THE IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS FOR GRIZZLY BEARS IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK by Glynnis A. Hood B.A. The University of Victoria, 1986 Dip . Tech. The British Columbia Institute of Technology, I 992 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT © Glynnis A. Hood, 1998 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1998 All rights reserved . This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. 11 ABSTRACT Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis) populations are subject to increasing human encroachment into their habitats. Data were gathered on levels of human activity over seven months (April - October 1997) to link with data on habitat suitability for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. We used electronic trail counters, direct counting by observers, and self-counting methods to quantify and compare human use in linear (e.g. trails), point (e.g. campgrounds), and dispersed (e.g. water bodies) landscape features. The data were then combined with habitat data in a Geographic Information System to determine habitat effectiveness to support bears (the capability of an area to support bears, as influenced by human activities, in relation to the area's inherent ability without human use) and the availability of security areas (useable bear habitat that is >9 km2 and >500 m from human activity). To minimize the dilution ofthe effects of human activities on grizzly bear habitat due to large area size, we divided the Maligne Valley into three bear management units. Weekly averages of the amount ofhuman use rose markedly during the first week of July and declined after the first weekend of September. Increasing recreational activity in habitats with high or very high value for grizzly bears resulted in a decrease in the habitat effectiveness values. The three bear management units in July and August and one bear management unit in September did not meet Parks Canada's threshold for protected areas of having >80% habitat effectiveness levels. One bear management unit in August failed to meet the recommended >60% threshold value for secure I usable. The use of the grizzly bear Ill habitat effectiveness model and security area analysis offers a predictive tool for more detailed planning of current and proposed developments in areas containing bear habitat. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 11 Table of Contents IV List of Tables VI List ofF igures Vll Acknowledgments XI INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA 5 METHODS Acquisition of Data on Human Activity Analysis of Data on Human Activity Analysis of Habitat Effectiveness and Security Areas for Grizzly Bears 9 9 18 20 RESULTS Trends in Human Activity Effects of Human Activity on Habitat Effectiveness for Grizzly Bears 27 27 49 DISCUSSION 61 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 68 LITERATURE CITED 71 APPENDIX A Sampling methods and frequencies for all human use features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 75 APPENDIXB Monthly habitat suitability maps for the Maligne Valley from April to October. 79 APPENDIX C Displacement Coefficients (DC) and Zones of Influence in the habitat effectiveness model for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, 1997. 87 APPENDIX D The weekly average number of people per day and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season on electronically surveyed trails in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 90 APPENDIX E The weekly average number of campground users and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April I to October 31, 1997. Ill APPENDIXF Monthly amounts of human activity used in the habitat effectiveness model for linear, point, and dispersed (polygon) features in Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 13 8 APPENDIXG Management scenarios for the months of July, August, and September to increase habitat effectiveness levels to >80%. 154 APPENDIXH Monthly security area maps for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 162 VI LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Variation in habitat suitability for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley as rated from nil (0) to very high ( 10) using groupings derived from Kansas and Riddell (1995). 50 Table 2 Monthly habitat effectiveness values for each bear management 52 unit in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, using empirically gathered human use data from April 1 to October 31, 1997. Table 3 Security areas, area size and percentage of BMU size, for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park. Table A1 Sampling methods and frequencies for all human use features 76 in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31, 1997. Table C1 Displacement coefficients (DC) and zones of influence (ZOI) in 88 the habitat effectiveness model for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, 1997. Table F1 Monthly amounts of human activity used in the habitat effectiveness model for linear, point, and dispersed (polygon) features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from Aprill to October 31, 1997. 139 Table G1 Scenarios for the month of July to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values <80% to values >80%. 155 Table G2 Scenarios for the month of August to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values <80% to values >80%. 157 Table G3 Scenarios for the month of September to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values <80% to values >80%. 160 55 Vll LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Study area in the Maligne Valley of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. 6 Figure 2 Linear (----trails, -roads) and dispersed features (coloured in blue) in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, Alberta. 11 Figure 3 Point features (.A.campgrounds,e picnic sites, • cabins) in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, Alberta. 13 Figure 4 The Lower, Middle, and Upper Maligne Bear Management Units, Jasper National Park. 22 Figure 5 The seasonal average ( x ± SD) and maximum number of people I day for 10 Maligne Valley trails monitored by electronic trail counters in Jasper National Park from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 28 Figure 6 The seasonal average ( x ± SD) and maximum number of campground users, as monitored by self-registration counts on backcountry camping permits issued by the Jasper National Park Trail Office, for 13 Maligne Valley backcountry campgrounds in Jasper National Park, fromApril1 to0ctober31 , 1997. 30 Figure 7 The average number of people per day (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Wardenshore trail in Jasper National Park. Figure 8 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Snowbowl campground in Jasper National Park. 36 Figure 9 Timing of the greatest percent change in frequency of use on the trails (n = 10), campgrounds (n = 13) and Maligne Lake Road in Jasper National Park between April 1 and October 31, 1997. 38 Figure 10 Relationships between daily trail counter data and daily video camera data (A), and between trail counter data and direct-counting data (B) on Maligne Valley trails between April 1 and October 31 , 1997. 41 ,.,,., .);) V III Figure 11 Relationships between empirically co!Jected data and expert source data, when the empirical data set on human use was class ified by the same logarithmic scale as that used for the expert source data. 45 Figure 12 Map of human use features in the study area that shows the di fferences in estimated use (expert source data) and measured use (empirical data), when use levels were classified on a logarithmic scale. 47 Figure 13 Security area ratings for grizzly bears inhabiting the three bear management units for the Maligne Valley in August, 1997. 59 Figure D1 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Bald Hills trail in Jasper National Park. 91 Figure D2 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Beaver Lake trail in Jasper National Park. 93 Figure D3 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Coronet Creek trail in Jasper National Park. 95 Figure D4 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Lakeshore trail in Jasper National Park. 97 Figure D5 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Lorraine Lake trail in Jasper National Park. 99 Figure D6 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Moose Lake trail in Jasper National Park. 10 1 Figure D7 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Opal Hills trail in Jasper National Patk. 103 Figure D8 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Summit Lake trail in Jasper National Park. 105 IX Figure D9 The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Wardenshore trail in Jasper National Park. 107 Figure DIO The average number of people per day ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Watchtower trail in Jasper National Park. 109 Figure E 1 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Coronet Creek campground in Jasper National Park. 112 Figure E2 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Evelyn Creek campground in Jasper National Park. 114 Figure E3 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Fisherman's Bay campground in Jasper National Park. 116 Figure E4 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Henry McLeod campground in Jasper National Park. 118 Figure E5 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Little Shovel campground in Jasper National Park. 120 Figure E6 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Mary Schaffer campground in Jasper National Park. 122 Figure E7 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Mary Vaux campground in Jasper National Park. 124 Figure E8 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Old Horse Camp campground in Jasper National Park. 126 Figure E9 The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Signal campground in Jasper National Park. 128 X Figure EIO The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Snowbowl campground in Jasper National Park. 130 Figure E II The average number of people per night ( x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Tekarra campground in Jasper National Park. 132 Figure E12 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Trapper Creek campground in Jasper National Park. 134 Figure E13 The average number of people per night (x ± SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Watchtower campground in Jasper National Park. 136 XI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to Parks Canada for the funding and logistic support for this project, particularly: Paul Galbraith, Helen Purves, Mike Wesbrook, Peter Achuff, George Mercer, Shawn Cardiff, Wes Bradford, Mike Mitchell, Mark Kolasinki, Sherril Meropoulis, Ryan Galbraith, Gerry Israelson, Mike Dillon, Jeff Anderson, Wendy Niven, Lindsay Martin, Jenni Rudisill, Alberto Reyes, Mark Brunell, Dawn Kelly , Trevor Mcfadden, and Sharon Thorn. Additional thanks to the Jasper National Park Warden Service. I am tremendously indebted to my graduate advisor and committee at the University of Northern British Columbia: Dr. Kathy Parker, Dr. Alan Ewert, Dr. Alex Hawley, and Dr. Roger Wheate. I am also grateful for the support and guidance of Dr. Dave Robinson, and the statistical advice of Dr. Bruno Zumbo. Additional technical advice was provided by Michael Gibeau, Dr. Stephen Herrero, Carol Doering, and Jolm Weaver. Thank you also to the staff at Maligne Tours: Pat Crowley, Mike Hayes, Nancy Barbeau, and Nick Sierink. And thank you to all my wonderful volunteers who offered assistance regardless of rain and snow, porcupines in the outhouse, and bears on the trail: Cynthia Ball, Nicole Bates, Andra Bismanis, Maija Bismanis, Patience Byman, Shawn Dagenais, Paul Dillon, Matt Gibson, Angela Gooliaff, Jeff Gooliaff, Chantal Hamel, Risa Handler, Shawna Hartman, Lida Henderson, Kevin Koch, Jessica MacDonald, Tyler Michaluk, Seth Oldham, Alexis Pitulous, Amber Perry, Erin Rafuse, Kim Schlosser, Collen Serviss, Karen Stenko, Sandra Warwryszyn, Bette Weir, Tim Woolf, and Jenia Yanick. And finally, thank you to my Mother, who gave sage advice and constant support. INTRODUCTION Parks Canada's Guiding Principles and Operalional Policies (1994) mandates that national park ecosystems be given the maximum degree of protection to ensure the perpetuation of natural environments essentially unaltered by human activity , and that Parks Canada establish goals and strategies to ensure the protection of ecosystems in and around national parks. As human use levels rise, park research is becoming increasingly focused on the interactions of human influences on the ecosystem. Jasper National Park now receives approximately three million visitors per year (Wright et al. 1995), many of whom are drawn up the Maligne Valley to the scenic attractions of Maligne Canyon and Medicine and Maligne Lakes. Current visitation estimates indicate a 50% increase in people coming to the park since the Jasper National Park Management Plan was written in 1988 (Environment Canada 1988). With this increase in visitation, park managers are looking for more refined approaches to ensure the maintenance of the park's ecological integrity within their management plans (Parks Canada 1994). Ecosystem management initiatives (Nepstad and Nilsen 1993) and the Carnivore Conservation Strategy (Hummel and Pettigrew 1992, Paquet and Hackman 1995) have been the catalysts for addressing landscape ecology issues and concerns. One area of critical importance is the influence of human activities on natural systems and the wildlife within them (Page et al. 1996). 2 In Canada's four contiguous mountain national parks (Banff, Kootenay, Yoho and Jasper) the grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis) is regarded as an umbrella species. Due to its large spatial requirements, maintenance of secure habitat for grizzly bears and other large carnivores in turn secures a high diversity of habitats for other wildlife species using the same area (Page et al. 1996).cQne tool currently employed to assess and manage grizzly bear habitat inside and outside of national parks is the grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model (Weaver et al. 1985, Weaver et al. 1987, USDA 1990, Gibeau et al. 1996)) The grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model combines measurements of both habitat quality and human disturbance to quantify the ability of an area to support a viable population of grizzly bears (Weaver et. al. 1985). This model is a key component in the development of the grizzly bear cumulative effects assessment (CEA), which was first designed by Christensen and Madel (1982) for the Kootenai National Forest in Montana and later refined for current use in Jasper National Park (Weaver et. al. 1985, USDA 1990, Gibeau et al. 1996, Purves and Doering 1998). Cumulative effects assessment is based on the concept that "cumulative effects occur when perturbations are so crowded collectively in space and time that the ability of the animal(s) to acquire needed resources is significantly impaired. Effects may be assessed at both the individual (micro) and population (macro) levels. Ultimately, these effects accumulate through the integrative dimensions of space and time to change the habitat capability of an area" (Weaver et al. 1987). The inherent habitat value of an area is termed "potential habitat", while the habitat as influenced by human activities is defined as "realized habitat" (Gibeau et al. 1996). Three components exist within the framework of '"I .) l cumulative effects assessment: a habitat component, a displacement component and a / mortality component. The habitat and displacement values are incorporated in a model to determine a habitat effectiveness value for an area~ The mortality component provides a quantitative assessment of the risk of grizzly bear mortality due to human activity (USDA 1990). The habitat effectiveness model can be used as a predictive tool using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to provide an initial quantitative and qualitative assessment of the effects of current human use and proposed developments on grizzly bears. Habitat values for the grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model (i.e., habitat suitability index (HSI) values) were developed for Jasper, Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks by Kansas and Riddell (1995), who rated ecological land classification polygons on a spatial and temporal basis. Displacement values were based on measures and types of human