Grizzly Bear Species Account
Prepared for
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Forest Management Bureau 2705 Spurgin Road Missoula, MT 59804
Prepared by
Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (425) 458-6200 www.parametrix.com
September 2005 (Revised September, 2010) Project No. 553-4495-001 (01/10)
1. CURRENT LEGAL AND AGENCY STATUS...... 1-1
2. POPULATION STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND SEASONAL PRESENCE...... 2-1
3. KEY LIFE REQUISITES...... 3-1 3.1 CORRIDOR NEEDS ...... 3-5 3.2 KEY BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS ...... 3-6
4. SENSITIVITY TO COVERED ACTIVITIES...... 4-1 4.1 TIMBER HARVEST ...... 4-1 4.2 SALVAGE HARVEST...... 4-1 4.3 THINNING ...... 4-2 4.4 CONTROL AND DISPOSAL OF SLASH...... 4-2 4.5 PRESCRIBED BURNING ...... 4-2 4.6 SITE PREPARATION...... 4-2 4.7 REFORESTATION ...... 4-2 4.8 WEED CONTROL ...... 4-2 4.9 ROAD CONSTRUCTION...... 4-2 4.10 ROAD MAINTENANCE ...... 4-3 4.11 HELICOPTER USE………………………………………………………………….. 4-3 4.12 FOREST INVENTORY...... 4-4 4.13 MONITORING ...... 4-4 4.14 GRAZING OF CLASSIFIED FOREST LANDS ...... 4-4 4.15 GRAVEL QUARRYING FOR THE PURPOSES OF LOGGING AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION...... 4-5 4.16 FERTILIZATION ...... 4-5 4.17 ELECTRONIC FACILITY SITES ...... 4-5 4.18 OTHER ACTIVITIES COMMON TO COMMERCIAL FOREST MANAGEMENT...... 4-5
5. MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5-1
6. CURRENT DNRC PROTECTIVE MEASURES...... 6-1 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA...... 6-1
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account i September 2005
6.2 SWAN VALLEY GRIZZLY BEAR CONSERVATION AGREEMENT...... 6-5 6.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)...... 6-6
7. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES DEVELOPED BY OTHER AGENCIES/HCPS...... 7-1 7.1 USFS FOREST PLANS...... 7-1 7.2 OTHER JURISDICTIONS ...... 7-2
8. EXISTING DNRC MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS ...... 8-1 8.1 MONITORING FOR THE SWAN VALLEY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ….. 8-1 8.2 NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE GRIZZLY BEAR INTERAGENCY POPULATION ESTIMATE ...... 8-3 8.3 GRIZZLY BEAR MONITORING IN THE BLACKFOOT RIVER DRAINAGE...... 8-3 8.4 LIVING WITH WILDLIFE COMMITTEE ...... 8-3 8.5 PUBLIC LANDS LINKAGE TASK FORCE ...... 8-4
9. REFERENCES CITED ...... 9-1 9.1 ADDENDUM TO REFERENCES CITED: 2004-2010……………………………… 9-12
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Grizzly Bear Distribution ...... 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
1. Specific Ecosystem Attributes for the Grizzly Bear...... 3-5
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account ii September 2005
ACRONYMS
ARM Administrative Rules of Montana BLM Bureau of Land Management BMU bear management unit DEM digital elevation model DNRC Department of Natural Resources and Conservation EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ESGBP Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project GIS geographic information system GYE Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem HCP habitat conservation plan ICST Interagency Conservation Strategy Team IGBC Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee IYGBDAT Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team LULC Land Use Land Cover LZPM Linkage Zone Prediction Model MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program
Ne genetically effective population size NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem NCGBRT North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team NPS National Park Service USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Appendix D – Grizzly Bear Species Account iii September 2005
1. CURRENT LEGAL AND AGENCY STATUS
Information on the legal and agency status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) was obtained from Montana Animal Species of Concern (Carlson 2003) published jointly by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) and the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). This includes information from the federal and state agencies listed below, except for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), and except where a reference indicates otherwise. The DNRC agency status for species was provided in an unpublished DNRC internal document (DNRC 2003). • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)—threatened (contiguous U.S. populations listed as threatened in 1975 under the Endangered Species Act [ESA], and a series of recovery plans were then developed). • MFWP—endangered, under the Montana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973 (87-5-101 MCA). • MNHP—S3 (rare, restricted range). • DNRC Forest Management Bureau—follows USFWS listing. • U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—follows USFWS listing. • U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—follows USFWS listing.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 1-1 September 2005
2. POPULATION STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND SEASONAL PRESENCE
Grizzly bears historically occupied the greatest geographic distribution of any ursid; in North America, they were found from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean and from the Pacific Ocean east to the Mississippi River (McLellan 1992). However, the range of grizzly bears in North America has drastically declined to its present extent, which includes Alaska, western and northern Canada, and the northern Rocky Mountains in the U.S. (Servheen et al. 1999).
The decline of the grizzly bear took place very quickly in the contiguous U.S. By the 1880s, they no longer inhabited the west coast or prairie river bottoms. By the turn of the century, the grizzly bear had disappeared from most broad, open montane valleys and, fifteen years later, from most foothills country. Grizzly bears were never completely eliminated from Montana, their numbers reaching their lowest levels in the 1920s (MFWP 2002). At that time, regulatory changes were made due to concern for the future of the species, such as designating them a game animal in Montana in 1923, the first such designation for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. This change, along with the early prohibitions on the use of dogs to hunt bears, outlawing baiting (both in 1921), and closing hunting seasons, allowed grizzly bears to survive in portions of western Montana (MFWP 2002).
In 1975, the USFWS listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48 states, placing the species under federal protection. This status led to implementation of a grizzly bear recovery plan in 1982 (USFWS 1982), as required under the ESA, which was then revised in 1993 (USFWS 1993). The recovery objective for listed species is to achieve self-sustaining populations in the wild that no longer need protection under the ESA (USFWS 2000).
In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC), with members from the National Park Service (NPS), USFWS, USFS, the states of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, and the province of British Columbia, was formed to promote the recovery of the grizzly bear. Although the historical range of grizzly bears once covered more than a third of what is now the continental U.S., the recovery plan focuses on the six remaining ecosystems in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming that have habitat suitable for self-sustaining grizzly populations: the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), the Selkirk Ecosystem, the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, the North Cascades Ecosystem, and the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem. Currently, only the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem is not inhabited by grizzly bears. Geographically, the North Cascades Ecosystem is in Washington and British Columbia, the Selkirk Ecosystem is in northern Idaho, eastern Washington and southern British Columbia, and the remaining four ecosystems are either all or partially in Montana. The estimated populations of grizzly bears inhabiting the ecosystems that are partially or entirely in Montana are (USFWS 2000; MFWP 2002): • Greater Yellowstone: 400 to 600 bears, • Northern Continental Divide: 300 to 400 bears, • Cabinet-Yaak: 30 to 40 bears, and • Selway-Bitterroot: none.
MFWP (2002) reported that the grizzly bear populations in the Yellowstone and portions of the NCDE are currently increasing, and recent demographic analyses (Harris et al., in review) support this for the GYE. Schwartz et al. (2002) reported an expansion of grizzly bear distribution in the GYE from the time of listing, although most of this expansion has been in a southerly direction in Wyoming. Indications of an increase in abundance within the NCDE (e.g., MFWP 2002) come from documentation of problem animals in areas previously thought to be uninhabited by grizzly bears and additional anecdotal reports. Neither of the two existing demographic subpopulation analyses within the NCDE (Hovey and McLellan 1996; Mace and Waller 1998) was able to reject the null hypothesis of no trend over time. However, the
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 2-1 September 2005
work of Hovey and McLellan (1996) suggested that grizzly bears in the North Fork Flathead River were likely to have had positive rather than negative net growth, while that of Mace and Waller (1998) suggested Swan grizzly bears were probably not supporting themselves due to excessive mortality in rural areas. The trend of the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population is also unclear, but the best estimate based on demographic analysis also suggests a decline (Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004).
The USFS (Wittinger 2002) has mapped occupied grizzly bear habitat in the state of Montana based on the most recent efforts by interagency (USFWS, USFS, MFWP, and NPS) and local grizzly bear experts. This effort reflects the best available information on current grizzly bear distribution in Montana. Grizzly bears have been documented within the administrative boundaries of the DNRC Central Land Office, Northwestern Land Office, Southwestern Land Office, and Southern Land Office (Foresman 2001) (Figure 1).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 2-2 September 2005 DNRC Land Offices
NWLO NELO CLO SWLO ELO SLO
Figure 1 ´ Distribution Grizzly Bear 0 15 30 45 60 Miles Recovery Zone Distribution in Non-Recovery Occupied Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Montana and cooperators (2002). Project Area Other Trust Land Planning Area Boundary Map prepared by Parametrix, Inc., September 29, 2005. grizzly_bear_sa-20050929.mxd Land Office Boundary
3. KEY LIFE REQUISITES
Grizzly bears are generalist omnivores but have the digestive system of carnivores, and thus must support their large bodies by searching out and consuming the most nutritious food available. In Montana, grizzly bears can be found in almost any habitat within their range; variation in habitat preference is related to, albeit not entirely determined by, season, gender, and age-class. A high diversity of habitats are required within the limits of a grizzly bear's home range, including areas for travel, seclusion, feeding, and denning, in relative proximity to one another. However, grizzly bears are selective in their seasonal use of various kinds of forage and, therefore, move across the landscape as they follow the phenological development and abundance of their preferred forage items (Blanchard 1983; Mace et al. 1996; Waller and Mace 1997a; McLellan and Hovey 2001). As a result, the productivity of grizzly bear populations is more strongly influenced by the availability of high quality food resources than by density-dependent regulating factors (Harting 1987). Grizzly bears in Montana are often associated with alpine and subalpine environments where grasslands and shrublands are integrated with forests, subalpine meadows, and alpine communities. However, grizzly bears also use low-elevation riparian or other mesic areas, particularly in the spring. Many grizzly bear food items occur in seral communities, particularly those with a history of fire. Although most studies have shown that grizzly bears use closed-canopy forests less than their availability, it does not follow that forests are not used by, or important to, this species. Closed- canopy forest is often the most-often used habitat component, even where it is statistically avoided by grizzly bears (e.g., McLellan and Hovey 2001; Wielgus et al. 2002).
Upon emerging from their dens in spring (May or June), grizzly bears are nutritionally stressed, having undergone a winter of general inactivity. As a result, habitat use patterns during the spring, summer, and fall seasons are driven by the need to maximize energy values, or fatten up, to prepare for the next winter torpor. Thus, habitat use during the growing season involves two major activities: foraging to improve nutritional condition, and courtship and subsequent mating.
Although diets vary among individual populations of grizzly bears, a few plant species tend to recur in all studies. The food items and food groups described below are considered important dietary items for grizzly bears in the NCDE and GYE, both of which include portions of Montana (Mace et al. 1987a; McLellan and Hovey 1995): • Horsetails (Equisetum spp.) are the only plant genera used in all regions within the North American grizzly bear range and are selected during all seasons. Various other grasses (Graminae spp.) and sedges (Carex/Juncus spp.) are also important; however the species selected vary by location. • Cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) and dandelions (Taraxacum spp.) are important early and mid-season food items. Taraxacum spp., in particular, tends to pioneer early successional habitats and is, thus, compatible with the grizzly bears’ preference for early seral forest stages. • The roots of robust legumes such as yellow glacier lily (Erythronium grandiflorum) and springbeauty (Claytonia lanceolata) are often dug. • The fruit of two shrub taxa constitute an important mid- and late-season food item in much of the interior Rocky Mountain range. When available, the fruit (berries) of Vaccinium spp. and buffaloberry Shepherdia spp. are the primary sources of energy and fat deposition. Dwarf huckleberry (V. caespitosum), black huckleberry (V. membranaceum), velvet-leaved blueberry (V. myrtilloides), and oval-leaved blueberry (V. ovalifolium) can be particularly important species to local bear populations (although there are limits to how effectively large female bears can use berries to increase their reproductive performance; Welch et al. 1997).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-1 September 2005
Specifically in the Yellowstone area, Mattson et al. (1991) identified four additional food items of importance to grizzly bears in this area of southwestern Montana. These four foods were: seeds of the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), army cutworm moths (Euxoa auxiliaris), ungulates, and spawning cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). These food sources may exert a positive influence on grizzly bear fecundity and survival, and are some of the highest sources of digestible energy available to grizzly bears in southwestern Montana (Blanchard 1990; Mattson et al. 1992; Craighead et al. 1995; White 1996; Robison 2001; ICST 2003). It has been estimated that over a 30-day period, a grizzly bear feeding exclusively on moths can consume 47 percent of its annual energy budget (White 1996; Robison 2001). Blanchard (1990) and Mattson et al. (1992) reported near exclusive feeding by grizzly bears on whitebark pine nuts during years in which mean cone production exceeded 20 cones per tree. During years of low whitebark pine seed availability, grizzly bears range further and seek alternate foods, which often bring them in proximity to humans during the fall (Mattson et al. 1992). Whitebark pine is threatened in the GYE by an introduced fungus, white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Blister rust has already decimated whitebark pine in northwestern Montana (Keane and Arno 1993), but has not yet caused extensive tree mortality in the Yellowstone area (Haroldson and Podruzny 2001). Each of these food sources is limited in distribution and subject to wide fluctuations in availability. Even within Montana, use of these food sources varies among grizzly bear populations.
