Priority Setting Workshop for Grizzly Bear Funding in ... · Priority Setting for Grizzly Bear...

Compass Resource Management

Ministry of Environment

Priority Setting Workshop for Grizzly Bear Funding in British Columbia

October 7-8, 2009

Prepared by:

Compass Resource Management Ltd.

200 – 1260 Hamilton St. Vancouver, B.C.

V6B 2S8 GST 88573 9565

Contact: Glen Hearns

Telephone: (604) 505-6609 Fax: (604) 641-2878

[email protected]

For

Alec Dale Manager of the Wildlife Section

Ministry of Environment 2975 Jutland Rd.

Victoria, BC V8T 5J9

October 30, 2009

mailto:[email protected]

Compass Resource Management

Table of Contents

1 Introduction _________________________________________________ 1

2 Workshop Summary and Methodology ___________________________ 1

3 Inventory and Monitoring ______________________________________ 3

3.1 Methodology for evaluating priority GBPUs for programs ______________ 3

3.2 Criteria for evaluation ____________________________________________ 5

3.3 Weighted criteria for inventory and monitoring _______________________ 6

3.4 Testing criteria and scoring on an individual basis ____________________ 9

3.5 Collective scoring for threatened GBPUs ___________________________ 10

4 Other issues and topic areas __________________________________ 13

4.1 Grizzly Bear Recovery ___________________________________________ 13

4.2 Habitat ________________________________________________________ 15

4.3 Human-Wildlife Conflict __________________________________________ 17

4.4 Education _____________________________________________________ 19

4.5 Sustainable Viewing ____________________________________________ 21

4.6 Human Values and Attitudes _____________________________________ 21

4.7 Cumulative Impacts _____________________________________________ 22

5 Conclusions ________________________________________________ 22

Annex A: List of Participants ____________________________________ 23

Annex B Agenda ______________________________________________ 24

Annex C Tables for Inventory and Monitoring ______________________ 26

Annex D Aggregated results for swing-weighting for inventory and monitoring criteria _____________________________________________ 28

Annex E Tables for Additional Focal Areas ________________________ 30

Priority Setting for Grizzly Bear Funding – Workshop, Richmond October 7-8, 2009

Compass Resource Management 1

1 Introduction In anticipation of a new round of funding for activities in Grizzly Bear management the Ministry of Environment (MOE) hosted a two-day workshop to provide insight to priority issues from the perspectives of provincial experts. The goal of the workshop was to initiate a process to help set priorities for evaluating proposals to the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy Surcharge Account of the HCTF and to the Grizzly Bear Trust Fund. Further consultation is expected to develop a formal set of criteria for evaluating proposals and scoring different Grizzly Bear Population Units (GBPU) in terms of determining priority areas for activities.

The workshop took place on October 7-8, 2009 in Richmond and was attended by 15 participants from MOE, Ministry of Forests and Range, and individual consultants. A list of participants is found in Annex A, and an agenda for the meeting in Annex B.

The main focal topics discussed included:

Inventory and monitoring

Grizzly bear recovery

Habitat issues, including access

Human-wildlife conflict

Education

Sustainable viewing (non-consumptive uses)

Human values and attitudes.

The main focus of the workshop was to develop and weigh criteria for inventory and monitoring and advance the identification of priority GBPUs for abundance, distribution and monitoring activities. The final identification of the priority areas is being continued, however the workshop was positioned to indicate a sense of what can be expected. During the second day the remaining issues were explored in terms of how selective project proposals should be evaluated as opposed to which GBPUs are priority.

This report is intended to provide a basis for discussion and allow others who were unable to participate to comment and contribute prior to sending recommendations to the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy Surcharge Account of the HCTF and to the Grizzly Bear Trust Fund.

2 Workshop Summary and Methodology Day1

The first day was open to all participants and focussed on discussions pertaining to inventory and monitoring. Presentations were given by:

Tony Hamilton, relating to grizzly bear management in BC and some of the emerging trends and threats.



Clayton Apps, outlining the strategy to develop a comprehensive and formal set of weighed criteria and method for evaluating priority areas for funding. The initial set of criteria were presented and discussed along with principal objectives for inventory and monitoring.

Garth Mowat, summarizing the results of a numerical model to estimate bear populations, and carrying capacity based on landscape information and known population and distribution data. He emphasized that it was a snap-shot approach and that it was not necessarily a predictive model.

A discussion followed presentations regarding the evaluation criteria and the need for inclusion of any additional issues not captured under the existing criteria. A ‘straw bear’ was forwarded to facilitate discussion (Annex C). It was decided that inventory and monitoring should be separated into abundance, distribution and monitoring in keeping with the major objectives. One criterion, Trend in bear mortality was split into two separate criteria Trend in bear mortality (hunting), and Trend in bear mortality (non-hunting or other). Following the discussion a weighting exercise was carried out by all the participants in which the criteria were weighted individually and then collectively aggregated for discussion and review.

The criteria were then tested by participants through the evaluation of priority areas on an individual basis. These are not contained in this workshop report but will be used to inform the larger project to identify priority areas. While it was noted that GBPUs discussed were based primarily in the south as a result of the participants knowledge and ability to use the criteria, the activity confirmed the utility of the criteria as evaluation tools.

