An Evaluation of the Influences to the Surrounding Grizzly Bear

Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 1

INFLUENCES OF THE SUMMER USE PROGRAM AT LAKE LOUISE MOUNTAIN RESORT ON THE SURROUNDING GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION

TREVOR CUTHBERT B.Sc., University of Calgary, 1994

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE in ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

...... Dr. Charles Krusekopf, MEM Academic Lead School of Environment and Sustainability

...... Dr. Vivienne Wilson, Senior Project Manager, Oil Sands Division (Calgary) Golder Associates Ltd.

...... Mr. Dave Poulton, Executive Director Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Calgary/Banff Chapter

...... Mr. Martin Jalkotzy, Senior Wildlife Ecologist Golder Associates Ltd.

...... Dr. Tony Boydell, Director School of Environment and Sustainability

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY

August 2006

Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 2

ABSTRACT

The Lake Louise area is a centre of tourism activities, including Lake Louise Mountain Resort (LLMR), within Banff National Park (BNP), Alberta. A significant population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) also inhabits this area due to the prevalence of high quality habitat, particularly around LLMR. Because of the limited overall habitat value in BNP and the sensitivity of grizzly bears to human presence, human activities in this high quality habitat area including the summer use operations at LLMR, could potentially reduce the viability of the grizzly bear population. This paper uses current knowledge of grizzly bear movement and behaviour patterns in the BNP/Lake Louise area to assess how the summer use program at LLMR may influence the local grizzly bear population and whether the bear management initiatives are effective. Potential additional management initiatives and areas of further study are suggested.

2 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to a number of people without whose cooperation and input I could not have completed this project.

Dave Poulton from CPAWS provided the original impetus and support for the project as well as much appreciated encouragement and positive feedback throughout the process. I’ve learned a great deal from Martin Jalkotzy – thank you for sharing your experience and expertise, and for your honest and constructive feedback. I owe heartfelt thanks to Dr. Vivienne Wilson for the guidance, patience, encouragement, and good humour she has shown me throughout the thesis process and the entire MEM program. Diane Van der Gucht at RRU unfailingly provided administrative support and answered all of my questions and concerns, always with a smile.

Ron Allen and Tracey Gage from RCR/Lake Louise Mountain Resort, thank you for your cooperation and for providing valuable perspective and honest feedback. All of the Parks Canada staff, and Will Devlin in particular, were extremely helpful in supplying me with any information I requested, or pointing me to where I would find it. Steve Donelon, Dr. Stephen Herrero, Dr. David Walker, Colleen Campbell and Cedar Mueller were a pleasure to talk to - they all provided valuable insights and expertise to deepen my understanding of the issue. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Mike Gibeau, who made invaluable contributions to my study design and was a constant source of information and guidance.

Thanks also to Jay Honeyman for his friendship throughout the MEM program and for his interest in and input to my thesis.

My family and friends have been wonderfully supportive and understanding over the past two years. And finally, to my wife and best friend Joanne, thank you for encouraging me to go through with the MEM program, for your love, patience, and compassion, and for sharing in this rewarding experience with me.

3 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ………………………………………………………………………...... 1

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………. 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………….… 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………... 4

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES ……………………………………………………... 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………. 7 1.01 Background ……………………………………………………………………… 7 1.02 Historical Development of LLMR ………………………………………………10 1.03 Grizzly Bears in the Lake Louise Area ………………………………………. 11 1.04 Recreational Use vs. Ecological Conservation ……………………………... 13 1.1 Research Problems ……………………………………………………………. 15 1.2 Research Objectives ………………………………………………………….. 16

2.0 STUDY AREA …………………………………………………………………… 16

3.0 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY …………………………. 19 3.01 Part 1: Literature review ……………………………………………………… 20 3.02 Part 2: Qualitative evaluation of summer use management plan ………… 20 3.03 Part 3: Assess results and develop recommendations for management ..………………………………………………………………... 21

4.0 CURRENT LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ………………………... 22 4.1 Biological and Behavioural Characteristics of Grizzly Bears in the CRE ...... 22 4.11 Nutrition and Reproduction …………………………………………………… 22 4.12 Grizzly Bear Dominance Hierarchies ………………………………………... 24 4.13 Population Differences ………………………………………………………… 25 4.2 Human Influences on Grizzly Bears ………………………………………... 26 4.21 Limitations of Existing Information …………………………………………… 26 4.22 Habituation ……………………………………………………………………… 27

4 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 5

4.23 Human-Caused Mortality ……………………………………………………… 28 4.24 Human Influences on Grizzly Bear Movement Trends …………………….. 31 4.25 Habitat Security and Effectiveness …………………………………………... 32 4.26 Controlling Human Use and Access …………………………………………. 35 4.3 Lake Louise Area ………………………………………………………………. 36 4.31 Potential Habitat Quality ………………………………………………………. 36 4.32 Human Influences in the Lake Louise Area ………………………………… 39 4.33 Individual Bears Used in Previous Studies at LLMR ………………………. 41 4.34 Grizzly Bear Movements on the LLMR Leasehold …………………………. 43

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF LLMR SUMMER USE PROGRAM ………………………………………………... 45 5.1 Hours and Dates of Operation ………………………………………………. 47 5.2 Access Roads ………………………………………………………………….. 48 5.21 Whitehorn Road ……………………………………………………………….. 48 5.22 Access Roads on the LLMR Leasehold …………………………………….. 51 5.23 Fish Creek Parking Lot ………………………………………………………... 52 5.3 Lodge Facilities ………………………………………………………………… 52 5.31 LLMR Base Area/Electric Fencing …………………………………………… 52 5.32 Whitehorn Lodge Concession Stand ………………………………………… 54 5.4 Gondola Operations …………………………………………………………… 55 5.41 Restricted Human Access on the Lower South Face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR …………………………………………………………… 56 5.42 Controlling Human Access above the Upper Gondola Terminal …………. 57 5.5 Interpretive Education Program …………………………………………….. 59 5.6 Construction & Maintenance Regimes …………………………………….. 61 5.61 Bear Protocol …………………………………………………………………… 61 5.62 Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………. 63 5.7 Additional Grizzly Bear Management Initiatives in the Lake Louise Area …………………………………………………………………………… 63 5.71 Aversive Conditioning …………………………………………………………. 63

5 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 6

5.72 Creating High Quality Habitat in Other Areas ………………………………. 64

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………………… 65 6.01 General Principles of Grizzly Bear Management in the CRE ……………... 65 6.02 Barriers ………………………………………………………………………….. 68 6.03 Future Grizzly Bear Management at LLMR …………………………………. 69

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………. 71

APPENDIX A ………………………………………………………………………… 80

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

Figure 1: Cumulative home ranges of a) female and b) male grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area for the 1994-2002 period ……………………….. 13

Figure 2: Lake Louise area of the Bow Valley including enlarged view of lower south face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR (inset) ……………….. 18

Figure 3: Human-caused female grizzly bear mortalities in BNP and the surrounding area for the periods a) 1972 – 1989 and b) 1990-2002, showing a concentration of mortalities in the Lake Louise area ………... 30

Figure 4: Distribution of potential and realized grizzly bear habitat in the Skoki LMU in a) May, b) August, and c) October ………………………… 37

Figure 5: Average distance from a) gondola and b) base lodge at LLMR for different grizzly bear age/sex cohorts between the Human Active and Human Inactive periods, 1998 - 2000 ………………………………... 44

Figure 6: Relative locations of wildlife corridors in the Lake Louise area ……… 49

Tables

Table 1: Habitat effectiveness status for LMUs surrounding LLMR ……………. 34

Table 2: Percent of home range in secure, high, medium and low quality habitat for female grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area of BNP ……….. 38

6 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01 Background The Lake Louise area is a centre of development and tourism activities in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park (BNP), Alberta. Infrastructure in the Lake Louise area include hotel accommodations at Lake Louise proper on the southwest side of the valley, major transportation routes and the hamlet of Lake Louise in the valley bottom, and Lake Louise Mountain Resort (LLMR) on the northeast side of the valley. BNP itself is within a greater ecological landscape known as the Central Rockies Ecosystem (CRE).

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is a species of special concern in the CRE. Because they have low reproductive potential, low dispersal, and require large home ranges, grizzly bears have low resilience to environmental stressors and are one of the first species lost to rapid or extensive habitat loss and fragmentation through human developments and activities (Benn, 1998; Gibeau, Clevenger, Herrero, & Wierzchowski, 2002; Stevens, 2002). Grizzly bear populations have historically persisted only in places where large areas of relatively secure habitat are retained and human-induced mortality is low (Stevens, 2002). As a result, grizzly bears are considered an umbrella species and are used as an ecological indicator for regional conservation planning to assess the effects of human land uses in the CRE (Weaver, Paquet, & Ruggerio, 1996). Protecting sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to maintain a viable grizzly bear population will confer protection to most other components of the ecosystem as well (Carroll, Noss, & Paquet, 2001; Gibeau, 2000; Noss, Quigley, Hornocker, Merrill, & Paquet, 1996). BNP supports a population of between 60 to 80 grizzly bears (Gibeau et al., 1996 as cited in Herrero, Roulet, & Gibeau, 2001).

BNP is divided into 27 Landscape Management Units (LMUs*) that use grizzly bear habitat effectiveness targets (based on plant food value as a measure of habitat quality) as a primary objective for planning and operations within the Park (Jalkotzy, Riddell, & Wierzchowski, 1999; Parks Canada, 2004a). The LMUs have an average size of

* These were originally referred to as Bear Management Units (BMUs) in the 1997 version of the Banff National Park Management Plan.

7 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 8 approximately 250 km2 - roughly equivalent to the average annual home range requirements of an adult female grizzly bear within BNP (Gibeau, 1998). Parks Canada’s management goals for grizzly bears in BNP (and other mountain parks) include: maintaining wary bears, maintaining adequate secure habitat, maintaining core reproductive areas (including the Lake Louise area), less than 1% human-caused grizzly mortality per year, and improving and maintaining habitat effectiveness and connectivity (Mueller, 2001; Parks Canada, 2004a).

National parks in Canada were originally selected for their scenic values for tourism and because they were least suited to human development, rather than because they represented the best habitat for sensitive species (Gibeau, 1998). Overall, BNP is not inherently prime grizzly bear habitat. Forty-eight percent of the total land base is considered unsuitable for grizzly bears (non-vegetated or above 2500m) (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001; Stevens, 2002). Vast tracts of wilderness existed outside of the park boundaries when the mountain national parks within the CRE were originally created and as such, developing communities and recreational facilities within the parks was considered appropriate (Parks Canada, 1994). The valley bottoms in the mountain parks were best suited to building infrastructure and are coincidentally also the best wildlife habitat. Human development within these habitat areas caused wildlife, including grizzly bears, to be displaced. Areas better suited to sustaining grizzly bears lie both to the east and west of BNP but these areas now sustain high levels of human use (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau, Herrero, McClellan, & Woods, 2001).

Human activities are correlated with changes in grizzly bear movement patterns and access to habitat (Gibeau et al., 2002; Mattson, Herrero, Wright, & Pease, 1996). Industrial activities adjacent to BNP include: resource extraction, agriculture and cattle production, timber harvesting, transportation routes, and outdoor recreation/tourism (Benn, 1998). The city of Calgary, located roughly 100 km southeast of the BNP boundary is home to approximately 1 million people and acts as the primary gateway for tourists visiting BNP and other areas in the CRE (Mueller, 2001). The town of Canmore, on the eastern boundary of BNP, contains approximately 11,450 residents and is

8 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 9 increasing at an annual rate of approximately 4%. Rapid growth of land development and use within grizzly bear habitat has significantly reduced the ability of the landscape to support bears, resulting in widespread alienation of grizzly bear habitat and decreased viability of grizzly bear populations (Gibeau, 2005b; Nielsen, Herrero, Boyce, Mace, Benn, Gibeau, & Jevons et al., 2004).

The mountain National Parks have become core habitat areas for sensitive species such as grizzly bears as a result of human developments in the surrounding landscape (Gibeau et al., 2001). However, humans are having a significant influence within BNP as well (Gibeau et al., 2002; Mueller, 2001). Twenty-five percent of the potential habitat in BNP has become unsuitable due to high human use (Gibeau et al., 2001). The town of Banff, with 7,150 permanent residents, is the most populated community in any North American national park, and another 1,500 people reside in the hamlet of Lake Louise (Parks Canada, 2004a). Annual visitation to BNP is over 4.5 million people, and another 4 million people are estimated to travel through the park en route to other destinations (Parks Canada, 2004a). Small recreational developments in the Park that have occurred over time were not considered a threat to the natural landscape; however, cumulatively they are having a substantial influence (Gibeau, 1998; Kellert, Black, Rush, & Bath, 1996). The increasing alienation of core habitat in BNP and the other mountain national parks of the CRE – an area of inherently limited overall habitat quality to begin with, is compromising the ability of the landscape to sustain a viable grizzly population (Gibeau, 1998).

The vast majority of the human developments in BNP, including LLMR, are located within the Bow Valley. The Bow Valley also acts as a critical corridor for wildlife movement and migration in BNP, cutting across the front and central ranges of the Rocky Mountains (Chruszcz, Clevenger, Gunson, & Gibeau, 2003). As a result of the highly developed infrastructure and transportation system in this area, the Bow Valley has become “… one of the most human-dominated landscapes in the world where a population of grizzly bears still survives” (Gibeau, 2000, p. 10).

9 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 10

1.02 Historical Development of LLMR Development in the Lake Louise area began in the 1880s with a “siding” site to serve the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Hemmera Resource Consultants [HRC], 1999). Tourists began arriving shortly thereafter, using the area that is now the LLMR for mountaineering, hiking, and skiing starting in the 1920s and ‘30s (HRC, 1999). The Temple Chalet (near the current site of Temple Lodge) was first built in 1938, with the first ski lifts (rope tow and poma) built on the adjacent Larch area in 1952 (HRC, 1999). The original gondola, constructed in the late 1950s, was initially developed for summer use, but was later expanded to include carrying skiers in the winter (HRC, 1999). The ski operations at LLMR expanded through the development of new runs, lifts and facilities and it is now an internationally-recognized resort destination.

The summer use program at LLMR has evolved over the years as a result of changes to visitor expectations, as well changes to the types of activities that are considered appropriate within a national park setting. Resorts of the Canadian Rockies (RCR - the owner of LLMR) currently markets LLMR as the “Home of the Grizzly Bear” for its summer use program (RCR, 2005). In 2005, the program included gondola operations from the base area to mid-mountain with a short introduction to the area presented to visitors before boarding the gondola. The introduction highlights the natural surroundings and wildlife, grizzly bears in particular. Etiquette to preserve the natural environment and to enhance visitor safety is also stressed. The upper gondola terminal provides access to sightseeing opportunities and hiking on the upper mountain area. Additional interpretive lectures, including guided hikes are also provided at the mid-mountain Whitehorn Lodge (RCR, 2005). Restaurant and gift shop services are available at the base lodge (Lodge of the Ten Peaks), and a concession stand operates at Whitehorn Lodge. During the 2005 season, the summer use program at LLMR ran from May 14th to September 30th (RCR, 2005).

The summer use program at LLMR is a significant tourist activity in BNP; with annual visitation of over 80,000 people, averaging between 400-1000 visitors per day (Mueller, 2001; Tremblay, 2001). Past growth in visitation at LLMR has been roughly

10 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 11 proportionate to general increases in BNP visitation, averaging 4.4% annually (HRC, 1999). An increase in visitation in the summer of 1993 corresponded with an expanded marketing strategy, as well as a change from using the original gondola to a higher capacity chairlift in 1992 (HRC, 1999). July and August are the key months for visitation, representing roughly 65-75% of summer visitor numbers (HRC, 1999).

The summer use program at LLMR provides stability to RCR’s seasonal winter revenues that may fluctuate due to poor or variable ski conditions (Needham & Rollins, 2005). In addition to the direct economic benefits the summer use program represents to LLMR and Parks Canada, it also creates revenue for many other local businesses and service providers (HRC, 1999). There are approximately 200 summer employees at LLMR (as compared to approximately 600 in winter) including maintenance, summer use and administration staff; but not including contractors, government workers and researchers, which vary depending on current projects (Ron Allen, personal communication, January 9th, 2006).

Maintenance and construction of facilities on the LLMR leasehold are also conducted over the summer months. These may involve repairs and upgrades to utilities (e.g. sewage lines), lodge facilities, ski lifts, and other infrastructure on the leasehold (e.g. snowmaking lines), as well as maintenance work on ski runs. Specific projects vary from year to year. Before any construction or maintenance project is initiated at LLMR, an environmental screening report (e.g. Iris Environmental Systems Inc., 2004; Jalkotzy, 2001; Lake Louise Mountain Resort Environmental Management Department [LLMR EMD], 2005) is required to identify potential environmental impacts of the project and how these will be addressed.

