Grizzly Bear Value Summary April 2016 The Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) provides statutory decision-makers and resource managers with critical information for managing cumulative effects on CEF values when making decisions. CEF values are a core set of provincial and regionally specific values that are important to the people of British Columbia and are recognized as being sensitive to cumulative effects the combined effect of present, past and reasonably foreseeable actions or events. The framework consists of policy, procedures and decision-support tools. The CEF supports both the mitigation of potential cumulative effects on values when making operational decisions and strategic actions to maintain or improve the condition of values. This value summary is a high-level overview of the standard provincial assessment procedure for grizzly bear. The summary is intended to help build awareness and understanding of the CEF. It is not intended to be a detailed overview of knowledge, policy and methods used to assess grizzly bear or develop regionally specific assessment and management responses, though examples of assessment interpretation and management responses are provided. The intended audience for this summary is natural resource sector (NRS) executive and staff, as well as First Nations, stakeholders and other interested parties. Further detailed information on the grizzly bear value assessment is available in the Cumulative Effects Grizzly Bear Knowledge Summary, i and Provincial Scale Grizzly Bear Assessment Protocol ii. This document will support review and comment on draft CEF policies and the procedure developed for grizzly bear assessment. It is subject to change based on feedback from the engagement process. The procedures for grizzly bear still require approval by government before final release and implementation. Rationale for Value Selection Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) values are a core set of provincial values and regionally specific values that are important to the people of British Columbia and are recognized as being particularly sensitive to cumulative effects the combined effect of present, past and reasonably foreseeable actions or events. The importance of the CEF values is reflected in the existing management objectives that the province has established for those values. CEF values 1
also have widely distributed data available to support assessment of the value and the ability to be spatially identified and mapped. Grizzly bear are an iconic species that occur across most of the province. They have environmental, economic and social importance to the people of British Columbia because they are an umbrella species, they provide hunting and viewing opportunities, and they are important to First Nations rights and interests. Recognizing the importance of this species, government has established objectives for grizzly bear management in land use plans, as well as legislation and policy. Grizzly bear are also a wide-ranging species that depend on multiple, well-connected ecosystems, and/or on broad-scale ecosystem processes and functions, making them susceptible to cumulative effects from impacts of multiple activities on the land base. Data for grizzly bear is available to support a cumulative effects assessment and can be spatially identified and mapped. These factors support the selection of grizzly bear as a CEF value. Objectives for Grizzly Bear Objectives are the desired condition of a value obtained from existing legislation, policy, land use plans and other agreements that are described in a qualitative or quantitative manner. Cumulative effects are assessed relative to the objectives for the value on a regional basis. Objectives for grizzly bear are derived from various provincial legislation, regulation, and policy and guidance that provide both implicit (broad objectives) and explicit (specific objectives) direction about sustaining grizzly bears and their habitats, including: British Columbia Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) orders specifying area designations and management measures (guided by the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS) Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA) orders specifying area designations may be made, as well, grizzly bears are identified, through policy, as a high priority wildlife species under the Environmental Protection and Management Regulation Grizzly Bear Harvest Management Procedure (Wildlife Act) Orders iii under the Land Act Strategic Land Use Plan Agreements, Land and Resource Management Plans, Sustainable Resource Management Plans Objectives for grizzly bear include both broad objectives that are over-arching descriptions of desired conditions that often lack clear definitions and metrics, as well as specific objectives that have metrics directly associated with them. 2
