Phillips Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem Report 2014

A CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW &
SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED

MANAGEMENT (EBM) IN THE PHILLIPS
GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON ECOSYSTEM
ON THE BC SOUTH COAST
FOR
KWIAKAH FIRST NATION

CORE ABORIGINAL TITLE LANDS:
GRIZZLY BEAR RESEARCH PROJECT
February 20, 2014
Wayne McCrory, RPBio, Bear Biologist

McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.
208 Laktin Road, New Denver, British Columbia V0G 1S1
Phone: 250-358-7796;
email: McCroryWildlife@netidea.com
COVER PHOTO: Grizzly bear at mark/rub tree on Clearwater River, September 2011.
Remote camera photo: Sonora Resort
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, QUALIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT,

AND DISCLAIMER INFORMATION
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
This report was prepared by myself, Wayne McCrory, bear biologist. I am a Registered Professional Biologist
(RPBio) in the province of British Columbia. I have an Honours Zoology degree from the University of British
Columbia (1966) and have more than 40 years of professional experience. My extensive wildlife and bear work
has been published in ten proceedings, in peer-reviewed journals, and in government publications. I have
produced 80 professional reports, some peer-reviewed, many involving environmental impacts, cumulative
effect reviews, bear habitat and bear hazard assessments, and bear-people conflict prevention/management
plans. My curriculum vitae (CV) is attached at the end of the report (Appendix 2). I was assisted with
Geographical Information System (GIS) maps and analysis by Baden Cross, who has 30 years of experience in
this field. All work on GIS maps used in my report was supervised by me. I proofed and approved all final
version.
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THE PHILLIPS CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW
I have had extensive experience in environmental impact and cumulative effects assessments involving a
diverse array of developments, including impacts of logging on grizzly bears, caribou surveys in the Yukon
related to the Gas Arctic Pipeline, impacts of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline road, impacts of the Syncrude Tar
Sands development on waterfowl and other wildlife, a cumulative effects review on grizzly bears of the rejected
Prosperity mine in the BC Chilcotin, environmental impact study on wildlife for the proposed Moran Dam, an
environmental impact study for the Toosey First Nation of the effects of military exercises on the Chilcotin
DND military block, and others. I have also done extensive grizzly bear habitat surveys in at least 15 provincial
and national parks, including extensive habitat mapping and ground-truthing of several types of habitat map
modeling. I recently completed a cumulative effects review for grizzly bears related to the CEAA Panel
Hearings for the proposed New Prosperity mine in the BC Chilcotin.
In terms of coastal work, I am a member of the Coastal Bear-Viewing Association (CBVA), and am one of
three certified trainers. I have done grizzly and black bear habitat work on the BC coast since 1987, including in
and for the Khutyzemateen, Kitlope, Koeye Spirit Bear Conservancy Proposal Area, Mussel-Poison Cove bear-
viewing areas, Atnarko River-South Tweedsmuir Park, and other areas. Many of these studies involved ground-
truthing and mapping bear habitats, including salmon areas. I have also been instrumental in developing a draft
coastal grizzly and black bear GIS den habitat model. A number of these studies included professional reviews
of coastal grizzly and black bear logging guidelines. As part of this work, I was one of the peer reviewers of the
grizzly bear capability maps and logging guidelines for the Central and North Coast LRMPs, as well as a peer
reviewer of the Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) draft guidelines for the province of BC.
Lastly, I have done three previous bear-viewing assessments for the Phillips Arm-Phillips watershed study area
that included habitat assessments, some impact assessments, and some mapping.
DISCLAIMER
The findings contained in this report were compiled from onsite field investigations of grizzly bear habitat
values in the Phillips, reviews of all available studies and information on grizzly bear habitats, population
numbers, mortality, grizzly bear-salmon feeding areas, and conservation status in the Phillips study area and
Knight-Bute Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU). The scientific literature was reviewed for all relevant
materials. Extensive GIS map modeling was conducted to ascertain current grizzly bear habitat changes caused
by industrial-scale clearcut logging. I feel I have provided an accurate and authoritative analysis with regard to
the subject matter covered herein. The conclusions and recommendations expressed herein are entirely my own
and have not been subjected to outside peer review. I take full responsibility for any errors or omissions on my
part, but not on the part of errors or omissions extant in the data provided by outside sources. Where possible, I
identify where I have relied on my own professional opinion.
While best efforts have been made to ensure the validity of this review, no liability is assumed with
respect to the use or application of the information contained herein.
Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 1

AUTHOR’S NOTE
On January 29, 2014, the Joint Solutions Project (JSP), comprised of three forest companies
(including WFP) and three environmental organisations, made a joint submission to government and
First Nations with their final recommendations for ecosystem-based management (EBM). This
included additional lands designated for protection as conservancies and biodiversity areas. Although
exact details on new protection areas and changes to some of the EBM logging rules were not made
public, I was able to ascertain that no changes will be made to add more full protection to the Phillips.
I was also able to ascertain that there will be some changes to EBM to increase protection, including
adding “old-growth recovery areas.” Since I did not have the full details and since government has
not made a final decision, no changes were made to my sufficiency analysis of EBM and other
protection measures for the Phillips. However, once the EBM changes are finalised, these should be
considered should they be relevant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, QUALIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO
THIS PROJECT, AND DISCLAIMER INFORMATION......................................1
AUTHOR’S NOTE ............................................................................................................2
KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................9
BACKGROUND AND APPROACH ........................................................................................9
IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS AND PLANNED WFP LOGGING ON THE
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE PHILLIPS GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON
ECOSYSTEM AND THE KWIAKAH BEAR-VIEWING PROGRAM.........................9
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................12
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON INVENTORY
AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW ....................................................................13
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF EBM
LOGGING GUIDELINES AND OTHER PROTECTION MEASURES .....................16
1.0 KWIAKAH FIRST NATION CORE ABORIGINAL TITLE
LANDS GRIZZLY BEAR RESEARCH STUDY AREA ......................................22
2.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF STUDY & TERMS OF REFERENCE ........26
2.1 RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR STUDY.......................................26
2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY
MCCRORY WILDLIFE SERVICES ..............................................................................26
2.3 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS .........................................................................29
3.0 STUDY METHODS & APPROACH.......................................................................34
3.1 OVERALL STUDY APPROACH ....................................................................................34
3.2 GIS MAPPING APPROACHES ......................................................................................35
3.2.1 Development of a Forest Age GIS Base Map to Analyze General Vegetative
Changes to Bear Habitats Caused by Past and Recent Logging Activities in the
Phillips Study Area............................................................................................................36
3.2.2 Mapping Approach for Determination of Areal Extent of Logging-Related
Early/Young Seral, Mid-Seral/Mature Closed Canopy Plantation Forest in the
Phillips Study Area Related to Grizzly Bear Habitat Values ............................................38
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................40
4.1 WHAT ARE THE STUDY IMPLICATIONS TO THE KWIAKAH
BEAR-VIEWING PROJECT IN THE PHILLIPS? .......................................................40
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY BASED ON
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON GRIZZLY BEARS AND THEIR
HABITATS IF THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, ETC. WERE TO REMAIN THE SAME OR IF NEW
DEVELOPMENTS WERE TO PROCEED? ..................................................................41
4.3 INVENTORY INFORMATION—GRIZZLY BEAR GENERAL
CONSERVATION BACKGROUND...............................................................................45
4.3.1 The Grizzly Bear as a Conservation Indicator ................................................................45
4.3.2 International, National, & Provincial Conservation Status of the Kwiakah
Phillips Watershed Grizzly Bear .......................................................................................46
4.4 INVENTORY BACKGROUND: PHILLIPS GRIZZLY BEAR
HABITAT REVIEW..........................................................................................................52
4.4.1 Background Review of the Seasonal Diet and Habitats of BC
Coastal Grizzly Bears........................................................................................................52

4.4.2 Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability Maps (by Western Forest Products
and Grant MacHutchon)....................................................................................................57
4.4.2.1 Grizzly bear habitat maps—Western Forest Products (WFP)..................................57
4.4.2.2 EBM Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons—Grant MacHutchon.......58
4.4.3 McCrory Wildlife Services 2007-2013 Field Evaluation of Grizzly Bear
Vegetation and Salmon Habitats, Number of Grizzly Bears Observed/Recorded,
and Diet/Habitat Use in the Lower Phillips River and Phillips Estuary Areas .................65
4.4.3.1 Field study approach and limitations........................................................................65
4.4.3.2 Summary of spring habitat values and use in the Phillips core area ........................65
4.4.3.3 Specialised bear habitats: tidal wetlands, coastal salt marshes, and
shoreline meadows in the Phillips study area...........................................................67
4.4.3.4 Field surveys: Other grizzly bear vegetation habitats and their use in
the lower Phillips Valley ..........................................................................................72
4.4.3.5 Summary of fall habitat values and grizzly bear use in the Phillips core area .........74
4.4.4 Delineation of Grizzly Bear Core Area (Tidewater to 100 M ASL)
in Lower Phillips ...............................................................................................................75
4.4.5 Winter Denning Habitat for Grizzly Bears .....................................................................76
4.4.5.1 Assumptions and limitations ....................................................................................76
4.4.5.2 Summary ..................................................................................................................76
4.4.5.3 Background and analysis..........................................................................................78
4.4.6 Other Habitat Features: Bedding Areas and Mark/Rub Trees ........................................83
4.4.6.1 The importance of bedding sites as important life requisite areas ............................83
4.4.6.2 Marking or rub trees and trails .................................................................................83
4.5 GRIZZLY BEAR TRAVEL ROUTES AND CORRIDORS
(LINKAGE ZONES)..........................................................................................................83
4.5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................83
4.5.2 Assumptions and Limitations .........................................................................................84
4.5.3 Background .....................................................................................................................84
4.5.4 Grizzly Bear Travel Corridors/Linkage Zones in the Phillips ........................................86
4.6 HOME RANGES ...............................................................................................................88
4.7 BACKGROUND INVENTORY—ESTIMATE OF PHILLIPS
GRIZZLY BEAR NUMBERS ..........................................................................................91
4.7.1 Assumptions and Limitations .........................................................................................91
4.7.2 Summary .........................................................................................................................92
4.7.3 Background .....................................................................................................................92
4.7.4 Estimate of Grizzly Bear Numbers for the Phillips Based on BC Wildlife Branch
Density Estimates for the Knight-Bute Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU) ...............93
4.7.5 Estimate of Historic Grizzly Bear Numbers in the Phillips Study Area .........................94
4.7.6 Estimated Number of Grizzly Bears from Field Surveys in the Phillips
Grizzly Bear Study Area ...................................................................................................95
4.7.6.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................95
4.7.7 Implications of Low Population Size to Conservation/Recovery of
Phillips Study Area Grizzly Bears.....................................................................................98
4.7.8 Estimated Population Trend of Grizzly Bears in the Phillips Study Area ....................100
4.7.8.1 Assumptions and limitations ..................................................................................100
4.7.8.2 No evidence grizzly bear numbers are increasing..................................................100
4.8 EVALUATION OF SALMON NUMBERS AND HABITATS
RELATED TO GRIZZLY BEAR FEEDING ECOLOGY IN
THE PHILLIPS STUDY AREA .....................................................................................103
4.8.1 Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................103
4.8.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................103

4.8.3 Estimated Salmon Return Numbers and Spawning Habitats in the Phillips.................104
4.8.4 Field Observations of Salmon, Salmon Counts, and Grizzly Bear Use........................107
4.9 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW - IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES
ON THE GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON ECOSYSTEM IN THE PHILLIPS
STUDY AREA..................................................................................................................110
4.9.1 Hypothetical Historic Impacts of First Nations, Early Fur Trade, and Human Industrial
Settlement Patterns on Phillips Grizzly Bear and Salmon Numbers...............................111
4.9.1.2 Summary ................................................................................................................111
4.9.1.3 Some notes on early human factors that may have influenced grizzly
bear numbers ..........................................................................................................112
4.9.2 Human-Caused Mortality (Trophy Hunting, Illegal And Unreported Kills)
as a Possible Factor in Contributing to the Low Population Numbers and
Viability of Phillips Grizzly Bears ..................................................................................115
4.9.2.2 Summary ................................................................................................................115
4.9.2.3 Mortality.................................................................................................................116
4.9.3 Are Low Salmon Numbers in the Phillips Contributing to Low
Numbers of Grizzly Bears and Their Survival and Possible Recovery? .........................119
4.9.3.2 Summary ................................................................................................................119
4.9.3.3 Background ............................................................................................................120
4.9.4 Potential Disturbance Effects of Bear-Viewing on Grizzly Bears
in the Phillips...................................................................................................................123
4.9.4.2 Summary ................................................................................................................124
4.9.4.3 Background ............................................................................................................124
4.9.5 Other Visitor/Tourism Disturbance Effects on Phillips Grizzly
Bears (Jet Boats, etc.) ......................................................................................................127
4.9.6 Effects of Western Forest Products (WFP) Industrial-Scale Logging
Operations on Phillips Grizzly Bears and Salmon ..........................................................129
4.9.6.1 Overall summary of effects of roads and clearcuts ................................................129
4.9.6.2 Impacts of logging roads on Phillips grizzly bears and salmon .............................130
4.9.6.4 Summary of effects of roads ..................................................................................130
4.9.6.5 Background review on impacts of roads on grizzly bears......................................131
4.9.6.6 Total length of logging roads/spur roads in the Phillips study area .......................133
4.9.6.7 Physical extent of wildlife/valley bottom grizzly habitat removed by
Phillips logging road network ................................................................................135
4.9.6.8 Total road density analysis for Phillips study area and EBM Class 1 &
Class 2 grizzly habitats, Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs), and Phillips
Estuary Conservancy..............................................................................................136
4.9.6.9 Road disturbance: Zone of Influence (ZOI) analysis for the Phillips.....................142
4.9.7 Habitat Effectiveness and Grizzly Bear Security Areas ...............................................144
4.9.7.1 Background and results ..........................................................................................144
4.9.8 Effects of Industrial-Scale Clearcutting on Grizzly Bear-Salmon
Habitats in the Phillips ....................................................................................................151
4.9.8.2 Summary ................................................................................................................152
4.9.8.3 Background and analysis........................................................................................152

4.9.9 McCrory wildlife services 2007-2013 field observations & photo-
documentation of debris torrents/landslides in the Phillips as a factor in
salmon habitat degradation..............................................................................................160
4.9.9.2 Summary ................................................................................................................160
4.9.9.3 Observations and photo-documentation.................................................................160
4.10 SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF NO-LOG RESERVES FOR GRIZZLY BEARS
AND SALMON IN THE PHILLIPS STUDY AREA, INCLUDING ECOSYSTEM-
BASED MANAGEMENT (EBM) LOGGING GUIDELINES, WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREAS (WHAS), AND CONSERVANCY PROTECTION .......................165
4.10.1 Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................................165
4.10.2 Summary...................................................................................................................166
4.10.3 Study Approach ........................................................................................................167
4.10.4 Background. Why Ecosystem-Based Management? ................................................168
4.10.5 Sufficiency Analysis Background Overview: Lack of Cumulative Effects
Review, Long Term Studies of Environmental Impacts of Coastal Logging on
Coastal Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystems, and Lack of On-The-Ground GIS
Test Modeling of Draft EBM Rules for Logging Reduces Their Reliability
and Potential to Meet EBM Objectives. ..........................................................................169
4.10.6 Nanwakolas Council et al.
(2012 definition of EBM “hard” and “soft” reserves).....................................................170
4.10.7 Sufficiency of South Coast Land Use Planning EBM “Hard” and “Soft”
Reserves to Meet EBM Objectives of Ecological Integrity for Grizzly Bear
and Salmon in the Phillips...............................................................................................172
4.10.7.1 Evaluation of sufficiency of the no-log reserves in terms of 50% security
habitat and connectivity needs of Phillips grizzly bears .......................................172
4.10.7.2 Evaluation of sufficiency of widths of EBM no-log reserves for grizzly bear
habitats, major wetlands, estuary/beach fringe areas, and salmon habitats...........173
4.10.7.3 Relevant background studies for reserve width design for salmon streams
and estuaries ..........................................................................................................177
4.10.8 Sufficiency of Travel Corridors/Linkage Zones .......................................................180
4.10.9 Assessment of Sufficiency of EBM Guideline for 50% or Less of a Landscape
Unit to be in Mid-Seral Closed Canopy Forest and 50% in Old Forest to
Maintain a Low Risk to Biodiversity ..............................................................................181
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF POTENTIAL FOODS FOR BLACK AND

GRIZZLY BEARS IN SOUTH COAST MOUNTAINS......................................186
APPENDIX 2: CURRICULUM VITAE OF WAYNE McCRORY, RPBIO...........190
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ........................................................................................................................................142
Table 2. ........................................................................................................................................142
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Phillips estuary used for Kwiakah bear-viewing in spring.................................................10
Map 2. Phillips study area – old forests .........................................................................................18
Map 3. Phillips study area – total areas class 1 and 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons .....................19

Map 4. Core grizzly bear habitat in lower Phillips.........................................................................20
Map 5. Location of study area........................................................................................................22
Map 6. Phillips watershed – Kwiakah First Nation Core Aboriginal Title Lands .........................23
Map 7. Western Forest Products (WFP) map of Tree Farm License (TFL) 39..............................24
Map 8. Phillips Arm Landscape Unit .............................................................................................25
Map 9. Landscape units for Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) for the south coast ..............25
Map 10. 2007 WFP map of lower-middle Phillips River area .......................................................37
Map 11. WFP’s Phillips logging plan 2013 showing proposed cutblocks .....................................43
Maps 12a and 12b Current and historic range (12a) and distribution (12b) of
grizzly bears in North America...........................................................................................47/48
Map 13. Grizzly bear population units (GBPU) in British Columbia ............................................49
Map 14. WFP map of TFL 39 showing highest value grizzly bear habitats ..................................58
Map 15. Class 1 and 2 grizzly bear polygons in Phillips River Landscape Unit ...........................62
Maps 16a and 16b. Showing yellow-hatched polygons: legally recognised
Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) for grizzly bears ...................................................................63
Maps 17a and 17b. Lower Phillips River and Upper Phillips Arm showing estuary and
Class 1 and 2 grizzly bear polygons ........................................................................................64
Map 18. High value salt marsh habitat for grizzly bears................................................................68
Map 19. Locations of grizzly bears and black bears observed on the estuary in June 2008 ..........70
Map 20. Grizzly bear core area of concentration of use based on Khutzeymateen benchmark .....77
Map 21. Old forests above 360 m elevation where grizzly bears are expected to den...................79
Map 22. Old forests above 360 m elevation that are potential grizzly bear den areas
in relation to areas already logged and clearcut......................................................................82
Map 23. Grizzly bear density by population unit ...........................................................................94
Map 24. Main chinook and sockeye spawning areas ...................................................................106
Map 25. Knight-Bute GBPU and over-mortality periods.............................................................118
Map 26. The extensive 306 km logging road system ...................................................................135
Map 27. Road network in relation to EBM grizzly bear habitat polygons,
Phillips Estuary Conservancy, and WHAs ............................................................................139
Map 28. All road density categories in relation to grizzly bear habitat polygons,
Phillips Estuary Conservancy, and WHAs ............................................................................140
Map 29. Linear disturbance map using lumped higher road density categories ..........................141
Map 30. Conservative 0.3 km road Zone of Influence (ZOI) in relation to grizzly
bear habitat polygons and old forests.....................................................................................145
Map 31. Small patches of secure grizzly bear habitat outside the 0.3 km ZOI ............................147
Map 32. State of BC’s coastal rainforest; about half has been logged .........................................153
Map 33. Approximate areas logged in the study area from the late 1800s to 2007 .....................155
Map 34. Old forests, roads, and logged areas to 2008 in the study area ......................................157
Map 35. Approximately 52% of the original old forest in the Phillips has been
logged and roaded ..................................................................................................................159
Map 36. No-log reserves are a good start, but much of the lower Phillips estuary
is not protected and most is affected by high road densities..................................................174

Map 37. Shows fragmented no-log reserves with too narrow buffers..........................................175
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Kwiakah bear-viewing structure .....................................................................................11
Figure 2. Grizzly bear searching for salmon along the Phillips River............................................11
Figure 3. Grizzly bear mark tree and mark trail .............................................................................11
Figure 4. Example of unreported grizzly bear mortality along logging road .................................13
Figure 5. Debris torrent damage to fish habitat ..............................................................................15
Figure 6. More debris torrent damage to fish habitat .....................................................................15
Figure 7. Large wetlands in core grizzly bear habitat in Phillips Estuary Conservancy ................21
Figure 8. Large second-growth area in Shirley Creek at Dyer Point..............................................21
Figure 9. 800-year-old Sitka spruce with grizzly bear den cavity..................................................81
Figure 10. Historic homestead at old townsite on estuary............................................................114
Figure 11. Jet boat with sport fishing group on lower Phillips River, September 2009...............127
Figure 12. September 2007 WFP heli-block: landslide................................................................161
Figure 13. September 2007 WFP heli-block: debris torrent.........................................................161
Figure 14. September 2009 grizzly bear-salmon surveys of km 22 area of
Phillips River showing major landslide in 2006 ....................................................................162
Figure 15. September 2009 grizzly bear-salmon surveys of DFO’s
artificial pink spawning channel in lower Phillips valley ......................................................163
Figure 16. Debris torrent from Shirley Creek covering part of estuarine grizzly
bear habitat and which may have eliminated a small run of pink salmon .............................163

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
This report was done in response to ten questions listed in a terms of reference (TOR) provided to
McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. by the legal representative for the Kwiakah First Nation Core
Aboriginal Title Lands—Grizzly Bear Research Project. The Kwiakah wish to know how various
land use practices, including logging, have impacted—and will continue to impact—grizzly bears and
salmon, and their grizzly bear-viewing tourism project in the Phillips watershed grizzly bear-salmon
ecosystem (50,900 ha). In the late 1990s, as part of the Central Coast Land & Resource Management
Plan (CCLRMP), the Phillips watershed was identified as one of 12 areas of high importance for
grizzly bears.
In order to answer these ten questions, I conducted a background inventory of grizzly bear and
salmon numbers and their habitats. I also did a background cumulative effects review that combined
field studies; a review of the scientific literature; and a series of analytical GIS maps and habitat
models, including logged areas, old forests, early clearcuts, closed-canopy logged forests, roads, road
densities, and other factors. I also reviewed information/studies on the impacts of bear-viewing and
other tourism uses. I then used the cumulative effects results and known grizzly bear-salmon life
requisites to determine the sufficiency of new ecosystem-based management (EBM) logging
guidelines and other protection measures for grizzly bears and salmon in the Phillips watershed. I
used the background results to address the concerns of the Kwiakah First Nation on the impacts of
past and planned Western Forest Products (WFP) logging on the ecological integrity of the Phillips
grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem, and its effects on their bear-viewing program. I have included
recommendations for a grizzly bear recovery strategy to meet the EBM objective of ecological
integrity and to ensure that the Phillips grizzly bear sub-population is able to survive and increase
over time.
IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS AND PLANNED WFP LOGGING ON THE

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE PHILLIPS GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON
ECOSYSTEM AND THE KWIAKAH BEAR-VIEWING PROGRAM
My inventory and cumulative effects reviews show that logging in the Phillips watershed by WFP
and its predecessors has surpassed all measurable thresholds by which grizzly bears are known to be
able to maintain a viable population.
These impacts include a major road/spur road network (306 km), with excessive road densities in the
highest quality habitats and salmon areas in the valley bottom; a high level of disturbance to many
important grizzly bear habitats within a 0.3 km zone of influence (ZOI) from logging roads; excessive
logging to the edge of critical riparian areas, including wetlands and salmon-spawning areas; a
reduction of security habitat for female grizzly bears in riparian forests, including salmon streams;
successive clearcutting of over half of the old forests, with large areas in the lower valley now in mid-
seral closed-canopy stage of little value to grizzly bears; degradation of a number of salmon-
spawning areas from debris torrents/landslides that appear to be logging-related; and other lasting
cumulative impacts on the ecosystem.
It is likely that a direct combination of past trophy hunting and illegal mortality, including poaching;
impacts from logging; and reduced salmon runs can all be attributed as interrelated causative factors
to the very low population of 10-12 grizzly bears in the Phillips. I found no evidence of an increasing

population trend from my field survey counts of bears and their sign between 2007-2013. My studies
show that a spring and fall grizzly bear-viewing program is still viable, but would improve if grizzly
bear numbers were to increase and no logging was present.
In historic times, the Phillips likely supported 50-60 grizzly bears, but due to reduced habitat quality
and low salmon abundance, the study area could likely—at recovery—support 25-30 grizzlies.
Map 1. Phillips estuary (green) used for Kwiakah bear viewing in spring. All of the estuary areas
need to be protected, along with a 300 m no-log reserve (McCrory and Williams 2009).

Figure 1. Kwiakah bear-viewing structure along Clearwater
River for viewing bears on salmon. Fixed structures help
minimise impacts on bears when compared to dispersed
bear-viewing.
Figure 2. Grizzly bear searching for salmon along Phillips

River.
Figure 3. Grizzly bear mark tree

and mark trail at upper Phillips
estuary ecosite near shell
middens from ancient Kwiakah
Village.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on my ecosystem analysis, I highly recommend implementing a moratorium on further logging
until a grizzly bear recovery strategy is developed that would meet EBM objectives for ecological
integrity by restoring the grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem.
Ideally, the population can best recover over time if the valley is left to rehabilitate under the option
of no further logging, along with other measures, including detailed monitoring of the grizzly bear
population, continuation of careful visitor use guidelines in place for spring and fall grizzly bear
viewing, control of jet boats on the lower river, and rehabilitation of salmon runs and habitats, such as
the artificial pink salmon channel in the lower Phillips watershed. Monitoring of bear numbers using
remote cameras and hair-DNA analysis would help track population levels. The valley should also
have some monitoring for illegal kills, as we noted a dead juvenile bear that had apparently been
illegally killed or killed by logging traffic in 2007.
Based on our map analysis of roads and young/early-seral and closed-canopy mid-seral/mature
cutover lands, most of the future logging for many decades will likely focus on second-growth forests
in the lower valley, where logging of second-growth stands has already started. EBM directives for
50% remaining old forest and 50% seral under the 2009 South Coast Order were considered not only
to be not scientifically credible to sustain viable populations of grizzly bears, but are already too late
for the Phillips, where 52% of old forests have already been logged and only 1,020 ha of old forest
remains in the valley bottom areas in small, fragmented patches.
A second management option would be to close off logging in the logged-out mid- and upper Phillips
and manage the whole mid-upper area as a grizzly bear recovery zone, while allowing some careful
logging of second-growth forests in the lower valley well away from the core valley bottom-estuary
grizzly areas.
For the lower valley, second-growth logging, if allowed, needs to be much more carefully managed in
light of my ecosystem sufficiency findings that EBM no-log reserves around larger critical habitats,
such as the Phillips estuary, salmon-spawning areas, and larger wetlands need to be expanded in
width from the EBM 30-50 m width (=1.5 tree length equivalent) to at least 300 m. This should
include all of the Phillips estuary since only part of it is protected under conservancy status or Class 1
grizzly bear habitat. For example, proposed cutblock PH 171 near the Dyer Point estuary in WFP’s
2013 logging plan is far too close to this important spring estuary habitat and, as my field surveys
suggest, if logged, will eliminate some important and rare residual old forest that provides critical
thermal/bedding sites adjacent to the Dyer point estuary.
Additional conservation measures that need to be considered for this option should include only using
the log dump near Dyer Point and the lower Phillips Main road during the July-August period, when
grizzly bears are less active in the estuary area and along the lower Phillips salmon areas. Certainly it
is hoped that extensive log-hauling adjacent to grizzly-salmon areas is never repeated, as it was in fall
2007 along the Clearwater during heli-log operations.
Based on my previous studies, low impact guidelines have already been implemented for the
Kwiakah bear-viewing program for boat-based bear-viewing at the Phillips estuary in the spring, and
for bear-viewing activities at the three Kwiakah towers in the fall. Vehicle use to the towers should be
limited to one vehicle per day, with one tour group of no more than 10-12 individuals.

I recommend implementing a moratorium on any further logging in the Phillips until a grizzly bear
recovery plan is in place that goes well beyond the insufficient EMB guidelines under the South
Coast Order.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON INVENTORY AND

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW
As per government ecosystem-based management (EBM) habitat mapping standards for coastal
grizzly bears, the Khutzeymateen was used as the benchmark for my assessment. The inventory and
cumulative effects review showed that man-caused changes and disturbance factors to the Phillips
grizzly-salmon ecosystem date back to the turn of the 20th century, when there was a townsite, a
cannery, and a sawmill in the lower valley. Early historic impacts were not possible to determine. Of
the more recent man-caused activities and changes to the landscapes that I examined, industrial-scale
logging by WFP and its predecessors has had the greatest long-term cumulative impact on grizzly
bear and salmon habitats and their use, by comparison, with Kwiakah bear-viewing and other
recreation tourism activities having only minor influences on grizzly bears and which can be
mitigated by limiting the amount of vehicle access and continued implementation of guidelines.
Sport-fishing using jet boats on the lower Phillips River was found to be a disturbance factor that
needs to be addressed. An illegal or possibly logging traffic-caused grizzly mortality was also noted.
Figure 4. Example of unreported grizzly bear mortality along Phillips logging road.
This bear was either killed in a collision with a logging vehicle or was shot in fall 2007.
Cumulative effects, primarily those caused by a long period of intensive industrial-scale clearcut
logging in the Phillips, has created a very degraded ecological state for grizzly bears and salmon,
whose long-term survival is questionable if stronger conservation measures are not implemented. Key
evidence for cumulative effects of logging is as follows:
• The grizzly bear is a keystone, umbrella, and indicator species whose numbers are pivotal to the
Kwiakah spring and fall grizzly bear-viewing program. Historically, the ecosystem probably
supported 50-60 grizzlies. I estimate grizzly bear numbers in the Phillips to be down to only 10-

12 individuals. This estimate of a current low density is similar to the Toba-Bute grizzly bear
population unit (GBPU) to the south. Due to reduced habitat quality and salmon abundance from
logging, the study area could likely support only 25-30 grizzlies. No evidence was found of an
increasing population trend from field surveys between 2007-2013.
• Causative factors for the low numbers of grizzly bears are likely a combination of past trophy
hunting/illegal kills and reduced habitat quality and salmon numbers from intensive industrial-
scale logging and other possible factors. Despite trophy hunting being closed in 1996, current
numbers are in a precarious state. A juvenile grizzly was found along a logging road near a
salmon area that had been killed in fall 2007 either by logging traffic or by illegal means.
• Salmon numbers appear to be much lower than in historic times. Numbers of the salmon species
(pink and sockeye) most available to grizzly bears in the Phillips were found to be so low during
“low” pink years (every odd year) that grizzly bears appeared to be supplementing their fall diet
with berries and plants more than normally expected. During the two fall survey periods (2007
and 2009), a number of thin grizzlies were observed. In 2007, disturbance from WFP heli-logging
and log hauling proximal to the lower Clearwater salmon-grizzly area likely caused some
displacement and increased stress. Social stress may also be a factor for female bears along the
salmon streams due to the narrow width of the forested riparian buffers not being wide enough
and the proximity of some salmon-feeding habitat to jet boats and logging road traffic.
• EBM Class 1 and Class 2, and WFP grizzly bear habitat maps appear fairly accurate and show
that most of the best areas are at the estuary, in the valley bottoms, and along the lower valley
walls. However, the quality of grizzly bear foraging habitat, including salmon areas, was found to
be significantly compromised and fragmented by a century of logging and a large network (306
km) of logging and spur roads. This includes damage to salmon and grizzly bear riparian habitats
from what appear to be logging-caused landslides/debris torrents and wash-outs due to poor road
maintenance. In the lower valley, a high proportion of logged forest was closed-canopy of little
value to grizzly bears, and will remain so for a long time. A GIS map of potential grizzly bear den
habitat at higher elevations showed, despite some heli-logging of old forests in this zone, that
there is still ample old forest available for denning needs.
• A core valley bottom grizzly bear area (3,138 ha) was defined for the Phillips where most grizzly
bear activity would be concentrated between tidewater and 100 m elevation, based on using the
Khutzeymateen as the benchmark. A large coastal estuary, most of the salmon spawning areas,
and the largest intact wetlands and surviving patches of old forest were found in this grizzly bear
core area. The Kwiakah bear-viewing program, including three bear-viewing towers, is also
strategically located here, as is the spring boat-based viewing on the estuary. However, even this
important core area, despite now being largely protected, was found to be compromised for
grizzly bears and salmon primarily due to past logging and roading impacts. Productive old
forests along some of the important wetlands, river courses, and portions of the estuary have been
replaced with poor quality closed-canopy forest of limited value to grizzly bears.
• Although coastal grizzly bears are not considered to be dependent on old forests (140+ years) per
se, except for winter denning, typical coastal old forests at lower elevations have productive
understoreys that include berries, green plants, and other bear foods, along with large trees that
provide some of the best sheltered bedding sites, riparian buffers along salmon streams, security
habitat for female grizzly bears, and sheltered travel corridors for ecosystem connectivity. Old
forests also strengthen the stability of steep mountain slopes that can become destabilised by

clearcut logging during periods of extreme rainfall. Old native forests once comprised
approximately 18,518 ha, or 36%, of the Phillips study area. Over half (52%) has been logged
(mostly by WFP and predecessors); most of the remaining old forest (8,951 ha) is at higher
elevations, where it is of little value to grizzly bears except for denning. The surviving patches of
old forest at lower elevations comprise only 1,020 ha, and their fragmented state likely reduces
their once high functional value to grizzly bears and biodiversity.
• The extensive old forest at low elevations has now been replaced by second-growth forests of
different age classes that are of significantly lower value to grizzly bears. A large area of 5,726
ha, or approximately 1/3, of the original old forest has now been converted to closed-canopy
(mid-seral to mature) forest of little value to grizzly bears and, if not logged, will not produce
understoreys with productive bear foods until 140+ years of age. Most of the closed-canopy
forests are in the lower valley, where logging first started. Some 4,099 ha, or about 1/5, of the
original old forest is now young/early-seral habitat of some, but questionable, value to grizzly
bears; many of these areas appear to be approaching the closed-canopy stage.
Figures 5 and 6. Debris torrent, appearing to be logging related, are common in the Phillips. This one came down through a
large cutblock in 2006 and entered important coho and chinook spawning habitat and a potential bear viewing area at km 22 on
the Phillips Main. In 2009, we counted only 4 chinook here in 4 km of river.
• Using standard GIS map models of disturbance effects of roads on grizzly bears, we found that
total logging road density (including spur roads) for the Phillips was at the provincial threshold of
0.6 km/km2, a density at which grizzlies will avoid quality habitats near roads. However, all
lower elevation areas where grizzly bears spend most of their time were found to have higher
road densities of 0.6-6.00 km/km2, well exceeding the disturbance threshold. For the whole study
area, 69% of Class 1 and 60% of Class 2 habitats were found to be in the high to very high road
density disturbance regime, No data was available on vehicles per day (vpd) during active log

hauling and non-hauling, including recreation/tourism use, to further this assessment. (Vehicle
use for the Kwiakah bear-viewing program and fisheries surveys appears to be very low.) Using a
conservative GIS disturbance roadside zone of influence (ZOI) buffer of 0.3 km showed most of
the quality habitats in the valley bottom and lower slope areas would be subjected to some degree
of habitat displacement and that there was very little “secure” habitat left outside of the 0.3 km
ZOI. Some studies show that even without vehicles, grizzly bears will avoid some roads with no
or little vehicle use once the road is in. Some grizzly bear use of roads was observed but not
quantified, but it is known that this also increases their risk of human-induced mortality.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF EBM LOGGING

GUIDELINES AND OTHER PROTECTION MEASURES
A sufficiency analysis was carried out by looking at the recent protection measures in the Phillips,
including new ecosystem-based management (EBM) logging rules and other habitat reserve measures
to protect grizzly bears and salmon. I concluded that existing protection measures are a good start, but
are not sufficient to meet the EBM guideline for ecological integrity, including restoration of the
grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem. Key evidence for my conclusions include:
• The EBM process and logging guidelines would have a greater degree of reliability to meet
objectives for ecological integrity for the Phillips grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem and other areas
if they were more science-based, instead of stakeholder-based, and if they had been guided by a
cumulative effects study and long-term research on the impacts of coastal logging on grizzly
bears, including test-modeling of proposed EBM guidelines and standards. As a result, very
questionable EBM assumptions have been made that are not supported by science, such that if
implemented as intended, EBM is not expected to produce a seral stage distribution that limits a
bear population (Doak et al. 2010).
• Land use planning objectives on the BC south coast over the past decade or so have resulted in
improved reserve protection for grizzly bears and salmon in some timber supply areas. My
analysis for the Phillips concluded that no-logging reserves provide a good starting point, but are
insufficient to achieve ecological integrity for grizzly bears and salmon. All told, approximately
5,482 ha, or 10.7%, of the Phillips has some sort of protection for grizzly bears, including a small
conservancy, two wildlife habitat areas (WHAs), and Class 1 grizzly bear habitats. Class 2 grizzly
habitats, which are unprotected, comprise 771 ha, or 1.5% of the study area. Because so much old
forest has been logged, part of the buffers around some of the protected areas include logged
forests. Outside of this protection, the remainder of the Phillips is left open for forestry operations
with the assumption that grizzly bears will survive just fine by living in the Class 1 and Class 2
habitat polygons and salmon streamside set-asides. However, such reserves fall well short of the
totality of the kind of reserve system necessary to adequately meet all grizzly bear life requisites,
such as bedding, travel corridors, security habitat, transfer of marine-derived nutrients (MDNs)
by grizzly bears to riparian forests, and other conditions necessary for ecosystem integrity and
concomitant grizzly bear population viability.
• Studies show that for grizzly bears to survive in a developed landscape, they need a minimum of
50% of a landscape or region comprised of interconnected secure patches of good quality grizzly
habitat that are each at least 10+ km2 (1,000 ha) in size and are away from roads . My sufficiency
analysis of security habitats for the Phillips shows that there are none left that meet these criteria.
From one point of view, since some 19% of the total area of the Phillips has been logged, it could

be said that grizzly bears still have more than enough secure habitat areas to get by on. However,
most of the intact areas are in the higher elevation Mountain Hemlock (MH) and Alpine Tundra
(AT) biogeoclimatic zones, which are little used by grizzly bears for foraging and therefore don’t
meet the required criteria for secure areas. In modeling the best habitat areas at lower elevations,
there were no areas that could be considered security habitats that fit the criteria because of
clearcuts and roads. For the whole study area, of the total area (3,834 ha) of EBM Class 1
protected grizzly bear habitat polygons, 2,062 ha were outside the 0.3 km ZOI. Of this, the
maximum patch size was 141 ha. Of the 772 ha of EBM Class 2 unprotected areas, 468 ha were
outside the 0.3 km ZOI with a maximum patch size of 40 ha. In other words, over the entire
watershed, none of the high quality EBM grizzly habitats outside of the road zone of influence
were of sufficient size (1,000 ha) to qualify as secure grizzly habitat.
• Restoration of a viable grizzly bear ecosystem will require a network of interconnected 10+ km2
“recovery” security habitats encompassing the best Class 1 and Class 2 habitats, with protected
“recovery” travel corridors between.
• For the sufficiency analysis of EBM buffers at the stand level, I did not look at smaller buffers,
such as those incorporated around Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly habitats or small streams. My
research shows that EBM no-log reserves proposed in the Phillips for salmon streams, larger
wetlands, and the Phillips estuary and beach fringe area, are not wide enough to accommodate
important grizzly bear life requisites associated with these critical habitats, including for bedding,
travel, social dominance interactions, and security for female grizzlies with young. In addition,
wider buffers than the EBM 30-50 m are needed along salmon streams to maintain the health of
riparian forests created by the transfer of marine-derived nutrient (MDN) by grizzly bears eating
salmon.
• Based on extensive research in Alaska, salmon streams should have 150-300 m wide no-log
reserves. The supporting data is mixed, but to meet adequate grizzly bear life requisites, larger
wetlands should have 150 m buffers, instead of the EBM 30-50 m (= 1.5 m tree length) buffer,
and estuaries in the Phillips should have at least 300 m buffers. In addition, due to its importance
to grizzly bears in the spring and the associated Kwiakah bear-viewing program, all of the
Phillips estuary habitat, instead of only part of it, should be protected.
• I did not do a sufficiency analysis regarding the intent of EBM to maintain old forest
representation at 50% of the range of natural variation, with less than 50% of each site series or
site series surrogate in mid-seral forest age classes within each landscape unit. Over half of the
native old forest in the Phillips was logged before these EBM guidelines were developed, with
only 1,020 ha of old forest left at lower elevations. My analysis suggests that if these EBM
guidelines were followed for intact coastal valleys, the end result would be similar to the Phillips,
except that there might be more patches of old forest left at lower elevations in different site
series or site series surrogates. If 50% of old coastal forests are logged under EBM, there is no
concrete evidence that grizzly bears will be able to maintain viable populations, particularly as
most of the logged old forests overlap with the highest grizzly bear habitat values in the
bottomlands.

Map 2. Approximately 52% of the original old forest in the Phillips has been logged (red and orange) and roaded (black). Only
small patches of old forest (green) survive at low elevations. Most surviving old forest (green) is at higher elevations with
limited value to grizzly bears except for winter denning. Of the total logged area, some 60% is in the closed canopy state
(orange) of little value to grizzly bears, mostly in the lower valley. This represents some 11.3% of the total area of the Phillips
grizzly bear study area.

Map 3. Linear disturbance map using road density. The highest road density disturbance regime (purple) for grizzly bears of 0.6-
6.0 km/km2 includes 69% of EBM Class 1 and 60% of Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons, and 100% of the two wildlife habitat
areas (WHAs) and 100% of the conservancy. The Ministry threshold for disturbance for grizzly bears is at 0.6 km of road per
square kilometre of habitat.

Map 4. Core grizzly habitat in lower Phillips (green) between tidewater and 100 m elevation where grizzly bears concentrate
most of their seasonal activities based on the Khutzeymateen benchmark study for coastal EBM grizzly habitats (MacHutchon et
al. 1993). This has the highest quality habitats in the Phillips, including a large estuary, most of the salmon spawning areas, and
the largest wetlands. While the conservancy, EBM Class 1 grizzly habitats, and two WHAs protect most of this, all of the estuary
needs to be protected and there needs to be at least 300 m wide no-log reserves around the estuary and 150 m along each side
of any unprotected salmon area and large wetland instead of EBM 30-50 m (= 1.5 tree length).

Figure 7. Large wetlands in core grizzly habitat area in the Phillips Estuary Conservancy
showing earlier logging removal of all of hydro-riparian old forest to edge of wetlands.
Only 1,020 ha old forest is left in the Phillips below 360 m (lower slope) elevation.
Figure 8. Showing large second-growth area in Shirley Creek at Dyer Point. The estuary and forest are now
protected as EBM Class 1 grizzly habitat, but a larger forested no-log buffer of 300 m needs to be considered,
as well as a 300 m protected buffer all along this beach fringe of Upper Phillips Arm to optimise grizzly bear
thermal bedding and travel needs around this high value marine habitat. A debris torrent impacted the estuary
at the mouth of Shirley Creek (right, corner) and apparently ruined a pink salmon area, although this has not
been confirmed.

1.0 KWIAKAH FIRST NATION CORE ABORIGINAL TITLE LANDS
GRIZZLY BEAR RESEARCH STUDY AREA
The Phillips River Grizzly Bear Study Area (Maps 5 and 6) is located in the rugged Pacific Ranges in
BC’s South Coast region. The Phillips River drains into the Pacific Ocean at Phillips Arm near the
Inside Passage between north-central Vancouver Island and the BC mainland at approximately 50 km
north of Campbell River (Map 5). The watershed study area is approximately 50,900 ha (509 km2) in
size and about 40 km in length from top to bottom. The elongated U-shaped topography with high
mountains with residual glaciers is typical of the many grizzly bear-salmon watersheds on the BC
coastal mainland. Phillips Lake is located about 3 km upstream from tidewater and is 3.5 km in
length. The Phillips River has two major tributaries, Hoot Creek and Clearwater Creek.
The study area is within the traditional territory of the Kwiakah First Nation. There are a number of
old villages and Indian Reserves (IRs) (Maps 6 and 7).
Map 5. Location of Phillips River study area on BC south coast (Map courtesy of Gillard Pass Fisheries Association. 2000).
The study area, which includes the entire Phillips watershed, was designed to encompass important
adjacent ocean-influenced grizzly bear habitats, including estuarine areas at the head of Phillips Arm.
Thus the study area boundary is slightly larger than the boundary of Western Forest Product’s
(WFP’s) Tree Farm Licence #39 (Map 7) and the province’s Phillips Arm Landscape Unit (LU) (Map
6) since neither of these include all of the important estuary habitat at the mouth of the Phillips River
in Phillips Arm. Map 9 shows the location of the Phillips Arm LU in relation to the south coast
planning area.
On the west side of the inlet, the study area boundary goes from Hewit Point to the height of land; on
the east side we more or less followed the boundary, which covers most of our study area except for
the small inclusion on the west side of Phillips Arm. There is one provincial protected area: the
Phillips Estuary/ᕈNacinuxᵂ Conservancy, established in 2007, comprised of 1,382 ha of upland and
79 ha of foreshore (1,461 ha in total).

Map 6 shows the Phillips study area for the Kwiakah First Nation Core Aboriginal Title Lands—Grizzly Bear Research Project

Tenure & First Nations Territories
HUNWADI/AHNUHATI - BALD CONSERVANCY
BEAR
BAY
BUTE
k
ree
C
sh
ler
Mel
r
ve
Ri
Me
lle r
sh
Cr ee k
s
illi p
Ph
STAFFORD ESTUARY CONSERVANCY
er
iv
R
INLET
Ho vel
Ba y
d
for
Or
ps
li
il
h
P
PHILLIPS ESTUARY CONSERVANCY
ek
Orfo rd
e
Bay
e
Cr
k
a
L
s
p
TE
i
l
l
i
h
BU
P
Ph
illi p
s
R
oh
M
A R M
ek
re
C
y
i rle
Sh
Fann
B uk e r
y
Ba
y
Ck
S
P
I
L IS
L L
ESTERO BASIN CONSERVANCY HIL
T
B A S I N
I
E
L
H
O N
R I
P
E
T
S
E E
T
U
B
A nn a
L ak e Fre de rick BUT E I NL ET Clip per Ck
Ar m
PHILLIPS ARM
Ck
Don
Egerton
Lake
M
K AR
Leask
Lake
k Cr
IC
as
ER
Le
ED
Block 5 COR DE RO
FR
POLKINGHORNE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY
BURDWOOD GROUP CONSERVANCY
BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO CONSERVANCY

ECHO BAY MARINE PARK
Block 3
BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO MARINE PARK
First Nations Traditional Territories Tsawataineuk Transportation Conservancy, Park or Protected Area Management Area
Gwawaenuk Paved Road Schedule Port Hardy

We Wai Kai Tree Farm Licence 39 - Block 3 and Block 5 Port McNeill
'B' - Crown
Homalco Gravel Road Management Plan 9 Port Alice
Sayward
Wei Wai Kum
Overview Map - June 2012 'A' - Timber Licence Woss
Kwiakah Communities
Tenure & First Nations Territories Campbell River
0 2 4 6 8 10 Powell River
Gold River
Courtenay
Kilometres
1:100,000
Map 7. Western Forest Products (WFP) map showing most of Phillips watershed is in WFP Tree Farm Licence #39 and within the
traditional territory of the Kwiakah First Nation (purple line). [www.for.gov.bc.ca - /ftp/RCO/external/!publish/TFL39_MP9/Blocks
3 & 5 Maps/. Accessed November 16, 2013].

Map 8. Phillips Arm Landscape Unit showing the "Strategic Land Reserve" areas (yellow with purple outline) that were
developed by WFP. Apparently, these were created by WFP technicians according to the criteria of the SCC Land Use Order
(2009) for the Phillips Arm Landscape Unit.
Map 9. Landscape units (LUs) for the ecosystem based management working group (EBMWG) for the south coast. Note the
Phillips LU on far right, lower.

2.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF STUDY & TERMS OF
REFERENCE
2.1 RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR GRIZZLY BEAR STUDY
On June 5, 2013, Wayne McCrory of McCrory Wildlife Services was retained by the Kwiakah First
Nation to conduct grizzly bear research in the Upper Phillips Arm and watershed on BC’s south-
central coast. The research is under the auspices of the Kwiakah First Nation Core Aboriginal Title
Lands Bear Research with the following objective:
The Kwiakah First Nation asserts Aboriginal title and rights in and to the Phillips Watershed and
surrounding Phillips Arm and their traditional village site and other cultural/heritage sites there.
They have become concerned that proposals for logging in the Phillips Watershed may impact a
grizzly bear-viewing business, which they assert is an exercise of the economic aspects of their
Aboriginal title. They are engaged, or trying to engage with, the BC government in a consultation
process respecting logging and require more information about potential impacts, including an
overall cumulative effects (“CE”) review.
We request that you assist Kwiakah in preparing a study to be used for various aspects of
consultation with the BC government and the logging company, or for a potential judicial review
or legal action to limit the impacts of logging in the Phillips Watershed and proximal Phillips
Arm Marine Area (the “Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area”) within the Kwiakah
traditional territory, which is used for, or contributes to, Kwiakah’s grizzly bear-viewing business
venture (the “Area”).
The agreement contained a list of ten questions to be answered by this report. I have not necessarily
followed the exact1-to-10 sequence of the questions throughout this report. The consultant was
authorised to address these matters using the common standard format for technical reports of this
nature while abiding by the requirements set out in the BC Civil Court roles. The report must include
a list of documents and materials reviewed, as well as a list of all relevant facts, assumptions, and
definitions considered important to understanding the report. Please note that all assumptions in the
body of this report are identified.
It is also recognised that the Kwiakah First Nation is part of and party to ongoing discussions with
respect to Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) that includes the Phillips study area. They are
represented in this matter through the Nanwakolas Council, formerly KNT First Nations.
2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY
MCCRORY WILDLIFE SERVICES
The Kwiakah First Nation provided the following terms of reference (TOR). McCrory Wildlife
Services has taken the liberty of adding some relevant sections and of breaking out the TOR questions
into four categories. Some of them are repeated in the different sections:
A. What Are The Study Implications To The Kwiakah Bear-Viewing Project In The
Phillips?
This section uses the results of the inventory data and cumulative effects review to address the
following Terms of Reference concerns of the Kwiakah First Nation: They have become concerned
that proposals for logging in the Phillips Watershed may impact a grizzly bear-viewing business,
which they assert is an exercise of the economic aspects of their Aboriginal title.

B. What would be the potential impacts on grizzly bears and their habitats if the current
footprint of industrial development, etc. were to remain the same or if new developments
were to proceed?
This section addresses the following TOR questions:
8. What would be the potential impacts on grizzly bears and their habitats in and around the study
area if the current footprint of industrial development and anthropogenic disturbance in that area
were to remain the same for the foreseeable future?
9. What are the potential impacts if new developments, including roading, forestry, log-piling, and
other associated activities were to proceed in and around the study area (i.e., if the footprint were to
increase)?
C. Recommendations for grizzly bear recovery
This section addresses the following TOR questions based on the findings of my study:
10. What are your recommendations for restoring the subpopulation of grizzly bears in the study area
to sustainable numbers?
D. Grizzly Bear General Conservation Background and Phillips Grizzly Bear
Habitat/Population and Salmon Inventory Analysis
This section attempts to comprehensively address the following TOR questions/issues, although not
necessarily in this order:
1. What are the general habitat and connectivity needs of coastal grizzly bears for all seasons,
including winter denning?
2. How would declines or increases in salmon numbers affect grizzly bears? What other plants or
animal species would be important to the success of a grizzly bear population?
3. Does the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area contain zones of important or potentially
important habitat and travel corridors for grizzly bears?
a. If so, where are the important or potentially important habitats and travel corridors for grizzly
bears, including important Pacific salmon-grizzly bear feeding habitats? Why are those zones
important or potentially so?
4. What are the estimates of the historical (pre-development) and present populations of grizzly bears
in the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area? Using all available evidence on numbers and
mortality factors (anecdotal, McCrory Wildlife Surveys, and government density estimates), what do
you estimate the current population trend to be: increasing or decreasing?
I have added a background section on grizzly bear conservation that includes population dynamics,
conservation challenges, and the value of the grizzly bear as an indicator species. This was not in the
terms of reference questions but I considered it relevant to my discussion.
I have also added a background section on Kwiakah grizzly bear-viewing development in the Phillips.
E. Impacts/Cumulative Effects Review Of Human Activities On Phillips Watershed
Grizzly Bears And Kwiakah Grizzly Bear-Viewing Development
[Question 3 is repeated for this category]

b. If so, is the important or potentially important grizzly bear habitat in the Kwiakah Phillips
Grizzly Bear Study Area in better or worse quality than it was historically (e.g., pre-contact)?
What have been some of the cumulative effects since then? If its quality has declined, how has it
declined, and what are the causes or likely causes of the decline, using a CE approach?
c. Have Pacific salmon numbers and spawning and rearing habitats in the Kwiakah Phillips
Grizzly Bear Study Area declined from former times and if so by how much and what are the
likely causative factors?
5. If the number of grizzly bears in the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area has declined, what
are the likely causative factors for such a decline?
6. What would be the impacts of existing and any planned development (industrial forestry, logging
development, logging roads, mining, sport hunting, sport fishing, traditional First Nations uses, bear-
viewing, etc.) on grizzly bear habitats and numbers in the study area?
7. If there is a decline, are there other possible causes for the decline of grizzly bears in the study
area? What are the mechanisms for those other possible causes? On the balance of information
currently available, can you apportion the degree of grizzly bear population decline in the study area
to various causes?
other associated activities were to proceed in and around the study area (i.e., if the footprint were to
increase)?
F. Sufficiency Analysis Of New Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) And Other
Protection Measures For Grizzly Bears And Salmon
The results of this section were also used to address the following TOR questions 8 and 9 in
section B:
9. What are the potential impacts if new developments including roading, forestry, log-piling, and
other associated activities were to proceed in and around the Study Area (i.e., if the footprint were to
increase)?

2.3 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
The following definitions apply to terms used in this report:
Aggressive behaviours:
Defensive: Defensive aggression is usually provoked and results in the bear swatting,
charging, etc. when approached too closely.
Offensive: Offensive aggression is usually initiated by the bear as attempted predation,
tearing tents without food attractants, etc.
Anadromous fish: Species that spend part of their life cycle migrating from the sea to freshwater to
spawn.
Anthropogenic foods: Foods generally derived directly or indirectly from humans—usually non-
natural (e.g., garbage), but can also be natural (e.g., fruit trees, landscaping shrubs with
berries, etc.). See also: Non-natural foods.
Artificial attractants: Use of the word "artificial" in relation to bear attractants means any unnatural,
or non-natural, attractant that bears would not normally encounter in the wild, and includes
anything constructed, deposited, or planted by people, such as packs with food, coolers with
food, garbage, landscaping plants, unenclosed landfills, etc.
Backcountry: In the case of the Phillips, refers to all areas beyond the boat-accessed inlet and marine
foreshore, as well as areas beyond the logging road system, which generally receive little or
no visitor use.
Bear-human interaction: Any of various activities and their effects involving bears and humans,
including sightings, encounters, and incidents.
Bear-human conflict: The most serious bear-human interaction. An interaction is considered an
incident or conflict when any of the following occur:
a) physical contact between a person and a bear
b) damage to or loss of property or food
c) high intensity charge by a bear toward people
d) people have to take extreme evasive action in response to a bear
e) people use a deterrent on a bear
f) a bear is translocated or destroyed
Bear-viewing: Refers to activities in which people seek to safely view bears and their behaviour in
their natural surroundings, whether by large or small vessel or on foot, or from a fixed
viewing site or artificial structure. Photography is usually also involved.
Bear-viewing-free zone; also called restricted viewing zone. An appropriate area designated as a
“spatial refugium” in a larger bear-viewing area where no bear-viewing or vessel/human
access is permitted and where only long-distance viewing (>300 m) may be permitted. This is
to allow bears to adequately forage, mate, and carry on other natural activities without human
interference. Such zones should include adequate food resources, escape cover, and other
features (McCrory and Paquet 2010).
Bluff or False Charge: A type of defensive or dominance behaviour exhibited by bears that can be
characterised by a bear running or moving towards a person but veering off or stopping
before making physical contact. This is almost always accompanied by other ritualised
displays, like huffing, jaw-popping, or slapping the ground.

