Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan - Draft - 2016-2021

Transcription

Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 38
Draft June 1, 2016
Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Prepared by:
Alberta Environment and Parks
i
Draft June 1, 2016
ISBN 978-1-4601-2400-0 (PDF)
Cover photos: Amy Stenhouse (left); Jay Honeyman (middle); Alberta Environment and Parks
(right).
For copies of this report visit the Species at Risk Program website at:
http://AEP.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/
OR contact:
Information Centre – Publications
Alberta Environment and Parks
Main Floor, Great West Life Building
9920 – 108 Street
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4
Telephone: (780) 422-2079
This publication may be cited as:
Alberta Environment and Parks. 2016. Alberta Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Recovery Plan,.
Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 38. Edmonton, AB.
85 pp.
ii
Draft June 1, 2016
PREFACE
Albertans are fortunate to share their province with an impressive variety of wild species.
Populations of most species of plants and animals are healthy and secure. However, a small
number of species are either naturally rare or are now imperiled because of human activities.
Alberta recovery plans establish a basis for cooperation among government, industry,
conservation groups, landowners and other stakeholders to ensure these species and populations
are restored or maintained for future generations.
Alberta’s commitment to the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and to the National
Framework for the Conservation of Species at Risk, combined with requirements established
under Alberta’s Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act, has resulted in the development
of a provincial recovery program. An overall goal of the recovery program is to restore species
identified as Threatened or Endangered to viable, naturally self-sustaining populations within
Alberta. The policy document: Alberta’s Strategy for the Management of Species at Risk (20092014) provides broader program context for recovery activities.
Draft recovery plans undergo review by the Fish and Wildlife Policy Branch before being posted
online for public comment for at least 30 days; additional opportunities for review by the public
may be provided. Following review by the public, Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation
Committee reviews draft plans and provides recommendations on their acceptance to the
Minister. Plans accepted and approved for implementation by the Minister are published as a
government recovery plan. Approved plans are a summary of the Ministry’s commitment to
work with involved stakeholders to coordinate and implement conservation actions necessary to
restore or maintain these species.
Recovery plans include two main sections: (1) the situational analysis that highlights the species’
distribution and population trends, threats, and conservation actions to date; and (2) the recovery
section that outlines goals, objectives, associated broader strategies, and specific priority actions
required to maintain or recover the Threatened or Endangered species. Each approved recovery
plan undergoes regular review, and progress of implementation is evaluated. Implementation of
each recovery plan is subject to the availability of resources, from within and from outside
government.
iii
Draft June 1, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROCESS FOR REVISING THE PLAN................................................................................. 1
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REVIEW ......................................................................... 2
4.0 REFINING GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ZONES ...................................................... 2
4.1 History of the Development of Grizzly Bear Management Zones ............................... 2
4.2 Additional Zones ........................................................................................................... 3
5.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 6
5.1 Population Status .......................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Overview of Threats ..................................................................................................... 6
5.2.1 Human-Caused Grizzly Bear Mortality ................................................................6
5.2.2 Grizzly Bear Response to Anthropogenic Habitat Alteration...............................8
5.2.3 Loss of Connectivity .............................................................................................9
5.3 The Human Dimension to Grizzly Bear Recovery ..................................................... 17
5.3.1 Albertan’s Attitudes and Concerns .....................................................................17
5.3.2 Alberta BearSmart Program ................................................................................17
5.4 Situation Scan by Bear Management Area ................................................................. 18
5.4.1 Bear Management Area 1 - Chinchaga ...............................................................18
5.4.2 Bear Management Area 2 – Grande Cache.........................................................19
5.4.3 Bear Management Area 3 – Yellowhead ............................................................20
5.4.4 Bear Management Area 4 – Clearwater ..............................................................21
5.4.5 Bear Management Area 5 – Livingstone ............................................................22
5.4.6 Bear Management Area 6 – Castle .....................................................................23
5.4.7 Bear Management Area 7 – Swan Hills ..............................................................24
6.0 RECOVERY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 31
6.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 31
6.2 Recovery Goal and Objectives................................................................................ 31
7.0 STRATEGIES FOR THE RECOVERY OF GRIZZLY BEARS .......................................... 36
7.1 Improving Program Effectiveness .............................................................................. 36
7.1.1 Improving Alberta BearSmart.............................................................................36
7.1.2 Enhanced Public Outreach and Education ..........................................................38
7.1.3 Improve Program Coordination ..........................................................................40
7.2 Strategies to Reduce Human-caused Mortality........................................................... 42
7.2.1 Reduce Human-Grizzly Bear Conflict by Managing Attractants .......................42
7.2.2 Mitigate the Effect of Motorized Access ............................................................45
7.2.3 Reduce Accidental Human-caused Mortality .....................................................48
7.2.4 Targeted Use of Aversive Conditioning .............................................................49
7.3 Mitigate the Effect of Human Development on Grizzly Bear Habitat ....................... 50
7.3.1 Improve Understanding and Management of the Effects of Human Use and
Resource Extraction on Grizzly Bear Habitat ..............................................................50
7.3.2 Improve the Ability to Disperse Across Major Transportation Corridors ..........52
iv
Draft June 1, 2016
7.3.3 Improve the Ability of Bears to Disperse Between BMA 2 and BMA 7 ...........53
7.4 Assess Potential Abundance and Distribution of Grizzly Bears in the Recovery Zone
........................................................................................................................................... 54
8.0 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE TABLES ............................................ 56
9.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 60
10.0 INTERACTION WITH OTHER SPECIES AT RISK RECOVERY PROGRAMS ........... 61
11.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A. Changes to the Core and Secondary Zones ................................................. 69
Appendix B. Individual Bear Management Area Maps and Supplemental Information . 71
Appendix C. Status Evaluation for Grizzly Bear in Alberta .......................................... 79
Appendix D. Supplemental Information on Road Density ............................................... 85
v
Draft June 1, 2016
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES. 1 Grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMAs) and management zones. ..................... xiv
Figure 4. 1 Grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMA) and management zone boundaries. ........... 5
Figure 5. 1 Annual human-caused mortality from 2000-2013. The legal hunt for grizzly bears
was discontinued after 2005.......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. 2 Cause of death for grizzly bears known to have died due to human causes in Alberta,
2006-2013 (n=131). ...................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. 3 Graphic representation of the 5 habitat states based on adult female habitat (Hf) and
human-caused mortality risk (Rf) models. Reprinted with permission from Nielsen et al. (2006).
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. 4 Summary of migrant grizzly bears (GB) as determined by genetic assignment and
direct means between adjacent areas in the Canada–United States transborder and Alberta
regions. Black arrows indicate male movements and white indicate female movements. Arrows
indicate direction and thickness illustrates the rate of movements (i.e., thicker lines indicate more
movements, each thin white arrow represents 1 female GB movement). Reprinted with
permission from Proctor et al. (2012). .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 5.5 Location of grizzly bear movement corridors across Highway 11 and 16 (G.
Stenhouse, Foothills Research Institute, unpublished data) identified using graph theory
modeling (Carra 2010). ................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 7. 1 Road densities within Grizzly Bear Watershed Units (GBWU) between BMA 2 and
BMA 7 and the GBWU to be added as Secondary Zone habitat to the AEP key wildlife layer (see
4.1). ............................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure A. 1 Changes to the Secondary Zone. For inset 3 the changes are that the core and
secondary habitat in the Porcupine Hills are now represented as support habitat. ....................... 70
Figure B. 1 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 1 - Chinchaga. ............................. 71
Figure B. 2 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 2 – Grande Cache. ....................... 72
Figure B. 3 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 3 – Yellowhead ........................... 73
Figure B. 4 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 4 - Clearwater. ............................. 74
Figure B. 5 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 5 – Livingstone. ........................... 75
Figure B. 6 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 6 - Castle. .................................... 76
Figure B. 7 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 7 – Swan Hills. ............................ 77
Figure B. 8 Map of the the Grizzly Bear Management Zones on the Alberta Natural Regions and
Subregions (Natural Regions Committee 2006) ........................................................................... 78
vi
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure D. 1 Current road density status in Grizzly Bear Watershed Units in Core and Secondary
Zones. ............................................................................................................................................ 85
vii
Draft June 1, 2016
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1. Definition of the management zones to guide the recovery of grizzly bears in
Alberta.......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Table 5.1. The 6 year (2008-2013) average known human-caused mortality/relocation rate for a
Bear Management Area (BMA). BMA 1 - Chinchaga and BMA 7 - Swan Hills were not
included because population estimates using this methodology do not exist. For this analysis, a
translocation out of the BMA is considered a mortality in the BMA it was taken from; if the
translocated bear should later die due to human-caused mortality in its new BMA, its death was
not included in that BMA mortalities. .......................................................................................... 14
Table 5.2. Translocation capture locations in Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) from
2009-2013. .................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 5.3 Grizzly bear georeferenced occurrences from 2009-2013, excluding sighting, by Bear
Management Area (BMA) as recorded in the Government of Alberta, Enforcement Database.
The occurrence type categories were assigned by the Provincial Carnivore Specialist. Note that
summing Livestock Related, Attractant Related, and Agricultural Attractants is not appropriate
as occurrences may appear in multiple categories. ....................................................................... 15
Table 5.4. The number of Grizzly Bear Watershed Units (GBWU) within the Recovery Zone of
each Bear Management Area (BMA) that exceed the recommended road density of 0.6 km/km2
and 0.75 km/km2 for Core Zone and Secondary Zones, respectively. National Parks were not
included in this analysis. GBWU are based on major watersheds subdivided along heights of
land and occasionally along watercourses, to approximate the size of an average adult female
grizzly bear home range (~500 km2). The road database used is described by Boulanger and
Stenhouse (2014) except in the case of BMA 1 for which the Alberta Road layer was used. A full
description of this dataset is available online through GeoDiscover Alberta. All feature types
with the exception of ferry routes, winter crossings, and winter roads were included. ................ 16
Table 5.5. The current (based on best available data) amount of the Recovery Zone (includes
National Parks) in each Bear Management Area (BMA) that are in each habitat state based on
habitat states calculated from Resource Selection Function models and mortality risk (Nielsen et
al. 2006). Primary and secondary refers to the probability that an area will be used by grizzly
bears. Sink refers to areas with high mortality risk. The best habitat for grizzly bears is primary
habitat because it is selected by grizzly bears and had a low risk of human-caused mortality.
Habitat states for BMA 1 cannot be reported because the underlying research has yet to be done.
The Total area may differ slightly from the true area of the Recovery Zone in the BMA, as the
raster boundaries do not align exactly with the BMA boundaries. ............................................... 16
Table 5.6. Natural subregion composition (Natural Regions Committee 2006) of the grizzly bear
management areas (BMA). ........................................................................................................... 27
viii
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.7. Area and % area within the Recovery Zone of each Bear Management Area (BMA)
that is subject to an access management plan as part of a protected area designation (PA) or a
Public Land Use Zone (PLUZ). .................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.8. Causes of human-caused grizzly bear mortality in each Bear Management Area from
2009-2013 as reported in the compulsory reporting and registration of dead grizzly bear
incidents. The mortality cause categories were assigned by the Provincial Carnivore Specialist.
....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.9. Number of livestock (includes livestock feed) and public safety related grizzly bear
occurrences in Alberta during the period 2009-2013 by Bear Management Area (BMA), by
grizzly bear zone, and across the province as reported in the ENFOR database. Only those
occurrences with a spatial reference for assigning to a zone are included. .................................. 29
Table 6.1. Recovery goal components and associated objectives and indicators of success. ...... 34
Table 7.1. The area of the Recovery and Support zones that has Federal or Provincial
designation limiting vehicular access to designated roads or trails. ............................................. 46
Table 8.1. Implementation schedule for recovery actions. .......................................................... 57
Table A.1. Proposed changes to the Core and Secondary Zone Boundaries. These changes
correspond to the changes presented in Figure A.1. ..................................................................... 69
ix
Draft June 1, 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge all the considered and ardent input that was provided in
workshops and meetings with Indigenous communities, stakeholders, and Government of
Alberta staff. Their input and review comments made this a much better plan. In particular, we
would like to thank the Regional Fish and Wildlife staff (Andrea Morehouse, Greg Hale, Jon
Jorgenson, Jay Honeyman, Anne Hubbs, Chiara Feder, Rita Stagman, Dave Hobson, Jeff
Kneteman, Sarah Rovang, Mike Russell, Curtis Stambaugh, Jim Castle, Dave Moyles, and Lyle
Fullerton) that variously helped organize and deliver workshops and assisted in developing and
editing the plan. We hope that the plan assists you in continuing the good work you are doing
with grizzly bears. Brenda Eeglon and Nancy Bateman’s support with the organizing and
compiling the results from the provincial stakeholder workshop was very helpful. We would like
to acknowledge The Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program for providing
the 2013 Program Deliverables, which contained much of the spatial data used in the plan as well
as the Grizzly Bear Tools which facilitated the use of the grizzly bear habitat and risk models. As
well, this plan greatly benefitted from Hannah McKenzie’s help with the analysis and
organization of data. We would like to thank Ron Bjorge for his sage advice and corporate
memory that was central to reorganizing the access management strategy. Erin Sinclair’s
methodical approach and attention to detail in laying out the document were skills that were
greatly appreciated and needed. A big thanks to Darice Stefanyshyn for her help developing the
BearSmart strategy. We are also grateful for the project guidance and thoughtful review
comments provided by project sponsors Jim Allen, Sue Cotterill, and Matt Besko.
x
Draft June 1, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Grizzly bears in the province of Alberta were listed as a Threatened species in 2010. Concern
about Alberta’s grizzly bear population started much earlier and resulted in a recovery team
being formed to develop a Recovery Plan. A draft of the Recovery Plan was completed in 2005,
sport hunting of grizzly bears was discontinued in 2006, and the five year recovery plan was
accepted by the Alberta Minister of Sustainable Resource Development in 2008. The 2008
Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (AGBRP) was revised using input from provincial staff
involved with grizzly bear population and habitat management, researchers, and representatives
from industry, agricultural producers, Indigenous communities and environmental groups.
The AGBRP (2008) described 7 demographically separate grizzly Bear Management Areas
(BMAs). During the implementation of the plan important habitat areas (Core and Secondary
Zones) were identified for the management of motorized access on publically managed land
outside of protected areas. In the time since the AGBRP was adopted, there has been an increase
in human-grizzly bear conflict on private land adjacent to the publicly managed eastern slopes of
the Rocky Mountains. This conflict highlighted the need to clarify where, and to what end, the
Government of Alberta is managing for grizzly bear recovery. To address this need, this plan
refines the external boundaries of the BMAs and clarifies the management priorities by
subdividing each BMA into 3 zones: Recovery, Support, and Habitat Linkage Zones (Figure ES
1). The Core and Secondary Zones within the Recovery Zone have been maintained for the
purpose of identifying priority areas for access management (Table ES 1).
Human-bear interactions are an emerging and increasing threat to grizzly bears in some parts of
the province. Human-caused mortality, including translocations of conflict bears, remains a
threat to the recovery of grizzly bears in Alberta. Over the past five years, the four highest
sources of mortality in order of prevalence were: poaching, accidental collisions with highway
vehicles or trains, self-defence kills (usually by hunters), and black bear hunters misidentifying
and accidently shooting a grizzly bear. Grizzly bears searching for food around human
settlements and agricultural areas are at risk of being killed or trapped and relocated if their
search results in property damage or a public safety concern. The public motorized access
associated with increasing road density is a major contributor to the likelihood of a humangrizzly bear interaction that results in grizzly bear mortality. Major highway corridors through
occupied grizzly bear habitat are particularly problematic because they also act as a barrier to
dispersal.
Grizzly bears were listed as threatened because of relatively small population size and the
concern that human-caused mortality and deteriorating habitat conditions had resulted in, or were
likely to result in, in a significant population decline. The recovery goal recognizes that grizzly
bear recovery in several BMAs is dependent on maintaining support from Albertans, such that,
concerns for public safety and the destruction of private property must be addressed in recovery
plan implementation. The recovery goal and objectives are designed to address these concerns
and are linked to a suite of indicators that, when monitored, will provide an assessment of
recovery progress. There is also recognition that individual BMAs have different recovery
priorities and the recovery objectives reflect this. For example, the Support Zones of BMA 5 and
6 have had very high rates of human-grizzly bear conflict, primarily associated with livestock
xi
Draft June 1, 2016
and feed storage; as a consequence, the mortality rate objective has been adjusted to achieve
population maintenance instead of population growth. Other differences in individual BMA
recovery priorities are discussed and will be reflected in the implementation of the recovery plan.
Recovery Goal and Objectives
The Alberta grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone is not limited by human-caused
mortality, has access to secure habitat, is able to successfully disperse across major road
corridors, and that Albertans - in particular those living, working, and recreating in grizzly
bear management zones - are supportive of grizzly bear conservation and management
activities.
Ob 1) The density of grizzly bears within the Recovery Zone of each Bear
Management Area is not limited by human-caused mortality and is either stable or
increasing over time within a population size range based on habitat potential.
Ob 2) In the recovery and support zones, the known human-caused mortality rate is
≤ 4 %, of which the female mortality rate does not exceed 1.2%, except in BMAs 5
and 6 where the mortality rates is less than 6.0%, of which the female mortality rate
does not exceed 1.8 %.
Ob 3) The ability of grizzly bears to disperse across Habitat Linkage Zones is
improved.
Ob 4) Habitat security for grizzly bears in the Recovery Zone is maintained or
improved.
Ob 5) Albertan’s support for grizzly bear conservation and management increases
over time.
Ob 6) Support for grizzly bear conservation and management is increasing amongst
people living, working, and recreating in Bear Management Zones.
Significant changes and refinements in the strategies for recovery include:
a. Clear threshold recommendation for density of roads open to public motorized
access: Core Zone 0.6 km/km2 and Secondary Zone 0.75 km/km2.
b. New strategies for restoring habitat connectivity across highway corridors. BMA 7 Swan Hills is a high priority because its natural isolation is exacerbated by a busy
highway corridor and increasing road development in the narrow isthmus of habitat
that connects it to BMA2 – Grande Cache.
c. Continuation and refinement of the strategies to:
 reduce human-caused grizzly bear mortality,
 reduce human-grizzly bear conflict by managing food attractants,
 maintain access to secure habitat, and,
 Alberta’s BearSmart program.
xii
Draft June 1, 2016
Table ES.1. Definition of the management zones to guide the recovery of grizzly bears in Alberta.
Zone
Recovery
Core and Secondary
Definition/Management Intention
The geographic extent in Alberta where it is the intention of the Government of
Alberta to recover grizzly bears.
Inform the management of access planning and development within the Recovery
Zone. It does not include protected areas that exclude industrial development such as
National and Provincial Parks.
Support
Intended to support the population of grizzly bears in the Recovery Zone by creating a
priority area for the management of bear attractants and other sources of humanwildlife conflict adjacent to the Recovery Zone thereby improving the survival rate of
grizzly bears, in particular females and females with cubs, that are moving between the
Recovery Zone and the Support Zone.
Habitat Linkage
Identifies the highway corridors where there is need to maintain or enhance the ability
of grizzly bears to move across the Habitat Linkage Zone between adjacent BMAs.
xiii
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure ES. 1 Grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMAs) and management zones.
xiv
Draft June 1, 2016
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Grizzly bears were first recommended for listing as Threatened by the Alberta Endangered
Species Conservation Committee (ESCC) in 2002. At that time, it was estimated there were
approximately 850 bears inhabiting provincial lands plus another 175 to 185 in National Parks
(Kansas 2002). The Minister of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development did not accept the
threatened recommendation by the ESCC, and instead appointed a Recovery Team to develop a
recovery plan. At the same time the Minister commissioned an external review of the hunting
management system and initiated a program to provide more reliable population estimates.
Based on the hunting management assessment, hunting permits were reduced in 2003 and 2004,
and licenced hunting of grizzly bears ceased in 2006 following the completion of the first two
BMA population inventories. In 2008 the Recovery Plan was completed, accepted by the
Minister, and formal plan implementation began. Implementation of the plan was followed in
2010 by an updated status assessment, leading to the grizzly bear being listed as a Threatened
species. This document is the revision of the 2008 Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
2.0 PROCESS FOR REVISING THE PLAN





