MONASHEE GRIZZLY

A Compilation of Grizzly Bear Sightings, Habitat Information and Mitigation Strategies for Forestry Operations in the Vernon Forest District

Submitted by

Brian Robertson Forest Ecosystem Specialist Ministry Of Environment Vernon, B.C.

March 29, 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project was undertaken to collect information concerning grizzly bear distribution in the North , identify probable travel ways, bring forward information concerning valuable bear habitat, identify areas of immediate management concern (priority areas) and to offer direction to forestry planners as how to mitigate forestry operations on grizzly bears and their habitats.

Information concerning the distribution of grizzly bears was collected through an interview process and a search of existing Ministry of Environment files. Two hundred and twelve records were collected, of which one hundred and eleven were within the project area.

Four probable bear travel ways were delineated after reviewing information collected during the interview process, the assessment of habitat maps and a review of topographic features.

Grizzly bear habitat suitability ratings based on highest value and a weighted average presentation were produced for the study area. This mapping was supplied by Victoria MELP staff.

Bear distribution information and habitat suitability was overlaid with road density and proposed harvesting information to determine an approximate level of impact at a sub- basin level. Four priority sub-basins were identified, Lindmark, Vanwyk, Gates and Vigue. as offering the best opportunity to implement improved mitigation measures.

Discussion with licensee’s holding harvesting rights in these four sub-basins should occur as early as possible.

The Upper Shuswap LRUP is not felt to provide sufficient direction concerning the full spectrum of management issues associated with forestry operations in grizzly bear habitat. Additional sources of information are recommended.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 STUDY AREA ...... 1 METHODOLOGY ...... 2 Interviews and Data Collection ...... 2 Table #1 - Mabel Lake / Upper Shuswap, Sub-Basins ...... 3 Habitat Suitability Mapping ...... 3 Locating Travel Ways ...... 4 RESULTS ...... 4 Interviews and Data Gathering ...... 4 Movement Patterns and Habitat Use...... 4 Travel Ways ...... 5 Inaccessible Areas ...... 6 Suitability Maps – 1:250,000 Broad Ecosystem Inventory Mapping ...... 6 Table #2 – Simplified list of important Habitats ...... 7 The Impact of Roads on Habitat Suitability ...... 7 Table #3 - Sub-basin Road Densities ...... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 9 LIST OF MAPS ...... 12 LITERATURE CITED ...... 13

iii INTRODUCTION The apparent increasing risk to grizzly bears and their habitat is stressed in the MELP publication “Conservation of Grizzly Bears in , back ground report”,. This report states of the estimated 25,000 bears in Western Canada, British Columbia is estimated as having half, or between 10,000 & 25,000 bears.

In response to this increasing risk to grizzly bears the Ministry of Environment, Okanagan Region determined that it was necessary to undertake a project in the Upper Shuswap/Mabel lake portion of the Vernon Forest District. This area was selected due to the knowledge that grizzly bears were believed to inhabit much of the area, there was relatively low human habitation and the area was a high value site from a timber production stand point.

The objectives of this particular project were to: • Collect and compile information concerning the distribution of grizzly bears • Supply forest licensee’s with information describing valuable bear habitat and probable travel corridors. • Provide guidance to forest licensees on methods of mitigating impacts from forestry operations. • Identify high priority areas for immediate discussion concerning implementation of mitigation measures.

STUDY AREA The area over which the study took place is best described as being that portion of the Vernon Forest District which lies east of Mabel Lake and the Middle , north of Highway #6 to the Vernon Forest District boundary with the Arrow Lake Forest District, north along the MOF District boundaries as they separate the Shuswap and Arrow drainages and then southwest along the MOF District boundaries between Vernon and Salmon Arm (Wap Cr.). The study area covers approximately 2564 km2.

The study area falls largely within the Shuswap Highlands and Central Columbia Mountains Ecosections of the Southern Interior Ecoprovince; however, the study area also contains small portions of both the North Okanagan Highlands and the Selkirk Foothills.

Found within the study area are the following forested Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Units: ESSFwcp, ESSF2c2, ESSFdc1, ICHwk1, ICHvk1, ICHmw2, ICHmw1 and IDFmw1.