Brown bear: In coastal Alaska and in Europe, the grizzly bear species (Ursus arctos horribilis) is
commonly known as the brown bear. Sometimes this term is inaccurately used to refer to the
brown-phase of the North American black bear (Ursus americanus spp.), but the so-called
“brown bear” is actually the same species as the grizzly bear. For simplification, I will refer
to all as the grizzly bear.
Conservation Officer (CO/COS): A Conservation Officer (CO) or the Conservation Officer Service
(COS), (a branch of the BC Environment ministry).
Cumulative effect: There are a number of definitions of cumulative effect. I loosely use the
following definition from the Canadian Environment Assessment Authority (CEAA)
Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide, 1999: Cumulative effects are changes to
the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and
future human actions. Numerous definitions of CEs exist in the literature. Many of these are
quite complicated and refer to technical aspects of cumulative effects interactions. Another
definition I have used (McCrory 2012a) is that cumulative effect is the accrual, gradual or
rapid, of all impacts on a species from human activities and natural events, quite often
obscured in space and time due to lack of monitoring or to our tendency to just look at one
man-made impact and consider it not very important.
Displacement: Encounter where the bear is displaced by leaving the area as a response to human
activity.
Spatial displacement: As defined by Marshall (2007a): Displacements where bears select a
foraging site in relation to human activity, rather than according to forage availability or
conspecific activity. Spatial displacements make no implications about foraging behaviour
changes; they simply describe changes in foraging location. Positive spatial displacements
are shifts in bears' foraging sites to those in proximity of human activity, whereas negative
spatial displacements are foraging site shifts to areas distant from human activity.
Temporal displacement: As defined by Marshall (2007a): Displacements where bears
redistribute their daily foraging time in relation to human activity. Temporal displacements
do not imply that bears are increasing or decreasing their total daily foraging time, rather
they reallocate their daily foraging to different times of the day compared to daily patterns
without human activity. Marshall defines positive temporal displacements as shifts in bears'
foraging time to periods with human activity. Conversely, negative "temporal displacements
are shifts in bears' foraging time to periods with minimal or no human activity."
Dominance behaviour: Body language and vocalisations used by bears to establish dominance
hierarchies. Bears may also use this behaviour when interacting with people. The behaviour
includes direct eye contact, jaw-popping, huffing, swatting, and bluff or false charges.
Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM): EBM for the North and Central Coast area is defined as an
adaptive approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence of
healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities; an adaptive process that
evolves to reflect new understanding and knowledge (Nawakolas Council et al. 2012). [Note
also that: Adaptive Management, a component of EBM, is defined as: a systematic
approach to resource management that engages the parties and stakeholders in structured
collaborative research and monitoring with the goal of improving land and resource
management policies, objectives, and practices over time. Adaptive Management includes
passive and active management approaches. Human Well Being (HWB) for this process has
been defined as ‘a condition in which all members of society are able to determine and meet

their needs and have a range of choices and opportunities to fulfil their potential’ (EBM
Handbook, CIT, March 2004, p.73). Ecological Integrity (EI) for EBM in this region has
been defined as ‘a quality or state of an ecosystem in which it is considered complete or
unimpaired; including the natural diversity of species and biological communities, ecosystem
processes and functions, and both the ability to absorb disturbance (resistance) and to
recover from disturbance (resilience)’ (EBM Handbook, CIT, March 2004, p.71)].
Encounter: When a bear is aware of human presence, regardless of whether or not the humans are
aware of the bear; the bear may ignore people (because they are habituated to people), or it
may approach people.
Estuary (estuarine): An intertidal area where there is a mixing zone between the saline waters of the
sea and the fresh waters from the land. The term "estuarine" connotes conditions between the
two extremes. The mixing is effected primarily by the tidal actions of the sea, and many of
the inhabitants of the estuary, both plant and animal, are derived from the sea (Ricketts et al.
2005). For our report, estuary refers to the complex intertidal zone on the delta at the mouth
of the Phillips River and lineal salt marsh meadows and other foreshore habitats on both sides
of the inlet below the river delta-estuary.
Extirpated: A species that no longer exists in the wild in a particular area but that continues to exist
in the wild elsewhere.
Food-conditioned: A bear that has been rewarded or positively reinforced with non-natural foods,
such as human food or garbage, and as a result has learned to associate humans and/or human
developments with the potential to obtain food. The bear can now appear to have a taste for
human food or garbage. Bears that are both human-habituated (see below) and food-
conditioned generally pose a serious threat to human safety. As a result, these bears are
frequently killed (Herrero 2005).
Front-country: Refers to all areas in the marine waters of the inlet, marine foreshore, and Phillips
Estuary and river, which generally receive the most use by vessels and people.
Geographic Information System (GIS): Refers to a digital mapping system.
Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU): A defined area encompassing an individual grizzly bear
population whose boundaries are based on barriers to grizzly bear movement and/or
ecological differences (BC Wildlife Branch).
Habitat: Described by Odum (1971) as the “address” or the place an organism inhabits in fulfilling
its life needs, such as food, cover, and water. The definition of primary habitat by Harris and
Kangas (1988) extends beyond the individual to include an area of sufficient size or
configuration to support a population over time. Schoen (1990) considers that an accurate
definition of bear habitat must include the influence of human activities.
Habitat Capability: The ability of habitat under optimal conditions to provide the life requisites of a
species irrespective of its current conditions.
Habitat effectiveness: Refers to bear behavioural changes in response to human developments. As
these occur in a landscape, access by bears to nutrient-rich food sources may become
impaired or even blocked. Even though productive bear foods may still be available, bears
may stop using them because of their sensitivity to disturbance or risk of being killed. This
unwillingness of some (the more wary) bears to use habitats that have become isolated or
fragmented by roads, trails, or other developments is termed loss of habitat effectiveness.

Habitat Suitability: The ability of habitat under its current conditions to provide the life requisites of
a species irrespective of human impacts aside from those that directly alter the habitat itself.
Home range/territory: The whole area in which a grizzly bear lives throughout the year that meets
all of its life requisites. The size of a home range is generally ascertained by radio-collaring
grizzly bears and plotting all of their locations. Scientists have several statistical methods to
use the location data to determine home range.
Habituation: The reduction or absence of an avoidance or fear response that a bear can learn from
neutral interactions with people and that are not threatening, painful, or injurious (to the
bear). Bears can be human-habituated without being food-conditioned; refers to bears that
appear accustomed to people.
Incident or conflict: The most serious bear-human interaction. An interaction is considered an
incident or conflict when any of the following occur:
1. physical contact between a person and a bear
2. damage to or loss of property or food
3. high intensity charge by a bear toward people
4. people have to take extreme evasive action in response to a bear
5. people use a deterrent on a bear
6. a bear is translocated or destroyed
Identified Wildlife [under the BC Forest Practices Code, BC Environment]: For the most part, the
species and plant communities listed in Identified Wildlife are considered to be at risk
(endangered, threatened, or vulnerable) and require special management of critical habitats in
order to maintain or restore populations or distributions. Critical habitats include breeding,
denning, or feeding sites; www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/strategy_docs/backgrnd.htm
Indicator species: A species whose presence, absence, or relative well-being in a given environment
is a sign of the overall health of its ecosystem. By monitoring the condition and behaviour of
an indicator species, scientists can determine how changes in the environment are likely to
affect other species that are (or may be) more difficult to study.
Intertidal zone: The marine shore zone between the high tide and low tide zones
Metapopulation: A group of spatially separated populations of the same species that have some level
of interaction.
Mortality risk: The risk of loss of bear life from fatal human-bear interaction, including hunting,
poaching, road kills, and defence of life. Risk is a function of (a) frequency of bear-human
encounters; and (b) the lethality of those encounters.
Non-natural foods: Foods made available to bears by people and that are either not natural in a
bear’s diet or have been taken out of a natural/wild context and placed in a settled area (such
as some tree or shrub species that people use for landscaping purposes, in a backyard garden,
agricultural setting, etc.).
Observation: When a human sees a bear but the bear is unaware of the human.
Open Road: A road without restriction on motorised vehicle use or that receives use by conventional
passenger cars or light-duty trucks (note that gated roads that receive use by conventional
passenger cars or light-duty trucks are considered “open”).
Open Road Density: The linear distance of open roads per square kilometre or square mile.

Recovery: The process of planning and implementing priority actions to reverse the risk of a species
becoming extinct or being extirpated from a particular area.
Relocation: The capture and subsequent transport of a bear from the site of capture to a location
within its likely home range, often in an attempt to temporarily mitigate bear incidents
(Hopkins et al. 2010).
Restricted Road: A road on which motorised vehicle use is restricted seasonally and/or that has an
effective physical obstruction.
Riparian Habitat: The area adjacent to a watercourse, lake, river, stream, or wetland that includes
both the area dominated by continuous high soil moisture content and the adjacent upland
vegetation that exerts an influence on it.
Road: All created or evolved routes that are reasonably and prudently driveable with a conventional
passenger car or light-duty truck.
Salmon escapement: That portion of an anadromous salmon population that escapes commercial and
sport fisheries to reach the freshwater spawning grounds (http://www.biology-
online.org/dictionary).
Seral stage: Sequential stages in the development of plant communities (e.g., from young (or early
seral) stage to old growth (or old seral)) that successively occupy a site and replace each other
over time. Seral stages change as a result of natural disturbance or human-caused
modification.
Species-at-risk: A species that is considered in jeopardy of going extinct.
Species of special concern: A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered
species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats (Species-
at-Risk Act, SC 2002, C-29 s 2(1)).
Stress-related behaviour Observed bear response when provoked during a human–bear interaction
(Herrero. 2005).
Threatened Population: A Grizzly Bear Population Unit in which the current minimum population
estimate is less than 50% of the area’s estimated minimum habitat capability (BC Wildlife
Branch).
Translocation: The capture and subsequent transport of a bear from the site of capture to a location
outside its presumed home range, often in an attempt to permanently mitigate bear incidents
or augment a population (Hopkins et al. 2010).
Wary or warier bears: The persistent avoidance of humans and lack of apparent habituation in some
individual bears.
LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR THIS SECTION

EBM Handbook. 2004. Coastal Information Team (CIT), March 2004, p.71, p. 73.
Harris, L.D., and P. Kangas. 1988. Reconsideration of the habitat concept. Trans. North Am. Wildl.
and Nat. Resour. Conf. 53:137-143.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear Attacks. Their Causes and Avoidance. Winchester Press. 287 pp. Illust.
Hopkins, J.B., S. Herrero, R.T. Shideler, K.A. Gunther, C.C. Schwartz, and S.T. Kalinowski. 2010. A
proposed lexicon of terms and concepts for human– bear management in North America. Ursus
21:154–168.

Marshall, S. 2007a. Synthesis of bear viewing literature. School of Resource and Environmental
Management. Simon Fraser University. Prepared for Tony Hamilton, BC Ministry of
Environment.
Marshall, S. 2007b. Annotated bibliography of bear viewing literature. Prepared for Tony Hamilton,
BC Ministry of Environment.
McCrory W. and P. Paquet. 2010. Proposed bear-viewing strategy for the K’tzim-a-deen
(Khutzeymateen) Grizzly Bear Sanctuary & K’tzim-a-deen Inlet Conservancies, British
Columbia. Report to BC Parks, Terrace, BC.
Nanwakolas Council, Coastal First Nations, and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations. 2012. Ecosystem based management on BC’s central and north coast (Great Bear
Rainforest). http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/index.html.
Accessed January 13, 2014.
Odum, E. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA., 574pp.
Ricketts, E.F., J. Calvin and J.W. Hedgpeth. 2005. Between Pacific Tides. Revised by D.W. Phillips.
Fifth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
Schoen, J.W. 1990. Bear habitat management: a review and future perspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res.
and Manage. 8:143-154.
Species-at-Risk Act, SC 2002, C-29 s 2(1)
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary [accessed November 2013]
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/strategy_docs/backgrnd.htm
3.0 STUDY METHODS & APPROACH

3.1 OVERALL STUDY APPROACH
The study involved the following approach:
1. Defining the Phillips Kwiakah Grizzly Bear Study Area and map. The study area was defined to
include the whole watershed and the upper head of Phillips Arm. WFP’s tree farm licence #39,
block 5 was partially followed, but did not take in all of the relevant areas around the head of
Phillips Arm and the Phillips estuary.
2. Scientific literature review of the negative and positive effects of logging, bear-viewing, sport-
fishing, aircraft access, and other human disturbance factors on coastal grizzly bears, with
particular reference to the Phillips watershed and past and present logging. This includes
cumulative effects on feeding habitats, bear behaviour related to feeding habitats, bear travel
routes/corridors, and grizzly bear denning habitats, and other parameters. The reference point for
this section includes the overall cumulative effects of human developments and activities on the
Kwiakah First Nations bear-viewing business there.
3. Review of the status of wild Pacific salmon runs as a food source for grizzly bears in the Phillips
watershed and as it relates to the viability of the Kwiakah First Nations bear-viewing business
there.
4. Preliminary review of past, present, and proposed human developments in the Phillips watershed
with particular reference to their impacts on grizzly bear numbers and habitat quality, including
wild Pacific salmon as a significant food resource for grizzly bears.

5. Review of past, present, and projected grizzly bear population numbers, including mortality
factors, population trend (declining or increasing), and any other variables.
6. All GIS map analysis related to cumulative effects of past and recent logging in the Phillips
watershed was done by Baden Cross of Applied Conservation GIS using ArcView 3.2a (ESRI
2000) with Spatial Analyst extensions. All raster processing was accomplished at a resolution of
50 x 50 m. Maps were developed at an approximate 1:50,000 scale and included:
• Phillips-Kwiakah Grizzly Bear Study Area
• Main salmon spawning/migration areas
• Road networks
• Road-Linear feature density analysis
• Road-Zone of Influence (ZOI)
• Logged and old forest
• Early/young seral, closed canopy mid-seral/mature forest, and old forest
• Core grizzly bear area below 100 m
• Previously produced maps of the Phillips estuary with bear sightings
• Old forest grizzly bear denning habitats
• Preliminary linkage/connectivity riparian zones
Other maps used for the analysis included:
• Government biogeoclimatic zones
• Government Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats and Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs)
7. Supplemental field surveys (June 9-18, 2013) of grizzly bear habitats and grizzly bear sign and
numbers observed using the same methods from three previous field studies in the Phillips
(McCrory and Williams 2007, 2008, and 2009). Each of these previous reports included a short
section on the overall ecological state of the ecosystem, including observations and comments on
recent landslide events, human disruptions to bears such as helicopter and logging truck
disturbances, and so on.
8. Field verification and photo documentation of habitat changes from roading and logging,
including photo documentation of closed canopy forests, landslides/debris torrents where they
have impacted grizzly bear and salmon habitats, and other areas.
9. Review and sufficiency analysis of past and current government logging guidelines for grizzly
bears and salmon, with particular reference to Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and other
guidelines under the South Central Coast Order (BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands. 2009).
10. Integration of all data into a preliminary cumulative effects review with grizzly bear and salmon
as the focus, and with specific reference to the effects of past, recent, and [future] planning
logging on the health and well-being of the Phillips grizzly bear population. A prognosis and
recommendations for grizzly bear recovery were provided.
3.2 GIS MAPPING APPROACHES
GIS base maps, including Shapefiles, were obtained from a variety of sources, primarily from
DataBC (http://pub.data.gov.bc.ca/datasets/173885/).
Mapping of logged areas, including early seral, closed canopy, and old forests proved a complex,
iterative process with results that were considered reasonable (but not fully accurate) approximations
for the purposes of the review.

3.2.1 Development of a Forest Age GIS Base Map to Analyze General Vegetative
Changes to Bear Habitats Caused by Past and Recent Logging Activities in the
Phillips Study Area
In order to help analyse the effects of past and more modern conventional logging on grizzly bear
habitats in the Phillips study area, we developed a series of 1:50,000 GIS maps, including roads, the
different stages of logged forests, and older-aged forests. This task proved complex and painstakingly
arduous for a variety of reasons beyond our control.
First of all, the most immediate option was to use the government Vegetation Resource Inventory
(VRI) database. The VRI database resulted from a 1991 Forest Resources Commission
recommendation to redesign the inventory of the provincial resource inventory process. The VRI is a
photo-based, two-phased vegetation inventory design consisting of two phases involving, first, photo
interpretation, followed by ground sampling. Updating the VRI is done to show changes in the forest,
such as timber harvesting, fire, and other catastrophic events. This is done through electronic data
submissions from timber licensees and through a combination of mapping from satellite imagery,
aerial photography, and Global Positioning System (GPS) mapping. The VRI is continuously
updated. The VRI is housed on the Land and Resource Data Warehouse (LRDW) where the data can
be viewed and downloaded (http://geobc.gov.bc.ca/).
When the project commenced, the VRI database was searched for baseline information on the Phillips
watershed to 2011 (http://pub.data.gov.bc.ca/datasets/173885/). Unfortunately, the Phillips study area
was found to have no updated VRI data. We went ahead using Mr. Cross’s InFile older VRI and
Basic Thematic Modeling (BTM) databases for the coast.
The updated VRI database 2011-2013 was not made available until after our GIS map analyses were
completed in January, 2014 (email to Baden Cross from Tim Salkeld on Jan. 21, 2014). However,
when checked again on Jan. 31, 2014, the VRI database still did not have adequate forest cover data
for the Phillips.
https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=47574&recordSet=ISO19115)
Our study could not have been done without the good fortune that GIS analyst Baden Cross was able
to access his older (2001) InFile version of the government’s VRI forest cover data (accessed 2006
through the BC data warehouse, now defunct), currently from DataBC. Following are the age classes
we used from the 2001 forest cover database, keeping in mind that these forests have since aged 12
years: Class 1 (1-20 yrs.), Class 2 (21-40), Class 3 (41-60), Class 4 (61-80), Class 5 (81-100), Class 6
(101-120), Class 7 (121-140), Class 8 (141-250), and Class 9 (251+ yrs).
Mr. Cross also had In File an earlier government resource database, the 1993 Basic Thematic
Mapping (BTM) database. This identified polygons as recently logged (within the last 20 years of
1993), young forest (20-140 yrs.) and old forest (>140 yrs.).
The BTM GIS file covers all of BC. It consisted of polygons on the landscape and a table that
associates various attributes with each polygon. One of these attributes is a field in the table called
PLU_ label. The PLU_ labels for the different polygons range from “agriculture, alpine, avalanche
chutes, through barren surfaces, recently burned, old forest, young forest, recently logged, sustainably
logged” and a host of other land cover descriptions depending where in the province the polygons are.
Along with the BTM GIS files is a PDF file with a complete list and description of each type.

It was decided to use these two InFile GIS databases to develop a first iteration of a logged versus old
forest/old-growth map for the Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area and test their accuracy. Otherwise, we
would not have been able to do our analyses of how much of the Phillips has been logged.
Very early on in the project, a “snapshot” of an area in the lower Phillips was prepared showing the
old forest polygons from the forest cover data (AC 7, 8 & 9) overlain with old forest polygons from
the BTM data. It proved a very poor match, so a GIS decision/choice was made to use the forest cover
polygons AC 7, 8 & 9 over the BTM polygons, one reason being the more refined level of the forest
cover polygons compared to the coarser BTM resolution. Also, since there was only a small amount
of age class 7 in the study area (11 ha), and it was questionable whether it was from natural processes
or from very early logging, we decided not to use it.
Also, when double-checked for the Phillips study area, there were other discrepancies between these
two GIS map base layers. The 2001 forest cover maps showed some areas as old forest whereas the
1993 BTM showed them as logged areas. A separate draft base map was developed that showed
where these discrepancies occurred and these areas were checked against different logged areas
visible on Google Map as well as sites in the Phillips that I had ground-truthed. Adjustments were
then made on the logged versus old forest base map we were developing for the Phillips.
Map 10. Example of 2007 WFP map of lower-middle Phillips River area showing recent logged areas to 2007 that were hand
digitized to our base map (Map courtesy of Gillard Pass Fisheries Association. 2000). Earlier logged areas are not shown. It was
crudely estimated there was approximately 1,197 ha of Genus WFP cutblocks (lighter yellow) and 239 ha of WFP 2007 heli-
blocks (darker yellow) most of which appeared to have been done in old forests, while some blocks in the lower Phillips were
done in second-growth forests.

To identify logged areas on the Phillips base map, we used forest cover AC 1-6 combined with BTM
“recently logged” (within the last 20 yrs of 1993) and “young forest” (20-140 yrs). Since more
recently logged areas were still missing, Mr. Cross hand-digitised 109 cutblocks (Genus and Heli-)
onto our Phillips study area base map from a scanned geo-referenced version of WFP’s July 2007
1:25,000 scale map for most of the Phillips watershed that I had in my possession.
This composite 1:50,000 map was then again double-checked with Google Maps by both of us and
we found that one roaded and a logged tributary at the upper end of the Phillips did not show up in
any of the three data layers used for the composite map. The missing road and clearcuts were hand-
digitised from Google Maps to a final composite logged map. This map was then used for various
area calculations.
3.2.2 Mapping Approach for Determination of Areal Extent of Logging-Related
Early/Young Seral, Mid-Seral/Mature Closed Canopy Plantation Forest in the
Phillips Study Area Related to Grizzly Bear Habitat Values
Using research background on seral stages related to grizzly bear habitat values, we developed an
approach to use the composite logged and logged-old forest GIS base maps to determine the areal
extent in the Phillips study area of the different vegetative states of logging-caused early/young seral,
mid-seral/mature closed-canopy seral, and old forest so we could relate this information to potential
negative and positive effects of logging on grizzly bear habitats. We did not include natural seral
areas, such as avalanche chutes, in our analysis.
This proved a much more complicated, iterative process than we anticipated, including having to
make time-frame adjustments because of older age of the earlier versions of our main logged
databases (1993 and 2001).
Since the focus was on grizzly bear habitats, we loosely adapted the definitions of the ages of
successional or seral forests (early/young, mid-seral/mature, and old) from the Biodiversity
Guidebook for the Forest Practices Code (Parminter 1995) and other sources where applicable.
Parminter (1995) defines “natural” early/young seral as generally being less than 40 years old (except
20 years for deciduous stands). Since scientists estimate that the time it takes nature to convert
early/young seral conifer logged areas to closed-canopy forests varies from 20-35 years for BC and
Alaskan coastal rainforest, the 40-year or younger age class would appear to fit what was needed to
map early/young seral grizzly bear habitat.
In order to test our GIS map databases for the early/young seral category, we first tried mapping our
2001 combined forest cover age class 1 (1-20 yrs.) and class 2 (21-40 yrs.) polygons, combined with
the 1993 BTM “recently logged” (defined as within 20 years previous to 1993). However, when
checked against obvious closed-canopy forests on Google Maps, we found that many of the
early/young seral forests in the lower Phillips (from the map database) were already in a closed-
canopy state. When we bumped forest cover age class 2 (21-40 yrs.) into the mid-seral/mature closed-
canopy category, many of these better matched the closed conifer-appearing logged areas in the lower
Phillips valley identifiable on Google Maps. This made some sense since age class 2 forests would
today be 13 years older and thus be 34-53 years of age. Many of the sites in the lower valley, being on
productive growing areas, would advance more quickly to closed canopy than similar-age cut-over
areas at higher elevations in the Phillips.
Parminter (1995) provides no definition of “mid-seral” but defines “mature” forests as 80 years or
older for productive coastal forests, and 100-120 years or older for the less productive high elevation

forests. As noted by Parminter (1995), the development of mature forest characteristics is most rapid
in low elevation coastal forests and slowest in high elevation interior forests. However, we did not
attempt to make this distinction by separating age classes of high elevation and low elevation forests
for purposes of seral definition but rather used the ones applied to lower elevations where most of the
logging had been done.
We combined the mid-seral definition from the South Central Coast Order (2009) with Parminter’s
mature forest to create a separate “logged mid-seral/mature closed-canopy” category of grizzly bear
habitat. The South Central Coast Order (BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands 2009) defined mid-
seral as a stand of trees 40 years or older but less than 80 years for the Coastal Western Hemlock
biogeoclimatic zone, 100 years for the Interior Cedar-Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, and 120 years
for the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir and Mountain Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones.
For the logged mid-seral/mature closed-canopy logged forest, we used the combined BTM “young
forest” (20-140 yrs) polygons and forest cover age classes 2 (21-40 yrs), 3 (41-60 yrs), 4 (61-80 yrs),
5 (81-100 yrs), and 6 (101-120 yrs).
In using Google Maps satellite imagery to double-check our mid-seral/mature closed-canopy logged
forest sub-layer on our first draft map, we found that there was some older-appearing closed-canopy
forest in the mid-upper Phillips that looked to be the result of natural forest changes, such as past
flooding and river course alteration. These few polygons were identified separately on the map as
“mid-seral/mature closed-canopy – natural?” and amounted to only 135 ha.
Parminter (1995) defines “old forests” as 140 years or older for zones with more frequent disturbance,
and 250 years or older for less frequently disturbed zones. Thus, for old forests we again used age
classes 8 (141-250 yrs) and 9 (251+ yrs). Since there was so little (11 ha) of age class 7 (121-140 yrs)
that could be bumped from mature forest to old forest due to the age of our database, no adjustment
was made in this regard for our analysis of old forest.
The final map products were saved as GIS Shapefiles, at an approximately 1:50,000 scale. For the
report, the maps were converted to colour jpegs.

BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands. 2009. South Central Coast Order. March 2009. Consolidated
version.
Parminter, J. 1995. Biodiversity guidebook - Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. BC Min.
For. and BC Environ., Victoria, BC ix + 99 p.
(http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/pubs/pubs/0845.htm). Accessed January 15, 2013.
McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2007. Bear-viewing opportunities in the Phillips River Watershed,
BC. Report for Sonora Resort Ltd., Campbell River, BC. 17 pp.
McCrory, W. and M. Williams. 2008. Bear-viewing opportunities – Phillips River Watershed, BC.
Report for Kwiakah First Nation, Campbell River, BC. 19 pp.
McCrory, W. and M. Williams. 2009. Assessment of opportunities for spring bear-viewing & nature
tours – Phillips River Estuary, BC. Report for Sonora Resort, Campbell River, BC. 48 pp.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Since the focus of this study for the Kwiakah First Nation is a concern about the impacts of human
development on the Phillips watershed grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem and how these impacts will
affect the viability of their tourism/bear-viewing program, as my first priority, I chose to address the
questions listed in the contract Terms of Reference (TOR) that relate to their concerns. I have also
included my recommendations. The first sections of this report draw upon the findings of my
inventory assessment, a cumulative effects review, and a sufficiency analysis.
4.1 WHAT ARE THE STUDY IMPLICATIONS TO THE KWIAKAH BEAR-
VIEWING PROJECT IN THE PHILLIPS?
This section uses the results of the inventory data and cumulative effects review to address the
following TOR concern of the Kwiakah First Nation: They have become concerned that proposals for
logging in the Phillips watershed may impact a grizzly bear-viewing business, which they assert is an
exercise of the economic aspects of their Aboriginal title.
My exhaustive review provides strong evidence that the Kwiakah have very sound reasons to be
concerned about logging in the Phillips watershed relative to their grizzly bear-viewing tenure. There
are two main issues concerning past and future industrial-scale forestry operations in the Phillips and
the Kwiakah grizzly bear-viewing operation: the long-term influence of logging as a likely major
cause or contributing factor of current low grizzly bear numbers, and disturbances by logging
operations too close to existing grizzly bear activity centres used for viewing within the Kwiakah
tourism tenure area. As discussed elsewhere, both extensive logging combined with past trophy
hunting and illegal mortality have likely caused or contributed significantly to the current low
numbers of grizzly bears here. This negative influence includes logging as one of the most likely
causative factors in reduced salmon numbers. I have concerns that the sub-population of grizzly bears
in the Phillips may not survive if current logging pressures continue, even with implementation of
EBM and if stronger conservation measures are not implemented.
Based on four different survey periods between 2007-2013, I concluded that the Phillips has a very
low sub-population of 10-12 grizzly bears. This assessment is based on the number of individual
bears and their field sign we observed. Although this is a low number of grizzly bears to support a
bear-viewing program, my field research shows that with diligent bear-viewing guides who would
know both the area and individual bears well, the Kwiakah grizzly-bear viewing program is still
viable, but would improve if grizzly bears were allowed to recover. The Kwiakah project uses three
viewing towers where grizzly bears are most likely to be observed feeding on salmon in fall, as well
as boat-based grizzly viewing in the spring when low numbers of grizzly bears feed on the estuary.
What appear to be logging-caused debris torrents/landslides have impacted the now inoperable DFO
artificial pink spawning channel in the lower Phillips, as well as chinook/coho spawning habitat at
about km 22 on the Phillips River. I did not make any surveys during the “high” pink salmon years
(every even year). Numbers of the salmon species (pink and sockeye) most available to grizzly bears
in the Phillips were found to be so low during “low” pink years (every odd year) that grizzly bears
appeared to be supplementing their fall diet with berries and plants more than normally expected.
However, enough grizzlies were still working the salmon areas at the viewing towers to make the
Kwiakah tourism program viable. During the two fall survey periods (2007 and 2009), a number of
thin grizzlies were observed. In 2007, disturbance from WFP heli-logging and log hauling proximal
to the lower Clearwater salmon-grizzly area likely caused some displacement and increased stress.

Between 2007 and 2013, I observed no evidence that grizzly bear numbers in the Phillips were
increasing or decreasing, but were more or less holding their own. Based on significantly reduced
habitat capability (including insufficient stream and riparian buffers) from logging, I estimate that if
allowed to recover, the Phillips would support 25-30 grizzlies, and likely more if the ecosystem is
allowed to recover (but not the 50-60 that likely existed in historic times). On the one hand, if the
grizzly bears decline from increased logging and associated road mortality and illegal kills, this would
reduce the viability of the current Kwiakah bear-viewing program today. On the other hand, if a
grizzly bear recovery plan were implemented, it would help secure the current numbers as the
“anchor” source population and allow numbers to gradually increase that would then improve the
number of bears that could be observed in the Kwiakah bear-viewing program. A case in point related
to bear-viewing success and population recovery is the enormous success of grizzly bear-viewing at
the Mussel-Poison Cove estuaries on the central coast since grizzly hunting was closed some 15 years
ago. At this time, there were a very small number of grizzly bears and a nominal amount of bear-
viewing, but since grizzly bear hunting was stopped and numbers increased, so, correspondingly, did
successful bear-viewing increase (McCrory 2011).
Obviously, given the highly degraded state of the Phillips grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem, in order for
the Kwiakah to continue their bear-viewing program and protect and hopefully increase the current
subpopulation of grizzly bears in the Phillips, more drastic conservation measures are required
beyond the previous closure of the grizzly bear hunt and the insufficient amount of habitat protection
now being offered by the EBM coastal planning initiative.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY BASED ON
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON GRIZZLY BEARS AND THEIR
HABITATS IF THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, ETC. WERE TO REMAIN THE SAME OR IF NEW
DEVELOPMENTS WERE TO PROCEED?
This section addresses the following TOR questions:
other associated activities, were to proceed in and around the study area (i.e., if the footprint were to
increase)?
Based on my ecosystem analysis, I highly recommend implementing a moratorium on further logging
until a grizzly bear recovery strategy is developed. This recovery strategy needs to truly meet the
EBM objectives of ecological integrity. In order to achieve this, protection needs to be increased well
beyond current EBM standards in order to sustain the current low numbers of grizzly bears in the
Phillips that currently maintain the Kwiakah bear-viewing program and allow grizzly bear numbers to
increase over time.
My inventory and cumulative effects reviews show that logging in the Phillips by WFP and its
predecessors has surpassed all measurable thresholds by which grizzly bears are known to be able to
maintain a viable population.

These impacts include a major road/spur road network (306 km) with excessive road densities in the
highest quality habitats and salmon areas in the valley bottom, a high level of disturbance to many
important grizzly bear habitats within a 0.3 km zone of influence (ZOI) from logging roads, excessive
logging to the edge of some critical riparian areas including wetlands and salmon spawning areas, a
resultant reduction of security habitat for female grizzly bears in riparian forests including salmon
streams, successive clearcutting of over half of the old forests, with large areas in the lower valley
now in mid-seral closed-canopy stage of little value to grizzly bears, degradation of a number of
salmon-spawning areas from debris torrents/landslides that appear to be logging-related, and other
lasting cumulative impacts on the ecosystem.
As previously noted, a combination of past trophy hunting/illegal mortality, impacts from logging,
and reduced salmon runs can all be attributed as interrelated causative factors to the very low sub-
population of 10-12 grizzly bears in the Phillips.
WFP has plans to do more logging in the lower Phillips. Their draft Management Plan for TFL 39,
Block 5 was available for public review between July 22 and September 20, 2013 during normal
business hours at their various office locations. Due to the necessity to travel a long distance, I was
unable to attend and review their plans for the Phillips. However, the Kwiakah First Nation did
provide me with the logging plan (see Map 11). So far, the logging has not been done.
Map 11 shows four new clearcuts that warrant comment as it relates to the potential cumulative
effects of several of the proposed clearcuts on an already severely impacted and fragmented grizzly-
salmon ecosystem. The cutblocks at lower elevations infringe on what I consider to be a much-needed
300 m no-log buffer around the estuary and beach fringe areas (well beyond the EBM buffer
guidelines in Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly habitats). With respect to proposed cutblock PH 171, in June
2013, I walked the lower section following a grizzly bear travel trail that connects the forest in PH
171 with the lineal estuary meadows at Dyer Point. I saw survey ribbons that indicated what I thought
were the lower boundaries of this cutblock. I also saw beside the bear trail within PH 171, some
residual old-growth cedar trees that would provide important sidehill bedding habitat for grizzly bears
that use the estuary. Proposed cutblock PH 171 is thus not only too close to this important spring
estuary habitat but, if logged, would eliminate now-rare residual old forest trees important for grizzly
bear bedding. It will also reduce the connectivity values along the foreshore zone. As to the two
higher elevation cutblocks, I have no details. If these are high elevation old forest, they should be
further surveyed for potential black and grizzly bear den habitat.
This is all the more reason that I am recommending a moratorium on any further logging in the
Phillips.

Map 11. WFP’s Phillips logging plan 2013 showing proposed cutblocks (pink). The lowest one, PH 171, is too close to the
estuary and will impact a grizzly bear trail and important bedding habitat.
As to the Kwiakah TOR question # 8, the grizzly population can best recover over time if the valley is
left to rehabilitate with the option of no further logging, along with other measures including detailed
monitoring of the bear population, continuation of careful visitor use guidelines implemented for
spring and fall grizzly bear viewing, control of jet boats on the lower river, and rehabilitation of
salmon runs, such as the artificial pink salmon channel in the lower Phillips. Monitoring of bear
numbers using remote cameras and hair-DNA analysis would help track population levels. The valley
should also have some monitoring and patrols to prevent illegal kills as we noted a dead juvenile that
had apparently been illegally killed or killed by logging traffic in 2007.
Based on our map analysis of roads and young/early-seral and closed-canopy mid-seral/mature
cutover lands, most of the future logging for many decades will likely focus on second-growth forests
in the lower valley, where logging of second-growth stands has already started. EBM directives for
retaining 50% old forest in different site series and 50% mid-seral under the 2009 South Coast Order
were considered to be not scientifically credible if grizzly populations are to be recovered or sustained
at viable levels. Also, it is already too late for the Phillips to implement EBM 50% old forest
protection in different site series since 52% of old forests have already been logged out of the valley
bottoms/lower mountain slopes; there is only 1,020 ha surviving in the valley bottom in small,
fragmented patches. Recovery of most existing closed-canopy mid-seral/mature forest to old forest
stature (140+ years) in the lower Phillips will take a long time.
A second management option would be to close off logging in the logged-out mid- and upper Phillips
and manage the whole mid-upper area as a grizzly bear recovery zone to restore connectivity and
grizzly bear security habitat while allowing some careful logging of second-growth forests in the
lower valley well away from the core valley bottom-estuary-salmon grizzly bear areas.

For the lower valley, second-growth logging, if allowed, needs to be much more carefully managed in
light of my sufficiency findings that EBM no-log reserves around larger critical habitats, such as the
Phillips estuary, salmon-spawning areas, and larger wetlands, need to be expanded in width from the
EBM standard 30-50 m width (=1.5 tree length equivalent) to at least 300 m on each side for estuary
habitat, and 150+ m on each side for salmon streams and adjacent to large wetlands. Increased
protection should include all of the Phillips estuary, since only part of it is protected under
conservancy status or Class 1 grizzly habitat. As already pointed out, proposed cutblock PH 171 near
the Dyer Point estuary in WFP’s 2013 logging plan is far too close to this important spring estuary
habitat and would cause cumulative impacts on old forest bedding habitat and connectivity for grizzly
bears.
Additional conservation measures that need to be considered for this option should include only using
the log dump near Dyer Point and the lower Phillips Main road during the July-August period when
grizzly bears are less active in the estuary area and along the lower Phillips salmon areas. Certainly, it
is hoped that extensive log hauling adjacent to grizzly-salmon areas as was done in fall 2007 along
the Clearwater during heli-log operations, is never repeated.
Based on my previous studies, low impact guidelines have already been implemented for the
Kwiakah tourism program for boat-based bear-viewing at the Phillips estuary in spring, and at the
three Kwiakah towers in fall. Vehicle use to the towers should be limited to one vehicle per day with
one tour group of no more than 10-12 individuals.
A moratorium on any further logging in the Phillips is recommended until a grizzly recovery plan is
designed that goes well beyond implementation of the insufficient EMB guidelines under the South
Coast Order.

McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2009. Assessment of opportunities for spring bear-viewing & nature
McCrory, W.P., and M. Williams. 2010. September 2009 bear-viewing assessment for Phillips River,
BC. Study for Sonora Resort, Campbell River, BC.
McCrory W., and P. Paquet. 2010. Proposed bear-viewing strategy for the K’tzim-a-deen
McCrory, W. 2011. Bear-viewing plan for the Mussel and Poison Cove Estuaries in Fiordland
Conservancy. Report to BC Parks and Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation.
Nevin, O.T., B.K. Gilbert, and J.S. Smith. 2001. BC Bear-viewing: An analysis of bear-human
interactions, economic and social dimensions with recommendations for best practices.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Western Forest Products. 2013. Tree Farm Licence #39. Draft Management Plan #9.
http://www.westernforest.com/sustainability/environmental-stewardship/planning-and-
practices/our-forests/tree-farm-license-39-draft-management-plan-9/#sthash.G8gPc1y5.dpuf.
(Accessed Feb. 8, 2014).

4.3 INVENTORY INFORMATION—GRIZZLY BEAR GENERAL
CONSERVATION BACKGROUND
4.3.1 The Grizzly Bear as a Conservation Indicator
In the late 1990s, the Phillips watershed was identified as one of 12 areas of high importance for
grizzly bears as part of the Central Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (CCLRMP) process
by BC MOE staff in Nanaimo and by T. Hamilton (MOE staff) in Victoria (MacHutchon 2007a).
My review focuses primarily on grizzly bears and the past and potential impacts to the grizzly bear
population in the Phillips watershed-inlet from land use practices and their effects on the Kwiakah
First Nation bear-viewing business. I used a conservation biology approach that looks at all of the
direct and indirect influences on grizzly bears in the study area. By its nature, this is a cumulative
effects review since the regional and Phillips River grizzly bear population has undergone, and is
continuing to undergo, a multitude of complex habitat and population modifications from a variety of
human-generated disturbances and encroachments; their habitat today is far different from their
original temperate old-growth rainforest homeland.
In many ways, it is opportune to be using the grizzly bear species for this review because this species
is commonly regarded as a good indicator species of ecosystem health and well-being. It is also a
good umbrella species. For example, P. Paquet (pers. comm.) analysed niche overlap for 410
terrestrial vertebrates in the Central Canadian Rockies and found that by protecting the habitat needs
of the grizzly bear, a high number of additional species (98% of those found in that ecosystem), such
as the Canada lynx and the gray wolf, would also be protected. This means that if effective protective
measures and good management are undertaken for this one bear species, many other wildlife
populations in the same area should automatically be taken care of (today, however, climate change is
introducing a degree of uncertainty). Although a complete ecological analysis has not been done for
coastal grizzly bears as an umbrella species, high numbers of old-forest-dependent species would
assuredly benefit where large core coastal grizzly bear habitats are adequately protected and/or
allowed to recover to their original old-growth mosaic.
Another important conservation context for my Phillips review is that the grizzly bear is one of North
America’s slowest reproducing mammals. Knight and Ebert (1985) note that when dealing with a
small population of long-lived animals with a low reproductive rate, the population dynamics can be
influenced by perturbations in the age and sex structure. The ability of female grizzly bears to
contribute to a bear population is limited by late sexual maturity (usually 5+ years), low survivability
of the young (up to 50% mortality in the first year for cubs in some instances), and a 3-5 year non-
breeding interval while the female is raising her young. Female grizzly bears also peak in behavioural
and reproductive maturity at 9 to 12 years (Craighead et al. 1995a). Should a female grizzly bear live
long enough (at least 15-20 years), she will be lucky to contribute four adult offspring to the
population. There is also some evidence that reproductive participation by male grizzlies is restricted
to large and mature males (Craighead et al. 1995a). In the Arctic, reproduction by males may be
confined to individuals 9 or more years of age (Craighead et al. 1995b), although this may or may not
apply to the BC coast.
The fraction of grizzly bears that do breed constitute what is known as the genetically effective
population size (Horejsi 1999). The effective population size is estimated to be between 24-32% of
the total number of bears in a population, although it may be lower where numbers are significantly
reduced (Harris and Allendorf 1989).

This very slow reproductive cycle has made the species highly vulnerable to population declines
leading to extirpation and then extinction. For example, grizzly bears are now gone from a vast area
of the Pacific Coast from just south of the Phillips River-Bute Inlet area to California, where the
coastal rainforest grizzly once existed by the thousands in an extremely rich biome.
Humans are the greatest cause of grizzly bear mortality, and are the primary factor limiting grizzly
bear populations. In a review of 13-radio-collar studies in a 22-year period, including in southern
British Columbia, McLellan et al. (1999) determined that people killed 77-85% of collared bears
known or suspected to have died. A much smaller proportion died of apparent natural causes. Other
research indicates that between 17-54 % of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities remain unreported.
Although the estimate of acceptable human-caused mortality in grizzly bear populations varies
between experts, for a threatened grizzly bear population, grizzlies likely cannot sustain induced
mortality of greater than 4% if recovery is the management objective (Horejsi 1999). Another review
(BCMELP 1995a) indicates that estimates of sustainable levels of human-caused mortality to allow
for population recovery and long-term persistence range from 2.8% to 4.9%, depending on habitat
quality and reproductive rate. Populations in moderate habitat and/or with low reproductive rates can
only withstand human-caused mortality rates of 2.8% or less.
Small isolated populations of grizzly bears with fewer than 100 animals are actually considered at
serious conservation risk (IUCN 2003). Where such remnant subpopulations still survive in small
numbers, recovery may take many decades and require drastic changes to existing land use practices
and control of man-induced mortality if recovery, and not extirpation, is to be the outcome. I will
return to this aspect later in the report.
The cornerstones of grizzly bear recovery management are mortality reduction and improved quality
of habitats and their security. In some cases, grizzly bear populations may become so small and
fragmented that augmentation (bringing in bears from other areas with healthy numbers) may be
necessary to speed up the recovery process and to also overcome the risk of genetic inbreeding caused
by fragmentation and isolation from other subpopulations. For example, before the provincial
government cancelled the recovery plan for grizzly bears in the BC North Cascades, the Wildlife
Branch had collared a number of grizzly bears in Wells Gray Park so they could monitor them for a
year before translocation to Manning Park.
4.3.2 International, National, & Provincial Conservation Status of the Kwiakah
Phillips Watershed Grizzly Bear
International recognition of the vulnerability of British Columbia’s grizzly bear population includes a
European Union (EU) ban in 2004 on the importation of any trophy grizzly bear parts over concerns
that the bear hunt was not being managed sustainably. While grizzlies are listed as a species of special
concern in Canada, they receive no legal protection under provincial or federal law.
British Columbia is still one of the bastions for grizzly bears in Canada (see Maps 12a and 12b). The
province has the most diverse ecotypes ranging from the wet BC mainland coast to the dry Interior,
the Interior wetbelt, and the northern sub-boreal ecosystems.

Map 12a. Current and historic range of the grizzly bear in North America. The Phillips River grizzly bear is near the southwest
corner of current distribution, near the extinction zone. (David Suzuki Foundation).

Map 12b. Shaded area is the current distribution of grizzly bears in North America (Proctor et al. 2012).
Again, the Phillips study area is near the southern outer fringe of current distribution.
Federally, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists the
grizzly bear as a “Species of Concern.” In 2002, COSEWIC warned that:
The genetic and geographic continuity that currently prevents their identification as distinct
population units is at risk... Preventing the slow northward migration of this line depends on
active steps to conserve these insular and peninsular populations.
When COSEWIC reassessed the status of grizzly bears in 2012, these concerns were again
emphasised:
A number of populations in the southern extent of its range in Alberta and southern BC are
known to be declining, and their poor condition in some parts of the range, combined with

their naturally low reproductive rates and increasing pressures of resource extraction and
cumulative impacts in currently intact parts of the range, heighten concern for this species if
such pressures are not successfully reversed.
However, the federal government has so far failed to legally list the grizzly’s “Special Concern”
status under the Species-at-Risk Act (SARA), as recommended by COSEWIC. This is now under
review (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/public/consul-580_eng.pdf).
Provincially, the BC government still considers the grizzly bear as blue-listed (i.e., designated as
“vulnerable”), while populations in 9 of the 56 Grizzly Bear Population Units (GBPUs) (Map 13) are
considered “threatened.” Loosely interpreted, this means that the estimated population of that
particular management unit is 50% or less below the habitat capability, which is the number of
animals that the habitat could support under optimal conditions (Austin et al. 2004).
The Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area is in the BC Wildlife Branch’s Knight-Bute Grizzly
Bear Population Unit (GBPU). The Wildlife Branch considers this grizzly bear population viable,
which is why trophy hunting is still allowed in the north portion.
Map 13. BC Wildlife Branch conservation status of grizzly bears in British Columbia. The Phillips is in the Knight-Bute Grizzly
Bear Population Unit (GBPU). http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-
bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status

According to the province’s 2012 status report on grizzly bears (www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/
indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status): [the] cumulative effects
of human development [are] the greatest threat to grizzly bears in BC; these effects impact bears in
three main (often overlapping) ways:
• Conflicts between bears and humans increase in frequency, often resulting in bears being
killed or relocated
• Bear populations become isolated because of human settlements, agriculture, and utility
corridors in major valley bottoms
• Habitat may be lost or degraded by development, alienated through bears’ avoidance of
humans and human activities, or fragmented (for example, by high density road networks
with high traffic volumes)
Ironically, the province has never done a cumulative effects review of the impacts of conventional
logging on coastal grizzly bears.
A goal of the 1995 British Columbia Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (GBCS) was to recover
threatened subpopulations to viable status. None of this has happened over the past 18 years. The
province has yet to implement grizzly bear recovery plans that have been recommended for all of the
threatened GBPUs in the South Coast Mountains, except for the North Cascades GBPU, where the
province started a recovery planning process in 2003. I mapped potential grizzly bear habitat in
protected areas for BC Parks and did a bear-people conflict prevention plan for the recovery process.
Unfortunately, the ongoing recovery plan was cancelled by the Minister of Environment due to
controversy over proposed population augmentation. British Columbia has also not enacted stand-
alone provincial endangered species legislation so that threatened grizzly bear subpopulations can be
legally protected and recovered. In fact, very little of the noteworthy recommendations of the GBCS
have ever been implemented; meanwhile, many of BC’s southern populations have continued to
become smaller and/or more isolated than they were in 1995.
According to a recent review by Gailus (2012), grizzly bear recovery plans in many areas of the USA
have been implemented with some success when compared to Canada’s poor track record:
In the U.S, tens of thousands of square kilometres of habitat were protected from further
industrial development, thousands of kilometres of roads were closed or decommissioned,
and government agencies worked with hunters, ranchers, landowners, and Native American
tribes to reduce conflicts with grizzly bears and reverse the trend of unsustainable rates of
grizzly mortality. Although many critics suggest that grizzly bear recovery in the United
States has been too slow and is incomplete, there is little doubt that progress has been made.
Grizzly bear populations in Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide ecosystems
have tripled over the last 30 years; there is significant public support and tolerance for
grizzly bears in these areas, and efforts to improve habitat conditions and population size in
the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk and North Cascade population units are beginning to intensify.
Meanwhile, in Canada, the evidence suggests that things are not improving – and, in some
cases, [are] getting worse rather than better – for the small, fragmented, and highly
threatened subpopulations in western Alberta and southern BC. There are numerous reasons
for the lack of progress on the Canadian side of the border, including lack of political will,
but perhaps the most significant one is the absence of strong legislation to protect species-at-
risk in Alberta and British Columbia. Neither Alberta nor British Columbia have endangered

species legislation, and the federal Species-at-Risk Act has proven to be ineffective at
protecting many threatened or endangered species even on federal lands. A recent report
from Ecojustice, which evaluated the effectiveness of Canada’s endangered species
legislation, gave the federal government a grade of C-, largely because it routinely fails to
follow its own law. Both Alberta and BC received an F. The federal government also refuses
to use the Species-at-Risk Act’s safety net provision to protect species at risk (and the
habitats on which they depend) on provincial lands when provincial governments refuse to do
so. The foundation of success in the United States is the federal Endangered Species Act.
For BC, Gailus (2012) recommends that in the absence of provincial actions to protect BC’s
threatened grizzly bear subpopulations, the federal government should list the small and increasingly
isolated grizzly subpopulations in southern BC under the safety net provision of the federal Species-
at-Risk Act. By doing so, he felt this would provide the impetus for both federal and provincial
governments to work together to ensure that all of Canada’s grizzly bears remain a fundamental part
of our natural and cultural heritage. The failure of both the Canadian government and the BC
government to implement adequate legislation and recovery plans for BC’s dwindling grizzly bear
populations means any subpopulation of grizzly bears at risk will remain in a precarious and tenuous
position and continue to be extremely vulnerable to any further human-induced impacts, including
increased resource developments and mortality.

Austin, M.A., D.C. Heard, and A.N. Hamilton. 2004. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) harvest
management in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
9 pp. Found at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/gb_harvest_mgmt.pdf . See Appendix 3
in Austin and Wrenshall, 2004).
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). 1995a. Conservation of grizzly
bears in British Columbia: background report. BC MELP, Victoria. 70 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). 1995b. A future for the
grizzly: British Columbia grizzly bear conservation strategy. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, Victoria. 15 pp.
COSEWIC. 2012. In Press. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Grizzly Bear (Ursus
arctos) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995a. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone: their
ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Craighead, L.D., D. Paektau, H.V Reynolds, E.R. Vyse, and C. Strobeck. 1995b. Microsatellite
analysis of paternity and reproduction in arctic grizzly bears. J. Heredity 86(4): 255-261.
Gailus, J., F. Moola, and M. Connolly. 2010. Ensuring a future for BC’s grizzly bear population.
Natural Resources Defence Council & David Suzuki Foundation report.
Gailus, J. 2013. Securing a national treasure: Protecting Canada’s grizzly bear. David Suzuki
Foundation report.
Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard, and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)
population estimate 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC. 7pp.
Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/gb_bc_pop_est.pdf

IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels. Version 3.0.
IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Knight, R.R., and L.L. Eberhardt. 1985. Population dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology
66(2):323-334.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2007a. Mapping methods for important coastal grizzly bear habitat. DRAFT
2. October 2007. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria and Black Creek, BC. 35 pp.
Proctor, M., D. Paetkau, B.N. McLellan, G.B. Stenhouse, K.C. Kendall, R.D. Mace, W.F. Kasworm,
C. Servheen, C.L. Lausen, M.I. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, M.A. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C.D. Apps,
L.M. Ciarniello, R.M. Barclay, M.S. Boyce, C.C. Schwartz, and C. Strobeck. 2012. Population
fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in Western Canada and the
Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180:1–46. Available at:
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/publications/2012_Grizzly_population_
fragmentation.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2013.
4.4 INVENTORY BACKGROUND: PHILLIPS GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT
REVIEW (seasonal diet & habitats, bedding areas, mark/rub trees, winter denning
habitats, home ranges, and corridors/travel routes)
This section addresses the following TOR questions but without following the specific order of them:
1. What are the general habitat and connectivity needs of coastal grizzlies for all seasons, including
winter denning?
a. If so, where are the important or potentially important habitats and travel corridors for grizzly
bears, including important Pacific salmon grizzly feeding habitat? Why are those zones important or
potentially so?
[Note: Question 2 and the portion of question 3a with respect to salmon are addressed in the section
on salmon.]
4.4.1 Background Review of the Seasonal Diet and Habitats of BC Coastal Grizzly
Bears
For our previous field work and my June 2013 field research in the Phillips for this report,
understanding the importance of foraging strategies of grizzly bears, including their utilisation of
different habitat types, involves a background and field evaluation of diet and location of different
important seasonal foraging habitats.
A limited number of observational diet and habitat use studies of grizzly bears have been done in BC
coastal areas (e.g., Lloyd 1979, McCrory and Mallam 1988, Copeland et al. 1992) that have wet
rainforest old-growth ecology similar to the Phillips watershed. McCrory and Mallam (1988) were the
first to document high grizzly bear habitat values and their use in the Khutzeymateen watershed,
including valley bottom floodplains and adjacent hillsides, the delta estuary, and the Lyngby’s sedge
(Carex lyngbei)-dominated shoreline plant communities that comprise many of the tidewater
meadows.
There have been only two telemetry studies to determine habitat use of BC coastal grizzly bears, one
in the Kimsquit Valley on the central coast while it was being logged (Hamilton et al. 1986), and the

other in the pristine Khutzeymateen Valley (MacHutchon et al. 1993) on the north coast. Today, a
very important point to keep in mind in my discussion is that grizzly bear habitat values determined
by MacHutchon et al. (1993) for the Khutzeymateen River Valley are considered the provincial
benchmark for coastal grizzly bear habitat (RIC 1999); yet the MacHutchon et al. (1993) study did
not do a detailed food habitat analysis using grizzly bear scats (due to lack of funding), but rather
based their habitat rankings on telemetry locations and field sign. Thus their evaluation of seasonal
diet and habitat use lacks refinement; still, it is used as the provincial benchmark.
Seriously lacking for purposes of resource planning and grizzly bear conservation on the BC coast are
any follow-up studies on the long-term effects of extensive clearcut logging and roading on the
seasonal diet, habitat use, behaviour, and survival rate of grizzly bears, including the impacts of
logging on the salmon resource as part of the main fall diet of grizzly bears. It has been approximately
28 years since the last government-sponsored telemetry study of the effects of coastal logging on
grizzly bears in the Kimsquit, and some 20 years since a telemetry study was done in the unlogged
Khutzeymateen Valley. Both of these were short-term studies. This lack of continuing scientific
research and monitoring of the impacts of clearcut logging in coastal watersheds on grizzly bears and
their food resources has left a serious knowledge deficiency and credibility gap in resource use
planning and management related to grizzly bear and salmon conservation that has resulted, in my
professional opinion, in highly speculative and untested logging guidelines; those that do exist are
based on limited expert opinion and conceptual modeling scenarios with little critical review by
independent scientists and the public.
More intensive research and monitoring has been done on grizzly bear diet, habitat use, and effects of
logging in southeast Alaska (including in the Tongass National Forest), such as that done by Schoen
and Beier (1988), Schoen (1990), Schoen et al. (1994), Titus and Beier (1999), Smith and Partridge
(2004), Flynn et al. (2010), and others.
MacHutchon (2007a) provides a comprehensive overview of the important grizzly bear foraging
habitats for the BC coast and their importance, which he developed as background in his decade of
work in determining Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly habitats for north, central, and south coastal
planning. A habitat map provided to me by MacHutchon shows these habitats mapped for the Phillips
watershed. These are discussed further in my report.
Since I previously did my own summary of coastal grizzly bear habitats and their use specifically for
my former grizzly bear-viewing assessment for the Kwiakah operation in the lower Phillips
watershed, including some field assessment of habitat use, I will use some of my previously written
material for background as supplemental to the MacHutchon (2007a) review. Additionally, my
supplemental review provides important background not included by MacHutchon (2007a) that is
relevant to my discussion of the cumulative effects of logging in the Phillips on grizzly bear habitats
and numbers, the sufficiency of the current Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) logging guidelines
to protect the health of the grizzly bear and anadromous salmon populations, and the overall effects
on Kwiakah bear-viewing activities.
Today, large, unlogged coastal valleys with rich mosaics of old-growth, sloughs and other wetlands,
and avalanche chute habitats, combined with tidewater salt marshes or estuaries and healthy salmon
runs, such as the Khutzeymateen Class A Park Grizzly Bear Sanctuary, appear to be some of the most
productive grizzly bear habitats left on the planet. Applying, across-the-board, the Khutzeymateen
benchmark standards to the heavily logged and roaded Phillips watershed proved complex.