activity and were used to reduce "potential habitat" to "realized habitat". Habitat effectiveness, as the ratio of realized to potential habitat, ranges from 0-1. A value of zero would indicate that the habitat is effectively unavailable to bears because of the high level of human activity; a value of one would indicate that 100% of the habitat is available (with no human use) to bears. A threshold habitat effectiveness value commonly used in protected areas is >0.8 (80%), which implies that the area, encompassing habitats ranging from no human use to very high levels of human use, should average >80% habitat effectiveness (USDA 1990, Gibeau 1997). If the goal is to maintain areas, at the threshold level, a value of <80% would indicate that I management actions should be implemented to regulate human use. I I 4 In addition to using the measurement of habitat effectiveness to assess the value of natural landscapes as grizzly bear habitat relative to human disturbance, security area analysis identifies areas that are usable at the scale of the individual foraging radius of an adult female grizzly (Mattson 1993). Security area analysis incorporates habitat quality, minimum area sizes, spacing and connectivity between female home ranges (Gibeau et al. 1996) to define habitat security that would foster wary behaviour in bears (Mattson 1993). Both measurements assess the effects of landscape fragmentation on grizzly bear habitat (Page et al. 1996). Consequently, a reliable human use data layer is an essential component in all aspects of habitat effectiveness mapping. The overall objectives of this study were to quantify human use within the Maligne Valley of Jasper National Park and to determine the habitat effectiveness in the valley. Specifically we (1) compared levels of use between linear (e.g., trails), point (e.g. campgrounds), and dispersed (e.g., water bodies) landscape feature; (2) tested the reliability of estimated use (expert source data) relative to measured use (empirical data) for habitat effectiveness modeling; and (3) examined predictive relationships between campground data, which are consistently gathered by Parks Canada, and trail use data, which were specifically gathered for the habitat modeling component of this study. The effects of weather (maximum temperature and precipitation) and day of the week (weekends or weekday) were also examined. Finally, we assessed the seasonal changes in habitat effectiveness and security areas for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley as affected by changes in potential habitat and human use. 5 STUDY AREA Jasper National Park is the largest (1 0,878 km 2) and most northerly of the four contiguous Canadian Rocky Mountain national parks (Jasper, Banff, Kootenay and Yoho ), which were designated as a UNESCO world heritage site in 1984 (Environment Canada 1988). It lies within the eastern part of the Canadian Cordillera, with the Main Ranges of the Canadian Rockies to the west and the Front Ranges to the east. Jasper National Park comprises three ecoregions: the montane, the subalpine and the alpine. The montane ecoregion ranges from 1000 m elevation to approximately 1350 m with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white spruce (Picea glauca), and aspen poplar (Populus tremuloides) as the dominant vegetation. The subalpine ecoregion extends from the upper montane to treeline (approximately at 1900 m elevation). Predominant subalpine vegetation is Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) , and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). The alpine ecoregion occurs above the subalpine ecoregion and is dominated by yellow heather (Phyllodoce glanduliflora) and white mountain heather (Cassiope mertensiana) (Holland and Coen 1983). The park contains several major icefields and their associated river systems, including those of the Maligne River Watershed. The Maligne Valley is situated in the east central section of the park. The valley is bisected by the Maligne River and is bounded to the west by the Maligne Range and to the east by the Queen Elizabeth Range (Fig. 1). The latter is generally steep and rocky with little 6 Fig. 1. Study area in the Maligne Valley of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. Solid lines represent roads. .. Jc 2000 1000 0 7 I km ! A N A D ~ JASPER NATIONAL ~ To Edmonton Hwy16 To Vancouver Hwy16 + N 0 \.. ,,..._ i ".,j 20 To Banff Hwy93 8 vegetation. Mid-slopes ofthe Maligne Range are characterized by open lodgepole pinespruce and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands, whereas numerous subalpine and alpine meadows dominate the higher elevations (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983). Two large lakes are part of the Maligne system - Maligne Lake in the southern section of the valley and Medicine Lake further north. The two lakes differ dramatically since Medicine Lake's water levels fluctuate extensively during the year, while Maligne Lake remains relatively stable. Medicine Lake is part of the karst system found in much of the middle and lower Maligne Valley. The Maligne River flows north through subalpine habitat from Maligne Pass and Maligne Lake, through Medicine Lake, and into the Athabasca River in montane habitat. The Maligne Valley is accessed by an all-season, paved road, which begins in the montane ecoregion near the confluence of the Maligne and Athabasca rivers. It ascends into the subalpine ecoregion and continues 44 kilometers south to its terminus at Maligne Lake. Overnight accommodation available in the valley beyond the Maligne Youth Hostel includes the Maligne Lake Warden Station, Beaver Warden Cabin and 14 backcountry campsites. The study area commenced immediately upstream of the Maligne Youth Hostel (UTM MJ 3 32 63 6) and continued up the Maligne Valley between the height of land of the Maligne and Queen Elizabeth Ranges to the southern extent of the Maligne River Watershed. It encompasses 891 km 2 or 8.2% of Jasper National Park. This area has relatively homogeneous habitats and types of human activity, which were monitored in relation to landscape features. The areas below the Maligne Youth Hostel were excluded from the study due to the marked 9 difference in the levels, types and seasonality of human activities in this lower section, and the dramatic shift from subalpine to predominantly montane habitat type. METHODS Acquisition of Data on Human Activity Human activities were categorized as linear, point or dispersed in nature, and then as either high or low use. Linear features (n = 43) included trails, some of which were divided into several linear feature segments, the Maligne Lake Road and the motorized boat routes on Maligne Lake. Point features included 14 backcountry campgrounds, 3 cabins, and 6 picnic ~ sites; and dispersed features included Maligne, Medicine and Beaver Lakes, the Maligne River, 3 gravel pits, 1 backcountry ski area, the Maligne Lake Warden Station, and the Maligne Tours facility. High use was defined as > 100 people/vehicles per month, while low use was <100 people/vehicles per month (Gibeau et al. 1996). We used indirect-counting, direct-counting, and self-counting methods to collect empirical human use data in Jasper National Park between April 1 and October 31 , 1997. Expert source data for human activity types and levels were also gathered during the month of August through interviews with people possessing extensive knowledge of, and experience in, the area. Both the empirical and expert source human use data sets were associated through a DBASE V for Windows format with an existing Arc/Info GIS human use data layer 10 containing human use features in the study area. Human activity fe atures (e.g., trails, picnic sites) not already present on the data layer were added to the GIS database (Figs. 2, 3). Indirect-counting techniques included the use of 10 electronic trail counters (TrailMaster®, Lenexa, Kansas) and 3 infrared video cameras (RM-680 Video Surveillance System, CompuTech, Inc., Bend, Oregon). The counters recorded a count with the time and date every time an infrared beam linking the receiver and transmitter was broken. An infrared pulsation rate of 3 pulses per 0.15 second was use in an effort to ensure that most trail user types would be detected by the equipment. We mounted the counters 1.5 m above ground level to detect hikers, cyclists and horse use while excluding dogs and smaller wildlife. Counters were placed a minimum of 10 minutes walking time on the trail beyond trail junctions to avoid counting users that were diverting onto a different trail. In cases where trails extended beyond a specific destination point (e.g., picnic site, lake), a second counter was placed on the next segment of the trail. The ten trails selected to be monitored by trail counters are the only maintained hiking trails off the Maligne Lake Road and Maligne Lake. All data were downloaded via a handheld computer, then transferred to a PC, and then converted to a Microsoft Excel®format for analysis. 11 Fig. 2. Linear (----trails, - roads) and dispersed features (coloured in blue) in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, Alberta. 12 N + 0 ~~~~ 10 20 Kilometers 13 Fig. 3. Point features (.A campgrounds,• picnic sites, • cabins) in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, Alberta. 14 N 0 ~~~ 10 20 Kilometers ~ 15 The camera data were used to validate counter data. To ensure comparable coverage of each counter, the cameras were moved randomly to a new counter location each week. The cameras were activated by an infrared trigger that was mounted on a nearby tree. Cameras were placed as close to the counter locations as possible. All cameras and counters were monitored at least twice a week and camouflaging was used to lessen the chances of equipment detection by hikers . Any detections of the equipment by hikers, as seen by camera footage, were noted, and cameras or triggers were moved to a more concealed location. The cameras monitored two-way traffic to mimic the counting abilities of the counters. As with the counter data, the time and date of each camera activation were automatically recorded on the video tape. After being triggered, cameras ran for 15 seconds on hiker-only trails and for 30 seconds on trails with commercial horse use. The difference in timer settings allowed for long strings of horses to be fully recorded prior to the camera shutting off. All video tapes were reviewed later on a television monitor. Direct-counting methods included the use of park staff and 28 volunteers to record the location, timing and number of people at linear, dispersed, and point features within the study area. A stratified random sampling design was used to ensure coverage of specific locations relative to weekends, holidays, and peak times of day. In the design, high use trails had twice as much likelihood of being sampled on weekends and holidays as trails suspected to have minimal use (< 10 people per month). Sampling times for each trail were divided into either an 0800- 1200 hr time block or a 1200- 1700 hr time block. Evenings and early mornings were covered by routine warden and volunteer patrols. Direct counting was used for trails 16 that had trail counters on them, but no camera surveillance at that time, and on trails that were considered to have minimal use, but were not equipped with trail counting equipment. Observers also surveyed water bodies for boating and fishing activity and point source locations such as picnic sites because these areas did not lend themselves to electronic surveillance. Three subsurface road counters recorded traffic volumes, types, and timing of vehicle use along the Maligne Lake Road. They were downloaded twice during the study period with the data formatting being done at the Parks Canada regional office in Calgary, Alberta. Self-registration counts included backcountry camping permits, summit registries, and commercial tour ticket sales information. Although backcountry camping permits were specific to individual campsites, it was possible to calculate the number of people traveling on a specific trail segment on a certain day from the itinerary associated with the permit. Anyone staying overnight in Jasper's backcountry must register with, and purchase a permit from, the Jasper National Park Trail Office. Although non-registration was rare, regular park warden patrols instructed any unregistered users to register once they were out of the backcountry. Therefore, compliance was assumed to be 100%. Commercial tour operators in the study area provided commercial ticket sales information. These data included the number of people per tour and the number of tours per day. In general , linear features were surveyed using one or more counting techniques (direct, 17 indirect and self-registration). The ten major access trails were monitored by cameras and counters, while 28 backcountry trails were monitored via self-registration counts (ie., campground permit itineraries, ticket sales). Observers recorded data for the remaining trails. Point features were surveyed using self-registration counts for the fourteen backcountry campgrounds and direct counts at picnic sites. Dispersed (polygon) features were surveyed by direct-counting techniques (Appendix A) . Fallowing the methods of Purves et al. (1992) and Page et al. (1996), expert source data were gathered from interviews with people who were knowledgeable about human use in the Maligne Valley. Experts included backcountry lodge owners, park wardens, and local recreationists. The "expert" was asked to classify human activity by months for the features for which he I she was familiar, on a logarithmic scale as used by Parks Canada (class 0: 0 vehicles I people per month, class 1: 1-10 vehicles I people per month, class 2: 11-100 vehicles I people per month, class 3: 101-1,000 vehicles I people per month, class 4: 1,00110,000 vehicles I people per month, class 5: 10,001-100,000 vehicles I people per month, class 6: 100,001-1,000,000 vehicles I people per month, and class 7: 1,000,001 vehicles I people per month). Interviews were conducted only for the month of August, which Parks Canada had established as the month of highest use during the year and consequently allocated resources to collect only these data. Weather data were gathered daily at 0800 hr at a manual weather station at the Maligne Lake Warden Station. Data included maximum, minimum and present temperatures; total 18 24 hr precipitation; cloud cover; wind direction; relative humidity, and barometric pressure. Analysis of Data on Human Activity Data from all counters were graphically represented in hourly blocks in the original TrailMaster®format and analyzed in a minute by minute text display. Occasionally, spikes (uncharacteristically high counts) were observed in the data. As a general rule, spikes were considered to be counts that greatly exceeded the normal number of users present on a particular trail within a specific time span. For example, a counter recording its maximum capacity (8000 counts) within an 8 hr time span, instead of the ususal 2- 3 week period, would be considered suspect. Spikes were determined by visual examination and subjective evaluation of all count data. For spikes that appeared to have ambiguous starts, two counts at the beginning and two counts at the end of the spike were left in the data set to provide a conservative average number of counts per minute for that particular trail. In some cases, camera and observational data assisted in the recognition of spikes; early morning / late evening spikes were often triggered by animals. Daytime spikes often followed extreme wind events and heavy snowfall. All spike data were set to zero. Seasonal counts and monthly counts (used in the habitat effectiveness model) were tabulated for all features. The average number of people per day during each week of the study was calculated for each trail monitored by counter, campsite and commercial boat tour operation. The weekly average for the number of people per day was determined based only on the number of days 19 in that week for which data were available; this helped to compensate for data missing due to equipment failure or tampering. Percent changes in use were then calculated on a weekly basis ([week,- week,+1]/week,) to determine ifthe changes in human activity during the season were similar between point (campground) and linear (trails) features. The accumulated percent change over the season, calculated as the[(% change per week), was used to show the seasonal pattern and the timing of the greatest change in human activity for all features, regardless of the absolute numbers of people using them. We