The Yellowstone area is unique among areas in North America inhabited by grizzly bears in that ungulates are a major food source, comprising approximately 79 percent of the diet of adult males and 45 percent of the diet of adult females (Hildebrand et al. 1999; Jacoby et al. 1999). By contrast, in Glacier National Park, over 95 percent of the diets of both adult male and female grizzly bears is vegetation (Hildebrand et al. 1999), and plants contributed 91 percent of diets in British Columbia (Hobson et al. 2000), although ungulates were an important part of early spring and late fall diets in British Columbia near Glacier National Park (McLellan and Hovey 1995).
The seasonal availability and distribution of food items is an important determinant of home range size for grizzly bears (Blanchard and Knight 1991; Mace and Waller 1997). The probability that any given area has sufficient numbers of productive food patches at any one time is a function of the size of the area. Grizzly bears have likely compensated for resource unpredictability through large home range sizes, and a correlation can often be drawn between home range size and overall habitat quality (Canfield and Harting 1987; Nagy and Gunson 1990).
With the exception of a few forested sites, such as horsetail associations, the majority of vegetative food items preferred by grizzly bears occur in early seral communities where forest cover is absent or relatively sparse (Hamer and Herrero 1983). While biologists agree that preferred habitats of grizzly bears are early seral, fire-successional types, the proximity of security cover is also an important variable that has been shown to influence the use of early seral foraging habitat. Given equal foraging opportunities, under cover and in the open, McLellan (1992) suggested that bears would prefer to feed under cover.
Habitat features that are consistently described in the literature as favored by bears include avalanche chutes (Zager et al. 1983; Mace et al. 1996; Waller and Mace 1997a; Ramcharita and McLellan 2000; McLellan and Hovey 2001), fire-mediated shrub fields (Almack 1985, 1986; Hamer and Herrero 1987a, b; McLellan and Hovey 2001; Harris (unpublished data, 2003), and riparian areas (Servheen 1983; McLellan and Hovey 2001).
Avalanche chutes may be used at any time of year, but seem to attract bears particularly in the spring. These areas are usually quite wet (due to deep snows which melt later than other areas), and contain both valuable forage species and a tangle of vegetation that allows bears security. Fire-mediated shrub fields often contain soft-mast (e.g., berry) producing shrub species, an important food source for foraging bears
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-2 September 2005
in mid-summer and early fall. Riparian areas are primarily used in spring and early summer when habitats at higher elevations are still covered with snow or plant phenology is otherwise delayed.
Despite a documented increase in bear food production after forest disturbances such as timber harvesting (Zager et al. 1983; Bratkovich 1986), research that has been conducted on grizzly bear use of clearcuts has suggested that they are avoided (at least relatively young clear-cuts, the object of research attention) (McLellan 1989, 1990a, 1992; Waller 1992; Anderson 1994; Waller and Mace 1997b). Other researchers have also reported that grizzly bears are extremely sensitive to the amount and quality of security cover, citing the fact that food sources may be inaccessible if adequate cover is not present, especially in areas where threatening encounters with people are possible (Zager et al. 1980). Optimum habitats for grizzly bears generally consist of open areas for feeding with adjacent forested areas for cover (Jonkel 1987; Heinrich et al. 1995). Particularly for bears relying primarily on vegetation, access to food resources can be important because of the relative inefficiency with which bears convert plants into body mass (Bunnell and Hamilton 1983, Rode et al. 2001).
Security cover requirements for grizzly bears can be divided into two types: • Bear/bear avoidance: Shrub and tree cover, as well as topographic landscape features, are commonly used as security from other bears. Specifically, females with cubs require spatial separation from aggressive boars. This is particularly true in spring when cubs-of-the-year are most prone to attack. Sows with cubs often select rugged and isolated habitats for this reason (Russell et al. 1979; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Banci 1991). • Bear/human avoidance: Human access and development have been shown to negatively impact grizzly bears in the contiguous U.S. (Mattson et al. 1996; Merrill et al. 1999; MFWP 2002; ICST 2003). Mace (1987a) reported considerable differences in behavior, response, and habitat use of exposed grizzly bears affected by road traffic, seismic activity, and people on foot when compared to grizzly bears secluded by some form of vegetative cover. Security cover adequate to reduce visual detection by humans has been described as vegetation or topography that hides 90 percent of a grizzly bear from view at the distance of 400 feet (Zager et al. 1980).
Nutritional levels and reproductive status primarily stimulate cues for den entry. Weather conditions and snow cover also influence denning entrance (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). The winter season is spent in a state of dormancy, or lowered metabolic rate, referred to as hibernation. Hibernation and associated parturition are the critical activities of grizzly bears during winter and, therefore, can be limiting factors for some populations, affecting the survivorship of both sows and cubs (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Hibernation dates vary from region to region and even from year to year, however, initiation of hibernation usually occurs during late October or November, with lone females and females with cubs entering their dens before subadult and adult males (Craighead and Craighead 1972; Nagy and Gunson 1990; Hellgren 1998).
During hibernation, bears may not eat, drink, defecate, or urinate for a period of 3 to 5 months. Respiration, heart rate, and core temperatures are significantly reduced during this period. Such physiological adaptations for winter dormancy in a large-bodied animal come at a tremendous energetic cost. The ability of bears to reduce their metabolic rate and energy output is, first, a function of body composition at the time of the onset of dormancy and, second, a function of a secure hibernation environment (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Jonkel 1987); therefore, the quality of hibernation habitat is a critical factor in ensuring survival of adults and cubs during winter.
The reproductive physiology of bears is characterized by delayed implantation. Although mating takes place in early summer, the blastocyst does not implant in the uterus until November or December when the female is in the den. Successful implantation depends on the female’s physiological condition at the
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-3 September 2005
beginning of the denning season. The embryo will not implant if the female has inadequate fat reserves to support herself and the developing fetus for the duration of the pregnancy.
The general characteristics of grizzly bear den sites are similar in most geographic areas despite differences resulting from local biogeoclimatic factors (Vroom et al. 1980). Dens are excavated in slopes with aspects that vary from region to region, however most are oriented to ensure a good early catchment of insulating snow cover over the den entrance. The angle of slope in which dens were excavated ranged in most regions from 22 to 45 degrees (Russell et al. 1979; Vroom et al. 1980; Nagy et al. 1983). Several researchers have described dens located at high elevations in remote areas with slopes greater than 30 degrees, soils that are deep, and aspects where snow accumulates (Pearson 1975; Servheen 1981; Zager and Jonkel 1983; Podruzny et al. 2002). Sloped sites are often selected because they facilitate easier digging and are generally stabilized by trees, boulders, or root systems of herbaceous vegetation.
A variety of existing landscape structures can be utilized as dens, including natural caves and hollows under the roots of trees. Dens are also excavated under fallen trees and other downed material. The use of suboptimal den sites or anthropogenic disturbances during denning may serve to accelerate starvation or could lead to den abandonment during or even after excavation.
Although active-season foraging areas are given the highest priority among the life requisites of grizzly bears, winter denning habitats are also critical because bears are sensitive to disturbance during this time period (Linnell et al. 2000). While individual den sites are rarely reported to be used for more than one winter, numerous researchers have observed that dens rarely occur singly, but are concentrated in areas that apparently possess appropriate environmental conditions (Craighead and Craighead 1972; Hamer et al. 1977). Valkenberg (1976) and Reynolds (1978) both reported individual fidelity to hibernation areas (not den sites) and found that significant numbers of their study bears denned within 3.1 miles and within 0.3 mile, respectively, of the previous year’s den sites.
Consistently, descriptions of grizzly bear habitat use and population dynamics emphasize the grizzly bear’s need for isolation from humans and human-associated activities (Archibald et al. 1987; Mattson et al. 1987; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, 1989; Kasworm and Manley 1990; Mace et al. 1996, 1999). Grizzly bears have evolved life-history strategies that depend on high survival of adults. In the Rocky Mountains, the overwhelming majority of adult deaths are caused by humans (Mace and Waller 1998; McLellan et al. 1999; Benn and Herrero 2002; Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004; Haroldson et al. unpublished data). To assure that survival rates remain high enough to balance relatively low reproductive rates, human activity in grizzly bear habitat must be limited. Grizzly bears maintain some of the necessary separation on their own: they tend to avoid people and evidence of their presence. Unfortunately, this too comes with a cost: habitats containing valuable food resources may be used less than would be nutritionally optimal, or avoided completely, if human disturbance is too great.
Weaver et al. (1996) reported that, in the GYE alone, humans were responsible for 91 percent of the 53 recorded mortalities of adult female grizzly bears up to 1995. There is no conclusive evidence of a sharp reproductive response or increased survival of young by grizzly bears to compensate for such increased mortality (McLellan 1994). Furthermore, Eberhardt (1990) showed that high adult female survival is crucial to the persistence of grizzly bear populations.
In particular, the presence of roads has been shown in a number of North American studies to either lessen the effectiveness of habitat near the road if grizzly bears are displaced by the roads, or to increase mortality risk to grizzly bears if they are not displaced by the roads (either directly through shooting, or indirectly through habituation, leading to subsequent death in a control action). Some analyses have suggested that even unused roads lessen the effectiveness of nearby habitat for grizzly bears (e.g., Mace et al. 1999). Other studies have suggested that although grizzly bears use areas near public roads less than
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-4 September 2005
would be expected, there is little support for the hypothesis that unused roads (Harris, unpublished data) or roads used only for forestry operations (Wielgus et al. 2002) displace grizzly bears.
Non-motorized recreation can also displace grizzly bears from preferred feeding areas (Mace and Waller 1996; White et al. 1999; Graves 2002).
Table 1 identifies specific features that more accurately characterize the annual habitat needs of grizzly bears. These features are components of a grizzly bear habitat model developed by Mace et al. (1999).
Table 1. Specific Ecosystem Attributes for the Grizzly Bear
Attribute Need Model GIS Data Layers Low elevation mesic vegetation Spring foraginga Greenness, elevation Moderate-high elevation mesic Summer, autumn foraginga Greenness, elevation vegetation Security from motorized access Ability to use habitats fully, reduced risk of Road access density habituation or malicious killingb Security from non-motorized Ability to use habitats fully, reduced risk of Trail density access habituation or malicious killingc Isolation from human activity Protection from food attractants, malicious Location of human activity points killingd Denning habitat Protection from disturbance in early springe Elevation, aspect, slope Sources: a Mace et al. 1996, Mace et al. 1999, McLellan and Hovey 2001, Nielson et al. 2002, Waller and Mace 1997. b Archibald et al. 1987, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Mace et al. 1996, Mace et al. 1999 Mattson et al. 1987, McLellan and Shackleton 1988,1989; Wielgus et al. 2002. c Mace and Waller 1996, White et al.1999, Graves 2002. d Benn and Herrero 2002, Brannon et al. 1988, Mace and Waller 1998, McLellan 1992, McLellan et al. 1999, Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004. e Linnell et al. 2000, Podruzny 2002, Vroom et al. 1982.
3.1 CORRIDOR NEEDS
Although research on corridor effectiveness has been limited in regards to grizzly bears (Kehoe 1995), there is little doubt that isolated populations are more vulnerable to extirpation than those connected to other populations (Craighead and Vyse 1996). Jonkel (1987) stated that travel corridors are important units of grizzly bear habitat. Picton (1986) concluded that functional linkage corridors for grizzly bear movements between Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks were possible. Craighead et al. (1995) suggested that corridor linkages for grizzly bears be established immediately, before expanding resource use precludes them altogether.