The assessment against broad objectives uses various indicators to identify at a high level where cumulative effects to grizzly bear may be a concern. In these areas, further investigation and assessment are needed at a regional or sub-regional level to determine the current condition for grizzly bear and what management responses may be needed. In these cases, the policy and procedure framework establishes a process to interpret the objectives, define the desired outcome and seek approval of the assessment procedure and results. The province s Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy contains the following goals: To maintain in perpetuity the diversity and abundance of Grizzly Bears and the ecosystems on which they depend throughout British Columbia; and To improve the management of Grizzly Bears and their interactions with humans. The province currently reports the status of grizzly bear population units as viable, threatened or extirpated (see Appendix A, Map 1). Extirpated units are where grizzly bear populations no longer exist. Grizzly bear recovery is not a goal in these areas due to the high likelihood of conflicts between human populations or livestock. Viable units were defined by an estimated population at or greater than 50% of the habitat capability of the unit. Units at less than 50% are considered threatened. However, it is recognized that the 50% threshold is not an absolute indication of population status, but, rather, a subjectively chosen criterion in the context of considerable uncertainty about what constitutes a viable grizzly bear population iv. Provincially, work is under way to re-evaluate the status of grizzly bear population units using NatureServe methodology. This methodology uses five classes, which will allow population status to be scaled from those that are considered secure to those that are at significant risk of extirpation. It also considers trends in and threats to the population and its habitats. This work is expected to be completed in 2017 and will enable population unit-specific discussions for refining provincial and regional objectives for grizzly bears. Based on a review of existing provincial management direction for grizzly bears, the following broad objectives for grizzly bear populations and their habitat are proposed for the cumulative effects assessment procedure. 1. At the population scale, manage for viable populations of grizzly bear and avoid populations becoming threatened. 2. At the landscape scale, maintain the distribution of grizzly bears and their habitats. These are broad, high-level objectives to inform the cumulative effects assessment and avoid long-term cumulative effects to grizzly bears. It is recognized that there are additional objectives for grizzly bears at various scales, and that these are supplemental to the objectives stated above and can be considered in cumulative effects assessments at regional levels. 3
Broad objectives from the Grizzly Bear Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife that inform specific objectives are included in Appendix C. Specific regional objectives may exist in land use plans, and be legally established by Land Use Objective Regulation orders or Government Actions Regulation orders. Specific regional objectives may also be established under the provincial harvest management procedure. The assessment against specific objectives uses the threshold set in legislation or policy (or other approved government document) and identifies where these objectives may currently not be met. (See example in Appendix D.) The Cumulative Effects Grizzly Bear Policy Summary v provides a detailed description of objectives for grizzly bear. Where specific objectives exist, they may be approved for use as management triggers in the assessment. Management triggers identify where government is approaching or exceeding a specific legal or policy objective. Management triggers delineate enhanced or intensive management classes, where management responses will be considered to either prevent the condition of the value from exceeding the objective, or to return the condition of the value to meeting the objective. Conceptual Model for Grizzly Bear Conceptual models for values describe how components and indicators influence or interact to affect the condition of a value. Components are features and attributes of a value that should be measured and managed to meet objectives associated with values. Factors are influential processes or states that act on a component and include both positive and negative effects. Indicators are the metrics used to directly or indirectly measure and report on the condition of a component (state indicators) or the processes that act upon or influence the condition of a component (pressure indicators). 4
Indicators used in the draft provincial protocol Figure 1: Conceptual model for grizzly bear to provide a high-level summary of the system and of the assessment. The blue circles identify the indicators that are used in the draft provincial protocol. 5