1.03 Grizzly Bears in the Lake Louise Area A prevalence of high quality grizzly bear habitat occurs in the Lake Louise area as a result of the unique combination of topography, watershed configuration, and associated vegetation communities (McClarty, 2001 as cited in Tremblay, 2001). In particular, LLMR and the immediate surrounding area contain a high concentration of grizzly bears.

11 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 12

This concentration of bears occurs in part because the openings in the forest canopy created by cleared ski runs allow for the growth of many attractive forage species (Mueller, 2001). The results of previous studies conducted in the Lake Louise area suggest that roughly a dozen grizzly bears are present in this area (Stevens & Gibeau, 2005). This figure is not static and changes in accordance with changes to the population structure (resulting from births, deaths, immigration and emigration) and due to annual and seasonal variations in habitat use.

The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) was initiated to gather information about the cumulative influence of human activities on the viability of the grizzly bear population throughout the CRE (Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, n.d.). The Lake Louise area has been a focus of study in the ESGBP because it is an area of concentrated grizzly bear activity and also an important node of tourism in BNP. The spring through fall period of grizzly bear activity in the Lake Louise area is short; green up occurs in early June and the growing season effectively ends in early September. Because of the overlap in land use between humans and bears during this period, human activities in areas of grizzly bear habitat have the potential to disrupt many critical life processes of the grizzly bear population. These include affecting reproductive (mating and cub rearing) activities, movement patterns, and access to foraging habitat critical to winter survival (Gibeau et al., 2002). Indications of stress in the grizzly population in the Lake Louise area have been found, including changes to reproductive patterns leading to decreased reproductive output (Gibeau, 2000).

The large majority of all grizzly bear mortalities in the region have been attributed to transportation-related human activities in close proximity to developments (Benn & Herrero, 2002). Human activities in grizzly bear habitat also create increased potential for interactions between grizzly bears and humans, affecting the safety of both the bears and humans involved (Gibeau et al., 2002). This potential is particularly high in the Lake Louise area due to the large number of subadult bears there, which are predisposed to being in close proximity to human activities and development. The increased mortality

12 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 13 risk for these sub-adult bears could be detrimental to the viability of the grizzly bear population, as subadults represent the future of the population (Gibeau, 2000).

Figure 1: Cumulative home ranges of a) female and b) male grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area for the 1994-2002 period (Stevens & Gibeau, 2005. Used by permission.).

The cumulative home ranges for female and male grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area between 1994 to 2002 are depicted in Figure 1. Tremblay (2001) found that in 2000, the LLMR leasehold was contained within the home range of every radio collared female grizzly bear in the Lake Louise area. The majority of the facilities and activities offered at LLMR occur in the lower elevation, montane and sub-alpine zones of the mountain, which are also prime grizzly bear habitat (Chruszcz et al., 2003).

1.04 Recreational Use vs. Ecological Conservation Parks Canada has the authority under the Banff National Park Management Plan (2004) to manage all uses within BNP. Section 5.8 of the Plan specifically states Parks Canada’s goal to implement a strategy for summer use at ski areas within BNP to support the long- term viability of the ski areas. However, impacts to ecological integrity must be minimized including considerations for habitat security, wildlife movements and human-

13 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 14 wildlife conflicts (Parks Canada, 2004a). Within the Canada National Parks Act (2000), Section 4(1) states that the national parks are “…dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment … and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The Act also states in section 8(2) that the “maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority … when considering all aspects of the management of parks.” These statements illustrate the two apparently disparate objectives, and the associated polarized public views of the management of national parks in Canada - recreational use and ecological conservation. Both statements are open to interpretation, with the former statement most often used to lend support to recreational development in the park, and the latter most often quoted by those who oppose it (HRC, 1999).

These dichotomous views extend to the summer use program at LLMR. One view is that the ski area is critical grizzly bear habitat and that the summer use operations, as part of the cumulative effects of all the developments in the region, are adversely impacting the viability of the local grizzly bear population. The summer program, from this perspective, increases potential for human-bear conflict and thus should be eliminated (HRC, 1999). The other view is of the summer use program as a positive influence that should continue based on tourism interests and economic benefits to LLMR, BNP, and local businesses. This perspective holds that the summer use program provides stability to seasonal ski season revenues; and that the development of ski runs has created excellent grizzly bear habitat (HRC, 1999). It has also been suggested and is stated as a management objective by Parks Canada in the Banff National Park Management Plan (2004) that maintaining current high use attractions (e.g. the summer use program at LLMR) will ensure controlled human use of the area and will reduce human access and development in backcountry areas of BNP.

Past reports on the influences of human activities on the grizzly bear population in the Lake Louise area have recommended the closure of the recreational summer use program at LLMR (Olson & Olson, 1999; Tremblay, 2001). However, Jalkotzy et al. (1999)

14 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 15 suggested that the closure of the summer use program at LLMR by itself would be insufficient to provide needed increases to habitat effectiveness for the area because the maintenance regimes would still represent a significant level of human activity. Though Parks Canada gave some consideration to shutting down the summer sightseeing gondola at LLMR in the late 1990s (Herrero et al., 2001), there is currently a lack of administrative will to do this based on the social and economic implications of closing the program. Because of this, it is more feasible to recommend adjustments to the program that will reduce its influences on grizzly bears and the surrounding ecology.

Grizzly bear management is based on knowledge of grizzly bear behaviour and ecology. This information is used not so much to manage the grizzly bears themselves, but instead to manage human activities and development in grizzly bear habitat to mitigate negative influences on grizzly bear population viability (Gibeau, 2000). In recent times, many bear management initiatives have been implemented at LLMR to reduce the influences that human activities on the leasehold have on the grizzly bears in the area. These include electric fencing around the base area and restricting the timing and locations of human activities on the leasehold. LLMR staff are also involved in consultation processes for other grizzly bear management issues within BNP, such as the Interdisciplinary Problem Solving (IPS) Workshops* (Ron Allen, personal communication, May 1st, 2006).

1.1 Research Problems What are the cumulative effects of the current summer-use activities at LLMR to the life processes and thus, the viability of the local grizzly bear population? Which aspects of the summer use program at LLMR represent the most significant impacts on the grizzly bear population in the surrounding area? Have the bear management initiatives that have been implemented at LLMR been effective in reducing potential impacts to local grizzly bears? Are there changes that could be made to the summer use program to further reduce impacts that may be occurring?

* The IPS Workshops are a multistakeholder forum initiated by Parks Canada to encourage collaborative solutions to grizzly bear management issues within BNP (Mike Gibeau, personal communication, June 22nd, 2006).

15 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 16

1.2 Research Objectives The goal of this study is to qualitatively evaluate whether aspects of the summer use program at LLMR may be affecting the life processes of the grizzly bears in the area, and if the current grizzly bear management strategy is effective in reducing negative influences of the program. These findings will be used to identify if changes could be made to the summer use program, and to evaluate the effectiveness of different human use scenarios at LLMR in reducing impacts on grizzly bears. Recommendations will be formulated for changes to LLMR’s summer use program that would most effectively reduce the ecological impacts to grizzly bears. A discussion of relevant social and economic factors that will influence the feasibility of any future changes to the summer use program is included in the recommendations. The results will also be relevant to assist in future long range planning, management, and environmental assessment processes at LLMR (Martin Jalkotzy, personal communication, January 19th, 2006); and may also form the basis for ecologically-appropriate summer use visitor programs at other ski areas.

2.0 STUDY AREA LLMR is located approximately 180 km west of Calgary in BNP, within the Rocky Mountains along the western edge of southern Alberta, Canada. BNP itself is within a greater ecological region known as the CRE, which is bordered by the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains in SW Alberta and the Columbia Valley in SW British Columbia. The north border of the CRE is formed by the Saskatchewan River drainage (roughly associated with highway 11 and the northern boundary of BNP), and the south border is formed by the Oldman River drainage (approximately along 50° North latitude at the south end of the Kananaskis Country region of Alberta). Although the CRE grizzly bear population is isolated from populations to the west, there is population exchange to the north and south (Gibeau et al., 2001).

The climate in the CRE is continental with long, cold winters and short, cool summers (Gibeau, 1998; Gibeau et al., 2001). The CRE is characterized by highly variable topography including rugged mountain slopes, steep-sided ravines and flat valley bottoms

16 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 17

(Gibeau et al., 2001). Due to the strong gradient in elevation, a diverse array of localized microclimates exist within the CRE, with plant communities strongly influenced by aspect, elevation, topography, and soil conditions (Gibeau, 1998; Gibeau et al., 2001). Five general categories of vegetative cover occur in the region: conifer forest, deciduous forest, shrub (i.e. shrub & avalanche slope), grassland, and non-vegetated (e.g. rock and ice) (Nielsen et al., 2004). A large proportion of the land area in the CRE is non- vegetated, particularly at higher elevations. Based on vegetative cover type and elevation, there are three main ecozones in the CRE (Gibeau, 1998; Gibeau et al., 2001; Stevens, 2002). The montane ecozone (1300-1600 m) is dominated by dry grasslands, wet shrubland, and forests of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white spruce (Picea glauca), and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). Subalpine areas (1600-2300 m) are forested with mature stands of lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and subalpine larch (Laris lyallii), interspersed by areas of wetland shrub. Vegetation in the alpine ecozone (>2300 m) is patchy and is characterized by a mosaic of low shrubs and herbs.

In addition to grizzly bears, a number of other large carnivore and ungulate species are found in the CRE including cougar (Puma concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (C. latrans), wolverine (Gulo gulo), black bear (Ursus americanus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. viginianus), elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (Land Use Planning Unit [LUPU], 2004; Mueller, 2001).

LLMR is within the Bow Valley (Figure 2). The Bow Valley cuts across the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains through BNP and is a major east-west corridor for wildlife movement, as well as for human transportation (highway and rail). There is a high level of human development in this valley and the Lake Louise area in particular contains a concentration of human development that spans the entire width of the valley. LLMR occupies the northeast side of the valley, hotel accommodations and visitor services exist at Lake Louise proper and Moraine Lake on the southwest side, and the

17 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 18 valley bottom contains the hamlet of Lake Louise with associated campgrounds, hotels, commercial developments and other tourist facilities. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), the Trans-Canada highway (TCH), and other secondary roadways bisect the valley. A network of trails and backcountry campgrounds and lodges are also present in the area.

Figure 2: Lake Louise area of the Bow Valley including enlarged view of lower south face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR (inset) (Jalkotzy, 2001. Photo used by permission).

18 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 19

The LLMR area consists of approximately 18 km2, leased by Resorts of the Canadian Rockies (RCR) from Parks Canada. This leasehold occurs over the front (Whitehorn) and back (Ptarmigan) faces of Whitehorn Mountain, as well as the Temple and Richardson (Larch) faces of Lipalian Mountain. With a base elevation of roughly 1,650 m, rising to approximately 2,650 m at the summit (RCR, 2005), LLMR encompasses terrain over the montane, sub-alpine and alpine ecozones. The tourism-based summer use operations at LLMR are focused on the front (Whitehorn) face, in the lower montane and sub-alpine zones. Access into the Skoki backcountry is through the Temple area, though this activity is not specifically associated with the recreational summer use program provided by LLMR. Summer maintenance for the ski operations occurs over all mountain faces.

3.0 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY A number of previous studies (e.g. Donelon, 2004; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001) have analyzed or discussed aspects of the summer use program at LLMR within the broader context of grizzly bear ecology and responses to human use within the Bow Valley. These studies provide broad conclusions and recommendations for the Lake Louise area. The purpose of this study is to collate and analyze the results of previous investigations to provide an integrated understanding of the influences of the LLMR summer use program on grizzly bears. Based on this analysis, I will qualitatively evaluate whether modifications can be made to the program to further reduce these influences. The recommended modifications to the program and other management actions to reduce impacts to the local grizzly population incorporate discussion of the socioeconomic factors that must be considered in evaluating the options. Aspects of the summer use program at LLMR that are examined include: • Hours/dates of operation; • Access roads; • Lodge facilities; • Gondola operations; • Interpretive education program; and • Maintenance regimes.

19 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 20

Information was gathered using a combination of methods outlined below:

3.01 Part 1: Literature review 1. A review of graduate theses, peer-reviewed papers, consultant reports, and planning documents on human influences to the grizzly bear population in the BNP/Bow Valley region was conducted. These provide an understanding of the overall ecology and behaviour of grizzly bears in this region. As grizzly bears that use the LLMR area are affected by factors outside of LLMR, the results provide context for the cumulative impacts that human uses in the Lake Louise area have on the grizzly bear population that uses LLMR as habitat. 2. A review of graduate theses, peer-reviewed papers, consultant reports, and planning documents relating specifically to human influences to the grizzly bear population in the Lake Louise area (with particular emphasis on those that address individual aspects of the summer use program at LLMR) was conducted. These are used to identify why the region is important grizzly bear habitat, what the effects of different aspects of the summer use program at LLMR (and other surrounding uses) have on the local grizzly bear population, and what potential measures exist to further reduce these effects. 3. Peer-reviewed papers relating to summer use operations at other ski areas and other human activities that may influence grizzly bears were reviewed. Their results are relevant to the social and economic implications of summer use at LLMR, as well as potential considerations for grizzly bear management.

3.02 Part 2: Qualitative evaluation of summer use management plan 1. The current summer use program and grizzly bear management strategy at LLMR were reviewed in the context of existing scientific information as well as Parks Canada protocols for grizzly bear management in order to identify gaps that may exist and additional management actions that could be initiated. 2. Interviews were conducted with wildlife experts and grizzly bear researchers, as well as with Parks Canada and LLMR management to gain perspectives on the

20 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 21

effectiveness of current management strategies (e.g. electric fencing, restricted human access on the lower mountain), as well as other management actions that may be applicable. These interviews were also helpful in identifying the ecological, as well as social and economic factors and processes that needed to be considered in the evaluation. Considerations of human influences outside of the LLMR leasehold were included as these influence management decisions at LLMR.

3.03 Part 3: Assess results and develop recommendations for management 1. The results from Parts 1 and 2 were then integrated to obtain an overall assessment of the ecological impacts of the summer use program at LLMR on the grizzly bear population. Gaps were identified in the existing ecological information that require further study. Ecological considerations formed the basis for determining which aspects of the program should be modified to reduce impacts. However important social and economic components associated with the summer use program at LLMR, including the repercussions of potential modifications to the summer use management strategy, are also considered. 2. Recommendations are made to direct future management actions to mitigate impacts to grizzly bears related to the summer use operations at LLMR based on this overall assessment. The recommendations are designed to reduce potential negative ecological effects and present future opportunities for improvements to the program from an ecological and socioeconomic standpoint. Current areas of good practice at LLMR that should be continued, and where possible enhanced, are also highlighted. 3. Elements that should be considered as a general framework for the development of summer use visitor programs at other ski areas to minimize their ecological impacts to grizzly bears are proposed from the LLMR recommendations.

21 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 22

4.0 CURRENT LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 4.1 Biological and Behavioural Characteristics of Grizzly Bears in the CRE 4.11 Nutrition and Reproduction A basic knowledge of the life needs of grizzly bears is integral to their conservation (Primm & Clark, 1996). The limits of the active season for grizzly bears in the CRE are approximately April 15th to November 30th. The preberry season is defined as den emergence to July 15th and the berry season is from July 16th to den entrance (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Stevens, 2002; Theberge, Herrero, & Jevons, 2005). Key understory plant species used as forage by grizzly bears in the CRE in spring to early summer include early green-up sedges and grasses, horsetail (Equisetum arvense), cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum), and bearroot (Hedysarum spp.) (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001; Weaver et al., 1996). During the late summer and fall grizzly bears forage voraciously on buffaloberry (Sheperdia canadensis), grouseberry (Vaccinium spp.), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), other berry-producing shrubs, and pine seeds (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001; Weaver et al., 1996). Buffaloberry is fed on almost exclusively when it is available. The diet for this grizzly bear population has a proportionately high component of vegetation, with no consistent source of animal protein; however grizzly bears will scavenge carrion and feed on elk calves (in early summer), ants and other insects, and rodents when these are accessible (Weaver et al., 1996). Berries, which are the primary food source for grizzly bears in the CRE, are not always available in high densities due to annual climatic variations. This impedes the bears’ ability to achieve the necessary levels of weight gain and fat deposition required for successful hibernation and reproduction* (Herrero, 2005b; Weaver et al., 1996). As a result, the reproductive potential, and thus the population viability, of the grizzly bear population in the CRE is limited (Garshelis et al., 2005; Gibeau et al, 2001; Noss et al., 1996).

Habitat quality based on vegetation productivity contributes directly to the nutritional condition of grizzly bears in the CRE. This influences their overall reproductive rate by

* Grizzly bears mate in late May to mid-July; the embryo does not implant until November-December, and only if sufficient fat reserves are available (Tremblay, 2001).