It may not be appropriate to speak in terms of explicit corridors or linkages for grizzly bear populations: there is little evidence to support delineation of areas that grizzly bears would use to connect to otherwise isolated habitat blocks. However, it is known that female grizzly bears do not travel widely, and usually establish home ranges adjacent to that of their mothers (Schwartz et al. 2003). Males travel more widely, but are still not known to have succeeded in moving among the three grizzly bear ecosystems (NCDE, GYE, and the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem) in Montana. To maintain larger genetically effective population sizes (Ne), habitat must allow adult male grizzly bears to move among these ecosystems. To allow for demographic connectivity and recolonization of empty habitat patches, habitat must be capable of supporting several females through their lifetimes and the lifetimes of their offspring. Proctor et al. (2002) found that females did not cross a major highway corridor in southern British Columbia, and although some males did, gene flow had become restricted across the highway relative to historical levels.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-5 September 2005
Servheen et al. (2001) describes an ongoing project aimed at addressing broad linkage issues and maintaining connectivity between small isolated populations of grizzly bears. Servheen et al. (2001) evaluated the extent of habitat fragmentation and potential for linkage between the Cabinet-Yaak and Bitterroot recovery areas; Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk recovery areas; NCDE and Bitterroot recovery areas; and between the NCDE and Cabinet-Yaak recovery areas. This is a GIS model that graphically displays the opportunities for grizzly bear movement between recovery areas.
3.2 KEY BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
The bulk of the grizzly bear diet is composed of vegetation. Grizzly bears require an adequate supply of plants at the appropriate time of year. Forage availability in the spring and autumn can be especially important when bears are emerging from or preparing for hibernation. Important foods for grizzly bears include: horsetail, cow parsnip, whitebark pine seeds, Vaccinium spp. and buffalo berry fruits, the roots of legumes and dandelions, and for some populations army cutworms moths, ungulate carrion, or fish (Mace et al. 1987a; Mattson et al. 1991; McLellan and Hovey 1995). Foraging areas near cover and relatively isolated from humans are important for grizzly bears (Jonkel 1987; Heinrich et al. 1995).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 3-6 September 2005
4. SENSITIVITY TO COVERED ACTIVITIES
The following DNRC forest management activities are proposed for coverage under the habitat conservation plan (HCP). The sensitivity of a fish or wildlife species to these activities may depend on the time of year, duration, and areal extent of the activity, distance of the activity from the subject species, screening vegetation or terrain, and in some cases, the previous exposure (habituation) of the individual to the activity. Potential sensitivities to covered activities are listed below.
4.1 TIMBER HARVEST
Grizzly bear response to logging and logged areas is mixed and complex (Zager et al. 1983; Waller and Mace 1997a,b; McLellan and Hovey 2001), because treatments, post-treatments, cover types, and habitat types vary, and because logging is inevitably associated with increased human activity, which tends to displace grizzly bears. A review by Moss and Lefranc (1987) found that, while many studies documented reduced grizzly bear use of logged areas (e.g., Mace and Jonkel 1980; Zager et al. 1983; McLellan 1990b), others reported no evidence that logging impacts grizzly bears (e.g., Meehan 1974; Zager 1980). Alterations in timber cover can affect the quality of grizzly food and cover (Blanchard 1983; USFS 1985), causing bears to change their use of an area. East of the continental divide in the GYE, Anderson (1994) found that production of two species of huckleberries was lower in clearcuts than in similar uncut stands. Grizzly bear habitat can be affected by timber harvest in three primary ways (Moss and Lefranc 1987): • Vegetation arrangement and abundance can be changed, thus affecting the quality and quantity of food and cover. • Human use patterns may be altered, as logging practices make grizzly bear habitat more accessible to humans (Craighead 1980). • Existing water regimes may be indirectly impacted and surface or subsurface water movement and distribution may be changed.
Waller and Mace (1997b) concluded that only a few generalizations regarding grizzly bears and timber harvest were defendable, given the difficulty of isolating the effects of timber harvest from other possible influences on bear behavior: • At large scales of selection, grizzly bears tend to avoid timber-cutting units. This means that large geographic units with a history of intensive timber harvest tended to harbor relatively few grizzly bears, whereas those with few cutting units were preferentially used. • Given that a grizzly bear chooses to place its home range in a given area, the response to cutting units tends to be much more muted, i.e., little difference in use can be detected. • Where a cutting unit is used by grizzly bears, such use is likely to begin only after about 12 years post-harvest, to peak at some young seral stage, and then to decline in later years. • Cutting units that do receive use are likely to be those that, due to edaphic, aspect, or other factors, produce large crops of preferred foods (typically soft mast) and/or those that are relatively free from additional human disturbance.
4.2 SALVAGE HARVEST
See Timber Harvest above.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 4-1 September 2005
4.3 THINNING
For application toward DNRC HCP activities, the use of the term “thinning” will generally refer to pre- commercial thinning. Since thinning prescriptions that produce commercial forest products are included as timber harvest. Pre-commercial thinning is defined under the Forest Management Rules as “the removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees” (DNRC 2003).
See Section 4.1 (Timber Harvest) above for grizzly bear habitat impacts.
4.4 CONTROL AND DISPOSAL OF SLASH
Control and disposal of slash may physically hinder bear use in an area or may limit the establishment of bear forage (Bratkovich 1986). Zager et al. (1983) found that 15 to 35 year-old clearcuts with slash piled by a bulldozer had lower canopy coverage of preferred summer grizzly bear plant foods than those with no slash or those that had been burned.
4.5 PRESCRIBED BURNING
Broadcast burns can encourage the growth of fruiting shrubs that are preferred forage for grizzly bears in the fall (Martin 1983; Zager et al. 1983; Bratkovich 1986; Moss and Lefranc 1987; Hamilton 2000).
4.6 SITE PREPARATION
See Sections 4.1, 4.4, and 4.5 (Timber Harvest, Control and Disposal of Slash, and Prescribed Burning) above. Results from Martin (1983) suggested that light-intensity, post-harvest burning could stimulate production of Vaccinium globulare (an important summertime fruit producer for grizzly bears) on certain sites.
4.7 REFORESTATION
See Section 4.1 (Timber Harvest) above for grizzly bear habitat impacts.
4.8 WEED CONTROL
No sensitivity to weed control activities was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear.
4.9 ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Jonkel (1982) suggests that new roads have the greatest impact on grizzly bears because bears eventually avoid the surrounding area, and a block of habitat is lost. If roads must be constructed, they should be built during the time of least biological importance to grizzly bears (i.e., ideally winter when bears are not active, or alternatively summer when bears are more widespread and have more habitat and forage options).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 4-2 September 2005 4.10 ROAD MAINTENANCE Throughout most of their range in Canada and the contiguous U.S., grizzly bears have been found to use areas near open roads significantly less than expected (Hamer and Herrero 1983; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, 1989; Nagy et al. 1989; Heinrich et al. 1995). Thus, a substantial amount of habitat is lost in some circumstances due to road presence. The USFS (1982) indicated that a viable road and access management plan is “the most important factor influencing the long-term impacts on grizzly bears in habitat influenced by timber harvesting.” The USFWS (1995) echoed this view in the Biological Opinion on the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement, in which they stated that roads and excessive road densities have been among the most serious adverse impacts of timber harvest on grizzly bears. In the Swan Valley Conservation Area of western Montana, the USFWS (1995) concluded that access created by the past and future construction and reconstruction of roads associated with timber harvest is a primary human impact on grizzly bears. The federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) also devotes significant attention to the harmful effects of roads on grizzly bears, concluding that increased human access on open roads and continued human use of closed roads have overall detrimental effects on grizzly bear populations.
Many researchers have documented avoidance of roads and roaded areas by grizzly bears, as well as negative impacts to grizzly bears caused by roads in Montana. Aune and Kasworm (1989), for example, found 63 percent of all known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities occurred within 0.6 mile of a road, including 10 to 11 known female mortalities. Mattson (1993) documented that grizzly bears consistently under-used habitat within 300 to 1600 feet of roads in the Yellowstone area, regardless of the road class (paved versus unpaved) and even at very low levels of traffic (0.5 to 1.9 vehicles per hour). In the Swan Mountains, Mace et al. (1996) and Mace et al. (1999) found grizzly habitat use decreased as total road density increased. In this study it was difficult to attribute direct effects on survival to roads; only 1 of 12 documented deaths of grizzly bears occurred in multiple-use areas (public land used for forestry, recreation, etc.), and annual mortality rate (accounting for variable exposure time) for bears using private lands in addition to multiple use lands was almost 20 times higher than for bears using only multiple-use lands (Mace and Waller 1998). Kasworm and Manley (1998) and Mace et al. (1999) also documented significant grizzly bear avoidance of habitats in proximity to roads in the Cabinet Mountains and NCDE, respectively.
4.11 HELICOPTER USE
Similar to other motorized ground activities, helicopter flights have the potential to disturb grizzly bears. Situations involving impacts to grizzly bears caused by aerial flights have not been extensively studied (USFS and USFWS 2009), however, there is general agreement that helicopters create audible temporary disturbance that can influence bears, but without the longer lasting effects associated with roads. Thus, disturbance to grizzly bears caused by helicopters does not typically result in the same extent of impact as permanent roads or other developments (USFS and USFWS 2009). Research findings regarding helicopter disturbance related to grizzly bears have been variable (USFS and USFWS 2009), and the magnitude of the response exhibited by observed bears can be influenced by a number of factors including differences in individual bear behavior, the degree of habituation of individual bears, and amount of cover in the landscape being evaluated (McLellan and Shackleton 1989b). Depending upon the cover present, degree of human use in an area and individual behavior of the bear, they may respond by (1) fleeing a great distance (>1km), (2) running to nearby cover, (3) walking away, or (4) standing still (McLellan and Shackleton 1989b).
McLellan and Shackleton (1989b) noted that in general their study bears responded more strongly to disturbance when in open habitat than did bears in areas with greater cover, and they observed that the presence of cover could bias the observability of individual bears creating uncertainty in actual detection
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 4-3 September 2005 responses. Consistent with the findings of Jope (1985), McLellan and Shackleton also observed greater disturbance responses by bears in areas with inherently low human use than for those areas where human activity was common – suggesting that habituation may have lessened observed reactions in some bears. They also acknowledged that in a similar research project (Harding and Nagy 1980), study bears had been chased and captured using helicopters, which may have elicited greater observed hiding or fleeing responses in those individuals with past experiences with humans. Similarly, observed responses of bears to foot traffic suggest that greater reactions by bears may often be more common in areas rarely visited by people than in areas where human use is inherently higher (Jope 1985, McLellan and Shackleton 1989b). McLellan and Shackleton (1989) further noted that humans on foot elicited the greatest reaction from bears than any other disturbance type they studied, particularly when it occurred in areas rarely frequented by humans.
Grizzly bears have demonstrated sensitivity to both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter flights, but they may be more sensitive to helicopter disturbance (IGBC 1987). Harding and Nagy (1980) observed greater responses by bears to helicopters and documented the potential for abandonment of dens where flights were low and nearby. Reynolds et al. (1986) found that fixed-wing flights over dens at above ground levels greater than 500 meters had little measurable effect on the heart rates of bears in dens, however, when flights were 100 to 150 meters above the dens notable increases in heart rates occurred, particularly near the period of den emergence.
4.12 FOREST INVENTORY
No documentation of sensitivity to forest inventory activities was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear. Effects of non-motorized activities would most likely be similar to those from dispersed recreational activity (e.g., Mace and Waller [1996]), and from motorized activities to those summarized by Mace et al. (1996).
4.13 MONITORING No sensitivity to program monitoring activities was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear. Effects of non-motorized activities would most likely be similar to those from dispersed recreational activity (e.g., Mace and Waller [1996]), and from motorized activities to those summarized by Mace et al. (1996).