Elevationally the area ranges from 2679 meters at Mt. Fosthall in Monashee Provincial Park to approximately 450 meters on the shores of Mabel Lake. In general, the area can be divided in two using the Upper Shuswap River as the point of separation. The eastern

1 portion of the study area is far more rugged having narrow, steep walled valleys where avalanche tracts are not uncommon. Compared to the western portion of the area where, although there is substantial elevation changes, much more of the area grades into high elevation plateau type topography. Supporting this is the extent of inoperable ground found on the east side of the study area versus that on the west side.

METHODOLOGY Interviews and Data Collection An extensive, but not exhaustive review was undertaken to collect the information within this report as it related to bear sightings. The reason for this statement that the review was not exhaustive was that during the interview process there were instances where key people were either unable to be contacted or, in a few cases, were reluctant to become involved in the project. A key person was an individual whom I believed had spent a significant amount of time within the study area and was knowledgeable with respect to the identification of grizzly bears. During the interview process it became apparent that a single individual who was very familiar with the area could provide a significant amount of information with respect to actual sightings and use patterns. In missing such people it cannot be said that all information has been collected.

The information on grizzly bear sightings was collected through an interview process and a search of available B.C. Environment databases and paper files. This included paper files in B.C. Conservation Officer offices at Penticton and Vernon. Interviews involved B.C. Environment staff, Ministry of Forests staff, ranchers, forest company staff, trappers, professional hunting guides, long time residents living in and immediately around the study area and other members of the general public. Sightings were given both a precision and reliability rating based on B.C. Environments database system.

Sightings were recorded on a paper ledger 1:100,000 NTS maps and through use of UTM grid coordinates, later transferred to digital file. MELP staff in Victoria then overlaid the digital information on their habitat suitability maps to produce the final sightings map. Sightings were reviewed for suspected duplication by attempting to match bears by distinguishing characteristics, dates, locations and through comments made by the individuals being interviewed.

In the process of undertaking this project, I chose to break the project area down into sub- basins (Map #1). These units were based largely on B.C. Environments watershed atlas. However, the actual final sub-basin boundaries were adopted from the 1995 Vernon Ministry of Forests' report, Watershed Assessment Procedure Level 1 Analysis for the Vernon Forest District. It should be understood that these sub-basins are not meant to constitute home range size for either sex. The sub-basins were seen as being an appropriate sized unit from which to assess road densities and proposed harvesting. They were also seen as a recognizable area of a meaningful size on which to base

2 recommendations. The following is a list of the sub-basins used for the purposes of this project.

Table #1 - Mabel Lake / Upper Shuswap, Sub-Basins

1) Shuswap River 2) Greenbush lake 3) Lindmark Creek 4) Shuswap above above Greenbush Sugar Lake Misc.#1 Lake 5) Vanwyk creek 6) Gates creek 7) Shuswap above 8) Total Vigue creek Sugar Lake Misc.#2 9) Total Tsuius 10) Hound creek 11) Whip creek 12) Torrent creek creek 13) Smyth creek 14) Latewhos creek 15) Star creek 16) Total Spectrum 17) Bill Fraser creek 18) Kate creek 19) Sugar creek 20) Total Sitkum 21) Outlet creek 22) Sugar Lake 23) Specht creek 24) Total Cherry Misc. creek 25) Severide creek 26) Currie creek 27) Monashee misc. 28) Monashee above Railroad 29) Railroad creek 30) Big creek 31) Holstein creek 32) Woodward creek 33) Mabel Lake 34) Shunter creek 35) Iron creek 36) Devil creek misc. 37) Wap Trib 2 38) Derry creek 39) Yeoward creek 40) 41) Reiter creek 42) Ireland creek 43) Sprockton creek

Habitat Suitability Mapping All grizzly bear suitability map products referred to in this report are products of B.C. Environment. They are the 1:250,000 broad ecosystem Inventory mapping (Weighted average and Highest value) and the 1:50,000 biophysical grizzly bear maps produced for the Upper Shuswap LRUP in 1992. Sightings collected during this project have been plotted on the 1:250,000 broad ecosystem Inventory maps. Sightings were recorded by season; spring being the time frame from April 1 to June 30; summer being from July 1 to September 30 and fall being from October 1 to December.

