this has been achieved. Another objective for years 1-3 was to use these telemetry data to model linkage habitat adjacent to and across the Creston Valley into the Purcell Mts. and this has been completed. Year 4 THE CURRENT YEAR Objectives for year 4 were too continue with a small radio collaring effort and to implement our Linkage Management Plan to enhance inter-mountain movements of grizzly bears between the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. across the Creston valley. Another objective was to initiate our fine-scale habitat security analysis which has been initiated. We are combining our GPS telemetry data we have collected in the S Selkirk area with bear data from the immediately adjacent Purcell Mts. We have data from 56 bears to include in this analysis. Good spatial coverage is necessary to allow us to test hypotheses concerning grizzly bear response to different historic access management regimes that have been applied variably across the area. We will be able to compare bear habitat use between Darkwoods lands that have experienced partial access restrictions, the roadless protected land in the northern part of the system, with the multiple-use roaded landscapes of Provincial lands in the adjacent S Purcell Mts. and the Yahk (S of Hwy 3 in the Purcells). This analysis will use individual bear reproductive output and survival as its measuring stick with which to judge home range characteristics and habitat use from an analysis of genetic data and mortality records already complete within this project. Year 5 The objectives for years 5 will be to finalize the habitat use analysis of the SS GBPU (combined with data from the Yahk and S Purcell GBPU), develop resulting management plans and begin the process of integrating them into receptive agencies, NCC, communities, and private companies. 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. Year 5 will see the finalization of our S Selkirk habitat analysis and the translation of that data into a Habitat Management Plan for the south Selkirks. 6

Study Area The project area consists of the South Selkirk Grizzly Bear Population Unit, bordered by the west arm of Kootenay Lake 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 (Fig. 1). Methods 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. Radio collars take locations from satellites every hour (or 2-4 hrs) during the non-denning season and typically remain on the bear for 2 or 3 seasons. Collars have an automatic drop-off mechanism and a cotton rot-off as a backup 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. Fine scale habitat security analysis - pedigree, reproductive output, and home range selection analysis 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 linkage habitat modeling and linkage zone identification is complete and has been translated into a peer reviewed paper (Proctor et al. 2013a) and a Linkage Management Plan (Proctor et al. 2011). In year 4 we began our detailed habitat use analyses. 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 or industrial 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. One of our specific objectives is to test hypotheses about the effect of high open road densities on grizzly bear habitat use and population status. There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that excessive human access has negative affect on grizzly bear populations and access management may be useful for recovering threatened grizzly bear populations (Mace et al. 1996, 1999, Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997, Wielgus and Verier 2002, Wielgus et al. 2003, Nielsen et al. 2004a, 2006, Roever et al. 2008a,b, 2010, Ciarniello et al. 2007, Proctor et al. 2008, Boulanger and Stenhouse 2010, Schwartz et al. 2010), however, no one has related habitat use and road response to the functional population parameter - reproductive output, as we are preparing to do. We will approach this question with 2 types of analyses. First will be a home range selection analysis using adult female bears that have survived and reproduced (Mace et al. 1996, Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997). We will explore the relationship between several home range characteristics (open road densities, human access, % core (habitat >500m from an open road, habitat quality, and other variables) in relation to available habitat that was not selected. Also we will look at fine scale home range selection by looking at habitat selection within a home range. Looking beyond what previous researchers have done, we will try to relate these characteristics to reproductive output of our adult female telemetry sample. These results will be examined for a relationship with reproductive success using regression methods (Do bears with higher open road densities reproduce more or less? Do bears with higher habitat productivity reproduce more offspring? Because we have sampled almost every grizzly bear in the S Selkirk and Yahk GBPUs, we are able to determine the reproductive output of all our collared bears. We have run our microsatellite genotyping (DNA fingerprinting) out to 21 markers that will allow us to develop rigorous pedigrees of our sampled bears. From 7

