s

333.95978414

F2fgbmps

2002

GRIZZLY BEAR
Management Plan for Southwestern Montana

2002-2012

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prepared by:

With Input From The

Montana Grizzly Bear Working Group

and other interested parties

October 2002 ^'^'^ ^ ? ?oa3

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

mill

III III mil

3 0864 1002 0354 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FINAL EIS ON MANAGEMENT OF
GRIZZLY BEARS IN SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA

HISTORY OF PROPOSAL

In keeping with the general management goals of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
(FWP), the management of Montana's grizzly bears {Ursiis arctos) in southwestern
Montana was reviewed beginning in 2000. Concerns raised both in the department and
by the general public were used to shape the objectives for the program review. Because
major changes in numbers and distribution of grizzlies in the area is occurring, an
environmental impact statement (EIS) has been completed in compliance with the
Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

Preceded by press releases, scoping sessions were held in September and October 2001.
After analysis of public input, a draft EIS (DEIS) describing a preferred approach and
alternatives considered for grizzlies in southwestern Montana was issued in April 2002
for further public review and input. Following analysis of public input on the DEIS, a
final EIS was issued in November 2002.

MEPA PROCESS

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) developed this plan and programmatic
environmental impact statement (PEIS) through a series of meetings with affected
agencies, governments, interested persons, and groups. FWP initiated the scoping
processes with discussion of potential issues and alternatives with biologists, wardens,
and representatives from Idaho and Wyoming during the summer of 2000. Following
those preliminary efforts, FWP held a series of 13 public scoping meetings in
southwestern Montana during September and October 2000 (Livingston, Bozeman,
Missoula, Big Sky, Big Timber, Dillon, Ennis, Butte, West Yellowstone, Billings,
Columbus, Gardiner, and Red Lodge). FWP solicited written comments throughout the
Fall of 2000 through news releases, press interviews, and personal contacts. During these
meetings, FWP sought to identify issues likely to involve significant impacts and those
issues not likely to involve significant impacts, as well as to identify possible alternatives
for grizzly bear management. To fiarther develop issues and ideas for possible
alternatives, FWP held a meeting in Bozeman consisting of the Governors' Roundtable
members, and other invited interest groups and individuals, on December 4-5, 2000.
FWP invited the participation of those individuals and groups that had expressed interest
in additional participation as well as other affected agencies. Following this meeting, a
draft management plan was produced and resubmitted to a broader group of interested
parties including those who attended the December meeting. An additional facilitated
meeting was held in Bozeman April 30-May 1, 2001 to review and discuss approaches
presented in the preliminary draft plan with the purpose of fine tuning a draft. A meeting
was held on October 22, 2001, to fiarther review the draft plan for release and formal
public hearings. All of the meetings were open to the public. A draft plan was released
for public comment April 5, 2002. Formal public hearings were conducted through the
same area of southwestern Montana as previous scoping sessions (13 total). Public

comment was also accepted in writing for 90 days through July 5, 2002. All comments
were used to assist in preparing the final plan. A summary of comments and FWP
response to them is included in this document.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Goals For The Grizzly Bear

FWP has statewide goals for wildlife resources. This plan more specifically deals with
grizzly bear resources in southwestern Montana. These goals are:

1 . To provide the people of Montana and visitors with optimum outdoor recreational
opportunities emphasizing the tangible and intangible values of wildlife and
natural and cultural resources of aesthetic, scenic, historic, scientific, and
archaeological significance in a manner that:

a. Is consistent with the capabilities and requirements of the resources

b. Recognizes present and future human needs and desires, and

c. Ensures maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

2. Wildlife Program Goal — To protect, perpetuate, enhance, and regulate the wise
use of wildlife resources for public benefit now and in the future.

3. Grizzly Bear Management Goal — To manage for a recovered grizzly bear
population in southwestern Montana and to provide for a continuing expansion of
that population into areas that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable.
This should allow FWP to achieve and maintain population levels that support
managing the bear as a game animal along with other species of native wildlife
and provide some regulated hunting when and where appropriate.

These goals will be achieved by addressing the following issues identified early in the
planning process: human safety, habitat, population monitoring, future distribution, trails
programs, livestock conflicts, property damage, nuisance guidelines, hunting,
enforcement concerns, education, and funding. The success of grizzly bear management
in Montana will be contingent upon FWP's ability to address these issues in a way that
builds social support for grizzlies.

Purpose and Need

The need for this plan was precipitated by changes in bear management in the
Yellowstone Ecosystem during the 1 980-90s, resulting in increasing numbers and
expanding distribution of grizzly bears in this area. Current approaches to land
management, wildlife management, and recreation within the Primary Conservation Area
(PCA, Fig. 1) appear to be providing the conditions needed to establish a population of
bears outside the PCA. It is FWP's objective to maintain existing renewable resource
management and recreational use where possible and to develop a process where FWP,
working with local publics, can respond to demonstrated problems with appropriate
management changes. By maintaining existing uses, which allows people to continue
their lifestyles, economies, and feelings of well being, this approach builds support and
increases tolerance for an expanding grizzly bear population.

GirflatinNF

DaarlodoeNF

CurtarNF

Beaverhead NF

Shoshone NF

RKOvery Zone/Primary Conaaoffltion Area
9210 Sq Miles

Brldger-Taton NF

Figure 1 . Location of the recovery zone/primary conservation area within Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem.

DESCRIPTION OF GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT AREA
FOR SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA

Grizzly bears currently ~ or could in the near future ~ occupy suitable habitats in the
seven southwestern and south-central Montana counties adjacent to or near Yellowstone
National Park (Carbon, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Park, Gallatin, Madison, and Beaverhead
Counties). The proposed action of this document is to create and adapt a management
plan for this area. The plan briefly describes the geographic and human environment of
this seven-county area with respect to general description, size, human population, land
ownership, special management areas, agricultural interests, and recreation. Not all
portions of these counties are suitable grizzly bear habitat. However, some of the above
attributes of these counties may affect the distribution and survival of grizzly bears.
Given enough time and adequate management programs, grizzly bear distribution may
extend beyond this seven-county area. For purposes of this plan, expansion in grizzly
bear distribution during the next 10 years is most likely to occur within this seven-county

area. It is anticipated that the programs outlined in this plan would apply should grizzlies
extend their distribution beyond these counties sooner than anticipated. In addition, the
success of our program rests on coordinating and cooperating with the surrounding states
and federal agencies. We will continue to work with them so that the needs of the bear
population as a whole are met.

ISSUES OF CONCERN ADDRESSED IN THE EIS AND SUMMARY OF THE
PREFERRED APPROACHES AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The following section presents the issues identified from the scoping process, and follow-
up meetings, described earlier.

FWP considered a "No Action" alternative beyond continuing existing programs and
approaches to grizzly bear management, but a No Action alternative was rejected because
the bear population will continue to expand under existing programs. Failure to modify
the program would result in unnecessary conflicts and elevated risks to grizzly bears and
to the people of Montana and its visitors, and would reduce the opportunity for future
bear population increases.

Before discussing the different issues and alternatives this plan addresses, it is important
to keep the following overall perspectives in mind.

• Public support and tolerance for grizzlies is the key to their long-term recovery and
re-occupancy of suitable habitats, and this support is contingent on local involvement
and active local participation in plan development and implementation.