used linear regressions to compare counter data and camera data, and counter and direct-counting information. Camera data were used to assess the accuracy of the counters. After establishing the validity of counter data, a regression was used to determine the accuracy of observer data. For the four trails (Beaver- Jacques Lake, Coronet Creek, and Watchtower) associated with three campgrounds (Jacques Lake, Henry McLeod, and Watchtower), point data were compared with the associated trail counter data using linear regression to determine if there was a predictive relationship between campground use and trail use. We used multiple regression to determine if the number of people per day varied significantly with temperature, precipitation and day of the week (dichotomous variable for weekdays and weekends) on three trails (Bald Hills, Beaver Lake, and Lakeshore). Each trail represented a different location and degree of hiking difficulty. The Lakeshore trail is a popular, easily accessible short (1 km) walk; Beaver Lake is a slightly longer (2.4 km), more 20 moderate walk; and Bald Hills is a long (8 krn) hike to alpine habitat. An R2 difference test was used to test the significance of the difference in the R 2 of the overall multiple regression model and the nested models, and then a relative Pratt index (dj) was used to determine the relative importance of each explanatory variable by attributing a proportion of this overall R 2 to each one (Thomas et al. 1996). The R2 difference test resulted in an F-value, which allowed us to determine the cumulative probability. The relative Pratt index was used to rank variables by relative importance, assuming the variable made an important contribution to the overall R 2 • A variable was considered "important" if dj > l I (2 * [# of explanatory variables]); Thomas et al. 1996). Linear regression was applied to the empirical and expert source data sets using three approaches: with both data sets classified in the logarithmic class groupings (0-7), with each feature class analyzed separately (point, dispersed, and linear), and with all data grouped into high (> 100 vehicles I people per month) or low (< 100 vehicles I people per month) classes. All three methods for measuring trail use were used to develop the empirical data set. Counter data were used when other data collection methods were employed on the same trail. The level of significance for all analyses was a= 0.05. Analysis of Habitat Effectiveness and Security Areas for Grizzly Bears All analyses of habitat effectiveness were done on an Arc/Info GIS at a scale of 1:50,000 to coincide with the habitat data. To minimize the dilution of the effects of human activities on grizzly bear habitat across a very large area (USDA 1990), we divided the Maligne Valley into three bear management units (BMUs): the Lower Maligne (136 km2) , the Middle 21 Maligne (275 km 2), and the Upper Maligne (408 km 2, which includes 21 km 2 encompassed by Maligne Lake) (Fig. 4). Natural topographic features, such as height of land, shared biophysical and human activity qualities, and distinct differences in the hydrology of the watershed, were used to define the BMUs. The habitat component of the habitat effectiveness model was based on research by Kansas and Riddell (1995) which classified the original ecosites from the Ecological Land Classification for Jasper National Park (Holland and Coen 1983) into functional units with broad similarities in vegetation cover and land form. All habitat mapping in Jasper National Park was completed prior to this study. Habitat suitability values ranged from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no suitabile habitat for grizzly bears and 10 signifYing habitats of highest value. Kansas and Riddell (1995) categorized habitat suitability into very high (>7), high (5.0- 6.9), moderate (3.0- 4.9), and low (<2.9) (Appendix B). The original 0-10 scale was then put into a percentage (i.e., a habitat suitability of ''7'' became 700%) and was divided by 10 for use in the GIS model (Purves and Doering 1998). This value was termed "potential habitat". Human activities were categorized into three dichotomous groups : motorized or nonmotorized, low use ( <1 00 people per month) or high use (> 100 people per month), and location in vegetative cover or non-cover. Each point, linear, and dispersed feature (ie., trail, campground, water body) associated with a human activity was assigned a disturbance coefficient (DC), developed by bear biologists to quantifY the effects of human disturbance on habitat use by non-habituated grizzly bears (USDA 1990; Appendix C). Disturbance 22 Fig. 4. The Lower, Middle, and Upper Maligne Bear Management Units, Jasper National Park. 24 coefficients ranged between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating total displacement, and I implying no displacement of the bears. For example, a non-motorized linear low use feature with cover had a DC of 0.88, while a motorized linear high use feature without cover had a DC of 0.16. A zone of influence (ZOI) was also assigned to each feature type and received the same disturbance coefficient. This zone of influence, developed for the Yellowstone ecosystem and subsequently adopted by Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks (Gibeau eta!. 1996), was applied as a region buffer in the GIS to indicate the physical area in which grizzly bears would be disturbed by human activity. All motorized features received a buffer (or ZOI) of 805 m (based on 0.5 mi used in the Yellowstone system), while non-motorized features were given a buffer of 402.5 m. All assumptions for the disturbance coefficients and zones of influence are outlined in the USDA Forest Service (1990) Cumulative Effects Model. A cumulative disturbance coefficient (CD) was then applied to the potential habitat value for each BMU (Purves and Doering 1998) . The CD was calculated as the product of the overlapping disturbances using the following formula: where CDP is the cumulative disturbance for the polygon and DCpai ... DCpax are the disturbance coefficients for each region with a different zone of influence in which the polygon exists. Realized habitat, as the habitat value after human activities have been accounted for, was calculated as: 25 RHP=PHP *CDP where RHr is the realized habitat for a polygon and ~ is the potential habitat for a polygon. Finally, habitat effectiveness for the BMUs was derived from the area of the polygon are~ and the potential and realized habitats: The habitat effectiveness model was run using data for each month between April and October, 1997 for each BMU. Empirical data were used for the monthly model runs. For August, results using empirical data were compared with expert source data. Multiple regression was used to determine the amount of variability in the habitat effectiveness value that could be explained by the variation in the disturbance value and the habitat suitability index. An R 2 difference test and a relative Pratt index were also calculated (Thomas et al. 1996, Zumbo 1997). The model also was run to determine which features decreased the habitat effectiveness values within a BMU below the selected threshold of >80%. Human use data within the GIS were edited in 16 different scenarios (e.g. removing use on specific trails) relative to their proximity to high or very high habitat polygons, current Jasper National Park Management Plan objectives (Environment Canada 1988), proposed options presented in the Jasper National Park Guidelines for River Use Management (Parks Canada 1998), and the overall feasibility of closing down specific features. Additionally, the model was run with all point 26 features set to zero use, and then with the linear features set to zero use, and, finally , with all polygon (dispersed) features set to zero use to determine which feature types had the greatest influence on the model outcome. Security area analysis also utilized Arc/Info GIS at a scale of l :50,000 and the same human use data layer as the habitat effectiveness modeling for the months of April through October 1997. Areas of high human use(> 100 people per month) were buffered at 500 m. By preset criteria, security areas were considered to be areas lower than 2300 m (unless vegetated), >500 m from high human use, and >9 km2 (Purves & Doering 1998, Gibeau et al. 1996). In addition, all water, rock and ice, were considered unsuitable habitat for grizzly bears and were not used in area calculations. Vegetated areas above 2300 m were included since grizzly bears do use these areas in the summer. The output for the security area analysis classified the land base into four groupings: "unusable" (areas ofrock, ice and water, and non-vegetated sites above 2300 metres), "not secure due to human disturbance" (areas that fall within the 500 metre buffer around high human activity features) , "not secure due to size" (suitable areas that did not meet the required area of 9 km 2 , but met all other criteria and included areas of low human use), and "secure" (all remaining areas). The overall percentage of available secure areas within each BMU was calculated as the proportion of secure areas to the amount of usable habitat. Because Jasper National Park states that >60 of a BMU should be in secure status for grizzly bears (Parks Canada 1997), model outcomes with a BMU less than 60% secure/usable were 27 rerun under different scenarios by varying human use levels to determine which features were affecting security areas within the BMU. RESULTS Trends in Human Activity All trails in the study area experienced days of no human use; however, the maximum number of people per day on a seasonal basis using specific Maligne Valley trails that were monitored by electronic trail counters ranged from 2 to 577 between April 1 and October 31 , 1997. Lakeshore trail, at the northern end of the Maligne Lake Road, received the most use and Coronet Creek trail, at the southern end of Maligne Lake, received the lowest use (Fig. 5). All trails except Lakeshore trail had an average level of use < 200 people per day, and only the Lakeshore and Opal Hills trails had maximum use levels > 200 people I day. The greatest number of people recorded on the 10 electronically monitored trails was 1191 on August 2. The greatest total number of people occurred between the hours of 0800 hr and 2030 hr, with the highest use being between 1000 hr and 1730 hr. Similarly, all Maligne Valley campgrounds experienced days of no use and hense, seasonal averages were all <6 people I day (Fig. 6). Parks Canada applied a quota system to all Maligne Valley backcountry campgrounds to ensure ~ people per night in the campgrounds at all times. On many days, campgrounds on the Skyline Trail (Evelyn Creek, Little Shovel, Snowbowl, Tekarra, and Signal) and on Maligne Lake (Fisherman's Bay and Coronet Creek) met their quota allowances throughout the summer months (June, July, 28 Fig. 5. The seasonal average (x +SD) and maximum number of people per day for 10 Maligne Valley trails monitored by electronic trail counters in Jasper National Park from April 1 to October 31, 1997. 29 Number of People Per Day ...... 0 0 0 "' 0 0 (..) 0 0 ~ 0 0 en 01 0 0 0 0 Bald Hills Beaver Lake Cornet Creek Lakeshore :s: D) co ::l CD Lorraine Lake < D) CD '< -i Moose Lake ""'D) en Opal Hills • ~ Ill )( Summit Lakes 3' c:: 3 D )> < (!) iil Watchtower Wardenshore 10 (!) 30 Fig. 6. The seasonal average ( x + SD) and maximum number of campground users, as monitored by self-registration counts on backcountry camping permits issued by the Jasper National Park Trail Office, for 13 Maligne Valley backcountry campgrounds in Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31 , 1997. 31 0 N .;.. Number of People Per Day ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N 0) 00 0 N .;.. 0) Cornet Creek Evelyn Creek Fisherman's Bay Henry McLeod ~ 1),) Little Shovel (C ::s (!) < Mary Schaffer 1),) (!) '< () Mary Vaux 1),) 3 "C .... (C Old Horse Camp 0 c: ::s a. en Signal Snow bowl Tekarra Trapper Creek •:s:: Ill >< 3" c 3 Watchtower D > < Ill .., Ill (C Ill 00 0 N N N .;.. N 0) 32 August) . No use was ever observed or found in self-registration data at the Trapper Creek horse campground. The maximum total number of people overnighting in the 14 monitored campgrounds was 119 people on August 30. The maximum number of outbound vehicles per day, as registered on the Maligne Lake road counter near the Jasper Park Lodge turnoff was 1720 vehicles ( x = 979 ± 421 ). Only that road counter recorded usable data because of equipment failure from the two other counters on the road towards Maligne Lake. Down-loading and analysis of road data could only be done twice during the study period, and therefore, the equipment problems went undetected until late in the study. The maximum number of motorized commercial boats on Maligne Lake per day was 29 boats ( x ± SD = 19 ± 6). Temporal variation within the 1997 season was observed on a weekly basis. Averaged per week, trail use on 70% of the trails (n = 10) monitored by electronic trail counters typically remained 5: 100 people I day with a marked decline in use after the September 6 long weekend. An example of this trend in use and the accumulated change in the frequency of use over the season can be seen in the Wardenshore trail data (Fig. 7). The greatest rate of change in hiker use occurred in the week ending July 5, 1997 (Fig. 7B ; see Appendix D for data on all linear features monitored with electronic counters). Use monitored on the remaining 30% of the trails (n = 3) monitored by electronic trail counters exceeded 100 people per day, averaged on a weekly basis. 33 Fig. 7. The average number of people per day (x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Wardenshore trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 31-May 07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 05-Jul 07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun nr 12-Jul t;!::) 24-May 31-May 18-0ct 18-0ct 31-0ct 11-0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 04-0ct 04-0ct 25-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 25-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 16-Aug ~ 16-Aug 30-Aug 09-Aug 30-Aug 02-Aug ~ 09-Aug 23-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul ~ Iii' 05-Jul 12-Jul 17-May 24-May j 10-May 12-Apr 17-May ~ 03-May 19 10-May E:i 26-Apr 19 03-May 0 19-Apr 6 26-Apr ~ 0 ~ e eJ !!I ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > ~ \.;J 35 Campground use remained < 30 people I day because of the present quota system for all backcountry campgrounds. Eight of the 13 campgrounds (62%) averaged < I 0 people I night on a weekly basis. Three of the remaining higher-use campgrounds (> l 0 people I night) were on the Skyline Trail while the other 2 high-use campgrounds were on Maligne Lake. This trend in use, as well as the accumulated change in frequency of use over the season is seen in the Skyline trail ' s Snowbowl campground data (Fig. 8) . The greatest rate of change in camper use occurred in the week of July 5, 1997 (Fig. 8B; see Appendix E for data on all campgrounds within the study area). Of the 25 use features for which we had continuous data (1 0 trails monitored by trail counters, 13 campgrounds, the Maligne Lake Road, and motorized commercial boat use), 14 (56%) showed the greatest increase in human activity during the week ending July 5 (Fig. 9). At that time, maximum percent changes in trail use increased 1.4 to 10.5 times from the previous week. Several other trails in the study area were at high elevation and remained snow covered and impassible until later in the season. Maximum changes in backcountry campground use increased 1. 7 to 21 .2 times. As with the trails, many of the popular campgrounds were at high elevations and received a rapid increase in use once the access trails were free of snow. The maximum change in use for the Maligne Road increased 1.3 times during the week of July 5, while motorized commercial boat use on Maligne Lake stayed relatively consistent once the operational season commenced on June 5. 36 Fig. 8. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Snowbowl campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. I ~ ~ ~ § co 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 21-Jun 28-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 26-Jul 11-0c 11-0ct 25-0c 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0c 04-0c 04-0ct 18-0ct 20-Sep 27 -Sep 13-Sep 13-Sep 27-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 20-Sep 30-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 09-Aug 09-Aug ~ 26-Jul 19-Jul 02-Aug 12-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 07-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 24-May 31-May 31-May ~ 23-Aug I ~ ~ 24-May ~ 05-Jul j ~ 17-May 0 0 "' 5 ~ "' ~ tll Weekly Average Number of People I Day 17-May 10-May 03 -May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%} > t..;J ---.) 