this we can determine the number of surviving offspring for all parents. For collared bears, we have age data that allows us to translate these data into an annual surviving offspring rate. The genetic sampling and laboratory analysis is complete, as is the pedigree analysis, and estimate of reproductive output. The second analyses will explore season specific individual bear habitat selection using Resource Selection Function (RSF) modeling (the preferred industry standard). This method is well documented and applied in the scientific literature (Mace et al. 1996, 1999, Manly et al. 2002, Boyce and MacDonald 1999, Boyce et al. 2002, Nielsen et al. 2002, 2004a,b,c, 2006, 2008, 2009, Apps et al, 2004, 2006, Ciarniello et al, 2007, Proctor et al. 2007, 2008, 2012a, Roever et al. 2008a,b, 2010). Briefly it compares GPS telemetry locations (habitat use) to many random locations (habitat availability) to discern patterns of avoidance or selection of habitat characteristics. Tested variables include ecological productivity, greenness (an index of deciduous growth), roads, human development, ecological variables (precipitation, solar radiation), land cover types (canopy cover, avalanches chutes, riparian, or alpine areas) and more. If our results suggest that access management would be a useful recovery management tool, we will work with stakeholders to develop 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 adaptive 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. 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 (Mace et al. 1996, 1999, 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). 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 Lemeshow 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 Lemeshow 1989) and loosely represents RSF scores above which the model predicts bear occurrence. In 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 Lemeshow (1989) combined with AIC model selection. First, all variables are tested for 8

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 (R 2 ). Then models are built by adding variables in a step-wise fashion starting with the most influential variables (higher to lower R 2 ). Models are compared sequentially after each variable addition; variable significance, explanatory power (R 2 ), 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 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-variable 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). Results Radio collaring The first 4 years success was measured in the number of radio collared bears we have with the intended spatial representation. To date we have 23 bears radio collared in the S Selkirk Mts. (56 bears including the adjacent Purcell Mts.) Figure 4. Map of male and female GS telemetry collar data collected by the Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project since 2004 across the region including the South Selkirk ecosystem. These data underpin the Linkage Area identification (Fig. 3) and the emerging habitat road response analysis (Fig. 5). 9

Linkage Area Identification Linkage area identification was completed in the spring of 2011 as part of Year 2 s work. Not only have we identified linkage habitat across the Creston Valley, because of our successful methods and management implementation, we were asked to expand our efforts into the US down to Missoula Montana, which we did. Our linkage habitat identification work is being published in a peer reviewed science journal (Fig. 3b, Proctor et al. 2013a). These data are already being used by the Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC) and Y2Y as well as other ENGOS in Montana (Vital Ground) and the Purcell Mts. (Nature Trust of BC) in what now has become a regional interagency network to secure private lands for linkage conservation in and beyond the Creston Valley area. Linkage Management Implementation in the Creston Valley complete for the year and ongoing After identifying linkage habitat, we produced a Linkage Management Plan (Proctor et al. 2011) and then did a landownership analysis to identify properties that would be appropriate for direct purchase or conservation easements. Through a partnership with Harvey Locke of Y2Y and Nature Conservancy Canada, we raised the funds and to date have purchased ~ $2 million worth of property for linkage management and are negotiating several more properties. In this past year we helped finalize the purchase of the Frog-Bear Conservation Property (306 acres, $1,100,000) near Duck Lake in the Creston Valley (Fig. 5). This property was identified by our work as important for inter-mountain connectivity. The Nature Conservancy has developed a conservation acquisition plan for the Duck Lake area, designed to improve the connectivity function of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area in an east west direction across the valley. Our ultimate goal is to work research-directed grizzly-bear-friendly management into the everyday way we live and work in these ecosystems. This is partially being carried out through our recently completed SS and Yahk GBPU Recovery Management Strategy (MacHutchon and Proctor 2013). We also worked (and will continue to work) on private lands to help farmers in the Creston Valley not attract bears to their farms. This year we initiated a 50% cost share electric fencing program to minimize farm related bear attractants. We also work with the Conservation Officer Service to apply non-lethal management methods to potential problem grizzly bears. In the past 8 years we have managed 15 bears with the Cos, 12 of which worked to keep the bears alive and out of conflict. Figure 5. Google Earth image of the Frog Bear Conservation Property purchased for inter-mountain connectivity between the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. in the Creston Valley in the identified Duck Lake Linkage Area. The red polygon is the 306 acre $1,000,000 frog Bear Property. This property begins the process of protecting land to expand the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (CVWMA) function to include connectivity across the Creston Valley Purcell Mts Selkirk Mts CVWMA 10