In general, coastal grizzly bears have a very cosmopolitan diet, as is typical of both grizzly and black
bears in North America. For grizzly bears, this includes green vegetation, underground plant parts
(roots and corms), berries, meat (mammals), salmon, insects, marine invertebrates, and other items.
For the most part, grizzly bears are omnivorous. The list of grizzly bear foods I have compiled over
the years for grizzly bears in the transition areas between the south coastal mountains and drier
Interior ranges, including the BC North Cascades, includes 69 different plants foods (Appendix 1).
As mentioned, although the Khutzeymateen telemetry study (MacHutchon et al. 1993) did not include
a dietary analysis from scats, this study and others have generally demonstrated that for coastal BC,
the highest value grizzly bear habitats and the highest bear use occur in valley bottoms and adjacent,
lower mountain slopes for the active half of a grizzly bear’s yearly cycle of living outside of its winter
den (see denning section for higher elevation habitat use in winter). The 17 grizzly bears radio-
collared for the Khutzeymateen study were found to largely confine most of their spring through fall
activities to areas between sea level and 100 meters ASL (87% and 90% of locations sighted from
aircraft, respectively). Yet areas below 100 m represent less than 5% of the total Khutzeymateen
Valley. Presented another way, 62% of all combined grizzly bear sightings from the ground locations
and from sightings from aircraft of radio-collared bears in the Khutzeymateen were in valley bottom
habitats, yet these comprised only 2% of the study area.
Preferred low elevation habitats included both forested and non-forested habitat types. Floodplain
Sitka spruce old-growth forest and skunk cabbage old-growth forest were consistently preferred in
all seasons, as were non-forested wetlands and estuaries. During spring, the large Khutzeymateen
estuary was used by a number of grizzly bears, including 13 of the 17 with radio collars. This use of
old-growth forests in all seasons is consistent with research in southeast Alaska (Schoen et al. 1994),
where old-growth forest was found to be used extensively throughout the year by bears for foraging,
cover, and denning.
For higher elevations in the Khutzeymateen, only 2% of all grizzly bear sightings made from the
ground and 4.5% of sightings made from aircraft were in the Mountain Hemlock (MH)
biogeoclimatic zone, yet 16% of the Khutzeymateen study area was classified as Mountain Hemlock.
No radio-collared grizzly bears were located in the alpine tundra (AT), even though it comprised
~47% of the study area. MacHutchon et al. (1993) noted that alpine areas in the Khutzeymateen are
largely rock and ice, and the small patches of ground vegetation had a limited availability of bear
food plants. Similarly, the same researchers pointed out that a five-year grizzly bear study in the
Kimsquit Valley on the mid-coast demonstrated a lack of use of the alpine by radio-collared bears.
Alpine areas are believed to be used almost exclusively by coastal bears for dispersal between
adjacent watersheds. At least one high elevation mountain pass in the Khutzeymateen had a well-used
grizzly bear travel corridor (Tony Hamilton, pers. comm.). One study suggested that grizzly bear use
of the subalpine on the south coast may be more important than on the north coast. Lloyd (1979)
observed that subalpine meadows played an important part as forage areas for grizzly bears in Knight
Inlet, which is proximal to the Phillips.
The Khutzeymateen telemetry study (MacHutchon et al. 1993) indicated about 80% of
Khutzeymateen grizzly bears used the large marine estuary at the mouth of the river. Some grizzly
bears were also found to use the inlet, including the extensive marine foreshore salt marsh zones.
According to a recent review of estuary use in the Khutzeymateen area by grizzly bears (McCrory
and Paquet 2010), during the two-month spring bear-viewing season more than 50 grizzly bears have
been documented using the marine foreshore habitats. The relatively high number of females with

young, as well as mating pairs, suggests the marine areas are not only important to bears for foraging
on nutrient-rich foods, but also as secure “nursery areas” and mating areas.
Since the Phillips has a large area of estuarine habitat important to grizzly bears and the Kwiakah
grizzly bear-viewing project, the following general background is important.
Salt marsh estuaries are isolated “islands” of rich habitat with a very high plant diversity and
productivity, and are considered some of the most significant on the coast for biodiversity
conservation, including grizzly bears. As noted in a BC estuary study for the north coast (MacKenzie
et al. 2000): Perhaps paradoxically, because the number of estuaries and their total area is quite a
small percentage of British Columbia’s total area, each of these sites has a very high individual
value, similar to oases in a large desert. Salt marsh estuaries are comparable to tropical rainforests in
their productivity and species diversity, and are the most imperilled of BC’s ecosystems (Nature Trust
of BC 1998-99). Two estuary inventories of the British Columbia coast have been published (Hunter
et al. 1985, MacKenzie et al. 2000).
Very high potential occurs where there is localised concentration of Lyngby’s sedge (Carex lyngbei),
which has ~25% protein early in the growing season. Young blades are also commonly used by
trumpeter swans and geese (Pojar and MacKinnon 1994). In addition to bears, many other terrestrial
vertebrate species on the coast frequently use estuaries, such as shorebirds, waterfowl, peregrine
falcons, bald eagles, merlins, beavers, Sitka black-tailed deer, river otters, and wolves. Upper reaches
of estuary meadows may also provide wolf denning sites and important rendezvous areas (Darimont
and Paquet 2000). In some cases, harbour seals use estuaries for haul-outs to rest (McCrory and
Mallam 1988). Since delta estuaries and shoreline meadows are the best habitat for viewing bears on
the coast in the spring and early summer, they are especially important for ecotourism and
recreational activities (which also makes them vulnerable to human disturbances).
Estuaries also provide critical seasonal habitat for birds. Millions of migrating shorebirds depend on
the intertidal invertebrates of BC estuaries during their journeys to both breeding and wintering
grounds. The health of 3-5 million waterfowl migrating along the Pacific coast is mostly dependent
on estuaries (Remington 1993). Many trumpeter swans use BC estuaries for over-wintering, and small
numbers are reported to use the larger estuaries in the Spirit Bear study area. In early spring, they
typically leave the area to breed elsewhere.
Estuaries also provide critical spawning and rearing habitat for a number of salmon species,
especially coho, chum, and chinook. During the late summer and fall, Pacific salmon congregate in
estuaries before entering spawning streams, often for weeks at a time while waiting for sufficient
rainfall to freshen streams. Some pink salmon runs also spawn in streams at the upper fringes of the
intertidal zone in some estuaries, where they are actively fed on by bears and wolves. Extensive
eelgrass (Zostera spp.) beds off some estuaries also provide rare but critical habitats for marine life,
including early life stages of many marine fish and invertebrates.
Salt marshes and shoreline meadows are very important habitats for bears to obtain vegetable foods,
especially in spring when little else is available and the new growth is rich in critical nutrients. These
habitats are considered estuarine since they are significantly influenced by saltwater. Many bear food
plant species, such as northern rice root (Fritillaria camschatcensis) and Lyngby’s sedge are saline-
soil specialists and are found in both salt marshes and shoreline meadows.
Lyngby’s sedge is a salt-tolerant species that thrives only in intertidal meadows along the ocean edge.
It is one of the most preferred and nutritious spring plant foods for bears all along the Pacific coast of

North America, from BC to southeast Alaska (McCrory and Paquet 2010). Analysis of the food value
of Lyngby’s sedge in an Alaskan salt marsh by Rode et al. (2007) showed that this species and other
green plant foods used by grizzlies had >20% protein content.
Similar results were found in a study of the dynamics of intertidal foraging by coastal brown bears in
southwestern Alaska (Smith and Partridge 2004). Rode (pers. comm.) considered that spring
vegetation, with its high protein content mixed with carbohydrates, is likely the perfect mix for a bear
coming out of the winter den. Rode et al. (2007) found that biomass (i.e., quantity) was the
determining factor in spring grizzly bear utilisation of green plant intertidal habitats. They showed
that spring GPS locations of collared grizzly bears could be determined by protein density.
The large areas of estuary or salt marsh habitat found at tidewater at the head of Phillips Arm are thus
extremely important for early spring foraging by bears, who also feed on other food items, including
marine invertebrates. However, other green plants are sought out in non-tidal habitats, including
forested and non-forested wetlands, avalanche paths, and other areas. In late spring, salmonberry fruit
also becomes very important (McCrory and Mallam 1988, McCrory 1998, McCrory and Paquet
2010). The general occurrence of major bear trails, mark trees, and bedding areas throughout adjacent
old-growth riparian forests suggest estuaries also play an important role as a crossroads for mating
(typically in June) and other social activities. The high food values of estuaries in spring-early
summer combined with their importance as social centers makes them important habitat for bear
conservation planning.
What is to be noted with respect to the aforementioned discussion of coastal grizzly bear habitats and
their use is that grizzly bears concentrate their use on seasonal feeding habitats at low elevations that
are disproportionate to their relative distribution over the landscape. The matter of the
disproportionate importance of different habitat types to grizzly bears has also been documented in
locations other than on the coast. For example, a grizzly bear radio-telemetry study in southeast
British Columbia (McLellan and Hovey 1993) demonstrated that grizzly bears made much higher use
of wetlands than the relative distribution of wetlands over the landscape. Although wetland/riparian
habitat comprised only 8.5% of the study area, 40% of the transmitter locations of 46 radio-collared
grizzly bears between May 15 and July 22 (and located 10 or more times) were in wetland habitats.
Some bears were located 85% of the time in this type of habitat during this period.
Estuary feeding usually tapers off in late June, although some grizzly bears can still be seen feeding
on the Khutzeymateen estuary in early July (Dan Wakeman tour operator, pers. comm.). While
salmonberry feeding on the coast normally starts in late spring, it can continue into early summer by
some bears that move up valley. In summer, green plants constitute the main diet of grizzly bears
until salmon return to spawn in the rivers and creeks and fall berries start to ripen.
One can safely say, however, that Phillips grizzly bears appear to follow similar seasonal feeding
patterns that I have observed in many central and north coast grizzly bear areas and as has been
documented in the various coastal studies I have just cited.
Of course, salmon become the prime food resource all along the coast starting in late summer and into
the fall, and the Phillips watershed is no exception. Bears utilise a variety of situations to capture
salmon, including live capture in pools in canyons when the salmon are undergoing upstream
migration or at shallow spawning beds; feeding on dead salmon in a variety of situations, including
retrieving carcasses from underwater; or along inlets where dead salmon have been carried out of
watersheds by water currents; and so on.

Besides salmon, a variety of berries are important in fall, especially huckleberries and blueberries
(Vaccinium spp). Over my several decades of bear habitat surveys on the BC coast, I have noted that
even during years of abundant salmon, bears will sometimes show a preference for foraging on
huckleberries. At least 12 species of berries and fruits are utilised by bears on the BC coast (McCrory
et al. 2001). Following are the fruit-producing plants I identified in the Phillips area in approximate
order of chronological use from late spring through fall:
• salmonberry
• 3 species of huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.)
• bog cranberry? (Vaccinium oxycoccos)
• highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule)
• red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa)
• stink currant (Ribes bracteosum)
• devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus)
• salal (Gaultheria shallon)
• red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea)
• Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca)
4.4.2 Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability Maps (by Western Forest Products and Grant
MacHutchon)
Other than preparing maps of the Phillips estuary, the main salmon areas, the grizzly bear core area
below 100 m ASL, and potential winter den areas, it was beyond the scope of my review to do a
detailed map of grizzly bear foraging habitats for the Phillips study area. Following are grizzly bear
habitat maps of the Phillips prepared by Grant MacHutchon (pers. comm.) and Western Forest
Products (WFP). Based on my own ground-truthing in the lower Phillips, I would concur with most
of the important grizzly bear habitats shown on these maps, with a few exceptions. I would also
concur with both maps that the highest grizzly bear foraging habitats are in the valley bottom and
lower-mid slope areas of the Phillips.
4.4.2.1 Grizzly bear habitat maps—Western Forest Products (WFP)
The following WFP habitat map (Map14) for Tree Farm Licence #39 shows the highest quality
grizzly bear habitats (red) are in the valley bottom areas of the Phillips River watershed from sea level
to the top end of the valley. Based on my field research, I would more or less agree with the
generalised locations except that my background review indicates that the highest grizzly bear values
are in the lower valley. It is noteworthy that WFP makes no effort to identify how much of the high
value grizzly bear habitats in the Phillips have been ecologically compromised by roads and clearcuts.

Map 14. Western Forest Products Map of TFL 39 showing highest value grizzly bear habitats in valley bottoms (red).
4.4.2.2 EBM Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons—Grant MacHutchon
MacHutchon (2007a) provides a good overview of the BC government’s various approaches for
mapping and protecting important grizzly bear habitats on the coast since the late 1990s, including the
process used for EBM class 1 and class 2 grizzly bear habitats, as follows:
Several grizzly bear habitat mapping and evaluation projects have occurred on the BC coast or
in coast-interior transition areas since the late 1990s and these projects varied in their
objectives, methods, and intensity of field verification. This document summarizes previous
project methods and proposes a standard methodology for mapping important grizzly bear
habitat.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the identification of important grizzly bear habitat was
necessary for stand level habitat protection under the Forest Practices Code either as Wildlife
Habitat Areas (WHAs) under the Managing Identified Wildlife: Procedures and Measures
guidebook (Province of B.C. 1999) or as part of a higher level plan. A secondary benefit was for
Timber Supply Review to determine whether there was overlap between important grizzly bear
habitats and the Timber Harvesting Land base (THLB).
In early 2000’s there was transition from the Forest Practices Code to the Forest and Range
Practices Act, so the context for protecting important grizzly bear habitat changed in some ways.
Stand level habitat protection through WHAs now were done using the Identified Wildlife
Management Strategy (IWMS) Procedures for Managing Identified Wildlife: Version 2004 (BC
WLAP 2004a) and Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified wildlife: version 2004 (BC
WLAP 2004b) or as part of higher level planning. Where a higher-level plan existed,
implementation of the IWMS was to be done in accordance with the objectives and targets
contained within the higher level plan (BC WLAP 2004a).
Two higher level plans have recently been completed on the coast of B.C. The Central Coast
Land and Resource Management Planning (CCLRMP) process began in 1997 and in April 2001
an interim agreement led to the creation of a completion table which achieved consensus in
December 2003 and presented final recommendations to the Province of B.C. and First Nations
in May 2004 (CCLRMP Completion Table 2004).
The North Coast Land and Resource Management Planning (NCLRMP) process began in
February 2002 and a conditional agreement was ratified by table members in June 2004 and
final recommendations were presented to the Province of B.C. and First Nations in February
2005 (BC MSRM 2005). Subsequently, the North and Central Coast LRMP table
recommendations informed government-to-government discussions between the Province and
First Nations. Those discussions resulted in a First Nation and Provincial government coast land
use decision announced in February 2006, which was followed by the signing of government-to-
government agreements.
One of the goals of the CCLRMP was to “maintain the quality and quantity of bear habitat
across multiple scales to satisfy viable population needs” and following from this goal, one of the
objectives was to “maintain the function of and connectivity amongst critical grizzly bear habitat,
including functional visual (security) and resting (bedding) cover” (CCLRMP Completion Table
2004). However, there was not sufficient time prior to the CCLRMP completion phase deadline to
finalise recommendations on strategies to achieve this objective. Subsequent to the government to
government coast land use decision, a Ministerial order to legally establish the South Central
Coast Legal Land Use Objectives was signed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in July
2007. Under section 17:
17. Objectives for sensitive grizzly bear habitat
Subject to section 18(2):
(1).Maintain sensitive grizzly bear habitat.
(2).Before altering or harvesting sensitive grizzly bear habitat:
(a) obtain from a registered professional biologist confirmation that the disturbance will not
cause a material adverse impact to the suitability of the sensitive grizzly bear habitat;
(b) to the extent practicable, prepare and implement an adaptive management plan and

monitor the ecological impacts of the proposed forest development; and
(c) engage in information-sharing or consultation with the applicable First Nation.
According to section 18(2), objective 17 of the legal land-use objectives takes effect on or after
September 30th, 2007 when a map of sensitive grizzly bear habitat has been completed to the
Minister’s satisfaction. As of early October 2007, a map of sensitive grizzly bear habitat for the
south central coast was being completed based on previous grizzly bear habitat mapping projects
(see section 2 below).
The North Coast LRMP (NCLRMP) final recommendations (BC MSRM. 2005) identified several
key components of grizzly bear conservation outside protected areas, including “maintaining
habitat quality and quantity at multiple scales, including landscape level forage supply and
critical habitat at the stand level”. The recommendations further detailed general management
direction for grizzly bears, including on-the-ground habitat objectives and implementation
indicators. However, as of the NCLRMP deadline, specific targets for the habitat objectives were
still being developed. Subsequent to the government to government coast land use decision, a
draft Ministerial order to legally establish Land Use Objectives for the north part of the Central
Coast and the North Coast were made available for public comment in June 2007. Under section
17 of that order:
17. Objectives set for critical grizzly bear habitat
(1) Retain 90 % of the critical grizzly bear habitat identified in Schedule 2.
Schedule 2 is a map of class 1 and 2 grizzly bear habitat that was developed using the
methods outlined in section 2.
MacHutchon (2007a) notes that in the late 1990s, the Phillips watershed was one of 12 areas of high
importance for grizzly bears identified as part of the Central Coast Land and Resource Management
Plan (CCLRMP) process by BC MOE staff in Nanaimo and T. Hamilton. In 2002, T. Hamilton and
D. Webb rated TEM polygons within the Phillips River valley (Phillips LU; TFL 39, Block 5) for
their seasonal suitability for grizzly bears. Of the 904 TEM polygons identified as class 1 or 2 grizzly
bear habitat suitability in at least one season, none were field-assessed. Some of this field mapping of
important grizzly bear habitats was then done in the Phillips and Fulmore Landscape Units (LUs)
following the methods outlined by MacHutchon (2007a), with some modifications. Ground-truthing
was done by MacHutchon and his experienced field crew in September 2009. In the end, 274 grizzly
bear habitat polygons remained in the database and on air photos as they were considered high or
moderately high suitability (class 1 & 2) grizzly bear habitat in at least one season (MacHutchon
2009).
In 2010, the Grizzly Bear Habitat Mapping Technical Review Team summarised the methods used
throughout the Coast Land Use Decision planning area for mapping and rating of grizzly bear habitat
(MacHutchon 2010). Grizzly bear habitat mapping methods and results were reviewed by a technical
team comprised of the BC Ministry of Environment (Victoria), the BC Ministry of Forests and Range
(Nanaimo), the forest industry and NGOs. The review indicated that logged cut blocks or portions of
harvested blocks could be included within a Class 1 or Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygon.
MacHutchon (2010) also provided an overview of the seasonal importance of various ecosystem units
and habitat features to grizzly bears on the BC coast. This led to another review by MacHutchon et al.
(2010) on assessing material adverse impacts to coastal grizzly bear habitat, which appears to be the
last planning stage for finalising EBM class 1 and class 2 grizzly bear habitats.

Map 15 shows the Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats that were mapped in the Phillips in 2009.
This map has a somewhat different emphasis than the WFP map in that the highest value foraging
habitats are more dispersed throughout the valley bottom and low-mid slopes of the Phillips
watershed. The maps include the approximate 1.5 dominant tree length buffer for salmon habitats. I
would more or less concur with the map where I ground-truthed habitats in the lower Phillips, except
that some important estuary habitats are not included, such as along Dyer Point south of the log
dump. Another limitation of this map is that, since the Khutzeymateen study headed by the same
author of the map is considered the coastal benchmark, the map does not make any distinction
between the much higher importance of Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats below 100 m ASL
than those above.
As noted, methods for mapping Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons are outlined in
MacHutchon (2007a). Based on his review of coastal grizzly bear seasonal habitat ecology,
MacHutchon recommended the main emphasis of habitat mapping of polygons encompass the
following ecosystem units:
• non-forested wetlands (e.g., fen, swamp, marsh, or shallow water site class)
• estuaries (e.g., estuarine marsh or estuarine meadow site class)
• forested or wooded wetlands (e.g., skunk cabbage swamps)
• ocean foreshore areas with sedges
• sub-alpine parkland meadows
• herb- and shrub-dominated avalanche chutes
• berry-producing forests, such as riparian floodplain forests and alluvial fan forests
• salmon-spawning areas.
To create Class 1 and Class 2 polygons, the researchers first used air photos or ortho photos to
delineate important grizzly bear habitat polygons. Using RIC (1999) criteria, the seasonal suitability
of mapped habitat polygons was determined for the following four seasons, early spring (April), late
spring (May), summer (June, July, August), and fall (September, October). The seasonal suitability of
mapped habitat polygons was then rated on a scale of 1 to 6 based on Table 5 in RIC (1999). Factors
other than food or cover were also taken into account, such as proximity to other habitat polygons.
Buffers were also added to the polygons, including old forest and, where this was not available,
logged forest. Ground-truthing by qualified individuals was then recommended and, such as, was
actually done for the Phillips Class 1 and Class 2 habitats.
Further in my report, I will discuss the sufficiency of the EBM Class 1 and Class 2 habitats to meet
grizzly bear life requisites in the Phillips.

Map 15. Class 1 (red) and Class 2 (green) grizzly bear habitat polygons in the Phillips River Landscape Unit (purple boundary)
and surrounding areas in 2009. For management purposes, any polygon rated class 1 in at least 1 of 4 active bear seasons was
treated as a "class 1" polygon for the Legal Order In the South Central Coast Land Use Objectives Order (Section 17). In the
Order, 100% of class 1 polygons are protected but not class 2. (In the Central and North Coast, all of class 1 polygons and 50%
of class 2 are also legally protected). Scale: 1:210,000. [Map & information provided by Grant MacHutchon in July 11, 2013 by e-
mail].

Maps 16a and 16b. Yellow-hatched polygons are legally recognised Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) for grizzly bears, which have,
in effect, stronger legal protection than the Class 1 habitats (MacHutchon pers. comm.). These were established before the
Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear mapping was done in the Phillips in 2009. The dark green line is the Phillips River Estuary
Conservancy. Scale: 1:30,000. [Map & information provided by Grant MacHutchon in July 11, 2013 by email].

Maps 17a and 17b. Lower Phillips River and Upper Phillips Arm area showing most of the Phillips estuary and class 1 (red) and
class 2 (light green) grizzly bear polygons. Dark green is the Phillips Estuary Conservancy boundary. Scale: 1:30,000. [Map &
information provided by Grant MacHutchon in July 11, 2013 by email. Upper Phillips Arm map provided on January 21, 2014].

4.4.3 McCrory Wildlife Services 2007-2013 Field Evaluation of Grizzly Bear
Vegetation and Salmon Habitats, Number of Grizzly Bears Observed/Recorded,
and Diet/Habitat Use in the Lower Phillips River and Phillips Estuary Areas
Note that grizzly bear use of salmon is discussed in greater detail in the section on salmon. My
discussion of habitat values and their use by grizzly bears in the Phillips was simplified by focusing
on the “core” grizzly bear area (Map 20). This core area is defined as the area of the Phillips study
area below the benchmark 100 m elevation that was determined in the Khutzeymateen (MacHutchon
et al. 1993) study to have the highest habitat values and the most all-season use by grizzly bears.
4.4.3.1 Field study approach and limitations
Using background information, for each of the four study periods (each approximately two weeks in
length) between 2007 and 2013, my survey crews made a point of making a field evaluation of all
bear sign, including scats and tracks. For scats we made a crude visual estimate by percentage of the
content, such as green vegetation, berries, and skunk cabbage roots. Approximate location and
estimated age of each scat was recorded. Associated tracks in some cases allowed us to determine
whether the scat was from a grizzly bear or black bear. Otherwise, since scats from black bears and
grizzly bears are indistinguishable (unless they have root/corm contents since black bears rarely
excavate for roots, etc.), some of the scats included in our field analyses were likely from black bears.
However, since few black bears appeared to be present in our study area at the time of the surveys, we
assumed all scats documented without associated tracks for species identification were from grizzly
bears. We did not feel this caused much of an error in our assessment of grizzly bear seasonal diet in
spring and fall, particularly as the diet of both species is quite similar.
One limitation of the study is that we did not relate our field surveys to a grizzly bear habitat map
(other than for the estuary). The other limitation is that the field studies were done in the spring and
fall but none in the summer. Thus we did not evaluate this season except to guess diet from older
scats observed in the fall, with still identifiable food content, that were aged back to late summer. The
other limitation of our field surveys was our focus on the estuary and salmon areas for the purposes of
evaluating the Kwiakah bear-viewing project so we did not give much attention to other habitat areas.
Additionally, other than driving some of the logging roads into mid valley areas, we focused our field
efforts on the lower valley from the Clearwater down to the estuary since this was the primary
viewing zone for grizzly bears.
As noted previously, for purposes of this discussion, I made the logical assumption that the Phillips
grizzly bear study area is ecologically similar to the Khutzeymateen and thus used the government’s
Khutzeymateen grizzly bear study (MacHutchon et al. 1993) as well as that of my own (McCrory and
Mallam 1988) as benchmarks. The Khutzeymateen is considered the provincial benchmark for coastal
grizzly bear habitat (RIC 1999). However, I also used grizzly bear diet and habitat information from
my other extensive bear studies on the BC central coast (McCrory et al. 2010).
4.4.3.2 Summary of spring habitat values and use in the Phillips core area
Our field work validated that high value grizzly bear habitat for spring is found in the Phillips grizzly
bear core area in the lower valley (Map 18). However, in my professional opinion, former higher
values and connectivity (and higher abundance of grizzly bears) have been seriously compromised by
extensive roading and approximately a century or more of commercial logging of old forests. These
industrial activities have led to extensive loss of old forest bedding and travel areas and once-

productive old forest berry habitats being replaced with large areas of now closed canopy
unproductive habitat. (More details are provided in the impact section of this report.)
The most productive spring habitat in the lower core grizzly bear area was found to be the extensive
Phillips estuary at the river mouth, along with 3 km of lineal estuarine habitat along both sides of
upper Phillips Arm adjoining the river mouth. A provincial study ranked the Phillips estuary as very
high (Hunter et al. 1985). As with other coastal estuaries, we found that the Phillips salt-marsh
estuary has a high plant diversity and productivity (comparable to tropical rainforests) and has for its
size relative to the overall study area, a disproportionately high value for grizzly bears and other
wildlife. Lyngby’s sedge, the most sought-after grizzly bear spring food due to its high nutritional
value, was found to be of high density and wide distribution. Other plant foods, such as silverweed,
were common and also used by grizzly bears. Based on the Khutzeymateen and other studies, I
estimated that the Phillips estuary and lineal estuarine habitats along the upper inlet could support an
estimated 25-30 grizzly bears in the spring and early summer. The similar Khutzeymateen estuarine
habitat supports some 50-60 grizzly bears in the spring. Grizzly bear use based on counts of grizzly
bears and observations of feeding sign in June 2008 and June 2013 showed that grizzly bear use of
prime estuarine habitat was far below its capability. Surveys documented 3-4 grizzlies using the
estuary in the spring months of 2008, and at least one in 2013. Other data suggested at least six
grizzlies used the estuary in May-June 2012. Limited use was noted of the estuary habitats in the fall,
which is to be expected. Of nine fall grizzly bear scats observed on the estuary during our October 14,
2007 field survey, 79% by volume were considered to be silverweed roots, 11% green vegetation, 4%
crabapple fruit, and 6% black huckleberry fruit. Some scavenged salmon may have also been in the
scats but was difficult to detect using visual inspection.
Field surveys of other areas in the lower valley showed grizzly bears were primarily foraging on
green plants and salmonberry in the spring, but the use of salmonberry in June differed between the
2008 and 2013 field surveys. In 2008, we tallied 37 spring scats in other areas up valley, mostly on
the various logging roads. Some scats were likely from black bears. The scats were comprised of
green plant matter, mostly grasses and sedges. Some coarse stalk matter was also observed and
adjacent feeding sign suggested this consisted of stalks of bracken fern. The scats indicated the
importance to grizzly bears of green-up areas for springtime foraging in the wetland habitats in the
valley bottom, avalanche chutes, and perhaps some roadside grass areas. Although the 2013 spring
surveys were done during the approximately same time frame as the 2008 surveys, field observations
of scat content and feeding sign indicated salmonberries were a much more important food for bears
in 2013 than in 2008. This was due to 2013 being an earlier spring. Of the 23 scats observed on roads
in June 2013 from near the estuary to 2 km up the Clearwater Road, 57% by volume were estimated
to be comprised of green plant matter (mostly graminoids but some stalks), 36% salmonberry fruits,
and 7% mostly root-appearing material including white-laced chunks of skunk cabbage roots.
Although further quantification is needed, my overall impression from the two June field surveys was
that successional re-growth from extensive clearcut logging has significantly reduced the availability
of salmonberry and other plants as important spring foods for grizzly bears. These have not been
replaced in the artificial patches along the logging roads and in the more recent cutblocks. A survey
of several 2007 cutblocks in the lower Phillips showed that although salmonberry was about 10% of
the re-growth, very little grizzly bear use was occurring.

From the data, it was difficult to estimate minimal numbers of grizzly bears using the lower valley
core area in the spring of 2008. Based on the fact that three or four were observed on the estuary and
field sign was limited, perhaps five grizzlies were using the lower valley at this time.
Again, based on field sign, estuary observations, and a remote camera set up on the lower road by the
camp watchman, only a small number of grizzly bears were felt to be using the lower Phillips core
area in the spring of 2013.
4.4.3.3 Specialised bear habitats: tidal wetlands, coastal salt marshes, and shoreline meadows
in the Phillips study area
Summary of grizzly bear values and use of the Phillips Estuary habitat
Since coastal estuaries have become significant grizzly bear-viewing habitats on the coastline of BC
and southeast Alaska, my database on grizzly bear habitat potential and use has considerable
emphasis on the Phillips estuary habitats. Hunter et al. (1985) gave the Phillips estuary a composite
rating of “12”, which is considered high compared to other estuarine habitats ranked on the coast.
In 2001, a Westworld documentary was made for Knowledge Network called The Grizzly Bears of
the Phillips Estuary. As noted elsewhere in this report, the WFP log dump and log camp headquarters
are on the east side of the estuary and the remains of a town site/cannery can be found on private land
on the west upper side of the estuary.
Fortunately for grizzly bears and other species, the Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area has a large
estuary at the river mouth combined with lineal shoreline estuary habitat on both sides that extends
for some distance on each side of upper Phillips Arm. As previously discussed, the estuary has very
high grizzly bear values for spring and early summer.
The two spring survey periods, June 8-17, 2008 and June 9-18, 2013, confirmed that the salt marsh
meadows aligned along the mouth of the Phillips River delta and adjacent marine foreshore of upper
Phillips Arm have a high capability in the spring and early summer seasons for grizzly bears. In
particular, the most favoured grizzly bear plant food, Lyngby’s sedge, was found to grow at a high
density over large areas of the intermediate tidal zone. (The value of the estuary to First Nations for
historic and traditional uses is also high; there area at least two, if not three, old Kwiakah Village sites
on the Phillips estuary, as well as one just up the river at km 4.) Based on my own review of grizzly
bear use of the benchmark Khutzeymateen estuary and lineal estuarine habitats in the inlet (McCrory
and Paquet 2010), I estimated the Phillips estuary and lineal estuarine habitats along the upper inlet
could support an estimated 25-30 grizzly bears in the spring and early summer. McCrory and Paquet
(2010) cite recent counts by two different researchers over a two-month period of 47 and 56
individual grizzlies (including young) using the Khutzeymateen Sanctuary estuary and linear estuaries
in the Inlet Conservancies.

Map 18. High value salt marsh habitat for grizzly bears (red).
Surveys documented 3-4 grizzlies using the estuary in the spring months of 2008, and at least one in
2013. An examination of photographs taken by Scott Smith (the logging camp watchman) in May and
June 2012, showed a total of six different grizzly bears using the estuary. In 2013, I observed only
one grizzly bear and very little sign. Viewing episodes in the early morning or late evening often
yielded only one grizzly bear sighting, whereas under normal conditions, I have often seen in similar
but unlogged areas on the central and north coast, such as the Khutzeymateen, it would not be unusual
to see 10-15 different individuals in one day in the spring using estuarine habitat of similar size and
quality (see McCrory and Mallam 1988). Spring grizzly bear use of Phillips marine habitats was far

below capacity, reflective in my opinion of generally depressed grizzly bear numbers rather than
habitat selection.
While spring-early summer is the prime time for grizzly bears on coastal estuaries, they do use them
to a lesser degree in the fall for feeding on salmon and excavating for plant roots, such as skunk
cabbage and silverweed. Many coastal estuaries often have small feeder streams or drainage channels
at the upper ends that provide salmon spawning habitat, particularly for pink salmon, such as the
Khutzeymateen (McCrory and Mallam 1988) and the Mussel estuaries (McCrory 2011), and these
become favoured salmon feeding sites for wolves and bears, even though they undergo twice daily
tidal flooding for short periods. In the fall, some grizzly bears also forage for salmon carcasses that
float down and strand on the estuary meadows or beaches during high tides. It is also to be noted that
some incidental use of the Phillips estuary was noted in the fall for digging silverweed roots
(McCrory and Williams 2009). The one estuary stream (Shirley Creek) that apparently once had a
small run of pink salmon that would have been important to grizzly bears and wolves, had been
heavily impacted by a large debris torrent and no salmon were observed in an intensive survey of the
lower creek in the fall of 2009.
Following is quantification of the low grizzly bear use of the Phillips estuary habitat. The low use
recorded in fall 2007 is what is to be expected, but use in the spring survey periods should have been
much higher.
Field surveys: Spring use of the Phillips Estuary
June 8-17, 2008. N = 3. 1 adult and 1 female with 2-year old (McCrory and Williams 2009).
During this study period all grizzly bear sightings and track data on the Phillips estuary were
recorded. Although we did surveys along the various logging roads to about km 24 on the Phillips
mainline, the only grizzlies sighted were on the estuary. Since our survey efforts were to evaluate the
potential for bear-viewing on the estuary areas at the head of Phillips Arm, we believe our numbers
for that period were relatively accurate for bear use of the estuary. We observed one adult grizzly and
one female with a 2-year old. These sightings are shown on Map 19. We also observed two different
black bears.
During the June 2008 field surveys, we again observed fresh diggings for silverweed roots by grizzly
bears in the same estuarine area as we observed in October 2007. We estimated 230-240 fresh
diggings. Bears may also have been eating roots of several other plant species. We recorded a total of
total of 25 bear scats in various areas of the estuary meadows and adjacent woods. The scats ranged in
estimated age from 4 weeks to fresh and were predominantly green plant matter, which we cautiously
assumed was mostly Lyngby’s sedge. We also assumed most of these scats were from grizzly bears.
Given the high grizzly bear habitat capability for this extensive and biologically rich lineal estuary
(on both sides) and the relatively low level of human disturbance at the time of the survey (no logging
was going on), we concluded that grizzly use was far below capability and that under normal
population levels at least 15-20 or more grizzlies should have been observed during optimum survey
periods and conditions with a total of 25-30 grizzly bears using the estuary during the spring-early
summer season.

Map 19. Locations of grizzly and black bears observed on the estuary in June 2008.

May-June 2012. Photographs, Scott Smith. N = 6 grizzly bears using the estuary
Scott Smith, the caretaker at the logging camp at the Phillips, spent considerable time viewing and
photographing grizzly bears that frequented the Phillips estuary. In examining his digital photographs
in June 2013, I was able to conclude that at least six grizzlies used the Phillips estuary in the spring of
2012: two adults, a juvenile, and an adult female with two subadults as follows:
• A large, dark brown adult was photographed on the west side estuary on May 5.
• A mother grizzly and two large subadults (4-5 yr. olds) were observed on the west side of the
estuary on May 5-6, 2012. One of the subadults was nearly the size of the mother. The other
was somewhat smaller and very thin, which was not abnormal for the spring after den
emergence.
• A large single adult was feeding at low tide in the intertidal just north of the logging camp on
May 28 in an area with numerous barnacles. This may have been the same adult that was
photographed on the estuary later on (June 24) and was quite habituated. It had an apparent
scar down the middle of its face and nose and was called “Scarface.” This bear had a darker
head and shoulders than the one photographed on May 5, so was likely a different adult.
• A smaller single adult or subadult was in the same area on June 24. It was light coloured and
so a different bear.
June 9-18, 2013. McCrory Wildlife field surveys. N = 1 grizzly est. from tracks on Phillips Estuary
In 2013, I spent less time surveying the estuary and more time surveying other habitats in order to
obtain a broader understanding of grizzly bear habitat values in the Phillips ecosystem. Additionally,
since spring was about one month more advanced than the June 2007 surveys, grizzly bear root and
corm diggings on the estuary were harder to detect. I did note several fresh diggings for skunk
cabbage roots at the private land-house site at the top end of the estuary.
Spring estuary use was found to be very low in June 2013. This might be partially explained by the
fact that spring was one month ahead of last year and at the time of my surveys Lyngby’s sedge was
quite mature and, as a result, grizzly bears were feeding more in the shrub zones on ripe salmonberry
fruits. The four grizzly scats observed on the east side of the estuary were likely comprised of
Lyngby’s sedge and appeared to be from earlier in May. During the June surveys, it appeared that one
grizzly bear had walked through. Earlier cropping of leaf tips of this sedge on the west side estuary
was also observed to be common. In June 2013, some salmonberry feeding sign and several
salmonberry scats were observed along the logging road between the logging camp and the estuary
meadows along sections of the logging roads near the logging camp and the estuary meadows along
Dyer Point.
Indeed, unlike my June 2008 field surveys when no salmonberry feeding was observed, salmonberry
was estimated to comprise 36% by volume of the 23 scats dated for June 2013 (all scats were
assumed to have been deposited by grizzly bears). During this 10-day period in 2013, I saw no grizzly
bears on the estuary, although one was reported on the east side salt marshes on June 15, where my
previous field surveys indicated one grizzly had travelled through.
Field surveys: Fall use of the Phillips Estuary
Apparently (although not confirmed), Shirley Creek near Dyer Point on the east side of the estuary
used to have a run of pink salmon that spawned on the estuary/beach area. This would have provided
an important food source for grizzly bears and wolves in the fall. When we surveyed Shirley Creek in
the fall of 2007, it had been heavily impacted by a large debris torrent that created a debris field of

boulders out on to the estuary. We waded up the creek for some distance and found no evidence of
salmon.
Apparently (although not confirmed), Shirley Creek near Dyer Point on the east side estuary used to
have a run of pink salmon that spawned on the estuary/beach area. This would have provided an
important food source for grizzly bears and wolves in the fall. When we surveyed Shirley Creek in
the fall of 2007 it had been heavily impacted by a large debris torrent that created a debris field of
boulders out on to the estuary. We waded up the creek for some distance and found no evidence of
salmon.
Some grizzly bears also use the estuarine habitat in the fall for digging roots and feeding on Pacific
crabapples along the edges. In October 2007, we observed over 100 fresh diggings by grizzly bears
for silverweed (Potentilla) on the southeast Phillips estuary. The caretaker of the Phillips logging
camp at that time had recently observed a subadult grizzly bear in the same location. Of nine fall
grizzly bear scats observed on the estuary during our October 14, 2007 field surveys, 79% by volume
were considered to be silverweed roots, 11% green vegetation, 4% crabapple fruit, and 6% black
huckleberry fruit. It is likely that some salmon remains were present in the scats from bears
scavenging on dead carcasses that would have floated down from up the river, but this was difficult to
confirm.
4.4.3.4 Field surveys: Other grizzly bear vegetation habitats and their use in the lower
Phillips Valley
Field surveys: Up-valley spring grizzly bear feeding sign and food preferences
As noted, only intermittent habitat surveys were done in spring of other areas between the Phillips
estuary and the Clearwater and a few areas beyond.
June 8-17, 2008
In 2008, we tallied 37 spring scats in other areas up valley, mostly on the various logging roads. This
included the Clearwater Road to km 4-6, East Main to km 5, and Phillips Main to km 22+. Some scats
were likely from black bears. The scats ranged in age from 1-6 weeks and all were comprised of
green plant matter, mostly grasses and sedges. Some coarse stalk matter was also observed and
adjacent feeding sign suggested this consisted of stalks of bracken fern. The scats indicated the
importance of green-up areas in the wetland habitats in the valley bottom, avalanche chutes, and
perhaps some roadside grasses as springtime foraging habitats.
It was difficult from the data to estimate minimal numbers of grizzly bears using the lower valley.
Based on the fact that three were observed on the estuary and field sign was limited, perhaps five
grizzlies were using the lower valley at this time.
June 9-18, 2013
Although done during approximately the same time frame as the 2008 surveys, field observations of
scat content and feeding sign indicated salmonberries were much more important food for bears in
2013 than in the 2008 survey. Another difference was that in 2013 most of the logging roads were
blocked by a 2012 debris torrent at km 13 and thus fewer up-valley areas were surveyed. After this
blockage was cleared, I was still only able to drive several km up the Clearwater Main and only a few
km up the Phillips Main above the bridge. Debris torrents/ washouts blocked the rest of the way.
Thus, in 2013, far less of the up-valley roads were sampled than in 2008.

In June 2013, a total of 26 scats were examined in the field, mostly on the logging road at lower
elevations, although two were assessed several kilometres up the Clearwater Road.
One difference noted between the 2008 and 2013 spring surveys is that due to the much earlier spring
in 2013, considerable feeding on fruits of the early-ripening salmonberry was observed in the second
week of June in 2013, but not at the same time in 2008. Seven of the 2013 scats aged back to May
were all comprised of grasses and sedges, indicating that salmonberry feeding likely started in early
June. Salmonberry was observed in most of the June period scats collected between June 9-18, 2013.
Of the 23 scats observed on roads from near the estuary to 2 km up the Clearwater Road, 57% by
volume were estimated to be comprised of green plant matter (mostly graminoids but some stalks),
36% salmonberry fruits, and 7% mostly root-appearing material including white-laced chunks of
skunk cabbage roots. Since most of the tracks observed were from grizzly bears, it was assumed that
the scats were grizzly; although, of course, a few could have been from black bears.
Bear use of salmonberry in spring is a coastal phenomenon that is likely an important late spring
energy boost for bears. This early-ripening shrub is not found in the interior, where grizzly bears
usually have to wait 1-2 months later than coastal bears for berries to ripen; although where over-
wintered berries of the evergreen ground shrub bearberry is available in the interior, this is an
important known spring food for bears as the berries increase their sucrose content over the winter
(McCrory 2002).
In June 2013, some salmonberry feeding sign (broken bushes) was observed along sections of the
main logging roads near the logging camp and in a few areas along the Phillips Main to the
Clearwater. Although feeding sign was observed along this road at the two recent clearcuts near km
2.5 on the Phillips Main logging road, no feeding sign or scats were observed in 1.5 km of surveys of
the two spur roads through the recent cutblocks above the Phillips Main road; although ripe fruits
were readily available and the cutblocks had about 5-10% re-growth to salmonberry. This suggested
to me that bears were more or less avoiding the cutblocks, although more sampling would be needed
to draw any hard conclusions. All of the older cutblocks observed in the lower Phillips were at
various stages of closed canopy and thus had very little in the way of salmonberry and other bear
foods.
In the Phillips, naturally occurring salmonberry is commonly abundant as a fringe shrub around the
estuary meadows, in the valley bottom areas in association with old-growth forests such as along
lower Clearwater Creek, along some sections of the lower Phillips River and Phillips Lake, and on
avalanche chutes in the Clearwater and Phillips. It occurs artificially along some bank sections of the
logging road. The important point is that, although not quantified by vegetation plots, this significant
spring food occurs in greater abundance in association with the natural riparian zones and the estuary
in the valley bottom rather than in the cutblocks and road edges. According to my observations, the
clearcut logging of much of the lower elevation old forest grizzly bear habitats has led to much of the
once-productive vegetation understorey being replaced with alders and/or second-growth conifers.
My impression from the June field work was that such successional regrowth from logging has,
overall, significantly reduced the availability of salmonberry and other plants as important spring
foods for grizzly bears that has not been replaced by the artificial patches along the logging roads and
in the more recent cutblocks. I will attempt to quantify this later in the report with maps.
I might also add that many of the other important grizzly bear green plant and root foods (such as
skunk cabbage) are likely to be found on or adjacent to the estuary and in the riparian areas in the
valley bottoms, including the large wetlands in the Phillips Estuary Conservancy.

Some of these areas have been compromised by past logging and road building. Later on in my report
I attempt to make an estimate of how much of the much of this original old forest habitat has been
compromised by forestry operations, old and recent, and the relevance to grizzly bears.
Overall minimal numbers estimated in the lower Phillips core study area in June 2013 was five
(female and juvenile young, female with cub, 1-2 adults), similar to 2008. This is based on the fact
that I observed the tracks of an adult and yearling grizzly (twice) in the Clearwater flats, and the scats
and associated sign observed 2 km up the Clearwater Main were likely from a single adult grizzly
bear. An examination of images from a remote camera set up by logging camp watchman Scott Smith
near the iron/concrete bridge on the main logging road about 1 km from the camp showed an adult
male and female with cub.
4.4.3.5 Summary of fall habitat values and grizzly bear use in the Phillips core area
A map of the main salmon spawning areas in the Phillips and a more detailed evaluation of their use
by grizzly bears in the fall is provided in the salmon section (4.6) of this report.
October 8-15, 2007
On the Phillips estuary (south side), there were hundreds of fresh diggings for silverweed (Potentilla).
The Phillips logging camp caretaker had recently observed a subadult grizzly bear here. Of nine
recent grizzly bear scats observed during our October 14 field surveys, 79% were considered to be
silverweed roots, 11% green vegetation, 4% Pacific crabapple fruits, and 6% black huckleberry fruits.
It is likely that some salmon was present in the scats but was not readily confirmed.
We looked at 26 up-river scats, most of which we assumed had been deposited by grizzly bears since
we saw little evidence of black bears. Estimated food content (by volume) included salmon 27%,
black huckleberry fruit 50%, skunk cabbage root 6.5%, Pacific crabapple 3.5%, and green plant
matter 13%. A small amount of high-bush cranberry or bog cranberry was also noted. Grizzlies in the
vicinity of tower site #7 on Clearwater Creek were digging for roots of thistle along the new access
road to the viewing tower. We also observed a forested site at the mouth of the Phillips River where
grizzlies had been actively digging for skunk cabbage roots.
Just previous to and during the early part of our September survey, a heavy rainfall event led to
extreme flooding conditions during which we believe many of the salmon carcasses previously
available to bears were washed out to sea. Additionally, even earlier in the season when more salmon
may have been present, bears were felt to be foraging on the abundant huckleberry crop and therefore
showing up less than expected at the three new bear-viewing towers constructed by the Kwiakah in
the lower Phillips area (F. Voelker, pers. comm.).
September 19-29, 2009. Observed fall diet. (McCrory and Williams 2010)
During our September 2009 surveys in the Phillips, we crudely estimated the food content of 43 bear
scats. We did not survey the estuary as much as we did in 2007, so most of the scats were from the
roads and viewing tower areas. We could not easily determine which were salal berries and which
were huckleberries from the more common purple scats. Later in September, we suspect that most
purple berries in the scats were salal since the huckleberry crop was over at low elevations whereas
the salal was not. We also assumed that a small number of scats were those of black bears. The scat
data is somewhat biased as fish scats are less visible and decompose more rapidly.
As we previously observed in September 2009 on the BC central coast (McCrory 2010), even with
salmon available, grizzly bears were also feeding on huckleberry and salal fruits. We observed 43

scats in the Phillips. Of the 13 scats dated to August, 7 scats had purple fruit content (huckleberry/
salal) and 6 had green plant matter. From Sept. 1-19, 20 scats had huckleberry/salal, 2 had green plant
matter and none had salmon. From Sept. 19-29 of a total of 8 scats, 2 had berries, 1 had a mix of
berries and plants, 2 had salmon, 2 had a mix of salmon and green plants, and 1 had a mix of salmon,
crabapple, roots (skunk cabbage?), and green plants. This information suggests that in summer bears
were eating huckleberries, salal fruits, and green plants. In the first several weeks of September,
feeding on purple fruits (huckleberry, salal) was much more common than green plant feeding. Bears
appear to have gone the first half of September with no salmon. During the last two weeks of
September, bears had started feeding on salmon, but continued to eat berries and some green plants.
In late September, the huckleberry crop was largely over so it was assumed the scats with purple
berries were from salal.
As will be noted in the salmon section (4.6), grizzly bear feeding on smaller salmon species was more
common in the lower Clearwater spawning area and artificial pink channel than in the lower Phillips
River, where most were large salmon species holding in deeper water and therefore more difficult for
bears to catch.
4.4.4 Delineation of Grizzly Bear Core Area (Tidewater to 100 M ASL) in Lower
Phillips
In this scenario, we developed a grizzly bear core area (Map 20) for the Phillips study area; the core
area being defined as encompassing habitats between the ocean and 100 m elevation where grizzly
bears would concentrate their activities from spring to fall based on the Khutzeymateen grizzly bear
telemetry study being the benchmark for BC coastal grizzly bear habitat ratings (RIC 1999). As noted
previously, the 17 grizzly bears radio-collared in the Khutzeymateen were found to largely confine
most of their spring-summer-fall activities to habitats between sea level and 100 meters ASL.
However, for the south coast, Lloyd (1979) observed that subalpine meadows played an important
part as forage areas for grizzly bears in Knight Inlet, which is proximal to the Phillips. This suggests
that some higher elevation habitats may be more important for grizzly bears on the south coast than
the north coast; although I have no way of making a quantitative judgment on this in relation to the
highest value area being in the core Phillips area below 100 m based on the Khutzeymateen
benchmark area.
All told, the core grizzly area comprises 3,138 ha or 0.62 % of the total Phillips study area (50,900
ha), a much smaller core area in comparison to the overall watershed than the core Khutzeymateen
area below 100 m, which was found to comprise 5% of the total watershed (44,902 hectares).
Most of our bear-viewing studies were done in the core area. From an ecological perspective, our
field surveys confirmed that the valley bottom corridor of the lower Phillips Valley from 0.5-1.0 km
on either side of the main river would have had the highest grizzly bear, salmon, and other
biodiversity values and yet appears to have been severely ecologically compromised with roads and
clearcuts going back to the late 1800s. We found that the only large wetland-Sitka spruce old-growth
habitat, large estuary habitats, and most of the salmon spawning habitats for the Phillips study area
occur in this small core area.
Although I did not do a comprehensive field survey of all of the habitats in this core area, other than
scattered pockets of old-growth, much of the old-growth forest that once buffered these high quality
riparian habitats has been roaded and clearcut, compromising their ecological values for grizzly bear
bedding, travel, and security. Logged forests were found to be in different states of reforestation in the

Phillips, ranging from the early seral stage of recent clearcuts to the second-growth closed canopy
mid-seral forests logged 35 or more years ago, to mature or late seral forests, such as at the outlet of
Phillips Lake.
A field check on the east side from the Phillips Main road showed that most of the old forest on both
sides of Phillips Lake were logged off. From about km 9.5 to km 13, the Phillips wetlands (now
protected by the conservancy) also had most of the old forest removed down to the edge of the
sloughs and bogs. The old forests are now mostly in an unproductive closed canopy state. I did a
habitat transect below the road at km 11 and found the wetlands had a high density of sedges and
other grizzly bear foods, but all of the old forest along the edge had been logged off compromising
travel, bedding, and other associated values for grizzly bears using this productive and now protected
habitat. Stumps indicated cedar trees up to 2 m diameter used to grow along the edge of the swamps. I
will return to a discussion of the implications of these forest alterations later in the report.
4.4.5 Winter Denning Habitat for Grizzly Bears
4.4.5.1 Assumptions and limitations
• Although a coastal grizzly bear den habitat model was available it was beyond the scope of the
study to map this other than a generalized old forest – elevation map showing where most grizzly
bear denning would likely occur.
4.4.5.2 Summary
MacHutchon (2007a) provides a good summary of coastal grizzly bear denning habitat:
In coastal British Columbia, most grizzly bear dens are located on steep, well-drained slopes
near the transition between the Coastal Western Hemlock and the Mountain Hemlock
biogeoclimatic zones (approximately 600-1000 m elevation, depending on latitude and
aspect) and often are in the stringers of trees at the edge of avalanche tracks or steep-walled
gullies.
Competition for den areas by bears can lead to conflict and mortality. Pearson (1975) reported the
death of a grizzly bear from conflict with another bear for a den site. A black bear denning study in
the Nimpkish Valley on Vancouver Island, which had been extensively logged, showed that black
bears may be competing for remaining old-growth trees, stumps, large hollow logs lying on the
ground, and downed logs for winter dens. The study also indicated an increased rate of cannibalism
and infanticide as a result of dens being in such short-supply (Davis and Harestad 1996).

Map 20. Grizzly bear core area where highest grizzly bear use would be concentrated based on the Khutzeymateen as the
benchmark for coastal grizzly bear habitat values.

In this section, I examine the implications of old forest removal on potential grizzly bear den habitat
in the Phillips study area. We used a GIS grizzly bear den habitat model developed for the central
coast by McCrory et al. (2010) to crudely estimate the amount of potential old forest at mid-high
elevations that would be suitable for grizzly bear denning in the Phillips study area. Despite some
heli-logging in 2008 of old cedar forests at mid- to higher elevations that I considered to be potential
grizzly bear den habitat, our GIS model (Map 21) determined that approximately 7,931 ha of old
forest, or about 14.5%-16% of the Phillips study area, would have habitat areas suitable for winter
denning. The elevation range we used was old forest between 360 m to the upper limit of the
Mountain Hemlock (MH) subzone, keeping in mind that most of the denning appears to occur in the
transition zone between the CWH and MH biogeoclimatic subzones (MacHutchon 2007a). The loss
of potential denning habitat for grizzly bears does not appear to yet be a factor in the apparent
population decline of Phillips grizzly bears, although it could be a concern in the future if upland old
forests on steeper slopes continue to be heli-logged. The den maps we prepared also mean that of the
original old forests that once cloaked most of the valley bottom and lower slopes of the Phillips below
360 m ASL, only 1,020 ha remain today.
4.4.5.3 Background and analysis
The McCrory et al. (2003) den model review for black and grizzly bears is summarised in a more
recent report (McCrory et al. 2010). The study used data from the two grizzly bear telemetry studies
on the BC coast (MacHutchon et al. 1993, Hamilton & Archibald 1984). These telemetry studies
strongly indicate that, as with black bears, coastal grizzlies depend largely on the hollow interiors or
structures under the roots of large old trees for winter hibernation.
When compared to the elevation of black bear dens, data from both of the grizzly studies on coastal
BC indicate that grizzly bear dens usually occur at higher elevations near the interface between the
Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) zone and the Mountain Hemlock (MH) zone. In the
Khutzeymateen Valley, the average elevation of winter dens was 650 m (n = 15), with a range of 360-
850 m (MacHutchon et al. 1993). Raw data from the Kimsquit Valley indicates the average elevation
of dens was 767 m (n = 11), with a range of 450-1250 m (Hamilton & Archibald 1984). These data
are somewhat consistent with den findings from southeast Alaska by Schoen et al. (1987).
Of the 15 winter dens documented in the Khutzeymateen by MacHutchon et al. (1993), only five
were investigated on the ground. Of the 11 winter dens documented by Hamilton & Archibald (1984)
in the Kimsquit Valley, only two were investigated on the ground.
MacHutchon et al. (1993) noted that most grizzly bear den sites in the Khutzeymateen Valley were on
relatively steep rugged terrain in tree thickets at the edges of avalanche chutes or steep-walled gullies.
They found the most common habitat to be old-growth forest of relatively open canopy. The age class
of forest cover for seven winter den sites was >250 years. The photo below (Figure 9) shows a grizzly
bear cavity-den under the root structure of a very old (est. 800-year) sidehill Sitka spruce tree (Grant
MacHutchon, pers. comm.). In Alaska, Schoen et al. (1987) found that over half of the grizzly dens
on Admiralty Island were in old-growth, and most (88%) were in stands of commercial forest.
For the Khutzeymateen, all five dens visited on the ground were excavated under the roots of a single
tree or group of trees growing on a raised soil hummock. The mean diameter at breast height (DBH)
of the den trees was 1.07 m. In the Kimsquit Valley, of the two dens examined on the ground by
Hamilton & Archibald (1984), one was under the root ball of a large mountain hemlock tree and the
other under the horizontal trunks of a clump of leaning mountain hemlock trees.

Map 21. Showing old forests (light green) above 360 m elevation where grizzly bears would be expected to den.