A six member steering committee was formed consisting of Pat Fargey (co-lead), Nate
Webb (co-lead and later replaced by Paul Frame), Gord Stenhouse, Courtney Hughes,
Carrie San Cartier, and Dave Kay. This group collaborated organizing and delivering
recovery planning workshops and compiled all the input received into the draft plan.
Regional workshops occurred in Twin Butte October 22 and 23, 2013, Rocky Mountain
House November 20-21, 2013 and Whitecourt, January 6 and 7, 2014. Participants were
drawn from the broad cross-section of GoA staff that had been involved in implementing
aspects of grizzly bear recovery and included participation by Parks Canada Agency
biologists. The Twin Butte workshop also had 3 representatives from the Waterton
Biosphere Reserve (WBR) and the WBR Carnivore Working Group. These discussions
included critical review of recovery plan implementation and provided direction for the
revised plan.
On March 25 and 26, 2014 a workshop in Edmonton was held with participation from 15
different stakeholder groups. After this workshop the recovery goal, management zones,
and selected recovery strategies were revised and provided via email to workshop
participants for review and edits.
Letters were sent to 22 First Nations and six Métis organizations with three follow up
meetings, where interest was expressed, to discuss perspectives on grizzly bear recovery
and management and to get feedback on the new plan content.
Drafts of the management zones and the recovery goals were presented opportunistically
by regional Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) staff as part of their stakeholder
meetings.
1
Draft June 1, 2016
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REVIEW
Annual Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan progress reports have been prepared and posted online each
year since plan approval in 2008. These reports, which are available to the public online1,
highlight the accomplishments in all aspects of the recovery plan implementation program.
Recovery implementation accomplishments, as well as remaining gaps, are discussed in this
revised plan in the appropriate sections.
4.0 REFINING GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ZONES
4.1 History of the Development of Grizzly Bear Management Zones
The former Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (AGBRP 2008) identified seven
demographically separate grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMAs) and proposed the concept of
Grizzly Bear Priority Areas (GPAs). The intention was that GPAs would identify areas in high
quality habitat within each BMA that should be managed to maintain habitat quality and ensure
low risk of human-caused mortality by limiting access by motorized vehicles. The AGBRP
(2008) also introduced the concept of access density thresholds as a habitat performance
measure:
“. . . at or below 0.6 km/km2 in high quality grizzly bear habitat designated as Grizzly
Bear Priority Areas (GPAs; refer to “Strategies” for details), and open route densities at
or below 1.2 km/km2 in all remaining grizzly bear range” (p. 21 AGBRP 2008)
The delineation of priority areas was done as part of recovery plan implementation. A
combination of habitat modelling approaches and expert opinion were used to identify core and
secondary conservation areas (Nielsen et al. 2009). The core conservation area represented the
highest quality habitat based on low road density and models of habitat use informed by data
from grizzly bear telemetry studies and DNA population inventory work. The core conservation
areas were analogous to the concept of GPAs as identified in the AGBRP (2008). Secondary
conservation areas buffered and helped connect core conservation areas. They also tended to
have higher road density (Nielsen et al. 2009). In all cases, core and secondary conservation
areas were located on primarily publically managed land within the provincial Green Zone.
In 2008, the Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Resource Directors Council replaced the
term “Conservation Areas” with “Zones” and officially approved the designation of Grizzly Bear
Core and Secondary Zones for the area south of Grande Prairie to the Montana border (Figure
4.1). One of the recognized gaps was the Chinchaga area (BMA 1) in northwestern Alberta. This
area was mapped in a separate process using historical observations, telemetry, and mortality
1
http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bears/default.aspx
2
Draft June 1, 2016
locations and the local knowledge of AEP staff familiar with this area to identify the Secondary
Zone. To date, no Core Zone habitat has been identified for BMA 1. The Geographic
Information System (GIS) data on Core and Secondary Zones has been publically available on
the AEP web site as a sensitive species data layer2 since September 2010 and is used to inform
the permitting of industrial development and land use planning.
4.2 Additional Zones
As part of the development of the revised Alberta Recovery Plan, three additional zones have
been added to clarify the spatial context for management actions and priorities.
The first new zone classification is Recovery Zone (Figure 4.1), which amalgamates the Core and
Secondary Zones with the National Parks. The purpose of the Recovery Zone is to explicitly
identify the location in Alberta where it is the intention of the Government of Alberta to
manage for the recovery of grizzly bears. National Parks are included - even though the
Government of Alberta does not manage grizzly bears within National Park boundaries - because
these areas are part of contiguous ecosystems and have important populations that are considered
part of the population of grizzly bears in Alberta. The Core and Secondary Zones are largely
unchanged (see Appendix A for a discussion of changes) and will continue to inform the
management of access planning and development (see 7.2.2 for the explanation). The Recovery
Zone is also a priority for attractant management as well as other sources of human-grizzly bear
conflict.
The second additional zone classification is Support Zone (Figure 4.1), which is intended to help
maintain grizzly bears, particularly females and females with cubs that have home ranges only
partially in the Recovery Zone. This zone will be a priority area for attractant management and
the proactive management of human-bear conflict. Open road density thresholds will not be
applied to the Support Zone.
Development of boundaries for the Support Zone used the following considerations: history of
grizzly bear occurrences over the past 20 years, habitat potential, topographical relief, conflict
potential, and proximity to the Recovery Zone. Where meaningful ecological boundaries were in
close proximity to roads, barriers such as lakes or rivers, or edges of Wildlife Management Unit
boundaries, these features were used to delimit the outer boundaries of the Support Zone. In the
north half of the province there has been less research on grizzly bears and the importance of
some areas to grizzly bear conservation is uncertain. Consequently, as a precautionary measure,
there are several areas such as the Marten Hills (northeast of the Swan Hills) and the Saddle Hills
(northwest of Grande Prairie) that have been identified as Support Zone, even though they are
somewhat isolated from the Recovery Zone.
The third zone is the Habitat Linkage Zone (Figure 4.1). This is the area along major east-west
highway corridors that separates the provincial grizzly bear population into demographic units
2
http://aep.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx
3
Draft June 1, 2016
that are at risk of becoming more isolated over time if use of the corridor intensifies (Proctor et
al. 2012). For the purpose of communicating management intent to stakeholders, these areas are
represented as a 5.0 km buffer along major highway corridors through the Recovery Zone. As
part of implementation, more detailed mapping of the corridors will be required. Recovery
implementation in these areas will involve maintaining and, where necessary, enhancing the
ability of grizzly bears to move across the Habitat Linkage Zones into adjacent BMAs.
To meet the recovery objectives (Section 6.0) the presence of grizzly bears outside of the Grizzly
Bear Recovery and Support Zones is not required. Management tolerance for grizzly bears that
come into conflict with humans outside of the Recovery and Support Zones will be lower. The
Recovery, Habitat Linkage, and Support Zones are the priority for attractant management but
efforts to proactively reduce human-grizzly bear conflict in adjacent areas can occur if
appropriate resources, habitat and social acceptance exist. The boundaries of BMAs have been
adjusted to incorporate the Recovery and Support Zones (Figure 4.1). As part of the development
of the revised Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, three small changes were made to the
Secondary Zone and one change to the Core Zone that are described in Appendix A. When
making the changes in Appendix A, all grizzly bear watershed units (GBWU) should be
evaluated to identify those that are oversized and should be adjusted.
4
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure 4. 1 Grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMA) and management zone boundaries.
5
Draft June 1, 2016
5.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS
5.1 Population Status
The 2010 status report for grizzly bears combined results from DNA-based mark-recapture
population estimates with habitat modelling and expert opinion to arrive at a total provincial
population estimate of 691 bears plus the bears in most of Banff and the south half of Jasper
National Parks (Festa-Bianchet 2010). There has not been a provincial population estimate
completed since the status report (Festa-Bianchet 2010) although population inventory work has
recently completed for BMA 3 (see Section 5.4.3) and is underway in BMAs 5 and 6.
5.2 Overview of Threats
5.2.1 Human-Caused Grizzly Bear Mortality
Human-caused mortality remains a threat to grizzly bears in the province (AGBRP 2008, FestaBianchet 2010). Since the legal harvest of grizzly bears was discontinued in 2006, there have
been 131 detected human-caused mortalities (Figure 5.1). Of the known mortalities where gender
identification was possible, 39.7 % were female. The four highest sources of human-caused
mortality in order of occurrence are: poaching, accidental collisions with highway vehicles or
trains, self-defence kills, usually by hunters, and black bear hunters misidentifying and shooting
a grizzly bear (Figure 5.2). This is in contrast to the AGBRP (2008) for which the four highest
sources of human-caused mortality outside of legal harvest in order of occurrence, were
poaching, self-defence, problem wildlife (i.e. agency control), and vehicle collisions.
The AGBRP (2008) used population viability analysis results (McLoughlin 2003) to determine
that the grizzly bear population should increase if the number of known human-caused
mortalities is ≤4% of the provincial population per year, and within that total, the female
mortality rate does not exceed 1.2%. For the purpose of reporting on mortality rates, bears that
are captured and removed from of a BMA are considered a mortality for the donor BMA but do
not count as a mortality if they should later die due to human-caused mortality in the recipient
BMA. The overall provincial mortality rate is approaching the target mortality in the five BMAs
where a population estimate exists making it possible to do the calculation, largely due to the
large population size and relatively low mortality rate in BMA 2 (Table 5.1). Since mortality
rates and translocations are being recorded for the entire BMA, then the rates calculated as a
percentage of the superpopulation better reflect the intention of this metric. The rates for BMAs
4, 5, and 6 are higher because of the large number of bears that have been translocated out of
these BMAs (Table 5.2). However, these results are potentially misleading and need to be
interpreted with caution because the population estimates used to calculate the mortality rate
could have changed significantly from when the hair snag DNA samples were collected in 2004
to 20083 and the population trend will usually be unknown. Due to limited resources often only
3
http://AEP.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bears/default.aspx
6
Draft June 1, 2016
part of the BMA was surveyed during population inventories even though moralities and
translocation are collected for the entire BMA. To date, BMA 3 is the only BMA that has
reported results from a resurvey and the sample area was much larger and sampled most of the
recovery zone. If the overall moratily rate in Table 5.1 is calculated with the 2014 population
numbers (Stenhouse et al. 2015) then the know mortality/translocation rate drops from 3.1 % to
1.2 % which illustrates how important it is to have current estimates for the entire recovery zone.
The mortality rate by BMA and related recovery plan priorities are discussed in Section 5.4.
Grizzly bears searching for food can be attracted to human settlements and agricultural areas
greatly increasing the potential for human-grizzly bear conflict. Bears that come into conflict are
at increased risk of being killed or trapped and relocated (Gunter et al. 2004 and Northrup et al.
2012a). Occurrence records of grizzly bear conflict are kept in the Government of Alberta
enforcement occurence database (ENFOR). From 2009-2013, approximately 52% (n=1206) of
grizzly bear occurrences, excluding sightings, resulted from attractants (Table 5.3). This estimate
is conservative, as undoubtedly some events go unreported and many of the occurrences coded in
ENFOR as Grizzly Bear Mortality Investigation, Other, Public Safety, and Road/Rail Kill were
likely also associated with an attractant (Table 5.3). Of the 550 out of 1206 attractant related
occurrences that had location data (georeferenced), 11% occurred in the Recovery Zone, 74% in
the Support Zone, and 15% outside of either zone. Removing bears from the area where they get
into conflict is a common management response, used as an alternative to the destruction of the
bear. From 2009 to 2013, of the 107 bears with known capture locations, 73% came from the
Support Zone (Table 5.2). Captured bears were translocated out of the BMA 87 % of the time.
In a review of the Alberta Grizzly Bear Translocation Program from 2004-2011 (Hobson and
Webb, in prep), of 27 bears collared only 12 bears (6 females and 6 males) could be assessed for
survival to 1 year either due to equipment failure (12) or they had not yet been monitored for 1
year at the time the report was written (3). Of the 12 bears with known fates 1 year post-release,
58 % (5 females, 2 males) survived and 42 % died (1 female, 4 males).
Human-grizzly bear conflict has increased in the past five years, resulting in a growing challenge
for grizzly bear recovery in some BMAs. To be successful, management of conflict incidents
requires significant resources from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Wildlife Officers and
AEP wildlife staff.
Areas with higher road densities are associated with an increased risk of human-caused grizzly
bear mortalities (McLellan and Shackleton 1988, Benn and Herrero 2002, Nielsen et al. 2004a,
Schwartz et al. 2010). Recent work has demonstrated that female grizzly bears (Graham et al.
2010 and Stewart et al. 2013), in particular females with cubs (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014),
were at increased human-caused mortality risk because they were more likely to use road edges.
Demographic models that included the effect of open road density, predicted that populations
would likely increase at open road densities of ≤ 0.6 km/km2 but females with young cubs are
particularly vulnerable and would likely decrease at open road densities of greater than 0.75
km/km2 (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014). The new recommended road density thresholds for
Core and Secondary Zones are based on these findings (see Section 4.1). Currently, 26.7% and
32.9 % Core and Secondary Zones respectively, have road density above these thresholds (Table
5.4). Current provincial road databases do not yet distinguish roads that have been closed to
7
Draft June 1, 2016
public motorized access, so some of these areas may contain roads that have been effectively
closed and there may be instances where there is a lag in the updating of road databases.
However, there is no systematic process to assess whether a road has been effectively closed and
the precautionary approach is to assume it is open. Managing motorized access on public lands
remains an important grizzly bear recovery implementation challenge.
5.2.2 Grizzly Bear Response to Anthropogenic Habitat Alteration
Direct long-term loss (greater than 25 years) of habitat to human footprint (e.g. industrial sites,
permanent roads, active mines) in the Recovery Zone is small (0.58 %). Much larger areas have
altered vegetation due to disturbances such as forestry cut blocks, pipeline right-of-ways, revegetated mines sites, and well pads. However, linear features, which include roads, seismic
lines, power lines and pipelines, can cause a wide range of ecological impacts for a variety of
species. Habitat fragmentation and barrier effects (Forman and Alexander 1998, Brittingham et
al. 2014), population fragmentation (Proctor et al. 2012), edge effects (Bayne et al. 2005,
Stewart et al. 2013), changes in forest structure and forest patch size (Linke et al. 2005),
increasing human access into remote areas (McLellan 1989), the creation of movement corridors,
alteration of predator-prey dynamics, and functional habitat loss (Latham et al. 2011) are among
the potential ecological impacts resulting from linear features.
Within west-central Alberta, research indicates that grizzly bears select for forestry cutblocks
using different aged stands at different times of year (Nielsen et al. 2004c, Stewart et al. 2012,
Stewart et al. 2013), well-sites (McKay et al. 2014), and roads (Graham et al. 2010, Roever et al.
2008a) and that the patterns of use vary by gender. Berland et al. (2008) also reported that
grizzly bears did not avoid disturbed areas in the foothills of Alberta, including clear-cuts, roads,
pipelines, well-sites, power-lines, and railways. In the Kakwa region of Alberta, Labaree et al.
(2014) reported that the majority of grizzly bears were closer than expected to roads and
pipelines in the spring, and closer than expected to roads in the fall, while the fall response to
pipelines was more variable. Female grizzly bears in the Kakwa region also appear to use
pipeline-forest edges (McKay et al. in review, Stewart et al. 2013). The use of anthropogenic
openings by grizzly bears has been attributed to the presence of important bear foods growing
along edges and young or regenerating forests (Munro et al. 2006, Nielsen et al. 2004b, Roever
et al. 2008b, Larsen 2012, Stewart et al. 2013). Similar to other disturbances, pipelines provide
habitat transitions or edges where the forest and pipeline meet, as well as openings that often
support the growth of bear foods (McKay et al. in review).
Grizzly bears do appear to avoid roads in some situations. Northrup et al. (2012b) found that
grizzly bears avoided areas of high road use (20 – 100 vehicles/day) and strongly avoided roads
with greater than 100 vehicles per day in southwest Alberta. Research in other North American
jurisdictions suggests that the distance from a road that is avoided by grizzly bears is highly
variable ranging from up to 100 m (McLellan and Shackleton 1988) to 500 m (Mace et al.1996).
The difference is perhaps explained by the smaller effect occurring in denser forested
environments (Wielgus et al. 2002). Grizzly bears also appeared to modify their response to
roads, with restricted access industrial roads having less effect than comparable roads that are
also open for recreational users (Wielgus et al. 2002). While there is evidence that grizzly bears
8
Draft June 1, 2016
can be locally displaced at fine scales, there is no evidence that disturbance, in the absence of
increased human-caused mortality, affects landscape population density (Mowat et al. 2013).
Random camping, along streams and rivers in the mountains and foothills, is a popular
recreational activity in some parts of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Not only are these
hotspots for outdoor recreational activities, but also staging areas for motorized Off Highway
Vehicles (OHV) especially during the summer and fall. In addition these riparian areas are also
high use by grizzly bears for both feeding and travel (Graham et al. 2012). Further work is
required to better understand the extent that random camping is contributing to human-grizzly
bear conflict and affecting grizzly bear behavior and demographic vital rates.
The risk of human-caused grizzly bear mortality associated with high road density (see Section
5.2.1) remains the largest habitat alteration challenge affecting grizzly bear recovery. While there
are opportunities to optimize amount and location of grizzly bear food in the management of
natural resource extraction activities (Nielsen et al. 2004b, Roever et al. 2008a), the primary
challenge is to minimize the attractive sinks (areas of increased food that have high humancaused mortality risk) associated with the increased access (Roever et al. 2008b; Stewart et al.
2013).
It is possible to model changes in habitat quality and mortality risk related to anthropogenic
landscape change and the associated roads (Nielsen et al. 2006). The relative trade-offs between
habitat quality and increased mortality risk can be reconciled by integrating the models,
classifying the landscape into different habitat states, and mapping it (Figure 5.3; Nielsen et al.
2006). Primary habitat with low mortality risk is the habitat state of particular value to grizzly
bears. The Foothills Research Institute, using the best available information on current landscape
condition and their Grizzly Bear Tools GIS application, calculated the habitat state for each
BMA (Table 5.5) except for BMA 1 where baseline data does not currently exist. The habitat
state condition is used to identify BMAs that have relatively large amounts of high value habitat
for bears that is compromised by mortality risk in order to identify priorities for remediation (see
sections 5.4.2-5.4.8). Grizzly Bear Tools has important application for planning natural resource
extraction activities because it can be used to identify road location options that are less harmful
to grizzly bears. There also is the potential to use it to monitor habitat states and assess whether
the supply of secure habitat is being maintained over time.
5.2.3 Loss of Connectivity
Proctor et al. (2012) demonstrated that the Alberta population of grizzly bears is actually part of
a much larger, well connected population, shared with Montana and eastern British Columbia
(Figure 5.4). However, the glaciated continental divide likely limits movement of bears between
Alberta and BC in BMAs 3 and 4 (Figure 5.4). Unlike all of Alberta’s other BMAs, BMA 7 is
naturally isolated since it is connected to BMA 2 by only a narrow isthmus of habitat.
Since the writing of the AGBRP (2008), there is a greater appreciation for how highways and the
development along highway corridors have resulted in the structure of grizzly bear
subpopulations in Alberta. Major highway corridors can act as a barrier to dispersal, reduce gene
flow, and impair the ability of adjacent BMAs to serve as a source of bears to recolonize a BMA
9
Draft June 1, 2016
should a local extirpation event occur. It has been demonstrated that high levels of vehicle
traffic, human development, and grizzly bear mortality along the major transportation routes that
separate BMAs, reduce the ability of grizzly bears to successfully disperse across these corridors.
As a consequence, there are detectable discontinuities in genetic mixing between Alberta’s
BMAs and the degree of genetic separation is larger than the effect of the continental divide
between British Columbian and Alberta (Proctor et al. 2012). Grizzly bears are particularly
susceptible to this anthropogenic population fragmentation because of relatively low population
density, slow reproductive rate, short dispersal, male-biased dispersal, and habitat degradation
(Proctor 2012). The fact that connectivity between BMA 3 and 4 and the larger population in
British Columbia is naturally limited makes maintaining north-south connectivity across
highway corridors a high recovery priority.
Alexander et al. (2005) suggested that highway mitigations to improve wildlife permeability
should be considered at approximately 5,000 vehicles/day. All the highways within the Habitat
Linkage Zones (Figure 4.1) are well above this threshold, except for Hwy 11 and a short section
of Highway 3 right at the BC-Alberta border that is slightly below this threshold4. Overpass and
underpass development can be very effective for ensuring connectivity across high traffic
transportation corridors. Since 1996, Banff National Park has installed 6 overpasses and 38
underpasses as part of highway twinning through the Park (Ford et al. 2010). Sufficient numbers
of male and female bears now cross the highway and the local bear population is no longer
considered demographically separate (Sawaya et al. 2012) and sufficient gene flow occurs to
prevent genetic isolation (Sawaya et al. 2014). Two additional crossing structures have been
installed in the Bow Valley east of Banff National Park in order to accommodate cross valley
movements of large carnivores and ungulates.
4
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType181/production/Traffic%20Volume%20History%2020042013.pdf
10
Draft June 1, 2016
# of Known Human Caused Mortalities
40
Hunting No Hunting
Legal Harvest
35
Other
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 5. 1 Annual human-caused mortality from 2000-2013. The legal hunt for grizzly bears was
discontinued after 2005.
Research
1%
Aboriginal
7%
Agency
Control
11%
Illegal
27%
Vehicle Collision
21%
Mistaken for
Black Bear
13%
Self Defence
20%
Figure 5. 2 Cause of death for grizzly bears known to have died due to human causes in Alberta, 2006-2013
(n=131).
11
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure 5. 3 Graphic representation of the 5 habitat states based on adult female habitat (Hf) and humancaused mortality risk (Rf) models. Reprinted with permission from Nielsen et al. (2006).
12
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure 5. 4 Summary of migrant grizzly bears (GB) as determined by genetic assignment and direct means
between adjacent areas in the Canada–United States transborder and Alberta regions. Black arrows indicate
male movements and white indicate female movements. Arrows indicate direction and thickness illustrates
the rate of movements (i.e., thicker lines indicate more movements, each thin white arrow represents 1 female
GB movement). Reprinted with permission from Proctor et al. (2012).
13
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.1. The 6 year (2008-2013) average known human-caused mortality/relocation rate for a Bear
Management Area (BMA). BMA 1 - Chinchaga and BMA 7 - Swan Hills were not included because population
estimates using this methodology do not exist. For this analysis, a translocation out of the BMA is considered a
mortality in the BMA it was taken from; if the translocated bear should later die due to human-caused mortality
in its new BMA, its death was not included in that BMA mortalities.
BMA
Year of
Population
Survey
Population
Size *
# Mortalities/
Relocations
(2008-2013)
Female**
Rate (%)***
Female
Rate (%)
2
2008
353 (388)
32
16
1.5 (1.4)
0.8 (0.7)
3
2004
42 (53)
10
4
4.0 (3.1)
1.6 (1.3)
4
2005
45 (47)
18
4
6.7 (6.4)
1.5 (1.4)
5
2006
90 (133)
42
11
7.8 (1.4)
2.0 (1.4)
6
2007
51****
32
11
10.5
3.6
581
134
46
3.8
1.3
Total
*
Population size was estimated once for each BMA during the time from 2004 to 2008 using DNA snared by barbed wire
5
around lure sites . The estimate for the superpopulation is in brackets while the non-bracketed number is the average number
of bears estimated to be on the sampling grid at anyone time.
**
Total number of females killed or translocated out of the BMA in the 6 year period.
*** Average annual mortality rate expressed as a percentage of population size.
**** The superpopulation for BMA 6 is not included because the sample grid extended into British Columbia.
Table 5.2. Translocation capture locations in Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA)
from 2009-2013.
Recovery
Zone
Support Zone
Adjacent to BMA
BMA
#
%
#
%
#
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
1
5
0
3
6
1
0
16
15.0
33.3
29.4
0.0
23.1
19.4
2.4
0.0
2
11
0
8
22
35
0
78
72.9
66.7
64.7
0.0
61.5
71.0
83.3
0.0
0
1
1
2
2
6
0
13
12.1
0
5.9
100.0
15.4
9.7
14.3
0.0
% Grand Total
5
http://AEP.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bears/default.aspx
14
Total (#)
3
17
1
13
31
42
0
107
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.3 Grizzly bear georeferenced occurrences from 2009-2013, excluding sighting, by Bear Management Area (BMA) as recorded in the Government of
Alberta, Enforcement Database. The occurrence type categories were assigned by the Provincial Carnivore Specialist. Note that summing Livestock Related,
Attractant Related, and Agricultural Attractants is not appropriate as occurrences may appear in multiple categories.
BMA 1
BMA 2
BMA 3
BMA 4
BMA 5
BMA 6
BMA 7
Outside BMA
Total
Occurrence Type
(#) (%)
(#)
(%)
(#) (%)
(#)
(%)
(#) (%)
(#) (%)
(#) (%)
(#)
(%)
(#)
(%)
Bee Yard Damage
2
6
4.1
0.0
1
0.9
1
3
7
4.8
20
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.7
Dump
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
7
41.2
1
5.9
15
10.3
85
8.9
5.6
Mortality Investigation
1
5.6
15
10.1
7
29.2
20
17.5
10
5.0
16
5.6
Livestock Carcass
1
5.6
6
4.1
2
8.3
6
5.3
12
6.0
10
3.5
0.0
16
11.0
53
Livestock Feed
3
16.7
6
4.1
0.0
11
9.6
13
6.5
76
26.7
0.0
21
14.5
130 13.7
Livestock Attack
4
22.2
27
18.2
8.3
39
34.2
94
46.8
130 45.6
0.0
44
30.3
340 35.7
Mauling
0.0
4
2.7
0.0
1
0.9
1
0.5
0.0
7
0.7
Other
0.0
15
10.1
2
8.3
5
4.4
12
6.0
5.0
38.9
65
43.9
11
45.8
30
26.3
55
27.4
0.0
4
2.7
0.0
1
0.9
3
1.5
18
100.0
148 100.0
24
100.0
114 100.0
201 100.0
285 100.0
8
44.4
39
26.4
4
16.7
56
49.1
119 59.2
10
55.6
45
30.4
4
16.7
57
50.0
10
55.6
45
30.4
4
16.7
57
50.0
Public Safety
7
Road/Rail Kill
Total=
All Livestock Related
1
All Attractant Related2
Agricultural Attractant
3
2
1
Includes Livestock Carcass, Feed, and Harassment/Attack occurrences
2
Includes Bee Yard Damage, Dump, and Livestock occurrences
Includes Bee Yard Damage and Livestock occurrences
3
15
0.0
1
5.9
10
3.5
3
17.6
1
0.7
48
40
14.0
5
29.4
38
26.2
251 26.4
0.0
3
2.1
11
17 100.0
145
100.0
952 100.0
216 75.8
0
0.0
81
55.9
523 54.9
120 59.7
219 76.8
7
41.2
88
60.7
550 57.8
120 59.7
219 76.8
0
0.0
88
60.7
543 57.0
0.0
1.2
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.4. The number of Grizzly Bear Watershed Units (GBWU) within the Recovery Zone of each Bear
Management Area (BMA) that exceed the recommended road density of 0.6 km/km2 and 0.75 km/km2 for
Core Zone and Secondary Zones, respectively. National Parks were not included in this analysis. GBWU are
based on major watersheds subdivided along heights of land and occasionally along watercourses, to
approximate the size of an average adult female grizzly bear home range (~500 km2). The road database used
is described by Boulanger and Stenhouse (2014) except in the case of BMA 1 for which the Alberta Road layer
was used. A full description of this dataset is available online through GeoDiscover Alberta. All feature types
with the exception of ferry routes, winter crossings, and winter roads were included.
Core Zone ( < 0.6)
Secondary Zone (< 0.75)
BMA
Exceeding
# (%)
Total
#
Exceeding
# (%)
Total
#
1
n/a
n/a
0 (0)
33
2
3 (15.8)
19
10 (66.7)
15
3
4 (36.4)
11
5 (71.4)
7
4
6 (37.5)
16
4 (66.7)
6
5
0 (0.0)
14
0 (0.0)
1
6
3 (37.5)
8
0 (0.0)
0
7
4 (57.1)
7
4 (44.4)
9
Table 5.5. The current (based on best available data) amount of the Recovery Zone (includes National Parks) in each Bear
Management Area (BMA) that are in each habitat state based on habitat states calculated from Resource Selection Function
models and mortality risk (Nielsen et al. 2006). Primary and secondary refers to the probability that an area will be used by
grizzly bears. Sink refers to areas with high mortality risk. The best habitat for grizzly bears is primary habitat because it is
selected by grizzly bears and had a low risk of human-caused mortality. Habitat states for BMA 1 cannot be reported
because the underlying research has yet to be done. The Total area may differ slightly from the true area of the Recovery
Zone in the BMA, as the raster boundaries do not align exactly with the BMA boundaries.
Tl Area
Primary sink
Secondary sink
Infrequently used Secondary habitat Primary habitat
2
(km )
BMA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
Area (km )
%
n/a
n/a
6,415 21.2
2,178 11.0
1,350
9.1
510
7.1
188 10.5
4,215 35.3
2
Area (km )
%
n/a
n/a
3,035 10.0
1,172 5.9
781 5.2
339 4.7
144 8.0
2,331 19.5
2
Area (km )
n/a
6,233
7,833
6,815
1,533
467
2,141
16
%
n/a
20.6
39.5
45.8
21.2
26.1
17.9
2
Area (km )
n/a
4,773
3,511
3,107
2,547
463
2,055
%
n/a
15.7
17.7
20.9
35.3
25.9
17.2
2
Area (km )
n/a
9,853
5,128
2,843
2,293
530
1,206
%
n/a
32.5
25.9
19.1
31.8
29.6
10.1
n/a
30,310
19,822
14,896
7,222
1,792
11,948
Draft June 1, 2016
5.3 The Human Dimension to Grizzly Bear Recovery
5.3.1 Albertan’s Attitudes and Concerns
Results from interviews with 67 Albertans across BMAs suggest that people who live, work, and
recreate in occupied grizzly bear range generally hold positive attitudes towards grizzly bears (C.
Hughes, University of Alberta, unpublished data). This is consistent with other studies (Kellert
1994, McFarlane et al. 2007). For the most part, interviewed participants did not express
fundamental problems with grizzly bears in forested areas, where there were very few permanent
human residents. However, they did describe site-specific concerns which often depended on
their personal experiences, such as when grizzly bears caused property loss or damage,
threatened human safety, a human fatality occurred, or when conservation concerns for grizzly
bears limited resource development. In these instances, positive attitudes were found to exist
alongside, or were replaced outright, with negative attitudes. Another important consideration is
how human-grizzly bear conflict is managed. Interview participants’ attitudes to grizzly bears
were more positive when stakeholders were provided with opportunities to participate in
developing local management solutions and when the government’s management was perceived
to be effective.
Developing and maintaining positive attitudes towards grizzly bears will assist in the adoption of
human behaviours that could mitigate or reduce human-grizzly bear conflict. Maintaining
positive attitudes might be facilitated by having local stakeholders assist in the development and
implementation of management solutions, in addition to ensuring the GoA be responsive to
public safety, economic loss, and property security issues.
5.3.2 Alberta BearSmart Program
Initiated in 2006, an education and outreach program called Alberta BearSmart was an important
early grizzly bear recovery activity (AGBRP 2008). Delivering this program has been the shared
responsibility of AEP and the Justice and Solicitor General’s Fish and Wildlife Enforcement
Branch. Successful implementation of Alberta BearSmart programming requires development of
working relationships with both community and industry partners. The Alberta BearSmart
program was initiated with the goals of:



empowering Albertans with information to make safe decisions when in bear territory;
helping bear populations survive by providing education aimed to prevent bear
encounters and appropriate response options in the case of an encounter; and,
reducing property damage caused by bears.
The Alberta BearSmart Program has developed many outreach and education tools and products6
and has successfully engaged many communities in the BMAs. However, there is still important
and ongoing work to be done.
6
http://AEP.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/alberta-bear-smart/default.aspx
17
Draft June 1, 2016
5.4 Situation Scan by Bear Management Area
Grizzly bears in Alberta are wide ranging and the ecological context, population status, threats
and recovery priorities vary between BMAs. Section 5.4 provides a scan of the unique issues
and factors affecting recovery in each BMA. More detailed maps of the individual BMAs are
provided in Appendix B.
5.4.1 Bear Management Area 1 - Chinchaga
Description:
 The vegetation communities here are quite different than other BMAs consisting of
primarily Boreal Forest Natural Region (57.2 % Lower Boreal Highlands and 21.2 % of
dry mixed wood) whereas other BMAs are mostly made up of vegetation from the Rocky
Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions (Table 5.6).
 Analysis to identify Core Zones for the management of motorized public access has yet
to be completed.
 Recreational activities include OHV use, camping, trapping, angling, and hunting.
 Economic activity is primarily resource-driven and includes forestry and oil and gas
operations with manned facilities and camps, and considerable daily movement of
personnel to remote well-sites. Mining operations, including metallic and industrial
minerals, also occur in the BMA. There is livestock, honey, and crop production in parts
of the Support Zone.
Population Status:
 Ongoing work suggests low densities of grizzly bears in this BMA, but there has yet to be
a population inventory completed.
 There is no reason to suspect that this BMA is not well connected to British Columbia
grizzly bear populations, but connectivity has yet to be measured.
Threats and Related Recovery Activities:
 There is very little area (1.5%) within the Recovery Zone that is a protected area or a
Public Land Use Zone (PLUZ) that limits road development (Table 5.7).
 7.0 % of the GBWU exceed the recommended road density (Table 5.4; see Section 7.2.2
for a discussion of thresholds).
 Four human-caused mortality events were reported in this BMA from 2009-2013 with
poaching accounting for 2 of them (Table 5.8).
 There were only 18 reported occurrences in total from 2009-2013 with 10 related to
agricultural attractants (Table 5.3). AEP staff believe that occurrence reports
underrepresent the level of human-bear interactions.
Recovery Priorities:
 Estimate population size.
18
Draft June 1, 2016


Identify the Core Zones in order to identify priorities areas for access management
planning.
Develop Alberta BearSmart programs in cooperation with local communities.
5.4.2 Bear Management Area 2 – Grande Cache
Description:
 This is the largest BMA with 31.1 % of the BMA being protected areas (Jasper National
Park and the Willmore Wilderness Area) although only a small amount of the BMA is
classified as a PLUZ (0.2%) (Table 5.7).
 The Foothills Natural Region (deciduous and coniferous forest) makes up 51.6 % of the
BMA, with subalpine and alpine combining for 27.7 % (Table 5.6).
 Parts of this landscape are highly industrialized with natural resource extraction including
oil and gas operations, forestry, coal, aggregate, and other mining.
 The Support Zone includes both agricultural and forested lands, rural residential,
livestock operations, honey producers, and crop/forage production.
 This BMA is a well-known destination for OHV use, backcountry camping, canoeing,
fishing, hunting, trapping, hiking, and wildlife viewing.
Population Status:
 Based on the 2008 inventory results, this BMA has the largest number of grizzly bears of
any in Alberta with 353.3 (C.I. 288-516) bears estimated on the sampling grid for a
density of 18.1 bears per 1000 km2. At that time, 58% of the population occurred in
protected areas (Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2009).
 This BMA is well connected to populations of grizzly bears in British Columbia (Proctor
et al.2012).
 The mortality rate is relatively low as a percentage of the population and is unlikely to be
limiting the population (Table 5.1; see section 6.2 for a discussion of mortality rates).
 Over the past five years, poaching has been the leading cause of known mortalities (13 of
36; Table 5.8), yet this rate is within sustainable limits (Table 5.1; see section 6.1 for a
discussion of limits).
 A high number of GBWUs exceed recommended open road thresholds (Core 15.8%;
Secondary 66.7%; see Section 7.2.2 for a discussion of thresholds) with the problem
primarily concentrated in the SE and NW portions of the Recovery Zone. This has
resulted in 21.2 % of the BMA being classified as primary sink habitat (Table 5.5).
 Open road density will likely increase as a result of the Duvernay shale oil and gas
development in the eastern part of the BMA further threatening population connectivity
with BMA 7.
 There are significant human-grizzly bear interactions related to agricultural attractants in
the Support Zone of this BMA (Table 5.3Table 5.3: 30.4 % of 148 occurrences).
 The majority of industrial camps in this BMA are well managed and follow Alberta
BearSmart guidelines.
19
Draft June 1, 2016
 Reduce and mitigate human-bear conflict in the Support Zone
 Work with landowners to secure and manage agricultural attractants.
 Work with stakeholders to reduce road densities in GBWUs that are over threshold.
 Develop new Alberta BearSmart programs in cooperation with local communities.
5.4.3 Bear Management Area 3 – Yellowhead
Description:
 The landscape changes along a west to east elevation gradient from Alpine and Subalpine
natural subregions to Upper and Lower foothill subregion (Table 5.6).
 This BMA consists of a significant amount of protected area (43.6 %) and PLUZ (13.6
%) (Table 5.7) included the west side of the BMA being Jasper National Park.
 There are extensive natural resource extraction activities including forestry, open pit
mining, and oil and gas activities outside of protected areas with associated highways,
roads, and railroad infrastructure in this BMA.
 The BMA is a well-known destination for OHV use, backcountry camping, canoeing,
Population Status:
 The 2004 population estimate for this superpopulation around the DNA sample grid was
53 (SE=8.3, CI=44 to 80) for a population density of 4.79 bears per 1000 km2. At that
time, most of the bears sampled were on the west side of the BMA with very few bears
detected in the southeast part of the sampled area (Boulanger et al. 2005a). That
inventory did not include Jasper National Park south of Highway 16.
 A follow up population inventory for the BMA was undertaken in 2014 which included
the area south of Highway 16 in Jasper National Park (Stenhouse et al. 2015). The
estimate for the entire area sampled (slightly smaller area than the Recovery Zone) was
138.6 (CI= 114.6 to 167.7). As part of their analysis, Stenhouse et al. 2015 reanalysed
the data from 2004 (Boulanger et al. 2005) and compared it to the same area (a subset of
the 2014 results) in 2014. They concluded that the population in this area almost doubled
in the last 10 years and increased at the rate of approximately 7.0 % per year. This rate of
population increase is much higher than is commonly seen for grizzly bear populations in
interior North America. BMA 3 has received bears as a result of conflict in other BMAs.
Stenhouse et al. (2015) concluded that further analysis is required to better explain how
management actions have contributed to this high rate of increase.
 Habitat connectivity is an important issue for this BMA. Movements of bears both north
and south are known to occur, but the magnitude and frequency of these movements in
terms of demographic connectivity requires further study. The Columbia Icefields along
the British Columbia and Alberta border appear to be a natural dispersal barrier to grizzly
bears (Proctor et al. 2012; Figure 5.4).
 Illegal killing is the dominant (8 of 9 mortalities) source of human-caused grizzly bear
mortality in this BMA (Table 5.8).
20
Draft June 1, 2016

Road density continues to be a problem with 36.4 % and 71.4 % of the Core and
Secondary Zones, respectively, exceeding the recommended road density thresholds
(Table 5.4; see Section 7.2.2 for a discussion of thresholds).
 Complete the analysis of 2014 population inventory data.
 Implement strategies to reduce illegal killing.
 Implement access management priorities.
 Facilitate improved movement through Habitat Linkage Zones associated with Highways
11 and 16 (Figure 5.5) and improve crossing opportunities on the highway 16 corridor as
new highway twinning projects are considered.
5.4.4 Bear Management Area 4 – Clearwater
Description:
 Similar to BMA 3 with west to east gradient from Alpine and Subalpine natural
subregions to Upper and Lower Foothill subregions with some Montane (7.6 %) (Table
5.6).
 A large proportion of the Recovery Zone is managed as protected areas (38.0 %) or
PLUZ (29.2 %) (Table 5.7) with Banff National Park on its west side.
 The Support Zone of this BMA is primarily publically managed land with a rapid
transition from wild-lands to privately owned agricultural and rural-residential lands to
the east.
 Forestry, oil and gas, and livestock grazing are important economic activities.
Population Status:
 The 2005 estimated population was 47 (CI=44-60) not including Banff National Park or
the Siffleur Wilderness Area (Boulanger et al. 2005b).
 The density estimate on the sample grid was 5.25 bears per 1000 km2.
 Grizzly bear-livestock and livestock feed interactions led to 63 occurrences (49.1%) from
2009 to 2013.
 Public safety concerns accounted for 30 reported occurrences (26.3 %; Table 5.3).
 Open road density in this BMA account for 37.5 % and 66.7 % of GBWUs in the Core
and Secondary Zones respectively, exceeding recommendations (Table 5.4; see Section
7.2.2 for a discussion of thresholds).
 There have been a total of 13 bears translocated in response to conflict (Table 5.2).
 Like BMA 3, connectivity with British Columbia is naturally low due to terrain and
glaciation along the continental divide (Proctor et al. 2012). Connectivity has been
improved with BMA 5 in the south as a result of crossing structures across Highway 1 in
Banff National Park (Ford et al. 2010).
21
Draft June 1, 2016
 Assess current grizzly bear abundance in the BMA.
 Investigate and minimize causes of livestock related human-grizzly bear conflicts.
 Implementation of access management priorities.
 Develop new Alberta BearSmart programs in cooperation with local communities.
5.4.5 Bear Management Area 5 – Livingstone
Description:
 This BMA is primarily Subalpine (42 %) and Montane (34.6%) natural subregions (Table
5.6).
 This BMA consists of the highest percentage of protected area (57.7 %) with another
23.9% of the BMA managed as a PLUZ (Table 5.7).
 Forestry and natural gas activity occur with lower frequency in this BMA than those to
the north and the south half of BMA 5, where land use activities are similar to BMA 6.