22 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 23 affecting the ages of first and last reproduction, litter size and breeding interval (Mueller, 2001). Of these parameters, the age of first reproduction is most sensitive to local food conditions - bears in less productive areas first reproduce at a later age (Ferguson & McLoughlin, 2000 as cited in Garshelis, Gibeau, & Herrero, 2005). Compared to the average age of first reproduction for other grizzly bear populations at the same latitude (between 5.5 to 6.1 years [Ferguson & McLoughlin, 2000 as cited in Garshelis et al., 2005]), the grizzly bear population in the Bow Valley exhibits a delayed age of first reproduction averaging 6.7 years (Garshelis et al., 2005; Mueller, 2001). The average age for producing a first surviving litter is 8.4 years. The female reproductive age span for Bow Valley grizzly bears is approximately age 6 to 27 years (Garshelis et al., 2005). Adult female bears produce a mean of 1.8 cubs per litter, which is near the low edge of the observed range for interior populations (1.6 to 2.5 cubs per litter) (Garshelis et al., 2005; Weaver et al., 1996). The Bow Valley grizzly bear population also has the longest observed interval between litters at an average of 4.4 years, with a maximum value of 7 to 8 years (Garshelis et al., 2005; Mueller, 2001). The survival and reproductive success (i.e. the recruitment of some of their offspring into the population) of adult females are the most important factors affecting the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population (Mueller, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2004). Though cub survival is average or above (79%) for the Bow Valley grizzly bear population due to an extended maternal dependency, this grizzly bear population has a low reproductive rate with the lowest potential lifetime cub production reported for the species (Ferguson & McLoughlin, 2000 as cited in Garshelis et al., 2005; Stevens, 2002).

Grizzly bears in the CRE must move widely to access resources because of the low concentration of high quality habitat (Gibeau, 2000; Weaver et al., 1996). As a result, they have large home ranges, averaging 309 km2 (Stevens, 2002). This increases their likelihood of coming into contact with humans, which can further disrupt the already limited opportunities to forage (Garshelis et al., 2005; Gibeau et al, 2001; Noss et al., 1996). Large home range size also translates into low grizzly bear population density, roughly estimated to be in the range of 1.0 to 1.6 bears per 100 km2 (Benn, 1998; Herrero, 1994 as cited in Mueller, 2001). The combination of low reproductive potential

23 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 24 and low population density drastically limits the ability of this population to recover from declines (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001; Weaver et al., 1996).

4.12 Grizzly Bear Dominance Hierarchies Social hierarchies based on age, gender, reproductive status, and relationship to other bears play a large role in dispersal patterns and habitat selection by different grizzly bear age and sex cohorts (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Mattson, 1990 as cited in Mueller, 2001). Adult males are the most dominant, followed by adult females with cubs, adult females, subadult males, and subadult females as the most subordinate cohort (Mueller, 2001). Adult grizzly bears, males in particular, alter their movement patterns to spatially and temporally avoid humans (Gibeau, 2000). As a result, adult male grizzly bears dominate high quality habitat (e.g. shrub habitat and avalanche slopes), especially in areas of high security (i.e. backcountry) (Mueller, 2001; Nevin & Gilbert, 2005). In order to avoid dominant adult male bears, subordinate cohorts, particularly subadult bears and adult females with cubs*, are inclined to be in poorer quality habitats near human activity and development (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Mueller, 2001). Subordinate bears also use temporal spacing to avoid other bears (Mueller, 2001). In areas of human presence, subadults and adult females with cubs are more active than other bears during the day (diurnal); whereas adult males tend to use these areas at more preferred hours when humans are not active (e.g. early morning).

Mueller (2001) found subadult grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area to be generally closer to areas of high human use, more visible, and further from high quality habitat than adult grizzly bears, especially during the preberry season. In general, male bears in the CRE tend to be found closer to roads and trails than females, regardless of age; whereas females (as the most risk averse cohort) remain closer to high use developments to avoid male bears (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001). These trends are most pronounced in areas of high quality habitat and during periods of human inactivity (Gibeau et al., 2002).

*Adult females with cubs will avoid other grizzly bears and other forms of wildlife for cub safety, despite having increased food requirements.

24 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 25

Nevin & Gilbert (2005) suggested that human presence may allow for increased access to high quality habitat for subordinate grizzly bears through the displacement of dominant adult males, providing the human activity is consistent and predictable. This could result in increased reproductive potential; although the increased movement and vigilant behaviour associated with human presence may impact feeding efficiency and energy expenditure (Gibeau & Stevens, 2005; Mueller, 2001; Nevin & Gilbert, 2005). Some evidence of this has been observed in the CRE. Human developments in the CRE tend to be in high quality habitat areas that are at lower elevation and green up earlier in the spring. This allows subadult grizzlies (especially males), that are more likely to be near humans, to use these high quality habitat areas more than adults during the preberry season (Mueller, 2001). However, Nevin & Gilbert’s (2005) study was conducted at a bear-viewing operation in an area of coastal British Columbia with abundant food resources where the presence of humans was intensively managed for consistency and predictability. Conversely, in the CRE it is critical for grizzly bears to have undisturbed access to habitat with sufficient nutritional resources; and the high level of human presence does not allow human activities to be strictly managed. As a result, parallels between the grizzly bear population used in Nevin & Gilbert’s (2005) study and the CRE population are likely limited.

4.13 Population Differences Differences in local habitat conditions and learned behaviours between grizzly bear populations, sub-populations, and individuals lead to high variability in their behaviour and activity patterns (Mattson et al., 1996). These differences affect their potential to adapt to human-induced changes to the landscape (Donelon, 2004; Mueller, 2001). Donelon (2004) found evidence of differences in spatiotemporal habitat use between the grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area and another grizzly bear subpopulation in the Bow Valley. It is thus necessary to recognize the potential site and subpopulation-specific variables that may influence the specific responses of grizzly bears to human activity in the Lake Louise area (Donelon, 2004).

25 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 26

4.2 Human Influences on Grizzly Bears Numerous GIS-based studies have examined the effects of various levels and distributions of human activity on patterns of grizzly bear mortality and movement within the Bow Valley and the greater CRE region. These have focused on whether grizzly bears alter their activity spatially and temporally in response to human activity at a statistically significant level, and whether thresholds exist for the influence of human presence on grizzly bear behaviour. The results of these studies provide the ecological context that the summer use at LLMR operates within.

4.21 Limitations of Existing Information Understanding of the effects of specific tourism-oriented activities and developments on grizzly bear populations is limited (Gibeau, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2004). A number of sources of error or bias are associated with the study of grizzly bear movement and behaviour trends in the CRE. Bias is potentially associated with the small sample sizes and capture methods used. The family groups captured in the Lake Louise area have been targeted because they were known residents of the area, and may not represent a true ‘sample’ of the population (Mueller, 2001). It is possible that other adult female grizzly bears are present in the area and do not exhibit the same movement patterns as the bears studied; though Mueller (2001) noted that no other adult females were observed during the study period.

Biases may be present in the collection of telemetry data due to access limitations for ground databases*, costs of data collection for aerial databases, and GPS inaccuracies resulting from dense canopy cover (Donelon, 2004; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). The monitoring techniques used in the studies and the variables chosen for quantitative assessment may have influenced the results (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). As well, the accuracy of the models produced was dependent upon the scale of the habitat map that was used. The distances from human use areas do not account for topographical barriers; errors and omissions may also be present in the human use data due to the rapid

* Grizzly bear research and monitoring is difficult because these animals prefer densely-vegetated backcountry areas.

26 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 27 rate of human development in the CRE (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). The results indicate patterns of grizzly bear movements and locations, but do not account for specific activities or behaviour. Where possible, efforts have been made to account for sources of error during the calculation of results (e.g. weighing of data) (Mueller, 2001). Despite the uncertainty involved with these studies, their results represent a useful first step towards understanding the influences of human presence on grizzly bear habitat use (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mattson et al., 1996).

4.22 Habituation Human presence influences grizzly bear dispersal, especially in areas with high levels of human activity such as the Bow Valley. Grizzly bears exhibit a range of tolerances to human presence, leading some individuals to be in close proximity to human activities and developments (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). If these individuals do not exhibit a response or caution to human presence in close proximity, they are termed to be habituated (Mattson, 1992 as cited in Gibeau, 2000). Habituation was defined by Jope (1985 as cited by Mueller, 2001, p. 58) as “a decline in an animal’s response following repeated exposure to an inconsequential stimulus”. Though habituated grizzly bears are able to more successfully use habitat closer to humans, they have a 3 times greater likelihood of human-caused mortality than wary bears, and thus have lower chances of survival or reproductive success (Mattson et al., 1992 as cited in Gibeau, 2000).

Social dominance hierarchies play a role in the likelihood and level of habituation (Gibeau et al., 2002). Compared to adult male bears, subadults (especially males) and females with young are more likely to be in close proximity to human activities and developments, and are disproportionately affected by habituation (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). This indicates that habituation potential is inversely correlated to dominance. The higher likelihood of habituation leads to increased potential for human- caused mortality for subadult and females with young, which are both important cohorts to the long-term survival of the population (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Gibeau & Stevens, 2005; Mueller, 2001). Subadult bears are particularly likely to be in close contact with humans when trying to establish individual home ranges (Mueller, 2001).

27 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 28

Though few habituated bears and no food-conditioned* bears were reported in studies conducted in the CRE as part of the ESGBP, this pattern of grizzly bear responses to humans was observed (Gibeau & Stevens, 2005).

Habituated bears do not take advantage of high quality habitat the same way wary bears do. They exhibit higher overall movement rates and spend less time in high quality habitat, while spending more time in close proximity to human developments (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau & Stevens, 2005; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The combination of habituated bears having higher movement rates and using lower quality habitat can reduce the net energy available for growth and reproduction. As the reproductive output of grizzly bears in the Bow Valley is already low, this could reduce the long term viability of the regional population (Gibeau & Stevens, 2005; Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

Both learned behaviour (i.e. experience) and genetic disposition influence an individual bear’s habituation potential and responses to disturbances. This suggests that grizzly bears could be best managed at the level of the individual; however this would involve extensive study and monitoring that requires economic resources that are currently unavailable (Alcock, 1989 as cited in Mueller, 2001). Dealing with habituation in the Lake Louise area will be a long-term challenge. Grizzly bears in this area exhibit an increased tolerance of human activity, and a trend towards increasing habituation has been observed (Mueller, 2001; Tremblay, 2001).

4.23 Human-Caused Mortality Human-caused mortalities are the greatest threat to grizzly bear persistence because humans are generally intolerant of grizzly bears due to competing land use and potential for injury (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau, 2005a). Human-caused grizzly bear mortality is a function of the rate of human encounters and the mortality risk of each encounter (Mattson, 1996); with the former related to the number and distribution of people, and the latter related to their attitudes and behaviour (Apps, McClellan, Woods, & Proctor, 2004;

* Food-conditioned refers to habituated bears that, through feeding on human food or garbage, associate human presence with potential food sources and are thus likely to approach people (Herrero, 2003).

28 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 29

Kellert et al., 1996). An increase in human encounters leads to a proportional increase in habituation potential and risk of human injury, both of which contribute to increased grizzly bear mortality (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). As the level of human presence increases in the Bow Valley, the grizzly bear population is susceptible to rising mortality risk that will reduce the potential viability of this population, especially in light of its low productivity and resilience (Benn, 1998).

All of the human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in Banff and Yoho National Parks from 1971 to 1998 were within 500 m of roads or 200 m of trails; 80% of these were below 2000 m elevation (Benn, 1998; Benn & Herrero, 2002). The majority of these mortalities have occurred during the berry season, which also coincides with the peak tourist season (Benn & Herrero, 2002). This may be correlated to the occurrence of buffaloberry at lower elevations, often near human developments. A high percentage of the mortalities also involved subadult bears. Subadult grizzly bears have less previous experience with humans and tend to be in closer proximity to humans to avoid other bears; whereas adult grizzly bears exhibit a higher level of avoidance behaviour (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001). Subadult males are particularly susceptible to mortality because they disperse more widely from their maternal home range than females and they encounter more unfamiliar territory (Mueller, 2001; Stevens, 2002). These trends suggest that sustainable grizzly bear mortality levels in the Bow Valley can best be achieved through managing human use and access (Benn, 1998; Herrero, 2005b; Weaver et al., 1996).

Due to the low reproductive rate for grizzly bears in the Bow Valley, management efforts must focus on survival through increased habitat and decreased mortality, especially for females (Garshelis et al., 2005; Gibeau, 2000). From 1971 to 1998, overall grizzly bear mortality in BNP decreased, but there was a higher proportion of female mortality (Benn & Herrero, 2002). From 1994 to 2002, human-caused mortality averaged 80% of the total grizzly bear mortality in the Bow Valley, and 41% of the total human-caused mortality involved females (Gibeau, 2005a; Herrero, 2005b). It is generally accepted that the maximum female mortality for grizzly bears should be 30% or less of the total mortality,

29 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 30 with 95% of all individual female grizzly bears surviving to ensure a sustained population (Gibeau, 2005a; Mattson et al., 1996).

30 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 31

Within the Bow Valley, the Lake Louise region contains a high number of female grizzly bears and has also been an area of concentrated human-caused female grizzly bear mortality over the long term (Figure 3) (Benn, 1998; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Nielsen et al., 2004).

4.24 Human Influences on Grizzly Bear Movement Trends Significant differences exist in grizzly bear responses to human presence based on the type and intensity of human activity (e.g. roads, developments, etc.), the distance between the activity and the bear, proximity to high quality habitat, time of day, age and sex class of the grizzly bear, its reproductive status, inherited tolerance, and individual personality and experience (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001). Grizzly bears in the Bow Valley change their spatial and temporal patterns of movement and habitat use to avoid areas and periods of human development and activity, especially when these are predictable (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Mueller, 2001). Previous studies conducted in the Bow Valley (e.g. Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001) have used values in the range of 7AM to 6PM for the human active (HA) period, and vice versa for the human inactive (HI) period. Grizzly bears in the Bow Valley select habitat close to human uses (roads, trails, and facilities) less than expected (-86%) during the HA period, and higher than expected during the HI period, especially if near high quality habitat (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000). These bears move significantly less during darkness (i.e. the HI period) compared to daytime, possibly due to either bedding down or uninterrupted feeding periods during times of decreased human disturbance (Gibeau, 2000; Donelon, 2004). The trend of grizzly bears underutilizing high quality habitat during the HA period is most pronounced in association with high use developments* (Gibeau et al., 2002). This has been shown for all grizzly bear age and sex classes, but on average subadults bears are displaced less than adults (Mueller, 2001).

A great deal of study has been done in the Bow Valley and other parts of the CRE on the influence of roads to grizzly bear movements. Roads become an impediment and eventually a barrier to grizzly bear movements as levels of human activity (i.e. traffic

* LLMR would be considered a high use development in Gibeau’s (2002) study.

31 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 32 volumes) increase (Apps et al., 2004; Chruszcz et al., 2003). In the Bow Valley, the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH) is a source of human-caused mortality and impedes grizzly bear movements, particularly females, with traffic volumes that may exceed 25, 000 vehicles per day during the peak summer season (Chruszcz et al., 2003). The secondary highways in the area - the Bow Valley Parkway (BVP – highway 1A) and highway 93N do not receive as much traffic as the TCH, but these roads are also impediments to grizzly bear movements and sources of human-caused mortality, especially during the day when traffic volumes are high (Chruszcz et al., 2003).

Large, contiguous areas of prime grizzly bear habitat naturally occur in the lower elevation montane ecozone (i.e. valley bottom) in BNP (Gibeau, 2000). However, these areas are also dominated by human activities, developments, and transportation routes - particularly in the Lake Louise area. As a result, grizzly bears are forced to either spend more time in less productive higher elevation sub-alpine environments or risk being in close cohabitation with humans (Benn, 1998; Chruszcz et al., 2003; Donelon, 2004). Grizzly bears in BNP are found at lower elevations and use high quality habitat close to human activities greater than random, particularly during the HI period (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001; Stevens, 2002). This indicates that accessing high quality habitat is a strong attractant that can prevail over wariness of humans.

4.25 Habitat Security and Effectiveness The type, distribution, and cumulative influence of human developments can significantly compromise habitat security and effectiveness (Gibeau, 1998; Gibeau, 2000; Chruszcz et al., 2003). Zones of influence (buffer zones of 500 m surrounding areas of motorized human activities and 200 m around non-motorized activities) occupy 25% of the suitable habitat in the national park portion of the CRE (Benn, 1998). Habitat security within BNP is actually lower than the average for the CRE (Gibeau, 2000; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Several grizzly bears’ home ranges in BNP have low security due to fragmentation and small habitat patch size. The loss of secure habitat areas resulting from human disturbances can reduce feeding efficiency, increase movement and energy expenditure, reduce fecundity, and increase risk of mortality and habituation - all leading to lower

32 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 33 survivorship and recruitment of individuals into the local grizzly bear population (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000). The effects of habitat alienation on grizzly bear population viability may be more subtle, but are at least as important as direct human- caused mortalities (Gibeau, 2000).