Herrero (1985) notes that throughout North America, most grizzlies select den sites on slopes
between 25-45 degrees, with some on slopes as steep as 60 degrees. In southeast Alaska, Schoen et al.
(1987) found that grizzlies den in steep, broken terrain at >30 degrees and >300 m elevation.
MacHutchon et al. (1993) noted that most den sites in the Khutzeymateen were in relatively steep
(>20 degrees) rugged terrain. Of the two dens ground-truthed in the Kimsquit Valley, one was
described in “steep” rocky terrain (Hamilton and Archibald 1984) and the other on a steep slope of
~35 degrees (Hamilton 1984).
Very little data exists on hillslope aspect or exposure of grizzly dens on the coast. Hamilton &
Archibald (1984) recorded aspect of 11 dens in the Kimsquit Valley: three were oriented northeast,
five northwest, and three southwest; none were oriented southeast. MacHutchon et al. (1993) noted
that the aspect of dens was variable, and suggested hillslope aspect may not be a significant factor in
den site selection by grizzlies in the Khutzeymateen Valley. As indicated for black bears, this may be
a result of the comparatively low levels of insulation along the coast due to the high frequency of
overcast days. The scattering of sunlight by cloud cover reduces the difference in insulation received
by slopes of different aspect.
Development of Phillips grizzly bear study area den area map
Although it was beyond the scope of this study to do a grizzly bear den habitat model for the Phillips,
we did develop a crude map (Map 22) combining elevation range and old forest areas to identify the
general areas where grizzly bear dens would be expected to occur. We first used the lowest (360 m)
and highest (1250 m) elevations where grizzly bear dens were found to be situated in the two BC
coastal telemetry studies. We found that using 1250 m as the upper limit of potential denning habitat
resulted in inclusion of 473 ha of alpine zone where BC coastal grizzly bears were found not to den
(unlike some interior areas where alpine is the preferred grizzly bear denning habitat). We readjusted
our boundary to include the upper elevation boundary of the MH zone. We then overlaid the elevation
map with the old forest map to indicate the more specific areas where dens would most likely be
found. The old forest map excluded the more recent (2008) heli-blocks logged at higher elevations in
2008, most of which appeared to be old cedar forest and on steep-type slopes where grizzly bears
would be expected to den. We did not attempt to determine from the heli-blocks and other logging
how much potential grizzly bear den habitat had been logged. However, the total area would be small
in comparison to how much potential old forest habitat is left.
Although we show grizzly bear potential denning as low as 360 m ASL to high elevations, it must be
kept in mind that most of the denning appears to occur in the transition zone between the CWH and
MH biogeoclimatic subzones (MacHutchon 2007a). Approximately 7,931 ha of old-forest, or about
14.5% of the Phillips study area, would have habitat areas suitable for winter denning. However, this
figure does not take into account the fact that denning appears to occur on steeper well-drained slopes
(McCrory et. al. 2010) and therefore some areas of old forest on more shallow slopes would not
qualify. It was beyond the scope of our analysis to do a more detailed GIS analysis that removed these
shallower slopes from the potential den map.

Figure 9. 800-year Sitka spruce on mountain side in Khutzeymateen with
large grizzly bear den cavity at base. [Photo: Sue Turner]
We did not look at adjacency of potential den habitat to logging roads in the Phillips, but there is
some concern about disturbance if logging occurs during periods when dens are active. Schoen and
Beier (1990) studied grizzly bear habitat preferences and brown (i.e., grizzly) bear-logging and
mining relationships in southeast Alaska. For a mine on Admiralty Island, they found six radio-
collared female bears denned within 4 km of the mine site in Upper Greens-Zinc Creek. The mine site
included a road and intensive helicopter traffic. These bears denned a mean of 3.4 km from the mine
site the first year of observation, but denned significantly further away from the mine (mean of 11.7
km) the next year. They then compared the mean distance between den locations among the bears
they thought might be impacted by the mine with that of 11 radio-collared females that denned
outside the area of the mine influence. They found a significant difference; mine-influenced bears

denned a mean of 10.4 km from their Year One den sites, while bears outside the mine influence
denned a mean of only 1.9 km away from Year One dens.
Map 22. Showing old forests above 360 m that are potential grizzly denning areas in relation to areas already logged and
clearcut.

4.4.6 Other Habitat Features: Bedding Areas and Mark/Rub Trees
4.4.6.1 The importance of bedding sites as important life requisite areas
Research on grizzly bear bedding sites is discussed in greater detail in the EBM sufficiency analysis
section. Suffice to say, although I did not do a detailed study of grizzly bear bedding areas in the
Phillips, I am of the opinion from my own long-term observations and from the evidence in the
scientific literature that the adequate provision of mature or old forests as protected buffers within at
least 200+ m of important feeding habitats is an important life requisite. It is likely more important to
the well-being and survival of grizzly bears than has been assumed by past and current EBM coastal
grizzly bear guidelines and must be factored more diligently into future management plans. In many
areas of the Phillips, removal of old forests down to the edges of salmon-bear streams, wetlands, and
other important habitat has compromised their value for bears.
4.4.6.2 Marking or rub trees and trails
Marking or rub trees appear to serve two functions, one for rubbing and scratching the fur/skin and
the other a social function by the deposition of body scent on the tree through the rubbing process as a
form of territorial marking. In a study using remote cameras set up at grizzly bear mark trees in the
Canadian Rockies, McCrory et al. (2004) images sometimes showed grizzly bears sniffing at the tree
before rubbing. Mark trees are commonly found along bear travel trails and routes, especially in the
valley bottoms (McCrory and Mallam 1988, and others). The McCrory et al. (2004) study in the
Canadian Rocky Mountains determined that high grizzly bear travel use occurred along trails with >2
mark trees per km), suggesting both local and regional cross-mountain significance. The absence of
mark trees, or a very low number (less than 1/km), indicated that few grizzlies travelled along the
trail.
Our field surveys confirmed that grizzly bear mark/rub trees were common in the lower Phillips
valley bottom areas, particularly around the estuary and salmon habitats.
4.5 GRIZZLY BEAR TRAVEL ROUTES AND CORRIDORS (LINKAGE ZONES)

This section addresses part of the following TOR question with respect to salmon.
important habitat and travel corridors for grizzly bears? a. If so, where are the important or
potentially important habitats and travel corridors for grizzly bears, including important Pacific
salmon-grizzly feeding habitat? Why are those zones important or potentially so?
4.5.1 Summary
Riparian areas were considered the highest value travel corridors for grizzly bears in the Phillips,
particularly in the lower valley “core grizzly zone” below 100 m ASL. Using GIS maps we developed
for the Phillips (roads, logged versus old forest and a 300 m road zone of influence – ZOI) it was
determined that natural grizzly bear travel corridor areas have been highly compromised throughout
much of the watershed. In the broader lower valley core area riparian corridors were subjectively
considered to be moderately compromised by logging road locations combined with large areas
previous cut-over lands down to the edge of the Phillips River, Phillips Lake and some wetlands. The
buffers of old forests left along the lower Clearwater grizzly salmon area and some of the Phillips
estuary, including those built in to Class 1 grizzly bear habitat polygons were considered inadequate
to help restore natural travel corridors where grizzly bears could generally avoid people. A wider
“restoration” buffer of 500 m width was recommended around the ocean to 100 m ASL grizzly bear

core area including the estuary. This buffer would go beyond most of the boundaries of the existing
Phillips Conservancy, Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) and Class 1 protected grizzly bear habitat
polygons. Use of access roads around, particularly around the estuary such as near Dyer Point, should
be limited and some roads should be decommissioned.
4.5.2 Assumptions and Limitations
• While there is some evidence, bears may use roads that parallel coastal valley bottom as travel
routes, especially after industrial use has ceased, there is also some evidence that grizzly bears
may continue to use their traditional travel trails along river valleys where they have not been
obliterated by roads, and avoid the convenience of roads. No empirical studies have been done to
determine grizzly bear travel routes and patterns in heavily logged coastal watersheds such as the
Phillips.
• There is no baseline research on the optimum widths of bear travel corridors in coastal riparian
zones and other areas. The standard is the wider the better (see McCrory 2012 for report on black
bear travel corridors in City of Coquitlam).
• No attempt was made to map grizzly bear corridors in the Phillips using standard GIS
connectivity modeling approaches such as Cost-Distance and Circuitscape.
• Based on a literature review and past experience it was assumed that riparian areas have the
highest value travel areas for grizzly bears in the Phillips. We did make some observations of
bear travel in riparian areas to support this.
4.5.3 Background
The main bear travel routes in coastal valleys tend to be where bears concentrate their feeding
activities: in the riparian zone in the valley bottoms and side tributaries. My field observations
confirm this is true of the Phillips watershed. McCrory and Mallam (1988) mapped bear trails along
both sides of the Khutzeymateen estuary for 10+ km up the river system. Shorter side trails were also
identified where bears travel between their feeding areas on the estuary and established bedding sites
in old forest terrain surrounding the estuary. Similar coastal bear trails were found in the Kitlope
valley, including along Kitlope Lake (Copeland et al. 1992).
As noted by leading conservation biologist Reed Noss (2001), different scales of landscape
connectivity have different functions. This would pertain to bears and other wildlife within both
natural and altered ecosystems.
In general, animal movements fall into two general categories (Swingland and Greenwood 1984):
1. Intra-territorial movements within their home ranges involving feeding, breeding, or seasonal shifts
in habitat. These can be short- and medium-distance movements.
2. Inter-territorial movements involving long distance dispersal or exploratory movements outside of
an established home range.
Some studies indicate that riparian areas can offer some of the best landscape connectivity where they connect
different important habitats for bears and other wildlife, but the results are mixed. In some corridor modeling
or zoning, riparian areas form one of the primary corridor layers (Servheen and Sandstrom 1993, Silva Forest
Foundation 1996). Primary riparian wildlife corridors are assumed to exist along main valley bottoms and
larger stream courses, with secondary lateral corridors up side drainages. However, prominent ridgelines can
also function as corridors (Silva Forest Foundation 1996).

According to Harris and Gallagher (1989), riparian forests represent the best opportunity for creating a system
of interconnected corridors. In an ecosystem study in the Kowesas Valley on the BC coast, Interrain (1996)
concluded that:
[R]iparian areas are ecologically significant because they contain more biological diversity
than other habitat types and they provide linkages in the landscape. The Scientific Panel for
Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound [1995] recommended adequate protection
of the entire hydroriparian zone in order to maintain aquatic and riparian ecosystems and to
provide a fully connected system of corridors in a watershed.
In northern California, Kelleyhouse (1980) noted that black bears used riparian areas for feeding habitat and
travel lanes from June through September. Well-defined bear trails in most riparian areas indicated extensive
use of this habitat type as cover while traveling. (The researchers also noted that black bears may also use
streams for thermoregulation during periods of heat stress.)
Although I have not carried out an up-to-date review of the scientific literature on the effective width of
protected riparian buffers for bear travel, there still appears to be no hard and fast science on this aspect.
Different researchers use different widths for modeling riparian buffers, often with little scientific evidence.
Although I have not carried out a recent review of the scientific literature on the effective width of protected
riparian buffers for bear travel, there appears to be no hard-and-fast science on this subject. Different
researchers use different widths for modeling riparian buffers, often with little supporting scientific evidence.
The Silva Forest Foundation (1996) uses widths of 50 m on either side of the stream bank for ephemeral and
small year-round streams. Large streams, lakes, and rivers are assigned larger riparian ecosystem buffers,
usually determined through air photo interpretation. The Silva Forest Foundation (1996, p. 25) also uses a
minimum width of 200 m for mapping cross-valley wildlife corridors. To define riparian ecosystems on the
BC coast, Hammond and Vasbinder (2000) used a 200 m buffer on either side of the bank for larger rivers and
large lakes (greater than 50 ha), and 50 m for streams and small lakes. (These are thus generally wider than
setbacks for similar-sized watercourses on private land, as legally required by the province under Riparian
Areas Regulation (RAR), which is contained in section 12 of the Fish Protection Act to protect fish (BC
MWLAP 2006).
As part of a project to map black bear habitats and corridors for Whistler, I ground-truthed 11 cross-valley
corridors for black bears that were determined from GIS modeling using parameters for a Protected Area
Network (PAN) by Dr. Kris Rothley of Simon Fraser University (RMOW 2006). The width of these
conceptual corridors was most often determined on existing and interconnected green spaces, slope data,
habitat, terrain, and other criteria, with no hard science to determine their viability (McCrory 2007).
Not all grizzly bear corridors follow riparian zones. I headed a 4-year study of grizzly bear movements
through a major mountain pass travel corridor in Kakwa Provincial Park in the Central Rocky Mountains
(McCrory et al. 2004). We found that valley bottom travel routes for grizzlies were generally within a 0.5-km-
wide riparian buffer zone established by GIS conceptual corridor modeling with some exceptions. For
example, grizzly bears and other wildlife did not utilise a 6-km long creek valley even though it connected to
a major mountain pass corridor. Instead, bears used a more direct abandoned road that was outside the 0.5 km
riparian buffer. When ground-truthed, the avoided riparian watercourse was steeply incised with dense cover
and windfalls, making it not conducive to any large mammal travel.

4.5.4 Grizzly Bear Travel Corridors/Linkage Zones in the Phillips
Two complementary GIS habitat/connectivity models – Cost-Distance and Circuitscape – have been
developed to determine the best corridor areas for grizzly bears. A cost-distance model uses Linkage
Assistant, an ArcGIS toolbox developed by the Craighead Institute to facilitate advanced cost-
distance wildlife connectivity modeling (L. Craighead pers. comm.). It was beyond the scope of the
Phillips study to develop such connectivity models.
Only a limited number of observations were made of bear travel corridor areas in the Phillips. Well-
worn animal/bear trails endowed with mark trees were found on the edges of both sides of the Phillips
inlet around the Phillips estuary and also along the lower Clearwater River salmon-spawning area.
This includes an “estuary access and egress trail” that comes down off the forested hillside, crosses
the logging road, and goes down to the east end of the lineal estuary at Dyer Point. These residual
travel routes in small bands of surviving old forest provided evidence of historic and current travel
and feeding usage by grizzly bears common to most coastal valleys in occupied grizzly bear range.
It would be safe to say, however, that the main natural travel corridors for grizzly bears in the Phillips
would be along the riparian systems, with subsets of trails ascending to higher elevation low
mountain passes for travel to adjacent watersheds. Many of the once-natural corridors and ancestral
bear pathways in the Phillips have been seriously compromised by roading and logging in the valley
bottoms, resulting in increased energy costs for grizzly bears to meet their life requisites. (As noted
further, a limited amount of bear travel was noted on a small number of roads. Bears that use roads
for travel put themselves at increased mortality risk).
The other important linkage habitat I identified conceptually for Phillips grizzly bear movement areas
were the marine foreshore corridors on both sides of the inlet that connect the Phillips estuary to
adjacent watersheds. While I did not do any field surveys to quantify bear trails or bear travel, I have
observed bear travel trails along non-estuarine marine foreshores elsewhere on the coast. The
assumption was made that these beach fringe corridors are important to bears and other wildlife. In
the Khutzeymateen, anecdotal and telemetry information indicate some grizzly bears make localised
and perhaps long-distance movements between different intertidal areas (McCrory and Paquet 2010).
Using GPS collars, researchers in Alaska (Rode et al. 2006a, 2006b, 2007) found that the mean
maximum daily travel distance of grizzly bears using several estuary habitats was 20 km (22.6 km +
8.7 km, N = 16 bears). The logical travel corridors in the Phillips for longer distance travel between
prime marine habitats would include the marine foreshore zone. I estimate such zones should be at
least 0.3 km in width and be protected. Again, this width is not based on any sound science. Some of
the foreshore zones along Phillips Arm have been compromised by logging roads and clearcuts.
Using grizzly bears as an umbrella species for establishing better connectivity in the Phillips will
benefit many other terrestrial species, including some at-risk species.
Observations of grizzly bear travel use of Phillips riparian corridors and logging roads
Several observations of grizzly bear travel in the Phillips verified the importance of the riparian
connectivity corridors. During my research, some grizzly bears were noted to travel during the fall
salmon period between the lower Clearwater and the lower Phillips salmon areas. Although I cannot
prove it, these bear movements most likely occurred along the riparian corridors rather than the
logging roads.
An adult grizzly bear observed on the lower Clearwater on October 13, 2007, was suspected to have
been the same one sighted travelling up valley along the west side of Phillips Lake several hours

previously. On October 13, what was assumed to be this same bear was clocked by two different
observers to take 30 minutes to travel the one kilometre riparian corridor along Clearwater Creek
between tower #7 and upper Clearwater Tower #1. On September 25, 2009, a mother and two cubs
that were sighted above the upper Clearwater Tower on the late afternoon of September 23, 2009,
were observed early in the morning traveling upriver at the Phillips bear-viewing tower,
approximately 10 km downstream from where they were observed on the 23rd. On the morning of
September 26, the family group had traveled back up to the Clearwater and was actively feeding
beyond the sharp bend above the Clearwater Bridge. On the evening of the next day, the same three
bears were observed across from the fisheries cabin traveling rapidly up the west side of Phillips
Lake. Given the abundance and ease of catching salmon in the lower Clearwater, it is difficult to
explain why the mother with cubs was moving between the two areas except that perhaps she was
being displaced by male bears. (The main identification of this family group was not only coat colour
of the different individuals, but the darker cub had a distinctive cream patch behind the right
shoulder). The west side of Phillips Lake appears to be an important bear travel route. We suspected,
from the tracks of the five grizzlies we observed along the artificial pink channel, that some bears are
doing a circuit.
While there is evidence that grizzly bears are avoiding the convenience of roads and have continued
to use what remains of their traditional travel trails along Phillips estuary and the lower Phillips and
lower Clearwater rivers where they have not been obliterated by roads and clearcuts, some
observations suggest that some grizzly bears are using the roads for travel. While not quantified,
grizzly use of the Phillips Main logging road between the logging dump at tidewater and the
Clearwater appears to have increased since logging ceased in 2007.
From late April to June 3, 2013, Scott Smith, the caretaker at the logging camp at the Phillips, set up a
Bushmaster trail camera at the 30 m long bridge on the Phillips Main about 1.5 km up from tidewater.
Unfortunately, he did not accurately set the timer on the camera; nonetheless, I studied the very
interesting photos twice to arrive at the following interesting conclusions. During the six-week spring
period, the camera recorded four cougar movements (including a mother with young at night), two
black bear movements, and 10 grizzly bear movements. The grizzly bear movements appeared to
involve four individual grizzly bears: a large adult male (“Scarface”), a smaller adult or juvenile, a
lactating female (being followed by Scarface), and perhaps one other adult. This would suggest that in
the lower valley, and likely in relation to the high quality lower estuary habitat and salmonberry
areas, some grizzly bears were using the lower road and bridge for some travel.
The downside of this is that use of roads for travel exposes grizzly bears to higher mortality risk due
primarily to increased bear-human interactions and a greater potential for illegal kills (Benn 1998,
Suring and Del Frate 2002).

4.6 HOME RANGES
Home ranges of grizzly bears in the Phillips are likely similar to those determined from telemetry data
for the Khutzeymateen. The minimum convex polygon home ranges for 13 adult females for the
Khutzeymateen was 51.8 km2, roughly one-eighth the size of the sanctuary. Home range
determination for adult male grizzly bears was inconclusive: 56.9 km2 to 220.1 km2, larger than
females (MacHutchon et al. 1993).
Based on this information, roughly eight home ranges of mother grizzly bears could fit within the
Phillips (509 km2) study area. However, for the Khutzeymateen, 13 of 17 collared grizzly bears,
including 4 of 5 adult females, moved between the Khutzeymateen and adjacent watersheds
(MacHutchon et al. 1993). Because of their larger home ranges, male grizzlies in the Phillips would
have home ranges encompassing adjacent watersheds and would spend less time in the Phillips than
resident female grizzlies, whose main home range area is the Phillips.
LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR SECTIONS 4.4, 4.5 AND 4.6

Benn, B. and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National
Parks, 1971-1998. Ursus 13: 213 – 221
BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (BCMWLAP). 2006. Riparian Areas Regulation
Implementation Guidebook. Environmental Stewardship Division, Biodiversity Branch.
Copeland, G.C., W. McCrory, and O. Travers. 1992. The greater Kitlope Ecosystem: A wilderness
planning framework. Report to Kitlope Steering Committee. 46 pp. illus.
Davis, H., and A. Harestad. 1996. Cannibalism by black bears in the Nimpkish Valley, British
Columbia. Northwest Science, Vol. 70:2.
Flynn, R.W., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, and G.W. Pendleton. 2010. Spatial relationships, movements,
and abundance of brown bears on the southern Mainland Coast of Southeast Alaska. Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Wildlife Research Final Report.
Juneau, AK.
Forman, R.T., and A. Hersperger. 1996. Road ecology and road density in different landscapes, with
international planning and mitigation solutions. In: Highways and Movement of Wildlife:
Improving Habitat Connections and Wildlife Passageways Across Highway Corridors. Proc. of
Florida Dept. of Transportation/Federal Highway Admin. Transportation-Related Wildlife
Mortality Seminar. Orlando, Florida: 1-23.
Gillard Pass Fisheries Association. 2011. The Spawning Times. Annual Newsletter. 8 pp.
Hamilton, A.N., and W.R. Archibald. 1984. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress report - Year 2
- 1983. BC Min. of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-2 and Wildlife Habitat Research
Report No. WHR-10. 27 pp.
Hamilton, A.N. 1984. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress report - 1982 - Year 1. BC Min. of
Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-1 and Wildlife Habitat Research Report No. WHR-9. 43
pp.

Harris, L., and P. Gallagher. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation--the need for movement
corridors. pp. 11-34. In G. Mackintosh ed. Preserving communities and corridors. Defenders of
Wildlife. Washington, DC.
Hilderbrand G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C.
Servheen, 1999. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, populations
productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77,
132-138.
Hunter, R.A., K.R. Summers, and R.G. Davies. 1985. A rating scheme for British Columbia’s major
coastal wetlands. BC Ministry of Environment. 29 pp.
Interrain Pacific. 1996. The Kowesas watershed assessment. 51 pp.
Kelleyhouse, D.G. 1980. Habitat utilization by black bears in Northern California. Int. Conf. Bear
Res. Manage. 3:221-227.
Mackenzie W., D. Remington, and J. Shaw. 2000. Estuaries of the north coast of British Columbia: a
reconnaissance survey of selected sites (Draft Document). Min. Env, Lands and Parks, and Min.
For. Research Branch, Smithers, BC.
MacHutchon, A.G., S. Himmer, and C.A. Bryden. 1993. Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study:
final report. BC Ministry of Forests, Wildlife Habitat Research Report WHR-31 and BC Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Report R-25, Victoria, BC; 107 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2007a. Mapping methods for important coastal grizzly bear habitat. DRAFT 2.
October 2007. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria and Black Creek, BC, 35 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2007b. South Central Coast grizzly bear habitat mapping 2007. BC Ministry of
Environment, Black Creek & BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Nanaimo, BC. 32 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2008. North Coast, BC grizzly bear habitat mapping. BC Ministry of
Environment, Smithers and Ecosystem Based Management Working Group. 28 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2009. Phillips & Fulmore Landscape Units, grizzly bear habitat mapping. BC
Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 11 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2010. Coastal grizzly bear habitat mapping and review methods. Final version.
Grizzly Bear Habitat Mapping Technical Review Team Chaired by: BC Ministry of Environment,
Victoria; BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Nanaimo. 29 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G., and T. Manning. 2010. Coastal Grizzly Bear Habitat Master Ecological to Land
Use Order Maps. Prepared for: Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). Dec 20, 2010.
MacHutchon, A.G., T. Manning, and T. Hamilton. 2010. Assessing material adverse impact to coastal
grizzly bear habitat. Revised November 8, 2010. 9 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1988. Evaluation of the Khutzeymateen valley as a grizzly bear
sanctuary. Prepared for Friends of Ecological Reserves, Victoria, BC.
McCrory, W.P. 2002. Preliminary conservation assessment of the Rainshadow Wild Horse
Ecosystem, Brittany Triangle, British Columbia, Canada. A review of grizzly and black bears,
other wildlife, feral horses and wild salmon. Report to Friends of Nemaiah Valley (FONV),
Victoria, BC.

McCrory, W.P., M. Williams, B. Cross, L. Craighead, P. Paquet, A. Craighead, and T. Merrill. 2004.
Grizzly bear, wildlife and human use of a major protected wildlife corridor in the Canadian
Rockies, Kakwa Provincial Park, BC. Draft progress report to Valhalla Wilderness Society and
Y2Y Wilburforce Science Symposium. Draft & In Press.
McCrory, W. 2007. Black bear habitat and corridor map project, Resort Municipality of Whistler
(RMOW). Draft.
BC. 2007. Report for Sonora Resort Ltd., Campbell River, BC. 17 pp.
McCrory, W.P., P. Paquet, and B. Cross. 2010. An evaluation of the winter den ecology of grizzly
and black bears on the BC Coast. Development of GIS den habitat models as a tool for
conservation planning. Unpubl. DRAFT only.
tours – Phillips River Estuary, BC. 2008. Report for Sonora Resort, Campbell River, BC. 48 pp.
McCrory, W.P., P. Paquet, and B. Cross. 2010. A conservation analysis for protection of the Kermode
black bear (Ursus americanus kermodei) ecosystem on the central coast of British Columbia.
Report to Valhalla Wilderness Society, New Denver, BC, Unpubl. DRAFT only.
McCrory, W. 2011. Bear-viewing plan for the Mussel and Poison Cove Estuaries in Fiordland
McCrory, W. 2012. Proposed movement corridors for black bears related to the Partington Creek
Neighbourhood Plan & Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) setbacks in the City of Coquitlam, BC.
Report for Community Planning and Development Department, City of Coquitlam. 28 pp.
McLellan, B.N., and F.W. Hovey. 1993. Development and preliminary results of partial-cut timber
harvesting in a riparian area to maintain grizzly bear spring habitat values. pp. 107-118 In:
Morgan, K.H., and M.A. Lashmar (Eds). Riparian habitat management and research. Fraser River
Action Plan Special Publication, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC.
Nature Trust of BC. 1998-1999. Natural Legacy. Brochure published by the Nature Trust of BC.
Noss R. 1991. Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. Pages 27-40 in W.
Hudson, editor Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.
Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear Ursus arctos L. Can. Wild. Serv. Rep. Ser.
No. 34, Ottawa.
Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing.
Resort Municipality of Whistler. 2006. Whistler- Draft Protected Areas Network Policy.
RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 1999. British Columbia wildlife habitat rating standards.
Version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria. 97 pp.

Rode, K.D., S.D. Farley, J. Fortin, and C.T. Robbins. 2007. Nutritional consequences of
experimentally introduced tourism in brown bears. Journal of wildlife management 71(3):929-
939.
Schoen, J.W., R.W. Flynn, L.H. Suring, K.R. Titus, and L. R. Beier. 1994. Habitat capability model
for brown bear in southeast Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 9:327-337.
Schoen, J.W., L.R. Beier, J.W. Lentfer, and A.J. Johnson. 1987. Denning ecology of brown bears on
Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. International Conference on Bear Research and Management
7:293-304.
Schoen, J.W., and L.R. Beier. 1988. Brown bear habitat preferences and brown bear logging and
mining relationships in southeast Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest.
Proj. W-22-6. 27 pp.
Schoen, J.W. 1990. Bear habitat management: a review and future perspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res.
Manage. 8:143-154.
Schoen, J.W., R.W. Flynn, L.H. Suring, K.R. Titus, and L.R. Beier. 1994. Habitat capability model
Servheen, C., and P. Sandstrom. 1993. Ecosystem management and linkage zones for grizzly bears
and other large carnivores in the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana and Idaho. Endangered
Species Technical Bulletin 18:10-13.
Silva Forest Foundation. 1996. An ecosystem-based landscape plan for the Slocan Valley River
Watershed. Part II – APPENDICES.
Smith, T.S., and S.T. Partridge. 2004. Dynamics of intertidal foraging by coastal brown bears in
southwestern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:233-240.
Suring, L.H. and G. Del Frate. 2002. Spatial analysis of locations of brown bears killed in defence of
life or property on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Ursus 13: 237 – 245.
Swingland, I.R. and P.J. Greenwood. 1984. The Ecology of Animal Movement. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK. 265 pp.
Williams, B.T. and D. McCorquodale. 2012. Phillips River mark-recapture Chinook population study,
August-November 2011. Report for Gillard Pass Fisheries Association.
4.7 BACKGROUND INVENTORY—ESTIMATE OF PHILLIPS GRIZZLY BEAR

NUMBERS
McCrory Wildlife Services Response to Question 4 in the Terms of Reference: What are the
estimates of the historical (pre-development) and present populations of grizzly bears in the Kwiakah
Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area? Using all available evidence on numbers and mortality factors
(anecdotal, McCrory Wildlife Surveys, government density estimates), what do you estimate the
current population trend to be: increasing or decreasing?
• There can be a wide margin of error in estimating the numbers of grizzly bears, the range of
which depends on the method used. My field counts of grizzly bears in the lower Phillips are no
different. The one noteworthy thing was consistency in the relatively low number of grizzly bears
and their sign observed between 2007 and 2103.

• My density estimates from the Phillips were slightly higher than in the adjacent GBPU to the
south, where a more rigorous DNA study was used to estimate grizzly bear density. No
information on historical numbers of grizzly bears and salmon was available. I have assumed that
extrapolation from other areas for historic grizzly bear numbers is relatively accurate.
4.7.2 Summary
In the following discussion, I provide historic and current population estimates for the Phillips
Grizzly Bear Study Area. Based on the Khutzeymateen Park benchmark area for the BC coast, I
estimate that the Phillips would have supported 50-60 grizzly bears in historic times, and even more if
one considers the much higher densities found in similar ecosystems in southeast Alaska. Based on
BC Wildlife Branch density estimates for the Knight-Bute Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU), the
Phillips should have 22-23 grizzly bears.
Based on four approximately 7-10 day field surveys of the best core grizzly bear area, plus some
photographic data by a volunteer, for the survey period between 2007 and 2013, I estimate that no
more than 10-12 grizzly bears live in the Phillips. Numbers estimated during each survey period were
consistently low, and the small number of bears that used the Phillips estuary was far below what
would normally be seen. There is consistent evidence that the resident grizzly bear population is
extremely low and may be limited to 2-3 breeding-age females.
Based on the low number of grizzly bears and their sign observed between 2007 and 2013, I saw no
evidence that the population is increasing. It appears to be just holding its own, typical of a small
semi-isolated population comprised of a low number of individuals.
4.7.3 Background
It is well known that reliable estimates of grizzly bear populations and trends in numbers are difficult
to achieve at the best of times (Miller et al. 1987), even when intensive radio-telemetry methods are
employed. It should be noted at the outset of this discussion that there are a variety of methods used
to estimate grizzly bear numbers in a given unit of land. Telemetry studies and mark-recapture/hair-
snagging DNA-based inventories provide somewhat more reliable means of population estimates than
other methods, but even these results may not be as reliable as claimed, are open to considerable
variation in interpretation; and are often subject to considerable scientific scrutiny, debate, and
conflicting claims. For example, the now more acceptable method of using DNA hair-snagging
studies (mark/recapture) to estimate grizzly bear numbers in a given area has been criticised by bear
researchers in Banff National Park (Gibeau et al. 2010). They found that by setting up remote
cameras at hair-snagging plots that fewer females with young visited the plots in proportion to their
occurrence within the population, thus leading to biased population estimates where the DNA
mark/recapture method is used. Also noteworthy to this discussion is that even in one of the most
intensively studied but isolated grizzly bear ecosystems in North America, the Greater Yellowstone
Grizzly Bear Ecosystem (GYGBE), a scientific review (Doak and Cutler 2013) questions the
accuracy of the government’s recent estimate of 700 grizzly bears. The researchers concluded that
government claims of increasing numbers may simply be because of the increased amount of time
spent counting bears and that the population may actually be in decline. Similar debates occur with
respect to grizzly bear population estimates in British Columbia, with significant differences between
independent and government/industry estimates of grizzly bear numbers in BC’s diverse grizzly bear
ecosystems. Generally, all population methods have a margin of error that is difficult to ascertain; all
should be viewed as “best educated guesses” and interpretation should err on the side of caution, in
my opinion, with all sample biases and sample limitations being declared.

McCrory and Paquet (2010) provide an updated review of grizzly bear population estimates for the
Khutzeymateen that is worth looking at, considering it is the coastal benchmark for British Columbia.
In 1988, McCrory and Mallam made a crude population estimate of 20-50 grizzly bears for the
K’tzim-a-deen Valley based on sighting and track information gathered intermittently from 1985-
1987, combined with BC Wildlife Branch observations. The most reliable estimate for the
Khutzeymateen Valley was the minimum number of 51 grizzly bears (residents and transients) by
MacHutchon et al. (1993), based on their three-year telemetry study. The researchers documented 64
individual grizzly bears, nine of which appeared to have died during the study. The researchers did
not attempt to estimate total numbers. From their counts, they estimated the seasonal density
(including young) to be 70-90 bears/1,000 km2 for the Khutzeymateen Valley. This was believed by
some to be one of the higher grizzly bear densities on the BC coast. However, this should not be
construed as full capacity because of various impacts on the Khutzeymateen ecosystem, such as
previous trophy hunting (until 1984) combined with logging in surrounding areas.
McCrory and Paquet (2010) cite recent surveys by two different researchers of estuary use in the
Khutzeymateen Sanctuary and Inlet conservancies of 47 and 56 different grizzly bears. Other studies
on the central coast have estimated much lower densities, including crude estimates for the Kitlope of
3-6 grizzly bears/1,000 km2 (McCrory 1994), 7-9 grizzly bears/1,000 km2 (Fuhr 1994), and for the
Fiordlands Recreation Area 7-11 grizzly bears/1,000 km2 (Himmer 1994).
In a review of coastal BC and coastal Alaska grizzly bear density estimates, Horejsi et al. (1998)
concluded that BC coastal grizzly populations may have suffered declines of 41% to 88% from
historic times. Notably, even the higher density estimate for the Khutzeymateen Valley of 70-90
bears/1,000 km2 was considered to be significantly lower than the average density estimate of 350
grizzly bears/1,000 km2 used in the habitat capability model for grizzly bears in southeast Alaska
(Schoen and Beier 1990), 551 grizzly bears/1,000 km2 for Katmai National Park, and 440 grizzly
bears/1,000 km2 for Admiralty Island (Miller et al. 1997).
4.7.4 Estimate of Grizzly Bear Numbers for the Phillips Based on BC Wildlife Branch
Density Estimates for the Knight-Bute Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU)
The Phillips study area is within the Knight-Bute GBPU, and within Management Unit (MU) 2-15.
Hunting grizzly bears has been closed in MU 2-15 apparently since the pre-1990s (Daryl Reynolds,
email June 26, 2013). However, limited entry (LE) hunting of grizzly bears is still allowed in the MU
1-15 subsection in the north sector of the GBPU. In 2008, Tony Hamilton estimated a population of
186 grizzly bears in the Knight-Bute GBPU:
Toba-Bute: 75 Klinaklini-Homathko: 109 Knight-Bute: 186
The 2008 estimate was increased to 250 bears in 2012 based on inventory data and expert opinion
(MFLNRO 2012). The estimated population density is 45 grizzly bears/1000 km2 (Ed. Note: This is
about half of the density estimated for the Khutzeymateen benchmark area). The population is
considered viable. The total size of the population unit is 728,321 ha (7,283 km2) with an estimated
5,524,000 ha (55,240 km2) of usable habitat, or 76% of the total area. Around 17% of the GBPU has a
road density >0.6 km of roads/km2 in 2003 (MFLNRO 2012). Based on the GBPU density estimate as
a baseline for this discussion, the Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area should have a population of 22-23
grizzlies.

Knight-Bute
Map 23. Grizzly bear density by Grizzly Bear Population Unit (MFLNRO 2012). The Knight-Bute GBPU, which includes the
Phillips watershed, has the highest density (lighter blue) on the BC south coast and, in fact, on the whole BC “outer coast,”
including the Khutzeymateen. Given the scale of intensive logging on the south coast, including in the Knight-Bute GBPU, in my
opinion, this population density estimate is very questionable. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-
animals/grizzly-bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status
4.7.5 Estimate of Historic Grizzly Bear Numbers in the Phillips Study Area
As discussed in the habitat section, the Phillips (509 km2) is similar in size to the benchmark
Khutzeymateen Provincial Grizzly Bear Sanctuary Park (449 km2), which also includes a portion of
the upper inlet. Like the unlogged Khutzeymateen today, in former times, the Phillips was a very
productive old forest valley with a large deltaic and shoreline estuary that supported a large salmon
run and contained all the requisites for a high density coastal grizzly bear ecosystem. For the
Khutzeymateen, 51 grizzly bears were identified in 1991, with some 30-40 grizzlies present during
any one season (MacHutchon et al. 1993). Based on this, I crudely estimate that the Phillips Grizzly
Bear Study Area once supported about 50-60 grizzly bears, but the numbers could have been much
higher if one considers that the density estimates for coastal Alaska are much higher than for coastal
BC: 350-550 bears per 1,000 km2 (Schoen and Beier 1990).

4.7.6 Estimated Number of Grizzly Bears from Field Surveys in the Phillips Grizzly
Bear Study Area
4.7.6.1 Summary
To obtain an estimate of the minimal numbers of grizzly bears in the Phillips study area, I used counts
of identifiable individuals or individual families, combined with some field sign from four different 7-
12 day field surveys in the lower Phillips core grizzly bear zone between 2007 and 2013. The more
reliable estimates were from the field surveys in fall 2007 and 2009, when grizzly bears were
concentrated in the lower reaches of the watershed searching for and feeding on wild salmon. I made
the assumption that we documented most of the grizzly bears present in the Phillips during each fall
window of opportunity, and that our counts (9 in 2007 and 10 in 2009) represented a good
approximation of the total number of grizzly bears in the Phillips. In each fall, we documented the
presence of only two different females with young. Spring counts were considered more unreliable in
terms of total numbers, but the tally of 8 for spring 2013 approximated the two fall counts. The
overall data suggested a population size of perhaps 10-12 grizzly bears for the entire study area,
including two adult females with young at heel.
The minimum numbers obtained by field counts and sign in spring 2008 and 2013, combined with
some remote camera and regular and remote camera photos obtained from a volunteer for between
2012-2013, indicated a range of 3-8 grizzly bears in spring. The total number of eight for May-June
2013 was probably better reflective of actual numbers since it combined my 10 days of field surveys
with the results of two remote cameras set up by a volunteer over the May-June time frame. Unlike
the two fall counts, I considered the spring data insufficient to draw any firm conclusions on minimal
numbers since during springtime, grizzly bears would be scattered up and down the valley feeding
mainly on green plants in avalanche chutes, wetlands and, of course, on Lyngby’s sedge in the
estuary. Perhaps the 2013 spring tally of eight grizzly bears was closest to a crude estimate of total
numbers. What the data does show is the consistently low use of the productive Phillips estuary as
another crude ecological yardstick for a very low population density. The three grizzlies documented
using the estuary in the spring months of 2008 and the one observed in 2013 were far below capacity;
in normal conditions, as I have often seen in similar but unlogged areas on the central and north coast,
it would not be unusual to see 10-15 different individuals in one or two days in the spring using
estuarine habitat of similar size and quality, and many more over the course of a season.
Since intensive fall monitoring of grizzly bear-on salmon activity was usually done by two or three
biologists using daily spot sampling periods over 7-10 days at the different Kwiakah viewing towers
and other observation points in the Phillips, combined with stream surveys for grizzly bears and their
tracks, I feel that the concentrated surveys of most of the grizzly-salmon areas between km 24 on the
Phillips Mainline logging road and the estuary represent a fairly accurate snapshot of the total
minimum population size of grizzly bears in the Phillips. From October 8-15, 2007 (when logging
was active), we documented 11 different grizzly bears in the salmon areas (McCrory and Williams
2007), and from September 19-29, 2009, we documented nine different grizzly bears (McCrory and
Williams 2010). This data would suggest a minimum population size of only 10-12 grizzly bears. In
each of these years we documented the presence of only two different adult females with young. This
data suggests that grizzly bear numbers in the Phillips are significantly reduced from the estimate of
20 we derived from the Wildlife Branch density figure and the pre-contact estimate of 50+ grizzlies
when the Phillips was in a pristine state.

Supporting this conclusion is the less reliable estimate of numbers from our two spring surveys of the
Phillips estuary meadows. Between June 8-17, 2008, we documented only three grizzly bears when
we estimated a potential estuary use be a minimum of 10-15 grizzly bears (McCrory and Williams
2009). Although the number of bears using the estuary increased to at least six in May-June 2012
based on photographic data supplied by a local person, my surveys between June 9-18, 2013, showed
only a few grizzlies were using the estuary meadows at this time. Again, I believe this is reflective of
a very low population density, although some disturbance from jet boats accessing the lower river
may be a factor for warier grizzly bears.
Field surveys and minimal grizzly bear numbers
Following are the grizzly bear number estimates from four minimal count surveys between October
2007 and June 2013, with an emphasis on the more intensive fall periods.
Estimate of number of grizzly bears (N = 10) using the Phillips. October 8-15, 2007 (McCrory and
Williams 2007).
Helicopter logging and hauling to the log dump was very active during the 7-day survey period. We
recorded all grizzly bear sightings and track data. Most observations made of grizzly bears were from
the Kwiakah viewing platforms on the Clearwater and Phillips rivers and from other potential
viewing sites being investigated. Body size, physical condition, body scars, and colour markings
assisted us with identifying individual bears in order to eliminate any duplication. A total of 10
grizzly bears was documented between about 24 km on the Phillips main stem and tidewater,
including five adults, one subadult, one female with 3-year old, and one female with cub of the year
(track). I decided not to add to this total the remains of what appeared to be a yearling grizzly found
along the logging road in June 2008 that appeared to have been killed in fall 2007.
An estimated seven of the 2007 grizzly bears were documented using the lower Clearwater River
salmon areas from the confluence with the Phillips to the upper Kwiakah viewing tower (#1).
Periodic high water and low salmon numbers (it being an off year for pink salmon) appeared to
constrain the ability of grizzlies to catch live salmon or locate carcasses. Some bears were observed
rapidly travelling stretches of the lower Phillips or the Clearwater aggressively in search of the few
salmon available. Observations of scats showed that grizzlies were feeding more on abundant
huckleberries than on fish.
Most grizzly bears observed appeared in good condition for this time of year but two, an adult and a
lone subadult, were considered unusually thin and scrawny and appeared “hungry for salmon” as they
exhibited intensive search behaviour as they travelled rapidly up and down the waterways.
Estimate of minimal number of grizzly bears (N = 9) using the Phillips. September 19-29, 2009
(McCrory and Williams 2010)
No logging was active. Although we spent more days (11) than in 2007 and more field time surveying
the salmon areas and were sometimes accompanied by one extra biologist, the total number of grizzly
bears tallied from individual sightings and sign was nine, one less than the October 2007 count when
logging was active. This tally included a lanky light-coloured subadult, a large dark adult, a large
lighter coloured single adult, a female with two cubs, and a female with two juveniles.
In September 2009, we observed only four different grizzly bears on the Clearwater, one large adult
and a female with two cubs of the year. During different field surveys we observed tracks of up to 5-6
grizzly bears at several other salmon-bear ecosites (pink channel in lower Phillips and middle

Phillips). We also observed the largest grizzly track I have ever observed in my career. On the best
day, we observed five different grizzly bears and, for most of our survey days, we were able to view
at least one grizzly bear.
Estimate of minimal number of grizzly bears using the Phillips estuary & lower valley. June 2008
(N = 3), Spring 2012(N = 6) & May-June 2013 (N = 8).
The minimum numbers obtained by field counts and sign in spring (June) 2008 and 2013, combined
with some remote camera and still photos obtained from Scott Smith for between 2012-2013,
indicated a range of 3-8 grizzly bears in the spring. The total number of eight for May-June 2013 was
probably better reflective of actual numbers if my 10 days of field surveys are combined with results
of two remote cameras set up by a volunteer over the May-June timeframe.
The data was insufficient to draw any strong conclusions of minimal numbers for the purpose of
estimating the total number of grizzlies in the Phillips study area since during spring time grizzly
bears would be scattered up and down the valley feeding mainly on green plants in avalanche chutes,
wetlands, and on Lyngby’s sedge in the estuary. Perhaps the 2013 tally of eight was closer to a crude
estimate of total numbers. What the data does show is the consistently low use of the productive
Phillips estuary as another crude ecological yardstick of a very low population density. The three
grizzlies documented using the estuary in the spring months of 2008 and the one observed in 2013
were far below capacity; in normal conditions, as I have often seen in similar but unlogged areas on
the central and north coast, it would not be unusual to see 10-15 different individuals in one or two
days in spring using estuarine habitat of similar size and quality, and many more over the course of a
season.
June 8-17, 2008. N = 3. 1 adult and 1 female with 2-year old (McCrory and Williams 2009).
During this study period, all grizzly bear sightings and track data were recorded for the Phillips
estuary. Although we did surveys along the various logging roads to about km 24 on the Phillips
Mainline, the only grizzlies sighted were on the estuary. Since our survey efforts were to evaluate the
potential for bear-viewing on the estuary areas at the head of Phillips Arm, we believe our numbers
for that period were relatively accurate for bear use of the estuary. We observed one adult grizzly and
one female with a 2-year old. We also observed two different black bears. Given the high grizzly bear
habitat capability for this extensive and biologically rich estuary and the relatively low disturbance
from human access (no logging was going on), we concluded that grizzly use was far below
capability and that under normal population levels at least 10-15 grizzlies should have been observed
in 1-2 days.
May-June 2012. Photographs, Scott Smith. N = 6.
Scott Smith, the caretaker at the logging camp at the Phillips, spent considerable time viewing and
photographing grizzly bears that frequented the Phillips estuary. In examining his digital photographs,
I was able to conclude that at least six grizzlies used the Phillips estuary in spring 2012: two adults, a
juvenile, and an adult female accompanied by two subadults. Following is the photo-documentation:
• A large, dark brown adult was photographed on the west side estuary on May 5.
• A mother grizzly and two large subadults (4-5 yr. olds) were observed on the west side estuary on
May 5-6, 2012. One of the subadults was nearly the size of the mother. The other was somewhat
smaller and very thin, which was considered normal for the spring after den emergence.
• A large single adult was feeding at low tide in the intertidal just north of the logging camp on
May 28 in an area with numerous barnacles. This may have been the same adult that was

photographed on the estuary later on (June 24) and was quite habituated. It had an apparent scar
down the middle of its face and nose and was called “Scarface.” This bear had a darker head and
shoulders than the one photographed on May 5, so was likely a different adult.
• A smaller single adult or subadult was in the same area on June 24. It was light-coloured and thus
considered a different bear.
Total minimal numbers for May-June 2013. N = 8.
I combined my field observations with remote camera results kept by a volunteer person for a total
estimated number of eight.
June 9-18, 2013. McCrory Wildlife field surveys. N = 1 on Phillips estuary, sign of 3 upriver. Total
N = 4.
Spring estuary use was found to be very low in June 2013. This might be partially explained by the
fact that spring was one month ahead of normal years and at the time of my surveys grizzly bears had
switched to feeding more in the shrub zones on ripe salmonberry fruit. Indeed, unlike my June 2008
field surveys when no salmonberry feeding was observed, salmonberry was estimated to comprise
36% (by volume) of the 23 scats dated for June 2013. (All scats were assumed to have been deposited
by grizzly bears.) During this 10-day period, I saw no grizzly bears on the estuary, although one was
reported on the east side salt marshes on June 15, where my previous field surveys indicated one
grizzly had travelled through. I observed one large adult and tracks of an adult and yearling grizzly
(twice) in the Clearwater flats.
May-June 2013. Remote camera photographs, Scott Smith. N = 4+ additional grizzly bears
identified.
I examined remote camera photographs obtained by Scott Smith from a camera set up on the east side
estuary and from one set up near the iron/concrete bridge on the main logging road about 1 km from
the camp. The cameras were run during May-June 2013. The photos included several of a large
mountain lion. There was a photo of a large adult male grizzly bear following a lactating adult female
grizzly bear, a female with a cub of the year, and what appeared to be a 2-3 year old grizzly bear.
Obviously, the use of remote cameras was of some benefit to detecting bears for crude inventory
purposes. Minimal numbers using the lower Phillips was eight, several bears more than was detected
by Scott Smith in spring 2012.
4.7.7 Implications of Low Population Size to Conservation/Recovery of Phillips Study
Area Grizzly Bears
Based on four approximately 7-10 day field surveys of the best core grizzly bear area between 2007
and 2013, I estimated that no more than 10-12 grizzly bears live in the Phillips. Numbers estimated
during each survey period were consistently low, and the small numbers that used the Phillips estuary
were far below what would normally be seen. This is all consistent evidence that the resident grizzly
bear population in the Phillips is extremely low and may be limited to 2-3 breeding age females.
My crude estimate of a population size of 10-12 grizzly bears for the Phillips suggests that grizzly
bear numbers here are less than half of the population estimate of 22-23 derived from the Wildlife
Branch density data for the Knight-Bute GBPU, and less than 1/5-1/6 of the historic estimate of 50-60
grizzly bears when the Phillips was pristine.
The 10-12 grizzly bears I estimated for the Phillips gives an average density of 22 grizzly bears per
1,000 km2, approximately half of the Wildlife Branch’s estimated density of 45 grizzly bears/1000

km2 for the Knight-Bute GBPU. My density estimate is slightly higher but consistent with the density
estimate of 15.2 bears per 1,000 km2 for the adjoining Toba-Bute GBPU using a capture/recapture
DNA method from collecting grizzly bear hair samples on a grid sample of 5 x 5 km (Apps 2012).
His study found that grizzly bear distribution and density was highly uneven among landscapes in the
adjoining Toba-Bute GBPU and concluded that conservation of this important resource must
consider thus underlying pattern.
All in all, I concluded that the numbers of grizzly bears in the Phillips would be about 1/5 (20%) of
what they had been historically when the watershed was at full capacity. If one takes the current
GBPU density as the baseline of what capacity the Phillips could support today (22-23 grizzly bears)
in its severely ecologically compromised state from logging, at a minimum, the numbers should be at
least twice what they are.
Although our four field surveys in the Phillips were limited in time and scope, the findings are
consistent with a recent review of BC coastal and Alaskan coastal grizzly bear density estimates. The
researchers concluded that the BC coastal grizzly populations have suffered declines of 41% to 88%
(Horejsi et al. 1998) from historic times. This is also consistent with a BC Wildlife Branch report
(Marshall and Sharpe 1995) for Wildlife Management Unit 6-03 on the BC central coast that
concluded grizzly bear populations were likely reduced by 5%-60% of what they were historically
due to past overharvest. These reports are also consistent with the conclusions of the BC Grizzly Bear
Conservation Strategy report (BC MELP 1995).
The fraction of grizzly bears that do breed constitutes what is referred to as the genetically effective
population size (Horejsi 1999). The effective population size is estimated to be between 24%-32% of
the total number of bears in a population, although it may be lower where numbers are significantly
reduced (Harris and Allendorf 1989).
It must also be kept in mind that, using the home ranges of grizzly bears from the benchmark
Khutzeymateen provincial sanctuary, some grizzly bears in the Phillips study area—particularly the
females, which have smaller home ranges than males—would have their home ranges mostly or all in
the Phillips, while others—particularly males—would range into adjacent watersheds.
The 10-12 grizzly bears I estimated as the minimal population size in the Phillips study area means
that survival and possible recovery is dependent on a very small number of breeding age females; in
this case, the two that we counted with young and possibly 1-2 more that may be resident in the
valley. The apparent presence of only 2-3 females of breeding age in the Phillips trying to make a
living in very degraded habitat and in years of low salmon returns, means the population is in a
precarious state and is threatened by any further logging activity and other cumulative disruptions,
such as excessive jet boat use on the lower river, illegal hunting, and other factors.
Grizzly bears generally cannot sustain mortality higher than 4% if recovery is desired (Horejsi 1999),
and this may be even lower if the Phillips population levels reflect additional regional very low
densities. In what is likely a semi-isolated and resident subpopulation as small as the Phillips, the loss
of even one adult female or young female could tip the scale of possible recovery. The death of the
yearling grizzly bear in fall 2007 along the Phillips Main logging road from unreported causes
(McCrory 2010) is a case in point, particularly if it was a female. The resident Phillips grizzly bear
population is thus teetering on the brink.

4.7.8 Estimated Population Trend of Grizzly Bears in the Phillips Study Area
• Estimating population trends for grizzly bears is known to be difficult at the best of times.
According to Austin and Hamilton (2002): In practice, trend information has been considered
when available but no standards exist for what is acceptable information to infer trends from or
for how to respond in terms of adjusting harvest levels from what would otherwise be indicated
by the application of the procedure.
4.7.8.2 No evidence grizzly bear numbers are increasing
Based solely on a crude estimate of 10-12 grizzly bears in the Phillips core area from small sample
surveys involving direct counts and field sign over a six-year period, I saw no evidence of numbers
increasing despite a reduction of logging activities and traffic volumes since 2007. The number
counted on the Phillips estuary was lower in June 2013 (one) than in June 2008 (three). Because of
the very small apparent number of resident breeding age females (two), and the one dead yearling
grizzly bear found along the logging road in 2008, a lack of apparent increase in numbers is not the
least bit surprising. I thus see no reason to conclude that the population is increasing. The fact that,
anecdotally, several parties have recently reported seeing more grizzly bears than in the past may
reflect that they spent more time in the area, or it may be the result of reduced disturbance since the
intensive logging activities in 2007, rather than any population increase. If anything, the grizzly
population appears to just “holding its own” at a critical threshold, teetering on the edge of further
decline if one or more of the two breeding-age females is lost to human causes, or if there is further
decline in the already low salmon numbers.
The following example from a Wildlife Branch study (Austin and Hamilton 2002) illustrates the
difficulty of determining population trends, as well as how one event such as a sudden, catastrophic
collapse in salmon abundance in the adjacent Kwatna-Owikeno GBPU, can throw a local grizzly
population into a major tailspin:
An example of the problems that can occur in the absence of information on population trend is
the situation that recently occurred in the Kwatna-Owikeno GBPU. In 1997 a Department of
Fisheries and Oceans technician who had conducted salmon surveys in the Owikeno Lake area
for over 20 years contacted the Wildlife Branch to report a dramatic drop in the number of
grizzly bear sightings he had had over the previous three years (Steve Bachen, Senior Salmon
Technician, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Campbell River, British Columbia, personal
communication). After consulting with other individuals familiar with the area and reviewing the
technician’s field notes, a decision was made to reduce hunting opportunities while the situation
was investigated. Reconnaissance grizzly bear work in the area began in the fall of 1998 and has
been continued in subsequent years of intensive monitoring. This work involves flying rivers in
the area to count grizzly bears during the peak of the major salmon runs as well as some DNA
sampling through hair collection.
The results of this fieldwork indicated that the current population size of the area was well below
the population estimate for Management Unit 5-07 of 285 grizzly bears. It is now estimated that a
minimum of 113 grizzly bears occupied the area (Hamilton and Austin 2002). During this time
the sockeye salmon returns to the Owikeno Lake watershed were collapsing from an estimated
1,500,000 in the 1960s to approximately 3,600 in 1999 (Rutherford and Wood 2000). It is
important to note that the 1990 population estimate of 285 grizzly bears was not developed
through the use of the Fuhr/Demarchi method alone which would have resulted in a population

estimate of 213 grizzly bears at that time. Using the Fuhr/Demarchi estimate as a starting point,
the estimate was increased to account for the effect of salmon and included an assumption of
seasonal movements to the area in the fall as bears travelled from interior areas to access salmon
(John Youds, Regional Wildlife Section Head, Cariboo Region, BC Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection, Williams Lake, British Columbia, personal communication). This estimate was
also used to calculate spring harvest rates and it is not known whether the adjustment to the
population estimate that was based on the assumed seasonal movement of bears resulted in a
reduction of the population estimates for the source areas.
The reason for this adjustment is that the Fuhr/Demarchi method has often been considered to
underestimate grizzly bear populations in coastal ecosystems. This is due to the limitations of the
approach of assigning densities to terrestrial habitats that adequately incorporate the
contribution to carrying capacity represented by salmon. In some cases the availability of salmon
to bears may be poorly correlated with the terrestrial habitats rated through the Fuhr/Demarchi
method. In the fall of 1999 with salmon returns at a historic low there was a dramatic increase in
grizzly bear activity at the Rivers Inlet village near Owikeno Lake resulting in significant public
safety concerns and bear/human conflicts (the major attractant is a landfill). There were 10
grizzly bears destroyed and one family group of three was translocated. The animals destroyed
and translocated were noted to be in poor condition with little body fat. Immediately following
these events the grizzly bear hunting season in Management Unit 5-07 was closed and currently
remains closed. In the absence of the report of declining grizzly bear sightings from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans technician, the provincial government would likely not have
had any indication of a problem until the conflicts occurred at Rivers Inlet in the fall of 1999.
While it could be argued that grizzly bear hunting exceeded sustainable levels prior to the closure
of the hunting season, the more significant issue is the apparent dramatic reduction of the
carrying capacity of the area resulting from the collapse of the salmon stocks. In fact, it is
possible that any excessive mortality was at least partially compensatory given that the area’s
carrying capacity for grizzly bears was declining.
There is no direct inventory information available to indicate whether the 1990 population
estimate was accurate or not at the time it was developed or whether the Fuhr/Demarchi based
estimate of 213 was more accurate. However, it is highly likely that a grizzly bear population
decline occurred in this GBPU from 1990 to 2000 as the salmon returns collapsed. Some believe
that this is a good example of the importance of local knowledge. Further, they believe that while
this information was used in this case when a downward trend was indicated, similar information
that indicates increased population levels is ignored under the current system.