• All of the biological and social issues are interrelated, and no one part of the plan can
ftinction effectively without the others. For example, people intentionally feeding
bears create enforcement problems, unnecessary bear mortalities, risk to human
safety, property damage, and more.

• This plan does not presuppose habitat problems exist with bear reoccupancy, but
instead approaches the issues with the perspective of making sure local people are
involved and given sufficient tools to respond to management changes as need arises.

• The key to a broader recovery lies in bears utilizing lands that are not managed solely
for them but in which their needs are adequately considered along with other uses.
The plan also recognizes the pivotal role private- landowner support will play in a
broader recovery.

• Preventative measures are much better than simply responding to problems; however,
a great deal is unknown about how bears will utilize some of the available habitats.

• The plan must respond as changes occur and be open to public scrutiny and input.

Human Safety

Grizzly bears are large, powerfiil animals and, on rare occasions, can threaten human
safety and life. To be successfiil in grizzly bear management, threats to human safety
must be minimized to the extent possible. Threats to human safety, however, cannot be
eliminated totally.

The preferred approach includes the following:

> Bears that kill people will be removed from the population.

> Bears displaying unacceptable aggression, or that are considered to be a threat to
human safety, will be removed from the population as quickly as possible.

> The major emphasis of the program will be on educating people about safety
measures and preventing conflicts with people. An early warning system will be
developed for use in years when natural foods may be limited and when the potential
for conflicts are higher than normal.

> Information on safety in bear country will be provided in all big game hunting
regulations.

> FWP will seek statewide expansion and enforcement of food storage ordinances.

> FWP will work with county governments to require bear-proof garbage containers for
homeowners in bear country.

Habitat/Habitat Monitoring/Management of Human Use of Bear Habitat

This FEIS recommends coordinated monitoring of major grizzly bear food sources and
consulting with land management agencies on issues related to grizzly bear habitat
protection, disturbance, and mitigation. The preferred approach to this issue includes:

> FWP will continue to cooperate in a coordinated effort to collect and analyze habitat
data.

> FWP will work with land management agencies to monitor habitat changes in a
manner consistent with its overall approaches for all other managed species.

> FWP will continue to use statewide habitat programs to conserve key wildlife habitats
in southwestern Montana.

> FWP will identify and monitor whitebark pine, moth aggregation sites if identified,
and other key foods such as ungulate population levels.

> FWP will recommend that land-management agencies manage for an open-road
density of one mile or less per square mile of habitat consistent with FWP's statewide
Elk Management Plan guidelines.

> FWP will support keeping existing inventoried roadless areas in a roadless state and
work with local groups and land managers to identify areas where roads could be
reclaimed.

> FWP will work with the Department of Transportation to address wildlife crossing
needs on their projects.

> FWP will monitor coal bed methane activities, and other oil and gas projects, and
address grizzly bear needs in these permitting processes.

> FWP will work with local groups to identify and promote habitat characteristics that
benefit bears such as maintaining core areas or working with county planners in
important habitat areas.

An alternative considered was to expand the current higher level of habitat restrictions
and programs in place in the PCA to bear-occupied areas outside the PCA. It is FWP's
judgment that this approach would not generate social acceptance for the bear and its

further recovery. Incorporating the grizzly as another component of FWP's ongoing
programs for all wildlife is a more productive approach. In addition, the approach
outlined in this plan does allow FWP to modify the program, if necessary, and adapt the
program in the future as more is learned.

FWP recognizes that habitat changes in the PC A (loss of whitebark pine, etc.) could
result in increased importance of habitats outside and will respond to those changes if
they occur.

Population Monitoring

Grizzly bears are a species that present challenges in population monitoring. To meet
these challenges, the preferred approach includes:

> FWP will estimate densities using the best available data from research,
distribution changes, DNA samples, and more.

> FWP will monitor unduplicated females with cubs.

> FWP will monitor mortality including timing and causes and gather survivorship
data.

> FWP will use verified sightings to document changes in bear distribution.

> FWP will conduct research in cooperation with other entities to obtain more
detailed population information where needed.

> Monitoring will be coordinated with other states as part of a cooperative effort
and presented in annual reports.

> Population trend, in combination with habitat conditions, demographics,
human/bear conflicts, social tolerance, and research findings, will be FWP's guide
to decisions regarding population management.

As an alternative, FWP has considered the collection of population data in a manner that
would provide statistically precise population estimates. For a slowly reproducing
species like grizzly bears in which even a maximum lambda will always be close to 1 .0
(meaning the populations don't fluctuate greatly on an annual basis), it will seldom be
possible to have a 95% confidence interval that does not overlap 1.0. However, in FWP's
judgment, using the weight of evidence collected in different ways and multiple sources
is a more practical and meaningful approach for assessing population trend. Population
trend will be FWP's guide to management decisions.

Future Distribution

Grizzly bear distribution in this area is increasing.

> FWP expects grizzly bear distribution to continue to increase.

> FWP will address linkage by providing opportunities for bears to naturally reoccupy
suitable, but unoccupied habitat, and will continue to work with Idaho, Wyoming, and
the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee to address this issue.

further recovery. Incorporating the grizzly as another component of FWP's ongoing
programs for all wildlife is a more productive approach. In addition, the approach
outlined in this plan does allow FWP to modify the program, if necessary, and adapt the
program in the future as more is learned.

FWP recognizes that habitat changes in the PCA (loss of whitebark pine, etc.) could
result in increased importance of habitats outside and will respond to those changes if
they occur.

Population Monitoring

Grizzly bears are a species that present challenges in population monitoring. To meet
these challenges, the preferred approach includes:

> FWP will estimate densities using the best available data from research,
distribution changes, DNA samples, and more.

> FWP will monitor unduplicated females with cubs.

> FWP will monitor mortality including timing and causes and gather survivorship
data.

> FWP will use verified sightings to document changes in bear distribution.

> FWP will conduct research in cooperation with other entities to obtain more
detailed population information where needed.

> Monitoring will be coordinated with other states as part of a cooperative effort
and presented in annual reports.

> Population trend, in combination with habitat conditions, demographics,
human/bear conflicts, social tolerance, and research findings, will be FWP's guide
to decisions regarding population management.

As an alternative, FWP has considered the collection of population data in a manner that
would provide statistically precise population estimates. For a slowly reproducing
species like grizzly bears in which even a maximum lambda will always be close to 1.0
(meaning the populations don't fluctuate greatly on an armual basis), it will seldom be
possible to have a 95% confidence interval that does not overlap 1.0. However, in FWP's
judgment, using the weight of evidence collected in different ways and multiple sources
is a more practical and meaningftil approach for assessing population trend. Population
trend will be FWP's guide to management decisions.

Future Distribution

Grizzly bear distribution in this area is increasing.

> FWP expects grizzly bear distribution to continue to increase.

> FWP will address linkage by providing opportunities for bears to naturally reoccupy
suitable, but unoccupied habitat, and will continue to work with Idaho, Wyoming, and
the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee to address this issue.

> Areas of potential focus to address problems with movement of bears are the Madison
and Paradise valleys, Gallatin Canyon, Bozeman Pass, Centennial Valley/Range west
to Monida Pass, Upper Madison/Raynold's Pass area.