38 Fig 9. Timing of the greatest percent change in the frequency of use on the trails (n = 10), campgrounds (n = 13) and Maligne Lake Road in Jasper National Park between April 1 and October 31, 1997. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 39 Number of Features 24-May 31-May 07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul •... -I Ill 26-Jul D n Ill 02-Aug 3 "'C cc .., 0 09-Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug c: :I c. D ::0 0 Ill c. 40 Infrared video camera data obtained from 7200 hours of surveillance explained 79% of the variation in trail counter data, as determined by the regression coefficient, with a slope of the equation very close to 1.0 (Fig. 1OA). Direct-counting data from over 860 hours of observations by volunteers and Jasper National Park personnel explained 53% of the variation in counter data with a slope of 0.67 (Fig. 1OB). Although there were significant correlations between campground and trail use, the number of backcountry campground users was not a good predictor of use on the access trails. The campground user numbers for Jacques Lake campground (X), which lies just outside the study area, explained only 39% of the variation in the Summit Lake trail counter data (Y) (F 1•118 = 76.68, p < 0.001, Y = 8.2193 + 1.9845X) and 32% ofthe variation in the Beaver Lake trail counter data (X) (F 1•159 = 76.39, p < 0.001, Y = 23 .819 + 3.453X). Coronet Creek campground user numbers (X) explained 29% of the variation in the Coronet Creek trail counter data (Y) (F 1•109= 45.214, p < 0.001, Y = 0.8850 + 0.5637X), whereas the Henry McLeod campground data only accounted for 4% of the variability on the Coronet Creek trail (p; c"' 650 0 al - c. 450 0 al a. 0 0 0 350 0 .... 0 0 0 0 al .0 E 250 -"' ::l 2 c"' 150 1: ::l 0 50 0 0 .... al u -60 -50 150 50 350 250 450 550 S50 Camera Data (Number of People I Day) B -.... ::l 1SO 0 140 ~ 120 :I: c. 0 a. al 100 ....al0 80 .0 E -"' ::l 2 c"' .... al 1: ::l 0 u 0 so 40 20 0 -20 -20 20 so 100 140 Direct Count Data (Number of People I Hour) 180 43 model was still very low. An R2 difference test revealed no statistically significant difference between the overall model predicting trail use with all 3 variables ( {counter data = 61.19 + [2.52*maximum temperature]- [1.14*precipitation]- [13.91 *dayofthe week]} , F 3.40 = 3.38. p = 0.03) and nested models that excluded at least one variable within this original model. On the Beaver Lake trail midway up the Maligne Valley and accessing the Jacques Lake campground, day of the week (weekends or weekdays) had a statistically significant effect on numbers ofusers (relative Pratt index dj = 0.7265, R2 = 0.20, p = 0.03). Precipitation (dj = 0.2734) was the second variable ofimportance. Maximum temperature (dj = 0.0001) was considered unimportant. An R2 difference test revealed a statistically significant difference between the overall model ( {counter data= 39.94 + [0.0028*max temperature] [0.9901 *precipitation]+ [15.64*day ofthe week]}, F3,3 9 = 3.48, p = 0.025) and a nested model using only precipitation and day-type as explanatory variables ( {counter data= 39.99. [0.7904*precipitation] + [15 .64*day ofthe week]}, F2•40 = 5.36, p = 0.99). Although a relative Pratt index indicated that precipitation (di = 0.4029) and day of the week (dj = 0.4117) were the only important variables on the Lakeshore trail, there were no statistically significant influences from any of the three variables (maximum temperature, precipitation, and day type; R2 = 0.13 , p = 0.14). An R 2 difference test found no statistically significant difference between the original model ( {counter data = 334.95 + [2.46*maximum temperature]- [3 .609*precipitation] + [40.72*day ofthe week]}, F 340 = 2.38, p = 0.08) and the nested models within the original model. 44 Finally, the estimated data set (expert source data) and the measured data set (empirical data) were compared to test the reliability of expert source data currently being used in Jasper National Park. Expert source data (X) explained 66% of the variation in the empirical data (Y) on human use when all data were grouped in the same logarithmic classes (F 1•104 = 205.4, p < 0.001 , Y = 0.0727 + 0.9212X, n = 106; Fig. 11). When analyzed separately as individual feature types (linear, point, dispersed), expert source data accounted for 72% of the variation in the empirical linear feature values (F 1•64 = 165.45, p < 0.001, Y = 0.1933 + 0.9211X), 74% of the variation in the dispersed I polygon features (F 1•15 = 46.57, p < 0.001 , Y = -0.4067 + 0.9981X), and only 30% ofthe variation in the point features (F 1 2 1 = 10.53, p < 0.004, Y = 0.0963 + 0.9312X). With the combined feature classes grouped as either high use(> 100 people per month) or low use ( <100 people per month), as used in the habitat effectiveness model (Gibeau et al. 1996), the expert source data explained only 4 7% of the variation in the empirical data (F 1 104 = 93.62, p < 0.001, Y = 0.2804 + 0.7710X). Many of the discrepancies in linear features between the expert source and empirical data sets occurred in the lower logarithmic groupings of class 0 and class 1 (Fig. 12), whereas point features differed most often in classes 2 and 3. 45 Fig. 11. Relationships between empirically collected data (Y) and the expert source data (X), when the empirical data set on human use was classified by the same logarithmic scale as that used for the expert source data (class 0 = 0 - 1 people I month, class 1 = 1 - 10 people I month , class 2 = 11 - 100 people I month, class 3 = 101 - 1000 people I month, class 4 = 1,001 - 10,000 people I month, class 5 = 10,001- 100,000 people I month; Purves et al. 1992). The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence ellipsoid. Numbers in parentheses indicate sample sizes. 46 ,....... 0') 0') 'Of"" 1/) ::::::J C) ::::::J ~ 6 • •• • (2) .·· . 3 4 • (4) .. ···· • 3 2 ca 1 0 (4) 4 ca ca c (1) 5 'i:: a. 0 E w -1 -1 0 1 2 Expert Source Data (August 1997) 5 6 47 Fig. 12. Map of human use features in the study area showing the differences in estimated use (expert source data) and measured use (empirical data) when use levels were classified on a logarithmic scale 0 101 - 100,000 11-100 1-10 Ernplrlc.lly Derived Data 0 101 - 100,000 11- 100 1-10 Dispersed Fealu.... -o - UnMrf...,_ • Point Featwea • 101 -100,000 • 11 -100 1 -10 0 + N 10 20 Kilometers 00 ~ Expert Source Data 49 Effects of Human Activity on Habitat Effectiveness for Grizzly Bears During the 7 months of the study, an average of 40% of the Maligne Valley had a habitat suitability for grizzly bears of zero ("nil") (Table 1). Much ofthis 40% was excluded from analyses of habitat effectiveness because of elevational and topographic constraints. The percentage of the valley classified as "very high" habitat suitability never exceeded 18%, and "high" valued habitat ranged from 15% to 25%, depending on the month. August was the month with the habitat most highly suited for grizzly bears, and June was the lowest. Habitat effectiveness values in all three bear management units during July and August were less than the >80% threshold value set by Parks Canada (1997). The September value for the Lower Maligne BMU was also below the 80% threshold value (Table 2). Potential and realized habitat quality was highest for all three BMU's in August, except for the Upper Maligne BMU which had its highest realized habitat value in April. The months of greatest human disturbance were July and August while the lowest amount of disturbance occurred in April and May. The habitat effectiveness values declined in the months when human activity was at highest levels, with the decline in effectiveness being greatest for the Upper Maligne area (see Appendix F for monthly levels of human activity for all monitored features). Habitat potential and the cumulative disturbance coefficient explained 92% of the variation in the calculated habitat effectiveness value. A relative Pratt Index (di) indicated 50 Table 1. Variation in habitat suitability for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley as rated from nil (0) to very high (1 0) using groupings derived from Kansas and Riddell (1995). 51 Habitat Suitability Ratings (% of study area) Month Nil Low Moderate High Very High April 40 11 18 15 17 May 40 5 26 23 7 June 40 7 36 16 July 41 8 10 25 16 August 40 8 10 24 18 September 41 6 12 23 18 October 40 12 10 22 16 52 Table 2. Monthly habitat effectiveness values for each bear management unit in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, using empirically gathered human use data from April 1 - October 31, 1997. Results for expert source data obtained in August were also included. Potential and realized (including effects of human disturbance) habitats are categorized as very high (>70), high (50- 69), moderate (30-49), and low (<29). Cumulative disturbance coefficients represent the overall effect of human activity on bears, where a value of zero implies total displacement of grizzly bears and a value of 1 implies no displacement. The habitat effectiveness values ~ 80% represent areas that are considered highly threatened, while areas > 90% are considered secure. 53 BMU Potential Realized Cumulative Habitat Habitat Habitat Disturbance Effectiveness Lower Maligne 43 .95 36 .03 0.89 82% Middle Maligne 35 .01 29. 19 0.90 83% Upper Maligne 25.28 23.39 0.96 93 % Lower Maligne 41.08 34.09 0.88 83% Middle Maligne 34.74 29 .82 0.91 86% Upper Maligne 24.32 23 .05 0.97 95 % Lower Maligne 35.19 29.26 0.88 83% Middle Maligne 30.45 25 .51 0.89 84% Upper Maligne 20.96 16.89 0.87 81% Lower Maligne 48 .25 37.81 0.85 78% Middle Maligne 37.93 30 .27 0.87 80% Upper Maligne 25 .77 20.20 0.88 78% August- Lower Maligne 51.20 40.20 0.85 79% Empirical Middle Maligne 39.99 32 .01 0.87 80% Upper Maligne 27.37 21.54 0.88 79% August- Lower Maligne 51.20 40.54 0.86 79% Expert Middle Maligne 39.99 31.69 0.86 79% Upper Maligne 27.37 20.72 0.86 76% Lower Maligne 48.41 38 .15 0.85 79% Middle Maligne 38 .01 30.95 0.88 81% Upper Maligne 26.32 22.43 0.91 85% Lower Maligne 46.00 37.45 0.88 81% Middle Maligne 36.18 30.34 0.90 84% Upper Maligne 25.40 22.05 0.92 87% Month April May June July September October 54 that disturbance was the most important variable (dj = 1.069) in the model. An R2 difference test showed that there were no significant differences between the overall model ({habitat effectiveness= -54.69 + (0.075*habitat-value] + (15l.53*use]} , F 2.2 1 = 129.39, p ,< 0.001) and the nested models. Several scenarios for which the habitat effectiveness model was run with curtailed levels of human activity resulted in defining actions that would increase habitat effectiveness values above the 80% threshold and allowed us to assess the relative impact of different landscape features. The elimination all point features (i.e., campgrounds) had no effect on overall habitat effectiveness values, whereas the elimination of either linear or dispersed features contributed to varying degrees depending on the bear management unit and the month (Appendix G). The Maligne Lake Road accounted for the greatest decrease in habitat effectiveness in the Lower Maligne BMU (up to 17% in August), while overall motorized boat use (both commercial and warden service use) decreased habitat effectiveness in the Upper Maligne BMU by a maximum of 2%. Relative to security areas for grizzly bears, the ratios for secure habitat to usable habitat for grizzly bears exceeded the 60% threshold value set by Parks Canada (1997) for all bear management units, except for the Upper Maligne BMU in August (56.0% using the empirically derived data sets; Table 3) . The empirical data resulted in a lower security area 55 Table 3. Security areas, area size and percentage of BMU size, for grizzly bears in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park. Areas are considered " not-secure" if they do not meet the usable habitat size requirement of >9 km 2 because of physically small areas or because areas have been reduced in size by human use and its associated buffering within the security area model. Usable habitat includes all areas that would normally be considered grizzly bear habitat (ie. , not rock and ice, or non-vegetated areas above 2300 m) and is represented as a percentage of the entire BMU. The secure I usable ratio is the percentage of secure area within the BMU relative to usable habitat. 56 Month April BMU Lower Maligne Secure 93km 2 Not-secure Not-secure Usable Secure/Usable (due to size) (due to use) 0.0% 10.1% 78 .8% 87.2% 0.2% 8.6% 64.8% 86.4% 0.2% 3.9% 48.1% 91.4% 0.0% 10. 1% 78.8% 87.2% 0.2% 7.7% 64.8% 87.8% 0.2% 2.3% 48.1% 94.8% 0.0% 10.5% 78.8% 86.6% 0.3% 10.6% 64.8% 83.3% 3.0% 9.2% 48.1% 74.6% 1.1% 20.1% 78.8% 73.0% 4.2% 15.9% 64.8% 69.0% 4.2% I 1.3% 48.1% 67.8% (68.7%) Middle Maligne 153 .8km 2 (56.0%) Upper Maligne 210.8km 2 (43.9) May Lower Maligne 93.4km 2 (68.7%) Middle Maligne 156.4km 2 (56.9%) Upper Maligne 218.5km2 (45.6%) June Lower Maligne 92.9km 2 (68.2%) Middle Maligne 148.3km2 (54.0%) Upper Maligne 171.9km2 (35.8%) July Lower Maligne 78.2km 2 (57.5%) Middle Maligne 122.9km2 (44.7%) Upper Maligne 156.2km2 (32.6%) 57 August- Lower Maligne 78.2km 2 1.1 % 20.1 % 78 .8% 73 .0% 4.1 % 16.0% 64.8% 69.0% 4.8% 16.3% 48 . 1% 56.0% 1.1 % 17.6% 78 .8% 76 .3% 1.9% 13 .9% 61.8 % 75 .6% 3.2% 15.5% 48.1 % 61.1 % 1.1 % 20.1 % 78 .8% 73 .0% 4.2% 15.4% 64.8% 69.9% 0.3% 4.5% 48.1 % 90.2% 0.0% 10.1% 78 .8% 87.2% 0.8% 8.6% 64.8% 85 .5% 0.2% 3.6% 48 . 1% 92 .0% (5 7.5%) Empirical Middle Maligne 122.9km 2 (44 .7%) Upper Maligne 129.0km 2 (26.9%) August- Lower Maligne 81 .7km 2 (60. 1%) Expert Middle Maligne 134.7km 2 (49.0%) Upper Maligne 140.8km 2 (29.4%) September Lower Maligne 78 .2km 2 (57.5% Middle Maligne 124.4km2 (45.3 %) Upper Maligne 207.8km 2 (43.3%) October Lower Maligne 93.4km 2 (68.7) Middle Maligne 152.2km 2 (55.4%) Upper Maligne 212 .1km 2 (44.2%) 58 rating than the expert source data set for all BMUs. Ratios of secure I useable habitat reached the lowest levels in July and August because of increased human activity. Throughout the three BMUs, areas considered not-secure for grizzly bears because of human use were concentrated along the Maligne Lake Road, along high-use trails, and on both sides of Maligne Lake as mapped for August (Fig. 13; Appendix H) . Areas rated as not-secure because of physical size requirements usually occurred between areas with human use and the unusable areas of high elevation rock and ice. 59 Fig. 13. Security area ratings for grizzly bears inhabiting the three bear management units for the Maligne Valley in August, 1997. Areas not considered secure were separated based on insufficient size or effects of human use (HU). 