A scoring exercise followed in which threatened areas were given between 1 and 5 for each of the criteria, where 1 was low priority and 5 represented high priority. This was done collectively. The results of this exercise combined with a second exercise the second day are shown in Table 2. Caution should be taken in interpreting the table, as it was pointed out that the values given are relative scores only and more work is required to develop constructed tables which can be systematically used to score all GBPU in the province in a transparent manner.

Day 2

A smaller group of participants, principally from MOE, reviewed the work of the previous day and addressed additional topic areas to develop and weigh criteria for evaluation at the project proposal level. Additional topic areas included: Grizzly Bear Recovery, Habitat Issues, Human-wildlife Conflict, Education, Sustainable viewing, and Human Values and Attitudes.

Discussions took place in plenary and the weighting of criteria were done in an interactive and collective manner. The final product of discussion being a series of graphs illustrating the various criteria weighted in terms of their importance with respect to the different focal issues (Section 4).



3 Inventory and Monitoring Inventory and monitoring were approached with the goal of prioritising specific areas and GBPUs with respect to abundance and distribution inventories and monitoring programs. Monitoring was generally considered to be applied to threatened populations, however, it was agreed that some non-threatened populations may warrant monitoring and that criteria for prioritisation should accommodate these populations, for example in the North East with respect to oil and gas development.

Likewise, while abundance and distribution inventories were generally considered to pertain to health populations, it was felt that criteria should reflect the possibility of threatened populations having inventory work done. Examples might include distribution inventories for the South Chilcotin and Blackwater-West Chilcotin GBPUs.

The objectives of inventory and monitoring were as follows:

Abundance: increasing the knowledge of absolute abundance of GBPUs;

Distribution: increasing understanding of population distribution and connectivity;

Monitoring: increase knowledge of trends relevant to population, habitat and human parameters over time.

3.1 Methodology for evaluating priority GBPUs for programs

The flow chart below describes the four-step process for evaluating the priority GBPUs with respect to inventory, distribution and monitoring activities. The workshop concentrated on steps 1 and 2, and has advanced step 3 in terms of threatened GBPUs.

The process is designed to ensure that a transparent method is conducted for priority setting among GBPUs. Also, it is an iterative process and the weights and criteria developed during the workshop will undergo further review.

All the participants were able to discuss and evaluate the importance of the criteria as part of step 1. Some modifications and clarifications were made as will be described under section 4. The criteria developed were considered to take into account the major scientific and technical considerations which would be used to determine priorities GBPU. The priority list is therefore from a scientific and technical point of view. It was decided that issues of cost effectiveness, sunken costs, efficacy (in terms of # bears influenced/$ spent), social and cultural considerations (such as First Nations interests or guiding interests), amongst others, would be dealt with at different stage in the decision-making process.

All the participants were engaged in the initial swing-weighting of the criteria for prioritization as part of step 2. The remaining participants modified those weights through a consensus process on day 2.



An initial scoring was conducted by all the participants on day 1 with respect to threatened GBPUs. Scores were discussed through a consensus process for 10 of the Province’s threatened GBPUs as shown in Table 2. While this served as a reality check on the applicability of the criteria, it also served to advance the work of step 3 in the process of GBPU prioritization.

Develop a series of criteria which will be as comprehensive and inclusive as possible, while still being sufficiently functional to use for evaluation. The criteria are used to evaluate all GBPUs in the Province to determine their ranking in terms of abundance, distribution and monitoring programs.

2. Weigh Criteria

The criteria are weighed in terms of their relative importance for determining priority GBPUs for abundance, distribution and monitoring programs. The relative weighting will be different for abundance, distribution and monitoring

3. Score each GBPU

Each GBPU will be scored with respect to each of the inventory and monitoring criteria. Constructed scales will be developed and scoring will be done through consultation. Generally scores will range between 0-5, where a high score means greater need or importance.

4. Determine Priority GBPUs

The weighted criteria will be applied to each of the GBPUs. Priority areas will be those with the highest overall score

1. Identify Criteria

Explanation Step

Example

1 Knowledge gap in populations and 2 Knowledge gap in distribution are identified as criteria for monitoring.

1. Identify Criteria

2. Weigh Criteria 1 Knowledge gap in populations is weighed at 60% 2 Knowledge gap in distribution is weighted at 40% For monitoring programs

3. Score each GBPU

GBPU Kettle-Granby Wells Gray

Kn. gap in pop. 4 2

Kn gap in dist. 2 3

4. Determine Priority GBPUs

GBPU Kettle-Granby Wells Gray

Kn. gap in pop. 4 x 0.6 2 x 0.6

Kn gap in dist. 2 x 0.4 3 x 0.4

Score 3.2 2.4



In the above example Kettle-Granby would be a priority for a monitoring program over Wells Gray. Priorities would be similarly set for abundance and distribution inventories based on a differed set of weights for the same criteria.