Grizzly bears need to be allowed to forage for 24 to 48 consecutive hours with a low probability of human disturbance (i.e. high foraging efficiency and low movement) to meet their energy requirements for metabolism, growth and reproduction, and have decreased risk of habituation and human-caused mortality (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau, 2005b; Stevens, 2002). Secure areas need to encompass a full range of seasonal habitats and should include a core area (based on the above minimum foraging radius) surrounded by a disturbance-free buffer zone (based on zones of influence) (Stevens, 2002; Weaver et al., 1996). Secure habitat areas are vegetated (i.e. high greenness, high nutritional potential), below 2500m elevation, at least 500 m from high human use, and with contiguous habitat greater than 9 km2 - the average daily foraging requirements of an adult female grizzly bear (Gibeau et al., 2001). These also need to be regularly distributed with a high degree of connectivity, preferably having broad elastic linkages rather than defined, narrow corridors (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Noss et al., 1996). Securing high quality habitat to maintain a viable grizzly bear population is a priority - especially for adult females (Gibeau, 2000).

Adequate security areas have been calculated as greater than 68% of a LMU (Gibeau, 2000; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). For the greater CRE region, 69% of the available land within individual grizzly bear home ranges is secure on average; however this is highly variable across the region and values are heavily influenced by fragmentation (Gibeau et al., 2001). Adult female grizzly bears within BNP average only 60% security areas within their home ranges (Gibeau et al., 2001). Currently, less than half (48%) of the LMUs within BNP meet security area target levels of greater than 68% secure habitat (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2001). In the Lake Louise area specifically, secure habitat values range from 59% to 67%, and only one of the four LMUs in the area meets security area targets (Jalkotzy, 2001; Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

33 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 34

Table 1: Habitat effectiveness status for LMUs surrounding LLMR (Gibeau, 2005b; Stevens, 2002). LMU # LMU Name Area (km2) Habitat Effectiveness Status 9 Lake Louise 170 Severely impacted (<70%) 10 Pipestone 282 Moderately threatened (80- 90%) 11 Skoki 156 Highly threatened (70-80%) 17 Baker 172 Highly threatened (70-80%)

Habitat effectiveness is the amount of realized habitat (i.e. with human presence factored in) as a percentage of the landscape’s potential to support grizzly bears (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). As part of the Banff National Park Management Plan (2004), Parks Canada uses habitat effectiveness targets to quantify acceptable levels of human disturbance for each LMU. In the Lake Louise area, the habitat effectiveness targets are 60% for the Lake Louise LMU, and 90% for the Skoki, Baker, and Pipestone LMUs (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). As with the security targets, only one LMU in the Lake Louise area (Pipestone) is within the habitat effectiveness target levels (Table 1).

Only 4% of the terrain in BNP is composed of secure, high quality grizzly bear habitat (Stevens, 2002; Gibeau, 2005b). A progressive loss of secure, high quality habitat areas has been observed through the fragmentation of a few large secure patches into a number of smaller ones, with a significant overall reduction in the total amount of secure areas from historic levels (Gibeau et al., 2001). In response to this, annual restoration of 2% of the landbase to increase grizzly bear habitat quality has been recommended (Herrero, 2005b; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Stevens, 2002). Restoration involves not only managing and relocating human activities away from high quality habitat areas, but recreating plant and animal communities similar to the ecological conditions in the BNP area prior to European settlement* through the restoration and/or mimicking of natural ecological processes (e.g. natural fire influences on the landscape) (Gibeau, 2000; Herrero, 2005a; Herrero, 2005b). This will require research and planning as grizzly bear habitat is usually

* approximately 125 years ago (Herrero, 2005b).

34 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 35 difficult or impossible to rehabilitate, especially following the development of permanent facilities or other infrastructure (Herrero, 2005b).

4.26 Controlling Human Use and Access Due to increased socioeconomic pressure for expanded human use in grizzly bear habitat within BNP, human access management will be required to balance human use and grizzly bear population viability (Gibeau, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2004; Petersen, 2000). However, it is also recognized that tourism will continue to be a primary form of human activity in the park (Petersen, 2000). National parks are viewed by many as centres for recreation and tourism, but they are also identified as core conservation areas. Due to the large amount of land area required by each of these uses, reconciling them to occur compatibly within the same space is difficult (Gibeau, 2000; Mueller, 2001). Human access has a greater influence on grizzly bear habitat selection than forest cover type (Wielgus & Vernier, 2003). Because of this, maintaining a viable grizzly bear population in the BNP area will require identifying important areas of grizzly bear habitat and protecting them by restricting spatial and temporal human access to these areas to increase habitat effectiveness (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2002; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). This will also decrease the potential for human-bear encounters leading to a reduction in habituation risk and associated grizzly bear mortality, and increased human safety (Gibeau et al., 2002; Mattson et al., 1996).

Human access management in BNP could involve restrictions on human numbers and behaviour, as well as the timing, location, and types of human activities and infrastructure to reduce the influence that human presence has on ecological integrity (Benn, 1998; Petersen, 2000). These would need to be applied proactively and based on indicators such as habitat quality and known bear use of an area (Benn & Herrero, 2002; Donelon, 2004; Gibeau et al., 2002; Stevens, 2002). Restrictions may only need to be applied during periods with high potential impacts to grizzly bears, especially females (i.e. seasonal). New development should be minimized in remaining secure grizzly bear habitat to prevent human-caused barriers to grizzly bear movement and foraging (Benn, 1998; Gibeau et al., 2001; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Where it is possible, existing human uses

35 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 36 should be relocated away from important grizzly bear habitats and areas with past concentrations of grizzly bear mortality into lower quality habitat areas. However, it may be difficult to generate the administrative will to do this due to concerns over restricting traditional human access (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000). To address these concerns, information will need to be gathered to assess local social and economic interests and issues surrounding human development in BNP (Needham, Wood, & Rollins, 2004).

A value of 100 users per month has previously been used as a threshold between high versus low human use (Gibeau, 1998; Gibeau et al., 2002; Jalkotzy, 1999). This figure was adapted from values derived for USDA Forest Service Cumulative Effects Monitoring. More recently, Donelon (2004) found that grizzly bears are displaced by human activity in the Bow Valley at a threshold of approximately one human event per hour. Donelon’s value is empirically-based and more appropriate for this study area, as it was calculated specifically for the grizzly bear population in the Bow Valley.

4.3 Lake Louise Area The Lake Louise area was extensively studied with regard to the effects of human development and activity on grizzly bears as part of the ESGBP due to the urgency for protection and restoration of security areas to target levels in this vicinity (Herrero, 2005b).

4.31 Potential Habitat Quality Measures of greenness derived from Landsat TM satellite images are a suitable predictor of grizzly bear habitat quality, with areas classified as high greenness used more than expected by grizzly bears based on availability within home range areas (Gibeau, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2004; Stevens, 2002). This measure has been useful in the Lake Louise area to assess potential habitat quality for habitat modeling and land use planning. However, there are limitations as specific vegetation types are not correlated to greenness values (Stevens, 2002). Grizzly bear habitat quality (i.e. vegetation productivity) is influenced by a number of variables including topography (e.g. aspect, slope, etc.),

36 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 37 density of vegetative cover, as well as distance from, type and density of human activity (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000).

The landscape in the Lake Louise area is diverse and its value to grizzly bears is variable both spatially and temporally (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Large contiguous pieces of potential grizzly bear habitat are associated with major valley bottoms, especially the Bow Valley (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Based on potential habitat modeling completed by Jalkotzy et al. (1999), 29% of the overall Lake Louise area is comprised of non-habitat (no food value), while 24% of the area is rated as good or very good habitat.

Figure 4: Distribution of potential and realized grizzly bear habitat in the Skoki LMU in a) May, b) August, and c) October (Jalkotzy, Riddell, & Wierzchowski, 1999. Used by permission.).

37 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 38

Table 2: Percent of home range in secure, high, medium and low quality habitat for female grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area of BNP (Gibeau, 2005b). Bear I.D. # Home Secure (%) High Moderate Low Range Quality Quality Quality (km2) Habitat (%) Habitat (%) Habitat (%) F30 386 48 3 66 31 F36 631 30 5 74 21 F46 328 38 7 81 12 F56 694 44 2 64 34 F59 180 55 4 81 14 F60 251 49 3 67 30 F63 66 31 15 56 30 F65 143 32 15 77 8

Figure 4 illustrates seasonal variations in potential and realized grizzly bear habitat values in the Skoki LMU including the LLMR leasehold. In the Skoki LMU, nonhabitat (33%) encompasses approximately double the area of high quality habitat (17%) on an annual basis. High quality habitat in the Skoki backcountry is at higher elevations and is fragmented (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Some contiguous blocks exist around river drainage areas (upper Baker Creek and the upper Red Deer River). The largest tracts of contiguous good and very good habitat in the Skoki LMU occur in the Bow Valley (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). A breakdown of habitat security and quality for individual grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area is shown in Table 2.

The majority of the area encompassing LLMR is indicated as good or very good potential grizzly bear habitat in all seasons (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Habitat values increase in the summer and fall due to the low forest canopy density and increased edge leading to high berry production (particularly buffaloberry) (Donelon, 2004). The south-facing slopes of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR combined with the naturally high water table (supplemented with man-made snow), and forest openings created by cleared ski runs

38 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 39 promote early green up of many species of high quality bear forage including introduced* clover, alfalfa, and dandelions, as well as various other grasses and sedges (Mueller, 2001). Other attractive forage found on the LLMR leasehold include horsetail in wet seeps on or between ski runs, Hedysarum roots, cow parsnip, many herbs, and a variety of berries, (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The ski runs at lower elevations on the front side including the summer use area are rated good in all three seasons, and the surrounding lodgepole pine forest is rated as good in the spring and very good in the summer and fall (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

4.32 Human Influences in the Lake Louise Area Using seasonal (May, August, October) realized habitat maps produced for the Lake Louise area (Figure 4), Jalkotzy et al. (1999) found that the Bow Valley represents the best potential high quality habitat in the area. However, it contains the majority of poor realized (i.e. compromised) habitat in all seasons due to human disturbance. Human developments in the area have led to seriously compromised habitat effectiveness, severed landscape linkages, and a low percentage of land free of human influence (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Remaining habitat patches are small, scattered, and poorly connected. This creates fewer places for bears to forage and a higher likelihood of human contact that can increase potential for habituation and mortality (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

In the Lake Louise portion of the Bow Valley, human activity is low during the spring due to snow cover, but human activity is rated as high during the summer and fall (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). There has been a long-term concentration of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities and removals from the Lake Louise area (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). All of these have occurred in close proximity to developments and transportation routes. Because habitat in this area is also frequently selected by females, it could be referred to as an attractive population sink (Delibes et al., 2001 as cited in Nielsen et al.,

* Wherever possible, native or noninvasive plant species that meet the approval of Parks Canada are used for ground cover at LLMR. However, the use of nonnative leguminous plant species (e.g. clover, alfalfa, etc.) is sometimes necessary to fix nitrogen in the soil in order to reestablish vegetation in disturbed areas, particularly on older ski runs where the soil quality is limited (LLMR EMD, 2005; David Walker, personal communication, January 14th, 2006). These legumes are preferable to using chemical fertilizers but can attract grizzly bears and other wildlife because of their high protein content. Efforts are made to use climate sensitive varieties that do not persist and are eventually taken over by native species.

39 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 40

2004). Previous studies have concluded that current levels of human use in the Lake Louise area present a threat to the grizzly bear population and significant changes to human use patterns in this area will be required to reverse the trend (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). Since 2000, all of the human-caused grizzly bear mortalities that have occurred in the Lake Louise area have been associated with highways (the TCH and 93N) and the CPR (Campbell, 2004; LUPU, 2004).

Jalkotzy et al. (1999) found that human use levels in the Skoki LMU are the second highest in the Lake Louise area, though substantially lower than in the Lake Louise LMU. Human use is high on most backcountry trails, particularly in August (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The area containing the LLMR leasehold is reduced from high quality habitat to moderate and poor (Figure 4 - bottom left corner of LMU). Approximately 25-33% of the habitat in the Bow Valley is compromised, and the connection between habitats on either side of the LLMR leasehold at lower elevations is compromised (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The situation is exacerbated in the summer and fall by increased levels of human use that further fragment the already patchy habitat. This creates smaller patches than in spring; especially at higher elevations in the backcountry in the vicinity of the trail network around Skoki Lodge (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Though Parks Canada’s habitat effectiveness target for the Skoki LMU is 90%, the value derived by Jalkotzy et al.’s (1999) habitat effectiveness model was only 82%. These results suggest that human developments in the Skoki LMU including the summer use program at LLMR are having a cumulative influence to the grizzly bear habitat, and that human use of this LMU should be regulated to restore high quality habitat (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Donelon, 2004).

Several errors in the human use data for the Lake Louise area, particularly in the Skoki LMU, may have affected the accuracy of the realized habitat map. Most of these errors resulted in the calculated habitat effectiveness values being higher than what actually occurs (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Additional limitations of the habitat effectiveness model

40 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 41 include: small bear sample size, undetermined maintenance activities*, and assumptions of human impacts to grizzlies. Because of these limitations only qualitative results can be determined, but a trend of habitat effectiveness inversely proportional to human activity levels is evident (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

From the habitat effectiveness model, Jalkotzy et al. (1999) determined that curtailment of the summer use at LLMR could potentially increase the habitat effectiveness value for the Skoki LMU by 3% because construction and maintenance would be the only remaining human activities on the leasehold. Reducing human use at LLMR would also increase the size and connectivity of high quality habitat patches in the Bow Valley. However, construction and maintenance activities are underestimated by the model, which will affect the actual outcome (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Other options to reduce and manage human presence in the Bow Valley are also available. Even with low human use at LLMR, habitat effectiveness targets for the LMU would not be met unless this was combined with reductions in human use of the Skoki backcountry (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

4.33 Individual Bears Used in Previous Studies at LLMR Studies of grizzly bears conducted on the LLMR leasehold have primarily involved 2 adult females: F30 with 3 female cubs (F56, F59, and F60); and F46 with one female cub (F65) and one male cub (M45) (Donelon, 2004; Jalkotzy, 1999; Mueller, 2001). Data for these studies was collected within the 1994 to 2003 period. Both adult female bears were accompanied by their cubs for most of the study period (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). F56, F59 and F60 separated from F30 in 1998, after 4 years; while F65 and M45 separated from F46 in 1999, after 5 years. The most substantial data sets are for F30 and F59, with more limited data for M45 (Mueller, 2001).

The home ranges of the bears overlapped the LLMR leasehold, the Lake Louise town site, the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH), the Bow Valley Parkway (BVP), the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) mainline, several front and backcountry campgrounds, and Skoki

* Motorized maintenance on the leasehold, motorized use of the Temple fire road by authorized personnel, and helicopter service to Skoki lodge were not included in the assessment. These activities result in significantly more human use in the area than depicted in the study (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

41 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 42

Lodge (Mueller, 2001). The home ranges for the adult female grizzly bears (F30 and F46) were both in the immediate vicinity of the LLMR leasehold. Their use of habitat within their home ranges was shown to vary by season and some similarities of habitat use were evident between the two adult female grizzly bears (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). From 1994 through 1998, both bears denned in backcountry areas away from human use areas and near high quality habitat (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The core spring range for both bears included the south face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR, particularly at lower elevations; however F46 tended to move away from LLMR in later years (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). In summer the bears used backcountry areas as well as areas on the LLMR leasehold periodically - more often at higher elevations or in the Temple area. In the fall both bears tended to move away from LLMR into backcountry areas with low human use, likely due to changes in food availability and because den sites tend to be in remote areas (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). Analysis of pooled aerial telemetry data for both bears showed that they selected high quality habitat areas at greater levels than would be expected by chance (though these areas varied by season), with the exception of the fall season when there was no significant difference between selected and available habitat areas (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The most strongly selected types of vegetation cover were avalanche slopes, which exhibit early snow melt and greening in the spring and contain an abundance of important grizzly bear food types through summer and fall (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Both F30 and F46 died of natural causes (predation - by wolves and by a male grizzly bear, respectively) in September of 2004 (Campbell, 2004).

The dispersal patterns of the 5 subadult grizzly bears from their maternal home ranges mirrored previously observed trends. The female bears had a relatively high amount of overlap with the maternal home range, while the male bear had a larger home range with less overlap (Mueller, 2001). The subadult bears also showed significant individual differences between their behaviour patterns in response to human activity. F60, and F59 in particular, exhibited wary behaviour. Both bears died from human-related causes (F60 by a CPR train in August, 2000; F59 on highway 93N in May, 2003). Conversely, F56 showed high levels of curiosity and habituation even before dispersal, and chose poorer quality habitats close to high levels of human presence, possibly because she was the

42 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 43 least dominant bear. She became increasingly bold*, and required extensive aversive conditioning actions with limited effectiveness. F56 was also killed by a CPR train in September, 2001. Though F65 displayed habituation at an early age, she was not aggressive* and thus not aversively conditioned. F65 now exhibits wary behaviour in the presence of humans (Mike Gibeau, personal communication, June 22nd, 2006). M45 was the least visible of the 5 bears because he used cover often and though he displayed slight habituated behaviour, aversive conditioning was effective (Mueller, 2001). The status of M45 is unknown since his radio-collar expired in September of 2001.