3 Locating Travel Ways Travel ways were defined as areas that grizzly bears used routinely/annually to move over heights in land. The movement patterns of particular interest were those between the Arrow lakes and the Upper Shuswap River, and from the west side of the Upper Shuswap River to Mabel Lake.

Probable travel ways were identified by combining information collected from: • Interviews. Where knowledgeable individuals identified bears were traveling between the Arrow lakes and the Upper Shuswap watersheds • Review of 1:50,000 biophysical maps (where they existed). Specifically identified were mountain passes containing high value habitats (spring and/or annual ratings) • Topographic maps. Specifically identified were mountain passes having no apparent physical barrier.

RESULTS Interviews and Data Gathering A total number of 212 grizzly bear sightings were collected through the interview process. Of these, 111 were located within the project area. Another 26 existed on B.C. Environments Okanagan sightings database and an additional 30 records exist as compulsory inspections, bringing the total number of sightings and records to 167 within the project area. All new sightings were summarized in digital form and forwarded to B.C. Environment, Penticton office. It should be noted that maps detailing bear locations have not been included within this report but have been provided to B.C. Environment in both paper and digital form. For the purpose of this report it is fair to say that based on the sighting information, grizzly use is widespread throughout the project area.

Movement Patterns and Habitat Use During the interview process various comments were made with respect to movement patterns and habitat use by the bears. From these comments travel ways and areas receiving significant use and were noted. The following is a summary of these comments.

Bears were typically described as coming down to low elevation areas and main valley floors in the early spring. Areas repeatedly mentioned as receiving significant use in the spring were Tsuius and Sitkum creeks. A recent report on problem bears in the South Mabel Lake Area (L.M. Ciarniello 1999) aids in confirming the movement to lower elevations and the valley floor of the Shuswap River during the spring period. The report noted that residents indicated that grizzly bear problems are highest in the spring. As the snow recedes the bears were described as moving further up the side valleys and onto the

4 avalanche tracks. Avalanche tracks came up repeatedly as being heavily used during the spring. Of particular note were those slide chutes on south facing slopes.

Grizzly bears were seen in cut-blocks throughout all seasons. This was to be expected due to the forage values often found in cut-blocks during the early seral stage. Bears were noted in both recently logged blocks and in what were described as old blocks. When queried about green-up conditions within the old blocks, often the blocks were described as “old but not having much for conifer trees on them”. Within these old blocks the bears were described as “tearing apart old rotten stumps and logs”.

Interestingly enough were the number of times bears were seen either on roads or feedings on the roadside. Worthy of note was the comment “if you want to find bears in the spring, drive the roads and look for clover”. Based on the number of times that clover was mentioned as an attractant to bears its use in seeding mixes should be given serious consideration for exclusion in areas where roads are to be kept open and bear values are moderate or high.

Summer and fall sightings were well distributed with bears being seen in a wide variety of habitats. Cut-blocks were often mentioned, as were sub-alpine, alpine, berry sites and old burns. Areas such as Curwen Creek, Vidler Ridge, Mt. Beaven and Yeoward Mountain frequently came up as receiving substantial bear use.

Travel Ways Through the course of the interviews it became apparent that bears were moving between MU 4-32 and MU 8-23. Most of the references were made to bears traveling through relatively high mountain passes. The lower elevation Barnes Creek – Keefer Lake area was mentioned several times as a travel route for bears (this is outside of project area). See map #2B for the location of these travel ways. It should be noted that the travel ways that have been mapped are likely not the only areas through which the bears are moving between MU 4-32 and 8-23.

The area north of Monashee Provincial Park has no travel ways noted as a result of the interview process as there were no people found to have observed bears regularly enough to note travel patterns. For the purpose of this report I have indicated what I believe to be the most likely travel ways for that area north of the park. The rational for my selecting these areas was based on: • Topography (mountain passes), • Relationship to areas of moderately high or high habitat value as shown on the 1:250,000 broad ecosystem maps.

These speculative travel routes are shown on Map #2A. It should be recognized that as more information becomes available the travel ways, especially those to the north of the park, could be subject to change.