4.14 GRAZING OF CLASSIFIED FOREST LANDS
Harting (1987) summarized the impacts to grizzly bears from agriculture and livestock, and categorized them into five classes: Direct loss. Mortality or loss of grizzly bears through control actions, relocations or illegal kills associated with livestock allotments, ranching, or farming operations; Indirect loss. Habituation of grizzly bears to human activity following attraction to livestock, livestock carrion, crops, etc. predisposing them to nuisance behavior elsewhere; Habitat loss. Loss or modification due to grazing or other agricultural activity; Displacement. Temporal or spatial displacement away from agricultural activity; and Direct competition. Competition with livestock for preferred forage species.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 4-4 September 2005 Grizzly bears are known to kill domestic sheep easily (Knight and Judd 1983) and specific individual bears learn to kill cattle calves as well (Anderson et al. 2002). Bears that kill livestock have, of course, a high mortality rate caused by people.
4.15 GRAVEL QUARRYING FOR THE PURPOSES OF LOGGING AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION Other than potential loss of habitat from timber and/or salvage harvest for quarry construction, no sensitivity to gravel quarrying was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear. Effects would most likely be similar to those from motorized activities, described by Mace et al. (1996).
4.16 FERTILIZATION No sensitivity to fertilization was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear. Effects of non- motorized activities would most likely be similar to those from dispersed recreational activity (e.g., Mace and Waller [1996]), and from motorized activities to those summarized by Mace et al. (1996).
4.17 ELECTRONIC FACILITY SITES Other than potential loss of habitat from timber and/or salvage harvest for electronic facility construction, no sensitivity to electronic facilities was found in the literature reviewed for the grizzly bear. Effects of motorized activities would most likely be similar to those summarized by Mace et al. (1996).
4.18 OTHER ACTIVITIES COMMON TO COMMERCIAL FOREST MANAGEMENT Generally, it is not anticipated that other activities common to commercial forest management will adversely impact grizzly bears. Effects of non-motorized activities would most likely be similar to those from dispersed recreational activity (e.g., Mace and Waller [1996]), and from motorized activities to those summarized by Mace et al. (1996). Potential impacts of a given action to grizzly bears and suitable grizzly bear habitat should be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 4-5 September 2005
5. MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Grizzly bear habitat management in the contiguous U.S. has emphasized minimizing food attractants, limiting motorized road access, maintaining large areas with a minimum of human disturbance, and maintaining linkage zones (USFWS 1993; USFWS 1995; Merrill et al. 1999; Servheen et al. 2001; IYGBDAT 2002; MFWP 2002; ICST 2003). Throughout their North American range, grizzly bears are sensitive regional indicators of large-scale habitat fragmentation and the effects of human development (IGBC 1998; Gibeau et al. 2001). They are sometimes considered an umbrella species, for which long- term management would likely help ensure persistence of many other species in the same ecosystem. But because they often conflict with human needs, it is critical that managers incorporate a human dimension in devising conservation strategies (Paquet and Hackman 1995; Clark et al. 1996; Weaver et al. 1996).
Numerous studies in Montana have shown significant avoidance by grizzly bears of habitats within close proximity to roads, settlements, and other human activity (Mattson 1993; Mace et al. 1996; Kasworm and Manley 1998; Mace and Waller 1997; Servheen et al. 1998; Mace et al. 1999). It is clear that human access is one of the most influential factors affecting grizzly bear habitat security (IGBC 1998). Most research efforts have documented that adult female grizzly bears select home ranges characterized by contiguous patches of habitat unused by motorized vehicles. In the Swan Mountains of northwestern Montana, Mace et al. (1996) reported more than 80 percent of bear locations were in blocks of undisturbed, or secure habitat 3.5 square miles or more in size, or about 7 percent of the average home range size of bears in this area. For grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area (where bear home ranges are much larger), Mattson (personal communication as cited in Weaver et al. 1996) recommended security blocks 10.8 square miles in size, or about 10 percent of an average adult female’s home range.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 5-1 September 2005
6. CURRENT DNRC PROTECTIVE MEASURES
The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) under Sub-Chapter 4 for State Forest Land Management, are the most directly applicable regulations governing management of grizzly bear habitat on DNRC state forest trust lands. These rules were implemented to generally support populations of listed and sensitive species on state trust lands in conjunction with a mandate to generate revenue for state trust beneficiaries. DNRC accomplishes this by managing for site characteristics generally recognized as important for ensuring the long-term persistence of special status species. The DNRC may accept localized adverse impacts, but only within the context of an overall strategy that supports habitat capability for these species. DNRC recognizes that its contribution toward conservation of wide-ranging animal species that occur in low densities and require large areas to support self-sustaining populations would be supportive of, albeit subsidiary to, the principal role played by federal agencies with larger land holdings. ARM specific to grizzly bears are intended to minimize disturbance and manage suitable security habitat for grizzly bears. These rules restrict the scope and range of activities that may pose a threat to sensitive and listed species, including grizzly bears.
Federal wildlife statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are also applicable to forest management activities on state trust lands.
6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA
As a federally listed species under the ESA, the grizzly bear is a management and conservation priority for all federal and state resource managers in Montana. Consequently, grizzly bears are afforded protective measures at the state level under the ARM for Forest Management (Sub-Chapter 4: State Forest Land Management); Sections 36.11.431 to 36.11.434. The following excerpts concerning Montana DNRC’s commitment to conserving grizzly bears and grizzly habitat are taken directly from the ARM for forest management on state trust lands:
36.11.403 DEFINITIONS (10) "Bear management unit or BMU" means a geographic analysis area previously designated by an interagency technical committee which is meant to accommodate the year long habitat needs of both male and female grizzly bears.
(30) "Grizzly BMU sub-unit" means an administrative area designation related to grizzly bear recovery that approximates the home range size of a female grizzly bear.
(32) "Hiding cover" means vegetation that provides visual screening capable of obstructing from view 90 percent of an adult grizzly bear at 200 feet.
(46) "Non-denning period" (grizzly bear) means the period April 1 through November 15.
(68) "Road in security core areas" (grizzly bear) means roads within security core areas that have permanent closure devices (unless the security core designation is removed). (a) Examples of such closure devices shall include but are not limited to: (i) tank traps; (ii) large boulders; and (iii) dense vegetation.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-1 September 2005
(74) "Seasonally secure area" means an area of high seasonal habitat quality that is seasonally secure from: (a) motorized access and high non-motorized use; and (b) approximates in size that portion of a female grizzly bear’s home range where a concentration of use is expected to occur.
(75) "Security core areas" means areas typically greater than 2,500 acres that during the non- denning period: (a) are free of motorized access; (b) consider the geographic distribution of seasonal habitats important to grizzly bears; (c) remain in place for long periods, preferably 10 years; and (d) are at least 0.3 mile from the nearest access route that can be used by a motorized vehicle.
(87) "Total road density" means the percentage of a defined grizzly bear analysis area that exceeds two miles of: (a) open roads; (b) restricted roads; and (c) motorized trails per square mile.
(90) "Visual obstruction" means that at least 90 percent of an adult grizzly bear is hidden from view.
(91) "Visual screening" (grizzly bear) means vegetation and/or topography providing visual obstruction that makes it difficult to see into adjacent areas from the roadbed. The distance required to provide visual screening, typically 100 feet, is dependent upon the type and density of cover available.
36.11.428 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(1) The department shall participate in recovery efforts of threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The department shall confer in its sole discretion with the United States Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS) to develop habitat mitigation measures. (a) Measures may differ from federal management guidelines because the department plays a subsidiary role to federal agencies in species recovery. In all cases, measures to support recovery must be consistent with department responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and Trust Law. The department shall work with the USFWS to amend such measures when, in the judgment of the forest management bureau chief, they are inconsistent with trust management obligations. (b) Measures to support species recovery shall be periodically updated to implement new biological information and legal interpretations as warranted.
(2) The department shall, in its sole discretion, participate on interagency working groups established to develop guidelines and implement recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. (a) If additional plant or animal species with habitat on state trust lands are federally listed as threatened or endangered, the department shall, in its sole discretion, participate in working groups for those species.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-2 September 2005
(b) The department shall, in its sole discretion, also participate in interagency groups formed to oversee management of recently de-listed species.
(3) The department staff shall report sightings of threatened and endangered species, except bald eagles, to respective working groups or an appropriate data repository. (a) For bald eagles, only new nest locations shall be reported. (History: 77-1-202, 77-1-209, 77-5-201, 77-5-204, MCA; IMP, 77-5-116, 77-5-204, 77-5-206, 77-5-207, MCA; NEW, 2003 MAR p. 397, 2003 MAR p. 397, Eff. 3/14/03.).
36.11.431 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES – GRIZZLY BEAR
(1) The department shall include the following management considerations for grizzly bears: (a) Refer to the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (February 23, 1995) for lands administered by the swan unit field office. Specific definitions that pertain to management within the Swan River state forest are contained in the agreement. In the event that cooperative implementation of the agreement ceases, the department shall proceed to the extent practicable under the terms of the agreement in the Swan River state forest. (i) Participate in annual monitoring and reporting of implementation of the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (February 23, 1995) for the duration the agreement is in effect, or until the department otherwise terminates the agreement pursuant to applicable terms. (History: 77-1-202, 77-1-209, 77-5-201, 77-5-204, MCA; IMP, 77-5-116, 77-5-204, 77-5-206, 77-5-207, MCA; NEW, 2003 MAR p. 397, Eff. 3/14/03.)
36.11.432 GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ON BLOCKED LANDS
(1) The department shall adhere to the following when conducting forest management activities on blocked Stillwater unit lands (Stillwater and Coal Creek state forests) within the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem (NCDE): (a) Use BMU and BMU sub-units for analysis purposes where applicable. (b) Conduct road density estimates using standardized techniques accepted by the interagency grizzly bear committee, NCDE subcommittee, or other techniques approved by the forest management bureau chief. (c) Design projects to result in no net increase in the proportion of each BMU sub-unit (trust lands only) that exceeds an open road density of one mile per square mile from baseline levels calculated in 1996. (i) In the event a road is encountered that is not in the existing baseline, and evidence suggests the road existed prior to 1996, the road would be added to the 1996 baseline data and revised baseline levels would be calculated. This shall apply only during the non-denning period. (ii) The department may allow temporary increases in road density above 1996 baseline levels for each BMU sub-unit upon approval by the forest management bureau chief. In such situations, the department shall apply alternative methods to minimize impacts on grizzly bears to the maximum extent practicable.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-3 September 2005
(d) Design projects to result in no net decrease from baseline levels calculated in 1996 in the proportion of each BMU sub-unit (trust lands only) designated as security core. The department shall map security core areas. Security core areas shall remain intact for periods approximating 10 years, to the extent practicable. (i) The department may allow temporary decreases in security core below 1996 baseline levels for each BMU sub-unit upon approval by the forest management bureau chief. In such situations, the department shall apply alternative methods to minimize the impacts on grizzly bears to the maximum extent practicable. (e) For project-related activities that would occur within or immediately adjacent to security core areas, make efforts to conduct human activities during the denning period (November 16 to March 31). The department shall construct temporary roads and skid trails to prevent future use by motorized vehicles during the non-denning period after completion of project-related activities. (f) When conducting project activities in or near identified security core areas during the non- denning period, minimize the duration of air and ground-based harvest activities to the extent practicable, particularly in known areas of seasonal importance for bears. (i) The department shall make efforts to design helicopter flight routes in a manner that avoids and/or minimizes flight time across security core areas and/or known seasonally secure areas. (ii) Where practicable, the department shall design flight paths to occur greater than one mile from potentially affected core areas or areas of known seasonal importance. (g) Where procedures are lacking and to the extent practicable, use published information, professional judgment, and available technology to locate and provide for secure areas of known seasonal importance for displaced bears where displacement risk is deemed high. Where feasible, the department may expand security core areas with additional buffers and/or temporary road restrictions to reduce temporary losses of effective security core area. (h) Calculate total road density for analysis purposes and make efforts to reduce total road density to the extent practicable. (i) Consider seasonal closures and activity restrictions for mitigating proposed actions. (j) Monitor road closures annually for effectiveness and make necessary repairs within one operating season. (k) Retain no less than 40 percent of any BMU sub-unit (trust lands only) in hiding cover. In situations beyond department control where disturbances may temporarily reduce hiding cover within a BMU sub-unit, the department shall make efforts to minimize further reductions of hiding cover. (l) To provide additional security for grizzly bears, retain cover that provides visual screening adjacent to open roads, where practicable. (m) Prohibit contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations from carrying firearms while operating. (History: 77-1-202, 77-1-209, 77-5-201, 77-5-204, MCA; IMP, 77-5-116, 77-5-204, 77-5-206, 77-5-207, MCA; NEW, 2003 MAR p. 397, Eff. 3/14/03.)