4.34 Grizzly Bear Movements on the LLMR Leasehold Seasonal and annual variations in patterns of grizzly bear movement and habitat use exist, and there are differences between individual grizzly bears. However, it can generally be stated that grizzly bears adjust their schedules to avoid human use areas during the HA period, but will use high quality habitat near human developments during the HI period (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). Donelon (2004) found that at LLMR, grizzly bears tend to move away from areas of human presence during the HA period. However, they are completely absent from these areas during the HA period; the pattern indicates use is much higher during the HI period than would be expected (+176%), and lower than would be expected during the HA period. Though it is possible that grizzly bear movements could be influenced by other factors, the only variable identified to fluctuate with the grizzly bear movements on a similar daily cycle was human activity (Donelon, 2004). Mueller (2001) also found that bears used habitat with greater security, and were seen less often during the HA period even though the HI period coincides with darkness (Mueller, 2001).

* Of the mother bears, F30 was more aggressive than F46, so it is possible that these represent learned behaviours (Mueller, 2001).

43 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 44

Figure 5: Average distance from a) gondola and b) base lodge at LLMR for different grizzly bear age/sex cohorts between the Human Active and Human Inactive periods, 1998 - 2000 (Mueller, 2000. Used by permission.). (Note: AF = Adult female; SAF = Subadult female; SAM = Subadult male).

Intensive monitoring of the grizzly bears in the immediate vicinity of the LLMR leasehold in the spring and summer indicated that bears F30 and F46 tended to be further away from the base lodge during the HA period; instead using more secure habitat at this time (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). The adult females remained further from the base lodge than subadult females, though the differences were not significant among any age or sex classes (Figure 5) (Mueller, 2001).

This trend was also observed for the ski runs on the lower south face of Whitehorn Mountain. Adult female grizzly bears (F30 and F46) were found in close proximity to cleared ski runs on the LLMR leasehold during the HI period; roughly half the distance than they were during the HA period (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). This is expected because the ski runs represent high quality habitat, especially in the spring due to early green up of vegetation on ski runs at lower elevations (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Although selection for habitat on the ski runs weakened in summer, they continue to be attractive due to the progression of green up and production of berries, particularly buffaloberry (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Berry production tends to be highest along the forested edges of cleared ski runs. Ski runs were avoided during the fall probably because better food sources were available elsewhere (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Grizzly bears also made use of the closed forest canopy adjacent to the ski runs for security cover during daylight hours (Jalkotzy et al., 1999).

44 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 45

All grizzly bear cohorts in the area exhibited significant temporal movement in relation the gondola (Figure 5). They were closer to the gondola during the HI period, but moved away in the early morning in favour of areas with increased habitat security during the HA period (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). Adult females were found closer to the gondola than subadult females, contrary to the normal pattern observed in the Lake Louise area of subadult female grizzly bears using less secure habitat (i.e. closer to humans) than adult females, (Mueller, 2001).

Although the south face of Whitehorn Mountain is more important as grizzly bear habitat in the spring and early summer than in the fall, grizzly bears have been observed in this area throughout the active season (Cedar Mueller, personal communication, January 30th, 2006). The cleared ski runs contain important berry food species in the fall and are used occasionally by grizzly bears in the area, particularly if they contain a good berry crop (Jalkotzy et al., 1999). Despite the general trends of grizzly bear presence on the LLMR leasehold that have been observed in the past, annual variations do exist. It is possible that these patterns could change over time due to a number of factors including: changes to bear population dynamics (e.g. changes to the number, age, and reproductive status of individual bears), other wildlife in the area, climatic variables (e.g. increased daytime ambient temperature), annual climatic variations that affect vegetation production, and changes to the type and intensity of human use (Colleen Campbell, personal communication, January 18th, 2006).

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE LLMR SUMMER USE PROGRAM As noted by Herrero (2005b), steps should and are being taken to decrease female grizzly bear mortality in the Lake Louise area. Knowledge of past grizzly bear mortalities is being used to aid in human use planning. As part of this, changes to the management of the summer use operations at LLMR have been implemented based on recommendations from previous reports and planning documents that focused on the summer use at LLMR (e.g. HRC, 1999; Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Olson & Olson, 1999). These changes have occurred either as conditions placed on RCR’s summer use license for LLMR by Parks

45 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 46

Canada, or as voluntary environmental stewardship initiatives from RCR to reduce human impacts to grizzly bears and to decrease the potential for human-bear encounters at LLMR (Will Devlin, personal communication, December 14th, 2005). Most of these are based on controlling the spatial and temporal patterns of human use and human behaviour on the leasehold, rather than regulating visitor numbers*. These include limiting the type of activities that are allowed on the LLMR leasehold during the summer (e.g. mountain biking or overnight use on the leasehold are not permitted) and implementing specific grizzly bear management initiatives associated with different aspects of the summer use program such as: • Electric fencing that encompasses the base area facilities and parking area; • Restricted human access to the lower mountain between the base and mid- mountain facilities due to the prevalence of bear activity in this area; • Enhanced and expanded public education of grizzly bear behaviour and ecology; and • The implementation of protocols for construction, maintenance, and operational procedures and the timing of these.

The majority of the planning documents (e.g. HRC, 1999; Olson & Olson, 1999) and studies (e.g. Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001) that examined habitat quality and grizzly bear movements in relation to aspects of human use at LLMR (e.g. the base lodge and gondola) were done prior to the installation of the electric fencing and lower mountain restrictions. It is also notable that the majority of the grizzly bears used in the data sets for these studies have since died from either natural or human-related causes (Cedar Mueller, personal communication, January 30th, 2006).

Recommendations for alterations to the management of the summer use program and issues that require further study are included within the context of the discussion of specific aspects of the program below. The recommendations present potential management alternatives for the summer use program at LLMR that could reduce its

* It is difficult to assess an appropriate number of visitors at LLMR because their influences on the grizzly bears in the area are affected more by their distribution and behaviour while on the leasehold than by the total number of visitors present.

46 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 47 influence on the grizzly bear population while maintaining the socioeconomic viability of the program. Some of these may echo or build on recommendations from previous studies.

Though past grizzly bear use of the LLMR leasehold has been highest in the spring, changes to the social structure and dynamics (due to population turnover) of the grizzly bear population using the LLMR leasehold as habitat could potentially influence their patterns of movement on the leasehold. As a result, the influences of the summer use program at LLMR on the grizzly bears in the area, as well as the effectiveness of current and proposed grizzly bear and human use management strategies should be periodically reevaluated.

5.1 Hours and Dates of Operation The open and close dates for the summer use program at LLMR are based mainly around considerations of visitor demand levels for summer versus winter use in order to maintain year-round operations. It has previously been suggested that the summer program at LLMR should be closed in the spring and early summer (until mid-August) due to the high prevalence of grizzly bear activity in the vicinity of the summer use operations during this period (Mueller, 2001). This is likely not feasible because tourist numbers in the Lake Louise area are high in July and closure at this time would compromise the existence of the entire summer use program from an operational cost perspective. Closure of the summer use program at LLMR is not consistent with Parks Canada’s current management plan (Parks Canada, 2004a).

The summer hours of operation for the visitor program and construction and maintenance regimes at LLMR fall within the defined HA period of 7AM to 7PM. This temporal regulation of human activities at LLMR provides consistent and predictable human behaviour, which may allow grizzly bears on the leasehold to adapt to human use and adjust their patterns of movement and habitat access around periods of high human activity. However, Donelon (2004) found that grizzly bear movement rates were low during darkness hours. Due to the shorter daylight hours during the spring, it should be

47 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 48 investigated whether shortening the HA period in the spring would benefit the bears by providing an extended period of uninterrupted access to habitat on the LLMR leasehold. Spring is a critical period for these bears to meet their nutritional requirements after den emergence, and is also associated with a prevalence of grizzly bears on the LLMR leasehold. Adjusting the start of the HA period to later in the morning would likely be most beneficial to the grizzly bears because Donelon (2004) observed them to be closest to areas of human use during the early morning. Further study would also be required to determine what restriction periods (dates and times) would be most effective in conferring benefit to the grizzly bears and if this is reconcilable with operational considerations at LLMR. The hours of operation at LLMR should be periodically reevaluated and adapted to any changes in grizzly bear presence on the LLMR leasehold that may occur over time.

5.2 Access Roads 5.21 Whitehorn Road Whitehorn Road connects LLMR with the TCH and access to the village of Lake Louise*. Though a portion of this road is within the LLMR leasehold, the road surface is under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada between the TCH and turn-off to the first parking lot at LLMR (Will Devlin, personal communication, June 28th, 2006). This road also intersects with the BVP between the TCH and LLMR leasehold. The posted speed limit on Whitehorn Road is 50 km/h; however there are currently no restrictions on the timing or volume of traffic on this road. There is potential for elevated traffic volumes on this road because the road provides access to LLMR, the Skoki backcountry, and the BVP. No specific studies have been done to assess the influence of traffic on Whitehorn Road to grizzly bear movements, but evidence has been found that it represents an impediment to the movements of other wildlife species (Tremblay, 2001).

* Use of the term “Whitehorn Road” can be a source of confusion, as it is also used to refer to the access road on the LLMR leasehold leading to Whitehorn Lodge. The road up to Whitehorn Lodge is referred to as the “Whitehorn access road” in this paper (see page 51).

48 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 49

Figure 6: Relative locations of wildlife corridors in the Lake Louise area (Jalkotzy, 2001; Parks Canada, 2004b; Tremblay, 2001. Photo used by permission).

Whitehorn Road crosses through an area identified as a wildlife corridor by Parks Canada (Figure 6). The Whitehorn Corridor, as it is known, is part of a large patch of contiguous habitat that is essential for wildlife movement along the Bow Valley (Tremblay, 2001). This corridor is used more extensively by a number of species than the Fairview and Bow River Corridors on the opposite side of the Bow Valley. Good grizzly bear habitat exists all along the Whitehorn Corridor in the vicinity of Whitehorn Road (Stephen Herrero, personal communication, Feb. 1st, 2006; Tremblay, 2001). Human access in this area needs to be carefully managed because the ecological value of the Whitehorn Corridor could be jeopardized by even a single barrier or bottleneck (Tremblay, 2001).

49 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 50

Chruszcz et al. (2003) found that grizzly bears come to use habitat near roads when traffic is consistent and predictable. The potential influences of Whitehorn Road to grizzly bear and other wildlife movements along the Whitehorn Corridor could be reduced by gating the road during the HI period to limit the temporal human activity on this road. A number of species have been shown to preferentially cross the road approximately 300 m above the BVP intersection in between the BVP and the LLMR base area (Tremblay, 2001). Gating Whitehorn Road on the north side of the BVP intersection could create a predictable period of human inactivity to allow grizzly bears to cross the road and access the habitat near it without disruption, while still allowing unrestricted human access to the BVP. Enforcing the 50 km/h speed limit on the road during the HA period is equally important to minimize the likelihood of grizzly bear mortalities. If visitation to LLMR and the Skoki backcountry (and thus traffic volumes on Whitehorn road) continue to increase to the point the road becomes a barrier to wildlife movements during peak flows, another option may be to restrict public access to this road and implement a regularly scheduled transit service* (Tremblay, 2001). This could allow a number of people to access the area and still maintain Donelon’s (2004) suggested level of 1 human event per hour on Whitehorn Road. Spatial and temporal grizzly bear movement patterns around Whitehorn Road and the influence of traffic levels on this road to grizzly bear movements need to be studied to determine the best strategy to manage traffic flows on this road to reduce any negative influences to the grizzly bears in the area (Tremblay, 2001).

High traffic volumes in the Lake Louise region as a whole affect wildlife corridors on both sides of the Bow Valley. Because of this, controlling traffic levels on Whitehorn Road should be done as part of a larger coordinated transportation scheme for the Lake Louise area that accounts for human uses across the entire width of the Bow Valley. This will require consultations between RCR, PC, and other stakeholders to evaluate the influence of traffic volumes in the area on the effectiveness of the wildlife corridors and develop a strategy that accounts for ecological needs and addresses impacts to visitor access and local municipal and commercial concerns.

* potentially similar to the shuttle bus service in operation at Lake O’Hara in Yoho National Park, B.C.

50 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 51

5.22 Access Roads on the LLMR Leasehold Within the LLMR leasehold, the Temple access road branches off of Whitehorn Road to provide access to the Ptarmigan and Larch areas of LLMR as well as the Skoki Lodge and backcountry; the Whitehorn access road branches from the Temple access road and traverses the south face of Whitehorn Mountain to Whitehorn Lodge (Figure 2 inset). Summer use restrictions are in place for the Temple and Whitehorn access roads on the LLMR leasehold that are used mainly for maintenance, construction, and transporting supplies. Previous studies observed F30 and F46 to cross the Temple and Whitehorn access roads often and regularly during both day and night (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). This suggests that these roads do not currently represent a barrier to grizzly bear movement. RCR has established speed limits and uses traffic counters to monitor the level of staff traffic on these roads (Ron Allen, personal communication, Jan. 9th, 2006). Additionally, LLMR staff is encouraged to use the chairlift to travel to Whitehorn Lodge, unless a vehicle is required for their specific purpose (Tracey Gage, personal communication, January 9th, 2006). The Temple access road is gated at the Fish Creek parking lot to reduce access and control vehicle use (Will Devlin, personal communication, January 17th, 2006). Levels of human and vehicle traffic should be minimized and the speed limits strictly enforced on these access roads to reduce the potential for surprise human-bear encounters and negative influences to grizzly bear movements and access to habitat on the LLMR leasehold.

Human influences occur adjacent to Whitehorn Road and the access roads on the LLMR leasehold due to recreational activities and maintenance work in the area. This is particularly true of the Temple access road, as it is used by visitors to gain access to the Skoki backcountry (Steve Donelon, personal communication, Jan. 19th, 2006). Hikers on the roads increase the potential for grizzly bears to be displaced from the vicinity of the roads. Human influences adjacent to the roads within the LLMR leasehold should be minimized to reduce grizzly bear displacement distances from the roadways and decrease the potential for human-bear encounters (Steve Donelon, personal communication, January 19th, 2006).

51 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 52

5.23 Fish Creek Parking Lot Visitors traveling to the Skoki backcountry currently park at the Fish Creek parking lot, located at the base of the front side of Whitehorn Mountain (Figure 2 inset). They must then walk up the Temple access road to gain access to the trails leading to the backcountry and Skoki Lodge. The Fish Creek parking lot is situated in good grizzly bear habitat and this area is commonly used by bears to travel between habitat patches on the LLMR leasehold. Human presence in this area, with the associated potential for food and garbage attractants, likely disrupts grizzly bear use of the area, and increases the likelihood of human-bear encounters and habituation. Removal of the Fish Creek parking lot would be an effective measure to reduce human activities on the LLMR leasehold and increase grizzly bear habitat security (Martin Jalkotzy, personal communication, July 19th, 2006).

As an alternative to the Fish Creek parking lot, visitors to the Skoki backcountry could park at the LLMR base area and be provided shuttle transport up the Temple access road to the trailhead*. Though this could increase the number of people in the Skoki backcountry by making it easier to access the area, the number and frequency of people entering and leaving the area could be regulated through shuttle scheduling. The increased consistency and predictability of people accessing the area would likely allow grizzly bears to adapt, especially if the shuttle service was scheduled to be within Donelon’s (2004) threshold value of 1 human event per hour. People leaving the shuttle bus would also be more likely in larger groups, providing additional safety from surprise human-bear encounters. RCR could also receive additional revenue from backcountry visitors parking in the LLMR lot, as they would be more likely to use LLMR’s base lodge facilities.

5.3 Lodge Facilities 5.31 LLMR Base Area/Electric Fencing Grizzly bears have been observed to approach the base lodge (Lodge of the Ten Peaks) and facilities at LLMR, especially during the HI period (Figure 5) (Mueller, 2001). They

* An agreement would need to be reached between Parks Canada and RCR to achieve this.

52 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 53 are attracted to this area because of the abundance of attractive plant forage species that include introduced vegetation, as well as horsetail around the base lift terminals (Jalkotzy, 2001). The high prevalence of grizzly bears and concentration of humans in the area created a situation with increased likelihood of habituation and human-bear interactions. To remedy this, electric fencing* was erected in 2001 at the LLMR base area enclosing the lodge facilities, parking lots, base lift terminals (including the summer gondola), and maintenance grounds (Figure 2 inset). Wildlife exclusion fencing has been used in other places as an effective mitigation measure to address concerns for contact between grizzly bears and humans that could lead to habituation, human-caused grizzly bear mortality, and human safety risks (LUPU, 2004).