3.2 Criteria for evaluation

The final criteria used for evaluation of priority areas were determined to be:

1. Knowledge Gap in population.

This refers to the level of confidence in the value of the absolute population in a GBPU. This criterion will highlight those GBPUs where the level of confidence is low regarding population. A low level of confidence would score high in terms of needing an inventory or program to address the knowledge gap. The assessment of population could come from a variety of sources and thus affect the ‘level of confidence’ in the value of the absolute population.

2. Knowledge Gap in distribution

This refers to the level of confidence in the available knowledge with respect to population distribution and connectivity of a specific GBPU. This criterion will advance those areas where there is a dearth of information or a low level of confidence in our understanding population distribution and connectivity. If the level of confidence is low, the GBPU would score high in terms of needing an inventory or program to address the knowledge gap.

3. Assumed status/need & potential for recovery

This refers to the importance of a GBPU with respect to its status, thus its need for recovery activities and the potential of any recovery activities to be effective. Emphasis on this criterion will advance those GBPUs in which there is a greater need and potential for recovery over those that may need recovery but with a low potential and visa versa.

It was determined that when giving a score to each GBPU, the assumed status should be separately assessed in terms of the need for recovery and in terms of the potential for recovery. They would be weighed equally to develop a single score for application with the criterion. Table 1 shows how this has been applied to threatened GBPU. Table 1 shows the results of this process for threatened GBPUs.

4. Anticipated threats

This refers to the degree to which anticipated long and short-term threats may negatively impact the bears in a specific GBPU. Threats are primarily related to impact to habitat and access to food sources etc., as opposed to greater road density resulting in an increased impact in bear mortality. Threats could thus be habitat loss due to IPPs, pipelines, agricultural development as well issues such salmon loss, or climate change impacts.



5. Trend in bear mortality – Hunting.

This refers to importance of mortality due to hunting. Emphasis on this will highlight those GBPUs where there is a high level of mortality due to hunting activities relative to the assumed population.

6. Trend in bear mortality – Non-hunting

This refers to importance of mortality due to non-hunting, such as ‘problem bears’ in communities, road kill, or by-take associated with hunters protecting a kill. Emphasis on this will highlight those GBPUs where there is a high level of mortality due to non-hunting activities relative to the assumed population.

7. Ecotype representation.

This refers to the degree to which representing eco-provinces is important in evaluating priority areas. The reason would be to develop a series of benchmarks through out the province to increase knowledge associated with eco-provinces. It would be particularly useful to look at large scale alterations at a provincial level, such as climate change.

8. Conservation significance to other populations.

This refers to the importance of the GBPU in terms of providing connectivity to other populations. These are usually adjacent populations, however, it was also determined that a GBPU might be a source of bears for other GBPUs under threat.

9. Importance to existing programs

This criterion relates to the importance of conducting further work in a GBPU to build on previous work and thus benefit from value added aspects. It could include the continuation of a long term monitoring program, and the completion of an inventory, amongst others. The essence is that a small amount a further work in a GBPU may provide a large amount of additional knowledge that can be shared and provide benefit to other areas.

3.3 Weighted criteria for inventory and monitoring

Figures 1 to 3 represent the final weighting given to the above criteria when applied to abundance and distribution inventories and monitoring. On the first day participants partook a swing weighting exercise to individually assess weights for prioritization criteria for abundance, distribution and monitoring. The results were aggregated and appear in Annex D.

On second day the remaining participants reviewed the results of the first day and modified the criteria though a consensus process. It should be noted that the Importance to existing landuse was removed as it was felt it did not significantly contribute to prioritisation at this stage in the evaluation which focussed on the scientific and technical side of issues. It was felt that other legislative, or landuse issues would be



incorporated in the overall evaluation of individual project proposals as opposed to prioritisation of GBPU areas, which should be conducted on a technical and scientific basis.

Abundance

Figure 1 shows the weighted criteria to be applied to determine priority areas for abundance inventories. Not surprisingly the most important criteria relates to a gap in knowledge (or low level of confidence) regarding populations. Following this, the Trend in bear mortality – hunting was thought to be the next most influential criteria for prioritization of GBPUs and subsequently Anticiapated threats. It was felt that in GBPUs with a low confidence of absolute populations, higher hunting pressure and the potential for threats should be highlighted for priority areas to determine abundance more accurately. Of lesser importance would be its Assumed status/need & potential for recovery, the Trend in bear mortality – non-hunting, and its Conservation significance to adjacent populations.

There was some discussion as to whether or not to set the knowledge gap (or low confidence level) in distribution information to zero as it was seen to be separate from abundance issues. This was to help identify those GBPUs for abundance inventories in a separate way from those for distribution inventories, even though at the project level both abundance and distribution may be carried out simultaneously. It can, however, be argued that there should be some weight associated with a knowledge gap in distribution, as if all other issues are equal we should like to highlight GBPUs that require more needs in terms of distribution as opposed to those that do not, even though inventories may be done for abundance, as the information gathered may assist knowledge of distribution at some level.