5 With respect to the area west of the Upper Shuswap River and over looking Mabel Lake, comments concerning specific travel ways did not come up during the course of the interviews as they had for the eastern portion of the project area. Although I believe that there are likely travel ways that the bears use, I don’t believe that they are as easily recognized as those to the east due to the less restrictive nature of the topography found in the area between Mabel Lake and the Westside of the Upper Shuswap River. As a result, I have not specifically identified any travel ways west of the Upper Shuswap River

Inaccessible Areas During the course of mapping the data collected a noticeable void appeared on the east side of the Upper Shuswap River north of Monashee Provincial Park. Although the area in question has substantial areas delineated as moderately high, or high habitat suitability as per the 1:250,000 scale broad ecosystem mapping, very few sightings were recorded. A real concern was that this lack of sightings might be used to question not only the accuracy of the suitability maps but also the issue of roads and their impact on grizzly bears. I believe the lack of sightings can be directly attributed to the lack of access. With no roads there are relatively few people who venture into the area and thus few sighting records. Furthermore, I believe that the area in question is perhaps one of the most valuable areas within the project area due the fact that this is the largest single area, approximately 200 km2, that has few or no open roads and that contains the full spectrum of seasonal habitats. In addition, the fact the area is relatively undeveloped provides planners with much greater latitude in planning future forestry activities than an area having an established harvesting pattern and a road system which has historically been open to vehicles.

Suitability Maps – 1:250,000 Broad Ecosystem Inventory Mapping Suitability ratings provided within this report were recognized as providing the best available information to date with respect to current habitat suitability, see Map #3 and #4. However, it must be recognized that due to the scale at which these map products were undertaken 1:250,000, micro habitats that may be heavily used by grizzly bears could, due to their size, be buried within a low value polygon. An example of this is the lands immediately adjacent to the Upper Shuswap River. Approximately half the length of the river between Sugar Lake and Greenbush Lake has been mapped as having very low habitat suitability when in fact the 1:50,000 Biophysical mapping over the same area shows there to be a considerable amount of moderate spring range and high spring habitat. Forestry staff should be aware of this information gap and not rely entirely on the aforementioned map products to identify all areas of valuable habitat. In an effort to assist forestry staff a simplified list of important habitats has been supplied as Table #2.

6 Table #2 – Simplified list of important Habitats Wetlands Wet valley bottom forests Skunk cabbage swamps Avalanche chutes Glacier Lilly patches Old burns and associated berry sites Berry sites ( vaccinium sp. & sheperdia Ground squirrel / marmot colonies canadensis) Side hill seepage’s

The Impact of Roads on Habitat Suitability The management of motorized access is recognized as being one of the most influential parameters affecting habitat security (Task Force Report – interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1998). Concerns regarding roads range from a direct loss of habitat to those related to poaching and collisions with vehicles. There are a variety of opinions as to how far out the influence of a road extends into habitats that a bear may use.

McLellan and Shackelton 1988 suggest a reduction equivalent to a habitat loss of 58% within 100 meters of open roads. They go on to further suggest that “even a little traffic is sufficient to displace them”. Other studies have suggested that the influence extends out as far as 0.57 miles from a road (Kasworm and Manley 1988, cited in Bectold et al. 1996).

An important point to most all of the findings on roads is that the concern typically relates to open road. Recent information put forth by R.D. Mace, J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon and H. Zuuring 1996 found that use of habitats within a 0.5 km. buffer surrounding roads was linked to the amount of use the road received. Buffer areas adjacent to roads receiving > 10 vehicles/day were avoided. This report suggests that although road densities are important, so to is information regarding the frequency of travel the roads receive. It goes on to say that spatial avoidance will increase and survival will decrease as road densities, road use and human settlement increases.

Considering the importance placed on road densities, I have included a table describing road densities for the various sub-basins in the project area. This information has been included so as to provide some insight into how existing road densities may be impacting available habitat. A maximum road density of 0.62 km/km2 is recommended in areas to be managed for grizzly bears (Servheen 1992).