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-4 September 2005
36.11.433 GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ON OTHER WESTERN MONTANA LANDS
(1) When conducting forest management activities on scattered lands administered by the Stillwater unit, Kalispell unit, Missoula unit and Clearwater unit, within the NCDE, and in Plains and Libby unit lands within the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem, the department shall adhere to the following: (a) Design projects to result in no permanent net increase of open road density on parcels that exceed an open road density of one mile per square mile using simple linear calculations. This shall apply only during the non-denning period. Temporary increases are permissible for up to two consecutive operating seasons. The department shall make efforts to reduce total road density when compatible with other agency goals and objectives. (b) Retain cover that provides visual screening adjacent to open roads to the extent practicable. (c) Maintain hiding cover where available along all riparian zones. (d) Prohibit contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations from carrying firearms while operating. (History: 77-1-202, 77-1-209, 77-5-201, 77-5-204, MCA; IMP, 77-5-116, 77-5-204, 77-5-206, 77-5-207, MCA; NEW, 2003 MAR p. 397, Eff. 3/14/03.)
36.11.434 GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ON EASTERN MONTANA LANDS
(1) On Bozeman unit lands within the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, and Helena unit and Conrad unit lands within the NCDE, the department shall determine appropriate methods to comply with the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 1531 through 1544 and 77-5-116, MCA, on a project level basis. Factors to consider shall include, but not be limited to: (a) cover retention; (b) duration of activity; (c) seasonal restrictions; (d) hiding cover near riparian zones; (e) food storage (where applicable); and (f) road density. (History: 77-1-202, 77-1-209, 77-5-201, 77-5-204, MCA; IMP, 77-5-116, 77-5-204, 77-5-206, 77-5-207, MCA; NEW, 2003 MAR p. 397, Eff. 3/14/03.).
6.2 SWAN VALLEY GRIZZLY BEAR CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
In February 1995, Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (Agreement) was signed between the USFWS, the USFS, Plum Creek Timber Company, and the DNRC to cooperate and coordinate management to conserve grizzly bears. Through this agreement, the parties intend to integrate ecologically and economically sound timber, recreation, and grizzly bear management practices in a mixed land-ownership environment.
The Agreement includes habitat management guidelines that maintain or improve grizzly bear habitat in the Swan Valley conservation area. The Agreement is largely based on the special management of four linkage zones of habitat connectivity across the valley, previously delineated by the USFWS (Servheen and Sandstrom 1993). The primary objectives of the Agreement are to promote habitat connectivity between the Swan Mountains and the Mission Mountains and to reduce mortality risk to grizzly bears.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-5 September 2005
Habitat connectivity is necessary to preclude the isolation of grizzly bears in the Mission Mountains from the rest of the NCDE.
The area affected by the Agreement is located in the Swan River drainage, entirely within the boundaries of the NCDE and the Flathead National Forest. The National Forest has been divided into BMUs, and the BMUs further divided into BMU subunits that approximate the size of an adult female grizzly bear home range in the NCDE. The BMUs and subunits provide the basic scale for various habitat analyses. The conservation area that is the subject of the Agreement encompasses portions of three BMUs and all of 11 subunits.
The Agreement specifies numerous strategies intended to allow reasonable use of the parties’ lands, while providing protection for grizzly bears. The Agreement’s provisions include: • Open Road Densities. During the non-denning period (April 1 to November 15), roads will be managed so that no more than 33 percent of any subunit exceeds an open road density of more than 1 mile per square mile. The long-term goal is to voluntarily reach no more than 21 percent of any subunit exceeding 1 mile of open road per square mile. USFWS (1995), in the Biological Opinion of the Swan Valley Agreement, defined an “open road” as any road “on which there are no use restrictions, [and does not apply to] restricted roads or highways, county roads, administrative site access roads and private residence roads.” This same definition is included in the recitals of the Agreement itself. • Operations and Uses. Management activities on many roads in low elevation preferred habitat will be limited during the critical spring period. Commercial activities will be concentrated in particular subunits on a rotational basis so that seven of the 11 subunits will remain inactive (without commercial activities) for a minimum of 3 and more often 6 years. Salvage harvests in inactive subunits will be limited to those of short duration occurring at times when bears are unlikely to be present. Lands within the conservation area will be managed to maintain a minimum of 40 percent cover in each subunit. Visual screening will be maintained along most open roads. Even-aged harvest units will be laid out so that no point in the unit is more than 600 ft to cover. Uneven-aged forest management will be practiced within riparian zones, and roads will be reclaimed or restricted where practicable, particularly within linkage zones. • Monitoring and Coordination. An adaptive management approach will be employed so that the Agreement can be revised as necessary as new information becomes available. Information will be collected annually on open and total road densities and levels of administrative use. Strategies will be developed to inform the public about the needs of the grizzly bear. Cooperators participate in bear population monitoring research in the Swan Valley as funding and opportunities allow for the purpose of determining effectiveness of the Agreement.
6.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) The ESA of 1973 as amended, prohibits the unauthorized taking (to harm, harass, pursue, capture, shoot, trap, kill) or possession of a listed (legally classified as endangered or threatened) species. Taking also applies to affecting the habitat of a listed species. Section 10(a) of the ESA allows for the issuance of a take permit for listed species following approval of an HCP that specifies: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the measures, if any, required under (4) will be met.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 6-6 September 2005
7. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES DEVELOPED BY OTHER AGENCIES/HCPS
In addition to the protective measures that are directly applicable to DNRC (including those measures regulatory in nature or those developed by or for DNRC), other agencies and/or entities may have developed protective measures for grizzly bears and their habitat.
7.1 USFS FOREST PLANS
Much of the grizzly bear habitat on forested state trust lands in Montana exists in a patchwork pattern, interspersed with areas of poor or non-habitat. Larger and more contiguous blocks of grizzly bear habitat are found on National Forest lands in Montana. The USFS is taking steps to ensure that grizzly bear habitat and linkage needs are being met within individual Forest plans. As part of the Western Montana Forest Planning Zone; the Bitterroot, Lolo, and Flathead National Forests are revising their Forest Plans to reflect new scientific information, as well as natural and social changes that have occurred since the original plans were prepared in the 1980s (http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wmpz). The USFS identified over 100 revision items for the Forest Plans, among which were grizzly bear viability, habitat assessment, and linkage zones (USFS 2003).
In addition, Forest Plans for Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests, including Beaverhead, Custer, and Gallatin National Forests in Montana are currently being amended to provide additional programmatic direction for management of grizzly bear habitat security, developed sites, and livestock within the GYE Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 136: 41999-42000).
In lieu of pending Forest Plan revisions, the Flathead National Forest Plan calls for road management that produces the following characteristics within each BMU subunit (mean size of 49 mi2 [128 km2]) that is 75 percent or more managed by federal agencies (USFS 1995): • no more than 19 percent can have open road densities of greater than 1 mile/mile2, as calculated using a 1 mile2 moving window analysis; • no more than 19 percent can have total road densities of greater than 2 miles/mile2, as calculated using a 1 mile2 moving window analysis; and • no less than 68 percent can be in security core status, defined as being greater than 0.3 mile (0.5 km) from any road (not counting roads which are of such a low standard that they were, in effect, unusable by standard vehicles), in patches at least 2,500 acres (1,012 hectares) in size.
On BMU subunits in which federal agencies control less than 75 percent, these numeric standards do not apply, but the Forest has a responsibility to limit motorized access, as possible, to protect grizzly bear habitat from excessive disturbance.
Portions of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests within the NCDE, as well as BLM lands, are also under interim direction to manage road access similarly to the Flathead National Forest (Puchlerz 1995).
Portions of the Kootenai and Lolo National Forests within the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (as well as the Idaho Panhandle National Forest) are currently finalizing plans that limit motorized road access under a similar concept to that of the Flathead National Forest, but allowing variable numeric standards in each BMU (USFS 2002). The mean proportion of all BMUs considered having open road densities of 1 mile/mile2 or more would be approximately 33 percent, the mean having total road densities of
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 7-1 September 2005
2 mile/mile2 or more would be approximately 26 percent, and approximately 55 percent of all areas would have security core status (as defined above).
7.2 OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Other than the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (detailed in the previous section), there are no large-scale formal agreements or HCPs currently in place specifically intended to protect grizzly bear habitat on private or other state-owned land in Montana. A number of small, private conservation leases and/or conservation easements act indirectly to protect grizzly bear habitat.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 7-2 September 2005
8. EXISTING DNRC MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The ARM requires monitoring for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on state trust lands. An implementation monitoring report, including threatened-, endangered-, and sensitive-species monitoring and timber-sale wildlife-mitigation compliance, is prepared every 5 years. During Fiscal Year 2000, DNRC biologists reviewed six timber-sale mitigation measures for grizzly bears. Since 2000, incidental sightings of listed and sensitive species, including grizzly bears, by DNRC staff are recorded and reported to MNHP. For the five-year Fiscal Year 2000 report, 20 grizzly bear sightings were reported by the Northwest Land Office (DNRC 2000). DNRC is also participating in a number of grizzly bear monitoring studies.
8.1 MONITORING FOR THE SWAN VALLEY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
In February 1995, the USFWS, USFS, Plum Creek Timberlands, and DNRC signed the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement. In August 1998, those same parties became signatory to a Monitoring Agreement for the Swan Valley Conservation Agreement, whereby they agreed to implement a series of actions to monitor the effectiveness and implementation of the Swan Valley Conservation Agreement. The parties have appointed representatives to a technical monitoring team and agreed to participate in the creation of a single, cooperative GIS database.
In regard to effectiveness monitoring, the parties have agreed to: • Report on the feasibility and desirability of a 2-3 year baseline study, primarily oriented toward determining presence/absence and very general population characteristics of grizzly bears using the Swan Valley. Such a study would be intended to provide a better foundation for further actions, and, potentially, form the basis for comparison should a similar effort be made in 10 to 15 years time. Due to limitations on sample size, such a study would not be capable of assessing directly the effectiveness of the Agreement. Optimally, such a study would be conducted in cooperation and association with other studies in the Swan area, including studies on black bears and monitoring of survivorship and reproductive rates of grizzly bears in the NCDE. Such a study would be conducted within the context of the NCDE Subcommittee’s priorities. Each cooperator would appoint a representative to serve on a task force chaired by the USFWS. The USFWS would be responsible for report production based on the information from the Task Force recommendations. • Develop a plan of action and recommend support for a monitoring system for grizzly bears in the Mission Mountains. Such monitoring would be done in close coordination and cooperation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Each cooperator will appoint a representative to serve on a task force chaired by the USFWS. The USFWS will be responsible for report production based on the information from the Task Force recommendations and report on the feasibility and desirability of a 2 to 3 year baseline study to determine the presence or absence and the general population characteristics of grizzly bears inhabiting the Swan Valley. Such a study would be conducted within the context of the NCDE subcommittee’s priorities and administered by the USFWS. In August 2002, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the Agreement cooperators and MFWP to establish objectives and responsibilities for research in the Swan Valley. The cooperators are currently in the process of collecting baseline data on grizzly bears (such as seasonal habitat use, movements, demography, and bear distribution) as related to the Agreement, in conjunction with a black bear study being conducted by MFWP. The technical monitoring team is responsible for analysis, interpretation, and publication of data (Servheen 2003 personal communication).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 8-1 September 2005
In regard to implementation monitoring, the parties have agreed to: • Develop a single data repository on a GIS for the Swan Valley data. • Calculate and annually report all Conservation Agreement actions regarding habitat. Flathead National Forest, Plum Creek, and DNRC are responsible to report these data on their ownerships. Each cooperator shall calculate and report percent cover on their ownerships. Specific information to be reported in a final report by 30 April each year will include: • open road density/subunit/ownership, • total road density/subunit/ownership, • percent secure habitat1/subunit/ownership [includes high use trails (>20 parties week)], • road miles restricted/subunit/ownership, and • percent cover/subunit/ownership.
The Flathead National Forest, Plum Creek, and MT DNRC are responsible for reporting the following information on their ownerships. Specific information to be reported by 30 April each year will include: • motorized administrative use/subunit/ownership monitored between April 1 and November 15 of each year, • closure structures identified by each cooperator using methods that facilitate closure effectiveness and administrative use monitoring as set forth in the Monitoring Agreement, and • development of a unified administrative access report form and administrative use type code set to be used by personnel of all cooperators when operating in the Swan Valley.