 The majority of the Support Zone in the east of the BMA is private and/or agricultural
land (see Appendix B Figure B.5).
Population Status:
 The population estimate in 2006 was 90 bears (CI=75-116)7 with a density of about 12
bears/1000km2 and included Banff National Park south of Highway 1 (Alberta Grizzly
Bear Inventory Team 2007).
 An analysis of observed mortality rates between 1994 and 2002 indicated this
subpopulation was slowly increasing in the northern portion of the BMA (Garshelis et al.
2005).
 There has been an eastward expansion in the patter of occurrences which may be
indicative of a expanding population similar to what has been suggested for BMA 6
(Northrop et al. 2012a, Urmson and Morehouse 2012).
 Connectivity with both BMA 6 to the south and British Columbia to the west is high in
this BMA (Proctor et al.2012)
 The known human caused mortality rate excluding relocations in this BMA is slightly
over the 4% threshold estimated to allow for population growth. Likewise, female
mortality is over the 1.2% threshold. However, when relocated bears are factored into
the mortality estimates for the BMA, the mortality rate is substantially over the thresholds
(Table 5.1; see section 6.2 for a discussion of mortality rates).
22
Draft June 1, 2016





Vehicle collisions account for 35% (9 of 26) of human-caused mortality from 2009 to
2013 (Table 5.8).
During the period 2009-2013, 36 grizzly bears were moved in response to human – bear
interactions (14 females, 19 males, 3 unknown). Sixteen bears were moved in response
to predation on livestock. Of livestock related occurrences in this BMA, 68% were in the
Support Zone, 21% in the Recovery Zone, and 12% outside of the BMA.
In this BMA, 55 occurrences were related to public safety concerns (Table 5.3).
Open road density is well managed in this BMA with no GBWU exceeding
recommendations (Table 5.4; see Section 7.2.2 for a discussion of thresholds) resulting in
only 11.8 % of the area classified as primary or secondary sink habitat states, the lowest
of any BMA (Table 5.5).
A large portion of human-wildlife conflict is associated with livestock in the Support
Zone (Table 5.9) with a large increase in occurrences in 2013.
 Continue to improve and implement attractant management initiatives with a focus on
livestock related conflicts.
 Analyze pattern of vehicle collisions and develop a strategy to mitigate them.
 Continue ongoing efforts and expand Alberta BearSmart activities in communities that
are experiencing increased levels of grizzly bear activity.
 Complete population inventory and assess population trend.
5.4.6 Bear Management Area 6 – Castle
Description:
 A high proportion of the BMA is made up of natural subregions that have a significant
grassland component (Montane 30.5 %, Foothills Fescue 25.1 %, and Foothills Parkland
6.6 %) (Table 5.6). The landscape transitions rapidly from prairie agricultural lands in the
east to forested mountains in the west.
 Over 40% of this BMA is privately owned land, including almost the entire Support Zone
(84.1%) (see Appendix B Figure B.6).
 This is the smallest BMA (next smallest is almost 3 times larger).
 The grizzly bears in BMA 6 are the northern extension of the large Northern Continental
Divide population that includes southeast British Columbia and part of northern Montana
which is estimated at about 1000 bears (Mace et al. 2012, Proctor et al. 2012; Figure 5.4).
 Oil and gas activities, timber harvest, and recreation occur in the portion of the recovery
zone north of Waterton Lakes National Park with widespread cattle grazing in the
Recovery Zone outside of the National Park and in the Support Zone.
Population Status:
 The 2007 population estimate in this BMA was 51 bears (CI=34.4 – 86.7)8 for a density
of 18.1 bears per 1000 km2 (Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2008)
23
Draft June 1, 2016



Follow up population inventory work in this BMA was conducted from 2011 to 2014.
The analysis of this work will be completed in 2015.
Recent genetic analysis demonstrates that grizzly bears in BMA 6 are part of a larger
population of over 1000 individuals (Mace et al. 2012) that extends from northwest
Montana and southeast British Columbia (Proctor et al. 2012), and is estimated to be
increasing at 3 %/year (Mace et al. 2012).
Government of Alberta occurrence data suggests that grizzly bears in BMA 6 are
extending eastward out of the Recovery Zone into Support Zone and beyond (Northrop et
al. 2012a, Urmson and Morehouse 2012).
 Agriculture related occurrences (Table 5.3) contributed to 42 grizzly bears being moved
in response to human – bear conflict
 A large portion of human-wildlife conflict is associated with livestock and stored
livestock feed in the Support Zone with an increasing trend in conflicts occurring outside
of the BMA to the east (Table 5.9).
 This BMA has the highest total and the highest female mortality/translocation rate (Table
5.1).
 After livestock and attractant related translocations, poaching (4 of 12) is the next
greatest source of human-caused mortality this BMA (Table 5.8)
 Continue to manage and mitigate livestock – grizzly bear incidents in the Support Zone
and
 Continue to implement and improve attractant management in the Support Zone.
 Continue ongoing Alberta BearSmart activities in communities that experience high
levels of grizzly bear activity.
 Reduce the number of conflict bears that are translocated out of the BMA.
5.4.7 Bear Management Area 7 – Swan Hills
Description:
 This BMA is an eastern outlier of the Foothills Natural Region and is composed primarily
of Lower Foothills (47.4 %) and Central Mixed-wood (42.9 %) natural subregions (Table
5.6). This is the only BMA, other than BMA 1, that does not contain any Rocky
Mountain Natural Region habitats.
 A narrow isthmus of habitat separates this BMA from the robust subpopulation of grizzly
bears in BMA 2.
 Oil and gas development and forestry are major economic activities affecting grizzly
bears and their habitat in this BMA.
 Hunting, trapping, and fishing are the major recreational activities in this BMA.
 Agricultural activities are restricted to the Support Zone of the BMA.
24
Draft June 1, 2016
Population Status:
 There has not been an empirical estimate of the number of grizzly bears in this BMA.
 Boulanger et al. (2009) calculated a habitat-based population estimate for BMA 7 of 23.2
(CI: 5.9-70.9).
 There are records of grizzly bears occurring in the Martin Hills in the Support Zone of the
northeast portion of this BMA, yet it is unclear to what degree this habitat contributes to
the viability of the subpopulation.
 Poaching is the primary cause (5 of 7) of known human-caused mortality in BMA 7
(Table 5.8).
 Open road density is highest in this BMA, with 57.1 % and 44.4 % of the Core and
Secondary Zones respectively, exceeding recommended thresholds (Table 5.4; see
Section 7.2.2 for a discussion of thresholds).
 Road densities in the BMA contribute to 54.8 % of the Recovery Zone being classified as
primary or secondary sink habitat (Table 5.5).
 There is some evidence of a reduction in the expected level of genetic heterozygosity
potentially due to in-breeding depression (Proctor et al. 2012).
 The bears in this BMA are at risk of becoming further isolated from BMA 2 because of
anthropogenic changes. Some indications of this are:
o In a radio-telemetry study of six adult grizzly bears from 2005 to 2007, none of
the bears left the BMA (Boulanger et al. 2009).
o Bears radio collared for other research in BMA 2 (n=37) did not move between
BMA 2 and BMA 7. In that study, three bears moved to within 40 km of BMA 7
and two of those were killed by poachers.
o The traffic volume on the Highway 43 corridor near the town of Fox Creek has
increased by 46 % from 2004 to 20139.
o Open road densities in the isthmus of habitat that connects BMA 7 to BMA 2 are
over recommended thresholds.
o Open road density will likely increase as a result of the Duvernay shale oil and
gas development10.
 The towns of Swan Hills and Fox Creek have made significant improvements in the
management of their garbage landfills by setting up transfer stations for transporting
domestic food waste out of the BMA.
 Estimate population size.
 Implement access management recommendations.
 Assess the degree of genetic isolation from other BMAs.
 Develop strategies to support demographic connectivity to BMA 2.
9
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType181/production/Traffic%20Volume%20History%2020042013.pdf
10
http://www.aer.ca/documents/about-us/PBR_Brochure.PDF
25
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure 5.5 Location of grizzly bear movement corridors across Highway 11 and 16 (G. Stenhouse, Foothills
Research Institute, unpublished data) identified using graph theory modeling (Carra 2010).
26
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.6. Natural subregion composition (Natural Regions Committee 2006) of the grizzly bear management
areas (BMA).
Location
Area
(km2)
Percent
of BMA
BMA 1
Lower Boreal Highlands
Dry Mixedwood
Central Mixedwood
Upper Boreal Highlands
Total =
23,784.1
8,824.8
4,781.9
4,157.0
41,547.9
57.2%
21.2%
11.5%
10.0%
BMA 2
Lower Foothills
Upper Foothills
Subalpine
Central Mixedwood
Alpine
Dry Mixedwood
Montane
14,286.1
9,978.9
9,596.5
5,743.3
3,417.9
2,878.7
1,143.5
30.4%
21.2%
20.4%
12.2%
7.3%
6.1%
2.4%
Total =
47,045.0
BMA 3
Lower Foothills
Subalpine
Alpine
Upper Foothills
Montane
Central Mixedwood
Dry Mixedwood
Total =
10,385.5
6,265.4
5,469.1
5,261.0
721.2
646.8
9.3
28,758.4
36.1%
21.8%
19.0%
18.3%
2.5%
2.2%
0.0%
BMA 4
Alpine
Upper Foothills
Subalpine
Lower Foothills
Montane
Dry Mixedwood
Foothills Parkland
Total =
4,425.1
4,139.9
3,982.9
3,085.3
1,344.8
419.5
293.8
17,691.4
25.0%
23.4%
22.5%
17.4%
7.6%
2.4%
1.7%
Location
Area (km2)
Percent
of BMA
BMA 5
Subalpine
Montane
Alpine
Foothills Parkland
Foothills Fescue
4,305.5
3,542.0
1,618.5
675.8
98.5
42.0%
34.6%
15.8%
6.6%
1.0%
Total =
10,240.2
BMA 6
Montane
Subalpine
Foothills Fescue
Foothills Parkland
Alpine
Total =
1,094.8
1,066.7
901.5
370.0
153.7
3,586.7
30.5%
29.7%
25.1%
10.3%
4.3%
11,603.6
10,292.3
2,157.2
411.0
24,464.2
173,333.8
47.4%
42.1%
8.8%
1.7%
BMA 7
Lower Foothills
Central Mixedwood
Upper Foothills
Dry Mixedwood
Total =
Grand Total =
27
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.7. Area and % area within the Recovery Zone of each Bear Management Area (BMA) that is subject to an access management plan as part of a protected area
designation (PA) or a Public Land Use Zone (PLUZ).
BMA 1
BMA 2
BMA 3
BMA 4
BMA 5
BMA 6
2
2
2
2
2
2
Type
km
%
PA
359.2
1.5
PLUZ
0.0
0.0
Total=
359.2
1.5
km
%
9,918.1
km
%
8,663.3
31.1
56.1
2,706.5
31.2
%
km
%
5,670.9
38.0
4,190.4
57.7
43.6
4,357.3
0.2
9,974.2
km
29.2
1,737.3
10,028.2
57.2
67.3
5,927.7
Table 5.8. Causes of human-caused grizzly bear mortality in each Bear
Management Area from 2009-2013 as reported in the compulsory reporting
and registration of dead grizzly bear incidents. The mortality cause
categories were assigned by the Provincial Carnivore Specialist.
Grizzly Bear Management Area
Mortality Cause
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Problem
Illegal
Aboriginal Harvest
Mistaken Identification
Accidental
Road Kill
Train
Self Defence
Natural
Unknown
Total Mortality =
Total Human-Caused =
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
4
2
13
3
2
2
6
0
4
1
2
36
32
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
12
9
28
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
5
5
0
6
2
0
0
9
0
4
3
2
26
21
3
4
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
14
12
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
8
7
km
%
km2
%
504.4
27.8
135.3
1.1
1,001.7
55.2
0.0
0.0
1,506.1
83.0
135.3
1.1
23.9
13.6
11,369.8
BMA 7
81.7
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 5.9. Number of livestock (includes livestock feed) and public safety related grizzly bear
occurrences in Alberta during the period 2009-2013 by Bear Management Area (BMA), by grizzly
bear zone, and across the province as reported in the ENFOR database. Only those occurrences
with a spatial reference for assigning to a zone are included.
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Recovery
BMA 1 – Chinchaga
Livestock
Support
Outside
Total Recovery
3
3
2
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
6
8
2
Public Safety
Support
Outside
Total
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
5
7
BMA 2 – Grande Cache
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Recovery
Livestock
Support
Outside
1
7
11
6
7
7
1
38
Total
Recovery
Public Safety
Support
Outside
Total
6
6
8
12
5
3
6
7
3
9
2
1
1
5
7
11
8
8
12
1
4
2
11
12
16
19
16
7
46
37
28
9
74
BMA 3 – Yellowhead
Year
Recovery
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1
Total
1
Livestock
Support
Outside
2
Total
1
2
1
1
3
4
Recovery
Public Safety
Support
Outside
4
1
1
3
8
Total
1
1
2
2
1
1
5
3
2
5
2
3
6
17
BMA 4 – Clearwater
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Recovery
3
3
3
2
2
13
Livestock
Support
Outside
8
5
6
12
12
43
1
1
2
3
7
Total
12
9
11
17
14
63
29
Recovery
Public Safety
Support
Outside
6
11
3
1
1
1
2
22
5
8
1
1
Total
7
12
4
1
7
31
DRAFT June 1, 2016
Table 5.9. Continued.
BMA 5 – Livingstone
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Recovery
Livestock
Support
Outside
Total
Recovery
Public Safety
Support
Outside
Total
2
3
5
11
7
13
7
14
21
36
1
1
1
1
11
16
11
20
33
54
14
3
9
10
3
1
2
5
3
5
2
5
3
5
15
7
19
16
13
28
91
15
134
39
16
15
70
BMA 6 – Castle
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Recovery
Livestock
Support
Outside
Total
Recovery
1
2
3
7
29
32
39
37
66
8
5
11
12
16
37
38
52
52
89
1
4
13
203
52
268
Public Safety
Support
Outside
Total
2
3
1
3
3
2
14
9
2
2
6
7
2
19
12
9
31
6
46
BMA 7 – Swan Hills
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Recovery
Livestock
Support
Outside
Total
Recovery
Public Safety
Support
Outside
1
1
1
1
3
Total
30
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
1
1
2
Total
Draft June 1, 2016
6.0 RECOVERY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
6.1 Background
Grizzly bears in Alberta were listed as Threatened in 2010 primarily because they met two status
assessment criteria. First, it was considered that human-caused mortality and declining habitat
quality would likely result in the continuation of a perceived population decline which was
inferred based on estimated mortality rates and declining habitat conditions but was not directly
measured. The second IUCN Threatened criteria for which grizzly bears in Alberta qualified was
a population size less than 1000 mature individuals. The population criterion recognizes that
small populations are at risk of extirpation because they are vulnerable to random events that
could cause population reductions. One of the considerations for the 1000 mature individuals
criterion11, is the probability that a population can be “rescued” by movement of individuals into
the population from a neighboring population. For Alberta grizzly bears, this would be dispersal
of bears from neighboring populations in British Columbia or Montana, which is known to occur
(Proctor et al. 2012). However, for the 2010 Threatened listing the possibility of rescue was
discounted because:
New grizzly bears moving into Alberta will not result in demographic rescue unless there
is a suitable supply of quality, secure habitat and effective mortality management in the
province.
(ESCC Scientific Sub-Committee 2010 Report, see Appendix C)
New information demonstrates that grizzly bears in some BMAs in Alberta are well connected to
both Montana and British Columbia (Proctor et al. 2012). Consequently, if the issues associated
with human-caused mortality and the supply of high quality secure habitat can be successfully
addressed, then the status of grizzly bears in Alberta could be down-listed from Threatened with
fewer than 1000 mature individuals being estimated in the province. The term “secure habitat”
recognises the fact that the quality of bear habitat is driven by food availability and that some
habitat has high food availability but is not secure because of the mortality risk associated with
high road density. The best habitat for grizzly bears is habitat with high food availability and
low mortality risk i.e. high quality secure habitat.
6.2
Recovery Goal and Objectives
The recovery goal is a high-level statement that sets the program direction. The objectives
indicate what is intended to be accomplished during the life of the plan. The indicators show
how progress will be assessed. To assess towards the recovery goal, the indicator performance
for all of the objectives should be considered collectively
11
The concept of mature individuals only include sexually mature individuals so the total grizzly bear population
size would need to be 1,489 assuming that 52 % of the population were sexually mature (Festa-Bianchet 2010).
31
Draft June 1, 2016
During development of this plan the recovery goal was revised in order to better address the
reasons that grizzly bears were listed as Threatened in 2010, as well as the emerging threat that
local grizzly bear populations could become demographically isolated by major highway
corridors (see Section 5.2.3). The revised recovery goal also recognizes that achieving recovery
is highly dependent on achieving and maintaining the support of Albertans, particularly those
living, working, and recreating in grizzly bear range that are most affected by grizzly bear
recovery.
Recovery Goal
mortality, has access to secure habitat, is able to successfully disperse across major road
corridors, and that Albertans - in particular those living, working, and recreating in grizzly bear
management zones - are supportive of grizzly bear conservation and management activities.
In the following bullets, the recovery goal is split into 3 components and associated objectives
and rationale are discussed. Table 6.1 has a list of objectives and performance measures
associated with each component of the goal

mortality
Objective 1. The density of grizzly bears throughout the Recovery Zone of each Bear
Management Area is not limited by human-caused mortality and is either stable or increasing
over time within a population size range based on habitat potential.
Rationale: Population stability or increasing population is a demonstration that threats to
the population have been mitigated. Grizzly bear population density varies greatly in
different regions of North America largely due to habitat potential and human-caused
mortality (Mowat et al. 2013). Analysis is underway to identify what a reasonable
expectation for a population size range for most of the BMAs in Alberta (see section 7.4).
The indicators for this objective (see Table 6.1) relate to population size in the Recovery
Zone and evidence that the population is expanding outside of the Recovery Zone. The
best indicator for recovery is repeated population size estimates based DNA-based markrecapture methodologies. Measures that show that bears are expanding into the Support
Zone are indicators of an expanding population and are less expensive to measure
although they are a less direct measure of the objective.
Objective 1 links to Strategies in 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4.
Objective 2. In the recovery and support zones, the known human-caused mortality rate is ≤
4 %, of which the female mortality rate does not exceed 1.2%, except in BMAs 5 and 6
where the mortality rate is less than 6.0%, of which the female mortality rate does not exceed
1.8 %.
Rationale: The AGBRP (2008) adapted population viability analysis results
(McLoughlin 2003) to develop known human-caused mortality targets that if achieved
32
Draft June 1, 2016
would result in population growth. These are the same mortality rate targets used in
Objective 2 with the exception of BMA 5 and 6. For these BMAs the mortality rate target
was adjusted to achieve population maintenance instead of population growth in order to
not further exacerbate the very high rates of human-grizzly bear conflict associated with
livestock and livestock feed (see Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6) currently occurring in the
Support Zone. The data on human-caused mortality is collected every year and can
inform management annually. The mortality rate will be calculated as a percentage of the
most recent GoA accepted population estimate. The risk of misinterpreting the
importance of a change in mortality rate increases as the time since the last population
estimate increases because the mortality rate is calculated as a percentage of the
population estimate.
Links to Strategies 7.1 and 7.2.