Figure 1 – Weighted Criteria for Abundance Inventories



Distribution

Figure 2 shows the weighted criteria that should be applied to GBPUs scores to determine priorities for distribution inventories. In this case the driving criteria are a Knowledge gap (low confidence level) in distribution information and the Assumed status/need & potential for recovery. It was felt that GBPUs with a greater need for recovery should be highlighted for distribution inventories. It was also felt that Bear mortality – non-hunting was relatively important as these mostly occurred at the margins of GBPUs where there was the potential for greater human contact, and would thus be associated with distribution issues. Anticipated threats was also considered important in terms of habitat alteration which would also affect distribution, and the Conservation significance to other populations was deemed relatively important as it relates to connectivity between populations.

Bear mortaliy – hunting was considered as less significant for distribution than mortality associated with non-hunting, but still of significance. However, both Ecotype representation and Importance to existing programs were considered to be of little significance. The Knowledge gap in populations was set to zero, however there may be merit in giving it some weight. It can be argued that there should be some weight associated with it, as if all other issues are equal we should like to highlight GBPUs that require more needs in terms of abundance inventory as opposed to those that do not.

Figure 2 – Weighted Criteria for Distribution Inventories

Monitoring

Figure 3 shows the weighted criteria developed for GBPUs that require monitoring activities. The criteria are driven by Assumed status/need & potential for recovery, Anticipated threats and Trend in Bear mortality – non-hunting. These criteria will likely highlight existing threatened GBPUs as well as those relatively healthy populations



which may be on the brink of being classified as threatened. It is important to also note that the Assumed status/need and potential for recovery will highlight GBPUs which are both in need and have the potential for recovery.

It was also felt that it was important to continue or build on existing information and thus the Importance to existing programs was also found to be relatively important. The Conservation significance to other populations was also seen to be moderately important for identifying areas for monitoring. This supports the understanding that areas where connectivity is important for conservation purposes would be highlighted for monitoring activities.

Of less importance in determining priority areas for monitoring were the issues of low confidence around abundance and distribution, which is understandable as they would be of greater influence for abundance and distribution inventories. The Trend in bear mortality – hunting was seen as the least important issue. This is because it was felt that hunting would occur primarily in those areas which did not necessarily require monitoring unless other factors, such as anticipated threats and trend in bear mortality- non-hunting, were important issues. Ecotype representation was considered somewhat important for monitoring activities, however, less than 5% of the weight should be associated with ecotype representation.

Figure 3 Weighted Criteria for Monitoring Activities

3.4 Testing criteria and scoring on an individual basis

Latter is day 1 participants were asked to select areas they felt were important for monitoring and give scores (1-5) for the different criteria. This was done to test the applicability of the criteria and ensure that no important issue had been left out, and to gain a sense of what areas were of concern for people in terms of monitoring. It was



noted that the distribution of areas reflected the areas where the participants felt most confident in providing scores, and thus were primarily in the southern part of the province and that they do not therefore represent the only priority areas for monitoring in the Province. Individual scores were conducted on:

Omineca

Hyland

South Selkirks

Yahk

Owikeno

Toba Bute

Peace-Moberly

Stikine

Tatshenshini-Cassiar

Kettle-Granby

Stein-Nahatlatch

Flathead

Squamish-Lillooet

Columbia Shushwap. The results of the individual scoring are not presented in this report, but will help inform the larger project for the formal development of priority areas for abundance, distribution and monitoring.

3.5 Collective scoring for threatened GBPUs

Towards the end of the first day and during the second day the criteria were further tested by scoring the threatened GBPUs using expert judgement of those present through a discussion process to arrive at consensus. The results of this exercise are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that these scores are not final scores as further consultation is needed. However, they do give a flavour for the types of scores that may eventually be realised.

Table 1 shows the assessment given to the threatened areas in terms of developing and overall score for Assumed status/need & potential for recovery. Need was assessed by how far the assumed population was from the potential carrying capacity of the GBPU (taking into account disturbance and habitat loss, etc.). While potential was assessed by how feasible it would be to try to recover the population taking into account isolation, human-wildlife conflict etc.

Scores were given based on a 0-5 scale in which a low score meant that there was either not much need and/or potential for recovery, while a high score indicated a great need and/or potential. Table 1 shows that in terms of the assumed status the Squamish-Lillooet GBPU scores the highest as it scores the highest for need and has a relatively high score for potential to recover. The North Cascades, while having a great need for



recovery scores very low for the potential to recover, due to its isolation. Consequently, it would be a relatively low priority for the Province in terms of GBPU area for recovery.



Table 1 – Assumed Status/need & potential for Threatened GBPUs

Table 2 shows the assessment of the participants on day one for all the remaining criteria, with the exception of the Assumed status/need & potential for recovery criterion, which was developed on day 2. Again scores were given using a scale of 1-5, where low scores represented little importance or need from the standpoint of each GBPU and high scores indicated greater need.

The scoring shows the variability in assessments associated with the different GBPUs. For example the Blackwater- West Chilcotin GBPU scores high in terms of and information gap or low confidence associated with both population and distribution; however it scores relatively low in terms of Assumed status/need& potential for recovery. Whereas the Squamish-Lillooet scored modestly for the two former criteria, it received the highest for the latter, indicating that we know a lot about it and its need for and potential for recovery are high. Based on the weighted criteria for monitoring we could anticipate that this GBPU would score relatively high in this category, but relatively low for the abundance inventory category.