The electric fencing at LLMR extends up the mountain at least 200 m from the perimeter of the base area facilities. This is equivalent to the zone of influence established by Benn (1998) for displacement of grizzly bears from human facilities and non-motorized human activity. The fencing prevents grizzly bears from approaching the base lodge, and has been effective in reducing the influences of human activities at the base area on the grizzly bear population. It has also been successful in reducing the potential for habituation of grizzly bears around the lodge and reducing random human activity within the wildlife corridor, which has led to increased habitat security and reduced potential for human-bear interactions (Jalkotzy, 2001). These are benefits not only to LLMR but to the Lake Louise area as a whole.

The electric fencing disrupts the movements of grizzly bear and other wildlife, requiring them to circumnavigate the fenced area. It also prevents access to approximately 9.9 ha of grizzly bear foraging area, which represents 19% of the total spring/early summer forage available on the LLMR leasehold (Jalkotzy, 2001). However, grizzly bears would likely already be prone to displacement from this area because it is within the zone of influence around the base area facility. It is also not desirable for grizzly bears to be in this area due to the potential for them to lose their wariness of humans and the potential for dangerous

* Electric fencing has been shown to be more effective than page wire fencing for excluding grizzly bears (LUPU, 2004).

53 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 54 human-bear encounters. Potential impacts of the electric fencing at the base area on human activities include concerns for human safety* and visual impacts that detract from the quality of visitor experience, which could affect visitation (Jalkotzy, 2001). These concerns are addressed through public information and education initiatives (e.g. signage) at LLMR. The electric fencing is removed each winter, and as such, does not impact winter recreation at LLMR. The potential adverse effects resulting from the electric fencing are outweighed by the benefits conferred to both grizzly bears and humans.

5.32 Whitehorn Lodge Concession Stand Visitors to LLMR are advised before boarding the gondola to travel to the mid-mountain area and Whitehorn Lodge not to bring food or garbage onto the gondola, though the LLMR staff does not have the authority to enforce this (Tracey Gage, personal communication, January 9th, 2006). This is done to reduce the potential for grizzly bears using the area beneath the gondola to be exposed to human food and garbage. Grizzly bears that become food-conditioned are very difficult to rehabilitate (Herrero, 2003).

Once at the Whitehorn Lodge, a concession stand is in operation where visitors are able to purchase snacks and beverages. Though grizzly bears are not commonly found in the vicinity of Whitehorn Lodge, they have occasionally been observed in this area (Colleen Campbell, 2004). Protocols are in place at LLMR to manage food and garbage on the leasehold by storing it securely within either bear-proof bins or in Whitehorn Lodge, or removing it from the mid-mountain area. These are in keeping with recommendations from Benn (1998) and Mueller (2001) to strictly enforce the removal or securing of all food and garbage attractants in grizzly bear habitat within BNP. However, even if food and garbage are properly managed there is still potential that remnants or odours from these may attract grizzly bears and other wildlife. The concession stand also creates the potential for visitors to take food with them on the return gondola trip to the base area.

Because exposure to human food or garbage could lead to habituation or food- conditioning of the grizzly bears on the LLMR leasehold, additional precautions should

* Though the fence can cause a painful shock, it will not actually cause injury (LUPU, 2004).

54 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 55 be taken to ensure that food and garbage are strictly managed in the Whitehorn Lodge area and on the gondola. This may require additional signage and communication to visitors by LLMR staff of the importance of proper handling of food and garbage in the area to reduce the likelihood of grizzly bears, as well as other wildlife, from coming into contact with it. An evaluation of the public demand and economic significance (i.e. operating costs versus revenue) of the concession stand at Whitehorn Lodge compared to the potential negative ecological influences associated with it should be conducted. If the concession stand is not deemed to be an important visitor service or source of revenue at LLMR, closure of the concession stand may be warranted to decrease the likelihood of food-conditioning grizzly bears on the leasehold. This may also present an opportunity for RCR to demonstrate its commitment to reducing the influences of its operations at LLMR on the environment.

5.4 Gondola Operations The gondola at LLMR is an important tourist service in BNP that attracts a large number of visitors, but it has been cited as a potential source of habituation and disturbance to normal grizzly bear activities on the LLMR leasehold (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). The cleared area surrounding the gondola contains a number of high quality grizzly bear forage species, particularly in the spring. Mueller (as cited by Iris Environmental Systems Inc., 2004) observed that the area under the gondola also acts as a linkage zone between important patches of high quality grizzly bear habitat that lie on either side of the gondola. As noted previously, grizzly bears on the LLMR leasehold exhibit significant temporal displacement from the gondola during the HA period (Figure 5). Though grizzly bears have been observed to use the habitat below the gondola while it is operating, they are present in the area much less than would be expected during this time; instead choosing to use this area mainly during the HI period (Steve Donelon, personal communication, Jan. 30th, 2006). Donelon found that the decrease in grizzly bear presence under the gondola correlates well with increased of human use above a threshold level of approximately 1 human event per hour. However, grizzly bear use of the area under the gondola may potentially be influenced by other factors such as the bears seeking cover from increased ambient temperatures during the day and avoiding

55 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 56 other grizzly bears and other wildlife based on dominance hierarchies and reproductive status (Colleen Campbell, personal communication, Jan. 18th, 2006).

Though displaced during the HA period, grizzly bears, particularly adult females, are able to make use of the high quality habitat under the gondola during the HI period (Mueller, 2001). This likely occurs due to the consistent and predictable nature of human use of the gondola. Given the limited productivity of the overall region, reduced access to this habitat could adversely influence the nutritional status of the bears. However, despite its limited temporal availability, access to this high quality habitat area likely confers nutritional benefits to the grizzly bears. Assessments of variables such as the quality, extent and variability of habitat in the area, the amount of human use, and the extent of grizzly bear displacement from the area are required to better understand the effects of displacement on grizzly bear productivity.

5.41 Restricted Human Access on the Lower South Face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR Human access to the lower portion of the south face of Whitehorn Mountain between the base area and the upper gondola terminal has been restricted since 2001. This restriction was initiated due to the prevalence of grizzly bear activity in the area that caused increased potential for human-bear encounters with associated safety risks for both grizzly bears and humans. The human access restriction combined with the electric fencing at the base area has reduced the potential for human-bear encounters and provided the grizzly bears with more secure access to the habitat areas below the gondola. This could allow the grizzly bears to become accustomed to the human presence on the gondola and alter their movement patterns on the LLMR leasehold to use the area under the gondola more frequently. There has been some indication that changes to grizzly bear movement patterns and habitat access have occurred since the implementation of the electric fencing and human access restriction on the lower mountain (Colleen Campbell, personal communication, Jan. 18th, 2006). However, further study comparing grizzly bear use of the area before and after the implementation of the fencing and human access

56 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 57 restriction that also accounts for changes to the grizzly bear population composition would be necessary to quantitatively verify whether this has occurred.

Since the restriction of human access on the lower Whitehorn face at LLMR, the only humans that grizzly bears now “encounter” in this area are on the gondola. The aerial separation between humans on the gondola and grizzly bears on the ground eliminates direct contact between grizzly bears and humans. Because grizzly bears on the LLMR leasehold receive no negative consequences associated with the gondola operations, they may become accustomed to the gondola and come to use the habitat below it during the HA period. This could lead to habituation, as the grizzly bears are exposed to the sights, sounds and smells of humans (Tremblay, 2001). However, habituation to the gondola would probably not carry over to direct encounters between the bears and humans - the bears would likely interpret these as different sets of circumstances (Stephen Herrero, personal communication, Feb. 1st, 2006). Further study is required to assess the influences of the gondola operations on grizzly bear habitat access and habituation potential.

5.42 Controlling Human Access above the Upper Gondola Terminal Though human access is strictly controlled on the lower portion of the south face of Whitehorn Mountain in LLMR, hiking is currently allowed on the upper Whitehorn face above the upper gondola terminal. There are conflicting opinions whether the upper Whitehorn face contains a significant amount of grizzly bear habitat. It is believed that bears are not commonly present near the upper gondola terminal, but they have occasionally been observed in this vicinity (Campbell, 2004) and based on the elevation of the upper gondola terminal and Whitehorn Lodge (approximately 2088 m), this area is still within potential grizzly bear habitat range in the sub-alpine zone.

Currently, to minimize the potential for human-bear encounters at LLMR, visitors wishing to hike on the upper Whitehorn face are advised to hike in groups of 6 or more, and stay on trails. RCR also has operating procedures in place if grizzly bears or other wildlife are in the vicinity of the upper gondola terminal to either remove visitors from

57 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 58 the area or minimize the potential for close contact. These measures address concerns for human safety by limiting the potential of being approached by a grizzly bear. However they do not address the influences that increased human presence and access on the mountain may have on grizzly bear movements. As grizzly bear habitat use is affected by the consistency and predictability of human presence in the area, allowing people to freely access this portion of the mountain could influence grizzly bear use of the entire Whitehorn face of LLMR and create potential for displacement or habituation to humans (Stephen Herrero, personal communication, February 1st, 2006). Also, should a grizzly bear be present in the area, there is limited ability under the current management strategy to protect or even estimate the number of humans that may be on the upper mountain. As RCR would be responsible for ensuring that these people return safely to the base area, restricting human access on the upper Whitehorn face could allow RCR to more strictly manage human presence on the LLMR leasehold, which could also reduce any avoidance of habitat in the area by grizzly bears.

Guided hikes and walks on the upper Whitehorn face are currently offered as part of the interpretive education program at LLMR. These should be allowed to continue, as they could be limited to specific areas and trails on the leasehold at specific times. In the event of a grizzly bear encounter, the interpretive staff is trained to react appropriately and would be able to account for all visitors on the upper mountain. Offering access to the upper mountain only as part of guided hikes and walks could present an opportunity to expand the education program at LLMR to capture a larger percentage of visitors. This could provide RCR with additional revenue potential, and also provide increased safety to both visitors and grizzly bears.

It may seem difficult to justify implementing this initiative, as it has been estimated that less than 20% of the visitors go further than Whitehorn Lodge from the top of the gondola (HRC, 1999), and there has never been a reported human-grizzly bear encounter at LLMR. However, though there is low risk of this situation occurring, it represents a high hazard. It is not possible to predict the likelihood or timing of an encounter. Given the potential for serious negative consequences to both the grizzly bears and the humans

58 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 59 involved, restricting access on the upper Whitehorn face is warranted as a proactive measure to minimize the potential for an encounter. Implementing this initiative would only require fencing at the upper gondola area and communication of the restriction to visitors with signage and as part of the pre-gondola introduction. Though it would be difficult to enforce, the experience with the restricted access on the lower Whitehorn face suggests that non-compliance would likely be low. Alternatively, electric fencing (as used at the base area) could be erected to contain the upper gondola terminal and Whitehorn Lodge area if additional measures were deemed necessary to control human access and prevent grizzly bear habituation to the mid-mountain facilities at LLMR.

Options that may be available to manage of human use in this area should be evaluated, taking social and economic factors (e.g. visitor demands) into consideration, along with continued assessments of the likelihood of grizzly bear presence in this area. As a small proportion of visitors currently use the upper mountain and some of these may use the interpretive hikes if they were the only option, visitation (i.e. revenue) would not be largely influenced by this restriction.

5.5 Interpretive Education Program The interpretive program at LLMR was originally developed in conjunction with Parks Canada and RCR as part of the summer use business license for LLMR. Since then, RCR has expanded this program beyond the Parks Canada’s basic requirements. The interpretive program at LLMR includes a number of indoor presentations and a series of educational displays at Whitehorn Lodge, as well as guided walks and hikes from Whitehorn Lodge to the upper mountain area. These are offered throughout the day. Topics for the presentations and guided walks and hikes include the natural history and heritage of the Lake Louise area, as well as wildlife ecology and management (including proper human etiquette and response to wildlife), with an emphasis on grizzly bears. Before boarding the gondola, all visitors are provided a short introduction highlighting appropriate behaviour to promote human safety and protect the local wildlife. The education program is periodically evaluated and updated based on visitor demands and new information. The program has been expanded for 2006 to provide more interpretive

59 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 60 presentations at the LLMR base area to make these available to visitors who do not ride the gondola (Tracey Gage, personal communication, Jan. 9th, 2006).

Many studies (e.g. Donelon, 2004; HRC, 1999; Mueller, 2001) including the final recommendations of the ESGBP have highlighted the importance of education and communication to reduce the influences of human activities on grizzly bears in BNP. Needham et al. (2004) found that there is high public support for providing educational opportunities to tourists in natural areas. The summer use program at LLMR allows more people to experience alpine settings. This increases public familiarity with the local wildlife and their habitats, which tends to increase public awareness and concern for these issues. Education programs are important and necessary to managing human activities and behaviour in National Parks because public attitudes and understanding are essential to fostering respect for grizzly bears and natural systems in general (Herrero, 2005b). Individual actions can’t be controlled without education - there is insufficient funding available to adequately monitor and regulate all individuals within the park. Alternatively the public should be provided with as much education as possible to inform them of the effects of their behaviour on the surroundings and of environmental management initiatives that have been implemented in the area (Williams & Todd, 1997).

Additionally, providing environmental training and education to all staff is essential to gaining employee buy-in for environmental initiatives (Williams & Todd, 1997). RCR requires all interpretive staff to have Mountain Parks Heritage Interpretation Association (MPHIA)* certification. At the beginning of each season, the interpretive staff are also given a mandatory two-week training period focusing on wildlife management and safety issues associated with the summer use operations at LLMR, with an emphasis on grizzly bears (Tracey Gage, personal communication, January 20th, 2006). The second week of this training focuses on ecological management at LLMR and is mandatory for all LLMR’s summer staff (Ron Allen, personal communication, Jan. 9th, 2006). The interpretive staff is also encouraged to attend other educational programs within BNP, to

* MPHIA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to maintaining high standards for interpretive programming in Canada’s Rocky Mountain National Parks (http://www.mphia.org/content/mphia.html, Accessed January 20th, 2006.).

60 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 61 gain a broader perspective of ecological and human use management issues in the park. These are beyond Parks Canada’s requirements for the LLMR education program.

The education programs at RCR are value added services (Ron Allen, personal communication, Jan. 9th, 2006) that attract additional visitation and revenue to RCR. These programs are also an important part of the education and communication strategy for BNP. The information that the programs at LLMR provide to visitors can be taken and applied to other parts of the park, benefiting BNP as a whole. The education programs at LLMR are effective in providing visitors with a basic knowledge of proper behaviour and etiquette when encountering a bear or in grizzly bear habitat to minimize the potential for human-bear conflicts. The positive influences of these programs on public safety and grizzly bear management may counter-balance the influences of human presence at LLMR on grizzly bear habitat use and habituation potential, thus providing support for the continuation of the summer use program at LLMR. The quality and effectiveness of the education program at LLMR have been recognized by Parks Canada (Ross McDonald, personal communication, January 19th, 2006). The visitor education and staff training programs should be continued as an integral part of the summer use program at LLMR. These should be expanded and updated on a regular basis as new understanding of the local ecology becomes available.

5.6 Construction & Maintenance Regimes 5.61 Bear Protocol Construction and maintenance regimes are conducted on facilities and ski runs at LLMR over the summer months, potentially over all mountain faces within the leasehold. Because these activities have the potential to disrupt grizzly bear movement and habitat on the LLMR leasehold, they are regulated under the “Bear Protocol for Lake Louise Ski Area Construction Activities”(Appendix A). This document was first developed by Parks Canada in 1997 to regulate the scheduling and procedures for construction and maintenance projects, based on existing scientific knowledge of grizzly bear use patterns in the area. The Bear Protocol requires that all RCR maintenance staff and contractors receive proper training on appropriate behaviour and operational procedures to increase

61 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 62 human safety while working in grizzly bear habitat, and to reduce the influences of construction and maintenance projects on known spatial and temporal patterns of grizzly bear habitat use on the LLMR leasehold. This training is administered by Parks Canada, as well as RCR as part of the staff training program. The Bear Protocol also outlines requirements for: coordinating projects to reduce the amount of disturbance caused by them (i.e. compressing the project timeframe and affected area), regulating the timing of projects on certain areas of the leasehold (e.g. restricting activities on the south face of Whitehorn Mountain until after August 1st when bears are less likely to be in this area, limiting all construction activities to the established HA period of 7AM to 7PM, etc.), controlling traffic and motorized equipment use on the leasehold, food and garbage management, and monitoring grizzly bear activities in the area to ensure they are not within Benn’s (1998) zones of influence around the construction activities (LLMR EMD, 2005). This is an evolving document that has been regularly updated, most recently in 2005, based on current scientific information and to incorporate specific requirements for individual projects (Will Devlin, personal communication, Dec. 14th, 2005).