Current Condition Assessment Grizzly bear population and habitat are the two main components to be measured and managed to meet the grizzly bear objectives. For further details on these methodologies and rationale, please refer to the grizzly bear assessment protocol vi. The provincial assessment is a strategic assessment that uses a number of indicators to identify where cumulative effects may be acting on grizzly bears. Where indicators are flagged, closer examination of the potential cumulative effects are warranted to determine if the province s objectives are being met. Appendix A, Figure 2 illustrates a provincial-level roll-up showing a count of indicators flagged in each landscape unit. These indicators and flags are described below. Some of the indicators are interrelated, as seen in Figure 1. Although there may be correlation between indicators, they provide different types of information to aid further investigation into potential cumulative effects to grizzly bear and appropriate management responses. A. Population Component Indicators 1. Population Status The population status indicator uses the viable or threatened status that has been assigned to grizzly bear population units in the province and is reported by Environmental Reporting BC 1. This status is based on the estimated population size relative to the amount of capable habitat. A population unit is flagged if it has a threatened status. 2. Human-caused Mortality Under the grizzly bear harvest management procedure, known grizzly bear mortality is recorded and assessed according to mortality limits. This information is used to adjust the harvest allocation annually to maintain overall mortality for the five-year allocation period at or below the mortality target. The draft protocol uses the current and past two allocation periods. The indicator flags where overall grizzly bear mortality or female mortality was over the total allowable limit for the allocation period in any of these three allocation periods. The indicator can highlight areas where adjustments to hunter harvest (including closing hunts) are not sufficient to keep mortality below limits, often due to high mortality from non-hunting sources, for example conflict, illegal, road or rail kills. Where this indicator is flagged, further examination is required to determine which allocation periods were exceeded and whether there is an ongoing mortality concern. 1 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/ 6
3. Core Security Core security areas are areas of identified habitat with a minimum amount of human use that are large enough to cover the size of average daily movement of an adult female grizzly bear. They are defined as roadless areas of capable habitat greater than 10 km 2. In these areas, human encounters with grizzly bears are less likely to occur because of the lack of roads. The proportion of secure core habitat is positively associated with higher survival for grizzly bears. Landscape units with less than 60% core secure area were flagged. 4. Hunter Density Hunter density can influence the amount of bear mortality due to the potential for lethal encounters with grizzly bears. 2 People out hunting for moose, goat or other wildlife may surprise a grizzly bear or may have a grizzly bear approach their kill, resulting in a grizzly bear mortality. The number of hunter days per unit area was calculated for each management unit, and a unit was flagged if it was in the top 25% of units for hunter days in the province. 5. Likelihood of Human-Bear Encounter The assessment divided the province into areas with high human occurrence, or front country, and areas of lower human occupancy, or back country. The division was based on the travel distance for people from settlements and the time required to travel on different types of roads (e.g., paved, gravel, trails). Front country areas have a higher likelihood of human-bear encounters, which can lead to bear displacement as well as bear mortality. Landscape units were assigned as front country and flagged if greater than 20% of the watershed is front country area. Where both the hunter density and the likelihood of human-bear encounter indicators are high, the likelihood of bear mortality is increased. A lethal encounter index that combines these two indicators is under development. Supplemental population indicators Supplemental indicators under the population component that are not included in the overall roll-up of flags are bear density and road density. These indicators can provide additional context and information where the initial analysis shows flags being raised for grizzly bear. 2 The effect of ungulate hunters on grizzly bear mortality has been documented: Haroldson, M.A., C.C. Schwartz, S. Cherry and D.S. Moody. 2004. Possible Effects of Elk Harvest on Fall Distribution of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 129-137. 7
B. Habitat Component Indicator 1. Mid-Seral Conifer (Forage Supply) Forage supply, such as huckleberry patches, is a critical food source for some grizzly bear populations. Berry productivity in a landscape is a function of the amount of open forest. The amount of mid-seral, conifer-dominant dense forest in an assessment area (Landscape Unit) was used as an indicator of low forage productivity, since these types of closed, dark, conifer dominant stands are sub-optimal. Landscape units with greater than 30% closed canopy, conifer-dominated mid-seral forest (by Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification [BEC] zone) in the CWH, SBS, ICH, ESSF, IDF, MS and MH 3 BEC zones were flagged. The age-class for mid-seral forest varies by BEC zone and is taken from the Biodiversity Guidebook. vii Supplemental habitat indicators Supplemental indicators under the habitat component that are not included in the overall rollup of flags are quality food (areas of high salmon biomass in capable grizzly bear habitat) and