Table 2 – Scores for criteria for Threatened GBPUs

4 Other issues and topic areas On the second day the remaining participants developed weighted criteria to evaluate proposals which might fall under one or more of the following categories:

Grizzly bear recovery

Habitat issues, including access

Human-wildlife conflict

Education

Sustainable viewing (non-consumptive uses)

Human values and attitudes.

To facilitate discussions a ‘straw bear’ was developed prior to the workshop (Annex E). In these cases individual swing weighting was not conducted, but rather a facilitated discussion occurred to reach consensus on relative weights for each category.

While there was some discussion surrounding sustainable viewing it was not felt that there would be a sufficient number of proposals submitted to warrant the development of weighted criteria.

4.1 Grizzly Bear Recovery

The primary objectives for grizzly bear recovery projects should be to:

Increase the scientific foundation for recovery

Increase on the ground actions

Increase knowledge of outcomes and causes of population decline

Increase our ability to respond to populations in need of recovery (preparedness). This encompasses the concept of ensuring that all legislative,



government mandates, land-use plans, etc. are aligned for grizzly bear recovery to occur.

The criteria determined were as follows:

1. Increase or address gaps to institutional feasibility.

This corresponds the last objective in terms of ensuring that appropriate legislative and government mandates are in place to facilitate grizzly bear recovery.

2. Ability of the proposal to identify and address limiting factors.

This criterion relates to the need for the proposal to ensure that sound science is being applied to drive on-the-ground activities and that liming factors are identifies and addressed. These could include substantive limiting factors, such as mortality risk associated with non-hunting, or procedural factors, such as lack of will to implement best management practices on the ground.

3. Result in on the ground activities.

This criterion addresses the need for actual activities to occur, such as limiting access, placing signage, introducing new bears to a region, etc.

4. Ability to detect outcomes (not necessarily Lambda )

This relates to the ability of the project to detect the outcomes of any on-the-ground activities, which do not necessarily relate to defining Lambda for populations, as this would fall under abundance inventories.

5. Fit within the geographic priority for need and potential for recovery.

This highlights projects which occur in areas that are identified as priority areas under Assumed status/need and potential for recovery. This is entirely consistent as the category is grizzly bear recovery.

Figure 4 shows the weights associated with the above criteria as they should be applied to proposals dealing with grizzly bear recovery. Not surprisingly the Fit within the geographic priority for need and potential for recovery is the driving factor for weighting proposals, followed by the Ability to identify and address limiting factors. The latter was seen to be important as it focuses on addressing the most important factor associated with bear mortality and/or lack of reproductively. On the ground activities and the ability to detect outcomes were also viewed as relatively important, while Increasing institutional feasibility was viewed as least important.



Figure 4 Weighted Criteria for Grizzly Bear Recovery Proposals

4.2 Habitat

The group discussed projects which would address issues relating to habitat, including those related to access, and in particular motorized access. Habitat issues can include a variety of different matters such connectivity, access to secure rearing areas, denning areas, food sources, foraging habitat, amongst others.

Major objectives included:

Maximize suitable habitat over time

Maximise effective habitat over time

Maximise population linkages

There were eight criteria which were determined to be important for assessing proposals associated with habitat. They include:

1. Habitat supply is limiting factor.

This is geographical criteria indicates that proposals should be in GBPUs where habitat is believed to be a limiting factor.

2. Addresses broad scale habitat contiguity.



This would highlight proposals which address large scale continuity between key habitat areas, either within or between GBPUs.

3. Minimize mortality risk bear

This criterion captures the importance of bear mortality related to habitat.

4. Address barriers to Best Management Practices (BMP)

This addresses the idea that there are BMPs or guidelines for management which are known but are not being implemented on the ground for one reason or another. Proposals which address the barriers to BMP will be highlighted under this criteria.

5. Feasibility of implementation

This captures the notion of how feasible habitat restoration or conservation would be in terms of existing land management plans, possibility of easements or land acquisitions, cost of land etc.

6. General Applicability to other areas

This criterion captures the idea that a project whose outcome would provide beneficial information to other projects or could be applied in other areas.

7. Addresses core security

Core security is seen as an important element for healthy populations of grizzly bears, particularly for females and cubs. This includes issues protecting core security, such as decommissioning of roads.

8. Ability to measure the outcome

This criterion incorporates an element of validation into the assessment process. It relates to the need to be able to verify the outcome of activities undertaken in a project.

Figure 5 shows the weights associated with the above criteria for evaluating and assessing projects which address habitat issues. The driving criterion is whether habitat is actually a limiting factor for healthy grizzly bear populations in the local under question. It was determined that over 25% of the weight should be given to this criterion. This is followed by feasibility of implementation which accounts for 20% of the weighting. This is reasonable as projects which have high need in terms of habitat being limiting should also have to be feasible to implement. Often when habitat is a limiting factor addressing it may be very difficult. Those project which score high on both those criteria should come to the fore.