An alternative considered was limiting grizzly bear distribution to just the PCA.
However, in FWP's judgment this approach is logistically impossible and biologically
undesirable. In order to maintain resiliency in the population to changes in habitat,
tolerance levels and other factors, bears need to be allowed to occupy a broader
landscape. Also, bears cannot be confined to the PCA because there are no barriers to
contain them, and it is impossible to know the location of every animal all the time.

Trails

Trails have the potential to impact bears through disturbance and increased human
access. The preferred approach includes:

> FWP will gather information on trail use.

> All FWP trails projects will be reviewed by area biologists and grizzly bear concerns
addressed.

> Federal trails programs are currently being adjusted, and FWP is participating in and
supporting those efforts.

> Adjustments to trail access and uses should be developed through local citizen
involvement using the best available science.

> FWP will evaluate snowmobile programs to ensure they avoid impacting grizzly
bears during denning periods, including den entrance and emergence.

An alternative considered was to deal with bear specific trail restrictions prior to
reoccupancy. However, in our judgment, this approach would result in unnecessarily
impacting user groups without clear evidence of a problem. FWP's efforts on this issue
are intended to build higher levels of social acceptance across user groups while still
providing the necessary mechanisms to respond should problems occur.

Livestock Conflicts

Grizzly bear can occasionally cause significant losses of livestock. To address these
situations, the preferred approach includes:

> Wildlife Services will continue to be the lead agency dealing with livestock
depredation.

> FWP focus will be on preventive programs to minimize livestock conflicts with
priority toward those areas with a history of conflict or currently occupied by bears.

> FWP will work with beekeepers to provide electric fences for all apiaries accessible
to bears, and FWP will re-evaluate the guidelines for bear depredation to beehives
and modify if needed.

>• FWP will encourage private fimding for compensation of livestock loss.

> FWP will respond to conflicts within 12 hours with at least an initial contact by
telephone or in person if possible and in cooperation with Wildlife Services.

An alternative suggested and considered was to force livestock operators to absorb losses
that occurred on public lands no matter what the cost. However, in FWP's judgment, this
approach fails to recognize the significant contribution of private lands, which provide
important bear conservation benefits. In fact, in many portions of the GYE these same
private lands are critical to the survival of the bear and to accommodating an expanded
distribution of the population. If a permittee could not manage depredation risks on
public lands, the converse is allowing them to eliminate risks (meaning bears) on their
private lands. This either/or approach is not a productive solution to these problems.
Additionally, this approach actually significantly conflicts with the FWP objective of
building public support necessary for expansion and long-term survival of bear
populations.

Property Damage

Bears can and will on occasion damage personal property other than livestock. They can
enter buildings, chew on snowmobile seats, tear down fruit trees, and so on. Bears are
highly attracted to almost any potential food source. Processed human food, gardens,
garbage, livestock and pet feeds, livestock carcasses, and septic treatment systems are
particularly attractive to bears near camps and residential areas, and are often the cause of
human-bear conflicts. The preferred approach to address these issues is:

> FWP will focus on preventive measures, including the elimination of attractants, and
better sanitation measures; the agency's bear management specialist will work on
these issues on public and private lands.

> FWP will seek funding to continue the grizzly bear management specialist position
currently stationed in Bozeman and evaluate the need for an additional position
stationed in Region 5.

> FWP will respond to conflicts within 12 hours by phone or in person if possible.

> FWP will summarize efforts annually.

An alternative considered was to keep bears and people apart. However, in FWP's
judgment, this approach will fail because bear distribution and densities would have to be
so low that it would preclude the objective of maintaining a healthy bear population.

Nuisance Guidelines

Conflicts are currently increasing as the bear population continues to increase in numbers
and distribution although they can vary greatly on an annual basis. Considering how
many people live, work, and recreate in southwestern Montana, it is important to note
there have been minimal conflicts overall. However, nuisance or "problem" bears that
are not managed successfully may threaten the entire grizzly bear program. To address
this need, the following are part of the preferred approach:

> FWP will focus immediate action in areas already occupied by grizzly bears, i.e.,
Absaroka/Beartooth, Gallatin, Madison, and Gravelly Mountain ranges.

> FWP will attempt to minimize the number of bears removed from the population.
This will also be the case even if this population is delisted.

> Develop a cost-sharing program to do preventative work, thus encouraging a variety
of interest groups to work together with FWP to minimize problems and increase
tolerance for bears.

> FWP will review and adjust the guidelines for dealing with damage to beehives.

> FWP will consider the actions and potential impacts of programs in Wyoming and
Idaho when determining our response.

An alternative we considered was to provide unfettered flexibility to livestock operators
and property owners to deal with conflict situations. However, in FWP's judgment, this
approach will fail to provide the necessary assurances for long-term conservation. No
other FWP programs for a managed species allows for flexibility without constraints.

Hunting

Regulated hunting as a management tool for grizzly bears has a long successful history in
Montana. Regulated hunting allows FWP to select against unwary bears or bears that
associate and habituate to people.

Regulated harvest of wildlife is one of the major tools that allows the recovery and
maintenance of predators and prey populations in Montana and elsewhere. Persons who
participate in that harvest are pivotal to recovery of prey and the predators that depend on
it. In addition, regulated harvest of predators builds tolerance by those most negatively
impacted by their presence. It is therefore intended that regulated harvest of grizzly bears
will be a part of Montana's program and commitment to grizzlies, when and where
appropriate. By managing grizzly bears as a game species they are provided recognition
as a valuable wildlife species, protected from illegal harvest, afforded population
monitoring and research, and all of the other benefits managed species receive.

To implement this, our preferred approach includes:

>• Regulated harvest will be a part of Montana's long-term conservation program.

> Any hunting program will be justified and open to public review, similar to the
processes used for all other managed species in Montana, and coordinated with
surrounding states to avoid excessive mortality.

> The female segment of the population will be given additional protections in any
proposed hunting program. For example, the killing of females accompanied by
young will be prohibited.

> The purpose for a hunt will be to manage "for the species," and garnering additional
public support and ownership to ensure its long-term survival and reoccupancy of
habitats.

> FWP will encourage hunters and other recreationists to carry pepper spray in bear
habitat.

> If opportunities should arise to expand recovery, FWP is committed to utilize all or a
portion of any harvestable surplus by live removal and relocation of bears to other
areas within or outside Montana.

Enforcement

To implement the preferred approaches, the following will be addressed:

> FWP will seek authority in cooperation with federal agencies to enforce food storage
regulations on federal lands.

> FWP will implement statutory authority to address intentional feeding of both black
and grizzly bears to eliminate the problem.

> FWP will seek additional funding and authority to enforce travel management plans,
including off-road vehicle use.

An alternative FWP considered was to not seek additional authority either through MOUs
and statutes to expand state enforcement authority in dealing with preventive measures
relating to human/bear conflicts. However, FWP enforcement personnel are in the most
effective position to address these problems.

Education/Public Outreach

Management strategies are unlikely to succeed without useful, state-of-the-art public
information and education programs. A partnership information and education approach
involving FWP, as well as other agencies, local communities, and private interests, can
result in minimizing human/bear tragedies as well as develop a stronger sense of
agreement among Montana residents about the state's goals and management programs
related to the bear. The preferred approach to this issue includes:

> FWP will include lessons on human safety while hunting in bear habitat in each
hunter education class.

> FWP will continue to expand its efforts to assist hunters with identification of black
versus grizzly bears. In 2002, FWP began mandatory training for people interested in
hunting black bears.