habitat protection (capable habitat in conservation areas). These indicators can provide additional context and information where the initial analysis shows flags being raised for grizzly bear. Application to Decision-Making The information presented in this summary is based on a strategic-level assessment using data available at a provincial extent. This assessment provides a first indication of the current condition of grizzly bear and their habitats with respect to cumulative effects. Where the current condition of indicators has been flagged, further examination, analysis and recommendations at a regional or sub-regional level will be needed to inform statutory decision-making and forward-looking management responses. When warranted, the more detailed analysis, examination and recommendations will be synthesized in a Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management (CEAM) Report developed by regional experts and resource managers. These reports will provide an assessment at a regional or sub-regional level and will address any specific regional objectives for grizzly bear. The report, particularly proposed management responses, is proposed to be approved at the assistant deputy minister level. 3 Coastal Western Hemlock; Sub-Boreal Spruce; Interior Cedar-Hemlock; Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir; Interior Douglas-fir; Montane Spruce; Mountain Hemlock. 8
It is through the information and advice in the CEAM report that a statutory decision-maker (SDM) would normally consider cumulative effects when making a statutory decision, for example under the Land Act. In the absence of a CEAM report, the provincial assessment results may be reviewed by regional staff in their support of the SDM. Operational policy and procedures are being developed as part of the CEF to provide direction on how cumulative effects may be considered in decisions within different business areas and legislation (e.g., Land Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Environmental Assessment Act). These policies and procedures will contain direction on the permits or activities that might be subject to a consideration of cumulative effects and those where cumulative effects are not a consideration. This strategic-level assessment for grizzly bear and ultimately a CEAM report will also provide information to proponents in the development of project applications and mitigation plans, where required. This will enable standardized assessment information to be used by proponents. An example could be the assessment of a proposed project s location and whether it would increase the likelihood of bear conflicts with humans. If so, mitigation strategies aimed at blocking human access (e.g., gates or road deactivation) may be appropriate. Another significant benefit of the CEAM reports, which include grizzly bear and other value assessments, will be forward-looking management responses that will be the responsibility of government to undertake. These may include development of new objectives for grizzly bear or setting priorities for inventory and monitoring. 9
Appendix A. Maps Map 1. Viable, Threatened and Extirpated Grizzly Bear Population Units in BC. This is based on the Environmental Reporting BC grizzly bear population status map. It is not a CE assessment product. Figure A. Viable Grizzly Bear Population Units are shown in yellow, threatened in blue and extirpated in brown. Extirpated units are where grizzly bear populations no longer exist. Grizzly bear recovery is not a goal in these areas due to the high likelihood of conflicts between human populations or livestock. Viable units are defined by an estimated population at or greater than 50% of the habitat capability of the unit. Those units at less than 50% are considered threatened. However, it is recognized that the 50% threshold is not an absolute indication of population status, but, rather, a subjectively chosen criterion in the context of considerable uncertainty about what constitutes a viable grizzly bear population. Provincially, work is under way to re-evaluate the status of grizzly bear population units using NatureServe methodology. This methodology uses five classes which will allow population status to be scaled from those that are considered secure to those that are at significant risk of extirpation. It also considers trends in and threats to the population. This work is expected to be completed in 2017. 10
Map 2. Count of Indicators Flagged Figure B: This map provides a count of the number of indicators that were flagged in the assessment. It is a visual tool to identify where cumulative effects to grizzly bear may be occurring and where further assessment is needed to determine the current condition of grizzly bear. The map does not convey a measure of risk as consequence is not assessed, and the indicators are not equally important, nor are they weighted in this assessment. 11
Appendix B. Draft GIS Assessment Model Figure C: This diagram shows the indicators, metrics and flags used to complete the GIS assessment. The core indicator flags by LU column show the flags that are discussed in this summary and reported on Map 2. The number of bears, road density, quality food and habitat protection metrics were not included in the roll-up, but that information is available to provide further context to regionally specific assessment. The grizzly bear team is currently working on developing the lethal encounter index and the lethal encounter index with food by combining several indicators together for an overall likelihood rating for lethal encounters. 12