Although the frequency of vehicle travel a road receives is recognized as an important factor in determining avoidance values, project time lines did not allow for roads in the project area to be field assessed. In addition, when considering the road density information in this report it must be recognized that the information used was Trim 1 road information. The last update for Trim 1 road information in the Vernon Forest District was completed using 1988 road information. Besides the obvious fact that there have undoubtedly been additional roads built since 1988, Ministry of Forests staff have also suggested that it is not uncommon that roads shown to exist on the trim information in fact do not exist. Although the road density information is not up to date, and road use

7 was not assessed, I believe that it is still useful as a means of providing an indication of the potential level of impact for a given watershed, and as an aid in determining where effort should be expended if managing for bears.

Table #3 - Sub-basin Road Densities Sub-Basin Road Density Km/Km2 1. Shuswap R above Greenbush Lake 0 2. Greenbush Lake 0 3. Lindmark Creek 0.1 4. Shuswap above Sugar Lake Misc #1 0.8 5. Vanwyk Creek 0.1 6. Gates Creek 0 7. Shuswap above Sugar Lk Misc #2 1 8. Total Vigue 0 9. Total Tsuius Creek 0.9 10. Hound Creek 0.7 11. Whip Creek 1.1 12. Torrent Creek 1.6 13. Smyth Creek 0.9 14. Latewhos Creek 1.1 15. Star Creek 0.9 16. Total Spectrum 0.1 17. Bill Fraser 0 18. Kate Creek 0.1 19. Sugar Creek 1 20. Total Sitkum 0.2 21. Outlet Creek 1.4 22. Sugar Lake Misc 1.2 23. Specht Creek 1.7 24. Total Cherry Creek 1.5 25. Severide Creek 0.7 26. Currie Creek 1.8 27. Monashee Misc 2.2 28. Monashee above Railroad 0.6 29. Railroad Creek 1.5 30. Bigg Creek 2.4 31. Holstein Creek 1.2 32. Woodward Creek 1.6 33. Mabel Lake Misc 1 34. Shunter Creek 2.7 35. Iron Creek 0.2 36. Devil Creek 1.7 37. Wap Trib 2 3.6 38. Derry Creek 0.5

8 39. Yeoward Creek 1.1 40. Monashee Pass 0.8 41. Reiter Creek 1.7 42. Ireland Creek 1.5 43. Sprockton Creek 0.5

As shown in the table there is a considerable number of sub-basins that have a suspected road density in excess of what is recommended for areas managed for grizzly bears. There are strategies which could be employed in an effort to deal with this situation. They include the development of deactivation plans and/or the implementation of road closures. Road closures would not be designed to necessarily physically remove roads as the deactivation plans would, but to limit the roads open to the public and in some cases restrict the time frame during which licensees could operate within a specified area.

Nowhere within the project area are there road restrictions that currently limit public, or licensee access. As such the right of access is a historical one and prior to removing or closing existing roads some public forum almost certainly would have to occur. In consideration of this, I believe that immediate attention should be turned to those areas where the greatest gains can be made in as short a time as possible. The areas to which I refer are those sub-basins that are believed to have road densities below the recommended maximum. This is not to say that habitats in the remaining sub-basins are written off, or placed at any lower a value, I am simply suggesting that efforts to deal with these areas will be more involved and time-consuming.

In those sub-basins currently believed to be below the maximum recommended open road density, discussion should take place between the Ministry of Forests, Major Licensees and B.C. Environment to discuss options as to how best to ensure that new road development maintains open roads at a level below the maximum recommended. When and if road use (traffic) information is collected this too should be taken into consideration.

RECOMMENDATIONS After considering the current state of the forty three sub-basins, I recommend a high priority be placed upon the development of a mitigation plan for four sub-basins. The four sub-basins are, Lindmark (#3), Vanwyk (#5), Gates (#6) and Vigue (#8). These four sub-basins contain significant amounts of moderately high and high value habitats, and currently having no, or very limited open road

Due largely to the sub-basins rugged nature, I recommend forestry activities be managed on a sub-basin level. This concept allows for the implementation of a strategy of activity and inactivity to be developed in adjacent basins. At such time that major forestry actives are completed in one sub-basin the adjacent sub-basin would then become available. Major activities are defined by Servheen (1992) as timber harvesting, road construction,

9 decking and loading. By planning for periods of inactivity the bears would be allowed an opportunity to adjust to changes that forestry activities will undoubtedly bring about

In an attempt to further reduce the impacts on the bears, scheduling of forestry activities within the active sub-basins should also be undertaken. Considering all four of the sub- basins contain spring habitats, and that the floodplain of the Upper Shuswap River, through which vehicle access into the sub-basins must come, contains significant areas of moderate and high value spring habitats, the least desirable time frame for operations would be the period from approximately April 15 to June 30 of any calendar year. In recognition of operational problems and costs associated with a high snow pack area such as the Upper Shuswap it is recommended that the most suitable time period for scheduling much of the forestry operations would be the period of time between the beginning of July and the end of August.