> FWP will develop ways to target education efforts towards "new" Montana residents
regarding human/bear issues as well as long-term residents.

> FWP will encourage the Board of Outfitters to require all outfitters and guides
operating in bear habitat to be certified in human/bear safety.

> FWP will continue to work with private organizations and interest groups, as well as
the media, to include safety tips on recreating in bear habitat including proper use of
pepper spray.

> Education and public outreach will be integrated with enforcement on sanitation, etc.,
to effectively minimize human activities that can lead to human/bear safety issues.

> FWP will work with local planning entities to address the needs of grizzly bears in
new developments and new residential areas.

10

An alternative FWP considered was to not expand these efforts. However, in our
judgment, expanded efforts are essential to the objective to allow for expanded bear
distribution and long-term survival of the species. It was also suggested that the
mandatory bear ID test for black bear hunters be modified to require "in person" testing
and that recertification be required. Because this is a new program, it will be monitored
to determine its success at reducing mistaken identity mortalities. If adjustments such as
those suggested or others become necessary, they may be implemented in the future.

Future Research

Research is an ongoing process, and FWP's program is formatted so knowledge of the
species and their needs are always improving.

Costs and Funding

As grizzly numbers and the area occupied increase, management costs will also rise.
Certain management data will need to be collected to assess population status and to
manage nuisance activities. Total costs are difficult to determine at this point in time,
especially considering that expansion may not be limited in the near future. The
preferred approach includes:

> The majority of funding for these programs will be borne by the sportspersons of
Montana through license fees as well as federal Pittman-Robertson funds from excise
taxes on firearms and ammunition currently in place.

> FWP will seek significant additional federal funding for the five-year post-delisting
monitoring period and develop an MOU with federal agencies to contribute funding
support and involvement with habitat and population monitoring.

> FWP will explore avenues to allow tourists to participate in program fiinding.

> FWP will continue to work to find ways for national interests in this species to be
reflected in long-term funding commitments, i.e., a national endowment.
Congressional act, or other vehicles.

> While cost of the program will initially increase over current levels, these costs
should stabilize or even decrease over time as the species is managed as one
component of our overall wildlife program.

> FWP will explore development of a grizzly bear specialty license plate as an
additional source of funding.

An alternative FWP considered was that this program be solely contingent on increases in
federal fianding. However, our experience indicates that a solid state-funding base is key
to long-term success.

Expanded Local Involvement

This issue is key to the long-term success of the program. To meet this need, the
preferred approach includes:

11

> FWP will conduct town meetings in southwestern Montana explaining the programs
and cultivating local interests.

> FWP will explore opportunities to form local work groups in Big Sky, Red Lodge,
Ennis, Dillon, AlderA^irginia City, Emigrant/Gardiner, Bozeman, and Livingston.
Additional groups may be formed as needed or existing groups with interests in these
issues could be identified and contacted.

> These local groups will not only react to problems after they happen. It is FWP's
hope they will anticipate conflicts, prepare for them, and try to prevent them. The
goal of adaptive management will be promoted by regular monitoring and making
policy changes when needed with the input of local residents and other interests.

Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

Successful implementation of the program will have some secondary and cumulative
impacts on other programs and some individuals.

Implementing the habitat measures, and the preventative management programs, will
undoubtedly benefit other species of wildlife in Montana, especially black bears. Black
bear issues parallel those surrounding grizzlies, and the programs recommended should
assist FWP with their management as well. Also, when habitats are managed in a way
that allows occupancy and expansion of the grizzly bear population, many other species
benefit. For example, areas where road accesses are adequately managed benefit elk and
other species as well as bears. There will also be economic benefits to Montana ft-om an
expanded bear population. Many people travel to, and relocate to, Montana because of
the state's diverse and abundant wildlife resources. In addition, the value of many
properties in Montana are enhanced by the presence of wildlife and the opportunities for
associated recreation and potential harvests.

There is the potential that population levels of black bears could be somewhat reduced
due to the presence of grizzly bears in currently unoccupied habitats. Based on the
current status of black bears in and adjacent to areas currently occupied by grizzlies in
Montana, impacts are not anticipated to be significant.

Other agencies that manage lands in southwestern Montana could see increased costs due
to expanded food storage rules, habitat management changes, and so on. Most of these
changes are already occurring in the areas that could be occupied by grizzly bears in the
near term, and the public has clearly indicated support for these efforts. Also, because
grizzly bears have always had and will always have a high public profile, public pressure
could result in FWP and other agencies reprioritizing programs to focus more effort on
grizzly bear management. It is FWP's hope that by managing grizzlies as one more
component of our wildlife programs such repriorifization would have minimal affect on
other programs.

While there are many benefits to expanded grizzly bear populations, there is no denying
that there will be impacts to livestock producers and property owners due to conflicts
with grizzly bears as the population expands. Implementing the programs recommended

12

in this document will minimize those impacts through prevention, where possible, and
adequate management if conflicts occur. Implementing the road density standards as
recommended is already occurring for elk management and is allowing for some
expansion in the bear population. Future adjustments may be necessary. However, many
of these issues are currently being addressed to meet other resource needs (erosion
control, water quality, etc.), and those changes are not related to bear concerns.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Resource Commitment

The programs recommended in this document should not result in any irreversible/
irretrievable commitment of resources with few exceptions. If expansion of bears proves
untenable in some areas, FWP has demonstrated the ability to remove bears. Likewise,
habitat programs, access management, and so on can all be reversed or revised if needed.
The level of recommended mortality will not result in any irreversible commitment of the
grizzly bear resource and should allow it to flourish. Because these levels of removal can
be regulated or eliminated on an annual basis, or even short time basis (should data
indicate that to be prudent), the management program poses no threat to the species, and
should benefit it.

Conversely, because the grizzly bear and other Montana wildlife serve as a major
component of our quality of life in Montana and this is attracting new residents and an
expanding human population, the state is seeing some irretrievable commitment of
resources. Subdivisions, energy development, and other "land development" programs
are slowly but steadily altering grizzly habitat. While Montana officials can moderate
this loss to a degree by allowing the bear population to expand into currently unoccupied
habitats and by managing occupied habitats to meet their needs, we as a people will
ultimately have to forego some things to allow grizzlies to survive at viable levels. These
issues will be decided by the citizens of Montana and the nation through the appropriate
political and social processes.

Finally, grizzly bears are large and potentially dangerous animals. By their presence,
they pose some risk to the human inhabitants of the state and to visitors. Current
information shows that this risk is very real, but at a surprisingly low level. When one
considers all of the people and activities that currently occur in grizzly habitat, and how
few injuries or deaths happen, it demonstrates this low level of risk. In addition, the
programs outlined in this plan should allow for management and further minimization of
the risks of living with grizzlies.

No environment is totally risk fi-ee for people. Through education, understanding, and
science-based wildlife management, we the people of Montana and this nation can
minimize the risks of injury and/or death from grizzlies.

Summary of Public Comments

The Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern Montana Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement was released for public comment on April 5, 2002.

13

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks solicited public comment through a series of formal
public hearings held during May and June in Bozeman, Missoula, Big Sky, Erinis, Dillon,
Big Timber, Columbus, Red Lodge, Billings, Gardiner, Livingston, West Yellowstone,
and Butte. Oral comments were received and recorded at these hearings. In addition,
written comment was accepted for 90 days through July 5, 2002.