access to secure habitat and the ability to successfully disperse across major road corridors
Objective 3. The ability of grizzly bears to disperse across Habitat Linkage Zones is
improved.
Rationale: Addresses the emerging threat of increasing genetic and demographic isolation
between BMAs that is likely to be exacerbated with increasing traffic volumes and
expansion of urban and rural development along major highway corridors.
Links to Strategy 7.3.2.
Objective 4. Habitat security for grizzly bears in the Recovery Zone is maintained or
improved.
Rationale: Addresses need to manage access in order ensure the ability of grizzly bears to
access habitat without being exposed to excessively high human-caused mortality risk
(i.e. secure habitat) and recognizes that not all habitat is necessarily equally beneficial to
grizzly bears.
Links to Strategies 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.3

Albertans - in particular people living, working, and recreating in grizzly bear
management zones - are supportive of grizzly bear conservation and management.
Objective 5. Albertan’s support for grizzly bear conservation and management increases
over time.
Objective 6. Support for grizzly bear conservation and management is increasing amongst
people living, working, and recreating in Bear Management Zones.
Rationale: Addresses the reality that managing human behavior is a large part of grizzly
bear recovery and gaining peoples’ support to make the necessary changes in human
behavior, is an essential part of successfully managing human-grizzly conflict.
Objectives 5 and 6 link to Strategy 7.1 but there are elements in most other strategies as
well.
33
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 6.1. Recovery goal components and associated objectives and indicators of success.
Goal Component 1. The Alberta grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone is not limited by human-caused mortality.
Objective 1. The density of grizzly bears throughout the Recovery Zone of each Bear Management Area is not limited by human-caused mortality and is either
stable or increasing over time within a population size range based on habitat potential.
Indicator 1.1: Grizzly bear density
throughout the recovery zone.
Indicator 1.2: The number of grizzly
bears that die or are translocated from
outside the BMA.
Indicator 1.3: Occupancy of breeding
females in grizzly bear watershed units in
the Support Zone.
Method Notes: The population estimates should be measured in a priority driven adaptable rotating schedule
such that each BMA is surveyed ideally every 5 years. Specific sampling design may vary by BMA. An
abundance estimate is the best way of assessing population status and is necessary to assess the mortality rate
in Objective 2.
Method Notes: Data source will be ENFOR occurrence records. It would be beneficial to record gender and
age when practical.
Method Notes: Occupancy assessment based on sightings of sows with cubs preferably using structured
sampling with remote cameras to improve confidence in the data.
Objective 2. In the recovery and support zones, the known human-caused mortality rate is ≤ 4%, of which the female mortality rate does not
exceed 1.2%, except in BMAs 5 and 6 where the mortality rate is less than 6.0%, of which the female mortality does not exceed 1.8 %.
Indicator 2.1: The six year running
average rate of known human-caused
mortality, including translocations, as
reported in the BMA.
Method Notes: All mortalities/translocation that occur outside of the BMA, and male
mortalities/translocations that occur within the Support Zone, are excluded from the mortality rate calculation.
Bears that are translocated from a BMA are considered a mortality for that BMA and, to avoid double
counting, if that bear should subsequently die due to a human-caused mortality it is not counted as a mortality
in the host BMA. This marking translocated bears would benefit this analysis. It is also assumed that the rate
of increase and the unknown rate of mortality in the recovery zone is similar to those used by McLoughlin
(2003).
Some BMAs (e.g. 1, 2, 5 and 6) are part of populations outside of Alberta which means that there are bears
with home range centres outside of Alberta that spend part of their time in Alberta. The population size used
in the calculation of mortality needs consider this. It would be also beneficial if a population model was used
to predict population size between population survey years.
34
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 6.1. Continued
Goal Component 2. Access to secure habitat and the ability to successfully disperse across major highway corridors
Objective 3. The ability of grizzly bears to disperse across Habitat Linkage Zones is improved.
Indicator 3.1: Number of female grizzly bears
Method Notes: See Proctor et al. (2012). In addition, collecting DNA in the adjacent BMA
that successfully disperse across major highway
when a BMA is being sampled for a population inventory should be considered as a costcorridors, inferred from rates of genetic exchange
effective option for collecting DNA to evaluate movements and gene flow across highway
calculated at regular intervals.
corridors.
Objective 4. Habitat security for grizzly bears in the Recovery Zone is maintained or improved.
Indicator 4.1: The percentage of each BMA that
Method Notes: Measured using resource selection function and mortality risk models
exists in each habitat state.
(Nielsen et al. 2006). Should be calculated at least every three years. (see Section 7.3.1 for
additional discussion of this approach). For this metric to be representative, information on
the landscape status needs to be updated.
Goal Component 3. Albertans - in particular people living, working, and recreating in grizzly bear management zones - are supportive of grizzly
bear conservation and management.
Objective 5. Albertan’s support for grizzly bear conservation and management increases over time.
Indicator 5.1: Percentage of Albertans supportive Method Notes: Trend in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors over time, gathered via a
of, and knowledgeable about, grizzly bears, their
provincial random, representative public survey conducted every five years after initial
management and recovery.
baseline is collected.
Objective 6. Support for grizzly bear conservation and management is increasing amongst people living, working, and recreating in Bear Management
Zones.
Indicator 6.1: Percentage of Albertans living,
Trend in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors over time of people living, working and/or
working and/or recreating in BMAs are supportive recreating in each BMAs. Data is detailed at the BMA level, and acquired via the same
of, and knowledgeable about, Grizzly Bears, their
provincial level survey conducted every five years.
management and recovery.
35
Draft June 1, 2016
7.0 STRATEGIES FOR THE RECOVERY OF GRIZZLY BEARS
This section describes the strategies and actions identified to address the issues and threats
described in the Situation Analysis (Section 5). Successfully addressing these issues and threats
should result in achieving the recovery goal and objectives. The progress measures identified for
each strategy serve to report progress on implementation activities associated with that strategy.
Progress measures on recovery objectives are assessed elsewhere (Table 6.1). While this section
is formatted differently than in the AGBRP (2008), many of the recovery actions are similar but
have been updated.
7.1 Improving Program Effectiveness
The purpose of this strategy is to use the lessons learned and new knowledge that has been
generated over the last five years to identify opportunities for specific program improvements.
7.1.1 Improving Alberta BearSmart
Government staff and Alberta BearSmart program delivery partners were invited to provide their
feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the Alberta Bearsmart program. The following
recommendations are focused on improving the program as it relates to grizzly bear recovery,
though implementation will require integration into the broader Alberta BearSmart program.
Firstly, permanent provincial-level capacity is required for coordinating Alberta BearSmart.
Currently, the program is spread out amongst various staff members, all of whom reconcile
multiple priorities. A full-time staff member serving as the provincial coordinator would enable
Alberta BearSmart to elevate its program efficiency, and successfully address long-standing
challenges that have prevented the program from further advancement.
Secondly, human-wildlife conflict positions need to be staffed for all regions that experience
high levels of grizzly bear conflict. Regional human-wildlife conflict specialists would be
positioned to bolster existing Alberta BearSmart projects, work closely with stakeholders
affected by grizzly bear conflict, and support volunteer groups working within communities.
Human-wildlife conflict specialists would support the local public in developing long-term
solutions to promote public safety, secure grizzly bear attractants, and take proactive actions to
prevent future conflict. Through focused education and outreach specialized staff, devoted to
addressing the local citizens’ wildlife conflict concerns, would build program credibility and
influence a lasting shift in human behaviour aimed at the adoption of preventative techniques to
limit conflict with grizzly bears.
Thirdly, a third party agent could be engaged to support community-led BearSmart groups. The
purpose of this group could include supporting development of grant applications and receiving,
administering, and distributing grant dollars from external funders. This would eliminate
competition between community groups for limited financial opportunities and ensure groups are
funded more equitably. An independent agent could support community-based groups in
projects like the dead-stock composting program or replacement of grain bins by the Drywood
Yarrow Conservation Partnership and Waterton Biosphere Reserve Carnivore Working Group.
36
Draft June 1, 2016
The subsequent evaluation of community-based pilot projects and communication of results
could also fall under the purview of this agent. Other potential responsibilities of the third-party
agency could include:
 research, develop, and administer an Alberta BearSmart certification program;
 advocate for the Alberta BearSmart program with non-governement organizations;
 support administration of community-led BearSmart projects, and;
 seek and share solutions to common problems, such as issues around volunteer
recruitment and retention.
Desired Outcome
A highly effective, provincially-coordinated, regionally-delivered BearSmart program with
sustainable funding where GOA staff and program partners collaborate to deliver:
 information, training, and public education and outreach related to public safety,
grizzly bears, and human grizzly bear conflict;
 projects that reduce human grizzly bear conflict and assist Albertans in improving
public safety and reducing property damage.
Recovery Actions
In collaboration with relevant staff and partners,
1) Review the BearSmart Program.
2) Write a business case for an expanded BearSmart program that includes:
 a governance structure for the Alberta BearSmart program, including the
development of a third party agent;
 responsibilities of a third party agent (if this option is pursued), as it relates to
coordinating, applying for and disseminating grants/funds to groups and
individuals involved in Alberta BearSmart programming;
 increasing dedicated staff capacity for coordinating and delivering the Alberta
BearSmart program;
 staffing additional Human-Wildlife Conflict Specialist positions; and,
 the funding requirements for enhanced Alberta BearSmart programming.
Progress Measures
1) An Alberta BearSmart program business case is written and accepted.
2) A third party agent is identified and established.
3) Staff capacity is formally identified and increased to support Alberta BearSmart delivery.
4) Additional human wildlife conflict specialist positions are hired and in place.
37
Draft June 1, 2016
7.1.2 Enhanced Public Outreach and Education
Eliciting behavioral change through public education and outreach is complex and requires longterm commitment to be successful. The education process does not end once an individual
receives a brochure; education is a place-based, experiential, cumulative process that requires
that multiple factors working together to help an individual progress through the following
environmental literacy steps:
1. Awareness that an issue exists.
2. Deeper understanding of the issue.
3. Attitudes of appreciation and a desire to find solutions to the issue.
4. Using critical thinking skills to create place-based solutions.
5. Taking personal and collective action.
Currently, Alberta BearSmart efforts focus largely on providing audience-specific information
products consistent with current scientific research. While these products are still widely
available and help ensure Alberta BearSmart messaging remains provincially consistent, these
materials only address the first two steps to environmental literacy.
More educational information does not necessarily translate to behavior change (Jensen 2002).
People differ in their knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes towards grizzly bears
(Brymer and Davids 2013; Hughes 2013). To progress along the steps to environmental literacy
and achieve desired long-term behavior changes, the Alberta BearSmart program must develop a
more tactical, locally customized approach. Considerations to accomplish this, some of which
are practiced already, include:
 engaging local leaders to help shift previously accepted norms and adoption of new
behaviors (Wilcox et al. 2012);
 providing opportunities for new knowledge and skills to be reflected on and practiced
(Hughes, 2012);
 engaging community partners, including industry, non-government organizations,
Indigenous communities, industry, and municipalities, in the planning, delivery, and
evaluation of education and outreach programming;
 leveraging Regional staff expertise of their local context, social networks, and
BearSmart programming needs to develop and deliver well integrated regional
programming (Fien et al. 2001);
 developing a formal BearSmart Stewardship award program;
 develop standardized approaches for evaluating program outcomes regionally and
provincially (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011); and,
 social marketing campaigns, particularly those using social media (McKenzie-Mohr
2000).
The degree to which new regions of the province can have increased levels of Alberta BearSmart
programming, or whether the new activities in this strategy can be implemented, is in part
dependent on new resources being identified (Strategy 7.1.1).
38
Draft June 1, 2016
Desired Outcome:
Clear and consistently branded public BearSmart education and outreach programs and
products that:
 are tailored to regional needs,
 are collaboratively delivered by local AEP staff, and partners,
 increase awareness and knowledge of grizzly bears, and
 encourage the adoption of behaviors that mitigate human-caused grizzly
bear mortality and improve public safety.
Recovery Actions
1) Develop standardized protocols for tracking and reporting on progress measures, and
implement these measures.
2) Collaboratively develop and deliver context-specific education and outreach
programming that addresses the priority needs of key stakeholder groups.
3) Continue to provide a suite of audience-specific printed and online materials for
distribution to the public.
4) Develop and deliver train-the-trainer sessions for partner groups and industry, to increase
their capacity for consistent Alberta BearSmart education and outreach projects.
5) Ensure that Government of Alberta staff model exemplary Alberta BearSmart practices
while conducting their work.
6) Continue to place print ads in audience-specific publications, and provide social media
content in spring and fall periods when increased levels of human-grizzly bear conflict is
anticipated.
7) Attend and provide information and training at trade shows, community events and
related venues.
8) Work with the Alberta Safety Council to update the Bear Awareness and Avoidance
student and trainer courses.
9) Create and carry out a social media strategy that recognizes the benefits of linking social
media to on-the-ground bear management and BearSmart activities.
10) Develop and/or enhance curriculum aligned education kits.
11) Develop and implement an Alberta BearSmart community recognition and certification
program.
12) Link online education resources, like the Alberta Hunter Education Instructors
Association’s online Bear Essential video, to the mandatory bear identification testing
being proposed in Strategy 7.2.3.
13) Deliver an annual Alberta BearSmart Conference/Workshop for staff and program
delivery partners.
Progress measures:
1) Use of Alberta BearSmart materials, indicated through counts of: website visits,
document downloads, and resources distributed through outreach events.
39
Draft June 1, 2016
2) Engagement in social media through counts of blog, Twitter, and other related social
media hits/usage.
3) Number and type of Alberta BearSmart programs (e.g. attractant management and school
education) activity engaged within each BMA.
4) Level of public participation at community Alberta BearSmart events (e.g. number of
people engaged at demonstrations, meetings, tradeshows, etc.).
5) Number of communities that have adopted bylaws supporting attractant management.
6) Percentage of people that carry bear spray when working and recreating in a BMA.
7) Percentage of people living in BearSmart communities that use appropriate garbage
disposal.
7.1.3 Improve Program Coordination
As part of the implementation of the AGBRP (2008), a Science Advisory committee was formed
and annual information sharing forums were held. Over the last few years of implementation,
this group has met less frequently and is in need of refreshing. Grizzly bear recovery will be
better supported with more provincial coordination and improved communication between
administrative regions in the BMAs. To this end, it is recommended that a Provincial
Coordinating Committee be formed that would be chaired by the provincial lead, and composed
of AEP leads from each BMA, and include content specialists as needed. The purpose of this
committee would be to standardize methodologies for measuring and reporting of the recovery
objective indicators (Table 6.1), prioritizing the distribution of resources, prioritizing population
monitoring priorities, reporting on recovery implementation activities, and addressing any
emerging issues affecting recovery. As part of the implementation of the new plan, the
Provincial Coordinating Committee would organize a forum that would include information
sharing, opportunities for collaboration, and discussion of emerging recovery priorities. This
forum will replace the standing Science Advisory Committee while broadening the membership
to include all the AEP grizzly bear leads from the regions and key academic and industry
partners. This forum will be held regularly, depending on the perceived need.
Grizzly bears occupy a large area of Alberta that varies in geography, conservation issues,
stakeholder issues, and administrative boundaries. Regional AEP staff are responsible for
implementing and coordinating many aspects of the provincial recovery plan and have begun to
develop/work with various types of recovery/grizzly bear management working groups (e.g.
local BearSmart organizations or Waterton Biosphere Reserve) to assist and advise
implementation activities. The composition of these teams reflects the issues and stakeholder
needs of the BMA. This model has been quite successful in several BMAs. Wildlife managers
and biologists in each BMA should reflect on specific regional needs and develop a recovery
implementation group(s) reflective of those needs.
40
Draft June 1, 2016
Portions of the Alberta grizzly bear population are part of larger regional populations shared with
Montana and British Columbia and AEP staff have participated in the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee (IGBC) and consult frequently with biologists and managers from neighbouring
provinces, states and the National Parks. Research and monitoring data are regularly shared with
Parks Canada in order to help facilitate management of bears that use both provincial lands and
National Parks. The Department is continuing to collaborate with Parks Canada, and the United
States Geological Survey on grizzly bear trend monitoring in BMAs 5 and 6. A needed next step
would be to create a British Columbia – Alberta grizzly bear forum where management
specialists from Alberta, British Columbia, and Parks Canada could share information on the
priority grizzly bear management activities, look for opportunities for collaboration, and invite
researchers to share research results. Consideration could be given to expanding membership to
Montana, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories.
Desired Outcome
Grizzly bear recovery implementation and management is well coordinated at the BMA,
Provincial, and inter-jurisdictional scales.
Recovery Actions
1) Develop a provincial grizzly bear recovery coordinating committee comprised of
program leads from the regions/BMA, the provincial lead, and content specialists. This
group would be responsible for standardizing methodologies for measuring and reporting
on recovery objective indicators (Table 6.1), prioritization of resources, and the reporting
of recovery implementation activities.
2) Develop regional implementation working groups to assist and advise on BMA-specific
implementation activities. The purpose and constituent representation would be based on
local needs and issues. These groups would include, or be well aligned with, regional
implementation of BearSmart activities and the groups delivering this program.
3) The provincial grizzly bear coordinating committee holds an annual forum to: 1) report
progress on the priority grizzly bear management activities, 2) look for opportunities for
collaboration, 3) identify emerging information/research needs, and 4) invite researchers
to share research results.
4) Work with British Columbia, and Parks Canada to develop a forum to: 1) share
information on grizzly bear management activities, 2) look for opportunities for
collaboration, and 3) invite researchers to share research results.
Performance Measure
1) Number of meeting/information forums that occur annually at each scale of
management.
2) Number of inter-jurisdictional collaborations.
41
Draft June 1, 2016
7.2 Strategies to Reduce Human-caused Mortality
Human-caused mortality, from a number of sources, is the main threat (see section 5.2.1) to the
recovery of grizzly bears in Alberta and there are four sub-strategies to address this threat. The
largest source of human-caused mortality is poaching. There are no new specific strategies for
this source of mortality other than to:
 maintain the high standard of investigation of all suspicious grizzly bear deaths;
 continue to use media and BearSmart outreach and education message to promote that it
is not legal or socially acceptable to kill bears;
 encourage citizens to report poaching incidents, and
 increase patrols and/or opportunistically use surrogate operations (i.e. a representation of
a grizzly bear) in areas with a persistent poaching problem.
Strategies to address other sources of human caused mortality, including relocations outside a
bear’s home BMA are discussed below.
7.2.1 Reduce Human-Grizzly Bear Conflict by Managing Attractants
Reducing conflict by securing (i.e. making them no longer accessible) attractants has the
potential to significantly reduce the number of bears translocated from the Recovery and Support
Zones. This would result in higher survival for grizzly bears, reduce human-grizzly bear conflict,
and improve public safety. As an example, the Blackfoot Challenge conservation initiative in
Ovando, Montana has been effective in reducing carnivore-ranching conflicts using techniques
like electric fencing, deadstock removal, and deadstock composting. Between 2003 and 2006,
local community groups and livestock producers have reduced human-grizzly bear conflicts by
91% (Wilson, 2007). Similar projects in southern Alberta have been undertaken by the Drywood
Yarrow Conservation Partnership, Chief Mountain Landowners Group, and the Waterton
Biosphere Reserve Association. These projects serve as a model of how government grants to
local groups and municipalities, combined with collaboration with local AEP staff, can
significantly decrease the number of unsecured attractants (Loosen et al., 2014). However, the