Addressing broad scale contiguity, Minimising mortality risk, and Addressing core security are all relatively important. This also makes sense as any project which would be able to address more than one of these criteria should be highlighted. Addresses barriers to BMP



is of moderate importance, while General applicability and Ability to measure outcome are the least critical in terms of projects that address habitat issues.

Figure 5 Weighted Criteria for Habitat Related Projects

4.3 Human-Wildlife Conflict

The group discussed issues surrounding human-wildlife conflict and the possible types of project proposals that might be forwarded, as well specific areas and locations that might benefit from such proposals.

The principal objectives for projects which deal with human-wildlife conflict are:

Minimize the number of bears killed over time

Minimize the number of incidents over time (this is considered as the number of calls or reports of negative interaction)

Minimise costs associated with human-wildlife conflict. This includes costs to society as well as to the Province.

Six criteria were developed to assess proposals addressing this issue, however, only five were considered important for assessment. They were:

1. Recovery need and potential

This refers to the geographical criterion of prioritising those projects that occur in GBPUs which have both a need and potential for recovery. These would have been



identified in the process of scoring GBPUs for Assumed status/need and potential for recovery undertaken in the inventory and monitoring scoring.

2. Project area has a high bear mortality

This is another geographically focussed criterion which highlights projects that occur in locations where there is a relatively high bear mortality associated with human-wildlife conflict. This includes bears killed by hunters defending their kills or protecting their livestock etc.

3. GBPU level has high bear mortality.

This is another geographically focussed criterion highlighting those projects which occur in GBPUs with a relatively high bear mortality associated with human-bear

4. Ability to reduce the risk to human safety

This relates to the projects ability to address issues related to human safety. These could be physical structures to separate bears, or they could also have informative components associated with cultivating a greater sense of awareness and ‘bear smarts’ in specific communities, amongst others.

5. Build on existing programs

It was felt that it is better to build on existing and established programs as there would be a better likelihood of success. Specifically, programs such as ‘Bear Aware’ were discussed.

6. Ability to measure outcomes

This criterion incorporates an element of validation into the assessment process. It relates to the need to be able to verify the outcome of activities undertaken in a project.

Figure 6 shows the weighted criteria associated with human-wildlife conflicts. Clearly, it was felt that projects which could show obvious ability to positively impact human safety would be highlighted. The group felt that approximately half as important were the projects that occurred in areas and GBPUs which experienced high levels of bear mortality associated with human-wildlife conflict. Projects which could build on existing initiatives were also found to be important to limited degree compared to the previous three criteria. The Recovery need and potential was weighed to have some influence thought only to a minor degree. The Ability to measure outcomes was seen to determined to have no influence in assessing projects. It was argued that if the project has the ability to reduce human risk then it should be a simple enough issue to measure it, and thus little weight should be placed on it as a criteria, as opposed to other projects which might involve careful monitoring etc.



During discussions the following locations were highlighted as examples with high bear mortality in relation to the population:

Bella Coola

Kitimat

Fernie

South Chilcotin

Meadow Creek

Owikeno

Figure 6 Weighted Criteria for Human-Wildlife Conflict Projects

4.4 Education

The discussions around education focussed on methods and projects in which the MOE could deliver its message to the general public, target groups, and within the political arena. During the discussion several references were made to making better use of existing technologies to reach specific target groups. The major objectives of education projects should be to:

Improve human safety and awareness

Reduce human-bear conflict

Increase appreciation for bears

Create local champions to forward education initiatives and activities.



Five criteria were developed in terms of assessing project proposals that could fall under this category. They were:

1. Increasing public awareness

This pertains to educating the general public with respect to the importance of grizzly bears and the need to develop better strategies for co-existence where necessary. Part of this also includes the issue of generating a larger constituency to support and fund programs for grizzly bear enhancement.

2. Increase target group awareness

This relates to educating specific groups for specific reasons. Specific target groups identified included hunters, school children, local residents, Bear Awareness coordinators, First Nations and other professionals such as foresters.

3. Ability to influence target group

It is not only important to target specific groups with the proper message, but the method of delivery should be appropriate for the group concerned. Consequently, this criteria deals with the notion that effective tools, materials and team are presented in the proposal.

4. Create local champions

This criterion addresses the understanding that activities and programs will have a better chance of being implemented if a local leader or figure is available to champion them.

5. Importance for bear conservation

This criterion relates to the need for the proposal to focus on education which will assist and promote the conservation of grizzly bears.

Figure 7 shows the weighted criteria as they should be applied to projects dealing with education. The most influential criteria were deemed to be increasing target group awareness, Ability to influence target group, and the Importance for bear conservation. Together they accounted for over 70% of the weight for assessing projects. Creating a local champion was seen to be relatively important also, while Increasing public awareness was thought to be less influential.



Figure 7 Weighted Criteria for Education Proposals

4.5 Sustainable Viewing

Sustainable viewing is also known as non-consumptive uses. It refers to guides and tours taking people to areas to view grizzly bears in the wild. The increase in the number of operations and the number of tourists over the last few years has put into question the sustainability of this practice. Increasingly there are conflicts between commercial ‘viewers’ and hunters who wish to use the same area, and the same bears. The MOE feels that this issue should be addressed in a comprehensive fashion as opposed to the current situation which is relatively ad hoc.