One hundred seventy-one people attended the public hearings, and 32 offered oral
testimony. Written comments were received from approximately 7300 people, 846 of
whom were Montana residents. FWP also received three petitions with approximately
100 signatures. Some of the signatures were from kindergarten classes, and it was
difficult to tell how many individuals signed.

Comments were used to improve the final plan.

Major comments and issues and our response are as follows:

Values: Many people commented on the value of maintaining a viable grizzly bear
population in southwest Montana and on their own personal values associated with this
species. People in Montana as well as people nationally and internationally view this
species as very important and associate many differing personal values with it.
Comments stated that the grizzly bear is a symbol of freedom, the United States, strength,
serenity, fear, motherhood, peace, power, courage, wildness, wilderness, the West, the
balance of nature, diversity, a sacred animal, one of God's creatures, a valuable game
species, environmentalist meddling, and many more as varied as the individuals
commenting.

As suggested in the wide array of comments, people also value the grizzly bear for its
role in the ecosystem. This plan, by addressing the needs of those who live, work, and
recreate in this area, should allow the bear to expand into those areas that are biologically
suitable and socially acceptable. This will result in grizzly bears expanding their
ecological role into additional habitats in southwestern Montana.

FWP recognizes these personal and ecological values associated with this species.
Montana's program will provide for a secure grizzly population and allow people to
pursue their individual values, whatever they may be. The constraint on these pursuits is
that collectively they should support the long-term conservation and maintenance of a
healthy grizzly population.

Perceptions: Comments received were based on the perception that the grizzly bear
population in southwestern Montana was declining. As the current data shows, this is not
the case. Because of this perception, however, some felt that the bear should be
"protected" to a higher degree. It is also apparent that people who don't live in close
proximity to grizzly bears are generally happy to have them left alone or "unmanaged".
Yet because the concerns of those who live with grizzlies must be addressed to build
support for the bear, as well as for its population expansion, an active management
program as described in this plan will be required.

14

There are and will continue to be places in this area where management is at a minimum
(wilderness areas, national parks), but our experience indicates there are areas where
active ongoing management will be required to provide for occupancy by bears.

Early Warning System for Bad Food Years: People suggested that FWP implement an
early warning system for years when natural food supplies are low and the potential for
bear conflicts grow higher. While it is not always possible to predict how bears will
respond to changing environmental conditions, we agree that such a system is important
to implement when there is reasonable expectation that such conditions could exist.
Language was added to the Human Safety Section to reflect such an approach.

Habitat Issue: Many comments were related to habitat management and the needs of
grizzly bears. Some people felt stronger habitat programs needed to be developed both
within and outside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA). The plan recognizes that
habitat management constraints are more detailed within the PCA as defined in the
Conservation Strategy developed in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
However, there are specific recommendations for areas outside the PCA, and it is FWP's
intent to continue to refine necessary programs as grizzly bears expand. Hopefiilly,
FWP's knowledge of grizzly bear needs will increase as understanding of the needs of
those living with grizzlies grows. Together these should allow Montana to build a
successful program. This plan should assist FWP in reaching its goal to fiarther restore
the grizzly bear as a valuable wildlife resource and re-establish them as part of ongoing
wildlife management programs in Montana. While FWP feels the needs of the bear must
be addressed, it is also important to address the grizzly bear's needs in the context of the
communities and processes in place in southwestern Montana. There are certainly
significant issues affecting bears and other wildlife habitats both within and outside the
PCA. Ongoing increases in development and human populations will add to these
challenges. However, there are also large areas of currently unoccupied habitat or habitat
occupied at low levels, where FWP hopes to promote occupancy, as indicated in the plan
that will provide additional long-term security of the bear population. Clearly, a linchpin
of our State Plan is to find ways to integrate bears into the currently unoccupied habitat
without radically displacing or disrupting traditional human uses. We believe this
approach will build tolerance or even support for the grizzly bear, and provide for a
healthy bear population in Montana. This will be possible in spite of some site-specific
problems. In other words, FWP is aware of the threats that exist to currently occupied
habitats, and FWP intends to monitor and respond to those threats as indicated in the
plan. FWP also recognizes the opportunities that are, and will be. achieved with bears
occupying currently unoccupied areas. FWP also believes the conservative approaches
applied in the PCA will allow bears to continue to utilize and survive in that area into the
foreseeable future.

Some comments suggested that FWP needs to have some ability to change and/or obtain
authority over federal programs/projects on federal lands. FWP does not anticipate such
authority will be given to Montana. FWP will continue to work with established
processes to input the needs of the bears and other wildlife through federal forest plan

15

revisions, NEPA, and other federal processes. FWP will continue to encourage public
involvement in these processes.

Finally, there were suggestions that FWP identify certain "triggers" for response to
potential habitat changes. In FWP's judgment, such specifics are not possible due to the
nature of the bear (an opportunistic omnivore), and the many variables that affect, or
potentially affect, its habitat. FWP will monitor the population and habitat as indicated in
the plan and respond, where possible, to ensure the survival of the bear as it responds to
problems that affect all other wildlife species it manages.

In conclusion, FWP will work with other agencies, interests, and private landowners to
ensure grizzly bear habitat needs are addressed both within and outside the PCA. In fact,
this is already ongoing in many areas in southwestern Montana with regard to Forest Plan
revisions, county plaiming, subdivision review, and individual work with ranchers and
ranchland groups.

Roads: Comments requested that the criteria for road density inside the PCA be applied
outside or that the elk-road standards outside were inadequate to meet the needs of bears.
Concern was also expressed by some that road issues would be addressed in such a way
as to "lock" people out of the forest.

The major federal landowners (U.S. Forest Service and BLM) are currently reviewing
and adjusting their travel plans for southwestern Montana. These agencies are working
with local and other interests to modify travel plans. FWP supports these efforts. In
addition, the plan recommends following our elk standards outside the PCA. These
standards recommend one mile of road or less per square mile of land. FWP felt at this
time that the standard will allow us to meet the needs of the bear outside the PCA. There
are some areas where this standard may be too high, and access will need to be modified,
and others where more flexibility can be promoted. This will vary depending on habitat
type, conflicts with people or property, etc. Utilizing the adaptive management approach
outlined in this plan, FWP expects to be able to respond as it gains knowledge and
experience in these newly occupied areas.

There was also a lot of concern over off-road vehicle issues. These issues are also
currently being addressed through the forest planning process and others. FWP will work
with those agencies to ensure that adequate monitoring programs are developed, both
within and outside the PCA, and enforcement programs are also implemented. Clearly
the advances in ORV technology have created the need for better management programs
to address this issue. We intend to work with various interests including the local groups
identified in the plan to address these issues.

Delisting: There were comments received either in support or opposition to delisting the
grizzly bear in this area from the Federal Endangered Species Act. The issue of delisting
is not addressed in this plan because the listing or delisting of species is a separate federal
process overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWP developed this plan to
address how our bear management program would look should the species be delisted in

16

this area. USFWS will have to address many other issues in addition to this plan in any
proposal to delist this population. The delisting process is an open public process, and
there will be opportunities for public input should a change in status be prepared.