60 August Security Areas D Not Secure- HU Not Secure - Size Secure D Unusable + N 0 ~~~ 10 20 Kilometers 61 DISCUSSION The collection of data on the distribution of recreational activities, trends in seasonal use, total visitation, and types of human use in the Maligne Valley followed guidelines described in Hollenhorst et al. (1992) and Mitchell (1994, 1995) and complimented those used at Lake O' Hara in Yoho National Park (Kelly and Wright 1997). The sampling strategy allowed coverage of a large area within a short field season using limited resources. It also accommodated the varied nature of human use within the study area in which some trails experienced extremely high levels of use while others, especially winter routes, were used rarely from April to October. By using direct and indirect counting, and self registration counts, we were able to monitor the variety of point, linear, and dispersed features within the study area. Electronic video cameras were an efficient method for validating data from electronic trail counters. Observers also provided reliable data for validating the trail counters, but without a large number of volunteers, data collection would have been more difficult. Observers were extremely useful in areas that did not lend themselves to electronic surveillance, such as Maligne Lake. Complete reliance on observers, however, limited our ability to obtain census-level data because these areas only received coverage during set time periods. Therefore, it is likely that human use was underestimated for features within the empirical data set that relied entirely on observational data (i.e., lakeshore picnic sites). In addition, using a number of observers reflected varying levels of diligence in data collection, and could 62 potentially lack the consistency found with the trail monitoring equipment. To maintain reliability in the trail monitoring equipment, it was imperative that it be checked regularly. The presence of spikes in the data sets resulted in the loss of data for that time period. Even though equipment tampering was rare, when it did occur, as much as a week of data were lost for a particular trail and trail counts would be set to zero for that time period. In these situations, trail counters also potentially could have underestimated of human activity. Using backcountry campgrounds to predict levels of use on their associated trails was generally not effective, likely because of the amount of day use on the trails. Campground data, however, can provide good information on the number of overnight trail users and for use of backcountry trails, offering the only access to these campgrounds, which are not equipped with electronic surveillance equipment. Backcountry campground patrols from the warden service reported a high level of compliance amoung campground users, but it must be recognized that not all backcountry permit holders stay in the campground indicated on the permit, especially in inclement weather. Multiple regression of trail selection patterns in relation to the effects of weather and day of the week (weekend or weekday) revealed that different trails could possibly be grouped by different user types . Human use on the trail with the greatest change in elevation, Bald Hills trail, was more affected by colder days than the Lakeshore trail, which has easy access and no elevation gain (i.e., Lakeshore). The Beaver Lake trail, which accesses both the Jacques Lake campground and Beaver Lake (a popular fishing location) was more affected by weekend use 63 (i.e. , Beaver Lake). Further research relative to this topic would aid trail planning and strategies for distribution of human use in areas shared by grizzly bears and park visitors. Schueck and Marzluff ( 1995) also stressed the importance of accounting for weather prior to making conclusions about the effects of human activities in ecological research. It is important to note, however, that people 's responses to weather-related factors might be on a different temporal scale than the 24 hr period for which weather data were gathered. Noting the date that trails are free of snow is also important in mountain environments. One field season of data collection was useful for comparing human use of different feature types, but did not allow for yearly climatic variations. The " ice-off' date for Maligne Lake in 1997 was June 5, whereas in 1998 it was May 14 (one of the earliest on record). Winter snow packs can vary dramatically from year to year in Jasper National Park and often determine the timing and amount of access to trails and backcountry campgrounds. These variations could affect the grizzly bear habitat effectiveness and security area values on a yearly basis. For example, the amount of area considered "not- secure" was greatest in July and August (Table 3) because of the reduction in the habitat available to the bears, resulting from improved trail access following snow melt. Because 1997 was a year of high snow pack, levels of human use should be considered conservative for April, May, and June, and habitat effectiveness values may have been higher than in other more typical years. Expert source data gathered during the same time period as the empirical data provided a temporal comparison of the two methods for collecting information on levels of human 64 activity. Expert source data are currently used for ecological studies within Banff. Kootenay , and Yoho National Parks (Purves eta!. 1992, Page eta!. 1996, and Gibeau eta!. 1996) and for habitat effectiveness, security area, and linkage zone analyses in Jasper National Park 's ecosystem management applications (Parks Canada 1997, Purves and Doering 1998). Our study demonstrated that, within logarithmic classes, expert source data slightly overestimated empirically gathered data for linear and dispersed features. Differences often occurred in the lower logarithmic groupings for the linear features ( 1-10 versus 11-l 00 vehicles I people per month). These differences had little or no effect on the outcome of the habitat effectiveness model since the model responded to a > 100 vehicles I people per month cut-off point for high and low displacement categories. Data for point features (ie., campgrounds, picnic sites) obtained from expert sources typically underestimated use. This discrepancy between the two data sets would be the easiest one to correct by using the campground permit data gathered by the Jasper National Park Trail Office. Again, the differences between point data gathered by empirical and expert source methods had little or no effect on the habitat effectiveness and security area results within the study area. Currently, the two data sets resulted in similar or identical habitat effectiveness values, but further research would be useful to determine whether these differences in levels of use would result in greater discrepancies in habitat effectiveness values for BMUs with more area in habitats of high or very high suitability. For most of the monthly model outcomes in this study, a decrease in habitat effectiveness values appears to coincide with an increase in habitat suitability value and a corresponding 65 increase in human use . This relationship exists due to the multiplicative nature of the habitat effectiveness model because areas of higher habitat value are more strongly influenced by human use (as represented by the disturbance coefficient, DC). For example, an area with a habitat value of 10 and a DC of 0.45 is reduced to a value of 4.5 (a decrease from very high habitat suitability to moderate habitat suitability). An area with a habitat value of 1 and a DC of 0.45 is reduced to a value of 0.45 , but in the latter case there is no change in the original low habitat suitability rating . Jasper National Park used the DCs and ZOis for the Yellowstone ecosystem, with minor modifications for BanffNational Park, since both areas are considered protected areas surrounded by multiple use lands (Gibeau et al. 1996) and were therefore expected to exhibit similar parallels between human influences on grizzly bear habitat use. The elevational cutoff separating suitable from unsuitable non-vegetated habitat was reduced from 2400 m, as used in Banff, to 2300 min Jasper to accommodate the difference in latitude between Jasper and Banff (Purves and Doering 1998, Gibeau et al. 1996). Using Parks Canada's current threshold of >80% for habitat effectiveness (Parks Canada 1997), the Maligne Valley did not meet these standards for July, August or September (for the Lower Maligne BMU only). The Lower Maligne BMU was slightly smaller than the minimum size used in BanffNational Park (Gibeau eta!. 1996), but was retained as such due to strong topographic influences. The size of this BMU was similar with some of the female grizzly bear home range sizes found in Russell et a!. ' s ( 1979) grizzly bear 66 study in Jasper National Park, but could still have limitations when incorporated into the grizzly bear model. Nonetheless, the lowest habitat effectiveness value was 78% (Table 2) and it can be assumed that any increase in human activity on low use features, or any additional development in the valley, would continue to compromise the estimated amount of habitat available to grizzly bears. As mentioned, empirical measures of human use in this study may have been conservative in cases where suspect counts were removed from electronic trail counter data, and where observers were unable to obtain census level data. Yearly variation in "ice off' dates for the lakes and snow levels on the trails would also effect use numbers in May and June, with 1997 being a much later year than 1998. Additionally, the values derived from this study did not incorporate the effects of trails and other human use features adjacent to the study area boundary. The buffering of these features would add to the reduction of habitat effectiveness in the Maligne Valley. In contrast, assumptions of the model, which would increase habitat effectiveness if they were not met, include those times when backcountry users did not stay at the permitted campground because of inclement weather and when people using the trails did not travel the entire segment for which the use and its associated buffer were assigned. Threshold values currently are under review by bear management specialists and may be raised for some areas (i.e., >90%) and decreased in others (M. L. Gibeau, personal communication, April 4, 1997). In manipulating the habitat effectiveness model to increase values to >80% (Appendix G), a feature of significant size or several features in combination needed to be removed to cause any change in the overall value. Consequently, greater effects were observed fo r linear and 67 dispersed features than for point features because of their size and associated zones of influence. The proximity of the feature to high or very high value habitat was a primary factor in the model responsiveness. Deficits in security area size were easier to "correct" because areas of usable habitat that could be reconnected by removing a feature (i.e., trail, campground) were simple to identify on the map output. In many situations, the features that were modified in the computer model to increase habitat effectiveness in a specific BMU were those that were easier to manage logistically (i.e. , closing a trail rather than the main access road into the valley). Such modifications might not prove realistic in practice, however, because it is difficult to enforce the closure of remote trails and such actions deny backcountry users their park experience. In cases such as the Lower Maligne BMU, all features except the Maligne Lake Road needed to be removed to bring the habitat effectiveness level above 80%. In so doing, one of Jasper' s most popular backpacking routes, the Skyline Trail, would be closed for use despite the fact that the Maligne Road accounts for almost all of the decline in habitat effectiveness in the entire BMU. Another strong influence on model responsiveness is how and where the bear management units were established. Since the model is based on various assumptions and landscape divisions, only validation of the model (i.e., collaring and tracking bears to determine habitat use and displacement behaviours) would ensure that the BMUs, displacement coefficients, zones of influence, and study area boundaries were applicable. We have assumed that Gibeau's data on habitat use by bears in response to disturbance (Gibeau et al. , 1996), currently being gathered in Banff National Park, can be used to refine Jasper National Park' s 68 model, since both parks employ the same ecological land classification (Holland and Coen 1983, Holroyd and VanTighem 1983) and grizzly bear habitat model (Kansas and Riddell 1995). The major limitations to this assumption are that habitat value is accurately predicted by the availability of vegetative habitat and that the vegetation classification systems used for mapping are accurate predictors of food and cover value for grizzly bears. Both parks also have non-hunted grizzly bear populations and similar visitor use patterns (within the park boundaries). The effect of the latter on habitat effectiveness may be most limited in the model by logarithmic groupings of people (encompassing a wide range of visitor use within a single category) over a monthly time step (which may not be the appropriate temporal scale eliciting response by bears). Behavioural differences are also likely between habituated and non-habituated bears. Therefore, in addition to tracking different animals to validate the model and its numerous assumptions, further research should implement a sensitivity analysis of the habitat effectiveness model to determine which component is most sensitive to or has the greatest impact on the outcome. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Many studies indicate that human activities can adversely affect grizzly bear movements, behaviours, and habitat use (Elgmork 1978, Jope 1985, McLellan and Shackleton 1989, Purves et al. 1992, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1994, Mace and Waller 1996). The grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model, which has met with approval from many agencies responsible for grizzly bear management (e.g., Weaver et al. 1985, Weaver et al. 1987, Apps 69 1993) and has been developed for over a decade, and security area analysis, allow for human activities to be included in habitat evaluation modelling for grizzly bears (Gibeau eta!. 1996, Page eta!. 1996). Prior to these GIS applications, the habitat suitability index was one of the few ways of quantifying habitat values for grizzly bears (Kansas and Riddell 1995). Our study complements other cumulative effects research on grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains (USDA 1990, Gibeau et al. 1996, Martin 1996, Northern East Slopes Environmental Resource Committee 1998). The extent to which human activities displace grizzly bears is not precisely known, but experience in many national parks has shown that grizzly bears habituated to road side or developed areas are often removed from the population through highway mortalities or management actions. Relocation of habituated bears is often unsuccessful. The ability to predict bear-human conflict areas and habitat fragmentation for grizzly bears is a strong tool in times when grizzly bear habitat is declining and visitation to our natural areas is rapidly increasing (Hummel and Pettigrew 1992, Page et al. 1996). As expected from the model, when human activities increased in areas of high habitat suitability for grizzly bears in this study, habitat effectiveness values decreased. With the increase in human activities, there was also an increase in buffer distances and consequently an additional reduction in usable security areas. Including a sensitivity analysis into the habitat effectiveness model would provide a more succinct indication of the types of human activities and habitats that influence the model's output. Further research to set priorities and 70 alternatives should be implemented to determine if there are some types of human activity (e.g., horse use versus hiking versus canoeing) which might be more compatible with bear behaviour than others. Within our study, an increase in human use corresponded with the end of the school year and the beginning of the July long weekend. This rise in human activity coinc ided with an increase in grizzly bear habitat suitability resulting from snowmelt and changes in plant phenology. The planning and regulation of trails and other features such as picnic sites, roads and campgrounds to ensure the avoidance of high and very high value habitats for grizzly bears would help to maintain higher levels of habitat effectiveness and security areas. For example, closing the Skyline Trail in the Lower Maligne BMU in August (>700 people I month) to maintain secure connections between habitats of high suitability (Figs. 2, 13) would increase habitat effectiveness values by 2% to values above the 80% threshold. Similarly, by eliminating the 4 motorized boat surveys, conducted by Parks Canada, for waterfowl along the Maligne Lake shoreline in July, and restricting use on the Maligne River, habitat effectiveness in the Upper Maligne BMU would increase 3% and exceed threshold levels. Any new facilities in the valley should be placed only in areas with low habitat suitability and efforts should be made to determine if rerouting of some trails could provide secure corridors for movement by bears. Given present park objectives for grizzly bear management, the greatest challenge for Parks Canada is to maintain or increase current levels of habitat effectiveness above the 80% 71 threshold while regulating increasing recreational demands and expectations. In using the predictive nature of the habitat effectiveness model and the modeling options presented by GIS, managers are able to build scenarios that allow for an overall assessment of present and proposed developments on the landscape. These options remain, however, only if the human use and habitat suitability databases are kept current. LITERATURE CITED Apps, C. (1993). Cumulative Effects Assessment For Large Carnivores: A Literature Review and Development Strategy for the Canadian Rockies. Prepared for Canadian Parks Service, Western Region, Calgary, AB. 68 pp. Christensen, A.G. and M. J. Madel. 1982. Cumulative Effects Analysis Process: Grizzly Habitat Component Mapping. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Kootenai National Forest. Libby, Montana. 60pp. Elgmork, K. 1978. Human Impact on a Brown Bear Population (Ursus arctos L.). Biological Conservation 13: 81 - 103. Environment Canada, Canadian Parks Service. 1988. Jasper National Park Management Plan. Jasper, Alberta, Canada. Gibeau, M.L. 1997. pers. comm. Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Gibeau, M.L., S. Herrero, J. L. Kansas and B. Benn. 1996. Grizzly Bear Population and Habitat Status, BanffNational Park. Chapter 6 in Green, J., C. Pacus, S. Bayley and L. Cornwell (eds.). 1996 Ecological Outlooks Project: A Cumulative Effects Assessment and Futures Outlook ofthe Banff Bow Valley Study, Banff: Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Holland, W.D., and G.M. Coen. 1983. Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification of Banff and Jasper National Parks, Vol. I: Summary. Alberta Institute of Pedology. Publication No. M-83-2. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 72 Hollenhorst, S.J., S. A. Whisman, and A.W. Ewert. 1992. Monitoring Visitor Use in Backcountry and Wilderness: A Review of Methods. General Technical Report PSWGTR-134 United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Holroyd, G. L. , and K. J. VanTighem. 1983. Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification of Banff and Jasper National Parks, Vol. III: The Wildlife Inventory. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Hummel, M., and S. Pettigrew. 1992. Wild Hunters; predators in peril. Key Porter Books Ltd. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1994. Grizzly Bear Motorized Access Management, Final Report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report. Kansas, J. L., and R.N. Riddell. 1995. Grizzly Bear Habitat Model for the Four Contiguous Mountain Park, Second Iteration. Prepared for Parks Canada, Alberta Region by Riddell Environmental Research Ltd. Ursus Ecosystem Management Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Kelly, D.P. and P.A. Wright. 1997. Lake O'Hara Socio-Ecological Study. Prepared for Yoho National Park. Jope, K. L. 1985. Implications of Grizzly Bear Habituation to Hikers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 32-37. Mace, R. D. and J. S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly Bear Distribution and Human Conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 461-467. Martin, L. S. 1996. Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Cheviot Mine Proposal Using a Habitat Effectiveness Model. Prepared for Jasper National Park, Jasper, AB. 22pp. Mattson, D.J. 1993. Background and Proposed Standards for Managing Grizzly Bear Habitat Security in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Technical Report. Prep. For the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. McLellan, B. N. and D. M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate Reactions of Grizzly Bears to Human Activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 269-274. Mitchell, M. 1995. Jasper National Park Day-Use Trail Survey Final Report (year one), Jasper National Park, Jasper, Alberta, Canada. 73 Mitchell, M. 1994. Jasper National Park Day-Use Tra:il Survey Interim Report (year two), Jasper National Park, Jasper, Alberta, Canada Nepstad, E., and P. Nilsen. 1993. Towards a Better Understanding of Human I Environment Relationships in Canadian National Parks, Occasional Paper NO.5. Canadian Parks Service National Parks. Northern East Slopes Environmental Resource Committee. 1998. Working Framework: Achieving Integrated Grizzly Bear Conservation. Draft for Consultation. Page, R., S. Bayley, J.D. Cook, J. E. Green, and J. R. B. Ritchie. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads, Technical Report. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Paquet, P., and A. Hackman. 1995. Large Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains. World Wildlife Fund. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Parks Canada. 1994. Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Parks Canada. 1997. Submission to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Cheviot Mine Project, January 1997. Jasper, Alberta. Parks Canada. 1998. Jasper National Park Guidelines for River Use Management. Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada. Jasper Alberta. Purves, H. D. and C. Doering. 1998. Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness: Assessing Cumulative Effects of Human Use in Jasper National Park. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) User Conference Proceedings. 1998 In Press. Purves, H. D., C.A. White, and P.C. Paquet. 1992. Wolf and Grizzly Bear Habitat Use and Displacement by Human Use in Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks: A Preliminary Analysis. Prepared for Canadian Parks Service. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Russell, R.H., J.W. Nolan, N.G. Woody, G. Anderson, and A.M. Pearson. 1978. A study of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Jasper National Park: A Progress Report 1976 and 1977. Prepared for Parks Canada by Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton. Schueck, L.S., and J. M. Marzluff. 1995. Influence of Weather on Conclusions about Effects of Human Activities. Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 674-682. 74 Thomas, D. R. and B. D. Zumbo. 1996. Variable Importance in Logistic Regression Based on Partitioning and R2 Measure. Working Paper of the Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Research, University ofNorthem British Columbia. Manuscript under rev1ew. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1990. CEM- A Model for Assessing Effects on Grizzly Bears. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Missoula, MT. Weaver, J. L., R. E. F. Escano, D.S. Winn. 1987. A Framework for Assessing Cumulative Effects on Grizzly Bears. Trans. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52: 364-375. Weaver, J.L., R. Escano, D. Mattson, T. Puchlerz, and D. Despain. 1985. A Cumulative Effects Model for Grizzly Bear Management in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Pages 234246 IN: Contreras G.P. and Evans, K.E. eds. Proceedings- Grizzly bear habitat symposium. Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-207. 252pp. Wright, P. A., M. Kyle, M. Saprowich, and A. Simpson. 1996. Jasper River Use Study. Report to Jasper National Park. Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Zumbo, B. 1997. Psch 600 Readings Package: Univariate Statistical Modeling. University of Northern British Columbia Copy & Publishing Service. Prince George, B.C. 75 APPENDIX A Sampling methods and frequencies for all human use features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31 , 1997. 76 Table AI. Sampling methods and frequencies for all human use features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April I to October 3I, 1997. LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet- Maligne Cornet- Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop* Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit - Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra-Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) Two Valley Gap( Lower) ID. # TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1769 line 1720 line 4121 line 4120 line 77 COUNTER CAMERA X X 6 6 X 3 X X * X 5 6 5 X 5 X X 5 *** *** X 6 DIRECTc SELF-REG a winter route X winter route X 19(26) 19(33) 19(33) 11 X X X 7 X 2 19 I X 5 67 X X 19(7) 59(19) 45(19) 15(19) X 51 X X 67 X daily 35(19) 12 X 8 X 8 X 8 X 8 X 8 X 2 daily in April 2 19(16) 3 X 3 X 3 4 4 18(32) 18(32) 18(32) 6**** 6 4 3 3 3 22 3 X 5 19 3 3 7 g•••• 9**** X X X X X X X X X Upper Bald Hills Road 1732 line Upper Moose Loop Trail 1725 line 4119 line Warren CK. Trail 1759 line Watchtower 1760 line Watchtower - Road 4125 line Z-Drop Photo Trail 3514 point Beaver Lake Cabin 3513 point Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground 3570 point Evelyn Creek Campground 3558 point 3569 point Fisher Bay Campground 3533 !point Henry Mcleod Campground 3555 I point Horse CIG - Maligne Pass 2102 point Leah Ck. Picnic 3559 I point Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground 3562 Ipoint 3553 Ipoint Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic 2103 point Schaffer Campground 3554 ' point 3080 point Scout Cabin I Pit 20200 point Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground 3567 point 3563 point SnowbowiCampground 20155 point Spindly Creek Picnic 3512 point Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground 3566 point 2101 I point Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground 3556 point 3564 Ipoint Watchtower Campground 20217 ! polygon Bald Hills Hike I Ski 20201 ·polygon Beaver Lake Fishing 4083 polygon Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Isian 20053 polygon 4103 polygon Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 20214 _polygon Maligne Home Bay 4076 polygon Maligne Lake Day Use Area 20153 polygon Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area 3557 polygon 4105 polygon Maligne River 4104 I polygon Maligne River Below Big Ben 4102 I polygon Maligne River; Home Bay 20194 Ipolygon Medicine Lake Fishing 4130 Ipolygon Medicine Lake North 4080 Ipolygon Medicine Teahouse Pit 4081 Ipolygon Pit 28 .. X 78 5 19(26) 4 1 4 7(2) 19(33) 19(48) 19(30) 19(30) 19(48) - 19(26) 19(26) daily 18(38) 18(53) 18(65) daily 10(30) 10(24) 10(30) 13(1 3) 13(10) daily daily X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X a. monitoring continuously b. number of weeks monitored c. number of days monitored * also known as Wardenshore ** part of the Bald Hills trail I I *** part of the Opal Hills trail i **** also monitored by vehicle counts I l parentheses indicate the number of additional days of sampling during routine patrols 79 APPENDIXB Monthly habitat suitability maps for the Maligne Valley from April to October. 80 April Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) very high (7 - 10) N 81 May Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil {0) low {0.01 - 2.9) moderate {3 - 4.9) high {5 - 6.9) very high {7 - 10) N 0 10 20 Kilometers 82 June Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) . . very high (7 - 10) N 0 10 20 Kilometers 83 July Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) very high (7 - 10) N 0 ~~~~ 10 20 Kilometers 84 August Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) very high (7- 10) N 0 10 20 Kilometers 8S September Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) very high (7- 10) N 0 10 20 Kilometers 86 October Grizzly Bear Habitat Suitability nil (0) low (0.01 - 2.9) moderate (3 - 4.9) high (5 - 6.9) very high (7 - 10) N 0 ~~~~ 10 20 Kilometers 87 APPENDIXC Displacement coefficients (DC) and zones of influence (ZOI) in the habitat effectiveness model for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, 1997. 88 Table Cl. Displacement coefficients (DC) and zones of influence (ZOI) in the habitat effectiveness model for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, 1997. 89 Motorized Point Features DC ZOI (m) high use* I cover 805.0 high use I non-cover 0.37 0.16 low use** I cover 0.73 805.0 low use I non-cover 0.64 Motorized Linear Features high use I cover 0.37 high use I non-cover 0.16 low use I cover 0.73 low use I non-cover 0.64 805.0 805.0 Motorized Disnersed Features high use I cover 0.37 high use I non-cover 0.16 low use I cover 0.73 low use I non-cover 0.64 805.0 805.0 Non-Motorized Point Features high use I cover 0.50 high use I non-cover 0.33 low use I cover 0.88 low use I non-cover 0.83 402.5 402.5 Non-Motorized Linear Features high use I cover 0.65 402.5 high use I non-cover 0.56 low use I cover low use I non-cover 0.88 0.83 402.5 high use I cover 0.50 402.5 high use I non-cover 0.33 low use I cover 0.88 low use I non-cover 0.83 Non-Motorized Disn_e_rsed Features *high use> 100 people I vehicles per month **low use dOO people I vehicles per month 402.5 90 APPENDIXD The weekly average number of people per day and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season on electronically surveyed trails in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April1 to October 31 , 1997. 91 Fig. Dl. The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Bald Hills trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ ~ ~ ~ eo 12..Jul 05..Jul 2B..Jun 21..Jun 14..Jun 07..Jun 31 -May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 30 -Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 1B-Oct 23-Aug 30-Aug 18-0ct 16-Aug 23-Aug 09-Aug 02 -Aug ~ 16-Aug _!!!: 09-Aug =I 8 26..Jul !9 19..Jul 0 26..Jul ~ o ~ B 8 ~ B ~ § 8 Weekly Average Number of People I Day 19..Jul 12..Jul 05..Jul 2B..Jun iii' 02-Aug :I: ~ =- ~ j 21..Jun 14..Jun 07..Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > \0 N 93 Fig. D2. The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Beaver Lake trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 21-Jun 21-Jun o:; 14-Jun 14-Jun 11-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 1 B-Oct 04 -0ct 04-0ct 18-0ct 20 -Sep 27-Sep 27-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 16-Aug ~ 06-Sep 09-Aug ~ 16-Aug 23-Aug 02-Aug 09-Aug i 30-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug 30-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul I 23-Aug 12-Jul 19-Jul ~ 05-Jul ~ 12-Jul ~ 05-Jul 28-Jun 07-Jun 07-Jun ~ 28-Jun 31-May 31-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 24-May ~ ~ § § ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ e el f9 s ~ e ei a 0 § ~ 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Weekly Average Number of People I Day Accumulated Change in Use(%) > ~ \Q 95 Fig. D3 . The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Coronet Creek trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ttl 21-Jun 28-Jun 05-Jul 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 05-Jul 31-0c 18-0c 31-0ct 11-0ct 18-0ct 25-0c 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 27-Sep 06-Sep 04-0ct 06-Sep 30-Aug 27-Sep 30-Aug 23-Aug 13-Sep 23-Aug ~ 16-Aug 20-Sep 16-Aug ~ 09-Aug 20-Sep 09-Aug 02-Aug 13-Sep 26-Jul 02-Aug 26-Jul IJ ~ 19-Jul 14-Jun 07-Jun 12-Jul 07-Jun 31-May 19-Jul 24-May 31-May 24-May ~ 12-Jul j 19-Apr 12-Apr 17-May El § 10-May § 17-May @ ~ 03-May ~ 10-May ~ 26-Apr ~ 03-May 0 0 N ~ m ~ a ~ X ~ a ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > \0 0\ 97 Fig. D4. The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Lakeshore trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 05-Jul 28-Jun I 02-Aug 26-Jul co 04 -0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31 -0 ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 20-Sep 30-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 09 -Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26 -Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 30-Aug @~ 16-Aug ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 23-Aug 0 0 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ § Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 16-Aug ~ 09-Aug ~ 19-Jul ~ 12-Jul ~ ~ 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03 -May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > \0 00 99 Fig. 05 . The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Lorraine Lake trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. eo 19-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0c 30-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0c 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0c 30-Aug 23 -Aug 18-0ct 16-Aug 23-Aug ~ 16-Aug .