nature of activities on ranches and farms attract grizzly bears so total elimination of attractants is
unlikely, yet projects such as those mentioned here can minimize resulting conflict (Loosen et al.
2014). Preventative approaches have the added benefits of helping to maintain public safety,
reduce property damage, and decrease grizzly bear depredation costs incurred by agricultural
communities and individuals.
Agricultural - Agricultural attractants are the source of the majority of grizzly bear occurrences
in BMA 1, 4, 5, and 6, as well as lands immediately adjacent and outside of the BMAs, and are
the second most common type of occurrence in BMA 2 following Public Safety (Table 5.3).
Investments in securing agricultural attractants in these BMAs has the potential to continue
reducing human-grizzly bear conflict and the number of grizzly bears relocated, particularly in
BMAs 5 and 6 (Table 5.3). Successful implementation of agricultural attractant securement
programs, modeled on those mentioned above (Loosen et al. 2014), would be greatly facilitated
by improving resources and funding directed towards community-based groups to assist and
support agricultural producers to implement preventative measures to reduce conflict and protect
their property and improve personal safety(see Strategy 7.1.1).
42
Draft June 1, 2016
While modifying husbandry practices can help reduce the frequency of grizzly bear depredations
on livestock, total elimination of livestock losses to bears is unlikely due to the difficulty of
preventing depredations when livestock are grazing in large pastures or during calving. The
current approach is to provide compensation through the Alberta Wildlife Predator
Compensation Program. There may be an opportunity to improve the tolerance of ranchers if
grizzly bear depredation compensation is reviewed and improved (Morrison, 2013).
Community and Municipal - To better understand human-grizzly bear conflict, AEP (AESRD
2014) completed a detailed analysis of records from a variety of information sources for the Bow
Valley between the years 1986-2011. Over the 25 year time period, 83 % (n=2472) of all humangrizzly bear conflicts were in residential or urban green space areas in the Bow Valley. Over
time, attractant management activities there have progressed from securing garbage, to passing
bylaws banning bird feeders from April 1 to October 30, to the removal of natural bear forage
such as buffaloberry occurring at the edge of communities. These targeted programs have
demonstrated a decrease in conflict incidents specific to these attractants (AESRD 2014). As
grizzly bears increase in prevalence in other parts of their range, it is anticipated that other
communities will experience similar patterns of conflict, and can benefit from the lessons learned
in the Bow Valley. In addition to existing community attractant challenges, some BMAs are
seeing a growing number of new rural residential inhabitants, particularly in the Support Zone.
These areas have specific outreach and education requirements to improve public safety and
reduce associated impacts to grizzly bears.
Industry and Government Camps- Temporary work camps are common in many parts of the
Recovery and Support Zones, potentially increasing the number of unsecured grizzly bear
attractants. However, there has been significant progress in incorporating BearSmart principles
into permitting requirements for new camps, and there is growing recognition within industry
that effectively managing attractants is an important part of a comprehensive occupational health
and safety program. Securement of grizzly bear attractants around industrial camps will continue
to be important in all BMAs and, in particular, BMAs 1, 2, and 7 given the projected increase in
oil and gas activity. It is also important that all Government of Alberta field camps model
exemplary BearSmart practices and use standards similar to those required of industry.
Recreation - Improvements continue to be made in the management of human garbage and other
attractants in designated camping areas in the Recovery Zone. However, significant work is
required to manage garbage and other attractants within back-country camps, random road-side
camping areas, and privately and/or municipally managed campgrounds in the Recovery and
Support Zones. There is still no standard for certification of “bear-proofness” in Canada for
garbage and food storage containers although work is being done in the United States by the
Inter-agency Grizzly Bear Committee.12
12
http://www.igbconline.org/index.php/safety-in-grizzly-country/bear-resistant-products
43
Draft June 1, 2016
Desired Outcomes
1) There are no grizzly bear conflicts in the Recovery Zone due to unsecured attractants.
2) There are no grizzly bear translocations from the Support Zone due to unsecured
attractants.
Recovery Actions
1) Continue to work with all levels of government (municipal, provincial, and federal) to
develop a standardized provincial database for tracking the location, cause, and
management response to human-grizzly bear conflict.
2) Amend the Alberta Wildlife Act to make it illegal to knowingly feed a grizzly bear.
3) Analyze road and rail mortality locations to identify where attractants may be a
contributing mortality factor and work with the responsible jurisdiction to eliminate the
attractant and to improve the practices that might be generating the attractants.
4) Ensure coordination of education and outreach activities related to attractant management
via the provincial Alberta BearSmart Program and its partners.
Agricultural Attractants
5) Increase the support and facilitate the development of new cost-shared programs to
secure agricultural attractants which result in serious human-grizzly bear conflicts. The
priority would be given to resolving issues in the Recovery Zone first and then the
Support Zone with direction provided by the regional implementation teams.
6) Continue to work with partners to expand pro-active programs for addressing issues such
as livestock carcass removal, outreach-education and voluntary attractant audits. Use the
lessons learned from program successes in BMA 6 to develop similar programs in other
BMAs where agricultural food attractants are the major source of human-grizzly bear
conflict.
7) Work with program delivery partners and affected stakeholders to ensure that the Alberta
Predator Compensation Program adequately compensates livestock producers that coexist with grizzly bears.
8) Complete the evaluation of the Spring Intercept Feeding Program in BMA 6 and
determine the future direction of this program.
9) When new grazing dispositions are being considered, evaluate the potential for conflicts
with grizzly bears before approval. New dispositions in high risk areas or with vulnerable
livestock (e.g., sheep) should be avoided.
Community and Municipal
10) Through the Alberta BearSmart Program, work with Municipal Districts and Counties to
provide education and outreach materials, specifically targeting new rural residents.
11) For Municipal Districts and Counties with significant human-grizzly bear conflict issues
associated with attractants, work with local government to develop regulation and
compliance programs.
44
Draft June 1, 2016
Recreational Camping and Industrial Camps
12) Through the BearSmart program, work with jurisdictions to deliver education and
outreach programs, supported by regulations and compliance assurance for improved
food storage, game carcass management and camp maintenance for backcountry camping
in the Recovery Zone.
13) Continue to improve recreational camping practices including garbage management,
campground/campsite design and food storage, with particular attention paid to random
camping next to roadsides and streams. This includes providing resources (bear proof
bins, food hang racks) and/or information on why and how to secure food and garbage
while camping, and bear spray training sessions.
14) Implement standards for attractant securement for all industrial camps, including
Government of Alberta camps, in alignment with the specifications of the Enhanced
Approval Process Appendix F – Integrated Standards and Guidelines.
Progress Measures
1) Trend in the number and gender of grizzly bears translocated/removed from the Recovery
Zone or Support Zone.
2) In the Recovery Zone and Support Zone, the proportion of attractants associated with
human-grizzly bear conflicts that have been successfully secured.
3) In the Support Zone, the proportion of attractants associated with grizzly bear
translocations that have been successfully secured.
7.2.2 Mitigate the Effect of Motorized Access
Minimizing the effects of existing and anticipated motorized access on grizzly bear mortality has
been identified as a high priority recovery activity (see 5.2.1). The AGBRP (2008) defined open
routes as “roads or trails that receive motorized use (including seismic lines)” and recommended
thresholds for open-route density to minimize access-related mortality of grizzly bears. Using
these thresholds to inform land-use decisions was constrained by the inability to determine the
degree to which vegetation regeneration or terrain is limiting the ability of OHVs to travel on
some potential routes. Open roads, which are defined as access that is reasonably drivable with
on-highway vehicles (i.e. paved or graveled), are much easier to define and have been clearly
associated with increased grizzly bear mortality (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014). As such, in
this recovery plan the density thresholds are for open roads. However, when more areas have
designations that restrict OHV use to designated trails, there will be the opportunity to assess the
contribution of these trails to grizzly bear mortality and, if necessary, develop OHV trail density
thresholds similar to the open road densities recommendation discussed below. There also has
been progress made in using remote sensing technology such as Lidar to determine whether
linear footprint is receiving regular OHV traffic (G. Stenhouse, personal communication). The
Chinchaga Area in BMA 1 is of interest because it is the only BMA made up of habitat classified
as Boreal Highland and was not included in the Boulanger and Stenhouse (2014) study area. At
this time the extent that OHVs contribute to human-caused grizzly bear mortality is a knowledge
gap.
Boulanger and Stenhouse (2014) also examined the relative survival rates of different age, sex,
and reproductive categories of grizzly bears under different open road densities. They found that
45
Draft June 1, 2016
survival of younger bears and females with cubs was more affected than other bears when road
densities exceeded thresholds because females with cubs used road edges more often than other
reproductive categories. Demographic models that included the effect of open road density,
predicted that populations would likely increase at open road densities of ≤ 0.6 km/km2 but that
the population of females with cubs would decrease at open road densities of greater than 0.75
km/km2 (Boulanger and Stenhouse, 2014). Consequently, the recommended open road density
threshold in the Core Zone remains at less than 0.6 km/km2 but is reduced to less than 0.75
km/km2 in the Secondary Zone as a precautious measure in order to better manage the extra
vulnerability of females with cubs with cubs to human-caused mortality associated with higher
open road densities. Where these thresholds have been exceeded, particularly in areas that
have the potential to be high quality grizzly bear habitat, it is recommended that remedial
management options be applied, such as seasonally closing access to public motorized use or
decommissioning roads to restore the areas to below the recommended open road densities.
The scale for the actual calculation of open road density will continue to be at the scale of the
Grizzly Bear Watershed Unit GBWU.
Currently, 35.9% of the Recovery Zone has a Federal or Provincial Protected Area designation
that limits motorized vehicle access to designated roads or trails (Table 7.1). One of the
challenges to implementation of the AGBRP (2008) was the lack of policy for managing access
in grizzly bear range that falls outside these areas. The ongoing/future development of Regional
Land Use Plans and access management sub-plans under the Government of Alberta’s Land Use
Framework Policy13 will be the primary way access management will be implemented for grizzly
bears. It is through these planning processes that balancing of economic, environmental, and
social, requirements from the land will take place. The role of this recovery plan and the
subsequent implementation activities will be to provide input into these planning processes by
providing timely information on the priorities for the management of access for grizzly bear
conservation. However, some of the Regional Plans will not be completed for several years and
there will also be a lag while the supporting frameworks and any required access management
sub-plans are developed. In areas where the rate of development of new roads will likely get
ahead of these planning processes, it is strongly recommended that AEP develop a policy
Directive or similar tool that would require that grizzly open road density limits be considered in
the planning and permitting of new roads in the Core and Secondary Zones.
Table 7.1. The area of the Recovery and Support zones that has Federal or
Provincial designation limiting vehicular access to designated roads or trails.
Recovery Zone
Support Zone
13
Type of Designation
Area (km2)
%
Area (km2)
%
Protected Areas
29441.6
26.5
1014.3
1.6
Public Land Use Zones
9,858.9
9.0
205.8
0.3
Total
39,300.50
35.3
1,220.10
2.0
https://landuse.alberta.ca/PlanforAlberta/LanduseFramework/Pages/default.aspx
46
Draft June 1, 2016
The Public Lands Administration Regulation14 contains provisions that enable the use of locked
gates to block public access of resource roads on public land. Although potentially effective in
managing access, the practice of gating roads is difficult to enforce and gates have been
vandalized or circumvented by the public in some instances. The successful use of this tool will
require an associated compliance assurance plan, with heightened education and enforcement
efforts.
Desired Outcome
An approved access management plan or equivalent, AEP Directive (or similar tool), or
Protected Area designation that limits open road densities from exceeding thresholds (to
less than 0.6 km/km2 in the Core Zone and to less than 0.75 km/km2 in the Secondary
Zone) is in place for 100% of the grizzly bear Recovery Zone.
Recovery Actions
1) Assess all GBWUs for size to identify any units that are oversized and should be split.
2) Include the recommended grizzly bear road density thresholds in the Regional Plans,
Biodiversity Management Frameworks and access management sub-plans.
3) Develop a policy Directive (or equivalent tool), that uses the recommended open-road
density thresholds as part of the planning and permitting process for new road
developments on public land in the Core and Secondary Zones.
4) Work with industry experts to develop and implement approaches for restricting
public access on roads that are needed for resource extraction. Where roads are to be
closed, develop comprehensive signage and compliance assurance programs with
clear roles and responsibilities for Industry and the Government of Alberta.
5) Improve data management processes so that there is an up to date provincial road
database for the Recovery Zone that includes records on roads that have been closed
to public motorized access and roads that have been decommissioned.
6) Where recommended open road density limits have been exceeded in a GBWU, work
with stakeholders and land managers to develop and implement a plan that identifies
where roads will be closed to public motorized use, reclaimed, and develop a
reclamation schedule. Use best available information to prioritize areas that have high
open road density and high potential for restoration to high quality grizzly bear
habitat.
7) Develop and refine methodologies to determine and monitor open route density and
use this information to better quantify the magnitude of the effect of off-road OHV
use on grizzly bear mortality.
8) Use the following design considerations when planning access management or
developing operating procedures and guidelines in the Core and Secondary Zones:
14
http://AEP.alberta.ca/lands-forests/public-lands-administration-regulation/default.aspx
47
Draft June 1, 2016
i. identify relatively high quality habitat that is currently intact and use
predictive models to design access in these areas so that the relatively large
patches of undisturbed high quality habitat are avoided;
ii. revegetate disturbed areas such as road sides with appropriate seed mixes that
is similar to adjacent vegetation and avoid species like legumes that are
known bear attractants;
iii. strategically locate timber retention areas to reduce sight lines from roads into
adjacent cutblocks or maintain visual screening using other vegetation; and,
iv. new road developments should be temporary and include a schedule of
reclamation and/or deactivation.
Where appropriate, include road design considerations in the new road policy
directive (Action 3).
Progress Measures:
1) The percentage of the Recovery Zone in each BMA that is subject to an approved
access management plan, Directive, or Protected Area designation is consistent with
recommended open road density limits.
2) Change in open road densities by BMA and GBWU relative to the recommended
Core and Secondary Zone road densities.
Method Note: Standardized methodology needs to be developed so trends can be monitored and
reported, ideally every 3 years (see strategy 7.3.1).
7.2.3 Reduce Accidental Human-caused Mortality
Fifty – four percent of the 131 human-caused grizzly bear deaths from 2006-2013 were
accidental in nature. Specifically, 21 % (27 of 131) were due to collisions with train or motor
vehicles, 20% (26 of 131) were self-defence kills, and 13 % (17 of 131) were due to a hunter
mistaking a grizzly bear for a black bear (see Section 5.2.1).
It will not be possible to eliminate vehicle collision-related mortality for grizzly bears and it is
possible that the number of bears killed in this manner will increase as the Alberta grizzly bear
population increases in size and distribution and/or the number of vehicles traveling on Alberta
highways through the Recovery and Support Zones increases. However, periodic analysis to
identify high collision areas and to mitigate the contributing factors such as roadside food
attractants (e.g. natural vegetation, grain, garbage, road kills, and highway crossing structures
[see section 7.3.2]) would help minimize this source of grizzly bear mortality.
In a review of human-grizzly encounters in Alaska, Smith et al. (2008) found that bear spray
successfully deterred grizzly bear attacks 92 % of the time and resulted in very few injuries to
people and no deaths to the bear. In contrast, incidents with firearms resulted in the bears being
killed 61 % of the time, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with
bears whether they used their firearms or not, and firearms were less successful than bear spray
at deterring the grizzly bear attack (Smith et al. 2008; Smith et al.2012). Since most defensive
48
Draft June 1, 2016
kills are by hunters, getting hunters to carry and use bear spray is an important strategy for
reducing this source of grizzly bear mortality and insuring public safety.
First time hunters in Alberta receive bear identification training as part of their hunter education
program. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, now requires that hunters pass a test
to demonstrate their ability to distinguish a grizzly bear from a black bear in order to purchase a
black bear license while the Idaho Department of Fish and Game makes the test available online
as a resource but it is not as yet making it a requirement for obtaining a black bear hunting
permit. Developing a mandatory grizzly bear identification certification program for Alberta
black bear hunters, in combination with the continued practice of restricting black bear baiting to
areas that are not occupied grizzly bear habitat, should minimize the number of misidentification kills by black bear hunters.
Desired Outcome
Avoidable accidental mortality does not occur because people have the knowledge and
skills to use the appropriate tools.
Recovery Actions
1) Analyze vehicle collisions records for each BMA to identify areas where collisions occur
more frequently. Identify the underlying contributing factors and implement mitigations
where possible.
2) Promote and encourage use of pepper spray along with other bear safety practices with
the hunting community and landowners being priority audiences.
3) Develop a bear identification testing/certification program available for all hunters with
the intention of phasing it in as a mandatory requirement to obtain an annual black bear
hunting permit.
Progress Measures
1) The number of recovery activities targeting the prevention of accidental mortality that
have been accomplished.
2) Number of accidental human-caused grizzly bear mortalities that could have been
avoided.
7.2.4 Targeted Use of Aversive Conditioning
Aversive conditioning techniques, using specially trained dogs or noise and pain stimulus, to
move bears out of developed areas has been used in Alberta and other jurisdictions for many
years. To be successful, the attractants drawing the bear into the area need to be secured before
the bear has become habituated to human-associated foods (Gillin et al. 1994; Leigh and
Chamberlain 2008). A consistent approach to delivering aversive conditioning is also important
for success. To date, the best examples of the successful use of aversive conditioning is in
provincial protected areas with bear proof garbage management systems and management of
natural food attractants. When appropriately used, aversive conditioning can contribute to
reducing incidents of human-grizzly bear conflict, human caused grizzly bear mortality, long
distance relocations, and improved public safety (Honeyman 2008). Aversive condition has been
49
Draft June 1, 2016
used for many years in the Bow Valley – Kananaskis area and should be evaluated for
effectiveness.
Desired Outcome
Aversive conditioning is used successfully to reduce the prevalence of bears in areas
where there is a high risk to public safety, increased risk of human-grizzly bear conflicts,
and associated human- caused mortality.
Recovery Actions
1) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current aversive conditioning program in the Bow
Valley - Kananaskis including lessons learned and recommendations for how to apply
aversive conditioning in other regions of the province.
2) If shown to be cost effective, use the lessons learned from the Bow Valley – Kananaskis
aversive conditioning evaluation to create a formal aversive-conditioning training
program within the GOA.
Progress Measures
1) The trend in the number of grizzly bear occurrences in the aversive conditioning target
area.
2) The trend in the number of translocations and bear mortalities in the aversive condition
target area.
Method Notes: In order to evaluate effectiveness, it is necessary to have a defined target area for aversive
conditioning application and that data be collected on aversive conditioning application and the behavior of
the targeted grizzly bears.
7.3 Mitigate the Effect of Human Development on Grizzly Bear Habitat
The entire Recovery Zone is subject to different types and intensities of recreational use and
about 73.1 % of it is outside of National Parks or protected areas and is subject to varying
intensities of natural resource development and extraction (Table 7.1). This strategy identifies
where increased knowledge of grizzly bears could better improve the ability to monitor and
manage the effects of human use in order to insure the supply of secure high quality grizzly bear
habitat.
7.3.1 Improve Understanding and Management of the Effects of Human Use and Resource
Extraction on Grizzly Bear Habitat
Habitat states were explained in section 5.2.2 and used in section 5.4 to assess the current status
of secure habitat in each BMA. It is also possible to integrate habitat quality and mortality risk
models in order to show where high quality secure habitat is or could be if the effect of
increased mortality risk due to motorized access on open roads is mitigated (Nielsen et al. 2006).
The Foothills Research Institute (FRI) Grizzly Bear Program has used this model to develop
important planning tools that can be used to demonstrate the trade-off between foraging
50
Draft June 1, 2016
opportunities and mortality risk when assessing options for road placement, road reclamation,
and placement of sight lines in forest harvest cut blocks from adjacent roadways as part of