Genetic Concerns: Comments indicated that some people were concerned about the
genetic status of the population due to its isolation from other grizzly bear populations.
There was concern this population is or could suffer from potential in-breeding. The
current science around this issue is the subject of some debate. Current information
indicates that a population of 400 or more individuals would be necessary to minimize
possible genetic problems with this population. FWP will work with other states and
agencies to maintain a minimum of more than 400 bears in the greater Yellowstone area.
Current total population estimates are already above this level. Also, because this plan
seeks to provide for expansion and potential linkage of this population to others in the
long term, the genetic concerns could greatly diminish in the future. FWP will monitor
the genetic status of the population with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
(IGBST) so that a timely response could be implemented should it become necessary.

Remove Sheep Allotments or other Livestock from Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat:

The conservation strategy that covers the PCA specifically addresses phasing out sheep
allotments as opportunities arise. However, as bears have and will continue to expand
well beyond the PCA, they will encounter additional sheep allotments. It is counter
productive to efforts of building tolerance for bear expansion, to single out the sheep
industry for elimination in areas of expanded bear occupancy. A more productive
approach to nurturing tolerance for expanded bear occupancy is to work with individual
producers to develop specific management practices that allow for coexistence. If
woolgrowers are specifically targeted for elimination in areas bears are expanding into,
Montana will meet a zone of no tolerance which will translate directly into artificially
limiting future bear expansion. FWP feels programs that implement management
techniques such as guard dogs, sanitation, etc., in combination with removing livestock-
killing bears, will be a more productive approach in building tolerance for expanded bear
distribution. However, in situations where it is mutually agreeable by the producer and
FWP, FWP will also work toward allotment retirement, relocation, or buyout where it is
determined to be necessary for maintenance of a healthy grizzly bear population. These
three options will only be pursued under mutual agreement between FWP and the
producers or other interests.

Linkages/Corridor: Typically, southwestern and west central Montana mountain ranges
are linked by relatively large intermountain valleys that are primarily in private
ownership. Land use on the private lands is dominated by agriculture (both ranching and
farming). These private lands provide significant and high quality winter and year round
habitat for a large proportion of southwest and west central deer, elk, and antelope
populations. They also provide high quality riparian and wetland habitat as well as key
upland habitat for a wide variety of native nongame species found in Montana. Although
these same habitats are important in providing connections between primarily federally
owned mountain ranges for bears, their greatest value lies in the habitat they provide for
many other wildlife species. In short, our habitat programs are designed to conserve

17

these habitats and in so doing preserve connectivity for bears between mountain ranges.
Of all the western states, only Montana has an aggressive lands program, which includes
acquiring via purchase, conservation easements on private lands determined to be
important habitat that is seriously threatened. This program, by statute, requires our
habitat dollars to be spent across the state. In southwestern and west central Montana, all
of "Habitat Montana" dollars are spent conserving intermountain foothill habitat, which is
vital in conserving habitat for wildlife — including bears — and in maintaining
connectivity between mountain ranges.

We will continue to work with private non-profit land trusts in their effort to secure
easements, primarily donated easements, from landowners occupying these intermountain
valleys.

Montana FWP will continue to place an emphasis on conserving private lands adjacent to
highway corridors that have been identified as key wildlife crossing areas. FWP's
emphasis with the Montana Department of Transportation will continue to influence the
use of highway mitigation dollars to secure adjacent private lands fi^om additional
development. Secondary emphasis will continue to be placed on "engineered structures"
that facilitate wildlife crossings. However, during site-specific highway reconstruction
projects FWP will support fence and highway structure placements that facilitate wildlife
movement.

Coordination Between Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana: Reviewers recommended that
all aspects of the management program be coordinated between the three states and/or
federal agencies in the greater Yellowstone area. FWP intends to continue the existing
coordination that is occurring under the IGBC under a newly formed committee if the
grizzly bear were to be delisted. Obviously, programs in the states are intertwined and
many aspects of the management plan cannot be implemented without participating in the
appropriate federal processes.

Results of all coordinated monitoring of habitat, population, conflicts, etc., will be
reported annually and made available to the public. In addition, any meeting will be open
to the public as specified in Montana's statues.

Population status/estimation: FWP received comments questioning the status of the
population. Some noted significant increases and others noted population declines. The
current status of the population is discussed in the plan. The best available data indicates
a population increasing in both numbers and distribution at the present time. This creates
some misunderstanding among those who believe the population is in decline and
therefore seek additional "protections," while others who note grizzly bear increases seek
more management flexibility. Population estimation is, and always will be, an area of
controversy in grizzly bear management. The plan uses a variety of widely accepted
approaches used in other areas, with other species, and with grizzlies in other parts of the
world. The plan recognizes that using a variety of information fi-om many sources is the
best approach to ensure reasonable estimates. Any estimates used will be explained in
full and will be open to public scrutiny and discussion.

18

Public Information/Education: There was widespread support for these efforts as
described in the plan, and FWP will continue to implement them and look at new
partnerships and programs to make this aspect of the program even more effective.

Hunting: Comments were received that supported hunting as part of the management
program, opposed hunting or a hunt, and suggested that any possibility of hunting be
delayed until some future date. FWP recognizes that many people hold strong personal
values on either side of the issue of hunting this species. Those who support a hunt view
the bears as a valuable wildlife species and game animal. Those who oppose hunting also
view bears as a valuable wildlife species, but feel it is inappropriate to hunt predators or
wildlife in general. Many who suggested that any hunt be delayed until a future date felt
that this population needed to be more secure in both numbers and distribution before any
hunt was proposed.

It is important that the public understand this plan only recommends that hunting be a
part of the long-term management program. It does not recommend a hunt at this time.
If a hunt were to be proposed, it would be through the processes discussed in the plan.
The rationale for a hunt would be justified and open to public scrutiny. As discussed in
the plan. FWP believes the option of using hunting, as a management tool in the future is
important. Hunting has been successfully used as a management tool for many species in
Montana (including grizzlies) and for grizzlies in other areas. In addition, Montana
consistently has one of the highest levels of participation in hunting of any state in the
nation. This constituency has also demonstrated significant long-term support for grizzly
bears and their habitat. Some commentors also pointed out that a hunt could help build
the political support needed to create statutory changes and/or to obtain funding to
maintain ongoing expansion of the bear population.

There were suggestions specific to how to conduct a hunt (spring or fall), and how to sell
licenses. These will be more appropriately discussed if and when a specific hunt is
proposed.

FWP recognizes a need for ongoing education to reduce the potential for mistaken
identification mortality and for enforcement to minimize any illegal mortalities. Any
mortality due to a hunt would be considered in total mortality management programs and
coordinated with Idaho and Wyoming.

Finally, there was a recommendation that all black bear hunting be closed in grizzly bear
areas. FWP believes this approach would eliminate or alienate a group of people who
support bear programs and would limit opportunities for future expansion of the grizzly
bear population.

Some opposed to any hunt stated that females with cubs would be killed, that there will
be bear baiting, and that there will be various other abuses. These types of situations are
illegal and will be enforced with existing and any fiiture statutory authority. It also
should be noted that there are portions of southwestern Montana that will never be hunted
both within and outside the PCA. However, to promote a broader recovery and

19

expanded local support FWP will need to have this management tool option in some
situations and over time. This approach has proven its success with other wildlife species
including other large predatory species in Montana.

Some of those opposed to hunting also indicated that they feel the FWP Commissioners
are biased, and are reluctant to work with them on their issues. The FWP Commission
has been granted authority to establish hunting seasons by the State Legislature. The
procedures utilized provide for public comment and scrutiny before decisions are made.