Within two randomly selected inactive subunits, and the South Fork of Lost Soup Creek Subunit, all personnel will be required to use the administrative access report form to report closure structures crossed by vehicle single-passes/day; sections entered beyond closure structure/day; and code type of administrative use/section/day. Subunit monitoring time periods will be decided by the cooperators upon review of initial data results. Due to ownership distribution, the South Fork of Lost Soup Creek subunit will be monitored every year.
Closure effectiveness reports/ownership will be monitored by annual reports that include description of closure effectiveness sampling by cooperator for primary access management structures in the Swan area including: • structure (gate, tank trap, etc.) intact, • structure functioning as planned, • violation despite structure being intact (motorized travel around or over structure), and • when/how structure was repaired if damaged or violated.
Commercial activity beyond gates or other closure devices in active subunits will be summarized separately by number of vehicle single-passes/day between April 1 and November 15 by the implementing cooperator.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 8-2 September 2005
April 1 to June 15 motorized road use in low elevation (less than 5,200 ft) areas within Linkage Zones (as mapped in Attachment H in the Conservation Agreement) will be monitored by: • administrative access reports on closure structures crossed by vehicle single-passes/day; sections entered beyond closure structure/day; and code type of administrative use/section/day, and • miles of open, restricted, and reclaimed road categories within preferred and riparian habitats/subunit/cooperator ownership.
All exceptions to the Agreement will be reported annually including: • even-age management in preferred and riparian habitats/subunit/ownership, • harvesting or road construction that does not maintain visual screening adjacent to open roads/subunit/ownership, • exceptions in procedures to maintain visual screening along roads under this agreement due to cable yarding, insects, disease, fire, or blowdown where even-age harvest do not maintain visual screening adjacent to open roads/subunit/ownership, • even-age harvest units that exceed 600 feet distance-to-cover/subunit/ownership, and • commercial activity in inactive units during the restricted period.
Salvage harvests in spring habitat during the spring period and in inactive subunits during the spring period and fall (September 1 to November 15) shall be monitored by compilation of a list of such operations to include locations and dates.
8.2 NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE GRIZZLY BEAR INTERAGENCY POPULATION ESTIMATE DNRC is currently participating in the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem interagency population estimate. This study uses individual genetic markers obtained from grizzly bear hair which is, in turn, obtained from hair traps at baited stations located throughout the ecosystem. DNRC is providing in-kind services and assistance for access to state trust lands, public information assistance, and technical assistance with work groups as needed. In an earlier pilot project (2000 to 2001) for this study, DNRC provided field assistance for hair sampling, in-kind assistance, and a $1,500 contribution for data analysis (Baty and Frank 2003 personal communication).
8.3 GRIZZLY BEAR MONITORING IN THE BLACKFOOT RIVER DRAINAGE In 2002, DNRC and MFWP established a cooperative grizzly bear monitoring effort in the Blackfoot River Drainage. DNRC has helped provide funding for radio collars and aerial flights used to track grizzly bears. Tracking bears provides data on their use of various geographic areas and habitats and provides local managers information on bear activities in areas of forest management (Baty and Frank 2003 personal communication).
8.4 LIVING WITH WILDLIFE COMMITTEE DNRC actively cooperates in the Living with Wildlife Committee of the Blackfoot Challenge organization. This committee was formed to address a variety of local concerns regarding human wildlife conflicts in the Blackfoot Valley with particular emphasis on grizzly bears and sanitation issues (Baty and Frank 2003 personal communication).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 8-3 September 2005
8.5 PUBLIC LANDS LINKAGE TASK FORCE
DNRC actively cooperates in the Public Lands Linkage Task Force. This organization was formed to address wildlife linkage concerns associated with human developments and access across western Montana. DNRC manages state trust lands that have been identified through this effort (Baty and Frank 2003 personal communication).
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 8-4 September 2005
Almack, J.A. 1985. An evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in the Selkirk Mountains of north Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
———. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements in the Selkirk Mountains, Northern Idaho. pp. 150-157 in: Contreras, G. P. and K. E. Evans (compilers). Proceedings: Grizzly bear habitat symposium. General Technical Report INT-207. USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Anderson, C.R., M.A. Ternant, and D.S. Moody. 2002. Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two grazing allotments in northwestern Wyoming. Ursus 13:247-256.
Anderson, N.J. 1994. Grizzly bear food production on clearcuts within the western and northwestern Yellowstone ecosystem. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 73 pp.
Archibald, W.R., R. Ellis, and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:251-257.
Aune, K. and W.F. Kasworm. 1989. Rocky Mountain East Front grizzly bear study: Final report. MFWP. Helena.
Banci, V. 1991. Status of the grizzly bear in Canada, 1990. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
Baty, R. and G. Frank. 2003. Wildlife Biologist and Resource Management Supervisor, respectively, with DNRC, Missoula, Montana. Written list of DNRC involvement in ongoing research projects, provided by Gary Frank to Amit Saxena, Wildlife Biologist, AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.
Benn, B. and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971–98. Ursus 13:213-221.
Blanchard, B.M. 1983. Grizzly bear-habitat relationships in the Yellowstone area. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management. 5:118-123.
———. 1990. Relationship between whitebark pine cones production and fall grizzly bear movements. Pages. 362-263 in: Schmidt, W.C. and K.J. MacDonald (eds.). Proceedings of a Symposium on Whitebark Pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain resource. General Technical Report INT-270. USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
——— and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1975-87. Biological Conservation 58:41-67.
Boyce, M.S. and J.W. Waller. 2003. Grizzly bears for the Bitterroot: predicting potential abundance and distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:670-683.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-1 September 2005 Brannon, R.D., R.D. Mace, and A.R. Dood. 1988. Grizzly bear mortality in the northern Continental Divide ecosystem, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16(3):262-269.
Bratkovich, A.A. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat components associated with past logging practices on the Libby Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest. Pages 180-184 in: G.P. Contreras and K.E. Evans (eds.). Proceedings – Grizzly bear habitat symposium. General Technical Report INT-207. USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Bunnell, F.L. and T. Hamilton. 1983. Forage digestibility and fitness in grizzly bears. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 5:179-185.
Canfield, J. and A.L. Harting. 1987. Home range and movements. In: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Carlson, J. 2003. Montana animal species of concern. MNHP and MFWP, Helena. 14 pp. Online version available at: http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/.
Clark, T.W., A.P. Curlee, and R.P. Reading. 1996. Crafting effective solutions to the large carnivore conservation problem. Conservation Biology 10(4):940-948.
Craighead, F.C. and J.J. Craighead. 1972. Grizzly bear pre-hibernation and denning activities as determined by radio-tracking. Wildlife Monograph 23. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 35 pp.
Craighead, J.J. 1980. A proposed delineation of critical grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone region. International Association for Bear Research and Management. Monograph Serial No. 1.
———. and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly bear. Pages 515-556 in: Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
———, J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone: Their ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Craighead, L., and E.R. Vyse. 1996. Brown and grizzly bear metapopulations. in: McCullough, D.R. (ed.). Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.
DNRC (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation). 2000. State forest management land management plan, implementation monitoring report, Fiscal Years 1997-2000. Helena. 39 pp.
DNRC (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation). 2003. DNRC endangered, threatened and sensitive species list. Internal document. Revised April 30, 2003. DNRC Forest Management Bureau, Missoula. 3 pp.
Eberhardt, L.L. 1990. Survival rates required to sustain bear populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:587-590.
Foresman, K. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. The American Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, Kansas.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-2 September 2005 Fuhr, B. and D.A. Demarchi. 1990. A methodology for grizzly bear habitat assessment in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-67. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch. Victoria. 28 pp.
Gibeau, M.L. 1995. Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Ursus 10:235-241.
———, S. Herrero, B.N. McLellan, and J.G. Woods. 2001. Managing for grizzly bear security areas in Banff National Park and the central Canadian Rocky Mountains. Ursus 12:121-130.
Graves, T.A. 2002. Spatial and temporal response of grizzly bears to recreational use on trails. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 56 pp.
Hamer, D. and S. Herrero (eds.) 1983. Ecological studies of grizzly bears in Banff National Park. Final Report. Prepared for Parks Canada by the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 303 pp.
——— and ———. 1987a. Wildfire’s influence on grizzly bear feeding ecology in Banff National Park, Alberta. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:179- 186
——— and ———. 1987b. Grizzly bear food and habitat in the front ranges of Banff National Park, Alberta. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:199- 213.
———,———., and R.T. Ogilvie. 1977. Ecological studies of the Banff National Park grizzly bear, Cuthead and Wigmore Regions. Prepared for Parks Canada by the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 234 pp.
Hamilton, A.N. 2000. Berries, bears and silviculture. pp. 17-18 in: Managing for Bears in Forested Environments Conference. Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke, British Columbia.
Harding, L. and J.A. Nagy. 1980. Responses of grizzly bears to hydrocarbon exploration of Richards Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Bears – Their Biology and Management; a selection of papers from the Fourth International Conference on Bear Research and Management (1977), Kalispell, MT. pp. 277-280.
Haroldson, M. and S. Podruzny. 2001. Whitebark pine cone production. Pages 52-55 in: Schwartz, C.C. and M.A. Haroldson (eds.). Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.
Haroldson, M.A., C.C. Schwartz, and G.C. White. In review. Environmental influences on grizzly bear survival in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1983-2001. Wildlife Monographs. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Harris, R.B., C.C. Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White. In review. Trajectory of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population under alternative survival rates. Wildlife Monographs. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxwell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-3 September 2005 Unpublished Report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana. Missoula.
Harting, A.L. 1987. Industrial impacts, road and highway impacts. in: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Heinrich, R., B. Beck, J. Beck, M. Todd, R. Bonar, and R. Quinlan. 1995. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) fall feeding habitat: Draft habitat suitability index (HIS) model). in: Beck, B., Beck, J., Bessie, J., Bonar, R., and Todd, M. (eds.). 1996. Habitat suitability index models for 35 wildlife species in the Foothills Model Forest. Draft report. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta.
Hellgren, E.C. 1998. Physiology of hibernation in bears. Ursus 10:467-477.
Herrero, S. and M. Gibeau. 1999. Status of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP): May 1999. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Hildebrand, G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C. Servheen. 1999. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:132-138.
13 15 Hobson, K.A., B.N. McLellan, and J.G. Woods. 2000. Using stable carbon (δ C) and nitrogen (δ N) isotopes to infer trophic relationships among black and grizzly bears in the upper Columbia River basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1332-1339.
Hovey, F. W. and B. N. McLellan. 1996. Estimating population growth of grizzly bears from the Flathead River drainage using computer simulations of reproductive and survival rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1409-1416.
ICST (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team). 2003. Final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee, Yellowstone National Park, Moose, Wyoming.
IGBC. (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee). 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C. 540 pp.
IGBC. 1998. Grizzly bear/motorized access management task force report. USFWS, Missoula, Montana.
IYGBDAT (Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team). 2002. Yellowstone grizzly bear management plan to accompany HCR 62. Prepared by the Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team, as modified by House Resources and Conservation Committee on March 13, 2002.
Jacoby, M. E., G. V. Hilderbrand, C. Servheen, C.C. Schwartz, S.M. Arthur, T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins, and R. Michener. 1999. Trophic relations of brown and black bears in several western North American ecosystems. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:921-929.
Jonkel, C.J. 1982. Border grizzly project: Five-year summary report. Special Report No. 60-2. University of Montana, Missoula.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-4 September 2005 ———. 1987. Brown bear. Pages 456-473 in: Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds.). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario.
Jope, K.L. 1985. Implications of grizzly bear habituation to hikers. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:32-37.
Kansas, J.L. and R.N. Riddell. 1993. Grizzly bear habitat model for the four contiguous mountain national parks, second iteration. Prepared by Riddell Environmental Research Ltd. for Canadian Parks Service, Western Regional Office. Calgary, Alberta. 109 pp. + Appendices.
Kasworm, W.F. and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in Northwest Montana.. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:79-84.
——— and ———. 1998. Grizzly bear and black bear ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. Unpublished Report. MFWP, Helena.
Keane, R.E., and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in western Montana: Evidence from 20-year remeasurements. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8(2):44-47.
Kehoe, N. 1995. Grizzly bear distribution in the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley: A test of the linkage zone prediction model. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
Kendall, K.C. 1997. Research synopsis on whitebark pine communities. U.S. Geological Survey URL: Available at: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/whitebar.htm.