Fine scale habitat security analysis - pedigree, reproductive output, and home range selection analysis From our larger dataset of radio collared grizzly bears, we have 10 adult females that have worn collars that we have reproductive data for. Their estimated annual reproductive output ranges from 0.14 to 1.0. We are currently exploring the relationship between survival and reproductive output and home range characteristic variables including, road densities, human access estimates, the amount of habitat > 500m from a road (core), habitat quality as indexed through an RSF habitat productivity model, and other related variables. We have developed GIS layers for road density, core habitat (habitat > 500m from an open road), human access, bearrelevant habitat quality, and others that we are using to explore the relationship between home range selection and reproductive output. This analysis is in progress. We have also begun our season-specific RSF modeling across our larger study area including the Selkirk and Purcell Mts. Figure 6. Sample maps of 1 female Selkirk grizzly bear in relation to a) a predictive habitat quality map and, b) 500m buffered open roads. a. b Discussion This project was designed to carry out research to inform and implement conservation oriented management for the South Selkirk Threatened Grizzly Bear Subpopulation. Our radio collaring work was successful and has been used to identify linkage areas and inform connectivity management which we are also carrying out. This research, and its resulting management, will help reverse one of the biggest threats working on the South Selkirk grizzly bears, their genetic and demographic isolation. We have also recently documented a modest number of immigrants into the S Selkirks from the neighbouring Purcells. We have developed a monitoring method (Proctor et al. 2013b) in the hopes of detecting breeding after inter-area movements, or ecologically functional connectivity, the important process we are trying to manage for. In term of fragmentation and connectivity, we continue to implement management that fosters inter-area movements and bear survival. Our habitat security research is still underway. We anticipate that our results will provide valuable information as to the necessity or not of access management as a tool in recovering threatened grizzly bear population units in southeastern BC. We are trying to investigate functional biological parameters to assess road response by grizzly bears. We also hope that we might discover road density or core habitat thresholds that might guide management protocols should they be found useful. 11

Recommendations When this multi-year project is over, we will provide a more extensive set of recommendations. Here we provide an initial subset. We recommend that society and government consider developing policies consistent with enhancing inter-area connectivity for grizzly bears, but also other wildlife species particularly in light of the approaching climate changes BC will inevitably face. Providing options for wildlife to move between mountain ranges and across habitats in response to changing and shifting habitats will maximize their ability to adapt. More specific ideas include: Minimizing development and human densities and activities in identified Linkage Areas. Consider wildlife connectivity in any land use decisions in identified Linkage Areas. The main goal is to have minimal humans living in these linkage areas to minimize conflicts from bear attractants that often lead to bear mortality. This may take the form of regional districts not encouraging developments such as RV parks, resorts, golf courses, and housing developments in identified linkage areas. This may also entail not encouraging dense human use of some areas, for instance minimizing development and improvements to the dyke system in the Creston Valley Management Area to minimize levels of human use, especially in the northern portions closer to Duck Lake. Some human use is acceptable, certainly, but if it gets excessive, the linkage function of that important area might be compromised. BC Hydro might consider making inter-mountain connectivity an identified goal of the Creston Wildlife Management Area. Having this identified as something important will give it consideration through time as decisions that affect land use and policy are made. Work with the Nature Conservancy Canada to integrate policy and land use decisions with inter-mountain connectivity across the Creston Valley. The COS should consider hiring a Grizzly Bear Conflict Manager for the Castlegar-Nelson-Creston-Yahk area. This action is one of the most successful and important efforts the US has done to recover their Threatened grizzly bear populations. Currently COs do not have the time or resources to properly apply non-lethal management to potential problem grizzly bears in the region. I have been working with the COs for 8 years to apply these techniques, and we have been generally pretty successful, and a dedicated Bear Conflict Specialist (even part time) may be the only way this program sees long term implementation. We are not ready to make specific recommendations from our habitat analysis at this point. We will be ready in one year. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge our current and past funders that have made this multi-year work possible. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Columbia Region BC Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation Wilburforce Foundation National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative US Fish & Wildlife Service Nature Conservancy Canada 12

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Tembec Enterprises Alberta Ingenuity Post Doctoral Fellowship Natural Science Engineering and Research Council of Canada Killam Fellwoships BC Parks Parks Canada BC MoE / MoF Creston Valley Wildlife Management 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. We anticipate that many of the above mentioned organizations will also be involved in our management plan and implementation phases. Literature Cited Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, J. G. Woods, and M. F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating grizzly bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:138-152. Apps, C. D., and B. N. McLellan. 2006. Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation 130:84-97. 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. 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. Boulanger, J., and G. Stenhouse. 2010. Demography of Alberta grizzly bears: 1999-2009. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Hinton, Alberta, Canada. 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. Ciarniello, L.A., M.S. Boyce, D.C. Heard, and D.R. Seip. 2007. Components of Grizzly Bear Habitat Selection: Density, Habitats, Roads, and Mortality Risk. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1446-1457. 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. 13