Apps, C. 2012. Grizzly bear abundance and distribution within drainages of Toba and Bute Inlets of
British Columbia’s southern coast. Completion of 2008 and 2010 sampling.
Austin, M.A., and A.N. Hamilton. 2002. A review of grizzly bear harvest management in British
Columbia. Prepared for the information of the British Columbia Grizzly Bear Scientific Panel.
Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 28 pp.
Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone: their ecology
in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Craighead, F.L., and E.R. Vyse. 1996. Brown/grizzly bear metapopulations. In McCullough, D.R.
(Editor). Metapopulation and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Doak, D.F., and K. Cutler. 2013. Re-evaluating evidence for past population trends and predicted
dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Conservation Letters, 2013.
Fuhr, B., T. Hamilton, and S. Sharpe, 1995. A final report on spring and fall grizzly bear and black
bear reconnaissance surveys in the Kitlope area, BC Min. of Env. Jan. 24/95. Smithers, BC.
Gibeau, M.L., C. McTavish, and J. Whittington. 2010. Evaluation of DNA hair collection methods
for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Mountain National Parks, Canada.
Hamilton, A.N., and M.A. Austin. 2002. Grizzly Bear harvest management in British Columbia:
Background report. Biodiversity Branch, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection,
Victoria, BC. 95pp.
Harris, R.B., and F.W. Allendorf. 1989. Genetically effective population size of large mammals: An
assessment of estimators. Conservation Biology 3:181-191.
Himmer, S. 1994. Fiordland Recreation Area grizzly bear assessment. Report for BC Parks, Williams
Lake, BC.
Horejsi, B. 1999. The endangered Granby-Gladstone grizzly bear population. A conservation biology
analysis for recovery. Western Wildlife Environments Consulting Ltd. 86 pp.
Knight, R.R., and L.L. Eberhardt.1985. Population dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology
66(2):323-334.
final report. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Wildlife Habitat Research Report WHR-31 and BC
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Report R-25, Victoria, BC, 107 pp.
Marshall, R., and S. Sharpe. 1995. The 1994 review and recommendations for grizzly and black bear
management in management unit 6-03. Wildl. Branch, Smithers, BC, 12 pp.
McCrory, W. 1994. Values of a fully protected Kitlope Ecosystem for bears. Draft report to Nanakila
Institute, Kitimaat Village, BC.
McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2008. Bear-viewing opportunities – Phillips River Watershed, BC.
Report for Kwiakah First Nation, Campbell River, BC. 19 pp.
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO). 2012. British Columbia
Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-
animals/grizzly-bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status
Miller, S.D., E.F. Becker, and W.B. Ballard. 1987. Black bear and brown bear density estimates using
modified capture-recapture techniques in Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 7:23-35.

Rutherford, D.T., and C.C. Wood. 2000. Assessment of Rivers and Smith Inlet sockeye salmon, with
commentary on small sockeye salmon stocks in statistical area 8. Can. Stock Assess. Secretariat
Res. Doc. 2000/162: 57 p.
Schoen, J. and L. Beier. 1988. Brown bear habitat preferences and brown bear logging and mining
relationships in southeast Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-
22-6. 27 pp.
4.8 EVALUATION OF SALMON NUMBERS AND HABITATS RELATED TO

GRIZZLY BEAR FEEDING ECOLOGY IN THE PHILLIPS STUDY AREA
This section addresses part of question 3 of the TOR with respect to salmon.
Does the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area contain zones of important or potentially
important habitat and travel corridors for grizzly bears? a. If so, where are the important or
potentially important habitats and travel corridors for grizzly bears, including important Pacific
salmon grizzly feeding habitat? Why are those zones important or potentially so?
• DFO salmon escapement numbers are regarded as being crude estimates with a wide margin of
error. I have no idea as to the degree of accuracy or reliability.
• In our own counts of salmon numbers, dead and alive, and grizzly bear use we missed unknown
numbers of carcasses grizzly bears had taken back into the riparian forests.
• No data was searched out that reflected earlier salmon numbers to prove that in the past they had
been much higher than at present. However, as it the pattern on the coast in some areas and based
on the degradation of salmon habitat I observed in the Phillips, I am making the assumption that
salmon numbers were much higher in historic times.
4.8.2 Summary
The Phillips was found to support the five species of anadromous salmon: chinook, pink, chum,
sockeye, and coho. Although I could find no historical data, escapement estimates since 1953 suggest
salmon runs today are likely far diminished from historic times. However, this merits more research.
Average escapement estimates (salmon returned to the Phillips River) based on Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) data from 1953–2005 were chinook: 582 (20–3,000 fish), pink: 60,416
(100–500,000 fish), chum: 2,484 (4–15,000 fish), coho: 1,167 (0–7,500 fish), and sockeye: 3,830
(400–17,400 fish). Pink salmon have high runs in even years and low runs in odd years. Most salmon
spawning occurs in the Phillips grizzly bear core area.
If one considers that the most utilised salmon in the Phillips system are pinks and sockeye due to
them being easier for bears to catch than larger salmon, such as chinook, there was certainly a limited
supply observed in the pink salmon artificial channel and lower 3 km of the Clearwater between Sept.
22-25, 2009. Of the 627 sockeye in the lower Clearwater, 134 had been eaten by what appeared to be
grizzly bears. Of the 267 pinks observed in both the lower Clearwater and pink artificial channel, 84
of these appeared to have been eaten by grizzly bears. Observations of grizzly scats during both 2007
and 2009 fall survey periods indicated grizzly bears were feeding on plants more than on salmon.
Other foods included green plants, roots, berries, and crabapples. This suggested bears were being
forced to seek alternate survival foods in place of the more nutritious salmon due to the low number
of fish.

Degradation of two to three salmon spawning habitats by debris torrents/landslides that appear to be
logging-related as well as active debris torrents and heavy siltation observed during heavy fall rainfall
events appear to have played a role in the somewhat limited salmon availability for grizzly bears in
the Phillips.
During our two fall surveys, we estimated five grizzly bears (2007) and seven (2009) were using the
lower Clearwater, where we spent the most survey time. Field surveys also showed some grizzly
bears were having a difficult time finding and catching spawning salmon or their carcasses and
appeared thin and undergoing nutrition stress. In October 2007, only a few chinook were counted
along the 4 km of Phillips River spawning area at km 22, which had been impacted by a large
landslide in 2006. There were tracks of two mother grizzlies with young looking for the salmon that
might be available.
4.8.3 Estimated Salmon Return Numbers and Spawning Habitats in the Phillips
A summary of historic and present occurrence and status of wild Pacific salmon and their habitats in
the Phillips is important to this discussion since coastal bears are partially dependent in late summer
and fall on this valuable natural food resource for building up stored body fat in readiness for winter
hibernation. The Phillips watershed supports five species of wild Pacific salmon (chinook, chum,
coho, pink, and sockeye) that collectively comprise a valued fall food source for grizzly bears.
Salmon apparently first appear in the Phillips River in June with an early run of chinook salmon and
end with the last runs of coho salmon in mid-November.
The area is part of DFO’s South Coast Southern Fjords Conservation Unit (CU). My report integrates
escapement information from DFO (1953-2005 excerpted from the Kwiakah tenure application
2006), reports/inventories done by the Gillard Pass Fisheries Association (GPFA), interviews of
knowledgeable personnel, and our own field surveys done during two fall salmon periods (October 8-
15, 2007: McCrory and Williams 2007; and September 19-29, 2009: McCrory and Williams 2010).
Following is what we know about the spawning areas and numbers of the different salmon species in
the Phillips in recent times. I have no information on the size of the different salmon runs during the
first half of the century and the impacts of coastal canneries and early logging on their former
apparent abundance. There was also very little information on where coho salmon spawn.
We produced a map (Map 24) that shows the important salmon areas in the Phillips. The map was
reviewed by fisheries biologist Rupert Gale.
Chinook salmon
There is some evidence that there is more than one type of chinook life history in the Phillips: a small,
early run that is believed to enter the river in June or earlier and hold in the lake or deep pools for
several weeks before spawning, and a late run that enters the river system from mid-August to mid-
September and spawns within a few days or weeks. Historically, the Phillips apparently had a
significant early run of chinook. The current estimate is that this run could recover up to 1,000 fish
returning (Gillard Pass Fisheries Association 2012).
The average estimated number of chinook returning to the river over a 53-year period from 1953-
2005 was 582 (20-3,000 fish) (source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, excerpted from the Kwiakah
2006 commercial recreation tenure application In File).
According to a recent study (Williams and McCorquodale 2012), anadromous salmon populations in
the Phillips system appear to be declining when compared to past escapement estimates. This

includes, in particular, Phillips River chinook. A graph produced in the report by the Gillard Pass
Fisheries Association (2012) shows that, although chinook salmon runs have never been high since
1953, the chinook population crashed in 1995-1997 but has since been slowly recovering. This
appears to be mostly thanks to enhancement efforts by the GPFA, which has been operating for over
25 years. They have released over 2.5 million chinook fry into the Phillips River. In 1999, hatchery-
raised chinook from the Phillips were believed to have contributed over 40% of returns and, in 2012,
a record 2,300 chinook returned to the Phillips with a larger than average size (Gillard Pass Fisheries
Association 2012). In 2013, even more (2,700) adult chinook came back to the Phillips system
(Rupert Gale email Dec. 23, 2013).
One of the factors influencing salmon enhancement programs in south coastal British Columbia is
poor marine survival. Recent survival rates from smolt release to adult stage are 1% or less for many
hatchery-raised chinook. The causative factors are complex and poorly understood by scientists
(Gillard Pass Fisheries Association 2011).
Maps in Gillard Pass Fisheries Association reports (2009-2012) suggest most of the chinook spawn in
the lower Phillips River below the Clearwater River, with lesser numbers spawning several
kilometres above Hoyt Creek. One report indicates that most of the high concentrations of chinook
spawn were in the Phillips Estuary Conservancy between the river mouth and the lake, and between
Phillips Lake and the Clearwater River (Figures 7 and 8. In Gillard Pass Fisheries Association 2009).
Small numbers of chinook have also been observed spawning in the Phillips several kilometres above
Hoyt Creek. On September 24, 2009, we surveyed the middle Phillips River from km 20-24 above
Hoyt Creek and found only six spawning chinook. The spawning habitat and productivity appears to
have been damaged by a large landslide at km 22 that came down onto the spawning area in 2006.
The landslide appears to have been caused by past logging and lack of protection of the steep
mountainside by old forests. (Even though there were few salmon, we documented tracks of six
different grizzlies, including two female groups.)
In fall 2013, at least 10 live chinook along with a few sockeye and some pinks were observed above
Hoyt Creek (Rupert Gale email Jan. 16, 2014), with the comment that “the river seems to have
recovered somewhat with much of the fine sediment washed out of the spawning reaches and
downstream into some of the slower pool areas” (Rupert Gale email Dec. 23, 2013).
Only a few chinook appear to use the lower Clearwater. We observed small numbers of chinook
during our own bear-salmon surveys in the lower Clearwater. For example, on Sept. 20, 2009, two
chinook were observed from the lower viewing tower migrating upstream. On Sept. 25, 2009, we
observed only one chinook on a survey of the lower 2.6 km of the lower Clearwater by four
biologists. According to Greg Barlow (pers. comm.), the middle-upper Clearwater may have been
good chinook and coho spawning habitat that has been blocked or hindered by boulder debris in the
lower canyon area.

Map 24. Main chinook spawning areas (pink), sockeye (red) and artificial pink salmon channel (blue) in the Phillips study area.
The map does not show coho and chum areas. Coho may use accessible streams beyond the salmon areas indicated on the
map.
Pink salmon
In many coastal watersheds where multiple species of salmon occur, pink and chum salmon constitute
the most significant portion of the fall diet of grizzly bears due to the generally greater abundance of
these two species and their tendency to spawn in shallow stream substrates, making them easier prey

than chinook and coho for grizzly bears and other large predators. This may not entirely be the case,
however, in the Phillips, where we believe sockeye salmon may play a larger role than chum salmon
as food for grizzly bears.
Pink salmon in the Phillips follow an even-year return cycle (Williams and McCorquodale 2012)
when they are more abundant than in an off-year. The average number of pinks returning to the river
over a 53-year period from 1953-2005 was 60,416 (100-500,000 fish) ([source: Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, excerpted from the Kwiakah 2006 commercial recreation tenure application In File).
In fall 2010, there appeared to be a record pink run. DFO estimated the Phillips run to be 300,000
fish. GPFA chinook seine crews captured 10,000 alone in a single seine net (Gillard Pass Fisheries
Association 2011). The year 2012 was another even-year return cycle in which there appeared to be a
very high return of 200,000 pinks (Gillard Pass Fisheries Association 2012). On a survey on
September 22, 2009 of the artificial pink spawning channel (now in bad shape) in the lower Phillips
we counted a total of 169 pink salmon (live and dead). On a survey on September 25, 2009 of the
lower Clearwater we counted a total of 98 pinks (live and dead).
Chum salmon
These do not appear to move into the Phillips System until later in fall than do other salmon species,
starting around mid-October (Williams and McCorquodale 2012). The average number of chum
returning to the river over a 53-year period from 1953-2005 was 2,484 (4-15,000) (source: Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, excerpted from the Kwiakah 2006 commercial recreation tenure application In
File). According to Greg Barlow (pers. comm.), there is a late October run of chum salmon in the
Clearwater.
Coho salmon
I was not able to get much information on coho spawning areas and little appears to be known (Greg
Barlow. pers. comm.) since they arrive later in the fall during fall floods and tend to migrate far up to
spawn when the river and its tributaries are running high. Apparently, the Clearwater has some
spawning values higher up.
The average number of coho returning to the river over a 53-year period from 1953-2005 was 1,167
(0–7,500) (source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, excerpted from the Kwiakah 2006 commercial
recreation tenure application In File).
Sockeye salmon
The life history of sockeye salmon is distinctive from other salmon species in that they need to spawn
in rivers and creeks above lakes so that their eggs hatch in the winter and the fry can spend a year
rearing in lakes downstream prior to going out to sea. The main spawning area for sockeye in the
Phillips system appears to be the lower 2.5 km of Clearwater Creek.
The average number of sockeye returning to the river over a 53-year period from 1953-2005 was
3,830 (400–17,400) (source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, excerpted from the Kwiakah 2006
commercial recreation tenure application In File). On a survey on September 25, 2009 of the lower
Clearwater we counted 627 sockeye (live and dead).
4.8.4 Field Observations of Salmon, Salmon Counts, and Grizzly Bear Use
There were two survey periods in which we made observations and counts of grizzly bears and
species of salmon: October 8-15, 2007 and September 19-29, 2009. In 2007, we did not attempt to do
any salmon counts or quantify their use by grizzly bears except to focus on grizzly bear activity at

existing and potential bear viewing sites for the Kwiakah First Nation and make observations of fish
content in scats.
October 8-15, 2007. Grizzly bear use of salmon (McCrory and Williams 2007).
The fall data we gathered suggested strongly that during the first two weeks of October 2007, grizzly
bears were feeding more on plant foods than on salmon, with black huckleberry fruits being the food
item most consumed. Scarcity of salmon was the likely reason, given the aggressive salmon search
patterns by grizzly bears with little or no observed success that we consistently observed along the
Phillips and Clearwater rivers. Additionally, heli-logging and log hauling in the lower valley within a
0.5 km zone of disturbance of the salmon areas may have disrupted salmon feeding activities of the
grizzly bears proximal to the logging road and heli-drop sites, such as was the case in the lower
Clearwater salmon area.
In the fall of 2007, no salmon was evident in the nine scats we looked at on the Phillips estuary. Of
the 26 upriver scats that were assumed to be from grizzly bears salmon comprised only an estimated
27% by volume with the rest berries, roots, crabapple, green plant matter and cranberry. Grizzlies in
the vicinity of tower site #7 on Clearwater Creek were digging for roots of thistle along the new
access road to the viewing tower. We also observed a forested site at the mouth of the Phillips River
where grizzlies had been actively digging for skunk cabbage roots.
During the period of our 2007 surveys, grizzly bears were observed on numerous occasions travelling
the edges of the rivers intensively searching for salmon carcasses and on several occasions lunging
into deeper water for live fish. Several bears looked thin for the time of year.
Just previous to and during the early part of our October survey a heavy rainfall event led to extreme
flooding conditions during which we believe many of the salmon carcasses previously available to
bears were washed out to sea. Additionally, even earlier in the season when more salmon may have
been present, bears were felt to be foraging on the abundant huckleberry crop and therefore showing
up less than expected at the three new bear-viewing towers constructed by the Kwiakah in the lower
Phillips area (F. Voelker, pers. comm.). This phenomenon of bears in years of high Vaccinium
abundance feeding both on berries and salmon and not showing a preference just for salmon is
something I have consistently observed in my 20+ years of bear research on Princess Royal Island.
Salmon and grizzly bear use surveys: September 19-29, 2009 (McCrory and Williams 2010)
In late September 2009, we spent more time evaluating bear-salmon activity in the general area of the
lower 2.7 km of Clearwater Creek from the rapids above observatory #1 to the Clearwater-Phillips
confluence. Compared to the October 2007 surveys, there were far more salmon in the river in 2009.
Our surveys confirmed that the whole lower Clearwater is by far the best salmon-bear-wolf ecosite
for concentrated predator feeding. However, if one considers that the most utilised salmon in the
Phillips system are pinks and sockeye due to them being easier to catch than larger salmon such as
chinook, there was certainly a limited supply observed in the pink salmon artificial channel and lower
Clearwater between Sept. 22-25, 2009. Of the 627 sockeye in the lower Clearwater 134 had been
eaten by what appeared to be grizzly bears. Of the 267 pinks observed in both the lower Clearwater
and pink artificial channel, with 84 of these appearing eaten by grizzly bears. However, as observed
in the fall of 2007 scat observations suggested grizzly bears were feeding more on plants than salmon.
Of the 8 scats observed to have been deposited from the Sept. 19-29, 2009 period, 2 had berries, 1 had
a mix of berries and plants, 2 had salmon, 2 had a mix of salmon and green plants, and 1 had a mix of
salmon, crabapple, roots (skunk cabbage?), and green plants.

a) Lower Clearwater. Sept. 25, 2009
On September 25, 2009, we conducted our own stream survey of salmon numbers and grizzly bear
feeding sign in the lower 2.6 km of the Clearwater River, as reported in McCrory and Williams
(2010). The purpose of this survey was to gather more detailed information on salmon, bear, wolf,
and other values along the lower Clearwater in order to assist with our evaluation of bear and wildlife
viewing values of the two Kwiakah towers and several other possible viewing sites we previously
proposed in our first report (McCrory and Williams 2007). Part of the way down, we had to bypass
through the woods due to a site where a large adult grizzly bear was catching and eating salmon. The
survey was done when it appeared that the sockeye and pink runs were at their peak.
We counted a total of 724 salmon, dead and alive, over the 2.7 km survey length. Of these, 597 were
above the bridge (1.5 km) and 127 below the bridge (1.1 km). Of the total, the majority (N = 627)
were sockeye, the rest pinks (N = 98) and one chinook. Of the sockeye, 401 were live, 92 were
uneaten carcasses, and 134 had been eaten, mostly by bears. Of the pinks, 49 were alive, 21 were
dead but not eaten, and 26 had been eaten, mostly by bears. This did not account for the many salmon
carcasses that bears had taken back into the woods. Salmon-feeding activity by bears (and wolves)
was more concentrated in the spawning areas above the bridge than below the bridge. At this time,
there appeared to be more dead salmon than the bears and other predators could eat. However, this
does not account for the fact that the bears may be selecting for live salmon over dead spawned-out
ones, as they have a higher nutrient value. Over the late September period, we estimated that at least
five grizzly bears were using the lower Clearwater: two adults and a female and two cubs. This was
similar to the seven we estimated in October 2007. Sign indicated bears were spending considerable
time on the Clearwater but, on two occasions, we observed the same mother with two cubs on the
lower Phillips. This was similar to our observations in 2007, where some grizzly bears that were
observed on the Clearwater were also observed on the lower Phillips searching for salmon.
Even though there appeared to still be small numbers of available salmon in the lower Clearwater for
grizzly bears on September 25, we also made observations of a number of bears traveling rapidly and
aggressively seeking salmon along the lower Phillips River with little success and where mostly
chinook and coho were holding in deeper pools.
b) Artificial pink salmon spawning channel, lower Phillips. Sept. 22, 2009
Near the outlet of Phillips Lake on the west side, there is a metal weir of unknown vintage that shunts
water from the lake into an old river channel that DFO once developed as a pink salmon enhancement
channel. It is about 3 km long. Our September 22, 2009 survey was done by two bear biologists and
one fisheries biologist (McCrory and Williams 2010). We found the weir was blocked and water
flows had not been maintained by DFO for many years. We counted a total of 111 live pink salmon
and 58 pink carcasses fed on by grizzly bears along the meandering and overgrown channel. Water
flows were low due to the weir not being maintained. Signs of five grizzly bears were evident. We
found evidence that a large debris torrent full of boulders had come down Wash Creek and altered its
flow, covering part of the “pink channel”. According to DFO representative Barry Peters (pers.
comm.) the debris torrent came down about 4–5 years previous and he indicated it might have been
logging-related. He said DFO has not had the funding to get a machine in to clean it up. The
disintegration and lack of management of the pink channel appears to have resulted in a drop in water
flow and thus very limited use by spawning pink salmon. This has compromised the salmon values of
the ecosystem to grizzly bears.

Taylor, A., D. LeBoeuf and D. McCorquodale. 2010. Phillips River mark-recapture Chinook
population study, August – November 2009. Report for Gillard Pass Fisheries
Williams, B.T. and D. McCorquodale. 2012. Phillips River mark-recapture Chinook population study,
August – November 2011. Report for Gillard Pass Fisheries Association.
4.9 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW - IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

ON THE GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON ECOSYSTEM IN THE PHILLIPS
STUDY AREA
In this section, I look at a number of short- and long-term cumulative effects variables that may have
caused or contributed to a decline of grizzly bear and salmon abundance in the study area, as well as
more recent disturbance variables, such as bear viewing:
• Early First Nation occupation
• Early fur trade
• Early post-contact settlement and industrial development (townsite, cannery, early logging)
• Impacts of low salmon abundance on grizzly bear numbers
• Trophy hunting and other mortality causes
• Conventional logging (road analysis and effects of clearcuts on grizzly bear habitats and their
use)
• Bear viewing and other activities
In the following section, I address the TOR questions listed below, not necessarily in this numerical
order:
b. If so, is the important or potentially important grizzly bear habitat in the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly
Bear Study Area better or worse quality than it was historically (e.g. pre-contact)? What have been
some of the cumulative effects since then? If its quality has declined, how has it declined, and what
are the causes or likely causes of the decline, using a CE approach?
c. Have Pacific salmon numbers and spawning and rearing habitats in the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly
Study declined from former times and if so by how much and what are the likely causative factors?
5. If the number of grizzly bears in the Kwiakah Phillips Grizzly Study Area has declined, what are
the likely causative factors for such a decline?
6. What would be the impacts of any existing and planned development (industrial forestry, logging
viewing, etc.) on grizzly bear habitats and numbers in the Study Area?
7. If there is a decline, are there other possible causes for the decline of grizzly bears in the Study
Area? What are the mechanisms for those other possible causes? On the balance of information
currently available, can you apportion the degree of grizzly bear population decline in the Study Area
to various causes?

8. What would be the potential impacts on grizzly bears and their habitats in and around the Study
Area if the current footprint of industrial development and anthropogenic disturbance in those areas
9. What are the potential impacts if new developments including roading, forestry, log piling, and
increase)?
10. What are your recommendations for restoring the subpopulation of grizzly bears in the Study
Area to sustainable numbers?
I used the Canadian Environmental Assessment Authority (CEAA) Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide (1999) definition of cumulative effects as: changes to the environment that are
caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions.
4.9.1 Hypothetical Historic Impacts of First Nations, Early Fur Trade, and Human
Industrial Settlement Patterns on Phillips Grizzly Bear and Salmon Numbers
• Historic circumstances in the Phillips that would have led to the current low numbers of grizzly
bears and salmon is a complex subject with little quantitative data available.
• Although I did a Google search for data on the history of development in the Phillips (townsite,
sawmill, cannery), I was unable to locate any documentation by this method. That does not mean
or infer that these developments did not occur or that this history has not been recorded
somewhere.
• Since no historic data was readily available on early grizzly bear and salmon numbers to make
baseline comparisons, I used grizzly bear numbers from the benchmark Khutzeymateen Park to
estimate historic numbers of grizzly bears in the Phillips. My guess at negative historic impacts
on grizzly bears was based on the typical documented pattern of early historic European
settlement and development from California to north of Vancouver BC that saw the early
extirpation of the grizzly bear from those coastal rainforest haunts.
• I assumed that greater emphasis on a review of the more recent human developments, such as
industrial-scale clearcutting and its impacts on grizzly bears and salmon, was more relevant to
pursue.
4.9.1.2 Summary
All up and down the Pacific coast from north of Vancouver to California it was the early historic
pattern of fairly rapid human settlement and development that led to the early extirpation of the
grizzly bear and some wild salmon runs over a vast area of temperate rainforest in California, Oregon,
Washington, and the southwest corner of coastal BC. The Phillips lies near the northern edge of this
coastal grizzly bear zone of extirpation and somehow escaped the same fate.
I only did a partial review of historic development for the Phillips and how it might have affected
grizzly bears and salmon. I did not pursue the historic aspects as diligently as one might since I
strongly felt that not only would there be limited quantification of grizzly bear mortality, but also part
way through my cumulative effects review it became obvious that a combination of habitat changes
from more recent conventional forestry and mortality factors, such as from previous sport hunting,
have been the most likely causative factors for the very depressed numbers of grizzly bears in the
Phillips today. The fact that in the late 1800s and the early 1900s the lower Phillips had at one time a

cannery, a small townsite, and a sawmill is sufficient to deduce that grizzly bears would have been
heavily impacted in those early days, and likely in earlier years because of the Hudson’s Bay fur
trade, in which grizzly bears were one of the sought after fur-bearing species. The Phillips was also
near Shoal Bay, just down the inlet, which had as many as 5,000 people in the late 1800s because of a
gold rush. It also had one of the largest sawmills operating on the coast at that time. However, no data
was available on early grizzly bear and salmon numbers.
4.9.1.3 Some notes on early human factors that may have influenced grizzly bear numbers
Kwiakah First Nations
There is evidence of at least two or three ancient Kwiakah villages around the estuary where First
Nations would have shared many common foods with an abundance of grizzly bears, most likely for
thousands of years. Undoubtedly, the sharing of estuary habitat with grizzly bears in those times was
not always a happy coexistence, but coexist they did. I have seen no evidence of early First Nations
extirpating coastal grizzly bears.
Early fur trade
With the coming of the fur trade to the area (first the Russians, then the Hudson’s Bay Company or
HBC), the grizzly bear became one of sought-after commercial species, once First Nations became
involved in trading furs for European goods. Early non-native hunters and trappers would also have
been involved. Although early HBC fur records would likely be available for the historic HBC post
nearest to the Phillips, it was beyond the scope of this study to research this aspect. However, an
example of the level of intensity of the fur trade and its effect on once-abundant but vulnerable
coastal mammal species was the near extirpation of the sea otter and elephant seal from most of the
BC coast; recovery has only begun. However, I don’t believe, due to their tendency to live in remote
mountainous areas, that the fur trade involving both native and non-native trappers and market
hunters would have had an appreciable impact on coastal grizzly bears.
Following is a summary from a recent cumulative effects report I did on the Kermode bears of
Gribbell Island on the central BC coast (McCrory 2012a, 2012b):
During the 1800s, first the Russian-American Fur Company and then the Hudson’s Bay Company
(HBC) carried out extensive fur trading operations on the Pacific Coast. Eventually, the sea otter
and elephant seal were extirpated from most of the area (Cowan & Guiget 1985). During this
first century or more of fairly intensive commercial marine fur exploitation on the BC coast, there
was also uncontrolled commercial trapping and hunting of terrestrial mammals, including both
bear species (black bears and grizzlies). As an example of the degree of fur “take” of black bears
on the BC coast by the HBC, Cowan (1938) noted that the trading post at Fort Simpson on the
north coast recorded 13,320 black bears and 960 brown bears between 1824 and 1852. This was
based on a notebook kept by HBC chief factor James Douglas that Cowan had researched in the
BC Provincial Archives. In this instance, “brown bears” probably refers to grizzly bears.
What was interesting in my study was that of the five human-caused influences I examined, early fur
trapping for white bear pelts and early 20th century hide hunting/collection of bears with a white
pelage for museum specimens has likely reduced the white bear gene in the small distinct Gribbell
Island Kermode bear population. However, I suspect that although there would have been some
impact of the early fur trade on grizzly bears in the Phillips, I doubt this would account for today’s
current low numbers.

Early historic settlement and industrial development of the Phillips
At one time, the Phillips apparently had a townsite and cannery on the northwest side of the upper
estuary and a sawmill at the outlet of Phillips Lake. There remains today a large rockwork dyke along
the river at the old town site that was once built for booming logs (Greg Barlow pers. comm.).
Besides the dike, all that remains of the townsite today is a small 2.7 acre parcel of private land with a
number of old buildings. Grizzly bear sign and diggings for skunk cabbage roots were observed here
in both June of 2008 and 2013.
According to Wally Parker (pers. comm.), a long time local resident who used to be a DFO stream-
walker in the Phillips for 14 years, the Phillips was a “big salmon river.” The cannery was at the
mouth and they just opened a weir into the processing plant to let the salmon in. He felt that: logging
and over-fishing has ruined the Phillips. There would be no salmon without the Gillard Pass chinook
enhancement program.
While I did not attempt to do a detailed review of historic documents, undoubtedly this early intensive
level of human occupation on a major grizzly bear estuary and salmon river would have lead to high
levels of conflicts and bear mortality, including conflicts with the characteristic open garbage dump-
bear scenario, encounters between people and grizzly bears, and wide open sport hunting, which is
typical of the pattern of human settlement in south coastal valley systems. Although I cannot prove it,
I suspect that a decline in the numbers of grizzly bears and salmon occurred during this extensive
period of early settlement.

Figure 10. Historic privately owned 2.7 acre homestead at old town site on north and upper side of the Phillips estuary. Grizzly
bear activity was noted here in June 2008 and 2013.
The Phillips is also near Shoal Bay, located down Phillips Arm, which had as many as 5,000 people
in the late 1800s because of a gold rush. It also had one of the largest sawmills operated on the coast
at that time (www.landquest.com/detailmain.aspx?propid=12327).

Cowan, I.M. 1938. Geographic distribution of colour phases of the red fox and black bear in the
Pacific Northwest. J. Mammal 19(2): 202-206.
Cowan, I.M., and C.J. Guiget. 1975. The Mammals of British Columbia. BC Prov. Mus. Handbook
No. 11, 1-414 pp.
McCrory, W. 2012a. Spirit Bears Under Siege. The case for the protection of Gribbell Island –
Mother Island of the White Bear. [Available at www.vws.org].
McCrory, W. 2012b. Cumulative effects assessment of a potential Enbridge-related oil tanker spill on
the rare and unique gene pool of the white bear subspecies (Ursus americanus kermodei) on
Gribbell Island, British Columbia. Report submitted to Joint Review Panel. [Available at
www.vws.org].

4.9.2 Human-Caused Mortality (Trophy Hunting, Illegal And Unreported Kills) As A
Possible Factor In Contributing To The Low Population Numbers And Viability
Of Phillips Grizzly Bears
• I was unable to use the Wildlife Branch grizzly bear mortality data for the Knight-Bute GBPU
from 1976-2011 because it did not have kill locations. This limited my appraisal of the effects of
hunter kill mortality. If need be the Kwiakah First Nation may be able to access the kill location
component of this database.
• I made the assumption that grizzly bear hunting prior to its closure in 1996 combined with
previous and recent illegal and unreported mortality in the Phillips has been a major but not the
only factor in the current depressed state of the grizzly population in the Phillips. This
professional opinion was based on my knowledge of grizzly hunt management and overkill of
small semi-isolated populations in other areas of BC and the recent Simon Fraser University
study that documented hunter overkill in the remainder of the Knight-Bute GBPU to the north.
• My professional opinion was based on very limited empirical kill information for the Phillips and
thus establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between human-induced mortality and the
current low numbers has a low degree of confidence.
4.9.2.2 Summary
The low estimated population of 10-12 grizzly bears in the Phillips makes them very vulnerable to
any further human-caused mortality.
It was beyond my time availability to do a detailed analysis of grizzly bear mortality in the Phillips.
The Wildlife Branch actually has available grizzly bear mortality data for the Knight-Bute GBPU
from 1976-2011, but with the exclusion of the specific kill locations. The kill location information
could be accessed by the Kwiakah First Nation, which would improve my mortality analysis for the
Phillips. In the Phillips, we observed a logging road traffic kill or illegal kill of a yearly grizzly (2007)
and one grizzly was killed in about 1997 a defence-of-life situation by a DFO stream-walker. A
female and young were shot on private land on a nearby island about 20 years ago.
Historically there was likely a decline in the grizzly bear population during the intensive early period
human settlement at the head of Phillips Arm but what is not known is whether the localized
population recovered enough to support trophy hunting that was not shut down in the Management
Unit (MU) 2-15 (includes the Phillips) until 1996; while the remainder of the Knight-Bute GBPU to
the north remained open.
My professional opinion is that grizzly bear hunting prior to its closure in 1996 combined with
previous and recent illegal and unreported mortality in the Phillips has been a major but not the only
factor in the current depressed state of the grizzly population in the Phillips. Even the one
“unreported” illegal or road kill grizzly bear mortality we observed from the fall of 2007 could be a
drain on this small sub-population.
Although the grizzly hunt has been closed in the Phillips since 1996, a concern is that grizzly bears
habituated by bear-viewing in the Phillips would be more vulnerable to hunt mortality than non-
habituated bears in areas to the north that are still open to the hunt, as well as to illegal kills and
logging traffic mortality both in the Phillips and elsewhere within their home ranges. Just because the
legal hunt was closed down in 1996, does not mean, given the Phillip’s remoteness, large network of

logging roads, and boat access to the estuary and lower river, as well as the lack of patrols and
enforcement by conservation officers, that no grizzly hunting has taken place.
4.9.2.3 Mortality
What is known is that with an estimated 10-12 grizzly bears, the Phillips cannot withstand any or very
little unnatural mortality. As metapopulation-like structuring is common for grizzly bears on the
coast, locally isolated bear populations such as the Phillips can be especially vulnerable to mortality
from logging traffic and illegal hunting or defence-of-life situations. As noted in a BC Ministry of
Environment Wildlife Branch report: It is possible that many coastal systems contain small, relatively
discrete grizzly populations. A watershed containing 20 grizzlies could sustain only one man-induced
mortality per year (5%) (Archibald & Edie 1986).
I suspect that the grizzly bear population was at a low level prior to 1996 when trophy hunting was
still allowed. Both the tidewater estuary and extensive logging and roads facilitated boat-based or
vehicle-based hunter access; and this factor combined with increased habitat losses and habitat
displacement and other disturbance factors from WFP logging took its toll on the local population.
Even with heavy scale development impacting grizzly bear habitats and their access to the Phillips
estuary and salmon along the river, there has been a systematic pattern in the province of the Wildlife
Branch as regulators of the grizzly bear hunt to ignore warning signs and close down the hunt much
later than they should have. For example, I have documented one case in the 1980s where a
guide/outfitter was allowed by the Wildlife Branch to continue his grizzly quota at a time when the
South Coast Mountain population was recognised as dangerously low and threatened (McCrory
1988).
The grizzly bear hunt management problem is exacerbated by the fact that it is nearly impossible to
reliably monitor population trends and unreported mortality such as poaching and defence-of-life
kills.
I did not attempt other than at a casual level to determine past and recent grizzly bear mortality in the
Phillips through interviews, Wildlife Branch mortality data and other sources. The Wildlife Branch
has grizzly bear mortality data for the Knight-Bute GBPU from 1976-2011. When I examined it,
some of the data needs to be sorted through to eliminate redundancy. Since the Branch does not
normally give out specific kill locations as a matter of policy I was unable to extrapolate mortality
data for the Phillips. However, should it be considered necessary, the Kwiakah should be able to
request the same information with kill locations provided they sign a confidentiality agreement. By
using similar kill location data information obtained by the Haisla First Nation for the Kitlope, I was
able to document over-hunting of grizzly bears as a causative reason for low numbers (McCrory
1994). This plus the government’s own surveys led to a hunt moratorium.
During the course of our four field surveys we recorded one grizzly bear mortality. In June 2008 we
found the decomposed remains of what appeared to be a yearling grizzly bear in the road ditch just
west of the large, steel bridge on the Phillips Main road in the Clearwater flats. The state of
decomposition (hair and some bones) suggested it had likely been killed the previous fall when
logging traffic was common on the road, either by a traffic collision or by someone with a gun. This
is an example of the “unreported” mortality that occurs along active roads. A hair sample was sent to
the Conservation Officer Service for positive species identification but appears it was never sent to a
lab. However, we were positive it was a grizzly bear from the size, colour and length of hair, and
silver-tipping on the ends of the hair.

About 1997 a DFO stream-walker doing salmon counts in the Phillips had to shoot a grizzly bear in a
defence-of-life situation. Although another stream-walker never had a problem with grizzly bears in
the Phillips, one stream-walker quit due to encounters About 20 years ago a resident on one of the
islands near the Phillips shot a mother grizzly bear and one of her young on his property (Wally
Parker pers. comm.).
Grizzly bear hunting was closed in the Phillips about 1996. Fortunately, Phillips Arm is in
Management Unit (MU) 2-15, Region 2 and there is no grizzly bear hunting in this region. As for the
trophy hunting kill of black bears in MU 2-15, there is a quota of >5 bears annually for residents and
>10 for non-resident hunters (Daryl Reynolds, Senior Wildlife Biologist, MOE, e-mail to F. Voelker
dated March 10, 2008). We were unable to ascertain how many of these were killed in the Phillips but
this could be of some concern to a potential viewing program that would include this species.
While legal hunting of grizzly bears was closed in the Phillips, that doesn’t mean there is no hunting
there. The area is still accessible by a large road network and also by boat to the estuary and lower
river. With so little enforcement by the province, illegal hunting could have had an impact on this low
population. According to McLellan et al. (1999), as little as 45% of total mortality and 56% of human
caused mortality will be detected and even with radio collars as little as 68% mortality will be
detected.
I can only express the unsubstantiated professional opinion that excess human-caused mortality of the
Phillips grizzly population from the hunt prior to 1996 combined with illegal and logging road traffic
kills/injuries back then and until recent times is the most likely one of the main causes of the current
population low.
There are two separate trophy hunts in B.C. each year, one for B.C. residents and one for non-
residents who pay for guides to escort them into grizzly habitat. Although grizzly bears have not been
hunted in the Phillips since 1996, the home ranges of some grizzly bears could overlap with the two
MUs to the north that are within the Knight-Bute GBPU that are still open to hunting, which means
that some Phillips grizzly bears that move outside could be subject to hunting mortality.
Bears habituated by bear-viewing and other human activities are more susceptible to hunter kills than
bears that are less tolerant around people (Nevin et al. 2001). Thus Phillips grizzly bears habituated
by bear-viewing activities would be particularly vulnerable to hunter mortality when they wander
outside of the closed MU into the open MU to the north. They would also be more vulnerable to
logging truck traffic collisions and illegal mortality where they come into contact with human
activities within their home ranges.
In my opinion, there are questions regarding the validity of the grizzly bear hunt in the remainder of
the Knight-Bute GBPU. Nevin et al. (2001) reviewed grizzly bear-viewing at Knight Inlet Lodge, up
the coast from Phillips Arm. Although the bear-viewing area at Glendale Cove has a small no-hunting
closure for grizzly bears, the researchers recorded a major disappearance event in early September of
2000. Five bears disappeared in five days and just after, three grizzly bears showed up with various
injuries, including one with an entire foot missing. Hunting was considered one of the possible causes
but could not be proven (Dr. B. Gilbert pers. comm.). Artelle et al. (2013) (Map 25) examined
government grizzly bear kill data from 2001-2011 for 50 of 57 GBPUs in BC to determine if the
province was managing the hunt within their pre-set targets. (The number of GBPUs open to hunting
declined to 41 in 2012). The researchers found the province exceeded their hunter kill targets in half
of the GBPUs where trophy hunting of grizzly bears was still allowed. The Knight-Bute GBPU was

found to have two over-mortality periods. The most common factor associated with female over-
mortalities was hunting mortality.
Map 25. From Artelle et al. (2013) showing the Knight-Bute GBPU (lowest orange on map at left) that was found to have two
over-mortality periods where grizzly bear hunter kills exceeded the Ministry’s own guidelines. Although the Phillips is in this
GBPU, hunting has been closed there for some time.
LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR ABOVE SECTIONS

Artelle, K.A. S. C. Anderson, A.B. Cooper, P. C Paquet, J.D. Reynolds and C.T. Darimont. 2013.
Confronting uncertainty in wildlife management: performance of grizzly bear management.
www.plosone.org/.../info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078041. Last accessed
November 8, 2013.
Archibald, W.R. and A. Edie. 1986. Interim guidelines for protection of grizzly bears in coastal
British Columbia. B.C. Fish and Wildl. Branch, Wildlife Working Rep. No. WR-20.
Horejsi, B., B. Gilbert and L. Craighead. 1998. British Columbia’s Conservation Strategy. An
independent review of science and policy. Western Wildlife Consulting Ltd., Calgary, AB. 64 pp.
McCrory. W.P. 1998. Bear habitat and hazard assessment. Duffy Lake Provincial Park, British
Columbia. Report to BC Parks, Brackendale, BC. 29 pp., plus appendices.

McCrory, W. 1994. Values of a fully protected Kitlope Ecosystem for bears. Report to Nanakila
Institute, Kitimaat Village, B.C. Draft.
Nevin, O. T., B. K. Gilbert, and J. S. Smith. 2001. B.C. bear-viewing: An analysis of bear-human
interactions, economic and social dimensions with recommendations for best practices.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, USA.
Nevin, O.T., and B.K. Gilbert. 2005. Measuring the cost of risk avoidance in brown bears: further
evidence of positive impacts of ecotourism. Biological Conservation 123:453-460.
4.9.3 Are Low Salmon Numbers in the Phillips Contributing to Low Numbers of
Grizzly Bears and Their Survival and Possible Recovery?
• Cause and effect between low salmon years and grizzly bear survivability is inferred from
available studies and field observations.
• Our fall field work was done in 2007 and 2009, the “odd” years when pink salmon runs were low
compared to even years when they are high. In both years, besides feeding on salmon grizzly
bears were feeding on green plants, berries, and roots. Our field assessment was limited by not
doing a field survey during a high pink year.
4.9.3.2 Summary
Coastal grizzly bears are primarily dependent on the salmon resource in the fall to build up enough
body fats for the six-month hibernation period. One study showed that where grizzly bears have
access to salmon they have heavier body weights, produce larger litters, and higher population
densities than grizzly bears that do not have access to salmon. This was likely the case in the Phillips
back in history when a healthy salmon run supported a good population of grizzly bears. Such is not
the case today. Available evidence suggests that the pattern of historical and recent timber harvesting
activities has significantly reduced the natural resiliency of the once-pristine Phillips River Ecosystem
both in terms of natural plant food capability and salmon abundance; particularly during the critical
late summer fall-period of weight gain for grizzly bears. Ocean over-fishing and low survival of
young salmon may also have reduced salmon runs in the Phillips.
In many areas of the coast pink and chum salmon are the species most utilised by grizzly bears due to
their easier catch ability in shallower spawning waters than the larger salmon that usually migrate and
spawn in deeper waters. In the case of the Phillips spawning pink and sockeye salmon appear to be
the species most utilised by grizzly bears. Although scavenge-feeding of all species of dead salmon
occurs in the Phillips, heavy rainfalls and high waters can wash many of the dead salmon out to sea
before bears have much access to them.
The evidence suggests that today’s low salmon numbers in the Phillips may be causing reduced
survival of grizzly bears. A recent study using coastal grizzly bear hair correlated higher levels of
stress hormones to years of low salmon abundance but could not link these results to bear survival.
Our field surveys in the Phillips indicated that some nutritional stress was occurring because of low
salmon numbers. We noted a number of thin, stress-appearing grizzly bears in each of the fall of 2007
and 2009, which were also “odd” years of low pink salmon returns. Salmon “declines” and crashes on
the BC coast have been shown to affect grizzly bear survival and cause apparent bear population
declines such as occurred at Owikeno Lake on the south coast in 1999.

Evidence also suggests, the small number of salmon runs in the Phillips may also be providing only a
limited window of opportunity in the fall for grizzly bears to access salmon when they are most
nutritious. A study in Alaska showed that salmon have much higher food value (85% more lipid and
40% more protein) before spawning and far less after they spawn and die. Grizzly bears appear to
select for freshly arrived salmon in shallower spawning areas than deeper spawning areas. The study
also showed that where salmon have deeper water to hide there is less grizzly bear predation but as
these salmon age and become easier to catch, predation increases. This would appear to be the case in
the Phillips. Field surveys in the Phillips indicate that grizzly bear fed more on smaller salmon species
that were more common in the lower Clearwater spawning area and artificial pink channel in the
lower Phillips than in the deeper, lower Phillips River where most fish were large salmon species
holding in deeper water and therefore more difficult for bears to catch. Given the low salmon
numbers in the Phillips, especially during the odd years of low pink runs, it would appear that the
window of opportunity for grizzly bears to obtain much-needed nutrition from fish just after they
arrive in the river and at their spawning grounds is limited and that after-spawning carcass feeding
offers limited seasonal high nutritional intake. This might explain why we noted that grizzly bears
were also feeding on green plants, berries and roots during the salmon run (although I have observed
the same fall cosmopolitan diet elsewhere on the coast when salmon are abundant). However several
studies also show that salmon provide more food value than berries or herbivory.
4.9.3.3 Background
Just how stressed out can grizzly bears get in the fall when salmon numbers are low and they are
trying to add 1/3 of their body weight from spring/summer conditions in order to have enough fat
stored to survive the 5-6 months of winter senescence in their tree dens in old forests?
In earlier times of abundant salmon runs the Phillips likely supported a healthy grizzly bear
population. Grizzly bears that feed on salmon have a larger body size, higher litter size and higher
population density than those that don’t have salmon in their diet (Hilderbrand et al. 1999a). In areas
where salmon are abundant, the population density of bears can be 20 times greater than in the
interior continental areas where salmon do not occur (Gilbert and Lanner 1995). This does not appear
to be the case in the Phillips today.
On the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, salmon have been shown to be the single most important food
resource for female brown bears as they prepare to meet the demands of both hibernation and cub
production (Hilderbrand et al. 1999a). The decline of brown (i.e. grizzly bear) numbers at McNeil
River State Game Sanctuary in Alaska has been attributed to poor salmon returns (Peirce 2013).
Salmon “declines” and crashes on the BC coast have also been shown to affect grizzly bear survival
and cause bear population declines such as occurred at Owikeno Lake on the south coast in 1999
(Austin and Hamilton 2002). As noted: In the fall of 1999 with salmon returns at a historic low there
was a dramatic increase in grizzly bear activity at the Rivers Inlet village near Owikeno Lake
resulting in significant public safety concerns and bear/human conflicts (the major attractant is a
landfill). There were 10 grizzly bears destroyed and one family group of three was translocated. The
animals destroyed and translocated were noted to be in poor condition with little body fat.
Small numbers of thin grizzly bears have also been observed in the Phillips. Here there is a very low
run of Chinooks and coho and chums later in the fall with large numbers of pinks in even years
followed by very small runs in odd years. Sockeye salmon in the Clearwater may make up some of
the pink deficit in the low pink years but even these were not observed in abundance during our two

fall survey periods in 2007 and 2009. During each of these periods, which were “low” pink years, we
observed some grizzly bears that appeared thin, aggressively working the salmon areas with little
catch success, and most likely in a state of nutritional stress. In 2009, a low pink year, we observed
aggressive predation of migrating Chinook salmon in the lower Phillips by a small number of grizzly
bears. Fish crews with GPFA also reported increased predation by grizzly bears on Chinooks in the
lower Phillips in 2011, another low pink salmon year.
The thin and apparent stressed-out state of some of the grizzlies in the Phillips is corroborated by a
recent study in Alaska (Bryan et al. 2013) that indicates low salmon numbers such as occur in the
Phillips could possibly be impacting the survival of the grizzly bears. The study used stress hormone
levels in grizzly bear hair collected from the coast and related this to salmon abundance. Hair
provides a sound approach for studying the physiological responses to food resource shortages as the
hair can be chemically analyzed to determine both diet and steroid hormone levels. The study was
able to relate the levels of cortisol (an index of social and nutritional stress) to low and high years for
salmon abundance. The data showed that when salmon runs declined on the BC Central Coast such as
in 2008 and 2009, stress levels in grizzly bears increased. When salmon runs increased, as in 2010,
the stress levels declined. Although the study was inconclusive as to the long-term effects on grizzly
bears survival, the authors point out that other wildlife studies show that animals with high cortisol
levels can have their life spans decreased.
Although our scat observations indicate that grizzlies also eat berries, crab apples, green plants and
roots in the fall studies show that salmon allow bears to meet their energetic requirements more
efficiently than a diet of only plants or herbivory (Welch et al. 1997, Hilderband et al. 1999b and
Rode et al. 2001).
To add to the nutritional stress evident in the fall in the Phillips the small number of salmon runs in
the Phillips may also be providing only a limited window of opportunity in the fall for grizzly bears to
access salmon when they are most nutritious. Migrating salmon arriving to spawn have much more
food value for grizzly bears than after they have spawned and died. According to a study by Gende et
al. (2004) at-stream entrance salmon migrating to spawn contain up to 85% more lipid and 40% more
protein than several weeks later at their senescence after spawning. In their study in Alaska of
foraging by brown (i.e. grizzly) and black bears on several different salmon streams they found that at
a very shallow, simple stream, bears preferentially killed salmon that had spent the fewest days in the
stream (and therefore had the highest energy benefits). At two other streams where salmon could find
refuge in deeper water with woody debris, predation rates increased only with in-stream age of the
salmon. At the shallowest streams predation rates were felt to reflect active choice by bears for
salmon with the highest energy value. In contrast capture success probably increased at the larger
streams due to a loss of vigour as salmon aged and thus ‘preference’ for these older fish increased due
to decreasing effort necessary to capture them.
This would appear to be the case for the Phillips. Field surveys showed that grizzly bear fed more on
the smaller salmon species that were more common in the lower Clearwater River spawning area and
artificial pink side-channel in the lower Phillips than in the deeper, lower Phillips River where most
were large salmon species holding in deeper water and therefore more difficult for bears to catch. A
limited amount of predation on live Chinook and coho salmon was noted in the lower Phillips as well
as feeding on the limited number of dead salmon.
All of this evidence suggests that today’s periodic low salmon numbers in the Phillips may be causing
reduced survival of grizzly bears.

The other aspect of low salmon numbers that I did not review in-depth is the impact grizzly bear
predation might be having on salmon productivity in the Phillips; in other words a somewhat vicious
cycle. Although the situation is different, Peirce et al. (2013) found very high predation of pre-
spawning chum salmon at McNeil River Falls. Below the falls, predators consumed 99% of tagged
fish, killing 59% of them before they spawned. As a result of this finding, the escapement goal was
nearly doubled to account for the high pre-spawning mortality and to ensure enough salmon to sustain
both predators and prey.

Austin, M.A. and A.N. Hamilton. 2002. A review of grizzly bear harvest management in British
Columbia. Prepared for the information of the British Columbia Grizzly Bear Scientific Panel.
Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Victoria, British Columbia. 28
pp.
Bryan H. M., C.T. Darimont, P.C. Paquet, K.E. Wynne-Edwards, and J.E.G. Smits. 2013. Stress and
Reproductive Hormones in Grizzly Bears Reflect Nutritional Benefits and Social Consequences
of a Salmon Foraging Niche. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80537. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080537: (Last
accessed Dec. 6/13).
Darimont, C.T., H. M. Bryan, S. M. Carlson, M. D. Hocking, M. MacDuffee, P. C. Paquet, M. H.H.
Price, T. E. Reimchen, J. D. Reynolds and C. C. Wilmers. 2010. Salmon for terrestrial protected
areas. Conservation Letters 3 (2010): 379-389.
Gende, S.M., and T.P. Quinn. 2004. The relative importance of prey density and social dominance in
determining energy intake by bears feeding on pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology
82:75–85.
Gende, S.M., T. P. Quinn, R. Hilborn, A. P. Hendry, and B. Dickerson. 2004. Brown bears selectively
kill salmon with higher energy content but only in habitats that facilitate choice. Oikos. Volume
104, Issue 3, pages 518–528.
Gilbert, B.K., and R.M. Lanner. 1995. Energy, diet selection and restoration of brown bear
populations. In Density-dependent population regulation of black, brown, and polar bears. Edited
by M. Taylor. Monogr. Ser. No. 3, Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Bear Research and Management, Missoula, Mont. International Association for Bear
Research and Management, Washington, D.C. pp. 231–240.
Hilderbrand, G.V., S.G Jenkins, C.C. Schwartz, T.A. Hanley, and C.T. Robbins. 1999a. Effect of
seasonal differences in dietary meat intake on changes in body mass and composition in wild and
captive bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1623-1630.
Hilderbrand, G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C.
Servheen. 1999b. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population
productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology
77:132-138.
Peirce, J.M., E.O. Otis, M.S. Wipfli and E.H. Follmann. 20123. Interactions between brown bears and
chum salmon at McNeil River, Alaska. Ursus May 2013: Vol. 24, Issue 1, pg(s) 42-53.

Rode K.D., C.T. Robbins and L.A. Shipley. 2001. Constraints on herbivory by grizzly bears.
Oecologia 128: 62–71
Titus, K., and L. R. Beier. 1999. Suitability of stream buffers and riparian habitats for brown bears.
Ursus 11:149-156.
Titus, K., R. W. Flynn, G. W. Pendleton, and L. R. Beier. 1999. Population and habitat ecology of
brown bears on Admiralty and Chichagof islands. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Final Report W-27-3, Study 4.22. Juneau, USA.
US Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska
Region. R10-MB-38a. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
Welch C.A, J. Keay, K.C. Kendall, and C.T. Robbins. 1997. Constraints on frugivory by bears.
Ecology 78: 1105–1119.
4.9.4 Potential Disturbance Effects of Bear-Viewing on Grizzly Bears in the Phillips

Bear-viewing viewing has the potential to disrupt bear activity because it concentrates human
presence in areas where bears congregate seasonally. This increases the process of habituation and
displacement and has the potential to affect bears from a large proportion of a population unit.
Potential effects include:
• habitat displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness and survival,
• increased mortality risk due to bears being less wary of humans. Where hunting
• is allowed bears habituated by bear-viewing activity are more vulnerable to mortality than warier
bears, and
• negative bear-people encounters if viewing is not carefully managed
Thus human activity in bear habitat may result in negative impacts on bears, which may become
obvious through patterns of human avoidance, wariness or unrest behaviour, or adverse bear-human
interactions (Smith 2002). Chi and Gilbert (1999, p. 225) state: in the absence of restrictions on
visitor numbers and human behaviour permitted at wildlife viewing sites disturbance may exceed the
thresholds of even the most tolerant bears. If negative impacts of recreation on wildlife are to be
avoided and reduced, then management of human activity must occur. On the other hand, Nevin and
Gilbert (2005) suggest that by displacing large males, viewing activities create a temporal refuge,
enhancing feeding opportunities for subordinate age/sex classes. With the strong positive
relationships between mean female mass and litter size, they felt this may in turn increase population
productivity.
• There is no research that links disruptions to bears caused by bear-viewing to bear survival. One
study in Alaska showed that bear-viewing in the spring might be causing nutritional losses to
male bears but not necessarily to bear survival.
• User-day information, including commercial bear-viewing as part of the Kwiakah bear-viewing
project in the Phillips, was not available at the time of completion of my report. The lack of
quantitative visitor use data limited my assessment.