The workshop discussed the need for both a provincial strategy to deal with viewing, including general viewing guidelines and BMP; as well as the need to develop specific management plans.

While the group felt this was an important issue, they did not feel that there was a need to develop criteria with which to assess proposals as there would simply be so few proposals that they should be dealt with on a one-by-one basis.

4.6 Human Values and Attitudes

Human values and attitudes refers to the MOE developing better understand regarding the interests and concerns of the public and target groups. It would help to develop more effective activities related to education above. It is in effect biologists and scientists better understanding the motivation of various sectors of society so that more appropriate promotional programs can be developed.



While the topic was seen to be important, it too was felt that there was little need to develop assessment criteria.

4.7 Cumulative Impacts

The group briefly discussed the need for some method of dealing with cumulative impacts on a larger scale than that of the GBPUs. While an important and pressing issue it was felt that the current workshop was not the venue to tackle the issue.

5 Conclusions The workshop advanced the ability to identify priority GBPU for abundance and distribution inventories, and monitoring. It has helped confirm and develop a transparent and effective method this prioritization. While the final weights associated with the evaluation criteria require further input, the workshop was able to provide a flavour for what can be expected to be the final weights.

In terms of the threatened GBPUs, which are predominantly in the southern portion of the Province, the workshop was able to set initial scores for criteria. Again, while not final, the scoring serves to show that there are no major gaps in the criteria and it provides a solid basis for further discussion and input.

With respect to the additional issues, the workshop participants were able to determine an initial set of weights for projects related to Grizzly Bear Recovery, Habitat, Human-Wildlife Conflict, and Education.



Annex A: List of Participants

The following participants attended the workshop:

Participants Day 1 Day 2

Clayton Apps (Consultant)

Michael Badry (MOE)

John Boulanger (Consultant)

Lana Ciarniello (Consultant)

Alec Dale (MOE)

Diana Demarchi (MOE)

Brent Gurd (MOE)

Tony Hamilton (MOE)

Ian Hatter (MOE)

Grant MacHutchon (Consultant)

Bruce McLellan (MOFR)

Garth Mowat (MOE)

Robin Munro (MOE)

Michael Proctor (Consultant)

Steve Rochetta (MOE)

Glen Hearns (Consultant)



Annex B Agenda

Delta Airport, Richmond BC. October 7-8, 2009 Ecosystem Branch

British Columbia Ministry of Environment

This meeting is part of a process to develop priorities for grizzly bear Monitoring and Inventory and other conservation and management topics for British Columbia.

The specific objectives of this meeting are to

– Gain an understanding and appreciation of the various issues surrounding grizzly bear monitoring and inventory, and other management issues;

– Clarify the criterion and approach for prioritisation of areas, populations and activities;

– Highlight and discuss questions and concerns; and – Begin working through the ranking process.

Agenda

October 7 - Day 1

10:00-10:15 Introduction of meeting and participants – Alec Dale

10:15-10:45 Workshop, Agenda and Methodology (open coffee)

10:45--12:00 BC program for Grizzly Bears: Where we are at and the long term goals of the Province. Tony Hamilton

Large DNA studies: refining the model Garth Mowat

Proposed objectives, criteria & structure for deriving priorities for Inventory and Monitoring Clayton Apps

Facilitated discussion

13:00-13:45 Lunch – is not provided. There is a café and restaurant.

13:45-14:00 Overview of afternoon – issues for further discussion.

14:00-15:30 Facilitated discussion of any outstanding priority concerns.



15:30-16:30 Work through examples to score units among criteria.

16:30-17:30 Next Steps: what happens now?

Wrap up

Oct 8 - Day 2

8:30-8:45 Agenda for the day

8:45-9:30 Summary and discussion of previous day’s work and internal MOE priority issues surrounding inventory and monitoring.

9:30-10:00 Discussion of remaining focal areas.

10:00-10:15 Coffee

10:15-11:30 Break out groups: Discussion of topics and criteria for prioritization.

- Human-Wildlife Conflict - Habitat / Motorized Access Management

11:30-12:45 Summary

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-14:30 Break out groups: Discussion of topics and criteria for prioritization.

- Grizzly Bear Recovery - Education - Other

14:30-15:30 Summary

15:30-16:00 Wrap-up



Annex C Tables for Inventory and Monitoring

Focal Area objectives Major criteria for determining priorities (in no particular order)

Priority actions/locations/

How – who?

Inventory 1. Absolute abundance

2. Population distribution and connectivity

3. Baseline for trend monitoring

1. Confidence in knowledge of population and status.

2. Confidence in knowledge of distribution and connectivity.

3. Current assumed status, and the need and potential for recovery.

4. Anticipated short- and long-term threats.

5. Current-level and anticipated trend in bear mortality.


7. Conservation significance to adjacent populations.

8. Importance to existing/ongoing program.

Northeast BC (relation to oil and gas)

North Cascades

-



Monitoring 1. Trend in relevant population/habitat/human parameters or indices over time.