A conscious effort has been made with the Bear Protocol to reduce the potential for construction activities at LLMR to cause disturbance, displacement and habituation of grizzly bears by limiting the spatial disturbance and maintaining temporal consistency of these activities. It is acknowledged in the Bear Protocol that its conditions are to be adhered to strictly and consistently because grizzly bears may potentially be in the area at all times, even if not observed. The Bear Protocol should be enforced rigorously, while recognizing that the conditions of the Bear Protocol must be adapted to suit specific projects, and that situations do occur when urgent maintenance projects or considerations for other valued ecosystem components (VECs - e.g. trout habitat) may require a response outside of normal project scheduling. However, these will only proceed if no grizzly bears are in the immediate area of the specified project, and protocols are still followed to ensure grizzly bears are not unduly affected (Will Devlin, personal communication, December 14th, 2005).

62 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 63

5.62 Monitoring In the past, a number of the grizzly bears frequenting the LLMR leasehold were fitted with radio-collars for scientific study and monitoring purposes. These radio-collars were also useful to monitor grizzly bear presence in the vicinity of project sites on the LLMR leasehold, as required by the Bear Protocol. However, there are currently no radio- collared grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area (Mike Gibeau, personal communication, June 22nd, 2006). As a result, monitoring on the leasehold now relies on daily visual inspection of project sites prior to work commencing, and observation and reporting of grizzly bears and other wildlife on the leasehold by LLMR staff. Because grizzly bears tend to avoid open areas, this may compromise the ability to effectively monitor grizzly bear presence on the leasehold and increase the potential for grizzly bears in the area to be affected by construction and maintenance activities. However, it is also not desirable to subject grizzly bears to being trapped and fitted with radio-collars for the sole purpose of monitoring their presence on the leasehold, as this also has associated mortality risks, and continual monitoring could impact their movement patterns. This issue may need to be addressed through consultations between Parks Canada and RCR to assess whether the current monitoring techniques are sufficient, and what strategies are available to increase the effectiveness of grizzly bear monitoring on the LLMR leasehold if necessary.

5.7 Additional Grizzly Bear Management Initiatives in the Lake Louise Area Grizzly bear management at LLMR will not be effective in increasing the viability of the local grizzly bear population unless it is coordinated with other grizzly bear management initiatives within the Skoki LMU and the greater Lake Louise area because grizzly bears at LLMR have large home ranges and are affected by management actions in all parts of those ranges.

5.71 Aversive Conditioning Since 1991, Parks Canada has operated an aversive conditioning program in the Lake Louise area to address bear incidents on a case-specific basis (Parks Canada, n.d.). Aversive conditioning programs use negative stimuli to deter grizzly bears from approaching areas of human activity and development. Aversive conditioning is

63 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 64 necessary to teach grizzly bears, even non-aggressive individuals, to avoid areas of human presence in order to minimize human-bear encounters and prevent habituation (Jalkotzy et al., 1999; Mueller, 2001). Aversive conditioning is especially needed to reinforce wary behaviour in the subadult cohort, as this group is more prone to contact with humans and represents the future of the population (Mueller, 2001). Although these programs are expensive and require adequate long-term funding for consistent monitoring and hazing (i.e. conditioning) and proper administration (Gibeau, 2000; Herrero, 2005b), the need for aversive conditioning is identified as part of Parks Canada’s Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy in the Banff National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada, 2004a). Though aversive conditioning is important, it treats a symptom whereas managing human activities and access treats the cause and offers a more permanent solution (Gibeau, 2000).

5.72 Creating High Quality Habitat in Other Areas As noted by Donelon (2004), due to the discrepancy between grizzly bear use of high quality habitat within the LLMR leasehold and high human presence in the area, the problem could be addressed either by removing human presence or conversely, by creating high quality habitat in other areas. As it is unlikely that visitor use at LLMR will be discontinued under the current management strategy, it will be necessary to create high quality grizzly bear habitat in other parts of the Skoki LMU. Identifying appropriate sites in secure backcountry areas to create more high quality habitat requires using knowledge of local grizzly bear behaviour, movement and habitat selection patterns in the Lake Louise area, as well as knowledge of microhabitat parameters favourable for grizzly bear forage species (Donelon, 2004; Gibeau, 2000; Jalkotzy et al., 1999). The highly variable topography and high level of human activity in the Lake Louise area spatially limits opportunities to create high quality habitat areas.

Past management strategies in BNP that favoured fire suppression have led to an increase in mature forest that has altered the natural landscape within the park (Parks Canada, 2004a). Mature forested areas are less favourable to grizzly bears due to decreased food resources associated with the closed canopy (Wielgus & Vernier, 2003). Fire creates

64 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 65 natural openings in the forest with high productivity of grizzly bear forage species (Gibeau, 2000; Wielgus & Vernier, 2003). In order to restore natural ecosystems, a prescribed fire program has been introduced by Parks Canada (Parks Canada, 2004a). Under this program, a burn plan is developed for each LMU based on the terrain, facilities, and ecological considerations. There is a burn plan in place for the Lake Louise area over the next 5 to 10 years that is well coordinated with grizzly bear habitat effectiveness targets to identify areas with high grizzly bear habitat potential and incorporates a number of factors (e.g. elevation, aspect, etc.) that will influence the species composition of the burned area in favour of attractive grizzly bear forage species (Mike Gibeau, personal communication, February 1st, 2006). However, burns in the backcountry adjacent to LLMR have yet to be initiated awaiting the completion of environmental assessments and concerns for caribou in the area.

Even if high quality habitat was created in other areas grizzly bears would likely continue to frequent the LLMR leasehold because it contains a prevalence of high quality habitat. Subordinate cohorts are especially likely to continue selecting areas on the LLMR leasehold near human activity for security from dominant male bears. However, creating high quality habitat in less disturbed backcountry areas (i.e. with more habitat security) would give the grizzly bears a greater ability to meet their nutritional requirements, and at the same time avoid human disturbance (Mike Gibeau, personal communication, Feb. 1st, 2006).

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.01 General Principles of Grizzly Bear Management in the CRE Some general themes are evident from the current and recommended grizzly bear management initiatives associated with the summer use program at LLMR. Based on general trends in grizzly bear responses to humans in the CRE, these may be broadly applicable to developing and managing summer use programs at other ski areas in the CRE (and possibly other areas) to reduce their influences on the local ecology. These would need to be applied with the specific local ecological parameters and grizzly bear demographics factored in to account for differences between (sub)populations (Donelon,

65 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 66

2004), as well as measures that may be required to address local social and management concerns (Needham & Rollins, 2005).

The most common theme arising from this evaluation of the management of the summer use program at LLMR is the need to ensure that human activities within grizzly bear habitat remain spatially and temporally consistent and predictable to allow grizzly bears to access critical habitat areas. Sufficient time and contiguous areas with low human disturbance need to be provided to allow grizzly bears to move and forage with a high sense of security. This allows grizzly bears to adapt to human activities and also reduces the potential for surprise encounters that could have negative consequences for both grizzly bears and humans.

Human access restrictions and measures such as the electric fencing that are used at the LLMR base area have proven effective in reducing the potential for close interactions between grizzly bears and people. At LLMR specifically, this may enable bears to use habitat on the leasehold effectively to meet their physiological demands while minimizing contact with humans. Consistent food and garbage management and aversive conditioning are also necessary to discourage grizzly bears from approaching areas of human use. These measures should be used in other areas of high human use within grizzly bear habitat.

Public education and information on grizzly bear behaviour and ecology, as well as the natural systems and other wildlife present are integral to the effective management of human activities in natural areas. Education programs, similar to those operating at LLMR, should be provided as part of other summer use operations in BNP and the greater CRE area to promote understanding of the environmental and ecological issues that are central to parks management objectives. This is particularly true with respect to grizzly bear management because levels of human use and access have a significant impact to grizzly bear habitat quality. Education fosters respect for natural surroundings and gives visitors a better understanding of the consequences of their actions. It is imperative that this information is provided to visitors to BNP because many are tourists

66 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 67 who are unfamiliar with local wildlife and the appropriate behaviour required to ensure the safety of both humans and wildlife in the area. This is highlighted by the fact that most human-bear encounters can be attributed to human error (Herrero, 2003).

Pre-existing ski area developments provide a good opportunity to offer education programs in the park because they have the infrastructure and services to accommodate large numbers of visitors. This is favourable to developing additional facilities in other parts of BNP for educational purposes, in order to maintain the natural landscape of the park. The education program at LLMR may be useful as a framework for developing education programs at other facilities in BNP and the greater CRE area to expand opportunities for public education.

High quality habitat in nearby low human use areas should be identified using prior knowledge of grizzly bear habitat selection and protected from increased human access and development. Habitat creation or enhancement (i.e. establishing attractive natural forage species) should also be used to draw grizzly bears away from areas of human activity. In BNP, this will require a highly developed land use plan to establish specific areas for human use and those for grizzly bear (and other wildlife) habitat, rather than managing the whole area for multiple uses. This plan should also be coordinated with other jurisdictions in the surrounding area to provide connectivity between habitat areas over multiple jurisdictions. Based on the status of grizzly bears as an indicator of ecological integrity in the CRE, many other species would likely benefit from the protection and enhancement of grizzly bear habitat.

Reinforcing recommendations made by Herrero (2005b), Tremblay (2001) and others, it should be recognized that grizzly bear population dynamics and habitat use are not static, nor are the general ecological characteristics of the Bow Valley and greater CRE area. Because a number of studies have already been conducted on grizzly bear ecology in the Lake Louise area, this may lead to the opinion that there is little to be gained from further study. However, this paper has highlighted that many aspects of grizzly bear movements and behaviour, and the exact influences of human activities on these, are not completely

67 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 68 understood and likely never will be. Grizzly bear social behaviour and habitat use changes over time based on the complex interactions of a number of factors (e.g. individual bears, dominance hierarchies, local climatic and ecological conditions, food sources, human presence and behaviour, etc.). Human activities in the area have, and will continue to evolve over time as well. In order to account for these changes, an adaptive and proactive management strategy is necessary to ensure the continued viability of the grizzly bear populations in the area (Gibeau, 2000; Herrero et al., 2001). This will need to incorporate continued study and monitoring of grizzly bear movement and behaviour and changes to human use patterns. Grizzly bear management strategies should be periodically reevaluated to ensure that they continue to be ecologically, as well as socio- economically effective.

6.02 Barriers The most effective method for protecting grizzly bears and their habitat within BNP would require restricting human access and development to restore habitat security, but this is complicated by the need to account for the social, political and economic interests associated with human use of the park (Gibeau, 2000; Gibeau et al., 2001). This highlights that grizzly bear management is not merely a biological issue (Herrero et al., 2001; Kellert et al., 1996; Weaver et al., 1996). Management strategies should be based on input from all relevant stakeholder groups to rationalize conflicting values and to account for all perspectives* (Needham & Rollins, 2005; Primm & Clark, 1996; Williams & Todd; 1997). Though addressing divergent views can be uncomfortable, it results in more resilient policies that contain more shared goals (Primm, 1996).

The need for inter-jurisdictional cooperation creates a challenge for grizzly bear management (Gibeau, 2000). Scientists need to understand that the large spatial and temporal scales that scientific studies and conservation strategies operate on (as a function of the ecological processes they are concerned with), are incompatible with the immediate sociopolitical concerns associated with the economic costs and benefits of

* The IPS Workshops (see footnote on page 15) are an example of this relating to grizzly bear management in BNP.

68 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 69 development that land managers must accommodate (Mattson et al., 1996; Primm, 1996; Primm & Clark, 1996). Because of this, scientists need to be willing to make value judgments based on incomplete information, often at awkward times, to inform decision- makers for policy and management planning (Herrero et al., 2001; Mattson et al., 1996; Williams & Todd, 1997). However, recommendations and conclusions based on incomplete information may not be readily accepted, which can be a barrier to implementing grizzly bear management strategies (Gibeau, 2000). Because the low productivity of grizzly bear populations in the CRE limits their ability to recover from declines, grizzly bear management strategies need to be proactive to maintain grizzly bear habitat and population viability rather than reacting to decreases once they are observed (Mattson et al., 1996; Williams & Todd, 1997). This requires persistent communication and education of new scientific information as it comes available that can be incorporated with social and economic considerations to form an adaptive grizzly bear management strategy (Herrero, 2005b).

6.03 Future Grizzly Bear Management at LLMR Grizzly bear management at LLMR is a very complex issue. Above managing grizzly bears and their habitat, it involves managing human activities and behaviour and addressing other ecological concerns in the area. However, it is possible to manage the summer use program at LLMR in such a way that it is fairly positive for both people and grizzly bears (Stephen Herrero, personal communication, February 1st, 2006). Over the last few years there has been a conscious effort at LLMR, in coordination with Parks Canada, to reduce the influences of the summer use program on the grizzly bears in the area. The initiatives implemented have been effective, but do not account for all human influences and it must be recognized that this should be an iterative, adaptive process – there are further issues that could be improved upon. The lack of grizzly bear incidents at LLMR might be used as evidence that further mitigation measures are not required. However, due to the severity of consequences to both humans and grizzly bears of even a single incident, the chances of such an occurrence should be continually reduced as much as possible.

69 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 70

Managing human activities at LLMR alone cannot ensure the viability of the Lake Louise grizzly bear population due to the extent of human influences in the area and the large spatial requirements of the grizzly bears. The summer use program at LLMR is not the biggest human influence to grizzly bears in the Lake Louise area – the majority of past grizzly bear mortalities in this area have been associated with roadways and rail-lines. It is one of the cumulative influences however, and is easily controllable through the management of human access and behaviour on the LLMR leasehold.

The summer use program at LLMR also provides the opportunity for social benefits to the entire park through the education programs offered. The public is becoming more informed about environmental issues. This has led to an increased demand for measures to protect the wildlife and natural areas in BNP that are the primary draw for tourism. As the operations at LLMR occur within prime grizzly bear habitat, RCR should work to ensure that any potential negative impacts of their operations to the grizzly bears are minimized. Adopting an effective and proactive grizzly bear management strategy at LLMR provides the opportunity for RCR to market itself as a leader in promoting sustainable use of BNP. Efforts are being made under the current management strategy at LLMR to move in this direction (Will Devlin, personal communication, December 14th, 2006). To ensure that this continues, grizzly bear management at LLMR should be conducted within an ethos of “Every little bit helps”, and “No matter how good you are, you can always be better” (Williams and Todd, 1997, p.78).

70 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 71

REFERENCES

Apps, C.D.; McLellan, B.N.; Woods, J.G.; Proctor, M.F. (2004). Estimating grizzly bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(1), 138-152.

Benn, B. 1998. Grizzly bear mortality in the Central Rockies Ecosystem, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis – Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Executive Summary. {Electronic version}. Retrieved May 16th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/bbthesis.html

Benn, B.; Herrero, S. (2002). Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971-98. Ursus, 13, 213-221.

Canada National Parks Act, [2000, c.32] Retrieved December 10, 2005 from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-14.01/19348.html

Campbell, C. (2004). Grizzly Bear Monitoring in the Bow River Watershed Lake Louise Area Progress Report, June to November, 2004. Prepared for Mike Gibeau, Grizzly Bear Specialist, Parks Canada. 25pp.

Carroll, C.; Noss, R.F.; Paquet, P.C. (2001). Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the rocky mountains region. Ecological Applications, 11(4), 961-980.

Chruszcz, B.; Clevenger, A.P.; Gunson, K.E.; Gibeau, M.L. (2003). Relationships among grizzly bears, highways, and habitat in the Banff-Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 1378-1391.

Donelon, S. (2004). The Influence of Human Use on Fine Scale, Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Grizzly Bears in the Bow Valley of Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, MEM Program. Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC. {Electronic version}.Retrieved May 16th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/sdthesis.html

71 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 72

Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. (no date). Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project: About the project. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project Website. Retrieved December 10th 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/about.html

Garshelis, D.; Gibeau, M.L.; Herrero, S. (2005). Chapter 5.1: Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Pp. 25-49 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Gibeau, M.L. (1998). Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks. Ursus, 10, 235-241.

Gibeau, M.L. (2000). A Conservation Biology Approach to Management of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation, Resources and Environment Program. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. {Electronic version}. Retrieved May 16th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/mgthesis.html

Gibeau, M.L. (2005a). Chapter 6.2: Mortality of grizzly bears in the Bow River Watershed. Pp. 61-62 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Gibeau, M.L. (2005b). Chapter 12: Habitat effectiveness and security area analysis. Pp. 193-199 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and

72 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 73

Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Gibeau, M.L.; Clevenger, A.P.; Herrero, S.; Wierzchowski, J. (2002). Grizzly bear response to human development and activities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation, 103(2), 1-13.

Gibeau, M.L.; Herrero, S.; McClellan, B.N.; Woods, J.G. (2001). Managing for grizzly bear security areas in Banff National Park and the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains. Ursus, 12, 120-130.