Appendix C. Management and Planning Recommendations from the Grizzly Bear Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife Strategic-level recommendations are included in the Grizzly Bear Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife viii with the intent to ensure that: adequate amounts of well-distributed, seasonally important habitats are available across the landscape and through time; these habitats can be effectively used by Grizzly Bears (i.e., areas are not unduly impacted by habitat fragmentation or displacement resulting from human activities); and human-caused mortality risks are minimized. 13
Appendix D. Example of Specific Objective Assessment for Grizzly Bear This example uses the hypothetical Everett Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) and Everett Sustainable Resource Management Plan. A. Specific Objective The specific objective for mid-seral amount was taken from the Everett SRMP. No more than 30% of forested land base will be between 25 and 100 years old (i.e., mid-seral for these BEC zones) B. Management Triggers and Classes Management triggers were approved for use in assessing government s objective for mid-seral in this SRMP area. Intensive management trigger: Mid-seral >30% Enhanced management trigger: Mid-seral >25% Table A. Management goals for the CE management classes along with defined management classes for the midseral objective. CE Management Class Standard Enhanced Intensive Management Goal Maintain the value in good condition while supporting streamlined decision-making. Ensure the regulatory/policy trigger is not exceeded. Restore conditions to below the regulatory/ policy trigger. Management Classes for mid-seral objective Existing amount of mid-seral is less than or equal to 25% of a landscape unit. Existing amount of mid-seral is 25% to 30% of a landscape unit. Existing amount of mid-seral is greater than 30% of a landscape unit. 14
C. Assessment The assessment was conducted for each landscape unit in the Everett GBPU. The majority of units were below the enhanced management trigger. In the north and eastern portions of the GPBU, nine units were above the enhanced management trigger and three were above the intensive management trigger. D. Results and Management Response Figure A. Results of the assessment against the mid-seral objective for each landscape unit in the Everett GBPU. Table B. Management classes and associated management responses for the assessment against the mid-seral objective in the Everett GBPU. Results Management Response Standard Management Class Enhanced Management Class Intensive Management Class 26 landscape units are in the standard management class No incremental management responses are required to manage mid-seral in these units. 9 units are in the enhanced management class Incremental management responses will be considered and included in the regional CEAM report, developed in consultation with the CE Management Committee and through engagement with stakeholders and First Nations, for approval at the ADM level. 3 units are in the intensive management class Incremental management responses will be considered and included in the regional CEAM report, developed in consultation with the CE Management Committee and through engagement with stakeholders and First Nations for approval at the ADM level. 15
References i Provincial Grizzly Bear Technical Working Group. 2015. Cumulative Effects Grizzly Bear Knowledge Summary draft (June 30, 2015). 38 pp. ii Provincial Grizzly Bear Technical Working Group. 2016. Assessment Methods for Grizzly Bears in BC (Tier 1 Provincial Scale Grizzly Bear Assessment Protocol) Standards for British Columbia s Values Foundation (ver. 2.2; March 24, 2016). 42 pp. iii Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013. Central and North Coast Order April 2013 consolidated version for communication only. Accessed Dec 15, 2015: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/docs/2013/cnc/central-and-north-coast-order- Consolidated-Version-2013.pdf iv Hamilton, A.N., M.A. Austin and D.C. Heard. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimate 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, B.C. 9 pp. Accessed Mar 10, 2016:. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/gb_bc_pop_est.pdf. v CE Grizzly Bear Value Team. 2015. Cumulative Effects Grizzly Bear Policy Summary draft (April 14, 2015). 4 pp. vi Provincial Grizzly Bear Technical Working Group. 2015. Assessment Methods for Grizzly Bears in BC (Tier 1 Provincial Scale Grizzly Bear Assessment Protocol) Standards for British Columbia s Values Foundation (ver. 2.2; March 24, 2016). 42 pp. vii Biodiversity Guidebook. 1995. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/biodiv/biotoc.htm viii Gyug, L., A. Hamilton and M. Austin. 2004. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife accounts ver. 2004. Accessed Dec 15, 2015: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/mammals/m_grizzlybear.pdf. 16