Expansion of Food Storage Orders in Bear Habitat: Many people commented
favorably on this aspect of the plan. Most recommended that FWP actively pursue
expansion of food storage regulations to all bear habitats (both black and grizzly) in
Montana. In addition, there was widespread support for having FWP assist with
enforcing those regulations. These types of regulations can be controversial if developed
and implemented without active local involvement and responsiveness to local concerns.
This is an area where the local work groups identified in the plan could actively
participate and build support. We recognize that in order to implement these food storage
guidelines, we will have to work with other state and federal agencies and through their
processes as well.

Implementation Schedule: Some comments recommend a clearly defined
implementation schedule. This is somewhat problematic because the plan is intended to
describe a management program for a post-delisted population of grizzly bears in
southwestern Montana. No one knows, however, if or when delisting will occur. In
addition, some parts of the plan are already implemented while others may or may not be
implemented regardless of the population's federal status. The chart below provides a
general outline of some of these.

20

Ongoing

Post Delisting

Human Safety Programs

X

X

Inform and educate

An mformation and education

plan will be developed by

2003

Food storage

FWP is currently seeking the

X

Enforcement/Implementation

necessary authonty and
funding

Aversive conditionmg

X

X

Management Control

X

X

Huntmg

When and where
appropnate

Habitat/Habitat Monitoring

Withm PCA

X

X

Outside PCA

X

X

Some, with more planned as

More monitoring as

bear population expands

population expands

Habitat Guidelines

Withm PCA

Being implemented through

forest plan revisions (by

2005)

X

Outside

Being implemented through

forest plan revisions (by

2005)

X

Population Monitonng

Coordinated by IGBST

Coordinated by IGBST for
a minimum of 5 years

Trails Monitoring

Current efforts are to

intensify this program - will

be part of forest plan

revisions (2005)

X

Livestock conflict management

Identify preventative

approaches staff and funding

by 2005

X

Property Damage

New staff in Red Lodge if
funding can be found

X

Research

X

With more emphasis
outside PCA

Information and education

X

X

Fundmg

There is a clear need to

Will seek additional Federal

identify additional funding

funding to assist with

opportunities

mandated post-delist

monitoring for 5 years

minimum

Local Involvement

X

Expanded local
involvement as bear
population increases

21

Funding: Some commented that FWP would need to secure funding to replace Sec. 6
funding (from the Endangered Species Act) that would be lost if the bear was delisted.
Sec. 6 funding for bear management in southwestern Montana has been minor in terms of
the overall program cost (Sec. 6 is generally less than $20,000 while the current program
costs $243,000 per year). While all funding is important, FWP anticipates and will
actively pursue other opportunities from other programs to make up these dollars (such as
what was proposed in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act).

Specific targets: Comments indicate some people want more specificity and certain
targets which will precipitate certain management responses. FWP would petition to
relist the species if the population were to fall below 300 bears within the Greater
Yellowstone Area. In addition, mortality management would become more conservative
than recommended if the population fell below 400 individuals (the level necessary to
address genetic concerns). Generally, however, bear populations, like all other wildlife,
change in response to many environmental factors. FWP will use ongoing information to
adapt programs. These programs will be more conservative if populations drop and more
flexible at higher levels. As always, any changes in management will be open to public
review.

FWP acknowledges that the plan contains a lack of specificity on some issues. Reasons
for this are that grizzly bear management programs, and other programs, which
potentially affect bears, are continually being adjusted as we gain new information and
experience. In addition, as bears reoccupy habitats FWP will have to learn about how the
bears use different food sources, adjust movement patterns, create conflicts, and more.
FWP will need to adjust programs accordingly. Also, some aspects of management need
to remain flexible. The narrative provided in the plan provides a picture of FWP's intent
in these cases. FWP will continue to follow a comprehensive, collaborative process in
the future to add specificity on things such as population monitoring, trend, mortality
management, and more as the plan is implemented.

Value of Grizzly Bears to the Tourism Industry: Commentors expressed the view that
grizzly bears are very important to Montana's tourism industry. Grizzly bears are used in
Montana advertising and promotions which results in many visitors arriving with the
hopes of viewing a bear. We recognize they grizzly bear's value to tourism, and the plan
should allow these benefits to continue and even expand by providing for a healthy bear
population.

Nuisance Bears/Reporting Damage: There was a concern expressed by some that some
of the definitions and/or approaches to dealing with these issues were too vague or left
open to too much interpretation. It is very difficult to anticipate every potential type of
conflict that could occur. A review of FWP's current approaches to grizzly-bear related
problems in Montana indicates conflicts are very conservatively addressed. FWP makes
every effort to avoid unnecessarily removing bears from the population. The plan
recommends that these types of approaches continue. However, with expanding numbers
and distribution of bears, some animals will have to be removed when conflicts develop.

22

Other Issues Raised:

Concern over SB163: We received comment that suggested that Senate Bill 163
(SB 163) would require the elimination of grizzly bears by the state. This is not the case.
The statute and the legislative record of the bill indicate it is intended to deal with
individual animals that prey on livestock. These animals would be subject to control as
specified in the plan. The USFWS and Interior Department Solicitor's Office reviewed
this language and found it adequate for long-term management of the species.

Game Status Animal: There is opposition to having the grizzly bear's status changed to
a "game species". The grizzly bear is currently listed as a game species in Montana. This
would not change based on the program developed.

Grizzly Bears in Other Ecosystems: Some commentors discussed the status of grizzly
bears in other ecosystems or recommended programs outside southwestern Montana.
Other documents and processes cover programs in these areas.

Keep People Out of Bear Habitat: There were suggestions that FWP work to keep
people out of bear habitats. This is not possible and, in fact, bears are expanding their
distribution into previously unoccupied areas. Trying to remove people as grizzlies
expand is unworkable and would limit future expansion of the population. A program to
manage both people and bears is a more productive approach to long-term conservation.
This is the only implementable course of action.

Feed the Bears: It was suggested that FWP consider feeding bears during bad food
years and in response to declines in natural foods. FWP believes this is unworkable at
the ecosystem scale. While we do consider programs such as redistribution of livestock
carcasses to minimize conflicts while still allowing bear use of this food source, we do
not see large-scale feeding as workable or desirable. A better approach is to promote an
increased distribution of bears to access a variety of areas and habitats to accommodate
environmental change.

FWP Should be Responsible for Grizzly Bear/Livestock Conflict Management —
Not Wildlife Services: Some people stated that they would prefer FWP to handle
livestock/bear conflicts. They felt that federal Wildlife Services failed to emphasize non-
lethal or preventative control programs. Because Wildlife Services is often the first
agency called on to address a bear-livestock conflict, FWP will continue to involve
Wildlife Services. The two agencies have a current cooperative agreement and both
agencies expect the cooperation to continue. Hopefully, as Montana gains more
experience with the ongoing implementation of the plan, we will come to expect better
prevention and non-lethal management of conflicts. FWP will continue to work with
Wildlife Services in these efforts.

Wildlife Over Livestock or Commercial Use on Public Lands: Some say that public
wildlife should always take precedence over livestock or commercial use on public lands
in southwestern Montana. Wildlife, however, needs private lands as well as public lands

23

to survive. A cooperative program that blends the needs of wildlife with those of private
landowners through ongoing management is described in the plan as a more productive
approach.