4.9.4.2 Summary
While some disturbances to grizzly bears will occur as a result of the spring and fall Kwiakah First
Nation bear-viewing program for the Phillips, these can be mitigated as is being done elsewhere on
the BC Coast through implementation of careful management and guidelines. The use of fixed bear-
viewing structures for fall grizzly-on-salmon bear viewing rather than dispersed bear-viewing is an
approach well-recognised to help minimize human-caused disruptions to grizzly bear activities. The
Kwiakah also have developed bear-viewing guidelines to minimize any negative effects on bears.
4.9.4.3 Background
In 2007 the Kwiakah First Nation invested in a bear-viewing infrastructure in the lower Phillips and
lower Clearwater including three viewing structures as a result of a feasibility study by Dr. Bristol
Foster. The nature of my three previous field surveys in the Phillips in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was to
assess the viability of the bear-viewing infrastructure as well as boat-based bear viewing in the spring
on the Phillips estuary and recommend site-specific bear-viewing guidelines to minimize potential
impacts of commercial viewing on grizzly bears. While grizzly bear numbers were found to be low it
was felt that with experienced guides, the Phillips has enough bear-viewing opportunities to support a
viable Kwiakah tourism program.
Potential disturbances to grizzly bears from spring bear-viewing in the Phillips
Surveys were done in June 2008 to examine potential bear-viewing opportunities for the Kwiakah
First Nation on the Phillips estuary. Recommendations were made to minimize disruptions to bears
from boat-based bear viewing. No permanent viewing structures were recommended (McCrory and
Williams 2010).
In an extensive study for BC Parks of the Khutzeymateen grizzly bear viewing strategy on the north
coast we did a literature review of the potential impacts of bear-viewing on black and grizzly bears
(McCrory and Paquet 2010). The study was peer-reviewed by three experts in the field. The study
looked at spring bear viewing of grizzly bears using marine estuarine habitats, not viewing of grizzly
bears-on-salmon in the fall. Thus the results are only applicable to potential disturbances from grizzly
bear-viewing on the Phillips estuary (Note in the narrative that I use the Tsimshian word K’tzim-a-
deen for Khutzeymateen). The study found that:
Several observational studies in the K’tzim-a-deen concluded bear viewing may have little impact
on bears, but a more recent, intensive study concluded that if individual bears are continually
displaced from highly productive shoreline habitat, the potential for negative impacts on their
fitness is high. Two of these studies found that approximately one-third of the grizzly bears
approached by groups of people for viewing retreated, and one study found that only a small
proportion of the bears that retreated returned.
Two studies found that 50 to 62% of all bears viewed by tourists in the K’tzim-a-deen are now
habituated, a large increase from the early days of bear viewing in the late 1980s. We feel this
exceeds the low to moderate levels of habituated bears recommended in the North Coast Land
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). A review of studies done elsewhere suggests that some
habituated bears may gain energetic advantages from viewing by exploiting high quality
resources in close proximity to viewers. However, some wary bears could be affected by
displacement and move to other areas where habitat quality is lower, incurring weight loss as a
result. Some bears also respond to human disturbance by feeding more frequently at night.

The full effects of displacement on bear bioenergetics and survival are poorly understood. We
agree with an Alaskan study that showed managers in bear-viewing areas can minimize the
nutritional impacts on bears by avoiding spatial displacement and providing predictable time
periods free of human activity when bears can access food. In other words, when human activities
were predictable and restricted, the stress on the bears can be lessened.
A number of studies, including several in the K’tzim-a-deen, have recommended that zones be set
aside where no viewing is allowed (spatial refugia) and that morning and evening periods be
viewing free times (temporal refugia). These measures have never been implemented but we
recommend they be implemented now.
Using the best information available, we designed a K’tzim-a-deen bear-viewing strategy and
updated guidelines to better recognise and respect the bioenergetic, social and reproductive
needs of the bears. In our recommendations the survival and well-being of the bears is given first
priority, while providing for ample opportunity for quality bear-viewing experiences for people.
One of the landmark bear-viewing studies to date in terms of quantification of effects on grizzly bears
was done in Alaska by Rode et al. (2006a, 2006b and 2007). To accomplish this, the Alaskan bear
researchers conducted detailed studies of food resource availability and nutrition in salt marsh
habitats and salmon stream habitat in Douglas River, Glacier and Seepage creeks. They used direct
observations and Global Positioning System (GPS) collars to measure food resource use by grizzly
bears. The researchers collared 16 grizzlies at one estuarine site, and seven at the other. They carried
out baseline “control” research on bear activities for one year when there was no bear viewing or
other human disturbances (other than capture and handling) and then the following year studied the
response of the same grizzly bears to introduced bear viewing.
By measuring energy content of spring green plant foods, berries and salmon and then determining
actual food consumption by individual bears, the researchers were able to measure not only the
behavioural responses of bears to people but any changes in daily travel and feeding activities such as
changing the times and locations of feeding. They also measured what impacts these responses might
have on the nutrition and bioenergetics. For example, they discovered that adult male bears at salt
marsh viewing areas were the only age/sex class that showed a reduction in food intake by one-third
when viewers were present in the area, resulting from a 15% reduction in time spent foraging.
Rode et al. (2006a) concluded that
…the long periods of time required for adult males to meet nutritional requirements on the salt
marsh may make them particularly sensitive to minor reductions in time spent foraging (White et
al. 1999). The researchers also concluded that: Energy expenditure, indexed as daily travel
distances, was significantly higher when bears responded by altering spatial rather than
temporal resource use. However, body weight and composition were unaffected by all treatments
as bears shifted their foraging to other locations or times. Managers can minimize nutritional
impacts of bear-viewing programs by avoiding spatial displacement and providing predictable
time periods when bears can access food resources free of human activity. Bears in this study
exhibited a high degree of behavioural plasticity….
Potential disturbances to grizzly bears from fall viewing of bears on salmon
Studies have also shown that viewing of grizzly bears on salmon areas can lead to displacement,
negative bear-people conflicts and other problems as summarised in a literature review by McCrory
and Paquet (2010). The authors concluded that:

In conclusion, the weight of evidence from the various studies on the effects of bear viewing on
the bears is unequivocal in terms of this human activity causing some behavioural changes by
way of habituation/tolerance or avoidance depending on the individual bear (i.e. personality),
age/sex cohort, site characteristics, food availability, numbers of people, and timing and type of
bear viewing and other factors. For example, just one small bear-viewing group introduced to a
remote estuarine and salmon habitat area in Alaska was enough to cause shifts in both timing
and use of productive habitat sites by grizzly bears. As previously mentioned, it is important to
note that any impacts of bear viewing are additive to social stresses between grizzly bears. The
implications of the behavioural changes caused by bear viewing to bioenergetics and bear-to-
bear interactions (including predation on other bears) and thus to individual survivorship and
overall population status is less understood. In some instances there is even some evidence that
habituation to bear viewing by less dominant bears might benefit the survival rate of young of
females habituated to bear viewing. However, for warier females trying to raise young the
opposite might just as well be true, especially as we know about 1/2 of the 7 or so mother grizzly
groups that use the K’tzim-a-deen marine areas in the spring are not habituated. In other
instances, nutritional stress was shown to result in male bears, with unknown long-term effects on
survival. Interruption of mating activities is also another social cost.
One noteworthy study (Marshall 2010) of river-bank based bear viewing in the Yukon found that
grizzly bears consumed 24% less salmon when viewers were present posing serious energetic
consequences if spatio-temporal compensation does not occur.
Chi and Gilbert (1999, p. 225) reported that in the absence of restrictions on visitor numbers and
human behaviour permitted at wildlife viewing sites disturbance may exceed the thresholds of even
the most tolerant bears.”
The use of fixed bear-viewing structures for fall grizzly-on-salmon bear viewing rather than dispersed
bear-viewing is an approach well-recognised to help minimize human-caused disruptions because it
concentrates visitor use to a number of predictable sites that bears can relate to when compared to
dispersed bear-viewing all over the place. Controlling the number of people at fixed viewing
structures has also found to be important in minimizing disruptions to grizzly bear activities. For
example, researchers at Anan Creek in southeast Alaska found that large numbers of visitors on the
fixed observatory (>15) affected maximum fishing time of habituated black bears. They found that
mean bout length for bears searching for salmon decreased as visitor numbers increased with a
substantial decline in bout length when >15 people were on the observatory at a time (threshold;
which indicates subtle change in behaviour to larger group sizes). They felt that placing restrictions
on group size and providing education on group etiquette could reduce disturbance. The larger groups
tended to have the “cocktail hour effect” where people socialized more, talked louder and moved
about more than smaller groups (Chi and Gilbert 1999).
Each of the viewing towers (two along the lower Clearwater, one on the lower Phillips) were partially
designed and located to minimize disruptions to grizzly bears feeding on salmon. Small access roads
and trails leading to the structures were located to accomplish this. The towers also have gates and
fencing to provide a good separation from people and grizzly bears for reasons of safety. Vehicle
access to the structures is via the Phillips Main logging road and then short spur roads. The upper
Clearwater Tower #1 is located about 12 km up from tidewater. Some disturbance is expected from
vehicle access, especially now that logging has been temporarily curtailed. During our 2007 fall field

studies both helicopter logging and log hauling were considered dominant disturbance factors when
compared to small disturbances that might have been caused by bear-viewing.
4.9.5 Other Visitor/Tourism Disturbance Effects on Phillips Grizzly Bears (Jet Boats,
etc.)
Although there was no logging in the fall of 2009 we found that the lower Phillips River up to the
lake receives some disturbance from motorised tourism (McCrory and Williams. 2010). Almost daily
our survey crew observed a commercial jet boat running up and down the lower Phillips River with
sport-fishing clients, one or two helicopters landing for heli-fishing, and even a floatplane fishing
group who landed in Phillips Lake and tried out the pools near the river outlet near the bear-viewing
tower site. When water levels were higher, the commercial jet boat brought clients to the pool at the
tower at the lake outlet, but when water levels dropped the boat only worked the lower river.
As this motorised recreation was in a section of the river within the protected conservancy and was
done in the fall when small numbers of grizzly bears were using the lower Phillips in search of
salmon it undoubtedly was having a disruptive effect for any grizzlies in the area.
It will be important to address this access issue within the framework of the BC Parks management
plan for the conservancy.
As an aside, we also observed two low-flying military jets streaking up the valley with attendant very
loud sounds.
Figure 11. Jet boat with sport-fishing group on lower Phillips River in September 2009 near Kwiakah bear-viewing
Tower. The loud noise and presence of people is a disruptive influence on grizzly bears during the salmon season
and should not be allowed inside the Phillips Conservancy.

Chi, D.K. 1999. The effects of salmon availability, social dynamics, and people on black bear (Ursus
americanus) fishing behaviour on an Alaskan salmon stream. Dissertation, Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Chi, D.K., and B.K. Gilbert. 1999. Habitat security for Alaskan black bears at key foraging sites: are
there thresholds for human disturbance? Ursus 11:225-238.
Commercial Bear-Viewing Association of BC (CBVA). 2008. Best practices guidelines. Commercial
Bear Viewing Association of BC, Black Creek, BC.
Crupi, A.P. 2003. Foraging behavior and habitat use patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in
relation to human activity and salmon abundance on a coastal Alaskan salmon stream. Thesis,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, USA.
Crupi, A.P. 2005. Brown Bear Research and Human Activity Monitoring at Chilkoot River 2003-
2004. Unpublished manuscript. <http://www.geocities.com/chilkootbear/adfgreport05.html>.
Accessed 2008, Feb. 15.
Marshall, S.M. 2008. Behavioural effects of viewing and social dynamics of grizzly bears along the
Fishing Branch River, Yukon. Masters in Resource Management Thesis. Simon Fraser
University.
Nevin, O.T., and B.K. Gilbert. 2005a. Perceived risk, displacement and refuging in brown bears:
positive impacts of ecotourism? Biological Conservation 121:611-622.
Nevin, O.T., and B.K. Gilbert. 2005b. Measuring the cost of risk avoidance in brown bears: further
evidence of positive impacts of ecotourism. Biological Conservation 123:453-460.
Olson, T.L., and B.K. Gilbert. 1994. Variable impacts of people on brown bear use of an Alaskan
river. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9(1):97-106.
Olson, T.L., B.K. Gilbert, and R.C. Squibb. 1997. The effects of increasing human activity on brown
bear use of an Alaskan river. Biological Conservation 82:95-99.
Olson, T.L., R.C. Squibb, and B.K. Gilbert. 1998. Brown bear diurnal activity and human use: a
comparison of two salmon streams. Ursus 10:547-555.
Rode, K. D., and C.T. Robbins. 2000. Why bears consume mixed diets during fruit abundance.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1–6.
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, and L.A. Shipley. 2001. The constraints on herbivory by bears. Oecologia
128:62–71.
Rode, K.D., S.D. Farley, and C.T. Robbins. 2006a. Behavioral responses of brown bears mediate
nutritional effects of experimentally introduced tourism. Biological Conservation, 133, 70-80.
Rode, K.D., S.D. Farley, and C.T. Robbins. 2006b. Sexual dimorphism, reproductive strategy, and
human activities determine resource use by brown bears. Ecology 87(10):2636-2646.

Rode, K.D., S.D. Farley, J. Fortin, and C.T. Robbins. 2007. Nutritional consequences of
experimentally introduced tourism in brown bears. Journal of wildlife management 71(3):929-
939.
Smith, T.S. 2002. Effects of human activity on brown bear use of the Kulik River, Alaska. Ursus
13:257-267.
Smith, T. S., and B. A. Johnson. 2004. Modeling the effects of human activity on Katmai brown bears
(Ursus arctos) through the use of survival analysis. Arctic 57(2):160-165.
Tollefson, T. N., C. Matt, J. Meehan, and C. T. Robbins. 2005. Quantifying spatiotemporal overlap of
Alaskan brown bears and people. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2):810-817.
Warner, S. H. 1987. Visitor impact on brown bears, Admiralty Island, Alaska. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:377-382.
4.9.6 Effects of Western Forest Products (WFP) Industrial-Scale Logging Operations

on Phillips Grizzly Bears and Salmon
In this section, I looked at physical and ecological changes to the Phillips grizzly bear-salmon
ecosystem caused by logging roads and clearcuts.
Besides using information from field surveys in the Phillips and a scientific literature review, we
developed a series of GIS maps for the Phillips to help analyse the impacts of industrial-scale logging,
including:
• Main road and spur road network
• Road-linear feature density analysis
• Road-Zone of Influence (ZOI)
• Road-Core security habitat review
• Logged and old forest
• Early/young seral, closed canopy mid-seral/mature forest, and old forest
Although it was beyond my professional expertise, I felt obligated to also provide photo-
documentation of debris torrents and landslide events in the Phillips study area, including those that
entered salmon-bearing waters.
4.9.6.1 Overall summary of effects of roads and clearcuts
My review suggests that in the Phillips watershed, grizzly bears and their habitats, along with salmon
and their habitats, have been severely compromised by a combination of extensive clearcut logging
and roading (and excess human-caused mortality). As my analysis shows, logging in the Phillips has
surpassed all measurable thresholds by which grizzly bears are known to be able to thrive, including
excessive road densities in the highest quality habitats and salmon areas, potential disruptions from
high quality habitat within a 0.3 km zone of influence (ZOI), loss of secure habitat areas for female
grizzlies with young, and other impacts.
This conclusion is not surprising given that 15 years ago an independent group of international bear
scientists concluded that the Province of British Columbia was mismanaging grizzly bear populations
and habitat mostly because the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
were unable or unwilling to deal with habitat fragmentation and mortality resulting primarily from
road access (Horejsi, Gilbert and Craighead. 1998).

In earlier times, the Phillips appears to have been a rich grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem typical of the
productive coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia. Today, it no longer is. Rather, it is a
strong candidate for ecosystem recovery, but only provided strict conservation measures,
considerably beyond the current protection measures provided by the EBM rules for logging,
including protection of Class 1 habitats, the Phillips Conservancy and two protected WHAs, are
enacted.
4.9.6.2 Impacts of logging roads on Phillips grizzly bears and salmon
In this section, I looked at the extent of roads, road density, road Zone of Influence (ZOI), and loss of
habitat effectiveness.
• There is limited data that quantifies grizzly bear avoidance of logging road Zone of Influence
(ZOI) on the BC coast related to traffic volumes. Some studies indicate effects are independent of
traffic volumes. McLellan & Shackleton (1988) found that even logging roads with little traffic
can have a negative effect on grizzly bears.
• I did not have any traffic use data for Phillips logging roads during active logging periods and
non-logging periods to enable furthering our assessment along these lines. Nor did I obtain data
on Kwiakah bear-viewing vehicle use. For my analysis of grizzly bear security areas, I assumed,
rightly or wrongly, that some grizzly bears would still avoid heavily roaded areas irrespective of
them not having any current logging traffic, such as in the upper reaches of the Phillips.
• The estimate of total roads was based on main logging roads and smaller spur roads. It was not
possible to separate the two using the GIS database that was available.
4.9.6.4 Summary of effects of roads
Various studies show roads have a serious impact on grizzly bears, including increasing human-
caused mortality, direct loss of habitat, displacement from high quality habitats, and other negative
influences. To log coastal valleys, an extensive network of main haul roads and spur roads needs to be
constructed. Western Forest Products’ (WFP) logging in the Phillips has created a large network of
306 km of logging-related roads. We were unable to separate main logging roads and spur roads. The
road system has removed approximately 612 ha of mostly valley bottom and lower mountain slope
grizzly habitats, or 1.2% of the Phillips study area. The amount of habitat permanently lost to roads is
nearly equal to partial protection by the two Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) of 676 ha.
Our GIS analysis of road density shows that various ecosystem-based management (EBM) and other
(potential) protection measures for grizzly bears in the Phillips are significantly compromised by high
total road densities. Some 17% of the Knight-Bute GBPU has logging road densities higher than the
0.6 km of roads/km2 threshold that the Ministry considers the starting point for negative influences on
grizzly bears. However, this ecological yardstick does not accurately reflect the magnitude of
disturbance caused by logging roads since it does not measure the overlap between higher road
densities and the highest quality grizzly bear-salmon habitats in the valley bottoms, where most of the
grizzly use and logging roads are concentrated. For an analysis of the impacts of roads in the Phillips,
I used lower thresholds of negative effects as determined from other studies. Roads in the Phillips
study area were found to have an average density of 0.6 km of roads/km2. Since total road density
averaged over the whole watershed actually misrepresents the real impacts, we used GIS map models
that showed the highest total road densities ranging from 0.6-6.0 km/km2 overlapped with the highest
value grizzly bear-salmon habitats in the valley bottoms and lower slopes. Of the highest quality

EBM grizzly bear habitat polygons, 69% of Class 1, 60% of Class 2, and 100% of the two WHAs and
the Phillips Estuary Conservancy were found to be in the higher total road density disturbance
regimes. This significantly reduces the effectiveness of these habitats for grizzly bears, especially
during periods of logging activity and hauling, but even without traffic activity, some grizzly bears
will avoid important habitats in areas of high road density.
For the analysis of road zone of influence (ZOI), using a conservative 0.3 km ZOI for logging/spur
roads, it was determined that some 12,921 ha or 25% of the study area would be influenced by road
disturbance, more during active hauling than during non-active hauling. However, since some studies
show that some bears avoid habitats in areas of high road densities even with no traffic, we had no
way of measuring ZOI disturbance during active logging and non-logging. Regardless, the ZOI of the
extensive Phillips logging road network was determined to significantly compromise the value of
EBM protected Class 1 grizzly habitats by 46%, unprotected EBM Class 2 grizzly habitats by 40%,
the protected Phillips Estuary Conservancy by 54%, and the two protected WHAs by 63% (the larger
496 ha WHA is within the conservancy).
While a detailed analysis was not done of grizzly bear security areas and habitat effectiveness, my
review shows that there is very little core grizzly bear habitat in the valley bottom that could provide
secure areas away from people and the road ZOI. Even small patches in the lower valley and estuary
that are outside of the 0.3 km road ZOI are affected by boat access, including use of jet boats in the
lower Phillips River. If the definition of secure habitat for grizzly bears is accepted as 10 km2 (1,000
ha) patches of quality habitat 0.3 km from a road ZOI (instead of the standard 0.5 km), then there is
no secure EBM Class 1 and Class 2 habitat in the Phillips that would qualify. The most intact natural
areas outside of the ZOI are at higher elevations in the MH zone, which is poor quality grizzly
habitat, except for denning.
4.9.6.5 Background review on impacts of roads on grizzly bears
In general, bear biologists, backed by numerous field studies, regard roads, including logging roads,
as having a greater impact on grizzly bear populations than habitat changes resulting from forest
removal; although, in reality for coastal old-growth ecosystems, both interact from a cumulative
effects perspective with overall short- and long-term effects that are mostly detrimental to grizzly
bears. One of the criticisms of using standardised GIS model assessments, such as density of logging
roads, to assess their impacts on grizzly bears for remote coastal watersheds is that many of the road
networks are not connected to the outside world, are likely only connected by ocean access, and often
have little public access. However, I would argue that industrial traffic level by itself is significant
during active logging operations. During successive periods of logging in the Phillips, logging
equipment and vehicle traffic would easily exceed the 80 vehicles per month that is one of the
standardised divisions between low and high vehicle use related to impacts on grizzly bears (USDA
Forest Service 1990). As well, studies elsewhere have shown that even during periods of non-logging,
some bears still avoid roads and habitats of high road density.
Various studies demonstrate that roads can have a negative effect on grizzly bear habitat use and
long-term grizzly bear occupation, depending on the amount of roads per sq. km. (or sq. mi.) of
habitat.
Roads bring people into contact with grizzly bears more frequently than roadless areas. Sometimes
those encounters are lethal for bears, either through illegal kills or traffic mortality. The remains of a
yearling grizzly bear found in the ditch along the Phillips mainline road that died from unreported

causes in fall 2007 (McCrory 2010) is a case in point. Extensive road networks can act as population
sinks with high rates of human-caused bear mortality due to legal and illegal hunting and defence-of-
life shooting (Ciarniello et al. 2007). Ciarniello et al. (2009) compared two study areas (SA) in central
BC: The plateau study area (Parsnip) had resource development (12% logged) with an extensive road
network, while the mountain study area (Hart Mountains) was relatively pristine (2% logged). Six of
nine bears shot by hunters were within 100 m of a secondary or decommissioned logging road. Five
grizzly bears were killed illegally in the more roaded plateau area (four not reported to authorities),
while there were no illegal kills detected in the less developed mountain study area. A study in the
endangered Selkirk grizzly ecosystem in Idaho showed this low population of approximately 50
grizzly bears suffered 18 deaths between 1982 and 1996; 11 associated with open roads, and 4 on
closed roads (Wakkinen 1993, Wakkinen and Johnson 1997). Benn (1998) analysed grizzly bear
mortality data for the central Canadian Rockies ecosystem from 1971-1996. Human-related causes
were the primary source of recorded mortality (N = 627 of 639). Some 85% of 462 mortalities with
accurate locations occurred within 500 m-wide ZOI around roads and frontcountry developments, and
200 m-wide zones around trails and backcountry development. The author concluded that the spatial
analysis showed that most grizzly bears died within a narrow zone along roads and trails, and around
human settlements, but despite this, roads and major developments continued to be constructed in the
last unroaded areas. The author recommended: A commitment of no new roads into existing
roadless, secure grizzly habitat is what is needed…combined with a program of decommissioning
of some existing roads.
Besides the direct loss of grizzly bear habitat from road construction, roads also cause displacement
of grizzly bear use from habitats within a ZOI of the road of between 0.3 km-4.0 km. Schoen and
Beier (1990) found that some grizzly bears shifted their use of salmon to avoid mine road
construction and activity in southeast Alaska. Although they had limited evidence that bears altered
their home range because of the mine and its road construction, bears were attracted to a salmon
stream alongside road construction. The first year (1986) after road construction began (fall 1985),
two adult males (of 18 bears total) used other salmon streams within their home range that were not
influenced by construction activity. The other bears continued to use the drainage, but shifted away
from road activity, then moved in closer to the road when activity was reduced. The authors felt that
this happened because the dense forest shielded some bears, and the abundant spawning salmon
resource attracted them. One female bear was monitored from before the mine (1982) to spring 1989.
Prior to 1986, she successfully weaned two litters of two cubs each. After that, she lost two
consecutive litters. The researchers had no direct evidence that development activities were
implicated in her reproductive failure, but suggested the possibility that displacement from her
familiar feeding area along lower Zinc Creek in 1987 may have reduced her reproductive
effectiveness. Reynolds-Hogland et al. (2007) did a study on 118 radio-collared black bears in the
Pisgah Bear Sanctuary from 1981 to 2001. It is significant because it was not only done over the long
term, but also largely reflected responses to vehicles, people, and roads without the complicating
analysis factor of killing by hunting (although some bears were killed by hunters outside the
sanctuary and there was some poaching within the sanctuary, and other wildlife species were also
hunted in the sanctuary). The researchers found that all bears avoided areas near gravel roads more
than they avoided areas near paved roads during summer and fall at the home range scale and, during
summer, within home ranges. Avoidance at the home range scale indicates the selection of a home
range to minimise the presence of gravel and paved roads. Within home ranges in the fall, adult

females still avoided gravel roads more than they did paved roads. They found that, overall, bears
avoided areas within 800 m of gravel roads.
Another effect of roads is that some grizzly bears, particularly females with young, become
habituated to roadside habitats as they feel safer from male bears that generally avoid roads. Male
bears sometimes prey opportunistically on young grizzly bears. However, roadside habituation by
female grizzly bears then puts them and their young at greater mortality risk of human-caused
mortality. In Yellowstone National Park, humans killed habituated bears 3.1 times as often as non-
habituated bears. Habituated females paid a particularly heavy price; mortality was 3.8 times that of
non-habituated females (Mattson et al. 1987).
An extensive review by Horejsi (1999) provides a good summary of impacts of conventional roads to
grizzly bears:
Industrial-scale clearcutting results in drastically disturbed habitats that radio telemetry studies
show are avoided by most grizzly bears under most circumstances. Their use is restricted by the
cumulative impacts of vegetation changes, second growth crown closure and competitive
exclusion of forage-producing plants, debris and regeneration density that impedes travel, and
roads and security issues.
As to roads, the same author notes: Understanding the impact of road access involves the recognition
that the cumulative effects of incremental mortality and displacement events can quickly destabilize a
bear population.
Traffic volumes are one way to measure the effects of roadways on grizzly bears, including road kill
levels and habitat displacement (Dr. L. Craighead pers. comm., Horejsi 1999). In a Montana
ecosystem, grizzly bears showed strong avoidance of roads with 11-60 vehicles per day (vpd) (Mace
et al. 1996). However, McLellan & Shackleton (1988) found that even logging roads with little traffic
can have a negative effect on grizzly bears.
We did not have any traffic use data for Phillips logging roads during active logging periods and non-
logging periods in order to further our assessment along these lines.
4.9.6.6 Total length of logging roads/spur roads in the Phillips study area
Since construction of roads involves removing old forests and major disturbances to soil regimes and
associated natural hydrological processes, roads represent one of the greater physical impacts to
coastal ecosystems from industrial-scale logging operations. Even after they are temporarily
abandoned and start growing back to alder, they can remain unproductive habitats for grizzly bears
for a long time.
We estimated the total length of main haul roads and logging spur roads in the Phillips to be 306 km.
In 1985, a logging cost survey estimated an average one-way haul distance of 24 km for a standard
BC coastal logging operation. Roughly half of the timber (age 101+ years) available for future
logging was located at distances exceeding 24 km (Williams and Gasson 1987). This projection
would appear to well fit Western Forest Products’ logging development in the Phillips watershed
where logging extended almost the full 30 km length of the valley; although in 2007, heli-cranes were
introduced to haul higher elevation old-growth cedar down to four landings on existing road systems.
Mapping the logging roads in the Phillips proved complicated since the government database we used
was found to have errors when we compared our preliminary road map to the 2008 WFP paper map at
1:25,000 scale In File and roads visible on the Google Maps website. In some instances, the

government-based road map omitted roads that were on the WFP map, such as the head of Hoyt
Creek. To correct this, I scanned the relevant sections of the WFP map and emailed them to GIS
analyst Baden Cross who was then able to digitise them onto our base road map. In addition, when we
double-checked our draft road map with Google Maps satellite imagery, we found that one tributary,
that had been roaded and logged in the headwaters of the Phillips River did not show up on our base
map, so the road was digitised onto our base map from Google Maps.
Additionally, we did not make any effort to separate main roads from secondary roads and smaller
spur roads. While we do not consider our final road map to be 100% accurate as to what is on the
ground, we consider it reliable enough for the analysis purposes intended.
Our GIS measurements show that logging in the Phillips has resulted in an extensive network of 306
km of roads and spur roads (Map 26). The extensive road infrastructure includes a large metal bridge
on the main access road high over the Phillips River just above the Clearwater-Phillips confluence.
All of the roads appear to have been built for logging TFL 39.
The main road system was last actively used for log hauling in fall 2007, when WFP was heli-logging
mid-elevation old-growth cedar to about km 24 on the Phillips mainline; however Google Maps
indicates a small number of cutblocks on the west side of the valley between Phillips Lake and the
estuary that may have been logged more recently, but it appears that older roads were used to access a
different log dump to the north-west of the Phillips.
Since fall 2007, the lower Phillips logging road network has deteriorated considerably. In June 2013,
only the lower Phillips road was accessible to about km 11, where it was blocked by a landslide that
occurred in 2012. In June 2013, the landslide was cleared off by Sonora Resort so they could have
access for nature tours and to access the Kwiakah bear-viewing towers on the Clearwater in fall. This
allowed me to check out the condition of roads beyond the first Clearwater Bridge. At this time, I
found that all the roads beyond the Clearwater were blocked by various landslides, including the
Clearwater Road, which was becoming heavily brushed-in with alders. It may be argued that the
limited motorised access as a result of the deteriorated state of the roads in 2013, benefits grizzly
bears through reduced disturbance and mortality risk. This may be so for the short term, but the road
beds are always there as permanent infrastructure for WFP to access different timber stands in grizzly
country over time, such as when the large areas of their plantation forests mature to harvestable age,
or if WFP decides to further heli-log higher elevation old forests. In other words, so long as there is
logging allowed in the valley, there will always be some intermittent road upgrading and hauling
activity that will have impacts on the Phillips grizzly bears—unless the bears eventually disappear
altogether due to cumulative effects.

Map 26. Shows some of the extensive system of 306 km of logging roads and spur roads in the Phillips grizzly bear study area
and some adjacent area such as to the north between the Phillips and Lochborough Inlet and between this inlet and Knight
Inlet.
4.9.6.7 Physical extent of wildlife/valley bottom grizzly habitat removed by Phillips logging
road network
Map 26 shows how most of the logging roads are concentrated in the valley bottoms and lower valley
slopes, a typical scenario for logging in coastal rainforests. Using an average width of 20 m for
logging roads, we estimated the 306 km of logging roads in the Phillips have removed 609 ha of

valley bottom and lower mountain slope wildlife/grizzly bear habitat, or 1.2% of the Phillips Grizzly
Bear Study Area, and this is not counting landings, clearings for helicopter log drop zones, log dump
areas, and other logging-related forest removals. The 612 ha of habitat lost due to logging roads
nearly equals the protection offered by the WHAs (676 ha).
In the following two sections, we use two standard GIS modeling approaches (road density and ZOI)
to measure the impact of logging roads on bears. In these instances, we focused our road impact
analyses on higher quality grizzly bear-salmon habitats in the Phillips. Of the total study area (50,900
ha), we estimated that Class 1 grizzly habitats (protected) comprise 3,841 ha or 7.5% of the total area;
Class 2 (unprotected) grizzly habitats comprise 771 ha or 1.5%, and the two WHAs (protected)
comprise 676 ha or 1.3%. The larger WHA (496 ha) is located within the protected Phillips Estuary
Conservancy (1459 ha). Although we did not do a detailed analysis, some of the Class 1 “protected”
and Class 2 unprotected grizzly bear habitat polygons appear to be in logged areas or have buffers of
logged forests, which means some of their natural values have been compromised.
4.9.6.8 Total road density analysis for Phillips study area and EBM Class 1 & Class 2 grizzly
habitats, Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs), and Phillips Estuary Conservancy
Background and results
As noted in the definitions section of this report, “road density” measures the amount of lineal
disturbance (in km per km2) of area or habitats. At an international level, road ecology and road
density analyses have become recognised as accepted tools to determine the impacts of human
development upon landscapes. The following study from the Graduate School of Design at
Cambridge, Massachusetts (Forman and Hersperger 1996) provides a good synopsis:
Understanding spatial pattern of the broad landscape is essential for addressing the ecological
impacts of roads. Most important are flows and movements, e.g., in wildlife corridors, across the
land. Road density (e.g., mi/mi squared) is a useful summary index, because it integrates so many
ecological impacts of roads and vehicles....The concept of road density appears to be a useful
broad index of the ecological effects of roads in a landscape. It is readily measured as the total
length of roads per unit area, e.g. in km/km squared or mi/mi squared, on a map. Road density
affects many factors but especially faunal movements, population fragmentation, human access,
hydrology, and fire pattern. As road density increases, road avoidance by wildlife results in less
habitat being suitable. The number of road killed animals increases. The road with roadside
reduces the amount of remaining habitat. Populations are fragmented into subpopulations, each
of which is much smaller. Movement rates are lower among the subpopulations than they were in
the original population. Human access increases, which results in more hunting, trapping, and
disturbance of animals. Also trampling and other disturbances to natural ecosystems increase.
The density of roads, measured by length per square kilometre of habitat (km/km2), that is considered
acceptable for long-term persistence of grizzlies, black bears, and wolves before these species are
known to abandon habitats within at least a 0.5 km ZOI of a road varies from study to study.
In public lands in the Swan Hills of Montana, Mace and Waller (1997) demonstrated negative
relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and trails. Avoidance of roads increased as road densities
and traffic volumes increased. At all landscape scales, bear density declined as road densities and
traffic volume increased. In highly preferred seasonal habitats that tended to be open-canopied,
grizzlies would tolerate low levels of disturbance and would not abandon the habitat. However, this
increased their vulnerability to humans. The Swan Hills researchers recommended minimising road

density and road-use, and protection of seasonally preferred habitat. Approximately 60% of core areas
having seasonally superior habitat should be at least 0.5 km from the nearest road.
A long-term study in Norway (Elgmork 1978) established some measure of the relationship between
logging, road density, and numbers of European brown bears (same species as the grizzly bear).
Observations of bears were done from 1949 to 1973. The study found abundance of bears was
constant over a 25-year period when the density of logging roads was below 0.35 km/km2, but
significant declines were observed when road densities increased above this to 0.7 km/km2. There
was a moratorium on bear hunting during the Elgmork study so hunting was ruled out as a factor in
the population decline. Because the logged area also received year-round vehicle traffic, tourist traffic
and activity, as well as increased seasonal and permanent housing, the exact causes of the decline
were not able to be determined. The study suggested the road density threshold was likely around
0.35 km/km2 or slightly more. For North American grizzly bears, the acceptable threshold is
considered as low as 0.16 km/km2 for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Craighead et al. 1995),
and 0.34 - 0.40 km/km2 for Montana (Mace et al. 1996). For a conservation area design (CAD) for the
BC central coast, Jeo et al. (1999) eliminated valleys with logging road densities >0.35 km/km2 from
consideration as core grizzly bear habitat areas. The BC Wildlife Branch (MFLNRO. 2012) considers
that roads are known to have a negative effect on grizzly bear habitat use when the road density
reaches 0.6 km/km2; this effect gets stronger when road density increases over ~1 km/km2.
Instead of using total road density, some studies use measures of “open” road density versus “closed”
(i.e., gated or decommissioned) density. However, research lends support for considering total road
density (rather than just open road densities) as the more important figure in determining impacts on
grizzly bear habitat since bears have been shown to avoid roads even after closure.
For the Phillips, we ended up using the following total road density categories for impact assessment:
0, 0.01-0.35 km/km2 (LOW), 0.35-0.60 km/km2 (MODERATE), 0.60-6.0 km/km2 (HIGH-VERY
HIGH).
Total road density for Knight-Bute Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU)
According to the Ministry of Environment, some 17% of the GBPU had a road density >0.6 km of
roads/km2 threshold in 2003 (MFLNRO 2012). One could easily say that about 17% of the grizzly
bears in this population unit would be affected by high road densities, but this does not take into
account the disproportionately high use by coastal grizzly bears of core feeding habitats in the valley
bottoms when compared to higher elevation quality habitats (they rarely use the mountain hemlock
subzone except for winter denning and travel between watersheds). Therefore, the impact of this high
road density in this GBPU would be magnified many times over than just its areal extent because
most of the roads are located in the best habitats in the valley bottom and lower mountain slopes.
Overall total road density for the Phillips Grizzly Bear Study Area, lineal method
I worked with GIS analyst Baden Cross through different map iterations for the Phillips to develop
several measures of road density that we felt would better reflect the impacts of roads on grizzly bear
habitats and their use. We worked from a regional scale to the scale of core area grizzly bear potential
feeding habitats that would receive the most concentrated bear use in the Phillips watershed. The
lineal method of calculating road density was used. The areal or “moving windows” method was
applied to other map analyses, such as habitat. Using the area of the Phillips study area of 509 km2
and 306 km of logging roads gave an estimated road density of 0.6 km/km2. This can be considered
an “average” for the whole study area, which, by one measure, is at the Wildlife Branch’s “accepted”

threshold of 0.6 km/km2 for suitable grizzly bear habitat, but well above road density thresholds used
by others. However, even this estimate is misleading in terms of the impacts of roads on grizzly bears
since they do not use the higher elevation areas very much, other than for denning, and concentrate
their use in the valley bottoms where road densities are proportionately very high.
Total road density analysis of Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats and WHAs
Map 27 was developed overlaying the roads/spur roads with Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat
polygons, Wildlife Habitat Area (WHAs), and the Phillips Estuary Conservancy, keeping in mind that
under the South Coast Order, Class 2 has no protection. As well, the larger WHA (496 ha) overlaps
with the Phillips Estuary Conservancy.
In order to test the disturbance levels from roads/spur roads in the Phillips to grizzly bears that might
use Class 1 and Class 2 habitats, the Phillips Estuary Conservancy, and the WHAs, we first did a GIS
overlay analysis (Map 28) showing the full range of total road density categories. This turned out to
be a busy map, but showed that the highest total road densities overlapped with the most important
grizzly habitats and highest use areas in the valley bottoms and lower slope areas.
A second GIS map (Map 29) was then done that lumped all of the higher categories from 0.60-6.0
km/km2 so that we had the following categories for total road density: LOW, MODERATE, and
HIGH-VERY HIGH total road density. Map 30 better portrayed the high overlap (purple) of higher
disturbance total road densities with the higher value grizzly bear polygons (Class 1 and Class 2), the
conservancy, and WHAs in the valley bottom and lower mountain slope areas. As discussed
previously, and based on the Khutzeymateen grizzly bear habitat study (MacHutchon et al.1993), the
remaining Class 1 and Class 2 habitats in the nil or lower road density areas (light green) outside the
higher road density area (purple) are at higher elevations and would (based on Khutzeymateen
telemetry studies) receive very little grizzly bear use; i.e., the best habitats are also the most disturbed
by the influence of a higher density of logging roads.
Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly habitats, the two WHAs and the conservancy were then analysed for
proportion of each in the different road disturbance categories for Maps 28 and 29 (see tables 1 and
2). For Map 29, of the highest quality grizzly bear habitats, 69% of Class 1 and 60% of Class 2 were
found to be in the high-very high road density disturbance regime, as was 100% of the two WHAs
and 100% of the conservancy.

Map 27. Shows the Phillips road/spur road network in relation to EBM grizzly bear habitat polygons, Phillips Estuary
Conservancy and WHAs.

Map 28. Shows all road density categories in relation to EBM grizzly bear habitat polygons, Phillips Estuary Conservancy and
WHAs.

Map 29. Linear disturbance map using lumped higher road density categories. The highest road density disturbance regime
(purple) for grizzly bears of 0.6-6.0 km/km2 includes 69% of EBM Class 1 and 60% of Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons and
100% of the two wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) and 100% of the conservancy. The Ministry threshold for disturbance for grizzly
bears is at 0.6 km or road per square kilometre of habitat.

Table 1
Map 28
Class 1(ha) Class 2 (ha)
Road Density (km/km2) Gb habitat % total area Gb habitat % total area WHAs % total area
0 798 21% 236 31% 0 0%
0.01 - 0.35 242 6% 38 5% 0 0%
0.35 - 0.60 160 4% 37 5% 0 0%
0.60 - 2.0 1,455 38% 182 24% 263 39
2.0 - 4.0 1,018 27% 249 32% 341 50
4.0 - 6.0 168 4% 30 4% 72 11
TOTAL 3,841 100% 772 100% 676 100%
Map 28
Road Density Phillips
(km/km2) Conservancy % total area
0 - 0.6 0 0
0.6 - 2.0 912 62
2.0 - 4.0 508 35
4.0 - 6.0 41 3
TOTAL 1461 100
Table 2
Map 29
Class 1(ha) Class 2 (ha)
Road Density (km/km2) Gb habitat % total area Gb habitat % total area WHAs % total area
0 798 21% 236 30% 0 0%
0.01 - 0.35 242 6% 38 5% 0 0%
0.35 - 0.60 160 4% 37 5% 0 0%
0.60 - 6.0 2,641 69% 461 60% 676 100%
TOTAL 3,841 100% 771 100% 676 100%
Map 29
Road Density Phillips
(km/km2) Conservancy % total area
0 0 0
0.01 - 0.35 0 0
0.35 - 0.60 0 0
0.60 - 6.0 1461 100
TOTAL 1461 100
4.9.6.9 Road disturbance: Zone of Influence (ZOI) analysis for the Phillips
Background and results
Besides causing direct loss of habitat, roads create a ZOI or extended footprint that bears respond to
behaviourally. This leads to displacement of grizzly bear use, even of high quality habitats. Roads can
reduce the use of quality habitats within 1.6 km (Suring et al. 1998). In another case, a grizzly bear in
Alaska restricted use to just 22% of its home range because of a road (Dau 1989). Grizzly bears used

habitat within 500 m of roads in Yellowstone National Park in spring and summer less than expected
(= avoidance) when expected use was based on habitat productivity. In fall, bear use was less than
expected within 3 km of roads (Mattson et al. 1987). In the relatively more open and less forested
habitats of the east slopes of the Rocky Mountains, grizzly bears avoided a zone within 500 m and
300 m of open roads in two related study areas (Aune and Stivers 1985, Aune 1994). In western
Montana, grizzly bears avoided a zone within 914 m of roads, using it only 20% as often as expected
based on availability of habitat. The effect of roads held true in spring and fall and for both sexes.
Bears continued to show strong avoidance of habitat near roads closed to traffic. Use was 58% less
than expected had there been no road. Grizzly bears were located an average of 1122 m from an open
road. Before the road was open to traffic, bears still remained an average of 655 m away (Kasworm
and Manley 1990).
Starting in 1982, the BC Ministry of Environment conducted a five-year study on the effects of
logging on grizzly bears in the Kimsquit Valley on the BC central coast. Results have been published
in several journals, annual progress reports, and final reports. Archibald et al. (1987) studied the
effects of logging truck traffic on two radio-collared grizzly female bears when first-pass logging was
just beginning. A zone of hauling activity (zha) in the Kimsquit River study area was mapped using
the sound levels (dB[C]) recorded at 25-m intervals along 200-m transects perpendicular to the road.
The logging road bisected the home ranges of two adult female grizzly bears that were intensively
monitored by radio-telemetry. The researchers obtained two years of pre-logging information and two
years of data during logging activity on how these bears used the zha. The researchers found that
during periods of log hauling (trucks passing at 15-35 minute intervals), an average of 7% of each
bear’s seasonal home range was avoided. The bears also crossed the road infrequently, and did not
fish for spawning salmon near the road. However, the researchers did note that habitats near the road,
which were avoided during daylight log hauling, were used at night during the period of active
logging, and by day during fire closures. Apparently this avoidance decreased in subsequent years.
The authors concluded the following:
Clearly, these grizzly bears preferred to be outside the zha during hauling, but the importance of
the alienated area is indicated because grizzly bears used this zone in the absence of logging
truck traffic (Table 2). In areas where grizzly bears have large seasonal home ranges, their
exclusion from a band of habitat surrounding some human activity may not cause a problem.
However, in areas such as the coast, where grizzly bears have small home ranges, or in areas
where area-concentrated food sources of limited distribution are within the activity zone, this
exclusion could limit access to important food sources. If there is a survival cost associated with
avoiding this zone, grizzly bears will probably move into it and become habituated to the
disturbance.
The following review by (Horejsi et al. (1998) provides a good summary involving road density:
Roads are the most prominent form of human intrusion into grizzly habitat….Roads disrupt bear
behaviour and social dynamics, reduce the availability and use of adjacent foraging and security
habitats, create barriers to movement, and lead to disproportionate mortality amongst bears that
enter the zone-of-influence associated with each road. This zone of influence can vary from 100 m
to 4,000 m.
We first modeled main logging and spur roads for the study area using a 0.5 km ZOI, but this
appeared excessive for smaller spur roads. We then went to a more conservative ZOI average of 0.3
km (Map 30) since we could not separate main gravel roads from the smaller spur roads. Since the

logging/spur road network is so extensive in the Phillips, some 12,921 ha or 25% of the study area
would be influenced by road disturbance, more during active hauling than non-active hauling.
However, since some studies show that some bears avoid roads even with no traffic, we had no way
of measuring ZOI disturbance during active logging and non-logging. Some 1,773 ha or 46% of 3,833
ha of protected Class 1 grizzly bear habitat polygons would be compromised by the 0.3 km road ZOI.
Some 305 ha or 40% of 772 ha of unprotected Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons would be
compromised by the 0.3 km road ZOI. What also has to be kept in mind is that an undetermined
portion of these higher quality habitats have either been logged or their forested buffers are logged
old-forest forests whose habitat values are severely compromised when they reach the closed canopy
state.
For the protected Phillips Conservancy (1459 ha), which is bordered on each side by a main logging
road, some 790 ha or 54% is within the 0.3 km ZOI. For the protected WHAs (668 ha) some 63%
(418 ha) is within the 0.3 km ZOI. It is to be noted that the larger WHA fully overlaps with the
Phillips Estuary Conservancy.
4.9.7 Habitat Effectiveness and Grizzly Bear Security Areas
4.9.7.1 Background and results
Grizzly bears need habitat security, especially mothers with young. Habitat effectiveness refers to
bear behavioural changes in response to human developments. As these occur in a landscape, access
by bears to nutrient-rich food sources may become impaired or even blocked. Even though productive
bear foods may still be available, bears may stop using them because of their sensitivity to
disturbance or risk of being killed. This unwillingness of some (the more wary) bears to use habitats
that have become isolated or fragmented by roads, trails or other developments is termed loss of
habitat effectiveness.
Such losses of habitat value due to human developments can affect grizzly bear numbers, For
example, after studying the ecology of brown bears on Chichagof and Admiralty islands from 1981 to
1993, Alaska state biologists determined that although there were some differences between the two
island study areas in habitat and food resources, these differences were not sufficient to explain why
estimated bear density on Chichagof was 31% lower than on Admiralty. The difference was attributed
to increased access, logging, and habitat change associated with established communities, recent
road-building, and logging (Titus and Beier 1993).
One way to determine impacts of logging is to measure how it impacts the percentage of “secure”
habitat that is available after subtracting habitat that is lost or alienated as a result of human
influences, such as that left over after a zone of influence (ZOI) analysis. Secure habitat is defined by
some as being more than 500 m from an open motorised access route or a trail that sees high levels of
non-motorised human use (greater than 20 parties/week) (Schwartz et al. 2006). Small-scale secure
habitat (as different from large protected areas) should also be a minimum of 10 km2 (1,000 ha)
(Gibeau et al. 2002), although Mattson (1991, 1993) suggested a minimum of 28 km2. Horejsi and
Gilbert (2006) considered that any secure habitat between 10-40 km2 would be beneficial. To be
useful, small habitat security areas must be readily accessible to grizzly bears. Mattson (1991, 1993)
proposed that security areas be no more than two days foraging range apart. A daily foraging radius
for adult female bears of 4-5 km at the upper end would require security areas to be within that
distance of each other. These characteristics provide for undisturbed habitat use and reduce the
likelihood that bears will encounter, and therefore be killed, by people.

Map 30. Shows a conservative 0.3 km road zone of influence (ZOI) in relation to EBM grizzly bear habitat polygons, Phillips
Estuary Conservancy and WHAs and old forests (dark green).

To some managers, secure habitats do not contain open motorised access routes, although they can
include roads and non-motorised trails that have been decommissioned, obliterated, or made
impassable by permanent barriers (but not gates) (Mace et al. 2012). The amount of secure habitat
required to protect grizzly bears ranges from 55% to 68% of a given management or recovery area
(Mace and Waller 1997). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest uses a 70% minimum security area
level to provide for the safety of bears (Wakkinen and Kasworm. 2004). Using two separate analyses
for the BC north coast, Horejsi and Gilbert (2006) reached the conclusion that protection of about
50% of suitable grizzly habitat is a necessary minimum to achieve a reasonable prospect of
maintaining population viability.
Since I did not have any traffic volume data for the Phillips, and some studies show that even without
traffic some grizzly bears will still avoid roaded habitats, I used security areas for my analysis
irrespective of road traffic use. Many of the upper reaches of the Phillips have been blocked to road
access by landslides and washouts since about 2008.
For the Phillips study area, we determined that of the total area (3,834 ha) of EBM Class 1 protected
grizzly bear habitat polygons, 2,062 ha was outside the 0.3 km ZOI. Of this, the maximum patch was
141 ha. Of the 772 ha of EBM Class 2 unprotected, 468 ha was outside the 0.3 km ZOI with a
maximum patch size of 40 ha. In other words, for the watershed, there was no high quality EBM
habitat of sufficient size outside of the logging road/spur road ZOI to qualify as secure grizzly habitat
where the minimum size is 1,000 ha.
As shown on Map 31, within the tidewater to 100 m ASL grizzly bear core area in the Phillips (3,140
ha), there are small patches of quality habitat outside of the 0.3 km ZOI that, linked together, might
make one secure habitat area.
The largest intact natural areas in the Phillips where unlogged secure areas of sufficient size for
grizzly bears away from the 0.3 km road ZOI are the higher elevation old forests. However, these are
mostly in the MH zone with little or no foraging value to grizzly bears other than for denning. The
Khutzeymateen benchmark study (MacHutchon et al. 1993) found grizzly bears hardly used the MH
zone during the active bear seasons.

Map 31. Shows small patches of secure grizzly habitat (light green )outside of the 0.3 km road ZOI, but the habitats along the
head of the inlet and in the lower Phillips River are subjected to boat access disturbance including jet boats.

LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR SECTION ON LOGGING ROADS
Archibald, W.R., Ellis, R., and Hamilton, A.N. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck
traffic in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. International Conf. Bear Res. and
Manage. 7:251-257.
Bechtold, T., D. Havlick, and K. Stockmann. 1996. Analysis of Road Densities in Selected Grizzly
Bear Management Units in the Northern Rockies. ESRI International User Conference, 1996,
Palm Springs, CA. Available at:
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc96/TO450/PAP413/P413.htm
Accessed September 23, 2013.
Blood, D.A., and J.J. Materi. 1998. Grizzly bear-logging relationships in the Kimsquit River Valley in
1997. Report for Western Forest Products. 56 pp., plus photos.
Ciarniello, L.M., M.S. Boyce, D.C. Heard, and D.R. Seip. 2007. Components of grizzly bear habitat
selection: density, habitats, roads, and mortality risk. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1446-
1457.
Demarchi, M.W. 2001. Grizzly bears, impact significance, and the Greenville to Kincolith road
project in west-central British Columbia. John Muir Institute of the Environment, UC Davis.
Dau, C.P. 1989. Management and biology of brown bears at Cold Bay, Alaska. Pages 19-26 in M.
Bromley, ed. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies.
Northwest Territ. Dep. Renewable Resour., Yellowknife.
Elgmork, K. 1978. A remnant brown bear population in southern Norway and problems of its
conservation. International Conference Bear Res. and Manage. 3:281-297.
Gibeau, M.L., A.P. Clevenger, S. Herrero, and J. Wierzchowski. 2002. Grizzly bear response to
human development and activities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, Canada. Biological
Conservation 103: 227-236.
Gyug, L., A.N. Hamilton, and M. Austin. 2004. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). Accounts and Measures
for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004
Hamilton, A.N. 1984. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress report - 1982 - Year 1. BC Min. of
Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-1 and Wildlife Habitat Research Report No. WHR-9. 43
pp.
Hamilton, A.N., and W.R. Archibald. 1984. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress report - Year 2
- 1983. BC Min. of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-2 and Wildlife Habitat Research
Report No. WHR-10. 27 pp.
Hamilton, A.N., W.R. Archibald, and E. Lefroth. 1986. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress
report - Year 4 - 1985; Working plan - Year 5 - 1986. BC Min. of Environ., Wildl. Working Rep.
No. WR-22 and B.C. Min. For., Wildl. Hab. Res. Rep. No. WHR-26. 30 pp.
Hamilton, A.N., and F.L. Bunnell. 1992. Integrating coastal grizzly bears and forest management at
the regional, watershed, stand, and microsite levels.
Hamilton, A.N. 1996. Rationale for Intermediate biodiversity emphasis as minimum acceptable LU
options in NDT1 and NDT2 for maintaining grizzly habitat. BC Min. of Envir., Lands and Parks.
Victoria, BC. 5 pp.

Horejsi, B. 1999. The endangered Granby-Gladstone grizzly bear population. A conservation biology
analysis for recovery. Western Wildlife Environments Consulting Ltd. 86 pp.
Horejsi, B. 2002. Losing Ground. The decline of fish and wildlife law enforcement capability in BC
and Alaska. Report to Raincoast Conservation Society. Victoria, BC. 45 pp.
Horejsi, B. L., and B.K. Gilbert. 2006. Conservation of Grizzly Bear populations and habitat in the
northern Great Bear Rainforest. Biodiversity Vol. 7(2).
Horn, H., and C. Rumsey. 2009. Part 2: Methods for Strategic Co-Location of Habitats within Areas
of Old Growth Retention. Report 2 of the EBM Working Group Focal Species Project. Integrated
Land Management Bureau, Nanaimo, BC. Available at:
http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/plan/project_results.html
Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. McLeod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2009.
Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife
Management 73:3-16.
Mace, R.D., and J.S. Waller. 1997. Grizzly Bear Ecology in the Swan Mountains. Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 191 pp.
Mace, R.D., D.W. Carney, T. Chilton-Radandt, S.A. Courville, M.A. Haroldson, R.B. Harris, J.
Jonkel, B. McLellan, M. Mandel, T.L. Manley, C.C. Schwartz, C. Servheen, G. Stenhouse, J.S.
Waller, and E. Wenum. 2012. Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:119-128. Available
at: http://www.cfc.umt.edu/grizzlybearrecovery/pdfs/Mace%20et%20al.%202012.pdf. Accessed
January 23, 2013.
October 2007. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria and Black Creek, BC. 35 pp.
Environment, Black Creek & BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Nanaimo, BC. 32 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2008. North Coast, BC grizzly bear habitat mapping. BC Ministry of
Victoria, BC. Ministry of Forests and Range, Nanaimo, BC. 29 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G., and T. Manning. 2010. Coastal Grizzly Bear Habitat Master Ecological to Land
Use Order Maps. Prepared for: Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). December 20,
2010.
Mattson, D.J. 1991. Micro-scale security areas for Yellowstone grizzly bears. Interagency Grizzly
Bear Study Team, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT. 2 p.

Mattson, D.J. 1993. Background and proposed standards for managing grizzly bear habitat security in
the Yellowstone ecosystem. National Biol. Survey, College of Forestry, Wildl. and Range Sci.,
Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID. pp. 17.
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO). 2012. British Columbia
Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. Available at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-
bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status. Accessed February 8, 2014.
Nanwakolas Council, Coastal First Nations and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Rainforest). Available at:
http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/index.html. Accessed January
13, 2014.
Proctor, M., D. Paetkau, B.N. McLellan, G.B. Stenhouse, K.C. Kendall, R.D. Mace, W.F. Kasworm,
C. Servheen, C.L. Lausen, M.I. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, M.A. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C.D. Apps,
L.M. Ciarniello, R.M. Barclay, M.S. Boyce, C.C. Schwartz, and C. Strobeck. 2012. Population
fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in Western Canada and the
Northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180:1–46. Available
at:http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/publications/2012_Grizzly_population_fragmentation.
pdf.
Version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria. 97
pp.
Schoen, J.W., L.R. Beier, J.W. Lentfer, and A.J. Johnson. 1987. Denning ecology of brown bears on
Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. International Conference on Bear Research and Management
7:293-304.
Proj. W-22-6. 27 pp.
Schwartz C.C., M.A. Haroldson, G.C. White, R.B. Harris, and S. Cherry S. 2006. Temporal, spatial,
and environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs. 161: 1–68.
Summerfield, B., W. Johnson, and D. Roberts. 2004. Trends in road development and access
management in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Ursus 15: 115-122.
Available at:
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_15_1/Summerfield_John
son_15_1_.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2014.
Suring, L.H., Barber, K.R., Schwartz, C.C., Bailey, T.N., Shuster, W.C., and M.D. Tetreau. 1998.
Analysis of cumulative effects on brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, south-central Alaska.
Ursus 10:1-7-117.