Integrated Land Management Projects (see Strategy 7.2.2).
It would be beneficial to monitor habitat state to determine whether the supply of secure habitat
is being maintained over time. More frequent updates of the spatial layers for landscape
condition, improved training, and standardized use across the range of grizzly bears, would
greatly facilitate the application of this tool. As new knowledge is generated, these tools should
be improved and updated.
It is currently possible to calculate habitat states for all the BMAs except for BMA 1. This gap
could be addressed by utilizing the grizzly bear food model that currently exists to generate a
habitat state map for this BMA.
Habitat state models are not directly linked to demographic parameters, so it is not possible to
predict changes in population size from changes in habitat state. The next innovation would be to
integrate habitat change models with grizzly bear demographic models to better predict the
effects of habitat change on grizzly bear vital rates (Nielsen et al. 2010) in order to set thresholds
similar to the recent work on road density (Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014).
Other areas of research that may be useful for management in the futures are studies that better
characterize and monitor the grizzly bear nutrition landscape15 (Nielsen et al. 2013). Further
work is underway to understand how nutritional landscapes interact with reproductive status and
success. In some areas (e.g. BMA 6), grizzly bears are living in the Support Zone in a primarily
agricultural landscape. To date, the contribution of agriculturally related foods to the grizzly bear
diet, or its importance to this population has yet to be determined.
Desired Outcome
The improved ability to measure, monitor, and manage the effects of human use and natural
resource extraction on grizzly bear habitat and population demographics.
Recovery Actions
1. Adapt the existing food model for BMA 1 and integrate it with the existing mortality risk
models in order to be able to report on habitat states for this management unit.
2. Develop and implement a standardized process for updating provincial spatial data layers
required by the habitat (Nielsen, 2006) and risk (Nielsen et al 2004a) RSF models, and
maintain the ArcGIS Grizzly Bear Tools (or other similar spatial tool) to compute the
habitat and risk RSF surfaces needed to update and report on the habitat state for each
BMA every 3 years.
3. Utilize the new food and nutritional landscape models for BMA’s 2 and 3 (Nielsen et al.
2015 in review), with incorporation of road density and lambda findings (Boulanger and
15
https://foothillsri.ca/resource/dynamic-regeneration-grizzly-bear-food-model
51
Draft June 1, 2016
Stenhouse 2014), to improve and refine habitat state output to aid in landscape
management decisions for habitat supply.
4. Update and implement training program for the use of Grizzly Bear Tools (or equivalent)
used to compute the habitat, risk, and habitat state layers for GoA staff involved in land
use planning.
5. Integrate habitat change models (food and nutrition) with grizzly bear demographic
models to better predict how changing landscape conditions might affect grizzly bear
demographic and vital rates.
6. Encourage research on grizzly bear habitat, as it relates to grizzly bear demographics,
reproduction, and health, including:
 the impact of human recreational activity on temporal and spatial displacement of
bears from habitat in the Recovery Zone, and the population level effects of such
displacement has if/when it occurs; and
 the effect of agricultural food sources is having on population size, vital rates,
habitat use, and denning in some BMAs.
Progress Measures
1) Frequency that provincial landscape condition spatial layers are updated.
2) The frequency and extent that Grizzly Bear Tools, or other habitat planning tools, are
used in land use planning.
7.3.2 Improve the Ability to Disperse Across Major Transportation Corridors
The effect of major road corridors has been demonstrated to be a threat to grizzly bear recovery
and effective mitigations have already occurred along the Highway 1 corridor through Banff
National Park (see Section 5.2.3) and along portions of Highway 1 outside of the National Park.
Maintaining the ability of grizzly bears to safely disperse across major road corridors in the face
of increasing human population size and development, combined with increasing highway traffic
rates in the Habitat Linkage Zones, is a significant grizzly bear recovery challenge. Resolving it
will require working with the responsible provincial and municipal government agencies to
ensure that grizzly bear requirements are appropriately considered in development decisions. It
would also be important to incorporate grizzly bear requirements into broader wildlife crossing
initiatives and other public interests such as reducing loss of human life and property from
wildlife-vehicle collisions (Clevenger et al. 2010). There have been assessments and priorities
identified for wildlife habitat securement and crossing structures for areas east of Banff National
Park to the Highway 40 junction (Lee et al. 2012) and along the Highway 3 corridor through the
Crowsnest Pass (Chetkiewicz and Boyce 2009; Clevenger et al. 2010) and preliminary work for
Hwy 16 (see 5.4.3). The Swan Hills (BMA 7) has a unique combination of factors affecting
habitat connectivity and it has its own strategy (7.3.3).
Desired Outcome
The mitigations have been put in place to enable grizzly bears to safely disperse across
the major transportation corridors in the Recovery Zone.
52
Draft June 1, 2016
Recovery Actions
1) Use existing information to identify the important areas for grizzly bear movement across
Habitat Linkage Zones that have yet to be assessed. Where there is insufficient
information, gather the necessary genetic, habitat, and animal movement information to
inform mitigation actions.
2) Work with government agencies and partners to identify and prioritize the important
grizzly bear crossing areas within the Habitat Linkage Zone and to develop and
implement a plan to mitigate the barriers to successful crossing of transportation
corridors.
Progress Measures
1) Proportion of the Habitat Linkage Zones where important grizzly bear movement routes
have been identified, mapped, and a plan developed to improve the ability of grizzly
bears to cross the transportation corridor.
2) The number of transportation corridor crossing structures completed in Habitat Linkage
Zones.
3) The amount of habitat that is important for maintaining connectivity across the Habitat
Linkage Zones that has been protected from development.
7.3.3 Improve the Ability of Bears to Disperse Between BMA 2 and BMA 7
The combination of oil and gas development in the isthmus of habitat between BMA 2 and
BMA7 with the Highway 43 corridor has likely resulted in a barrier to dispersal that isolates the
remaining grizzly bears in BMA 7. The conservation consequences could be particularly acute
because the grizzly bear population in BMA 7 likely require immigration from BMA 2 in order
to sustain its small population size (Boulanger et al. 2009; Festa-Bianchet, 2010). Road densities
in several of the GBWUs in the narrow strip of habitat remaining between BMA 2 and BMA 7
are well above the threshold levels of 0.75 km/km2 (Figure 7.2). This suggests that the grizzly
bears living in or moving through this area experience very high mortality risk and that road
closures to public motorized access and road reclamation are needed to help ensure the
persistence of the BMA 7 grizzly bear population. There is also the need to increase the number
of secondary zone GBWUs (Figure 7.2) in order to increase the width of habitat that is managed
for road density. If the ability for male and female grizzly bears to disperse between BMA 2 and
the BMA 7 is significantly compromised, then the BMA 7 population may need to be reinforced
with the translocations of bears from a suitable source population. This would be an interim
strategy to ensure that grizzly bears can persist in BMA 7 until such time that the habitat corridor
is restored. Further assessment of the current size of the BMA 7 population and the potential
benefit of reinforcing this population with translocations is a needed before implementing
population reinforcement activities.
Desired Outcome
Grizzly bears in BMA7 are not demographically or genetically isolated from the
population of grizzly bears in BMA 2.
53
Draft June 1, 2016
Recovery Actions
1) Determine current habitat usage and movement by grizzly bears in the isthmus of habitat
between BMA 2 and BMA 7.
2) Include new GBWUs as Secondary Zones for access management in order to widen the
habitat linkage between BMA 2 and BMA 7.
3) Work with local stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Land Management
Plan to restore the habitat link between BMA 2 and the BMA 7.
4) Evaluate whether reinforcing the BMA 7 grizzly bear population with periodic
translocations is needed to ensure the viability of this population. This will require a
current population estimate and a population viability analysis (Proctor et al. 2004).
Progress Measures
1) Completion of a population inventory in BMA 7.
2) Trend in open road density in the GBWUs that link BMA 2 to BMA 7.
3) Number of open roads closed to public motorized use or reclaimed.
Figure 7. 1 Road densities within Grizzly Bear Watershed Units (GBWU) between BMA 2 and BMA 7 and
the GBWU to be added as Secondary Zone habitat to the EAP key wildlife layer (see Section 4.1).
7.4 Assess Potential Abundance and Distribution of Grizzly Bears in the Recovery Zone
It is possible to predict the potential grizzly bear population size and distribution in the recovery
zone using resource selection functions (Boyce and McDonald, 1999; Boyce and Waller, 2003;
Boyce et al. 2015). Separate resource selection functions (RSF) for habitat and risk have been
developed for grizzly bears in Alberta (Nielsen, 2007). If we consider the resource selection
54
Draft June 1, 2016
function for habitat only, this provides a tool to estimate potential grizzly bear population size
under the assumption that risk due to human-caused mortality is minimized. This would be
considered a best case scenario, and is likely only achievable in practice in protected areas.
However, this information will still be useful for measuring recovery and guiding recovery plan
implementation.
The method of Boyce and McDonald (1999) uses a known population in a reference area, where
bears are assumed to be at carrying capacity, to calculate bear density in each habitat type
according to a resource selection function. This weighting of grizzly bear density by habitat can
then be extrapolated to predict bear distribution and abundance in a new area, which in this case
is the Recovery Zone. The protected areas on the original DNA grids can be used as the
reference area, under the assumption that bear populations in protected areas are least affected by
human-caused mortality and most likely to be at carrying capacity. The number of grizzly bears
in the reference area can be analysed using spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) and
density surface methods (Efford 2004, Efford et al. 2004, Efford et al. 2009, Efford 2011),
applied to DNA hair snag data for the provincial grizzly bear inventory from 2004 to 2008.This
analysis can be used to generate an estimate of the density of grizzly bears, given current
habitat conditions, in the hypothetical circumstance that human-caused mortality is managed
as well as is being done in protected areas. It would be possible to compare this estimate with
the 2004-2008 data16 using spatially explicit capture-recapture and density surface methods,
which will allow estimates to be obtained for the Recovery Zone. New data from recent
population surveys in BMAs 3, 5, and 6 are currently being analyzed and will further add to this
analysis by providing better coverage of the protected areas as well as current population
estimates to compare to. Finally, energy budget models provide another approach for estimating
the potential grizzly bear population size. Current research into the grizzly bear nutrition
landscape will result in a food-based estimate of carrying capacity for BMA 3 (Nielson et al.
2013), which will provide an independent estimate for comparison with the RSF extrapolation
approach used here. Knowing what the predicted best case population size scenario for the
Recovery Zone and comparing it to the current population size will allow for another assessment
of how well Alberta is able to manage human-caused mortality in the Recovery Zone. It will
also be used to generate the habitat based potential population range that is needed to complete
the population objective (see Section 6.1, objective 1).
Desired Outcome:
Improved ability to evaluate recovery success.
Recovery Actions
1) Update the predicted potential grizzly bear population size for the Recovery Zone once
ongoing population estimates for BMA 3, 5, and 6 are available.
2) Analyze the best available inventory data from each BMA using the spatially explicit
capture-recapture method in conjunction with density surface models to obtain an
16
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/grizzly-bear-recovery-plan/improve-knowledge-ofgrizzly-bears.aspx
55
Draft June 1, 2016
estimate for the current grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone of each BMA.
These estimates would then provide an appropriate comparison with the predicted
potential grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone of each BMA, and could provide
a measure of recovery success.
3) Predict the potential grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone of BMA 1. This would
require the development of resource selection functions for habitat and risk for this
population unit.
4) Investigate the possibility of a meta-analysis to obtain a grizzly bear population estimate
for the entire Recovery Zone using the spatially explicit capture-recapture method in
conjunction with a density surface model. The density surface model could then be used
to investigate the potential grizzly bear population under various scenarios of lowered
risk. These results could be compared with the results obtained from the RSF
extrapolation approach.
Progress Measures
1) The number of BMAs that have a completed predicted potential grizzly bear population
size estimate.
8.0 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE TABLES
The anticipated costs to achieve individual aspects of the recovery plan such as the population
survey work in Table 6.1 and the recovery actions listed in Table 8.1 will be evaluated when the
plan is finalized.
56
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 8.1. Implementation schedule for recovery actions.
Strategy
7.1.1
Priority
*
U
U
Implementation Schedule (fiscal
year)
1) Develop standardized protocols for tracking and reporting on
progress measures.
Recovery Action
1
2
X
X
X
X
3
4
5
I
X
X
2) Develop and deliver context-specific education and outreach
programming for the priority issues.
I
X
X
X
X
X
3) Continue to provide a suite of audience-specific printed and
online materials for distribution to the public.
I
X
X
X
X
X
4) Develop and deliver train-the-trainer sessions for partner
groups and industry.
5) Ensure that Government of Alberta staff are aware of and
practicing BearSmart techniques while working in their
communities.
I
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
6) Place print ads in audience-specific publications, and provide
social media content in spring and fall periods.
I
X
X
X
X
X
7) Attend and provide information and training at tradeshows,
community events and related venues.
I
X
X
X
X
X
8) Work with the Alberta Safety Council to update the Bear
Awareness and Avoidance courses.
U
X
X
9) Create and carry out a social media strategy that recognizes
the need to tie social media to on-the-ground bear management
and BearSmart activities.
I
X
X
X
X
X
10) Develop curriculum aligned education kits.
I
X
X
X
11) Develop and implement an Alberta BearSmart community
recognition and certification program.
12) Link online education resources, like the Alberta Hunter
Education Instructors Association’s online Bear Essential video,
to the mandatory bear identification testing being proposed in
Strategy 7.2.3.
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
13) Deliver an annual Alberta BearSmart Conference/Workshop
for staff and partners.
I
X
X
X
X
X
1) Develop a provincial grizzly bear recovery coordinating
committee.
U
X
2) Develop regional implementation working groups.
3)Analyze road and rail mortality locations to identify where
attractants may be a contributing mortality factor and work with
the responsible jurisdiction to eliminate the attractant and to
improve the practices that might be generating the attractants.
U
X
X
X
X
X
4) Work with Montana, British Columbia, and Parks Canada to
develop an annual forum.
I
X
X
X
1) Develop a standardized provincial database.
I
X
X
X
X
2) Amend the Alberta Wildlife Act to make it illegal to
knowingly feed a grizzly bear.
3) Analyze road and rail mortality locations to identify where
attractants may be a contributing mortality . . .
I
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
4) Ensure coordination of education and outreach activities.
I
X
X
X
X
X
5) Increase the support and facilitate the development of new
cost-share programs to secure agricultural attractants.
I
X
X
X
1) Review the BearSmart Program.
2) Develop BearSmart Business Case.
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2.1
57
I
I
X
Draft June 1, 2016
Table 8.1. Cont’d.
Strategy
7.2.1
Recovery Action
Implementation Schedule (fiscal year)
6) Continue to work with partners to expand pro-active
programs for addressing issues such as livestock carcass
removal.
7) Work with program delivery partners and affected
stakeholders to ensure that the Alberta Predator Compensation
Program compensates livestock producers that co-exist with
grizzly bears.
8) Complete the evaluation of the Spring Intercept Feeding
Program in BMA 6 and determine the future direction of this
program.
9) When new grazing dispositions are being considered,
evaluate the potential for conflicts with grizzly bears before
approval.
10) Through the BearSmart Program, work with Municipal
Districts and Counties to provide education and outreach
materials, specifically targeting new rural residents.
11) For Municipal Districts and Counties with significant
human-grizzly bear conflict issues associated with attractants,
work with local government to develop regulation and
compliance programs.
12) Through the BearSmart program, work with jurisdictions
to deliver education and outreach programs, supported by
regulations and compliance assurance for improved food
storage, game carcass management and camp maintenance for
backcountry camping in the Recovery Zone.
13) Continue to improve recreational camping practices
including garbage management, campground/campsite design
and food storage, with particular attention paid to random
camping next to roadsides and streams.
14) Implement standards for attractant securement for all
industrial camps, including Government of Alberta camps, in
alignment with the specifications of the Enhanced Approval
Process Appendix F – Integrated Standards and Guidelines.
7.2.2
1) Assess all GBWUs for size to identify any units that are
oversized and should be split.
2) Include the recommended grizzly bear road density limits
in the Regional Plans, Biodiversity Management Frameworks,
and access management subplans.
3) Develop a policy Directive that uses the recommended
open-road density limits as part of the permitting process for
new road developments on public land in the Core and
Secondary Zones.
4) Work with industry experts to develop and implement best
practices for restricting public access on roads that are needed
for resource extraction. Where roads are to be closed, develop
comprehensive signage and compliance assurance programs
with clear roles and responsibilities for Industry and the
Government of Alberta.
5) Improve data management processes so that there is an up
to date provincial road database for the Recovery Zone.
58
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
I
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
U
X
X
U
X
U
X
X
U
X
X
U
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
Draft June 1, 2016
Strategy
7.2.2
Recovery Action
Priority
6) Where recommended open road density limits have been
exceeded in a GBWU, work with stakeholders and land
managers to develop and implement a road closure to the
public, decommissioning, and reclamation plan.
7) Develop and refine methodologies to determine and
monitor open route density. Quantify the effect of off-road
OHV use on grizzly bear mortality and whether there are
contextual nuances in geography or human behavior in
specific BMAs that are particularly important and need to be
managed. Use these results to refine recommendations for
access management.
8) Use the following design considerations when planning
access management or developing operating procedures and
guidelines in the Core and Secondary Zones . .
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.3.1
1) Analyze vehicle collisions records for each BMA to
identify areas where collisions occur more frequently.
2) Promote and encourage use of pepper spray along with
other bear safety practices with the hunting community and
landowners being priority audiences.
3) Develop a bear identification testing/certification program
available for all hunters with the intention of phasing it in as
a mandatory requirement to get an annual black bear hunting
permit.
1) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current aversive
conditioning program in the Bow Valley - Kananaskis
including lessons learned and recommendations for how to
apply aversive conditioning in other regions of the province.
2) Using the lessons learned from the Bow Valley –
Kananaskis aversive condition evaluation to create a formal
aversive-conditioning training program within the GoA.
1) Adapt the existing food model for BMA 1 and integrate it
with the existing mortality risk models in order to be able to
report on habitat states for this management unit.
2) Develop and implement a standardized process for
updating provincial spatial data layers required by the habitat
(Nielsen, 2006) and risk (Nielsen et al 2004a) RSF models,
and maintain the ArcGIS Grizzly Bear Tools (or other
similar spatial tool) to compute the habitat and risk RSF
surfaces needed to update and report on the habitat state for
each BMA every 3 years.
3) Utilize the new food and nutritional landscape models for
BMA’s 2 and 3 (Nielsen et al. 2015 in review), with
incorporation of road density and lambda findings
(Boulanger and Stenhouse 2014), to improve and refine
habitat state output to aid in landscape management
decisions for habitat supply.
4) Update and implement training program for the use of
Grizzly Bear Tools (or equivalent) used to compute the
habitat, risk, and habitat state layers for GoA staff involved
in land use planning.
5) Integrate habitat change models (food and nutrition) with
grizzly bear demographic models to better predict how
changing landscape conditions might affect grizzly bear
demographic and vital rates.
59
I
1
2
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
I
I
I
I
X
X
Draft June 1, 2016
Strategy Recovery Action
7.3.2
7.4
6) Encourage research on grizzly bear habitat, as it
relates to grizzly bear demographics, reproduction,
and health, including: .
1) Use existing information to identify the
important areas for grizzly bear movement across
Habitat Linkage Zones that have yet to be assessed.
Where there is insufficient information, gather the
necessary genetic, habitat, and animal movement
information to inform mitigation actions.
2) Work with government agencies and partners to
identify and prioritize the important grizzly bear
crossing areas within the Habitat Linkage Zones
and to develop and implement a plan to mitigate the
barriers to successful crossing of transportation
corridors.
3) Determine current habitat usage and possible
movement by grizzly bears in the isthmus of habitat
between BMA 2 and BMA 7.
4) Evaluate whether reinforcing the BMA 7 grizzly
bear population with periodic translocations is
needed to ensure the viability of this population.
This will require a current population estimate and
a population viability analysis (Proctor et al. 2004).
1) Update the predicted potential grizzly bear
population size for the Recovery Zone once
ongoing population estimates for BMA 3, 5, and 6
are available.
2) Analyze the best available inventory data from
each BMA using the spatially explicit capturerecapture method in conjunction with density