Impacts of Snowmobiles: Commentors suggested that FWP address the impacts or
potential impacts of snowmobiles on grizzlies. There is some potential for snowmobiles
to directly affect bears through disturbance at some times. It was suggested that
snowmobiles might also indirectly affect bears by redistributing ungulates, which could
lead to less carrion available for bears.

There is no question that advances in snowmobile technology have changed the potential
for impacts to bears. Newer machines are able to access areas today that were not
possible a decade ago.

There is very little data available on these issues. The plan allows FWP and others to
monitor the situation. FWP will address the needs of the bear if future information
indicates that such action is warranted.

Mandatory Pepper Spray Use: It was suggested that FWP mandate the carrying of
pepper spray. While the plan as proposed supports the carrying of pepper spray and use
information and education to encourage its use, we do not feel mandatory rules are
necessary at this time. FWP expects to establish criteria, in conjunction with the USFWS
by December 3 1 , 2002, which will be used to determine when a recommendation for
mandatory use of pepper spray will be made to the FWP Commission.

Human Safety and Nuisance Guidelines: There was some concern that any bear
damaging property would be killed or removed, or that the guidelines are too open to
interpretation and too many bears would be removed. A review of our current
approaches to these situations shows this is not the case in practice. Each incident is
evaluated based on the particular circumstances and guidelines are conservatively
applied. The proposed plan continues this approach.

ORV Monitoring: It was suggested that the plan monitor ORV impacts outside the PCA
as well as within. Language was added to the plan to reflect this change.

Purchase Corridors: It was suggested FWP purchase corridors between ecosystems.
FWP doesn't have sufficient resources to purchase all of these areas. A cooperative
program with agencies, private non-profit land trusts, and private landowners is more
effective. For additional response, see the section on "linkage".

Bus Tours: It was suggested that FWP promote bus tours in Yellowstone instead of
personal vehicles to cut down on noise and/or pollution. This issue is outside the scope
of this plan, and authority for this rests with the National Park Service.

Protection of Female Bears: It was suggested that the plan provide additional
protections for female grizzly bears. The plan does so in terms of nuisance guidelines

24

and mortality quotas which are structured to provide additional protection for female
bears.

Area Closures: Some comments indicated support for area closures to protect bears and
also expressed concerns that any such closures be temporary. With active management
as proposed, FWP does not feel that permanent closure of areas to people will be
necessary. There may be times and/or places where seasonal closures are appropriate (for
example, FWP closes elk winter ranges during certain months) or a closure may be
necessary due to concerns over human safety (a bear is feeding on a carcass next to an
active trail). Any closures will be site specific.

Response Time to Conflicts: People suggested that 12 hours may be too long to respond
to some conflicts, and others stated that a response within 1 2 hours was unworkable in
some cases. FWP acknowledges both concerns and recognizes that both situations can
occur. The most rapid response possible is always in the best interest of the management
program and is the goal of the plan.

Relocation of Problem Bears: It was requested that the plan provide information on
where problem bears would be relocated. Because these decisions require information
such as age/sex of the bear, current land uses, and understanding human activities, etc.
this type of detail is not possible in the plan.

Coal Bed Methane: FWP acknowledges that this type of land management can affect
grizzly bears. FWP will seek to have the needs of the bear placed and considered in
every appropriate plaiming and permitting process as outlined in the management plan.

Funding: It was requested that FWP document all funding and have in place all
commitments for ongoing funding needs. This is not possible because FWP and others
operate on annual budget cycles sensitive to changing needs and priorities. A review of
past funding indicates that the types of programs recommended in the plan receive
fiinding support. Some commentors suggested using a gas tax, or a portion of the bed
tax, to allow Americans to help support these efforts. FWP encourages those interested
in these programs to pursue additional funding opportunities with their state and/or
federal representatives.

Local Control: Local control is viewed by some as an excuse to do "bad things" to
habitat and bears. This is not the intent of this plan. While FWP has acknowledged the
national interest in the species and feels it provides long-term security of the population
to meet that need, those living and working in these areas need to be active participants in
all phases of plan development, implementation, and evaluation for it to be a success.

Damage to Bee Hives: There was support for re-evaluating the guidelines for damage to
beehives as recommend in the plan.

Females with Cubs Monitoring: It was stated that the use of this monitoring parameter
was inappropriate. Current and ongoing research demonstrates that there is value in

25

using this parameter. However, it should be noted that our program does not rely on it
solely but will use a wide variety of information and data sources in program
implementation and evaluation.

Definition of Socially Acceptable: The plan as developed provides for bear expansion
into areas that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable. Some commentors
wanted additional definition for this. There are some areas where the presence of grizzly
bears is unacceptable due to risks to people and/or bears (urban areas). However, in
many areas of southwestern Montana the presence of the bear is acceptable if appropriate
programs are in place. That is the intent and direction of this plan.

Opposition to "planting bears": The plan provides for relocations of bears within the
ecosystem for management purposes and for potential future relocations if projected
distribution increases do not occur. It also provides for live removal and relocation of
bears to other ecosystems or states if such opportunities become available. No
relocations to increase distribution or to other ecosystems or states will occur without
completing the appropriate public processes and extensive local involvement.

Risks/Liability from Bears: There was a question raised on who is liable if a bear mauls
or kills a person or for any damage done by bears. Grizzly bears inhabit southwestern
Montana. As such, the risks associated with them already exist. It is FWP's intent that the
programs recommended will keep any risks at manageable levels. If and when court
cases are pursued as a result of conflicts with bears the liability, if any, will be
determined by the courts.

Hunting Endangers Lives of Humans as Well as Bears: People who would knowingly
choose to hunt grizzlies assume those risks voluntarily. For other people in the field,
FWP has many programs — such as its hunter safety classes — to minimize risks to other
humans through understanding and awareness education. Hunting as conducted in
Montana is a safe activity, and FWP continues its years of work to make it more so.

Need Fewer Bears in Montana Because There are People Here and Their Needs are
Increasing: Based on current information as presented in the plan, Montana can expect
numbers of both people and bears to continue to increase into the foreseeable future.
This makes a management program necessary in assuring coexistence.

26

FWP DECISION

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks hereby issues a decision to adopt the Preferred
Alternative. This decision includes a commitment to making certain budgeting and
management decisions, to develop and implement new program initiatives, and to seek
necessary approval of other agencies.

This decision meets with FWT's grizzly bear management objective to maintain grizzly
bear populations that are compatible with the public's outdoor recreational desires while
minimizing human-bear contlicts and livestock depredation. The decision also meets
with the objectives set forth in the FEIS to set appropriate gnzzly bear management
objectives for Montana's biologically suitable and socially acceptable habitats; improve
FWP's ability to monitor grizzly bear populations and determine their status, composition
and trend; improve regulation of the annual harv'est should this occur; improve public
understanding of gnzzly bear biology, habitat requirements and management; and to
develop policies and proactive program to deal with human-bear confrontations and
livestock depredation.

The ultimate benefit of the decision is the long-term perpetuation of viable, healthy
grizzly bear populations that can provide aesthetic and recreational benefits to Montanans
and visitors to our state.

Concurred in by FWP Commission by action at its November 14, 2002, meeting.

M. Jeffp^g^y 7 Date

Director