Switalski, T.A., L. Broberg, and A. Holden. 2007. Wildlife Use of Open and Decommissioned Roads
on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. The 2007 International Conference on Ecology &
Transportation; Poster Sessions: 627-632. Available at:
http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2007/proceedings/Posters.pdf Accessed 8 February 2014.
Titus, K., and L.R. Beier. 1999. Suitability of stream buffers and riparian habitats for brown bears.
Ursus 11:149-156.
US Forest Service. 2011. Forest plan amendments for motorised access management with the Selkirk
and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones. US Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,
Coeur d’Alene, ID. Available at:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/ww
w/nepa/48536_FSPLT2_063604.pdf. Accessed 6 January 2014.
Wakkinen, W.L., and W.F. Kasworm. 2004. Demographics and Population Trends of Grizzly Bears
in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and
Washington. Ursus 15(1):65-75.
Wielgus, R.B., P.R. Vernier, and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. Grizzly bear use of open, closed, and
restricted forestry roads. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1597-1606
Wilderness Society. 1986. America’s vanishing rainforest. A report on Federal timber management in
southeast Alaska. 215 pp.
4.9.8 Effects of Industrial-Scale Clearcutting on Grizzly Bear-Salmon Habitats

in the Phillips
• According to a north coast environmental risk assessment for grizzly bears by Hamilton and Horn
(2003): There is no research indicating an actual threshold amount of mid-seral forest that will
provide adequate landscape level forage supply for bears. The 30% threshold for amount of mid-
seral was derived from the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook and is the average %
for mid-seral that would remain if targets for mature and old and early were applied to the CWH
in NDTs 1 and 2 (MoF and MELP 1995b). Mid-seral forests were not extensive historically
because natural stand-replacing events were rare (Dorner and Wong 2003).
• The additional limitation is that some studies show coastal grizzly bears may avoid young/early-
seral clearcuts. For example, on Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska Schoen et al. (1987) found
that grizzly bears avoided abundant clearcut habitats that were 5 to 25 years old. Schoen et al.
(1994) actually rated the habitat capability of second growth as “0” and clearcuts as “0.1” on a
scale of “0” to “1.0”.
• There has been no detailed research in extensively logged south coast grizzly-salmon watersheds
to determine how much grizzly bears use or don’t use early-seral and closed canopy mid-seral or
to quantify for a variety of sites the changes in the composition and density of bear plant foods in
cutblocks from old forest conditions.
• As has already been noted, it is estimated that about one half of the old forests of the BC south
coast have already been logged. Yet there has never been an environmental impact assessment or
cumulative effects review done as to how the various vegetative changes incurred by industrial-
scale logging impact grizzly bear and other wildlife populations.

• Mapping of logged and old forest areas was constrained by the unavailability of up-dated
government Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) data. We used older In File VRI-forest cover
and Basic Thematic Mapping (BTM) databases that had been used for earlier projects. Without
them this main analysis would not have been possible.
• Mapping errors and inconsistencies between the two GIS databases and other map information
that were used meant that the final products were only crude approximations of what would be on
the ground such as the amount of cutover lands. The results however were considered adequate
for the purposes intended.
• While I refer to most of the logging impacts coming from WFP’s activities this is accurate but
some old forest removal and other impacts occurred before WFP acquired TFL 39. In most
instances I don’t draw the distinction.
4.9.8.2 Summary
Approximately 52 % of the original old forest in the study area has been converted to younger age
classes by logging activities (mostly by WFP and predecessors), most of it being in the valley bottom
and lower mountain slope areas wherein lie the best grizzly bear and salmon habitats. The old forest
(141 years+) once comprised approximately 18,518 ha or 36 % of the Phillips study area. Logging
has reduced this by about 9,567 ha, leaving about 8,951 ha of old forest. Only 1,020 ha of old forest is
left in small, often discontinuous patches in the valley bottom and lower mountain slopes between
tidewater and 360 m elevation. Due to fragmentation the functionality of the surviving patches of old
forest for grizzly bears and biodiversity values is open to question. Most surviving old forest is at
higher elevations with limited value to grizzly bears except for winter denning.
A large area (5,726 ha) of once productive old forest important to grizzly bear life requisites has now
been converted to closed canopy (mid-seral to mature forest) of little value to grizzly bears. This
comprises 60% of the total logged area (9,567 ha) or 31% of what was once old forest, while some
4,099 ha or 40% of the total logged area is young/early-seral habitat of some but questionable value
to grizzly bears. This represents some 22% of what was once old forest. More relevant, most of the
closed canopy forest of little or no value to grizzly bears is at lower elevations where grizzly bear
habitat use and salmon values would still be the highest in the watershed and where previous old
forest was of the highest importance to grizzly bears.
4.9.8.3 Background and analysis
Prior to European contact, the majority of temperate rainforests that cloaked the BC coast, including
the Phillips watershed, would have been a mosaic of different species of old coniferous trees mixed
with some younger aged trees and forest openings caused by wildfires (very rare apparently), natural
landslides, avalanches, blow-downs, insects and disease, and natural stream/river channel changes.
Unlike the forests of interior and northern BC, these old-growth forests were/are rarely touched by
wildfires; although during field surveys I noted several small areas in the Phillips that appeared to
have been recently burned over.
For thousands of years, coastal grizzly bears thrived in these old forest ecosystems on a combined
high biomass of abundant and diverse plant and animal species that flourish in temperate rainforests
and an abundance of fish, primarily salmon. The extensive marine foreshore adds to the biological
richness of the coastal diet of bears through estuarine habitats and an abundance of marine
invertebrate foods such as barnacles and mussels in the intertidal zone.

With the advent of commercial logging and commercial salmon fishing and canneries on the BC
south coast in the late 1800s, one of the most significant alterations, still on-going today, with respect
to coastal grizzly bear habitat is the plant succession of clearcuts of once old forests to closed-canopy
plantation forests. The other significant well-studied alterations have been the impacts to salmonid
migration and spawning habitats from logging activities, the impacts to wild salmon numbers from
commercial over-fishing, as well as today, the much-debated impacts on wild salmon stocks from
artificial fish farms.
Today it is estimated that over half of the old-growth temperate rainforests have been logged as
shown on the following map (Map 32) reproduced by the Sierra Club of BC in 2009.
Map 32. Yellow shows amount of logged coastal forests while dark Green show remaining old forest.
About half overall has been logged. Map courtesy of Sierra Club of BC.

Analysis of logged forest (young/early-seral, closed canopy (mid-seral to mature) versus old forest
habitat in the Phillips
For this section, we developed two GIS maps, old forest versus total area logged and young/early-
seral and closed-canopy (mid-seral to mature) versus old forest.
There are varying definitions of “seral”, “old forest”, and “old-growth” forest. In British Columbia’s
coastal rainforests, old-growth is defined as trees more than 250 years of age (BC Ministry of Forests.
2003). The 2009 South Central Coastal Order defines “old forest” as a stand of trees 250 years or
older (BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands. 2009). For purposes of my discussion as it relates to
grizzly bear habitat values, unless the forests being discussed in the Phillips study area are clearly
defined as old-growth, most of the time I refer to old forest as trees older than 141 years based on the
Biodiversity Guidebook for the Forest Practices Code (Parminter 1995). Thus old forests include old-
growth forests. Further on in my report, I define my adaptation of the standard definitions of
“young/early-seral” and “closed-canopy (mid-seral to mature)” forests as they relate to changes in
grizzly bear habitat values over time.
My field surveys and review of maps and Google Maps showed that most of the valley bottom areas
and lower hillslopes of the Phillips study area have been altered by clearcut logging dating back to the
turn of the previous century when there apparently was a sawmill at the outlet of Phillips Lake. Some
of these were found to be Age Class 6 or 7 and although they obviously preceded WFP logging, we
included them in the discussion.
I also found on a recent Google Map some 6-7 cutblocks that appeared of more recent vintage since
2007 that were in second growth forest on the west side of the lower Phillips Valley between the lake
and the estuary. As these cutblocks were all in previously logged second growth forest I did not
bother including them as they were already included in our logged map sub-layer. This caused a small
error in the total area of closed canopy forest that I did not consider important in the broader scheme
of things. There are also some minor errors where some avalanche chutes and other natural brushed-
in areas were misinterpreted as logged areas but I don’t believe this error is of concern.
Since the updated provincial Vegetation Resource Information (VRI) GIS database was not available
during the project timeframe, I worked with GIS analyst Baden Cross to develop a composite logged
area–old forest map from a variety of sources. The final product (Map 33) was considered a
reasonably accurate approximation of logged areas and old forest in the Phillips study area.

Map 33. Logged area versus old forest map showing the different data layers that were used to determine the extent of logging
in the Phillips. These different GIS data sources were used because the government’s up-dated Vegetation Resource Inventory
(VRI) database was not available.

Amount of logged versus old forest area in the Phillips study area
The composite map of logged-old forest (Map 34) was then consolidated into a total logged-old forest
map. Again I emphasize that our GIS measurement results are reasonable approximations only.
Using Map 34, we determined that the Phillips has a total logged area of 9,567 ha and a remaining old
forest (141 years+) area of 8,951 ha. In other words, if one considers that most if not all of the logged
areas were original coastal old forest, the total area of old forest was once some 18,518 ha covering
some 36 % of the Phillips grizzly bear study area (50,900 ha). The data thus shows that approximately
52 % of original old forest in the study area has been converted to younger age classes by logging
activities, most of this being in the valley bottom and lower mountain slope areas wherein lie the
highest value grizzly bear and salmon habitats.
The 360 elevation contour was used as the theoretical upper limit of lower mountain slope grizzly
habitat to determine the amount of old forest remaining between tidewater and lower mountain
slopes. Only 1,020 ha remains today. Even a fair proportion of the old forests in the new Phillips
Estuary Conservancy were clearcut in the past, including some of the remnant giant Sitka spruces
stands in the wetlands between Phillips Lake and the Clearwater. What old forests remains is
fragmented and discontinuous and its functionality for grizzly bears and other species is questionable.
Determination of areal extent of logging-related young/early-seral, closed canopy (mid-
seral/mature plantation forest in the Phillips study area related to grizzly bear habitat values
Background studies of effects of logging on vegetative changes to coastal grizzly bear habitats
Coastal grizzly bears are not old growth dependent per se for foraging but all evidence indicates they
are for winter denning habitat structures. Old forests on the coast are also important to grizzly bears in
many other ways. Since old forests typically have small openings created by trees blowing down or
dying many of them have small openings that support shrub understoreys that provide a variety of
berry-producing shrubs (12 species in all) and, in wet areas, skunk cabbage and sedge meadows – all
providing important seasonal foods for grizzly bears. Old forests also provide shelter during severe
storms or warm weather, bedding areas, mark trees, travel routes, and winter denning sites for bears
as well as help stabilize salmon-bearing streams and maintain suitable water quality for fish during
extreme rainfall and run off events. Although grizzly bears can live where there are no forests such as
the Arctic tundra it might be said that in coastal temperate rainforests grizzly bears are at least
partially dependent on old forest habitats for their health and well-being during the spring to fall
active season and fully dependent on old forest habitats for winter denning.
One of the most significant impacts of conventional logging on coastal grizzly bear habitat is the
effects of plant food availability through the vegetation changes incurred by the conversion of old
forests (good grizzly habitat) to early/young seral clearcuts (fair to good grizzly habitat) and then the
succession of clearcuts to closed canopy plantation forests (very poor grizzly habitat).

Map 34. Approximately 52% of the original old forest in the Phillips has been logged and roaded (red). Only small patches of old
forest (light green) survive at low elevations. Most surviving old forest is at higher elevations with limited value to grizzly bears
except for winter denning.

Usually, the progression from clearcut to closed-canopy forest occurs within 20-30 years of logging
for coastal rainforests (Hamilton and Bunnell 1992, Schoen et al. 1988). In a landmark study of
successional changes of coastal Sitka spruce and hemlock forests for the first 300 years after logging
in southeast Alaska, Alaback (1982) found that understorey biomass peaked at 15-20 years after
logging and that shrubs and herbs were virtually eliminated after forest canopies closed at stand ages
25-35 years. During the initial early/young seral stage of clearcuts, many bear foods respond to the
increased light from forest removal by increased growth and berry production. This has some benefit
to grizzly bears, although MacHutchon et al. (1993) question claims whether logging of old forests
actually increases plant food production for grizzly bears. Some plants respond better to logging
while others do not. The authors pointed out that some berry-producing shrubs provide better berry
crops after logging, but other bear foods, such as skunk cabbage originally found in old forests prior
to logging, may not benefit. In a study of canopy cover of early-seral (35-year old) forest stands on
west Vancouver Island, Klinka et al. (2006) found that canopy cover had a strong influence on
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and salal (Gaultheria shallon), but a weak influence on herbs and
moss. Salmonberry grows on richer soil sites while salal grows on poorer sites; both dominate the
understorey shrub layer of late-seral (old forest or old-growth) west coast stands. Both are important
berry foods for grizzly bears where they occur.
Alaback (1982) found that understorey shrubs and herbs do not start coming back until 140-160 years
after logging and continue to increase as the forest evolves back to an old-growth state. He noted that
maintaining the most productive forests in the aggradation stages of development (0-100 yr) through
forest management will minimize the development of a productive vascular understorey and thus
deprive herbivores of forage during 70-80% of the forest rotation. The same can be said to apply to
coastal grizzly and black bears. Coastal bear biologists who have studied grizzly bear habitats on the
coast consider closed-canopy plantation forests “green deserts” for bears and other wildlife.
GIS analysis results
Map 35 shows the results for the Phillips study area. Young/early-seral comprised 4,099 ha, closed
canopy (mid-seral to mature) comprised 5,726 ha and remaining old forest comprised 8,951 ha.
The total logged area in both young/early-seral and closed canopy (mid-seral to mature) forest is
approximately 9,835 ha. Of the closed canopy category (5,726 ha), 5,591 ha resulted from logging
and 135 ha appeared to be from natural processes such as braided river channel changes in mid
valley. Thus the approximate total area of logged forest in the Phillips study derived from this map
area amounted to an estimated 9,700 ha. This was similar to our estimate of total logged area of 9,567
ha from Map 34. This acceptable range of variation of 1.4 % in our total logged area calculations can
be explained by GIS anomalies. For purposes of discussion we used only the total logged area number
of 9,567 ha.
Most of the closed canopy forest of little value to grizzly bears is in the lower valley where remaining
grizzly bear habitat and salmon values are the highest. Of the total logged area, some 60% is in the
closed canopy state. This represents some 11.3% of the total area of the Phillips grizzly bear study
area.
The map data can also be interpreted to mean that most of the future logging by WFP will be in the
closed canopy areas as they mature to a size suitable for commercial value.

Map 35. Approximately 52% of the original old forest in the Phillips has been logged and roaded (red). Only small patches of old
forest (light green) survive at low elevations. Most surviving old forest (green) is at higher elevations with limited value to
grizzly bears except for winter denning. Of the total logged area, some 60% is in the closed canopy state of little value to grizzly
bears, mostly in the lower valley. This represents some 11.3% of the total area of the Phillips grizzly bear study area.

4.9.9 McCrory wildlife services 2007-2013 field observations & photo-documentation
of debris torrents/landslides in the Phillips as a factor in salmon habitat
degradation
• While detailed analysis of the effects of clearcut logging and roading on hydrology, slope
stability, frequency and extent of debris/torrents, and other physical variables of BC coastal
watersheds is best left to those with the necessary professional expertise, the degree and extent of
unnatural-appearing debris torrents and landslides observed in the Phillips during our field work
was of sufficient concern that we made a concerted effort to document them, particularly where
they were observed to damage grizzly bear habitat or salmon spawning areas.
• Some of the mass wasting we observed may have been natural, but some definitely appeared to
be logging-caused; the final say should be left up to professionals in that discipline.
4.9.9.2 Summary
Mass-wasting during extreme rainfall events, primarily in fall, appeared to be a common occurrence,
causing heavy silting in the Phillips River and Clearwater Creek during salmon-spawning season. We
documented two sites where mass wasting damaged salmon-spawning habitat: a large landslide at km
22 on the Phillips River and a debris torrent at Wash Creek along DFO’s artificial spawning channel
for pinks. A large debris torrent at Shirley Creek also covered part of the estuary plant community
grizzly habitat with boulders and other debris and may have damaged a small spawning site for pink
salmon, but the former occurrence of this run was not confirmed. A number of debris torrents were
also observed to directly reach the Phillips River. While “start zones” for a number of these debris
torrents/landslides appeared to be in logged areas, including those heli-logged on very steep slopes in
fall 2007, the cause-and-effect relationship needs to be determined by experts in the field. I am highly
recommending that the Kwiakah First Nation study the matter further, especially as it relates to
salmon abundance and grizzly bear survival.
4.9.9.3 Observations and photo-documentation
During our October 8-15, 2007 field surveys in the Phillips, Western Forest Products was using
helicopter cranes to log old cedar trees at mid-elevations and drop them at landings in the lower-
middle valley. The logs were then hauled by large trucks from the landings to the log dump near Dyer
Point. During this period, there was one extreme rainfall event that precipitated several debris torrents
that blocked the main road. Where we could, we photo-documented these and made notes. In our final
report (McCrory and Williams 2007 ) we noted that:
Landslides/debris torrents appear to be a common occurrence; many of them appear to be the
result of logging on steep mountain slopes. During our study period, we observed heavy silt in
the Phillips River for two days, with considerable coarse woody debris, and we noted three new
debris torrents running into the river. Several of these appeared to be logging-related.
For example, in September 2007, I photographed a new heli-block (54501) adjacent to a large natural
landslide that appeared to have recently occurred in the lower Phillips valley (Figure 12). During a
later extreme rainfall event in September, a debris torrent in the same vicinity crossed the Phillips
Main road into the Phillips River. As near as I could ascertain, this landslide originated on the north
side of the heli-cutblock 54501 where the “start zone” is slightly visible (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Shows September 2007 WFP heli-block (pink) on same old forest hillside
adjacent to a recent natural landslide (yellow).
Figure 13. Shows where late September 2007 debris torrent

appears to have its “start zone” (yellow) in same new WFP heli-block
during an extreme rainfall event. Debris torrent entered the
Phillips River salmon area.
In June 2008, we observed at least three new debris torrents that had occurred since our fall surveys
the previous year. At least two of these appeared to have originated in 2007 helicopter blocks. One
such debris torrent blocked the road at km 19 on the Phillips Main (McCrory and Williams (2009).

Fisheries crews in the Phillips also documented extreme rainfall events and several landslides. In
2010, torrential rainfall in late September led to extensive flooding on September 25, with Phillips
Lake rising four metres in 24 hours (Gillard Pass Fisheries Association 2011). Similarly, Williams
and McCorquodale (2012) reported that an extreme precipitation event occurred on September 23,
2011, that resulted in several landslides blocking access to the Phillips cabin site as well as road
access above the lake. In June 2013, I observed a large section of the Clearwater Main road washed
out about km 5. I observed no evidence of WFP having put their roads to bed post-logging, such as by
doing cross-ditching and removing culverts.
Other mass wasting observations made during our field surveys included direct damage to salmon
spawning habitat as follows:
Km 22 landslide, Phillips River (Figure 14): Very large landslide at km 22 on the Phillips Main
that impacted a large area of chinook spawning habitat. The landslide apparently happened in
2006. In 2009, we observed only a few spawning chinook here where there apparently used to be
higher numbers.
Figure 14. September 2009 grizzly bear-salmon surveys of the Km 22 area of

the Phillips River. A large amount of soil and debris from a major 2006 landslide
that appears logging-related if likely the cause of the low numbers of chinook
salmon observed in 4 km of river below the landslide area.
Large debris torrent from Wash Creek (Figure 15): This was photographed during a 2009 count
of pink salmon and grizzly bears along the 4 km DFO artificial pink salmon enhancement channel
in the lower Phillips area. According to DFO representative Barry Peters (2007 pers. comm.), the
debris torrent came down about 4-5 years previously; he indicated it might have been logging-
related. He said DFO has not had the funding to get a machine in to clean up the rocks and
boulders from the debris torrent that have covered a section of the spawning channel. The
disintegration of spawning habitat by the debris torrent and lack of management of water flow at
the entrance weir at the Phillips River appear to have resulted in very limited use by spawning
pink salmon observed in September 2009 even though it was a “low” year under natural
conditions.

Figure 15. September 2009 grizzly bear-salmon surveys of the DFO artificial pink spawning
channel in the lower Phillips valley. A large amount of mass movement from a large debris
torrent in Wash Creek covered part of the pink spawning habitat and has likely impacted
productivity along with a lack of maintenance by DFO. Wash Creek has been heavily clearcut.
Shirley Creek debris torrent onto Phillips estuary (Figure 16): A large debris torrent in Shirley
Creek of unknown vintage damaged estuary habitat and may have eliminated a small spawning
area for pink salmon. No fish were observed in the creek in September 2009. Previous presence
of the run was not confirmed.
Figure 16. Red outline shows debris torrent from Shirley Creek that covered a portion
of estuarine grizzly bear habitat and may have eliminated a small run of pink salmon.
The relationship between the debris torrent and extensive logging of Shirley Creek
appears more than coincidental since there was no evidence of earlier pre-logging
similar mass wasting events on the Phillips estuary.

Although I made general inquiries, including with a DFO biologist in 2007, there appeared to be
limited oversight, documentation, and monitoring of debris torrents/landslides as they were affecting
salmon and grizzly bear habitats. Not only are the debris torrents/landslides of concern to the integrity
of the ecosystem, but the apparent lack of monitoring and oversight is of added concern.
Our field observations of silted river conditions and new debris torrents during extreme fall rain
events and photo-documentation of degradation of bear and salmon habitats caused by such mass
wasting warrant further investigation by the Kwiakah First Nation as to the relationship of debris
torrents and landslides to WFP roading and logging in the Phillips.
LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR THE SECTIONS ON LOGGED-OLD

FOREST AREAS AND DEBRIS TORRENTS/LANDSLIDES.
BC Ministry of Forests. 2003. Old Growth Forests, British Columbia, Canada. Fact Sheet.
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/360393/old_growth.pdf. Accessed Feb. 9, 2014.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2011. BECdb:
Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Codes and Names, (Version 8, Feb 2012). [MSAccess
2003 format]. Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch, Victoria, BC.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/codes-standards/standards-becdb.html. Accessed
Feb. 1, 2014.
version.
Dorner, B., and C. Wong. 2003. Natural Disturbance Dynamics in Coastal British Columbia. Coast
Information Team. Victoria, BC
Hamilton, T., and H. Horn. 2003. Grizzly bears: benchmark scenario analysis. Environmental risk
assessment report, North Coast Land & Resource Management Planning, British Columbia. 76
pp.
Klinka, K., H. Chen, B. Wang, and L. de Montigny. 2006. Forest canopies and their influence on
understorey vegetation in early-seral stands on West Vancouver Island. Northwest Science 70(3):
193-200.
Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Forest Practices Code
Biodiversity Guidebook. Victoria, BC.
Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1999. Managing Identified
Wildlife: Procedures and Measures. Vol. 1. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC.
Operations. 2012. Ecosystem-based management on BC’s central and north coast (Great Bear
Rainforest). http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/
index.html. Accessed January 13, 2014.
Parminter, J. 1995. Biodiversity guidebook - Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. BC Min.
Forests and BC Environment, Victoria, BC, ix + 99 p.
(http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/pubs/pubs/0845.htm)
Swanson, M.E. 2012. Early-seral forest in the Pacific Northwest. A literature review and synthesis of
current science. Central Cascades Adaptive Management Partnership. McKenzie Bridge, Oregon.

4.10 SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF NO-LOG RESERVES FOR GRIZZLY BEARS
AND SALMON IN THE PHILLIPS STUDY AREA, INCLUDING
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT (EBM) LOGGING GUIDELINES,
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS (WHAS), AND CONSERVANCY
PROTECTION
In relation to sufficiency of EBM seral stage distribution and grizzly bears, Doak et al. 2010 reported
the following results from an EBM workshop on focal species risk thresholds for the north and central
coast (also applicable to the south coast):
Dense, immature stands suppress understorey forb & shrub cover and therefore reduce food
availability. Extensive, progressive harvesting over a short time period degrades habitat value for
bears when the regenerating forest canopy closes. However, if implemented as intended, EBM is
not expected to produce a seral stage distribution that limits a bear population. Habitat having
Class I or II suitability for grizzly bears (RISC 1999) has been mapped at 1:20,000 scale over the
entire EBM planning area (Central & North Coast). Other habitat classes, covering the rest of
the landscape (i.e., Class III to VI), have not been mapped. Class I and II habitats were classified
with respect to season of use: early spring, late spring, summer and fall…. (Ed. Note: Class I and
Class II habitats are also referred to as Class 1 and Class 2, depending on the document.)
A sufficiency analysis was done of the no-log reserve network and EBM seral stage/old forest
distribution guidelines in the Phillips as the best available constructive approach in order to partially
respond to the following TOR questions. Question #6 would require a separate analysis to address the
impacts of any mining in the Phillips, and it would depend on the type of mine and the circumstances;
I have thus not addressed this. Sport fishing is partially addressed in the section regarding
disturbances from jet boats. Potential impacts of the Kwiakah bear-viewing operation and mitigation
measures are addressed under a previous section. Since I have no information on traditional First
Nations use in the area, I have not addressed this matter. I attempt to answer question #8 in a
following section under Recommendations.
6. What would be the impacts of existing and any planned development (industrial forestry, logging
viewing, etc.) on grizzly bear habitats and numbers in the Study Area?
8. What would be the potential impacts on grizzly bears and their habitat in and around the Study
Area if the current footprint of industrial development and anthropogenic disturbance in that area
9. What are the potential impacts if new developments, including roading, forestry, log piling, and
increase)?
• On January 29, 2014, the Joint Solutions Project (JSP), comprised of three forest companies
(including WFP) and three environmental organisations, made a joint submission to government
and First Nations with their final recommendations for ecosystem-based management (EBM).
This included additional lands designated for protection as conservancies and biodiversity areas.
Although exact details on new protection areas and changes to some of the EBM logging rules
were not made public, I was able to ascertain that no changes will be made that would add more
full protection to the Phillips. I was also able to ascertain that there will be some changes to EBM

to increase some levels of protection, including adding “old-growth recovery areas.” Since I did
not have the full details and since government has not made a final decision, no changes were
made to my sufficiency analysis of EBM for the Phillips. However, once the EBM changes are
finalised, these should be considered.
• I only looked at sufficiency of EBM logging rules specific to grizzly bears and salmon. I also
looked at several other protection measures (conservancies and WHAs), but I did not take into
account other EBM guidelines, such as for smaller streams, focal species, old-growth
management areas (OGMAs), and ungulate winter range (UWR). This means I may have
underestimated the amount of protection in the Phillips for grizzly bears and salmon where other
no-log reserves did not overlap and were additive. However, under the 2009 South Coast Order
(Ministry of Agriculture 2009): Reserves are also required to satisfy section14(7) by co-locating
reserves with suitable habitat for focal species, including grizzly bear, mountain goat, marbled
murrelet, northern goshawk, and tailed frog, to the extent practicable.
• Since there was some overlap of EBM Class 1 grizzly bear habitat polygons with built-in buffers
and EBM 1.5 tree length buffers for salmon areas, I did not include salmon buffers in our GIS
map model of EBM protected habitats; as a result, I may have underestimated the total areas of
habitat protection where Class 1 grizzly bear polygons did not include salmon habitat, such as in
the middle Phillips.
• Despite numerous studies, there has been no direct cause-and-effect relationship established
between survival of grizzly bears and the loss of secure habitat and displacement from quality
feeding habitats.
• Since I had no information on traffic use in the Phillips related to logging, bear-viewing, and
other road use for the Phillips, I made the assumption, when discussing grizzly bear secure
patches, that evidence that some grizzly bears avoided heavily roaded areas even when there was
no traffic applied to the analysis.
• It was difficult to assess the sufficiency of EBM guidelines for seral stage and old forest
distribution as it relates to the grizzly bear-salmon component of the Phillips ecosystem since no
baseline studies have ever been done to determine the level of bear use of the various seral stages
over long-term time frames, although it is recognised that several studies show that some grizzly
bears will avoid clearcuts.
4.10.2 Summary
My sufficiency review shows that the EBM process would have a greater degree of reliability to meet
it objectives for ecological integrity for the Phillips grizzly bear-salmon ecosystem if it had been more
science-based instead of stakeholder-based, and if it had been guided by a cumulative effects study
and long-term research on the impacts of coastal logging on grizzly bears, including test-modeling of
proposed EBM guidelines and standards. As a result, very questionable assumptions have been made
that are not supported by science, such as the following: if implemented as intended, EBM is not
expected to produce a seral stage distribution that limits a bear population (Doak et al. 2010).
My sufficiency review shows that a network of EBM no-log and other reserves have been
implemented in the Phillips to protect grizzly bears and salmon. The total area and design of these
reserves (Phillips Conservancy, WHAs, and Class 1 grizzly bear habitats) comprises 10.7% of the
Phillips watershed. These were considered a good start for ecosystem protection when compared to
the little protection it had several decades ago. However, at the watershed level, this protection is

considered insufficient when weighed against the context of studies that show that viable grizzly bear
populations require a minimum of 50% of a landscape or region be comprised of interconnected
patches of good quality security habitat that is away from roads. A security habitat should be at least
10+ km2 (1,000 ha) in size. My GIS map analysis shows that no secure habitats that meet this size
criterion are left in the valley bottom areas of the Phillips. They have mostly been logged and roaded.
Restoration of a viable grizzly bear ecosystem will require a network of interconnected 10+ km2
“recovery” security habitats encompassing the best Class 1 and Class 2 habitats with protected
“recovery” travel corridors between them.
For the sufficiency analysis of EBM buffers at the stand level, I did not look at smaller buffers, such
as those incorporated around Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats or small streams. My research
shows that EBM no-log reserves proposed in the Phillips for salmon streams, larger wetlands, and the
Phillips estuary and beach fringe area are not wide enough to accommodate important grizzly bear
life requisites associated with these critical habitats, including for bedding, travel, social dominance
interactions, and security for female grizzlies with young. In addition, buffers wider than the current
EBM 30-50 m width are needed along salmon streams to maintain the health of riparian forests that is
created by the transfer of marine-derived nutrients (MDN) by grizzly bears eating salmon. Based on
extensive research in Alaska, salmon streams should have 150-300 m wide no-log reserves. The
supporting data is mixed, but larger wetlands should have 150 m wide buffers instead of the EBM 30-
50 m (1.5 m tree length) buffer, and estuaries in the Phillips should have at least 300 m wide buffers.
In addition, due to its importance to grizzly bears in spring and the associated Kwiakah bear-viewing
program, all—instead of part of—the Phillips estuary habitat should be protected.
4.10.3 Study Approach
The approach I used included the following:
1. A detailed review of studies of the effects of logging on grizzly bears with particular reference to
studies done in coastal BC and southeast Alaska. Most of this is written up in the previous
sections on cumulative effects.
2. A review of current EBM logging guidelines for coastal grizzly bears and salmon, including
government planning documents by which the guidelines were developed. (A number of these
were not made available to the consultant when requested from government.)
3. A detailed GIS sufficiency evaluation of EBM-protected set-asides for grizzly bears and salmon,
WHA set-asides, and conservancy designations for protection in the Phillips in relation to the
following parameters:
• standard GIS road density and zone of influence (ZOI) analyses for grizzly bears in terms of
displacement from protected habitats in the Phillips (see cumulative effects)
• life requisite core security area needs for grizzly bears
• life requisite connectivity needs for grizzly bears between various habitat protection areas
• adequacy of EBM buffers for larger riparian areas and beach fringe/estuary habitats for
grizzly bears and salmon in terms of grizzly life requisite needs: travel (connectivity),
bedding sites, and marine derived nutrient (MDN) transfer to adjacent riparian forests by
grizzly bears
4. Comments on EBM 50% mid-seral and 50% old forest representation across the landscape and
region.

4.10.4 Background. Why Ecosystem-Based Management?
Sufficiency of protection measures for species biodiversity in the BC coastal temperate rainforest has
been the subject of considerable study, scientific debate, and controversy for well over a decade, at
times with the grizzly bear at the centre of the debate in its role as an umbrella, keystone, and
indicator species. The coastal planning objective of developing “low risk biodiversity” conservation
plans involving a combination of fully designated protection areas and ecosystem-based management
(EBM) logging rules for focal species such as grizzly bears and salmon has generally been hindered
by a lack of environmental impact assessment, cumulative effects review, and long-term “on-the-
ground” baseline research on the application of draft EBM guidelines for industrial-scale logging. As
noted, there has only been one short-term (five-year) study of some of the effects of logging on
grizzly bears on the BC coast, when such impact studies should have been done over much longer
time frames as industrial-scale logging progressed.
In 1999, a conservation area design (CAD) for BC’s north and central coasts using grizzly bears as
one of the focal species recommended 51% be protected (Jeo et al. 1999). A 2003 Ecosystem Spatial
Analysis for most of the coast using grizzly and black bears among a series of focal species
recommended a minimum of 44-50% be protected (Rumsey et al. 2004). The study also found that on
the more intact central coast, 6%-12% was still suitable for logging, but over 70% of the timber
harvesting land base overlapped with the most biologically valuable areas. Hamilton and Horn (2003)
carried out an environmental risk-benchmark scenario analysis for grizzly bears on the north coast for
the BC government. The risk factors they used were critical habitat supply, landscape-level forage
supply, road displacement, activity displacement, and mortality risk. The overall potential for risk was
considered to have a magnitude of low to moderate in terms of incremental and cumulative changes
away from the baseline, with an estimated overall reduction of 18% in bear numbers. The authors felt
that given the uneven distribution of impacts across the land base, the risk would be higher in terms of
change to individual grizzly bears and sub-populations. They also concluded that the risks could be
minimised through application of both general and site-specific objectives and targets for grizzly
bears and their habitats. However, other than their professional opinion, the authors provided no
substantive evidence from other research that such an approach would provide the desired objectives.
A 2003 GIS spatial analysis of grizzly bear habitats and protection proposed by the North Coast Land
and Resource Management Plan (NCLRMP) concluded that the province was failing to meet
protected area standards for conservation of grizzly bears and recommended an expanded network of
small and large protected areas (Horejsi and Gilbert 2006). In 2004, Paquet et al. examined the
protection of reproductive habitat of key wildlife species (wolves, deer) and wild Pacific salmon that
would be encompassed within new protection areas put forward by the proposed Central Coast Land
and Resource Management Plan (CCLRMP); they concluded that the amount of new protection
would be insufficient, stating the following:
The CCLRMP is relying on Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) to compensate for the low level
of protection provided by the plan. Although we support the theory behind EBM and the need for
ecologically sound management across the landscape, we cannot endorse EBM as a surrogate for
protected areas. There is simply too much uncertainty as to how EBM will be implemented on the
ground. EBM in the context of industrial forestry is an unproven and potentially dangerous
strategy to preserve biodiversity outside of protected areas [emphasis added].
A 2005 sufficiency review by Jeo et al. for the Rainforest Solutions Project (RSP) also concluded that
the amount designated for protection by the north and central coast LRMPs would leave many

ecological values at risk. Instead of recommending more large protection areas, as the several other
independent reviews proposed, the Jeo et al. (2005) study recommended that conservation strategies
focus on ecosystem-based management (EBM) outside of protection areas. This approach was
adopted by the province, timber companies, most First Nations, and the RSP environmental groups.
Since 2001, they have collaborated on the development of “legal” EBM biodiversity protection rules
for logging. Thirteen years later, some of these are just now being implemented, including some for
the Phillips.
4.10.5 Sufficiency Analysis Background Overview: Lack of Cumulative Effects Review,
Long Term Studies of Environmental Impacts of Coastal Logging on Coastal
Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystems, and Lack of On-The-Ground GIS Test
Modeling of Draft EBM Rules for Logging Reduces Their Reliability and
Potential to Meet EBM Objectives.
Today’s “new” EBM coastal guidelines for logging in occupied grizzly bear areas have been a long
time evolving (13 years). They were an outgrowth of the combined Central Coast Land and Resource
Management Plan (CCLRMP) and North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (NCLRMP). In
about 2002, I reviewed the first EBM draft guidelines that were assembled by Dan Cardinall, resource
consultant for the Gitga’at First Nation, and Grant Scott, forestry consultant for the Kitasoo/Xai’xais
First Nations. These were actually developed for the Kitasoo and Gitga’at Land Use Plans (LUPs)
that were separate from, but concurrent and interconnected with, the CCLRMP and the NCLRMP BC
government processes.
Although, originally, I had critical scientific input into the first proposed EBM logging guidelines for
grizzly bears and salmon, and subsequently provided critical input into a number of technical
documents intended for the government’s grizzly bear EBM logging guidelines, it is not my intent for
this Phillips study to review the whole history of the process of developing EBM logging rules.
However, what is relevant is that at some point prior to 2004, the process of developing EBM
guidelines became less reliant on science than on input from some of the stakeholders, and that shows
up in what I have found to be a lack of reliability in my current Phillips review. According to a report
by Moola et al. (2004):
…despite the $3 million that was spent on developing EBM with the assistance of an independent
science panel (Coast Information Team; www.cit.org), the land-use tables adopted few
prescriptive elements of EBM, thus deferring the prescriptive details and implementation of EBM
to Government, forestry companies, and First Nations.
Subsequently, considerable focus has involved modeling biodiversity EBM guidelines to minimise
impacts on the timber harvesting land base (THLB).
According to the government’s status report on grizzly bears (BC Ministry of Environment 2012), the
cumulative effects of human development is the greatest threat to grizzly bears in BC. While the
province recognises this, and despite provincial and federal regulations that require proposed
industrial developments, such as new mines and run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects, to have
environmental impact assessments (EIA) that (at least federally) include cumulative effects, the
province has never implemented an independent cumulative effects review or long-term
environmental assessment of conventional logging on coastal grizzly bears-salmon ecosystems on the
public lands it manages in the vast BC coastal temperate rainforest region. This includes the 4.8
million ha central coast land use planning area (CCLRMP) (Horejsi et al. 1998). In contrast, a 1987
environmental impact statement was prepared for the ecologically comparable 6.9 million ha Tongass

National Forest of southeastern Alaska (see Kiester and Eckhardt 1994) that helped shape guidelines
for logging in habitats relied on by grizzly bears, salmon, and other species. Another example is the
500,000 ha Chugach National Forest on the Kenai Peninsula in south-central Alaska, where Suring et
al. (1998) studied the cumulative effects on brown (grizzly) bears from mining operations, recreation
sites accessible by motorised means, recreation trails, open roads, and residential/townsite areas. This
was an important study in that it showed that a reduction of habitat values, or habitat effectiveness
(HE), from various impacts within a given area were cumulative. Their simultaneous analysis of all
known human activities showed a total cumulative reduction in habitat effectiveness (HE) of 71% for
spring and 72% for summer.
Another limitation in BC in the past several decades is the lack of research and monitoring of the
long-term impacts of conventional forestry on coastal grizzly bears and salmon that would have better
guided the province’s EBM efforts. The last such study was in the Kimsquit from 1982 to 1987.
In my professional opinion, not having a peer-reviewed cumulative effects review and long-term
environmental impact study of conventional logging on grizzly bears is a serious deficiency on the
part of the province’s EBM process. Overall, this has led to the province’s EBM development process
becoming over-reliant on stakeholder consensus for a reserve system design that will not meet the life
requisites necessary for the ecological integrity of grizzly bears and salmon in landscapes committed
to industrial-scale logging.
EBM guidelines for grizzly bears and salmon may be “legal” from a strictly technical perspective
under the 2007 Ministerial order to legally establish the South Central Coast Legal Land Use
Objectives, but this does not validate that they would achieve their stated objective of ecosystem
integrity.
4.10.6 Nanwakolas Council et al. (2012 definition of EBM “hard” and “soft” reserves)
Coastal land use planning has designed a system of “hard” and “soft” reserves to protect biodiversity,
grizzly bear habitat, and other high value ecological sites and areas.
According to the Nanwakolas Council et al. (2012. p. 19):
Hard reserves are defined as a protected area or other mapped landscape level reserve that is:
(a) intended to be maintained on the land base in the same place through time; and (b) formally
designated under specific provincial legislation and recognised as contributing to fulfilling the
‘landscape conservation budget’ for the purposes of landscape reserve planning. All parks,
conservancies, and BMTAs in the EBM region are already legally established. Examples of hard
reserves in the EBM Operating Areas include Wildlife Habitat Areas, Ungulate Winter Ranges
and Old Growth Management Areas. This work will be completed through the new G2G
governance structures and then through the province’s existing legal processes depending on the
type of reserve to be established.
Soft reserves are defined as mapped landscape reserves that: (a) are intended to be maintained in
the same place over time, but may be re-located if the same values can be protected elsewhere;
(b) have not been formally designated under the legislative tools mentioned; and (c) contribute to
the ‘landscape conservation budget’.
The Nanwakolas Council defines BMTAs as:
[A]nother new form of protected area–Biodiversity, Mining and Tourism Areas (BMTAs)—which
also recognise the importance of First Nations’ social, ceremonial and cultural uses,…BMTAs

contribute to the conservation of species, ecosystems and seral stage diversity by being located
adjacent to existing Conservancies and other types of Protected Areas, and by limiting the land
uses within the zones. Commercial timber harvesting and commercial hydro-electric power
projects are prohibited within BMTAs. Other resource activities and land uses will continue,
subject to existing regulations and legislation.
According to the Nanwakolas Council, ecological integrity (EI) for EBM in this region has been
defined as:
[A] quality or state of an ecosystem in which it is considered complete or unimpaired; including
the natural diversity of species and biological communities, ecosystem processes and functions,
and both the ability to absorb disturbance (resistance) and to recover from disturbance
(resilience) (EBM Handbook, CIT, March 2004, p.71).
The development of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) and EBM Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear
polygons (Map 36) for the BC coast and the Phillips are discussed in greater detail in the grizzly bear
habitat section of this report based on MacHutchon (2007a), MacHutchon (2010), and MacHutchon et
al. (2010). Two WHAs were established for grizzly bears in the Phillips under the Forest Practices
Code requirements prior to implementation of EBM. Under the “Identified Wildlife Management
Strategy,” grizzly bears were considered a “Higher Level Plan species.”
To reiterate, for the South Coast, the following EBM process was followed (MacHutchon 2007a):
One of the goals of the CCLRMP was to ‘maintain the quality and quantity of bear habitat across
multiple scales to satisfy viable population needs’ and following from this goal, one of the
objectives was to ‘maintain the function of and connectivity amongst critical grizzly bear habitat,
including functional visual (security) and resting (bedding) cover’ (CCLRMP Completion Table
2004). However, there was not sufficient time prior to the CCLRMP completion phase deadline to
finalise recommendations on strategies to achieve this objective. Subsequent to the government-
to-government coast land use decision, a Ministerial order to legally establish the South Central
Coast Legal Land Use Objectives was signed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in July
2007.
Under section 17: Objectives for sensitive grizzly bear habitat, Subject to section 18(2):
(1). Maintain sensitive grizzly bear habitat.
(2). Before altering or harvesting sensitive grizzly bear habitat:
(a) obtain from a registered professional biologist confirmation that the disturbance will not
cause a material adverse impact to the suitability of the sensitive grizzly bear habitat;
(b) to the extent practicable, prepare and implement an adaptive management plan and
monitor the ecological impacts of the proposed forest development; and
(c) engage in information-sharing or consultation with the applicable First Nation.
According to section 18(2), objective 17 of the legal land-use objectives takes effect on or after
September 30th, 2007, when a map of sensitive grizzly bear habitat has been completed to the
Minister’s satisfaction. As of early October 2007, a map of sensitive grizzly bear habitat for the
south central coast was being completed based on previous grizzly bear habitat mapping
projects…
For south coast planning purposes, MacHutchon (2007a) defines that important grizzly bear habitat
refers specifically to habitats rated Class 1 (high) and Class 2 (moderately high) using RIC (1999)

standards. He notes that Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitats are considered sensitive habitat
under the South Central Coast Legal Land Use Objectives (and critical under the draft Central and
North Coast land use objectives). Consequently, he concludes that important, critical, and sensitive
effectively refer to the same value classes of grizzly bear habitat for the purposes of landscape-level
and stand-level habitat management.
According to Daust and Kremsater (2010), distribution of grizzly bear habitat among large
watersheds is a critical factor, particularly in the south central coast, where Class 1 and 2 habitats
have been affected more by development.
A map of EBM Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat suitability polygons was completed for the
Phillips in about 2009/2010 (Map 37) and, insofar as I am aware, is currently being used by WFP to
develop further logging plans for the Phillips. It is to be noted, however, that Objective 17 for the
south central coast does not include recommended CCLRMP strategies (which were never
developed) in order to: maintain the function of and connectivity amongst critical grizzly bear
habitat, including functional visual (security) and resting (bedding) cover.
4.10.7 Sufficiency of South Coast Land Use Planning EBM “Hard” and “Soft”
Reserves to Meet EBM Objectives of Ecological Integrity for Grizzly Bear and
Salmon in the Phillips
Is the current no-log reserve network in the Phillips sufficient? The answer is that it is a good start
and an improvement over where things were at prior to coastal land-use planning and EBM several
decades ago, but it is clearly not enough; restoration of ecosystem integrity for these two keystone
species will require much stronger conservation measures. The following discussion provides
evidence that, at the watershed level, the total area and design of no-log reserves that comprise 10.7%
of the Phillips is insufficient and needs to include protection of the best areas as grizzly bear security
habitats. I also present key evidence that, at the stand level, the no-log reserves need to be wider.
4.10.7.1 Evaluation of sufficiency of the no-log reserves in terms of 50% security habitat
and connectivity needs of Phillips grizzly bears
The Phillips study area (50,900 ha) network of no-log reserves is comprised of the Phillips
Estuary/ᕈNacinuxᵂ Conservancy (1461 ha, including the lake), two wildlife habitat areas (WHAs)
(totalling 676 ha), and a patchwork of 3,841 ha of Class 1 grizzly bear habitats. The larger WHA (496
ha) is located within the protected Phillips Estuary Conservancy, so only the smaller WHA (180 ha)
can be considered part of the total protected network. An additional but undetermined amount of
riparian area would be protected where the variable 1.5 dominant tree length width reserve for salmon
has not been incorporated into the Class 1 grizzly habitat design. All told, approximately 5,482 ha, or
10.7%, of the Phillips study area has some sort of landscape-level and stand-level protection for
grizzly bears. Class 2 grizzly bear habitats, which are unprotected, comprise 771 ha, or 1.5%, of the
study area. An undetermined portion of the protected no-log reserve network for grizzly bears
includes second-growth forests that have been logged. The remainder of the Phillips has been left
open for continued industrial-scale forestry operations and other resource use.
The sufficiency of the protected no-log network was weighed within the context of studies that show
that viable grizzly bear populations require a minimum of 50% of a landscape or region to be
comprised of interconnected patches of good quality security habitat away from roads A security
habitat should be at least 10+ km2 (1,000 ha) in size. No secure quality habitats of this size are left
in the valley bottom areas of the Phillips.

From one point of view, since some 19% of the total area of the Phillips has been logged, it might be
said that grizzly bears still have more than enough secure habitat to get by on. However, most of the
intact areas, including most of the surviving old forests, are in the higher elevation Mountain
Hemlock (MH) and Alpine Tundra (AT) biogeoclimatic zones, which are little used by grizzly bears
for foraging. Therefore, they don’t meet the criteria for secure areas of high quality habitat.
I have analysed modeling the best habitat areas at lower elevations in relation to road densities and a
0.3 zone of influence (ZOI) and determined that there were no patches of good quality habitat areas
that were large enough to be considered security habitat. For the whole study area, of the total 3,834
ha of EBM Class 1 grizzly bear habitat protected in the Phillips, 2,062 ha are outside the 0.3 km ZOI.
Some of these disparate patches might qualify for security habitat, but the maximum patch size is
only 141 ha. Of the 772 ha of unprotected EBM Class 2 grizzly habitat, 468 ha are outside the 0.3 km
ZOI, with a maximum patch size of 40 ha. In other words, over the entire watershed, none of the high
quality EBM grizzly habitats outside of the road zone of influence are of sufficient size (1,000 ha) to
qualify as grizzly security habitat.
4.10.7.2 Evaluation of sufficiency of widths of EBM no-log reserves for grizzly bear
habitats, major wetlands, estuary/beach fringe areas, and salmon habitats
The following review indicates that the width of the EBM no-log reserves for grizzly bears and
salmon are subjective and not science-based. Since I had no way of evaluating the subjective forested
buffers used around the Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat polygons, I focused my review on
salmon reserves and reserve buffer design around larger feeding habitats (major wetlands and
estuary/beach fringes). It was beyond the scope of my study to look at smaller reserves outlined in the
South Central Coast Order (BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands 2009), such as for smaller S1-S3
streams.
For salmon, the strategic EBM reserve zone for high value fish habitat is provided under subsection 1.
It allows for a reserve zone with an average width of 1.5 times the height of the dominant trees,
which, for discussion purposes, I estimate to be anywhere between 30 and 50 m. This may be
decreased or increased by 0.5 tree heights to address specific values. Where some or all of the forest
within the fish reserve zone has been altered or harvested, functional forest can be recruited into the
reserve zone to the extent practical. Buffers for salmon are also included in Class 1 grizzly bear
habitat polygons for salmon areas, and I assume that they are approximately 30-50 m.

Map 36. The no-log reserves are a good start in that a large complex of the new no-log protection areas are within the core
valley bottom grizzly bear area (3,138 ha), where the highest bear values are found. However, for some reason, a considerable
part of the lower Phillips estuary at the head of Phillips Arm is not protected in Class 1 grizzly habitat polygons or the Phillips
Estuary Conservancy. As shown, most of the no-log reserves are impacted in one way or another by the extensive network of
logging roads/spur roads (red).

Map 37. Class 1 (red) and Class 2 (green) grizzly bear habitat polygons in the Phillips River Landscape Unit (purple boundary)
and surrounding areas in 2009. Yellow shows the conservancy and several WHAs. All told, about 10.7 % of the Phillips has a
somewhat fragmented no-log reserve network for grizzly bears. This piecemeal approach is best characterised by well-known
grizzly bear biologist John Craighead (1995), who cautioned that: the practice, now common, of identifying ‘critical habitat’ and
classifying it into management situation categories is an approach that may help a few individual bears over the short-term, but,
over the long-term, will surely violate the totality of resources and space necessary for population viability. My sufficiency
analysis shows that reserve widths around salmon areas, prime wetlands, and the estuary need to be expanded to at least 300
m, that most of the valley bottom areas with high quality Class 1 and 2 habitats should be in larger “recovery” grizzly bear
security reserves 10+ km2 (1,000 ha) that are interconnected by protected 0.3-0.5 km wide linkage corridors.
The following describes the planning process for incorporation of forested buffers around Class 1 and
Class 2 habitat polygons. According to MacHutchon (2010), no standard widths appear to have been
used:
In order for these sites to retain their ecological integrity and value to grizzly bears, the
maintenance of adjacent forest is essential as grizzly bears use these forests for travel, security
cover, and thermal cover. Forests adjacent to feeding areas can include important wildlife
habitat features for grizzly bears, such as bedding sites, trails, mark trees, or wallows (Himmer
and Powers 2003), escape trees (i.e., trees for cubs to climb), and provide important
microclimatic conditions (e.g., cover from rain, reduced localized temperature and shade in hot
weather). In the absence of travel areas and security and thermal cover, the value of an open
feeding area for grizzly bears is significantly reduced or lost. Although 50 m is sometimes used as
a conceptual target for habitat buffers (Hamilton and Horn 2003, Pollard and Buchanan 2006),
there is no standard or limit, therefore buffer widths varied according to site-specific conditions
(e.g., terrain type, forest cover type).
According to what appears to be an internal document (Summary Report: Grizzly bear map revisions
and assessment of objective 17 in the south central coast and central north coast land use orders.
January 26, 2011. File: 17550 – 20), the following decision was made not to include separately

defined standardised buffers around the main grizzly habitats but to include them subjectively as
integral parts:
Buffering is to be included on the final maps produced through this process.
Finding: The methodology employed during this exercise identifies bear habitat to include all
attributes necessary to ensure the ecological integrity and habitat functionality of any particular
grizzly bear habitat feature (polygon); and, depending upon the habitat and specific site (i.e., type
of forage, vegetation structure (for food, security, thermal cover, travel), topography, seasonality
of use, adjacent features), may include both non-forested and forested areas. As a result, polygon
boundaries were reviewed with these attributes and functions in mind and, if necessary, were
revised to reflect the ecological attributes and spatial characteristics necessary to maintain the
ecological and functional integrity of the polygon(s) under consideration. Consequently, some
polygon boundaries were expanded while others were reduced and/or re-shaped in order to best
reflect (at least at the 1:20,000 planning scale) a resultant polygon with ecological and
functional integrity. In some cases, professional judgment will determine whether some sites
require consideration of other management strategies at an operational scale (1:5000) to ensure
the integrity of any particular grizzly bear habitat polygon.
Recommendation 3: We recommend that the term “buffering” not be used in association with the
revised (January 2011) grizzly bear habitat polygons and map – the resultant (revised) polygons
include both forested and non-forested components as necessary to maintain the ecological
integrity and habitat functionality of those polygons.
While I partially agree with MacHutchon et al. (2010) that there is no standard to set buffer widths
around grizzly bear habitat polygons with respect to smaller areas, I found there was actually good
data available to define adequate standards for buffer widths for important grizzly bear habitat zones,
including large wetlands, salmon streams, and marine estuaries/beach fringes. Unfortunately, in many
areas of the Phillips, removal of old forests down to the edges of salmon streams, large wetlands, the
estuary, and other important habitats, has compromised their functional value for bears.
The following review shows that the 30-50 m EBM no-log reserves along salmon streams is not wide
enough to protect the ecological functioning of riparian forests for grizzly bears, which includes
bedding, transfer of marine nutrients to fertilise the forest, and the provision of adequate security for
female grizzly bears. The width should be increased to a minimum of 150-300 m in order for the
reserves to meet the EBM objective to ensure ecological and functional integrity. This is based on the
following evidence:
• Several studies in Alaska recommended a 150 m no-log reserve along salmon streams based on
studies of locations of radio-collared grizzly bears.
• One of these studies (Flynn et al. 2007) found that unlogged stream buffers were more important
to female grizzly bears than male bears, and that females selected salmon streams with no logging
and intact buffers over ones that had extensive logging, including to streamsides. The researchers
felt that adequately wide stream buffers were important for security cover for females with
young. They recommended a minimal buffer width of 150 m, but a 300 m no-log buffer for
salmon streams if maintaining a healthy grizzly bear population was the management objective.
• Several studies showed that bedding areas were usually within 150 m of a salmon stream.
• Old trees in riparian forests adjacent to salmon streams appear to be important for bedding and
thermal protection during inclement weather.

• Several studies of the transfer by grizzly bears of marine derived nutrients (MDNs) in the form of
salmon to riparian forests is very important to the health of trees, vegetation, and insects. Bears
were found to transfer nutrients to plants 150-800 m distance from the stream. This whole process
is important to the ecological integrity of riparian forests. The importance of MDN transfer by
bears to streamside biodiversity appears to have been ignored in EBM no-log reserve design
along salmon streams.
For the large wetland in the Phillips Conservancy, the Phillips estuary, and associated beach fringe
areas, it was difficult to determine what width of buffer was built in to some of the Class 1 grizzly
bear polygons. The South Central Coast Order (BC Minister of Agriculture and Lands 2009) specifies
that 70% of the functional riparian forest be retained around forested swamps greater than 0.25 ha
equal to 1.5 times the height of the dominant trees. I could find no specifications for buffers around
coastal estuary habitat. Based on studies of day beds around the Khutzeymateen estuary and
elsewhere, I would recommend a no-log reserve zone of 300 m around the outside edges of these
large habitat areas to provide adequate secure forested habitat for less dominant bears and for
adequate bedding areas/thermal cover, as well as travel needs.
4.10.7.3 Relevant background studies for reserve width design for salmon streams and
estuaries
a) Width of riparian zone adjacent to grizzly-on-salmon areas for marine-derived nutrient transfer
(MDN) by coastal grizzly bears
In terms of the EBM objectives for ecological integrity, a much ignored ecological feature in EBM
logging guidelines for grizzly bears is the lack of consideration for the adequate width of the
functional ecological zone along salmon areas in which marine-derived nutrients (MDN) are
disbursed into nitrogen-starved riparian forests by grizzly bears carrying large numbers of dead
salmon into the forest and acting as vectors to fertilise the otherwise depauperate vegetation, even
benefitting insect populations. Scientists have studied this fertilisation pathway by tracking the
signature stable nitrogen isotope 15N in salmon and riparian soil, plants, and insects. For example,
Reimchen et al. (2003) found a broad cycling of salmon-derived nutrients into multiple trophic levels
of terrestrial ecosystems. Sitka spruce has been found to have higher growth rates in riparian areas
adjacent to streams with salmon than those with no salmon (Mathewson et al. 2003). This research
shows that the transfer of MDN by grizzly bears and other species (e.g., black bears, wolves, crows,
eagles) makes an important contribution to the growth, productivity, and general biodiversity richness
of riparian rainforests that would otherwise be nutrient-poor habitat. Several studies suggest grizzly
bears can transfer MDN up to 150-800 m from a salmon stream. Reimchen (2001) indicated that
government buffers of 10-30 m along salmon streams were too small. The fact that he found 15N
signatures in vegetation 150 m from salmon streams suggests an approximate minimum width for
buffers alongside salmon streams.
The following summary is from a University of California field course study of the biota and nutrient
transfer in the Chilko-Chilcotin River (CCR)-Fraser River Basin (Bush 2011):
Due to the influence of anadromous fishes, marine-derived nutrients (MDN) are an intricate part
of the nutrient cycle for the CCR watershed and provide important foraging opportunities for
bird and mammalian species. The main dispersers of MDN in this area are the black bear (Ursus
americanus) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), but smaller mammals as well as birds play
an important role.