2. Spatial variation in distribution and changes in connectivity.

#1-8 are same as for Inventory, but weighting of relative importance may differ.

1. Confidence in knowledge of population and status.

2. Confidence in knowledge of distribution and connectivity.

3. Current assumed status, and the need and potential for recovery.

4. Anticipated short- and long-term threats.

5. Current-level and anticipated trend in bear mortality.


7. Conservation significance to adjacent populations.

8. Importance to existing/ongoing program.

9. Directive from land-use planning.

- Coastal areas (possible decline)

- Threatened GBPU-Granby Kettle

- Stein – Nahatlatch - South Selkirks



Annex D Aggregated results for swing-weighting for inventory and monitoring criteria The following weights were developed on day 1 through the aggregation of results from individual weighting exercises.



The aggregated swing-weighting results were then discussed as a basis for developing consensus around the appropriate relative weights which should be applied for the prioritization of GBPUs for abundance and distribution inventories and monitoring programs.

The above graphs show a single Trend in bear mortality – Hunting + other criterion. It was decided to split this into two separate criteria for further evaluation on the second day.

Also, during review on the second day the criterion Importance to existing landuse was removed from the list as it was felt it did not significantly contribute to prioritisation at this stage in the evaluation which focussed on the scientific and technical side of issues. It was felt that other legislative, or landuse issues would be incorporated in the overall evaluation of individual project proposals as opposed to prioritisation of GBPU areas.



Annex E Tables for Additional Focal Areas

Focal Area objectives Major criteria for determining priorities (in no particular order)

Priority actions/locations/

How – who?

Grizzly Bear Recovery

1. Increase scientific basis for GBPU specific recovery.

2. Increase planning and preparedness: including a prioritized set of actions, the appropriate provincial, local and First Nation government mandates and endorsements, drafting of legal land and resource objectives, educational and outreach, land acquisition.

3. Increase on the ground recovery actions

4. Increase knowledge of recovery action outcomes

1. Institutional feasibility: is there science, a recovery plan, a legal basis, government & FN mandates for the project?

2. Address institutional feasibility gaps.

3. Address a known limiting factor in GB recovery (eg. mortality risk reduction, lack of will to act).

4. Result in on the ground activities. 5. Efficacy 1: likely to result in mid-

term increase in # bears for $ spent 6. Efficacy 2: likely to result in long-

term increase in # bears for $ spent 7. Ability of detect outcome of

actions (monitoring program). 8. ?

South Selkirks

Nahatlatch

Yaak



Habitat / Motorized Access Management

1. Maximize suitable habitat 2. Maximize effective habitat 3. Maximise genetic linkage

(minimize fracturing) 4. Minimize mortality risk.

1. Address threatened GB population.

2. Address a gap between scientific knowledge (BMP) and actual management practices.

3. Feasibility of implementation (eg. Existing land and resource management process; availability and cost of land etc.)

4. General applicability (results can be applied across many areas).

5. Increase core security for GB 6. Efficacy: # of bears affected for $

spent. 7. ?

Forest surveys and decision making at the stand level

Mapping of fragmentation / determine good habitat

Provide linkage between good habitat, corridor development, at the landuse planning level (road density, traffic volume determination)

Human-Wildlife Conflict

1. Reduction of # animals killed.

2. Reduction of # incidents (complaints and calls).

1. Human wildlife conflict impedes recovery.

2. High numbers of bear mortality due to HWC, relative to population.

3. Reduce human safety risk. 4. Build on existing programs,

projects, social capital etc. 5. ?

Nahatlatch

Bella Coola



Education 1. Improve human safety 2. Reduce bear conflict/

mortality 3. Increase appreciation of

bears (as indicators of ecosystem health)

4. Create local champions for GB activities

1. Increase public awareness (greater appreciation and increase in revenue for projects)

2. Increase targeted user awareness (guides, human-bear conflict)

3. Ability to reach and influence target group (appropriate tools, materials, teams etc.)

4. Potential to mobilise local champions for GB conservation.

5. ?

Publications

Web-based info tools.

Press release and media

Outreach programs (Bear aware, school seminars, local seminars and public open houses)

Sustainable Viewing (non consumptive-use)

1. Maintain sustainable viewing opportunities.

2. Maintaining healthy GB populations.

3. Increasing management capacity

1. Increase knowledge regarding viewing and GB populations

2. Address for site specific management plans

3. Address general viewing guidelines and BMP.

4. ?

North Coast Bear Viewing strategy.

Human Values and attitude

1. Increase understanding of human values and attitudes towards GB (spiritual, cultural, behavioural, social dimensions)

1. It is population and circumstance targeted.

2. Team contains appropriate researches (social scientists, education)

3. ?

South Chilcotin recreational land use.

Priority Setting Workshop for Grizzly Bear Funding in ... · Priority Setting for Grizzly Bear...

Documents

Transcript of Priority Setting Workshop for Grizzly Bear Funding in ... · Priority Setting for Grizzly Bear...