- i[ 09-Aug It iiii ~ 12-Jul 05-Jul 05-Jul 19-Jul 28-Jun 28-Jun ~ 12-Jul J 07-Jun 14-Jun 31-May 07-Jun 21-Jun 24-May 31-May 21-Jun 17-May 24-May 14-Jun 10-May 17-May 12-Apr 03-May f9 10-May e 03-May !9 19-Apr 0 26-Apr B 19-Apr 8 0 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 26-Apr 12-Apr .!. Accumulated Change in Use(%) > 0 0 101 Fig. 06. The average number of people per day ( x + SO), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Moose Lake trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. eo 02-Aug 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0c 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 20-Sep 20-Sep 18-0ct 06-Sep 13-Sep 13-Sep 30-Aug 06-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 23-Aug 16-Aug .:- 09-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug ~ 16-Aug 19-Jul 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 26-Jul ~ 12-Jul t!l 19-Jul ~ 05-Jul e {9 12-Jul 1:9 05-Jul 0 28-Jun 8 28-Jun ~ 0 ~ ~ B !'3 e i3 Weekly Average Number of People I Day l[ 09-Aug ~ l ~ j i 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) )0 N 103 Fig. D7. The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Opal Hills trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 26-Ju 02-Aug ~ 02-Aug eo 19-Ju 16-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 04-0c 11-0c 11-0ct 25-0c 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0c 27-Sep 04-0ct 18-0ct 20-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 09-Aug j, 09-Aug ~ 16-Aug :d :I: i 26-Jul 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 12-Ju ~ 19-Jul ~ 05-Ju !9 12-Jul ~ 28-Jun !:!l 05-Jul 0 28-Jun j iIt 2l 21-Jun ~ 0 !:!l 8 !9 ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19 -Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) >~ 0 105 Fig. D8 . The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Summit Lake trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 26-Jul O;j 19-Jul 30-Aug 18-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 25-0ct 04-0ct 27-Sep 25-0ct 20-Sep 27-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 23-Aug 13-Sep 16-Aug ~ 16-Aug 06-Sep 09-Aug ~ 09-Aug 13-Sep 02-Aug ~ 02-Aug ~ ~ 05-Jul 26-Jul 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 12-Jul ~ 19-Jul ~ 05-Jul ~ ~ 12-Jul 8 28-Jun 0 21-Jun § 28-Jun j ~ s ~ ,= o ~ e ~ s ~ s s 8 Weekly Average Number of People I Day 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > 0 0\ 107 Fig. D9. The average number of people per day ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Wardenshore trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ 0:1 19-Apr 12-Apr 31-May 07-Jun 14-Jun 21 -Jun 28-Jun 24-May 31-May 07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 31 -0ct 31 -0ct 18-0ct 25-0ct 25-0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 04-0ct 11 -0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20 -Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 06-Sep 16-Aug 23-Aug 09-Aug ~ 16-Aug 30-Aug 02-Aug ~ 09-Aug 30-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug 23-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul 12-Jul Q' 19-Jul I IJ 12-Jul 05-Jul 17-May 24-May 17-May Iii' 05-Jul j i:9 10-May ~ 03-May !!! 10-May 0 26-Apr B 03-May ~ o ~ e e~ ~ ~ ~ 8 Weekly Average Number of People I Day 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > 00 0 109 Fig. DlO. The average number of people per day ( x +SO), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for the Watchtower trail in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. C'j 05-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 12-Jul 25-0c 31-0c 31-0ct 11-0c 18-0c 18-0ct 25-0ct 04-0c 11-0ct 13-Sep 04-0ct 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 30-Aug 06-Sep 27-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 27-Sep 16-Aug 23-Aug 20-Sep 09-Aug ~ 16-Aug 02-Aug 02-Aug ::1 ~ 09-Aug 26-Jul 26-Jul 19-Jul 28-Jun 28-Jun ~ ~ Q' j i 14-Jun 21-Jun 07-Jun 21-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 14-Jun 24-May 31-May 24-May 17-May 12-Apr 10-May ~ 17-May ~ 03-May 9 10-May 1:9 26-Apr 0 03-May ~ 19-Apr 8 26-Apr § g 0 U1 5 ffi ~ l)l ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 19-Apr 12-Apr !. Accumulated Change in Use(%) ~ 0 111 APPENDIXE The weekly average number of campground users and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31 , 1997. 112 Fig. El. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Coronet Creek campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. co 04-0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 30-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 09-Aug ~ 26-Jul 19-Jul ~ 23-Aug i i [ 12-Jul 05-Jul ~ 28-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 05-Jul § 21-Jun § ~ 28-Jun ~ ~ 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May ~ g ~ ~ g: ~ 0 0 0 0 0 g ;;l ;lit ~ lil el 0 ~ ~ ~ § 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Weekly Average Number of People I Day Accumulated Change in Use (%) > w 114 Fig. E2. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Evelyn Creek campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ ~ § ~ § ~ 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 05-Jul 18-0ct 18-0ct 31-0c 11-0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 04-0ct 04-0ct 25-0c 27-Sep 27-Sep 25-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 30-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 02-Aog 09-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun ~ 21-Jun ~ 28-Jun ~ 21-Jun 0 § b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 23-Aug ~ ii ~ j i 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03 -May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > Vl 116 Fig. E3 . The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Fisherman's Bay campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ ~ 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 02-Aug 26-Jul ~ 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 18-0ct 04-0ct 11 -0ct 18-0ct 31-0ct 20-Sep 27-Sep 31-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 25-0ct 06-Sep 13-Sep 25-0ct 30-Aug 06-Sep .... 23-Aug !ij 30 -Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 16-Aug 09-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul ~ 05-Jul ~ 12-Jul § 05-Jul ~ 28-Jun 0 !5 ~ i5 0 pi 0 ~ 0 [)I Weekly Average Number of People I Day 28-Jun 21-Jun 14-Jun ~ 02-Aug I :t1 i i:f ~ j 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) ~ -...) 118 Fig. E4. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Henry McLeod campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. co 23-Aug ·30-Aug 06 -Sep 30-Aug 06-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 27-Sep 20-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 13-Sep 09-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul 16-Aug 12-Jul 19-Jul ~ 23-Aug 05-Jul 12-Jul 09-Aug 28-Jun 05-Jul 16-Aug 21-Jun 28-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 21-Jun e ~ ~ ~ ~ 1!1 ~ ~ ~ i~ .,_., j i:f j i !9 14-Jun 0 15 s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10 -May 03-May 26 -Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) ~ \0 120 Fig. E5. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Little Shovel campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. i = 11 -0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0c 25-0c 18-0ct 04 -0ct 04-0ct 18-0ct 20-Sep 13-Sep 27-Sep 06-Sep 13 -Sep 27-Sep 30 -Aug 06-Sep 20-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug ~ 23-Aug 09 -Aug 09-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul i ~ 19-Jul 26-Jul f t:: ~ 12-Jul 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 19-Jul § 05-Jul § 12-Jul § 28-Jun ~ 05-Jul ~ 21-Jun 0 28-Jun i ~ g ~ t; ~ ~ 60 ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > N 122 Fig. E6. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Mary Schaffer campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ 18-0ct 18-0ct 31-0ct 11-0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 04-0ct 04-0ct 25-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 25-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 09-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun 14-Jun 16-Aug 09-Aug 02-A"g 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03 -May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr ~ 23-Aug ii f It j i 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 11-May 0 p 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 '$. ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~ 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Weekly Average Number of People I Day Accumulated Change in Use (%) > w N 124 Fig. E7. The average number of people per night (x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Mary Vaux campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. co 26-Jul 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 06-Sep 06-Sep 18-0ct 30-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 09-Aug 09-Aug ~ 23-Aug .... ~ 02-Aug 19-Jul 26-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul f~ J ~ 05-Jul 28-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 28-Jun !:3 ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~ § § 21-Jun 0 g b ~ ~ 1:: 0 I> ~ 0 "' ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 21-Jun ~ 05-Jul j 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) )-V1 N 126 Fig. E8. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Old Horse Camp campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. eo 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 04-0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 13-Sep 30-Aug 06-Sep 23-Aug ~ 30-Aug 23-Aug ~ 09-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug 26-Jul 02-Aug .r. i ~ 02-Aug 19-Jul i 26-Jul 12-Jul ~ ~ 19-Jul ~ 05-Jul b 12-Jul g ~ 05-Jul 21-Jun ~ 28-Jun ~ 28-Jun ~ 14-Jun e 21-Jun s ~ o 14-Jun B ~ ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > N -.1 I 128 Fig. E9. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Signal campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun ~ ~ ~ ~ § § ~ 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 18-0ct 18-0ct 31-0ct 11-0ct 11-0ct 31-0ct 04-0ct 04-0ct 25-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 25-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06-Sep 20-Sep 30-Aug 30-Aug 13-Sep 16-Aug 23-Aug 23-Aug 09-Aug 0 09-Aug 19-Jul 8 .!.. g ~ ~ g: ~ g 0 ;;! ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 16-Aug ~ Q' i~ ~ 12-Jul j 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) ~ N '-D 130 Fig.ElO. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Snowbowl campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. 28-Jun 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 04-0ct 11-0ct 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0ct 31 -0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 27-Sep 27-Sep 18-0ct 13-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep 06-Sep 06 -Sep 13-Sep 23-Aug 30-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 30-Aug 09 -Aug 09-Aug ~ 23-Aug ~ o:; 21-Jun 28-Jun 02-Aug 14-Jun 21-Jun If,. , ~ j 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 07-Jun ~ 14-Jun ~ 31-May ~ 07-Jun ~ 31 -May 24-May 8 0 U1 cS rt; ~ l:ll 0 § 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Weekly Average Number of People I Day Accumulated Change in Use (%) > w 132 Fig. Ell. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Tekarra campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. § ~ 16-Aug 09-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 05-Jul 28-Jun 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 31-0ct 31-0ct 18-0ct 25-0ct 18-0ct 25-0ct 04-0ct 11-0ct 11-0ct 27-Sep 04-0ct 20-Sep 27-Sep 20-Sep 13-Sep § 06-Sep ~ 13-Sep @~ § 30-Aug ~ 06-Sep ~ 30-Aug 8 23-Aug 16-Aug 09-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 0 g ~ ~ ~ el 0 0 [)I Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 23-Aug i I ii:f 28-Jun ~ 05-Jul 21-Jun ~ 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use(%) > w w 134 Fig. E12. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Trapper Creek campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ 28-Jun 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 28-Jun 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 06-Sep 13-Sep 20 -Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 18-0ct 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 18-0ct 31-0ct 30-Aug 30-Aug 31-0ct 23-Aug ~ 23-Aug 25-0ct 16-Aug 25-0ct 09-Aug 16-Aug 02-A"g 21-Jun 21-Jun 02-Aug 14-Jun 14-Jun 09 -Aug i i f ~ j i 07-Jun 07-Jun 17-May 24-May 10-May 17-May 31-May 03-May 10-May 31-May 26-Apr 03-May 24-May 19-Apr 12-Apr 26-Apr ~ ~ e c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b • 1-----< --- r--- • ........__ ----i -- ~ - g ~ ~ --; ~ ~ ~ ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > v-. w - 136 Fig. El3. The average number of people per night ( x + SD), averaged on a weekly basis (A), and the change in frequency of use accumulated over the season (B), for Watchtower campground in Jasper National Park. Dates are the end of each weekly period. ~ ~ !:!i § o:; 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0c 11 -0c 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-0ct 11-0ct 25-0c 31-0c 25-0ct 31-0ct 18-0c 30-Aug 06-Sep 18-0ct 23-Aug 16-Aug 09-Aug 02-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 30-Aug 16-Aug 09-Aug 26-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul ~ 23-Aug Q' 05-Jul iI,_., ~ 05-Jul e 28-Jun 0 !5 ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ Weekly Average Number of People I Day ~ 28-Jun ~ 21-Jun 14-Jun 07-Jun 31-May 24-May 17-May 10-May 03-May 26-Apr 19-Apr 12-Apr Accumulated Change in Use (%) > w -..) 138 APPENDIXF Monthly amounts of human activity used in the habitat effectiveness model for linear, point, and dispersed (polygon) features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31 , 1997. 139 Table F 1. Monthly amounts of human activity used in the habitat effectiveness model for linear, point, and dispersed (polygon) features in the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April1 to October 31, 1997. 140 April LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet - Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maliqne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maliqne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maliqne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maliqne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit- Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra-Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) 10.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1769 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL Motorized N 6 N 6 N 111 N 108 N 0 0 N N 0 N 4 N 0 10 N 15 N y 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 96 N 101 101 N 10 N N 101 N 4 y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 N 105 N 105 4 N 4 N N 4 4 N 4 N N 0 y 500 N 0 N 101 N 0 4 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 y 0 N 0 N 0 N 96 N 101 N 96 N 0 N 108 N 0 N 0 N 10 N 0 141 Two Valley Gap(Lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campground Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maliqne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground Snowbowl Campground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maligne River Below Big Ben Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 point 3513 point 3570 !point 3558 !point 3569 point 3533 point 3555 ! point 2102 Ipoint 3559 point 3562 I point 3553 Ipoint 2103 Ipoint 3554 point 3080 I point 20200 ! point 3567 point 3563 point 20155 point 3512 point 3566 point 2101 point 3556 Ipoint 3564 !point 20217 I polyqon 20201 I polygon 4083 polygon 20053 ! polygon 4103 ipolygon 20214 •polvqon 4076 polygon 20153 polygon 3557 polygon 4105 polygon 4104 polygon 4102 polygon 20194 polygon 4130 l polyqon 4080 Ipolygon 4081 Ipolvqon 1 0 111 101 0 0 2 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 142 May LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet - Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail ~ e Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit - Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra-Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) 10.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL 0 0 163 500 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 101 101 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 150 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 13791 0 147 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 4 4 4 0 101 4 4 0 0 Motorized N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N Two Valley Gap(Lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campground Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maligne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit --=:-----Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground Snowbowl Campground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maligne River Below Big Ben Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 point 3513 point 3570 I point 3558 I point 3569 point 3533 point 3555 I point 2102 ' point 3559 point 3562 point 3553 _point 2103 point 3554 point 3080 point 20200 I point 3567 point 3563 I point 20155 point 3512 point 3566 point 2101 point 3556 point 3564 point 20217 polygon 20201 polygon 4083 polygon 20053 polygon 4103 I polygon 20214 polygon 4076 polygon 20153 I polygon 3557 I polygon 4105 polygon 4104 ·polygon 4102 polygon 20194 polygon 4130 polygon 4080 polygon 4081 polygon 143 0 163 0 0 0 94 0 10 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 13791 0 120 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 144 June LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet - Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Tra il Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Ma ligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) T Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail ~ e Loop Trail Notch - Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summ it - Beaver Lake Tekarra - Signal Creek Tekarra-Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Lower) 10.