According to Bush (2011):
The close relationship between salmon and bear fits the concept of keystone mutualism, or
keystone species and mobile links. A keystone species is a species that exerts disproportional
influence on an ecosystem; both bears and salmon are considered such species. When both
species are considered together, their influence is further magnified. The MDN arrive with the
salmon, but the ecosystem benefits to a much greater extent by distribution of the salmon
carcasses by the bears, which greatly increases the area of the riparian vegetation, which is
fertilized during the salmon run (Helfield & Naiman 2006). The sockeye salmon accounts for
most of the biomass in the CCR system, spawning mostly at the mouth of the Chilko Lake. Some
additional minor spawning grounds are located in other tributaries [such] as the Taseko River.
Other anadromous salmon use other sites in the CCR river system to spawn (See ch. 9, 10 & 11).
The social hierarchy of the bears has been found to have a clear effect on the transport distance
of the salmon carcass. Subdominant bears will catch fewer salmon as they defer to the more
dominant bears, but then transport the carcass further from the river’s edge to protect it from the
competition. This extended transport ensures a greater area benefits from the MDN brought by
the salmon but decreases the energy intake of socially subdominant bears (Gende and Quinn
2004). Salmon that were ripe, that is, ready to spawn, were more often transported by the bears
than spawned-out carcasses. The largest male salmon were also preferentially transported and
the most energy-rich parts such as brain, gonads and dorsal musculature was eaten only or first
(Quinn 2009, Reimchen 2000).
Different studies have found different MDN widths for riparian areas where bears take salmon back
into the forest for consumption. Hilderbrand et al. (1999a) documented 15N enrichment in vegetation
along bear trails 800 m from the salmon stream where grizzly bears were common. In comparisons
within watersheds, Reimchen (2001) found that that the 15N levels were highest in trees near the
salmon stream and declined with increased distance into the forest, concordant with the decline in
salmon carcasses and bear activity. Even in small watersheds, vegetation 150 m from the stream still
had the 15N signature of salmon. Reimchen suggested a much broader riparian zone on fish streams
than the 10-30 m zone suggested in government policy.
b) Distances of bedding areas from salmon streams and estuaries
Although not adequately studied, the location of grizzly bear daybeds in relation to feeding habitats is
very important from a number of perspectives. These include thermoregulation during hot weather,
protection during severe inclement weather, such as coastal storms; and from a social perspective,
such as mother bears avoiding male bears and being able to detect other bears that might prey on their
young. In other words, some bears may select bedding sites better situated to avoid other bears.
Thermal cover associated with bedding activity involves protection from the elements.
In the Khutzeymateen benchmark area, grizzly bears were found to bed in a variety of habitats
depending on the season, weather, and circumstances; although my overall observations were that old
forests appeared to provide the most preferred bedding sites. During the salmon season, we found
grizzly bear beds dug in sand on sand bars and in old forests up to 100-200 m back from salmon
feeding areas. Lloyd (1979) also found that grizzly bears feeding along salmon streams appeared to
use the adjacent forest cover for day beds, implying that thermal cover may be important near feeding
areas.

We identified three major bedding areas with 45 different bedding sites around the Khutzeymateen
estuary area that were used during the intensive spring feeding period on Lyngby’s sedge, and when
bears were feeding on pink salmon in estuary spawning channels in fall (McCrory and Mallam 1988).
Although not quantified, most spring bedding sites were in association with old forests and up to an
estimated 100-200 m from adjacent estuary feeding habitats. MacHutchon et al. (1993) also found in
the Khutzeymateen that the majority of bedding activity in old forests in Sidehill Mosaic and Sidehill
Very Mesic bear habitat types appeared to be less than 200 m from feeding areas.
In a study of bear response to logging in Sims Valley at the head of Knight Inlet (north of the
Phillips), Smith (1978) found that day beds appeared to be more frequent in the forested areas
peripheral to avalanche slopes or in salmon-spawning sites in unlogged areas and, where logging had
occurred, in mature and selectively logged habitats adjacent to clearcuts. In another study of bears in
the Ahnuhati Valley in Knight Inlet, Lloyd (1979) found that daybeds prior to the salmon run were
more than 150 m from the river and on the uphill side of large conifers in mature coniferous forest.
During the salmon run, daybeds were situated within 150 m of the river and in both coniferous and
deciduous forest.
Of relevance to the Phillips study and the high degree of removal of old forests adjacent to many
feeding habitats, is that, although the data is mixed, the weight of evidence indicates that old forests
adjacent to grizzly bear feeding areas are likely the most important for thermal cover during periods
of inclement coastal weather. Lloyd (1979) found that during heavy rains, bears appeared to seek
refuge in forests with a high level of canopy closure where bedding material was much drier than in
the surrounding area. He felt that the preference of bears to bed in mature timber (prior to the salmon
runs) was related to the important function of the shelter provided during heavy rains. This is similar
to my observations of bedding areas along salmon streams in the Khutzeymateen and on Princess
Royal Island and the adjacent mainland. These showed that bedding sites were nearly always under
old tree structures and sometimes up to 200-300 m back from the salmon areas. A small number of
observations at a salmon-spawning site in mature second-growth forest used by 6-7 Kermode bears
suggested that during severe inclement fall weather, bears stopped feeding on salmon altogether and
did not bed in the adjacent second-growth but appeared to travel upslope to use dry bedding sites in
old forest. This is consistent with a study in Alaska by Frame (1974), which reported that black bears
left their salmon-feeding areas during heavy rains and sought the shelter of mature forests. However,
Archibald et al. (1995) found in 1983 that grizzly bears appeared to select the bases of mature
conifers during heavy rains, but further investigation in 1984 found that some bears used seral areas
with and without conifers during rainy periods.
Roads are known to reduce use of day beds. Schoen and Beier (1988) surveyed grizzly bear day bed
locations in a strip 1.6 km long x 120 m wide in 1985 prior to mine road construction in southeast
Alaska. They identified 57 beds prior to road construction but, in 1986, following major construction
activities, they found only 17 beds in the same area. These beds were a few metres closer to the Upper
Greens-Zinc Creek Mine in the activity year (1986: x = 41m) than in the previous year (x = 52 m).
The important point here, relative to impacts of the mine on grizzly bear distribution, is the decline in
the overall number of beds; the equal distance of beds from the stream indicates some bears will hold
to their traditional home ranges; these are the bears that are subjected to increased stress and
mortality. Characteristic of bears that are less likely to be displaced, one subadult female bear did
habituate to workers and was later killed by a hunter. The authors concluded that these results
reflected short-term effects of development activities on bears and that it would be premature to

conclude that development of the Upper Greens-Zinc Creek Mine will have minimal impacts on the
local brown bear population.
c) Research on reserve widths along salmon streams and riparian zones in southeast Alaska
Titus and Beier (1999) used radio-collared grizzly bears to study their use of riparian buffers on
Chichagof Island in the Tongass National Forest. They found that 24% of the August locations of
bears was within an administrative salmon stream buffer with variable widths of up to 150 m, while
39% were in the 153 m buffer zone for habitat foraging. According to Flynn et al. (2010), during the
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) revision in southeast Alaska, expert panels expressed
concern with respect to the long-term population viability of grizzly bears unless adequate riparian
vegetation was maintained, especially in areas with spawning salmon. The panellists strongly
recommended that a minimum 153 m, no-harvest buffer be maintained along all salmon streams
considered important for foraging by bears. The final forest plan weakened this recommendation.
In a landmark study, Flynn et al. (2007) studied the ecology of grizzly bears in relation to riparian and
beach fringe habitats on Chichagof Island. They compared use by radio-collared bears along a highly
logged salmon stream and one that had very little logging and found that male bears stayed close to
the stream during the salmon season regardless of streamside management. Average locations were
within 167-175 m of the streams. Female grizzly bears showed a different response than males to the
stream with impacted riparian buffers. For females, the average locations were within 147 m of the
more intact stream and 713 m of the highly logged stream. The researchers also found female grizzly
bears were more abundant in watersheds with relatively unaltered forested buffers along salmon
streams than in watersheds with highly altered stream buffers. Females also consumed more salmon
in intact watersheds. The authors recommended a no-cut buffer of at least 150 m along all salmon
streams in forested landscapes because such a buffer provided female grizzly bears with adequate
security cover and for foraging on salmon. Where management calls for healthy populations of
grizzly bears, they recommended complete watershed protection or no-cut buffers of 300 m.
4.10.8 Sufficiency of Travel Corridors/Linkage Zones
As previously noted, there is no baseline research available that quantifies the best widths for grizzly
bear corridors based on actual travel data—other than the wider the better. I am recommending 0.3-
0.5 km wide restoration corridors between core security habitats in the Phillips, generally up all valley
bottoms. Roads in these areas should be decommissioned.
EBM for the south coast provides for no grizzly bear travel corridors/linkage zones. Riparian areas
were considered the highest-value travel corridors for grizzly bears in the Phillips, particularly in the
lower valley “core grizzly zone” below 100 m ASL. Using GIS maps we developed for the Phillips
(roads, logged versus old forest, and a 300 m road zone of influence [ZOI]), we determined that
natural grizzly bear travel corridor areas have been highly compromised throughout much of the
Phillips watershed. In the broader lower valley core area, riparian corridors were subjectively
considered to be moderately compromised by logging road locations combined with large areas of
logged area clearcut down to the edge of the Phillips River, Phillips Lake, the Phillips estuary, and
some wetlands. The buffers of old forests left along the lower Clearwater River grizzly-salmon area
and some of the Phillips estuary, including the buffers built into Class 1 grizzly bear habitat polygons,
were considered inadequate to help restore natural travel corridors where grizzly bears could
generally avoid people. A wider “restoration” buffer of 500 m width was recommended around the
ocean to 100 m ASL grizzly bear core area, including the estuary. Some of this is already in the
protected reserves. This buffer would go beyond most of the boundaries of the existing Phillips

Conservancy, Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs), and Class 1 protected grizzly bear habitat polygons.
Use of access roads, particularly around the estuary, such as near Dyer Point, should be limited and
some roads should be decommissioned.
4.10.9 Assessment of Sufficiency of EBM Guideline for 50% or Less of a Landscape
Unit to be in Mid-Seral Closed Canopy Forest and 50% in Old Forest to
Maintain a Low Risk to Biodiversity
The 2009 South Coast Order (BC Minister of Agriculture 2012) specifies that the intent of EBM is to
maintain old forest representation at 50% of the range of natural variation. The EBM guideline for
mid-seral is addressed in section 14 of the Central & North and South-Central Coastal Order
(objectives for biodiversity) where the objective is to maintain less than 50% of each site series or site
series surrogate in mid-seral forest age classes within each landscape unit. It was beyond the scope of
this study to do a detailed analysis other than to provide general comments.
The Phillips was logged before these new EBM guidelines were developed. The Phillips Landscape
Unit is similar in size to the Phillips study area and, as my analysis shows, old native forests once
comprised approximately 18,518 ha or 36 % of the whole Phillips study area. Over half (52%) has
been logged (mostly by WFP and predecessors), with most of the remaining old forest (8,951) ha at
higher elevations, where it is of little value to grizzly bears except for denning. The surviving patches
of old forest at lower elevations comprise only 1,020 ha and their fragmented state likely reduces their
once high functional value to grizzly bears and biodiversity.
My Phillips study demonstrates that if these new EBM guidelines were followed, there would still be
about the same amount of old forest left, except that there would be more forest left in different site
series at lower elevations than in the Phillips.
In relation to sufficiency of EBM seral stage distribution and grizzly bears, Daust et al. (2010) report
the following results from an EBM workshop on focal species risk thresholds for the north and central
coast (also applicable to the south coast):
Dense, immature stands suppress understorey forb & shrub cover and therefore reduce food
availability. Extensive, progressive harvesting over a short time period degrades habitat value for
bears when the regenerating forest canopy closes. However, if implemented as intended, EBM is
not expected to produce a seral stage distribution that limits a bear population. Habitat having
Class I or II suitability for grizzly bears (RISC 1999) has been mapped at 1:20,000 scale over the
entire EBM planning area (Central & North Coast). Other habitat Classes, covering the rest of
the landscape (i.e., Class III to VI), have not been mapped. Class I and II habitats were classified
with respect to season of use: early spring, late spring, summer and fall… (Ed. Note: Class I and
Class I habitats are also referred to as Class 1 and Class 2, depending on the document).
The conclusion by Daust et al. (2010) that EBM is not expected to produce a seral stage distribution
that limits a bear population is speculation at best. In terms of young/early seral forest providing
improved forage for grizzly bears, I have seen no hard evidence of how much this benefits bears
compared to the original old forests. As I have pointed out, a number of studies show that some
grizzly bears avoid clearcuts.
According to a north coast environmental risk assessment for grizzly bears by Hamilton and Horn
(2003), there is no research behind the assumption in the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity
Guidebook that with 30% of an area being in logged closed canopy (mid-seral) forest of little value to
bears, that there will still be an adequate forage supply:

There is no research indicating an actual threshold amount of mid-seral forest that will provide
adequate landscape level forage supply for bears. The 30% threshold for amount of mid-seral
was derived from the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook and is the average % for
mid-seral that would remain if targets for mature and old and early were applied to the CWH in
NDTs 1 and 2 (MoF and MELP 1995b). Mid-seral forests were not extensive historically because
natural stand-replacing events were rare (Dorner and Wong 2003).
LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR THE

SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS REVIEW
Archibald, W.R., A.N. Hamilton, and E. LeFroth. 1985. Coastal grizzly research project. Progress
report - Year 3 - 1984. Progress report - Year 4 - 1985. BC Min. of Environ., Wildl. Working
Rep. No. WR-17 and Wildlife Habitat Research Report No. WHR-22.
version.
BC Ministry of Environment. 2012. Environmental Reporting BC. Plants and animals. Grizzly bear
population status in BC (2012). http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-
animals/grizzly-bears.html?WT.ac=LU_Grizzly-status. (Accessed February 3, 2014).
Bush, E. 2011. Chapter 7. Mammals and birds of the Chilko-Chilcotin-Fraser River Basin. Field
Course. University of California. Davis.
https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~shlemonc/trips/CCR_11/fieldguide.htm: (Accessed January
31. 2014).
Craighead, D. J. 1995. An integrated satellite technique to evaluate Grizzly bear habitat use.
International Conference Bear Research and Management 10.
Daust, D., and L. Kremsater. 2010. Focal species risk thresholds for BC’s North and Central Coast.
Workshop Proceedings. Prepared for Joint Coastal Land and Resource Forum Technical Liaison
Committee.
Daust, D., L. Kremsater, C. Apps, K. Brunt, A. Burger, F. Doyle, K. Dunsworth, L. Dupuis, P. Friele,
G. MacHutchon, T. Mahon, E. McClaren, V. Michelfelder, B. Pollard, D. Seip, J.D. Steventon,
and L. Waterhouse. 2010. Focal species risk thresholds for BC’s North and Central Coast. Report
to the Joint Coastal Land and Resource Forum Technical Liaison Committee. Workshop
Proceedings. Integrated Land Management Bureau, Nanaimo, B.C.
Frame, G.W. 1974. Black bear predation on salmon at Olsen Creek, Alaska. Z. Tierpsychol. 35: 23-
28.
Flynn, R. W., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, and G.W. Pendleton. 2007. Brown bear use of riparian and
beach zones on northeast Chichagof Island, Southeast Alaska. Unpublished final report. Division
of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, USA.
www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/...pdfs/brb_07_flynn.pd. Accessed February 5,
2014.
Flynn, R.W., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, and G.W. Pendleton. 2010. Spatial relationships, movements,
and abundance of brown bears on the southern Mainland Coast of Southeast Alaska. Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Wildlife Research Final Report.
Juneau, AK.

Gilbert, B., L. Craighead, B. Horejsi, P. Paquet, and W. P. McCrory. 2004. Scientific criteria for
evaluation and establishment of grizzly bear management areas in British Columbia. Panel of
independent scientists. Victoria. Available at http://www.raincoast.org.
Gende, S.M., and T.P. Quinn. 2004. The relative importance of prey density and social dominance in
determining energy intake by bears feeding on Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:
75-85
Hall, A., and L. Williams. 2011. SELES draft strategic landscape reserve design and conservation gap
analysis. A report to the Land and Resources Forum Working Group. Version 3, July 14, 2011.
Hamilton, T., and H. Horn. 2003. Grizzly bears: benchmark scenario analysis. Environmental risk
assessment report, North Coast Land and Resource Management Planning, British Columbia. 76
pp.
Hilderbrand G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, T.A. Hanley, S.M. Arthur, and C.
Servheen, 1999. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, populations
productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77,
132-138.
Hocking, M.D., and J.D. Reynolds. 2011. Impacts of Salmon on Riparian Plant Diversity. Science 25
March 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6024 pp. 1609-1612.
Horejsi, B., B. Gilbert, and L. Craighead. 1998. British Columbia’s Conservation Strategy. An
independent review of science and policy. Western Wildlife Consulting Ltd., Calgary, AB. 64 pp.
Horejsi, B. L., and B.K. Gilbert. 2006. Conservation of Grizzly Bear populations and habitat in the
northern Great Bear Rainforest. Biodiversity Vol. 7(2).
IWMS (Identified Wildlife Management Strategy). 1999. BC Min. Environ. Lands and Parks, and
Min. Forests. Victoria, BC.
Jeo, R.M., M.K. Sanjayan, and D. Sizemore. 1999. A conservation area design for the Central Coast
Region of British Columbia, Canada. Round River Conservation Studies, Salt Lake City.
[Available at http://www.savethegreatbear.org/CAD/index2-htm]
Jeo, R.C. Rumsey, J. Holmes, and A. Roburn. 2005. Measures of sufficiency for the Great Bear
Rainforest: evaluating protection area scenarios and biodiversity feature representation in the
north and central coast planning areas. Report for Rainforest Solutions Project.
Kiester, A.R., and C. Eckhardt. 1994. Review of wildlife management and conservation biology on
the Tongass National Forest: a synthesis with recommendations. Pacific NW Res. Station. USDA
Forest Service. Portland, OR. 282 pp.
Lloyd, K.A. 1979. Aspects of the ecology of black and grizzly bears in coastal British Columbia. M.
Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia. Vancouver. 150 pp.
final report. BC Ministry of Forests, Wildlife Habitat Research Report WHR-31 and BC Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Report R-25, Victoria, BC; 107 pp.
October 2007. BC. Ministry of Environment, Victoria and Black Creek, BC. 35 pp.

Environment, Black Creek & BC. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Nanaimo, BC. 32 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. 2008. North Coast, BC. grizzly bear habitat mapping. BC Ministry of
Victoria, BC. Ministry of Forests and Range, Nanaimo, BC. 29 pp.
MacHutchon, A.G. and T. Manning. 2010. Coastal Grizzly Bear Habitat Master Ecological to Land
Use Order Maps. Prepared for: Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). Dec 20, 2010.
Manning, T., D. Mogensen, and D. Cardinall. November 2010. Recommendations on using estimated
high risk focal species habitat thresholds for the draft conservation gap analysis. Report prep. for
the Land and Resources Forum Working Group (LRFWG) to the LRF Technical Liaison
Committee (TLC). Revised March 28, 2011.
Mathewson D.D., M.D. Hocking, and T.E. Reimchen. 2003. Nitrogen uptake in riparian plant
communities across a sharp ecological boundary of salmon density. BMC Ecol. 2003; 3: 4.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1988. Evaluation of the Khutzeymateen valley as a grizzly bear
sanctuary. Prepared for Friends of Ecological Reserves, Victoria, BC.
Mitchell, A.S., and A.N. Hamilton. 1992. Khutzeymateen - evaluation of various options. Min. For.
and Min. Environ., Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. Internal document.
Moola, F.M.. D. Martin, B. Wareham, J. Calof, C. Burda, and P. Grames. 2004. The coastal temperate
rainforest of Canada. The need for Ecosystem-Based Management. Biodiversity 5(3): 9-15, 2004.
Rainforest). Available at:
http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/index.html. Accessed January
13, 2014.
Office of the Auditor General of BC. 2012. An audit of the ministry of forests, lands and natural
resources operations’ management of timber. February 2012.
www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2012/report11/timber-management (accessed February 3, 2014).
Office of the Auditor General of BC. 2013. An audit of biodiversity in BC. Assessing the
effectiveness of key tools. Report 10. February 2013. http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2013/
report10/audit-biodiversity-bc-assessing-effectiveness-key-tools. (accessed February 3, 2014).
Paquet, P., C.T. Darimont, R.J. Nelson, and K. Bennett. 2004. A critical examination of protection for
key wildlife and salmon habitats under proposed British Columbia Central Coast Land and
Resource Management Plan. Raincoast Conservation Society, Victoria. Available at
http://www.raincoast.org

Pollard, B.T., and S. Buchanan. 2006. Grizzly bear candidate Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA)
submission: Kalum Landscape Unit. BC Ministry of Environment, Smithers, B.C. 29 pp.
Quinn, T. P., S.M. Carlson, S.M. Gende, and H.B. Rich, Jr. 2009. Transportation of Pacific salmon
carcasses from streams to riparian forests by bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:195-203.
Reimchen, T.E. 2000. Some ecological and evolutionary aspects of bear–salmon interactions in
coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:448–457.
Reimchen, T. 2001. Salmon nutrients, nitrogen isotopes and coastal forests. Ecoforestry. Fall 2001.
Reimchen T.E., D. Mathewson, M.D. Hocking, J. Moran, and D. Harris. 2003. Isotopic evidence for
enrichment of salmon-derived nutrients in vegetation, soil and insects in riparian zones in coastal
British Columbia. Am. Fish Soc. Symp. 34:59-69.
Version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria. 97
pp.
RISC (Resources Inventory Standards Committee). 1999. British Columbia wildlife habitat rating
standards. Version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee,
Victoria, BC.
Rumsey, C., J. Adron, K. Ciruna, T. Curtis, Z. Ferdana, T.D. Hamilton, K. Heinemeyer, P. Iachetti,
R.M. Jeo, G. Kaiser, D. Narver, R. Noss, D. Sizemore, A. Tautz, R. Tingey, and K. Vance-
Borland. 2004. An ecosystem spatial analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast and North Coast
British Columbia. Coast Information Team, Victoria. Available at http://www.citbc.org
Proj. W-22-6. 27 pp.
Schoen, J.W., R.W. Flynn, L.H. Suring, K.R. Titus, and L.R. Beier. 1994. Habitat capability model
Smith, B. 1978. Investigations into black and grizzly bear responses to coastal logging. BSc Thesis.
Simon Fraser University. 85 pp.
Swanston, D.N., C.G. Shaw, W.P. Smith, K.R. Julin, G.A. Cellier, and F.H. Everest. 1996. Scientific
information and the Tongass land management plan; key findings derived from the scientific
literature, species assessments, resource analyses, workshops, and risk assessment panels. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-386. Portland, OR: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 30 pp.
Titus, K., and L. Beier. 1999. Suitability of stream buffers and riparian habitat for brown bears. Ursus
11:1490156.
USFS. 1997. Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan Revision. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Part 1. USDA Forest Service Report R10-MB338b, Juneau, AK.

APPENDIX 1
LIST OF POTENTIAL FOODS FOR BLACK AND GRIZZLY BEARS IN SOUTH
COAST MOUNTAINS (McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.)
Table 1. Grizzly and black bear habitat and food table form used for habitat evaluation. BC South
Coastal Mountains and North Cascades. The list of potential, preferred, incidental and questionable
bear foods is preliminary. Most but not all have been identified in these mountain ranges. A question
(?) mark indicates questionable identity or presence. Common and Latin names follow Pojar and
MacKinnon (1994) where possible.
McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.
208 Laktin Road, New Denver, BC. VOG 1S1
Ph: 250-358-7796, email: mccrorywildlife@netidea.com
PROJECT: __________________PP: ______________________Observer(s):_____________
Bear habitat transect/plot capability and use surveys
Transect/plot no.: Date: Type: Area: GPS:
Location: Size: Veg. type: Cover type:
Habitat classn.: Notes: Other bear use:
Species % Bear Use Phenology Notes

FORBS
Cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum)
Lovage? (not observed)
Kneeling angelica (Angelica
genuflexa)
Mountain sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza
chilensis)
Blunt-fruited sweet-cicely
(Osmorhiza depauperata)?
Fendler’s waterleaf (Hydrophyllum
fendleri)
Ballhead waterleaf? (Hydrophyllum
capitatum)
Indian hellebore (Veratrum viride)
False Solomon’s-seal (Smilacina
racemosa)
Star-flowered false Solomon’s-seal
(Smilacina stellata)
Hooker’s fairybell (Disporum
hookeri)
Rosy twisted stalk (Streptopus
roseus)
Western meadow rue (Thalictrum
occidentale)
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica)
Baneberry (Actaea rubra)

Edible thistle (Cirsium edule)
Thistle spp.
Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina)
Other fern spp.
Mountain sorrel (Oxyria digyna)
Common horsetail (Equisetum
arvense)
Other horsetail spp.
Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton
americanum)
Common dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale)
Clover spp.
Other forbs
GRASSES (Poaceae)
Hairgrass spp.
SEDGES
ROOTS & CORMS

Western spring-beauty (Claytonia
lanceolata)
Yellow glacier lily (Erythronium
grandiflorum)
Other lily
Desert-parsley (Lomatium
dissectum)
Brandigee’s lomatium (Lomatium
brandegei)
Mountain sweet-cicely (Osmorhiza
chilensis)
Sweetvetch (Hedysarum spp.)
Arctic lupine (Lupinus arcticus)
Cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum)
Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton
americanum)
BERRIES &FRUITS
Red huckleberry (Vaccinium
parvifolium)
Black huckleberry (Vaccinium
membranaceum)
Grouseberry (Vaccinium
scoparium)
Blueberry spp. (Vaccinium
alaskaense, V. ovalifolium)
Dwarf or Cascade blueberry
(Vaccinium caespitosum)
Bog blueberry (Vaccinium
uliginosum)

Soopolallie (Shepherdia
canadensis)
Serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia)
Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata)
Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus)
Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum)
Devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus)
Red-osier dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera)
Black currant (Ribes lacustre)
Sticky currant (Ribes
viscosissimum)
Stink currant? (Ribes bracteosum)
Dull Oregon grape (Mahonia
nervosa)
Tall Oregon grape (Mahonia
aquifolium)
Wild rose (Rosa spp.)
Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-
ursi)
Red elderberry (Sambucus
racemosa)
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)
Black twinberry (Lonicera
involucrata)
Highbush cranberry (Viburnum
edule)
Red raspberry (Rubus idaeus)
Western mountain-ash (Sorbus
scopulina)
Sitka mountain ash (Sorbus
sitchensis)
Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
Pacific crab apple (Malus fusca)
NUTS
Beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta)
Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)
SPRING BUDS
Willow, cottonwood buds in spring
(M. Allen pers. comm.)
MAMMALS
Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus
hemionus)
Moose (Alces alces)
Rocky mountain elk (Cervus
canadensis)

Mountain goat (Oreamnos
americanus)
Columbian ground squirrel
(Spermophilus columbianus)
Marmot spp.
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Mountain beaver (Aplondontia
rufa)
Other
FISH
Trout
Salmon
INSECTS
Ants (e.g., Carpenter ant
(Camponotus pennsylvanicus)
Wasps
Army cutworm moth (Euxoa
auxiliaris) ? – alpine talus habitat

APPENDIX 2
CURRICULUM VITAE
Wayne P. McCrory, Registered Professional Biologist (RPBio)
President, McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.
208 Laktin Road, New Denver, British Columbia, Canada V0G 1S1
Phone (250) 358-7796 / Fax: (250) 358-7950 / E-mail: waynem@vws.org,
mccrorywildlife@xplornet.com
August 3, 2012 (Last update)
EDUCATION
BSc Honours Zoology, University of British Columbia, 1966. Course emphasis: Wildlife management.
Honours thesis on sub-speciation of mountain goats (published), thesis advisor was Dr. Ian
McTaggart-Cowan.
PROFESSIONAL LICENCE
Registered Professional Biologist (RPBio), British Columbia. Member #168.
EXPERTISE
Primarily a specialist in black bear and grizzly bear ecology, conservation, safety, bear risk
assessments, bear-people conflict prevention plans, design and management of bear-viewing tourism
programs, bear safety and bear aversion training, bear problem analysis and other aspects. However, a
broad range of experience in wildlife research involving numerous birds and mammals including
design of GIS habitat map projects, conservation area design, travel corridors/connectivity and
environmental impacts/cumulative effects assessments.
Teach bear safety and bear safety courses.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
¾ Member, College of Applied Biology (Registered Professional Biologist (RPBio)
¾ Member and certified guide and trainer with the BC Commercial Bear Viewing Association (CBVA)
¾ Member of, and contributor to, the International Association for Bear Research and Management,
also known as the International Bear Association (IBA). With members from some 50 countries, the
organization supports the scientific management of bears through research and distribution of
information, and sponsors international conferences on all aspects of bear biology, ecology and
management. Have presented at numerous international conferences and have had peer-reviewed
scientific papers published in the journal Ursus, the IBA's annual journal.

EXPERTISE SUMMARY
A broad ecological background including extensive experience in:
¾ Bear hazard assessments
¾ Management guidelines/plans for parks and conservation areas
¾ Mammal habitat inventories
¾ Waterfowl/bird surveys
¾ Caribou inventories
¾ Forestry-wildlife research
¾ Environmental impact assessments
¾ Conservation biology assessments, including GIS corridor modeling
¾ Population inventory and assessments, population management
¾ Species at risk assessments
¾ Wildlife viewing programs
¾ Trail routing and tourism studies
Highlights:
¾ 35 years experience in bear ecology, habitat mapping and bear safety and conservation issues,
specifically bear hazard assessments and management guidelines for government agencies such as BC
Parks, Parks Canada, and municipalities. Have worked for parks agencies across western Canada and
the Yukon/NWT. (Publications list which follows demonstrates the range of locations and studies
completed.)
¾ Served 3 years on the BC Ministry of Environment’s Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee
(GBSAC).
¾ More recently, carried out 6 bear hazard assessments for municipal governments and park agencies in
southwestern BC.
¾ Helped to establish, and have worked with, the Valhalla Wilderness Society for the past 30 years.
Valhalla has protected of 1.25 million acres of public lands for bears. President of the Valhalla
Foundation, which has protected private lands with high ecological values. Have been instrumental in
the protection of numerous conservation areas and parks, including Valhalla Provincial Park, the
Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary, the Goat Range Provincial Park and the Spirit Bear Conservation
Area.
¾ Hired as advisor and guide to bear films and documentaries (list below).
¾ Developed and led guided group outings as part of my “Safer Travel in Bear Country” program
(approx. 1,000 people taken through this training program).
¾ Produced, or contributed significantly to, over 80 professional research/management reports as well
as 7 published research papers (list follows).
VOLUNTARY WORK
¾ Director, Valhalla Wilderness Society
¾ President, Valhalla Foundation for Ecology and Social Justice
¾ Board Member, Get Bear Smart Society in Whistler
In addition, provide scientific expertise on bear management issues for a broad range of nonprofit
groups, and act as a peer reviewer for conservation organizations’ scientific reports. I have recently
provided support for: the David Suzuki Foundation, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, West
Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, the Sierra Club, Environmental Investigation Agency (London,
England), Friends of Nemaiah Valley, Friends of Ecological Reserves, Rainforest Action Network,
Defenders of Wildlife, Jumbo Wild, West Kootenay EcoCentre, Great Bear Foundation, Raincoast

Conservation Society, Bear Watch, North Shore Black Bear Network, Northern Lights Wildlife
Rehabilitation Centre, the Xeni-Gwet'in First Nation, Williams Lake Indian Band, Federation of
Mountain Clubs of BC, Sierra Club (Alberta), and The Land Conservancy of BC.
FILM PROJECTS AND DOCUMENTARIES
Frequently work as a scientific advisor, bear guide, and/or on-camera personality for nature
documentaries on bears, parks and conservation issues. A partial list of productions I have been involved
with:
Productions featuring Wayne McCrory and his conservation work:
¾ Champions of the Wild (Wayne McCrory: Spirit Bears and Grizzlies) (Omni Film Productions for
Knowledge Network)
¾ The Grizzly Man From New Denver: Wayne McCrory
(The Leading Edge: Innovation in BC. Knowledge Network)
¾ Lucy, The Bear Detective (Dogs With Jobs. Featuring Wayne McCrory and Lucy, his bear research
dog. Knowledge Network)
¾ Goat Range Provincial Park – Great Canadian Parks (Good Earth Productions)
¾ Island of the Ghost Bear (Nature: BBC TV)
¾ The Garden of the Grizzlies (Global Family: TVO--TV Ontario)
¾ Great Canadian Parks: Khutzeymateen (Good Earth Productions for Knowledge Network)
¾ Land of the Spirit Bear (Spirit Bear Youth Coalition)
¾ Great Canadian Parks: Spirit Bear (Good Earth Productions for Knowledge Network)
¾ Great Canadian Parks: Kitlope (Good Earth Productions for Knowledge Network)
¾ Ushuaia Nature: Des origines aux mondes perdus (in French. Production on rare animals featuring
Wayne McCrory’s work on Spirit Bears. TFI – France Television Network)
¾ The Green Inlet – Spirit Bear (Good Earth Productions)
¾ L’ours Kermode: La Semaine Verte (in French. French CBC)
¾ Wild Horses, Unconquered People (Omni Film Productions Ltd.)
¾ Tiere die Geschichte schrieben: Das Pferd (in German. Includes Wayne McCrory’s work protecting
Wild Horses. Matthey Film Productions)
¾ The Nature of Things: Khutzeymateen (CBC)
¾ The Nature of Things: The Salmon Forest (CBC)
¾ The Nature of Things: Grizzly Bears: Losing Ground (CBC)
¾ The Fifth Estate: Khutzeymateen (CBC)
¾ Wild Things: British Columbia’s Wild West Coast (Wild Exposure Preservation Productions)
¾ Spirit Bear (Cross-Country Canada. CBC)
¾ Numerous television news reports and talk shows
Provided scientific information and/or acted as bear safety guide:
¾ Caught in the Moment: Grizzlies (Tigress Productions, UK)
¾ Princess Royal Island (Great Bear Foundation)
¾ Spirit Bears (NHK: Japan Broadcasting Corp.)
¾ A Future for the Grizzly? (The Grizzly Project)
¾ Island of the Spirit Bear (Raincoast Conservation Society)
¾ The Science of Survival: Grizzly Bear Management in British Columbia (Electric Bamboo Productions)
¾ The Last Mustangs (Patrice Halley)

¾ Big Bear Week (BBC)
¾ Skeena Journal: Khutzeymateen (CBC)
¾ NRDC Spirit Bear Campaign (Natural Resources Defence Council, USA)
¾ Save the Great Spirit Bear Rainforest (Corky Productions)
¾ Canadian Coastal Rainforest – the Spirit Bear (in Japanese. Ikimono Chikyu Kiko Productions)
¾ Cap sur les terres vierges du grizzli (In French. Les Productions Espace Vert XII inc.)
¾ Canada’s Vanishing Grizzly (Friends of Ecological Reserves)
¾ Trigger Happy (Environmental Investigation Agency, UK)
¾ White Grizzly (Discovery Channel)
PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS:

Scientific publications in proceedings, refereed journals, or government publications:
Bergdahl, J. W. McCrory, P. Paquet, and B. Cross. 2000. Conservation assessment and reserve proposal
for British Columbia’s white black bears (Ursus americanus kermodei). Abstract. Proceedings of the
7th western black bear workshop. Coos Bay, Oregon. pp102.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1991. An update on using bear hazard evaluation as a means to minimize
conflicts between people and bears in recreation situations. Proceedings of the Grizzly
Management Workshop, Revelstoke, B.C. pp57-62
McCrory, W., S. Herrero, G. Jones, and E. Mallam. 1990. The role of the BC provincial park system in
grizzly bear preservation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Bear Research &
Management, Victoria, BC. pp6.
McCrory, W.P., S. Herrero, and G. Jones. 1987. Program to minimize conflicts between grizzly bears and
people in British Columbia provincial parks. Paper presented at Bear - People Conflicts
Symposium, Yellowknife, NWT. April 1987.
McCrory, W., S. Herrero, and P. Whitfield. 1986. Using grizzly habitat information to reduce human-
grizzly bear conflicts in Kokanee Glacier and Valhalla Provincial Parks, BC.
In Proc. - Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium: 24-30. Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans (compilers). USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.
Herrero, S., W. McCrory, and B. Pelchat. 1983. The application of grizzly bear habitat evaluation to trail
and campsite locations in Kananaskis Provincial Park, Alberta. International Conference on Bear
Research and Management: 6:187-193
McCrory, W.P. 1979. An inventory of the mountain goats of Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National
Parks, British Columbia. With the assistance of park wardens. Edited by M. Ballantyne. Parks
Canada Report, Western Region.
McCrory, W., D. A. Blood, D. Portman, and D. Harwood. 1977. Mountain goat surveys in Yoho
National Park, British Columbia. Proc. First Int. Mountain Goat Symp.:69-73.
Cowan, Ian McTaggart- ,and Wayne McCrory. 1970. Variation in the mountain goat Oreamnos americanus
(Blainville). Journ. of Mammalogy 51, No. 1: 60-73.
W.P. McCrory. 1965. Preliminary report on study of natural licks used by mountain goats and bighorn
sheep in Jasper National Park. Canadian Wildlife Service Report. 55 pp.

Research/Management Reports (some peer reviewed)
McCrory, W.P. 2013. McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. response to 2011 Terrestrial-Wildlife component of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) & associated documents regarding the proposed
New Prosperity gold-copper mine project at Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) with specific reference to
the grizzly bear (with added comments on northwestern toad & wild horses). Report for Friends
of Nemaiah Valley (FONV). Final report submitted to New Prosperity CEAA Panel August 20,
2013.
Paquet, M.M., and W.P. McCrory. 2012. Upper Slocan Valley Phase 1: Bear hazard assessment and Phase
2: Bear-people conflict prevention and management plan (proposed) application for Bear Smart
community status. [Available at www.vws.org]
McCrory, W. 2012. Proposed movement corridors for black bears related to the Partington Creek
Neighbourhood Plan & riparian areas regulation (RAR) setbacks in the City of Coquitlam, BC.
Report for Community Planning and Development Department, City of Coquitlam. 28 pp.
McCrory, W. 2012. Cumulative effects assessment of a potential Enbridge-related oil tanker spill on the
rare and unique gene pool of the white bear subspecies (Ursus americanus kermodei) on Gribbell
Island, British Columbia. Report submitted to Joint Review Panel. [Available at www.vws.org].
McCrory, W. 2012. Spirit Bears Under Siege. The case for the protection of Gribbell Island – Mother
Island of the White Bear. [Available at www.vws.org].
McCrory, W. 2011. Bear viewing plan for the Mussel and Poison Cove Estuaries in Fiordland
McCrory, W. 2010. September 2009 bear viewing assessment for Phillips River, BC. Report for Sonora
Resort, Campbell River, BC. 48 pp.
McCrory, 2010. An independent & cumulative effects review of Taseko Mine’s environmental impact
assessment documents: Proposed Prosperity Mine at Fish Lake {Terrestrial Wildlife
Component]. CEAR reference number 09-05-44811.
Craighead, L., and W.P. McCrory. 2010. A preliminary core conservation review of the dryland grizzly
bear of the Chilcotin Ranges in British Columbia. Report to Friends of Nemaiah Valley, Valhalla
Wilderness Society and Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government.
McCrory, W.P. 2010. Draft review of implications of climate change to habitats for some wildlife species
and wild horses in the Xeni Gwet’in Caretaker Area, Chilcotin, BC. Contribution to Xeni
Gwet’in adaptation to climate change review.
McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2009. Assessment of opportunities for spring bear viewing & nature tours
– Phillips River Estuary, BC. Report for Sonora Resort, Campbell River, BC. 48 pp.
McCrory, W.P., and P. Paquet. 2009. Proposed bear viewing strategy for the K’ztim-a-deen
Columbia. Report for the K’tzim-a-deen Management Committee & Planning Process, Prince
Rupert, B.C.
McCrory, W. 2009. Assessment of trails for the Xeni Gwet’in tourism project - wildlife and
cultural/heritage values & wild horse tourism areas.
McCrory, W.P. 2009. Evaluation of potential bear-viewing areas for the Mussel and Poison Cove
Estuaries in Fiordland Conservancy. August 29-September 5, 2009.
McCrory, W. 2009. Notes & outline & ideas for background review of bear viewing plan/strategy for the
Mussel River and Poison Cove area, Fiordlands Conservancy. Report for BC Parks and Kitasoo
First Nation.

McCrory, W. 2009. 2008 black bear risk assessment & management recommendations for public
recreation trails – The Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve (LSCR). Report to Metro
Vancouver Watershed Division.
McCrory, W. 2009. 2008 black bear risk assessment & management recommendations for Lynn
Headwaters Regional Park - hiking network between Grouse Mountain Resort and Goat
Mountain/Ridge. Report to Metro Vancouver Parks Department.
McCrory, W. 2009. 2008 notes on preliminary black bear risk assessment & management
recommendations for restricted access areas – Metro Vancouver Watershed Division.
McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2008. Bear viewing opportunities – Phillips River Watershed, BC. Report
for Kwiakah First Nation, Campbell River, BC. 19 pp.
McCrory, W. 2008. 2007- 2008 black bear risk assessment - Minnekhada Regional Park. Report for Metro
Vancouver Parks.
McCrory, W. 2008. 2007- 2008 black bear risk assessment – Kanaka Creek Regional Park. Report for
Metro Vancouver Parks.
McCrory, W. 2008. Black bear risk assessment and management recommendations for Metro Vancouver
Regional Parks.
McCrory, W., and M. Williams. 2007. Bear viewing opportunities in the Phillips River Watershed, BC.
Report for Sonora Resort Ltd., Campbell River, BC. 17 pp.
Paquet, M.M., and W.P. McCrory. 2007. Bear hazard assessment – City of Coquitlam. Application for
Bear Smart community status: Phase 1.
McCrory, W. 2007. Black bear habitat and corridor map project, Resort Municipality of Whistler
(RMOW). Draft.
McCrory, W. 2006. Bear hazard assessment and problem analysis. Phase I application for Bear Smart
Community Status. District Municipalities of North & West Vancouver, City of North
Vancouver, BC.
McCrory, W. 2005. Bear hazard assessment - problem analysis report & proposed bear-people conflict
prevention plan, Britannia Bay Properties Ltd., British Columbia.
McCrory, W., and B. Cross. 2005. A preliminary review of potential impacts of snowmobile recreation on
grizzly bear winter denning habitats and wolverine winter natal/maternal denning habitats in SE
Kakwa Provincial Park, BC, with GIS grizzly bear and wolverine den habitat models. Report to
B.C. Parks. 31 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 2005. Proposed bear-people conflict prevention plan for Resort Municipality of Whistler.
McCrory, W.P., and Paquet, M.M. 2005. Bear hazard & problem analysis report & proposed bear-people
conflict prevention plan, District of Squamish, British Columbia.
McCrory, W. 2005. Background tourism feasibility study – wild species viewing & guidelines. Xeni
Gwet’in First Nation, Chilcotin, B.C.
McCrory, W. 2005. Proposed access management plan for Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Caretaker Area,
Chilcotin, BC.
McCrory, W. 2005. Roads to Nowhere. Technical review of ecological damage & proposed restoration
related to BC Ministry of Forests control actions – 2003 Chilko Wildfire, BC re: bulldozed
fireguards & access roads & peat meadow damage. Report to Friends of Nemaiah Valley,
Victoria, BC.

McCrory, W.P. 2004. Preliminary bear hazard assessment of Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW).
Submitted to RMOW. 107 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 2004. Bear habitat ground-truthing surveys of Resort Municipality of Whistler, August 14
– 23/04 by McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd. for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping classification and
seasonal bear habitat rankings. Draft to Whistler Community Habitat Resources Project (CHRP).
McCrory, W.P., M. Williams, B. Cross, L. Craighead, P. Paquet, A. Craighead, and T. Merrill. 2004.
Grizzly bear, wildlife and human use of a major protected wildlife corridor in the Canadian
Rockies, Kakwa Provincial Park, BC. Draft progress report to Valhalla Wilderness Society and
Y2Y Wilburforce Science Symposium. Draft & In Press.
McCrory, W.P., P. Paquet, and B. Cross. 2003. Assessing conservation values for gray wolf and Sitka deer
- BC central coast rainforest. Report to the Valhalla Wilderness Society, New Denver, BC.
McCrory, W.P. 2003. A bear hazard study of recreational facilities in a major grizzly bear travel corridor
with management recommendations to minimize conflicts – A GIS Grizzly Bear Encounter Risk
Model. Kakwa Provincial Park, BC. Report to BC Parks. 174 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 2003. Preliminary review and hazard assessment related to grizzly bear –hunter conflicts
in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, Northeast BC. Report submitted to BC Wildlife
Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
McCrory, W.P. 2003. Ecological connectivity – 2003. Multi-year study of grizzly/wildlife movements &
application to GIS corridor model design – Kakwa grizzly bear – wildlife corridor pilot study.
Research proposal submitted to Wilburforce Foundation, Y2Y Conservation Initiative.
McCrory, W. 2003. Preliminary bear hazard evaluation. E.C. Manning and Skagit Valley Provincial Parks
& Cascade Recreation Area. Report to BC Parks, Okanagan District, Penticton, BC.
McCrory, W.P. 2002. Bear-People Conflict Prevention Plan (2002-2007). Manning and Skagit Provincial Parks and
Cascade Recreation Area, BC. Report to BC Parks, Summerland, B.C. 144 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 2002. Black bear hazard & habitat assessment, Diamond Head Area – Garibaldi
Provincial Park, BC. Incorporating a Geographic Information System (GIS) Decision-Support
Model. Report to BC Parks, Brackendale, BC. 117 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 2002. Preliminary conservation assessment of the Rainshadow Wild Horse Ecosystem,
Brittany Triangle, British Columbia, Canada. A review of grizzly and black bears, other wildlife,
feral horses and wild salmon. Report to Friends of Nemaiah Valley (FONV), Victoria, BC.
McCrory, W.P., and B. Cross. 2001. Trails, Hiking Routes, Roads, Campsites and Other Facilities in
Southeast Kakwa Provincial Park, BC. Composite map to BC Parks. Colour DEM, 1:37,600
scale, plus tables with trail descriptors. Updated in 2004.
McCrory, W.P. 2001. Background review for a bear hazard study and bear-people conflict prevention plan for E.C.
Manning and Skagit Valley Provincial Parks and Cascade Recreation Area. Report to BC Parks,
Summerland, BC. 55 pp.
McCrory, W.P., J. Bergdahl, P. Paquet, and B. Cross. 2001. A conservation area design for protection of the white black
bear (Ursus americanus kermodei) on the central coast of British Columbia. Report to Valhalla Wilderness
Society, New Denver, BC. In Press.
Ruttan, R.A., and W.P. McCrory. 2001. A background review of the black bear (Ursus americanus) in the boreal
forest: denning habits and resource extraction.
McCrory, W.P. 2000. A review of the bear-people management program for Kokanee Glacier Provincial
Park, BC. Report to BC Parks, Nelson, BC. 88 pp.

McCrory, W.P., C. McTavish, and P. Paquet. 1999. Grizzly bear background research document. 1993-
1996 for GIS bear encounter risk model, Yoho National Park, British Columbia. A background
report for the GIS Decision-Support Model for the Lake 0’Hara/McArthur Valley Socio-
ecological study. Parks Canada. 96 pp. plus appendices.
McTavish, C., and W. McCrory, 1998. Grizzly/black bear habitat assessment. Stoltmann Wilderness.
Elaho River Drainage, British Columbia, Canada. Report to Western Canada Wilderness
Committee, Vancouver, BC.
McCrory. W.P. 1998. Bear habitat and hazard assessment. Duffey Lake Provincial Park, British Columbia.
Report to BC Parks, Brackendale, BC. 29 pp plus appendices.
McCrory, W. 1998. A preliminary bear habitat and hazard assessment, Kakwa Lake area. Kakwa
Recreation and Protected Area, British Columbia. Report to BC Parks, include. GIS bear habitat
map. 35 pp.
McCrory, W. 1998b. Progress notes - Bear habitat assessments (Aug. 16-25/98) re- study design for a
GIS bear encounter risk model for Kakwa Recreation and Protected Area, British Columbia.
Report to BC Parks and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. 12 pp. plus tables.
McCrory, W., and T. Leja. 1998. Preliminary bear hazard assessment, proposed Summit Meadow Ridge
Trail, Mt. Revelstoke National Park, BC. Report to Parks Canada Warden Service, Revelstoke,
BC.
S. MacDougall, W. McCrory, and S. Herrero. 1997. A study of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bear (U.
americanus) food habits and habitat use, and a bear hazard assessment of the Rabbitkettle Lake
area of Nahanni National Park Reserve, Northwest Territories. Parks Canada. 157 pp.
McCrory, W. 1997. Bear conflict prevention plan for Akamina Kishinena Provincial Park, B.C. (1997-
2001). Report to BC Parks, Wasa, BC.
McCrory, W. 1997a. Preliminary evaluation of bear habitats in Moose Creek and comments on the
potential impacts of the proposed magnetite mine development. Progress report to Parks Canada
- Yoho/Lake Louise/Kootenay.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1997b. Grizzly bear habitats and trail hazard assessment for Ottertail fire
road and Goodsir Pass Trail-Goodsir Flats. Progress report to Parks Canada - Yoho/Lake
Louise/Kootenay.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1995a. Revised grizzly bear capability for Wells Gray Provincial Park,
biophysical map. Report to BC Parks, Kamloops, BC. 40 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1995b. Preliminary bear hazard assessment of Wells Gray Provincial Park.
Report to BC Parks, Kamloops, BC. 20 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1995. Year two progress report. Grizzly bear habitats and trail hazard
assessment - for Lake O'Hara/McArthur Valley socio-ecological study. 32 pp.
McCrory, W.P. 1995. Environmental impacts of military training on an endangered grassland. Chilcotin
Military Block - D.L. 7741, B.C. Report for the Tl’esqox (Toosey) Indian Band, Riske Creek, BC.
108 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1994. Bear hazard assessment and management recommendations. The
Odaray Prospect-McArthur Pass area (Lake O'Hara) and the McArthur Creek Valley. Report to
Yoho National Park, Heritage Resource Conservation Service. 102 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1994. Assessment of bear habitats and hazards. Liard River Hot Springs
Provincial Park, British Columbia. Report to BC Parks, Fort St. John, BC.

McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1994. Bear hazard assessment and recommendations. Cougar Valley and
Balu Pass Trails, Glacier National Park, B.C. Report for Parks Canada Warden Service,
Revelstoke, B.C.
McCrory, W. 1994. Values of a fully protected Kitlope Ecosystem for bears. Report to Nanakila Institute,
Kitimaat Village, BC. Draft.
McCrory, W., G. Copeland, and E. Mallam. 1993. A proposed management framework for the
Khutzeymateen grizzly sanctuary, BC. Report to Valhalla Wilderness Society, Friends of
Ecological Reserves and World Wildlife Fund. Draft. 32 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1992. Grizzly bear resource management report, Kokanee Glacier Park and
Recreation Area. Report to BC Parks. 32 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1992. Grizzly bear habitat/hazard assessment of recreation trails in Marten
Creek and Idaho Lookout area. Report to Ministry of Forests, Castlegar, BC.
McCrory, W., E. Mallam, and G. Copeland. 1991. A proposal for a white grizzly wilderness park in the
Goat Range of British Columbia. Report to Valhalla Wilderness Society.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1990. Preliminary bear hazard evaluation for Bowron Lake Provincial Park,
B.C. Report to BC Parks, Prince George, BC. 73 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1990 Bear hazard evaluation in Monashee Provincial Park, BC. Report to
BC Parks, Kamloops, BC, 22pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1990. Bear hazard evaluation in areas of Mt. Robson Provincial Park, BC.
Report to BC Parks, Prince George, BC. 20 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1990. Bear hazard evaluation in Monkman Provincial Park, BC. Report to
BC Parks, Prince George BC, 19pp.
McCrory, W.P., S. Herrero, and G. Jones. 1989. A program to minimize conflicts between grizzly Bears
and people in British Columbia Provincial Parks. Bear-People Conflicts – Proc. of a Symposium
on Management Strategies. Northwest Territories Dept. of Renew. Res.: 93-98.
McCrory, W.P., and E. Mallam. 1989. Bear-people management plan for the Atnarko River, Tweedsmuir
Provincial Park, BC. Report to BC Parks, Prince George, BC, Parts I & II.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1989. Bear Management Plan, West Kootenay District, BC Parks (1989-
1994). Part 1 and Part 11 (Background document).
McCrory, W.P., and E. Mallam. 1988. Grizzly bear viewing and bear-salmon interpretive potential along
the Atnarko River, Tweedsmuir Provincial Park. Report to BC Parks, Victoria, BC, December
1988.
McCrory, W.P., and E. Mallam. 1988. Ecological, preservation and public appreciation values and
potential logging impacts in the proposed Khutzeymateen grizzly sanctuary, BC. Final report to
Friends of Ecological Reserves, World Wildlife Fund and other sponsors. 93 pp.
McCrory, W.P., and E. Mallam. 1987. Grizzly bear hazard evaluation - Elk Lakes Park and Recreation
Area, Mt. Assiniboine Park and Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, BC. BC Parks Division,
Kamloops, BC.
McCrory, W., S. Herrero, and E. Mallam. 1987. Preservation and management of the grizzly bear in BC
Provincial Parks - The Urgent Challenge. Report to BC Parks Division, Victoria, BC. 187 pp.
McCrory, W., and E. Mallam. 1985. An assessment of grizzly and black bear habitat in Hamber Provincial
Park, BC with recommendations to reduce human-bear conflicts. Report to BC Parks. 57 pp.

McCrory, W.P. 1985 Grizzly bear habitat and out door recreation in Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park,
BC Conflicts and recommendations. Volume 1. BC Parks Division. 118 p.
McCrory, W.P. 1984. An evaluation of grizzly bear habitat capability and use and recreation
developments in Valhalla Provincial Park, BC Parks Division. 153 pp.
McCrory, W. 1979. An inventory of the mountain goats of Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National
Parks, British Columbia. Parks Canada Rep., Western Region. Glacier National Park, Revelstoke,
BC. 200 pp. typescript.
McCrory, W.P., and D.A. Blood. 1978. An inventory of the mammals of Yoho National Park, British
Columbia. Parks Canada, W.R.O., Calgary, Alta. Assisted by Park Wardens and Naturalists. 269
pp.
McCrory, W. 1965. Variation in the mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus). BSc Honours Zoology Thesis.
University of British Columbia. 44 pp.
Syncrude Canada Ltd. 1973. Migratory waterfowl and the Syncrude Tar Sands Lease: A report.
Environmental Research Monograph 1973-3. [Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd.,
W. McCrory researcher].

Phillips Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem Report 2014

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Phillips Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem Report 2014

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REVIEW &

SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED

KWIAKAH FIRST NATION

February 20, 2014

Wayne McCrory, RPBio, Bear Biologist

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, QUALIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT,

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 1

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 2

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 3

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 4

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 5

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF POTENTIAL FOODS FOR BLACK AND

APPENDIX 2: CURRICULUM VITAE OF WAYNE McCRORY, RPBIO...........190

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 6

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 7

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 8

IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS AND PLANNED WFP LOGGING ON THE

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 9

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 10

Figure 2. Grizzly bear searching for salmon along Phillips

Figure 3. Grizzly bear mark tree

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 11

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 12

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND GRIZZLY BEAR-SALMON INVENTORY AND

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 13

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 14

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 15

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF EBM LOGGING

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 16

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 17

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 18

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 19

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 20

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 21

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 22

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 23

STAFFORD ESTUARY CONSERVANCY

PHILLIPS ESTUARY CONSERVANCY

ESTERO BASIN CONSERVANCY HIL

POLKINGHORNE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY

BURDWOOD GROUP CONSERVANCY

BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO CONSERVANCY

BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO MARINE PARK

Gwawaenuk Paved Road Schedule Port Hardy

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 24

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 25

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 26

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 27

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 28

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 29

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 30

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 31

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 32

LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR THIS SECTION

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 33

3.0 STUDY METHODS & APPROACH

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 34

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 35

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 36

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 37

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 38

LITERATURE CITED OR CONSULTED FOR THIS SECTION

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 39

Phillips Watershed-Grizzly Bear-Salmon Ecosystem 40