Hosmer, D.W., Jr. and S. Lemeshow. 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, 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. 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. MacHutchon, A.G., and M. Proctor. 2013. Management plan for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in the Yahk and South Selkirk Grizzly Bear Population Units, British Columbia. Trans Border Grizzly Bear Project, Kaslo, B.C. 73 pp. 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. Nielsen, S.E., S. Herrero, M.S. Boyce, R.D. Mace, B. Benn, M Gibeau, and S. Jevons. 2004a. Modeling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies Ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation 120:101-113. Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2004b. Grizzly bears and forestry I. Selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199:51-65. Nielsen, S.E., R.H.M. Munro, E.L. Bainbridge, G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2004c. Grizzly bears and forestry II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199:67-82. Nielsen, S.E., G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2006. A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta. Biological Conservation 130:217 229. Nielsen, S. E., G. B. Stenhouse, and M. S. Boyce. 2008. Can natural disturbance-based forestry rescue a declining population of grizzly bears? Biological. Conservation 141:2193-2207. Nielsen, S., J. Cranston, and G. Stenhouse. 2009. Identification of priority areas for grizzly bear conservation and recovery in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Conservation Planning 5:38 60. www.journalconsplanning.org/2009/ JCP_V5_4_Nielsen.pdf (Accessed March 2010). 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. Nielsen, C. Servheen, W. Kasworm, and T. Radandt and D. Paetkau. 2007. Abundance and density of Central Purcell, South Purcell, Yaak, and south Selkirk grizzly bear population units in southeast British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Proctor, M. F., 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. BC. Tembec Enterprises, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada. 14

Proctor, M., C. Servheen, W. Kasworm, and T. Radandt. 2011. Grizzly bear linkage enhancement plan for the Highway 3 and 3A corridors in the south Purcell and Selkirk Mountains of British Columbia. Birchdale Ecological, Ltd., Kaslo, British Columbia, Canada. Proctor, M.F., D. Paetkau, B.N. Mclellan, G.B. Stenhouse, K.C. Kendall, R.D. Mace, W.F. Kasworm, C. Servheen, C.L. Lausen, M.L. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, M.A. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C.D. Apps, L.M. Ciarniello, R.M.R. Barclay, M.S. Boyce, C.C. Schwartz, and C. Strobeck. 2012a. Population Fragmentation and Inter- Ecosystem Movements of Grizzly Bears in Western Canada and the Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180. Proctor, M., S. Nielsen, W. Kasworm, C. Servheen, G. MacHutchon, and T. Radandt. 2013a. 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. Submitted, Journal of Wildlife Management. Proctor, M., W. Kasworm, W. Wakkinen, and C. Servheen, 2013b. Pedigree analysis to assess and monitor functional connectivity of grizzly bears in the trans-border region of northern Montana, Idaho, Washington, and southern British Columba. Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project Report. Kaslo BC. Roever, C., M. S. Boyce, and G. B. Stenhouse. 2008a. Grizzly bears and forestry I: Road vegetation and placement as an attractant to grizzly bears. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1253-1261. Roever, C., M. S. Boyce, and G. B. Stenhouse. 2008b. Grizzly bears and forestry II: Grizzly bear habitat selections and conflicts with road placement. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1262-1269. Roever, C., M. S. Boyce, and G. B. Stenhouse. 2010. Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions. Ecography 33:1113-1122. Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White. 2010. Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival int he greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:654-667. Wakkinen, W.L., and W.F. Kasworm. 1997. Grizzly bear and road density relationships in the Selkirk and Cabinet Yaak recovery zones. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana, USA. Wakkinen, W.L., and W.F. Kasworm. 2004. Demographic and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet Yaak and Selkirk ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Ursus 15 Workshop Supplement: 65-75. Wielgus, R.B. and P.R. Vernier. 2003. Grizzly bear selection of managed and unmanaged forests in the Selkirk Mountains. Canadian Journal of Zoology 33:822-829. Wielgus, R.B., P.R. Vernier and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. Grizzly bear use of open, closed, and restricted forestry roads. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 32:1597-1606. 15