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1738 line 1739 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4129 line 4128 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 171 7 line 1724 line 1722 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 255 1 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 171 5 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 41 17 line 4115 line 1769 line 1733 line 1742 line 1741 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4120 line TOTAL 0 0 629 1200 3 101 0 2 27 4 0 26 0 13 848 0 1193 3229 157 169 2 6 26 457 101 643 37 12 35 26 40 26 0 28,514 30 608 19 12 0 0 0 242 242 968 2 3 5 17 149 30 34 18 14279 848 13 17 0 2 Motorize N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N 145 Two Valley Gap (Upper) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campqround Fisher Bay Campground Henry McLeod Campqround Horse CIG - Maligne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground SnowbowiCampground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground e ~rra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridqe 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maliqne River Below Big Bend Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishinq Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 4121 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 point 3513 point 3570 I point 3558 point 3569 point 3533 Ipoint 3555 I point 2102 Ipoint 3559 point 3562 point 3553 point 2103 I point 3554 I point 3080 point 20200 !point 3567 point 3563 point 20155 point 3512 I point 3566 Ipoint 2101 !point 3556 I Point 3564 I point 20217 I polygon 20201 polygon 4083 polyqon 20053 polygon 4103 polyqon 20214 polygon 4076 polygon 20153 polyqon 3557 polygon 4105 I polygon 4104 Ipolyqon 4102 !polygon 20194 I polygon 4130 I polygon 4080 I polvqon 4081 Ipolygon 2 629 6 0 0 88 0 101 374 197 17 283 4 0 3 19 7 0 8 12 0 0 4 32 3 0 18 5 15 13 0 30 0 332 12 482 101 197 120 0 0 10 0 173 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 146 July LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet - Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit- Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra-Upper Road r~ er Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) 10. # TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL 0 0 2622 1655 2 180 0 50 149 3 3 19 2 17 446 0 1193 12743 655 469 50 19 4 699 101 1938 104 54 104 50 108 58 4 42497 4 1834 430 53 2 0 2 342 342 2739 2 6 5 416 557 483 603 457 23780 446 422 416 2 4 Motorized N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N Two Valley Gap( lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campground Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maligne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground Snowbowl Campground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fish ing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maligne River Below Big Bend Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 147 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 !point 3513 I point 3570 Ipoint 3558 ·point 3569 point 3533 point 3555 point 2102 point 3559 point 3562 point 3553 point 2103 !point 3554 point 3080 I point 20200 !point 3567 Ipoint 3563 point 20155 point 3512 point 3566 point 2101 point 3556 point 3564 !point 20217 I polygon 20201 polygon 4083 I polygon 20053 polygon 4103 I polygon 20214 I polygon 4076 'polygon 20153 polygon 3557 polygon 4105 polygon 4104 polygon 4102 polygon 20194 polygon 4130 polygon 4080 I polygon 4081 !polygon 4 2622 12 6 40 307 180 101 1655 264 60 329 14 0 10 213 42 0 10 34 0 2 113 298 8 2 307 15 67 83 0 5 0 174 347 598 42497 264 120 7 247 336 1 806 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 148 August LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet- Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trai l Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pas Trail Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit - Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra- Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) ID.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1723 line 1728 line 1726 line 1724 line 1722 line 1717 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4 11 7 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL 0 0 2748 1778 2 238 0 147 208 0 2 27 2 14 692 8 1169 13400 687 452 146 23 0 738 101 212 1980 204 204 141 144 148 2 47035 2 1776 769 135 2 0 0 990 990 3690 2 3 3 786 876 797 891 803 25265 692 778 786 2 2 Motorized N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N Two Valley Gap(Lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campground Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maligne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground SnowbowiCampground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Malione Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maligne River Below Big Bend Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 point 3513 point 3570 I point 3558 point 3569 •point 3533 point 3555 point 2102 point 3559 point 3562 point 3553 I point 2103 I point 3554 !point 3080 point 20200 I point 3567 !point 3563 ·point 20155 point 3512 point 3566 point 2101 point 3556 point 3564 point 20217 polygon 20201 Ipolygon 4083 Ipolygon 20053 I polygon 4103 I polygon 20214 ·polygon 4076 polygon 20153 polygon 3557 polygon 4105 polygon 4104 polygon 4102 polygon 20194 I polygon 4130 Ipolygon 4080 I polygon 4081 !polygon 2! 2748 1 7 0 46 173 180 101 2748 281 1 68 335 1 30 0 35 292 77 22 2 101 15 8 206 504 4 0 532 10 94 170 0 12 0 335 155 384 47035 281 120 2 150 186 36 182 0 0 149 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 150 September LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet- Maligne Cornet- Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit- Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra- Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) 10.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL 0 0 1316 611 1 9 0 32 65 0 1 2 1 2 286 0 1169 8290 329 245 32 3 0 582 101 1812 43 37 43 30 43 37 1 27545 1 1769 274 30 1 0 0 450 450 1802 0 2 1 298 313 277 357 281 19276 286 293 298 0 7 Motorized N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N Two Valley Gap(Lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail ~e CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campqround Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maliqne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campqround Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shanqri-La Cabin Signal Campground Snowbowl Campground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campqround Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campqround Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishinq Gravel Pit Malige River Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maliqne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maliqne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Below Big Bend Maliqne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 151 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 Ipoint 3513 I point 3570 Ipoint 3558 point 3569 Ipoint 3533 Ipoint 3555 I point 2102 Ipoint 3559 I point 3562 ' point 3553 point 2103 I point 3554 Ipoint 3080 Ipoint 20200 Ipoint 3567 Ipoint 3563 point 20155 Ipoint 3512 ! point 3566 ~ 2101 point 3556 point 3564 point 20217 I polygon 20201 I polyqon 4083 I polyqon 4105 I polygon 20053 IPolygon 4103 Ipolyqon 20214 I polygon 4076 •polygon 20153 polyqon 3557 polygon 4104 polygon 4102 polyqon 20194 polygon 4130 I polyQon 4080 I polvaon 4081 I polyqon 7 1316 0 6 17 201 2 23 1316 72 8 90 4 0 1 76 14 0 1 18 0 12 37 200 1 0 213 1 21 35 0 1 0 4 65 2 185 27545 22 120 2 7 70 16 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N 152 October LOCATION 8 Pass Bald Hills - 8 Pass Bald Hills Road Beaver Lake - Parking Lot Beaver Lake Fishing Trail Big Bend Picnic Cornet - Maligne Cornet - Mary Vaux Cornet Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Evelyn Creek Trail Fisherman's Bay Warden Fishing Trail Home Bay Loop Jacques Lake - Summit Jeffrey Creek Lake - Upper Moose Loop Lake Loop Trail Lookout Trail Lorraine Trail Maligne -Avalanche Maligne Lake to C.C Maligne Lake Duck Maligne Lake to Isle Maligne Lk. Area Road Maligne Pass - Moose Loop Maligne Pass - Upper Moose Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne Pass Trail Maligne River Fishing (West) Maligne Road Maligne Road Trail Moose Loop Trail Notch- Tekarra Old Horse - Mary Vaux Old Maligne Road Opal - North Surprise Opal - Surprise Lake Opal Hills Opal Hills Opal Hills Loop Road - Surprise Creek Rockslide Loop Sewage Lagoon Road Signal Mountain Fire Road Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Skyline Trail Snowbowl - Curator Spirit Island Trail Summit - Beaver Lake Tekarra- Signal Creek Tekarra- Upper Road Trapper Creek Two Valley Gap (Upper) 10.# TYPE 1718 line 1721 line 1731 line 1910 line 4122 line 3088 line 1945 line 1714 line 1943 line 1739 line 1738 line 4127 line 4123 line 20215 line 1908 line 1755 line 1729 line 1775 line 1777 line 1734 line 1713 line 4 128 line 4129 line 4126 line 2568 line 1728 line 1726 line 1722 line 1724 line 1717 line 1723 line 1719 line 4116 line 2551 line 1776 line 1727 line 1765 line 1715 line 4124 line 1749 line 1748 line 1744 line 1745 line 1746 line 1754 line 4117 line 4115 line 1769 line 1741 line 1742 line 1733 line 1756 line 4118 line 1909 line 1766 line 1768 line 1720 line 4121 line TOTAL 0 0 249 178 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 115 0 221 1665 62 35 2 3 0 104 101 377 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 9064 1 375 1 2 0 0 0 70 70 280 0 0 1 4 3 3 7 3 2517 115 4 4 0 0 Motorized N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N y y y y N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N N N N Two Valley Gap( lower) Upper Bald Hills Road Upper Moose Loop Trail Warren CK. Trail Watchtower Watchtower - Road Z-Drop Photo Trail Beaver Lake Cabin Beaver Shelter Cornet Creek Campground Evelyn Creek Campground Fisher Bay Campground Henry Mcleod Campground Horse CIG - Maligne Pass Leah Ck. Picnic Little Shovel Campground Mary Vaux Campground Old Horse Campground Samson Ck. Picnic Schaffer Campground Scout Cabin I Pit Shangri-La Cabin Signal Campground Snowbowl Campground Spindly Creek Picnic Summit Lake Campground Tekarra Campground Trapper Ck. Picnic Trapper Creek Campground Watchtower Campground Bald Hills Hike I Ski Beaver Lake Fishing Gravel Pit Maligne - Home Bay to Island Maligne Bridge 1 - 2 Maligne Home Bay Maligne Lake Day Use Area Maligne Lake South Maligne Lake Warden Area Maligne River Maligne River Below Big Bend Maligne River; Home Bay Medicine Lake Fishing Medicine Lake North Medicine Teahouse Pit Pit 28 4120 line 1732 line 1725 line 4119 line 1759 line 1760 line 4125 line 3514 point 3513 point 3570 point 3558 point 3569 I point 3533 I point 3555 I point 2102 I point 3559 I point 3562 !point 3553 point 2103 point 3554 point 3080 point 20200 point 3567 point 3563 I point 20155 I point 3512 !point 3566 I point 2101 point 3556 point 3564 point 20217 polygon 20201 polygon 4083 polygon 20053 polygon 4103 polygon 20214 I polygon 4076 I polygon 20153 I polygon 3557 I polygon 4105 I polygon 4104 I polygon 4102 I polygon 20194 ·polygon 4130 polygon 4080 polygon 4081 polygon 1 0 249 0 0 0 49 0 4 178 0 7 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 7 9064 3 101 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N y N N N N N N N 153 154 APPENDIXG Management scenarios for the months of July, August and September to increase habitat effectiveness levels to > 80%. 155 Table Gl . Scenarios for the month of July to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values ~ to values > 80%. The original habitat effectiveness values reflect the 1997 human use levels. The resultant habitat effectiveness values were derived after altering use on a particular feature. The data for human use are either specific numbers, if the feature was individually classified, or an estimated minimum value (i.e. , < 200) if the feature was made up of several small trail segments. 156 BMU Original Habitat Effectiveness Value for July, 1997 Resultant Habitat Effectiveness Value Lower Maligne 78% 78% .set Watchtower trail from 307 to zero use 81% .set Watchtower trail from 307 to zero use .set northern part of Skyline Trail > 400 to zero use 81 % .set Maligne River use from >200 to zero use 82% .set Maligne River use from > 200 to zero use .set northern part of Skyline Trail from > 400 to zero use 81 % .set Maligne Lake Duck Survey from 4 to zero use .set Maligne River use from > 200 to zero use 79% .set Maligne River use from >200 to zero use Middle Maligne Upper Maligne 80% 78% Action 157 Table G2. Scenarios for the month of August to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values ~ to values >80%. The original habitat effectiveness values reflect the 1997 human use levels. The resultant habitat effectiveness values were calculated after altering use on a particular feature . 158 BMU Original Habitat Effectiveness Value for August, 1997 Resultant Habitat Effectiveness Value Lower Maligne 79% 79% .set Watchtower trail from 173 to zero use 81 % .set Watchtower trail from 173 to zero use .set northern part of Skyline Trail from >700 to zero use 96% .set Maligne Lake Road from >40,000 to zero use 79% .set all poi nt features to zero use 79% .set all dispersed (polygon) features to zero use 100% .set all linear features to zero use 82% .set Maligne River use from > 150 to zero use 82% .set Maligne River use from > 150 to zero use .set northern part of Sky line Trail from >700 to zero use 90% .set Maligne Lake Road from >40 ,000 to zero use 81% .set first reach of Maligne River from I 86 to zero use 80% .set all point features to zero use 81% .set all dispersed (polygon) features to zero use 95% .set all linear features to zero use 79% .set Maligne River use from > 150 to zero use 81% .set Maligne Lake Motorized boat use low and high categories to zero use 80% .set Maligne Lake Road from >40 ,000 to zero use 79% .set Maligne Lake Motorized Commercial boat use from high to zero use 80% .set first reach of Maligne River from 186 to zero use .set Lorraine Lake trail from 452 to zero use .set Coronet Creek trail from 208 to zero use Middle Maligne Upper Maligne 80% 79% Action 159 81% .set first reach of Maligne River from 186 to zero use .set Lorraine Lake trai I from 452 to zero use .set Coronet Creek trail from 208 to zero use .set Opal Hills trail from >990 to zero use 79% .set all point features to zero 83% .set all dispersed (polygon) features to zero 84% .set all linear feature s to zero 160 Table G3 . Scenarios for the month of September to increase habitat effectiveness for bear management units with habitat effectiveness values : ; 80% to values >80%. The original habitat effectiveness values reflect the 1997 human use levels. The resultant habitat effectiveness values were derived after altering use on a particular feature. 161 Original Habitat Resultant Habitat Effectiveness Value Effectiveness for September, 1997 Value Lower Maligne 79% 82% Middle Maligne 81 % BMU 82% Action .set Watchtower trail to zero use .set northern part of Skyline Trail to zero .set northern part of Skyline Trail to zero 162 APPENDIXH Monthly security area maps for the Maligne Valley, Jasper National Park, from April 1 to October 31 , 1997. 163 April Security Areas D Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 164 May Security Areas D Not Secure- HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 165 June Security Areas Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 166 July Security Areas D Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 167 August Security Areas D Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 168 August Expert Source Security Areas Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable D N + 0 10 20 Kilometers 169 September Security Areas D Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure I I Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers 170 October Security Areas D Not Secure - HU Not Secure - Size -Secure D Unusable + N 0 10 20 Kilometers