Gibeau, M.L.; Stevens, S. (2005). Chapter 11: Grizzly bear response to human use. Pp. 181-192 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Hemmera Resource Consultants [HRC]. (1999, May.) Summer Use Study: Lake Louise Ski Area. Report for Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada. Hemmera Resource Consultants Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 40pp.

Herrero, S. (2003). Bear Attacks: Their causes and avoidance. Revised Canadian Edition. McClelland & Stewart Ltd. Toronto, Ontario. 282 pp.

Herrero, S. (2005a). Chapter 5.4: The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project’s population viability assessment for the Central Rockies Ecosystem. Pp. 54-56 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design,

73 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 74

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Herrero, S. (2005b). Chapter 15: Management recommendations: Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project final report. Pp. 227-242 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Herrero, S.; Jevons, S.; Benn, B. (2005). Chapter 6.6: Spatial and temporal analysis of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities and their density in the Central Rockies Ecosystem, 1972/1978-2002. Pp. 111-124 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Herrero, S.; Roulet, J.; Gibeau, M.L. (2001). Banff National Park: Science and policy in grizzly bear management. Ursus, 12, 161-168.

Iris Environmental Systems Inc. (2004, July). Environmental Screening Report (CEAA): Installation of a gondola and removal of Friendly Giant Chairlift, Lake Louise Ski Area, Banff National Park. Banff, Alberta. 123pp.

Jalkotzy, M. (2001, June). Environmental Screening Report (CEAA): Base area electric fencing, Lake Louise Ski Area. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. 29pp.

Jalkotzy, M.G.; Riddell, R.R.; Wierzchowski, J. (1999, November). Grizzly Bears, Habitat, and Humans in the Skoki, Baker, South Pipestone, and Lake Louise Bear

74 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 75

Management Units, Banff National Park. Prepared for Parks Canada and the Skiing Louise Group. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., Riddell Environmental Research Ltd., and Geomar Consulting Ltd. 101pp.

Kellert, S.R.; Black, M.; Rush, C.R.; Bath, A.J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977-990.

Lake Louise Mountain Resort Environmental Management Department [LLMR EMD]. (2005, July). Environmental Screening Report (CEAA): Temple Lodge Wastewater Line Replacement. Resorts of the Canadian Rockies Inc., Lake Louise, Alberta. 63 pp.

Land Use Planning Unit – Lake Louise, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks [LUPU]. (2004). Feasibility Study – Wildlife Mitigation Fencing in the Lake Louise Area. 61 pp.

Mattson, D.J. (1990). Human impacts on bear habitat use. International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 8, 33-56.

Mattson, D.J.; Herrero, S.; Wright, R.G.; Pease, C.M. (1996). Science and management of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1013-1025.

Mueller, C.M. (2001). Distribution of Subadult and Adult Grizzly Bears in Relation to Human Development and Human Activity in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis - Resources and the Environment Program. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. {Electronic version}. Retrieved May 16th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/cmthesis.html

Needham, M.D.; Rollins, R.B. (2005). Interest group standards for recreation and tourism impacts at ski areas in the summer. Tourism Management, 26(1), 1-13.

Needham, M.D.; Wood, C.J.B.; Rollins, R.B. (2004). Understanding summer visitors and their experiences at Whistler Mountain. Mountain Research and Development, 24(3), 234-242.

75 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 76

Nevin, O.T.; Gilbert, B.K. (2005). Perceived risk, displacement and refuging in brown bears: positive impacts of ecotourism? Biological Conservation, 121(4), 611-622.

Nielsen, S.E.; Herrero, S.; Boyce, M.S.; Mace, R.D.; Benn, B.; Gibeau, M.L.; Jevons, S. (2004). Modeling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation, 120(1), 101-113.

Noss, R. F.; Quigley, H.B.; Hornocker, M.G.; Merrill, T.; Paquet, P.C. (1996). Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology, 10, 949-963.

Olson & Olson Planning and Design Consultants. (1999, June). Recommendations for Summer Use at the Lake Louise Ski Resort. Report for Parks Canada Agency. Olson & Olson Planning and Design Consultants, Calgary, Alberta. 22 pp.

Parks Canada. (1994). Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Part II - Activity Policies: National Parks Policy. Sections 2 to 5. Ministry of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. {Electronic version}. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2004 from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/poli/princip/part2/part2a_E.asp

Parks Canada. (2004a). Banff National Park Management Plan. Ministry of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. {Electronic version}. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2005 from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/docs/plan1/plan1a_e.asp

Parks Canada. (2004b). Sharing the Land with Grizzly Bears. Lake Louise, Alberta. 4 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2006 from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn- np/ab/banff/natcul/cohabiter-avec-griz-sharing-land_e.pdf

Parks Canada. (n.d.). Aversive Conditioning: A campground example. Bear Management in Yoho, Kootenay, and Banff Website. Retrieved June 26th, 2006 from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/oursgest-bearmanag/sec4/og-bm4c_E.asp

76 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 77

Petersen, D. (2000). Grizzly bears as a filter for human use management in Canadian rocky mountain national parks. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. (2000). Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 354-361.

Primm, S.A. (1996). A pragmatic approach to grizzly bear conservation. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1026-1035.

Primm, S.A.; Clark, T.W. (1996). Making sense of the policy process for carnivore conservation. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1036-1045.

Resorts of the Canadian Rockies [RCR]. (2005). Lake Louise Sightseeing Gondola and Interpretive Centre Website. Retrieved July 16th, 2005 from: http://www.skilouise.com/summer/

Stevens, S. (2002). Landsat TM-based Greenness as a Surrogate for Grizzly Bear Habitat Quality in the Central Rockies Ecosystem. Canada. M.Sc. Thesis - Resources and the Environment Program. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. {Electronic version}. Retrieved May 16th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/ssthesis.html

Stevens, S.; Gibeau, M.L. (2005). Chapter 9: Home range analysis. Pp. 143-152 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

77 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 78

Theberge, J.; Herrero, S.; Jevons, S. (2005) Chapter 10.3: Resource selection by female grizzly bears with consideration to heterogeneous landscape pattern and scale. Pp. 161-177 in Herrero, S., ed. (2005). Biology, Demography, Ecology, and Management of Grizzly Bears In and Around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 272 pp. {Electronic version}. Retrieved December 10th, 2005 from: http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html

Tremblay, M. (2001, August). Wildlife Corridors in the Lake Louise Area, Alberta: A multi-scale, multi-species management strategy. Final Report. Prepared for Parks Canada. 168 pp.

Weaver, J. L.; Paquet, P.C.; Ruggerio, L.F. (1996). Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 964-976.

Wielgus, R.B.; Vernier, P.R. (2003). Grizzly bear selection of managed and unmanaged forests in the Selkirk Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources, 33, 822- 829.

Williams, P.W.; Todd, S.E. (1997). Towards an environmental management system for ski areas. Mountain Research and Development, 17(1), 75-90.

Personal Communications

Ron Allen. Environmental Manager, Lake Louise Mountain Resort, Resorts of the Canadian Rockies Inc.

Colleen Campbell. Grizzly Bear Researcher, Grizzly Bear Monitoring in the Bow River Watershed & Parks Canada.

Will Devlin. Ski Area Coordinator, Mountain District National Parks, Parks Canada.

78 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 79

Steve Donelon, M.Sc. Heritage Protection Coordinator, Parks and Protected Areas, Government of Alberta.

Tracey Gage, M.Sc. Education Manager, Lake Louise Mountain Resort, Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, Inc.

Mike Gibeau, PhD. Carnivore Specialist, Mountain District National Parks, Parks Canada.

Stephen Herrero, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.

Martin Jalkotzy, M.E.Des. Senior Wildlife Ecologist, Golder Associates Ltd.

Ross MacDonald. Parks Canada Communications, Lake Louise, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks.

Cedar Mueller, M.Sc. Osa Ecological Consulting.

David Walker, Ph.D. Revegetation Specialist Consultant. Dr. David Walker & Associates, Ltd.

79 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 80

APPENDIX A BEAR PROTOCOL FOR LAKE LOUISE SKI AREA CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES* (Last updated in 2005 by Parks Canada)

The 1997 "Protocol for Minimizing Disturbance to Grizzly Bears during Construction Activities at the Lake Louise Mountain Resort" was established by Parks Canada, for a similar project at the Lake Louise Mountain Resort (LLMR). This Protocol has equal application to this project. Parks Canada (2004) has revised 1997 Protocol for this project and it is presented below. Ski area and construction crews, with advice and information from Parks Canada staff, will gather knowledge of bear movements through visual observation and radio telemetry and plan their daily construction activities accordingly. At the LLMR the Environmental Management Department will train and inform construction crews and ski area staff on the established bear protocols.

PROTOCOLS FOR MINIMIZING DISTURBANCE TO GRIZZLY BEARS DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON THE LAKE LOUISE MOUNTAIN RESORT LEASE

1. BEAR AWARENESS All LLMR staff and contractors/subcontractors will be aware of operational procedures related to “best practices” when working in areas frequented by bears. This awareness will include issues relating to both food and garbage handling and worker safety. Contractors will ensure that their work force is properly informed and that there is adherence to operational practices. These information sessions will occur prior to the initiation of construction activities and as required throughout the construction period to ensure that any new staff is properly informed.

2. BEAR MONITORING The Proponent will be required to hire a Wildlife Technician to be on site during the construction process, whose sole responsibility will be to monitor grizzly bear movements on the LLMR lease, until it has been determined that all bears using the area have denned.

3. COMMUNICATION There will be on-going liaison between project managers, the Environmental Management Department, and construction supervisors. Liaisons will relate to updates of bear activities, issues of operational bear management practices, and issues of construction scheduling. Any issues for which agreement is not reached will be taken up with the Parks Canada Environmental Surveillance Officer (ESO). Weekly briefings will also be provided to the ESO.

4. REPORTING A reporting program will be developed and implemented prior to the initiation of construction activities. Construction activities are defined as including anything that involves motorized equipment and is directly related to the [SPECIFIC PROJECT]. Reporting will continue until completion of all construction activities or until it has been

* Adapted from LLMR Environmental Management Department (2005) and Iris Environmental Systems Inc. (2004). Additional requirements for specific projects would be included where noted.

80 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 81 determined that all bears have denned. All sightings of unmarked and marked bears occurring within the LLMR lease will be forwarded in less than one hour to the Main Office or the Environmental Management Department. Existing reporting mechanisms (i.e., Parks Canada Warden Service) for issues regarding bear/human encounters and bear habituation will remain in effect. Situations where a bear is in close proximity to a construction area (visible), and does not display wary behaviour (i.e. approaching the site), appropriate action must be taken by the construction personnel present. Parks Canada should be informed immediately and, if deemed appropriate by Parks Canada, aversive conditioning should be carried out.

5. MONITORING An intensive and full time monitoring program will be developed and implemented prior to the initiation of construction activities. Construction activities are defined as including anything that involves motorized equipment and is directly related to the [SPECIFIC PROJECT]. The monitoring will continue until completion of all construction activities. The terms of reference relating to the monitoring schedule and product deliverables will be developed in consultation between Resorts of the Canadian Rockies (RCR) and Parks Canada, with the costs being borne by RCR. All sightings of unmarked and marked bears occurring within the LLMR lease will be forwarded in less than one hour to the Wildlife Technician. Existing reporting mechanisms (i.e., Parks Canada Warden Service) for issues regarding bear/human encounters and bear habituation will remain in effect. If a bear is in the construction area, is visible to humans and does not display wary behaviour, then the bear Wildlife Technician and Parks Canada should be informed immediately and, if deemed appropriate by Parks Canada, aversive conditioning should be carried out. A member of the Environmental Management Department will visit the worksite prior to the arrival of construction crews to monitor for bear activity. If no bears are present at that time, crews will be allowed to commence work. All staff and contractors on site will monitor for bear activity throughout each day and take appropriate actions when bears are in the area.

6. CONSTRUCTION The protocols for the management of construction activities will vary relative to the type and intensity of the construction activities. The potential range of options are expressed through the following scenarios:

(a) As aerial work is potentially the most disruptive for bears, it will be most responsive to the reporting program. Air activities are scheduled by the construction supervisor. A key component of the aerial work will be to ensure that the helicopter flight paths will also be at least 750m away from the bear(s) to minimize impact. Up until the twenty-four hour period prior to the planned commencement of the aerial work, the Environmental Management Department may recommend to the ESO and RCR’s Project Manager that activities may be cancelled or relocated if bears are detected within 500 - 750 m (zone of influence) of the construction site. The zone of influence and how it is applied will be dependent on the time period and the sex and age class of grizzly bear that is involved. For example, adult female bears traveling with cubs will receive the greatest zone of influence – 750 m. This will require close liaison between the construction supervisor and the Environmental Management Department to determine the best possible time frame for aerial construction. If bear detection occurs within the twenty-four hour period prior to the onset of aerial construction work, attempts will be made to work outside of

81 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 82 the zone of influence. If that is not possible, the work will proceed subject to intensive monitoring of bear activity. (b) Prior to construction starting, a schedule of construction activities will be provided to the Environmental Management Department in a timely fashion. (c) Intensive monitoring will occur when the presence of marked bears within the zone of influence of the construction site is detected. If bears are utilizing an area in which construction activities are either planned or occurring, activities will proceed subject to intensive monitoring. Monitoring will acquire data relative to the impacts of the construction activities on the behaviours of the radiomarked bear(s). (d) In areas where there is no observed bear activity, every effort will be made to compress (temporally and spatially) the scheduling of construction activities so as to complete them as soon as possible. However, construction activities should occur only during daylight hours (7am – 7pm). (e) Every effort will be made to maintain flexibility in the construction schedule so the presence and movement of bears can be accommodated with the least disturbance possible. (f) Any incident involving a bear/human encounter will result in the immediate termination of construction activities, subject to an investigation and remediation of the causal factors.

In addition to following the conditions set out in the GRIZZLY BEAR PROTOCOL, Jalkotzy recommends that the following precautions regarding the implementation of the construction project should be adhered to.

1. There should be no construction work on the front side of the hill between Whitehorn and the base until after August 1. Excluded from this restriction is the area within the perimeter of the base area electric fence. The longer work can be delayed (e.g., August 15) the possibility of bear conflicts will be reduced, at least with the adult females.

2. Construction work should be carried out during daylight hours only. The bears that are currently using the hill have learned to avoid humans by being more nocturnal. It will be more disruptive to bears if we attempt to work “around the clock” because we think there are no bears there. Given the number of unmarked bears seen in the past, we have to always assume there are bears in the area.

3. Construction scheduling should always leave a relatively undisturbed movement corridor across the front side of the ski hill. Important grizzly bear feeding and resting areas are located immediately northwest of the Glacier chair as well as to the southeast on either side of the Temple fire road and bears on the front side of the ski hill move back and forth on a regular basis (C. Mueller. pers. comm.) Work should be scheduled so that activity is occurring only when reporting procedures indicates no grizzly bear movement within the 500 – 750m zone of influence. Construction experience at the Lake Louise Mountain Resort indicates that bears will avoid noisy and active construction sites, and that the risk of accidental encounters is low provided workers stay within a strictly defined work perimeter. Jalkotzy (1997) suggests that the use of mechanized equipment may be a positive factor relative to reducing potential human-bear encounters during construction because bears will temporarily avoid the construction area.

82 Influences of Summer Use at LLMR on Grizzly Bears 83

Construction of the [SPECIFIC PROJECT] will be staged in conjunction with the ski hills annual preventative maintenance and reclamation and rehabilitation plans and these plans will be reviewed with the ESO prior to proceeding. To provide a “secure” area for bears, work will be scheduled in conjunction with the Environmental Management Department prior to commencement. [NOTE: This section would also contain any site or project specific concerns or recommendations that need to be addressed, particularly in regard to maintaining adequate spatial and temporal movement corridors for the grizzly bears, as well as safety concerns for people in the general area (e.g. hikers).]

Grizzly bears range throughout the lower subalpine portions of the ski area during the relatively short summer season. There is no single period of time when construction can be done without the risk of encountering, disturbing or temporarily dislocating a grizzly bear. This situation has not changed since the ski area was established. Ski area personnel have adopted several of the following practices to minimize the risk of surprise encounter, and to ensure their safety:

• Travel and work in pairs or groups; • Play music on portable radios to advertise their presence; • Lock up food in vehicles or buildings; and • Leave no garbage for bears.

By reducing the risk of surprise encounters, the ski area staff members best protect themselves and bears.

The presence of bears throughout the ski area requires that considerable care and attention to food handling and disposal be practiced. Other animals that have shown a propensity to consume human food waste that is not handled properly include wolverine, porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), coyotes, grey jays, magpies, ravens, and small mammals such as voles (Cricetidae) and squirrels. This project will not increase conflicts with wildlife provided that effective measures to dispose of human waste continue to be implemented at day lodges and on construction sites.