Limited discussion has already taken place with licensee’s regarding development shown in their most recent forest development plans. I propose that as soon as possible further discussion concerning the four priority sub-basins take place with the major licensees to introduce the concept of active and inactive sub-basins, access management and the scheduling of major activities. Recognizing that time tables may make the completion of a full agreement impossible prior to the area being opened up, at the very least an agreement dealing with vehicular access should be in place prior to the construction of the various bridges from which access will come. A full agreement would involve discussion on the issues of; timing of operations, planning for active and inactive sub- basins, harvesting and silvicultural techniques to be applied and the location and construction of long-term haul roads. This work will often involve the coordination of two or more licensees due to the positioning of tenures.

The majority of the forty three sub-basins have not been proposed to be managed in the same fashion as the four priority sub-basins (Lindmark, Vanwyk, Gates & Vigue). Due to the amount of suspected road development, history of logging and in some cases low habitat values, I do not believe that the opportunity, or the need exists to manage all sub- basins in a similar fashion to the priority sub-basins.

In the case of the remaining sub-basins, an updated road density and a road use evaluation should be undertaken as soon as possible so that a more accurate reflection of the state of the sub-basin can be determined. Using this information, habitat suitability maps and the most recent forest development plans a list of second priority sub-basins could be developed.

10

In the intervening time period harvesting proposals which result in new roads accessing moderately high and high value habitats should have an agreed to deactivation plan or access management plan in place prior to the construction of the road. The types of issues that should be addressed in these plans are: - road locations in relation to important habitats, - road deactivation, closure of roads to the public, - seasonal road restriction - scheduling of development.

It must be recognized that current management direction for grizzly bear habitat in the project area is provided by the Upper Shuswap LRUP. Advice concerning the management of grizzly bear habitat is directed primarily at the protection of critical spring habitats. It is my opinion that information concerning the protection of spring habitats alone will not be sufficient to provide adequate management for grizzly bear habitat in the remaining sub-basins.

Rather than create a lengthy list of management strategies which may, or may not be applicable to a given sub-basin, I would like to suggest the following reports and/or papers as reference material that planners could refer to when developing their plans.

• Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, 1987, Grizzly Bear Compendium. The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. • The Draft Revelstoke MAC Recommendations, Resource Management Guidelines for Grizzly Bear Management and Access Management, 1997.

11

LIST OF MAPS

Map #1………………..Sub-basins / road density

Map #2A……………...Travel Ways (speculative). Map #2B……………...Travel Ways (known).

Map #3.……………….Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability – Ratings Based on Average Value Presentation, BC Environment, April 1999

Map #4………………..Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability – Ratings Based on Highest Value Presentation, BC Environment, April 1999

12

LITERATURE CITED

L.M. Ciarniello, Aklak Environmental Consulting Inc. Jan. 1999 – Grizzly Bear Problem Analysis and Mitigation Techniques: South Mabel Lake, British Columbia

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Task Force Report – Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management, revised 1998

B.N. McLellan and D.M. Shackleton 1988 – Grizzly Bears and Resource – Extraction Industries: Effects of Roads on Behaviour, Habitat Use and Demography

Kasworm and Manley 1988, cited in Bectold et al. 1996

R.D. Mace, J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon and H. Zuuring 1996 – Relationships Among Grizzly Bears, Roads and Habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana

B.N. McLellan 1992 – Current Status and Long-Term Threats to Grizzly Bears in British Columbia

Servheen, C. 1992 – Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, Second Review Draft, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana

V. Banci, 1991 – Status Report on the Grizzly Bear

B.C. Ministry of Forests, Vernon District 1995 – Watershed Assessment Procedure Level 1 Analysis for the Vernon District

13