Knight, R.R. and S.L. Judd. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:186-190.
Lefranc, M.N. Jr. 1987. Harvest strategies. in: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, R. Anderson, and B. Barnes. 2000. How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:400-413.
Long, B. 2003. Inventory Forester with DNRC. Written list of forest inventory data layers available for use in wildlife habitat modeling, provided by Brian Long to Amit Saxena, Wildlife Biologist, AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.
Mace, R.D. 1987a. Food habits summary. Page 111 in: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation. Washington, DC.
———. 1987b. Approaches to habitat classification and mapping. Page 115 in: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
——— and G. N. Bissell. 1986. Grizzly bear food resources in the flood plains and avalanche chutes of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Pages 78-91 in Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-5 September 2005 (compilers). Proceedings: Grizzly bear habitat symposium. USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
——— and C. Jonkel. 1980. Seasonal food habits of the grizzly bear in northwestern Montana. Pages 28-46 in: Jonkel, C. (ed.). Annual Report No. 5: Border Grizzly Bear Project, University of Montana, Missoula.
——— and J.S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly bear distribution and human conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:461-467.
——— and ———. 1997 Characteristics of grizzly bear core home range areas in western Montana. Pages 19-25 in: Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller (eds.). Final report: grizzly bear ecology in the Swan Mountains. MFWP, Helena.
——— and ———. 1998. Demography and population trend of grizzly bears in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Conservation Biology 12:1005-1016.
———, ———, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology 13(2):367-377.
———, ———, ———, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404.
Martin, P. 1983. Factors influencing globe huckleberry fruit production in Northwestern Montana. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:159-165.
Mattson, D.J. 1993. Background and proposed standards for managing grizzly bear habitat security in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unpublished Report. University of Idaho, Moscow.
———, B.M. Blanchard, and R.R. Knight. 1991. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977-1987. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:1619-1629.
———, ———, and ———. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:432-442.
———, S. Herrero, R.G. Wright, and C.M. Pease. 1996. Science and the management of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears. Conservation Biology 10:1013-1025.
———, R.H. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:259-273.
———. and T. Merrill. 2004. A model-based appraisal of habitat conditions for grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak region of Montana and Idaho. Ursus 15:000-000. (in press).
McLellan, B.N. 1989. Effects of resource extraction industries on behaviour and population dynamics of grizzly bears in the Flathead drainage, British Columbia and Montana. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 116 pp.
———. 1990a. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:57-64.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-6 September 2005 ———. 1990b. Relationships between timber management and grizzly bears. Pages 77-84 in: Chambers, A. (ed). Wildlife-Forestry Symposium. Forestry Canada and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Vancouver, British Columbia.
———. 1992. Current status and long-term threat to grizzly bears in British Columbia. Pages 111-122 in: Rautio, S. (ed.). Community Action for Endangered Species. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
———. 1994. Density-dependent population regulation of brown bears. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 3:15-24.
——— and F.W. Hovey. 1995. The diet of grizzly bears in the Flathead drainage of southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:704-712
——— and ———. 2001. Habitats selected by grizzly bears in a multiple use landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 92-99.
——— and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: Effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451–460.
——— and ———. 1989. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: Habitat displacement in response to seismic exploration, timber harvesting, and road maintenance. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:371-380.
——— and ———. 1989. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17:269-274.
———, F.W. Hovey, R.D. Mace, J.G. Woods, D.W. Carney, M.L. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, and W.F. Kasworm. 1999. Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality in the interior mountains of British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Washington, and Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:911– 920.
Meehan, W.R. 1974. The forest ecosystems of southeast Alaska, Part 4: Wildlife habitats. General Technical Report PNW-16. USFS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon.
Merrill, T., D.J. Mattson, R.G. Wright, and H.B. Quigley. 1999. Defining landscapes suitable for restoration of grizzly bears, Ursus arctos, in Idaho. Biological Conservation 87:231-248.
MFWP (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks). 2002. Grizzly bear management plan for southwestern Montana, 2002-2012. Final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula.
Moss, M.B. and M.N. Lefranc Jr. 1987. Timber, roads and grazing management. in: LeFranc, M.N., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, and W.C. Sugg III (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Nagy, J.A., and J.R. Gunson. 1990. Management plan for grizzly bears in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Serial. No. 2. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife; Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton. 164 pp.
———, R.H. Russell, A.M. Pearson, M.C. Kingsley, and B.C. Goski. 1983. Ecological studies of the
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-7 September 2005 grizzly bear in the Arctic Mountains, northern Yukon Territory, 1972-1975. Canadian Wildlife Service Report. 104 pp.
———, A.W. Hawley, M.W. Barrett, and J.W. Nolan. 1989. Population characteristics of grizzly and black bears in west central Alberta. AECV88-R1. Alberta Environmental Centre, Vegreville, Alberta. 33pp.
NCGBRT (North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team). 2001. Recovery plan for grizzly bears in the North Cascades of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse, and R.H.M. Munro. 2002. Modeling grizzly bear habitats in the Yellowhead ecosystem of Alberta: Taking autocorrelation seriously. Ursus 13:45-56.
Paquet, P.C. and A. Hackman. 1995. Large carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains: A long-term strategy for maintaining free-ranging and self-sustaining populations of carnivores. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario.
Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear, Ursus arctos. Report No. 34. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 86 pp.
Picton, H.D. 1986. A possible link between Yellowstone and Glacier grizzly bear populations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:7-10.
Podruzny, S.R., S. Cherry, C.C. Schwartz, and L.A. Landenburger. 2002. Grizzly bear denning and potential conflict areas in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus 13:19-28.
Proctor, M.F., B.N. McLellan, and C. Strobeck. 2002. Population fragmentation of grizzly bears in southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Ursus 13:153-160.
Puchlerz, T. (ed.). 1995. Interim motorized access management direction – Northern Continental Divide Recovery Zone. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Region, USFS, Missoula, Montana. 7 pp.
Ramcharita, R. and B.N. McLellan. 2000. Grizzly bear use of avalanche chutes in the Columbia Mountains of British Columbia: ecology and implications for management. Pages 16-17 in: Managing for Bears in Forested Environments Conference. Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke, British Columbia.
Redmond, R.L., M.M. Hart, J.C. Winne, W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, Z. Ma, C.M. Tobalske, M.M. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, T.P. Tady, F.B. Fisher, and S.W. Running. 1998. The Montana Gap Analysis Project: Final Report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula.
Reynolds, H.V. 1978. Structure, status, reproductive biology, movement, distribution, and habitat utilization of a grizzly bear population in NPR-A. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project. Final Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage. 61 pp.
———. and J. Hechtel. 1980. Big game investigations: Structure, status, reproductive biology, movements, distribution, and habitat utilization of a grizzly bear population. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-11, Job 4.14R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-8 September 2005 Reynolds, P.E., H.V. Reynolds, and E.H. Follman. 1986. Responses of grizzly bears to seismic surveys in northern Alaska. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:169-175.
Robison, H. 2001. The ecological relationship between a Rocky Mountain threatened species and a Great Plains agricultural pest. Unpublished report. in: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team – Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations, 2001.
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, and L.A. Shipley. 2001. Constraints on herbivory by grizzly bears. Oecologia 128:62-71.
Russell, R.H., J.W. Nolan, N.G. Woody, and G.H. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta. 136 pp.
Sandstrom, P. 1996. Identification of potential linkage zones for grizzly bears in the Swan-Clearwater Valleys using GIS. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
Schoen, J.W., L.R. Beier, J.W. Lentfer, L.J. Johnson. 1987. Denning ecology of brown bears on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:293-304.
Schwartz, C.C., M. A. Haroldson, K.A. Gunther, and D. Moody. 2002. Distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990-2000. Ursus 13:203-212.
———, C.C., S.D. Miller, and M.A. Haroldson. 2003. Grizzly bear. Pages 556-586 in G.A. Feldhammer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management and Conservation. Second edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Servheen, C. 1981. Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula. 139 pp.
———. 1983. Grizzly bear food habits, movements, and habitat selection in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4):1026-1035.
———. 2003. Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the USFWS. Missoula, Montana. Written comments on the first draft species account provided by Chris Servheen to Amit Saxena, Wildlife Biologist, AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.
———, and P. Sandstrom. 1993. Ecosystem management and linkage zones for grizzly bears and other large carnivores in the northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho and Montana. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 18:10-14.
———, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton (compilers). 1999. Bears. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. x + 309 pp.
———, J.S. Waller and P. Sandstrom. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public land in the northern Rocky Mountains. Unpublished Report. USFWS, Missoula, Montana.
Tomback, D.F. and K.C. Kendall. 2001. Biodiversity losses: The downward spiral. Pages 243-262 in:
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-9 September 2005 Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.). Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 1982. Endangered, threatened and sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats on the Targhee National Forest. Targhee National Forest, St. Anthony, Idaho.
———. 1985. Forest Service grizzly bear management policy recommendations, August 1985. USFS, Washington, DC.
———. 1995. Forest Plan Amendment 19: Allowable sale quantity and objectives and standards for grizzly bear habitat management. Amended Environmental Assessment. Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Montana. February 1995. 145 pp. + Appendices.
———. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recover Zones. Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. March, 2000. Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana.
———. 2003. Need for change and Forest Plan revision. Revision Review, Issue 2, July 2003. Western Montana Forest Planning Zone. USFS, Region 1, Missoula, Montana.
USFS and USFWS. 2009. Guide to effects analysis of helicopter use in grizzly bear habitat. Montana/Northern Id, Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team. Final version. September 17, 2009. Unpubl. document. 18pp.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. USFWS. Missoula, Montana.
———. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan, revised. USFWS. Missoula, Montana.
———. 1995. Biological Opinion on the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement between Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Flathead National Forest, Plum Creek Timber Company Ltd., and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS, Region 6, Denver, Colorado.
———. 2000. Grizzly bear recovery, overview and update (March, 2000). URL: http://www.r1.fws.gov/news/grizzly. USFWS, Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood, Colorado.
Valkenburg, P. 1976. A study of the brown bear in the proposed Northeastern addition to Mount McKinley National Park. Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 88 pp.
Vroom, G.W., S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1980. The ecology of winter den sites of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:321-330.
Waller, J.R. 1992. Grizzly bear use of habitats modified by timber management. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 64 pp.
——— and R.D. Mace. 1997a. Grizzly bear habitat selection in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1032-1039.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-10 September 2005 ——— and ———. 1997b. Grizzly bears and timber harvest. Pages 26-28 in: Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller (eds.). 1997. Final report: grizzly bear ecology in the Swan Mountains. MFWP, Helena.
Wakkinen, W.L. and W. F. Kasworm. 2004. Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Ursus 15(1) (in press).
Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet, and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4):964-976.
Welch, C.A., J. Keay, K.C. Kendall, and C.T. Robbins. 1997. Constraints on frugivory by bears. Ecology 78:1105-1119.
WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2002. Wyoming grizzly bear management plan. Prepared by the WGFD, Cheyenne.
White, D.D. Jr. 1996. Two grizzly bear studies: Moth feeding ecology and male reproductive biology. Dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman.
———, K.C. Kendall, and H.D. Picton. 1999. Potential energetic effects of mountain climbers on foraging grizzly bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:146-151.
Wielgus R.B., P.R. Vernier, and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. Grizzly bear use of open, closed, and restricted forestry roads. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1597-1606.
Wittinger, W.T. 2002. Grizzly bear distribution outside of recovery zones. Unpublished memorandum by USFS, Region ., Missoula, Montana.
Zager, P.E. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Dissertation, University of Montana. Missoula.
——— and C.J. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Forestry 81:524-536.
———, ———, and J. Habek. 1983. Logging and wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:271-276.
———, R. Mace, L. Lee, C. Jonkel, and C. Servheen. 1980. Guidelines for occupied grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. BGP Special Report No. 51. USFWS, Missoula, Montana. 17 pp.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-11 September 2005
ADDENDUM TO THE DNRC HCP GRIZZLY BEAR SPECIES ACCOUNTS
RECENT LITERATURE PERTAINING TO GRIZZLY BEARS 2004 TO PRESENT
R. BATY AND K. RANDZIO
JANUARY 29, 2009 (Revised September, 2010)
The following literature, relevant to the HCP Grizzly Species Accounts from 2004 to present, was compiled using a combination of JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, and Google Scholar search engines, and through the Journal of Wildlife Management and Conservation Biology websites. Search terms included “Grizzly” and “Grizzly Montana.” The following summaries are based on the articles and their abstracts. Each article was reviewed to make certain that all recent and relevant information for grizzly bears was considered in the HCP and EIS analysis. Of particular importance, this search and review was conducted to ensure that relevant information was not overlooked since the completion of the development of HCP conservation commitments.
Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, J.G. Woods, and M.F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating Grizzly Bear Distribution and Abundance Relative to Habitat and Human Influence. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 138-152.
Using hair-trap sampling, the authors modeled the spatial distribution of grizzly bears. Grizzly bears were most frequently found in high elevation, steep slope, rugged landscapes where there was little human access. These areas included avalanche chutes, alpine tundra, barren surfaces, and burned forests, but were less likely to include young and logged forests. This modeling approach may be valuable in the conservation of grizzly bears and other, secretive forest-dwelling species.
Austin, M.A. 2004. Grizzly Bear Recovery Planning in the British Columbia Portion of the North Cascades: Lessons Learned and Re-Learned. Ursus 15: 123-128.
This is an analysis of the challenges of developing grizzly bear recovery plans.
Ciarniello, L.M. 2005. Denning Behavior and Den Site Selection of Grizzly Bears along the Parsnip River, British Columbia. Ursus 16:47-58.
The study area included two regions: a relatively pristine area in the Canadian Rockies and a plateau where timber harvests have occurred. Scientists found that adult females in the mountainous region went to the denning areas earlier, entered dens earlier, emerged later, and had a higher density of dens than plateau females. Mountain grizzlies selected dens in mid- to-upper elevations. Plateau bears excavated dens under the base of trees in older-aged forest
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-12 September 2005, Revised 2010
stands (older than 45 years) away from roads (likely seeking less disturbance and because older trees were farther from roads).
Garshelis, D.L., M.L. Gibeau, and S. Herrero. 2005. Grizzly Bear Demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69:277-297.
Gershelis, et.al. studied grizzly bear survival rates in and around Banff National Park, a heavily used and developed area. The article gives statistics on the average age of reproduction, survival rate, litter size, etc. Despite a lack of hunting in the area, humans caused 75%-86% of grizzly mortality. Current management focuses on alleviating human- caused bear mortality. However, if 1970-1980s style management had continued, 1 more female would have been killed each year, resulting in a population decrease.
Gunther, K.A., M.A. Haroldson, K. Frey, S.L. Cain, J. Copeland, and C.C. Schwartz. 2004. Grizzly Bear-Human Conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1992-2000. Ursus 15: 10-22.
In the past, grizzly bears that came into conflict with humans in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were captured and relocated – often only a temporary solution. These authors analyzed the causes, types, and locations of grizzly bear-human conflicts. The majority of conflicts were associated with property damage/anthropogenic foods and livestock depredations. In this study, the majority of conflicts occurred from July through October. Managers could use this information predict and prevent conflicts.
Haroldson, M.A., K.A. Gunther, D.P. Reinhart, S.R. Podrunzny, C. Cegelski, L. Waits, T. Wyman, and J. Smith. 2005. Changing Numbers of Spawning Cutthroat Trout in Tributary Streams of Yellowstone Lake and Estimates of Grizzly Bears Visiting Streams from DNA. Ursus 16: 167-180.
Native cutthroat trout are an important, high-energy food source for grizzlies. In Yellowstone Lake, Lake trout are efficient predators, out-competing the native fish, resulting in a decline in cutthroat trout. Where cutthroat trout populations have declined, the number of grizzlies visiting the area has also declined. Therefore, controlling invasive fish species and protecting Cutthroat trout is important to protecting grizzly bears.
Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, G.C. White. 2009. Demography and Genetic Structure of a Recovering Grizzly Bear Population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 3-17.
This study of the grizzly population in northwestern Montana concludes that there were 765 bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (95% CI = 715831), which was more MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-13 September 2005, Revised 2010
bears in the area than previously thought. However, the human-caused mortality rate in 2004 of 4.6% was slightly above the sustainable rate of 4%. Results show that genetic interchange between populations has increased recently, but fragmentation of major transportation corridors may prevent this trend from continuing. Conclusions highlight the need for more rigorous monitoring.
Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, D.A. Roon, L.P. Waits, J.B. Boulanger, and D. Paetkau. 2008. Grizzly Bear Density in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 1693-1705.
Using genetic analysis, these authors estimate the current grizzly bear population in Glacier National Park. They determined that average grizzly bear density is 30 bears/1,000 km2, with 2.4 times more bears inside than outside Glacier National Park.
Mattson, D.J. and T. Merrill. 2004. A Model-Based Appraisal of Habitat Conditions for Grizzly Bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Region of Montana and Idaho. Ursus 15: 76 89.
The authors used models to predict the affect of human population increase on grizzly populations in the Cabinet-Yaak region of Montana. They conclude that as the human population increases in the region, the size of grizzly bear populations will be determined by the rate of human-caused deaths.
Mattson, D.J., S.R. Podruzny, and M.A. Haroldson. 2005. Consumption of Pondweed Rhizomes by Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Ursus 16: 41-46.
These scientists documented grizzlies eating Pondweed Rhizomes, previously only observed in Russia, which adds to research demonstrating that grizzlies eat a variety of foods.
Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, and T. Merrill. 2005. Are Black Bears a Factor in the Restoration of North American Grizzly Bear Populations? Ursus 16: 11-30.
This article assesses the potential for American black bears to limit the growth of severely reduced grizzly bear populations (ex. North Cascade, Selkirk, Cabinet-Yaak, Bitterroot recovery areas). In addition to human-caused mortality, competition from black bears could pose threats to grizzlies. Specifically, black bears and grizzly bears have many overlapping dietary needs, but because black bears are smaller they can exist in denser populations, require smaller ranges, and are more efficient in low-density berry patches. Grizzly bears overpower black bears in physical confrontations, but black bears can out-compete grizzlies for food.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-14 September 2005, Revised 2010
Mueller, C., S. Herrero, and M.L. Gibeau. 2004. Distribution of Subadult Grizzly Bears in Relation to Human Development in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta. Ursus 15: 35-47.
The authors studied the relationship between human development and the location of subadult grizzly bears. Both adults and subadults were closer to roads during human inactive periods than during human active periods. Subadult bears were closer to high-use roads and at lower elevations than adult bears. Because of this, subadult bears are more likely to come into conflict with humans, becoming habituated to humans, or be killed by humans.
Munro, R.H.M., S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Seasonal and Diel Patterns of Grizzly Bear Diet and Activity in West-Central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy, 87: 1112-1121.
Studying behavioral habits in west-central Alberta, researchers found that bears mostly foraged during crepuscular and diurnal periods, and bedded nocturnally. Bears selected forested areas for bedding areas, whereas digging, insect-foraging, and frugivory activities were associated with herbaceous, recently disturbed forest and open-canopy forests.
Nielsen, S.E., G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2006. A Habitat-based Framework for Grizzly Bear Conservation in Alberta. Biological Conservation 130: 217-229.
Habitat loss and human-caused mortality threaten Alberta’s grizzly bear population. Researchers identified indices of attractive sinks, safe harbor habitats, and five habitat states, suggesting that these indices be used to establish baseline data, to compare habitat conditions over time, and to identify grizzly bear conservation reserves. The authors suggest developing a no net loss policy for habitats threatened by human activities. Under such a plan, development of primary habitat could require restoration (decommissioning roads) of an equivalent amount of primary sinks.
Primm, S. and S.M. Wilson. 2004. Re-Connecting Grizzly Bear Populations: Prospects for Participatory Projects. Ursus 15: 104-114.
Isolated grizzly bear populations often have poor survival rates. Their survival depends on re-connection with other subpopulations through linkage habitat. The authors suggest working with local people to develop management and conservation programs.
Proctor, M.F., B.N. McLellan, C. Strobeck, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2005. Genetic Analysis Reveals Demographic Fragmentation of Grizzly Bears Yielding Vulnerably Small Populations. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 272: 24092416.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-15 September 2005, Revised 2010
The viability of grizzly bear populations requires demographic linkage. However, based on genetic studies of Canadian bears, a southern Canadian highway and associated settlements has disrupted the demographic connection between U.S. and Canadian bears. These genetically isolated, trans-border bear populations may be more threatened than previously thought. With these observations in mind, conservation management must include international connectivity management.
Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, G.C. White, R.B. Harris, S. Cherry, K.A. Keating, D. Moody, C. Servheen. 2006. Temporal, Spatial, and Environmental Influences on the Demographics of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 161: 1-68.
The grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has increased over the past two decades – what factors have contributed to the increased numbers and expanded range? Cub survival rates were highest for cubs living outside Yellowstone National Park, but within the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Survival rates were lowest for cubs outside the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Survival improved in areas with higher whitebark pine seed production, greater winter severity, larger litter size, and cubs born of older mothers.
Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines, and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2004. Landscape Permeability for Grizzly Bear Movements in Washington and Southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 15: 90-103.
Long term survival of grizzly populations requires opportunities for grizzlies to move between habitat blocks. These authors used mapping techniques to determine potential grizzly bear habitat in areas of Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia, then evaluated the permeability between these habitat blocks.
Stenhouse, G., J. Boulanger, J. Lee, K. Graham, J. Duval, and J. Cranston. 2005. Grizzly Bear Associations along the eastern slopes of Alberta. Ursus 16: 31-40.
These authors used Doncaster’s test to differentiate home range overlap in range use from mutual attraction in grizzly bears. Conclusions: grizzly bears spend a lot of time interacting with conspecifics, behavioral interactions are more complicated than we understand, and human activity could affect social behavior and reproduction.
Summerfield, B., W. Johnson, and D. Roberts. 2004. Trends in Road Development and Access Management in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Ursus 15: 115- 122.
Studying road density in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear recovery areas in 1975, 1987, and 2001, the authors found that road density peaked in 1987. At this time, the grizzly bear security core habitat was at its lowest level. However, since then, security core habitat has increased due to access management. Reducing the open and total road densities will MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-16 September 2005, Revised 2010
continue to increase security core habitat and therefore reduce human-caused grizzly mortality.
Waller, J.S. and C. Servheen. 2005. Effects of Transportation Infrastructure of Grizzly Bears in Northwestern Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 9851000.
Using GPS and aerial telemetry, Waller and Servheen evaluated the nature and extent of trans-highway grizzly bear movement along U.S. Highway 2 (Northwest Montana) as compared to highway and railroad traffic volumes. 52% of bears crossed highways, but an increase in traffic volume resulted in a decrease in grizzly crossings. Grizzlies avoid areas within 500 m of highways. When bears cross, they tend to cross at night, in flat areas, close to cover, and within grassland or deciduous forest vegetation.
Wakkinen, W.L., and W.F. Kasworm. 2004. Demographics and Population Trends of Grizzly Bears in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Ursus 15: 65-75.
Of 28 grizzly bear mortalities occurring in the Cabinet-Yaak between 1983 and 2002, 54% were human-caused. Of 40 grizzly bear mortalities occurring in the Selkirk Mountains during the same period, 80% were human-caused. The authors used radio collars to determine the demographics of Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear deaths.
Wilson, S.M., M.J. Madel, D.J. Mattson, J.M. Graham, J.A. Burchfield, and J.M. Belsky. 2005. Natural Landscape Features, Human-Related Attractants, and Conflict Hotspots: A Spatial Analysis of Human-Grizzly Bear Conflicts. Ursus 16: 117 129.
Studying the interactions between grizzlies and livestock producers in Montana’s Eastern Rocky Mountain Front, researchers found that most human-grizzly conflicts were near rivers and streams. Conflicts were also associated with sheep and cow pastures. A surprising number of conflicts occurred in riparian and wetland vegetation. The authors suggest that management and conservation efforts should focus on removing or protecting these grizzly attractants in the human-wildland interface.
USFS and USFWS. 2009. Guide to effects analysis of helicopter use in grizzly bear habitat. Montana/Northern Id, Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team. Final version. September 17, 2009. Unpubl. document. 18pp.
A Guide adopted by the Montana/Northern Idaho Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team for use throughout that geographic area. The Guide provides a synthesis of available scientific references pertaining to the effects of helicopter disturbance to grizzly bears. It also provides suggestions for consistent approaches to the analysis of helicopter-related environmental impacts to grizzly bear.
MT DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP Grizzly Bear Species Account 9-17 September 2005, Revised 2010