surface models to obtain an estimate for the current
grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone of
each BMA. These estimates would then provide an
appropriate comparison with the predicted potential
grizzly bear population in the Recovery Zone of
each BMA, and could provide a measure of
recovery success.
3) Predict the potential grizzly bear population in
the Recovery Zone of BMA 1. This would require
the development of resource selection functions for
habitat and risk for this population unit.
4) Investigate the possibility of a meta-analysis to
obtain a grizzly bear population estimate for the
entire Recovery Zone using the spatially explicit
capture-recapture method in conjunction with a
density surface model. The density surface model
could then be used to investigate the potential
grizzly bear population under various scenarios of
lowered risk. These results could be compared with
the results obtained from the RSF extrapolation
approach.
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
I
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
*U=Urgent (needs to be implemented as soon as possible); I=Important (will make an important contribution to
grizzly bear recovery).
9.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
60
Draft June 1, 2016
Grizzly bear recovery includes the typical conservation actions to improve population viability
through the mitigation of conservation threats. However, less typically, a large part of grizzly
bear conservation is the management of human-grizzly bear interactions and the associated
public safety and loss of property issues. Human-grizzly bear conflict will likely continue to
increase as the grizzly bear population recovers and their management will require a long-term
commitment of resources. In this context, the enhancement of Alberta’s BearSmart programing
and the hiring of additional human-wildlife conflict management specialists should be viewed as
a long-term investment that will continue to contribute to grizzly bear management even when
grizzly bears are recovered in Alberta.
Grizzly bears are an iconic wilderness species for Alberta that many Albertans want to see
maintained on publicly managed land. Continuing oil and gas, forestry, mineral, and agricultural
expansion, and increasing motorized recreational activities will present ongoing recovery
challenges across the working landscape portion of the Recovery Zone. Of particular importance
to grizzly bears will be managing the effects of human-caused grizzly bear mortality by keeping
the density of open roads below the thresholds compatible with self-sustaining grizzly bear
populations. Alberta’s Land-use Framework mandates the development and implementation of
regional plans and sub-plans for the purpose of effectively balancing competing economic,
environmental and social demands17 including the habitat needs of Species at Risk like the
grizzly bear.
10.0 INTERACTION WITH OTHER SPECIES AT RISK RECOVERY PROGRAMS
Occasionally two species at risk have competing conservation requirements that necessitate that
the interests of one species be traded in favor of the other. When this happens, priority is given to
the species with the greatest risk of extirpation. Increased predation, primarily wolf and/or bear,
as a result of habitat alteration have led to local population declines of woodland caribou
(Environment Canada 2012). Grizzly bears and woodland caribou co-occur in parts of the grizzly
bear recovery zone and of current concern is the Little Smoky local caribou population in BMA
2 – Grande Cache. A 12 year wolf population reduction program appeared to stabilize the Little
Smoky caribou population but it did not lead to population increase (Hervieux et al. 2014).
Expansion of the predator control program to other predators is not currently being considered
and the habitat management actions required for long-term caribou recovery would also benefit
grizzly bears (D. Hervieux, pers. comm.).
17
https://landuse.alberta.ca/PlanForAlberta/Pages/default.aspx
61
Draft June 1, 2016
11.0 LITERATURE CITED
AESRD. 2014. Bow Valley Bear Hazard Assessment 1992-2011. Unpublished Report.
Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team. 2009. Grizzly bear population and density estimates for
the 2008 DNA inventory of the Grande Cache Bear Management Area (BMA 2). Report
Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division.
36pp.
Alberta Bear Management Unit 6 and British Columbia Management Units 4-1, 4-2, and
4-23 (2007). Report Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and
Wildlife Division and Range, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and Parks
Canada. 46pp,
the 2006 Alberta Unit 5 Management Area inventory. Report Prepared for Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. 37pp.
AGBRP. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15.
Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.
Alexander, S.M. et al. 2005. Traffic volumes and highway permeability for a mammalian
community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Canadian Geographer 4:321–331.
Baruch-Mordo, S. et al. 2011. The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement
as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLosOne, 6(1): e15681.
Bayne, E.M., et al. 2005. Modeling and field testing of ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)
responses to boreal forest dissection by energy sector development at multiple spatial
scales. Landscape Ecol. 20: 203–216.
Benn, B. and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho
National Parks, 1971-98. Ursus 13: 213–21.
Berland, A. et al. (2008). The impact of landscape disturbance on grizzly bear habitat use in the
Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 226: 1875–
1883.
Boulanger, J. 2015. Spatially explicit mark-recapture estimates of grizzly bear population density
in DNA grid and protected areas in Alberta. Report to Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource Development. 45 pp.
62
Draft June 1, 2016
Boulanger, J. et al. 2009. Estimation of grizzly bear population size for the Swan Hills
management unit using DNA sampling and habitat-relative occupancy models. Report
prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 15-16pp.
Boulanger J, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2014. The Impact of Roads on the Demography of Grizzly
Bears in Alberta. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115535. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115535.
Boulanger, J. et al. 2005a. 2004 population inventory and density estimates for the Alberta 3b
and 4B Grizzly Bear Management Area. Report Prepared for Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. 28pp.
Boulanger, J et al. 2005b. Grilly bear populaton and density estmates for the 2005 Alberta
(proposed ) Unit 4 Managemetn Area inventory. Report Prepared for Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. 31pp.
Boyce, M.S. et al. 2015. Can habitat selection predict abundance? Journal of Animal Ecology,
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12359.
Boyce, M.S. and L.L. McDonald. 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection
functions. Trend in Ecol. and Evol., 14(7): 268-272.
Boyce, M.S. and J.S. Waller. 2003. Grizzly Bears for the Bitterroot: Predicting Potential
Abundance and Distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31(3): 670-683.
Brittingham, M.C. et al. 2014. Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife,
aquatic resources and their habitats. Sci. Technol. 48: 11034–47.
Brymer, E. and K. Davids. 2013. Ecological dynamics as a theoretical framework for
development of sustainable behaviours towards the environment, Environmental
Education Research, 19(1): 45-63.
Carra, B.L. 2010. Spatial and spatial-temporal analysis of grizzly bear movement patterns as
related to underlying landscapes across multiple scales. Ph.D dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier
University. 291 pp.
Chetkiewicz, C.B. and M.S. Boyce. 2009. Use of resource selection functions to identify
conservation corridors. J. of Appl. Ecol. 46: 1036–1047
Clevenger, A. et al. 2010. Highway 3: transportation mitigation for wildlife and connectivity in
the crown of the continent ecosystem Prepared by Miistakis Institute, Western
Transportation Institute and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 124 pp.
Efford, M. 2004. Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598-610.
Efford, M. et al. 2004. DENSITY: software for analysing capture-recapture data from passive
detector arrays. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:217-228.
63
Draft June 1, 2016
Efford, M. et al. 2009. Density estimation by spatially explicit capture–recapture: likelihoodbased methods. Pages 255-269 in D. L. Thompson, E. G. Cooch, and M. J. Conroy,
editors. Modelling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, New York.
Efford, M. G. 2011. Estimation of population density by spatially explicit capture-recapture
analysis of data from area searches. Ecology 92:2202-2207.
Festa-Bianchet, M. 2010. Status of Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010.
Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource and Development and the Alberta
Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No 37.
Fien, J. et al. 2001. Education and conservation: lessons from an evaluation.
Environmental Education Research, 7:379-395.
Ford, A.T. et al. 2010. Banff Wildlife Crossings, Trans-Canada Highway, Alberta – An
international public-private partnership. Pages 157-172 in Safe passages: Highways,
wildlife and habitat connectivity. J Beckmann, AP Clevenger, M Huijser, J Hilty (eds.).
Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 29: 207–31.
Garshelis, D.L. et al. 2005. Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and
Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 277–297.
Gillin, C.M. et al. 1994. Evaluation of an aversive conditioning technique used on female grizzly
bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):503-512.
Graham, K. J. et al. 2010. Spatial and temporal use of roads by grizzly bears in west-central
Alberta. Ursus 21: 43–56.
Gunter, K.A. et al. 2004. Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem,
1992-2000. Ursus 15(1):10-22.
Hobson, D. and N. Webb. In prep. Summary of the Alberta Grizzly Bear Translocation
Monitoring Project, 2004 – 2011. Government of Alberta Report.
Honeyman, J. 2008. Retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of aversive conditioning on
grizzly bears in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. Master of Science
Thesis, Royal Roads University. 65 pp.
Hughes, C. 2012. Environmental Education for Conservation: Considerations to Achieve
Success. Natural Areas Journal, 32(2): 218-219.
64
Draft June 1, 2016
Hughes, C. 2013. Is it really about the bears? Exploring Grizzly Bear Recovery in Alberta,
Canada. International Bear News, 22(3): 35-37.
Jensen, B.B. 2002 Knowledge, Action and Pro-environmental Behaviour, Environmental
Education Research, 8(3):325-334.
Kansas, J. 2002. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development, Fish & Wildlife Division, and the Alberta Conservation
Association, Edmonton, 43pp.
Kellert, S.R. 1994. Public attitudes towards bears and their conservation. Int. Conf. Bear Res.
and Manage. 9:43-50.
Laberee, K. et al. 2014. Oil and gas infrastructure and the spatial pattern of grizzly bear habitat
selection in Alberta, Canada. Can. Geogr. 58: 79–94.
Larsen, T.A. 2012. The potential influence of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)
control harvesting on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) food supply and habitat conditions in
Alberta. M.Sc. thesis. University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Latham, A.D.M. et al. 2011. Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and
their effect on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ecol. Appl. 21: 2854–65.
Lee, T. et al. 2012. Highway wildlife mitigation opportunities for the TransCanada Highway in
the Bow Valley. Report to Alberta Ecotrust Foundation, Calgary, Alberta.
Leigh, J. and M.J. Chamberlain. 2008. Effects of aversive conditioning on behavior of nuisance
Louisiana black bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2(2):175-182.
Linke, J. et al. 2005. Seismic cutlines, changing landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape
use in Alberta. Landsc. Ecol. 20: 811-826.
Loosen, A. et al. 2014. Large Carnivore Attractant Management Projects in Southwestern
Alberta 2008- 2012. Waterton Biosphere Reserve, Alberta, Canada.
Mace, R.D. et al. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan
Mountains, Montana. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 1395–1404.
Mace, R.D. et al. 2012. Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern Continental
Divide Ecosystem, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:119‐128.
McFarlane, B.L. et al. 2007. Public perceptions of conservation of grizzly bears in the Foothills
Model Forest: a survey of local and Edmonton residents. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For.
Serv., North. For. Cent., Edmonton, Alberta, and Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta.
Inf. Rep. NOR-X-413.
65
Draft June 1, 2016
McKay, T. et al. 2014. Wellsite selection by grizzly bears Ursus arctos in west–central Alberta.
Wildlife Biology 20: 310–319.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social
marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5): 531-537.
McLellan, B.N. 1989. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial
resource extraction. II. Mortality rates and causes of death. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1861–84.
McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries:
effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. J. of Appl. Ecol. 25: 451460.
McLoughlin, P.D. 2003. Managing risks of decline for hunted populations of grizzly bears given
uncertainty in population parameters. Report prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Water,
Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. 63pp.
Morrison, C. 2013. Report 2. Proposed Amendments to Alberta Wildlife Predator Compensation
Program. Prepared for: Waterton Biosphere Reserve Association Carnivore Working
Group. 43pp.
Mowat G. et al. 2013 Predicting grizzly bear density in Western North America. PLoS ONE
8(12): e82757. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082757
Munro, R.H.M. et al. 2006. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in westcentral Alberta. J. Mammal. 87: 1112–21.
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Government of
Alberta. Pub No 1/005.
Nielsen, S.E. 2006. Seasonal Grizzly Bear Habitat for Six Population Units of Alberta, Canada.
in: Stenhouse, G. and K. Graham (eds). Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Research
Program 2006 Annual Report. Hinton, Alberta. 87 pp.
Nielsen, S. 2007. Chapter 3. Seasonal Grizzly Bear Habitat for Six Population Units of Alberta,
Canada. pp. 27-42 in: Stenhouse, G. and K. Graham (eds). Foothills Model Forest
Grizzly Bear Research Program 2006 Annual Report. Hinton, Alberta. 87 pp.
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2006. A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta.
Biological Conservation 130, 217–229.
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2009. Identification of priority areas for grizzly bear conservation and
recovery in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Conservation Planning 5: 38-60.
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2004a. Modelling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear
mortalities in the Central Rockies Ecosystem of Canada. Biol. Cons. 120:101-113.
66
Draft June 1, 2016
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2004b. Grizzly bears and forestry II: Distribution of grizzly bear foods in
clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199(1):67–
82.
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2004c. Grizzly bears and forestry I. Selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in
west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 199(1):51-65.
Nielsen, S.E. et al. 2010. Dynamic wildlife habitat models: Seasonal foods and mortality risk
predict occupancy-abundance and habitat selection in grizzly bears. Biological
Conservation 143 :623–1634.
Nielsen, S.E., M. Cattet, J. Boulanger, J. Cranston, G. J. McDermid, A. Shafer, and G.B.
Stenhouse. 2013. Environmental, biological and anthropogenic effects on grizzly bear
body size: temporal and spatial considerations. BMC Ecology, 13:31.
Northrup, J.M. et al. 2012a. Agricultural lands as ecological traps for grizzly bears. Animal
Conservation: 15(4): 369-377.
Northrup, J.M., J. Pitt, and T.B. Muhly, G.B. Stenhouse, Marco Musiani, and M.S. Boyce.
2012b. Vehicle traffic shapes grizzly bear behaviour on a multiple-use landscape. J. of
Appl. Ecol. 49:1159-1167.
Proctor, M. F. et al. 2012. Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly
bears in Western Canada and the Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180(1):
1-46.
Proctor, M.F. et al. 2004. A comparative analysis of management options for grizzly bear
conservation in the U.S.-Canada trans-border area. Ursus 15(2):145-160.
Roever, C.L. et al. 2008a. Grizzly bears and forestry I: road vegetation and placement as an
attractant to grizzly bears. J. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 1253–1261.
Roever, C.L. et al. 2008b. Grizzly bears and forestry II: grizzly bear habitat selection and
conflicts with road development. J. For. Ecol. Manage. 256: 1262-1269.
Sawaya, M.A. et al. 2012. Demographic connectivity for ursid population at wildlife crossing
structures in Banff National Park. Cons. Biol. 27(4):721-730.
Sawaya, M.A. et al. 2014. Genetic connectivity for two bear species at wildlife crossing
structures in Banff National Park. Proc. R. Soc. B April 7, 2014 281 1780 20131705;
doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1705 1471-2954.
Schwartz, C.C. et al. 2010. Hazards Affecting Grizzly Bear Survival in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. J. Wild. Manage. 74(4):654-667.
67
Draft June 1, 2016
Smith, T. S. et al. 2008. Efficacy of bear deterrent spray in Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
Management 72:640–645.
Smith, T. S. et al. 2012. Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
Management 76(5):1021–1027.
Stenhouse, G.B. et al. 2015. Estimates of grizzly bear population size and density for the 2014
Alberta Yellowhead Population Unit (BMA 3) and south Jasper National Park. Report
prepared for Weyerhaeuser Ltd., West Fraser Mills Ltd, Alberta Environment and Parks,
and Jasper National Park. 73 pp.
Stewart, B.P. et al. 2012. Impact of disturbance characteristics and age on grizzly bear habitat
selection. Appl. Geogr. 34: 614–25.
Stewart, B.P. et al. 2013. Quantifying grizzly bear selection of natural and anthropogenic edges,
Journal of Wildlife Management 77(5):957–964.
Urmson, M and A. Morehouse. 2012. Carnivore conflicts in Southwestern Alberta – Report.
Alberta and Sustainable Resource Development, Pincher Creek, Alberta.
Weiglus, R.B. 2002. Grizzly bear use of open, closed, and restricted forestry roads. Can. J. For.
Res. 32:159-1606.
Wilcox, A. et al. 2012. Predicting Cattle Rancher Wildlife Management Activities: An
Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An
International Journal, 17(3): 159-173.
Wilson, S. 2007. Community- supported conservation of grizzly bears on private agricultural
lands. Final Conservation Innovation Grant Report 65-0325-05-0026, 98pp.
68
Draft June 1, 2016
Appendix A. Changes to the Core and Secondary Zones
Table A.1. Proposed changes to the Core and Secondary Zone Boundaries. These changes correspond to the
changes presented in Figure A.1.
BMA
1
Zone
Secondary
Current Area (km2)
22,043
New Area
(km2)
23,457
%
Change
6
2
Secondary
10,575
12,074
14
5
Core
4,727
4,543
-4
Secondary
209
0
-100
5
69
Rationale
Refinement of existing boundaries by
incorporating ecologically similar
habitat using elevation and vegetation
Addition of linkage habitat to Swan
Hills (see Strategy 7.3.3)
The Porcupine Hills are considered
Support Habitat (Figure 4.1) which no
longer requires management for road
density.
The Porcupine Hills are considered
Support Habitat (Figure 4.1) which no
longer requires management for road
density.
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure A. 1 Changes to the Secondary Zone. For inset 3 the changes are that the core and secondary habitat
in the Porcupine Hills are now represented as support habitat.
70
Draft June 1, 2016
Appendix B. Individual Bear Management Area Maps and Supplemental Information
Classification of land within BMA 1 Alberta North
Type
Recovery
Area (km2)
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Provincial
Total =
14.8
0.0
0.1
164.4
23,278.3
23,457.6
%
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
99.2
Support
Area (km2)
658.1
0.0
9.6
3,534.5
13,888.1
18,090.3
Total BMA Area (km2)
%
3.6
0.0
0.1
19.5
76.8
Figure B. 1 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 1 - Chinchaga.
71
41,547.9
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of land
Recovery
Type
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Provincial
Total =
Area
(km2)
36.5
4,154.7
8.2
74.9
27,667.
6
31,941.
8
Total BMA
Area (km2)
Support
%
0.1
13.0
0.0
0.2
86.6
Area
(km2)
16.0
0.7
19.6
2,194.4
%
12,873.2
15,103.9
85.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
14.5
47,045.7
Figure B. 2 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 2 – Grande Cache.
72
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of land within BMA 3 YellowHead
Type
Recovery
2
Area (km )
%
Support
2
Area (km )
2
Total BMA Area (km )
%
Aboriginal
49.2
0.2
188.9
2.1
Federal
7,917.6
39.9
0.0
0.0
Municipal
14.9
0.1
2.0
0.0
Private
17.8
0.1
122.1
1.4
Provincial
11,867.6
59.7
8,578.6
96.5
Total =
19,867.1
8,891.6
28,758.4
Figure B. 3 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 3 – Yellowhead
73
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of Land within BMA 4 Clearwater
Type
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Provincial
Total =
Recovery
2
Area (km )
%
24.7
0.2
4,664.0
31.3
6.7
0.0
131.9
0.9
10,081.7
14,909.1
67.6
Support
2
Area (km )
%
371.1
13.3
2.9
0.1
15.2
0.5
1,269.1
45.6
1,126.5
2,784.7
40.5
Figure B. 4 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 4 - Clearwater.
74
2
17,693.7
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of land within BMA 5 Livingstone
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Recovery
Area
%
2
(km )
0.0
0.0
1,385.7
19.1
0.0
0.0
13.2
0.2
Support
Area
%
2
(km )
146.2
4.9
1.4
0.0
7.4
0.2
1,290.1
43.2
Provincial
5,857.7
1,538.7
Type
Total =
80.7
7,256.6
51.6
2,983.9
2
10,240.5
Figure B. 5 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 5 – Livingstone.
75
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of Land within BMA 6
Type
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Provincial
Total =
Recovery
2
Area (km )
%
Support
2
Area (km )
%
19.1
498.6
0.2
35.3
1.1%
27.5%
0.0%
1.9%
0.2
0.1
4.2
1,491.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
84.1%
1,260.5
1,813.7
69.5%
277.7
1,773.8
15.7%
Figure B. 6 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 6 - Castle.
76
2
3,587.5
Draft June 1, 2016
Classification of land within BMA 7 Swan Hills
Type
Aboriginal
Federal
Municipal
Private
Provincial
Total =
Recovery
2
Area (km )
%
2
Support
2
Area (km )
%
68.8
0.0
3.1
7.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
332.6
0.0
7.4
1,160.1
2.7
0.0
0.1
9.3
11,893.1
11,972.6
99.3
10,991.5
12,491.6
88.0
Figure B. 7 Map of Grizzly Bear Management Area (BMA) 7 – Swan Hills.
77
24,464.2
Draft June 1, 2016
Figure B. 8 Map of the Grizzly Bear Management Zones on the Alberta Natural Regions and Subregions
(Natural Regions Committee 2006)
78
Draft June 1, 2016
Appendix C. Status Evaluation for Grizzly Bear in Alberta
79
Draft June 1, 2016
80
Draft June 1, 2016
81
Draft June 1, 2016
82
Draft June 1, 2016
83
Draft June 1, 2016
84
Draft June 1, 2016
Appendix D. Supplemental Information on Road Density
Figure D. 1 Current road density status in Grizzly Bear Watershed Units in Core and Secondary Zones.
85

Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan - Draft - 2016-2021

Transcription

Similar documents

HERE - Perfect Shots Photography

the teddybears` library sleepover

Thursday, September 29, 2016 3 to 5 pm, Grizzly Rose Dance Hall A

return exchange - Vermont Teddy Bear Company

brown bears of slovakia

RVDA of Alberta`s RV Learning Weekend

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2011

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Beyond the doors of the Stollery`s pediatric emergency department

Enjoy three days of grizzly bear viewing in the majestic Great Bear